The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReso 164-15 Jordan Ranch Subarea e Neg Dec RESOLUTION NO. 164-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE JORDAN RANCH/SUBAREA 3/WALLIS RANCH PROJECT (PLPA 2015-00045, 2015-00046 and 2015-00047) WHEREAS, the Applicants, Mission Valley Properties, Trumark Homes and Lennar Homes propose revisions to prior approvals on the Jordan Ranch, Wallis Ranch and Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 sites, respectively. The proposed revisions include General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, Planned Development rezonings with amended Stage 1 Development Plans for portions of the Jordan Ranch (re-designating 3.7 acres of an existing Community Park site to Public/Semi-Public for future development of a school and changing an existing Mixed Use land use on 4.6 acres to Medium Density Residential); Subarea 3 (re-designating 10.4 acres from Rural Residential/Agricultural to Park/Public Recreation); and the Wallis Ranch (re-designating a 1.9 gross acre site in the south portion of the property from Semi-Public to Park/Public Recreation) properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning area. The Applicants for Jordan Ranch have also submitted recent applications for Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, vesting tentative maps and a Development Agreement amendment for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7, as follows: Parcel H is the 4.6 acre Mixed Use site proposed for redesignation to Medium Density Residential and is also proposed for development of 45 dwelling units; Neighborhood 7 is a 9.2 acre site proposed for development of 105 dwelling units. The proposed revisions, development and related applications collectively comprise the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project sites are located as follows: Jordan Ranch: East of Fallon Road, north and south of Central Parkway; Subarea 3: South of Central Parkway, north of Dublin Boulevard; Wallis Ranch: West of Tassajara Road, south of City limit line and east of Camp Parks RFTA; and WHEREAS, the Project sites are located in Eastern Dublin, for which the City Council adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and certified a program Environmental Impact Report (hereafter Eastern Dublin EIR) pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines section 15168 (SCH 91103064; City Council Resolution No. 51-93). The Jordan Ranch site was further analyzed in two supplemental EIRs and two CEQA addenda, most recently in 2012. Subarea 3 was further included in a 1997 Negative Declaration and was specifically addressed in a 2014 addendum. Development on Wallis Ranch was further analyzed in a supplemental EIR, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and most recently in a 2014 addendum. These various documents identified many mitigation measures, all of which continue to apply to the Project, as appropriate. The Eastern Dublin EIR, as well as the supplemental EIRs identified significant unavoidable impacts for which the City adopted statements of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study dated August 2015 for the proposed land use changes and Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan consistent with CEQA section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163. While most of the land use changes and Stage 1 Development Plan impacts were addressed in prior CEQA reviews, the Initial Page 1 of 4 Study concluded that additional mitigation was required to avoid potentially significant traffic and transportation impacts beyond those identified in the prior EIRs and other CEQA documents. The additional impacts and mitigations related to the potential for future development of a school on 3.7 acres south of Central Parkway. The school district has not developed or proposed specific site plans for the future school; however, the Applicant prepared a traffic study based on available detail including the identified location and an anticipated 950-student enrollment; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) dated August 4, 2015 which identified mitigations for the future school that were developed by the school district and Jordan Ranch Applicant that would avoid the identified additional impacts where clearly no additional significant effects would occur. The draft MND reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential additional environmental impacts of the Project, including conceptual future development of a school. The MND and supporting Initial Study were circulated for public review from August 7, 2015 through September 8, 2015 and are attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City received several public and agency comments on the MND during the public review period (as well as some late comments). Given the public interest in the project, the City prepared written responses to the public comments that raised environmental issues, although CEQA does not require such responses for an MND. The public comments and written responses are attached as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, after the MND was released for public review, the Jordan Ranch applicants submitted additional applications requesting development project approvals for two sites: Parcel H and Neighborhood 7. Staff carefully reviewed the additional applications to determine if they required the MND to be recirculated for public review under CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. Staff determined that the MND did not need to be recirculated for public review. This is because one of the sites, Parcel H, had been analyzed in 2012 for potential mixed use development of up to 105 dwellings and 5,000 square feet of retail commercial. The current project proposes potential Medium Density Residential development at 45 rather than 105 dwellings and without the retail commercial uses, a substantial reduction from the prior analyzed development. Further, the potential 45 units were assumed in the MND through the Stage 1 Development Plan zoning. The additional applications identified project lotting patterns, internal circulation, architecture and landscaping; however, these additional features do not raise new or affect previously identified significant impacts, mitigation measures, or the findings of the MND. The other site, Neighborhood 7, had also been analyzed in 2012 for potential residential development of up to 100 units under a dual residential/school land use designation allowing future development of either school or residential uses. The additional application now proposes 105 units. Staff determined that the additional 5 lots in Neighborhood 7 would not add a new significant impact or require additional mitigation beyond those identified in the MND and prior CEQA reviews and would not otherwise trigger the recirculation standards under CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5; and WHEREAS, to document the determination that the additional development applications on Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 did not trigger recirculation of the MND, staff prepared an appendix to the MND which is attached as Exhibit C. As documented in the MND and appendix for the currently proposed approvals, other than the impacts identified in the MND, the Project proposals in the additional applications will not result in new, avoidable significant impacts requiring additional mitigation measures beyond those previously adopted and those identified in the MND. Further, all previously adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the development sites unless otherwise specified in the MND. The prior environmental reviews are identified in the MND and are available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, the prior EIRs identified significant unavoidable impacts that could apply to the Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated September 22, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including appendix and comments and responses to comments) and the Project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including appendix, comments and responses to comments) at a noticed public hearing on September 22, 2015 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission, adopted Resolution 15-08 recommending that the City Council not adopt the above-referenced Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated October 6, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including appendix, comments and responses to comments), the Project, and the Planning Commission recommendations for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the staff report, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including appendix, comments and responses to comments), and the Planning Commission recommendations at a noticed public hearing on October 6, 2015 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration includes the above referenced comments and responses to comments, appendix and consists of attached Exhibits A, B and C, and reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (including Exhibits A, B and C) and related project and environmental documents, including the prior Eastern Dublin EIR and all of the prior environmental documents referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration are incorporated herein by reference, and are available for review in the City Planning Division at the Dublin City Hall, during normal business hours. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568, attn: Mike Porto. 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 hereby finds as follows: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration together with the previously certified EIRs and other referenced prior CEQA documents adequately describe the impacts of the Project. 2. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City (including the initial study and comments received) that the Project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment beyond those identified in the MND and prior CEQA documents. 3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis as to the potential environmental effects of the Project. Page 3 of 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to taking action on the Project applications. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration consisting of attached Exhibits A, B and C, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit D, and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit E. PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of October, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Biddle, Hart, Wehrenberg, and Mayor Haubert NOES: Councilmember Gupta ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 4 Mayor ATTES : z tocr City Clerk Reso No. 164-15,Adopted 10-6-15, Item 6.1 Page 4 of 4 r(OF DU RECEIVEC iganfr�� CITY OF DUBLIN 19 emi- =i{i,82 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website: http://www.dublin.ca.gov O,tL�vvR�y1D Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and other actions for various properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area The City of Dublin has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review as follows: PROJECT: Consideration of a General Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Planned Development rezoning and Stage 1 Planned Development amendments for portions of the Jordan Ranch (re-designating an existing Community Park site to a joint School/Park site and changing an existing Mixed Use land use to Medium Density Residential); Subarea 3(re-designating 10.75 acres from Rural Residential/Agricultural to Park/Public Recreation); and the Wallis Ranch (re- designating a 1.9 acre site in the south portion of the property from Semi-Public to Park land)properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning area. LOCATIONS: Jordan Ranch:East of Fallon Road,north and south of Central Parkway. Subarea 3: South of Central Parkway,north of Dublin Boulevard. Wallis Ranch: West of Tassajara Road,south of City limit line and east of Camp Parks RFTA. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANTICIPATED: Traffic,pedestrian and bicycle safety. APPLICANTS: City of Dublin Lennar Homes BJP ROF Jordan Ranch LLC 100 Civic Plaza 6111 Bollinger Canyon,#550 c/o Mission Valley Properties Dublin CA 94568 San Ramon,CA 94583 5000 Hopyard Road, Ste. 170 Pleasanton,CA 94588 COMMENT PERIOD: The comment period begins on August 7, 2015. The close of comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration is 5:00 pm,September 8,2015. Comments should be forwarded to: City of Dublin—Community Development Department Attn:Michael Porto 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 For further information contact Michael Porto,Project Planner, at the City of Dublin Community Development Department at(925) 833 6610. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and referenced documents will be available at City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza,Dublin,CA [note:per 15072(g)(4)] during business hours. Luke Sims,AICP Community Development Director Dated: August 3,2015 Published: August 7,2015 • Area Code(925)•City Manager 833-6650•City Council 833-6650•Personnel 833-6605•Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640•Public Works/Engineering 833-6630•Parks&Community Services 833-6645 Police 833-6670 Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 Building Inspection 833-6620 Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 Initial Study! Mitigated Negative Declaration Project: General Plan Amendment/EDSP Amendment for Jordan Ranch Subarea 3 Wallis Ranch Lead Agency: City of Dublin August 2015 ��. R� �� .�� . ;_ :. �.� z. �. �..,,�,....�� } Table of Contents Introduction 2 Prior Environmental Impact Reviews 2 Applicant/Contact Persons 7 Project Description 7 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 24 Determination 24 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 26 Environmental Impacts 27 Earlier Analyses/Incorporation by Reference 37 Discussion of Checklist 39 1.Aestheti cs 39 2. Agricultural & Forestry Resources 43 3. Air Quality 44 4.Biological Resources 54 - 5. Cultural Resources 60 6. Geology and Soils 63 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 66 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 67 9.Hydrology and Water Quality 72 10. Land Use and Planning 76 11. Mineral Resources 77 12. Noise 78 13. Population and Housing 87 14. Public Services 88 15. Recreation 90 16. Transportation/Traffic 93 17. Utilities and Service Systems 106 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance 109 Initial Study Preparers 110 Agencies and Organizations Consulted 110 References 111 Attachment 1-Traffic Analysis/Supplemental Memo 112 INITIAL STUDY Eastern Dublin Planning Area-Jordan Ranch, Wallis Ranch & Subarea 3 Properties City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA", Pub. Res. Code §§21000 et seq.,) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, §§ 15000-15387). This Initial Study analyzes whether any further environmental review is required for portions of three properties located in the Eastern Dublin Planning area under the standards of Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163.Development of the three properties has been previously analyzed in one environmental impact report, three supplemental environmental impact reports and a number of Addendum s to these documents. These are fully described below in this Initial Study. This Initial Study analyzes whether additional minor changes to the development program for the Jordan Ranch property, Subarea 3 property and the Wallis Ranch property would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those analyzed in these prior CEQA documents or whether any other of the other standards requiring further environmental review under CEQA are met. This Initial Study assesses program changes and development-level activities to implement that program through a General Plan Amendment, an Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 rezoning and other related entitlements for the three Subareas. Prior Environmental Impact Review Documents This Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist.A considerable amount of CEQA work has been done already for future development in Eastern Dublin, including the project Subareas. These are identified below. Eastern Dublin EIR (all Subareas) A program-level EIR was certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 that includes all of three properties that are the subject of this document. Certified through Resolution No. 51-93 by the City of Dublin in 1993, for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064). This document will be referred to as the "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR"in this Initial Study. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the following impacts: 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. As part of the City's approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan through Resolution No. 53-93, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations 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 visual. The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate. The City Council also certified an Addendum dated May 4, 1993 which assessed the modifications to the Reduced Planning Area alternative and concluded that this alternative "will have no environmental impacts not addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan." (May 4, 1993 Addendum,p. 1.) The Addendum further concluded that no subsequent or supplemental EIR was required under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or 15163 for approval of the modified alternative. A second Addendum was later prepared, dated August 22, 1994. The second Addendum updated plans for providing sewer services to Eastern Dublin. The May 10, 1993 certified EIR, the May 4, 1993 Addendum and the August 22, 1994 Addendum are collectively referred to hereafter as the Eastern Dublin EIR, or the "EDEIR" and are incorporated herein by reference into this Initial Study. These documents are available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Eastern Dublin Property Owner Supplemental EIR (Tordan Ranch Subarea).In 2001,the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) requested annexation, pre-zoning and related approvals for a 1,120 acre Project Area,including the Jordan Ranch Property.The Project Area was within the development area previously approved by_the City in 1993; and was within the scope of the project/program analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. In response to EDPO and consistent with the City's practice for projects in Eastern Dublin, in 2001 the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the annexation and pre-zoning requests would require additional environmental review beyond that set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. That 2001 Initial Study disclosed that many of the anticipated impacts of the proposed annexation and pre-zoning were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.This was predictable given the comprehensive planning for the development area;the Eastern Dublin EIR's analysis of buildout under the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations and policies;the long term 20-30 year focus of the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Eastern Dublin EIR analyses; the fact that annexation and pre-zoning actions were specifically contemplated in the Eastern Dublin EIR; and the fact that the annexation request proposed the same land uses analyzed for the Project Area in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Although the 2001 Initial Study concluded that the Eastern Dublin EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed annexation and rezoning, it also identified the potential for some new significant impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City determined that the potential new and/or substantially intensified impacts required review at an EIR level and concluded that a Supplemental EIR should be prepared. So,in 2001 and 2002, the Eastern Dublin EIR was updated and supplemented by the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114). That Supplemental EIR, referred to in this Initial Study as the "2002 SEIR,"provided updated analyses of agricultural resources, biology, air quality, noise, traffic and circulation, schools, and utilities. In certifying the 2002 SEIR and approving the prezoning, the City Council, through Resolution No.40-02, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for cumulative air quality and cumulative traffic impacts. The 2002 SEIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate. In 2005, a second Supplemental EIR(identified as the "2005 Supplement" or "2005 SEW" in this Initial Study) was prepared and certified by the City of Dublin for the Fallon Village project, which included the same properties as the 2002 SEIR(see City Council Resolution No. 222-05). The second SEIR addressed new and detailed information for the proposed development areas, as well as several changes in circumstances since the prior EIRs which could have affected the impacts and/or mitigations previously identified for the Fallon Village Project.Such changes in the previously analyzed project and circumstances included, but were not limited to: 1) continued development in the Tri-Valley area and beyond with potential changes in commute patterns and traffic intensities, which also may affect air quality and noise within or on the Project area;2) changes in the provision and distribution of some public services (schools) and public utilities (water, wastewater, and storm drainage), 3) changes in circulation patterns on the Fallon Village site;4) completion of a Resource Management Plan (RMP)for biological and cultural resources on the Fallon Village site and additional site-specific biological and cultural resources studies which did not previously exist;5) changes in the development density and intensity in the Fallon Village Project area that may increase impacts over those previously reviewed; and 6) submittal of Stage 2 Development Plans, subdivision maps and other permit applications containing detailed development plans for the northern portion of Fallon Village known as Positano not previously reviewed at a project level. Unlike the Eastern Dublin FIR and the 2002 SEIR, the 2005 Supplemental EIR was a combination Program-level document and a Project-level document. The program-level portion of 2005 SEIR focused on the new or substantially increased significant impacts of potential future development pursuant to a proposed General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Stage 1 Development Plan amendments for the entire 1,138-acre project area, including the Jordan Ranch Project site. Additionally, the 2005 Supplemental EIR reviewed proposed individual development projects for the northern City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 portion of the area, the environmental impacts they would generate, and the avoidance and mitigation measures they would employ at a project-level. The Jordan Ranch property was analyzed at a program level in this document. However, it was intended to be used as the environmental review for the approval of future project level entitlements (such as the Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and SDR) unless the standards under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 were met. In 2010, the Dublin City Council approved a Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (SDR), a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Agreement on the Jordan Ranch property. An Addendum to the Eastern Dublin and other applicable Supplemental EIRs was also certified by the City Council (City Council Resolution No. 80-10, adopted on June 2, 2010).This action allowed a minor redistribution of uses on the site as well as a minor change to the land use program. Under the 2010 approvals, a mix of 780 dwelling units, up to 12,000 square feet of commercial uses, a range of public parks, public and semi- public uses, open spaces and roadways were approved. A second Addendum was approved by the City of Dublin in June 2012 for certain portions of the Jordan property (City Council Resolution No. 91-12, adopted June 5, 2012). The project included an amendment to the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that approved a "School" land use designation on 10.1 acres on the eastern side of the Jordan Ranch. The school was programmed to accommodate approximately 500 students plus staff. At the same time, an underlying land use designation of Medium Density Residential land uses to allow development of approximately 100 units in keeping with the mid-point of the density range if the School was not constructed was also approved. The previously designated Semi-Public and Medium High Density Residential land uses south of the School site were replaced with a Medium Density Residential land use designation with an underlying Semi- Public land use designation to allow for the potential expansion of the school site if additional acreage was needed. Finally, previous 4.5-acre Open Space land use designation was replaced with a Mixed-Use designation that would have contained up to 5,000 square feet of retail and non-residential uses and up to 115 residences. Subarea 3 Subarea. In 2014, the City of Dublin approved an Addendum to the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR (City Council Resolution No. 17-14, dated May 20, 2014) and amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to develop portions of the 64-acre Subarea 3 site located in the Eastern Dublin portion of the City of Dublin. The Development Plan includes construction of up to 437 dwellings at various densities and product types, internal roadways, open spaces and other related improvements. This action also changed an existing Open Space land use designation to Rural Residential/Agriculture for a portion of the site. • Previously, in 1997, a Negative Declaration was prepared for multiple properties in the Eastern Dublin area, including Planning Area A (approximately 363 acres of land) and Areas B-E (approximately 468.5 acres of land), all located north of City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 J the I-580 Freeway, east of Tassajara Road and west of Fallon Road. This will be referred to as the "1997 ND," approved by the City Council on June 17, 1997,by City Council Resolution No. 140-97. This CEQA document analyzed amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, proposed Planned Development rezoning to ensure consistency between City zoning an the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The 1997 ND included the approximately 64 acres of land in Sub Area 3 of Planning Area B, which is the subject of this analysis. Wallis Ranch Subarea. In 2004, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City of Dublin for the Dublin Ranch West property, also known as the Wallis Ranch or Wallis Property. The Dublin Ranch West SEIR was certified by the City Council on March 15, 2005,by City Council Resolution No. 42-05. This CEQA document analyzed annexation of the property to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District(DSRSD), amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a Planned Development prezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan. Following certification of the SEIR, the City of Dublin subsequently approved a PD rezoning with related Stage 2 Development Plan for the site, a Site Development Review (SDR) permit, a vesting tentative subdivision map and a Development Agreement. The SEIR analyzed traffic and transportation and other impacts of constructing 1,034 dwellings on the site, although the City ultimately approved 935 dwellings. This SEIR 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. In 2007, the City of Dublin approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) to analyze improvements within approximately 11.6 acres of land located immediately north of the Wallis Ranch property that was the subject of the 2005 SEIR. This property is under the same ownership as the Wallis Ranch,but is located in the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County rather than within Dublin and Alameda County. The analyzed the proposed placement of an Emergency Vehicle Assess (EVA), a herpetological barrier and a bioswale within this area. The MND was adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 18-07 on February 20, 2007. Proposed land use approvals included an amended Stage 1 Development Plan for Dublin Ranch West as well as a Vesting Master and Tentative Maps, Site Development Review and Development Agreement. An Addendum (City Council Resolution No. 17-14, dated May 20,2014) to the Dublin Ranch West SEIR was prepared by the City of Dublin in 2014. The Addendum analyzed a proposal to reduce the total number of dwellings on the Wallis Ranch property than previously approved by the City. The project, approved by the City in 2014 as well as the CEQA Addendum, reduced the total City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 buildout of the site from 935 to 806 dwellings,included a 3.0 acre private park not induded in the previous approval and slightly relocated the alignment of on- site roadways. The Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR, 2005 SEIR, 1997 ND and various EIR, MND and Addendum documents referenced above are collectively referred to in this Initial Study as "prior CEQA documents." This Initial Study has been prepared to address the most recently requested land use entitlements for the three Subareas as described more fully below. This Initial Study further examines whether additional environmental review is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or 15163.The resolutions, ordinances and prior CEQA documents referenced above are incorporated by reference, and are all available for review by the public during normal business hours at the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, 94568. Applicant/Contact Persons Jordan Ranch Mission Valley Properties Attn: Mr. Kevin Fryer 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: (925) 467 9900 Wallis Ranch Trumark Homes 4185 Blackhawk Circle Road, Suite 200 Danville, CA 94506 Christopher Davenport Phone: 925-309-2503 Sub Area 3 Lennar Homes 6111 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 550 San Ramon, CA 94583 Michael Snoberger Phone: 925-327-8306 Project Description Project location and context. The project includes proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for three Subareas in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. Exhibit 1 shows the regional location of Dublin within the larger Bay Area. Exhibit 2 shows the location of the three Subareas comprising the project site. These City of Dublin Page 7 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 . three subareas are described below. Collectively, these three subareas constitute the "project" which is the subject of this Initial Study. • Jordan Ranch subarea. The 189-acre Jordan Ranch is located east of Fallon Road and north and south of Central Parkway. Two portions of the overall Jordan Ranch are included in the project, as follows. Exhibit 3 shows the location of the Jordan Ranch Subarea. a) One portion consists of 11.1 acres of land located on the south side of Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive, currently designated as a "Community Park." The proposed land use designation would be to a"Park/School" designation that would allow development of a combination elementary and middle school by the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). The school is anticipated to accommodate approximately 950 students with joint park facilities on the site. Assuming this project is approved, the existing portion of the Jordan Ranch designated for a future "School," located on the eastern side of the Jordan Ranch, would be developed consistent with it's underlying General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14 du/ac). This would allow between 68 and 154 dwellings could be accommodated on the site.Up to 112 dwellings are proposed on the former School site if the project is approved. b) The second portion of the Jordan Ranch Subarea would include replacing an existing 4.6-acre "Mixed Use" land use designation that would currently allow up to 115 residential units and up to 5,000 square feet of retail commercial uses with a "Medium Density Residential (6.1—14.0 du/ac.)" land use designation that would allow development of between 28 and 64 dwellings. Up to 45 dwellings are proposed on this site. The two portions of Jordan Ranch Subarea are vacant and were used for cattle grazing, but have been graded as part of the larger, approved Jordan Ranch project.Surrounding land uses include Dublin Sports Park,being developed on the west side of Fallon Road, west of the project site, single family residences in the Positano community to the north and generally vacant lands to the east and south.Proposed General Plan and EDSP Amendments included in this project indude: • Subarea 3. The 64-acre Subarea 3 is located south of Central Parkway, west of Fallon Road and north of Dublin Boulevard. Lockhart Street forms the western boundary of the site. Exhibit 4 shows the location of this Subarea, The project includes changing the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation from "Rural Residential/Agriculture" to "Parks/Public Recreation" for 10.75 acres of the overall property. This area is generally located City of Dublin Page 8 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 in the south-central portion of the site,is vacant and is characterized by moderate to steep slopes. Land to the west of Subarea 3, west of Lockhart Street, has been developed for attached dwelling units or is vacant. Land north of Subarea 3 is currently vacant and is planned for a future expansion of Fallon Sports Park. Property east of the Subarea is vacant. Land use south of Subarea 3 includes a combination of commercial uses (Fallon Gateway Center) and vacant land. • Wallis Ranch. The Wallis Ranch consists of 184.1 acres of land located in northern portion of Dublin generally bounded by the Alameda/Contra Costa line to the north, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA) to the west, Tassajara Road to the east and the Tassajara Creek to the south. The approved Wallis includes approximately 1.9 acres of land that is designed for Semi Public uses in the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project includes amendments to both of these documents to change the designation from Semi Public to "Parks/Public Recreation" use. Exhibit 5 shows the location of the Wallis Ranch Subarea. The sites on the Wallis Ranch property are currently vacant. Project Characteristics Overview. Amendments have been requested to both the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change land use designations for three areas of the Eastern Dublin Planning area. The proposed changes are described by the subareas described in the previous section. • Jordan Ranch subarea. Proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use changes to the two portions of the overall Jordan Ranch property are shown on Exhibit 6. The City of Dublin and the Dublin Unified School District have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) whereby the proposed Elementary School on the Jordan Ranch property would be relocated to another portion of the property. The existing 10.1-acre "School" site located in the approximate center of the overall Jordan Ranch would be developed as "Medium Density Residential," consistent with the site's underlying General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation. This portion of the Subarea would have a development capacity of between 68 and 154 dwellings. Up to 112 dwellings are currently proposed on this site. The first portion of the Jordan Ranch Subarea consists of 11.1 acres of land located on the south side of Central Parkway designated as a "Community Park." The proposed land use designation for this site is proposed to be a combined "School/Park/Public Recreation" to facilitate the development of a City of Dublin Page 9 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 combination elementary school and middle school with a maximum enrollment of up to 950 students and associated faculty. There would be some joint use of the site as a City park. Previous CEQA analyses conducted by the City assumed development of a 500-student school within the Jordan Ranch property. The second portion of the Jordan Ranch affected by this application includes 4.6 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Central Parkway and Fallon Road. This property is currently designated for"Mixed Use." The proposed change is from "Mixed Use" that would allow development of up 115 residential units and up to 5,000 square feet of retail commercial space to "Medium Density Residential (6.1 —14.0 du/ac)" that would permit development of up to 45 dwellings. Table 1 shows approved and proposed land use designations on the Jordan Ranch property. City of Dublin Page 10 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 H C.2 o� ;••1 VI N v ^� N N to �-+ cis 3 N I ri I o0• • I. cc; rn a r- If) • .-a w tt) In ■-t In • �I o0 :a r.. ,- 1 _ v N O 3 • ° al 4-. cn O Z . o o) �\ U n '� cn c Q r�l (PO ..Z O w o m F ~ N N w L h U s, _ E a o a "t cn.4 cn y N ri c+) `p i Uo N e-.1 ',di o C c O a o O - m 0 U m 1 3 0 bA C4 + +' il I I I I I co to" 12 to > cn o o, ..... 0 tl) CU 0 A to co O co p U cu 0 N N O U a [i� cn y N o c� `p r--� r-' c0 N ,--1 'a', ro r4. m ,I C v co rN-1 d O� In N CS c . CO N (7 Q' H o *- O O 'y I- 04 F P-4 0 co m o F' O CJ 1 C� �+ i I i 1 1 1 1O m a? y h• Z •' N in \cp N N ■'� o . aI cc + o y ca Q r1 m ' oC Li. E W a ° p a W N r o ' p y Z11 i 2) cn Z nn 7 y O CJ N N o0 ri r i o0 N O N o o c �i o '-4 '-' O cV a\ Icj o r- • `n w 4 to C ° a) .� cd i-i v In N r-i r-1 r I N in co C p -a o . a1 Ey Q 0 � N oa y� *- N a j- � mo • O O C la U)0 . b ti O 0.0 -0 0 N C C) cn al y 1-a o a k d O bA •.0 OLn ¢, Q" a0i 0 h Z a a)cn O � p y co In 00 .--i 0 a N -1 O 'C� In o ri + c) , i i i i i CO C 'oa 3 0 0 CL F'j- N N N cn O `o ° y E cn 0 " ,4-3 11 C Q �i o'E ; cn U c, ❑ • .Yi NU�� b� C E , 0 .. � .O .O :iui;ii .nom ca 0- '*= • Subarea 3. The 64-acre Subarea 3 is located south of Central Parkway, west of Fallon Road and north of Dublin Boulevard. Lockhart Street forms the western boundary of the site. The project includes changing the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land Use designation from "Rural Residential/Agriculture" to "Parks/Public Recreation" for 10.75 acres of the overall property. This area is generally located in the south-central portion of the site, is vacant and is characterized by moderate to steep slopes. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed General Plan and EDSP designations for this subarea. The proposed park is intended as a primarily passive open space feature and minimal activity is anticipated to occur on this portion of the site. • Wallis Ranch Subarea. The existing Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the Wallis Ranch property includes approximately 1.9 acres of land that is designated for"Semi Public" uses that would allow a range of uses including but not limited to day care centers, youth centers, senior centers and similar uses. The project includes amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the designation from "Semi Public" to "Park/Public Recreation" use.The proposed General Plan and EDSP Amendment is shown on Exhibit 8. PD Rezoning and Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan. Stage 1 Development Plan amendments are proposed for all of the areas affected by this application. Stage 2 Rezoning and Site Development Reviews (SDR) will need to be approved by the City of Dublin in the future to allow future development on each of the properties affected by this application. Building Designs. Future building designs will be subject to SDR approval by the City of Dublin. Access, Circulation and Parking. Access to and from each of the various properties comprising the project would not change from existing patterns. It is anticipated that the School proposed on the Jordan property would take primary access at the signalized Central Parkway/Sunset View Drive intersection. Utility Services: Utility services to support proposed land uses would be supplied by Dublin San Ramon Services District(DSRSD). DSRSD is currently providing domestic water, recycled water and sanitary sewer service to the larger Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch properties. Water Quality Protection. The future improvements on each of the various subareas comprising the project area will be to be subject to Best Management Practices to support water quality standards as enforced by the City of Dublin. This may indude but will not be limited to construction of vegetated bio-swales,bio-retention basins and similar facilities. Water quality improvements will be required to be approved by the City of Dublin prior to issuance of any building permits. City of Dublin Page 12 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 T Project Grading. A majority of the Subareas have been rough graded as part of adjoining, approved development projects. Additional fine grading would occur on most of the Subareas to accommodate future improvements. An exception would include 10.75 acres of Subarea 3, which has been rough graded,but which is proposed to remain as a natural park area. Development Agreements. The City of Dublin has entered into Development Agreements with the owners of three properties included in the application. Amendments may be required to some or all of these Development Agreements. Amendments to the terms of the Development Agreement(s) are not anticipated to result in any significant environmental impacts beyond those caused by the implementation of the project analyzed in this Initial Study. Requested land use entitlements. The following land use entitlements have been requested to allow implementation of the proposed Project: • General Plan Amendment (GPA) to modify land uses as described above; • Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment(EDSPA) to modify land uses as described above; • Planned Development rezoning with Stage 1 Development Plan amendments for consistency with the GPA/EDSPA; • Amendments to current Development Agreement(s), where applicable City of Dublin Page 13 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties _ August 2015 1 'S G Anfioch mss_ a „ San -„. ,�. m , Oakian. Francisco ,. Dublin. San 7;;' Pacific Ocean Francisco `!, 80 Tracy Bay I Livermore aao O 1 ■ t. jethiri �i i V NIP , IN San Jose 0 " 10 Miles i i 1 I ` 0 101 Detail Santa California_ Cruz a _ "A ,I _AI*I�I�MUy.IMtiYI I-.k.u�yJ i EXHIBIT 1 4 REGIONAL LOCATION N O R T H NTS GPA& SPA MAcKAY&SomPS VICINITY MAP 1 MAY 2015 WALLIS ;�-- RANCH' ye °`� casoOtr —V \ ,�y b s. t 1. g l h gs JORDAN DUBLIN RANCH d PQSRANO PARKWA' g 0� 2 s WY 6 s o DPI F,� i o ) DW r �AL CENTRAL�� Y. / �� PARKWA 80. PARKWAY DUALLY /I \ 1.580 — --------------- 71,,,,, g 4t°� - ,. ! EXHIBIT 2 EASTERN DUBLIN NORTH NTS General Plan Amendment mAc� V icll\ll &comps MAY 2015 ln MAP 05-19-2015 4:30pm Amanda Karchef ski P:\19728\PLN\EXH—P\EASTERN DUBLIN PROPERTIES EXHIBIT_20150519.DWG .r � I j i re, i �E , _,.,1 ..., .�",••5 s ..4 `}`tr • a.. 'a k'rr rr "�' 6„01 e ,1. � �3,, : � ..r �4.r�' �, y ,^; :. &fit ' y,. r r.?}• �� s ":u ', i 1,- «>? -3Ta .• � -*-,' .r'3`Y �` `T ' _ - 7 {x ,„,� W' T F y E.i1,F' . 3 f t w ,�.,.. .i �r,.P:35. ..� ..,.*,--..,•r: 4 i. " ? s .. 1 _ r'I ,r' ' NEIGHBORHOOD '' ' '" '•-��~ . .c g „ .i .'� .,'�� -r : _� r':�;r� : ,�7°i ry PARK _'a i A �_ -. -4.,:s. !rm f'ta` •,y '�.c -.c3�.aW4 -'x� �I��.tha s,.�•s�,.n t5 , o"-� k .°� 4 .> ,� -•44,, 1, f a_=, i - - .vr'"JORDAN RANCH SUB AREAS' ra six` ,a _ : k''T:.', +. t "iirosr'h .. ` itt ,, -7:7:— .A 70'51 ✓ F ' rr. , 4 'LS _ '2^.,r1. „. i `Ti� , G .4,4• . ." *�3= r��`^'., i�Yi y��-��'„, ✓. Q 4,... E F �I - EFL 1 t <.:' ^w,x ,j `��h/ , q” +�i• -a T :' SPORTS PARK ' N i T 4 a r' "'f '` .$ 44157 t qty- .`t' ,t� � /1 , 140-i,7,(BYRTLIA.,R T,',- n i..'1 I. �C :?-1. -/..6 � t r� h`� L yl r, ;Ili' '1 "�..'' �N` .y.� 5: L: / i 4eAtit *,� �a^�',y 3". f �{4. - ( :4.: r.�. _�a '. r $".-A *tea+ e f.,:r" r-E%7 '.,, F yi `^ 1.�, a._-T. ,_ :.r 3��F� ; s.� •a•�' 'y' r if � ., z.-wad °[ y,��i1 ;� u,,R � � lr,� 4" �, ��: �i 1 � �f 1 +,s, ;3 OPENSPACE. : a F)_ I il'i I.I. i. ' t .., -! .49'..‘,- -d �f r cxZ. ! if 11f '}{t aq,! t[i 2 r<g� �g.fiw .. t eeo �t 1 f 1 €E 6ty 1i/,„/".....� ' n E 'r kA - d .' d iVary LSv.y T' ' `\( r 11�r�.-,{j(' a E sC'. °�j.117• x o®..47 ca 4.44.431*.! 1 ' A ti FWyf' ' '-�? ,.i'� �.tShas"! -.'(�pi'ti '.3V�� F . ,vin `° 7 , i r, Aim_, C x r1.a .+o�1 r KM t ir. ., :n,:.,OPEN SPACE i �''' '...`.LZ y U, Y ` SQUARE rk f t. 6 EXHIBIT 3 • JORDAN RANCH NORTH NTS GPA & SPA mAcKAY&SOmPS SUB AREA LOCATION MAY 2015 • I I ____/-----____/----- 1 1 , ....„ ,•, , , ......_,,,,...? 1 . G,- \ t -IN 7.... \\ LI \\ SUB AREA t....• o \ 10° — I \ \ Woo, 1 I, I _ r� W / W ,\(..) . Q31\' 1 ..<:„.7 __. i ,.....- ., 1 _ _ ....,- 1 1 .___- 1 ______ _____ ______ _ ___ __T ■ i 4 EXHIBIT 4 SUB AREA 3 N O R T H NTS GPA & SPA MACKAYIE 5M. SUB AREA LOCATION I w n.Vta �� MAY 2015 1X01510:z44h24ortPmondaq�gp �F31(}{btQ iN\EYH R9�lP�S�F�Li E f+t9N�R�lI •�10.1DY_ XHIBIT 4_5UB3.DWG k:;F:iS�?1Ct_. P -19726;i1;3i_AITp;!enZi.loSiin5A3 2Ol3j5^i.;!p-19311;R -CN'J�:1EL-29060312-•1�r..AD2007 ...-- ) --- --- I • . _-.. \ \ i ,\ \ I ; f ■ 1 i If ‘ 141111rtiiiis't'.-(\ —,--/ ■_.----41111, \ .. . 7 / , ____ \\• --,,_,. , I WALLIS RANCH SUB AREA - \ , di 1 II 111,1' 7 ' — , 0.1 10! . + I EXHIBIT 5 , WALLIS RANCH NORTH NTS GPA & SPA MACKAY&SNIPS I SUB AREA LOCATION JUNE 2015 06-23-2015 9:07am Amanda Karchetse\1 9604\PLANNING\GPA_EDSPAINITIAL STUDY_EXHIBIT 5.DWG ;-7.:1K9VAZ:,5-'6S-nag:br,e4.--mtv.w..4 ) ..,a,v•.■ ar . ) _ C �. . .,,R•`3X+y-�'y 4}� - -!yam^}`•S L y�� .., i •.:.-... .,. . .:. ,,..-,..., . .: ,.....-,.. ...--....,::•:..-. .... ,...p.k.,_2-4,-,-,. ..;14.7,r ..,,wil,;:,_--,....-km-1, -;..--7.77--7,-,:-A_..=..i.,--,,f.li.:,,,..-,,,,,,A , ',:e.,,,::„,•,..',:-.--!....t.1-,,-,149.:. gam. , ,F . <{r y x;s�� tss 'ms' s,. ,L ' ] I r ,. � a . ': d- gR 'y . a r >�' /t f r S .. >-f 'I.- .. -O b s�.��'' 'fy,. `ax - 4 "� ,R�� n o r NEIGHBORHOOD�y x-* *a' ,, .,: -_ '` ,.�'. .t. aT"s `}^ ex PARK ..s^Lh:"� yi' z gym , .,. J 'a .S < dh i:J.' 4 `'.t it` , ZRJ S S 0_ a.._ 4 1--~ ��4h n �. Sn y� r u� r ! '�0y1 i .r .•l °� ,.--k`. .F u4 `" R. EXISTING LAND USE : 4 y� i �'; �t a r ' k t ' .=tts .. , LIED USE r,A r're F'• ° ` t a 1 ' gk 4 ' .- ' 't. 'kris s r s 4 .��pp rp ' :(:;',...• 2 _ r' P ,Xd Re ��`� � .� ^� N ��'� Rt��PROPOSED LAND USE: .€>� r� �.r � '� ' $ a ?a v.„4,,,..‘.,.,..° ,� F C MEDIUM DENSITY rt1�� ~ r e5 iV v� f ti-:• �� k -,_ ' ''TQ- "$*rri yr_' ,jRESIDENTIAIti :. � -' '"� �'f ,r`1 • s �,/ k I i' SPURTS PARK L5' I '-ca� ,.F P" .,F o 'tom y 2�SL f / (` 5r a ,�,3" rtlr. ` y,z° a A " >:� a 8 l• 1} / r t'' -!°> ,( 7lF isx � '��`' 4 w'- t ,lv, ki 1e�5 +' rF 1 1y; ;.. '+�._ ...I,. , p':F'T ,. � �(f ,1 tea` '' ;� .lR4 i '..It'!' ' _'•f ah,. "- ! t,- ,-- 3 fib ,,f ,,Ji ,,5-,,i, _E. . - ,-- .,i- i.0 �r •'" -- ' .:« ',' ',. r.,,. .:.,d-, 1 -+V�ff1f Xf 's i OPEN SPACE �� • ^ ''T'^wa ..Iti .:!=..wpp�a,, r ij_. " - .;-, _? ._'".. S �E r 1 ' T:r i• `J' �� a"4 �I k X-i ID�. '' 7 *�' 4 ISTLVG LAND USE: ry p•� �1y�$'fF�r.,,� ��"▪ -�-� � 7 COMMUNITY PARK • . : -+ . ,� 1 r +s .,.,r,1,1' ti Y a w • . .R v PROP Iz ,'A—>,p 3 :Jill 4 ��,r-∎ T OSED LAND USE: •klA I � 4i•y - u+i`K-y s a �`c su1 i SCHOOIJPARK ^ s6� o &ii SI B"6f�5a e gam."`;y,. 4 a+:.lµ'cr .',�$y,..— ,��1'i yam;"'.:. { .y�is .`". �t K. A �t { rii�h3.,, iC+ fc aa�f�eay¢�sa. .na �!j 1•".I U4',,T4,,E-{x'7'•,� ,,' �.,4'I ��5'� H '�,c�z' .g '� '#. >, l -k "R.' � , �, .'{r .�l $..,� :4 5 .ra z } e -..n �-x a :. .b a.- `.'6'.-,�4.36!'L \'a,,t4'' i ,, a '' - ._ 1` £ t i '� r� r° r o- J. .. _ ,�w. OPEN SPACE ' `'' `. r', -�,; '" T i Ffsr, • •,.'14..".'7..?kfli'-°-': .43,:tal ,4".:13% ;'''''''"'-'' '''''° 4-21-'"i" [,-••-'▪ -I'''''''--' _;-...' ■ F EXHIBIT 6 4 JORDAN RANCH NORTH GPA & SPA NTS IIIACKAY 8c SOmpS EXISTING&PROPOSED USES • MAY 2015 ) — �----.......--,,,,, • 1 , ..,..„---) \ , , .....„-„,• 1 \ ■ GIN ..„‘) \"\-. EXISTING LAND USE: 7 c" \\ RURAL RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURE Z \\ PROPOSED PARK LAND USE: �yO 0 \ \— ill, 1 I A \ ) H— ELI I W ' I �OD / --------- I U Q I <V„.....4 I I i .1 , --.....1 i ii 4 EXHIBIT 7 NORTH SUB AREA 3 _ NTS GPA & SPA ��&Sys EXISTING&PROPOSED USES DeMeOCI MAY 2015 C5-226202Q1 5 3:5201152pm AmandAbp Esl1]oltN N VIOMfl $ FSLC ER illi3. DYEXHIBIT 4_SU83.DWG n E ERuCS: ,,:c-1S7 ;dw.9714_Ti?d:Lento,L 1.4iaiti_2073 05-.;2; 1n-1941 I: ' —CHANEL-200$0312-ACAD9107 .-- --- --- ) .--- ---• \ , i pl , I ( 1 ti I I 1 EXISTING LAND USE: PUBLIC/SEMI PUBLIC PROPOSED LAND USE: PARK Z---- 1111HA , •i Z III/ 4 1 I 1 EXHIBIT 8 , WALLIS RANCH NORTH NTS GPA & SPA , MACKAY&SOMAS i EXISTING&PROPOSED USES MAY 2015 06-17-2015 2:29pm Amanda Karcher A?:\19604\PLANNING\GPA_EDSPAINITIAL STUDY_EXHIBIT 5.DVIG ti 1.45.-1sid5;wriaN--ta t.;. _444,-2.1 ) „— 1. Project description: The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Planned Development rezoning and Stage 1 Planned Development amendments for portions of the following properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning area: Jordan Ranch:Redesignating an existing Community Park site on the south side of Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive to a joint School/Park site; changing an existing Mixed Use land use designation on the northeast corner of Fallon Road and Central Parkway to Medium Density Residential. Subarea 3: Redesignating 10.75 acres of the site from Rural Residential/Agricultural to Park/Public Recreation. Wallis Ranch: Redesignating a 1.9-acre site in the south portion of this property from Semi- Public to a Park land use designation. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 3. Contact person: Mike Porto,Dublin Planning Department (925) 833 6610 4. Project Iocations: Jordan Ranch: East of Fallon Road, north and south of Central Parkway. Subarea 3:South of Central Parkway, north of Dublin Boulevard. Wallis Ranch:West of Tassajara Road, south of City limit line and east of Camp Parks RFTA. 5. Project contact persons: Jordan Ranch Mission Valley Properties Attn: Mr. Kevin Fryer 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: 925 467-9900 City of Dublin Page 22 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Wallis Ranch 1 Trumark Homes 4185 Blackhawk Circle Road, Suite 200 Danville, CA 94506 Christopher Davenport Phone: 925 309-2503 Sub Area 3 Lennar Homes 6111 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 550 San Ramon, CA 94583 Michael Snoberger Phone: 925 327-8306 6. Existing General Plan & Jordan Ranch: Mixed-Use, School & Specific Plan Land Use Community Park designations: Subarea 3: Rural Residential/Agriculture Wallis Ranch: Semi-Public. 7. Proposed General Plan & Jordan Ranch: Medium Density Residential Specific Plan Land Use (6.1-14.0 du/ac.)/ School/Park designations: Subarea 3: Park/Public Recreation Wallis Ranch: Park/Public Recreation 8. Existing &Proposed PD-Planned Development Zoning: 9. Other public agency necessary,potential and/or desired approvals: • Grading Plans, Improvement Plans, and Building Permits (Dublin) • Sewer and water connections (DSRSD) • Encroachment permits (City of Dublin) • Notice of Intent(State Water Resources Control Board) City of Dublin Page 23 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below may 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 - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils Resources - Hazards and - Hydrology/Water - Land Use/ Hazardous Quality Planning Materials - Mineral Resources - Noise - Population/ Housing - Public Services - Recreation X Transportation/ Circulation - Utilities/Service - Mandatory Systems Findings of Significance Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. _I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Addendum will be prepared. X 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the Project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or City of Dublin Page 24 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 x "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required,but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. - Signature: e10 Date: Ohl •f 04, C Printed Name: Michael Porto, Planning Consultant For: City of Dublin Community Development Department City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers. Certain "no impact" answers are supported by the information sources the 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 new impact" answer applies where there is no impact of the proposed project beyond that which was considered previously in the 1993 EIR, the 2002 SEIR, the 2005 SEIR, or other prior EIR or MND. . A "no impact/no new 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) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. It there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" 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. City of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 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 New 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 outcroppings and historic buildings within a X state scenic highway? (Source: 2,3,4,8) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its X surroundings? (Source: 2,3,4,8) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which would adversely affect day or X nighttime views in the area? (Source: 8) 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: 2,3,4) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use or a Williamson Act contract?(2) X c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of forestland (as defined by PRC X Sec. 12220(g),timberland (as defined in PRC Sec.4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined in PRC Sec.51104 (g)? (Source: 1,2,7) d)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion X of forest land to non-forest use? (1,8) e)Involve other changes in the existing environment that,due to their location or nature,could result X in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to a non-forest use?(Source: 8) City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 3.Air Quality (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 X the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air X quality violation? (Source: 2,9) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an X applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (2) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? (2,8) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (2,8) 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 X 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?(2,3,4) b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies or X regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?(2,3,4) c)Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct X removal,filling,hydrological interruption or other means?(2,3,4) City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact i 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? (2,3,4) 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: 1,2) 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: 2,3,4) b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource X pursuant to Sec. 15064.5?(Source: 2,3,4) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic X feature?(Source: 2,3,4) d)Disturb any human remains,including those X interred outside of a formal cemetery?(2,8) 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 X other known evidence of a known fault? (Source: 1,3) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (2,3,4) X iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including X liquefaction?(Source: 2,3,4) iv) Landslides?(Source: 2,3,4) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil?(Source: 2,3,4) City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 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 X on- and off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse?(2) d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code X (1994),creating substantial risks to life or property?(Source: 2) e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers X are not available for wastewater disposal? (7) 7.Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a X significant impact on the environment? (7) b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X 8.Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, X use or disposal of hazardous materials? (2,3,5 5) b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the X release of hazardous into the environment?(2,3) c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one- X quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source:2,3,4) City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New 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? (9) 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: 2,9) 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: 2,9) g) Impair implementation of or physically • interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? (Source: 2,9) 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? (2) 9.Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste X discharge requirements?(Source: 2,9) 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 X 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: 2) City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or X river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? (Source: 2,3,4,7) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas,including through the alteration of a course or stream or river, X or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? (Source: 2,3,4) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or X planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?(Source: 2,3,4) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X quality? (Source: 2,3,4) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood X delineation map? (Source: 7) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood X flows? (Source: 7) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury,and death involving X flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 7) j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow? X 10.Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1,2,3,4) X City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New 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: 1,2) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community X conservation plan? (Source: 1,2) 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 X the general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (2,5) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2,5) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X existing levels without the project? (2,5) d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X above levels without the project? (2,5) 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? (2,5) City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people X residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (5) 13.Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly or indirectly (for X example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (1,2) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? (1,8) c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing X elsewhere? (Source: 1,8) 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: 7) Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities X 15.Recreation: a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial X physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?(Source: 7) b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an X adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 7) City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New ,) 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 X 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: 2,3,4,6) 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: 2,6) c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source: 2,6) 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: 6) e)Result in inadequate emergency access?(6) X f)Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs regarding public transit,bicycle or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance X 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 X Board? (Source: 7) City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 ■ Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?(7) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of X which could cause significant environmental effects? (7) d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water X entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (7) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate X capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (Source: 7) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal,state and local statutes X and regulations related to solid waste? (7) 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 X 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 Page 36 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 i 4 Potentially Less Than Less than No New 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? Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan 2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR 3. 2005 Eastern Dublin Property Owners' Supplemental EIR 4. 2005 Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR 5. Project Acoustic Analysis (lllingworth&Rodkin) (2015) 6. Project Traffic Impact Analysis (Fehr &Peers) (2015) 7. City staff or other regulatory agency 8. Site Visit 9. Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses and Incorporation By Reference a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following Environmental Impact Reports have been used in the preparation of the Initial Study. All are available for review at the City of Dublin Community Development Depai tinent, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours. Each of the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. • Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, May, 1993, (SCH #91103064) • East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report,January 2002 and Final SEIR (March 2002) (SCH #2001052114) City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 • Fallon Village Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, August 2005 and Final SEIR(SCH #2005062010) • Initial Study/EIR Addendum,Jordan Ranch Property, City File #PA 09- 011, April 2010. This Initial Study analyzes whether any further environmental review than that performed in these prior certified CEQA documents are required for the proposed project under the standards of Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163. This Initial Study analyzes whether the proposed changes to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin and other applicable regulatory documents for portions of the Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch property will result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those analyzed in prior CEQA documents or whether any other of the standards requiring further environmental review under CEQA are met. If the Initial Study determines that there are no new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and no CEQA standard for subsequent or supplemental review is met, then the impact is identified as "No New Impact." If the particular topic was not analyzed in a previous CEQA document and no impact is identified in this Initial Study, this be identified as a "No Impact" finding. City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 1 Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The project subareas are set in a formerly rural area of Eastern Dublin that has transitioned to urban uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted in 1993. Jordan Ranch Subarea:The overall Jordan Ranch site is characterized by a combination of rolling hills and grasslands with shallow to moderate topographic relief.The western portion of the site adjacent to Fallon Road are typically flatter than the eastern portion. The areas included in this application is vacant but has been rough graded as part of the larger, approved Jordan Ranch development.No creeks streams or other bodies of water are located on the three portions of the site nor are any major stands of trees or major rock outcroppings. Similarly, no existing parks, playgrounds, scenic vistas or places of public gathering are located on any of the subareas. Subarea 3 Subarea: The overall Subarea 3 is characterized by two small but distinct hills in the northern and central portions of the site that slope to the south and west. The hills are identified as "Visually Sensitive Hillsides-Restricted Development" in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (see EDSP Figure 6.3). No public parks, scenic vistas or scenic overlooks are located on the site. Wallis Ranch Subarea:The existing natural topography of the Wallis Ranch includes consists of steep slopes in the western portion of the site adjacent to Parks RFTA transitioning to moderate to gentle slopes in the approximate center of the site. The portion of the site lying adjacent to Tassajara Creek is generally flat. Land included in this subarea is located in the flatter, southern portion of the Wallis Ranch property. No parks or other public gathering places currently exist on this property. Scenic highways within and adjacent to the Eastern Dublin Planning area indude the I- 580 freeway south of Eastern Dublin and Tassajara Road that extends in a north-south direction through Eastern Dublin. Development is underway on all three properties (Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch) but not on the various Subareas that are included in this project, No light sources exist on any of the project Subareas. Regulatory framework and Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) in 1993 to guide the future development of approximately 3,400 acres of land in the Eastern Dublin area. City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 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: • 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 reduced 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 mitigation 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 implementation 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 allow development on foreground hills. The measures also limit development in locations where scenic views would be obscured or would extend above a ridge top. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7.1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8/I) to a less-than-significant 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. Jordan Subarea:No new or more significant aesthetic resource impacts the 1993 EDSP EIR were identified in the 2002 or 2005 Eastern Dublin Supplemental EIRs or an Addendum documents. City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Subarea 3: No new or more significant aesthetic impacts were identified in the Subarea 3 Addendum or the 1997 ND. Wallis Ranch: No new or more significant impacts to aesthetic resources were identified in the 2005 Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR, the 2007 MND or any Addendum documents prepared for this property. Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. In 1996, the City of Dublin adopted scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin area, known as the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. This document identifies the Jordan Ranch as lying within Zone 5, the Fallon Village Open Space area. This corridor area is defined primarily by lands adjacent to public rights-of-way, which should be park,rural residential, open slopes or riparian drainage areas. Policy 11 states that development should"celebrate open space, with distant views as well as with foreground view and right-of-way landscaping." The proposed project will be required to adhere to all applicable mitigation measures from previous EIRs and other land use regulations dealing with aesthetics, visual conditions and light and glare. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? No New Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would result in no new or significant severe impacts regarding scenic vistas, since no scenic vistas currently exist on any of the Subareas. Approval and implementation of the project would relocate an approved school site from the eastern portion of the Jordan Ranch to a site on the south side of Central Parkway. A proposed Community Park in this location would be eliminated. However, the proposed School would be constructed with a joint public park that would allow a public gathering place and views of nearby hillsides and other features. Proposed public parks on Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch project would facilitate the public's ability to view scenic vistas. No new or substantially more severe impacts regarding substantial adverse impacts on scenic vistas have been identified with regard to the proposed Project that have not been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or other CEQA documents. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic highway? No New Impact. All of the Subareas have been graded as part of approved adjacent development projects (Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch), so that no scenic resources exist on these Subareas. City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 1 Approval and implementation of the proposed project would result in a public school on the south side of Central Parkway, which is currently designated for a Community Park. Views of the proposed school would be largely blocked by a range of small hills that exist north of I-580 and south of Central Parkway. No other major structures would be allowed by the project that would result in a substantial damage to scenic resources, including any resources located adjacent to a state or local scenic highway. All of the mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and visual policies contained in the EDSP would apply to the current project. The Project would result in no new or substantially more severe significant impacts regarding scenic resources than have been analyzed in the prior CEQA documents. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? No New Impact. The proposed Project includes consideration of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment that would relocate approved uses (Jordan Ranch Subarea) and reduce future potential development on the Subarea 3 site and the Wallis Ranch Subarea. All of the Subareas have been graded and no significant visual resources remain. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the following potential impacts related to visual and aesthetics impacts of implementing 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 the following 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..." However, the EIR concluded that even with adherence to this mitigation, alteration of rural and open space in the Project area would remain a potentially significant impact. With adherence to Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies to protect visual resources in Eastern Dublin and appropriate Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in previous CEQA documents that affect the three Subareas. d) Create light or glare? No New Impact. The three subareas contain no light sources and construction of the proposed project would add additional light sources on the Jordan Ranch Subarea in the form of streetlights along collector and interior roads, lighting associated with school uses, as well as new housing and yard lights. Additional lights would be installed within future parks in the Wallis Ranch Subarea. For the Jordan Ranch subarea, the potential effect of increased light and glare was analyzed in the Initial Studies for the 2002 SEIR (p. 77) and the 2005 SEIR. City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 } These analyses concluded that no significant light and glare impacts would result from development of the EDSP in the Fallon Village area,including the Jordan Ranch property. No lighting would be installed on the proposed park on the Subarea 3 site. The Initial Study adopted as part of the E1R for the Wallis Ranch Subarea found that the potential for significant light and glare impacts from build-out of the overall Wallis Ranch would be less-than-significant (p. 28). City development requirements to restrict spillover of unwanted light will apply to this proposed Project. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts have been identified with respect to light and glare impacts than have been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. 2. Agricultural & Forestry Resources Environmental Setting and Previous CEQA Documents Figure 3.1-B contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the three Subareas as"lands of locally important farmlands." EDSP Impact 3.1/F found that the cumulative loss of agricultural lands was a significant and unavoidable impact of urban development in the Eastern Dublin planning area. Impact 3.1/C found the discontinuance of agricultural operations to be less-than-significant. No other impacts with respect to prime agricultural lands for any of the tree Subareas beyond those analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. None of the Subareas contain any significant trees or forests. 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.None of the land encompassed in the three Subareas are currently used for agricultural production. Future uses of the various Subareas as parks, a school and/or residential land uses would therefore not result in such a conversion. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed project would result in no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than have been analyzed in prior CEQA documents. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?No New Impact. Two of the three Subareas comprising the project are presently zoned for non-agricultural urban uses and would not conflict with any existing agricultural zoning and would not conflict with any Williamson Act Agreements. City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Subarea 3 is presently designated for Rural Residential/Agricultural land use and would be converted to future Park. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts would result with respect to these topics than have been previously analyzed. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion offorest land to a non forest use? No Impact. No forest land exists on any of the project Subareas and no impact would result with respect to this topic. No additional analysis is required. d) Involve other changes which,due to their location or nature, could result offorest land to a non forest use?No Impact. See item "d," above. 3. Air Quality Background. The project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the State and Federal level. The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-level ozone,respirable particulate matter(PM10) and fine particulate matter(PM2.5). High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area's attempts to reduce ozone levels. Highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases,reduced lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort. Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant in the Bay Area. Particulate matter is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM25). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2_5 are the result of both region- wide(or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases,reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g.,lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children. The ambient air quality in a given area depends on the quantities of pollutants emitted within the area, transport of pollutants to and from surrounding areas,local and regional meteorological conditions, as well as the surrounding topography of the air basin. Air quality is described by the concentration of various pollutants in the City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 atmosphere. Units of concentration are generally expressed in parts per million(ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). The project is located within the Livermore Valley. The Livermore Valley forms a small sub regional air basin distinct-from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.The Livermore 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. The terrain of the Livermore-Amador Valley influences both the climate and air pollution potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared to the greater Bay Area. The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically. Inversions can be found during all seasons in the Bay Area,but are particularly prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 90% of the time in both morning and afternoon. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), air pollution potential is high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall. High temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally generated pollutants but 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. National and state ambient air quality standards. As required by the Federal Clean Air Act, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for six major air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (03), particulate matter, including respirable particulate matter (PMl) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur oxides, and lead.Pursuant to the California Clean Air Act, the State of California has established the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Relevant Current State and Federal standards are summarized in Table 2. CAAQS are generally the same or more stringent than NAAQS. Air Quality Monitoring Data. The significance of a pollutant concentration is determined by comparing the concentration to an appropriate ambient air quality standard. The standards represent the allowable pollutant concentrations designed to ensure that the public health and welfare are protected,while including a reasonable margin of safety to protect the more sensitive individuals in the population. The San Francisco Bay Area is considered to be one of the City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 cleanest metropolitan areas in the country with respect to air quality.BAAQMD monitors air quality conditions at more than 20 locations throughout the Bay Area. The closest monitoring station to the project site is in Livermore at the 793 Rincon Avenue monitoring station. Summarized air pollutant data for this station is provided in Table 3. This table shows the highest air pollutant concentrations measured at the station over the three-year period from 2012 through 2014. Note that BAAQMD discontinued monitoring of carbon monoxide in 2009 at this station. These data show that ozone levels exceeded State or federal standards each year over the past three years. The PM2.5 24-hour standard was exceeded in 2013 and 2014. Ambient Air Quality Status. Areas with air pollutant levels that exceed adopted air quality standards are designated as "nonattainment" areas for the relevant air pollutants. Nonattainment areas are sometimes further classified by degree (marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme for ozone, and moderate and serious for carbon monoxide and PM,o) or status ("nonattainment-transitional"). Areas that comply with air quality standards are designated as "attainment" areas for the relevant air pollutants. "Unclassified" areas are those with insufficient air quality monitoring data to support a designation of attainment or nonattainment,but are generally presumed to meet the ambient air quality standard. State Implementation Plans must be prepared by states for areas designated as federal nonattainment areas to demonstrate how the area will come into attainment of the exceeded federal ambient air quality standard. The Bay Area is considered a marginal nonattainment area for ozone under the NAAQS and nonattainment for ozone under the CAAQS (both 1-and 8-hour standards). The Bay Area is also designated as nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Bay Area is also considered nonattainment for the State annual PM2,5 standard and the 24-hour PM,o standard. The region is designated attainment or unclassified for all other ambient air quality standards. 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 newly constructed on-site residences on the west site of Sunset View Drive,northwest of the project construction site.Additional residences are located at farther distances from the site to the east, west, and north. City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Table 2. Relevant California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards National Standards 8-hour 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm (137 pg/rn3) (1474g/m3) Ozone 1-hour 0.09 ppm — (180µg/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 pg/m3) (188 µg/m3) dioxide Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm (57 ug/m3) (100 ug/m3) Sulfur Dioxide 1-hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm (655 p /m3) (196 µg/m3) 24-hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm (105 qg/m3) (365 tg/m3) Annual — 0.03 ppm (56 tag/m3) Particulate Annual 20 .Lg/m3 — Matter(PM10) 24-hour 50 ug,/m3 150 Rig/m3 Particulate Annual 12 .cg/m3 12 pig/m3 Matter(PM2 5) 24-hour — 35 µtg/m3 Source: BAAQM6 and EPA, 2015. Notes: ppm=parts per million mg/m3=milligrams per cubic meter Ng/m3=micrograms per cubic meter 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. City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 ) Table. 3. Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations at Livermore Station Station Measured Air Pollutant Levels Average 2012 2013 - 2014 PolIutant Time 1-Hour 0.102 ppm 0.096 ppm 0.093 ppm Ozone(03) 8-Hour 0.090 ppm 0.077 ppm 0.080 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour ND ND ND 1-Hour 0.053 ppm 0.051 ppm 0.049 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide(NO2) Annual 0.010 ppm 0.011 ppm 0.010 ppm Respirable Particulate 24-Hour ND ND ND Matter(PMIO) Annual ND ND ND Fine Particulate Matter 24-Hour 31.1 ug/m3 40.1 ug/m3 42.9 ug/m3 (PM2.) Annual 6.6 ug/m3 8.4 ug/m3 7.6 ug/m3 Source:CARB, 2015. Notes: ppm =parts per million and ug/m3=micrograms per cubic meter. Values reported in bold exceed ambient air quality standard. ND= No data. 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 GARB, 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 GARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the state's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. GARB 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, GARB 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 Available online: http:/,/www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm.Accessed:July 8,2015. City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 engines or equivalent by 2023.These requirements are phased in over the compliance period and depend on the model year of the vehicle. BAAOMD.The BAAQMD is the regional agency tasked with managing air quality in the region. At the State level, GARB (a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency) oversees regional air district activities and regulates air quality at the State level. The BAAQMD published CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are used in this assessment to evaluate air quality impacts of projects. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed both construction and operational impacts and contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from implementation of the General Plan and EDSP project. These indude: • Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 reduced project construction dust impacts (IM 3.11/A) to less than significant through measures such as watering construction sites, covering exposed construction surfaces and trucks,and cleaning construction vehicles. The cumulative 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 emissions from ROG and NOx (IM 3.11/C)but not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures 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. 2002 Fallon Village SEIR(Jordan Ranch).The 2002 Supplemental EIR found two supplemental air quality impacts, as follows: • Supplemental Impact AQ-1 found that mobile source emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM-10) City of Dublin Page 49 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 would be significant as related to the overall EDPO Project.Even with adherence } to the Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures, these emissions would be a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. • Supplemental Impact AQ-2 found that emission of carbon monoxide that would be generated from vehicle trips as a result of project buildout would not exceed local, state or federal standards for emission of carbon monoxide. This impact was therefore less-than-significant. 2005 Fallon Village SEIR (Jordan Ranch). The 2005 Supplemental EIR found three supplemental air quality impacts, as follows: • Supplemental Impact SM-AQ-1 identified supplemental impacts with respect to construction related air quality impacts and that the overall development envelope associated with the Fallon Village project was larger than analyzed in previous CEQA documents. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation SM-AQ-1 requires more stringent measures to be undertaken by individual developers in the Fallon Village area to reduce construction air quality impacts to a less-than- significant level. • Supplemental Impacts SM-AQ-2 and SM-AQ-3 found that regional air emissions associated with vehicle trips in the overall Fallon Village project area would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors. The SEW included Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 to reduce these impacts, however, the items included in this Supplemental Mitigation Measure would not reduce regional emissions below BAAQMD standards and these impacts remained significant and unavoidable. 2005 Wallis Ranch SEIR. This document identified the following significant supplemental impacts and supplemental air quality mitigation measures. • Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1 reduced impacts related to construction emission from construction activities (Supplemental Impact AQ-1) to a less-than-significant level. Specific items listed in this measure required contractors to cover stockpiles of debris, sweep paved access roads and parking areas and construction staging areas and install sandbags or equivalent to prevent silt runoff from construction areas. • Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 reduced Supplemental Impact AQ-2 but not to a less-than-significant level. Supplemental Impact AQ-2 noted that the project would result in a regional emission increase exceeding BAAQMD thresholds for emission of ozone precursors. Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 required the project proponent to coordinate with the regional public transit provider to extend service the site along with transit improvements, the project developer to provide bike paths and sidewalks, consider a local shuttle service to regional transit hubs and City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 VAMON consider installing a telecommute center. Even with adherence to all of these features, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. • Supplemental Impact AQ-3 noted that project emissions of ozone would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance for this pollutant. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 would partially but not fully reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. No significant air quality impacts were identified in the Subarea 3 CEQA document. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures set forth in previous CEQA documents. Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan?No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.11/E regarding increased stationary source air emissions from future development of Eastern Dublin that would remain significant even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0 and 13.0. The Eastern Dublin EIR also assumed increased development in other areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley, and related commutes to the Bay Area, and identified cumulative mobile source impact IM 3.11/C as significant and unavoidable, even after mitigation. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these two impacts. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (ABAG) Clean Air Plan is predicated on population projections for local agencies within the District based on ABAG's regional population projections, which,in turn is based on a compilation of local agency general plan documents.Development allowed under the proposed project would be generally consistent with the type and amount of development allowed under the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan although it could contain slightly more residential units than currently approved (35 units, see Table 1). Previous approvals in 2005 for the overall Jordan Ranch property included development of up to 1,064 dwellings, as analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, as opposed to the 899 dwellings currently being considered on the overall Jordan R anch property plus a 900-student Elementary School. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to conflicts with the regional air quality plan than has been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards?No New Impact. The air quality analysis focuses on the proposed 950-student elementary and middle school development, since this project element would generate the most vehicular traffic City of Dublin Page 51 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 and contain future sensitive air quality receptors. Other project elements would include local parks that would generate minimal vehicular traffic. Project and cumulative air emission impacts. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR identified emission of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) from vehicles as a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact IM 3.11/C). Although the EIR identified several possible measures to mitigate this impact, including but not limited to implementation of a transportation demand program, encouragement of mixed-use developments and similar measures, any reduction of mobile source emissions could not be reduced to less-than-significant levels. This conclusion was reiterated in the 2002 and 2005 SEIR documents as well as the 2010 Addendum as related to the Jordan Ranch property. Construction air impacts. The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than- significant. Mitigation Measure MM 3.11/1.0 in the East Dublin EIR identifies the construction controls that provide reduction of air emissions during construction phases of development projects and the Project applicant will be required to adhere to these requirements. Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 has been supplemented with 2005 SEIR Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1 to ensure that current BAAQMD construction air quality impacts are reduced to a less- than-significant level. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. l Air pollutant emissions were not quantified in the 2012 Initial Study for Jordan Ranch Phase 2. For comparison, a model run was conducted for the 2014 Approved uses, which included:550-student"Elementary School," 19.6 acres entered as "City Park," 513 dwelling units entered as "Single- Family Housing," 238 dwelling units entered as "Apartments Low Rise," 61 dwelling units entered as "Congregate Care," and 35,000 square feet of retail entered as "Strip Mall." A construction build-out scenario,including Ca1EEMod default equipment list and phasing schedule for a project of this type and size was used. As shown in Table 4, construction of the 2014 Approved uses would also not exceed BAAQMD thresholds, though emissions would be slightly increased over the proposed project. Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PMlo and PM2.5• Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. Fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions.Fugitive City of Dublin Page 52 I Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 dust emissions would also depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of equipment operating.Larger dust particles would settle near the source,while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site. Table 4. Construction Period Emissions PM10 PMxs Scenario ROG NOx Exhaust Exhaust Total Construction emissions 20.42 tons 52.89 tons 2.18 tons 2.03 tons (tons) Average daily emissions 9.8 lbs. 25.4 lbs. 1.0 lbs. 1.0 lbs. (pounds)1 BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs. day) Exceed Threshold? No No No No 2014 Approval 11.3 lbs. 30.2 lbs. 1.2 lbs. 1.1 lbs. Notes: Assumes 4,160 workdays. EDSP EIR air quality Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1 from the 2005 Fallon Village SEIR provides specific methods for reduction of fugitive dust from construction sites. The BAAQMD has adopted updated measures to further reduce construction level impacts. and future project developer{s) of individual projects within the three subareas will be required as a condition of project approval to implement the most current BAAQMD dust reduction methods. No new or more severe significant air quality impacts would result regarding violation of air quality standards than have been previously analyzed. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? No New Impact. See item "b." d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? No New Impact. A portion of the proposed project(Subarea 1) would include approval and construction of a 950-student elementary school and middle school on an 11.1-acre site located on the south side of Central Parkway east of Fallon Road. The school would be occupied during a portion of the day by young children that are sensitive receptors. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.11/10 supplemented by Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1 and current BAAQMD standard measures for dust control, this impact would remain less- than-significant. The proposed park in Subarea 3 would be located in a generally topographically steep area and used as a natural, passive park.Few users of the park are therefore anticipated that would expose a significant number of people to significant City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 l pollutant concentrations. The two proposed park sites on the Wallis Ranch Subarea are not located near regional freeways or major roadways that would result in exposure of a significant number of users to significant pollutant concentrations. None of the existing or proposed uses would,by their nature, generate significant pollutant concentrations or objectionable odors. Therefore, significant impacts on adjacent sensitive residence uses would not result and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting Plant and wildlife resources for the three Subareas were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as well as CEQA documents for each of the Subareas. All of the previous CEQA documents also analyzed wildlife and riparian resources, fish and wildlife corridors and cumulative impacts to biological resources. Plant communities. Five habitat types have been identified on the various Subareas. These include: Annual grasslands. Annual grasslands consist of grass and forb species such a wild oat, soft chess, ripgut brome, thistle and similar species. Wetlands. A number of seasonal and perennial wetlands, seeps and others waters are present on portions of the Jordan Ranch Subarea, but likely not on the other two Subareas. Riparian. Riparian habitat was observed in the southwestern corner of the site at the confluence of three swales on the Jordan Ranch Subarea. A number of willow trees form a dense to moderately dense canopy over the lower reaches of the swale area. Stock pond/ornamental pond. Three stock ponds are found within the drainage swales located on the Jordan Ranch Subarea. A 0.29-acre pond is the largest of the ponds and is surrounded riparian vegetation, such as cattails, common rush and fiddle dock. No ponds have been identified on other Subareas. Developed/landscaped. A portion of Jordan Ranch Subarea was formerly occupied by the residence and associated outbuildings, since demolished. This Subarea is characterized by non-native ornamental landscaping, such as eucalyptus trees, juniper and similar material. Other Subareas remain vacant/ Special-status species and habitats City of Dublin Page 54 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 1 a All three Subareas have been graded pursuant to grading permits issued by the City of Dublin and any former special-status plants,wildlife species or habitats have been fully ) mitigated pursuant to certified or approved CEQA documents. Previous CEQA documents The regulatory framework for this Project includes previous EIRs and regulations for protection of biological resources. 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 and development of a grazing management plan by the City of Dublin. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of 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. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) 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 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 consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit fox on project sites and preparation of and adherence to a kit fox protection plan. • 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 completion of special surveys for individual species prior to site disturbance. The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures regarding bald eagle,peregrine falcons,red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black-shouldered kite, sharp- shinned hawk,Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and California horned lizard, as well as other protected species. City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. 2002 Supplemental EIR (Jordan Ranch). This EIR identified a large number of supplemental biological mitigation measures for the entire Fallon Village project area, including the Jordan Ranch Subarea . These are identified as Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-1 through SM-BIO-45. The supplemental mitigation measures require completion of rare plant and wildlife surveys, preparation of a Resource Management Plan (RMP), avoid or replace wetlands. 2005 Supplement (Jordan Ranch). This Supplement identifies additional supplemental impacts and mitigation measures, as listed below, for the Fallon Village project area, including the Jordan Ranch Subarea.A number of the supplemental mitigation measures are revisions to mitigation measures contained in earlier EIRs. Supplemental mitigation measures are: • Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1 requires the restoration or enhancement of riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (on an acreage basis),preferably within the proposed aquatic and buffer zone or corridor zone management areas on-site. If mitigation within the Project area is not feasible, then the developer shall mitigate impacts to central coast riparian scrub through the restoration or enhancement of riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (measured by acreage) at an off-site location acceptable to the City. • Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 requires that if avoidance is infeasible, then mitigation lands providing similar or better habitat for CRLF shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. • Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 requires individual developers of parcels to create and/or enlarge suitable breeding ponds at a 2:1 ratio,in or adjacent to areas currently supporting CTS and with sufficient surrounding upland habitat to provide a high likelihood of establishment and persistence of a breeding population. • Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 requires developers of individual parcels to acquire, preserve, and manage suitable upland habitat at a 1:1 ratio in or adjacent to areas currently supporting CTS and within 2200 feet of a suitable breeding pond. • Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1 (revised)requires special steps to be taken by individual developers if special-status plants cannot be avoided during project construction. • Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 (revised)requires that during the breeding season (February 1-August 31) prior to submittal of Stage 2 development proposals for a particular parcel, or during a subsequent breeding season but prior to the initiation of construction, a survey shall be conducted according to CDFG City of Dublin Page 56 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 protocols to determine whether Burrowing Owls are present, and if present, the number of nesting pairs of Burrowing Owls present on the parcel. • Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 (revised)requires pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to any ground disturbance between September 1 and January 31. • Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 (revised)requires that if construction is scheduled during the burrowing owl nesting season(February 1 —August 31),pre- construction surveys should be conducted on the entire site-specific Project area and within 500 feet of such Project area prior to any ground disturbance.A minimum buffer(at least 250 feet) shall be maintained during the breeding season around active burrowing owl nesting. • Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-5 (revised)requires that if destruction of occupied (breeding or non-breeding season)burrowing owl burrows, or any burrows that were found to be occupied during pre-construction surveys,is unavoidable, a strategy will be developed to replace such burrows by enhancing existing burrows or creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures set forth in previous EIRs. Resource Management Plan (RMP) (Jordan Ranch Subarea). Consultants working for the City of Dublin completed a Resource Management Plan in 2004 for the Fallon Village overall area. Completion of the RMP was required as a result of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1 contained in the 2002 Supplemental EIR. The RMP evaluated potential impacts to sensitive biological resources on the Eastern Dublin Property Owners' area, an approximately 1120-acre area that was analyzed in both the 2002 and 2005 Supplemental EIRs. The RMP includes a comprehensive analysis of sensitive plant and wildlife species within the area,potential habitat for such species and the presence of wetlands and other waters.The RMP also includes a constraints analysis to guide future development of properties included in the RMP study area. 2005 Dublin Ranch West SEIR (Wallis Subarea). Chapter 4.3 of this SEIR contained a comprehensive update regarding potential species and identified the following significant biological impacts. • Supplemental Impact BIO-1 noted an impact to California Tiger Salamander (CTS) species. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-1 through BIO-7 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring preparation of a CTS Management Plan, installation of a barrier fence, conducting CTS larval studies, acquiring compensatory CTS estivation habitat area, completion of an Open Space Management Plan, appointment of a biological resource monitor during construction and providing biological resource education to construction staff. City of Dublin Page 57 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 • Supplemental Impact BIO-2 found a significant impact with respect to California red-legged frogs (CRLF). This impact was reduced to a less- than-significant level through adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-8 though BIO-10. These supplemental measures required CRLF avoidance measures during prior to and during construction,provision of compensatory upland and dispersal habitat land and limitations on grading activities during the rainy season. • Supplemental Impact BIO-3 noted an impact regarding breeding birds. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 through 7 and 11 and 12 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by limiting tree removal to appropriate times of the year, establishing buffers around trees with nests and conducting pre-construction surveys for protected birds prior to construction. • Supplemental Impact BIO-4 noted an impact with regard to bat species. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 through 7 and 13 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring preconstruction surveys for bat species. If occupied bat nests are found, a qualified biologist shall implement an exclusion plan to prevent further occupancy. • Supplemental Impact BIO-5 found an impact with respect to Burrowing Owls. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 through 7 and 14 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring preconstruction surveys for owl species,limiting construction periods and creating alternative burrows away from construction areas. The mitigation requires the project developer to develop a management plan for enhancement of burrows,monitoring of burrows, funding assurance and similar measures. • Supplemental Impact BIO-6 found an impact with loss of special-status plants. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 through 7 and 15 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring compensatory habitat for loss of Congdon's tarplant lost to construction and be requiring the project developer to prepare a detailed mitigation and monitoring plan for this species. • Supplemental Impact BIO-7 noted an impact regarding loss of riparian habitat. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 and 6, 16 and 17 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by mandating replacement riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio and completing a Riparian Habitat Management Plan to compensate loss of this habitat type. A Tree Removal and Preservation Plan is also required to protect trees from construction activity and to require replacement trees for those lost to construction. City of Dublin Page 58 1 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 • Supplemental Impact BIO-8 found a temporary impact with loss of aquatic habitat. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO- 6 and 18 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring all aquatic habitat to be replaced to pre-project conditions. A Restoration Plan for Tassajara Creek was also required that would minimize impacts to aquatic resources during construction. No new or more significant biological resource impacts were identified in the Subarea 3 Addendum or ND. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource mitigation measures contained in the above documents. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate,sensitive, or special-status species? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR and other applicable prior CEQA documents the presence of special-status plant and wildlife species within the general project area. Numerous mitigation measures are included in prior CEQA documents to reduce impacts to candidate, sensitive and special-status species to a less-than significant level.These are listed above and continue to apply to the proposed project, as applicable. Also, all of the Subareas have been graded as part of each respective underlying project so that they have been disturbed. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts with respect to candidate, sensitive or special-status species would occur than have been analyzed in the two previous CEQA documents and no additional analysis is required. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes policies to protect special status species (Policies 6-17 and 6-20). The proposed development project will adhere to the Specific Plan policies and all previously adopted mitigation measures, as applicable. As identified in previous EIRs for the Eastern Dublin area and other CEQA documents for the project area,impacts associated with loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats on a project and cumulative level (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.7/C, and 2002 SEIR Impact BIO 3)will remain Significant and Unavoidable for this project as well. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? No New Impact.Wetlands and waters of the United States have been identified adjacent to The Jordan Ranch Subarea.Mitigation measures have been included in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2005 SEIR to reduce such impacts to a less- than-significant level. Property included in the Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch Subarea are generally located on upland elevations and do not contain wetlands, riparian habitat or other waters.There would therefore be no new or City of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? No New Impact. The Wallis Ranch and Jordan Ranch Subareas would be located on generally upland ground elevations surrounded by existing development, proposed development or roadways. The Subarea 3 site is linear in nature and would provide for wildlife migration. This Subarea would be retained as a natural park and would provide no barrier to on-site migration There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. 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. No significant standard of trees are located on any of the subareas, since all of the Subareas have been previously graded pursuant to approved grading plans. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and Supplemental EIRs contain a comprehensive listing of historic, archeological, Native American and other cultural resources in the overall Eastern Dublin area. No structures exist on any of the three Subareas and no evidence of formal or informal cemeteries have been identified in any previous CEQA document completed in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. Previous CEQA documents. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP project.Mitigation measure applicable to this Project include: • Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts that could be caused as a result of disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources. These measures require approval of a program for testing for presence or absence of midden deposits and, if significant deposits are found, recordation of such resources on State survey forms, and retention of a qualified archeologist to develop a protection plan for such resources in accordance with CEQA. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 3.9B) to a less-than- significant level. City of Dublin Page 60 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 2005 SEIR (Jordan Ranch Subarea). The 2005 Supplemental EIR that affected the Jordan Ranch property identified Supplemental Impact CUL-3 regarding cultural resource site C-ALA-508H on the Jordan site but not on the current Subarea. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-CUL-3 requires a detailed cultural resources assessment for the identified cultural site prior to the approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan on the Jordan Ranch. The assessment shall determine if the cultural site is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources and any recommendations made in the cultural resources assessment shall be incorporated into the Stage 2 Development Plan as conditions of approval. This assessment has been performed by Basin Research Associates as described below. As required by Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-CUL-3 contained in the 2005 SEIR, a site-specific cultural resource assessment was prepared by the firm of Basin Research Associates dated June 9, 2009 for the entire Jordan Ranch property.The Basin Report is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Development Services Department during normal business hours. The Basin Report summarized comprehensive research on Site CA-Ala-508H on the Jordan Ranch site, including a field visit and subsurface testing using a backhoe. The Report found a less-than-significant quantity of subsurface cultural material at this identified site. Previous archeological materials reported in the 2005 SEIR on the Jordan Ranch site were not found. The one artifact found (a slab metate) was likely a former surface artifact that was buried through natural or mechanical means. The Basin Report did not recommend additional testing,however, the following recommendations should be included as conditions of project approval which implements the mitigation measures in the prior EIRs for protection of cultural resources: 1) Spot monitoring of construction excavations shall be undertaken during site clearing and excavations of up to five feet in depth. The monitoring program shall be at the discretion of the Project archeologist. 2) Project grading specifications shall include warning language to alert the contractor as to the potential for buried cultural resources. 3) A minimum of one meeting shall be held between the Project archeologist and grading contractors for a briefing on procedures to be followed in the event of discovering a cultural artifact. 4) If any cultural artifacts are exposed or discovered during site clearing or grading, operations shall cease within a 30-foot radius of the find and the Project archeologist consulted for evaluation and further recommendations. Possible recommendations could include further evaluation, collection,recordation and analysis of such find, followed by completion of a professional report. 5) Treatment of any Native American burials found during construction shall be in accordance with the requirements of the State of California Public Resources Code, in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission. No cultural resources were identified in the Wallis Ranch SEIR or the Subarea 3 Addendum. City of Dublin Page 61 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable cultural resource mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents. Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? No New Impact.No historic resources exist on any of the three Subareas,based on a historic resources survey conducted as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR, so there would no impacts with regard to historic resources on the site that have not been analyzed in previous EIRs. 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. b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources or human remains? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading,trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites. Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6—3.9-7) require subsurface testing for archeological resources if such are found during site disturbance;recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines (now included in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5). Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described above, also were adopted to address Eastern Dublin IM 9/B, the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre-historic resources and would apply to the project as may be appropriate. The Basin Report completed for the earlier Jordan Ranch project in 2009 did not identify the presence of significant archeological resources on Jordan Ranch property, although a number of recommendations are included in the Report (listed above) that have been met. No new or substantially more severe impacts with regard to archeological or paleontological impacts have been identified than were previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No new or substantially more severe impacts with regard to archeological or paleontological impacts have been identified than were previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery?No New Impact.A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human resources could be uncovered one or more of the project subareas during follow- on grading and construction activities. At the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified, the potential for impacts on unknown and unsurveyed human remains was not a separate CEQA checklist item, as in current Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Former Appendix K, Archeological Impacts, specifically addressed City of Dublin Page 62 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 human remains,which provisions now have been incorporated into CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and apply to the project pursuant to Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0. However, this potential impact was analyzed as part of the 2005 SEIR for the Jordan Ranch Subarea and addressed by Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-CUL-1. No new or more substantially severe impacts are anticipated with regard to disturbance of human remains than have been previously identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting Soils, geologic and seismic conditions were analyzed in Chapter 3.6 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Previous CEQA 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/B)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 3.9/2.0-8.0 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. • 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/D). Mitigations require minimal grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of homes and improvements to avoid excessive grading. • 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/I) to a less-than-significant level.Mitigation measures mandate City of Dublin Page 63 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 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 3.61J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures include developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associated 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. 2005 Supplemental EIR (Jordan Subarea). The 2005 SEIR included one additional mitigation measure. Supplemental Mitigation Measure GEO-1 deals with grading of steeper slopes on properties north of the Jordan Ranch and does not apply to this Project. The topic of soils and geology was not identified as a significant environmental topic in the 2014 Subarea 3 Addendum or the 2004 Wallis SEIR. Project Impacts 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. Although none of the project Subareas are located within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone), 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 on proposed improvements. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 the primary effects of ground-shaking are reduced 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. City of Dublin Page 64 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects of ground shaking on ) proposed project improvements to a less-than-significant level. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0 through 3.6/26.0 by the project developer will ensure that effects of landsliding and ground failure on proposed project improvements will be less-than-significant. 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. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil?No New Impact. Although the Jordan ranch and Wallis Ranch Subareas are currently vacant and have been rough graded pursuant to City approvals, further construction of the project improvements on the Jordan Ranch Subarea and the Wallis Ranch Subarea would modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration. These actions could result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities (see Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/K). Long-term impacts could result from modification of the ground- surface and removal of existing vegetation (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/L). No additional grading is anticipated on the Subarea 3 site. With implementation of Mitigation Measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and an erosion control plan, impacts related to substantial erosion and loss of topsoil would not be significant. 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. 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.Portions of the project Subareas are underlain by soil types with high shrink-swell potential, which have the potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement(Eastern Dublin FIR Impact 3.6/H). With adherence to the mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, potential shrink-swell impacts would be less-than- significant. Consistent with applicable mitigation measures, project developers will be required by Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures to retain a qualified soils and geotechnical consultant to prepare a site-specific analysis of future building sites.Recommendations included in each of site-specific soil reports will be reviewed by the City of Dublin Public Works Department and will be included in grading and constructions plans and specifications to comply with Eastern Dublin FIR mitigation measures and EDSP policies regarding soil hazards. 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. City of Dublin Page 65 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? No New Impact. Proposed residences and other land uses that would be approved as part of this application would be connected to sanitary sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic systems. 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. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Setting Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and the SEIRs in 2002, 2004 and 2005, 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. On March 18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth requirements for the analysis of greenhouse gasses. The topic of the Project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2002 and 2005 SEIRs. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR and SEIRs 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 constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR and SEIRs 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 SEIRs in 2002, 2004 and 2005.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. City of Dublin Page 66 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 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 adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No New Impacts. As discussed above,no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting The topic of hazards and hazardous materials was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Hazardous materials conditions on the project Subareas are identified below. Jordan Ranch. The 2005 SEIR, prepared for the Fallon Village Project area of which the Jordan Ranch Property site is a component,identified a number of Supplemental Impacts and Supplemental Mitigation Measures for individual properties included in the overall Fallon Village project area. Supplemental Impact HAZ-2 identified the possibility of soil and/or groundwater contamination and the exposure of individuals from release of such materials,including portions of the Jordan Property. Supplemental Mitigation Measure HAZ-3b requires remediation of contamination on a number of sites within the Fallon Village area, including the Jordan Ranch. In addition, Supplemental Mitigation Measure 3b requires the Jordan Ranch owner to inform the Alameda County Environmental Health Services Department of an unauthorized release of fuel hydrocarbons (diesel and gasoline)in the vicinity of a removed underground storage tank on the property.Additional subsurface investigation was then required to identify the extent of possible contamination and to evaluate the potential for groundwater contamination. Also, the supplemental mitigation measure required completion of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment to determine if any soil or groundwater contamination exists near former barn structures. A Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the overall Jordan Ranch by the firm of ATC Associates, Inc., dated June 9, 2008, which includes two portions of the Subarea. The report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and the report is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. These studies noted that an underground storage tank (since removed) existing on a portion of Subarea 3 as well as several other sources of contamination in surrounding area, such as above-ground fuel tanks and a former diesel fuel tank storage area. Subsequently, a Corrective Action Plan and an Updated Plan to remediate hazardous materials on the site have been prepared by the firm of ENGEO, Inc. A copy of the Updated Action Plan is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. With adherence to the Corrective Action Plan, there would be no significant impacts with respect to release of hazardous materials into the environment. City of Dublin Page 67 initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 I As of mid-2015, remediation of the Jordan property has been completed and necessary clearance documents from applicable regulatory agencies filed with the City of Dublin (source: M. Porto, Dublin Community Development Department, 7/13/15). The Jordan Ranch Subareas are all located out of an Airport Hazard Area as identified on the latest Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(2012). Subarea 3. The Initial Study for this property prepared in 2014 did not find any significant impacts on this property related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. This conclusion is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the site by Haley & Aldrich,Inc.in 2012. This document is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. This portion of the project area lies inside the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for Livermore Municipal Airport. Wallis Ranch. The 2014 Addendum did not identify the presence of significant environmental substances on the property that could be released into the environment. This conclusion was based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the overall Wallis Ranch property in 2013 by Cornerstone Earth Group. The Cornerstone Phase I report is available for review in the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. The Wallis Ranch portion of the project lies northeast of the Livermore Airport and outside of the AIA. Portions of the Wallis Ranch may be subject to infrequent overflights of helicopters from Parks RFTA that lies west of the site. Previous CEQA documents The 2005 Fallon Village SEIR contains the following supplemental mitigation measures related to hazards and hazardous materials that pertain to the Jordan Ranch Subarea. • Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-1 requires preparation of site-specific analysis to determine the presence of lead based paint and/or asbestos in structures to be demolished in the Fallon Village area. • Supplemental Mitigation HAZ-2 requires the removal of identified hazardous conditions on sites in the Fallon Village area prior to future development on properties. • Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-3b requires remediation of contaminated areas of the Jordan Ranch property.In addition, the Jordan Ranch owner shall inform the Alameda County Environmental Health Department of an unauthorized release of fuel hydrocarbons (gasoline and diesel) in the vicinity of an underground storage tank that had been previously removed. Additional subsurface investigations are required to determine the lateral and horizontal City of Dublin Page 68 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 extent of any potential contamination and, if found, is required to be removed as directed by the Alameda County Environmental Health Department.The additional investigations were also required to determine the extent of contamination caused by diesel fuel storage drums,weed killer and other contaminants in former barn structures on the Jordan site. • Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-3f requires abandonment and destruction of any private wells on the site. • Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-3g requires septic systems and leach fields within the Fallon Village project area to be pumped out and removed under permits from the Alameda County Environmental Health Department. Proposed development on the Jordan Ranch Subarea will be required to adhere to the above mitigation measures. No mitigation measures have been adopted for the Subarea 3 site or the Wallis Ranch Subarea. 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 would include a school use, additional residences and parks. The proposed school use would include storage and use of small amounts of lawn and garden supplies and storage of cleaning supplies and paints, these would not be substantial quantities. None of the other proposed land uses would involve o use, storage or transport of significant quantities of hazardous materials.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. 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 2005 Fallon Village SEIR and supplemental environmental site investigations for the Jordan Ranch property identified the presence of contaminated soils and groundwater on the site as a result of previous agricultural operations on the site. To comply with 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental Mitigation Measures, the project developer has completed a Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment and has contacted the Alameda County Environmental Health Department. Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ 3b requires remediation of identified contaminated areas.In order to implement this Mitigation Measure, the applicant's consultant(ENGEO, Inc.)has prepared a Corrective Action Plan to remediate contaminated soil and groundwater contamination on the site. Proposed remediation actions that have been completed include a combination of excavating contaminated soil from the site, extracting contaminated groundwater under the site and pumping biodegradable/oxidation material into the subsurface via a well. City of Dublin Page 69 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 No significant impacts related to the release of hazardous materials have been identified for Subarea 3 or the Wallis Ranch property based on recently completed Phase I Environmental Site Assessments. No new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to release of hazardous materials have been identified in this Initial Study than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. 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 New Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would have a less- than-significant impact with respect to this topic. A future elementary school site is shown on the Jordan Ranch property. The proposed project includes a relocation of an existing school site already designated on the Jordan Ranch, which was planned for the northeast portion of the site.The proposed site of a joint school and park would be on the south side of Central Parkway. As noted in subsection "b," above, the Jordan Ranch property has been fully remediated from identified soil hazards. Although the Quarry Lane private school is located just to the east of the Wallis Ranch Subarea, approval and implementation of the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment would have no impact with regard to this topic, since a substantial quantity of hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials would not be released from the project site. Proposed uses on the Wallis Ranch Subarea would be parks. No existing or proposed schools exist within one-quarter mile of the Subarea 3 portion of the project. 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. d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? No New Impact. No properties comprising the project area are listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of May 27, 2015. There is therefore no impact with regard to this topic. 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. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? No New Impact. The Jordan Ranch Subarea is located north of the Livermore Airport and outside of any airport safety zone and the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the airport. However, this Subarea does lie within the airport height referral area of the airport,as documented on Figure 3.1-D. Pursuant to Supplemental Noise Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 contained in the 2005 SEIR,Jordan Ranch project City of Dublin Page 70 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 developers, including those included in this Subarea,will be required to provide notification to future purchases of dwellings about the presence of Livermore Airport. Subarea 3 lies within the AIA and Safety Zone 7 of the Livermore Municipal Airport. Any General Plan Amendment that proposes new land uses in the AIA must be reviewed for consistency with Chapter 8.35 (Airport Overlay Zoning District) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change approximately 12 acres of Rural Residential/Agricultural (RRA) lands to Park. The Park designation is not contrary to the allowed uses within the AIA and Safety Zone 7 and is a comparable open space use to RRA.Since RRA and Park are comparable open space land use designations there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to this topic. The Eastern Dublin EIR discussed the potential for land use incompatibilities with respect to the airport, but identified the impact as less-than-significant based on the land uses being consistent with the requirements and policies of the designated areas (Impact 3.1/H). The project proposes a similar type of open space in the same location as existing RRA lands and does not propose additional development within the AIA. Therefore, there would not be a new or more severe significant impact than analyzed in the prior CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. The Wallis Ranch Subarea is located northwest of the Livermore Municipal Airport AIA and any airport safety zone and is not subject to regular aircraft overflights. However, as noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR, properties in the western portion of the Eastern Dublin Planning Area, generally locate adjacent to Tassajara Road, is subject to occasional overflights from military helicopters from nearby Parks RFTA. This activity was not identified as a significant hazard impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR. 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. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan?No New Impact. The proposed project would include changes to the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that would affect a local school site, residential and local park uses. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked. 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. 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 potential for wildfire impacts was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and,with adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR,impacts related to wildland fire would be less-than-significant. These mitigation measures include Mitigation Measure 3.4/6.0, requiring project developers to assist in City of Dublin Page 71 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 funding new fire stations and other facilities in Eastern Dublin, Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0 requiring use of non-combustible roof materials, and maintaining water fire flow and pressure, establishing low-fuel buffers between structures and wildiand areas and installing fire sprinklers in buildings. 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. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting Local surface water. The project Subareas are located within the Arroyo Las Positas watershed, a sub-basin of the Alameda Creek watershed. This watershed drains westerly into and through the Arroyo Mocho to the Arroyo de la Laguna, which discharges into Alameda Creek near Sunol and ultimately into San Francisco Bay near Union City. All of the Subareas are 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-penitittee 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. In 1994, the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendations include policies that define watershed protection goals, set forth minimum non-point source pollutant control requirements for site planning, construction and post-construction activities, and establish criteria for ongoing reporting of water quality construction activities. Watershed protection goals are based on policies identified in the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the entire program relies on the implementation of Best Management Practices to limit pollutant contact with stormwater runoff at its source and to remove pollutants before they are discharged into receiving waters. The California Stormwater Quality Task Force has published a series of Best Management Practices handbooks for use in the design of source control; and treatment programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters,wetland and marshes. City of Dublin Page 72 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Surface water quality is affected by a number of pollutants generated from existing structures, parking areas and open space uses on the project area, including but not limited to petrochemicals (oil and grease), yard and landscape chemicals (herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers), and similar sources. Flooding. The project Subareas lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA (source:Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel #s 06001C0328G, 06001C0329G and 06001C0326G). Previous CEOA 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: • Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 would reduce impacts related potential flooding due to increased runoff into creeks (IM 3.5/Y) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures requires 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 3.5/51.0-55.0 would reduce 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. 2005 Fallon Village SEIR (Jordan Ranch). The 2005 SEIR identified two Supplemental Impacts and Mitigation Measures related to hydrology and water quality: • Supplemental Impact SD-1 found that surface water quality standards had been updated from regulations in effect when the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. Mitigation Measure SD-1 requires that properties in the Stage 1 Development Plan adhere to water quality source control and hydrologic design recommendations contained in the February 2005 ENGEO report. These recommendations relate to limiting the volume and quantity of stormwater runoff entering local and regional drainage facilities. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SD-2 requires that individual development projects in the Fallon Village area comply with hydromodification provisions contained in the Alameda County Clean Water Program. If no Alameda County Clean Water Program permit has been approved before individual development proposals are approved by the City of Dublin, applicants may be required to City of Dublin Page 73 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 1 submit hydrologic and hydraulic analyses to be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin and Zone 7. Payment of Zone 7 fees is also required. No significant Hydrology and Water Quality impacts were identified in previous CEQA documents for either the Subarea 3 or Wallis Ranch properties. Future development on all of the project Subareas will be required to adhere to the above mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No New Impact. Adherence to mitigation measures set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2005 SEIR(as applied to the Jordan Ranch Subarea) and the Alameda County Clean Water Program as enforced by the City of Dublin will ensure that construction allowed by the proposed project would not violate water quality standards or any waste discharge requirements. The Jordan Ranch developer has constructed a water quality basin in the southwestern portion of the site to intercept storm water and cleanse contaminants and erosion from runoff prior to entering the G-3 facility that would accommodate future development on this property. The water quality basin has been constructed to City of Dublin, Zone 7 and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and specifications. Project developers on the other two Subareas will be required to prepare master storm drain and water quality plans to meet Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measure requirements as well as Alameda County Clean Water Program requirements. 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. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table?No New Impact. Major portions of all three Subareas have been slated for future urban uses since adoption of the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Proposed residential uses on the Jordan Ranch Subarea would rely on imported water sources provided by Zone 7 and the Dublin San Ramon Services District, not locally pumped groundwater. No supplemental impacts would therefore occur with regard to this topic. As identified in Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5/49.0, and as identified in subsection"a," above, future individual developments will include features to minimize surface and groundwater pollution, consistent with Alameda County Clean Water Program and 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 the previous CEQA documents. City of Dublin Page 74 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 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 Jordan Ranch Subarea to accommodate new dwellings, a school, roadways, driveways and similar surfaces.Although the existing main drainage swale on the Jordan Ranch would be used for primary drainage, existing drainage patterns would be slightly modified based on proposed development to channelize existing sheet flow into the main swale and then transported to Zone 7's G-3 box culvert just west of Fallon Road and north of the I-580 freeway. As identified in subsection"a," a water quality basin has been constructed on the Jordan Ranch site to minimize impacts related to siltation and erosion, consistent with the Alameda County Clean Water Program. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR would reduce changed drainage patterns to a less-than-significant level for all three Subareas. This mitigation measure requires the future project developers to prepare a Master Drainage Plan for each respective development project with each respective Subarea prior to commencement of construction. Adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2005 SEIR for the Jordan Ranch Subarea and other local and regional water quality standards will reduce impacts from Subarea developments such related to siltation and erosion to a less-than-significant level. With adherence to previously adopted mitigations, 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. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR and 2005 SEIR for the Jordan Ranch Subarea identified a number of mitigation measures to which future individual development projects on the three Subareas must conform to reduce drainage and flooding impacts to a less-than- significant level. These include preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for each individual development proposal, as required by Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 and each individual project developer contributions to funding regional drainage improvements, as required by Mitigation Measures 3.5/47.0 and 48.0.Payment of local and regional drainage fees to the City of Dublin and Zone 7 will meet the requirements of these mitigation measures. 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. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff?No New Impact. The ability of downstream drainage facilities to accommodate additional quantities of stormwater runoff from each Subarea have been addressed in previous EIRs. The City of Dublin will require compliance with applicable mitigation measures to ensure that drainage City of Dublin Page 75 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 2.6/47.0 and 48.0, the individual developers on each Subarea will be required to pay regional drainage fees to assist in funding backbone drainage facilities identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 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. f) Substantially degrade water quality?No New Impact. This is a less-than-significant issue and has been addressed above in item "a." g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map?No New Impact. The Subareas lie outside of a 100-year flood hazard zone as mapped by FEMA. This is identified in the Environmental Setting section of this Initial Study. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the previous CEQA documents. h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? No New Impact.Refer to item "g," above. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. All three Subareas are located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. Adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR as identified in subsection 6 of this Initial Study (Geology and Soils) will ensure that impacts from mudflows would be less- than-significant. These measures include Eastern Dublin Mitigation Measure 3.6/20.0, that requires grading plans that minimize areas to be graded, Mitigation Measure 3.6/22.0,requiring completion of site specific geotechnnical investigations and installation of retaining structures and Mitigation Measure 3.6/23.0,requiring placements of subsurface keys and benches to stabilize graded slopes. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the previous CEQA documents. 10. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting Existing land uses. All of the three subareas comprising the project are currently vacant and contain no buildings. Regulatory setting Land use on the Project Subareas is regulated by the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), both of which were adopted in 1993. The applicants have requested City of Dublin approval of amendments to the General Plan City of Dublin Page 76 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as well as other land use entitlements documented in the Project Description section of this Initial Study. Approval of the requested land use entitlements would allow an increase of up to 35 dwellings on the Jordan Ranch property from the 2014 City approval (see Table 1 in the Project Description),relocation of a planned school on the same property in conjunction with a City Park, deletion of a planned Community Park on the same property. Proposed actions would also include converting a Rural Residential/Agriculture area of approximately 10.75 acres on Subarea 3 to a Park and converting an existing Public Semi-Public site on the Wallis Ranch Subarea to a Park. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. Each of three Subareas comprising the project site are vacant. Development of dwellings and other land uses on the site as proposed in this project would not divide any established communities and no impact would result.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. 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 change land use designations on the Subareas. No changes are proposed to any regulation regulating environmental protection. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to land use regulations than have been previously analyzed in other applicable CEQA documents. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?No New Impact.None of the project Subareas are located within a habitat conservation plan area or natural community conservation plan area. 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. 11. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting No significant quantities of mineral resources exist on any of the project Subareas according to the Eastern Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR or any of other CEQA documents that affect the project site. Project Impacts a,b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources?No New Impact. None of the City of Dublin land use regulatory documents or applicable EIRs indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on any of the Subareas, so no impacts would occur. City of Dublin Page 77 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 12. Noise Environmental Setting Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB) with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing.Decibels and other technical terms are defined in Table 1. Most of the sounds heard in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound. The method commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that reflects the facts that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extreme high frequencies than in the frequency mid-range. This is called "A" weighting, and the decibel level so measured is called the A-weighted sound level (dBA). In practice, the level of a sound source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A- weighting curve. Typical A-weighted levels measured in the environment and in industry are shown in Table 2 for different types of noise. Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of noise from distant sources which create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable.To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors, L01, Lio, L50, and L90, are commonly used. They are the A-weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded during 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of a stated time period. A single number descriptor called the Leg is also widely used.The Len is the average A-weighted noise level during a stated period of time. In determining the daily level of environmental noise,it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises.During the nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes very noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, the Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ldn or DNL)was developed. The Lan divides the 24-hour day into the daytime of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and the nighttime of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. The nighttime noise level is weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise level.The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another 24-hour average which includes both an evening and nighttime weighting. City of Dublin Page 78 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Existing noise environment. The project site is located south of Central Parkway, about 800 feet east of Fallon Road and about a half-mile north of Interstate 580 (I- ;I 580)in Dublin, California. The project site is bounded by Central Parkway to the north,new development property to the east, and hillsides/open space to the south and west. Illingworth&Rodkin,Inc. completed a series of noise measurements to quantify existing ambient noise levels. The noise monitoring survey consisted of one long-term noise measurement beginning Wednesday, May 27, 2015 and ending Friday, May 29, 2015. Two short-term (10-minute)noise measurements were also made to complete the survey. Noise monitoring locations are shown on Exhibit 9 and long-term measurement data are shown in Attachment 2. The proposed project location is currently an undeveloped, vacant property. Noise-sensitive residential land uses are located east of the project site and north of Central Parkway,primarily near the Sunset View Drive intersection (in the current stage of development). The nearest residences are across Central Parkway approximately 150 feet from the project site. The noise environment in the site vicinity results primarily from local traffic along Central Parkway,Fallon Road, vehicle traffic along I-580, and construction associated with ongoing development near the site. Site LT-1 was located near the northwest corner of the project site, along Central Parkway, 45 feet from the centerline. This location was selected to quantify the daily trend in noise levels along the roadway near the western portion of the site. The primary noise sources during the measurement were local traffic and construction during the day, and highway traffic at night. Hourly average noise levels typically ranged from 59 to 64 dBA Len during the day, from 56 to 61 dBA Len during the evening, and from 52 to 57 dBA Le at night. The 24-hour average CNEL at this location ranged from 63 to 64 dBA CNEL.Residences to the north would be located farther from the roadway than the measurement location and would be exposed to lower noise levels. Ambient noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receivers were calculated to be 3 dB lower than LT-1 noise levels, resulting in a range of 60 to 61 dBA CNEL. Two short-term noise measurements were made in conjunction with the long- term measurements on May 29, 2015 in order to quantify the variation in noise levels at locations further from local traffic and construction noise sources. Site ST-1 was located near the southwest corner of the project site, 430 feet south of the intersection of Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive. The 10-minute average noise level measured on May 29, 2015 between 1:40 pm and 1:50 pm was 52 dBA Leg. A comparison of these data to the daily trend in noise levels measured at LT-1 was made to estimate the CNEL at Site ST-1, which was 55 dBA CNEL. Site ST-2 was located near the southeast corner of the project site, 440 feet south of the center of Central Parkway. The 10-minute average noise level measured on May 29, 2015 between 1:10 pm and 1:20 pm was 52 dBA Leg, and between 1:20 pm and 1:30 pm the measured noise level was 53 dBA Le . A comparison of these data to the daily trend in noise levels measured at Site LT-1 was made to estimate City of Dublin Page 79 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 ) the CNEL at Site ST-2, which was 55 dBA CNEL. Table 5 summarizes the results of these short-term measurements. Table 5. Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurements (dBA) Noise Measurement Date CNEL Location Time Leg Lmax Lam Lcso) Lc90) ST-1: 430 feet south of 5/29/2015 52 63 54 50 48 55 Central Parkway, near 1:10-1:20 pm southwest corner of 1:20-1:30 pm 53 64 55 51 48 55 site. ST-2: 440 feet south of Central Parkway,near 5/29/2015 52 65 55 48 45 55 southeast corner of 1:40-1:50 pm site. * CNEL levels were estimated based on noise levels measured at LT-1 during corresponding intervals. Regulatory setting The Noise Element of the Dublin 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 1-580 freeway. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. Table 6. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+ Lodging Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ -- Schools,churches, 60-70 70-80 80+ -- nursing homes Neighborhood 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+ parks Office/Retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80+ Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+ -- Source:Dublin General Plan Noise Element,Table 9-1 The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential dwellings. City of Dublin Page 80 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin FIR. 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 would reduce impacts related to exposure of proposed housing to future roadway noise (IM 3.10/A) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure requires that all future development projects have an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that future dwelling units meet City noise exposure levels. • Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 would reduce 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. 2002 SEIR (Jordan Ranch). The 2002 Supplement contains two supplemental mitigation measures dealing with noise impacts, as follows: • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 requires a noise insulation plan for general commercial and industrial land uses for specific development projects located within a 70 decibel noise contour. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-2 limits heavy truck traffic to designated arterial roads and truck routes in the Fallon Village area. The 2002 SEIR found that exposure of proposed and existing housing to noise levels in excess of City standards established in the Noise Element was a significant and unavoidable impact. 2005 SEIR (Jordan Ranch). The SEIR prepared in 2005 contains the following supplemental noise mitigation measures: • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 requires that residents of residential developments in the Fallon Village area receive written notification of aircraft overflights from Livermore Airport • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-2 requires an acoustical study must be prepared for future residential projects in the Fallon Village area. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation measures contained in the previous EIRs. City of Dublin Page 81 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Project Impacts a,c) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard and result in a substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? No New Impact.The land use compatibility guidelines applicable to this project are designed to provide guidance in determining when special sound insulation treatments may be necessary in order to adequately control the intrusion of environmental noise. In this case, 70 dBA CNEL is the acceptable exterior noise limit for schools. The California Building Code noise threshold is 65 CNEL. The noise exposure at the site is less than 65 dBA CNEL and is compatible with the proposed land use. For the most intensive proposed use associated with the project, the combination elementary and middle school located on the south side of Central Parkway and at the intersection of Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive, a detailed noise analysis was completed by the firm of Illingworth &Rodkin, Inc. Their analysis is as follows. Traffic noise impacts. Typically, a significant permanent noise increase would occur if the project would increase noise levels at noise sensitive receptors by 3 dBA CNEL or greater where ambient noise levels exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard.Where ambient noise levels are at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard,noise level increases of 5 dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant. Ambient noise levels at the nearest receptors are above 60 dBA CNEL at times, and would exceed 60 dBA CNEL with the project;therefore, the 3 dBA CNEL or greater significance threshold would apply. Vehicle traffic associated with the project was evaluated to determine whether or not the project would result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels existing without the project. Traffic data provided by Fehr & Peers were reviewed to calculate traffic noise level increases expected as a result of the project. These data included turning movement counts at six intersections for existing conditions and projections for cumulative conditions with school traffic, and cumulative conditions without school traffic. Link volumes under the project scenario were compared to existing link volumes to calculate the noise increase attributable to the project. Traffic noise levels along Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive were projected to increase by 3 dBA CNEL during the AM peak hours. This noise increase would be noticeable during the AM peak hours.However, project- generated traffic would not cause a substantial increase in daily average noise levels. On a 24-hour average basis, the CNEL is calculated to increase by less than 1 dBA assuming a 3 dBA Len increase in existing traffic noise levels during the AM peak hours. The largest relative traffic noise increases are expected in areas with relatively low existing traffic volumes. Additionally,receivers in the site's vicinity are new construction and would have no baseline noise exposure from which to compare noise increases in City of Dublin Page 82 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 ■ the environment. The traffic noise increase resulting from the project would not be substantial or result in a significant impact. Parking lot noise. There is potential for a surface parking lot to be located on a portion of the site adjacent to residences. The major noise sources attributed to parking lot activities are the sounds of vehicles as they drive by, noise generated when vehicles start their engines, door slams, and the occasional sound of car alarms or horns. Illingworth &Rodkin,Inc. has calculated noise generated by a similar parking lot in close proximity to residences. Maximum and average noise levels resulting from activities in the proposed parking lot were assessed at residential receptors 150 feet from the project site, either across Central Parkway to the north or along Central Parkway to the east. These residences are likely to be nearest the school's parking lot. Predicted parking lot noise levels were then compared to existing ambient noise. Maximum instantaneous noise levels at 150 feet from parking lot activities would range from about 47 to 57 dBA Lmax as a result of typical activities and could reach 67 dBA Lmax when car alarms are sounded. Noise levels from typical activities are lower than measured hourly Leg noise levels conditions during the day. When car alarms are sounded,noise levels could exceed measured hourly average conditions by 3 to 8 dBA during the day. However, maximum noise levels under current conditions are typically within the 65 to 80 dBA L.range during the daytime. While maximum instantaneous noise levels resulting from a parking lot would be audible and may be considered intrusive, the quantitative noise increase would not be substantial and the impact would be less than significant. The hourly average noise level resulting from noise-generating activities in the proposed parking lot would reach 37 dBA Le at a distance of 150 feet from the acoustical center of a hypothetical parking area (sensitive receptors would not be any closer) and would fall below typical hourly average noise levels during the day. Similarly, CNEL noise levels resulting from the operation of the parking lot would reach 44 dBA CNEL at the nearest residential receivers,but would be below existing ambient conditions. On an hourly average or daily average basis, the operation of the proposed parking lot would not substantially increase ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project. Noise from outdoor activities. Schools typically include play/P.E. areas for students. The acoustical center of play areas are not expected to be closer than 250 feet from the nearest residential outdoor use area to the north or east. Noise from children playing is dependent on play times, total number of students outside at one time, and the number of hours per school day where children would be outside at recess or participating in a physical education class. City of Dublin Page 83 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Illingworth &Rodkin, Inc. has measured noise generated by outdoor activities at schools at several locations in the Bay Area. Average noise levels from outdoor activities at schools typically range from 72 to 74 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet with 20 to 30 children at play. However, since the distance between play area and residential outdoor use area would increase by 225 feet, those adjusted average noise levels would decrease by 10 dBA. Overall, average noise levels from outdoor activities are calculated to be 62 to 64 dBA Leq at a distance of 250 feet. Maximum noise levels typically result from whistles and voices, and can reach 81 dBA Lmax at a distance of 25 feet, which is calculated to be 71 dBA Lmax at 250 feet. Average noise levels at the nearest residential outdoor use areas are calculated to reach 62 dBA Leq, which would fall within the range of typical daytime noise levels (currently from 58 to 66 dBA Leq). Based on the above calculations, use of the outdoor activity areas could generate a noise level as high as 57 dBA CNEL at a distance of 250 feet. When the new noise source is added to the existing noise levels at residences (i.e., 61 dBA Ld„ during weekdays), day-night average noise levels would remain at 61 dBA CNEL and would not be significant based o City General Plan noise standards. Noise from mechanical equipment. Proposed structures on site would include ventilation systems that would be expected to generate relatively low noise levels. Such ventilation systems would be designed with standard Building Code requirements and would not be expected to generate high noise levels either within or outside of the project area. Future noise levels due to mechanical equipment operation is not expected to be noticeable above existing traffic noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive uses and this impact is would not be significant. Future park uses on Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch Subareas would be subject to applicable mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents to ensure that no significant noise impacts would result. There would be no new or substantially more severe noise impacts with respect to generation of noise in excess of City standards than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No New Impact. According to the project applicant, normal construction methods would be used to build the proposed project so there would be limited and less- than-significant generation of groundborne noise or vibration. 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. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? No New Impact. Future individual projects City of Dublin Page 84 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 constructed on each of the Subareas will be required to adhere to construction noise mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to minimize the impacts of construction noise, including Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.10/4.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.10/5.0, to reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. No new or more substantially severe impacts with respect to construction noise have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the project Subareas. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? No New Impact. Subarea 3 is located within the height referral area of the Livermore Airport. The noise analysis prepared for the project did not identify significant aircraft noise from Livermore Municipal Airport on this site. No new or more severe significant impacts would occur than previously analyzed. City of Dublin Page 85 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 1 ) 1,1"k'ity),4`11,,,'1,,Pli'i'''';'1"..,''''',...,\",,r''',',, ',:',,'''''''''‘.,'1', ,,1°;(i',1".i,,41t-i4,1,,41tir,i''C';'‘.;'.i14141'1:',.:`t4:41',1',\',',.,,'''ll'''`Ill',tr'll",,'''''''.2i;''''r"tC,,,r,..,,'''t.:'.:1'il‘l°17t,,t,",,;,,"4,:i1`1,t''',(1),11,,''',,i-,•.'',It'L,t1',,,''''''Pri r,,,',',',r1' 1,,-11''' r', 1'. ,4110,,,,I,,111,,,,,,,,,'..,,,,,,,,,,, , ,■"' . ,4,, ,,,,,,,,)",,1,i„..q,II.,,-il-P",,i,.,„,,, ,`,,„„,0,''',.,',- t1),)Ii1,4!1"plit);„,?"„k'''';',',,,,,,,"",;)'," '1 11 1 I l'I ..."'''1, ' ', ,,,. I klfilt,.;,,,*"%fi..k.--,s1,1+1.\\%,,-'''''' ,-.„' i '1,',4''''0,./V''7,1,:L'I''',,,,if'""'''',t;','+"1°-,`51'"?'1,'"311 ''.'1('.';''''P''),''''''',,:','''?1,,?,',2,,'to., ',II" 1 ' , , ■ "d, ',,,,; ,",,`,' ,,' \ I giV,,,,14,,,q,a'qT,'',,"r„,-,'Ap';','', ,' -''''' ,„„ ,f,,i,jj',i"-',4,1 .,,,,',":■-..,„+"",z,,,,,,_,,',',,",1,,,..";0,,,I,,,,rs,,,,,,,v,,,,,,c4illi.,,,,I,,,,,,,'''41,1,tr,,,,,Ilfol,,":"1,",' ' ,, ). .,,.,'„,,'''; 111'1; ' ,,,, ' i'7,_„r",'wNil,"I'441,9,41,\",,'',"''''' '0,'1'1, , :1 V'',4■71'4 '!'il,',,"' "","' ,? ''''''-!'7, e,i,''').;tir ,, ;,i..,,''.3,t,,,t„;,!,,,;.,)„,%,rt-'4,,,te,,,,J1;'s 1, '., 't 1.,‘Jle, ,,11.1„„t ,,„-:, t• ,,k,„,1,,,,k4l,„„;z,,,,,,„.4,,,,,,,It,,,,,,, tit.\,,,i.s.,,l',, ,,,,''Ip.,1.1,r `',,,+,,,,t04 l'i.:1""r•ii"-',...V7V'''''.4"Ir.,)".°-1'''''',k'''1.,'.,.<'44 'kll'i',■';';.'''..'1'..','"'"4.C.444q'illr,f''' 7-'1 l'.,''' ,,ll'''l''4'f ri'illi,,f,',...( k4 %, ,,,,,',v,t4i.r,1',,,,,,i1,,C,,Afir,,,IIT,r,°,';.f'0't4'f,,,.,i'l 1.1.;,,i,IIIII.74'11,"-.444.t',.,,r!,,,'',"...t,i^,,S,1,,,,:er1'''4 ,,,,„„,‘,0,) ,',',('';,1'1'[14°' ,ii',,,.,, '', '. ...."',..',"■ ('6,,,,6 1', ii.' s -,ta t,. 4,,,,,,,,,II-J.,,.-',/,'cit.-t3„.,1,, ,I,.,t4.,‘)1,b,,,t, 1,41t.,)1,....,•' ,,,'‘,,,H,t,t, r.:... , ;t..,,,,.tt 1,,,, ,, J;,,,;,,,t■,,,1h 1; 1,, 1 ittk'1,11;',C1*11'141't fi?fi 1?'0,1'(T1,11;i1 n 1'1'1 1 t1/.° 4.4 4,4'i 0`i ,,■4,,, ,,,/...,, ;:t",,w.,,'",,,-i'''''',,r,",''' ' ,',"'„,,i,11''il'i '',;,/ ,,1 ';, +' ,,,,i',"",c ,11'1 l'it\l'IYIVir,,,',,''). ,,,-'4.1„, '',,,■.,f,i',1. ',"' t„..,,A tAzi,i4,e,e'itzt.„tv''',i14;i1,4) ..;?..-'r,,,, ,, 't,`', ' 1,:',,, '', 1 .',,,e ','"i 1 '' ,-,.." ''''',„41'. 11,,,f'1' .111,14,: '1i11,t'',:'1' 1'.-'1''-'N., `','1.11i',11,14,,g,4,1'ti i11.11'11r1,1"10"4W'1T; '1"' 11 '14-'''71it1.,`1,,t' i':,'),, ,)"yl,'erj1(1,,,t;'i,.:.,,P''.0.,1 '. _ I '1 ,■,,) ,"."--'" i ,q 1,0 1.5,i,.'1'.4',',"'11 '',;11.'-.k,2 1 1'4,1. 1''1,1i1' ,A 1 ', "p,„4,t'r,'",.,„'",,ii„,t,,„t„,,;,,;»,"It,11 ,•'1111, ' ,l'ir,'"'‘,,,,'',',Ii'''''.i4,`",,,"-,P,;,,,'''', ,i,1,11'' ' '''„,,'"■.,,7"'''',','I, I , , l'r,'''Inrahle,I,i`,.11)9,. " .,, t i ,;,, ;,1..)),t,L,,,), ;,,r'e,,;,?,,,,,,:l'illi,,(1„,,,;„ ; 1 q ,r ,,t't1',"1,„1,,,•1,,11 I- ;, , t, 1 rtil,"4(-.•,;;,„. ,,,,,i,t,ft,i',....);r1-11.,,,,, „I ,, f II,', ,,I.,,7{,,.:11",,,, , 'i')',i,'`,.,11.‘,.,,',;,,,,,11,1-I''',t■L'.-',•$'`,',",`,.f.:;. 11111';4'.„.=\r'tti,,fit'I'I II l', 1f1 111414-'4*4 11 '11 . ,441 1p'',,,1,41c17",,T',4 11;)U',J,'1,41,t,,11,1,''' 11 li 1 1 1 j i ,, 0,fi 11110'1'1 1 1 li t' .'1' /11',1•1:111111'4°.:11:11'.'11r:-;1-'1'1'1:'1'1'' ''' 1',11','11‘,•it..'„,:1111'4,i1 j:171111,1,f\-1fii',':45,„:1::116'['r 'rl i tl '1'1 1 1' '7J111111) 'h';')J 1'''1?oki''',,,.■!'v,:;;.3„,4. 440/0 ill['l I I 1 l I.I,r,j ,Ii ,n,11,1'1 t., ,11 ili,, I 1, ' r''''11'r U'r It ;I,''',' '''r i'i'll.NI IV II, „1,HI,li t. t(1,-,v.p, t,),,,t„,'',;(1.i1:,,,ti,,,,,r•:4„:0.c.-s,,,t,,,,ktlt t.,,,,t•tr,, .; , ,HI 1,,', 1,, ,1,,,,,,,,,iir',,,, t,,-0,', ,' i r ,i,t II,I k.,1■ i■'',''n.,11',.;11,111 ''''''ottilLIII'lRiy,k,1,..,1 ',,,,,, , .4,IC,"''''''4',..44. ti,111 4;'‘''41/1..t.,%'''!",ijt:',11"%flo'll',..,',,,4,,`",,,, ,Z,',t1,"'„,,,,,, ',,1 I ,,li`ii II j,',,'4.,\ ,i'''' ' l',,:'I'')o.\''''1:1'14;Jteli.'''''14jfi41,1;'l''''t4tv'''''''4,....1::.....1';'.** ,,i„'%%'1,4r.- ,',41".41'''Ir l'' '11')144'6''' '■'"iit'i'f'Abl!).11.4'''I'')),,..h'il,t),""'I I'''l';,'11`7,''ii I'''„',),,"';',',11",',■['t1„I'il,`','iill',,,I,', , 1 ) Er,,,,,,,,,,,,c,i,i,,,„,,q,,If ,4') ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„:,,,,;.,,,A,'":.:7,r,1„,„v„,,','„,,',.„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,:„7:;„.",,',,,,),q,..,1 '-.4ic:,-9,,,,,'!,51 ,i'',,,,,,,j,pro.,,,„,,,A..e,,,,•,,Iii tit,,,1 ir , ,,,,,r,,1,y 114.i ,''',11[)111,,j,i11'.''',,,= `',i,I,'''',■,r , [1*14." ''''''',-.1-*''I''''''''''''''''-`111'"^1 1•'"t''''''',,?e''''''',"4,..j,.110r7 i-ili.,,,.. „,:,..„,,,,,.,,,,,_.,„.„,,,z4.4.a.., .1;0.,,,ii,11,,,r„.„1:17,,4,,,,,,,,t,,,,,,,,,r4,4,1,,,i,,,,,.1.1,;1,,`1.?,,,,,??,,,,,,,,O',.,T,,,k'r11,,,,.,,'1`,‘,.,,,' ir 1,'ij.,.`":,,,,'°:,",1,1,r.)'.:1:1,1q,,,,,r111111[1.,ii,11„,i,,,, 1 jil, , 1 ;1 ,,,,,,,i'11,11-17 , , '1"'r'fr:"'"i t 1,L, :-.'' q'111111,1k1 ''-' A' •'''•'Ir.P^-7.'''.'!',Aj iv(S,.111 1111 '''''''I'4 t. ' i'',,1 , I r,11 4-;,',.',il;)/V,;''''.'','-' ,..L"?.").4,41.:"'4,,:,,,,:r,l,f1,4/,:•4:‘,,,„.T.:.,,P , 1,, ','I+1 .,,,f,,,I,,I I'j,,,1, , , , , 1 / ' ''1 ,,i ^14,,,'VYttii,414 ''..",;%."''' .'..”'' ' '',' .• ',I.*. . r-..," ''''' '4..,r,I 11,r 4' 1 .,,, 1 Ifr I,t, t., .+ 1 4", 1 1 1,, 1,1 .,,,,,,,,.,,,II'I ,,". o ,'1V,,,1.4,r11}4,0 1• /4.,.101I'i' i "I I "t r,I'l ,4,,.q' ',""r , ,1 „, ' , ' III IIIII IF ,IF III II lil II -'''' I Ii?, 1'11 1 ^II r 1 II[ ' ,, ,,,,,,,, Pi olect Site Ili',,,t)i,„1111,,,, t 1,,t,,„ ,t,,,,i,,,,), . Fl I;it, ft.'t "'i, „ 1-..I 'tt,4' ''', h 1 11 1,11,4", /11 ''',1111 ,11111 , 111j1IIIIIIIII,II I 1 ? i I/ ''..11.'":`4;:t,1. '' ' ' **oil+',i'l'illI;'!'gm'rlit'I'fi'l jj''CL'ilifilLI,iii,',',ii Ifl'i„.,v)kt ii„ ,'' ;1 1,11111 111111,, , 1 I if II , '.'[i111, ,,., ., lyr'.,,,,, ' ''',1°- All' yjil 1,1 ,.•. r. .. i , 'r)II,,,(i,li 1.11, 1 '1111I"i0111 1 1 1 1 ,, ','!, ..1-.;;;,:r, fl,(Iirti;ft / ,. i,'-' ,, ,IL, t.‘,," i.',11,11,1C, r'. /1 ''• , 1 1,,;1,11, ,, , „0,,,t,' ,„.r.tt-^^^*,-t ^, I II 0' ,illi ,,ti[t :r r Ilt,;,; tIII,,,,, 111,,,,,t'IT11,,,,,■'1 4,..' '''''',7:. r'''Il ,,i ,i, 1 et III,i i ,,',1,,,4,, .,1-, '`;,, ,,,.,,,'? ''',I't,I1 1, 11 4, '''' ',1, 3,]-,,11■',:::,J,IIIII,41,,,'',;ii,11,I,,'/II. ,,;, ,, ILL■,,, ,,,,,,,t, ,,t,,,,„,t,,it L'' , ,g4L 1111, .,11 11,1,1,111 , I 1-`''' ''''.V4''''1',1 1 '11'''d,,,‘'`.:,''';"4',1:'1):41."1.4. 1?4"'116'1'1''''111,1'''''■111r■If' '1-1'1 11 1,' 11, 111111 11 I 1'11 111111111 , 1 ' 1 i 1 1 EXHIBIT 9 • RANCH ANCI-1 N 0 FA T 1-4 GPA & SPA s ) NTS - NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS MACKAY& i ,'S JULY 2015 13. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The project Subareas are all currently vacant and contain no dwellings. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?No New Impact. The three Subareas have been planned for a mix of residential and commercial land uses,parks, open spaces and other land uses since adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan in 1993. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the growth inducing impact(Impact 3.5/T)related to providing water service to the Eastern Dublin area. The configuration of uses on the site and surrounding areas have been slightly modified for all three Subareas over the past few years as identified in the Project Description section of this Initial Study. On the Jordan Ranch Subarea, the current proposal could result in construction of an increase of up to 40 dwellings above that included in the 2014 City land use approval. This would result by relocating the approved School site to the south and replacing this portion of the Jordan Ranch with Medium Density Residential dwellings. The increased residential development potential would still be below the maximum residential buildout analyzed for the Jordan Ranch in the 2005 SEIR, which is 1,064 dwellings. The proposed project would have the effect of reducing one dwelling from the Subarea 3 portion of the project. This would be due to the proposed re-designation of the "Rural Residential/Agricultural (RRA)" portion of the site to "Park." The current RRA designation would allow one dwelling unit within Subarea 3, whereas none would be allowed under the proposed "Park" land use designation. No residences would be affected on the Wallis Ranch Subarea as part of this project. Based on the above discussion that the potential increase in the number of dwelling units at build-out would be small and consistent with previous CEQA documents, 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. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people?No New Impact. None of the Subareas contain existing dwelling units and no impact would result with regard to displacement of dwellings or population on the site. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the previous CEQA documents. City of Dublin Page 87 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 14. Public Services Environmental Setting The following provide essential services to the Project Site: • Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Depai Intent. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, fire prevention, education,building inspection services and hazardous material control. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin Police Services Department headquartered at the Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza just east of downtown Dublin. • Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational services for properties in the Eastern Dublin area. • Library Services: Alameda County Library service. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets,roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin. Previous CEQA documents 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. City of Dublin Page 88 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 • 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. No significant impacts to public services were identified in other previous CEQA documents affecting the three Subareas. Future development on all three Subareas will be required to adhere to Eastern Dublin mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Fire protection? No New Impact.Approval and implementation of the proposed project would slightly 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. This is due to a small increase in the maximum number of dwellings that would be allowed on the Jordan Ranch Subarea than currently allowed (up to 35 dwellings). Future development on all of the Subareas will be 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), so that impacts to the Alameda County Fire Department related to approval and construction of the proposed Project would be less-than-significant. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0, proposed developments on the Subareas will be conditioned to meet Fire Department requirements including but not limited to maintaining minimum water pressure and fire flow, providing adequate site access and using fire retardant building materials. Proposed development will also be conditioned to be consistent with the City's adopted Wildfire Management Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0). 