HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 EDubProp Attach5 Vol1Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
East Dublin Properties
Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation
Volume 1: Draft Supplemental EIR
SCH No. 2001052114
Lead Agency
City of Dublin
JUly 2001
/~TT/~r'IJ ~B [:MT ~
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
East Dublin Properties
Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation
SCH No. 2001052114
City of Dublin
Planning Department
100 Civic Center Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
'(925) 833-6610
July 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION ME ASURES
3.1. Agricultural Resources
3.2. Air Quality
3.3. Biological Resources
3.4. Noise
3.5. Schools
3.6. Traffic and Circulation
3.Z Utilities
4. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5. CEQA DISCUSSION
6. REFERENCES
6.1. Organizations and Persons Consulted
6.2. References
S-1
1-1
2-1
3.1-1
3.1-2
3.2-1
3.3-1
3.4-1
3.5-1
3.6-1
3.7-1
4.0-1
5.1-1
6.1-1
6.1-1
6.2-3
APPENDICES
A. Initial Study
B. City of Dublin Resolution 53-93
C. Agricultural Land Evaluation
D. Air QuaLity Data
E. Supplemental Addendum to the Eastern Dublin San ]oaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan
(Addendum to Appendix E of the Eastern Dublin EIR)
F. Noise Background Data
G. Intersection Volume/Capacity Tables
EDPO Project Internal Draft SEIR (7/28/01)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.4-1
Table 2.4-2
Table 3.1-1
Table 3.2-1
Table 3.2-2
Table 3.2-3
Table 3.2-4
Table 3.2-5
Table 3.3-1A
Table 3.3-1B
Table 3.3-2A
Table 3.3,2B
Table 3.4-1
Table 3.5-1
Table 3.6-1
Table 3.6-2
Table 3.6-3
Table 3.6-4
Table 3.6-5
Table 3.6-6
Summary of Supplemental Impacts and Mitigations
Property Ownerships and Acreages
Proposed Project Acreages and Densities
Williamson Act Contracts: Ownership and Contract Status Project Area
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Project Area Air Quality 5-Year Summary, Days Exceeding Regulatory Standards
East Dublin Properties Mobile Source Emissions
Micro-Scale Impact Analysis - Hourly CO Concentrations
Micro-Scale Impact Analysis - 8-Hour CO Concentrations
Special Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring Within the Project Area
(Eastern Dublin EIR)
New Species - Special Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring Within the '
Project Area
Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring Within the Project Area
(Eastern Dublin EIR)
New Species - Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring Within the
Project Area
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Community Noise
Exposure
Comparison of Eastern Dublin Student Generation Rates and Current Student
Generation Rates
East Dublin Properties Trip Generation: Proposed Project
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Conditions
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Plus Approved Plus Pending
- No Project (Dublin Model)
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Tri-Valley Transportation Model
CUmulative Year 2025 (No Project)
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Plus Approved Plus Pending
Plus Project (Dublin Model)
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Tri-Valley Transportation Model
CUmulative Year 2025 Plus Project
EDPO Project Internal Draft SEIR (7/28/01)
2
Table 3.6-7
Table 3.7-1
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Table 4.3
Table 4-4
Table 4-5
Table 4-6
Table 4-7
Table 4-8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-A
Figure 2-B
Figure 2-C
Figure 2-D
Figure 2-E
Figfire 2-F
Figure 2-G
Figure 2-H
Figure 2-I
Figure 2-J
Figure 2-K
Figure 2-L
Figure 3.1-A
Peak Hour Mainline Freeway Levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2025
Zone 7 Water Supply Acquisition Projects
Alternatives by Land Use
Floor Area Ratios of Alternatives
Regional Vehicular Emissions Comparison
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Tri-Valley Transportation Model
Cumulative Year 2025 Plus Mitigated Traffic Alternative
Mitigated Traffic Alternative: Water, Sewer, and Recycled Water Impacts
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Tri-Valley Transportation Model
Cumulative Year 2025 Plus ECAP Alternative
No Project/ECAP Alternative: Water, Sewer, and Recycled Water Impacts
Impacts of Alternatives
Project Location
Eastern Dublin General Plan-Eastern Extended Planning Area
Land Use Map
Parcel Ownership - Aerial View
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map
Topography
Project Area and Dublin Ranch
Stage 1 Development Plan
Airport Referral Area
Eastern Dublin Circulation Network
Master Infrastructure Plan
Local Jurisdictional Boundaries
East Dublin Planning Boundaries
Williamson Act Agreements
EDPO Project Internal Draft SEIR (7/28/01)
3
Figure 3.1-B
Figure 3.3-A
Figure 3.3-B
Figure 3.3-C
Figure 3.4-A
Figure 3.4-B
Figure 3.6-A
Figure 3.6-B
Figure 3.6-C
Figure 3.6-D
Figure 3.6-E
Figure 3.6-F
Figure 3.7-A
Figure 4-A
Figure 4-B
Figure 4-C
Agricultural Suitability
Habitat Types
Sensitive Species in the Eastern Dublin Area
Habitat Types and Specific Plan/General Plan Land Uses
Existing Noise Contours
Build-out Noise Contours
Existing Turning Movement Volumes
Existing + Approved + Pending Turning Movement
Volumes (Dublin Model)
Th-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025
Turning Movement Volumes
Existing + Approved + Pending + Project Turning
Movement Volumes (Dublin Model)
Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025
+ Project Turning Movement Volumes
Estimated Daily Volumes
Drainage Sub-basins
Th-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025
+ Mitigated Traffic Land Use Alternative Turning Movement Volumes
Alameda County Land Use Designations
Th-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025
+ ECAP Alternative Turning Movement Volumes
EDPO Project Internal Draft SEIR (7/28/01)
SUMMARY
This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Supplemental EIR or SEIR) chapter
includes a summary description of the proposed Project, a list of environmental issues to be
resolved, and a summary identification of each associated supplemental impact and
mitigatiOn measure.
This summary should not be relied upon for a thorough understanding of the details of the
Project, its individual impacts, and related mitigation needs. Please refer to Chapter 2 for a
complete description of the Project, to Chapter 3 for a complete description of Project
supplemental impacts and associated mitigation measures, to Chapter 4 for a discussion of
alternatives, and to Chapter 5 for a complete evaluation of CEQA-required discussions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project area is approximately 1,120 acres in area and is located in an unincorporated
area of Alameda County bounded by Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south and Fallon Road to
the' west. The area abuts the eastern city limit boundary of the City of Dublin. The entire
Project area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan Plannin-
· · g txrea anc~ ~pnere ot
Influence. ApProximatelY 472 acres of the-Project area also are included within the City's
Eastern Dublin SPecific Plan area. The Project area consists of thirteen (13) different parcel~
under eleven (11) separate ownerships.
The proposed Project includes annexation of the Project area to the City of Dublin and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), prezoning the area to the City of Dublin PD-
Planned Development Zoning District, and considering a related Stage I Development Plan
to guide future development of the Project area. Development under the proposed
prezoning and Stage I Planned Development would include a mix of residential uses at a
variety of densities, employment-generating uses such as retail, service, office and light
industrial, parks, open spaces, community facilities, roadways and similar land uses. The
Stage I Development Plan proposes retail, office and light industrial land uses located
primarily within the southern portion of the Project area along the freeway and major
arterials, with residential uses located in the more northern and eastern portions of the
Project area. The Project also would provide a complement of neighborhood parks, school
sites, open space, and a multi-use trail system to link the developed areas with the parks
and trails within Project open space.
The entire Project area is within the Sphere of Influence for DSRSD. Th~ property
immediately to the west of the Project area was annexed into the City in 1995 and is now
being developed in phases and urban infrastructure is being extended to a point
approximately 3,000 feet west of the Project area.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
As provided for in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes and
guidelines, the environmental focus of this supplement to the 1993 Eastern Dublin Final EIR
(inclusive of the Draft EIR and Response to Comments, hereinafter referred to as the Eastern
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page S-1
Dublin EIR), is limited to those areas of controversy or environmental issues known to the
City of Dublin (the Lead Agency). These issues include those identified in the Initial Study,
raised by the public and by other agencies in response to the City's Notice of Preparation.
As described in the Introduction to this Draft SEIR, these areas of environmental concern
include:
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Noise
Schools
Transportation/Circulation
Utilities/Service Systems
SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
Each significant supplemental impact and associated mitigation measure(s) identified in this
SEIR is summarized in the Summary of Supplemental Impacts and Mitigations table which
follows. The summary chart has been organized to correspond with the more detailed
supplemental impact and mitigation discussions in Chapter 3 of this SEIR. The chart is
arranged in three columns: 1) identified significant adverse supplemental environmenta~
impact and its level of impact significance prior to implementation of recommended
supplemental mitigation measures; 2) recommended supplemental mitigation measures;
and 3) level of impact significance after implementation of the mitigation measure(s).
In those instances where more than one measure may be required to mitigate a
supplemental impact to a less-than-significant level, a series of mitigation measures is listed.
For a complete description of the environmental setting, supplemental impacts, and
supplemental mitigation measures associated with each topic of concern, please refer to
Chapter 3 of this Draft SEIR.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page S-2
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
AQ 1
AQ 2
BIO 1
Topic/Impact
Mobile Source Emissions: Reactive Organics
(RO), Nitrogen Oxide (Nox), and Partic~date
Matter (PM-10): Mobile source emissions for
RO and NOx (precursors to ozone formation)
are expected to exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality management District's significance
thresholds by two- to almost four-fold. These
precursors would result in the formation of
substantial quantities of ozone, which already
exceeds both state and federal standards in the
Tri-Valley area (significant impact; potentially
significant cumulative impact).
Mobile Source Emissions - CO: CO
concentrations calculated for the 19
intersections within and around the
Project area will not exceed the California
hourly standard of 20 ppm or the
state/federal 8-hour standard of 9 ppm
(less than significant).
Direct and Indirect Habitat Loss: The project
would result in direct and indirect loss,
degradation, and disturbance to habitat types
not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR: seasonal wetland and, intermittent
streams. Also, thirteen additional plant
species and eight additional wildlife species
have been identified as occurring or
potentially occurring on the site. Although
other species addressed in this supplemental
EIR were addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR,
EDPO Draft SEIR
Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the mitigation measures in the
Eastern Dublin EIR (Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-
11.0) will reduce emissions but not below the
significance threshold; no feasible mitigation
measures are available that would achieve less than
significant impact.
No mitigation is required
SM-BIO-I: A Resource Management Plan (RMP)
shall be prepared for the Project area for the City of
Dublin's review and approval prior to or concurrent
with submittal of any land use entitlement requests.
The RMP shall include all properties in the Project
area and any necessary off-site mitigation lands, and
address consistency with local policies, such as the
Stream Restoration Program and the Grazing
Management Plan and mitigation measures
contained .in the Eastern Dublin EIR and this SEIR
(for the full text of this mitigation measure, see
Page ST-1
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
Significant -
and
unavoidable
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
BIO 2
EDPO Draft SEIR
Topic/Impact
Mitigation Measure
additional new information regarding the
specie habitat or a change in its regulatory
status (change in listing status or change in
regulation of the species or its habitat) could
create impacts not addressed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR (potentially significant; cumulatively
significant).
Loss of Special Status Plant Species: No
special status plant species were identified in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. More recent
observations and documentation show the
occurrence, or potential for the occurrence, of
at least five ram plants within the Project area:
the San Joaquin spearscale, Congdon's
tarplant, palmate bird's beak, and caper-
fruited tropidocarpum, and Livermore
tarplant (Deinandra bacigalupii), a newly
described plant species within the Project area.
Other plants listed in Table 3.3-1B also may be
present but have not yet observed. Direct loss
of individuals and associated microhabitats
could occur as a result of development of the
Project (potentially significant; potentially
significant cumulative).
Chapter 3.3~.
SM-BIO-2: Plant surveys, as outlined in USFWS and
CDFG survey protocols (CDFG 1996), shall be
conducted within the Project area in early spring,
late spring, and late summer to confirm presence or
absence of special-status Plant species. Results of
these surveys shall be included with subsequent
development applications.
SM-BIO-3: Once presence is determined for a
special status plant species, areas supporting the
species should be avoided.
SM-BIO-4: If a special-status plant species cannot be
avoided, then the area containing the plant species
must be measured and one of the following steps
must be taken to ensure replacement on a 1:1 ratio
(by acreage):
a. permanently preserve, through use of a
conservation easement or other similar method, an
equal amoUnt of acreage either within the Project
area or off-site that contains the plant;
b. harvest the plants to be lost, and relocate
page ST-2
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
ImPact
Topic/Impact
BIO 3
Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive
Habitats: Impact 3.7C of the Eastern Dublin
EIR identified potentially significant direct
and indirect impacts to Arroyo Willow
Riparian Woodland and Freshwater Marsh
due to development, grading, road
construction, and culvert crossings. This
supplemental analysis identifies seasonal
wetlands and intermittent streams as
additional botanically sensitive habitats that
could be affected by direct and indirect
impacts of development of the Project area
(potentially significant; potentially significant
cumulative).
EDPO Draft SEIR
~ati°n Measure
Level of
them to another suitable and equal sized area either
within the Project area or off-site; such area shall be
preserved and protected in perpetuity; or
c. harvest seeds from the plants to be lost, or
use seeds from another appropriate source, and seed
an equal amount of area suitable for growing the
plant either within the Project area or off-site; such
area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity.
Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or
tentative map, the developer shall submit a written
report to the City for its review and approval
demonstrating how the developer will comply with
this mitigation measure, including the steps it will
take to ensure that transplanting or seeding will be
successful.
SM-BIO-5: To the extent feasible, implementation of
the Project shall be designed and constructed to
avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters of the
United States within the Project area. Examples of
avoidance and minimization include (1) reducing the
size of the Project or any future individual
development projects within the Project area, (2)
design future development projects within the
Project area so as to avoid and/or minimize impacts
to waters of the Unites States, and (3) establish and
maintain wetland or upland vegetated buffers to
protect open waters such as streams. Also, in order
to protect the particularly sensitive Arroyo willow
r~_~parian woodland and red-l~habitat
Impact After
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Page ST-3
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Topic/Impact
EDPO Draft SEIR
Mitigation Measure
in the Fallon Road drainage from Fallon Road
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
upstream to its terminus, to the maximum extent
feasible future development projects within the
Project area either shall completely avoid this
drainage or limit impacts to bridge crossings (as
Opposed to fill) or other such minimally impacting
features.
SM-BIO-& To the extent that avoidance and
minimization are not feasible and wetlands or other
waters will be filled, such impacts shall be mitigated
at a 2:1 ratio (measured by acreage) within the
Project area, through the creation, restoration or
enhancement of wetlands or other waters. Prior to
submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative
map, the developer shall submit a written report to
the City for its review and approval demonstrating
how the developer will comply with this mitigation
measure.
SM-BIO-7: If mitigation within the Project area is
not feasible, then the developer shall mitigate the fill
of wetlands or other waters at a 2:1 ratio (measured
by acreage) at an off-site location acceptable to the
City. Prior to submittal of a Stage development plan
or tentative map, the developer shall submit a
written report to the City for its review and approval
demonstrating how the developer will comply with
this mitigation measure.
SM-BIO-8: Botanically sensitive habitats shall be
included in and shall be protected and enhanced b~
Page ST-4
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
implementation of the Resource Management Plan,
as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-l, above.
BIO 4 San Joaquin Kit Fox: The Eastern Dublin EIR BIO-SM-9 Future development of the Project shall Less than
identified potentially significant impacts due comply with the amended Eastern Dublin San Significant
to construction of new roads and facilities that Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan (Appendix E) which
could: destroy potential dens or bury foxes reflects the latest protocols for kit fox habitat
occupying dens at the time of construction; evaluations, presence/absences surveys, pre-
modify natural habitat to reduce available construction surveys and precautionary construction
prey and den sites; lead to direct mortality or measures.
disturbance to foxes due to increased vehicle
traffic, human presence and domestic dogs in BIO-SM-10 San Joaquin kit fox habitat shall be
the area; and directly harm kit fox or reduce included in and shall be protected and enhanced by
prey due to the use of poisons for rodent implementation of the Resource Management Plan,
control. There are no new impacts and no as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-l, above.
increased impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox or
its habitat beyond those identified in the BIO-SM-II: If avoidance is infeasible, mitigation
Eastern Dublin EIR. However, new regulatory lands, providing similar or better habitat for San
standards have been adopted since 1993 Joaquin kit fox at a 1:1 ratio or suitable ratio
which require incorporation into the existing determined by the USFWS shall be set aside in
adopted Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox perpetuity off-site, if feasible, providing such land is
Protection Plan. available. This mitigation, proposed in a mitigation
and monitoring plan, shall be submitted to the City
for review prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
BIO 5 California Red-legged Frog (CRLF): Impact BIO-SM-12: Focused surveys following USFWS Less than
3.7 F of the Eastern Dublin EIR identified survey protocol shall be conducted in habitat Significant
potentially significant impacts due to the considered suitable for CRLF which have not already
destruction-and alteration of small water been surveyed. The current protocol (USFWS 1997b)
impoundments and stream courses on the requires that two daytime and two nighttime
Project site which could eliminate habitat for surveys be performed over a suitable four-day
the CRLF. In March 2001, the USFWS adopted period, or, the most recent USFWS approved focused
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page ST-5
Impact
EDPO Draft SEIR
SUMMARY OF EN~TAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
~act Mitigation Measure
Eastern Dublin are within the designated
critical habitat. The critical habitat for CRLF
still focuses on water and riparian features but
it is now known also to include adjacent
upland areas for potential aestivation and
dispersal. Reflecting this new information,
proposed development under the Project
could have a broader impact on CRLF habitat
and on the individual frog than previously
analyzed (potentially significant).
survey protocol should be ~sults of thes--~---
surveys shall be sent to the City for review.
BIO-SM-13: Specific California red-legged frog
habitat areas, including the drainage upstream and
east of the current Fallon Road alignment, shall be
included in and protected and enhanced by
implementation of a Resource Management Plan, as
outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-l, above.
BIO-SM-14: To the extent feasible, development of
the Project area shall avoid all areas of identified
suitable California red-legged frog aquatic and
dispersal habitat. A reasonable attempt shall be
made to avoid such aquatic habitat and to provide a
,,~,-,~ prowc~es rect-legged frog habitat. Limited
permanent development may occur within this
buffer zone (such as a trail through the length of the
buffer zone, or a bridge crossing across the buffer
zone), so long as it will have only minor impacts on
the habitat. Limited temporary development activity
may occur within this buffer zone to create trails,
install bridges, etc., and to allow for grading
activities along the edge of the buffer zone, so long
as such activity will have only minor impacts on the
habitat.
BIO-SM-15: If avoidance is infeasible, mitigation
lands, providing similar or better habitat for CRLF at
a 3:1 replacement ratio or suitable ratio determined
b~b_z_the USFWS,.shall be set aside in ~
Page ST-6
Mitigation
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Topic/Impact
EDPO Draft SEIR
Mitigation Measure
mitigation, proposed in a mitigation and monitoring
plan, shall be required prior to submittal of Stage 2
Development Plans and tentative maps. If the
identified mitigation lands have been approved by
the City, the following mitigation guidelines
implemented prior to and during construction
would reduce impacts to this species:
Prior to construction, a map shall be prepared
to delineate upland areas from preserved
wetland areas. Information for this map shall
be based on the verified wetland delineation.
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
The wetland construction boundary shall be
fenced to prohibit the movement of animals
into the construction area and control
siltation and disturbance to wetland habitat.
Following installation of fencing, its proper
location shall be verified by the Project
Biologist. The Project Biologist shall ensure
that at no time during construction is
vegetation removed inside of the fenced area.
If construction necessitates the removal of
vegetation within the fenced area, additional
mitigation will be required. Additionally,
the Project Biologist shall walk the length of
the fence once a day to ensure that CRLF are
not trapped within the enclosure. The Project
Biologist shall walk the length of the fence
more than once a day in areas where CRLF
are most abundant. The permitting agencies
shall also be contacted in the event of an~
Page ST-7
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
EDPO Draft SEIR
Topic/Impact
Mitigation Measure
significant deviation from permitting
conditions.
Pre-construction surveys within the
construction zone shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist with appropriate permits
to handle red-legged frogs. If no special-
status animals are detected during these
surveys then construction related activities
may proceed. If special-status animals are
found within the construction disturbance
zone they shall immediately be moved
passively, or captured and moved, 'in
consultation with the USFWS, to suitable
upstream sites by the Project Biologist.
All construction employees shall participate
in an endangered species/special-status
habitat education program to be presented by
a qualified biologist prior to construction
activities. The program shall cover such
topics as identifying wetland habitat and
areas used by CRLF, identification of CRLF
by photos, the State and federal Endangered
Species Acts, and the consequences of
violating the terms of these acts.
All construction adjacent to wetlands shall be
regularly monitored to ensure that impacts
do not exceed th6se included within the
protective standards of the mitigations. Work
~performed within 500 feet of a~Lgatic habitat
Page ST-8
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MI'FIGATION MEASURES
Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
shall be monitored by the Project Biologist,
who shall document pre-project and post-
project conditions to ensure permit
compliance.
During construction, the Project Biologist shall be on
site whenever construction within any aquatic
habitats is to occur. Any construction activity within
ordinary high water shall be photo-documented by
the Project Biologist. In addition, a biologist with the
appropriate permits to relocate animals shall be
available for consultation as needed.
BIO 6 Special Status Invertebrates: Impact 3.7/S of MM 3.7/28.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR was adopted Less than
the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially to reduce the previously identified impact. That Significant
significant impacts on special status mitigation is supplemented by the following
invertebrates including vernal pool fairy additional mitigation measures in order to reflect
shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp. This SEIR current protocol for these species.
identified two additional special status
invertebrate species, the Conservancy fairy SM-BIO-16: Special-status invertebrate habitat shall
shrimp and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp, be included in and shall be protected and enhanced
which could be affected by development of by implementation of a Resource Management Plan,
the Project area due to incidental observation as outlined in Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1.
of potential habitat (seasonal wetlands, etc.)
within the Project area (potentially significant). SM-BIO-17: The following vernal pool habitat
surveys and mitigation shall be implemented:
* Surve. ys of potential habitat are
required. If suitable habitat is
identified, the following mitigation
is required. If impacts to occupied
· and protected vernal pool fairy
EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-9
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
'Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
shrimp habitat are less than one
acre, including habitat directly
destroyed and habitat indirectly
affected (within 250 feet of vernal
pool), the following, based on the
February 28, 1996 Biological
Opinion (USFWS 1996), or current
protocol, shall be adhered to or as
otherwise negotiated with the
USFWS. The Biological Opinion
collectively covers all projects with
small effects (less than one acre) on
listed vernal pool crustaceans in
the Sacramento Basin (of which the
Project area is considered a part) of
California. For purposes of this
consultation with USFWS, all
applicants will have either
surveyed habitat of these species
(habitat) and confirmed the
presence of listed species, or
chosen to assume that all potential
habitat contains listed species.
(a) Preservation: For every acre of
habitat directly or indirectly
impacted at least two vernal pool
credits shall be dedicated within a
Service-approved ecosystem
preservation bank, or in
accordance with USFWS
· evaluation of site-specific
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page ST-10
Impact
EDPO Draft SEIR
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Topic/Impact
Mitigation Measure
conservation values, three acres of
vernal pool habitat may be
preserved within the Project area
or on another non-bank site as
approved by the Service.
Co)
Creation: For every acre of habitat
directly impacted, at least one
vernal pool creation credit shall be
dedicated within a Service-
approved habitat mitigation bank,
or, in accordance with USFWS
evaluation of site-specific
conservation values, two acres of
vernal pool habitat will be created
and monitored within the Project
area or on another non-bank site
as approved by the Service.
Mitigation ratios for non-bank
mitigation may be adjusted to
approach those for banks if the
Service considers the conservation
value of the non-bank mitigation
area to approach that of Service-
approved mitigation banks.
Mitigation for direct impacts to
vernal pool habitat shall include
either 2:1 preservation and 1:1
creation on mitigation bank lands
or 3:1 preservation and 2:1 creation
for non-mitigation bank lands.
Page ST-11
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASUR ES
Impact
Topic/Impact
EDPO Draft SEIR
Mitigation Measure
Vernal pool habitat and associated
upland areas which are preserved
onsite shall be managed into
perpetuity or until the Corps of
Engineers, the applicant and the
USFWS agree on an exchange of
present habitat for mitigation
credits within a USFWS approved
ecosystem preservation bank.
All avoided habitat (preserved) on
site shall be monitored by a
USFWS approved biologist during
the time of construction. The
monitoring biologist shall have
authority to stop all activities that
may result in destruction or take of
listed species or destruction of
their habitat. Resumption of
construction shall occur after
appropriate corrective measures
have been taken. The biologist
shall report any unauthorized
impacts to USFWS and CDFG.
Fencing shall be placed and
maintained around any and all
preserved vernal pool habitat.
· All on-site construction personnel
· shall receive instruction~
Page ST-12
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Topic/Impact
BIO 7
EDPO Draft SEIR
California Tiger Salamander: Since
preparation of the Eastern Dublin EIR it has
been recognized that upland areas of
previously-defined CTS habitat may provide
suitable aestivation habitat, the presence of
this species was confirmed in the southern
portion of the Project area, and suitable habitat
is present throughout the Project area. Direct
and indirect loss of individuals in these
upland areas could occur from the Project.
(potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure
the presence of listed species and
their habitat.
The proponent shall insure that
activities inconsistent with the
preservation of the vernal pool
habitat and associated upland
habitat are prohibited during the
life of the Project.
Any project that impacts vernal
pool or seasonal wetland habitat
greater than one acre shall be
evaluated by the USFWS on a case-
by-case level using these basic
guidelines.
SM-BIO-I 8: California tiger salamander habitat
shall be included in and shall be protected and
enhanced by implementation of a Resource
Management Plan, as outlined in Mitigation
Measure SM-BIO-1.
SM-BIO-19: If avoidance is infeasible, mitigation
lands, providing similar or better aquatic and upland
habitat for California tiger salamander (CTS) at a l:l
ratio or suitable ratio determined by the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), shall be set
aside in perpetuity. Upland habitat shall be
mitigated by preserving additional upland on-site or,
if necessary, by preserving currently-occupied tiger
salamander habitat off-site. Aquatic habitat shall be
Page ST-13
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
mitigated by creating an equal number (or acreage)
of new aquatic California tiger salamander habitat
within the preserved upland habitat. This
mitigation, included in a mitigation and monitoring
plan, shall be required prior to submittal of Stage 2
development plans and tentative maps.
BIO 8: Nesting Raptors. The Eastern Dublin EIR SM-BIO-20: A qualified biologist shall conduct pre- Less than
identified potentially significant impacts to construction surveys for nesting raptors. If an active Significant
several species of nesting raptors. Since nest is found the following mitigation measures shall
certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, an also be implemented.
additional special status raptor species, the
short-eared owl, has been identified as SM-BIO-21: If construction must occur during the
potentially nesting within the Project area. nesting season, all potential nesting trees within the
Removal or disturbance of an active raptor footprint of development should be removed prior to
nest would constitute a supplemental the nesting season to prevent occupied nests from
potentially significant impact, being present when construction begins.
SM-BIO-22: Construction should occur between
August 31 and February 1 to avoid disturbance of
owls during the nesting season. This construction
window could be adjusted if monitoring efforts
determine that the owls do not nest in a given year
or that nesting was completed before August 1.
SM-BIO-23: If removal of nesting trees is infeasible
and construction must occur within the breeding
season, a nesting raptor survey shall be performed
by a qualified biologist prior to tree disturbance.
SM-BIO-24: All active nests shall be identified by
flag~;ing and a'buffer zone, dependin§ on the
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page ST-14
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Topic/Impact
BIO 9
Golden Eagle - Elimination of Foraging
Habitat: As discussed in Impact 3.7/K of
Eastern Dublin EIR, the conversion of
grasslands and the consequent reduction of
potential prey are expected to reduce the
amount and quality of foraging habitat for
golden eagles. Additional da ta on eagle
foraging habitat gathered since preparation of
the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the
northern portion of the Project area is used by
an identified breeding pair of eagles for
foraging (potentially significant impact).
EDPO Draft SEIR
Mitigation Measure
species, shall be established around the nesting tree.
Buffer zones can range between 200 feet to 500 feet to
an entire viewshed.
SM-BIO-25: If construction is scheduled when
young birds have not yet fledged, an exclusion zone
around the nest shall be established or construction
shall be delayed until after the young have fledged,
typically by August 15 or earlier if determined by a
biologist that fledging has occurred.
SM-BIO-26: Nesting raptor habitat shall be included
in and shall be protected and enhanced by
implementation of the Resource Management Plan
as outlined in SM-BIO-1.
SM-BIO-27: The territory of the golden eagle
nesting pair shall be included in and protected and
enhanced by implementation of a ResourCe
Management Plan, as outlined in Mitigation
Measure SM-BIO-1. The protected golden eagle
foraging territory affects areas in the northern
portion of the Project area designated for Rural
Residential/Agricultural uses. Development
standards and uses for these areas shall incorporate
the following measures:
Homesites in this portion of the
Project area shall be located in valley
bottoms adjacent to existing or
planned residential development.
Permitted.~ricultural uses shall be
Page ST-15
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
BIO 10
Topic/Impact
Burrowing Owl: The California Department
of Fish and Game has developed new
guidelines for mitigating impacts to this
species since preparation of the Eastern
Dublin EIR. Without the following
supplemental mitigation, this could be a
supplemental impact (potentially significant).
EDPO Draft SEIR
Mitigation Measure
limited to grazing to maintain suitable
golden eagle foraging habitat.
Rodent control in this portion of the
Project area shall be prohibited.
Any additional portion of the Project area that is
within the viewshed of all nest sites used by this pair
shall also be managed in a similar manner.
SM-BIO-28: If construction is scheduled during
the nesting season (February I - August 31), pre-
construction surveys should be conducted on the
entire Project area and within 150 meters (500 fee0 of
the Project area prior to any ground disturbance. To
avoid take of over-wintering birds, all burrows
should be surveyed 30 days prior to ground
disturbance between the months of September 1 and
January 31. If ground disturbance is delayed or
suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-
construction survey, the site should be resurveyed.
SM-BIO-29: If over-wintering birds are present no
disturbance should occur within 160 feet of occupied
burrows unless agency approval provides a letter
giving consent to relocate wintering birds. If owls
must be moved away from the disturbance area,
passive relocation techniques, following CDFG 1995
guidelines, should be used rather than trapping. If
no over-wintering birds are observed, burrows may
be removed prior to the nesting season to reduce
impacts from noise, dust, and human disturbance to
~airs. ·
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Page ST-16
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Topic/Impact
EDPO Draft SEIR
Mitigation Measure
SM-BIO-30: Maintain a minimum buffer (at least
250 feet) around active burrowing owl nesting sites
identified by pre-construction surveys during the
breeding season to avoid direct loss of individuals
(February 1- September 1).
