Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 169-14 Neg Dec Bicycle and Ped Master Plan RESOLUTION NO. 169 - 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN, EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, DUBLIN VILLAGE HISTORIC AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE CITY-WIDE PLPA-2014-00017 WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007 the City Council adopted the Bikeways Master Plan and associated amendments to the Dublin General Plan and various Specific Plans for consistency with the Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, Policy 1.3 of the Bikeways Master Plan is to update the Plan every five years; and WHEREAS, the Bikeways Master Plan has been renamed the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and combines the update to the Bikeways Master Plan with adoption of the City's first Pedestrian Plan into a comprehensive document that provides policies, network plans, prioritized project lists, support programs and best practice design guidelines for bicycling and walking in Dublin; and WHEREAS, amendments are proposed to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Historic Village Area Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the text and maps remain consistent with the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan; and WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was adopted on February 11, 1985 and has been amended a number of times since that date; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted on January 7, 1994 and has been amended a number of times since that date; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan was adopted on August 1, 2006 and was amended on July 17, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan was adopted on February 1, 2011 and was amended on May 6, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Zoning Ordinance was substantially revised and adopted on September 2, 1997 and has been amended a number of times since that date; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the City prepared a Negative Declaration dated June 2014 for the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and the amendments to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Historic Village Area Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin Zoning Ordinance (the "Project") which reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The Negative Declaration, including its supporting Initial Study, is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration was circulated from June 14, 2014 to July 14, 2014 (30 days) for public comment; and WHEREAS, three comments received on the Negative Declaration were reviewed and responded to. The comments and responses are attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 26, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending City Council approval of the Negative Declaration and the proposed amendments to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Historic Village Area Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the project on August 26, 2014 and adopted Resolution 14-46 recommending City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated October 7, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, was submitted to the City of Dublin City Council recommending approval of the Negative Declaration and the proposed amendments to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Historic Village Area Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin Zoning Ordinance for the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the project on October 7, 2014; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider the Negative Declaration and related comments and responses, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings for the project is the City of Dublin Public Works Department, City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby find that: 1) The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. Page 2 of 3 2) On the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study, and related comments and responses), there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 3) The Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and amendments to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Historic Village Area Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin Zoning Ordinance as described in the Negative Declaration. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on the basis of the findings above, the City of Dublin City Council does hereby adopt a Negative Declaration (including related comments and responses) for the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and the amendments to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Historic Village Area Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin Zoning Ordinance, attached as Exhibits A and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Gupta, Hart, Haubert, and Mayor Sbranti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None j?: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Reso No. 169-14,Adopted 10-7-14, Item 6.1 Page 3 of 3 . CITY OF DUBLIN CITY OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza Project Title: City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Dublin,California 94568 Phone:(925)833-6650 Description of Project: Consideration of the City of Dublin Bicycle and Fax:(925)833-6651 Pedestrian Master Plan that would encourage walking and bicycling within the community.The Plan includes recommendations for specific implementing projects along certain major roadways in Dublin.The project also includes Amendments to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern • Dublin Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency between these documents and the Plan. Project Location: City-wide applicability Name of Proponent: City of Dublin Attn: Ferd Del Rosario,Senior Civil Engineer Public Works Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 City Council Determination: I hereby find that the above project could not have (925)833-6650 a significant effect on the environment and a City Manager NEGATIVE DECLARATION has bared. (925)833-6650 been prepared. Community Development (925)833-6610 Economic Development — � 61/2/N/ (925)833-6650 Finance/Admin Services Gary Huisingh, Public Works Director Date (925)833-6640 Fire Prevention (925)833-6606 The Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the above finding and Draft Human Resources Cit y of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan are available for public review on (925)833-6605 Parks&Community Services the City of Dublin Public Works Department webpage at www.dublin.ca.gov and at (925)556-4500 the City of Dublin, Public Works Department, ioo Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 Police (925)833-6670 during normal business hours. Public Works/Engineering (925)833-6630 Attachments Date Published: Dublin Date Posted: Date Notice Mailed: iAiesdu y Considered by: IIf� On: N.O.D. filed: - 2011 Council Resolution No. www.dubiin.ca.gov ATTACHMENT 4 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan INITIAL STUDY! NEGATIVE DECLARATION Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner June,2014 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CFQA) 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 Public Works Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 (925) 833 6630 Attn: Ferd Del Rosario, PE, Senior Civil Engineer 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 south. Exhibits 1 and 2 show the location of Dublin in relation to surrounding communities and other major features. Project Description The project being considered by the City of Dublin is the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan(to be identified as the"Plan" in this document) dated June 2014. The proposed Plan would update and replace the City's existing Bikeways Master Plan adopted in 2007.The proposed Plan reflects the recently updated Circulation and Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Existing Bikeways Master Plan. The City adopted a Bikeways Master Plan in 2007 that primarily addressed existing and future bicycle lanes, trails, and related improvements in the community. The existing Master Plan does not address pedestrian facilities, which is now required under the state-mandated "Complete Streets" program. City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 • Goal 3: Incorporate the needs and concerns of bicyclists and pedestrians in all transportation and development projects. • Goal 4:Support infrastructure investments with targeted bicycle and pedestrian education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation programs. • Goal 5: Maximize multi-modal connections in the transportation network. • Goal 6: Improve bicycle and pedestrian safety Citywide. Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements. Exhibit 3 depicts existing and proposed bicycle improvements in Dublin.This is also Figure 5-2 contained in the Plan. Further,the Plan establishes a listing of specific construction projects in the community that are intended to implement the ultimate bicycle and pedestrian system. These projects are prioritized as Tier Zero, Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 improvements and are described below. • Tier Zero Projects: These projects are those that are assumed to be implemented in the near future since they generally have been designed and necessary funding secured and may be under construction. • Tier One Projects:Bicycle and Pedestrian improvement projects in this classification are identified as high priority projects proposed to be implemented following Tier Zero projects. The focus of improvements would be on major roadways in or adjacent to downtown Dublin. Future specific implementing projects are anticipated to indude enhanced landscaping along these roadways, adding bicycle lanes and/or shared pathways, widening existing sidewalks, adding "bulb-outs" at intersections to improve pedestrian usability,pedestrian lighting improvements and installing wayfinding signs. A bridge overcrossing is proposed between Clark Street and the Alamo Trail Canal near the Civic Center. - Amador Plaza Road between Amador Valley Boulevard and St.Patrick Way/1-580 ramps.Sidewalk and crosswalk improvements,bicycle lanes, pedestrian-scale lighting and a landscaped median are proposed for the 0.5 mile segment. - Village Parkway between northern City limits and Clark Avenue/Dublin Boulevard.A variety of complete streets improvements are proposed on the 1.8-mile segment, including crossing improvements, dedicated bicycle facilities, and a path connection to tie Alamo Canal Trail. - Downtown Dublin connectivity projects,including pedestrian and bicycle improvements to Regional Street, Amador Valley Boulevard,Village Parkway, Amador Plaza Road, St. Patrick Way and Dublin Boulevard. This project would create a continuous network of dedicated facilities to provide last-mile connections to Downtown business and transit destinations.The existing wide bicycle lanes on Amador Valley Boulevard would be restriped City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 • Revise specific references to bicycling to also include walking. • Update Table 5.1 to include proposed biking and walking facilities. • Revise implementing policy 5.2.2.B.2 to include a reference to the bicycle and pedestrian network maps contained in the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. • Update implementing policies 5.2.5.B.1 and 5.2.5.B.2 