HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 80-04 SanRamnVillageNegDec RESOLUTION NO. $0 - 04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE BANCOR PROPERTIES
SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA PROJECT LOCATED AT 8909 SAN RAMON ROAD
PA 02-063
WHEREAS, Bancor Properties (Applicant/Developer), on behalf of Morey CJreenstein, Trustee
and Manager for Oliver Properties, LLC (property owner) has requested a General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation to Mixed-use, a PD rezoning with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
Plan (PD) for the entire San Ramon Village Plaza site; a Stage 2 PD for development of 56 medium-
high density dwelling units and redevelopment of 14,377 sq. ft. of retail office building space and
related parking area, a Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review for the entire project,
which applications are on file in the Planning Division. The applications are collectively known as the
"Project"; and
WHEREAS, the San Ramon Village Plaza property consists of approximately 4.62 acres
generally located east of San Ramon Boulevard between Bellina Street and Alcosta Boulevard, APN#941-
0164-001-04 & 941-0164-003-03 (A) (B), in the Dublin General Plan area; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study has been prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the project
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring Program have been prepared for the project with the finding that
with the implementation of Mitigation Measures contained in the Initial Study, the potential impacts of
the project would be reduced to a level of insignificance; and
WHEREAS, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Initial Study, was circulated
for public review as required by CEQA. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Initial
Study, is attached as Exhibit .A and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City received one comment letter on the project during the public review period,
and prepared written responses to the comments. The comments and responses are attached as Exhibit B
and incorporated herein by reference. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Initial
Study, and the comments and responses together are the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project
and
WHEREAS, the City reviewed all the comments and responses and determined that recirculation
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was not required; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated May 18, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described
and analyzed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Staff report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration at
a noticed public hearing on May 18, 2004 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be
heard; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring Program, as required by CEQA, is contained and attached
in Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independem judgment and
analysis on the potential for enviromental impacts and constitutes the environmental review for the
Bancor San Ramon Village Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bancor San Ramon Village Plaza Project has been
completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines.
2. On the basis of the whole record before the City, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration as
described above, there is no substantial evidence that the Bancor San Ramon Village Plaza Project
will have a significant effect on the environment.
3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, as described above, was presented to the Planning
Commission who reviewed and considered the information therein prior to recommending
approval of the Project.
4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, as described above, reflects the City's independent judgment
and analysis on the potential for environmental effects of the Bancor San Ramon Village Plaza
Project.
5. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for
the Bancor San Ramon Village Plaza Project is the City of Dublin Community Developmem
Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, Attn: Jeri Ram, Planning Manager.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative
Declaration consisting of Exhibits A and B, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program consisting of
Exhibit C.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti and Zika and Mayor Lockhart
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
K2/G/5- 18-04/reso-bancor-nmd.doc (Item 6.1)
GSPAg~2002\024)63 Bangor Alcosta Sitc\CC~ban~orSRV. CC.mnd.reso. do~
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA
CITY OF DUBLIN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Des~ption
The project site is located west of 1-680 on San Ramon Road between Bellina Street and
Alcosta Boulevard. A Zone 7 channel and storm drain outfall abuts the southeasterly
boundary of the site. Project development would not encroach into the Caimans 1-680 right-
of-way or the Zone 7 channel.
The site contains an ertsting retail center and parking lot for a total of approximately 48,400
square feet. The project site comprises about 4.6 acres. Pear trees are located along the San
Ramon Road frontage with Monterey pines and stu'ubs planted at the easterly perimeter of
the property and several elm trees located at the southerly portion of the property.
Additional trees are dispersed throughout the parking lot.
Project Description
The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment from Retail/Office to M/xed-
Use (Retail/Office, Medium Density Residential); a Stage 1 Development Plan to establish ·
zoning of the site; a State 2 Development Plan to establish standards for development of the
site; a Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Permit for review of design and
architectural features to provide for the revitalization of a portion of an existing retail center
and the construction of residential townhouse units. Of the 48,400 square feet of existing
retail space, approximately 34,000 square feet would be demohshed to construct residential
town homes. The remaining 14,400 square' feet of retail space would be remodeled and
.designed to compliment the residential project and create a village type neighborhood.
The remodeled reta/1 development would include new roof lines and the building surface
would be colored stucco. Metal roofing and awnings, new signage and lighting would
provide architectural detail. Building heights would range from about 19 feet to 32 feet.
Landscaping would include planters, new trees and shrubs in the parking lot and building
perimeters and new pear street trees along Alcosta Boulevard. The parking lot would provide
93 parking spaces.
The residential development would be constructed on the southern half of the property.
Primary access to the town homes would be off of Bellina Street with secondary access
through the retail component onto San Rarnon Road and Alcosta Boulevard. The
townhome-style condominiums would consist of 56 units distributed throughout eleven
three-storey buildings with a garage on the first floor and two levels of residential space. The
maximum building height would be approximately 41.5 feet. The town homes would be two
and three bedroom units ranging in size between 1,218 square feet and 1,654 square feet.
EXHIBIT A
San Ramon Village Plaza Mitigated Negative Declaration - Page 2
The project would include seven below market rate units. The building surface would be
colored stucco with asphalt tile roofs. Balconies and porch areas would have wrought iron
railings. Parking for the residential development would include t12 spaces (two spaces for
each townhouse garage) and 28 non-designated guest spaces located on site.
Three landscaped open space areas are located in the residential development. There is a tot
lot located at the central portion of the development; a sitting garden with public art is
located at the corner of Bellina Street and San Ramon Road; and a sitting garden is located at
the easterly project boundary. General landscaping throughout the residential development
would include trees and other plantings. A six-foot high wrought iron fence with hedge
border would be located along the westerly and southerly perimeters of the residential
development. A wrought iron fence with panels would be located at the northeasterly
portion of the residential development. Trees and other plantings would be installed along
pedestrian pathways. The pedestrian pathways connect the residential buildings and provide
access to the open space areas, tot lot and retail development.
The project will require a general plan amendment from Retail/Office to Medium-High
Density on 2.94 acres of the project site. The site is currently zoned C-N, C-1 and C-2 and
will require a rezone to Planned Development to allow the proposed mixed use program. A
Stage 2 Development Plan will be required to establish permitted, conditionally permitted
and accessory uses, site area and maximum densities, maximum number of residential units
by type and non-residential square footage, development regulations, architectural standards,
circulation system preliminary landscape plan and any other information necessary for the
review of the proposed project. A Site Development Permit must be granted to ensure the
proposed project is consistent with the development regulations and requirements of the
PD/Stage 2 Development Plan. The project applicant is proposing to split the project site
into two lots, which will require a Vesting Tentative Map for subdivision of the property into
two lots.
It is anticipated project construction will take approximately one and one-half to two years.
PROJECT LOCATION
San Ramon Village on San Ramon Road between Bellina Street and Alcosta Boulevard in Dublin,
California.
PROJECT SPONSOR
Michael Banducci
Bancor Properties LLC
1459 First Street
Livermore, California 94550
FINDING
The project will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the Initial Study prepared
according to CEQA Guidelines. Mitigations have been incorporated into the project to reduce all
potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.
San Rarnon Vinage Plaza 3/litigated Negative Declaration - Page 3
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The attached Initial Study indicates that the project could adversely affect the environment. The
following potentially significant impacts were identified:
Potentially significant air quality impacts during construction.
· Potentially significant impacts to unknown cultural resources
Project improvements may be subject to strong seismic ground shaking.
· Soil contaminated with Residential PRGs
· On-site erosion during construction activities.
· Temporary noise impacts during construction activities.
· Permanent noise impacts due tO traffic.
MITIGATION MEASURES
In the interest of reducing the potential impacts to the pOint where the net effect of the project is
insignificant, mitigation measures are recommended. A discussion of the potential impacts of interest
and the associated mitigation measures is provided below.
Impact: Temporary construction activities may adversely affect air quality.
Mitigation Measures:
3.1 Construction contractors shall be required to water all active earth construction areas at
least twice daily.
3.2 Construction contractors shall be required to cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other
loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
3.3 Construction contractors shall be required to sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers)
all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
3.4 If visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets, require construction
contractor to sweep streets daily.
3.5 Construction contractor shall be required to enclose, cover or apply (non-toxic) soil
binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
3.6 Construction contractor shall be required to install sandbags or other erosion control ·
measures identified in the project's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
Residual Impact: Less than significant with mitigation measures.
Impact: Unknown cultural resources may be impacted.
Mitigation Measure:
Should any cultural materials or human remains be exposed or discovered during earth moving
activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
5.1 Operations shall stop within 100 feet of the find and a qualified professional archaeologist
shall be contacted for further review and recommendations.
San Ramon Village Plaza Mitigated Negative Declaration - Page 4
5.2 If human remains are discovered, the Alameda County Coroner shall be notified. The
Coroner would determine whether or not the remains were Native American. If the
Coroner determines the remains are nor subject ro his authority, the Native _American
Heritage Commission will be notified, who would attempt to identify descendants of the
deceased Native American.
5.3 If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological fred is nor a
significant resource, work would resume only after the submittal of a preliminary
archaeological report and after provision for reburial and ongoing monitoring accepted.
Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial
would follow the protocol set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. If the site is found to be a
significant archaeological sire, a mitigation program will be prepared and submitted to the
Community Development Director for consideration and approval in conformance with
the protocol set forth in the CEQA Guidelines.
Residual Impact: Less than significant with the mitigation measure.
Impact: There is a potential of ground shaking hazards to people, structures and property.
Mitigation Measures:
6.1 Implement the recommendations identified in the geotechnical investigation prepared by
Terrasearch, Inc. (2002).
6.2 Any changes in grading or building design that would be significantly affected by geologic
hazards or soils conditions, or in rum would significantly alter geologic or soils conditions,
shall be accompanied by a re-analysis of those conditions. In addition, any conditions
discovered during excavation or grading that significantly depart from the previously
described geologic and soils setting shall be evaluated.
Residual Impact: Less than significant with mitigation mexsures.
Impact: Soils have been contaminated with Residential PRGs.
Mitigation Measures:
7.1 Affected soil exceeding the Residential PRGS shall be excavated and removed from the site
as hazardous waste. Once cleaned up, a human Health Risk Assessment shall be prepared
to demonstrate that soil gas emanating from the site will not pose a health threat to future
site residents.
