HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 10-57 Rec CC Adopt Final EIR RESOLUTtON NO. 10- 57
~t RESOLUTION OF 7HE PLANNING COMMtSS10N
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING ClTY COUNCIL CERTIFICATfON OF fINAL AN ENVtRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIR4NMENTAL FtNDtNGS UNDER CEQA FOR
THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
PA 07-036
WHEREAS, the City initiated a Specific P6an study and related General Pfan amendment
to pian for the City's Downtown. The results of this effort includes the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan, General P{an Amendrnent, Zor?ing Ordinance Amendments, Rezoning prQperties from
various Planned Development Zoning Districts to a new Downtown Dublin Zoning District,
Environmentai Impact Report, and other re{ated aetions. These planning and implementing
actions are colfectively known as the "Downtown DubEin Specific Pfan Project" or the "Project";
and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Pfan (DDSP} project area is located in the
southwestern por#ion of the City and is ap~roximately 284 acres in size. The project area is
generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to
the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north. There are some partial boundary limits
that extend beyond those roadways, most notably for a portion of San Ramon Road, a portion of
Amador Valley Boulevard, and all of the Village Parkway within the Specific Plan area.; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CE4A), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmenta( doeuments be prepared and it was determined
that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared to analyze the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Project; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated January 29, 201 Q, to public
agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EfR. The City also
conducted a pubfic scoping meeting on February 11, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated
September 2010 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment and
analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project, which is attached as Exhibit A to
this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for public review from September 20, 2010 to
November 4, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City received comment letters from State, regional, and local agencies
during the public review period. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City
prepared written responses to all the comments received during the public comment period.
The City prepared a Final EIR (that includes the Responses to Comments), dated December
2010, for the proposed Project, which included an annotated copy of each comment letter
1
identifying specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and cfarifications and minor
corrections to information presented in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is attached as Exhibit B to
this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference. The compfete DDSP EIR incorporates
the Draft EIR and the Final EIR together. The responses to comments provide the City's good
faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and
WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and
determined that the Final EIR, including the cfarificatians and minor corrections ta the Draft EIR,
do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Qraft EIR under the
standards in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated December 14, 2010 and ineorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project for the Planning Commission and containecf
information on the Final E{R; and
WHEREAS, the Pfanning Commission reviewed the Staff Report, the Final EIR, including
comments and responses, at a noticed public hearing on December 14, 201a at whieh time all
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Finaf EIR, including comments and responses, reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR and all of the documents relating to the Project are available
for review in the City Pfanning Division at the Dublin City Hall, file PA 07-036, during normaf
business hours. The location and custodian of the Final EfR and other documents that
constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community
Development Department, 100 Civic Pkaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PA 07-036.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Dublin Planning Commission hereby
makes the folfowing findings and recommendations to the City Council on the Final EIR and the
environmental review of the Project under CEQA:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
B. The Finaf EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and
the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelirtes.
C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final EIR, including the written comments received during the Draft EIR
review period and the oral and written comments received at the public hearing, prior to
making its recommendation on the proposed Project.
D. The Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potentiaf
environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The Final EIR provides information to
the decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the proposed
Project.
2
E. The Finai EIR adequately describes the proposed Project, its significant enviranmental
im acts, miti ation measures and a reasonable ran e of aiternatives ta the ra osed
p 9 9 f~ R
Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Dublin Planning Commission hereby recommends
that, prior to the approva! af the Project, the City Council certify the Final Enviranmental Impact
Report as complete, adequate and in compliance with GEQA, the CEQA Guide(ines, and the
City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The Planning Commission further recommends that
the City Council make all required, mitigation and alternatives findings, adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, all in
compliance with the requirements of CEQA.
PASSED, APPRQVED, AND ADOPTED this 14t"' day of December, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: King, Schaub, Wehrenl~erg
NOES:
ABSENT: Brown
ABSTAIN:
anning C ission Chair
ATTEST:
l
Plann ng nager
G:\PA#~2007~07-036 Downtown dublin Speeific P{an\PC 12.14.2010\PC Att 3- Reso FEIR.DOC
3
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN
SPECIFIC PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2010
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR has been financed in part by grants from
the U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of the Draft EIR do not necessarily
reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
SCH # 20100022005
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Executive Summary I
1. Introduction 1-1
1.1. Purpose 1-1
1.2. Environmental Review Process 1-1
1.3. Report Organization 1-3
1.4. Impact Terminology 1-6
2. Project Description 2-1
2.1. Project Location 2-1
2.2. Project Area 2-1
2.3. Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations .................................................2-2
2.4. Proposed Project Characteristics & Objectives ........................................................................2-3
2.5. Proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning ...................................................................2-5
2.6. Proposed Land Uses and Development Plan 2-6
2.7. Requested Actions, Entitlements, and Required Approvals ...........................................2-12
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures 3-1
3.1. Aesthetics & Visual Resources .............................................................................................................3-3
3.2. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases 3-13
3.3. Geology, Soils & Seismicity 3-55
3.4. Hazards & Hazardous Materials 3-69
3.5. Hydrology & Water Quality 3-81
3.6. Land Use & Planning 3-95
3.7. Noise .............................................................................................................................................................3-109
3.8. Public Services & Utilities ...................................................................................................................3- 125
3.9. Transportation & Circulation ...........................................................................................................3-145
4. CEQA Considerations 4-1
4.1. 4.1 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects .........................................................4-1
4.2. Significant Irreversible Changes ...........................................................................................................4-1
4.3. Growth Inducement ..................................................................................................................................4-2
4.4. Energy Conservation .................................................................................................................................4-4
PF Page ii
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Table of Contents
4.5. Effects Found Not to be Significant ..................................................................................................4-7
4.6. Cumulative Impacts 4-9
4.7. Project Alternatives 4-18
5. References 5-1
5.1. References Cited 5-1
5.2. List of Preparers ...........................................................................................................................................5-4
Appendices
A Responses to the Notice of Preparation
B Air Quality
C Noise
D Transportation & Circulation
List of Figures
2-1 Regional Location
2-2 Specific Plan Area
2-3 Existing Land Uses
2-4 General Plan Land Use Designations
2-5 Current Zoning
2-6 DDSP Districts/Land Use Designations
2-7 Proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Zoning
3.1-1 Existing Visual Character
3.3-1 General Soil Map
3.3-2 Fault Location Map
3.3-3 Alquist-Paolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map
3.5-1 Hydrologic Features
3.6-1 Existing Specific Plans
3.7-1 Sound Levels and Human Response
3.8-1 Storm Drain System
3.8-2 Potable Water System
3.8-3 Sanitary Sewer
3.9-1 Transportation Study Area
3.9-2 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
3.9-3 Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control
PF Page iii
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Table of Contents
3.9-4 Existing Bicycle Facilities
3.9-5 Existing Transit Routes
3.9-6 Approved Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
3.9-7 Near-term Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
3.9-8a Commercial Project Trip Distribution
3.9-8b Residential Project Trip Distribution
3.9-9 Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
3.9-10 Near-term Plus Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
3.9-1 1 Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
3.9-12 Near-term Plus Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
3.9-13 Cumulative No Project (Current Specific Plans) Peak Hour Intersection
Volumes
3.9-14 Cumulative Plus Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
3.9-15 Cumulative Plus Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
List of Tables
S-1 Executive Summary of Project Impacts
2-1 Entitled Projects
2-2 DDSP Development Pool
2-3 DDSP Future Buildout Development Potential
3.2-1 Local Ambient Air Quality Levels
3.2-2 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards
3.2-3 San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status
3.2-4 San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District Control Measures
3.2-5 Operational Emissions
3.2-6 Clean Air Plan Consistency Analysis
3.2-7 Project Buildout Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
3.2-8 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.2-9 Project Consistency with the Attorney General's Recommendations
3.2-10 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Consistency with Recommended Actions in the
CARB Scoping Plan
3.3-1 Soil Map Units
3.3-2 Active and Conditionally Active Faults within 45 Miles of DDSP Area
3.6-1 Summary of Previous Specific Plans Development Capacity
3.6-2 Non-Residential Development Since 2000
3.6-3 City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis
3.7-1 Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Page iv f?IZF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft FIR
Table of Contents
3.7-2 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix
3.7-3 City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments
3.7-4 Sound Levels and Human Response
3.7-5 Near Term Noise Scenarios
3.8-1 Optimum Capacity of Schools Serving the DDSP Area
3.8-2 Projected DSRSD Water Demand (Potable and Reclaimed)
3.8-3 Capacity Versus Current Enrollment of Schools Serving the DDSP Area
3.8-4 Solid Waste Generation Rates from Proposed Buildout of the DDSP
3.9-1 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
3.9-2 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
3.9-3 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
3.9-4 Projected BART Ridership - West Dublin/Pleasanton Station
3.9-5 LAVTA Service Summary
3.9-6 March 2010 LAVTA Route Ridership
3.9-7 Entitled Projects Nearthe Specific Plan Area
3.9-8 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Trip Generation - Base FAR Project
3.9-9 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Trip Generation - Max FAR Project
3.9-10 Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service - Base FAR Project
3.9-1 1 Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service - Maximum FAR Project
3.9-12 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Base FAR Project
3.9-13 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Maximum FAR Project
3.9-14 Near-Term PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service
3.9-15 Cumulative PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service
3.9-16 Near-Term AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service
3.9-17 Cumulative AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service
3.9-18 Project Transit Trip Summary
4.5-1 Cumulative Noise Scenario
4.5-2 Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Page v
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
This summary provides a brief description of the proposed project, project alternatives, and
all potentially significant impacts identified during the course of the environmental analysis.
This summary is intended as an overview and should be used in conjunction with a
thorough reading of the Draft EIR (EIR). The text of this report, including figures, tables
and appendices, serves as the basis for this summary.
Summary of Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe and evaluate alternatives to the project that
could eliminate significant adverse project impacts or reduce them to a less-than-significant
level. The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR in the Chapter 4 - CEQA
Considerations.
¦ Altemative # I - No Project Alternative
¦ Alternative #2 - Reduced Development Altemative
¦ Alternative #3 - Alternate Use Alternative
Summary of Environmental Impacts
All impacts identified in the subsequent environmental analysis are summarized in this
section. The summary includes all impacts analyzed in this EIR by each technical area.
Page ES I
~e
U
C
V m m m m
On E E E E
N
C C C C
O U U U U
d w w
d m
J fn COn 0 m
N U)
c c c c
m m m m
:E; Z z
N
of
of J J J J
n N N N
C C C C
O O O O
iU R t~Q iU
p p ~ A_
E E E E
C C C C
T N N N
~O O ~O O
N N N N
01 N N N
N N N N
v CD d d m
'p 'a p V
N N CD N ami
~ m m m m
O L L L L
N U U U U
~ d d d C.
E E E E
Z .:z
O Q Q
C N C N
F
C .N O. N p - N p_ N c.
0 0 O 2 O O O°
U) Z o. Z a Z a Z `oa
0
m
g
0
L N R N f~6
E E E E
v
A
C 0 m m O)
y p1 In N N co
C o t t
E N N N N
t J J (D J J
W
o m c m a~ r.-~ c c o y3 L.~ w rn-o m c N c r.-~ c N a~ o c
O m C m C N N m d O CD a O
IL 1OL -mm a,., yam yid N 3 m ~~-o cp''i
W d= N ° E> R -6 O C .O N N X V O N d 0 O 0 I'D 3° ID 44) U °c 3 in a m N> 1Q a Q m c 1 !E rn m° N a`7 $ p o
c c,1
m C 2 R N m O -0 -16 2 C d ~p ° m `j !o a C O O C C N m C, 0
(D m
V R o vi 2' Co O rn > m L c V) 'w 0 3 N 'v
E c5 c m (D ~rni•o m m m RX o m~.
U > U co R
N ~o m o> RID ° E m CD c ti m a m °c 3 N c C7 0 0 c d)
° y
d fn 's M cn R E o y m m m WOE E ui o c t 16 a ~6 w v o. b o a m
d .c o-o c d o. .~3 m m o_ 0 m cd o rnd= u °v 'o N E c°i? m E
C ! U m cdi a .
E C C L O D 'O C_ N = n12-
-M m L O C O N N._ m
cd 3 cod v._ 4) m:o a> E rnm E "m c o E 3 ~
c E > N mw E a~ ui a~
w O.N- 3 m W2 N c'3= d c.> > F3. ~ m m aai Eo=.cm. Q a?_ -02'i c2+0
O > a~ c a o.'x a~ v o rn o r E v v E C7 m a -o
7 x N o- -c m y° E (D c m `o o n 2 c a> 'O it c o .3 0
C N LU c m N` w m' c v i+i •a c m a m y c - m m c a
~i U1 r Q w v a°i iV a C co o h c v 'N m .o .R c c O 0 N
O> -,L E ao o o~ c y Ea ai ~ m c c aii CD N o m m a~
fn cn. ri c a~ m ' N m m fO ° c a> ai a E E V)
C V ~ w V N O ~ V m O y j 0'2 £ C N N O_ aNi 0 _ g d N j W
3 m m__ ma ca N rn•r.v c R o E 11>ia °-oa Q
V A V y ac-2 Z N
O X R ° aNi H e 0 -S 7 o o w m y °m`' r ' m o o y` t co m y ami b
~ W H a Q E '5; ..o 2 =E m m v 3 E m a -o h' 3 3 5 S Q h o o 3 a~~ m D_
UJ E W
E Q)
n
v
V
C a)
M >
U YJ U U U U
U Q Q Q Q Q Q
a) a E E
U X n
N LU c c c c c c
d o
v w w cc w w
~ > c c c c c ~
v _rn ~ _rn _rn _rn _rn
U) U) U) U) U) V)
R R R R L L
r~- r~ aLi aLi.
c
3
O
CL J J J J J J
Y
c
O N N N N N N
0 O O O O O O
6 R R N R N
~ DI 07 07 L
E E E E
O O O O O O
c C C C C C
N O O O O O
O ~O
~O -O ON NO O
N O N
N N N N N N
O O O (D O O O
C C C C C C
y O O O O O O
:2 'o
U C C C C C C
CD CD a)
N O O O O O O
~ a a a a a a
O L L C L L L
~ Q Q Q Q d d
"E 75 15 r
O
"E (°i E I
E m NO O) NO 2)0 210 210 210
,N Q fN Q N Q N Q W Q m Q
O O O O p O p O 0 0 O 2
Z a Z d Z a Z a Z a Z Q
0
m
Z
0
m m R m m m
E E E E E E
U
C lCO N R 116 R l~
U
w W U W W w
C O C21 m ~ ~ 0
N n N N UN N
N c c c c c c
~ R R R R R R
aL+ aL... a'S- .L... aL+ rL.
c~
N N N N N N
u N N N O N N
~ J J J J J J J
d R ig N 2 L-6 Z. C C c "O O« 'O V O V O O N V 'O C C p
R O "O O R N % N l6 R O y
h V> N N m N 3: ~ X O 3 0 5 CD R &S E
COL E ua~i c N cot Y3 aOi U
O N N ° y N O' .~R.. C° o O C N R O O° 7 (6
O Q E ( U
.Lr. O R QC O N p 0-0 E U
N O
U O O
5 o
N c N g c< c N N c° 0 c O 3 O 0 co- (D
ID O ] O CJ E R q:5 c° Z !E j- N O R m O C O-•~ O
U N a o O E 2 2? v ° O c c 3 d n ° °Ci a~ o
y CO G m" W42 ° Q° o a m c a a ai M, o o o E 3 o c R o W N
.Q? co rn Q-aoi aQi U 3 i o c c m N 3 ¢ <v o °D M j@ L~ 'C R -y O N O R O S
E O o y E- v ~ w w 7R o • c_ t G) o~ m Z6 N a c o Q> 3 m o
C
O N° N ° N O p_ N C E V~ h 0 d U d ' p p N E & U O^ y
C O O C C d N N'
m
OLO O O O' N N'O O w6 R
w, w O N O Z J O -NO R° Q`
C V O O N E d O O O O O_ - N
R l6 N 'm = .U w+ ` N O O a O N 3 R E p Q C L E !n O O_ " O f6
H o ff o v> y aj° o N m U ra m a° t o M m ~ N£ umi ot3 a~ m o
o_ O
co l2 Q z 'x m; O a "o O~ w L ~o H o E N ¢
zF; w Z5
N O p_ N O' C i O O Q
2 N= N N M C 'OE Ea; R L OXQ N ' = O O is ? 2 L 3 U N O ° s 3° 3
3 'O N O' O U G H "O as lvj C O O O N C N V N fr1 N 'V A O O U O
Q C d a C O O -O ~i M O O C C 0 0 0 T t+i 3 m 2 O C
R Q O_ .'0.. t°O V= d R U R N V O TI O LL U co V= O 'N O C `p N O V y
o Q~ E£ Q° aci C, O ~a o v a, Q a~ o o E a m Q- m N a°i v o 2 v -o
E 3¢ v 3 °N p E h 5 W E `m `a 8a v cca `oa o E 3 o v 3 rn t7 o LL R N m
d
o U m 10 U co
Q Q
CL E
E 9 9
C
0 m co m V U U
y Of Of OI OI Of Of
N fN In co
m c c C m m m
cc m ~ N N N N N N
N N
~ J -a) CD CD
~ J J J J
w aj "O C N
M a •0p a5 N .d+ 2-0 .0. U c C a A C
O O) Im,
m Lc4 c c?~,p s-~- p °c'N '3 a m as rn w ca cw
'C p O a7 a I CI N C O N a - a3 U S
L •p p n a C n •O _ C lT N a> a 1~> La
Lo ° c v c as v> W a> '9 2 0 0 ri E E c 0 vML
2 1d wa~6i a _o a`n _ -F- m U a o 3° o g o ~ a> N N~
a a>
rnY aU o a°i n a> m > aciU y a> aEi c c a a
m t m a°i N rn 3 U £ c a Q 0.~ E a d E a" E o
tr~ c
J> N a a) _ C a w O N N d E
C 2 a m N 'd C O C Cd N a> Q N a> C 3 C M N O = CD
o c s o m m
a`ni rn° 1 °'aa ns or.~m o (D Lu ~o 2? aoa CD °D co cy` w
U
ra o no c m£ > 3U c ° ° oZ 2 c ) y ` c aNi Ra
N (a E O N m C 3 "00 N m N LL O N 42 v O_ a a 7 y z
N N 0 a) Vl O C N Of O N C N N
c c N I N is C 'o m Q . ~ Q_ Q ' V a> C N .G a1 N C L..
w c> y E m 'm 'o E d N 3 & o
S Q Q _ O 0) w LL -0
U O C U N m C M Q C Q N N
V A° V a) O .7L 42 w RS U 2 C N O fA .6 N N O C 11 yO C La N
<o y ns is o m° c M a a v a m a> v ii A co no> a> '9
o~ me m> °>c ca MT ouMm ~-°QO o. °-=m
o c > c > m ro a) 2 'S = m ~ j y o U E J> o T'3 a
n mNmpyEE $ n o ain d~ c
°ns
° a>mE g 2 a> n ri3c c c°: of -<D
o U N a> a1°`> c a> c a> o c c afO~> o° C.) v N
N M L a l~Ya N N N CD U N O E° m C y C N E 3 N 7
vow c C2-US ca E.0 c m N ,y a cE'° L> E 4)
<n C, cAH rnH 3 as E N dUM z a z° Q £N RU E
0
o~
t5
0 U U °
N a3 N a5 6
:Fi
E E E E E
C c C c m c m
La a5 ~ a1 ~ O
V cr !C 4_- !C C
0 m
N N
m Cn CO
(n T T T ~ C ~
a) <6
m ca
C C C N N m
V a) ..0.. N N O
J J d
_ J d d
Of CL
W
75
C a> O YL_' N a5 N O N o O N N 0 V y N a
L J J Y 3 O. m NO y O U N c •O N C d' O N
Q U ~i m n 2- ° v o° N N ° o E
C o m 9aa> is o Qm 16 o-a
o i '3~ m 3 yr o
rd m_ o£ .oa N y a>oaci m oY3..a>• N ~a A 3'S
Q. y 0 0 N w ja O E Q N N E N o w N m
Y 2 N N C a5 6 :Lo O a> N E N 0> E 0 N R a)
.N E- J C 'U O O y O a U . _ d j O N- O
lJ a3 f~{/ U U O C O c s y. N CO .d.. a> N O R U w N o u
0 0 C E O
a3 n C p U a7 °0 a> c N a1 .9 la E U
a -M z
a -
N ° a> o y~j( c 0° c .o E m a a M.0 m R o QS
o 0
C y> T N a> _ 3 O N
6 2 U E m U N 00 O> O L f..> O n
Cb a a) a3 C N -O N 0 N C m m N 'O C° N a Of n N
C a> 0.2 c° 'o
CC ~cQ~mci E~Na E~y m LL ~'o~o Lo
0 0 O - N CL - N a a- to "D
C l/71 C7 ns a°i > LL Q y~32 rn to a -o a> a> x E o c w -F_ 0
o
N` Q a C7 a N N T C M O N O a1 C e3' a7 G R d R N N R
O > ¢ c>oo°°Z Mao M3>Uaai N ~~mNya>~ aS~NOCLa w
- C7 ri o Min m f, 'y °i o i a`> v m v Q
3 v d S o N 2 o c m a`D> m y av> m A 0"9 "a c a R aii a~0
u Q Q p Q C N C. 0 O Q~ N G.'0 Q= C N Q''O l6 O Q O fV
0 w a~ E o m'N ° E£ Q~ a° 3 Qmm v x cE non o. `o v d
cc~
LU Ln
E N
W
E
C) 73
Ln b
C: j V CL
CL U
U C a a a
u x E E E
N W
la ~ U U N
J U)
D C U
m L
O J N
0 J
c
3 m m v m ^ p) 0) m y N C w U N
N c C C c m C N` C L N L C l6 .O C C N N O m N w
-p 3 a N g m c o¢ m -m0 '3 _N E ° a`> ° N 3 w o m m w m
N ° L aa•°im'm °-mQ m~ c N°°-' c~ °L m E 3 o ° °-~'•o.5
° 3 m a~ a~ m E ~a N a~ y> o o 'p 0 a a~ c y c a c
•O° `n m N v a~ o ao a a~ ~.c a •3 E E o c m m po~ m o m p
.p-.. d a 0 p p a 0 N O a c 'O m > O <0 _ N N V N,5 m p O C co
e (O
~Q O N V ° O O ~i - p Of (mj O L c . ID
cu >
L m 0 .ti. e 01 O O U 'O L N aj C :D "`m0 U N lN6 O ,D c d-0 R° O) N O) ,-o N d N d~¢ N N V m E 0) ~ U d W m m d L c m m U 0 d .L..
C' N m O a L 0) 0) y V - Q N N m R 0) -p
CD a 0
m° c E N- N Z E m a a~ m m v N- ~?U a c Q m c d r5 c N ig:
a^ 0) M C, fn C d C O O C N- N.L.. N N O) O 'O a`~i m CE w 'p
N N m v N
N 55 N -2-6
-o .y c° io .c N p a y rn N 3
is c_ ° a: Q N> ai a g co
tF.
L° w Em 2 c N o o c> Tm3 vi N m° m o c E c io >~!a a
° aci c a n p, ° f6 a N E m p E- o `o N m E o Nc 8' N° c o L c c
c E o N m c c v a.~ N N a a>i m `a E rn:S c 00-0
j o R oa m N c
o 0 ? Qm cU m° ~E p° N m aci amai
E L m N c E9
n N N t O> E 'o i d N ° cJ N M
-O L m ° 3 o N a m
ON> N ¢E Oa a ? rn NN~a`3c c>
o °'N N°m m~ v c iy oa ° m 0-. u, Q~ o y c o : E m d E
0 3 E 'a a w ;a m m N o° - c N L N a~ . N a yO Z -p ° H N C N
Q~ 'O rte. t0 O N° U p d C N¢- N Q N N c L ~ m a m a y 0 .~i.
> w w o c N 9 ~a z c m CD m c ° a m N aUi `o ° c N -2 o
U L .C O C) Lr 'E a N V- O] N N m rT O N L... CC D 'C tF m O U O U
`o c Q 3 9 a a N > Q N j0 E~ c m N N m m v 5 t6 ° N c o~ °_.3 E m a m o 0 o d a 0
O E -p N N> N v c N C N V N r N N ~0 0 LL U C C '.0~. O N N C L Of N C .5 Z N
N _ N m C f0 V N O O
m m t e} ` L a°i o a aNi m e p N c O E Z .E- U° a m v' a U, a> U c Nro s m
ED . O
G N O M N- - N O a _C w` 'O Z+ -Q O m M a N V E N N 0 "O W m B. M o
N ` V L M C rL..
c m N y c ca m 9 E E¢ L m a w N -6 .m. .L
o N 3 V `p N N a >
L N N m d c V m m N ;.o N N a, c N V a o
fn v E m d v N o• ¢ 'O N W 3 0• m N L a N£¢ 'y v s h m m IL- m o
g a c3 3 m N a
0
c~
o
U
Q ° d
N
~ E E
U
m t5
r V
u a- m
G ~ CO C C
_m
05 U
T
76
O
m R
C -
N ~ C5
J d d O
a
D O M C N N N
c c o N ' O 3 R
E m m
CD h y E C> MO is v
N N m 0 0 9O '5 m N
E d N O 0 CD m O m N
N N 3 E
m m c° m co N N m N
'o c N c o U `m o m o.
a'^.m.. m N, _O d
N N U m Q m U N a A N Of
a° N N m O :5 M N U' O E L
Q y Em of O 'N ° N a N ° N y
L m p-- m C N N M
u 3 5 H c° m '3 - v W m
a a R. E o v N (D 3
vi 75 v E m m M D N v 'N 2, o ri °Q. 0
v N 15a ~-°U m o
O a m
A N N N H c C
2D -
d 9 N O N Q O 0 N> C T O. N C co (
IwD -Z c9
U
A
U
N 0 6 R
O
w w w F
d
> C C C C
N Of m Mm O)
J N fN <n •u)
m
c c c c
ca m co m
v
cff J J J J
O C C O m o o N N G N N L
m O N N p A a O - N N N N
U. 2 U N p o a a i m c c c o
t oa° =a cv > c
m rn rn m
a
" o E c m c o ~ a :2 .2
E E
o o c c 16 y .S c~2 o E E
c Q o c w g' d a o c° c° c
m w O U O O o N ~ U m 0 N N N N
C (n m N 'j 0 0 Y p o_ w O. O O
O C U N N •Z' O` N p r "O N d d N
E m am (D c 2o-0--
(D m .Lm.. £
~ p 0
c c a~ c t 2D m m' a R o (D D !c
y m .O d •O m N C c R N ,N E C C C C
(D CD
m'QLa~oNN'o V
-o (D CD 4) a)
ra ~(-.cm, aci o o_c m a~ d s .a s
O "o O C N N N N
p D 3 9 -O 2 N O U N O m to L L L L
c c O C N y Ny 3 y
m m U o N m N N E ..N _O..Lm p NO C d d- a Q
? -
c= F Q E N NN` E E E E
: L
Z' o p v- c U ° 81 b o c d rn p a'~i v v v v
~2 u)
-Fu
o N T m V •E O N 'O O W N O O O p O O O O
n CSM.'a mwnhm EalQ Zo_ Zn ZQ Zo
0
o
y U U U U
m m
m co
E E E E
d
V
m m m cm
U ~ w w ~
Mm m O)
in W In CA
O m
J J D J J
ui
4-1 d (D rn c a) c N U O) N OI O 'p
o° V w .L... c• C U O D .L... O y y_ C C ° c E N
m m tf. = ~ E d N N "mo O
12 a c rn 3 `o 'x =.2- o 5 `o ~O a~ a'X v 'c ? a) &
0
O O'O? OO N° NO LCENN OV OCC°=O.
rt w ° -i N m 4) L a
a 3 p m>
E ° aD W ac
d ~ ~ y~ o o c c o~ = a E No '3 E ~ ~ c a~ a£
O m N O m C 7 4E' 2 y N O c d> m
V Q o R N 'O m o p m m N Q v ` Q o4.- Q m- o, a V
v 'O N U N m C N E o Q d m 'C o C J F C
Q. N 6I i0 O O 'C U E Ly, _ N O „my .
c p m S m a~ Q d N> 'f0 ~i N
~c o° pm m 3: a cE C
o `avow maxi
C o OE-.2 o m U y N N 3 N 3 mXo $ c o c Z c d
E `o£ y c 0 3 0 3 m a~ o o a-o
Q d a ~'m C N o m-o'o c-p m N m e E d
L m c o o o a~ a`~ N° S H as o c
H o a s U o o'y m e F ~'o o'v o ° m
m
C v ii v
CD e o> iri -o coo m m v o E) 'o
m o o m ~'ti Q m 3 0
3 N n ,hm me u% a E 3n-oc N o N Hv
O E c m m •o vi 3 (D m ai ai E -p m N s co a-oi r> m •c m W
c. m
N O A U R w 'C c V wN U OJ
3 V V o-5 N V d N m 'C eG N O -2 CD
0 v '0 m O m L m (n N O O O Q"O nL U C oc Q d N O m N, b-0
Q N m O U Q' Q m a p C O m R m oI N d 0` b
w a d A `o~ -o N 3 2 `o A `oa.N o_a 2 E £ (D o cn rn a C-
fr L n
W m N
$ u,
E o
C) N N CL
U
> C
A
v 2i u
u xE E E
f1 lL O a !C w
N ~
C > rn o ca
A U) N Cl)
m m
N N
3 N
0 fYv J J J
C
3 m a> a~ v-° a~ _ c
A2 SQ a>
y Q dy C O.CF- U N N m L
' _O O N D O
R N Q d N N !O c O"' m c m ? N C N_
E CL Q c m rn c co
CD Ou
E E t ami 5 3 c m c X W N m
0 0 E- c o N o a o E c N
E'o v m e c o E2 a; a
o a c a~
O w0 m a J m C N L.L 'L" "O C O N O ,N U
N N U c N m 0 c f7 3 c C m _N E m N C N O
N N p "00 cc, N8 N O- C O) L° --ppN m F r E N N O y
i d is L.2 d a) C 0 m Q V O E O f0 y N M c N
i=f
a) m ° Z c o rn ~~.E E Ta va-ciZ axi c° a v o w - c o
!E (D a .L... C C 9 N '00 N C N - o m
a~ w mE ' y5 °NU
' N >o g Hmv
c m (NO V R C .+-l6„ N O 22 O{ N N N C t6 w L N N WO U U N..
m v m E v E c°i 0> E y o c o `o m
? ° a Fyn ~m=5 >a~m> 'Dom= ocoi a~i°-~ caaD
15 ~ C ° °c C M N N m N s a o° L'-' m- y '9 c ° E N
a OI N L N d: p O N L Q R C N O
m m c E .Oi m c w c N fp U b > y L C N N N N c O
L !C a° N m 'f~p N L a N 7 O V C N 'p E C N C_
~O D N j d N N N U 0 0 m N N c c N
.2 E C N a N p_ M N N N N U N c a -O a4) V c N Q" U o O N N m U Q N
O° O O rL c Y p N ID 3 O N c N N _ N N d
UI Z O_ Z G U .m. C N E U N L O Q N d N I-- U N d Q 0) H C
O
3
l7
U U R
~ E
E E ~
J C
c C (Cp
V U U w
1 _ tc tr C
w ~ O~ Ol
_m ~ (n Cn
co c c T
a
y aci
J J J CL
N C c YJ O C R 0 6 S o iG
Q C V N O m N O V L' J N -Np
O m.p N °-!!ova O OU ~a m
O_d c ~ N d f1(D "O
U m :s U L
N T6 N N O C w C
£ m E c'o 3 m o m w
N
N R m N m c U N N
C N U d N ,O C O) m Oi c c N
0 'w 0 15 CL
Sg U a v E o 3 is 4) 2 E
N N a N p Q U N C O m
E -F- co ca
C N V 'O > N N 2 O U' m>
c N O p
E m a 'Li" m L E U CD 15 _
c 'p Nf/I
r a - E w-- -(D a -0 =o L b m e
M c U F- c H
R C a O c> 0 0 N -O O) O N
O. m tp 2 C 9-2 3 iD J C U N
3 O ° co on E 'o
~ 3 w= iv w e 3 N c
is ~ N .y a> E u ~ c y p T
.p c c~ o m m,2-° c.°fUI w n
d oar = 2 m R v a0, zo N c °
~e
U
U R
Q1
R
O w ~ V
GI
> G c ~
v o> o m
J C7 !n C/)
~ N R N
N N N N
J
J J UU f~
.L.. c .0..0 0 C N C N N U C N N N N N Z Q
c N Lf~ N O Mn N L NC lQ T B :3 - 51,51 N C.? N
E axi L C w C 1 (n a C N a d a O I O L p
N Y O d p y a s N N
C j B N fl l0 p N V J d d c f0 a Lar d
C O C f0 N N c .L... d CC N a O U p yN.. N N a y G> O
dL l0 a 0 N l0 C L l6 N O> 0 0 0 C
d d N 'U E N v •O Q E O EQ 4) 0~ O J H R C li 8 d a O
N N if> U
w C c E C>: R c C
N t(D iC N C N Q O N2' R.O d0^C da R N
d c 00 O p y l0 d p N E ~O d R M N D N N (C6 O w
_ l0
p c E r O L E d N a' d (C6 U N N E C N Y N C O
p
N d 0 N R M N Ct L Q _ C N
N im O d f6 O N Q ~ N O O O C O V>> U
`n x o c p o d c c o'g c'3 R c
co d> 0 '0
p a>i m '0 0 0 0 5-2 d c E c m a> E w N w o N m d lp 4>
f0 N
N 2 E m E iw E c o'-~, R - -W
ID y s a? v 0,;; aci
> m 12
w z ,O m m N V
CD 3 aO N a
D C p N O O a d
f~ L E U 'V> N d U O C C > (Op C t6 p 42 -2:, cc
m ? Z N O C m(D C
C
U O N f0 _ C T O O R Y C6 d p N C N t6 c6 d N
d N N 'C O O N R a i N 3 p= d$ 9 to
~p>> L
O G O L a R O- m N d d C m m 12 Q> O N N
E c N a s
o a N U a> s > 2 w o Fa a `o d G) .D
Ol N E co Y N c6 "00 O l6 N R a U (0 E C . f0>
C j
C N N p V O N l6 00 d i> C N R^ y c C •.~5 N l6 O p d
cpi p E m N y 2 (D o> :2 o> a~ a m W. as • ° ~ N d N Q d E
c
o•c°~`>oOoo°>o R L "0 D>~>mo>~'°'ys c~~c m
-moo c a `~'i m w? m E .4 m a a g a E o rn c a o n~~-_ -o
,a H E 'o
C > O E M N +.6 T U lQ N ~ C > O C U N' O. = c a R O a f6 0 0
E y; p_ y .y N C! 00 'N
L CD d M R R a N E N N N ~ > 'N d IL>
to 3 aci U) fl. n v y 5> n C Z m o m° ¢ m W y m c U N 1 S o -moo N fi> v Z$
c
O
a~
O
U
m U
d E E
N
C
c O
U coma
V V
U W C W
LT C
O) MM
_Q U N U)
c > c
O <0
.L..
c
N
J > d J
W
IV+ N N "O N N p =
O
CD 2
C N O L c U
Q "06L`L N V O~ j+0..
rn3 c° o a15 E R 3 a>
CL rnaai rn v
,N E N
O O = N V N t0 :F; W O w
N .o-p-
w a as d
A2 Q>
d 3NA°> comma m 0(D
j c. C R~ as E Qp 13-5, = ° p m
c
a
m
- b c d tc Q Z
a y d D y BE d d
C E N c N > R fn C m
Q 7 v~ O c N_ m 0 Z.> 16 0 N H m
C to U E 3 0 0-
CL m_
3 N d N - C C M a > L 00
O> E 0 3 m ti c v r~i p N
c'i E s M -O m r v> R W
3 v iaaos uIm~3
O N o c a N> m Q > € aNi ° rn b
Q W d Rya N Ew dN d E 'N CL
of ON
w m N
$ w
E W
~ ~ ro
rt >
c ~
v c n Q Q Q a a
x E E E E E E
dw ~ U U V U V U
~ v m m m m m ~
N in to to U) fn
~ o' c c c c c c
Q
N N N N N
c
3 y
O J J J J J J
cC
3
O N N N N N D
O O O O O O
M m R N N f6
m a a rn a rn
°c c° °c °c °c °c
m a~ a~ a~ a~ a~
0 0 `o VC, m`O o
m m `a> a~
m a`)
a-Oi aa) CD CD (D aa)
!E
N C C C C C C
°1 a ~ v a v a
aci aci N N aci aci
W (D 4) W (D (D
i~ s s s s a
N N N N N
0 .C L L L L L
U U U U U V
~ d d p. d O. M
~ E E E E E E
p C C
C C C C
C m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m
t/l a F.
O_ 'N a N a 'N a 'N
o 0 O O ° O 0 0 ° O
cn Z a Z n Z a Z c_ Z oa Z
0
a~
0
s
~ m m m m m
E E E E E E
d
U
C C C C C C C
V ~ !V w ~ w !U
C C C C C C
m m m m m m
(n [n CO C Cc co
Vl a
`p t t m al aS a3
.L.. .ti..
j N N N N N N
N N N N N
v
J J J J J J J
N N O C y C N T N U N C V "O m C N a? C' Ti a
Z CD m
a w c E _ 'c3 2 w U oo M o o> 'O LL v~° n o~~ o
o'er a ° o'ci 3p a~ as ani> 3 3'0 3 3 N N Z ~-o E 3 y'`,-~' oc 3
>
w N O w d 0 ..L.. 2 A y V al N H d O N N 'O N T CL N O a a3 d
oyE 3c W w 0t...3Edo ZEaD awi m'~ ~Sa
° D3°~aEi
Q; a m c u; E c_ o c - a a$ J LL 3 m 'm "r N 3 0 N
a H Cp
aoi as c y ns _ -O E;g c R° a N - - ai ° (L> t
° a ~ c N
W-0 N ~ U M j--
c o o_o Tc c~ m a3 V a v m Qa R m•W
0 Tv ° ° m p o Z o "w R EM a) Y m a ai o ;E a o o ` o o_.-ca N o
y y N y N_ N N O? ....O+ 3 N N ai- 0 2 y C a. - .U d C O .X E O
O y wO
t N O C N L N a3 rw, 0 E m C p N C. j N -0.2
Sa ow~'°-`n co"E~3mo M D a°0~9 ` `aRZ'oo 23~w c
5 'x
o U a -o o U E y p ° 3 o m> ° N o CD c 3 n 4S O E ° ZD Z a 3 E H o m E
H 3 aD m N o 3 a o -oo'~ a> v s m (D a-O _ t a~Oi vi W co a)
' ~ v a
a> c `a3 3 w m E as m -o m n ~ E a^ m a a) m- .o a a v SD
v O t m o o Qr+ E- o a m FL- c~ 2 E O a E
c O E d N C ° 0 N L O i O .n > ~ C a° C N m 'U :o Cii a>
as oO N co p 3 o E oo w CO d° a-~ e°D+i a E.G oo cc N N N N V amp m w° m o0
_ _ o ¢
° a`B M 0 aNi v `m N a Fi c y, > ° v aci d N mo m > L' ° a M o- CD aNi c M
.o Z o o p> n U 'o M 2!E m a~ 3 d E o y R S a> V a 2 Eg a M m
Z C O V ?i a5 O C ,2 N> O L a9 ' N a
CL
2 N 0 c Q 'N N v c c j v 0 3 2 m M EL ~ '0 E c~ v m o. ~ m 2 v~ o ~ °c t w c ~
~s
U
a
c E
!C N l~Q N .p
m E E E
- - - 0
R
~ w w w ~
> c c c v
m _rn _rn _rn c
J N N N m
C C C C
N N N C
N ~
d' J J J N
c CL
O N
N N M N N E m m C V
c c c .0 E ti m is c a p ~m 3°
0 0 o rnY
is > E ~ a c oo
Y
-0 C, to%
cc w O t 'C N N vi N N ~ N O w0 D U
E EE ~'o nm °~5 m~i -0 a~L 20.2 (L is
°c c °c o m 3 c o.5 rl E R 6 dz 3
w O O U w N N w O Z>>S, 5 a N Q m
p ."y"
p E H -O O O C N N-
N -mo -O ` a O s c3 0 6 m m~ c (D N d 3 m
0 (D
.;a 91 2 i o i
c a a j o~ N rn L' W y Flo
tN N N Q w c 5 E 'o or a> c U c c> p a m a in
N C C C N U F R T `p~ O Y C .2 w .L... R .N. C u/ N C m N
a (D CO 7S a 0
o o d m o y 9 E .rn E a
u. N m aci O N m U a~ aci c 0-4.
CD C~D --d 2- N N
m CD N ° N > V C O R C N N d y y 0
N O
N
O L L t a >U~ N O C C R C C N N j CO
O O p
m D N C V V C N C O ~p N
"Ql R R m C U U
O C m- C
C U d O m
'i+Q m v a v a m b er u' E -C 'n m
E E p1 0 'o
W U N m R m "O O J O N C O O _
o c c c 0 E .b -a c o y R s v S NNE m
U m U N m R rn d ~.O ` m Cd QN"O d'Ca'i
~v d `c N N 01 y b N '0 c > 0- C CD -
= NO m y0 0 0 C M co 'm.1 d'=O O N -O C C N N O_ N N Q N
E a N a 'H a 'n a c 0 a v E Y a~ a c a o R a .p
O p 0 p 0 p 0 rL R "O O C N .'L'' p R U N O N O O {6 U- C
U) a Z a Z Q Z a N N W 0 3 0 a 5 _g C7 N R E U> 1- m
0
m
m
0
U U U
m
m co
v E E E
V C C ~Cp
C C C C
N N N -
C C C C
O arR
> N N N C
_m
J J J J N
W
N N N O N D m N :O f=; C C < C m
ltl O
Q 7 O N 3 N M O L.L 30 CL)
J y Z N O
WL) °
z o mLL 75 CD ° °w U E w o O
m ami
iL
0 ID
IL ~ ~ d t c c°i ami 'o CD 0 E aDO EZ
m Q N m .L... J w N
E `o m t6 ° w N °2i 3 ° Ca m o 3° aN
N •O •4) C C d C Q E C Of "O p O_'C O
d Rv - c_ t m E w o y 2 E w a) m ~ C c-0
m 0 m o
C E =O p = y 3 a a~ tm w o o ji~
~ m9 c_ m m
a 3 a Zar o_o
b E E o c o c
E maaci a-im~aoom U 0-Em
"0 8
7 0 'Ca y a y c n a a o a) 'n ,v_i c c
Q ? E ;a E g g m a~ g c H
w D N 3 - N L... 0 U p N C F O
C V) m m -0 co ° A bi 3 c o 'y R o Y3 3 CD O C6 (h O> a R co A °D A c m Q o v w o. N 2 . m om ~ N
E o f c 3 -o a? ai x E 0 p ~ ' d W
3 V U R a0 V~ U C C Oa d C Ci U yJ V O Ep ° (-ii V ~J 0 E 0 N
O v o c E m n o ma > v o aai Q p a°i i Q o~ rn b
Q w a` rn a a(D o E a3°m o f ad N~
w Id -
E N
v
C)
u a a CL
ro > R E E
C '+1 u a~ a~ v 2i
w
v N s a a E E
N W n o 0
) o C ~ w
v c c rn rn
J R R (n (n
7 U U R L
~ = C O N N
3 L °
O ~ ~ N J J
Q V O O yO N
3 c o c N
O ~~~L~m R Q R .c
U R L U d y d 5 a 0
N_ J= N T R O N ¢
N 'U 3 0 U w, E R J N
d, a L` m c U c S V a 3 a E
c Y a~
0 a c
e+i yU N 'a N;L--~: R O
L >+a ~ d - R O N N
~ L Ed 3 c a6 a B` m 3 R 3 c o
a R M N V N C C N N
R N R L " O R
~ 2 cm
OE c T C
~ N V R ~j yE N N N R R R d Z
R R N w c a d O >i C fl. N N
w m i~ C 'N N U E R U h N
E N a R N p O IE a C
E m N R
p a N U
N N C C C fl
V a N N C c d d (D
U) 0 N~ N O~ 'R V a R
C w~ ~fn V Q N N N - R L
Q~ cj Q L E d of O N C R .Z' rn R
a to a s ° ° U c o_
o c° m c o s N H a> o m
.2 C (D
E 3 N aD ° N° E 3 p Ra 6° 3;
c°
N C Ol O N m N C ID N Ol C7 c
co £ y £ co a afOi o 0
c
0
rn
C,
m
a
v ~
V
C C
U
N N R !C
~ E E E °i
C C C c
O ~ R ~ R
j C c C N
m_ _m
(n 5 N
J (n Cn J
E LA T E N O H N
> R N
~E c'30 F- OJ yN mQ 4 Ny O
N
l0 O O i N "2 V O
C/) i N C C N N
(D E Z c c T .3 R R o
{ y R Z (n O E O C O O N R
-6 u+ ~ y a c a a~i N ~ aai v v .c r. c
C .2 N N _0 2 lQ N W- C a C w N C C 3 .RS. U
N
2 .2 d C d N 'L R N N c R C R N
~ N C Z " O E V D. +L... :4 S D 0 U
5. O O).- a N N
N R J N C° TJ LaL C w a CO '0 N RO E 9 F
0
Z N C 2 0 E W R SD ' a~ N i0 y N V N N N '0 4 C
C 0 L 2 N N 'ul R C 0 N E H O
,D y O C U C 3 R C C V d R R- a MW-
(D 'o :6 vi m ~ b '3 c y c 12 A m 0
ID ~ (CD U C, O NS- H C TL C F- E N y O C C
U
E J C 3 0 C? L¢L N S 4 R "RO ~ N 19.2
cD d, :5 L p~ E
V
M O C a of E w ri -RO Gj ED MTN 3 c C V- N
O R C yE O N R s
U O. b E L E to 3 R 'y Y .Q N N .U- C R c `y U y
y y- s- cxa m E a y E a c 3 'o a
o- ~LL~ N~ 2620 b 3 v m Eda°a 2 a a
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Introduction
1. Introduction
I.1. Purpose
This programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the potential
environmental effects of the proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (the proposed
project) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
State CEQA Guidelines. A full description of the proposed project is described in Chapter
2: Project Description.
This FIR focuses on evaluation of the following environmental issue areas: aesthetics and
visual resources; air quality (including climate change); geology, soils and seismicity; hazards
and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise and
vibration; public services, utilities and recreation, and transportation and traffic.
This FIR has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines and the City of
Dublin Environmental Guidelines. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, an FIR is an
"informational document" with the intended purpose to: "inform public agency decision-
makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify
possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the
project." Although the FIR does not control the ultimate decision on the proposed
project, the City must consider the information in the FIR and respond to each significant
effect identified in the FIR through findings in conjunction with any project approval. As
defined in Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines, a "significant effect on the environment"
is:
"...a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the
physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air,
water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or
aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be
considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic
change related to a physical change may be considered in determining
whether a physical change is significant."
1.2. Environmental Review Process
The review and certification process for the FIR will involve the following procedural steps:
Notice of Preparation
In accordance with Section 15063(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Dublin
determined that an FIR would be necessary for the proposed project; therefore an Initial
Study was not prepared. In accordance with Section 15082(a) of the CEQA Guidelines,
the City of Dublin Community Development Department circulated a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) to responsible and trustee agencies and to the Alameda County Clerk
for a period of 30-days in order to solicit comments on the scope of the FIR regarding the
proposed project (See Appendix A). The comment period of the NOP was from
P Page I-I
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Introduction
February 1, 2010 to March 3, 2010. A total of four comments letters were received on the
NOP from the following agencies: Alameda Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (Zone 7); Alameda County Congestion Management Agency; California Energy
Commission; and Caltrans. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered
during preparation of the Draft FIR and the comment letters are included in Appendix A of
this Draft FIR,
Draft E I R
The Draft FIR contains a description of the proposed project, description of the
environmental setting, identification of project impacts and effects found not to be
significant, mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, and an analysis of project
alternatives.
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the
State Office of Planning and Research, in accordance with Section 15085 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
Public Notice/Public Review
The Draft FIR will be published and circulated for review and comment by the public and
other interested parties, agencies and organizations for a 45-day review period from
September 20, 2010 through November 4, 2010. Concurrent with the Notice of
Completion (NOC), the City provided a public notice of the availability of the Draft FIR for
public review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a), and invited
comments from the general public, Responsible and Trustee Agencies, organizations, and
other interested parties. The review period for the Draft FIR is 45 days. Notice of the
time and location of a City meeting to receive comments on the Draft FIR will be
published prior to the hearing.
All comments or questions regarding the Draft FIR should be addressed to:
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Response to Comments/Final EIR
Following the public review and comment period for the Draft EIR, a Final FIR will be
prepared. The Final FIR will respond to comments received during the public review and
comment period. The City will review and consider the Final FIR prior to the decision to
approve, revise, or reject the proposed project or an alternative to the proposed project.
Certification of the Final EIR
If the City of Dublin finds that the Final FIR is "adequate and complete," the City of Dublin
may certify the Final FIR. The rule of adequacy generally holds that the FIR can be certified
Page 1-2
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Introduction
if. 1) it shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information, and 2)
provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the project in
contemplation of environmental considerations.
Project Consideration
After review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City of Dublin may act upon the
proposed project. A decision to approve the proposed project would be accompanied by
written Findings in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and, if applicable,
Section 15093 (Statement of Overriding Considerations).
1.3. Report Organization
Sections 15122 through 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines identify the content requirements
for Environmental Impact Reports. Among other things, an EIR must include: description of
the project and environmental setting; an environmental impact analysis; mitigation
measures; alternatives to the proposed project; identification of significant irreversible
environmental changes; growth-inducing impacts; and cumulative impacts.
The environmental issues addressed in the. Draft EIR were established through the
preparation of environmental documentation and supporting technical reports developed
for the proposed project, public agency responses to the NOP and comments received.
Based upon documentation, technical reports, NOP responses, consultation with the City
of Dublin, and review of the proposed Specific Plan, the City of Dublin has determined the
scope for this EIR. This Draft EIR is organized in the following manner.
Section S - Executive Summary
This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project and provides a concise
summary matrix of the project's environmental impacts, associated mitigation measures.
Section 1.0 - Introduction
This section provides an introduction and overview of the EIR review and certification
process.
Section 2.0 - Project Description
The project description provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including
project location, site conditions, intended objectives, background information and physical
and technical characteristics of the proposed project.
Section 3.0 - Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section contains an analysis of environmental topic areas to be addressed, as identified
below. Each subsection contains a description of the existing setting of the planning area
and surrounding area and identifies project-related impacts and recommends mitigation
measures where necessary. The following major environmental topics shall be addressed
within various subsections of the EIR:
1F Page 1-3
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Introduction
Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The potential change in character of the planning area as
measured against the existing setting and visual conditions and surrounding land uses is
discussed within subsection 3.1: Aesthetics and Visual Resources. Project visibility, scale,
additional light and glare, and visual character are considered relative to the predominantly
urban nature of the planning area. The analysis is based on a site reconnaissance, photo
documentation of the planning area, and existing policy documents (e.g. City of Dublin
General Plan).
Air uali : This subsection addresses the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) and analyzes local and regional air quality and
greenhouse gases impacts associated with project implementation including both short-
term construction impacts and long-term operational impacts from mobile and stationary
sources. It also addresses the potential for exposure to objectionable odors from
surrounding uses. This analysis is based on air quality modeling performed for the
proposed project by RBF Consulting based on the traffic impact analysis prepared by Fehr
and Peers, which is included as Appendix D of the Draft EIR.
Geology, Soils & Seismicity: This subsection examines potential geologic and seismic
hazards, as well as any engineering constraints and general soil suitability for the land uses
proposed as part of the proposed Specific Plan. Information contained in this section is
based on various planning documents including the Soil Survey of Alameda County.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: This subsection evaluates the potential presence of
hazardous materials and contaminated soil within the planning area. The potential for
onsite sources of contamination such as leaking hazardous waste containers; lead-based
paints; and asbestos-containing building materials, among other items is also addressed
within this subsection of the EIR. The potential risk of these conditions in proximity
proposed development and human activities is evaluated.
Hydrology and Water Quality: The impacts of the proposed project on hydrology, storm
drainage, water resources and water quality are discussed within this section. The analysis
also identifies existing drainage patterns, potential flood hazards and stormwater retention
requirements of the City of Dublin. Several properties are located within the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain, which would be subject to
floodplain regulations. To comply with the requirements of CEQA, the potential effects of
the proposed project on flooding is evaluated. Mitigation measures are included to address
any significant surface water hydrology impacts.
Land Use and Planning: The relationship of the proposed project to relevant regional and
local plans, including the City of Dublin General Plan and other local planning documents, is
discussed in this subsection. The analysis focuses on project consistency with adopted
plans and policies, project relationship to the City of Dublin General Plan.
Noise& Vibration: Compatibility between the existing noise environment and anticipated
noise levels generated by the project-generated traffic, by on-site activities and cumulative
noise from area roadways upon completion of the proposed project are examined within
Page 1-4
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Introduction
this subsection of the EIR. This section is based on noise modeling conducted for the
proposed project by RBF Consulting, which is included in the appendices of the Draft EIR.
Construction and long-term operation impacts associated with vibration from Interstates
680 and 580 and the BART railway line are also addressed.
Public Services, Utilities, and Recreation: This subsection addresses the availability of
existing public facilities and services, and calculates demand generated by the proposed
project for additional facilities such as schools, parks/recreation facilities, police, and fire
services. It also provides a general assessment of additional system requirements and
physical improvements needed to serve the buildout demands of the proposed project.
The provision of potable water service, wastewater treatment and disposal, natural gas and
electric service, and solid waste impacts are also addressed in this subsection of the EIR.
Transportation and Traffic: This subsection examines potential impacts on the area
roadway network, including roadway segments and intersections. Scenarios evaluated
include: existing conditions, background conditions, background plus project conditions, and
cumulative conditions based on City of Dublin General Plan buildout. This subsection also
addresses alternatives transportation (e.g. public transit, pedestrian access, and bicycle
routes). This subsection is based on a traffic impact analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers,
which is included in the appendices of this Draft EIR.
Section 4.0 - CEQA Considerations
This section of the EIR addresses the required discussions and analyses of various topical
issues mandated by CEQA Guidelines Section 15 126.2, including: significant and
unavoidable environmental effects; growth inducing impacts; significant irreversible
environmental changes and effects found not to be significant.
This section also addresses alternatives to the proposed project and cumulative impacts.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the proposed project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the
project and avoid and/or lessen the environmental effects of the project. The alternatives
analysis compares the proposed project with three selected alternatives, which include the
following:
¦ Alternative # I - No Project Alternative;
¦ Alternative #2 - Reduced Development Alternative; and
¦ Alternative #3 - Alternate Use Plan
Impacts associated with cumulative development were analyzed based on the project's
effects in combination with a summary of projections in the adopted City of Dublin General
Plan.
Page 1-5
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Introduction
Section 5.0 - Report Preparers and References
The purpose of this section is to provide a list of all authors and agencies that assisted in
the preparation of the report by name, title, and company or agency affiliation. It also
itemizes supporting and reference data used in the preparation of the Draft EIR and lists all
governmental agencies, organizations, and other individuals consulted in preparing the EIR.
Appendices
This section includes all notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the EIR as
well as all technical reports prepared in support of the analysis.
1.4. Impact Terminology
This Draft EIR uses the following terminology to describe environmental effects of the
proposed project:
¦ Standards of Significance: A set of criteria used by the lead agency to determine at
what level, or "threshold", an impact would be considered significant. Significance
criteria used in this EIR include the CEQA Guidelines and Statutes; factual or
scientific information; regulatory performance standards of local, state, and federal
agencies; and the goals, objectives, and policies of the City of Dublin General Plan.
¦ Less Than Significant Impact: A less than significant impact would cause no
substantial change in the environment and no mitigation is required.
¦ Potentially Significant Impact: A potentially significant impact may cause a substantial
adverse change in the physical conditions of the environment. Mitigation measures
and/or project alternatives are identified to reduce project effects to the
environment.
¦ Significant Impact: Significant impacts are identified by the evaluation of project
effects using specified standards of significance. Mitigation measures and/or project
alternatives are identified to reduce project effects to the environment.
¦ Significant Unavoidable Impact: A significant and unavoidable impact would result in
a substantial change in the environment for which no feasible mitigation is available
to reduce the impact to a less than significant level, although mitigation may be
available to lessen the degree of the impact.
¦ Cumulative Impact: Cumulative impacts referto two or more individual affects
which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase
other environmental impacts.
Page 1-6
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Project Description
2. Project Description
A Specific Plan is a planning tool that combines traditional zoning with general design and
development standards tailored to the unique conditions of a particular site. It contains
policies, development standards, and implementing regulations necessary for development
within a particular designated area.
The purpose of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (hereinafter "DDSP," "proposed
Specific Plan," or proposed project) is to guide development and design within
approximately 284 acres located in downtown Dublin. This will be accomplished by a set
of regulations, design principles, and related implementing actions designed to foster quality
development. These regulations, guidelines, and standards build upon the goals, objectives,
and policies of the City of Dublin General Plan (hereinafter "General Plan") and the
objectives of the DDSP, recognizing the DDSP area's strategic location in the City and the
region.
The DDSP is organized into the following chapters:
¦ Introduction
¦ Site and Context
¦ Land Use and Development Plan
¦ Development Standards and Design Guidelines
¦ Mobility and Infrastructure
¦ Implementation and Administration
2. 1. Project Location
The DDSP project area (hereinafter "project area") is located in the City of Dublin in
eastern Alameda County, just south of the border of Contra Costa County. Regional
access to the City is from Interstate 580, Interstate 680, and the Dublin/Pleasanton line of
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Cities that border Dublin include San Ramon to the north
(in Contra Costa County), Pleasanton to the south, and Livermore to the south and east.
The regional location is shown in Figure 2-1: Regional Location.
2.2. Project Area
The project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City and is approximately
284 acres in size. The DDSP Project area is generally bound by Village Parkway to the east,
Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to
the north. There are some areas that extend beyond those roadways, most notably a
portion of San Ramon Road, a portion of Amador Valley Boulevard, and all of Village
Parkway. The project vicinity is shown in Figure 2-2: Specific Plan Area.
Page 2-1
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR
Project Description
The majority of the land uses include regional serving retail in the center of the project
area. These include: Target, Toys R Us, Burlington Coat Factory, Ranch 99 Market,
Orchard Supply Hardware, Ross, and Marshall's. Several large scale retailers have closed
recently (2009) due to the current economic recession and/or other factors.
