The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 6.2 Iron Horse Trail Extension CITY CLERK File # D[iJ~~-~~ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 6, 2007 SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: RECOMMENDATION:/ ~~ 4) 5) 6) \\R # i< ~__"") FINANCIAL STATEMENT: COpy TO: PUBLIC HEARING: Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Scarlett Drive I Iron Horse Trail Extension Project and Authorize Preparation of Precise Alignment of Public Improvements Report Prepared by: Melissa Morton, Public Works Director . i . f I 1) Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Scarlett Drive I Iron Horse Trail Extension Project (Project), together with the following: Exhibit A: Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with the Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit B: Comments Received and Staff Responses List of proposed Project Mitigations identified in the Initial Study Location Map Initial Study Report Addendum to Initial Study Report 2) 3) 4) 5) 7) Open the Public Hearing Receive Staff Presentation Receive Public Testimony Close the Public Hearing Deliberate Adopt the Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration Authorize Staff to prepare a Precise Plan Alignment for the Scarlett Drive I Iron Horse Trail Extension between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road for review and action by the Planning Commission and City Council This action will not by itself have any financial impact. Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration will allow the Project to proceed Page 10f3 ITEM NO. ,=>. 2.. G:\CIPs\Searlett Drive-Iron Horse Trail Extension\Environmental\AS Mitigated Neg Dee.doe '1 C forward to the next stages of design, right-of-way acquisition and construction. There are sufficient funds budgeted in Fiscal year 2006-2007 to complete this environmental process. DESCRIPTION: This Public Hearing was opened and continued from the City Council meeting of February 6,2007. No public testimony was offered at that meeting. This Project was identified several years ago as a traffic mitigation for the increased traffic proposed to be generated by the development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The Project costs were subsequently included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIP) for funding. When the original Project was planned, the Iron Horse Trail did not connect from San Ramon through Dublin to Pleasanton. Thus, the Iron Horse Trail connection was included in and made part ofthe Scarlett Drive Improvements Capital Project. Alameda County subsequently received a small transportation grant and built an interim connection for the Iron Horse Trail near the center of the old Southern Pacific Railroad track bed. The County did not have the funds to fill the swale along the northerly property to situate the Iron Horse Trail in its ultimate location, nor the monies to prepare an extensive environmental study needed if the wetlands were to be filled for the proposed Trail. The minimal trail pavement has now deteriorated and is in need of replacement. This Project will relocate the Iron Horse Trail to its ultimate location, increase the structural section of the Trail paving, landscape the corridor, and provide security lighting. In anticipating a large transit demand from the developing Dougherty Valley, it was initially envisioned that the Scarlett Drive roadway would include two lanes for general traffic and two lanes dedicated to buses. Since that dedicated transit need has not developed, it is proposed to construct four travel lanes, with traffic signals configured for transit priority as part of this project. A new traffic signal is proposed for the Scarlett Drive I Houston Place intersection to provide safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists to the Iron Horse Trail from the residential development along Houston Place. As part of the staging of this Project, the City contracted with BKF Engineers, who have developed a preliminary alignment for both the Iron Horse Trail and for Scarlett Drive. BKF's environmental subconsultants, David Powers and Associates and Live Oak Associates, undertook studies and prepared an environmental document for the proposed Project. Said report is included in this presentation. The Project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Guidelines. An Initial Study has been completed and mitigation included in the Project, and it has been determined that with the proposed mitigation, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this Proj ect. The Project environmental documents were noticed for a 30-day public review period beginning on December 22, 2006, and which period expired on January 22, 2007. Written comments were received before the expiration date (Exhibit IB), and Staffhas responded to these comments. The Public may still submit comments at this Public Hearing. Page 2 of3 Comments were received from the Department of the Army as the City will have to acquire a one-acre strip of land situated along the proposed project alignment from Camp Parks. The Army believed that since this project will affect Camp Parks, a Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) document should be done at this time. However, in further discussions with representatives of the Army it was determined that the Negative Declaration and a Federal NEP A document need not be processed at the same time. Although a NEP A document will need to be addressed at the time the City takes possession of the Camp Parks right-of-way, the action of transferring the one-acre strip of land to the City should be a Categorical Exclusion under NEP A guidelines. The Army is currently proposing a private development on the southerly 187 acres of Camp Parks, and it is likely that the Army's proposed processing of the development will precede the City's need to acquire the land. Staff received a request from a resident of the adjacent Scarlett Place development after the public comment period had closed. The request was for a median break or a "U" turn southbound to northbound on Scarlett Drive at the intersection with Houston Place. After review, it was found that due to the proximity of the left-turn lanes at Dougherty Road, it was not safe for a median break to be situated at that location. However, Staff did determine that it would be possible to provide a "U" turn by modifying the median curbs and widening the northeast curb line at the Houston Place intersection. The "U" turn will be incorporated into the proposed Precise Plan for this project. Staff recommends that the City Council: I) Open the Public Hearing; 2) Receive Staff Presentation; 3) Receive Public Testimony; 4) Close the Public Hearing; 5) Deliberate; 6) Adopt the Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 7) Authorize Staff to prepare a Precise Plan Alignment for the Scarlett Drive I Iron Horse Trail Extension between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road for review and action by the Planning Commission and City Council. Page 3 of3 \ 'b I tD?;~ RESOLUTION NO. - 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ********* APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SCARLETT DRIVE I IRON HORSE TRAIL EXTENSION PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF A PRECISE PLAN ALIGNMENT OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, various environmental studies for development in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area have recommended the connection of Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road as a traffic mitigation for increased traffic generated as a result of eastern Dublin development; and WHEREAS, the need for the Scarlett Drive I Iron Horse Trail Extension Project (Project) was identified for inclusion in the City of Dublin' s Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, and the Project was included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee program for funding; and WHEREAS, as part of the Project process, preliminary engineering has proceeded, including a proposed alignment of the improvements and an environmental document; and WHEREAS, through these environmental studies and proposed mitigations, the Public Works Director has determined that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has directed that the recommended mitigations become part of the Project; and WHEREAS, a 30-day public noticing review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Document) commenced on December 22,2006, and is attached hereto as Exhibit 1A; and WHEREAS, the 30-day public noticing review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration has expired, with the City receiving three written comments and one verbal comment; and WHEREAS, these comments have been reviewed and responded to, said comments and responses being attached hereto as Exhibit 1B; and WHEREAS, the comments and responses are now an integral part of the Document; and WHEREAS, the City determined that the comments and responses did not constitute or require substantial revisions to the Document, and no subsequent recirculation of the Document was required; and WHEREAS, the City further determined that during the Mitigated Negative Declaration process, there was no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment, thus, no subsequent Environmental Impact Report-level review of the Document was warranted; and 1 . ':)... ~. } " ,-. ."? 1..... ATTAUBHENT I. 1').. jl.C, c:?'\ t.b IQ c. WHEREAS, the Document, the four comments, and the City's responses to the comments, collectively comprise the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report and the Document at a noticed public hearing on March 6,2007, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after reviewing and considering the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Scarlett Drive I Iron Horse Trail Extension Project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of March, 2007. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:\CIPs\SearIett Drive-Iron Horse Trail Extension\Environmental\Reso Mitigated Neg Dee.doe 2 SCARLETT DRIVE JIRON HORSE TRAIL EXTENSION PROJECT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEVATIVE DECLARATION, TOGETHER WITH THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3~b I mIBIT M To the Resolution l' ~,J< , I . I , 'foh l ~ l~ L/ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING and INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Dublin City Council will hold a public hearing on the following project and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration: PROJECT TITLE: Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Dublin is proposing to construct a public street from Dublin Boulevard northwesterly to Dougherty Road, and relocate and enhance the Iron Horse Trail along the old Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way in the City of Dublin. This project is, in part, mitigation to the approval of development within Eastern Dublin. The proposed Scarlett Drive improvements will include extending Scarlett Drive from Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard, widening the existing Scarlett Drive roadway between Dougherty Road and Houston Place to a four lane facility, modifying the existing signal at Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road, installing a new signal at Houston Place and Scarlett Drive primarily for pedestrian access to the Iron Horse Trail, relocating and enhancing the Iron Horse Trail-to the east of its current alignment, constructing additional turn lanes at three intersections, installing bicycle lanes on either side of the street, and incorporating enhanced traffic signal priority for buses accessing the east Dublin BART station. PROJECT/SITE LOCATION: Scarlett Drive, north of Dublin Boulevard and south of Dougherty Road ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines. An Initial Study has been completed and mitigation included in the Project, and it has been determined that with the proposed mitigation the project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the environment; therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. APPLICANT: City of Dublin; 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 The City will accept comments on the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Mitigated Negative Declaration during the public comment period. The public comment period begins on Friday, December 22, 2006 and ends on Monday, January 22, 2007 (30 days) at 5:00 p.m. A copy of this Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and all documents associated with it are available for review in the Public Works Department located in City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568. If you have any questions or comments please contact Lee Thompson, Public