7.2 A site Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared that documents the appropriate protocol for
construction personnel that may come in contact with contaminated soils.
7.3 Prior to demolition, the three roof sections of the building shall be sampled to determine if
they contain asbestos. If it is determined asbestos is present, it shall be disposed of as a
hazardous material.
7.4 Site clean up and remediation shall be required to meet all federal, state and local
regulations.
Residual Impact: Less than significant with mitigation measures.
San Ramon Village Plaza Mitigated Negative Declaration - Page 5
Impact: There is a potential for erosion during construction activities. Construction activities would
generate additional pollutants such as oil, grease and heavy metals.
Mitigation Measures:
8.1 A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared in compliance with the NPDES
permit included in the erosion control measures appropriate for the project. Design of
these measures shall be updated each year prior to September 30 and approved by the City
Engineer.
Residual Impact: Less than significant with mitigation measures.
Impact: Construction-related noise could adversely affect nearby residential development.
Mitigation Measures:
11.1 Applicant shall prepare a construction noise mitigation plan. The plan shall indude but not
be limited to the following:
· Construction phasing plan showing the duration of each phase and equipment to be
used.
· Location of stationary equipment.
· Calculation of noise levels at nearest residences and noise sensitive retail spaces.
· Name of construction noise coordinator that can be posted at the entry to the site.
Person responsible for responding to complaints and enacting solutions.
Residual Impact: Less than significant with mitigation measures.
Impact: Traffic noise could adversely affect the proposed residential development.
11.2 Sound-rated building construction shall be used to achieve acceptable indoor noise levels
as per the State Building Code and Citv's Noise Element. The specification of these
treatments should be developed during the architectural design of the buildings. In
general, rooms along the perimeter of the site will require sound rated windows. Units in
Buildings 1 (the four east end units), 2 (the four east end units), 3 (the four east end units)
and 4 (all units) along 1-680 would be exposed to levels over CNEL 65 dBA and will
require sound rated building constructions (windows and/or exterior walls) to meet the
State Building Code requirement.
All residential units in the project will require mechanical ventilation to allow the windows
io be closed for noise control. An acoustical consultant should review the architectural
design to be sure that the required treatments are incorporated into the construction
documents.
11.3 Porches and decks exposed to a CNEL of 65 to 70 dBA ( Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10)
shall be partially enclosed or eliminated. A partial enclosure would consist of a solid six-
foot tall balcony rafting that would act as a local noise barrier. Porches or decks exposed to
levels greater than 70 dBA (Buildings 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10) shall be fully endosed. A full
enclosure would create a deck or porch that is similar to a sun room. It would be
constructed out of standard building materials but need to provide adequate noise
reduction. The enclosure could include operable windows or sliding glass doors so that the
area can be open if the occupant desires. An acoustical consultant shall rev/ew the design
of the porch/deck treatments to. confaxn that noise levels will achieve the City's goal.
San Ramon Village Plaza Mitigated Negative Declaration - Page 6
The sitting garden along 1-680 would be exposed to a future CNEL in excess of 75 dBA
which is considered "clearly unacceptable" for residential development. To reduce noise at
the outdoor use area and at Buildings 2, 3 and 4, the eyasting sound wall could be extended
an additional 275 feet. A ten-foot sound wall would reduce the CNEL to less than 70 dBA
which is considered to be "conditionally acceptable". It would be difficult to achieve the
City's goal of CNEL 65 dBA at the sitting garden. Preliminary calculations indicate that the
wall will need to be about 18 feet tall to meet the City's outdoor noise goal.
Alternatively, a wall could be located immediately adjacent to the sitting garden to block
freeway noise. The wall could be one to two feet shorter and achieve the same noise
reduction. The exact height and composition can be determined during the detailed design
phase. If there is a concern that the barrier would block views, a clear barrier made of
acrylic or glass could be used. An acoustical consultant shall review the design of the
barrier to confirm that noise levels will achieve the City's goals.
11.4 The City does not have a quantitative noise standard for mechanical equipment such as
refrigeration units or air-conditioning systems. Noise generated by stationary sources
(residential and retail) will need to meet, at a minimum, the performance standards
contained in the Noise Element (CNEL of 60 dBA for residential uses).
The mechanical design shall be reviewed by an acoustical consultant to verify that the City's
standards will be met and that the eqmpment will not significantly increase existing noise
levels at residences and the common outdoor use area adjacent to the retail building. The
mechanical and architectural plans should show all required sound attenuating features
such as silencers and barriers.
Residual Impact: Less than significant with mitigation measures.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 1
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - INITIAL STUDY
1. Project Title: San Ramon Village Plaza
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
3. Contact Person and Phone Number.
Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Contract Planner
925.833.6610
4. Project Location:
San Ramon Village
8909, 8913-8925 San Ramon Road
Dublin, California
APN#941-0164-001-04 & 941-0164-003-03
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Michael Banducci
Bancor Properties LLC
1459 First Street
Livermore, California 94550
6. Existing General Plan Designation:
Retail/Office
7. Existing Zoning Designation:
C-N, Retail/Office
8. Description of Project:
Site DesMption
The project site is located west of 1-680 on San Ramon Road between Bellina Street and Alcosta
Boulevard. A Zone 7 channel and storm drain ouffall abuts the southeasterly boundary of the site.
Project development would not encroach into the Caltrans 1-680 right-of-way or the Zone 7 channel.
Figure 1 shows the project location.
Ssm Ramon ¥'i]l~ge Pl~z~ Initial Study - 2
The site contains an existing retail center and parking lot for a total of approximately 48,400 square
feet. The protect sire comprises about 4.6 acres. Pear trees are located along the San Ramon Road
frontage w/th Monterey pines and shrubs planted at the easterly per/meter of the property and several
Figure 1
Project Vicinity
San Ramon Village Plaza initial Study - 3
elm trees 10cared at the southerly portion of the property. Additional trees are dispersed throughout
the parking lot.
Project Description
The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment from Retail/Office to Mixed-Use
(Retail/Office, Medium Density Residential); a Stage 1 Development Plan to establish zoning of the
site; a State 2 Development Plan to establish standards for development of the site; a Vesting
Tentative Map and Site Development Permit for review of design and architectural features to
provide for the revitalization of a portion of an existing retail center and the construction of
residential townhouse units. Of the 48,400 square feet of existing retail space, approximately 34,000
square feet would be demolished to construct residential town homes. The remaining 14,400 square
feet of retail space would be remodeled and designed to compliment the residential project and
create a village type neighborhood. Figure 2 shows the project site plan.
The remodeled retail development would include new roof lines and the building surface would be
colored stucco. Metal roofing and awnings, new signage and lighting would provide architectural
detail. Building heights would range from about 19 feet to 32 feet. Landscaping would include
planters, new trees and shrubs in the parking lot and building perimeters and new pear street trees
along Alcosta Boulevard. The parking lot would provide 93 parking spaces. Figure 3 shows the retail
building elevations.
The residential development would be constructed on the southern half of the property. Figure 4
shows the residential building elevations. Primary access to the town homes would be off of Bellina
Street with secondary access through the retxil component onto San Ramon Road and Alcosra
Boulevard. The townhome-style condominiums would consist of 56 units distributed throughout
eleven three-storey buildings with a garage on the f'mst floor and two levels of residential space, The
maximum building height would be approximately 41.5 feet. The town homes would be two and
three bedroom units ranging in size between 1,218 square feet and 1,654 square feet. The project
would include seven below market rate units. The building surface would be colored stucco with
asphalt tile roofs. Balconies and porch areas would have wrought iron railings.
Parking for the residential development would include 112 spaces (two spaces for each townhouse
garage) and 28 non-designated guest spaces located on site.
Table 1 summarizes the proposed land use components.
Table 1: Project Land Use
Number of Number of Parking
Use i Sq. Feet Housing Units Spaces
~,~,,.~ ~,S,~.pace 14,400 .................................... ~ 93i
Residential - Market Rate 49 138'!
Residential- Below Market ~
Rate 71
Three landscaped open space areas are located in the residential development. There is a rot lot
located at the central portion of the development; a sitting garden with public art is located at the
corner of Bellina Street and San Rarnon Road; and a sitting garden is located at the easterly project
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 4
boundary. General landscaping throughout the residential development would include trees and
other plantings. A six-foot high wrought iron fence with hedge border would be located along the
westerly and southerly perimeters of the residential development. A wrought iron fence with panels
would be located at the northeasterly portion of the residential development. Trees and other
plantings would be instated along pedestrian pathways. The pedestrian pathways connect the
residential buildings and provide access to the open space areas, tot lot and retail development.
The prolect will require a general' plan amendment from Retail/Office to Medium-High Density on
2.94 acres of the project site. The ske is currently zoned C-N, C-1 and C-2 and will require a rezone
to Planned Development to allow the proposed mixed use program. A Stage 2 Development Plan
will be required to establish permitted, conditionally permitted and accessory uses, site area and
maximum densities, maximum number of residential units by type and non-residential square
footage, development regulations, architectural standards, circulation system preliminary landscape
plan and any other information necessary for the review of the proposed project. A Site
Development Permit must be granted to ensure the proposed project is consistent with the
development regulations and requirements of the PD/Stage 2 Development Plan. The prolect
applicant is proposing to split the project site into two lots, which will require a Vesting Tentative
Map for subdivision of the property into two lots.
It is anticipated project construction will take approximately one and one-half to two years.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Land uses in the immediate project vicinity include single family residential development to the south
and west, a gas station adjacent at the northwest comer of the property and commercial/retail
development across Alcosta Boulevard to the north. Interstate 680 is located ro the east of the
project sate.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
· Building Permits (City of Dublin, Building Department)
· Grading Permits (City of Dublin, PUblic Works Department
· Water and Sanitary Sewer, Dublin San Ramon Service District 0DSRSD)
Figure 2
Project Site Plan
Z Z
San Ramon VRl~ge Plaz~ In/t/al Study - 8
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTLAIJ.Y AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one
impact that is a potentially significant impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[] Aesthetics [] Agricultural Resources [] Air Quality
[] Biological Resources [] Cultural Resources [] Geology/Soils
[] Hazards/HazardousMaterials [] Hydrology/Water Quality [] Land Use/Plarming
[] Mineral Resources [] Noise [] Population/Housing
[] PuUicSemces [] ~tecrea~o~ []
[] Utilities/Service Systems [] Mandatory 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 fred that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envkonmenr, there
wilt not be a s~grdficant effect in this case because the revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed ro by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
[] I f'md that the proposed project IvL&Y have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONlvlENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required
[] I find that the proposed project IV[AY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact 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 rmugauon 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 ro be addressed.
[] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on 'the environment, because
ail potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ED[ or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLA/~TION, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signaqe ~ Date
Printed Name For
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 9
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources identified in the References section of this document.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Sl~lifJ~11t
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [] [] [] []
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scemc highway? [] [] [] []
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? [] [] [] []
d) Create a new source of substantial light or [] [] [] []
glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Discussion:
The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to visual resources. A brief discussion of
each environmental topic included under Section 1 is presented below.
a) The project site is not within a designated scenic vista or scenic highway. Project development
would not obstruct any scenic views.
b) The project site is developed with retail buildings and parking lots. Street trees are located along the
entire San Ramon Road frontage, along the Beltina Street frontage; and groups of trees are located
along the easterly boundary of the site and dispersed throughout the existing parking lot on the
westerly portion of the site.
Project development xvould remove 28, or about 60 percent, of the existing trees. None of the trees
planned for removal are "Heritage Tree.s" as defined in the City's Tree Ordinance. Of these, ten are
located in the parking lot and the remaining 18 trees are located along San Ramon Road, Bellina
Street and 1-680. Eight of the 11 street trees along San Ramon Road would be retained. Of the six
trees along Bellina Street, five would be removed. Ten of the 18 trees along 1-680 would be
.removed. Plantings of new street trees along the southerly and westerly project boundaries,
combined with a proposed hedge would provide adequate screening. The project would include new
trees throughout the retail parking areas and the residential development. The proposed planting of
trees along the easterly boundary would screen views of 1-680 from the project site. Project
development would not degrade scenic resources at the project site.
c) Generally, project development would improve the visual appearance of the project site. Currently
the project site contains two single story buildings that house small retail shops and restaurants and
a large retail store. The buildings axe in need of painting and repair. Landscaping is limited to trees
located along the westerly, southerly and easterly site boundaries and trees scattered in the parking
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 10
lot. The proposed project would renovate one of the buildings containing small retail shops and
restaurants. The new building roofline would increase the height of portions of the building. New
signage, fasade treatments, lighting and plantings would improve the visual appearance of the
building. The other building containing retail shops and the larger structure would be demolished
and replaced w/th the proposed residential development. Extensive landscaping including trees,
hedges, plantings and open space areas would increase the amount of green space at the project site.
d) Outdoor night lighting currently exists at the project site including light fixtures in the parking lot
and building signage. The amount of outdoor lighting would increase over what is currently in use
because of the increase in development at the site. However, the project landscaping would screen
most of the night lights from view, especially along San Ramon Road and Bellina Street (where
residential development is located). Night lighting and glare would not significantly increase as a
resuk of the project.
Mitigation Measures.
None required.
Finding:
Project development would not have an adverse affect on the visual character and quality of the sire and
surrounding area.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significas~t Mitigauon Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
2. AGRICULTURAL 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
ro 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
¢~Ufoma Xesources Agency, to non-amcult~al use? [] [] [] []
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
WitU~mson act contract? [] [] [] []
c) Involve other changes in the exismag environment,
which due to their location or nature could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [] [] [] []
Discussion:
The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to agricultural resources. A brief
discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 2 is presented below.
a) The project site is a developed retail strip mall in an urban area.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 11
b) The project site is currently zoned C-N Retail/Office. The project site is not subject to the
Williamson Act.
c) Surrounding lands consist of urban development including residential, commercial and retail.
Development of the project site would not result in the conversion of any farmland in the project
vicinity.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
Finding:
Project development would not result in a significant impact to agricultural resources.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitiganon Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impac~ Impact
3. 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 prolect:
a) Conflict With or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? [] [] [] []
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an exisnng or projected air quality
violation? [] [] [] []
c) Result in a cu_mulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant £or which the project reguon is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including re]easing
emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone prec=sors)? [] [] []
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
conce =aeons? [] [] [] []
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
.Discussion:
The proposed project would result in less than s~gnificant operational air quality impacts. Potentially
significant impacts due to construction activities could occt~r. The recommended mitigation measures
would reduce potentially significant consumction air quality impacts to a ]ess than significant level. A
brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 3 is presented below.
a) The project would not conflict with the Bay Area Air 2000 Clean Air Plan (BAAQtVED 2000).
san Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 12
b) Local Climate
The project is within the Liverrnore 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 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
percent of the time in both morning and afternoon.
According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, air pollution potential is high in the
Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall. High temperatures increase the
potential for ozone. The valley traps locally generated pollutants and is often the receptor of ozone
and ozone precursors from upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also
occurs bevween 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.
Ambient Air Quality Standards~
Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for cOmmon pollutants. These ambient air
quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse
health effects associated with each pollutant. The federal and state ambient standards were
developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both federal and state
standards are intended to avoid health related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards
differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly
true for ozone and PMm.
Federal Air Quality Standards
The 1977 Federal Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare.
NA_AQS have been established for the six "criteria" air pollutants. These criteria pollutants include
ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide ¢02), suspended
particulate matter (PM~0), and lead (Pb). EP?f publishes criteria documents to justify the choice of
standards. Standards for these pollutants are listed in Table 2. These standards represent the levels
of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare.
In June 1997, the EPA adopted new national air quality standards for ground level ozone and for
fine particulate matter. The EPA intends to phase out the 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per
million (PPM) and replace it with an 8-hour standard of 0.08 PPM. The EPA also adopted an
additional standard for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.s). Although
currently in effect, the planning process to determine compliance with these new standards and the
development of control programs to meet these standards, if needed, are several years away since a
monitoring network has to be established and a minimum 3-year monitoring period is required to
determine designations.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial ~tudy - 13
Implementation of the new standards has been further complicated by a recent court decision. On
May 14, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the application
of the Clean Air Act, in setting the new public health standards for ozone and particulate matter,
was an improper delegation of legislative authority to the EPA, and thus unconstitutional. The
decision was appealed to the Supreme Court and on February 27, 2001 the Supreme Court
unanimously ruled in favor of the EPA, clearing the way for implementation of the new standards.
State Air Quality standards
The 1988 California Clean Air -Act established state standards for criteria pollutants, which are also
identified in Table 2. These standards are referred to as State -Ambient Air Quality Standards
(SAAQS), and are equal to, or more stringent than, their NAAQS counterparts. SAAQS have also
been established for certain pollutants not covered by the NAAQS, such as hydrogen sulfide and
vinyl chloride.
Bay Area Air Basin -Attainment Status
The project is within the nine county Bay Area Air Basin. Pursuant to 1990 amendments to the
federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988, the EPA and CARB have designated
air basins within the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as
"nonattainment areas", based on compliance with NAAQS and SA_AQS standards. Because of the
differences between the federal and state standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is
different under the federal and state legislation.
Air basins may be either attainment or non-attainment for each criteria air pollutant. Under the
federal Clean Air -Act, the Bay Area is currently considered a nonattainment area for the federal 1-
hour ozone standard and a nonattainment area for ozone and PMw under the California Clean Air
-Act. CARB has developed recommended designations for California air basins, proposing that the
Bay Area be designated as nonattainment for the new EPA 8-hour ozone standards.
Levels of PMw at the Livermore monitoring site (the monitoring site nearest Dublin) meet the
federal ambient standards but exceed the more stringent state standard. When it passed the
California Clean Air Act in 1988, the Cahfornia Legislature recognized the relative intractability of
the PMw problem with respect to the state ambient standard and excluded it from the basic
planning requirements of the Act. The -Act did require the C_ARB to prepare a report to the
Legislature regarding the prospect of achieving the State ambient air quality standard for PMw. This
report recommended a menu of actions, but did not recommend imposing a planning process
similar to that for ozone or other pollutants for achievement of the standard within a certain period
of time.
In addition, a region can be designated non-attainment, transitional or unclassifie'd. The transitional
designation recognizes a region's improving air quality, but still maintains some regulatory
restrictions and obligations. The unclassified designation is given for a region where data is absent
or too limited for designation. California Clean Air Act requirements include annual emission
reductions, increased, development and use of low emission vehicles, and the submittal of air quality
attainment plans by air districts.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Bay -Area Air Quality Management District (B2kAQMD) operates a network of air quality
monitoring sites in the region, including one in central Livermore on Old First Street. Table 3 shows'
a three year summary of air quality data for the Livermore monitoring site for the period 2000-2002.
Data are shown for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and PMw. The number of days
exceeding each standard is shown for each year.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 14
!Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards & Bay Area Attainment Status
iAveraging California Attairmaent Federal Attainment
Pollutant ~ Time i Standards Status Standards Status
Ozone il-Hour 0.09 PPM N 0.12 PPM .................... ~ ............................
8-Hour - ~ - 0.08 PPM U
Carbon
Monoxade I - Hour !20 PPM ~ A ~35.0 PPM -
8-Hour 9.0 PPM A 9.00 PPM A
Nitrogen Annual ~
Dioxide .j.~£r_~g~ .................... ,7 ................. 10.05 PPM i A
1-Hour 0.25 PPM A i
Sulfur Annual
1-Hour 0.25 PPM ~ A '! ......................... ~ .................
i24-Hour 0.04 PPM ~ A 0.14 PPM A
PM~0 iAnnual i20 l'lg/m i N !50 klg/m i A
PM2.5 ~Annual 12 klg/m3 N 15 [.ig/m3 U
24-Hour - 65 kl~/rn3 U
i30-day
Lead Average 1.5 3
iMonth
IAverage 1.5 [lg/m3 ! A
PPM = Parts Per Million
~ = &~.sr~s.N..-7..~?.n~t~.m.~.¢...7..~s.!as~!.5~d. ...................................................................................................................................
To meet federal Clem Air Act requirements, the BAAQMD has adopted an Ozone Attainment
Demonstration Plan. In addition, to meet California Clean Air Act requirements, the BA_AQMD
has also adopted and updated a Clean Air Plan addressing the California ozone standard. The
control strategy contained in these plans include new limits on emissions from industry, prohibitions
on sources of hydrocarbons, regional transit and HOV programs, buy back programs for older
vehicles and educational programs.