There are two auto dealerships in the Specific Plan area. One dealership is located in the
southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Golden State Drive, and the other is located at
the southeast corner of Saint Patrick Way and Amador Plaza Road.
Smaller specialty retail, convenience retail, and services. are generally located west of
Regional Street and along Amador Valley Boulevard, Amador Plaza Road, and Village
Parkway.
Office uses within the project area include the Corrie Center (located southeast of Dublin
Boulevard and Regional Street), the Chase Bank Building (southwest of Dublin Boulevard
and Golden Gate Drive) and the Hites office complex (located at the south end of
Amador Plaza Road).
Other notable land uses include the 238-room Holiday Inn, Earl Anthony's Dublin Bowl,
Dublin Post Office, Dublin Iceland, and a senior center with an associated 54-unit Wicklow
Square apartment complex.
BART has begun construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and parking
garage, which is located on the south side of the downtown area at the terminus of Golden
Gate Drive. The new station platform will be located in the median of 1-580. Construction
of this station will be completed in 2011. Land uses in and around the DDSP project area
are shown in Figure 2-3: Existing Land Uses.
2.3. Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations
The Land Use Element and Land Use Map in the City of Dublin Generol Plon establish the
policy for change and growth within the City. The General Plan identifies the general
locations, density and extent of land available for housing, business, industry, natural
resources protection, recreation, and other uses. As shown in Figure 2-4: General Plan
Land Use Designations, land use designations in and around the project area include:
Residential (Single-Family to High Density), Mixed-Use, Retail/Office and Automotive,
Business Park/Industrial, Parks/Public Recreation, and Public/Semi-Public.
There are five (5) existing Specific Plans that apply to the greater downtown area of the
City of Dublin., They are:
¦ Downtown Core Specific Plan
¦ West Dublin BART Specific Plan
¦ Village Parkway Specific Plan (VPSP)
¦ San Ramon Road Specific Plan (SRRSP)
Page 2-2
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Project Description
¦ Dublin Downtown Specific Plan (DDSP 87)
A description of each of these Specific Plans and their boundaries are described in the
DDSP (Appendix A).
A majority of the DDSP project area is zoned Planned Development (PD). Remaining
parcels are zoned Retail Commercial (C-1) and General Commercial (C-2). Zoning within
the DDSP and surrounding areas are shown in Figure 2-5: Current Zoning.
2.4. Proposed Project Characteristics & Objectives
The DDSP consists of a comprehensive set of incentives, standards, and requirements that
will implement the vision for the future development of downtown Dublin. The DDSP will
define the physical envelope for downtown Dublin's future growth using height limits,
setbacks, density, and design standards. The DDSP will act as the planning tool to guide
and direct new development, economic development, transportation improvements
(including pedestrian and transit-oriented development), parking, pedestrian amenities, and
public open space (e.g. public plazas). The DDSP will be instrumental in promoting a more
walkable, livable downtown Dublin, as well as providing incentives for development in
keeping with the City's broader vision.
The DDSP project area has been divided into three districts, based on the existing building
patterns and land uses within each area and the intended development envisioned for each
district. These three districts, namely the Retail District, the Village Parkway District, and
the Transit-Orient District, are shown in Figure 2-6; DDSP Districts/Land Use Designations
A set of guiding principles were prepared as part of the DDSP and serve as the project
objectives for this EIR. These guiding principles were drawn from a focused market study
(Keyser Marston and Associates 2009), field observations, interviews with stakeholders,
discussions with City Staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and professional urban
design principles. The purpose of these guiding principles is to define a framework for
future land uses, development standards and design guidelines for the project area and
each district. These guiding principles are organized for the overall Specific Plan Area and
each of the three districts and are described below.
Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles
The following guiding principles have been identified for the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan Area.
¦ Create or encourage opportunities for more nightlife activities (e.g. cinemas,
restaurants, etc.).
¦ Support short-term incentives to promote development in downtown Dublin such
as expedited permitting, and sales tax reimbursement program (the later of which
currently exists).
WF Page 2-3
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR
Project Description
¦ Consider the development of a community benefit payment in return for increased
density/FAR (i.e. density bonus/incentive program) that could be used to pay for
public improvements in the Planning Area.
¦ Increase the amount of retail sales and related economic activity throughout
downtown Dublin.
¦ Enhance the visual quality of downtown Dublin, including public streetscape
improvements (via the City's existing Streetscape Master Plan), entryways, on-site
landscaping and the appearance of individual buildings.
¦ Create a pedestrian-friendly downtown that minimizes potential conflicts between
vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists.
¦ Encourage a greater joint usage of parking areas through compatible mixes of uses
and enhanced pedestrian connections.
¦ Accept increased traffic congestion (i.e. reduced level of service) in the downtown
as a result of concentrating development near BART and major transportation
facilities, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and increasing pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity.
¦ Consider more flexible and appropriate parking standards that reflect verifiable
demand and consider the transit-oriented land uses in the area.
¦ Enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate alternative
transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation.
¦ Encourage businesses that support evening activities for adults and teenagers, such
as restaurants, theaters, and bookstores.
¦ Work with property owners and business to achieve the goals and objectives of the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
¦ Seek other funding opportunities to help leverage city and development dollars,
¦ Work with local businesses and property owners to establish a business
improvement district that would help to fund downtown improvements.
¦ The cost of infrastructure should be paid for by development.
¦ Encourage the use of local (Tri-Valley) labor when feasible and the support of local
and regional businesses as part of any development project.
¦ Encourage development that will create a vibrant and dynamic downtown that is
considered an attractive and distinctive amenity to the Tri-Valley Region.
Retail District Guiding Principles
In addition to the Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles, the following guiding principles
have been identified for the Retail District.
¦ Encourage and support large-format regional retail as an important community and
financial asset of the City.
Page 2-4 PF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Project Description
¦ Develop design standards and guidelines that support and enhance large-format
regional retail uses such as optimal building configuration and design, signage, more
efficient parking, parking strategies, pedestrian amenities, landscaping, etc.
¦ Encourage a diverse mix of complementary land uses including civic uses, eating
establishments, entertainment, and similar uses that complement existing retail land
uses.
¦ Identify ways to improve/enhance non-vehicular and vehicular circulation and
connections that are pedestrian friendly, particularly in areas that contain large,
expansive parking lots.
¦ Support relocating the existing storm drain that extends east-west through the
district to allow for greater flexibility in future development efforts.
¦ Allow higher density housing and additional units.
Transit-Oriented District Guiding Principles
In addition to the Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles, the following guiding principles
have been identified for the Transit-Oriented District.
¦ Promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and active district.
¦ Retain existing auto dealerships while supporting their eventual relocation to other
easterly locations within the City of Dublin.
¦ Identify opportunity sites for future development that incorporate mixed-use and
provide public and/or private plazas and outdoor gathering areas at strategic
locations.
¦ Encourage underground and/or above ground parking structures.
¦ Encourage housing along Dublin Boulevard only as part of a mixed-use
development with ground floor office or retail uses.
Village Parkway District Guiding Principles
In addition to the Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles, the following guidelines have been
identified for the Village Parkway District.
¦ Continue to support a diverse mix of complementary land uses along Village
Parkway.
¦ Create opportunities for integrating live/work units into the Village Parkway area
2.5. Proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning
The Dublin General Plan, including the General Plan Land Use Map, will be amended
concurrent with the adoption of the DDSP to include a DDSP Land Use Designation to
replace the existing General Plan land use designations for the area and to amend goals and
WF Page 2-5
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR
Project Description
policies in the General Plan which relate to the Specific Plan Area. The proposed General
Plan designations are shown in Figure 2-6: DDSP Districts/Land Use Designations.
The Zoning Map for the DDSP Area will be amended concurrent with the adoption of the
DDSP to rezone the DDSP project area to PD, Planned Development. Where land use
regulations and/or development standards in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance are inconsistent
with the DDSP, the PD zoning district overlay standards and regulations shall prevail. Any
issue not specifically addressed in the DDSP shall be subject to the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance and/or Municipal Code. Interpretations may be made by the Community
Development Director if not specifically covered in the City's existing regulations.
Proposed zoning is shown in Figure 2-7: Proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Zoning.
2.6. Proposed Land Uses and Development Plan
As described in the DDSP, the vision for downtown Dublin is to become a vibrant and
dynamic commercial and mixed-use center that provides a wide array of opportunities for
shopping, services, dining, working, living and entertainment in a pedestrian-friendly and
aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts both local and regional residents. Each district will
have a particular development focus, as described below.
Retail District
The Retail District is envisioned to continue to serve as the primary regional and
community shopping destination in the City. Given their large building format and existing
long-term leases, it is likely that many of the existing buildings will remain.
New and remodeled buildings will complement the existing uses with designs that are
compatible with adjacent structures and the district as a whole. Buildings shall utilize
"green" materials as well as materials that are of high quality - durable, attractive, long-
lasting, and in context with the building architecture. While compatibility is important,
creativity and unique designs are encouraged that can establish a signature look for the
district.
Areas adjacent to buildings (including surface parking lots) will be designed to create more
inviting pedestrian-friendly gathering spaces and amenities and will incorporate pathways
and additional landscaping to encourage walking between businesses and improve the visual
quality of the area.. A pedestrian-scale, walkable environment will be encouraged by
incorporating amenities, where feasible, such as paseos (e.g. walkways, promenades), plazas,
courtyards, benches, and informal gathering spaces. Connectivity within the District and to
other areas outside the District will be strongly encouraged.
Businesses in the Retail District are envisioned to include a mix of retail (ranging from small
independent retailers to national regional-serving retailers), service, office, civic, and limited
residential uses east of Amador Plaza Road.
Areas adjacent to buildings (including surface parking lots) will be designed to create more
inviting pedestrian-friendly gathering spaces and amenities and will incorporate pathways
Page 2-6
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Project Description
and additional landscaping to encourage walking between businesses and improve the visual
quality of the area. A pedestrian-scale, walkable environment will be encouraged by
incorporating amenities, where appropriate, such as paseos (e.g. walkways, promenades),
plazas, courtyards, benches, and informal gathering spaces. Connectivity within the District
and to other areas outside the District will be strongly encouraged.
Transit-Oriented District
The vision for the Transit-Oriented District is to encourage the development of the area
with land uses that support and complement transit uses, particularly the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. These types of uses would include mixed-use that
include office or residential above ground floor retail, high-density multi-family residential,
office uses and are generally more urban than the surrounding area.
Land uses should provide the opportunity for a variety of activities such as offices, hotels,
restaurants, shopping, etc. to encourage activity both during the day and at night for both
youths and adults.
New and remodeled buildings will complement the existing uses with designs that are
compatible with adjacent structures and the district as a whole. Buildings shall utilize
"green" materials as well as materials that are of high quality - durable, attractive, long-
lasting, and in context with the building architecture. While compatibility is important,
creativity and unique designs are encouraged that can establish a signature look for the
district.
A pedestrian-scale, walkable environment will be encouraged by incorporating amenities,
where appropriate, such as paseos (e.g. walkways, promenades), plazas, courtyards,
benches, and informal gathering spaces. Connectivity within the District and to other areas
outside the District will be strongly encouraged.
Village Parkway District
Village Parkway will be a pedestrian-oriented district that also accommodates through
traffic. Buildings will be sited at or near the sidewalk with parking provided at the rear to
encourage walking and create a more consistent street edge.
Opportunities for live/work, mixed-use, and multi-family residential buildings will be
encouraged throughout the district and compliment the predominantly commercial district,
largely developed with retail, office, and certain automotive uses.
Revitalizing and continuing to upgrade the appearance and functionality of the Village
Parkway District will be encouraged so that existing and new businesses, particularly those
providing specialty commercial services, can continue prosper. New and remodeled
buildings will complement the existing uses with designs that are compatible with adjacent
structures and the district as a whole. Buildings shall utilize "green" materials as well as
materials that are of high quality - durable, attractive, long-lasting, and in context with the
Page 2-7
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR
Project Description
building architecture. While compatibility is important, creativity and unique designs are
encouraged that can establish a signature look for the district.
A pedestrian-scale, walkable environment will be encouraged by incorporating amenities,
where appropriate, such as paseos (e.g. walkways, promenades), plazas, courtyards,
benches, and informal gathering spaces. Connectivity within the District and to other areas
outside the District will be strongly encouraged.
Existing Entitled Projects
In addition to new development envisioned as part of the DDSP, there are a number of
development projects within the Transit-Oriented District that are entitled but have not
yet been constructed and are identified in Table 2-1: Entitled Projects. All of the project
sites are located between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street.
Table 2-1: Entitled Projects
Development Existing Residential Retail 1 Office (sf) Hotel
Project Development (DUs) Commercial (sf)
Essex Site Vacant 309 -
AMB Site 208,829 sf 308 - --150,000
warehouse
building
Hotel Future Vacant 7,500 150
Custom 29,270
Fireplace
Total 617 36,770 150,000 150
Source: City of Dublin 2009
All of these entitled projects as well as the development potential identified in the in the
DDSP are addressed on a programmatic level in this EIR.
Development Plan
The DDSP provides a development plan for the next 15 to 20 years. Each Specific Plan
district identifies a broad range of land uses that can be developed, either by right or
through Use Permit. These land uses include regional retail, community retail, office,
residential, mixed use and public uses.
Given the uncertainty in market conditions and the fact that no particular development
projects are proposed as part of the DDSP, this approach will allow greater flexibility in the
ultimate development pattern, while still maintaining a common vision for function and
urban character within the DDSP project area.
Page 2-8
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Project Description
For each district, the DDSP identifies a specific set of development standards that will apply
to all new buildings and significantly remodeled buildings. These standards include lot size
and building placement, access, parking, building density or floor-area ratio (FAR), and
building height and setbacks.
The actual density of development allowed on a particular parcel will be regulated by
DDSP. The DDSP identifies both a base FAR that is allowed by right (for non-residential
square footage only) and a maximum FAR that can be constructed based on the use and
District in which it is located. If a property owner would like to develop a project beyond
the base FAR or construct residential dwellings, they may obtain additional square footage
up to the maximum FAR by drawing on the Development Pool that has been established
for residential and non-residential development in each District. Table 2-2: DDSP
Development Pool, identifies the allocation of both non-residential and residential
development by district that is allocated as part of the development pool.
Table 2-2: DDSP Development Pool
District Non-Residential (so Residential (DUs)
Retail District 368,420 100
Transit-Oriented 1,724,800 1,100
District
Village Parkway 0 100
District
*This number assumes residential development of 1,200 square feet per unit
When a project applicant proposes to develop using a portion of the density development
pool allocation, they will be required to enter into an agreement with the City and provide
a community benefit in accordance with the Community Benefit Program which will be
used to construct improvements in the DDSP project area, or construct improvements as
part of the project which provide a community benefit (e. g. outdoor plazas, parks, street
improvements). The life of the agreement will be limited to a specific time period so that if
a project is not constructed, the square footage can be returned to the density
development pool and available for use by another development project within the
respective district of the DDSP.
Future Build-out Development Potential
For the purposes of the DEIR, future buildout is based on existing development as of 2009
plus the Maximum FAR development potential identified in the DDSP. A breakdown of
the DDSP future buildout development potential is shown in Table 2-3: DDSP Future
Buildout Development Potential below.
W Page 2-9
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR
Project Description
Table 2-3: DDSP Future Buildout Development Potential
District Non-Residential (sf) Residential (du)
Retail District 737,094 100
Transit-Oriented District 2,202,710 1,100
(plus 150 hotel rooms)
Village Parkway District 20,730 100
Total 3,035,540 1,300
(plus 150 hotel rooms)
*Includes projects that have been approved, but not yet constructed.
While this represents the theoretical buildout capacity of development in the DDSP
project area, the ultimate amount of future development will likely be considerably less due
to non-tangibles such as market demand, ownership patterns, tenant lease terms, etc., as
well as the fact that the DDSP project area is already largely developed resulting in
significant physical limitations such as parcel configurations, parking, and circulation.
2.6.7 Infrastructure Improvements
Site Access and Circulation
The proposed Specific Plan does not propose any changes to the existing public roadway
network; however, vehicular circulation improvements may be required on private
property. Any improvements to public streets (including travel lanes, sidewalks, and
landscaping), apart from those identified as mitigation measures in this EIR, will require
separate environmental analysis.
Saint Patrick Way Extension
As part of future development, Saint Patrick Way will be extended as a public roadway
from Golden Gate Drive to Regional Street. The extension would be necessary to more
efficiently move vehicular traffic east-west through the Transit-Oriented District and would
be constructed as a two-lane roadway with parking and sidewalks. This extension was
planned for as part of the WDBSP and environmental analysis has been completed.
Pedestrian Easements
The existing east-west pedestrian easement on the properties extending from Regional
Street to Amador Plaza Road in the Retail District may be improved to provide a better
connection for pedestrians. Access to this easement would be included from sidewalks and
across the rear service alley behind the existing retail establishments. This easement would
be improved as a private outdoor space (such as a paseo) and follow the guidelines as
described in the DDSP. Landscaping, benches, building-mounted and string lighting, small
product vendors, entrances to retail establishments, projecting shade elements, and other
similar elements would be included to enhance the pedestrian realm.
Page 2-10 WI
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Project Description
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
The City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan identifies existing and proposed bikeways located
throughout the City. The Bikeways Master Plan recommends exploring opportunities to
expand the network throughout Downtown Dublin and creating improved connections to
the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Bicycle facilities such as bike lockers, bike racks,
and shower facilities are encouraged in or near the station. Direct access to bicycle parking
should be provided throughout Downtown Dublin and turning movements at intersections
and into/out of major developments should be explored. Specifically, the DDSP
recommends improving Golden Gate Drive with bike lanes (Class II bikeway) between
Dublin Boulevard and the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.
Public Transportation
The proposed Specific Plan does not propose any changes to the existing transit service
through Downtown Dublin. However, transit routes may be altered in the future to better
connect passengers with the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Such improvements
should consider the timing of the BART trains, distance traveled from one transit mode to
another, and facilities, such as benches, shelters, signage, and crossings. Improvements to
existing and new bus stops would be improved in accordance with the City of Dublin
Streetscape Master Plan.
Water
Water infrastructure within the DDSP project area is provided by the Dublin San Ramon
Services District (DSRSD). New development would tie into the existing service lines
which have adequate capacity to serve the DDSP project area. Other than minor
construction to improve/expand existing connections, no major upgrades to water
infrastructure will be required.
Sanitary Sewer
DSRSD also provides wastewater collection services in the DDSP project area. Sewer
improvements were recently made in the project area to accommodate existing and future
demand. These included the Dublin Boulevard West Sever Relief project, completed in
2008 and the Orchard Supply Hardware Sewer Replacement is planned to be conducted
in conjunction with Saint Patrick Way. Similar to water services, new development would
tie into the existing infrastructure and no major upgrades to the sanitary sewer system are
anticipated.
Stormwater Infrastructure
Design guidelines in the DDSP encourage increased percolation through the use of
vegetated swales, curb extensions, reconfigured parking lots with increased landscaping, and
the use of pervious materials (e.g. pervious pavers), particularly in parking lots.
Implementation of these design guidelines would result in a net reduction of off-site
stomlwater discharge rates and would improve water quality as compared to existing
conditions.
PF Page 2-1 1
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR
Project Description
Several properties within the planning area are located within the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. New construction will be subject to
floodplain regulations. The Zone 7 Stream Management Plan contains plans to retrofit the
culvert that carries water from Dublin Creek under Donlon Way. The retrofit will increase
the culvert capacity and reduce the risk of flooding in the DDSP project area.
2.7. Requested Actions, Entitlements, and Required Approvals
The City is the lead agency with the authority to carry out or approve the proposed
project. The City's actions include certification of the EIR for the proposed project, as well
as adoption of the DDSP, associated rezoning, and General Plan Amendment; and
amendment to the San Ramon Road Specific Plan. The proposed project also includes a
General Plan Amendment to exempt intersections within the Project Area, including
Dublin Blvd/San Ramon Road and Village Parkway/Interstate 680 on-ramp, from Guiding
Policy G in the General Plan, which strives to maintain a LOS of D or better for
intersections in the City:
This EIR is intended as a Program EIR, and specific development proposed made in the
DDSP project area would be subject to separate environmental review. In addition to the
City, federal, regional, and state responsible agencies have discretionary authority over
certain aspects of development project.
Future approvals within the planning area may require additional site planning and related
permits by the City of Dublin and may include, but are not limited to:
¦ Development Agreement;
¦ Demolition Permits;
¦ Subdivision Maps;
¦ Parcel Maps and boundary adjustments;
¦ All Final Improvement Plans;
¦ Utility Plans;
¦ Construction Phasing and Duration;
¦ Site Development Review;
¦ Landscaping and Lighting Plans; and
¦ Grading, paving, Engineering and Building Permits.
Subsequent development may also require obtaining a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
which would be a responsible agency under CEQA.
Page 2-12
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
M Page 2-13
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts &,Mitigation Measures
Each environmental section in this chapter presents information in four parts:
¦ Environmental Setting - The Environmental Setting section provides a general
overview of the conditions on and adjacent to the planning area.
¦ Regulatory Setting - The Regulatory Setting presents local, state and federal
regulations which are relevant to the proposed project.
¦ Relevant Project Characteristics - The Relevant Project Characteristics section
provides a more detailed description of the elements of the proposed project that
are relevant to the impact analysis for a particular topic. Relevant project
information may relate to the size, characteristics and/or location of project
elements. Any project elements that may cause impacts, as well as those that may
serve to minimize impacts, are identified.
¦ Impacts and Mitigation Measures - The Impacts and Mitigation Measures section
provides a brief description of standards that were used to evaluate whether an
impact is considered significant based on standards identified in CEQA, the State
CEQA Guidelines, and agency policy or regulations. Impacts are identified and
analyzed. Mitigation measures that would reduce potentially significant or significant
impacts are identified, as well as the significance of the impact after implementation
of mitigation measures. If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a
less than significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a
significant unavoidable impact.
Referenced graphics are presented at the end of each section.
Page 3-1
coheu~nHo
i
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank
Page 3-2
GpNYYLTIN~
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Aesthetics & Visual Resources
3.1. Aesthetics & Visual Resources
This section describes the aesthetic and visual resources of the planning area and its
surroundings, and discusses the potential aesthetic impacts that may result with
implementation of the proposed Specific Plan. The primary visual and aesthetic issues are
related to the intensification of commercial and mixed-use development within a
,commercial area that is currently dominated by automobile-oriented shopping centers.
Visual impacts were evaluated using a combination of a site reconnaissance, review of
photo documentation and aerial photographs, and a review of existing policy documents.
Environmental Setting
Visual Image
Visual images dominate an observers impression of a district, city, or region. To
understand how visual images influence an observers impression, the aesthetic value of an
area must first be defined. Aesthetic value is a measure of visual character and scenic
quality combined with a viewers response to the area. Viewer response is a combination
of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. Viewer exposure to a viewshed varies with the
number of viewers, the number of views seen, the distance of the views, and the viewing
duration. Viewer sensitivity is related to the extent of the public's concern for particular
visual resources.
Both natural landscapes and the built environment contribute to perceived visual images
and aesthetics value of a view. Aesthetic value is influenced by geologic, hydrologic,
botanical, wildlife, recreational, and urban features. Visual images and their perceived visual
quality can vary significantly seasonally and even hourly as weather, light, shadow, and the
elements that compose the resource change.
Definition of Terms
Numerous methods have been developed to characterize the scenic quality of a visual
resource and the viewer response to that resource. However, no standard approach to
visual analysis exists. Instead, several approaches that focus on different visual aspects or
issues are used. One commonly used set of criteria includes vividness, intactness, and unity.
¦ Vividness is the visual power or memorability of'landscape components as they
combine in striking or distinctive visual patterns.
¦ Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its
freedom from encroaching elements; this factor can be present in well-kept urban
and rural landscapes, as well as in natural settings.
¦ Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape
considered as a whole; it frequently attests to the careful design of individual
components in the landscape.
Page 3-3
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Aesthetics & Visual Resources
Regional Visual Setting
The City of Dublin is located in the Tri-Valley region of the East San Francisco Bay Area.
The visual setting of the region is defined by several communities (Pleasanton, Livermore,
Danville, Dublin, and San Ramon) that are surrounded by hillsides, vineyards, and natural
open space.
Project Setting
The project area is characterized as a suburban commercial area that contains a variety of
local and regional-serving businesses. The pattern of development is characterized by large
blocks, auto-oriented streets, a variety of lot shapes and sizes, and a variety of buildings
with diverse architectural styles. Most buildings are set back from the street and
surrounded by surface parking lots and minimal landscaping. The pattern of development
generally does not encourage pedestrian activity within the area. See Figure 3.1-1: Existing
Visual Character.
Most of the commercial buildings were constructed from the early 1960s to the late 1980s
and tend to have generic, nondescript quality that contributes little to establishing a distinct
identity or memory for the Specific Plan Area. Building surface materials tend to be wood,
concrete, cinder block or stucco construction.
Commercial buildings in the project area are predominantly one-story, ranging from 15 to
25 feet, depending on the type and function of the building. Some buildings along Village
Parkway are two stories, but are generally not taller than 25 feet. Office buildings, including
the Chase Bank building, the Corrie Center and the Hites property are three stories
(approximately 35 feet in height).
The tallest (and only) residential building in the downtown is the Wicklow Square senior
housing project, which is three stories over one level of parking at an approximate height of
50 feet. The approved 309 residential unit Windstar project will have five floors over one
level of parking at a height of approximately 65 feet.
Surrounding Land Uses
The project area is surrounded by 1-580 to the south, single-family residential
neighborhoods and commercial uses to the east, multi-family residential and single-family
residential neighborhoods to the north, and commercial and multi-family residential and
single-family residential neighborhoods to the west.
Scenic Vistas
A scenic vista is a view that possesses visual and aesthetic qualities of high value to the
community. Scenic vistas can provide views of natural features or significant structures and
buildings. The term "vista" generally implies an expansive view, usually from an elevated
point or open area. There are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the planning
area.
Page 3-4
CpNYU TINO
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Aesthetics & Visual Resources
Scenic Resources and Roadways
According to the City of Dublin General Plan, 1-580, 1-680, San Ramon Road, and
Dougherty Road were designated scenic routes by Alameda County in 1966. These are
primary routes from which people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the
City. Therefore, it is important that the quality of views be protected.
1-680 is also designated as a State Scenic Highway. According to the State Scenic Highway
website, "the scenic aspects of the corridor feature the rolling wooded hills of the Contra
Costa range contrasted with the flat Sunol Valley ringed by distance hills to the north and
east." While not officially listed, 1-580 is eligible for listing as a State Scenic Highway.
The General Plan has a policy requiring the City to "exercise design review of all projects
visible from a designated scenic route". Most, if not all, of the Specific Plan Area is visible
from 1-580,1-680, and San Ramon Road.
The project area and its immediate surroundings do not have any natural resources,
monuments, or unique buildings that would be classified as scenic resources,
Light and Glare
Lighting nuisances can generally be categorized by the following:
¦ Glare - Intense light that shines directly, or is reflected from a surface into a
person's eyes;
¦ "Skyglow"/Nighttime Illumination - Artificial lighting from urbanized sources that
alters the rural landscape in sufficient quantity to cause lighting of the nighttime sky
and reduction of visibility of stars and other astronomical features; and
¦ "Spillover" Lighting - Artificial lighting that spills over onto adjacent properties,
which could interrupt sleeping patterns or cause nuisances to neighboring residents.
The project area is part of a city and region that contributes to nighttime lighting. Buildings
within the project area that have reflective surfaces can also cause glare at certain times of
the day based on the location and angle of the sun.
Regulatory Setting
State
Streets and Highway Code, Section 260 et seq. - State Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program (CSHP) was created by the Legislature in 1963
with the purpose of preserving and protecting scenic highway corridors from change, which
diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The stated intent (Streets and
Highway Code Section 260) of the California Scenic Highway Program is to protect and
enhance California's natural beauty and to protect the social and economic values provided
by the State's scenic resources. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how
much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape,
and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view.
Page 3-5
cowtruviNo
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Aesthetics & Visual Resources
The CSHP includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic
highways or have been so designated. These highways are identified in Section 263 of the
Streets and Highways Code.
State highways nominated for scenic designation must first be on the statutory list of
highways eligible for scenic designation in the State Scenic Highway System. A process for
adding eligible highways to the statutory list is described in Section III: Obtaining Eligibility.
County highways nominated for scenic designation that are believed to have outstanding
scenic values are considered eligible and do not require any legislative action. Both State
and county highway nominations follow the same process and have the same requirements,
Scenic highway nominations are evaluated using the following criteria:
¦ The State or county highway consists of a scenic corridor that is comprised of a
memorable landscape that showcases the natural scenic beauty or agriculture of
California (see definition for "vividness", under Section III: Step 1, Visual
Assessment).
¦ Existing visual intrusions do not significantly impact the scenic corridor (see
definitions for "intactness" and "unity" below, under Section III. Step 1: Visual
Assessment).
¦ Demonstration of strong local support for the proposed scenic highway
designation.
¦ The length of the proposed scenic highway is not less than a mile and is not
segmented.
The status of a state scenic highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the
local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California
Department of Transportation for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from
Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. According to the
California Deportment of Transportation (Coltrons) Scenic Highway Program (CSHP), Interstate
680 is officially designated as a State Scenic Highway. While not officially listed Interstate
580 is eligible for listing as a State Scenic Highway.
Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to aesthetics and
visual character within the planning area.
2.1.5: Guiding Policy A. Intensify development and provide housing opportunities and
transit-oriented uses near transit center and facilities.
2.2.1: Guiding Policy A. Intensify Downtown Dublin,
2.2.1: Implementing Policy B. Designate a Downtown Intensification Area on the General
Plan Land Use Map, Figure I -Ia.
Page 3-6
co+mutrrHU. I
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Aesthetics & Visual Resources
2.2.1: Implementing Policy C. Provide a downtown BART station that will serve customers
and workers with and without cars. Add offices and apartments within walking distance
and eventually over BART parking.
2.2.1: Implementing Policy D. Encourage mid-rise office/apartment buildings and parking
structures with ground floor retail spaces. Create store-lined pedestrian connections
between existing shopping centers.
2.2.1: Implementing Policy E. Make downtown more understandable to first-time visitors by
installing standardized identification signs and directories.
5.6: Implementing Policy B. Exercise design review of all projects visible from a designated
scenic route.
In addition to the above policies, the General Plan Community Design Element contains a
number of policies related to urban design and visual character. Policies address a range of
topics, including:
¦ Site and Building Design
¦ Landscaping and Natural Features
¦ Gathering and Open Space Areas
¦ Signage, Lighting, and Art
¦ Parking and Circulation
¦ Villages
Relevant Project Characteristics
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
The proposed Specific Plan includes both development standards and design guidelines to
guide future development within the area. These development standards and design
guidelines will be used during the design review process for project applications within the
Specific Plan Area. The design guidelines apply to all new construction within the Specific
Plan area. Development standards apply to all new construction that results in the increase
of building size of more than 25 percent.
The design standards and guidelines within the proposed Specific Plan provide more
specific design direction for the downtown districts than the design policies in the General
Plan Community Design Element. For each of the three Downtown Districts (Retail
District, Transit-Oriented District, and Village Parkway) development standards are
provided to address the following topics:
¦ Lot Size and Building Placement
¦ Building Height
¦ Setbacks
Page 3-7
conwuinnb
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Aesthetics & Visual Resources
¦ Density
¦ Access (vehicular and pedestrian)
¦ Parking Locations and Requirements
¦ Projections and Encroachments into Setbacks
In addition, design guidelines are provided for all projects within the Specific Plan Area and
address the following topics:
¦ General Building Design
¦ Building Articulation
¦ Building Materials and Colors
¦ Roofs
¦ Frontages
¦ Signage
¦ Private Outdoor Spaces
¦ Outdoor Dining
¦ Lighting
¦ Fences, Walls, Hedges, and Gates
¦ Landscaping and Paving
¦ Parking Areas
¦ Loading and Refuse Areas
¦ Screening
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Criteria for Determining Significance
In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and agency and professional
standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
¦ Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
¦ Substantially damage scenic resource, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a state scenic highway.
¦ Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and
surroundings, i.e., be incompatible with the scale or visual character of the
surrounding area or substantially detract from the integrity, character and/or
aesthetic character of the neighborhood; and/or
¦ Create a new source of substantial light or glare, such that it poses a hazard or
nuisance.
Page 3-8
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Aesthetics & Visual Resources
Methodology
The analysis of potential aesthetic impacts within this section is based on a site
reconnaissance of the project area and surrounding area, the City of Dublin General Plan,
and photographs of the project area and vicinity. The site reconnaissance and photo
documentation of the planning area was performed by RBF Consulting in November 2009.
Photos were taken to characterize the visual character of the planning area and surrounding
area.
Potential impacts were assessed by forecasting the anticipated appearance of future
development at the planning area based on the maximum FAR identified in the proposed
Specific Plan. Nighttime lighting and day and nighttime glare are assessed qualitatively
through comparative analysis of existing and proposed conditions and evaluation of design
guidelines and development standards included in the proposed Specific Plan. Existing
sources of light and glare are identified and quantified where possible.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista
As previously noted, a scenic vista is a view that possesses visual and aesthetic qualities of
high value to the community. Scenic vistas can provide views of natural features or
significant structures and buildings. The term "vista" generally implies an expansive view,
usually from an elevated point or open area. Because there are no designated scenic vistas
in the vicinity of the planning area, no impacts would occur.
Damage to Scenic Resources along Scenic Highways
Impact 3.1-1: Portions of the project area are visible from a designated State Scenic
Highway and locally designated scenic routes. However, no scenic resources would be
adversely affected as a result of Specific Plan implementation. This is considered a less than
significant impact.
The planning area is fully developed and there are no natural or built features that are
considered scenic resources. However, portions of the project area are visible from
Interstate-680 (an officially designated State Scenic Highway and a locally designated scenic
route), Interstate-580 (a highway eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway and
locally designated scenic route), and San Ramon Road (a locally designated scenic route).
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would allow properties to develop with
more intense commercial and mixed-use developments similarly to what is currently
permitted under the five existing Specific Plans that apply in the project area.
In compliance with the General Plan, all' projects that are visible from Interstate-680 and
Interstate-580 would be subject to design review per the policy of the General Plan and
requirements of the Specific Plan. Furthermore, specific projects would be required to
comply with the development standards and generally be consistent with the design
guidelines as identified in the DDSP, and thereby create a more visually appealing
Page 3-9
coeauumo
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Aesthetics & Visual Resources
environment within the Downtown. Therefore, this would be considered a less than
significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Degradation of the Visual Character of the Project Area and Surrounding Area
Impact 3.1-2: Implementation of the Specific Plan would alter the existing aesthetic
character of the Downtown by intensifying commercial and mixed-use development within
the area. However, the intensification of development is consistent with the guiding
policies of the General Plan. In addition, the proposed DDSP includes design standards and
guidelines that are designed to create a more visually appealing environment within the
Downtown districts. This is considered a less than significant impact.
The implementation of the Specific Plan would allow for the intensification of commercial
and mixed use development within the Downtown districts. Most of the intensification is
anticipated to occur in the Transit-Oriented District, as the demand for mixed-use
development in that District will likely increase due to the construction of the West Dublin
BART station and parking structure.
The intensification of commercial and mixed use development within the Downtown is
consistent with the current General Plan policies and the amended policies for the
Downtown and the desired character for the area:
¦ 2.2.1: Guiding Policy A. Intensify Downtown Dublin.
¦ 2,2.1: Implementing Policy B. Designate a Downtown Intensification Area on the
General Plan Land Use Map, Figure I -Ia.
¦ 2.2.1: Implementing Policy C. Provide a downtown BART station that will serve
customers and workers with and without cars. Add offices and apartments within
walking distance and eventually over BART parking.
¦ 2.2.1: Implementing Policy D. Encourage mid-rise office/apartment buildings and
parking structures with ground floor retail spaces. Create store-lined pedestrian
connections between existing shopping centers.
¦ 2.2.1: Implementing Policy E. Make downtown more understandable to first-time
visitors by installing standardized identification signs and directories.
As an already built-out area, the most visible feature of intensification is the often increased
building heights. The existing development has a variety of building heights and the
proposed Specific Plan would not increase allowed building heights beyond those already
established by the five existing approved Specific Plans for the project area. Building heights
for the Transit-Oriented District would be limited to 90 feet, a height that is currently
allowed by the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Building heights for the Village Parkway
District would be limited to 35 feet, a height that is currently allowed by the Village
Parkway Specific Plan. Building heights for the Retail District would be limited to 75 feet, a
height that is currently allowed by the Downtown Core Specific Plan.
Page 3-10
pQc
aO~NB~U T¦IN0
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Aesthetics & Visual Resources
The proposed Specific Plan includes both development standards and design guidelines to
guide the design of future development within the area. These development standards and
design guidelines will also be used during the design review process. Therefore, the
implementation of the proposed Specific Plan will help insure that properties and buildings
contribute to visually appealing Downtown districts and environments. Therefore, this
would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Light and Glare
Impact 3.1-3: The project area and its surroundings are currently developed with buildings
and site improvements that generate daytime and night-time light and glare. Additional
sources of daytime glare and nighttime lighting would be introduced as the downtown is
intensified with new commercial and mixed-use developments. The proposed Specific Plan
includes design standards and design guidelines to reduce these impacts. This is considered
a less than significant impact.
Implementation of the proposed project would introduce new development to the Specific
Plan Area, increasing the potential for daytime and nighttime glare. The main sources of
daytime glare would be from sunlight reflecting from structures with reflective surfaces,
such as windows. The main sources of nighttime light and glare would be from additional
lighting, including, but not limited to, internal and external building lights, parking lot lights,
street lighting, site lighting, lights associated with vehicular travel (i.e., car headlights), and
any new security lighting associated with future development in the planning area.
The proposed Specific Plan includes design guidelines which address lighting in the planning
area, including, but not limited to the following:
¦ Flood lighting is discouraged on the exterior of buildings; however, uplighting and
indirect lighting to highlight key building features (i.e. tower elements) or signature
landscaping is encouraged, where appropriate.
¦ Site, building, and sign lighting should be located and directed to light the intended
area of illumination and to prevent off-site glare impacts on adjacent buildings and
properties.
¦ Energy-efficient lighting (lighting from renewable sources and energy-saving devices,
such as light sensors) is encouraged, whenever feasible.
¦ Pedestrian-scaled lighting is required along walkways and within parking areas and
private outdoor spaces. Such lighting should be 10 to 15 in height. Bollard lighting
may also be used. "Cobra head" lighting is strongly discouraged.
i
¦ Lighting should be provided at regular intervals to prevent the creation of light and
dark pockets, which are undesirable.
¦ Over-lighting of buildings and sites should be prevented to avoid ruining desired
nighttime ambience.
Page 3-1 1
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Aesthetics & Visual Resources
¦ Cutoff shields should be used to prevent light from emitting above the light source,
to the maximum extent feasible.
¦ Where feasible, warm white, energy efficient lighting source types such as metal
halide, induction lighting, compact fluorescent, and light-emitting diode (LED) should
be used.
Future development within the planning area would be required to comply with the design
guidelines by demonstrating the proposed exterior lighting is non-intrusive while still
providing an adequate amount of light. Compliance with the design guidelines would
therefore ensure that the proposed Specific Plan does not introduce substantial light and
glare, which would pose a hazard or nuisance. Therefore, the proposed project would have
a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Page 3- 12
I
I
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
3.2. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
This section analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project
on air quality, including short-term construction emissions, long-term operational impacts,
and potential impacts on sensitive receptors.
Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
The City of Dublin is located in eastern Alameda County, which is within the San Francisco
Bay Area Air Basin (hereinafter "Basin"). The Basin includes San Mateo, Santa Clara,
Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, and Marin counties, and forms a climatological sub-region.
This climatological sub-region stretches from Richmond to San Leandro, bounded to the
west by the San Francisco Bay and to the east by the Oakland-Berkeley Hills. The
Oakland-Berkeley Hills have a ridgeline height of approximately 1,500 feet, a significant
barrier to air flow. The most densely populated area of the sub-region lies in a strip of land
between the bay and the lower hills.
In this area, marine air traveling through the Golden Gate, as well as across San Francisco
and through the San Bruno Gap, is a dominant weather factor The Oakland-Berkeley Hills
cause the westerly flow of air to split off to the north and south of Oakland, which causes
diminished wind speeds. The prevailing winds for most of this sub-region are from the
west. At the northern end, near Richmond, prevailing winds are from the south-southwest.
Temperatures in this sub-region have a narrow range due to the proximity of the
moderating marine air. Maximum temperatures in summer average in the mid-70s, with
minimums in the mid-50s. Winter highs are in the mid- to high-50s, with lows in the low-
to mid-40s. The air pollution potential is lowest for the parts of the sub-region that is
closest to the bay, largely due to good ventilation and less influx of pollutants from upwind
sources. The occurrence of light winds in the evenings and early mornings occasionally
cause elevated pollutant levels.
Topography and Meteorology
Ambient air quality is commonly characterized by climatological conditions, the
meteorological influences on air quality, and the quantity and type of pollutants released.
The Basin is subject to a combination of topographical and climatic factors that reduce the
potential for high levels of regional and local air pollutants. The Basin is characterized by a
complex terrain consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and the San Francisco
Bay. It is generally bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the north by the Coast
Ranges, and on the east and south by the Diablo Range.
Climate in the Basin is dominated by the strength and location of a semi-permanent,
subtropical high-pressure cell over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, as well as the
moderating effects of the adjacent oceanic heat reservoir. Mild summers and winters,
moderate windfall, daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity characterize regional
Page 3-13
enHau nno
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
climatic conditions. In summer, when the high pressure cell is strongest and farthest north,
fog forms in the morning and temperatures are mild. In winter, when the high pressure cell
is weakest and farthest south, occasional rain storms occur.
In the City of Dublin, the climate is typically warm during summer, when temperatures tend
to be in the 70s and 80s, and cool during winter, when temperatures tend to be in the 50s,
The warmest month of the year is July with an average maximum temperature of 89
degrees Fahrenheit, while the coldest month of the year is December with an average
minimum temperature of 37 degrees Fahrenheit, Temperature variations between night
and day tend to be moderate during summer with a difference that can reach 24 degrees
Fahrenheit, and moderate during winter with a difference of approximately 20 degrees
Fahrenheit. The annual average precipitation in Dublin is 16.3 inches. Rainfall is fairly
evenly distributed throughout the year. The wettest month of the year is January, with an
average rainfall of 2.99 inches.
Sunlight
The presence and intensity of sunlight is another important factor that affects air pollution.
Typically, ozone is formed at higher temperatures. In the presence of ultraviolet sunlight
and warm temperatures, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)
react to form secondary photochemical pollutants, including ozone.
Temperature Inversions
An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality
conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth (i.e., the vertical depth in
the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground). The highest air
pollutant concentrations in the Basin generally occur during inversions.
Under ideal meteorological conditions and irrespective of topography, pollutants emitted
into the air would be mixed and dispersed into the upper atmosphere. However, the
region experiences temperature inversions in which pollutants are trapped and accumulate
close to the ground. The inversion, a layer of warm, dry air overlaying cool, moist marine
air, is a normal condition in the Basin. The cool, damp, and hazy sea air capped by coastal
clouds is heavier than the warm, clear air that acts as a lid through which the marine layer
cannot rise.
Local Ambient Air Quality
Criteria Air Pollutants
Local ambient air quality is monitored by the BAAQMD and the California Air Resources
Board (CARB); refer to Table 3.2-1: Local Ambient Air Quality Levels. CARB monitors
The Weather Channel, Average Weather for San Bernardino, CA, Accessed Apri l 14, 2010.
http://www.weather.com/outlook/events/weddings/wxcl i matol ogy/month Iy/graph/USCA0314
Page 3- 14
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
ambient air quality at approximately 250 air-monitoring stations across the State. Air
quality monitoring stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above-ground
level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations.
Table 3.2-1 Local Ambient Air Quality Levels
Standards Allowable Amount Days (Samples)
Pollutant Federal Year Maximum StatelFederai
California Primary Concentration' Standards was
Exceeded
Ozone (03) 2007 0.120 ppm 2/0
for 1 hour 2 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 2008 0.141 5/2
2009 0.113 0/0
Ozone (03) 2007 312
for 8 hour 2 0.07 ppm 0.08 ppm 2008 0.091 ppm 8/6
2009 0.110 8/6
0.086
Carbon 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 2007 1.83 0/0
Monoxide(CO) 2 (8 hour) (8 hour) 2008 1.43 0/0
2009 1.31 O/0
Nitrogen 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm 2007 0.052 O/NA
Dioxide(N02) 2 (1 hour) (1 hour) 2008 0.058 O/NA
2009 0.052 O/NA
Particulate 50 mg/m3 150 mg/m3 2007 74.8 2/0
Matter(PM10) 2,45 (24 hours) (24 hours) 2008 46.8 0/0
2009 Not Available NA
Fine Particulate 12 mg/m3 35mglm3 2007 54.9 NA/3
Matter(PM2.5) 2,5 (annual (24 hours) 2008 52.7 NA/2
arithmetic mean) 2009 45.7 NA/4
Sulfur Dioxide 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm 2007 0.005 0/0
(S02)3 (24 hours) (24 hours) 2008 0.005 0/0
2009 0.004 0/0
Notes:
1. Maximum concentrations are measured over the same period as the California standard.
2. Livermore Monitoring Station is located at 793 Rincon Avenue, Livermore, California 94550.
3. Berkley Monitoring Station is the only station in the San Francisco Air Basin that monitors S02 and is located at 1340 Sixth Street, Berkeley,
Califomia 94710.
4. PM1o exceedances are based on State thresholds established prior to amendments adopted on June 20, 2002.
5. PM,o and PM2.e exceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded, not days.
Source: Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System, Summaries from 2007 to 2009 as found at http:/twww.arb.ca.gov/adam/
The nearest monitoring station to the project area is located in the City of Livermore at
793 Rincon Avenue. This station monitors all of the criteria pollutants except for Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2). The Berkeley Monitoring Station is the only station in the San Francisco Air
Basin that monitors S02 and as such is included in Table 3.2-1: Local Ambient Air Quality
W Page 3-15
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Levels. The following air quality information briefly describes the various types of pollutants
monitored at the local stations.
Ozone
Ozone occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth's surface is
the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately ten miles above ground level,
where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric (the "good" ozone)
layer extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun's
harmful ultraviolet rays (UV-B).
"Bad" ozone is a photochemical pollutant, and needs VOCs, NOx, and sunlight to form;
therefore, VOCs and NOx are ozone precursors. VOCs and NOx are emitted from
various sources throughout the area. To reduce ozone concentrations, it is necessary to
control the emissions of these ozone precursors. Significant ozone formation generally
requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and several hours in a stable
atmosphere with strong sunlight. High ozone concentrations can form over large regions
when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles
from their origins.
While ozone in the stratosphere protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high
concentrations of ground-level ozone can adversely affect the human respiratory system
and other tissues. Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are
aggravated by exposure to high ozone levels. Ozone also damages natural ecosystems
(such as forests and foothill communities) and damages agricultural crops and some man-
made materials (such as rubber, paint, and plastics). Societal costs from ozone damage
include increased healthcare costs, the loss of human and animal life, accelerated
replacement of industrial equipment, and reduced crop yields.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and
stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-
based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO
emissions. At high concentrations, CO can reduce the oxygen-carrying capacity of the
blood and cause headaches, dizziness, unconsciousness, and death,
Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to
the formation of ground-level ozone, and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain.
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), often used interchangeably with NOx, is a reddish-brown gas that
can cause breathing difficulties at high levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have
a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g, motor vehicle engines, power plants,
refineries, and other industrial operations).
NOx can irritate and damage the lungs, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such
as influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However,
Page 3-16
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
continued or frequent exposure to NOx concentrations that are much higher than those
normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and
increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to N02
may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM/a)
PM io refers to suspended particulate matter (PM) which is smaller than 10 microns. PM io
arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction
operations, and dust storms, PMio scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In
addition, these particulates penetrate the lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory
tract.
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter,
both Federal and State standards have been created for PM2,5. The impacts of fine
particulate matter primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing
cardiopulmonary disease.
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, pungent gas belonging to the family of sulfur oxide gases (SO,,),
formed primarily by combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels (primarily coal and oil), and
during metal smelting and other industrial processes. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is often used
interchangeably with sulfur oxides (SO,). The major health concerns associated with
exposure to high concentrations of SO,, are effects on breathing, respiratory illness,
diminishment of pulmonary defenses, and aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease.
Major subgroups of the population that are most sensitive to SO,, are individuals with
cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease (such as bronchitis or emphysema), as well as
children and the elderly. Emissions of SO,, also can damage the foliage of trees and
agricultural crops. Together, SO,, and NO,, are the major precursors to acid rain, which is
associated with the acidification of lakes and streams, and the accelerated corrosion of
buildings and public monuments. Sulfur oxides can react to form sulfates, which significantly
reduce visibility.
Other Pollutants
CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' (TACs) with no
threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for
the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations
specified for these pollutants. Additionally, because ambient concentrations of lead have
decreased in the Basin, these pollutants are not measured at the monitoring stations.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
According to Section 39655 of the California Health and Safety Code, a toxic air
contaminant is "an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality
or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human
Page 3-17
coHeuinao
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
health". In addition, substances that have been listed as Federal hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs) pursuant to Section 7412 of Title 42 of the United States Code are TACs under
the State's air toxics program pursuant to Section 39657 (b) of the California Health and
Safety Code.
TACs can cause various cancers, depending on the particular chemicals, their type, and
duration of exposure. Additionally, some of the TACs may cause other health effects over
the short or long term. TACs of particular concern for posing health risks in California are
acetaldehyde, benzene, 1-3 butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-
dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perch I orethyl ene, and diesel
particulate matter.
Reactive Organic Gases and Volatile Organic Compounds
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are organic chemical compounds with sufficiently high
vapor pressure such that they will tend to vaporize and enter ambient air under standard
conditions. A wide range of carbon-based molecules, such as aldehydes, ketones, and
hydrocarbons are VOCs. Hydrocarbons are organic gases, liquids, or solids that are formed
solely of hydrogen and carbon. A subset of VOCs are reactive in the context of ozone
formation at urban (and possibly regional) scales. Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) are
defined to be those VOCs that are regulated because they lead to ozone formation. Both
ROGs and VOCs can be emitted from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or
other carbon-based fuels. The major sources of VOCs are combustion engine exhaust, oil
refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels,
solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).
Reactive VOCs may result in the formation of ozone and its related health effects.
Carcinogenic forms of VOCs are considered toxic air contaminants (''air toxics"). Some
reactive VOCs are also toxic; an example is benzene, which is both a reactive VOC and a
carcinogen.
Greenhouse Gases
The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere is called the
"greenhouse effect."2 The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a
three-fold process, summarized as follows: short wave radiation emitted by the Sun is
absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long wave
radiation; and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the upper atmosphere absorb this long wave
radiation and emit this long wave radiation into space and toward the Earth. This
"trapping" of the long wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the
underlying process of the greenhouse effect.
2 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth's surface to 10 to 12
kilometers.
Page 3-18
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
The most abundant GHGs are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Many other trace gases
have greater ability to absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation; however, these gases are
not as plentiful. For this reason, and to gauge the potency of GHGs, scientists have
established a Global Warming Potential for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and
re-radiate long wave radiation. The Global Warming Potential of a gas is determined using
carbon dioxide as the reference gas with a Global Warming Potential of one (1).
GHGs include, but are not limited to, the following:3
• Water Vapor (H2Q. Although water vapor has not received the scrutiny of other
GHGs, it is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. Natural processes,
such as evaporation from oceans and rivers, and transpiration from plants, contribute
90 percent and 10 percent of the water vapor in our atmosphere, respectively.
The primary human-related source of water vapor comes from fuel combustion in
motor vehicles; however, this is not believed to contribute a significant amount (less
than one percent) to atmospheric concentrations of water vapor. The
Intergovern mental Panel on Climate Change has not determined a Global Warming
Potential for water vapor.
• Carbon Dioxide K02). Carbon dioxide is primarily generated by fossil fuel
combustion in stationary and mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial
facilities and mobile sources in the past 250 years, the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 35 percent.4 Carbon dioxide is the most
widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for
determining Global Warming Potentials for other GHGs.
• Methane (CH4). Methane is emitted from biogenic sources, incomplete combustion
in forest fires, landfills, manure management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. In the
United States, the top three sources of methane are landfills, natural gas systems,
and enteric fermentation. Methane is the primary component of natural gas, which
is used for space and water heating, steam production, and power generation. The
Global Warming Potential of methane is 21.
• Nitrous Oxide (N20). Nitrous oxide is produced by both natural and human-related
sources. Primary human-related sources include agricultural soil management, animal
manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil
3 All Global Warming Potentials are given as 100-year Global Warming Potential. Unless noted otherwise, all Global
Warming Potentials were obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, Climate Change, The Science of Climate Change - Contribution of Working Group I to the Second
Assessment Report o f the IPCC, 1996).
a United States Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004,
April 2006, http://wvvw.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreporLhtml.
W Page 3-19
conauv,rvo
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. The Global Warming
Potential of nitrous oxide is 310.
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary
refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam
blowing is growing, as the continued phase out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) gains momentum. The Global Warming
Potential of HFCs range from 140 for HFC-152a to 6,300 for HFC-236fa.
¦ Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Perfluorocarbons are compounds consisting of carbon and
fluorine. They are primarily created as a by-product of aluminum production and
semi-conductor manufacturing. Perfluorocarbons are potent GHGs with a Global
Warming Potential several thousand times that of carbon dioxide, depending on the
specific PFC. Another area of concern regarding PFCs is their long atmospheric
lifetime (up to 50,000 years).5 The Global Warming Potential of PFCs range from
5,700 to 11,900,
• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Sulfur hexafluoride is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic,
nonflammable gas. It is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high voltage
equipment that transmits and distributes electricity. Sulfur hexafluoride is the most
potent GHG that has been evaluated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change with a Global Warming Potential of 23,900. However, its global warming
contribution is not as high as the Global Warming Potential would indicate due to its
low mixing ratio compared to carbon dioxide (4 parts per trillion [ppt] in 1990
versus 365 parts per million [ppm]).6
In addition to the six major GHGs discussed above (excluding water vapor), many other
compounds have the potential to contribute to the greenhouse effect, Some of these
substances were previously identified as stratospheric ozone (03) depletory; therefore,
their gradual phase out is currently in effect. The following is a listing of these compounds:
• Hydrochlorofluorocorbons (HCFCs). HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical
composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air
conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, all developed countries that
adhere to the Montreal Protocol are subject to a consumption cap and gradual
phase out of HCFCs. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent
5 Energy Information Administration, Other Gases: Hydro fluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and Sulfur Hexafluoride, October
29, 2001, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ 1605/gg00rpt/other-gases.htm1.
b United States Environmental Protection Agency, High GWP Gases and Climate Change, October 19, 2006,
http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html#sf6.
Page 3-20 PF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
reduction to the cap by 2030. The Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range
from 93 for HCFC-123 to 2,000 for HCFC-142b.'
1, I trichloroethone. 1,1,1 trichloroethane, or methyl chloroform, is a solvent and
degreasing agent commonly used by manufacturers. The Global Warming Potential
of methyl chloroform is 110 times that of carbon dioxide.8
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs are used as refrigerants, cleaning solvents, and
aerosol spray propellants. CFCs were also part of the EPA's Final Rule (57 FR 3374)
for the phase out of 03 depleting substances. Currently, CFCs have been replaced
by HFCs in cooling systems and a variety of alternatives for cleaning solvents.
Nevertheless, CFCs remain suspended in the atmosphere, contributing to the
greenhouse effect. CFCs are potent GHGs with Global Warming Potentials ranging
from 4,600 for CFC I I to 14,000 for CFC 13.9
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general
population. Sensitive populations (or sensitive receptors) that are in proximity to localized
sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive
receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-
term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement
homes. The project area includes the 238-room Holiday Inn hotel and a senior center with
an associated 54-unit Wicklow Square apartment complex. Residential uses are located
adjacent to the project area to the north, east, and west.
Odors
Offensive odors rarely cause physical harm; however, they can be very unpleasant, leading
to considerable stress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local
governments and agencies. Facilities commonly known to produce odors include
wastewater treatment facilities, chemical manufacturing, painting/coating operations, feed
lots/dairies, composting facilities, landfills, and transfer stations. Offensive odors rarely cause
physical harm, and no requirements for their control are included in State and Federal air
quality regulations. However, the BAAQMD has identified land use and operation types
that are typically associated with producing odors. No facilities in the DDSP area have
7 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Protection o f Stratospheric Ozone: Listing o f Global Warming Potential
for Ozone Depleting Substances, November 7, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA AIR/1996/January/Day 19/pr
372.html.
8 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Global Warming Potential
for Ozone Depleting Substances, November 7, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA AIR/I996/January/Day 19/pr
372.html.
9 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Class I Ozone Depleting Substances, March 7, 2006,
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ods.html.
Page 3-21
coneu~tiwo
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
been reported as releasing offensive odors. Additionally, the DDSP does not propose uses
identified by the BAAQMD as sources of odors.
Regulatory Setting
Regulatory oversight for air quality in the Basin rests with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region IX office at the Federal level, CARB at the State level, and with the
BAAQMD at the regional level.
Federal
Environmental Protection Agency
The principal air quality regulatory mechanism on the Federal level is the Clean Air Act
(FCAA) and, in particular, the 1990 amendments to the FCAA and the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that it establishes. These standards identify levels of air
quality for "criteria" pollutants that are considered the maximum levels of ambient
(background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect
the public health and welfare. The criteria pollutants are 03, CO, NO2 (a form of NOX),
SO2 (a form of SOX), PMio, PM2.5, and lead (Pb); refer to Table 3.2-2: National and
California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The EPA also has regulatory and enforcement
jurisdiction over emission sources beyond State waters (outer continental shelf) and those
that are under the exclusive authority of the Federal government, such as aircraft,
locomotives, and interstate trucking.