SM-BIO-31: If removal of unoccupied potential
nesting burrows prior to the nesting season is
infeasible and construction must occur within the
breeding season, a nesting burrowing owl survey
shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 30
days prior to construction. Owls present on site after
February 1 will be assumed to be nesting on site or
adjacent to the site. All active burrows shall be
identified.
SM-BIO-32: All active nesting burrows shall have
an established 250-foot exclusion zone around the
burrow.
SM-BIO-33: If construction is scheduled during
summer, when young are not yet fledged, a 250-foot
exclusion zone around the nest shall be established
or construction shall be delayed until after the young
have fledged, typically by August 31.
ISM-BIO-34: When destruction of occupied burrow:~
is unavoidable, existing unsuitable burrows should
be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or new
burrows created (by installing artificial burrows) at a
2:1 ratio on protected lands, as provided for below.
Page ST-17
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
Impact
BIO 11
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Topic/Impact
Nesting Passerines: The Eastern Dublin EiR
identified potentially significant impacts on
riparian and freshwater habitat of tri-colored
blackbird. The Project area provides
potentially suitable nesting habitat, including
grassland, arroyo willow riparian woodland,
and freshwater marsh habitat, for two
additional nesting passerines, the loggerhead
shrike and the California homed lark. These
Mitigation Measure
SM-BIO-35: A minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging
habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird, shall be
acquired and permanently protected. The protected
lands shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl
habitat and at a location acceptable to CDFG.
SM-BIO-36: The project proponent shall provide
funding for long-term management and monitoring
of the protected lands. The monitoring plan should
include success criteria, remedial measures, and an
annual report to CDFG.
SM-BIO-37: Burrowing owl habitat shall be
included in and shall be protected and enhanced by
implementation of the Resource Management Plan
as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-1.
SM-BIO-38: If construction is scheduled to occur
during the nesting season (February 1- August 15),
all potential nesting sites and structures (i.e., shrubs
and tules) within the footprint of development
should be removed prior to the beginning of the
nesting season. However, because the removal of
grassland habitat is infeasible, mitigation for impacts
to California homed lark are addressed more
particularly in Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-42 to
California Species of Special Concern have the SM~BIO-44, below.
potential to reside in the Project area,
especially since tricolored blackbird has been SM-BIO-39: If removal bf nesting trees and shrubs
confirmed within the Project area since within the footprint of development is infeasible and
certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. construction rrtust occur within the breedin_g_~eason,
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page ST-18
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
Significant
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
Potential d~struction of nesting habitats or a nesting bird survey shoUld be performed by a
disturbance to these nesting passerines could qualified biologist within 30 days prior to
result from the project. (potentially significant), construction. These surveys shall cover grassland
habitat for potential nesting California horned lark.
Birds present on site after February 1 will be
assumed to be nesting onsite or adjaCent to the site.
SM-BIO-40: All active nests shall be identified by
flagging and a buffer zone, dePending on the
species, shall be established around the nest site.
Buffer zones can range between 75 feet to 100 feet.
SM-BIO-41: If construction is scheduled during
summer, when young have not yet fledged, an
exclusion zone around the nest shall be established
or construction shall be delayed until after the young
have fledged, typically by July 15.
SM-BIO-42: Habitat for nesting passerines shall be
included in and shall be protected and enhanced by
implementation of the Resource Management Plan
as outlined in SM-BIO-I,
BIO 12 Bat Species: Special status bat species SM-BIO-43: A qualified bat biologist shall conduct Less than
potentially occurring on-the site, including the occupancy surveys of the Project area to determine Significant
pallid bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, and the whether any mature trees, snags or suitable
Yuma myotis bat, were not addressed in the buildings that would be removed during future
Eastern Dublin EIR. Destruction of roosting project construction proyide hibernacula or nursery
habitat for these bat species could occur as a colony roosting habitat.
result of the project (potentially significant).
SM-BIO-44: If presence is observed, removal of
roost habitat should be conducted at specific times of
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page ST-19
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Topic/Impact
Mitigation 'Measure
the year. Winter roosts are generally occupied
between October 15 through January 30 and
maternity colonies are generally occupied between
February 15 and July 30. If bats are using roost sites
that need to be removed, the roosting season of the
colony shall be determined and the removal shall be
conducted when the colony is using an alternate
roost.
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
NOISE 1
NOISE 2:
EDPO Draft SEIR
Exposure of proposed and existing housing to
noise levels in excess of standards established
in the General Plan. (potentially significant)
Exposure of future commercial, office and
indUstrial uses to noise levels in excess of
standards established in the General Plan.
(potentially significan0
SM-BIO-45: Habitat for these bat species shall be
included in and shall be protected and enhanced by
implementation of the Resource Management Plan
as outlined in Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1.
Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0 and 2.0 of the Eastern
Dublin EIR require acoustical studies for new
residential development within the 60 dBA CNEL
noise contour and require mitigation for outdoor
living areas of existing residences. However, even
with mitigation, previously identified traffic noise
impacts on existing residences could not be reduced
to insignificance.
SM-NOISE-I: Require a noise insulation plan for
general commercial (including any proposed office-
type uses) and industrial land uses to be submitted
for all such development projects located within the
future CNEL 70 dbA contour. The plan shall show
how interior noise levels would be controlled to
acceptable levels. The acceptable level will depend
on the type of use as set forth in the noise insulation
plan. Interior t~oise levels could be controlled
Page ST-20
Significant
Unavoidable
Less than
Significant
I 1 I I I I I I I t I 1 I t 1 I 1 I I
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
~ Mitigation Measure
Exposure of people to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels. (potentially significant)
TRAFFIC
LOS at Hacienda
eastbound ramps (potentially significant).
Unacceptable LOS at Hacienda Drive/I-580
westbound ramps (potentially significant).
EDPO Draft SEIR
using sound-rated windows in
windows closest to the streets and the freeway.
SM-NOISE-2: Except for local deliveries, restrict
heavy truck traffic to designated arterial roadways
and truck routes within the Project area and limit the
hours of local deliveries to daytime hours as
established by the City. Thismitigation will reduce
ground borne vibration from increased levels of
heavy traffic to less than significant.
SM-TRAFFIC-l: Project developers shall contribu
a pro-rata share to the widening of the 1-580
eastbound off-ramp approach at Hacienda Drive to
add a third eastbound left turn lane. The City of
Dublin shall implement this mitigation measure in
coordination with the City of Pleasanton and
Caltrans. This improvement shall occur when traffic
impaCts from individual projects are determined to
trigger the need for this improvement based on
traffic impact studies of the individual projects.
Project developers shall contribut~
a pro-rata share to the widening of the northbound
Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 lanes to 4 lanes
including three through lanes and one auxiliary lane
that leads exclusively to the 1-580 westbound loop
on-ramp. The westbound loop on-ramp shall be
modified asnecessary. Project developers also shall
contribute to widening the westbound off ramp
add a third westbound left-turn lane.
Page ST-21
of
Impact After
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
than
Significant
than
Significant
Impact
SUMMARY OF EN----"-~IRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATI~Es
Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure
TRAFFIC
Unacceptable LOS at Santa Rita Road/I-580
eastbound ramps (potentially significant).
TRAFFIC 4
TRAFFIC $
The new project intersection of Dublin
Boulevard/Street D would operate at an
unacceptable level of service during the PM peak
hour (potentiall!/ significant).
The new project intersection of Fallon
EDPO Draft SEIR
ect Road would o.0_perate at an
The City of Dublin shall implement this mitigation
measure in coordination with the City of Pleasanton
and Caltrans. This improvement shall occur when
traffic impacts from individual projects are
determined to trigger the need for this improvement
based On traffic impact studies of the individual
projects.
SM-TRAFFIC-3: Project developers shall contribute
a pro-rata share to construction which converts the
eaStbound Santa Rita off-ramp through lane to a
shared left turn/through lane. Project developers
also shall contribute to a traffic signal upgrade which
includes a westbound right-turn overlap from
Pimlico Drive.
The City of Dublin shall implement this mitigation
measure in coordination with the City of Pleasanton
and Caltrans. This improvement shall occur when
traffic impacts from individual projects are
determined to trigger the need for this improvement
based on traffic impact studies of the individual
projects.
SM-TRAFFIC-4: The Project developers shall install
a traffic signal at the Dublin Boulevard/Street D
intersection at the time development occurs in this
area utilizing this intersection.
SM-TRAFFIC-5: The Project developers shall install
a traffic si_~mal at the Fallon Road/Proiect Road
Page ST-22
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
nificant
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Topic/Impact Mitigation Measure Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
unacceptable level of service during the AM intersection at the time development occurs in this
and PM peak hours. (potentially significant), area utilizing this intersection,
Project developers shall implement this mitigation
measure when the traffic signal installation at Fallon
Road/Project Road becomes warranted based on the
estimated additional trips from individual projects,
as determined by traffic impact studies of the
individual projects.
TRAI~'FiC 6 In the Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with SM-TRAFFIC-& Project developers shall contribute a Significant
Project scenario, the Dougherty Road/Dublin pro-rata share to configure the eastbound Dublin Unavoidable
Boulevard intersection would operate at Boulevard approach to include 1 left-turn lane, three
unacceptable levels of service during the AM through lanes and two right turn lanes. Project
and PM peak hours. (potentially significant). · developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to
configure the west bound Dublin Boulevard
approach to include three left-turn lanes, two
through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn
lane. Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata
share to configure the northbound Dougherty Road
approach to include three left-turn lanes, three
through lanes and two right-turn lanes. Project
developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to
configure the southbound Dougherty Road approach
to include two left turn lanes, three through lanes,
and one shared through/right-turn lane. The 1-580
westbound diagonal on-ramp from Dougherty Road
shall be widened as necessary to include two single-
occupancy vehicle lanes. In addition, the City will
monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a
periodic basis, as described below, and will apply
appropriate Project conditions based on the results of
EDPO Draft SEIR Page ST-23
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
TRAFFIC 7
TRAFFIC 8
Topic/Impact
Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard
intersection would operate at an unacceptable
level of service during the PM peak hour in
the Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with
Project scenario, (potentially significant).
The Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard
intersection would operate at LOS F (1.11)
during the PM peak hour in the Year 2025
Cumulative Buildout with Project scenario
(potentially significant).
EDPO Draft SEIR
Mitigation Measure
such monitoring, as suggested below.
The Project developers shall pay their pro-rata share
of the cost to construct these improvements through
payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee.
The City will implement these improvements. ·
No mitigations are feasible to reduce this impact to
less than significant
SM-TRAFFIC-7: The Project developers shall
construct an additional through lane on northbound
Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes),
construct an additional left-turn lane on westbound
Dublin Boulevard (for a total of three left-turn lanes)
and construct an additional through lane on
soUthbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through
lanes). In addition, the City will monitor the
intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic
basis, as described below, and will apply appropriate
Project conditions based on the results of such
monitoring, as suggested below.
Project developers shall implement this mitigation
measure when traffic impacts from individual
projects are determined to trigger the need for this
improvement based on traffic impact studies of the
individual projects.
Page ST-24
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
Unavoidabl~
Significant
Unavoidable
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Topic/Impact .... Mitigation Measure Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
SM-TRAFFIC-8: In addition to the above additional
lane configurations (in Supplemental Mitigation
Traffic 7), the Project developers shall pay for studies
to assess the feasibility of locating the Fallon
Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection farther north to
allow for a signalized Project intersection between
the 1-580 westbound ramps/Fallon Road intersection
and the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection
(the "auxiliary intersection"). This new Project
auxiliary intersection should consist of seven
northbound Fallon Road lanes (2 left, 4 through, 1
righ0, seven southbound Fallon Road lanes (2 left
turn, 4 through, 1 right turn), and 4 lanes for the new
Project street; in the westbound direction three left
turn lanes and a shared through/right turn lane; and
in the eastbound direction, two right-turn lanes, one
through and two left turn lanes. If the studies show
that a new Project auxiliary intersection in such
location is feasible, the Project developers shall
construct such intersection.
Project developers shall implement this mitigation
measure when traffic impacts from individual
projects are determined to trigger the need for this
improvement based on traffic impact studies of the
individual projects.
This "auxiliary" intersection, identified as XX in
Table 3.6-6 would provide for three left-turn lanes
onto southbound Fallon Road to absorb some of the
Project-generated southbound left-tums at the Fallon
Road/Dublin'Boulevard intersection. Construction
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page sT-25
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Topic/Impact
Mitigation Measure
Level of
TRAFFIC 9
Fallon Road will be overloaded at planned
interim lane configurations in the Future Base
with Project scenario (potentially significant).
TRAFFIC 10
Central Parkway will be overloaded at
planned interim lane configurations in the
Future Base with Project Scenario (potentially
significant).
EDPO Draft SEIR
of this auxiliary intersection would require
modifications to the planned Fallon Road and
Dublin Boulevard alignments to provide the
necessary 750 feet distance between intersections.
Land uses and planned building locations on the
west side of Fallon Road may have to be modified to
accommodate this new intersection.
SM-TRAFFIC-9: The Project developers shall be
responsible for widening Fallon Road between 1-580
and Dublin Road to its ultimate eight lanes and shall
be responsible for widening Fallon Road between
Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to its
ultimate six-lane width. The Project developers shall
be responsible for widening Fallon Road between
Central Parkway and Project Road to four lanes. The
Project developers also shall be responsible for
widening the Fallon Road overcrossing (between the
eastbound and westbound 1-580 ramps) from four
lanes to six lanes.
Project developers shall implement this mitigation
measure when traffic impacts from individual
.projects are determined to trigger the need for this
~mprovement based on traffic impact studies of the
individual projects.
SM-TRAFFIC-10: The Project developers shall be
responsible for widening Central Parkway between
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road from two lanes to
four lanes. Project developers shall implement this
when traffic impacts from
Page ST-26
Impact After
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
TRAFFIC
UTS 1
UTS 2
UTS 3
Topic/Impact
In the Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with
Project Scenario, freeway segments on b580
and 1-680 in the Project area would operate at
unacceptable levels of service during the AM
and PM peak hours (potentially significant).
Available Water Supplies: DSRSD's required
showing of available water supplies under the
Settlement Agreement may exceed the
otherwise required showing under CEQA
(potentially significant).
Uncertain Energy Supply: The current
energy crisis makes PG&E's ability to serve
currently unserved territory with gas and
electric service somewhat uncertain. Until
PG&E emerges from bankruptcy some
uncertainty concerning the provision of gas
and electricity services to new and existing
PG&E customers exists (potentially significant).
Local Electrical Distribution Constraints:
Local electrical distribution constraints limit
PG&E's ability to serve the Project area.
PG&E has stated that it is able to adequately
serve the Tri-VaHey with existing facilities
~ June 2002; however,
EDPO Draft SEIR
Mitigation Measure
individual projects are determined to trigger the
need for this improvement based on traffic impact
studies of the individual projects.
No additional mitigation measures are feasible
beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR
SM UTS-I: Prior to approval of future Subdivision
Maps or Site Development Review (SDR)
applications (as may be applicable) by the City of
Dublin, project developers shall submit "will serve"
letters from DSRSD indicating that adequate water is
available to serve the proposed development project.
SM UTS-2: Prior to approval of future subdivision
maps or Site Development Review applications (as
may be applicable) by the City of Dublin, project
developers shall submit "will serve" letters from
PG&E indicating that adequate electricity and
natural gas services are available to serve the
proposed development project.
Mitigation UTS-2, above also mitigates this impact
Page ST-27
Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
Significant
Unavoidable
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Topic/Impact
service reliability may be problematic after
that point. If the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity
Increase Project or a fUnctionally equivalent
project is not constructed, PG&E would be
forced to respond to growing demand by
expanding its existing system to the extent
that it is possible and by curtailing service if
growth in demand exceeds the transmission
system's capacity or reliability requirements
for essential services (such as hospitals)
(potentially significant).
Mitigation Measure
Impact After
Mitigation
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page ST-28
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
This is a Draft Supplemental EIR (Supplemental EIR or SEIR) to the program EIR (State
Clearinghouse Number 91103064, "Eastern Dublin EIR") certified by the City of Dublin on
May 10, 1993 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
This Supplemental EIR is organized in the following manner:
Chapter I - Introduction. This chapter describes the organization and review of this
document.
Chapter 2 - Project Description. This chapter provides a description of the proposed
Project, Project area location and general existing conditions. It also describes Project
objectives, the use of this document and future approvals required for the Project.
Chapter 3 - Environmental. Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. This chapter
describes for each environmental topic: existing, conditions (setting); potential
supplemental environmental impacts and their level of significance; and mitigation
measures recommended to mitigate identified impacts. '
Chapter 4, Alternatives. This chapter provides an evaluation of a Mitigated Traffic
Alternative in addition to No Project and No Development Alternatives. The
environmentally superior alternative also is discussed in this chapter.
Chapter 5 - References. This chapter provides full references for all documents used in
this CEQA analysis.
1.2
Chapter 6 - Report Authors. This chapter provides a list of persons who authored this
document and organizations and persons consulted in the process of CEQA analysis.
Appendices - The appendices contain the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study;
Resolution No. 53-93 approving the GPA/SP and including the CEQA findings and
adopted mitigation measures; and background data referenced in the this Supplemental
EIR including, but not limited to, an evaluation of Project area prime agricultural land,
air quality data, an addendum to Appendix E of the Eastern Dublin EIR, noise data, and
detailed intersection volume/capacity tables.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
This Draft SEIR will be circulated for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA. Ail
relevant comments on environmental issues received during the public review period will
be responded to by the City. At the end of this process, the Draft SEIR (and any revisions to
the Draft SEIR), the public comments and responses, a list of those commenting on the Draft
SEIR, and any other information added by the City will be presented to the City Council as
a "Final Supplemental EIR" for certification. After certification the City and other agencies
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 1-1
will consider the proposed annexation, prezoning, Stage I Development Plan and related
actions.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 1-2
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND
The Project area is approximately 1,120 acres in size and is located in an unincorporated
area of Alameda County bounded by Interstate 580 (1-580) to the south and Fallon Road to
the west. Figure 2-A shows the Project location in relation to the general Bay Area. The
Project area abuts the eastern city limit boundary of the City of Dublin (Figure 2-B). The
entire Project area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan Planning Area and
Sphere of Influence (SOI). Approximately 472 acres of the Project area are included within
the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan boundary (Figure 2-B). The Project area consists of
thirteen (13) different parcels of land under eleven (11) separate ownerships (Figure 2-C).
The Project area does not include the Future Study Area shown on Figure 1-2b of the Dublin
General Plan to the east of the Project area. The General Plan notes in Chapter 2 that the
Future Study Area designation is an indication of the City's interest in the area and the need
for additional studies of environmental constraints, future land uses, infrastructure, and
other issues. No land use determinations will be made in that area until more information
is available to determine the most suitable type of development or preservation for that
area. That designated Future Study Area is outside of the City's sphere of influence. Any
study of this area -- for development or for preservation -- would require Council action td
initiate a general plan amendment study. Since the Council's adoption in May 1993 of the
Reduced Planning Alternative - which excluded that Future Study Area from the areas
planned for development in the general plan amendment - the Council has taken no actions
to initiate study of that area. That area is subject to the jurisdiction of Alameda County and
its general plan.
The proposed Project includes annexation of the Project area to the City of Dublin and
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), prezoning the area to the City of Dublin PD-
Planned Development Zoning District and a related Stage I Development Plan to guide
future development of the Project area.
Development under the proposed prezoning and Stage I Planned Development would
include a mix of residential uses at a variety of densities, employment-generating uses such
as retail, service, office and light industrial, parks, open spaces, community facilities,
roadways and similar land uses. The Stage 1 Development Plan proposes retail, office and
light industrial land uses located primarily within the southern portion of the Project area
along the freeway and major arterials, with residential uses located in the more northern
and eastern portions of the Project area. The Project also would provide a complement of
neighborhood parks, school sites, open space, and a multi-use trail system to link the
developed areas with the parks and trails within project open space.
The entire Project area is within the SOI for DSRSD. The property immediately to the west
of the Project area was annexed into the City in 1995 and is now being developed in phases
and urban infrastructure is being extended to a point approximately 3,000 feet west of the
Project area.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 2-1
2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The main objectives of the annexation and prezoning Project include.
· Completing the planned expansion of the City's corporate boundaries to the east as
provided for in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan;
· Initiating a zoning level framework guiding future development projects within the
Project area consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan; and
Implementing the City's objectives for Eastern Dublin as set forth in the Eastern
Dublin EIR.
2.3 UPDATE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
In the early 1990s, the City proposed a General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and the Specific
Plan ("Specific Plan" or "SP') for the Eastern Dublin area as identified on Figure 2-D. On
May 10, 1993, the City certified a program EIR and addendum thereto dated May 4, 1993
(State Clearinghouse Number 91103064, "Eastern Dublin EIR") for the proposed General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (collectively, the "GPA/SP Project"). The General Plan
Amendment included a 6,920-acre area; the Specific Plan included 3,302 acres within the
total 6,920-acre planning area. The Eastern Dublin EIR also evaluated four alternatives - the
No-Project Alternative, a Reduced Planning Area Alternative, a Reduced Land Us~
Intensities Alternative and a No Development Alternative. The Dublin City Council ·
approved a modified version of the Reduced Planning Area Alternative (City Council
Resolution No. 53-93, dated May 10, 1993.)
A further addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared to update plans and provide
sewer service. This second addendum, dated August 22, 1994, was approved by the City
Council. The May 10, 1993 Program EIR, the May 4, 1993 Addendum, and the August 22,
1994 Addendum are collectively referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Following the City's certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the Reduced
Area Alternative, as modified, a lawsuit was filed challenging the Eastern Dublin EIR (City
of Pleasanton et al. v. City of Dublin, San Mateo Superior Court No. 385533). The Court
foUnd the Eastern Dublin EIR to comply with Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines
requirements. The City has implemented the Mitigation Monitoring Program, adopted by
the Council (Resolution No. 123-96), as interpreted by the Court's Memorandum of
Decision.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 provides that once an EIR is certified for a project, the lead
agency cannot require that a supplemental or subsequent EIR be prepared unless it
determines, based on substantial evidence in light of the record as a whole, one or more of
the following:
"(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which wilI require major revisions of
the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; or
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 2-2
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative
declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the
following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined wig be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact
be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alterna five; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative."
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR by the City, new information which was not
known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time
the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified has been identified that could result in potential new
significant impacts or an increase in the severity of impacts previously analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. In addition, substantial changes may have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which continued development pursuant to the General Plan, Specific
Plan, and the proposed Stage I Development Plan will be undertaken which could result in
potential new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of significant impacts
previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the following changes and or information
could result in new or intensified significant impacts:
Change in status of previously ldentified sensitive species and identification of new
sensitive species not previously identified;
PotentiaLly substantial increases in regional traffic;
Possible changes in noise and air quality conditions related to changes in traffic
conditions;
Potential for cancellation of WiLliamson Act contracts on certain parcels in the
Property; and
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 2-3
· Changes in the provision and distribution of schools and public utilities (water,
wastewater, storm drainage, and gas. and electricity).
The City prepared an Initial Study (Appendix A) in accordance with CEQA GuideIines
Section 15063. The Initial Study determined that the annexation and prezoning Project
could resUlt in the potential for new or substantially increased significant impacts in the
impact categories of Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Noise,
Schools, Transportation/Circulation, and Utilities/Service Systems. Each of these impact
categories is addressed in depth in this Supplemental EIR. Where necessary, the analysis
set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR has been updated so that the potential impacts can be
adequately assessed.
CEQA also requires that a reasonable range of alternatives be discussed in an EIR. The
Eastern Dublin EIR provided and analyzed such a reasonable range. However, as a result
of the neTM information and changed circumstances, this document further expands the
reasonable range identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR in response to identified
sUpplemental impacts.
Like the existing Eastern Dublin EIR, this SEIR is a program-level document that focuses on
the new and/or substantially increased significant impacts of continued development
pursuant to the General Plan, Specific Plan and proposed Stage I Development Plan. The'
Eastern Dublin EIR and this Supplemental EIR fully identify and assess all of the significant
impacts of the development potential under the proposed annexation and prezoning
pursuant to the General Plan and Specific Plan. Additional environmental review of
individual development projects within the annexation and prezoning area may be
required prior to the granting of additional land use entitlements. The Eastern Dublin EIR
is available for review at the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100
CiviC Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568.
2.4 PROJECT AREA FEATURES
Topography
The topography of the area ranges from relatively flat at the southern portion near the
freeway, to gently roiling hills at the center of the area, to relatively steep slopes, some
exceeding 30%. A series of Iow knolls trending from northwest to southeast bisects the
southern portion of the property and provides a backdrop to the flatter portions of the area
near the freeway. A few drainages flow in a north to south orientation, transecting the
Project area along its length. Figure 2 - E shows the topography of the Project area. A small
number of trees exist beyond those planted around existing homesteads and scattered in the
drainages.
Existing Use of Project Area
The Project area is used primarily for agriculture and grazing, with rural residences, and
associated outbuildings scattered throughout the area. A horse ranch is located on the
approximately nine-acre Campbell parcel north of 1-580 east of Croak Road. Other land
uses in the Project area include excavation and landscape company corporation yards, horse
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 2-4
boarding and training facilities, trucking/delivery/storage facilities, and an abandoned
quarry pit.
Ownership
The Project area is comprised of 13 parcels owned by eleven landowners. Ownerships and
parcel sizes are indicated in Table 2.4,1, below, and shown on Figure 2-C.
TABLE 2.4-1
PROPERTY OWNERSHIPS AND ACREAGES*
Property Owner Acreage Applicable Dublin Plan
First American Title Guarantee 189.1 GP/SP
Co. (FATCo.) (2 parcels)
Chen 135,6 GP/SP
_ EB] Pailners L.P. 0.8 GP/SP
Pleasanton Ranch Investments 0.2 GP/SP
Anderson Second Family 48.9 GP/SP
Limited Partnership
Righetti Partners 48.7 GP/SP
Branaugh 39.8 GP/Sp '
Campbell 8.8 GP/SP
Braddock and Logan 159.5 GP
Croak (two parcels) 164 GP
Fallon Ente~-pdses 313.8 GP
TOTAL 1,109.2 1,109.2 ac GP/472 ac SP
* See Fik~ure 2-C for st)ecific 1~areo! ~er~ .... ~,~1 ..... ~ .... ~ ....
ages ~ nbers associated with each property.
Relationship to City General and Specific Plan
All properties comprising the Project area are within the City's General Plan Eastern
Extended Planning Area and approximately half of the Project area is also within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (Figure 2-B and Figure 2-D). See also Table 2.4-1.
Adjacent Land Uses
Current land uses surrounding the Project area are: a majOr transportation corridor (I-580
freeway) to the south; rural residential and grazing lands to the north and east; and Dublin
Ranch, a mixed-use development adjacent to the western edge of the area. The Dublin
Ranch lands are currently within the City and are currently undergoing phased
development. Land uses for Dublin Ranch are similar to those designated for the Project
area within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan. Land uses in Dublin Ranch
include low density residential (4.6 units/acre, 562 units), medium density residential (10
units/acre, 958 units), medium-high density residential (20 units/acre, 172 units), high
density residential (35 units/acre, 744 units), general commercial (maximum 446,500 square
feet), campus office (maximum 677,000 square feet), approximately 54 acres of a total 68-
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 2-5
acre community park, a portion of an elementary school site, rural residential/agriculture,
and open space.
Agricultural lands designated as "Future Study Area-Agriculture" in the General Plan lie to
the north and east of the Project area. These lands, which are outside the City's sphere of
influence, would require additional study and processing with the City to determine
whether they are appropriate for development or preservation. Land uses south of 1-580
include grazing and agricultural farming uses; however land southwest of 1-580 (west of E1
Charro Road) is included within the City of Pleasanton's adopted Stoneridge Drive Specific
Plan and is slated for light industrial and commercial uses, and a community park.
Existing Eastern Dublin General Plan/Specific Plkn Framework
The General Plan and Specific Plan for Eastern Dublin specify the type and density of
development currently contemplated for the Project area upon annexation to the City (see
Figures 2-F and G). Consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan policies, the Eastern
Dublin EIR evaluated potential development of the Project area at the mid-point density of
each land use category (except for Rural Residential/Agriculture). Table 2.4-2, below,
indicates the mid-point development densities anticipated for the Project area under the
General and Specific Plans. [Note: See Table 2A: Land Use Summary, p. 13, Final General
Plan Amendment for Eastern Dublin, January 7, 1994, in Appendix A of the General Plan.].
These are the densities proposed for the Project with the exception of the Future Study
Areas (FSA), for which the Project assumes no new development. These land use types are
described in detail in the Project Description chapter of the Eastern Dublin EIR, which is
incorporated by reference into this Supplemental EIR.
2.5 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Land Uses, Densities, and Intensities
The Stage 1 Development Plan indicates proposed land uses and intensities for the Project
area consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan at respective mid-
point densities for various land use types.
The Project area would be developed in two phases. The first phase would include a 695-
acre portion of the Project area. This portion is easily accessible to utilities, can easily
provide services, jobs, and other needed land uses for adjacent neighborhoods, and already
has good freeway access. It is planned to provide loop traffic flow 'and necessary
infrastructure. The second phase of development would involve the remaining lands at the
extremities of the Project area and in the higher elevations. Timing for the Project's phasing
would depend upon market demand. All necessary roadways, site grading, and utility
backbone improvements are expected to occur in a timely manner with each development
phase.
Anticipated development under the proposed Stage I Planned Development would consist
of a maximum of 2,526 residential units. A maximum of approximately 1,421,450 (1.4
million) square feet of commercial and industrial uses are also planned for the Project area
(please refer to Table 2.4-2). Residential densities proposed for each property fall within the
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-6
acre community park, a portion of an elementary school site, rural residential/agriculture,
and open space.
Agricultural lands designated as "Future Study Area-Agriculture" in the General Plan lie to
the north and east of the Project area. These lands, which are outside the City's sphere of
influence, would require additional study and processing with the City to determine
whether they are appropriate for development or preservation. Land uses south of 1-580
include grazing and agricultural farming uses; however land southwest of 1-580 (west of E1
Charro Road) is included within the City of Pleasanton's adopted Stoneridge Drive Specific
Plan and is slated for light industrial and commercial uses, and a community park.