TaBle 3 shows that concentrations of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide ar the Livermore
monitoring site meet state/federal standards. Ozone concentrations exceed both the state and
federal standards, and exhibit wide variations from year to year related to meteorological conditions.
Years where the summer months tend to be warmer than average tend to have higher average ozone
concentrations while years with cooler than average temperatures tend to have lower average ozone
concentradons.
The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 established national ambient air quality standards
(AAQS), and individual states retained the option to adopt standards that are more stringent and to
include other pollution sources. California had already established its own air quality' standards
when federal standards were established. Because of the unique meteorological problems in the
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 15
state, there is considerable diversity between state (SAAQS) and federal (NAAQS) standards
currently in effect in California, as shown in Table 2.
The ambient air quality standards are intended to protect the public health and welfare, and they
incorporate an adequate margin of safety. They are designed to protect those segments of the
public most susceptible to respiratory distress, known as "sensitive receptors", including asthmatics,
the very young, the elderly, people weak from other illness or disease, or persons engaged in
strenuous work or exerctse. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollution levels
somewhat above the ambient air quality standards before adverse health effects are observed.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operates a regional monitoring
network which measures the ambient concentrations of six criteria air pollutants: ozone, carbon
monoxide, small diameter particulate matter (PM-10), lead, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.
Monitoring for ultra-small diameter particulate matter (PM-2.5) began in 1999 using the federal
reference method monitoring procedures.
Sensitive Receptors
BAAQ1V[D defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups
(children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses
include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes
and hospitals. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are homes located to the south of
the project site and to the east across San Ramon Road.
iTable 3: Air Quality At Livermore Monitoring Site
Pollutant i Standard Days Standard Exceeded:
............................ ~i .......................... i~'~"~-~~ !' 2001 2002
Ozone :Federal 1-Hour i 2 i 0 2
.. ~O..~z~ ........ i State 1-Hour : 7 ..........?,, .................. 1..~
Ozone ~ Federal 8-Hour 2 2 6
Monoxide, 8-Hour 0 0 0
Nitrogen }
Dioxide iState 1-Hour 0 0 0
!PM~0 !Federal 24-Hour 0 0 0
i'PMa0 r State 24-Hour 2 3 2
Operational Impacts
The BAAQMD has established thresholds for determining whether a gnven project has the potential
for significant air quality impacts. If a project exceeds the thresholds, detailed air quality analyses are
usually required. If the project does not exceed the thresholds, it is typically assumed to have a less
than significant nnpact on air quality. BAAQMD generally does not recommend a detailed air
quality analysis for projects generating less than 2,000 vehicle trips per day. The proposed project
would generate 970 vehicle trips per day, thus, a detailed air quality analysis is not warranted. The
project would not expose the public to sources of toxic air contaminants or odors. Thus, the project
would fall below the BAAQMD thresholds for significant air quality impacts and is not considered a
project that could cause an adverse air quality impact.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 16
Construction Impacts
Temporary construction activities may impact att quality, but such impacts are highly variable from
day-to-day depending on the type of construction activity. The BAAQMD has therefore developed
a menu of mitigation measures, which if fully implemented, are presumed to achieve a less than
significant air quality impact. The range of mitigation measures includes a set of "Basic Control
Measures" and "Enhanced Control Measures" if the project construction area exceeds four acres.
Because the .proiect site is larger than four acres in size, enhanced dust control measures will be
required during construction. With implementation of these measures, dust emission impacts during
construction would be less than significant.
c) The project would not result in significant cumulative net increases in criteria pollutants. The project
would generate less than 2,000 daily vehicle trips and, thus, is below the significance threshold. The
project would not generate odors, toxics or have the potential for accidental releases of toxics.
The project would require a general plan amendment on 3.15 acres of the project site changing the
land use from Retail/Office to Medium-High Density residential. The proposed project would not
result in significant land use changes that would affect the growth assumed for the city in the Clean
Air Plan (CAP) nor would it adversely affect the passenger vehicle trips and miles traveled (VMT).
d) Sensitive receptors in the project area include residential area. Residential uses are considered more
sensitive to air quality conditions than commercial and retail areas because people generally spend
longer periods of time at their residences, resulting in greater exposure to ambient air quality
conditions.
Project operations would not expose the nearby sensitive receptors ro significant pollutant
concentrations. However, during construction acnviries, sensitive receptors could be exposed to
high levels of dust emissions. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, dust
emission impacts would be less than significant.
e) The project would not create any objectionable odors.
Mitigation Measures:
3.1 Construction contractors shall be required to water all active earth construction areas at least twice
daily.
3.2 Construction contractors shall be required to cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose
materials or require all trucks ro maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
3.3 Construction contractors shall be required to sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all
paved access roads, parking areas and stag/rig areas at construction sites.
3.4 If visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets, require construction contractor to
sweep streets daily.
3.5 Construction contractor shall be required to enclose, cover or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to
exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
3.6 Construction contractor shall be required to install sandbags or other erosion control measures
identified in the project's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 17
Finding:
According to the current BAAQMD CEQA guidelines, the recommended mitigation measures would
reduce construction period air quality impacts to a less than significant level.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either direcdy 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 of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [] [] [] []
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 of Fish and Game or US
Fish and Wildlife Service? [] [] [] []
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? [] [] [] []
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 nm:sery
sites? [] [] [] []
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or or ance? [] [] [] []
f) conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservatio plan? [] [] [] []
Discussion:
The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to biological resources. A brief
discussion of each env/ronmental topic included under Section 4 is presented below.
a) The proiect site is currently developed with buildings and a parking lot. Existing trees were planted
when the site was developed. Project development would not adversely affect candidate, sensitive or
special status species.
b) There is no riparian habitat located on the proiect site. A Zone 7 concrete lined canal is located off
site adjacent to the southerly project boundary. Project development would not affect the canal.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 18
c) There are no wetland areas on the project site.
d) Project development would not substantially interfere with the movement of migratory fish and
wildlife.
e) Project development would result in the removal of approximately 27 trees. None of the trees
planned for removal are "Heritage Trees" as defined in the City's Tree Ordinance. The project
landscape plan proposes extensive tree planting including redwoods and oaks. The proposed
landscape plan shows the number of replacement trees to be greater than the 27 trees to be
removed.
f) The project would not interfere with any adopted habitat conservation plans, natural community
conservation plans or other conservation plans.
Mitigation Measures:
None ~:equired.
Finding:
The project would not adversely affect biological resources.
Potent/ally
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mittgatioxa Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impac~
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in [15064.5? [] [] [] []
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to [15064.5? [] [] [] []
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a mtique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? [] [] [] []
d) Disturb any human remains, including those [] [] [] []
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion:
The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to known cultural resources. In the event
unknown cultural resources are discovered on site during earth moving activities, the recommended mitigation
measures would reduce potential impacts to unknown cultural resources to a less than significant level. A brief
discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 5 is presented below.
a) The project site contains a 1970's era shopping center. There are no buildings on site that are
considered historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5.
b) There are no known archaeological resources present on the project site.
c) There are no known palentological resources present on site.
d) Project development would not disturb any known human remains.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 19
Miti~rion MeasUres:
Should any cultural materials or human remains be exposed or discovered during earth moving activities,
the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
5.1 Operations shall stop within 100 feet of the find and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be
contacted for further review and recommendations.
5.2 If human remains are discovered, the Alameda County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner
would determine whether or not the remains were Native American. If the Coroner determines the
remains are not subject to his authoritY, the Native American Heritage Commission will be notified,
who would attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American.
5.3 If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant
resource, work would resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and
after provision for reburial and ongoing monitoring accepted. Provisions for identifying descendants
of a deceased Native American and for reburial would follow the protocol set forth in the CEQA
Guidelines. If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program will be
prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval
in conformance with the protocol set forth in the CEQA Guidelines.
Finding:
Project development would not adversely affect and known cultural resources.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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 Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a know fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42. [] [] [] []
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [] [] [] []
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
nquefac o ? [] [] [] []
iv) Landsl/des? [] [] [] []
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? [] . [] [] []
c) Be located on a geologic unit of soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 20
proiect, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
conapse? [] [] [] []
d) Be located on expansive soft, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?. [] [] [] []
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? [] [] [] []
Discussion:
The GeotechnicalJnvestiegation on Oliver Propertjy prepared by Terrasearch, Inc. (2002) and Report on Preliminary
Geophysicallnvestigation prepared by National Environmental, Inc. were used in analyzing potential
impacts. Based on the geotechnical investigation, the project site is subject to strong seismic ground
shaking. The recommended mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts. A brief
discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 6 is presented below.
a) The project site within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, a belt of sedimentary, volcanic and
metamorphic rocks, which extend from southern California to Oregon. The structural geology of
the Coast Ranges is complex and dominated by transpressive stress concentrated along faults within
the San Andreas Fault system. On the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay, bedrock geology
consists of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks ranging from Cretaceous through Quaternary
periods (up to 144 million years to present). The materials underlying the project site are mapped as
Late Pleistocene alluvium, which consists of weakly consolidated, slightly weathered, poorly sorted
clay, silt, sand and gravel.
The Calaveras Fault lies approximately 500 feet west of the western property tine and the eastern
portion of the Alqnist Priolo Special Studies Zone encroaches about ten feet onto the southwestern
corner of the project site. ak geophysical survey was conducted at the site to determine if any traces
or splays of the Calaveras Fault were present in the subsurface of the site. The findings of the
geophysical survey concluded that no identifiable traces of the Calaveras Fault, or any tectonic offset
from splay or conjugate faults exist at the pro}ect site.
The potential for liquefaction and differential compaction is neglig/ble. Because of the relatively flat
site and the nature of the subsurface materials, the potential for landslide is remote.
b) Although the project site is relatively fiat, there is a potential for erosion during construction
activities due to the nature of the subsurface materials.
c) See Item a above.
cD The near surface clay was found to be moderately expansive.
e) Project development would be hooked up to the municipal sewer system.
Mitigation Measure:
6.1 Implement the recommendations identified in the geotechnical investigation prepared by
Terrasearch, Inc. (2002).
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 21
6.2 Any changes in grading or building design that would be significantly affected by geologic hazards
or soils conditions, or in mm would significantly alter geologic or soils conditions, shall be
accompanied by a re-analysis of those conditions. In addition, any conditions discovered during
excavation or grading that significantly depart from the previously described geologic and soils
setting shall be evaluated.