Works Engineer at (925) 833-6630. ~5~b The City Council hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 6, 2007 in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers, located at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin. Public comment on the project as well as the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be heard at this meeting. Any interested person may appear and be heard on this matter. If you challenge the above-described action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Dublin at, or prior to, the public hearing. Yv7l/1' _~~) /~ Public Works Department ~r/~~~ Dat / Cc: Jeri Ram, Planning Director G:\MISCPROJ\Scarlett Drive-Iron Horse Trail Extension\Environmental\Notice PH-Intent to Adopt MND-Final.doc 2 1066 llu DRAFT NEGATIVE D.EClARA TION Project Title: Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project Description: The City of Dublin is proposing to construct a public street from Dublin Boulevard northwesterly to Dougherty Road, and relocate and enhance the Iron Horse Trail along the old Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way in the City of Dublin. This project is, in part, mitigation to the approval of development within Eastern Dublin. The proposed Scarlett Drive improvements will include extending Scarlett Drive from Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard, widening the existing Scarlett Drive roadway between Dougherty Road and Houston Place to a four lane facility, modifying the existing signal at Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road, installing a new signal at Houston Place and Scarlett Drive primarily for pedestrian access to the Iron Horse Trail, relocating and enhancing the Iron Horse Trail to the east of its current alignment, constructing additional turn lanes at three intersections, installing bicycle lanes on either side of the street, and incorporating enhanced traffic signal priority for buses accessing the east Dublin BART station. Project Location: Scarlett Drive, north of Dublin Boulevard and south of Dougherty Road Project Proponent: Melissa Morton, Director of Public Works, City of Dublin Public Works Department Address: 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 Conditions of Approval: This approval is subject to the conditions of approval listed below and the specifications of the approved project. The approved project will include the following mitigation measures to ensure that any significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. 1. Air Quality: The project shall implement the following "Basic Control Measures" that would minimize potential for elevated levels of dust (Le. particulates) during construction. · Water all active construction areas daily. . Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites as needed (to be determined by resident engineer). . Sweep street if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets as needed (to be determined by resident engineer). · Limit traffic speeds on unpaved areas to 15 mph. · Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. · Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. · Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at anyone time. .., {1J 1 L~ 2. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps) Jurisdiction: The mitigation measures described below would reduce impacts to the wetland habitat to a less than significant level. · A wetland delineation will be conducted and submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for verification of jurisdictional wetlands on-site. . As mitigation for the permanent loss of wetlands, impacted seasonal aquatic habitat would be replaced, either in conjunction with mitigation for proposed wetland impacts associated with the Scarlett Drive roadway project or at an approved local mitigation bank or adjacent property. Impacted wetlands will be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (replaced: impacted). To mitigate impacts to wetlands, approximately four (4) acres of wetlands would be created. A detailed wetland restoration plan will be prepared in consultation with a qualified restoration biologist. Such a plan will provide the following: - Replacement of lost wetland habitat. - Location of on-site restoration opportunities, complete with an analysis of the technical approach to create high quality wetlands. - Prior to construction, the project applicant shall apply for a Section 404 permit from the Corps and Section 401 certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project proponent will comply with the conditions of these regulatory documents. · In addition to the conditions contained in the regulatory documents, the project proponent will comply with the following additional recommendations: - A detailed plan will be created for wetland construction that includes excavation elevations, locations of hydrologic connections and soil amendments, as necessary. - Planting, maintenance and monitoring plans will be prepared in consultation with a qualified habitat restoration specialist. - Constructed wetlands shall be monitored for a period of five (5) years and the site shall achieve 80 percent cover by native marsh plant species by Year 5. Specific performance criteria will be determined and monitored for site success. · Alternatively to measures stated above, the replacement of lost habitat functions and values of the seasonal aquatic habitat can be achieved through participation in a nearby mitigation bank. The appropriate acreage and location would be set in consultation with state and federal resource agencies. 3. Special-Status Plant Species: To ensure that the project would not significantly impact the Saline clover and Congdon's tarplant, the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the proposed project. · Conduct presence/absence surveys during their blooming seasons: April to June for the Saline Clover, and May to October for Congdon's tarplant. Presence of either of these species is not expected to greatly constrain the proposed project. · If found, prior to site disturbance, the seeds from the species will be collected and sown among populations that exist in the region, such as Springtown Alkali Sink preserve in Livermore. 4. Western Pond Turtle (WPT): To minimize the potential impacts to WPT, the proposed project will include the following mitigation measures. · Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 48 hours prior to grading and/or fill of the western drainage. If no WPT are found, then no further mitigation is required. If WPT are found, then the following measures shall be implemented. · If WPT are found on-site during preconstruction surveys, a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFG will establish a construction-free buffer zone and relocate individual WPT. 2 is !1!) l to . Replacement habitat shall be provided for WPT at a nearby mitigation bank, to the satisfaction of CDFG. 5. Burrowing Owls: Burrowing owls were not observed at the site, however, there have been several observations of burrowing owls within three miles of the site. Therefore, burrowing owls are considered present on-site, The following mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls to a less than significant level. . Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted, per California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) guidelines, no more than 30 days prior to start of site grading, regardless of the time of year in which grading occurs. If no burrowing owls are found, then no further mitigation is warranted. . If owls are located on or immediately adjacent to the site, a qualified burrowing owl biologist in consultation with CDFG will establish a construction-free buffer zone of at least 300 feet around the active burrow. No activities, including grading or other construction work, shall proceed until the buffer zone is established, or a CDFG approved relocation of the birds has been performed [such relocations can occur only during the non-reproductive season (September through January)]. Regardless of the time of year when burrowing owls are observed on the site, implementation of one of the following two mitigation measures is required: - If preconstruction surveys confirm that burrowing owls occupy the site, then avoidance of impacts to the habitat utilized by these owls would be considered the preferred mitigation method. - If preconstruction surveys determine that burrowing owls occupy the site, and avoiding development of occupied areas is not feasible, then habitat compensation on off-site mitigation lands shall be implemented.' Off-site mitigation typically entails evicting the affected owls from the project site and setting aside and managing specific areas for burrowing owls. The owls may be evicted outside of the breeding season, with the authorization of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The CDFG typically only allows eviction of owls outside of the breeding season [only during the non- breeding season (September 1-January 31)] by a qualified ornithologist, and generally requires habitat compensation on off-site mitigation lands. A single, large continuous mitigation site is preferable to several smaller, separated sites. The mitigation site would preferably support owls nesting and be contiguous with or at least proximal to other lands supporting burrowing owls. Haera and Borges Ranch are two sites in the Tri-Valley region with a history of burrowing owl use and suitable conditions for occupancy. . A final report of burrowing owls, including any protection measures, shall be submitted to the Senior Planner, and completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to start of grading. 6. Archaeological Resources: In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered, all construction within a radius of 50 feet of the find shall be halted, the Director of Community Development shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. . In the event that human remains and/or cultural materials are found, all project related construction shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find in order to proceed with the testing and mitigation measures required. Upon determination by the County Coroner that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the California Native American 3 .....' I <';"1 "'! i t t\ U Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. No further disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs in accordance with the provisions of State law and the Health and Safety Code. The Director of Community Development shall also be notified immediately if human skeletal remains are found on the site during development. 7. Short.Term Construction Noise: · Noise generating activity shall be restricted to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays unless otherwise approved in writing by the Dublin Building Official for structural construction and the City Engineer for grading activities. · All internal combustion engine driven equipment shall be equipped with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. · A "disturbance coordinator" shall be designated to be responsible to any local complaints about construction noise and/or vibration. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator will be conspicuously posted at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. (The City shall be responsible for designating a noise disturbance coordinator and the individual project sponsor shall be responsible for posting the phone number and providing construction schedule notices). Determination: I hereby find that the above project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the environment. ~~ ~ . . Melissa orton Public Works Department # Copies of the Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the above finding are available at the City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, or by calling (925) 833-6630. Cc: Jeri Ram, Planning Director G:IMISCPROJIScarlett Drive-Iron Horse Trail ExtensionlEnvironmentallFinal Neg Dec.doc 4 / /y IDDbI"~ ~ 11 ~-Ift~:,"'i~tJlP"' /, ." ,.&., z o (j) z W l- X W .-J <( a: I- w (j) a: o I Z o a: w > a: o l- I- W .