Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.04 Dublin Blvd Mitigated Neg Decor 19 82 /ii � 111 DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL June 18, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo City Manager""' CITY CLERK File # SUBJECT: Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approve Preliminary Engineering Plans for Dublin Boulevard Improvement Project (Sierra Court/Civic Plaza to Dublin Ct.) Prepared by Ferd Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of preliminary engineering plans for Dublin Boulevard Improvement project from Sierra Court/Civic Plaza to Dublin Court (the Project). City consultants have completed the preliminary engineering plans and prepared the Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration which was noticed and circulated for a 30 -day public review period from April 9, 2013 to May 8, 2013. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the preliminary engineering plans would allow the Project to move forward to subsequent stages; Rule 20A Utility Underground District formation and design, property appraisal and acquisition, and 95% completion of plans and specifications to get the project shelf -ready for construction. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the adoption of the Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the preliminary engineering plans. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution that adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approves Preliminary Engineering Plans for Dublin Boulevard Improvement Project from Sierra Court/Civic Plaza to Dublin Court. Submitted By Director of Public Works Reviewed By Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 4.4 DESCRIPTION: Proiect Background The proposed project is the last phase of the City's plan to widen Dublin Boulevard west of Dougherty Road from four lanes to six lanes. The project limits are Sierra Court/Civic Plaza to Dublin Court, northeast of the Dublin Civic Center and adjacent to the Dublin Sports Grounds (see Attachment 2 — Project Location Map). This project will include the widening of travel lanes to a total of six lanes (three lanes each direction), installation of bike lanes, new sidewalks, undergrounding of overhead utilities, and enhancement of existing street landscaping. As part of preliminary engineering work, three alternatives were developed for this section of Dublin Boulevard fronting the Dublin Sports Grounds. The main area of focus for the alternatives was the impact on the Dublin Sports Grounds, which was deeded to the City by the Federal Government with a condition to permanently use it as a park. Three alternatives were developed by the City consultant and on September 4, 2012, the alternatives were presented to the City Council and ultimately the City Council decided to proceed with Alternative 2 for further engineering and environmental work (see Attachment 3, Staff Report - Project Update: Dublin Boulevard Improvements). The alternative consists of three lanes for each direction of travel, 5- foot bicycle lanes, a 5.5 -foot rain garden /landscape area fronting the Sports Grounds and a 7- foot pedestrian pathway along the northerly edge of the park. Similarly on September 4, 2012, the City Council approved the use of available Public Utilities Commission Rule 20A funds to underground existing overhead utilities along Dublin Boulevard from Sierra Court/Civic Plaza to Dublin Court, and authorized staff to introduce an Ordinance creating an Underground District for Dublin Boulevard. Proposed Proiect - Roadway Widening As a part of the proposed project, the existing five -lane Dublin Boulevard would be widened to include three travel lanes in each direction, for a total of six travel lanes (see Attachment 4 — Preliminary Engineering Plans). The majority of the existing center median varies from 4 to 16 feet wide and would be retained. In addition to the three travel lanes in each direction, the roadway widening would include bike lanes. On the south side of Dublin Boulevard street improvements would be constructed within the existing right -of -way. The proposed pedestrian path will be constructed on a portion of the Dublin Sports Grounds property (as discussed above) and would maintain consistency with the existing recreational land uses. In order to accomplish the roadway widening, right -of -way would need to be acquired on the north side of Dublin Boulevard. The needed right -of -way would encroach on private property that currently consists of surface parking and landscaped areas. This portion of the project would require the acquisition of additional five feet of right -of -way from five properties. On- street parking is currently allowed along Dublin Boulevard in front of 6783 Dublin Boulevard for approximately 130 feet. The General Plan restricts parking on Dublin Boulevard and, upon implementation of the proposed project, the on- street parking would be removed. The proposed project would prohibit left turns (going eastbound) from one commercial property located at 6715 Dublin Boulevard. Instead of crossing over three travel lanes of opposing traffic, motorists would be directed to make a U -turn at Dublin Boulevard /Sierra Court to travel eastbound on Dublin Boulevard. Pedestrian and Landscape Improvements A pedestrian path would be provided on the south side of Dublin Boulevard, in the Dublin Sports Grounds parcel. The pedestrian path would be constructed on a portion of the existing surface parking lot and park area adjacent to the street. The surface parking lot, which currently has a Page 2 of 4 total of 166 parking spaces, would be reconfigured to accommodate 169 parking spaces, an addition of three parking spaces. The pedestrian path would then meander easterly through the park immediately adjacent to Dublin Boulevard and a pre- fabricated pedestrian bridge would be constructed over the Zone 7 drainage channel to extend the pedestrian path to Dublin Court. The drainage channel would not be modified as a part of the proposed project. Landscaping would be included as a part of the project adjacent to the pedestrian path. The landscaping between Dublin Boulevard and the pedestrian path would consist of an approximately 5.5 -foot bio- retention area, which would contain permeable soil. In addition, landscaping would be provided in the center median. The existing landscaping would be retained as much as possible and the remaining area would be modified with new landscaping. The existing street trees that border the project site to the north and south would be removed as a part of the roadway widening. These trees would be replaced on both sides of Dublin Boulevard and new trees added where possible. Undergrounding of Overhead Utilities Staff has contacted the affected utility companies (PG &E, AT &T and Comcast) and created a preliminary map showing the boundaries of the Utility District. Upon approval of the project CEQA document, staff will return to the City Council to introduce an ordinance creating the Underground District. Environmental Review — Mitigated Negative Declaration An Initial Study was prepared to determine the level of environmental review necessary for the proposed project. Based on the analysis in the Initial Study, it has been determined that one or more project - related environmental impacts are potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less- than - significant level. Accordingly, Staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Project (see Attachment 5 — Mitigated Negative Declaration). Staff noticed and circulated the Initial Study and draft MND for a 30 -day public review period which occurred from April 9, 2013 to May 8, 2013. Approximately 230 notices were mailed to property owners, businesses and tenants along the project area corridor and the notice was also published in the Valley Times on April 9 and April 16, 2013. Both notices invited interested members of the community to comment on the draft MND and also advised the public of an Open House community meeting the City convened on April 18, 2013 at the Dublin Civic Center. The draft MND was also distributed to interested and involved public agencies including the US National Park Service, and was made available online via the City website. A total of two people attended the April 18th Open House meeting and they were presented the specifics of the project including the proposed undergrounding of utilities. Staff received no written comments on the environmental document during the public review period. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: As mentioned above, more than 230 notices were mailed to businesses, property owners and tenants inviting them to the April 18th Open House community meeting and a similar notice was also published in the Valley Times on April 9 and April 16, 2013 inviting interested members to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approving Preliminary Engineering Plans for Dublin Boulevard Improvement Project Page 3 of 4 2. Project Location Map 3. Staff Report dated Sept. 4, 2012- Project Update: Dublin Boulevard Improvements 4. Preliminary Engineering Plans 5. Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program Page 4 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. - 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLANS FOR DUBLIN BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT — SIERRA COURT /CIVIC PLAZA TO DUBLIN COURT WHEREAS, the Circulation Element of the City of Dublin's General Plan has called for the expansion of Dublin Boulevard to a six -lane arterial; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin's Bikeways Master Plan calls for the addition of on- street bike lanes within the limits of Dublin Boulevard from Sierra Court/Civic Plaza to Dublin Court; and WHEREAS, preliminary engineering of Dublin Boulevard improvements has proceeded for the section of Dublin Boulevard between Sierra Court/Civic Plaza Dublin Court, including proposed roadway, median, bicycle and pedestrian improvements; and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2012 the project alternatives were presented to the City Council and a preferred alternative was chosen for further engineering and environmental work; and WHEREAS, consistent with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City prepared and circulated an environmental Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration on the Dublin Boulevard Improvement Project for a 30 -day public review period; and WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared and included in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration which contains mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to a less- than - significant level; and WHEREAS, during the public review period of April 9, 2013 to May 8, 2013, the City received no written comments on the project and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed a Staff Report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration at their meeting on June 18, 2013 prior to taking action on the project; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the project is the Public Works Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA, 94568 Attn: Ferd Del Rosario. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no substantial evidence that the project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that after reviewing and considering the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the preliminary engineering plans, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including the Mitigation Monitoring Program) for the Dublin Boulevard Improvement Project from Sierra Court/Civic Plaza to Dublin Court and approves the preliminary engineering plans. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of June 2013, by the following vote: AYES- NOES- ABSENT- ABSTAIN- ATTEST- City Clerk Mayor 7. 0 at , y II€ noCtek 154h S1 aY °� es16 Gs `� 8 Like Dr 0 n� Hi °41°f c SAN RAMON ?6 €ana Ra 4 na a G 121h St e+Q6 �1a Q COryoa Woo, 111h St a °St n c s tc�lr p 10th S€ u �� � n roc` PROJECT LOCATION Q K sCr¢IA *re �o� 6C�� paio eC�F 6th St n n • \0 KOYA€Ipf)RSKf VILLAGE �r,.nf irr J1 � } 1 PStocrpr L Dublin 0, Tin S€ ± Fowe DUBLIN blt Ivd µ 41wy gl p 1; R 6th Si 51°na 9e Ut, � f�Ch Livermore ddb °• < < ha ; pro Muni Airport m • Dr ny % L Stonle �L INeE[s m SO St BSI a °� gtrlcy Tsi.d 1* hNrfrfL l SPA' tY - �'eY� Q > q"fi ., Rlf�r C7 �pI Or `Qikrvra �C11 w ," PLEASANTON Ln V 1110 > + S! C i a � �onaburp Ln ar to h Houston P1 Lc aAra Dr Barra Ln KILKARE V100W 0 [�"i nLPark p°b €in C1 �7hfC o �4 ds f Scar€ett C€ 4 yahnsGn D .....:. O T LOCATION o �r C� G \e. �L Owens Dr � 0\ GNaltar Dr a D4 or {j ` b s GeCoseSDr w rp �q �dL a °rye S€ Pia � Sm"011dA° Pr # dre4avye 1'ur p1v°rd WsY k °� Or � 1ty 3 i €ngywoob BGnpS€>o °seG, r Ct Q'4*� lag3tirood 1X owco CI °yrts" Btvd IS W SperG°M ,vt F W *4 6 i1 �.t NNIaQ* pr � oa* 0 C for O tduftvo°d ih +taPark poNOn q a g �*Mer Part E3S teary ayvn r ape C� NORTH Source: ArcMW GIS, base niAp, 2013, Atkins, 2013, T aor TO scn e Figure 1 Project Location and Vicinity ATKI NS or 19 82 /ii � 111 DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL September 4, 2012 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo City Manager""' CITY CLERK File #600 -35 SUBJECT: Project Update - Dublin Boulevard Improvement Project between Civic Plaza /Sierra Court and Dublin Court Prepared by Ferd Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City of Dublin's Five -Year Capital Improvement Program (2012 -2017) includes a budget for preliminary engineering work to improve Dublin Boulevard between Civic Plaza /Sierra Court and Dublin Court. The proposed improvements include widening of travel lanes, installation of bicycle lanes and sidewalks /pedestrian path, and enhancement of existing street landscaping. Engineering work has begun and three project alternatives were developed for the segment of Dublin Boulevard fronting the Dublin Sports Grounds between Civic Plaza and Dublin Court. Staff will present the three project alternatives and is requesting City Council direction. Staff will proceed with the preferred alternative for further engineering and environmental work. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Dublin Boulevard Improvement Project — Civic Plaza /Sierra Court to Dublin Court (CIP #960026) includes a budget for engineering work in the 2012 -2017 Capital Improvement Program. Right of way acquisition and construction phases of the project are currently unfunded. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to proceed with further engineering and environmental work for Alternative #2. Submitted By Director of Public Works �?14 Reviewed By Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 3 ITEM NO. 8.1 DESCRIPTION: The City's 2012 -2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes a budget for preliminary engineering work to improve Dublin Boulevard between Civic Plaza /Sierra Court and Dublin Court, under CIP No. 960026. The proposed improvements include widening of travel lanes, installation of bicycle lanes and sidewalks /pedestrian path, and enhancement of existing street landscaping. In February 2012, the firm of Bellecci and Associates was hired to perform preliminary engineering work. Part of their scope is to develop three alternatives for the section of Dublin Boulevard fronting Dublin Sports Grounds. The three project alternatives are as follows: • Alternative #1: This alternative consists of three lanes for each direction of travel, 5 -foot bicycle lanes and standard 8 -foot sidewalks. A 4.5 -foot landscape buffer is proposed along the Sports Grounds parking lot to enhance the parking lot area. The street widening on the north side will accommodate three westbound travel lanes, 5 -foot bicycle lane and standard 8 -foot sidewalk next to the street curb. To accommodate the widening on the north side, an additional 5 feet of right of way will be required and typical for all three alternatives. On the south side, the proposed sidewalk along the Sports Grounds also adjoins the street curb and a portion (5 feet) will encroach onto the park property. Further to the east, the new sidewalk will require expansion of an existing drainage culvert adjacent to Dublin Court. The estimated cost of Alternative #1 is approximately $2,700,000. • Alternative #2: This alternative consists of three lanes for each direction of travel, 5 -foot bicycle lanes, a 5.5 -foot rain garden /landscape area fronting the Sports Grounds and a 7- foot pedestrian pathway along the northerly edge of the park fronting Dublin Boulevard. The proposed pathway will be designed to meander along the northerly edge of the park east of the parking lot and landscaped to blend in with the park. The path will then be connected to a pedestrian bridge over the Zone 7 drainage canal next to Dublin Court to minimize impacts to the flood control channel. The estimated cost of Alternative #2 is approximately $2,670,000. • Alternative #3: This alternative consists of three lanes for each direction of travel, 5 -foot bicycle lane in the westbound direction, a 6 -foot rain garden /landscape area along the Dublin Sports Grounds area and a 12 -foot Class I bicycle path along the park connected to a 12 -foot wide pedestrian bridge over the Zone 7 flood control canal. The Class I bicycle path is to be shared by bicyclists and pedestrians within this stretch of the roadway. The estimated cost of Alternative #3 is $2,640,000. Impacts to Sports Grounds Parking Lot: The three alternatives were studied for possible impacts to the Sports Grounds parking lot, which was a specific concern highlighted by the City Council in February 2012. The existing parking lot configuration has a total of 166 parking stalls. The Consultant studied the parking lot layout and was able to provide a total of 169 parking stalls for Alternatives #1 and #2, and 166 parking stalls for Alternative #3 by redesigning the parking lot circulation and increasing the number of compact parking stalls as allowed by the City Zoning Ordinance for off - street parking. Any of the three project alternatives will maintain, if not increase, the number of parking stalls available for public use. Page 2 of 3 Possible Undergrounding of Existing Overhead Utilities: Overhead utilities currently exist along Dublin Boulevard between Civic Plaza /Sierra Court and Dublin Court; and some in the community believe their presence to be an eyesore to the motoring public, bicyclists and pedestrians as they pass by the Sports Grounds area. The consultant has recommended that staff consider undergrounding this segment of Dublin Boulevard since the overhead utilities adjoins the Sports Grounds area. Furthermore, this is the last segment of Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Fallon Road that is not undergrounded and removal of the overhead utilities will create a consistent appearance to the Dublin Boulevard corridor, the City's primary east -west arterial. This segment of Dublin Boulevard is currently #2 on the Rule 20A Priority List and under a separate report to the City Council on this agenda, Staff is recommending that the City Council consider re- prioritizing this segment of Dublin Boulevard in the usage of City Rule 20A funds. Discussions with the National Park Service: As Dublin Sports Grounds was deeded to the City by the Federal government with the condition to permanently use it as a park, the City is required to report to the National Park Service (NPS) any proposed alteration or improvements to the park. Staff presented the three alternatives to NPS for its review and conveyed that the City intends to keep the road within the existing road right of way and would not involve any incursion into the park or conveyance of property rights. Furthermore, the pedestrian pathway /sidewalk that would be constructed in the park would not displace any existing recreational use, would remain under ownership of the City and would serve to provide a pedestrian access path in the park. Based on these conditions, the National Park Service has commented that the City would remain in compliance with the terms of the deed and the associated program of utilizing the property park purposes. Although the National Park Service did not state a preferred alternative, the pedestrian path alternative (Alternative #2) would be more favorable to park users as it would supplement pedestrian access to the park, which was highlighted as an amenity by the NPS. Based on staff's discussions with the National Park Service, the Parks and Community Services Department and evaluation of each alternative, Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to proceed with Alternative #2 for further engineering and environmental work. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: Staff plans to have a separate public outreach /workshop to present the project to the public. Stakeholders including property owners and businesses within the limits of the study will be invited to attend. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Alternatives 1 -3 Preliminary Plans Page 3 of 3 OikI� ehic eerier NoUng Boldl Oaken C�1 IN H Dntip'll Lifirwy ofllo�, Depot cl ollhUll spgru Grounds fl.. .. . . ..... Arlhur ,fotansro0 fir In N Out & FIria Ex Al 0201,2 Google - Map data: 024? GooqIa loam= Oh c", Doka'a L, "Ile Ala 'Aa Houston PI HOP RW cwl X, T NO ya 'I a, OikI� ehic eerier NoUng Boldl Oaken C�1 IN H Dntip'll Lifirwy ofllo�, Depot cl ollhUll spgru Grounds fl.. .. . . ..... Arlhur ,fotansro0 fir In N Out & FIria Ex Al 0201,2 Google - Map data: 024? GooqIa loam= EXIST. R/W m u. �^ p� EXIST. R/W u 1{ o in .. I / ;• A a �� s n m r 12.50 %� / o rj „a�„ n m o —77 —777— ' ' Z' o ., - �}- I. 256% C — r �„ �f7 9 'a. .... C m �I p a /7 �.. Tri m 77/7 3.14 a ) � rs m z a �- s t ir —77/z r ..j MATCHLINE STATION SEE SHEET 14 +50.00 2 SHEET DUBLIN BLVD WIDENING PROJECT PRELIMINARY DESIGN Bellecci & Associates, inc. L12N - cn t11) 11-11111IG LIT 1101T OF ALTERNATIVE 1 zza - --Lands yIn mm — aszo JOB NO. u DUBLIN ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA P,�o��e cszs�sausseneFaaers�,es.ae AT vIs,oNs MATCHLINE STATION 14 +50.00 SEE SHEET 3 i �^ 423% ,% _ -,- x� Y z / i 111 i ' r M s m e 7771— 4 � o i I o i C I r G m 0 Z .. N C o L r < 1 6.5o% fi F z a m 10.45/1 1; I ;II 450% 1 I. 236% r 1 l MATCHLINE STATION 19 +5D.00 SEE SHEET 3 T> ,A,, SHEET 2� DUBLIN BLVD WIDENING PROJECT PRELIMINARY DESIGN Bellecci & Associates, inc. - BE cn tPOl OF 3 ALTERNATIVE - y -------- �•�Ge " "" m Lands yln mm CI II En91 I zsa 9 9 szo �•��� ne a. JoBNO. DUBLIN ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA P".". (s„)- ..sFaaszsi =es+ae a EXIST. R/W sn _ mr5r in sn mr5. n m s m, I / i I I _ , cn s., (A \ )z ? n \ \ am STATION m� PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF ALTERNATIVE - 2 N -d mm. AL_EDACOuNTY CALIFORNIA B e e d& Associates, I n= �gg §, § § ))! ! § / } 0� \ \ { 141 § z \ @ Z\ m 7f rri`� m / q § §® !; | \! ;m - ® §§ � � . ! � m � ! �emmN 3 BLVD WIDENING PROJECT PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF ALTERNATIVE - 2 N -d mm. AL_EDACOuNTY CALIFORNIA B e e d& Associates, I n= •� -/ MATCHLINE STATION 14 +50.00 SEE SHEET 2 SHEET DUBLIN BLVD WIDENING PROJECT PRELIMINARY DESIGN - cn t11) Bellecci & Associates, inc. OF ALTERNATIVE - 3 CI,..II En91 19�mmm m Lands yln mm mm 3 ,.,,,,., zza aszo dOSuNO. DUBLI N ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA P��o��e cszs�sesbsseneFaaers�,es.ae A, v1—Ns s� a /9/ , I ro Sour'cv Belleal ffi Flssochl�s. laic. 20r2 ' Fl— Site Plan - SNeet 1 ATKINS imz scot SECTION B—B LEGEND M sm- 11P- Site Plan - Shoot 2 SECTION C—C "d �E —1 wr ..aI0RETENT10N AREA AT STORM WATER PLANTER LEGEND LJ J Site Plan - Sheet 3. ATKINS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF DUBLIN DUBLIN BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program Prepared for City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Prepared by ATKINS 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 June 2013 Final June 2013 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Contents Contents SECTION1. Introduction ........................................................................... ..............................1 1. Purpose and Overview of the CEQA Process ........................ ..............................1 II. Summary of Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............. 1 III. Legal Authoritv ............................................................................ ............................... 3 IV. Preparation of the 1N1ND ........................................................... ............................... 4 V. Scope of the NIND ..................................................................... ............................... 4 \1 1. Public Review ............................................................................... ..............................5 SECTION 2. Project Description ................................................................ ..............................6 SECTION 3. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................ .............................18 SECTION4. Determination ....................................................................... .............................18 SECTION 5. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................... ............................... 19 EvaluationProcess ................................................................................... .............................19 I. Aesthetics ..................................................................................... .............................20 II. Agriculture/ Forestry Resources ................................................ .............................21 III. Air Quality .................................................................................... .............................22 IV. Biological Resources... ............................................................................................. 29 V. Cultural Resources .................................................................... ............................... 32 VI. Geology}-/ Soils .............................................................................. .............................36 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................... .............................40 VIII. Hazards /Hazardous Materials ................................................... .............................43 IX. H}'drology /Water Quality .......................................................... .............................47 X. Land Use/ Planning ........... ......................................................... .............................52 XI. Mineral Resources ....................................................................... .............................54 XII. Noise ............................................................................................. .............................54 1III. Population/ Housing ........... .............................64 XIV. Public Sery ices ............................................................................. .............................65 XV. Recreation ..................................................................................... .............................67 1 -VI. Transportation / Traffic ............................................................... .............................68 KVIl. Utilities /Service Systems ............................................................ .............................71 XVIIL Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................... .............................73 SECTION6. References ............................................................................. .............................75 SECTION 7. Mitigation Monitoring Program ........................................... .............................77 1. Introduction ............................................................................... ............................... 77 11. Enforcement ................................................................................ .............................77 III. Program Modification ................................................................ .............................77 IV. Mitigation Monitoring Program Matrix ................................. ............................... 77 Appendices Appendix A Cultural Records Search Results City of Dublin iii Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND Contents Final June 2013 Figures Figure 1 Project Location and V icitntP ...................................................................................... ..............................7 Figure2 Site Plan Shea 1 .......................................................................................................... ..............................9 Figure3 Site Plan- -Sheet 2 ......................................................................................................... .............................11 Figure4 Site Plan —Sheet 3 ......................................................................................................... .............................13 Figure NO -1 Ambient Noise Level Survey ................................. .._.......................... ... .......... ....................................... 59 Tables Table AQ -1 Utunitigated Constriction Enussions ........................... ......................... ...._............ ......................... ...2G Table GFIG -1 Construction GHG Etnissions .................................................................................. .............................42 Table NO -1 Surrunary of Ambient Noise Measurements (Short Term) ............................... .............................57 'fable NO -2 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels ................................................ .............................58 'Fable 7 -1 Mitigation \Ionitoting Program Maim .................................................................. .............................78 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND tv City of Dublin ' Final SECTION 1 Introduction June 2013 1 ' SECTION 1. Introduction The City of Dublin is the Lead Agency for the preparation of an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative ' Declaration (MND) for the Dublin Boulevard Widening Project (proposed project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 ct scq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, ' Sections 15000 et seq.). The MND for the proposed project evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with widening of Dublin Boulevard to six travel lanes between Sierra Court /Civic Plaza to Dublin Court and other identified improvements, as noted below. I. