HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 053-93 EDub GPA & SP RESOLUTION NO. 53 - 93
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN; MAKING
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC
PLAN; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
Recitals
1. In response to a proposal for residential development of
the Dublin Ranch property, the City of Dublin undertook the Eastern
Dublin Study to plan for the future development of the eastern
Dublin area.
2. The City Council and Planning Commission conducted three
joint public study sessions and three workshops relating to
planning issues in eastern Dublin.
a. The April 18, 1990, study session considered a land
use concept report containing four land use scenarios and the
consistency of each land use concept with existing general plan
policies. Alternative #4 was considered the preferred land use
concept for environmental study by informal consensus.
b. The August 22, 1990, study session considered
Alternative #4 and a fifth concept (based on the 1986 annexation
agreement with Alameda County). The "Town Center" concept, types
of streets, location and types of parks were discussed.
c. The November 15, 1990, workshop solicited comments
from the public regarding the existing and desired life style
qualities in Dublin and what the public wanted to see in a new
community.
d. The December 6, 1990, workshop continued with a
similar discussion of desired types of commercial development and
discussed circulation systems and parks and open space.
e. The December 18, 1990, workshop presented a
preliminary conceptual land use plan. Input was received on the
transit spine, location of civic center, types of residential uses,
location of commercial uses, the concentration of high density
residential uses, and jobs/housing balance.
f. The February 14, 1991, study session considered a
land use plan that incorporated comments made at the three
workshops and included a discussion of major issues, such as the
location of a high school, connection to existing Dublin, size of
streets and types of parks.
3. With the identification of a preferred alternative on
February 14, 1991, the City prepared a Draft General PlanAmendment
for approximately 6,920 acres to plan for future development of a
mixed use community of single- and multiple-family residences,
commercial uses (general commercial, neighborhood commercial,
campus office and industrial park), public and semi-public
facilities (including schools), parks and open space.
Draft General Plan Amendment
4. The Draft General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1992,
designates the proposed general distribution and general location
and extent of the uses of Eastern Dublin for residential,
commercial, industrial, public, open space and parks, and other
categories of public and private uses of land.
5. The Draft General Plan Amendment includes a statement of
standards of population density and standards of building intensity
for Eastern Dublin.
6. Pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning
Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the
City of Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed
amendments to the City's General Plan.
7. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment on October 1,
1992, which hearing was continued to October 6, 1992, October 12,
1992, and October 15, 1992.
8. Based on comments received during the public hearing,
related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the
Draft General Plan Amendment and were reviewed by the Planning
Commission on December 21, 1992.
9. The Draft General Plan Amendment was reviewed by the
Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act through the preparation and
review of an Environmental Impact Report. On December 21, 1992,
by Resolution No. 92-060, the Planning Commission recommended
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
10. On December 21, 1992, the Planning Commission, after
considering all written and oral testimony submitted at the public
hearing, adopted of Resolution No. 92-061, recommending City
Council adoption of the Draft General Plan Amendment, as revised
December 21,1992.
Draft Specific Plan
11. The Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, implements
an approximately 3,328-acre portion of the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment by providing a detailed framework, including
policies, standards and implementation programs, for evaluation of
development projects proposed in the portion of eastern Dublin
covered by the Draft Specific Plan.
12. Pursuant to State Law, the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific
Plan was prepared and reviewed in the same manner as a general plan
amendment.
13. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific Plan on October 6,
1992, which hearing was continued to October 12, 1992, and October
15, 1992.
14. Based on comments received during the public hearings,
related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the
Draft Specific Plan and were reviewed by the Planning Commission
on December 21, 1992.
15. The Draft Specific Plan was reviewed by the Planning
Commission in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act through the preparation and review of a
Final Environmental Impact Report. On December 21, 1992, by
Resolution No. 92-060, the Planning Commission recommended
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
16. On December 21, 1992, the Planning Commission, after
considering all written and oral testimony submitted at the public
hearing, adopted Resolution No. 92-062, recommending City Council
adoption of the Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, as revised
December 21, 1992.
Council Public Hearing
17. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on
the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft Specific
Plan on January 14, 1993, which hearing was continued to January
21, 1993, February 23, 1993, March 30, 1993, and April 27, 1993.
18. On April 27, 1993, the City Council, by Resolution No.
45-93, voted to refer Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area
("Alternative 2") with modifications back to the Planning
Commission for its recommendation, pursuant to Government Code
section 65356.
3
19. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 3,
1993, to consider Alternative 2 with modifications and has reported
back to the City Council by Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-
013.
20. The City Council considered all written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearing and all written testimony
submitted prior to the public hearing and the recommendation of the
Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution
Nos. 92-061, 92-062 and 93-013.
21. On May 10, 1993 the Council held duly noticed a public
hearing to hear testimony regarding the Planning Commission's
recommendation as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No.
93-013.
22. On May 10, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
51-93, certifying the Addendum to the Draft EIR and the Final
Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") as adequate and complete.
The Final EIR identified significant adverse environmental impacts
which can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through changes
or alterations in the project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA,
findings adopting the changes or alterations are required and are
contained in this resolution. Some of the significant impacts
cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance and a statement
of overriding considerations is therefore required pursuant to CEQA
and is also contained in this resolution.
23. Upon consideration of the land use and environmental
effects of the project, as described in the Final EIR, the Council
has determined to adopt Alternative 2, as described in the Final
EIR, with certain modifications which are described in the Addendum
to the Draft EIR ("Alternative 2 With Modifications"). Alternative
2 With Modifications reduces land use impacts, does not disrupt the
existing rural residential community in Doolan Canyon, potentially
reduces growth-inducing impacts on agricultural lands, reduces
certain traffic impacts to a level of insignificance, produces less
demand for infrastructure, reduces the noise impacts for Doolan
Road to a level of insignificance and will have a positive fiscal
impact on the City.
24. Alternative 2 was considered by the Planning Commission
at its hearings, in testimony at the public hearings, in staff
reports presented to the Commission at its hearings, in the EIR
reviewed by the Planning Commission at its hearings and in its
deliberations.
25. Alternative 2 With Modifications includes several
substantial modifications to Alternative 2, as Alternative 2 is
described in the Draft EIR. Although several of these
modifications were considered by the Planning Commission at its
hearings, the Planning Commission has considered Alternative 2 With
Modifications and has reported back to the Council with its
recommendation regarding Alternative 2 With Modifications. The
Council has determined to follow the Planning Commission's
recommendation as set forth in its Resolution No. 93-013, except
with respect to the width of the Transit Spine and with the
addition of the phrase "or other appropriate agreements" on page
160 of the Draft Specific Plan (S 11.3.1, first sentence).
Findings/Overriding Considerations/
Mitigation Monitoring Program
26. Public Resources Code section 21081 requires the City to
make certain findings if the City approves a project for which an
environmental impact report has been prepared that identifies
significant environmental effects.
27. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires
adoption by the City Council of a statement of overriding
considerations if the Council approves a project which will result
in unavoidable significant effects on the environment.
28. Public Resource Code section 21085 and section 15092 of
the State CEQA Guidelines require the City to make certain
determinations if it approves a project which reduces the number
of housing units considered in the environmental impact report.
29. The Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan identifies certain significant adverse
environmental effects.
30. Certain of the significant adverse environmental effects
can be reduced to a level of insignificance by changes or
alterations in the project.
31. Certain of the significant adverse environmental effects
cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
32. The Council has selected Alternative 2 identified in the
Final EIR with modifications described in the Addendum to the Draft
EIR, reducing the number of housing units for such property from
the project as reviewed by the Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
33. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City
to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for changes in a project
or conditions imposed to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects in order to ensure compliance during project
implementation.
34. Government Code section 65300 authorizes a city council
to adopt a general plan for land outside its boundaries which in
the Planning Commission's judgment bears relation to its planning.
5
35. The Planning Commission has considered whether land
outside the City's boundaries bears relation to the City's
planning.
36. The City has referred Alternative 2 With Modifications
to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") pursuant
to Public Utilities Code section 21676 (b). The City has not
received a determination from the ALUC. The 60-day time period for
the ALUC to make a determination has not yet run.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
A. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve "Alternative
2: Reduced Planning Area" as the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment, with the Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and with the
Modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR, dated May 4,
1993.
B. The Dublin City Council finds the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, as described in the Final EIR as "Alternative 2: Reduced
Planning Area," with Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and with
the modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR dated May
4, 1993, to be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as revised
by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment.
C. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, with the Revisions dated December 21, 1992,
and with the Modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR,
dated May 4, 1993 and with the revision to page 160 referred to in
paragraph 25 above.
D. The Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staff to
edit, format, and print the up-to-date Dublin General Plan with
all City Council approved revisions and without any other
substantive changes.
E. The Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staff to
edit, format, and print the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan with all
City Council approved revisions and without any other substantive
changes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby make the findings set forth in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council finds and
declares that the rationale for each of the findings set forth in
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of its findings (Exhibit A) is contained
in the paragraph entitled "Rationale for Finding" in Exhibit A.
The Council further finds that the mitigation measures for each
identified impact in Exhibit A make changes to, or alterations to,
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, or are
measures incorporated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that,
once implemented as described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
(Exhibit B hereto), will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effects of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan on the environment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth
in Section 6 of Exhibit A, attached hereto, which statement shall
be included in the record of the project approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby adopt the "Mitigation Monitoring Program: Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit B, as the reporting and monitoring
program required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6 for the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby direct that the Applicants for land use approvals in the
Specific Plan area shall pay their pro rata share of all costs
associated with the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring
Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby direct that all fees established pursuant to Government Code
Section 65456, to recover costs of preparation of the Specific
Plan, shall include the cost of preparation, adoption and
administration of the Specific Plan plus interest on such costs
based upon the City of Dublin's average monthly weighted investment
yield calculated for each year or fraction thereof that such costs
are unpaid.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination for
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project
with the Alameda County Clerk and the State Office of Planning and
Research.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby direct the City Clerk to make available to the public,
within one working day of the date of adoption of this resolution,
copies of this resolution (including all Exhibits) and the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1992, with the
Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and the modifications described
in the Addendum to Draft EIR dated May 4, 1993, and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, with the Revisions to
Draft Specific Plan, dated December 21, 1992, and the modifications
7
described in the Addendum to Draft EIR, all as modified by this
resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this resolution shall become
effective thirty (30) days from the date of passage.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT if, on the effective date of this
resolution or within the remaining 60-day period for ALUC action,
the ALUC has found that Alternative 2 With Modifications is not
consistent with the ALUC's Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy
Plan, the City shall submit all regulations, permits or other
actions implementing the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan to the ALUC for review until such time that the City
Council revises the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan to be consistent with the ALUC's Alameda County
Airport Land Use Policy Plan or adopts specific findings by a two-
thirds vote that the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are
consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of Part
I of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code as stated in section
21670 of such Code.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of May,
the following vote:
1993, by
AYES: Councilmembers Burton, Houston, Howard, Moffatt & Mayor Snyder
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
114 \RESOL\ 29 \RESOLUTION
8
Section 1
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
AND MITIGATION MEASURE8
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, the City
Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the
Project'sI potential significant environmental impacts and means
for mitigating those impacts. Findings pursuant to section
21081, subdivision (c), as they relate to "project alternatives,"
are made in Section 3.
Section 3.1 -- Land Use
IMPACT 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space
Lands. Agricultural grazing land and open space in Alameda and
Contra Costa counties will be converted to urban uses by proposed
projects such as Dougherty Valley, Tassajara Valley, North
Livermore, and Eastern Dublin. Because it would result in the
urbanization of a large area of open space, the proposed Project
Would contribute to this cumulative loss of agricultural land and
open space in the Tri-Valley area. This is considered a signifi-
cant unavoidable cumulative impact. Response to Comments ("RC")
# 34-9.
Finding. No mitigation measures are proposed to reduce this
impact to a level of insignificance. Therefore, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval
of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. The total amount of open space
within the RPA that will be urbanized will be cumulatively
significant, in light of numerous other open space areas
within the region that is also anticipated for urbanization.
IMPACT 3.1/G. Potential Conflicts with Land Uses to the West.
The Parks Reserve Forces Training Area ("Camp Parks") is located
due west of~the Specific Plan area. Existing and future Army
training activities, such as the use of high velocity weapons and
helicopters, could result in noise and safety Conflicts with
adjacent open space and single-family residential areas of the
Specific Plan. The extent of future army activity is unknown and
1The "Project" is Alternative 2 described in the DEIR at
pages 4-9 through 4-14 with the modifications described in the
May 4, 1993 Addendum to the EIR. Alternative 2 calls for
development in the Reduced Planning Area (the portion of eastern
Dublin within its sphere-of-influence) (hereafter "RPA").
114 \ea stdub \ find ( 4 )
1
the Army has not yet completed its Camp Parks Master Plan.
page 3.1-13.
DEIR
Mitigation Measure 3.1/1.0. The City of Dublin should
coordinate its planning activities with the Army to achieve
compatibility with adjacent Camp Parks land uses, to solve
potential future conflicts, and to reconcile land use incom-
patibilities. The City should consult with the Army for any
specific development proposals within the RPA. DEIR pages
3.1-13, -22.
FindinG. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Coordinated planning activities will
allow the City and Army to identify potential noise and
safety impacts before they occur and will allow specific
mitigation measures, including redesign, to be incorporated
into development in the Project Area.
Section 3.3 -- Traffic and Circulation
When a mitigation measure referenced in this section requires
development.projects within the RPA to pay for a proportionate
cost of regional transportation programs and/or traffic and
circulation!improvements, the proportion shall be as determined
by regional!transportation studies, such as the current study by
the Tri-Valley Transportation Council.
IMPACT 3.3/A. 1-580 Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon. Year 2010 growth
without the!Project would cause cumulative freeway volumes to
exceed Level of Service E on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and
Fallon Road. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-3.
Mitigation Measure 3.3/1.0. Caltrans, in cooperation with
local jurisdictions, could construct auxiliary lanes on 1-
580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to create a total
of ten lanes, which would provide Level of Service D opera-
tions, consistent with the Caltrans Route Concept Report for
1-580. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-3.
FindinG. Approval of the construction of the auxiliary
lanes, and cooperation by jurisdictions other than the City
of Dublin, are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such
actions can and should be taken by other agencies. If
taken, i such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
114 \ea stdub \ find ( 4 ) 2
Rationale for Finding. This mitigation measure provides
acceptable Level of Service D operations during peak hours
on the freeway.
IMPACT 3.3/B. 1-580 Freeway, 1-680 to Hacienda. Year 2010
growth with the Project would cause 1-580 between 1-680 and
Dougherty Road to exceed Level of Service E. This is also a
significant cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised),
4-11, 5.0-3.
Mitigation Measure 3.3/2.0. Consistent with Specific Plan
Policy 5-212, all non-residential projects with 50 or more
employees in the RPA shall participate in a Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) program to reduce the use of single
occupant vehicles through strategies including but not
limited to encouraging public transit use, carpooling, and
flexible work hours. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-
3. ff
Mitigation Measure 3.3/2.1. All projects within the RPA
area shall contribute a proportionate share of the costs of
regional transportation mitigation programs, as determined
by regional transportation studies. Such regional miti-
gationf'programs may include enhanced public transit service
and/or upgrading alternate road corridors to relieve demand.
on 1-580 or 1-680. DEIR page 3.3-21 (as revised).
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact might not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. Approval of Alternative 2 reduces to
a level of insignificance the impact on 1-580 between
Doughe~ty Road and Hacienda Drive. DEIR page 4-11. The TSM
program strategies will reduce single car occupancy, thereby
reducing the number of cars expected to use the subject
stretc~ of 1-580. Regional actions may focus not only on
reducifig auto use by reducing single occupant vehicles, but
also on increasing Project area road capacities through
2 This policy appears in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,
which plan applies only to the identified Specific Plan area.
The provisions of this policy provide useful mitigation outside
the Specific Plan area as well. Therefore, the EIR and these
findings adopt these provisions for the entire RPA. Hereinafter,
those Specific Plan goals, policies, and action programs whose
provisions are similarly adopted for the RPA throughout these
findings will be indicated by an asterisk.
11~ \eastdub\f~nd ( ~ )
construction of routes providing convenient alternatives to
1-580 and 1-680. Given the overall expected increase in
traffic, however, these measures are not sufficient to
reducelthe cumulative impacts on 1-580 between 1-680 and
Dougherty Road to insignificance.
IMPACT 3.3/C. 1-580 Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon-Airway- Year 2010
growth with~the Project would cause freeway volumes to exceed
Level of Service E on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway
Boulevard. ~=This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR
page 3.3-21~(as revised), 5.0-3.
Mitigation Measure 3.3/3.0. The City shall coordinate with
Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to construct auxiliary
lanes on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard.
All projects within the RPA shall contribute a proportionate
share of the costs of these improvements. DEIR pages 3.3-
22 (as revised), 5.0-3; RC #7-6
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR.
Freeway construction actions are within the ultimate res-
ponsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans,'who can and should
take such actions. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The auxiliary lanes will provide
sufficient additional capacity on 1-580 to provide Level of
Service D between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard, and
Level of Service E between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road.
Both Level of Service D and E are acceptable during peak
freeway hours. DEIR pages 3.3-2, -18. Development in the
RPA will be required to contribute its fair share to the
auxiliary lane improvements so that when such improvements
are needed, they will be provided by new development
generating the need. State law authorizes the City to enter
into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the
freeway improvements (see, e.g., Streets & Highways Code
~S 113.5, 114).
IMPACT 3.3/~. 1-680 Freeway, North of 1-580. Year 2010 growth
with the Pr6ject would cause freeway volumes to exceed Level of
Service E on 1-680 north of the 1-580 interchange. This is also
a signifi ~ cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.3-22, 5.0-4. ca t
Mitigation Measure 3.3/4.0. All projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of the costs of Caltrans'
planned improvements at the 1-580/I-680 interchange, in-
cluding a new two-lane freeway-to-freeway flyover with
ll4\eastdub\find(4) 4
related hook ramps to the City of Dublin. DEIR page 3.3-22.
(as revised) (see also page 3.3-17 (as revised)).
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially
lesseni~the significant effects identified in the Final EIR.
Freeway interchange improvement actions are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, who can and
should~take such actions. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The expected interchanges and
related improvements will provide sufficient additional
capacity on 1-680 to provide Level of Service D north of the
1-580 interchange. Development in the RPA will be required
to contribute its fair share to the interchange and related
improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they
will be provided by new development generating the need.
IMPACT 3.3/E. Cumulative Freeway Impacts. Cumulative buildout
with the Praject would cause additional freeway sections, in-
cluding 1-580 east of Airway Boulevard, and the segment of 1-580
between Dou~herty and Hacienda to exceed level of service E.
DEIR pages 3 · 3-22 (as revised) , 5.0-4.
Mitigation Measure 3.3/5.0. The Project shall contribute a
proportionate share to the construction of auxiliary lanes
(for a total of 10) on 1-580 east of Airway Boulevard, for
implementation by Caltrans. The City shall coordinate with
other local jurisdictions to require that all future de-
velopment projects participate in regional transportation
mitigation programs as determined by the current Tri-Valley
Transportation Council study. DEIR pages 3.3-22 (as re-
vised) , 5.0-4.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project. Actions by other agencies
and Caltrans to implement this mitigation measure are within
the reaponsibility and jurisdiction of those other agencies
and no~ the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken ~y the other agencies. However, even with these
change~ the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted.
Rationale for Finding. The auxiliary lanes will provide
sufficient additional capacity to provide acceptable level
of service on part of 1-580 widening to ten lanes is
consistent with the Route Concept Report. DEIR page 3.3-22
(as revised). Regional transportation mitigations can
114\eastdub\find(4) 5
reduce cumulative impacts through measures to decrease
single occupant vehicle use and increase public transit use
to further decrease traffic impacts. However, even with
these improvements, part of 1-580 (between 1-680 and
Hacienda Drive) will still be beyond acceptable LOS E. DEIR
pages 3.3-20, 3.3-21 (as revised), 4-11.
IMPACT 3.3/F. Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard. Year 2010
development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Dougherty Road with Dublin
.~DEIR page 3.3-25.
Boulevard. ~!
Mitigaeion Measure 3.3/6.0. The City of Dublin shall
monitor the intersection and implement construction of
additi6nal lanes when required to maintain LOS D operations.
All projects within the RPA shall contribute a proportionate
share Of the improvement costs. DEIR page. 3.3-25 (as
revised).
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The additional lanes at the
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection will provide
sufficient capacity for Level of Service D operations, which
is acceptable at street intersections in Dublin (DEIR pages
3.3-2, -18 (as revised)). Development in the RPA will be
required to contribute its fair share of the intersection
improvements so that, when such improvements are needed,
they will be provided by new development generating the
need.
IMPACT 3.3/G. Hacienda Drive and 1-580 Eastbound Ramps. Year
2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Hacienda Drive with the 1-580
eastbound r~mps. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised).
Mitigation Measure 3.3/7.0. The City of Dublin shall
implement improvements in coordination with the City of
Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen the eastbound off-ramp to
provide a second left turn lane. All projects in the RPA
shall contribute a proportionate share of the improvement
costs. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised); RC # 7-9.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen~'~!the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Off-ramp widening actions are within the ultimate respon-
sibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans. Such actions can and
should~]!~be taken by Caltrans. If taken, such actions would
114 \ea stdub \ find
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identi-
fied i~ the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The additional lanes at the east-
bound off-ramp will provide acceptable Level of Service C
operations. Development in the Project area will be
required to contribute its fair share of the intersection
improvements, so that when such improvements are needed,
they will be provided by new development generating the
need. State law authorizes the City to enter into a
cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the off-ramp
improvements (see, e.g., Streets & Highways Code SS 113.5,
114).
IMPACT 3.3/H. Tassajara Road and 1-580 Westbound Ramps. Year
2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Tassajara Road with the 1-580
westbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised).
Mitigation Measure 3.3/8.0. The City of Dublin shall
implement improvements in coordination with Caltrans to
widen the 1-580 westbound off-ramp and to modify the
northbound approach to provide additional turn and through
lanes.!~ All projects in the RPA shall contribute a pro-
portionate share of the improvement costs. DEIR page 3.3-
26 (as!~revised).
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Coordinating and ramp widening actions are within the ulti-
mate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can
and should take such actions. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identi-
fied in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The reconfigured lanes at the east-
bound off-ramp will provide acceptable Level of Service B
operations. Development in the Project area will be
requirad to contribute its fair share of the intersection
improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they
will be provided by new development generating the need.
State law authorizes the City to enter into a cooperative
agreement with Caltrans to make the off-ramp improvements
(see, e.g., streets & Highways Code §S 113.5, 114).
IMPACT 3.3/I. Santa Rita Road and 1-580 Eastbound Ramps. Year
2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Santa Rita Road with the 1-580
eastbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-26.
114 \eastdub\find ( 4 ) 7
Mitigation Measure 3.3/9.0. The City of Dublin shall
implement improvements in coordination with the City of
Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen the 1-580 eastbound off-
ramp t0 provide two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and
one right-turn lane to provide Level of Service E at this
intersection. All projects in the RPA shall contribute a
proportionate share of the improvement costs. The City of
Dublin shall continue to work with the City of Pleasanton to
monitor level of service at this intersection and partici-
pate in implementing improvements which may be identified in
the future to improve traffic operations. DEIR page 3.3-26
(as revised); RC # 7-11.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. Ramp widening actions are
within!the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of
Caltrans, which can and should take such actions. However,
even with these changes and actions, the impact will not be
avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval
of the ~.Project.
Rationale for Finding. The off-ramp widening will provide
LOS E Operations, which is still significant. Development
in the Project area will be required to contribute its fair
share of the intersection improvements, so that" when such
improvements are needed, they will be provided by new
development generating the need.
IMPACT 3.3/K. Airway Boulevard and 1-580 Westbound Ramps. Year
2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Airway Boulevard with the 1-
580 westbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised).
Mitigation Measure 3.3/11.0. The City of Dublin shall
implement improvements in coordination with the City of
Livermore and Caltrans to replace or widen the Airway
Boulevard overcrossing of 1-580 and to widen the offramp for
additional turn lanes. All projects within the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs.
DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised); RC #17-2
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Road and ramp widening actions are within the ultimate
responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can and
should take such actions. If taken such actions would avoid
or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
114 \ea stdub \ find
8
Rationale for Finding. The Airway Boulevard and 1-580
improvements will provide an acceptable Level of Service D.
Development in the Project area will-be required to contri-
bute its fair share of the improvements so that when such
improvements are needed, they will be provided by new
development generating the need. State' law authorizes the
City to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to
make the road and ramp improvements (see, e.g., Streets &
Highways Code SS 113.5, 114).
IMPACT 3.3/L. E1 Charro Road. Project traffic could introduce
stops and delays for loaded trucks from the quarries on E1 Charro
Road south of 1-580. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised).
Mitigation Measure 3.3/12.0. The City of Dublin shall
implement improvements in coordination with Caltrans, the
City of Pleasanton, and Alameda County to ensure that
modifications to the 1-580 interchange at Fallon Road/E1
Charro Road include provisions for unimpeded truck movements
to and from E1 Charro Road. All projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of improvement costs. DEIR
page 3.3-27 (as revised).
FindinG. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessensthe significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Freeway interchange modification actions are within the
ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which
can and should take such actions. If taken, such actions
would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Providing unimpeded access for the
quarry trucks will prevent other traffic from backing up
behind the heavily laden trucks with their slow starts and
stops. Development in the Project area will be required to
contribute its fair share of the improvements so that when
such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new
development generating the need. State law authorizes the
City to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to
make the off-ramp improvements (see, e.g., Streets &
Highways Code SS 113.5, 114 ) .
'i
IMPACT 3.3/M. cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard. Cumulative
buildout with the Project would cause Level of Service F opera-
tions at the intersection of Hacienda Drive with Dublin Boulevard
and Level of Service E operations at the intersection of Tassa-
jara Road with Dublin Boulevard. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised),
5.0-4 .
114 \eastdub\find ( 4 ) 9
Mitigation Measure 3.3/13.0. The City shall continue to
participate in regional studies of future transportation
requirements, improvement alternatives, and funding pro-
grams. Buildout of proposed projects outside Eastern Dublin
would require the City to build grade-separated interchanges
on Dublin Boulevard and/or establish alternate routes to
redistribute traffic flow. All projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of improvement costs. DEIR
pages 3.3-27 (as revised), 5.0-4.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact might not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. Regional transportation programs
will attempt to reduce the amount of future traffic and
associated impacts. Even with these efforts, however, the
cumulative traffic impacts on Dublin Boulevard might not be
reduced to insignificance.
IMPACT 3.3/N. Cumulative Impacts on Tassajara Road. Cumulative
buildout with the Project would cause Level of Service F opera-
tions at the intersections of Tassajara Road with Fallon Road,
Gleason Road, and the Transit Spine. These impacts would be
caused primarily by traffic from the Tassajara connection to
Dougherty Valley, and full buildout of the Tassajara Valley.
DEIR page 3.3-28 (as revised), 5.0-4.
Mitigation Measure 3.3/14.0. The City shall reserve suffi-
cient right-of-way to widen Tassajara Road to six lanes
between Dublin Boulevard and the Contra Costa County line
and monitor traffic conditions and implement widening pro-
jects as required to maintain LOS D operations on Tassajara
Road. ~$All projects in the RPA shall contribute a propor-
tionate share of the improvement costs. DEIR pages 3.3-28
(as revised), 5.0-4 and -5; RC #5-2, 7-13, 8-2
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Allowing for the widening of
Tassajara Road to six lanes, if needed, will allow the City
to maintain an acceptable LOS D. Development in the Project
area will be required to contribute its fair share of the
improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they
will be provided by new development generating the need.
114 \eastdub\find ( 4 )
10
IMPACT 3.3/0. Transit Service Extensions. The Project would
introduce significant development in an area not currently served
by public transit, creating the need for substantial expansion of
existing transit systems. DEIR page 3.3-28.
Mitigation Measure 3.3/15.0. Specific Plan Policy 5-10,
requires the City of Dublin to coordinate with LAVTA to
provide transit service within one quarter mile of 95% of
the population, in accordance with LAVTA service standards.
(,Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.~3-28.
MitiGation Measure 3.-3/15.1. Specific Plan Policy 5-11-
requires the City of Dublin to coordinate with LAVTA to
provide at least one bus every 30 minutes during peak hours,
to 90%of employment centers with 100 or more employees, in
accordance with LAVTA service standards. (,Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.3-28.
Mitigation Measure 3.3/15.2. All projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share to the capital and
operation costs of transit service extensions. DEIR page
3.3-28.