Existing Eastern Dublin General Plan/Specific Plkn Framework
The General Plan and Specific Plan for Eastern Dublin specify the type and density of
development currently contemplated for the Project area upon annexation to the City (see
Figures 2-F and G). Consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan policies, the Eastern
Dublin EIR evaluated potential development of the Project area at the mid-point density of
each land use category (except for Rural Residential/Agriculture). Table 2.4-2, below,
indicates the mid-point development densities anticipated for the Project area under the
General and Specific Plans. [Note: See Table 2A: Land Use Summary, p. 13, Final General
Plan Amendment for Eastern Dublin, January 7, 1994, in Appendix A of the General Plan.].
These are the densities proposed for the Project with the exception of the Future Study
Areas (FSA), for which the Project assumes no new development. These land use types are
described in detail in the Project Description chapter of the Eastern Dublin EIR, which is
incorporated by reference into this Supplemental EIR.
2.5 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Land Uses, Densities, and Intensities
The Stage I Development Plan indicates proposed land uses and intensities for the Project
area consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan at respective mid-
point densities for various land use types.
The Project area would be developed in two phases. The first phase would include a 695-
acre portion of the Project area. This portion is easily accessible to utilities, can easily
provide services, jobs, and other needed land uses for adjacent neighborhoods, and already
has good freeway access. It is planned to provide loop traffic flow and necessary
infrastructure. The second phase of development would involve the remaining lands at the
extremities of the Project area and in the higher elevations. Timing for the Project's phasing
would depend upon market demand. All necessary roadways, site grading, and utility
backbone improvements are expected to occur in a timely manner with each development
phase.
Anticipated development under the proposed Stage I Planned Development would consist
of a maximum of 2,526 residential units. A maximum of approximately 1,421,450 (1.4
million) square feet of commercial and industrial uses are also planned for the Project area
(please refer to Table 2.4-2). Residential densities proposed for each property fall within the
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-6
ranges permitted by each residential category as specified in the General and Specific Plans.
A wide range of residential unit types would be allowed by the proposed residential
densities. Single family residential would permit lots from 4,000 square feet up to one unit
per acre, medium density residential is typical of small lot products (z-lot, zipper, small lot,
clusters, or townhomes), medium-high densities allow for apartments or condominiums,
and rural residential is typified by one unit per 100 acres or per existing parcel of record.
The maximum square footage of potential commercial and industrial uses is approximately
581,090 square feet and 840,360 square feet respectively, with a total maximum of 1,421,450
square feet. The maximum proposed floor area ratios (FAR) for general and neighborhood
commercial and industrial park uses are 0.25 (General Commercial), 0.30 (Neighborhood
Commercial) and 0.28 (Industrial). Industrial uses constructed at this FAR are typically one
and two story buildings, typical commercial buildings are one to two stories, and typical
office buildings (permitted in some commercial zoning designations) are two to three
stories. These standards are reflected in the proposed Stage I Development Plan.
Some areas designated for residential land use in the General Plan and Specific Plan are
located within the Airport Protection Area (APA) of the Livermore Municipal Airport. The
General and Specific Plans provide for the development of approximately 990 housing units
in this area. However, the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) policy plan for the Livermore
APA prohibits new residential land use designations or the intensification of existing'
residential land uses within the APA. The General and Specific Plans anticipated this
conflict, and provide that if at the time of prezoning the residential designations are
inconsistent with the APA, the residential designations will convert to Future Study Area
with an underlying Rural Residential/Agriculture designation. In accordance with the
General and Specific Plans, residentially designated lands in the Project area that are also
within the APA have been identified in the proposed Stage I Development Plan as "Future
Study Area - Rural Residential/Agriculture." Because the APA cannot be developed as
residential given the Airport Land Use Commission policies, these areas are designated
Rural Residential/Agricultural for purposes of assessing the Project's impacts in this SEIR.
As provided in the Specific Plan, these areas will retain this designation until such time as
additional'review and action is required by the City to determine the most appropriate land
use considering the ALUP in effect at the time.
The proposed development plan also includes approximately 14.1 acres, which will be
added to a planned community park, which straddles a portion of the western boundary of
the Project area with Dublin Ranch. Consistent with the City's Quimby Act ordinance and
Public. Facilities Fee, which establish a standard of five acres per 1,000 residents, the
proposed development plan also would provide approximately 27 acres of neighborhood
parks and squares, reserves a maximum of 32 acres for schools (or as otherwise determined
by the City and the Dublin Unified School District), and retains approximately 77 acres as
permanent open space. These acreages are substantially consistent with the acreages for
such uses under the GPA/SP. Regional parks continue to be provided by the East Bay
Regional Park District.
The proposed development plan for the annexation and prezoning area (Figure 2-G) follows
the intent and general layout of the Specific Plan and General Plan with the following
modifications:
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 2-7
The City's General Plan indicates arterials but does not identify collector streets within the
Eastern Dublin Planning Area. Collector streets have been planned in accordance with the
City of Dublin's street standards. These alignments, however, split some General
Plan/Specific Plan land use bubbles and create unusable pieces of land. In an effort to
maintain the intent of the General Plan and Specific Plan, some land use bubbles have been
adjusted to match the alignment of these collectors. Within the Specific Plan area, some
portions of the arterials have been realigned to better conform with the existing terrain.
With these modifications, the proposed development plan remains substantially consistent
with the Eastern Dublin Genera] Plan and Specific Plan.
The APA (Figure 2-H) extends into the Project area to just north of Dublin Boulevard. As
noted above, the Specific Plan indicates Medium and Low Density Residential land uses
within the APA, which do not conform to ALUC policies. Land uses in these areas have
been revised to "Future Study Area -- Rural Residential/Agriculture,. as required by the
General and Specific Plan. The Specific Plan shows a junior high school site that would
have encroached into the AI%:~ line. This site was moved northward out of the APA zone
according to ALUC policies, and adjacent land uses were adjusted accordingly.
Low Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agriculture bubbles in the northern and
eastern portions of the area have been adjusted to follow existing topographic conditions'
more closely and to avoid more sensitive areas. All urban development would occur below
the 770' elevation contour in conformance with the City of Dublin's Development Elevation
Cap - Eastern Extended Planning Area General Plan policies.
Parks and Recreation
The proposed Project includes detachment from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park
District (LARPD), consistent with General Plan Policy 3.3 (I). Upon detachment, the
County will determine the reallocation of property taxes to reflect the shift in obligation to
provide park and recreational facilities and services. The City's Parks and Recreation
Master Plan (Master Plan) discusses the overlapping jurisdiction of the East Bay Regional
Park District and LARPD in terms of providing regional parks and trails. The Master Plan
establishes the City's standard for community and neighborhood parks at 3.5 and 1.5 acres
per 1,000 population, respectively, for a total of 5 acres per 1,000. The City's Public Facilities
Fee, which will be applicable to the Project, requires payment of fees for community and
neighborhood park land and improvements, as well as community facilities such as a
second community center, a recreation center, a community theater, a second aquatic center,
a senior center and a new library.
Affordable Housing
Dublin's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance currently requires either five-percent of all
developed housing to be affordable to those of very low, low, and moderate incomes, or
payment of an in-lieu fee which would allow the City to facilitate construction of such
housing. It is intended that this Project will comply with the Inchisionary Zoning
Ordinance requirements by paying an in-lieu fee, providing land, constructing such
housing, or executing a combination of these options. Compliance with this ordinance
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 2-8
would be required at the time subdivision maps or other entitlements are prepared and
submitted for each individual property.
In addition, the City has a Density Bonus ordinance (Chapter 8.52 of the Zoning
Ordinance), which the Project proponents could use to increase densities in order to
provide affordable housing upon meeting the requirements established therein.
Project Access and Circulation
Primary access to and through the Project area would be via Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard
and Central Parkway. Collector streets located throughout the Project would provide
secondary access and ensure through-circulation. This proposed street network is
comparable to that indicated by the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Proposed street sections would be comparable to those already approved or built in other
areas of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Each street in the Project area
would be designed with safety, convenience, and visual quahty in mind and would address
pedestrian and bicyclist needs. (Please see Figure 2-I.)
In accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan policies, numerous
multi-use trails are planned to provide pedestrian and bibycle access through the Project
area, connecting urban areas with open space trails and regional trails. -
Utility Services
Proposed utilities in the Project area are indicated on Figure 2-J. The Master Infrastructure
Plan addresses water, wastewater, stormwater, and recycled water infrastructure
requirements and services. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would provide
water, wastewater and recycled water infrastructure and service to the Project area. The
entire Project area is within the Sphere of Influence for the DSRSD. These services are
. planned in accordance with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan, which
includes planned service for the proposed Project. It is anticipated that water storage
reservoirs and turnouts from Zone 7 mains would be sufficient to provide water service for
the Project area through buildout. Water mains would be located in all streets. According
to DSRSD's Facilities Master Plan, it is anticipated that one new pump station would be
located within the Project area. The Project Master Infrastructure Plan is based on the most
current study provided by DSRSD and differs slightly from what was shown in the Specific
Plan's conceptual backbone and facilities system plans (discussed fully in Section 3.5). Final
locations and sizing of all of these water service facilities would be in accordance with the
standards and recommendations of DSRSD.
Sewer service for the Project area would require connection to DSRSD's existing sanitary
sewer system and sewer treatment would occur at DSRSD's existing treatment plant.
Gravity sewer mains would be extended easterly in Dublin Boulevard to the Project area.
Sewer mains would be installed in all streets as dictated by the Master Facilities Plan and as
necessary. Final sizing and location of sewer facilities would be determined in conjunction
with DSRSD. Force mains may also be utilized in the interim.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 2-9
When available from the DSRSD wastewater treatment plant, recycled water would be
provided for irrigation of large landscaped areas, thereby reducing potable water demand.
Final location and sizing of recycled water facilities would be per the updated Master Water
Facilities Plan prepared by DSRSD. This main would remain in service and additional
recycled water distribution mains would be constructed to serve significant landscaped
areas within the Project area as required.
The storm drain system for the Project area would consist of' major backbone facilities and
local facilities. The backbone facilities would generally consist of larger diameter pipes
networked throughout the area. These larger collector pipes would connect to open
channels or box culverts that would direct the flows toward the existing G-3 channel
located in Dublin Ranch Area H, along the freeway frontage road, an Alameda County
Flood Control District Zone 7 facility. Local facilities would generally consist of smaller
diameter pipes connecting individual sites or areas to the collector system. The actual sizes
and locations of proposed storm drain facilities would be determined with each individual
project's improvement plans. The Project area is within the adopted Zone 7 Drainage Study
Area, hence its expected flows are anticipated and planned for by Zone 7 and the Project's
facilities would be sized appropriately.
2.6 REGULATORY SETTING
The Project area is currently located in the unincorporated area of Alameda County and is
therefore subject to the provisions of the Alameda East County Area Plan (ECAP) unless
annexed to the City. The Project area is within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOo (see
Figure 2-K). The approved General Plan and Specific Plan (as to a portion of the Project
area) provide land use designations and development policies for the Project area (Figure 2-
L).
Several state and local development regulations affecting the Project area have been
modified, updated and/or enacted since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993. On
the local level Alameda County Measure D, approved by the County voters in November
2000, established new County development regulations for a portion of the Project area if it
remains in the County. The effect of Measure D on the Project is discussed in the Initial
Study under Land Use and Planning. In addition, the City of Dublin in 1998 adopted new
development elevation limitations, which require ail urban development within Eastern
Dublin to occur below the 770' elevation contour. At the state level, the Cortese-Knox Act,
the act controlling annexations, was updated in 2000 as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local
Government Reorganization Act. The annexation and City development elevation
regulations are discussed below.
Annexation
Alameda County's Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is responsible for
reviewing and acting upon requests for annexation to, or detachment from, cities or
districts. Annexation of the proposed Project area to the City would likewise require
annexation to the DSRSD, and detachment from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park
District (LARPD) so that the area can be served by the City. LAFCO is empowered to
ensure that growth and development occurs in an Orderly manner that provides efficient
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 2-10
services and balances the need for development with the sometimes competing state
interestS of discouraging urban sprawl and preserving open space and prime agricultural
land.
LAFCO's powers are authorized in the Cortese-Knox Act of 1985, recently comprehensively
revised as the Cortese-Y, noX-FIertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000
("Act"). LAFCOs have the specific authority to review, among other things, annexations to
or detachment from cities or districts. The Act provides that LAFCO's decision with regard
to a proposal to annex territory to a city shall be based upon the general plan and prezoning
of the city (Government Code Section 56375(a) and (e)). The purpose of the Act is to
encourage plarmed, well-ordered' efficient urban development patterns with appropriate
consideration to preserving open space and prime agricultural lands within those patterns,
to discourage urban sprawl and to encourage the efficient provision of governmental
e orderly formation of local agencies based upon local conditions and
services and th . ,~ J_ c~,~ 6001 and 56301)
circumstances (Government ~,oc~e ~ ~ ..... 5 '
The Act further recognizes that providing housing for persons and families of all incomes is
an important factor in promoting orderly development, and states a preference for
accommodating additional growth within, or through the expansion of, the boundaries of
those local agencies which can best accommodate and provide necessary governmental
services and housing for persons and families of all incomes in the most efficient manner'
feasible (Government Code Section 56001). The Act also encourages that responsibility for
providing services to an area should be given to the agency or agencies that can best
provide governmental services.
Annexation of the Project area to the City promotes orderly growth and furthers LAFCO
policies by, among other things, adding housing that will help the City meet its share of
regional housing requirements. In addition, annexation of the Project area promotes
orderly growth by promoting development within the City's existing SOl and in accordance
with the City's long-range development plans and policies set forth in its General Plan.
Land uses within the City have been maximized and properly planned before the City has
sought new territory. The City has done this through a program of forward planning,
followed by annexation when the property is ready for development.
Annexation of the Project area would allow the orderly development of a mixed use
community that will provide a balance of housing and employment opportunities for.those
who will live in or near that communitY. Given the development to the west of the Project
area and the extension of facilities and infrastructure to the northern p'ortion of the western.
boundary of the Project area and to within aPproximately 3,000 feet of the southern portion
of the western boundary of the Project area, annexation of the Project area is a logical and
orderly progression of development.
Upon annexation, services will be able to be provided to the Project area in an efficient
manner. This is addressed in the Services and utilities discussions in this SEIR. The
applicant has submitted a detailed Plan for Services to the City along with its Stage 1
Development Plan.
Page 2-11
EDPO Draft SEIR
In addition to general policies and legislative intent, Government Code Section 56668
(formerly Section 56841) identifies factors to be considered by LAFCO in its review of a
proposal for a change of organization or reorganization, including annexation or
detachment to a city or district.
LAFCO policies do not specifically preclude the approval of annexations that may lead to
the development of open space or prime agricultural lands. However, if a proposal is
expected to induce, facilitate or lead to the conversion of existing open-space lands to uses
other than open-space uses, LAFCO must consider the following policies and priorities:
(1) Development or use of land for other than open-space uses shall be guided away from
existing prime agricultural lands in open-space use toward areas containing nonprime
agricultural lands, unless that action would not promote the planned, orderly, efficient
development of an area.
(2) Development of existing vacant or nonprime agricultural lands for urban uses within
the existing jurisdiction of a local agency or within the sphere of influence of a local
agency should be encouraged before any proposal is approved which would allow for
or lead to the development of existing open-space lands for non-open-space uses
which are outside of the existing jurisdiction of the local agency or outside the existing.
sphere of influence of the local agency.
The entire Project area is within the City's SOI and the SOl of DSRSD, and therefore the
Project does not promote development of open space land outside the SOI. Although the
Project area is outside the City's jurisdiction since it has not yet been annexed, the City's
General Plan and DSRSD's service plan contemplate and provide for the potential
development of the Project area as proposed by the Project.
New General Plan Development Elevation Limits
The City of Dublin in 1998 adopted an elevation "cap" in Eastern Dublin above which
prohibits certain development at higher elevations and provides guidelines for sensitive
· , es The development elevation limitations
- c rtain elevations and slop _. ...... ~:-- +~,; Project, to occur below
development at ~e ........ ;++,~., Eastern t~umm, mc~uu,,~ ~s ,
require all urban deveiopm~t~ v ......
the 770' elevation contour.
2.7 FUTURE ACTIONS USING THIS DocuMENT
This Supplemental EIR is intended to be used as the CEQA documentation for the following
proposed actions:
· City action on the Pre-Zoning (Stage 1 Development Plan)
· Alameda County LAFCO and City actions relative to the annexation of the Project
area to the City
· LAFCO and DSRSD actions relative to the annexation of the Project area to the
the
· DSRSD
· LAFCO and LARPD actions relative to the detachment of the Project area from
LARPD Page 2-12
EDPO Draft SEIR
· Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) and Dublin Unified School
District (DUSD) actions relative to the detachment of the Project area from LVJUSD
and attachment to the DUSD
, City of Dublin actions relative to a Pre-Annexation Agreement for the Project area
More speCifically, approvals and other actions of the City addressed in this Supplemental
EIR include a "Resolution of Application" by the City and DSRSD to the Alameda County
LAFCO for the annexation of the Project area to the City and DSRSD, and all development
pre-approvals associated with those annexation requests. Approvals and other actions of
LAFCO subject to this Supplemental EIR include LAFCO's actions relating to the City's
annexation request· The City's development pre-approvals include the prezoning of the
below) and a Pre-annexation Agreement·
Project area prior to Annexation (described and an Area-
vals include a Public Facility Agreement
, re_development appro , - .- --~..~ ' s within the Project area may seek
DSRSD s p - ~,~,~tional~v, certain
Wide Facility Agreement.
cancellation of their Williamson Act contracts.
· s that the Project area be pre-zoned by the City prior to LAFCO's
prezoning is a City action to
State law .r_e_,qu~re c'tv's annexation request. Generally, a City zoning district
consideratio~ vf the -~-j and the general public, what
indicate to LAFCO, the property owners .
and regulations will apply to and control the development of the Project area if the
annexation is approved by. LAFCO. In the present case, the owners propose the prezoning
of the Project area to the PD, Planned Development District, with approval of a Stage -1
Development Plan or "Stage 1 PD" pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. A Stage 1 PD must establish land uses, density of uses, development standards,
a master landscape plan, and must contain a development phasing plan. All land uses
within the Stage 1 PD must be consistent with the General Plan and the Specific Plan.
If the City approves the prezoning and Stage 1 PD and, if LAFCO approves the Annexation,
then, consistent with General Plan Implementing pOlicy 2.1.4 (B), the property owners will
file a Specific Plan request for areas outside the current Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Stage 2
Development Plans or "Stage 2 PDs" for subsequent site-specific development projects
consistent with City and LAFCO approvals. Implementing Policy 2.1.4 (B) requires a
Specific Plan for the 638 acres, which are not within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area,
but this policy does not state when a specific plan is required. The Project proponents are
proposing to apply for a specific plan prior to submitting a Stage 2 PD. Such Stage 2 PDs
must be approved by the City to finalize the PD zoning process. The Owners will also seek
any additional necessary entitlements, such as Site Development Reviews (SDRs), tentative
and final subdivision maps, use permits, development agreements and similar requests.
These future development applications will be subject to further environmental review at
the time of such filings, regional
Streambed
In addition to the above approvals, the document may also be used by state or
· Water Quality
agencies in their review of other permits required for the Project (e.g. CDFG
Alteration Agreements, California Endangered .Species Act perrmts, the CleanWater
Certification or waiver by the Regional Water Quality Control Board under
AcL Alameda County Flood Control District, Zone 7 for approval of the G3 storm drain
channel).
Page 2-13
EDPO Draft SEIR
Land Use Type
TABLE 2.4-2
PROPOSED PROJECT ACREAGES AND DENSITIES
Gross Acres Proposed Project
Single Family Residential
(0.9 - 6 du/acre)
Medium Density Residential
(6.1 - 14 du/acre)
Medium/High Density
Residential (14.1 - 25 du/acre)
Rural Residential/Agriculture
(1 du/100 acres or parcel)
Future Study Area~
General Commercial
(0.25 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial
(0.30 FAR)
433.5
9.4
34.8
269.1
92.6
41.0
10.3
68.9
Industrial Park
(max. 0.28 FAR)
1,734 dwellings
Elementary School
Community Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Square
94 dwellings
Open Space
Totals
696 dwellings
dwellings
No development assumed
446,490 sq. ft.
134,600 sq. ft.
840,360 sq. ft.
14.6 N/A
17.3 N/A
14.1 N/A
24.0 N/A
2.7 N/A
76.9 N/A
1,109.22 2,526 du
1,421,450 sq. ft.
Notes:
~Future Study Area indicates a land use designation for properties located within the Airport
Protection Area. These areas will require future additional City review and action to determine
appropriate land uses.
2Acreage total is less than the 1,120-acre Project area because it omits acreage utilized for public rights
of way.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 2-14
i East Dublin Prog
~ FIGURE 2-A
~ Project Location
Antioc
San
Francisco
Pacific Ocean
0 (~ 10 Miles
I
San
Francisco
Bay
Project Area
FUTURE STUDY AREA!
AGRICULTURE"
.J
Project Area~ 2~4;~e Acres
'
Acres
(CrosbY]
NOTE: Central Parkway not continue through to the City's eastern sphere of influence. (Please re[er to Figure fi.lB of the Dublin General Plan).
General Commercial may be ~3errnitted bY a pla~qed Development Zormg ProCeSS [see text for compete discussion ]
,, ~ convert to Future StuaY Aree/A~ricul
1\19149\sup-EIR~fig2~B'EDGPA
General Plan
.Eastern Extended Planning A~ea
LAND USE MAP
Legend
cOMMF_RCIAL
Ge~raI c~merc~l
~O~
~1 P~
RES~ENTIAL 2~
~ Me~h O~S~Y 14-Z5 ~ac
~ ~ac
~ LOW Den~
PuBL~tSEM~PUBL~/OPEN
/S~O~ Facaty
~ ~ Schoo~
p~s & Reorea~n
~ Ci~ Park
~ CoWry Park
~ NeW__od Pam
Ne~Ornood square
Open Space
Stream
CiRCOLATION
~ Arte~l SEeet
.... Co~tor
~.~ SOl ~dary
.... ~ ~ A~nt S~dY ~ea
~i~ ~0 Area
EASTERN
DUBLIN
WalI~ IiobeftI & Todd
East Dublin Properties
FIGURE 2-B
NOTE:
~ ~General Commer<~ial may be permitted by a Planned Development. Z0ning:l~rm=e6$ (see ~ext tot- oompiate, dtsousston:)
~ ~ W~ o0~Ye!:t to Futures $~dy ~Are~,~ulture where determJm~ in~onsWent with I.ivefmore APA Ne text for oomplete dl~u~lon:)
I\ 19149x, s up-EIR~flg2-D. EDS Rpsd
The Imemal system ~f
this ~ure is
illustn~ive only.
Land'Use Map
Legend
~ Roads
RESIDENTIAL
~ Rural Residential/
Agriculture
~ :Medium Density
I Mad-HI Density
~m Hio~ ~,ne.y
.01 du/ac
0.9-6.0 du/ac
6.1-14:0 du/ac
14.1-25.0 du/ac
25,1 * du/ao
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
~ General Commercial
~ Neighborhood Commercial
~ Campus Office
~ Industrial Park
PUBLICISEMI-PLtBLI
~ Public/Seml-Publi~
~ Elementary S(:hool
~ Junior High S~hool
PARKS ,N~)'OPEN SPACE
~ Neighborhood Square
~ Neighborhood Park
~ Community Park
~ City Pa~k
~ Open Space
EASTERN DUBLIN
Specific Plan
Wallace Roberts & Todd
(4~4,.~m January 7, 1994
lit]
East Dublin Properties
FIGURE 2-D
-%
mAOKAY&SOmPS
· Gene-~'al Referral Ar~a- 4,0]~'from 1-580
from northern
Airport Protection 33'kea - 5,000'
East Dublin Properties
FIGURE 2-H
Airport Referral Area
edgl of airport runway
· , ...... :~ ~?,: ~s ~ e~c<~ ~k~urce: En~qgern Dublin GPA, SP, EIR (Parl 1 )
19149~sup-EIRW~ 2.1}-II-nirpor t.l~t P/A Design Resources, Inc.
LEGEND
eLD
2,200
61,300
10,300
floodway Settle,
ExlatlnEI ADT
2010 ADT
Bulldout ADT
Freeway
O-lane divided
0-lane divided
4-lane divided
4-lane undivided
2-lane divided
2-lane undivided
4Lo°,
1,950
8,000
Santa RiM Rehabilitation Center
4LO
0
4LD t7,600
23,400 ~ 1LO
24,700 9,600
11,400
4,600 0
44,E,00 28,000
DunuH eL'Vt). ~ 49 ,eeo t 37,$oo
eLl:)!
3°500 2,2oo
51.700 42,600
66.000 47,100
Source: Dublin General Plan, Figure 5-1 b.
CENIIU~ PIONY.
GLO 4LO
5,000
22,55o 17,4o0
'33.200 !1
OLD ,liLt:)
S,600 0
34,500 16,200
~33,800 :~1,000
6LD
BLt) 0
42,800
eLO
,8,600
64,500
4LD
0
14,950
19,500
0
14.950
22,7OO
6LO
OLD 4LD
0
27,e$oi
35,100
6LO OLD
53,100
North
Not to Scale
East Dublin Properties
FIGURE 2-1
Eastern Dublin Circulation Network
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
The Initial Study determined that there was the potential for new or substantially increased
significant impacts in the impact categories of Agricultural Resources, Air Quality,
Biological Resources, Noise, Schools, Transportation/Circulation, and Utilities/Service
Systems, all of which are addressed in this chapter.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.1-1
3.1 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Agricultural resources were analyzed in Chapter 3.1, Land Use, of the Eastern Dublin EIR.
In 2000, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (AB 2838)
extensively modified the state's annexation law. Among the modifications was a new
definition of "prime" agricultural lands. This supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR
examines whether previously identified agricultural conversion impacts would be increased
substantially under the recently enacted definition of prime agricultural lands, it also
examines whether the potential for cancellation of Project area Williamson Act contracts
would result in new or substantially increased significant impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a deScription of agricultural resources on and around the
Project area at the time of certification. Agricultural and grazing uses predominated within
the Project area and throt~ghout the GPA/SP area. While urban development has
commenced pursuant to the adopted GPA/SP in lands west of the Project area, the
annexation and prezoning area remains largely in agriculture, grazing and rural residential
use.
Approximately one-half of the area within the Project area is subject to Williamson Act'
contracts and Notices of Non-Renewal have been filed on all such lands. The contracts will
expire beginning in 2006, with the last expiration in 2010. Table 3.1-1 and Figure 3.1-A
identify the contract status for the parcels that have filed for Non-Renewal. The remaining
parcels in the Project area and immediately adjacent to the area are not under Williamson
Act contract. Some Project property owners are expected to request cancellation of their
contracts prior to expiration.
TABLE 3.1-1
WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACTS: OWNERSHIP AND CONTRACT STATUS
PROJECT AREA
Non-Renew Non-Renew
Assessor's Number Owner Acres Year Expiration
985-0007-002-14 Fallon Enterprises 313.8 1996 2-20-06
905-0002-003 Braddock and Logan 160.9 1999 3-29-09
985-0006-010 FATCo-Jordan Ranch 173.3 1989 1-01-99
985-0006-009 Factor-Jordan Ranch 15.8 1989 1-01-99
905-0002-002 Croak 124.2 2000 1-01-01
905-0002-001-01 Croak 37.8 2000 1-01-01
Source: Eastern Dublin GPA/SP EIR, 1992; MacKay & Somps, 2000.
Future development of the Project area will implement the land uses and densities
approved for the area through the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP. As future implementing
projects are approved and built, the current agricultural lands will convert to urban uses, as
anticipated in the GPA/SP and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.1-2
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses, focusing on
farmlands of local importance, prime agricultural lands, and lands subject to Williamson
Act contract. Much of the Project area supports farmlands "of local importance" (see Figure
3.1-B). Farmlands "of local importance" are defined as those that contribute to local
production of food, feed, fiber, forage and oilseed crops. The agricultural lands in the
?roject area are of local importance for grazing. Generally, areas of locally important
farmland on the Project area occur in the flatter or gently sloped portions while lands
designated as "Other" on Figure 3.1-B are located in the northern, steeper portions. "Other"
soils include all soils not of local or statewide importance.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also identified small amounts of prime agricultural land in the
southern portion of the Project area, based on the then-applicable definition (for annexation
purposes) of "prime agricultural lands" contained in Section 56064 of the Cortese-Knox Act
(Eastern Dublin EIR, response to comment 24-3; Figure 3.1). Impact 3.1/D assumed the
complete loss of farmlands of local importance throughout the GPA/SP area, including the
loss of prime agricultural lands. The Eastern Dublin EIR determined that the loss of
agricultural lands was not a significant impact because: '1) the area of prime farmland
comprises a relatively small portion of a much larger area of non-prime farmland; 2).
maintaining this land in agricultural uses would deter the orderly and efficient
development of the area; 3) the area's conversion would not threaten any other prime
farmland with urbanization; 4) none of the three affected landowners had any intention of
farming the land; and 5) the area of prime agricultural soils already he within the City's
sphere of influence (Eastern Dublin EIR, response to comment 24-3.).
Addressing conversion to urban uses more generally, the Eastern Dublin EIR noted that
approximately one-half of the GPA/SP area agricultural activity would be lost to future
development. Because 61% of Williamson Act lands already had fried for non-renewal and
with the "relatively limited value of the non-prime soil", Impact 3.1/C identified
discontinuation of agricultural uses as less than significant. Although finding GPA/SP-
wide loss of agricultural lands less than significant, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified
cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands as a significant unavoidable impact.
(Eastern Dublin EIR, response to comment 34-9, Impact 3.1/F.) Upon approval of the
Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this
impact (Appendix B).
Impact 3.1/E examined the indirect effects of Williamson Act non-renewal on agricultural
lands and found them less than significant. Cancellation rather than non-renewal of
Williamson Act contracts is not addressed separately in the EIR discussions although it was
anticipated as a potential future activity that would require a formal petition, public
hearings, findings and a resolution (Eastern Dublin DEIR 2-15 to -17).
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Cortese-Knox Act governed annexations when the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified.
The Act recently was amended by AB 2838 to, among other things, revise the definition of
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.1-3
prime agricultural lands. Pursuant to the Initial Study for the annexation and prezoning
Project, this supplement examines whether the revised definition of prime agricultural lands
would result in more lands qualifying as prime than at the time of the Eastern Dublin EIR
certification. It also examines whether expiration of Williamson Act contracts on the Project
area through cancellation rather than non-renewal would be a new significant impact.