-J a: <( u (j) o w (j) o 0- o a: 0- SCARLETT DRIVE JIRON HORSE TRAIL EXTENSION PROJECT COMMENTS RECEIVED AND STAFF RESPONSES Three written comments were received and one verbal. Letters received with Staff responses: 1) Department of the Army (Camp Parks) 2) Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 3) California Regional Water Quality Control Board I/~ Uo~; Staff response to verbal comments (via telephone) received from Dublin resident. EXHIBIT / Bt To the Resol ution era J ~ <l: ~ REPLYTO ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT AGENCY HEADQUARTER, U.S. ARMY COMBAT SUPPORT TRAINING CENTER 790 5TH STREET CAMP PARKS, CA 94568-5201 January 9, 2007 IMSW-CST-PWE Ms. Melissa Morton Director of Public Works City of Dublin Public Works Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Ms. Morton, The U.S. Army has received the City of Dublin's notice of public hearing and intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration for the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive improvements project. The project includes expanding the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive onto property which is owned by the Army and part of Camp Parks, an installation under the U.S. Army Combat Support Training Center (CSTC) Garrison. The Anny has not approved or given a right of way for this project. Furthennore, CSTC has not considered this project under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEP A) process. Giving approval for the project or indicating a decision prior to completing NEP A would not follow the required regulatory process and would be improper. This proj ect would need to be reviewed under the Endangered Species Act as well as the National Historic Preservation Act to ensure it is complying with these laws prior to the Army approving this project. It is possible that federally listed endangered species, the California red- legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), may be located in the area under consideration. The CSTC regularly consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act regarding the listed species. Sincerely, #/J-aJ~ W. Scott Wood Colonel, U.S. Army Commanding DAVID J. POWERS I w:' February 9, 2007 Mr. Lee Thompson Public Works Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Comment Letter from the U.S. Department of the Army on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Iron Horse TrailfScarlett Drive Improvements Project Dear Lee: We have received and reviewed the letter you forwarded from the U.S. Army (dated January 9, 2007) regarding the proposed Scarlett Drive Extension and Widening Project. As you know, the letter seems to imply that the City of Dublin must complete an analysis of the overall proj ect under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to proceeding with the City's approval process. Subsequent to our review of this letter, we met with the Department of the Army to discuss the intent of the letter and resolve any concerns regarding the environmental review for the project. It is our understanding that, as part of the proposed project, a small linear piece of right-of-way (approximately one [1.0] acre in size) will be required from Camp Parks at the property/fence line. Based upon a review ofNEP A requirements and our experience with similar projects, we do not believe that there would be any environmental impacts associated with the land transfer itself. The Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project is proposed to be completed by the City of Dublin. The Department of the Army will not be involved in the future construction or implementation of the project. In addition, there will be no federal funding involved in the construction of this project. Therefore, it is our opinion that the acquisition of right-of-way from the Camp Parks property would not result in physical environmental impacts, and therefore, would not require the City to complete a separate environmental process or document (such as an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement) to comply with NEP A. Based upon the conversation at our meeting with the Department of the Army on Wednesday, February 7, 2007, it is our understanding that the Army is currently planning to exchange property (which includes the 1.0 acre of land to be acquired for the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project) with a third party for a future mixed-use development project. The Army is currently preparing its own NEP A analysis for this land exchange. At our meeting, Gary Houston, the environmental attorney/consultant to the Army, who drafted the January 9, 2007 comment letter, stated that he did not intend the letter to infer that the City needed to complete a NEP A process at this time. Mr. Houston clarified that the Army needs to complete its NEP A process for the land exchange prior to development of the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project. 19c5 The f\.larneda * SU1.te <If San r~b\ It> f) Mr. Lee Thompson FebrualY 9, 2007 Page 2 The City's IS/MND prepared under CEQA addresses the physical impacts ofthe project (as a whole) on the environment, including those pertaining to cultural resources and endangered species. No additional environmental impacts, not already addressed in the IS/MND, would be identified or disclosed by the completion of a NEP A document/analysis. The City's process as the CEQA Lead Agency is separate from, and does not conflict with, any process the Army may undertake with regard to its compliance with NEP A. City approvals that involve permits or approvals from other agencies are always contingent upon receipt of such permits/approvals. In this case, the City recognizes that the relocation and construction of the Iron Horse Trail on Camp Parks property could not occur without the u.s. Army's approval. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this letter, or if you want to discuss this matter further. Best=~~_ ~warz - / Principal Project Manager /attachment GlI:iD .~m .rn~ 152'b1la ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY, LIVERMORE, CA 94551 i PHONE (925) 454-5000 January 22, 2007 Ms. Melissa Morton Director of Public Works City of Dublin Public Works 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Dear Ms. Morton: Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA document in the context of Zone 7's mission to provide drinking water, non-potable water for agriculture and irrigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater and stream management within the Livermore-Amador Valley. We have the following comments: 1. On page 9 of the Initial Study, under Extension of Culvert, the proposed culvert should be extended, but designed to accommodate the 100 year storm event under ultimate buildout conditions for the watershed. Also, since the site of the culvert extension is presently open-space, what sort of habitat mitigation is proposed? 2. On page 42, the last sentence in the second paragraph states that the drainage adjacent to the project site offers stow water runoff drainage and detention. Please describe what sort of detention is provided by the drainage facilities. 3. The last paragraph on the same page states the proposed project roadway extension is located within the FEMA floodplain boundary. The initial study does not address the potential impacts of this proposed roadway extension to the existing floodplain. A hydrology/hydraulics analysis should be conducted, in consultation with Zone 7 staff, to determine what type of impact will occur, its significance, and mitigation for the impact. Presently, the Chabot Canal between 1-580 and Dublin Blvd. overtops and floods the area. Any new runoff will likely have an impact downstream of the project site. 4. On page 45, the first paragraph mentions that the proposed roadway expansion and widening of Scarlett Drive would encroach onto the westem seasonal drainage, creating a permanent impact to the westem drainage ofthe site. How will the permanent impact be mitigated? 5. The second paragraph on the same page indicates that a slight increase in the amount of impervious area will result in a minimal increase in runoff rate and volume. Any comments regarding minimal increase in runoff need to be substantiated with Hydrology/Hydraulics analysis to ensure that runoff to the drainage channel is not greater than pre-existing conditions. Zone 7's Stream Management Master Plan did not take into account new drainage from this area. Therefore, it is important to understand what the downstream impact may be to a drainage channel designed for the 15-year storm event. Ms. Melissa Morton, Director of Public Works City of Dublin Public Works January 22,2007 Page2of2 IW1J 10 The second paragraph also mentions that mitigation can reduce the impacts of the new development. The project proposes to adhere to and incorporate the mitigations/BMPs outlined in the Zone 7 Flood Control Master Plan for increases in peak flows. Zone 7 is unaware of what type of mitigation that would be proposed for the roadway project. Please identify which specific measures will be adhered to and incorporated in relation to the project site. Zone 7's Stream Management Master Plan identified the Chabot Canal as a potential future improvement proj ect, which would include widening and concrete lining the banks to relieve flooding issues. 6. Zone 7' s Santa Rita - Dougherty Pipeline is located within the proposed project area. As a result of the proposed project, this Zone 7 facility may require relocation. Zone 7 has provided construction plans for this pipeline and the attached comment letter on this proposed project to the consulting engineer. Any proposals to relocate Zone 7 facilities will require coordination with Zone 7' s engineering staff. An approved encroachment permit will also be required. Please provide any updated draft construction plans of the Iron Horse/ Scarlett Drive Improvements for Zone 7 review and comment as they become available. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 925-454-5036 or via e-mail at mlim(a)zone 7water.com. Sin~;e~rel .'.. >na~~., ,~ Mary im Environme al Services Program Manager Attachment cc: Lee Thompson, City of Dublin (w/attachment) Karla Nemeth, Environmental & Public Affairs Manager, Zone 7 Jim Horen, Principal Engineer, Zone 7 YK Chan, Principal Engineer, Zone 7 Joe Seto, Principal Engineer, Zone 7 Jo1m Koltz, ,Senior Engineer, Zone 7 Jeff Tang, Associate Civil Engineer, Zone 7 DAVID J. POWERS r1061/.o February 6, 2007 Mr. Lee Thompson Public Works Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Comment Letter from Zone 7 on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project Dear Lee: We have received and reviewed the letter you forwarded from the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), dated January 22,2007, regarding the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Scarlett Drive Extension and Widening Project. As you know, the Zone 7 letter contains six comments regarding the analysis in the IS/MND. This letter provides our responses to the substantive issues raised in the Zone 7 letter. Comment 1: On page 9 of the Initial Study, under Extension of Culvert, the proposed culvert should be extended, but designed to accommodate the 100 year storm event under ultimate buildout conditions for the watershed. Also, since the site of the culvert extension is presently open-space, what sort of habitat mitigation is proposed? Response 1: This comment is noted. The proposed culvert extension will be designed to accommodate the 100 year storm event. As requested in a prior letter from Zone 7 (dated April 5, 2006), the proposed culvert extension will be designed to match the existing culvert that is already in-place in the Chabot Canal (see attached Initial Study Text Revisions). The impacts to the seasonal aquatic habitat along the east and west sides of the Scarlett Drive roadway and in the Chabot Canal will be mitigated at the Ohlone Preserve Conservation Bank mitigation bank, located at 1556 Catalina Court in Livennore (refer to Section 3.4 Biological Resources of the IS/MND and the attached Initial Study Text Revisions). The project would not result in a significant loss of public open space. 1885 The AJanleda Suite 204 @ San Jose, C.A 0,' lel" @ Fax: 4C8..248-9641 tI 1'606 Mr. Lee Thompson Februmy 6. 