HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 150-14 Transit Center Site A-1 CEQARESOLUTION NO. 150 -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM AND A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE TRANSIT CENTER SITE A -1 PROJECT
PLPA 2013 -00046
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Summerhill Homes, proposes to develop a 2.86 -acre site known as
Transit Center Site A -1 for 52 three -story condominium townhouses. The proposed development
and applications are collectively known as the "Project "; and
WHEREAS, the applications include a General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
to change the land use designations from High Density Residential to Medium High Density
Residential; and
WHEREAS, the applications also include Planned Development rezoning with a related Stage
1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
8167; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site is located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and
Campbell Lane within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, and more specifically within the Dublin
Transit Center Village area (APN 986- 0034 -007); and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental
Impact Report by Resolution 51 -93 ( "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR ", SCH 91103064) on May 10,
1993, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be
mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein by reference); and
WHEREAS, the Project site is also within the project addressed by the Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2001120395) for the Dublin Transit Center, which also identified
significant unavoidable impacts for the related General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment, Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan, Tentative
Parcel Map, and Development Agreement. The EIR was certified and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations adopted on November 19, 2002 by City Council Resolution No. 215 -02 which
resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from
development of the Eastern Dublin area and the Project site, some of which would apply to the
Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding
Considerations; and
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the proposed
Project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the
City prepared an Addendum dated August 12, 2014 describing the project and finding that the
impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the prior EIRs. The Addendum
and its supporting Initial Study is attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public
hearing on the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 12, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project and related Addendum for the Planning Commission and
recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-41
(incorporated herein by reference) recommending that the City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum
for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on
the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a staff report dated September 2, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference
described and analyzed the project and related Addendum for the City Council and recommended
adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on
the Project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum, as well as the prior EIRs and all
above - referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before taking any action on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings to support the
determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the proposed project.
These findings are based on information contained in the CEQA Addendum, the prior CEQA
documents, the City Council staff report, and all other information contained in the record before the
City Council. These findings constitute a summary of the information contained in the entire record.
The detailed facts to support the findings are set forth in the CEQA Addendum and related Initial
Study, the prior CEQA documents, and elsewhere in the record. Other facts and information in the
record that support each finding that are not included below are incorporated herein by reference:
1. The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previous projects
affecting the Project site as addressed in the prior CEQA documents, that will require major revisions
to the prior documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all potentially significant
effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for project which were
previously addressed. The proposed Project will not result in substantially more severe significant
impacts than those identified in the prior CEQA documents. All previously adopted mitigation
measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR and Dublin Transit Center EIR continue to apply to the
proposed Project and project site as applicable.
Page 2 of 3
2. The Addendum and its related Initial Study did not identify any new significant impacts of
the proposed Project that were not analyzed in the prior CEQA documents.
3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial
changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet any
other standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds the following:
1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project
because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards under
Sections 21166 or 15162/3 are met.
2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and related Initial Study under CEQA
Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or Supplemental EIR
or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project.
3. The City Council considered the information in the Addendum and prior CEQA
documents before approving the land use applications for the proposed Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the CEQA
Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A (and incorporated herein by reference),
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Site A -1 project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the Statement
of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2ND day of September, 2014 by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Gupta, Hart, Haubert, and Mayor Sbranti
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mayor
ATTEST:
(2. Z- la-
City Clerk
Reso No. 150 -14, Adopted 9 -2 -14, Item 6.1 Page 3 of 3
CEQA ADDENDUM FOR DUBLIN TRANSIT
CENTER SITE A -1 PROJECT
PLPA- 2013 -00046
August 12, 2014
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51 -93, certifying an
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan ( "Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and
Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR
dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council
adopted Resolution No. 53 -93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the
reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a
second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. The Eastern
Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a
20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects have been
proposed, relying to various degrees on the certified EIR.
In 2002, an EIR was prepared to analyze the environmental effects of the Dublin Transit
Center project, which included Site A -1, the subject of this CEQA document. The Dublin
Transit Center EIR was certified by the City Council on November 19, 2002, by City
Council Resolution No. 215 -02. This CEQA document analyzed development of the 91-
acre Dublin Transit Center with a mix of higher density residences, office space, retail
commercial and a BART parking structure. The Planned Development zoning for the site
allocated 131 high- density dwellings to Site A -1. Subsequent to the approval of the
Transit Center project, the Transit Center was incorporated into the Eastern Dublin
Planning Area.
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the
Project, as described below.
Project Description
The current application includes a request to develop the currently vacant 2.86 -acre
(gross) Site A -1, with up to 52 attached dwellings to be located in various building
complexes around a central open space feature. Other site features include on -site roads,
parking, landscaping and water quality features.
Several land use entitlements have been requested to implement the proposed
development Project, including amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, a Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 1 and 2
Development Plan, a subdivision map and Site Development Review (SDR).
Site A -1 is located in the Dublin Transit Center, a part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
The site is triangular- shaped and is bounded on the north by Dublin Boulevard, on the west by
the Iron Horse Trail and on the east by Campbell Lane.
Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations
As summarized above and discussed in more detail in the attached Initial Study, the property
has been planned for urbanization since approval of the Dublin Transit Center by the City in
2002. Subsequently, the Transit Center, including Site A -1, was incorporated into the Eastern
Dublin Planning Area. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified numerous environmental impacts,
and numerous mitigations were adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to
insignificance, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Similarly,
the 2002 EIR identified environmental impacts with development of the Dublin Transit Center
as well as mitigation measures and significant unavoidable impacts for which statements of
overriding considerations were adopted. All previously adopted mitigation measures for
development of Eastern Dublin identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2002 Dublin
Transit Center EIR that are applicable to the Project and Project site continue to apply to the
currently proposed Project as further discussed in the attached Initial Study.
Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this
Project.
Updated Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate
CEQA review for the Project, which proposes minor changes to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and Planned Development zoning. If approved, the proposed project would
reduce the number of dwellings allowed on the site from up to 131 to up to 52 dwellings.
The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated August 12, 2014, incorporated herein by
reference, to assess whether any further environmental review is required for this Project
Through this Initial Study, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative
Declaration is required for the plan and zoning amendments or the refined development
details.
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a
review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or negative
declaration is required for this Project. This is based on the following analysis:
a) Are there substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant
impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and the 2002 EIR. The Project is similar to land uses for the project site
analyzed in the 2002 EIR. As demonstrated in the Initial Study, the proposed land
uses on the site is not a substantial change to the 2002 EIR analysis and will not result
in additional significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures
are required.
Page 2
b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving
new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in the conditions
assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2002 EIR. This is documented in the attached
Initial Study prepared for this Project dated August 12, 2014.
c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a
significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe;
or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined
to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous
EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt
them? As documented in the attached Initial Study, there is no new information showing a
new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the prior CEQA
documents. Similarly, the Initial Study documents that no new or different mitigation
measures are required for the Project. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply
to the Project. The CEQA documents adequately describe the impacts and mitigations
associated with the proposed development on portions of the Dublin Transit Center
property.
d) If no subsequent EIR -level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration
be prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is
required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the Project beyond
those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2002 EIR for the site, as documented in
the attached Initial Study.
Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based
on the attached Initial Study dated August 12, 2014. The Addendum and Initial Study review
the proposed amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the
Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, the subdivision
map and Site Development Review (SDR).as discussed above. Through the adoption of this
Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the above minor changes in land
uses do not require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. The City further determines that the Eastern
Dublin EIR and the 2002 EIR adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the
land use designation change and proposed development for Site A -1 of the Dublin Transit
Center as documented in the attached Initial Study.
As provided in Section 15164 of the Guidelines, the Addendum need not be circulated for
public review, but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making
a decision on this project.
The Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 EIR and all resolutions cited above are
incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal business
hours in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin
CA.
Page 3
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council
of the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those
impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable (Resolution
53 -93, May 10, 1993). The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision
to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. In 2002, the City Council approved
the Dublin Transit Center project, certified a related EIR, and adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for cumulative air quality, cumulative traffic, and freeway
impacts. The City Council is currently considering the Dublin Transit Center Site A -1
project within the Dublin Transit Center site, which would result in future development of
up to 52 townhouse condominiums on an approximately 2.86 acre site (PLPA 2013-
00046). The project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
amendments to change the High Density Residential land use designation to Medium
High Density Residential, and to approve a Planned Development rezoning with related
Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review and a Vesting Tentative
Map. The applications are collectively referred to herein as the "Project ".
The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the 1993 land
use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin, and with the 2002 Dublin Transit
Center approval, including the Site A -1 property. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the
City Council must adopt new overriding considerations for the previously identified
unavoidable impacts that apply to the current Project.' The City Council believes that
many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin and
Dublin Transit Center EIRs will be substantially lessened by implementation of
previously adopted mitigation measures with future development of the Project. Even
with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the Project
carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the Eastern
Dublin and Dublin Transit Center EIRs. The City Council specifically finds that to the
extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not
been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental,
land use, or other considerations that support approval of the Project.
2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The
following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Project.
Land Use Impact 3.1F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands;
Visual Impacts 3.8/13; and, Alteration of Rural /Open Space Character
1 "public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project
despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v.
California Resources Agency 103 Cal. App. 4`h 98. (2002)
2316619.1 Page 1 of
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.318, 3.31E. 1 -580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway
Impacts
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.311, 3.31M. Santa Rita Road /1 -580 Ramps, Cumulative
Dublin Boulevard Impacts.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.41S. Consumption of Non - Renewable
Natural Resources and Sewer Water and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U.
Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal, and
Operation of Water Distribution System.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.618. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary
Effects.
Air Quality Impacts 3.111A, 8, C, and E. Future development of the Project will
contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and
stationary source emissions.
3. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Dublin Transit Center EIR.
The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Dublin
Transit Center EIR for future development of the transit center site apply to the Project.
Regional air quality impacts 4.2 -3.
Cumulative traffic impacts 4.11 -5
Mainline freeway operation impacts 4.11 -7
4. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of
the Eastern Dublin and Dublin Transit Center project approvals against the significant
and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin and Dublin
Transit Center EIRs, respectively. The City Council now balances those unavoidable
impacts that apply to future development on the Project site against its benefits, and
hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the
Project as further set forth below. The City declares that each one of the benefits
included below, independent of any other benefits, would be sufficient to justify approval
of the Project and override the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. The
substantial evidence demonstrating the benefits of the Project are found in these
findings, and in the documents found in the administrative record for the Project.
The Project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the
comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin and Dublin Transit
Center approvals. The Project will create residential development that is compatible
with the residential development in the vicinity of the Project and that is readily
accessible to the nearby BART station. The Project will help the City toward its RHNA
goal for new housing units and will help implement policies contained in the Housing
Element of the General Plan. The Project will provide streetscape improvements such
as curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping that will be an amenity to the larger
2316619.1 Page 2 of
community and provide safer pedestrian and bicycle access between existing
neighborhoods. The Project will create new revenue for the City, County, and State
through the transfer and reassessment of property due to the improvement of the
property and the corresponding increase in value. The Project will contribute funds to
construct schools, parks, and other community facilities that are a benefit City -wide.
Development of the project site will provide construction employment opportunities for
Dublin residents.
2316619.1 Page 3 of
Dublin Transit Center/
Site A -1
PLPA 2013- 00046
INITIAL STUDY
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
August 12, 201.4
Table of Contents
Introduction..................................................................................... ..............................2
Applicant/ Contact Person .............................................................
..............................2
Project Location and Context ........................................................
..............................2
Applicant..........................................................................................
..............................3
Prior Environmental Review Documents ....................................
..............................3
ProjectDescription ..........................................................................
..............................4
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................
.............................13
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..........................................
.............................15
Attachment to Initial Study ............................................................
.............................28
I. Aesthetics ..................................................................
.............................28
2. Agricultural Resources ............................................
.............................31
3. Air Quality ................................................................
.............................33
4. Biological Resources ................................................
.............................38
5. Cultural Resources ...................................................
.............................44
6. Geology and Soils ....................................................
.............................46
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................... .............................50
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................... .............................51
9. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................... .............................53
10. Land Use and Planning ........................................... .............................58
11. Mineral Resources .................................................... .............................59
12. Noise .......................................................................... .............................59
13. Population and Housing ......................................... .............................63
14. Public Services .......................................................... .............................63
15. Recreation .................................................................. .............................66
16. Transportation/ Traffic ............................................ .............................67
17. Utilities and Service Systems .................................. .............................70
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
..................... .............................73
InitialStudy Preparers .................................................................... .............................74
Agencies and Organizations Consulted ....................................... .............................74
References......................................................................................... .............................75
City of Dublin
Environmental. Checklist/
Initial Study
This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental
impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study
consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the
environmental topics addressed in the checklist.
Project Sponsor & Contact Person
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
(925) 833 6610
Attn: Michael A. Porto, Project Manager
Project Location and Context
The City of Dublin Planning Area consists of approximately 18.76 square miles of
land area lying in eastern Alameda County, also known as the Livermore - Amador
Valley, or the Tri- Valley area. Surrounding jurisdictions include the City of San
Ramon and unincorporated Contra Costa County to the north, unincorporated
Alameda County to the east and west and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to
the southeast.
The project being considered by the City of Dublin is the development of the 2.86 -acre
(gross) Site A--1, located in the Dublin Transit Center, a part of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area. The site is triangular- shaped and is bounded on the north by Dublin
Boulevard, on the west by the iron Horse Trail and on the east by Campbell Lane. The
southern two- thirds of the site (approximately) is currently paved as part of the
previous BART surface parking lot. The remaining northern approximately one -third of
the site is unpaved. Remnants of an former concrete bridge structure also exist on the
site.