Page 3-22 WIF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards
California' Federal Standardsz
Pollutant Averaging Time
Standard3 Primary 's Secondary 3,5
Ozone (03) 1 Hour 0.09 m 180 /m N/A' N/As 8 Hour 0.070 pm 137 ugm) 0.075 m 147 lug/M3) 0.075 pm 147 lug/M3)
Particulate Matter (PMio) 24 Hour 50 Im3 150 Im3 150 Im3
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 Im3 N/As W
Fine Particulate Matter 24 Hour No Separate State 35 lug/m3 35 µg/m3
(PM Standard
Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 Im3 15.0 Im3 15.0 Im3
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hour 9.0 m 10 Im3 9 m 10 I09 p pm 10 lug/M3)
1 Hour 20 m 23 Im3 35 m 40 /m3 35 m 40 /m3
Nitrogen Dioxide (N02)7 Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 m 57 Im3 0.053 m 100 lug/M3) 0.053 m 100 Im3
1 Hour 0.18 m 339 /m3 0.100 ppm 0.100 pm
Lead (Pb) 30 Days Average 1.5 lug/M3 N/A N/A
Calendar Quarter N/A 1.5 r /m3 1.5 Im3
Annual Arithmetic Mean N/A 0.030 m 80 /m3 N/A
Sulfur Dioxide (S02) 24 Hour 0.04 m 105 Im3 0.14 m 365 lug/M3) N/A 3
3 Hour N/A NIA 0.5 m 1300 /m
1 Hour 0.25 m 655 lug/M3) 75 ppb N/A
Visibility-Reducing Particles 8 Hour (10 am to 6 pm, Extinction Coefficient =
PST 0.23 km <70 /o RH
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 No Federal Standards
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)
ppm = parts per million; jug/ m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/ m3 milligrams per cubic meter; km = kilometers; RH = relative humidity;
PST = Pacific Standard Time; N/A = not applicable; b= arts per billion
Notes:
1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended
particulate matter (PMio), and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All other values are not to be equaled or
exceeded. California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the
California Code of Regulations. In 1990, the CARB identified vinyl chloride as a Toxic Air Contaminant and determined that there was not
sufficient available scientific evidence to support the identification of a threshold exposure level. This action allows the implementation of
health-protective control measures at levels below the 0.010-ppm ambient concentration specified in the 1978 standard.
2. Federal standards (other than for ozone, for particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to
be exceeded more than once a year. EPA also may designate an area as attainmentlunclassifiable if (1) monitored air quality data show
that the area has not violated the ozone standard over a three-year period; or (2) there is not enough information to determine the air quality
in the area. For PMio, the 24-hour standard is attained when 99 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over the three years, are
equal to or less than the standard. For PMz.s, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over
three years, are equal to or less than the standard.
3. Concentration is expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference
temperature of 25 degrees centigrade (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 millimeters (mm) of mercury. Most measurements of air quality
are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar); parts per million
(ppm) in this table refers to ppm by volume (micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas).
4. Federal Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.
5. The Federal 1-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15, 2005 in all areas except the 14 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action
Compact (EAC) areas.
6. The Environmental Protection Agency revoked the annual Pl standard in 2006 (effective December 16, 2006).
7. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average of each monitor within an area must
not exceed 0.100 m effective Janus 22, 2010).
Source: California Air Resources Board, August 3, 2010
Page 3-23
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
State
California Air Resources Board
CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. These
standards, included with the NAAQS in Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air
Quality Standards, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the
NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility
reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.
California Global Climate Change Regulatory Programs
Executive Order 5-3-05. In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California's
GHG emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S-3-05. The Executive Order
established the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010;
GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions should be
reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Secretary of the California
Environmental Protection Agency (the Secretary) is required to coordinate efforts of
various agencies in order to collectively and efficiently reduce GHGs. Some of the agencies
involved in the GHG reduction plan include Secretary of Business, Transportation, and
Housing Agency, Secretary of Department of Food and Agriculture, Secretary of Resources
Agency, Chairperson of CARB, Chairperson of the Energy Commission, and the President
of the Public Utilities Commission. The Secretary is required to submit a biannual progress
report to the Governor and State Legislature disclosing the progress made toward GHG
emission reduction targets. In addition, another biannual report must be submitted
illustrating the impacts of global warming on California's water supply, public health,
agriculture, and the coastline and forestry, and reporting possible mitigation and adaptation
plans to combat these impacts.
Executive Order S-1-07. On January 18, 2007, California further solidified its dedication to
reducing GHGs by setting a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard for transportation fuels sold
within the State. Executive Order 5-1-07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions
measured in carbon dioxide equivalent gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The
target of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is to reduce the carbon intensity of California
passenger vehicle fuels by at least ten percent by 2020. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard
applies to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels, and would
use market-based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose how they reduce
emissions during the "fuel cycle" using the most economically feasible methods. The
Executive Order requires the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency
to coordinate with actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the University of
California, and other agencies to develop a protocol to measure the "life cycle carbon
intensity" of transportation fuels.
Executive Order S-13-08. Issued on November 14, 2008, Executive Order 5-13-08
intends to enhance the State's management of climate impacts from sea level rise,
increased temperatures, shifting precipitation, and extreme weather events. There are four
Page 3-24 MF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
key actions in this Executive Order, including: (1) initiate California's first State-wide climate
change adaptation strategy that assesses the State's expected climate change impacts,
identifies where California is most vulnerable, and recommends climate adaptation policies;
(2) request the National Academy of Science establish an expert panel to report on sea
level rise impacts in California to inform State planning and development efforts; (3) issue
interim guidance to State agencies for how to plan for sea level rise in designated coastal
and floodplain areas for new projects; and (4) initiate a report on critical existing and
planned infrastructure projects vulnerable to sea level rise.
Executive Order S- 13-08 aims to facilitate California's first comprehensive climate
adaptation strategy. This effort improves coordination within State government and adapts
the way State agencies work so that better planning can more effectively address climate
impacts to human health, the environment, the State's water supply, and the economy.
Additionally, this effort provides consistency and clarity to State agencies on how to
address sea level rise in current planning efforts, reducing time and resources unnecessarily
spent on developing different policies using different scientific information. In response to
Executive Order 5-13-08, the California Natural Resources Agency prepared the 2009
Cali fornio Adaptation Strategy in December 2009.
Assembly Bill 1493. In response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half
of California's carbon dioxide (C02) emissions, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (AB 1493, Pavley)
was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 required CARB to set GHG emission standards
for passenger vehicles, light duty trucks, and other vehicles whose primary use is
noncommercial personal transportation in the State. The bill required that CARB set the
GHG emission standards for motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent
model years. In setting these standards, CARB must consider cost effectiveness,
technological feasibility, economic impacts, and provide maximum flexibility to
manufacturers. CARB adopted the standards in September 2004. These standards are
intended to reduce emissions of C02 and other GHGs (e.g., nitrous oxide [N2O] and
methane [CH4]).
Assembly Bill 32. The Legislature enacted AB 32 (AB 32, Nunez), the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which Governor Schwarzenegger signed on September
27, 2006 to further the goals of Executive Order S-3-05. AB 32 represents the first
enforceable State-wide program to limit GHG emissions from all major industries, with
penalties for noncompliance and requires California to reduce its GHG emissions by
approximately 28 to 33 percent below "business as usual" levels. . CARB has been
assigned to carry out and develop the programs and requirements necessary to achieve the
goals of AB 32. The foremost objective of CARB is to adopt regulations that require the
reporting and verification of State-wide GHG emissions. This program would be used to
monitor and enforce compliance with the established standards. The first GHG emissions
limit is equivalent to the 1990 levels, which are to be achieved by 2020. CARB is also
required to adopt rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible
and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 allows CARB to adopt market-based
compliance mechanisms to meet the specified requirements. Finally, CARB is ultimately
Page 3-25
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
responsible for monitoring compliance and enforcing any rule, regulation, order, emission
limitation, emission reduction measure, or market-based compliance mechanism adopted.
In order to advise CARB, it must convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee
and an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee. In December 2008,
CARB adopted a scoping plan to achieve reductions in GHG emissions in California. The
plan indicates how reductions in significant GHG sources would be achieved through
regulations, market mechanisms, and other actions.
Senate Bill 97. Senate Bill (SB) 97 of 2007 requires the California Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) to develop CEQA guidelines for analysis and, if necessary, the mitigation of
effects of GHG emissions to the Resources Agency. These guidelines for analysis and
mitigation must address, but are not limited to, GHG emissions effects associated with
transportation or energy consumption. On December 30, 2009, the Natural Resources
Agency adopted the CEQA Guidelines Amendments prepared by OPR, as directed by SB
97. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administration Law approved the CEQA
Guidelines Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the
California Code of Regulations. The CEQA Guidelines Amendments became effective on
March 18, 2010. These new guidelines require a survey of existing climate change analyses
performed by various lead agencies under CEQA.10 In his signing statement, Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger noted:
Current uncertainty as to what type of analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is
required under the California Environmental Quality Act has led to legal claims
being asserted, which would stop these important infrastructure projects.
Litigation under CEQA is not the best approach to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and maintain a sound and vibrant economy. To achieve these goals,
we need a coordinated policy, not a piecemeal approach dictated by litigation.
Senate Bill 375. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to include Sustainable
Community Strategies (SCS) in their regional transportation plans. The purpose of SB 375
is to reduce GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks, require CARB to provide
GHG emission reduction targets from the automobile and light truck sector for 2020 and
2035, and update the regional targets until 2050. SB 375 would require certain
transportation planning and programming activities to be consistent with the sustainable
communities strategies contained in the regional transportation plan. The bill also requires
affected regional agencies to prepare an alternative planning strategy to the sustainable
communities strategies if the sustainable communities strategy is unable to achieve the
GHG emissions reduction targets. Governor Schwarzenegger signed and approved SB 375
on September 30, 2008.
10 http://ceres.ca.gov/cecla/docs/Adopted-Text-of-SB97-CEQA_G uidelines_Amendments.pdf. Accessed January
15, 2010.
Page 3-26
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Senator Steinberg, author of SB 375, is also making efforts to clean up the bill. Steinberg
authored the new SB 575 as the clean-up bill for SB 375. The clean-up efforts include
CEQA streamlining changes for projects that are consistent with the SCS. Currently, SB
375 applies those streamlining provisions to residential and mixed-use projects. The
Governor and many interest groups are also lobbying to extend those provisions to
Proposition I B Transportation projects, State highway projects, and infrastructure, retail,
and commercial development. A timetable to eliminate schedule conflicts with the new
eight-year housing element and the four-year Regional Transportation Plan is also being
considered. In addition to SB 575, there will continue to be ongoing discussions with
CARB to coordinate AB 32 local land use implementation strategies with SB 375, including
new proposed CARB CEQA thresholds of significance to determine which projects will be
subject to AB 32 requirements.
Local
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
The City of Dublin prepared a Draft Climate Action Plan and Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration in July 2010. City's Climate Action Plan provides background on
actions taken to curb GHG emissions; presents Dublin's baseline GHG emissions inventory
in 2005 and forecast for GHG emissions in 2020 based on business-as-usual scenario;
establish a GHG emissions reduction target; and present steps for implementation of the
Plan and monitoring and verification of the Plan to achieve the designated emissions
reduction target.
The City's Climate Action Plan serves as the City of Dublin's qualified GHG Reduction Plan
and programmatic tiering document for the purposes of CEQA for the analysis of impacts
to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The City has determined that the
reduction target under the CAP will reduce the impact from activities under the CAP to a
less than significant level under CEQA. 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 GHG emissions and climate change
consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Sections
15 183.5, 15064, and 15130.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is responsible for regulating stationary, indirect, and area sources of
pollution within the Basin. The BAAQMD is one out of 35 air quality management districts
that have prepared Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to accomplish the five percent
annual reduction goal required by the CCAA. The following notes efforts by the
BAAQMD to address ozone and ozone precursors through the implementation of the
Ozone Strategy and Clean Air Plan.
2005 Ozone Strotey. The BAAQMD prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, which
was adopted on January 4, 2006, and describes how the Basin will fulfill California Clean Air
Page 3-27
annsu~nwn
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Act planning requirements for the State 1-hour ozone standard and transport mitigation
requirements through the proposed control strategy, The 2005 Ozone Strategy explains
how the BAAQMD plans to achieve these goals with regard to ozone, and also discusses
related air quality issues of interest, including the public involvement process, climate
change, fine particulate matter, the BAAQMD's Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE)
program, local benefits of ozone control measures, the environmental review process,
national ozone standards, and photochemical modeling.
2000 Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD's 2000 Clean Air Plan aims to reduce emissions of
certain air pollutants, including reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NO.),
that lead to ozone or "smog" formation in the lower atmosphere. The Clean Air Plan
addresses several areas, including air pollution sources, ozone trends, particulate matter,
control measures for ozone, control strategy, and future air quality planning.
2010 Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD is in the process of preparing the 2010 Bay Area Clean
Air Plan. The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan will update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy
in accordance with the California Clean Air Act requirements to implement "all feasible
measures" to reduce ozone. The 2010 Plan will also consider the impacts of ozone control
measures on particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse gases. Additionally, the 2010
Bay Area Clean Air Plan will review progress in improving air quality in recent years, and
will establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010
through 2012 timeframe. On March 1 1, 2010, the BAAQMD released the Draft 2010
Clean Air Plan for public review and comment with adoption anticipated in Fall 2010.
State Air Toxics Program
Toxic air contaminants are another group of pollutants of concern in California. There are
hundreds of different types of toxic air contaminants, with varying degrees of toxicity.
Sources of toxic air contaminants include industrial processes such as petroleum refining
and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry
cleaners, and motor vehicle engine exhaust, Public exposure to toxic air contaminants can
result from emissions from normal operations, as well as accidental releases of hazardous
materials during upset spill conditions. Health effects of toxic air contaminants include
cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death,
California regulates toxic air contaminants through its air toxics program, mandated in
Chapter 3.5 (Toxic Air Contaminants) of the Health and Safety Code (Health and Safety
Code Section 39660 et seq.) and Part 6 (Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and
Assessment) (Health and Safety Code Section 44300 et seq.). CARE, working in
conjunction with the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, identifies
toxic air contaminants. Air toxic control measures may then be adopted to reduce
ambient concentrations of the identified toxic air contaminant to below a specific threshold,
based on its effects on health, or to the lowest concentration achievable through use of
best available control technology (BACT) for toxics. The program is administered by
CARB. Air quality control agencies, including the BAAQMD, must incorporate air toxic
Page 3-28
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
control measures into their regulatory programs or adopt equally stringent control
measures as rules within six months of adoption by CARB.
Attainment Status
The Basin is considered in attainment or unclassified for most of the criteria pollutants for
State and Federal considerations, except for 03, PM IO, and PM2,5. Under Federal
regulations the Basin is designated an unclassified/attainment area for PMIO standards (see
Table 3.2-3: San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status).
Table 3.2.3: San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant _ State Federal
Carbon Monoxide CO Attainment Attainment
Ozone 03 - 8 hour Non-attainment Non-Attainment
Ozone 03 -1 hour Non-attainment --2
Nitrogen Dioxide N02 -1 hour Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide - Annual Arithmetic Mean Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide S02 - 24 hour Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide S02 -1 hour Attainment
Particulate Matter (PM1o) - Annual Arithmetic
Non-Attainment
Mean
Particulate Matter PM1o - 24 hour Non-Attainment Unclassified
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) - Annual Arithmetic
Non-attainment
Mean
Particulate Matter PM2.5 - 24 hour Non-attainment
Sulfates - 24 hour Attainment
Lead - Calendar Quarter - Attainment
Lead - 30 Da Average Attainment -
Hydrogen Sulfide -1 hour Unclassified -
Vinyl Chloride chloroethene - 24 hour
Visibility Reducing ParticulateS3 Unclassified
Notes:
N/A - Not Applicable
1. In order for an area to meet a particular standard, all time tests of the applicable standard must be met. Separate designations are not made
for each time component of the standard. For instance, an area might meet the annual criteria of the State PM1o standard but not the 24-hour
requirement. In that case, the area fails to meet the standard and would be designated nonattainment for the State PM,o standard. Thus, a
single designation is made for each State and Federal standard based on whether or not the area meets all the aspects of the standard.
Designations for State standards are made by ARB while designations for Federal standards are made by EPA.
2. The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA on June 15, 2005.
3. The U.S. EPA lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 ug/m3 to 35 ug/m3 in 2006. EPA issued attainment status designations for the 35
u91m3 PMzs standard. The EPA designation will be effective 90-days after publication of the regulation in the Federal Register. President
Obama has ordered a freeze on all pending Federal rules; therefore, the effective date of the designation is unknown at this time.
Source: BAAQMD, Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status, 2010.
(htt)://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm)
City of Dublin General Plan
The following policies in the City of Dublin General Pion are applicable to air quality within
the DDSP area.
7.4: Implementing Policy A. Request the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) to establish an air quality monitoring station in Dublin.
Page 3-29
~o~.~„moo
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Relevant Project Characteristics
Development activities under the DDSP are assumed to occur over the next 15 to 20
years. During that time, it is assumed that only a portion of the existing land uses will be
redeveloped and that many of the existing structures will essentially remain the same in size
and configuration with the exception of remodeling of existing structures,
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Criteria for Determining Significance
In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and agency and professional standards, a
project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
¦ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. For
purposes of this EIR and based on the BAAQID CEQq Guidelines, the proposed
project must satisfy the following standards to be consistent with the BAAQMD's
2005 Ozone Strategy and thus result in a less than significant impact: 1) Consistency
with the population and vehicle miles traveled assumptions in the Clean Air Plan;
and 2) Consistency With Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures;
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation;
¦ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors);
¦ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;
¦ Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people;
¦ Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment. For the purposes of this EIR, a significant
impact will result if a Specific Plan conflicts with or obstructs the implementation of
greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32; and/or conflicts with an
applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Short-Term Construction Emissions
Impact 3.2-1: The proposed project would result in short-term air- quality impacts
associated with construction activities, including grading, operation of equipment, and
demolition of existing structures within the project area. However, future development
within the project area would be required to comply with the BAAQMD Control
Measures for- particulate matter during construction activities. Therefore, this would be
considered a less than significant impact.
New emissions would be generated from construction activities associated with
development allowed under the proposed DDSP. Under the DDSP, varying amounts of
Page 3-3Q p~
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
construction would likely occur over time until buildout of the DDSP is achieved.
Construction-related emissions would result from excavation, grading, demolition, vehicle
travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and vehicle and equipment exhaust. Individual
projects would vary in size and have the potential to generate significant construction
emissions. BAAQMD emphasizes the implementation of effective and comprehensive
control measures rather than detailed quantification of construction emissions. BAAQMD
has identified a set of feasible particulate matter control measures for construction activities.
These are outlined in Table 3.2-4: San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Control Measures.
Table 3.24: San Francisco Bay Air Quality Management District Control Measures
Basic Control Measures - The following controls should be implemented at all construction sites.
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of
freeboard.
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas,
and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
Enhanced Control Measures - The following measures should be implemented at construction sites greater than four
acres in area:
• All "Basic" control measures listed above.
• Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten
days or more).
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.)
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Optional Control Measures - The following control measures are strongly encouraged at construction sites that are
large in area, located near sensitive receptors, or which for any other reason may warrant additional emissions
reductions:
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site.
• Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas.
• Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph.
• Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time.
Source: BAAQMD 1999
"Basic Control Measures" should be implemented at all construction sites, regardless of
size. Additional "Enhanced Control Measures" should be implemented at construction
sites larger than four acres, from which particulate matter emissions would likely be higher.
"Optional Control Measures" may be implemented if further emission reductions are
deemed necessary by the Lead Agency. If each of the applicable measures are
implemented as appropriate, air pollutant emissions from construction activities under the
DDSP would be considered a less than significant impact.
Page 3-31
4ON•Y TINE
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Under the DDSP, the potential exists for a number of construction projects to occur every
year. It would be speculative to quantify the annualized emissions related to construction
activities associated with future projects under the DDSP, as the scale and timing of each
construction event is currently unknown, and such speculative quantification is not currently
required or recommended by BAAQMD. However, future individual projects under the
DDSP would be subject to new project-level emission thresholds in the BAA0_MD Draft
CEQQ Guidelines, if adopted. Through the environmental review process for individual
projects, additional mitigation may also be required to further reduce emissions and
potential impacts on a project-by-project basis. In addition, future development within the
project area would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3
(Architectural Coatings). Adherence to these BAAQMD Control Measures and Regulation
8, Rule 3 would ensure that the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant
impact during short-term construction activities.
Long-Term Operational Emissions
Impact 3.2-2: The proposed project is consistent with population growth assumptions in
the Clean Air Plan, is anticipated to result in reduced VMT compared to population
growth. and is consistent with the Plan's Transportation Control Measures. This is
considered a less than significant impact.
Implementation of the DDSP would result in new emissions generated by future
development within the Downtown Dublin area. Future development would introduce
new stationary and mobile source air emissions into the project area.
Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for electrical
energy and natural gas associated with the development of the proposed improvement.
This is based on the assumption that those power plants supplying electricity to the project
area are utilizing fossil fuels. Electric power generating plants are distributed throughout the
Basin and western United States, and their emissions contribute to the total regional
pollutant burden, The primary use of natural gas by the future development in the project
area would be for combustion to produce space heating, water heating, other
miscellaneous heating, or air conditioning, consumer products, and landscaping. As shown
on Table 3.2-5: Operational Emissions, area source emissions from the proposed project
would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, and PMio. Thus, area source
emissions would be less than significant.
Page 3-32 WF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Table 3.2-5: Operational Emissions
Es ~!_d rnnua' A- . Eni~ i , ~po-.11IJ
Source?
Pm,
Area 64.13 34.05 0.15
Mobile 1,352.39 1,784.18 3,262.64
Total 1,416.52 1,818.23 3,262.79
BAAQMD Threshold 80 80 80
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes Yes
Notes:
1. Emissions estimates calculated using URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4).
2. Emissions estimates calculated using the land use categories/intensifies depicted in Section 2, Pro ect Description.
Refer to Appendix D, Air Quality Data, for detailed model input/output data.
Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative
emissions. Project-generated vehicle emissions have been estimated using the URBEMIS
2007 model. This model was utilized to predict ROG, NOx, and PMio emissions from
motor vehicle traffic associated with the proposed project,
As shown in Table 3.2-5: Operational Emissions are emissions generated by vehicle traffic
associated with the proposed project would exceed established BAAQMD thresholds for
ROG, NOx, and PMio. As the sum of mobile source and area source emissions would
exceed BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, and PM 10.
The DDSP includes a number of policies to address potential air quality impacts that could
result from future development. The following guiding principles of the DDSP would help
reduce potential regional and local air quality emissions by encouraging the use of transit,
alternative transportation modes, and sustainable development:
Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles
¦ Create a pedestrian-friendly downtown that minimizes potential conflicts between
vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
¦ Encourage a greater joint use of parking areas through compatible mixes of uses
and enhanced pedestrian connections.
¦ Consider more flexible and appropriate parking standards that reflect verifiable
demand and consider the transit-oriented land uses in the area.
¦ Enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate alternative
transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation.
Transit-Oriented District Guiding Principles
¦ Promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and active district.
P Page 3-33
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
¦ Identify opportunity sites for future development that incorporate mixed-use and
provide public and/or private plazas and outdoor gathering areas at strategic
locations.
¦ Encourage underground and/or above ground parking structures.
¦ Discourage housing along Dublin Boulevard unless part of a mixed-use
development with ground floor office or retail uses.
Village Parkway District Guiding Principles
¦ Create opportunities for integrating live/work units into the Village Parkway area.
¦ Consider an appropriate site(s) for high density housing.
Consistency with Ozone Strategy Transportation Control Measures
The 2005 Ozone Strategy includes 20 Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), of which
seven require participation at the local level. Table 3.2-6: Clean Air Plan Consistency
Analysis, lists DDSP policies that are supportive of the 2005 Ozone Strategy TCMs. A
description of each TCM is provided along with a listing of relevant policies that would
implement each measure. The proposed policies support and reasonably implement the
applicable Clean Air Plan TCMs.
Page 3-34 WF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Table 3.2-6: Clean Air Plan Consistency Analysis
Transportation Control Relevant Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Principles and Policies
Measures
TCM 1: Support voluntary Village Parkway District Guiding Principles
employer-based trip reduction Create opportunities for integrating live/work units into the Village Parkway area.
programs
TCM 3: Improve Local and Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles
Areawide Bus Service Enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate alternative transportation choices
including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation.
Create opportunities for integrating live/work units into the Village Parkway area.
Retail District Guiding Principles
Identify ways to improve/enhance non-vehicular and vehicular circulation and connections that are pedestrian
friendly, particularly in areas that contain large, expansive parking lots.
Transit-Oriented District Guiding Principles
Promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and active district.
TCM 9: Improve bicycle access Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles
and facilities Enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate alternative transportation choices
including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation.
TCM 15: Local clean air plans Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles
policies and programs should Encourage a greaterjoint use of parking areas through compatible mixes of uses and enhanced pedestrian
incorporate measures to reduce connections.
the number and length of
single-vehicle occupant trips Transit-Oriented District Guiding Principles
Promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and active district.
Identify opportunity sites for future development that incorporate mixed-use and provide public and/or private
plazas and outdoor gathering areas at strategic locations.
Village Parkway District Guiding Principles
Create opportunities for integrating live/work units into the Village Parkway area.
TCM 17: Conduct Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles
demonstration projects which Promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and active district.
will reduce vehicle emissions
Transit-Oriented District Guiding Principles:
Identify opportunity sites for future development that incorporate mixed-use and provide public and/or private
plazas and outdoor gathering areas at strategic locations.
TCM 19: Promote pedestrian Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles
travel Encourage a greater joint use of parking areas through compatible mixes of uses and enhanced pedestrian
connections.
TCM 20: Promote traffic Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles
calming Create a pedestrian-friendly downtown that minimizes potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicyclists.
Source: RBF Consulting, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, March 2010.
All projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to be consistent with these
policies intended to reduce air quality impacts by increasing alternatives to individual
automobile use supporting a mix of complimentary land uses to reduce trips and facilitating
sustainable infill development. Through the environmental review process for individual
projects, additional mitigation may also be required to further reduce emissions and
potential impacts on a project-by-project basis. Individual projects planned under the
DDSP would be subject to BAAQMD's operational emissions thresholds. Many of the
Page 3-35
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
individual projects would be small, and their mobile and area operational emissions would
not be expected to exceed BAAQMD's operational emissions thresholds. For plan-level
air quality analyses (i.e., general plans, specific plans), the BAAQMD recommends a
consistency analysis with the adopted 2005 Ozone Strategy. Therefore, in addition to
assessing the DDSP operational impacts against BAAQMD thresholds (refer to Table 3.2-
4), a consistency analysis has also be prepared, comparing the DDSP to the 2005 Ozone
Strategy TCMs (refer to Table 3.2-6).
The goals and policies of the DDSP would encourage; local and regional transit services,
bicycle and pedestrian networks, alternatives to automotive transportation, and land use
decisions which would help to reduce the increased rate of VMT as compared to that
associated with automotive transportation only. For example, the West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station is currently being constructed and would serve the DDSP area. The station
is located along BART tracks with pedestrian bridges over Interstate 580 that connect to
Golden Gate Drive in Dublin and to Stoneridge Mall Road in Pleasanton. Parking
structures have been constructed on both sides of Interstate 580 to accommodate BART
passengers. Station access is a key element in the planning of BART stations and facilitates
the location of transit-oriented developments in Downtown Dublin,
Consistency with Ozone Strategy Population Projections
The 2005 Ozone Strategy was developed utilizing the most recent ABAG population
projections available and vehicle activity projections. These projections are based on land
use designations developed by cities and counties through local and regional planning
processes. This existing number of dwelling units and commercial square footage used in
this EIR is a more accurate number than that used in the 2005 Ozone Strategy because it is
based on more recent data from the County Assessor, the California Department of
Finance, and private data vendors.
Future development under the DDSP would affect emissions of ozone precursor pollutants
and particulate matter (PM2,5 and PMio), both of which affect regional air quality. The
purpose of the DDSP is to consolidate the five Specific Plans that apply to the Downtown
Dublin Area. The DDSP would replace four of the current Specific Plans and the fifth for
the portion that is within the DDSP Area. It focuses on strengthening the development
standards and design guidelines and providing greater direction as to future land uses,
particularly in the transit-oriented area south of Dublin Boulevard. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in future changes in development patterns that affect
regional air quality that are accounted for in the 2005 Ozone Strategy.
The strengthening of development standards would facilitate mixed-use, live/work, and
transit-oriented development, and would encourage alternative modes of transportation
which would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, the proposed project would
result in less vehicle use than what is assumed in the 2005 Ozone Strategy. Traffic modeling
conducted for the DDSP reflects a lower rate of VMT growth than population growth.
The projected population growth would be 31.7 percent from 2009 through 2015 based
on the project market demand analysis within the DDSP. The projected growth rate of
Page 3-36 fWF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
VMT would be 23.4 percent in the same time frame. The VMT estimate is based on the
scenario where not all development is built out in order to be consistent with the 2009-
2015 time frame. Additionally, the DDSP proposes downtown development near transit
and includes extensive policies intended to reduce VMT. The DDSP policies would reduce
VMT by creating a pedestrian-friendly downtown, accommodate alternative transportation
modes (i.e., BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian), promote transit-oriented development,
and incorporate mixed-use development into the Specific Plan area. As a result, the growth
rate of VMT under the DDSP would not exceed the growth rate of the population.
According to the current BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the VMT growth rate compared to
the City's population growth rate over the same time frame would not hinder progress
towards achieving the goals of the 2005 Ozone Strategy. Therefore, the DDSP is consistent
with the applicable air quality plan, and a less than significant impact would result.
Long-Term Operational Emissions - Toxics Air Contaminants
Impact 3,2-3: No major existing stationary or area sources of toxic air contaminants
(TACs) were identified in the vicinity of the project area. The DDSP would result in the
development of mixed-use and commercial uses at the project site, which may generate
sources of TACs from stationary sources. The proposed project would not result in
increased exposure of sensitive land uses in excess of applicable standards. This is
considered a less than significant impact,
To address community risk from air toxics, the BAAQMD initiated the Community Air Risk
Evaluation (CARE) program in 2004 to identify locations with high levels of risk from TACs
co-located with sensitive populations and use the information to help focus mitigation
measures. Through the CARE program, the Air District developed an inventory of TAC
emissions for 2005 and compiled demographic and heath indicator data. According to the
findings of the CARE Program, diesel particulate matter, mostly from on and off-road
mobile sources, accounts for over 80 percent of the inhalation cancer risk from TACs in
the Bay Area. As of November 2009, the impacted communities include the urban core
areas of Concord, eastern San Francisco, western Alameda County, Redwood City/East
Palo Alto, Richmond/San Pablo, and San Jose.
The CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (April 2005) offers advisory
recommendations for locating sensitive receptors near uses associated with TACs, such as
freeways and high-traffic roads, commercial distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries,
chrome platters, dry cleaners, gasoline stations, and other industrial facilities, to reduce
exposure of sensitive populations, No major existing stationary or area sources of TACs
were identified in the project vicinity. The DDSP would result in development within
Downtown Dublin, which may generate sources of TACs from stationary sources. The
development of any new stationary sources of TAC's associated with the DDSP project
area would be subject to BAAQMD rules and regulations and permitting requirements.
Living close to high traffic and associated emissions may lead to adverse health effects. A
number of studies conducted have identified an association between health effects and
Page 3-37
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
living or attending school near heavily traveled roadways. One study conducted in the San
Francisco Bay Area found that most related health effects associated with traffic were
experienced within 300 feet of the traveled roadway.' 1 The nearest residential area of the
DDSP area is located approximately 650 feet north of Interstate 580 (1-580). Therefore, as
the DDSP area with proposed residential uses is greater than 300 feet from 1-580,
exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs would be less than significant.
In addition, all projects must implement any applicable air toxics control measures (ATCM).
For example, projects that have the potential to disturb asbestos (from soil or building
material) must comply with all the requirements of CARB's ATCM for Construction,
Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. Compliance with applicable regulatory
standards is required as part of the permitting process for development and operation of
future development within the DDSP, and would ensure a less than significant
impact..
Long-Term Operational Emissions - Localized Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Impact 3.2-4: Carbon monoxide concentrations are low in the project vicinity and the
proposed project would result in carbon monoxide concentrations that would be well
below the State and Federal standards. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less
than significant impact on localized carbon monoxide concentrations.
Local air quality is a major concern along roadways. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a primary
pollutant, and unlike ozone, is directly emitted from a variety of sources. For this reason,
CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway
network and are used as an indicator of its impacts upon the local air quality. Areas of
vehicle congestion have the potential to create "pockets" of CO called "hot spots." These
pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million
(ppm) and/or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm.
The BAAQMD requires that proposed projects are analyzed for the potential to cause
localized CO hotspots. Per the BAAQMD CO screening guidelines, a project would have
CO impacts if the following were to occur:
¦ Project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at level of
service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F.
¦ Project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10 percent or
more.
California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook A Community Heath Perspective, April 2005.
Page 3-38 PF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
¦ Project would contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air
Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm
for one hour.
Because traffic congestion is highest at intersections where vehicles queue and are subject
to reduced speeds, these hot spots are typically produced at intersections. Based on the
Traffic Impact Analysis, the intersections listed in Table 3.2-7: Project Buildout Carbon
Monoxide Concentrations, would require a CO hotspot analysis. The BAAQMD
thresholds for CO emissions require projects to perform localized CO modeling. In order
to conduct the most conservative analysis, the BAAQMD requires that the CO modeling
reflect only those roadway or intersection improvements that are approved and fully
funded. The 14 intersections identified in Table 3,2-7: Project Buildout Carbon Monoxide
Concentrations would operate at LOS D, E, or F in 2030 without planned improvements,
and therefore require a CO hotspot analysis.
Page 3-39
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Table 3.2-7: Project Buildout Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
1-Hour C01 8-Hour COI
1-Hour Future+ 8-Hour Future+
Standard Project Standard Project
Intersection (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road 20 1.7 9 1.19
Amador Valley Boulevard and Regional Street 20 1.6 9 1.12
Amador Valley Boulevard and Starward Drive/Sr. Center Drive 20 1.6 9 1.12
Amador Valley Boulevard and Donohue Drive 20 1.6 9 1.12
Amador Valley Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road 20 1.6 9 1.12
Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway 20 1.6 9 1.12
Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road 20 1.9 9 1.33
Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street 20 1.8 9 1.26
Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive 20 1.8 9 1.26
Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road 20 1.8 9 1.26
Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway 20 1.8 9 1.26
St. Patrick Way and Golden Gate Drive 20 1.8 9 1.26
St. Patrick Way/1-680 Southbound Ramp and Amador Plaza Rd. 20 1.8 9 1.26
1-680 Northbound On Ramp and Village Parkway Road 20 1.5 9 1.05
_~_t
Notes:
1. As measured at a distance of 10 feet from the comer of the intersection predicting the highest value. Presented 1 hour CO
concentrations include a background concentration of 1.43 ppm. Eight-hour concentrations are based on a persistence of 0.7
of the 1-hour concentration.
Source: RBF Consulting 2010
A receptor height of 1.8 meters was used in accordance with the EPA's recommendations.
The calculations assume a meteorological condition of almost no wind (05 meters per
second), a flat topological condition between the source and the receptor, and a mixing
height of 1,000 meters. A standard deviation of five degrees was used for the wind
direction. The suburban land classification was used for the aerodynamic roughness
coefficient. This follows the CALINE-4 users manual definition of suburban as, "regular
coverage with large obstacles, open spaces roughly equal to obstacle heights, villages,
mature forests." For the purposes of this analysis, the ambient concentration used in the
modeling was the highest one-hour measurement from the past five years of monitoring
data at the Livermore Monitoring Station.
Actual future ambient CO levels may be lower due to emissions control strategies that
would be implemented between now and buildout of the proposed Specific Plan. As
Page 3-40 pWF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
indicated in Table 3.2-7: Project Buildout Carbon Monoxide Concentrations, CO
concentrations would be well below the State and Federal standards of 9 ppm on an 8-
hour average and 20 ppm on a I -hour average. Neither the I -hour average nor the 8-
hour average would be equaled or exceeded. Therefore the proposed project would have
a less than significant impact on localized carbon monoxide.
Exposure to Odorous Emissions
Impact 3.2-5: The DDSP would allow some uses which generate odors, including
restaurants and other uses. however limited exposure and compliance with applicable
regulatory requirements will ensure that any impact is less than significant.
Construction Odors
Future construction activities under the DDSP could generate airborne odors associated
with the operation of construction vehicles (i.e. diesel exhaust) and the application of
architectural coatings. However, these odors are temporary in nature and are not
generally considered offensive. Emissions would occur during daytime hours only and
would be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity. As such,
these odors would not affect a substantial number of people, and these short-term impacts
would be limited to people living and working near the source.
Due to the types of odors that would occur in Downtown Dublin and limited exposure,
implementation of the DDSP would not create construction-related objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Odors
Objectionable odors may be associated with a variety of pollutants. According to the
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, common sources of odors include wastewater treatment
plants, landfills, composting facilities, refineries, and chemical plants. However, these facility
types are not present within the DDSP area.
Potential operational airborne odors within Downtown Dublin could be created by
cooking activities associated with the residential and commercial (i.e., food service) uses.
These odors would be similar to existing residential and food service uses throughout the
Specific Plan area and would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the new buildings.
Additionally, restaurants are typically required to provide ventilation systems that reduce
substantial adverse odor impacts. The other potential source of odors would be new
waste receptacles within the community. The receptacles would be stored in areas and in
containers, and be emptied on a regular basis, before potentially substantial odors have
developed. Additionally, City regulations require protection from excessive odors (City of
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.24, Commercial Zoning Districts, Chapter 8.64, Home
Occupations Regulations, and Chapter 8.20, Residential Zoning Districts). Further, BAAQMD
Regulation No. 7, Odorous Substances, establishes general limitations on odorous substances
and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds.
Page 3-41
eoH®u~nwo
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Therefore, with incorporation of ventilation systems, and adherence to the Municipal Code
regulations and BAAQMD Regulation No. 7, implementation of the DDSP would not
create operational-related objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people
within the City and would result in a less than significant impact.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 3.2-6: The DDSP would generate greenhouse gas emissions but would not conflict
with or obstruct the implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32.
This is considered a less than significant impact.
Cumulative GHG emissions could occur as a result of future development under the
DDSP. Future projects within the City, including within the project area, would be
reviewed on a project-by-project basis to ensure their compliance with the City's policies
and to determine if any impacts would occur beyond those already identified in this EIR.
California is a substantial contributor of global GHGs, emitting over 400 million tons of
carbon dioxide (CO2) a year. 12 Climate studies indicate that California is likely to see an
increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Methane (CH4) and
nitrous oxide (N2O) are also important GHGs that potentially contribute to global climate
change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is increasing the earth's ability to absorb
heat in the atmosphere.
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as
temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer).
Climate change may result from:
¦ Natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's
orbit around the sun;
¦ Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation,
reduction in sunlight from the addition of GHGs and other gases to the atmosphere
from volcanic eruptions); and,
¦ Human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., through burning
fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization,
desertification).
The impact of anthropogenic activities on global climate change is readily apparent in the
observational record. For example, surface temperature data shows that I I of the 12
years from 1995 to 2006 rank among the 12 warmest since 1850, the beginning of the
instrumental record for global surface temperature. 13 In addition, the atmospheric water
12 California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, 2006.
13 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for
Policymakers, February 2007.
Page 3-42
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
vapor content has increased since at least the 1980s over land, sea, and in the upper
atmosphere, consistent with the capacity of warmer air to hold more water vapor, ocean
temperatures are warmer to depths of 3,000 feet; and a marked decline has occurred in
mountain glaciers and snow pack in both hemispheres, along with a decline in polar ice and
ice sheets in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions.
Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to
determine the global atmospheric variation of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide
from before the start of the industrialization period (around 1750) to over 650,000 years
ago. For that period, it was found that carbon dioxide concentrations ranged from 180
ppm to 300 ppm. For the period from around 1750 to the present, global carbon dioxide
concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization period concentration of 280 ppm to
379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre-industrial
period range.
The proposed project would contribute to global climate change by producing direct and
indirect GHG emissions. GHGs resulting from construction activities, area sources, mobile
sources, electricity consumption, and water conveyance could result in a significant impact
on the environment.
Greenhouse Gas Significance Criteria
At this time, there is no absolute consensus in the State of California among CEQA lead
agencies regarding the analysis of global climate change and the selection of significance
criteria. In fact, numerous organizations, both public and private, have released advisories
and guidance with recommendations designed to assist decision-makers in the evaluation of
GHG emissions given the current uncertainty regarding when emissions reach the point of
significance. That being said, several options are available to lead agencies,
First, lead agencies may elect to rely on thresholds of significance recommended or
adopted by state or regional agencies with expertise in the field of global climate change.
(See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7(c).) However, at the time of the release of the NOP for
this EIR, neither CARB nor BAAQMD have adopted significance thresholds for GHG
emissions for residential or commercial development under CEQA. CARB has suspended
all efforts to develop a threshold, and BAAQMD's threshold remains in draft form.
Accordingly, this option (i.e., reliance on an adopted threshold) is not viable for the City.
Second, lead agencies may elect to conclude that the significance of GHG emissions under
CEQA is too speculative. However, the City has determined that this option is not viable
due to the important focus on global climate change created by the various regulatory
schemes and scientific determinations cited in this section,
Third, lead agencies may elect to use a zero-based threshold, such that any emission of
GHGs is significant and unavoidable. The City does not endorse this type of threshold
because it may indirectly truncate the analysis provided in CEQA documents and the
mitigation commitments secured from new development. Moreover, no state or regional
Page 3-43
CON®YLTNO
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
agency with expertise in global climate change has endorsed a zero-based threshold, which
would likely result in the preparation of extensive environmental documentation for even
the smallest of projects, thereby inundating lead agencies and creating an administrative
burden.
Fourth, lead agencies may elect to utilize their own significance criteria, so long as such
criteria are informed and supported by substantial evidence. Here, the City has elected to
identify its own significance criterion until such time as a state or regional threshold is
adopted by a competent authority. Based on the updated Appendix G of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the City has determined that significant GHG emissions would result if a project
would: (i) generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment; or (ii) conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Based on AB 32 as a
benchmark for purposes of this EIR, the following significance criterion is used to assess the
first standard above:
Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the environment? For the purposes of this EIR, a
significant impact will result if a Specific Plan conflicts with or obstructs the
implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32; and/or conflicts
with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
The GHG emission levels will be analyzed to determine whether project approval would
impede compliance with GHG emissions reduction strategies established to achieve
compliance with AB 32, which requires that California's GHG emissions be reduced to
1990 levels by 2020. As noted in the Scoping Plan14, a reduction of 28.5 percent below
the "business as usual" scenario is required to meet the goals of AB 32. If the project
complies with the reduction goals of AB 32, then a less than significant impact would occur
with regards to project-related GHG emissions.
Exposure to Climate Change Hazards
This section evaluates the potential impacts of climate change on the DDSP area. Although
the following climate change effects could affect the DDSP area, the type and degree of the
impacts that climate change would have on humans and the environment is difficult to
predict at the local scale.
• Sea Level Rise. According to the IPCC, climate change is expected to raise sea levels
by up to 4 feet. The City is located more than 14 miles from the Pacific Ocean
coastline, and is separated from the coast by the Diablo Mountain Range.
14 California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change, adopted December
2008.
Page 344
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Therefore, the potential of inundation from sea level rise is low. Additionally, the
effects related to sea level rise are speculative at this time. If sea level rise is
determined to be a significant threat, protective measures would likely be installed
by regional and local governments to protect urbanized areas.
• Natural Disasters. Climate change could result in increased flooding and weather-
related disasters. As the City is located more than 14 miles from the Pacific Ocean,
it is not likely that the City would be exposed to intense coastal storms. The
frequency of large floods on rivers, streams, and other water bodies could also
increase. This could adversely affect any reservoirs in the area. The City is located
within portions of either the 100- or 500-year flood zones, making it susceptible to
increased frequency of flooding from large storms. However, Downtown Dublin is
developed and any new construction in flood prone areas is required to construct
the floor above the floodplain level, per the requirements of the City Public Works
Department.
• Wildfires. Climate change could result in increased occurrences and duration of
wildfire events. Downtown Dublin is located within an urbanized area which is not
susceptible to wildfire hazards. Climate change could cause these areas of the City
to experience more frequent wildfires of great intensity. However, these areas
would not likely impact the downtown area of Dublin
¦ Air quality. Climate change would compound negative air quality impacts in the San
Francisco Air Basin, resulting in respiratory health impacts. 15 However, this would
be a regional, not a project-specific effect. Moreover, as discussed above, the
Specific Plan's impacts on air quality were found to be less than significant.
Other predicted physical and environmental impacts associated with climate change include
heat waves, alteration of disease vectors, biome shifts, impacts on agriculture and the food
supply, reduced reliability in the water supply, and strain on the existing capacity of
sanitation and water-treatment facilities. While these issues are a concern for society at
large, none of these impacts would have a disproportionate effect on the implementation
of the DDSP.
Direct Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
Direct project-related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area
sources, and mobile sources. Table 3.2-8: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, estimates
the CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions of the proposed project. The project is not anticipated
to generate other forms of GHG emissions in quantities that would facilitate a meaningful
analysis. Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions. GHG
15 California Environmental Protection Agency, AB 1493 Briefing Package, 2008.
P Page 3-45
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
emissions estimations are based on traffic data from Fehr and Peers as well as energy
emissions from natural gas and electricity usage, as well as water consumption.
Table 3.2-8: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
C02 N20 CH4
Metric Metric Metric Tons Metric Metric Tons Total
tonslyear tonstyear of tons/year of C02egIyr5 Metric Tons
Source C02e I r5 of C02eglyr1
Operational Emissions
Direct Emissions
¦ Area Source' 9,316.74 0.17 52.95 0.18 3.75 9,373.44
¦ Mobile Source',2 138,205.66 8.32 2,580.68 8.00 167.95 140,945.28
Total Direct Emissionss 147,52240 8.49 2,633.63 8.18 171.70 150,318.72
Indirect Emissions
¦ Electricity Consum tion3 16,495.07 0.14 43.65 0.86 18.11 16,556.84
¦ Water Su I 15.96 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 16.02
Total Indirect Err ions6 16,511.03 0.14 43.70 0.86 18.13 16,572.86
Total Project-Related Operational 166, 891.58 MTCO2eq1year6
Emissions
Notes:
1. Emissions calculated using the U.S. Energy Information Administration Independent Statistics and Analysis Website
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil-gas/naturai_gas/info-glance/natural-gas.html).
2. Emissions calculated using EMFAC 2007, Highest (Most Conservative) Emission Factors for On-Road Passenger Vehicles and Delivery Trucks.
3. Electricity Consumption emissions calculated using the California Energy Commission, Reference Appendices for the 2008 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Revised June 2009 and SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook (note that SCAQMD has
the most comprehensive demand factors available).
4. Water usage based on typical end usage rates for residential and non-residential uses. Emissions are based on energy usage factors for water
conveyance from the California Energy Commission, Water Energy Use in California, Accessed March 2010.
hdp://www.energy.ca.gov/researchfiaw/industry/water.html
5. C02 Equivalent values calculated using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator,
http://uwvw.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html, accessed March 2010.
6. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
Refer to Appendix B, Air Quaiity Data, for detailed model in ut/ou ut data.
Mobile source emissions would represent the greatest amounts of GHGs generated from
the proposed project. The proposed project would directly result in 140,945.28 metric
tons of C02 equivalents per year MTCO2eq/year of mobile source GHG emissions. Area
source emissions as a result of the proposed project would be 9,373.44 MTCO2eq/year.
N20 and CH4 emissions were first calculated in metric tons/year, then converted to
MTC02eq/year utilizing the EPA's GHG equivalencies calculator. Converting emissions to
comparable units (MTC02eq/year) allows for the summation of all GHG emissions. As
shown in Table 3.2-8: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the development allowed
under the DDSP would generate 166,891.58 MTC02eq/year.
Indirect Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
Electricity Consumption. Energy consumption emissions were calculated using the
California Energy Commission and the U.S. Energy Information Administration factors 16 and
16 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Domestic Electricity Emissions Factors 1999-2002.
Page 3-46
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
project-specific land use data; refer to Appendix D, Air Quality Data. The emission factors
for electricity use (771.62 pounds of C02 per megawatt hour [MWh], 0.00659 pounds of
N20 per MWh, and 0.4037 pounds of CH4 per MWh) were obtained from the U.S.
Energy Information Administration. As a result, the potential development within the
project area would indirectly result in 16,556,84 MTC02eq/year due to electricity usage;
refer to Table 3.2-8: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Water Supply. Water demand for the proposed uses would be approximately 135.63
acre-feet per year. Based on energy usage factors for water conveyance from the
California Energy Commission, water transport consumes approximately 366 kilowatt hours
[kWh] per acre-foot. 17 Emissions from indirect energy impacts due to water supply would
result in 16.02 MTC02eq/year.
Consistency with the California Attorney General's Mitigation Measures
The DDSP includes several measures that are consistent with the California Office of the
Attorney General's recommended measures to reduce GHG emissions. A list of the
Attorney General's recommended measures and the project's compliance with each
applicable measure is presented in Table 3.2-9: Project Consistency with the Attorney
General's Recommendations. The proposed project would incorporate sustainable
practices which include water, energy, solid waste, land use, and transportation efficiency
measures.
Table 3.2-9: Project Consistency with the Attorney General's Recommendations
Project Design Feature Project Applicability
Energy Efficiency
Incorporate green building practices and design elements. The DDSP encourages energy efficient building measures.
Development Standards and Design Guidelines for new
Meet recognized green building and energy efficiency development in the DDSP area include several energy-saving
benchmarks. measures. These include green roofs, Energy Star roof
Install energy efficient lighting (e.g., light emitting diodes materials, and energy-efficient lighting (i.e., light sensors,
(LEDs)), heating and cooling systems, appliances, equipment, induction lighting, compact fluorescent, and light-emitting
and control systems. diode [LED]). In addition to Title 24 requirements, the DDSP
promotes and requires the conservation of energy and the use
Use passive solar design, e.g., orient buildings and incorporate of renewable energy sources on new buildings where solar
landscaping to maximize passive solar heating during cool access is available. The DDSP also encourages shading
seasons, minimize solar heat gain during hot seasons, and mechanisms, such as incorporation of awnings, window
enhance natural ventilation. Design buildings to take shades, and strategically placed shade trees into future projects
advantage of sunlight. within the Specific Plan area.
Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements.
Install efficient lighting, (including LEDs) for traffic, street and
other outdoor lighting.
Renewable Energy and Energy Storage
1' Califomia Energy Commission, Water Energy Use in Califomia, Accessed October 2009.
http://www.ener-gy.ca.gov/research/iaw/industry/water.htmi
Page 3-47
cownu~rHn
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Project Design Feature Project Applicability
Install solar, wind, and geothermal power systems and solar The DDSP Development Standards and Design Guidelines
hot water heaters. encourage solar energy systems, wind turbine systems, and
have requirements to meet or exceed Energy Star requirements.
Future projects within the Specific Plan area would adhere to
the DDSP Goals, Development Standards, and Design
Guidelines.
Water Conservation and Efficiency
Incorporate water-reducing features into building and The DDSP addresses water conservation by encouraging
landscape design. efficient design and green building measures. The DDSP
encourages the use of low-volume drip irrigation systems to be
Create water-efficient landscapes. used to water landscaping, and encourages the planting of
Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as drought-resistant plants. Additionally, the DDSP promotes
soil moisture-based irrigation controls and use water-efficient landscaping features that retain water and filter stormwater
irrigation methods. runoff such as bio-swales, rain gardens, underground cisterns,
flow-through planters, and roof gardens.
Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) provides
appropriate for the project and location. recycled water for irrigation and other non-potable uses.
Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient DSRSD Ordinance No. 301 requires recycled water use for
fixtures and appliances, approved customer categories for all new land uses, including
commercial, multi-family residential and institutional irrigation
uses. The City also has Water-Efficient Landscaping
Regulations that reduce water use for irrigation (Chapter 8.88
of the Dublin Municipal Code).
Solid Waste Measures
Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste The City requires all construction and demolition projects to
(including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, recycle at least 50 percent of waste generated on a job site
lumber, metal, and cardboard). through Municipal Code Chapter 7.30. Additionally, the
Specific Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines
encourage the use of green building materials, including
materials with recycled content, materials from resource-
efficient manufacturing process, locally-produced materials,
salvaged or refurbished materials, and reusable materials,
consistent with the City's Green Building Ordinance (Chapter
7.94).
Integrate reuse and recycling into residential industrial, The City of Dublin also has an aggressive and comprehensive
institutional and commercial projects. recycling program. All single-family residences are provided
Provide easy convenient recycling with recycling containers. In addition, free recycling service is
y an opportunities for available to all commercial customers that subscribe to solid
residents, the public, and tenant businesses. waste collection.
Land Use Measures
Ensure consistency with "smart growth" principles -mixed-use, Implementation of the DDSP would transform Downtown
infill, and higher density projects that provide alternatives to Dublin into a vibrant and dynamic commercial and mixed-use
individual vehicle travel and promote the efficient delivery of center that would provide a wide range of opportunities for
services and goods. shopping, service, working, living, and entertainment.
Residential mixed-use and non-residential mixed-use land use
designations are proposed by the DDSP.
Incorporate public transit into the project's design. The DDSP encourages transit-oriented development, as well as
enhancement of a multi-modal circulation network for
alternate transportation. The DDSP plans to improve
connections to the BART station. Although no changes are
proposed to existing transit service, transit routes may be
altered to improve connections to the BART station.
Promote "least polluting" ways to connect people and goods The DDSP Development Standards and Design Guidelines
to their destinations. encourage visible pedestrian connections through surface
Page 3-48
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Project Design Feature Project Applicability
Include pedestrian and bicycle facilities within projects and parking lots, connecting the parking lot to the destination. The
ensure that existing non-motorized routes are maintained and DDSP also encourages the expansion and improvement of
enhanced. downtown pedestrian pathways and bikeways to improve
connections for non-motorized travel.
Incorporate bicycle lanes, routes and facilities into street The DDSP recommends exploring opportunities to expand the
systems, new subdivisions, and large developments. bikeway network within the downtown area and creating
Require amenities for non-motorized transportation, such as improved connections to the BART station. Bicycle facilities,
secure and convenient bicycle parking. such as bike lockers, bike racks, and shower facilities are
encouraged at or near the station. The DDSP also states that
bike racks should be provided throughout the downtown area.
Ensure that the project enhances, and does not disrupt or The DDSP includes provisions for improved pedestrian
create barriers to, non-motorized transportation. pathways and bicycle circulation within the downtown area.
Protect existing trees and encourage the planting of new trees. The DDSP includes provisions for the incorporation of street
Adopt a tree protection and replacement ordinance. trees within future projects in the Specific Plan area, including
along
Preserve and create open space and parks. Preserve existing streets and within parking lots. Street trees should
adhere to the recommendations in the City's Streetscape
trees, and plant replacement trees at a set ratio. Master Plan as well as with standards within the DDSP.
Source: State of California Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office, Addressing Climate Change at the Project Level, updated January 6,
2010.
Consistency with CARB's AB 32 Scoping Plon
The following is an analysis of the DDSP's consistency with actions identified in the CARB
Scoping Plan. As noted above, AB 32 requires California to reduce its GHG emissions by
28.5percent below "business as usual" levels. CARB identified reduction measures to
achieve this goal in its AB 32 Scoping Plan. Projects that are consistent with the CARB
Scoping Plan are also consistent with the reduction requirements set forth in AB 32.
Compliance with the CARB Scoping Plan would ensure that the DDSP would not conflict
with the State's goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
The primary purpose of the Scoping Plan is to develop a set of measures that provide the
maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. The
Scoping Plan includes, among other items, energy conservation measures, use of new
energy efficient technologies, a cap and trade emissions program, as well as transportation
and land use standards and policies. Full implementation of the Scoping Plan depends upon
actions taken by CARB and other State and Federal regulatory agencies.
The analysis below provides a consistency analysis with the CARB Scoping Plan and the
DDSP. The DDSP Guiding Principles are consistent with applicable recommended actions
and are noted below in Table 3.2-10: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Consistency with
Recommended Actions in the CARB Scoping Plan.
Page 3-49
coneu~fiNo
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Table 3.2-10: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Consistency with Recommended Actions in the CARB Scoping
Plan
Conflict With
Implementati
Applicable to on of the
Proposed Proposed
ID # Sector Strategy Name Specific Plan Specific Plan?
T-I Transportation Pavley 1/11 - Light-Duty Vehicle GHG No No
Standards
T-2 Transportation Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Discrete No No
Early Action)
T-3 Transportation Regional Transportation-Related GHG No No
Targets
T-4 Transportation Vehicle Efficiency Measures No No
T-5 Transportation Ship Electrification at Ports (Discrete No No
Early Action)
T-6 Transportation Goods-movement Efficiency Measures No No
Heavy Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
T-7 Transportation Emission Reduction Measure - No No
Aerodynamic Efficiency (Discrete Early
Action)
T-8 Transportation Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicle No No
Hybridization
T-9 Transportation High Speed Rail Yes No
Electricity and Natural Increased Utility Energy efficiency
E-I Gas programs. More stringent Building and Yes No
Appliance Standards
E 2 Electricity and Natural Increase Combined Heat and Power Use No No
Gas by 30,000 GWh
E-3 Electricity and Natural Renewable Portfolio Standard No No
EA Electricity and Natural Million Solar Roofs Yes No
Gas
CR-I Electricity and Natural Energy Efficiency No No
Gas
CR-2 Electricity and Natural Solar Water Heating Yes No
Gas
GB-I Green Buildings Green Buildings Yes No
W- I Water Water Use Efficiency Yes No
W-2 Water Water Recycling Yes No
W-3 Water Water System Energy Efficiency Yes No
Page 3-50 FWF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Conflict With
Implementati
Applicable to on of the
Proposed Proposed
ID # Sector Strategy Name Specific Plan Specific Plan?
W-4 Water Reuse Urban Runoff No No
W-5 Water Increase Renewable Energy Production No No
W-6 Water Public Goods Charge (Water) No No
1-1 Industry Energy Efficiency and Co-benefits Audits No No
for Large Industrial Sources
1-2 Industry Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission No No
Reduction
1-3 Industry GHG Leak Reduction from Oil/Gas No No
Transmission
1-4 Industry Refinery Flare Recovery Process No No
Improvements
1-5 Industry Removal of Methane Exemption from No No
Existing Refinery Regulations
RW- Recycling and Waste Landfill Methane Control (Discrete Early No No
I Management Action)
RW- Recycling and Waste Additional Reductions in Landfill No No
2 Management Methane - Capture Improvements
RW- Recycling and Waste High Recycling/Zero Waste Yes No
3 Management
F- I Forestry Sustainable Forest Target No No
H-1 High Global Wan-ning Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems No No
Potential Gases (Discrete Early Action)
High Global Warming SF6 Limits in Non-Utility and Non-
H-2 Potential Gases Semiconductor Applications (Discrete No No
Early Action)
High Global Warming Reduction in Perflourocarbons in
H-3 Potential Gases Semiconductor Manufacturing (Discrete No No
Early Action)
High Global Warming Limit High GWP Use in Consumer
HA Potential Gases Products (Discrete Early Action, No No
Adopted June 2008)
H-5 High Global Warming High GWP Reductions from Mobile No No
Potential Gases Sources
H-6 High Global Warming High GWP Reductions from Stationary No No
Potential Gases Sources
H-7 High Global Warming Mitigation Fee on High GWP Gases No No
Potential Gases
ppc Page 3-5
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Conflict With
Implementati
Applicable to on of the
Proposed Proposed
ID # Sector Strategy Name Specific Plan Specific Plan?