to include a reference to updating the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Program for consistency with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. • Revise Section 5.5 to summarize and refer to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan;remove references to the Dublin Blvd gap closure study;and include references to Downtown Dublin businesses and the Dublin BART Station. • Revise policy 5.5.1.A.1 to include "continuous, comfortable and convenient bikeways." • Revise policy 5.5.1.A.2 to include "bikeways, bicycle support facilities and pedestrian facilities." • Add the following policy:5.5.1.A.4 Provide comfortable, safe and convenient walking routes throughout the City and,in particular, to key destinations such as Downtown Dublin, the BART Stations, schools, parks and commercial centers. • Revise policy 5.5.1.B.2 to include"bikeways,bicycle support facilities and pedestrian facilities in accordance with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan." • Revise policy 5.5.1.B.3 to include"bikeways,bicycle support facilities and pedestrian facilities." Downtown Dublin Specific Plan: • Replace all references to "Bikeways Master Plan" with "Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan." • Revise applicable Figures to reflect bicycle and pedestrian circulation. • Revise development standards for bicyde parking requirements. • Revise Section 5.2 (Mobility and Infrastructure Plan, Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation) to reflect existing and proposed infrastructure improvements. Eastern Dublin.Specific Plan: • Replace all references to"Bikeways Master Plan" with "Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan." • Revise Policy 5-18 to include support facilities for bicycle parking consistent with the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. • Revise Action Program 5D consistent with the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. • Revise Figures 5.3 and 5.3b to reflect bicycle and pedestrian circulation. • Revise Policy 4-23 to require facilities to be consistent with the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. • Revise development standards for bicycle parking requirements. City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 ( ( SAN vgBso" o Martinez BAY San Concord Rafael 0' '...';',&*-;,., Richmond � ® 11111 MITI : Walnut © Creek -- . Berkeley a ,§ .Y f� Oakland C y l l San Francisco t ;I . �hey f :Yr e f S,A N San '" ' ; t Leandro 0 DUBLIN :-O _1 Daly p� CRY 3 rp Livermore 1ti Pleasanton Y < ^fpmiA� r r� Hayward t t 41.11Y �•%= µ ` F � •--1 J J 1 '4§l 1,0$A ;t' San Mateo Asrstii$ , : Fremont .: s-11s L!, T 1, ©'n ,-! f+ .t r Y df a '_t 2r ' at 1, - f'“-'d Newark Yfi,Yt jg. O d +` 1� Redwood bQS City q, Half Q p J ?" ' -. .s} Moon .. +.\_ R BaY Palo t0 Alto �-\ cP Ct Cal IV Sunnyvale Santa Clara x yy San al 9g i F. JOSe a -N Exhibit 1 REGIONAL LOCATION CITY OF DUBLIN-4 PEDESTRIAN&BICYCLE MASTER PLAN o z s e +o miles INITIAL STUDY i e C w U 0 a 0 " as a o3 e I1 a Y 0 m Z F U) X W t N L Y 4 c7 '4' m g O QQa R O CNM A ✓ 1J • 1 V O N 9 • 3 3 1g a ° 2 F.,71 A N .E x V V V V w 0 „ ` aQ I I io u . ” vt a 1° d a o 1 a _ ua u u I I f g I ! g e g au • O O I Hi S Z 0 2 i E u 4 kJ• 11 g 2 • z O e0 f 7 W V G Q O F W tti 4. 1. Project description: Consideration of a Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan to encourage use of walking and bicycling within the community. The Plan includes recommendations for specific implementing projects along certain major roadways in Dublin. The project also includes Amendments to the Dublin General Plan,Downtown Dublin Specific Plan,Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan and zoning ordinance to ensure consistency between these documents and the proposed Plan. 2. Lead agency/sponsor: City of Dublin 3. Contact person: Ferd Del Rosario PE,Senior Civil Engineer 4. Project location: City-wide applicability 5. General Plan designation: Includes all General Plan land use designations within the City 6. Zoning: Includes all zoning districts within the City 7. Other public agency required approvals: None, although permits from other agencies may be required to implement individual project components. City of Dublin Page 11 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 ( Signature: Date: CIO Y Printed Name: J evv , For: C4, �.f '0610L 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 XVII, "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. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures.For effects that are "Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures City of Dublin Page 13 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 c 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 Potentially Less Than Less than No following the checklist. Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 1.Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic X vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees,rock X outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1,5) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its X surroundings? (Source: 1,3) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 2,3) X 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 X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to a non-agricultural use? (Source: 1,3) b)Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use or a Williamson Act contract?(1) X c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of forestland (as defined by PRC Sec. 12220(g),timberland,(as defined in X PRC Sec.4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined in PRC Sec.51104(g)? (Source: 1,5) d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (1,3) X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of X farmland to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to a non-forest use? (Source: 1,3) City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 1 r Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 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 X impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?