MitiGation Measure 3.3/15.3. The City shall coordinate with
BART and LAVTA to provide feeder service to the planned BART
stations. Until the BART extension is completed(projected
for 1995), the City shall coordinate with BART to ensure
that BART express bus service is available to eastern Dublin
residents. DEIR page 3.3-28.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. Some of the transit service
coordination actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of Bart and LAVTA agencies and not the City of
Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by those
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for FindinG. The mitigations provide for
expansion of existing transit systems to meet Project
demand, not only on the local level through LAVTA but also
on a local and regional level through BART.
IMPACT 3.3/P. Street Crossings for Pedestrians and Bicycles.
Pedestrians ~and bicycles would cross major streets with high
projected traffic volumes, such as Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara
Road and Fallon Road, introducing potential safety hazards for
pedestrians .and bicyclists. DEIR page 3.3-29.
ll4\eastdub\find(4) 11
Mitigation Measure 3.3/16.0. Specific Plan Policy 5-15- and
Specific Plan Figure 5.3* require a Class I paved
bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara Creek and trails
along other stream corridors in the Project area.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.!3-29.
Mitigation Measure 3.3/16.1. The City shall locate
pedestrian and bicycle paths to cross major arterial streets
at signalized intersections. DEIR page 3.3-29.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Placing a major bicycle/pedestrian
path along Tassajara Creek and using trails along other
stream corridors allows bicycles and pedestrians to avoid
traveling on major streets with their high traffic volumes.
Where the paths must cross a major arterial street, re-
quiring the crossing at a signalized intersection minimizes
path and traffic conflicts by stopping traffic on a regular
basis to let path travelers cross the street safely.
Section 3.4.-- Community Services and Facilities
IMPACT 3.4/A and B. Demand for Increased Police Services and
Police Services Accessibility. The Project will increase demand
for police services from the Dublin Police Department's admini-
strative and sworn staff, and will require reorganization of the
police operations to provide new patrol beats in the Project
area. The hilly topography of most of the Project site may
present some accessibility and crime-prevention problems. DEIR
page 3.4-2.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 8-4,* the City shall provide additional personnel and
facilities and revise beats as needed in order to establish
and maintain City standards for police protection service in
Eastern Dublin. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-2.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/2.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 8D,* the City shall coordinate with the City
Police.Department regarding the timing of annexation and
proposed development, so that the Department can adequat.ely
plan for the necessary expansion of services in the RPA.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.4-2
114 \ea stdub \ find ( 4 ) 12
Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 8E,, the City shall incorporate into the
requirements of project approval Police Department recommen-
dations on project design that affect traffic safety and
crime prevention. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-2.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/4.0. Upon annexation of the RPA, the
City of Dublin Police Department will be responsible for
police~services. The City will prepare a budget strategy to
hire the required additional personnel and implement a beat
system, DEIR page 3.4-2.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/5.0. As part of the development
review process for residential and non-residential projects,
the Police Department shall review development projects'
design and circulation for visibility, security, safety,
access, and emergency response times and any other police
issues. DEIR pages 3.4-2 to -3.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The five mitigations identified will
ensure that additional police will be hired andsthat other
administrative measures will be employed to provide adequate
protection for Project area residents. Police Department
input into design of Project development will insure that
police services are efficiently provided.
IMPACT 3.4/C. Demand for Increased Fire Services. Buildout of
the Project'will substantially expand the DRFA service area and
increase demand for new fire stations and firefighting personnel.
This will significantly increase response times and reduce
service standards unless new facilities and personnel are added.
DEIR page 3.4-5.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/6.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 8-5,* the City shall time the construction of new
facilities to coincide with new service demand in order to
avoid periods of reduced service efficiency. The first
station will be sited and will begin construction concurrent
with initial development in the planning area. (,Specific
Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action~Program 8F,* the City shall'establish appropriate
funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of capital
improvements. (,Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) ~DEIR page 3.4-5.
114 \eastdub \ find ( 4 ) 13
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/8.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 8G,* the City shall coordinate with DRFA to
identify and acquire specific sites for new fire stations~
with the westernmost site in the Specific Plan area assured
prior to approval of any development plans. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5; RC #
15-26.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/9.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 8H,* the City shall incorporate DRFA
recommendations on project design relating to access, water
pressure, fire safety and prevention into development
approvals. Require compliance with. DRFA design standards
such as non-combustible roof materials, minimum fire hydrant
flow requirements, buffer zones along open space areas, fire
alarm and sprinkler systems, road access, and parking
requirements. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) ~DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -6.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/10.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action!Program 8I,, the City shall ensure, as a requirement
of Project approval, that an assessment district, homeowners
association, or some other mechanism is in place that will
provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban/open
space interface. (,Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-6.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/11.0. Pursuant to Specific' Plan
Action Program 8J,, the City shall ensure that fire trails
and fire breaks are integrated into the open space trail
system. And that fire district standards for access roads
in these areas are met while environmental impacts are
minimized. (,Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-6.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/12.0. The City of Dublin, in
consultation with DRFA and a qualified wildlife biologist,
shall prepare a wildfire management plan for the RPA to
reduce!Iopen land wildfire risks consistent with habitat
protection and other open space values. The plan shall
specify ownership, maintenance, use, brush control, and
fire-resistant landscaping measures, as well as periodic
review~of these measures, for RPA open lands. Any park
distridts or other open space agencies with jurisdiction
over lands within the RPA shallI be encouraged to participate
in the preparation of the plan. DEIR pages 3.4-6 to -7.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/13.0. The City shall consult with
DRFA to determine the number, location and timing of
additional fire stations for areas within the RPA outside
114 \eastdub\find ( 4 ) 14
the specific plan when such areas are proposed for
annexation to the City. DEIR page 3.4-7.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to determine the number and location of fire
stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
DRFA and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and
should be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and
would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. New fire facilities will be
constructed to meet the needs of Project residents; DRFA
input into Project design features will enable additional
and efficient provision of fire services. The wildfire
management plan should further limit the Project fire
protection impacts by reducing the risk of wildfires.
IMPACT 3.4/D. Fire Response to Outlying Areas. Based on DRFA's
preliminary!locations for new fire stations, the northern-most
portions of the RPA would be outside the District's standard
response area. Development in these areas (especially the north
end of Tassajara Road) could experience adverse fire hazard
exposure and emergency response impacts. DEIR page 3.4-5.
Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0 as
described above. DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -7.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to determine the number and location of fire
stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
DRFA and not the City of Dublin. Such actions should be
taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would avoid
or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. New fire facilities will be
constructed to meet the needs of all Project residents,
including those in the outerlying areas; DRFA input into
project design features will enable additional and efficient
provision of fire services. The wildfire management plan
should further limit the Project fire protection impacts by
reducing the risk of wildfires.
IMPACT 3.4/E. Exposure to Wildfire Hazards. Settlement of
population and construction of new communities in proximity to
high fire hazard open space areas with difficult access poses an
114\eastdub\find(4) 15
increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if open space
areas are not maintained for fire safety. This is also a
significant cumulative impact in that increased development in
steep grass and woodlands around the edges of the Tri-Valley's
core communities may reduce response times and strain fire-
fighting resources for regional firefighting services, many of
whom participate in mutual aid systems. DEIR pages 3.4-5, 5.0-
5.
MitiGation Measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0.
3.4/6.0 to 13.0, as described above.
-7, 5.0-5; RC #26-26.
Mitigation measures
DEIR pages 3.4-5 to
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to determine the number and location of fire
stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
DRFA agencies and the City of Dublin. Such actions should
be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR. DEIR pages 3.4-4 to -7.
Rationale for Finding. New fire facilities will be
constructed to meet the needs of all Project residents,
including those near open space areas; DRFA input into
project design features will enable additional and efficient
provision of fire services. The wildfire management plan
should=further limit the Project wildfire exposure impacts
through fire safety planning and open space management.
IMPACT 3.4/F, G. Demand for New Classroom Space; Demand for
Junior High Schools. Buildout of the Project will increase the
demand for new classroom space and school facilities beyond
current available capacity. At the junior high school level,
classroom demand may exceed both current and planned capacity
levels. DEIR page 3.4-11 to -12.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/13.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 8-1,* the City shall reserve school sites within the
RPA designated on the Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment Land Use Maps. (,Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA. ) DEIR page 3.4-12.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/14.0. The City shall ensure that the
two proposed junior high schools are designed to accommodate
the projected number of junior high school students. DEIR
page 3 ,~4-12.
FindinG. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
114 \ea stdub \ find ( 4 )
16
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to determine junior high school siting and
design are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such
actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If
taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Providing elementary, junior high,
and high school sites will accommodate classroom demand
generated by Project residents. Mitigation Measures
3.4/17~i0 through 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient funding for
such development.
IMPACT 3.4/H. Overcrowding of Schools. Existing schools may be
overcrowded if insufficient new classroom space is provided for
new residential development. DEIR page 3.4-12.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/13.0 to 14.0.
3.4/13.0 to 14.0, as described above.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4/15.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 8-2,* the City shall promote a consolidated develop-
ment pattern that supports the logical development of
planning area schools, and in consultation with the appro-
priate school district(s), ensure that adequate classroom
space is available prior to the development of new homes.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3~4-12.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to site and design schools are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and
not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Providing elementary, junior high,
and high school sites will accommodate classroom demand
generated by Project residents, while a consolidated
development pattern ensures that the classroom space will be
available when it is needed. Mitigation Measures 3.4/17.0
through 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient funding for such
development.
IMPACT 3.4/I. Impact on School Financing District Jurisdiction.
Development~,!of the RPA under existing jurisdictional boundaries
would result in the area being served by two different school
114 \eastdub\find ( 4 ) 17
districts and would adversely affect financing of schools and
provision of educational services. DEIR page 3.4-12.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/16.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 8A,* the City shall work with the school
districts to resolve the jurisdictional issue to best serve
student needs and minimize the fiscal burden of the service
providers. (,Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-12 to -13.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to resolve the jurisdictional issue are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies
and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Resolving the school district
jurisdiction issue will limit conflicts and ensure that
school services are efficiently provided.
IMPACT 3.4/J. Financial Burden on School Districts. The cost of
providing new school facilities could adversely impact local
school districts by creating an unwieldy financial burden unless
some form of financing is identified. DEIR page 3.4-13.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/17.0 to 19.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 8-3, and Action Program 8B, ensure that adequate
schoolfacilities are available prior to development in the
RPA tothe extent permitted by law, for example, by
requiring dedication of school sites and/or payment of
developer fees by new development. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Program 8C,, the City shall work with school
districts to establish appropriate funding mechanisms to
fund new school development and encourage school districts
to use best efforts to obtain state funding for new con-
struction. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR p. 3.4-13; RC #15-31.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessenlthe significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to fund new school development are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and
not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR.
114\eastdub\find(4) 18
Rationale for Finding. Through these mitigations, develop-
ment creating school facilities demand will have primary
responsibility for accommodating that demand, with the
school!Sdistricts being provided with back-up financial
suppor~ from other sources.
IMPACT 3.4/K. Demand for Park Facilities. Without the addition
of new parks and facilities, the increased demand for new park
and recreation facilities resulting from buildout of the Project
would not be met, resulting in deterioration of the City's park
provision standard and of the City's ability to maintain existing
services and facilities. This is also a significant cumulative
impact. DEIR pages 3.4-16, 5.0-5.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0 to 24.0. General Plan
Amendment Guiding Policies A, B, and G and Implementing
Policy D require the City of Dublin to provide and maintain
parks and related facilities adequate to meet Project and
citywide needs and in conformance with the City's Park and
Recreation Master Plan 1992. Implementing Policy K
specifically requires dedication and improvements for the 20
parks designated in the RPA with collection of in-lieu fees
as reqdired by City standards. DEIR pages 3.4-16 to -17,
5.0-5.:::
Mitigation Measures 3.4/25.0 to 27.0. Sufficient parkland
shall be designated and set aside in the RPA to satisfy the
City's:Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992 and its park
provision and phasing standards. DEIR pages 3.4-17, 5.0-5.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/28. The City shall implement
Specific Plan Policies 6-1 to -6, to establish large,
continuous natural open space areas with convenient access
for users, and adequate access for maintenance and manage-
ment; to preserve views of designated open space areas; and
to establish a mechanism for open space ownership, manage-
ment, and maintenance. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-18 to -19.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessensthe significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigations provide added new
parks and facilities to meet increased demand from Project
residents, and require compliance with phasing plans in the
Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992, to ensure that new
parks and facilities construction will keep pace with new
residential construction.
114 \eastdub\find ( 4 ) 19
IMPACT 3.4/L. Park Facilities Fiscal Impact. Acquisition and
improvement of new park and recreation facilities may place a
financial strain on existing City of Dublin revenue sources
unless adequate financing and implementation mechanisms are
designed. DEIR page 3.4-18.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0 to 31.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 4-29, and Action Program 4N,, the City shall
ensure that development provides its fair share of planned
open space; for example, through in-lieu fees under the
City's~parkland dedication ordinance. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Program 4M,* the City shall develop a Parks Imple-
mentation Plan identifying phasing, facilities priorities
and location, and design and construction responsibilities.
(,Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3~4-18.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigations ensure that needed
park facilities will be provided by developers at the time
of development, thereby avoiding the use of existing revenue
sources to build new parks for Project area residents.
IMPACT 3.4/M, N. Impact on Regional Trail System and Impact on
Open Space Connections. Without adequate provisions for trail
easements and without adequate design and implementation, urban
development.along stream corridors and ridgelands would obstruct
formation of a regional trail system and an interconnected open
space system. DEIR page 3.4-18 to -19.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/32.0. Pursuant to General Plan
Amendment Guiding Policy H,* establish a trail system with
regional and subregional connections, including a trail
along the Tassajara Creek corridor. (,Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-19.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/23.0 and 33.0 to 36.0. Pursuant to
General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy I, Implementation
Policy D, Specific Plan Policies 6-1,, 6-3,* Action Program
40,* and consistent with the City's Parks and Recreation
Master Plan 1992, use natural stream corridors and major
ridgelines as the basis for a trail system with a conti-
nuous, integrated open space network, emphasizing convenient
user access, pedestrian and bicycle connections between
developed and open space areas, and developer dedication of
ridgetop and stream corridor public access easements.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
pages 3.4-17, -19.
114 \eastdub\ffnd ( 4 )
20'
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Establishing a Project area trail
system incorporating planned regional connections contri-
butes to development of a regional trail system and allows
the trail planning to be considered and incorporated into
individual Project area developments in the RPA. By
requiring that open space and trail planning be based'on
continuous physical features such as stream corridors and
ridgelines, and that public access be provided along these
features, these mitigations avoid a disconnected open space
system.!
IMPACT 3.4/0, P. Increased Solid Waste Production and Impact on
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. Increased population and
commercial land use will cause a proportional increase in the
total projected amount of solid waste and household hazardous
waste generated by the City of Dublin. This increase creates the
need for additional capacity, personnel, and vehicles to dispose
of the wastes. It can create public health risks from improper
handling. The increased solid waste and household hazardous
waste generated by the Project may accelerate the closing
schedule for Altamont landfill unless additional capacity is
developed or alternate disposal sites are identified. This
impact on the Altamont landfill is also a potentially significant
cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.4-21 to -22, 5.0-6.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/37.0 to 40.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Program 8K, and other EIR mitigations, adopt a
Solid Waste Management Plan for the RPA, including waste
reduction programs such as composting and curbside and other
collection of recyclables. Include goals, objectives, and
programs necessary to integrate with the diversion targets
of the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element and
Household Hazardous Waste Element. New development in the
RPA shall demonstrate adequate available landfill capacity
for anticipated wastes. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3-4.22 to -23, 5.0-6.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigations minimize the
amount/=of solid waste production and related needs and risks
through compliance with AB 939 solid waste planning.
Reducing the amount of Project-generated waste will also
avoid an accelerated closing schedule for the Altamont
landfiI1. In addition, these mitigations require that new
114 \eastdub \ find ( 4 ) 2 1
development anticipate and provide for adequate waste
disposal before the development is approved.
IMPACT 3.4/Q. Demand for Utility Extensions. Development of the
Project site will significantly increase demand for gas, electric
and telephone services. Meeting this demand will require
construction of a new Project-wide distribution system. This is
a significant growth-inducing impact. DEIR pages 3.4-24, 5.0-14
to -15.
Mitigation Measures. None proposed. DEIR page 3.4-2.4.
Finding. No changes or alterations are available to avoid
or substantially lessen this impact. Therefore, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval
of the. Project.
IMPACT 3.4/R. Utility Extension Visual and Biological Impacts.
Expansion of electrical, gas, and telephone lines could adversely
affect visual and biological resources if not appropriately
sited. DEIR page 3.4-24.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/41.0 to 44.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Program 8L, and other identified mitigation
measures, development within the RPA must document the
availability of electric, gas, and telephone service and
must place utilities below grade or, preferably, underground
and routed away from sensitive habitat and open space lands.
A development project service report shall be reviewed by
the City prior to improvement plan approval. (=,Specific
Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-24
to -25.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Undergrounding utilities will avoid
visualS!effects by placing the utility extensions where they
cannoti!be seen. Routing the utility extensions away from
sensitive habitat and open space areas will avoid impacts on
biological resources by avoiding the resources themselves.
IMPACT 3.4/S. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources.
Natural gas and electrical service would increase consumption of
non-renewable natural resources. DEIR page 3.4-25.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/45.0 to 46.0. Major developers in
the Project area shall provide demonstration projects on
cost-effective energy conservation techniques including but
not limited to solar water and space heating, landscaping
ll4\eastdub\find(4)
22
for water conservation, and shading. All development
projects in the RPA shall prepare an energy conservation
plan as part of their proposals. The plan shall demonstrate
how site planning, building design, and landscaping will
conserve use of energy during construction and long term
operation. DEIR page 3.4-25.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. Through the demonstration projects,
developers can educate themselves and Project residents
about available and feasible techniques to reduce
consumption of energy resources. Requiring energy
conservation plans forces both developers and the City to
actively consider various techniques to reduce energy
consumption and to build those techniques directly into the
Project. These actions cannot, however, fully mitigate the
impact.
IMPACT 3.4/T. Demand for Increased Postal Service. The Project
will increase the demand for postal service. DEIR page 3.4-26.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/47.0 to 48.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan POlicy 8-10 and Action Program 8M, the City shall
encourage the U.S.P.S. to locate a new post office in the
Eastern Dublin town center. DEIR page 3.4-26; RC # 15-37.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to site a new post office within the town center are
within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the
USPS and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and
should be taken by the USPS. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. A post office conveniently located in
the town center area will provide postal service to meet the
Project generated demand.
IMPACT 3.4/U. Demand for Increased Library Service. Without
additional library facilities and staff, the increase in
population resulting from the Project would adversely affect
existing library services and facilities DEIR page 3.4-27.
114 \ ea stdub \ find ( 4 ) 23
i
Mitigation Measures 3.4/49.0 to 51.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 8-11- and Action Program 8N* and other identi-
fied mitigation measures, the City shall encourage and
assist the Alameda County Library System to provide adequate
library service in eastern Dublin, considering such factors
as location, phasing, and funding of needed library
services. (,Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-27 to -28; RC #15-38.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to provide library facilities are within the
ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the Alameda
CountyLLibrary system and not the City of Dublin. Such
actions can and should be taken by the Alameda County
Library System. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Providing library services to the RPA
will meet Project generated demand. Planning how and when
to provide those services will ensure that they are
efficient and convenient to the maximum number of users.
Section 3.5 -- Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage
IMPACT 3.5/A. Indirect Impacts Resulting from the Lack of a
Wastewater Service Provider. Although Specific Plan Policy 9-4
(page 127) calls for the expansion of DSRSD's service boundaries
to include the Specific Plan area, the Project does not provide
for wastewater service to areas in the RPA outside the specific
plan area. iThis could result in uncoordinated efforts by future
developers in this area to secure wastewater services. DEIR page
3.5-5, RC #132-18.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/1.0a. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy!f9-4,* the City shall coordinate with DSRSD to expand
its service boundaries to encompass the entire RPA.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) RC #
32-18.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to expand DSRSD's service boundaries are within the
ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the DSRSD and
not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by the DSRSD. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.'
\eastdub \find ( 4 ) 24
Rational for Finding. Expanding DSRSD's service
boundaries to include the entire RPA will ensure that
securing wastewater services will be coordinated
through one agency.
IMPACT 3.5/B. Lack of a Wastewater Collection System. Estimated
wastewater flow for the RPA is 4.6 MGD; however, there currently
is no wastewater collection system adequate to serve the Project
area. DEIR page 3.5-5.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0 to 5.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Programs 9P,* 9I,* 90,, 9M,, and 9N,, all
development in the RPA shall be connected to public sewers
and shall obtain a "will-serve" letter prior to grading
permits; on-site package plants and septic systems shall be
discouraged. The City shall request that DSRSD update its
collection system master plan to reflect Project area
proposed land uses, with the cost of the plan to be borne by
future development in the RPA. All wastewater systems shall
be designed and built in accordance with DSRSD standards.
(,Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3~5-6; RC # 32-19, 32-20.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigations will provide a
wastewater collection system adequate to meet Project
generated demand, and will ensure the system meets design
and construction standards of DSRSD.
IMPACT 3.5/C. Extension of a Sewer Trunk Line with Capacity to
Serve New Developments. Construction of a wastewater collection
system could result in development outside the RPA that would
connect to the Project's collection system. This is also a
potentially significant growth-inducing impact. DEIR pages 3.5-
6, 5.0-15.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/6.0. The proposed wastewater system
shall be sized only for the RPA area. DEIR pages 3.5-6, 4-
11, 5.0-15.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. By sizing the planned wastewater
collection system only to serve the RPA, growth inducing
impacts on lands outside that area are avoided.
114 \ea stdub \ find ( 4 ) 2 5
IMPACT 3.5/D. Allocation of DSRSD Treatment and Disposal
Capacity. There is limited available capacity at the DSRSD
Treatment Plant, limiting the number of sewer permits available
for new developments. It is very unlikely that any of the
presently remaining DUE's will be available for the Eastern
Dublin Area. DEIR.page 3.5-7; RC #32-21.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/7.0~ Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 9L,, development project applicants in the
RPA shall prepare.a design level water capacity investi-
gation, including means to minimize anticipated wastewater
flows and reflecting development phased according to sewer
permit allocation. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-7.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/7.1. Development project applicants
in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will,serve" letter
from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit. RC #32-22.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The required investigation will allow
development to be phased to ensure there are adequate
wastewater facilities available to meet Project generated
demand. The requirement of a "will-serve" letter will
insure that adequate wastewater facilities willexist for
all new development. If capacity is not available, DSRSD
will not issue a will-serve letter. RC #32-22.
IMPACT 3.5/E. Future Lack of Wastewater Treatment Plant
Capacity. Development of the Project require an increase in
wastewater treatment plant capacity within DSRSD to adequately
treat the additional wastewater flows to meet discharge
standards. This is also a potentially significant cumulative
impact in that increased demand on area wastewater treatment
facilities exceeds current remaining capacity. DEIR page 3.5-7
to -8, 5.0-6.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.1, 8.0, 9.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 9-6- and mitigations identified in the EIR,
ensure~.!that wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are
available for future development in the RPA through
compliance with'DSRSD's master plan to fund, design, and
construct wastewater treatment plant expansion once export
capacity is available (unleSs TWA approves export of raw
wastewater, in which case DSRSD's wastewater treatment plant
expansion will not be necessary). Also, development project
applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve"
letter from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit.
ll4\eastdub\find(4)
26
(,Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.)
pages 3.5-7 to -8, 5.0-6; RC #32-23.
DEIR
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Compliance with DSRSD's master plan
will ensure that adequate wastewater treatment plant
capacity will be available in the future to serve Project
generated demand once export capacity of treated wastewater
is provided.(see Mitigation Measure 3.5/11..0). Alternative-
ly, expanded treatment capacity will not be necessary if
export of raw wastewater is approved. The requirement of a
"will-serve" letter will insure that adequate wastewater
facilities will exist for all new development. If capacity
is not available, DSRSD will not issue a will-serve letter.
RC #32,22.
IMPACT 3.5/F. Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased
Wastewater Treatment. Development of the Project will result in
increased wastewater flows and will require increased energy use
for treatment of wastewater. DEIR page 3.5-8; RC #32-24.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/10.0. Include energy efficient
treatment systems in any wastewater treatment plant
expansion and operate the plant to take advantage of off-
peak energy. DEIR page 3.5-8; RC #32-24.
Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin.~ Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. However, even if such actions are taken, this
impacts.will not be avoided or substantially lessened.
TherefOre, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. Use of energy efficient treatment
systems and plant operations will reduce the amount of
energy~use but these actions cannot fully mitigate the
impact.
IMPACT 3.5/8. Lack of Wastewater Current Disposal Capacity. The
increase in wastewater flows from the Project and other sub-
regional development will exceed available wastewater disposal
capacity until additional export capacity is developed. This is
also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.5-8, 5.0-6.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.1, 11 to 14.0. Pursuant to
Specific Plan Policy 9-5, and Action Programs 9H,, 9J,, and
9K,* the City shall support current efforts to develop
114\eastdub\find(4)
27
additional export capacity. The City shall require use of
recycled water for landscape irrigation in accordance with
DSRSD's Recycled Water Policy and require development within
the RPA to fund a recycled water distribution system model
to reflect proposed land uses. Also, development project
applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve"
letter from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit.
(,Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3~5-9, 5.0-6 to -7, RC #32-22, 32-25, 32-26, 32-27.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessensthe significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to develop additional export capacity are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies,
and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should
take by such agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid
or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigations will provide the
additional wastewater disposal capacity necessary to meet
Project generated demand. The requirement of a "will-serve"
letter will insure that adequate wastewater facilities will
exist for all new development. If capacity is not avail-
able, DSRSD will not issue a will-serve letter. RC #32-22.
IMPACT 3.5/H. Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased
Wastewater Disposal. Development of the Project will result in
increased wastewater flows and will require increased energy use
for disposal of wastewater; more specifically, for (1) pumping
raw wastewater to CCCSD for treatment under the TWA proposed
project; and/or (2) operation of an advanced treatment and
distribution system for recycled water. DEIR page 3-5.9.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/15.0 to 16.0. The City shall
encourage off peak pumping to the proposed TWA export
system. The City shall plan, design, and construct the
Project recycled water treatment system for energy efficient
operation including use of energy efficient treatment
systems, optimal use of storage facilities, and pumping at
off peak hours. DEIR pages 3.5-10 to -11.
Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin~ Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. However, even if such actions are taken, this
impactilwill not be avoided or substantially lessened.
TherefOre, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted upon approval of the Project.
114 \eastdub \ find ( 4 )
28
Rationale for Finding. The proposed mitigations will reduce
the am6unt of energy used for wastewater disposal but these
actions cannot fully mitigate the impact.
IMPACT 3.5/I. Potential Failure of Export Disposal System. A
failure in the operation of the proposed TWA wastewater pump
stations would adversely affect the overall operation of the
wastewater collection system for the Tri-Valley subregion, as
well as the Eastern Dublin Project. DEIR page 3.5-10.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/17.0. Engineering redundancy will be
built into the TWA pump stations, which will also have
provisions for emergency power generators. DEIR page
3.5-10.
Findinq. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin~' Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub-
stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the
Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Engineering redundancy will minimize
the risk of pump station system failure; providing emergency
power generators will ensure that any system failure which
does occur will be short lived, thereby avoiding the effects
of such failure. RC #32-28.
IMPACT 3.5/J. Pump Station Noise and Odors. The proposed TWA
wastewater pump stations could generate noise during their
operation and could potentially produce odors. DEIR page 3.5-10.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/18.0. TWA's pumps and motors will be
designed to comply with local noise standards and will be
provided with odor control equipment. DEIR page. 3.5-10.
Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublini~ Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub-
stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the
Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Requiring compliance with local noise
standards will ensure that any noise produced not exceed
acceptable levels. Odor control equipment will ensure that
odor production effects are avoided. RC #32-28.
IMPACT 3.5/K. Storage Basin Odors and Potential Failure. The
proposed TWA Emergency Wastewater Storage Basins could poten-
tially emit odors and/or the basins could have structural failure
114 \ea stdub \ find
29
due to landslides, earthquakes, or undermining of the reservoir
from inadequate drainage. DEIR page 3.5-10.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/19.0. TWA's basins will be covered,
buried tanks with odor control equipment and will be
designed to meet current seismic codes. DEIR page 3.5-11.
Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin~ Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigations ensure that any
odors related to the TWA basins are contained and controlled
within the basins so as not to be detectable beyond the
basins. Compliance with seismic codes will ensure that the
basins are properly constructed to withstand landslides and
earthquakes and are provided with adequate drainage to avoid
structural failure. RC #32-28.
