Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.5 NegDecDublin BlvdWide CITY CLERK File # AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 18, 1999 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Negative Declaration for Dublin Boulevard Widening Project between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive, and Authorization to Solicit Bids for the Dublin Boulevard Widening, Phase 1, Silvergate Drive to Hansen Drive Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution adopting Negative Declaration 2) Notice of Public Review of Negative Declaration and Notice of Public Hearing 3) Negative Declaration 4) Location Map 5) Plans and Specifications for the Phase 1 project will be available at the meeting RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open Public Hearing 2) Receive Staff presentation and public testimony 3) Close public hearing and deliberate 4) Adopt Resolution adopting Negative Declaration for Dublin Boulevard Widening from Silvergate to Hansen Drive 5) Authorize Staffto advertise for bids for Phase 1 project FINANCIAL STATEMENT: There is no financial impact associated with the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the entire project. The estimated construction cost of this widening of Dublin Boulevard, Phase 1, is $486,000. The project is being funded with Developer contributions in Western Dublin. Sufficient monies have been received for this phase of the project. DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is two-phased and encompasses the widening of Dublin Boulevard from two to four lanes between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive, and realigning Dublin/Silvergate to a more conventional "T" intersection. Widening will take place on the south side of the street where sufficient right-of-way exists. The project also proposes to repair the existing roadway COPIES TO: Hexcel, DeSilva Gates ITEM NO. ~ G :hmiscproj\dubhansen\agsmegdec.doc section, which is creeping due io soil instability. Traffic signals will be installed at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate, and at Dublin Boulevard and Hansen Drive. Phase 1 of the project is scheduled to occur from June to August 1999, and Phase 2 work is anticipated during the Summer of 2000 or 2001. Phase 1 work includes installing a traffic signal at the intersection of DublirdHansen, widening approximately 520 feet of Dublin Boulevard west of Hansen Drive, and modifying a driveway south of this intersection to align with Hansen Drive. Phase 2 will extend the widening of Dublin Boulevard to 400 feet west of Silvergate Drive, and will include the installation of a signal at this intersection. The project has been reviewed under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and Staff finds that there will not be a significant adverse effect on the environment because mitigation measures have been included in the project. Impacts cited in the environmental document include the traffic impact due to the temporary closure of Dublin Boulevard during construction. Construction has been slated for the sun'~mer months when school is out to minimize potential impacts to nearby residents and to the Valley Christian Center school. Traffic rerouting signs will be placed along Silvergate/Betlen/Hansen to ensure the smooth flow of traffic during construction. In order to reduce potential impacts from truck traffic during commute hours, large trucks hauling import/export soils and materials shall be restricted to weekday hours from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The project v~411 also require the removal of some trees along the south and north sides of Dublin Boulevard. Trees to be removed that are located to the north of Dublin Boulevard v,411 be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with 15-gallon specimens, while trees removed to the south will be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 with 24-inch box trees. Tree planting is included in Phase 2 of the project (no landscaping is included in Phase 1). In addition, a 4.5-£oot-high soundwall is proposed along the north side of Dublin Boulevard to decrease noise attenuation for adjacent residents. No comments were received during the public review period of the draft Negative Declaration. Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and approve the resolution adopting the Negative Declaration for the Dublin Boulevard widening between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive. Staff also recommends that the City Council authorize Staff to advertise for bids for the Dublin Boulevard Widening Project, Phase 1. -2- RESOLUTION NO. -99 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DUBLIN BOULEVARD WIDENING BETWEEN SILVERGATE DRIVE AND HANSEN DRIVE WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has planned to widen Dublin Boulevard between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Boulevard widening project between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive is included in the 1998-2003 City of Dublin Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project and mitigation measures have been included; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has issued a notice of public review of Negative Declaration and notice of public hearing regarding the project, and the City of Dublin has conducted the public hearing on May 18, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has considered the mitigated Negative Declaration and comments received during the public review period. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration for the Dublin Boulevard Widening Project between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1999. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AB STAIN Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk gAmiscprofidubhan~resonegdec, doc CITY OF DUBLIN RO. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 · Ci~,y Offices, 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin. California 9z NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Dublin proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration, and the City Council will hold a public hearing for the following project: PROJECT: Dublin Boulevard Widening LOCATION: Dublin Boulevard between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive APPLICANT: City of Dublin PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves improvements to Dublin Boulevard. This is a two phased project which encompasses the widening of Dublin Boulevard between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive from two lanes to four lanes; and to realign Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive to a more conventional ,q-, intersection. Widening would take place on the south side of the street where sufficient right of way exists. The project also proposes to repair the existing roadway section, which is creeping due to soil instability. Traffic signals will be installed at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate, and at Dublin Boulevard and Hansen Drive. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: · The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been included in this project. Copies of the draft Negative Declaration are available for public review at the City of Dublin Planning Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California, Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. The City will accept comments on the draft Negative Declaration through May 18, 1999. The public hearing on this item will be held on the following date: CiTY COUNCIL: May 18. 1999 at 7:00 P.M. in the Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin Any interested person(s) may appear and be heard on this matter. If you challenge the above-described action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Dublin at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you have any questions regarding this project, contact the Dublin Public Works Department or call (925)833-6630. Dated: April 27, 1999 '....._~' Lee S. Th~4-'ublic Wot~ks Directo (g:correspo\caror~public heating notice) Administration (925)833-6550 - City Council (925)833-6505 * Finance (: Code Enforcement (925) 833-6620 - Engineering (925) 833-6630 ° Economic Development (925) 833-6650 · Police (925) 833- Community Development (925) 833-5610 · Fire Pre~. CITY OF DUBLIN RO. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Prepared pursuant to City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, Section 1.7(c), 5.5) Description of Project: The proposed project involves improvements to Dublin Boulevard. This is a two phased project which encompasses the widening of Dublin Boulevard between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive from two lanes to four lanes and, to realign Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive to a more conventional "T" intersection. Widening would take place on the south side of the street where sufficient right of way exists. The project also proposes to repair the existing roadway section, which is creeping due to soil instability. Traffic signals will be installed at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate and at Dublin Boulevard and Hansen Drive. Project Location: Dublin Boulevard, between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive. Name of Proponents: City of Dublin, Public Works Department; 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 I hereby find that the above project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Attached is a copy of the Initial Study ("Environmental Information Form" and "Environmental Checklist") documenting the reasons to support/t~e above finding. Mitigation Measures have been included'ln--'thL~ project./ / Dated: April 27, 1999 '--..4,,.ei~ S. Thoml3~O.~, Diredor of Public Works Attachments Administr~-tion (925)833-6650- City Council (925)833-6605 · Finance (925)833-6~ Code Enforcement (925) 833-6620 · Engineering (925) 833-6630 · Parks & C: Economic Development (925)833-6650 · Police (925)833-6670 ° Pu Community Development (925) 833-6610 · Fire Prevention Bur, City of Dublin Environmental Checklist Form Initial Study 1. Project title: Dublin Boulevard Improvements - Silvereate Drive to Hansen Drive; Capital Improvement Project (CIP) No. 9601 2. Lead agency name and address: Ci_ty of Dublin, Public Works Department - 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 3. Contact person and phone number: Lee Thompson, Director of Public Works; 925/833-6630 4. Project location: Dublin Boulevard, between Silvereate Drive and Hansen Drive 5. Assessors ParcelNumber(s): N/A 6. Project sponsor's name and address: City of Dublin~ Public Works Department; 100 Civic Pla:& Dublin, CA 94568 7. GeneralPlan designation: N/A 8. Zoning: N/A 9. Specific Plan designation: N/A 10. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) This prqiect, to be completed in two phases, includes widenina of Dublin Boulevard between Silvereate Drive and Hansen Drive from two to four lanes and to reali~ the Dublin Boulevard/Silvemate intersection into a standard "T" intersection. Widenina would take place on the south side of the street where sufficient rizht-of-way to make improvements exists. In addition, the project would repair the existing: roadway section, which is creeping due to soil instabili _ty. Traffic sisals will be installed at the intersections of Dublin Boulevard/Silvere_ate Drive and at Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive. Please refer to page 18 for additional project information. 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Please refer to pa_oe 18. 12. Other pubIic agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation a~eement.) None. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AF~:ECTED: The environmental factors checked t~low would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ~'-~ Aesthetics ~--] Agriculture Resources ~-~ Air Quality ~] Biological Resources ~-] Cultural Resources ~-~ Geology/Soils [~ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ~-~ Hydrology / Water Quality ~Land Use / Planning ~] Mineral Resources [~ Noise ~ P°pulation / Housing ~--~ Public Services ~-~ Recreation ~] Transportation/Traffic ~-] Utilities / Service Systems ~-~ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETER2dlNATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ~i I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~-] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a si~maificant effect on the environment, and an ENVIROIN~iENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 2 O I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentiall~ significant unless mitigatedM impac[~on the env~'onment, 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 the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. '-] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and Co) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECI_,.