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,5/15/15). b) Police protection? No New Impact. Similar to fire protection, there would be no new impact with regard to police protection,based on the following mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These Mitigation Measures include paying City of Dublin public facility impact fees to assist in funding new police facilities (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, lighting and ensuring adequate surveillance for structures and parking areas (Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0). The proposed project would be a minor increase in residential development on the Jordan Ranch compared to the 2012 Addendum but less development than assumed in the 2005 SEIR. Thus the project is not a substantial change from the City of Dublin Page 89 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 1 analyses and conclusions in prior CEQA documents. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to police protection than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. Based on discussions with Dublin Police Services Department staff, there would be no new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to police service beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents(source: Captain Dennis Houghtelling,Dublin Police Services, 5/21/15). c) Schools? No New Impact. There would be no new impacts to school service 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 CEQA. Approval of the proposed project would also result in the relocation of an existing School site on a portion of the Jordan Ranch to a site south and west of the current site. The proposed school would be developed and operated by the Dublin Unified School District(DUSD). The proposed school would provide K-8 educational services with an estimated maximum enrollment of between 900 and 950 students. The approved development plan for the Jordan Ranch included future construction of a 500-student elementary school. The City of Dublin and Dublin Unified School District recently entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to facilitate development of the school. 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. 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. 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. e) Solid waste generation? No New Impact.See item 17 "f" and "g,"below. 15. Recreation Environmental Setting No neighborhood or community parks and/or recreation services or facilities are currently located on the project site. The Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designate a number of future park sites on the overall Jordan Ranch Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch properties.These include: City of Dublin Page 90 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 1 • Jordan Ranch:A 5.8-acre neighborhood park, a 2.7-acre neighborhood square and an 11.1-acre community park is currently planned. • Subarea 3: A 2.7-acre Neighborhood Square is approved within Subarea 3. • Wallis Ranch: Two public neighborhood parks and a private park totaling 12.4 acres are approved on this property. The City of Dublin offers a range of park,recreation and cultural services. 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 Counties. Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of mitigation measures related to parks and recreational facilities, as follows. • Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0-28.0 calls for the acquisition and development of new parks and other outdoor facilities in Eastern Dublin,requiring land dedication and/or park in-lieu fees for new subdivisions and similar techniques to provide for additional park and recreational features. Implementation of all of the mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would result in a ratio of 6.7 acres of parkland per 1000 population in Eastern Dublin. • Mitigation Measures 3.4/29.0-31.0 requires that each new development in Eastern Dublin provide a fair share of parks and open space facilities. Development of a parks implementation plan was also called for, to identify and prioritize parkland in Eastern Dublin. Finally, adoption of a park in-lieu fee program was required as a mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. Consistent with these mitigations, the City requires residential project developers to dedicate parkland at the time of subdivision approval and pay Public Facility Fees (which includes park in-lieu fees) to fund both the development of neighborhood and community park facilities as well as other community facilities. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/32.0 requires the establishment of a trail system with connections to planned regional and subregional trails, which would reduce this impact to an insignificant level. • Mitigation Measures 3.4/33.0-36.0 call for use of natural stream corridors and major ridgelines to create a comprehensive,integrated trail system that allows safe and convenient pedestrian access, and required developers to dedicate public access along ridgetops and stream corridors to accommodate trail and staging areas. City of Dublin Page 91 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 2002 SEIR (Jordan Ranch property). The 2002 SEIR described a proposed action of that project to detach the Project area from the Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District (LARPD) as part of the larger reorganization that also included annexation of the Project area to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. Under the reorganization proposal, the City of Dublin would provide parks and recreation facilities and services to Project area residents as part of the larger spectrum of municipal services. The reorganization was approved by the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission in 2002 and the site now receives park and recreation facilities and services from the City of Dublin. 2004 Dublin Ranch West SEIR (Wallis Ranch property). This SEIR contained Supplemental Impact Park-1, which found a potentially significant impact with respect to an inconsistency between the proposed development plan and the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. This was reduce to a less-than-significant level by requiring the project developer to amend the Development Plan to add an additional 1.04 net acre of Neighborhood Park and a 1.9-acre Neighborhood Park within the project site. No park impacts or mitigation measures were contained in the Subarea 3 Addendum. The project developer will be required to comply with all applicable mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents. Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would increase the use of nearby City and regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing the on-site peimanent population on the Jordan Ranch by 35 dwellings.However, a joint school and park is proposed on this property, which would provide a City recreational area. The Jordan Ranch project applicant is required to comply with Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, including payment of City public facilities fees to assist the City to purchase and/or improve parks throughout the community that could be used by Project residents. The proposed project would increase parkland on Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch Subarea. City staff has determined that the proposed project would not result in a significant impact with respect to use of neighborhood or commercial parks (source: Paul McCreary, Dublin Director of Parks and Community Services, 6/1/15) 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. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities?No New Impact. See item "a," above.The proposed project would include slightly decreasing the amount of public parkland on the Jordan Ranch project but would increase parkland on Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch property. City of Dublin Page 92 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the previous CEQA documents. 16. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting Existing roadway system. The Jordan Ranch and Subarea 3 Subareas are served by the following roadways. Fallon Road is a north-south arterial roadway that connects I-580 to Tassajara Road. It currently provides two travel lanes in each direction, with the exception of the segment that provides three lanes in each direction between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive.Between I-580 and Central Parkway, this segment is ultimately planned to provide three lanes in each direction. This roadway is being upgraded as development occurs on parcels fronting the roadway, and will ultimately provide sidewalks and bicycle facilities along its length. Fallon Road is a designated route of regional significance. Central Parkway is an east-west roadway that extends from Arnold Road to east of Fallon Road. Between Arnold Road and Tassajara Drive, and east of Fallon Road, it is a designated collector roadway. Between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, it is a designated arterial roadway. It generally provides one travel lane in each direction with a landscaped median, bicycle lanes and sidewalks along portions of the roadway that have fronting development. On-street parking is allowed on some portions of the roadway. Positano Parkway is an east-west roadway that extends from Fallon Road to • Croak Road. It is a two-lane arterial with a landscaped median, sidewalks, and bike lanes. On-street parking is not allowed on this facility. Dublin Boulevard is an east-west designated arterial roadway in the City of Dublin General Plan that extends from west of San Ramon Road to its current terminus at Fallon Road. It is generally a four to six lane facility with a landscaped median.No on-street parking is permitted on this facility. Dublin Boulevard is a designated route of regional significance.Bicycle lanes and sidewalks are provided on portions of Dublin Boulevard. Lockhart Street is a north-south collector roadway that extends from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive. This facility is complete with a landscaped median and bike lanes. Sidewalks are present where there is adjacent development—sidewalk infill would occur as the adjacent lands become developed. On-street parking is not allowed on this facility. City of Dublin Page 93 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Sunset View Drive is a local residential roadway that spans north from Central Parkway inside the project area.It is a two-lane facility with on- street parking and sidewalks. Panorama Drive is a north-south local residential facility inside the project area that parallels Sunset View Drive to the east.It is also a two-lane facility with on-street parking and sidewalks. In addition to the above roadways,the Wallis Ranch Subarea is served by Tassajara Road, an arterial roadway that connects Santa Rita Road in Pleasanton to the south with Contra Costa County to the north. Tassajara Road generally has four lanes of travel, two in each direction, and is planned to have six lanes at buildout. Pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, pathways, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Sidewalks are provided along most roadways in the immediate study area, although there are portions of Central Parkway and Fallon Road where the roadway has not yet been constructed to its ultimate width and sidewalks have not yet been constructed. Sidewalks have also been constructed along portions of Tassajara Road. Bicycle facilities. Class II A bicycle lanes are provided on Dublin Boulevard, Fallon Road and Central Parkway. A series of Class I paths are also provided throughout the eastern Dublin area. Transit service. Transit service in the area is provided by Wheels,Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and Altamont Commuter Express (ACE). Existing traffic operations. Existing operations were evaluated for the weekday AM, afternoon and PM peak hours at the study intersections, based on the volumes and lane configurations shown on Table 3 of the attached traffic analysis (Attachment 2). Observed peak hour factors2 were used at all intersections for the existing analysis. Where the observed PHF was less than 0.75, a minimum value of 0.75 was used. Truck,pedestrian and bicycle activity was factored into the analysis. As shown, study intersections operate at overall acceptable service levels in accordance with benchmarks set by the City of Dublin during the morning, afternoon and evening peak hours. Detailed intersection LOS calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix B of the full traffic analysis. Vehicle queuing. Field observations confirmed the calculated levels of service along with the extent of existing vehicle queues, which are contained within the 2 The relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume is given by the peak-hour factor(PHF)based on the following equation:PHF—Hourly volume/(4•volume during the peak 15 minutes of flow). The analysis of level of service is based on peak rates of flow occurring within the peak hour because substantial short-term fluctuations typically occur during an hour. City of Dublin Page 94 initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 - existing vehicle storage. Detailed intersection queuing calculation worksheets are also presented in Appendix B of the full traffic analysis. Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR includes the following mitigation measures • Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0 and 3.3/4.0) were adopted which reduced impacts on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on I-680 north of I-580 to a level of insignificance. • Mitigation Measures 3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on the remaining I-580 freeway segments and the 1-580/680 interchange.Even with mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts remained on I-580 freeway segments between I-680 and Dougherty Road and, at the build-out scenario of 2010, on other segments of I-580. • Mitigation Measures 3.3/6.0—8.0, 10.0 and 12.0 were adopted to reduce impacts to the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Freeway Ramps, Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Freeway Ramps, Airway Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard intersections and long El Charro Road to a level of insignificance. These mitigations include construction of additional lanes at intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the neighboring cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to restripe, widen or modify on-ramps and off-ramps and interchange intersections, and coordination with Caltrans to modify certain interchanges. Development projects within the Eastern Dublin project area are also required to contribute a proportionate share to the multi jurisdictional improvements through the Eastern Dublin traffic impact fee program and the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee program. • Mitigation Measures 3.3/13.0 and 14.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on identified intersections with Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road. • Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0—15.3 and 16.0—16.1 generally require coordination with transit providers to extend transit services and coincide pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at major street crossings. 2002 SEIR (Jordan Ranch Subarea). The following mitigation measures were included in the 2002 SEIR • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-1 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of widening the I-580/Hacienda Drive eastbound ramp to include an additional left turn lane. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-2 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of widening City of Dublin Page 95 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 to 4 lanes as well as modifying the westbound loop on-ramp to meet Caltrans design standards. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-3 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of converting the east bound I-580/Santa Rita to a shared left-turn/through lane. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-4 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to install a signal at the Dublin Boulevard/Street D intersection. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-5 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of installing a traffic signal at the Fallon Road/Project Road intersection. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-6 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of reconfiguring the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-7 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to construct an additional through lane on northbound Fallon Road, an additional left-turn lane and an additional through lane on southbound Fallon Road. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-8 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to fund a feasibility study for possibly relocating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection further north and adding a new signalized intersection south of the relocated Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-9 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village to fund widening Fallon Road between the I-580 freeway and Dublin Boulevard to eight lanes, for widening Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to six lanes and for widening Fallon Road between Central Parkway and Project Road to four lanes. The Fallon Road/I-580 overcrossing shall also be widened to six lanes. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-10 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to widen Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to four lanes. 2005 SEIR (Jordan Ranch Subarea). The 2005 SEW contained the following traffic and transportation mitigation measures: • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-1 requires individual project developers in the Fallon Village area to advance construction of the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection improvements or,if the City's Traffic City of Dublin Page 96 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 • Impact Fee Program is updated in the future to fund these improvements, use of traffic fees would mitigate this cumulative impact. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-`lRA-2 requires all project developers in the Fallon Village area to fund the widening of the I-580 eastbound off ramp at Santa Rita Road to accommodate additional peak hour cumulative traffic. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-3 requires project developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of funding to widen the Central Parkway/Hacienda Drive intersection to accommodate anticipated cumulative traffic. All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, the 2002 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the proposed Project. 2005 SEIR (Wallis Ranch Subarea). This CEQA document identified the following significant supplemental impacts and mitigation measures: • Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA-1 reduced the impact of additional traffic along Tassajara Road segments near the project site to a less-than-significant level by requiring the developer to widen Tassajara Road to four travel lanes between North Dublin Ranch Drive to the northern project access road. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA-2 reduced the impact of potential traffic safety impacts to a less-than-significant level by requiring installation of traffic signals at the two project entrances,provide an east- bound right-turn lane, provide northbound left-turn capacity from Tassajara Road onto project access drives, provide a northbound left-turn lane from Tassajara Road onto the southern access drive and provide a southbound right-turn pocket with a taper on Tassajara Road at both access roadways. The proposed project will be required to comply with all of the above transportation and circulation mitigation measures. Some of the required transportation improvements have already been completed, some are underway and some are planned for the future with funding provided through the Eastern Dublin TIF Program Project Impacts a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity? No New Impact. To assess the potential traffic and transportation impact of the proposed 950-student elementary and middle school, the firm of Fehr &Peers completed a comprehensive traffic analysis of this portion of the project. Other portions of the proposed project would generally involve future park development in the Subareas which was not deemed to generate a significant amount of traffic. The Fehr & Peers report is included as Attachment 1 as well as a supplemental City of Dublin Page 97 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 memorandum documenting that future development of a 950-student elementary and middle school would result in the same or less intensive traffic impacts than the 900-student elementary school analyzed in the base traffic analysis. Background traffic model information is not contained in this Initial Study, but is available at the City of Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. A summary of the traffic analysis is as follows: Project trip generation.For this project, several sources of trip generation data were reviewed,including Fehr&Peers trip generation surveys at several elementary schools in the Tri-Valley Area. This data was compared to trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, (9th Edition) with the resulting trip generation estimates shown in Table 5 of the full traffic analysis (see Attachment 1). Also see Table 1 in the Addendum Report found in Attachment 1. Elementary School sites surveyed in the Tri Valley Area were typically neighborhood schools with some students observed walking/biking to school,but with the majority of students being driven to school. The surveyed rates reflect about 13 percent of the student population walking to school. Given the number of housing units within the immediate vicinity of the school, the walk percentage was increased to 25 percent, or 225 students. The resulting vehicle trip rate per student, accounting for a 25 percent walk share, is higher than the maximum trip rate per student noted in the TI'E Trip Generation Manual. For this assessment, Table 1 notes that construction of the proposed elementary and middle schools would result in a total of 911 trips during the a.m. peak, 468 trips in the afternoon peak(end of a school day) and 305 trips in the p.m. peak hour. Project trip distribution and assignment. Project trip distribution refers to the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would take to access and leave the site. Estimates of regional project trip distribution were developed based on existing travel patterns in the area, a select zone analysis using the City of Dublin travel demand model, and prior analysis prepared for the site. General trip distribution estimates are presented in Table 7 of the traffic analysis (see Attachment 1). Many school trips are part of the parent/guardian trip chain that typically involves dropping off a child at school on the way to work or other daily errands, and while it represents a new trip within the immediate project area, it does not represent new trips to the regional roadway system. This interaction was accounted for in the assignment of trips to study area City of Dublin Page 98 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 intersections. Project trips were assigned to the roadway network based on the general directions of approach and departure shown in Table 7 but the route that people take to the site could vary. Separate trip assignments are shown for existing and future conditions as the full connection of Croak Road to Dublin Boulevard would affect how vehicles arrive to/depart the area, especially the school site. Table 7,below, summarized trip generation by land use type: Table 7. Project Trip Distribution Roadway Project Trip Assignment Residential Use School Use Fallon Road North 20% 20% Fallon Road South 60% 10% Central Pkwy.East 5% 10% Central Pkwy.West 10% 30% Positano Pkwy.East 5% 30% Total 100% 100% Source: City of Dublin Fallon Village Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, August 2005, Jordan Ranch Stage II Submittal—Site Development Review,April20, 2011, and Fehr& Peers, 2015 Existing traffic with Project conditions. The project-only traffic volumes were added to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to estimate the Existing with Project peak hour intersection turning movement volumes, as shown on Table 8 of the full traffic analysis. For this scenario it was assumed that Central Parkway would connect to Croak Road, connecting to Dublin Boulevard, in the eastbound direction only. No changes to the lane configuration or traffic control were assumed at any of the study intersections. Traffic signal timings, peak hour factors,heavy vehicle percentages, and pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions for the initial analysis. Existing with Project conditions were evaluated using the same methods described in Chapter 1 of the traffic analysis (see Attachment 1). The analysis results are presented in Error! Reference source not found.,based on the traffic volumes and lane configurations. Table 8 also includes the operations results for the Existing without Project conditions for comparison purposes. With the addition of trips related to the build-out of the remaining portions of Jordan Ranch, intersections in the study area would degrade, but would continue to operate within the City's established level of service for intersection operations over the peak hour. Near-term conditions. The results of the level of service calculations under near-term conditions without and with the project is described in this City of Dublin Page 99 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 section. Traffic volumes for Near-Term without Project conditions comprise existing volumes plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed and occupied developments in the area. Near-Term with Project conditions are defined as Near-Term without Project conditions plus net new traffic generated by the proposed project. Traffic volumes for the Near-Term conditions were developed through the use of the updated City of Dublin Travel demand model considering buildout of a portion of the Dublin Kaiser project, which is proposed on Dublin Boulevard at Keegan Street. The forecasts represent likely traffic conditions in the area over the next ten years. Near-Term without Project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 7 of the full traffic analysis. The forecasts include the vehicle trip generation of the entitled land uses as presented previously in Table 9 of the full traffic analysis. The net-new trip generation associated with the project was added to the without project forecasts, with the resulting forecast presented on Figure 8 of the full traffic analysis. The completion of the Central Parkway connection to Croak Road, which connects to Dublin Boulevard, was assumed to be completed as a one lane, bi-directional roadway. No modifications to the study intersection lane geometries were assumed. Pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions except for the with project condition where additional pedestrian activity was assumed at the intersections that provide primary access to the school site. Heavy vehicle percentages were adjusted to a uniform two percent of traffic. Traffic signal timings were optimized at some intersections to reflect shifts in travel patterns as the City of Dublin routinely adjusts traffic signal timings to ensure optimal travel flow through the City. Levels of service calculations were conducted to evaluate intersection operations under Near-Term conditions both without and with the project. The LOS results are summarized in Error! Reference source not found. In the Near-Term condition prior to the land uses changes associated with the project, the study intersections would operate at an acceptable service level. With the net-change in trips related to the build-out of the remaining portions of Jordan Ranch, study intersection operations would degrade,but would continue to operate within the City's established level of service for intersection operations over the peak hour. Cumulative traffic conditions. Cumulative traffic forecasts were developed using the updated City of Dublin travel demand model, representing existing traffic,plus traffic from approved and pending developments, as well as development that could occur under the current General Plan. The traffic forecasts also reflect traffic shifts that could occur with construction of new regional roadway facilities,including the El Charro Road extension City of Dublin Page 100 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 from Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Boulevard and the extension of Dublin Boulevard east to North Canyons Parkway. Other regional roadway improvements include the planned widening of Stanley Boulevard to provide three lanes in each direction from east of Isabel Avenue. The resulting forecasts and intersection lane configurations are presented on Error! Reference source not found.for the without project condition, which reflects build-out of Jordan Ranch with the currently entitled uses. The net- new trip generation from the proposed project was added to the Cumulative without Project traffic volumes to estimate the Cumulative with Project traffic volumes, as shown on Figure 10 of the full traffic analysis. Modifications to the intersection of Central Parkway at Fallon Road were assumed in the analysis of Cumulative conditions. Pedestrian and bicyde activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions except for the with project condition where additional pedestrian activity was assumed at the intersections that provide primary access to the school site. Heavy vehicle percentages were adjusted to a uniform two percent of traffic. Traffic signal timings were optimized to better accommodate shifts in travel patterns as the City of Dublin routinely adjusts traffic signal timings to ensure optimal travel flow through the City. Levels of service calculations were conducted to evaluate intersection operations under Cumulative conditions both without and with the Project. The LOS results are summarized in Table 10 of the full traffic analysis. The corresponding LOS and queue calculation sheets are included in Appendix B of the full traffic analysis. The results of the LOS calculations indicate that with planned development in Dublin and adjacent jurisdictions in the Cumulative conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of Jordan Ranch are projected to operate at acceptable service levels in the Cumulative conditions and the net-change in vehicle trip generation from the proposed project would not degrade peak hour operations beyond the established LOS thresholds. Based on the foregoing, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to existing,near-term and cumulative traffic operations than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads)? No New Impact.An analysis of regional roadways has been prepared to comply with requirements of the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC). The Alameda CTC requires the analysis of project impacts to Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways identified in the congestion management plan (CMP) for development projects that would generate more than 100 PM City of Dublin Page 101 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 peak hour trips. As noted in subsection"a, "above, the proposed project could generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips. This analysis completed by Fehr &Peers considers the impact of the project on freeways, major arterials, and other major roadways as designated by Alameda CTC. Main items of discussion include the geographic scope of the Alameda CTC roadway analysis, the analysis method, and the results for 2025 and 2040. Freeway and surface street segments in Dublin were included in this analysis: • Interstate 580 (2 segments) • Dublin Boulevard (2 segments) • Fallon Road (3 segments) Operations of the MTS freeway and surface street segments were assessed based on volume-to-capacity (V/C)ratios. For freeway segments, a per-lane capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour was used.For surface streets, a per-lane capacity of 800 vehicles per hour was used.These capacities do not reflect additional capacity provided at intersections through turn pockets. Roadway segments with a V/C ratio greater than 1.0 are assigned LOS F. In terms of significance criteria, the addition of project traffic could cause a significant impact on an MTS roadway segment if: • The addition of project traffic causes a segment's operation to degrade to LOS F. • The addition of project trips causes the V/C ratio to increase by more than 0.02 on a segment that already operates at LOS F without the project traffic. The MTS PM Peak Hour roadway segment analysis under 2025 and 2040 conditions are provided in Table 11 of the full traffic analysis for the 2025 condition and Table 12 for the 2040 condition. The analysis results show that the addition of project traffic would not result in LOS F conditions nor increase the volume-to-capacity ratio by more than 0.02 on a segment projected to operate deficiently prior to the consideration of the project. Therefore, the project impact to MTS roadway segments is considered less- than-significant. Based on the foregoing, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to existing, near-term and cumulative traffic operations than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. City of Dublin Page 102 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 c) Change in air traffic patterns?No New Impact. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves a a future school,residential development, City parks and related land uses. 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. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or an incompatible use? Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. Intersections that provide primary access to the school site are projected to operate acceptably with the project in all scenarios over the course of the peak hour. However, around school bell times, there may be periodic congestion as students are dropped-off or picked-up within the same time frame. Operations of the intersections of the Central Parkway with Fallon Road, Sunset View Drive/School Entry and Panorama Drive intersections were also evaluated for the peak 15-minutes around bell times for the morning and afternoon peak hours to assist in the sizing of intersections to better accommodate school traffic flows. This analysis was conducted through the use of a 0.50 peak hour factor for movements that would have a high proportion of school related traffic around bell times, including movements to/from Central Boulevard at Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive. Around bell times, operations of the Fallon Road/Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive/Central Parkway are projected to degrade to LOS E or F for brief periods of time. Further widening of the Fallon Road at Central Parkway intersection is not recommended,but improvements to the school access roadway are recommended to maintain traffic flow on Central Parkway, as discussed below. The 95th percentile vehicle queues for the major movements that serve the school site were calculated for the Cumulative conditions for the morning and afternoon peak period when school traffic would be most concentrated. Vehicle queues are projected to extend beyond the available storage length for the southbound left-turn movement on Fallon Boulevard to Central Parkway with the addition of project traffic, and the vehicle queues could be excessive around bell times (1 to 3 traffic signal cycles). Based on the above information, there would be a potentially significant vehicular impact with construction of the proposed elementary and middle school. Adherence to Mitigation Measure TRA-1 will reduce this to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure TRA-1. The following features shall be included in the final design for the elementary and middle school: a) Extend the southbound left-turn pocket on Fallon Road at Central Parkway approximately 200 feet. Signal timings at this intersection should be monitored by the City and additional City of Dublin Page 103 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 green time provided for the southbound left-turn movement around bell times to minimize potential for vehicle queue spillback to block the thorough lane. b) Construct an eastbound right-turn only lane on Central Parkway at the Sunset View Drive intersection serving the school site. c) The existing Class IIa bicycle lane shall be converted to a right- turn only lane in conjunction with the construction of a raised curb along the length of the turn pocket and improvements made to the Class I facility along the south side of Central Parkway. The final design shall be coordinated with the City of Dublin Transportation and Operations Manager. d) Traffic signal operations at the Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive intersections with Central Parkway shall be monitored by the City of Dublin staff to establish time of day traffic signal timing to best accommodate peak school traffic. e) A school drop-off zone shall be established on the south side of Central Parkway along the proposed school frontage between Sunset View Drive and Panorama Drive. f) The northbound approach to Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive (the proposed school driveway) to provide a northbound left-turn lane in addition to a through-right shared lane. g) Consider providing off-set bell times for different grade levels to reduce peak period traffic volumes. h) The final site plan for the proposed school shall be reviewed to ensure that drop-off/pick-up zone is designed to accommodate peak activities and that sufficient parking is provided to accommodate parking demands and occasional peak demands, such as back to school night. Pedestrian access to the school would be provided by a network of sidewalks, signalized pedestrian crossings, and unsignalized pedestrian crossings. Sidewalks are expected to be constructed as part of the school development to provide access to the campus from Central Parkway. There could be potentially significant pedestrian access impacts with respect to the school. There may also be relatively high levels of pedestrian activity at which could result in a potentially significant impact. Adherence to the following measure will reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. City of Dublin Page 104 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Mitigation Measure TRAF-2. The final school design shall include the following: a) Existing school related signs and street markings shall be removed and new school crossings and signs shall be installed within the new school zone. b) Pedestrian crossings should be discouraged across the south and west legs of the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive intersection to further minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Pedestrian crossings should also be discouraged across the south and west legs of the Central Parkway/Sunset View Drive intersection. c) A crossing guard or installation of a traffic signal shall be considered at the Central Parkway/Sunset View Drive intersection to provide safe pedestrian access across Central Parkway to the campus. d) A raised barrier(fence) shall be installed along the median of Central Parkway from near the intersection of Fallon Road at Central Parkway to near the intersection of Panorama Drive at Central Parkway to discourage mid-block pedestrian crossings. The final location of the fence should be coordinated with the City of Dublin Transportation and Operations Manager based on a field visit. Class IIa bicycle lanes are provided on Central Parkway along the future frontage of the school. There could be significant impacts connecting the existing trail to the future school and ensuring that adequate bicycle • parking is provided on the campus. Adherence to the following measure will mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure TRAF-3. The final design of the proposed school on the Jordan Subarea shall include the following feature a connection from Central Parkway to the school site shall be provided to facilitate bicycle travel to the campus.Bicycle parking shall also be provided on campus as determined by the Dublin Unified School District. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact.The proposed project would provide multiple points of entry from each of the Subareas.No new or significantly more severe impacts are therefore anticipated with respect to this topic than have been previously analyzed in Project CEQA documents. f) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Less-than-significant with mitigation. The traffic report notes that no transit presently exist on Central Parkway east of City of Dublin Page 105 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Fallon Road. Lack of transit would be a significant impact and would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to the following measure. Mitigation Measure TRAF-4. The Dublin Unified School District shall coordinate with LAVTA to determine is a bus stop should be constructed on Central Parkway in front of the proposed school. Also see the discussion in subsection "d," above regarding potential impacts to bicycle facilities. Reference Mitigation Measures TRA-2 and TRA-3 to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 17. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The Project area is served by the following service providers: • Domestic and recycled water supply: 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. • Communications: A T& T. Previous EIRs 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 City of Dublin Page 106 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/31.0-32.0, 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 Measures 3.5/34.0-38.0. 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/C 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 Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5/G found that lack of wastewater disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility is presently being constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency. 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 Measure 3.5/8.0,which requires that wastewater treatment and disposal be made available to meet anticipated development in Eastern Dublin. 2002 SEIR (Jordan Ranch property). The 2002 SEIR identified two supplemental impacts related to utilities and service systems. Supplemental Impact UTS-1 identified an uncertain energy supply within this portion of PG &E's service territory.Mitigation Measures SM-UTS-1 required City discretionary review prior to installation of any on- site power generators and SM-UTS-2 requires that applicants for Site Development Review approvals obtain will serve letters from PG &E prior to approval of such applications. Supplemental Impact SM-2 identified a supplemental impact with regard to constraints of PG &E's local distribution system. This impact would be mitigated by adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures UTS-1 and 2. No other impacts related to utilities or services systems were included in previous CEQA documents for Subarea 3 or the Wallis Ranch property. All mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 SEIR (Jordan Ranch) will apply to the proposed project. City of Dublin Page 107 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? No New Impact. All project Subareas are located within the service area of DSRSD. Applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to this project to ensure that adequate funding is supplied to DSRSD so that water and wastewater facilities are consistent with wastewater discharge requirements mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No new or substantially more severe supplemental impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? No New Impact. The EDSP and Eastern Dublin EIR require developers of each individual project in the Eastern Dublin area to fund their fair share contribution to construct major, backbone infrastructure systems as well as to either fund or construct local water and wastewater facilities shown in the EDSP. Therefore, although new water and wastewater facilities could be needed to serve future proposed development on three Subareas, these facilities have been identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As part of project review by the City of Dublin, DSRSD and Zone 7 staffs,future individual project developer(s) within the three Subareas will either be required to future development projects or pay development impact fees to assist in the construction of regional water and wastewater facilities. DSRSD staff have indicated that there is adequate long-term wastewater collection and treatment capacity exists to serve future development that could be constructed under the amended General Plan and Specific Plan (source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 5/27/15) 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. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? No New Impact. Future development on he three Subareas would require new drainage facilities to support proposed development. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan identifies storm drain facilities to be constructed in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area to ensure that adequate drainage is provided. Future project developers within each of the Subareas will be required to either construct these facilities or pay development impact fees to assist in the construction of regional drainage facilities.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. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? No New Impact. Future development that would be allowed on the three Subareas would incrementally increase the need for potable water in Eastern Dublin. Future park areas would be connected to DSRSD's recycled water line for irrigation of plantings (source: M.Porto,Dublin Community Department, 7/13/15).DSRSD staff have confirmed that the District has master planned future growth in the District Urban Water Management Plan City of Dublin Page 108 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 and an adequate supply of water will be available.District staff also notes that the supply of water could be limited to all users in the future during period of water shortages (source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 5/27/15). No new or more severe significant impacts with respect to a long-term water supply have been identified in previous CEQA documents. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? No New Impact. See response to "a," above. f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. The project area is within the franchise area of Amador Valley Industries, a company that provides residential and commercial solid waste pick-up and recycling services. Impacts related to solid waste disposal were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and since development under the proposed project would generally be consistent with previous extent and nature of land use approvals that were analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, no new or substantially more severe impacts are anticipated than have been previously analyzed in prior CEQA reviews. g) Comply with federal, state and local 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 should the project be approved. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior CEQA documents 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 New Impact. Potential impacts related to substantial reduction of fish or wildlife species or their respective species,reduce the range or number of endangered plant or animal species or eliminate examples of major period of California history or prehistory in the eastern Dublin area have been analyzed and mitigated in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, Supplemental EIRs and other prior CEQA documents. As identified in the above Initial Study,the proposed project would cause no new or substantially more significant impacts on biological or cultural resources beyond those identified in previous 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 New Impact. Significant and unavoidable impacts have been identified with City of Dublin Page 109 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 regard to cumulative biological, air quality and transportation issues for the overall Eastern Dublin project, of which the three Subareas are a component. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant cumulative impacts than have been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents by the City. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?No New Impact. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous EIRs. Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Kathrin Tellez, Fehr &Peers, traffic and transportation Michael Thill, Illingworth&Rodkin, acoustics Jordan Roberts, Illingworth&Rodkin, acoustics Josh, Carmen, Illingworth&Rodkin, air quality Amanda Karchefski, MacKay &Somps, exhibits 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, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director Michael Porto, Planning Consultant/Project Manager Andrew Russell, City Engineer Jayson Imai, Senior Civil Engineer Obaid Khan, Senior Transportation Engineer Kathleen "Kit" Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department Dennis Houghtelling, Dublin Police Services Paul McCreary, Director,Dublin Parks and Community Services Dublin San Ramon Services District(DSRSD) Stan Kolodzie, engineer California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Website Applicant Representatives Kevin Fryer, Michael Snoberger, Chris Davenport City of Dublin Page 110 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 1 References California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines,Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011 Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 11/18/14 Dublin Ranch West Project,Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, City of Dublin, November 2014 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Wallace Roberts &Todd, 1994, Updated through 10/7/14 Eastern Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation,Draft Supplemental EIR, City of Dublin,January 2002 Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards,David Gates & Associates, 1996 Fallon Village Project,Draft Supplemental EIR, City of Dublin August 2005 Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,ESA Associates, August 2012 City of Dublin Page 111 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Attachment 1 Jordan Subarea Traffic Analysis & Supplemental Memorandum City of Dublin Page 112 Initial Study/Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 �, ._ m ., �, 1 i �� ,�,, v. ��, -, ; r I l Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment Prepared for: City of Dublin July 2015 WC15-3236 FEHR'' PEERS • Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment AJu(y 2015 i Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 Study Purpose 1 Report Organization 1 Study Locations and Analysis Scenarios 5 Scenarios 5 Analysis Methods 6 Signalized Intersections 6 Unsignalized Intersections 7 Significance Criteria 8 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 10 Roadway System 10 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 11 Pedestrian Facilities 11 Bicycle Facilities 11 Existing Transit Service 12 Existing Traffic Counts 13 Existing Operations 15 Intersection Operations 15 Vehicle Queuing 16 3.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 17 Project Description 17 Project Trip Generation 18 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment 21 4.0 EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS 25 Existing with Project Traffic Volumes and Roadway Improvements 25 Analysis of Existing with Project Conditions 25 5.0 NEAR-TERM CONDITIONS 28 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendrpent Transportation Assessment ® July 2015 : - Near-Term Intersection Volumes and Near-Term Roadway Improvements 28 Analysis of Near-Term Conditions 31 6.0 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS 33 Cumulative Intersection Volumes and Roadway Improvements 33 Analysis of Cumulative Conditions 36 7.0 ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROADWAY ANALYSIS 38 Alameda CTC Roadway Analysis Study Area 38 Traffic Forecasts 38 Analysis Method 39 Significance Criteria 39 Analysis Results 39 8.0 SCHOOL SITE ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS 44 Vehicular Site Access and Circulation 44 Pedestrian Access and Circulation 47 Bicycle Access and Circulation 47 Transit Access and Circulation 48 lia ii ;•:;!:::.r :r Eastern Dublin Spec��c Plan Amendment TransportattoHAssessment July 2015 Appendices (under separate cover) Appendix A:Traffic Count Data Appendix B: Peak Hour Level of Service and Queue Analysis Worksheets Appendix C: Peak Bell Time Level of Service and Queue Analysis Worksheets r� iii Eastern DubliniSpecifc Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment - July 2015 _ List of Figures Figure 1 Project Site Vicinity and Study Intersection Locations 2 Figure 2 Project Site Plans 3 Figure 3 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes,Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic Control 14 Figure 4 Existing Conditions Project Trip Assignment 23 Figure 5 Future Conditions Project Trip Assignment 24 Figure 6 Existing with Project Build-out Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 26 Figure 7 Near-Term without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 29 Figure 8 Near-Term with Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 30 Figure 9 Cumulative without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 34 Figure 10 Cumulative with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 35 List of Tables Table 1 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria 7 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria 8 Table 3 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service 15 Table 4 Project Development Summary 18 Table 5 900-Student Elementary School Trip generation Estimates 19 Table 6 Jordan Ranch Trip Generation 20 Table 7 Project Trip Distribution 22 Table 8 Existing with project Condition Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service 27 Table 9 Near-Term Condition Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service 31 Table 10 Cumulative Condition Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service 36 Table 11 2025 PM Peak Hour CMP Roadway Segment Analysis 40 Table 12 2040 PM Peak Hour CMP Roadway Segment Analysis 42 Table 13 Peak Bell Time Assessment Intersection Levels of Service 45 Table 14 Cumulative Condition Vehicle Queue Summary 45 /0 iv J Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment luly7015 _ - 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the analysis and findings of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendment transportation impact assessment (TIA). This chapter discusses the TIA purpose, analysis methods, criteria used to identify significant impacts,and report organization. The study's purpose is to evaluate the transportation impacts of the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment. The approximately 10-acre site is within the Jordan Ranch development—located east of Fallon Road, south of Positano Parkway, and traversed by Central Parkway, as shown on Figure 1. The Specific Plan Amendment would change the land use designation on a portion of the site from parks/public recreation to park/public recreation/school to accommodate a proposed elementary school. A conceptual project site plan is shown on Figure 2a for the 2012 approved project,and on Figure 2b for the current proposal. This study addresses the project's impacts on the local roadway system under existing, near-term, and cumulative scenarios and discusses potential impacts to the adjacent bicycle, pedestrian, and transit network. Potential transportation-related conditions with development in the Jordan Ranch area of the EDSP area were documented in the Fallon Village Project Environmental Impact Report(EIR),August 2005. At the time the 2005 EIR was prepared,a detailed site plan had not yet been developed.In 2010 and 2012, Fehr & Peers prepared transportation conditions to the results and conclusions of the EIR analysis. Generally, changes in 2010 and 2012 to the Jordan Ranch project did not change the overall conclusions of the transportation and circulation section of the EIR. This report is divided into eight chapters as described below: • Chapter 1–Introduction discusses the purpose and organization of this report. • Chapter 2–Existing Conditions describes the transportation system in the project vicinity, including the surrounding roadway network, peak period intersection turning movement volumes, existing bicycle, pedestrian,and transit facilities, and intersection operations. • Chapter 3–Project Characteristics presents the project description and trip generation, distribution,and assignment. 1 ®1 .., , ,'„-t. •• . • Q- (ti ' •' -.: 2 i ) . ... ,,...,...>._ ,,, . >-,1 . . _ ....__. .... ..,.‘,.„.,,,:, ,,,,,•,..,•,...,,,,,!LA: .: :,":::,:JEOre:isliAl.is itii.g-T,7,,,. ,._ +-+ -----ck,:,....... 2... .•:,-., ;,::•:%;-:,..:-.i.•. ,tAlt ' -,7■S'k*,.4,i'Y;-,,;:.,:,,,,n69 i.. ._ c ! 0 , \.., . „.•_,:•....•••• ., ...t...,:a-,,,:„..---4,4,,),-40gi o..36,:npvia.:$5,----- -,,,,,. . :•.. ;.f..::•:::.:•••....:.":.;A.,,,,;:.::....:::::,.... s ;:,7.:4,17. ' 'l ,.,.-%ditlf7 .„:,'1.--,;,-.7a::).,1 lt.Ti.-.-- > ,.:..:-:..:, .,.„:4,:,:::-...• • ,,,e,..• -:.,.::.:.: [,....-41.:4v,., :t 0,...(. .,.,-,,,a.,.,0 k..-...-- - 7',.-.40--..,... 7q, i;s, ..,.,! Q.) : _ • : 1.,,.-7 ' ....--0-'44..,- P.,...,t..`:v--;-:,-;viii,g-- .1,'"L4 ._ , . -... •tg-,.--..,"' 1.• .f;•',7-101'",441-,..,.o.rA tagaiL.,.--11-e.:-.,,°,--. ...CI ,_, •,.!.:,.„„ V) ; '.::.....7.--!-: .:'.:::.''Li,•:: .••'..C,1,::::.-:-.-.,•-t:::7. -i Zn•-rt••.:.''J.:,;-:::-Ni., 7t7,;:l r-'art:.. '14-.:-%f=4:i=.vP-,741 ti& 72,..t..1'''.5-• '.:,'''..-:-..: it ''.if-^'-'''':'''' 4::5•••;,I -. .•' -,L!:.7-,-.7j,-;;,!.51.-',•,if: • -,,,, -xt,!,&••-:,.:P.q - il,,<I, ,, -"„,...,:ri,tf k-,:o.i.:,,,...,A..,1.c■ 2. •...,,,,,,,,....._,. +J ' U • .''.'''. , .1%.,..,,i,,,, - ._ .. 0Qj .:, ..,,..,. ;,.4.:,,,"::.....0.1 „,q,,,'!._:5-ig,:it ,..," .V.:ILA:•'...-,;...,,,-.''-','''.71 .''. '"■:',I i.g.%-,t. 4SE, '''''''' <-''a 1 1 i N.--;,', 5'-''''': •ra 7-':''''•. • s_ ! • -4• ,o4r,`,-,4•,..:,',1,!?.4.1v::-.K-A;••',5.'..,!-3Af1/2 4.cit:',.: -... __,_.sz5,11,•'-•. .-„g ,,. z,...it :1,.,.•;.•!=.;-',j,-: :•?:-'1,-;=':'-,. ;.:'••••-,:-..,:•..-'..-Y.' -.•...':'. .:.'''.=-': : Y4N?41'.