IMPACT 3.5/L. Recycled Water System Operation. The proposed
recycled water system must be constructed and operated properly
in order to=!!prevent any potential contamination or cross-
connection with potable water supply systems. DEIRpage 3.5-11.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/20.0. Construction of the recycled
water distribution system will meet all applicable standards
of the Department of Health Services (DHS) and San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). DEIR page
3.5-11.'
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Applicable regulations of the DHS and
RWQCB are designed to prevent cross-connection contamina-
tion; compliance with these regulations will therefore avoid
the contamination impact.
IMPACT 3.5/M. Recycled Water Storage Failure. Loss of recycled
water storage through structural damage from landslide, earth-
quake, and undermining of the reservoir through inadequate
drainage. DEIR page 3.5-11.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/21.0. The City shall require
reservoir construction to meet all applicable DSRSD and
other health standards and shall require preparation of
soils and geotechnical investigations to determine potential
114 \eastdub\find ( 4 ) 30
landslide and earthquake impacts. Reservoirs shall be
designed to meet current seismic codes and to provide
adequate site drainage. DEIR page 3.5-11.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Soils and geotechnical studies will
ensure that reservoirs will be designed and constructed to
comply with current seismic, DSRSD, and other applicable
health standards, the purpose of which is.to avoid
structural failure.
IMPACT 3.5/N. Loss of Recycled Water System Pressure. Loss of
pressure in'the proposed recycled water distribution systems
could result in the system being unable to meet peak irrigation
demand, which could result in loss of vegetation through lack of
irrigation water. DEIR page 3.5-12; RC #32-30.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/22.0. The recycled water pump
stations shall meet all applicable DSRSD standards. DEIR
page 3.5-12; RC #32-31.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Compliance with DSRSD standards will
minimize the risk of pressure being lost.
IMPACT 3.5/0. Secondary Impacts from Recycled Watersystem
Operation. Failure to identify and implement treatment plant
improvements related to recycled water use may increase salinity
in the groundwater basin. DEIR page 3.5-12.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/20.0. Recycled water projects shall
incorporate salt mitigation required by Zone 7. DEIR page
3.5-12~
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Compliance with salt mitigation
requirements will reduce the salinity of the recycled water,
thereby avoiding the risk of increased salinity in the
groundwater basin.
IMPACT 3.5/P. Overdraft of Local Groundwater Resources. If the
Project area is not annexed to DSRSD and development projects are
114\eastdub\find(4) 31
not required to connect to DSRSD's water distribution system,
development projects may attempt to drill their own wells,
causing overdraft of existing limited groundwater supplies.
page 3.5-17.
DEIR
Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 to 25.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 9-2, and other EIR mitigations, the City shall
coordinate with DSRSD to expand its service boundaries to
include the Project area and to develop annexation
conditions encouraging water conservation and recycling.
The City shall encourage all developments in the RPA to
connect to DSRSD's system and discourage the use of
groundwater wells. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-17; RC #14-4.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to expand DSRSD's service boundaries are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the DSRSD and not the
City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by the
DSRSD. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Annexation to DSRSD and connection
to its water distribution system will eliminatelthe need for
development projects to drill their own wells and will
therefore avoid the risk of groundwater overdrafting.
IMPACT 3.5/Q. Increase in Demand for Water. Estimated average
daily water~demand for the RPA is 6.4 MGD, which demand could
exceed available supply. This is also a potentially significant
cumulative impact in that ongoing urban development in the Tri-
Valley is resulting in a cumulative increase in water demand at a
time when water supplies and delivery are uncertain. DEIR page
3.5-18, 5.0-7 to -8.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 to 31.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Programs 9A, and 9B,, the City shall require
development projects in the RPA to include water conserva-
tion measures within structures as well as in public and
other improvements. Require developments to comply with
DSRSD and Zone 7 recommendations for developing and using
recycled water. Pursuant to other EIR mitigations,
implement Zone 7 and DSRSD water supply and water quality
improvements and interconnect Project area water systems
with existing surrounding water systems for increased
reliability. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) iiDEIR pages 3.5-18 to -19; 5.0-9; RC #13-9, 32-43.
114 \eastdub \find ( 4 ) 3 2
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessensthe significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to improve water supply and quality are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies
and not the City of Dublin. Such actions should be taken by
such other agencies. If taken, such actions can and would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Through required water conservation
and water recycling mitigations, the Project reduces the
magnitude of the impact by reducing the demand for water
using recycled water for irrigation reduces the estimated
average daily water demand in the RPA to 5.5 MGD. (RC
#32.52.) The remaining water quality and water supply
mitigations will result in an increased water availability
from Zone 7 and DSRSD to meet Project generated demand.
IMPACT 3.5/R. Additional Treatment Plant Capacity. The increase
in water demand through development of the Project will require
an expansion of existing water treatment facilities in order to
deliver safe and potable water. DEIR page 3.5-19.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0 to 33.0. Implement Zone 7's
planned water treatment system improvements. DSRSD should
construct two new chlorination/fluoridation stations at the
two proposed Zone 7 turnouts to eastern Dublin, with the
construction phased west to east as anticipated in the
General Plan Amendment. DEIR page 3.5-19.
Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub-
stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the
Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Proposed water treatment system
improvements will insure that Project water supply meets all
applicable water quality requirements.
IMPACT 3.5/S. Lack of a Water Distribution System. There
currently iS no water distribution system to provide water
service for ~ithe RPA. DEIR page 3.5-20.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/34.0 to 38.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 9-1- and Action Programs 9C,, 9D,, 9E,, and 9G,,
the City shall provide an adequate water supply system with
related improvements and storage facilities for all develop-
ment, in compliance with applicable DSRSD standards. The
114 \eastdub \ find ( 4 ) 3 3
City shall request that DSRSD update its water system
masterplan to reflect the proposed land uses, and require a
"will-Serve" letter from DSRSD prior to grading permits for
any Project area development. The City shall encourage the
proposed water system to coordinate and combine with
existing neighboring water systems. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-20.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigations will provide a
water distribution system adequate to meet Project-generated
demand, and will insure the system meets design and
construction standards of DSRSD.
IMPACT 3.5/T. Inducement of Substantial Growth and Concentration
of Population. The proposed water distribution system will
induce growth in the Project area and has been sized to poten-
tially accommodate the Dougherty Valley Development to the north.
However, if!?:.DSRSD does not provide water to the Dougherty Valley
Development~i the pipes will be sized to only accommodate the RPA.
The impact is also a potentially significant growth-inducing
impact. DEIR page 3.5-20, 5.0-15, RC #32-41, 32-55.
Finding. No feasible mitigation measures are identified to
reduce this impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
IMPACT 3.5/U. Increase in Energy Usage Through Operation of the
Water Distribution System. Development of the Project will
result in increased water demand and will require increased
energy use to operate a water distribution system, especially for
pumping water to the system and to storage. DEIR page 3.5-21.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/40. Plan, design, and construct the
water distribution system for energy efficient operation.
Designi;pump stations to take advantage of off-peak energy.
DEIR page 3.5-21.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
change~, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. Use of energy efficient water
distribution systems and operations will reduce the amount
of energy used, but these actions cannot fully mitigate the
impact.
114 \ea stdub\ find
34
IMPACT 3.5/V. Potential Water Storage Reservoir Failure. Loss
of storage in proposed water distribution reservoirs from
landslides, earthquakes, and/or undermining of the reservoir
through inadequate drainage would adversely affect the ability of
the water supply system to maintain water pressures and to meet
fire flows. DEIR page 3.5-21.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/41.0. Require water reservoir
construction to meet all applicable DSRSD standards.
Prepare soils and geotechnical investigations to determine
potential landslide and earthquake impacts. Design the
reservoirs to meet current seismic codes, and to provide
adequate site drainage. DEIR page 3.5-21.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Soils and geotechnical studies will
insure that reservoirs will be designed and constructed to
comply with current seismic, DSRSD, and site drainage
standards, thereby avoiding the risk of structural damage or'
failure.
IMPACT 3.5/W. Potential Loss of System Pressure. Loss of
pressure in the proposed water distribution systems could result
in contamination of the distribution system and would not allow
adequate flows and pressures essential for fire flow. DEIR page
3.5-22. =~
Mitigation Measure 3.5/42.0. The proposed water pump
stations shall meet all applicable standards of DSRSD and
shall include emergency power generation back-up. DEIR page
3.5-22.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Compliance with DSRSD standards will
minimize the risk of pressure being lost. Providing
emergency power generators will insure the pumps will
continue operating, thereby avoiding the risk of contamina-
tion in the distribution system and insuring that adequate
water flows are available for fire protection.
IMPACT 3.5/X. Potential Pump Station Noise. Proposed water
system pumpsstations would generate noise during their operation
that could adversely affect the surrounding community. DEIR page
3.5-22.
114 \eastdub \find ( 4 ) 3 5
Mitigation Measure 3.5/43.0. Design pump stations to reduce
sound levels from operating pump motors and emergency
generators. DEIR page 3.5-22.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Reducing sound levels of the
mechanical equipment will reduce the amount of noise
perceivable by surrounding residents, thereby avoiding the
impact.
IMPACT 3.5/Y. Potential Flooding. Development of the Project
and development of former agricultural, rural, and open space
lands throughout the Tri-Valley will result in an increase in
runoff to creeks and will result in an increased potential for
flooding. This is also a potentially significant cumulative
impact. DEIR page 3.5-25, 5.0-9.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/44.0 to 48.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policies 9-7* and 9-8,, Action Programs 9R, and 9S,,
and other EIR mitigations, require a master drainage plan
for each development project in the RPA to provide drainage
facilities adequate to prevent increased erosion or flood-
ing, including channel improvements with natural creek
bottoms, and side slopes with natural vegetation. This
design level plan shall include studies of the development
project area hydrology, potential impacts of the development
project, and proposed design features to minimize runoff
flows and their effects on erosion and riparian vegetation.
Development projects shall also address potential downstream
flooding, and shall include retention/detention facilities
and/or~energy dissipators to minimize and control runoff,
discharge, and to minimize adverse biological and visual
effects. Construct storm drainage facilities in accordance
with approved storm drainage master plan. (,Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR 3.5-25 to -26,
5.0-9.:
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Through planning and implementation
of storm drainage master plans, development projects will
minimize the amount of runoff to creeks and will provide
drainage facilities to control the rate and location of
runoff that does discharge into creeks. These measures will
minimize the increase in runoff, thereby avoiding increased
flooding potential.
\eastdub\ find ( 4 ) 36
IMPACT 3.5/Z. Reduced Groundwater Recharge. Increasing the
amount of impervious surfaces in the Project area could reduce
the area's already minimal groundwater recharge capabilities.
This is also a potentially significant cumulative impact, as
impervious surfaces increase throughout the Tri-Valley. DEIR
page 3.5-26~ 5.0-9 to -10.
Mitigation Measure '3.5/49.0 to 50.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 9-9, and other EIR mitigations, plan facilities
and operations that protect and enhance water quality;
support Zone 7's ongoing groundwater recharge program for
the nearby Central Basin, which contains the majority of the
Tri-Valley's groundwater resources. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 2.5-26,
5.0-9.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigation measures protect
and enhance what minimal groundwater recharge capability
exists'!iin the Project area.
IMPACT 3.5/AA. Non-Point Sources of Pollution. Development of
the Project could result in a deterioration of the quality of
stormwater due to an increase in non-point sources of pollution
including (I) urban runoff; (2) non-stormwater discharges to
storm drains; (3) subsurface drainage; and (4) construction site
runoff (erosion and sedimentation). This is also apotentially
significant'cumulative impact as other projects in the subregion
are developed. DEIR page 3.5-26.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/52.0 to 55.0. The City shall develop
a community based education program on non-point sources of
pollution, coordinating such programs with current Alameda
County programs. The City shall require all development to
meet the requirements of the City's "Best Management
Practices", the City's NPDES permit, and the County's Urban
Runoff Clean Water Program to mitigate stormwater pollution.
DEIR 3.5-27, 5.0-10, Addendum.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Education programs will acquaint all
Project area residents with the issue of non-point
pollution, and will suggest ways residents can avoid such
pollution. Existing City, County, and State regulatory
programs will insure that potential impacts of non-point
ll4\eastdub\find(4) 37
sources of pollution or stormwater quality will be mitigated
to a level of insignificance.
Section 3.6 -- Soils, Geology, and Seismicity
IMPACT 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects.
Earthquake ground shaking resulting from large earthquakes on
active fault zones in the region, could be strong to violent, and
could result in damage to structures and infrastructure and, in
extreme cases, loss of life. DEIR page 3.6-7.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0. Use modern seismic design for
resistance to lateral force in construction of development
projects, and build in accordance with Uniform Building Code
and applicable county and city code requirements. DEIR page
3.6-7.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. Modern seismic design and compliance
with applicable building codes will reduce the risk of
structural failure, major structural damage, and loss of
life from the effects of ground-shaking. These actions will
not, however, completely avoid the impact.
IMPACT 3.6/C. Earthquake Ground Shaking: Secondary Effects. The
secondary effects of ground shaking include seismically-induced
landsliding, differential compaction and/or settlement. This is
also a significant cumulative impact in that further development
in the area could expose residents to significant safety hazards
and could strain emergency response systems. DEIR page 3.6-8,
5.0-10.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/2.0. In relatively flat areas,
development should be set back from unstable and potentially
unstable land or these landforms should be removed,
stabilized, or reconstructed. Where improvements are
located on unstable land forms, use modern design,
appropriate foundation design, and comply with applicable
codes and_policies. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10.
Mitigation Measure 3,6/3.0. In hillside areas, where
development may require substantial grading, require
appropriate grading and design to completely remove unstable
and potentially unstable materials. DEIR page 3.6-8,
5.0-10~
114 \eastdub\find ( 4 ) 3 8
Mitigation Measures 3.6/4.0 to 5.0. Use engineering
techniques and improvements, such as retention structures,
surface and subsurface drainage improvements, properly
designed keyways, and adequate compaction to improve the
stability of fill areas and reduce seismically induced fill
settlement. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/6.0. Design roads, structural
foundations, and underground utilities to accommodate
estimated settlement without failure, especially across
transitions between fills and cuts. Remove or reconstruct
potentially unstable stock pond embankments in development
areas. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0. Require all development
projects in the Project area to perform design level
geotechnical investigations prior to issuing any permits.
The investigations should include stability analysis of
natural and planned engineered slopes, and a displacement
analysis to confirm the effectiveness of mitigation measures
proposed in the investigation. DEIR page 3.6-9, 5.0-10.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/8.0. Earthquake preparedness plans
shouldibe developed by the City and all Project site
residents and employees should be informed of appropriate
measures to take in the event of an earthquake.. DEIR page
3.6-9, 5.0-10.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Mitigations 3.6/2.0 to 6.0 provide
specific engineering techniques for reducing the effects of
ground shaking throughout development in the Project area.
Mitigation 3.6/7.0 requires development projects to apply
these and other available engineering techniques at a design
level, to identify specifically the effects that can occur
on a particular site, to propose mitigations specific to
those effects and the site, and to provide a means for
evaluating the likely success of those measures. Through
these engineering, planning, and design mitigations,
development projects will be able to anticipate and avoid or
reduce~ground shaking effects before the development is
built.
IMPACT 3.6/D. Substantial Alteration to Project Site Landforms.
Development of the Project area could result in permanent change
to the Project site's existing topography, particularly in
hillside areas. This is also a significant cumulative impact as
the hillsides and ridgelands of surrounding Tri-Valley cities are
ll4\eastdub\find(4)
39
graded and excavated for development projects.
5.0-10.
DEIR page 3.6-9,
Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0 to 10.0. Adapt improvements to
natural landforms in order to minimize required cuts and
fills through such techniques as construction of partial
pads and use of retaining structures and steeper cut and
fill slopes where appropriate and properly designed.
Further reduce landform alteration by carefully siting
individual improvements on specific lots after identifying
geotechnically feasible building areas and alignments. Site
improvements to avoid adverse geotechnical conditions and
the need for remedial grading and use techniques such as
clustering where appropriate to minimize grading and/or
avoid adverse geotechnical conditions. DEIR page 3.6-9.
5.0-10.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessenS. the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. These mitigation measures provide
designS!and engineering techniques which maintain natural
landfo~ms to the greatest degree possible, and thereby
minimize alteration of those landforms. The mitigations
also require that geotechnical conditions be identified for
development projects, allowing individual projects to
identify and reduce, or in some cases completely avoid, the
condition which might otherwise require alteration.
IMPACT 3.6/F, G. Groundwater Impacts. Groundwater Impacts
Associated with Irrigation. Shallow groundwater conditions occur
in places throughout the RPA and could be caused by irrigation
associated with development of the RPA. These conditions can
adversely affect the performance of foundation and pavements,
particularly in areas with expansive soils and bedrock. In
addition, shallow groundwater can cause slope instability,
including landsliding and fill settlement, and can lead to
liquefaction of RPA soils. DEIR page 3.6-10.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/11.0 to 13.0. Prepare detailed
design?level geotechnical investigations on development
projects within the RPA, to locate and characterize
groundwater conditions and formulate design criteria and
measures to mitigate adverse conditions. Control
groundwater by construction of subdrain systems, remove
stock pond embankments and drain reservoirs in development
areas. (See MM 3.6/4, 6, 15, 18, 23, and 27 for additional
techniques to control soil moisture and maintain slope
stability. DEIR page 3.6-8, -11 through -14.) DEIR page
3.6-10 through -11; RC #15-43.
ll4\eastdub\find (4) 4 0
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The geotechnical investigation will
identify areas which have groundwater, and development will
proceed in accordance with measures to protect structures
and improvements from slope and soil instability due to
shallow groundwater.
IMPACT 3.6/H. Shrinking and Swelling of Expansive Soils and
Bedrock. The Project site contains expansive soils and bedrock,
which tend to shrink upon drying and swell upon wetting. This
process canf~cause distress to overlying structures and infra-
structure, causing damage to foundations, slabs, and pavements.
DEIR page 3.6-11.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 to 16.0. Prepare design level
geotechnical investigations for development projects in the
Project area to characterize site-specific soils and bedrock
conditions, and to formulate appropriate design criteria and
mitigation measures for those conditions. Such responsive
measures include, but are not limited to, controlling
moisture in the soils and bedrock, and designing foundations
and pavements to be built either below the zone of seasonal
moisture change, or upon structurally supportive floors and
after removal of the expansive materials. DEIRpage 3.6-11
to -12~
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessenk!the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The design level geotechnical
evaluation will identify expansive soils and bedrock and
insure that special techniques are used in these areas to
reduce the risk of structure and infrastructure damage.
IMPACT 3.6/I. Natural Slope Stability. The Project area
contains active and dormant landslides, as well as steep slopes
and colluvium-filled swales, which are subject to potential slope
instability; and could cause damage to structures and infra-
structure located in these areas. DEIR page 3.6-12.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0 to 19.0. Development projects
within!'the Project area should prepare design level
geotechnical investigations to characterize site-specific
slope stability conditions and to formulate appropriate
designScriteria and mitigation measures in response to those
conditions. Such design measures and mitigations include
siting!=development away from unstable landforms and from
114 \eastdub\ find ( 4 )
41
.!
slopes=greater than about 30%, and providing lower density
development in steep, unstable areas. Where unstable areas
canno~lbe avoided, design measures and mitigations include
removing the unstable material, reconstructing or repairing
the unstable area, or engineering structural responses,
including subsurface drainage improvements. (See also MM
3.6/26.0, recommending maintenance and inspection plans for
drainage systems. DEIR page 3.6-14.) DEIR page 3.6-12 to
-13.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The design level geotechnical
investigation will disclose areas which may be susceptible
to slope instability. Special techniques, such as siting of
structure and improvements, removing the unstable materials,
and providing structural remediation, will improve slope
stability.
IMPACT 3.6/j. cut and fill Slope Stability. Potentially
unstable cut and fill slopes may fail or settle, causing damage
to structures and infrastructure. DEIR page 3.6-13.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0 to 21.0. Require grading plans
for hillside areas, which plans minimize grading and
required cuts and fills by adapting roads to natural
landforms, stepping structures down steeper slopes, and
demonstrating compliance with applicable building code and
other applicable City and County requirements. DEIR page
3.6-13.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/22.0 to 25.0. Detailed design level
geotechnical investigations such as that required by
mitigation measure 3.6/17.0 should describe and evaluate cut
and fill slopes proposed for development projects in the
RPA. Retaining structures, reinforcement and drainage
measures should be provided on cut slopes as determined by
code requirements and the specific conditions identified in
the ge0technical investigation. Unretained cut slopes
should generally not exceed 3:1. Filled slopes steeper than
5:1 should be keyed and benched into competent material and
provided with subdrainage prior to placing engineered fill.
DEIR pages 3.16-13 to -14.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/26.0. Development projects in the
Project area should prepare plans for the periodic in-
spection and maintenance of subsurface drainage features,
and the removal and disposal of materials deposited in
surface drains and catch basins. (See also measures
114\eastdub\find(4)
42
described in MM 3.6/28.0.) The plans should include
inspection and disposal procedures, schedule and reporting
requirements, and a responsible party, and should emphasize
overall long-term Project monitoring and maintenance. DEIR
page 3.6-14.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The detailed design level geotechni-
cal investigation will identify areas where cut and fill
slopes are proposed. Specific grading plans affecting these
conditions would be required to show how each development
project will minimize cut and fill slopes, and how the
remaining slopes will be stabilized through siting or engi-
neering features. Long-term monitoring and maintenance
plans will ensure that the design facilities and engineered
features effectively protect the cut and fill slopes over
the long term.
IMPACT 3.6/K, L. Erosion and Sedimentation: Construction-Related
and Long-Term. Construction of development projects in the RPA
will modify the ground surface and its protective vegetative
cover and will alter surface runoff and infiltration patterns,
causing short-term erosion and sedimentation during=construction,
and long-term erosion and sedimentation once permanent structures
and improvements are in place. The long-term impact is also a
significant cumulative impact as similar sites are developed
throughout the Tri-Valley. DEIR page. 3.6-14, 5.0-11.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0. Time grading activities to
avoid the rainy season as much as possible, and implement
interim control measures, including but not limited to,
providing water bars, mulch and net blankets on exposed
slopes, straw bale dikes, temporary culverts and swales,
sediment traps, and/or silt fences. DEIR page 3.6-14.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0. Reduce long-term erosion and
sedimentation impacts through appropriate design, construc-
tion, and continued maintenance of surface and subsurface
drainage. Appropriate measures include, but are not limited
to, constructing sediment catch basins, adequate storm sewer
systems, stabilizing creek banks, revegetating and main'
taining wooded slopes, constructing facilities to control
drainage and runoff, and emphasizing periodic homeowner/
landowner maintenance. (See also MM 3.6/26.) DEIR page
3.6-15, 5.0-11.
114 \eastdub\find ( 4 ) 43
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessensthe significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigations include measures
to prevent concentration of runoff, control runoff velocity,
and trap silts on both a short-term and long-term basis,
thereby minimizing the identified impact.
Section 3.7 -- Biological Resources
IMPACT 3.7/A. Direct Habitat Loss. Under Alternative 2, the
Project will result in the loss, degradation, or disturbance of
1900 acres of existing vegetation. No unique or rare plant
species occur in the Project area; however, urbanization will
substantially reduce the habitat and range for botanical and
wildlife species which are resident or migratory users of the
RPA. The Project contributes to the cumulative, ongoing 'loss of
natural habitat in the Tri-Valley region, and is also a
potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.7-9, 5.0-
11, Addendum.
Mitiqation Measures 3.7 / 1.0 to 3.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policies 6-21, and 6-23,, and Action Program 60,,
direct,=disturbance of trees or vegetation should be
minimized and restricted to those areas actually designated
for construction of improvements. Development projects
should include vegetation enhancement/management plans for
all open space areas identifying ways to enhance the
biological potential of the area as wildlife habitat and
focusing on such measures as reintroducing native species to
increase vegetative cover and plant diversity. Development
projects shall also be required to prepare a detailed
revegetation/restoration plan, developed by a qualified
revegetation specialist, for all disturbed areas that are to
remain undeveloped. (,Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA. ) DEIR page 3.7-9, 5.0-11.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/4.0. The City shall develop and
implement grazing management plans to protect riparian and
wetland areas, increase plant diversity, and encourage the
recovery of native plants, especially perennial grasses.
DEIR page 3.7-9, 5.0-11.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Restricting direct disturbance to
actual construction areas will reduce the amount of habitat
lost. The vegetation and grazing plans will protect and
restore disturbed areas to minimize the amount of habitat
ll4\eastdub\find (4)
44
loss and to enhance the value of the habitat area remaining.
IMPACT 3.7/B. Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal.
Construction activities on the Project site may cause dust
deposition, increased soil erosion and sedimentation, increased
potential for slope failures, and alteration of surface and
subsurface drainage patterns. DEIR page 3.7-9 to -10.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy6-22,, all disturbed areas should be revegetated as
quickly as possible with native trees, shrubs, herbs, and
grasses, to prevent erosion. The City shall determine
specific physical characteristics of proposed revegetation
areas to evaluate the long-term feasibility of the proposed
mitigation and to identify potential conflicts at the site.
Plants used for revegetation will be native to the Tri-
Valley Area. (,Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-10; RC # 13-18.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/18.0, 22.0, 23.0. and 3.11/1.0.
Development should avoid siting on steep slopes and should
observe special design and engineering mitigation features
where construction occurs on 3:1 or steeper slopes. The
City of Dublin shall require dust deposition mitigations
during construction, including but not limited to, watering
the construction site, daily clean-up of mud and dust,
replanting and repaying and other measures to reduce wind
erosion. DEIR pages 3.6-12 to -13, 3.7-10, 3.11-3 to -4.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen=~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Requiring construction to avoid
siting on steep slopes will protect hillside vegetation and
reduce erosion impacts. Where disturbance is necessary,
engineering and other techniques to reduce erosion and
sedimentation and promote slope stability will also ensure
that revegetation efforts to control erosion will be more
efficient and successful.
IMPACT 3.7/C. Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive
Habitat. Direct loss and degradation from grading, road
construction, and culvert crossings could adversely affect the
Project area's unique and sensitive Northern Riparian Forest,
Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland, and Freshwater Marsh habitats.
Indirect impacts could result from increased sedimentation or
spoil deposition affecting stream flow patterns and damaging
young seedlings and the roots of woody plants. This impact is
also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.7-
10, 5.0-11.
ll4\eastdub\find(4) 45
Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0, 7.0, and 11.0, Riparian and
Wetland Areas. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policies 6-9,*
6-10,* and Action Program 6E,, natural riparian and wetland
areas shall be preserved wherever possible. All development
projects in the RPA shall consult with the Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and the California Department of Fish and
Game (DFG) to determine these agencies' jurisdiction over
the riparian or wetland area. These areas shall be
incorporated into project open space areas. Any lost
ripari~n habitat shall be replaced as required by DFG. Any
lost wetlands shall be mitigated per COE's "no net loss"
policy., (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.)
DEIR page 3.7-10, and -11, 5.0-12.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/8.0 to 10.0, 12.0 to 14.0. Pursuant
to Specific Plan Policies 6-11 to 6-13,, and Action Programs
6F to 6H,* the City shall require revegetation of natural
stream corridors with native plant species and preservation
and maintenance of natural stream corridors in the Project
area, through measures including, but not limited to,
avoiding underground drainage systems in favor of natural
open-stream channels and retention basins. The City shall
establish a stream corridor system (see Specific Plan Figure
6.1) to provide multi-purpose open space corridors for
pedestrian and wildlife circulation. The City should also
work with Zone 7 and DFG to develop a stream corridor
restoration program, with standards for grading, stabiliza-
tion, ~nd revegetation, and long-term management of RPA
stream!!~channels. Development projects in the RPA are to be
reviewed against, and any approval shall be consistent with,
the program standards. (,Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-10 to -12, 5.0-12; RC #14-
7, 35-25.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/15.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 6K,* the City of Dublin shall establish and
maintain a liaison with state and federal resource manage-
ment agencies throughout the planning and development
process of individual development projects, in order to
avoid violations of state and federal regulations and insure
that specific issues and concerns are recognized and
addressed. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-12, 5.0-12.
Mitigation Measures 3.7 / 16.0 to 17.0. Existing sensitive
habitats shall be avoided and protected where feasible.
ConstrUction near drainages shall take place during the dry
seasonE DEIR page 3.7-12, 5.0-12.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. These changes will avoid or
114 \eastdub\find ( 4 ) 4 6
substantially lessen the Pro3ect-related significant effects
identified in the final EIR. However, these changes will
not av6id the cumulative effects of lost or degraded
biologically sensitive habitat. Therefore, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of
the Project.
