Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 NegDecl DubBlWidCITY CLERK FILE # 820-90 · AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 21, 1999 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Negative Declaration for Dublin Boulevard Widening Project between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive, Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) Resolution adopting Negative Declaration Notice of Public Review of Negative Declaration and Notice of Public Hearing Negative Declaration Location Map RECOMMENDATION: 1 ) 3) '4) Open Public Hearing Receive Staff presentation and public testimony Close public hearing and deliberate Adopt Resolution adopting Negative Declaration for Dublin Boulevard Widening' between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive FINANCIAL STATEMENT: There is no financial impact associated with adoption of the Negative Declaration for the project. DESCRIPTION: The proposed project encompasses the widening of Dublin. Boulevard from two lines to six lanes between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive. The widening of Dublin Boulevard is part of the planned Eastern Dublin road system designed to provide convenient traffic movement between eastern Dublin and the existing Dublin community. Widening would take place on the south side of the street where portions of three parcels need to be acquired to widen the street. The:prOject also proposes the construction of bicycle lanes on both sides of Dublin Boulevard and installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive. Trees will be planted along the south sidewalk area (similar to existing trees along the north side) and the median landscaped. Consmlction of the project is scheduled to start in Spring 2000 with completion anticipated for September. G:Xmiscproj\dublin dough-scarXagstnegdec.doc COPIES TO: ITEM NO. The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Dublin environmental Guidelines. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and mitigation measures have been included. Impacts cited in the environmental document include the potential presence of hazardous materials in the three properties to be acquired by the City. To mitigate this impact, a Phase I Environmental Assessment is being prepared by the City to assess the presence of hazardous substances within the properties or potential contamination from other properties. Any recommendations made in the assessment report shall become conditions of project approval. Other minor impacts include short-term localized increases in dust and noise during the construction phase. Twice-daily watering and/or sweeping of affected construction surfaces shall occur throughout the construction phase to minimize these impacts. No written comments have been received to the date of this writing on the draft Negative Declaration. Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and approve the resolution adopting the Negative Declaration for the Dublin Boulevard Widening Project between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive. -2- RESOLUTION NO. -99 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DUBLIN BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN DOUGHERTY ROAD AND SCARLETT DRIVE WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has planned to widen Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive; and WHEREAS, the widening of Dublin Boulevard is part of the planned Eastern Dublin road system designed to provide convenient traffic movement between eastern Dublin and the existing Dublin community; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Boulevard widening project between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive is included in the 1998-2003 City of Dublin Capital Improvement Program; and , WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project and mitigation measures have been included; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has issued a notice of public review of Negative Declaration and notice of public hearing regarding the project, and the City of Dublin has conducted the public hearing on September 21, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has considered the mitigated Negative Declaration and comments received during the public review period. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration for the Dublin Boulevard Widening Project between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21th day of September, 1999. AYES: NOES: AB SENT: ABSTAINING: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF DUBLIN Re. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Dublin PROPOSES TO ADOPT A Negative Declaration, and the City Council will hold a public hearing for the following project: PROJECT: Dublin Boulevard Widening LOCATION: Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive APPLICANT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: City of Dublin The proposed project encompasses the widening of Dublin Boulevard from two lanes to six lanes between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive. Widening would take place on the south side of the street where portions of three parcels need to be acquired to widen the street. The project also proposes the construction of bicycle lanes on both sides of Dublin Boulevard and installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive. Trees wilt be planted along the south sidewalk area (similar to existing trees along the north side) and the median island landscaped. Construction of the project is scheduled to start in Spring 2000 with completion anticipated for September. The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been included in this project. Copies of the draft Negative Declaration are available for public review at the City of Dublin Planning Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California, Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. The City will accept comments on the draft Negative Declaration through September 21, 1999. The public hearing on this item will be held on the following date: CITY COUNCIL: September 21, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. in