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW OF THE CEQA PROCESS This MND assesses the impacts of the proposed project. All "projects" within the state of California are required to undergo an environmental review to determine the em4onmental impacts associated with implementation of the project in accordance with that CEQA.' CEQA was enacted in 1970 by the ' California Legislature to disclose to decision - makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities and the ways to avoid or reduce the environmental effects by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA applies to all California ' government agencies at all levels, including local agencies, regional agencies, and state agencies, boards, commissions, and special districts. As such, the City of Dublin is required to conduct an environmental review to analyze the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project. The City of Dublin is the lead agency for the preparation of this MND it accordance with CEQA. The Draft MND is circulated to the public and affected agencies for review and comment. One of the ' primary objectives of CEQA is to enhance public participation in the planning process; public involvement is an essential feature of CEQA.' Community members are encouraged to participate in the ' environmental review process, request to be notified, monitor newspapers for formal announcements, and submit substantive comments at every possible opportunity afforded by the agency. The environmental review process provides ample opportunity for the public to participate through scoping, ' public notice and public review of CEQA documents, and public hearings. No written comments on the Draft MND were received by the City. ' II. SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ' The following table summarizes the impacts that were found potentially significant but are reduced to less than significant through the applicable mitigation measures, which will be adopted in a Mitigation Monitoring Program (NIMP) adopted as part of this MND (Section 7). 1 Caltfomia Environmental uality f1 d (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC), Sections 21000 et al. (2006). '- Ibid. 1 City of Dublin 1 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 1 Introduction Final ' June 2013 Level of ' Impact Mitigation Measure Sgnriicance with Mitigation Impact 13I0 -1 The proposed project could MM-BIO-1 Construction of the proposed project must avoid the Less than ' have a substantial adverse effect, either February 1 through August 31 bird nesting season to the extent significant directly or through habitat modifications, on feasible. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for any species identified as a candidate, nesting birds must be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no sensitive, or special- status species in local or earlier than 14 days before construction. The area surveyed must ' regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by include all clearing /construction areas, as well as areas within the California Department of Fish and Game or 250 feet of the boundaries of these areas, or as otherwise U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. determined by the project biologist. If no active avian nests are ' Impact BI0.2 The proposed project could identified on or within 250 feet of the limits of the proposed Interfere substantially with the movement of disturbance area, no further mitigation is necessary. any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife If active nests are found within 250 feet of the proposed disturbance species or with established native resident or area, clearing /construction activities must be postponed within ' migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use 250 feet of the nest until a wildlife biologist has identified the nesting of native wildlife nursery sites. avian species. If the avian species is not protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or the California Fish and Game Code, no further action is required and construction activities may ' proceed. If the avian species is protected under the MBTA or the California Fish and Game Code, no action other than avoidance of the active ' nest(s) may be taken without consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). In addition, a minimum 100 -foot buffer zone surrounding the active nest(s) must be established until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts, as determined by the wildlife biologist. The size of the buffer area may be reduced if the wildlife biologist determines, upon consultation and concurrence from the CDFW, that the size of the buffer area would not be likely to have adverse effects on the particular species. Impact CR -1 The proposed project could MM -CR -1 If evidence of a prehistoric or historic age archaeological Less than cause a substantial adverse change in the resource is detected during project - related ground- disturbing ' significant significance of an archaeological resource activities, all ground- disturbing activity shall be halted within 100 feet pursuant to 15064.5. of the find and the City of Dublin shall be notified. An archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications ' Standards for Archaeology shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A —L) forms) and filed with the NWIC. ' If the resources are recommended to be non - significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are recommended as potentially significant or eligible for the CRHR, they will be avoided. If avoidance is not feasible, project impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the evaluating archaeologist and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), which require development and implementation of a data recovery plan that would include 1 recommendations for the treatment of the discovered archaeological materials. The data recovery plan will be submitted to the City of Dublin for review and approval. Upon approval and completion of the data recovery program, project construction activity within the area of ' the find may resume, and the archaeologist will prepare a report documenting the methods and findings. The report will be submitted to the City of Dublin. Once the report is reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin, a copy of the report will be submitted to the NWIC. ' Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND City of Dublin ' ' Final June 2013 SECTION 1 Introduction ' Level of Impact Mitigation Measure Significance ' with Mitigation ImpactCR -2 The proposed project could MM -CR -2 Should paleontological resources (i.e., fossil remains) be Lessthan directly or indirectly destroy a unique identified during project - related ground- disturbing activities, all Significant paleontological resource or site or unique ground- disturbing activity shall be halted within 100 feet of the find ' geologic feature. and the City of Dublin shall be notified. A qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find and to provide recommendations for the treatment of the discovered ' paleontological materials. In considering the treatment proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the City of Dublin shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, applicable regulations, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., monitoring and /or data recovery) shall be instituted. ' Impact HAZ -1 The proposed project could MM -HAZ -1 In the event that previously unknown or unidentified soil Less than create a significant hazard to the public or the and /or groundwater contamination that could present a threat to Significant environment through reasonably foreseeable human health or the environment is encountered during construction upset and accident conditions involving the in the project area, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of release of hazardous materials into the the contamination shall cease immediately. If contamination is environment. encountered, a Risk Management Plan shall be prepared and ' implemented that (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post - development and (2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers, and the ' public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long -term monitoring, post - development maintenance or access limitations, or some ' combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be notified (e.g., Alameda County Fire Department). If needed, a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements ' shall be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area. ' 111. LEGAL AUTHORITY This MND for the proposed Dublin boulevard Widening Project, referred to as the proposed project, ' was prepared in accordance with CEQA. CFQA Guidelines Section 15063(c) lists the following purposes of an Initial Study: ' 1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration (ND). 2. Enable an Applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby possibly enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration (ND). 3. Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required. ' 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project. 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Mitigated Negative Declaration ' (MND) that a project would not have a significant effect on the environment. ' City of Dublin Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND SECTION 1 Introduction Final June 2013 6. Eliminate unnecessary E1Rs. 7. Determine whether a previously prepared FIR could be used with the project. The City of Dublin, as the lead agency, has prepared an Initial Study (IS) to deternune the level of em =ironmental review necessary for the proposed project. Based on the analysis in the IS, it has been determined that one or more project - related environmental impacts are potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less- Than - significant level. Therefore, an EIR need not be prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (N4ND) is sufficient to meet the requirements of Cl--'QA. IV. PREPARATION OF THE MND The preparation of an BIND is guided by a specific set of laws and guidelines. In accordance with the CFQA Guidelines,' the City of Dublin shall prepare an N4ND for a project subject to CEQA when: a. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment; or b. The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but: 1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made bv, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. 2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. The Draft N4ND is circulated for public and interested parties for review and continent. Necessary revisions to the Draft MND are provided in the Final MND. The Final MND is considered for adoption by the Cite Council following the public review and comment period and before a decision is made on the project. V. SCOPE OF THE MND Under CEQA Guidelines; the MND shall include: a. A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project, if anv; b. The location of the project, preferably shown on a map, and the name of the project proponent; c. A proposed Trading that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment; d. An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding; and e. Mitigation measures, if anv, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less - than - significant level are proposed whenever potentially significant impacts are identified. A Nitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for the proposed project. The MMP is included in this Final MND in Section 7. 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15070-15071, 2004. 4 Ibid. Dublin Boulevard widening Project MND 4 City of Dublin ' Final June 2013 1 [1 1 1 1 1 VI. PUBLIC REVIEW SECTION 1 Introduction In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a 30 -dap public review period for the Draft MND commenced on April 9, 2013 and concluded on Map 8, 2013. The Draft MND was distributed to interested or involved public agencies, organizations, and private individuals for review. In addition, the Draft MND was available for general public review at: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 The Draft MND was also available online at wwwAublin.ca.eov and at the following locations: Dublin Public Library Dublin Senior Center 200 Civic Plaza 7600 Amador Valley Boulevard Dublin, California 94568 Dublin, California 94568 During the public review period, an open house presenting the project and the environmental analysis was held on April 18, 2013, at which time the public was given an opportunity to provide comments on the Draft NAND. No written comments were received. The City Council will use the Final MND for all environmental decisions related to this project. ' City of Dublin 5 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 2 Project Description SECTION 2 Project Location Project Description Final June 2013 As shown in Figure 1 (Project I.ocation and Vicinity), the proposed project is located northeast of the Dublin Civic Center and adjacent to the Dublin Sports Grounds. Dublin Boulevard is a major east /west arterial providing access to Interstate 680 (I -680) and Dougherty Road. Dougherty Road is a major arterial that travels in a north /south direction and provides access to 1 -580 south of the project site. The project site is the portion of Dublin Boulevard between Sierra. Court /Civic Plaza and Dublin Court, as shown in Figure 2 (Site Plan —Sheet 1), Figure 3 (Site Plan - -Sheet 2), and Figure 4 (Site Plan —Sheet 3). General Plan Designations and Zoning Public/ Semi - Public, Parks /Public Recreation, Retail/Office and Automotive, 1V fixed Use, Business Park /Industrial, and Retail /Office. The project site is zoned Planned Development (PD), Light Industrial (M -1), and General Commercial (C -2) Project Background and Setting The proposed project is the last phase of the City of Dublin's plan to widen Dublin Boulevard west of Dougherty Road from four lanes to six lanes. This project is similar to the earlier phases of Dublin Boulevard, where the road included the widening of the travel lanes, installation of bike lanes, new sidewalks, and enhancement of the existing landscaping. As part of the preliminary engineering work for the project, three alternatives were developed for this section of Dublin Boulevard fronting the Dublin Sports Grounds. The main area of focus for the alternatives was the impact on the Dublin Sports Grounds, which was deeded to the City by the Federal Government with a condition to permanently use it as a park. Any alternatives or improvements to the park grounds are to be reported to the National Park Service. Alternative 1 showed the widening of Dublih Boulevard, where the curb and gutter with a monolithic sidewalk was constructed crossing over i the right -of -way line and into the park parcel. Alternatives 2 and 3 showed the curb and gutter within the existing road right -of -way and included constructing a concrete pedestrian path through the park as a park amenity. Alternative 3 constructed a wider concrete path that could also be used as a combination bike /pedestrian path. The three alternatives were reviewed by the National Park Service and (although the National Park Service did not state a preferred alternative) they conveyed that Alternative 2 would be more favorable to park users, as it would supplement pedestrian access to the park. Based on the discussion with the National Park Service, the City Parks and Community Services Department, and an evaluation of each alternative, the City staff recommended Alternative 2 to the Cite Council for further engineering and environmental work. The three alternatives were reviewed by the Dublin City Council on September 4, 2012. Ultimately, the Citv Council decided to proceed with Alternative 2. As described above, Dublin Boulevard travels in an east /west direction from Fallon Road to the east and ends in a cul -de -sac to the west, just past Belly Canyon Drive. The portion of Dublin Boulevard to be widened contains two travel lanes in the westbound direction, three travel lanes in the eastbound direction, a landscaped center median, and parallel parking on the north side of the street. Street trees border the project site along the northern and southern sidewalks. Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 6 City of Dublin I 6 0 vo Almo Clio 1Rh S1 Pao s� S Laka Or C a 0 1°n 0 M Mr9hla Teo "0 c SAN RAMON ^Q RQ G` 0 0 12th St e r &'Yoo n Newood , r flN st °0 0 at 0 10th St \ Q , J' r e ryr �-� bek �� m PROJECT LOCATION 0 ° shsld Pa roo 91h SI \\ N 0/ o 0 m aCr ! 8th 51 A c a dwkson ementaty Jae \ H i KOMANDORSKI VILLAGE Schaal ^w Or �, PD ublln ( '�. o 71h St Pow$ o bit DUBLIN No ?r a a A BI A 0 F ego 'e c i Gin St Slone 9e Dr ; F /Cy +Livermore pb < 4 e k Muni Airport a 0� Or B 5th St al r °'D Y 9 qy E Staple ,e6 Wells M4Me 9 < n �� a Ivd m Qq A Slan }eaYB y SrMal in. lf 04 oy Le > ( O �`" T ,.. " L G h Or SA2 Ci w = /PLEASANTON ° St F� coQ 0 ^•burp ar lw 0 Houston P\ d L ^ MaP10 Or Sfena Lw KILK APE_ 0 e Ar o B4 c -- ..... L h m"•.! . y ,I,, pity ^ -bNn Ij a,:vma Cll SiiM1(r GI P ' SPMif (ualnds '.sc,C w VIn^'^r-t O PROJECT LOCATION 3 Ce G Porro ,-@ o � �e e4 '.1. QWene of 0 qr ' Or GlMallar Dr bP ¢P oovea or e oa t ^a� to P a41 ;i. Q9e0 G °Id's Oro ; 0 Of °gee St �I10 10 P *a1 \ S 1W 1id8o pr ; Al"evi 10 a`Qa i ° Inglewood SP�nSh °°se0, /84 o f Ct o�'e9 �� wlnplefr°oda CI Cd s Blvd qr tiec G0le 4e e Su 4 Or 5 v0pta Baneis I G� Mllladab or v Oe ar �a Omer% T1F VNI Caro o o me nn A�rood' NA&Put Damon t q. O Pa IA Elememerp B Rps11nG e;; NOR1H BU`,CCI Source: ArcMV GIS basenty, 2013', Atkins, 2013. P Tnre +or ro scare .,eE. Figure 1 Project Location and Vicinity ATKINS Z 133HS 33S I E� 1�s e6 � 0'r 1= wa r I- h lenoo VUH31S I II II I I � � ' I I �'II 1 I �ro v" .F o }� 1 o w o x 3 � 3 o O s J 9p� 4 1 �4 1 • ! I I —.o.� A /, / .� , ;gip �ro v" .F o }� 1 o M/b 151X3 M/b M3N 32 i j0 >a Nw� .,a is 0 Q m m u 0 h Ieimi Mann )Gstmoa1 v� �r 1_ y c m CL m N N Z Y G w o x 3 � 3 o O s M/b 151X3 M/b M3N 32 i j0 >a Nw� .,a is 0 Q m m u 0 h Ieimi Mann )Gstmoa1 v� �r 1_ y c m CL m N N Z Y G C 133HS 92S 00'09-6L NOUVIS 9NIIHOIVW %SE z M .1 %09 r %OZ C E 133HS 33S 00 09-V k NOILVIS 3NIIHOIV" N I I E in N ti vn M 04 LA EL = m = m = = m m = m = = m m = = = m = z 0 10 "a 0 41 N E 133HS 33S 00 09-V k NOILVIS 3NIIHOIV" N I I E in N ti vn M 04 LA EL = m = m = = m m = m = = m m = = = m = S O� \ � Z �O A ° I ` h I I ^`�W Jai. 3 I / ezi n O o o a s a a> z \ W a = ftJ, o ap 00'05 +61 NOUV15 314I11431VIN M = m = m m !i 0 a 0 Q .e m ti u 0 to V M (n d Z —°� Y �L c �o a m N ftJ, I I I S I' O m I l I I I m U '� W I � \ �1 J 1" 00'05 +61 NOUV15 314I11431VIN M = m = m m !i 0 a 0 Q .e m ti u 0 to V M (n d Z —°� Y �L c �o a m N ' Final SECTION 2 Project Description June 2013 Proposed Project t The Dublin Boulevard Widening Project includes the widening of Dublin Boulevard to six travel lanes between Sierra Court /Civic Plaza and Dublin Court; the addition of bicycle lanes on both sides of Dublin Boulevard; intersection improvements; a pedestrian path on the south side of Dublin Boulevard ' including a pedestrian bridge over a drainage channel east of Dublin Sports Grounds; landscape improvements, including the replacement of the existing street trees plus additional street trees; and bus shelter relocation. Right -of -way on Dublin Boulevard would need to be acquired to accommodate the ' proposed project. Refer to Figure 2 through Figure 4 for the proposed site plan. Roadway Widening ' As a part of the proposed project, the existing five -lane Dublin Boulevard would be widened to include three travel lanes in each direction, for a total of six navel lanes. Each travel lane would be approximately ' 11 to 11.5 feet wide. The majority of the existing center median varies from 4 to 16 feet wide and would be retained. In addition to the three travel lanes in each direction, the roadway widening would include bike lanes, as described further below. In order to accomplish the roadway widening, right -of -way would ' be acquired on the north side of Dublin Boulevard. As shown in Figure 2 through Figure 4, on the south side of Dublin Boulevard street improvements would be constructed within the existing right -of -way. ' The Dublin Sports Ground property was quit - claimed by the U.S. Department of Interior to the City of Dublin with the agreement that the property would be used continuously for a public park /recreational area and for these purposes only. The proposed project would construct a pedestrian path on a portion ' of the Dublin Sports Grounds propemq and would maintain consistence with the existing recreational land uses. The right- of-way acquisition on the north side of Dublin Boulevard would encroach on private property that currently consists of surface parking and landscaped areas. This portion of the project ' would require the acquisition of right -of -way from five properties. Parking is currently allowed along Dublin Boulevard in front of the Sahara Market (approximately 130 feet). The General Plan restricts parking on Dublin Boulevard and, upon implementation of the proposed project, the on- street parking would be removed. The proposed project would also prohibit left turns from the shopping center across from the Dublin Sports Grounds, but motorists would be allowed to make a U -turn at Dublin Boulevard /Sierra Court in order to travel eastbound on Dublin Boulevard. Intersection Improvements Improvements would take place at both the Dublin Court /Dublin Boulevard and Sierra Court /Civic Plaza /Dublin Boulevard intersections. At the Dublin Court /Dublin Boulevard intersection, a bus shelter would be relocated and a free right -turn lane would be removed from the southeast corner of the ' intersection. At the Sierra Court /Civic Plaza /Dublin Boulevard intersection, a signal located on the southeast corner of the intersection would be slightly moved to accommodate the roadway widening. tBicycle Improvements Bicycle lanes would be provided on both sides of Dublin Boulevard as a part of the ptoposed project. Each bike lane would be approximately 5 feet wide and would be striped between the curb and third travel lane. ' City of Dublin 15 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND SECTION 2 Project Description Pedestrian and Landscape Improvements Final June 2013 A pedestrian path would be provided on the south side of Dublin Boulevard, in the Dublin Sports Grounds parcel. The pedestrian path would be constructed on a portion of the existing surface parking lot and the neighboring sports field. The surface parking lot, which currendy has a total of 166 parking spaces, would be reconfigured to accommodate 169 parking spaces, an addition of three parking spaces. 'the pedestrian path would meander through the existing sports field and a prc- fabricated pedestrian bridge would be constructed over the drainage channel to accommodate the pedestrian path to Dublin Court. The drainage channel would not be modified as a part of the proposed project. Landscaping would be included as a part of the proposed project adjacent to the pedestrian path. The landscaping between Dublin Boulevard and the pedestrian path would consist of an approximately 5.5 foot bioretention area, which would contain permeable soil. In addition, landscaping would be provided in the center median. The existing landscaping would be retained as much as possible and the remaining area would be modified with new landscaping. The existing street trees that border the project site to the north and south would be removed as a part of the roadway widening. These trees would be replaced on both sides of Dublin Boulevard and new trees added where possible. Bus Shelter Relocation The existing bus shelter and associated amenities on the southeast corner of Sierra Court /Civic Plaza and Dublin Boulevard would be relocated slightly south of their existing location as shown in Figure 2. In addition, an existing bus shelter and associated Amenities on the southwest corner of Dublin Court and Dublin Boulevard would be relocated to the southeast corner of this intersection. Utilities Underground utilities would be relocated, as necessary, in locations where the roadways are being extended and /or realigned. The typical depth for the relocation of utilities would be 3 to 4 feet below grade. Utilities would be relocated within existing right- of-way. In addition, separate from the proposed project, the City of Dublin proposes to underground all existing overhead utilities along the portion of Dublin Boulevard between Sierra Court /Civic Plaza and Dublin Court. This work would take place prior to construction of the proposed project. The utility undergrounding is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15302. Construction Construction of the City's utility undergrounding project would begin first and construction of the proposed project would follow completion of the utility project. Construction would last approximately 12 months. Standard construction equipment would be utilized, including, but not limited to, small excavators, jackhammers, backhoes, vibrating rollers, loaders, dump trucks, crew trucks, cement trucks, and asphalt paving machines. Approximately 0.64 acre of grading would be required in the Dublin Sports Ground for the parking lot reconfiguration and pedestrian path. Grading would require approxitnately 12 cubic yards (CI) of cut and 1,012 Cl of fill. Approximatelv 1,000 CY of soil would be imported. The staging area has not been determined at this time. A portion of the Dublin Sports Ground paddng lot has been identified as an option. Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND 16 City of Dublin I C 1 11 1 1 1 SECTION 2 Project Description The project consists of roadwav, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements. These improvements would not include land use changes (such as new development) that would generate new vehicle trips. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in the generation of additional traffic in the study area. The project improvements would provide improved vehicle, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity on Dublin Boulevard. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project site is bordered by urban development to the north and recreational uses to the south. A business park containing commercial and retail uses is adjacent to the project site to the north. Current uses in this business park include a laundromat, dentist office, market, a furniture store, automotive services, and various retail uses. Immediately south is the Dublin Sports Grounds, which contains 22.8 acres of recreational uses, including: four baseball diamonds; three softball diamonds; six soccer fields; picnic facilities; and a children's play area. The portion immediately adjacent to the project site contains a surface parking lot with 166 parking spaces and baseball/soccer field. Immediately southwest of the project site, adjacent to Dublin Sports Grounds, is the Dublin Civic Center. The Dublin Civic Center is home to the City's administrative offices and Dublin police Department. Across the street to the north is a business park with commercial and retail uses. There is a mixed -use community with retail and residential uses to the northeast of the project site. South of this, and cast of the Dublin Sports Grounds, are retail uses. Other Public Agencies whose approval is required The following permits, reviews, and approvals may be required prior to construction of the various phases of the Dublin Boulevard Widening project: Permit/Approval Final i General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit SWRCB Order No. 2009 -0009 DWQ June 2013 Zone 7 Water Agency Encroachment Permit Acquisition of Right of Way Operation C 1 11 1 1 1 SECTION 2 Project Description The project consists of roadwav, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements. These improvements would not include land use changes (such as new development) that would generate new vehicle trips. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in the generation of additional traffic in the study area. The project improvements would provide improved vehicle, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity on Dublin Boulevard. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project site is bordered by urban development to the north and recreational uses to the south. A business park containing commercial and retail uses is adjacent to the project site to the north. Current uses in this business park include a laundromat, dentist office, market, a furniture store, automotive services, and various retail uses. Immediately south is the Dublin Sports Grounds, which contains 22.8 acres of recreational uses, including: four baseball diamonds; three softball diamonds; six soccer fields; picnic facilities; and a children's play area. The portion immediately adjacent to the project site contains a surface parking lot with 166 parking spaces and baseball/soccer field. Immediately southwest of the project site, adjacent to Dublin Sports Grounds, is the Dublin Civic Center. The Dublin Civic Center is home to the City's administrative offices and Dublin police Department. Across the street to the north is a business park with commercial and retail uses. There is a mixed -use community with retail and residential uses to the northeast of the project site. South of this, and cast of the Dublin Sports Grounds, are retail uses. Other Public Agencies whose approval is required The following permits, reviews, and approvals may be required prior to construction of the various phases of the Dublin Boulevard Widening project: Permit/Approval Agency General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit SWRCB Order No. 2009 -0009 DWQ State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay Region) Zone 7 Water Agency Encroachment Permit Acquisition of Right of Way Private land owners iCity of Dublin 17 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Final , June 2013 SECTION 3. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Tile environmental factors checked below Would be potentially affected b }, this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture /Forestry Resources ❑ Air Qualit }' ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Flazards /1- Iazardous Materials ❑ Flydrology /Water Qualit`• ❑ Land Use /planning ❑ Mitheral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population /Housing ❑ Public Services El Recreation ❑ Transportation /Traffic ❑ Utilities /Service Systmns ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance SECTION 4. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE: DECLARATION will he prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Nl ITIGATED NEGATIAIE DECLARATION will he prepared. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project NL \Y have a significant effect on the environment, and an 1: iNV1RONIMENTAL ID�(PACT REPORT is required. ❑ I furl that the proposed project tIMA'Y have a "potentially significant hnpact" or `less than significant unless mitigated" iuhpact on the cnvirotunent, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheers. An ENVIRONMENTAL 1IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (i) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE: DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or uutigatcd pursuant to that earlier EI R or NEGATIVE, DEECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. MaV 2013 Si alure Date Ferd Del Rosario Name Senior Civil Engineer Title Dublin Boulavord Widening Project MIND 18 City of Dublin I I 1 I I I 1 Final June 2013 SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION 5. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts EVALUATION PROCESS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) AD answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with [mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant impact" to a "L,ess- Than - Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less- than - significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII (Fattier Analyses) may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program FIR, or other CFQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier FIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that arc relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. b) The u itigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. City of Dublin 19 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final June 2013 Discussion There are no scenic vistas- or scenic resources on Dublin Boulevard in the project area. Dublin Boulevard is not a designated scenic route and is not a designated gateway in the City's Streetscape Master Plan. However, it is recognized as a corridor of regional significance in the City's General Plan. According to the General Plan, regional corridors should create a positive identity and image for Dublin. The project would widen an existing roadway and would not substantially change views of the project area. As encouraged in the General Plan, the project would maintain the existing landscaped median and replace trees and landscaping on both sides of the roadway that are removed during construction. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less - than- significantimpact. Less Than Less Than Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Less -Than- w /Mitigation Significant Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ )b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Discussion There are no scenic vistas- or scenic resources on Dublin Boulevard in the project area. Dublin Boulevard is not a designated scenic route and is not a designated gateway in the City's Streetscape Master Plan. However, it is recognized as a corridor of regional significance in the City's General Plan. According to the General Plan, regional corridors should create a positive identity and image for Dublin. The project would widen an existing roadway and would not substantially change views of the project area. As encouraged in the General Plan, the project would maintain the existing landscaped median and replace trees and landscaping on both sides of the roadway that are removed during construction. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less - than- significantimpact. Discussion The proposed project would widen an existing segment of Dublin Boulevard. Landscaping would continue to be provided in the center median. The existing landscaping would be retained as much as possible and the remaining area would be modified with new landscaping. The existing street trees that border the project site to the north and south would be removed as a part of the roadway widening, but would be replaced on both sides of Dublin Boulevard. The new pedestrian path would be visually consistent with the existing sidewalk it would replace, and the existing recreational facilities. Construction of the proposed project would be temporary and the disturbed areas would be returned to an aesthetically improved condition similar to existing conditions when construction activities are complete. Impacts would be less than significant Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 20 City of Dublin Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Thon- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact )c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the ❑ 0 ® El site and its surroundings? Discussion The proposed project would widen an existing segment of Dublin Boulevard. Landscaping would continue to be provided in the center median. The existing landscaping would be retained as much as possible and the remaining area would be modified with new landscaping. The existing street trees that border the project site to the north and south would be removed as a part of the roadway widening, but would be replaced on both sides of Dublin Boulevard. The new pedestrian path would be visually consistent with the existing sidewalk it would replace, and the existing recreational facilities. Construction of the proposed project would be temporary and the disturbed areas would be returned to an aesthetically improved condition similar to existing conditions when construction activities are complete. Impacts would be less than significant Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 20 City of Dublin Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would El ❑ ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ' Discussion The proposed project would widen an existing segment of Dublin Boulevard. While the pedestrian path ' through the park would include some pathway lighting in addition to the street lights along Dublin Boulevard, Plus would not create substantial new sources of light or glare in the context of the 1 surrounding urban environment. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact ' 11. AGRICULTURE/FORESTRY RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Then- Significant w /Mifigation Significant No ' Impact Incorporated Impact Impact In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the ' Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: la) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? Discussion Agricultural resources include lands designated as farmland in the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), parcels under a Williamson Act contract, and any other parcels identified by local jurisdictions as agricultural in nature or where agricultural activity is permitted. The project site and surrounding area is currently zoned as Public /Semi- ' Public, Parks /Public Recreation, Retail/Office and Automotive, Mixed Use, Business Park/ Industrial, and Retail/Office. The project site and surrounding area is largely urbanized and well developed consistent with these General Plan Land Use designations. No properties in proximity to the project site, including the project site, are currently used for agricultural purposes. Implementation of the proposed project would not involve changes that could result in conversion of farmland to non - agricultural uses, and no impact would occur. 1 ICity of Dublin 21 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with a Williamson Act contract? Discussion Final ' June 2013 The project site does Less Than agricultural use or land under a Williamson Act ' Potentially Significant Less -Thon- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No , Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ® , The project site does not contain existing zoning for agricultural use or land under a Williamson Act Contract. No impactwould occur. Significant Less -Than- (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 511041g))? Discussion 1 The project site does not contain existing zoning for, and would not cause rezoning of, forest land, ' timberland, or timberland zoned as "I'ivnbcrland Production, and no impact would occur. (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? Discussion Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ There is no farmland or forest land located in the vicinity of the proposed project site, as the area is highly urbanized and is in an existing right -of -way, or on land currently developed with non - agricultural use. Implementation of the proposed project would not contribute to development that would convert farmland to non - agricultural uses or forest land to non- forest uses, and no impact would occur. The City of Dublin is located in the nine - country San Francisco Bay Area in east Alameda County. It is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Au Basin (SFBAAB) under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQl\ID). The project involves the widening of Dublin Boulevard from an existing 5 lanes to 6 lanes with the addition of bicycle lands on both sides of the roadway. The project will not generate any new land uses generating additional trips, not is the additional lane Dublin Boulevard widening Project MND 22 City of Dublin Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No , Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ® , 1 The project site does not contain existing zoning for, and would not cause rezoning of, forest land, ' timberland, or timberland zoned as "I'ivnbcrland Production, and no impact would occur. (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? Discussion Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ There is no farmland or forest land located in the vicinity of the proposed project site, as the area is highly urbanized and is in an existing right -of -way, or on land currently developed with non - agricultural use. Implementation of the proposed project would not contribute to development that would convert farmland to non - agricultural uses or forest land to non- forest uses, and no impact would occur. The City of Dublin is located in the nine - country San Francisco Bay Area in east Alameda County. It is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Au Basin (SFBAAB) under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQl\ID). The project involves the widening of Dublin Boulevard from an existing 5 lanes to 6 lanes with the addition of bicycle lands on both sides of the roadway. The project will not generate any new land uses generating additional trips, not is the additional lane Dublin Boulevard widening Project MND 22 City of Dublin ' Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 anticipated to alter travel patterns in the area or increase operational related air pollutant emissions. Construction activities, however, will result in temporary pollutant emissions. ' Air pollutant emissions within the SPBAAB are generated from stationary, mobile, and natural sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources ' occur at an identified location and are usually associated with manufacturing and industry. Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emissions. Construction activities that create fugitive dust, such as excavation and grading, also contribute to area source emissions. Mobile sources refer to ' emissions from on- and off -road motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Mobile sources account for the majority of the air pollutant emissions within the air basin. ' To protect the health and welfare of people, the federal and state governments have identified five criteria air pollutants and a host of air toxics, established through the federal Clean Air Act and the ' California Clean Air Act ambient air quality standards. The au pollutants for which federal and state standards have been promulgated and that are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the air basins include ozone, carbon monoxide, suspended particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead. BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the entire Bap Area Air Basin, including Alameda County. To that end, BAAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ' (MTC), and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state government agencies. BAAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. Although BAAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate the air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects within the Bay Area. Instead, BAAQMD has used its expertise and prepared the B1iAQMD CEQA Guidelines to address these issues in accordance with the projections and programs of the Ozone Attainment Plan and Clean Air Plan. The purpose of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines is to assist lead agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties, in evaluating potential air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area. In January 2012, the Superior Court for the Court of Alameda County issued a minute order granting a ' petition for writ of mandate and determined that BAAQMD failed to comply with CEQA in adopting its revised Guidelines, and decided that the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines are invalid on procedural grounds. The BAAQMD issued revised CEQA Guidelines in 2012 (2012 CEQA Guidelines) which ' maintains the methodology applied in the 2011 Guidelines but does not recommend specific thresholds of significance for lead agencies to use in evaluating air quality, impacts. 1 The 2012 CEQA Guidelines provide numerous sources of potential significance thresholds. In 2009 the BAAQMD published the Air District's CEQA Thresholds Options and justifications Report. This document outlines substantial evidence that supports a variety of significance thresholds applicable to air quality analysis. Under CEQA, it is ultimately up to the lead agency to determine which thresholds of significance and methodology to apply. Therefore, this analysis incorporates thresholds identified in the ' City of Dublin 23 Dublin Boulevard widening Project MND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts I Final ' June 2013 2009 CF.QA Thresholds Options and Justifications Report to determine the level of significance for air , quality impacts from the construction and operation of the proposed project. Less Than ' Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact , Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality El ❑ ❑ ® , plan? Discussion i The proposed project site is located within the SFBAAB and is under the jurisdiction of the BAAQI\1D, which is required, pursuant to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), to reduce emissions of criteria ' pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. Strategies to achieve these reductions in emissions are developed in the Bas Area 2010 Clean Air Plan prepared and adopted by BAAQMF) in September 2010. The Clean Air Plan is based on regional population projections included in General Plans for those t communities located within the Basil, including the City of Dublin. Population growth is typically associated with the construction of residential units or large employment centers. A project would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan if growth estimates resulting from the project would exceed growth projections for the area or region. The proposed project does not include any residential development or housing and would not result in significant population or employment growth. For these reasons, the proposed project would not produce local or regional growth in excess of the Clean Air Plan estimates, which are based on ABAG projections. In addition, the proposed project is a transportation improvement project that has been planned for the City, and is included in the 2012 -2017 Capital Improvement Program. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan, which would make it consistent with the Clean Air Plan, and no impact would occur. Discussion The proposed project has the potential to violate air quality standards from construction activities. The project consists of roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian inprovetnents. These improvements would not include land use changes (such as new development) that would generate new vehicle trips. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in the generation of additional traffic in the study area. The project improvements would provide improved vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity in Downtown Dublin. As the proposed project would not increase traffic along Dublin Blvd, the proposed project would have no operational emissions. Therefore, operational enissions are not discussed further Dublin Boulevard widening Project MND 24 City of Dublin Less Than Potentially Significant LewThon- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ❑ ® ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? Discussion The proposed project has the potential to violate air quality standards from construction activities. The project consists of roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian inprovetnents. These improvements would not include land use changes (such as new development) that would generate new vehicle trips. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in the generation of additional traffic in the study area. The project improvements would provide improved vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity in Downtown Dublin. As the proposed project would not increase traffic along Dublin Blvd, the proposed project would have no operational emissions. Therefore, operational enissions are not discussed further Dublin Boulevard widening Project MND 24 City of Dublin ' Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 in this analysis. Significance with respect to air quality, violations for construction emissions- are evaluated below. ' Construction ' Project construction activities include the following: ■ As a part of the proposed project, the existing five -lane Dublin Boulevard would be widened to include three travel lanes in each direction, for a total of six travel lanes. In order to accomplish the roadway widening, right -of -way would be acquired on the north side of Dublin Boulevard. ■ The proposed project would construct a pedestrian path on a portion of the Dublin Sports Grounds property and would maintain consistency with the existing recreational land uses. ' ■ Intersection improvements would take place at both the Dublin Court /Dublin Boulevard and Sierra Court /Civic Plaza /Dublin Boulevard intersections. ' • Bicycle lanes would be provided on both sides of Dublin Boulevard as a part of the proposed project. • A pedestrian path would be provided on the south side of Dublin Boulevard, in the Dublin Sports Grounds parcel. ■ Landscaping would be included as a part of the proposed project adjacent to the pedestrian path. • The existing bus shelter and associated amenities on the southeast corner of Sierra Court /Civic Plaza and Dublin Boulevard would be relocated slightly south of their existing location. • Underground utilities would be relocated, as necessary, in locations where the roadways are being extended and /or realigned. Construction activities would require the use of heavy trucks, excavating and grading equipment, and other mobile and stationary construction equipment. Emissions during construction would result from material handling, traffic on unpaved or unimproved surfaces, use of paving materials, exhaust from construction worker vehicle trips, and exhaust from diesel- powered construction equipment. When considered in the context of long -term project operations, construction - related emissions would be short -term and temporary, but these activities still could result in significant effects on local air quality. Construction emissions were calculated using the Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 7.1.2. Table AQ -1 (Unmitigated Construction Emissions) shows the unmitigated emissions associated with the construction of the proposed project. As indicated, the construction activities are not anticipated to ' exceed regulatory thresholds. Therefore, no mitigation is required and air quality, impacts would be less than significant I ICity of Dublin 25 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Table ' Q -1 Unmitigate Phase ROG PM70" PM2.5" NOX CO Demolition/Grubbing/Land Clearing (Ibslday) 4.3 16.9 38.8 1.8 1.7 GradinglExcavation (Ibslday) 5.3 22.7 52.6 2.4 2.2 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade (Ibslday) 4.8 18.3 40.8 2.2 2 Paving (Ibslday) 3.2 14.4 21.6 1.4 1.3 Daily Thresholds (Ibslday) 54 54 - 82 54 Individual Phase Significant No No - No No Annual Emissions (tonslyr) 0.6 2.3 4.7 0.2 0.2 Annual Thresholds (tonslyr) 10 10 - 15 10 Individual Phase Significant? No No - No No SOURCE: Atkins 2013, Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 7.1.2. —= not applicable ' PMro and PMas represent exhaust emissions only, as per BAAQMD methodology. Final , June 2013 To minimize dust emissions, the BAr1QNID has identified a set of PM.„ control measures for all construction actiirities in the air basin as identified by regulatory requirement A r -1 (RR AIR -1). RR AIR -1 Implement recommended dust control measures. To reduce paryiculene matter emissions during project construction phases, the Protect Sponsor shall require the construction contractors to comply with the duet control ilrategies developed try BA4Q114D. The Project Sponsor shall include in construction contracts the following requirements: a. All exposed sun faces (cg., parking areas; staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access reads) shall be watered two times per day, b. All haul trucks transporting mil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be Corel eel; c. All risible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed axing met power vacuum street sweepers al least once per day. The use of dry poser sweeping ii prohibited, d All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph; e. All roadways, driveway., and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as .noon as pasible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible aflergrading unless seeding or soil binders are used,• f Idling timer shall be minimitied either ly shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the rna -imam idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne taxies control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code o/ Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall he prorrided far eonistlaction workers at all access points; g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance Willi nxanatacturer's pegfications. All equipment shall be checked by a eerlified visible emissions evaluator; and h. Post a publically risible sign with the telephone member acrd person to contact at the lead ageng, regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take correctire action within 48 hours. The Air Disdnct'.r phone number shall also be visible to ensure conpbance with applicable regulations. Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND 26 City of Dublin 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 Potentially Significant Less -Than- Less Than w /Mitigation Significant No Potentially Significant Less -Than- Impact (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑ El ® ❑ pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ? Discussion The proposed project has the potential to result in cumulative air quality impacts from construction activities. As discussed under Section III(b), there are no operational activities as a result of the proposed project that would result in air quality impacts. Therefore, as with the project specific analysis, the cumulative analysis does not discuss operational emissions. Significance with respect to air quality violations for construction emissions is evaluated below. Construction Construction of related projects could generate daily emissions that would result in potentially significant impacts on an individual project basis. If construction phases overlap, these projects could result in significant cumulative impacts to air quality. As discussed under (b) above, construction - related emissions associated with project development would be less than significant. Based on BAAQMD methodology, a project that meets the project level significance thresholds would not be anticipated to represent a cumulatively considerable impact. Therefore, the project's cumulative contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would, therefore, be less than significant Discussion Sensitive receptors are impacted more by localized releases in pollutants than by regional emissions. Construction activities, carbon monoxide from intersection congestion, and toxic air contaminants from operational activities are the main sources that are considered to result in localized impacts. Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors are analyzed based on these three pollutant sources. These sources are discussed individually below. The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to a substantial amount of pollutant concentrations during construction activities. Sensitive receptors are land uses such as residential, schools, daycare centers, and recreational facilities that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. The proposed project would require minor and temporary, pollutant emissions from construction activities. Minimal earth - disturbing activities would occur and use of diesel equipment associated with construction of the proposed project would be limited. In addition, operation of the proposed project would not increase vehicle trips per day, and, therefore, would not result in a significant increase in operational emissions. The proposed project site is an existing right- of-way and City of Dublin 27 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ® El Discussion Sensitive receptors are impacted more by localized releases in pollutants than by regional emissions. Construction activities, carbon monoxide from intersection congestion, and toxic air contaminants from operational activities are the main sources that are considered to result in localized impacts. Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors are analyzed based on these three pollutant sources. These sources are discussed individually below. The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to a substantial amount of pollutant concentrations during construction activities. Sensitive receptors are land uses such as residential, schools, daycare centers, and recreational facilities that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. The proposed project would require minor and temporary, pollutant emissions from construction activities. Minimal earth - disturbing activities would occur and use of diesel equipment associated with construction of the proposed project would be limited. In addition, operation of the proposed project would not increase vehicle trips per day, and, therefore, would not result in a significant increase in operational emissions. The proposed project site is an existing right- of-way and City of Dublin 27 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final June 2013 there would be no identifiable net increase in stationary emissions (electricity and natural gas). As noted, above, construction emissions would not exceed regulatory thresholds. Since construction and operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria pollutants, this impact would be less than significant. Discussion The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depend on several factors: the nature of the source, the frequency and strength of the emissions, the presence /absence of odor - sensitive receptors near the source, and the local pattern of wind speeds and directions. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be unpleasant and cause distress among the public and generate citizen complaints. Odor impacts can result from siting a new odor source near existing receptors or siting a new sensitive receptor near an existing odor source. Some land uses that have the potential to generate considerable odors include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined anitnal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. Construction activities occurring in association with the proposed project would generate airborne odors from the operation of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust) and paving activities. These emissions would occur during daytune hours onlv and would be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity. The nearest sensitive receptors that could be affected by odors from construction activities are the residential properties to the northeast of the eastern end of the construction right -of -way and sports field users. Because construction odors would be temporary and limited to the daytime hours, this itmpact would be considered less than significant. After construction, the onlv potential for objectionable odors from the project site would be from mobile sources. As the proposed project would not increase traffic along the roadway, there would be no operational odor emissions. Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 28 City of Dublin Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ people? Discussion The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depend on several factors: the nature of the source, the frequency and strength of the emissions, the presence /absence of odor - sensitive receptors near the source, and the local pattern of wind speeds and directions. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be unpleasant and cause distress among the public and generate citizen complaints. Odor impacts can result from siting a new odor source near existing receptors or siting a new sensitive receptor near an existing odor source. Some land uses that have the potential to generate considerable odors include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined anitnal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. Construction activities occurring in association with the proposed project would generate airborne odors from the operation of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust) and paving activities. These emissions would occur during daytune hours onlv and would be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity. The nearest sensitive receptors that could be affected by odors from construction activities are the residential properties to the northeast of the eastern end of the construction right -of -way and sports field users. Because construction odors would be temporary and limited to the daytime hours, this itmpact would be considered less than significant. After construction, the onlv potential for objectionable odors from the project site would be from mobile sources. As the proposed project would not increase traffic along the roadway, there would be no operational odor emissions. Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 28 City of Dublin ' Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 I Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Thon- Significant w /Mifigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat ❑ modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ® ❑ ❑ Discussion Implementation of the proposed project would not impact, either directly, indirectly, or through habitat ' modifications, any endangered, threatened, or special- status species. The proposed project site exists within a fully urbanized environment and the project is located on an existing right -of -way and a developed sports park. The proposed project would be developed entirely within existing disturbed and developed land. With the exception of common birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code, the project site does not contain suitable habitat for any special - status plant or wildlife species, and no special - status species would be expected to occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site during construction or operation activities. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in any impacts, direct or indirect, to special- status species. ' However, as stated above, potential nesting habitat for common bird species protected under the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code does occur on and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site. Any trees and shrubs that occur on -site could support active nests belonging to birds ' protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Direct removal of trees and shrubs supporting active nests or indirect disturbance (e.g., noise, vibration, nighttime lighting) to an active nest that results in a nest failure would be considered a significant impact in violation of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. As the proposed project would result in the removal and replacement of some trees along the right -of -way and center median, implementation of mitigation measure MM -BI0-1 is required to prevent potential direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds in violation of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, reducing potential impacts to less than significant. MM -BIO -1 Con .sirfulion of the proposed pr ject must avoid the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting reason to the extent feasible. I f it is not fearibie to avoid ibe nesting period, a survey for nesting birds must be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 14 days bejbre construction. The area surveyed nsust include all dearing1 construction areal; as well as areas within 250 feet of the boundaries of these areas, or as otherwise determined by the prgleii biologist. If no active avian nests are ident #ied on or within 250 feet of the limits of the proposed disturbance area, no further neitigation is neces.ay. If active nests are fbund within 230feet of the proposed disturbance area, clewing /construction activities must be postponed avitliin 250 feet of the nest until a wildlife biologist has identified the nee'ting avian pedes. If the avian species is not protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (AIBTA) or the California Fish and Game Code, no furiber attzon if required and construction activities may proceed. ' City of Dublin 29 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts I Final June 2013 If the avian pecies is protected wider the AIB1:4 or the California Fish and Game Code, no action other Nan avoidance of the active nesi(s) may be. laken nwhoul consullation with the California Dpar7menl of Fish and U''ildlilc (CIJFIV). In addition, a minimum 100,fbat bn#er tione flr"01rndurg the active ne.lt(s) must be established until theyoung haveJledged (left the nest), the nest h vacated, and Mery is no evidence ii ne.rling allempl , as delermined by the wildlife biologist. The .ritie of the area pray be reduced #-/he wildlife biolo'ohl delernrines, 11pon corrulialion and concurrence from the CDFJP? /hat the ritie of the buffer arra would riot be likely to have adverse effects on the particular pecies. Discussion The Environmental Resources Management /Conservation Element of the Dublin General Plan identifies stream corridors and riparian vegetation, and oak woodlands as sensitive natural communities requiring protection. These habitat types do not occur in the project area. Furthermore, no sensitive natural communities identified in regional plans, policies, and regulations of by the CDFW or United I States I Fish and Wildhfe Service (USFWS) occur on the project site. Therefore, no impact to sensitive natural communities would occur. Less Than Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant Less -Than- Significant e,/Mitigation Significant No w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other ❑ ❑ ❑ (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, 1:1 ❑ as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Discussion The Environmental Resources Management /Conservation Element of the Dublin General Plan identifies stream corridors and riparian vegetation, and oak woodlands as sensitive natural communities requiring protection. These habitat types do not occur in the project area. Furthermore, no sensitive natural communities identified in regional plans, policies, and regulations of by the CDFW or United I States I Fish and Wildhfe Service (USFWS) occur on the project site. Therefore, no impact to sensitive natural communities would occur. Discussion The proposed project would not have an effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Clean Water IAct (CWA) Secdon 404 (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, or coastal resources) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. The proposed project site exists within a fully urbanized environment and the project is located within an existing right -of -way. The proposed project site is located approximately 670 feet west of the Alamo Canal, which is a tributary in the Alameda Creek watershed. The proposed roadway improvements would not result in alterations or impacts to the Alamo Canal. On the southeastern lim is of the proposed improvements, Dublin Boulevard crosses the Arroyo de la Laguna. While a formal jurisdictional determination and delineation have not been conducted as part of this review, it is likely that this arrovo is a jurisdictional water of the U.S., and as such, project improvements that would result in the placement of fill material below the ordinary high water mark would require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under CWA Section 404. At this location, a pedestrian bridge is proposed which would traverse the arroyo. No Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 30 City of Dublin Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands ❑ 1:1 ❑ as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Discussion The proposed project would not have an effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Clean Water IAct (CWA) Secdon 404 (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, or coastal resources) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. The proposed project site exists within a fully urbanized environment and the project is located within an existing right -of -way. The proposed project site is located approximately 670 feet west of the Alamo Canal, which is a tributary in the Alameda Creek watershed. The proposed roadway improvements would not result in alterations or impacts to the Alamo Canal. On the southeastern lim is of the proposed improvements, Dublin Boulevard crosses the Arroyo de la Laguna. While a formal jurisdictional determination and delineation have not been conducted as part of this review, it is likely that this arrovo is a jurisdictional water of the U.S., and as such, project improvements that would result in the placement of fill material below the ordinary high water mark would require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under CWA Section 404. At this location, a pedestrian bridge is proposed which would traverse the arroyo. No Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 30 City of Dublin Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 1 foundations or footings would be constructed within the arroyo; thus, no permanent impact requiring a permit would occur. The proposed project would not result in any alterations or impacts to Alanno Canal or to the Arroyo de la Laguna and, therefore, would not result in any impacts to protected wetland resources. No impactwould occur. ' Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Discussion ' The project site is highly disturbed. Due to the developed nature of the site and the surrounding properties, as well as the urban nature of the area, it is highly unlikely that any substantial wildlife movement currently occurs though the proposed project site. However, the project site is adjacent to a sports park, which includes baseball and soccer fields, a picnic area, and several trees and shrubs scattered throughout. Vegetation along Dublin Boulevard and in the Dublin Sports Grounds may be ' used by migratory avian species for nesting during the breeding season. All native migratory bird species that may occur in the in the proposed project area are protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. As such, it is unlawful to take, kill, or possess migratory birds, their parts, nests, and eggs. Any impacts on migratory birds are primarily a concern during the breeding season when most species protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code are expected to be rearing young. Construction - related activities (i.e., tree removal) could result in the disturbance of nesting migratory bird species protected under the MBTA, which would be considered a significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM -BIO -1 would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level by ensuring that surveys for nesting avian species are performed during the appropriate time of year and nest - avoidance measures are implemented as applicable. This ' impact would be reduced to a less- than -sign &cant level with mitigation incorporated. Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- ' Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological E] El El resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Discussion ' The City of Dublin prohibits removal of heritage trees. The Heritage Tree Ordinance is applicable to all properties within the city, including private property, residential and nonresidential zones, and developed and undeveloped land. Heritage trees, as defined by the ordinance, include any oak (Querns spp.), bay (Umbellularia californica), cypress (Cupressus spp.), maple (Ater spp.), redwood (Sequoia spp.), buckeye (Aeaulus califon/ica) or sycamore (Platawa racenmra) with a trunk diameter (at a height of 4 feet 6 inches) of 24 inches or greater. No trees with trunk diameters of 24 inches or greater as protected by the Heritage ' City of Dublin 31 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final June 2013 Tree Ordinance occur in the proposed project area. The trees not covered by the Heritage "free Ordinance removed as part of the project would be replaced within the sidewalk area and additional trees would be added in sidewalk areas where trees currently do not exist. Therefore, no impactwould occur. Discussion The Citv adopted a resolution in August 2012 to use the last Alameda Count Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting of projects affecting habitat and endangered species. The proposed project would be subject to plan review to ensure there would be no conflicts with this strategy. Migratory birds would be protected under the N4BTA and by mitigation measures 1\ 0l -BIO -1 as above. No other sensitive species would be adversely affected by the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural mni Comuties Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and no impactwould occur. Less Than Less Than Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Potentially Significant Less-Than- hfistorical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ]f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ occur if a project resulted in the delisting or loss of eligibility of such resources. In addition, ground Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved d smrliing activities occurring in previously undisturbed soils have the potential to result in significant impacts on historical resources if an archaeological site or paleontological resource is present and is local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ' A California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search and a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) database search were completed for the project area (Appendix A). The results of the 2013 SLF search failed to indicate the presence of known Native Discussion The Citv adopted a resolution in August 2012 to use the last Alameda Count Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting of projects affecting habitat and endangered species. The proposed project would be subject to plan review to ensure there would be no conflicts with this strategy. Migratory birds would be protected under the N4BTA and by mitigation measures 1\ 0l -BIO -1 as above. No other sensitive species would be adversely affected by the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural mni Comuties Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and no impactwould occur. Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Thon- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would) the project: )a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ® 1 hfistorical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? ' Discussion CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines historical listed, determined be resources as a resource or to eligible by the state Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or a resource listed in a local register of historical resources, or any object which a ' lead agency determines to be historically significant. Significant impacts to historical resources could occur if a project resulted in the delisting or loss of eligibility of such resources. In addition, ground d smrliing activities occurring in previously undisturbed soils have the potential to result in significant impacts on historical resources if an archaeological site or paleontological resource is present and is considered a historical resource pursuant to CEQA upon evaluation. ' A California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search and a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) database search were completed for the project area (Appendix A). The results of the 2013 SLF search failed to indicate the presence of known Native , American Resources, as did a previous SLF search within the project area (WSA 2000). The CHRIS records search was performed by an Atkins archaeologist at the Northwest Information Centex (KWIC) , Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 32 City of Dublin , I 1 1 [] 1 �II 1 J Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 located at Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. The records search was completed on January 10, 2013, and considered the entirety of the project area and all lands found within a 0.50 -mile radius. The CHRIS record search included a review of various current inventories, including the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), CRHR, Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory (OH- HPD), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI). The results of the records search indicated that no previously recorded cultural resources are located within the project area, and that three historic age built- environment resources are known within a 0.50 - mile radius of the project area. These resources include adninistrative buildings and warehouses associated with the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (P -01- 010456 and 11-01- 010489) and the Southern Pacific Railroad Dumbarton Cutoff (P- 01- 01783/P -41- 001877). The Parks Reserve Forces Training Area buildings were constructed in the early to mid -1950s and have been recommended as ineligible for listing in the NRHP. The Southern Pacific Railroad Dumbarton Cutoff was constructed between 1907 and 1910 to link the Sunset route with the Ogden and Shasta railroad lines. This resource has been recommended as eligible for inclusion in the NRI -IP. All of these known and previously recorded resources are located more than 0.25 -mile from the project area and would not be impacted by the proposed project. Further, the records search results indicated that 100 percent of the project area had been previously assessed for the presence of observable cultural resources (Archaeological Services, Inc. 1988 and WSA 2000). The 2000 survey covered the western half of the current project area, while the 1988 surrey covered the entire project area. These previous studies returned negative results for cultural resources within the Dublin Boulevard Roadway Widening project area. Thus, there are no known resources listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR found within the project area. The results of the CHRIS records search (Atkins 2013) and the results of previous studies completed within the project area (Archaeological Services, Inc. 1988 and WSA 2000), in conjunction with the disturbed nature of the project area soils due to previous road development, render it unlikely that historical resources would be impacted by the project. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Discussion A CHRIS records search and a NAHC SLF database search were completed for the project area (Appendix A). The results of the 2013 SLF search failed to indicate the presence of Native American resources, as did a previous SLF search for a study completed within the project area (WSA 2000). The results of the CHRIS records search at the NWIC indicated that the project area has been previously assessed for the presence or absence of observable cultural resources on two occasions (Archaeological Services, Inc. 1988; WSA 2000). These studies addressed 100 percent of the project area through record searches and pedestrian surreys and returned negative results for cultural resources within the Dublin Boulevard Roadway Widening project area. Including these two studies, a total of ten area - specific City of Dublin 33 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Thon- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ® ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Discussion A CHRIS records search and a NAHC SLF database search were completed for the project area (Appendix A). The results of the 2013 SLF search failed to indicate the presence of Native American resources, as did a previous SLF search for a study completed within the project area (WSA 2000). The results of the CHRIS records search at the NWIC indicated that the project area has been previously assessed for the presence or absence of observable cultural resources on two occasions (Archaeological Services, Inc. 1988; WSA 2000). These studies addressed 100 percent of the project area through record searches and pedestrian surreys and returned negative results for cultural resources within the Dublin Boulevard Roadway Widening project area. Including these two studies, a total of ten area - specific City of Dublin 33 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND SECTION .5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final June 2013 reports have been filed with the NWIC that address the land within a 0.50 -mile search radius. Collectively, these studies have detected a total of three historic age built - environment resources within a 0.50 -mile radius of the project area, including administrative buildings and warehouses associated with the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (P -01- 010456 and P- 01- 010489) and the Southern Pacific Railroad Dumbarton Cutoff (P-01-01783/P-41-001877). No archaeological resources are known within the 0.50 -mile records search radius. During the NWIC records- search, archival topographic maps were reviewed to determine the presence of historic age structures and development within the project area, as well as the probability for encountering historic -age resources during project implementation. The results of this review indicate that a road consistent with the modern alignment of Dublin Boulevard was depicted as early as 1878; however, no structures or any other features were depicted within the project area boundaries. Based upon a review of available studies addressing the project area (Archaeological Services, Inc. 1988 and WSA 2000) and a review of current aerial photographs, the project area is currently developed and appears to lack any native /undisturbed soils. Thus, the results of the CHRIS records search (Atkins 2013) and the disturbed nature of the soils render it unlikely that the project area would retain intact, significant subsurface archaeological resources. However, in the event of inadvertent discovery of subsurface cultural resources during construction, such resources could be damaged or destroyed, resulting in a significant impact on archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5. Therefore, the following mitigation measure is required: MM -CR -1 If evidence of a prehutovzc or hh1oic age archaeological resource is delected during preject- related ground - disturbing activrilies, all ground- disturbing activity shall be halted within 100 feet of the find and the Cily of Dublin shall be notated An archaeologist who meets Ree Sec7etovy of the Inlerior'.r Projessional Qualifications Standards for Archaeolog shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find Any identified callural resources shall be recorded on the approp wle D13R 523 (A —L) forms) and filed ivith the NI VIC If the resources are recommended to be non- signcant, avoidance is not necessay. If Jhe resources are recommended as potentially significant or eligible for the CRHR, they will be avoided. If avoidance it nol feasible, projecl impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the evahiading archaeologist and CF_QA Guidelines Seclmn 15126.4(b)(3)(C), which regnire development and implementalion of a dala recovery plan that would inchlde recommendations jor the treatment of the discovered archaeological materials. The data recovery plan will be submitted to the City of Dublin for review and approval Upon approval and completion of the data recovery program, projecl conslruclion activity within the area of the lind may resume, and the archaeologist willprepare a report documentin8 the methods and findinSs. The report will be submitted to the City of Dublin. Once the report is reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin, a copy ofthe report will be submitted to the NIVJC. Compliance with mitigation measure MM -CR -1 would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Therefore, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less- than - significant level with mitigation incorporated. Dublin Boulevard widening Project MND 34 City at Dublin Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Jc) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ site or unique geologic feature? Discussion Surficial geologic mapping indicates that the project area is located on Holocene alluvial fan deposits (Qhf), which are geologically recent in age (CGS 2008). These recent units overlie older geologic units which may have the potential to yield paleontological resources at depth. Thus, paleontological resources are more likely to be encountered during deep grading or excavation activities encountering deeper geologic layers. The proposed project mainly includes surface -level disturbances, with subsurface disturbances associated with the relocation of utilities. Utilities are proposed to be relocated in areas where the roadways are being extended and /or realigned. The typical depth for the relocation of utilities would be three to 4 feet below existing grade, and all utilities would be relocated within the existing right- of-way. Currently, the project area is developed with the existing Dublin Boulevard roadway, and as such, has ' been subject to previous soil disturbances at the surface. Since the project area has been previously subject to ground disturbance and paleontological resources are more likely to be encountered at depth, the project is not expected to impact paleontological resources. Nonetheless, construction activities associated with project implementation could unearth undocumented resources and result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure MM -CR -2 would reduce any potential impact to a less- than - significant level. MM -CR -2 Should paleontological resources (i.e., fossil remains) be identified during project - related ground - disturbing a6umlies, allground- disturbing activity shall be halted within 100 feel of the Jind and the City ot-Dublin shall be notified A qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the sipgfitante of the find and to provide recommendations for the treatment of the discovered paleontological materials. In considering the treatment proposed bj the consulting paleontologist, the City of Dublin shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and fearible in light of factors such as the nature of the fund, project design,, costs, applicable regulations, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., monitoring and /or data recovery) shall be inrlituted Compliance with mitigation measure MM -CR -2 would ensure that implementation of the proposed ' project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Therefore, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less- than -significant level with mitigation incorporated. I] 1 City of Dublin 35 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts (d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion Final June 2013 Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact El El F1 F-1 There are no known formal cemeteries present in the project area, and no human remains are known to occur within the project area. Further, none of the cultural resources known within a 0.50 -title radius of the project area and detected during the CHRIS records search contained human remains. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. In the event of inadvertent discovery or recognition of any human rernains during project - related ground disturbance, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that, if human remains are unearthed during construction, then no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Section 5097.98 outlines the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) notification process and the appropriate procedures if the County Coroner determines the human remains to be Native American. Compliance with this standard regulation would render the project's impact in this regard as less than significant Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I Would the project: (a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Ill Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ❑ most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued I by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Discussion The cll sest faults to the project site are the Calaveras fault, approximately 0.75 mule west of the western project boundary and the Pleasanton fault, approximately 0.6 mile east of the eastern project boundary. Both of these faults are active, but the proposed project site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake 5 Cahfomia Geological Survey, 2010 Fault Activity Map of California, htto' //wx,w .quqkc.ca.goi,/gLnips/FANI/fquitactivig-mqp.htm. Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 1 36 City of Dublin , C_I Final SECTION S Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 Fault Zone for either of these faults.' Therefore, the site is not expected to be adversely affected by fault rupture, and no impactwould occur. (ii) Strong seismic groundshaking? Discussion Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ As with all development in the San Francisco Bay Area, the proposed project site is located in a ' seismically active region and may be subject to the effects of groundshaking. The degree of groundshaking varies depending on the distance between the site and the earthquake, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the geologic conditions underlying and surrounding the site. Association of Bay Area ' Governments (ABAG) mapping indicates the proposed project site is in an area that could be expected to experience very strong to violent groundshaking from earthquakes on the several nearby and regional faults (Calaveras, Concord -Green Valley, North and South Hayward, and Rodgers Creek and North Hayward, which are within 10 to 30 miles of the project site) and strong groundshaking from an earthquake on the San Andreas fault, approximately 30 miles west.' This is an existing hazard that ' currently poses a risk to the existing roadway, and the proposed project would result in new improvements that could also be vulnerable to strong or more severe groundshaking. ' Measures to minimize or reduce the risk of effects of earthquakes and groundshaking on roadways and drainage infrastructure within the City are guided by the City's development standards pertaining to roadway and drainage design. The Public Works Department would require completion of a site- specific ' geotechnical study that would identify appropriate design and construction methods to address the possibility of strong groundshaking on the widened roadway and related improvements, and the City would be responsible for ensuring construction adheres to the required seistnic performance design standards. Therefore, impacts related to strong groundshaking upon project completion would be considered less than significant. ' Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ' (iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion ' Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which cohesionless, saturated, fine - grained sand and sandy silt soils lose shear strength and fail due to seismic groundshaking. Lateral spreading is also a related phenomenon. Without proper engineering to account for liquefaction hazard, surface cracks, ground settlement and differennal compaction could occur. This could cause pavement and utility damage, which could present e Catifonua Division of Mines and Geology, State of California Special Studies Zones, Dublin Quadrangle (Revised Official Map Effective January 1, 1982). 7 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Earthquake Program, ABAG Earthquake Shaking Scenario Maps (2010), htip1/quake.abag.ca.gov. ' City of Dublin 37 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final June 2013 a safetti' and environmental risk. ABAG mapping indicates the project vicinity is subject to moderate liquefaction hazard.' In addition, the proposed project site is witlun a liquefaction hazard zone delineated by the State under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, indicating that special investigation is required.' The existing roadway and related utility infrastructure is currently susceptible to liquefaction and related hazards, and the proposed project would increase the amount of pavement and utility improvements that could be damaged by liquefaction. The required liquefaction investigation would be prepared in conjunction with the site - specific geotechnical stud'' (noted above) to ensure recommendations arc developed and included in project design to mitigate potential liquefaction hazard. Therefore, a less- than - significant impact would occur as a result of seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction. (iy) Landslides? Discussion 1 1 1 1 11 Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No , Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The proposed project is located in a flat area, and there are no steep slopes that would present a landslide risk. The proposed project would involve minimal construction activities to remove paved roadways, medians, and sidewalks, and would not involve substantial earth - moving activities that would require deep cuts or excavations that could be susceptible to landslide. Therefore, no impactwould occur. Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant Na Impact Incorporated Impact Impact )b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion SubstaIptial erosion can occur where stormwater and high winds carry soil down hillsides or across large areas, typically where vegetated cover is sparse or non - existent as result of natural conditions, or where human i activity has altered the landscape (e.g., large construction projects on hillsides or on extensive areas involving mass grading). The proposed project is located in a flat area, is developed with impervious surfaces, and there are no steep slopes that are erodible under existing conditions. The proposed project would temporarily expose soil to wind or water erosion during construction, but this would be of limited extent. An erosion and sediment control plan would be implemented, as required by City Municipal Code Chapter 7 (as described in Section VI(a), above), and the City public Works Department would be responsible for ensuring the construction contractor adheres to its requirements. There is no topsoil at the project site because it is in a densely urbanized area containing an existing roadway with associated improvements on engineered subsurface soils and there is no exposed native soil. Impacts would be less than significant s Association of 13av Area Governments, Earthquake and I-tazards Information, Earthquake Liquefaction Susceptibility Interactive Map ( 2011), httn' / /quake.abag.ca.eov /liquefaction. 9 California Geological Survey, Hazard "Zones Map, Dublin Quadrangle (August 27, 2008). Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 38 City of Dublin 1 Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 Less Than ' Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would ❑ 1:1 ® ❑ become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? ' Discussion Subsurface geology at the site is mapped by the California Geological Survey (CGS) as Quaternary (Holocene - ages .. ) alluvial fan deposits that consist of primarily of unconsolidated clay and silt." Native soils have been mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) as Sunnyvale clay loam over clay.12 Engineered fill is assumed to be present under the existing roadway. There are no steep ' slopes or other topographic or subsurface geologic characteristics indicative of instabilit-, Nvith the exception of liquefaction and related hazards, as noted above. Implementation of the recommendations in the site - specific geotechnical report, which City Public Works Department staff would be responsible for ensuring are included in project design and implemented during construction, would ensure potential soil instability, hazards, if any, are mitigated. Impacts would be less than significant ' Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w /Miligation Significant No ' Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the El El ® ❑ Uniform Building Code )1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Discussion ' The Sunnyvale clay loam over clay native soils that underlie engineered soils at project site exhibit high expansive (shrink -swell) characteristics." The proposed project would not involve development of new features directly over native soils that could present an expansive soil risk because it is limited to reconstructhng an existing roadway over soils that have already been engineered (modified) to account for underlying soil conditions. In addition, as part of the site - specific geotechnical report, the results of soli testing would be used in conjunction with roadway and utility improvement design to ensure proper treatment and compaction of soils to mitigate any potential expansive soil hazard. Therefore, the proposed project would not create substantial risks to life or property as a result of expansive soils, and ' the impact would be less than significant t" Approximately 11,700 years ago t t California Geological Survey, Geologic Map of the San Francisco -San Jose Quadrangle, http: //w v�v.quakeea.gov /gmaos /RGbI /sfsj /sfsj.html; California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Zane Repor for the Dublin 7.3 lblinule,Quadrangle, Alameda County, California, CGS SeisTnic Hazard Zone Report 112, Plate 1.1 (2008), htm: / /gmw.consn,.ca.gov /shy /download /ev,i!Mt /dub eval.2ddf. 12 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey, Soil Map — Alameda Area, California, htto: / /websoisurvev.nres.usda. gov. ' 13 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil SumgAlamedaAma, California (March 1966), Table 12. ' City of Dublin 39 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion final June 2013 Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ The ptoposed project would not produce wastewater that requires support of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. The Citv of Dublin is located in the nine - county San Francisco Bay Area in east Alameda Coul It is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Aix Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The project involves the widening of Dublin Boulevard to six lanes with the addition of bicycle lands on both sides of the roadway. The project will not generate any new land uses generating additi onal trips, nor is the additional lane anticipated to alter travel pattcros in the area or increase operational related au pollutant emissions. Construction activities, however, will result in temporary pollutant emissions. Parts of the Earth's atmosphere act as an insulating blanket of just the right thickness, trapping sufficient solar energy to keep the global average temperature in a suitable range. The "blanket" is a collection of atmospheric gases called "greenhouse gases" (GHGs) based on the idea that the gases "trap" heat similar to thel glass walls of a greenhouse. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) focus on carbon I dioxide (CO), methane (CH,), and nitrous oxide (N,O) as the main GHGs. These gasses act as global insulators, reflecting visible light and infrared radiation back to the Earth. Various aspects of constructing, operating, and eventually discontinuing the use of development will I, result in GHG emissions. Operational phase GHG emissions result from energy use associated with heat ng, lighting and powering buildings (typically through natural gas and electricity consumption), pumping and processing water (Nvhich consumes electricity), as well as fuel used for transportation and decomposition of waste generated by building occupants. New development can also create GHG emissi Ions in its construction and demolition phases in connection with the use of fuels in construction equipment, creation and decomposition of building materials, vegetation clearing, and other activities. BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for comprehensive air pollution control and climate change in the entire Bay Area Air Basin, including Contra Costa County. To that end, BAAQMD works directly with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and State government agencies in the reduction of regional greenhouse gas emissions. Although BAAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate the greenhouse gas issues associated with plans and new development projects within Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND 40 City of Dublin Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 1 the Bay Area. Instead, BAAQMD has used its expertise and prepared the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines to indirectly address these issues in accordance with State Regulations such as Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375). The purpose of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines is to assist lead agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties, in evaluating potential climate change impacts from projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area. As discussed in Section III (Air Quality), BAAQMD issued revised CEQA Guidelines in May of 2012 (2012 CEQA Guidelines) which maintains the methodology applied in the 2011 Guidelines but does not recommend specific thresholds of significance for lead agencies to use in evaluating climate change impacts. The 2012 CEQA Guidelines provide numerous sources of potential significance thresholds, including the 2009 BAAQMD's CEQA Thresholds Options and Justifications Report. This document outlines substantial evidence that supports ' a variety, of significance thresholds applicable to climate change analysis. Under CEQA, it is ultimately up to the lead agency to determine which thresholds of significance and methodology to apply. Based on the substantial evidence in the BAAQMD Report, this analysis incorporates the thresholds identified in the ' 2009 CEQA Thresholds Options and Justifications Report are apptopriate for determining the level of significance for climate change impacts from the construction and operation of the proposed project. ' Less Than Potentially Significant less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ' Would the project: (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that El ❑ ® ❑ may have a significant impact on the environment? Discussion The proposed project would not generate enough GHG emissions to influence global climate change on its own. However, the proposed project consists of roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements. These improvements would not include land use changes (such as new development) that would generate new vehicle trips. As the proposed project will not increase traffic along Dublin Blvd, the proposed project will have no operational emissions. Therefore, operational emissions are not discussed ' further in this analysis, and significance is based on the amortized construction emissions. Construction ' Project construction activities would require the use of heavy trucks, excavating and grading equipment, and other mobile and stationary construction equipment. GHG emissions during construction would ' result from material handling, traffic on unpaved or unimproved surfaces, use of paving materials, exhaust from construction worker vehicle trips, and exhaust from diesel- powered construction equipment. ' Construction emissions were calculated using the Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 7.1.2. Table GHG -1 (Construction GHG Emissions) shows the unmitigated emissions associated with the ' construction of the proposed project. Based on current methodology, construction emissions are amortized over the lifetime of the project (estimated at 30 years) and added to operational emissions to estimate net annual average increase of GHG emissions. As there are not operational emissions, for the purposes of the analysis, significance is based on amortized construction emissions. The Road ' City of Dublin 41 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final June 2013 Construction Emissions do not include CHa or N,O emissions from the proposed construction activities. As indicated by the BAAQMD in their Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM), the US EPA assumes that GHG emissions from other transportation /equipment such as CHs, NC) and hydrofluoroearbons account for approximately 5 percent of total emissions. Therefore, metric tons of CO, are multiplied by 1.05 to determine the total metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO,e) associated with construction activities. As shown, the construction activities are not anticipated to exceed regulatory thresholds. Therefore, no mitigation is required and GF1G it would be Less than significant. Table Phase CO2 CH<and N20 CO2e Tons per project 428.30 21.42 449.72 Metric Tons per project 388.55 19.43 407.98 Amortized 13.60 Significance Threshold 1,100 Significant? No SOURCE: Atkins, Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 7.1.2 120131. Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for ❑ ❑ ❑ the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1 Discussion BAAQMD does not have adopted significance criteria for assessing impacts from GHG emissions. Howei er, the CEQA Justification Document includes various thresholds and screening levels developed I to enable the region to meet the state's AB 32 goals. One way to determine compliance with AB 32 is to demonstrate project compliance with an adopted climate action plan or emissions reduction strategy for the region in which the project is located. While there are no adopted climate action plans that govern the proposed project, the project has demonstrated that emissions would be tminimal and below the 1,100 MT CO, screening level threshold, thereby complying with the state's AB 32 goals. In addition to AB 32, SB 375 establishes mechanisms for the development of regional targets for reducing passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. Because the proposed project is implementing bicycle lanes and pedestrian amenities, the project encourages non - vehicle transportation. This will lead to a potential reduction in vehicle miles traveled in support of SB 375. Because the project can demonstrate compliance with both AB 32 and SB 375, the proposed project is considered to have no impact with respect to conflicting with plans for the reduction of GHG emissions. Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND 42 City of Dublin , Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 ' Less than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ' Would the project: (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ® ❑ through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Discussion Operation of the proposed project would not require the handling of hazardous materials or result in the production of hazardous waste. Hazardous materials associated with the proposed project would consist mostly of construction related equipment and materials. Use and /or storage of hazardous materials at the project site are expected to be minimal and would not constitute a level that would be subject to regulation. During the construction phase, hazardous materials in the form of solvents, glues, and other common construction materials containing toxic substances may be transported to the site, and construction waste that possibly contains hazardous materials could be transported off the site for purposes of disposal. Appropriate documentation for all hazardous waste that is transported off site in connection with activities at the project site would be provided as required to ensure compliance with the existing hazardous materials regulations. Federal, state, and local regulations govern the disposal of wastes identified as hazardous which could be produced in the course of demolition and construction. Any potential hazardous materials encountered during demolition or construction activities would be disposed of in compliance with all applicable regulations for the handling of such waste Adherence to all applicable federal and state laws related routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents which might occur during disposal of site - generated hazardous wastes, transit of hazardous waste, and project - induced upset from hazardous materials to a level that is less than significant Less than Potentially Significant Less -than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ® F-1 El through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ' involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Discussion ' A record search of the area surrounding Dublin Boulevard between Sierra Court/Civic Plaza and Dublin Court was conducted by Atkins in February 2013 of sites that generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous materials, or sites for which a hazardous materials release or incident has occurred. The records search included the GeoTracker database and the EnviroStor database. One LUST cleanup site is reported along the alignment. The City of Dublin Civic Center located on 100 Civic Plaza is reported as IL ' City of Dublin 43 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts final June 2013 "case open with site assessment" and a soil and groundwater work plan to assess the site was requested in September 2008 ". The site is a potential site of concern related to gasoline. Soil - disturbance activities for development of the proposed project could result in the exposure of construction personnel and the public to previously unidentified hazardous substances in the soil. Exposure to unanticipated hazardous substances could occur from previously unidentified soil contannation caused by migrating contaminants originating at nearby lister) site. Exposure to hazardous materials during construction activities could occur as a result of any of the following: ■ Direct dermal contact with hazardous materials ■ Incidental ingestion of hazardous materials (usually due to improper hygiene, when workers fail to wash their hands before eating, drinking, or smoking) ■ Inhalation of airborne dust released from deed hazardous materials If any unidentified sources of contamination are encountered during demolition, grading, or excavation, required removal activities could pose health and safer risks capable of causing various short -term or long -term adverse health effects in c�posed persons. In order to address the potential for encountering unknown contamination within the project area, mitigation measure bIM -} -AZA would trunuiuze the potential risk of contamination by implementing investigation and remediation efforts at the proposed project site. MM -IL Z -1 In the event that prernonrly unknown or unidentified roil andlorgroundmater contamination that could present a threat to human health or the environment is encounleed during construction in the project area, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately. If contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented that (1) identi/ies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment dwia� consinution and post - development and (2) descnbes measures to be taken to protect workers; and the public from exposure to potential site ha�ardr. Such measures could include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical ale controls during construction, remedialion, long -term monitoring, port- development maintenance or access limitations, or .some combination thereof. Depending on the nalanr of conlaminalion, if any, app rot, nale agencies shall be notified (e.g., Alameda Cougy Fire Department). If needed/ a Site Health and Safety Plan that meels Occupational Sa /ety and Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area. Although not anticipated, the temporary removal of concrete sidewalks and the construction of new sidewalks, curbs, and gutters could result in exposure of construction personnel and the public to hazardous substances such as asbestos or lead -based paints. Federal and state regulations govern the renovation and demolition of structures where materials containing lead and asbestos are present. These requirements include: "Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 61, Subpart M of the Code of Federal Regulations (pertaining to asbestos), and lead exposure guidelines provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Asbestos and lead abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the state Department of Health Services. In addition, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal - OSHA) has regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, 14 Geonacker, Database search, hts: / /geotracker. swrcb.ca.gov (accessed February 12, 2013). 1 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 44 City of Dublin 1 Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 availability of safety equipment, hazardous materials exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal -OSHA enforces the hazard communication program regulations, which include provisions for identifying and labeling hazardous materials, describing the hazards of chemicals, and documenting employee training programs. Implementation of mitigation measure IM1 -HAZ -1 and adherence to all local, state, and federal regulations would reduce this potentially significant impact to 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 to a less -than- ' significant level. ' There is one open LUST cleanup site reported along the alignment, and several other LUST cleanup sites located within 1,000 feet for the project site associated with nearby gas stations. One additional LUST case along the alignment is reported as "case closed," indicating that remedial action is completed, or was ' deemed unnecessary, by the local regulatory agency. The remaining open LUST case is currently under evaluation and a soil and groundwater work plan to assess the site was requested in September 2008. ' Because the proposed project would not require substantial ground disturbing activities, the potential to encounter contaminated groundwater is low. Further, mitigation measure MM -HAZA would ensure that in the event previously unidentified contaminated soils are encountered during project construction, investigation and remediation efforts would be implemented prior to the recommencement of work. Accordingly, impacts would be less than signi6cantwith mitigation incorporated. [l ' City of Dublin 45 Dublin Boulevard widening Project MND Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant ./Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous El El materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or ' proposed school? Discussion ' 'There located 0.25 No impactwould are no schools within mile of the proposed project site. occur. Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) 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 it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ' Discussion ' There is one open LUST cleanup site reported along the alignment, and several other LUST cleanup sites located within 1,000 feet for the project site associated with nearby gas stations. One additional LUST case along the alignment is reported as "case closed," indicating that remedial action is completed, or was ' deemed unnecessary, by the local regulatory agency. The remaining open LUST case is currently under evaluation and a soil and groundwater work plan to assess the site was requested in September 2008. ' Because the proposed project would not require substantial ground disturbing activities, the potential to encounter contaminated groundwater is low. Further, mitigation measure MM -HAZA would ensure that in the event previously unidentified contaminated soils are encountered during project construction, investigation and remediation efforts would be implemented prior to the recommencement of work. Accordingly, impacts would be less than signi6cantwith mitigation incorporated. [l ' City of Dublin 45 Dublin Boulevard widening Project MND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final June 2013 Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Significant (e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has ❑ ❑ ❑ ZZ ' not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use Significant airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Significant project area? ' Discussion Incorporated The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public Impact airport or public use airport. Therefore, there would be no impact with respect to a safety hazard for residents or workers. (f) If within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Discussion Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mltigailon Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact El 1:1 ® El The proposed project would widen an existing roadway and would not introduce new residents or workers in the project area. A temporary increase in construction workers in the area would occur during construction of the project. There are no public airports located within 2 miles of the project site. The U.S. Army's Camp Parks facility contains a private airstrip located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project site. It is an inactive airstrip and is used for intermittent helicopter use only." The airstrip is not used for emergency medical evacuations. Use of the airstrip requires 45 days' notice prior to use for coordination with local agencies. Operation of helicopters would be required to comply with helicopter safety regulations outline in the Standard Operating Procedure for the facility and federal aviation safety regulations. Therefore, intermittent use of theiairstrip would not result in a foreseeable safety hazard to construction workers. A less - than- significant impact would occur. Discussion The City of Dublin does not have an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, but provides training and informational materials to ensure that Cite staff and residents are prepared to respond to natural and man -made disasters. The Alameda County Fire Department and Alameda Cou ty Sheriff's Office provide first responder services. The City has an option, under necessary circumstances, to request mutual aid from other jurisdictions, including nearby cities, counties, the Califomia Office of 15 U.S. Army. U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks Draft DPTMS Standard Operation Procedure #09 -01, htto //wrvw pirks army util /training /dots /dptms- soipdf (accessed Pebman 12, 2013), 1 Dublin Boulevard widening Project MIND 46 City of Dublin , Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Thon- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Discussion The City of Dublin does not have an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, but provides training and informational materials to ensure that Cite staff and residents are prepared to respond to natural and man -made disasters. The Alameda County Fire Department and Alameda Cou ty Sheriff's Office provide first responder services. The City has an option, under necessary circumstances, to request mutual aid from other jurisdictions, including nearby cities, counties, the Califomia Office of 15 U.S. Army. U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks Draft DPTMS Standard Operation Procedure #09 -01, htto //wrvw pirks army util /training /dots /dptms- soipdf (accessed Pebman 12, 2013), 1 Dublin Boulevard widening Project MIND 46 City of Dublin , I 1 �l 1 1 I [. 1 1 1 Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 Emergency Services (OES), and ultimately, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (PEMA). Compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations would ensure that the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with emergency response plan emergency evacuation. The Cii would widen Dublin Boulevard and improve use of the roadway for evacuation. During construction, the City Manager may designate persons to regulate traffic at the site of construction in accordance with City Municipal Code Section 6.04.140. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact. Discussion No wildlands exist within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site. Consequently, implementation of the project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with wildland fires, and no impact would occur. Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w / Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are El ❑ ® ❑ adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion No wildlands exist within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site. Consequently, implementation of the project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with wildland fires, and no impact would occur. Discussion The applicable water quality standards that apply to the proposed project are established in the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan), which is administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Region 2 (San Francisco). For construction, the standards are implemented through a statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Svstem (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit) (Order No. 2009- 0009 -DWQ, NPDES No. CAR000002), adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) September 2, 2009. Post - construction standards are implemented through the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order R2- 2009 -0074, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, October 14, 2009. The City of Dublin, along with numerous other cities, counties, and entities in the Bap Area, is a permittee under the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). City of Dublin 47 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Thon- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge El ❑ ® ❑ requirements? Discussion The applicable water quality standards that apply to the proposed project are established in the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan), which is administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Region 2 (San Francisco). For construction, the standards are implemented through a statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Svstem (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit) (Order No. 2009- 0009 -DWQ, NPDES No. CAR000002), adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) September 2, 2009. Post - construction standards are implemented through the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order R2- 2009 -0074, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, October 14, 2009. The City of Dublin, along with numerous other cities, counties, and entities in the Bap Area, is a permittee under the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). City of Dublin 47 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND SECTION! 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Construction Final ' June 2013 Construction of the proposed project would involve the removal of the existing roadway, grading and compaction of soil to prepare the new (widened) roadway surface and installation of pedestrian /bicycle enhancements, drainage, and landscaping. This would temporarily expose soil to wind and water erosion, which could increase the potential for silt, sediment, and pollutants from construction vehicles and staging areas to enter the storm drain system, which could affect water quahty. The proposed project would be required to implement the Construction General Permit to ensure consistency with state law as well as a requirement of City Municipal Code Chapter 7.74. Construction contract specifications would identify the specific requirements that need to be met, which are sunnnarized below. To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, the City's construction contractor trust file Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) prior to the commencement of construction activity, which include a Notice of intent (NOI), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and other documents required by the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP has two major objectives: (1) to help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that affect the quality of stormwater discharges and (2) to describe and ensure the implementation of B711Ps to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater, as well as non- stormwater discharges. The Construction General Permit requires specific minimum BMPs, depending upon the project sediment risk (Risk Levels 1 through 3). Risk Level 1 projects are subject to minimum BD1P and visual monitoring requirements; Risk Level 2 projects are subject to numeric actions levels (NALs) and some additional monitoring requirements; and Risk Level 3 projects are subject to numeric effluent limitations (NEl.$) and more rigorous monitoring requirements, such as receiving water monitoring and, in some cases, bioassessment. The risk is a calculated value that is determined when the SWPPP is prepared. The SWPPP will identif}' the appropriate risk level and related BDIPs and other requirements. The results of monitoring and corrective actions, if any, must be reported annually to the SWRCB. This permit also specifies m nimum qualifications for SWPPP developers and construction site inspectors. In addition to the Construction General Permit, the City's construction contractor would also be required to implement an erosion and sediment control plan in conjunction with the grading plan /permit for the project (Municipal Code Section 7.16.600). Specifically, the Cit}' requires that discharge of sediment in quantities greater than before grading occurred be prevented to any watercourse, drainage system, or adjacent property and to protect watercourses and adjacent properties by erosion, flooding, or deposition that may result from grading. Compliance with existing state regulations and city ordinance would prevent violation of water quality standards and minimize the potential for contributing additional sources of polluted runoff during construction so that water quality standards or permits are not violated. Operation Operation of proposed project would not result in a change in the type of stormwater discharges to surface water or groundwater, not would it result in any new discharges that would have different water quality characteristics, compared to existing conditions. During the operation of the proposed project, the major source of pollution in stormwater runoff would continue to be urban contaminants that have accumulated on the roadway such as oil and grease and metals, and to a limited extent herbicides or Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 48 City of Dublin 1 ' Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 1 pesticides from landscaped areas near the roadway that drain to the roadway drainage system. The proposed project would not increase the number of vehicles on the roadway, but it would increase the ' amount of impervious surface over which potentially contaminated stormwater would flow. In accordance with the MRP and City Municipal Code Chapter 7, the project would include stormwater ' quality treatment to capture and treat runoff prior to discharge to the storm drain system. A 5.5 -foot- wide bioretention area would be incorporated into the landscaping between the roadway and the pedestrian path on the south side of the widened roadway. Underlying the plantings would be a layer of ' permeable soil on top of perforated pipe running through permeable drain rock. Removal of pollutants at the source would continue to ensure downstream surface water that receives flows and underlying ' groundwater is not adversely affected compared to existing conditions. For the reasons described above, the proposed project would be consistent with water quality standards ' and permits, and construction and operation impacts would be less than signi6cam . Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially 1:1 El El with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in 1 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 that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for ' which permits have been granted)? Discussion The proposed project consists of roadway widening, pedestrian /bicycle facility enhancements, landscaping, and some drainage modifications. Landscape irrigation demand would be met through existing supplies, which are surface water supplies from the Dublin San Ramon Services District. ' Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the demand for groundwater supplies. The existing impervious surfaces at the project site, along with the underlying native clay soils (see Geology) limit ' recharge potential under existing conditions. Utility improvements would be to a depth of 3 to 4 feet along existing lines, which would not interfere with shallow groundwater" flow because no new features or underground structures that could impede or redirect flows (compared to existing conditions) would ' be installed. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. There would be no impact. 1 ir' Groundwater is reported as approximately 10 feet deep in the vicinity of the proposed project. Reference: California Geological Survey, Sei.rnuc Vfatiard Zone Report for the Dublin ZS Manuu.Quadrangle, Alameda Counn,, California, CGS Seismic ' Hazard Zone Report 112, Plate 1.2 (2008), http: / /grnw.consrv.ca.gov /shmp /download /evalrpt /dub evil tpddf. ' City of Dublin 49 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final ' June 2013 Discussion Drainage at the project site is limited to stormwater runoff that flows from Dublin Boulevard towards storm drain inlets to the City's storm drain system. All runoff in the vicinity is directed to regional storm drain facilities owned and maintained by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Hood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). There are no rivers, streams, creeks or other natural water bodies at the site. Just west of Dublin Court is an engineered drainage culvert that runs perpendicular to the roadway. During construction of the improvements, roadway drainage patterns would be tempornrdv altered as the existing roadway is removed and during installation of the new roadway and associated enhancements. As described above, stormwater flows over exposed soils during construction would be managed through the Construction General Permit BMPS and an erosion and sediment control plan to minimize erosion and siltation. After completion of the widened roadway, stormwater flows from Dublin Boulevard would continue to be conveyed to the City's storm drain system, with only a minimal increase in flows associated with additional impervious surfaces. A prefabricated pedestrian bridge would be constructed over the existing dtainage culvert west of Dublin Court to accommodate the pedestrian path. The dtaiiage culvert would not be modified as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in permanent or long -term changes in drainage that would iresult in substantial erosion or siltation or on- or off site flooding, and there would be no impact Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact le) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity El ❑ ❑ of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Discussion The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces by increasing the number of travel lanes from four to six and through pedestrian/ bicycle lane enhancements. However, the project would actually reduce stormwater flows through improvements to the storm drain system in Dublin Boulevard. The reconstructed roadway would include gutters and storm drain inlets, along with stormwater treatment, and those features would be designed to meet the City's standard specifications for drainage (Municipal Code Chapter 7.10). Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND so City of Dublin Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ 1:1 ❑ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? (d) 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 that would result in flooding on or off site? Discussion Drainage at the project site is limited to stormwater runoff that flows from Dublin Boulevard towards storm drain inlets to the City's storm drain system. All runoff in the vicinity is directed to regional storm drain facilities owned and maintained by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Hood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). There are no rivers, streams, creeks or other natural water bodies at the site. Just west of Dublin Court is an engineered drainage culvert that runs perpendicular to the roadway. During construction of the improvements, roadway drainage patterns would be tempornrdv altered as the existing roadway is removed and during installation of the new roadway and associated enhancements. As described above, stormwater flows over exposed soils during construction would be managed through the Construction General Permit BMPS and an erosion and sediment control plan to minimize erosion and siltation. After completion of the widened roadway, stormwater flows from Dublin Boulevard would continue to be conveyed to the City's storm drain system, with only a minimal increase in flows associated with additional impervious surfaces. A prefabricated pedestrian bridge would be constructed over the existing dtainage culvert west of Dublin Court to accommodate the pedestrian path. The dtaiiage culvert would not be modified as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in permanent or long -term changes in drainage that would iresult in substantial erosion or siltation or on- or off site flooding, and there would be no impact Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact le) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity El ❑ ❑ of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Discussion The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces by increasing the number of travel lanes from four to six and through pedestrian/ bicycle lane enhancements. However, the project would actually reduce stormwater flows through improvements to the storm drain system in Dublin Boulevard. The reconstructed roadway would include gutters and storm drain inlets, along with stormwater treatment, and those features would be designed to meet the City's standard specifications for drainage (Municipal Code Chapter 7.10). Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND so City of Dublin [l Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; rather, it would improve water quality. There would be no impact. Discussion The proposed project is a roadway improvement project that would include . some new drainage improvements and stormwater qualih, treatment features along a widened roadway. For the reasons explained in Item IZ(a), above, the proposed project would not result in a substantial degradation to water quality in the project area, and this would lie a less- than- signi6cantimpact. Less Than Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® El Discussion The proposed project is a roadway improvement project that would include . some new drainage improvements and stormwater qualih, treatment features along a widened roadway. For the reasons explained in Item IZ(a), above, the proposed project would not result in a substantial degradation to water quality in the project area, and this would lie a less- than- signi6cantimpact. (h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that would ❑ ❑ ❑ impede or redirect flood flows? ' Discussion The proposed project site is not located within a with a 100 -year floodplain as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Map or other flood hazard delineation map. t' The proposed project would not involve construction of housing or place structures in a 100 -year flood hazard area. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other ffood hazard delineation map? (h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that would ❑ ❑ ❑ impede or redirect flood flows? ' Discussion The proposed project site is not located within a with a 100 -year floodplain as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Map or other flood hazard delineation map. t' The proposed project would not involve construction of housing or place structures in a 100 -year flood hazard area. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. Discussion Within the project boundary, there is a small segment of Dublin Boulevard west of Dublin Court towards the approximate mid -point of the project that is at risk of flooding from Del Valle Lake in the event of dam failure.18 This is an existing condition. The proposed project involves roadway improvements that would not alter dam operation/ flood flows. The proposed project would not increase 17 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Alameda County, California, Map Number 06001 C0308 (Effective August 3, 2009). 11 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Dam Failure Inundation I- Lazard Map for Dublin, litm: / /xvkv v.ibag.ca.gov /cgi -bin /mckdatmx.rl. City of Dublin 51 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Ill 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? Discussion Within the project boundary, there is a small segment of Dublin Boulevard west of Dublin Court towards the approximate mid -point of the project that is at risk of flooding from Del Valle Lake in the event of dam failure.18 This is an existing condition. The proposed project involves roadway improvements that would not alter dam operation/ flood flows. The proposed project would not increase 17 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Alameda County, California, Map Number 06001 C0308 (Effective August 3, 2009). 11 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Dam Failure Inundation I- Lazard Map for Dublin, litm: / /xvkv v.ibag.ca.gov /cgi -bin /mckdatmx.rl. City of Dublin 51 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final ' June 2013 Potentially Significant Less -Than- ' the number of people or structures that could be risk of flooding due to data failure. The project site is Significant w /Mitigation Significant No not in an area protected by levees. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- (a) Physically divide an established community? Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ ' Discussion ' Tsunamis are large sea waves generated by submarine earthquakes, or sinular large- scale, short - duration phenomena, such as volcanic eruptions, that can cause considerable damage to low -lymg coastal areas. Sciches are waves, also caused by large - scale, short- duration phenomena, that result from the oscillation of confined bodies of water (such as reservoirs and lakes) that also may damage low -lying adjacent areas, although not as severely as a tsunami. Because of its inland location, there would be no risk associated with tsunamis. There are no enclosed bodies of water close to the proposed project area that could produce earthquake - induced seiches. Therefore, potential seiche activity would not be expected for the proposed project site, and there would be no risk from seiches. The project site is not located near steep unstable hill slopes susceptible to mudslides. There would be no substantial mass earth movement during saturated soil conditions. Therefore, there would be no impact that would expose people or structures at ' the project site to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or nmdflow. 1 1 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND 52 City of Dublin , Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- ' Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Physically divide an established community? El El ❑ Discussion The proposed project does not have the potential to divide or disrupt neighborhood /communities. It would widen an existing roadway and improve bicycle and pedestrian connections along the roadway. 1 No impactwould occur. 1 1 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND 52 City of Dublin , I 1 rl I 1 Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 Potentially Significant Less -Than- Less Than w /Mitigation Significant No Potentially Significant Less -Thon- Impact (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of El El El an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Discussion The project is consistent with plans and goals adopted by the City of Dublin. The proposed project is the last phase of the City of Dublin's plan to widen Dublin Boulevard west of Dougherty Road from four lanes to six lanes. The Dublin Sports Ground property was quit - claimed by the U.S. Department of Interior to the City, of Dublin with the agreement that the property would be used continuously for a public park /recreational area and for these purposes only. The proposed project would construct a pedestrian path on a portion of the Dublin Sports Grounds. The pedestrian path would provide a park amenity that is consistent with the existing recreational land uses. The right- of-way acquisition on the north side of Dublin Boulevard would encroach on private property that currendy consists of surface parking and landscaped areas. This portion of the project would require the acquisition of right- of-way from five properties. Following acquisition these areas would be included within the public right -of -way and landscaping would be replaced similar to existing conditions. No loss of parking would occur. The proposed project is not in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, no impactwould occur. Discussion As noted in Biological Resources, Section IV(O, the City adopted a resolution in August 2012 to use the Last Alameda County Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting of projects affecting habitat and endangered species. The proposed project would be subject to plan review to ensure there would be no conflicts with this strategy. Migratory birds would be protected under the MBTA and by mitigation measures MM -BI0-1 as above. No other sensitive species would be adversely affected by the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and no impactwould occur. City of Dublin 53 Dublin Boulevard widening Project MND Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ El community conservation plan? Discussion As noted in Biological Resources, Section IV(O, the City adopted a resolution in August 2012 to use the Last Alameda County Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting of projects affecting habitat and endangered species. The proposed project would be subject to plan review to ensure there would be no conflicts with this strategy. Migratory birds would be protected under the MBTA and by mitigation measures MM -BI0-1 as above. No other sensitive species would be adversely affected by the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and no impactwould occur. City of Dublin 53 Dublin Boulevard widening Project MND SECTION .5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Would the project: (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Discussion Final June 2013 Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w /Mifigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed project is within an existing right -of -way and land designated for Public /Semi- Public, Parks /Public Recreation, Retail/Office and Automotive, Mixed Use, Business Park/ Industrial, and Retail /Office uses. The proposed project site is not known to have any mineral resources that may be of value to this region of the state, including as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Therefore, no impactwould occur. Community Noise Fundamentals Sound that is loud, disagreeable, unexpected, or unwanted is generally defined as noise; consequently, the perception of sound is subjective in nature, and can vary substantially from person to person. A sound wave is initiated in a medium by a vibrating object (e.g., vocal chords, the string of a guitar or the diaphragm of a radio speaker). The wave consists of nunute variations in pressure, oscillating above and below the ambient atmospheric pressure. The number of pressure variation cycles occurring per second is referred to as the frequency of the sound wave and is expressed in hertz. Directly measuring sound pressure fluctuations would require the use of a very large and cumbersome range of numbers. To avoid this and have a more useable numbering system, the decibel scale was introduced. A sound level expressed in decibels is the logarithmic ratio of two like pressure quantities, with one pressure quantity being a reference sound pressure. For sound pressure in air the standard reference quantity is generally considered to be 20 tricropascals (µ3a), which directly corresponds to the threshold of human hearing. The use of the decibel is a convenient way to handle the trillion -fold range of sound pressures to which the human ear is sensitive to. A decibel is logarithmic; as such it does not follow normal algebraic methods and cannot be directly added. For example, a 65- decibel (dB) source of sound, such as a truck, when joined by another 65 dB source results in a sound amplitude of 68 dB, not 130 dB (i.e., doubling the source strength increases the sound pressure by 3 dB). A sound level increase of 10 dB corresponds to ten tunes the acoustical energy, and an increase of 20 dB equates to a 100 -fold increase in acoustical energy." 19 M.D. Egan, Concepts inAnbitecturalAeouniu (McGraw -Hill, Inc., 1972), p. 21. Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 54 City of Dublin 1 I I 1 i 1 1 1 d 1 LJ 1 1 Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 The human ear is not equally sensitive to loudness at all frequencies in the audible spectrum. To better relate overall sound levels and loudness to human perception, frequency - dependent weighting networks were developed. There is a strong correlation between the way humans perceive sound and A- weighted sound levels (abbreviated dBA). For this reason, the dBA can be used to predict community response to community, environmental, and transportation noise. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources (transportation noise sources), such as automobiles, trucks, airplanes, and stationary sources (nontransportation noise sources), such as construction sites, machinery, commercial and industrial operations. As acoustic energy spreads through the atmosphere from the source to the receptor, noise levels attenuate (decrease) dependent on ground absorption characteristics (hard or soft conditions) and the presence of physical barriers (walls, building facades, berms). Noise generated from mobile sources generally attenuate at a rate of 3 to 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance, for hard and soft ground types, respectively. Stationary noise sources spread with more spherical dispersion patterns which attenuate at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance, for hard and soft ground types, respectively. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, turbulence, temperature gradients, and humidity may additionally alter the propagation of noise, and affect levels at a receptor. Furthermore, the presence of a large object (barrier) between the source and the receptor can provide significant attenuation of noise levels at the receptor. The amount of noise level reduction or "shielding" provided by a barrier is primarily dependent upon the size of the barrier, the location of the barrier in relation to the source and receptors, and the frequency spectra of the noise. Natural barriers such as berms, hills, or dense woods, and manmade features such as buildings and walls may be used as noise barriers. 20 The intensity of environmental noise changes over time, and several different descriptors of time - averaged noise levels are used. The selection of a proper noise descriptor for a specific source depends on the spatial and temporal distribution, duration, and fluctuation of both the noise source and the environment. The noise descriptors used to describe environmental noise for the proposed project are defined below: • L... (Maximum Noise Level) —The highest A /B /C weighted integrated noise level occurring during a specific period of time. • L. (Statistical Descriptor)—The noise level exceeded n percent of a specific period of time, generally accepted as an hourly statistic. An L,,, would be the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the measurement period. • L, (Equivalent Noise Level) —The energy mean (average) noise level. The steady state sound level which, in a specified period of time contains the same acoustical energy as a varying sound level over the same time period. • CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) —The average sound level over a 24 -hour period, with a penalty of 5 dB added between 7:00 Pm and 10:00 Pat and a penalty of 10 dB added for the nighttime hours of 10:00 Pbt to 7:00 Amt. The CNEL attempts to account for the fact that noise during this specific period of time is a potential source of disturbance with respect to normal sleeping hours. 2° California Department of Transportation, 1 ethnical Noise Supplement (Sacramento, CA, November 2009), p. 2 -39, 40. City of Dublin 55 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND SECTIOR5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final June 2013 ■ SEL (Sound Exposure Level) —'the SEE describes the cumulative exposure to sound energy over a stated period of time. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate energy through that medium; if a vibrating object is massive enough and /or close enough to the observer, its vibrations are perceptible. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured in inches per second and can be represented by vibration decibels (VdB) relative to a reference level of 1 nucro -inch per second (similar to the practice of representing sound decibels relative to the au pressure reference level at the threshold of human hearing). For the protection of buildings from groundborne vibration, Caltrans recommends a limit of 0.5 in /sec peak particle velocity (PPV) for new residential buildings and 0.25 in /sec PPV for older or historically significant buildings.' Setting The project consists of roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements. These improvements would not include land use changes (such as new development) that would generate new sources of noise. The project site is the portion of Dublin Boulevard between Sierra Court /Civic Plaza and Dublin Court. The project site is bordered by urban development to the north and recreational uses to the south. A business park containing commercial and retail uses is adjacent to the project site to the north. Immediately south is the Dublin Sports Grounds, which contains 22.8 acres of recreational uses, including: four baseball diamonds; three softball diamonds; six soccer fields; picnic facilities; and a children's play area. The portion immediately adjacent to the project site contains a surface parking lot with 166 parking spaces and baseball/soccer field. Immediately southeast of the project site, adjacent to Dublin Sports Grounds, is the Dublin Civic Center. The Dublin Civic Center is home to the City's administrative offices and Dublin Police Department. Across the street to the north is a business park with commercial and retail uses. There is a mixed use community with retail and residential uses to the northeast of the project site. The existing noise environment within the proposed project area is dominated by surface- transportation noise emanating from vehicular traffic on Dublin Boulevard. Secondary noise sources include intermittent noise from the Dublin Sports Grounds (people talking and playground noise). An ambient noise survey was conducted in the proposed project area on February 14, 2013. The purpose of the survey was to establish existing noise conditions in the project vicinity. The results of the noise survey are shown in Table NO -1 (Surrunary of Ambient Noise Measurements [Short Term]). Noise level measurements were taken in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards using a Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 820 precision integrating sound level meter (SLM). The SLNI was calibrated before and after use with an LDL Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure that the measurements are accurate. The equipment meets all pertinent specifications of the ANSI for Type 1 SLMs (ANSI S1.4- 1983[R2006]). Figure NO -1 (Ambient Noise Level Survey) shows the locations of the ambient noise measurement sites. 21 California Deparnnenc of Transportation, Transportation and Consinalion- Inducer/ Vibration Guidance Alaiwal (Sacramento, CA, 2004), Table 19, p. 27. Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 56 City of Dublin 1 1 1 I J Final June 2013 SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Table • -1 Summary of • - nt Noise Measurements (Short Term) Less Than A- Weighted Decibel Sound Level(dBA) Location- rime 4a lai L„,r, L. ST -1 Dublin Sports Grounds Parking Lot 4:55 -5:10 PM 70.35 66.01 59.99 91.53 ST -2 Northeast Corner of Dublin Court and Dublin Boulevard 5:11 -5:26 PM 66.31 64.50 60.13 78.00 (approximately 50 feet east of driveway) ❑ ❑ ® El excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ST -3 Southwest Corner of Civic Plaza and Dublin Boulevard 5:30 -5.45 PM 67.43 60.01 76.88 (approximately 50 feet west of intersection) ,68.47 ST -4 Dublin Sports Grounds Soccer Field 7:23 -7:38 AM* 69.20 67.89 61.90 78.2 SOURCE: Data collected by Atkins on February 14, 2013. Len= energy - equivalent noise level; 6.,= maximum noise level; L,;,,= minimum noise level; Lso = noise level exceeded 507. of the time. IRegulatory I I I 1J I City of Dublin City Community Noise Standards City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 5.28 (Noise) states that the making, creation or maintenance of loud, unnecessary, unnatural, unusual or habitual noises which are prolonged, unusual, and unnatural in their tune, place and use affect and are a detriment to the public health, comfort, safety, welfare, and prosperity of the residents of the city. The standards used to determine whether a violation of the ordinance exists are qualitative in nature and include, but are not limited to the following: • The level, intensity, character and duration of the noise • The level, intensity and character of background noise, if any • The time when and the place and zoning district where the noise occurred ■ The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities ■ Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant ' Discussion I 1 The project involves adding additional lanes and other improvements to an existing roadway /right -of- way and would not include land uses that would expose additional noise- sensitive receptors. Demohtion and construction activities necessary to implement the project would generate noise. The Dublin Municipal Code, however, does not contain quantitative noise limits regulating construction noise. Construction noise levels in the project vicinity would fluctuate dependent upon the particular Type, number, and duration of use of the varying equipment because construction noise would depend on the City of Dublin 57 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w /Miligation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ ❑ ® El excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ' Discussion I 1 The project involves adding additional lanes and other improvements to an existing roadway /right -of- way and would not include land uses that would expose additional noise- sensitive receptors. Demohtion and construction activities necessary to implement the project would generate noise. The Dublin Municipal Code, however, does not contain quantitative noise limits regulating construction noise. Construction noise levels in the project vicinity would fluctuate dependent upon the particular Type, number, and duration of use of the varying equipment because construction noise would depend on the City of Dublin 57 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION'S Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final June 2013 construction activities on any given day, noise levels generated by those activities, distances to noise sensitive receptors, and the existing ambient noise environment in the receptor vicinity. Construction generally occurs in several discrete stages, each operation varying the equipment mix, and accordingIV the noise characteristics. "1'he site preparation phase t}'pically generates the most substantial noise levels due to on -site equipment associated with demolition, grading, compacting, and excavation, which utilizes the noisiest construction equipment. Site preparation equipment could include backhoes, bulldozers, loaders, and excavation equipment; such as, graders and scrapers, and compaction equipment. Although a detailed construction equipment list is not currently available, it is expected that the primary sources of noise would include tractors, backhoes, compressors, bulldozers, excavators, and other related equipment. Table NO -2 (Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels) depicts the typical noise levels generated by various Types of construction equipment. Table • EquipmentType Noise1mission Typical Noise Level (di at 50 feet Levels Usage Factor (.) Air Compressor 78 40 Asphalt Paver 77 50 Backhoe 78 40 Compactor 83 20 Concrete Pump 81 20 Concrete Saw 90 20 Dozer 82 40 Front -end Loader 79 40 Generator 81 50 Grader 85 40 Hoe Ram Extension 90 20 Jack Hammer 89 20 Pneumatic Tools 85 50 Scraper 84 40 Trucks 74-81 40 Water Pump 81 50 SOURCE: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances (1971), prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006), prepared by Harris Miller Miller R Hanson Inc. All equipment fitted with a properly maintained and operational noise control device, per manufacturer specifications. Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 58 City of Dublin 1 © co,,. filll U 4 0 a E m i N_ (J N e O h ' final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 Construction equipment can be considered to operate in two modes, mobile and stationary. Mobile equipment sources move around a construction site perfortming tasks in a recurring manner (loaders, ' graders, dozers). Stationary equipment operates in a given location for the duration of activity, and can be operating in a continuous or variable mode. Thus, determining the location of stationary sources during ' pecific phases, or the effective acoustical center of operations for mobile equipment during various phases of the construction process is necessary. Operational characteristics of heavy construction equipment are additionally typified by short periods of full power operation followed by extended periods of operation at lower power, idling, or powered off conditions. To more accurately account for variations in equipment power expenditures, adjustments based on duty cycle applied to reference noise levels in terms of a "usage factor." tOperational noise levels for typical construction activities would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 74 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, and combined noise levels generated by the simultaneous operation of the loudest pieces of equipment would result in noise levels of 88 dBA L,.y, at a distance of 50 feet. The users of the Dublin Sports Grounds would be considered noise sensitive users and would be exposed to noise levels of up to 88 dBA L, Although this receiver represents an area of human use, it is associated with active recreation (baseball and soccer fields) that has only transitory use and would not result in a cumulative amount of time on a daily, weekly, or vearly level that would be considered ' frequent or have detrimental effects on the activities of humans at the receiver location. As such, construction noise would not result in an adverse effect on users of the Dublin Sports Grounds. Construction would occur during the daytime and would proceed along the project alignment, thereby only affecting receptors or groups of receptors over a period of time. Construction noise would not be considered prolonged, unusual, or unnatural in their time or place and would not be a detriment to the public health, comfort, safety, welfare, and prosperity of the residents of the city. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on exposure of persons to or generation of noise. No mitigation is necessary. ' Less Than Potentially Significant less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? rDiscussion Project construction activities with the greatest potential of generating perceptible vibration levels would ' include the removal of existing pavement, concrete, or soil, the movement of heavy equipment, and vibratory compacting of roadway base materials. Equipment anticipated during project construction 1 would include backhoes, excavators, dump trucks, front -end loaders, asphalt pavement grinders, compacting equipment, asphalt pavers, concrete trucks and various passenger vehicles. Vibration levels expected with varying pieces of construction equipment needed during project construction would typically range from 0.003 in /sec PPV to 0.210 in /sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet. Construction activities that generate higher vibration levels, such as impact or vibratory pile driving, ' would not be expected with the project ICity of Dublin 61 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final , June 2013 Project construction activities would typically occur at distances of 30 feet or greater from the nearest sensitive residential structures, located to the northeast of Dublin Court, approximately 150 feet from anticipated construction activities. At this distance, vibration levels would be expected to range from , 0.002 in /sec PPV to 0.160 in /sec PPV and would not exceed the 0.3 in /sec PPV significance criteria. Construction hours are assumed to occur during the daytime only, thus reducing potential for residential annoyance during typical periods of rest or sleep. Therefore, construction activities for the project would ' not result in excessive groundborne vibration at residences in the vicinity, and would have a less-than- significant impact, and no mitigation is necessary. I (c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Discussion Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Miligation Significant No , Impact Incorporated Impact Impact El El During operation, the proposed project would not generate noise levels on -site that would exceed City standards at nearby residential uses. Implementation of the proposed project would not generate noise levels that are greater than what currently exist because the project is an improvement of an existing roadway and would not generate new traffic. The proposed project would not create additional population and would not create additional vehicular traffic in the area, since Dublin Boulevard on both sides of the proposed project already accommodate six lanes of travel. Therefore, traffic - related noise levels would not increase at the proposed project area or within the surrounding community. As such, implementation of the proposed project would result in a no impact Discussion The construction of the project would generate noise, and would temporarily increase noise levels at adjacent residential receptors. Construction equipment would likely include backhoes, excavators, dozers, dump trucks, front -end loaders, scrapers, graders, compacting equipment, asphalt pavers and rollers, and various passenger vehicles. Noise impacts resulting from roadway construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the tithing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially when heavy equipment is used. At times, these activities would occur within approximately 150 feet of residential receivers. Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND 62 City of Dublin I Less Than Potentially Significant less -Than- Significant w /Miligation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ® ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Discussion The construction of the project would generate noise, and would temporarily increase noise levels at adjacent residential receptors. Construction equipment would likely include backhoes, excavators, dozers, dump trucks, front -end loaders, scrapers, graders, compacting equipment, asphalt pavers and rollers, and various passenger vehicles. Noise impacts resulting from roadway construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the tithing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially when heavy equipment is used. At times, these activities would occur within approximately 150 feet of residential receivers. Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND 62 City of Dublin I iFinal SECTION S Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 The highest maximum noise levels generated by project construction would typically range from about 90 to 98 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. Construction - generated noise levels drop off ' at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the source and receptor. Shielding provided by buildings should result in lower construction noise levels at distant receptors. Typical hourly average construction - generated noise levels are about 79 to 88 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the site during busy, construction periods, or approximately 67 to 76 dBA at the residential uses to the northeast of Dublin Court. As shown in Table NO -1, these estimated noise levels are within the range of the measured noise along Dublin Boulevard. Interior noise levels would be as high as 56 dBA inside (assuming the windows are shut). The noise levels would not be considered high enough to potentially interfere with conversation in rooms facing the road. During other construction activities, noise levels would be lower but could still potentially interfere with indoor and outdoor activities. Construction noise impacts often occur when construction activities take place during noise - sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), when construction activities occur immediately adjacent to noise sensitive land uses, or when construction durations last over extended periods of nine. Noise - intensive construction activities are assumed to occur only during daytime hours (e.g., 7:00 AM to 7:00 nil), which would reduce the potential for construction noise impacts. Construction of the planned roadway improvements would result in temporary noise level increases at sensitive receivers along the project alignment. Therefore, the project would have a less- than- signiSeantirnpact on substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. I City of Dublin 63 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Signifcont w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) If 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 the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, there would be no impact with respect to exposure of residents or workers to excessive noise levels. I City of Dublin 63 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts (f) If within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion Final June 2013 Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ The U.S. Army's Camp Parks facility contains a private airstrip located approximately '1.5 miles northeast of the project site. It is an inactive airstrip and is used for intermittent helicopter use onhr." The airstrip is not used for emergency medical evacuations. Use of the airstrip requires 45 days notice prior to use for coordination with local agencies. Operation of helicopters would be required to comply with helicopter safety regulations outline in the Standard Operating Procedure for the facility and federal aviation safety regulations. Therefore, intertr ttent use of the airstrip would not result in excessive noise that would impact construction workers or future users of the roadway. A less- than - significant impact would occur. Discussion The proposed project would not generate any new population in the City as it is an improvement of an existing roadway. The proposed project would not displace housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. U.S. Army. U.S. Armv Garrison Camp Parks Draft DPTMS Standard Operation Procedure #09 -01, hm: /Avww. parks. annv.rnil /training /dots /dpans- sop.pdE (accessed February 72, ?013). Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 64 City of Dublin I Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ❑ ❑ ❑ example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion The proposed project would not generate any new population in the City as it is an improvement of an existing roadway. The proposed project would not displace housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. U.S. Army. U.S. Armv Garrison Camp Parks Draft DPTMS Standard Operation Procedure #09 -01, hm: /Avww. parks. annv.rnil /training /dots /dpans- sop.pdE (accessed February 72, ?013). Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 64 City of Dublin I ' Final June 2013 I SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (i) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion The Alameda County Fire Department would continue to provide fire protection and emergency medical response to the project site. Primary service to the project site would be provided by Station 16, located on 7494 Donohue Drive approximately 1 mile west of the proposed project site. Z' The project would be implemented in compliance with all applicable codes for fire safety and emergency access during construction activities. The proposed project would not generate any new population in the City as it is an improvement of an existing roadway. The proposed project would not impact any performance objective of fire services nor would it result in impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire facilities. No impactwould occur. Less Than ' Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w / Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (ii) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion The proposed project site is located in a developed urban area with existing public services. The proposed project would not require additional police services during operation. Any emergency during construction activities would be served by the Alameda County Sheriffs Department. The Alameda I County Sheriffs Department has a station located at 5672 Stoneridge Drive, approximately, 1.5 miles west of southeast of Dublin Boulevard. The proposed project would not generate any new population in the City as it is an improvement of an existing roadway. The proposed project would not impact any performance objective of police services nor would it result in impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police facilities. No impactwould occur. zT Alameda County Fire Department, Fire Station #16 (2013), http: / /wcvw.acgov.oxg /fire /aUout /stations.htrn (accessed February 12, 2013). City of Dublin 65 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts (iii) Schools? Discussion Final June 2013 Less Than Potentially Significant less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed project would not generate any new population in the City as it is an improvement of an existing roadway. The proposed project would not impact any performance objective of school public services, nor would it result in impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities. No impact would occur. (iv) Parks? Discussion Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Miligation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ A pedestrian path is proposed as part of the project on the Dublin Sports Ground property. The pedestrian path would be a park amenity and would be consistent with the existing recreational land uses. The project would not result in the loss of any existing sports fields or other existing facilities. Additionally, the project would reconfigure the Dublin Sports Ground property to accommodate three additional parking spaces. The construction impacts associated with the new pedestrian path and parking lot reconfiguration are addressed in the other sections of this IS checklist. All impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant impact. Therefore, impacts to parks would be Less than significant. (v) Other public facilities? Discussion Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Thon- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed project would not generate any new population in the City as it is an improvement of an existing roadway. The proposed project would not impact any performance objective of any public services, nor would it result in impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities. No impactwould occur. Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND 66 City of Dublin Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than- Significant /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or ❑ El ❑ other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Discussion The proposed project would not generate any additional population in the City that would use park resources. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project would replace a portion of the sidewalk on the south side of Dublin Boulevard with a pedestrian path on the Dublin Sports Ground property. The path would be a park amenity consistent with the e,- sting recreational land uses. As the pedestrian path enhances an existing pedestrian facility, and is not a destination recreational facility, the path is not anticipated to increase the use of park. The project would not result in the loss of any existing sports fields or other existing facilities. There would be no impact Less Than Potentially Significant less -Thon- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or ❑ ❑ El expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion The proposed project does not include recreational facilities other than the pedestrian path, the effects of which are considered within the context of the overall project. The construction impacts associated with the new pedestrian path are addressed in the other sections of this IS checklist. All impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. Therefore, there would be no impact as a result of construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment that have not been previously analyzed. ' City of Dublin 67 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final ' June 2013 Discussion The proposed project would widen Dublin Boulevard to include three travel lanes in each direction, for a total of six travel lanes as the last phase of the City's plan to widen Dublin Boulevard west of Dougherty Road from four to six lanes. In addition, the proposed project would construct Class II bike lanes, consistent with the City Bikeways Master Plan. The removal of on -street parking along Sahara Market would be consistent with the General Plan, which prohibits parking on arterials. Vehicles exiting a shopping center on the north side of Dublin Boulevard across from the Dublin Sports Grounds are currently allowed to make both left and right turns onto Dublin Boulevard. The proposed project would restrict exiting vehicles to right turns only out of the eastern driveway, and motorists would be required to turn right from the driveway, travel westbound on Dublin Boulevard, and make a U -turn at the intersection of Sierra Court in order to proceed eastbound on Dublin Boulevard. This modification to existing egress would not substantially affect the access for this shopping center. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance, or policy; rather, it would implement completion of the existing plan. The change in access would not substantially affect the performance of the circulation system. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. i (b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Discussion Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The Alameda County Transportation Commission Congestion Management Plan (CMP) is applicable to the proposed project site. The Alameda County CMP was established to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions. Compliance with the CMP requirements ensures a city's eligibility to compete for state gas tax funds for local transportation projects. The Alameda Counh' CMP has a two tier CI\lP network. The Tier 1 Network consists of state highways and roadways that meet the following criteria: must carry 30,000 vehicles per day (average daily 1 P Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND 68 City of Dublin 1 Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- ' Significant /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: , (a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and nonmotorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ' Discussion The proposed project would widen Dublin Boulevard to include three travel lanes in each direction, for a total of six travel lanes as the last phase of the City's plan to widen Dublin Boulevard west of Dougherty Road from four to six lanes. In addition, the proposed project would construct Class II bike lanes, consistent with the City Bikeways Master Plan. The removal of on -street parking along Sahara Market would be consistent with the General Plan, which prohibits parking on arterials. Vehicles exiting a shopping center on the north side of Dublin Boulevard across from the Dublin Sports Grounds are currently allowed to make both left and right turns onto Dublin Boulevard. The proposed project would restrict exiting vehicles to right turns only out of the eastern driveway, and motorists would be required to turn right from the driveway, travel westbound on Dublin Boulevard, and make a U -turn at the intersection of Sierra Court in order to proceed eastbound on Dublin Boulevard. This modification to existing egress would not substantially affect the access for this shopping center. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance, or policy; rather, it would implement completion of the existing plan. The change in access would not substantially affect the performance of the circulation system. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. i (b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Discussion Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The Alameda County Transportation Commission Congestion Management Plan (CMP) is applicable to the proposed project site. The Alameda County CMP was established to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions. Compliance with the CMP requirements ensures a city's eligibility to compete for state gas tax funds for local transportation projects. The Alameda Counh' CMP has a two tier CI\lP network. The Tier 1 Network consists of state highways and roadways that meet the following criteria: must carry 30,000 vehicles per day (average daily 1 P Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND 68 City of Dublin 1 Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 traffic) for at least 1 rnile; must be a roadway with four or more lanes; must be a major cross -town connector, traversing from one side of town to the opposite side; and; must connect at both ends to another CMP route, unless the route terminates at a major activity center. The Tier 2 Network includes roadways that rncer the following criteria: major thoroughfares whose primary function is to link districts within an Alameda County jurisdiction and to distribute traffic from and to the freeways; routes of jurisdiction -wide significance that are not on the existing CMP network; and streets that experience significant conflicts between auto traffic and transit other modes. Dublin Boulevard is a Tier 2 CMP roadway. The City of Dublin strives to phase development and roadway improvements such that level of service (LOS) at all intersections does fall below LOS D. The LOS standard established in the CMP is LOS E, except where LOS F was the level of service when originally measured, in which case the standard shall be 1,2' The proposed Project would not, in itself, create a significant number of new vehicle trips. It would widen an existing roadway and would be expected to improve LOS. Finally, the proposed project would bring Dublin Boulevard into compliance with the CMP. Therefore, there would be no impact ' Discussion fhe U.S. Army's Camp Parks facility contains an airstrip for intermitted helicopter trips located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project site. The proposed project does not include an aviation Less Than component, and would not change air traffic patterns. No impact would occur. Potentially Significant Less -Than- Less Than Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Significant Less -Than- Impact Incorporated Impact Impact w /Mifigation (c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase ❑ ❑ ❑ Impact Incorporated in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial Impact (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp ❑ ❑ safety risks? curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm ' Discussion fhe U.S. Army's Camp Parks facility contains an airstrip for intermitted helicopter trips located The proposed project would widen an existing roadway. In addition to the three travel lanes in each direction, the roadway widening would include bike lanes and sidewalks, including a pedestrian path on the south side. The proposed project would improve safety along Dublin Boulevard by reducing ' congestion and implementing new alternative transportation facilities, including the addition of striped bicycle lanes and an off - street pedestrian trail. The project would implement intersection changes at the Dublin Court /Dublin Boulevard and Sierra Court /Civic Plaza /Dublin Boulevard intersections to mitigate the effect of the median configuration. The prohibition of left turns at the shopping center 2a Alameda County Transportation Cotmnission, Congestion Management Program (December 2011). ' City of Dublin 69 Dublin Boulevard widening Project MND approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project site. The proposed project does not include an aviation component, and would not change air traffic patterns. No impact would occur. ' Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mifigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp ❑ ❑ ❑ curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Discussion The proposed project would widen an existing roadway. In addition to the three travel lanes in each direction, the roadway widening would include bike lanes and sidewalks, including a pedestrian path on the south side. The proposed project would improve safety along Dublin Boulevard by reducing ' congestion and implementing new alternative transportation facilities, including the addition of striped bicycle lanes and an off - street pedestrian trail. The project would implement intersection changes at the Dublin Court /Dublin Boulevard and Sierra Court /Civic Plaza /Dublin Boulevard intersections to mitigate the effect of the median configuration. The prohibition of left turns at the shopping center 2a Alameda County Transportation Cotmnission, Congestion Management Program (December 2011). ' City of Dublin 69 Dublin Boulevard widening Project MND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final June 2013 driveway would not create a hazard, as motorists would be allowed to make a U -turn at Siena Court in order to proceed east on Dublin Boulevard. The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards, and there would be no impact Discussion The proposed project could temporarily affect access to properties or roadways during construction actix -itics with lane and sidewalk closures. However, Dublin Boulevard would remain open at all tines to provide access to the surrounding businesses and neighborhoods-. During construction, the City Engineer may designate persons to regulate traffic at the site of construction in accordance with City Municipal Code Section 6.04.140. Restriction of egress from the shopping center across from the Dublin Sports Grounds to right turn only onto westbound Dublin Boulevard would not adversely affect emergency access. The proposed project would widen an existing roadway, and construction and operation activities for the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. This impact would be considered less than significant (f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Discussion Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No , Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ As part of the proposed project a new striped bicycle lane would be constructed on each side of Dublin Boulevard. Sidewalks removed during construction would be replaced, including a pedestrian hail though the Dublin Sports Grounds. The bicycle lanes were identified as a study area in the Dublin Bikeways Master Plan because the arterial carries high volumes of traffic but currently has limited bicycle facilities.'' The proposed project would be developed in accordance with the Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, and the proposed project would enhance the safety for pedestrians and cyclists utilizing the project segment of Dublin Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities; rather, it would comply with adopted policies. Therefore, there would be no impact. 25 City of Dubhn, Cite of Dublin Bikemcr�r [lamer Plan (June 2007). {n LI Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 70 City of Dublin ' Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Miligation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion The proposed project could temporarily affect access to properties or roadways during construction actix -itics with lane and sidewalk closures. However, Dublin Boulevard would remain open at all tines to provide access to the surrounding businesses and neighborhoods-. During construction, the City Engineer may designate persons to regulate traffic at the site of construction in accordance with City Municipal Code Section 6.04.140. Restriction of egress from the shopping center across from the Dublin Sports Grounds to right turn only onto westbound Dublin Boulevard would not adversely affect emergency access. The proposed project would widen an existing roadway, and construction and operation activities for the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. This impact would be considered less than significant (f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Discussion Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No , Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ As part of the proposed project a new striped bicycle lane would be constructed on each side of Dublin Boulevard. Sidewalks removed during construction would be replaced, including a pedestrian hail though the Dublin Sports Grounds. The bicycle lanes were identified as a study area in the Dublin Bikeways Master Plan because the arterial carries high volumes of traffic but currently has limited bicycle facilities.'' The proposed project would be developed in accordance with the Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, and the proposed project would enhance the safety for pedestrians and cyclists utilizing the project segment of Dublin Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities; rather, it would comply with adopted policies. Therefore, there would be no impact. 25 City of Dubhn, Cite of Dublin Bikemcr�r [lamer Plan (June 2007). {n LI Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 70 City of Dublin ' ' Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 1 iDiscussion The proposed project would widen an existing roadway and would not significant alter drainage from ' Dublin Boulevard (refer to Section IY [Hydrology /Water Quality]). The effects of construction of drainage facilities associated with the Dublin Boulevard widening, such as curbs and the bioretention area on the pedestrian path, are analyzed in the other sections to this IS as part of the overall project. There would be no impact with respect to construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities that have not been analyzed in this IS. ;1 r1 ' City of Dublin 71 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant ./Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ El Regional Water Quality Control Board? (b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Discussion The proposed project would not increase capacity or population on Dublin Boulevard. It would widen an existing roadway and would not significantly alter drainage from Dublin Boulevard (refer to Section IX [Hydrology /Water Quality]). In addition, construction - related wastewater would be subject to the requirements enforced by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, and, therefore, there would be no impact Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No I mpoot Incorporated Impact Impact (c) 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? iDiscussion The proposed project would widen an existing roadway and would not significant alter drainage from ' Dublin Boulevard (refer to Section IY [Hydrology /Water Quality]). The effects of construction of drainage facilities associated with the Dublin Boulevard widening, such as curbs and the bioretention area on the pedestrian path, are analyzed in the other sections to this IS as part of the overall project. There would be no impact with respect to construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities that have not been analyzed in this IS. ;1 r1 ' City of Dublin 71 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final , June 2013 Discussion The proposed project would not require water supply or additional wastewater treannent during operation of the proposed project. No impactwould occur. Less Than Less Than Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Less -Than- ./Mitigation Significant Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ El ❑ existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that ❑ El ❑ serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Discussion The proposed project would not require water supply or additional wastewater treannent during operation of the proposed project. No impactwould occur. Discussion Operation of the proposed project would not result in measurable increases in solid waste. Construction of the proposed project would produce construction- related solid waste. Solid waste from the Cih' of Dublin is deposited at the rlltamont Landfill. The landfill operator anticipates that the landfill will have disposal capacity through year 2045.26 Therefore, this landfill would adequately serve construction - related solid waste from the proposed project. This impact would be less than significant Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant ./Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to E] El accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Discussion Operation of the proposed project would not result in measurable increases in solid waste. Construction of the proposed project would produce construction- related solid waste. Solid waste from the Cih' of Dublin is deposited at the rlltamont Landfill. The landfill operator anticipates that the landfill will have disposal capacity through year 2045.26 Therefore, this landfill would adequately serve construction - related solid waste from the proposed project. This impact would be less than significant Discussion Operation of the proposed project would not produce any solid waste requiring accommodation by a landfill. Construction of the proposed project would produce construction related solid waste. The proposed project would be required to adhere to all applicable federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. Construction does not involve any unusual circumstances that would prevent the project from meeting applicable regulations. Therefore, project impacts regarding compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste would be less than significant. 