Surrounding land uses include multi-story residential buildings located within the
Dublin Transit Center to the east and light industrial buildings to the south and west.
Land to the north is currently vacant within Camp Parks RFTA ( "Camp Parks ") and is
approved for development as part of the Dublin Crossing project.
The project site and surrounding property to the east and south formerly contained
military structures as part of Camp Parks, and following closure of this portion of
City of Dublin Page 2
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Camp Parks, the southern portion of the site was paved as a former BART surface
parking lot. The parking lot was abandoned with the multi-story BART parking
garage located southeast of the project site.
Exhibit 1 shows the location of Dublin in relation to surrounding communities and
other major features. Exhibit 2 shows the site location in context with surrounding
features.
Applicant:
Summerhill Homes
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450
San Ramon CA 94583
Attn: Marshall Torre
(925) 244 -4583
Prior Environmental Review Documents
The project has been included in two previous EIRs, as noted below:
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (State
Clearinghouse #91103064). A Program Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment (Eastern Extended Planning Area) and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) was certified by the City Council in 1993 by Resolution
No. 51 -93. This document and its related Addenda collectively are referred to as the
"Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR." It evaluated the following impacts related to the
urbanization of the Eastern Dublin area:
Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation;
Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils,
Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources; Cultural
Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53 -93)
for the following impacts:
Cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic,
extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone
service), consumption of non - renewable natural resources, increases in energy
uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation
of the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and
concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss or degradation
of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise and alteration of
visual character.
The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally
adequate.
City of Dublin Page 3
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Dublin Transit Center was certified
by the City in 2002 that includes the project site:
Dublin Transit Center EIR (SCH #20001120395,). In 2002, an EIR was prepared to
analyze the environmental effects of the Dublin Transit Center project, which
includes Site A -1, the subject of this CEQA document. The Dublin Transit Center EIR
was certified by the City Council on November 19, 2002, by City Council Resolution
No. 215 -02. This CEQA document analyzed amendments to the Dublin General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a Stage 1 Planned Development zoning, a Parcel
Map and a Development Agreement. This approval allocated 131 high - density
dwellings to Site A -1.
This EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to project
exceedances of Bay Area Air Quality Management District air quality standards on a
project and cumulative level, cumulative traffic impacts and impacts to mainline
freeway segments.
Project Description
Overview. The project being considered by the City of Dublin is the development of the
2.$6-acre (gross) Site A -1, located in the Dublin Transit Center, a part of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan area. Proposed development on this site includes up to 52 attached
dwellings to be located in various building complexes around a central open space
feature.
Several land use entitlements have been requested to implement the proposed
development project, including amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, a Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 1 and 2
Development Plan, a subdivision map and Site Development Review (SDR).
Background. A Planned Development rezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan
was approved for up to 1500 units on the 91 -acre Dublin Transit Center site in 2002 in
conjunction with certification of the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Based on the approved
Planned Development zoning for the residential portion of the Transit Center, 131
dwellings are assigned to Site A -1.
Proposed Development Plan. The proposed Development Plan is shown on Exhibit 3.
The Plan shows future residential buildings on the north and east sides of the site with
additional buildings clustered in the center of the site. Parking and open space would
be located along the long western property line of the site. Up to 52 attached townhouse
units would be constructed, which would be 79 fewer than currently assigned on the
site.
Circulation and access. Vehicular access to and from the site would be provided from
Campbell Lane, an existing road along the eastern edge of the project site. Within the
project, a looped private street would provide access to individual dwellings.
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Sidewalks would be provided on the two public streets bordering the site - Dublin
Boulevard and Campbell Lane. Private sidewalks are proposed throughout the site.
The Iron Horse Trail, a regional multi-use pedestrian and bicycle trail, is located just
west of the site. Future residents of the proposed project could access the trail from
Dublin Boulevard.
Building architecture and design. Future dwellings that would be constructed on the
project site would be three -story row townhouses. Three different floor plans would be
included in the complex. Multiple buildings containing 4 to 8 dwellings per building
have been designed. Building front doors would be oriented towards pedestrian
walkways with minimal front setbacks to facilitate street activity and resident
interaction.
The exterior design of the dwellings would include exterior plaster finished and
horizontal siding. Architectural detailing would include metal awnings and canopy
elements, corbels at the parapets and accent shed roof forms. Colors and design themes
would be continued to the sides and rear of buildings.
A number of floor plans and sizes would be constructed. Dwelling unit sizes would
range from approximately 1826 to 2053 square feet each.
Landscaping. With the exception of one palm tree, the site currently contains no major
vegetation. The applicant proposes a comprehensive landscape plan for the project (see
Exhibit 4). Landscaping would including planting of street trees along all project
roadways, public and private parks and open space slope areas. The landscape theme
for the project would generally conform to landscape material and design themes
currently used in the surrounding Dublin Transit Center.
Utility services. Domestic water, recycled water and sewer service would be provided
by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). Water recycled water and wastewater
service lines currently exist in Campbell Lane and would be extended into the site to
serve proposed residences.
Surface water quality improvements would include a water quality /hydromodification
basin located along the western and southeastern property line of the site. Bioswales
would also be installed throughout the site to filter stormwater prior to disposal in the
local and regional drainage system.
Grading and Water Quality. A limited amount of final grading is proposed to construct
building pads, roads and other site improvements. A retaining wall has been proposed
along the western property line due to drainage conditions on the adjoining property to
the west.
A small portion of the western side of the project site may be located within a 100 -year
flood hazards area. The applicant's proposed grading plan would raise the site out of
the flood hazards area. The applicant will also submit a "Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) " to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
demonstrate that no 2ortion of the site remains within a 100-year flood hazard area.
City of Dublin Page 5
Initia[ Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Erosion controls would be implemented during grading activities pursuant to City and
Regional Water Quality Board requirements, as enforced by the City of Dublin, to
protect surface water quality. The City of Dublin will also require long -term operational
water quality features as part of the project, including but not limited to covering of
sold waste and recycling containers.
Inclusionary housing. The applicant proposes to comply with the City's lnclusionary
Housing Ordinance, as amended, by the master Transit Center Development
Agreement. The Transit Center Development Agreement requires the developer to
provide 10 % of the total number of dwelling units within an individual project for
occupancy by moderate income households.
Requested land use approvals. A number of land use approvals are required and /or
requested from the City of Dublin to construct the project. These are described in more
detail below.
General Plan & Eastern Dublin S12ecific Plan Amendments. Amendments to these
land use regulatory documents are required to change the land use designation from
"High Density Residential" to "Medium High density Residential." The effect of this
amendment would be to reduce the number of residences allowed on the site.
I 1109
Plan. A
PD Rezoning and Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan has been requested as shown on
Exhibit 4.
Site Development Review (SDR). A Site Development Review permit has been
requested to approve exterior building architecture, landscaping, walls and fences
and related improvements.
Vesting Tentative Map. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map is shown on Exhibit 5.
Approval of the subdivision map would create a number of smaller building lots for
individual dwellings, roads and utilities.
City of Dublin Page 6
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
otl
N
V
N
1%
i
a
m
t1
.p
x
0
v
m
CITY OF DUBLIN
SITE A -1
INITIAL STUDY
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
0 2 4 6 a 10 miles
$ A N P AD L o
4
Martinez
4
BAY
San
so
680 Concord
Rafael
Richmond
Mill j01
sao
Valley
Walnut
24
Creek
Berkeley
WD
0
Oakland
San Francisco
sea
Aldmeaa
S A N
San
Leandro
DUBLIN
�
Da
FRANCISCO
880
saB
R
City
Livermore
BAY
h
101
Pleasanton
Hayward
N,
92
290
N,
San Mateo
Fremont
n
e4
1
Newark
0
Redwood
City
Hall
Moon
84
Bay
Palo
M
Alto
R
no
a
fi 101
aao
200
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San
Jose
101
tt
CITY OF DUBLIN
SITE A -1
INITIAL STUDY
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
0 2 4 6 a 10 miles
NJ
E fit. � ■....(�
Exhibit 2
DUBLIN CONTEXT
CITY OF DUBLIN
SITE A -1
INITIAL STUDY
2
«
�
�
w
2
w
2
a
p
§ �
w
x
W W
Q
Im
w
U)
O
a
O
Ir
a
�
�
\
2 z
co
M o
Lu a
§ \k§
\��
Z
! �
_
x
*
Z
i
`|
|
¥
(
e
�!�
qj
\ �
-
,
�
�
G
§
u
.§
�
|
r2
;
E•■
�
,w
,|
■
§
| §�§
�
� _
§!§
2
«
�
�
w
2
w
2
a
p
§ �
w
x
W W
Q
Im
w
U)
O
a
O
Ir
a
�
�
\
2 z
co
M o
Lu a
§ \k§
_ _ _
._ _ — -- — — — — — — — —
VAI
\ \� \tl \\\ Lj 1�I I11 J4 '
�\\.
����\ �, \ \��• \' r . r it jl � 1
T
\ \w
Y+Kurl+yll0EWa
r
SOURCE.• R3 Studios, Ina, April 2014.
CITY OF DUBLIN Exhibit 4
SITE A -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
INITIAL STUDY
-9GU v4v
WaNlyvdr
2or7d prnyx
wp
tz,
,\ , - --
.,11}1 I I� ?�f��l I y} I, �; �,' /, �'/ `�
4A
cl
AA
VI lite
LLJ
Lu
z
III--
co
UJ
>
Cx
Z
CID
m 0
oaN
Q)
1. Project description: Consideration of applications to allow up to 52
attached medium -high density dwelling units on Site
A -1 of the Dublin Transit Center. The project would
also include minor grading of the site, installation of
internal roadways, parking, utility connections and
on -site stormwater treatment. Requested land use
approvals include amendments to the Dublin General
Plan & Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a Planned
Development rezoning and related Stage 1 & Stage 2
development plan, a Site Development Review (SDR)
permit and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.
2. Lead agency /sponsor: City of Dublin
3. Contact person: Michael A. Porto, project manager
4. Project location: Southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and the Iron
Horse Trail in the Dublin Transit Center (APN 986-
0034 -007)
5. General Plan designation: Existing: High Density Residential
Proposed: Medium -High Density Residential
6. Zoning: PD- Planned Development
7. Other public agency required approvals:
• Approval of PD- Planned Development zoning (City of Dublin);
• Approval of Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan (City of Dublin);
• Approval of Tentative & Final Vesting Tentative Map (City of Dublin);
• ApprovaI of a Site Development Review (SDR) Permit;
• Approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement (City of Dublin);
• Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board);
• Issuance of building and grading permits (City of Dublin); and
• Approval of water and sewer connections (DSRSD)
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Regional Water Quality
Control Board)
City of Dublin Page 12
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
--
Aesthetics
--
Agricultural
-
Air Quality
Resources
--
..Biological Resources
--
Cultural Resources
--
Geology/Soils
--
Hazards and
--
Hydrology/ Water
--
Land Use/ Planning
Hazardous Materials
Quali
--
Mineral Resources
--
Noise
--
Population/ Housin
--
Public Services
--
Recreation
_
Transportation/
Circulation
--
Utilities /Service
--
Mandatory Findings
Systems
of Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration will be prepared, but must only analyze the effects beyond those addressed
in the prior EIRs.
_ I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment
and an Environmental Impact Report is required.
X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be any new or substantially more severe significant effect in
this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in
an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed on the proposed Project, except for those impacts which were identified as
significant and unavoidable and for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations
was previously adopted by the City. An Addendum to the Eastern Dublin
Environmental Impact Report and the 2002 Dublin Transit Center Environmental
Impact Report will be prepared.
_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an
earlier EIR or negative declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and b), have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including
City of Dublin Page 13
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project, nothing
further is required.
Signature: Date: .5, t Z v
Printed Name: For: "
City of Dublin Page 14
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project- specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off -site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project- level, indirect as well as direct, and construction
as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially
significant, less- than - significant with mitigation, or less - than - significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less - than - Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less - than - Significant Impact." The lead
agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to a less - than - significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,
"Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion
should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identity and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less- Than - Significant with
Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures
which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project.
City of Dublin Page 15
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a
reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited for discussion.
8) This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist
that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each agency should identify the significance criteria or
threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures
identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
City of Dublin Page 16
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of
sources at end of checklist used to determine each potential impact).
Note: A full discussion of each item is found
following the checklist.
I. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? (Source: 1, 7)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? (Source: 1, 2, 7)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day o
nighttime views in the area? (Source: S)
2. Agricultural Resources. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as show
on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency, to a
non- agricultural use? (Source: 1, 2,7)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture
use or a Williamson Act contract? (1)
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of forestland (as defined by PRC
Sec. 12220(8), timberland (as defined in
PRC Sec. 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined in PRC
Sec. 51104 (g)? (Source: 1, 7)
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non- forest use? (1, 2,7)
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment that, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
farmland to a non - agricultural use or
conversion of forestland to a non - forest
use? (Source: 7)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 17
August 2014
3. Air Qualify (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air
quality management district may be relied
on to make the following determinations).
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 1, 5)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non - attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors? (1,2,3)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? (3)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? (7)
4. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (1,2)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (1, 2)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including but not limited to marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption or other
means? (1, 2)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 18
August 2014
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? (2)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan? (Source: 1, 8)
5. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1, 2)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 1, 2)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? (1,2)
6. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist or based on other known evidence
of a known fault? (Source: 4)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (4)
iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source: 4)
iv) Landslides? (Source: 4)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Source: 4))
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1
Page 19
August 2014
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 19
August 2014
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in
on- and off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (4)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (Source: 4)
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for wastewater disposal?
(8)
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment? (8)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
S. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would
the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials? (2,
5)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous into the environment?