~L4~TION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 'MSig~atul[e '~ D~tet / Lee Thompson, Director of Public Works Printed name EVALUATION OF ENVIRO~AL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 5) 6) 7) 8) 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has red. uced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact.'.' The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA proce, ss, an effect has been a~lequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 4 Environmental Impacts. The source of determination is listed in parenthesis. See listing of source,~ used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist. A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist I. AESTIIETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 1, 3) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1, 3) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 3) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 9) IL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by .the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Kesources Agency, to non-agricultural use7 (Source: 9) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 9) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact ,~4th Impact Mitigation Incorporation X t X X X X X 5 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? ' (Source: 9) III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance Criteria established by the applicable air quality Management or air pollution control district may be Relied upon to make the following determinations. Would The project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?(Source: 2) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 2) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source: 2) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?(Source: 2) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople?(Source: 9) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department offish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2 ) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Source: 2) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biolo~cal resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source: 2) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan7 (Source: 2) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact ,~ith Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X 7 V. CULTUR,4,L RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? (Source: 9) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.57 (Source: 9) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 9) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source: 9) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 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 Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geolog3r Special Publication 42. (Source: 2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Source: 2) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source: 2) iv) Landslides? (Source: 2) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source: 2) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X X X X Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact ,a]th Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Source: 2, 3) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 2, 3) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal sD,stems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Source: 9) VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Source: 9) 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? (Source: 9) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 9) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 9) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 9) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 9) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 9) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requkements? (Source: 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 table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-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) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X X 10 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course ora stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 2) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. (Source: 2) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 2) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source: 9) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 9) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 9) j) Expose people or sturcmres to a significant risk of loss, in involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow7 (Source: 9) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact ~5th Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X X X 11 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Sigrdficant Impact Impact -a4th Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X X LAND USE AND PLANhq-NG - Would the project: IX* a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 9) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 2) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source: 2) X. MIh~ERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a -known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 2) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 2) XL NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 2) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ~oundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Source: 2) 12 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 2) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 2) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two m/les of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 9) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels7 (Source: 9) XH. POPULATION AND HOUSING- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 2) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 9) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 9) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Sign/ticant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X X 13 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? (Source: 9) Police Protection? (Source: 9) Schools? (Source: 9) Parks? (Source: 9) Other Public Facilities? (Source: 2) XIV. RECREATION- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source: 9) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 9) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X X 14 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 2) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source: 2) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source: 2) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Source: 2) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source: 2) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source: 9) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).'? (Source: 2) XVI. UTIIJTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact ,aSth Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X X 15 a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 9) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 9) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 2) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 9) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Source: 9) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source: 9) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 9) XVII. MAN~DATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNq-FICANCE Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact ~Sth Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X X X X X 16 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation X X X a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Source: 2) b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but 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)? (Source: 2) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Source: 2) Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Determination based on location of project. Determination based on staff'office review. Determination based on field review. Determination based on the City of Dublin General Plan Determination based Determination based Determination based Determination based Not applicable. on the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. on the San Ramon Road Specific Plan. on the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. on East Dublin Specific Plan. 17 City of Dublin Explanations for Checklist Form Project Description1-' The addition of new residential projects to the west of the Dublin/Silvergate and Dublin/Hansen intersections requires the widening of Dublin Boulevard from two to four lanes between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive. It is anticipated that the addition of traffic will magnify the pavement distress (discussed further under the explanation for Geology/Soils), requiring repairs simultaneous with the widening. The developers of the Valley Christian Center, Hansen Hill, California Highland and Schaefer Ranch projects are obligated to share the costs of this project based on their proportionate generation of traffic. Designs for this Capital Improvement Project (CIP No. 9601) show a four-lane roadway including bike paths, a center median, curb and gutter, and a sidewalk along the north side, with total roadway widths of between 80 and 91 feet. The new roadway would be constructed at approximately the same elevation as the existing roadway. Work to date in the project area includes realignment of the Dublin/Silvergate intersection through restriping and pavement modifications (1992), and reconstruction of the Silvergate Drive median island nose to conform to the ultimate alignment of this project (1998). Tiffs project is proposed to be completed in two separated phases, with Phase I occurring June- August, 1999, and Phase II work anticipated for Summer 2000 or Summer 2001. Phase I work includes installation of a traffic signal at the DublinfHansen intersection, widening approximately 520 feet of Dublin Boulevard west of Hansen Drive, and modification of a private driveway south of this intersection to align with Hansen Drive. Phase II would extend the widening of Dublin Boulevard to approximately 400 feet west of Silvergate Drive, and include installation of a signal at this intersection. Construction has been slated for the summer months in order to minimize potential impacts to the Valley Christian Center school and nearby residents. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Dublin Boulevard, west of Hansen Drive, is a two-lane street, approximately 42 feet wide and constructed on a fill embankment, ranging in height from 5 to 25 feet. Properties to the north include the Briarhill subdivision, which has access to Dublin Boulevard via both Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive. Planned Development (PD)-zoned properties exist to the south and include the following office uses: Hexcel, DeSilva Gates Construction/DeSilva Group and the 580 Executive Center. Exhibits 1 and 2 indicate the Project Vicinity for the proposed project. Project Description and setting information was provided by the Public Works Department and the January, 1992 geotechnical investigation prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants. Dublin Boulevard Improvements- CIP 9601 Page 18 SCALE: 1'= 2000' J DR,. VICINITY MAP DUBLIN BOULEVARD WIDENING DUBUN BOULEVARD DUBUN, CAUFORNIA FOR CiTY OF DUBUN -~A.=- P"3~TIDN O.---P~-..E. ASAN'"r'ON AND",q=II~;,'TY ROAD IV, AP. IS$ -LED~ ~t4.1FOi:INIA STA'"fE AUTOMOBI~--c AIi$~'3IATION. DUt~.IN. ~.,UFORNIA. DAT'E~ 11-8[ ATA S .~J~. CF 1KM - 5/B MIL!