Significance Criteria
Agricultural resource impacts would be significant if the Project would convert prime
agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impair the productivity of prime agricultural
land to a substantially greater degree than analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Supplemental Impacts. No supplemental impacts are expected from the revised definition
of prime agricultural lands or from cancellation of Project area Williamson Act contracts.
Prime Agricultural Lands. Under AB 2838, soils are considered prime agricultural land if
they meet any of the following criteria:
· NRCS rating of ClaSs I or Class II, if irrigated, provided irrigation is feasible
· Storie Index rating of 80-100
· Supports livestock used for food or fiber and has an annual carrying capacity of at'
least one animal-unit per acre
Planted with fruit or nut trees, or other unprocessed agricultural plant products with
production of $400/acre or more in the past five years
A soils report prepared for the Project proponents evaluated the potential for prime
agricultural lands on the area based on the newly enacted definition (Appendix C). It
deternuned that the Project soils fail in each of the specific tests required for classification of
prime agricultural lands. Specifically, while there are about 100 acres of Class I and II soils
on the area, the area could not feasibly be irrigated by either surface or groundwater
supplies. Further, the report identified Storie Index ratings of 16 to 65 on the area, below the
80 rating required to qualify for prime agricultural soils. The report also found that the
grazing capacity of the lands is approximately one animal-unit per 10 acres, and that the
land has not been used for fruits, nuts, or other unprocessed agricultural plant products in
the past five years.
The presence of Class I and II soils would have qualified 100 acres of the Project area as
prime agricultural land under the old definition. As shown in the soils report, irrigation is
not feasible on the Project area, nor are the other criteria in the new definition met. On these
bases, there are no additional prime agricultural lands on the Project area beyond those at
the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified.
Cancellation of Existing Williamson Act Contracts. Some Williamson Act contracts have
expired since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Notices of non-renewal have been
filed on all other contracted lands within the Project area. As noted in Impact 3.1/F of the
Eastern Dublin EIR, non-renewal of Williarnson Act contracts is not an environmental
impact under CEQA although it is a planning concern.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.1-4
Some Project property owners may request cancellation of their Williamson Act contracts.
Such cancellations would accelerate the expiration of the contracts and likely accelerate the
conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. However, the result of expiration would be
the same either way in that existing agricultural uses would be converted to urban uses as
provided for in the adopted GPA/SP. The Eastern Dublin EIR thoroughly analyzed the
conversion of agricultural uses throughout the GPA/SP area. Conversion to planned urban
uses sooner rather than later is not a significant change that would substantially avoid or
lessen the identified impacts of conversion. Therefore, requests for cancellation of
Williamson Act contracts on the Project area is not a significant new impact or substantially
increased significant impact beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
If a cancellation request eventually were submitted to the City, the request would be subject
to the procedures noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Any approval of the request is subject to
strict findings requirements of Government Code section 51282, including the following: 1)
that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Wlltiamson Act; or, 2) that
cancellation is in the public interest. In order for the City to find that the cancellation is
consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act it must find that the cancellation is for
land on which a notice of non-renewal has been served, that cancellation is not likely to
result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use, that cancellation is for an
alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or coun~
general plan, that cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban
development, that there is no proximate non-contracted land which is both available and
suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, or, that development
of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than
development of proximate non-contracted land. Similarly strict findings are required to
find cancellation in the public interest.
Any cancellation request to the City would also be subject to Dublin General Plan Policy
3.2.A regarding Agricultural Open Space in the Extended Planning Areas as follows.
Lands currently in WilliamSon Act agricultural preserve can remain as rangeland as long as
the landowner(s) wishes to pursue agricultural activities. The City does not support the .
cancellation of Williamson Act contracts unless some compelling public interest would be
served.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.1-5
mAOKA¥&SOmFS
~-ssO
East Dublin Properties
FIGURE 3.1 - A
Williamson Act Agreements
__._.~ C9~tel ~anyon Road
'~*~'~ ='- :~" ~*~" ~>~* "~'~¢~ Source: Eastern Dublin (]PA, SP, EIR (Part 1),
1917 l~.nup-EIR~flg3.1~A-willacl, p.~l Pretiminat3, Title Reporta
East Dublin Properties
FIGURE 3.1-B
Agricultural Smtabfl~ty
\
\
\
mA~I(A¥ & Somps
Locally Important Farmland
I--580
Source: Eastern Dublin GPA. SP. EIR ~Part
Eastern Dublin GPA. SI: EIR (Part
3.2 AIR QUALITY
Air Quality was analyzed in Chapter 3.11 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement to the
EIR examines compliance with applicable air basin plans and regulatory standards in light
of increases in regional traffic and changes in commute patterns since certification of the
Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement also examines changes in the regulatory standards
since the previous EIR (Initial Study pp. 24, 29).
ENVIRONMENTAL SETFING
The Project area is located in the Tri-Valley Air Basin. Prevailing daytime onshore winds
often occur in conjunction with regional capping inversions that trap air pollution within a
shallow layer near the ground. Over time, substantial reductions in pollutant emissions
throughout the Basin have improved air quality in the Project area and the Tri-Valley region
to a point where almost all clean air standards are met on almost every day of the year.
Within the Tri-Valley Air Basin state and federal emission standards for nitrogen dioxide,
sulfur dioxide and lead are met. However, the Tri-Valley Basin also receives emissions from
upwind Bay Area sources. Hence, standards for other airborne pollutants including ozone,
carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter (PM-10) are not met in at least a portion
of the Basin some of the time.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to construction, mobile source
and stationary source emissions (Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E). Mitigation measures were
adopted to control construction dust and exhaust emissions, and to minimize mobile and
stationary source emissions through, among other things, cooperative transportation and air
quality planning and transportation demand management. All mitigation measures
adopted upon approval of the Easb~,?:'n Dublin GPA/SP continue to apply to implementing
actions and projects such as the proposed annexation and prezoning. Even with mitigation,
however, significant cumulative construction, mobile source and stationary source impacts
remained. (Impacts 3.11A, 3.11B, 3011C, and 3.11E). Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin
GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these significant
unavoidable impacts. (Resolution No. 53-93.)
The proposed annexation and prezoning includes the same land uses and densities
analYzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore, there are no new or intensified air quality
impacts regarding the leveI and type of construction activity required for potential
development .of the Project area.
SUPPLMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Project proposes the same type and density of potential development assumed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. While emissions related to potential development of the Project site are
not expected to differ from the previous EIR, regional traffic has increased substantially over
previously assumed levels. Section 3.6 of this SEIR analyzes the impacts of this increased
traffic. As reflected in the Initial Study, increased regional traffic also could create new or
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.2-1
intensified air quality impacts. Also, since certification of the previous EIR, the Basin is no
longer in attainment status for ozone. Pursuant to Guidelines section 15162 and 15163, this
supplement assesses whether new or intensified air quality impacts will result from
increased regional traffic and changed regulatory standards.
Significance Criteria
Based on the Initial Study, Project or cumulative air quality impacts are considered
significant if they result in conflict with applicable air quality plans or violation of air
quality standards beyond levels analyzed in the previous EIR.
RegUlatory Setting
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the State agency responsible for regUlating air
quality in California. CARB responsibilities include establishing State Ambient Air Quality
Standards, emissions standards and regUlations for mobile emissions sources (e.g., autos,
trucks, etc.), and overseeing the efforts of county-wide and multi-county air pollution
control districts, which have primary responsibility over stationary sources. The Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency responsible for air
quality regulation within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The BAAQMD regulates air
quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and'
through its planning and review activities.
The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 established national ambient air quality
standards, however, individual states retained the option to adopt more stringent standards
and to include other pollution sources. At that time, California already had established its
own air quality standards. State and federal standards currently in effect in California are
shown in Table 3:2-1. The BAAQMD operates a regional monitoring network which
measures the ambient concentrations of six criteria air pollutants: ozone (03), carbon
monoxide (CO), inhalable particulate matter (PM-10), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and
sulfur dioxide (SO2). Existing and probable future levels of air quality in Eastern Dublin can
be readily inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the BAAQMD at
its Livermore air monitoring station.
Federal Requirements. In 1995, after several years of minimal violations of the federal
one-hour ozone standard, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the
designation of the Bay Area Air Basin from "non-attainment" to "attainment" for this
standard. However, with less favorable meteorology in subsequent years, violations of the
one-hour ozone standard again were observed in the basin, particularly at the Livermore
monitoring station. Effective August 1998, the EPA downgraded the Bay Area's
classification for this standard from a "maintenance" area to an "unclassified
non-attainment" area. In response to the EPA's redesignation of the basin for the one-hour
federal ozone standard, the BAAQMD and regional metropolitan planning and
transportation agencies were required to develop an ozone attainment plan to meet this
standard. The BAAQMD currently is preparing a 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan for
compliance with the federal Clean Air Act. Also in 1998, after many years without
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.2-2
violations of any carbon monoxide (CO) standards, the attainment status for CO was
upgraded to attainment.
State Requirements. California's Clean Air Act, like its federal counterpart, calls for
designation of areas as attainment or non-attainment based on State Ambient Air Quality
Standards rather than federal standards. The Act also requires development of air quality
plans and strategies to meet State air quality standards. The Act classifies the Bay Area as a
serious non-attainment area for ozone. This classification triggers various plan submittal
requirements and transportation performance standards, and requires the Iocal clean air
plan to be updated every three years to reflect progress in meeting the air quality standards
and to incorporate new information regarding the feasibility of control measures and new
emission inventory data. The Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan (1991 CAP) included a
comprehensive strategy to reduce air pollutant emissions and focused on control measures
to be implemented during the 1991 to 1994 period. It also included control measures to be
implemented from 1995 through 2000 and beyond. The Bay Area 1994 CIean Air Plan (1994
CAP) included changes in the organization and scheduling of some 1991 CAP measures and
also included eight new stationary and mobile source control measures. The updated 1997
CAP contains every control measure deemed feasible for implementation as required by
State law. Even with all reasonable and feasible measures, however, the 1997 CAP did not
predict near-term attainment of the State ozone standard. The CAP was again updated in.
December 2000. The goal of the 2000 CAP is to reduce emissions of ozone precursors
(Reactive Organics, Nitrogen Oxide and Particulate Matter (PM-10)). The 2000 CAP
indicates regional improvements in ozone concentrations, but still shows ozone standard
exceedences in the Livermore valley and, therefore, continues to include "all feasible
measures" to reduce ozone (BAAQMD 2000). The CAP and Ozone Attainment Plan
implement state and federal Clean Air Act ozone standards, respectively.
Monitoring Results for Criteria Pollutants
Table 3.2-2 is a five-year summary of monitoring data (1995-1999) from the Livermore
station. Table 3.2-2 compares measured pollutant concentrations with both state and federal
ambient air quality standards, as further described below.
Ozone '(03). 03 is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is a secondary air pollutant
produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving
hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NO×). 03 is a regional air pollutant because its
precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with 03 production by the
photochemical reaction process. 03 causes eye and respiratory irritation, reduces resistance
to lung infection, and may aggravate pulmonary conditions in persons with lung disease.
Table 3.2-2 shows that the State standard was exceeded on an average of 14 days per year
between 1995 and 1999. The less stringent federal standard of 0.12 ppm for one hour was
exceeded an average of eight times per year.
Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO is an odorless, invisible gas usually formed as the result of
incomplete combustion of organic substances. Approximately 80 percent of the CO emitted
in Alameda County comes &om on-road motor vehicles (CARB, 1999). High levels of CO
can impair the transport of oxygen in the bloodstream and thereby aggravate cardiovascular
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.2-3
disease and cause fatigue, headaches, and dizziness. Table 3.2-2 shows that no State CO
standards were exceeded between 1995 and 1999. Measurements of carbon monoxide (CO)
show low baseline levels with the hourly maximum averaging 25 percent or less of the
allowable State standard. Similarly, maximum eight-hour CO levels are at least six parts per
million (ppm) below the 8-hour exposure level of nine ppm considered unhealthful for
sensitive receptors.
Suspended and Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM-lO and PM-2.5). PM-10 consists of fine
grained inhalable particulates that can cause adverse health effects. PM-10 can include
certain substances, such as sulfates and nitrates, that can cause lung damage directly, or can
contain absorbed gases (e.g., chlorides or ammonium) that may be injurious to health. Table
3.2-2 shows that exceedances of the State PM-10 standard occur relatively infrequently.
State PM-10 standards were exceeded in only nine measurements out of 304 measurement
days (PM-10 is not monitored every day) in the last five years. Federal PM-10 standards
have never been exceeded at the Livermore monitoring station.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, federal standards for PM-2.5 (an even finer
particulate size than PM-10) have been adopted. California has not yet proposed a state
standard for PM-2.5, although the existing State standard for PM-10 is more stringent than
the new federal standard for PM-2.5 and therefore already provides a higher level of public.
health protection for PM-2.5 than the new federal standard. The BAAQMD currently is
monitoring PM-2.5 at the Livermore station but the period of record is too brief to establish
any meaningful patterns or trends. In a few PM-2.5 samples taken in late 1999, however,
none exceeded the federal 24-hour standard for PM-2.5. Because the new federal standard is
less stringent than applicable state standards, this new standard does not have the potential
for new significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR.
Other Air Pollutants Criteria. The standards for NO2, SO2, and lead are being met in the
Bay Area, and the latest pollutant trends information suggests that these standards will not
be exceeded in the foreseeable future (ABAG and BAAQMD, 2000).
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Unanticipated increases in regional traffic and related increases in vehicular emissions
beyond those assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR could conflict with the BAAQMD Clean
Air Plan, could contribute to violations of other State and Federal standards, and could
contribute to cumulative pollutants.
Supplemental Impact AQ 1: Mobile Source Emissions: Reactive Organics (RO), Nitrogen
Oxide (NOx), and Particulate Matter (PM-lO)
Since 1993, the BAAQMD has set CEQA-type thresholds of significance for certain
pollutants - Reactive Organics (RO), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Oxide (Nox) and
Particulate Matter (PM-10). The BAAQMD Plan considers any project which may be
expected .to generate mobile soUrces emissions exceeding 80 pounds per day of ROG, NOx
or PM-10 as having a potentially significant impact. Buildout of the Project would cause up
to 54,071 daily automobile trips to be generated within the air basin (see also Table 3.6-3).
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.2-4
Table 3.2-3 shows that the Project's expected Mobile Source Emissions would be 156 pounds
per day of RO, 335 pounds per day of Nox, and 316 pounds per day of PM-10. Mobile
source emissions for RO and NOx as precursors to ozone formation are expected to cause
the significance thresholds to be exceeded two- to almost four-fold. Because these
precursors would result in the formation of substantial quantities of ozone, which already
exceeds both state and federal standards in the Tri-Valley area (see Table 3.2-2), mobile
source emissions for these pollutants are considered a significant impact. In addition,
mobile source emissions may result in regional impacts through emissions of ozone
precursor pollutants. This impact also is a potentially significant cumulative impact
Implementation of the mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Mitigation Measures
3.11/5.0 - 11.0 together with the monitoring, transportation measures and advanced traffic
signal timing identified in Chapter 3.6/Traffic and Circulation), would not achieve the 50-
80% reduction in Project-related traffic which would be needed to reduce emissions below
the current ozone precursor significance threshold, and no additional feasible mitigation
measures could achieve that level of reduction in Project-related traffic. Residual air quality
impacts would remain sigTdficant.
Supplemental Impact AQ 2: Mobile Source Emissions: CO
Table 3.2-3 indicates that CO emissions are projected to exceed substantially the
BAAQMD threshold of potential significance of 550 pounds per day. This threshold is
used to determine whether further micro scale (e.g. intersection) CO analyses are
warranted. Significance under BAAQMD standards, however, is determined by
whether Project traffic creates any new violation of CO standards. CO emissions were
calculated for the 19 intersections within and around the Project area (see also section
3.6, Traffic and Circulation). Table 3.2-4 shows that microscale CC) concentrations, in
conjunction with a 3-5 ppm non-local hourly "background" in the Dublin Ranch area
would not exceed the California hourly standard of 20 ppm. Table 3.2-5 indicates that
anticipated Project traffic CO emissions also would not exceed the state/federal 8-hour
standard of 9 ppm at any of the 19 intersections. Therefore, CO impacts are less than
si_kmificant and no mitigation is required.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.2-5
TABLE 3.2 -1
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Averaging California Standards Federal Standards
Time Concentration Method Primary Secondary '.Method
I Hour 0.09 ppm (180 p.g/m~) Ultraviolet 0.12 ppm (235 p.g/m~) Same ax Ethylene
Photometry Primary Standard Chemiltmfinescence
Ozone (O3
· 8 Hour -- 0.08 ppm 057 ).tg/m
Annual
RespJrable Gcomemc 30 ~g/m3 Size Selective -- Inertial
Particulate Mean Same as
[nle~ Sampler Separation and
Matter 24 Hour 50 lag/m3 ARB Method [50 Ixg/m'~ Primary. Standard Gravimetic
Analysis
(PM~o) Annual P (8/2~85) 50 p.g/m3
Arithmeuc --
Menu
lneaial
Fine 24 Hour 65 ~.g/m~ Same as Separation and
Particulate No Separate State Standard ' PrimaO, Standard Gravimetic
Matter Annual 15 }xfl]m'~
(PM2.s) arithmemCMean analys!%
g Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m~) Non-dispersive 9 ppm (10 mg/m~) Non-dispersive
Carbon Infrared Infrared
Monoxide l Hour 20 ppm (23 modm~) Photometry 35 ppm (40 mglm~) None Photometry
(NDIR) (NDIR)
(CO) 8 Hour 6 ppm (7 rog/mb --
(Lake Tahoe)
Annual Same as Gas Phaxe
Nitrogen Arithmetric -- Gas Phase 0.053 ppm (t00)xglm3) Primaoj Standard Chemiluminescence
Dioxide Mean Chemiluminescence
(NO~) I Hour 0.25 ppm (470 ~tg/m.b
30 days 1.5 pgtm~ ~ -- High Volume
average AIHL Method 54 Sampler and
Lead Calendar -- (12/74) Same as Atomic Absoqation
Quarter Atomic Absorption 1.5 }.tg/m: Primary
Annual
Arithmctric __ 0.030 ppm (80 }.tg/m
Sulfur Mean
Dioxide 24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 ~g/m~) Fluorescence 0.14 ppm (365 lag/m~) ~ Pararosoaniline
(SO2) 3 Hour __ -- 0.5 ppm (1300 ~g/m~)
I Hour 0.25 ppm (655 p.g/m~) -- --
Visibility In sufficient amount to protiuce an extinction
' coefficient of 0:23 per kilometer~visibility
Reducing 8 Hour of ten miles or more (0.07--30 miles or more
( 10 am to for Lake Tahoe) due to particles when the N o
Particles 6 pm, PST) relative humidity is less than 70 percent.
Method: ARB Method ¥ (8/i 8/89).
Sulfates Turbidimetric Federal
24 Hour 25 p.~m~ Barium Sulfate-A1HL
Method 61 (zo6) Standards
Hydrogen Cadmium
Sulfide I Hour 0,03 ppm (42 p.g/m~) Hydroxide
STRactan
TABLE 3.2 - 2
PROJECT AREA AIR QUALITY SUMMARY
DAYS EXCEEDING REGULATORY STANDARDS
Standards
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Ozone
1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 20 22 3 21 14
1-Hour > 0.12 ppm (F) 11 16 0 8 7
Max. 1-Hour (ppm) 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.15 0.15
PM-10s
Days > 50 microg/m3 (S) 1/61 1/61 2/61 2/61 3/60
Days > 150 microg/m3 (F) 0/61 0/61 0/61 0/61 0/60
Max. 24-Hour ( microg/m3) 52 71 62 62 87
Carbon Monoxide
1-Hour > 20 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0
8-Hour > 9 ppm (S,F) 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour (ppm) 5 5 5 4 5
Max. 8-Hour (ppm) 2.4 2.6 2.9 2.4 2.9
Nitrogen Dioxide
1-Hour > 0.25 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour (ppm) 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 i 0.09
Ratio = Days Exceeding/Days with Monitoring
(PM-10 monitored only one day in six)
(S) = State Standard
(F) -- Federal Standard
Source: BAAQMD, Livermore (Old Fire Station) Monitoring Site
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.2-7
TABLE 3.2 - 3
EAST DUBLIN PROPERTIES
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
EMISSIONS IN POUNDS PER DAY
Reactive Carbon Nitrogen Particulate
Analysis Year Organics Monoxide Oxides Matter
156 1,824 335 315
Bay Area Significance Threshold 80 550* 80 80
East Dublin Share of Threshold (2020) 195% 332% 419% 394%
* A CO microscale impact analysis is recommended by BAAQMD if this threshold is exceeded.
Source: URBEMIS7 Computer Emissions Model; BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, rev. Dec.
1999.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.2-8
TABLE 3.2 - 4
MICROSCALE IMPACT ANALYSIS
HOURLY CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) above non-local
BACKGROUND AT 25 FEET FROM EDGE OF EACH INDICATED ROADWAY
Intersection Existing Existing + Existing +
Approved Approved
+ Pending
+ Pending
+ Project
I Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 7 8 8
2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound 6 9 9
Ramps
3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound 5 8 8
Ramps
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 5 7 7
5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound 7 9 9
Ramps1
6 Tassajara Road/1-580 Westbound 7 8 8
Ramps
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 5 8 8
8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway -- 6 6
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 5 6 6
10 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard -- 6 6
11 Grafton Street/Central Parkway -- 5 5
12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive -- 5 5
13 El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound 5 6 6
Ramps
14 Fallon Road/1-580 Westbound 5 5 6
Ramps
15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard -- 6 6
16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway -- 5 5
17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive -- 5 5
18 Croak Road/Dublin Boulevard - -- 5
19 Fallon Road/Residential .... 5
Note: Standard = 20 ppm, including 4.4 ppm (existing), 3.5 ppm (future)
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.2-9
TABLE 3.2 - 5
MICROSCALE IMPACT ANALYSIS
8-Hour CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm) above non-local
BACKGROUND AT 25 FEET FROM EDGE OF EACH INDICATED ROADWAY
Intersection Existing + Existing +
Existing Approved Approved
+ Pending
+ Pending
+ Project
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 4.1 4.8 4.8
2 Hacienda Drive/1-580 Eastbound 3.4 5.0 5.2
Ramps
3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound 2.8 4.4 4.5
Ramps
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 2.6 3.8 3.9
5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound 3.8 5.1 5.1
Ramps~
6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound 3.6 4.6 4~8
Ramps
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 2.7 4.3 4.4
8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway -- 3.2 3.2
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 2.6 3.2 3.2
10 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard -- 3.1 3.2
11 Grafton Street/Central Parkway - 2.4 2.4
12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive -- 2.2 2.2
13 E1 Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound 2.4 2.8 3.2
Ramps
14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound 2.2 2.7 3.5
Ramps
15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard -- 3.1 3.9
16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway -- 2.7 3.4
17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive -- 2.2 2.3
18 Croak Road/Dublin Boulevard .... 2.4
19 Fallon Road/Residential - -- 2.5
Note: Standard = 9 ppm, including 2.1 ppm (existing), 1.7 ppm (future)
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.2-10
3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Biological Resources were analyzed in Chapter 3.7 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This
supplement to the EIR examines habitat types that were not previously anticipated to
occur in the Project area and regulatory changes resulting in the identification of new
sensitive species. This supplement also examines the supplemental effects of changes in
regulatory standards such as the designation of critical habitat for the California red
legged frog since the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified in 1993.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project area is in a transitional area with respect to topography, habitat, and land
use practices. Topographic relief generally decreases from north to south and, to a lesser
extent, from east to west. Habitats adjacent to the Project area are, for the most part,
contiguous with relatively undeveloped private property to the north and east. To the
east of the Project area, habitat is predominantly annual grasslands interspersed with
small inclusions of woodland and chaparral. To the north and northeast, oak savannah,
mixed woodlands, and chaparral increase with increases in elevation. Lands to the west
have begun preliminary grading for residential housing. Development (urban,
induStrial, and cultivation) is greatest in the south. Thus, the habitat of the Project area
is influenced by adjacent agricultural and urban development. (See also Eastern Dublin
EIR Figure 3.7-A showing habitat types in Eastern Dublin.)
Habitat Types
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified nine different habitats and showed intermittent
streams on Figure 3.7-A. Based upon recent studies and review of aerial photographs,
eight of these habitats are known or assumed to occur within the Project area and are
considered to provide moderate to high values for a number of special-status species.
One additional habitat type, seasonal wetlands, was not identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR but is known or assumed to occur within the Project area. As indicated in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and further confirmed by recent studies, intermittent streams,
shown but not previously identified as a habitat type in the Eastern Dublin EIR, are
known or assumed to exist within the Project area. The seasonal wetland habitat and
these intermittent streams may, in turn, provide moderate to high habitat values for
special status species.
A majority of the Project area consists of cultivated lands used for dry rotational
croplands and non-native grassland. Several drainages within the Project area support
intermittent streams and, to a lesser extent, arroyo willow riparian woodland. The
southern portion of the Project area supports ruderal field and developed lands.
Seasonal wetlands also are known to occur in some low-lying_portions of the Project
area. These habitat types are described below in order of dominance with their
estimated acreages, and are shown in Figure 3.3-A.
Dry Farming Rotational Cropland. Approximately 535 acres. Farming within the
Project area primarily consists of grain crops of wheat and barley. These croplands
occur on the lower elevation hillsides and bottomlands in the southern half of the Project
area. These fields are typically cropped at various seasonal and annual rotations
followed by fallow )~ears at a rate of one in every five. Grain crops are not irrigated. In
fallow years, vegetation is characterized by introduced weedy herbs and grasses along
with remnant individuals of the previous grain crop species. Planted barley was
identified as the current rotation crop on the Project area.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-1
Non-native Grassland. Approximately.500 acres. Non-native grassland supports a
wide array of native and non-native grasses and herbs. Characteristic introduced grass
species include slender wild oat (Avena barbara), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), soft
chess (Bromus moIlis), farmer's foxtail (Hordeum leporinum), and rattail rescue (VuIpia
myuros). Occasional stands of the native bunchgrass, nodding stipa (Nasella pulchra),
were observed on the north-facing slopes of some of the rolling hills.
Ruderal Field. Approximately 40 acres. As a result of continued disturbance and
compaction, fallow fields support dense stands of ruderal species (defined by Frenkel,
1977, "as a broad category of plant life closely related to man and consisting of native
and alien elements which occupy disturbed habitats and waste places"). In the Project
area, these species are predominantly introduced weeds such as thistles, mustards, and
grasses.
Developed. Approximately 35 acres. Developed land occurs around homes, barns, and
existing facilities. These areas are typically characterized by ruderal or horticultural
plant cover with little or no native vegetation. Isolated stands of blue gum (Eucalyptus
gIobulus) are typically found associated with developed sites throughout the-GPA_area.
Intermittent Streams. Approximately 31,000 linear feet. Hydrology of the Project area
is influenced by direct precipitation, headwater flows, and surface runoff from
surrounding areas. These small tributaries are each characterized by shallowly incised
channels with an obvious bed and bank. These intermittent streams flow predominantly
though non-native grassland and rotational croplands. Many intermittent streams
support in-channel ponds or pooling water. These areas typically drain by early spring.
Springs, Seeps and hnpoundments. Two ponds, four in-stream pools. Most of these
habitat areas support species characteristic of freshwater marsh habitat or alkali
grassland habitat. Impoundments are typically small ponds created for livestock,
adjacent to perennial springs or intermittent drainages. Larger artificial ponds support
perennial, emergent vegetation around their banks. Most ponds are dry by summer,
and therefore, support vegetation indicative of progressively drying, disturbed habitats.
The Project area consists of one stock pond located on the northern portion of the
Project area and one man-made pond located at the southwest portion of the Project
Area. Four additional areas of pooling water are located along the western half of the
Project area within the intermittent streams.
Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland. Approximately 10 acres. It is characterized by a
dense thicket of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) along a narrow intermittent drainage that
crosses lower Fallon Road. Associated with the 5 to 10 meter tall stand of arroyo
willows are an open understory of ruderal herbs, predominantly poison hemlock. The
understory of the arroyo willows northeast of Fallon Road has been heavily grazed.
Seasonal Wetlands. Acreage not quantified. Seasonal wetlands consist of annual and
perennial native and non-native wetland indicator species. This plant association
typically resembles a wetland community only following the wet season; it dries up
rapidly with the onset of summer and the wetland indicator species go dormant.
During the dry season, such sites may not be readily recognizable as wetlands as
wetland species go to seed and typical upland grasses and forbs become established.
Although not identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as a habitat type and hence not
indicated for the Project area, this habitat type has been observed within the Project
area.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-2
Freshwater Marsh. Acreage not quantified. Freshwater marsh typically occurs in low-
lying sites that are permanently flooded with fresh water and lack significant current. It
is found on nutrient-rich mineral soils that are saturated for all or most of the year. This
vegetation corrmxunity is most extensive where surface flow is slow or stagnant or where
the water table is so close to the surface as to saturate the soil from below. Freshwater
marsh is distributed along the coast and in coastal valleys near river mouths and around
the margins of lakes, springs, and streams (Holland 1986). This vegetation community
characteristically forms a dense vegetative cover dominated by perennial, emergent
monocots 1-15 feet high that reproduce by underground rhizomes. Freshwater marsh
has been observed on the southern portion of the Project area.
Alkali Grassland. Acreage not quantified. This habitat is similar to non-native
grassland, but is found only in areas of alkaline-rich clay soils with moderate to
saturated soil water content. Alkali grassland supports an array of introduced g~asses
similar to that found in the non-native grassland throughout the Eastern Dublin area.
Several additional species are indicative of alkaline conditions. These include salt grass
(Distichlis spicata var. nana), alkali rye grass (Elymus triticoides), Mediterranean barley
(Hordeum hystrix), brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia), and alkali mallow (Sida hederacea).
This habitat type was considered potential habitat for five species of rare plants: palmate
bird's beak (Cordylanthus palmatus), caper-fruited tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum
capparideum), San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana), Congdon's tarplant
(Hemizonia parryi ssp, congdonii)and a newly described species, Livermore tarplant
(Deinandra bacigalupii) (CNPS 2000).
Special Status Species
Special status plants and wildlife with potential to occur within the Project area are
described below and summarized in Tables 3.3-1 A and B, and Table 3.3-2 A and B. The
descriptions also include information from background research and studies conducted
since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Locations of observed sensitive species are
mapped on Figure 3.3-B: Sensitive Species in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Where Project area
mapping has not yet occurred, the potential presence of species and habitat is inferred
based on habitat type and suitability, field reconnaissance, and local knowledge of
species occurrences on nearby parcels.