2r' waste Management, Altamont Landfill— Sustavtability (2013), litil2: //alt,qmontlandfill.NN,in.com/stistaiiiqbditl -/nidex.is� (accessed Februan} 13, 2013). Dublin Boulevard widening Project MIND 72 City of Dublin , Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Thon- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion Operation of the proposed project would not produce any solid waste requiring accommodation by a landfill. Construction of the proposed project would produce construction related solid waste. The proposed project would be required to adhere to all applicable federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. Construction does not involve any unusual circumstances that would prevent the project from meeting applicable regulations. Therefore, project impacts regarding compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste would be less than significant. 2r' waste Management, Altamont Landfill— Sustavtability (2013), litil2: //alt,qmontlandfill.NN,in.com/stistaiiiqbditl -/nidex.is� (accessed Februan} 13, 2013). Dublin Boulevard widening Project MIND 72 City of Dublin , ' Final SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts June 2013 11 1 1 i I� IJ (h) Require or result in the construction of new energy production or transmission facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact? Discussion Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigalion Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The proposed project would widen an existing roadway and operation of the proposed project would not require any new energy, uses. It would not require or result in the construction of new energy, production or transmission facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact. No impactwould occur. Discussion Implementation of the proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. The project site is urbanized, and while it does provide habitat for nesting birds, mitigation has been identified to reduce impacts. Although the possibility exists for unknown archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains to be uncovered during excavation and grading activities, the proposed project includes mitigation measures that would reduce any potential impacts associated with cultural resources. As a result, impacts would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures beyond those already identified would be required. City of Dublin 73 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Thon- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Discussion Implementation of the proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. The project site is urbanized, and while it does provide habitat for nesting birds, mitigation has been identified to reduce impacts. Although the possibility exists for unknown archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains to be uncovered during excavation and grading activities, the proposed project includes mitigation measures that would reduce any potential impacts associated with cultural resources. As a result, impacts would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures beyond those already identified would be required. City of Dublin 73 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 5 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Final June 2013 Discussion , The proposed project would widen an -existing roadway that will improve safety, and vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. The proposed project would not result in any new land uses, displace any existing land uses, or generate new population or vehicular nips in the City. Therefore, operational cumulative impacts are not anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Due to the limited disturbance area and construction effort required for the project, cumulative construction impacts would be limited ' to the area immediately surrounding the project site. The area surrounding the project site is primarily built -out and no projects are currently proposed in the untiediate vicinity of the project site, with the exception of the Tralce project located at 6617 Dublin Boulevard at Dougherty Road.' However, major construction activities with the potential to result in cumulative construction impacts, such as mass grading, have been completed for the project. Construction of the commercial and mixed use development has been completed for the project and only building construction for 103 townhome units ' remains. Additionally, it is that assumed construction impacts associated with this cumulative project would be minimized on -site in order to avoid impacts to existing Tralce condominium residents. As ' discussed in the previous section, all construction impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant, or reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. "Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- , Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Discussion ' Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Soil disturbance activities associated with development of the proposed project could result in the exposure of construction personnel and the , public to previously unidentified hazardous substances; however, implementation mitigation measure MM -HAZ -1 would ensure that in the event that unknown contatmination is encountered during ' construction of the proposed project, work would be halted and remediation of contaminated soils would be required prior to recornmencement of project construction. With implementation of mitigation measure Ml\4- HAZ -1, a less - than - significant impact would occur. ' c % City of Dublin, ComTnercial and Residential Project List (November 27, 2012). Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 74 City of Dublin ' Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- Significant w /Mitigation Significant No (b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but Impact ❑ Incorporated El Impact ® Impact ❑ , cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of , other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) ? Discussion , The proposed project would widen an -existing roadway that will improve safety, and vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. The proposed project would not result in any new land uses, displace any existing land uses, or generate new population or vehicular nips in the City. Therefore, operational cumulative impacts are not anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Due to the limited disturbance area and construction effort required for the project, cumulative construction impacts would be limited ' to the area immediately surrounding the project site. The area surrounding the project site is primarily built -out and no projects are currently proposed in the untiediate vicinity of the project site, with the exception of the Tralce project located at 6617 Dublin Boulevard at Dougherty Road.' However, major construction activities with the potential to result in cumulative construction impacts, such as mass grading, have been completed for the project. Construction of the commercial and mixed use development has been completed for the project and only building construction for 103 townhome units ' remains. Additionally, it is that assumed construction impacts associated with this cumulative project would be minimized on -site in order to avoid impacts to existing Tralce condominium residents. As ' discussed in the previous section, all construction impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant, or reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. "Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Potentially Significant Less -Than- , Significant w /Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Discussion ' Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Soil disturbance activities associated with development of the proposed project could result in the exposure of construction personnel and the , public to previously unidentified hazardous substances; however, implementation mitigation measure MM -HAZ -1 would ensure that in the event that unknown contatmination is encountered during ' construction of the proposed project, work would be halted and remediation of contaminated soils would be required prior to recornmencement of project construction. With implementation of mitigation measure Ml\4- HAZ -1, a less - than - significant impact would occur. ' c % City of Dublin, ComTnercial and Residential Project List (November 27, 2012). Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 74 City of Dublin ' Final SECTION 6 References June 2013 SECTION 6. References Alameda County Transportation Commission. Congestion Management Program, December 2011. Alameda County Fire Department. Fire Station #16 (2013). http: / /Nvwu,.acgox,.org /fire /about /stations.htin (accessed February 12, 2013). Association of Bay Area Governments. Dam Failure Inundation I- lizard Map for Dublin. htti2://xx�x,\v.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickd2i-i-ix.12. . Earthquake and Hazards Information. Earthquake Liquefaction Susceptibility Interactive Map, 2011. htcn: /quake.abag.ca.gov /liquefaction. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Earthquake Program. ABAG Earthquake Shaking Scenario Maps, 2010. ht1p: / /quake.abag.ca.gov. Atkins. California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Records Search Results, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands Database Search Result and Sensitivity Designations for the Dublin Boulevard Roadway Widening Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California, February 20, 2013. California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement. Sacramento, CA, November 2009. . Traneportation and Construction- Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. Sacramento, CA, 2004. California Division of Mines and Geology. State of California Special Studies Zones. Dublin Quadrangle, Revised Official Map Effective January 1, 1982. California Geological Survey. 2010 Fault Activity Map of California. httn: / /www. quake. ca.gov /gmans /FAM / faultactix itymap.html. ' Geologic Map of the San Francisco -San Jose Quadrangle, -http.://xvww.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/RGM/sfsj/sfsj.hti-nl. . Seismic Hatard Zone Report for the Dublin 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Alameda Count' California. CGS Seismic Hazard Zone Report 112, Plate 1.2, 200& htt_p: / /gmw.consn,.ca.gov /shmp /download /evatrpt /dub eval.pdf. Dublin, City of. City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, June 2007. City of Dublin General Plan, Updated March 23, 2012. Commercial and Residential Project List, November 27, 2012. Egan, M.D. Concepts in ArchitecturalAcousties. McGraw -Hill, Inc., 1972. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Alameda County, California. Map Number 06001C0308G, Effective August 3, 2009. Geotracker. Database search. htthtt _ps: / / / /geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov (accessed February 12, 2013). City of Dublin 75 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 6 References Final , June 2013 Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Sunrey. Soil blap— rllameda Area, California, http : / /websoisun,ev.nres.usda.gov. U.S. Army. U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks Draft DPTMS Standard Operation Procedure #09 -01. htg2: / /vvxvw.parks.arnay.mil /training dots /dptms- soPpdf (accessed Februar�r 12, 2013). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Semite. SoilSan)9,Alaweda Area, California, Alarch 1966. Waste Management 2013. Altamont Landfill— Sustainability. htt o:// altamondandfill .wm.com /sustainability /index.js2 (accessed February 13, 2013). Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND 76 City of Dublin , I 11, [1 1 l I Final SECTION 7 Mitigation Monitoring Program June 2013 SECTION I Introduction SECTION 7. Mitigation Monitoring Program INTRODUCTION This section reflects the Mitigation Monitoring Program (NIMP) requirements of Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097 states: ... In order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the EIR or negative declaration are implemented, the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. A public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private end", which accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been completed the lead agency remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program. II. ENFORCEMENT In accordance with CEQA, the primary responsibility for making determinations with respect to potential environmental effects rests with the lead agency rather than the Monitor or prepater. As such, the City of Dublin is identified as the enforcement agency for this Mitigation Monitoring Program. III. PROGRAM MODIFICATION After review and approval by the lead agency, minor changes to the MMP are permitted but can only be made by the City. No deviations from this MMP shall he permitted unless it continues to satisfy the requirements of PRC Section 21081.6, as determined by the lead agency. IV. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MATRIX The organization of the MMP follows the subsection formatting style as presented within the Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND (Sections 1 through 6). Table 7 -1 (Mitigation Monitoring Program Matrix) sets forth the impacts and corresponding mitigation measures, along with the timing and entities responsible for implementation. City of Dublin 77 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MND SECTION 7 Mitigation Monitoring Program SECTION IV Mitigation Monitoring Program Matrix Final June 2013 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MM BIO.1 Construction of the proposed project Plan check During City Planning must avoid the February 1 through August 31 bird and construction nesting season to the extent feasible. If it is not construction feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for documents nesting birds must be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 14 days before construction. The area surveyed must include all clearing /construction areas, as well as areas within 250 feet of the boundaries of these areas, or as otherwise determined by the project biologist. If no active avian nests are identified on or within 250 feet of the limits of the proposed disturbance area, no further mitigation is necessary. If active nests are found within 250 feet of the proposed disturbance area, clearing /construction activities must be postponed within 250 feet of the nest until a wildlife biologist has identified the nesting avian species. If the avian species is not protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Code, no further action is required and construction activities may proceed. If the avian species is protected under the META or the CDFW Code. no action other than avoidance of the active nest(s) may be taken without consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. In addition, a minimum 100 -foot buffer zone surrounding the active nest(s) must be established until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts, as determined by the wildlife biologist. The size of the buffer area may be reduced if the wildlife biologist determines, upon consultation and concurrence from the CDFW, that the size of the buffer area would not be likely to have adverse effects on the particular species. Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND 78 City of Dublin 1 1 1 1 Final June 2013 SECTION 7 Mitigation Monitoring Program SECTION IV Mitigation Monitoring Program Matrix CULTURAL RESOURCES MM CR -1 If evidence of a prehistoric or historic age Monitoring During City Planning archaeological resource is detected during project- during construction related ground- disturbing activities, all ground- construction if disturbing activity shall be halted within 100 feet of needed the find and the City of Dublin shall be notified. An archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A -L) form(s) and filed with the NWIC. If the resources are recommended to be non- significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are recommended as potentially significant or eligible for the CRHR, they will be avoided. If avoidance is not feasible, project impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the evaluating archaeologist and CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 (b)(3)(C), which require development and implementation of a data recovery plan that would include recommendations for the treatment of the discovered archaeological materials. The data recovery plan will be submitted to the City of Dublin for review and approval. Upon approval and completion of the data recovery program, project construction activity within the area of the find may resume, and the archaeologist will prepare a report documenting the methods and findings. The report will be submitted to the City of Dublin. Once the report is reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin, a copy of the report will be submitted to the NWIC. MM CR -2 Should paleontological resources (i.e., Monitoring During City Planning fossil remains) be identified during project - related during construction ground- disturbing activities, all ground- disturbing construction if activity shall be halted within 100 feet of the find needed and the City of Dublin shall be notified. A qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find and to provide recommendations for the treatment of the discovered paleontological materials. In considering the treatment proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the City of Dublin shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, applicable regulations, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., monitoring and/or data recovery) shall be instituted. City of Dublin 79 Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND SECTION 7 Mitigation Monitoring Program SECTION IV Mitigation Monitoring Program Matrix Final June 2013 HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MM HAZ -1 In the event that previously unknown or Monitoring During Applicant; City unidentified soil and/or groundwater contamination during construction Building and that could present a threat to human health or the construction as Safety environment is encountered during construction in needed; the project area, construction activities in the approval of immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease Risk immediately. If contamination is encountered, a Management Risk Management Plan shall be prepared and Plan if needed implemented that (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post - development and (2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers, and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long -term monitoring, post - development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be notified (e g., Alameda County Fire Department). If needed, a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area. Dublin Boulevard Widening Project MIND 80 City of Dublin FJ ' Appendix A Cultural Records Search Results I I I I 1 1 I I ATKINS Atkins North America, Inc. ' � 475 Ransomed Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94111 -3164 Telephone: +1.415.362.1500 Fax +1.415.362.1954 ' w .atkinsglobal.com /northamerica February 20, 2013 ' Ferd del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza ' Dublin, California 94568 Subject: California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Records Search Results, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands Database Search Results and Sensitivity Designations for the Dublin Boulevard Roadway Widening Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. Dear Mr. del Rosario: Atkins has completed a CHRIS records search for the proposed Dublin Boulevard Roadway ' Widening project located in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. The project area is located within an unplatted portion of Township 3 South, Ranges 1 West and 1 East as found on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Dublin 7.5- minute topographic quadrangle. The record search was conducted on January 10, 2013 by Atkins Archaeologist Lora Holland, M.A., RPA at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) located at Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. The search included a review of previously documented resources and surveys for the project area and all lands within a 0.50 -mile radius. The search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory (OH -HPD), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), California Points of Historical Interest (CHPI), and historic maps. The results of the records search indicated that no cultural resources have been recorded within ' the project area, and that a total of three resources are known within the 0.50 -mile search radius. The previously recorded resources consist of historic age structures and features. Two of the previously recorded resources are administrative buildings and warehouses associated ' with the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (P -01- 010456 and P -01- 010489). All the buildings were constructed in the early to mid- 1950s. The third previously recorded resource is the Southern Pacific Railroad Dumbarton Cutoff (P- 01- 01783/P -41- 001877). Constructed between ' 1907 and 1910, the cutoff linked the Sunset route with Ogden and Shasta railroad lines. These previously recorded resources and their location relative to the project area are outlined in Table 1 below. n J I Ferd del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer February 20, 2013 Page 2 of 5 I ATKINS i Table 1: Known Cultural Resources within the 0.50 -Mile Records Search Radius Site Number/ Review 1878 Thompson and West Map This map depicts a road similar to the present day alignment of Dublin OH -HPD Within —0.5- Within Within Property map. No structures are depicted within the project area. mile to 0.25- —0.25 -mile Project Number Resource Description mile Radius Radius Area? P- 01- 01783/P- Historic age — Southern Pacific Railroad Dumbarton - -- No 41- 001877 Cutoff. This railroad line was constructed between 1907 and 1910, and linked the Sunset Route (San Francisco - New Orleans) with the Ogden and Shasta lines. This resource has been recommended as eligible for the NRHP at the local level under criteria A, B and C. Historic age — Six administrative buildings constructed - -- No P -01- 010456 between 1952 and 1957. These administrative buildings were part of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. All six buildings have been recommended as ineligible for the NRHP. P -01- 010489 Historic age — Three warehouses constructed in the - -- No early 1950s. The warehouses were part of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. All three buildings have been recommended as ineligible for the NRHP. Ten area - specific cultural resource reports are on -file with the NW IC for the 0.50 -mile search radius. Two of these studies addressed 100 percent of the project area through record searches and pedestrian surveys (Archaeological Services, Inc. 1988 and WSA 2000). Both surveys specifically addressed improvements and widening of the Dublin Boulevard Roadway. The 2000 survey covered the western half of the project area, while the 1988 survey covered the entire project area. Both studies resulted in negative findings for cultural resources. During the records search, archival maps were reviewed for the presence of historic age structures and development within the project area and the general vicinity. The results of this review are presented below in Table 2, and assist in determining the probability for encountering historic age resources during project implementation. Archival maps can also provide insight about historic -era land use patterns. Table 2: Archival Topographic Map Review Map Name and Date Review 1878 Thompson and West Map This map depicts a road similar to the present day alignment of Dublin Boulevard in the project area. No structures are depicted within the project area. 1953 USGS Dublin, CA 7.5- minute This depicts the same road and alignment as the 1878 Thompson and West map map. No structures are depicted within the project area. Native American Heritage Commission Record Search Atkins requested a search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) on February 8, 2013 to determine if any Native American cultural resources are present within or near the vicinity of the proposed project area. As of the date of this report, no response has been received from the NAHC. 11 1 1 11 [1 IJ I 1 Ferd del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer /�TKI N S February 20, 2013 Page 3 of 5 Summary and Recommendations The results of the CHRIS records search indicated that no known and previously recorded cultural resources are located in the project area and the project area has been previously surveyed twice for the presence or absence of observable cultural resources (Archaeological Services, Inc. 1988 and WSA 2000). These studies had negative findings within the Dublin Boulevard Roadway Widening project area. In addition, the CHRIS search revealed that three resources are known within the 0.50 -mile search radius, including historic age buildings and a railroad cutoff. These known and previously recorded resources are located more than 0.25 - mile from the project area and would not be impacted by the proposed project. Based upon the results of the NW IC record search, the archival topographic map review, and the disturbed nature of the project area soils due to previous road development, the project area is considered to have a low sensitivity for cultural resources. Historical and Archaeological Resources No known historical or archaeological resources are known within the project area, and the probability for encountering intact, significant subsurface archaeological resources is considered low in previously disturbed soils. For these reasons, a mitigation- monitoring program is not recommended during project implementation. Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources It is always possible that ground- disturbing activities may uncover presently obscured or buried and previously unknown cultural resources. In the event that construction activities occur within previously undisturbed soils and buried cultural resources are discovered, such resources could be damaged or destroyed, potentially resulting in significant impacts to cultural resources. If subsurface cultural resources are encountered during construction, if evidence of an archaeological site or if other suspected historic resources are encountered, it is recommended that all ground- disturbing activity cease within 100 feet of the resource. A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to assess the find, and to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archeological personnel shall assist the Lead Agency by generating measures to protect the discovered resources. Potentially significant cultural resources could consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, fossils, wood or shell artifacts or features, including structural remains, historic dumpsites, hearths and middens. Midden features are characterized by darkened soil, and could conceal material remains, including worked stone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials and special attention should always be paid to uncharacteristic soil color changes. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction should be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect the resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Lead Agency where they would be afforded long -term preservation to allow future scientific study. Human Remains There are no known formal cemeteries present within the project area, and the results of the CHRIS records search did not indicate that human remains were present at any of the Ferd del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer February 20, 2013 Page 4 of 5 [1 ATKINS I previously recorded cultural resource sites. However, there is the possibility that ground - disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown and buried human remains. Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains If human remains are discovered during any phase of construction, including disarticulated or cremated remains, all ground- disturbing activities should cease within 100 feet of the remains California State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. is further recommended that a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant (MILD), if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, a professional archaeologist may provide technical assistance to the MLD, including but not limited to, the excavation and removal of the human remains. Please feel free to contact us at 1.415.362.1500 if you have any questions, or if Atkins can provide additional assistance regarding cultural resource management issues. III ,u , Lora Holland, M.A., RPA Archaeologist /Scientist I Attachment A: Project Area Topographic Map Project Area Aerial Map References Archaeological Services, Inc. 1988. Cultural Survey for Proposed Improvements to Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California. Report on -file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California. William Self Associates (WSA). 2000. Negative Archaeological Survey Report, Dublin Boulevard Widening Project, Alameda County, California. Report on -file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California. I I I 1 I I I I I I I I Attachment A Project Area Topographic Map Project Area Aerial Map J i _ OA .i � .. gal -L aw 1b, .� 1,500 Feet 1 in 1 000 feet a U - L'i A — I —w� ( R c� M . (AMADpj �a n R*mon - A,` r 4 .� Yot d A • , 4 4 _ } .. t� f "` s i X J F,4 sit am :.r.w;• �" •T�t F i 328 i 1 w i y a �. � •ice• SSW 10 0 r $�•4A { � � «� � ��' �.. ..s�....,•�.°'. v VABM 4 . A A, 662 . . �, � ( l a • r ( 1 z O .. ��..._ •`� ems., t. �,: �M x, � .� 1... - -` G 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 3 �"•4 ° �� Feet 1'n 2,000feet .N / D Project Area Source: Dublin 7.5 USGS Topographic Map -� ATKINS Dublin Boulevard Widening Project Area 100031897