= r,~rn I AP A ~'! /'"' I'-/'~lT ~ F L.! k I I/'" A I i Explanations The following section provides narrative 'responses that correspond with the environmental checklist form. I. Aesthetics a, b - West of Hansen Drive, Dublin Boulevard begins a gradual incline (approximately five percent), with land sloping down to the properties on either side (north and south). Travelling west along Dublin Boulevard provides unobstructed vistas south to Interstate 580 and to the foothills beyond and to residential and undeveloped properties to the west and north. Although aesthetically pleasing pastoral views are afforded, this roadway is not designated by the City as a scenic route, nor are there any identified scenic resources in the immediate vicinity. Widening of Dublin Boulevard between Sih,ergate Drive and Hansen Drive is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas and scenic resources. No mitigation is required. c - The residences located immediately to the north of Dublin Boulevard are oriented with their backyards backing up to the roadway. Because of the steep slope from Dublin Boulevard do,am to these properties, tall and mature vegetation has been planted in order to provide some screening for the residents. Due to a tack of fight-of-way, the roadway widening will occur on the south side of Dublin Boulevard. However, in order to stabilize the pavement, soil re- enzineering will be required (please refer to discussion in Geology/Soils section) and many of th~ trees planted on the north side of Dublin Boulevard will be required to be removed. Trees planted to the south in the furore fight-of-way would also be removed. Due to the screening effects that the trees provide to the residents to the north and the aesthetic quality of the street trees to the south, removal of them would require mitigation in order to achieve a less than significant impact. The following mitigation measures is recommended in order to reduce potential aesthetic impacts to a level of insignificance: I-1. All trees proposed for removal shall be shown on construction plans submitted to the City. Removed street trees located to the south of Dublin Boulevard shall be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 with 24-inch box trees. Trees removed to the north of Dublin Boulevard shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with 15-gallon specimen. The specie type shall be approved by the Director of Public Works. Tree re-plantings shall take place as part of Phase II of the project (no landscaping is included in Phase I). In order to reduce potential erosion, exposed slopes shall be hydroseeded after completion of Phase I work. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. d - No new street lights are proposed as part of this roadway project. No new sources of light or glare would be generated. No impacts are anticipated. Dublin Boulevard Improvements - CIP 9601 Page 21 II. Agriculture Resources a-c - The proposed project does~not encompass nor would it affect any properties currently in agricultural production. No impacts are anticipated. III. Air Quality a-e - This project is being constructed in response to approved developments which exist to the west of Hansen Drive. Therefore, it can be assumed that any increase in traffic-related air quality has been accounted for and/or has been mitigated through the approval process for those projects. This project would not be in violation of any applicable air quality standards. Substantial pollutant concentrations are not anticipated with the roadway widening. Upon completion of construction, no objectionable odors would be created. 2Vo impacts are ~ticipated. It should be noted, however, that due to the significant amount of earthwork proposed, short- term increases in particulate matter (PM~0) concentrations can be expected in the project vicinity during the grading operations. This could impact the residents and businesses located on either side of Dublin Boulevard. The follow#Tg mitigation measures are recommended in order to mitigate potential construction- related air quality impacts to a level of insigni, ficance. Twice-daily watering of exposed earth surfaces shall occur throughout the construction phase. In addition, daily watering and/or sweeping of affected street surfaces shall take place. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. IV. Biolozical Resources a-f- Several trees on both sides of Dublin Boulevard, west of Hansen Drive, would be removed for widening of the roadway. Some of the trees include oak species and other mature vegetation. The City of Dublin does not have a heritage tree ordinance. As provided for by the Zoning Ordinance (Section g.72.030.A4 - Existing Trees), removal of trees for Public Works projects such as this are allowed. Given the aesthetic screening quality that the trees to the north provide the adjacent residents, mitigation has been included (see Section I. above) that would require re- planting of all trees removed. Given the developed nature of the project vicinity (existing roadway), and the fact that no biologically sensitive resources are located near or would be affected by proposed construction, no impacts are anticipated. V. Cultural Resources a-b - No known cultural, paleontological, or historical resources exist within the proposed project area. Therefore, no impacts to lo~own resources are anticipated. Dublin Boulevard Improvements - C11~ 9601 Page 22 c-d - The soil re-engineering required for the project will expose the substrate during grading activities. Should previously unknown cultural resources be discovered, the following mitigation measure is recommended in order to mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. V-1. In the event that archaeological resources, prehistoric or historic artifacts are discovered during any construction or excavation, the following procedures shall be followed: · Construction and/or excavation activities shall cease immediately and the Department of Community Development shall be notified. A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether any such materials are significant prior to resuming ground breaking construction activities. Standardized procedures for evaluating accidental finds and discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the California Environmental Quality Act. VI. Geology and Soils In January of 1992, a geotechnical investigation was undertaken for the Public Works Department by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants. (That report is on file with the Public Works Department and may be reviewed during normal business hours.) The analysis included in this section is based upon data provided in the Berlogar report. The purpose of the investigation was to assess the subsurface conditions beneath the existing pavement in order to determine the cause of pavement distress and to provide recommendations for mitigation and repair as well as recommendations for the proposed roadway widening. a, e - The project area is not located within a known earthquake fault zone, and on-site soils are not susceptible to seismic-related ground failure. No mapped landslides exist in the project area. The project does not involve the use of septic tanks. 