Rationale for Finding. Requiring compliance with "no net
loss" policies will ensure that the amount of habitat shall
remain constant. By incorporating wildlife corridors into
Project plans, wildlife habitats will be enhanced and will
not become isolated because wildlife will be able to migrate
through these corridors as necessary. Disturbance of
natural stream corridors can reduce the habitat value of
these areas, but will be minimized by requirements to
preserve and maintain these corridors in a natural, open
condition, and by requiring construction to take place in
the dry season. Any disturbed streams shall be rebuilt,
reconstructed and revegetated according to the stream
corridor plan, which will further enhance and protect
habitat values in the RPA. Even with these protections for
the RPA's biologically sensitive resource, the cumulative
impact~icannot be fully mitigated.
IMPACT 3.7/D. San Joaquin Kit Fox. Construction of new roads
and facilities could adversely impact kit fox by destroying
potential dens or burying foxes occupying dens at the time of
construction. Modification of natural habitat could reduce
available prey and den sites. Increased vehicle traffic, the
presence of humans and domestic dogs, and resident useof poison
for rodent control could kill or disturb foxes or reduce their
prey populations. DEIR page 3.7-12 to -13.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/18.0. The City shall require all
development in the RPA to comply with the East Dublin San
Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan outlined in Appendix E, DEIR
Part Ii. Extensive mitigation measures stress siting urban
development to avoid kit fox habitat where possible, and
protecting and enhancing the habitat which remains primarily
in the!~Open Space and Rural Residential areas. Mitigations
includ~ measures for pre-construction and construction
conditions, and address steps to be taken if potential or
known dens are identified. DEIR page 3.7-13, DEIR Appendix
E (as revised following RC #20-7.)
Mitigation Measure 3.7/18.1. The City of Dublin shall work
with other agencies to develop a management plan that
identifies measures to protect viable habitat for the kit
fox in the Tri-Valley area. RC #20-5.
114 \eastdub\find ( 4 )
47
Mitigation Measure 3.7/19.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action!Program 6N,* the City shall restrict rodenticide and
herbicide use. (,Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-13.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Appendix E provides a comprehensive
protection plan addressing several phases of kit fox
protection, from avoidance of potential dens to maintenance
of habitat. Through this plan, the Project will avoid most
directS!and indirect adverse effects on any kit fox that
might be present in the Project area.
IMPACT8 3.7/F to I. Red-legged Frog, California Tiger
Salamander, Western Pond Turtle, Tri-Colored Blackbird. The
destruction and alteration of water impoundments and stream
courses in the RPA threatens to eliminate habitat for these
species. Increased sedimentation into the riparian areas could
reduce water quality and threaten breeding and larval habitat.
Disturbance of the already minimal vegetation in the stream
courses could reduce habitat opportunity for adult species.
Increased vehicle traffic and new road construction could
increase direct mortality. Harassment and predationby feral
dogs and cats already occurs, and would increase with increased
residential development. DEIR page 3.7-13 to -14.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 to 22.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan ACtion Program 6L, and other EIR mitigations, develop-
ment projects in the RPA shall prepare open space plans to
enhance and preserve existing habitat and revegetation plans
for any disturbed open space or habitat areas and shall
preserve and protect riparian, wetland, and stream corridor
areas whenever possible. (See MMs 3.7/2.0 to 3.0.)
Maintain a minimum buffer of at least 100 feet around
breeding sites of the red-legged frog, California tiger
salamander, and Western pond turtle. Development projects
in the RPA shall conduct a pre-construction survey within
sixty days prior to habitat modification to verify the
presence of sensitive species. (,Specific Plan provisions
adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-14.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Open space protection, revegetation,
and restoration planning, as well as planning to protect and
enhance wetland and riparian areas will also protect and
114 \eastdub \find ( 4 ) 48
minimize impacts to the riparian habitat necessary for the
species identified in this impact.
IMPACTS 3.7/K. Golden Eagle: The conversion of grasslands and
the consequent reduction of potential prey could reduce the
amount and quality of foraging habitat for golden eagles. Noise
and human activity associated with development could also disrupt
foraging activities. Elimination of golden eagle foraging habi-
tat is also a potentially significant cumulative impact which
contributes to the overall regional loss of foraging habitat for
this species. DEIR page 3.7-15, 5.0-12.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0. Designate substantial areas of
land in the Project area as Open Space or Rural Residential
(including future study areas), providing open space
protection and low intensity development that will also
provide a suitable foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7-15,
5.0-12.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Providing a natural open space zone
around=the existing golden eagle nest avoids destruction of
the nesting site; providing an additional buffer' during the
golden eagle reproductive period further protects the
integrity of the existing nesting site. The natural open
space zone, together with the over acres of open
space and low intensity development across the Project site
provides ample opportunity to maintain effective foraging
habitat for golden eagles.
IMPACT 3.7/L. Golden Eagle and Other Raptor Electrocutions.
Golden eagles and other raptors which perch or fly into high-
voltage transmission lines may be electrocuted. DEIR page
3.7-15.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/26.0 and 3.4/42.0. Require all
utilities to be located below grade where feasible.
Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 6M,, require all
transmission lines to be undergrounded where feasible.
Where not feasible, design specifications to protect raptors
from electrocution shall be implemented. These specifica-
tions include, but are not limited to, spacing dangerous
components; insulating conductors,, using non-conductive
materials, or providing perch guards on cross arms; and
avoiding grounded steel cross arm braces. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-24, 3.7-
15 to -16.
ll4\eastdub\find(4)
49
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Undergrounding utilities, including
all transmission lines, avoids the electrocution hazard.
Where the hazard cannot be avoided through undergrounding,
the design specifications identified in the mitigations
reduce.the electrocution hazards by neutralizing and/or
covering the features that provide opportunities for
electrocution.
IMPACT 3.7/M, N. Burrowing Owl and American Badger. Annual
grasslands in the RPA provide suitable habitat for burrowing
owls. Development and related construction activity could
destroy both burrowing owl and American badger burrows. Harass-
ment by feral dogs and cats, as well as use of poisons for rodent
control, could harm these species and/or reduce their prey
populations. DEIR page 3.7-16 to -17.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 and 27.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Program 6L, and other EIR mitigations, develop-
ment projects in the RPA shall conduct a pre-construction
survey within sixty days prior to habitat modification to
verify the presence of sensitive species. The projects
shall maintain a minimum buffer of at least 30O~=feet around
the breeding sites of the American badger during the
breeding season (March to September) to avoid direct loss of
individuals. Also, projects shall maintain a minimum buffer
of at least 300 feet around known or identified nesting
sites of the burrowing owl, or implement other mitigation
actions pursuant to standardized protocol now under
development, including relocation of nesting sites in
coordination with the USFWS and the CDFG. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3.7-14, and
-17; RC #15-60.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The pre-construction survey and
required buffer zone around known nesting and breeding sites
preserves these species' burrows by allowing them to be
avoided during the construction and development process.
IMPACT 3.7 / O.
Shouldered Kite.
foraging habitat.
114\eastdub\find(4)
Prairie Falcon, Northern Harrier, and Black-
Development in the RPA could cause loss of
DEIR page 3.7-17.
50
Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0. Substantial areas of land in
the Project area are designated for Open Space and low
intensity Rural Residential land uses (including future
study areas). DEIR pages 3.7-15 and -17.
FindinG. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The designated open space and low
intensity rural residential uses provide adequate foraging
habitat for these species.
IMPACT 3.7/P. Sharp-Shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawk. Development
in the RPA could cause loss of foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7-
17.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0 through 17.0 and 21.0.
Establish protective buffer zones for riparian and fresh-
water marsh habitats to protect and enhance sensitive
habitats. Preserve riparian, wetland, and stream corridor
areas;~where avoidance of these areas is not feasible,
prepare and implement habitat restoration, enhancement and
maintenance plans. DEIR pages 3.7-10 to -12, -14, -17.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the~Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The mitigations provide
preservation, enhancement and maintenance features for
riparian and freshwater marsh habitats upon which these
species rely for forage. Protecting and enhancing this
habitat avoids the impact of lost habitat.
IMPACT 3.7/8. Special Status Invertebrates. Impacts to special
status invertebrates cannot be estimated at this time. DEIR page
3 . 7-18 .
Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0. Species-specific surveys shall
be conducted in appropriate riparian/wetland habitats prior
to approval of specific projects in the RPA. DEIR page 3.7-
18, Addendum.
Findinc. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Any potential impacts to Special
Status Invertebrates will be addressed during CEQA review of
specific development projects in the RPA.
114\eastdub\find ( 4 )
51
Section 3.8 -- Visual Resources
IMPACT 3.8/A. Standardized "Tract" Development. Generic
"cookie-cutter" development could obscure the specific natural
features of the RPA, such as its landforms, vegetation, and
watercourses, that make it a unique place with its own identity.
DEIR page 3~8-4.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0. Pursuant to the goal statement
in SpeCific Plan Section 6.3.4,* establish a visually
distinctive community which preserves the character of the
natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and
maintaining views from major travel corridors and public
spaces. Implement the extensive design guidelines for
development as described in Chapter 7, of the Specific Plan.
These guidelines provide a flexible design framework, but do
not compromise the community character as a whole.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.8-5.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. By protecting key natural and visual
elements, the Project maintains the natural features of the
RPA, which make it unique. The general design guidelines
for the Project, including a village center, town center,
mixed use orientation, and varying lot sizes, provide a
varied development pattern, which avoids the look of
standard cookie-cutter tract developments.
IMPACT 3.8/B. Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character.
Urban development of the RPA will substantially alter the
existing rural and open space qualities that characterize eastern
Dublin. This is also a significant cumulative impact as the
natural rural character of the Tri-Valley subregion is replaced
by urban development. DEIR page 3.8-5, 5.10-12.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0. Implement the land use plan for
the RPA, which plan emphasizes retaining the predominant
natural features, such as ridgelines and watercourses, and
preserves the sense of openness that characterizes Eastern
Dublin. DEIR page 3.8-5, 5.0-12.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
ll4\eastdub\find(4) 52
Rationale for Finding. Maintaining predominant natural
features minimizes the alteration of the RPA's current rural
open space character; however, it does not fully mitigate
this impact.
IMPACT 3.8/C. Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features. The
characteristic unvegetated landscape of the RPA heightens the
visual importance of existing trees, watercourses, and other
salient natural and cultural features. The Project has the
potential to obscure or alter these existing features and thereby
reduce the visual uniqueness of the site. DEIR page 3.8-5.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 6-28,* preserve the natural open beauty of the hills
and other important visual resources, such as creeks and
major stands of vegetation. (,Specific Plan provisions
adopted throughout RPA. ) DEIR page 3.8-5.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen?!~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. This mitigation measure calls for
preservation of the RPA's important visual resources,
thereby avoiding the impact of obscured or altered visually
important features.
IMPACT 3.S/D. Alteration of Visual Quality of Hillsides.
Grading and excavation of building sites in hillside areas will
severely compromise the visual quality of the RPA. DEIR page
3.8-6.
Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0 to 4.5. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policies 6-32,* and 6-34 to -38,* grading and
excavation throughout the RPA should be minimized, by using
such grading features as gradual transitions from graded
ares to natural slopes, by revegetation of graded areas, by
maintaining natural contours as much as possible and grading
only the actual development areas. Building pads in
hillside areas should be graded individually or stepped,
wherever possible. Structures and roadways should be
designed in response to the topographical and geotechnical
conditions. Structures should be designed to blend in with
surrounding slopes and topography and the height and grade
of cut and fill slopes should be minimized wherever
feasible. (,Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-6.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
ll4\eastdub\£ind(4)
53
Rationale for Finding. The various grading techniques
identified, together with revegetation and sensitive
building design will avoid the impact by minimizing physical
alteration throughout the RPA.
IMPACT 3.8/E. Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges.
Structures built in proximity to ridges may obscure or fragment
the profile'of visually-sensitive ridgelines. DEIR page 3.8-6.
Mitiqation Measures 3.8/5.0 to 5.2. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 6-29,, development is not permitted on the main
ridgeline that borders the Specific Plan area to the north'
and east, but may be permitted on the foreground hills and
ridgelands. Minor interruptions of views of the main
ridgeline by individual building masses may be permitted
only where all other remedies have been exhausted. Pursuant
to Specific Plan Policy 6-30, and General Plan Amendment
Guiding Policy E, structures shall not obstruct scenic views
and shall not appear to extend above an identified scenic
ridgetop when viewed from scenic routes. (,Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Prohibiting development along the
main ridgeline in the RPA preserves the visualquality of
this resource. Limiting development so that structures are
not silhouetted against other scenic ridgetops, as well as
requiring that a backdrop of natural ridgeline remain
visible, minimizes the obstruction or fragmentation of
visually sensitive ridgelines.
IMPACT 3.8/F. Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands.
Commercial and residential development of the RPA's flatlands
will completely alter the existing visual character resulting
from valley grasses and agricultural fields. DEIR page 3.8-7.
Mitigation Measures. None identified. DEIR page 3.8-7.
Finding. No changes or alterations are available to
substantially lessen this impact. Therefore, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of
the Project.
Rationale for Finding. Development of the Project site's
flatter areas is regarded as a "trade-off" measure designed
to preserve slopes, hillsides, and ridgelines.
114\eastdub\find(4) 54
IMPACT 3.8/G. Alteration of the Visual Character of Water-
courses. Urban development of the Project site in proximity to
watercourses may diminish or eliminate their visibility and
function as~distinct landscape elements. DEIR page 3.8-7.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/6.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 6-39,* protect the visual character of Tassajara
Creek and other stream corridors from unnecessary alteration
or disturbance. Adjoining development should be sited to
maintain visual access to the stream corridors. Implement
earlier identified mitigation measures 3.7/8.0, 12.0, and
13.0, to revegetate stream corridors to enhance their
natural appearance, to prepare a comprehensive stream
corridor restoration program, and to establish dedication of
land along both sides of stream corridors. (,Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7 to -8,
3.7-10 to -11.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Preserving the RPA watercourses will
retain both their visibility and function as distinct
landscape elements. Special attention to stream corridors
through revegetation, restoration, and dedication of land
along both sides, will further enhance this distinct
landscape element.
IMPACT 3.8/I. Scenic Vistas. Development on the RPA will alter
the character of existing scenic vistas and may obscure important
sightlines. DEIR page 3.8-8.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.0 to 7.1. Pursuant to Specific
Plan policy 6-5* and other EIR mitigations, preserve views
of designated open space areas. The City will conduct a
visual survey of the RPA to identify and map viewsheds of
scenic vistas. (,Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.)
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Identifying and mapping critical
viewsheds allows the City to consider specific ways of
preserving those views when reviewing development projects
within the RPA.
IMAGE 3.8/J. Scenic Routes. Urban development of the RPA will
significantly alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic
114 \ea stdub \ find ( 4 ) 5 5
routes in eastern Dublin. As quiet rural roads become major
suburban thoroughfares, foreground and distant views may be
obstructed. DEIR page 3.8-8 to -9.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/8.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 6Q,* the City should officially adopt
Tassajara Road, 1-580, and Fallon Road as designated scenic
corridors, should adopt scenic corridor policies, and should
establish development review procedures and standards to
preserve scenic vistas. (,Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-9.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/8.1. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 6R,, the City should require that projects
with potential impacts on scenic corridors submit detailed
visual analysis with development project applications. The
analysis shall include graphic simulations and/or sections
drawn from affected travel corridors and representing
typical views from scenic routes. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-9.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Establishing scenic corridor
policies will insure that the visual experienceof travelers
along scenic routes be maintained as much as possible.
Requiring visual analyses will allow the City to specifi-
cally review development projects for their visual impacts
and to review how locations of structures and associated
landscaping can be used to adjust the project design to
minimize its visual impacts from scenic routes.
Section 3.9 -- Cultural Resources
IMPACT 3.9/A. Disruption or Destruction of Identified
PrehistoriciResources. Due to the level of development proposed
in the RPA, iit is assumed that all prehistoric sites identified
in the 1988!:inventory will be disturbed or altered in some
manner. DEIR page 3.9-6.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 to 4.0. Develop a testing
program to determine the presence or absence of hidden
deposits in all locations of prehistoric resources. All
locations containing these components shall be recorded with
the State of California and their borders will be staked so
that professional survey teams may develop accurate location
maps. If any of these recorded and mapped locations are
affected by future construction or increased access to the
areas, evaluative testing, consisting of collecting and
114 \eastdub\find ( 4 )
56
analyzing any surface concentration of materials, shall be
undertaken in order to prepare responsive mitigation
measures. The City shall hire a qualified archaeologist to
develop a protection program for prehistoric sites con-
taining significant surface or subsurface deposits of
cultural materials in areas where development will alter the
current condition of the resource. DEIR page 3.9-6 to -7.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Through these mitigations,
prehistoric resources can be identified and mapped, and
specific mitigation plans prepared as part of review of
development projects that will affect the resources.
IMPACT 3.9/B. Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Pre-
Historic Resources. Previously unidentified pre-historic
resources may exist in the RPA and would be subject to potential
disruption or destruction by construction and development
activities associated with the Project. DEIR page 3.9-7.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 to 6.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 6-25, and Action Program 6P,, cease any grading
or construction activity if historic or prehistoric remains
are discovered until the significance and extent of those
remains can be ascertained by a certified archaeologist.
Development projects in the RPA shall prepare an archaeolo-
gical site sensitivity determination and detailed research
and field reconnaissance by a certified archaeologist, and
develop a mitigation plan. (*Specific Plan provisions
adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-7.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigations will insure that
any significant prehistoric resources which are discovered
during~.~development activities are not disrupted or
destroyed.
IMPACT 3.9/C. Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic
Resources. .=~Due to the level of development proposed in the RPA,
it is assumed that all historic sites identified in the 1988
inventory will be disturbed or altered in some manner. Even
cultural resources in the proposed Open Space and Rural Residen-
tial areas will potentially be disturbed or altered due to the
presence of new residential population in the area. DEIR page
3.9-8.
114 \eastdub\ find ( 4 ) 57
Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0 to 12.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policies 6-26, and 6-27* and other mitigations
identified in the EIR, all properties with historic
resources and all standing structural remains shall be
evaluated by an architectural historian as part of in-depth
archival research to determine the significance of the
resource prior to any alteration. All historic locations in
the 1988 inventory shall be recorded on official State of
California historical site inventory forms. These records
should~'~be used to make sure that historical locations are
recorded onto development maps by professional surveyors.
Where the disruption of historical resources is unavoidable,
encourage the adaptive reuse or restoration of the struc-
tures whenever feasible. A qualified architectural
historian shall be hired to develop a preservation program
for historic sites found to be significant under Appendix K
of the CEQA guidelines. (,Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-8.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Archival research and recordation of
historical sites on state inventory forms will insure that
historical resources are identified throughout the Project
area. ~Encouraging adaptive reuse or restoration of historic
structures and development of a preservation program for
historic sites will insure that identified resources are not
disturbed or destroyed.
IMPACT 3.9/D. Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Historic
Resources. Previously unidentified historic resources may exist
in the RPA and would be subject to potential disruption or
destruction by construction and development activities associated
with the Project. DEIR page 3.9-8.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 to 7.0, 9.0, 10.0, and 12.0.
These previously identified mitigation measures will be used
to ascertain the presence of unidentified historic resources
on a development project site in the RPA. If a historic
resource is identified, archival research shall be performed
to determine the significance of the resource or structure.
The City shall hire a qualified architectural historian to
develop a preservation program for significant historic
sites. z! DEIR page 3.9-7 to -9.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen' the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
114 \ea stdub\find ( 4 ) 5 8
Rationale for Finding. Mitigations will ensure that any
significant historic resources which are discovered during
development activities are not disrupted or destroyed.
Section 3.10 -- Noise
IMPACT 3.10/A. Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway
Noise. Proposed residential housing along Dublin Boulevard,
Tassajara Road, Fallon Road, and Hacienda Drive will be exposed
to future noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. DEIR page 3.10-
2.
Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0. Require acoustical studies for
all residential development projects within the future CNEL
60 contour to show how interior noise levels will be reduced
to 45 dB.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lesseni. the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The required acoustical studies must
show how interior noise exposures are reduced to 45 dB CNEL,
the minimum acceptable noise level.
IMPACT 3.10/B. Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway
Noise. Increased traffic noise on local roads would. result in
significant cumulative noise level increases along Tassajara .(4
dB), Fallon (6dB), and Hacienda Roads of 6 dB. This is a
potentially significant cumulative impact in that small indivi-
dual Project noise increases considered together and over the
long term, will substantially increase overall noise levels.
DEIR page 3~i10-3, 5.0-13.
Mitigation Measures 3.10/2.0. All development projects in
the RPA shall provide noise barriers or berms near existing
residences to control noise in outdoor use spaces. DEIR
page 3:10-3.
Mitigation Measure 3.10/7.0. To mitigate cumulative noise
impacts, the City shall develop a noise mitigation fee to
pay for on- and off-site noise mitigations, including but
not limited to, noise barriers, earthen berms, or
retrofitting structures with sound-rated windows. DEIR page
5.0-13.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
114 \ea stdub\fj~:nd ( 4 )
59
Rationale for Finding. Providing noise barriers or berms
will reduce noise exposure for existing residences; however,
mitigation may not be feasible at all locations because of
site constraints such as driveways and proximity to road-
ways. Furthermore, while developers will provide funding for
noise mitigations to reduce overall noise levels, funds
derived from the experimental program may not adequately
mitigate the cumulative impact. Therefore, this noise
impact cannot be fully mitigated.
IMPACT 3.10/D. Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to
Noise from Future Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve
Forces Training Area (Camp Parks RFTA) and the County Jail.
Residential development on the Project site within 6000 feet of
Camp Parks RFTA and the County Jail could be exposed to noise
impacts from gunshots and helicopter overflights. DEIR page
3.10-4.
Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0. The City shall require an
acoustical study prior to future development in the Foothill
Residential, Tassajara Village Center, County Center, and
Hacienda Gateway subareas (as defined in Figure 4.2 of the
Specific Plan) to determine whether future noise impacts
from Camp Parks and the county jail will be within accept-
able limits. This study should identify and evaluate all
potential noise generating operations. DEIR page 3.10-4.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. The required acoustical study will
identify noise sensitive areas in the Project site and noise
generating operations at Camp Parks and the jail and will
propose mitigation to reduce noise impacts to acceptable
limits. However, mitigation may not be possible at all
critical locations, so the impact may not be fully
mitigated.
IMPACT 3.10jE. Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to
Construction Noise. Construction would occur over years on the
Project site and will be accompanied by noise from truck activity
on local roads, heavy equipment used in grading and paving,
impact noises during structural framing, and pile driving.
Construction impacts will be most severe near existing residen-
tial uses along Tassajara Road and near existing uses in the
southern portion of the Project area. DEIR page 3.10-4.
114 \ea stdub \ find ( 4 ) 60
Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 to 5.0. Development projects
in the RPA shall submit a Construction Noise Management
Program that identifies measures proposed to minimize
construction noise impacts on existing residents. The
Program shall include a schedule for grading and other major
noise-generating activities, limiting these activities to
the shortest possible number of days. Other noise
mitigation measures include, but are not limited to,
restricting hours of construction activity, developing
construction vehicle access routes which minimize truck
traffic through residential areas, and developing a
mitigation plan for construction traffic that cannot be
avoided in residential areas. In addition, all development-
related operations should comply with local noise standards,
including limiting activity to daytime hours, muffling
stationary equipment, and locating that equipment as far
away from sensitive receptors as possible. DEIR page 3.10-
4 to -5.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Through these mitigation measures,
developers will limit the intensity and duration of noise
exposure experienced by existing residences in~construction
areas. Other mitigations will limit noise exposure by
moving the noise-generating equipment as far away from
residential uses as possible.
IMPACT 3.10/F. Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse
Land Uses Permitted by Plan Policies Supporting Mixed-Use
Development.i The presence of different land use types within the
same development creates the possibility of noise impacts between
adjoining uses, particularly when commercial and residential land
uses abut. =DEIR page 3.10-5.
Mitigation Measure 3.10/6.0. Development projects in the
RPA shall prepare noise management plans to be reviewed as
part of the development application for all mixed use
projects involving residential uses and non-residential
uses. To be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant,
the plan should aim to provide a high quality acoustic
environment for residential and non-residential users and
should propose steps to minimize or avoid potential noise
problems. The plan should address the concerns of resi-
dents, non-residential users, and maintenance personnel, and
should make maximum use.of site planning to avoid noise
conflicts. DEIR page 3.10-5 to -6.
i
114 \ea stdub \ find ( 4 )
61
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The required noise management plans
allow both the developer and the City to anticipate possible
noise conflicts in mixed-use developments and to propose
specific measures to address the specific conflicts identi-
fied. ~Occurring at an early stage in the process and
reviewed with the development application, projects can make
use ofthe greatest array of conflict reducing techniques,
including building design and site planning. Compliance
with these mitigations will lessen or avoid potential noise
conflicts from adjacent mixed uses.
IMPACT 3.11/A. Dust Deposition Soiling Nuisance from
Construction Activity. Clearing, grading, excavation, and
unpaved roadway travel related to project construction will
generate particulate matter which may settle out near the
construction sites, creating a soiling nuisance. Any additional
dust pollution will worsen the air basin's non-attainment status
for particulates. Dust emissions is therefore also a potentially
significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.11-3, 5.0-13.
Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0. Require development projects
in the Project area to implement dust control.measures,
including but not limited to, watering construction sites,
cleaning up mud and dust carried by construction vehicles,
effective covers on haul trucks, planting, repaying, and
other revegetation measures on exposed soil surfaces,
avoiding unnecessary idling of construction equipment,
limiting on-site vehicle speeds, and monitoring particulate
matter=~levels. These measures will reduce project dust
deposition to acceptable levels, but will not avoid
cumulative impacts of dust generation. DEIR page 3.11-3 to
-4, 5.0-13.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, cumulative dust generation impacts will not be
substantially avoided. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measures identify
various feasible and reasonable dust control measures that
.developers can take during construction activity. These
measures eliminate and/or minimize the amount and effect of
dust deposition in construction areas. Even with these
measures, however, some small amount of additional pollution
will occur. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of dust
emissions cannot be fully mitigated.
114 \eastdub\ find ( 4 ) 6 2
IMPACT 3.11/B. Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions.
Construction equipment operation generates daily exhaust
emissions. Normally considered a temporary impact, buildout of
the Project area over the long term will be a chronic source of
equipment/vehicle emissions. This is also a potentially signifi-
cant cumulative impact due to the non-attainment status of the
air basin. DEIR page 3.11-4, 5.0-13.
Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0 to 4.0. Minimize construction
interference with regional non-Project traffic movement by
scheduling and routing construction traffic to non-peak
times and locations. Provide ride-sharing incentives for
construction personnel. Require routine low-emission tune-
ups for on-site equipment. Require development projects in
the Project area to prepare a Construction Impact Reduction
Plan incorporating all proposed air quality mitigation
strategies with clearly defined responsibilities for plan
implementation and supervision. DEIR page 3.11-4, 5.0-13.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. The mitigations include construction
timing and siting measures that will reduce equipment and
vehicle emissions over the long-term buildout of the
Project. Even with these mitigations, however, neither
Project nor cumulative air quality impacts canbe fully
mitigated.
IMPACT 3.11/C. Mobile Source Emissions: ROG or NOx. Project
implementation at full buildout will generate 500,000 daily
automobile trips within the air basin. Mobile source emissions
for ROG and.NOx associated with these vehicle trips are
precursors to ozone formation. The emissions associated with
this level Of vehicle use will far exceed BAAQMD thresholds for
significant4ieffect. This is also a potentially significant
cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.11-5, 5.0-14.
Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0 to 11.0. Exercise interagency
cooperation on a subregional and regional basis to integrate
local air quality planning efforts with transportation,
transit and other infrastructure plans. Implement techni-
ques, such as transportation demand management (TDM),
shifting travel to non-peak periods, and encouraging mixed-
use development which provides housing, jobs, goods and
services in close proximity as a means of reducing vehicle
trips and related emissions and congestion. At the
development Project level, maintain consistency between
114 \eastdub\find ( 4 )
63
specific development plans and regional transportation and
growth management plans, coordinate levels of growth with
roadway transportation facilities and improvements, and
require linkage between housing growth and job opportunities
to achieve a positive subregional jobs/housing balance.
DEIR page 3.11-5, 5.0-14.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. The various techniques described in
the mitigation measures provide opportunities to reduce
vehicle trips, and therefore reduce vehicle emissions.
However, because of the size of this Project, neither
Project nor cumulative impacts can be fully mitigated.