A-I Agriculture Methane Capture at Large Dairies No No
Source: California Air Resources Board, Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plon, 2008.
Table 3.2-10 identifies which CARB Recommended Actions apply to the DDSP, and of
those, whether the DDSP is consistent. Of the 39 measures identified, those that would
be considered to be applicable to the DDSP would primarily be those actions related to
transportation, electricity and natural gas use, water conservation, green building design, and
industrial uses. Consistency of the DDSP with these measures is evaluated by each source-
type measure. A detailed discussion of each CARB recommended action (as listed above)
and whether the DDSP conflicts with its implementation is provided below.
Transportation
Scoping Plan Action T-9 supports high speed rail, which is part of the Statewide strategy to
provide more mobility choice and reduce GHGs. The DDSP encourages transit-oriented
development, as well as enhancement of a multi-modal circulation network for alternate
transportation, As a result, the DDSP would help promote and would not conflict with
Action T-9.
Electricity and Natural Gas
Scoping Plan Action E- I aims to reduce electricity demand by increased efficiency of Utility
Energy Programs and adoption of more stringent building and appliance standards. The
Development Standards and Design Guidelines in the DDSP specify that warm white,
energy efficient lighting source types such as metal halide, induction lighting, compact
fluorescent, and light-emitting diode (LED) should be used where feasible. Energy-efficient
lighting (lighting from renewable sources and energy-saving devices, such as light sensors)
are encouraged. Additionally the DDSP has standards for the use of Energy Star
requirements, Therefore, the DDSP would help implement and not conflict with Action E-
I .
Scoping Plan Action E-4 strives to promote solar generated electricity. The DDSP
Development Standards and Design Guidelines encourage solar energy systems, wind
turbine systems, and have requirements to meet or exceed Energy Star requirements.
Future projects within the Specific Plan area would adhere to the DDSP Goals,
Development Standards, and Design Guidelines. Therefore, the DDSP is consistent with
and promotes the goal of Action E-4.
Energy Efficiency
Scoping Plan Action CR-2 aims to establish solar water heating systems in commercial and
residential buildings. A solar water heating system offsets the use of natural gas by using
Page 3-52
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
the sun to heat water, typically reducing the need for conventional water heating by about
two-thirds. In addition to Title 24 requirements, the Specific Plan promotes and requires
the conservation of energy and the use of renewable energy sources on new buildings
where solar access is available. Therefore, the DDSP would help implement and not
conflict with Action CR-2.
Green Building
Scoping Plan Action GB- I aims to reduce electricity demand by increased efficiency and
adoption of more stringent building standards. Elements of this action include encouraging
construction of zero net energy (ZNE) buildings and implementation of passive solar
design. In addition to employing on-site electricity generation, a ZNE building must either
replace natural gas with renewable energy for space and water heating, or compensate for
natural gas use by generating surplus electricity for sale on the State's electricity grid. The
DDSP encourages efficient building measures. Development Standards and Design
Guidelines for new development in the DDSP area include the following energy-saving
measures:
¦ Green roofs and rooftop gardens are encouraged to add landscaping, decrease the
heat island effect of large expanses of flat roofs, and to reduce heating and cooling
energy demands;
¦ Roof materials should meet or exceed the Energy Star requirements for solar
reflectance;
¦ Energy-efficient lighting (lighting from renewable sources and energy-saving devices,
such as light sensors) is encouraged, whenever feasible; and
¦ Where feasible, warm white, energy efficient lighting source types such as metal
halide, induction lighting, compact fluorescent, and light-emitting diode (LED) should
be used.
Water Use
Scoping Plan Action W- I pertains to implementation of water use efficiency measures, and
Scoping Plan Action W-2 addresses water recycling and is part of the water use efficiency
measures intended to reduce water usage and energy consumption. Additionally, Scoping
Plan Action W-3 targets increasing energy efficiency within the water system. The DDSP
encourages water conservation through efficient design and green building measures. In
addition to potable water, the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) provides
recycled (reclaimed) water for irrigation and other non-potable uses. DSRSD Ordinance
No, 301 requires recycled water use for approved customer categories for all new land
uses, including commercial, multi-family residential, and institutional irrigation uses with the
DSRSD potable water service area. The City of Dublin also has Water-Efficient
Landscaping Regulations that reduce water use for irrigation (refer to the Dublin Municipal
Code, Chapter 8.88). The DDSP is consistent with and would not obstruct Scoping Plan
Action W-1, W-2, or W-3.
MEN= Page 3-53
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Recycling and Waste Management
Scoping Plan Action RW-3 relates to high recycling/zero waste. The City of Dublin also has
an aggressive and comprehensive recycling program. All single-family residences are
provided with recycling containers. In addition, free recycling service is available to all
commercial customers that subscribe to garbage service. In regards to construction and
demolition debris, the City requires all construction and demolition projects to recycle at
least 50 percent of waste generated on a job site. Additionally, the Specific Plan
Development Standards and Design Guidelines encourage the use of green building
materials, including materials with recycled content, materials from resource-efficient
manufacturing process, locally-produced materials, salvaged or refurbished materials, and
reusable materials. Therefore, the project would not obstruct Scoping Plan Action RW-3.
Consistency with the Attorney General's Recommendations and Climate Action Team GHG
Emission Reduction Strategies
In addition to being compliant with applicable CARB Scoping Plan Actions, the
Development Standards and Design Guidelines are consistent with the Attorney General's
recommended design features and the California Environmental Protection Agency Climate
Action Team's proposed early action measures to mitigate climate change. These
measures are designed to ensure that projects meet the Governor's climate reduction
targets, and are documented in the Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger
at the Legislature, March 2006,
Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans, Policies, or Regulations
The City does not currently have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. At this time, the City of Dublin Climate
Action Plan is in draft form, and has not been formally adopted with a completed
environmental document. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with any applicable plan,
policy, or program.
As previously noted, the DDSP includes several measures that would result in a reduction
of GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not hinder the State's GHG
reduction strategies for meeting the goals established by AB 32, and a less than
significant impact would occur in this regard.
Page 3-54 fWF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Geology, Soils & Seismicity
3.3. Geology, Soils & Seismicity
This section of the EIR describes the existing geologic, seismic, and soil conditions present
in the project area, and evaluates potential project impacts under these conditions
associated with faults, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure such as
liquefaction, landslides, and unstable geologic units and/or soils.
Environmental Setting
Geologic Structure
The proposed project is located within the California Coast Ranges Physiographic Province.
The project area consists of deep, geologically recent alluvial deposits containing gravel,
sand, silt, and clay. On the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay, bedrock geology
consists of sedimentary and metaporphic rocks ranging from Cretaceous through
Quaternary periods (up to 144 million years to present).
Topography
The project area is generally flat with a gradual slope to the south. On-site elevations range
from approximately 328 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 371 feet above msl. There are
no unique or unusual geographic or topographic conditions present within the project area,
since the majority of properties are developed and the project area lies in an urbanized
portion of Dublin.
Soils
Each of the soils within the proposed project are listed below in Table 3.3-1: Soil Map Units
and shown in Figure 3.3-1: General Soil Map.
Table 3.3-1: Soil Map Units
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Soil Series
Cc Clear Lake clay, 0 to 3% slopes Clear Lake
DaA Danville silty clay loam, 0 to 3% slopes Danville
Pd Pescadero clay Pescadero
Sm Sunnyvale clay loam over clay Sunnyvale
YmA Yolo loam, 0 to 3% slopes Yolo
Source: NRCS 2010
The following soils are located in the vicinity of the proposed project (and are identified on
Figure 3.3-1), but do not occur within the DDSP boundary: Danville silty clay loam, 0 to 3%
slopes (DaB); Diablo Clay, 15 to 30% slopes (DbD); and Sycamore silt loam over clay (Sy).
The following is a description of the individual soil characteristics within the project area.
This soil information is derived from the Alameda Area, California (CA609) Web Soil
Survey.
PF Page 3-55
conau~rae
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft FIR
Geology, Soils & Seismicity
¦ Clear Lake Clay (0 to 3 percent slopes). Clear Lake clay is a very deep, poorly
drained soil. Permeability is slow to very slow, runoff is negligible to high. This soil
is primarily used for growing row crops and dry farmed pasture; and it is also used
for rangeland. The native vegetation consists of grasses and forbs.
¦ Danville silty clay loam (0. to 3 percent slopes). Danville silty clay loam is a very deep,
well drained soil. Permeability is slow, runoff is slow to medium. This soil is used
for growing row, truck, and field crops; minor areas of this soil are used for growing
small grain. Uncultivated areas have annual grasses, forbs, and scattered trees.
¦ Pescadero clay. Pescadero clay is a very deep soil. Permeability is very slow, runoff
is very slow, and is poorly drained or ponded in areas with concave slopes. This
soil is mainly used for livestock grazing, some reclaimed areas are used for irrigated
field, row crops and irrigated pasture. Commonly cultivated crops include
sugarbeets, barley, alfalfa, corn and tomatoes. The native vegetation consists mainly
of salt grass, pickle weed, annual grasses and forbs.
Sunnyvale clay loam over clay. Sunnyvale clay loam over clay is a poorly drained soil
with slow permeability and slow runoff. Because the water table has been lowered
due to pumping in most areas where this soil occurs, the water tables and soil
management are similar to somewhat poorly or moderately well drained soils. This
soil is mostly used for row crops, orchards, irrigated pasture and field crops. The
native vegetation consists of grasses, tules, sedges, and forbs.
¦ Yolo loam (0 to 3 percent slopes). Yolo loam is a well drained soil with slow to
medium runoff. Permeability is moderate, although tillage pans have developed
over broad areas and tend to restrict permeability. This soil is used for intensive
row, field and orchard crops. The native vegetation consists of annual grasses,
forbs, and some scattered oak.
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils shrink or swell significantly with changes in moisture content. Clay content
and porosity of the soil also influence the change in volume. The most common cause of
changing soil moisture content is seasonal fluctuation due to rainfall; however, improper
surface drainage or underground water pipe leaks may cause shrinking or swelling of soil.
The shrinking and swelling caused by expansive clay rich soil often results in damage to
overlying structures, including foundations, floor slabs, pavements, sidewalks, and other
improvements that are sensitive to soil movements. Usually, damage from expansive soils
can be minimized or eliminated by using site-specific engineering techniques. The soils
located within the project area do not generally exhibit characteristics of expansive soils.
Erosion Potential
Soil erosion is the process by which soil particles are removed from a land surface by wind,
water, or gravity. Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil, usually the top six to eight inches,
and has the highest concentration of organic matter and microorganisms. Topsoil erosion is
of concern when the topsoil layer is blown or washed away. Most natural erosion occurs
at relatively slow rates; however, the rate of erosion increases where the ground surface is
' Page 3-5b
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Geology, Soils & Seismicity
steep and when land is cleared and/or left in a disturbed condition, such as may occur
during the preparation and excavation phases of site development. The proposed project
site is nearly flat-lying and at least 85 percent of the soils within the project area are
covered by roads, buildings, parking lots, and sidewalks. Therefore, the majority of the soils
within the project area are not exposed to erosive forces.
Liquefaction, Landslide Risk, and Other Soil Hazards
During earthquakes, ground shaking may cause a loss of strength in cohesionless saturated
soils. This process is called liquefaction and occurs most commonly in loose sands
associated with a high water table. In general, variable layers of potentially liquefiable
material are expected in the upper 30 feet of the proposed project site. Below a depth of
30 feet, the sandy materials are expected to be dense and generally not liquefiable. The
project area is located within a California Geological Survey (CGS) Seismic Hazard Zone
where liquefaction may occur during a strong earthquake,
Due to the relatively flat topography of the project area, landslides are not considered to
be a potential significant geologic hazard. The proposed project is not located within a
CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where landslides may occur during a strong earthquake. In
addition, the proposed project is not located near an ocean or lakefront; therefore, the risk
of tsunamis or seiches is considered low.
Faults / Seismic Hazards
A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which land on one side has moved
relative to land on the other side. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements
over a long period of time. A fault trace is the line on the earth's surface defining the fault.
An active fault is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as a fault that has "had
surface displacement within Holocene times (about the last 1 1,000 years)." This definition
does not mean that faults lacking evidence of surface displacement within Holocene times
are necessarily inactive. A fault may be presumed to be inactive based on satisfactory
geologic evidence; however, the evidence necessary to prove inactivity is sometimes
difficult to obtain and locally may not exist. A potentially active fault is a fault that shows
evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time (about the last 1.6 million years).
Faults surrounding the project area are shown in Figure 3.3-2: Fault Location Map and the
active and conditionally active faults that are located within 45 miles of the project area are
listed below in Table 3.3-2: Active and Conditionally Active Faults within 45 Miles of the
Project Area.
Page 3-57
enHau~na
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Geology, Soils & Seismicity
Table 3.3-2: Active and Conditionally Active Faults within 45 Miles of the Project Area
Last Surface Maximum Credible
Fault Name ! Distance in Miles Activity
I Rupture Earthquake
Hayward 6 Historic Active 7.5
Calaveras Traverses Project Holocene Active 7.5
Site
Monte Vista 26 Late Quaternary Conditionally Active 6.5
Las Positas 10 Historic Active 6.3
San Andreas 26 Historic Active 8.0
Pleasanton 1.5 Historic Active 6.2
Greenville 10.5 Historic Active 7.25
San Gregorio 33 Holocene Active 7.5
Concord 14 Historic Active 6.5
Green Valley 28 Holocene Active 6.75
Napa 37 Holocene Active 6.5
Rodgers Creek 43 Late Quaternary Active 7.1
Source: USGS 2006 and Caltrans 1996
Three active faults are located within six miles of the proposed project: the Pleasanton
Fault, which is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast, the Hayward Fault, which is
located approximately six miles west, and the Calaveras Fault, which traverses the westem
portion of the project area. The Calaveras Fault is the major active fault in the project area
with rupture potential, and runs parallel to and just west of San Ramon Road. As shown in
Figure 3.3-3: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map, the western portion of the project
area is located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, due to the Calaveras Fault.
Established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones require detailed studies of rupture
hazards prior to construction.
Because of the presence of active faults in the region, the project area is considered
seismically active. Numerous small earthquakes occur every year in the region, and large
(greater than Magnitude 7.0) earthquakes have been recorded and can be expected to
occur in the future. All development within the project area is therefore subject to seismic
hazards. Development standards require the proposed project to comply with appropriate
seismic design criteria in the Califomia Building Code (CBC), adequate drainage facility
design, and preconstruction soils and grading studies.
Fault 1 Surface Ruptures
Surface rupture occurs when movement on a fault deep within the earth breaks through to
the surface. Fault ruptures almost always follow pre-existing faults that are zones of
weakness. Rupture may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault
Page 3-58 K)CW
CG.1!ISYLTiN6
I
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Geology, Soils & Seismicity
creep, Sudden displacements are more damaging to structures because they are
accompanied by shaking. Fault creep is the slow rupture of the earth's crust.
Ground Shaking
Some ground shaking is likely at the proposed project site in the event of a major
earthquake on one of the nearby faults. The Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity scale
measures the intensity of an earthquake's effects in a given locality, and is perhaps much
more meaningful to the layman because it is based on actual observations of earthquake
effects at specific places. On the MM intensity scale, values range from I to XII. The most
commonly used adaptation covers the range of intensity from the conditions of 1: not felt
except by very few favorably situated, to XII: damage total, lines of sight disturbed, objects
thrown into the air." An earthquake has one magnitude, but can have a range of
intensities, which decrease with distance from the epicenter.
Regulatory Setting
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 (originally enacted as
the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and renamed in 1994) and is intended to
reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The
main purpose of the law is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human
occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The law only addresses the hazard of
surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. The Alquist-
Priolo Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones known as "Earthquake
Fault Zones" around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. The
maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in
planning efforts. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the zones.
Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy.
California Building Standards Code (CBC)
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the CBC.
The CBC is based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which is used widely throughout
the Untied States (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by district basis), and
has been modified for conditions within California. The CBC requires extensive
geotechnical analysis and engineering for grading, foundations, retaining walls, and other
structures, including criteria for seismic design. The proposed project is located within
Seismic Zone 4, which is expected to experience the greatest effects from earthquakes,
and requires the most stringent requirements for seismic design.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The CGS provides guidance with regard to seismic hazards under the Seismic Hazards
Mapping Act. Seismic hazard zones are identified and mapped by the CGS to assist local
WF Page 3-59
coHSUnHa
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Geology, Soils & Seismicity
governments in land use planning. The intent of the Act is to protect the public from the
effects of strong groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, or other hazards
caused by earthquakes, In addition, CGS Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating
and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, provides guidance for the evaluation and
mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for projects within designated zones of required
investigations. The proposed project is located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where
liquefaction may occur during a strong earthquake; however, the proposed project is not
located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where landslides may occur during a strong
earthquake.
Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to geology, soils and
seismicity.
Environmental Resources Management: Conservation Element
7.2: Guiding Policy I: Regulate grading and development on steep slopes, with special
concern for potential problems of erosion and siltation.
7.2: Implementing Policy J: Require erosion control plans for proposed development.
Erosion control plans shall include recommendations for preventing erosion and scour of
drainageways, consistent with biological and visual values.
Environmental Resources Management: Seismic Safety and Safety Element
8.1: Guiding Policy A. Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be located
away from geologic hazards in order to preserve life, protect property, and reasonable limit
the financial risks to the City of Dublin and other public agencies that would result from
damage to poorly located public facilities.
8. 1.1 Implementing Policy A. All structures shall be designed to the standards delineated in
the Uniform Building Code and Dublin grading ordinance. A "design earthquake" shall be
established by an engineering geologist for each structure for which ground shaking is a
significant design factor.
8.1.1: Implementing Policy B. Structures intended for human occupancy shall be at least 50
feet from any active fault trace; freestanding garages and storage structures may be as close
as 25 feet. These distances may be reduced based on adequate exploration to accurately
locate the fault trace.
8.1.1: Implementing Policy C. Generally, facilities should not be built astride potential
rupture zones, although certain low-risk facilities may be considered. Critical facilities that
must cross a fault, such as oil, gas, and water lines, should be designed to accommodate the
maximum expected offset from fault rupture. Site specific evaluations should determine the
maximum credible offset.
Page 3-60 ffmck=
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Geology, Soils & Seismicity
8.1.2: Implementing Policy A. A preliminary geologic hazards report must be prepared for
all subdivisions. Any other facility that could create a geologic hazard, such as a road or a
building on hillside terrain, must also have such a study. Each of the hazards described in
the Seismic Safety and Safety Element must be evaluated. This hazard analysis shall be
prepared by a registered engineering geologist.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy B. Detailed geologic studies will be required at the tentative
subdivision map stage for all projects within the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary on the
Geologic Hazards and Constraints map, and for other proposed projects if the preliminary
investigation indicates a potential geologic hazard. Proposals for mitigation should be
included at this stage. The detailed analysis for projects in the Landslide Hazard Area
Boundary must consider.
I . Cumulative effect of new development on a partially developed slide;
2. Effects of septic leach systems, garden watering, and altered drainage patterns;
3. Impact of a maximum credible earthquake;
4. Where applicable, passage of the Calaveras Fault through or under landslide
deposits;
5. Debris flow and other downslope hazards (especially common east of Dublin).
Care must be taken not to locate structures in the path of potential debris flows.
6. Where published maps identify or show "ancient" or Quaternary slides on sites of
proposed development, their stability must be analyzed, and effects of the
proposed development on the area's stability must be evaluated by a soils engineer.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy C. If the preliminary report indicates liquefaction potential, an
engineering analysis and design, if necessary, to mitigate liquefaction hazards, shall be
required for all structures planned for human occupancy.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy D. Evaluation for shrink-swell potential shall be included with all
soils reports and design recommendations formulated where the potential is present.
These analyses and recommendations shall include public streets and utilities, in order to
reduce future public repair costs.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy E. A fault rupture evaluation, as outlined by the State of
California for Special Studies Zones (Alquist-Priolo Act), shall be required for all
development within the Revised Special Studies Zones as shown on the Geologic Hazards
and Constraints map. The fault rupture evaluation should be conducted after building sites
are specifically defined. Sites situated outside of this zone but within the Preliminary Zones
(Slossen, 1973) shall be evaluated if proposed for multifamily dwellings or for public or
recreational facilities.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy F. Any changes in grading or building design that would be
significantly affected by geologic hazards or soils conditions, or in turn would significantly
alter geologic or soils conditions, shall be accompanied by a re-analysis of those conditions.
MEN= Page 3-61
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Geology, Soils & Seismicity
In addition, any conditions discovered during excavation or grading that significantly depart
from the previously described geologic and soils setting shall be evaluated.
8.1.3; Implementing Policy A: Post-earthquake or damage reconstruction of existing
structures shall be permitted only if mitigating factors are incorporated.
8.1.4: Implementing Policy A: A procedure to review all required reports and data shall be
established with the Alameda. County Geologist or a consulting engineering geologist shall
be retained as reviewer. This individual shall participate in the review process from the
earliest proposal stage to completion of the project.
8.1.4: Implementing Policy B: A file of all geologic and soils reports and grading plans shall
be maintained as reference material for future planning and design on each site as well as
on adjacent sites.
8.1.4: Implementing Policy C: City and developer shall endeavor to fully disclose hazards to
present and future occupants and property owners.
8.1.5: Implementing Policy A: In 1978 Alameda County adopted an Earthquake Response
Directive to be incorporated in the County Emergency Operations Plan (updated March
1980). The directive applies fully to the unincorporated area and to eight contract cities.
Dublin will adopt its own multi-hazard response plan.
8.1.5: Implementing Policy B: The City will prepare a route plan for evacuation of Dublin in
the event of a major seismic event.
Relevant Project Characteristics
No site specific or additional project characteristics apply relative to Geology, Soils &
Seismicity beyond those requirements per the CBC, City of Dublin Generol Pion, and City's
Building Code.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Criteria for Determining Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines,
as amended. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a
significant adverse geology, soils and seismicity impact if it would result in any of the
following:
¦ Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;
o Strong seismic ground shaking;
o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or
Page 3-62 pQc
~~U. TtN6
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Geology, Soils & Seismicity
o Landslides.
¦ Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
¦ Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslides,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
¦ Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property; and/or
¦ Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
waste water.
Methodology
Impacts evaluated in this section were assessed based on previously published reports and
GIS data from the CGS, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, the California Department of Conservation, and the City of Dublin
General Plan.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Landslides
Due to the relatively flat topography and the lack of steep slopes within or adjacent to the
project area, landslides are not considered to be a potential significant geologic hazard. In
addition, the proposed project is not located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where
landslides may occur during a strong earthquake, No impacts would occur.
Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems
Wastewater disposal in the project area is provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services
District. Future development within the project area would be required to connect to the
existing wastewater system. The project area would not need to use septic tanks or other
alternative wastewater disposal systems. Consequently, the threshold of significance for
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not apply to the proposed
project and no further analysis is required. No impacts would occur.
Fault Rupture
Impact 3.3-1: Active or potentially active faults are located within the project area and the
Calaveras Fault traverses the western portion of the project area. However, future
development associated with the proposed project will be performed in accordance with
the latest edition of the CBC, in addition to the goals and policies of the City of Dublin
General Plan. This is considered a less than significant impact.
The proposed project is located in a seismically active area. The nearest potentially active
fault is the Calaveras Fault, which traverses the western portion of the proposed project
M Page 3-63
CONlYLTINO
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Geology, Soils & Seismicity
site. The Calaveras Fault is also located in an Alquist-Paolo Earthquake Fault Zone (a
regulatory zone around an active fault). Per the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Act, before a project can be permitted, cities and counties must require a geologic
investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings will not be constructed across active
faults. An evaluation and written report of a specific site must be prepared by a licensed
geologist. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed
over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (generally 50 feet). The
western portion of the project area that is located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone is already built-out. Design of any redevelopment within this area would be
performed in accordance with the latest edition of the CBC, the City Building Code, and
policies of the City of Dublin General Plan. Compliance with the statutory and local technical
reports and design requirements would ensure that no significant impacts related to fault
zone rupture would occur. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant
impact, and no mitigation is required.
Seismic Ground Shaking
Impact 3.3-2; Ground shaking is likely to occur in the project area in the event of a. major
earthquake on one of the nearby faults resulting in the exposure of people and/or
structures to potentially significant adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death.
This is considered a potentially significant impact.
The proposed project is located in a seismically active region. Earthquakes on any of the
potentially active faults within the surrounding region could produce moderate ground
shaking in the DDSP area depending on the magnitude, characteristics, and location of the
seismic event. According to the CBC, the proposed project is located within Seismic
Zone 4. Because the DDSP area is in Seismic Zone 4, structures are required to be
designed to the most stringent standards in accordance with applicable parameters
described in the current CBC. Specific engineering design and construction measures
required by the CBC for the construction of new or renovated buildings are required to be
implemented to reduce the potential for adverse effects to human life and property caused
by seismically induced groundshaking. Additionally, the proposed project would be
regulated under the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, the
policies of the City of Dublin General Plan, and the City's Building Code.
To provide the adequate level of information to properly design and engineer future
development consistent with statutory requirements and the City's Building code, the City's
Public Works Department requires an engineering geologist to perform design-level
geotechnical studies and submit them to the City for approval. In addition, the project
applicant would be required to comply with all applicable CBC requirements with regard to
the design and construction or installation of structures and improvements with regard to
resisting damaging forces of seismic ground shaking. Therefore, Implementation of the
following mitigation measure would therefore ensure that the proposed project would not
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
Page 3-64
CONSUlTINO
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Geology, Soils & Seismicity
loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking which would reduce this
potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
MM 3.3-1 Project applicants shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to
prepare a design level geotechnical report that addresses the affects of
seismic ground shaking and includes a quantitative evaluation of liquefaction
and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading for future development in the
DDSP project area. The design level geotechnical report shall specify
foundations and structural elements that are designed to resist forces and
potential ground settlement for liquefaction and lateral spreading. This
report shall be submitted in conjunction with a Building Permit application.
Liquefaction
Impact 3.3-3: Future development associated with the proposed project could expose
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects of liquefaction. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Generally, when liquefaction occurs because of earthquakes, the conditions of cohesionless
surface material accompanied with relatively shallow water tables underlying the area were
the factor. In such cases, ground vibration increases the pore pressure resulting in water
moving upward whereby turning the sand or silt into a quicksand like condition. The
surface characteristics include the development of sand boils, surface cracks, ground
settlement and differential compaction. Without proper soil engineering, foundation
design, and construction, the project site could expose people and/or structures to hazards
associated with seismic-related ground failure.
The proposed project is located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where liquefaction
may occur during a strong earthquake. This Zone is defined as an area where historic
occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and ground water conditions
indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements.
Future development within the DDSP area would be required to comply with the City's
Building Code, liquefaction regulations of the CBC, and the City's standard engineering
practices and design criteria. In addition, mitigation measure MM 3.3-1 would require
properties developing within this zone to prepare a design level geotechnical report, which
would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
MM 3.3-1 Project applicants shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to
prepare a design level geotechnical report that addresses the affects of
seismic ground shaking and includes a quantitative evaluation of liquefaction
and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading for future development in the
MEN= Page 3-65
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Geology, Soils & Seismicity
DDSP project area. The design level geotechnical report shall specify
foundations and structural elements that are designed to resist forces and
potential ground settlement for liquefaction and lateral spreading. This
report shall be submitted in conjunction with a Building Permit application.
Soil Erosion
Impact 3.3-4: Implementation of the proposed project may result in soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil during short-term construction activities within the DDSP project area. This
is considered a potentially significant impact.
Because the majority of the soils in the project area are covered by roads, buildings, parking
lots, and sidewalks, and the remainder have been landscaped, the erosion potential in the
DDSP area is very low. Nonetheless, earth-disturbing activities associated with any future
construction in the project area has the potential to increase erosion if proper
sedimentation and erosion control methods are not in place at the construction project
sites.
The City of Dublin Public Works Department Policy No. 95-11 requires that all plans
specify both long-term and short-term erosion control measures that will be implemented
during construction activities to control runoff, erosion, and sediment movement prior to
issuance of a building permit. In addition, in order to comply with the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process for storrn drainage and construction
site discharge, projects involving construction that are greater than one acre in size within
the DDSP area are required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which would be submitted for review by the City of Dublin
Public Works Department during the Grading/Site Work and Building Permit process, The
SWPP describes the stormwater BMPs (structural and operational measures) that would
control the quality (and quantity) of stormwater runoff. In addition, the NPDES permit
requires implementation of non-point source control of runoff through the application of a
number of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs are meant to reduce the
amount of constituents, including eroded sediment, that enter streams and other water
bodies. Examples of BMPs typically used in the City of Dublin include vegetated swales in
parking areas. A Erosion and sedimentation issues are addressed more fully in Section 3.5
(Hydrology & Water Quality) of this EIR.
Compliance with the City of Dublin Public Works Department Policy No. 95-1 1; NPDES
permit process; and the City's Building Code requirements, as described in Mitigation
Measures 3.5-1 a and 3.5-lb, would minimize the effects from erosion and reduce this
potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
MM 3.5-1 a: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project proponent shall file a Notice
of Intent as required by Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding
Page 3-66
CONBClTfN6
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Geology, Soils & Seismicity
stormwater discharges associated with construction activities. Upon
completion of construction activities, a Notice of Termination shall be filed.
MM 3.5-1 b: Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by the project
contractors and submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for
review and comment and to the City of Dublin in conjunction with the
Building/Grading/Site work permit and shall be found to be acceptable by
the City prior to ground disturbance. The SWPPP shall be prepared to
Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and Alameda Countywide
Clean Water Program requirements, and shall identify erosion minimization
and control provisions, pollution detection provisions, and pollution
elimination/ minimization provisions appropriate to the development project
and its site for construction and post-construction activities. The SWPPP
shall include best available technology, engineering, and design solutions
such as the use of silt screens, hay bales, modem trash screens, energy
dissipaters, and/or absorbent devices. Stormwater runoff water quality
monitoring procedures shall be clearly detailed in the SWPPP.
Expansive Soil
Impact 3.3-5: Implementation of the proposed project would not lead to development on
expansive soil. With adherence to the City's Building Code and CBC requirements, this is
considered a less than significant impact.
Based on the soil descriptions described above, the soils located within the project area
are: Clear Lake clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes; Danville silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes;
Pescadero clay; Sunnyvale clay loam over clay; and Yolo loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.
These do not generally exhibit characteristics of expansive soils; however, a site-specific
evaluation of soil conditions would be required by the City for each specific development
project within the project area. In addition, all future projects would be required to adhere
to the City's Building Code and CBC requirements. Therefore, impacts as a result of
expansive soils would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is
required.
M Page 3-67
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Geology, Soils & Seismicity
ICI
Page 3-68
coHSU~r~wm
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
3.4. Hazards & Hazardous Materials
This section of the EIR discusses the potential presence of hazards and hazardous materials
at or within the vicinity of the project area and analyzes the potential risk of these
conditions in the context of existing and proposed development and future human
activities within the project area. This section is based on a review of existing
environmental records to identify agency listings of sources of hazardous materials which
might affect the project area; a review of potential airport hazards; and a review of
emergency evacuation routes in the vicinity of the project area This section evaluates the
potential for hazardous materials within the project area based on readily discernable
and/or documented present and historic uses within the project area and generally
characterizes the expected nature of hazardous materials that may be present.
Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
The proposed project is located in the Amador Valley region of eastern Alameda County,
within the California Coast Ranges Physiographic Province. The project area consists of
deep, geologically recent alluvial deposits containing gravel, sand, silt, and clay.
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials include substances that are corrosive, poisonous, radioactive,
flammable, or explosive. The City of Dublin, similar to most cities, has industrial and
commercial activities within and in the vicinity of the City that store, use, and must dispose
of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials can be released into the environment
accidentally during normal business operations or through transportation accidents.
Hazardous materials are transported through the City of Dublin regularly along major
transportation corridors, including Highways 580 and 680, and several arterial streets
including San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, and Dublin Boulevard, and local
streets within the City provide access to commercial and industrial businesses,
Airport Hazards
The closest airport to the project area is the Livermore Municipal Airport (hereinafter
"Airport"), which is located approximately 6.5 miles east of the downtown. The Airport is
a general aviation airport which serves private, business, and corporate tenants and
customers. The facility has two parallel runways: a 5,255 foot lighted main runway, and
2,700 foot unlighted training runway. The Livermore Municipal Airport has approximately
600 based aircraft, over 150,000 annual aircraft operations. The airfield is accessible 24
hours a day. According to the Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan, the downtown is not
located within the approach zones and is not located within an unacceptable noise contour.
MF Page 3-69
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Wildland Fire Hazards
Due to the urban nature of the project area, the proposed Specific Plan is not located
within an area that would be subject to the requirements of the City's Wildfire Management
Plan (City of Dublin 2002).
Project Setting
The majority of the project area is developed with urban uses consisting of commercial
retail, auto dealerships, hotel, and office uses as shown in Figure 2-3: Existing Land Uses.
The majority of the land uses include regional serving retail in the center of the project
area. These include: Target, Toys R Us, Burlington Coat Factory, 99 Ranch Market,
Orchard Supply Hardware, Ross, Marshall's, and Safeway. Several large scale retailers have
recently closed in 2009 due to the current economic recession and/or other factors.
There are two auto dealership sites in the Specific Plan area including one located in the
southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Golden State Drive and one located at the
southeast corner of Saint Patrick Way and Amador Plaza Road.
Smaller specialty retail, convenience retail, and services are generally located west of
Regional Street and along Amador Valley Boulevard, Amador Plaza Road, and Village
Parkway.
Office uses within the Specific Plan Area include the Cowie Center (located southeast of
Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street), the Chase Bank Building (southwest of Dublin
Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive) and an office building located at the south end of
Amador Plaza Road.
Other notable land uses include the 238-room Holiday Inn, Earl Anthony Dublin Bowl,
Dublin Bowl, Dublin Post Office, Dublin Iceland, and a senior center with an associated 54-
unit Wicklow Square apartment complex.
Hazardous Materials
RBF Consulting observed the physical characteristics of the project area, which included: 1)
a preliminary visual examination of the project area; 2) review of aerial photographs and
topographic maps; 3) a review of the Geotracker database maintained by the State Water
Resources Control Board regarding public agency records within the project area; and 4) a
review of the Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan (City of Livermore 1975).
Asbestos and Lead Based Paints
Asbestos is a strong, incombustible, and corrosion resistant material, which was used in
many commercial products between the 1940s and the early 1970s. If inhaled, asbestos
fibers can result in serious health problems. Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) are
building materials containing more than one percent asbestos (some state and regional
regulators impose a one-tenth of one percent (0.1 percent) threshold).
Page 3-70
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Until 1978, when the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) phased out the
sale and distribution of residential paint containing lead, many homes were treated with
paint containing some amount of lead. It is estimated that over 80 percent of all housing
built prior to 1978 contains some Lead-Based Paints (LBP), The mere presence of lead in
paint may not constitute a material to be considered hazardous. In fact, if in good
condition (no flaking or peeling), most intact LBP is not considered to be a hazardous
material. LBPs can create a potential health hazard for building occupants, especially
children when in poor condition.
It is likely that ACMs and LBPs may be associated with any structures located within the
project area that were constructed more than 40 years ago.
Historical and Regulatory Searches
Based on a search on the State Water Resources Control Board's GeoTracker database,
the following leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites are located are within the
project area and are fuel sites where petroleum-based products were leaked into the soil
and/or groundwater.
¦ Former Quest Laboratory (651 I Golden Gate Drive). One 2,000-gallon gasoline
underground storage tank was removed from the site in 1989. A Phase II Site
Investigation was conducted at the site in December 2003 through January 2004.
Groundwater impact was detected from previous release of diesel fuel. Four
groundwater monitoring wells were installed in January 2009. Groundwater
monitoring is currently being conducted at the site.
¦ Arco Gas Station (7249 Village Parkway). The Arco Gas Station site is a LUST clean-
up site. Since 1990, four underground storage tanks USTs have been removed
from the site. In addition, a total of 4,150 tons of soil and approximately 25,600
gallon of impacted groundwater was removed from the site. However, significantly
elevated residual concentrations of TPH-g and benzene remain at the site in the
vicinity of the former USTs. The cleanup status is open and is currently undergoing
verification monitoring.
¦ Unocal Gas Station (7850 Amodor Valley Boulevard). This site is a LUST clean-up site
that is currently undergoing verification monitoring. In November 1994, one 280-
gallon steel waste oil UST and four 10,000-gallon steel USTs, consisting of one
regular, one mid-grade, one super-unleaded gasoline, and one diesel UST were
replaced with two 12,000-gallon steel USTs. Following UST removal activities, soil
sample analytical results detected elevated concentrations of total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel, gasoline, and benzene at concentrations of 9,100
mg/kg, 1,600 mg/kg, and 1.6 mg/kg, respectively. Groundwater monitoring wells
installed at the site verified hydrocarbon contamination in groundwater. In 2007, a
sensitive receptor survey was performed. Source area characterization is currently
underway.
Page 3-71
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
¦ Cornwood Carwosh (6973 Village Parkway). Two 10,000 gallon USTs were removed
from the site in January 2000. Significantly elevated concentrations of petroleum
hydrocarbons were detected in soil and groundwater samples. Between 2000 and
2006, subsurface investigations consisting of soil borings and groundwater
monitoring well installations were conducted at the site.
¦ Former Crown Chevrolet (7544 Dublin Boulevard). A subsurface investigation was
conducted in February 2009, Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was detected
in soil and groundwater. A site assessment for the contamination is currently
underway.
¦ The following two cases are chlorinated solvent sites where tetrachloroethylene
(PCE) and/or tetrachloroethylene (TCE) have been detected:
¦ Crow Canyon Cleaners (7272 San Ramon Boulevard). The Crow Canyon Cleaners is
an open case with potential contaminants of concern including Tetrachloroethylene
(PCE).
¦ Village Square Shopping Center (7054-7150 Village Parkway). The Village Parkway
Shopping Center is an open case with potential contaminants of concern of
chlorinated solvents (PCE), chlorinated solvents (TCE) and volatile organic
compounds.
Regulatory Setting
A material is considered hazardous if it has been designated as such by a federal, state, or
local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. The
California Code of Regulations defines a hazardous material as a substance that, because of
physical or chemical properties, its quantity, concentration, or other characteristics, may
either (1) cause an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or
incapacitating illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health
or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of, or
otherwise managed (22 CCR §66260.10 and California Health and Safety Code [HSC]
§25501). Based on this definition, "hazardous materials" include, but are not limited to,
hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the
administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health
and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the
environment (22 CCR §66260.10).
Chemical residuals in soil that are the result of the normal application of fertilizer, plant
pesticides for agricultural purposes do not constitute a release of hazardous substances
under the California Hazardous Substances Account Act (HSC §25321 (d)). Similarly, the
Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) exempts parties from liability for the application of federally-registered
pesticides (42 USC §9607(i)).
Regulation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes occurs at the federal, state, and
local levels of government, On the federal level, many hazardous materials-related
Page 3-72
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
regulations are promulgated by the EPA. Additional regulations pertaining to work place
standards and for transportation of hazardous materials are enforced by the United States
Department of Labor Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the
United States Department of Transportation (DOT).
In 1993, Senate Bill 1082 gave the California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA)
the authority and responsibility to establish a unified hazardous waste and hazardous
materials management and regulatory program (Unified Program). The purpose of the
Unified Program is to consolidate and coordinate six different hazardous materials and
hazardous waste programs, and to insure that they are consistently implemented
throughout the state. The unified program is overseen by CaIEPA with support from the
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB), the Office of Emergency Services, and the State Fire Marshal.
State law requires county and local agencies to implement the Unified Program. The
county and local agencies in charge of implementing the program are called "Certified
Unified Program Agency" (CUPA). The Alameda County Department of Environmental
Health (ACDEH) is the designated CUPA within the geographic boundaries of the County
and has jurisdiction in the following cities: Alameda, Albany, Castro Valley, Dublin,
Emeryville, Piedmont, Newark, San Lorenzo, Sunol, and the unincorporated areas of
Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Leandro and parts of Byron, Mountain
House and Tracy.
The ACDEH is therefore the administrative agency that coordinates and enforces
numerous local, state, and federal hazardous materials management and environmental
protection programs in the county. The CUPA administers the following programs:
¦ Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program - Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety
Code establishes minimum statewide standards for Hazardous Materials Business
Plans (HMBP's). HMBP's contain basic information on the location, type, quantity,
and health risks of hazardous materials and/or waste. Each business shall prepare a
HMBP if that business uses, handles, or stores a hazardous material and/or waste or
an extremely hazardous material in quantities greater than or equal to the following:
¦ 55 gallons for a liquid
¦ 500 pounds of a solid
¦ 200 cubic feet for any compressed gas
¦ Threshold planning quantities of an extremely hazardous substance
¦ Hazardous Waste Generator Program - The Hazardous Waste Generator Program
regulates businesses that generate any amount of a hazardous waste. Proper
handling, recycling, treating, storing and disposing of hazardous waste are key
elements to this program.
WF Page 3-73
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
¦ Underground Storage Tank Program - The UST program regulates the construction,
operation, repair and removals of UST systems used to store hazardous materials
and/or waste.
¦ California Accidental Release Program - The California Accidental Release Program
(Cal ARP) requires any business that handles more than threshold quantities of an
extremely hazardous substance to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP). The
RMP is implemented by the business to prevent or mitigate releases of regulated
substances that could have off-site consequences through hazard identification,
planning, source reduction, maintenance, training, and engineering controls.
¦ Tiered Permitting Program - The Tiered Permitting Program regulates the onsite
treatment of hazardous waste.
¦ Aboveground Storage Tank Program - Facilities with a single tank or cumulative
aboveground storage capacities of 1,320 gallons or greater of petroleum-based
liquid product (gasoline, diesel, lubricants, etc.) must develop a Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure plan (SPCC).
¦ An SPCC plan must be prepared in accordance with the oil pollution prevention
guidelines in the Federal Code of Regulations (40 CFR, 1 12). This plan must include
procedures, methods, and equipment at the facility to prevent discharges of
petroleum from reaching navigable waters. A Registered Professional Engineer
must certify an SPCC plan and a complete copy of the plan must be maintained on
site.
In addition to the CUPA, other local agencies help to implement the Unified Program.
These agencies are called Participatory Agencies (PA). The Alameda County Fire
Department is the PA for the City of Dublin. The Department provides hazardous
materials code enforcement, public education, and emergency response services. It also
oversees enforcement of hazardous waste regulations, underground tank requirements, risk
management requirements, and clean up of hazardous materials spills that occur within the
City. In addition, the Department manages the City's hazardous materials management
plans.
Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to hazards and
hazardous materials within the project area.
8.2.1: Guiding Policy A. Develop an emergency preparedness plan in coordination with
other public agencies.
8.2.2: Implementing Policy C. Enact a high hazard ordinance specifying sprinklers for all
habitable structures beyond five minutes response time from a station.
Page 3-74
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
8.2.4: Guiding Policy A. The City of Dublin shall encourage the reduction or elimination of
hazardous wastes at the source site as the highest priority in the management of hazardous
wastes.
8.2.4: Guiding Policy B. The City of Dublin shall make provisions for the location of offsite
hazardous waste facilities in its community which meet the fair share needs of the City of
Dublin and of Alameda County.
City of Dublin Zoning Code
Chapter 8.60, Hazardous Waste Facilities regulates off-site hazardous waste facilities in the
City of Dublin. The purpose of Chapter 8.60 is to establish uniform standards, land use
regulations and a permit process for controlling the location, design, maintenance and safety
of off site hazardous waste facilities. These standards, regulations and process are intended
to be consistent with Article 8.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, applicable
portions of the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and the City of Dublin
General Plan.
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan
The purpose of the City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan is to reduce the risk of open
land wildfire to the lowest practical level consistent with the reasonable protection of
wildlife habitat and other open space values. The Wildfire Management Plan was adopted
by the City of Dublin in 1996 and amended in 2001 and revised in 2002. The Wildfire
Management Plan provides for development of a Fire Buffer Zone between open
space/undeveloped lands and developed properties.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Methodology
This section is based on a review of potential hazardous materials sources within the City
from the State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker database, as well as review of
the Livermore Airport Master Plan (City of Livermore 1975) to address any potential airport-
related hazards.
Criteria for Determining Significance
In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, agency and professional standards, a
project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
¦ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
¦ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment;
P Page 3-75
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
¦ Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school;
¦ Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment;
¦ For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;
¦ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area; and/or
¦ Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Transport, Use Disposal, and Release of Hazardous Materials During Operation
Impact 3.4-I: Future development within the project area may involve the use of
hazardous materials, including cleaning solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other hazardous
materials typical of future retail and residential uses within the project area. However, this
would be considered a less than significant impact.
The proposed Specific Plan is not anticipated to result in significant hazards to the public or
the environment due to the range of uses proposed within the project area. If future users
within the project area propose to use, handle, or store hazardous materials or waste in
quantities that are regulated by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health,
businesses would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan documenting
basic information on the location, type, quality and health risks of hazardous materials
and/or waste.
With proper use and disposal in accordance with the Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health, chemicals associated with future users within the project area are
not expected to result in hazardous or unhealthful conditions for employees and patrons of
the proposed project. Therefore, operational impacts from the transport, use, disposal, and
release of hazardous materials associated with operations within the project area would be
considered less than significant.
Transport, Use, Disposal, and Release of Hazardous Materials Durinp, Construction
Impact 3.4-2: During construction of the proposed project, there is the potential for the
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, which could create a hazard to the public
or the environment. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Future development within the project area may result in the routine transport of
hazardous materials during construction. Handling procedures of the Alameda County
Environmental Health Department and the Alameda County Fire Department would be
Page 3-76 MF
~o~su~r~o
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
required during all phases of future development within the project area. These measures
include standards and regulations regarding the storage, handling, and use of these
materials.
In addition, in order to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements for construction of site storm water discharges, projects involving
construction on sites one acre or more are required to prepare and implement a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies how the discharger will
protect water quality during construction activities as required by Mitigation Measures MM
3.5-1 a and 3.5-1 b. Compliance with the appropriate hazardous materials handling
measures and acquisition of the NPDES General Permit for construction activities would
ensure that potential hazardous materials impacts during short-term construction activities
associated with future development within the project area would be less than
significant.
Miti,gation Measures
MM 3.5-1 a: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project proponent shall file a Notice
of Intent as required by Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding
stonnwater discharges associated with construction activities. Upon
completion of construction activities, a Notice of Termination shall be filed.
MM 3.5-1 b: Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by the project
contractors and submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for
review and comment and to the City of Dublin in conjunction with the
Building/Grading/Site work permit and shall be found to be acceptable by
the City prior to ground disturbance. The SWPPP shall be prepared to
Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and Alameda Countywide
Clean Water Program requirements, and shall identify erosion minimization
and control provisions, pollution detection provisions, and pollution
elimination/ minimization provisions appropriate to the development project
and its site for construction and post-construction activities. The SWPPP
shall include best available technology, engineering, and design solutions
such as the use of silt screens, hay bales, modem trash screens, energy
dissipaters, and/or absorbent devices. Stormwater runoff water quality
monitoring procedures shall be clearly detailed in the SWPPP.
Result in the Release of Hazardous Materials from the Demolition of Structures
Impact 3.4-3: The proposed project may result in the demolition and removal of
structures within the project area which may contain asbestos and/or lead based paint
(LBPs). This would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Future development within the project area may result in the demolition of buildings that
were constructed prior to approximately 1980, which may contain asbestos and/or lead, a
Page 3-77
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
hazardous contaminant. Any demolition of structures within the project area would be
subject to the U.S. EPA regulations for lead based paint including 40 CFR Part 745 Lead;
Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 1 1,
Rule 2, which regulates the demolition and renovation of buildings and structures which
may contain asbestos. Specifically, District Regulation 11-2-401.3 requires that for every
renovation involving the removal of 100 square feet or greater of Regulated Asbestos
Containing Material (ACM), and for every demolition (even when no asbestos is present), a
notification must be made to the BAAQMD at least ten working days prior to
commencement of demolition/renovation. The potential release of ACM and LBPs during
demolition activities is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the
following mitigation measure would ensure that this impact is reduced to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measure
MM 3.4-1 Prior to demolition of existing structures that were constructed prior to
1980 within the project area, project applicants shall have structures
proposed for demolition inspected by a qualified environmental specialist
forthe presence of LBPs and Asbestos (ACM) contaminating materials prior
to obtaining a demolition permit from the City of Dublin. If found to be
present, samples shall be collected and analyzed for ACM and lead using
EPA testing methods. If actionable levels of lead and or ACM are within the
structures, a remediation plan shall be prepared by a qualified consultant
and implemented. Necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained from
appropriate regulatory agencies including the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District. Worker safety plans shall be included in any
remediation plans. Any hazardous materials that are removed from the
structures shall be disposed of at an approved landfill facility in accordance
with federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
With implementation of this mitigation measure and applicable rules and regulations by the
U.S. EPA and the BAAQMD, impacts from any demolition of existing structures within the
project area would be considered a less than significant impact.
Result in the Disturbance of Contaminated Soil or Groundwater
Impact 3.4-4: The project area is not located on a hazardous material site pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5. Based on a search of the State Water Resources
Control Board's GeoTracker database, there are approximately seven sites within the
project area that are currently being investigated. If hazardous materials are discovered
during construction activities at sites located in the vicinity of these open cases, this would
be considered a potentially significant impact.
The project area contains approximately seven sites that are currently being monitored by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board:
Page 3-78
CCNmYLTFN6
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
¦ Former Quest Laboratory (6511 Golden Gate Drive).
¦ Arco Gas Station (7249 Village Parkway).
¦ Unocal Gas Station (7850 Amador Valley Boulevard).
¦ Cornwood Carwash (6973 Village Parkway).
¦ Crown Chevrolet Cadillac Isuzu (7544 Dublin Boulevard).
¦ Crow Canyon Cleaners (7272 San Ramon Boulevard).
¦ Village Parkway Shopping Center (7054-7150 Village Parkway).
¦ If contamination is discovered during construction activities in the vicinity of these
sites, this would be considered a potentially significant impact. The following
mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level by
ensuring that future development evaluates the potential for hazardous materials
within a specific project site prior to construction activities;
Mitigation Measure
MM 3.4-2 Future development or substantial redevelopment within the project area
shall prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to determine
whether or not a particular development site contains any hazardous
materials as a result of historic contamination within the project area subject
to review and approval by the City of Dublin. In the event that the Phase I
recommends subsequent testing, the potential health risks shall be evaluated
and a work plan prepared to remediate the soil and/or groundwater in
accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. This
assessment shall be submitted to the City in conjunction with the Building
and Grading/Site work permit and shall be found acceptable by the City
prior to ground disturbance.
Implementation of mitigation measure MM 3.4-2 would reduce potential impacts associated
with contaminated soils within the project area to a less than significant level.
Emit Hazardous Materials in the Vicinity of a School
Nielsen Elementary School (7500 Amarillo Drive, Dublin) is located within a quarter mile of
the project site. New businesses that locate near residential areas or within a quarter mile
from a school may expose these sensitive land uses to greater risk of exposure to
hazardous materials, wastes, or emissions. While the risk of exposure to hazardous
materials cannot be eliminated, measures can be implemented to maintain risk to
acceptable levels. As noted in the project description, future new development will be
commercial, office and retail uses with some residential and public uses. Related hazardous
materials would also be typical with no high-risk materials such as those that are expected
with industrial uses. Under these circumstances, required compliance with regulations
established by federal, State and local regulatory agencies is considered adequate to avoid
the negative effects related to the use, storage, emission and the transport of hazardous
fMF Page 3-79
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
materials at future development/redevelopment sites within the project area. Therefore,
the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact to Nielsen
Elementary School after compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations.
Interfere with an Emergency Response Plan/Emergency Evacuation Plan
The proposed Specific Plan would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and no impact is anticipated.
Potential for Wildfire Hazards
Wildfire impacts may be considered significant if the proposed project would expose
people or structures to a significant risk, loss, injury or death involving wildfires, including
where wildlands are located adjacent to urban areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands. As the project area is located in an urban area, it would not be subject to
potential wildfire hazards.
Potential for Airport Hazards
The closest airport to the project area is the Livermore Municipal Airport which is located
approximately 6.5 miles east of the project area. According to the Livermore Municipal
Airport Master Plan, the City of Dublin is not located within the approach zones and is not
located within an unacceptable noise contour. Therefore, the proposed project would not
result in a safety hazard for any people residing or working in the area.
Page 3-80
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hydrology & Water Quality
3.5. Hydrology & Water Quality
This section of the EIR discusses the hydrologic and water quality setting of the proposed
project and surrounding area. This section also evaluates the potential impacts that the
proposed project will have on water resources, The discussion of hydrology and water
quality issues within the proposed project area was developed through review of existing
literature pertinent to hydrology in the local area, as well as a review of the City of Dublin
General Plan, Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project EIR; and the San Francisco Bay Area
Rapid Transit District's West Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village EIR.
Environmental Setting
Climate
The climate of the Livermore-Amador Valley is characterized as Mediterranean, with cool
wet winters and warm dry summers. The average annual temperature of the area ranges
from a low of 42 degrees (Fahrenheit) to a high of 73 degrees. The mean annual rainfall in
the vicinity of the proposed project site is approximately 17 inches (the majority of which
falls between October and April). Analysis of long-term precipitation records indicates that
wetter and drier cycles lasting several years are common in the region. Severe, damaging
rainstorms occur at a frequency of about once every three years,
Surface Water
The proposed project is located in the City of Dublin, within the western portion of the
Livermore-Amador Valley hydrologic region. The project area is relatively flat, with on-site
elevations ranging from approximately 328 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 371 feet
above msl. Stormwater generally flows east into the existing storm drains within the
project area.
Dublin Creek is an open channel that follows the southern boundary of proposed project.
An unnamed drainage feature traverses the project site parallel to Interstate 680, which
then cuts under Interstate 680, and continues outside of the project boundary. In addition,
the South San Ramon Creek is located approximately 0.25 miles southeast of the proposed
project. Hydrologic features of the project area (including creeks and nearby flood-prone
locations), are identified in Figure 3.5-1: Hydrologic Features.
In an undeveloped setting, when rainfall intensities exceed the infiltration capacity of surface
soils, run-off flows over the ground surfaces toward established natural drainage channels.
Stormwater runoff is then conveyed away from the area in creeks and streams. In a
developed setting, an increased portion of the natural soils would be covered with
impervious surfaces (i.e. roads, driveways, and roofs), increasing amounts and altering flow
patterns of runoff. In developed portions of the City of Dublin, storm drainage is conveyed
in underground pipes, channels, and to a lesser extent, swales. New development is
required to install adequately-sized storm drains, connected to the City's system, to
accommodate increased runoff volumes. Stormwater drainage is managed by the City of
Dublin Public Works Department and all runoff in the vicinity is directed to regional storm
MF Page 3-81
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hydrology & Water Quality
drain facilities owned and maintained by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District (Zone 7).
Flooding
Based on Panel Numbers 06001 C0308G and 06001 C0304G of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), portions of the proposed
project are located within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Zone, a 500-Year Flood Hazard Zone
(0.2-percent annual chance), and within Zone X or outside of a special flood hazard zone
(refer to Figure 3.5-1: Hydrologic Features).
The eastern portion of the proposed project (specifically, an area of land located to the
east and west of Interstate 680) is located within a FEMA 100-Year Flood Zone, in addition
to a small portion of land to the west of San Ramon Road. Land within a FEMA 100-Year
Flood Zone means that the flood elevation has a one percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded each year. Thus, the 100-Year Flood could occur more than once in a relatively
short period of time. The 100-Year Flood, which is the standard used by most federal and
state agencies, is used by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as the standard for
floodplain management and to determine the need for flood insurance. The majority of
the central portion of the project area is located within a 500-Year Flood Zone (0.2-
percent annual chance), meaning this area would be affected by the 0.2-percent annual
chance flood, Portions of the proposed project are also located with Zone X, which is
considered an area of minimal flood hazard and outside the Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA).
Reservoirs/Dams
There are 29 reservoirs/dams in Alameda County. The following discusses reservoirs
located within 12 miles of the proposed project:
Don Castro Reservoir is located approximately six miles to the west of the proposed
project. Don Castro Reservoir is maintained by the Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District for flood control, and by the East Bay Regional Park District as
a recreational facility. Lake Chabot Reservoir is located approximately nine miles west of
the DDSP area. Lake Chabot Reservoir was completed in 1875 by damming San Lorenzo
creek and served as the primary water source for the East Bay Area. The Upper San
Leandro Reservoir is located approximately 10 miles northwest of the DDSP area, The
Upper San Leandro Reservoir was built by the East Bay Water Company in 1926 and is
maintained by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. The San Antonio Reservoir is located
approximately 10 miles south-southeast of the DDSP area. The San Antonio Reservoir,
built in 1964 by the City and County of San Francisco, is managed by the San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The reservoir captures local rain and runoff from the
Alameda Watershed and contributes surface water supplies to the SFPUC Water System.
Lake de Valle is located approximately 12 miles southeast of the DDSP area. De Valle
Dam and Lake de Valle were built in 1968 as part of the State Water Project. It provides
storage for the South Bay Aqueduct and flood control for Alameda Creek. The East Bay
Page 3-82 P
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hydrology & Water Quality
Regional Park District manages the Lake de Valle Regional Park, which is also a State
Recreation Area.
Groundwater Basin
The proposed project is located within the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, which
contains a surface area of approximately 109 square miles, The Livermore Valley lies
approximately 40 miles east of San Francisco and 30 miles southwest of Stockton, within a
structural trough of the Diablo Range. The Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin extends
from the Pleasanton Ridge east to the Altamont Hills (about 14 miles) and from the
Livermore Upland north to the Orinda Upland (about three miles). Surface drainage
features include Arroyo Valley, Arroyo Mocho, and Arroyo las Positas as principal streams,
with Alamo Creek, South San Ramon Creek, and Tassajara Creek as minor streams. All
streams converge on the west side of the basin to form Arroyo de la Laguna, which flows
south and joins Alameda Creek in Sunol Valley. Elevations within the basin range from
about 600 feet in the east, near the Altamont Hills, to about 280 feet in the southwest,
where Arroyo de la Laguna flows into Sunol Groundwater Basin.