2007 Page 2 Comment 2: On page 42, the last sentence in the second paragraph states that the drainage adjacent to the project site offers storm water runoff drainage and detention. Please describe what sort of detention is provided by the drainage facilities. Response 2: There are two existing, manmade seasonal drainages at the project site, one along each side of the Scarlett Drive roadway. These drainages convey over-land surface water flows during heavy storm events. The text on page 42 of the Initial Study has been revised to clarify this information (refer to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions). Comment 3: The last paragraph on the same page states the proposed project roadway extension is located within the FEMA floodplain boundary. The ini6al study does not address the potential impacts of this proposed roadway extension to the existing floodplain. A hydrology/hydraulic analysis should be conducted, in consultation with Zone 7 staff, to determine what type of impact will occur, its significance, and mitigation for the impact. Presently, the Chabot Canal between 1-580 and Dublin Blvd. overtops and floods the area. Any new runoff will likely have an impact downstream of the project site. Response 3: As described on page 45 of the Draft Initial Study, the project would result in a slight increase in the amount of impervious surfaces at the site, thus resulting in an incremental increase in runoff rate and volume. The project proposes to utilize landscape-based treatment and control measures to minimize the addition ofnmoffvolume and pollution to the Chabot Canal, including the'use of open vegetated swales and natural depressions, storm water retention or detention basins, or a combination of these practices. The proposed BMPs will comply with the Alameda County Clean Water Program (ACCWP) NPDES Permit (Order R2-2003-00211 NPDES Permit No. CAS0029831). The measures will also specifically comply with provision C.2 of the NPDES permit, which includes numeric sizing requirements for post-construction BMPs and hydromodification requirements for the management of storn1water for new development. During stonn events, the proposed swales will be used to store a portion of the peak flows, and will act as stormwater detention areas. Additional site-specific hydrology/hydraulic analysis will be conducted in coordination with Zone 7 as the project design plans are finalized. The exact location(s) and size(s) of the detention and retention areas proposed will be determined based on further consultation with Zone 7 staff and will be subject to the approval of Zone 7. Additional detail regarding the proposed post-construction measures has been added to the text ofthe Initial Study (refer to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions). =E!D 1I~1I II~~ I {or.::l Mr. Lee Thompson Februmy 6, 2007 Page 3 Comment 4: On page 45, the first paragraph mentions that the proposed roadway expansion and widening of Scarlett Drive would encroach onto the western seasonal drainage, creating a permanent impact to the western drainage of the site. How will the permanent impacts be mitigated? Response 4: The proposed Scarlett Drive widening would require permanently filling the existing drainage ditch along the western side of the roadway. Therefore, the capacity of this ditch to temporarily store over-land surface runoff and convey this runoff to the Chabot Canal would be lost as a result of the project. The proposed Scarlett Drive roadway would be designed and sloped to convey surface runoff to the southwestern and eastern sides of the roadway, where it would be detained and treated in the proposed vegetated swales prior to discharge into the Chabot Canal (refer to the response to comments 3 above). The potential impacts to biological resources likely to result from filling of this drainage are evaluated in Section 3.4 Biological Resources of the IS/MND. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than- significant level under CEQA (refer to pages 29-33 of the IS/MND and to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions). Comment 5: The second paragraph on the same page indicates that a slight increase in the amount of impervious area will result in a minimal increase in runoff rate and volume. Any comments regarding minimal increase in runoff need to be substantiated with Hydrology/Hydraulics analysis to ensure than runoff to the drainage channel is not greater than pre-existing conditions. Zone 7's Stream Management Master Plan did not take into account new drainage from this area. Therefore, it is important to understand what the downstream impact may be to a drainage channel designed for the IS-year storm event. The second paragraph also mentions that mitigation can reduce the impacts of the new development. The project proposes to adhere to and incorporate the mitigations/BMPs outlined in the Zone 7 Flood Control Master Plan for increases in peak flows. Zone 7 is unaware of what type of mitigation that would be proposed for the roadway project. Please identify which specific measures will be adhered to and incorporated in relation to the project site. Zone 7's Stream Management Master Plan identified the Chabot Canal as a potential future improvement project, which would include widening and concrete lining the banks to relieve flooding issues. ClrJD ~ng EiltJlj IilJ ii!2lil 11~~ ~O'b } 0 Mr. Lee Thompson Februmy 6, 2007 Page 4 Response 5: Refer to the response to comments 1,3, and 4 above. Additional detail has been added to the text of the Initial Study to clarify the measures proposed to reduce potential hydrology and water quality impacts of the project (refer to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions). Comment 6: Zone 7's Santa Rita - Dougherty Pipeline is located within the proposed project area. As a result of the proposed project, this Zone 7 may require relocation. Zone 7 has provided construction plans for this pipeline and the attached comment letter on this proposed project to the consulting engineer. Any proposals to relocate Zone 7 facilities will require coordination with Zone 7' s engineering staff. An approved encroachment permit will also be required. Please provide any updated draft construction plans of the Iron Horse/Scarlett Drive Improvements for Zone 7 review and comments as they become available. Response 6: A portion of the Santa Rita - Dougherty Pipeline is within the proposed project limits located near the Scarlett Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection. This 24-inch pipeline is located approximately four (4) feet beneath the existing roadway. Because of the depth to this pipeline, the construction of the proposed roadway and trail improvements would not impact the pipeline. Therefore, there are currently no plans to relocate the pipeline in the project area. As the project design proceeds and becomes finalized, further analysis will confirm whether the Zone 7 Santa Rita - Dougherty Pipeline needs to be relocated. In the event relocation of this pipeline is necessary, the City of Dublin and their consulting engineers will coordinate closely with Zone 7 staff, and an encroachment permit will be obtained prior to any work near the pipeline. While the text of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been revised or expanded to clarify some of these issues raised in the Zone 7 letter, it is our opinion that none of the comments received or revisions made to the IS/MND represent "substantial revisions" as described in Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft IS/MND is not warranted. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this letter, or if you want to discuss this matter further. /attachments Best regards, I'L ~ ,e<'. t~:J>? /d~$~7~- ~hn Schwarz /c.r~ Principal Project Manager cuan !I~m .~~ .California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region ~ ~ Linda S. Adams SeCrelllf)'/l)l' EJl\Jiroumental Protection 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400. Oakland. Califomia 94612 (510) 622-2300. Fax (510) 622-2460 htlp://www waterboards.ca.gov/san franciseobay Date: JAN 0 4 2007 File No. 2198.09 (BKW) Melissa Morton, Public Works Director City of Dublin Public Works Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Arnold Schwarzenel:l:er (it)l'l'OU),. .~. ,:-::.f "~;.,;:r~" EJ~,; Re: ..).~ .i~.., ,j :,~~... ,._:'~r" (oc .........__..;,J' __.........__.,._""" , ! 1\ f' J . ~ ~, ? 0 IJ .:' Dublin Ranch West Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH Number: 2006122072 Dear Ms. Morton: Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) staff have reviewed the December 2006, Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Mitigated Negative Declaratioll (MND) for the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project in the City of Dublin, Alameda County (Project). The Project includes the construction of a public street from Dublin Boulevard northwesterly to Dougherty Road, and the relocation and enhancement of the Iron Horse Trail along the old Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way in the City of Dublin. Water Board staff have the following comments on the MND. Comment 1 - Section 3.4.1, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (pages 25 and 26) Under the heading, "Regulated Habitats", the MND discusses "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction" and the "California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG)". However, the MND does not discuss waters of the State under the jurisdiction of the Water Board. The discussions of wetlands and jurisdictional waters under the heading "Regulated Habitats" should be expanded to clarify that the Water Board has regulatory authority over wetlands and vvaterways under both the federal Clean Water Act (C\V A) and the State of California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code, Division 7). Under the CW A, the Water Board has regulatory authority over actions in waters of the United States, through the issuance of water quality certifications (certifications) under Section 401 of the CW A, which are issued in combination with permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), under Section 404 of the CW A. When the Water Board issues Section 401 certifications, it simultaneously issues general Waste Discharge Requirements for the project, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Activities in areas that are outside of the jurisdiction of the ACOE (e.g., isolated wetlands, vernal pools, or stream banks above the ordinary high water mark) are regulated by the Water Board, under the authority of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. In addition, channels that have either been modified by human activities or have been created by human activities, but which convey surface runoff that enter the Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the Sail Francisco Bay Area '.\' watersji;r over 50 years Y Rt!Gyclt!(1 Papt!r Ms. Morton - 2 - MND, Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive. Dublin channel through gravity flow may also be regulated as waters of the State. Activities that lie outside of ACOE jurisdiction, but within Water Board jurisdiction, may require the issuance of either individual or general waste discharge requirements (WDRs) from the Water Board. The MND should be revised to describe the need to obtain WDRs from the Water Board for any Project impacts to channels or wetlands at the Project site. Comment 2 - Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 29) Under the heading, "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)", the MND refers to the placement of part ofthe Chabot Canal (about 170 linear feet, according to text on page 42) into a box culvert as a temporary impact. This is incorrect; the placement of a channel in a culvert of any kind is a permanent impact, and must be mitigated as such. Comment 3 - Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 29) In the list of mitigation measures, measure 3.4.1 is, "[A] wetland delineation would be conducted and submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for verification of jurisdictional wetlands on-site." This is a legal requirement; it is not a mitigation measure. In addition, the Water Board must be contacted to determine if there are non-Corp jurisdictional waters of the State at the Project site. Comment 4 - Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 29) In the list of mitigation measures, measure 3.4.2 states that, "impacted seasonal aquatic habitat would be replaced, either in conjunction with mitigation for proposed wetland impacts associated with the Scarlett Drive roadway project or at an approved local mitigation bank or adjacent property. Impacted wetlands will be mitigated at a minimum ratio of2: I (replaced:impacted)." The proposed mitigation lacks sufficient detail for Water Board staff to evaluate whether or not the mitigation would be adequate to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. The amount of mitigation required for an impact is a function of both the proposed mitigation project and distance between the location of the impact and the location of the mitigation site. The mitigation required for an impact increases as a function of the distance between the impact location and the mitigation location. Since the proposed location is not yet identified, the amount of mitigation required cannot be evaluated. The amount of mitigation required is greater for "out of kind" mitigation (i.e., mitigation habitats that are different from the type of impacted habitat). Since no details are provided for the proposed mitigation, it is not clear yet whether or not the Project is proposing to provide "in-kind" mitigation. The amount of mitigation required may also be a factor or the likelihood of success at the mitigation site. Since no details of the proposed mitigation project are provided in the MND, it is not possible for Water Board staff to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed mitigation. Preserving. enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters jor over 50 years eYcled Paper ,,0 , I_r ~- I). 