Special Status Species: Botanical
The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated 12 special-status plants (Table 3.7-1). Since then, the
great valley gumplant is no longer listed as a CNPS rare plant species and is not
considered in this supplement. Based on a review of the California Natural Diversity
Data Base (CNDDB 2000) and the CNPS (2000) for this supplement, 13 additional special
status plant species may have some potential to occur within the Project area. This
potential is based on suitable habitat present onsite and/or proximity to known
occurrences in the area. These additional species include two rare plants not addressed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana)and
Congdon's tarplant (Hemozonia parryi ssp. congdonii) were found to the west of the
Project area, at the Dublin Ranch site (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2000). The Livermore
tarplant (Deinandra bacigalupii) is a newly described rare plant species that has been
observed in two areas in Alameda County. Alkali grasslands throughout the Project
area provide suitable habitat for this new species (CNPS 2000). Based on reported
occurrences of these species near the Project area, these special-status species may occur
in the Project area. Preliminary botanical surveys conducted this year for the Project
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-3
also identified the potential presence of big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis var.
macroIepis), big tarweed (Blepharizonia plumose ssp. plumosa), showy madia (Mad/a
radiata), rayless ragwort (Senecio aphanactis), hairless popcorn-flower (Palgiobothrys
glaber), heartscale (Atriplex cordulata), crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. coronata),
brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), alkali milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), and Mount
Diablo fairy lantern (Calochortus pulchellus), based on available habitat. (Sycamore, in
prep.)
Botanically Sensitive Habitats
The habitat types in the Project area were described above. Five of the habitat types are
botanically sensitive communities which occur within the 1,120 acre Project area. These
communities are arroyo willow riparian woodland, seasonal wetlands, intermittent
streams, freshwater marsh and alkali grassland. The CDFG Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB 2000a) recognizes these communities as rare and declining in the state and
recognizes their biotic significance because they provide potential habitat for special-
status species.
Special-Status Species: Wildlife
The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated 27 special-status wildlife species (Table 3.7-2). Ten of
these species no longer have state or federal special status, or, current surveys identified
no suitable habitat in the Project area (Sycamore, in prep.). These species include
California homed lizard, American badger, Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle, curvedz
foot hygrotus diving beetle, bay checkerspot butterfly, Callippe silverspot butterfly,
Bridges' coast range shoulderband, San Francisco forktail damselfly, Lum's micro-blind
harvestman and California linderiella. These species will not be addressed further in
this supplement.
Based on a review of the Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2000), habitat available
within the 1,120-acre Project area, the proximity of the Project area to known species
occurrences, and the contiguity of their habitats to the Project area, eight additional
species are evaluated in this supplement and are considered to have the potential to
occur in the Project area (Table 3.3-2B). These species include merlin, loggerhead shrike,
California horned lark, pallid bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, Yuma myotis bat,
conservancy fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Some species evaluated for
their potential to occur within the 1,120-acre Project area may only be occasional visitors,
migrants, or transients, if they occur at all.
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species
Invertebrates. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts for
special status invertebrates such as the longhorn fairy shrimp and the vernal pool fairly
shrimp. Since then, these species as well as the conservancy fairy shrimp and the vernal
pool tadpole shrimp have become federally-listed as Endangered. The USFWS issued a
Biological Oph~ion for vernal pool crustaceans, which describes current mitigation for
loss of habitat (USFWS 1996c). These species live within strict habitat requirements, and
can be found in vernal pools and other small seasonal bodies of water that allow the
appropriate desiccation of the cysts (eggs).
Seasonal wetlands occur within the Project area, therefore there is potential that the
special status invertebrate species identified above could be present onsite. Vernal pool
fairy shrimp have been reported approximately four, five and 11 miles east of the Project
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-4
area (CNDDB 2000). Longhorn fairy shrimp have been reported approximately seven
and eight miles east of the Project area (CNDDB 2000). The Project area may provide
suitable habitat for these species in the seasonal wetlands and alkali grasslands. Based
on preliminary studies, seasonal wetlands and alkali grasslands are present within the
Project area. Ongoing study for the Project will identify the full extent of this habitat
within the Project area.
California Red-Legged Frog (Rana attrora draytonii). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
impacts to the California red-legged frog (CRLF) as potentially significant (IM 3.7/F).
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, CRLF has been federally listed as
Threatened. In addition, on March 13, 2001 the USFWS adopted critical habitat for
CRLF. Critical habitat receives protection from destru,:~'on or adverse modification
through required consultation under Section 7 of the ESA with regard to actions carried
out, funded or authorized by a Federal agency. The USFWS published a draft Recovery
Plan for the CRLF in January 2000. The Project area is located within the Mt. Diablo core
area Unit 23 (Draft Recovery Plan for the CRLF (USFWS 2000a). The CRLF is a
California species of special concern.
Additional surveys conducted between 1993 and 2000 detected CRLF in several
locations throughout the Eastern Dublin planning area and adjacent to the Project area
(H.T. Harvey and Associates 2000b). Seventeen reported CRLF observatiOns within five
miles of the GPA/SP area have been reported between 1981 and 1997 (CNDDB 2000).
Specific locations of frogs, especially along linear waterways, vary from year to year,
and season to season, as habitat quality and availability fluctuate. The 1,120-acre Project
area provides suitable breeding and dispersal habitat for this species.
Within the Project area, CRLF have been reported in the un-named drainage adjacent to
Fallon Road, approximately 2000 feet from Highway 580. Within the Project area they
were reported breeding upstream in the same drainage approximately 600 feet east of
Fallon Road (H.T. Harvey & Associates). Sycamore Associates has conducted a site
assessment for CRLF on the Fallon Enterprises and Braddock and Logan Group
properties, and Zander Associates is conducting a site assessment on the First American
Title Company (Jordan Ranch) properties. Several individuals were detected during
these site visits (Sycamore, in prep, Zander, in prep).
Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophus lateralis euryxanthus). The Eastern Dublin EIR
identified impacts to Alameda whipsnake as less than significant due to the lack of
suitable habitat (IM 3.7/E). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Alameda
whipsnake has been Federally-listed as Threatened. The species' state listing of
Threatened has not changed. In October 2000, the USFWS adopted critical habitat for
this species, however, the 1,120-acre Project area does not occur within the designated
critical habitat. Primary habitats for Alameda whipsnake include east, southeast, south
and southwest facing slopes containing coastal scrub and chaparral, with rock outcrops
(Swaim 1994; Swaim, pers.com. 1996), Several observations north of the Eastern Dublin
area have been reported between 1972 and 1999. However, appropriate habitat does not
occur in Eastern Dublin, including the 1,120-acre Project area. Based on the above
information, this species is not considered to occur within the Project area.
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts
to peregrine falcon as insignificant due to the lack of appropriate habitat (IM 3.7/E).
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR this species was federally de-listed (August
25, 2000) but remains state-listed as Endangered. Historic nesting locations are known
from the region north of the Eastern Dublin area. Peregrine falcons have been
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-5
reintroduced to these historic sites on Mt. Diablo and are known to be nesting on Mt.
Diablo (Sproul, pers. comm.). The Project area, does not contain suitable cliffs for
nesting and does not represent important foraging habitat for the peregrine falcon.
Bald Eagle (HaIiaeetus leucocephalus). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR,
the bald eagle was reclassified from federally Endangered to Threatened. It remains
state-listed as Endangered, as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The bald eagle also
is protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act. The historic breeding range of the bald
eagle in California extended from southern coastal areas through much of the central
and northern portions of the state. Bald eagles nest approximately 12 miles southeast of
the Project area at Lake Del Valle (CNDDB 2000). The Project area does not provide
suitable nesting habitat for bald eagles because there are no appropriate cliffs or trees for
nesting and no foraging habitat. Several birds are known to winter in the Altamont area
and may occasionally pass through the Project area.
San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpus macrotis mutica). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
impacts to the kit fox as potentially significant (IM 3.7/D). The San Joaquin kit fox
remains federally-listed as Endangered and state-listed as Threatened. Since
certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the USFWS has updated its recommendations for
surVey and protection measures based protocols (USFWS 1997 and 1999).
A number of surveys for kit fox have been conducted in the Eastern Dublin area (H.T.
Harvey & Associates 1997a) and the adjacent North Livermore Valley (H.T. Harvey &
Associates 1997b). None of these surveys detected kit fox with the exception of a single
kit fox detected on two separate nights while spotlighting approximately 2 miles north
of the North Livermore site in Contra Costa County on Morgan Territory Road
approximately 5 1/2 miles northeast of the Project area (1996). No kit fox have been
incidentally detected in this area in the past nme years.
Despite more intense efforts to detect kit fox in the Eastern Dublin and North Livermore
Valley areas than these previous surveys, none has been detected. Based on negative
results within the Eastern Dublin area and the surrounding areas, kit fox appear to be
largely absent from both the North Livermore Valley and Eastern Dublin area (see
analysis presented in H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997c).
Despite the lack of any observations, the Project area supports habitat that could be
considered suitable for kit fox. Therefore, kit fox have a potential to occur within the
Project area although that potential is low (Sycamore, in prep.).
Federal Candidates for Listing - Wildlife Species
Califot~tia Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). The Eastern Dublin EIR
identified impacts to the California tiger salamander (CTS) as potentially significant (IM
3.7-G). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, CTS has been observed adjacent to
and within the Project area. California tiger salamanders were detected on the Dublin
Ranch site in 1998 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1998, 2000), approximately 1,000 feet from
the Project area western boundary. Potentially suitable breeding and upland aestivation
habitat for this species occurs throughout the Project area.
A California tiger salamander adult was recently detected onsite during 2001
winter/spring surveys in the quarry pond, located within the Anderson property
(Sycamore, in prep.). During recent site visits to the Braddock and Logan Group
property, potentially suitable breeding ponds, suitable dispersal (intermittent
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-6
drainages), and upland estivation habitat (ground squirrel burrows) have been observed
(Sycamore, in prep). Based on the known occurrence on the Anderson property, on the
southern portion of the Project area, and the available habitat, California tiger
salamander are considered to occur throughout the Project area.
California Species of Special Concern and Other Special-Status Wildlife Species
Western Pond Turtle (Clem~nys marmorata). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts
to the western pond turtle as potentially significant (3.7/H). Since certification of the
Eastern Dublin EIR, western pond turtle was reclassified from a federal candidate
species to a federal Special Concern Species. In addition to being a California Species of
Special Concern, as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, this species also is protected
under California Fish and Game Code Section 5050. Several documented occurrences of
the western pond turtle have been recorded in the vicinity of the Project area (CNDDB
2000). Three occurrences were reported within five miles of the Project area (CNDDB
2000). Western pond turtles were also found at two locations along Cottonwood Creek
(Figure 3.7-C of the Eastern Dublin EIR), east of the Project area. Based on occurrences
in the vicinity of the Project area and on suitable habitat onsite, such as ponds, marshes,
and streams, Western pond turtle has the potential to occur within the Project area.
California Horned Lizard.(Phrynosoma coronatum frontale). The Eastern Dublin EIR
identified impacts to the California horned lizard as insignificant due to the their
extensive distribution (3.7/R). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the horned
lizard has been listed as a fully protected species under the California Fish and Game
Code. Horned lizards have been documented in the region of the Project area
approximately 11 and 12 miles south and approximately 13 miles east of the Project area
· (1994) (CNDDB 2000). Marginal habitat for the lizard probably occurs on portions of the
Project area. However, the California horned lizard is unlikely to occur within the
Project area based on the lack of habitat contiguity with documented occurrences.
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the
Northern Harrier as potentially significant due to the potential loss of habitat (3.7/0).
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, marginally suitable nesting habitat was
identified in the grassland portion of the Project area.
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
impacts to the burrowing owl as potentially significant (IM 3.7/M). In addition to being
a California Species of Special Concern, as indicated in the Eastern Dublin EIR, this
species is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game
Code Section 3503.5.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR burrowing owl individuals and sign have
been observed within Eastern Dublin (Biosystems Analysis 1989, H.T. Harvey &
Associates 2000b). One individual was observed on the Braddock and Logan Group
property located in the north-eastern portion of the Project area in October 2000
(Sycamore, in prep.). Suitable breeding habitat, in the form of ground squirrel burrows,
has been observed during recent site visits within the Project area (Sycamore, in prep).
Based on the available habitat and the known occurrences in the Project area and the
vicinity, burrowing owl are considered to occur throughout the Project area.
Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the
short-eared owl as insignificant due to the lack of appropriate habitat (IM 3.7/Q). In
addition to being a California Species of Special Concern, as indicated in the Eastern
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-7
Dublin EIR, this species is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR,
localized field observations have identified marginally suitable foraging and nesting
habitat in the grassland portion of the Project area.
Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the
Cooper's hawk as potentially significant (IM 3.7/P). In addition to being a California
Species of Special Concern, this species is protected under the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, Cooper's hawk have been observed within
Eastern Dublin (Townsend, pers. comm. 2000), however suitable nesting habitat does
not occur within the Project area. It is likely that dispersing birds and winter migrant
birds use the Project area.
Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a significant
impact to a nesting site for a pair of breeding eagles(IM 3.7/J), potentially significant
project and cumulative impacts to foraging habitat (3.7/K), and a potentially significant
impact due to electrocutions (3.7/L). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, an
active eagle's nest has been identified adjacent to the Dublin Ranch Phase 1 and Area A,
northwest of the Project area (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2000c). Portions of Dublin
Ranch adjacent to the Project area are part of a golden eagle mitigation site for this
nesting pair of eagles. These birds are known to forage in the northern portion of the
Project area (Hunt, pers. comm. 2001). However, several reconnaissance-level site visits
indicate that suitable nesting habitat does not occur within the Project area.
Merlin (Falco coIumbarius). The merlin is a small falcon that breeds in wooded areas of
the Pacific Northwest, Canada and Alaska. Although it does not nest in California, the
species winters in grasslands, savannas and other open habitats throughout the state
from October through March. Once a common winter resident in California, numbers
have declined markedly since the 1960's (Remsen 1978). It preys almost exclusively on
small birds, although it also takes small mammals and insects. In California, wintering
merlins are concentrated along the coast and in the Central Valley. Merlins may only be
occasional visitors, migrants, or transients, if they occur at all. Although this species has
been observed within the region of the Project area as a wintering species (Townsend
pers. comm. 2000), it does not breed within the Project area.
Prairie Falcon (Falco tnexicanus). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the
prairie falcon as potentially significant (IM 3.7/0). Since certification of the Eastern
Dublin EIR, Prairie falcons have been found to nest several miles north of Eastern
Dublin, on Mt. Diablo and near Brushy Peak (Sproul, pers. comm.). No suitable nesting
habitat occurs in the Eastern Dublin area; however, most of the area is high quality
potential foraging habitat. Prairie falcons have been commonly observed during the
winter in recent years within Eastern Dublin (Townsend pers. comm. 2000) and likely
forage in the Project area. The prairie falcon is not expected to breed in the Project area.
Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to
the sharp-shinned hawk as potentially significant (IM 3.7/P). Since certification of the
Eastern Dublin EIR, it has been determined that suitable breeding habitat may occur
within the arroyo willow riparian habitat that occurs within the Project area.
Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to
the tricolored blackbird as potentially significant (IM 3.7/I). Since certification of the
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-8
Eastern Dublin EIR, a tricolored blackbird breeding colony was observed in the spring of
1999 in the southern portion of the Project area (Townsend and Lenihan pers. comm.).
The species have also been reported to the north and south of the Eastern Dublin area
(CNDDB 2000). The Project area may provide suitable breeding habitat for this species.
Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Loggerhead shrike is a wide-ranging species
that occupies open habitats including grassland, scrub and open woodland
communities. The species typically nests in densely vegetated, isolated trees and shrubs
and occasionally man-made structures. Loggerhead shrikes feed on a variety of small
prey including arthropods, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and birds (Yosef 1996). In
California, the species does not migrate and is resident year-round. Declines in numbers
have been noted across a broad geographical range in the United States.
Nesting habitat for this species occurs near riparian habitat and coyote brush habitat
throughout Eastern Dublin and Loggerhead shrike has been observed in the Eastern
Dublin area (Townsend, pers. comm. 2000). Sycamore Associates biologists observed a
loggerhead shrike during a reconnaissance-level survey on October 4, 2000 and again on
January 16, 2001, just east of the Project area on the east side of Doolan Road (Tatarian
pers. obs. 2000, 2001). Suitable breeding habitat for this species occurs within the Project
area in the riparian woodland off of Fallon Road. Based on these known occurrences
and the suitable habitat available, loggerhead shrike is considered to occur within the
Project area.
California Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actia). This species, a California Species
'of Special Concern, breeds in open grasslands throughout the Central Valley and
adjacent foothills and along, the central and southern California coast region. It fs a
ground-nesting species that prefers shorter, less dense grasses and areas with some bare
ground.
Breeding habitat for this species occurs in grassland habitat portion of the Project area.
This species has been documented in the vicinity of the Project area approximately 0.75
miles north of the Project area (1992), and approximately 1.5 miles north of the Project
area at the Tassajara and Highland Road intersection (1992) (CNDDB 2000). Based on
these known occurrences and the suitable habitat available, California horned lark is
considered to occur within the Project area.
Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). This species, a California Species of Special Concern,
prefers arid, low elevation regions with roosting available in deep crevices on rock faces,
buildings, bridges and tree hollows, especially oaks. Pallid bats obtain prey such as
crickets, grasshoppers, June beetles, ground beetles, and sometimes scorpions. This
species obtains and feeds on its prey primarily on the ground.
Within the Project area, habitat for this species includes, but is not limited to, all trees
and old buildings. There have been no surveys for this species in the Project area;
however, based on the available suitable roosting habitat, Pallid bat have a high
potential to occur within the Project area.
Townsend's Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii). Townsend's big-
eared bat, a California Species of Special Concern, occurs throughout California.
Inhabiting mesic habitats, it will roost in colonies in caves, mines, tunnels, or buildings.
This species forages along habitat edges, gleaning insects from bushes and trees. Once
abundant throughout California, Townsend's big-eared bat has decreased in population
numbers due to sensitivity to human disturbance of roosting sites.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-9
Within the Project area, habitat for this species includes, but is not limited to, large snags
and old buildings. There have been no surveys for this species in the Project area;
however, based on the available suitable roosting habitat, Townsend's big-eared bat
have a high potential to occur within the Project area.
Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis) Yuma myotis, a California Species of Special '
Concern, is found everywhere in California except the Mojave and Colorado Desert
Regions. This species typically feeds on small insects over water sources'. Diverse
roosting structures are used, including buildings, mines, caves or crevices.
Within the 1,120 acre Project area, habitat for this species includes all trees and old
buildings. There have been no surveys for this species in the Project area; however,
based on the available suitable roosting habitat, Yuma myotis have a high potential to
occur within the Project area.
Other Protected Species
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamiacensis), Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), white-
tailed kite (Elanus caentleus) (referred to as black-shouldered kite in the Eastern
Dublin EIR), American Kestrel (Falco sparverius), Great Horned Owl (Bubo
virginianus), barn owl (Tyto alba), and Western Screech Owl (Otus kennicottii). With
the exception of the white-tailed kite, these species were not evaluated in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. These raptors are federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and under California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Often
edge species, these raptors will forage in grasslands, open meadows, and emergent
wetlands adjacent to woodlands, forests or riparian areas. Nesting substrates for these
species vary between dense riparian foliage near permanent water to isolated trees and
human structures. All are year-round residents. These species are expected to forage on
site and may occupy suitable nesting habitat present within the Project area.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR included a comprehensive assessment of habitat and wildlife
resources in the GPA/SP planning area. Table 3.3-1A shows special status plant species
and Table 3.3-2A shows special status wildlife species the Eastern Dublin EIR identified
as potentially occurring in Eastern Dublin (also see Eastern Dublin EIR Tables 3.7-1 and
3.7-2) The EIR identified potential impacts related to the general effects of potential
development in Eastern Dublin including direct habitat loss, indirect habitat loss due to
vegetation removal for construction and development activities, and loss or degradation
of sensitive habitat (Impacts 3.7/A, B, and C). The Eastern Dublin EIR also identified
potential impacts related to wildlife species such as San Joaquin kit fox, California red-
legged frog, California Tiger Salamander, and others (Impacts 3.7/D - S). Mitigation
measures were adopted to, among other things, provide for resource management plans,
avoid development in sensitive areas and revegetate disturbed areas (generally
Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0 - 28.0). All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of
the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP continue to apply to implementing actions and projects
such as the proposed annexation and prezoning. Even with mitigation, the City
concluded that the cumulative loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat was
significant and unavoidable. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City
adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this significant unavoidable
impact (Resolution No. 53-93).
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-10
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Project proposes the same type and density of potential development that was
assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial Study determined that species and/or
habitats not previously identified for the Project area could occur. The Initial Study also
determined that adoption of the critical habitat area for the California red-legged frog
and changed regulatory standards could create new potentially significant impacts
related to habitat identification, preservation and replacement.
Significance Criteria ·
Impacts to biological resources are considered significant if new species have been listed
since the Eastern Dublin EIR that could occur on the Project area, or if changes in the
regulatory status of species previously identified show substantially more extensive
potential impacts on habitats. Significant supplemental impacts could occur if sensitive
habitat described in the Eastern Dublin EIR is newly identified within the Project area.
Regulatory Setting
Special-status plant species include those listed as Endangered, Threatened, Rare,
species proposed for listing, and candidates for listing under the federal Endangered
Species Act ("ESA') and the California Endangered Species Act ("CESA") (United States
Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") 1996, 1998; California Department of Fish and
Game ("CDFG') 2000c). The California Native Plant Society ("CNPS") also maintains
lists of plants of special concern (CNPS 2000). The CNPS lists are recognized by the
CDFG and serve essentially as their list of "candidate" plant species. The CDFG
generally states that all taxa on CNPS lists lB and 2 should be addressed in California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents and recommends that taxa on CNPS
lists 3 and 4 also be considered.
Special-status animal species include those listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS,1996, 1998) and the CDFG (2000b). The USFWS officially lists species as
either Threatened or Endangered, and also identifies candidates for listing. Additional
species receive federal protection under the Bald Eagle Protection Act (e.g., bald eagle,
golden eagle), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and state protection under CEQA
Section 15380(d). In addition, many other species are considered by the CDFG to be
species of special concern; these are listed in Remsen (1978), Williams (1986), and CDFG
(2000b). Although such species are afforded no official legal status, they may receive
special consideration during the planning stages of certain development projects. State
,s, tatutes further classify some species under the following categories: "fully protected",
protected fur-bearer", "protected amphibian", and "protected reptile." The designation
p otected indicates that a species may not be taken or possessed except under special
permit from the CDFG; "fully protected" indicates that a species can be taken for
~cientific purposes by permit only (CDFG 2000b). Raptors and' passerines are protected
under California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 and 3503, respectively, in which all nests,
eggs, and birds are protected (CDFG 2000b).
This chapter identifies potential impacts to special-status plant and animal species, and
identifies specific mitigation measures to address such impacts. Depending on the
circumstances, the Project also may require obtaining permits from the state and federal
agencies which implement the ESA, CESA and other resource protection laws. The City
recognizes that those state and federal agencies may require mitigation measures in
those permits, and that such mitigation measures could exceed the level of mitigation
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-11
required by the City in this supplement. It is the responsibility of any proponent who
wishes to develop the Project area to identify which other permits are necessary, if any,
and to comply with all mitigation requirements contained in those permits.
Methodology
The biological analysis contained in this supplement is based on surveys and
assessments conducted for the Eastern Dublin EIR as well as subsequent and ongoing
surveys for biological resources within the Project area. The location of habitat types for
this supplement is based on a field reconnaissance and focused surveys, verification of
the Eastern Dublin EIR habitat mapping, and review of aerial photographs (2000).
Species-specific surveys and analyses currently are in progress within the 1,120-acre
Project area. Surveys for special status resources were completed in 2000/2001 on the
Jordan Ranch (First American Title Company property), located on the western-central
portion of the Project area (Figure 2 - C). These studies include a Request for
Jurisdictional Determination (Zander 2000), California Tiger Salamander protocol-level
surveys (Jennings and Flohr 2001), and California Red-legged Frog protocol-level
surveys (Jennings and Flohr, in prep.). The Jordan Ranch wetlands delineation was
verified by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on November 16, 2000.
Special status plants and wildlife with potential to occur within the Project area are
described below and summarized in Tables 3.3-1 A and B, and Table 3.3-2 A and B. The
descriptions also include information from background research and studies conducted
since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Locations of observed sensitive species are
mapped on Figure 3.3-B: Sensitive Species in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Where Project area
mapping has not yet occurred, the potential presence of species and habitat is inferred
based on habitat type and suitability, field reconnaissance, and local knowledge of
species occurrences on nearby parcels.
Supplemental Impact BIO 1: Direct and Indirect Habftat Loss
The project would result in direct and indirect habitat loss, degradation, and disturbance
as described in Impacts 3.7A and 3.7B of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Since preparation of
the Eastern Dublin EIR one new habitat type not previously identified in the EIR, i.e.,
seasonal wetland, has been identified as either occurring or having the potential to occur
within the Project area. Intermittent streams, shown but not identified as habitat in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, have been identified as a habitat type and are known to occur or
have the potential to occur within the Project area. Figure 3.3-C shows the Project's
proposed land use "bubbles" and roadwavs in conjunction with the habitat areas as
shown in Figure 3.3-A. A small portion of the newly-identified seasonal wetlands
would be accommodated in open space. Some portions of the intermittent streams and
other previously-identified habitat types would be located within open space corridors
or open space areas designated in the GPA/SP and the Project, while others portions
would not. Also, thirteen additional plant species and eight additional wildlife species
have been identified as occurring or potentially occurring on the site. Two of these
plants, the San Joaquin spearscale and Congdon's tarplant, were not listed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR but have been observed near the Project area. The Livermore tarplant is a
species newly described since 1993. Suitable habitat for two other plant species, palmate
bird's beak and c. aper-fruited tropidocarpum, has been observed within the Project area
and has the potential to occur within the Project area. Animal species not previously
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR include three bat species (Pallid bat, Townsend's
big-eared bat, Yuma myotis), three bird species (merlin, Loggerheaded shrike and
California horned lark), and two invertebrates (conservancy fairy shrimp and vernal
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-12
pool tadpole shrimp), which could potentially ~ccur in seasonal wetland habitat within
the Project area. Specific impacts associated wi;.h each of these species are addressed in
subsequent impact discussions. However, the potential loss of seasonal wetland habitat
and intermittent stream habitat and potential loss of habitat of species not previously
identified would result in a supplemental potentially significant impact and a
potentially significant cumulative impact.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures
SM-BIO-l: Project proponent(s) shall prepare a Resource Management Plan (RMP)
for the entire Project area for the City of Dublin's review and approval prior to or
concurrent with submittal of any future development applications within the Project
area submitted to the City for. discretionary review. The RMP shall include all
properties within the Project area and any necessary off-site mitigation lands and
address consistency with local policies, such as the Stream Restoration Program and the
Grazing Management Plan and mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
and this SEIR. The RMP shall be a comprehensive document that includes, at a
minimum:
· Project overview
· Discussion of existing conditions of soil, geology, adjacent and proposed land
uses, creeks and drainages, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, and special status
species
· Maps and figures delineating precise location of species occurrence,
preserved/created habitats, associated open space and treatments
· Special status species and habitat addressed in the RMP shah include but are not
limited to:
1. Botanically sensitive communities: arroyo willow riparian woodland,
seasonal wetlands, intermittent streams, freshwater marsh and alkali
grasslands
2. Special Status plant species: San Joaquin spearscale, Congdon's tarplant,
palmate bird's beak, caper-fruited tropidocarpum and Livermore tarplant
3. Special status invertebrates: conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy
shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp.
4. Special status amphibians: California red-legged frog and California tiger
salamander.
5. Special status raptors and passerines: golden eagle, burrowing owl, short-
eared owl, sharp-shinned hawk, tricolored blackbird, loggerhead shrike
and California homed lark.
6. Special status mammals: San Joaquin kit fox, pallid bat, Townsend's big-
eared bat and Yuma myotis bat.
· Program goals and objectives
· Summaries of important related project and regional documents addressing
resources and planning
· Consistency and compliance with local resource protection policies
· Regulatory and legal framework for affected resources including informal
consultation with the regulatory agencies
· Measures for maintaining on-site mitigation in perpetuity
· Identification of any proposed off-site mitigation and measures for maintaining
offsite mitigation in perpetuity
· Summary of Eastern Dublin EIR and Supplemental EIR impacts and mitigation
by habitat type
· For each special status species and sensitive habitat:
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-13
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Description of the resource - biology, life history and regional
distribution
Potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts per the Eastern Dublin
EIR and Supplemental EIR
Mitigation ratios for preservation and creation
Preconstruction and construction avoidance and minimization measures
including but not limited to preconstruction surveys, contractor
education, construction scheduling; restricted activities, fencing, signage,
agency consultation and reporting
Onsite avoidance and minimization measures
Onsite mitigation and adaptive management
Off-site mitigation and adaptive management
Regulatory permitting requirements
Monitoring and performance standards
Long-term monitoring management and protection
Funding and implementation
Schedule for implementation and monitoring
Implementation agreement for City and future development applicants
Procedures for accommodating changed and unforeseen circumstances
In preparation of the RMP, the first priority will be given to avoidance and preservation
of biological resources within the Project area. Only after opportunities for onsite
avoidance and preservation have been thoroughly evaluated, will off-site mitigation be
considered, including mitigation banking. The long-term viability and sustainability of
the natural resources on the preserved and mitigated lands shall be protected and
managed in perpetuity. This should be a clearly stated goal of the RMP as it relates to
all of the protected resources. Management measures shall address all identified
potential direct and indirect impacts from the Project as identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR and this supplement. Modifications to the land plan may be required to implement
the RMP.