(5)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one - quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Source: 1, 2, 5)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 20
August 2014
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites complied
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment? (8)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (Source: 8)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 8)
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with the adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Source: 1, 4)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(8)
9. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 1, 2, 8)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g. the
production rate of existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
(Source: 1, 2, 7)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Dublin Site A -1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 21
August 2014
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site? (Source: 1, 2, 7)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas, including through
the alteration of a course or stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off -site? (Source: 1,
8)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? (Source: 1, 2)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? (Source: 1, 2, 8)
g) PIace housing within a 100 -year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 1, 8)
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
structures which impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 1, 8)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, and death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a Ievee or dam? (Source: 1, 2)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
10. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1,2, 7)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 22
August 2014
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? (Source: 1, 2. 8)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Source: 1, 2. 8)
11. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state? (1)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1)
12. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in
the general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (6)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Source: 6, 8)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
existing levels without the project? (6)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise Ievels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? (6)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working n the
project area to excessive noise levels? (6)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 23
August 2014
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise Ievels? (S)
13. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (1, 2)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (1, 2)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the replacement of housing
elsewhere? (Source: 1, 2)
14. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services? (Source: 1, 2)
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities
15. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 1, 2)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 24
August 2014
16. Transportation and Traffic. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation, including mass
transit and all non - motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and
mass transit? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including but not
limited to, level of service and travel
demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?-(Source: 1, 2)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (Source: 1, 5)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as
farm equipment? (Source: 8)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (4)
t) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle or
pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the
performance of safety of such facilities? (1)
17. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the
project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? (Source: S)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 25
August 2014
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (8)
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects? (8)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing water
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (8)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the providers existing
commitments? (Source: 8)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? (8)
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number of or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 26
August 2014
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
Source used to determine potential environmental impacts
1. Eastern Dublin EIR
2. Dublin Transit Center EIR
3. Project -level Air Quality Risk Assessment, Illingworth & Rodkin
4. Project -level Geotechnical Report, ENGEO
5. Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment, ENGEO
6. Project -level acoustic analysis, Illingworth & Rodkin
7. Site Visit
8. Discussion with City staff or service provider.
9. Other Source
XVIL Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
The following two documents have been used in the preparation of this Initial Study:
1) Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment & Specific Plan EIR (1993)
2) Dublin Transit Center EIR (2002)
Both documents are describe more fully above and are available for public review at the
Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours.
City of Dublin Page 27
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
The project is set in an a portion of Eastern Dublin that is transitioning to urban uses
under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin
EIR, adopted in 1993. The existing natural topography is relatively flat since the site was
mass graded as part of the Dublin Transit Center development.
No state - designated scenic highways exist near the site (source:
Ligp./ /www.dot.ca. o. q /LandArch /scenic highways/ scenic hwy.htm }. However,
the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element of the Dublin General Plan designates the
1--580 freeway as a local scenic highway.
No existing parks, playgrounds, scenic vistas or other places for public gathering are
found on the project site.
Minimal light sources exist on the project site since the site is vacant. Major light sources
include house and security lighting associated with adjacent residential complexes to
the east and other surrounding development.
Regulatory framework
Dublin General Plan. The project area is included in the Eastern Dublin Extended
Planning Area. Implementing Policy C.2 of the General Plan states that "proposed site
grading and means of access will not disfigure ridgelands." Further, Implementing
Policy C. 5 requires development projects to be consistent with all applicable General
Plan and Specific Plan policies."
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan (EDSP) in 1993 to guide the future development of approximately 3,300 acres of
land in the eastern Dublin area. The Specific Plan includes a number of policies and
programs dealing with visual resources, including but not limited to protection of
ridgelines and ridgelands, scenic corridors, and hillside development.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project.
These include:
City of Dublin Page 28
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
• Mitigation Measure 3.8 / 1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract
development (IM 3.8/A) to a less -than- significant level. This mitigation requires
future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the
character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and
maintaining views from major travel corridors.
Mitigation Measure 3.8 / 2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open
space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM
3.8/B) but not to a less- than - significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8 / B would remain
significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level.
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 would reduce the impact of obscuring distinctive
natural features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM
3.8/ C) but not to a less --than- significant level. The miti gation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features.
Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0 -4.5 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality
of hillsides (IM 3.8/D) to a less - than - significant level. These mitigation measures
require implantation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies
including but not limited to use of sensitive grading design to minimize grading,
use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for construction,
using building designs that conform to natural land forms, recontouring hillside
to resemble existing topography and minimizing the height of cut and fill slopes.
Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0-5.2 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality
of ridges (IM 3.8/ E) to a less - than - significant level. These mitigation measures
limit development on main ridges that border the Specific Plan area to the north
and east but are allowed on foreground hills, and would limit development in
locations where scenic views would be obscured or would extend above a
ridgetop.
• IM 3.8/F analyzed alteration of the visual character of the Eastern Dublin
flatlands. No mitigation measures were identified and the impact was identified
as significant and unavoidable.
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/6.0 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of
watercourses (IM 3.8/ G) to a less - than - significant level. This mitigation measure
protects Tassajara Creek and other stream courses from unnecessary alteration or
disturbance, and adjoining development should be sited to maintain visual
access to stream corridors.
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7/1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8 / I)
to a less - than - signifi cant level. These mitigation measures require protection of
designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of
the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds.
City of Dublin Page 29
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Transit Center EIR. Mitigation Measure 4.1 -1 for Impact 4.4 -1 encouraged the
inclusion of breaks in building designs and view corridors to provide views of Mt.
Diablo to the north, taking into account the need for noise control and the intent of
the Transit Center to provide a compact transit- oriented design.
The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures
related to aesthetics set forth in the Eastern Dublin and Transit Center EIRs.
Project Impacts
a,b) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic
resources, within a state scenic highway? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR
identifies that implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would result in
a potentially significant impact (Impact 3.8/I), in that development in the Eastern
Dublin planning area will alter the character of existing scenic vistas and may
obscure important sightlines. The project is required to adhere to Mitigation
Measure 3.8 / 7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This measure requires the
City to preserve views of designated open space areas and to complete a visual
assessment and guidelines for the Eastern Dublin area.
The proposed project would involve constructing up to 52 attached dwellings on
the site, as envisioned in the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Stage
T Planned Development for the Transit Center. The site is located north of the I-
580 freeway, which is a local scenic highway, but is located on the northern
portion of the Dublin Transit Center and is not highly visible from the freeway
due to intervening buildings between the site and the I -580 freeway.
A view corridor would be reserved along the western property line for views
from the I -580 freeway to the northwest, as required by Transit Center EIR
Mitigation Measure 4.1 -1.
No scenic resources exist on the site, including but not limited to significant
stands of tree, rock outcroppings or bodies of water, so there would be no impact
with respect to damage to scenic resources.
No public parks, playgrounds or other public gathering places exist on the site so
that scenic vistas could be viewed.
The project would result in the construction of multi- family dwellings on the site
as anticipated in the Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
the Dublin Transit Center project. The number of and potentially height of
residential development would be less (52 dwellings v. 131) than anticipated in
the Transit Center EIR so that more open space on the site and view corridors
would be created. No new or more severe impacts related to scenic vistas or
significant damage to scenic resources would occur than have been previously
analyzed and no additional review is required.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site and its
surroundings? No New Impact. The proposed project includes constructing a
housing complex along with parking, landscaping and other improvements
City of Dublin Page 30
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
where none now exist. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the following potential
impacts related to visual and aesthetics impacts of adopting the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan:
Impact 3.8 /B: Urban development of the project site will substantially alter
the existing rural and open space qualities that characterize Eastern Dublin
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified one measure to mitigate this impact
(Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0, "Implement the land use plan for the project site
which emphasizes retention of predominant natural features... "). The project site
contains no significant natural features. However the Eastern Dublin EIR
concluded that even with adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8 / 2, alteration of
rural and open space in Eastern Dublin would remain a potentially significant
impact.
The proposed project, if approved, would not degrade the visual quality or
character of the site, but would result in the same type of development, although
with fewer dwellings, than analyzed in the Transit Center EIR. No new or more
severe significant impacts would result with respect to this topic than previously
analyzed and no additional review is required.
d) Create light or glare? No Impact. The project site itself contains no existing light
sources and construction of the proposed project would add additional light
sources in the form of streetlights along exterior and interior roadways as well as
building and security lighting. Residential light and glare was not analyzed in
either of the prior EIRs; however, the City has indicated that street lights
installed the propose project would have the ability to accept cut -off lenses and
other shielding to minimize spill over of light and glare (Mike Porto, 7/1/14).
With adherence to City requirements, there will be no impact with respect to
light and glare.
2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Environmental Setting
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a description of agricultural resources on and around
the project area at the time of EIR certification. Agricultural and grazing uses
historically predominated within the project area and throughout the Eastern Dublin
area. Urban development has commenced pursuant to the adopted EDSP on lands
immediately east of the project site and agricultural uses, including cattle grazing have
ceased on the project site. The project site is currently vacant.
There are no current Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreements on the property.
The Alameda County Important Farmland Map (2000) designates the project area as
"Urban and Built -Up Lands." Therefore, the site is not identified as containing prime
farmland or farmland of local or statewide importance.
City of Dublin Page 31
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
No forests or major stands of trees exist on the site.
Previous CEOA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified several potential impacts related
to agricultural resources. Impact IM 3.1 / C stated that discontinuation of agricultural
uses would be an insignificant impact due to on -going urbanization trends in Dublin
and the Tri- Valley area. Impact 3.1 /D identified a loss of lands of Farmlands of Local
Importance with approval and implementation of the General Plan and Specific Plan.
This was also noted as an insignificant impact. Impact 3.1 / F stated that buildout of
Specific Plan land uses would have a significant and unavoidable impact on cumulative
loss of agricultural and open space lands. Finally, Impact IM 3.1 / E noted indirect
impacts related to non - renewal of Williamson Act contracts. This impact was also
identified as less -than- significant impact.
Transit Center EIR. No significant impacts to agricultural or forestry resources were
identified in this document.
Project Impacts
a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non - agricultural use or involve other changes which could
result in conversion of farmland to a non- agricultural use? No New Impact. No
significant impacts were identified with respect to agricultural resources in
previous CEQA documents listed above. No new conditions have been identified
in this Initial Study with respect to conversion of prime farmland to a non-
agricultural use and residential development is proposed as assumed in the
EDEIR. No new or more severe significant impacts would result than were
analyzed in previous CEQA documents for this site.
Development of the project site would continue to contribute to cumulative loss
of agricultural land and open space, which was identified as a significant and
unavoidable impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.1 /F).
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No
New Impact. The City of Dublin has previously zoned the project site for
residential uses. No agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts presently
exist on the site nor are any agricultural operations on- going. No new or more
severe significant impacts would result than have been previously analyzed in
other EIRs for the site. No additional analysis is required.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest use? No
Impact. No forest land exists on the project site and no impact would result with
respect to this topic. No additional analysis is required.
e) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to
a non forest use? No Impact. See item "d," above.
City of Dublin Page 32
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
3. Air Quality
Environmental Setting
Overview. The project site is within the Livermore - Amador Valley. The Livermore -
Amador Valley forms a small subregional air basin distinct from the larger San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore - Amador Valley air basin is surrounded on
all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air
basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into
Contra Costa County.
Air quality standards. Table 1, below, summarizes state and federal air quality
standards applicable to the project.
Table 1. Relevant California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant
Averaging Time
California Standards
National Standards
8 -hour
0.070 ppm
0.075 ppm
Ozone
(137 / m3)
1 -hour
0.09 ppm
.(147p&/m3)
—
(180 lu / m3)
1 --hour
20 ppm
35 ppm
Carbon
(23 mg/m3)
(40 mg/m3)
monoxide
8 -hour
9.0 ppm
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
(10 mg/m3)
1 -hour
0.18 ppm
0.100 ppm
Nitrogen
(339 ti / m3)
(188 n / m3)
dioxide
Annual
0.030 ppm
0.053 ppm
(57 pc / m3)
(100 u / m3)
Sulfur
1 -hour
0.25 ppm
0.075 ppm
Dioxide
(655 tt /m3)
(196 /m3)
24 -hour
0.04 ppm
(105 y / m3)
0.14 ppm
(365 u / m3)
Annual
—
0.03 ppm
(56 / m3)
Particulate
Annual
20 ,u /m3
—
Matter
(PM10)
24 -hour
50 Wg /m3
150 Ag /m3
Particulate
Annual
12 / m3
12 u / m3
Matter
(PM2.5)
24 -hour
35 ug / m3
Source: BAAQMD and EPA, 2013.
Notes: ppm =parts per million mg /m3 =milligrams per cubic meter
yg /m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Existing air quality conditions. Table 2 summarizes the highest measured air
pollutants in the Tri- Valley area as measured at the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District monitoring station in Livermore, east of Dublin.
Table 2. Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations at Livermore Station
Pollutant
Averag
e Time
Measured
Air Pollutant Levels
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Ozone (03)
1 -Hour
0.141
0.113
0.150
0.115
0.102
8 -Hour
0.111
0.086
0.098
0.085
0.090
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
8 -Hour
pm
1.3m
ND
ND
ND
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
1 -Hour
0.058
0.052
0.058
0.053
0.057
Annual
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.011
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)
24-
46.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
Annual
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
24-
11
52.7
45.7
34.7
23.6
31.1
Annual
10.1
9.2
7.6
7.8
6.5
Source: CARB, 2012.
Notes: ppm = parts per million and uglm3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
Values reported in bold exceed ambient air quality standard.
ND = No data.
According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, air pollution potential is
high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall (BAAQMD).
High temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally
generated pollutants but also can be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors from
upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs between
the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east.
During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in
frequent surface -based inversions. Under these conditions, pollutants such as carbon
monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and
agricultural burning can become concentrated.