'I. I i.: Ms. Morton - 3 - MND, Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive, Dublin Proposed mitigation measures should be presented in sufficient detail for readers of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document to evaluate the likelihood that the proposed remedy will actually reduce impacts to a less than significant level. CEQA requires that mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect be adequate, timely, and resolved by the lead agency. In an adequate CEQA document, mitigation measures must be feasible and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments (CEQA Guidelines Section 15]26.4). Mitigation measures to be identified at some future time are not acceptable. It has been determined by court ruling that such mitigation measures would be improperly exempted from the process of public and governmental scrutiny which is required under the California Environmental Quality Act. Based on the information provided in the MND, it is not possible to evaluate the extent of potential impacts to waters of the State, or the adequacy of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the Project to a less than significant level. Comment 5 - Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (pages 29 and 30) At present, the Project proposes to either purchase mitigation credits at an approved mitigation bank and/or to create about 4 acres of wetlands. The MND should identify approved mitigation banks with a service area that includes the Project site. Without thIS information, the feasibility of using a mitigation bank cannot be evaluated for the Project. In addition, the only metric proposed for impacts to jurisdiction wetlands and waters is acreage. For impacts to channels, such as the proposal to culvert] 70 linear feet of Chabot Canal, mitigation must also be provided on a linear foot basis (i.e., impacts to channels should be mitigated with channels). Comment 6 - Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 30) Mitigation measure 3.4.2.3 requires that the Project proponent obtain Section 40 I certification from the Water Board; this is a legal requirement, not a mitigation measure. As noted above, the Project will also require general or individual WDRs from the Water Board. Although obtaining these permits is not a mitigation measure, the permits will impose mitigation requirements on the Project. When evaluating applications for certifications and/or WDRs, the Water Board requires that the Project proponent have evaluated options for avoiding impacts to waters of the State. Where impacts cannot be avoided, the Project proponent must demonstrate that unavoidable impacts have been minimized to the maximum extant practicable. This analysis of avoidance and minimization of impacts should be submitted with the permit application. Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 5U years !fjycled Paper .~)' Ms. Morton - 4 - MND, Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive. Dublin Comment 7 - Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Special-Status Species (page 31) The MND concludes that the Project will not have a significant impact on California tiger salamander (CTS) or California red-legged frog (CRLF). The MND refers to surveys for these species, but it is not clear from the MND whether or not these were protocol level surveys conducted during appropriate times of the year. It is also not clear if potential impacts to dispersal habitat for CTS and CRLF have been evaluated. Comment 8 - Section 3.8.1, Water Quality (page 43) The MND mentions the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) and the NPDES permit that was issued to ACCWP for stormwater discharges. Under the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order R2-2003-0021; NPDES Permit No. CAS002983I ), all projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces are required to provide post-construction best management practices (BMPs) for stonnwater management. Provision C.3 of the NPDES Permit specifies the criteria to be used in sizing these BMPs. The MND does not discuss the proposed post-construction stormwater treatment BMPs. along with proposed locations of these BMPs on the Project site layout. Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate whether or not the Project can attain the treatment requirements of the Alameda County Clean Water Program's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. At this stage of the CEQA process, sufficient design detail should be provided to ensure that the Project has set aside sufficient land area for appropriately sized treatment measures. As was stated above in Comment 4, proposed mitigation measures should be presented in sufficient detail for readers of the CEQA document to evaluate the likelihood that the proposed remedy will actually reduce impacts to a less than significant level. CEQA requires that mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect be adequate, timely, and resolved by the lead agency. In an adequate CEQA document, mitigation measures must be feasible and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4). Post-construction BMPs are required to provide treatment that meets the maximum extent practicable (MEP) treatment standard in the Clean Water Act. Treatment consistent with the MEP standard is defined in the NPDES permit. To meet the MEP standard, treatment BMPs are to be constructed that incorporate, at a minimum, the following hydraulic sizing design criteria to treat storm water runoff. As appropriate for each criterion, local rainfall data are to be used or appropriately analyzed for the design of BMPs. Volume Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment BMPs whose primary mode of action depends on volume capacity, such as detention/retention units or infiltration structures, shall be designed to treat stonnwater runoff equal to: Preserving, enhancing, alld restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's wa/ersfor over 50 years !fj~)'cled Paper :2 s 66' ~ Ms. Mortoll - S - MND, Iroll Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive. Dublin I. the maximized stonnwater quality capture volume for the area, based on historical rainfall records, determined using the (ommla and volume capture coefficients set forth in Urban Run off Quality Management. WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/ ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87, (1998), pages 17S-178 (e.g., approximately the 8Sth percentile 24-hour storm runoff event); or 2. the volume of annual runoff required to achieve 80 percent or more capture, determined in accordance with the methodology set forth in Appendix D of the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook. (1993), using local rainfall data. Flow Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment BMPs whose primary mode of action depends on flow capacity, such as swales, sand filters, or wetlands, shall be sized to treat: 1. 10% of the SO-year peak flow rate; 2. or the flow of runoff produced by a rain event equal to at least two times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity for the applicable area, based on historical records of hourly rainfall depths; or 3. the flow of runoff resulting from a rain event equal to at least 0.2 inches per hour intensity. Water Board staff strongly encourage the use oflandscape-based stonnwater treatment measures, such as biofilters and vegetated swales, to manage runoff from project sites. Since landscape-based stormwater treatment measures require that some of the site surface area be set aside for their construction, the proper sizing and placement of these features should be evaluated early in the design process to facilitate incorporation of the features into the site landscaping. Water Board staff discourage the use of inlet filter devices for stormwater management. Filtration systems require a maintenance program that is adequate to maintain the functional integrity of the systems and to ensure that improperly maintained filtration devices do not themselves become sources of stormwater contaminants or fail to function. Water Board staff have observed problems with the use of inlet filter inserts, since these devices require high levels of maintenance and are easily clogged by leaves or other commonly occurring debris, rendering them ineffective. Research conducted by the California Department of Transportation has demonstrated that inlet filters can be clogged by a single storm event. The study found that these devices required maintenance before and after storm events as small as 0.1 inch of rain. In addition, trash, debris, and sediment in the catchment had a significant impact on the Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 5U years 6vcled Paper 2' J ._1 u~ Ms. Morton - 6 - MND, Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive, Dublin frequency of maintenance]. Therefore, adequate maintenance of inlet filters to provide MEP water quality treatment would be prohibitively expensive and impractically time consuming. Water Board staff recommend that the project proponents refer to Start at the Source, a design guidance manual for storm water quality protection, for a fuller discussion of the selection of stormwater management practices. This manual provides innovative procedures for designing structures, parking lots, drainage systems, and landscaping to mitigate the impacts of stormwater runoff on receiving waters. This manual may be obtained from the [Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program's website (www.scvurppp.orq)] or bye-mailing a request to the e-mail address in the last paragraph of this letter. Additional innovative techniques for incorporating structural stormwater best management practices (BMPs) into urban design, such as infiltration planter boxes, can be found in Portland, Oregon's 2002 Stormwater Management Manual, which can be obtained at www.cleanrivers-pdx.orgltechresources/2002swmm.htm. Comment 9 - Section 3.8.2, Water Quality (page 45) The MND states that the relocation of the eastern drainage is a temporary impact. This is not correct. The resource agencies consider temporary impacts to be impacts that can be mitigated by restoring the impacted water or wetland to its pre-project condition and location. Relocating a drainage is a permanent impact that is likely to require additional mitigation measures in addition to re-creating the drainage in a new location. Comment 10 - Section 3.8.2, Water Quality (page 45) The discussion of Water Quality in Section 3.8.2 fails to address compliance with the ACCWP NPDES Permit (Order R2-2003-0021; NPDES Permit No. CAS002983I ). Comment 11 To comply with CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration must identify the likely environmental impacts of the proposed project and identify mitigation measures with a strong probability of reducing these impacts to a less than significant level. As is described in the previous comments, the MND does not identify all potential project impacts on beneficial uses of waters of the State and does not provide sufficient detail to ensure that adequate mitigation can be provided for Project impacts to waters of the State. Please do not hesitate to contact Water Board staff for any assistance we can provide in revising the MND to provide appropriate mitigation for impacts to waters of the State. 1 Othmer, Friedman, BorTOum and Currier, November 2001, Performance Evaluation of S/rl/(:tural BMPs: Drain fnlet inserfS (Fossil Fi/fer™ wu/ SfreamGuard7"M) amI Oil/Wafer Separa/Ur, Sacramento. Caltrans. Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's watersjor over 50 yeilrs (!J'Yded Paper Ms. Morton - 7 - MND, Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive, Dublin If you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 622-5680 or bye-mail at bw ines@lwaterboards.ca. gov. Sincerely, '7I~() ( l/v /L t '\.