Measures to protect these resources from foreseeable and unforeseeable impacts over the
long-term shall be consistent with the mitigation measures herein and could include but
are not necessarily limited to:
General Mitigation Measures
1. In-perpetuity conservation easements
2. In-perpetuity funding assurances
3. Maintenance of documents describing resources of the Project area
Hydrology Mitigation Measures
1. Water quality control and treatment
2. Appropriate management of the natural hydrologic regime
3. Management of runoff, drainage and sediment
4. Appropriate flood control maintenance
5. Erosion control and channel stability
Multiple-use Management Measures
1. Setbacks necessary to protect the specific resources
2. Buffers and buffer treatments
3. Fencing and signage necessary to protect the specific resources
4. Public education
5. Managed trails and other multiple-uses
6. Restricted public access
7. Management of trash receptacles to discourage predators
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-14
8. Appropriate management of water bodies known to promote undesired
predators of protected species
9. Restricted activities consistent with resource protection
Resource Management Measures
1. Vegetation management
2. Fire management appropriate to management of the biological resources
3. Control of exotic predators of protected species
4. Invasive exotic species control
5. Habitat management and monitoring
6. Management of resources within their regional context
Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
Supplemental Impact BIO 2: Loss of Special Status Plant Species
No special status plant species were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. More recent
observations and documentation show the potential for the occurrence of at least five
special status plants within the Project area. The San Joaquin spearscale and the
Congdon's tarplant were documented within the GP area since preparation of the
Eastern Dublin EIR (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2000b). Suitable habitat for palmate
bird's beak (Cordylanthus palmatus) and caper-fruited tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum
capparideum) was observed in the upper reaches of Doolan Canyon to the east of the
Project area and is know to occur within the Project area. Additionally, suitable habitat
(alkali grasslands) may be available for Livermore tarplant (Deinandra bactgalupii), a
newly described plant species within the Project area. Other plants listed in Table 3.3-1B
also may be present but not yet observed. Direct loss of individuals and associated
microhabitats could occur as a result of future development of the Project. This could
result in a supplemental potentially significant impact and a potentially significant
cumulative impact.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures
SM-BIO-2: Plant surveys, as outlined in USFWS and CDFG survey protocols (CDFG
1996), shall be conducted within the Project area_in early spring, late spring, and late
summer to confirm presence or absence of special-status plant species. Results of these
surveys shall be included with subsequent development applications.
SM-BIO-3: Once presence is determined for a special status plant species, areas
supporting the species should be avoided.
SM-BIO-4: If a special-status plant species cannot be avoided, then the area containing
the plant species must be measured and one of the following steps must be taken to
ensure replacement on a 1:1 ratio (by acreage):
a. permanently preserve, through use of a conservation easement or other
similar method, an equal amount of acreage either within the Project area or off-site that
contains the plant;
b. harvest the plants to be lost, and relocate them to another suitable and equal
sized area either within the Project area or off-site; such area shall be preserved and
protected in perpetuity; or
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-15
c. harvest seeds from the plants to be lost, or use seeds from another appropriate
source, and seed an equal amount of area suitable for growing the plant either within
the Project area or off-site; such area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity.
Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map, the developer shall
submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the
developer will comply with this mitigation measure, including the steps it will take to
ensure that transplanting or seeding will be successful.
Implementation of all of these mitigation measures will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
Supplemental Impact BIO 3: Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitats
Impact 3.7C of the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant direct and
indirect impacts to Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland, and Freshwater Marsh due to
development, grading, road construction, and culvert crossings. This supplemental
analysis identifies seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams as additional botanically
sensitive habitats that could be affected by direct and indirect impacts of development of
the Project area. Figure 3.3-C shows the Project's proposed land use "bubbles" and
roadways in conjunction with the habitat areas as shown in Figure 3.3-A. A small
portion of the newly-identified seasonal wetlands would be accommodated in open
space. Some portions of the intermittent streams and other previously-identified habitat
types would be located within open space corridors or open space areas designated in
the GPA/SP and the Project, while others portions would not. This could result in a
supplemental potentially significant impact and a potentially significant cumulative
impact.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures 3.7/6.0 and 3.7/7.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR apply to this impact
but do not mitigate it to less than significant.
SM-BIO-5: To the extent feasible, implementation of the Project shall be designed and
constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters of the United States within
the Project area. Examples of avoidance and minimization include (1) reducing the size
of the Project or any future individual development projects within the Project area, (2)
design future development projects within the Project area so as.to avoid and/or
minimize impacts to waters of the Unites States, and (3) establish and maintain wetland
or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams. Also, in order to
protect the particularly sensitive Arroyo willow riparian woodland and red-legged frog
habitat found in the Fallon Road drainage from Fallon Road upstream to its terminous,
to the maximum extent feasible future development projects within the Project area
either shall completely avoid this drainage or limit impacts to bridge crossings (as
opposed to fill) or other such minimally impacting features.'
SM-BIO-& To the extent that avoidance and minimization are not feasible and wetlands
or other waters will be filled, such impacts shall be mitigated at a 2~1 ratio (measured by
acreage) within the Project area, through the creation, restoration or enhancement of
wetlands or other waters. Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative
map, the developer shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval
demonstrating how the developer will comply with this mitigation measure.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-16
SM-BIO-7: If mitigation within the Project area is not feasible, then the developer shall
mitigate the fill of wetlands or other waters at a 2:1 ratio (measured by acreage) at an off-
site location acceptable to the City. Prior to submittal of a Stage development plan or
tentative map, the developer shall submit a written report to the City for its review and
approval demonstrating how the developer will comply with this mitigation measure.
SM-BIO-8: Botanically sensitive habitats shall be included in and shall be protected and
enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan, as outlined in
Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-l, above.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level; however, cumulative impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable due to the loss of additional botanically sensitive habitat.
Supplemental Impact BI04: San Joaquin Kit Fox
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts due to construction of
new roads and facilities that could: destroy potential dens or bury foxes occupying dens
at the time of construction; modify natural habitat to reduce available prey and den sites;
lead to direct mortality or disturbance to foxes due to increased vehicle traffic, human
presence and domestic dogs in the area; and directly harm kit fox or reduce prey due to
the use of poisons for rodent control. There are no new impacts and no increased
impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox or its habitat beyond those identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. The City adopted Kit Fox mitigation measures as set forth in Appendix E of
Resolution 53-93. However, updated survey and protection measures have been
adopted since 1993 which shoUld be incorporated into the existing adopted Eastern
Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan to ensure that the latest protocols and
standards are implemented in future development of the Project area.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures
BIO-SM-9 Future development of the Project shall comply with the amended Eastern
Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan (Appendix E) which reflects the latest
protocols for kit fox habitat evaluations, presence/absences surveys, pre-construction
surveys and precautionary construction measures.
BIO-SM-10 San Joaquin kit fox habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and
enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan, as outlined in
Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-l, above.
BIO-SM-II: If avoidance is infeasible, mitigation lands, providing similar or better
habitat for San Joaquin kit fox at a 1:1 ratio or suitable ratio determined by the USFWS
shall be set aside in perpetuity off-site, if feasible, providing such land is available. This
mitigation, proposed in-a mitigation and monitoring plan, shall be submitted to the City
for review prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
The above mitigation measures for San Joaquin kit fox also are suitable mitigation for
other special status grassland species.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-17
Supplemental Impact BIO 5: California Red-legged Frog (CRLF)
Impact 3.7/F of the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts due to
the destruction and alteration of small water impoundments and stream courses which
could eliminate habitat for the CRLF. Increased sedimentation from run-off into small
riparian zones or water impoundments could reduce the water quality and threaten
breeding and larval habitat. Removal or modification of the vegetation in the stream
courses could reduce the suitability of habitat for adult frogs. Additionally, increased
vehicle traffic and construction of new roads could increase direct mortality,
Harassment and predation by pets and urban wildlife, especially raccoons, is an
existing problem and could increase with residential development. Mitigation
measures were adopted for theses identified impacts.
In .March 2001, the USFWS adopted critical habitat for the CRLF comprised of
approximately 4.1 million acres across the State. All of the Project area is within the
designated critical habitat. The USFWS published a draft Recovery Plan for the CRLF
in January 2000. The Project area is located within the Mt. Diablo core area Unit 23
(Draft Recovery Plan for the CRLF (USFWS 2000a). Based on studies and observations
conducted since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the habitat for CRLF still
focuses on water and riparian features but is now known also to include adjacent
upland areas for potential aestivation and dispersal. Since certification of the Eastern
Dublin EIR, CRLF have been observed at several locations Within the Project area,
however the extent of their distribution within the Project area has not been determined
specifically. Reflecting this new information, potential development of the Project area
could have a broader impact on CRLF habitat and on individual frogs than previously
analyzed. This is a potentially significant supplemental impact.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures
In light of the new information on the extent of potential CRLF habitat since the
previous EIR, Mitigation Measure 3.7/20.0 and 3.7/22 .0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR
should be refined through the following additional mitigations.
BIO-SM-12: Focused surveys following USFWS survey protocol shall be conducted in
habitat considered suitable for CRLF which have not already been surveyed. The
current protocol (USFWS 1997b) requires that two daytime and two nighttime surveys
be performed over a suitable four-day period, or, the most recent USFWS approved
focused survey protocol should be followed. Results of these surveys shall be sent to the
City for review.
BIO-SM-13: Specific California red-legged frog habitat areas, including the drainage
upstream and east of the current Fallon Road alignment, shall be included in and
protected and enhanced by implementation of a Resource Management Plan, as outlined
in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-l, above.
BIO-SM-14: To the extent feasible, development of the Project area shall avoid all areas
of identified suitable California red-legged frog aquatic and dispersal habitat. A
reasonable attempt shall, be made to avoid such aquatic habitat and to provide a 300 to
500-foot buffer on each side of any stream which provides red-legged frog habitat.
Limited permanent development may occur within this buffer zone (such as a trail
through the length of the buffer zone, or a bridge crossing across the buffer zone), so
long as it will have only minor impacts on the habitat. Limited temporary development
activity may occur within this buffer zone to create trails, install bridges, etc., and to
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-18
allow for grading activities along the edge of the buffer zone, so long as such activity
will have only minor impacts on the habitat.
BIO-SM-15: If avoidance is infeasible, mitigation lands, providing similar or better
habitat for CRLF at a 3:1 replacement ratio or suitable ratio determined by the USFWS,
shall be set aside in perpetuity. This mitigation, proposed in a mitigation and
monitoring plan, shall be required prior to submittal of Stage 2 Development Plans and
tentative maps. If the identified mitigation lands have been approved by the City, the
following mitigation guidelines implemented prior to and during construction would
reduce impacts to this species:
Prior to construction, a map shall be prepared to delineate upland areas from
preserved wetland areas. Information for this map shall be based on the verified
wetland delineation.
The wetland construction boundary shah be fenced to prohibit the movement of
animals into the construction area and control siltation and disturbance to
wetland habitat. Following installation of fencing, its proper location shall be
verified by the Project Biologist. The Project Biologist shall ensure that at no time
during construction is vegetation removed inside of the fenced area. If
construction necessitates the removal of vegetation within the fenced area,
additional mitigation will be required. Additionally, the Project Biologist shall
walk the length of the fence once a day to ensure that CRLF are not trapped
within the enclosure. The Project Biologist shall walk the length of the fence
more than once a day in areas where CRLF are most abundant. The permitting
agencies shall also be contacted in the event of any significant deviation from
permitting conditionsl
Pre-construction surveys within the construction zone shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist with appropriate permits to handle red-legged frogs. If no
special-status animals are detected during these surveys then construction
related activities may proceed. If special-status animals are found within the
construction disturbance zone they shall immediately be moved passively, or
captured and moved, in consultation with the USFWS, to suitable upstream sites
by the Project BiolOgist.
All construction employees shall participate in an endangered species/special-
status habitat education program to be presented by a qualified biologist prior to
construction activities. The program shall cover such topics as identifYing
wetland habitat and areas used by CRLF, identification of CRLF by photos, the
State and federal Endangered Species Acts, and the consequences of violating the
terms of these acts.
All construction adjacent to wetlands shah be regularly monitored to ensure that
impacts do not exceed those included within the protective standards of the
mitigations. Work performed within 500 feet of aquatic habitat shall be
monitored by the Project Biologist, who shall document pre-project and post-
project conditions to ensure permit compliance.
During construction, the Project Biologist shall be on site whenever construction
within any aquatic habitats is to occur. Any construction activity within
ordinary high water--shall be photo-doCumented by the Project Biologist. In
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-19
addition, a biologist with the appropriate permits to relocate animals shall be
available for consultation as needed.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.
Supplemental Impact BIO 6: Special Status Invertebrates
Impact 3.7/S of the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts on
special status invertebrates including vernal pool fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy
shrimp. Two additiOnal special status invertebrate species, the Conservancy fairy
shrimp and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp, could be affected by development of the
Project site and disturbance of potential habitat such as seasonal wetlands. This is a
supplemental potentially significant impact.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures
MM 3.7/28.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR was adopted to reduce the previousty identified
impact. That mitigation is supplemented by the following additional mitigation
measures in order to reflect current protocol for these species.
SM-BIO-16: Special-status invertebrate habitat shall be included in and shall be
protected and enhanced by implementation of a Resource Management Plan, as outlined
in Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1.
SM-BIO-17: The following vernal pool habitat surveys and mitigation shall be
implemented:
Surveys of potential habitat are required. If suitable habitat is
identified, the following mitigation is required. If impacts to occupied
and protected vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat are less than one acre,
including habitat directly destroyed and habitat indirectly affected
(within 250 feet of vernal pool), the following, based on the February
28, 1996 Biological Opinion (USFWS 1996), or current protocol, shall be
adhered to or as otherwise negotiated with the USFWS. The Biological
Opinion collectively covers all projects with small effects (less than one
acre) on listed vernal pool crustaceans in the Sacramento Basin (of
which the Project area is considered a part) of California. For purposes
of this consultation with USFWS, all applicants will have either
surveyed habitat of these species (habitat) and confirmed the presence
of listed species, or chosen to assume that all potential habitat contains
listed species.
(a) Preservation: For every acre of habitat directly or indirectly impacted
at least two vernal pool credits shall be dedicated within a Service-
approved ecosystem preservation bank, or in accordance with USFWS
evaluation of site-specific conservation values, three acres of vernal
pool habitat may be preserved within the Project area or on another
non-bank site as approved by the Service.
(b) Creation: For every acre of habitat directly impacted, at least one
vernal pool creation credit shall be dedicated within a Service-
approved habitat mitigation bank, or, in accordance with USFWS
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-20
evaluation of site-specific conservation values, two acres of vernal
pool habitat will be created and monitored within the Project area or
on another non-bank site as approved by the Service.
Mitigation ratios for non-bank mitigation may be adjusted to
approach those for banks if the Service considers the
conservation value of the non-bank mitigation area to approach
that of Service-approved mitigation banks. Mitigation for
direct impacts to vernal pool habitat shall include either 2:1
preservation and 1:1 creation on mitigation bank lands or 3:1
preservation and 2:1 creation for non-mitigation bank lands.
Vernal pool habitat and associated upland areas which are
preserved onsite shall be managed into perpetuity or untit the
Corps of Engineers, the applicant and the USFWS agree on an
exchange of present habitat for mitigation credits within a
USFWS approved ecosystem preservation bank.
All avoided habitat (preserved) on site shall be monitored by a
USFWS approved biologist during the time of construction.
The monitoring biologist shall have authority to stop all
activities that may result in destruction or take of listed species
or destruction of their habitat. Resumption of construction shah
occur after appropriate corrective measures have been taken.
The biologist shall report any unauthorized impacts to USFWS
and CDFG.
· Fencing shall be placed and maintained around any and all
preserved vernal pool habitat.
· All on-site construction personnel shall receive instruction
regarding the presence of listed species and their habitat.
The proponent shall insure that activities inconsistent with the
preservation of the vernal pool habitat and associated upland
habitat are prohibited during the life of the Project.
Any project that impacts vernal pool or seasonal wetland
habitat greater than one acre shall be evaluated by the USFWS
on a case-by-case level using these basic guidelines.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
Supplemental Impact BIO 7: California Tiger Salamander
Impact 3.7/G of the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts on the
California tiger salamander (CTS) similar to many of the impacts on the red-legged frog.
Since preparation of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the CTS has been made a formal candidate
for Federal listing under the ESA. It has been recognized that upland areas of
previously-defined CTS habitat provide suitable aestivation habitat. In addition, the
presence of CTS was confirmed in the southern portion of the Project area and suitable
habitat is present throughout the Project area. Direct and indirect loss of individuals in
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-21
breeding ponds and newly recognized upland habitat is a supplemental potentially
significant impact.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures
SM-BIO-18: California tiger salamander habitat shall be included in and shall be
protected and enhanced by implementation of a Resource Management Plan, as outlined
in Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1.
SM-BIO-19: If avoidance is infeasible, mitigation lands, providing similar or better
aquatic and upland habitat for California tiger salamander (CTS) at a 1:1 ratio or suitable
ratio determined by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), shall be set
aside in perpetuity. Upland habitat shall be mitigated by preserving additional upland
on-site or, if necessary, by preserving currently-occupied tiger salamander habitat off-
site. Aquatic habitat shall be mitigated by creating an equal number (or acreage) of new
aquatic California tiger salamander habitat within the preserved upland habitat. This
mitigation, included in a mitigation and monitoring plan, shall be required prior to
submittal of Stage 2 development plans and tentative maps.
ImPlementation of these mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.
Supplemental Impact BIO 8: Nesting Raptors
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts to several species of
nesting raptors. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, an additional special
status raptor species, the short-eared owl, has been identified as potentially nesting
within the Project area. Removal or disturbance of an active raptor nest would
constitute a supplemental potentially significant impact.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures
SM-BIO-20: A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting
raptors. If an active nest is found the following mitigation measures shall also be
implemented.
SM-BIO-21: If construction must occur during the nesting season, all potential nesting
trees within the footprint of development should be removed prior to the nesting season
to prevent occupied nests from being present when construction begins.
SM-BIO-22: Construction should occur between August 31 and February 1 to avoid
disturbance of owls during the nesting season. This construction window could be
adjusted if monitoring efforts determine that the owls do not nest in a given year or that
nesting was completed before August 1.
SM-BIO-23: If removal of nesting trees is infeasible and construction must occur within
the breeding season, a nesting raptor survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist
prior to tree disturbance.
SM-BIO-24: All active nests shall be identified by flagging and a buffer zone,
depending on the species, shall be established around the nesting tree. Buffer zones can
range between 200 feet to 50Ofeet to an entire viewshed.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 313-22
SM-BIO-25: If construction is scheduled when young birds have not yet fledged, an
exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until
after the young have fledged, typically by August 15 or earlier if determined by a
biologist that fledging has occurred.
SM-BIO-26: Nesting raptor habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and
enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in SM-BIO-
1.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
Supplemental hnpact BIO 9: Golden Eagle - Elimination of Foraging Habitat
As discussed in Impact 3.7/K of Eastern Dublin EIR, the conversion of grasslands and
the consequent reduction of potential prey are expected to reduce the amount and
quality of foraging habitat for golden eagles. Additional data on eagle foraging habitat
has been gathered since preparation of the Eastern Dublin EIR. That data indicates that
the northern portion of the Project area is used by an identified breeding pair of eagles
for foraging (Granger Hunt, pers. comm.). This is a supplemental potentially significant
impact.
SM-BIO-27: The territory of the golden eagle nesting pair shall be included in and
protected and enhanced by implementation of a Resource Management Plan, as outlined
in Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1. The protected golden eagle foraging territory affects
areas in the northern portion of the Project area designated for Rural
Residential/Agricultural uses. Development standards and uses for these areas shall
incorporate the following measures:
· Homesites in this portion of the Project area shall be located in valley
bottoms adjacent to existing or planned residential development.
· Permitted agricultural uses shall be limited to grazing to maintain
suitable golden eagle foraging habitat.
· Rodent control in this portion of the Project area shall be prohibited.
Any additional portion of the Project area that is within the viewshed of all nest sites
used by this pair shall also be managed in a similar manner.
Implementation of this measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level;
Supplemental Impact BIO 10: Burrowing Owl
Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.7/M found that development in Eastern Dublin could
result in the loss of potential breeding habitat and/or the disturbance of nests for this
special-status species. While this impact has not changed, the California Department of
Fish and Game has developed new guidelines for mitigating impacts to this species
since preparation of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Without the following supplemental
mitigation, this could be a supplemental potentially significant impact.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures (adapted:from CDFG 1995)
SM-BIO-28: If construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February I -
August 31), pre-construction surveys should be conducted on the entire Project area and
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-23
within 150 meters (500 feet) of the Project area prior to any ground disturbance. To avoid
take of over-wintering birds, all burrows should be surveyed 30 days prior to ground
disturbance between the months of September 1 and January 31. If ground disturbance
is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-construction survey, the site
should be resurveyed.
SM-BIO-29: If over-wintering birds are present no disturbance should occur within 160
feet of occupied burrows unless agency approval provides a letter giving consent to
relocate wintering birds. If owls must be moved away from the disturbance area,
passive relocation techniques, following CDFG 1995 guidelines, should be used rather
than trapping. If no over-wintering birds are observed, burrows may be removed prior
to the nesting season to reduce impacts from noise, dust, and human disturbance to
mated pairs.
SM-BIO-30: Maintain a minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) around active burrowing owl
nesting sites identified by pre-construction surveys during the breeding season to avoid
direct loss of individuals (February 1- September 1).
SM-BIO-31: If removal of unoccupied potential nesting burrows prior to the nesting
season is infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season, a nesting
burrowing owl survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior
to construction. Owls present on site after February 1 will be assumed to be nesting on
site or adjacent to the site. All active burrows shall be identified.
SM-BIO-32: All active nesting burrows shall have an established 250-foot exclusion
zone around the burrow.
SM-BIO-33: If construction is scheduled during summer, when young are not yet
fledged, a 250-foot exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction
shall be delayed until after the young have fledged, typically by August 31.
SM-BIO-34: When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing unsuitable
burrows should be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows created (by
installing artificial burrows) at a 2:1 ratio on protected lands, as provided for below.
SM-BIO-3$: A minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident
bird, shall be acquired and permanently protected. The protected lands shall be adjacent
to occupied burrowing owl habitat and at a location acceptable to CDFG.
SM-BIO-36: The project proponent shall provide funding for long-term management
and monitoring of the protected lands. The monitoring plan should include success
criteria, remedial measures, and an annual report to CDFG.
SM-BIO-37: Burrowing owl habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and
enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in
Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-1.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.
Supplemental Impact BIO 11: Nesting Passerines
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-24
the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts on riparian and
freshwater habitat Of tri-colored blackbird. The Project area provides potentially
suitable nesting habitat, including grassland, arroyo willow riparian woodland, and
freshwater marsh habitat, for two additional nesting passerines, the loggerhead shrike
and the California horned lark. These California Species of Special Concern have the
potential to reside in the Project area, especially since tricolored blackbird has been
confirmed within the Project area since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Potential
destruction of nesting habitats or disturbance to these nesting passerines is a
supplemental potentially significant impact. The following supplemental mitigation is
identified for these species.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures
SM-BIO-38: If construction is scheduled to occur during the nesting season (February 1-
August 15), all potential nesting sites and structures (i.e., shrubs and rules) within the
footprint of development should be removed prior to the beginning of the nesting
season. However, because the removal of grassland habitat is infeasible, mitigation for
impacts to California horned lark are addressed more particularly in Mitigation
Measu. res SM-BIO-42 to SM-BIO-44, below.
SM-BIO-39: If removal of nesting trees and shrubs within the footprint of development
is infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season, a nesting bird
survey should be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to
construction. These surveys shall cover grassland habitat for potential nesting
California homed lark. Birds present on site after February 1 will be assumed to be
nesting onsite or adjacent to the site.
SM-BIO-40: All active nests shall be identified by flagging and a buffer zone,
depending on the species, shall be established around the nest site. Buffer zones can
range between 75 feet to 100 feet.
SM-BIO-41: If construction is scheduled during summer, when young have not yet
fledged, an exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be
delayed until after the young have fledged, typically by July 15.
SM-BIO-42: Habitat for nesting passerines shall be included in and shall be protected
and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in SM-
BIO-1.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
Supplemental Impact BIO 12: Bat Species
Special status bat species potentially occurring on the site, including the pallid bat,
Townsend's big-eared bat, and the Yuma myotis bat have been identified since
certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Destruction of roosting habitat for these bat
species is a potentially significant supplemental impact.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures
SM-BIO-43: A qualified bat biologist shall conduct occupancy surveys of the Project
area to determine whether any mature trees, snags or suitable buildings that would be
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3,3-25
removed during future project construction provide hibernacula or nursery colony
roosting habitat.
SM-BIO-44: If presence is observed, removal of roost habitat should be conducted at
specific times of the year. Winter roosts are generally occupied between October 15
through January 30 and maternity colonies are generally occupied between February 15
and July 30. If bats are using roost sites that need to be removed, the roosting season of
the colony shall be determined and the removal shall be conducted when the colony is
using an alternate roost.
SM-BIO-45: Habitat for these bat species shall be included in and shall be protected and
enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in
Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-26
TABLE 3.3 -IA
SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING
WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA (Eastern Dublin EIR)
Species (1) CNPS Federal/ Habitat (5) Flowering
Status (2) State Period (5)
Status
(3, 4)
Amsinkia grandiflora lB CE/FE Grassy slopes Apr-May
Large-flowered below 1200 ft
fiddleneck
Cordylanthus Alkaline places in Jtm-Sept.
moIlis ssp, lB grassland
hispidus
Hispid birds-
beak
CordyIanthus Alkaline June-Sept.
palmatus lB CE/FE overflowed lands;
Palmate birds- grassland
beak
Cryptantha Course sandy areas Apr-May
hooveri lB CR in grassland
Hoover's
cryptantha
Eriogonum truncatum Dry grassy slopes; Apr-Jun
Mt. Diablo buckwheat lA 1000-1500 ft.
chaparral,
grassland
Eschscholtzia rhombipetaIa Dry, gravelly, or Mar-Apr
Diamond-petaled lB grassy slopes
California poppy
Fritillaria Heavy adobe soils Mar-Apr
agrestis 4 at low elevations;
Stinkbells grassland,
cismontane
woodland
Fritillaria liliacea Heavy soil in open Feb-Apr
Fragrant fritillary lB hills and fields near
coast; coastal scrub;
grassland; often on
serpentine
Grindelia camporum Dry grassy slopes; May-Oct
Var. parviflora 4 perhaps alkaline
Great Valley gumplant No has areas
Special-
Status
Lasthenia conjugens Grassland; vernal Apr-May
Contra Costa lB FE pools
Goldfields
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-27
RanuncuIus lobii Shallow vernal Feb-Apr
Lobb's aquatic 4 ponds, mesic sites;
buttercup redwood or mixed
evergreen forests,
northern oak
woodland
Tropidocarpum lA Grassy, alkaline Mar-Apr
capparideum hills below 500 ft.
Caper-fruited
tropidocarpum
TABLE 3.3 -lB
NEW SPECIES - SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING
WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Potential To Occur in Species (1) CNPS Federal/State Habitat (5)
the Project area in Status Status (3, 4)
SEIR. (2)
lB FSC Chenopod scrub, Apr-Sept.
Atriplex valley/foothill
joaquiniana grasslands/alkaline
San Joaquin meadows
spearscale
lB Chenopod scrub, May-Oct.
Atriplex valley foothill
depressa grasslands/alkaline
Brittlescale meadows
lB FSC Chenopod scrub, May-Oct.
Atriplex valley/foothill
cordulata grasslands /
Heartscale somewhat alkaline
meadows
4 Chenopod scrub, April-Oct.
Atriplex valley/foothill
coronata var. grasslands/alkaline
coronata meadows
Crownscale
lB Playas, valley March-June
Astragalus / foothill
tener var. tener grasslands, alkaline
Alkali milk- vernal pools
vetch
lB Cismontane March-June
Balsa raorh iza woodland/valley
macrolepis var. /foothill grassland,
macrolepis sometimes
Big-scale serpentinite
balsamroot
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-28
Blepharizonia lB Valley/foothill July-Oct.
plumose ssp. grasslands
plumose
Big tarweed
CaIochortus pulchellus 1B Chaparral, April-June
Mount Diablo fairy cismontane
lantern woodland, valley/
foothill grassland
Deinadra bacigalupii lB Meadow on June-
Livermore tarplant alkaline soils. October
Hemizonia parnji ssp. lB Valley/foothill June-Nov
congdonii
_ grasslands on
Congdon's tarplant alkaline soils.
Madia radiata lB Valley/foothill March-May
Showy madia grassland below
250 feet, and
cismontane
woodland
Palgiobothrys lA Alkaline meadows April-May
glaber and vernal coastal
Hairless saltmarshes
popcorn_
flower
Senecio 2 Coastal scrub and January-
aphanactis c~smontane April
Rayless woodland on
ragwort alkaline soils
Species names and nomenclature follow Cal|fcwni~
1
2 California Native Plant Society (2000): e nt Society (1988)
lA = Presumed Extinct in CalifOrnia
lB = Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California and elsewhere
2 = Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere
3 -- Plants for which more infOrmation is needed -A Review List
4 = Plants of limited distribution -A Watch List
3 California Department of Fish and Game (2000c):
CE = State listed, endangered
CR = State listed, rare
4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1998):
FE = Federally listed, endangered
FSC = Federal Special Concern Species
5 'Munz and Keck (1968)
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-29
TABLE 3.3 - 2A
SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING
WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA (Eastern Dublin EIR)
SPECIES STATUS
AMPHIBIANS
California red-legged frog
Rana aurora draytonil
California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense
FT/Critical Habitat
DFG: CSC
DFG: Protected (Full species)
FC
DFG: CSC
DFG: Protected
REPTILES
Western Pond Turtle DFG: CSC
Clemmys marmorata DFG: Protected
Alameda whipsnake
Masticophus lateralis euryxanthus
California homed lizard
Phrynosoma coronatum frontale
BIRDS
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
CT / FT / Critical Habitat
DFG: Protected
DFG: CSC
DFG: Protected (Full species)
CE/FT, FPD
CDF Sensitive
DFG Fully protected
BEPA
Golden eagle DFG: CSC (Fully protected)
Aquila ch~/saetos BEPA
White-tailed kite DFG: Fully protected
Elanus caeruleus DFG: Code 3503.5
Northern Harrier DFG:
Circus cyaneus DFG:
Sharp-shinned hawk DFG:
Accipiter striatus DFG:
Cooper's hawk DFG:
CSC
Code 3503.5
CSC
Code 3503.5
CSC
DFG: Code 3503.5
DFG: CSC
DFG: Code 3503.5
Acci?iter cooperii
Prairie falcon
Falco mexicanus
American Peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus anatum
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia hypu[~ea
Short-eared owl
Asio flammeus
Tricolored blackbird
Astelaius tricolor
MAMMALS
CE/Federally delisted
CDF: Sensitive
DFG: Fully protected, Code 3503.5
DFG: CSC
DFG: Code 3503.5
DFG: CSC, Code 3503.5
DFG: CSC, Code 3503
FSC
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-30
San Joaquin kit fox CT/FE
Vldpus macrotis mutica
INVERTEBRATES
Longhorn fairy shrimp
Branchinecta longiantenna
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
FE
FT
TABLE 3.3 - 2B
NEW SPECIES - SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIALLY
OCCURRING
WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
BIRDS
Merlin DFG: CSC
Falco columbarius DFG: Code 3503.5
Loggerhead Shrike DFG: CSC, Code 3503
Lanius ludovicianus
California horned lark DFG: CSC, Code 3503
Eremophila alpestris actia
MAMMALS
San Joaquin kit fox
VuIpus macrotis mutica
Pallid bat
..Antrozous pallidus
Townsend's big-eared bat
Co~. norhinus townsendii townsendii
Yuma myotis bat
Myotis yumanensis
CT/FE
(not a new
mitigation)
DFG: CSC
species, but
DFG: CSC (Full species)
DFG: CSC
INVERTEBRATES
Conservancy fairy shrimp FE
B ranchinecta conservatio
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
FE
new
The wildlife status definitions and governing agencies follow:
U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service (1998)
FE
FC
FPE
FSC
Endangered: Any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range
Threatened: Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future
Federal candidate species
Federally Proposed Endangered: Taxa already proposed to be listed as endangered
Federal Special Concern Species
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.3-31
FPD
13EPA
Federally Proposed for delisting
13aid Eagle Protection Act: This act contains numerous protection measures relating to
bald eagles and golden eagles
California Department of Fish and Game (2000a, 2000b, 2000c)
CE
CR
CT
CPE
CSC
Endangered: A native species or subspecies of animal, which is in serious danger of
becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion of its range
Listed as Rare by the State of California
Threatened: A native species or subspecies that, although not presently threatened with
extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the
absence of special protection and management efforts
Proposed for listing as Endangered
California Species of Special Concern: taxa that are restricted in distribution, declining
throughout their range, or associated with habitats that are declining in California
Fish and Game Code (CDFG 1998)
DFG Protected and fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code. Fully protected
and protected species may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Fish and Game
Commission and/or the Department of Fish and Game. Information on fully protected and
protected species can be found in the Fish and Game Code, (birds at § 3511, mammals § 4700,
reptiles and amphibians at § 5050, and fish at § 5515).