Sensitive Receptors. There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than
others. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified the following persons
who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14, the elderly over
65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These
groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high
concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals,
daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. The closest
sensitive receptors are residences located east of the project site and users of the Iron
Horse Trail, west of the site.
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Toxic Air Contaminants. Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds
known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer). TACs are
found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture,
fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically
found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near
a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are
regulated at the regional, state, and Federal level.
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about
three- quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According
to the CARB, diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors and fine particles.
This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex
scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and
formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as
carcinogens either under the state's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air
Pollutants programs.
CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile
sources to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM). Several of these
regulatory programs affect medium and heavy -duty diesel trucks that represent the
bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. These regulations include the solid
waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule, in -use public and utility fleets, and the heavy -
duty diesel truck and bus regulations. In 2008, CARB approved a new regulation to
reduce emissions of DPM and nitrogen oxides from existing on -road heavy -duty diesel
fueled vehicles. The regulation requires affected vehicles to meet specific performance
requirements between 2012 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles required to have
2010 model -year engines or equivalent by 2023. These requirements are phased in over
the compliance period and depend on the model year of the vehicle.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These
include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.11/1-0 reduced construction dust deposition impacts but
not to a level of less than significant (Impact 3.11/A). MM 3.11/1.0 requires
development projects to implement dust control measures. Even with these
measures, the impact remained significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0 -4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related
to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11/B) but not to a less -
than- significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on -site
equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even
with adherence to these mitigations, this impact remained significant and
unavoidable.
• Mitigation Measures 3.11/5-0-11.0 reduced mobile source emission from ROG
and NOx (IM 3.11 / C) but not to a less - than- significant level. These measures
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures,
many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to
adopted mitigations, IM 3.11 / C remained significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts
related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11 / E) but not to a less -than-
significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary
source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques
and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures,
stationary source emissions remained significant and unavoidable.
Transit Center EIR. This document identified the following significant impacts and air
quality mitigation measures.
• Mitigation Measure 4.2 -1 reduced impacts related to construction emission from
construction equipment (See Impact 4.2 -1) to a less - than - significant level. Specific
items listed in this measure required contractors to water construction area and
stockpiled material and other items based on BAAQMD standards.
• Impact 4.2 -3 noted that project air emissions of ozone would exceed the
BAAQMD threshold of significance for regional impacts. No mitigation is
available to reduce this impact to a less -than significant level and this impact
remained significant and unavoidable.
The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures
related to air quality.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? No
New Impact. The amount of development proposed on the site would be less than
half of that previously considered and approved by the City of Dublin as part of
the Dublin Transit Center project. Approved uses on the project site includes up to
131 high -- density dwellings.
The proposed project would allow development of up to 52 medium -high density
dwellings on the site, which would be 79 fewer dwellings than approved.
Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed project would represent
a substantial dwelling unit decrease on the site used as the basis of the regional
Clean Air Plan. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the
regional Clean Air Plan. No new or more severe significant impacts would result
than was previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents and no additional
analysis is required.
b,c) Would the project violate any air quality standards or result in cumulatively considerable
air pollutants? No New Impact. Air quality impacts of development of the Eastern
Dublin Planning area were analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the
Transit Center EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that future development of the
Eastern Dublin area, including the proposed project, would contribute to the
cumulative impacts related to dust deposition, construction equipment emissions,
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
mobile source emissions and stationary source emissions and would exceed air
quality standards. These impact (Impacts (IM/3.11/ A, B, C and E) were was found
to be significant and unavoidable when the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was
approved.
The 2002 Transit Center EIR also found that development of development of
residential, commercial and office uses on the Transit Center site, which includes
Site A -1, would result in a significant and unavoidable emission of air emissions
exceeding the applicable BAAQMD standards. No additional review is required.
Since the proposed project would not exceed the number of dwellings anticipated
in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Dublin Transit Center project and
would result in development of 79 fewer dwellings than previously analyzed,
there would be no new or more severe significant impact with respect to violation
of air quality standards than has been previously analyzed and no additional
analysis is required. Significant and unavoidable air quality impacts previously
identified in earlier EIRs would still remain.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to significant substantial concentrations? No Impact. The
health risk of diesel exhaust from roadway traffic was known in 2002 although it
was not analyzed in the 2002 EIR. The 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1999
Guidelines) identified diesel engine particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant
based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) findings. There were several
studies published prior to 2002 that demonstrated potential health impacts to
residences living close to freeways. (See, studies cited in CARB's 2005 "Air Quality
and Land Use Handbook ".) The 1999 Guidelines encourage Lead Agencies to
address impacts to sensitive receptors (such as residences) to exposure of high
levels of diesel exhaust from sources such as a high volume freeway (1999
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, p. 47). BAAQMD said that these impacts should be
analyzed based on best available information. Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines in effect in 2002 also listed exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial
levels of toxic air contaminants as a potentially significant impact. This significance
threshold was included in the EIR (Specific Plan EIR, p. 48). Since potential health
impacts due to exposure to diesel exhaust was known or could have been known
in 2002, the risks of toxic air contaminants from diesel exhaust is not new
information that requires additional analysis under CEQA.
Similarly, recently updated information from CARB and BAAQMD on health
impacts of diesel exhaust and the BAAQMD CEQA significance standards do not
trigger the requirement for supplemental environmental review under CEQA
section 21166. These new standards do not identify TACs as a "new significant
impact." This adverse health impact was already known and recent new
information only refined the type and level of analysis. This type of information
and new regulatory standards is not new information triggering supplemental
environmental review under CEQA. No additional environmental analysis is
required under CEQA section 21166.
City of Dublin Page 37
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Although no additional analysis of toxic air contaminants is required under
CEQA, the applicant submitted a report entitled "Dublin Site 1A Project Air
Quality Community Risk Assessment" dated August 27, 2013, prepared by the
firm of Illingworth & Rodkin (I &R) as part of the application materials. This report
is attached as Attachment 1 to this Initial Study and is incorporated by reference
into this Initial Study. The report analyzed the health risk of future site occupants
from toxic air contaminants from the nearby I -580 freeway and traffic on nearby
surface roads. The report concludes that future cancer risks for sensitive receptors
is estimated to be 9.4 cases in one million, which is below the BAAQMD screening
threshold of 10 cases per million. Even if toxic air contaminants were a required
analysis, there would be no potential for significant impacts from the project based
on the I &R report findings, since the potential emissions exposure to the project
residents would be less than the threshold for determining if there is a potentially
significant impact.
e) Create objectionable odors? No Impact. The proposed project does not include
manufacturing or similar uses and no significant objectionable odors would be
created. No additional review is required.
4. Biological Resources
Environmental Setting
Overview. The project site is a formerly developed parcel that has been subjected to
urban uses over the past 50 plus years, including but not limited to being a part of
Camp Parks RFTA and a BART surface parking lot.
Existing plant species. The northern one -third of the project site that is not paved is
dominated by ruderal habitat. Ruderal vegetation is adapted to high levels of
disturbance, and persists almost indefinitely in areas with continuous disturbance.
Where ruderal habitats occur on the northern, western, and southern portions of
the project site, they are dominated by different ruderal plant species.
The northern portion of the project site supports highly compacted soils that are
regularly mowed. Dominant grass and forb species within this habitat are non-
native species such as wild oat and California burclover, both comprising
approximately 90% of the total (absolute) vegetation cover. Subdominants within
this community include prickly lettuce, tumbleweed, cheeseweed, milk thistle,
and yellow star thistle.
The southern two thirds of the project site consists of a paved asphalt parking lot
with concrete- curbed planters in between striped parking areas. Ruderal
vegetation occurs within the abandoned planters is consistent with other ruderal
areas on the project site. Cracks in the asphalt provide occasional opportunities for
ruderal species to grow. Species found growing out of the asphalt include very
sparsely growing tumbleweed, bristly ox- tongue, wild oats, summer cottonweed,
and cheeseweed.
City of Dublin Page 38
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
A single, very small (0.004 acre) pond and associated drainage swale occurs on
the project site. This area was analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and
was determined not to be a federally designated wetland, although this area
may qualify as "waters of the state" and subject to regulation by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The location and size of the drainage
swale and pond has not changed since the 2002 Transit Center EIR was certified.
No special - status plants have ever been mapped on or adjacent to the project site.
This is likely due to the long history of development on and adjacent to the project
site.
Existing wildlife species. No special- status animal occurrences have ever been
mapped on or adjacent to the project site. However, the potential for special - status
species to occur on the Transit Center site has been analyzed in previous EIRs that
affect the project site and the project remains subject to all adopted mitigations, as
applicable.
ReLyulatory framework
California Fish and Game Code Section 1600. Streams, lakes, and riparian vegetation as
habitat for fish and other wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by CDFW under
Sections 1600 -1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Any activity that will do one
or more of the following: 1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river,
stream, or lake; 2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or
bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other
material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a
river, stream, or lake; generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration
Agreement. The term "stream," which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the
California Code of Regulations (CCR) as follows: "a body of water that flows at least
periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish
or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow
that supports or has supported riparian vegetation" (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the
term stream can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface
flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if
they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream - dependent terrestrial wildlife.
Riparian is defined as, "on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream;" therefore, riparian
vegetation is defined as, "vegetation, which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is
dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself." Removal of riparian vegetation
also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps regulatory and permitting
authority regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into "navigable waters of the
United States." Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act defines navigable waters as
"waters of the United States, including territorial seas." Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the
Code of Federal Regulations defines the term "waters of the United States" as it applies
to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps under the Clean Water Act. A
City of Dublin Page 39
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
summary of this definition of "waters of the U.S." in 33 CFR 328.3 includes (1) waters
used for commerce; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) "other waters" such as
intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5)
tributaries to the above waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters.
Therefore, for purposes of determining Corps jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act,
"navigable waters" as defined in the Clean Water Act are the same as "waters of the
U.S." defined in the Code of Federal Regulations above.
The limits of Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 as given in 33 CFR Section 328.4 are
as follows: (a) Territorial seas: three nautical miles in a seaward direction from the
baseline; (b) Tidal waters of the U.S.: high tide line or to the limit of adjacent non -tidal
waters; (c) Non -tidal waters of the U.S.: ordinary high water mark or to the limit of
adjacent wetlands; (d) Wetlands: to the limit of the wetland.
Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or waters may not be
jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Included in this category are some man -
induced wetlands, which are areas that have developed at least some characteristics of
naturally occurring wetlands due to either intentional or incidental human activities.
Examples of man - induced wetlands may include, but are not limited to, irrigated
wetlands, impoundments, or drainage ditches excavated in uplands, dredged material
disposal areas, and depressions within construction areas.
In addition, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of
Corps jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of
Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159
(2001)), Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or
groundwater connection to, and are not adjacent to a "navigable waters of the U.S. ",
and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1341)
requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may
result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to obtain a
certification from the state in which the discharge originates or would originate, or, if
appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over
the affected waters at the point where the discharge originates or would originate, that
the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality
standards. A certification obtained for the construction of any facility must also pertain
to the subsequent operation of the facility. The responsibility for the protection of water
quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).
Federal and California Endangered Species Acts. The Federal Endangered Species Act
(FESA) of 1973 prohibits federal agencies from authorizing, permitting, or funding any
action that would jeopardize the continued existence of a plant or animal species listed
or a candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA. If a federal
agency is involved with a proposed action or project that may adversely affect a listed
plant or animal, that agency must enter into consultation with the USFWS under
Section 7 (a) (2) of the FESA. Individuals, corporations, and state or local agencies with
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
proposed actions or projects that do not require authorizing, permitting, or funding
from a federal agency but that may result in the "take" of listed species or candidate
species are required to apply to the USFWS for a Section 10(a) incidental take permit.
The State of California enacted similar laws to the FESA, the California Native Plant
Protection Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in
1984. The CESA expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for
plants, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code. To align with
the FESA, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. The
State converted all animal species listed as "rare" under the FESA into the CESA as
threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, these laws provide the legal
framework for protection of California -- listed rare, threatened, and endangered plant
and animal species. CDFW implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat
Data Analysis Branch maintain the CNDDB, a computerized inventory of information
on the general location and status of California's rarest plants, animals, and natural
communities.
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. The project site is located in the East
Alameda County Conservation Strategy ( "Conservation Strategy ") Study Area. The
Conservation Strategy is intended to provide an effective framework to protect,
enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving
and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from
infrastructure and development projects. The City of Dublin is a partner in the
Conservation Strategy and uses the document to provide a baseline inventory of
biological resources and conservation priorities during project -level planning and
environmental permitting.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP
project. These include:
Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss
(IM 3.7/A) to a less -than- significant level. These mitigations require
minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of
vegetation management and enhancement plans for open space areas and
development of a revegetation plan for disturbed areas that remain
undeveloped.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced indirect impacts related to vegetation
removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less - than- significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0
requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible and
with native species.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation
of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/ C) but not to a less --than- significant level.
These measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to
minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream
City of Dublin Page 41
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development
projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of
individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions.