the DUblin Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin Any interested person(s) may appear and be heard on this matter. tf you challenge the above-described action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Dubiin at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you have any questions regarding this project, contact the Pubiic Works Department or call (925) 833-6630. Dated: August 18, 1999 g:miscproj\dbw-dougherty sierra\negdecnotice.doc Lee S. Th'~ssh, Public(IA/orks Director Administration (925)833-6650 o City Council (925)833-6605 · Finance {925) Code =nforcement (925)833-6620 o Engineering (~25)833-6630 · Par: =_conomic Development (925) 833°6650 o Police (925~ 833-657r Ccmmuni'o.' Deveiopmem ,z925; 83S-6610 - Fire -'~reventi, NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Prepared pursuant to City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, Section 1.7(c), 5.5) Description of Project: The project will widen Dublin Boulevard from Dougherty Road easterly to Scadett Drive on the south side of the street. Acquisition of lands, either by purchase or eminent domain, will be required for widening of the roadway. In addition, a portion of one existing building will also be removed. Project Location: The south side of Dublin Boulevard from west of Dougherty Road easterly to Scarlett Drive. Name of Proponents: City of Dublin, Public Works Department; 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 I hereby find that the above project will not' have a significant adverse effect on the environment- Attached is a copy of the Initial Study ("Environmental Information Form" and ~ .~:-." ~ ~,~ ,? _~. Dated: August 16, 1999 ~--~e S. Tho~o~, Direc~r of Public Works Attachments G :\PA96043\ND City of Dublin Environmental Checklist Form Initial Study 1. Project title: Dublin Boulevard Widening - DouEherty Road to Scarlett Drive: Capital Improvement Project (C]2P) No. 96890 2. Lead agency name and address: Citv of Dublin. Public Works Department - ] 00 Civic PlEa, Dublin, CA 94568 3. Contact person and phone number: Lee Thompson. Director of Public Works: 925/833-6630 4. Project location: Drive South side of Dubtin Boulevard from west of DouEhem, Road easterly to Scarlett 5, 'Assessors Parcel Number(s): N/A 6. Project sponsor's name and address: Citv of Dublin. Public Works Department: 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin. CA 94568 7. GeneraI Plan designation: N/A 9. Specific Plan designation: N/A 8. Zoning: N/A 10. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) This project will ~xdden the south side of Dublin Boulevard from Dou_~hertv Road easte~v to Scafiett Drive. Acouisition of lands. either bv purchase or eminent domain. will be reouired for construction of the roadways. In addition. a portion of one existing building will be removed. Please refer to Dame ] 8 for additional Droiec~ information. 11. Surrounding Iand uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Please refer to Da_c,e ] 8. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agT~eement.) - Dublin-San Ram on Services District · Alameda Coumy Public Works Department EINWIRONNIENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. V']Aesthetics "]Agri culture Resources V"] Air Quality W']Biological Resources V~Cultural Resources [~ Geology /Soils W']Hazards & Hazardous Materials V'~ Hydrology / Water Quality V"] Land Use / Planning W't Mineral Resources ['~Noise "]Population / Housing W'~Public Services Utilities / Service Systems ["~Recreation [~Mandatory Findings of Significance ~'~TransportationFrraffic DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a N'EGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~ I find that although the proposed proj e~ 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 I~TIGATED hrEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. find that the proposed project IvL4~Y have a si_m'fificant effect on the environment, and an EN'V!RO!N~_IENTAL IiVIPACT REPORT is required. F"[ I find that the proposed project NLA~Y have a "potentially sig-nificant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately 2 analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed ~ mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENWIRONMENTAL IM2PACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. O I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or h~EGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are ' }¢9osed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ,, . I f 7 "S~gnature ~-__,_j ~/ Date ~ / Lee Thompson. Director of Public Works Printed name EV,M_,UATION OF ENVIRO~NTAL/MPACTS: 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) ,~dI 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 sig~h3cant. "Potentially Si=omificant impact" is appropriate ff there is substantial evidence that an effect may be sigr~ificant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Sigrificant With Mitigation incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly 5) 6) 7) explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EI2P,, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed i'n an earlier EIX or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)CD). 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 which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 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. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 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 are relevant to project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than sig~ficance. Environmental Impacts. The source of determination is listed in parenthesis. See listing of sourct~ used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist. A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist !- AESTHETICS - Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant SiCcant Significant Impact Impact ~4th Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 1, 3) X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not Iimited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1, 3) X c) Substantially degrade the existing v~sual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 3) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 9) II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to a~_c~ricultural 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. Would the project: a) 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 non-agricukurat use? (Source: 9) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 9) X X X X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Source: 9) 15121. AIR OUALITY - 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 plan?(Source: 2) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality · ' violation? (Source: 2) c) Result in a cumulativety considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source: 2) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substamial pollutant concentrations?(Source: 2) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?(Source: 9) Potentially Si~-mificant Impact Significant ~tll Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Impact X X X X X X 6 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Impact BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -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 redonat plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sendee? (Source: 2) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habkat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, re:-mlations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Sendee? (Source: 2 ) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act- (includin~ but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrolo~cal interruption, or other means? (Source: 2) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or mig-ratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2) e) Conflict with an5, local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source: 2) ~ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 2) X X X X X X ~/ 1 V. CULTUK4,L RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? (Source: 9) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the si~cmificance of an archaeolo~cal resource pursuant to § 15064.5? (Source: 9) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 9) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source: 9) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effe~s, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a 'known earthquake fauk, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a 'known fault? Refdr to Division of Mines and GeoloD, Special Publication 42. (Source: 2) ii) Strong seismic g-round shaking? (Source: 2) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation X Less Than Significant Impact Impact X X X X iii) Seismic-related ~ound failure, including liquefaction? (Source: 2) iv) Landslides? (Se, urce: 2) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the toss of topsoil? (Source: 2) X X X i c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Source: 2, 3) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 2, 3) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Source: 9) VII. tLzLZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a sig-nificant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Source: 9) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Sigaificant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact NO ImpaC-X,,~' X X X X b) Create a si=~cant heard to the public or the environment through reasoniDly foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous 'materials into the environment? (Source: 2) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 9) X X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 9) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 9) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 9) g) .Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted eme~ency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 9) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 9) b) SubstantiMty deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with g-roundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ~oundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level w'nich would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Source: 2) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Si~-nfificant Mth Mitigation Incorporation Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X X X X X X 10 c) Substamially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2) 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 mnoffin a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 2) e) Create or contribute mnoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. (Source: 2) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 2) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Kate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source: 9) h) Place within a ] 00-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 9) i) 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? (Source: 9) j) Expose people or structures to a si=m-lificant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seichc, tsunami, or mudflow? (Source: 9) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact X X X X X X X X 11 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 9) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 2) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source: 2) X. MIN]ERAL RESOURCES - 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? (Source: 2) b) Result in the loss ofavallability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 2) XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 2) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ~oundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2) Potentially Significant Impact Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact X X X Impact X X X X 12 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 2) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 2) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ' or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 9) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 9) XIL POPULATION AND HOUSING- 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)? (Source: 2) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 9) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 9) Potentially Si~mificant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation X Less Than Significant Impact X X X X X 13 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered 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: Fire Protection? (Source: 9) Police Protection? (Source: 9) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X Schools? (Source: 9) Parks? (Source: 9) X X Other Public Facilities? (Source: 2) X X'I5r. RECREATION-- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source: 2) b) Does the proje~ include recreational fac'ftities or require the construction or expansion of recreational hcitities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 9) X X 14 PotcntjaIly Less Than Less Than No Significant Sigufificant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation XV. TRANSPORTATIONfFRAFFIC- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i. e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 2) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source: 2) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source: 2) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Source: 2) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source: 2) X X X X X f) Result in inadequate par'king capacity? (Source: 9) X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or pro~ams supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source: 2) X XVL UTILYITES AND SERXrlCE SYSTEMS - Would the proje~: 15 a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 9) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation X 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? (Source: 9) X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause sig-nificant environmental effects? (Source: 2) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 9) e) Kesutt in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which 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? (Source: 9) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source: 9) g) Comply with federal, state~ and local statutes and reg-nlations related to solid waste? (Source: 9) X X X X X 16 XVII. MANDATORY FI'hrDINGS OF SIGNrlFICANCE 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? (Source: 2) b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumutatively considerable? CCumulatively 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)? (Source: 2) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Source: 2) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact NolmF ~ X X Sources used to determine 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Determination based Determination based Determination based Determination based Determination based Deterrmnanon based Determination based Determination based Not applicable. potential environmental impacts: on location of project. on staff office review. on field review. on the City of Dublin Genera/Plan on the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. on the San Ramon Road Specific Plan. on the Dublin Dowmown Specific Plan. on East Dublin Specific Plan. 17 City of Dublin Explanations for Checklist Form ~/ Project Description - Dublin Boulevard widening from Dougherty Road to Scarlett Drive This project is necessitated by new traffic generated in Eastern Dublin from new development. The northerly portion of this roadway segment was previously constructed to its ultimate width and is now striped for one lane in each direction. The proposed new improvement will complete the roadway to its ultimate width of six lanes divided by a landscaped median. It is anticipated that eminent domain may be initiated for acquisition of some of the properties necessary for construction. Designs for this Capital Improvement Project (CIP No. 96890) show a six-lane roadway including a landscaped and lighted center median, curb and gutter, and a sidewalk along the south side, with total roadway widths of between 110 and 118 feet. Engineering Department staff anticipate that the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection will be restriped and signal phasing may be modified as a result of the proposed project. This project is proposed to be completed in one phase, starting in Spring 2000, with completion anticipated for September, 2000. A proposed signal for the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive is also included in this project. It should be noted that this project has been designed to accommodate the future extension of Iron Horse Trail where it crosses Dublin Boulevard, near the intersection with Scarleft Drive. The area of the future right-of-way includes portions of three parcels that are currently not owned by the City of Dublin or for which the City has not obtained easements over said properr3,'. The City currently anticipates that for certain properties involved, eminent domain (defined as the right of the government [City of Dublin] to take private property for public use by virtue of superior dominion of the government over all lands within its jurisdiction) may be inkiated. Su_rrounding Land Uses and Sbtting Dublin Boulevard, east of Dougherty Road, is currently a two-lane roadway (the result of a previous phase of this project, which improved the north side of Dublin Boulevard and has both ~avel lanes located on this side), approximately 39 feet in width. Properties on the north and south sides of this portion of Dublin Boulevard include a mixture of commercial, retail, light industrial and hotel uses. Exhibk 1 indicates the Project Vicinity for the proposed project. Dublin Boulevard Widening - CIP 96890 Page 18 Explanations The following section provides narrative responses that correspond with the environmental checklist form. I. Aesthetics a-c - Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west thoroughfare through the City. Views of the surrounding foothills in the distance are visible while travelling along the roadway, with more rural features as one travels easterly. However, this portion of Dublin Boulevard is not designated by the City as a scenic route, nor are there any identified scenic resources