The groundwater resources in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin are managed by
Zone 7, under authority from California Water Code Section 30000 (County Water
District).
Water Quality
The quality of surface and groundwater at the proposed project site is affected by land uses
within the entire watershed. Drainage from the project area affects the-quality of water in
larger creeks and drainages downstream, including Arroyo de la Laguna, Alameda Creek,
and San Francisco Bay. Water quality in surface and groundwater bodies is regulated
primarily by the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
The surface and groundwater quality in the proposed project area is under the jurisdiction
of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which is
responsible for implementation of state and federal water quality protection guidelines in
the vicinity of the proposed project site. The RWQCB's master water quality control
planning document is the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin
Plan), It designates beneficial uses and water quality objectives for waters of the State,
including surface waters and groundwater. It also includes programs of implementation to
achieve water quality objectives. The Basin Plan is currently being updated to reflect the
Basin Plan amendments adopted since 2006.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act
The principal law governing pollution of the nation's surface waters is the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act [CWA]). Originally enacted in 1948, it was
MIF Page 3-83
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hydrology & Water Quality
amended in 1972 and has remained substantially the same since. The CWA consists of
two major parts: provisions that authorize federal financial assistance for municipal sewage
treatment plant construction and regulatory requirements that apply to industrial and
municipal dischargers. The CWA authorizes the establishment of effluent standards on an
industry basis. The CWA also requires states to adopt water quality standards that "consist
of the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for
such waters based upon such uses".
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
To achieve its objectives, the CWA is based on the concept that all discharges into the
nation's waters are unlawful, unless specifically authorized by a permit. The NPDES is the
permitting program for discharge of pollutants into surface waters of the United States
under Section 402 of the CWA. Thus, industrial and municipal dischargers (point source
discharges) must obtain NPDES permits from the appropriate RWQCB (i.e., the Central
Valley region). The existing NPDES (Phase 1) stormwater program requires municipalities
serving more than 1,000,000 persons to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit for any
construction project larger than five acres. Proposed NPDES stormwater regulations
(Phase 11) expand this existing national program to smaller municipalities with populations of
10,000 persons or more and construction sites that disturb more than one acre. For other
dischargers, such as those affecting groundwater or from non-point sources, a Report of
Waste Discharge must be filed with the RWQCB. For specified situations, some permits
may be waived and some discharge activities may be handled through being included in an
existing General Permit.
Construction activity subject to a General Permit includes any clearing, grading, stockpiling,
or excavation that results in soil disturbances of one acre of total land area or more.
Construction activities disturbing less than one acre are still subject to this permit if the
activity is part of a large common plan of development or if significant water quality
impairment will result from the activity. The General Permit requires all dischargers whose
construction activity disturbs one acre or more to:
¦ Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that
specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent all construction pollutants
from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion
from moving off-site into receiving waters;
¦ Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharge to storm sewer systems and other
waters of the United States; and
¦ Inspect all BMPs.
Impaired Waterbodies
CWA Section 303(d) and California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(described below) require the State to establish the beneficial uses of its State waters and
to adopt water quality standards to protect those beneficial uses. Section 303(d)
establishes a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which is the maximum quantity of a
Page 3-84 WIF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hydrology & Water Quality
particular contaminant that a water body can maintain without experiencing adverse effects,
to guide the application of State water quality standards. Section 303(d) also requires the
State to identify "impaired" streams (water bodies affected by the presence of pollutants or
contaminants) and to establish the TMDL for each stream.
Federal Flood Insurance Program
Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973. The intent of these acts is to reduce the need for large publicly
funded flood control structures and disaster relief by restricting development on
floodplains. FEMA administers the NFIP to provide subsidized flood insurance to
communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development on floodplains.
FEMA issues FIRMS for communities participating in the NFIP. FIRMS delineate flood hazard
zones in the community.
A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is an area within a floodplain having a one percent or
greater chance of flood occurrence within any given year (commonly referred to as the
100 year flood zone). SFHAs are delineated on flood hazard boundary maps issued by
FEMA. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and the National Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 1994 make flood insurance mandatory for most properties in SFHAs. A
portion of the proposed project site is located within a designated special flood hazard
area. See Figure 3.5- I :Hydrologic Features.
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act acts in cooperation with the CWA to
establish the SWRCB. The SWRCB is divided into nine regions, each overseen by a
RWQCB. The SWRCB, and thus each RWQCB, is responsible for protecting Califomia's
surface waters and groundwater supplies. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
develops Basin Plans that designate the beneficial uses of California's rivers and
groundwater basins. The Basin Plans also establish narrative and numerical water quality
objectives for those waters. Basin Plans are updated every three years and provide the
basis of determining waste discharge requirements, taking enforcement actions, and
evaluating clean water grant proposals. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is
also responsible for implementing CWA Sections 401-402 and 303(d) to SWRCB and
RWQCBs.
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates surface
water and groundwater quality in San Francisco Bay, including the City of Dublin. The area
under the RWQCB's jurisdiction comprises all of the San Francisco Bay segments extending
to the mouth of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Winter Island near Pittsburg). In its
efforts to protect surface waters and groundwaters of the San Francisco region, the
RWQCB addresses region wide water quality concems through the creation and triennial
Page 3-85
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hydrology & Water Quality
update of a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) and adopts, monitors compliance with,
and enforces waste discharge requirements and NPDES permits.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
In addition to the NPDES permitting program, the RWQCB regulates water quality in the
Bay Area in accordance with the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin
Plan presents the beneficial uses that the RWQCB has designated for significant surface
waters, aquifers, and wetlands, as well as the water quality objectives and criteria that must
be met to protect these uses. The Basin Plan designates specific existing beneficial uses for
the Central San Francisco Bay, including: (a) ocean, commercial, and sport fishing, (b)
estuarine habitat, (c) industrial service supply, (d) fish migration, (e) navigation, (f)
preservation of rare and endangered species, (g) non-contact water recreation, (h) shellfish
harvesting, (i) fish spawning, and (j) wildlife habitat. Project storm runoff will be discharged
to the existing stormwater drainage system and subsequently the San Francisco Bay.
Wildlife habitat, particularly fish and waterfowl habitat, is the beneficial use most sensitive to
water quality impacts from the proposed project. Pollution from pesticides, fertilizers,
metals, and hydrocarbons in urban runoff can directly and indirectly affect sensitive fish and
bird species and their offspring.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP has two major objectives: 1) to help identify the sources of sediment and
other pollutants that affect the quality of storm water discharges, and 2) to describe and
ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants
in both stormwater and in non-stormwater discharges.
BMPs include activities, practices, maintenance procedures, and other management
practices that reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-
stormwater discharges. BMPs include treatment requirements, operation procedures, and
practices to control site runoff, spillage, leaks, waste disposal, and drainage from raw
materials storage. BMP implementation must take into account changing weather
conditions and construction activities, and various combinations of BMPs may be used over
the life of the project to maintain compliance with the CWA. The General NPDES Permit
gives the owner the discretion to determine the most economical, effective, and innovative
BMPs to achieve the performance-based goals of the General NPDES Permit.
There are two categories of BMPs: structural and non-structural. Structural BMPs are the
specific construction, modification, operation, maintenance, or monitoring of facilities that
would minimize the introduction of pollutants into the drainage system, or would remove
pollutants from the drainage system. Non-structural BMPs are activities, programs, and
other nonphysical measures that help reduce pollutants from non-point sources to the
drainage system. In general, nonstructural BMPs are source control measures.
The issue of pollution in stormwater and urban runoff has been recognized by both federal
and state agencies, and there has been a growing concern regarding activities that discharge
water affecting California's surface water, coastal waters, and groundwater. Discharges of
Page 3-8b MF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hydrology & Water Quality
water are classified as either point source or non-point source discharges. A point source
discharge usually refers to waste emanating from a single, identifiable point. Regulated point
sources include municipal wastewater, oil field wastewater, winery discharges, solid waste
sites, and other industrial discharges. Point source discharge must be actively managed to
protect the state's waters. A non-point source discharge usually is a waste emanating from
diffused locations. As a result, specific sources of non-point source pollution may be
difficult to identify, treat, or regulate. The goal is to reduce the adverse impact of non-
point source discharges on water resources through better management of these activities.
Non-point sources include drainage and percolation from a variety of activities such as
agriculture, forestry, recreation, and storm runoff with the later being the most common in
the Dublin area.
Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to hydrology and
water quality.
Environmental Resources Management. Conservation Element
7.2: Guiding Policy A: Maintain natural hydrologic systems.
7.2: Guiding Policy B: Regulate grading and development on steep slopes.
7.2: Implementing Policy C: Enact and enforce erosion and sedimentation ordinance
establishing performance standards in relation to maintenance of water quality and
protection of stream courses.
7.2: Implementing Policy D: Enact ordinance requiring on-site runoff control.
7.2: Implementing Policy E: Review development proposals to insure site design that
minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff.
7.2: Implementing Policy F: Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent.
7.2: Implementing Policy G: Development projects shall comply with the requirements of
the Urban Runoff Program.
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, Water Agency
Stream Management Master Plan
For the past 40 years, stormwater has been conveyed primarily on channelized arroyos,
many of them concrete, to convey stormwaters through the area as quickly as possible.
But the new, more environmentally friendly Stream Management Master Plan's vision over
the next three decades is to create a flood-protection program that relies largely on using
the future Chain of Lakes, a series of mined-out gravel pits between Livermore and
Pleasanton, to detain stormwater in the Valley. The stored water would be released
downstream only after storms pass through the area - meaning arroyos can be kept in a
more natural state than under the channelization method. Not only significantly less
expensive when it comes to flood control, this technical approach also affords
M Page 3-87
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hydrology & Water Quality
opportunities to: improve the water supply through groundwater recharge, enhance arroyo
water quality and habitat, increase the connectivity of trails and recreational opportunities in
the Valley, and promote public understanding of watersheds of through educational
programs. Of the 45 conceptual projects identified in the Stream Management Master Plan,
ten would remove or modify fish-passage barriers in Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo del Valle and
Arroyo de la Laguna. Others would restore natural stream flows, replace plants with native
types, stabilize stream banks, create wetlands and other habitat for sensitive species, and
install trails and educational kiosks near Valley arroyos.
Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program
The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program
which was started in 1991. This local government and community Program educates the
public on how to keep businesses and homes from contributing to stormwater pollution,
and also coordinates its activities with other pollution prevention programs, such as
wastewater treatment plants, hazardous waste disposal, and water recycling.
3.8.3 Relevant Project Characteristics
The proposed Specific Plan includes both development standards and design guidelines to
guide future development within the area. These development standards and design
guidelines will be used during the design review process for project applications within the
DDSP area. The development standards apply to all new construction within the project
area, Development standards also apply to all redevelopment that result in an increase of
building size of more than 25 percent.
Design guidelines identified in the proposed Specific Plan encourage increased percolation
through the use of vegetated swales, curb extensions, reconfigured parking lots with
increased landscaping, and the use of pervious materials (e.g. pervious pavers) in parking
lots. Implementation of these guidelines would result in a reduction of existing stormwater
discharge rates and improve water quality.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Criteria for Determining Significance
In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and agency and professional
standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
¦ Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
¦ Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted;
¦ Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
Page 3-88 WIF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hydrology & Water Quality
¦ Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site;
¦ Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff;
¦ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality;
¦ Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map;
¦ Place within a 100-year flood-hazards area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows;
¦ Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; and/or
¦ Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Methodology
Impacts evaluated in this section were assessed based on previously published reports by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Water Resources,
and information from the City of Dublin General Plan. Impacts to surface and groundwater
quality were analyzed by reviewing existing groundwater and surface water quality literature
that pertain to the project area; identifying existing on-site ground and surface waters, and
evaluating existing and potential sources of water quality pollutants based on the types of
land uses and operational activities that occur or could occur in the DDSP area.
Additionally, the applicability of federal and state regulations, ordinances, and/or standards
to surface and groundwater quality of the project area and subsequent receiving waters
was assessed. The impacts of the proposed project on water resources and water quality
are evaluated qualitatively.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Place Housing or Structures Within a 100-Year Flood-Hazards Area Which Would Impede
or Redirect Flood Flows
Several properties within the DDSP area are located within the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. As previously discussed, new
construction will be subject to floodplain regulations. In addition, the Zone 7 Stream
Management Plan contains plans to retrofit the culvert that carries water from Dublin
Creek under Donlon Way. This retrofit will increase the culvert capacity and reduce the
risk of flooding in the DDSP area. Future construction would be required to comply with
the existing floodplain regulations to ensure that the structures do not impede or redirect
flows. No impacts would occur.
Page 3-89
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hydrology & Water Quality
Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow
The proposed project is located well inland from the San Francisco Bay or other major
bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. The site and surrounding
properties are also relatively flat and would not be subject to mudflows. No impacts
would occur.
Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
Impact 3.5-1 Future construction associated with the proposed project may violate water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. This is considered a potentially
significant impact.
The project area is a primarily urbanized, developed area, which likely already contributes
non-point source pollution such as motor oil, fertilizers and pesticides, human littering,
animal waste and other pollutants typical of developed commercialized areas. These
pollutants are typically washed from streets, parking lots, and garages during rainfall events
that create sufficient runoff to carry the waste materials. These pollutants have the
potential to degrade water quality and may result in potentially significant impacts to the
extent that they are generated by new development. Although the majority of the project
area is built-out, the construction of individual projects would include grading and other
earth moving activities which would expose on-site soils to erosion processes. Additionally,
construction activities could lead to exposure of contaminated materials/soils which if
present within the project area that could impact surface water quality during storm events.
Individual development projects within the project area greater than one acre would be
required to mitigate short-term construction impacts pursuant to the NPDES criteria and
standards on a project-by-project basis. The purpose of the NPDES permit is to ensure
that the proposed project would eliminate or reduce construction-related sediments and
pollutants during stormwater runoff.
Construction sediment erosion can be adequately controlled through the application of
standard construction BMPs. The goal of BMPs is to capture and treat "first flush"
stormwater run-off generated by surrounding and on-site watersheds. Water quality
management BMPs for grading and construction scenarios may include the use of sand bags
and straw bales for run-off diversion and velocity reduction, mulch topping, hydro-seeding
and siltation fencing to prevent soil loss and measures to minimize vehicular leaking and
spilling. Design guidelines identified in the DDSP encourage increased percolation through
the use of vegetated swales, curb extension, reconfigured parking lots with increased
landscaping, and the use of pervious materials (e.g. pervious pavers) in parking lots.
Implementation of these guidelines would result in improved water quality. Future
proposed uses would be served by City's sanitary sewer service; therefore, the proposed
project would not involve any permitted discharges of waste material directly into ground
or surface waters,
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure construction and post-
construction water quality impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.
Page 3-90
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hydrology & Water Quality
Mitigation Measures
MM 3,5-1 a: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project proponent shall file a Notice
of Intent as required by Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding
stormwater discharges associated with construction activities. Upon
completion of construction activities, a Notice of Termination shall be filed.
MM 3.5-1 b: Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by the project
contractors and submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for
review and comment and to the City of Dublin in conjunction with the
Building/Grading/Site work permit and shall be found to be acceptable by
the City prior to ground disturbance. The SWPPP shall be prepared to
Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and Alameda Countywide
Clean Water Program requirements, and shall identify erosion minimization
and control provisions, pollution detection provisions, and pollution
elimination/ minimization provisions appropriate to the development project
and its site for construction and post-construction activities. The SWPPP
shall include best available technology, engineering, and design solutions
such as the use of silt screens, hay bales, modem trash screens, energy
dissipaters, and/or absorbent devices. Stormwater runoff water quality
monitoring procedures shall be clearly detailed in the SWPPP.
Compliance with existing regulations, implementation of mitigation measures, and the use
of BMP's would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
Deplete Groundwater Supplies and Groundwater Recharge
Impact 3.5-2 The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to the amount of
available groundwater available, degrade groundwater quality, or decrease groundwater
recharge in the project area. This is considered a less than significant impact.
The proposed water source for the project would rely on surface water supplies from the
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), the purveyor of potable water in the City of
Dublin. DSRSD purchases wholesale water from Zone 7, who in turn purchases 70
percent of its water from the State Water Project (SWP). The remainder of the Zone 7
water is from groundwater aquifers through the Livermore-Amador Valley.
According to the Water Master Plan Update prepared by West Yost & Associates in-2005,
future water demands were calculated using two methodologies, one based on future
population projections and per capita consumption and one based on future land use and
unit water use factors, Both are consistent with future population projections and land use
buildout under the City of Dublin General Plan. The DSRSD estimated that there is
sufficient water supply to service future water demand in the project area over the next 20
or more years, based on a buildout of an additional 3.2 million square feet of non-
residential development and 1,300 residential units, which is within the demand
M Page 3-91
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hydrology & Water Quality
requirements for the Specific Plan. New development projects within the project area
would connect to the DSRSD's existing water lines,
In addition, individual projects constructed within the DDSP project area would include
project design features, which would encourage increased percolation through the use of
vegetated swales, curb extension, reconfigured parking lots with increased landscaping, and
the use of pervious materials (e.g. pervious pavers) in parking lots with future development
in the project area, which would slightly increase groundwater recharge over existing
conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact
on the groundwater basin, and no mitigation is required.
Substantially Alter Existing Drainage Patterns
Impact 35-3 Construction and operation of the DDSP would not substantially alter the
existing drainage patterns of the area or result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site, nor would it increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would
result in flooding on or off site. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Implementation of the proposed project would allow for development of currently vacant
lands within the project area; however, the majority of the project area is already built-out
and consists of impervious surfaces. As the majority of the DDSP area is developed, it is
served by existing storm water collection and conveyance systems.
Individual projects constructed within the DDSP area would include project design features
that would aid in the conveyance of storm water to existing facilities and would encourage
increased percolation through the use of vegetated swales, curb extension, reconfigured
parking lots with increased landscaping, and the use of pervious materials (e.g. pervious
pavers) in parking lots with future development in the project area, which would result in
similar or slightly reduced stormwater flows within the project area. All runoff would
continue to be conveyed via streets and gutters to storm drain locations within the project
area. Consequently, this would be considered a less than significant impact, and no
mitigation is required.
Exceed Capacity of Existing or Planned Stormwater- Drainage Systems
Impact 3.5-4 The DDSP area is largely built-out and stormwater flows with
implementation of the proposed project are expected to be similar or slightly reduced due
to improved management practices proposed within the proposed Specific Plan. In
addition, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that impacts are minimized.
This is considered a less than significant impact.
The City of Dublin Public Works Department maintains the City's storm drain pipelines
that are located within the public streets. Zone 7 owns and operates regional storm drain
facilities that collect runoff from the City. Because the DDSP area is largely built-out,
stormwater flows to collection distribution systems are expected to be similar or slightly
reduced due to design guidelines in the proposed Specific Plan, which would encourage
Page 3-92 MF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hydrology & Water Quality
increased percolation through the use of vegetated swales, curb extension, reconfigured
parking lots with increased landscaping, and the use of pervious materials (e.g. pervious
pavers) in parking lots with future development in the project area. In addition, since the
proposed project area is nearly completely covered with existing buildings, parking lots,
sidewalks, and roadways, stormwater discharge rates are not able to exceed current
conditions. The existing storrwater conveyance system (storm drains, catch basins and
other infrastructure) within the project area is therefore considered adequate, This would
be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Flooding Exposure / Risk, Including the Failure of a Levee or Dam
Impact 3.5-5 The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam. Structures and personnel would not be subject to greater risk
with implementation of the proposed project as compared to existing conditions, This is
considered a less than significant impact.
Based on the Association of Bay Area Governments "Dam Failure Inundation Areas" map,
the project area would not be inundated by dam failure. In addition, structures and
personnel would not be subject to greater risk with implementation of the proposed
project as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, a seismic-related or sudden,
accidental breach of dam structures is considered remote and speculative. Therefore, this
would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
it
II
I
WF Page 3-93
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Hydrology & Water Quality
II
This page intentionally left blank.
I
I~
i
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
~I
I
Page 3-94 M
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Land Use & Planning
3.6. Land Use & Planning
This section of the EIR examines the land use and planning impacts associated with
proposed project. Specifically, this section analyzes the change in land use characteristics
from a primarily commercial business district to mixed use, and analyzes potential conflicts
between proposed land uses on site and existing and/or proposed land uses in the vicinity
of the project area, as well as the relationship of the proposed land use changes to relevant
planning policies that guide land use decisions.
Preparation of this analysis used data from various sources. These sources include the
proposed Dublin Downtown Specific Plan (2010), the City of Dublin General Plan (various
resource Elements, including the Land Use Element), and the Dublin Municipal Code.
Existing Conditions
On-site and Surrounding Land Uses
A majority of the land uses include regional serving retail in the center of the Specific Plan
project area. These include: Target, Toys R Us, Burlington Coat Factory, 99 Ranch Market,
Orchard Supply Hardware, Ross, and Marshall's.
There are two auto dealerships in the Specific Plan Area. A used car lot is located at the
southeast comer of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive (the former site of Crown
Chevrolet which relocated to John Monego Court). Stoneridge Chrysler is located at the
southeast comer of Saint Patrick Way and Amador Plaza Road.
Smaller specialty retail, convenience retail, and services are generally located west of
Regional Street, and along Amador Valley Boulevard, Amador Plaza Road, and Village
Parkway.
Office uses within the Specific Plan Area include the Corrie Center (located southeast of
Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street), the Chase Bank Building (southwest of Dublin
Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive) and Amador Plaza (located at the south end of
Amador Plaza Road).
Other notable land uses include the 238-room Holiday Inn Hotel, Dublin Bowl, Dublin Post
Office, Dublin Iceland, and senior center with an associated senior apartment complex
(Wicklow Square).
Existing land uses are shown in Figure 2-3: Existing Land Uses.
pF Page 3-9S
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Land Use & Planning
Proposed Development Projects
Several new projects are either under construction or have been proposed within the
project area. The most significant development is the construction of the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. The station is being constructed within the median of
Interstate 580 with pedestrian access north and south over both sections of the freeway.
By the year 2013, the project is projected to accommodate 8,600 users per day. 18
Within the City of Dublin, a 713-space par1king garage has been constructed at the
southern terminus of Golden Gate Drive for BART commuters. As part of the BART
project, a 150-room hotel and 7,500 sf of retail space is proposed to be constructed; a 309
residential units (Essex) is approved west of Golden Gate Drive. Adjacent to and west of
the BART station project is an existing 225,500 sf one-story warehouse facility (the AMB
site). This building is proposed to be demolished and replaced with 308 multi-family
residential dwelling units and a 150,000 square foot office building. Associated with these
developments, Saint Patrick Way would be extended, providing a vehicular and pedestrian
connection between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street. A graphic of the proposed
site plan is shown below.
i
Iw~_ z 4
.=1. ~pF ~i,~ss
i wiWWn[.n~
qum-r.miiy`N.sIMd.I
2' .CFer ~L ~ fr HOPI t '
1{0000 a1 ~L ~WRT twkln9 ~,~i.
Dublin General Plan
The Land Use Element and Land Use Map in the General Plan establish the policy for
change and growth within the City. The General Plan identifies the general locations,
density and extent of land available for housing, business, industry, natural resource
protection, recreation, and other uses. Existing land use designations for the project area
include: High-Density Residential, Mixed-use, Retail/Office, Retail/Office and Automotive,
18 http://www.bait.gov/abouUprojects/wdp/index.aspx
Page 3-96
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Land Use & Planning
Parks/Public Recreation, 'and Public/Semi-Public (see Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use
Designations).
Below are the definitions of these land use designations from the General Plan.
High-Density Residential: (25.1 units and above per gross residential acre). Residential
units in this density range are attached. Housing types include condominiums, townhouses,
apartments, and flats, and can either be for-sale or rent. These projects typically
incorporate tuck-under or under-structure parking and may have three or more living
levels. Assumed household size is two persons per unit.
Mixed-use: (FAR .30 to 1.00; employee density 200 - 400 square feet per employee)
Mixed-use encourages the combination of medium- to medium-high density residential
housing and at least one non-residential use, such as office or retail. Office or retail uses
recommended include shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional
offices, and entertainment facilities. A FAR of less than .30 is acceptable when existing
tenancy conditions of the site do not permit immediate conversion of the entire site but it
is determined that the site is in the process of becoming a mixed-use site.
Retail/Office: (FAR:.25 to .60; employee density 200-450 square feet per employee).
Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, motels, service
stations, and auto part sales are included in this classification. Residential use is excluded
except in the Downtown Intensification Area.
Retail/Office and Automotive: (FAR:.25 to .50; employee density 220 to 490 square feet
per employee). This classification includes all retail/office uses as well as auto dealerships,
auto body shops, and similar uses. Residential uses are not permitted.
Parks/Public Recreation: Publicly owned parks and recreation areas.
Public/Semi-Public: (Maximum of .50 FAR; employee density 590 square feet per
employee) A combination land use category of public facilities land uses and semi-public
facilities land uses. Public facilities, which are uses other than parks owned by a public
agency or non-profit entity, are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from adjoining
uses.
As part of the project, the General Plan will remove the above land use designations and
the DDSP area will be designated by the District (Transit-Oriented, Retail and Village
Parkway as shown in Figure 2.6: DDSP Districts/Land Use Designations).
Existing Specific Plans
At present, there are five Specific Plans that apply to the project area, Brief summaries of
each of these Specific Plans are described below. A map showing the boundaries of these
specific plans and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan is illustrated in Figure 3.6-1: Existing
P Page 3-97
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Land Use & Planning
Specific Plans. The Downtown Core and West Dublin BART Specific Plans were intended
to be for short-term time frame (5-7 years).
Downtown Core Specific Plan
The 51-acre Downtown Core Specific Plan (DCSP) area contains most of the City of
Dublin's large-scale format (60,000+ square feet) retailers. The DCSP envisions integrating
these large users with newer, smaller scale development as well a series of public spaces
including a central landscaped plaza to accommodate public gatherings.
The DCSP envisioned that existing major retailers would remain in their present locations
along the westerly edge of the core, although building facades would be modernized. To
the east, a variety of smaller buildings would be constructed accommodating new
restaurants and specialty retail entertainment. A new vehicular accessway, possibly through
a joint private/public endeavor, would be constructed through the center of the Core area
from Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive, north to Amador Valley Boulevard at Donahue
Drive.
The DCSP calls for a maximum development potential of 1.2 million square feet of
commercial, retail office and mixed-use development and up to 154 dwelling units. This
represents an increase of 737,072 square feet and 154 dwelling units, as compared to
existing conditions when the DCSP was first adopted (December 2000). Because the
DCSP area is largely built-out, a majority of the increase in density would be achieved
through an increased floor-area-ratio (FAR) of up to .79 (on average) with buildings up to
six stories or 75 feet. A mix of surface parking and garages would help increase site
densities.
West Dublin BART Specific Plan
With the adoption of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan (WDBSP) by the Dublin City
Council in December 2000, a General Plan Amendment was adopted to change land uses
and land use intensification and to modify the FAR for certain properties. The WDBSP
area is generally located between 1-580 to the south, 1-680 to the east, Dublin Boulevard to
the north, and San Ramon Road to the west. The area consists of approximately 92 acres
of commercial, office and light industrial land uses. Central to the WDBSP area and
providing a catalyst for the direction of future development is the new West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station planned to be open in 201 1 and the associated parking
structure. The WDBSP called for further intensification of development through an
increased FAR of up to I for some properties.
The WDBSP envisioned a transit-oriented, mixed-use area, capitalizing on regional transit
linkages provided by both the BART line and supported by nearby freeways, 1-580 and 1-
680. Within the West Dublin BART area, a mixture of low-rise and mid-rise buildings for
residences, offices, specialty retail, lodging, restaurant, and similar uses are planned that are
consistent with a transit-oriented development area. As amended since adoption, the City
Council has adopted a Stage I Development Plan allowing for the construction of up to
150 hotel rooms and 7,500 square feet of commercial uses adjacent to the BART station.
Page 3-98 WIF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Land Use & Planning
The City Council and Planning Commission has also approved a 309 unit residential
development (Essex, formerly known as Windstar) and a mixed-use development with
150,000 square feet of office and 308 residential dwelling units (AMB), which have not
been constructed. The maximum amount of development for the WDBSP was anticipated
to be 3,247,956 square feet of non-residential space and 640 residential dwellings (per
Exhibit A - Table 5: Maximum Economic Development Potential
i
Village Parkway Specific Plan
The Village Parkway Specific Plan (VPSP) consists of approximately 31 acres of commercial
services, retail, restaurant, office, and automotive service land uses. Under the VPSP
Concept Plan, these existing uses would not change, but would be stabilized and enhanced.
The FAR within the VPSP area was increased from 0.24, equivalent to 308,474 square feet,
to 0.35, equivalent to 408,108 square feet, or an increase of nearly 100,000 square feet.
The land use plan designated properties west of Village Parkway as Retail/Office and Auto
Service (R/O&A) and the east side as Retail/Office (R/O),
The VPSP encouraged higher density residential dwellings in the form of multi-family
complexes and live/work units. It also encouraged property and streetscape improvements
to enhance the pedestrian character. While there was considerable discussion and analysis
regarding the reconfiguration of the Village Parkway roadway, it was determined that it
should remain four lanes, due in part to the fact that it serves as an important north-south
emergency access roadway.
San Ramon Road Specific Plan
Adopted in June of 1983, the San Ramon Road Specific Plan (SRRSP) is the oldest of the
downtown specific plans and is located west of San Ramon Road between Silvergate (to
the north) and Dublin Boulevard to the south. The SRRSP planning area included both
residential and commercial land uses. This Specific Plan includes only those commercial
areas that are located north and south of Amador Valley Court (identified as Area 3 in the
SRRSP).
The primary intent of the SRRSP was to provide guidance for development of
approximately 30 acres of vacant land for retail commercial, office and multifamily uses.
Area 3 (13 acres), which included both occupied and vacant commercial land uses, has
now been completely built-out with primarily region serving retail and commercial uses.
Dublin Downtown Plan
The Dublin Downtown Plan (DDP) was adopted by the City Council in 1987 and is
generally bounded by San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway
(including land uses to the east) and Interstate 580. The DDP included a area
encompassed and superseded by the WDSP, the DCSP, and VPSP, described above. The
only remaining properties that are still applicable as a regulating document are
Development Zones 5 and 6:
Page 3-99
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Land Use & Planning
¦ Zone 5: San Ramon Road Retail - Currently oriented almost exclusively to
Regional Street, uses in this area encouraged an increased presence on San Ramon
Road to improve visual appearances along that frontage. Proposals which provide
new access to San Ramon Road and pedestrian linkages to Zone 5 were
encouraged. Uses will continue as a mix of retail and commercial services under
the proposed DDSP.
¦ Zone 6: Central Block West Retail - A continuation of current retailing and service
commercial uses with improvements to zone entries, internal circulation and parIking
lot landscaping were encouraged.
Collectively, the DCSP, the WDBSP and the VPSP allows for the additional development of
approximately 3.1 million square feet of non-residential development, 717 dwelling units,
and 150 hotel rooms (see Table 3.6-1: Summary of Previous Specific Plans Development
Capacity). Because the SRRSP has been built-out to allowed densities, no additional
development potential exists
Table 3.6-1: Summary of Previous Specific Plans Development Capacity (1)
Land Use Category West Dublin BART Downtown Core SP Village Parkway SP Total
Commercial (A & B) 959,446 sf 132,294 sf 1,091,740 sf
Retail/Office (R/0) 763,175 sf 332,186 sf 100,000 sf 1,195,361 sf
Retail/Auto (R/A) 74,264 sf 74,264 sf
Office 61,665 sf 16,720 sf 78,385 sf
Mixed-use (MU) 493,430 sf+ 181,630 sf+ 675,060 sf
308 DU 100 du 408 du
Lodging 150 rooms - 150 rooms
Residential 309 du 309 du
737,094 sf 3,114,810 sf
2,277,71 7 du rooms 100,000 sf 150 rooms
Total 617 du
100 du 717 du
Note: (1) Approved per Speck Plans but not yet constructed.
Source: City of Dublin 2009.
Based on City estimates, approximately 258,734 square feet of non-residential
development has occurred since adoption of these Specific Plans (December 2000). These
include the Expo Design Center site, Target, Safeway, as well as additional sites (see Table
3.6-2: Non-Residential Development Since 2000). During this same period, no residential
development occurred with the exception of the 54 unit Wicklow Square senior housing
project located north and adjacent to Target.
Page 3-100 WIF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Land Use & Planning
Table 3.6-2: Non-Residential Development Since 2000
Use Square Footage
Target (expansion) 14,587
Expo Design Center 93,935
Dublin Place 17,500
Senior Center 15,300
Safeway 65,883
Shamrock Village 2,999
Enea Village 19,018
Valley Center 1,472
Arco 28,040
TOTAL 258,734
Source: City of Dublin, 2009
All four Specific Plans call for the intensification of land uses, possible reduction in parking
standards, and improvements to the public realm to create a more pedestrian-friendly
environment that supports a transit-oriented set of land uses in support of the West
Dublin BART station.
Existing Zoning Designations
The City's Zoning Code is the principal means through which the land use policy
recommendations of the General Plan are implemented. For each defined zoning
designation, the Zoning Code identifies the permitted uses and applicable development
standards (i.e., density, height, parking, landscaping requirements, etc.).
A large portion of the project area is zoned Planned Development (PD), whereby one or
more properties are planned as a unit with development standards tailored to the site. The
intent of this zone is to create a more desirable use of the land, a more coherent and
coordinated development, and a better physical environment than would otherwise be
possible under a single zoning district or combination of zoning districts,
The only other zoning designation in. the project area is Retail Commercial (C-1). The
Retail Commercial zone is intended to provide for the continued use, expansion, and new
development of retail commercial use types along major transportation corridors and
intersections, and to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses.
A map of the zoning designations in and around the project area is shown in Figure 2-5:
Current Zoning.
M' Page 3-101
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Land Use & Planning
Environmental Impacts
Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines,
as amended, with the exception of a threshold added to consider physical impacts on the
environment from potential urban decay or blight (often characterized by property
abandonment and/or desolate urban landscapes). For purposes of this EIR, implementation
of the proposed project may have a significant adverse land use and planning impact if it
would result in any of the following:
¦ Intensify development within the project area that creates incompatibilities with
adjacent land uses
¦ Physical division of an established community
¦ Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific
plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect
¦ Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan
¦ Result in urban decay or urban blight (i.e., significant physical changes in the
environment)
Create Land Use Incompatibilities or Physically Divide a Community
Impact 3.b-1: Implementation of the proposed project would amend the City's General
Plan land uses within the DDSP project area and could involve new uses and structures
that may result in intensification of development within the project area. However. the
proposed project is not anticipated to create incompatibilities with adjacent land uses or
physically divide an established community. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Land use incompatibility can occur where differences exist among uses that are near each
other. These incompatibilities may result from differences in the physical scale of
development, noise levels, traffic levels, hours of operation, and other factors.
The implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would allow for the intensification of
commercial and mixed use development within the Downtown districts. Most of the
intensification is anticipated to occur in the Transit-Oriented District, as the demand for
mixed-use development in that District will likely increase due to the construction of the
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and parking structure.
Existing development and construction of approved projects would have varying heights. In
addition, The proposed Specific Plan would not increase allowed building heights beyond
those already established by the five existing approved Specific Plans for the project area.
Building heights for the Transit-Oriented District would be lower than the existing Specific
Plan. Building heights for the Village Parkway District would be limited to 35 feet, a height
Page 3-102 WIF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Land Use & Planning
that is currently allowed by the Village Parkway Specific Plan. Building heights for the Retail
District would be limited to 75 feet, a height that is currently allowed by the Downtown
Core Specific Plan.
Furthermore, the proposed Specific Plan policies include concepts aimed at achieving land
use compatibility. All significant new development would be subject to the design review
process and/or other discretionary permits which would ensure compatibility with both the
development standards and design guidelines identified in the DDSP. This includes all new
construction, substantial rehabilitation, or exterior remodel or change to a building.
Allowed land uses would ensure compatibility between various types of uses, particularly
for residential development. Standards and guidelines are established in the DDSP provide
for buffers of landscaping and decorative masonry between proposed commercial
development and residential zones. Height limits and setback requirements would also
assist in ensuring compatibility of new structures with existing structures. Parking structures
would be oriented so that a decorative facade integrated with the surrounding
development avoids intrusion of vehicle headlights and parking lot lighting.
Projects would also be subject to the City's environmental review process. Each project
will require project site specific environmental review under CEQA.
With implementation of the DDSP development standards and design guidelines, and
project-specific environmental review requirements, proposed development would be
compatible with existing and potential adjacent land uses and would not physically divide an
established community, Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant, and
no mitigation is required.
Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations
Impact 3.6-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with goals and
policy of the City of Dublin General Plan, nor the City of Dublin Zoning Code. This is
considered a less-than-signif cant impact.
As described in the project description, residential, commercial, mixed-use and public uses
could be developed within the project area under the existing City of Dublin Generol Plon
and City of Dublin Zoning Code. Currently, the majority of the project area features the
General Plan Land Use Designation of Retail/Office and is zoned PD and C-1.
Collectively, the existing five Specific Plans that encompass the proposed project area allow
for the additional development of nearly approximately ,3.1 million square feet of non-
residential development, 717 residential units, and 150 hotel rooms. The proposed DDSP
will allow a future buildout development potential of 3.0 million square feet of non-
residential development, 1,300 residential units, and 150 hotel rooms.
Assuming an average of 1,200 square feet per residential unit and an average of 500 square
feet per hotel room, the existing specific plans represent a gross future buildout
P Page 3-103
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Land Use & Planning
development potential of 3.9 million square feet as compared to 4.59 million square feet
under the proposed DDSP, for a net addition of 460,000 square feet.
While this represents the theoretical buildout capacity of development in the project area,
the ultimate amount of future development will likely be less due non-tangibles such as
market demand, ownership patterns, tenant lease terms, etc., as well as the fact that the
DDSP project area is already largely developed resulting in significant physical limitations
such as parcel configurations, parking, and circulation.
The City of Dublin General Plan, including the General Plan Land Use Map, will be amended
concurrent with the adoption of the DDSP to include DDSP Land Use Designations to
replace the existing General Plan land use designations for the area. The proposed General
Plan designations are shown in Figure 2-6: DDSP Districts/Land Use Designations.
The Zoning Map for the project area will be amended concurrent with the adoption of the
DDSP to rezone the project area to ensure consistency with the new land use categories.
Where land use regulations and/or development standards in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
are inconsistent with the DDSP, the standards and regulations of the DDSP shall prevail.
Any issue not specifically addressed in the DDSP shall be subject to the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance and/or Municipal Code. Interpretations may be made by the Community
Development Director if not specifically covered in the City's existing regulations.
Proposed zoning is shown in Figure 2-7: Proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Zoning,
With the adoption of the General Plan amendments and rezoning, the proposed uses
would be allowed within the DDSP districts.
The proposes project's consistency with the City of Dublin General Plan is discussed in Table
3,6-3: City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis. As demonstrated, the proposed
project would not be in conflict with the applicable policies of the General Plan. Therefore,
this would be considered a less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Page 3-104
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Land Use & Planning
Table 3.6-3: City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis
City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis
Land Use Element
2.1.1 Housing Availability
Implementing Policy B - Designate site available for Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows
residential development in the primary planning area for and encourages up to 1,300 residential units throughout
medium to medium high density where site capability and the project site.
access are suitable and where the higher density would
be compatible with existing residential development
nearby.
2.1.5 West Dublin BART and Downtown Core
Specific Plan Areas
Guiding Policy A - Intensify development and provide Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows
housing opportunities and transit-oriented uses near and encourages up to 1,300 residential units throughout
transit center and facilities. the project area. Of this, 1,100 units are allowed in the
Transit District.
Implementing Policy B - Development within the Mixed- Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan includes
Use land use designation areas may include a a mixed-use land use designation that allows a
combination of medium-to-high density residential combination of medium-to-high density residential
housing and at least one non-residential use, such as housing and at least one non-residential use, such as
office or retail. office or retail.
2.2.1 Downtown Dublin
Guiding Policy A - Intensify Downtown Dublin Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows
for a future buildout development potential of more than
3 million square feet of non-residential development and
1,300 residential units.
Implementing Policy B - Designate a Downtown Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan fulfills
Intensification Area on the General Plan Land Use Map, the intent of this designation by allowing for urban levels
Figure 1-1 a. of development density in the downtown.
Implementing Policy C - Provide a downtown BART Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows a
station that will serve customers and workers with and future building development potential in the Transit
without cars. Add offices and apartments within walking District of 2.2 million square feet of non-residential
distance and eventual) over BART parking. mixed-use development and 1,100 residential units.
Implementing Policy D - Encourage mid-rise Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows
office/apartment buildings and parking structures with mixed-use development and included development
ground floor retail space. Create store-lined pedestrian standards and design guidelines that encourages mid-
connections between existing shopping centers. rise office/apartment buildings and parking structures
with ground floor retail space. Design guidelines are
included in the DDSP to create store-lined pedestrian
connections between existing shopping centers
Implementing Policy E - Make downtown more Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan includes
understandable to the first-time visitor by installing design guidelines that address signage and other
standardized identification signs and directories. wa indin improvements.
2.2.5 Application to the Same Property Within the City of
Dublin of Both the Retail/Office and Medium-High
Density Residential Designations as Defined in the
Dublin General Plan
Guiding Policy A - The City Council may apply to the Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows
same property within the City of Dublin both the and encourages mixed-use development throughout the
Retail/Office and Medium High Density Residential downtown project area.
designations as defined in the Dublin General Plan.
Implementing Policy B The location, extent, density Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows
p Page 3-105
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Land Use & Planning
City of Dublin General Plan Consistent Analysis
and intensity of mixed-use Retail/Office and Medium- and encourages mixed-use development throughout the
High Density residential development will be determined downtown project area. This Draft EIR analyzes the
when studies indicate that: potential environmental impacts the project may have on
Serves are available for that use. land use, transportation, public services, utilities, etc. and
The site is suitable for a mixed-use development. has identified mitigation measures where necessary and
The use supports itself and does not draw upon and consistent with CEQA requirements.
dilute the fiscal base of the remainder of the City.
Proper roadways and roadway capacity are available.
Mixed-use development would be compatible with
adjacent land uses.
Parks and Open Space Element
3.1 Open Space for Preservation of Natural
Resources and For Public Health and Safety
Implementing Policy D - Encourage an efficient and high Consistent. The project area is nearly flat and higher-
intensity of use of the flat and gently sloping portions of density urban development is allowed as part of the
the planning area as a means of minimizing grading proposed project.
requirements and potential impacts to environmental and
aesthetic resources.
Circulation and Scenic Highways Element
5.1.1 Roadway Standards
Guiding Policy A - Design non-residential streets to (1) Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
accommodate forecasted average daily traffic demand proposes an extension of St. Patrick's Way between
on segments between intersections, and (2) minimize Golden Gate Avenue and Regional Street to
congested conditions during peak hours of operation at accommodate additional traffic associated with future
intersections and serve a balance of vehicles, bicycles, development. The Transportation section of this Draft
pedestrian, and transit. EIR has analyzed the transportation circulation with this
proposed extension and includes mitigation measures to
help reduce traffic congestion.
Implementing Policy G - Connect existing north-south Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
cul-de-sac streets near proposed West Dublin BART proposes an extension of St. Patrick's Way between
station south of Dublin Boulevard (Amador Plaza Road, Golden Gate Avenue and Regional Street to
Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street) via the creation accommodate additional traffic associated with future
of Bra now Stain Patrick's Way. development.
5.2 Transit
Implementing Policy C - Urge BART cooperation in Consistent. Staff from BART have been closely involved
maintaining standards for review of public and private with city staff in the preparation of the Downtown Dublin
improvements in the vicinity of BART stations that take Specific Plan and this Draft EIR.
account of both future traffic needs and development
opportunities
Conflict with Applicable Conservation Plans
The project area is located in an urban area that is completely developed. There are no
habitat or natural community conservation plans in the project area and therefore, no
impacts would occur.
Urban Blight or Decay
Economic and social changes are not in themselves significant impacts on the environment;
however, a physical change in the environment caused by economic and social factors
I
I
I
Page 3-146 MF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Land Use & Planning
attributable to a development could sometimes result in a reasonably foreseeable indirect
environmental impact, such as urban decay or deterioration.
The proposed project seeks to guide future development and intensification in downtown
Dublin in an orderly and cohesive fashion through the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
The combination of land uses would function to increase retail and commercial sales and
activities within the City, as well as enhance the economic viability of the area. The
creation of new commercial activities and enhancement of existing commercial facilities
would contribute to the economic vitality of the City, which would enable the continued
provision of high quality services and programs for residents,
Increased economic activity and revenues that may result in the creation of indirect and
induced jobs. Indirect jobs are those that would be created when the future owners and/or
managers of the retail-commercial uses purchase goods and services from businesses in the
region, and induced jobs are those that are created when wage incomes of those
employed in direct and indirect jobs are spent on the purchase of goods and services in the
region. The beneficial results are primarily the result of purchases of goods and services as
well as payment of taxes and salaries, which affects the regional economy of the City and
County, and on a more indirect basis, California. Therefore, the positive revenue stream
and the resulting increased economic viability of the proposed project would be a benefit
to the City and not result in urban blight or decay and therefore, no impacts would
occur.
M Page 3-107
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Land Use & Planning
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3-108 PF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
3.7. Noise
This section addresses potential noise impacts from the construction, traffic, and operations
that could occur within proposed project. Data used to prepare this analysis were drawn
from the City of Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin Municipal Code, and the DDSP.
Environmental Setting
Mobile and Stationary Noise Sources
The primary noise sources in the vicinity of the project area include regional serving retail
uses, car and truck traffic with high volumes of traffic along Interstate 580, Interstate 680,
and noise from adjacent local roadways. Traffic along these arterial roadways generates
substantial noise levels at roadside receptors. Both mobile and stationary noise sources
contribute to the existing noise levels within the project area.
In order to assess the potential for mobile source noise impacts, it is necessary to
determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the DDSP project
area. The existing roadway noise levels in the vicinity of the project area were modeled.
Noise models were run using the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Noise
Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) together with several roadway and site parameters;
please refer to Appendix C, Noise Data. These parameters determine the projected
impact of vehicular traffic noise and include the roadway cross-section (e.g., number of
lanes), roadway width, average daily traffic (ADT), vehicle travel speed, percentages of auto
and truck traffic, roadway grade, angle-of-view, and site conditions ("hard" or "soft"). The
model does not account for ambient noise levels (i.e., noise from adjacent land uses) or
topographical differences between the roadway and adjacent land uses. Noise projections
are based on modeled vehicular traffic as derived from intersection turning movements by
Fehr and Peers and ADT calculations by RBF Consulting. The posted speed limits vary
throughout the DDSP project area. Existing modeled traffic noise levels can be found in
Table 3.7-1: Existing Traffic Noise Levels.
p Page 3-109
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
Table 3.7-1: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
dBA @ 100 Feet from Distance from Roadway Centerline to: (Feet)
Roadway Segment ADT Roadway Centerline 60 CNEL Noise 65 CNEL Noise 70 CNEL Noise
Contour Contour Contour
Amador Plaza
Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard 7,610 57.6 65 21 7
Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way 10,770 59.1 92 29 9
Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway 16,930 62.4 209 66 21
Donahue Drive and Amador Plaza Road 14,610 61.8 180 57 18
East of Village Parkway 12,790 61.2 158 50 16
Regional Street and Starward Drive 14,330 61.7 177 56 18
San Ramon Road and Regional Street 15,060 62.0 186 59 19
Starward Drive and Donahue Drive 13,310 61.4 165 52 16
West of San Ramon Road 2,960 54.9 37 12 4
Dublin Boulevard
Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway 20,300 64.7 350 111 35
East of Village Parkway 21,350 64.9 368 116 37
Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road 16,720 63.9 288 91 29
Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive 17,120 64.0 295 93 30
San Ramon Road and Regional Street 20,220 64.6 349 110 35
West of San Ramon Road 16,230 63.6 280 88 28
Golden Gate Drive
Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way 3,110 53.8 27 8 3
South of St. Patrick Way 1,050 49.1 9 3 1
Regional Street
Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Road 5,450 57.8 67 21 7
South of Dublin Boulevard 5,570 57.9 69 22 7
San Ramon Road
Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard 24,070 66.4 565 179 56
North of Amador Valley Boulevard 19,030 65.5 446 141 45
South of Dublin Boulevard 37,040 68.3 869 275 87
St. Patrick Way
East of Amador Plaza Road 10,500 59.2 90 28 9
Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road 2,340 52.6 20 6 2
West of Golden Gate Drive 310 43.9 3 1 0
Village Parkway
Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard 12,350 61.0 153 48 15
Dublin Boulevard and 1-680 NB on ramp 4,840 57.3 60 19 6
North of Amador Valley Boulevard 13,690 61.5 169 53 17
South of 1-680 NB on ramp 990 50.4 12 4 1
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level
Source: Intersection turning movements, prepared by Fehr and Peers, dated January 2010 and Al calculations by RBF Consulting, dated April 2010.
Stationary noise sources include regional serving retail in the center of the project area.
These include: Target, Toys R Us, Burlington Coat Factory, Ranch 99 Market, Orchard
Supply Hardware, Ross and Marshall's. Two auto dealerships within the project area
include a car sales lots, including one located in the southeast comer of Dublin Boulevard
and Golden State Drive, and one located at the southeast corner of Saint Patrick Way and
Amador Plaza Road. Smaller specialty retail, convenience retail, and services are generally
located west of Regional Street and along Amador Valley Boulevard, Amador Plaza Road,
Page 3-1 10 PF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
and Village Parkway. Office uses within the project area include Corrie Center (located
southeast of Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street), the Chase Bank Building (southwest of
Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive), and Amador Plaza (located at the south end of
Amador Plaza Road). Other notable stationary noise sources consist of the 238-room
Holiday Inn, Dublin Bowl, Dublin Post Office, Dublin Iceland, and a senior center with an
associated 54-unit Wicklow Square apartment complex.
Sensitive Receptors
Land uses that are considered sensitive receptors to noise include residential areas, schools,
hospitals, churches, recreational areas, and transient lodging. Residential areas are also
considered particularly sensitive to noise during the nighttime hours. The project area
includes the 238-room Holiday Inn Hotel and a senior center with an associated 54-unit
Wicklow Square apartment complex. Residential uses are located adjacent to the DDSP
project area to the north, east, and west.
Existing Regulatory Setting
State of California Guidelines
The State of California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Noise Element Guidelines
include recommended interior and exterior level standards for local jurisdictions to identify
and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The OPR Guidelines
describe the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in
terms of dBA CNEL
A noise environment of 50 dBA CNEL to 60 dBA CNEL is considered to be "normally
acceptable" for residential uses. The State indicates that locating residential units, parks,
and institutions (such as churches, schools, libraries, and hospitals) in areas where exterior
ambient noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL is undesirable. The OPR recommendations
also, note that, under certain conditions, more restrictive standards than the maximum
levels cited may be appropriate. As an example, the standards for quiet suburban and rural
communities may be reduced by 5 to 10 dB to reflect their lower existing outdoor noise
levels in comparison with urban environments.
In addition, Title 25, Section 1092 of the California Code of Regulations, sets forth
requirements for the insulation of multiple-family residential dwelling units from excessive
and potentially harmful noise. Whenever multiple-family residential dwelling units are
proposed in areas with excessive noise exposure, the developer must incorporate
construction features into the building's design that reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA
CNEL.
Table 3.7-2: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix, illustrates the State standards
established by the State Department of Health Services for acceptable noise levels. These
standards are incorporated into the land use planning process to reduce future noise and
land use incompatibilities.
Page 3-1 1 1
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
Table 3.7-2: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix
Community Noise Exposure (Ld. or CNEL, dBA)
Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Residential - Low Density, Single-Family, Duplex, 50 - 60 55 - 70 70-75 75-85
Mobile Homes
Residential - Multiple Family 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 75 70 - 85
Transient Lodging - Motel, Hotels 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 - 70 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50 - 70 NA 65 - 85
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50 - 75 NA 70 - 85
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 - 70 NA 67.5 - 75 72.5 - 85
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, 50 - 70 NA 70 - 80 80 - 85
Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 50 - 70 67.5-77.5 75 - 85 NA
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 - 75 70 - 80 75 - 85 NA
NA: Not Applicable
Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal
conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise
reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features have been included in the design. Conventional
construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable: New Construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does
proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise-insulation features must be
included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: OPR 2003
Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan establishes residential, commercial,
and industrial land use compatibility standards for noise measured at the property line of
the receiving land use. The land use compatibility noise criteria provides the basis for
decisions on location of land uses in relation to noise sources and for determining noise
mitigation requirements. Table 3.7-3: City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for
Community Noise Environments shows the noise standards for the City. As indicated, the
normally acceptable exterior noise level for the City of Dublin is 60 CNEL or less for noise-
sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, hotels, motels, schools, and churches), and 70 dBA or
Page 3-1 12 WIF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
less for parks, commercial, office, and industrial land uses. Noise levels up to 60 dBA are
considered conditionally acceptable for most noise sensitive land uses.
Table 3.7-3: City of Dublin - Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments
Community Noise Exposure (Ldn)
Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75 or greater
Motels, Hotels 60 or less 60-70 70-80 80 or greater
Schools, Churches, Nursing Homes 60 or less 60-70 70-80
Neighborhood Parks 50 - 70 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85
Office, Retail, Commercial 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80 or greater
Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75 or greater
Ldn = Day night average; NA = not applicable.
Notes:
Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of
normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the
noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features have been included in the design.
Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable: New Construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development
does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise-insulation
features must be included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: City of Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, adopted February 11, 1985, updated January 19, 2010.
The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to noise in the project
area:
Guiding Policy A. Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated by Table 9.1: Land
Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments; refer above to Table 3.7-3: Land
Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments.
Implementing Policy B. Request Caltrans to provide noise walls at least seven feet high
along both sides of 1-680 between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Alcosta interchange
when additional freeway lanes are constructed.
Future noise, if not mitigated, will subject about 2,700 residents to levels exceeding 65
CNEL. The noise wall would reduce noise by 10 dB, making this the most cost-effective
noise reduction project in Dublin. Actual wall height would be determined during project
design.
Page 3-1 13
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
Implementing Policy C. Encourage homeowners west of San Ramon Road who are affected
by 1-580 noise to construct noise barriers on their properties where these would be
effective and require such barriers for new development. This policy also applies to sites
adjoining the west side of San Ramon Road at higher elevations.
Where the noise source is below the receptors, only barriers near the receptor will be
effective. About 5 dB noise reduction could be achieved.
Implementing Policy D. Support unified action by residential owners on the east side of San
Ramon Road and along Village Parkway to install, repair, or extend noise barriers.
Much of this frontage was developed before effective noise barriers were required as a
condition of subdivision approval. Because construction for a single lot is costly, relatively
ineffective, and potentially unattractive, the City should assist in the formation of assessment
districts or otherwise promote group action where there is consensus that a problem
exists.
Implementing Policy E. Design Dougherty Road improvements and adjoining residential
development for compliance with noise standards.
This corridor offers the opportunity to do it right the first time without continuous walls.
Berms, open space, garages near the road, and noise-conscious site planning can be used.
Implementing Policy F. Noise impacts related to all new development shall be analyzed by
a certified acoustic consultant.
Implementing Policy G. Request demonstration of ability to mitigate noise prior to
approval of light rail or bus service in the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way Transportation
Corridor.
A depressed rail line or noise walls close to the tracks could make light rail a good
neighbor.
Implementing Policy H. Review all multi-family development proposals within the projected
60 CNEL contour for compliance with noise standards (45 CNEL in any habitable room) as
required by State law.
Because the City of Dublin General Plan designates almost all residential sites subject to 60
or greater CNEL for multifamily development, this standard will be effective in Dublin.
Project designers may use one or more of four available categories of mitigation measures:
site planning, architectural layout (bedrooms away from noise source, for example), noise
barriers, or construction modifications.
Noise Scales and Definitions
Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and
frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of
Page 3-114 WIF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
sound is the decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all
frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to
human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by
discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human
ear.
Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide
range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to
the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In general, a I dB change in the sound
pressure levels of a given sound is detectable only under laboratory conditions. A 3 dB
change in sound pressure level is considered a "just detectable" difference in most
situations. A 5 dB change is readily noticeable and a 10 dB change is considered a doubling
(or halving) of the subjective loudness. It should be noted that, generally speaking, a 3 dBA
increase or decrease in the average traffic noise level is realized by a doubling or halving of
the traffic volume; or by about a 7 mile per hour (mph) increase or decrease in speed.
For each doubling of distance from a point noise source (a stationary source, such as a
loudspeaker or loading dock), the sound level will decrease by 6 dBA. In other words, if a
person is 100 feet from a machine, and moves to 200 feet from that source, sound levels
will drop approximately 6 dBA. For each doubling of distance from a line source, like a
roadway, noise levels are reduced by 3 to 4.5 dBA, depending on the ground cover
between the source and the receiver. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10
dBA higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; 20 dBA higher four times as loud;
and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very
loud). Examples of various sound levels in different environments are shown in Figure 3,7-
I: Sound Levels and Human Response.
There are three methods used to measure sound over a period of time: the Community
Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), the equivalent energy level (Leq) and the Day/Night
Average Sound Level (Ldn). The predominant community noise rating scale used in
California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL). The CNEL reading represents the average of 24 hourly readings of equivalent
levels, known as Leq's, based on an A-weighted decibel with upward adjustments added to
account for increased noise sensitivity in the evening and night periods. These adjustments
are +5 dBA for the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), and + 10 dBA for the night (10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). CNEL may be indicated by "dBA CNEL" or just "CNEL".
The Leq is the sound level containing the same total energy over a given sample time
period. The Leq can be thought of as the steady (average) sound level which, in a stated
period of time, would contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level
during the same period. Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24-hour sample periods.
Another commonly used method is the day/night average level or Ldn. The Ldn is a
measure of the 24-hour average noise level at a given location, It was adopted by the U.S,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for developing criteria for the evaluation of
M Page 3-115
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
community noise exposure. It is based on a measure of the average noise level over a
given time period called the Leq, The Ldn is calculated by averaging the Leq's for each hour
of the day at a given location after penalizing the "sleeping hours" (defined as 10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.), by a 10 dBA to account for the increased sensitivity of people to noises that
occur at night. The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event is typically
expressed as Lma. The sound level exceeded over a specified time frame can be
expressed as Ln (i.e., L90, L50, L 10, etc.). L50 equals the level exceeded 50 percent of the
time.