• Mitigation Measures 3-7/18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit
fox (IM 3.7/D) to a less- than - significant level. These measures require
compliance with the specified Kit Fox Protection Plan, consultation with
appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit fox on project
sites and restrictions on use of pesticides and herbicides.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 -22.0 reduced impacts related to the red - legged
frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle and tri- colored blackbird
(IM 3.7 /F -I) to a less- than - significant level. These measures require
preconstruction surveys for the species and protection of impacted habitat areas.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/23.0 -24.0 reduced impacts related to destruction of
Golden Eagle nesting sites (IM 3.7/J) to a less -than- significant level. These
measures require preconstruction surveys for this species and protection of
impacted habitat areas.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0 reduced impacts related to loss of Golden Eagle
foraging habitat (IM 3.7/K) to a less - than- significant level. This measure requires
the identification of a Golden Eagle protection zone within the Eastern Dublin
planning area.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/ 2 6.0 reduced impacts related to Golden Eagle and other
raptor electrocution (IM 3.7/L) to a less - than - significant level. This measure
requires undergrounding of electrical transmission facilities.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 and 27.0 reduced impacts related to burrowing owl
and American badger (IM 3.7/M, N) to a less -than- significant level. This
measure mandates preconstruction surveys and a minimum buffer of 300 feet
around burrowing owl nesting sites and American badger breeding sites during
the breeding season.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/ 28.0 reduced impacts related to special status
invertebrates (IM 3.7/ S) to a less -than- significant level. This measure requires
follow -on special surveys for these species during appropriate times of the year.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures
regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black -
shouldered kite, sharp - shinned hawk and Cooper's hawk.
Transit Center EIR. This 2002 Transit Center EIR identified the following significant
biological impacts.
• Impact 4.3 -1 noted an impact with loss of Congdon's spikeweed and potentially
four other special - status plants on the site. This impact was reduced to a less-
than-signifi cant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.3 -1 that required the
City of Dublin Page 42
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
site developer(s) to avoid populations of spikeweed or, if not feasible, an off -site
mitigation program is to be created. Measures to avoid, preserve or mitigate
other special - status plants identified and required to be .implemented.
Impact 4.3 -2 found a significant impact with respect to California red - legged
frogs (CRLF) or their habitat. This impact was reduced to a less -than- significant
level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.3 -2. This mitigation measure
required a CRLF preconstruction survey consultation with the USFWS. If
populations of CRLF are identified appropriate protection plans were required to
be prepared with necessary permits from appropriate regulatory agencies.
Impact 4.3 -3 noted an impact regarding burrowing owls. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 4.3 -3 reduced this impact to a less - than- significant level by
requiring a preconstruction survey on a development site no more than 30 days
prior to grading. If owls are found, a biologist shall establish an exclusion zone
around occupied burrow until is is confirmed that the burrow is unoccupied.
The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource
mitigation measures contained in the above documents affecting the site.
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special - status species? No
New Impact. No changes have occurred to the project site since certification of the
Transit Center in 2002. Mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
and Transit Center EIR will continue to apply to the site. No new or more severe
significant impacts would occur with respect to this topic than previously
analyzed and no new analysis is required.
The proposed project would continue to contribute to cumulative loss or
degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, which was identified as a significant
and unavoidable impact (IM 3.7/C) in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands?
No New Impact. The project site also contains a small 0.004 acre drainage swale,
described as a small pool in the 2002 EIR. The pool is identified as potential
habitat for California Red Legged Frog species (Impact 4.3 -2) and the project is
subject to the related mitigation measures for this impact. The pool does not
qualify as a federally delineated jurisdictional wetland. However, as noted in the
2002 EIR, the pool may qualify as waters of the state, and as such would be
subject to regulation by the Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB).
The applicant is required to comply with any RWQCB regulations applicable to
the drainage swale.
The size or location of the pool and drainage swale has not changed since
certification of the Transit Center EIR. No new or more severe significant impacts
would occur with regard to this topic and no new analysis is required.
City of Dublin Page 43
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? No New Impact. The project
site is located in a substantially urbanized area and surrounded by major roads
(Dublin Boulevard) or parcels of land that have been developed that would
preclude significant wildlife migration. These are no creeks or streams on the site
that would allow for migration of fish species. The Transit Center EIR identified
this impact as less than significant (Impact 4.3 -4). No new or more severe impacts
would occur than have been previously analyzed with respect to potential
interference with fish or wildlife movement and no further analysis is required.
e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? No New
Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project could affect one non-
native palm tree n the site The City of Dublin affords Heritage Tree status to any
oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye, or sycamore tree with a main trunk of
at least twenty -four inches in diameter when measured at fifty -two inches above
the natural grade; trees required for preservation under an approved development
plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review, or subdivision map; and
trees planted as replacements for unlawfully removed trees. The existing palm tree
is not a native tree that is protected under the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance.
The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy
(EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as
guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private
development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The
Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation
for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and
other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan
nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, but is a document intended to
provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure
that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. No HCP or NCCP was
identified in the prior EIRs and none applies at present. There would therefore be
no new or significantly more severe impacts with respect to this topic than
previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 Transit Center EIR. No
additional analysis is required.
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
The site is vacant and no structures. Neither the Eastern Dublin EIR nor the Transit
Center EIR identified any significant historic structures on the project site.
Previous CEOA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR, The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts to cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP
project. These include:
City of Dublin Page 44
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or
destruction of identified prehistoric resources (IM 3.9/A) to a less -than-
significant level. These mitigations mandate a program of mechanical and /or
hand subsurface testing for the presence or absence of midden deposits,
recordation of identified midden sites, collection and/or testing of resources and
development of a site - specific protection program for prehistoric sites.
• Mitigation Measures 3.9 / 5.0 -6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or
destruction of unidentified prehistoric resources (IM 3.9B) to a less -than-
significant level. These measures required that grading or construction activity
be stopped if historic resources were discovered, until the significance of the find
could be ascertained.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0 -12.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or
destruction of identified historic resources to a less -than- significant level (Impact
3.9/C). These measures would include preparing site - specific archival research
for individual resources, encourage adaptive reuse of historic resources,
recordation of historic sites on local state and federal registers, as appropriate
and development of preservation programs for significant resources.
• Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or
destruction of unidentified historic resources to a less- than - significant level
(Impact 3.9/D). These measures would include preparing site - specific archival
research
Transit Center EIR. Impact 4.4 -1 contained in the Transit Center EIR found a potentially
significant impact with respect to historical, archeological and Native American
resources on the site. This impact was reduced by Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1 that
required, if archeological, archeological or Native American artifacts are encountered
during construction, work on the project shall cease until compliance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5 is demonstrated. Work on the project may commence under
the guidance of an approved resource protection plan. The County Coroner is to be
contacted if human remains are uncovered.
The proposed project will be required to comply with the above mitigation measures.
Pro'ect Iml2acts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? No New Impact.
The site is vacant and contains no structures. No new or more severe
supplemental impacts have therefore been identified for the proposed project
than were disclosed in previous CEQA documents and no additional analysis is
required.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological
resources? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR and Transit Center EIR
identify a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction
activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover
City of Dublin Page 45
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites.
The Eastern Dublin EIR categorized these potential resources as pre - historic
cultural resources. None of these pre - historic sites were identified by the EIRs
within or near the project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all pre-
historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner. This potential
impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.9/A)
and mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9 -6 — 3.9 --7) that require
subsurface testing for archeological resources; recordation and mapping of such
resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify
as "significant" under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation
Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0 and other mitigations described above, also were
adopted to address the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre-
historic or historic resources and would apply to the project as may be
appropriate.
The Transit Center EIR noted a potentially significant cultural resource impact
regarding unidentified historic, archeological and Native American resources
and the project remains subject to the related mitigation measure.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (Policies 6 -24 and 6 -25)
requiring research of archaeological resources prior to construction and
determination of the significance and extent of any resources uncovered during
grading and construction.
Neither EIR identified any known cultural resources for the project site.
However, both provide mitigation for potential but currently unidentified
resources should they be discovered during construction. The Project remains
subject to these prior adopted mitigations. Therefore, no new or more significant
impacts with respect to cultural resources have been identified that have been
previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the project area and no
additional analysis is required.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? No
New Impact. The project is subject to existing cultural resource mitigation
measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Transit Center EIR regarding
potential impacts to human remains. As noted above, no new or more severe
significant impacts with respect to cultural impacts are anticipated beyond those
previously analyzed and no additional review is required.
6. Geology and Soils
Environmental Setting
This section is based on a recent site - specific geotechnical report ( "Preliminary
Geotechnical Exploration, Dublin Transit Site A -1, Dublin Boulevard and Campbell,
Dublin California" prepared by ENGEO, Inc. dated September 13, 2013). This report is
hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the
Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours.
City of Dublin Page 46
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Geology and soils. The ENGEO report notes that the site is underlain by
Pleisocene /Holocene-age surficial alluvial deposits that includes alluvial gravel, sand
and clay.
Landslide potential. The site and surrounding properties are relatively flat with no
steeply sloping hillsides that could cause landsliding.
Seismic hazard. The ENGEO report notes that the site does lie within an Earthquake
Fault Zone (formerly Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone) for the Pleasanton Fault. The
ENGEO report notes that additional borings, trenching and other research has been
completed to determine the location and extent of the Pleasanton Fault near the project
site. The ENGEO report concludes that, based on additional research, the Pleasanton
Fault does not cross the project site. The ENGEO report has been peer reviewed by a
third -party firm retained by the City of Dublin, Cal Engineering & Geology, and the
finding that no active fault lies beneath the project site has been confirmed.
Other major active faults in the region that influence earthquake susceptibility include
the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville Faults. The site is subject to
strong ground shaking in the event of seismic activity, consistent with all of the Bay
area.
The site is subject to severe groundshaking during a moderate to severe seismic event
on these and other faults in the greater Bay Area. The risk of ground rupture caused by
a seismic event is considered low.
Liquefaction potential. Based on soil testing performed by ENGEO, the potential for
liquefaction on the site is considered low.
Tsunami and seiche hazards. The risk of damage to future improvements on the site from
a tsunami or seiche is low due to the inland location of the site.
Previous CEOA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity from the General
Plan and EDSP project. These include:
Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of
earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.6/13) but not to a less - than- significant level.
This mitigation measure requires that future structure and infrastructure
facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 -7.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects
of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9 / C) to a less - than - significant level.
Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of
unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of
engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered
fill, and design of structures to account of potential soil failure.
City of Dublin Page 47
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0 -10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial
alteration to landforms to a less -than significant level (IM 3.6/1)). Mitigations
require grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of homes and
improvements to avoid excessive grading.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/11.0-13.0 reduced impacts related to groundwater and
groundwater irrigation (IM 3.6/F & G) to a less - than- significant level. Mitigation
measures require formulation of site- specific designs to overcome expansive soils
and installation of subdrains as necessary.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 -16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM
3.6 / H) to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation
of site- specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amount of
moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/ 17.0 -19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope
stability (IM 3.6/1) to a less - than - significant level. Mitigation measures mandate
formulation of use of site - specific designs based on follow -on geotechnical
reviews of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on
downslopes of unstable soils, removal/ reconstruction of potentially unstable
slope areas and installation of surface and subsurface slope drainage
improvements.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0 -26.0 reduced impacts related to cut and fill slope
stability (IM 3.6 / J) to a less - than- significant level. These measures include
developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associate
cuts and fills, ensuring that grading plans comply with appropriate building
codes, utilizing keys and benches as part of grading to ensure slope stability and
minimizing use of unreinforced fill slopes, appropriate compaction of fill areas
and on -going maintenance of slope drainage areas.
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 reduced the impact related to short -term
construction - related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/K) to a less -than-
significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid
the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control
measures.
Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long -term erosion and
sedimentation (IM 3.6/L) to a less- than- significant level. This measure includes
installation of erosion control facilities into individual development projects,
including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded
areas and similar measures.
Transit Center EfR. The Transit Center EIR identified two mitigation measures for the
project.
• Mitigation Measure 4.5 -2 reduced the impact related to seismic hazards (Impact
4.5 -2) to a I ess-than-signifi cant level. This measure required completion of a site -
City of Dublin Page 48
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
specific geotechnical 'investigation prior to development of individual projects.
Future projects are required to be consistent with current building codes.
Mitigation Measure 4.5 -3 reduced the impact related to expansive soils to a less -
than- significant level (Impact 4.5 -3). This measure required site- specific
geotechnical reports to address expansive soils and provide appropriate
engineering and construction techniques to reduce damage from expansive soils.
The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable EDSP EIR and Transit
Center EIR soil, geologic and seismic mitigation measures.
Project Iml2acts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss,
injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or
landslides? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary
and secondary effects of ground - shaking (Impacts 3.6 / B and 3.6 / C) could be
potentially significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measure
3.6/ 1.0 the primary effects of ground - shaking are reduced but not to a less -than-
significant level by using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in
construction, which would reduce the potential for structure failure, major
structural damage and loss of life. Consistent with the mitigations for Eastern
Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/ C, the ENGEO preliminary geotechnical report identifies
construction techniques, such as special footings and use of foundation materials,
to ensure that adverse impacts from ground shaking, landslides, ground failure
and other geologic hazards, will be included in the project design as required by
the City of Dublin, to minimize geological hazard impacts. The project includes
residential uses, as assumed in the prior EIRs, although at a lesser density. No
new or more severe significant impacts would result with respect to this topic
than was previously analyzed in earlier CEQA documents. No further analysis is
required.
Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 2.0 through 3.6 / 7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
and described above will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects of
ground - shaking on proposed project improvements. No new or more severe
significant impacts with respect to groundshaking or ground rupture beyond
what has been analyzed in the prior EIRs is anticipated and no additional
analysis is required.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact.
Construction of the proposed project improvements on the site would slightly
modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and
infiltration and could result in a short -term increase in erosion and
sedimentation caused by grading activities. Long -term impacts could result from
modification of the ground- surface and removal of existing vegetation (Eastern
Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/Q. The project applicant is subject to Mitigation Measures
3.6/27.0 and 28.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and re- stated above, both
of these impacts would be less - than- significant. The project will also be required
implement the erosion controls from the EDEIR as well as the RWQCB measures
as enforced by the City of Dublin. Through the ENGEO report, the project
City of Dublin Page 49
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
complies with adopted measures that require a detailed site geotechnical
investigation. The City's requirement to implement site- specific erosion and
other controls reduce erosion from the site to a less- than - specific level.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a policy (Policy 6 -43), which
requires that new development be designed to provide effective control of soil
erosion as a result of construction activities. This policy will be applied to the
proposed project.