in the immediate vicinity. t~idening of Dublin Boulevard from Dougherty Road easterly t.o Scarlett Drive is anticipated to have no impacts on scenic vistas and scenic resources, and a Jess than significant impact on the visual quality of the site/surroundings. Aro mitigation is required. Extensive landscaping, in the form of 24-inch and 36-inch box-sized street trees, perennial shrubs, groundcovers, special concrete paving and pilaster and lattice features are proposed in the center median and along the south side of Dublin Boulevard. This is in addition to existing street trees located on the north side of Dublin Boulevard. These are beneficial aspects of the proposed project and will serve to improve the aesthetics of the project area. d - New street lights are proposed as part of the landscaping improvements included with the proposed project. Lighting shall be installed per City standards. Given the existing developed urban environment, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. II. Agriculture Resources ~-c - The proposed project does not encompass nor would it affect any properties currently in a~icultm-al production. Azo impacts are anticipated III. Air QuaiiB, a-e - This project is being constructed in response to anticipated build-out conditions for East Dublin, in order to accommodate existing and future vehicle traffic. Therefore, it can be assumed that any increase in traffic-related air quality has been accounted for and/or has been mitigated through fie approval process for the Easter Dublin Specific Plan. This project would not be in violation of any applicable air quality standards. Substantial pollutant concentrations are not anticipated with the roadway widening. Upon completion of construction, no objectionable odors would be created. No impacts are anticipated It should be noted, however, that due to the anticipated earthwork involved for this roadway widening project, short-term increases in particulate matter ~Mm0) concentrations can be expected in the project vicinity during the grading operations. This could impact existing businesses and uses on either side of Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard Wid:ning - CIP 96890 Page 20 The following mitigation measures are recomme~led in order to mitigate potential construction- related air quality impacts to a level of insignificance. Twice-daily watering of exposed earth surfaces shall occur throughout the construction phase. In addition, daily watering and/or sweeping of affected street surfaces shall take place. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. .IV. Biological Resources a-f- One existing street tree which is located in the median, is proposed for removal to accommodate the proposed pilaster and lattice structures. Given the developed nature of the project vicinity, the extensive street tree plantings proposed, and the fact that no biologically sensitive resources are located near or would be affected by proposed construction, no impacts are anticipated V. Cultural Resources a-b -No known cultural, paleontological, or historical resources exist within the proposed project area. Therefore, no impacts to known resources are anticipated c-d - The soil re-engineering required for the project will expose the substrate during _.m-ading activities. Should previously unk, nown culturdl resources be discovered, the following mitigation measure is recommended in order to mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. V-1. In the event that archaeological resources, prehistoric or historic artifacts are discovered during any construction or excavation, the following procedures shall be followed: · Construction and/or excavation activities shall cease immediately and the ,Department of Community Development shall be notified. A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether any such- materials are significant prior to resuming ground breaking construction activities. Standardized 'procedures for evaluating accidental finds and discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Xq. Geolo_~v and Soils a-e- Engineering Department staff have indicated that previous geotechnicaI studies performed during the widening of the northern portion of Dublin Boulevard, indicate that on-site soils are suitable for the proposed street improvements. Staff has indicated that a small amount of fill will be required, with cut and fill for the project to be balanced on-site. The project area is not located within a 'known earthquake fault zone, and on-site soils are not susceptible to seismic-related Dublin Boul~-vard Widening - CIP 96890 Page 21 ground failure. No mapped landslides exist in the project area. Due to the project site's relatively flat topography, substantial soil erosion during the construction phase is not anticipated. On-site soils are not known to be unstable or expansive. The project does not involve the use of septic tanks. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant or non-existent. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a, c-h - The proposed project includes widening of an existing roadway. The project does not involve the storage or use of hazardous materials. No impacts are anticipated b - Soil sampling and chemical testing of potentially contaminated soils prior to widening of the northern half of Dublin Boulevard resulted in positive detection of oil and grease. The area in question was in the vicinity of a small underground tank that was discovered during excavation. The tank appeared to have been used as a hydraulic fluid reservoir. The tank was subsequently removed and soil contamination remediated. Existing land uses for the properties located on the south side of Dublin Boulevard that are to be acquired by the City for this project, include a lumberyard, light manufacturing, and recreation vehicle sen, ice center. To date, no site assessment has been performed on these properties. It is not known whether these .existing uses have resulted in potentially hazardous conditions, which could range from soil-staining to unauthorized dumping. This is considered a potentially significant impact. The following mitigation measures are recommended in order to mitigate potential hazardous materials impacts to a level of insignificance. VII-1. Prior to construction of project, a Phase I Environmental Assessment shall be prepared by a qualified professional, which covers the three properties to be acquired by the Ci~~. Any recommendations made in the report shall become conditions of project approval. Any required remediation shall be satisfactorily accomplished prior to issuance of ~ading permits. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality a, f-j - The proposed project includes widening of an existing roadw'ay and would not affect water quality standards. This portion of Dublin Boulevard is not located within the 100-year floodplain and proposed modifications would not expose people or structures to flooding. No imt~acts are anticipated b - e - Proposed roadway modifications include slightly raising the City's storm drain pipe in order to accommodate the Dublin-San Ramon Service District's existing Clean Water Revival (CWP,.) pipe. Although widerig of the roadway represents an increase in impervious stuffaces in the immediate project vicinity, the project has been designed so as not to impact the existing drainage system. The project site is less than five acres in size, therefore NPDES/S~.rPPP permitting is not required. impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Dublin Boulevard Widening - CIP 96890 Page 22 IX. Land Use and Planning a-c - This proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project is in response to planned and'~ approved developments located in Eastern Dublin. The City's Circulation Element shows this section of Dublin Boulevard ultimately developed as a six-lane major street, which is in keeping with the proposed project. In addition, the Circulation Element shows a proposed Class II bike route along Dublin Boulevard. A Class II bike lane is defined as having a striped lane for one- way bike travel on the street. Although the proposed project is not providing a striped bike lane, the automobile travel lanes have been reduced in width in order to provide the minimum four foo~ bike lane width. (Please also refer to discussion under Transportation/Traffic). The project area is not included in any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. Assuming implementation of mitigation measure XV-1, land use and planning impacts are considered to be less than significant. No further mitigation is required. X. Mineral ResourCes a-b - The project site is currently developed and is not located in an area identified in the General Plan as a mineral resource area..No impacts are anticipated XI. Noise ~a - c, e, f- The proposed project is in response to planned and approved development located in Eastern Dublin. Therefore, it can be assumed that any increase in traffic-related noise has been accounted for and/or has been mitigated through the approval process for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and this project would not be in violation of any applicable noise standards. Noise impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. d - The proposed project includes gradthe, and roadway construction. Lo~al businesses will be subjected to short-term localized increases in ambient noise. levels during the construction phase. The following mitigation measures are recommended in order to reduce potential short~term noise impacts to a level of insignificance. In order to minimize the impact of construction noise, all operations shall comply with local noise standards relatir~g to construction activities. Construction hours shall be limited to those hours'as established by the City. StationaU equipment shall be adequately muffled and located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. .'~I. Ponuladon and Housing - The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an eftsting roadway. population and housing impacts are anticipated Dublin Boulevard Widening - CIP 96890 Page 23 XIII. Public Services a -The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an existing roadway. 2Vo impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools, or parks are anticipated Due to the fact that the proposed project is a CIP Foject, any future required maintenance will be accounted for in the City's yearly budget. ]~oadway maintenance impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. XIV. Recreation a - The proposed extension of the Iron Horse Trail is anticipated to be constructed in the year 2000. The trail is located within the former Southern Pacific Railroad fight-of-way, and is oriented in a northwest to southeast direction. The Iron Horse Trail is a regional trail that currently extends from Concord to Dublin. This proposed link, which is presently in the planning stage with the Alameda County Public Works Department, would cross Dublin Boulevard just east of the Scarlett Drive intersection and would provide visitors direct access to the trail from the DublinfPleasanton BART station. The proposed Dublin Boulevard widening project may impact this trail connection. This is considered a ?otentially signz.'~cant impact. ~e following mitigation measures are recommended in order to reduce potential recreation impacts to a level of insignificance. XIV-I. The City of Dublin shall continue to coordinate with the Alameda Count), Public Works Department for accommodation of the extension of Iron Horse Trail across Dublin Boulevard. Dependent upon the timing for construction of the two projects, this may include temporary measures such as installation of a portable bridge, as well as p~rmanent design modifications necessary to meet requirements for the trail. b - The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an existing roadway. No impacts to recreation facilities are anticipated. XV. Transportation/Traffic a-g - The proposed pro_}ect includes the widening of Dublin Boulevard between Dougherr3, Road and Scarlett Drive from two lanes (one lane in each direction) to six lanes (three lanes in each direction). This additional roadway capacity is needed to accommodate future average daily ~affic (ADT) volumes, which is expected to exceed 40,000 vehicles per day (vpd) with the buildout of