IMPACT 3.11/E. Stationary Source Emissions. Specific Plan
buildout will create emissions from a variety of sources,
including but not limited to, fuel combustion in power plants,
evaporative emissions from paints, and subsurface decay of
organic materials associated with solid waste disposal. This is
also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page
3.11-6, 5.0.14.
Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0 to 13.0. Minimize stationary
sourceSemissions associated with Project development where
feasible, with the goal of achieving 10 percent above the
minimum conservation target levels established in Title 24
of the California Code of Regulations. Include solid waste
recycling in all development planning. DEIR page 3.11-6,
5.0-14.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. Focusing on reducing emissions from
various sources will allow an incremental reduction in
stationary source emissions. These reductions will not,
however, be sufficient to avoid either Project-related or
cumulative impacts.
114\eastdub\find(4)
64
Section 2
ENVIRONMENTALLY INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The City Council finds that all other impacts of the proposed
Project are not environmentally significant as documented in the
FEIR and supported by evidence elsewhere in the record. No
mitigation is required for these insignificant impacts.
114 \eastdub\find ( 4 ) 6 5
Section 3
FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
The City Council is adopting Alternative 2 (with minor changes)
described in the Final EIR in place of the originally proposed
Project. The City hereby finds the remaining three alternatives
identified and described in the Final EIR were considered and are
found to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or
other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA Section
21081, subdivision (c). The City also declines to adopt the
Project as originally proposed for the reasons set forth below.
THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED PROJECT.
Section 21081, subdivision (c) does not require the City Council
to make findings as to why the originally proposed Project was
not adopted. Such findings need only be made as to project
alternatives which would mitigate significant environmental
effects. Alternative 2 has no significant environmental effects
which could be avoided by adopting the originally proposed
project in its stead. Rather, the City Council finds that
Alternative 2 will pose no significant environmental effects that
would not be posed at least to the same extent (and often to a
greater extent) by the Project as originally proposed.
Public=Resources Code section 21085 prohibits public
agencies from reducing the proposed number of housing units as a
project alternative pursuant to CEQA for a particular significant
affect on the environment if it determines that there is another
feasible specific mitigation measure or project alternative that
would provide a comparable level of mitigation. The Project as
adopted does indeed involve a reduction of the number of housing
units than were originally proposed, both because the Project as
adopted does not provide for residential development in the
Livermore Municipal Airport Protection Zone and because the
Project as adopted only involves residential development
approximately two-thirds of the area originally proposed for
development. Moreover, these reductions dQ result in mitigation
of some significant environmental impacts, especially impacts on
Doolan Canyon.
The prohibition of residential development within the
Livermore Municipal Airport Protection Zone is adopted in order
to comply with Public Utilities Code section 21676 and the
decision of'the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission
pursuant to that action to prohibit residential development in
114 \ea stdub \ find ( 4 ) 6 6
the Zone. This prohibition is, thus, not adopted merely as a
mitigation measure pursuant to CEQA.
The City also finds that no feasible alternatives or
mitigation measures will provide the level of mitigation of
significant environmental effects as are provided by the adoption
of Alternative 2 rather than the project as originally proposed.
Alternative 2 will leave Doolan Canyon in its current largely
undeveloped state, thereby mitigating significant impacts
involving loss of open space, and biologically sensitive habitat
in a way that could not be accomplished by any mitigation measure
or alternative were Doolan Canyon in fact developed as originally
proposed.
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT. DEIR pages 4-1 to 4-8, 4-20
Finding: Infeasible. This option assumes the Project as proposed
would not be built on the site; instead any development would be
pursuant to!the existing general plan. Under that plan, a
limited amount of business park/industrial development could
occur on the 600 acre County property and on the 200 acre portion
of the Project area south of the proposed Dublin Boulevard
extension.
The No Project Alternative is found to be infeasible because the
City's General Plan has designated the Eastern Dublin area for
planned development, subject to the preparation of a Specifi6
Plan. In addition, the No Project Alternative fails to provide
needed housing. The need for housing is documented in the
Housing Element of the City's General Plan, and in other plan
documents of the City and other jurisdictions in the area.
ALTERNATIVE 3: REDUCED LAND USE INTENSITIES.
DEIR pages 4-14 to 4-19
Finding: Infeasible. This option assumes development of both the
Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment except that 285
acres of higher traffic generating commercial uses will be
replaced with lower traffic generating residential uses. The
Reduced Land Use Intensities alternative is found to be
infeasible for the following reasons:
(1)
Airport Safety. This alternative will increase the number
of housing units within the Livermore Municipal Airport
Protection Zone. (p. 4-15).
(2)
Unavoidable impacts. Even with the reduced intensities of
this alternative, all the unavoidable impacts identified for
the Project would remain except traffic impacts at 1-580, I-
680/Hacienda, at 1-580, Tassajara/Airway, at Airway
114\eastdub\find(4)
67
Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard and cumulative traffic impacts on
Dublin Boulevard (Impacts 3.3/B, C, J, and M). DEIR Page 4-
15.
(3)
Fiscal impacts. This alternative may have potentially
significant fiscal impacts on the City budget's cost/revenue
balance by reducing commercial development which generally
generates less service costs and more property tax revenues
than housing. These potential impacts can be mitigated.
However, any mitigating revenues raised would have to be
shared mitigation for capital facilities, possibly reducing
the amount of revenue available for both the budget and
capital facility programs. (page 4-19, 3.12-2 to -4).
ALTERNATIVE 4: NO DEVELOPMENT. DEIR page 4-19
Finding: Infeasible. This alternative assumes no development of
the Project site beyond existing conditions, assumes no annexa-
tion and therefore no application of even the current General
Plan. The No Development alternative is found to be infeasible
because the City's General Plan has designated the Eastern Dublin
area for planned development, subject to the preparation of a
Specific Plan. In addition, the No Development Alternative fails
to provide needed housing. The need for housing is documented in
the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, and in other plan
documents of the City and other jurisdictions in the area. (page
4-19 to -20).
ll4\eastdub~find(4) 68
Section 4
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1, General.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of
the City of Dublin makes the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
The City Council has balanced the benefits of the eastern Dublin
Project to the City of Dublin against the adverse impacts
identified in the EIR as significant and potentially significant
which have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
The City Council, acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, hereby determines that the benefits of the Project
outweigh the unmitigated adverse impacts and the Project should
be approved.
The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching
its decision to adopt the Project and to allow urbanization of
the easterniDublin Project area. Although the City Council
believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects
identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by mitiga-
tion measures incorporated into the General Plan Amendment,
Specific Plan, and future development plans as well as future
mitigation measures implemented with future approvals, it
recognizes that the implementation of the Project carries with it
unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the
identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts have not been
mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic,
social, environmental, land use, and other considerations which
support approval of the Project. The City Council further finds
that any one of the overriding considerations identified herein-
after in subsection 3 is sufficient basis to approve the Project
as mitigated.
2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts
The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts are
associated with the proposed Project as identified in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Project, which consists of a
Draft Environmental Impact Report, Parts I and II (Appendix),
dated August 28, 1992; Comments and Response to Comments, dated
114 \eastdub \ find ( 4 ) 69
December 7 and December 21, 1992; letter of December 15, 1992
from DKS Associates to Laurence Tong; and the Addendum to draft
EIR dated May 4, 1993. These impacts cannot be fully mitigated
by changes or alterations to the Project.
Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open
Space Lands. Even with mitigation, the Project would still
result in the loss of a large area of open space. This loss is
cumulatively significant, given the loss of numerous other. areas
of open space in the area. No feasible mitigation measures are
available to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
The only PrOject alternatives which could reduce this impact to a
level of insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No
Development Alternative, both of which have been found to be
infeasible (see Section 3 above). RC #34-9.
Traffic and Circulation Impact 3.3/B: 1-580 Freeway, 1-680-
Hacienda. Even with mitigation, the Level of Service on 1-580
between 1-680 and Dougherty Road could exceed Level of Service E,
the minimum acceptable level of service. No feasible mitigation
measures are available to reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance, since the freeway has already been widened to its
maximum practical capacity. Project alternatives which could
reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are the No
Project Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These
alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see ~Section 3
above). (DEIR pages 3.3-21, 5.0-16).
Traffic and!Circulation Impact 3.3/E: Cumulative Freeway Impacts.
Even with mitigation, portions of 1-580 will operate at Level of
Service F under the Cumulative Buildout with Project scenario. No
feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact
to a level of insignificance. The only Project alternative which
could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance is the No
Development Alternative. This alternative has been found to be
infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.3-22, 5.0-16)
Traffic and Circulation Impact 3.3/I: Santa Rita Road and 1-580
Eastbound Ramps. Year 2010 development with the Project will
cause Level of Service F operations at this intersection. No
feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact
to a level of insignificance. Project alternatives which could
reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are the No
Project Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These
alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3
above). (DEIR pages 3.3-26, 5.0-16)
Traffic andS!Circulation Impact 3.3/M: Cumulative Impacts on
Dublin Boulevard. Cumulative Buildout with the Project will
cause Level=!of Service F operations at the Hacienda Drive
intersection and Level of Service E operations at the Tassajara
114 \eastdub \ find ( 4 ) 7 0
Road intersection. No feasible mitigation measures are available
to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. Project
alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance are the Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative
and the No Development Alternative. These alternatives have been
found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.3-
27, 5.0-16).
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/0: Demand for
Utility Extensions. The extension of gas, electric and telephone
service lines onto the Project site is necessary for development
and will require new distribution systems or substantial exten-
sions of existing systems onto undeveloped lands currently in
agricultural and open space uses. No feasible mitigation
measures are available to reduce this growth inducing impact to a
level of insignificance. Project alternatives which could reduce
this impact to a level of insignificance are the No Project
Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These
alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3
above). (DEIR pages 3.4-24, 5.0-16).
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S: Consumption of
Non-Renewable Natural Resources. Natural Gas and electrical
service would increase consumption of non-renewable natural
resources. Requiring energy conservation plans provides partial
mitigation. However, because energy use will still increase, the
impact cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. Project
alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No
Development Alternative. These alternatives have been found to
be infeasible (see Section 3 above). DEIR page 3.4-25.
Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F,H,U: Increases in
EnerGy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment and Disposal and
Thorough Operation of the Water Distribution System. Increased
Wastewater Flows to and from the Project will require increased
energy. Using energy efficient water distribution treatment, and
disposal systems provides partial mitigation. However, because
energy use will still increase, the impact cannot be reduced to a
level of insignificance. Project alternatives which could reduce
this impacti~to a level of insignificance are the No Project
Alternativei~and the No Development Alternative. These alterna-
tives have keen found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above).
DEIR pages 3.5-8 to -10.
Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/T: Inducement of
Substantial=i~Growth and Concentration of Population. The proposed
water distribution system will induce significant growth in the
Project area. No feasible mitigations are available to reduce
this impact to a level of insignificance. The only Project
alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of
ll4\eastdub\find(4) 71
insignificance are the No Project alternative and the No
Development~i~alternative. These alternatives have been found to
be infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEIR, pages 3.5-20, 5.0-
15).
!.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B: Earthquake Ground
Shaking, Primary Effects. Development of the RPA will expose
more residents to the risk of potentially large earthquakes on
active fault zones in the region, which could result in damage to
structures and infrastructure and, in extreme cases, loss of
life. Using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral
force in construction of development projects, and building in
accordance with the Uniform Building Code and applicable local
code requirements will partially mitigate this impact. However,
the impact cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. The
only Project alternative which could reduce this impact to a
level of insignificance is the No Development alternative. This
alternative has been found to be infeasible (see Section 3
above). (DEIR page 3.6-7.)
Biological Resources Impact 3.7/C: Loss or Degradation of
Botanically~Sensitive Habitat. Development of the RPA will
result in a=significant loss and degradation of biologically
sensitive habitat. As described in section 1, mitigation
measures will partially reduce this impact. However, because
biologically sensitive habitat will still be lost, the impact
cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. The only Project
alternative which could reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance is the No Development alternative. This
alternative has been found to be infeasible (see Section 3
above). (DEIR pages 3.7-10, 5.0-11).
Visual Impacts 3.8/B: Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual
Character and 3.8/F: Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands.
Project development will permanently alter the existing rural,
agricultural character of the Project area. Although the highest
ridgelines will be preserved as open space, the visual character
of the rounded lower foothills along 1-580 will be altered by
construction of homes and roads. No feasible mitigations are
available tO reduce these visual impacts to a level of insignifi-
cance. The~only Project alternative which could reduce these
impacts to a level of insignificance is the No Development
alternative.. This alternative has been found to be infeasible
(see Section 3 above). (pages 3.8-5, -7, 5.0-17).
Noise Impact 3.10/B: Exposure of Existing Residences to Future
Roadway Noise. Increased traffic on area roadways will
significantly increase noise levels, thus adversely affecting
existing residences and population. Mitigation can be achieved
to buffer residents from levels that exceed acceptable standards,
by providing berms or walls adjacent to outdoor use spaces of
ll4\eastdub\find(4) 72
existing residences. However, the magnitude of change in the
noise environment, from quiet rural roads with little traffic to
busy suburban thoroughfares, cannot be avoided. Project
alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No
Development Alternative. These alternatives have been found to
be infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.10-3 to 4,
5.0-16).
Noise Impact 3.10/D: Exposure of Proposed Residential Development
to Noise from Future Military Training Activities at Camp Parks
and from the County Jail. Residential development in the
Specific Plan area would be within 6000 feet of Camp Parks and
the County Jail and could be exposed to noise from gunshots and
helicopter overflight. Mitigations calling for noise studies may
not be feasible at all locations; therefore this impact might not
be reduced to a level of insignificance. Project alternatives
which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are
the No Project Alternative and the No Development Alternative.
These alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section
3 above). (page 3.10-4, 5.0-16).
Air Oualityii=Impacts 3.11/A,B,C,E. Project development will have
a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality as a
result of dust deposition, construction equipment emissions,
mobile source emissions of ROf and NOx, and stationary source
emissions. While some measures have been adopted to partially
mitigate these impacts, the impacts remain potentially signifi-
cant, especially given the region's existing non-compliance with
air quality standards. The only Project alternative which could
reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance is the No
Development alternative. This alternative has been found to be
infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.11-3 through -
6, 5.0-13 through -16.)
3. overriding Considerations
The City Council has considered the public record of proceedings
on the proposed Project and does determine that approval and
implementation of the Project would result in the following
substantialpublic benefits.
Economic Considerations. Substantial evidence is included in the
record demonstrating the economic benefits which the City would
derive from implementation of the Project. Specifically, the
Project will result in:
The creation of about 28,200 new jobs in the Specific Plan
area alone, and a substantial number of construction jobs.
b. Increases in sales revenues for the City.
l14\eastdub\find ( 4 )
73
c. Substantial increases in property tax revenues.
Social Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record
demonstrating the social benefits which the City would derive
from the implementation of the Project. Specifically, the
Project will result in:
Increases in housing opportunities in the City and in a
region where housing is costly and in short supply.
Increases in the amount of affordable housing in the
community.
An arrangement for the City to contribute its fair share of
regional housing opportunities.
d. Provision of upper-end executive housing in the City.
Other Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record
demonstrating other public benefits which the City would derive
from implementation of the Project. They include:
Comprehensive planning incorporating innovative and
extensive environmental premitigation measures not usually
found in projects of this type.
Designating substantial areas of land for Open. Space and low
intensity Rural Residential uses. This includes a potential
regional trail system link through the open space of the
Project site. This open space will conserve the ecological
values~of the site and surrounding areas and provide
recreational and open space amenity opportunities for
residents of the Project, the City, and the region. 3.4-
15, 3.7-15.
114 \eastdub\find ( 4 ) 7 4
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN:
EASTERN DUBLIN
SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
prepared by
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD
May 7, 1993
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The State of California now requires public agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring program for
changes to the project or conditions of approval which have been identified and adopted as methods
to reduce environmental impacts. Thus with the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and adoption
of the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, the City of Dublin is required to establish a
mitigation monitoring program for all approved mitigation measures.
In order to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented in a timely fashion, the
Mitigation Monitoring Program provides the following information for each measure:
Why has the mitigation measure been recommended?
Who is responsible for implementing the mitigation?
What is the mitigation measure being monitored and how?
When should mitigation monitoring be undertaken? What schedule is required?
Comoletion: when should the mitigation measure be in place and monitoring be
completed?
Verification: what agency is required to ensure that the mitigation measure was
implemented?
2
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
,Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
SECTION 3:1 LAND USE
1. Imoacts Reauirin~ Mitieation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
IM 3.1/G Potential Conflicts with Land Uses to the West
2. MitiRation Imolementation and Monitoring Pronram
Impact 3.1/G Potential Conflicts with Land Uses to the West
Miti~,ation Measure 3.1/1.0: Coordination of Planning, Activities with U.S. Army
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To resolve potential land use conflicts between activities at Camp Parks and
proposed uses in the Project area
Planning Department/U.S. Army; Directorate of Engineering and Housing.
Establish a liaison committee between the City and the Army. Establish a
schedule for periodic meetings to discuss and provide updates on planning
and development efforts within the Project site and in Camp Parks. The
City of Dublin Planning Department will send to the base commander a
copy of new applications for development adjacent to Camp Parks for
review and comment. Projects will be considered by liaison committee at
request of Camp Parks.
Periodically, pursuant to agreed-upon calendar, and as required for review
of specific project proposals.
On-going. Specific project review will be considered complete when City
has received written comments from Camp Parks.
City of Dublin Planning Director.
SECTION 3.2: POPULATION. HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT
This section provides baseline data related to population, housing and employment and does not
identify environmental impacts or related mitigation measures. No mitigation monitoring program
is required.
SECTION 3.3: TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
1. Imnacts Requirin~ Mitigation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
IM 3.1/G
IM 3.3/B
IM 3.3/C
IM 3.3/D
IM 3.3/E
IM 3.3/F
IM 3.3/G
IM 3.3/H
Potential Conflicts with Land Uses to the West
1-580 Freeway; between 1-680 and Hacienda
1-580 Freeway; between Tassajara-Fallon-Airway
1-680 Freeway; North of the 1-580 Interchange
Cumulative Freeway Impacts (I-580 west of 1-680; 1-580 east of Airway)
Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard
Hacienda Drive and 1-580 Eastbound Ramps
Tassajara Road and 1-580 Westbound Ramps
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
IM 3.3/I Santa Rita Road & 1-580 Eastbound Ramps
IM 3.3/J Airway Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard
IM 3.3/K Airway Boulevard & 1-580 Westbound Ramps
IM 3.3/L Impediments to Truck Traffic on E1 Charro Road
IM 3.3/M Cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard (Dublin/Hacienda; Dublin/Tassajara)
IM 3.3/N Cumulative Impacts on Tassajara Road (Tassajara/Fallon; Tassajara/Fallon;
Tassajara/Transit Spine)
IM 3.3/0 Transit Service Extensions
IM 3.3/P Street Crossings
2. Mitigation Imnlementation and Monitorin~ Program
Daily Traffic Volumes (Year 2010 With Project)
Impact 3.3/B 1-580 Freeway; between 1-680 and Hacienda
Mitigation Measure 3.3/2.0: Transvortation Systems Management ( TSM )
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce project-generated vehicle trips
All non-residential projects with 50+ employees.
Require compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 13 Transportation Control
Measures Rule I to satisfaction of BAAQMD or City of Dublin (Public
Works Department)
Prior to occupancy
Upon issuance of Planning Department sign-off on compliance
City of Dublin Planning Director
Mitigation Measure 3.3/2.1: Re~,ional Transvortation Miti~,ation Prod, rams
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To assist in the funding of improvements to regional transportation system
All approved projects
Proportionate monetary contribution to regional transportation mitigation
programs as approved by the City of Dublin.
As a condition of project approval. When applying for a permit, the
applicant developer will be notified of this fee assessment.
Payments shall be made prior to issuance of building permits
City of Dublin Department of Public Works
Impact 3.3/C 1-580 Freeway; between Tassajara-Fallon-Airway
Miti~,ation Measure 3.3/3.0: Construction of Auxiliary Lanes
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To assist in the funding of the construction of auxiliary lanes on 1-580
between Tassajara and Airway boulevards
Caltrans/City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Payment of a regionally-assessed fee for all new development within the
Project area as approved by the City of Dublin.
As a condition of project approval. When applying for a permit, the
applicant developer will be notified of this fee assessment.
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Completion:
Verification:
Payments shall be made prior to issuance of building permits
City of Dublin Department of Public Works
Impact 3.3/D 1-680 Freeway; North of the 1-580 Interchange
Mitigation Measure 3.3/4.0.' 1-580/1-680 Interchange Imvrovements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To establish funding for construction of future 1-580/I-680 Interchange
improvements.
Caltrans/City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Payment of a regionally-assessed fee for all new development within the
Project area as approved by the City of Dublin.
As a condition of project approval, the applicant developer will be notified
of this fee assessment.
Payments shall be'made prior to issuance of building permits
City of Dublin Department of Public Works
Daily Traffic Volumes (Cumulative Buildout with Project)
Impact 3.3/E Cumulative Freeway Impacts
Mitigation Measure 3.3/5.0.' Transvortation Systems Management r'TSM )
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To establish funding for construction of auxiliary lanes on 1-580 east of
Airway Boulevard
All approved development projects in the Project area/City of Dublin.
1 ) Proportionate monetary contribution to regional transportation mitigation
programs as approved by the City of Dublin.
2) City coordination with other local jurisdictions to require that all future
development projects participate in regional transportation mitigation
programs.
1) The contribution to regional improvements will be implemented as a
condition of project approval. Applicants will be notified of this fee
assessment.
i ) Payments shall be made prior to issuance of building permits.
2) Coordination will be ongoing.
1) Fee payments will be verified by the City of Dublin Planning
Department.
2) Coordination will be the responsibility of the Department of Public Works
Peak Hour Intersection Operation (Year 2010 with Project)
Impact 3.3/F Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard
Mitigation Measure 3.3/6.0: Construction o( Additional Lanes
Why: To ensure the funding and construction of improvements to the Dougherty
Road/Dublin Blvd. intersection as needed
Who: City of Dublin Department of Public Works/All approved projects.
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
. Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
1) Payment of fees towards the construction of additional lanes at the
intersection of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard.
2) Monitoring of the need for intersection improvements and coordination
of their construction.
1) Fees will be collected as a condition of project approval. Applicants will
be notified of fees.
2) Monitoring will be ongoing annually.
3) Construction will occur prior to intersection declining to LOS F.
1 ) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits.
2) Monitoring of intersection level of service will be ongoing.
3) Construction will be complete with implementation of specific
improvements or equivalent as identified in mitigation measure.
1 ) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees.
2) Department of Public Works will be responsible for monitoring
calculating fees and construction.
Impact 3.3/G Hacienda Drive and 1-580 Eastbound Ramps
Mitigation Measure 3.3/7.0: Widening of Eastbound O ff-Ramt~
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide improvements that will prevent congestion on the eastbound off-
ramps from 1-580 at Hacienda Drive.
Caltrans/City of Pleasanton/City of Dublin Public Works/Project Applicants
1 ) Payment of fee towards widening.
2) Coordination of improvement with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton.
1) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approval.
2) Coordination will occur as needed prior to implementation of mitigation.
3) Construction will be underway prior to decline of level of service to
unacceptable LOS E.
4) Monitoring and coordination will begin with development review
processing.
1 ) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits.
2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of widening described
in mitigation measure.
1 ) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees.
2) Department of Public Works will be responsible for calculating fees and
coordination with other agencies.
Impact 3.3/H Tassajara Road and 1-580 Westbound Ramps
Mitigation Measure 3.3/8.0: Wideninz of 1-580 Westbound Ramt~s
Why:
Who:
What:
To fund and implement improvements necessary to ensure the efficient
operation of the intersection of Tassajara Road with the 1-580 westbound
ramps.
Caltrans/Pleasanton and Dublin Departments of Public Works/Developers
1) Payment of fee to fund design and construction of improvements,
including widening of the 1-580 westbound off-ramp and modification of
northbound approach to provide additional turn and through lanes.
2) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of construction.
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas', .)ublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
When:
Completion:
Verification:
1) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approval.
2) Monitoring and coordination will be begin with development review
processing.
3) Construction will be underway prior to decline of level of service to
unacceptable level (LOS E).
1 ) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits.
2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of widening described
in mitigation measure.
1) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees.
2) Department of Public Works will be responsible for coordinating
construction.
Impact 3.3/1 Santa Rita Road & 1-580 Eastbound Ramps
Mitigation Measure 3.3/9.0: Improvements to 1-580 Eastbound Rarnt;s
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To fund and implement improvements necessary to ensure adequate service
levels on Santa Rita Road and 1-580 eastbound ramps.
Caltrans/Pleasanton and Dublin Departments of Public Works/Developers
1) Payment of fee to fund design and construction of improvements;
including widening of 1-580 eastbound off-ramps.
2) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of construction.
1 ) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approval.
2) Monitoring and coordination will be begin with development review
processing.
3) Widening of eastbound ramps will occur prior to decline of level of
service to unacceptable level (LOS E).
1 ) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits.
2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of widening described
in mitigation measure.
1 ) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees.
2) City of Dublin Department of Public Works will be responsible for
coordinating improvements with the City of Pleasanton Department of
Public Works and Caltrans.
Impact 3.3/K Airway Boulevard & 1-580 Westbound Ramps
Mitigation Measure 3.3/11.0: Widenin~ o[ Airway Boulevard Overcrossing,
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To fund and implement improvements necessary to ensure adequate service
levels at the intersection of Airway Boulevard and the westbound ramps.
City of Dublin/Caltrans/City of Livermore/Developers
1) Payment of fee to fund design and construction of improvements;
including the widening or replacement of the Airway Blvd. overcrossing and
the widening of the 1-580 westbound off-ramp.
2) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of construction.
1 ) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approval.
2) Monitoring and coordination will be begin with development review
process.
3) Improvements to ramps and overcrossing will occur prior to decline of
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Completion:
Verification:
level of service to unacceptable level (LOS E).
1 ) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits.
2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of improvements
described in mitigation measure.
1 ) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees.
2) City of Dublin Department of Public Works will be responsible for
coordinating improvements with the City of Livermore Department of
Public Works and Caltrans.
Impact 3.3/L Impediments to Truck Traffic on El Charro Road
Miti~,ation Measure 3.3/12.0: Provisions to Ensure Unimveded Truck Tra[fic
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To fund and implement improvements necessary to ensure unimpeded
movement of trucks to and from the quarries on E1 Charro Road south of
1-580.
City of Dublin/Caltrans/City of Pleasanton/Developers/City of Livermore
1) Payment of fees to fund design and construction of necessary
improvements.
2) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of improvements with
Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton Department of Public Works.
1 ) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approval.
2) Monitoring and coordination will begin with development review
processing.
3) Improvements will occur prior to decline of level of service to
unacceptable level (LOS E).
1 ) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits.
2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of improvements.
1) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees.
2) City of Dublin Department of Public Works will be responsible for
coordinating improvements with the City of Pleasanton Department of
Public Works and Caltrans and City of Livermore.
Impact 3.3/M Cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard
Mitization Measures 3.3/13.0: Maintain Adeauate Levels o{ Service at Intersections.
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To identify, fund and implement improvements that will maintain adequate
service levels at the intersections Dublin Blvd with Hacienda Drive and
Tassajara Road with buildout of cumulative projects.
City of Dublin
1 ) The City of Dublin will participate in the regularly-scheduled meetings
of the Congestion Management Agency and Tri-Valley Transportation
Council to determine long-term mitigation measures for cumulative impacts
on Dublin Boulevard.
2) Payment of fees to fund design and construction of necessary
improvements.
3) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of improvements with
Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton Department of Public Works.
1 ) Participation in the Tri-Valley Transportation Council is current and on-
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Completion:
Verification:
going.
2) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approval.
3) Monitoring and coordination will be begin with development review
process and continue through to identification and construction of necessary
improvements.
4) Construction will be underway prior to decline of level of service to
unacceptable level (LOS E).
1 ) Participation in the Tri-Valley Transportation Council is on-going.
2) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits.
3) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of improvements.
1 ) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees.
2) City of Dublin Department of Public Works will be responsible for
coordinating Project area improvements resulting from regional growth.
Impact 3.3/N Cumulative Impacts on Tassajara Road
Miti~,ation Measure 3.3/14.0: Widening' of Tassa/ara Road to Six Lanes
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reserve sufficient right-of-way along Tassajara Road to accommodate
cumulative development of projects north of the Project area.
City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Department Public
Works.
Reservation of sufficient right-of-way to accommodate six travel lanes on
Tassajara Road.