The project includes residential development of the type and in the location
assumed in the prior EIRs. The project also includes the design -level geotechnical
investigation required by the previously adopted mitigations and will implement
their project - specific recommendations. With adherence to previous mitigation
measures, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts than have
been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for this site. No further
analysis is required.
c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral
spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? No New Impact. Consistent with
Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 7.0, Transit Center EIR Mitigations
Measures 4.5-2 and 4.5 -3 and standard City development procedures, the project
applicant has retained a geologist to prepare a soils and geotechnical report, as
identified above. The report contains methods to minimize impacts from
liquefaction and other soil hazards for future site improvements on the site. With
adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, including preparation of
the ENGEO report, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies and the findings of the
ENGEO geotechnical report, no new or more severe significant impacts have
been identified related to lateral spreading, liquefaction and other soil hazards
than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No further analysis is
required.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on -site septic tanks if sewers are not available? No
New Impact. As assumed in prior EIRs, proposed residences on the site would
be connected to sanitary sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no new
or more severe impacts with regard to septic systems.
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Setting
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and the 2002 Transit Center EIR, the
issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more
prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. Because the
Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 EIR have been certified, the determination of whether
greenhouse gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed project is
governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code
section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and
climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it
City of Dublin page 50
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known at the time the previous EIRs were certified as complete
(CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts were
not analyzed in the prior EIRs; however, these impacts are not new information that
was not known or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR and
the 2002 Transit Center EIR were certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse
gasses was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs. The United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of
greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated
and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted
in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and
climate change were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771
established the California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas
emissions to provide information about potential environmental impacts. In 2005, the
Governor issued Executive Order # S -03 -05 establishing greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets in California. AB 32 was adopted in 2006. Therefore, the impact of
greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the
Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993 and the certification of the Transit Center EIR in 2002.
Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a
supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of
the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
Project Impacts
a,b Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adapted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As discussed above, no additional
environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166.
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section of the Initial Study is based on a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
prepared by ENGEO, Inc.. in September 2013 (" Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment, Dublin Transit Center Site A--1, Dublin California"'). This document is
incorporated into this Initial Study by reference and is available for review at the Dublin
Community Development Department during normal business hours.
Environmental Setting
The Phase I analysis prepared by ENGEO did not identify any recognized
environmental conditions on the project site with respect to soil or groundwater
contamination as applicable for residential land use.
The project site is located north of Livermore Municipal Airport and is not within the
Airport Influence Area of this facility (source: Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2012).
The site is not located within an area that is subject to wildland fire hazard.
City of Dublin Page 51
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Previous CE OA documents
Transit Center EIR. The Transit Center EIR identified two mitigation measures related to
hazards and hazardous materials.
• Mitigation Measure 4.6 -1 reduced the impact related to release of hazardous
materials on the site remaining from past military uses (Impact 4.1 -1) to a less -
than- significant level. This measure required completion of additional
environmental analysis (Phase I and /or Phase II reports) and completion of any
cleanup of recognized hazardous materials on the site.
Mitigation Measure 4.6 -2 reduced the impact related to risk of upset from a
nearby petroleum pipeline adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail to a less -than-
significant level (Impact 4.6 -2). This measure required future developers on Sites
A ad C within the Transit Center to flag or otherwise identify the presence of the
petroleum pipeline to avoid damage by construction equipment. Future
residences on Sites A and C are also required to maintain a minimum 50 foot
setback from the pipeline to the nearest habitable structure.
Hazards and hazardous materials were not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Project Impacts
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials? No New Impact. There would be no impact
with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the
proposed project involves construction of a residential development on the site.
Proposed land uses on the site would not use, store or transport of significant
quantities of hazardous materials. No new or more severe impacts would therefore
occur on the site than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is
required.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? No New Impact. The ENGEO Phase II report prepared for the project
prepared pursuant to Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6 -1 did not identify
any significant hazards to the public or the environment as a result of release of
hazardous materials. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 4.6 -1 and 4.6 -2 contained
in the Transit Center will ensure that release of hazardous materials would be less
than significant.
Pursuant to Transit Center Mitigation Measure 4.6 -2, development on Site A -1 is
required to maintain a minimum 50 -foot wide structural setback from the Kinder -
Morgan oil pipeline that runs adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail. This requirement
has been met as shown on Exhibit 3.
The project includes residential development as assumed in the prior EIRs and
through the Phase H ESA, project design and conditions of approval, has complied
or will comply with the adopted mitigation measures. Therefore, no new or more
City of Dublin page 52
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
severe significant impacts with respect to release of hazardous materials into the
environment would result and no additional review is required.
c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No
Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would have no
impact with regard to this topic, since no schools exist or are planned within one
quarter mile of the project area.
d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? No New Impact. The Transit Center EIR
examined the potential for hazardous materials extensively and the project site is
not listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an
identified hazardous site as of February 26, 2012 (last update). There is therefore
no new or more severe significant impact with respect to this topic than have been
previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport Iand use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? No
New Impact. The project site lies north of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of
Livermore Municipal Airport and is not included in the AIA. No new or more
severe significant impacts are anticipated with respect to this topic than previously
analyzed. No additional analysis is required.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. The proposed
project would include the construction of a residential project on private land. No
emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be
blocked. No new or more severe significant impacts would result than have been
previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No New Impact. The
project site is located in a urbanized area of Eastern Dublin and contains no
flammable structures or vegetation, as identified in the Transit Center EIR.
Properties east and west are developed. The area north of the site lies within Parks
RFTA but is planned for development under the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan..
The project will result in no new or more severe significant impact than analyzed
in the Transit Center EIR. No additional analysis is required.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting
Local surface water. The project site is located within the Tassajara Creek watershed
which drains to the San Francisco Bay via the Arroyo Del Valle and Arroyo de la
Laguna. The main course of Tassajara Creek flows in a north -south direction just east of
the site.
City of Dublin Page 53
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance
of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County.
Surface water quality. Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which
controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non -point sources.
In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in
November 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of
stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and
construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin
is a co- permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated
effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San
Francisco Bay.
Existing site conditions. The northerly portion of the project site is vacant and not covered
by impervious surfaces. The southern portion has been paved as part of previous uses
of the site.
Flooding and dam failure. The western portion of the project site currently lies within a
100 -year flood hazard area as identified on Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map No.
06001C0309G. As documented in the Project Description, the applicant proposes to
raise the site by placement of fill to ensure that the site is raised above the flood hazard
area. An application is also proposed to be filed with the Federal Emergency
Management for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to revise the
applicable Flood Insurance Rate Map that would remove any portion of the project site
from a flood hazard area.
The project site is within a dam failure inundation area from Del Valle dam, as mapped
by the Association of Bay Area Governments (llttp:/ /www,abag.cagov /cgi-
bin / pickdamx.pll).
Regulatory Framework.
The City of Dublin has adopted a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan in response
to the Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0. The Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plan contains Annex B, an emergency evacuation plan for the City. The
Evacuation Plan is intended to manage and coordinate evacuation in response to any hazard
which would necessitate such actions, addresses emergency evacuation planning, a traffic
management plan, public information plans, evacuation procedures and similar actions.
Previous CE QA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage from the
General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
City of Dublin Page 54
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
• Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 -48.0 reduced impacts related potential flooding
(IM 3.5/Y) to a less- than - significant level. These mitigation measures require
new storm drainage facilities as part of new development, requires developers to
prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects and requires new
flood control facilities to alleviate downstream flooding potential.
• Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 -50.0 reduced impacts related to loss of
groundwater recharge area. These mitigation measures require adherence to
management practices to protect and enhance water quality and directs the City
to support on -going groundwater recharge efforts in the Central Basin.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 to 55.0 reduced impacts related to non -point source
pollution (IM 3.5/ AA) to a less- -than- significant level. These mitigation measures
mandate that specific water quality investigations be submitted as part of
development projects and that the City should develop community -based
programs to educate residents and businesses to reduce non -point source
pollution. These mitigation measures also 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.
Transit Center EI-R. The following impacts and mitigation measures related to hydrology
and water quality were identified in this EIR.
Mitigation Measure 4.7 -1 reduced the impact related to non -point source
pollution (Impact 4.7 -3) to a less - than - significant level. This measure required
future individual site developers to prepare and implement erosion control
plans. If needed, additional provisions may be required for the proper handing
and disposal of hazardous materials. Associated Mitigation Measure 4.7 -2
required each developer to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan to Regional Water Board standards.
Mitigation Measure 4.7 -3 reduced the construction impact related to short -term
increases of soil erosion from wind and water (Impact 4.7 -4) to a less -than-
significant level. This mitigation required individual project developers to
prepare and implement erosion control plans for the project construction period,
consistent with Regional Water Board standards. Measures included but were
not limited to revegetation of graded areas, protection of stockpiled material,
constructing sediment ponds and related items.
The proposed project shall adhere to all of the applicable above previous mitigation
measures.
Project Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No New Impact.
Approval and construction of the proposed development project would add
impervious surfaces to the undeveloped site that would increase the amount of
stormwater runoff and potentially degrade water quality. The southern portion of
the site has been paved for a former use of the property. Mitigation Measure
City of Dublin Page 55
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
3.5 / 51.0 contained in the EDSP EIR requires each project developer in the Eastern
Dublin planning area prepare and submit a water quality investigation. The City
of Dublin also requires new development proposals to adhere to the most recent
surface water quality standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. For this project, the developer is proposing to install bio- filtration ponds
along the western side of the site, adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail. A
hydromodifciation pond would also be provided on the site to reduce peak
stormwater flows from the site, as required by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board to ensure that water quality and waste discharge standards are met. The
proposed water quality facilities will ensure that no new or more significant severe
impacts with respect to water quality violations or wastewater discharges would
result than have been previously analyzed and that previously adopted
mitigations are implemented by the project. No additional analysis is required.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? No New
Impact. No new or more significant severe impacts are anticipated with regard to
depletion of groundwater resources than have been analyzed in previous CEQA
documents. A portion of the site would remain as open space that would allow
recharge of the underground aquifer. Stormwater runoff from the site would be
directed to proposed stormwater basin located on the southern portion of the site
that would allow recharge into the underground aquifer.
Also, the proposed water source for this project would rely on surface water
supplies from DSRSD and not local groundwater supplies. The project is required
to comply with EDEIR mitigation measures 3.5 / 49 and 50 to protect water quality
and support Zone 7's groundwater recharge program. No new or more severe
significant impacts would occur with respect to this topic than has been previously
analyzed in other CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur? No New Impact. New impervious surfaces would
be added to the project site to accommodate new dwellings, roadways, driveways
and similar surfaces, consistent with the development assumptions in the prior
EIRs. Existing drainage patterns may be slightly modified based on proposed
development. However the project developer is subject to the Eastern Dublin EIR
requirement to prepare a site- specific storm drainage master plan and Transit
Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7 -3 requiring project developers to implement an
erosion control plan to minimize polluted run -off reduced impacts related to
changed drainage patterns to a less - than- significant level. The project remains
subject to these adopted mitigations and has submitted necessary studies and
documentation to the City of Dublin (source: Mike Porto, City of Dublin, 5/29/14).
No new or more severe significant impacts would result with respect to changed
drainage patterns than have been previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
and no additional analysis is required.
d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site?
No New Impact. As noted above, drainage patterns may be slightly modified to
accommodate the proposed project; however, proposed storm drain facilities will
be adequately sized for project runoff (see item "e" below) and no flooding
City of Dublin Page 56
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
impacts would occur. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated
than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts of polluted runoff? No New Impact. The Project is subject to
adopted Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 44.0 -48.0. These mitigation
measures require new storm drainage facilities as part of new development and
requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for individual development
projects. Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7 -3 also requires individual
project developers to prepare an implement erosion control plans. In compliance
with existing EIR mitigation measures, the project applicant proposes the
construction of both a series of bio- retention swales and a hydromodification pond
to comply with both City requirements and previous EIR mitigation measures. The
project would include residential development as assumed in the prior EIRs and
proposes storm drain facilities adequately sized for project runoff and designed to
filter out pollutants. No new or more significant severe impacts have been
identified in this Initial Study regarding increases in stormwater runoff and
pollutants than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? See items "a" and "e."
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map? No New Impact. As noted in the Environmental Setting section, above, a
portion of the site lies within a 100 -year flood hazard area. This was noted in
Impact 4.7 -2 in the Transit Center EIR. Since certification of the Transit Center EIR,
the site has been graded and filled to raise the site above the flood hazard area and
the project applicant proposes to submit a CLOMR to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to eliminate the current flood hazard designation on a
portion of the site. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated than have
been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required.
h, i) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood
flow, including dam failures? NI. Compliance with the City of Dublin's
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan will ensure that hazards to visitors
and residents on the site as a result of dam failure will be reduced to a less -than-
significant level by providing an emergency evacuation plan in the event of a dam
failure.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. The project site
is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be
impacted by a tsunami or seiche. Since the site and surrounding properties are
relatively flat (less than 2 percent cross slope), no impacts are anticipated with
respect to landslide hazard. No new or more significant severe impacts would
result than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required.
City of Dublin Page 57
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
10. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Settin
The project site is vacant and contains no dwellings or other structures.
Surrounding uses include a combination of developed and undeveloped properties
within the Eastern Dublin Planning area. Property to the east within the Transit Center
have been developed with an apartment complex. Property to the south of the
apartment is vacant. The property west and south of the site has been developed with
light industrial land uses. Properties to the north are within Parks Reserve Forces
Training Facility (Camp Parks) but was recently approved for private development as
part of the Dublin Crossings development.