East Dublin. Based on methodology presented in the Transportation Research Board's 1994 ~ighway Capacity Manual, a six-lane roadway is needed to maintain Level of Service (LOS) D when the ADT reaches 30,000 vpd. Du~ng construction of the project, staff has indicated that existing businesses in the project area should only be minimally impacted. ?nis portion of Dublin Boulevard is designated as a bike path in the Circulation Element. It is anticipated thai bicyclists may use Dublin Boulevard as a connection between Iron Horse Trail (at Scarlett Drive) and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station (at Iron Horse Parkway). However, bike lanes are not included in the proposed widening of Dublin Boulevard. The current widening Dublin Boulevard Widening- CIP 96890 Page 24 plan calls for three lanes (i.e., 15-foot curb lane, and two, 12-foot through lanes) in each direction. The minimum width for a bike lane is four feet. This is considered a ~votentialty significant impact. '~ The following mitigation measures are recommended in order to reduce potential transportation impacts to a level of insignificance. XV-1. To accommodate bike lanes on Dublin Boulevard, each direction of roadway may have the following dimensions: 4-foot bike lane, 12-foot curb lane, 11-foot center through lane, and 12-foot lane closest to the median. Plans indicating this shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director prior to issuance of ~ading permits. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems a-g - The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an existing roadway. The proposed project will require the relocation of a storm drain pipe, to be accomplished by the Dublin-San Ramon Sanitary District. No impacts to utilities and sen,ice systems are anticipated Dublin Boulevard Widening - CIP 96890 Page 25 Air Qutfiily Shorl-lerm iucren~es in particuln(e matter concenhations can be expected during grading operations. Cultural Resources Giading opeintions could nlli:ct previously unknown cullm'al resources. llazards and llazardous Materials It is not lulown whether existing uses on properties Io be acquired by tile City have resulted in potentially haT~udous conditions, which could range ~'mu soil-staining to unauthorized dunq~ing. City of Dublin Dublin I}oulevard Widening - Doughcrty Road to Scarlett Drive CIP 9689 Mitigation Monitoring Progrant Mitigation IHc:tsurcs l(esponsible Agency 111-1. Twice-daily watering of exposed earth surfaces shall occur fllroughout the construction phase. Ill addition, daily watering and/or sweeping of affected street surfaces slmll take place. This shall be accontplished to file satisfaction of the Public Works Director. City of Dublin, Director of Public Works V-l.lu the event Illat archaeological resources, prehistoric or Irisforte mtilhcts are discovered during ally conshuction or excavation, Ihe following procedures slmll be followed: Coostraction mid/or excavation activities shall cease inunediately and rite Depathnent of Comnlm~ty Development shall be notified. A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to detentfine whether ally such materials are significant prior to resuming ground breaking construction activities. Stmtdardized procedures for evaluating accidental finds mid discovery of hun|an remains shall be followed as prescribed in Sections 15064.5 aud 15126.4 of the California Enviromnenlal Quality Act. City of Dublin, Deparhnent of Conununity Development VII-I. Prior to . construction of project, a Phase I Environmental Assessment sbali be prepared by a qualified professional, which covers the three prope~ies to be acquired by the City. Any recomumndatio||s made in rile repofl shall become conditions of project approval. Any required remedialion shall be satisfactorily accomplished l~rior to issuance of gladlag perufits. Tids sitall be accomplished to file satisfaction of Public Works Director. City of Dublin, Director of Public Works Level of Significance After Mitigation Less thmt SignificmR Less thmt significant Less thmt significant Iml}act Nolse Local businesses will be subjected to shotl-tcrni localized increases in noise during the construction phase. Recreation The proposed Dublin Boulevard widening project may imimct ~e lrou ttorse Trail connection. Transimrtation/Traflic It is anticipated that bicyclists may use Dublin Boulevard as a connection between h'oli I lorse Trail (at Scafiett Drive) and fire Dublin/Pieasauton BART station (at Iron Ilorse Parkway). However, bike lanes are not included in the proposed widening of Dublin Boulevard. City of Dublin Dublin Boulevard Widening - Doughcrty Road to Scarlett Drive CIP 9689 IMitlgation Monitoring i'rogram 2 IMifigalim~ l%!casurcs Responsible Agency Leve~ ~ Sign[ficance After Xl-l.hi order to minimize the impact of construction noise, all operations shall comply wi~ local noise stmtdards relating to construction activities. Construction hours shall be limited td ~tose hours as established by the City. Stationary equipment shall be adequately untilled and located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. City of Dublin, Director of Public Works Less than signi~ctmt XIV-1. The City of Dublin shall continue to coordilmte wilh rite Alameda County Public Works Deparhnent for accommodation of the extension of Iron Horse Trail across Dublin Boulevard. Dependent upon the thuing for construction of the two projects, fitis may include temporary measures such as installation of a pollable bridge, as well as permanent desigu modifications necessary to meel requirentents for fl~e trail. City of Dublin, Director of Public Works Less Iliaat sigt~ficm~t XV-I. To accommodate bike lanes oil Dublin Boulevard, each direction of roadway may have fire following dimensions: 4~foot bike ltute, 12~foot curb lane, l l-foot center through lmm, mid H-foot lm~e closest to the medimi. Plans indicating this shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director prior to issuance of grading perutits. City of Dublin, Director of Public Works Less than significant If) [ ZJ 0 --- ". ............. i)UBLIBI I)OULIGVARI) WII)iBNING I'RO,IECT BIBT%~tlBE1N DOUGHERTY I{OAI) AND SCAI~,LIPTI'T l)l{IVlg