Finding:
With the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures into the project, the project would not
expose persons or property to significant impacts associated with soil or geo. logic conditions on the
project sire.
Potenti.xlly
Sigmificant
Potenthtlly Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant N o
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would
the project involve:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials? [] [] [] []
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? [] [] [] []
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school? [] [] [] []
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant ro
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a s~gnificant hazard to the public or
the environment? [] [] [] []
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
txvo 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? [] [] [] []
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
aJ_rsmp, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? [] [] [] []
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? [] [] [] []
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 22
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 w/th wildlands? [] [] [] []
Discussion:
This discussion is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment San Ramon Village Plaga Dublin
California prepared by Rosewood Environmental Engineering (2002). Volatile organic compounds
related to dry cleaning operations are present in the soil and asbestos-containing materials may be
present in the building. Recommended mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts
to a less than significant level. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 7
is presented below.
a) Site clean up activities would result in the transport of hazardous materials. See also Item b.
b) A soil sampling and analysis program was conducted in 1998 to investigate the subsurface beneath
and adjacent to a former dry cleaning operation at the project site. Sampling results indicated that
volatile organic compounds related to dry cleaning operations were detected in soil samples at a two
foot depth beneath the floor slab of the dry cleaners. With the exception of Vinyl Chloride, the
concentrations were below the Commercial/Industrial Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)
established by EPA Region IX as action level guidance at that time (1998). Vinyl Chloride
concentrations exceeded the Commercial/Industrial PRGs.
A conditional "No Further Action" letter was issued by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) based on the results of the soil sampling and analysis program conducted
in 1998. The conditions required that the floor of the dry cleaners be sealed to prevent off-gassing
of the vinyl chloride into the building and that the floor seal condition be inspected annually. This
action permitted the dry cleaner space to remain in operation as a commercial/office space without
cleaning up the soil beneath the space. This work was reportedly performed, the vinyl floor tile
removed and disposed as an asbestos-containing material.
In 2002 the RWQCB was contacted regarding the conditions placed on the "No Further Action"
letter and the knplications if a residential use was developed on the site. The RWQCB stated that if
a residential use is developed on the site, affected soil exceeding the Residential PRGs xvill have to
be excavated from the site as a hazardous waste.
There are no existing schools or planned school located with 0.25 mile of the project site.
d) The project site is not included on the Department of Toxic Substance Control's site clean up list.
(DTSC 2004).
e) The project site is not located within the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission
jurisdiction
f) The project site is not located w/thin two miles of any private airstrip.
g) The project site is not located along any of the City's designated evacuation routes. The project
would not interfere w/th adopted emergency response and evacuation plans.
h) The project site is w/thin the dty l/mits and surrounded by urban development. There are no
wildland areas w/thin the project vicinity.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 23
Mitigation Measures:
7.1 Affected soil exceeding the Residential PRGS shall be excavated and removed from the site as
hazardous waste. Once cleaned up, a human Health Risk Assessment shall be prepared to
demonstrate that soil gas emanating from the site will not pose a health threat to future site
residents.
7.2 A site Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared that documents the appropriate protocol for
construction personnel that may come in contact with contaminated soils.
7.3 Prior to demolition, the three roof sections of the building shall be sampled to determine if they
contain asbestos. If ir is determined asbestos is present, it shall be disposed of as a hazardous
material.
7.4 Site clean up and remediation shall be required to meet all federal, state and local regulations.
Finding:
With incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures into the project, the project would not
expose construction workers, occupants and visitors to significant harmful levels of hazardous materials.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant ~fifigation Signifmant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the protect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ct/scharge
requirements? [] [] [] []
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 (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?) [] [] [] []
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? [] [] [] []
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
sire 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? [] [] [] []
e) Create or contribute runoffwater which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted ~off?. [] [] [] []
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 24
f) Otherwise substantiany degrade water quality? [] [] [] []
g) Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance kate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? [] [] [] []
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect- flood flows? [] [] · [] []
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? [] [] [] []
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunarm, or mudflow? [] [] [] []
Discussion:
Project construction activities could result in site erosion. The recommended mitigation measures would
reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than s~gnificant level. A brief discussion of each
environmental topic is presented below.
a) The project could temporarily violate water quality standards, or waste discharge requirements if
adequate erosion control measures are not in place during construction. See Section 6 Geology and
Soils for a discussion of recommended mitigation measures to reduce the potential for increased
erosion at the project site.
b) The project would not affect the quality or quantity of the local groundwater table.
c) Grading during project construction could compound and increase erosion on site. Increased
erosion could result in the sedimentation of receiving waters leading to a reduction in water quality.
d) Project development could improve drainage conditions at the project site. Currently, the site is
covered with about 95 percent impermeable surface. The proposed project would cover about 62
percent of the site in impermeable surface. This could result in less surface runoff than with the
existing development at the site. The project storm drain system would include a 12-inch storm
drain along the easterly perimeter of the property that would connect with the existing 12-inch
storm drain and Zone 7 storm drain ouffall and channel. A 18-inch storm drain located along
Bellina Commons would connect with an existing 12- inch storm drain located along the
southwester perimeter of the project site. The proposed storm drain improvements would be
adequate.
e) Project runoffis not expected to adversely affect the capacity of the current storm drain system.
f) Other than potential pollutants caused by project construction (see Item 8d above) there is no
project operation that would substantially degrade water quality.
g) The project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area.
h) See Item g above.
i) The project site is not within the path of a levee or dam.
San P,.amon Village Plaza Initial Study - 25
j) The project ske is not subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The site is about 15
miles from the nearest major water body - San Francisco Bay.
Mitigation Measures:
8.1 A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared in compliance with the NPDES permit
included in the erosion control measures appropriate for the project. Design of these measures shall
be updated each year prior to September 30 and approved by the City Engineer.
Finding:
With incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the project would not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
9.LAND USE PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? [] [] [] []
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? [] [] [] []
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan? [] [] [] []
Discussion:
a) Project development would not divide the established residential community in the proiect areas.
The project would replace existing retail development with residential development at its southerly
end providing a land use transition between the new retail development and nearby single-family ·
development. While the proposed residential development is a higher density than nearby low
density single-family development, it would be separated by a Zone 7 canal and Bellina Street.
Project landscaping would screen the new town homes from residences along Bellina Street.
Residential development to the west is separated from the proiect site by San Ramon Road.
b) The project would not conflict with applicable policies of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
A summary of project consistency is presented as Exhibit A.
c) The project would not conflict with habitat conservation on natural community conservation plans.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
Finding:
The project would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and would be compatible
with nearby land uses.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 26
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mingation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability o£ a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state? [] [] [] []
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? [] [] [] []
Discussion:
The proposed project would not result in impacts to mineral resources. A brief discussion of each
environmental topic included under Section 10 is presented below
a) The project site does not contain any known mineral resources.
b) The project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resources recovery site.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
Finding:
Project development would not resuk in any impacts to known or designated mineral resources.
Potent/ally
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
11. 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, specific plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? [] [] [] []
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? [] [] [] []
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? [] [] [] []
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? [] [] [] []
e) For a project located xvithin an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
S~n Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 27
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels? [] [] [] []
/) 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 levels? [] [] [] []
Discussion:
This discussion is based on the EnviroameatM Noise Impact /laa[ysis for t/~e ,,caa Ramos~ I/il/age P/aria Project
Dablin, C./1 (2004) prepared by Rosen Goldberg & Der. The proposed project would result in temporary
noise impacts due to construction activities and residents would be exposed to noise levels in excess of
City standards. The recommended mitigation measures would reduce noise impacts to a less than
significant level. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 11 ~s presented
below.
a) The major noise source that affects the project site is vehicular traffic on 1-680 and San Ramon
Road. Project development would result in temporary noise increases during construction and the
introduction of a sensitive receptor (housing) adjacent to the 1-680 on-ramp and San Rarnon Road.
The future noise environment would include noise generated by construction activities, traffic, the
project's mechanical equipment and the car wash ar the nearby gas station.
City of Dublin Noise Standards
The Dublin Noise Element of the General Plan contains a guiding policy to mitigate traffic noise
levels to those identified by Table 9.1 of the Noise Element. For residential development, a CNEL
of 60 dBA or less is considered "normally acceptable"; a CNEL of 60 to 70 dBA is considered
"conditionally acceptable" and requires that noise insulation features be included in the project
design; a CNEL of 70 to 75 dBA is considered "normally unacceptable"; and a CNEL of 75 to 85
dBA is considered "clearly unacceptable".
The City of Dublin does not have a quantitative goal for noise levels in residential outdoor use
areas. The General Plan does, however, identify a CNEL of 60 to 65 dBA as being "conditionally
acceptable" for neighborhood parks. Based on this City standard and discussions w/th City staff, for
purposes of this noise analysis, it was assumed a CNEL of 65 dBA is the maximum goal for noise
in outdoor use areas.
The Noise Element has implementing policies to help achieve the goal of mitigating traffic noise
impacts. Policy H (of the Noise Element) applies to the proposed project and states: "Review all
multi-family development proposals within the projected 60 CNEL contour for compliance with
noise standards (45 CNEL in any habitable room) as required by State law." The Noise Element
allows project designers to use one or more of four available categories of mitigation measures: site
planning, architectural layout, noise barriers or construction modifications to reduce noise impacts.
Existing Noise Environment
Vehicular traffic on 1-680 and San Ramon Road represent the major noise source affecting the
project ske. An existing sound wall along the 1-680 southbound on ramp (presumably built to
reduce noise at the single-family subdivision to the south of the project site) extends onto the
project site at its southeast comer. Noise measurements were made on the project site to quantify
the existing noise environment and included two 84-hour noise measurements and five short
term(15 minutes) measurements. The long term noise measurements recorded a CNEL 83dBA
along 1-680 and CNEL 66dBA along San Ramon Road. The short-term noise measurements ranged
from CNEL 61 dBA to 79 dBA.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 28
Future Noise Environment
Construction
Noise from construction could generate short term noise levels that are significantly in excess of
existing noise levels on thesite. Construction sounds include those from diesel powered vehicles,
stationary compressors and regular hand tools. Construction equipment typically emits maximum
sound levels of 80 to 90 dBA at 50 feet. This is the separation between the closest residential
structures and the proposed buildings. Therefore, these noise levels would occur when the noisiest
construction activities are occurring at the south end of the site. This noise could interfere with
speech communications or, if occurring in the early morning or weekends, with sleep.