2Vo impacts are anticipated. b - d - Recommended soil re-engineering for the proposed project will require the import of approximately 14,000 cubic yards of fill, including 6,700 cubic yards of fill in Phase 1. This represents a significant amount of earthwork that would be exposed during construction. Field work performed by Berlogar indicates that the subsurface soils include layers of expansive silty clay fill, which, with other conditions, have contributed to the distressed pavement witnessed along this particular length of Dublin Boulevard. In addition, heavy vehicle loads imposed by construction traffic, particularly travelling uphill with full loads to nearby residential construction projects to the west, appear to have resulted in localized failure of the upper portions of the overly steep embankments. The following mitigation measure is recommended in order to reduce potential geology and soils impacts to a level of insignificance. Dublin Boulevard Improvements - CIP 9601 Page 23 VI-1. Recommendations contained in the January 2, 1992 Berlogar report (.pages 6-9) shall be made conditions of project approval. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a-h - The proposed project includes widening and traffic signal installations to an existing roadway. The project does not involve the storage or use of hazardous materials. No impacts are anticipatect ' VIII. Hvdroloev and Water Quality a, f-j - The proposed project includes widening and traffic signal installations to an existing roadway and would not affect water quality standards. This portion of Dublin Boulevard is not located within a floodplain and proposed modifications would not expose people or structures to flooding. No impacts are cmticipated b - e - Proposed roadway modifications include relocation of an existing drainage outlet on the south side of Dublin Boulevard, and placement of a new outlet on the north side. Although widening of the roadway represents an increase in impervious surfaces in the immediate project vicinity, the project has been designed so as not to impact the existing drainage system. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Due to the significant amount of earth work involved with the proposed project, short-term construction-related impacts associated with runoff can be expected. The following mitigation measures are recommended in order to reduce potential construction- related runoff impacts to a level of insignificance. Standard City conditions for the use of silt traps, hay bales, etc. shall be incorporated into construction plans in order to reduce the amount of runoff during the grading phase. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Dkector. VIII-2. Exposed dirt stockpiles shall either be covered or planted with hydroseed if they are to remain longer than 14 days. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. IX. Land Use and Planning a-c - This proposed Capital Improvement Program (CI2P) project is in response to approved developments located west of the Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive intersections with Dublin Boulevard. The City's Circulation Element shows this section of Dublin Boulevard ultimately developed as a four-lane major street. Therefore, the proposed project is in conformance with the Circulation Element. The project area is not included in any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. No land use or planning impacts are anticipated Dublin Boulevard Improvements - CIP 9601 Page 24 X. Mineral Resources a-b - The project site is currently developed and is not located in an area identified in the General Plan as a mineral resource area. No impacts are anticipated XI. Noise a - c, e, f- The proposed' project is in response to approved development located to the west of the Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive intersections. Therefore, it can be assumed that any increase in traffic-related noise has been accounted for md/or has been mitigated through the approval process for those projects and this project would not be in violation of any applicable noise standards. Staff has indicated that a 4 to 4.5-foot high sound wall is proposed along the north side of Dublin Boulevard (between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive), which would decrease noise attenuation for the adjacent residents. Noise impacts are anticipated to be less thcm significco~t. d - A significant amount of earthwork is proposed for the proposed project. Local businesses and residents will be subjected to short-term localized increases in ambient noise levels during the construction phase. The follcm'ing mitigation measures are recommended in order to reduce potential short-term noise impacts to a level of insignificance. In order to minimize the impact of construction noise, all operations shall comply with local noise standards relating to construction activities. For construction which occurs near residential areas, it shall be limited to normal daytime hours to minimize the impact. Stationary equipment shall be adequately muffled and located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. XII. Population and Housing a-c - The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an existing roadway. No population and housing impacts are anticipated XIII. Public Services a -The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an existing roadway. No impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools, or parks are anticipated Due to the fact that the proposed project is a CIP project, any future required maintenance will be accounted for in the City's yearly budget. Roadway maintenance impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Dublin