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.3-32
3.4 NOISE
Noise was analyzed in Chapter 3.10 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement to the EIR
examines whether new significant or substantially increased noise impacts could occur in
light of increases in regional traffic and chaoges in commute patterns since certification of
the EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a detailed discussion of the noise conditiOns that existed on
and around the Project area in 1992-3. Then, as now, the major noise source affecting the
Project area is traffic on Interstate 580 (I-580). Measurements conducted along 1-580 since
1992, primarily as part of the bi-annual City of Pleasanton noise monitoring survey, have
indicated that noise levels have increased only slightly since 1992 (less than I dBA)
(Illingworth and Rodkin, Bi-Annual Citywide Noise Monitoring in the City of Pleasanton,
1995 and 1998). This minimal noise level increase between 1992 and now is because the
freeway was operating at peak-noise generating conditions in 1992. Increased traffic tends
to slow traffic speeds thereby decreasing noise generation, although the increased traffic
may shift the timing of peak noise occurrence. The increased traffic volume on 1-580
between 1992 and now has reduced traffic speed and noise levels. Therefore, the traffic
noise contours contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR accurately represent the existing noise
conditions on the site and the existing conditions noise contour map included in the Eastern
Dublin EIR is reproduced in this study as Figure 3.4-A.
Other noise sources on and adjacent to the Project area include noise generated by traffic on
arterial roadways near and within the Project area and aircraft flyovers, mainly from aircraft
utilizing the Livermore Municipal Airport. The Eastern Dublin EIR also mentioned the
Camp Parks Reserves Forces Training Area (RFTA), located about 1-1/2 miles west of the
site near Tassajara Road, as a potential noise source. Only the sound of' occasional
helicopter flyovers is audible in the Project area. While maximum noise levels generated by
individual helicopter flyovers may reach 70 to
Camp Parks does not generate a Community
averaged noise descriptor; please refer to the
80 dBA, the level of helicopter activity at
Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) (a. time-
Eastern Dublin EIR p. 3.10-1 for a full
description), of 60 dBA in the Project area due to the infrequency of helicopter flyovers. The
Project area has been deemed to be outside the area of concern for noise as described in the
Environmental Noise Management Plan, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, California
(U.S Army, December 2000).
As reflected in the Eastern Dublin EIR, major arterials would be constructed nearby and
within the Project area. These include Fallon Road, a major north-south arterial providing
access from the Project area and beyond to 1-580, and Dublin Boulevard, a major east-west
arterial providing a local arterial street parallel to 1-580 from the Project area westward
through the City of Dublin. These arterials, along with new roads to be constructed within
the Project area, are potential traffic noise sources.
The Livermore Munidpal Airport is located southeast of the study area on the south side of
1-580. The Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan includes projected noise contours for
'EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.4-1
noise levels due to Livermore Airport aircraft activity. The projected year-2011 55 dBA
CNEL contour line crosses the site on its southern edge, just north of Dublin Boulevard (see
Figure 3.4-B for the location of the 55 dBA CNEL contour for Livermore Airport). The 60
dBA CNEL contour does not reach the Project area.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potential impacts related to noise. The impacts applicable
to the Project area included exposure of existing and future residences to future roadway
noise and to construction noise. Compatibility impacts for mixed uses were also identified
(Impacts 3.10/A, B, E, F). Mitigation measures were adopted to require acoustical studies
for all residential projects within the future 60 dBA CNEL contour and to provide noise
barriers for then-existing residences where feasible. Adopted mitigation measures also
require construction noise management programs, compliance with local noise standards,
and review of noise management programs in future mixed use projects. All mitigation
measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP continue to apply to
implementing actions and projects such as the proposed annexation and prezoning. Even
with mitigation, however, potentially significant impacts remained for exposure of then-
existing residents to future roadway noise. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP,
the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this significant unavoidable
impact (Resolution No. 53-93). ,
The proposed annexation and prezoning include the same land uses and densities analyzed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore, there are no new or intensified construction noise or
mixed use compatibility impacts.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Project proposes the same type and density of potential development as assumed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore, noise expected to be generated by Project traffic has not
increased from the previous EIR. However, better defined roadway locations indicate
potential additional noise impacts may occur beyond those assessed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR and additional developed areas may be sUbject to unacceptable or conditionally
acceptable noise impacts.
Significance Criteria
Noise impacts are considered significant under the City's Noise and Land Use
Compatibility Guidelines if they cause exposure of existing and proposed housing
(including hotels) to a CNEL of more than 60 dBA. For increases in ambient noise, the
Eastern Dublin EIR utilized as significance criteria noise standards established by the U.S.
Department of Transportation in Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Assessments, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Circular UMTA 5620.1. These standards consider a traffic-
generated noise increase of 3 dBA or less as insignificant, an increase of 4 to 5 dBA as
potentially significant, and an increase of 6 dBA or more as significant.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.4-2
City of Dublin Noise Standards
Pursuant to the Dublin General Plan Noise Element, a CNEL of 60 dBA or less is considered
normally acceptable for residential development (See Table 3.4-1, excerpted from the
General Plan.) Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations requires all multi-family
residential dwellings, hotels, and motels exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA or greater to have an
acoustical study that shows how an interior CNEL of 45 dBA will be achieved in habitable
rooms. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measure 3.10/1.0, the City also
applies this standard to single-family homes. The City has been applying a standard for
outdoor noise levels not to exceed an Ldn (day/night average sound level) of 65 dBA in
backyards or common outdoor areas for other projects in the East Dublin Specific Plan Area.
Supplemental Impact NOISE 1: Exposure of proposed and existing housing to noise levels
in excess of standards established in the General Plan.
In some cases, land uses proposed within the Project area would be exposed to noise levels
that would be considered conditionally acceptable under the City of Dublin-'s Noise
Element. This is considered a supplemental poten.tially significant impact.
The noise contours for Project buildout are shown in Figure 3.4-B. These contours do not
take into account acoustical shielding clue to existing or future buildings or topography..'
Consequently, actual noise levels may be less than that shown on the map. The noise
contours for the Project area are more detailed than they were in 1993 because a roadway
system has been identified and more precise noise contours could be developed.
Residential development proposed along Central Parkway would be exposed to a CNEL of
over 65 dBA, as would residential development along Fallon Road and the internal loop
roads. This would be a potentially significant impact.
These areas would require an acoustical study during Project development to determine
how interior levels could be controlled to the City and State goal of 45 dBA and how
outdoor noise levels in residential use areas would be controlled to a CNEL of 65 dBA.
Although the noise exposure information is more detailed and allows a more accurate
determination of where mitigation will be required, the mitigation measures in the Eastern
Dublin EIR remain applicable.
Adopted Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0 and 2.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR require acoustical
studies for new residential development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour and require
mitigation for outdoor living areas of existing residences. These mitigations will continue to
apply within the 60 dBA contour as adjusted and will reduce increased traffic noise impacts
on new housing to less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are
recommended beyond those previously adopted.
However, even with mitigation, previously identified traffic noise impacts on existing
residences could not be reduced to insignificance. Therefore, upon approval of the Eastern
Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution
No. 53-93). To the extent that increased traffic noise would intensify this impact, the
intensified impact also would be potentially significant and unavoidable.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.4-3
Supplemental Impact NOISE 2: Exposure of future commercial, office and industrial uses to
noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan.
As reflected in the noise contours for 1-580 and Project area roadways, the general
commercial and industrial commercial land uses proposed between Dublin Boulevard and
Interstate 580 would be exposed to a CNEL of up to 75 dBA, which is considered
conditionally acceptable for these land uses under the guidelines of the Noise Element of the
General Plan. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
SM-NOISE-l: A noise insulation plan shall be prepared for general commercial (including
any proposed office-type uses) and industrial land uses to be submitted for all such
development projects located within the future CNEL 70 dBA contour. Each plan shall
show how interior noise levels would be controlled to acceptable levels. The acceptable
level will depend on the type of use as set forth in the noise insulation plan. Interior noise
levels could be controlled adequately by using sound-rated windows in windows closest to
the streets and the freeway.
This mitigation will reduce noise impacts on future commercial, office, and industrial uses
to less than significant.
Supplemental Impact NOISE 3: Exposure of people to or generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne noise levels.
Increased traffic on 1-580 and Project area roadways also could increase ground borne
vibrations caused by the passage of heavy trucks or equipment along nearby streets. Like
noise, the effects of vibrations are more noticeable during the quieter times of the day --
early morning, evenings and nighttime hours. Also like noise, vibrations are considered to
be more of an impact in residential areas, which typically are more sensitive receptors than
other land uses.
The discussion of increased noise levels in Supplemental Impact Noise 1, above, applies
generally to ground borne noise, since both are generated by vehicular traffic, the main
source of current and future noise on and within the Project area. Therefore, no additional
supplemental impact or mitigation measures are required for ground-borne noise. Ground
borne vibration from increased levels of heavy traffic could be a potentially significant
impact.
SM-NOISE-2: Except for local deliveries, heavy truck traffic shall be restricted to
designated arterial roadways and truck routes within the Project area and limit the hours of
local deliveries to daytime hours as established by the City.
This mitigation will reduce ground borne vibration from increased levels of heavy traffic to
less than significant.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.4-4
TABLE 3.4 -1
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (dBA)
Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Acceptable Normally Clearly
Acceptable (Noise Insulation Unacceptable Unacceptable
Residential 60 or less 60 - 70 70 - 75 Over 75
Motels, hotels 60 or less 60 - 70 70 - 80 Over 80
Schools, churches,
nursing homes 60 or less 60 - 70 70 - 80 Over 80
Neighborhood parks
60 or less 60 - 65 65 - 70 Over 70
Offices: retail
commercial 70 or less 70 - 75 75 - 80 Over 80
Industrial 70 or less 70 - 75 Over 75
Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building design. Conventional
construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally,
suffice.
Source: California Office of Noise Control, 1976, as modified by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.4-5
East Dublin Properties
FIGURE 3.4-B
Build-out Noise Contours
Legend
m m 55 CNELAircraft Noise Contour
CNEL Noise Contours
AGRICULTURE
F~'TURE STUDY AREA
OS
3.5 SCHOOLS
The need for new school facilities was analyzed in Chapter 3.4 of the Eastern Dublin EIR.
This supplement to the EIR examines whether student generation rates and the related need
for different levels of school facilities to accommodate future development of the Project
area have changed substantially since certification of the EIR. The supplement also
examines the effect of Senate Bill (SB 50), enacted in 1998, on school mitigation and funding~
ENVIRONMENTAL SETFIN G
The Project area currently is within the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
(LVJUSD) boundary. As a companion request to the proposed annexation, the Project
proponents propose to detach from the LVJUSD and attach to the Dublin Unified School
District (DUSD). (Provisions of the Education Code govern the liability of property when it
is detached from one school district and annexed to another.) The proposed reorganization
is consistent with Dublin General Plan Policies 4.1.B and 4.1.F that the DUSD provide school
facilities in the Extended Planning Area and that schools located within the City limits be
operated by DUSD.
Enrollment in DUSD schools in October 2000 was 4,082 kindergarten through 12th grade,
students (Dublin Unified School District Study of Demographic Projections and School
Construction Revenue Analysis, DRAFT, Shilts Consultants, Inc., Jtme 2001). DUSD maintains
five elementary schools, a middle school, a high school, and a continuation high school. The
high school and middle school levels have experienced the highest levels of growth over the
past five years with an average annual increase of 3.6 percent per year. In total, the DUSD
experienced an average growth rate of 2.26 percent over the past five years.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR projected the demand for school facilities that would be generated
by development under the GPA/SP. At the time the EIR was certified, the DUSD had not
adopted student generation standards for all levels of school facilities. The LVJUSD,
however, recently had adopted increased generation rates for single- and multi-family
development at all school levels from kindergarten through 12th grade. (Eastern Dublin EIR
response to comment 16-12.) These rates were used in the EIR analysis to ensure a
conservative and consistent projection of new student yield from future development of the
GPA/SP area.
Based on projected student generation, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially
significant impacts related to the demand for new school facilities and the potential for
overcrowding if the demand was not met (Impacts 3.4/F, G, H). The EIR also identified
impacts on financing school facilities (Impacts 3.4/I and J). Mitigation measures were
adopted to reserve school sites on the GPA/SP land use maps, to coordinate new
development with school district facilities planning, and to encourage the broadest possible
funding mechanisms for new school facilities (MM 3.4/13.0 - 19.0). These mitigation
measures reduced the impacts to a level of insignificance. Ail mitigation measures adopted
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.5-1
upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP continue to apply to implementing actions
and projects such as the proposed prezoning and annexation of the Project area.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Project proposes the same type and density of potential development assumed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. Pursuant to the Initial Study, this supplement analyzes whether
demand for new school facilities has changed significantly since certification of the Eastern
Dublin EIR and assesses the ability to fund new facilities given changes in the law occurring
since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Significance Criteria
Schools impacts are considered significant if .student generation rates have increased such
that the demand for new school facilities substantially would exceed the demand identified
in the Eastern Dublin EIR. School financing impacts would be significant if the Project
failed to comply with SB 50.
Supplemental Impacts. No supplemental impacts are expected due to revised student
generation rates or the enactment of SB 50.
Student Generation Rates. Table 3.5-1 compares student generation rates used in the Eastern'
Dublin EIR to student generation rates currently used by the DUSD. DUSD generation rates
are used because it is assumed that the pr'oposed reorganization will be approved given the
approval of a similar reorganization for. the 1995 annexation to Dublin of 1,538 acres. Table
3.5-1 shows that at all levels current student generation rates are well below the rates used
in the Eastern Dublin EIR analysis and do not result in new significant impacts. The Eastern
Dublin EIR generation rates indicate that the Project would have generated some 1,587
students based upon the unit counts indicated in Table 3.5-1, below. Under the proposed
DUSD student generation rates the Project would generate 1,095 students, only 69% of the
1993 projections. Under current LVJUSD rates, the Project would generate 1,478 students,
93% of the 1993 projections.
TABLE 3.5 - 1
COMPARISON OF EASTERN DUBLIN EIR STUDENT GENERATION RATES
AND CURRENT STUDENT GENERATION RATES
Residential Use Grade Level EIR Rates~ DUSD Rates2 LVJUSD Rates~
Single Family K-5 .33 .280 .30
(1,736 units) 6-8 .16 .125 .15
9-12 .21 .155 .17
Multi-Family K-5 .22 .085 .30
(790 units) 6-8 .11 .035 .10
9-12 .14 .035 .11
EDPO Draft SEIR
page 3.5-2
Sources:1 Eastern Dublin EIR, response to comment 16-17, Table 3.4-2 (revised):
2 Based on a study commissioned by the DUSD Board, ent/tled Dublin Unified School
District Study of Demographic Projections and School Construction Revenue Analysis, DRAFT
(Shilts Consultants, Inc., June 2001). The rates indicated above for each grade classification
are an average of rates for large lot and small lot single-family detached units, and an
average of the rates for townhomes and multi-family residential for the multi-family
category.
3 LVJUSD, Notice of Preparation Response to Comments, dated June 27, 2001.
School sites to meet projected demand were provided in the GPA/SP and through
implementation of adopted mitigation measures. The Eastern Dublin EIR recognized,
however, that "movement" in the size, number and location of designated school sites could
occur over the course of development (Eastern Dublin EIR response to comment 15-30).
This movement has in fact occurred with development in Eastern Dublin as the type and
location of school facilities and sites have been shifted as needed to meet the demand
identified by the DUSD. Through such planning, the City and the DUSD have implemented
the EIR mitigations to ensure that school facilities are available to meet projected demand.
No school facility impacts are expected beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
SB 50 (The "Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998"). Senate Bill 50 became effective on
November 4, 1998 as a result of the California voters approving Proposition lA. SB 50
provided a $9.3 billion bond measure for school construction and revised the limitation on
developer fees for school facilities. The statute allowed an increase in the statutory limit on
the amount of school mitigation fees and applied the limit to all development approvals,
overturning prior case law exempting certain approvals from the previous statutory limits.
SB 50 establishes an amount of allowable developer fees, which is known as a Level 1 fee.
The statute allows a school district to exceed the base Level 1 fees and impose higher Level 2
fees if the district 1) is determined to be eligible for State funding; 2) adopts a school
facilities needs analysis; and 3) satisfies other criteria of SB 50. Statutory provisions
establish a maximum amount of Level 2 fees for ali projects within a particular school
district. The statute also allows a district to impose Level 3 fees if Level 2 fees have been
imposed and state funding is no longer available. Currently, the DUSD collects Level 2 fees
from developers.
Under SB 50, payment of the permitted school fees is deemed to be full and complete
mitigation of school facilities impacts for CEQA and other purposes. SB 50 limits the
amount of fees a school district may legally impose on new development. Both DUSD and
the LV]USD impose these fees on new development; therefore, there is no new significant
impact related to funding of school facilities.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.5-3
3. 6 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Traffic and Circulation was analyzed in Chapter 3.3 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This
supplement to the EIR examines compliance with the City of Dublin's established standards
for intersection levels of service (LOS) in light of increases in regional traffic and changes m
commute patterns since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993.
The analysis also considers the cumulative (year 2025) growth of the entire region by
utilizing the Tri-Valley Transportation Model to examine future conditions with the
proposed Project and cumulative conditions. The Tri-Valley Transportation Model was
developed with and adopted jointly by the Tri-Valley cities after certification of the Eastern
Dublin EIR. It assumes General Plan build-out for the Tri-Valley cities and completion of
each of the city's road networks to their ultimate geometries.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project area is located on the eastern edge of the City of Dublin's planned urbanized
area and almost in the middle of the Livermore-Amador Valley's Interstate 580 (I-580)
corridor. 1-580 is a major Bay Area east-west commuter route from communities as far east
as the San Joaquin Valley to job centers as far west as San Francisco and Redwood City and
more local job centers in Walnut Creek, Bishop Ranch (San Ramon), Dublin and Pleasanton.
1-580 also provides commuter access to Interstate 680 (I-680). 1-680 lies several miles west of
the Project area and is a major north-south freeway and commuter route from the Tri-Valley
area and communities farther north to the technology job centers in Santa Clara County and
San Jose (the "Silicon Valley").
Existing Roadway Network
Interstate 580 (I-580): 1-580 is an eight lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with
local cities such as Livermore and Tracy to the east and Oakland and other East Bay cities
and San Francisco to the west. In the vicinity of the Project area, 1-580 carries approximately
170,000 vehicles per day (vpd) based on the 1998 Traffic Volumes on California 'State
Highways prepared by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
Interchanges near the Project area include (west to east) Dougherty/Hopyard Roads,
Hacienda Drive, Tassajara/Santa Rita Roads, Fallon/E1 Charro Roads, and Airway
Boulevard. The 1-580/1-680 interchange is under construction and improvements are
expected to be completed by the late summer of 2002. The new interchange will consist of:
an 1-680 southbound to 1-580 eastbound flyover, improvements to the 1-680 northbound to 1-
580 eastbound movement, 1-680 southbound off- and on-ramps and an 1-680 northbound on-
ramp (completed) to provide direct freeway access from Dublin Boulevard.
1-580 is congested during peak periods. During the morning commute, the freeway is
overloaded in the westbound direction, primarily between Vasco Road and Airway
Boulevard. During the evening commute, the primary eastbound bottleneck is at the Santa
Rita Road/Tassajara Road interchange. The evening peak hour traffic backs up to 1-680 or
points westerly on a regular basis.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.6 - 1
Dublin Boulevard: Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial roadway in the City of
Dublin. Between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway it is a six-lane road. From Village
Parkway east to Dougherty Road it generally maintains a four-lane width. Various
roadway projects currently under construction or planned will result in Dublin Boulevard
being improved to six lanes between Village Parkway and Tassajara Road. It is currently
being extended as an initial four-lane road for approximately 3,400 feet east of Tassajara
Road to serve impending development in that area (Dublin Ranch Area G). The existing
average daily traffic (ADT) varies from 33,600 vpd east of San Ramon Road (based on a
current daily count performed by the City of Dublin) to 9,700 vpd at its current eastern end
just west of Tassajara Road (estimated based on existing PM peak hour turning movement
counts at Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road).
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan indicate Dublin Boulevard as a
planned six-lane arterial with a median from Tassajara Road to the City's Sphere of
Influence limits at the eastern boundary of the Project area. Dublin Boulevard is identified
by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) as a major Tri-Valley east-west parallel
arterial to 1-580 which is anticipated to provide local traffic relief when 1-580 becomes
congested. It is designated in the General Plan as a "Route of Regional Significance.' ' ' The
General Plan anticipates extension easterly to connect to North Canyons Parkway. The
ultimate improvement of Dublin Boulevard is part of Dublin's Eastern Dublin Traffic
Impact Fee program (referred to sometimes as the Traffic Impact Fee) (see below).
Central Parkway: Central Parkway (referred to as the Transit Spine in the Eastern Dublin
EIR) is an east-west collector that currently extends from Arnold Drive to Tassajara Road as
a parallel two-lane collector to Dublin Boulevard. It is currently being extended easterly
from Tassajara Road for a distance of about 3,400 feet to serve a portion of the Dublin Ranch
development (Area G). The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan indicate
that Central Parkway will extend as a four-lane road from Tassajara Road easterly to Fallon
Road. East of Fallon Road it is planned as a four-lane road which turns south to connect
with Dublin Boulevard within the Project area3
~ Some'City planning maps erroneously show Central Parkway extending easterly and ending at the
sphere of influence boundary. The "Project" that was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR
included development in Doolan Canyon and the easterly extension of the Transit Spine (now called
Central Parkway) to connect with Doolan Road which was to extend north and connect with
Tassajara Road. However, the Council did not adopt this "Project," but, rather, adopted the 1993
Eastern Dublin EIR's "Alternative 2" (Reduced Planning Area Alternative) with some modifications.
Alternative 2 did not include development in Doolan Canyon. The modifications to Alternative 2
were included in an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR, dated May 4, 1993; these modifications to
Alternative 2 included changes to the Transit Spine. The Transit Spine was changed from a 2~lane
road to a 4-lane road and the text noted that Figure 5.1 of the Specific Plan should be revised to show
four lanes for the Transit Spine between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Consistent with this, when
the City adopted its Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, although it included Central Parkway easterly
to Fallon Road, it did not include construction of Central Parkway east of Fallon Road in its fee
program. Thereafter, in 1997, the Council made amendments to the General Plan and Eastern DUblin
Specific Plan; one of those changes was to show Central Parkway as a 4-lane road extending easterly
of Fallon Road and turning south to connect with Dublin Boulevard within the Eastern Extended
Planning Area. Figures 5-lB of both the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan reflect this
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 2
Gleason Drive: Gleason Drive is a four-lane east-west arterial serving the Santa Rita
Rehabilitation Center, the Federal Correctional Institution and other public and private
developments. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan indicates that it will extend east of
Tassajara to serve portions of Dublin Ranch and eventually will extend eastward to
terminate at future Fallon Road. It currently carries 4,100 vpd west of Tassajara Road
(estimated based on existing PM peak hour turning movement counts at Tassajara
Road/Gleason Drive). The ultimate improvements are part of the Traffic Impact Fee
Program.
Dougherty Road: Dougherty Road ts a north-south inter-city connector linking Crow
Canyon Road in San Ramon with 1-580 in Dublin. Dougherty Road has four lanes between
the Alameda County/Contra Costa border and Dublin Boulevard and six lanes between
Dublin Boulevard and 1-580. South of 1-580 it continues as Hopyard Road, a six-lane arterial
in the City of Pleasanton. The ADT is about 38,000 vpd south of Dublin Boulevard
(estimated based on existing PM peak hour turning movement counts at Dublin
Boulevard/Dougherty Road). Dougherty Road is designated in the General Plan as a
"Route of Regional Significance." The General Plan indicates it will be 6 lanes north of
Dul~lin Boulevard and 8 lanes .between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard. Eastern Dublin
developers pay for their proportionate share of improvements through the Traffic Impact
Fee.
Hacienda Drive: Hacienda Drive is a north-south arterial designed to provide access to 1-
580 from both Dublin and Pleasanton. North of 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard, it is currently
constructed with six through lanes. North of Dublin Boulevard it is four lanes to its
terminus at Gleason Drive (with some turn lanes). South of 1-580 it continues as an eight-
lane arterial in the City of Pleasanton. The existing ADT south of Dublin Boulevard is
11,200 vpd. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan indicate Hacienda
Drive as an eight-lane arterial from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard, as a six-lane arterial from
Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway, and as a four-lane collector north of Central
Parkway. The ultimate improvements are part of the Traffic Impact Fee program.
Tassajara Road: Tassajara Road is a north-south arterial designed to provide access to 1-580
for Dublin and Pleasanton. It extends northerly from Dublin to the Contra Costa County
line and beyond to Danville. North of the County line the road is two lanes and is named
Camino Tassajara. From the County line south to North Dublin Ranch Parkway it remains
two lanes wide. From North Dublin Ranch Parkway to Dublin Boulevard it currently has
four lanes of an ultimate six-lane width. South of Dublin Boulevard, it has been widened to
six lanes of an ultimate eight lanes. The current traffic volumes south of Dublin Boulevard
are 19,000 vpd (based on a recent daily count performed by the City of Dublin); near the
County line are 10,500 vpd (estimated based on existing PM peak hour turning movement
counts at Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive). South of 1-580 in Pleasanton the road continues
as a six-lane arterial named Santa Rita Road. Tassajara Road is designated in the General
configuration of Central Parkway. Only two of the four lanes of Central Parkway east of Fallon Road
are proposed as part of the propose Project; right-of-way for the additional two lanes will be reserved
for the future ultimate 4-lane width.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.6 - 3
Plan as a "Route of Regional Significance." The ultimate improvements are part of the
Traffic Impact Fee program.
Fallon Road: Fallon Road currently is a two-lane County road providing access to existing
ranches and homesteads in the Project Area and to as-yet undeveloped areas of Dublin
Ranch, terminating about 1.1 miles from 1-580. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan indicates
that Fallon Road will be realigned and extended to Tassajara Road, which would provide
regional congestion relief along Tassajara Road. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan indicates
that Fallon Road eventually will be an 8-lane arterial from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard, a six-
lane arterial from Dublin Boulevard to north of Gleason Drive, and a four-lane arterial north
to Tassajara Road. It currently has very low traffic volumes. The ultimate improvements
are part of the Traffic Impact Fee program.
Transit
Altamont Commuter Express (ACE)'. The Altamont Commuter Express operates three
trains per day between Stockton and San Jose. The trains provide westbound service in the
morning and eastbound service in the evening. The trains have Tri-Valley stations at Yasco
Road in Livermore and near the downtowns of Livermore and Pleasanton, the latter of
which is most likely to serve Dublin commuters. The ACE 'trains provide service to the
Pleasanton .station at 5:40, 6:52 and 7:53 each morning and at 5:10 and 6:39 each evening..
The ACE train was not in operation at the time the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General
Plan Amendment were approved and the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified.
Livermore - Amador Valley Transit Authority (LA VTA -- Wheels): The Livermore-Amador
Valley Transit Authority provides bus service to the communities of Dublin, Pleasanton and
Livermore. Several bus lines currently provide service to east Dublin, including lines 12,
12X, 10A, lA, lB, 20X and the ACE connector. Line 20, 12 and 12X provide service along 1-
580 in the immediate vicinity of the Project area. Lines operate on approximately 30-minute
headways. It is expected that these lines will be expanded further as additional homes and
businesses are constructed in the east Dublin area. There is a Wheels bus connection
between each ACE train and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station with intermediate stops.
BART: The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District operates trains between the Dublin-
Pleasanton station near Hacienda Drive and the Oakland-San Francisco area. The trains
operate on 15-minute headways on weekdays. The Dublin-Pleasanton station is accessible
by private auto, taxi cabs, buses, and private shuttles as well as by pedestrians and
bicyclists. The parking lot has a capacity of approximately 3,000 parking stalls.
A new West Dublin-Pleasanton station is in the planning stages and is expected to be
operational within about two years. Dublin, Pleasanton and BART are parties to a
Memorandum of Understanding for financial commitments to fund the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. In addition, long-range planning studies of potentially
extending BART lines to Livermore are underway. The studies also will examine alternative
means of improving transit service to Livermore in the BART corridor until funds are
available to construct the BART extension. At the time the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP were
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 4
approved and the Eastern Dublin EIR certified, BART had not yet been extended to Dublin.
The extension to Dublin had, however, been approved by BART.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
Freeways
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant, significant cumulative, and significant
unavoidable adverse impacts related to daily traffic volumes on 1-580 with and without
build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment and under a
Year 2010 cumulative build-out scenario (Impacts 3.3/A, B, C, D, and E). The significance
criteria for freeway segments was operations that exceed level of service (LOS) E.