Relevant Project Characteristics
Development activities under the DDSP are assumed to occur over the next 15 to 20
years. During that time, it is assumed that only a portion of the existing land uses will be
intensified and that many of the existing structures will essentially remain the same in size
and configuration with the exception of remodeling of existing structures.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Criteria for Determining Significance
In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, agency and professional standards, a
project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
¦ Expose persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
¦ Expose persons to, or generate, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels;
¦ Substantially permanently increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project;
¦ Substantially temporarily or periodically increase ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project;
¦ For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; and
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Significance of Changes in Traffic Noise Levels
If the ambient noise environment is quiet and the new noise source greatly increases the
noise exposure, an impact may occur even though a criterion level might not be exceeded.
The project would create a significant impact for traffic noise levels when the following
occurs:
¦ An increase of the existing ambient noise levels by 5 dBA or more, where the
existing ambient level is less than 60 dBA CNEL;
Page 3-1 16 PF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
¦ An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 3 dBA or more, where the
existing ambient level is 60 to 65 dBA CNEL; or
¦ An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 1.5 dBA or more, where the
existing ambient level is greater than 65 dBA CNEL.
Significance of Changes in Cumulative Traffic Noise Levels
The project's contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered
significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase)
threshold. The combined effect compares the "cumulative with project" condition to
"existing" conditions. This comparison accounts for the traffic noise increase from the
project generated in combination with traffic generated by projects in the cumulative
projects. The following criteria have been utilized to evaluate the combined effect of the
cumulative noise increase.
Combined Effects: The cumulative with project noise level ("Cumulative With Project")
causes the following:
¦ An increase of the existing noise level by 5 dBA or more, where the existing level is
less than 60 dBA CNEL;
¦ An increase of the existing noise level by 3 dBA or more, where the existing level is
60 to 65 CNEL; or
¦ An increase of the existing noise level by 1.5 dBA or more, where the existing level
is greater than 65 dBA CNEL.
Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed project in
combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated
that the project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise
increase must be due to the proposed project. The following criteria have been utilized to
evaluate the incremental effect of the cumulative noise increase.
Incremental Effects: The "Cumulative With Project" causes a I dBA increase in noise over
the "Cumulative Without Project" noise level.
A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria
have been exceeded.
Exposure to Short-term Construction-Related Noise and Vibration
Impact 3.7-1: The proposed project could result in short-term construction-related noise
and vibration that would exceed applicable noise standards at nearby noise sensitive land
uses. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Construction activities have a short and temporary duration, lasting from a few days to a
period of several months. Groundborne noise and vibration, as well as other types of
construction-related noise impacts may occur during the initial site preparation, which can
p Page 3-117
I
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
III
create the highest levels of noise and vibration. Generally, site preparation has the shortest
duration of all construction phases. Activities that occur during this phase include
earthmoving and soils compaction. High groundbome noise and other vibration levels and
other miscellaneous noise levels can occur during this phase by the operation of heavy-duty
trucks, backhoes, and other heavy-duty construction equipment.
Noise from construction activities is generated by two primary sources: (1) the transport of
workers and equipment to construction sites, and (2) the noise related to active
construction equipment. These noise sources can be a nuisance to local residents and
businesses or unbearable to sensitive receptors (i.e., residences, hospitals, senior centers,
schools, day care facilities, etc.). The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has compiled
data regarding noise generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment
and typical construction activities. These noise levels would decrease rapidly with distance
from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance.
Potential future development facilitated by the proposed project could generate significant
amounts of noise and vibration during grading and construction operations. During future
project implementation, adjacent sensitive receptors would be exposed to sporadic high
noise and vibration levels associated with construction activities (as a result of power tools,
jack-hammers, truck noise, etc.). It is anticipated that construction traffic would access the
potential construction sites within the project area from several major roadways, including
San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Amador Valley Boulevard. As stated above,
various sensitive receptors exist both within and in close proximity to the project area.
All future development within the DDSP would be subject to compliance with the
implementing policies of the Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan Additionally,
implementation of the following mitigation measures would further reduce construction
noise associated with future development within the DDSP to a less than significant
level by requiring preparation of a construction noise management plan which would
include limiting construction to the less noise sensitive periods of the day and ensuring that
proper operating procedures are followed during construction so that nearby sensitive
receptors are not adversely affected by noise and vibration.
Mitigation Measures:
MM 3.7-1 a Project applicants within the project area shall prepare a construction noise
management plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize
construction noise on surrounding sensitive receptors (e.g. residential uses
and schools) and includes specific noise management measures to be
included into project plans and specifications subject to review and approval
by the City. These measures shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
¦ Construction activities, including the maintenance and warming of
equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City
i
Page 3-118
I
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
holidays, between the hours of 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM except as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
¦ All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound
control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective
than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall
have an un-muffled exhaust.
¦ The City shall require that the contractor maintain and tune-up all
construction equipment to minimize noise emissions.
¦ Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest
possible distance to the sensitive receptors.
¦ All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest
possible distance to the sensitive receptors.
¦ The construction contractor shall provide an on-site name and telephone
number of a contact person. In the event that construction noise is
intrusive to an educational process, the construction liaison will revise the
construction schedule to preserve the learning environment.
¦ Select demolition methods to minimize vibration, where possible (e.g.,
sawing masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement
breakers).
MM 3.7-1 b Should potential future development facilitated by the proposed project
require off-site import/export of fill material during construction, trucks shall
utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major
roadways (Interstate 580, Interstate 680, San Ramon Road, Dublin
Boulevard, and Amador Valley Boulevard). Construction trucks should, to
the extent practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m. peak
hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.).
Exposure to Long-Term Stationary Noise
i
Impact 3.7-2: Compliance with design guidelines and development standards contained
within the DDSP will ensure that potential future development within the project does not
exceed established noise standards. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Potential future development within the project area could result in long-term stationary
noise impacts on sensitive receptors within the project area, which consist of a 238-room
Holiday Inn Hotel and a senior center with an associated 54-unit Wicklow Square
apartment complex. Residential uses are located adjacent to the project area to the north,
east, and west. Examples of stationary noise sources are generators, air conditioning
facilities, etc.
The purpose of the DDSP is to guide development and design within the approximately
284 acres located in downtown Dublin. This will be accomplished by a set of regulations,
WIF Page 3-1 19
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
design principles, and related implementing actions designed to foster quality development
and prevent excessive noise. The DDSP project area has been divided into three districts
(Retail District, Transit-Oriented District, and Village Parkway District), based on the
existing building patterns and land uses within each area and the intended development
envisioned for each district.
The DDSP proposes development that is consistent with existing land uses and is
anticipated to generate similar noise levels. Where new development would abut noise
sensitive uses, the DDSP includes design guidelines and development standards that are
aimed at reducing noise levels, including building orientation, wall placement, lot
dimensions, maximum intensity, outdoor storage, setbacks, buffers, edge conditions, and
landscaping. By providing the necessary regulatory and design guidance, the proposed
project ensures that future development of parcels within the DDSP project areas
implements the policies of the Noise Element in the City of Dublin Generol Plon.
Compliance with the City's standards would ensure that any new stationary noise source
(i.e., generators, air compressors, loading bays, pumps, etc.) within the project area would
result in a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors.
Exposure to Lon6-Term Mobile Noise
Impact 3.7-3: Development in the project area facilitated by the proposed project could
permanently increase noise levels from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) at existing and
future uses within the DDSP project area. This is considered a potentially significant
impact.
Potential future development within the project area could cause permanent increases in
ambient noise levels, both within and outside the project area, from mobile sources (i.e.,
vehicular traffic to/from the area) at sensitive receptors.
The "Near Term Without Project" and "Near Term With Project" scenarios were
compared for near term traffic noise conditions. As previously discussed, an increase of five
dBA or greater in noise levels occurring from project-related activities would be significant
when the "Without Project" noise level is below 60 dBA CNEL. An increase of three dBA
or greater in noise levels occurring from project-related activities would be significant when
the "Without Project" noise level is between 60 to 65 dBA CNEL. Finally, an increase of
1.5 dBA or greater would be significant if the "Without Project" noise level is above 65
dBA CNEL.
In Table 3.7-5: Near Term Noise Scenarios, the noise level (dBA at 100 feet from
centerline) depicts what would typically be heard 100 feet perpendicular to the roadway
centerline. As indicated in Table 3.7-5: Near Term Noise Scenarios under the "Near Term
Without Project" scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would
range from approximately 50.4 dBA to 69.5 dBA. The highest noise levels under the "Near
Term Without Project" conditions occur along San Ramon Road (south of Dublin
Boulevard). Under the "Near Term With Project" scenario, noise levels at a distance of
100 feet from the centerline would range from approximately 50.4 dBA to 70.7 dBA. The
Page 3-120 MIF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
highest noise levels under future with project conditions would also occur along San
Ramon Road (south of Dublin Boulevard).
Table 3.7-5: Near Term Noise Scenarios
Near Tenn Without Project Near Term With Project
dBA CNEL Difference
100 Feet dBA CNEL @ in dBA @ Potentially
Roadway Segment ADT from ADT 100 Feet from 100 Feet Significant
Roadway Roadway from Impact?
Centerline Centerline Roadway
Amador Plaza
Amador Valle Blvd. / Dublin Blvd. 8,380 58.0 12,690 59.8 1.8 No
Dublin Blvd. / St. Patrick Way 13,130 60.0 30,670 63.7 3.7 Yes
Amador Plaza Rd. / Village Parkway 17,840 62.7 20,550 63.3 0.6 No
Donahue Dr. / Amador Plaza Rd. 15,040 61.9 17,110 62.5 0.6 No
E. of Village Parkway 13,360 61.4 14,770 61.9 0.5 No
Regional Street I Starward Dr. 14,770 61.9 16,790 62.4 0.5 No
San Ramon Rd. / Regional Street 16,110 62.2 18,260 62.8 0.6 No
Starward Dr. / Donahue Dr. 13,740 61.5 15,800 62.1 0.6 No
W. of San Ramon Rd. 3,010 55.0 3,370 55.5 0.5 No
Dublin Blvd.
Amador Plaza Rd. / Village Parkway 24,270 65.5 38,260 67.5 2.0 Yes
E. of Village Parkway 24,400 65.5 33,050 66.8 1.3 No
Golden Gate Dr. / Amador Plaza Rd. 21,440 65.0 38,060 67.4 2.4 No
Regional Street / Golden Gate Dr. 22,650 65.2 43,330 68.0 2.8 Yes
San Ramon Rd. I Regional Street 28,090 66.0 49,860 68.5 2.5 Yes
W. of San Ramon Rd. 21,220 64.7 23,020 65.1 0.4 No
Golden Gate Dr.
Dublin Blvd. / St. Patrick Way 7,900 57.9 15,850 60.9 3.0 No
S. of St. Patrick Way 5,830 56.5 7,810 57.8 1.3 No
Regional Street
Amador Valle Blvd. / Dublin Rd. 6,220 58.4 9,670 60.3 1.9 No
S. of Dublin Blvd. 7,820 59.4 11,590 61.1 1.7 No
San Ramon Rd.
Amador Valle Blvd. / Dublin Blvd. 27,090 66.9 32,620 67.8 0.9 No
N. of AmadorValley Blvd. 22,520 66.2 29,190 67.3 1.1 No
S. of Dublin Blvd. 48,540 69.5 64,120 70.7 1.2 No
St. Patrick Way
E. of Amador Plaza Rd. 12,050 59.8 16,730 61.2 1.4 No
Golden Gate Dr. / Amador Plaza Rd. 3,840 54.8 6,800 57.3 2.5 No
W. of Golden Gate Dr. No
(Proposed Saint Patrick Way 1,670 51.2 3,630 54.5 3.3
Extension
Village Parkway
Amador Valle Blvd. / Dublin Blvd. 12,990 61.2 17,300 62.4 1.2 No
Dublin Blvd. / 1-680 NB on ram 5,400 57.8 7,300 59.1 1.3 No
N. of Amador Valle Blvd. 14,670 61.8 19,100 63.0 1.2 No
S. of 1-680 NB on ram 990 50.4 990 50.4 0 No
ADT = averse daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level
Source: Intersection turning movements, prepared by Fehr and Peers, dated January 2010 and ADT calculations by RBF Consulting, dated April
2010.
Table 3.7-5 also compares the "Near Term Without Project" scenario to the "Near Term
With Project" scenario. The proposed project would increase noise levels on the
surrounding roadways by a maximum of 3.7 dBA along Amador Plaza (between Dublin
WIF Page 3- 12 I
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
Boulevard and St. Patrick Way) with noise levels between 60 dBA and 65 dBA. As
indicated in Table 3.7-5 and stated under the Significance Criteria, four of the roadway noise
levels resulting from the proposed project would result in a potentially significant increase in
noise located along Amador Plaza (between Dublin Boulevard and Saint Patrick Way) and
Dublin Boulevard (between Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway, between Regional
Street and Golden Gate Drive; and between San Ramon Road and Regional Street). Land
uses along these roadway segments are currently comprised of commercial uses with no
existing sensitive receptors that would be affected by the proposed project. However,
future development within the project area may include the construction of sensitive
receptors along these roadway segments, which would be considered a potentially
significant impact.
Siting of new development within the DDSP project area would be required to consider
proximity to noise sources such as freeway and roadway traffic including proximity to
Highway 580. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that the
proposed project would result in a less than significant impact by establishing regulatory and
design guidance for future development within the DDSP, as well as implementing the
policies of the Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan to limit exterior noise
levels to 60 dBA CNEL or less at noise sensitive land uses within the project area.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure will result a less than significant
impact.
Mitigation Measures:
MM 3.7-3 Future development within the DDSP project area that is located adjacent
to Highway 580; Amador Plaza (between Dublin Boulevard and Saint
Patrick Way); and Dublin Boulevard (between Amador Plaza Road and
Village Parkway; between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive and
between San Ramon Road and Regional Street) shall prepare a site-specific
acoustical analysis subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin.
The acoustical analysis prepared for future development shall evaluate
resultant noise impacts in comparison to the City's noise criteria for Land
Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments. Feasible project
specific mitigation measures shall be required as part of the project design
to reduce noise impacts at future noise sensitive land uses, including but not
limited to the following: 1) site design, 2) operational restrictions; 3) barriers,
4) setbacks, and 5) insulation, No development permits or approval of land
use applications shall be issued until the acoustical analysis is received and
approved by City staff and any project design features are incorporated into
the future development project.
Aircraft Noise
The closest airport to the project area is the Livermore Municipal Airport which is located
approximately 6.5 miles east of the project area. According to the Livermore Municipal
Airport Master Plan, the City of Dublin is not located within the approach zones and is not
Page 3-122 W IF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
located within an unacceptable noise contour. Therefore, the proposed project would not
expose residents or workers in the project area to excess airport-related noise.
PF Page 3-123
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Noise
This page intentionally left blank
Page 3-124 MF
Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
3.8. Public Services & Utilities
This section of the Draft EIR analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the
proposed project on public services and facilities and services, including fire protection, law
enforcement, schools, libraries, parks/recreation facilities, stormwater drainage, potable
water, wastewater treatment, solid waste management, and other public utilities.
Information in this section is derived primarily from the proposed Specific Plan, as well as
personal communication with service providers.
Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
The proposed project would be served by the Alameda County Fire Department
(hereinafter "ACFD"), which provides fire protection and suppression services under
contract to the City of Dublin. ACDF currently consists of 36 line personnel
ACDF has 28 fire stations, three of which are located in the City of Dublin. Station No. 16
is located at 7494 Donohue Drive; Station No. 17 is located at 6200 Madigan Avenue; and
Station No. 18 is located at 4800 Fallon Road.
¦ Station No. 16 houses one engine company, a patrol and a water tender, and a
patrol. This station provides initial response to west and downtown Dublin and
would be the first responder to any fire or emergency occurring in the DDSP area.
¦ Station No. 17 provides service to the west, and central core sections of Dublin.
This station houses one engine and one truck company.
¦ Station No. 18 provides the primary response for the eastern most portions of
Dublin. This station includes one engine company and one bulldozer
Law Enforcement
The proposed project would be served by the City of Dublin Police Department. Police
services for the City of Dublin are performed under contract to the Alameda County
Sheriffs Office. As of 2010, the City of Dublin has 51 sworn personnel.
Police Services are provided by Sheriff personnel located at the Dublin Civic Center, 100
Civic Center Plaza. Services provided include uniformed police officers patrolling the City
in marked vehicles, criminal investigations, crime prevention, drug enforcement prevention
education programs, and special investigation officers responsible for narcotic and vice
suppression. Response times to various places in the City can vary depending on the time
of day and the available units. The average response time to a life-or-death emergency
averages approximately 3.5 to five minutes. For non-emergencies the response time is
typically 15 minutes. Dispatch and some data processing functions are handled at the
Sheriffs Office facilities located in Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward. Dublin police also
enforce city ordinances and state laws within the limits of the City of Dublin.
MF Page 3-125
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
Schools
The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) provides public education in the City of Dublin
and the surrounding area (including the proposed project site). The DUSD includes five
elementary schools, one K-8 school, one middle school, a comprehensive high school, a
continuation high school, and a K-3 parent participation program. The elementary schools
all feature before and after school child care. Primary and secondary school facilities, 2008-
2009 student enrollment, and the school's optimum capacity are identified in Table 3.8-1:
Optimum Capacity of Schools Serving the DDSP Area.
Table 3.8-1: Optimum Capacity of Schools Serving the DDSP Area
Grade Level and School Name Student Enrollment in Optimum Capacity
2008-2009
Elementary
Dougherty 642 576
Dublin 533 344
Green 581 610
Frederiksen 506 502
Murray 370 264
Fallon (based on 6-8 grade only) 836 1,285
Kolb (opening Fall 2010) N/A N/A
Middle School
Wells 718 1,000
High School
Dublin HS 1,474 1,259
Valley Continuation HS 79 160
Source: Dublin Unified School District, 2010; Ed-Dat,a, 2010
The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of Dublin, Frederiksen, and Murray
Elementary Schools, Wells Middle School, and Dublin High School.
For planning purposes, a school district's projected student generation rates are based on
dwelling units. Student generation rates are the average number of students residing in a
home. It is also an indicator of the number of students that will come from new housing
developments. According to the Dublin Unified School District's Demographic Study and
Facilities Plan, 2007-09, each new single-family home generates an average of 0.68 K-12
students; single-family attached housing (otherwise known as "townhomes") generate an
average 0.24 K-12 students per home; and a new multifamily housing development
generates an average of 0.125 K-12 students per unit.
Page 3-126 p~
Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
Libraries
The Dublin Public Library is located at 200 Civic Plaza, and is a partnership between the
City of Dublin and the Alameda County Library. The City of Dublin owns the library
building and contracts with Alameda County for library services. The Dublin Public Library
contains a collection of 145,700 materials including books, DVDs, and audio books,
newspapers, and magazines funded with $1.3 million dollars given to the Library by the City
of Dublin.
The Alameda County Library provides library services from ten branch libraries in the cities
of Albany, Dublin, Fremont, Newark, and Union City, and the unincorporated communities
of Castro Valley and San Lorenzo. The Alameda County Library is funded primarily by
local property taxes, with additional revenue from State grants and contracts with cities for
additional open hours and services.
Parks/Recreation Facilities
The City of Dublin's current park system includes thirteen parks and two open space areas.
The City's Parks and Community Services Department manages park planning and
development, and the Public Works Department coordinates park maintenance. The
nearest City park to the project area is the Mape Memorial Park, located at 11711 Mape
Way (less than a quarter-mile northwest of the proposed project between San Sabana &
Calle Verde). This 2.6-acre park includes walkways, play equipment, a small group picnic
area, picnic tables, barbecues, a sand volleyball court, restrooms, and drinking fountains.
The City's existing trail network consists of bikeways located along Amador Valley
Boulevard, Village Parkway, San Ramon Road, Alamo Creek, Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara
Creek and Dougherty Road, a public local trail along Martin Canyon Creek, and a regional
trail link along the Iron Horse Trail.
Stormwater Drainage
The City of Dublin Public Works Department maintains the City's storm drain pipelines
that are located within the public streets (see Figure 3.8-1: Storm Drain System). The
Alameda County Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7) owns and operates
regional storm drain facilities that collects runoff from the City. Because the project area is
largely built-out, stormwater flows to collection distribution systems are expected to be
similar to or possibly slightly reduced with incorporation of low impact development (LID)
within the project area as part of future development.
Water
The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is the purveyor of potable water in the
City of Dublin. DSRSD has provided drinking water to more than 60,000 people in Dublin
since March 1961 and in Dougherty Valley since May 2000. The existing potable water
distribution system for the DDSP area is shown in Figure 3.8-2: Potable Water System.
In addition to potable water, DSRSD also provides recycled (reclaimed) water for irrigation
and other non-potable uses. DSRSD Ordinance No. 301 requires recycled water use for
pIF Page 3-127
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
approved customer categories for all new land uses, including commercial, multi-family
residential, and institutional irrigation uses with the DSRSD potable water service area. The
City of Dublin also has Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations that reduce water use for
irrigation (refer to the Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.88).
DSRSD's Urban Water Management Plan (May 2005) (hereinafter "DSRSD UWMP")
includes a projection of future potable and reclaimed water use through the year 2030.
This projection is shown in Table 3.8-2: Projected DSRSD Water Demand (Potable and
Reclaimed).
Table 3.8-2: Projected DSRSD Water Demand (Potable and Reclaimed)
Demand Source 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Dublin 9,300 10,600 11,900 13,700 13,700 13,700
Dougherty Valley 1,250 2,800 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400
Subtotal 10,550 13,400 15,300 17,100 17,100 17,100
Recycled Water 2,000 2,700 3,250 3,700 3,700 3,700
Total 12,550 16,100 18,550 20,800 20,800 20,800
Note: All Amounts in Acre-FeetlYear
Source: Dublin San Ramon Services District Urban Water Management Plan, May 2005 Update.
DSRSD is responsible for planning to supply sufficient water to meet the anticipated
growth in demand, in which it is planned to use a combination of potable and recycled
water supplies as well as conservation of water resources to meet demand.
The wholesale supplier of water to DSRSD is Zone 7. DSRSD has a contract with Zone 7
which establishes the obligations between the parties to meet demand in the DSRSD
service area. Under the contract, DSRSD is obligated to purchase all of the treated water
it requires from Zone 7, unless Zone 7 is unable to deliver sufficient water. If Zone 7 is
unable for a period of time to deliver sufficient water to satisfy DSRSD's needs, DSRSD is
permitted to acquire water from other sources during the period that Zone 7 has
insufficient water. Zone 7 relies on a combination of supplies to meet treated and
untreated (i.e. raw surface water) demands. Zone 7's water supplies consist of imported
surface water and local runoff.
Zone 7 conducts an annual review of its water supply reliability. The most recent review
was completed in May 2009. The sustainability and reliability of Zone 7's existing water
supply system is achieved first by having sufficient long term supplies to meet demands and
then by storing surplus water in wet years for use in dry years; it is heavily dependent on
having enough wet years to balance the dry years, This balance between wet and dry years
is evaluated by comparing projected yields from existing water supplies over a wide range
of historic hydrology to make sure that Zone 7 can meet 100 percent of its treated water
customer water supply needs during: an average water year; the worst single dry year from
the historic record that represents the lowest yield from all available supplies; and multiple
Page 3-128 PF
Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
dry water ears from the historic record. Traditionally, if the projected yields over a long
range of hydrology can be shown to meet a future demand every year, then the system is
called sustainable for that level of demand. In general, if long-term average yields from
existing water supplies are less than projected water demands, then over time, the storage
reserves needed to meet reliability goals will erode and the system is not sustainable.
Zone 7 staff compared projected water demands to the long-term average yield of existing
water supplies in the current year (2009), over the next five years (2009 to 2013), and at
buildout, to identify potential deficiencies in the existing water supply system. This
comparison indicated that the existing water supply system could reliably meet projected
water demands of 62,500 acre-feet (AF) which is 9,000 AF more than 2013 demands, but
that projected water demands at buildout exceed long-term average yields expected from
existing water supplies. Therefore, the existing system could become unsustainable in about
a decade, sometime between 2015 and 2020.
The exact year that the existing system becomes unsustainable cannot be determined
because of a number of current uncertainties (e.g., rate of urban growth, rate of growth in
untreated demands, changes in water efficiency, timing of potential solutions, or future
adjustments to projected demands by Zone 7 customers) that would significantly influence
timing. However, Zone 7 has developed a risk model to help incorporate these
uncertainties, along with other key issues, into future evaluations of Zone Ts existing water
supply system. Overall, Zone 7 staff feels that it is reasonably likely that Zone 7 will be able
to meet contracted water demands through projected buildout of the Livermore-Amador
Valley.
Zone 7 and DSRSD currently charge connection and other fees on new development
within their service area. Fees are used for construction of planned water system capital
improvements including storage, pumping, transmission, and on-going system water
maintenance and improvements.
Sewer/Wastewater
DSRSD is also the purveyor of wastewater collection services in the City of Dublin and a
portion of the City of San Ramon. DSRSD wastewater collection system includes over 170
miles of sanitary sewers ranging from six to 42 inches in diameter that are from five to over
40 years old. As shown in Figure 3.8-3: Sanitary Sewer System, the project area includes a
variety of collection mains located within the existing public streets and on some private
properties. Most of the mains range from eight to 12 inches. All of the sewer mains drain
into a 36-inch main, which runs north to south along Village Parkway.
Disposal of treated wastewater is under the jurisdiction of the Livermore-Amador Valley
Water Management Authority (LAVWMA). Wastewater collected from the DSRSD
service area travels by gravity to the DSRSD wastewater treatment plant, which is located
near the southeast comer of Interstate 580 and Interstate 680 in the City of Pleasanton.
The plant has a rated dry-weather capacity of 17.0 million gallons per day (mgd).
i
VNEWIT Page 3-129
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
Disposal of treated effluent from DSRSD's wastewater treatment plant in Pleasanton is the
responsibility of the LAVWMA. LAVWMA exports secondary treated wastewater to the
East Bay Discharges Authority interceptor pipeline for ultimate discharge to San Francisco
Bay via a deepwater outfall. LAVWMA facilities are designed to export a maximum flow of
41.2 mgd during wet weather events.
DSRSD currently charges wastewater connection and other fees on all new development
within the District's service area. Fees are used for construction of planned wastewater
treatment and collection system capital improvements, as well as on-going wastewater
system maintenance.
Solid Waste Management
Coordination of the solid waste management activities in Alameda County is the joint
responsibility of the County's Waste Management Authority and local jurisdictions. The
City of Dublin currently contracts with Amador Valley Industries (AVI), a private company
for residential and commercial garbage collection within the City limits. The City of Dublin
also has an aggressive and comprehensive recycling program and collects both recycling and
organics. All single-family residences are provided with recycling containers. In addition,
free recycling service is available to all commercial customers that subscribe to garbage
service. In regards to construction and demolition debris, the City requires all construction
and demolition projects to recycle at least 50-percent of waste generated on a job site.
Solid waste generated within the project area would be deposited at the Altamont Landfill.
The Altamont Landfill has a total estimated permitted capacity of 62,000,000 cubic yards.
The total estimated capacity used is 16,280,000 cubic yards (or 263 percent), and the
remaining estimated capacity is at 45,720,000 cubic yards (or 73.7 percent). The estimated
closure date of this landfill is January 2029.
Electricity and Natural Gas
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity to all or part of 47 counties in
California, and provides natural gas to all or part of 39 counties in California, constituting
most of the northern and central portions of the state. PG&E provides electricity and
natural gas service to the City of Dublin. PG&E charges connection and user fees for all
new development, in addition to sliding rates for electrical and natural gas service based on
use. Electricity and gas services are currently offered in the DDSP area.
Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, entitled "Energy Efficiency Standards
for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings," specifies requirements to achieve the State's
minimum energy efficiency standards, The standards apply to new construction of both
residential and nonresidential buildings, and regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling,
ventilation, water heating and lighting. Compliance with these standards is verified and
enforced through the local building permit process. Projects that apply for a building
permit on or after January 1, 2010, must comply with the 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards.
In addition, the California Energy Commissions' Energy Aware Planning Guide is available as a
reference tool to assist in project planning. Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Page 3-130 i""
Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
for new development in the proposed DDSP area include the following energy-saving
measures:
¦ Green roofs and rooftop gardens are encouraged to add landscaping, decrease the
heat island effect of large expanses of flat roofs, and to reduce heating and cooling
energy demands;
¦ Roof materials should meet or exceed the Energy Star requirements for solar
reflectance;
¦ Energy-efficient lighting (lighting from renewable sources and energy-saving devices,
such as light sensors) are encouraged, whenever feasible; and
¦ Where feasible, warm white, energy efficient lighting source types such as metal
halide, induction lighting, compact fluorescent, and light-emitting diode (LED) should
be used.
Regulatory Setting
State
Schools
School Facilities Act of 1998
The School Facilities Act of 1998 (also know as Senate Bill [SB] 50), provides state funding
for new school construction projects that can satisfy certain criteria for such funding,
including eligibility due to growth, Division of State Architect plan approval. However, the
Act also dramatically limits the maximum amount of impact fees, which can be charged by
school districts as mitigation for new residential, commercial, and industrial construction.
The Act also prohibits local agencies from denying a development application on the basis
of a person's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the fee amount and
refusing to approve any legislative or adjudicative act on the basis that school facilities are
inadequate.
Parks and Recreation
Quimby Act
Since the passage of the 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code §66477), cities
and counties have been authorized to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside
land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The goal of the
Quimby Act was to require subdividors to provide park and recreational lands to meet the
increased demand from new subdivisions. Originally, the Act was designed to ensure
"adequate" open space acreage in jurisdictions adopting Quimby Act standards, which
ranged from three to five acres per 1,000 residents.
R Page 3-131
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
Water Supply and Distribution
Title 22 California Code of Regulations
The Califomia Department of Public Health (CDPH) promulgates and enforces state
regulations for drinking water treatment facilities and distribution systems. These state
regulations are at least as strict as federal drinking water regulations, although not all federal
regulations are currently incorporated into corresponding state regulations. These state
drinking water regulations are contained in Califomia Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22.
The CDPH also regulates the distribution and use of recycled water through CCR Title 22.
Urban Water Management Plan
In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act
(Water Code Sections 10610 - 10656). The California Urban Water Management Planning
Act requires that each urban water supplier, providing water for municipal purposes either
directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet
of water annually, shall prepare, update and adopt its urban water management plan at
least once every five years on or before December 31, in years ending in five and zero.
Wastewater Treatment
Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.)) have as their goal the restoration of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of
the nation's waters. The primary regulatory mechanism to achieve the goal is the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The CWA requires that parties seeking
to discharge pollutants to the water of the United States obtain a permit under the
NPDES. The federal govemment has delegated responsibilities for implementing the CWA
NPDES program in Califomia to the State. A discharge of pollutants from a source with a
single readily identifiable point of discharge, such as a municipal wastewater outfall, is only
permitted if it meets certain quality standards, known as effluent limits. Effluent limits are
based on available wastewater treatment technology. For surface water discharges of
stormwater runoff, additional regulations may apply, as discussed further below.
CWA Section 303(d)(1)(A) requires states to identify surface waters within their
boundaries where numeric or narrative water quality objectives are not being achieved or
maintained and/or where beneficial uses are not fully protected after application of
technology-based controls. Section 401 of the CWA requires applicants for federal
licenses or permits to obtain safe certification that any discharge of pollutants to surface
waters from a proposed activity will comply with the CWA, including applicable water
quality standards. CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230) regulate dredge and
fill activities that affect jurisdictional wetlands and waters, including water quality aspects of
such activities.
Page 3-132 FBF
Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
California Porter-Cologne Act
The California Porter-Cologne Act created an administrative structure and procedures for
management of water quality in the state. California's water quality program is
administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and by nine Regional
Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), Each RWQCB is responsible for regulating
water quality within their watershed. In accordance with the Porter-Cologne Act, each
RWQCB implements the Basin Plan developed for its region by issuing and enforcing waste
discharge requirements to individuals, communities, or businesses whose waste discharges
can affect water quality. These requirements can be either waste discharge requirements
(WDRs) for discharges to land (which may impact groundwater), or federally delegated
NPDES permits for discharges to surface water.
Solid Waste
Integrated Waste Management Act
The Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) mandates that communities reduce their
solid waste. The Act requires local jurisdictions to divert 25 percent of their solid waste by
1995 and 50 percent by 2000, compared to a baseline of 1990. AB 939 also establishes an
integrated framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste
facility and landfill compliance.
Local
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee
Chapter 7.78, Public Facilities Fee of the City of Dublin Municipal Code establishes a public
facilities fee in order to finance public facilities and to pay for each development's fair share
of construction and acquisition costs of improvements to public facilities that are caused by
future development.
City of Dublin General Plan
The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to public services and
utilities within the project area:
Parks / Recreational Facilities
Guiding Policy A. Expand park areas throughout the primary and extended planning areas
to serve new development.
Guiding Policy B. Maintain and improve outdoor facilities in conformance with the
recommendations of the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Implementing Policy C. Acquire and improve parklands in conformance with the standards
and policies recommended in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
W Page 3-133
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
Solid Waste
Guiding Policy A. Ensure that adequate solid waste disposal capacity is available to avoid
constraining development consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
Implementing Policy B. Continue to enforce City Source Reduction and
Recycling/Household Hazardous Waste Elements.
Implementing Policy C. Cooperate with Alameda County, as necessary, for adoption and
implementation of the County Integrated Waste Management Plan.
Implementing Policy D. Prior to project approval, the applicant shall demonstrate that
capacity will exist in solid waste disposal facilities for their projects prior to issuance of
building permits.
Implementing Policy E. Large scale projects should be required to submit a plan that
demonstrates how they will contribute towards the City's State mandated diversion
requirement.
Sewage Treatment and Disposal
Guiding Policy A. Expand sewage treatment and disposal capacity to avoid constraining
development consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
Implementing Policy B. Prior to project approval, developers shall demonstrate that
adequate capacity will exist in sewage treatment and disposal facilities for their projects
prior to the issuance of building permits.
Water Supply
Guiding Policy A. Base General Plan proposals on the assumption that water supplies will
be sufficient and that local wells could be used to supplement imported water if necessary.
Implementing Policy B. Consider obtaining water from the East Bay Municipal Utility
District and other sources.
Relevant Project Characteristics
Development activities under the proposed Specific Plan are assumed to occur over the
next 15 to 20 years. During that time, it is assumed that only a portion of the existing land
uses will be intensified and that many of the existing structures will essentially remain the
same in size and configuration with the exception of remodeling of existing structures.
Based on this information, future development assumptions for each district were identified
which is used for the basis for infrastructure improvements.
Downtown Dublin is largely built-out, but there are a few vacant parcels on which new
development could occur. Future development would therefore occur as properties are
intensified and in some cases at a higher density. Due to the existing Floor to Area (FAR)
Page 3-134 MF
Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
ratio and parking requirements, limited new additional density opportunities within the
planning area exist, particularly in the Retail and Village Parkway Districts.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Criteria for Determining Significance
In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQ1 Guidelines, agency and professional standards, a
project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
¦ Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or
need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
o Fire protection,
o Police protection,
o Schools,
o Parks, or
o Other public facilities;
¦ Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board;
¦ Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated;
¦ Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment;
¦ Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the providers existing commitments;
¦ Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects;
¦ Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed;
¦ Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects;
¦ Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs; and/or
¦ Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
MIF Page 3-135
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
Methodology
Information in this section is derived primarily from the City of Dublin General Plan, the
DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, as well as
personal communication with service providers.
Impacts and Mitigation Measure
Increased Demand for Fire Protection Service
Impact 3.8-1: The proposed project would not significantly increase the need for fire
protection services and result in the need for or the construction of new or physically
altered facilities in order to meet the City's response times for fire protection services.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on fire
protection services.
The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County Fire Department to provide fire
and rescue services. The County of Alameda currently provides the City with 36 line
personnel that are assigned to the City at three fire stations (Stations 16, 17 and 18) that
serve the community. Station No. 16 is located at 7494 Donohue Drive and houses one
engine company, one truck company, and a patrol. This station provides initial response to
west and downtown Dublin and would be the first responder to any fire or emergency
occurring in the project area.
Although the number of calls for service from the DDSP area would likely increase, all
proposed development must meet certain State building and fire codes. Typically, these
codes require a development plan that provides for fire protection systems, ingress and
egress, maximum occupancy limitations, and construction techniques and materials dictated
by the proposed use of the structure (refer to the City of Dublin's Municipal Code,
Chapter 5.08, Fire Code). Specifically, the Fire Department would review individual
development proposals for conformance with locally-defined performance standards,
including the California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Dublin's Fire Department, and
California Building Code standards. Site access, road widths and turning radii, road grades,
surfacing, load bearing capability, sprinkler systems, stand pipes, smoke detectors, and fire
alarms would also be reviewed for consistency with Fire Department standards.
Each proposed development project within the DDSP will be required to fund its own
project-specific on-site and off-site improvements consistent with existing City regulations
and requirements. The City would collect public facilities fees (Chapter 7.78 of the City of
Dublin Municipal Code) from future development to help off-set fire protection-related
capital improvements and on-going maintenance expenses incurred by new development
prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
As the majority of the DDSP area is already built-out and future projects will be required
to comply with the Fire Code and other applicable fire protection regulations, the
proposed project is not expected to create any adverse impacts on fire protection.
Page 3-136 pF
Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is
required.
Increased Demand for Law Enforcement Service
Impact 3.8-2: The proposed project would not significantly increase the need for law
enforcement services, which would result in the need for the construction of new or
physically altered facilities in order to meet the City's response times. Therefore, the
proposed project would have a less than significant impact on law enforcement services.
The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County Sheriffs Department for police
services. The County Sheriff, under consultation with the City, designates a commanding
officer that functions and is empowered to act as the City's Police Chief. Patrol, criminal
investigation, crime prevention, and business office functions are handled at the Dublin
Civic Center location. Dublin Police Services is staffed so that there is a five-minute
response time to all emergency calls. The City of Dublin has 51 swom personnel with a
population of 43,630, for a ratio of 1.17 sworn personnel per 1,000 population.
Although the addition of new residents and businesses to the DDSP area would slightly
increase the demand for police services, implementation of the proposed project would
have a minimal effect on response times for police services and would not affect the
Department's ability to meet the response time goal Future development would. be
required to comply with Chapter 7.32.300 (Building Security) and Chapter 7.32.3 10
(Nonresidential building security) of the City's Building Code, which includes building
standards aimed at reducing law enforcement calls within the City. In addition, the City
would collect public facilities fees (Chapter 7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code)
from future development to help off-set police service capital improvements and on-going
maintenance expenses incurred by the new development prior to issuance of a Building
Permit to ensure that the proposed project will not impact law enforcement services.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on law
enforcement services, and no mitigation is required.
Increased Demand for Educational Facilities
Impact 3.8-3: Implementation of the DDSP would increase the number of students in the
Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) with the construction of approximately 1,300 multi-
family residential units, which would increase the capacity of the schools with serve the
project area, which are operating above optimum capacity. However, future development
within the project area would be required to pay school impact fees as required under
State law to the DUSD. This impact is considered less than significant.
The proposed project would allow for a future net new development potential with
approximately 3.0 million square feet of non-residential development and 1,300 multi-family
residential dwelling units. Children from the proposed dwelling units would likely attend
DUSD schools. Therefore, the DDSP could have a direct impact on schools within the
MIF Page 3-137
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
DUSD boundary. The DUSD has established student generation rates for the purposes of
estimating and planning for enrollment increases as a result of new residential development
or redevelopment. No generation rates have been established for commercial
development, as commercial development is not anticipated to result in direct population
growth and a corresponding demand for classroom space.
According to the DUSD's Demographic Study and Facilities Plan, 2007-09, multifamily
housing development generates an average of 0.125 K-12 students per unit the proposed
project would result in approximately 163 students (K-12 grades).
The DDSP area would be served by the following schools: elementary - Dublin,
Frederiksen, and Murray Elementary Schools; middle - Wells Middle School, and high
school - Dublin High School. The DUSD middle school has a sufficient existing capacity to
meet the needs of school children generated by the proposed project. However, the
elementary schools and high school which would be serving the DDSP area currently
exceed capacity, as shown in Table 3.8-3: Capacity Versus Current Enrollment of Schools
Serving the DDSP Area, below,
Table 3.8-3: Capacity Versus Current Enrollment of Schools Serving the DDSP Area
Grade Level and School Student Enrollment in Optimum Capacity Excess Capacity
Name 2008-2009
Elementary
Dublin 533 344 189
Frederiksen 506 502 4
Murray 370 264 106
Middle School
Wells 718 1,000 (282)
High School
Dublin HS 1,474 1,259 215
Source: Dublin Unified School District, 2010; Ed-Dat,a, 2010
Future development within the DDSP area would be required by law to pay school impact
fees at the time of the building pen-nit issuance. The DUSD currently charges development
fees in the amount of $2.97 per square foot of residential development and $0.47 per
square foot for commercial and industrial uses. These fees are used by the DUSD to
mitigate impacts associated with long-term operation and maintenance of school facilities.
A development project applicant's fees would be determined at the time of the building
permit issuance and would reflect the most current fee amount established by the DUSD.
School fees exacted from residential and commercial uses would help fund necessary
school service and facilities improvements to accommodate anticipated population and
school enrollment growth within the DUSD service area, and would allow for the DUSD
to allocate these funds as deemed necessary. Therefore, the increased demand on the
Page 3-138 p~C
Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
DUSD is considered a less than significant impact on school services, and no
mitigation is required.
Increased Demand for Parks and Recreation Facilities
Impact 3.8-4: The proposed project would increase the demand for park and recreational
uses within the DDSP area. However, development projects within the project area would
be required to pay the City's Public Facilities Fee prior to Building Permit issuance.
Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact.
Implementation of the proposed project would increase the demand for neighborhood and
community parks due to the projected increase in the residential population generated by
future development within the DDSP project area. Parks and gathering spaces are to be
provided as a community benefit under the DDSP, which would off-set the increased
demand, The City of Dublin General Plan establishes park standards that call for five net
acres per 1,000 residents. The Parks and Community Services Department Public Facilities
Fee would be applied to future development within the project area. Public Facilities Fees
vary according to the size of residential units, the location of the development, and whether
or not there is credit of the dedication of land. With payment of City's public facilities fees
(Chapter 7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code), the proposed project would have a
less than significant impact on park and recreation facilities in the City, and no
mitigation is required.
Increased Demand for Library Services or Other Public Facilities
Impact 3.8-5: The proposed project would result in an increase in demand for library
services. However, existing library facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposed
project. In addition, the proposed project would not physically impact other public facilities.
Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact.
The Dublin Library is a partnership between the City of Dublin and Alameda County
Library. Although the proposed project would increase the demand for library services, the
demand for these services would be met by existing library facilities. The City funds 31
additional hours of library service and supports the collection with additional money.
Implementation of the proposed project would not require the construction of new library
facilities and would not cause or accelerate the physical deterioration of existing library
facilities. Additionally, the proposed project would not physically impact other public
facilities. This would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is
required.
Increased Wastewater Demand
Impact 3.8-6: Implementation of the DDSP would not require the construction of new
wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities. Additionally, the
existing service provider has an adequate capacity to meet this demand. Therefore, this
would be considered a less than significant impact.
WIF Page 3-139
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
DSRSD provides wastewater collection services in the DDSP area. The DDSP area
includes a variety of collection mains located within the existing public streets and on some
private properties. Most of the mains range from eight to 12 inches. All of the sewer
mains drain into a 36-inch main, which runs north to south along Village Parkway. New
development projects within the DDSP area would connect to existing sewer lines.
DSRSD, in collaboration with MWH, Inc. completed a Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan Update in June of 2005. Land use data form the basis for estimating
wastewater flows in the collection system. In order to accommodate existing and future
demand, sewer improvements were recently completed in the DDSP area. These
improvements included the Dublin Boulevard West Sewer Relief project, and the Orchard
Supply Hardware Sewer Replacement.
Although implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in the
demand for wastewater treatment and disposal, this demand is not anticipated to result in
dry weather wastewater flows that exceed existing or planned capacity of the wastewater
treatment plant. Individual development projects would be responsible for the cost and
construction of new infrastructure required to serve new development. Public facility
improvements for sanitary sewer drainage are managed and maintained by the DSRSD.
In the District's Capital Improvement Plan, the costs of capital improvement projects are
assigned to Local Sewer Replacement (Fund 210) and/or Local Sewer Expansion (Fund
220). The Replacement fund represents costs that are allocated to existing users (generally
through sewer rates), and the Expansion fund represents the costs allocated to future users
(generally through connection fees). Implementation of these actions would ensure that
adequate wastewater infrastructure exists to serve new development.
In addition, implementation of the proposed project would comply with wastewater
treatment requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB).
Based on the Wastewater Master Plan (2005), the existing sewer infrastructure system that
provides service to the DDSP area is sized to accommodate existing and planned
development based on the City's General Plan and the respective Specific Plan growth
projections. Based on a review of these projections and discussions, there is adequate
capacity to service buildout of the downtown area. The wastewater treatment plant has an
adequate capacity to serve the proposed project, the proposed project would have a less
than significant impact on the existing wastewater treatment plant. Future development
within the DDSP area would be required to pay the sanitary sewer connection fee to the
DSRSD in order for the District to serve the proposed project. This is considered a less
than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Increased Water Demand and Extension of Water Infrastructure
Impact 3.8-7: Implementation of the DDSP would generate an additional demand for
water; however, the additional demand would be adequately served by anticipated water
entitlements and resources, Impacts are considered less than significant.
Page 3-140 p
I
III
Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
DSRSD is the purveyor of potable water in the City of Dublin. DSRSD purchases
wholesale water from Zone 7, who in turns purchases 70 percent of its water from the
State Water Project. The remainder of the Zone 7 water is from groundwater aquifers
through the Livermore-Amador Valley.
DSRSD, in collaboration with West Yost & Associates, completed a Water Supply Master
Plan Update in 2005. The Water Master Plan Update based future demand (in part) on
the City of Dublin's General Plan and respective Specific Plan growth projections. The
update recommends additional storage for the central Dublin area and potable water
system facility improvements to support existing and future conditions. No additional
pumping capacity is required for Pressure Zone 1, which includes the DDSP area. Within
Central Dublin, the Water Master Plan Update recommends the construction of a 2.74
million gallon reservoir (Tank I C) in Central Dublin (North of Dougherty Reservoir and
north of Amador Valley Road) to meet a storage deficiency at buildout, and to help
alleviate low pressure during peak hour demand conditions. In addition, new 12-inch and
20-inch diameter service mains are recommended in the vicinity of new Tank I C to fill the
tank and distribute water from the tank to the Central Dublin service area. These
improvements have been incorporated into DSRSD's capital improvement program.
Future water demands for the DDSP area were calculated using two methodologies: one
based on future population projections and per capita consumption, and one based on
future land use and unit water use factors, Based on the buildout of the existing Specific
Plans within the project area, it is reasonable to assume that there is sufficient water supply
to service future water demand in the DDSP area over the next 20+ years as the
projections in the Water Master Plan Update included land use and unit water use factors
consistent with the development densities proposed in the DDSP. In addition, new and/or
redeveloped uses resulting from implementation of the proposed project are not
anticipated to exceed the capacity of the water treatment plant.
The DDSP addresses water conservation by encouraging efficient design and green building
measures. The DDSP encourages the use of low-volume drip irrigation systems to be used
to water landscaping, and encourages the planting of drought-resistant plants. Additionally,
the DDSP promotes landscaping features that retain water and filter stormwater runoff
such as bio-swales, rain gardens, underground cistems, flow-through planters, and roof
gardens, which would increase groundwater recharge within the project area. In addition,
the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) provides recycled water for irrigation and
other non-potable uses. DSRSD Ordinance No. 301 requires recycled water use for
approved customer categories for all new land uses, including commercial, multi-family
residential, and institutional irrigation uses. The City also has Water-Efficient Landscaping
Regulations that reduce water use for irrigation (Chapter 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal
Code).
Based on a review of these projections, as well as the project design features in the
proposed DDSP, there is adequate capacity to service buildout of the DDSP area. In
addition, new development would tie into the existing service lines. Other than minor
WIF Page 3-141
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
construction to improve and/or expand existing connections, no major upgrades to water
infrastructure will be required. Developers of individual development projects would be
responsible for the cost and construction of new infrastructure required to serve new
development. Implementation of these actions would ensure that adequate water
infrastructure would be available to serve new development, This would be considered a
less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Stormwater Runoff
Impact 3.8-8: Implementation of the proposed project may result in reduced off-site
stormwater flows and future development within the planning area would be required to
pay applicable impact fees at the time of issuance of the building permits. As City impact
fees would adequately fund stormwater infrastructure, this would be considered a less than
significant impact.
As previously mentioned, the City of Dublin Public Works Department maintains the City's
storm drain pipelines that are located within public streets. Zone 7 owns and operates
regional storm drain facilities that collect runoff from the City. Given the fact that the
DDSP area is nearly completely covered with buildings, parking lots, sidewalks, and
roadways, stormwater discharge rates are not anticipated to exceed current conditions.
I
The DDSP area is adjacent to and drains into Lines F-4 and J- I of Zone 7's flood
protection and stormwater drainage system. Portions of these drainages may benefit from
the implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) technologies, such as pervious
pavement, rain gardens, and green roofs. Any new development could potentially improve
stormwater conditions through the application of LID and Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to groundwater infiltration, and thus, reduce off-site stormwater flows. Design
guidelines in the DDSP encourage increased percolation through the use of vegetated
swales, curb extensions, reconfigured parking lots with increased landscaping, and the use of
pervious materials (e.g. pervious pavers), particularly in parking lots. Implementation of
these design guidelines would result in a net reduction of off-site stormwater discharge
rates beyond what currently exists in the project area and would improve water quality as
compared to existing conditions. Such features would passively improve the quality of
runoff and would enhance environmental quality. Implementation of these actions would
reduce the impacts of new development on the storm drainage system compared to
existing conditions
Several properties within the DDSP area are located within the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. As previously discussed, new
construction will be subject to floodplain regulations. In addition, the Zone 7 Stream
Management Plan contains plans to retrofit the culvert that carries water from Dublin
Creek under Donlon Way. This retrofit will increase the culvert capacity and reduce the
risk of flooding in the DDSP area.
Future development would be required to pay applicable impact drainage fees at the time
of development, which includes development impact fees to Zone 7 based on total
Page 3-142 MF
Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
increases in impervious surfaces associated with future development. Payment of these
development impact fees to Zone 7 would ensure that the proposed project would result
in a less than significant impact on stormwater infrastructure and services, and no
mitigation is required.
Increased Generation of Solid Waste
Impact 3.8-9: Implementation of the proposed project would increase the generation of
solid waste. but would be served by landfills with adequate capacity to accommodate the
increase. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact.
Development within the DDSP area would result in an increase in both residential and
commercial development within the City. Solid waste services are currently provided by
Amador Valley Industries (AVI) and include the collection of waste, recycling, and organics.
The City requires all construction and demolition projects to recycle at least 50 percent of
waste generated on a job site (Chapter 7.30 of the Municipal Code). Additionally, the
Specific Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines encourage the use of green
building materials, including materials with recycled content, materials from resource-
efficient manufacturing process, locally-produced materials, salvaged or refurbished
materials, and reusable materials, consistent with the City's Green Building Ordinance
(Chapter 7.94). The City of Dublin also has an aggressive and comprehensive recycling
program. All single-family residences are provided with recycling containers. In addition,
free recycling service is available to all commercial customers that subscribe to solid waste
collection.
All solid waste generated by development under the DDSP would be deposited at the
Altamont Landfill. The Altamont Landfill has a total estimated permitted capacity of
62,000,000 cubic yards. The total estimated capacity used is 16,280,000 cubic yards (or
26.3 percent), and the remaining estimated capacity is at 45,720,000 cubic yards (or 73.7
percent). The estimated closure date of this landfill is January 2029. Development under
the DDSP would occur over an extended period of time, meaning the Altamont Landfill
would see an incremental increase in additional project solid waste until ultimate buildout
of the DDSP.
The proposed DDSP calls for the construction of approximately 3.0 million square feet of
non-residential development and 1,300 residential units. While this represents the
theoretical buildout capacity of development in the DDSP project area, the ultimate
amount of future development will likely be considerably less due non-tangibles such as
market demand, ownership pattems, tenant lease terms, etc., as well as the fact that the
DDSP project area is already largely developed resulting in significant physical limitations
such as parcel configurations, parking, and circulation. Table 3.8-4: Solid Waste Generation
Rates from Proposed Buildout of the DDSP, provides the projected amount of solid waste
that would be generated at DDSP buildout.
p Page 3-143
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Public Services & Utilities
Table 3.8-4: Solid Waste Generation Rates from Proposed Buildout of the DDSP
Solid Waste
Proposed Land Use Potential New Development Solid Waste Generation Rate' Generation
Non-Residential 3,000,000 sq. ft. 2.5 Ib/1000 sq. ft./day 3.75 tons/day
(Commercial Retail/Office)
Residential 1,300 units 12.23 lb/unit/day 7.95 tons/day
Projected Total 11.7 tons/day
'Rates from CalRecycle Website: http://www.calrecycle.Ga.gov/, April 2010
The proposed project would create approximately 1 1.7 tons of waste per day (or 4,270
tons/year). The Altamont Landfill's permitted maximum disposal rate is 11,500 tons/day.
The proposed project's solid waste generation amount represents approximately 0.1
percent of the Landfill's maximum daily disposal rate. In addition, future development within
the DDSP project area would be required to reduce 75 percent of trash through recycling
and the composting of organics, which would also reduce the overall waste generation of
the proposed project. Therefore, the Altamont Landfill has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the waste disposal needs of the proposed project. This would be
considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Electricity, Gas, and Telecommunications
Impact 3.8-10: The proposed project may result in the expansion of electricity, gas, and
telecommunications on-site; however, the majority of the DDSP area is already built-out.
This is considered a less than significant impact.
The majority of the DDSP area is already built out; therefore, the DDSP area is currently
serviced by electricity, natural gas, and telephone infrastructure located along local streets.
As such, new and intensification of uses that would occur with implementation of the
proposed are anticipated. PG&E would provide electrical and natural gas services to the
proposed project. AT&T would be the local telecommunications provider. Because the
DDSP area is located contiguous to existing services provided by the City of Dublin,
provision of new service would result in a less than significant impact, and no
mitigation is required.
Page 3- 144 p
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
3.9. Transportation & Circulation
This section presents the results of the transportation impact study for the proposed
project that was prepared by Fehr & Peers in April 2010. The purpose of the
transportation impact analysis for the proposed project is to evaluate transportation
impacts, identify short-term and long-term roadway and circulation needs, determine
potential mitigation measures, and identify any critical transportation issues that should be
addressed in the on-going planning process. The study primarily focused on evaluating
conditions at fourteen existing intersections that may potentially be affected by the
proposed project. The intersection operating conditions were evaluated under seven
scenarios. A complete copy of the traffic level of service worksheets, prepared by Fehr &
Peers, is included in Appendix D of this DEIR and is available for review at the City of
Dublin.
Environmental Setting
This chapter includes a description of existing traffic and circulation conditions, pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit facilities in and around the project area.
Existing Roadway Network
Operations of key intersections in the vicinity of the project area during the weekday
morning and evening peak commute periods were evaluated, when traffic volumes on the
surrounding roadways are highest. Intersections with potential impacts were selected in
consultation with City staff, based on the amount of traffic projected to be added by the
proposed project. The locations of these intersections are shown on Figure 3.9-1:
Transportation Study Area and represent the locations most likely to experience traffic
impacts associated with the project. These intersections are listed below followed by a
narrative description of key roadways,
¦ Amador Valley Boulevard/San Ramon ¦ Dublin Boulevard/Regional Street
Rd. ¦ Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive
¦ Amador Valley Boulevard/Regional ¦ Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road
Street Dublin Boulevard/Village Parkway
¦ Amador Valley Boulevard/Starward . Saint Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive
Drive
¦ Amador Valley Boulevard/Donohue ' Saint Patrick Way/Amador Plaza
Drive Road/Interstate 680 (1-680) Southbound
Ramps
¦ Amador Valley Boulevard/Amador Plaza 1-680 Northbound On-RampNillage
Road Parkway
¦ Amador Valley Boulevard/Village
Parkway
¦ Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road
MF Page 3-145
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Interstate 580 (1-580)
1-580 is an eight-lane, east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local Tri-Valley cities
such as Livermore and Pleasanton as well as regional cities such as Oakland, Hayward and
Tracy. According to Traffic Volumes of California State Highways (Caltrans 2008), 1-580
carries between 178,000 and 209,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in the project vicinity. 1-580
interchanges are located at San Ramon Road/Foothill Road, I-680, Dougherty
Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road, and Fallon Road/El
Charro Road.
Interstate 680 (1-680)
I-680 is a six-to-eight lane north-south freeway that provides access to the south to
Fremont, Milpitas and San Jose, and north to San Ramon, Danville, Walnut Creek and
beyond. According to Trofc Volumes on California State Highways, I-680 carries between
148,000 and 163,000 vpd in the vicinity of the project area (Caltrans 2008). 1-680
interchanges are located at Alcosta Boulevard, Dublin Boulevard via Amador Plaza Road
and Village Parkway, and 1-580.
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial in the City of Dublin. Dublin Boulevard, west
of Dougherty Road is a four- to six-lane divided road fronted largely by retail and
commercial land uses. Between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard is
a six-lane divided arterial fronted primarily by residential uses, commercial uses, and vacant
land. Dublin Boulevard extends east of Tassajara Road to Fallon Road as a four- to five-
lane roadway fronted by multi-family residential, commercial uses and vacant land.
Amador Valley Boulevard
Amador Valley Boulevard is an east-west collector that spans from San Ramon Road in the
west to Dougherty Road in the east. East of Village Parkway, it is a two-lane divided road
fronted largely by residences, West of Village Parkway, it is four-lane divided road that
traverses through the Retail District. It is located north of Dublin Boulevard.
San Ramon Road
San Ramon Road is a north-south arterial that forms the western border of the Plan study
area. San Ramon Road has six travel lanes (with a median) north of I-580 and an
interchange at I-580. North of Amador Valley Boulevard, Sam Ramon Road narrows to
four travel lanes (with a median). This arterial runs parallel to 1-680 north through San
Ramon, Danville, Walnut Creek, and Concord; south of 1-680 it becomes Foothill Road and
continues through Pleasanton. Because of the I-580 interchange, this roadway will be a
major access point to uses in the Specific Plan Area.