Construction noise could impact nearby residences. The City does not have any quantitative
standards for construction but it is likely that construction noise would be loud enough to cause
activity interference at the existing residential area to the south. This is considered a potentially
significant impact.
Traflc
The project would result in a small decrease in the trips generated by the San Ramon Village Plaza
site (see Section 15 Transportation/Circulation). During the PM peak hour a total of 68 vehicular
trips are generated by existing retail businesses. With the project, there Would be 63 vehicular trips
during the PM peak hour, a reduction of 5 vehicular trips. Project-generated traffic would not result
in a significant noise increase ~n the prolect area.
The City of Dublin does not have projections for future traffic volumes along San Ramon Road or
1-680. Based on data from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, traffic volumes along 1-
680 will approximately double by the year 2025. This corresponds to a three dBA increase in
CNEL. This increase has been applied to the measured noise levels from the freeway and San
Ramon Road. The furore CNEL at the setback of proposed residential buildings along San Ramon
Road w/It be 71 dBA at ground level of the west end units of Buildings 9 and 10. Along 1-680, the
upper floors of the east end units of Buildings 2 and 3 would be exposed to a CNEL of 82 dBA.
Future noise from 1-680 and San Ramon Road w/il exceed the City's "normally acceptable" noise
level goal ofa CNEL of 60 dBA at Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10. Noise levels at the site could
reach up to a CNEL of 76 dBA along 1-680 and a CNEL of 71 dBA along San Ramon Road at
ground level. Exposure of residential units along 1-680 and San Ramon Road to levels over the
City's "normally acceptable" goal is considered a significant impact.
There are two types of outdoor use areas proposed: common spaces at ground level (tot lot and two
sitting gardens) and those assodated with a spedfic residential unit (porch or balcony). Two of the
common spaces, the sitting garden along Bellina Street (between Buildings 8 and 9) and the tot lot
next to Building 2 would be exposed to noise levels within the City's goal. The third common space
is a sitting garden adjacent to 1-680 that would be exposed to noise levels over the 65 dBA goal.
Porches and/or decks in Buildings 1 (the four east end units), 2 (the four east end units), 3 (the four
east end units), 4 (all units), 9 (the three west end units) and 10 (all units) would also be exposed to
noise levels greater than a CNEL of 65 dBA. Exposure of outdoor use areas to noise levels over a
CNEL of 65 dBA is considered a significant impact.
Mechanical Equipment
Other potential noise sources assodated with this type of project include air-conditioning
equipment. Common residential air-conditioners generate a noise level of about 65 to 70 dBA at
five feet. Since two of the buildings (Building 1 and Building 6) are approximately 40 feet from the
San Ramon V/llage Plaza Initial Study - 29
backyard fence of the nearest existing residences, the noise levels would be up to 52 dBA. Other
mechanical equipment such as pumps and heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) would
be associated with the retail uses. These have varying noise levels that are typically louder than
residential equipment and would need to be evaluated as information is made available during the
design process.
Car Wash
The two northernmost residential buildings (Building 10 and Building 11) would have a clear view
of the carwash and have the most exposure to carwash noise. Based on noise measurements of
another car wash in Dublin, noise levels inside these residences would reach a maximum of 41 dBA
with windows open during the blower cycle, the noisiest part of the wash cyde. Though the
carwash might be audible indoors, ir would not be expected to interfere with indoor activities such
as speech communication. This is considered a less than significant impact.
b) There are no known sources of groundbome vibration associated with the project.
c) Since the project-generated increases in traffic noise are less than the threshold for a noticeable
increase of three dBA, the increase in traffic noise would be less than significant.
d) Constmcnon noise could zmpact nearby exisdng and proposed uses. The City does not have any
quantitative standards for construction but it is likely that constrncdon noise would be loud enough
to cause actimty interference at the existing residential area to the south. This is a potentially
significant impact.
e) The project is not within two miles of a public aa'port or public use airport.
f) The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
_Mitigation Measures:
11.1 Applicant shall prepare a construction noise mingation plan. The plan shall include but not be
limited to the following:
· Construction phasing plan showing the duration of each phase and equipment to be used.
· Location of stationary equipment.
· Calculation of noise levels at nearest residences and noise sensitive retail spaces.
· Name of construction noise coordinator that can be posted at the entry to the site. Person
responsible for responding to complaints and enacting solutions.
11.2 Sound-rated building construction shall be used to achieve acceptable indoor noise levels as per the
State Building Code and City's Noise Element. The spedfiCation of these treatments should be
developed during the architectural design of the buildings. In general, rooms along the perimeter
of the site will require sound rated windows. Units in Buildings 1 (the four east end units), 2 (the
four east end units), 3 (the four east end units) and 4 (all units) along 1-680 would be exposed to
levels over CNEL 65 dBA and will require sound rated building constructions (windows and/or
exterior walls) to meet the State Building Code requirement.
All residential units in the project will require mechanical ventilation to allow the windows to be
closed for noise control. An acoustical consultant should review' the architectural design to be sure
that the required treatments are incorporated into the construction documents.
11.3 Porches and decks exposed to a CNEL of 65 to 70 dBA ( Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10) shall be
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 30
partially enclosed or eliminated. A partial enclosure would consist of a solid six-foot tall balcony
railing that would act as a local noise barrier. Porches or decks exposed to levels greater than 70
dBA (Buildings 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10) shall be fully enclosed. A full enclosure would create a deck or
porch that is similar to a sun room. It would be constructed out of standard building materials but
need to provide adequate noise reduction. The enclosure could include operable windows or sliding
glass doors so that the area can be open if the occupan~ desires. An acoustical consultant shall
review the design of the porch/deck treatments to confirm that noise levels will achieve the City's
goal.
The sitting garden along 1-680 would be exposed to a future CNEL in excess of 75 dBA which is
considered "clearly unacceptable" for residential development. To reduce noise at the outdoor use
area and ar Buildings 2, 3 and 4, the existing sound wall could be extended an additional 275 feet. A
ten-£oot sound wall would reduce the CNEL to less than 70 dBA which is considered tO be
"conditionally acceptable". It would be difficult to achieve the City's goal of CNEL 65 dBA at the
sitting garden. Preikninary calculations indicate that the wall will need to be about 18 feet tall to
meet the City's outdoor noise goal.
Alternatively, a wall could be located immediately adjacent to the sitting garden to block freeway
noise. The wall could be one to two £eet shorter and achieve the same noise reduction. The exact
height and composition can be determined during the detailed design phase. I£ there is a concern
that the barrier would block views, a clear barrier made o£ acrylic or glass could be used. An
acoustical consultant shall review the design of the barrier to confirm that noise levels will achieve
the City's goals.
11.4 The City does not have a quantitative noise standard for mechanical equipment such as
re£rigeration units or air-conditioning systems. Noise generated by stationary sources (residential
and retail) ~ need to meet, at a minimum, the performance standards contained in the Noise
Element (CNEL of 60 dBA for residential uses).
The mechanical design shall be reviewed by an acoustical consultant ro verify that the City's
standards will be met and that the equipment will not significantly increase existing noise levels at
residences and the common outdoor use area adjacent to the retail building. The mechanical and
architectural plans should show all required sound attenuating features such as silencers and
barriers.
Finding:
With incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures into the project, the project would not
expose residential neighbors and project residents to significant unacceptable noise levels.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 31
Potentially
S~gnificant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Minganon Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and business) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [] [] [] []
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? [] [] [] []
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [] [] [] []
Discussion:
The project would result in an increase of 56 housing units in the project vicinity. This would contribute
to the City's need for new housing. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under
Section 12 is presented below.
a) Using the City's current estimate of the average household size of 2.65 persons per housing unit, a
population increase of approximately 148 persons could result. The project site is an infill site and is
currently served by existing city roadways and utilities.
b) The project would create 56 new housing units, making a contribution the housing needs of Dublin.
The project proposes seven below market rate housing units: two units would be available to
qualified individuals with very low incomes; one unit would be available to a qualified individual
with a low income; and four units would be available to persons with moderate incomes. The
project would be in compliance with the City's Inclusionary Ordinance.
c) The project would replace existing retail space with new housing. This would result in an increase in
the housing stock in Dublin.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
Finding:
The project would not generate a significant increase in population. The project would increase the
amount of housing in Dublin including seven below market rate housing units.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 32
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Utfless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorpm'ated Impact Impact
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government 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:
a) Fire protection? [] [] [] []
b) Police protection? [] [] [] []
c) Schools? / [] [] [] '[-]
d) Parks? [] [] [] []
e) Other public facilities? [] [] [] []
Discussion:
Project development would not result in significant impacts to existing public services. A brief
discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 13 is presented below.
a) Fire services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department under contract to the City of
Dublin. Thirty six line personnel are assigned over three shifts to the City on three engine
companies and one truck company. There are three fire stations in Dublin: Stations 16, 17, and 18
(City of Dublin web ske: www. ci. dublin.ca.us). First response to the project site would come from
Station 16 with second response from Station 17; the response time is approximately six to eight
minutes (McMillan 2004).
All project buildings would be required to include sprinklers in compliance with the Uniform
Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Dublin. While project development would
replace a portion of the existing retail development with new residential development, the project is
not anticipated to adversely affect the Department's ability to respond to emergencies xvithin the
four to eight minute response time.
b) Police services are provided by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office under contract to the City of
Dublin. Patrol, criminal investigation, crime prevention and business office functions are performed
at the Department's business office located at 100 Civic Plaza (City of Dublin web site:
www. ci. dublin, ca.us).
c) DUblin Unified School District serves residents in Dublin. Children living in the new residential
development at the project site would attend Dublin Elementary School, Wells Middle School and
Dublin I-I/gh School. Based on the District's student generation rates, approximately 35 school-age
children could result from the project (Dublin Unified School District, 2004).
d) The project proposes four primary open space/green space areas within the residential development
including a resident's sitting garden with public art at the comer of Bellina Street and San Ramon
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 33
Road, a lawn area at the southeasterly property boundary, a resident's sitting garden at the easterly
property boundary and a tot lot and lawn area at the northeasterly portion of the residential
development. These total approximately 7, 500 square feet. Access to the open space areas would be
restricted to residents and their guests. A deck would be provided in each housing unit. As with
other Dublin residents, project residents would be expected ro use City and regional parks. The
nearest City park is Shannon Park located south of the project ske on San Ramon Road.