(3) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X 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 X approved local,regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1,5) 5.Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as X defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1,3,5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource X pursuant to Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1,5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic X feature? (Source: 1,3,5) d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of a formal cemetery?(3) X 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 X Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault? (Source: 1,3) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (1,5) X iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including X liquefaction? (Source: 1,5) iv)Landslides? (Source: 1,3) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil? (Source: 1,4)) City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Sec.65962.5 . X and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?(5) 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 X public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 1,5) 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 X project area? (Source: 1,5) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan?(Source: 1,4) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands X are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (4) 9.Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X discharge requirements?(Source: 1,4,5) 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 X 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: 1,3) City of Dublin Page 19 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including but X not limited to the general plan,specific plan, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,3) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community X conservation plan? (Source: 1,3) 11.Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to X 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 X 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 X applicable standards of other agencies? (1) b)Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? (Source: 1,3) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X existing levels without the project?(1,3) d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X above levels without the project? (1,3) 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 X or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (1,5) City of Dublin Page 21 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 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 X 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: 1,4) b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,including but not limited to,level of service and travel X demand measures,or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?_(Source: 1,4) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels X 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 X intersections) or incompatible uses,such as farm equipment? (Source:4) e) Result in inadequate emergency access?(4) X f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs regarding public transit,bicycle or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the X 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 X Control Board? (Source: 4) City of Dublin Page 23 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" X 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 X on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Source used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Dublin General Plan and General Plan CEQA document 2. Draft Pedestrian &Bicycle Master Plan 3. Site Visit 4. Discussion with City staff or service provider. 5. Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for $ review. None have been used in the preparation of this document. City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? NI. Implementation of the Plan would facilitate limited new construction within existing public rights- of-way. No major stands of trees,large rock outcroppings or other significant natural features exist adjacent to any of the roadways that could be affected by approval of the Plan and no impact would result. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? NI. Future construction of pedestrian and bicycle improvements would be located within existing rights-of-way and within largely urbanized areas. Therefore, there would be no degradation of the visual character of properties adjacent to major roads that would be improved with new or enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities. No impact would result with respect to this topic. d) Create light or glare?LS. Implementation of the Plan could facilitate new lighting adjacent to new bicycle lanes and pedestrian paths. It is anticipated that any new lighting fixtures would be in existing developed areas. The lighting would generally the same type as presently exists in the community and new lighting could represent a minimal increase in the amount of overall light within the City of Dublin. This impact is therefore expected to be less-than-significant. 