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. The project site is
located in the Eastern Dublin planning area. Uses to the north, south and west of
the project site are developed or approved for development (Dublin Crossings) .
Property to the southeast is vacant but are included in the Dublin Transit Center
project site so that future development is envisioned. The project reflects the type
and location of development assumed in the prior EIRs. As noted in the extensive
land use discussion in the Transit Center EIR (see, e.g., Impact 4.8 -2), the Project
sire is consistent with existing and anticipated land uses and would not divide an
established community. No new or more significant severe impacts have been
identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed. No additional
analysis is required.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? No New Impact.
Amendments have been requested to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan to reduce the residential density such that the number of dwellings would be
less with the proposed project than has been previously approved (131 approved
v. 52 proposed). The project would still include medium high density residential
uses; no changes are proposed to any regulation regulating environmental
protection. No new or more significant severe impacts are anticipated with regard
to land use regulations than have been previously analyzed in prior EIRs. No
additional analysis is required.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No
New Impact. The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County
Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the
Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public
projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a
resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to
permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land
development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is
neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan,
but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and
permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective
City of Dublin page 58
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
manner. The project site has never been subject to an HCP or NCCP; so there
would therefore be no new or significantly more severe significant impacts than
previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Transit Center EIR. No
additional analysis is required.
11. Mineral Resources
Environmental Settin
The project site contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the Eastern
Dublin EIR,
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? No
New Impact. Neither the Eastern Dublin EIR nor the 2002 EIR indicate that
significant deposits of minerals exist on the project site, so no new or more severe
impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis
is required.
12. Noise
Environmental Setting
The City of Dublin defines "noise' as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive,
irritating, objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concern
with regard to noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and
hospitals. Although noise is controlled around commercial, industrial and recreation
uses, community noise levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these
uses.
Regulatory Setting
The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies the following primary sources of noise
in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the community and
noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I -580 freeway. On the project site,
primary noise sources include vehicle noise from Dublin Boulevard and distant noise
from operations at Parks RFTA.
The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use
type.
City of Dublin Page 59
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Table 3. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels)
Land Use
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acce table
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential
60 or less
60 -70
70 -75
75+
Lodging Facilities
60 or less
61 -80
71 -80
Over 80
Schools, churches,
nursing homes
60 or less
61 -70
71 -80
Over 80
Neighborhood
arks
60 or less
61 -65
66 -70
Over 70
Office /Retail
70 or less
71 -75
76 -80
Over 80
Industrial
70 or less
71 -75
Over 75
--
Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9 -1, 2012
The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential
dwellings.
Previous CE OA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that major noise sources within
Eastern Dublin include traffic noise from arterial roadways, helicopter overflights from
Camp Parks RFTA, west of Tassajara Road, noise generated by development of land
uses under the Specific Plan and General Plan and construction noise. No specific
significant future noise sources are identified on the project site.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated
noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.10/ 1.0 reduced impacts related to exposure of proposed
housing to future roadway noise (IM 3.10/A) to a less - than - significant level.
This mitigation measure require that all future development projects within a
future CNEL 60 noise contour have an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that
future dwelling units meet City interior noise exposure levels.
• Mitigation Measures 3.10 /4.0 and 5.0 reduced impacts related to construction
noise (IM 10 /E) to a less - than - significant level. These mitigation measures
require developers to submit construction noise management plans and to limit
hours of construction operations and similar items.
Transit Center EIR. The Transit Center EIR identified the following impacts and
mitigation measures.
• Mitigation Measure 4.9 -1 reduced short -term construction noise (Impact 4.9 -1) to
a less -than- significant level by requiring individual project developers to prepare
Construction Noise Management Plans and to have these approved by the
Dublin Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. Each plan shall identify specific noise reduction
measures, including listing of construction hours, use of mufflers on construction
City of Dublin Page 60
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
equipment, on -site speed limits for construction equipment and similar
measures.
• Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 reduced impacts related to permanent noise on
residential uses (Impact 4.9 -2) to a less- -than- significant level by requiring
individual residential developers to prepare acoustic reports that lists specific
measures to be taken to reduce noise to City exposure limits, including but not
limited to window glazing, ventilation systems and noise barriers.
Mitigation Measure 4.9 -3 reduced impacts related to helicopter overflights from
Parks RFTA (Impact 4.9 -3) to a less- than - significant level by requiring
notification of such overflights to future residents.
The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation
measures identified above.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard? No New Impact. As
analyzed in previous EIRs, development of proposed residential land uses on the
project site would increase noise on the project site and future residences would be
also be subject to traffic noise from vehicles using Dublin Boulevard to the north.
Consistent with EDEIR mitigation measure 3.10/ 1.0, the applicant completed a
site - specific acoustic report ( "Dublin Transit Site A--1, Environmental Noise
Summary" prepared by Charles M. Salter & Associates dated December 18, 2013).
The Salter report is hereby included by reference into this Initial Study and is
available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during
normal business hours.
As required by the Eastern Dublin EIR and Transit Center EIR, the Salter report
includes specific recommendations regarding glazing specifications for residences
.facing Dublin Boulevard to meet local and state interior noise levels and other
project design and construction recommendations to meet City exterior noise
exposure levels. According to City staff, although balconies would be provided for
upper floor units, no balconies would face Dublin Boulevard and thus would be
consistent with applicable standards and adopted mitigations.
Adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR noise mitigation measures, noise standards in
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the City noise ordinance will reduce noise to
a less - than - significant level. No new or more significant noise impacts have been
identified than have previously analyzed.
The project would contribute to cumulative noise conditions identified as Impact
3.10/B in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which is exposure of existing residences to
future roadway noise. This impact was found to be significant and unavoidable in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. Also, EDSP EIR Impact 3.10/D, exposure of proposed
residential development to noise from future military training activities at Parks
RFTA, was found to be significant and unavoidable. However, the Transit Center
City of Dublin Page 61
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
EIR analyzed this impact specific to the Transit Center and High Density
Residential uses, including for the project site and revised the impact to less than
significant after mitigation. The required mitigation calling for notice to future
residents will be implemented through conditions of approval on the project.
No new or more significant noise impacts have been identified than have
previously analyzed. The impacts will be somewhat reduced due to the reduced
number of dwelling units; however, all applicable mitigations have been or will be
implemented through project approvals in compliance with the adopted
mitigations. No further analysis is required.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No
Impact. The proposed project would not include construction or operational
elements that would result in significant groundborne vibration levels to nearby
residents (source: Mark McClellan, project engineer, 5/5/ 14). No impacts would
result with respect to vibration or groundborne vibration than was analyzed in
previous CEQA documents on the project site and no additional analysis is
required.
c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels? No New Impact. Increased
levels of permanent noise on the project that would occur based on project
development were addressed through adherence to applicable mitigation
measures contained in the prior EIRs, as implemented through the Charles M.
Salter acoustic report, cited above. The fewer number of dwellings on the project
site (52) than the approved project (131) would also generate fewer vehicle trips to
and from the site and would also represent a fewer number of mechanical systems
on the site that would generate localized noise. No new or more significant severe
impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously
analyzed. No additional analysis is required.
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? No New Impact. Increased levels of short -term
construction noise generated on the project site were addressed through mitigation
measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Transit Center EIR. These
measures require project developers to prepare and submit a Construction Noise
Management Plan with construction documentation to reduce noise exposure, as
identified above. No new or more severe significant impacts have been identified
in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is
required.
e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to
excessive noise levels? No New Impact. Based on Exhibit 3 -2 contained in the
Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012), the site lies
north of the noise compatibility zone for this airport. The project site would
therefore not be subjected to substantial aircraft noise from this airport. However,
the Transit Center EIR notes that the site could be subject to potential noise from
helicopter operations from Parks RFTA and the project applicant's adherence to
Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.9 -3. No new or more significant severe
City of Dublin Page 62
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
impacts are therefore anticipated in terms of this topic than was previously
analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required.
13. Population and Housing
Environmental Setting
The project is currently vacant and contains no dwellings.
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New
Impact. Approval of the proposed project would not induce substantial additional
population growth in the Eastern Dublin area, since development on the affected
properties has long been envisioned in the Dublin General Plan, the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and The Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 zoning and was
assumed in both prior EIRs. Approval of the proposed project would result in
fewer dwellings being constructed than currently approved on the site (131 units
currently anticipated v. 52 proposed) but would still be the same type and location
of development assumed in the prior EIR analyses. No new or more severe
significant impacts than were previously analyzed are therefore anticipated with
respect to this topic. No additional analysis is required.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? No
New Impact. Since the site is vacant, no housing units or people would be
displaced should be project be approved and implemented. No houses were on the
site when the prior EIRs were certified. No new or more severe significant impacts
than were previously analyzed are therefore anticipated with respect housing
displacement. No additional analysis is required.
14. Public Services
Environmental Setting
The following provide essential services to the community:
• Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County
Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency
medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and
hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 17 at 6200 Madigan
Drive.
• Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Alameda
County Sheriff under contact to the City of Dublin.
City of Dublin Page 63
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
• Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K -12 educational
services for properties on the project site.
• Library Services: Alameda County Library service.
• Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities
are the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
Previous CE A documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR
addressing fire and police protection include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms to
cover up -front costs of capital fire improvements.
• Mitigation Measure 3-4/9-0: Incorporate Fire Department recommendations
on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention
into the requirements of development approval.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/10.0: Ensure, as a requirement of project approval,
that an assessment district, homeowners association or other mechanism is in
place that will provide regular long -term maintenance of the urban/ open
space interface.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0: The City shall work with the Fire Department
and qualified biologists to prepare a wildfire management plan for the project
area.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0: Provide additional personnel and facilities and
revise beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for
police protection service in Eastern Dublin.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0 -5.0: Incorporate into the requirements of project
approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect
traffic safety and crime prevention.
Transit Center EIR. The following impacts regarding public services were identified in
the Transit Center EIR.
• Mitigation Measure 4.12 -1 reduced impacts related to fire protection service
(Impact 4.12 -1) by requiring future high -rise buildings more than 6 stores tall
to incorporate augmented fire protection features including but not limited to
caching fire equipment on upper floors and other measures as identified by
the Alameda County Fire Marshal.
• Mitigation Measure 4.12 -2 reduced impacts to police services (Impact 4.12 -2)
by requiring individual developments within the Transit Center to a less-
City of Dublin Page 64
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
than- significant level by requiring individual project developers to submit a
safety and security plan to the Dublin Police Services Department.
Mitigation Measure 4.12 -3 reduced impacts to schools (Impact 4.12 -3) to a
less- than- significant level by requiring the project proponent to enter into
school mitigation program with the Dublin Unified School District to pay fees
necessary to off -set costs for new schools.
The project will be required to comply with the above mitigation measures as
applicable.
Project Impacts
a) Fire protection? No New Impact. As reflected in the prior EIRs, approval and
implementation of the proposed project would increase the number of fire and
emergency medical calls for service that would need to be responded to by the
Alameda County Fire Department, the City of Dublin's contract fire department,
as a result of a greater number of dwellings on the vacant project site. The
proposed project is required to adhere to mitigation measures, including payment
of public facility impact fees to assist in funding new fire stations (Eastern Dublin
EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0). The project developer is required to pay these
fees prior to issuance of building permits. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0, proposed development on the project site will be
conditioned to meet Fire Department requirements including but not limited to
maintaining minimum water pressure and fire flow, providing adequate site
access, using fire retardant building materials and similar features.
Proposed residences on the site would contain a maximum of three stories and the
requirements of Transit Center Mitigation Measure 4.12 --1 to require augmented
fire protection measures for buildings containing 6 stories or more would not
apply to this project.
Based on discussions with Alameda County Fire Department staff, there would be
no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to fire service
beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Bonnie Terra,
Alameda County Fire Department, 4/7/14) and no new or expanded fire stations
would be needed to provide fire and emergency service for the proposed project.
No additional analysis is required.
b) Police protection? No New Impact. No New Impact. Similar to fire protection, there
would be no new impact with regard to police protection, based on mitigation
measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Transit Centre EIR, both of
which assumed residential uses on the project site. These Mitigation Measures
include paying City of Dublin public facility impact fees to assist in funding new
police facilities (EDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 1.0), incorporating Police
Department safety and security requirements into the proposed project, including
but not limited to adequate locking devices, security lighting and ensuring
adequate surveillance for structures and parking areas (EDSP EIR Mitigation
Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0). The Transit Center EIR mitigations also include submittal of
a safety and security plan (MM 4.12 -1).
City of Dublin Page 65
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Based on discussions with Dublin Police Services Department staff, there would be
no new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to police service
associated with the proposed project beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA
documents (source: Captain Tom McCarthy, Dublin Police Services, 4/7/14). No
additional analysis is required.
c) Schools? No New Impact. No new impacts to school service are anticipated should
the proposed project be approved since payment of mandated statutory impact
fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide mitigation of
educational impacts of the proposed project pursuant to provisions in the
Government Code. The currently proposed project would result in fewer school -
aged children to be accommodated in DUSD school facilities than was assumed in
the Eastern Dublin or Transit Center EIRs and mitigation of impacts is limited by
statute to payment of impact fees to the District by the project developer. There
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to
this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No
additional analysis is required.
d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? No New Impact.
Maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of
Dublin with no new impacts in regard to this topic since residential development
at a higher density was assumed in both prior EIRs. New public facilities will be
required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards. There would therefore
be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this
impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No
additional analysis is required.
15. Recreation
Environmental Setting
No neighborhood or community parks and /or recreation services or facilities exist on
the project site. However, the City of Dublin maintains a wide range of park facilities
throughout the community.
Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which
maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in
Alameda and Contra Costa County.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EI'R. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR
addressing recreation include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/29.0: Ensure, as apart of the approval process, that
each new development provide its fair share of planned open space,
parklands and trail corridors.
City of Dublin Page 66
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/31.0: Calculate and assess in -lieu park fees based on
the City's parkland dedication ordinance. Credit towards parkland
dedication requirements will only be given for level or gently sloping areas
suitable for active recreation use.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/36.0: Require developer to dedicate public access
easements along ridgetops and stream corridors to accommodate the
development of trails and staging areas.
Transit Center EIR. Impacts to parks and recreational facilities were found to be less -
than- significant and no mitigation measures were contained in this EIR.
The current project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures
identified above.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? No New
Impact. As envisioned in previous CEQA documents for the site, approval and
construction of the proposed project would increase the use of nearby City or
regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing the on -site
permanent population currently on the site. However, there would be fewer
residents on the site with the proposed project (52 dwellings) than would occur
with the current site zoning (131 dwellings). The applicant proposes to provide one
private park on the site and will be required to pay City of Dublin Community
Facility Fees to assist in providing off -site parks. There would therefore be no new
or more severe impacts with respect to recreation than were previously analyzed.
No additional analysis is required.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? See item "a," above.
16. Transportation /Traffic
Environmental Setting
Roadways and freeways. The project area is served by Dublin Boulevard, an arterial road
that provides major east -west access through the City of Dublin. Local access to the I-
580 freeway, the major regional corridor is provided via either Dougherty Road west of
the site or Hacienda Drive east of the site.
Local roadways have been constructed within the portion of the Dublin Transit Center,
located east of the project site.
Existing transit service. Transit service to the project site is provided by
City of Dublin Page 67
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
The Livermore /Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) which provides bus service
in Dublin and throughout the Tri- Valley. Bus stops are provided along Dublin
Boulevard. The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) provides regional rapid transit
service with the nearest station located just southeast of the project site.
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Both pedestrian and bicycle facilities are
provided north of the site along Dublin Boulevard, as well as on the Iron Horse Trail
immediately west of the site. Existing streets within the Dublin Transit Center, east of
the site, also provide for both pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated traffic impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These
measures generally include construction of new roadways, widening of existing
roadways and improvements to local freeway facilities to accommodate anticipated
increases in the number of vehicles associated with the build out of the Eastern Dublin
area.
With the exceptions noted below, the EIR found that all traffic and transportation
impacts could be reduced to less -than- significant levels with adherence to mitigation
measures identified in the EIR. A number of impacts could not be reduced to a level of
insignificance even with mitigations. These include: impacts to the 1 -580 freeway
between I -680 and Hacienda Drive (IM 3.3/13), impacts to the 1 -580 Freeway between
Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard (IM 3.3/C), cumulative freeway impacts (IM
3.3/E) impacts to Santa Rita Road and T -580 Eastbound ramps (IM 3.3/I), and
cumulative impacts to Tassajara Road (IM 3.3/N).
Transit Center EIR. This CEQA document identified the following significant
supplemental impacts and mitigation measures related to traffic and transportation.
• Mitigation Measure 4.11 -1 required roadway improvements for the Scarlett Drive
extension, the Dublin Boulevard/ Dougherty Road 'intersection and the hacienda
Drive /1 -580 westbound off -ramp to reduce impacts related to project traffic on
external roadway intersections to a less - than - significant level (Impact 4.11 -1).
• Mitigation Measure 4.11 -2 reduced the impact of parking on the Transit Center
site with respect to future BART parking (Impact 4.11 -4). This measure required
the City to post all on- street parking within the Transit Center for limited
parking hours (2 -4 hours). Individual development projects are to be designed to
limit BART parking.
• Mitigation Measure 4.11 -3 partially but not fully reduced impacts related to
cumulative traffic (Impact 4.11 -5). This mitigation measure required additional
roadway improvements to the Dougherty Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection
which was found to be infeasible.
• Mitigation Measure 4.11 -4 reduced local roadway segments impacts (Impact
4.11 -6) to a less - than- significant level be requiring the widening of Hacienda
City of Dublin Page 68
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
Drive between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive from three to four lanes and
the Scarlett Drive extension should be constructed between Dublin Boulevard
and Dougherty Road.
• No feasible mitigation was found to reduce impacts to mainline freeway
operations in the year 2025 (Impact 4.11 -7) and this impact was found to be
significant and unavoidable.
The proposed project will be required to comply with all of the above applicable
transportation and circulation mitigation measures.
ProJect_Impacts
a,b) Conflict with applicable plans related to the effectiveness of the circulation system,
including all modes of travel, including intersections, streets, highways and other
components or conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including
level of service standards, travel demand measures and other applicable standards? The
Eastern Dublin EIR and the subsequent Transit Center EIR considered the
development of the project site with residential land uses on the local and regional
roadway and freeway networks and adopted mitigation measures to address the
impacts thereof (see the above section). As noted above, even though the City of
Dublin has anticipated development of up to 131 high- density dwellings on this
portion of the Transit Center site, the applicant is now proposing up to 52
medium -high density dwellings on the same site. Table 4, below, compares daily,
AM peak and PM peak trips on the site from approved and proposed
development programs.
Table 4. Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use
Size (du)
Dail
A.M. Peak Hour
P.M. Peak Hour
Rate
Total
Rate
Total
Rate
Total
A2proved Use
131
6.65
871
0.51
67
0.62
81
Proposed Use
52
6.65
346
0.51
27
0.62
32
Difference
-525
-40
-49
Source: ITE, Trip Generation, Apartment ( #220), 9`" edition, 2012
Based on the above table, the proposed Site A -1 project would generate an
estimated 40 fewer A.M. peak hour trips, 49 fewer P.M. peak hour trips and 525
fewer daily trips than the amount of development analyzed in the Transit Center
EIR.
However, if approved and constructed, the project would continue to contribute to
significant and unavoidable cumulative project impacts as part of the larger
Eastern Dublin project. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified such impacts on the
following roads and transportation facilities:
• I -580 freeway between 1-680 and Hacienda Drive;
• The Santa Rita Road/ I -580 eastbound ramps;
City of Dublin Page 69
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
• The Dublin Boulevard /Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard /Tassajara
Road intersection;
• Other impacts to Tassajara Road, as identified in the EIR.
No new or more severe significant impacts would result with respect to this topic
than was previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. No additional analysis is
required.
c) Change in air traffic patterns? No Impact. The proposed project includes residential
uses and would have no impact on air traffic patterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? No Impact.
Approval of the proposed project would add new driveways, sidewalks and other
vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist. The current
development proposal will be required to comply with current City engineering
design standards and other safety standards to ensure that no safety hazards
would be created or exacerbated. No new or more severe impacts with respect to
design hazards would be created by the project.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. One access drive is proposed from
Campbell Drive, which has been approved by the Alameda County Fire
Department. No impacts would result with respect to this topic.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, pedestrian
facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No New
Impact. No conflicts to plans, policies or programs that promote public transit,
pedestrian use or similar features were identified in previous CEQA reviews for
the subject property. No new or more severe significant impacts have been
identified in this Initial Study that has been previously analyzed in other CEQA
documents for the project site. No additional analysis is required.
17. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting
The project area is served by the following service providers:
• Water supply and distribution: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD).
• Sewage collection and treatment; recycled water: DSRSD.
• Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7.
• Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries
• Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
City of Dublin Page 70
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -9 August 2014
Communications: AT &T
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified
overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/ P) as a potentially significant impact
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level
of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to
develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that
all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area to connect to the DSRSD water
system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant
impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 26.0 -31.0. These mitigation measures
require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development
projects and construction of new system -wide water improvements which are funded
by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This
impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 32.0 -33.0, which requires improvement to
the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees.
Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially
significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an
insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure s3.5/34.0 -38.0. These
mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will
serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a potentially
significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of
population in the project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that this was a significant
and unavoidable impact.
Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a
wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated
through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5-0. These measures require DSRSD
to prepare an area -wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new
development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on -site
wastewater treatment, requires a "will- serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all
sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5 noted an
impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new
development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate increased sewer
demand from the proposed Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5/G found that lack of
wastewater disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal
facility has been constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management
Agency and is operational. Impact 3.5/E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant
capacity as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant
level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 7.1, 8.0 and 9.0. These measures
require completion of a design -level wastewater investigation, ensuring that adequate
wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve proposed development and to
City of Dublin Page 71
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
ensure that DSRSD increases the treatment capacity of their wastewater treatment
capacity These Mitigation Measures apply to DSRSD and have been completed so that
adequate wastewater treatment capacity exists to serve this project as document in the
"project impact" section, below.
Transit Center EIR. The following utility services impacts and mitigation measures were
noted in the 2002 Transit Center EIR.
• Mitigation Measure 4.12 -4 reduced impacts to provision of electrical service to
the Transit Center site (Impact 4.12 -8) to a less- than - significant level by requiring
applicants for individual projects to submit a will -serve letters to the City prior to
issuance of a building permit.
The project developer shall be required to adhere to the applicable Eastern Dublin EIR
and Transit Center EIR mitigation measures.
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? No New Impact. The
current project would contain the same type of development as analyzed in the
EDEIR and Transit Center EIR and, based on recent discussions with DSRSD staff
(noted below) regarding this project, the proposed project would not exceed
wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
No new or more severe significant impacts with respect to wastewater treatment
requirements have been identified in this Initial Study than have been analyzed in
previous EIRs. No additional analysis is required.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
No New Impact. Water, recycled water and wastewater extensions to existing
mains that currently exist within the Dublin Transit Center would need to be
constructed to serve the amount of development proposed in the development
application. According to a representative of DSRSD, District wastewater
collection, treatment and disposal facilities from the construction of the proposed
project would not result in a new or more severe significant impacts than were
analyzed in previous CEQA documents which assumed residential development
of the site at a higher density than now proposed (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD,
4/7/14).
The proposed project would also contribute to cumulative impacts related to
consumption of non - renewable natural resources (Impact 3.4 / S, increase in energy
use though increased wastewater treatment and disposal and though the operation
of the water system (Impact 3.5/F, H, and U), and inducement of substantial
growth and concentration of population (Impact 3.5/T). All of these impacts were
identified as significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR and were
overridden by the City Council. The project still includes residential use, but at a
lower density. The previously identified impacts would be somewhat reduced, but
not to less than significant. The project would not result in any new or more
severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior EIRs. No additional analysis
is required.
City of Dublin Page 72
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
c) Require new storm drainage facilities? No New Impact. The proposed development
project would require new and or upgraded drainage facilities to support
proposed development. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures
and City requirements, the project developer will be required to install new or
upgraded on and off -site (if required) storm drain systems that comply with City
of Dublin and Zone 7 standards. The current project would include on -site storm
pipes and a water quality pond to ensure consistency with regional C.3
hydromodifi cation standards and vegetated bioswales along the western side of
the site to filter stormwater runoff. No new or more severe significant impacts are
anticipated with respect to storm drain facilities that have been analyzed in
previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? No New Impact. Based on the information
provided by DSRSD staff, the District has planned for future urban uses on this
site (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD, 4/7/3.4) consistent with assumed future
development in the EDEIR and Transit Center EIR. However, DSRSD staff also
note that due to the current water emergency resulting from the drought, DSRSD
will limit use of recycled for construction purposes. No new or more severe
significant are anticipated with respect to water supplies than have been
previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? See response to "a," above.
e, f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. The project site is within the franchise area of
Amador Valley Industries that provides residential and commercial solid waste
pick --up and recycling services. According to representatives of the company, no
solid waste service is currently provided to the area, since it is undeveloped. The
topic of solid waste disposal was not identified as a potentially significant impact
in previous CEQA documents and no new or more severe significant impacts have
been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed. No
additional analysis is required.
g) Comply with federal, state and Iocal statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No
New Impact. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state
and local solid waste regulations. No new or more severe significant impacts are
anticipated impacts than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is
required.
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. Potential
impacts related to biological resources, including a reduction in habitat area of fish
or wildlife species, elimination of a plant or animal community, or elimination of
City of Dublin Page 73
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
an important example of major periods of California history or prehistory was
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Transit Center EIR. The proposed
project would represent less development intensity than previously analyzed in
earlier CEQA documents.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No.
Cumulative impacts of the proposed project have been fully analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and the Transit Center EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been
discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study.
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of Dublin
Luke Sims, AICP, Community Development Director
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director
Michael Porto, Project Manager
Andy Russell PE, City Engineer
Obaid Khan, City Transportation Engineer
Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department
Chief Tom McCarthy, Dublin Police Services
Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DISC)
Website
DSRSD
Stan Kolozdie
Applicant Representatives
Marshall Torre, Summerhill Homes
City of Dublin Page 74
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014
References
Dublin, Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Annex B undated
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 7/ 2 / 11
Dublin Site 1 A Air Quality Community Risk Assessment Illingworth & Rodkin,
August 2013
Dublin Transit Site A -1 Environmental Noise Summar y, Salter Associates
December 13, 2013
Eastern Dublin General Plan , Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Iml2act Report,
Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program, Sycamore
Associates, 1996
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates &
Associates, 1996
Livermore Municipal Airl2ort, Ai Mort Land Use Compatibility Plan ESA
Associates, August 2012
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2006 update
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Dublin Transit Center Site A -1, Dublin
CA, ENGEO, September, 2013
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Dublin Transit Site A -1 Dublin Boulevard
and Campbell Lane, Dublin CA, ENGEO, September 2013
All resolutions and ordinances referenced in the Initial Study are incorporated
herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business
hours.
City of Dublin Page 75
Initial Study /Dublin Site A -1 August 2014