Reservation of right-of-way to be adopted prior to approval of tentative
map.
Dedication of right-of-way required prior to filing of Final maps for
development projects adjacent to the Tassajara Road corridor.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact 3.3/0 Transit Service Extensions
Mitigation Measure 3.3/15.0: Provision of Transit Service to Meet LAVTA standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To extend transit service within 1/4 mile of 95% of the Project area
population.
City of Dublin Planning Department/Department of Public Works/LAVTA
1) Meetings between the City of Dublin and LAVTA to coordinate
extension of bus service to the Project area.
2) Notification to LAVTA of development approvals involving potential for
100 or more employees or residents.
1) Initial meeting to review the plan and ultimate service needs should be
held within one year of plan adoption to allow LAVTA to plan for future
expansion. Thereafter, meetings should be held periodically at the request
of either the City or LAVTA.
On-going.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Ea8
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure 3.3/15.1.' Bus Service to Emtdovment Centers with 1004-Employees
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide transit service at a minimum frequency of one bus every 30
minutes during peak hours, to employment centers with 100 or more
employees.
City of Dublin Planning Department/Department of Public Works/LAVTA
1) Meetings between the City of Dublin and LAVTA to coordinate
extension of bus service to employment centers.
2) Notification to LAVTA of development approvals involving potential for
100 or more employees.
1 ) Meetings should be held periodically at the request of either the City or
LAVTA.
On-going.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.3/15.2: Monetary Contribution to Suvvort Transit Service Extensions
Why: To provide funding in support of expansion of transit service to the Project
area.
Who: City of Dublin Planning Department/Department of Public
Works/LAVTA/Developers
What: Payment of fees or construction of capital improvements to support
extension of transit service.
When: Fees/improvements will be identified as a condition of project approval.
Completion: Prior to approval of Final Map.
Verification: City of Dublin Planning Department.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.3/15.3.' Feeder Transit Service to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART
station
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To coordinate provision of feeder bus service to the planned BART stations
from the Project area.
City of Dublin Planning Departmeht/Department of Public
Works/LAVTA/BART
Meetings with BART and LAVTA to coordinate feeder transit service to
BART.
Initial meeting to review the plan and ultimate service needs should be held
within one year of plan adoption to allow BART and LAVTA to plan for
future expansion. Thereafter, meetings should be held periodically at the
request of the City, BART, or LAVTA.
On-going.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact 3.3/P Street Crossings
Mitigation Measure 3.3/16.0: Provision of a Class I bicvcle/vedestrian path
Why: To provide a paved bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara Creek.
Who: Developers in consultation with the City of Dublin Planning Department,
10
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Department of Public Works, and East Bay Regional Park District.
Design and construction of a Class I bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara
Creek.
As a condition of approval for development projects adjacent to the
Tassajara Creek corridor.
Construction to occur prior to occupation of first phase of homes
responsible for providing the path.
City of Dublin Department of Public Works.
Mitigation Measure 3.3/16.1: Signalized Bicycle/Pedestrian Intersections
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for safe pedestrian/bicycle crossings of major arterial streets.
Developers/Department of Public Works
Locate pedestrian and bicycle crossings at signalized intersections.
As a condition of project approval.
Final approval of detailed improvement plans.
Department of Public Works.
SECTION 3.4: COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Prior to annroyal of nrezonin~.l. ImPacts RequirinR Mitigation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
IM 3.4
IM 3.4
IM 3.4
IM 3.4
IM 3.4
IM 3.4
IM 3.4
IM 3.4
IM 3.4
IM 3.4
IM 3.4
IM 3.4
IM 3.4
IM 3.4
IM 3.4
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
/A Demand for Increased Police Services.
/B Police Services Accessibility
/C Demand for Increased Fire Services
/D Fire Response to Outlying Areas
/E Exposure to Wildlands Hazards
/F Demand for New Classroom Space
/G Demand for Junior High School Space
/H Overcrowding of Schools
/I Impact on School District Jurisdiction
/J Financial Burden on School Districts
/K Demand for Park Facilities
/L Park Facilities Fiscal Impact
/M Impact on Regional Trail System
/N Impact on Open Space Connections
/O Increased Solid Waste Production
3.4/P Impact on Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
3.4/Q Demand for Utility Extensions
3.4/R Utility Extension: Visual and Biological Impacts
3.4/S Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources
3.4/T Demand for Increased Postal Service
3.4/U Demand for Increased Library Service
11
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
2. Mitigation Imnlementation and Monitoring Program
Police Services
Impact 3.4/A Demand for Increased Police Services
Impact 3.4/B Police Services Accessibility
Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0: Additional Personnel, Facilities and "Beats"
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide additional personnel, facilities, and procedures to police service
standards.
City of Dublin Police Department/Planning Department.
1 ) Police Department will hire and train new sworn and civilian staff, revise
"beat" system to serve eastern Dublin, and estimate and schedule projected
facility needs in eastern Dublin.
2) Planning Department to notify Police Department of development
approvals to assist the Police Department in its annual budget formulation.
On-going.
Annually as part of the Police Department's planning and budgetary process.
Chief of Police.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/2.0: Coordination of exvansion of Police services
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide the Police Department information needed to adequately plan for
expansion of services.
Planning Department/City of Dublin Police Department.
Notification to the Police Department of the timing of annexation and
approved development.
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Ongoing.
Planning Department
Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0: Police Det~artment Review
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for Police Department input into the design of proposed
development.
City of Dublin Police Department/Planning Department.
Police Department review of proposed development plans for safety issues,
and provide the Planning Department with recommendations for inclusion
in the final plans.
During development review process.
Prior to final site plan approval.
Chief of Police or representative.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/4.0: Budgeting for Police Services
Why:
Who:
To prepare a budget strategy to hire the required additional personnel and
implement necessary changes in the "beat" system.
City of Dublin/City of Dublin Police Department
12
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
1) Police Department will estimate projected personnel and facility needs
for eastern Dublin and develop a budget strategy to meet these needs.
2) Planning Department will notify Police Department of development
approvals in order to assist the Police Department in its annual budget
formulation.
On-going.
Annually as part of the Police Department's planning and budgetary process.
Chief of Police.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/5.0: Police Department Review
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure Police Department review of proposed development for safety
issues.
City of Dublin Police Department/Planning Department.
Police Department review of proposed development plans for safety issues.
During development review process.
Prior to final site plan approval.
Chief of Police or representative.
Fire Protection
Impact 3.4/C Demand for Increased Fire Services
Impact 3.4/D Fire Response to Outlying Areas
Impact 3.4/E Exposure to Wildlands Hazards
Mitigation Measure 3.4/6.0: Construction of New Fire Facilities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the construction of new facilities coincident with new
service demand in eastern Dublin.
Developers/Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
Design and Construction of New Facilities
Condition of tentative map and/or development review approval
Construction of fire station(s) will occur concurrently with new service
demand not addressed by other agreements.
DRFA/City Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Funding of New Fire Facilities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of
capital improvements.
City of Dublin City Manager's Office/DRFA.
Establish funding mechanism for capital improvements.
Condition of tentative map and/or development review approval
Construction of fire station(s) will occur concurrently with new service
demand not addressed by other agreements.
City of Dublin City Manager responsible for establishing funding
mechanisms; Planning Department responsible for verifying completion
prior to project approval.
13
City of Dublin
May 7, 199S
Eas, Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure 3.4/8.0: Sites for New Fire Facilities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure acquisition of sites for construction of new fire stations.
City of Dublin Planning Department in consultation with DRFA.
Identification and acquisition of sites for new fire stations.
Condition of tentative map and/or development review approval
Construction of fire station(s) will occur concurrently with new service
demand not addressed by other agreements.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0: Fire Devartment Review
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure DRFA input on project design relating to access, water pressure,
fire safety and prevention.
DRFA/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Review of proposed developments by DRFA for fire safety. Incorporation
of DRFA recommendations into project conditions by Planning Department.
During development review process.
Prior to development review and/or Final Map approval.
Fire Chief or representative to provide recommendations; Planning
Department to verify incorporation of DRFA recommendations as
conditions of project approval.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/10.0: Urban/Oven Space Interface Management
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that a mechanism is in place to provide long-term maintenance
for the urban/open space interface.
Developers/DRFA/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Establishment of an assessment district or other suitable mechanism to
maintain safe fire conditions along the urban/open space interface.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/11.0: Fire Trails/Olden Svace System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To integrate fire trails and fire breaks into the open space trail system.
City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Recreation
Department/DFRA/Developers.
Design and dedication of fire trails and fire breaks.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0: Wildfire Management Plan
Why: To prepare a wildfire management plan for the Project area in order to
14
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas~ Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
reduce the risk of impact related to wildland fire.
City of Dublin/DRFA.
Prepare a wildfire management plan.
During prezoning and annexation application processing.
Prior to approval of any development in lands adjacent to land designated
for permanent open space or rural residential/agriculture.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/13.0 Sites for Fire Facilities for the GPA Increment
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To determine the number, location and timing of additional fire stations for
areas within the Project area yet outside the Specific Plan area.
DRFA/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Identification of future fire station sites.
During prezoning and annexation application processing.
Prior to development approvals in the areas outside the Specific Plan area.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Schools
Impact 3.4/F
Impact 3.4/G
Demand for New Classroom Space
Demand for Junior High School Space
Miti~,ation Measure 3.4/13.0: Dedication of New School Sites
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reserve school sites within the Project area as designated in the Specific
Plan and GPA.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department/DUSD/LVJUSD
Identification of new school sites.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/14.0: Plannin~ for Additional Junior Hieh School Cavacitv
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that adequate capacity is provided for junior high school age
students.
DUSD.
Planning for projected junior high school demand within two proposed sites
and/or provide for a third site in the Future Study Area to the east of the
Project area.
During planning and design of the first Junior High School site.
Prior to final map approval for the first junior high school.
City of Dublin/DUSD.
15
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas, Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
IM 3.4/H Overcrowding of Schools
Mitigation Measure 3.4/15.0: Provision of Adeauate Schools to Serve the Pro iect site
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that adequate classroom space is provided prior to the
development of new homes.
DUSD/City of Dublin Planning Department.
l) Coordination between City of Dublin and DUSD to monitor available
school capacity and proposed development.
2) DUSD sign-off on available capacity to accommodate new development.
Coordination to occur during development review process, with written
sign-off from DUSD submitted prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to occupancy approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact
3.4/I Impact on School District Jurisdiction
Mitigation Measure 3.4/16.0: Resolution of School District Jurisdiction Issue
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To resolve the jurisdictional issue of which school district(s) will provide
service to the Project area.
City of Dublin/DUSD/LVJUSD.
City will assist with resolution of District boundary dispute.
Within two years of plan adoption.
Prior to occupancy of residential units within the Project area.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact
3.4/J Financial Burden on School Districts
Mitization Measure 3.4/17.0: Full miti~,ation of Pro iect imt~act on school facilities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that adequate school facilities are available prior to development
in the Project area to the extent permitted by law.
City of Dublin/DUSD/LVJUSD.
Establish liaison between City of Dublin and school districts.
Ongoing as part of development review process.
On-going.
City of Dublin Planning Department with input from school districts.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/18.0: Provision of School Sites
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that the development of new facilities is provided for through the
dedication of school sites and/or payment of development fees by
developers.
Developers/City of Dublin/DUSD/LVJUSD.
Dedication of School Sites/Payment of Development Fees.
Condition of Tentative Map Approval.
Prior to occupancy approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
16
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas, , Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure 3.4/19.0: Funding of New Schools
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To establish appropriate funding mechanisms, such as Mello Roos
Community Facilities District, development impact fees, or a general
obligation bond measure, to fund new school development in eastern Dublin.
City of Dublin/DUSD/LVJUSD.
Creation of funding mechanism(s).
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Prior to occupancy of residential units within the Project area.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Parks and Recreation
Park Facilities
Impact 3.4/K Demand for Park Facilities
Mitigation Measure 3.4/20.0: Exvansion of park area (Guiding Policy. No monitoring
aoplicable or required. )
Mitigation Measure 3.4/21.0: Maintenance and improvement of outdoor facilities in
conformance with Park and Recreation Master Plan (Guiding Policy. No monitoring aoplicable
or reauired. )
Mitigation Measure 3.4/22.0: Provide adeauate active oarks and facilities (Guiding Policy. No
monitoring applicable or reauired. )
Mitigation Measure 3.4/23.0: Acauire and imorove oarHands
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To acquire and improve parklands in conformance with the priorities and
phasing recommended in the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan.
City of Dublin Planning Department/Dublin Recreation Department.
Coordination between the Planning Department and Recreation Department
to ensure adherence with standards of Park and Recreation Master Plan.
Ongoing as part of the development review process.
Ongoing.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/24.0: Land dedication and oarks imvrovements/Collection of in-lieu
park fees
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require land dedication and improvements as designated in the GPA and
collect in-lieu fees per City standards.
City of Dublin Planning Department/Recreation Department.
Require land dedication or payment of in-lieu fees as condition of approval
for individual projects.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
17
City of Dublin Eas. , Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
May 7, 1993 Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure 3.4/25.0: Park Acreage Dedication
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide an adequate ratio of developed parklands to population.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Park dedication.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/26.0: Specific Park Acrea~,e Dedication
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide an adequate ratio of developed parklands to population.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Park dedication.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/27.0: Park standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that park development is consistent with the standards and
phasing recommended in the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan.
Developers/City of Dublin Recreation Department.
Monitor individual project conformance with standards in Master Plan.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Recreation Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/28.0: Implementation of Specific Plan t~olicies related to the provision
of open space.
Why: To ensure the provision of open space, access and areas for public
recreation.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Monitor individual project conformance with open space policies.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Park Financing
Impact 3.4/L Park Facilities Fiscal Impact
Mitigation Measure 3.4/29.0: Provision of Fair Share o{ Park Space
Why: To ensure that each new development reserves the open space and parkland
designated in the Plan.
18
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIE
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department
Review each development proposal against the Specific Plan/GPA to ensure
that designated park and open space is set aside.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/30.0: Parks Imvlementation Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To develop a Parks Implementation Plan for eastern Dublin.
Dublin Recreation Department
Preparation of a Parks Implementation Plan.
Within two years of Plan adoption or prior to any significant residential
development, whichever occurs first.
Prior to final map approval on the first residential projects.
Dublin Recreation Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/31.0: Calculation and Assessment of In-Lieu Park Fees
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To calculate and assess in-lieu park fees.
City of Dublin Planning Department
Assessment of In-Lieu Park Fees.
Notification at time of permit application. Condition of tentative map
approval.
Payment at time of final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact
3.4/M Impact on Regional Trail System
Mitigation Measure 3.4/32.0: Trail Linkaze and Access
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To establish a trail system with connections
subregional system.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department
Dedication of trail rights-of-way.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
to planned regional and
Impact 3.4/N Impact on Open Space Connections
Mitigation Measure 3.4/33.0: Establish a comvrehensive trail network
Why:
Who:
What:
To establish a comprehensive, integrated trail network that permits safe and
convenient pedestrian and bicycle access.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Recreation
Department.
Provide guidelines to developers on right-of-way alignment and design
19
Eas
City of Dublin
May 7~ 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
When:
Completion:
Verification:
standards, and ensure implementation.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Miti,~ation Measure 3.4/34.0: Establish a continuous oven svace network
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To establish a continuous open space network that integrates large natural
open space areas, stream corridors, and developed parks and recreation
areas.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Recreation
Department.
Ensure dedication/preservation of designated open space areas.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/35.0: Provision of access to oven svace areas
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide convenient pedestrian connections between developed areas and
designated open space areas and trails.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Recreation
Department.
Ensure designation of appropriately located trails and access points as part
of development review.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.4/36.0: Reauire vublic access easements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require developers to dedicate public access easements along ridgetops
and stream corridors to accommodate the development of trails and staging
areas.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Ensure dedication of public access easements.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Solid Waste
Impact 3.4/0 Increased Solid Waste Production
Impact 3.4/P Impact on Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
2O
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Miti~,ation Measure 3.4/37.0: Prevaration of Solid Waste Mana~,ement Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To prepare/update a Solid Waste Management Plan as needed to address
eastern Dublin.
Dublin City Manager's Office.
Prepare plan.
Within two years of the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/GPA.
Prior to issuance of building permits.
Dublin City Manager's Office.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.4/38.0: Revise Waste Generation Pro iections
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To revise waste generation projections of the City's SRRE/HHWE as needed
to reflect the population and commercial land use projections of the adopted
Project.
Dublin City Manager's Office.
Revise projections and update solid waste generation and disposal capacity
characteristics.
Within two years of the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/GPA.
Prior to issuance of building permits.
Dublin City Manager's Office.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/39.0: Inter, ration of Eastern Dublin Solid Waste Plan into Citv's
SRRE/HHWE
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that the Solid Waste Management Plan for Eastern Dublin
addresses and incorporates the goals, objectives, and programs of Dublin's
SRRE and HHWE.
Dublin City Manager's Office/Public Works Department.
Updating of SRRE/HHWE to reflect Project.
Within two years of the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/GPA.
Prior to issuance of building permits.
Dublin City Manager's Office.
Mitigation Measure 3.4.40: Assessment of Land fill Cat~acitv
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that adequate landfill capacity is available to accommodate
project waste.
City Manager's Office/City Planning Department/Alameda County Solid
Waste Management Authority.
Determine the adequacy of available disposal capacity.
As a condition of Tentative Map approval.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
21
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Electricity, Natural Gas and Telephone Service
Impact 3.4/Q Demand for Utility Extensions
Impact 3.4/R Utility Extension: Visual and Biological Impacts
Mitigation Measure 3.4/41.0: Provision of documentation that electric. gas and televhone
service can be vrovided.
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require project applicants to provide documentation that electric, gas,
and telephone service can be provided to all new development.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Submit documentation from utilities providers.
As a condition of Tentative Map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/42.0: Under~rounding of Utilities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all utilities to be located below grade where feasible and designed
to City standards.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Require developers to provide for installation of utilities below grade.
Prior to issuance of building permits.
Construction of infrastructure improvements.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Mitization Measure 3.4/43.0: Avoidance of In frastructure Imvacts on Sensitive Habitat
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To mitigate the effects of utilities expansion, the city will work with PG&E
to plan the undergrounding of all new electric lines and to route
infrastructure away from sensitive habitat and open space lands.
Developers/City of Dublin Public Works Department/PG&E.
Coordinate routing of electric lines.
During site design phase.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/44.0: Submittal of Service Report
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require project applicants to submit a utilities service report to the City
prior to Public Improvement Plan approval.
Project Applicants/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Submittal of utilities service report.
Prior to approval of Public Improvement Plan.
Prior to issuance of building permits.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
22
Eas
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Impact 3.4/S Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources
Mitigation Measure 3.4/45.0: Demonstration Pro iects
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the installation of a demonstration project(s) of cost-effective
energy conservation techniques.
Developers/PG&E/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Meet with major land owners and PG&E to determine how to set up an
Energy Conservation Demonstration Project within the Project area.
During development review process.
Prior to occupancy approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/46.0: Site Planning, Building Design and Landscat~ing
Why: To require developers to demonstrate the incorporation of energy
conservation measures into the design, construction, and operation of
proposed development.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Preparation of an Energy Conservation Plan.
Upon filing of tentative map.
Prior to building permit approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department,
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Postal Service
Impact 3.4/T Demand for Increased Postal Service
Mitigation Measure 3.4/47.0: Provision of a Post Office in Eastern Dublin
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the creation of a post office with the eastern Dublin Town
Center.
Developer/City of Dublin Planning Department.
The City will work with developers of Town Center and the U.S. Postal
Service to determine need and procedures for implementation.
Prior to tentative map approval for the Public/Semi-Public designated area
in the Town Center subarea.
Prior to approval of Final Map.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/48.0: Coordination with U.S. Postal Service
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To provide for the creation of a post office with the eastern Dublin Town
Center.
Developer/City of Dublin Planning Department.
The City will work with developers of Town Center and the U.S. Postal
Service to determine need and procedures for implementation.
Prior to tentative map approval for the Public/Semi-Public designated area
in the Town Center subarea.
23
City of Dublin
May 7, 1998
/ Eas,
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Completion:
Verification:
Prior to approval of Final Map.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Library Service
Impact 3.4/U Demand for Increased Library Service
Mitigation Measure 3.4/49.0: Provision of Adeauate Library Services
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide a library(ies) and associated services for eastern Dublin.
Alameda County Library System/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Assessment of eastern Dublin library needs and formulation of strategy to
meet these needs.
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/50.0: Coordination with Alameda County Library System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide a library(ies) and associated services for eastern Dublin.
Alameda County Library System/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Assessment of eastern Dublin library needs and formulation of strategy to
meet these needs.
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/51.0: Specific Site Selection for New Library
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To have the City Library Task Force identify appropriate location and
timing for development of new library(ies).
City Library Task Force.
Assessment of site requirements and timing of projected need.
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
SECTION 3.5: SEWER, WATER AND STORM DRAINAGE
1. Imnacts Re~luirinu Mitigation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
IM 3.5/B Lack of a Wastewater Collection System
IM 3.5/C Extension of Sewer Trunk Line
IM 3.5/D Current Limited Treatment Plant Capacity
IM 3.5/E Future Lack of Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity
IM 3.5/F Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater Treatment
24
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
IM 3.5/G Lack of Current Wastewater Disposal Capacity
IM 3.5/H Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater Disposal
IM 3.5/I Potential Failure of Export Disposal System
IM 3.5/J Pump Station Noise and Odors
IM 3.5/K Storage Basin Odors and Potential Failure
IM 3.5/L Recycled Water System Operation
IM 3.5/M Recycled Water Storage Failure
IM 3.5/N Loss of Recycled Water System Pressure
IM 3.5/0 Secondary Impacts from Recycled Water System Operation
IM' 3.5/P Overdraft of Local Groundwater Resources
IM 3.5/Q Increase in Demand for Water
IM 3.5/R Additional Water Treatment Plant Capacity
IM 3.5/S Lack of Water Distribution System
IM 3.5/T Inducement of Substantial Growth and Concentration of Population
IM 3.5/U Increase in Energy Usage Through Operation of the Water Distribution System
IM 3.5/V Potential Water Storage Reservoir Failure
IM 3.5/W Potential Loss of System Pressure
IM 3.5/X Potential Pump Station Noise
IM 3.5/Y Potential Flooding
IM 3.5/Z Reduced Groundwater Recharge
IM 3.5/AA Non-Point Sources of Pollution
2. Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Prouram
Impact 3.5/B Lack of a Wastewater Collection System
Mitigation Measure 3,5/1.0a: Expansion of DSRSD Service Boundaries
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the expansion of DSRSD's service boundaries to include the
Project area.
DSRSD.
DSRSD will revise its service area boundaries.
Prior to approval of any development outside the current service boundaries.
Prior to tentative map approval.
City of Dublin Department of Public Works.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/1.0: Connection to Public Sewers
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that all development within the Project area be connected to
public sewers.
City of Dublin Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Require connection to public sewers.
Condition of approval for tentative map.
Prior to final map approval,
Department of Public Works.
25
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitieation Measure 3.5/2.0: Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To have DSRSD update its wastewater collection system master plan
computer model to reflect the adopted Specific Plan/GPA.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Public Works will request DSRSD to update Master Plan. DSRSD will be
responsible to update the Master Plan.
As soon as possible after the adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
Before approval of any detailed wastewater improvement plans.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/3.0: On-site Wastewater Treatment
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To discourage the use of on-site package plants and septic systems within
the Project area.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Communicate to project applicants the City's desire that all projects be
connected to the DSRSD sewer system.
Ongoing, as part of the development application process.
Prior to tentative map filing.
Department of Public Works.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/4.0: DSRSD Service
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require a "will serve" letter from DSRSD prior to permit approval for
grading.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Confirm receipt of a "will-serve" letter for all proposed projects.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
Mitization Measure 3.5/5.0: DSRSD Standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that design and construction of all wastewater systems is in
conformance with DSRSD standards.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Confirm that wastewater system meet DSRSD standards.
Prior to issuance of building permits.
Approval of improvement plans.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Impact 3.5/C Extension of Sewer Trunk Line
Miti~,ation Measure 3.5/6.0: Sizing o f Wastewater System
Why: To ensure that the planned wastewater collection system has been sized to
accommodate only the development within the Project area.
26
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas~ Dublin Specific Plan & GPA
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
DSRSD.
Engineer wastewater capacity for Project site capacity only.
Wastewater system design phase.
Prior to installation of Project area sewer system.
DSRSD.
Impact
3.5/D Current Limited Treatment Plant Capacity
Mitigation Measure 3.5/7.0: Design Level Wastewater Investigation
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require project applicants to prepare detailed wastewater capacity
investigations, including means to minimize wastewater flows.
Applicants in coordination with DSRSD.
Prepare a detailed wastewater capacity investigation.
Preparation of preliminary Public Improvement Plan.
Final Public Improvement Plan Approval.
DSRSD/Department of Public Works.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/7.1: DSRSD Service
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require a "will serve" letter from DSRSD prior to permit approval for
grading.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Confirm receipt of a "will-serve" letter for all proposed projects.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
Impact
3.5/E Future Lack of Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity
Mitigation Measure 3.5/8.0: Ensure Adequate Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are available to
meet the needs of future development in eastern Dublin.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
DSRSD will prepare a Master Plan including growth projections and facility
expansion needs and timing to meet the needs of projected development.
As soon as possible after adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
Prior to approval of any development.
Department of Public Works.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.5/9.0: Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Schedule
Why:
Who:
What:
To ensure that proposed development is consistent with wastewater
treatment plant expansion as set forth in DSRSD's master plan.
DSRSD/Department of Public Works.
The City must confirm that proposed development is consistent with the
capacity and timing identified in DSRSD's Master Plan
27
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Ea8
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
When:
Completion:
Verification:
During review of tentative map.
Prior to approval of Final Map.
Department of Public Works.
Impact 3.5/F Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater Treatment
Mitiltation Measure 3.5/10.0: Use of Energy-Efficient Treatment System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To include energy efficient treatment systems in any wastewater treatment
plant expansion and operate the plant to take advantage of off-peak energy.
DSRSD
Design and construct energy-efficient treatment systems.
Design phase for WWTP expansion.
On-going.
DSRSD.
Impact 3.5/G Lack of Current Wastewater Disposal Capacity
Mitigation Measure 3.5/11.0: (Program 9H) Export Pit~eline
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To support TWA in its current efforts to implement a new wastewater
export pipeline system.
Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority/Dublin City Manager's Office.
Support implementation of new export pipeline.
Ongoing.
Approval of TWA improvement plans.
Dublin City Manager's Office.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/12.0: (Policy 9-5) Construction of Recycled Water System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To promote recycled water use for landscape irrigation in eastern Dublin
through upgrading of treatment and construction of a recycled water
distribution and storage system in eastern Dublin.
DSRSD.
Promote recycled water use.
During development review process.
Ongoing.
DSRSD.
Mitization Measure 3.5/13.0: (Program 9J) Recycled Water Distribution System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
To have DSRSD update its proposed recycled water distribution system
computer model to reflect the adopted Specific Plan/GPA.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Public Works will request DSRSD to update its computer model. DSRSD
will be responsible to update the model.
As soon as possible after the adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
Before approval of any detailed wastewater improvement plans.
28
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas, , Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Verification: Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/14.0: (Program 9K) Wastewater Recycling and Reuse
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To support the efforts of the Tri-Valley Water Recycling Task Force Study
through Zone 7, encouraging wastewater recycling and reuse for landscape
irrigation.
City of Dublin Department of Public Works/Zone 7.
Encourage wastewater recycling as detailed in the Tri-Valley Water
Recycling Task Force Study.
As soon as possible after the adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
Ongoing.
Department of Public Works.
Impact
3.5/H Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater Disposal
Mitigation Measure 3.5/15.0: Energy for Ex~ort Dist~osal
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To encourage LAVWMA to continue its program of off-peak pumping of
wastewater to balance electric demands in the PG&E system.
City of Dublin/LAVWMA.
Encourage off-peak pumping.
Upon adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
On-going.
Department of Public Works.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/16.0: Energy for Distgosal through Recycled Water System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that the recycled water treatment system is planned, designed and
constructed for energy efficiency in operation.
City of Dublin Department of Public Works/DSRSD
Design, construction, and operation of energy-efficient system.
Upon agreement to use a recycled water treatment system.
On-going.
DSRSD.
Impact
3.5/I Potential Failure of Export Disposal System
Mitigation Measure 3.5/17.0: Redundancy in Engineering
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To avoid potential failure in the operation of the pumps in the TWA
wastewater collection system.