2.Agricultural and Forestry Resources Project Impacts a-e) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning, convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or impact forest or timberland. NI. Proposed improvements that could be facilitated by the Plan would be located within urbanized areas within the City of Dublin. Therefore no impacts would result in terms of loss of agricultural lands, agricultural operations, Williamson Act contracts or any timberland or forests. 3. Air Quality Project Impacts a-c) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan,violate any air quality standards or result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants?LS. Approval of the Plan and construction of individual pedestrian and bicycle improvements pursuant to the Plan could create minor and less-than-significant short-term air quality impacts related to restriping of roadways for new bicycle lanes, demolition of portions of damaged sidewalk and other similar construction activities. These improvements would occur over a number of years and would fall below the level of significance identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Managemeht District (BAAQMD) (see BAAQMD Guidelines,May 2012). There would also be limited short-term use of vehides for construction activities. The purpbse of the project is to encourage non-automotive trips in Dublin by constructing improvements that City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 ( ( since these improvements would generally occur within or immediately adjacent to public rights-of-way. d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species?NI. No major structures would be constructed as part of implementing the Plan in undeveloped areas that could block or interfere with native fish or wildlife species and no impact would result. e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans?NI. 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 impacts would therefore result. 5. Cultural Resources Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources?NI. Future pedestrian and bicycle improvements envisioned as part of the Plan would be located within public rights-of-way that contain no structures. No impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to historic structures. b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources?LS.Limited subsurface excavation would occur as a result of constructing pedestrian or bicycle improvements envisioned in the Plan. This would indude excavating for sidewalk and bicycle path improvements,new lights and for structural footings for the proposed Alamo Creek overcrossing. All grading and excavation will be subject to City of Dublin General Plan Conservation Element Guiding Policy 7.7.1.2 that requires grading operations within the City to follow State regulations regarding stop-work and other procedures upon discovery of archeological and historic sites as set forth in the California Public Resources Code. Less-than-significant impacts would result with respect to this topic. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery?NI. There would be minimal ground disturbance as a result of constructing pedestrian and bicycle improvements since most of the improvements would be along in or along existing roadways. Consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (f), as required by the General Plan,will ensure that stop-work and City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 term due to construction activities to stripe bike lanes on selected streets,repair of sidewalks and similar actions. Such impacts would be less-than-significant and would occur over a period of time. There would be no long-term increases in greenhouse gas emissions, since the purpose of the Plan is to promote non- automotive modes of transportation as an alternative to vehicle use. The effect of implementing the Plan would therefore be to slightly reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses over the long-term. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous materials? NI. The proposed project would not involve the routine transport,use or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials since it would include non-auto transportation improvements with minimal use of any chemicals. No impacts would result. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment?NI. There would be minimal disruption of existing ground surfaces in order to construct planned pedestrian and bicycle improvements envisioned in the Plan. Generally, planned improvements would be at existing topographic grades and within public rights-of-way in developed areas. No impacts are expected to occur with respect to this topic. c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances, waste within one-quarter mile of a school? NI. The proposed project is not anticipated to emit or handle hazardous materials or substances since it would involve bicycle and pedestrian transportation improvements. No impacts would occur with respect to this topic. d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site?NI.The project area is not listed on the State of California Department of Toxics Substances Control list(the Cortese List) as of January 15, 2014 (see www.calepa.ca.gov/Site.Cleanup/Cortese_List.cfm). No impacts are therefore anticipated with respect to this topic. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip?NI. Although portions of Eastern Dublin are located within the Airport Influence Area of Livermore Municipal Airport, the Plan would not result in the construction of new residential or non-residential buildings so that no impacts would result. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI.Transportation improvements associated with the Plan would occur within public rights-of-way and would improve the ability of residents, visitors and employees to evacuate portions of Dublin in the event of an emergency.Proposed improvements would therefore not interfere with an emergency evacuation plan and no impact wbuld result with respect to this topic. City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 f) Substantially degrade water quality?NI. As noted in the above response, all specific development projects constructed as envisioned in the draft Plan would be subject to surface water pollution controls as mandated by the Alameda County Clean Water Program to ensure that no impacts would result with respect to this project. Under the Clean Water Program,project contractor(s) for pedestrian and bicycle improvements constructed under the auspices of the Plan will be required to install silt fencing,hay bales and similar features to minimize polluted runoff during the annual rainy period of each year. No impacts would therefore occur. g-i) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map, or impede or redirect flood flow, including dam failure? NI.No residences would be constructed as part of the proposed project, so no impacts would result with respect to this topic. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows?NI. There are expected to be no impacts with regard to seiche, tsunami or mudflows, since the project site is located significantly east of San Francisco Bay that would be affected by a seiche or tsunami.Proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements constructed pursuant to the Plan would generally be located in the flatter portions of Dublin so as not to be significantly impacted by mudflows. No impacts are anticipated with respect to this topic. 10. Land Use and Planning Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? NI. A majority of project-related improvements would occur within existing public rights-of-way so as not to divide any existing communities.In addition, one of the purposes of the proposed project is to increase connectivity within Dublin by providing non-automotive modes of transportation to link various areas of the community. No impacts would occur with respect to this topic. b) Conflict with any applicable Iand use plan,policy or regulation? NI. The proposed project would comply with a number of goals and policies contained in the Circulation and Scenic Highways and the Community Design and Sustainability Elements of the Dublin General Plan as well as other regional policy planning documents as noted in the Plan. A number of amendments are being proposed to the Dublin General Plan and the Downtown Dublin and Eastern Dublin Specific Plans as noted in the Project description section;however, there would be for the purpose of ensuring consistency between the proposed Plan and the General and Specific Plans. No impacts would occur with respect to this topic. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. The City of Dublin lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City 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 City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 ( new bicycle lanes, painting trucks to restripe roadways, adding bike lanes, remove of damaged sidewalks and replacing sidewalks and similar noises. Any short-term noise would generally be located within a public right-of-way and would blend in with existin g noise generated by enerated b vehicles.Future construction activities would also be limited to normal construction hours by the City of Dublin that would restrict late evening, nighttime or Sunday construction activities. e,f) Be located within an airport land use plan area,within two miles of a public or private airport or airstrip? NI Although portion of Eastern Dublin lie within the Airport Influence Area of Livermore Municipal Airport,no significant noise contours from the airport extend north of the I-580 freeway no impact would result with respect to this topic (source: Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2012). 13. Population and Housing Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?NI. The project would include a number of pedestrian and bicycle improvements within the City of Dublin that would be facilitated by the Plan. No structures would be built or other facilities constructed that could induce population growth within Dublin, either directly or indirectly. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people?All construction work that could be facilitated under the Plan would occur within public rights-of-way or currently vacant land. No existing housing or populations would be displaced as a result of approving and implementing the proposed project. No impacts would occur with respect to this topic. 14. Public Services Environmental Impacts a) Fire protection?LS.Pedestrian and bicycle improvements that could be constructed under the auspices of the Plan would primarily be installed within public rights- of-way and would not result in new fire hazards or increase the number of calls for service for fire service. While proposed non-automotive transportation improvements could change existing circulation routes and add bicyclists and pedestrians to local roadways, such changes would not substantially impair emergency access. The Dublin Fire Department staff states that installation of certain traffic calming features noted in the Plan could increase the response times for emergency vehicles. Installation of these improvements will require Fire Department approval prior to installation. However, no new or expanded Fire Department facilities would be required to serve the proposed project, (Bonnie Terra, Alameda County City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 • 15. Transportation/Traffic 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? NI. The Plan does not indude any recommended components that would generate permanent vehicle trips or increase existing volumes of motorized vehicles on local roads, regional roads or CMA-designated roads. Instead, approval and implementation of the Plan would