Village Parkway
Village Parkway is a north-south Class I collector that extends from just south of Dublin
Boulevard north to Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon. Village Parkway has four travel lanes
Page 3-146
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
with a raised median. Within the Plan area between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley
Boulevard, Village Parkway provides access to commercial uses; north of Amador Valley
Boulevard, access is provided to residential developments and to Dublin High School.
South of Dublin Boulevard, an on-ramp is provided to 1-680 northbound,
Regional Street
Regional Street is a north-south Class II collector that begins at Amador Valley Boulevard
and terminates south of Dublin Boulevard; it is a two-lane roadway providing access to
local commercial land uses.
Amador Plaza Road
Amador Plaza Road is a north-south Class II collector that begins at Amador Valley
Boulevard and terminates south of Saint Patrick Way; at the intersection with Saint Patrick
Way it provides access to and from 1-680 southbound. It serves as an access point to
commercial uses.
Saint Patrick Way
Saint Patrick Way is an east-west Class II collector connecting the 1-680 ramps to Golden
Gate Drive. It currently provides two travel lanes and provides access for the uses
between Amador Plaza Road and Golden Gate Drive, as well as to and from 1-680
southbound. In the future this roadway will extend further west to Regional Street.
Starward Drive and Donohue Drive
Starward Drive and Donohue Drive provide access to residential dwellings located north of
Amador Valley Boulevard between San Ramon Road and 1-680. They are both two-lane
residential collectors which turn into Landale Avenue.
Traffic Analysis Methodology
Operational traffic analyses focus on intersections rather than roadway segments, due to
the capacity constraints typically occurring at the intersections. The operational
performance of a roadway network is commonly described with the term level of service
or LOS. LOS is a qualitative description of operating conditions, ranging from LOS A
(free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (oversaturated conditions
where traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays). The LOS
analysis methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation
Research Board, 2000) were used in this study. The HCM methods for calculating LOS for
signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections are described below.
Traffic operations at signalized intersections were evaluated using the LOS method
described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 HCM. The Synchro 7.0 software was used to analyze
traffic conditions throughout the Plan Area. A signalized intersection's LOS is based on the
weighted average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. Control delay includes
initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration. Table
PF Page 3-147
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
3.9-1: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria summarizes the relationship between the
control delay and LOS for signalized intersections.
Table 3.9-1: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of Description Average Control
Service Delay (Seconds
per Vehicle)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable traffic signal < 10.0
progression and/or short cycle lengths. -
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle > 10.0 to 20.0
lengths.
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer > 20.0 to 35.0
cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression,
D long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop > 35.0 to 55.0
and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle
E lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. > 55.0 to 80.0
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over- > 80.0
saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000
In Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), the LOS for unsignalized
intersections (side-street or all-way stop controlled intersections) is also defined by the
average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds). The control delay incorporates
delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. For
side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay is calculated for each stop-controlled
movement and for the uncontrolled left tums, if any, from the main street. The delay and
LOS for the intersection as a whole and for the worst movement are reported for side-
street stop intersections. The intersection average delay is reported for all-way stop
intersections. Table 3.9-2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria summarizes the
relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. The delay ranges for
unsignalized intersections are lower than for signalized intersections as drivers expect less
delay at unsignalized intersections.
Table 3.9-2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of Description Average Control Delay
Service (Seconds Per Vehicle)
A Little or no delays < 10.0
B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0
Page 3-148 WF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000
Existing Traffic Operations and Levels of Service
The existing peak hour turning movement volumes can be seen in Figure 3.9-2: Existing
Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, and the lane configuration and control for each
intersection is shown in Figure 3.9-3: Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control. The
fourteen study intersections were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours
according to the procedures described and reflect the worst 15 minute scenario during
each of these peak periods Table 3.9-3: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
provides a summary of the level of service results. Currently, all fourteen intersections
operate acceptably during both peak hours.
Table 3.9-3: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Peak Delay (in
Intersection Control Hour seconds)1 2 LOS12
1 Amador Valley Boulevard / San Ramon Road Signal AM 32 C
PM 26 C
2 Amador Valley Boulevard / Regional Street Signal AM 8 A
PM 15 B
3 Amador Valley Boulevard / Starward Drive Signal AM 6 A
PM 7 A
4 Amador Valley Boulevard / Donohue Drive Signal AM 13 B
PM 14 B
5 Amador Valley Boulevard / Amador Plaza Road Signal AM 12 B
PM 18 B
6 Amador Valley Boulevard I Village Parkway Signal AM 50 D
PM 43 D
7 Dublin Boulevard / San Ramon Road Signal AM 39 D
PM 36 D
8 Dublin Boulevard / Regional Street Signal AM 21 C
PM 43 D
9 Dublin Boulevard / Golden Gate Drive Signal AM 10 B
PM 27 C
10 Dublin Boulevard I Amador Plaza Road Signal AM 35 D
PM 41 D
11 Dublin Boulevard / Village Parkway Signal AM 37 D
PM 34 C
12 Saint Patrick Way / Golden Gate Drive AWSC AM 8 A
PM 7 A
Saint Patrick Way I Amador Plaza Road I 1-680 AM 19 B
13 SB Ramps Signal PM 24 C
14 1-680 NB On-Ramp I Village Parkway SSSC AM 1(5) A A
PM 1(4) A A
Notes:
1. Signalized intersection and all-way stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per
vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
2. Side-street stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle and worst
approach control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual in the notation: average
worst approach).
Page 3-149
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Source: Fehr & Peers 2010
Traffic Impact Fee Program
The Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) was established in 2004 after completion
of three Specific Plans (Village Parkway, Downtown Dublin Core, and West Dublin BART
Specific Plans) in the Downtown area. It encompasses the entire study area for this
project. The TIF evaluated traffic impacts associated with potential future development
based on the City's General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plans. As a result, roadway
improvement projects were identified throughout downtown Dublin to mitigate traffic
impacts.
To fund these improvements, a TIF rate was calculated by dividing the estimated number of
trips associated with the potential development in the study area into the unfunded cost of
the proposed improvements. The 2004 adopted cost per daily trip for non-residential
development added was $ 136; for residential development, the cost per unit added varied
from $816 to $1,360 per unit based on the density of the development. Automatic annual
adjustments are applied each year and the current fees are somewhat higher.
The improvements identified that are part of the study area include:
¦ Extension of Saint Patrick Way to Regional Street
¦ Widening of Golden Gate Drive
¦ Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive intersection improvements
¦ Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road intersection improvements
¦ Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection improvements
¦ Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection improvements
The above improvements are identified and funded by the TIF program; however the City
anticipates updating the TIF program in the near future to ensure that the program is
consistent with the goals of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and previously-adopted
mitigation measures for other projects. Therefore, the improvements are not identified as
planned improvements pending this revision. The revision is anticipated to commence once
the Specific Plan has been adopted.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Sidewalks are
provided on all of the existing roadways in the study area. All study intersections provide
some striped crosswalks, although crossings are not provided at a few locations for safety
reasons. There are no marked crossings across Village Parkway at the unsignalized 1-680
northbound on-ramp; however, there should be.no need to cross here. Pedestrian signal
heads are provided at the signalized intersections where crosswalks are provided.
A shared pedestrian and bicycle pathway is also provided in the study area. The pathway is
a pedestrian/bicycle path that provides off-street thoroughfare through the area. The path
Page 3-150 MF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
is located to the west of San Ramon Road and runs from Westside Drive/Alcosta
Boulevard to Dublin Boulevard in the south.
Bicycle facilities include the following:
¦ Class I Paths - These facilities are located off-street and can serve both bicyclists
and pedestrians. Recreational trails can be considered Class I facilities. Class I paths
are completely separate from the roadway and are typically 8 to 10 feet wide
excluding shoulders and are generally paved.
¦ Class II Bicycle Lanes - These facilities provide a dedicated area for bicyclists within
the paved street width through the use of striping and appropriate signage. These
facilities are typically four to six feet wide.
¦ Class III Bicycle Routes - These facilities are found along streets that do not provide
sufficient width for dedicated bicycle lanes. The street is then designated as a bicycle
route through the use of signage informing drivers to share the roadway with
bicyclists. Class III facilities may also provide the shared lane marking (sharrow) to
identify the bicycling path for bicyclists and to inform motorists to share the
roadway.
Within the project area, a Class I bicycle/pedestrian path is provided on the west side of
San Ramon Road, as described above. A Class 11 bicycle lane is provided in both directions
on Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road. Class III bike routes are provided
along Village Parkway. A more complete map of the existing bicycle facilities near the study
area is illustrated on Figure 3.9-4: Existing Bicycle Facilities.
Transit Service
Transit service providers in the project vicinity include Bay Area Rapid Transit District
(BART), which provides regional rail service, and the Livermore Amador Valley Transit
Authority (LAVTA) which provides local and regional bus service. Figure 3.9-5: Existing
Transit Routes shows the existing transit services provided near the project site. Each
service is described below.
Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
BART provides regional transit service to Alameda, San Francisco, Contra Costa, and San
Mateo Counties, Weekday service is provided from 4:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., while Saturday
and Sunday service is provided from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.,
respectively. Trains have a typical headway of 15 minutes on weekdays and Sundays, and
20 minutes on Saturdays. The East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is located
approximately one and one half miles east of the Project site. Another BART Station, the
West Dublin/Pleasanton station and a 71 1-space parking garage for BART patrons, is
located in the Specific Plan Area and is currently under construction and projected to open
sometime in 201 I. The BART project also includes approval of a Stage I Development
Plan which will allow for up to 150 hotel rooms and 7,500 square feet of commercial
development adjacent to the BART station (see Table 2-1). Additionally, a total of 617
PF Page 3-151
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
residential dwellings and a 150,000 square foot office building have been approved in close
proximity to the new station. Table 3.9-4: Projected BART Ridership - West
Dublin/Pleasanton Station shows the projected ridership for the new West
Dublin/Pleasanton station, based on system-wide forecasting performed by Fehr & Peers
for BART. The Station is projected to serve approximately 700 boardings and 700
alightings in each of the peak hours, and about 6,000 boardings/6,000 alightings on a daily
basis.
Table 3.9-4: Projected BART Ridership -West Dublin/Pleasanton Station
Access Mode AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Board Alight Board Alight Board Alight
Walk/Bike 40 625 509 156 3175 3262
Transit 158 65 87 148 1043 1068
Drive/Park 395 15 32 326 1324 1057
Drive/Drop off 100 8 20 103 530 515
Total 693 713 648 733 6072 5902
Source: BART Direct Ridership Model and Fehr & Peers 2009
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA)
LAVTA provides transit service for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore and
Pleasanton via Wheels, which provides both local and regional bus service. Wheels
provides Transbay service to destinations in San Francisco via connections to BART. Three
Wheels' bus routes operate near the project site. The characteristics of the routes
operating in the project area are summarized in Table 3.9-5: LAVTA Service Summary.
Local adult fares, as of March 2009, are $2.00, and youth and senior fares are $ 1.00. A
transfer to and from other Wheels routes is free, as are transfers from the Altamont
Commuter Express (ACE) and Contra Costa County's County Connection service.
Transfers from BART are $ 1.00. Ten-ride and monthly passes are also available for
Wheels. Fares are paid on the bus, and passengers must have exact change. Ridership
estimates from March 2010 for routes operating in the project area are summarized in
Table 3.9-6: March 2010 LAVTA Route Ridership.
Page 3-152 R
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Table 3.9-5: LAVTA Service Summary
Line Route Nearest Stop Weekday Weekend
Hours Head- Hours Head-
way way
BART / Dougherty / Several on 5:00 AM - 9:00 30 7:45 AM -11:15
3 Johnson Drive / West Amador Valley AM; 3:00 PM - minutes - AM; 2:30 PM - 8:00 1 hour
Dublin I Stoneridge Mall Boulevard and 8:30 PM 1 hour PM (Saturday only)
Regional Street
BART I Dougherty / Village Parkway I
Johnson Drive / West Once in morning, once in
3V Amador Valley n/a nla
Dublin / Stoneridge Mall - afternoon, once in evening
Limited Service Boulevard
Dublin / Pleasanton I Several on Dublin 5:00 AM - 2:00 15 - 40 20
10 Livermore Boulevard AM minutes 6:00 AM - 1:00 AM minutes -
1 hour
Pleasant Hill BART to Dublin Boulevard 5:30 -10:00 AM; 30
70X Dublin/Pleasanton BART east of Village 3:30 - 7:00 PM minutes n/a n/a
Parkway
East Dublin to Dublin High Village Parkway I Once in morning, once in
201 School Amador Valley afternoon n/a n/a
Boulevard
Village Parkway /
202 Dublin Ranch Village I Amador Valley Once in morning, once in nla n/a
Dublin High School Boulevard afternoon
Source: Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, March 2010
Table 3.9-6: March 2010 LAVTA Route Ridership
Route Weekday Average Saturday Average
Ridership Ridership
3 130 37
10 2726 1956
70 155 -
201 76 -
202 30
Source: LAVTA, April 2010
Relevant Project Characteristics
This section presents the relevant project details pertaining to the transportation impact
analysis, and describes the analysis scenarios and analysis methods.
The traffic analysis includes the following scenarios
¦ Existing Conditions
¦ Near-Term Conditions Without the Project, which assumes all entitled development,
including that which is in the Plan area, in addition to existing traffic volumes.
P Page 3-153
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
¦ Near-Term Plus Base FAR19 Project, which assumes all entitled development in
addition to existing traffic volumes, plus a level of Plan development that would
result in minor roadway and infrastructure improvements, such as signal timing
adjustments or re-striping of lanes.
¦ Near-Term Conditions Plus Maximum FAR Project, which assumes all entitled
development in addition to existing traffic volumes, along with the entire allotment
of development allowed by the plan, including the "development density pool,"
which is the proposed project.
Cumulative Conditions Without the Project, which starts with the Near-Term Without
Project case, adds regional background growth as determined from the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Countywide Travel Demand model, and
also adds the additional net new development (after accounting for the entitled
projects) that is allowed by the five current specific plans that make up the Project
area.
¦ Cumulative Conditions Plus Base FAR Project, which starts with the Near-Term
Without Project case, adds regional background growth as determined from the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Countywide Travel Demand
model, and also adds the additional net new development (after accounting for the
entitled projects) that is allowed by the Base FAR Project.
¦ Cumulative Conditions Plus Max FAR Project, which starts with the Near-Term
Without Project case, adds regional background growth as determined from the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Countywide Travel Demand
model, and also adds the additional net new development (after accounting for the
entitled projects) that is allowed by the Max FAR Project.
The process for developing each of these scenarios is further explained below. The LOS
results for each scenario are provided another section.
Because there are several entitled but not yet constructed projects in and around Dublin,
projected traffic volumes from these projects were added to the existing volumes to form
a Near-Term scenario for the Plan analysis. Entitled projects within Dublin, San Ramon,
and Pleasanton were included if they were expected to add traffic through the Plan area.
Entitled projects within and outside of the Plan area are shown in Table 3.9-7: Entitled
Projects Near the Specific Plan Area. Bold-face projects are located within the Plan area.
9 FAR = Floor Area Ratio. Base FAR for the purposes of the traffic analysis is the difference between the proposed project Base FAR
and already entitled projects.
I
Page 3-154
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area
City Project Location Development
Schaefer Ranch Western terminus of Dublin 582 dwelling units
Boulevard
Windstar Condos South of Dublin Boulevard; 309 dwelling units
west of Golden Gate Drive
South of Dublin Boulevard; 308 dwelling units; 150,000 square
AMB Site east of Regional Street feet office space
Tralee Development Eastern Dublin along Dublin 233 dwelling units; 33,500 square
Boulevard feet retail space
Arroyo Vista Eastern Dublin along Dublin Residential; traffic volume information
Dublin Boulevard provided
Hotel Site (adjacent to the Southern terminus of Golden 150 hotel rooms; 7,500 square feet
West Dublin/Pleasanton Gate Drive retail space
BART Station)
BART Station Parking Southern terminus of Golden 711-space parking garage
Garage Gate Drive
Custom Fireplace, Patio, Amador Plaza Road north of Additional 10,900 square feet retail
& BBQ Dublin Boulevard space
Northwest corner of Amador Additional 4,185 square feet retail
Big Lots Valley Boulevard and San space
Ramon Road
Pleasanton Senior Citizen Housing Along Foothill Boulevard 132 dwelling units
Multi-family Homes Along Foothill Boulevard 350 dwelling units
San Senior Citizen Housing Along San Ramon Road 105 dwelling units
Ramon
Notes: Bold projects are part of the proposed Plan area.
Source: City of Dublin, January 2010.
Trip generation estimates for the entitled projects during both AM and PM peak hours
were estimated using the trip generation equations and rates presented in Institute of
Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Project trip generation was
adjusted to account for pass-by trips and transit use, to more accurately reflect the number
of new vehicle trips expected to be added to the roadway network.
Pass-by trips are those that occur when a driver on an adjacent roadway to a particular use
decides to stop on their way to their final destination (e.g., to purchase an item on their
way home from work). These trips are not considered as new trips on the roadway
network. Transit trip reductions are taken to reflect the higher-than-average transit mode
share that is expected for development with good access to transit.
The following pass-by trip and transit trip reductions were taken:
Page 3-155
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Residential uses: 25% transit trip reduction
Retail Uses: 25% pass-by reduction
Office: 15% transit trip reduction
The approved project trips were distributed to the study area intersections using a
TRAFFIX traffic assignment model with distribution percentages derived from the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Travel Demand Model. The trip generation
calculations for the entitled projects are included in the technical appendix. The resulting
peak hour turning movements generated by these projects are shown in Figure 3.9-6:
Approved Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, and Figure 3.9-7: Near-Term Peak
Hour Intersection Volumes shows the total near-term peak hour intersection volumes.
Base FAR Project and Maximum FAR Project
Trip generation estimates for the proposed project during both AM and PM peak hours
were estimated using the trip generation equations and rates presented in Institute of
Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Project trip generation was
adjusted to account for pass-by trips and transit use, to more accurately reflect the number
of new vehicle trips expected to be added to the roadway network.
Pass-by trips are those that occur when a driver on an adjacent roadway to a particular use
decides to stop on their way to their final destination (e.g., to purchase an item on their
way home from work). These trips are not considered as new trips on the roadway
network.
Because the project site is adjacent to the under-construction West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station, which also will also serve as a hub for several bus routes, it is reasonable to
expect transit use by employees and patrons that is somewhat higher than the average ITE
rate for these types of development.
Given the proximity to BART and bus route coverage available to the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan area, the proposed mix of uses, and the proximity to freeways and arterials
from which pass-by trips can be drawn, the following pass-by trip and transit trip reductions
were taken:
¦ Residential uses: 25% transit trip reduction
¦ Retail Uses: 15% transit trip reduction and 25% pass-by reduction
Because the total development potential in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan is higher
than can be reasonably expected within the Near-Term and Cumulative horizons, an
assessment was conducted to determine how much development would likely be
constructed in the near term. The analysis determined that 867,320 square feet of non-
residential development, 799 dwelling units, and 150 hotel rooms could be added and the
Page 3-156
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
existing roadway network would operate acceptably without major infrastructure
improvements. This amount of development defines the Base FAR Project for the purposes
of this traffic analysis.
It is important to note that the Base FAR Project described above includes the entitled
project development within the Specific Plan boundary. Thus, the net new development
after accounting for the entitled projects, (see Table 3.9-7, bold projects) is 182 new
residential units and 709,500 square feet of commercial space.
Table 3.9-8: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Trip Generation - Base FAR Project provides
the trip generation estimates for each of the three districts for the Base FAR Project. Table
3.9-9: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Trip Generation - Maximum FAR Project gives the
trip generation for the full Downtown Dublin Specific Plan development potential (the
Maximum FAR Project). Detailed trip generation calculations for both cases are provided in
Appendix D.
As these tables show, the Base FAR Project generates about 580 net new AM peak hour
trips and 1,900 net new PM peak hour trips. The Maximum FAR Project generates much
higher trips, at 2,100 and 7,100 net new in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The
difference is much greater in the PM peak hour because much of the additional
development in the Maximum FAR project is commercial development, which has higher
trip generation in the PM peak hour, relative to the AM peak hour.
Need to insert new information in a text or table format that provides a description of
Base FAR and Maximum FAR that shows consistency with Chapter 2 definitions.
Table 3.7-8: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Trip Generation - Base FAR Project
District Development AM Peak Hour Trips (Net) PM Peak Hour Trips (Net)
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
368,680 square feet of commercial
Retail (retail) space; 100 dwelling units 183 154 337 537 562 1,099
(total and net)
477,910 square feet of commercial
Transit- (office) space (320,410 net after
Oriented entitled projects subtracted); 150 125 103 228 372 387 759
hotel rooms (0 net); 699 dwelling
units (82 net)
Village 20,730 square feet of commercial 10 6 16 28 31 59
Parkway (retail) space (total and net)
867,320 square feet of commercial
Total space (709,820 net); 799 dwelling 318 263 581 937 980 1,917
units (182 net); 150 hotel rooms (0
net)
Note: The total development numbers include already-entitled projects within the Plan area; the net numbers represent the net additional
development allowed under the Base FAR case. The trip generation shown is for the net new development.
Source: Fehr & Peers, April 2010
WF Page 3-157
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Table 3.7-9: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Trip Generation - Maximum FAR Project
District Development AM Peak Hour Trips (Net) PM Peak Hour Trips (Net)
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
737,100 square feet of commercial
Retail (retail) space; 100 dwelling units 358 263 621 1,035 1,102 2,137
(total and net)
2,202,710 square feet of
Transit- commercial (office) space 806 637 1,443 2,352 2,468 4,820
Oriented (2,045,210 net); 150 hotel rooms (0
net); 1,100 dwelling units (483 net)
Village 20,730 square feet of commercial
Parkway (retail) space; 100 dwelling units 20 47 67 68 53 121
(total and net)
2,960,540 square feet of
Total commercial space (2,803,040 net); 1184 947 2,131 3,455 3,623 7,078
1,300 dwelling units (683 net); 150
hotel rooms (0 net)
Note: The total development numbers include already-entitled projects within the Plan area; the net numbers represent the net additional
development allowed under the Maximum FAR case. The trip generation shown is for the net new development.
Source: Fehr & Peers, April 2010.
Project Trip Distribution
Trip distribution is defined as the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would
use to arrive at and depart from the site. Project trip distribution was primarily based on
the results of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)'s Countywide Travel
Demand model. Since the model is a regional model and does not accurately forecast local
traffic patterns, the trip distribution was further refined based on existing traffic patterns in
the area, local roadway characteristics, and location of complementary land uses. Project-
generated trips were assigned to the surrounding transportation network based on the
percentages shown in Figures 3.9-8a: Commercial Project Trip Distribution and Figure 3.9-
8b: Residential Trip Distribution.
Near-Term Plus Project (Base FAR)
Figure 3.9-9: Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes shows the turning
movement volumes at each of the study intersections for net new project-generated trips
beyond already entitled projects for this scenario. The Near-Term plus Base FAR Project
scenario adds the existing traffic volumes, projected trips from the entitled projects listed in
Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area, and net new Plan-specific trips
beyond already entitled projects as shown in Figure 3.9-9: Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour
Intersection Volumes. The sum of these elements is shown in Figure 3.9-10: Near-term
Plus Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. The results from this analysis
Page 3-158 WF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
were used to determine impacts to the roadway network and develop mitigation
measures.
Near-Term Plus Project (Maximum FAR)
The Near-Term Plus Maximum FAR Project scenario adds the existing traffic volumes,
projected trips from the entitled projects listed in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the
Specific Plan Area, and net new Plan-specific trips beyond already entitled projects as
shown in Figure 3.9-11: Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. The sum of
these elements is shown in Figure 3.9-12: Near-term Plus Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour
Intersection Volumes. The results from this analysis were used to determine impacts to the
roadway network and develop mitigation measures.
Cumulative No Project Conditions
The Cumulative Conditions without Project scenario adds the existing traffic volumes,
projected trips from the entitled projects listed in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the
Specific Plan Area, development permitted under the existing Specific Plans and
background growth from the CCTA Countywide Travel Demand model, to form a
baseline for the analysis. Development allowed by the five existing specific plans that apply
to the greater downtown area was included, as these specific plans would still be in place if
this proposed Specific Plan is not adopted. These specific plans allow for additional
development of nearly 3.2 million square feet of retail and office development, 717 dwelling
units, and 150 hotel rooms beyond existing development and already entitled projects.
The sum of these elements is shown in Figure 3.9-13: Cumulative No Project (Current
Specific Plans) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. The Cumulative analysis scenario also
includes a new study intersection, Regional Street and Saint Patrick Way. This intersection
is introduced as a result of the extension of Saint Patrick Way past Golden Gate Drive; the
extension is necessary to move vehicular traffic through the Transit-Oriented District when
the new West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and entitled projects are completed. It was
analyzed as an all-way stop intersection, with improvements as required by the City for the
Windstar development.
Cumulative Plus Project (Base FAR)
This scenario adds the existing traffic volumes, projected trips from the entitled projects
listed in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area, background growth
from the CCTA Countywide Travel Demand model, and net new traffic generated by the
Base FAR Project beyond already entitled projects. The projected turning movements for
this case are shown in Figure 3.9-14: Cumulative Plus Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour
Intersection Volumes.
Cumulative Plus Project (Maximum FAR)
This scenario adds the existing traffic volumes, projected trips from the entitled projects
listed in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area, background growth
from the CCTA Countywide Travel Demand model, and net new traffic generated by the
Maximum FAR Project beyond already entitled projects. The projected turning
P Page 3-159
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
movements for this case are shown in Figure 3.9-15: Cumulative Plus Project (Max FAR)
Peak Hour Intersection Volumes.
Project Circulation Elements
The project will also necessitate some improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. In
order to induce more pedestrian travel along the Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin
Boulevard corridors and meet the intent of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, the
Specific Plan will require project developers to improve pedestrian connectivity in the
Specific Plan Area by requiring landscaping, streetscape enhancements and pedestrian
connections to establishments.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Criteria for Determining Significance
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQ1
Guidelines, agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered
significant if the project would:
¦ Result in a traffic increase that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system, which is defined as causing an existing acceptable
intersection or roadway level of service to drop to unacceptable levels (as defined
by a City's General Plan).
¦ Cause a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) or Metropolitan Transportation
System (MTS) network segment to fall from acceptable (LOS E, roadway segment
volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.99 or less) in the No Project case to unacceptable
(LOS F, v/c of 1.00 or more); or, if a segment is already operating at LOS F in the
No Project case, the v/c ratio increases by more than 0.02 (for example, from 1.03
to 1.06).
¦ Conflict with adopted policies, plans, programs that support supporting alternative
transportation (for example, bus turnouts, bicycle racks).
¦ Increase the demand for public transit service above that which local transit
operators or agencies could accommodate.
¦ Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
¦ Disrupts existing transit service or does not provide amenities necessary to
accommodate transit demand.
The proposed Project includes an amendment to the City's General Plan related to
acceptable Levels of Service within the City. As proposed, this General Plan amendment
will require a Level of Service of D or better for all intersections except for intersections
within the Downtown Specific Plan Area, including the intersections of Dublin Blvd./San
Ramon Road and Village Parkway/Interstate 680 on-ramp, which are exempted from the
standard in the Draft General Plan Amendment:
Page 3-160
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
As shown in the following Traffic Analysis Results section, no intersections will operate
unacceptably, in accordance with the amended General Plan, as a result of the Project.
Intersection Traffic Analysis Results
Table 3.9-10: Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service - Base FAR Project provides the
LOS results for the Near-Terre No Project and Near-Term Plus Base FAR Project
scenarios.
Table 3.9-11: Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service - Maximum FAR Project provides
LOS results for the summary for the Near-Term No Project and Near-Term Plus
Maximum FAR Project scenarios.
Table 3.9-12: Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Base FAR Project
provides the LOS results for the Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Base FAR
Project scenarios.
Table 3.9-13: Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Maximum FAR
Project provides the LOS results for the Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus
Maximum FAR Project scenarios.
MF Page 3-161
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Table 3.9-10: Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service - Base FAR Project
Intersection Control LOS Peak Hour Existing Conditions Near-Term No Project Near-Term With Base FAR
Standard I Project
Delay (in LOS' z Delay (in LOS'? Delay (in LOS1•2
seconds)1.2 seconds)1,2 seconds)' z
Amador Valley AM 32 C 36 D 38 D
1 Boulevard / San Signal Exempt
Ramon Road PM 26 C 28 C 30 C
Amador Valley Exempt AM 8 A 8 A 9 A
2 Boulevard / Regional Signal
Street PM 15 B 17 B 18 B
Amador Valley Exempt AM 6 A 6 A 6 A
3 Boulevard / Starward Signal
Drive PM 7 A 7 A 7 A
Amador Valley Exempt AM 13 B 13 B 13 B
4 Boulevard / Donohue Signal
Drive PM 14 B 14 B 14 B
Amador Valley Exempt AM 12 B 13 B 14 B
5 Boulevard /Amador Signal
Plaza Road PM 18 B 19 B 22 C
Amador Valley AM 50 D 53 D 54 D
6 Boulevard / Village Signal Exempt
Parkway PM 43 D 48 D 54 D
7 Dublin Boulevard I Signal Exempt AM 39 D 43 D 47 D
San Ramon Road
PM 36 D 57 E 91 F
Dublin Boulevard I AM 21 C 47 D 48 D
8 Regional Street Signal Exempt
PM 43 D 61 E 71 F
9 Dublin Boulevard / Signal Exempt AM 10 B 22 C 25 C
Golden Gate Drive PM 27 C 43 D 65 E
Dublin Boulevard I AM 35 D 38 D 45 D
10 Amador Plaza Road Signal Exempt
PM 41 D 50 D 98 F
Dublin Boulevard I AM 37 D 36 D 36 D
11 Village Parkwa Signal Exempt
y PM 34 C 36 D 43 D
Saint Patrick Way I AM 8 A 18 C 20 C
12 Golden Gate Drive AWSC Exempt
PM 7 A 18 C 24 C
Saint Patrick Way / AM 19 B 27 C 30 C
13 Amador Plaza Road I Signal Exempt
1-680 SB Ramps PM 24 C 37 D 65 E
I AM 1(5) A (A) 1(5) A (A) 1(5) A (A)
I-680 NB Ramps SSSC Exempt
14 Village Parkway PM 1(4) A (A) 1(4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A)
1. 2. Notes: Signalized intersection and all-way stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle, according to the
2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
3. Side-street stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle and worst approach control delay per vehicle,
according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual in the notation: average (worst approach).
Source: Fehr & Peers 2010
Page 3-162 WF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Table 3.9-11: Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service - Maximum FAR Project
Intersection Control LOS Peak Existing Conditions Near-Term No Project Near-Term With Maximum
Standard Hour FAR Project
Delay (in LOSS? Delay (in LOS12 Delay (in LOS1,2
seconds) seconds)11 seconds)12
z
Amador Valley Exempt AM 32 C 36 D 46 D
1 Boulevard / San Signal
Ramon Road PM 26 C 28 C 37 D
Amador Valley AM 8 A 8 A 10 A
2 Boulevard / Regional Signal D
Street PM 15 B 17 B 25 C
Amador Valley AM 6 A 6 A 6 A
3 Boulevard I Starward Signal D
Drive PM 7 A 7 A 6 A
Amador Valley AM 13 B 13 B 13 B
4 Boulevard / Donohue Signal D
Drive PM 14 B 14 B 15 B
Amador Valley AM 12 B 13 B 16 B
5 Boulevard /Amador Signal D
Plaza Road PM 18 B 19 B 29 C
Amador Valley AM 50 D 53 D 60 E
6 Boulevard /Village Signal Exempt
Parkway PM 43 D 48 D 87 F
7 Dublin Boulevard I Signal Exemp PM t AM 39 D 43 D 73 E
San Ramon Road 36 D 57 E >120 F
Dublin Boulevard / AM 21 C 47 D 62 E
8 Regional Street Signal Exempt PM 43 D 61 E >120 F
Dublin Boulevard / AM 10 B 22 C 35 C
9 Golden Gate Drive Signal Exempt PM 27 C 43 D >120 F
Dublin Boulevard / AM 35 D 38 D 94 F
10 Amador Plaza Road Signal Exempt PM 41 D 50 D >120 F
Dublin Boulevard I AM 37 D 36 D 39 D
11 Village Parkwa Signal Exempt
Y PM 34 C 36 D 119 F
12 Saint Patrick Way I AWSC Exempt AM 8 A 18 C 48 E
Golden Gate Drive PM 7 A 18 C >120 F
Saint Patrick Way / AM 19 B 27 C 73 E
13 Amador Plaza Road / Signal Exempt
1-680 SB Ramps PM 24 C 37 D >120 F
I AM 1(5) A (A) 1(5) A (A) 1(5) A (A)
I-680 NB Ramps SSSC D
14 Village Parkway PM 1(4) A (A) 1(4) A (A) 1(4) A (A)
1. 2. Notes: Signalized intersection and all-way stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle, according to the
2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
3. Side-street stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle and worst approach control delay per vehicle,
according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual in the notation: average (worst approach).
Source: Fehr & Peers 2010
MF Page 3-163
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Table 3.9-12: Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Base FAR Project
Intersection Contr LOS Peak Existing Conditions Cumulative No Project Cumulative With Project
of Standard Hour
Delay (in LOS72 Delay (in LOS'- Delay (in LOS12
seconds)1.2 seconds)' 2 seconds)'?
Amador Valley AM 32 C 76 E 65 E
I Boulevard / San Signal Exempt
Ramon Road PM 26 C 55 E 37 D
Amador Valley AM 8 A 13 B 12 B
2 Boulevard / Regional Signal D
Street PM 15 B 34 C 27 C
Amador Valley AM 6 A 8 A 8 A
3 Boulevard / Starward Signal D
Drive PM 7 A 7 A 8 A
Amador Valley AM 13 B 17 B 17 B
4 Boulevard / Donohue Signal D
Drive PM 14 B 20 B 18 B
Amador Valley AM 12 B 18 B 16 B
5 Boulevard /Amador Signal D
Plaza Road PM 18 B 49 D 32 C
Amador Valley AM 50 D 82 F 72 E
6 Boulevard / Village Signal Exempt
Parkway PM 43 D >120 F 85 F
Dublin Boulevard / Signal Exempt AM 39 D 81 F 54 D
San Ramon Road
PM 36 D >120 F >120 F
Dublin Boulevard I AM 21 C 55 D 51 D
8 Regional Street Signal Exempt
PM 43 D >120 F 82 F
Dublin Boulevard / AM 10 B 35 C 23 C
9 Golden Gate Drive Signal Exempt
PM 27 C >120 F 57 E
Dublin Boulevard / AM 35 D 92 F 46 D
10 Amador Plaza Road Signal Exempt
PM 41 D >120 F >120 F
Dublin Boulevard / AM 37 D 51 D 50 D
11 Village Parkway Signal Exempt
PM 34 C >120 F 72 E
I pt AM 8 A 22 C 15 B
12 Saint Patrick Way AWSC Exem
Golden Gate Drive
PM 7 A 60 F 15 B I
Saint Patrick Way / AM 19 B 99 F 34 C
13 Amador Plaza Road I Signal Exempt
1-680 SB Ramps PM 24 C >120 F 109 F
14 1-680 NB Ramps I SSSC D AM 1(5) A (A) 1(6) A (A) 1 (5) A (A)
Village Parkway PM 1(4) A (A) 1(4) A (A) 1(4) A (A)
15 Saint Patrick Way I AWSC D AM n/a n/a 8 A 8 A
Regional Street PM n/a n/a 8 A 9 A
1. 2. Notes: Signalized intersection and all-way stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle, according to
the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
3. Side-street stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle and worst approach control delay per vehicle,
according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual in the notation: average (worst approach).
Source: Fehr & Peers 2010
Page 3-164 PF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Table 3.9-13: Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service- Maximum FAR Project
Intersection Control Peak Existing Conditions Cumulative No Project Cumulative With Project
LOS Hour Delay LOS1.2 Delay (in LOS12 Delay (in LOS' a
Standard m
secondS)1,' seconds)1.2 seconds) 12
Amador Valley AM 32 C 76 E 77 E
1 Boulevard / San Signal Exempt
Ramon Road PM 26 C 55 E 54 D
Amador Valley AM 8 A 13 B 13 B
2 Boulevard / Regional Signal D
Street PM 15 B 34 C 35 C
Amador Valley AM 6 A 8 A 8 A
3 Boulevard / Starward Signal D
Drive PM 7 A 7 A 8 A
Amador Valley AM 13 B 17 B 17 B
4 Boulevard / Donohue Signal D
Drive PM 14 B 20 B 19 B
Amador Valley AM 12 B 18 B 18 B
5 Boulevard / Amador Signal D
Plaza Road PM 18 B 49 D 49 D
Amador Valley AM 50 D 82 F 81 F
6 Boulevard / Village Signal Exempt
Parkway PM 43 D >120 F >120 F
Dublin Boulevard I AM 39 D 81 F 85 F
7 San Ramon Road Signal Exempt
PM 36 D >120 F >120 F
Dublin Boulevard / AM 21 C 55 D 65 E
8 Regional Street Signal Exempt
PM 43 D >120 F >120 F
Dublin Boulevard I AM 10 B 35 C 36 D
9 Golden Gate Drive Signal Exempt
PM 27 C >120 F >120 F
Dublin Boulevard I AM 35 D 92 F 91 F
10 Amador Plaza Road Signal Exempt
PM 41 D >120 F >120 F
Dublin Boulevard / AM 37 D 51 D 52 D
11 Village Parkw Signal Exempt
ay PM 34 C >120 F >120 F
12 Saint Patrick Way I AWSC Exempt AM 8 A 22 C 25 C
Golden Gate Drive PM 7 A 60 F 75 F
Saint Patrick Way / AM 19 B 99 F 95 F
13 Amador Plaza Road I Signal Exempt
1-680 SB Ramps PM 24 C >120 F >120 F
14 1-680 NB Ramps / SSSC D AM 1(5) A (A) 1(6) A (A) 1(6) A (A)
Village Parkway PM 1(4) A (A) 1(4) A (A) 1(4) A (A)
15 Saint Patrick Way I AWSC D AM n/a n/a 8 A 9 A
Regional Street PM n/a n/a 8 A 15 B
Notes:
1. Signalized intersection and all-way stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle, according to the
2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
2. Side-street stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle and worst approach control delay per vehicle,
according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual in the notation: average (worst approach).
Source: Fehr & Peers 2010
Page 3-165
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
CMA/MTS System Analysis Results
The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) requires analysis of
project impacts to Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways for development
projects that would generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips. The ACCMA requires
that the baseline forecasts be represented by the model run completed by the ACCMA for
2015 and 2035 conditions. To complete this analysis, the project traffic, generated and
distributed outside of the model as described in the preceding section, was added directly
to the ACCMA 2015 and 2035 peak hour model runs. It is noted that a review of the
2015 and 2035 ACCMA model land use files showed very little growth in the Plan area;
thus, this approach gives a reasonably accurate assessment of the net new traffic added by
the Plan on the MTS roadways.
The MTS system analysis differs from the intersection analysis in the following aspects:
¦ The regional and local land use data sets used for the intersection forecasts and the
MTS forecasts are different, since the CCTA Countywide Model was used to
develop intersection volumes and the ACCMA Countywide Model was used to
develop the MTS system forecasts
¦ The MTS roadway analysis reports the outputs of the ACCMA model on a
roadway segment level, as compared to the more detailed intersection turning
movement level forecasts developed for the intersection analysis.
The MTS roadway system in the vicinity of the Project includes 1-580, 1-680, Dublin
Boulevard, and San Ramon Road. The ACCMA Congestion Management Plan (CMP)
requires this analysis only be done for the PM peak hour, however, Caltrans requires that it
be done for the AM peak hour as well for all Caltrans' facilities. Tables 3.9-14: Near-Term
PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service and 3.9-15: Cumulative PM Peak Hour MTS
Arterial Level of Service summarize the results of the analysis on various segments of the
four MTS roadways for the Near-Term and Cumulative Conditions scenarios, respectively,
during the PM peak hour. Tables 3.9-16: Near-Term AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of
Service and 3.9-17; Cumulative AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service summarize
the results of the analysis on Caltrans' facilities only for the Near-Term and Cumulative
Conditions scenarios, respectively, during the AM peak hour,
Page 3-166 PF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Table 3.9-14: Near-Term PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service
Location Capacity Year2015 No Project PM Peak Hour I Year 2015 Plus Project (Base FAR) PM Year 2015 Plus Project (Maximum FAR)
Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Volume VEC LOS Volume V(C LOS Volume VIC LOS
1-580
West of San Ramon Road
Eastbound 8,000 8,955 1.12 F 9,144 1.14 F 9,652 1.21 F
Westbound 10,000 5,667 0.57 A 5,866 0.59 A 6,402 0.64 B
Between San Ramon Road and 1-680
Eastbound 9,000 5,682 0.63 B 5,714 0.63 B 5,753 0.64 B
Westbound 9,000 8,334 0.93 E 8,469 0.94 E 8,821 0.98 E
East of 1-680
Eastbound 12,000 10,030 0.84 D 10,042 0.84 D 10,062 0.84 D
Westbound 9,000 5,403 0.60 B 5,416 0.60 B 5,435 0.60 B
1.680
South of 1-580
Northbound 7,000 6,071 0.87 D 6,196 0.89 D 6,534 0.93 E
Southbound 7,000 5,329 0.76 C 5,461 0.78 C 5,818 0.83 D
North of 1-580
Northbound 8,000 7,031 0.88 D 7,105 0.89 D 7,305 0.91 E
Southbound 8,000 7,336 0.92 E 7,408 0.93 E 7,599 0.95 E
Dublin Boulevard
West of San Ramon Road
Eastbound 1,600 344 0.22 A 384 0.24 A 490 0.31 A
Westbound 1,600 627 0.39 A 669 0.42 A 782 0.49 A
Between San Ramon Road and Regional Street
Eastbound 2,940 449 0.15 A 882 0.30 A 2,240 0.76 C
Westbound 2,940 403 0.14 A 791 0.27 A 1,911 0.65 B
Between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive
Eastbound 2,940 695 0.24 A 1,163 0.40 A 2,484 0.84 D
Westbound 2,940 514 0.17 A 870 0.30 A 1,908 0.65 B
Between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road
Eastbound 2,940 759 0.26 A 1,151 0.39 A 2,195 0.75 C
Westbound 2,940 439 0.15 A 740 0.25 A 1,552 0.53 A
Between Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway
Eastbound 2,940 889 0.30 A 1,206 0.41 A 2,150 0.73 C
Westbound 2,940 613 0.21 A 852 0.29 A 1,544 0.53 A
M Page 3-167
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Location Capacity Year 2015 No Project PM Peak Hour Year 2015 Plus Project (Base FAR) PM Year 2015 Plus Project (Maximum FAR)
Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Volume V/C LOS Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC LOS
East of Village Parkway
Eastbound 2,940 1,156 0.39 A 1,341 0.46 A 1,848 0.63 B
Westbound 2,940 2,500 0.85 D 2,677 0.91 E 3,161 1.08 F
San Ramon Road
Between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard
Northbound 3,920 3,011 0.77 C 3,380 0.86 D 4,363 1.11 F
Southbound 3,920 1,639 0.42 A 1,914 0.49 A 2,609 0.67 B
Between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard
Northbound 2,940 2,441 0.83 D 2,568 0.87 D 2,907 0.99 E
Southbound 2,940 1,397 0.48 A 1,477 0.50 A 1,772 0.60 B
North of Amador Valley Boulevard
Northbound 1,960 1,912 0.98 E 2,051 1.05 F 2,425 1.24 F
Southbound 1,960 1,342 0.68 B 1,476 0.75 C 1,836 0.94 E
Note: Shaded cells indicate a significant impact (increase of more than 0.02 in the v/c ratio, relative to the No Project case).
Source: Fehr & Peers 2010
Table 3.9-15: Cumulative PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service
Location Capacity Year 2035 No Project PM Peak Hour Year 2035 Plus Project (Base FAR) PM Year2035 Plus Project (Maximum FAR)
Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC LOS Volume V/C LOS
1.580
West of San Ramon Road
Eastbound 8,000 10,932 1.37 F 10,595 1.32 F 11,103 1.39 F
Westbound 10,000 7,715 0.77 C 7,424 0.74 C 7,960 0.80 C
Between San Ramon Road and 1-680
Eastbound 9,000 6,862 0.76 C 6,856 0.76 C 6,895 0.77 C
Westbound 9,000 10,274 1.14 F 10,079 1.12 F 10,431 1.16 F
East of 1-680
Eastbound 12,000 11,472 0.96 E 11,466 0.96 E 11,486 0.96 E
Westbound 9,000 6,849 0.76 C 6,850 0.76 C 6,869 0.76 C
1.680
South of 1-580
Northbound 7,000 7,992 1.14 F 7,791 1.11 F 8,129 1.16 F
Southbound 7,000 6,280 0.90 D 6,062 0.87 D 6,419 0.92 E
North of 1-580
Northbound 8,000 7,412 0.93 E 7,292 0.91 E 7,492 0.94 E
Southbound 8,000 8,071 1.01 F 7,961 1.00 E 8,152 1.02 F
Page 3-168
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Location Capacity Year 2035 No Project PM Peak Hour Year 2035 Plus Project (Base FAR) PM Year2035 Plus Project (Maximum FAR)
Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC -FIDODS Volume VIC LOS
Dublin Boulevard
West of San Ramon Road
Eastbound 1,600 514 0.32 A 451 0.28 A 557 0.35 A
Westbound 1,600 978 0.61 B 909 0.57 A 1,022 0.64 B
Between San Ramon Road and Regional Street
Eastbound 2,940 2,252 0.77 C 1,441 0.49 A 2,799 0.95 E
Westbound 2,940 1,607 0.55 A 928 0.32 A 2,048 0.70 B
Between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive
Eastbound 2,940 2,794 0.95 E 1,996 0.68 B 3,317 1.13 F
Westbound 2,940 1,637 0.56 A 989 0.34 A 2,027 0.69 B
Between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road
Eastbound 2,940 2,648 0.90 E 1,995 0.68 B 3,039 1.03 F
Westbound 2,940 1,374 0.47 A 851 0.29 A 1,663 0.57 A
Between Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway
Eastbound 2,940 2,936 1.00 E 2,343 0.80 C 3,287 1.12 F
Westbound 2,940 1,492 0.51 A 1,064 0.36 A 1,756 0.60 A
East of Village Parkway
Eastbound 2,940 3,212 1.09 F 2,898 0.99 E 3,405 1.16 F
Westbound 2,940 3,394 1.15 F 3,098 1.05 F 3,582 1.22 F
San Ramon Road
Between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard
Northbound 3,920 4,863 1.24 F 4,303 1.10 F 5,286 1.35 F
Southbound 3,920 2,540 0.65 B 2,139 0.55 A 2,834 0.72 C
Between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard
Northbound 2,940 3,065 1.04 F 2,858 0.97 E 3,197 1.09 F
Southbound 2,940 1,851 0.63 B 1,666 0.57 A 1,961 0.67 B
North of Amador Valley Boulevard
Northbound 1,960 2,328 1.19 F 2,104 1.07 F 2,478 1.26 F
Southbound 1,960 2,151 1.10 F 1,944 0.99 E 2,304 1.18 F
Note: Shaded cells indicate a significant impact (increase of more than 0.02 in the v/c ratio, relative to the No Project case).
Source: Fehr & Peers 2010
WF Page 3-169
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Table 3.9-16: Near-Term AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service
Location Capacity Year 2015 No Project AM Peak Hour Year 2015 Plus Project (Base FAR) AM Year 2015 Plus Project (Maximum FAR)
Peak Hour AM Peak Hour
Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC I LOS Volume VIC I LOS
1.580
West of San Ramon Road
Eastbound 8,000 5,813 0.73 C 5,903 0.74 C 6,149 0.77 C
Westbound 10,000 9,952 1.00 E 10,025 1.00 E/FI 10,215 1.02 F
Between San Ramon Road and 1-680
Eastbound 9,000 8,095 0.90 D 8,106 0.90 E 8,118 0.90 E
Westbound 9,000 4,927 0.55 A 4,959 0.55 A 5;046 0.56 A
East of 1-680
Eastbound 12,000 5,756 0.48 A 5,764 0.48 A 5,775 0.48 A
Westbound 9,000 8,625 0.96 E 8,627 0.96 E 8,630 0.96 E
1-680
South of 1-580
Northbound 7,000 6,012 0.86 D 6,043 0.86 D 6,128 0.88 D
Southbound 7,000 6,175 0.88 D 6,204 0.89 D 6,278 0.90 D
North of 1-580
Northbound 8,000 7,106 0.89 D 7,136 0.89 D 7,213 0.90 E
Southbound 8,000 7,050 0.88 D 7,086 0.89 D 7,183 0.90 D
1. LOS E/F due to rounded v/c ratio.
Note: Shaded cells indicate a significant impact (increase of more than 0.02 in the v/c ratio, relative to the No Project case).
Source: Fehr & Peers 2010
Page 3-170 P
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Table 3.9-17: Cumulative AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service
Location Capacity Year 2035 No Project AM Peak Hour Year 2035 Plus Project (Base FAR) AM Year 2035 Plus Project (Maximum FAR)
Peak Hour AM Peak Hour
Volume vlc LOS Volume Vlc LOS Volume VIC LOS
1.580
West of San Ramon Road
Eastbound 8,000 7,765 0.97 E 7,617 0.95 E 7,863 0.98 E
Westbound 10,000 11,866 1.19 F 11,773 1.18 F 11,963 1.20 F
Between San Ramon Road and 1-680
Eastbound 9,000 9,362 1.04 F 9,365 1.04 F 9,377 1.04 F
Westbound 9,000 7,254 0.81 D 7,206 0.80 D 7,293 0.81 D
East of 1-680
Eastbound 12,000 7,674 0.64 B 7,676 0.64 B 7,687 0.64 B
Westbound 9,000 12,007 1.33 F 12,007 1.33 F 12,010 1.33 F
1.680
South of 1-580
Northbound 7,000 6,299 0.90 D 6,250 0.89 D 6,335 0.91 E
Southbound 7,000 9,278 1.33 F 9,247 1.32 F 9,321 1.33 F
North of 1-580
Northbound 8,000 7,511 0.94 E 7,475 0.93 E 7,552 0.94 E
Southbound 8,000 7,347 0.92 E 7,289 0.91 E 7,386 0.92 E
Note: Shaded cells indicate a significant impact (increase of more than 0.02 in the v/c ratio, relative to the No Project case).
Source: Fehr & Peers 2010
Transit Demand Generated by the Downtown Specific Plan
Table 3.9-18: Project Transit Trip Summary provides a summary of the transit trips
generated by the Plan; the results are taken from the trip generation calculations that can
be seen in the Appendix. Transit trips generated by the different projects were estimated
by calculating the number of trips expected with the ITE rates, then assuming 25% of trips
for residential uses and 15% of trips for retail uses were made on some form of transit.
I
P Page 3-171
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Table 3.9-18: Project Transit Trip Summary
All Transit Trip (Bus + BART)
Case Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Entitled Projects in Plan Area 2,160 180 220
No Project 14,450 350 1,250
(Existing Specific Plans)
Base FAR Project 2,200 50 200
Max FAR Project 13,800 350 1,200
Source: Transit trip generation calculations by Fehr & Peers, assuming 25% transit use for residential uses and 15% transit use by retail uses. See
technical appendix for detailed trip generation calculations.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Intersection Impacts
As shown in Tables 3.9-10 to 3.9-13, with the proposed amendment to the General Plan,
the Project would result in no significant impacts to intersections.
Metropolitan Transportation System
Impact 3.9-1: In the Near-Term, the Base FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on one
Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segment, when compared to the Near-Term
Without Project scenario. This is a significant impact:
¦ San Ramon Road northbound, north of Amador Valley Boulevard (PM peak hour).
As shown on Table 3.9-14, the intersection would drop from LOS E under the No
Project scenario to LOS F with the Project under the Base FAR and Maximum FAR
scenarios.
It should be noted that the intersection of San Ramon Road/Amador Valley Boulevard is
projected to operate acceptably with the Base FAR Project in the Near-Term scenario.
This result, which appears inconsistent with the above impact finding for San Ramon Road,
is due to the different analysis methods and models used to conduct the intersection and
MTS system analyses.
Mitigation Measure:
MM 3.9-1: As required by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the
City of Dublin shall do the following to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system:
¦ Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed at reducing
traffic congestion.
¦ Encourage developers to voluntarily develop a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Program to reduce trips associated with their project.
Strategies that could be included in the program could include additional bicycle
Page 3-172 W
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
parking, shower facilities, HOV parking, direct building access for pedestrians,
commute alternative incentives and convenient transit waiting areas.
¦ Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan
Land Use and Circulation Element related to bikeways. Support public transit
improvements, including but not limited to re-routing, schedule adjustments, new
vehicles, upgraded waiting areas, and transit information signs, to encourage use of
alternative modes.
¦ Collect fees from developers in the Specific Plan Area for the Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fee as well as the Downtown TIF programs prior to
issuance of Building Pen-nits, which fund local and regional transportation
improvements.
Even with mitigation, the City's ability to restore acceptable LOS on the identified
roadways/freeways cannot be assured because some projects are the County's, and some
the City can encourage but not require (e.g. employer TDM programs). Therefore, this
impact remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
Impact 3.9-2: In the Near-Terre, the Maximum FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on
five Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when compared to the Near-
Term Without Project scenario. This is a significant impact:
¦ San Ramon Road northbound, north of Amador Valley Boulevard (PM peak hour)
¦ San Ramon Road northbound, between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580 (PM peak
hour)
¦ Dublin Boulevard westbound, east of Village Parkway (PM peak hour)
¦ 1-580 eastbound, west of San Ramon Road (PM peak hour)
¦ 1-580 westbound, west of San Ramon Road (AM peak hour)
It should be noted that the San Ramon Road/Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin
Boulevard/Village Parkway intersections are projected to operate acceptably with the
Maximum FAR Project in the Near-Term scenario. These results, which appear
inconsistent with the above impact findings for San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard, are
due to the different analysis methods and models used to conduct the intersection and
Metropolitan Transportation System analyses.
Mitigation Measure:
MM 3.9-1: As required by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the
City of Dublin shall do the following to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system:
¦ Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed at reducing
traffic congestion.
WIF Page 3-173
I
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
¦ Encourage developers to voluntarily develop a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Program to reduce trips associated with their project.
Strategies that could be included in the program could include additional bicycle
parking, shower facilities, HOV parking, direct building access for pedestrians,
commute alternative incentives and convenient transit waiting areas,
¦ Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan
Land Use and Circulation Element related to bikeways. Support public transit
improvements, including but not limited to re-routing, schedule adjustments, new
vehicles, upgraded waiting areas, and transit information signs, to encourage use of
alternative modes,
¦ Collect fees from developers in the Specific Plan Area for the Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fee as well as the Downtown TIF programs prior to
issuance of Building Permits, which fund local and regional transportation
improvements.
For the same reasons as above, the City's ability to restore acceptable LOS on the
identified roadways/freeways cannot be assured. Therefore, this impact remains
significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
Impact 3.9-3: In the Cumulative scenario, the Maximum FAR Project results in sub-
standard LOS on eight Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when
compared to the Cumulative Without Project case. This is a significant impact: 20
¦ San Ramon Road northbound and southbound, north of Amador Valley Boulevard
(PM peak hour)
¦ San Ramon Road northbound, between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin
Boulevard (PM peak hour)
¦ San Ramon Road northbound, between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580 (PM peak
hour)
¦ Dublin Boulevard eastbound and westbound, east of Village Parkway (PM peak
hour)
¦ Dublin Boulevard eastbound, between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive (PM
peak hour)
¦ Dublin Boulevard eastbound, between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road
(PM peak hour)
20 Note that there is no significant impact on the MTS system for the Cumulative Plus Base FAR Project case, because the Cumulative
Without Project case contains higher trip generation than the Cumulative Plus Base FAR project case. This is due to the slightly higher
land use and trip generation in the five current specific plans that make up the Cumulative Without Project case.
Page 3-174 fWF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
Mitigation Measure:
MM 3.9-1: As required by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the
City of Dublin shall do the following to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system:
¦ Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed at reducing
traffic congestion.
Encourage developers to voluntarily develop a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Program to reduce trips associated with their project.
Strategies that could be included in the program could include additional bicycle
parking, shower facilities, HOV parking, direct building access for pedestrians,
commute alternative incentives and convenient transit waiting areas.
¦ Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan
Land Use and Circulation Element related to bikeways. Support public transit
improvements, including but not limited to re-routing, schedule adjustments, new
vehicles, upgraded waiting areas, and transit information signs, to encourage use of
alternative modes.
¦ Collect fees from developers in the Specific Plan Area for the Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fee as well as the Downtown TIF programs prior to
issuance of Building Permits, which fund local and regional transportation
improvements.
For the same reasons as noted above, the City's ability to restore acceptable LOS on the
identified roadways/freeways cannot be assured. Therefore, this impact remains
significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
Transit
Impact 3,9-4: The Base FAR Project will increase transit demand, generating an estimated
2.200 weekday daily transit trips (bus and BART combined). This will create the need for
bus route adjustments and increased bus frequency. This is a significant impact on bus
transit.
A portion of the projected demand would be served by the new West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station. BART projects ridership of approximately 6,000 weekday boardings/6,000
alightings at this station, based on expectations of current and future ridership generated by
transit-oriented and transit-proximate development like that proposed by the project.
Therefore, the demand generated by the Maximum FAR project falls within the BART
ridership projection and does not constitute a significant impact on BART.
The Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority is planning increased bus service via a Bus
Rapid Transit service, scheduled to begin operation in January 2011. The service will run
eight buses in each direction along Dublin Boulevard during the peak hours, with BART
transfers occurring at the East Dublin/Pleasanton Station. It is reasonable to assume that
the service would connect to the West Dublin/Pleasanton Station when it is built. This
P Page 3-175
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transportation & Circulation
service is expected to be adequate to serve the additional peak hour bus trips generated
by the project. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the impact will
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
MM 3.9-4 The City will continue to support and work with LAVTA to define route
changes and increased service as needed as the Plan area develops.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Mobility
Impact 3.9-5: The Plan contains Guiding Principles to ''create a pedestrian-friendly
downtown that minimizes potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists''
and to "enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate alternative
transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle and pedestrian transportation."
These proposals are consistent with the goals and policies of the Dublin General Plan
Circulation Element and the Bikeways Master Plan. This is a beneficial impact; no
mitigation is required.
I
Page 3-176 P
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
4. CEQA Considerations
This section of the EIR discusses long-term implications of the proposed project as required
by CEQA. The topics discussed include significant irreversible commitment of resources,
growth-inducing impacts, significant and unavoidable environmental effects, and effects
found not to be significant. Cumulative impacts and alternatives to the proposed project
are also discussed herein.