~. r--.. Brian Wines Water Resources Control Engineer cc State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 USACE, San Francisco District, Attn: Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 -2197 CDFG, Central Coast Region, Attn: Robert Floerke, Regional Manager, P.O. Box 47, Yountville CA 94599 CDFG, Central Coast Region, Attn: Janice Gan, P.O. Box 47, Yountville CA 94599 United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Attn: Chris Nagano, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Attn: Kim Squires, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 50 years eycted Paper DAVID J. PO ERS It.? February 6, 2007 Mr. Lee Thompson Public Works Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Comment Letter from RWQCB on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Iron Horse TrailfScarlett Drive Improvements Project Dear Lee: We have received and reviewed the letter you forwarded from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (dated January 4,2007) regarding the proposed Scarlett Drive Extension and Widening Project. As you know, the letter makes several claims regarding the analysis in the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This letter provides our responses to the substantive issues raised in the RWQCB letter. Comment 1: Section 3.4.1, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (pages 25 and 26): Under the heading, "Regulated Habitats", the MND discusses "US Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction" and the "California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG)." However, the MND does not discuss waters of the State under the jurisdiction of the Water Board. The discussions ofwetIands and jurisdictional waters under the heading "Regulated Habitats" should be expanded to clarify that the Water Board has regulatory authority over wetlands and waterways under both the federal Clean Water Act (CW A) and the State of California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code, Division 7). Under the CW A, the Water Board has regulatory authority over actions in waters of the United States through the issuance of water quality certifications (certifications) under Section 401 of the CW A, which are issued in combination with permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) under Section 404 of the CW A. When the Water Board issues Section 401 certifications, it simultaneously issues general Waste Discharge Requirements for the project, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Activities in areas that are outside of the jurisdiction ofthe ACOE (e.g. isolated wetlands vernal pools or stream banks above the ordinary high water mark) are regulated by the Water Board, under the authority of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. In addition, channels that have either been modified by human activities, or have been created by human activities but which convey surface runoff that enter the channel through gravity flow may also be regulated as waters of the State. Activities that lRB5 The ~Alanleda tJ Suite 204 San Jose, CP~ 95126 & 'Te]: 408-248-3500 P .[fax: 2'1 vb 10~'~' Mr. Lee Thompson Februmy 6, 2007 Page 2 lie outside of ACOE jurisdiction, but within Water Board jurisdiction, may require the issuance of either individual or general waste discharge requirements (WDRs) from the Water Board. Response 1: This comment is noted. This language was inadvertently omitted from pages 25-26 of the Initial Study. The text of the Initial Study has been revised to include an overview of Waters of the State and the jurisdiction of the RWQCB (refer to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions). The text has also been revised to clarify that the project may need to obtain an individual or general waste discharge requirement from the R WQCB. These text revisions do not affect the adequacy of the Initial Study under CEQA. Comment 2: Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 29): Under the heading, "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)", the MND refers to the placement of part of the Chabot Canal (about 170 linear feet, according to text on page 42) into a box culvert as a temporary impact. This is incorrect; the placement of a channel in a culvert of any kind is a permanent impact, and must be mitigated as such. Response 2: This comment is correct. The text on page 29 of the Initial Study was incorrect and has been revised to clarify that the extension of the proposed box culvert within the Chabot Canal (approximately 170 linear feet) would be a permanent impact (refer to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions). Mitigation would be provided for this permanent impact in accordance with the requirements outlined on pages 29-31 of the Initial Study. Comment 3: Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 29): In the list of mitigation measures, measure 3.4.1 is, "[A] wetland delineation would be conducted and submitted to the U S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for verification of jurisdictional wetlands on- site." This is a legal requirement; it is not a mitigation measure. In addition, the Water Board must be contacted to determine if there are non-Corp jurisdictional waters of the State at the Proj ect site. Response 3: As part of the discussion of wetland impacts and mitigation measures, the text of the Initial Study identifies that a wetland delineation would be conducted and submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for verification of jurisdictional wetlands on-site. It is acknowledged that obtaining Corps verification of the jurisdictional wetlands is a legal requirement. This measure was included in the discussion to illustrate that the Corps would be contacted to confinn the delineation of jurisdictional wetlands estimated by the biological GlrJD lI~tI .m~ ~... '6' j ~)} lri.:1 "4- t.".,p.- ~-loO'l""- ~- Mr. Lee Thompson Februmy 6, 2007 Page 3 consultant for this project. The text on pages 29-30 of the Initial Study identifies other mitigation measures to reduce and offset the impacts to jurisdictional waters. The RWQCB will also be contacted, as appropriate, to determine whether non-Corps jurisdictional Waters of the State are present at the project site. Comment 4: Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 29): In the list of mitigation measures, measure 3.4.2 states that, "impacted seasonal aquatic habitat would be replaced, either in conjunction with mitigation for proposed wetland impacts associated with the Scarlett Drive roadway project or at an approved local mitigation bank or adjacent property. Impacted wetlands will be mitigated at a minimum ratio of2:1 (replaced:impacted)." The proposed mitigation lacks sufficient detail for Water Board staff to evaluate whether or not the mitigation would be adequate to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. The amount of mitigation required for an impact is a function of both the proposed mitigation project and distance between the location of the impact and the location of the mitigation site. The mitigation required for an impact increases as a function of the distance between the impact location and the mitigation location. Since the proposed location is not yet identified, the amount of mitigation required cannot be evaluated. The amount of mitigation required is greater for "out of kind" mitigation (i.e. mitigation habitats that are different from the type of impacted habitat). Since no details are provided for the proposed mitigation, it is not clear yet whether or not the Project is proposing to provide "in-kind" mitigation. The amount of mitigation required may also be a factor or the likelihood of success at the mitigation site. Since no details of the proposed mitigation project are provided in the MND, it is not possible for Water Board staff to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed mitigation. Proposed mitigation measures should be presented in sufficient detail for readers of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document to evaluate the likelihood that the proposed remedy will actually reduce impacts to a less than significant level. CEQA requires that mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect be adequate, timely, and resolved by the lead agency. In an adequate CEQA document, mitigation measures must be feasible and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments (CEQA Guidelines Section 145126). Mitigation measures to be identified at some future time are not acceptable. It has been determined by court ruling that such mitigation measures would be improperly exempted from the process of public and governmental scrutiny which is required under the California Environmental Quality Act. Based on the information provided in the MND, it is not possible to evaluate the extent of potential impacts to waters of the State, or the adequacy of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the Project to a less than significant level. GlI1D lI~fI Il~~ 3trJo ~.." Mr. Lee Thompson Februmy 6, 2007 Page 4 Response 4: The project proposes to provide "in-kind" mitigation for any and all wetland impacts. It should be noted that the mitigation required for an impact is also a function of the nature and quality of the existing habitat to be impacted. As stated on pages 29-30 of the Initial Study, approximately four (4) acres of wetlands would be created to mitigate the project's impacts on wetlands. At the time the Draft Initial Study was written, the City was proposing to implement one of two identified options to mitigate the project's impact to wetlands. As described on pages 29-30 of the Draft IS/MND, the impacts to the seasonal aquatic habitat along the east and west sides of the Scarlett Drive roadway were planned to be mitigated either: 1) on-site near and along the Chabot Canal; or 2) at an approved mitigation bank in the region. Subsequent to the preparation of the Draft IS/MND, the City has further investigated these mitigation options, and has elected to use the Oh10ne Preserve Conservation Bank mitigation bank, located at 1556 Catalina Court in Livermore. This mitigation bank is approved for wetland mitigation. At least four (4) acres of wetland mitigation credit will be purchased at the Ohlone Preserve Conservation Bank to offset the project's impacts upon wetlands at the site (refer to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions). The proposed mitigation measures have identified on pages 29-30 of the Draft Initial Study and will be made conditions of the project. It is the City's position that the mitigation measures identified are feasible and will be fully enforceable through conditions of approval and subject to the regulatory authority of the Corps, the RWQCB, and the California Department of Fish and Game. The Initial Study evaluates the impacts to biological resources likely to result from the proposed project, and identifies mitigation measures needed to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level under CEQA. As noted in the response to comment 3 above, the RWQCB will be contacted, as appropriate, to determine whether non-Corps jurisdictional waters of the State are present at the project site. Comment 5: Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (pages 29 and 30): At present, the Project proposes to either purchase mitigation credits at an approved mitigation bank and/or to create about 4 acres of wetlands. The MND should identify approved mitigation banks with a service area that includes the Project site. Without this information, the feasibility of using a mitigation bank cannot be evaluated for the Project. In addition, the only metric proposed for impacts to jurisdiction wetlands and waters is acreage. For impacts to channels such as the proposal to culvert 170 linear feet of Chabot Canal mitigation must also be provided on a linear foot basis (i.e. impacts to channels should be mitigated with channels). C1;'jD .~II IlrEm 32. ,t f,~, "IIiF' Mr, Lee Thompson Februmy 6, 2007 Page 5 Response 5: As noted in the response to comment 4 above, the project proposes to use the Ohlone Preserve Conservation Bank to mitigate the project's impacts to wetlands. The text of the Initial Study has been revised to provide additional detail regarding the Ohlone Preserve Conservation Bank (refer to attached Initial Study Text Revisions). Comment 6: Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Regulated Habitats (page 30): Mitigation measure 3.4.2.3 requires that the Project proponent obtain Section 401 certification from the Water Board; this is a legal requirement, not a mitigation measure. As noted above, the Project will also require general or individual WDRs from the Water Board. Although obtaining these permits is not a mitigation measure, the permits will impose mitigation requirements on the Project. When evaluating applications for certifications and/or WDRs, the Water Board requires that the Project proponent have evaluated options for avoiding impacts to waters of the State. Where impacts cannot be avoided, the Project proponent must demonstrate that unavoidable impacts have been minimized to the maximum extant practicable. This analysis of avoidance and minimization of impacts should be submitted with the permit application. Response 6: This comment is noted. Refer to the responses to comments 1 and 3 above (refer to attached Initial Study Text Revisions). As noted in the response to comment 1 above, the RWQCB will be contacted, as appropriate, to determine whether non-Corps jurisdictional Waters of the State are present at the project site. As part of any application for RWQCB certifications and/or WDRs, the City will be prepared to demonstrate that impacts to Waters of the State have been avoided and/or minimized to the maximum extent practical. Comment 7: Section 3.4.2, Biological Resources, Special Status Species (page 31): The MND concludes that the Project will not have a significant impact on California tiger salamander (CTS) or California red-legged frog (CRLF). The MND refers to surveys for these species, but it is not clear from the MND whether or not these were protocol level surveys conducted during appropriate times of the year. It is also not clear if potential impacts to dispersal habitat for CTS and CRLF have been evaluated. 