improve the City's non-automotive transportation infrastructure, enhance pedestrian safety and encourage both walking and bicycling as alternative modes of local transportation. Use of automobile traffic could be slightly reduced as individuals may choose alternative modes of transportation constructed pursuant to the Plan. No impacts are anticipated with respect to increasing motorized traffic volumes on local,regional and CMA designated roadways. c) Result in a change of air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves consideration of a Plan to guide future pedestrian and bicycle improvements within the community and no changes to air traffic patterns would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use?NI.Based on y g f p discussions with the City of Dublin Public Works Department, the design of future transportation improvements that could be facilitated under the Plan will be consistent with City of Dublin public works and engineering design standards and standards contained in the Plan to ensure that no impact would occur with respect to any design hazard. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. Proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements that could be constructed under the auspices of the Plan would generally occur within public rights-of-way and would not require emergency access. No impacts would occur with respect to this topic. f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs supporting alternative transportation modes? NI. As documented in the text of the Plan, the Plan would be consistent with a number of local and regional plans to improve and enhance non- automotive transportation modes,including the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element of the Dublin General Plan and others. Therefore,no impact would occur with respect to this topic. City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 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. City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan June 2014 July,2014 City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Project Response to Environmental Comments Introduction The City of Dublin issued a Negative Declaration for this project on June 16, 2014, to ensure California Environmental Quality Act compliance. The proposed Master Plan would update and replace the City's existing Bikeways Master Plan adopted in 2007. The proposed project also includes a number of amendments to the City of Dublin General Plan and several Specific Plan documents to ensure consistency between the proposed Master Plan and these various documents. The project includes the entire City of Dublin located within Alameda County. The Negative Declaration was published and circulated for a 30-day review. Three comment letters were received: • Comment 1: Leonia Meima • Comment 2: Kristi Marleau • Comment 3: Dublin Unified School District Following is a response to these comments. Letter 1: Leonia Memia Comment 1.1: What can be done to work with Pleasanton and Caltrans to provide bicycle lanes over the I-580 freeway interchanges at Hacienda Drive and at Tassajara Road? Response:Bicycle lanes over the I-580 freeway interchanges at Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road are included in the Plan as proposed bicycle improvements. To move forward with 1-580 bikeways recommended in the bicycle plan, close coordination between the City of Dublin and the City of Pleasanton will be necessary to create a successful project that meets the needs of both jurisdictions. Having that strong working relationship will likely also help in securing grant funding and implementing the project, as it demonstrates support from both agencies. The two cities could jointly apply for competitive grant funding to implement the project. ATTACHMENT 5 page 2 The other critical piece for coordination is with Caltrans. Reaching out to Caltrans staff members who are very involved with bicycle and pedestrian issues will be a key first step. This will help alert them to the process and help clarify needs and expectations from Caltrans' end. Comment 1.2: The commenter asks what can be done to shift the priority status of bike lanes on the two overpasses. Response: Efforts to fund, develop and implement the I-580 bikeways will require collaboration between the City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton and Caltrans. Initially the three agencies could jointly apply for funding to conduct a bikeway feasibility study, and based on the results of the study, apply for competitive grant funding to implement the recommended bikeway projects. Comment 1.3: What can be done to get Caltrans to prioritize bike lane development on the overpass? Response: See response to Comment 1.2 Letter 2: Kristi Marleau Comment: The commenter is pleased to see the Plan nearing approval stage. The commenter would like to see bicycle lanes on Dublin Boulevard,but this may need to wait until a future master plan update. The commenter would like to see more progress made on bicycle lane striping and a safer downtown. Response: These comments are noted. Letter 3: Dublin Unified School District Comment 3.1: The commenter agrees with the Initial Study, that the proposed project would not generate a change in local school enrollrrient but there could be potential impacts to student attending schools in the vicinity of pedestrian and bicycle improvements. The commenter requests that during construction of future improvements, consideration be given to campus scheduled to minimize potential disruption to bicycle and pedestrian patterns and vehicle transportation patterns at during peak drop-off periods during the school year. Response: This comment is noted. The City of Dublin Public Works Department will coordinate with the School District and affected