The residential development is estimated to generate about 148 persons based on average household
size in Dublin. While some or all of these residents may use City parks, this potential increase is
considered less than significant.
e) The project would not adversely affect other public facilities.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
Finding:
Project development would not adversely affect public services.
Potentially
Significant
Potenti~ly Unless Less Thall
Significant Mitigation S/gnificant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
14. RECREATION. Would the project.'
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
nmghborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated? [] [] [] []
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? [] [] [] []
Discussion:
Project development would result in a potential increase in park and other recreational, facilities.
However, potential increases are expected to be less than significant. A brief discussion of each
environmental topic included under Section 14 is presented below.
a) The residential development portion of the project would increase the number of residents in
Dublin, and it can be expected that these residents will use local and regional parks and other
recreational facilities. The estimated population increase would not impose a significant increase in
use of these facilities. See also Item d under Section 13 Public Services above.
b) The project does not include active recreational facilities. A tot lot and two sitting gardens provide
open space areas for passive recreation. A pedestrian pathway system provides safe and convenient
access to walk to the retail area of the project and throughout the residential areas. See also Item d
under Section 13 Public Services above.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 34
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
Finding:
Project development would not adversely affect local and regional recreational facilities.
Potentially
Significan,
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mingat~on Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
15. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the emstmg traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase m
either the number of vehicle traps, the volume ro
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? [] [] [] []
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways? [] [] [] []
c) Result in a change m air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks? [] [] [] []
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [] [] [] []
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [] [] [] []
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [] [] [] []
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
mours, bi yde racks)? [] [] [] []
Discussion:
The Focused Traffic Analysis for the Proposed San Ramon Village Plaza Development prepared
by Omrd Means (February 2004) was used in analyzing potential traffic impacts. Based on this
analysis, the project would result in a decrease m PM peak hour vehicular trips. The project site
plan would create potential circulation conflicts. A brief discussion of each environmental topic
included under Section 15 is presented below.
a) The proposed project would result in a reduction in retail use and the introduction of
residential use at the project site. To estabhsh existing sire trip generation, traffic counts were
undertaken at the project sire during the AM (7:00 - 9:00 am) and PM (4:00 - 6:00 pm) on
May 1, 2003.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 35
Table 2: Existing and Proposed Project Net New Trip Generation - AM and PM Peak Hour
i Net
Total Project
Peak Proposed~ Proposed Proposed Increase/
Hour Existing Retail iTownhomes Project i Decrease
AM 27 8 37 45 18
PM 68 20 43 i 63 -5
The proposed project would not significantly affect traffic flows in the project area. As shown
in Table 2, the net change in AM and PM peak hour trips between the existing retail center and
the proposed project would have a minimal effect on traffic flows and current levels of service
at adjacent intersections. Thus, a comprehensive traffic analysis is not required for the project.
b) Project generated traffic would not result m an increase in the level of service at nearby
intersections.
c) Project development would not affect existing or furore air traffic patterns.
d) The project site plan would create vehicle conflicts.
San Ramon Road. The current driveway configuration at San Ramon Road may create
vehicle conflicts between inbound patrons accessing internal parking aisles and those patrons
wishing to access the north-south Shell Gas Station easement. Conflicts also may result from
patrons traveling through the westbound retail drive aisle and looping around to the eastbound
drive aisle in search of a parking space could conflict with inbound vehicles from San Ramon
Road traveling directly to the Shell Gas Station.
Main North-South Internal Drive (Bellina Commons) between Alcosta Boulevard and
Bellina Street. The wide travel width of 24 feet could encourage ("cut") through-traffic
between the two public streets within the retail center as xvell as high vehicle speeds within the
center.
Truck Turning Radius. At the main internal intersections in the retail and residential areas,
truck turning radii are not adequate for fLre and/or garbage truck access.
Parking Conflicts. There is a potential for vehicles to parallel park along the curb at the south
end of the drive aisle between Buildings 7 and 8, which would block residential access.
e) The project site plan provides adequate emergency access in compliance with Police and Fire
Department standards.
f) The project proposes 93 parking spaces for retail use and 140 parking spaces for residential use
for a total of total of 233 parking spaces. The project would be in conformance with the
parking requirements for retail and residential use.
San Rarnon Village Plaza Initial Study - 36
g) The project site is currently served by Wheels Route 201(with limited services) and County
Connection Route 121. The project would include a bus stop on San Ramon Road to the
south of the project entrance. This would improve bus service for the Project.
Mitigation Measures:
15.1 All outbound traffic at proposed project driveways on Bellina Street, Alcosta Boulevard and
San Ramon Road shall be stop-sign controlled to avoid vehicle conflicts at these major
ingress/egress points.
15.2 The majority of parking spaces located in the eastern (rear) portion of the site should be
designated (18 total) for employee parking. This would maximize access for retail patrons to
the majority of parking spaces in the main retail parking lot. It is recommended that the
proposed handicapped parking space in the rear retail parking field be relocated adjacent to
the handicapped parking space proposed in front of the retail building on Bellina Commons
(i.e. the southwest corner of the building).
15.3 The San Ramon Road limited access driveway shall have additional traffic controls to prevent
potential vehicle conflicts for both inbound and internal motorists. Two additional stop-signs
shall be installed in conjunction with this driveway to allow for safe access to the north-south
Shell Gas Station easement. It is recommended that a stop-sign be installed for westbound
traffic at the internal drive aisles' intersection with the north-south easement. Another stop-
sign shall be installed for southbound traffic on the north-south Shell Gas Station easement
just prior to the outbound traffic flow lane to San Ramon Road. This will prevent internally
circulating vehicles from interfering with inbound traffic.
15.4 Remove three diagonal retail parking spaces to prevent conflicts with through-traffic within
the retail center. On the one-way eastbound retail parking drive aisle, the first diagonal
parking on the south entering from San Ramon Drive shall be removed. On the one-way
westbound retail parking drive aisle, the first diagonal on the south shall be removed.
Similarly, the first parking space on the'east side entering from Bellina Street should be
removed for traffic purposes. Removal of these spaces will not change the project parking
demand conclusions.
15.5 The parallel curb at the south end of Building 8 shall be painted red to prevent parked
vehicles from blocking garage access to the last units in Building 7.
15.6 The main internal intersections in the retail and residential areas shall provide adequate truck
turning radii for fire and garbage trucks.
15.7 Traffic calming measures as required by the City Engineer shall be installed on the main
north-south internal drive 03ellina Commons) between Bellina Street and Alcosta Boulevard.
Such measures could include, but are not limited to, speed tables.
Finding:
The project would not result in a significant increase in traffic.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 37
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [] [] [] []
b) Require or result in the construction of nexv water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects? [] [] [] []
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
fac/I/ties, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? [] [] [] []
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
proiect from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or e~andea entitlements needed? [] [] [] []
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the proiect's
proiected demand in addition to the provider's
existing co~t~ents? [] [] [] []
t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the proiect's solid waste
disposal needs? ) [] [] [] []
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regdations related to solid waste? [] [] [] []
Dis CUS sion:
Proiect development would not result in adverse impacts to public utilities and service providers. A brief
discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 15 is presented below.
a) Proiecr development would not result in exceedence of any Regional '~X~ater Quality Control Board
wastewater treatment requirements.
b) The proiect would not result in the need to expand treatment capacity at the Livermore-Amador
Valley Water Management Agenc3T's wastewater treatment facility or Zone 7's water treatment
facility.
c) New storm drains would be constructed on site to serve proposed development. Project storm
drains would connect with Oty storm drains along Bellina Street and San Ramon Road. Project
development would not require the construction of new or expansion of existing City storm dr~tin
facilities.
San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 38
d) The Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) provides water service to Dublin residents.
Water is purchased under contract from Zone 7. There/s adequate water supply to serve the
project.
f) Solid waste collection is provided by Livermore-Dublin Disposal. The City has a comprehensive
recycling program that allows residents and businesses to recycle glass, tin, most plastics, newspaper,
mixed paper. Aluminum cans and green waste (City web page: www. ci.dublin.ca.us). Project
generated solid waste would not adversely affect landfill capacity,.
g) Project generated solid waste would be in compliance with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
Finding:
The proiect would not result in significant impacts to public utilities and service systems.
Potentially
Significant
Potm~fially Unless Less Than
Signific-~m t Mitigauon Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
17. 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 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? [] [] [] []
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 ~vith the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.) [] [] [] []
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [] [] []
REFERENCES
City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance (No. 5-02).
City of Dublin. City of Dublin General Plan. Adopted February 11, 1985.-Updated to November 5, 2002.
City of Dublin. Zoning Ordinance. Adopted October 1999. Updated to November 2002.
Dublin Unified School District. Personal communication, February 10, 2004.
The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc. San Ramon Village PlaTa Tree Disposition Plan. Dated January 30, 2003.
The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc, San Ramon Village PlaTa Landscape Plan. Dated November 4, 2003.
~The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc. Preliminary Landscape Plan. Dated January 30, 2003.
National Environmental, Inc. Repo~ on Prdimina~y Geophysicallnvestigation. September 25, 2002.
Omni Means Engineers and Planners.' Focused Traffc~4na~sis for the Proposed San Ramon Village Plaga
Development. February 2, 2004 (updated).
Rose~ Goldberg & Der. a4dministrative Draft Environmental Noise Impact_Ana~sis for the San Ramon Village P/aga
Project, Dublin California. December 9, 2003.
Rosewood Environmental Engineering. Phase I Environmental Site ~4ssessment San Ramon Village Pla~a, Dublin
California. May 25, 2002.
Terrasea~ch, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation on Oliver Proper/jy, Proposed Residential Development, Northea~t Gorner of San
Ramon Road and Be#ina Street, Dublin Cal~rnia for Bancor Properties T~TJC. August 21, 2002.
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Givi¢ Plaza, Dublin, Gatifomi~ ~45~8 Webs~te: nzm:llwww.~h~ubl~.~a,us
April 7, 2004
Jim Horen, Principal Engineer
Advance Planning
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
5997 Parkside Drive
Pleasanton, California 94588-5127
Dear Mr. Horen:
Thank you for your comments regarding the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the San Ramon Village Plaza, San Ramon Road, Dublin.