TWA
Incorporate engineering redundancy into the design of the pump stations
and provide emergency power generators.
Design and construction phase of export system.
Approval of export system improvement plans.
Department of Public Works.
29
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Impact
3.5/J Pump Station Noise and Odors
Miti~,ation Measure 3.5/18.0: Design of Pumv and Motors
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that pump station design minimizes potential for impacts related
to noise and odors.
TWA
Design pump and motors to meet local noise standards. Install odor control
equipment.
Design phase of export system.
Approval of export system improvement plans.
Department of Public Works.
Impact
3.5/K Storage Basin Odors and Potential Failure
Mitigation Measure 3.5/19.0: Desi~n/En~cineering of Storage Basins
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that wastewater storage basins are designed to control odors and
minimize the risk of failure in the event of an earthquake.
TWA
Design storage basins to meet seismic codes, and limit odors by burying
tanks and incorporating odor control equipment.
Design phase of export system.
Approval of export system improvement plans.
Department of Public Works.
Impact
Impact
3.5/L Recycled Water System Operation
Mitigation Measure 3.5/20.0: Construction of Recycled Water Distribution System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that construction of the recycled water distribution system be in
accordance with all applicable State and local regulations.
DSRSD
Require compliance of recycled water distribution system with applicable
regulations of the DHS and the SFBRWQCB.
Condition of approval for recycled water distribution system.
Approval of improvement plans.
DSRSD.
3.5/M Recycled Water Storage Failure
Mitigation Measure 3.5/21.0: Desi~,n/En~ineerin~, of Water Stora~,e Basins
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To ensure that reservoir construction meets all applicable standards of
DSRSD and appropriate health agencies.
DSRSD/Department of Public Works.
Confirm the reservoir design and construction meets all applicable
standards.
Design phase.
3O
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Completion:
Verification:
Approval of improvement plans.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Impact
3.5/N Loss of Recycled Water System Pressure
Mitigation Measure 3.5/22.0: Comt~liance with DSRSD standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that proposed recycled water pump stations meet all applicable
standards of DSRSD and include emergency power generation.
DSRSD/Department of Public Works.
Confirm compliance of pump station design with DSRSD standards, and
include emergency power generators.
Design phase.
Approval of improvement plans.
Department of Public Works.
Impact
3.5/0 Secondary Impacts from Recycled Water System Operation
Mitigation Measure 3.5/23.0: Salt Reduction
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that recycled water projects meet any applicable salt mitigation
requirements of Zone 7.
DSRSD.
Coordinate with Zone 7 to confirm whether or not a recycled water system
in the Project area would require demineralization.
Design Phase.
Approval of improvement plans.
DSRSD.
Impact
3.5/P Overdraft of Local Groundwater Resources
Mitigation Measure 3.5/24.0: (Policy 9-2) Annexation of Svecific Plan area to DSRSD
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To expand DSRSD service boundaries to encompass the entire eastern
Dublin Specific Plan/GPA area.
DSRSD.
Development of annexation application.
Condition of approval for planned development prezoning.
Prior to approval of detailed improvement plans.
DSRSD.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/25.0: Connection to DSRSD Water System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To encourage all development in the Project area to connect to the DSRSD
water system.
City of Dublin Public Works Department/DSRSD.
Inform all project applicants of preference for connection of new
development to the DSRSD system.
During preparation of tentative map.
31
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan ,~ GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Completion:
Verification:
Prior to approval of final map.
City of Dublin Department of Public Works.
Impact
3.5/Q Increase in Demand for Water
Mitigation Measure 3.5/26.0: (Program 9 A ) Water Conservation
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require water conservation measures to be designed into individual
projects.
Developers/City of Dublin Public Works Department/DSRSD.
Review project applications for incorporation of water conservation
measures.
Condition of approval for tentative map.
Prior to approval of final map.
Department of Public Works.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/27.0: (Program 9B ) Water Recycling
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require water recycling measures be incorporated into individual
projects.
Developers/City of Dublin Public Works Department/DSRSD.
Review projects for incorporation of DSRSD and Zone 7 recommendations
relating to the use of recycled water.
Condition of approval for tentative map.
Approval of detailed improvement plans.
Dublin Department of Public Works.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/28.0: Zone 7 Imvrovements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that Zone 7 has water supply needed to meet requirements of the
Project.
Public Works Department/DSRSD/Zone 7.
Confirm status of Zone 7 water supply improvements.
Condition of approval for "will serve" letter.
Prior to approval of final map.
DSRSD/Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/29.0.' New Zone 7 Turnouts
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the construction of two additional turnouts from the Zone
7 Cross Valley Pipeline to serve the Eastern Dublin area.
Zone 7/DSRSD.
Construction of two additional turnouts.
As needed to provide adequate service to new development.
Ongoing.
DSRSD.
32
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Miti~,ation Measw:e 3.5/30: Interconnections with Existing, Systems
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for increased water source reliability, the Project water system
should be interconnected with existing adjoining systems.
DSRSD/Public Works Department.
Plan water system to interconnect with existing systems.
Ongoing as system within the Project area is built out.
Ongoing.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/31.0: Reimbursement for New DSRSD Groundwater Wells
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide a backup source of water supply to its Zone 7 source, DSRSD
will reimburse City of Pleasanton for construction and operation of new
groundwater wells south of the Project area.
DSRSD/City of Pleasanton.
DSRSD will reimburse City of Pleasanton for groundwater wells.
On schedule to be determined by DSRSD and the City of Pleasanton.
Ongoing.
DSRSD.
Impact
3.5/R Additional Water Treatment Plant Capacity
Mitigation Measure 3.5/32.0: Zone 7 Phasing, for Water Treatment System Improvements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To meet increasing demands on its water system, Zone 7 has established a
phasing for water treatment system improvements.
Zone 7.
Implementation of phased improvements.
Pursuant to established schedule.
Pursuant to established schedule.
Zone 7.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/33.0: Construction of New Chlorination/Fluoridation Stations
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To meet increased demand resulting from the project, DSRSD should
construct two new chlorination/fluoridation stations at the two proposed
Zone 7 turnouts to eastern Dublin.
DSRSD/Zone 7.
Construction of two new stations.
As needed to provide adequate service, with the western turnout being
developed first. The eastern turnout would not be developed until
development of the eastern portion of the Project area.
On schedule to be determined by DSRSD and Zone 7.
DSRSD.
33
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas, Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Impact
3.5/S Lack of a Water Distribution System
Miti~,ation Measure 3.5/34.0: (Policy 9-1 ) Provision of an Adequate Water Suvvlv System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide an adequate water supply system and related improvements and
storage facilities for all new development in the Project area.
DSRSD/Developers.
Require new development to build the water supply system needed per
DSRSD Master Plan and service standards.
Condition of approval for tentative map.
Prior to approval of Final Public Improvements Plan.
DSRSD/Department of Public Works.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.5/35.0: (Program 9C) Water System Master Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that DSRSD updates its water system master plan computer model
to reflect the adopted Specific Plan/GPA land uses.
City of Dublin/DSRSD
Request that DSRSD update its water system master plan computer model.
As soon as possible after adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
Prior to the approval of a Public Improvement Plan for any new
development.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/36.0: (Proi~ram 9D ) Combining of Water Systems
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To consolidate the Camp Parks and Alameda County water systems and
turnouts with the DSRSD system.
City of Dublin Public Works Department/Camp Parks/Alameda
County/DSRSD.
Encourage agencies to combine water systems with DSRSD.
Ongoing from date of Project adoption.
Ongoing.
DSRSD.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/37.0: DSRSD Standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that design and construction of all water system facility
improvements be in accordance with DSRSD standards.
City of Dublin Public Works Department/DSRSD/Developers
Review each development proposal to verify that all water system facility
improvements conform to DSRSD standards.
Condition of approval for Public Improvements Plan.
Prior to approval of Final Public Improvements Plan.
Public Works Department.
34
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas~,
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure 3.5/38.0: DSRSD Service
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require a "will serve" letter from DSRSD prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
City of Dublin/DSRSD/Developer.
Confirm receipt of a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD.
Condition of approval for tentative map.
Prior to approval of final map.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.5/T Inducement of Substantial Growth and Concentration of Population
Mitigation Measure 3.5/39.0: Sizing of Water Distribution System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce the growth-inducing potential of water system expansion, the
water distribution system will be sized to accommodate only the estimated
water demands from approved land uses within the Project.
DSRSD.
Limit capacity of water distribution system to serve only the Project site.
Update of DSRSD water system master plan computer model.
Prior to the approval of a Public Improvement Plan for any new
development in the Project area.
Department of Public Works.
Impact
3.5/U Increase in Energy Usage through Operation of the Water Distribution System
Mitigation Measure 3.5/40.0: Energy-Efficient Ot~eration of Water Distribution System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that the water distribution system is planned, designed and
constructed for energy-efficient operation.
City of Dublin/DSRSD.
Design and operation of energy efficient water distribution system.
Ongoing.
On-going.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.5/V Potential Water Storage Reservoir Failure
Mitigation Measure 3.5/41.0: Design/Engineering of Water Storage Basins
Why:'
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all reservoir construction to meet all the applicable standards of
DSRSD, to meet current seismic building standards, and to provide adequate
site drainage.
DSRSD.
Design basins to reduce failure potential.
Design phase.
Approval of improvement plans.
DSRSD.
35
Eas, Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Impact 3.5/W Potential Loss of System Pressure
Mitigation Measure 3.5/42.0: Compliance With All DSRSD Standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the proposed new water pump stations to meet all the applicable
standards of DSRSD and include emergency power generators at each pump
station.
City of Dublin/DSRSD.
Engineering provisions for emergency conditions.
Design phase.
Approval of final improvement plans.
Public Works Department.
Impact
3.54/X Potential Pump Station Noise
Mitigation Measure 3.5/43.0: Reduction of Potential Noise
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To include design provisions to pump stations that will reduce sound levels
from operating pump motors and emergency generators.
DSRSD.
Incorporate necessary engineering provisions in design of pump stations to
minimize operational noise.
Design phase.
Approval of final improvement plans.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.5/Y Potential Flooding
Mitigation Measure 3.5/44.0: (Policy 9-7 ) Provision of Drainage Facilities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide drainage facilities that will minimize any increased potential for
erosion or flooding.
Developers/DSRSD.
Review drainage facilities design to verify that erosion/flOoding potential
will be minimized.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Approval of final grading and improvement plans.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/45.0: (Poticy 9-8 ) Natural Channel Imvrovements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require channel improvements consisting of natural creek bottoms and
side slopes with natural vegetation where possible.
Developers/Zone 7.
Review required channel improvements for their attempt to maintain
natural-appearing conditions while addressing the drainage requirements.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final grading plan approval.
Department of Public Works with input from Zone 7.
36
City of Dublin
May 7, 1998
E~s, . Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Miti~,ation Measure 3.5/46.0: (Program 9R ) Storm Draina~,e Master Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for each development.
Developers.
Preparation of Storm Drainage Master Plan.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/47.0: (Pro~,ram 95) Flood Control
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require Project area development to provide facilities to alleviate
potential downstream flooding due to Project area development.
Developers.
Provision of flood control improvements.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works Department.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.5/48.0: Construction of Storm Drainage Facilities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the construction of the backbone drainage facilities consistent
with the Storm Drainage Master Plan.
Developers.
Construction of storm drainage facilities.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.5/Z Reduced Groundwater Recharge
Mitization Measure 3.5/49.0: (Policy 9-9) Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To plan facilities and management practices that protect and enhance water
quality.
City of Dublin Public Works Department/Zone 7.
Oversight of facilities to protect and enhance water quality.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/50.0: Zone 7 Groundwater Recharge Prod, ram
Why:
Who:
What:
To protect groundwater resources, Zone 7 supports an ongoing groundwater
recharge program for the Central Basin.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Support Zone 7 groundwater recharge program, by encouraging recharge
areas within the Project area where feasible.
37
City of DUblin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
When:
Completion:
Verification:
COndition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.5/AA Non-Point Sources of Pollution
Mitigation Measure 3.5/52.0: Community Education Programs
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To develop community-based programs to educate local residents and
businesses on methods to reduce non-point sources of pollution, and
coordinate such programs with current Alameda County p.rograms.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Development/dissemination of information to reduce non-point sources of
pollution.
Condition of tentative map approval
On-going
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/53.0: "Best Management Practices"
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all development to meet the requirements of the City of Dublin's
"Best Management Practices" to mitigate storm water pollution.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Review proposed development plans to ensure that "Best Management
Practices" have been incorporated to reduce pollution.
During development review processing.
Prior to building permit approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/54.0: National Pollution Dischar~,e Elimination System Reauirements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all development to meet the water quality requirements of the
City of Dublin's NPDES permit.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Review proposed development plans to ensure that NPDES requirements
have been incorporated to reduce pollution.
During development review processing.
Prior to building permit approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/55.0: Urban Runoff Clean Water Pro~,ram Reauirements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To require all development to meet the water quality requirements of the
Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Review proposed development plans to ensure that the requirements of the
County's Urban Runoff Clean Water Program have been incorporated to
reduce pollution.
During development review processing.
38
City of Dublin
May 7, 1998
Ea, Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Completion:
Verification:
Prior to building permit approval.
Public Works Department.
SECTION 3.6: SOILS. GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
1. Impacts Reauirin!~ Mitigation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
IM 3.6/B Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects
IM 3.6/C' Earthquake Ground Shaking: Secondary Effects
IM 3.6/D Substantial Alteration to Project Site Landforms
IM 3.6/F Groundwater Impacts
IM 3.6/G Groundwater Impacts Associated with Irrigation
IM 3.6/H Shrinking and Swelling of Expansive Soils and Bedrock
IM 3.6/I Natural Slope Stability
IM 3.6/J Cut-and-Fill Slope Stability
IM 3.6/K Erosion and Sedimentation: Construction-Related
IM 3.6/L Erosion and Sedimentation: Long-Term
2. Mitigation Imnlementation and Monitorin~ Program
Impact 3.6/B Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects
Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0: ImMementation of Current Seismic Design Standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the use of modern seismic design in construction of development
projects, and build in accordance with Uniform Building code and
applicable county and city code requirements.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Review plans to ensure conformance to UBC and all other applicable codes.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/C Earthquake Ground Shaking: Secondary Effects
Mitigation Measure 3.6/2.0: Design Reauirements for Flat Areas
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide setbacks from or modification of unstable and potentially
unstable landforms, and use of appropriate design to ensure seismic safety.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify that improvements have been located away from unstable landforms;
that potentially unstable landforms have been stabilized; and that
development plans conform to UBC and all other applicable codes.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
39
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure 3.6/3.0: Design Reauirements Dr Hillside Areas
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require appropriate grading and design to completely remove unstable
and potentially unstable materials in hillside areas where development may
require substantial grading.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify that grading and design will remove unstable materials.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/4.0: Design Reauirements for Hillside Fills
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To use engineering techniques and improvements, such as retention
structures, drainage improvements, properly designed keyways, and
adequate compaction to improve the stability of fill areas and reduce
seismically induce fill settlement.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Require engineered retention structures, surface and subsurface drainage
improvements.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/5.0: Desizn Reauirements for Fill Settlement
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To use engineering techniques and improvements, such as retention
structures, drainage improvements, properly designed keyways, and
adequate compaction to improve the stability of fill areas and reduce
seismically induce fill settlement.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Require engineered retention structures, surface and subsurface drainage
improvements.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/6.0: Design Reauirements (roads, structural foundations and
underground utilities ) for Fill Settlement
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
To design roads, structural foundations, and underground utilities to
accommodate estimated settlement without failure, especially across
transitions between fills and cuts, and to remove or reconstruct potentially
unstable stock pond embankments in development areas.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify the effectiveness of improvements to ensure the stability of proposed
roads, structural foundations and underground utilities.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
4O
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas, Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Verification: Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigations
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all development projects in the Project area to perform design
level geotechnical investigations prior to issuing any permits.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Confirm receipt of geotechnical investigations (ie. stability analysis of
significant slopes and displacement analysis of critical slopes) in conjunction
with final design of improvements.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/8.0: Earthauake Prevaredness Plans
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the development of earthquake preparedness plans and the
dissemination of appropriate emergency measures to all Project residents
and employees.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Develop earthquake preparedness plan, and prepare public information
strategy.
Within two years of adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
Prior to substantial development in the Project Area.
Planning Department
Impact 3.6/D Substantial Alteration to Project Site Landforms
Mitigation Measure 3.6/9.0: Grading Plans to Reduce Land form Alteration
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce alteration to existing landforms through the preparation of
grading plans that adapt improvements to natural land forms and
implementation of such techniques as partial pads and retaining structures.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Review grading plans to ensure that they do not result in unnecessary or
avoidable alterations to existing landforms.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/10.0: Siting of Improvements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To reduce landform alteration by carefully siting individual improvements
to avoid adverse conditions and thus the need for remedial grading.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Review proponents geotechnical investigation to determine if improvements
have been sited to reduce the need for grading.
Prior to submittal of tentative map.
41
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas, Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Completion:
Verification:
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/F Groundwater Impacts
Impact 3.6/G Groundwater Impacts Associated with Irrigation
Mitigation Measure 3.6/11.0: Geotechnical Investigations to Locate and Characterize
Groundwater Conditions
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To prepare detailed design level geotechnical investigations on development
sites within the Project area, to locate and characterize groundwater
conditions and formulate design criteria and measures to mitigate adverse
conditions.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify the preparation of geotechnical investigations to locate and
characterize groundwater conditions.
One year prior to construction.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/12.0: Construction of Subdrain Systems
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce groundwater impacts, subdrain systems including drainage pipe
and permeable materials can be constructed.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Construct subdrain systems to control groundwater impacts.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/13.0: Stock Ponds and Reservoirs
Why:
WhO:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce groundwater impacts, stock pond embankments should be
removed and reservoirs drained in development areas.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Remove stock pond embankments and drain reservoirs within development
areas.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/H Shrinking and Swelling of Expansive Soils and Bedrock
Mitigation Measure 3.6/14.0: Geotechnical Investi~,ation
Why:
To prepare design level geotechnical investigations for development projects
in the Project area to characterize site-specific soils and bedrock conditions,
and to formulate appropriate design criteria.
42
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Developers/Public Works Department.
Confirm the preparation of geotechnical investigations to characterize site-
specific soils and rock conditions, and the development of appropriate
design solutions.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/15.0: Moisture Control Measures
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce the potential for impact resulting from expansive soils and rock,
by implementing measures to control moisture in the ground.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify the appropriate application of moisture conditioning; construction of
surface and subsurface drainage to control infiltration; lime treatment.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of building permits.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/16.0: Foundation and Pavement Design
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce the potential effects of expansive soil and rock through
appropriate foundation and pavement design.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify that structural foundations have been located below the zone of
seasonal moisture change; the use structurally supported floors; the use of
non-expansive fill beneath structure slabs and asphaltic concrete.
Prior to submittal of tentative map.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/I Natural Slope Stability
Mitigation Measure 3.6/17.0: Geotechnical Investigations
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To characterize site-specific slope stability conditions and to formulate
appropriate design criteria, development within the Project area should
prepare design level geotechnical investigations.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Confirm the preparation of geotechnical investigations to characterize slope
stability conditions and identify appropriate design solutions.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/18.0: Siting of Improvements
Why: To avoid impacts from unstable slopes by siting development away from
43
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
unstable landforms and from slopes greater than 30%, and providing lower
density development in steep, unstable areas.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Confirm that plans avoid siting improvements downslope or on unstable and
potentially unstable landforms or on 30%+ slopes.
Condition of submittal of tentative map.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/19.0: Desi~,n Measures for lmvrovements on, below, or adiacent to
Unstable Sloves
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To implement measures such as removing, reconstructing, or repairing
unstable areas, or structural engineering, when unstable areas cannot be
avoided.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Review for appropriateness and safety the measures suggested to resolve
areas with steep and/or unstable slopes.
Prior to approval of tentative map.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/J Cut-and-Fill Slope Stability
Miti~,ation Measure 3.6/20.0: Minirnizin~ Gradin~
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require grading plans for hillside areas, which plans minimize grading
and required cuts and fills by adapting roads to natural landforms and
stepping structures down steeper slopes.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Review plans to determine if proposed development has attempted to
minimize grading.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Mitization Measure 3.6/21.0: Conformance of Gradin~ Plans to UBC
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require compliance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform
Building Code and applicable County and City code requirements.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify that grading plans conform to chapters 70 and 22 of the Uniform
Building Code and to other applicable codes.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
44
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure 3.6/22.0: Avoidance of Unretained Cut Slot~es Greater Than 33%
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that unretained cut slopes should not exceed 3:1 unless detailed,
site-specific'geotechnical investigations indicate that steeper inclinations are
appropriate and safe.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Confirm that project avoids unretained cut slopes greater than 3:1; uses
retaining structures to reduce grading on slopes greater than 3:1; and
provides benches and subsurface drainage on cut slopes where applicable.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/23.0: .Measures [or Slopes Greater Than 20%
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that slopes steeper than 5:1 should be keyed and benched into
competent material and provided with subdrainage, prior to placement of
engineered fill.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Confirm that appropriate measures have been taken in areas where slopes
are greater than 20% are to be disturbed.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/24.0: Measures for Stoves Greater Than 50%
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that unreinforced fill slopes should be no steeper than 2:1 and
provided with benches and surface drainage, as appropriate.
Developers/Public Works Department.
confirm that appropriate measures have been incorporated where
unreinforced fill slopes greater than 2:1 are involved.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/25.0: Comvaction of Fill
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that fill be engineered (compacted) to at least 90 percent relative
compaction.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Ensure that fill will be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
45
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure 3.6/26.0: Preparation and Submittal of Subsurface Drainage Inspection
Plans
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that development projects prepare plans for the periodic
inspection and maintenance of subsurface drainage features, and the
removal and disposal of materials deposited in surface drains and catch
basins.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Confirm that plans have been prepared and submitted for the periodic
inspection and maintenance of subsurface and surface drainage facilities.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/K Erosion and Sedimentation: Construction-Related
Miti~,ation Measure 3.6/27.0: Timin~ of Gradin~ Activities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that grading activities be timed to avoid the rainy season as much
as possible, and that interim control measures be implemented to control
runoff and reduce erosion potential.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Review interim control measures to prevent runoff, control runoff velocity
and trap silt for effectiveness.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/L Erosion and Sedimentation: Long-Term
Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0: Long-Term Control Measures
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts through appropriate
design, construction, and continued maintenance of surface and subsurface
drainage.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Review adequacy of long-term control measures based upon
recommendations of geotechnical consultants.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
46
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas, Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
SECTION 3.7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Imnacts Ret~uiring Mitigation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
IM 3.7
IM 3.7
IM 3.7
IM 3.7
IM 3.7
IM 3.7
IM 3.7
IM 3.7
IM 3.7
IM 3.7
IM 3.7
IM 3.7
IM 3.7
IM 3.7
IM
IM
/A Direct Habitat Loss
/B Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal
/C Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat
/D San Joaquin Kit Fox
/F Red-Legged Frog
/G California Tiger Salamander
/H Western Pond Turtle
/I Tri-Colored Blackbird
/J Golden Eagle: Destruction of Nesting Site
/K Golden Eagle: Elimination of Foraging Habitat
/L Golden Eagle and Other Raptor Electrocutions
/M Burrowing Owl
/N American Badger
/O Prairie Falcon, Northern Harrier, and Black-Shouldered Kite
3.7/P Sharp-Shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawk
3.7/S Special Status Invertebrates
2. Mitigation Imnlementation and Monitoring Program
Impact 3.7/A Direct Habitat Loss
Mitigation Measure 3.7/1.0: (Policy 6-21 ) AvoidinE Disturbance/Removal of Vegetation
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that direct disturbance or removal of trees or native vegetation
cover should be minimized and be restricted to those areas actually
designated for the construction of improvements.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review plans to verify that disturbance/removal of vegetation has been kept
to a minimum.
Prior to approval of tentative map.
Prior to approval of final map.
Planning Department.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.7/2.0: (Policy 6-23) Vegetation Management Plans
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the preparation of vegetation enhancement/management
plans for all open space areas (whether held publicly or privately) with the
intent to enhance the biologic potential of the area as wildlife habitat.
Developers/Planning Department.
Ensure that vegetation management plans have been prepared for designated
open space areas.
Prior to approval of tentative map.
Prior to approval of final map.
Planning Department.
47
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas, Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure 3.7/3.0: (Action Program 60 ) Revegetation Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require a detailed revegetation/restoration plan to be developed for all
disturbed areas that are to remain undeveloped.
Developers/Planning Department.
Ensure that revegetation/restoration plans have been prepared for disturbed
areas.
Prior to approval of final map.
Prior to approval of grading plans.
Planning Department.
Miti~cation Measure 3.7/4.0: Grazing Mana~,ement Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the City to develop and implement grazing management plans to
protect riparian and wetland areas, increase plant diversity, and encourage
the recovery of native plants.
Planning Department.
Prepare a Grazing Management Plan and develop a strategy for
implementation.
Upon annexation.
As soon as possible after annexations.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.7/B Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal
Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0: (Policy 6-22) Reve~,etation
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that all areas of disturbance are revegetated as quickly as possible
to prevent erosion.
Developers/Planning Department.
1 ) Planning Department will ensure that revegetation plans include schedule
for replanting.
2) Building Inspectors will ensure that revegetation occurs on schedule.
1 ) Prior to approval of revegetation plans.
2) After site grading.
1 ) Prior to approval of final grading plans.
2) Completion of revegetation.
Planning Department/Public Works.
Impact 3.7/C Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat
Mitization Measure 3.7/6.0: (Policy 6-9) Preservation of Hvdrolo~,ic Features
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To require the preservation of natural stream corridors, ponds, springs,
seeps, and wetland areas wherever possible.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Ensure that California Department of Fish and Game and Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) have been consulted to determine jurisdiction and provide
recommendations.
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
48
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
E~s, Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Completion:
Verification:
Prior to approval of final map.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/7.0: fPolicv 6-10 ) Preservation of Ri~arian and Wetlands Areas
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the incorporation of riparian and wetland areas into project open
space areas, and ensure that loss of riparian or wetland habitat will be
mitigated per Department of Fish and Game/Corps of Engineers.
Developers/Planning Department.
1) Planning Department will ensure that riparian and wetland areas are
incorporated into open space areas wherever feasible, and that revegetation
plans provide appropriate mitigation for loss of riparian/wetlands habitat.
2) Planning Department in conjunction with appropriate agency will ensure
that mitigation occurs as planned.
1 ) Prior to approval of revegetation plans.
2) After site grading.
1 ) Prior to approval of final grading plans.
2) Completion of revegetation.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/8.0: f Policv 6-11 ) Vegetation o f Stream Corridors
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that all stream corridors be revegetated with native plant species
to enhance their natural appearance and improve habitat values.
Developers/Planning Department.
1 ) Planning Department will ensure that revegetation plans provide for the
revegetation of stream corridors.
2) Planning Department in conjunction with appropriate agency will ensure
that revegetation occurs as planned.
1) Prior to approval of revegetation plans.
2) After site grading.
1 ) Prior to approval of final grading plans.
2) Completion of revegetation.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/9.0: (Policy 6-12) Engineering for Storm Runoff
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that storm runoff is carried in natural stream channels wherever
possible, rather than replacing with underground drainage systems.
Applicants/Public Works Department.
Ensure that storm runoff plans preserve/utilize natural stream channels as
effectively as possible.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Final map approval.
Public Works Department.
49
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas, Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure 3.7/10.0: (Policy 6-13) Open Soace Corridor System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To establish a stream corridor system that provides multi-purpose open
space corridors capable of accommodating wildlife and pedestrian
circulation.
Developers/Planning Department.
Planning Department, with consultation from CDFG, will ensure that plans
provide for the effective preservation/enhancement of stream corridors as
multi-purpose corridors.
Prior to approval of tentative map.
Prior to approval of final grading plans.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/11.0: (Program 6E ) Submittal of Wetlands Delineation
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all project applicants to submit a multi-parameter wetlands
delineation to the COE for verification and jurisdictional establishment, and
submit plans for proposed alteration to any watercourse to the DFG for their
review and approval.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Verify submittal of multi-parameter wetlands delineation to the Corps of
Engineers, and submittal of plans streamcourse alteration plans to the
Department of Fish and Game.
Condition of approval for tentative map.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/12.0 (Program 6F) Comvrehensive Stream Corridor Restoration
Program
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the development of a comprehensive stream corridor.
restoration program that identifies a detailed set of criteria for grading,
stabilization and revegetation of planning area stream channels.
Planning Department/Public Works/Zone 7/Department of Fish and Game
Develop a comprehensive stream corridor restoration program.