school(s) to avoid or minimize potential disruption during construction of projects. Comment 3.2: The commenter respectfully requests that the DUSD be added to the City's list of organizations contacted in the course of similar studies in the future to add another layer of potentially new or more significant impacts to students and school sites not otherwise anticipated. page 3 Response: This comment is noted. The Dublin Unified School District is already included on the City of Dublin's contact list to receive all CEQA environmental documents. page 4 ND Comment Letters From: Andrew Russell <Andrew.Russell @dublin.ca.gov> Subject: FW: Bike Paths Date: July 1, 2014 12:09:20 PM PDT To: Ferd Del Rosario <Ferd.delrosario @dublin.ca.gov>, Obaid Khan <Obaid.Khan@dublin.ca.gov> Cc: Gary Huisingh <Gary.Huisingh @dublin.ca.gov> FYI. Comment 1 From; Leonle Meima [mailto:Imeima @me.com] Sent: Tuesday,July 01, 2014 10:22 AM To: Andrew Russell Cc: Tim Sbrantl; Timat timsbrantidotcom; Chris Foss; Linda Smith; Gary Hulsingh Subject: Re: Bike Paths Andrew, Thank you for this summary. I'm very happy to see the potential for buffered bicycle lanes throughout the city,and plans for bike paths over the two overpasses. Unfortunately however, it seems that the top priority projects are those which are already reasonably manageable, i.e. lower cycle risk areas. I do shop at Sprouts,and the biggest challenge getting to and from Sprouts on bicycle is navigating Dublin Blvd, and the narrow to non-existent bike lanes on portions of that street combined with the relatively high rate of speed of motorized vehicles along Dublin Blvd. Amador Plaza Road is easy, and not a problem at all;that said I am in favor of creating official bike paths and landscaped medians along that road. Crossing the overpasses however, is extremely high risk due to the much higher speed of motorized vehicular traffic on those routes, and the lack of bike lanes. My questions are as follows: • If the City of Pleasanton, in coordination with CalTrans, is responsible for these overpasses, what can be done to motivate these two entities to begin work on overpass bike paths? • What can be done to shift the priority status of bike lanes on the two overpasses? • What can we do to get CalTrans to prioritize bike lane development on the overpasses? I recall seeing an older bike lane plan, and I believe the overpass bike lanes have been in the plans for over a decade now, which is concerning. I will study the plans you provided in greater detail, and provide specific feedback at a later date, Best regards, Leonie Meima From: Kristi Marleau <kmarleau @gmail.com> Subject: Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Date: July 10, 2014 11 :40:54 AM PDT Comment 2 I i To: Ferd Del Rosario <Ferd.delrosario @dublin.ca.gov> Hello Ferd, I hope you are doing well. I am very happy to see the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan nearing the approval stage. A few thoughts for you: Of course I would love to see protected bike lanes on Dublin Blvd, but that's a dream I'll hold on to for the next plan update. I am very excited about the implementation plan that has a lot of the striping projects for other streets downtown scheduled for FY14-15..I hope that staff will push for that plan to be followed rather than the very unambitious benchmark of .5mi/year. I would love to see a safer downtown this year. I also think that the city should adopt the NACTO design guide for these projects. Thanks to all the staff and consultants for the hard work of putting this plan together. Kristi Marleau ��p SCJ�O '- �, a� DUBLIN, SCHOOLS .2 49 � DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT IUBL1[d�. 7471 Larkdale Avenue, Dublin, CA 94568-1599.925-828-2551•FAX 925-479-0689 All Dublin Students Will July 14,2014 Become Lifelong Learners Ferd Del Rosario SUPERINTENDENT Senior Civil Engineer Stephen Hanks,Ed.D. City of Dublin Comment 3 (925)828-2551 y Public Works Department BOARD OF TRUSTEES 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 Sean Kenney President Re: Bicycle&Pedestrian Master Plan (650)465-9851 y Initial Study/Negative Declaration Amy Miller Vice-President Dear Mr. Del Rosario, (925)577-5866 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Megan Rouse (925)785-7862 the City of Dublin Bicycle&Pedestrian Master Plan. • Dan Cunningham District staff has reviewed the document and respectfully submits the following (925)640-8330 comments in response to the Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Greg Tomlinson 1. In Section 14. "Public Services",Item c. "Schools", the document notes, "There would be no impact to the Dublin Unified School District, since no dwellings would be constructed that generate school-aged children."While it is recognized the project will not generate a change in enrollment in the District, there could be potential impacts to students attending schools in the vicinity of proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements. While it is understood one of the project goals upon completion is to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety,we ask that during construction, consideration be given to campus schedules to minimize potential disruption to student pedestrian/bicycle patterns and vehicle transportation/circulation at the sites during peak drop off and pick up times throughout the school year. 2. Additionally,the District respectfully requests our agency be added to the city's list of agencies and organizations contacted in the course of similar studies in the future, to add another layer of review for potentially new or significant impacts to our students and school sites not otherwise anticipated. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on the document. Sincerely, fitalUir, Patricia Benavidez Facilities Planner