-!3IP'2.2..%T1fkN*,2 .4•!..4.9E A i.:71.'.. .,'-',.'•,•--=-:''. .4 7••:'.''"-.• ( a. . .. ••,..,..-•-•••:-V:=41::.;i14-', 1:-.1-4-:..t.154:• ;''':,:--::,•-•=4. "*;'Vlit (''':':%Ta: •••=,1 ::::'f-'::7•,...ri.4. :14.--.,::: .; • "''..%.-0.''PY;;'4",-'!=.'''. ..-;:;• •-,'I'!:,-, ,,41-0-A,,':'•-,..,:-q-,,?•4 '.,4.--,47=At11011;L:i 5".•'t:-1 I 7,',-"Oik.gi&Vii..•,,3'.P.l';',....:::,::_......- i.::•:.'4',.,... .ti.LTC-!'_:.,,.:'•.,•-, -t'FAIi.1..411atet1 -Ip-..`. 0•`-''•'' ,:,'",',,i2-..'';-.-Lt;„;-.' -1,'' -;'N' ,..4 . '• . ' • .''•''i,....:'''..-•':r4,;f:. !ft'=.2iNtli,3,P. 01•,-',..re4' 1-e I 11,.'..:'f....1r:'5••-..4P7E7,.•t,•-••-: - - • - -.. :-"•'',,--,0i:.'.-4 :',3...,p.•:.,-2,-,...1.!,:sN7 -,.. .,,..,,,:.,1: 1 - : .z,i-:,•,•:: -: • ._.. _ - F.. :.- :S,,.,-;-'4,,,,I. e:-4, 3vs4 PI-, '.1,1 :-.,:..-..',.t.-.=. . • ,,.., , .:,...;:;,:... i:•.',0-:.,:..,%:'.,.'.::.If..41.*A17.,.trA9,?.M.471 .- -•'1-Zre.1 i lif,-.. tiO.SeLY-44L"'::::Y .. ■ 47.Wtire4"-'64.,N KU4N11444A144:444.01. .... -, ........:,:-.-.... '"7.101P*--r•; 'N'ilz. , ...A•,:it:ii, -, ',..1t:frig::-,, .i.zPeit:4..,t. ::•,!..:,,...„•.....„,:..:..... .7.7.._,,,,,,:i..,,..:.,....:.::-.:,..,.,..,-,..::4.41,,..,-,:m..;:::,::.,.z.,,,A,N.ft, . 7.;.,3 a: ili,COTIt*:/T:I.1 •:.'..Vii...,:q - .•,-•'.';',.'1-r.:'--;:-.4j-,_%1'5:1''...:::::•:.•....:•::•..:-... :.• :.':•ZigeiR-1544fit:STI::;§-V7-Cy:- IZ',-'7.'14V',7"i17-,1};,:-.;.:—`.,..lii-'771:4 ;.::;•frA§: : :;,....: ,„:_..:'-:• 1::.:-...4:•-:,;::1,...:ANk.:.tqti.w,_,.'61,t11Mtfzy„kirA4,g4ti:.:, , '71-'-',c4'ett 5p1.*::-:::k-w.-,1. i ia-a.4 ...i.:.:...,i...- 44m.. :: .:,F41;14,45:41A,"...;1 :6.,214wN..;...:k\: --11,..4 ,1 tz21 fiko;:tir..M.,. i-or,,f,'.4 i , ; tVOIJO7'4):,-;:d ',-:41:-4.s-V-,:zeit.i've,:kii.c.,4] g4i .:90,....,k1-. 4.,- uo.,4.441.1,-W. -,.-.2,,,z,.' :--*.gigo 4'4 .:.+., ..::.,:•;:- . . rig,3-:..-L',,,i:c:.!',,,..,, .nra,-.1e ,,,.,,,,08tye.,9,99•a.,,,,,, 4.,.s.,-,.:„.„--..-,,,....:-Kti,:,,,,,:-174?I'2'!1:. r='''...:'''i:t-:',::1:-,.,7147-: ".•,' '' -, ,•.:.,..._. Tttl-S1414,.. .;!'se.1E"Apg.1) i-:74, ::.:•,.,,'•.:- ;. 'L.KtWel...0414-01i4ziNIMOtil04404 ::.:ti.i.34..'T.M1:014;f:. !;-..41,'-•:..;'..",':."'-;:.;•='...-.."---4-,?:.4 .71-;,-, ',-;:tt.4a4c4ii•„,,,..,4..;' ".0.41:-.KVir,: ;,_,.::.1t, [._.,.,,,,ir,;,'4 wi,-.....:t.;;5!,. .,:;_,:-.,„::...„:1 E-T.,•,....-.,. '•:$--!;',.• ....,','..q,!-:..,•,. ;;;-6:•?;;•••fi-'4•40-k4V,t,•,:*•-•:,,6•,,,4f44-..4--'•':--..':PM t;:,-,---1Z-P -.-C.:-:.,,q-4-•.'-'•:'-..'.,:••f=•':::'----;•:'-•.•' •''.:.:::"::„.--'" eT:.:::::..:: :g•.:''::,,Ir.;K,',i'l,'R:,.*4,•,:;.•:-.Uiti"-R.4.;]•:2141,1t,...;:r.:.!;71,- (.. 4:47-:,:;?4,e,..i..7..-,.;!,.- ;<7.,,•::.?,:.-...,:::.:•:: . .--•.=:,".-:•.;.••••••••:-Q'.E'r.',-•-•-'•;-!'--".' ,L=7-.:':-if-'4,0-ft: •:: ,iM".1i.a.,*•-st :,:P.--:';:•;?..,i...a- If•,---:ri;::s,tb,* 2....g : ......,.,,„:.:...]•,,, i.,..:.-•,.:-. ...:..,,,y,;•-. .-,,;..51dt,:---.4-t.ilt-lmwe-7,,,-••,. :-.-S.., ':,,,,'•.-..tia.m.--,.-.--',,,t,r,.-,,,,,,.-,,,,-, . :.:.•• ,A.:::.. - ..•::. -,i :.:'.'..:- ' 19rigt,: ::.-L-4;'; -.c,VV:-.";17katt.-.V.li'Y' -',::. ' .1..:•:'' . -.:e";:::.•....-.:4:.-,.,A.S51.;,:g's ,:A4X.-7uT-Cil,”4.7':.".V.:t.,.•....t.,i44^T,..47$01Y,.;74-4 i°i; ..;,..<4.11-, 15.1*7,',•:.,...':;. . !'i...•,: rc, • • .. .„.....::,•...witzw, ,,,,,047.0,12.,..clem2,...,14tr...7,.1,,m .:., .L...,,,„, ei, 1""'1''':.:,--•:.7•••• . ''•::.a--"f, ,..:,. :-•...:''.A.,•'!AftTetWI'a•:•'14'..'' .,•,'' . 4M.4 .-1•.K-74;:: k.to '...,•=•....g,`',.... ...04:: . -:••' . ,.... •• .,.,e.,49,:1 •.• ,-' L _ -r x .. ',:=7-4, --.:71=NiXKC-'-i::'„,1'..:.-M:Ew :• .--.-;••.'" ,,"•:4-e• -!_,::21.,',:',4'.::- • .,•*.d,k.t. .,' .2-'••'",:': 11V.' .1:1-!, 71,0,11.1"41i;74F',V41-:141-4.4 M•:5i.•r 4.:!.':.?-2-.7 AVAL;V:L.'•.:::' •.0(?•,*q•c'.,' •-: ...:11...'' 101-k, 4:)-2 ,,, .:-....,,,zwzi.4,41,r.t*::4,4t-4. rwri',,.:.:-,.:,...:-.:,.]:49. :41-'1 :...:..:..,:......-:::-,...-.1;*-0-:g' at,.,..i 0 = ,,-,,...MV-S-1)Ai,jitp4saVoL-1;;,/,-7,-:,: .,';4,•,.'" 0 ;-•i,1•.,*,%V -;••:''.:,',"..--..--.7,-•;;,e,p .- .!,;_aril;747,,,,,,iLlisAz4:44,--;:?tadavz,_.7'f.il ; --5'24:_.: .,a.00-474.. x. i.v.4j10: .4:=7.X.tanikr$1t'..--,-,-:. kvil#,,,,,* L- i . - 1.,.-1 ).,v,,,4:,,w,.....,... ier ' - 7,.,:-.. ::,4*,k - - -F.„,..•.. .i.' .':4g.,,,,:,. 'i .i:...:[';',7•'..7.1 Vi?" 44.INIC ...,,,,,,, 1'7'"''''' °0 -.,,,,.i,k-i,...,ir*A, ..v?..ift-ai''....:::.1 '':-;C:.- :.':4•V::-'?..7.:,,t::,'• IT., '1 '' '44;17. („oe,oued . .ffli0.41 ,',-,..,,,„",4 !,'-...-:',..,• .',1;:•.:';"''' TW:: :::''''' .., ,..,,,,,r,•,r.,',i5KAs,'!.,, 1- -.-_,...3 4-,..-;.,,,...,,-_t•-•,..,3,•-::„,,,,,,,,,31•,.,,..,,,,, ''''.:7'..:'''''''*-"':X.44,0sam.litlia,■'.:. ''''''''..31.74, '' A Mttt,....r*,•=',N2?.?-'') '),*1--;---",..'71...:.,,',:q.!','''. ...,;t-...',..r1.!..:-.`,A4),,,,..v.4, '.'. .'''''''ill:'*ftiPrT-070t. 'l';',-'-'7' . ' .“'E 4Kkti.'Irt41,_-_„7..1 l',1711,•,rj,';,-.X:.:•,:::!',,Vi,f1t, :::•q4,!.•,,A,:,,*: i - . W,-1Z Cr.:,,i;i:.,=:,t0147..6.',ft-t,Lat..•vb..„,;:-.1... .7-i:,.,,%.`4.11-4,-,2:::)-,,T-A,.-•!--,,_,,,,,,,:-.L:,...07.,,,c4. ,, . .„. . .1.1::4,-,-,. .,,,,,::,1,,,,,;.,,,..,.:,,,..,:, , '1;!,,,Z,;',!:,=; .,..,,,:..:.:,,;.;,:_,I..,,:-. :[:',..4t..r fk..4.,. ,',:.:14-N ft.5 .'A '. '' ''''-'''''-03--"P. '''',. .pa'i',.,.;,,,I.:, ,.,--,,..-..•,,--:,-,;,,, .!::▪ ',:-., .--.7---m -,:; •:::;L.-',-.-.■'.•...,. : .•'-r:,,,. An,:::,.,--....„,p--,..:,,,,,.. • tyn 1'114;:..-.•,,:' ,i.4:-.;7.:::',-,'!" ,..-:"....:::,-/ -*•',:,:: 40q:',;:4- •::•.t, •-• •t''.'i::":"%f:V: :!.':-Pk. ,:.'•:-.1',.; ',,::"...f.'.':::::',41F. ':::::'Yt.,. w':','!--!.'S.'.;-'tit',•E ;1!.-::.,. :',.-:Y;;..7,:;::::';,.' . -.•,:t7-7!:;;*:.411:444figristowt,itl.,'... ;,ic* ,..•:' % ai..,:;:i;.4,-!•i:',:ii,;;- :•:: , .]:,..,,.11.,...:.a•-qt:11:..1., - .::-:..-. .,.-.:..,,,y,::::: ::v •...._ • lx.:11.1,,.. cywip,..,b,...-....-,,,,::,,4.:, : . .w,,,...,.,..„1,.•:.,.•:.• ..-.3. • . .. •.• ..:,,i,,t, ...,.. ,,,,, , ...... ,,...._,, ......,„,,7E.,14;,,,,;.kfr..,4,.0„.::::;4,.....„&•,-,...,.... .,.....„,,,IV ,.:-.,,,LF ',. '.14ria: ''''..:4‘,..: fr.;;:ii.'L'i--- .,,q4 .-717,.0,..:7:■A ttiE.:.-7 ,,,_0! "'...■'-:.1,':''ir.;:";717.,;:. 'IV C ' .::tr24-r' n.*M 1w.....,;;A: ::;%;.:41 #;:„?.. icvu-T. e2.! l'47..-1`,4 ,;!--!:•..... ,;,;;,: -12. '",!••• ''''•'f 4----:'-'1-•'-'1T'-`=4 -':.:.sit °.),,. '%,7::: •.c,':;:-g.Et:q'ffl,'t,Z1 410':;::14"M t-4v.„ 1 t 7--'.,.. r-->„ 1''',,ki--,*f,s,-;.,,i,m,•Ak,4,,,f;z:, . :.,,,....z7,-,,,.,Ap..,-;,-:;',,.1.:g,',,,,,,i..'*-7;'1.411:-'14.1-,EAV.-: r -.7';i:15;4:-7.63 F.'gi-Ja.-631iLuid `-"'V'' lv.379 ' -'''' ,,,,33...,- -.',.Fif..„,1;,,,,,,,...3 ,t. . ,,::g 4,4, _,-,F1■.,.'ii:y!:01,9 ,7; ,,\:;";trLowit, ,--.t.• p ..,-:Ef2 1 la,:: ! ....4';`-, pi,',._:4 ,..:::...,„...rua:7:.:,,;c:5,.."._,,,„..:;,5,„,..1 , ,%N , -,1,-4,. ,, !..iiArst',....iil,..",. >. ( FV:'.!j A g"4 '..-'' '.,'Lkigit7A-PJ-n- -.rgr:',1-N-::::7 : '1',01?u _„w:-..,,L:.),,..:‘,.-6-1,,tit.,4,;,,-....i : -. t-zitliti,- :,.:11-, ..!,,,...,i,t ,,..„ Au• ;?,''' bp.aff,Aw,' ,iiistr.1,.. ., .,,:-.ritc-• ..,' .;,..,-,41,‘..;,,:;7',.',,t, . .kv1..SN - t. 4:t'' le el !,-• '9•.1,4.,: ' ,'.--...4.-•:' , ..,‘,.. -,4.:€...tvt.,p.:, 5.,.7 .7: '.1),,,Y4'4:''-:.',.: I.:;="1.-",7;...:'.:..,,,i":•-$•,;„.!-4.ff.,-.‘,,43...•.0- .7".._,.. , ?0'..D....:..r' ''° 11.1%4:..1_,,_"•a-Fir.:,ILA t:-ZPO4'. '.:.-''..,a.(Vv. VoUis-%1,-t-,, ..',,.--fi.,..,1,:h-...s..t7,0,,,,, .-•e,9::,,,.. A. „; ; . .,,,,,,,,,,,,, 4...,Eir.0'"‘---",=;:.;44,-Ati:.-: 6,juE,,u;p1'"- TS''''''' ''A: 's1 4. • "N# P' -t,-.''4-'' --: -'''' 0 t 77*Ski gigr-1,- Fikel 11,1),,,.. 9.,.„;444f1.-0 AO:fa?-!,-et.,•,-. ..t,•,„:,-:.....::::,,,.....,..:::::t:-„s,..: Alf,t4,..aiuf,Rigot 1,1,311,1:,41.4.: ..eaitroz.1 „ ,, ,..,4.,;;.&:.,-;-,,•,:t,: ,..,..i......,;..,;; .„,:,4,,, • ..-,-7.f. --gi,:•Ti;.,-.-:::',_i,:.;.,,-.,-.„-•:::IstR.,'0 r-..4,-..,,-2.' ..,•,;. ..-,:_- 4-.?••°A., ,i.,,.T...--.*:=.. .c ....=',,,',,,P4:-!---,-,77v,„ --, •--2,;):9-2-811_„ic.R.--1....:-.:;.;L:wrIpl re-.'• ,zf--%':*4"z... .' 1:'--7- ;,,,f6--: , t4,.?A ;,. cc . ....,..,.4.4...4.1-..z f- r.,,ei, --,4---iit77,4:-, . -2 :B115e,,, ,,,‘„ ,-- -i4--,-1 C--vc' - i"41(ia'il•*Vge-'...-",c4n . . F,.6i:-,,,,, ....tiv,i-LIviicNdqiii::,k=mt,;,ifi ,,,,.„--7,.:,.-.,. .,,,,,:.,T,t,,,,,,,---4,;-,..„.., :',...1%.,,,h..,1„„•,,I,-.1?,71,,,.. '. 7_,;.r.1. ,,,;...,:,-4.1........_ ;,.,... .,:-....,z,s5,,,,i---,.::,..-._\--.,c-'.•-•,4,,,,- .... '::1;i:!:e-4:',:i.,:',•,:::.::;:-..1*.,i_i.t.':!:'•. ..'••••',.::•-:44.4,, :,-Ii'ir,o4-4,1ME. 't-1614'4,1Nr,„.,..,-;''1,''. '.‘..:::: •L ALI.Iii ot:' ''tc,,,,.'•&-P.';'.;n,:—t'';,.1.1-c'g LT, • ..,,,;.,,••:;,::,:::,,,,*q,:,-,:.:',;y,-.W,„•;:,,;:47.,.,E,:,,!;, ...!•,',,,T,L4'1-7,?:&a,,,,v,..„;„,,,-7:-,•',.,64 1...f..?;0,...,;,,,' ,-.:,, ,,7,;--- --,%,,,-,--.x,-:-0.,.:.:4,:t--.!-4.,-1'..11,,.. ...,,,.„.,.;,:fd _, ) i-.1:::::',.;"4.;.:::;T:iiiv,iApi: :,:.::...---;h•'•-,','--..,'„■=.8''' '411.,'' '--7.•L gl :I.3f1::: :'''-.,*'h '4:44*:',:-..,4-, ''',,':',...74.,5".kZA•L'.:,,!-,-':',-„ ,.-.....-.„': ' ••' .:••.:.:-..•• ••;-1.ftl'jcit":1;4".?,9••':',::: .:- :•,-:'';'4:'''..;:'4.g,,,,,,....„""',:,„''',4421td-k:1",1'ii•-t:4-4-Al +7;,:•.,:kr '''''''Y ' •.',',.•''''.:.".-:t.',..t:.. .'.:?r."-. ..... ......'-•;.:.4 i, .r,:,.7.:i.-.--„,,!,.-,:,5r.417.,.....1:::Q'.::-..:1''''''' . ' :-;:''':V1-''''.:■-,;' ,..:.'.'., . '' ' ..:2;,-... 5-'1-!_ &,---,,-- - ` ^ / 11 /1- f;../fell litill: -°.:-1.-nbV, IA-TIM - '11710,41r4PA. '1:1,. 'C'"N\ -%.■..,:,:i. ' - "...lip-, :1 ,ii....._ , ,,,,,,,,."..,,,.., , , a a k , ,....,4125- ----1..............ma z u D. .- ......L..., . ...,,, ,.:4,,,,;; . /..."44 ,,,,i.m_.._,.. , 0 . . iiii.. ......NT. #.,,,,..v. . ,,,,.... ,,,,.. /- ,„if ,1 in IT:, ,r1111-.Maill" ,A NJ•'...°"".''''''' . .- --.----‘ItilVVX, .", , ..."I, ...'.. '•, .:.‘,..,..:,,,:::. ,4 4it i.idf..2;..y the. b ,. ”•': 77/ NEXI.U.MR!'°." '--'-...' . '7 1014'.\111>:////I • - . :. ..-:.ye it:JR"-:.74.,.... :,,,iti-ok.-1 :\‘' :1, 1 a r44 2-;1: w,...,.° "I t%,,___:. /''. r-----'". .*...„--------i .-\I)/1,3::' ‘'04:74,...„.*1;I"-4:tif-6,;‘.' ,7,1,1". 1111::9•• I.‘‘ ICr illet.T.L:=EA._ --rnmic,',,,,,047,/—_-;-.... ....--. „7-.7 ...::,-;- ,i4OPirk\ ..,,,AWillity• ..''...-'-';`,, " 1 i 1 t 11 1 V a a I 1 I a 1 I V '1 •• I- ' 440- ' VIOP 4r 'I\ - • . p IS -4 a il I____al I I LLN I 1:I I I___P/* -- • / "- 444f) 100\.4"4": -- -< ---'- --1 i'lliiiil J I,s I Y f r 3 way /fp.' .....; 0.',.91.;4 ACE 400../ ,,,,,..44,_A. .,,\\. ,.lin iii,t. , 1 orirej:____-____,---- _-_-=___ .,1 44,46.1, "Designated for .,, .. r 1 ' liP.4;CEliiINE0-t Ia.. ' ' ' it. '/' 4,4116,Araici"Vilililii_lii14:* • . SalCa-SU----1 I r • . 7. . . 4494.444 residential r,-.........__ . 1 /4 k 1.--i. .. 4N4+1) 41:07/4,EIII Milli r.1' / • )1 ,. ___.•/1 r, ,w,,.....\4,,,N,..4194:447.------47-47.baz, Ell:gatigni.,f I . ------t 1. 2-2L7-1-1-‘. � �� ___=_____ •-,--_„„..i:i".-,, N....-. would be designated for v.1:, tII3 r: 1:II I If Ft ' ' ____L al, . � U '. �--- �-M^~' -' /' ` `\ �=in Ft-----Et _' ~`=~.—2L' .`. .^-- � , �. • �,. . 8 ' \ V1� q / \ ' . • �' ' � 1/ i' ` i ..‘,.1'' :-..;•• __ ____ __ 20T7 Conceptual Project � � e Plan ro vL a3T'Er v2" .} & FTh °'� R� 5,aAr,�,.F '":,}...t tee. a I:.y �' I '47;[:,.1..,-,".i va. Pi 1'u ++y F 44 v`4+`r t - C 5.� — ..,, '_N "`° ii _A44 a A P 39 't F'"r.1`_ 1 Y, ,-t N Q,Pr.,,R '6 - r.1i' r k ,1-, t,.,'&q_ "vy. re.TCf '..ur f 41 0 (r I E }IFS'°" "x"P S t 'Jh5 i 'YLY @P 1,-,,-' t '�' rag L M':. d y ,.� 4'II`'Vigo It V 1 € � � ��* � r{fir ; �` e 4a k R �4_r rt Ili: '�I E .� � '+* 1- 6....r4,9 i Pl'aI rk ,;:., ;=1,-.,:r.:- rr..rp''S n i � w ?I 6: LJ E �_ dt L �L r �� ,' :( 1 fi•" u ,r %�, u I Tr"�1',� y�5r�G I' I a 4' is- rp I€ ,,. � 6 tro 0 1 1•1 PI fir."'I� a '� c� _ �Fre I r'Ii! f�`-`r" �4.L4 y-E �, 4 lu 7 r Hd :` t _�'` r t..µ b-9�r ar '" ':iii r3,T-c E Q �Y�, I ' f1" Ia � r at J�.a�d4 1�1'�J. U u r h r Ir °sic — ,E _ r F�. ��'tll�r, " 4,1-11',',:•• e L '� E :=",,- b ' I r F 5;',::. rR� 1 x � E � �• rfi, 9`...Rq� 'F'It F I S:,�_ ' _ .' ,I-`A_:r,,k 4 & ' ii: r ,,_I--rfi a ,fi to C ` I cp j II F r xG �' "'!h� W "Ji.- s^v �E:,w a' t x a " ,: ,t [ CN 1 y y� C If• riur t E " u F t 8 - �'s. 5� I T1�" ]� q �1 r' 1[9. ~. _"5 E._ ' 1 4+IC 6'F 14� E PAt 9""h ea " V l 1 1"TF ,i. �P,„,.. 1`; L' i4, Ian+ 1.. L • k ,! ; / :} Z.x�rl 9.� •�."fir I-• p +mxr x E. r-ri 1 y" �.tea 4 f L. a r E• 41 r�, rk f.pw�'-� rl prz.,.,. .44Erli i'p 1 c E '1 '�j §:,. y{h 2. u� 1— , F€i:*� ; 1 1,111- JI I-I F v� r. r r l a 11 L ",I-:31 ' tif- r �I u r'�i i 'r , . 1 €.j` R f �I} 1 1 I 1 j t a r r-... n ' V 1 �i El L1N- r -�r �1,i{ 1k�I I y � -°r,� 1 .: ' I I,.lf 4� 1 l " n :r t t I L ,: II! IrYI a a gi fP , I IJ 555 F i E 1 1 I ,�(J -•4,, 16 4,qR I3 1-f 1'S I' ,x.x t a� `� -.T I i„1 47 I �I e 1 ■ U , f6T"^Y r r �,4+ n l ril ,. I +1 I •T t y_ 9 J r1 piF w C k�aILG R n +, � *�', kn p",dl�u�'!'''�� hli" x' 111 111 v 3 `7W ❑ pit,r hi i{��.iGI S lh a r�l � cmr€ `� 9i.w :A N ,R h m41 �Ilfa l 1 } 4 t a � �'a,»it `1x 11 i� rr�k�'re3 a.f�'� Ira:h�i�711 I rI I�IC `� �k :-} ��9:• y,T t` 5 x. L .0�l i r , I H, ' rcl r wp .1 . �Idel ' k °Ill 1' krI 11j11L "1 I;I Ir a,, 1e,p0 hir 41` ' :1,1,,,,,-i,lrf. lr r qk, IL I�IW 11 h ' '1 +4:1 I� j F7{ 4� - M }r aan V4II'L"'r"'� Elthr7'i `� =5r'rp 1 I)j:4 1 rlI�1,6fi -1{'4,j 11I X11I 't .t.F 1 �Nc-F� �,E"C ' l Ir4'1 r Ll; i . 1tdlr{ - Y r' '1�lkllb ..� 4 : -„A t " ,y . rev , u 1 w r r d�� r Er R 'a p ' N #1 F: " xs �, +- -„.ai.S'�._FF N i r ...,,kg .�k,L i+-Y �'Y,}ad'�in'-4 ,, ',u r y l'ti f -i~il. p :,�I vl r- ` - .�I G I. 5i7 .,t� J d1t_ r.: T �{r ,t'R pT.'F'r�4 k di ; L ar ::t 1..jr 4 r F7LI ” f.T I Pe 5 i-r x F �n �II a .%111'� k ., � 1 �� 3a1 �� '' 1 r W I FT• 11,.1 , - - ,ice�. `�aSl a�a _*1 a 1.k aa��°° a ` 'ka r.I' ar I "N ra r R`f It r. 4§ ��' a{�p'r I" ," '- . :_F ELI 1 ( btE3S}Ea: .. ati,.4 ,5 : rb ,k" - 1 01, 4 I ,I . f N" �, 1 r; , '1 I s R 4� 'q e � �« E .� � 'a a'" ��v �w'h I 1 �I . I � -�. a� r+Y,.� � ^� kr�f a�I i j , rel T E �i r }R a £a S' i xi r t4, +� '' '' N ..- .6 '.jm§'#j M-�it r I:+ N.jaa''t .-ria 77442F. p 4 e,,, r: , € .AEI rj '4.166,--tea'"" 9 : a� 'B. € u� :' 4 '6' rt ;iL C i ;_d I r y 5 .C'S ,- .r. Ii d�` iI • * a }r l t rc'- *"I' 4 eIN ul : r" E _ �t1` E : r fl ",4 , .i y5'r .4 k, � �� (1 w q 7! 1 �M Y,11 'FM ,Am,� o� 'ti,a IAA� r L ,F'�g I•m uO 4�"a �' } �` �IY � M' x { t , I�' Fill -... C4 } '�'1Skk ,l I '� 4 I`l r,� I� (' ,a hb' LEg I• , ::r UI r�:^E{r 4't#I :: ,�4 . N 2"`�" I�+ ' f j.11,/,,-!FK r' `-°' 414;'r, -'may`,— 'I iV-:-P. � y . " 4•t� #.:,� ' �e"I -� .es .:..,.: ..-, _ "^rti,' 't+�. 1t::.:o-r...r''�. ..... ........ _ J • Eastern bubhn Speafic elan AriiendmencTransportgtcon Assessment 2015 _ • Chapter 4—Existing with Project Conditions addresses the existing condition with the project, and discusses vehicular impacts. • Chapter 5—Near-Term Conditions address the near-term(year 2025) conditions, both without and with the project, and discusses vehicular impacts. • Chapter 6—Cumulative Conditions addresses the future(year 2040) conditions,both without and with the project,and discusses vehicular impacts. • Chapter 7—Alameda County Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) Roadway Analysis presents the impacts of the Project on the MTS roadway system. • Chapter 8—School Site Access Considerations discusses site access to the elementary school site for all modes of travel.Recommendations are provided. STUDY LOCATIONS AND ANALYSIS SCENARIOS Project impacts on the study area roadway facilities were identified by measuring the effect project traffic would have on intersections in the site vicinity during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM), afternoon (2:00 to 4:00 PM), and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods when commute traffic is typically the highest and the project is expected to generate the most vehicular traffic. The study intersections were selected in consultation with City staff based on a review of the project location and the amount of traffic that could be added to the intersections in the site vicinity. These intersections are shown on Figure 1 and listed below: 1. Fallon Road/Positano Parkway 2. Lockhart Street/Central Parkway 3. Fallon Road/Central Parkway 4. Sunset View Drive/Central Parkway 5. Panorama Drive/Central Parkway Operations of the intersections above were evaluated for the following scenarios using the Transportation Research Board's(TRB) 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology using Synchro 8 analysis software. • Existing Conditions—Existing volumes obtained from traffic counts and the existing roadway system configuration. • Existing with Project—Existing volumes obtained from traffic counts plus traffic estimated for the project. The roadway system is the same as the Existing Conditions scenario. 5 ILO Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Am_endmentTransportat�on Assessment_ AJuly2Q15 = • Near-term without Project Conditions—Existing volumes plus traffic estimates for approved and pending developments, and/or traffic increases due to regional growth. This scenario reflects likely conditions in the next 10 years. Traffic forecasts for this scenario were developed using the recently updated City of Dublin travel demand model,supplemented by manual adjustments of the forecasts in the Jordan Ranch area to better reflect planned development patterns. • Near-Term with Project—Traffic volumes from the Near-term without Project Conditions scenario plus traffic estimated for the Project. • Far-Term(Cumulative) Without Project Conditions—Projected traffic volumes and the projected roadway system using the City of Dublin travel demand model,supplemented by manual adjustments of the forecasts in the Jordan Ranch area to better reflect planned development patterns.The traffic forecasts include Approved and Pending projects from the Near-Term without Project Conditions,in addition to build out of land uses consistent with the General Plan. • Far-Term (Cumulative)Project Conditions—Traffic volumes from the cumulative without project scenario plus traffic estimated for the project at build-out. The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term "level of service" (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels of service are defined ranging from LOS A (free flow conditions) to LOS F (over capacity conditions). LOS E corresponds to operations"at capacity." When volumes exceed capacity,stop- and-go conditions result and operations are designated as LOS F. The City of Dublin generally strives to maintain LOS D or better for peak hour intersection operations. However, the City may permit LOS E or F for vehicles if improvements to accommodate vehicle travel are contrary to other goals and policies of the City,such as the Complete Streets policy. Different methods are used to assess signalized and unsignalized (stop-controlled) intersections. Signalized Intersections Operations of signalized intersections were evaluated using the method from Chapter 16 of the Transportation Research Board's 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, which uses various intersection characteristics(such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing)to estimate the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through an intersection. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping,and moving up in the queue.Table 1 summarizes the relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections. This method �� 6 li Eastern•Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessme0- , IF July:2015 } I evaluates each intersection in isolation and the effects of vehicle queue spillback are not considered in the analysis results. TABLE 1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA ,i,::4,,,4,a at -,y' �,"'!nT J �- t-p T9` ''+3 °y Fes.ri o .as"'° .r z �.,,eve Ol? -,,,t l e J P'f st' .. s ,, -NP C p k�`FT - ?1 ' . —..":_,e',1!`y°be a ,n .. w • A Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. .< 10.0 Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Progression is good,cycle lengths are short,or both. More vehicles stop than with > 10.0 to LOS A,causing higher levels of average delay. 20.0 Higher congestion may result from fair progression,longer cycle lengths,or both. >20.0 to C Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level,though many still pass 35.0 through the intersection without stopping. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result D from some combination of unfavorable progression,long cycle lengths,or high >35.0 to volume to capacity(V/C)ratios. Many vehicles stop,and the proportion of vehicles 55.0 not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These >55.0 to high delay values generally indicate poor progression,long cycle lengths,and high 80.0 V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation,which is when arrival flow F rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C > 80.0 ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels. Source:2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Unsignalized Intersections Operations at unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the method from Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each movement that must yield the right-of-way. At two-way or side street-controlled intersections, the control delay (and LOS) is calculated for each controlled movement, the left-turn movement from the major street, and the entire intersection. For controlled approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. The delays for the entire intersection and for the movement or approach with the highest delay are reported. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. ET, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment ' July,2015 TABLE 2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA Level A Little or no delays < 10.0 g Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0 Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0 p Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with > 50.0 intersection capacity exceeded Source:2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Although the Transportation Research Board has published the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), delay for vehicles was calculated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual method as implemented by the Synchro 8 software. The delay calculations for vehicles have not appreciably changed between the 2000 and 2010 HCM methods, and the City of Dublin has not yet adopted use of the 2010 methods. Additionally, some non-standard phasing types and some shared lane situations cannot be analyzed using the 2010 HCM method. All impacts were assessed using the 2000 HCM method. The determination of significance for project impacts is based on applicable policies, regulations, goals, and guidelines defined by the City of Dublin. The impacts of the project were evaluated by comparing the results of the level of service calculations under Existing with Project, Near-term with Project, and Cumulative with Project conditions to the results under Existing, Near-term without Project,and Cumulative without Project conditions, respectively. As the project is a general plan amendment and a specific site plan has not been developed for the school,the review focuses on potential impacts to local intersection operations. General guidance for the provision of transportation infrastructure to support development of the school site is also provided. Off-site intersection impacts could be considered if the Project would results in any of the following: 8 VIPs' 1� Eastern Dublin SpecificRlan Amendment Transpo atian Assessment Jufy 2015 • The project would 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 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. A significant impact could be identified: o If a signalized intersection is projected to operate within delay ranges associated with less- than-capacity conditions(i.e., LOS D or better with an average control delay of equal to or less than 55 seconds per vehicle)without the project and the project is expected to cause the facility to operate at a LOS E or F; o If the intersection is already unacceptable operations(i.e., LOS E or LOS F)under no project conditions,the project adds 50 or more peak hour trips; o If the operations of an unsignalized study intersection is projected to decline with the addition of project traffic,and if the installation of a traffic signal based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD) Peak Hour Signal Warrant(Warrant 3)would be warranted. o If the addition of project traffic at a study intersection would result in the 95th percentile vehicle queue exceeding the available storage or would increase 95th percentile queue by more than two vehicles where the queue already exceeds the available storage space; • The project would conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other standards established by the Alameda County Transportation Commission(Alameda CTC)and/or Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC)for designated roads and highways: o Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a LOS standard established by the Alameda CTC and/or TVTC for designated roads or highways; o For a roadway segment of the Alameda CTC Congestion Management Program (CMP) Network,the project would cause(a)the LOS to degrade from LOS E or better to LOS F or(b) the V/C ratio to increase 0.02 or more for a roadway segment that would operate at LOS F without the project;or o Cause congestion of regional significance on a roadway segment on the Metropolitan _ Transportation System(MTS)evaluated per the requirements of the Land Use Analysis Program of the CMP1. 1 The Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) requires the assessment of development-driven impacts to regional roadways of projects that generate more than 100"net new"PM peak-hour trips. 9 ®y Eastern Dublin 5 endment Transpoftotron Assessment r X { fi lu1y2015 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter describes the existing transportation conditions in the study area, including the roadway network and pedestrian, bicycle,and transit facilities in the vicinity of the project area. The project area is located east of Fallon Road, south of Positano Parkway, and traversed by Central Parkway. Roadways in the study area are described below: Fallon Road is a north-south arterial roadway that connects 1-580 to Tassajara Road. It currently provides two travel lanes in each direction, with the exception of the segment that provides three lanes in each direction between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive. Between 1-580 and Central Parkway,this segment is ultimately planned to provide three lanes in each direction. This roadway is being upgraded as development occurs on parcels fronting the roadway, and will ultimately provide sidewalks and bicycle facilities along its length. Fallon Road is a designated route of regional significance. Central Parkway is an east-west roadway that extends from Arnold Road to east of Fallon Road. Between Arnold Road and Tassajara Drive, and east of Fallon Road, it is a designated collector roadway. Between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, it is a designated arterial roadway. It generally provides one travel lane in each direction with a landscaped median, bicycle lanes and sidewalks along portions of the roadway that have fronting development.On-street parking is allowed on some portions of the roadway. Positano Parkway is an east-west roadway that extends from Fallon Road to Croak Road.It is a two-lane arterial with a landscaped median, sidewalks, and bike lanes. On-street parking is not allowed on this facility. Dublin Boulevard is an east-west designated arterial roadway in the City of Dublin General Plan that extends from west of San Ramon Road to its current terminus at Fallon Road. It is generally a four to six lane facility with a landscaped median. No on-street parking is permitted on this facility. Dublin Boulevard is a designated route of regional significance. Bicycle lanes and sidewalks are provided on portions of Dublin Boulevard. Lockhart Street is a north-south collector roadway that extends from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive. This facility is complete with a landscaped median and bike lanes. Sidewalks are present where there is h10 •1 � r Eastern Dublin S, eofic,Plan Amendment Transpo{tation Assessment adjacent development—sidewalk infill would occur as the adjacent lands become developed. On-street parking is not allowed on this facility. Sunset View Drive is a local residential roadway that spans north from Central Parkway inside the project area.It is a two-lane facility with on-street parking and sidewalks. Panorama Drive is a north-south local residential facility inside the project area that parallels Sunset View Drive to the east.It is also a two-lane facility with on-street parking and sidewalks. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, pathways, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Sidewalks are provided along most roadways in the immediate study area, although there are portions of Central Parkway and Fallon Road where the roadway has not yet been constructed to its ultimate width and sidewalks have not yet been constructed. BICYCLE FACILITIES Bicycle facilities in Dublin include the following general types: • Class I:Shared Use Path -These facilities provide a completely separate right-of-way and are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle cross-flow minimized. • Class II A:Bicycle Lane- Bicycle lanes provide a restricted right-of-way and are designated for the use of bicycles for one-way travel with a striped lane on a street or highway.Bicycle lanes are generally a minimum of five feet wide.Vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross-flow are permitted. • Class II B:Buffered Bicycle Lane- Buffered bicycle lanes are conventional bicycle lanes that provide a restricted right-of-way with an added buffer space separating the bike lane from the adjacent vehicle lane and/or parking lane.The buffered area provides greater distance between bicyclists,and parked cars and moving traffic and allows for bicyclists to pass one another within the bicycle lane without entering the vehicle lane. Buffered bicycle lanes are generally made up of a six foot wide bicycle lane and a two-foot wide buffer.The buffer is striped with two solid white lines with diagonal hatching or chevron markings within the buffer zone. • Class III A:Bicycle Route with Sharrows-These bikeways provide right-of-way designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with motor vehicles. These include sharrows or "shared-lane markings"to highlight the presence of bicyclists. r� 11 ®y Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation•Assessment h AJuly 2015 Within the study area, Class II A bicycle lanes are provided on Dublin Boulevard, Fallon Road and Central Parkway. A series of Class I paths are also provided throughout the eastern Dublin area. Transit service in the area is provided by Wheels, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and Altamont Commuter Express(ACE). Wheels, which is operated by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), provides fixed- route and paratransit service throughout the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, and provides connections to other transit service providers. Wheels buses connect major destinations within the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore, including Downtown areas, employment centers and transit hubs, including BART and ACE stations. Wheels bus schedules are also coordinated with ACE and BART trains during peak commute hours. The Project Area is currently served directly by Routes 2 and 501/502. Additional service is provided at Dublin Boulevard/Fallon Road on Routes 12 and Route 30 (R). The buses used on the routes below have a seating capacity of approximately 40 passengers, with standing room available for an additional 20 passengers. Route 2 connects eastern Dublin to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station via Tassajara Road, Fallon Road, Positano Parkway and Central Parkway. It operates on hour headway during the morning (6:30 to 8:30 AM)and evening (3:30 to 6:30 PM)peak periods. Routes 501 and 502 provide service to area schools with stops in eastern Dublin that are timed for morning and afternoon school bell schedules. Route 12 connects the Downtown Livermore ACE station to the east Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station via Las Positas College and Dublin Boulevard, with service every 30-minutes during peak periods and hourly service at other times. It operates seven days a week. Route 30 (or R) service connects the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, as well as the Downtown Livermore Transit Center and Lawrence Livermore Labs. It has a designated stop on Dublin Boulevard at Keegan Street. Service is provided on 15 minutes headways on weekdays between 5:00 AM and 8:00 PM. No weekend service is provided on this route. It provides skip- stop (some bus stops that are served by other lines are not served by this route in order to keep up speed). 12 rn� • Eastern.Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment lu1y2015 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) provides regional transportation connections to much of the Bay Area and the Dublin/Pleasanton line provides direct access to San Francisco, with several stops in Oakland where connections may be made to other lines. The closest BART station is the East Dublin/Pleasanton Station located approximately 3.5 miles west of the Project. The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is also located approximately 5.5miles from the Project site. BART train frequency ranges between 15-20 minutes from approximately 5:00 AM to 12:00 AM. Based on 2013 data from BART, approximately 6,800 passengers per day enter/exit the BART system at the East Dublin/Pleasanton station, and approximately 3,200 passengers enter/exit the BART system at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. The Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) operates weekday train service between Stockton and San Jose with Tri-Valley stops in Downtown Pleasanton and Livermore. During the morning commute period westbound only service from the Central Valley to San Jose is provided, while eastbound only service is provided in the afternoon/evening commute period. There are four morning trains through Pleasanton between 5:33 AM and 8:18 AM, and four evening trains between 4:28 PM and 7:31 PM. Travel time from Stockton to Pleasanton is approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, while travel time from the Tri- Valley to San Jose is approximately one hour. Wheels provides shuttle services between the ACE stations and major employment/residential areas in Pleasanton and Livermore. ACE trains carry approximately 4,000 passengers on a typical weekday, with approximately 600 passengers boarding the ACE system at the downtown Pleasanton Station on a typical weekday. Weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM), afternoon (2:00 to 4:00 PM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak period intersection turning movement counts were conducted at the study intersections in May 2015, including separate counts of trucks, pedestrians, and bicyclists. For the study intersections, the single hour with the highest traffic volumes during the count periods was identified. The AM peak hour in the study area is generally from 7:45 to 8:45 AM, the afternoon peak hour is generally from 3:00 to 4:00 PM, and the PM peak hour is generally from 5:00 to 6:00 PM. The peak hour volumes are presented on Figure 3 along with the existing lane configuration and traffic control. Traffic count worksheets are provided in Appendix A. 13 ii .40111111111111111111.1111111111r VINO*" C L , " � In o ° f4Ll(Lt)Le --1 w O isi : U c ) LL .—(col(L4)L9 U • as 1 0 (o . ) ~o f8Z91(96S)0L9—r iliCPU : m - � (6z1(09)Z6) v C !'M ��Lc] m m 2 m CD V) 1 C i • 0 N i N co I a vs Et 10](4)6 000 (0)(0)0 n n —(sz)Coo)ac `.- o 0 o �j-(a](o)0 Cr) Iel(9)L y:. I L [o](o)o - ■.= 1 ax �,. o p..,,,,,., N 0 III COL)(oz)z9 )Tr E fo](o)0 11" U Y [es](o4)zL L "S, mom o'. [o](o)o C o'5E7 -O VO [Id Coe)HA. " m. :e; [o](0)0� o00 0 C -J m ra _d. o 0 o ro l N' 2 rvn' 6 ® 2 J 1 S a Lri 1 ^. E 1 N N_ ^ co m n i mN d rm° O 1 d .00 ono It](o)0 0 r^y r^.r ,'�_I9sz1(Led so -N O 4-[L1(o)0 N �� I44E1(894)OlE �� [L1(o)L v u I• o a ��.., -3 L I X. J ':�' Ill(L)L )� to ~ t [4441(LOL)LOZ [o](0)L"s' s.-N 2 [044](99E)SZS y N . C ' LL _ N � I 3 CDI Ds ` I L r o 1 m . � H Y ,�, � �L � ryg} Y n+ � � $ ; TT � l. � , ltd •1gT ' kY " } c Py,I! - y #" r I s &.0-,,, s - . noi •Ij- ''''`,....:::::, 1111Pliu, 1,..le.,t!,44. ri --...'4f.P.:4f-A`V..-.1'41i'''',.1;gi&t.:,2tik:.., :24 3 + wty,1 4 ® 3 I i1 d 4 ) S { ,� � � E j + la ` !A#i r ' , t+ L. 1� � to r M a m' f.1 g .r - y , . .' : '' i xtf L i r y4, r fr_h „ w . t �a. ® 1�37 h q r:. •,4 ,z0_fr4 >>" w t'lSUe�N°a. . 'f5. I y. tie E 1 'a'<,a," 7',-e=•0-• ��s3 f, YA o� +m t'.I L Y ''Ito; a, t ,'. p P,N�u ei !,-.,"",i7,-,..,..' 0 �5 �6 S� ry _:,i m- o F+(i6: ,,2'sm__h:_ 5 v&r 5 f 3 `Si X _ -..o ye ;eif.'juellegs f k K v E' +°'mr c Ui V Yt f" + t.AC r ,�NZ ti Li' WK. - ,,sy l t ,� ® 7 r7 s1 is d�iLwld 's ;�,,,�t V wUe ,-�d h pp 4-Q Ra!-!g,, .y Y 2� d0 y ry& i 0 (.;'ia ._F.-' , --2 µuund Hi110r t Gu.,±-a.-i q „ g7J t F* ',. �h !t \ �S fit°l• a+o ra}}F'4':'1...,-'''' ',.'''=';r P��a�� IAW;V` a , k 7-'-'.!--`,-4,1- 1:7-', r A X14'5 xeZ4§x� s': ReM ue6luueig r 1 i0 uo;>I,o�e x. "', FQ 7 F- C t t 2 q y O o�� `l�'°{ Elleii N !®i ay��Fl nE.Londond rre Y l: -�.e t '/1 '4°'-/eyF €, �,a p s at 4 Z } '�°"-•--f� f r I'. �+Ia�� y r�i/J l yC l b ,.Y l a w Y"-sIPB',:" set din ., a '� r�-',,�y '.33 43 Eastern Dub(tn Spec¢ic Plan Arnendroent,Transportatwp Assessment F A''' : July 2015 ` i F i - INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Existing operations were evaluated using the method described in Chapter 1 for the weekday AM, afternoon and PM peak hours at the study intersections, based on the volumes and lane configurations shown on Figure 3.The results are summarized in Table 3. Observed peak hour factors2 were used at all intersections for the existing analysis. Where the observed PHF was less than 0.75, a minimum value of 0.75 was used. Truck, pedestrian and bicycle activity was factored into the analysis. TABLE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Fxtstmg Conditions' Intersection : Control' Peak Hour. . ` -Delay 3 ' LOS3 . AM 15 B 1.Fallon Road/Positano Parkway Signal AFT 11 B PM 11 B J AM 18 B 2.Lockhart Street/Central Parkway Signal AFT 21 C PM 38 D AM 15 B 3.Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal AFT 18 B PM 12 B AM 8 A 4.Sunset View Drive/Central Parkway Signal AFT 9 A PM 12 B AM 0(0) A(A) 5.Panorama Drive/Central Parkway SSSC AFT 0(0) A(A) PM 0(0) A(A) Notes: 1. SSSC=side-street stop controlled intersection;Signal=signalized intersection. 2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3. For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source:Fehr&Peers,2015. 2 The relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume is given by the peak-hour factor(PHF)based on the following equation:PHF=Hourly volume/(4*volume during the peak 15 minutes of flow). The analysis of level of service is based on peak rates of flow occurring within the peak hour because substantial short-term fluctuations typically occur during an hour. ii 15 A,-,...:: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan4Am0ndmeit Transportation Assessment July 2015 As shown, study intersections operate at overall acceptable service levels in accordance with benchmarks set by the City of Dublin during the morning, afternoon and evening peak hours. Detailed intersection LOS calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix B. VEHICLE QUEUING Field observations confirmed the calculated levels of service along with the extent of existing vehicle queues,which are contained within the existing vehicle storage. Detailed intersection queuing calculation worksheets are also presented in Appendix B. Ef;ii, 16 l Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment '. 3.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS This chapter provides an overview of the proposed project components and addresses the proposed project trip generation,trip distribution, and trip assignment characteristics, allowing for an evaluation of project impacts on the surrounding roadway network. The amount of traffic associated with the project was estimated using a three-step process: 1. Trip Generation—The amount of vehicle traffic entering/exiting the campus was estimated. 2. Trip Distribution—The direction trips would use to approach and depart the area was projected. 3. Trip Assignment—Trips were then assigned to specific roadway segments and intersection turning movements. The proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment(project)would change the land use designation of an approximately 10-acre parcel within the Jordan Ranch development of the EDSP from parks/public recreation to parks/public recreation/school. Other site elements have also been refined from prior plans. Jordan Ranch is located in eastern Dublin, east of Fallon Road, south of Positano Parkway, and traversed by Central Parkway. Table 4 presents a comparison of the 2005 EIR Project, 2010 Approved Project, 2012 Approved Project with school site, and the current proposal. In 2012 there was a site within the Jordan Ranch development that was reserved for a school but has the dual designation of residential and school; the current entitlements allow construction of either school or residential uses. Since 2012, portions of the project have been constructed, including a 253-unit single-family neighborhood southeast of Positano Parkway (1 home remains under construction). Portions of the site in the vicinity of the proposed school site are currently under construction, with approximately 37 completed homes. Vehicle trips generated by constructed and occupied units were captured in the data collection effort (see chapter 2), and vehicle trips generated by uses not yet constructed and occupied were estimated and added to the existing traffic volumes to evaluate transportation conditions with the land use designation changes. rA 17 �y IFEastern Dublin.Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment Ju1y2015 _.. TABLE 4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY 2005 2010 Approved 2012 Approved Current Land Use . Current Status EIR Project Project Project :Proposal Approximately 289 Single Family 426 dwelling 1 homes constructed Homes units(du) 453 du 513 du 664 du &248 units under construction Multi Family Under 638 du 327 du 238 du 235 du Homes Construction Mixed-Use area 84,000 square 9,982 sf retail 35,000 sf retail -- N/A feet(sf) Office -- 5,100 SF -- -- N/A Assisting Living 61 du N/A -- -Units Elementary 10 acres 550 students 550 students1 900 Students Not Constructed School Notes: 1. A portion of the site in 2012 was designated either for residential or a school site. With a school,513 single family units would be constructed. Without a school,up to 613 single family units would be constructed. An assumption of 550 enrolled students was made for the purposes of the 2012 analysis. Source: City of Dublin,2011 and updated in 2015. Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of activity a project might add to the local roadway network. In addition to estimates of daily traffic, estimates are also created for the peak one- hour period during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) commute hours, when traffic volumes on adjacent streets are typically at their highest. For school projects, estimates are also generated for the peak periods around bell times(7:00 to 9:00 AM and 2:00 to 4:00 PM). For this project, several sources of trip generation data were reviewed, including Fehr & Peers trip • generation surveys at several elementary schools in the Tri-Valley Area. This data was compared to trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, (9th Edition)with the resulting trip generation estimates shown in Table 5. Elementary School sites surveyed in the Tri Valley Area were typically neighborhood schools with some students observed walking/biking to school, but with the majority of students being driven to school. The ii 18 Eastern Dublin Speetfe Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment surveyed rates reflect about 13 percent of the student population walking to school. Given the number of housing units within the immediate vicinity of the school, the walk percentage was increased to 25 percent, or 225 students. The resulting vehicle trip rate per student, accounting for a 25 percent walk share, is higher than the maximum trip rate per student noted in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. For this assessment, Fehr& Peers used the observed trip generation rate from similar schools in the area with an additional walk adjustment, which results in a 900-student elementary school generating approximately 940 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour, 510 vehicle trips in the afternoon peak hour and 380 vehicle trips in the typical evening commute hour. TABLE 5 900-STUDENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES �A ti 3�-i 1 k 4 r -tit -n..a i T" ;72'' "' ,- .e% - $€r "n;,;' 1 ._. .- 1, F t t , tc S''a*�'' Ar 3 �, ' "r q '7�! 7l�' ek ear- -,"2i57:4:, r �21 m -„'k s t: s Ac, �, ! rir I See v tv c 4:14,.... *441 a '� a 'r; 7q ..... t _ hr31 tl lea- - f p q.,2r i i- S "`,,.nc. r Pea ,o r ` � i �� 3 EL,___,_;.1'I a h '-6,-^F"-. a�g� �3�i, (3.--s^ r?`] 9 Y RIWA L a x1 5 'M .TVT�� X54.. ;. y�yi a(�� aF °,d =___,;,..-i ,,,. In', :t3µ '2i Totals '.,I. DU rs b 10 ,.� Elementary School-Tri 2,500 496 440 936 229 280 509 184 192 376 Valley Study' \ Elementary i School-ITE 1,160 223 182 405 113 139 252 66 69 135 Average2 Elementary School-ITE Max 2,210 455 373 828 203 248 451 163 170 333 Rate3 1. Based on data collected in November 2012 at Twin Creeks and Sycamore Valley Elementary schools as part of an evaluation for the TRAFFIX school bus program. Only AM peak period data was collected. Afternoon and PM peak hour trip generation estimated based ratio of the ITE Max rate during the morning peak hour to the observed data. Rate was reduced to account for a 25 percent walk mode share to this campus,as compared to the 13 percent observed at the data collection sites. AM Peak Hour.T=1.04(X);Enter=53%;Exit=47% 2. Based on ITE Land use 520,Elementary School,Average Rate: Daily:(1)=1.29(X) AM Peak Hour.T=0.45(X);Enter=55%;Exit=45% Afternoon Peak Hour. T=0.28(X);Enter=45%;Exit=55% PM Peak Hour.T=0.15(X);Enter=49%;Exit=51% 3. Based on ITE Land use 520,Elementary School,Maximum Rate: Daily:(1)=2.45(X) AM Peak Hour.T=0.92(X);Enter=55%;Exit=45% Afternoon Peak Hour. T=0.5(X);Enter=45%;Exit=55% PM Peak Hour.T=0.37(X);Enter=49%;Exit=51% Source:Trip Generation Manual(9th Edition),ITE,2012;Fehr&Peers,May 2015. r. 19 01 Eastern Dublin Speafic:Pfan Arnendment<Transpo tation Assessment,... fi Al: .. - 1uly,=2015 # '4 ' Most school trips are part of parent/guardian trip chain that typically involves dropping off a child at school on the way to work or other daily errands, and while it represents a new trip within the immediate project area, it does not represent new trips to the regional roadway system. Additionally, the level of afternoon and evening trip generation depends on the potential level of after-school activities and if before/after school care is provided on-campus. Trip generation of Jordan Ranch as currently envisioned was estimated using ITE Trip Generation rates, similar to the 2012 assessment. The results are presented in Table 6 for the non-school elements in combination with the school and compared to the total trip generation from the 2012 assessment. This comparison shows that vehicle trip generation is slightly higher for the proposed project, but mostly due to increased school enrollment. To estimate afternoon peak hour trip generation for the non-school uses,the difference between existing afternoon peak period and evening peak period travel through the study intersections was reviewed. Afternoon peak period traffic volumes were approximately 12 percent lower than the evening peak period volumes. The PM peak hour trip generation as shown in Table 6 was reduced by 10 percent to develop afternoon peak hour trip generation estimates for the project. TABLE 6 JORDAN RANCH TRIP GENERATION AM.Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Project Component Size Daily In Out Total In: Out, Total. Proposed.Project Single Family Homes1 664 DU 6,320 125 373 498 418 246 664 Medium-High Density Residentialz 238 DU 1,580 39 118 157 106 77 183 Elementary School3 900 2,500 496 440 936 184 192 376 Students Total Trip Generation 10,400 660 931 1,591 708 515 1,223 Less constructed homes 289 units (2,750) (54) (163) (217) (182) (107) (289) Net New Project Trip Generation(A) 7,650 606 768 1,374 526 408 934 ii 20 i Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Ainendmenf'Transportation Assessment AJuly 2015 TABLE 6 JORDAN RANCH TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Hour , PM Peak Hour Project Component Size Daily In Out: Total In :, Out Total 2012 Project Trip Generation from 2012 Assessment 9,520 427 630 1,057 534 360 894 Less constructed homes 89 (2,750) (54) (163) (217) (182) (107) (289) 2012 Project Net Trip Generation(B) 6,770 373 467 840 352 253 605 Net Difference between Proposed Project and 2012 Approved Project(A) 880 233 301 534 174 155 329 —(8) Notes: 1. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Single Family Home(Land Use 210): Daily Rate:T=9.52(D) AM Peak Hour Rate:T=0.75(D)(inbound=25%,outbound=75%) PM Peak Hour Rate:T=1.00(D)(inbound=63%,outbound=37%) Where:T=trip ends,and D=Dwelling Units 2. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Low Rise Townhouse(Land Use 231): Daily Rate:T=6.72 AM Peak Hour Rate:T=0.67(D)(inbound=25%,outbound=75%) PM Peak Hour Rate T=0.78(D)(inbound=58%,outbound=42%) Where:T=trip ends,and D=Dwelling Units 3. From Table 2 Source: ITE Trip Generation,9th Edition,and Fehr&Peers,2015. Project trip distribution refers to the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would take to access and leave the site. Estimates of regional project trip distribution were developed based on existing travel patterns in the area, a select zone analysis using the City of Dublin travel demand model, and prior analysis prepared for the site, General trip distribution estimates are presented in Table 7. As mentioned previously, many school trips are part of the parent/guardian trip chain that typically involves dropping off a child at school on the way to work or other daily errands, and while it represents a new trip within the immediate project area, it does not represent new trips to the regional roadway system. This interaction was accounted for in the assignment of trips to study area intersections. Project trips were assigned to the roadway network based on the general directions of approach and departure r� 21 lir' --.--:" . _ ...f.::: ::',..-:.:::: : _ i , ..::-..:,- .::. 2.f;.,*-,,:.,.:_:;':',.,-.'-'::::::::: .I".';-..--;_-'::::-.-.., -::.:=i'v-(:',.- --,--.=.-:=;'---7.-'1=:.;:',...-:-.:'' -. ' :.: .}.. ::- ..::' .'"; . Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment Ju1y2015 _ r shown in Table 7 but the route that people take to the site could vary. Separate trip assignments are shown for existing and future conditions as the full connection of Croak Road to Dublin Boulevard would affect how vehicles arrive to/depart the area, especially the school site. The resulting project trip assignment is shown on Figure 4 for the existing condition and Figure 5 for the future conditions (near-term and cumulative). The volumes shown on Figure 5 represent the net-change from the entitled project. TABLE 7 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Project Trip Assignment Roadway Residential School Fallon Road North 20% 20% Fallon Road South 60% 10% Central Parkway East 5% 10% Central Parkway West 10% 30% Positano Parkway East 5% 30% Total 100% 100% Source: City of Dublin Fallon Village Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report,August 2005,Jordan Ranch Stage II Submittal-Site Development Review,April20,2011,and Fehr&Peers,2015. r� 22 ®. 1 _ . .,. „,. . ... ., - ,,, ,.,,,,--.,- ,..,....",,,',.-::--,,,,,•)",,,,,-...',-;-;--",......"•,..--)',--)".",-._•- •- -----",----.- •-'•- --- _-..,..--,.,.:..;,::,...:_,,..„r.:..„,::.::-.,..,:....:„...,..:..•:.,....,..........„............,......... , ,. . .., c C , .ff cT ,-: x C -,- Izal(viz)pt i. 1.-U 01 a_. .--co le-- 190(elf 6 •- i In , < ' W „ )1' •- I •, tnt,(zst)£16 '0 (61(9)e-. FEE,' 1- I -. 1 -. u ; ri i :!-•:' 0 ! + o... ! • .. . F E -. : a m • ■,^ . ..... *--(tzl(66 LI, i = t-, ,'(3• c m cc C ..,, .-2 • . . w i...8 ::;... ii feel( 6)at,I. 01,7 R1 Viii: 0 1 z•-•-•8 r:-- 11.1 1 •-•`° ;:.:1 .4 6- • a' 1 Ef.-.: t, 1 0 Z.--.Ff IP .. - ,... L■ (6L1(86)ac To ,,,- k__(66](zz)861. a) .. 0 0 4-(661(g I./81. :0 0 •-(gel(68)1,6i. ...c c E c7) ,..... c, -9 41 t.....s >. -0 0_ ...... = Tr .,., •-,>•:, g (L00(scg)1.01.--• li!! (61(L/OV-_,:- gE,-;•2,;_:7 .w Inl(LA 601. 0 U_ Z Z TS'a iii Z:..-..`z. ••.-. •., Lo Lo 3 ) c cn )7,1 .. ra. ,.• •,-., ..,-;-7-.,-.),),-.)--v:,..•,),•27;;.):7,:').;!,.)_.',.....-.)=)-4=,,,,,,....;.... .....),.;, )7'..k.)).:,,Vreeli&AW-•'''.' .. :• •:- • 2 ' •••• - ' H-1-.:•:::::::''.:. .,:; -.. ..4,....;;.,',"41::,::.-.0.4Q-:!..:ez.1. 1KA: .,..,,..::,...--;..:r 041.4'0,...g,Ile 9 ',1.!.,:::•:••,.• •.:-. . ,:••••:-.... •-•=::•,..;.%'•, •;;•'-•••' •••'''44:1-•• ••:.:W:ile;44-A--P.-`,Wet: ,•7...'`:'-'4§.'!•::.-.••••.:4 frtIck4:1114:,11-':•.:::.•'. • ' i t CI 1' ••• - AL'•'•A,:747•.:',.4:1;:?;,W.,.fki.-47--et;:•'•;;Y:',•'"":-''''%'.•.'•:.,:•:•-•'•-=. .' . .'L."..,',. . .?P:".:.-':•-. :! !'--- :".•,...,.:- ' . .4. .:,1T-e: :•.;-,1 .4 , ..G.-*.•;i:',C: :)':--ii.':'•':J. - :E '•:;.':.... "!'.1t;."-,::!(.',i•.'-.,. -!.,-dikt.T.f.TP;:t.-t,...:.•*.j::- .'. :'.',ic.ve.'1•'... .. ....) ,2.1.$77-'94•S":1:....::,': ,o. ...... ., .:-.•-,....L......,...1-R..)::,;--7:•!..,.. 1,11 )mi ••,•))7');:•";:'A'gr=;°4-0 "';.q),?:)-rSLAZ.f4.-V).):•/-•-.1"' 4..9 le)')..•.. -'1 ''''')..1'%•tC1')V5';'':')2'... 4"''LLIg:e.>t c .:'''.• •. .-:),:••:':"',),..gy.q).P7,,?.:E);:'....'. ...:.•4:1,:..)::),•14),AF•C'SM)71,',IV•i'i, ,2',A ):,-h•''''''' ;''=.) - 9N:i))..,!•:•5'. • ,.-..,.:4N,) 2. 'e ,.'7 '!". ' MIMI= ZITV.r:IPPI-46itW ' :, 1':iki.OVI.,0:'-i'.4Si.,.-:*,7-.4W.'Z-3,, ''''' '''.':',1•1: '`''-,',-','V'' Air!' ...F:tri. 611.F1 Zgef.gr-iptit, .1'''..7 Rilki-wV'''. .r.-_7-'•':. -4-41:3 V. :-.% !,. .,, m *r'-•'•-:-.;v7-4 it4: --4 -frt.A.',4e-#4r,;';=i:1C--,--51 :1 ..._ ..,, !,,T,(:;,,-..!..•,jI,. • :cipx-.5 -'.:m.h.,..t,„--.,-1 ork,-1.,ore;.,.:Ati...if:o'2 PIA:•--vg,•-'41-V --.Ail..,,, 10 K.; :.i,-,■,,...'.4.1.41'if.,-4-.1.44._.4;,p'1,-w,„V -o .g.■• -;.'1:.::',/ 4:-.-..,.4- •;•." .i. .1 . ., -.,.,,,,1 .,: ...;,t3.2h.,,,...x .,.•,,,.1..A. .44:4 f.,,Ir.-.-,,,,,;-..,..swo,,,,i ...:,..,„. il',■ -',.4 :. :•:,. ,,,,...t,.4. ..,,,:,....,,,z,,,..: ,,•,.. , , ,„ .,, ..,:i•..__Un-, 4.'..g..'..-.4.-•.0..,..,,,'.AI 72 lilt 14'N-1-',-' ,.V''.,,t:',' '''... ' -'''4 '-'41''-'1-:,1•,F-''''' .VAtg::"%lf:',"Z.,'.a- • ."-' ".. -,: :.,,,,,:' .:...• „,- e" , LISF•R•s5:)u..)•)1•..),,:•:.''-)1'3::)U:4,1?),''.--),),•-f-,-=' ':":-)'..)g) :17rt-i)'.)::)'":51.f.'"tk,laiii'',71,777•1,,, ,.. ,44X4.; A pg.V. ;4,.4-:,:p...-4.-•:•,..-:.:Ai..- -.24,e,::E:---•--,.,a-t,r,-:.--:* •.g.:*11,1V,,,,. rflivitenw...:-' -',4p, -;'Ta.k:;,,,:;,..,,',f4*04,7;t<....-..,::: :: t;linget,I.,!work--,:k....•-:.::.;i4r.Pria...., •)-'iiP-7..V;)...),)))::.•'•; "."!" .7-5."-:17,1'. -r:'..,,-..rnrrei-•,.g1Zi..4)`-»•''):.)1F-1, 12.;..:.',..:.•••,:),•'5.:`.:)1 . •,- ... • •Mi''',';',,...Lati '4,.....,..,'. . ,k9 .L.',.. .,.,,-)-,',0' '7,:',,-'»'))))1Y,K,7,'?.7.!,. S..q-,'-."4",4 f::':,VP,I':d-. :-:-::-,,,,4;;; •,•• ,..,a•-,---,,:•:•,1,-,: ,,, •• 5';-'•••:•IN'!:r:':Afeliori.Pg•.'2,-‘,;.:f1:14,04.3,:-,--:4:..*:•-44. ;"•:•it-U:-•"''7'.:r:"`•1 '':v4LV)'-'n 4,--',•a,i'•-•,.75=8'K••-.,:--,•.,•:•::‘...,::',$: a, • :,?,•7:.:P,:7,4,,,,,,,, ,,!...044Tri:':•:;"/ 'c-ZIt•k•_:`-'71r:,-;i,,:z•:•:.:i::c,i ,t-'1',3•'•_":•T'4'',..::*i• •••,..' ,,L'.-74.:1=r•-=.1 I:'14x•t;Pi V-N:f:-,1'..: '',' ,',41 . . .: .:,..e44 .'.. :' .,-:-.:245*-. o1, .4'_ tgerfi 7-.--:,...z, rl-i-,-,-.7.ii-I-:';:s1,1%-ri:p a at•tl•--:•':::" '-:,".:Iii•q i 70 > :.Y.i.10.,ifij,--:-.;,; .L:2,-;... Atith, :.-_.•'i•,:':::'1.;IA:A.1TR=::1 ,.. -..-.::::.3ii' A..4,4-::44.;#E-4Z.•;-,1..:1 ).:„?..,..:e-..•:, ;-!,--• 1 is,i•=';&La, ,2 E- :i:,:-;4;:f. •.•:;?,=.4!4 •, t4,7; . „s■f er;•., .,. .4.4-...,,„1-: !47.3:2 ''''''..`411‘. ''T!'''',..:!..;,;-,i'.4'11,,:.-;,'..,.:;:t, laW '1,:g: :',.!'"NtE;•;'.,.".-'9.'J.--J.tW-■; ' A.* ..::::'4:,--4 P-',-;?:::?:.54,5i.k.; •,,,,,7-„,g...,,7•••••••,:1':::.°/....:44_94-11-'-•.._•:.- .,_T's '5 :.,:.S::4- ::i:...vt.,,:;,4,•ap..0:1-•.- -0-7,t:.1.I ©�,7-'7-;,• . ;•• -0-41.4)0(b111.1110 uf,:if;%.,.etiV.-Apylyew 0 if,::••,; ;,,,••,:••• -:.78;:ti:1-..,•,4....e.,14umo-d.-, 1011F:;;. f•:-:::w.,.•,:.:•-_:?..•._ -,'•ii,f:,-91 ig,..,.. ,--.1,.:4').• F.TV];)74)"'.))): C.)--.. -J:H-''..xez'),-'-•'• •n,..,,r.),),)-•...-',.4...)1L-•.....)'.)))" ,..::"R.:, .-.):::)•)'Lli•x,,),,),' 7i.)2'„i).):.L.ore i), 6ifaik'am•sv, •,),4• ,.. tLL c:,,Fia...,71-Ii.,,,,,;, .-Uin):114.0P,!):••')) .);Cr. .-:)L-'").T.i.t1:•e'',::J.,...,,,. t 44,..s.-P*..:,-.3;,- ',:.:c;,.-1,-;.-1::'6-1 I .... rii ,,,,-..;7::: ---; ., -, , ' °I-0.-4,''•).-'-';;;';': ai --,'''' 'et.t' '.= o;.' - -P.,F,!•o•-•1-: .B..0 < a. IfPibihb lirtrA'• ., I .;htr■%,..*',1-V74‘..4.it‘,..'4.•^1%IL'k: ,- --i. •.1'.,,li-,Til. -9Y •.,.: lb, gist:: .-,: .•,. ,......N.,-,,,,,, ,,.e,. \ •, . L 9 ICi ,..... ,.. ;,,,..•,.,;; : ...Nia.!• r-.,,,,,,,,,•,,,,,,,,,,,,,A.-„.6,,,,p.g.fo; ,,;.',1!1,,,Tptil• 1,,,s-e),..,-:,,, .•,,Nvo••••..EA IV 1: ,: ,:' '',...:'' •',. (7"-'-a ''' ' e 4.4'''''W.I'''''''°'''''''"i•i`''1';',!■i'g', j/ ; - lt, •' :"- -' ''."'' .'!vfla-At1-1/6q- -- ••-•'----",,----dvidihio,v,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„ ,,,,,,,,,,,, , -,,.•,:,....,,,,, , .2„,,._.-„...,., ,_. ,..... ,:,..-le !SNILat7 _1124235 i',7,4i. , ...„'.'ff i:''''''..Tigl,1 :,,.:t•'41 t;.3.,,'.;--'-,:.:!!'."-._%.•%'-tkki,tili e.,i-.4 L''' er.. pa rpr!Fsur,, 7:i.,70;",:.' ,;-7,7,,'■ V6;b:-.-s {:;1:, •76, ']' 11:'"!:,l•I.L.a.-;7-7s.t: I Y_.$ ;f). A...:.:,-,...0.4_,.... L:•.,; .,-,:,. _, x 2 � � o > c ' E �� tzl as)s � _ n a ).1, _ • tn , 0 a" UQ 0 ILL-)(gl-)Z--. mm ¢ >_ . w e E >✓ i.j N LL = o T1 Cu dal a - 11 z >. ,v - a 11 `. Lo n.- L1(L)0 — v [L-](p)S m m N r1141(ZL)9Z 1 1 Cu a T =E 1i� L Cu+. -O 0. Jr ,� ;m'[LLL-1(l-)pet- - m o m a; N iD - ® F M i-,�- II d N QQ a' ,�feel(6e)sL � , [se](4z)4CL = o la)(i.e)L9 "E-. ^a �--[ZZ)(SL)el. N m L .0. 1 r IEazl(ESL)64Z N w avn.u.a a. w ^CD t 'l Tr o [sz](se)s4--• z Id(1z)4 FFN o ,,,, [80(O sz (n. ,_mN st N N V. _ Q1 Yl in 0. if ip, n.. c Tr fit3�k,,; 4 ▪ _# Jl ar• '`tab 4 ( • ! tle°p O jiteudLnL - ll r ;''� R iN e Vii, ., J'� .rJ, --.jam i 'm•list G� f�a I. s J ''i 'i P Goak Rd � �0 '-Y n f-r-• •.. in ce zL4 od��• [`T ¢u ti t•L y TGa r :0 1 3 !i mo °z w y r ® ® .q t ----. 4q ,i ii fi+ 3 T ( E 77 - b"�,• aJ E? pr,, r, -r'-k . t av. r r. ic[„ _rt F -,- SJ,,e44J ; aN� I f—� 3 c p l - o.m J y r 0 E w °'r y Pb�°Ils • V .' r o U E-� 'L 1 F - .� ^ ;a yp au�(JUell pa • •; t pc O d, .�s `5 i.',, .6 it r I Jd o°wP camt E t a tlD W E' 0, , . o Jar rp' H�f[� ,eca ,S x 7 y u mZR 0J i,Y V a - k v 'e i ulhtream, .,:.,6„,,.,.,::,.,R n _ f 1{I{ a n o p▪ u-c.ip8',h,ki 9 �' a F• Q r • N"O¢ 4',o; .1�J ry eM n 6ruiYe g n t I, x/ . ) ., 4� �9 ii %- ElenQ Q®'®T�f 6S ®� a Lon4 ET a T s ®�i - y-i 1 }sy RI> •1y? '... :i- .::3: I. .t. 41,AV _;JO,'.. -.'1. 13J J \J • Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Arriendmer(t Tr20 portat an,Assessmen luly:2O15 - . 