4.1. 4.1 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects
Unavoidable adverse impacts are those effects of the proposed project that would
significantly affect either natural systems or other community resources, and cannot be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level as identified in the previous analyses. The proposed
project, if implemented, would result in the following significant and unavoidable project
impacts:
¦ Transportation & Circulation: As described in Impacts 3.9-1 through 3.9-3, although
mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts, the proposed project would
generate result in sub-standard LOS on eight Metropolitan Transportation System
roadway segments would be considered significant and unavoidable.
4,2. Significant Irreversible Changes
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the significant
irreversible environmental changes that would be involved if the proposed project would
be implemented. Examples include the following: uses of nonrenewable resources during
the initial and continued phases of the project, since a large commitment of such resources
makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely; primary and secondary impacts of a project
that would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., highway improvements
that provide access to a previously inaccessible area); and/or irreversible damage that could
result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the proposed project.
Analysis
This proposed project replaces four of the current Specific Plans and the fifth for the
portion that is within the DDSP area. It does increase densities, but instead focuses on
strengthening the development standards and design guidelines, and providing greater
direction as to future land uses. The proposed project would allow for approximately
1,300 dwelling units and 3.0 million square feet of non-residential development, and 150
additional hotel rooms .
A variety of nonrenewable and limited resources would be irretrievably committed for
construction and operation, including but not limited to: oil, natural gas, gasoline, lumber,
sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, water, land, energy, and construction materials. With respect
to operational activities, compliance with all applicable building codes, as well as project
mitigation measures or project requirements, would ensure that all natural resources are
conserved or recycled to the maximum extent feasible.
Page 4-1
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
The proposed project would result in an increase in demand on public services and utilities.
For example, an increase in the intensity of land uses within the planning area would result
in an increase in regional electric energy consumption to satisfy additional electricity
demands from the proposed project. These energy resource demands relate to initial
project construction, transport of goods and people, and lighting, heating, and cooling of
buildings. However, the proposed project would not involve a wasteful or unjustifiable use
of energy or other resources, and energy conservation efforts would occur with new
construction. In addition, new development associated with the proposed project would
be constructed and operated in accordance with specifications contained in Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations. Therefore, the use of energy on-site would occur in an
efficient manner.
Although the majority of the DDSP area is already built-out and urbanized, increased
development within the DDSP area to support urban uses may be regarded as a
permanent and irreversible change. The proposed project would generally commit future
generations to similar urban uses within the DDSP area.
4.3. Growth Inducement
CEQA requires that any growth-inducing aspect of a project be discussed in an EIR.
According to CEQA, it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily
beneficial, detrimental or of little significance to the environment. A project would have
growth-inducing effects if it would:
¦ Foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing
(either directly or indirectly) in the surrounding environment;
¦ Remove obstacles to population growth;
¦ Tax existing community services or facilities, requiring the construction of new
facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
¦ Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the
environment, either individually or cumulatively.
If a project meets any one of these criteria, it may be considered growth inducing.
Generally, growth inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, or
underdeveloped areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure such as sewer
and water facilities or roadways, or encourage premature or unplanned growth.
To comply with CEQA, an EIR must discuss the ways in which the proposed project could
promote economic or population growth in the vicinity of the project and how that growth
will, in turn, affect the surrounding environment [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)].
4.3.1 Economic Effects
The combination of land uses within the DDSP area would function to increase nighttime
population through increased residential units and an increase in retail and commercial sales
Page 4-2 WF
I
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
and activities within the City, as well as enhance the economic viability of the regional area.
Future new development within the DDSP would include approximately 1,300 dwelling
units and 3.0 million square feet of non-residential development, and 150 additional hotel
rooms
The creation of new commercial activities and enhancement of existing commercial facilities
would contribute to the economic vitality of the City, which would enable the continued
provision of high quality services and programs for residents and businesses, and would
contribute to the municipal revenue streams. The positive revenue stream may result in
the creation of indirect and induced jobs. Indirect jobs are those that would be created
when the future owners and/or managers of the retail-commercial uses purchase goods
and services from businesses in the region, and induced jobs are those that are created
when wage incomes of those employed in direct and indirect jobs are spent on the
purchase of goods and services in the region. The City's economic impacts are primarily
the result of purchases of goods and services as well as payment of taxes and salaries,
which affects the regional economy of the City and County, and on a more indirect basis,
California, Therefore, the positive revenue stream and the resulting increased economic
viability of the proposed project could result in indirect growth-inducing impacts.
4.3.2 Remove Obstacles to and/or Foster Population Growth
Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including the direct construction of new
homes and businesses, the elimination of obstacles to growth, or through the stimulation of
economic activity within the region. The discussion of the removal of obstacles to growth
relates directly to the removal of infrastructure limitations (typically through the provision
of additional capacity or supply), or the reduction or elimination of regulatory constraints
on growth that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval.
The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to growth is considered to be a
growth-inducing effect. A physical obstacle to growth typically involves the lack of public
service infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways,
water mains, and sewer lines, into areas that are not currently provided with these services
would be expected to support new development. Similarly, the elimination or change to a
regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, could result in new
growth.
The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area beyond
that already forecasted for the City of Dublin. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the
2008 population estimate for the City of Dublin was 44,297 persons. According to the
Association of Bay Area Governments, the City of Dublin's population will be
approximately 50,000 persons in the year 2010, representing an annual average growth
rate of approximately 2,852 residents per year. The proposed project provides for
development through intensification through existing sites and projects that will make
efficient use of the existing infrastructure. Although the proposed project includes a
General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change (via the proposed Specific Plan), the
proposed designations would be generally consistent with the nature of on-site and
WF Page 4-3
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
surrounding development. The implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would allow
for the intensification of commercial and mixed-use development within the Downtown
districts. Most of the intensification is anticipated to occur in the Transit-Oriented District,
as the demand for mixed-use development in that District will likely increase due to the
construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and parking structure. Like the
other districts, the TOD is fully served by utilities and public services. Therefore, the
proposed project would not be growth inducing as a result of removing an obstacle to
growth.
4.3.3 Tax Existing Community Services or Facilities
The proposed project would not require significant regional public infrastructure upgrades
for any utility or service. Any new development would be required to include provisions to
make the necessary improvements in order to facilitate implementation of the DDSP.
Project developers would be required to fund their fair share allocation of any necessary
public infrastructure associated with development under the DDSP. Therefore, the
proposed project would not tax existing community services or facilities.
4.4. Energy Conservation
Public Resources Code Section 21 100(b)(3) and Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines
requires a description (where relevant) of the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary
consumption of energy caused by a project. In 1975, the California State Legislature
adopted Assembly Bill 1575 (AB 1575) in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s. This bill
created the California Energy Commission (CEC). The purpose of the CEC is to forecast
future energy needs; license thermal power plants of 50 megawatts or larger, develop
energy technologies and renewable energy resources; plan for and direct State responses
to energy emergencies; and to promote energy efficiency through the adoption and
enforcement of appliance and building energy efficiency standards,
Energy Consumption
Short-Term Construction
In 1994, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted the first set of
emission standards (Tier 1) for all new off-road diesel engines greater than 37 kilowatts
(kW). The Tier I standards were phased in for different engine sizes between 1996 and
2000, reducing NOx emissions from these engines by 30 percent. The EPA Tier 2 and
Tier 3 standards for off-road diesel engines are projected to further reduce emissions by 60
percent for NOx and 40 percent for particulate matter from Tier I emission levels. In
2004, the EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule. This rule will cut emissions
from off-road diesel engines by more than 90 percent, and will be fully phased in by 2014.
A number of construction projects using diesel powered equipment have the potential to
occur every year under the DDSP.
Development under the DDSP includes mixed-use, commercial, and transit-oriented
development. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use
of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable
Page 4-4 1
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel
consumption associated with the DDSP would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary than other similar development projects. Also, diesel powered construction
equipment in general will continue to become more efficient as the EPA standards phase
in.
Long-Term Operations
Transportation Energy Demand
Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway
Traffic and Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards
and for revising existing standards. Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new
passenger cars has been 27.5 miles per gallon. Since 1996, the fuel economy standard for
new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been 20.7 miles per
gallon. Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle
weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with Federal fuel
economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather,
compliance is determined based on each manufacturer's average fuel economy for the
portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States.
The DDSP would create a pedestrian-friendly downtown that includes transit-oriented
development and mixed use and is intended to reduce daily vehicle trips and vehicle miles
traveled (VMT). The DDSP is not anticipated to result in any unusual characteristics that
would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption. The DDSP involves
typical downtown commercial and mixed-use use type trips which would include internal
trip capture rates. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by future
development within the DDSP would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary.
Public Transportation Options
The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) provides public transportation
for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, California.
Additionally, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) is constructing a
new station on existing track way between the Castro Valley and Dublin/Pleasanton
stations. This station will provide LAVTA with easy connections to San Francisco via BART.
Additionally LAVTA operates the Wheels bus system, which is in the process of
constructing new bus stops in preparation for its new bus rapid transit service. The
availability of the public transit for the residents and visitors to the DDSP area would
ensure that the DDSP would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary
consumption of transportation energy.
Building Energy Demand
The DDSP would not result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive
long-term operational building energy demand. The Development Standards and Design
MF Page 4-5
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
Guidelines in the DDSP specify that warm white, energy efficient lighting source types such
as metal halide, induction lighting, compact fluorescent, and light-emitting diode (LED)
should be used where feasible. Energy-efficient lighting (lighting from renewable sources
and energy-saving devices, such as light sensors) are encouraged. Additionally the DDSP
has standards for the use of Energy Star requirements. Therefore, the DDSP would not be
considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.
Energy Efficiency Measures
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, is California's Energy Efficiency Standards
for Residential and Non-residential Buildings. Title 24 was established by the CEC in 1978
in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California's
energy consumption, and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and non-
residential buildings. In 2010, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent
requirements. The 2010 Standards are expected to substantially reduce the growth in
electricity and natural gas use. Additional savings result from the application of the
Standards on building alterations. These savings are cumulative, increasing as years go by.
Future development under the DDSP would adhere to all Federal, State, and local
requirements for energy efficiency, including the CEC's Title 24 standards. The proposed
project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building
energy. The following energy efficiency measures are incorporated into the DDSP:
¦ Energy efficient lighting sources;
¦ Solar energy systems;
¦ Green roofs;
¦ Use of energy star roof materials;
¦ Water efficient landscaping;
¦ Water efficient fixtures and appliances;
¦ Mixed-use development; and
¦ Promotes pedestrian travel and alternative transportation mode use.
As discussed above, future development under the DDSP would result in less than
significant impacts on energy resources. There would not be any inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary energy usage in comparison to similar development projects of this nature
regarding construction-related fuel consumption. Additionally, the availability of public
transit services would ensure that the DDSP would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary consumption of transportation energy. The DDSP would adhere to, and
exceed, all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 of
the California Code of Regulations regarding building energy efficiency standards.
Therefore, the DDSP would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary
consumption of building energy. Therefore, the DDSP would not be considered inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary.
Page 4-6
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
4.5. Effects Found Not to be Significant
A significant effect on the environment is generally defined as a substantial or potentially
substantial adverse change in the physical environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15328).
The term "environment," as used in this definition, means the physical conditions that exist
within the area that will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water,
minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. The
area involved shall be the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or
indirectly as a result of the proposed project. The "environment" includes both natural and
man-made conditions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360).
Detailed analyses and discussion of environmental topics found to be significant are
provided within Section 3.0 of this EIR. Section 3.0 also identifies impacts that are found to
be less than significant. The project site is an urban infill area and the below resources do
not exist on the project site and / or are not considered to have the potential to cause a
significant environmental impact. As such, detailed analyses of the following environmental
resources were not included in the EIR;
¦ Agricultural Resources
¦ Biological Resources
¦ Mineral Resources
¦ Population & Housing
Other environmental issues listed below were found to have no impact as a result of the
proposed project. This determination is based on the standards of significance contained
within the CEQA Guidelines and the Notice of Preparation process for the proposed
project.
Aesthetics & Visual Resources
Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista
A scenic vista is a view that possesses visual and aesthetic qualities of high value to the
community. Scenic vistas can provide views of natural features or significant structures and
buildings. The term "vista" generally implies an expansive view, usually from an elevated
point or open area. Because there are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the
planning area, no impacts would occur.
Cultural Resources
The DDSP project area is primarily developed and has been disturbed through prior
development. Although no significant historical, archaeological or Native American artifacts
are anticipated within the DDSP project area, construction of the proposed project could
disturb unidentified and unrecorded artifacts, including prehistoric archaeological and/or
native American remains. The proposed project would be required to comply with
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code in the event of the discovery or
Page 4-7
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery during
future development activities, which would require that there be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
remains. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the
Native American Heritage Commission within 24-hours of identification.
Geology, Soils, & Seismicity
Landslides
Due to the relatively flat topography and the lack of steep slopes within or adjacent to the
proposed project, landslides are not considered to be a potential significant geologic hazard.
In addition, the proposed project is not located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where
landslides may occur during a strong earthquake, although other seismic hazards (e.g.
liquefaction) were identified in Chapter 3.0. No impacts would occur.
Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems
Wastewater disposal in the DDSP area is provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services
District. Proposed projects in the DDSP area would connect to the existing wastewater
system. The DDSP area would not need to use septic tanks or other alternative
wastewater disposal systems. Consequently, the threshold of significance for septic tanks
or altemative wastewater disposal systems would not apply to the proposed project and
no further analysis is required. No impacts would occur.
Hydrology & Water Quality
Place Housing or Structures Within a 100-Year Flood-Hazards Area Which Would Impede
or Redirect Flood Flows
Several properties within the DDSP area are located within the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. As previously discussed, new
construction will be subject to floodplain regulations. In addition, the Zone 7 Stream
Management Plan contains plans to retrofit the culvert that carries water from Dublin
Creek under Donlon Way. This retrofit will increase the culvert capacity and reduce the
risk of flooding in the DDSP area. Future construction would be required to comply with
the existing floodplain regulations to ensure that the structures do not impede or redirect
flows. No impacts would occur.
Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow
The proposed project is located well inland from the San Francisco Bay or other major
bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. The site and surrounding
properties are also relatively flat and would not be subject to mudflows. No impacts
would occur.
Page 4-8 WIF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
Land Use & Planning
Conflict with Applicable Conservation Plans
The project site is located in an urban area that is completely developed. There are no
naturally occurring habitat areas in the project area and therefore, no impacts would
occur.
Urban Blight or Decay
The proposed project seeks to guide future development and redevelopment in
downtown Dublin in an orderly and cohesive fashion through the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan. The combination of land uses would function to increase retail and
commercial sales and activities within the City, as well as enhance the economic viability of
the area. The creation of new commercial activities and enhancement of existing
commercial facilities would contribute to the economic vitality of the City, which would
enable the continued provision of high quality services and programs for residents and
businesses and would contribute to a large municipal revenue stream. Therefore, the
positive revenue stream and the resulting increased economic viability of the project would
be a benefit to the City and not result in urban blight or decay and therefore, no impacts
would occur.
4.6. Cumulative Impacts
CEQA Requirements
CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are substantial or which compound or increase other environmental
impacts. An evaluation of cumulative impacts is required by CEQA when they are
significant, but need not be as detailed as the discussion of project impacts. Cumulative
conditions are defined as conditions in the foreseeable future with all approved, pending,
and known planned development in place. The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR
discuss the cumulative impacts of a project where the project's incremental effect is
cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
The criteria for determining significance of cumulative impacts are the same as those that
apply to the project-level analysis unless otherwise noted in the section, where other
agency standards regarding cumulative analyses may apply. Where the combined
cumulative impact associated with the project's incremental effect and the effects of other
projects is not significant, the EIR indicates why the cumulative impact is not significant and
is not discussed in further detail in the EIR. Where the EIR identifies a significant cumulative
impact, but finds that the project's contribution to that impact would be less than
considerable, an explanation for that conclusion is provided.
According to the California State CEQA Guidelines section 15130 (a)(1), there is no need
to evaluate cumulative impacts to which the project does not contribute. Relevant
potential cumulative impacts to which the proposed project could contribute include:
WIF Page 4-9
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
aesthetics and visual resources; air quality; geology, soils and seismicity; hazards and
hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; public
services and utilities; and transportation and circulation. Each of these topics is addressed
herein.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Assumptions
Impacts associated with cumulative development were analyzed based on the proposed
project's effects in combination with a summary of projections in the adopted City of
Dublin General Plan (February 11, 1985, Updated January 19, 2010).
Aesthetics & Visual Resources
The proposed project is located within an already urbanized area of the City. Portions of
the proposed project are visible from Interstate-680 (an officially designated State Scenic
Highway and a locally designated scenic route), Interstate-580 (a highway eligible for
designation as a State Scenic Highway and locally designated scenic route), and San Ramon
Road (a locally designated scenic route). However, all projects that are visible from these
corridors would be subject to design review per the policy of the City's General Plan and
requirements of the proposed Specific Plan.
Although implementation of the proposed project would allow for the intensification of
commercial and mixed use development within the Downtown districts, the proposed
Specific Plan includes both development standards and design guidelines to guide the
design of future development within the area. In addition, compliance with the design
guidelines would ensure that the proposed project does not introduce substantial light and
glare, which would pose a hazard or nuisance. Future development would be required to
undergo design review, thereby ensuring that cumulative development would result in a
less than significant cumulative impact.
Conclusion: The proposed project would be required to comply with the design
guidelines in the proposed Specific Plan, which would ensure that the proposed
project does not contribute to cumulative light and glare in the City and
surrounding areas, and would ensure that the proposed project is of quality design.
The existing setting together with the design features of the proposed Specific Plan
would minimize the project's cumulative contribution to aesthetics and visual
quality, resulting in a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to
aesthetics and visual resources.
Air Quality
Cumulative Construction Impacts
The BAAQMD recommends that for any project that does not individually have significant
operational air quality impacts, the determination of significant cumulative impact should be
based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and of
the general plan with the regional air quality plan. Individual development projects that
generate construction-related or operational emissions that exceed the BAAQMD
Page 4-10 P
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would also cause a cumulative
considerable increase in emissions.
Conclusion: As stated in the short-term construction impacts discussion, with
implementation of BAAQMD control measures, construction-related air quality
impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, construction of the proposed
project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.
Cumulative Operational Impacts
As previously stated, the BAAQMD recommends that for any project that does not
individually have significant operational air quality impacts, the determination of significant
cumulative impact should be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with
the local general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quality plan. Consistency
was analyzed above in the long-term operational emissions discussion.
As discussed above, traffic modeling conducted for the DDSP reflects a lower rate of VMT
growth than population growth. The projected growth rate of VMT would be 23.4
percent from 2009 through 2015, while projected population growth would be 31.7
percent in the same time frame. With the extensive policies intended to reduce VMT, the
growth rate of VMT under the DDSP would not exceed the growth rate of the population.
Therefore, according to the current BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the VMT growth rate
would not exceed the City's population growth rate and therefore would be consistent
with the 2005 Ozone Strategy.
Conclusions: DDSP includes guiding principles that reasonably implement TCMs,
and includes guiding principles that would reduce air pollution from VMT.
Therefore, the DDSP is consistent with the applicable air quality plan, and a less
than significant cumulative impact would result.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed DDSP would facilitate the construction of new mixed-use, transit-oriented,
commercial, and residential uses. As shown in Table 3.2-8, the proposed project would
result in 166,891.58 MTC02eq/year of operational-related emissions. The DDSP includes
numerous guiding principles that encourage the transit-oriented development, alternative
transportation modes, and sustainable development. As noted above, the project is
anticipated to reduce VMT Below related population growth.
The City's process for the future evaluation of discretionary projects within the
DDSP would include an environmental review pursuant to CEQA, as well as a
consistency analysis with the principles and objectives of the DDSP and the City's
General Plan goals and policies. In general, implementation of these DDSP goals
and principles, DDSP Development Standards and Design Guidelines, as well as
compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations, would reduce their
incremental contribution to the significant worldwide increase in GHG emissions.
Page 4-1 1
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
Conclusion: In general, with implementation of project-specific reduction
measures, future projects would have a less than significant impact with regards to
GHG emissions. As seen in Table 3.2-9 and Table 3.2-10, the DDSP includes
several measures that are consistent with the Attorney General's recommendations
and the CARIB Scoping Plan measures which would reduce GHG emissions
associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project in
combination with cumulative projects would be consistent with, and not hinder, the
reduction strategies for meeting the goals of AB 32. Impacts in this regard would
be less than significant.
Geology, Soils, & Seismicity
The geographic context for the analysis of impacts resulting from geologic hazards generally
is site-specific, rather than cumulative in nature, because each construction project site has
unique geologic considerations that would be subject to uniform site development and
construction standards. As such, the potential for cumulative impacts to occur is limited.
Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to soil or other conditions occur
at individual building sites. These effects are site-specific, and impacts would not be
compounded by additional development, especially in relatively level areas like the project
site. Buildings and facilities in the City of Dublin would be sited and designed in accordance
with the City's Building Code. General Plan, Specific Plan and findings from a design level
geotechnical study prepared for future development in accordance with Mitigation Measure
MM 3.3-1.
Development of cumulative projects in the vicinity of the proposed project could expose
soil surfaces and further alter soil conditions, subjecting soils to erosional processes during
construction. To minimize the potential for cumulative impacts that could cause erosion, all
proposed construction projects in the DDSP area (and cumulative projects throughout the
City) are required to be developed in conformance with the provisions of applicable
federal, state, county, and City laws and ordinances. Adequate control of sedimentation
and erosion must be incorporated into individual projects to address current legal
requirements for control of erosion caused by stormwater discharges. Future development
projects within the DDSP area that are more than one acre in size and would be required
to comply with the provisions of the NPDES permitting process and local implementation
strategies, which would minimize the potential for erosion during construction and
operation of the facilities. In addition, future development would be required to comply
with the City of Dublin Public Works Department Policy No. 95-11 to control erosion
during construction activities. Compliance with this permit process, in addition to the City's
Building Code and other legal requirements related to erosion control practices, would
minimize cumulative effects from erosion. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less
than significant.
Conclusion: Adherence to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations with respect
to project design and construction would provide adequate levels of safety
regarding geologic and seismic hazards. Adherence by each proposed development
project to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations would ensure the proposed
Page 4-12 WIF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative
impacts regarding soil erosion. As potential geologic impacts are evaluated on a
site-specific basis during the environmental review process, the proposed project
would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to geology,
soils, and seismicity.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Development within the project area would increase the total transport of hazardous
materials within the City, but would not include the transport of significant amounts or
types of hazardous materials. In addition, future development of the proposed project
would not generate significant amounts of hazardous waste and the City as a whole would
generate reasonably manageable quantities of waste, all of which would be regulated by
federal, state and local statues. The construction related hazardous waste disposal resulting
from all development within the City could result in large amounts of lead, asbestos, and
other hazardous materials. However, these hazardous materials would be disposed of in
compliance with all pertinent regulations for the handling of such waste. Therefore,
cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion: Hazardous materials and substances highly regulated at the federal,
state, and local levels. Impacts related to hazardous materials and hazardous
substances are considered site-specific and are generally mitigated to less than
significant levels on a project-by-project basis. Compliance with all applicable local,
state, and federal laws that regulate, control, or respond to hazardous waste,
transport, disposal, or clean-up would ensure that development in the region, which
includes the project area, does not result in significant impacts. Therefore, the
proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to
hazards and hazardous materials.
Hydrology & Water Quality
Buildout within the project area would contribute to cumulative drainage flows and surface
water quality impacts when combined with other growth and development in the area.
However, the potential cumulative impact is mitigated through required drainage studies,
the relationship to City and County drainage master plans, and implementation of
appropriate on-site and off-site drainage improvements.
Proposed project conveyance and detention structures will be planned and designed to
maintain existing condition drainage patterns and storm flow rates. Therefore, the
proposed project is not expected to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts on
flooding and drainage system capacities that might arise because of continued development
within the region. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion: The proposed project would be required to implement NPDES and
BMP measures on a project-by-project basis to reduce potential water quality
impacts (as required by mitigation measures MM 3.5-1 and MM 3.5-2). In addition,
Page 4-13
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
projects may require drainage improvements to be in compliance with the City of
Dublin General Plan, Dublin Zoning Ordinance and/or Municipal Code standards.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant
cumulative impact in regards to stormwater runoff and contamination impacts,
with mitigation measures incorporated herein.
Land Use & Planning
The City of Dublin has planning programs such as the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and
Municipal Code, that have established plans and guidelines for growth and development
within the City. The City's General Plan, including the General Plan Land Use Map, would
be amended concurrent with the adoption of the proposed DDSP, to include a DDSP
Land Use Designation to replace the existing General Plan land use designations for the
area. In addition, projects that require zone changes must be found to be consistent with
such planning programs in order to be approved. The Zoning Map for the project area will
be amended concurrent with the adoption of the proposed DDSP to rezone the DDSP
project area to PD, Planned Development. Land use regulations and/or development
standards in the PD will include the standards and regulations of the DDSP. Any issue not
specifically addressed in the DDSP shall be subject to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and/or
Municipal Code. Interpretations may be made by the Community Development Director if
not specifically covered in the City's existing regulations. Therefore, the proposed project
would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to land use and planning.
Conclusion: Development of the proposed project would be compatible with
surrounding land uses and would not conflict with applicable plans or policies,
Projects would also be subject to the City's environmental review process,
Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed project with respect to future
development would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in
regards to land use and planning.
Noise
The cumulative mobile noise analysis is conducted in a two step process. First, the
combined effects from both the proposed project and other projects are compared.
Second, for combined effects that are determined to be cumulatively significant, the
project's incremental effects then are analyzed. The combined effect compares the
"cumulative with project" condition to "existing" conditions. This comparison accounts for
the traffic noise increase from the project generated in combination with traffic generated
by projects in the cumulative projects list. The following criteria have been utilized to
evaluate the combined effect of the cumulative noise increase.
Combined Effects: The cumulative with project noise level ("Cumulative With Project")
causes the following:
¦ An increase of the existing noise level by 5 d6A or more, where the existing level is
less than 60 d6A CNEL;
Page 4-14
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
¦ An increase of the existing noise level by 3 dBA or more, where the existing level is
60 to 65 dBA CNEL; or
¦ An increase of the existing noise level by 1.5 dBA or more, where the existing level
is greater than 65 dBA CNEL.
Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed project in
combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated
that the project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise
increase must be due to the proposed project. The. following criteria have been utilized to
evaluate the incremental effect of the cumulative noise increase.
Incremental Effects: The "Cumulative With Project" causes a I dBA increase in noise over
the "Cumulative Without Project" noise level.
A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria
have been exceeded. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and drastically
reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only proposed projects and
growth due to occur in the general vicinity of the project site would contribute to
cumulative noise impacts. Table 4.5-1, Cumulative Noise Scenario, lists the traffic noise
effects along roadway segments in the project vicinity for "Existing Without Project",
"Cumulative Without Project", and "Cumulative With Project", including incremental and
net cumulative impacts.
First, it must be determined whether the Cumulative With Project Increase Above Existing
Conditions (Combined Effects) is exceeded, Per Table 4.5-1, this criteria is exceeded along
ten of the project area roadways. Under the Incremental Effects criteria, cumulative noise
impacts are defined by determining if the ambient (Cumulative Without Project) noise level
is increased by I dBA or more. Per Table 4.5-1, this criteria is not exceeded along DDSP
roadways.
Table 4.5-1: Cumulative Noise Scenarios
Existing Cumulative T
Cumulative Combined Incremental
Without Without
Project Project With Project Effects Effects
Difference In Difference In Cumulatively
dBA CNEL dBA CNEL dBA CNEL dBA Between dBA between
Roadway Segment @ 100 Feet @ 100 Feet @ 100 Feet "Existing "Cumulative Significant
? t
from from from Without Without Impact?
Roadway Roadway Roadway Project" and Project" and
Centerline Centerline Centerline `Cumulative 'Cumulative
With Project" With Project
Amador Plaza
Amador Valley Blvd. I 57.6 60.0 60.3 2.7 0.3 No
Dublin Blvd.
Dublin Blvd. I St. 59.1 63.5 64.0 4.9 0.5 No
Patrick Way
Amador Plaza Rd.1 62.4 63.8 63.9 1.5 0.1 No
Village Parkway
Page 4-15
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
Existing Cumulative Cumulative Combined Incremental
Without Without
Pro With Project Effects Effects
ject Project
Difference In Difference In Cumulatively
dBA CNEL dBA CNEL dBA CNEL dBA Between dBA between
Roadway Segment @ 100 Feet @ 100 Feet @ 100 Feet "Existing "Cumulative Significant
? t
from from from Without Without Impact?
Roadway Roadway Roadway Project" and Project" and
Centerline Centerline Centerline `Cumulative `Cumulative
With Project" With Project"
Donahue Dr. /Amador 61.8 62.9 63.1 1.3 0.2 No
Plaza Rd.
E. of Village Parkway 61.2 62.5 62.6 1.4 0.1 No
Regional Street / 61.7 62.9 63.1 1.4 0.2 No
Starward Dr.
San Ramon Rd. / 62.0 63.2 63.4 1.4 0.2 No
Regional Street
Starward Dr. / 61.4 62.7 62.8 1.4 0.1 No
Donahue Dr.
W. of San Ramon Rd. 54.9 55.4 55.5 0.6 0.1 No
Dublin Blvd.
Amador Plaza Rd. / 64.7 67.6 68.0 3.3 0.4 No
Village Parkway
E. of Village Parkway 64.9 67.4 67.5 2.6 0.1 No
Golden Gate Dr. / 63.9 67.4 67.9 4.0 0.5 No
Amador Plaza Rd.
Regional Street / 64.0 67.8 68.4 4.4 0.6 No
Golden Gate Dr.
San Ramon Rd. / 64.6 68.3 68.9 4.3 0.6 No
Regional Street
W. of San Ramon Rd. 63.6 65.4 65.5 1.9 0.1 No
Golden Gate Dr.
Dublin Blvd. / St. 53.8 60.0 60.9 7.1 0.9 No
Patrick Way
S. of St. Patrick Way 49.1 57.3 57.8 8.7 0.5 No
Regional Street
Amador Valley Blvd. / 57.8 60.6 61.1 3.3 0.5 No
Dublin Rd.
S. of Dublin Blvd. 57.9 60.5 61.1 3.2 0.6 No
San Ramon Rd.
Amador Valley Blvd. / 66.4 68.1 68.3 1.9 0.2 No
Dublin Blvd.
N. of Amador Valley 65.5 67.5 67.8 2.3 0.3 No
Blvd.
S. of Dublin Blvd. 68.3 70.8 71.1 2.8 0.3 No
St. Patrick Way
E. of Amador Plaza 59.2 61.5 61.8 2.6 0.3 No
Rd.
Golden Gate Dr. / 52.6 56.5 57.3 4.7 0.8 No
Amador Plaza Rd.
W. of Golden Gate Dr.
(Proposed Saint 43.9 53.7 54.5 10.6 0.8 No
Patrick Way
Page 4-16
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
Existing Cumulative
Without Without Cumulative Combined Incremental
Project Project With Project Effects Effects
Difference In Difference In Cumulatively
dBA CNEL dBA CNEL dBA CNEL dBA Between dBA between
Roadway Segment @ 100 Feet @ 100 Feet @ 100 Feet "Existing "Cumulative Significant
from from from Without Without Impact.
Roadway Roadway Roadway Project" and Project" and
Centerline Centerline Centerline 'Cumulative 'Cumulative
With Project" With Project"
Extension
Village Parkway
Amador Valley Blvd. / 61.0 63.0 62.9 1.9 -0.1 No
Dublin Blvd.
Dublin Blvd. / 1-680 NB 57.3 59.4 59.8 2.5 0.4 No
on ram
N. of Amador Valley 61.5 63.4 63.7 2.2 0.3 No
Blvd.
S. of 1-680 NB on ramp 1 50.4 50.4 50.4 0 0 No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level
Source: Intersection turnip movements, prepared b Fehr and Peers, dated January 2010 and ADT calculations b RBF Consulting, dated April 2010.
Activities associated with future development could cause local noise level increases
resulting in higher noise levels. However, the expected combined cumulative effect within
the proposed project would be reduced by implementing Mitigation Measures 3.7-1
through 3.7-3. Furthermore, the DDSP proposes development that is consistent with
existing land uses. As such, the increase in ambient noise levels is anticipated to generate
noise levels similar to the surrounding developments. For areas where new development
would abut sensitive uses such as residences, the DDSP includes design guidelines and
development standards that are aimed at reducing impacts, including building orientation,
wall placement, lot dimensions, maximum intensity, outdoor storage, setbacks, buffers, edge
conditions, and landscaping.
Based on the results of Table 4.5-1, the maximum noise increase for the "Cumulative With
Project" scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would range
from approximately 50.4 dBA to 71.1 dBA. The maximum noise increase for incremental
effects criteria would be 0.9 dBA along Golden Gate Drive (Dublin Blvd./Saint Patrick
Way). Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed project with respect to future
development would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to
noise.
Public Services & Utilities
Significant cumulative impacts to public services would occur if the cumulative projects
would overburden the public service agencies, and if utility providers were unable to
provide adequate services. Implementation of the proposed project in combination with
reasonably foreseeable development would result in the increased demand for public
services, which would result in the need for the provision of fire and police protection
PF Page 4-17
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
services, educational services, and parks and recreation facilities. However, development
fees and/or construction of infrastructure by developers within the DDSP project area
would meet the increased demand on public services and utilities. Therefore, cumulative
impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion: The increased need for funding of public services would be covered
in whole or in part by the City's public facilities fee (Chapter 7.78, of the City of
Dublin Municipal Code), which is assessed on all new construction within the
project area. Development fees are assessed on a project-by-project basis to fund
improvements to meet the increased demand on public services and utilities. As a
result, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative
impact in regards to public services and utilities.
Transportation & Circulation
A discussion of the cumulative impacts associated with Transportation & Circulation are
addressed in Section 3.9.
4.7. Project Alternatives
The alternatives discussion briefly identifies and describes a range of alternatives as
developed by City staff that would feasibly attain most of the project objectives and would
avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts of the proposed project including the
following:
¦ Altemative # I - No Project Alternative;
¦ Altemative #2 -Reduced Development Altemative; and
¦ Alternative #3 - Altemate Use Alternative
This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with each of these three
alternatives as compared with the impacts resulting from the proposed project. The impact
level of each of the altematives (less, similar, greater) is noted in parentheses at the
beginning of each comparison. Table 4.5-2: Comparison of Project Alternatives to the
Proposed Project at the conclusion of this section provides a summary. This section also
identifies the "environmentally superior" altemative.
4. 10.1 Relationship to Project Objectives
Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), a clear statement of objectives
and the underlying purpose of the proposed project can help the City develop a
reasonable range of altematives. Each alternative would be evaluated as to how well it
meets the objectives of the project, as currently proposed.
The DDSP consists of a comprehensive set of incentives, standards, and requirements that
will implement the vision for the future development in downtown Dublin. The DDSP will
define the physical envelope for downtown Dublin's future growth using height limits,
setbacks, density, and design standards. The DDSP will act as the planning tool to guide
Page 4-18 q
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
and direct new development, economic development, transportation improvements
(including pedestrian and transit-oriented development), parking, pedestrian amenities, and
public open space (e.g, public plazas) through the DDSP Guiding Principles. The DDSP will
be instrumental in promoting a more walkable, livable downtown Dublin, as well as
providing incentives for development in keeping with the City's broader vision.
¦ As discussed in the project description; the DDSP project area has been divided
into three districts, based on the existing building patterns and land uses within each
area and the intended development envisioned for each district A set of guiding
principles were prepared as part of the DDSP and serve as the project objectives
for this EIR and are described in Section 2.4: Proposed Project Characteristics and
Objectives.
4.10.2 Alternatives Considered But Rejected
The following alternatives were considered by the City, but were rejected:
¦ Alternative Sites
¦ Alternative Development Plan - Shifting Uses
¦ Alternative Development Plan - Incorporation of Large Format Retail
Alternative Sites
¦ The project is specific to the downtown area. Alternative site locations were not
considered as they would not be consistent with the City's objectives for the
proposed project area of creating a vibrant and dynamic commercial and mixed-use
center that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping, services, dining,
working, living, and entertainment that attracts both local and regional residents.
Alternate Development Plan - Shifting Uses
To potentially reduce the significant traffic impacts of the proposed project, the City
considered shifting the distribution of land uses from areas with the greatest traffic impacts
(e.g. along Dublin Boulevard and Saint Patrick Way) to the north along Amador Valley
Boulevard where the roadways are generally less congested particularly during the AM and
PM peak hours. Although this alternative would concentrate more development along
Amador Valley Boulevard, it would not decrease the amount of traffic generated overall by
the DDSP. Therefore, this alternative was rejected since it would just shift the same
amount of traffic generated to another portion of the project area, which would potentially
degrade the intersections along Amador Valley Boulevard.
Also this alternative would concentrate uses away from the transit opportunity on Dublin
Boulevard and the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. This would be contrary to many
of the objectives in the DDSP.
More Large Format Retail
The City considered incorporation of more large-scale "big box" retail uses in the Transit
Oriented District. However, this alternative was rejected as it was not consistent with the
P Page 4-19
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
City's Housing Element, which accounted for the proposed residential uses within this
district as part of the total residential dwelling unit projections. In addition, this alternative
would not reduce significant traffic and air quality impacts and was generally not consistent
with the project objectives of creating a transit-oriented district that would compliment and
support transit uses, particularly the West Dublin BART station.
4.10.3 Alternative # 1 -No Project Alternative
Characteristics
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3) requires that a "no-project" alternative be
evaluated as part of an EIR, proceeding under one of two scenarios: the project area
remaining in its current state or, for planning level projects such as the DDSP, development
of the project area under its current zoning designation.
Alternative # I - No Project Alternative considers the environmental effects of not
approving the proposed project with the continuation of the existing permitted land uses
and zoning into the future. Under this alternative, the existing zoning and entitlements
from the existing five Specific Plans that encompass the proposed DDSP project area
would continue to allow for additional development within the project area. However,
Alternative # I - No Project Alternative would not result in a net increase of an additional
460,000 square feet of additional non-residential development and additional residential
units as proposed under the DDSP.
Comparative Analysis
Aesthetics and Visual Quality (greater). There would be a slight change to the visual
character of the planning area with a reduction of the amount of development within the
project area. However, the No Project Alternative would not require compliance with
development standards and design guidelines proposed in the DDSP. Therefore, although
No Project Alternative would result in a reduction in the amount of development within
the project area in comparison to the proposed project, development would proceed
under each of the five Specific Plans, which do not include a comprehensive set of
development standards and design guidelines as proposed in the DDSP, Furthermore, the
lack of comprehensive development standards and design guidelines are contrary to the
project objective to enhance the visual quality of the downtown and to create a more
mixed-use pedestrian friendly downtown. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would
result in greater impacts in comparison to the proposed project.
Air Quality (slightly less). Due to a slight reduction in the amount of development that
would be allowed under the No Project Alternative, this alternative would result in slightly
less impacts to short-term and long-term air quality impacts as compared to the proposed
project. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would also result in a
less than significant impact with respect to Greenhouse gas emissions.
Geology and Soils (similar-). Impacts under the No Project Alternative would be similar to
the proposed project in that the project area could still be exposed to seismic ground
shaking, liquefaction, soil erosion, and expansive soils with development under the five
Page 4-20
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
existing Specific Plans within the project area. Compliance with the City's Building Code
and the California Building Code would ensure that the No Project Alternative would also
result in a less than significant impact as compared to the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (slightly less). The No Project Alternative would have
slightly less impacts in comparison to the proposed project with respect to hazards and
hazardous materials with a decrease in the potential for storage and use of hazardous
materials within the project area. However, similar to the proposed project, The No
Project Alternative would result in a less than significant impact to hazards and hazardous
materials
Hydrology and Water Quality (similar). Because the project area is already largely built-
out, there is little remaining pervious surfaces. Surface water runoff under this alternative
would be similar to the proposed project in that either would occur in an area that is
mostly developed with buildings, paving and other impervious surfaces. Furthermore,
mitigation measures MM 3.5-1 a and 3.5-1 b would also be required under this alternative to
reduce potentially significant impacts to short and long-term surface water hydrology.
Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts in comparison to the
proposed project.
Land Use and Planning (greater). The No Project Alternative would reduce the total
residential dwelling unit projections and therefore would not comply with the provisions of
the Housing Element. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in greater impacts
as compared to the proposed project.
Noise (slightly less). The No Project Alternative would result in a slight reduction in the
generation of noise during short-temp construction and long-term operations in comparison
to the proposed project due to a slight reduction in the amount of traffic to the project
area under this alternative. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in slightly
less impacts from noise.
Public Services/Utilities (slightly less). The No Project Alternative would result in a slight
reduction in the impacts to public services, utilities, and recreation in comparison to the
proposed project with a reduction in the total amount of residential development in the
project area as compared to the proposed project.
Transportation/Circulation (less). The No Project Alternative would result in less impacts
to transportation and circulation with a reduction in the number of trips in comparison to
the proposed project. Under the No Project Alternative, the only intersections operating
that would operate below LOS D would be the Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road and
the Dublin Boulevard/Regional Street intersections, which would operate at LOS E during
the PM peak hour. However, similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative
would include a General Plan Amendment to exempt these intersections from Guiding
Policy G in the General Plan, which strives to maintain a LOS of D or better. In
comparison to the proposed project, there is however a significant reduction of trips during
W Page 4-21
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
the PM peak hour in comparison to the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project
Alternative would result in a less traffic and circulation impacts in comparison to the
proposed project.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
This alternative would generally not be consistent with the project's objectives. For
example, this alternative would not be consistent with the DDSP's objective of increasing
the amount of retail sales and related economic activity throughout downtown Dublin by
not increasing the amount of commercial/retail uses within the project area, In addition,
the No Project Alternative would not enhance the visual quality of downtown Dublin
without the proposed design standards and guidelines included in the DDSP. Therefore,
the No Project Alternative would be less consistent with the project objectives.
4.10.4 Alternative #2 - Reduced Development Alternative
Characteristics
Alternative #2 - Reduced Development Alternative assumes construction of existing
entitled development of approximately 617 residential dwelling units; 157,500 square feet
of commercial development; and 150 hotel units, plus a minor amount of additional plan
development . As described in Chapter 2: Project Description Under the Base Floor to
Area Ratio Alternative, an additional 709,820 square feet of non-residential uses would be
constructed for a total of 867,320 square feet of commercial space; 6 l 7residential dwelling
units; and 150 hotel rooms.
Comparative Analysis
Aesthetics and Visual Quality (similar). While this alternative would result in less total
density as compared to the proposed project, both the proposed project and the Reduced
Development Alternative would result in intensification of development within an existing
developed urban setting. Furthermore, this alternative would also include development
standards and design guidelines that seek to improve the visual quality and character of the
project area. Therefore, aesthetic impacts are considered similar to the proposed project.
Air Quality (less). Due to a reduction in the amount of development that would be
allowed under the Reduced Density Alternative, this alternative would result in slightly less
impacts to short-term and long-term operational air quality. Therefore, this alternative
would result in slightly less impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Similar to the
proposed project, the Reduced Density Alternative would also result in a less than
significant impact with respect to Greenhouse gas emissions,
Geology and Soils (similar). Impacts under the Reduced Density Alternative would be
similar to the proposed project in that the project area would still be exposed to seismic
ground shaking, liquefaction, soil erosion, and expansive soils with development within the
project area. Compliance with the City's Building Code, and the California Building Code,
the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts to the proposed project.
Page 4-22
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (slightly less). The Reduced Density Alternative would
have slightly less impacts in comparison to the proposed project with a decrease in the
square footage within the project area, which would subsequently decrease the potential
for storage of hazardous materials within the project area.
Hydrology and Water Quality (similar), Because the project area is already largely built-
out, there is little remaining pervious surfaces. Surface water runoff under this alternative
would be similar to the proposed project in that either would occur in an area that is
mostly developed with buildings, paving and other impervious surfaces. . Furthermore,
mitigation measures MM 3.5-1 a and 3.5-1 b would also be required under this alternative in
order to reduce potentially significant impacts to short and long-term surface water
hydrology. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in similar impacts in
comparison to the proposed project.
Land Use and Planning (6reater). The Reduced Development Alternative would reduce the
total residential dwelling unit projections and therefore would not comply with the
provisions of the Housing Element. Therefore, the Reduced Development Alternative
would result in greater impacts as compared to the proposed project.
Noise (slightly less). The Reduced Development Alternative would result in a slight
reduction in the generation of noise during short-term construction and long-term
operations in comparison to the proposed project due to a reduction in the amount of
development under this alternative, which would reduce short-term and long-term
operational noise impacts.
Public Services/Utilities (slightly less). Due to a reduction in the amount of development
under the Reduced Development Alternative, this alternative would result in a reduction in
the impacts to public services, utilities, and recreation in comparison to the proposed
project.
Transportation/Circulation (less), The Reduced Development Alternative would result in a
total of 581 trips during the AM peak hour and 1,917 trips during the PM peak hour, which
is a reduction of approximately 1,550 trips during the AM peak hour and 5,161 during the
PM peak hour under the Maximum FAR. Under the Reduced Development Alternative,
five intersections would operate at below LOS D during the PM peak hour, including the
Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road; Dublin Boulevard/Regional Street; Dublin
Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road; and Saint Patrick Way/Amador Plaza Road/1-680 SB Ramps
intersection, which would operate at an unacceptable LOS F; and the Dublin
Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive intersection, which would operate at an unacceptable LOS
E. However, similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Development Alternative would
include a General Plan Amendment to exempt these intersections from Guiding Policy G in
the General Plan, which strives to maintain a LOS of D or better. In comparison to the
proposed project, there is however a significant reduction of trips during the PM peak hour
in comparison to the proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced Development Alternative
would result in a less traffic and circulation impacts in comparison to the proposed project.
WF Page 4-23
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
Consistency with Project Objectives
While generally consistent with the proposed project's objectives, some objectives would
not be consistent or would be diminished under this altemative. For example, this
alternative would preclude the opportunity to implement a community benefit program
that would help fund public improvements within the project area. The ability to
encourage and support large-format regional retail as an important community and financial
asset of the City could be diminished. The ability to create multiple high density housing
sites could also be diminished. And finally, the ability to create mixed-use projects that
provide public and/or private plazas and outdoor gathering areas could be diminished.
Therefore, this alternative would be slightly less consistent with the project objectives.
4. 10.5 Alternative #3 - Alternate Use Alternative
Characteristics
Altemative #3 - Alternate Development Plan would alter the mix of land uses within the
Transit-Oriented District with more office and commercial and fewer residential dwelling
units. This altemative would result in a reduction of approximately 683 residential dwelling
units with the construction of approximately 696,000 square feet of non-residential uses
(e.g. office space and commercial uses) for a total of 3,731,540 square feet of non-
residential uses and 617 residential units
Comparative Analysis
Aesthetics and Visual Quality (similar). While the type of land uses in the Transit Oriented
District would be different, the overall density and visual character would be similar to the
proposed project. Furthermore, this alternative would require compliance with
development standards and guidelines identified in the DDSP and therefore would result in
similar impacts in comparison to the proposed project.
Air Quality (greater). The Alternate Use Alternative would result in slightly greater impacts
to short-term and long-term air quality due to an increase in traffic generated to the
project area under this alternative. Both the proposed project and the Altemate Use
Altemative would be required to implement basic control measures during short-term
construction. However, due to an increase in the number of vehicle trips to the Transit
Oriented District, this altemative would result in a greater range of impacts as compared to
the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Density Altemative
would also result in a less than significant impact with respect to Greenhouse gas emissions.
Geology and Soils (similar), Impacts under the Altemate Use Alternative would be similar
to the proposed project in that the project area could still be exposed to seismic ground
shaking, liquefaction, soil erosion, and expansive soils. However, with compliance with the
City's Building Code, the Califomia Building Code, similar to the proposed project would
result in similar impacts under this alternative. Compliance with the City's Building Code
and the California Building Code would ensure that the No Project Altemative would also
result in a less than significant impact as compared to the proposed project.
Page 4-24
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (similar). The Alternate Use Alternative would have
similar impacts as compared to the proposed project with a change in the mix of
development within the Transit Oriented District. Office and residential uses would not
result in a substantial increase in the storage and/or use of hazardous materials within the
project area over existing conditions. Therefore, this alternative would result in similar
impacts in comparison to the proposed project.
Hydrology and Water Quality (similar). Because the project area is already largely built-out
and there is little remaining pervious surfaces within the project area, surface water runoff
under this alternative would be similar in that the Alternate Design Alternative and the
proposed project would require redevelopment of existing uses. Furthermore, mitigation
measures incorporated herein (mitigation measures MM 3.5-1 a and 3.5-1 b) would also be
required under this alternative in order to reduce potentially significant impacts to short
and long-term surface water hydrology. Therefore, this alternative would result in similar
impacts in comparison to the proposed project with respect to hydrology and water
quality.
Land Use and Planning (greater). The Alternate Use Alternative would not have the
potential for compatibility impacts, which in any case are less than significant for the
proposed project. However, the City's recently adopted Housing Element identifies
housing opportunity sites in the project area and these sites helped the City meet the City's
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers as required by State law.
Noise (similar-). The Alternate Use Alternative would result in similar impacts from noise
during short-term construction and long-term operations as compared to the proposed
project due to a similar type of development,
Public Services/Utilities (similar). Given the fact that the overall buildout density would be
similar to the proposed project, the Alternate Use Alternative would result in similar
impacts to public services, utilities, and recreation in comparison to the proposed project.
Transportation/Circulation (treater). The Alternate Use Alternative would result greater
impacts to transportation and circulation with a decrease in the amount of residential
dwelling units and an increase in the amount of non-residential uses (e.g. office space)
within the Transit Oriented District. Construction of additional non-residential uses in the
Transit Oriented District would likely increase the amount of daily traffic by approximately
26, 311 average trips per day. Trips to the study intersections during the AM and PM peak
hours as compared to the proposed project would therefore increase. Therefore, impacts
to intersections and roadway segments during the AM and PM peak hours would be
greater under this alternative.
Consistency With the Project Objectives
While generally consistent with the project objectives, this alternative would not be
consistent with some of the transit-oriented district guiding principles. For example, this
alternative would not promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and
Page 4-25
I
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
active district, It could also limit some future development that incorporates mixed-use
within the district. Therefore, this alternative would be slightly less consistent with the
project objectives.
4.10.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires that the environmentally superior
alternative be identified. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project
Alternative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other
alternatives. Alternative #2-Reduced Development Alternative would be the
environmentally superior alternative as it would reduce impacts to air quality, hydrology and
water quality, noise, public services/utilities, and traffic and circulation associated with
development compared to the project. Among the other alternatives, Alternative # I -No
Project Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative, as it
would reduce impacts related to air quality, hazardous materials, noise, public
services/utilities, and traffic and circulation. Table 4-5.2: Comparison of Project Alternatives
to the Proposed Project rates the impacts of the above alternatives compared to the
impacts of the proposed project.
Table 4.5-2: Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Environmental Category Alternative #1 - No Alternative #2 - Reduced Alternative #3 -
Project Alternative Development Alternative Alternate Use
Alternative
Aesthetics and Visual
Greater Similar Similar
Character
Air Quality Slightly Less Less Greater
Geology and Soils Similar Similar Similar
Hazards and Hazardous Slightly Less Slightly Less Similar
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality Similar Slightly Less Similar
Land Use and Planning Greater Greater Greater
Noise Slightly Less Slightly Less Similar
Public Services, Utilities, Slightly Less Slightly Less Similar
and Recreation
Transportation and Less Less Greater
Circulation
Ability to Meet Project
Objectives Less Slightly Less Slightly Less
None of the alternatives identified would avoid the significant unavoidable impacts
identified in transportation Impacts 3.9-1 through 3.9-3 on eight Metropolitan
Transportation System roadway segments. This is due to the fact that all three of the
alternatives would allow for new development either under the previous five downtown
area specific plans (Alternative #I) or under a variation of the proposed Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan (Alternatives #2 and #3).
Page 4-26 WIF
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
CEQA Considerations
P Page 4-27
i
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
References
5. References
5.1. References Cited
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Congestion Management Program,
2009.
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Countywide Travel Demand Model,
2008.
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Level of Service Monitoring on the
Congestion Management Program Roadway Network, 2008.
Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District, Flood Control Zone 2. Available
at: http://www.acgov.org/pwa/ACFCD%20Website%2OUpgrade%2OFeb2008/
acfcd/zone2,html. Accessed: April 8, 2010.
Alameda County Library. Available at:. http://www.aclibrary.org/. Accessed: April 14, 2010.
Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. Available at:
http://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/aboutus_home.htm. Accessed: April 8, 2010.
Amador Valley Industries. Available at: http://www.amadorvalleyindustHes.com/fags.html.
Accessed: April 14, 2010.
Association of Bay Area Governments. Bay Area Dam Failure Inundation Hazards Map,
1995. Available at: http://www.abag.ca.gov/index.html. Accessed: April 8, 2010.
Available at:
http://www.dsrsd.com/news_and_event/051005 I rptFinal%20UWMP.pdf.
Accessed: April 15, 2010.
Available at: http://www.ed-data.kI2.ca.us/. Accessed: April 9, 2010.
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zones. Available at:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/affected.aspx. Accessed: April 5, 2010.
California Department of Transportation: California Seismic Hazards Map, July 1996.
Available at:
California Department of Water Resources, San Francisco Hydrologic Region, Livermore
Valley Groundwater Basin. California's Groundwater Bulletin 118. Livermore Valley
Groundwater Basin. Available at:
http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin-I 18/basindesc6ptions/2-10.pdf.
Accessed: April 6, 2010.
California Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Available at: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb2/basin_planning.shtml.
Accessed: April 6, 2010.
California State Parks, Lake de Valle SRA. Available at:
http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=537, Accessed: April 8, 2010.
CalRecycle. Active Landfills Profile for Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery.
Available at:
Page 5-1
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
References
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Profiles/Facility/Landfill/LFProfiile I.asp?COID=3&FACID
=0 I -AA-0009. Accessed: April 14, 2010.
City of Dublin, City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, 2007.
City of Dublin. City of Dublin General Plan, adopted February 1985,
City of Dublin, City of Dublin General Plan, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element,
updated 2010.
City of Dublin, Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, 2004.
City of Dublin, Dublin Downtown Specific Plan, 1987.
City of Dublin, Final Downtown Core Specific Plan, 2000.
City of Dublin, Final Village Parkway Specific Plan, 2000.
City of Dublin, Final West Dublin BART Specific Plan, 2000.
City of Dublin, Mape Memorial Park. Available at:
http://www.ci.dublin.ca,us/DepartmentSubLevel2.cfm?PL=Rec&SL=prkfac&dsplyl D=
434. Accessed: April 14, 2010.
City of Dublin, San Ramon Road Specific Plan, 1983.
Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Countywide Travel Demand Model, 2003.
Dublin San Ramon Services District. Available at: http://www.dsrsd.com/home/home.html.
Accessed: April 6, 2010.
Dublin Unified School District: School Boundaries, Available at:
http://www.dublin.ki 2.ca.us/. Accessed: April 14, 2010.
East Bay Regional Park District, Don Castro Regional Recreation Area, Available at:
http://www.ebparks.org/parks/don_castro. Accessed: April 8, 2010.
EDAW. 2000. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station and Transit Village EIR.
Ed-Data. Education Data Partnership.
Fehr & Peers, BART Direct Ridership Model, 2009.
Glendale, City of Downtown Specific Plan Final EIR. Available at:
http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/downtown_specifiic_plan_EIR final.asp.
Accessed: April 7, 2010,
Google Earth, Accessed: April 5-6, 2010.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/earthquake engineeri ng/Seismology/Map Report. PD F.
Accessed on April 7, 2010.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008.
Keyser Marston & Associates, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan - Focused Market Study,
May 2009.
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, WHEELS, March 2010.
Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency, Facilities. Available at:
http://lavwma.com/facilities_lavwmaSystem.php. Accessed: April 15, 2010.
Page 5-2
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
References
MWH. Dublin San Ramon Services District, Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Update, Final Report, June 2005.
Northem California SHZP Data. Official Map of Seismic Hazard Zones NAD83, Dublin
Quadrangle. Available at:
http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/MapProcessor.asp?Action=SH M P&Location=
AII&Version=5&Browser=Netscape&Platform=Win. Accessed: April 6, 2010.
Pers. Comm. Ms. Diane Lowart. City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Director.
April 15, 2010.
Pers. Comm. Ms. Joanne Sharkey, Dublin Unified School District. April 14, 2010.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Water Sources & Water Supply Planning,
http://sfwater.org/msc_main.cfm/MC_ID/13/MSC_ID/165, viewed April 7, 2010.
SCI Consulting Group. Dublin Unified School District, Demographic Study and Facilities
Plan. 2007-2008.
State of Califomia Department of Transportation, 2008 Traffic Volumes on the Califomia
State Highway System, 2009.
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Web
Soil Survey, Alameda Area, Califomia (CA609). Available at:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed: April 6, 2010.
United States Geological Survey, 2006. Quatemary Fault and Fold Database for the United
States. Available at: http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/gfauIts/. Accessed: April 7,
2010.
West Yost & Associates. Dublin San Ramon Services District Urban Water Management
Plan, 2005 Update Final. Available at:
http://www.dsrsd.com/news_and_event/051005 I rptFinal%20UWMP.pdf. Accessed:
April 7, 2010.
West Yost & Associates. Dublin San Ramon Services District Urban Water Management
Plan, 2005 Update Final
Zone 7 Water Agency. Available at:
http://www.zone7water.com/i ndex. ph p?option=com_content&task=view&id =96<em i
d=408. Accessed: April 16, 2010.
Zone 7, Annual Review of the Sustainable Water Supply Report, May 2009.
Available at:
http://www.zone7water.com/images/pdf docs/water supply/sustainable_09.pdf.
Accessed: April 15, 2010.
Zone 7. 2008 Annual Report. Available at:
http://www.zone7water.com/images/pdf docs/biennial/%5C%2708-annualreport-
web.pdf. Accessed: April 15, 2010.
WF Page 5-3
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR
References
5.2. List of Preparers
City of Dublin
Erica Fraser, Project Manager
Jeri Ram
Jeff Baker
Jaimee Bourgeois
RBF Consulting
Bill Wiseman, Project Manager
Erika Spencer
Jennifer Stewart
Jonathan Schuppert
Eddie Torres
Achilles Malisos
Brian Allee
Fehr & Peers
Kathrin Tellez, Project Manager
Ellen Polling
Dan Hennessey
Page 5-4