Please find encIosed the Draft Responses to Comments on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. We are sending these responses as a courtesy to those who commented on
the Mitigated Negative Declaration. There will be a public hearing on this project before
the Planning Commission on April 13, 2004. The hearing will be held at 7:00 .m. in the
City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Plaza, Dublin, California.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (408) 297-8763.
Sincerely,
Deborah Ungo-McCormick
Contract Planner
Cc: Jeri Ram, Planning Manager
Planning Commission
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-c-~,,~[..~li~1T
B
Printed on Recycled Paper
Response to Letter 1: Jim Horren - Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District:
1.1 Comment: In reference to page 5 of the Initial Study, Item 10: "Other public
agencies whose approval is required", the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) should be listed as an agency whose approval is required for this
project. The SRWCB requires that a General Construction Activities Stormwater
NPDES Permit be obtained for construction activity that results in the disturbance
of an acre or more of land, and a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP)
must be developed and implemented for the sited covered by the General Permit.
Response to Comment 1.1. Comment noted. Standard Public Work Conditions
of Approval and Mitigation Measure 8.1 (See Initial Study Page 25) for the
project require that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared in
compliance with the NPDES permit included in the erosion control measures
appropriate for the project. Design of these measures shall be updated each year
prior to September 30 and approved by the City Engineer.
1.2 Comment: In reference to page 25 of the Initial Study, Paragraph 9, Land Use
Planning, the discussion mentioned utilizing a Zone 7 flood control facility.and
Bellina Street to separate the existing low density residential uses from the
project's proposed high density-residential uses. We reiterate our request from
the January 23 letter for an access easement along the north side of the channel, or
a 20-foot wide access easement through a private street near the southeast comer
of the parcel, As also mentioned in the January 23 letter, the proposed plan does
not provide any vehicle access from the north or south banks of the channel to
allow routine inspection or maintenance. An existing access gate in the southeast
comer of the development is presently used to access the channel for maintenance
purposes. Continued access to this gate is necessary for Zone 7 to maintain its
facility.
Response to Comment 1.2: Conditions of approval of the Vesting Tentative
Map require that the Developer shall provide a 3-foot wide gate with pedestrian
access at the east end of the proposed wrought iron fence along the Alameda
County drainage channel. Either through an easement or agreement with Zone 7
the Developer shall be required to provide pedestrian access to the gate to allow
continued access by Zone 7 maintenance of the channel. The new wrought iron
fence shall be installed by the applicant and its maintenance shall be the'
responsibility of the Homeowners Association.
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
5997 PARKSIDE DRIVE t~ PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-5127 ,~ PHONE [925) 484-2600 FAX ~'925i 462-3914
March 26, 2004
Ms. Jeri Ram, Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study for San Ramon Village Plaza,
Dear Ms. Ram:
Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA documents in the context of our mission to provide
drinking water, non-potable water for agriculture and irrigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater
and stream management in the Livermore-Amador Valley. Enclosed for your reference is Zone 7's
letter dated January 23, 2004, to Ms. Deborah Ungo-McCormick regarding a previous Zone 7 review
of this development. Our comments include the following:
In reference to page 5 of the In/rial Study, Item 10, "Other public agencies whose approval is
required," the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) should be listed as an agency
whose approval is required for this project. The SWRCB requires that a General Construction
Activities Stormwater NPDES Permit be obtained for construction activity that results in the
disturbance of an acre or more of land, and a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP)
must be developed and implemented for the site covered by the General Permit.
~'. In reference to page 25 of thc Initial Study, Paragraph 9, Land Use Planning, the discussion.
mentioned utilizing a Zone 7 flood control facility and Bellina Street to separate the existing
low density residential uses from the project's proposed high-density residential uses. We
reiterate our request from the January 23 letter for an access easement along the north side of
the channel, or a 20-foot wide aCcess easement through a private street near the southeast
comer of the parcel. As also mentioned in the January 23 letter, the proposed plan does not
provide any vehicle access from the north or south banks of the channel to allow routine
inspection or maintenance. An existing access gate in the southeast comer of the development
is presently used to access the channel for maintenance purposes. Continued access to this
gate is necessary for Zone 7 to maintain its facility.
BUEll.iN PLANNING
Ms. Jeff Ram
March 26, 2004
Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. Please feel flee to contact me at (925)
484-2600, ext. 400, jhoren@zone7water.com, or Jack Fong at ext. 245, j fong~)zone7water.com, if
you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Jim Horen
Principal Engineer
Advance Planning
JPH:JF:arr/jr
cc: Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Contract Planner (w/mc.)
Ed Cummings, Zone 7 (w/o enc.)
John Mahoney, Zone 7 (w/o enc.)
Joe Seto, Zone 7 (w/o eric.)
John Koltz, Zone 7 (w/o eric.)
Mona Olmsted, Zone 7 (w/o eric.)
Jack Fong, Zone 7 (w/o enc.)
p:A dvPln/CEQA Referrals-SanRamon VillagePlazaCenter
ALAMEDA OOUNTY FLOOD OOI'qTROL AND WATER OONSERVATION
Jm~ua~ 23, 2004
Ms. Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Contract Planner
Planning Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
SUBJECT: San Ramon Village Plaza- Tract 743 7, (PA#02-063),
Alcosta Blvd. and San Ramon Road, Dublin
Zone 7 Referral No. 04-001
Dear Ms. Ungo-McComxick:
This letter ~s in response to your referral dated January 9, 2004, regarding the aforementioned
pro.~ect. We offer comments in the following specific areas of interest:
Water Supply:
There are no existing or proposed future Zone 7 water supply facilities at the project site. Please
contact Jaime Rios at extension 407 if you have any questions regarding water supply issues.
Groundwater Management:
Our records indicate there are no water wells or monitoring wells located w/thin the project
boundaries. If any wells are found ~4thin the project limits, they should be reported to Zone 7.
All unused or "abandoned" wells must be properly destroyed, or a signed "Statement of Future
Well Use" must be filed az Zone 7 if there are plans to use the well in the future. 7u~y plamaed
new well, soil boring or well destruction must be permitted by Zone 7 before starting the work.
There are no fees for the Zone 7 drilling penn/ts. Well permit applications can be obtained, by
contacting Wyman Hong at extension 235 or can be downloaded from our web site at
~x~a.v.zoneTwater.com.
Flood Control:
Zone 7 has a Flood Control facility, Line J- 1, which runs along the southeast section of the parcel
from Bellflm Street to h~terstate 680. The improvement plans should show the channel location,
as well as a cross-section of the cham~el butted up against the property. Under the cra-rent
proposed plan, there is no vehicle access from the north or south breaks of the charmel, ha the
past, the existing parking lot was utilized to access the north bank of the charmel for nom~al and
emergency maintenance work. Access was through an existing three-foot wide pedestrian gate
located in the southeast comer of the parcel. Zone 7 requests that an access easement be
provided at one of two locations: 1) a 20-foot wide access easement along the nortl~ side of the
Ms. Deborah Ungo-McConnick, Contract Platmer
Community Development Departrnent
City of Dublin
January 23, 2004
Page 2
channel be provided (southeast border), or 2) a 20-foot wide access easement through the private
street toward the southeast comer of the parcel. The access easement would typically be utilized
for routine maintenance mhd inspections. Maintenm~ce of the channel is performed by manual
labor, as heavy equipment cannot be utilized. Failure to provide an access easement will prohibit
Zone 7 fi:om adequately ma/a~taining the facility.
Please note on Sheet L-1, that an existing Zone 7 chubs-link fence should be shown. The
property lines and distances should be depicted in a cross-section view. The grading should be at
least a three percent (3%) slope away from the charmel. Please also note that the proposed
wrought iron fence does not meet Zone 7 standards. If the fencing varies from Zone 7's stm~dard
fence of 6-feet high, black, vinyl coated fencing, then Zone 7 will not be responsible for the
maintenm, ce of the fence.
Mitigation for the creation of new impervious areas within the Livermore-Amador Valley is
addressed through the collection of Special Drainage Area 7-1 (SDA) drainage fees. Drah~age
fees are collected by the governing agency for new roads (upon application for approval of
vesting tentative or final map) and build/2~gs, driveways, etc. (upon application for building
permit). Fees may be due, dependent on pre-project conditions, and whether or not the new
project proposes to add more impervious area than what was ah'eady there.
Please contact Craig Mayield at extension 240 if you have any questions regarding Flood
ConU'ot comments.
For future submittals at this location, please refer to Zone 7 Referral No. 04-001.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the person identi£~ed per section
comments or me at extension 249.
IK_K:jr
cc: Clayton Botchers, Zone 7~ Flood Control
Craig Mayfield, Zone ?, Flood Control
P: ~Flood~Refere'aislO4-OO J San Ramon Village Plaza, Bancor Alcosta Site. doc
SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Prepared for
City of Dublin
Prepared by
PLAC EMAKERS
1500 Park Avenue - Loft #310
Emeryville, California 94608
March 1, 2004
EXHIBIT C
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background .
Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a) requires all public agencies to adopt monitoring or reporting
programs when they approve projects subject to Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), Mitigated
Negative Declarations or Negadve Declarations that identify significant impacts. The reporting or
monitoring program must be adopted when a public agency makes its findings for EIRs, Mit/gated
Negative Declarations or Negative Declarations so that the program can be made a condition of project
approval in order to mitigate significant effects on the environment. The program must be designed to
ensure compliance during project implementation to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects.
1.2 Purpose
This Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist is designed to serve as a tool for the evaluation of project
compliance with mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Ramon
Village Plaza project. This document will be used by the City of Dublin (City) to verify inclusion of
required project design features and implementation of mitigation measures. The Checklist serves as a
summary so the City, other public agencies and the community can easily determine which measures have
been complied with.
2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
The Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist is proposed for monitoring the implementation of the
mitigation measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and listed in the attached checklist.
The City should implement the monitoring program as follows:
The Planning Manager, Department of Community Development, is responsible for coordination
of the monitoring program including the monitoring checklist.
· Each responsible individual or agency will be responsible for determining whether the applicable
nmr~gation measures contained within the checklist have been complied with. Once all mitigation
measures have been complied with, the responsible individual or agency should submit a
completed checklist to the Planning Manager.
San liamon l/'illage,Pla~a Mitigation Monitoffng Program Check,st Page