4.0 EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS This chapter evaluates potential traffic impacts under Existing with Project conditions. The Project-only traffic volumes (Figure 4)were added to the existing peak hour traffic volumes(Figure 3) to estimate the Existing with Project peak hour intersection turning movement volumes, as shown on Figure 6. For this scenario it was assumed that Central Parkway would connect to Croak Road, connecting to Dublin Boulevard, in the eastbound direction only. No changes to the lane configuration or traffic control were assumed at any of the study intersections. Traffic signal timings, peak hour factors, heavy vehicle percentages, and pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions for the initial analysis. Existing with Project conditions were evaluated using the same methods described in Chapter 1. The analysis results are presented in Table 8, based on the traffic volumes and lane configurations presented on Figure 6. Table 8 also includes the operations results for the Existing without Project conditions for comparison purposes. With the addition of trips related to the buildout of the remaining portions of Jordan Ranch, intersections in the study area would degrade, but would continue to operate within the City's established level of service for intersection operations over the peak hour. The addition of project traffic would result in the 95th percentile vehicle queue exceeding the available storage for the southbound left-turn movement at the Central Parkway at Fallon Road intersection,as well as for several movements at the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive/School Access intersection. These increases are considered significant. Vehicle queues at the Central Parkway at Fallon Road intersection in the existing plus project condition can be maintained within the existing vehicle storage through signal timing adjustments as traffic patterns change in the area. Measures to consider at the Sunset View Drive/School Access intersection are discussed in Chapter 8. rA 25 ®1 V', u O : m�N L ■ 0-VI - ._1 .Fr l E ) d m=co 1,_.(9)3Z1(1.6Z)9b .. O 0 N m m �(Ze9)(9e6)6Z4 Cl- V j 11�L r[ebl(L4)L9 U ; .> T L L C[9LL (£9LseZyFao f£91(Joe)zze—. g LL CDCOi ^ m X [6 § mm W N S C � Q+'a ■M Il:CL "� [61le)0t _ ozs [01(0)0 "Si. "° 5-fez(ee)z£ :� oho -[o (o)0 MI U 11 L fel(9)l y' 4 L In](9Z)L4 .c .U: C : •co led(£z)ze fir E. [0](o)o�. _I I V ,:Y- [£9](04)ZL l o m o' [o](o)o a m o o [JL](ee)4L. --"; ;,g. [eel(z6)OK •- C ■ �4N n �� (V: ® on J i n Lic N ^^,, Wi O °I Y: a, � .N c c 0 a U P; -m �L£(944)ezz � o-o [££1(z)e9' j. [6e4(0e9)49b-, [9ZZ1(SS l)99Z w_1 100 U 4 L c I d ce ...DA v m (4411(�0I)�oz�. > [�l lt) I� Ln F- O IL49](£L4)909 ,, fel ) 04 .F ry <76 ---. m .9111116)MI. ^^.v C Q 7- n • C r N mmW U J1 (1.) ; N , L : r � s L € _ o "■-::, :--:11.:',-,:.:',',-PA.N T-•-':V..-'-ri,kq,-?•1.ri:Zi2•R:77.6 .,--.7.: i,-,ZZMI,V6a.67•;;E:6,44'' ., ,:-..",,M':6516:,46: 114,'3,.!61:6:. ••.....,:0,=K-6,'..t 7"'-y PU AO,A�r^sue LtF 'a3-` n O y`6.., ill WV-2,,- r;e a K aY r -i.,� aSE". '' ' E...._. . 4,441%,-,;,, A .ortt,„.,,,,,,,„,.r,10,,,; /▪ .-,e, 4 0.;:tt .i$:r3',):,'.',:.;.:%•-.71'24-,',i:P'''''-'4.".".•,:- '':,*.'' % cn a 7 0 t .,a z ki p I _ ; F •-, j' 4 j •*•� as FJ o'Lx y)S N . s c a p71 uo kit. � 7.' ' .a. 7 s. u. _ F . w I A9 01 a o .AI-a le.1 n a.,,r,-5 ii !t! c a 9 �.t -"r':'; E Y :r _], �. c 8,143 oq,dam r ..-. �K'I a�n '..a �Q au,4°e II�eB {�y y 3Rr '0O • - .Sx , :;...,.7,i C1 -dl,'` r r3"'-+.uv. . f+i z an t�id o�ywid h i t �r tl I3+eW Pound HJ(:pr ,�e rI 5c:"x. col i I tr am [ t.s• 3.a ,a t^!$2 a x ,�/� t� Q :g 'C... I t# •., ..1 t 7 p it �" -:'.y �� '' '. h tl a /40;04.7,§6' .t'r'i v_I"e i n.' 4\£1,-, 2Ki)F 1 Q d � I _ 4 Z ',::•,,:::_;::: � �s�cc 14,---,..i.:::..!::�- Re ue6NUea � s � , uo 4'r�H :�P, c�OJ 1 ;. �, !® �. Lo donderry ors s i'` {. Yl z z� l#y .. .17 'r'-^g\ ,#'' `r '�S LE!IeR }N• j`ti `Pa e_---• ie/es� ®a,L -,�. w�" .. I Y LQ:� Y�L��e-t;�"y�9 �� w Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Arnendfnent Transpartahon Assessments ,, _ - AJuly`20I5 TABLE 8 EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITION PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - Peak Existing Conditions. Existing with.Project Intersection Controll. Hour Delay' L05 Delay 23' 3 23 3 ' LOS 1.Fallon Road/Positano AM 15 B 17 B Parkway Signal AFT 11 B 12 B PM 11 B 12 B 2.Lockhart Street/Central AM 18 B 20 B Parkway Signal AFT 21 C 21 C PM 38 D 21 C AM 15 B 32 C 3.Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal AFT 18 B 27 C PM 12 B 26 C 4.Sunset View Drive/Central AM 8 A 17 B Parkway Signal AFT 9 A 14 B PM 12 B 12 B 5.Panorama Drive/Central AM 0(0) A(A) 5(15) A(B) Parkway SSSC AFT 0(0) A(A) 6(14) A(B) PM 0(0) A(A) 6(15) A(B) Notes: 1. SSSC=side-street stop controlled intersection;Signal=signalized intersection. 2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3. For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source:Fehr&Peers,2015. r I 27 1 Eastern Dublin Spec�fc Plan Amendment Transportation/Issessmerit = • 6 j x gip° t July;20I5 5.0 NEAR-TERM CONDITIONS This chapter presents the results of the level of service calculations under near-term conditions without and with the project. Traffic volumes for Near-Term without Project conditions comprise existing volumes plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed and occupied developments in the area. Near-Term with Project conditions are defined as Near-Term without Project conditions plus net new traffic generated by the proposed project. Traffic volumes for the Near-Term conditions were developed through the use of the updated City of Dublin Travel demand model considering buildout of a portion of the Dublin Kaiser project, which is proposed on Dublin Boulevard at Keegan Street. The forecasts represent likely traffic conditions in the area over the next ten years. Near-Term without Project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 7. The forecasts shown on Figure 7 include the vehicle trip generation of the entitled land uses as presented previously in Table 6. The net-new trip generation associated with the project was added to the without project forecasts,with the resulting forecast presented on Figure 8. The completion of the Central Parkway connection to Croak Road, which connects to Dublin Boulevard, was assumed to be completed as a two lane, bi-directional roadway. No modifications to the study intersection lane geometries were assumed. Pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions except for the with project condition where additional pedestrian activity was assumed at the intersections that provide primary access to the school site. Heavy vehicle percentages were adjusted to a uniform two percent of traffic. Traffic signal timings were optimized at some intersections to reflect shifts in travel patterns as the City of Dublin routinely adjusts traffic signal timings to ensure optimal travel flow through the City. r7 28 , a E O O^N L^, L ■ ET fO C 'I—O W a. °o0 �[olzl(06)oo U i m m 1—tom!(MVO 009 ea )1 L L r foal(06)06 CD v � C L ; .= 0£t1(O6)091. )) I- .2[0691(01.9)01'1—. Ciao ..76: foe](os)oez--- yam -0 i -,E,-I:9?";u cu 1 t 000 • • 5 m �... C in i • _o O a to :Y. Sic d. o0o L- .11 oo [ol](OO)ol - av a [ol(o)o 0 -F `r-° _(061(06)oe �° o°o [s](o)ol pal c )1L '�roz1(ol)or. v 4L Isll(sl)os v cr •0 [o6](Cis)06 )Tr E. [o](o)o )1' , U Y [oall(09)olz�. �m� o (91(g) � a E o a) 1 g [oel](09)131.z [oszl(oo I)s>t ry-- C o"o %a ao (O -J vom ,a: o"� J i fV o.-o .uj.• ® 00 N v ^' 1 ni ..r 0•', W I O � O' 8 N +� N.. [01(0)o > i 0 0° „�--foot](09>)OlZ .:L2.-,C m.o [o](o)o c ��'' 4-totel(oes)No l 4L [0](o)o N. ,1 c yV� I '�� pxaN VaRS T - f v foul(ozl)oez [o1(o)o-4 )�o i.`,1 ~ i 2 foes](096)016 y. [06]COL)OE -" 8 N g C I• ..2 C l�. o o0o O co- N N C 01 1-L ', a..I• ' ,a ,r cu X -°Ze 4-C'> a., _ I .+ s`k7FAV'I o +, :.!5:4,V....0. x ��'- r� x�#� Ydl n P T ' ryw r t' o f :w . dd : . '�•`, "00, >a�,3 ti�'i y,r r a `r� ,C.- �E ''`3,..-' P Q,J y p 5 �..t�r� Y-1� AE -j '3 4 k r h{E 7'iVr, Lr.09'. kM1. I i J a V re -,,'r`E,t .'t•.r�� i° 'E}.. . f I 11 t I 0 .� I eoT a � (� k I V. cu il " O 4. t� e7z+ ,r l a ii x r k£ °_ Q i• ';.A� 3y �r�,,,, G : 1.y 1 r� v•® l ::'?.,....,'!.k.,7 1 q A�'y`'x• � 11g. a-5 F'' N '..s.. � �'t °e Ili F ' tei s 'a� 4 C ak Rd$��® 0� ¢q}�' ",� fk t '1 Di To _:;::;;,,:.:i4,., � d"`� * 4�� `> g" -71. f�3 ,tieY -�'�'� i ,ruF�Eli .: r.s 1. i73` l f r 7 e D t a g u.roi-ia t{ r'.a . ,.d Fs ,,.. '' , y "g' �] J1. h ;p 0, '=,, ,¢ - ®v1. ® Y 1.I i t t ., ''"� :. �h_ w.�.._ --∎; -4',"0::'::::''.4 t'f t e� '. �xY;> �E�14. _ } E S #Ake a_ 4 75,..,,po� t ` Iy,ko.,,,°,to` _ o •• flei } k T n u� v, C a ,, , 7r"( { 3o l - o -•-�'' '� - 14-1V11= a N''E,'£^- g ,41 S t 1�1f :,u '��° t 1m 8 S t it a , �It 7= ,t ''4 ni r "e i} .1 xJy=0 oilurd x � -- - =Q.(auena0. -' l ` 0 ye�� g 7 r,,.',,-:-6. r ii5•^01� e- pound Nlll Dr r Y• r ;r ] -a 1 ."`°gf am 5t 'g3-r BIZ e n • 1�.t o 7 i =�� N Jam, i I„,..._,'-',1.r" -ho r 74=•• �4 ,Pham a 0 5-. = °.�7.(eM Ue6luue=g o:''=g'uol>f°°78 `� 'K-.''1'''...',\•i:0‘9. I N' p '^ O o, x Elleri• N r Lo donderry Di � �� ^7kJ 5'• � y ��.,,r.Pb a efe 0 ii_;— •i a�lQ' t 5/.41, ;a u' yi 3� ,� ..r thr y f W �o_ .x..>,.. .... §Llt IfAi1. > N: �}_k &s1.t.`•, �,f "y\,. �o_r , - J X 1 +' u O : ;7.-. .� L- <,-m� o _ ;7,m<7, t:I9L61(cot'I)99s U ) LL ''—(09)(06)06 U cr i +_+ 1 m: 0: i ;, [990[sBL)LLZ� el)1 _ L' o- [EE91(Z60ztL.t--.. RC5 .` [oc1(o8)0£Z� Q) '0 ; 1 ca to m I <, C m O ■ D. 0,0- [Lal(u)of. 'a o�a (o](o)o : To a°v 'E'-[oc1(O6)06 -� 0c40 4—I6](0)6 �l " toe]fall oL LLv: I9z1(Li)9s +� N 't: . 4- ..auwap V C o C 0 o [06](0S)06 tr o` (01(0)e f P V [001.1Welotz ems •a [act](09)otz _m c.[still(o6t)t9t� ° na ... I I�N Y <�N ' ® e mN J P.- I �s N E o °°or' -]EEE](666)szz'r, [gel(6Z)6L L•_' .`O 1L691(tLO'L)L99 '�; ,-.',W [zzl(st)8L y I -9. 'ILL 0 4L [EZZ](ES 66z > i i o �. °u 0 CO c: [OLL](OZ1)OEZy [6](L)06 �� in I- j C i I9ssl(s86)9LO�L y y[e0L](t6)69 �," ® O:_: LL D a) o, LI tN W b l � 9 o H I 1{` a"�ri tcC � vn r � a M i 13 f. y_ {R, �' S^+ " rsR%-h'� xvf i : pa T� i ;ye H• 1�G TT..S L..�.i `'• 43.. S 1� 1 r �!a I t1 § �"°' a.. mil._ 4,0, J•. '}i' x4,lk•xr �.',▪ ,,, ilF �4 t lr�.` `��,%t e o ..m i x ,.•� �; z ,�',� a t Q� 0.:'.f ` o ke oue.:.N a ai r '$ # S▪ra 2 k � a. ° d ... r ho :—., ., -- r 1�5 ;-:.,..!:,,,,,,v,....,.:.�,:it tk.,:1 #�1r9 -o 'f.- - 1 x ^( 4>c. , �;%4..,y.�141 6" , :.. m fit04, F°i t1 if 3Y a t "�` `" r� :1 at ,t� fide 3, c r_, ,y e7 t- r I A 1r'Croak,F1 3+ d ' r r' . {z,• : tw , 4 4_ • a irsY ®7▪ t�alb ' ' s ' ' ',t`,fs r3 rrSVey o7 °^Q� ,° . --i -6- r �: F-need 4 u 1,;;6�c m ['` t!i i Ne�a�• o-.5., f t O atI,' t3° 1 r,c�E. ,'—''" � i � .Q Ls�,10',. deg -O ego ,y.+y-+ 3 (� l7� � '� ..7* � e� o - �' �'+ ^T u j+ H .,�;_ O (. ,p dagwid X"�r4QV ulY '� I �Gulfsrtre m5[} LJ L , r7 ; ¢a yJc u.�` „r, Fe`µue w-1.:113 9 i o ip uoLvo�e ;l 1 "'1--Q l O f "' J "[:. Z O�o '-s- `l-a� Ellero N � —ii .�6 .or Lo dond re ryDra --0,:1 ,f 4? �lI .y.:' ��F �V ,e ' ��`-.-' ,, it .. - -.r+'+...liPB ere(esse1. O ,. 1� L�, yd,��k� IV A.� t• .R.W E� w ®_Praa r 7 1.. '',..'-,;'`..*:,i3:.s, Faa ,p r1:�w') r'cg. Sr. .1 --. <5:1.1 � . . ., ,r fir, �_s ... A4 -ia`-�,d_. }. z P. l7 !,..;,:i.1 J X Eastern Dublin SPenfiePl anAmendment;TransportafionAssessment July 2015 - k Levels of service calculations were conducted to evaluate intersection operations under Near-Term conditions both without and with the project. The LOS results are summarized in Table 9. The corresponding LOS and queue calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. In the Near-Term condition prior to the land uses changes associated with the project, the study intersections would operate at an acceptable service level. With the net-change in trips related to the buildout of the remaining portions of Jordan Ranch, study intersection operations would degrade, but would continue to operate within the City's established level of service for intersection operations over the peak hour. TABLE 9 NEAR-TERM CONDITION PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Peak Near Term without Project . ,Near-Term with.Project Intersection Control 1 Hour .3 3 23 Delayz LOS. Delay' LOS 1.Fallon Road/Positano AM 15 B 16 B Parkway Signal AFT 12 B 12 B PM 12 B 12 B 2.Lockhart Street/Central AM 27 C 29 C Parkway Signal AFT 19 B 21 C PM 19 B 21 C 3.Fallon Road/Central AM 29 C 33 C Parkway Signal AFT 26 C 31 C PM 23 C 40 D 4.Sunset View Drive/Central AM 10 A 15 B Parkway Signal AFT 8 A 15 B PM 8 A 13 B 5.Panorama Drive/Central AM 10(32) A(D) 5(16) A(C) Parkway SSSC AFT 8(22) A(C) 6(17) A(C) PM 7(16) A(C) 6(17) A(C) Notes: 1. SSSC=side-street stop controlled intersection;Signal=signalized intersection. 2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3. For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source:Fehr&Peers,2015. - ii 31 Eastern Dub(m Spea�CrPlarLAmendmen Transportatibr� 4ssessmenf 1ufy2015 In the without project condition, the westbound left-turn movement queue at the Fallon Road at Central Parkway intersection could extend beyond the available storage, but the addition of project traffic would not increase the vehicle queue by more than 50 feet. The addition of project traffic would case the southbound left-turn movement queue to increase to approximately 390 feet, exceeding the available storage by approximately 150 feet. Queues would be contained within the available storage prior to the addition of project traffic. The addition of project traffic would result in the 95th percentile vehicle queue exceeding the available storage for several movements at the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive/School Access intersection. Measures to alleviate potential queuing issues at the Fallon Road/Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive/School Access intersection are discussed in Chapter 8. ii 32 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment Julyt2015 - 6.0 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS This chapter presents the results of the level of service calculations under Cumulative conditions without and with the project. Cumulative forecasts were developed using the updated City of Dublin travel demand model, representing existing traffic, plus traffic from approved and pending developments, as well as development that could occur under the current General Plan. The traffic forecasts also reflect traffic shifts that could occur with construction of new regional roadway facilities, including the El Charro Road extension from Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Boulevard and the extension of Dublin Boulevard east to North Canyons Parkway. Other regional roadway improvements include the planned widening of Stanley Boulevard to provide three lanes in each direction from east of Isabel Avenue. The resulting forecasts and intersection lane configurations are presented on Figure 9 for the without project condition, which reflects buildout of Jordan Ranch with the currently entitled uses. The net-new trip generation from the proposed project was added to the Cumulative without Project traffic volumes to estimate the Cumulative with Project traffic volumes,as shown on Figure 10. Modifications to the intersection of Central Parkway at Fallon Road were assumed in the analysis of Cumulative conditions, as shown on Figure 9 and Figure 10. Pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions except for the with project condition where additional pedestrian activity was assumed at the intersections that provide primary access to the school site. Heavy vehicle percentages were adjusted to a uniform two percent of traffic. Traffic signal timings were optimized to better accommodate shifts in travel patterns as the City of Dublin routinely adjusts traffic signal timings to ensure optimal travel flow through the City. r� 33 o c, ,. > p S O N L • ■ �� a �° �IOLZI(o6 I.)OOt ▪ c C 0 s loez'L](osL'zlot6 C ° L) TILL �[ooz](ozz)otz ° .c v ' l! (d- ON.1, n U V q— I 'N a, • ; _':OEL)(06)09L y 1)1' Q ',o F— o-(obL'I)06L't—r o00 ¢7 -'. tae](09)0Z= ""=, v▪ E -• : �g� u_ c RS I S Si _ _ 11 C I ° II p o° fad(CO oL �! o�8 la](o)o i 1 -' w° '�[oL)(06t)o '.E' o°o ij[S](0)a .t. )1 t, 'rfoe](oz)o1 `,,,, 4� [st)(st)oE j; i V* C m :oat](09)mi. )tr E lo](o)o '{1' V I Y toss]coos)ovz 4. sas o` Isl(s)s wrvm o p i J.06L](o0L)OVZ N='' :-•ci [09Z)(oNL)SPE N C 1 o—o d=m: ono mil" d: ° CU I N- • o N o -�� 0 • .I _c2 mom o° I 5 S N ti i �'v. ryF ,'.:, ar E 1 .?' O O ° m a °° '�[cod(oes)osz Col(o)o• °c, ° ,-1091't](o,,L'I]ocs•;c' • m° [ol(o)o `8 v j (a � (coo)(ooz)otz�. -> NI(9)s )1 L� i Lft a. — 1 __ (OZ V1,1(0E6)06P't .�' [061(0L)OEL °°.- C I ....: i 0S v I ) • M v ; c to • y 1 1 m ' :'* 7r2-:;Ip I" iul "ivial; k� u^jt, . ly Vl C• { i gyp 7 G 1 Aop iiip, q„t„i t r r wfxIII` 7 �rE t n oQa'' p 1 t' 7` Z xr 'r h41 1g11' G ./ P T 4 JyV ,, , ... c.J .:._' +'Ur F- F� +t'l41 ",i,rn r.vl 1'.4:1 U c -V ,:..,v5.,„..,.,,,, a .... 4,•,,„ • • tip A-1.,,!--;•111e.Dv., :. fts,....z.v2.....,;.t,,7......-:,..x.,,,,,..?.7,.;-,.,....,....-2,..,..- fr.4.,-4,,,,..i,:,., t 4414;,,,,,14 y y}!�, iA-` w� �'4 r.-1Y. c..}a a..„1 1 I PAP Y.. ; ” :r`54 Cr°ak Rd'.r�® ��JlF r-F. .f'.rNr� �aCr.3+ Y,yEk., . J''°dam'' !,.,22.-m3- L,,,� r"t'�.,'aT ; �odl}. r `' � atg"r n 1, r -r,. +..'' - a i r. n•G. t.� �` Ef E c5 s7. - * r. q ll� I �a3 o6i r t 7 Y'lt t Tv x -t'iy, a V ,{4- * -i e a •-v .0 auAluel 8 •b I� -rr _ -0 mC fir._4w1 c _.1: Q ° ..t. i;�7 jti 'f•l al F f. i .+, ; U m e lar F'- �«k "+f ttz psi Iu g t" �i� O �• .0 0o Iwid7 7O .pr/,auena0 , 4.- °IFl?.gifiF+9 8- 31, tiv- . a=•dHIIIAr I .. p 'a4 µourT _ 4j..r'� "Iao rJ .r ° GJIrA-.St ,'Sa, .0 7 12. 1 �- i �s4 1 •• 'I •Q r ,1xY.0„,,,,.*.T.:\ LX'•t�� 0�5,r.. ,, . If,,yy f ,�Aerytue6wue.g,k1 z 110 uolvoi \sA l.q'Ye, '• •FQ '. i O o ,� Elleru •N i t>� �_ Lr and YOr. 1 ”, p., 7 t r 7 I� rF �I �zi 4} .,` '�,s.77,,,;,,. ..,-a��hC Q•�7P71 e ales ej ° ®a ,x l)a [ k b{44, it F yi�i 4. ,era s y, 6..:: W• ter,--_.a >., Q P 1V f: l'.:.:141143P7 ri '.✓ 4jc o- �. is U _ ® l�i.�.art. �ro . 5. C7,.z.,i( X Co" Si -- U 0 m ry MI 1 .IL: m N o �10£z)(toz)60t c cO _ i, ry m m 4--I99o'Ll(6zCZ)96e U j )ILLr tz loozl(ozz)o u v co >,u o •D rwea.� 'a CC: esti(49LI LLZ- ))' O m m a) 0. (zzt't))O Ly mIm-vo > To- fool(08)o£z=. E 'F-' - m°o 'v ° m ',L.'S' f6 3 m—R .I E I, "? I' _ 0 I 'a mVm Y( o0o Ii L- - 0 0-- ftzl(oz)of o o to)(o)o m m°m 5 �-(ot)foot)0fr 1 '. o vNi o 4-Iv](o)o �! - 11 "-fuel(oz)at ay. 4. (9z1(tz)9s i a 7., g: L, C .j- ....-, I:a' .-. - A Fmr oet](09)act 1t1' E 1o)(o)0 114 c U• ,Y 09L]OW ObZ M O (Zl(7)E EZi Lo N O C :b61(OOl)06Z a.. '`c.>loot)toot)L9t - ir N 4, ! La XL:. my 'V: 3 e^m ,: a omry S m J u V7 N %; ^. N m CI. R. 4. o mã o 19E1(6z)CLI. j o.. ^ ._(cod S9Z-a�' v [zzl(4l)9t w c. 4--(tot B, 11.4, •— cY 4 (az)(£9t)6ez N. v o, I � WI!Ma �' tl�NVrm T 3' -o f6 i .c foot](ooz)otz= ,� Is](t)oo-4 )Mm F- O:.f9PL't)(996)9£9't ;'a eat)(t6)S5t 2 C I N C. O L7-' •7 C m n I%7 (n pl.,-N V, i vN N V nnv Q) v) 01 L k{r 2 k '�7L -0G.`!r,..r --`'i,t,.,v n 4"� ,.' i,a.- 'J r, j yr ,_.• I,i :„�0Y 'i„ k� i ',, a)Ii,n F„, -” r ,5"y�°,N cat I 0 n �� .ya ere- c 3 ,4 ,E ▪ .. ;,,z Q0' . T-O}- i 'i.4' 7, !,eun *! a>ffi 5 F� ', ,1., FI - ( A 1.r .eta i{ y• , , ' s ti "r I 7 i-,, ,' .,Lp,f pr4� mod' �.1n 49 h.e ia-a �% f 1 59.:V.,:-,-,1 a, 2 R ��!!7 i, O� e7oued .' ""'S },, �S r t?F tea' r a 3 �:Ri e �y d '�' 4- '. 1 , •. t 7� 4 t�E,�` .p'. fi''yt�r i �74� �5 NTy^ ' -o• .1 Li sii r9ffiJ 'fir 3� �,. a -M'4- d .r, 11-, dam• t c D4 -0• ;aim °+( 416 I 4 a tS' «�,p'-q . °' • 7 4 ''^fiLro • p-4 Croak Hd 6 4 s. *�.b+§,-3`am,' an 1 ° F-'t• i,t`fr• ,w .z9 1I 1-,11,44 }'' p er. ?' , YIM �'1 ,..7 d t LM1 * x ) $ r ",(..®4 Y ,F o'r4� I r: 'y `,4'3. • 4. i}z� II -T-„ .%x"fs -1• G°L.E a r, ast , .. , 15Le mN,%-z G :itti "g":1: .Y�.»?PNii rs iti.i1 pg� rm 1,., fi I b3(l9' o o a ip`3-:"'°Ai +1 ,o ' 3; F 4 P : hr-1-.�. a °' -�" 4• t T u•'..!-,', .lerall,:'-'t--tt ', -`"4i23 c (� o '-�l r. S -:its o i + F a .r y, ,T7„'"7 A` .go`r,,,3 .'"",'+°' p�1y 'r �C 7i aW ]! 70'7-i7,, 87 1 y y a y.--At7 O•r i�.�77 1 ay A u nw. }S>• rj .r -14'41 - d•- 1 > A g.r s ry.111 Dr a'� w >» 3laµound, r z o E.r9 GWhv�am St ,,,, _ ii a Y 3 0 " 3 tl ,1 it -o ' ,, \ ` Vv_-1;}r C�` umi • ' 3 - h ?Ir''a �® t14u bi a v7' 4. ,-,==5.1e,-:, Q a { 1>,,...; rc i irojomue61uuv9 'a 6,,,,,c,..-.;m:4-4g!i.'0 uo7P B▪ Nt p b �i9 F. 1 .n OR a y,4"}-y,Di'lf_4r k�V- t-I ' ?� ,a %v.,1l':-.1,61%4,!4-,-' Ellen L- 6� .1 Fah Londonderry.IN >i . s Z _,I,/ 1 2,,. y p >r$ Z !�} m.x Pll ere(enet o &ai a I I�-1, r','-r^4 y 3, 4 i 3, 1 s w !- " .'lir r fi `-rt ; k I P7(-17,--;.,1�tfyjl �., 15 : l0 �.. « . ... .off:.� . ;. .�I,�.�, - �.. �.�_a�_. -,_ , -,. � Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation ilssessment Ju1y2015 Levels of service calculations were conducted to evaluate intersection operations under Cumulative conditions both without and with the Project. The LOS results are summarized in Table 10. The corresponding LOS and queue calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. The results of the LOS calculations indicate that with planned development in Dublin and adjacent jurisdictions in the Cumulative conditions,the intersections in the vicinity of Jordan Ranch are projected to operate at acceptable service levels in the Cumulative conditions and the net-change in vehicle trip generation from the proposed project would not degrade peak hour operations beyond the established LOS thresholds. TABLE 10 CUMULATIVE CONDITION PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 1:. Peak Cumulative withoutProject Cumulative with Project ,. Intersection Control Hour. Delayx 3 LOSS Delayz 3 LOSS .. 1.Fallon Road/Positano AM 18 B 19 B i Parkway Signal AFT 12 B 12 B PM 15 B 15 B 2.Lockhart Street/ AM 35 C 36 D Central Parkway Signal AFT 25 C 27 C PM 24 C 25 C 3.Fallon Road/Central AM 42 D 52 D Parkway Signal AFT 29 C 32 C PM 29 C 39 D 4.Sunset View Drive/ AM 10 A 15 B Central Parkway Signal AFT 8 A 14 B PM 9 A 13 B 5.Panorama Drive/ AM 10(32) A(D) 5(16) A(C) Central Parkway SSSC AFT 8(22) A(D) 6(17) A(C) PM 7(16) A(C) 6(17) A(C) Notes: 1. 555C=side-street stop controlled intersection;Signal=signalized intersection. 2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3. For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source:Fehr&Peers,2015. r� 36 wa Eastern Dublin Speafic Plan AmendmentrTransporation Assessment u ;n In the without project condition,the westbound left-turn movement queue at the Fallon Road at Central Parkway intersection could extend beyond the available storage, but the addition of project traffic would not increase the vehicle queue by more than 50 feet. The addition of project traffic would case the southbound left-turn movement queue to increase to approximately 400 feet, exceeding the available storage by more than 200 feet. Queues would be contained within the available storage prior to the addition of project traffic. The addition of project traffic would result in the 95th percentile vehicle queue exceeding the available storage for several movements at the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive/School Access intersection. Measures to alleviate potential queuing issues at the Fallon Road/Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive/School Access intersection are discussed in Chapter 8. r� 37 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Arnendment 7ransportatton Assessment July'7015 - 7.0 ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROADWAY ANALYSIS A separate analysis of regional roadways is required to comply with requirements of the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC). The Alameda CTC requires the analysis of project impacts to Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways identified in the congestion management plan (CMP) for development projects that would generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips. As shown in Table 6,the proposed Project could generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips. This chapter outlines the roadway analysis, which considers the impact of the Project on freeways, major arterials,and other major roadways as designated by Alameda CTC. Main items of discussion include the geographic scope of the Alameda CTC roadway analysis, the analysis method, and the results for 2025 and 2040. Freeway and surface street segments in Dublin were included in this analysis: • Interstate 580(2 segments) • Dublin Boulevard (2 segments) • Fallon Road (3 segments) a Fehr & Peers used the Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model to forecast 2025 and 2040 traffic volumes on the MTS roadway system. The forecasts for the MTS system differ from the intersection forecasts previously discussed in the following aspects: • The land use data sets used for the intersection forecasts and the MTS forecasts are consistent with Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG)population and employment projections but may differ from the City of Dublin model within Dublin. • Regional model may not include some minor streets through the Tri-Valley, potentially overstating traffic volumes on the roadways included in the model. r� 38 ®� Eastern Dublin Specific Plon Amendment Transportation Assessment A - , 4:62015 • The MTS roadway analysis reports the outputs of the Alameda CTC model directly on a roadway segment level and the analysis does not consider the added capacity from turn pockets at intersections. The results of the Alameda CTC model were used to forecast the No Project condition for 2025 and 2040. Project trips for at build-out were distributed to the MTS roadway segments (including both freeways and surface streets) identified above using the project trip distribution presented in Chapter 3. The distribution of project trips onto the MTS segments results in the With Project volumes for 2025 and 2040, which reflects the net change in trip generation anticipated with the project. Operations of the MTS freeway and surface street segments were assessed based on volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. For freeway segments, a per-lane capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour was used. For surface streets, a per-lane capacity of 800 vehicles per hour was used. These capacities do not reflect additional capacity provided at intersections through turn pockets. Roadway segments with a V/C ratio greater than 1.0 are assigned LOS F. i According to the significance criteria presented previously in Chapter 1, the addition of project traffic could cause a significant impact on an MIS roadway segment if: • The addition of project traffic causes a segment's operation to degrade to LOS F. • The addition of project trips causes the V/C ratio to increase by more than 0.02 on a segment that already operates at LOS F without the project traffic. The MTS PM Peak Hour roadway segment analysis under 2025 and 2040 conditions are provided in Table 11 for the 2025 condition and Table 12 for the 2040 condition. The analysis results show that the addition of project traffic would not result in LOS F conditions nor increase the volume-to-capacity ratio by more than 0.02 on a segment projected to operate deficiently prior to the consideration of the project. Therefore,the project impact to MTS roadway segments is considered less-than-significant. ii d . jam'..(5- V. �. O. '�' 'x D1 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C t • Ors. _ E� y� s Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ■ °lot 12±,Y 0 0 m U U U L -mx-O" —49 .vt- a a CO 03 U U Q Q J tC , *ms �,,, . ems- .[ , ,:-..0 ,ey :i co co u'f ul h 'O O O ! - O O O O O O O O c . S ri Z r-r Itr h ' s1s R. #' 5' CO rn 0 CO Z er 2 q 6 d o 0 o O o o r 2 in %, -'''',11,g..- \ \ o o c e e o } , -µ 4 ,-Fay O O N N ri .-1 H h Q a ri CI M t t-g-'6'W Q °" O N h O m O v PA, st N 10 Q h L e )u = 4,}s�`E h CFI M O h h l0 l0 t--1 m c 0 tsa I. a .o�',' co co IC In '-i = a O : -1 c 0. e1 w a4" in in In Ln m m m m C to y - N E O F t -o T -o 4 - 1 r 9,W - p v p v a O &C'-R -� ^ + CC O K i/1 O Mi N ra v 2 'xs'1 O m 0 � a c co (9 >, C C 10 H .0 r _c ra p O1 0 -D � n - f._-6 w Q Ii H 0 Y Ii 7 Y co a 17 F - 0 0 ,,'O , a VI ,a --y N. M to-- - f c W I a n F ttl 113 CU '" 0 7 v 7 '0 41 . 'I. d .0 CC j -D U x, ra -11�-�..- r" O ra L O CO 01 .a N 01 1] O 0) SIMI II .11 d , F_414 Q 0 11;. ►r t!1 W r Q LL Q H X 0 L.L X 1 _ re ;„. , ipC ' ' Z Z Z Z Z Z �F !'� g i ,, fi r,Y a : °''''''.'1 < < < < < CO >.4 _ o .--I .--I 1--1 m 1-1 0 a Af O'-' O O O d O O J 0 o. i Sir , _ Z , , rrt,, Q .' r N m co .--I h. 0 I. 4--:,-- ;:,..-2,,,,,E.17 s ri .-i O .—I , m v .” ,. O O O O O O• 3{ by l7 N W FS >„ tx- y�c C -.('q N 1-1 m 1-1 r-I N 1"I H 0 ?,•u;,F::'. 0 ..--,,A*.:, �� a N v Co N d n R} 4N d } -_.,. #L �� F �*p }. = P-: N Ol m O N -'x mo$ O ¢ x ':',. N N r�-I N N o0 Q-x W � � aq� �'��:; n' � t ; i -t CO N m m N CO Vc:` a a�1 C6 E a; a N 44_OFF h c N pa 1 u c Ar i QI IIr }. c — co m ro o 0 > �n u u ° '' •.sue , 0 U 0. U ❑ .. •`a D ry, . c 'o c r a:W- t .o 11 S N 6 � Z j N i m (v V d ,. �' -4�:� 'O v a cZi' ., o v r 1 ' o o O_ M s :` W f O m CD O 0_ m ',QC ii.' C is c m igittl zy 0 t O C . .c hi o , i ,...:� :::a ... Z In .. _ ' k lam O 0 )C I I z f10 � L' N Tr 17fr " � O O O 0 O 0 q�• 0':.. �?' z z z z Z z 2 1, T. ,A-Li '" W.; 0 0 0 U U LL LL < < .. ..?;y } �r� -VX Ol L1 m tO (N V N N in t r .O'F 00 CO W. l0 ri O 0 .-1 N r4*'`e'.r�'", Q�F'r'.' O O O O r-1 .-I O O J ; ,� W 4 0J .-1 m I-- N O Q � OTg 3x' W W t0 ri O • , O O O O r 1 r-I • O 5 4 l � 1 Z .f''i_ S . l h w M 4a .-i? , 10# •w in g r. �:'. .. yr 0 0 N N � P. .,V4,- )r r4 r v-', y. .W.I Q �.i'y 41 ; co � Q-1 V N ,-1 N Ql -,,,,,,--pa,," @. a+t , �,.1 m in 0 a' N 0 Q ZM p^'Y0 ar CO i- N V r1 N C' O 'r'ELyu"2"'iv,0j.�r l� Co W l0 l0 N N .: 2 . 4 Z, . O W •r f h i,ATOM a G. " C - vi ,n 0 in m m in in c- .•• - : -a C b0t A' t': 1 °) 4 .0 4, niiminrarimittov A v o a: . r o o v v a, m rski O v, ry is o O o v)co cc r T t0 '-, (.4 Parligifil,101 _c °.o .0 4. fiA a)V � t;•:N � a,. t r'i - LLI �rabic md- � q m.� _ E�- °fi c 'D 1 6.. �:,,1xr 7 o 2 O > 5 0 N •N N pzi I Y: n T { H - O W m O io V) 0 O Cl) a 01111 �4;��Ti �ah c V °�° o yo'`, :3:1C °� v m 0., in L" O a) @ W i. - k i ,gi' L w LL. ... t) .. Q LL Q O F Y O LL Y Sao .:r'° t4 , ■ Le ® 0 0 0 0 0 0 ��a `' Z Z Z Z Z Z g `, Q a Q a a m !r gg s^ [ o 3 X14 tea. -, .. _ 4 t - m m N to V Qa7, 1ai Q � .41,,t •b y ' 0 CD O to N V q ai a. W Q -.js -C'et t (Ni k .0trAJ: G�:` re 7" 4 a3 ' m 0 ' [a yg SR 45 . Ltl N U to .�-a CO N - :::',.'':-,':';'.E.,-,..;-' I— 2- 'n.-.7* ..,,r_f,., , i.FSy U "'I 4 e -, ,.r,. - P .-i a- 5e} 3 m N m m N m E a -_€, - - E .45' 'OPALSION734111 -- b . N P - Q V a Rm k. . .G,J : - _ w O £� T ., -O >, n: _ a - f„ m i i m a lr: u._ i 0 G �sR€_ -0 C 'H C W w. j h{k�i �A'a i 0 U a1 U 0 N 411 C = C i t > > q. . �--- d CU o : ., ,14 . ,p V ry . s a+w ~ . : 'O L v t • ! O >, >,,: 4A. Z > ra 0 3 m g a . ' m 3 m � Y a 0 d , ,:---.f � 0 b c m a C4 l N 0 m .i.� .. a 0 a 5'-. '.1,..7.; -• . F is m N N O N O 8 �� y:: l.a :., LL U LL a U Z v0 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July20I5 8.0 SCHOOL SITE ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS This chapter discusses site access and circulation considerations for the school site. As a detailed site plan has not been developed, guidance related to the design of the Sunset View Drive at Central Parkway intersection and potential modifications that may be necessary at the Fallon Road at Central Boulevard intersection to better accommodate peak traffic flows around bell times, especially vehicle queues, is provided. Considerations for bicycle, pedestrian and transit access to the school site are also discussed. As detailed in the prior chapters, intersections that provide primary access to the school site are projected to operate acceptably with the project in all scenarios over the course of the peak hour. However,around school bell times,there may be periodic congestion as students are dropped-off or picked-up within the same time frame. Operations of the intersections of the Central Parkway with Fallon Road, Sunset View Drive/School Entry and Panorama Drive intersections were also evaluated for the peak 15-minutes around bell times for the morning and afternoon peak hours to assist in the sizing of intersections to better accommodate school traffic flows. This analysis was conducted through the use of a 0.50 peak hour factor for movements that would have a high proportion of school related traffic around bell times, including movements to/from Central Boulevard at Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive. The results presented in Table 13. Around bell times, operations of the Fallon Road/Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive/Central Parkway are projected to degrade to LOS E or F for brief periods of time. Further widening of the Fallon Road at Central Parkway intersection is not recommended, but improvements to the school access roadway are recommended to maintain traffic flow on Central Parkway,as discussed below. The 95th percentile vehicle queues for the major movements that serve the school site were calculated as presented in Table 14 for the Cumulative conditions for the morning and afternoon peak period when school traffic would be most concentrated. Vehicle queues are projected to extend beyond the available storage length for the southbound left-turn movement on Fallon Boulevard to Central Parkway with the addition of project traffic, and the vehicle queues could be excessive around bell times (1 to 3 traffic signal cycles). Appendix C provides the LOS and queuing worksheets. �� 44 Ili , . , .... __ _ , _ _ , , . . : „ .. _,.. . _ _ , , . . . _ _ . , . ,_ ,. ,_ ,. ., . . , „ . . . ___. . . . . _,...„.... : , _ . ,.... . , .. . , ... _ .. ,. . . . . , . . _ .. „ , , , , ... .„ : . .„ , ,.. , . Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment'Transportation Assessment: , f TABLE 13 PEAK BELL TIME ASSESSMENT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing with Near Term With.'. Cumulative With . Peak Project;Peak Bell Project Peak Bell Project PeaI Bell Intersection Control.1 Period.' Period Penod Delay2 3.. LOS3 :Delay2 3 LOS3.:. Delay2 3 LOS3 3.Fallon Road/Central Signal AM 87 F 83 F > 180 F Parkway AFT 38 D 47 D 50 D 4.Sunset View Drive/ Signal AM 172 F 90 F 90 F Central Parkway AFT 33 C 40 D 40 D 5.Panorama Drive/ SSSC AM 7(17) A(C) 4(21) A(C) 7(29) A(D) Central Parkway AFT 5(14) A(B) 5(21) A(C) 8(35) A(D) Notes: 1. SSSC=side-street stop controlled intersection;Signal=signalized intersection. 2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3. For SSSC intersections,average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source:Fehr&Peers,2015. TABLE 14 CUMULATIVE CONDITION VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY Cumulative with Cumulative Cumulative with pro ectPeak Bell Intersection Movement Vehicle without Project Project j -.. Storage ;. , •. Period AM ' WAFT AM AFT AM ., : AFT SB Left 235 210 190 440 300 > 560 300 Fallon Road/Central NB Right 235 25 50 25 60 30 75 Parkway WB Left 225 250 150 250 150 >300 175 WB Thru 1,000 75 70 100 90 100 125 - WB Right 250 50 40 60 50 150 50 NB -- -- -- > 300 170 >640 275 Sunset View Drive/ EB left 200 75 65 100 125 125 150 Central Parkway EB TH/RT 1,000 130 60 70 150 520 425 WB Left 150 -- -- 40 60 75 75 Notes: 1. 95th percentile vehicle queue presented in feet as calculated by Synchro. Some queues may be greater than shown due to software limitations. Source:Fehr&Peers,2015. Based on the results of the vehicle queue assessment,we offer the following recommendations: er� 45 y Eastern Dublin Specific Plan AmendmentTransportat onAssessmeni July 2015 • Extend the southbound left-turn pocket on Fallon Road at Central Parkway approximately 200- feet. Although this storage length would not accommodate the longest possible extents of vehicle queues,signal timings should be monitored and additional green-time provided for the southbound left-turn movement around bell times to minimize the potential for vehicle queue spillback to the through lane. Dual left-turn lanes are not recommended as it would require the construction of a second receiving lane on Central Parkway and if the second lane were extended to the school entrance at Sunset View Drive,there would be lane utilization imbalances that would reduce the effectiveness of the additional lane. (This recommendation is no longer warranted based on the results presented in the East Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study- Transportation Analysis Addendum,July 29,2015. As detailed in that memorandum,the change in the school project description from a 900-student elementary school to a 400-student elementary school and a 550-student middle school reduces the overall level of trip generation and changes expected travel pattern to the school site such that southbound left-turn vehicle queues can be managed through signal timing monitoring and adjustments.) • Construct an eastbound right-turn only lane on Central Parkway at the Sunset View Drive intersection serving the school site. This would allow through traffic to the residential neighborhoods to bypass potentially queued vehicles waiting to enter the school site drop- off/pick-up loop, especially during periods when the drop-off loop is in queue. To accommodate construction of the right-turn only lane,the existing Class IIa bicycle lane on eastbound Central Parkway should be converted into a right-turn only lane in conjunction with construction of a raised curb along the length of the turn pocket,and improvements to the Class I facility along the south side of Central Parkway. Transitions between bicycle facility types would be necessary at Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive. The design should be coordinated with the City of Dublin Transportation and Operations Manager. • Monitor traffic signal operations at the Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive intersections with Central Parkway and work with City staff to establish time of day traffic signal timing plans that best accommodate peak school traffic • Create a drop-off zone on the south side of Central Parkway along the school frontage between Sunset View Drive and Panorama Drive • Reconstruct the northbound approach to Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive(school driveway) to provide a northbound left-turn lane in addition to a through-right shared lane. At least 300 feet of vehicle storage should be provided prior to an internal driveway to the school site. • Consider providing off-set bell times for different grade levels to reduce peak period traffic volumes The site plan should be reviewed as it is developed to ensure that the drop-off/pick-up zone is designed to accommodate peak activities, and that sufficient parking is provided to accommodate typical peak demand as well as occasional peak demands,such as for back to school night. 46 ®; 1 lirA Eastern Dublin SpectfePlan Arriendrpent Transportation Assessment: Juiy2015 -.. Pedestrian access to the school would be provided by a network of sidewalks, signalized pedestrian crossings, and unsignalized pedestrian crossings. Sidewalks are expected to be constructed as part of the school development to provide access to the campus from Central Parkway. In anticipation of the school site to the east of Panorama Drive, some school related traffic signage and street markings were installed in the area. There may be relatively high levels of pedestrian activity crossing Central Parkway to access the school. To enhance pedestrian safety,the following pedestrian improvements are recommended: • Existing school related signage and street markings marking should be removed and new school crossings and signage should be installed within the new school zone. • To minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts,the final school site design should consider orienting pedestrian access away from the Sunset View Drive intersection. Pedestrian crossings should also be discouraged across the south and west legs of the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive intersection to minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. • Use of a crossing guard or installation of a traffic signal should be considered at the Panorama Drive intersection to provide better pedestrian access across Central Parkway to the campus. • Install a raised barrier(fence)along the median of Central Parkway from near the intersection of Fallon Road at Central Parkway to near the intersection of Panorama Drive at Central Parkway to discourage mid-block pedestrian crossings. The final location of the fence should be coordinated with the City of Dublin Transportation and Operations Manager based on a field visit. Class ha bicycle lanes are provided on Central Parkway along the future frontage of the school. Although the eastbound bicycle lane between Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive would be eliminated to provide a right-turn only lane, parallel Class I bicycle facilities are provided. To enhance bicycle safety,the following bicycle improvements are recommended: • A connection from Central Parkway Class I facility to the school site should be provided to facilitate bicycle travel to the campus • Provide bicycle parking ii Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment :. , - July 2015 : : No transit is currently provided on Central Parkway east of Fallon Road. However, LAVTA operates routes along Fallon Road, including school-serving transit service. To accommodate transit service to the site, the following is recommended: • Coordinate with LAVTA to determine if a bus stop should be constructed on Central Parkway in front of the school site ir� 48 �y Initial Study! Mitigated Negative Declaration Project: General Plan Amendment/EDSP Amendment for Jordan Ranch Subarea 3 Wallis Ranch Lead Agency: City of Dublin August 2015 FEHR ' ' PEERs MEMORANDUM Date: July 29, 2015 To: Jerry Haag From: Kathrin Tellez, Fehr&Peers Subject: East Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study - Transportation Analysis Addendum WC15-3236 Fehr & Peers prepared a transportation assessment for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendment dated July 2015 (July 2015 TIA) that evaluated the changed land use designation of an approximately 10-acre parcel within the Jordan Ranch development of the EDSP from parks/public recreation to parks/public recreation/school. Since the preparation of that analysis, the school district provided updated school related information. The purpose of this addendum is to confirm that the overall analysis results and conclusions presented in the July 2015 report have not appreciably changed. The following provides a description of the proposed project changes, expected vehicle trip generation under the revised project, and results of a revised queuing assessment reflecting the changed school condition. PROJECT DESCRIPTION MODIFICAITONS The project evaluated in the July 2015 TIA assumed the construction of an elementary school with a maximum enrollment of 900-students. The updated information indicates that a middle school would be co-located with the elementary school with an enrollment of 400 elementary school students and 550 middle school students. None of the other project elements presented in the July 2015 report would change. 100 Pringle Avenue I Suite 600 I Walnut Creek,CA 945961(925)930-7100 I Fax(925)933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com J Jerry Haag July 29, 2015 Page 2 of 5 TRIP GENERATION Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of activity a project might add to the local roadway network. In addition to estimates of daily traffic,estimates are also created for the peak one-hour period during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) commute hours, when traffic volumes on adjacent streets are typically at their highest. For school projects, estimates are also generated for the peak periods around bell times(7:00 to 9:00 AM and 2:00 to 4:00 PM). For this project, several sources of trip generation data were reviewed, including Fehr & Peers trip generation surveys at several elementary and middle schools in the Tri-Valley Area. This data was compared to trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, (9th Edition) with the resulting trip generation estimates shown in Table 1, based on the observed data at similar schools in similar areas. Additional detail regarding the elementary school trip generation rate is presented in the July 2015 TIA. For middle-schools, the observed rate was higher than the ITE average rate, but lower than the maximum ITE rate. The observed middle-school rate reflects approximately 5 percent of the student population walking to school. The observed rate was similar to other middle schools surveyed in the area by Fehr&Peers. As shown in Table 1, the changed school type and enrollment levels would result in a net decrease in peak hour vehicle trip generation for the school site portion of the project. Trip generation for all other portions of the site would remain as presented in the July 2015 TIA. Results of the intersection analysis for the project as evaluated in the July 2015 TIA show that the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP)Amendment would not result in poor peak hour levels of service the study intersections included in the analysis. The intersections closest to the school site could experience congestion around the school bell times; these conclusions do not change with the updated project description. Although the overall conclusions do not change, the reduced level of vehicle trip generation associated with the combined middle school/elementary school could change the extent of vehicle queues at the intersections that provide primary access to the school site. Therefore, a supplemental queuing assessment was conducted. Jerry Haag July 29, 2015 Page 3 of 5 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES -N''m ° -�,L ^3 ,1- „ x r eekda f Viglrgh�gyrrr- x s � -- --rte xi y;T� kYr 2 Y-+�,t2 '�tr`3y` ff-N �' " .. ri y M Peak our*-, , -rt Afternoon w0 x a�o� 5uL q_ 0 a * - uy' n m fa r IME- „M 400 Student Elementary 220 196 416 102 124 226 82 85 167 School 550 Student Middle 257 238 495 109 133 242 68 70 138 School' Total 478 433 911 211 257 468 150 155 305 900 Student Elementary 496 440 936 229 280 509 184 192 376 School(from July 2015 TIA) Difference (18) (7) (25) (18) (23) (4I) (34) (36) (71) 1. Based on data collected in November 2012 at Stone Valley Elementary School as part of an evaluation for the TRAFFIX school bus program. Only AM peak period data was collected. Afternoon and PM peak hour trip generation estimated based ratio of the ITE Max rate during the morning peak hour to the observed data. AM Peak Hour.T=0.90(X);Enter=52%;Exit=48% Afternoon Peak Hour T=0.48;Enter=45%;Exit=55% PM Peak Hour.T=0.25;Enter=49%;Exit=51% Source:Trip Generation Manual(9`h Edition),ITE,2012;Fehr&Peers,July 2015, Jerry Haag July 29, 2015 Page 4 of 5 QUEUING ASSESSMENT Cumulative traffic forecasts presented in the July 2015 TIA were updated to reflect the changed school trip generation. A slightly different trip distribution pattern was used to assign middle-school related trips to the roadway network, as the middle school enrollment boundary is expected to be larger than the elementary school enrollment boundary, which would result in more vehicle trips arriving to the site from the west as opposed to the north. The morning and afternoon peak hour and peak- bell period vehicle queues at intersections that provide primary access to the school site was assessed based on the changed trip distribution patterns,as presented in Table 2. TABLE 2 CUMULATIVE CONDITION VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY Cumulative' Cumulative: Cumulative with wath Project":. Vehicle." ,without Project Project Peak Bell Intersection Movement. Storage Period AM AFT. AM AFT .. AM AFT' SB Left 235 210 190 250 250 260 225 Fallon Road/ NB Right 235 25 50 50 60 0 50 Central Parkway WB Left 225 250 150 240 150 225 150 WB Thru 1,000 75 70 150 110 130 110 WB Right 250 50 40 60 50 0 0 Sunset View NB -- -- -- > 330 170 > 680 170 EB left 200 75 65 100 125 100 125 Drive/Central EB TH/RT 1,000 130 60 120 200 525 300 Parkway WB Left 150 -- 100 60 125 75 Notes: 1. 95th percentile vehicle queue presented in feet as calculated by Synchro. Some queues may be greater than shown due to software limitations. Source:Fehr&Peers,2015. As shown in Table 2, vehicle queues are still expected to spillback for some movements. Although the southbound left-turn movement queue at the Fallon Road/Central Parkway intersection is still expected to spillback beyond the available storage,the expected extent of the spillback is approximately 1-vehicle. This level of vehicle queue spillback can be Jerry Haag July 29,2015 Page 5 of 5 managed through signal timing adjustments, and the recommendation to extend the southbound left-turn pocket at the Fallon Road/Central Parkway is no longer warranted. The recommendations for the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive intersection do not change based on this assessment. CONCLUSIONS The results of this assessment indicate that the changed school assumptions would not change the overall results and conclusions of the intersection level of service analysis presented in the July 2015 TIA for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. However,the extent of vehicle queues, especially at the Fallon Road at Central Parkway intersection are expected to be less than previously estimated and an extension of the southbound left-turn pocket on Fallon Road at Central Parkway is not warranted based on the changed project as vehicle queues can be managed through signal timing adjustments. This completes our review of the changed school condition within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Please call Kathrin at 925-930-7100 with questions or comments. �a _ ;.. ,.�� s.�-a;�g.�. ;. � ;� _ - _ -��,�. _, �.�._ FEHRPEERS MEMORANDUM Date; July 29, 2015 To: Jerry Haag From: Kathrin Tellez, Fehr&Peers - Subject: East Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study - Transportation Analysis Addendum WC15-3236 Fehr & Peers prepared a transportation assessment for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendment dated July 2015 (July 2015 TIA) that evaluated the changed land use designation of an approximately 10-acre parcel within the Jordan Ranch development of the EDSP from parks/public recreation to parks/public recreation/school. Since the preparation of that analysis, the school district provided updated school related information. The purpose of this addendum is to confirm that the overall analysis results and conclusions presented in the July 2015 report have not appreciably changed. The following provides a description of the proposed project changes, expected vehicle trip generation under the revised project, and results of a revised queuing assessment reflecting the changed school condition. PROJECT DESCRIPTION MODIFICAITONS The project evaluated in the July 2015 TIA assumed the construction of an elementary school with a maximum enrollment of 900-students. The updated information indicates that a middle school would be co-located with the elementary school with an enrollment of 400 elementary school students and 550 middle school students. None of the other project elements presented in the July 2015 report would change. 100 Pringle Avenue I Suite 600 I Walnut Creek,CA 945961(925)930-71001 Fax(925)933-7090 www.fehrand peers.com Jerry Haag July 29, 2015 Page 2 of 5 TRIP GENERATION Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of activity a project might add to the local roadway network. In addition to estimates of daily traffic, estimates are also created for the peak one-hour period during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) commute hours, when traffic volumes on adjacent streets are typically at their highest. For school projects, estimates are also generated for the peak periods around bell times(7:00 to 9:00 AM and 2:00 to 4:00 PM). For this project, several sources of trip generation data were reviewed, including Fehr & Peers trip generation surveys at several elementary and middle schools in the Tri-Valley Area. This data was compared to trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, (9th Edition) with the resulting trip generation estimates shown in Table 1, based on the observed data at similar schools in similar areas. Additional detail regarding the elementary school trip generation rate is presented in the July 2015 TIA. For middle-schools, the observed rate was higher than the ITE average rate, but lower than the maximum ITE rate. The observed middle-school rate reflects approximately 5 percent of the student population walking to school. The observed rate was similar to other middle schools surveyed in the area by Fehr&Peers. As shown in Table 1, the changed school type and enrollment levels would result in a net decrease in peak hour vehicle trip generation for the school site portion of the project. Trip generation for all other portions of the site would remain as presented in the July 2015 TIA. Results of the intersection analysis for the project as evaluated in the July 2015 TIA show that the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP)Amendment would not result in poor peak hour levels of service the study intersections included in the analysis. The intersections closest to the school site could experience congestion around the school bell times; these conclusions do not change with the updated project description. Although the overall conclusions do not change, the reduced level of vehicle trip generation associated with the combined middle school/elementary school could change the extent of vehicle queues at the intersections that provide primary access to the school site. Therefore, a supplemental queuing assessment was conducted. I Jerry Haag July 29,2015 Page 3 of 5 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES , AflIP a s c a- _ I Yi•ti• . e I1 - • FTC- {�3ry ' X y �w5�ea ?t `rGx r,*!41,4:11.,,,,—t � A aS, 4 1 ¢y� a .. O A � .. O � 'a Y '' -cep vrl--n { t3 .W4:'i� S4k� Q[�: 400 Student Elementary 220 196 416 102 124 226 82 85 167 School 550 Student Middle 257 238 495 109 133 242 68 70 138 School' Total 478 433 911 211 257 468 150 155 305 1 900 Student Elementary 496 440 936 229 280 509 184 192 376 School(from July 2015 TEA) Difference (18) (7) (23) (18) (23) (41) (34) (36) (71) 1. Based on data collected in November 2012 at Stone Valley Elementary School as part of an evaluation for the TRAFFIX school bus program. Only AM peak period data was collected. Afternoon and PM peak hour trip generation estimated based ratio of the ITE Max rate during the morning peak hour to the observed data. AM Peak Hour.T=0.90(X);Enter=52%;Exit=48% Afternoon Peak Hour T=0.48;Enter=45%;Exit=55% PM Peak Hour.T=0.25;Enter=49%;Exit=51% Source:Trip Generation Manual(9`"Edition),ITE,2012;Fehr&Peers,July 2015. Jerry Haag July 29, 2015 Page 4 of 5 QUEUING ASSESSMENT Cumulative traffic forecasts presented in the July 2015 TIA were updated to reflect the changed school trip generation. A slightly different trip distribution pattern was used to assign middle-school related trips to the roadway network, as the middle school enrollment boundary is expected to be larger than the elementary school enrollment boundary, which would result in more vehicle trips arriving to the site from the west as opposed to the north. The morning and afternoon peak hour and peak- bell period vehicle queues at intersections that provide primary access to the school site was assessed based on the changed trip distribution patterns,as presented in Table 2. TABLE 2 CUMULATIVE CONDITION VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY Cumulative Curnulatroe. Cumulative with with Project Intersection Movement Vehicle Without Project Project' Peak Bell Storage Period . ` AM"' AFT AM AFT AM AFT. SB Left 235 210 190 250 250 260 225 Fallon Road/ NB Right 235 25 50 50 60 0 50 Central Parkway WB Left 225 250 150 240 150 225 150 WB Thru 1,000 75 70 150 110 130 110 WB Right 250 50 40 60 50 0 0 Sunset View NB -- -- -- > 330 170 > 680 170 Drive/Central EB left 200 75 65 100 125 100 125 Parkway EB TH/RT 1,000 130 60 120 200 525 300 WB Left 150 -- - 100 60 125 75 Notes: 1. 95th percentile vehicle queue presented in feet as calculated by Synchro. Some queues may be greater than shown due to software limitations. Source:Fehr&Peers,2015. As shown in Table 2, vehicle queues are still expected to spillback for some movements. Although the southbound left-turn movement queue at the Fallon Road/Central Parkway intersection is still expected to spillback beyond the available storage,the expected extent of the spillback is approximately 1-vehicle. This level of vehicle queue spillback can be Jerry Haag July 29, 2015 Page 5 of 5 managed through signal timing adjustments, and the recommendation to extend the southbound left-turn pocket at the Fallon Road/Central Parkway is no longer warranted. The recommendations for the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive intersection do not change based on this assessment. CONCLUSIONS The results of this assessment indicate that the changed school assumptions would not change the overall results and conclusions of the intersection level of service analysis presented in the July 2015 TIA for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. However,the extent of vehicle queues, especially at the Fallon Road at Central Parkway intersection are expected to be less than previously estimated and an extension of the southbound left-turn pocket on Fallon Road at Central Parkway is not warranted based on the changed project as vehicle queues can be managed through signal timing adjustments. This completes our review of the changed school condition within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Please call Kathrin at 925-930-7100 with questions or comments. City of Dublin Jordan Ranch/Dublin Ranch Subarea 3/Wallis Ranch Project Response to Environmental Comments Introduction The City of Dublin issued a Mitigated Negative Dedaration for this project on August 7, 2015 to ensure California Environmental Quality Act compliance.The proposed project includes requested approval of amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and other associated land use approvals that would result in changes to portions of the development program for the Jordan Ranch property,Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 property and the Wallis Ranch property. These changes include: Jordan Ranch:Redesignating a portion of an existing "Park/Public Recreation"land use designation on the south side of Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive to a "Public/Semi-Public (school)" designation for future use as a school;changing an existing"Mixed Use"land use designation on the northeast corner of Fallon Road and Central Parkway to"Medium Density Residential." Subarea 3: Redesignating 10.4 acres of the site from "Rural Residential/Agricultural" to"Park/Public Recreation." Wallis Ranch: Redesignating a 1.9 gross acre site in the south portion of this property from"Semi-Public" to a "Park/Public Recreation" land use designation. The three Subareas are all located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, as follows. Jordan Ranch: East of Fallon Road, north and south of Central Parkway. Subarea 3: South of Central Parkway,north of Dublin Boulevard. Wallis Ranch:West of Tassajara Road, south of City limit line and east of Camp Parks RFTA. The City of Dublin circulated an Initial Study and Negative Declaration on August 7, 2015 for a 30-day public review period that ended on September 8, 2015. Changes and Modifications to the Mitigated Negative Declaration The following changes are made by reference into the Initial Study document dated August 2015. 