2. ~g .~ Mr. Lee Thompson Februmy 6. 2007 Page 6 Response 7: Dr. Mark Jennings, herpetologist and noted authority on special-status species in California, surveyed the project site in May of2006. As described on page 6 of the biotic analysis completed for the project (Appendix A of the Draft Initial Study): "Breeding habitat for California tiger salamander (CTS) is absent from the site because in years of normal rainfall the seasonal drainages would not hold water long enough to support successful breeding. And even in 2006, a year with unusually high rainfall, the eastern drainage exhibited no pooling and waters within the western drainage were only 4-6 inches deep in May 2006. " As also noted in Appendix A, the site is not located within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat for the CTS. While CTS are known to occur on the northeastern portion of the Camp Parks Military Reserve, these ponds are located more than two (2) miles northeast of the site. The project site is isolated from any known populations of CTS. For these reasons, the IS/MND concludes that the project would not result in significant impacts to CTS. The project site does not support habitat for California red-legged frog (CRLF) and there are no records ofCRLF occurring at the site. As described on page 5 of the biotic analysis in Appendix A of the Draft Initial Study, Dr. Jennings has surveyed the general project area for over 15 years, and does not believe that CRLF would enter the site because the drainages are seasonal and suitable breeding habitat is absent. For these reasons, the IS/MND concludes that the project would not result in significant impacts to CRLF. Comment 8: Section 3.8.1, Water Quality (page 43): The MND mentions the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) and the NPDES permit that was issued to ACCWP for stormwater discharges. Under the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order R2-2003-0021; NPDES Permit No. CAS002983I), all projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces are required to provide post-construction best management practices (BMPs) for storm water management. Provision C3 of the NPDES Permit specifies the criteria to be used in sizing these BMPs. The MND does not discuss the proposed post-construction storn1water treatment BMPs, along with proposed locations of these BMPs on the Project site laYQut. Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate whether or not the Project can attain the treatment requirements of the Alameda County Clean Water Program's NPDES Municipal StOllliwater Pem1it. ClI!D .~rI I)rn~ .3 Lh)6! Mr. Lee Thompson Februmy 6, 2007 Page 7 At this stage of the CEQA process, sufficient design detail should be provided to ensure that the Project has set aside sufficient land area for appropriately sized treatment measures. As was stated above in Comment 4, proposed mitigation measures should be presented in sufficient detail for readers of the CEQA document to evaluate the likelihood that the proposed remedy will actually reduce impacts to a less than significant level. CEQA requires that mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect be adequate, timely, and resolved by the lead agency. In an adequate CEQA document, mitigation measures must be feasible and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4). Post construction BMPs are required to provide treatment that meets the maximum extent practicable (MEP) treatment standard in the Clean Water Act. Treatment consistent with the MEP standard is defined in the NPDES permit. To meet the MEP standard, treatment BMPs are to be constructed that incorporate, at a minimum, the following hydraulic sizing design criteria to treat stormwater runoff. As appropriate for each criterion, local rainfall data are to be used or appropriately analyzed for the design ofBMPs. Volume Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment BMPs whose primary mode of action depends on volume capacity, such as detention/retention units or infiltration structures, shall be designed to treat storm water runoff equal to: 1. the maximized stormwater quality capture volume for the area, based on historical rainfall records, determined using the formula and volume capture coefficients set forth in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No 23 ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87 (1998), pages 175-178 (e.g., approximately the 85th percentile 24 hour storm runoff event); or 2. the volume of annual runoff required to achieve 80 percent or more capture, determined in accordance with the methodology set forth in Appendix D of the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook, (1993), using local rainfall data. Flow Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment BMPs whose primary mode of action depends on flow capacity, such as swales, sand filters, or wetlands shall be sized to treat: 1. 10% of the 50-year peak flow rate; 2. or the flow of runoff produced by a rain event equal to at least two times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity for the applicable area, based on historical records of hourly rainfall depths; or 3. the flow of runoff resulting from a rain event equal to at least 0.2 inches per hour intensity =~n lI~m Il~~ 3 Mr. Lee Thompson February 6,2007 Page 8 Water Board staff strongly encourage the use oflandscape-based stormwater treatment measures, such as biofilters and vegetated swales, to manage runoff from project sites. Since landscape-based stormwater treatment measures require that some of the site surface area be set aside for their construction, the proper sizing and placement of these features should be evaluated early in the design process to facilitate incorporation of the features into the site landscaping. Water Board staff discourage the use of inlet filter devices for stormwater management. Filtration systems require a maintenance program that is adequate to maintain the functional integrity of the systems and to ensure that improperly maintained filtration devices do not themselves become sources of stormwater contaminants or fail to function. Water Board staffhave observed problems with the use of inlet filter inserts, since these devices require high levels of maintenance and are easily clogged by leaves or other commonly occurring debris, rendering them ineffective. Research conducted by the California Department of Transportation has demonstrated that inlet filters can be clogged by a single storm event. The study found that these devices required maintenance before and after storm events as small as 0.1 inch ofrain. In addition, trash, debris, and sediment in the catchment had a significant impact on the frequency of maintenance. Therefore, adequate maintenance of inlet filters to provide, MEP water quality treatment would be prohibitively expensive and impractically time consummg. Water Board staff recommend that the project proponents refer to Start at the Source, a design guidance manual for storm water quality protection, for a fuller discussion of the selection of stormwater management practices. This manual provides innovative procedures for designing structures, parking lots, drainage systems, and landscaping to mitigate the impacts of stormwater runoff on receiving waters. This manual may be obtained from the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program's website (www.scvurppp.orq) or by mailing a request to the e-mail address in the last paragraph of this letter. Additional innovative techniques for incorporating structural stormwater best management practices (BMPs) into urban design, such as infiltration planter boxes, can be found in Portland, Oregon's 2002 Stormwater Management Manual, which can be obtained at www.cleamivers-pdx.org/tech_resources/2002_swmrn.htm. Response 8: As described on page 45 of the Draft Initial Study, the project would result in a slight increase in the amount of impervious surfaces at the site, thus resulting in an incremental increase in runoff rate and volume. The project proposes to utilize landscape-based treatment and control measures to minimize the addition of runoff volume and pollution to the Chabot Canal, including the use of open vegetated swales and natural depressions, storm water retention or detention basins, or a combination of these practices. The proposed BMPs will comply with the Alameda County Clean Water Program (ACCWP) NPDES Permit (Order R2-2003-00211 NPDES Permit No. CAS0029831) and will be designed to provide treatment that meets the maximum extent practicable (MEP) treatment standard in the Clean Water Act. The measures will also specifically comply with provision C.2 of the NPDES pern1it, which includes numeric sizing requirements for post-construction BMPs and hydromodification requirements for the management of stOlIDwater for new development. DrJD lI~m 11~~ 3~ Db ' /.t; 'l; Mr. Lee Thompson Februmy 6, 2007 Page 9 The exact location(s) and size(s) of the detention and retention areas proposed will be determined based on further consultation and subject to the approval ofRWQCB and Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) staff. Additional detail regarding the proposed post-construction measures has been added to the text of the Initial Study (refer to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions). Comment 9: Section 3.8.2, Water Quality (page 45): The MND states that the relocation of the eastern drainage is a temporary impact. This is not correct. The resource agencies consider temporary impacts to be impacts that can be mitigated by restoring the impacted water or wetland to its pre-project condition and location. Relocating a drainage is a permanent impact that is likely to require additional mitigation measures in addition to re-creating the drainage in a new location. Response 9: Refer to the response to comment 2 above. The text on page 29 of the Initial Study was incorrect and has been revised to clarify that the extension of the proposed box culvert within the Chabot Canal would be a permanent impact (refer to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions). Comment 10: Section 3.8.2, Water Quality (page 45): The discussion of Water Quality in Section 3.8.2 fails to address compliance with the ACCWP NPDES Permit (Order R2-2003-002l; NPDES Permit No. CAS002983I). Response 10: The text on page 45 of the Initial Study has been revised to clarify that the project would comply with Alameda County Clean Water Program (ACCWP) NPDES Permit (Order R2- 2003-00211 NPDES PetmitNo. CAS0029831) [refer to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions] . Comment 11: To comply with CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration must identify the likely environmental impacts of the proposed project and identify mitigation measures with a strong probability of reducing these impacts to a less than significant level. As is described in the previous comments, the MND does not identify all potential project impacts on beneficial uses of waters of the State and does not provide sufficient detail to ensure that adequate mitigation can be provided for Project impacts to waters of the State. tJj(!U .l21m II~~ 3 ( Mr. Lee Thompson February 6, 2007 Page 10 Response 11: The City's Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared under CEQA addresses the physical impacts of the project on the environment, including those pertaining to jurisdictional habitats and endangered species, in conformance with Sections 15063 and 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines. The IS/MND identifies feasible and enforceable mitigation measures in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15126.4). Additional detail has been added to the text of the Initial Study to answer the RWQCB's questions regarding the proposed mitigation measures (refer to the attached Initial Study Text Revisions). Conclusion/Summary: The comment letter received from the RWQCB raises questions regarding the conclusions in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and points out a few errors in the text of the Initial Study. The text of the Initial Study has been revised in response to the comments above, in order to provide additional clarification regarding the impacts and mitigation measures required for the project. However, the