Boulevard Improvements - CIP 9601 Page 25 XIV. Recreation a-b - The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an existing roadway. No impacts to recreation facilities are anticipated XV. Transportation/Traffic a-g - The project is proposed to be completed in two separate phases (Phase I in 1999 and Phase II in 2000), each lasting approximately two months, and would take place during the summer school break. Phase I will require the import of approximately 6,700 cubic yards of fill, which relates to approximately 670 truck loads travelling to and from the project site. In addition, each phase of construction will require the closure of Dublin Boulevard between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive, with appropriate detours set up. These two factors will hm,e impacts on local residents and businesses. City transportation consultants, TJKM, has reviewed the proposed project. Their memorandum with recommendations is attached to this report. Upon completion of the proposed project, no transportation impacts are anticipated The following mitigation measures are recommended in order to reduce potential construction- related transportation impacts to a level of h~significance. When work is being done at the Dublin/Hansen intersection, the access driveway which serves the office buildings to the south shall be maintained at least during weekday commute hours to reduce the impact on these businesses. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Dkector. Work at the Dublin/Hansen intersection may also result in the prohibition of the westbound Dublin Boulevard right turn onto northbound Hansen Drive and/or the southbound Hansen Drive lett turn onto eastbound Dublin Boulevard. At least one of these movemer~ts shall be maintained at all times. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. In order to reduce potential impacts of truck traffic during commute hours, large trucks utilized for the import/export of soils and materials shall be restricted to the weekday hours of 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (work on the weekends must be approved by the City Engineer). This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems a, b, d-g - The proposed project includes widening and other modifications to an existing roadway. The proposed project will requke the relocation of a fire hydrant and water valve, to be accomplished by the Dublin-San Ramon Sanitary District. No impacts to utility'es and service systems are anticipated c - Public Works staff has indicated that the proposed drain inlet relocation and installation of a new inlet in Phase I of the project will serve to off-set any increase in storm water runoff Dublin Boulevard Improvem~ts - CIP 9601 Page 26 associated with the proposed project. Impacts are considered to be less than sigT~ificant. No mitigation is required -. Dublin Boulevard Improvernc'nts - CIP 9601. Page 27 Transportation Consultants April 12, 1999 To: From: Subject: Ferd Del Rosario Senior Civil Engineer City of Dublin Jeff Lee via Gordon Lum Detour Traffic Due to the Closure of Dublin Boulevard bem, een Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive Estimated Detoured Traffic We understand that a detour will need to be established to accommodate the proposed closure of Dublin Boulevard between Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive due to construction. As you have requested, TJKM has estimated the amount of detour traffic that will be using Hansen Drive, Betlen Drive, and Silvergate Drive to bypass the closure 0fDublin Boulevard. We anticipate that the detour will cause traffic along these streets to increase bY approximately 300 vehicles (100 westbound and 200 eastbound) during the a.m. peak hour and 880 vehicles (420 westbound and 460 eastbound) during the p.m. peak hour. With the addition of standard detour signing, the existing STOP signs along the detour route will provide proper traffic control for this increase in traffic. These estimated trips are based on a.m. and p.m. peak hour taming movement Counts conducted at Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive on March 30 and 31, 1999, and a.m. peak hour turning movement counts conducted at Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive on January 7, 1998. It is our understanding that the proposed construction will take place during the summer months when the Valley Christian School will not be in session between June 11 and August 26. Therefore, the expected detour traffic has excluded any school-generated trips. An estimate of the school trips was based on a.m. peak hour turning movement counts conducted on January 5, 1998 on Inspiration Drive at the three driveways serving Valley Christian. Closure at the Dublin Boulevard/Itansen Drive Intersection The south leg of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive consists of a driveway that serves Hexcel Visitor Parking, DeSilva Gates Construction/The DeSilva Group, and the 580 Executive Center. When work is being done at the intersection, access to this driveway should be maintained at .least during weekday commute hours to reduce the impact on these businesses. The driveway for the main Hexcel parking lot is located on Dublin Boulevard east of Hansen Drive, while a secondary driveway for the DeSilva complex and 580 Executive Center is located on Dublin Boulevard west of 4234 Hacienda Drive, Suite 101, Pleasanton, California '94558-2721, (925) 463-0611', Fax (925) 463-3690, email tjkm@tjkm.com Silvergate Drive. Therefore, these bus-ihesses will have access even when their driveway at the Dublin Boulevard/H'~sen Drive intersection is closed. Work at the Dublin Boulevard/Hansen Drive intersection may also result in the prohibition of the westbound Dublin Boulevard right turn onto northbound Hansen Drive and/or the southbound Hansen Drive left turn onto eastbound Dublin Boulevard. At least one of these movements should be maintained at all times. The prohibition of the westbound right turn movement will force drivers to access Hansen Drive from the north, most likely via Silvergate Drive. The prohibition of the southbound left turn movement will force drivers to use Silvergate Drive to access San Ramon Road. Please call me if you have any questions. cc: CDK >-