1) Page 11, Table 1 is updated to reflect 2012 land use approvals for the Jordan Ranch,not an approval in 2014.The updated Table is shown as Attachment 2. 2) Page 51 item a, the size of the proposed combination Elementary and Middle school is corrected to accommodate 950 students. 3) Page 99: The text of the Initial Study is corrected as follows: "Existing with Project conditions were evaluated using the same methods described in Chapter 1 of the traffic analysis (see Attachment 1).The analysis results are presented in Table 8 of the full traffic report,based on the traffic volumes and lane configurations.Table 8 also includes the operations results for the Existing without Project conditions for comparison purposes. " 4) Page 103,Mitigation Measure TRA-1 "a" is eliminated based on more recent traffic analysis.This mitigation measure would have required an extension of a southbound left-turn pocket on Fallon Road at Central Parkway with a length of approximately 200 feet. The City's consulting traffic engineer has determined this improvement is no longer required. 5) Attachment 1 is hereby incorporated by reference into the Initial Study. Attachment 1. documents that subsequent land use applications, as rioted in the Attachment,for portions of the Jordan Ranch site are consistent with the requested General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Comments Received The following comment letters were received by the City. Commenter Date Federal Agencies none State Agencies 1.1 Office of Planning and Research 9/8/15 1.2 California Department of 9/3/15 Transportation (Caltrans) Local Agencies 2.1 Dublin Unified School District 9/8/15 2 2.2 Alameda County Transportation 9/8/15 Commission 2.3 Dublin Unified School District* 9/14/15 2.4 Alameda County Transportation 9/14/15 Commission* Interested Persons/Organizations 3.1 Amy Lee 9/3/15 3.2 Amy Lee (Petition) 9/9/15 3.3 Elizabeth&Tim Sargeant 9/3/15 3.4 Amy Lee* 9/10/15 * Note: Although these comments were received by the City after he close of the comment period, the City has chosen to provide responses. Copies of these letters follow and responses are found following the comment letters. Each letter is annotated with individual comments and each numbered comment has responses following the letters. Page numbers of comment letters are not provided. 3 .'•'` •i.J. STATE OF CALIFORNIA o■` � GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH �^ "" STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT 4oFCAUf9 'EDMUND G.BROVAT]JR. KEN At flC GOVERNOR DIRECTOR September 4,2015 Michael Porto Letter 1.1 City of Dublin SEP 48 2015 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 DUBLIN PLANNING Subject: Eastern Dublin Properties Gen.Plan&Specific Plan Amendment SCH#: 2015082010 Dear Michael Porto: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on September 3,2015, and the comments from the responding agency(ies)is(are)enclosed. If this comment package is not in order,please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c)of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency, Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need snore information or clarification of the enclosed comments,we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, 574 r+''i4 1.•� r if Scott Morgan Director,State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 10th Street P.O.Box 3044 Sacramento,California 95812-3044 (916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base sCH## 2015082010 Project Title Eastern Dublin Properties Gen.Plan&Specific Plan Amendment Lead Agency Dublin,City of Type MND Mitigated Negative Declaration Description Consideration of a General Plan Amendment,an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Planned development rezoning and Stage 1 Planned Development amendments for portions of the Jordan Ranch(re-designating an existing Community Park site to a joint School/Park site and changing an existing Mixed Use land use to Medium Density Residential);Subarea 3(re-designating 10.75 acres from Rural Residential/Agricultural to Park/Public Recreation);and the Wallis Ranch (re-designating a 1.9 acre site in the south portion of the property from Semi-Public to Park land) properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning area. Lead Agency Contact Name Michael Porto Agency City of Dublin Phone 925 833 6610 Pax email Address 100 Civic Plaza City Dublin State CA Zip 94568 Project Location County Alameda City Dublin Region Lat/Long Cross Streets East of Parks RFTA&West of Tassajara R.;Fallon Rd at Central Parkway Parcel No. various Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 1.580 Airports Livermore Municipal Railways No Waterways Tassajara Creek Schools Quarry Lane Private School Land Use The three Subareas comprising the project site are vacant and planned and zoned for residential. public/semi-public and open space. Project Issues AestheticNisual;Agricultural Land;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic;Biological Resources; Drainage/Absorption;Flood Plain/Flooding;Forest Land/Fire Hazard;Geologic/Seismic;Minerals; Noise;Population/Housing Balance;Public Services;Recreation/Pants;Schools/Universities;Sewer Capacity;Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Solid Waste;Toxic/Hazardous;Traffi/Circulation; Vegetation;Water Quality;Water Supply;Wetland/Riparian;Wildlife;Growth Inducing;Landuse; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Resources Agency;Department of Fish and Wildlife,Region 3;Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources;office of Emergency Services,California;Caltrans,Division of Aeronautics;California Highway Patrol;Caltrans, District 4;Air Resources Board;Regional Water Quality Control Board,Region 2;Department of Toxic Substances Control;Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 08/05/2015 Start of Review 08/05/2015 End of Review 09/03/2015 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. Sep 03 2015 3124PM HP LASERJET FR> P, 1 —. • .:1 ►: . .. . 'I:r: r,:�-. .tar �-a_ ► a 11.10 8 / DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATTQN ` DISTRICT 4 ;v,�,4 P.O.BOX 23660 \C7 OAXLAND,CA 94623-0660 1`yl PI-ZONE (310)286-5528 ScrlovsDrougnt FAX (510)2E6-5559 Nelp save ward! TTY 711 vtwtiv.dotca.gov Letter 1.2 September 3,2015 ALA580887 RECEIVED ALA-580-PM 16,7 SEP 0 3 2015 scx#2015082010 Mr.Michael Porto Planning Division STATE CLEARING HOUSE City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 Eastern Dublin Properties General Plan bk Specific Plan Amendment—Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Porto: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)in the environmental review process for the project referenced above.Our comments seek to promote the State's smart mobility goals that support a vibrant economy and build active communities rather than sprawl.We have reviewed the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)and have the following comments to offer. Pmfect Understanding The proposed project will consider a General Plan amendment,an Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 1.2.1 amendment,Planned Development rezoning, and Stage I Planned Development agreements for portions of the Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3, and Wallis Ranch properties within the Eastern Dublin Planning area,The proposed re-zoning will facilitate development of a combination elementary and middle school and replace a mixed-use Iand designation to medium-density residential within the Jordan Ranch property area.The project will also change existing land use designations within portions of the Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch properties to better accommodate Park/Public Recreation•uses.Interstate 580 provides direct regional access from ramps at Tassajara Road and Fallon Road,which are located south of the project site. tttgrxtlon Respansibllioy As the lead agency,the City of Dublin(City)is responsible for all project mitigation,including 1.2.2 any needed improvements to State highways. The project's fair share contribution,financing, scheduling,implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. "Prvyrde a tom,sudfalnabla,integrated and of0anl frant»orldifoh sptem eo eitance Cedtforhta''4 economy and INabillo." Sep 03 2015 3:24PM HP LASERJET FAX P' 2 Mr,Michael Porto,City of Dublin September 3, 2015 Page 2 Transportation Operations Given the project's location within the Eastern Dublin Planning area,please provide the 1.2.3 intersection and queue analysis at Interstate 580/Fallon Road westbound on-and off-ramps under 2025 and 2040 Conditions for further review of the project's impact to State facilities. Please clarify the project's trip generation estimates for the combination elementary and middle 1.2.4 school,The trip generation estimates for the middle school project component was"based on data collected in November 2012 at Stone Valley Elementary School as part of an evaluation for the TRAFFTX school.bus program(MND,Attachment I,Supplemental Memorandum,pg.2)," Text within the Supplemental Memo also states that trip generation surveys were performed at various elementary and middle schools in the Tri-Valley areas.The Table I middle school trip generation component and its footnote should make the conflicting sources of data collection clear. Transportation Impact Fees Please identify the Transportation Impact Fees associated with this proposed project. We believe 1.2.5 this project should correspond with the mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental CEQA Documents(MND pgs, 95-97). We are aware of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program and encourage a sufficient allocation of fair share contributions toward multi-modal improvements and regional transportation projects in order to better mitigate and plan for the impact of future cumulative growth on the regional transportation system, We support projects aed measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and to increase sustainable mode shares. Vehicle Trip Reduction • The Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC)'s Regional Transportation 12 ti Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy identifies transportation system performance targets including the increase of non-auto mode share by 10 percentage points and t+decrease of VMT per capita by 10 percent.Caltrans'main concern is the reduction of VMT from cars and light duty trunk trips on the State Highway System and minimizing growth per capita. Consider Transportation Demand Management(TDM)policies to encourage usage of nearby public transit lines and reduce vehicle trips on the State Highway System.These policies could include lower parking ratios,dedicated carpool or car-sharing parking,bicycle parking, end providing transit passes to residents,among others.We encourage participating in the 511.org SchoolPool RideMatch service to promote walking,biking and carpooling to school,For information about parking ratios, see the Caltrans funded MTC report,Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth,or visit the MTC parking webpage at the following websites: htt.:// A, m .v .1: 't./ oil et _ . .i r. ;. ,.: : •arkin seminar/Toolbox-Handbook,.df http:/Iwww.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart growth/parking "Provldt a.rgfa,J no:noble,fnlagr atr and Cairn:importation ,) d 1N to CnfxVlce California:: economy p'id fflwblfffy yep u i eu15 LhbtKUL I l-hx p, d Mr.Michael Porto,City of Dublin September 3,2035 Page 3 Should you have any questions regarding this letter or seek additional information,please contact Shade George at(510)286-5535 or sherie.george@,dot.ca.gov, Sincerely, PATRICIA MAURICE District Branch Chief Local Development-Intergovernmental Review • "Provide a safe,sustalncbla,lntogralad and Aff7Ciani transporinlion sysfam to enhance Cal[omta's economy and Nwbitic DUBLIN SCHOOLS DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT All Dublin Students Will Stephen Henke,Ed.D.,Superintendent+7471 Larkdale Ave., Dublin,CA 94568. 925-828-2551+ Become Lifelong Learners ww.dublinusd.org ' �{{ I-a. ..- SEP 08 2015 September 8,2015 'sr 3B1—i'\l Michael Porto Letter 2.1 City of Dublin-Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 RE: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and other actions for various properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area Dear Mr Porto: Thank you for giving the Dublin Unified School District the opportunity to comment on the above referenced action. The District made an attempt to understand and to respond the nine plus sources used to study the proposed action. The large number of references and the twenty plus years over which this area has been studied make the review by agencies like ours with limited technical understanding and background difficult. it would be very helpful if the action in each of these studies could be summarized as it related to the current action. It does appear that the impact of schools was part of environmental assessments at every step of the process,confirmation is requested. Below are the District's comments/questions. • Page 5, Paragraph 3. The June 2012 Addendum references a 500 student school. The planned 2.1.1 elementary capacity appears to reference original Eastern Dublin Specific Plan capacities? Beginning in 2007 elementary capacities have been significantly larger. It is unclear in this paragraph if the alternate use of residential housing for the planned elementary site was studied. Please clarify. • Page 7, Applicant Information. Conditions and mitigations are required later in the document on 2.1.2 the District. Does clarifying language need to be included to impose these conditions on an non- applicant? • Page 8,a). Is the acreage fisted gross or net acreage? 2.1.3 • Page 8 a)and b). The impact studied appears to be from allowed housing units to proposed 2.1.4 housing units. Please clarify the impact related to converting from the planned school use to housing? • Page 12, Water Quality Protection. Please clarify specific requirements under this section. Is the 2.1.5 District as an independent District and State Agency fall under City of Dublin jurisdiction? • Exhibit 3. Subject areas are identified on this exhibit, should the original school site in Jordon 2.1.6 Ranch be shown? v • Page 35, 16.d. Subsequent mitigation appears to be tied to this item having Less Than 2.1 ) Significant impact with Mitigation. Please clarify which hazards were identified due to design features? Please identify"Source 6". • Page 40, Bullet 6. The District would like to request a copy of the EDSP map of viewsheds. 2.1.8 • Page 41, a), second paragraph. Please clarify/define a public gathering place. 2.1.9 • Page 50, Bullet 2. Supplemental Impact SM-AQ-1 indicated more stringent measures be 2.1.10 undertaken, please define/clarify. • Page 51, a)second paragraph. The paragraph discusses the impact of a 900 student campus 2.1.11 but should discuss the change from 500 students to 950. A 500 student school was previously studied. • Page 53, d,e). The paragraph appears to study air pollutants related to school construction on 2.1.12 sensitive receptors. A more detailed construction schedule should be reviewed as most of the project may be constructed before students will be present. • Page 55, Bullet 3. Please clarify preparation of individual wetland delineations, Does this 2,1.13 mitigation apply to the District? • Page 76, first paragraph. Individual developers are required to pay regional drainage fees, As 2.1.14 the District is not a developer does this mean the fees have been or will be paid by the developer? • Page 98, fifth paragraph. The traffic analysis is complex with limited expertise. Please confirm 2.1.15 that 225 students of 950 total equated to 9111 a.m. peak trips? • Page 99, third paragraph. The term "Error!" appears throughout this section. Please clarify if the 2.1.16 missing referenced document is necessary to review the section? • Page 102-- 106. The mitigation measures discussed appear to be based on the traffic study analysis of 950 students or an entirely new campus. The study should be based on the change 2'1'17 from 500 to 950 students as the impact of a 500 student campus was previously studied and mitigated. • Page 103-106. Mitigation measures addressed by the developer should be included in the final 2.1,1 a design requirements for the developer. • Page 108, c). Planning area drainage facilities appear to have been previously constructed by the developer. Please confirm. • Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment. The document appears to 2.1.20 be based on the study of a new 950 student campus. The impacts of a 550 student campus were studied under the previous Jordan Ranch environmental review. Should the basis of the Assessment be on the delta between the original Jordon Ranch Project and the proposed one? Even based on the higher level of studied impact the Assessment appears to conclude no new impact, perhaps less in some cases has been identified, please confirm. • Throughout the document the original school capacity and the currently planned capacity numbers are inconsistent. Should consistent capacity numbers be used throughout the 2.1.21 document? Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me if we can provide any additional information or clarify any questions. Sincerely, ,,#,t_e_e4 Kim McNeely Director of Facilities Cc: Stephen Henke, Ed.D., Superintendent Letter 2.2 From: Daniel Wu[mailto:dwu @alamedactc.orq] Sent:Tuesday,September 08, 2015 3:18 PM To: Luke Sims Cc:Tess Lengyel Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for East Dublin Specific Plan Amendment-Alameda CTC Comments Hi Luke, We received your notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for East Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. Due to vacation scheduling,we have not been able to prepare our comments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration by today. Could we please ask for an extension for our comment by the end of this week (9/11)? Thank you, Daniel Wu,Assistant Transpor lotion Planner Alameda County Transpor lo lion Commission 1 11 1 Broadway,Suite 800, Oakland, CA 94607 510.208.7453(Direct) z x = DUBLIN SCHOOL DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 7471 Larkdale Avenue, Dublin, CA 94568-1599.925-828-2551•FAX 925-829-6532 All Dublin Students Will Become Lifelong Learners September 14, 2015 SUPERINTENDENT Letter 2.3 Stephen Henke,Ed.D. Mr. Chris Foss (925)828-2551 Dublin City Manager 100 Civic Plaza BOARD OF TRUSTEES Dublin, CA 94568 Amy Miller Sent via email to: chris.fossi7a,dublin.ca.gov President (925)577-5866 Dear Chris: Dan Cunningham Vice President (925)640-8330 The purpose of this letter is to clarify a question that was raised in DUSD's Megan Rouse September 8, 2015 comment letter in response to the City's mitigated negative (925)785-7862 declaration. The letter asked whether clarifying language needs to be included Greg Tomlinson in order for the City to impose the mitigation measures for the joint use school (925)361-5055 site on a non-applicant. We understand that the MND may identify mitigation measures to be performed by someone other than the applicant, but that it does not thereby commit that party to perform those mitigation measures. That said, as you know,the District has been in discussions with the applicant and the City for many months concerning the impact of the relocation of the school site on the District's ability to house students and concerning appropriate mitigation measures. The District has been working with the City and applicant, and is aware of the traffic impacts and proposed traffic mitigation measures. The District has been working with the developer on an allocation of those mitigation measures and has entered into an MOU with the developer that addresses them. If you have questions or need further clarification please don't hesitate to contact me at 828.2551 ext, 8002. Sincerely, r Stephen Henke, Ed.D. Superintendent SH/sf cc: Kim McNeely, Sr. Director of Facilities Marilyn Cleveland, Dennis Woliver Kelley 1 • ALAMEDA County Tronsporialion i�(ta Commission 1111 Broadway,Suite 800.Oakland,CA 94607 • 510.208,7400 • www.AlamedaCTC.org „\\�` September 14,2015 Letter 2.4 Michael Porto Project Planner Community Development Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,CA 94568 SUBJECT: Response to the City of Dublin's Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Jordan Ranch/Subarea 3/Wallis Ranch General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment Dear Mr.Porto, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Jordan Ranch/Subarea 3/Wallis Ranch General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment. The project includes proposed land use amendments of three subareas: a Jordan Ranch subarea—Two sites: o 11.1 acre site on the south side of Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive currently designated as a community park, This project proposes a park/school designation that would allow development of a combination elementary and middle school for 950 students. Assuming this project is approved, the existing eastern portion of Jordan Ranch designated for a future school would be developed consistent with its underlying • General Plan land use of medium density residential(up to 112 dwelling units). o 4.6 acre site located on the northeast corner of Central Parkway and Fallon Road currently designated as mixed-use for up to 115 residential units and up to 5,000 square feet of retail. This project proposes a"medium density"residential land use designation of up to 45 dwellings. • Subarea 3: located south of Central Parkway, west of Fallon Road, and north of Dublin Boulevard. This project proposes changing land use designation from rural residential/agriculture to parks/public recreation for 10.75 acres in this subarea. • Wallis Ranch: located in northern portion of Dublin generally bounded by Alameda/Contra Costa County line to the north,Parks Reserve Forces Training Area to the west,Tassajara Road to the east,and Tassajara Creek to the South. This project proposes changing a 1.9 acre site in Wallis Ranch from"Semi Public"to parks/public recreation. We have reviewed the project and determined that it is exempt from review under the Congestion Management Program Land Use Analysis Program as it will not generate 10o p.m. peak hour trips in excess of trip generation expected from the existing General Plan and Specific PIan land use designations. Michael Porto September 14,2015 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Please contact me at (510) 208-7428 or Daniel Wu of my staff at(5io)208-7453 if you have any questions, Sincerely, OF j„...?„ am. Tess Lengyel Deputy Director of Planning and Policy cc: Daniel Wu,Assistant Transportation.Planner file: CMP/Environmental Review Opinions/2o15 Rs: Updated environment impact report Page 1 of 4 From: Amy Lee<amylivesyoga @gmail.com> Letter 3.1 To: Michael Porto<odhill @aol,com> Subject: Re: Updated environment impact report Date: Thu,Sep 3,2015 4:40 pm Hi Michael, Thanks for such a quick reply. In page 93 , it mentioned about Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation Measures....lmplementation of all of the mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would result in a ratio of 6.7 acres of parkland per 1000 population in Eastern Dublin. Truth is that stage 1 Jordan Ranch community now has around 300 households(suppose there are 4 person per household on average) , yet we now don't have a neighborhood park. (yes, the park was planned and we were told that the construction would start this May, yet the reply we got from the city community and park dept is that no specific date of park construction can be expected. I don't want to bother you here with details, but truth is that we now over 1000 residents don't even have a neighborhood park to use. Think those moved here since 2012.) My doubt is about the recreation part of discussion of checklist. It said that the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks. I wonder which neighborhood park the future residents can use ,since there is NO existing neighborhood park here. To me, it does not make sense that you put on more buildings but cannot provide 3.1.1` basic public facilities for future residents. You might argue that there will be a plan for it. But we need to see this plan can be implemented. Think about current JR residents, we were told about the plan for our park here when we bought our homes here but we don't have one so far, thus we miss out valuable opportunities to know each other as we lack gathering place to meet neighbors and kids have no nearby park to play. We current residents are already suffering and this is meaningless to build more homes without providing people with recreational areas. In sum, I don't think it is not acceptable to build more homes here and please do consider our current situation: we paid high premium for the view of open space and were told there would be a neighborhood park, but now we had no news of the park but only informed that more homes would be here. So, for us ,keeping this land as a sustainable open space or public recreation area is the right thing to do. You have done marvelous job in helping Dublin become a green city and please continue with your efforts! Thanks again for what you have done for Dublin residents. Regards Amy lhttps://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 9/10/2015 Re: Updated environment impact report Page 2 of 4 On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Michael Porto<odhill(caol.com>wrote: The 1993 EIR is not on the web site. We have it on disk. We could burn a disk and leave it at the front counter for you to pick up. Please coordinate this with Debra LeClair at 925-833-6610. If you look deeper into the document you will see that two Supplemental EIR's were done January 2002 and August 2005. In addition to that, two subsequent Addendums were also done as recent as 2012. There has been a considerable amount of more current follow up environmental work done regarding the Jordan Ranch. Mike Porto Original Message From: Amy Lee<amvlivesyoga(c�gmail.com> To: Michael Porto<odhill@aol.com> Sent:Thu, Sep 3,2015 2:35 pm Subject: Re: Updated environment impact report Thanks Michael! The link you shared is of great help and now we have more details about what our surroundings had gone through and what will possibly happen here. Yet we still have doubts on certain explanations about environmental factors you offered. We noticed that Most of the environmental impact has been assessed based on 3.1.2 the previous studies that were done many years ago. The earliest one was in 1993 and the most recent addendum EIR was done in 2010 (see Page 37).Twenty years ago, there weren't this many homes in this area. Now the amount of open space has been considerably reduced which surly have caused further habitat loss. •Page 55 - Under Biological Resources, you have listed a number of mitigation 3.1.3 measures to reduce the impact to direct habitat loss to less than significant level. It seems that these mitigation measures are listed in the 1993 report (now https:1/mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 9/10/2015 Re: Updated environment impact report Page 3 of 4 22 years old). We couldn't access these documents to see what these mitigation measures were. We tried searching for them on the City of Dublin website but couldn't find it. Would you mind sharing these documents containing mitigation measures? Also in Page55, you mentioned some mitigation measures related to San 3.1.4 Joaquin kit fox. This specie is listed as Endangered by U.S Fish & Wildlife (please see the link http://ecos.fws.gov/tess public/reports/species-by-current- range-county?figs=06001). Again, we don't know about what exactly these mitigation measures were. Actually, some of my neighbors in our recent street meeting mentioned that they saw fox here. The last paragraph on Page 55, says the eastern Dublin EIR has addressed 3.1.5 potential impacts regarding bald eagle and many other species. we have not seen any of these species in this area now. It could be attributed to the housing development in this area including ours. The fact is that Just this week alone, we have seen many White-tailed Kites 3.1.6 hunt in this area as well as frequently rest on the tree that is adjacent to the mixed use area.With new development so close, no doubt there will be severe disturbance to these birds. q uestion is that since it appears that the EIR are not from recent studies, we 3.1.7 need to know whether the mitigated measures mentioned in earlier studies hold true today and whether there are any other newer species in this area that could be impacted. I am sorry that we cannot provide comments timely since this study contains so much information for us to digest and . yet l think there will be more comments before 9/8. Regards Amy 0 • https://inail.aol.com/webmail--std/en-us/PrintMessage 9/10/2015 Re: Updated environment impact report Page 4 of 4 On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Michael Porto <odhill(a�aol.com> wrote: Good Morning: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The closing date for comments is Tuesday, September 8, 2015. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the City. The Planning Commission will review the Mitigated Negative Declaration and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will act on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The following is the link to that document. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration — Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3 & Wallis Ranch Mike Porto Original Message From: Amy Lee <amylivesyoga @gmail.com> To: Michael Porto <odhill @aol.com> Sent: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 12:31 am Subject: Updated environment impact report Hi Michael, I learned that t he project is currently undergoing an updated EIR with a "negative declaration" of significant impacts. Could you please share us whether we can have comments on EIR to city of Dublin( any comment period for EIR)? We also like to know who provide/prepare the EIR and who will approve this EIR? Thanks for sharing and being always open-minded. Regards Amy hops://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 9/10/2015 Petition•City of Dublin,California.City Council Members of Dublin.Cit...H...:Stop buildings on open space in Jordan Ranch Slow...•Change.org 919115 8:35 AM � :-_� ,1 ' °''y3x- �£ ' r . i`� y "�.r ` ,�,'l ,.i. 4S,�" ? i 1. s •T=." :` -T yam° ..r ,5 w. 3`r4+,�'y^':.zx,„,„. ' ,.' d. F t ti ` y 1"'� e f :`' '%.a x,yexrt-*4'- sF "`Fr 't T P a 2 :f715 c 'F� t a<::r -. `,°.4 1, Wat- x 4 K am ' .,r 41 li Y• + —�- - --P: rya .o ,,-, .� ,_`0 ,m' *a`~~...' eff , ,k t -,'K;'4 xu f ' c;, , rt" 5 - a" .° yt Tt" ' s,r;` j 3Y `saki cs`' . �,c" ?iy�-V:" 10 4. ; yt 4r: s r, :4 y4 � _�s? w.��G. yy .�r��-^�.�'�.` ��.'y-�"'r�'.-- "r �,��",:�Yt�iyc-� ' .:i g�'^' K.�'•`'v� �: � �'" r t �i 5.�'�� ..'t - ;4, -- a`c' 1 -v"� r.2 artaa4ham.#z �.." ,i7.�, _ i' F `Xv I S p.„>a-+ ' - lar xc^^�ri'g* ° ^-a'6 D,d Y'F i T..--r.,iF__e Q '*.-..c .,� k 7"-,z-''-.��t �r : -;,� f r 4':cv r - -R_P -,, .s' r4, t '�� 1.4 a « , :1. 0�, ,rte e 'cW c.,' i 6 ;,t..7 g � �stl 5' ...o �^.f 2 rYe i jLt i t l„AC` `i ti r- br > + " rs• -i Y ' r ., Eue' t ' r r r a •• X 2s � Y ? } 1 . X • r • 4 } . 1 s � fri3 �rrr rte,. u'4r-" ,5 y,.. r• `" ` 1.,... ...' '" ▪ - 4h. . w i :.,-_:-.21,3U-...9 -. -:::, -?.0§ 2 ti • a 5, W '40 , : - y tg P yt .'rA;. x lV'.. ',t-` r--.;i -s . y -, R - 4 r � _ r a ; ayx °' X. '^s "�G 4 ,.- k orla• s ` �r- - te. ,#i . � & . 5 a. al- 3 ,r x z f � -� F t' R s - ,° � ,. , � rW f :,: .S,,, ` _` - '' .'�£ R � � ;3 -h , ,,s ^ 4 * ' W § .s s crt.. . / s . . T ms s J li d- ,� 'k . i -a r �- a f � team - , S 2 e t+: ef44 , d"v j m 3 y r e - ,. E a=_ r� m �E wAa ` .rte < - tv.- - f� ? r X,':r - `-A t;. .=f -h.��—t-z' �-a-• ,s - ° FC w' fmV a--w c: J s,i °�- ,-, ..>r. tir: , ,. .f r �-s= �� 7 -.,� __; "•.•. 1 ,,, £.a 5,..5. ;f. r-�-. r.s r ..4.. } ,. ,a�sr ;-y, r'r , -zufwm 7 '¥a^,y� GM ;WI eV44. 4/O f :a zg-,0s ,a3`'':. A. N 40 ir",:ftires7-;,-:.: r t Letter 3.21 Amy Lee Dublin, CA 95 Supporters Request City of Dublin City Council, City of Dublin Planning Commission and City of Dublin Community Development to keep the vacant land in Jordan Ranch as a sustainable open space or public recreation area for cuiient residents. We, Jordan Ranch residents,are writing to you because we received the notice from City of Dublin that a portion of the open space in front of Jordan Ranch Dr. is planned for residential use.The reasons all our neighbors are strongly against this plan are as follows: I.There is a lot of wildlife in this open space and putting buildings on this vacant land will definitely 3.2.1 disturb them.As nearby residents,we frequently see various kinds of birds,rabbits,wild goats and fox in • this land. Obviously,this open space is a wonderful habitat for these wildlife. The Eastern Dublin EJR and later addendum/supplement have addressed potential impacts regarding bald eagle and many other species.But as nearby residents,we have not seen any of these 3.2.2 species in this area now,it could be attributed to the housing development in this area including ours. h tps://www,change.org/p/city-of-dublin-California-city-council-me...58ec5f&utm source=target&utm_medium=emall&utm„campaign=one„hundred Page 2 of 4 Petition•City of Dublin,California.City Council Members of Dublin.Cit...H...:Stop buildings on open space in Jordan Ranch Slow...•Change.org 9/9/15 8:35 AM With so many new homes constructed in East Dublin, the amount of open space has been considerably reduced,and we do not want to be guilty for causing further habitat loss and have nothing to explain when our kids ask why they cannot see wildlife here. 2.This open space is the only green area that we have in front of us. Although right now we can only 3.2.3 see brown grass, but there is hope green will come in winter.We'd like to fight for this open space because this is the only green area we can expect. The Initial Study/Mitigated negative Declaration mentioned about eastern Dublin EIR mitigation 3.2.4 Measures....Implementation of all of the mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would result in a ratio of 6.7 acres of parkland per 1000 population in Eastern Dublin.(P93) Truth is that stage 1 Jordan Ranch community now has around 300 households( 1000 residents in total,suppose there are 4 person per household on average), yet we now don't have a neighborhood park. 3.It does not make sense to continue building new homes if you don't have public facilities for them. 3.2.5 Think about current JR residents,we were told about the plan for our park here when we bought our homes here but we don't have one so far.Thus we miss out valuable opportunities to know each otlier,as we lack gathering place to meet neighbors and kids have no nearby park to play. We current residents are already suffering and this is meaningless to build more homes without being able to provide people with recreational areas. As vice mayor Abe Gupta said in Save Dublin Open space (Doolan Canyon) Campaign last year'We're always expanding and expanding.But there is literally almost no open space left," he said."We thought,let's pause. We're in a drought,we have transportation issues,we have a lot of young families with kids.They need some breathing room,not just a few token parks." Dublin voters take urban sprawl and open space seriously and a request for reviewing the current EIR is made by all of us. Letter to City of Dublin,California.City Council Members of Dublin. City Planning Commission Board Members. City of Dublin,California and Mission Valley Property City Council Member and Mayor : David Haubert and 7 others City Council Member and Vice Mayor:Abe Gupta City Council Member Doreen Wehrenberg City Council Member Don Biddle City Council Member Kevin Hart City planning commission Chairman City Planning Commission Board Member City Community Development Department Director Luke Sims City Community Development Department Project Planner Michael Porto . Stop buildings on open space in Jordan Ranch Slow uncontrolled urban sprawl in East Dublin hops://www.change.org/p/city-of-dublin-callfornia-city-council-me...58ec5f&utm source=.target&utm medium=email&utm campaign=one_hundred Page 3 of 4 Letter 3.3 Original Message- From:Elizabeth St.John <eliz.stjohn @icloud.com> To: odhill <odhill @aol.com> Cc: timmy sargeant<t.d.sargeant @gmail.com> Sent: Mon, Sep 7,2015 8:21 am Subject:Re: Jordan Ranch Dr. Development Dear Mr. Michael Porto, I am writing to let you know that my husband and I 3.3.1 are opposed to any development to be placed on the Fallon/Jordan Ranch 4 acre piece, I understand that there is currently a request to develop a 45 unit housing development to be placed on that land. We are strongly opposed to any further development on this land period. We have seen several foxes, deer, 3.32 birds and hares and we also believe that we have seen white tailed kites in the area (which I believe are an endangered species). This new development will run right up along side of a pond and trees that are heavily used and populated that are currently on the preserve. I am very concerned about their well being as there are very few ponds and water preserves in this area. I would like to suggest that there be a new environmental assessment of this area. The 3.3.3 assessment done in 2012 was done prior to all of the additional environmental pressures that have been applied since with all of the new developments, pushing all of the wildlife into these already very small remaining open areas. We think that this land would be best maintained as a part of the preserve, left 3.3.4 untouched. Of course there are many other reasons to maintain its current status including, additional pressure on water, schools, and increased traffic. . . all of which are also environmental concerns. Our community is also concerned about our housing values being depressed due to the presence of this higher density housing. I hope that our concerns and those that have been sent by our neighbors warrant further investigation into the proper use and designation of this land. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Elizabeth and Tim Sargeant Letter 3.4 Original Message From:Amy Lee <amylivesyoga @gmail.com> To;Michael Porto<odhill @aol.com> Sent: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 3:22 pm Subject:Why Parcel H Is the part of the whole deal made between DUSD/CITY and developer Hi Michael, Hope this letter finds you well. I didn't get your reply since my last email. So I wonder I can make an appointment with you to discuss more details about the Initial Study you shared earlier. Basically this paragraph perplexed me: Page 5. A second Addendum was approved by the City of Dublin in June 2012 for certain portions of the Jordan property...Finally , previous 4.5 acre open space land use designation was replaced with a Mixed-Use designation that would have contained up to 5,000 square feet of retail and .... I suppose there must be a negotiation between City and the developer and a contract or something like must follow that negotiation during that time. Should this negotiation and contract details be disclosed to public? Where can I find the record? I learned that you've been in Dublin since 1990s , so I think you are the right person who knew the whole deal very well and hope you are ready to share. Thanks for always being open-minded and look forward to your early reply. Regards Amy Responses to Comments The following are responses to each of the comment letters. 1.1) State of California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse Comment :The Lead Agency has complied with State Clearinghouse public review requirements. Response: This comment is acknowledged and no additional response is required. 1.2) State of California Department of Transportation Comment 1.2.1: The commenter notes that the project includes a General Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and a rezoning for portion of the Jordan Ranch, Wallis Ranch and Subarea 3. Response: This comment is accurate and no further response is needed. Comment 1.2.2: The City of Dublin, as Lead Agency, is responsible for all project mitigation including any needed improvements on State highways.The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling and implementation should be fully discussed for all mitigation measures. Response: As the Lead Agency, the City of Dublin identified appropriate project mitigation measures in the MND and will adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program with any project approval in order to ensure implementation of the measures. Pages 95 through 97 of the Initial Study outline the wide range of traffic and transportation mitigation measures previously imposed on the affected properties and other properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. All previously adopted traffic(and other)mitigation measures continue to apply to the current project, as appropriate. Therefore, the City of Dublin has fulfilled its CEQA obligation to require traffic and transportation mitigation measures to all individual projects as requested by the commenter. Comment 1.2.3 : The commenter requests an intersection and queuing analysis at the on-and off-ramps of the 1-580/Fallon Road intersection under 2025 and 2040 conditions and further review of the project impacts to State facilities. Response: The commenter is directed to page 4 of the Initial Study. Page 4 includes a summary of the 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (SEIR) prepared in 2005 and certified by the Dublin City Council in 2005.The 2005 SEIR analyzed development of approximately 1132 acres of land in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area that included the Jordan Ranch project.This 5 AVOW SEIR has been incorporated by reference into the current IS/MND. The 2005 SEIR includes an extensive analysis of transportation impacts on local, regional and state highways,including the I-580/Fallon Road on-and off- ramps. Table 4.2.7 contained in the SEIR demonstrates that future building out of the Fallon Village properties,including the Jordan Ranch, would not result in a significant impact at the 1-580/Fallon Road westbound ramps. In addition, the 2005 SEIR analyzed development of up to 1,064 dwellings on the Jordan Ranch site whereas the current proposed project would result in development of up to 899 dwellings—a significant decrease in the amount of development and also peak hour trips. Therefore, the analysis requested by the applicant has already been completed and the project would not have a significant impact on the 1-580/Fallon Road westbound on-and off-ramps. Comment 1.2.4 : Please clarify the project trip generation for the combination elementary and middle school. The IS states that trip generation for the middle school was based on data collected at the Stone Valley Elementary School in November 2012 as part of an evaluation for TRAFFIX.The IS text also states that trip generation surveys were preformed at various elementary and middle schools in the Tri-Valley area. This potential discrepancy should be made clear. Response: As noted by the commenter and as documented in the Supplemental Traffic memorandum, the transportation consultant did review trip generation from comparable elementary and middle schools in the Tri-Valley area. However,based on analysis of the collected data, the consultant and City chose trip rates included as part of the school bus program to be used as the most accurate representation of elementary and middle school trip rates. The text and footnote in the Supplemental Memorandum were intended to describe the various sources from which data was collected for consideration by the City and consultant. Therefore, any inconsistency in the information was resolved through the City and consultant review. Comment 1.2.5,: The commenter requests transportation impact fees associated with the proposed project be identified. The commenter believes that the project should comply with the mitigation measures included=in-the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental CEQA documents. The commenter encourages a fair-share contribution toward multi-modal investments and regional transportation projects to mitigate for cumulative growth on the regional transportation system. Response: The commenter is directed to pages 95 through 97 of the Initial Study. These pages summarize the wide range of traffic and transportation mitigation requirements to assist in improving the local and regional transportation network.In sum, the project applicants for this proposed project will be required to pay both Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fees as well as Tri-Valley Transportation Development improvement fees. In addition, the 2005 SEIR identified a 6 number of specific transportation system improvements to the regional transportation system that the proposed project will assist in funding. Therefore,the commenter's request has been fulfilled. Comment 1.2.6 : The commenter requests that the City consider Transportation Demand Management(1'DM) policies to encourage public transit and reduce vehicle trips on the State Highway system. Response: The City of Dublin has historically and is currently undertaking several measures to assist in reducing vehicle trips on local and State roadways. Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.3/15-15.3 and 16.0 and 16.1 required coordination with local transit providers to extend transit services into the Eastern Dublin area and construct pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AD-1 contained in the 2005 SEIR requires a number of measures to reduce future vehicle trips, including but not limited to coordinating with LAVTA for extension of transit service into the Fallon Village area, providing bicycle lanes and paths connected to a community wide trail system and providing sidewalks to transit stops,local land uses and a community wide walking system. Finally, the City of Dublin just developed and approved a comprehensive update to the City-wide pedestrian and bicycle Master Plan that includes specific measures to design and implement specific improvements to promote non-auto modes of travel in the community. Therefore, the commenter's request that'1'DM program elements be addressed has been fulfilled. 2.1) Dublin Unified School District Comment 2.1.1: The commenter notes that previous 2012 Addendum prepared for portions of the Jordan Ranch included a 500-student elementary school. Beginning in 2007, the District notes that schools were planned for larger capacities. It is also unclear if the alternative use of the existing Elementary School site for residential use was studied in the previous CEQA document. Response:This 2012 Initial Study did analyze a maximum 500-student Elementary School on the eastern portion of the Jordan Ranch, now known as Neighborhood 7. It is not clear how the prior 500-student enrollment figure was derived. The City notes that the 950-student enrollment figure for the proposed combination Elementary and Middle School analyzed in the current IS/MND was developed in cooperation with the District.. • 7 The City did analyze the potential development of up to 100 dwellings on the present Elementary School site on the east Jordan Ranch as part of the 2010 Initial Study/Addendum and this approval is reflected on the current City of Dublin Land Use Diagram. Comment 2.1.2: Conditions and mitigation measures are required in this document that may apply to the District.Does clarifying language need to be included to impose these conditions and mitigations on a non-applicant? Response: The District worked with the Applicant for many months on the traffic mitigations related to the school,which improvements the Applicant committed to install. In fact, the District and Applicant formalized their discussions when the District Board adopted the project site plan on August 25, 2015 and adopted a related Memorandum of Understanding on September 8, 2015. Comment 2.1.3: The commenter asks if the acreages noted on Page 8 of the IS are gross or net acres. Response: The City confirms that acreages cited on Page 8 of the IS are gross acres. Comment 2.1.4: The comment is somewhat unclear,but appears to be asking about the impact of converting the existing Elementary School site to residential dwellings in Neighborhood 7. Response: The current Initial Study analyzed the project described on Pages 7 through 13 of the IS document.The IS did not re-analyze conversion of the existing Elementary School site on the eastern portion of the site to future residences since this action was previously studied in the 2012 IS/Addendum and is reflected in the City's General Plan (see Resolution 92-12). Comment 2.1.5: PIease clarify specific requirements in the Water Quality section of the IS. Does the Dublin Unified School District as an independent District fall under the City of Dublin jurisdiction? Response:As a separate and independent governmental body, the District is likely not under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin except for non-educational improvements. However, the District is likely bound by state and federal water quality and clean water requirements. This is an opinion only and should be confirmed by District staff. Comment 2.1.6: The commenter asks if the original school site should be shown on Exhibit 3 of the Initial Study. 8 Response: Exhibit 3 shows the location of the proposed land use changes. The original school site is not proposed for a GPA or SPA land use change and thus is not shown on Exhibit 3 . Comment 2.1.7: On page 35, the commenter believes that subsequent mitigation for item 16 "d" of the checklist appears to be tied to having a Less-than- Significant impact with mitigation.Also, please clarify which hazards were identified due to design, and please identify"Source 6". Response:The commenter is directed to page 103 of the Initial Study, Transportation and Traffic,which discusses Item 16"d" of the environmental checklist. The discussion identifies a potentially significant impact related to congestion at the school site primary intersection accesses around bell time. Mitigation measures are identified to reduce the identified impact to less than significant. Source 6 is identified on Page 37 of the Initial Study as the traffic report prepared for the project by Fehr&Peers Associates. Comment 2.1.8: The commenter requests a copy of the EDSP map of viewsheds. Response:This map is available at the City of Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Comment 2.1.9:The commenter requests clarification as to the term "public gathering place." Response: The City of Dublin considers a public gathering place to be a site owned by a public entity that can be used for visitations by members of the public. This is typically a park,playground, designated scenic outlook or vista. In this instance the proposed combination Elementary School, Middle School and park is considered a public gathering place. Comment 2.1.10: Page 50, which summarized previous Mitigation Measure SM- AQ-1 notes that more stringent air quality improvement measures be undertaken. Please clarify and define what these are. Response:Supplemental Air Quality Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1 is contained in the certified 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental EIR that included the Jordan Ranch property among others. The current Initial Study summarized this measure in the interest of space. The additional specific measures included in this supplemental mitigation measure are as follows, from page 239 of the 2005 Draft SEIR: a) Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. 9 b) Require construction contractors to sweep daily(preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. c) Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. Comment 2.1.11:Page 51, item"a" discusses the impact of a 900-student campus but should discuss the change from 500 students to a 950-student campus. Response:The comment is noted. The reference to enrollment is a description of the current assumptions for the proposed school site. Please see the Corrections and Modifications section of this document to correct the 900 figure to 950. Comment 2.1.12: Page 53, items "d" and "e" discusses the potential of air pollutants related to school construction.A more detailed school construction schedule should be reviewed as the project may be constructed before students are present. Response: A school project construction schedule was not available to the City prior to completion of the Initial Study. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1 during construction would ensure this impact would be less-than-significant. Comment 2.1.13: On Page 55,bullet 3 of the Initial Study, please clarify the need to prepare a wetland delineation on individual properties. Would this requirement apply to the District? Response:This requirement would apply to the District if wetlands were identified on properties owned and developed by the District. Comment 2.1.14: On Page 76, the commenter notes that the Initial Study identifies that individual developers will be required to pay regional drainage fees.Does this also include the District. Response: Based on a recent investigation by the Dublin Public Works Department,it appears that property owners have already paid City local drainage fees for the Jordan Ranch,including the proposed school site. In terms of regional drainage fees, the District should consult with Zone 7 to determine if these fees are to be paid to Zone 7. Comment 2.1.15: The commenter asks to clarify that 225 students equate to 911 AM peak hour trips from the proposed Elementary and Middle School. Response: Please see Table 1 contained in the Attachment to the project traffic impact analysis. This table is based on observed trips from several similar sized schools. The table shows that a 400-student elementary school and 550-student middle school would be expected 10 to generate 911 AM peak hour trips. The 225 students referenced in the comment appears to be the walk percentage assumed for the analysis. Comment 2.1.16: The note "error" appears on Page 99 of the Initial Study. Response: This is a typographical error in the Initial Study.This is corrected in the Changes and Modification section of this document. Comment 2.1.17: Mitigation Measures contained on Pages 103 through 106 of the Initial Study seem to be based on an analysis of a 950-student school on an entirely new campus. The analysis should be based on the change from 500 to 950 students that was previously studied. Response: The City disagrees with this statement. The development of a 500-student school was previously analyzed on another portion of the Jordan Ranch site, which is now proposed for residential development.The current traffic analysis correctly assumes that a new and larger school facility would be constructed at a different location in the Jordan Ranch. Unique impacts of school construction on nearby streets and roads were assessed and appropriate mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level identified. Comment 2.1.18:Mitigation measures addressed by the developer should be included in the final design requirements for the developer. Response: This opinion by the commenter is noted. Comment 2.1.19: Planning area drainage facilities appear to have been constructed by the developer. Please confirm this. Response: Although not a comment on the environmental aspects of this project, representatives of the City have confirmed that various drainage facilities have been constructed in accordance with prior project approvals for the Jordan Ranch. Comment 2.1.20: The commenter notes that the traffic analysis contained in the Initial Study appears to be based on a 950-student campus. The impacts of a 550- student campus were previously studied under a previous Jordan Ranch environmental review. The basis of the current analysis should therefore be the change between the original project and the proposed project. Even under the higher level of studied impact the Assessment seems to conclude no new impact, perhaps even less,please confirm this. Response: The commenter is incorrect regarding the previous 2012 Jordan Ranch CEQA document. The 2012 CEQA Addendum analyzed a 500-student school campus—not 550 as noted by the commenter.In response to the portion of the comment that the analysis should have 11 been limited to the change between the 500-student school and the 950- student school,please refer to the response to Comment 2.1.17, above. The City is unclear as to the comment that"the higher level of studied impact the Assessment appears to conclude no new impact, perhaps less in some instances." The Initial Study did find that many of the potential impacts of developing the Jordan Ranch had been adequately analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin FIR, the 2002 EDPO SEIR, the 2005 Fallon Village SEIR and the 2010 and 2012 addenda for the Jordan Ranch property. However, as noted in the Initial Study,new potentially significant impacts were identified in the current Initial Study related to traffic safety and appropriate mitigation measures identified. Comment 2.1.21: The commenter notes that the original school capacity and proposed capacity are inconsistent. Response:The Initial Study consistently refers to the originally assumed school capacity as 500 students. The currently planned school capacity is 950, as noted in the traffic and other analyses. The page 51 reference to 900 students is corrected in the Corrections and Modifications section of this Initial Study. 2.2) Alameda County Transportation Commission Comment 2.2.1:The commenter documents that the D. Response: In a subsequent phone call with City of Dublin staff, this request has been withdrawn(L.Sims, 9/10/15). No additional response is required. 2.3) Dublin Unified School District Comment: The commenter documents that the District has been in discussions with the project developer and the City concerning the relocation of the proposed school on the Jordan Ranch property. The District confirms an awareness of proposed traffic mitigation measures and has been working with the developer on an allocation of mitigation measures. The District and project developer has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to address implementation of mitigation measures. Response: This comment is noted and no further response is needed. 2.4) Alameda County Transportation Commission Comment: The commenter notes that the proposed project is exempt from further review by the Alameda County Transportation Commission since it would be expected to generate 100 PM peak hour trips or fewer. 12 Response:This comment is noted and no further response is needed. 