IS/MND for this project has been completed in accordance with Section 15063, and Sections 15070-15074 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines describes when recirculation of an IS/MND is appropriate. Specifically, as stated in Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines: (a) "A lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously been given pursuant to Section 15072, but prior to its adoption. Notice of recirculation shall comply with Sections 15072 and 15073. (b) A 'substantial revision' of the negative declaration shall mean: (1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. (c) Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: (1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1 (2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects. (3) A1easures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental ejfects and are not necesswy to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. Mr. Lee Thompson Februmy 6, 2007 Page J J (4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. " In addition, as stated in Section 15074.l(a) of the CEQA Guidelines: "As a result of the public review process for a proposed mitigated negative declaration, including any administrative decisions or public hearings conducted on the project prior to its approval, the lead agency may conclude that certain mitigation measures identified in the mitigated negative declaration are infeasible or otherwise undesirable. Prior to approving the project, the lead agency may, in accordance with this section, delete those mitigation measures and substitute for them other measures which the lead agency determines are equivalent or more effective. " While the text of the Initial Study has been revised or expanded to clarify some of these issues raised in the RWQCB letter, it is our opinion that none of the comments received or revisions made to the IS/MND represent "substantial revisions" as described in Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is not warranted. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this letter, or if you want to discuss this matter further. Best regard:;: e::::7 Principal Project Manager /attachments oran .~!I 11~~ CITY OF A,i-c~ "'., .,. '-" .t (.;i. '0 UBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website: http://www.ci.dubiin.ca.us January 24, 2007 Mr. Bill Can'era 6394 Sussex Court Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvement Project Dear Mr. Carrera: This letter is in response to your phone call to Ferd Del Rosario regarding the subject project. He passed this on to me for response as I am presently working on this project. Your request was for the City of Dublin to provide a break in the proposed Scarlett Drive median at Kilkenny Drive and install a stop sign or traffic signal at that break. Our Traffic Engineer reviewed your request and concluded that the break would be unsafe due to the close proximity to the Dougherty Road intersection, and that there would not be sufficient side traffic from Kilkenny Drive to warrant a traffic signal. Also, the City of Dublin would not want to stop the through traffic on Scarlett Drive, as that street will be a major collector with signal controls at the intersections. We appreciate the fact that there will be some inconvenience associated with your new access. For you to get to Dougherty Road north, you will need to turn right onto Scarlett Drive, then right on Houston Place. To go toward the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection, the safest way would be to go southeast on Scarlett Drive, then right on Dublin Boulevard. If you have any further questions, please call me at (925) 833-6630. Very truly yours,;,) 1/ /~>~ ;;J~"f/ " \J v~~.//,./ I~~/ Lee ThQmps n Public Works LT/dcl G:\MiSCPROJ\Scarlett Drive-iron Horse Trail Extension\Respoi1se-Carrera.doc on 4D 140 SCARLETT DRIVE JIRON HORSE TRAIL EXTENSION PROJECT LIST OF PROPOSED PROJECT MITIGATIONS The approved Project will include the following mitigation measures to ensure that any significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. 1) Air Quality: The Project shall implement the following "Basic Control Measures" that would minimize potential for elevated levels of dust (i.e. particulates) during construction. . Water all active construction areas daily. . Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites as needed (to be determined by resident engineer). . Sweep street if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets as needed (to be determined by resident engineer). . Limit traffic speeds on unpaved areas to 15 mph. . Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. . Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. . Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. 2) U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps) Jurisdiction: The mitigation measures described below would reduce impacts to the wetland habitat to a less than significant level. . A formal wetland delineation will be conducted and submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for verification of jurisdictional wetlands on-site. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) will also be contacted, as appropriate, to determine whether non-Corps jurisdictional lare present at the project site. Prior to construction, the project applicant shall apply for and obtain a Section 404 permit from the Corps and Section 401 certification from the RWQCB. The project proponent would comply with the conditions of these regulatory documents. 1 AnAClDlENT l. Y IG61 . As mitigation for the permanent loss of wetlands, impacted seasonal aquatic habitat would be replaced, such as the Ohlone Preserve Conservation Bank in Livermore. Impacted wetlands will be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (replaced:impacted). To mitigate impacts to wetlands, approximately four (4) acres of wetlands would be created. . The replacement of lost habitat functions and values of the seasonal aquatic habitat will be achieved through participation in a nearby mitigation bank. The appropriate acreage and location would be set in consultation with state and federal resource agencies. The project proposes to provide mitigation for impacted habitat at the Ohlone Preserve Conservation Bank, located at 1556 Catalina Court in Livermore. At least four (4) acres of wetland mitigation credits shall be purchased at the Ohlone Preserve Conservation Bank. In the event mitigation at the Ohlone Preserve Conservation Bank is unavailable when project construction commences, the City will provide in-kind replacement habitat at another mitigation bank in the region, approved by the resource agencies. 3. Special-Status Plant Species: To ensure that the project would not significantly impact the Saline clover and Congdon's tarplant, the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the proposed project. · Conduct present/absence surveys during their blooming seasons: April to June for the Saline Clover, and May to October for Congdon's tarplant. Presence of either of these species is not expected to greatly constrain the proposed project. · If found, prior to site disturbance, the seeds from the species will be collected and sown among populations that exist in the region, such as Springtown Alkali Sink preserve in Livermore. 4. Western Pond Turtle (WPT): To minimiZe the potential impacts to WPT, the proposed project will include the following mitigation measures. · Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 48 hours prior to grading and/or fill of the western drainage. If no WPT are found, then no further mitigation is required. If WPT are found, then the following measures shall be implemented. · If WPT are found on-site during preconstruction surveys, a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFG will establish a construction/free buffer zone and relocate individual WPT. · Replacement habitat shall be provided for WPT at a nearby mitigation bank, to the satisfaction of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2 Y~dbl 5. Burrowing Owls: Burrowing owls were not observed at the site; however, there have been several observations of burrowing owls within three miles of the site. Therefore, burrowing owls are considered present on-site. The following mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls to a less than significant level. · Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted, per CDFG guidelines, no more than 30 days prior to start of site grading, regardless of the time of year in which grading occurs. If no burrowing owls are found, then no further mitigation is warranted. · If owls are located on or immediately adjacent to the site, a qualified burrowing owl biologist, in consultation with the CDFG, will establish a construction-free buffer zone of at least 300 feet around the active burrow. No activities, including grading or other construction work, shall proceed until the buffer zone is established, or a CDFG approved relocation of the birds has been performed (such relocations can occur only during the non-reproductive season [September through January]). Regardless of the time of year when burrowing owls are observed on the site, implementation of one of the following two mitigation measures is required: If preconstruction surveys confirm that burrowing owls occupy the site, then avoidance of impacts to the habitat utilized by these owls would be considered the preferred mitigation method. If preconstruction surveys determine that burrowing owls occupy the site, and avoiding development of occupied areas is not feasible, then habitat compensation on off-site mitigation lands shall be implemented. Off-site mitigation typically entails evicting the affected owls from the project site and setting aside and managing specific areas for burrowing owls. The owls may be evicted outside of the breeding season, with the authorization of the CDFG. The CDFG typically only allows eviction of owls outside of the breeding season (only during the non-breeding season [September 1-January 31]) by a qualified ornithologist, and generally requires habitat compensation on off-site mitigation lands. A single, large continuous mitigation site is preferable to several smaller, separated sites. The mitigation site would preferably support owls nesting and be contiguous with or at least proximal to other lands supporting burrowing owls. Haera and Borges Ranch are two sites in the Tri-Valley region with a history of burrowing owl use and suitable conditions for occupancy. · A final report of burrowing owls, including any protection measures, shall be submitted to the Senior Planner, and completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to the start of grading. 6. Archaeological Resources: In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered, all construction within a radius of 50 feet of the find shall be halted, the Director of Community Development shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. Recommendations could 3 Lr3 include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. . In the event that human remains and/or cultural materials are found, all project related construction shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find in order to proceed with the testing and mitigation measures required. Upon determination by the County Coroner that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. No further disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs in accordance with the provisions of State law and the Health and Safety Code. The Director of Community Development shall also be notified immediately if human skeletal remains are found on the site during development. 7. Short-Term Construction Noise: . Noise generating activity shall be restricted to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays unless otherwise approved in writing by the Dublin Building Official for structural construction and the City Engineer for grading activities. · All internal combustion engine driven equipment shall be equipped with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. · A "disturbance coordinator" shall be designated to be responsible to any local complaints about construction noise and/or vibration. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator will be conspicuously posted at the construction site and included in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. (The City shall be responsible for designating a noise disturbance coordinator and the individual project sponsor shall be responsible for posting the phone number and providing construction schedule notices. ) G:\MISCPROJ\Scarlett Drive-Iron Horse Trail Extension\Environmental\List of Mitigations.doc 4 . "A -."(' j-~ ~T rf) , ~''';;; ~ ~ ~ II ~ c1 ~ ~ z o (f) z W l- X W -..J <( cr: I- w (f) ~ o I Z o ~ w > cr: o l- I- w -..J ~ <( U (f) o w (f) o 0.. o ~ 0..