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/13.0: (Program 6G ) Dedication of Land and Imvrovements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
To provide for the dedication of land and improvements (i.e., trails,
revegetation, etc.) along both sides of stream corridors as a condition of
project approval.
Developers/Planning Department.
Require dedication of land and improvements along both sides of stream
corridors.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to Final map approval.
5O
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/14.0: (Program 6H ) Sedimentation Control Ordinance
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the enactment of an erosion and sedimentation control
ordinance establishing performance standards to ensure maintenance of
water quality and protection of stream channels.
Public Works Department.
Enactment and enforcement of a sedimentation control ordinance.
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Prior to tentative map approval of the Project site.
Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/15.0: (Program 6K) Liaison with Resource Management Agencies
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To establish a liaison between the City and resource management agencies
for the purpose of monitoring compliance with Specific Plan policies.
Planning Department.
Establish and maintain a liaison with resource management agencies. Set up
a meeting with agency representatives to review with them the adopted plan
and points at which their input will be important.
As soon as possible after adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
On-going.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/16.0: Protection of Existing, Sensitive Habitats
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that sensitive habitat areas will be avoided and protected
wherever feasible.
Developers/Planning Department.
Verify that land use proposals avoid and protect existing sensitive habitat
areas.
Upon submittal of tentative map.
Condition of final project approval.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/17.0: Construction Near Drainages During the Dry Season
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require construction near drainages to take place during the dry season.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Require that construction near drainages take place only during the dry
season.
Upon submittal of tentative map.
Condition of approval of building permit or grading permit.
Public Works Department.
51
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Impact 3.7/D San Joaquin Kit Fox
Mitigation Measure 3.7/18.0: USFWS Section 7 Consultation/CDFG Section 2053 Consultation
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all development in the Project area to comply with the Eastern
Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan.
Developers/Planning Department.
Verify that development plans are consistent with the provisions and
procedures set forth in the Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection
Plan.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/18.1: Kit Fox Habitat Management Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for cooperation between the City and other appropriate agencies
in the preparation of a Kit Fox Habitat Management Plan.
Planning Department.
Contact Department of Fish and Game about the City's interest in
participating in the establishment of a habitat management plan with other
jurisdictions in the region.
Upon adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
Ongoing.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/19.0: (Program 6N) Restriction on use of Rodenticides/Herbicides
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To restrict the use of rodenticicles and herbicicles within the Project area in
order to reduce potential impacts to wildlife.
Public Works/Alameda County Department of Agriculture.
Monitor use of rodenticides/herbicides on Project site. Require any
poisoning programs to be done in cooperation with and under supervision
of the County Department of Agriculture.
Ongoing as a condition of project approval.
On-going.
Public Works Department.
Impact
Impact
Impact
Impact
3.7/F Red-Legged Frog
3.7/G California Tiger Salamander
3.7/H Western Pond Turtle
3.7/I Tri-Colored Blackbird
Mitigation Measure 3.7/20.0: (Program 6L ) Pre-Construction Survey
Why:
Who:
What:
To require developers to conduct a pre-construction survey within 60 days
prior to habitat modification to verify the presence of sensitive species.
Developers/Planning Department
Review results of pre-construction surveys.
52
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas~ . Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
When:
Completion:
Verification:
60 days prior to habitat modification.
Prior to grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/21.0: Habitat Protection
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure the protection and enhancement of sensitive species habitat areas.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review plans to ensure compliance with Mitigation Measures 3.7/2.0,
3.7/3.0, and 3.7/6.0-3.7/18/0 inclusive.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/22.0: Buffer Zones
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the maintenance of a buffer around breeding sites of the red-
legged frog, California tiger salamander, and the Western pond turtle.
Developers/Public Works.
Maintenance of minimum buffer around breeding sites identified during the
pre-construction surveys.
Condition of grading plan approval.
End of construction.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.7/J Golden Eagle: Destruction of Nesting Site
Mitigation Measure 3.7/23.0: (Policy 6-20) Golden Eagle Protection Zone
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that a natural open space zone (Golden Eagle Protection Zone) is
maintained around the golden eagle nest located in the northeast corner of
the planning area.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review development plans to ensure that a protection zone is maintained
around the golden eagle nest.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/24.0: Golden Eagle Protection Zone: Additional Temporal Buffer
Why:
Who:
What:
To require that during the golden eagle reproductive period, an additional
temporal buffer will be established within 250 feet of the Golden Eagle
Protection Zone.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Monitor construction activities to ensure that the temporal buffer around
golden eagle protection zone is maintained during the period between July
and January.
53
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas, Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
When:
Completion:
Verification:
During construction near the golden eagle protection zone.
Following reproductive period or end of construction, whichever occurs
first.
Public Works Department.
Impact
3.7/K Golden Eagle: Elimination of Foraging Habitat
Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0: Preservation of Foragin~ Habitat
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide suitable forage for the golden eagles, the Project maintains
substantial rural residential/agricultural acreage.
Planning Department.
Ensure that future plans do not reduce habitat area.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact
3.7/L Golden Eagle and Other Raptor Electrocutions
Mitigation Measure 3.7/26.0: (Program 6M) Under~rounding of Transmission Lines
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the placement of all transmission lines underground whenever
feasible, to avoid the potential for raptor electrocutions.
Public Works Department.
Undergrounding of transmission lines.
Condition of approval for Public Improvements Plan.
Final Improvements Plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.7/M Burrowing Owl
Impact 3.7/N American Badger
Mitigation Measure 3.7/27.0: Buffer Zones
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require a minimum buffer be maintained around nesting sites of the
burrowing owl and breeding sites of the American badger during the
breeding season to avoid direct loss of individuals.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Maintenance of a minimum buffer (at least 300 feet) around nesting sites
(either known or those identified in the pre-construction surveys)
During construction.
Following reproductive period or end of construction, whichever occurs
first.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.7/0 Prairie Falcon, Northern Harrier, and Black-Shouldered Kite
Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0 mitigates impacts to these species. Refer to monitoring of that
54
City of Dublin Eas
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
mitigation measure.
Impact 3.7/P Sharp-Shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawk
Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-3.7/17.0 and 3.7/21.0 are applicable. Refer to monitoring of
those mitigation measures.
Impact
3.7/S Special Status Invertebrates
Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0: Pre-construction Surveys
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require developers to conduct a pre-construction survey within 60 days
prior to habitat modification to verify the presence of sensitive species.
Developers/Planning Department
Review results of pre-construction surveys.
60 days prior to habitat modification.
Prior to grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
SECTION 3.8: VISUAL RESOURCES
1. Imnacts Reauirin~ Mitigation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
IM 3.8/A Standardized "Tract" Development
IM 3.8/B Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character
IM 3.8/C Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features
IM 3.8/D Alteration of Visual Quality of Hillsides
IM 3.8/E Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges
IM 3.8/F Alteration of Visual Quality of Flatlands
IM 3.8/G Alteration of Visual Quality of Watercourses
IM 3.8/H Alteration of Dublin's Visual Identity as a Freestanding City
IM 3.8/I Scenic Vistas
IM 3.8/J Scenic Routes
2. Mitigation Imnlementation and Monitoring Program
Impact 3.8/A Standardized "Tract" Development
Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0: Visually Distinctive Community
Why:
Who:
What:
To establish a visually distinctive community which preserves the character
of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining
views from major travel corridors and public spaces.
Planning Department/Developers.
Ensure development proposals comply with design guidelines set forth in
55
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Easl Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
When:
Completion:.
Verification:
Chapter 7: Community Design of the specific Plan.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.8/B Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character
Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0: Imt~lementation of Land Use Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure implementation of the Specific Plan/GPA land use plan, which
was developed to retain predominant natural features and a sense of
openness.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Ensure that development proposals emphasize retention of predominant
natural features and preservation of a sense of openness.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact
3.8/C Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features
Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0: (Policy 6-28) Preservation of natural features
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the preservation of the natural open beauty of the hills and other
important visual resources.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Ensure that development proposals preserve the natural open beauty of the
hills and other important visual resources on the site.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.8/D Alteration of Visual Quality of Hillsides
Mitieation Measure 3.8/4.0: (Policy 6-32) Reduction of visual imvacts due to extensive
~radin~
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce the visual impact of extensive grading through sensitive
engineering design that uses gradual transitions from graded areas to natural
slopes and revegetation.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review plans to ensure implementation of sensitive engineering design and
revegetation.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Prior to final grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
56
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.1: (Policy 6-34) Minirnization of Contours Alteration
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To minimize alterations to existing natural contours.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review plans to see that they minimize alteration of natural contours.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Before final grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.2: (Policy 6-35 ) Avoidance of Flat Grading,
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To avoid extensive areas of flat development.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review plans for success at employing alternatives to flat grading including
individual grading, stepped grading, and design in response to topographical
and geotechnical conditions.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Before final grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.8/4.3: (Policy 6-36) Building, DesiVn
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To encourage building design to conform to natural land form as much as
possible.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review plans for success at using building design that conforms to the
natural landforms of the Project site.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Before building permit is approved.
Planning Department.
Mitization Measure 3.8/4.4: (Policy 6-37 ) Recontourinz of Graded Sloves
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require graded slopes to be re-contoured to resemble existing landforms
in the immediate area.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review plans to ensure that graded slopes will be recontoured to blend into
existing landforms in the immediate area.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Final grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.8/4.5: (Policy 6-38 ) Minimization of the Height of Cut and Fill Slopes
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To minimize the height of cut and fill slopes as much as possible.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Require that the height of cut and fill slopes be minimized.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
57
City of DuBlin
May 7, 1993
Eas Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Completion:
Verification:
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.8/E Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges
Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.0: (Policy 6-29 ) Prohibition Against Develovment on Main Ridgeline
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To minimize visual impacts by prohibiting development on the main
ridgeline, and ensuring that development on foreground hills meets certain
standards.
Planning Department/Applicants.
Review plans to ensure that no development is located on main ridgeline of
Specific Plan area, and that development on foreground hills maintains a
backdrop of natural ridgelines.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.1: (Policy 6-30) General Maintenance of Scenic Views
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
COmpletion:
Verification:
To control the location and design of structures so they generally maintain
scenic views or appear to extend above an identified scenic backdrop when
viewed from a designated scenic route.
Planning Department/Applicants.
Ensure that proposed development minimizes obstruction of scenic views.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.2: (General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy E) Structures on
Ridgelines
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to project above major
ridgelines.
Planning Department/Applicants.
Ensure that proposed development minimizes obstruction of scenic views.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.8/G Alteration of the Visual Character of Watercourses
Mitigation Measure 3.3/6.0: (Policy 6-39 ) Protection of the Visual Character of Watercourses
Why:
Who:
What:
To protect the visual character of the stream corridors, unnecessary
alteration or disturbance should be avoided and visual access to the stream
corridors should be maintained from adjoining development.
Planning Department/Applicants
Review plans to ensure that watercourses are protected from unnecessary
58
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
,, Eas, , Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
When:
Completion:
Verification:
alteration or disturbance, and that visual access to the stream corridors is
maintained.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact
3.8/I Scenic Vistas
Miti~,ation Measure 3.8/7.0: (Policy 6-5 ) Preserve Views of Desiznated Oven Svace Areas
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To preserve views of designated open space areas.
Planning Department/Applicants.
Review plans to ensure that view corridors are
developed and open space areas.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
maintained between
Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.1: Visual Survey of the Pro iect Site
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the preparation of a visual survey of the Project area to
identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas.
Planning Department.
Identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas.
During processing of prezoning
Prior to any development east of Tassajara Road.
Planning Department.
IM 3.8/J Scenic Routes
Mitigation Measure 3.8/8.0: (Action Pro~,ram 60 ) Desiznation of Scenic Routes
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the designation of scenic corridors, and the adoption of
scenic corridor policies and review procedures for projects within a scenic
corridor viewshed.
Planning Department.
Designate Tassajara Road, 1-580 and Fallon Road as scenic corridors; draft
and adopt scenic corridor policies and review procedures and standards for
projects within the scenic corridor viewshed.
During processing of prezoning.
Prior to annexation of new areas into the City.
Planning Department.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.8/8.1: (Action Pro~,ram 6R ) Visual Analysis of Projects
Why:
Who:
What:
To require projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors to submit
detailed visual analysis with development project application.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review visual analysis of projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors
59
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
When:
Completion:
Verification:
to ensure project conformance with visual quality objectives.
During processing of prezoning.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
SECTION 3.9: CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Imnacts Reouirin~ Mitigation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
IM 3.9/A Disruption or Destruction of Identified Prehistoric Resources
IM 3.9/B Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Prehistoric Resources
IM 3.9/C Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic Resources
IM 3.9/D Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Historic Resources
2. Mitigation Imnlementation and Monitorin~ Program
Impact 3.9/A Disruption of Identified Prehistoric Resources
Miti~,ation Measure 3.9/1.0: Subsurface Testin~
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require mechanical and/or hand subsurface testing on all location of
prehistoric resources to determine the presence or absence of midden
deposits.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Require submittal of findings of subsurface testing (mechanical or hand) to
determine the presence or absence of midden deposits.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Miti,~ation Measure 3.9/2.0: Recordin~ of Archaeolo,~ical Materials
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all locations containing either midden components or
concentrations of cultural materials located on the surface to be recorded on
State of California site survey forms.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Record midden components or concentrations of cultural materials on State
of California site survey forms.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
6O
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas , Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Miti~,ation Measure 3.9/3.0: Evaluative Testing
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require evaluative testing if proposed development would directly or
indirectly impact recorded and mapped locations of resources.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Review the findings of evaluative testing required for recorded and mapped
locations that may be impacted by future construction or access.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.9/4.0: Protection Program for Prehistoric Sites
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require a qualified archaeologist to develop a protection program for
"significant" resources whose condition will be altered by proposed
development.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Review protection program prepared for prehistoric sites which contain
either a surface or subsurface deposit of cultural materials, and incorporate
recommended mitigation into the conditions of approval for the project.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.9/B Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Prehistoric Resources
Mitigation Measure 3.9/5.0: (Policy 6-25 ) Discovery of Historic/Prehistoric Remains
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require grading and construction to cease in the event that historic or
prehistoric remains are discovered during such activities.
Developers/Planning Department.
Cease grading/construction activities when historic or prehistoric resources
are discovered. Retain a certified archaeologist to ascertain the significance
of the remains.
During grading/construction.
Before grading/construction resume.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.9/6.0: (Action Program 6P ) Additional Actions Related to Prehistoric
Resources
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
To require as part of the development application process that steps be taken
to ensure that cultural resources are not impacted.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Prepare site sensitivity determination. If determined tO be sensitive, require
detailed research and field reconnaissance, and development of a mitigation
plan as necessary.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
61
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Verification: Planning Department.
Impact
3.9/C Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic Resources
Miti~,ation Measure 3.9/7.0: (Policy 6-26 ) Archival Research
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all properties with historic resources which may be impacted by
development to be subjected to in-depth archival research.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Review findings of in-depth archival research on any historic resources
potentially impacted by future development.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Planning Department.
Mitigation
Resources
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Measure 3.9/8.0: (Policy 6-27) Adaptive Reuse or Restoration o[ Historic
To encourage the adaptive re-use or restoration of historic structures
whenever feasible.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review development proposals to determine if reasonable consideration has
been given to the potential to reuse or restore historic structures.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.9/9.0: Evaluation of Structural Remains
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require an architectural historian to assess the significance of all standing
structures and other indicators of historic occupation and/or use of the area.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Review professional evaluation of structural remains to determine
significance pursuant to CEQA, and incorporate mitigation
recommendations, as needed, as conditions of project approval.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.9/10.0: Research o [ Standing Structure Locations and Other Indicators
of Historic Occupation
Why:
Who:
What:
To require archival research and oral interviews to determine the local or
regional significance of structures or locations (identified in the 1988 report)
by their association with important persons or events.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Review professional evaluation of structural remains to determine
significance pursuant to CEQA, and incorporate mitigation
62
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas , Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mi~igafsion Monitoring Plan
When:
Completion:
Verification:
recommendations, as needed, as conditions of project approval.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.9/11.0: Record of All Historic Locations in 1988 Revort
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that all previously noted locations (in 1988 report) be recorded
on official State of California Historical Site Inventory forms.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Verify that all locations noted in 1988 report have been recorded on State
of California Historical Site Inventory forms.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.9/12.0: Preservation Program for Historic Sites
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the preparation of a preservation program for historic sites which
qualify under CEQA Guidelines as historically significant.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Review the preservation program prepared for any historic sites, and
incorporate any recommended mitigations as a condition of project
approval.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
SECTION 3.10 NOISE
1. Impacts Reauirinu Mitigation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
IM 3.10/A Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise
IM 3.10/B' Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise
IM 3.10/D Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future
Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks RFTA) and
the County Jail
IM 3. 10/E Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise
IM 3.10/F Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by
Plan Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development
63
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
~Dublin Specific Phn & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
2. Mitil~ation Imnlementation and Monitorin!~ Program
Impact 3.10/A Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise
Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0: Acoustical Study Within Future CNEL 60 Contour
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require acoustical studies for all residential development projects within
the future CNEL 60 contour to show how interior noise levels will be
reduced to 45 riB.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Verify the preparation of an acoustical study for all residential projects
located within the future CNEL 60 noise contour, and confirm the
incorporation of mitigation measures into the proposed plan.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.10/B Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise
Mitigation Measure 3.10/2.0: Provision of Noise Control Measures
Why: To require that all development projects in the Project area provide noise
barriers or berms near existing residences to control noise in outdoor use
spaces.
Who: Applicants/Planning Department.
What: Verify that proposed plans provide noise abatement for existing residences
or that such mitigation is not necessary.
When: Prior to tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to Final map approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.10/7.0: Noise Mitigation Fee
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the establishment of a noise mitigation fee to pay for on-
and off-site noise mitigations, including but not limited to, noise barriers,
earthen berms, or retrofitting structures with sound-rated windows.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Prepare an ordinance permitting the levying of a noise mitigation fee.
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Prior to tentative map approval for projects along Tassajara Road, Hacienda
Road, or Fallon Road.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.10/D Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future Military
Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks RFTA) and the County Jail
Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0: Perform Acoustical Studies
Why:
To require acoustical studies prior to future development in the Foothill
64
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas~ Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Residential, Tassajara Village Center, County Center, and Hacienda
Gateway subareas to determine whether future noise impacts from Camp
Parks and the county jail will be within acceptable limits.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Verify that acoustical studies have been prepared for projects proposed in
identified subareas, and incorporate recommended mitigations as conditions
of project approval.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.10/E Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise
Miti~,ation Measure 3.10/4.0: Construction Noise Mana~,ernent Program
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require development projects in the Project area to submit a
Construction Noise Management Program that identifies measures proposed
to minimize construction noise impacts on existing residents.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Review Construction Noise Management Program to ensure that adequate
measures have been taken to protect existing residents.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.10/5.0: Compliance with Local Noise Standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To minimize construction noise 'impacts, all operations should comply with
local noise standards and be limited to normal daytime hours, and stationary
equipment should be adequately muffled and located away from sensitive
receptors.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Ensure that noise mitigation measures have been included as conditions of
project approval.
During construction.
Following construction.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.10/F Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land uses Permitted by Plan Policies
Supporting Mixed-Use Development
Mitigation Measure 3.10/6.0: Noise Management Plans
Why:
Who:
What:
To require the preparation of noise management plans for all mixed-use
projects in which residential units would be combined with commercial,
office, or other urban non-residential uses.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Verify the preparation of a noise management plan for mixed-used projects,
and review plans for mitigation that should be incorporated as a condition
65
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas, Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
When:
Completion:
Verification:
of approval.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
SECTION 3.11 AIR OUALITY
1. Imnacts Reauirin2 Miti2ation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
IM 3.11/A Dust Deposition Soiling Nuisance From Construction Activity
IM 3.11/B Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions
IM 3.11/C Mobile Source Emissions: ROG or NOx
IM 3.11/D Mobile Source Emissions: CO
IM 3.11/E Stationary Source Emissions
2. Mitigation Implementation and Monitorin2 Pro2ram
Impact 3.11/A Dust Deposition Soiling Nuisance From Construction Activity
Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0: Construction-Related Dust Abatement Measures
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require development projects to implement dust control measures to
reduce project dust deposition to acceptable levels.
Developers/Public Works Department.
1) Require dust abatement measures to be outlined as conditions in the
grading plan.
2) Monitor implementation of measures during construction.
1 ) Ensure inclusion of abatement measures in grading plan.
2) Monitor implementation of measures during grading and early phases of
construction.
Following construction.
Planning Department/Public Works Department.
Impact
3.11/B Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions
Miti~,ation Measure 3.11/2.0: Minimization of Interference of Construction Traffic with
Regional Non-Pro iect Traffic Movement
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
To minimize construction interference with regional non-project traffic
movement.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Routing and scheduling of construction-related traffic to avoid interference
with non-project traffic movement.
Prior to approval of building and/or grading permits.
Following completion of construction.
66
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas, Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Verification: Public Works.
Mitigation Measure 3.11/3.0: Emissions Control
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require emissions control from on-site equipment through a routine
mandatory program of low-emissions tune-ups.
Developers/Planning Department/Public Works Department.
1) Verify the incorporation of this emissions control measure in the
conditions of approval.
2) Monitor construction to verify implementation of control measure.
1 ) Prior to final map approval.
2) During construction.
Following completion of construction.
Planning Department/Public Works Department.
Mitieation Measure 3.11/4.0: Construction Im pact Reduction Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require preparation of a construction impact reduction plan that
incorporates all proposed air quality mitigation strategies.
Planning Department/Public Works Department/Applicants.
Ensure that the construction impact reduction plan incorporate all proposed
air quality mitigation strategies, and clearly defines responsibilities for
implementation and supervision.
1 ) Preparation of plan prior to development review approval.
2) Monitoring of implementation during construction.
Following completion of construction.
Planning Department/Public Works Department.
Impact
3.11/C Mobile Source Emissions:ROG or NOx
Mitigation Measure 3.11/5.0: Regional Intera~encv Cooveration
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To encourage cooperation to integrate air quality planning efforts on a
regional basis.
Planning Department/Tri-Valley and Regional Agencies.
Coordinate interagency cooperation to integrate air quality planning with
transportation, transit and other infrastructure plans.
Establish liaisons and begin coordination concurrent with plan adoption.
On-going.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.11/6.0: Planning, Consistency
Why:
Who:
What:
To maintain consistency among specific development plans and regional
transportation and growth management plans.
Planning Department/Tri-Valley and Regional Agencies.
Review plans to ensure consistency between specific development plans for
the Project site and regional transportation and growth management plans.
67
Earn ~ublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Prior to approval of tentative map.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.11/7.0: Transportation Demand Mana~,ement (TDM )
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To implement transportation demand management techniques to reduce
mobile source emissions.
Public Works Department.
Review plans for inclusion of TDM techniques to reduce mobile source
emissions.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works.
Mitigation Measure 3.11/8.0: Otgtimization of Existin~ Transportation System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To optimize the existing transportation system to reduce congestion and
shift travel to non-peak travel periods.
Planning Department/Public Works Department.
Work with LAVTA to development public information programs to
encourage use of public transit, and encourage large employers to implement
measures to shift travel to non-peak travel periods.
Ongoing.
On-going.
Planning'Department/Public Works Department.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.11/9.0: Coordination o [ Develo t~ment with Roadwav Imt~rovements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To coordinate levels of growth with roadway transportation facilities
improvements to accommodate travel demand without inducing demand by
providing excess system capacity.
Public Works Department.
Phase roadway improvements so that they accommodate growth, but avoid
"over-building" facility improvements.
Review schedule of roadway improvements concurrent with submittal of
tentative map.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works Department.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.11/10.0: Mixed-Use Develot;ment
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To encourage mixed-use development that provides housing, jobs, goods
and services in close proximity.
Planning Department.
Encourage developers to consider mixed-use development in their projects
as a means to reduce discretionary vehicle trips.
During pre-application discussions and application process.
68
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Completion:
Verification:
Tentative map approval.
Planning Department.
Miti~,ation Measure 3.11/11.0: Jobs/Housing Linkage
Why: To require linkage between growth of housing and job opportunities
consistent with a positive sub-regional contribution to jobs/housing ratio
balances.
Who: Planning Department.
What: Keep Planning Commission and City Council aware of sub-regional
jobs/houSing status and the implications of project approvals on that
balance.
When: Ongoing as part of individual development review process.
Completion: Ongoing.
Verification: Planning Department.
Impact 3.11/E Stationary Source Emissions
Mitigation Measure 3.11/12.0: Conservation Target Level for Stationary Source Emissions
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To minimize stationary source emissions associated with Project
development wherever feasible.
Planning Department.
1 ) Establish and implement a conservation target level for stationary source
emissions at 10 percent above the Title 24 standards.
2) Review individual projects to verify attempts to meet conservation target.
1 ) Prior to rezoning and annexation approval.
2) Prior to final map approval.
Final project approval.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.11/13.0: Solid Waste Recycling
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To incorporate solid waste re-cycling in all development planning.
Planning Department.
Develop a strategy for integrating solid waste recycling into planning for all
new development, and work with developers to implement this strategy.
Prior to rezoning and annexation approval.
Ongoing.
Planning Department.
69
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eas, Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
SECTION 3.12: FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Imvacts ReauirinR Mitieation
This section identifies the following impact requiring mitigation:
IM 3.12/B Fiscal Impacts Related to the Cost and Provision of Project-Related Infrastructure
Improvements
2. Mitigation ImVlementation and Monitoring Program
Impacts 3.12/B Impacts Related to the Cost and Provision of Project-Related Infrastructure
Improvements
Miti~,ation Measure 3.12/1.0: Develot~ment A~,reements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the preparation and adoption of a development agreement
for each project that spells out the precise financial responsibilities of the
developer.
City Manager's Office/Developers.
Prepare and adopt a development agreement or the appropriate agreements
for each development project that sets forth the precise financial
responsibilities of the applicants.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Condition of final project approval.
City Manager.
Mitigation Measure 3.12/2.0: Area of Benefit Ordinance
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To adopt an Area of Benefit Ordinance and form an Area of Benefit for
those properties benefiting from construction of public improvements
described in the Specific Plan.
City Manager's Office.
Prepare and adopt an Area of Benefit Ordinance, and define the Area(s) of
Benefit.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Prior to final approval of any development in the Project area.
City Manager.
Mitigation Measure 3.12/3.0: Special Assessment District or Mello-Roos CFD
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
To create one or more Mello-Roos CFD or Special Assessment Districts to
finance construction of the infrastructure to serve the Area of Benefit.
City Manager's Office.
Prepare and adopt one or more Mello-Roos CFD or Special Assessment
Districts to finance infrastructure for Areas of Benefit.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Prior to any final project approval.
7O
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
East
Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Verification: City Manager.
Mitigation Measure 3.12/4.0: Marks-Roos Bond Poolin~
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To have bond counsel evaluate the benefit to the City, in terms of savings
of money and avoidance of undue risk, of pooling bonds under the Marks-
Roos Bond Pooling Act.
City Manager's Office.
Evaluate options related to bond pooling for Eastern Dublin pursuant to the
provisions of the Marks-Roos Bond Pooling Act.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Prior to any final project approval.
City Manager.
Mitigation Measure 3.12/5.0: City-Wide Develover and Builder Imvact Fee Systems
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To analyze city-wide infrastructure needs to assess the usefulness of
implementing an impact fee program, in compliance with AB 1600, that
could draw some funding from new development when final map or
building permits are issued.
City Manager's Office.
Evaluate efficacy of implementing of an impact fee system, as provided by
AB 1600. If found to be useful, draft and adopt an ordinance to implement.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Prior to any final project approval.
City Manager.
Mitigation Measure 3.12/6.0: School Imvact Fees
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To coordinate City and School District efforts to fund necessary school
facilities and collect payable fees.
City Manager/DUSD/LVJUSD.
Meet with school district(s) to coordinate efforts to fund school facilities.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Prior to any final project approval.
City Manager.
Mitigation Measure 3.12/7.0: Highway Interchange Fundin~
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To coordinate City and Caltrans efforts to fund necessary freeway
improvements and collect developers' share of costs.
City Manager's Office/Public Works/Caltrans.
Meet with Caltrans to coordinate efforts to fund freeway improvements and
collect proportionate share of costs from developers.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Prior to any final project approval.
City Manager.
71
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
East Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure 3.12/8.0: Utilities lmvact Fees
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To coordinate City and DSRSD efforts to fund utilities services and collect
developers' share of costs.
City Manager's Office/Public Works/DSRSD.
Meet with DSRSD to coordinate efforts to fund utilities services and collect
proportionate share of costs from developers.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Prior to any final project approval.
City Manager.
72