3i) Amy Lee (9/3/15) Comment 3.1.1:The commenter states that it does not make sense to put more buildings but cannot provide basic facilities for future residents. The commenter believes that residents of the Jordan Ranch were told about a plan for a park when they purchased homes,but no park has been constructed. Residents therefore miss an opportunity to know neighbors,lack a gathering place to meet neighbors and kids have no place to play. In sum, the owners have paid a premium for views of open space and a future neighborhood park,but are now informed that homes would be built. The commenter urges that the site should be kept as sustainable open space or public recreation area. Response: The commenters concerns are noted. It is unclear which portion of the Jordan Ranch the commenter is concerned about,however, as no residences are proposed on designated park or open space sites. The current proposal for the Jordan Ranch includes Medium Density residences on Parcel H, a 4.6 acre site that is currently designated and approved for Mixed Use with up to 115 units and commercial uses, and on Neighborhood 7 which already carries a General Plan underlay designation for such development. This underlay land use designation has been approved by the City since 2012 and has never been designated as a park. A second portion of the project would replace 3.7 acres of a designated Community Park on the south side of Central Parkway with a 950-student combination Elementary and Middle School. The majority of the site would remain as a City park.Additionally, acreage on an adjacent property would be combined with this project to create a larger City park. The Initial Study did not identify any significant impacts with lack of public facilities with the project. Comment 3.1.2: The commenter notes that most of the environmental impact has been assessed based on previous studies done many years ago, including one done in 1993 and the most recent in 2010. Twenty years ago there weren't many homes in the area now the amount of open space has been considerably reduced which has caused further habitat loss. Response:The commenter is correct that some of the environmental analysis was done in 1993 to assess the impacts of approving and developing Eastern Dublin; however,the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan were approved to plan for future development over a 20-30 year period,with development assumed across most of the planning area.Since 1993, development has proceeded to fill in the planning area, as anticipated in the 1993 planning approvals. Changes in the 1993 planning has occurred within the originally assumed planning boundaries and has been analyzed in many 13 supplemental environmental reviews,in accordance with CEQA. Major updated analysis of a portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area was completed in 2002 (EDPO SEW), 2005 (Fallon Village Supplemental EIR) and again in 2010, 2012 and 2015 for the Jordan Ranch property. Each succeeding CEQA document has been prepared to determine if any new or more severe significant impact has occurred with respect to any environmental resource beyond those identified in the prior documents. If found,new mitigations are adopted to ensure such impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level. With respect to loss of open space, a significant portion of the Eastern Dublin Planning area was undeveloped open space in 1993 when the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted. The Specific Plan envisions that much of the then- open space was to be converted to urban uses as the Specific Plan was built out over 20-30 years.A number of community and neighborhood parks are included in the Specific Plan to provide open space.Much of the hillside property at higher elevations on the periphery of the Planning Area have been reserved for open spaces. Comment 3.1.3: The commenter notes that[the IS] lists a number of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to direct habitat loss to a less-than-significant level. Many of these measures are listed in the 1993 EIR.The commenter could not access these documents and request a copy. Response: Copies of all previous EIRs for the Eastern Dublin area and related material are available for review at the City of Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Comment 3.1.4: The commenter identifies that the San Joaquin Kit Fox is mentioned in existing mitigation measures. This species is identified as endangered by the U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service.It is unclear what these mitigations might be. Neighbors of the commenter report seeing foxes on their street. Response: The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR did include potential impacts to Kit Fox as a potentially significant impact. To ensure impacts to this endangered species is reduced to a less-than-significant level, the Eastern Dublin EIR included an extensive protection program for the Kit Fox. No actual San Joaquin Kit Fox has ever been reported sighted in the Eastern Dublin area by professional biologists doing fieldwork in this area. The comment about fox sightings is noted.As noted above, no sightings of the endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox have been reported in the Eastern Dublin Planning area by professional biologists. Comment 3.1.5: The commenter states that bald eagles may be present within the Eastern Dublin planning area.The commenter has not seen these in the area, which could be attributed to housing development 14 Response: The Eastern Dublin EIR did identify potential impacts to bald eagles from planned development in Eastern Dublin, along with appropriate mitigation. One bald eagle has been spotted in Eastern Dublin and the mitigation measure implemented to protect this eagle and associated nest. Comment 3.1.6:Many white-tailed kites have been spotted in Eastern Dublin. With new development so close, there is no doubt that there will be severe disturbance to these birds. Response: Impacts to white-tailed kite was identified as an impact in the 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental EIR. Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0 through 3.7/17.0 was adopted to reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. Comment 3.1.7: The commenter asks if the EIR is not from recent studies, are mitigation measures mentioned in earlier studies still valid and if there are any newer species in the area that would be impacted. Response: All Mitigation Measures set forth in previous CEQA documents remain valid and apply to the current project, as noted many times in the Initial Study document. Through the supplemental review process provided in CEQA section 21166,prior EIRs analyzing development on Jordan Ranch have been updated as development changes have been proposed since the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. For many of the more recent CEQA documents affecting the Jordan Ranch project, additional biological studies have been completed to ensure that impacts to any newly listed biological species are identified and appropriate mitigation measures adopted. Significant new biological surveys were completed on the Jordan Ranch in 2005 and 2010 for protected and endangered species. In addition, numerous plant and wildlife preconstruction surveys have been completed for the Jordan Ranch, as required by these mitigation measures,prior to issuance of grading permits. 3.2) Amy Lee & Others (petition) Comment 3.2.1:The commenters state that there is a lot of wildlife in this open space area and putting buildings on vacant land will definitely disturb them. This includes various kinds of birds, rabbits, foxes and wild goats. The open space is a wonderful habitat for these species of wildlife. Response: The commenters' opinions on disturbance to wildlife on current open space land is noted. It is unclear as to which open space area is being cited by the commenters.Much of the Jordan Ranch has been graded under permits granted by the City to accommodate existing and future development and no longer provides suitable wildlife habitat. The Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 EDPO SEIR, the 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental EIR and other CEQA documents have 15 evaluated potential development impacts to the Jordan Ranch as wildlife habitat and mitigation measures included to reduce any impacts to a less-than-significant level. As noted earlier,development occurring on Jordan Ranch and in Eastern Dublin generally was planned for implementation over a 20-30 year period when the 1993 General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was approved. Comment 3.2.2: The commenters note that the Eastern Dublin EIR and other CEQA documents addressed impacts to bald eagles and many other species, yet these species have not been seen by the commenters.This could be attributed to housing development,including houses of the commenters. The amount of open space has been considerably reduced and they do not want to feel guilty for further habitat loss. Response: The commenters' opinions on loss of wildlife habitat is noted. Loss of habitat over the Eastern Dublin Planning Area was considered when adopting the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in 1993. In terms of bald eagle, a Golden eagle and associated nest were identified in Eastern Dublin approximately ten years ago. Mitigation Measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR were applied to protect the eagle and eagle nest. Comment 3.2.3: The open space is the only green area they have in front of us. They hope the brown vegetation will turn green during winter rains Response: This comment is noted and will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council during their deliberations on the project. Comment 3.2.4: The commenters note that the Eastern Dublin EIR identified a provision of 6.7 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The Jordan ranch project currently has approximately 300 homes and an estimated 1,000 residents, yet there is now no neighborhood park. Response: The commenter is directed to Table 1 contained in the Initial Study. The table shows that,at buildout,the Jordan Ranch would contain a 5.8-acre Neighborhood Park and a 2.7-acre Neighborhood Square. In addition, a 6.4-acre portion of the 10.1-acre School site on the south side of Central Parkway would be devoted to a park. Residents of Jordan Ranch can also use the facilities of the Fallon Sports Park, which has been developed on the west side of Fallon Road across from Jordan Ranch. The General Plan establishes a parks ratio of 5 acres parks per 1000 population(General Plan Open Space Element, Implementing Policy 2.4.2 B.1).The redesignations proposed for Wallis Ranch and Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 will assist in maintaining that standard. 16 Comment 3.2.5:The commenters state that it doesn't make sense to continue building homes if there aren't public facilities for them.The commenters were promised a park when they purchased homes,but there is not one so far. They are missing out on knowing their neighbors, a place to meet and a place for kids to play Response: The commenters' opinions on lack of park land is noted and will be considered by the decision makers when reviewing this project. The Initial Study prepared for this project did not identify any significant impacts with respect to lack of public facilities, including water, wastewater, schools and parks. 3.3) Elizabeth &Tim Sargeant Comment 3.3.1: The commenters are opposed to any development being placed on the 4-acre portion of the Jordan Ranch. Response: The commenters' opinion is noted. The 4.6-acre site is Parcel H,which has been previously approved for a mixed-use development that could contain up to 115 dwellings and up to 5,000 square feet of non-residential development. Comment 3.3.2:The commenters state they have observed foxes, deer,birds, hares and possibly white-tailed kites. Kites are an endangered species. Response: The commenters' opinion is noted. The 4.6-acre site, as well as the remainder of the Jordan Ranch, have been surveyed for the potential of biological resources many times since 1993. Impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species have been documented and mitigation measures adopted to reduce any significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures for whitetail kite are included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to mitigate impacts to this species and other birds to a less-than-significant level. See the Response to Comment 3.1.6. CEQA and CEQA Guidelines do not require an analysis of wildlife species that are not listed as protected, endangered or listed as special- status species. This includes deer, hares and birds (except for protected bird species). Comment 3.3.3: The commenters request that a new environmental assessment be performed for this site. The 2012 assessment was done prior to additional development that has pushed wildlife into these small remaining open space areas. Response: The commenters' opinion is noted.The Jordan Ranch site has been the subject to biological analyses in 1993, 2002, 2005 and 2010. 17 In addition, the 4.6-acre has been graded pursuant to previous land use approvals granted by the City and no longer provides suitable habitat for wildlife. The City does not believe that an additional biological analysis at this time would result in any different findings than have been previously reported.No additional biological analysis is therefore recommended. Comment 3.3.4: The commenters ask that the 4-acre site be included in an open space preserve and left untouched. This could reduce the need for additional services and facilities, such as water, schools and increased traffic. There is also a concern about the addition of more high-density housing on local housing values. Response: The commenters' opinion is noted. As identified above, the 4.6-acre site is already designated for future mixed-use development. The request to include this 4.6-acre site into an open space preserve will be considered by the decision makers in their review of the project. 3.4) Amy Lee (9/10/15) Comment 3.4.1: The commenter requests a copy of any previous negotiation between the City and the Jordan Ranch developer. Response: This comment is acknowledged. Since this comment is not related to the environmental aspects of the proposed project, a separate response to this inquiry will be provided by City of Dublin staff. 18 Attachment 1 CEQA Analysis of Subsequent Land. Use Applications 19 Attachment 1 City of Dublin Appendix to Mitigated Negative Declaration for Jordan Ranch/Wallis Ranch/Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 Project CEQA Analysis of Jordan Ranch Subsequent Land Use Applications Introduction The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzed the impacts of a General Plan Amendment (GPA), an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SPA), a Planned Development rezoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan (PD rezoning) and potential changes to an existing Development Agreement for the three Subareas identified in the Initial Study; one of the Subareas is the Jordan Ranch. Following the circulation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND, or MND) in early August 2015, the applicant for the Jordan Ranch, Mission Valley Properties,filed a number of subsequent land use applications with the City to allow future development on Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 of the Jordan Ranch. The applications for Parcel H are consistent with the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and PD rezoning amendments addressed in the MND. The applications for Neighborhood 7 are consistent with existing Medium Density Residential land use designations and PD zoning for the site. The subsequent applications include: • A Planned Development Rezoning with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for all three portions of the Jordan Ranch subarea, as identified in the MND. A Planned Development Rezoning with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan have also been requested for the Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch Subareas; • A Site Development Review (SDR) application and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7; • On Parcel H (located on the northeast corner of Fallon Road and Central Parkway), the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning would remove the potential for development of up to 115 dwellings and up to 5,000 square feet of non- residential use and replace this with up to 45 Medium Density Residential dwellings as shown on the related PD rezoning Stage 1 Development Plan site plan. The subsequent applications for Parcel H would do the same, and provide design details of the proposed dwellings and landscaping, as well as development standards generally consistent with other existing and approved medium density residential development in Jordan Ranch. The site plan is the same as the site plan for the PD rezoning Stage 1 Development Plan(Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 8267) and • On Neighborhood 7 (located on the eastern side of the Jordan Ranch property),previously approved for 100 Medium Density dwellings is now proposed to accommodate up to 105 detached three-story townhouse dwellings (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 8269). PD zoning and a related Stage 1 Development Plan was adopted in 2012 along with the Medium Density Residential land use designations. This potential development was reviewed in a 2012 CEQA addendum to the prior EIRs that included Jordan Ranch (Resolution 91-12). The 5 additional units proposed in the subsequent applications are also residential and generally within the same development area as the 2012 project. As further discussed below, the increase from 100 units to 105 units on the Neighborhood 7 site is not considered a substantial expansion or increase in the use. Similar to Parcel H, the subsequent applications for Neighborhood 7 provide design details of the proposed dwellings and landscaping, as well as development standards generally consistent with other existing and approved medium density residential development in Jordan Ranch. The purpose of this Appendix is to document that these subsequent applications for Parcel H propose development of the same use, density, development area and location as proposed in the GPA/SPA and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan addressed in the MND, and the subsequent applications for Neighborhood 7 propose development substantially the same as analyzed in the 2012 addendum. The discussions below review each of the MND resource topics and conclude that the subsequent applications for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 would not result in any new or more severe significant environmental impacts than identified in the August 2015 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) or the 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications do not constitute substantial revisions to the MND and do not require recirculation of the MND under standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5 . CEQA Analysis of Subsequent Land Use Applications Following is a summary of any new or more severe significant that could occur with the approval of the subsequent land use applications identified above. Aesthetics:The type, location and amount of development proposed in the subsequent land use applications (45 dwellings on Parcel H and 105 dwellings in Neighborhood 7) is consistent with the maximum number of dwellings shown in the Project Description on Page 8 of the Initial Study. The type,location and density of development would be the same between that described in the MND for Parcel H and the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7 and the subsequent applications for those sites.The appearance of proposed dwelling units in terms of design and architecture, use of materials,exterior colors,landscape design, fences and any signs as reviewed through Site Development Review ensure that the appearance are generally consistent with existing development on the Jordan Ranch and other nearby neighborhoods. The design details of the proposed A-2 dwellings would not result in any physical aesthetic impacts beyond the discussion in the IS/MND for Parcel H or the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7. No significant impacts to aesthetic topics were found in the 2015 IS/MND document with respect to the approval of the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning or in the 2012 Addendum. There would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to aesthetics than was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND or 2012 Addendum;the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND.Mitigation measures relating to aesthetics set forth in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will continue to apply to projects included in the Subsequent applications. Agriculture 8z Forestry Resources: The same area of land on the Jordan Ranch would be disturbed under the proposed subsequent land use applications as described and analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and the 2012 Addendum No new impacts to this topic was identified in the Initial Study. There would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to agriculture and forestry resources than analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND for Parcel H or in the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7. Thus, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND . Agricultural impact mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will apply to the projects covered in the subsequent applications. Air Quality: The subsequent land use applications contain the same number of dwellings and type of development as was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND for Parcel H. No new air quality impacts were identified in the 2015 Initial Study with respect to the GPA and SPA and PD rezoning.The 105 townhome units is not a substantial change from the 100 units assumed in the 2012 Addendum as they would not substantially increase trip generation. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts would result from the approval of the subsequent land use applications; the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND.Mitigation measures pertaining to air quality contained in previous CEQA documents will apply to the subsequent land use applications Biological Resources:No significant impacts were identified in the 2015 IS/MND or 2012 Addendum with respect to biological resources. The subsequent land use applications include the same location and residential type of uses, and would disturb approximately the same amount of ground surface as was analyzed in the IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to biological resources than was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. A-3 Biological resource mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents continue to apply to those projects included in the subsequent land use applications. Cultural Resources:The same amount of ground disturbance would occur under the subsequent land use applications as was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. No significant cultural resource impacts were identified in the either document. Therefore,there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to cultural resources than was addressed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND Geology &Soils: No significant geology or soils impacts were identified in the IS/MND with respect to the requested GPA and SPA and PD rezoning, or in the 2012 Addendum . The requested subsequent land use applications would include the same location,amount and type of development included in the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H and in the 2012 project on the Neighborhood 7 site. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to geology and soils would occur with the subsequent land use applicants than was analyzed in the IS/MND and the 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will apply to subsequent land use applications_ Greenhouse Gas Emission: No additional analysis of greenhouse gas emissions was required for the 2015 IS/MND or the 2012 Addendum. For the reasons set forth in the IS/MND, no additional GHG analysis of the subsequent applications is required and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: No impacts to hazards or hazardous materials were identified in the 2015 IS/MND that analyzed the impacts of approving the requested GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H or in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site.The proposed subsequent land use approvals would include the same land use type and density as was studied in the MND and 2012 Addendum. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe significant impact with respect to hazards and hazardous materials than was analyzed in the MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Hydrology &Water Quality:Hydrology and water quality issues were analyzed n the 2015 IS/MND that examined impacts related to the approval of the requested GPA/SPA and PD rezoning on Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site .No impacts were identified in either document. Hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the subsequent land use applications would be the same as determined for the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning actions on Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7 since the same density, residential land uses, and area of disturbance are A-4 proposed in the subsequent applications. Therefore no new or more severe significant hydrology and water quality impacts would occur than were previously addressed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Hydrology and water quality mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will continue to apply to subsequent land use applications. Land Use&Planning: The subsequent land use applications contain the same type, location and density of land uses as included in the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning that was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND for Parcel H and as included in the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7. Based on the same land uses, there would be no new or more severe significant land use and planning impacts than analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures pertaining to land use and planning contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will apply to subsequent land use applications. Mineral Resources: No impacts to mineral resources were identified in the 2015 IS/MND or the 2012 Addendum and none are anticipated with respect to the subsequent land use applications. Noise: No significant noise impacts were identified in the 2015 IS/MND that studied the proposed GPA/SPA and PD rezoning on Parcel H, or in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site.Since the subsequent land use applications would be located in the same location as assumed in the MND and 2012 Addendum and would have substantially the same density,no new or more severe significant noise impacts are expected than studied in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. The increase of 5 lots on Neighborhood 7 would not substantially increase potential traffic noise or potential construction noise. As such,the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. All previous noise mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents would apply to the subsequent applications. Population and Housing: There would be no new or more severe significant impacts related to population and housing since the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning in the MND for Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site include the same location, type of land use and density as the subsequent land use applications. Public Services: No significant public service impacts were identified in the 2015 IS/MND that analyzed a CPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H or in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site.Land uses would be substantially the same in terms of type, amount and location of development area, and density in the subsequent land use applications as are included in the MND for the A-5 GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore occur in terms of public services with the subsequent applications, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents relating to public services continue to apply to subsequent land use applications. Recreation:Since land use types and densities in the subsequent applications are substantially the same for the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning project studied in the 2015 IS/MND and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with the approval and construction of land uses included in the subsequent applications.The increase of 5 units in Neighborhood 7 is not a substantial increase; also, the developer would be required to pay Public Facilities Impact fees for parks based on the increased number of units. For the above reasons, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. All Eastern Dublin mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents relating to recreation continue to apply to the subsequent applications. Transportation & Circulation: Potentially significant impacts to this topic were identified in the 2015 IS/MND.However, the IS/MND only found potentially significant impacts with respect to traffic safety with the construction of the proposed Elementary and Middle Schools.No significant impacts were found with respect to the proposed park or residential development portions of the project. The number, location and type of residences proposed in the subsequent land use applications are substantially the same as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum.Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated beyond those analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. All previous Eastern Dublin traffic and transportation mitigation measures continue to apply to residential development included in the subsequent applications. Utilities &Service Systems: The number, type,location of residences included in the subsequent land use applications are substantially the same as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND for the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning on Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site.Therefore no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to utilities or services systems are anticipated beyond that previously analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Eastern Dublin utility and service system mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents continue to apply to dwellings proposed as part of the subsequent land use applications. A-6 Summary Based on the above analysis, approval of the subsequent applications for development of residences on Parcel H and in Neighborhood 7 would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than were studied in the 2015 MND and 2012 Addendum. This because the MND analyzed a GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H that assumed the same 45 medium density attached and detached units as proposed in the subsequent applications. Similarly,the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site assumed substantially the same residential development as in the subsequent applications. The increase from 100 to 105 units is not a substantial increase with respect to the resource topics. Therefore, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND under the standards of CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. A-7 Attachment 2 Revised Initial Study Table 1 20 U • aJ m N N CO) oo N r-,4 Nefs cv rc t� 1 oo a; a Y ed cn r-t ca co O ,' N CD I O g •.:r•O N a,V ∎ o c0 7 O 0) r�l bA �- o 'a-+ .w cu co N •- 0 (" " a aci _c' yO, N `� CO ` co E 'o Z uP y' `�' UJ b o h 20 om rn^ 01 —° o m 14 rn a, N r-, ro N ,--4 d4 o a o 0 _ _ - a3,If '0 _ rn tal J) + m c °' w aS`y 741 U) M v Z CO ;Li O V) 1 I t • Q.I 01 vj 0 a v �? a) d O ? i)•c OA g -0 ° y o o U m m o� ° N N a m N o m ,-+ c ui m 00 N m anti) N. ' O N`"0 = V to co , N d to r >� O o IF, U 4 Q1 ,--c U) V) `O '0 yy.. to 01 tca 0 to co V ¢' `n 1 I I I 1 1 to co JI !I co' N N N p+ o ii ` X .. u m y Q W c Q H N O b E 'O C 0-6 a 111 ill �i M N .•—) � � ls•i N vin c oboy C1:1•1 N c o � myo 0. Q O O c Ham' c o W O •'o O a> c N Ul ell `" aQfi� t, C O bA 03 Crl O .-a co to Oa *, .. e-I as 'o -p a) O Q- � 0 mmaoc > .0 . .. co � y v q 0 j C a, BN H y 41 j P. 0 tn 4 O '0 0 N O .. `v uP cn . ' p � 3 ,.c CI ,. 0 N N O O V N 0 cp..Z 8 a) � . V o a o Q T ih fib ,.. ,, fl City of Dublin Appendix to Mitigated Negative Declaration for Jordan Ranch/Wallis Ranch/Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 Project CEQA Analysis of Jordan Ranch Subsequent Land Use Applications Introduction The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzed the impacts of a General Plan Amendment (GPA), an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SPA), a Planned Development rezoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan (PD rezoning) and potential changes to an existing Development Agreement for the three Subareas identified in the Initial Study; one of the Subareas is the Jordan Ranch. Following the circulation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND, or MND) in early August 2015, the applicant for the Jordan Ranch, Mission Valley Properties,filed a number of subsequent land use applications with the City to allow future development on Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 of the Jordan Ranch. The applications for Parcel H are consistent with the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and PD rezoning amendments addressed in the MND. The applications for Neighborhood 7 are consistent with existing Medium Density Residential land use designations and PD zoning for the site. The subsequent applications include: • A Planned Development Rezoning with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for all three portions of the Jordan Ranch subarea, as identified in the MND. A Planned Development Rezoning with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan have also been requested for the Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch Subareas; • A Site Development Review (SDR) application and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7; • On Parcel H (located on the northeast corner of Fallon Road and Central Parkway), the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning would remove the potential for development of up to 115 dwellings and up to 5,000 square feet of non- residential use and replace this with up to 45 Medium Density Residential dwellings as shown on the related PD rezoning Stage 1 Development Plan site plan. The subsequent applications for Parcel H would do the same, and provide design details of the proposed dwellings and landscaping, as well as development standards generally consistent with other existing and approved medium density residential development in Jordan Ranch. The site plan is the same as the site plan for the PD rezoning Stage 1 Development Plan (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 8267) and • On Neighborhood 7(located on the eastern side of the Jordan Ranch property), previously approved for 100 Medium Density dwellings is now proposed to accommodate up to 105 detached three-story townhouse dwellings (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 8269). PD zoning and a related Stage 1 Development Plan was adopted in 2012 along with the Medium Density Residential land use designations. This potential development was reviewed in a 2012 CEQA addendum to the prior EIRs that included Jordan Ranch (Resolution 91-12). The 5 additional units proposed in the subsequent applications are also residential and generally within the same development area as the 2012 project. As further discussed below, the increase from 100 units to 105 units on the Neighborhood 7 site is not considered a substantial expansion or increase in the use. Similar to Parcel H, the subsequent applications for Neighborhood 7 provide design details of the proposed dwellings and landscaping, as well as development standards generally consistent with other existing and approved medium density residential development in Jordan Ranch. The purpose of this Appendix is to document that these subsequent applications for Parcel H propose development of the same use, density, development area and location as proposed in the GPA/SPA and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan addressed in the MND, and the subsequent applications for Neighborhood 7 propose development substantially the same as analyzed in the 2012 addendum. The discussions below review each of the MND resource topics and conclude that the subsequent applications for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 would not result in any new or more severe significant environmental impacts than identified in the August 2015 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or the 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications do not constitute substantial revisions to the MND and do not require recirculation of the MND under standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. CEQA Analysis of Subsequent Land Use Applications Following is a summary of any new or more severe significant that could occur with the approval of the subsequent land use applications identified above. 2 Aesthetics: The type, location and amount of development proposed in the subsequent land use applications (45 dwellings on Parcel H and 105 dwellings in Neighborhood 7) is consistent with the maximum number of dwellings shown in the Project Description on Page 8 of the Initial Study. The type, location and density of development would be the same between that described in the MND for Parcel H and the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7 and the subsequent applications for those sites. The appearance of proposed dwelling units in terms of design and architecture,use of materials, exterior colors, landscape design, fences and any signs as reviewed through Site Development Review ensure that the appearance are generally consistent with existing development on the Jordan Ranch and other nearby neighborhoods. The design details of the proposed dwellings would not result in any physical aesthetic impacts beyond the discussion in the IS/MND for Parcel H or the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7. No significant impacts to aesthetic topics were found in the 2015 IS/MND document with respect to the approval of the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning or in the 2012 Addendum. There would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to aesthetics than was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND or 2012 Addendum;the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures relating to aesthetics set forth in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will continue to apply to projects included in the Subsequent applications. Agriculture &Forestry Resources: The same area of land on the Jordan Ranch would be disturbed under the proposed subsequent land use applications as described and analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and the 2012 Addendum No new impacts to this topic was identified in the Initial Study. There would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to agriculture and forestry resources than analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND for Parcel H or in the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7. Thus,the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Agricultural impact mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will apply to the projects covered in the subsequent applications. Air Quality: The subsequent land use applications contain the same number of dwellings and type of development as was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND for Parcel H. No new air quality impacts were identified in the 2015 Initial Study with respect to the GPA and SPA and PD rezoning. The 105 townhome units is 3 not a substantial change from the 100 units assumed in the 2012 Addendum as they would not substantially increase trip generation. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts would result from the approval of the subsequent land use applications; the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures pertaining to air quality contained in previous CEQA documents will apply to the subsequent land use applications Biological Resources: No significant impacts were identified in the 2015 IS/MND or 2012 Addendum with respect to biological resources. The subsequent land use applications include the same location and residential type of uses, and would disturb approximately the same amount of ground surface as was analyzed in the IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to biological resources than was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Biological resource mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents continue to apply to those projects included in the subsequent land use applications. Cultural Resources: The same amount of ground disturbance would occur under the subsequent land use applications as was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. No significant cultural resource impacts were identified in the either document. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to cultural resources than was addressed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Geology &Soils: No significant geology or soils impacts were identified in the IS/MND with respect to the requested GPA and SPA and PD rezoning, or in the 2012 Addendum. The requested subsequent land use applications would include the same location, amount and type of development included in the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H and in the 2012 project on the Neighborhood 7 site. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to geology and soils would occur with the subsequent land use applicants than was analyzed in the IS/MND and the 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will apply to subsequent land use applications. Greenhouse Gas Emission: No additional analysis of greenhouse gas emissions was required for the 2015 IS/MND or the 2012 Addendum. For the reasons set 4 forth in the IS/MND,no additional GHG analysis of the subsequent applications is required and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: No impacts to hazards or hazardous materials were identified in the 2015 IS/MND that analyzed the impacts of approving the requested GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H or in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. The proposed subsequent land use approvals would include the same land use type and density as was studied in the MND and 2012 Addendum. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe significant impact with respect to hazards and hazardous materials than was analyzed in the MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Hydrology &Water Quality: Hydrology and water quality issues were analyzed n the 2015 IS/MND that examined impacts related to the approval of the requested GPA/SPA and PD rezoning on Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site . No impacts were identified in either document. Hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the subsequent land use applications would be the same as determined for the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning actions on Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7 since the same density, residential land uses, and area of disturbance are proposed in the subsequent applications. Therefore no new or more severe significant hydrology and water quality impacts would occur than were previously addressed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Hydrology and water quality mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will continue to apply to subsequent land use applications. Land Use &Planning: The subsequent land use applications contain the same type,location and density of land uses as included in the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning that was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND for Parcel H and as included in the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7. Based on the same land uses,there would be no new or more severe significant land use and planning impacts than analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures pertaining to land use and planning contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will apply to subsequent land use applications. 5 Mineral Resources: No impacts to mineral resources were identified in the 2015 IS/MND or the 2012 Addendum and none are anticipated with respect to the subsequent land use applications. Noise: No significant noise impacts were identified in the 2015 IS/MND that studied the proposed GPA/SPA and PD rezoning on Parcel H, or in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. Since the subsequent land use applications would be located in the same location as assumed in the MND and 2012 Addendum and would have substantially the same density, no new or more severe significant noise impacts are expected than studied in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. The increase of 5 lots on Neighborhood 7 would not substantially increase potential traffic noise or potential construction noise. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. All previous noise mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents would apply to the subsequent applications. Population and Housing: There would be no new or more severe significant impacts related to population and housing since the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning in the MND for Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site include the same location, type of land use and density as the subsequent land use applications. Public Services: No significant public service impacts were identified in the 2015 IS/MND that analyzed a GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H or in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. Land uses would be substantially the same in terms of type, amount and location of development area, and density in the subsequent land use applications as are included in the MND for the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore occur in terms of public services with the subsequent applications, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents relating to public services continue to apply to subsequent land use applications. Recreation: Since land use types and densities in the subsequent applications are substantially the same for the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning project studied in the 2015 IS/MND and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with the approval and construction of land uses included in the subsequent applications. The increase of 5 units in Neighborhood 7 is not a substantial increase; also, the developer 6 would be required to pay Public Facilities Impact fees for parks based on the increased number of units. For the above reasons, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. All Eastern Dublin mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents relating to recreation continue to apply to the subsequent applications. Transportation&Circulation: Potentially significant impacts to this topic were identified in the 2015 IS/MND. However, the IS/MND only found potentially significant impacts with respect to traffic safety with the construction of the proposed Elementary and Middle Schools. No significant impacts were found with respect to the proposed park or residential development portions of the project. The number, location and type of residences proposed in the subsequent land use applications are substantially the same as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated beyond those analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. As such,the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. All previous Eastern Dublin traffic and transportation mitigation measures continue to apply to residential development included in the subsequent applications. Utilities &Service Systems: The number, type,location of residences included in the subsequent land use applications are substantially the same as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND for the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning on Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. Therefore no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to utilities or services systems are anticipated beyond that previously analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Eastern Dublin utility and service system mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents continue to apply to dwellings proposed as part of the subsequent land use applications. Summary Based on the above analysis, approval of the subsequent applications for development of residences on Parcel H and in Neighborhood 7 would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than were studied in the 2015 MND and 2012 Addendum. This because the MND analyzed a GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H that assumed the same 45 medium density attached and detached units as proposed in the subsequent applications. Similarly, the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site assumed substantially the same residential development as in the subsequent applications. The increase from 7 100 to 105 units is not a substantial increase with respect to the resource topics. Therefore,the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND under the standards of CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. 2524932.1 8 In O ._• .p N A c a po 4 4,, . O 0 cu -la' V a O 5, g o '5 E .5 0 al y• �j . O O ,O E -8, O o 4 4 O .0 0 0 ,gyp o ° �° F-1 C/D [fin tin G'�� U cn (r OV Cun .~ per ¢ p ¢ � a � � •� � � � � w Oda, �I • � � Q aQ � Q U � ct O c cn .n , 4 a C�iQ Q Q QQQ O = M..: •p pm( :. CH1' f a an 0 0" O O v "' C) U *4 0 CU omQ' 0 Q 6 O V R, a V aJ .5 '5 78 0 ai P, Q Q (ii v a cu o5 ° c; C.) .- ' ccs Ti Q +4' o C) V) , 0). v +c U .°J k aJ a, o fl h� 0 01 m ,• :, 0 + be aJ . g" o v '.°G 0 .w ° " 0o cii 1 tn' ›, . 1,t ;-Iccl . cii t.-1 i ti .,, W .-° 4@' k a g ,-01 O aJ N O can g'o am`' •�i • 0 ° Q •-,, ;� o o wp U ac U �o 0 0 y o ea o i, x cz d a 0 ° i u G U .. .0 o ." bC aJ cn m ° .a) O0 o u ° v uo m H o .,, > N O o , ¢ R '� En •+w-∎ 0 3 ° cccc � o , o d E� U U .5 E ms+ a C i '1 u° w Q E� Ei Cn R-, m ,fl E l m m m N 0 0) o a 0 cc Q IP a, ui g w, 4, o O ' v m s, • u v u O 0 m, a5 O . 0 ^C a) O o 0 bC o cn o= .0 S F, 8 E 0 O 0 5 0 O O U 0 P • - cn ,c 0 0m(f � om v O c.) cn Q O 0 CD 0 N 0 v 0 0 a) o 0 P-1 12 U p. Q p-' Q � Q a Q Q Q Q Q 3 Q 3 Q 7-0 }, OA 0 a) v E 0 Q p � p Q � p E oo u . o .5 -6 u o R, a) o .0 o ,a) o C a •o 0 X 0 4 o 0 .� ai Q cn Q cn Q cn Cl)O 0 '�' N N m ca-C rn .0 N —O .4 bD: ,4 p T5 el j o N Ws 9,ri 0 s.. c� 4 .1, H a) m H d d s, CV LI) a) si, 00 •� = OL o) V 0 N y°), 0 N cm ct 0 � T o0TS 0 .4 � u � P, 0 � � N . ,o aJ v 41 d o t O a1 P ." 0 ,0 a) O Q o_rd o T, U G X 0 O 0 'ti � .-0 0 m • 4-I 0 — u U) 0 O O aJ O O ,�, 5 V •bC O •, O O FA 'O CZ Z bJJ et s 0 'O al p N b4 ¢" a' O ¢ ct d fl al rN d C co i u te E '0 o cn . o a, • s a)a) " o ° 0 O O a Q -0 o c o a) al , 0 Q y a) o bC 0 ° m ct O O u , c cz y — L .4 ., a } t, ;..I - 0 c3 7.4 Cl) a, ' ' s, •, m O D El, v) vo a.) m v _ ca O E� 0 .. P, o 5 v o 'X 4 . c tea) . o ) E-+ V tC H •,..a �, 'c� up cn H W v) m H F, +. Cr) .s .e U M a) o) ca � a 0 CI U 14 ..w Ir a? cn O _ "5 m tte —6 as 0 � u p m , O C/3 O 1 4. bC 0 >' > o .1 3 0 6' O -o o O o s� c4 o Q 0 fin up .g ou u 4' c 4' 0 to cn •� 3 � Q p. Q o C ai QGQ Q Q � o bk u .G (1) V o o Q Fe 5 a) � Q p c V .- p •� X El �1 Q Cn Q U) 3 m 0, cu O m y O L O v bC't$ Li") cn . .� 0 V v O d cnccnn r) r'' b , fa, P rte. O Q P,�O+ -4 $ Ca.) n cu ° ate, o cd u v .5 o U ° V v U 3 3 Q a o o � 1 O o = N o�4 1 - 0 O .0 3 O ,.. . ..0 ccS O .. be 4 C CI ,- . a, 31 ey c, x w 01 u U bC ni " .0 b c� n- g b bJ U ¢' bA 0 b O bA O a, ,1-1 a, 0(k) tea, a, . u i ;'' 'd '� u -, 0 u) •� v R g 0 4-. o '1' °' _c c '9 w ccn :C a, m b L .N U N' 'd o w > ,, ov c o c cl 0 ' O ,.,:s cu u *fl ., N au Cl) • m +' • � CC) s, O m m O 1 a3 Q Q u c a, R5 U o Ei o 4 as ca o U P, cn H U H •a s, , u u ca —, v, to u cn u u Q -) y . . . "Ilh. . . . . . . > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # e 2 ■ \ 2 ct . � . o { / 22 \ 5 l o • u \ § % cn / S y cn \ & \ 0 4 / \ O• 0 P-1Q k ƒ ƒ 0 . 2k Q2 etli 2A0) (..., ■ 4 9 / ) \ ƒ � k 2 ? P. co} / / / $ o00 / \ / ƒ §}/ / \ as ƒ Q . / % G Cl- a G ƒ E U \ cin e ° \ ° \ f � 4 e ® Z f / 0 } : § f ƒ ° . \ c t / 0 t / f E o/ U / � k •7 / 2 � � � f r \ \ f c / / o _ % n = % ± $k � § � � � / q .0 § % t \ : _\ et . $ < / 2 ƒ $ / \ 3 0 ) EXHIBIT E 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. The City Council is currently considering General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, PD rezoning amendments and development applications for portions of Dublin Ranch Subarea 3, Wallis Ranch, and Jordan Ranch. The Jordan Ranch portion also includes a Development Agreement amendment. More specifically, the current project proposes the following: Dublin Ranch Subarea 3. Change the land use designation for 10.4 acres from RR/A to Parks/Public Recreation and approve a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. Wallis Ranch. Change the land use designation for 1.9 acres from Semi-Public to Parks/Public Recreation and approve a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. i Jordan Ranch. Parcel H: Change the land use designation for 4.6 acres from Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential; approve Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map. Neighborhood 7: Approve Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map. School site: Change the land use designation for 3.7 acres from Parks/Public Recreation to Public/Semi-Public and approve Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan for future development of a school site. The Jordan Ranch proposal also requests approval of a Development Agreement amendment. All three of the areas described above are in Eastern Dublin and were addressed in the certified Eastern Dublin EIR. All three of the areas have received subsequent development approvals that were analyzed in subsequent CEQA documents, including 3 supplemental EIRs. Pursuant to CEQA section 21166, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the current project described above. The MND identified no additional significant unavoidable impacts for the current project; however, the Eastern Dublin EIR and all three supplemental EIRs identified significant unavoidable impacts, for which statements of overriding considerations were adopted for the related project approvals. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must again adopt overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the current Project.1 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. 2524514.1 Page 1 of The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIRs will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the previous approvals and by the environmental protection measures included in the current project design or adopted through the project approvals, to be implemented with the development of the project on the sites described above. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the current project on the above described sites carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Supplemental 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 current 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 current project. Land Use Impact 3.1F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/B; and, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.34, 3.3/M. Santa Rita Road/I-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts. Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S. 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 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects. Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, B, 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 EDPO Supplemental EIR. The following unavoidable supplemental environmental impacts were identified in the EDPO Supplemental EIR and could apply to the current project. Supplemental Impact Traffic 6: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. California Resources Agency 103 Cal.App.4th 98. (2002) 2524514.1 Page 2 of Supplemental Impact Traffic 7: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Supplemental Impact Traffic 8: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Supplemental Impact Traffic 11: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, freeway segments on 1-580 and 1-680 in the EDPO project area. 4. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts were identified in the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR and could apply to the current project. Supplemental Impact TRA-1: Project contribution to impact the Dublin/Dougherty intersection (DSEIR p. 64). Supplemental Impact TRA-4: Cumulative impacts to local freeways (DSEIR p. 69). Supplemental Impact TRA-5: Consistency with Alameda County Congestion Management Plan (DSEIR p. 73). Supplemental Impact CUL-2: Demolition of the Fallon Ranch House (DSEIR p. 218.) Supplemental Impacts AQ-2, AQ-3: Increase in regional emissions (DSEIR pp. 239- 240.). 5. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Dublin Ranch West (Wallis Ranch) Supplemental EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the 2005 Supplemental EIR and could apply to the current project. Supplemental Impacts AQ-2, AQ-3. Project emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors on project and cumulative levels. Even with implementation of the previously adopted mitigation measures and the additional mitigation measures in the Supplemental EIR, project and cumulative precursor emissions will exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Supplemental Impact TRA-2. Impacts to study intersections under Buildout conditions (Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road). Even with implementation of the previously adopted mitigation measures, including contribution to intersection improvements through the TIF program, the project will contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts at this intersection under buildout conditions. 6. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIRs. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future development on the current project sites against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the current project as further set 2524514.1 Page 3 of 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 current project and override the current project's significant and unavoidable impacts. The substantial evidence demonstrating the benefits of the current project are found in these findings, and in the record as a whole for the current project. The current project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals. The current project will maintain and expand open space through the proposed parkland designations. The current project provides a much-needed school site for future construction by the Dublin Unified School District. The current project will create residential development that is compatible with residential development in the vicinity, provides housing to help satisfy the City's housing production RHNA goals, and will help implement policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan. The development portions of the current project will provide local roadway improvements contributing to an efficient public roadway system. The project will provide streetscape improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping that will be an amenity to the larger 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. 2524514.1 Page 4 of