Mitigation measures (3.3/1.0 and 3.3/4.0) were adopted which reduced impacts on 1-580
between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on 1-680 north of 1-580 to a level of
insignificance. Other mitigations (3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0) were adopted to reduce impacts
on the remaining 1-580 freeway segments and the 1-580/680 interchange. Even with
mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts remained on 1-580 freeway segments
between 1-680 and Dougherty Road and, at the build-out scenario of 2010, on other
segments of 1-580. Upon certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the Eastern
Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution
No. 53-93), for these significant unavoidable cumulative impacts (Impacts 3.3/B and E). . j
All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP continue to
apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed prezoning and annexation.
Intersections and Roads
The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated levels of service and PM peak hour traffic volumes at 18
intersections with roads and 1-580 ramps for cumulative buildout without the GPA/SP
project and cumulative buildout with the Project. The significance criteria for intersections
were operations that exceed LOS D. Mitigation measures were identified for each
intersection that was projected to exceed the LOS D standard in each scenario. Mitigation
measures (3.3/6.0 - 9.0 and 11.0) for Impacts 3.3/F, G, H, I and K were adopted to reduce
impacts to each of these intersections to a level of insignificance. These mitigations include
construction of additional lanes at intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the
neighboring cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to restripe, widen or modify on-ramps and
off-ramps and interchange intersections, and coordination with Caltrans to modify certain
interchanges. The GPA/SP project contributes a proportionate share to the multi-
jurisdictional improvements through payment of traffic impact fees or construction of the
required improvements for a credit against payment of such fees.
Othe~ mitigations (3.3/13.0 and 14.0) were adopted to reduce impacts on other identified
intersections with Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impacts 3.3/M, N).
Mitigation also was included (3.3/12.0) to address delays on E1 Charro Road (Impact 3.3/L).
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.6 - 5
All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP continue to
apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed prezoning ~nd annexation.
The GPA/SP project contributes a proportionate share to funding these improvements
through payment of traffic impact fees or construction of the required improvements for a
credit against payment of such fees. Even with mitigations, however, significant cumulative
impacts remained on several identified intersections: Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound
ramps (Impact 3.3/1), Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara
Road (Impact 3.3/M). Upon certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the
Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration
(Resolution No. 53-93), for these significant unavoidable year 2010 and cumulative impacts~
Transit, Pedestrians and Bicycles
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to transit service extensions
and the provision of safe street crossings for pedestrians and bicycles (Impacts 3.3/0 and P).
Mitigation measures 3.3/15.0 - 15.3 and 16.0 - 16.1 were adopted which reduced these
impacts to a level of insignificance. These mitigations generally require coordination with
transit providers to extend transit services (for which the GPA/SP projects contribute a
proportionate share through payment of traffic impact fees) and coincide pedestrian and
bicycle paths with signals at major street crossings. All mitigation measures adopted upon
approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP continue to apply to implementing actions and'
projects such as the proposed prezoning and annexation.
Fee Program
Prior to approval of any development in Eastern Dublin, in January 1995 the City adopted
(and has smce updated) the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee which consisted of three
"categories": Category I was, in general, to pay for required transportation improvements
in the SP/GPA project area; Category 2 was, in general, to pay for required improvements
in other areas of Dublin; and Category 3 was to pay for regional improvements to which
development in Eastern Dublin should contribute. The improvements for which the fee are
collected included those improvements assumed in the EIR, those improvements necessary
for Eastern Dublin to develop, and those improvements identified in the EIR as mitigation
measures. In June 1998, the City adopted the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee,
in conjunction with the cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon and Danville and the
Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa to fund regional improvements. This fee replaced
the Category 3 fee. In addition, the City has adopted a Freeway Interchange Fee to
reimburse Pleasanton for funding construction of certain interchanges on 1-580 that also
benefit Eastern Dublin. All development projects in Eastern Dublin are required to pay
these fees at building permit or construct the improvements included in the fee programs.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITI GA TI 0 N MEASURES
The Project proposes the same type and density of potential development assumed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. While traffic volumes related to potential development of the Project
area are not expec, ted to differ from the Eastern Dublin EIR, regional traffic has increased
substantially over previously assumed levels, and commute patterns are somewhat different
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 6
than those occurring in 1993. For example, a greater volume of traffic originating in the Tri-
Valley and especially areas to the east now moves through the area on 1-580 westbound to 1-
680 southbound to reach the Silicon Valley, and utilizes local streets to avoid localized
congestion on 1-580 during peak commute hours. In addition, the Tri-Valley Transportation
Model ("Tri-Valley Model"), adopted to reflect full General Plan build-out of the Tri-Valley
jurisdictions (including the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon, the
Town of Danville, and the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties),
now extends cumulative development to the Year 2025. The Tri-Valley model assumes
construction of roadway improvements which may bring additional traffic into Dublin and
impact study intersections to a greater degree than previously expected. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this section of the Supplemental EIR assesses whether
significant new or intensified traffic impacts may result from increased regional traffic,
changed commute patterns and different assumptions of the Tri-Valley Model.
Significance Criteria
Intersections. An impact would be significant if an intersection previously mitigated to an
acceptable level would now exceed acceptable levels. In addition, an impact would be
significant if a new intersection is identified as exceeding acceptable levels and if such
intersection was not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as a study intersection..
The General Plan standard requires that the City strive for LOS D at intersections. (General
Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy F).
Roadway Segments. With respect to routes of regional significance, an impact would be
significant if a road has been identified since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR as such
a route and such route would fail to comply with the applicable standard of the General
Plan. The General Plan requires the City to make a good faith effort to maintain Level of
Service D on arterial segments of, and at intersections of, routes of regional significance
(Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road and San Ramon Road) or implement
transportation improvements or other measures to improve the level of service. If such
improvements are not possible or sufficient, and the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
cannot resolve the matter, the City may modify the level of service standard if other
jurisdictions are not physically impacted (General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways
Guiding Policy E [e.g. Level of Service D]).
The maximum ADT threshold standards of the General Plan for four-lane roadways (30,000
vpd) and six-lane roadways (50,000 vpd) are used to determine the width of streets.
Hazards. An impact would be significant if Project-generated traffic would cause new
signifiCant safety hazards or would cause safety hazards previously mitigated to an
acceptable level to become hazardous.
Freeways. Freeway impacts are significant if the amount of traffic is increaSed substantially
beyond the levels anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR so as to exceed Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) standards. ACCMA has-established
significance criteria guidelines for proposed projects within Alameda County that have the
potential to impact the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) roadway network.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.6 - 7
Specifically, the CMP identifies a specific system of freeways and roadways that must
conform to the ACCMA LOS standards. These roadways, identified as Metropolitan
Transportation System (MTS) routes are designated as "key routes" and include highways
and principal arterials. For arterials to be considered MTS routes, the following criteria
must be met:
· Must carry 30,000 vehicles per day for at least one mile;
Must be a four lane (or more) roadway;
· Must be a major cross-town connector;
· Must connect at both ends to another CMP route.
In the vicinity of the Project area, ACCMA has identified 1-580, Dublin Boulevard and
Tassajara Road as MTS routes. The ACCMA LOS standard is E, except where F was the
LOS originally measured, in which case the standard shall be F. Since the City's standard is
LOS D for Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road, the ACCMA standards are applicable only
to freeways.
In addition to LOS roadway standards, ACCMA guideIines also specify that any proposed
project generating 100 PM peak hour trips over existing conditions must conduct a traffic
analysis of the project using the Countywide Transportation Demand Model for the base.
years 2005 and 2020. However, the guidelines also allow for other transportation models/
projections to be used and Year 2025 must be compared to the Countywide Transportation
Model to ensure that the more Conservative of the two traffic projections are used for CEQA
purposes. Discussions with ACCMA staff in November 2000 indicate that Year 2025
analysis using the Tri-Valley Transportation Model is appropriate to use for the proposed
Dublin Transit Center project (Draft EIR for Dublin Transit Center, SCH No. 20001120395
[July 2001], available at City of Dublin). Likewise, the use of the Year 2025 Tri-Valley
Transportation Model to analyze impacts of the proposed Project should be appropriate.
Compared to the Countywide Transportation Demand Model, the Tri-Valley Transportation
Model represents a more specific and focused travel demand-forecasting tool for the Tri-
Valley area of Alameda County.
Level of Service Analysis Methodology and Description of Dublin Model and Tri-Valley
Model
The City has conducted a number of traffic studies upon which this current analysis draws.
In addition to the traffic analysis conducted for the Eastern Dublin EIR, the City has since
commrssioned dozens of traffic studies for individual development proposals within the
Eastern Dublin area. Each of the traffic studies builds upon previous ones by accumulating
traffic from each development and evaluating the cumulative effects of the growth in the
Eastern Dublin area. This traffic impact analysis continues that approach by considering the
potential traffic that could be generated by the proposed Project in conjunction with the full
build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area west of the Project area, and then in
conjunction with expected full build-out in the Tri-Valley area.
The intersection level of service analysis was conducted by TJKM using two separate
models: the "Dublin Model" and the Tri-Valley Model. The Dublin Model forecasts traffic
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 8
generated locally within the East Dublin area. This model represents the conditions of
proposed, pending, or approved projects in Eastern Dublin without the Project, as well as
approved projects within the City of Pleasanton. The Dublin Model, which uses the
TRAFFIX software to distribute traffic to the study intersections, was developed by TJKM to
analyze Eastern Dublin projects. This model was developed in order tb better understand
traffic on a local level, such as at key intersections and local streets, which a regional model
like the Tri-Valley Model does not consider. However, the Dublin Model is less precise at
evaluating regional traffic patterns; the Tri-Valley Model can be used for this purpose. In
the Dublin Model, the trip distribution and assignment of traffic for each of the individual
projects is developed based on the type of land use, existing counts, and knowledge of the
study area. The estimated trip generation of East Dublin projects has been updated as
projects change in size or use (see Table 3.6-1). The output from the Dublin Model is shared
with other consultants to maintain consistency in the City of Dublin.
The Dublin Model is used for the near-term analysis and evaluates traffic volumes without
and with the Project. This model does not consider regional traffic that potentially would
utilize City streets; rather, it evaluates only traffic generated locally within the vicinity of the
Project area. The Dublin Model is typically used in standard traffic analyses for the City of
Dublin to assess traffic impacts. A future "baseline" of the Dublin Model was developed,
which did not include the proposed Project but included all other proposed, pending or
approved projects in Eastern Dublin, as well as approved projects within the City of'
Pleasanton, and a second analysis included Project-generated traffic.
The Tri-Valley Model (sometimes called the "TVTM Model") is used to assess cumulative
traffic volumes for build-out conditions in the Tri-Valley area to the year 2025. All land uses
assumed in the TVTM Model are consistent with the city and county control totals as shown
in the ABAG Projections '98. The Tri-Valley Model assumes build-out of the North
Livermore Specific Plan as proposed, so it accounts for possible maximum cumulative
development. The TVTM Model "baseline" assumes build-out conditions within the Tri-
Valley exclusive of the proposed Project. Similar to the Dublin Model, the TVTM Model
was used in the analysis with and without the Project for ready comparison between
intersection LOS with and without the Project, so that Project impacts can be more easily
identified.
Under both models, peak hour intersection conditions are reported as volume-to-capacity
(v/c) ratios with corresponding levels of service. Levels of service ratings are qualitative
descriptions of intersection operations and are reported using an A though F letter rating
system to describe travel delay and congestion. Level of Service (LOS) A indicates free flow
conditions with little or no delay, while LOS F indicates jammed conditions with excessive
delays and long back-ups.
The operating conditions at signalized study intersections were evaluated using the
Intersection'Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology adopted by the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA). This method provides an overall intersection LOS. At
STOP-controlled intersections, LOS was evaluated using the 1994 Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) methodology. This method ranks LOS on an A through F scale similar to
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.6 - 9
that used for signalized intersections, but it uses average delay in seconds for stopping
movements as its measure of effectiveness.
The levels of service calculations and background traffi~ information are in Appendix G to
this document.
Existing Intersection Operations
TJKM evaluated intersection operating conditions at ten existing intersections, all of which
also were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These intersections were selected for analysis
due to their proximity to the proposed Project and heavy traffic use. Figure 3.6-A shows the
location of these ten intersections and the existing AM and PM peak-hour turning
movement volumes. All of the ten existing intersections evaluated currently operate at
acceptable levels of service of LOS D or better. Table 3.6-2 summarizes the existing
intersection LOS for the AM and PM peak hours.
Future Baseline Con ditions / Dublin Model and Tri-Valley Model
Additional study intersections were selected for the baseline analyses. Seven additional
intersections were included in the baseline analyses of the Dublin Model and the TVTM
model to reflect road improvements for approved or pending projects. These additional,
intersections are planned to be installed and signalized along Dublin Boulevard, Central'
Parkway, Gleason Drive, and Fallon Road at buildout of Eastern Dublin. Future baseline
intersection traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figure 3.6-B,
Dublin Model and Figure 3.6-C, Tri-Valley Model. Thus, the future baseline analyses
evaluate 17 intersections.
The additional intersections were derived from Dublin planning documents. To implement
the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan and the Traffic Chapter of
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City of Dublin has undertaken a comprehensive
program of transPortation improvements in the community. The purpose of this program is
to accommodate anticipated traffic from the Eastern Dublin area based upon the Eastern
Dublin EIR assumed 2010 base network and roadway and transit improvement projects
specified in the EIR as mitigations. Overall, the program includes upgrades to 1-580
interchanges, construction of new roads and improvements to existing roads. Traffic Impact
Fees were established by City Council resolutions to fund the program of ultimate
improvements required for build-out of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan areas, and any impacts created by such development. (Eastern Dublin Traffic
Impact Fee; Freeway Interchange Fee and Tri-Valley Transportation Fee, hereinafter
collectively "Traffic Impact Fees" or "TIF Fees.") New developments are required to
dedicate land for the ultimate expected road rights-of-way and construct those
improvements needed for the development. TIF fees are levied on all new development in
Eastern Dublin, and TIF credits are provided for developments that dedicate land or
construct improveme, nts in the TIF Fee programs. None of the projects described below are
funded by Measure B.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 10
Planned improvements in the Project area included as a part of the Traffic Impact Fees
program are listed below:
Santa Rita/Tassajara Roads: The northbound overpass over 1-580 will be widened to
three lanes and lane additions will be made to the eastbound off-ramp approach t°
Santa Rita Road.
E1 Charro/Fallon Roads, the existing two-lane overpass over 1-580 will be widened
to four lanes, the intersections involving the eastbound and the westbound ramps
will be signalized, and the ramps will be improved near the new signals. Included
in this project are new auxiliary freeway lanes on 1-580 between E1 Charro/Fallon
Roads and Santa Rita/Tassajara Roads.
· Street improvements to:
1. Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and North Canyons Parkway at
Airway Boulevard
2. Central Parkway between Arnold Drive and Fallon Road
3. Gleason Drive between Arnold Drive and Fallon Road
4. Arnold Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive
5. Hacienda Drive between 1-580 and Gleason Drive
6. Tassajara Road between 1-580 and the Contra Costa County line
7. Fallon Road between 1-580 and Tassajara Road
All of these roadways ultimately will be either four or six lanes in width, except
those segments of Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road between Dublin
Boulevard and 1-580 which will be eight lanes in width.
· Intersection improvements at virtually all intersections involving the arterial and
collector roadways listed above.
All of these improvements are assumed to be constructed in the Dublin Model Baseline and
TVTM Model Baseline.
Table 3.6-3 (existing plus approved plus pending projects [Dublin Model], without a Dublin
Boulevard connection east to North Canyons Parkway) indicates the levels of service at the
17 analyzed intersections in the Dublin Baseline Model, and Figure 3.6-B indicates the
turning movement volumes at these same intersections. The levels of service With the above
improvements are presented under the "unmitigated" column. The levels of service with
any further mitigation are presented under the "mitigated" column. All intersections
operate at acceptable levels except: 1) Hacienda Drive/I-580 eastbound ramps (LOS E in
AM peak hour); 2) Hacienda Drive/I-580 westbound ramps (LOS F in AM peak hour); and
3) Santa Rita/1-580 eastbound ramps (LOS E in AM and PM peak hours). However, these
three intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service when mitigated, as described
above.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.6 - 11
Table 3.6-4 (Cumulative Year 2025) indicates the levels of service at the 17 analyzed
intersections in the TVTM Baseline Model. Figure 3.6-C (Tri-Valley Model, Cumulative
Year 2025) indicates the. turning movement volumes at these same intersections. All
intersections operate at acceptable levels in this year 2025 model except: 1) Dougherty
Road/Dublin Boulevard (LOS E in both AM and PM peak hours); 2) Hacienda Drive/I-580
Westbound ramps (LOS E in PM peak hour); and 3) Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard
(LOS E in PM peak hour). Only the Hacienda Drive/I-580 westbound ramps can be
mitigated to an acceptable level. Mitigation for the other two intersections would require
additional lanes and road-widening that is not feasible given the physical constraints at
these intersections, as described below.
Thus, even without the Project, traffic impacts at two of these intersections (Dougherty
Road/Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard) are cumulatively
significant. Given that these two intersections function at acceptable levels of service
without mitigation in the near-term Dublin model, traffic impacts at these intersections
likely are created by regional traffic traveling through City of Dublin intersections.
Supplemental mitigations are discussed below.
Intersection Conditions with the Project
Four new intersections were added to the "Baseline Plus Project" analyses to account for'
new Project roads intersecting Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Central Parkway (Figure
3.6-D, Dublin Model and Figure 3.6-E, TVTM Model). These new intersections are being
proposed with the Project to provide direct access to the Project. Thus, the "Baseline Plus
Project" analyses evaluate 21 intersections. The "Baseline Plus Project" analyses assume
that all major roadways within or adjacent to the Project are constructed in their ultimate
configuration as anticipated by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan, and that
all internal Project roads are constructed. In addition, both "Baseline Plus Project" models
assume that Dublin Boulevard has been extended to North Canyons Parkway as assumed in
the 1993 EIR's "Future Road Improvement Assumptions."
Traffic. generation rates for each of the Project land uses and trip volumes for the Project are
presented in Table 3.6-1. These trip volumes were added to each of the models to determine
the contribution of Project traffic. Estimated daily traffic volumes with and without the
Project also are indicated in Figure 3.6-F. Figure 3.6-F also indicates the number of lanes
required on each roadway due to future baseline and Project traffic.
In determining the need for supplemental mitigations, both models were utilized. If a
greater significant Project impact is identified in one model, the mitigation needed to reduce
that impact to a less than significant level is required, even if a mitigation might not be
triggered by the other model.
"Dublin" Model
Table 3.6-5 (existing plus approved plus pending plus Project) indicates the expected levels
of service at the 21 analyzed intersections in the Dublin Baseline Model with Project-
generated traffic. Figure 3.6-D indicates the turning movement volumes at these same
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 12
intersections. The levels of service with the above improvements are presented under the
"unmitigated" column. The levels of service with any further mitigation are presented
under the "mitigated" column.
The Dublin model (Table 3.6-5) identifies five
unacceptable LOS - intersections 2, 3, 5, 18 and 19.
significant impact.
intersect-ions that would operate at
An unacceptable LOS is considered a
Three intersections outside of the Project area are at unacceptable levels of service and can be
mitigated. As with the Dublin Baseline Model without the Project, the existing intersections
which would operate at unacceptable levels with the Project are: 1) Hacienda Drive/I-580
eastbound ramps (LOS E in AM peak 'hour); 2) Hacienda Drive/I-580 westbound ramps
(LOS F in AM peak hour); and 3) Santa Rita/I-580 eastbound ramps (LOS E in AM and PM
peak hours). The Hacienda Drive/I-580 eastbound ramp AM LOS (0.93) does not change
between the Baseline and Project analyses. The LOS with Project traffic increases only at the
latter two intersect-ions and only by 0.01.
Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 1: Unacceptable LOs at Hacienda Drive/fi-580 eastbound
ramps.
SM- TRAFFIC-I: Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the'
1-580 eastbound off-ramp approach at Hacienda Drive to add a third eastbound left turn
lane.
The City of Dublin shall implement this mitigation measure in coordination with the City of
Pleasanton and Caltrans. This improvement shall occur when traffic impacts from
individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic
impact studies of the individual projects.
With this mitigation, this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service. This
impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 2: Unacceptable LOS at Hacienda Drive/fi-580 westbound
ramps.
SM-TRAFFIC-2: Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the
northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 lanes to 4 lanes including three through
lanes and one auxiliary lane that leads exclusively to the 1-580 westbound loop on-ramp.
The westbound loop on-ramp shall be modified as necessary. Project developers also shall
contribute to widening the westbound off ramp approach to add a third westbound left-
turn lane.
The City of Dublin shall implement this mitigation measure in coordination with the City of
Pleasanton and Caltrans. This improvement shall occur when traffic impacts from
individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic
impact studies of the individual projects.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.6 - 13
With this mitigation, this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service. This
impact will be reduced to a level of .'insignificance.
Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 3: Unacceptable LOS at Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound
ramps.
SM- TRAFFIC-3: Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to construction which
converts the eastbound Santa Rita off-ramp through lane to a shared left turn/through lane.
Project developers also shall contribute to a traffic signal upgrade which includes a
westbound right-turn overlap from Pimlico Drive.
The City of Dublin shall implement this mitigation measure in coordination with the City of
Pleasanton and Caltrans. This improvement shall occur when traffic impacts from
individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic
impact studies of the individual projects.
With this mitigation, this intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service.. This
impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 4: The new Project intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Street
D would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak hour.
The new Dublin Boulevard/Street D intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of
service during the PM peak hour (LOS F) with one-way STOP sign control. This is
considered a significant impact under the Dublin Model Baseline and TVTM Model, with
Project.
SM-TRAFFIC-4: The Project developers shall install a traffic signal at the Dublin
B. oulevard/Street D intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this
intersection.
Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when the traffic signal
installation at Dublin Boulevard/Street D becomes warranted based on the estimated
additional trips from individual projects, as determined by traffic impact studies of the
individual projects.
Implementation of this mitigation measure reduces this impact to a level of insignificance.
Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 5: The new project intersection of Fallon Road/Project
Road would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours.
The new Fallon Road/Project Road intersection would operate at unacceptable levels of
service during the AM and PM peak hours (LOS F) with one-way STOP sign control. This is
considered a significant impact under the Dublin Model Baseline and TVTM Model, with
Project.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 14
SM-TRAFFIC-5: The Project developers shall install a traffic signal at the Fallon
Road/Project Road intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this
intersection.
Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when the traffic signal
installation at Fallon Road/Project Road becomes warranted based on the estimated
additional trips from individual projects, as determined by traffic impact studies of the
individual projects.
Implementation of this mitigation measure reduces this impact to a level of insignificance.
Tri-Valley Transportation Model
Table 3.6-6 (cumulative plus Project, year 2025) indicates the levels of service at the 21
analyzed intersections in the TVTM Model with the expected Project-generated traffic.
Figure 3.6-E indicates the turning movement volumes at these same intersections. The
levels of service with the above improvements are presented under the "unmitigated"
column. The levels of service with any further mitigation are presented under the
"mitigated" column.
In addition to the impacted intersectiOns indicated by the Dublin Model, the TVTM Model:
identifies three additional intersections that would operate at unacceptable levels under the
cumulative analysis.
Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 6: In the Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project
scenario, the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at
unacceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours.
The Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (No. 1 on Table 3.6-6) would operate at
LOS E (0.93) in the AM peak hour and LOS F (1.03) in the PM peak hour. However, this
intersection operates at LOS E in the AM and PM peak hours even without the Project. This
LOS represent a significant cumulative impact.
The Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection shows a 0.01 decrease in the AM level
of service and a 0.03 increase in the PM level of service between the TVTM Baseline, Year
2025 and the Cumulative (with Project) analysis. Development of the Project creates only a
0.03 impact at this intersection during the PM peak hour and improves the intersection very
slightly in the AM peak hour.
SM-TRAFFIC-6: Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to configure the
eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach to include 1 left-turn lane, three through lanes and
two right turn lanes. Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to configure the
west bound Dublin Boulevard approach to include three left-turn lanes, two through lanes,
and one shared through/right-turn lane. Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share
to configure the northbound Dougherty Road approach to include three left-turn lanes,
three through lanes and two right-turn lanes. Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata
share to configure the southbound Dougherty Road approach to include two left turn lanes,
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.6 - 15
three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane. The 1-580 westbound
diagonal on-ramp from Dougherty Road shall be widened as necessary to include two
single-occupancy vehicle lanes. In addition, the City will monitor the intersection for peak
hour volumes on a periodic basis, as described below, and will apply appropriate Project
conditions based on the results of such monitoring, as suggested below.
The Project developers shall pay their pro-rata share of the cost to construct these
improvements through payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. The City will
implement these improvements.
However, these improvements will not be able to reduce the intersection impacts to an
acceptable LOS. Additional improvements to reduce the intersection impacts to an
acceptable LOS would require adding a fourth northbound left turn lane and other
improvements. Allowing four lanes of traffic to perform a left turn movement
simultaneously would raise major concerns regarding the safety of such an operation. In
addition, these additional improvements to reduce this impact are not feasible given the
physical constraints at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Adjacent
properties to the intersection are already built out and efforts are now being made to acquire
additional right-of-way to implement the above improvements (in Supplemental Mitigation
Traffic 6) in the future. It is recommended that the City monitor the intersection for peak
hour volumes on a periodic basis and continue to obtain updated volume forecasts forJ
future horizon years (i.e., Year 2025). Such monitoring will be done to assist the City and
Project developer to comply with General Plan Policies requiring implementation of
transportation measures to improve levels of service. Such transportation measures to be
considered at the Stage 2 Development Plan include requiring a comprehensive
transportation demand program; ride sharing; free or discounted BART or other transit
passes for employees; vanpools; staggered work hours; and other trip reduction programs
as specified in Chapter 5 (Travel Demand Management Element) of the ACCMA Congestion
Management Program. tn addition, current and future phases of the 1-580 Smart Corridor
Project (i.e., state-of-the-art systems deployment for traffic monitoring, incident
management, and regional traffic coordination among the cities of Dublin, Livermore and
Pleasanton, Alameda County, and Caltrans) would likely relieve some congestion at the
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection through ITS (Intelligent Transportation
Systems) measures and discourage traffic from diverting off the freeway due to congestion
or incidents.
Therefore, the impact at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection remains a
significant cumulative impact.
Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 7: In the Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project
scenario, the Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at an
unacceptable level of service during the PM peak hour.
The Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection was identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR as exceeding the applicable LOS under the cumulative buildout with Project analysis
(Impact 3.3M). Mitigation Measure 3.3/13.0 remains applicable. This SEIR analyzed this
intersection and found it still to operate at an unacceptable level in the cumulative analysis.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 16
The Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection (No. 4 in Table 3.6-6) would operate at
LOS E (1.00) during the PM peak hour with the Project, and would operate at LOS E (0.97)
during the PM peak hour even without the Project. These LOS represent a significant
cumulative impact.
Given the existing right-of-way and improvements at this intersection, there is no
opportunity to provide additional mitigation beyond the existing intersection geometries.
Given that the Dublin Model indicates that this intersection 6perates at acceptable levels, the
impacts at this intersection that create an unacceptable level of service are created in part by
regional traffic volumes and movements. Again, the difference between the TVTM Baseline
and TVTM Baseline Plus Project indicates a 0.02 decrease in the AM peak hour and only a
0.03 increase in the PM peak hour attributable to Project generated traffic. Additional
improvements to reduce the intersection impacts to an acceptable LOS would require
adding a fourth northbound left turn lane and other improvements. Allowing four lanes of
traffic to perform a left turn movement simultaneously would raise major concerns
regarding the safety of such an operation. In addition, these additional improvements to
reduce this impact are not feasible given the physical constraints at the Hacienda
Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Adjacent properties to the east of the intersection are
already built out. The Sybase Headquarters project which is currently under construction
will occupy the northwest corner of the intersection. The southwest comer of the'
intersection is presently undeveloped, however, a pending application exists to construct an
office complex by Cisco Systems, which would occupy this comer. It is recommended that
the City monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis and continue to
obtain updated volume forecasts for future horizon years (i.e., Year 2025). Such monitoring
will be done to assist the City and Project developer to comply with General Plan Policies
requiring implementation of transportation measures to improve levels of service. Such
transportation measures to be considered as part of the Stage 2 Development Plan include
requiring a comprehensive transportation demand program; ride sharing; free or
discounted BART or other transit passes for employees; vanpools; staggered work hours;
and other trip reduction programs as specified in Chapter 5 (Travel Demand Management
Element) of the ACCMA Congestion Management Program. In addition, current and future
phases of the 1-580 Smart Corridor Project would likely relieve some congestion at the
Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection through ITS measures and discourage traffic
from diverting off the freeway due to congestion or incidents.
Therefore, the impact at the Hacienda Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection remains a
significant cumulative impact. However, as part of the above ITS deployment along the 1-
580 corridor, the City of Dublin will implement advanced traffic signal timing techniques
(e.g., adaptive signal timing) along Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive to improve the
operation of this intersection by utilizing the intersection's throughput capacity more
efficiently.
Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 8: In the Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project
scenari~ the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS F (1.11)
during the PM peak hour.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.6 - 17
The Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (No. 15 on Table 3.6-6) would operate at
LOS F (1.11) in the PM peak hour. This represent an increase from the TVTM Baseline
Model of 0.23. However, this analysis also assumed that Dublin Boulevard would be
extended beyond the Project boundaries to North Canyons Parkway, a scenario not utilized
in the TVTM Baseline model. The indicated increases in turning movements and traffic
volumes at this intersection could be attributed to the Project and regional traffic utilizing
Dublin Boulevard as an "escape" route from PM- peak hour congestion on 1-580. The
analysis indicates large turning movement volumes from Dublin Boulevard westbound to
southbound' Fallon Road (2,095 vehicles) and large volumes of northbound Fallon Road
vehicles (1,748) during the PM peak hour. Even with intersection geometries allowing for
three Dublin Boulevard westbound to southbound Fallon Road left-turn lanes and four
northbound Fallon Road through lanes cannot accommodate the intersection volumes. This
LOS is a significant cumulative impact.
SM-TRAFFIC-7: The Project developers shall construct an additional through lane on
northbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes), construct an additional left-turn
lane on westbound Dublin Boulevard (for a total of three left-turn lanes) and construct an
additional through lane on southbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes). In
addition, the City will monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis, as
described below, and will apply appropriate Project conditions based on the results of such
monitoring, as suggested below. '
Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when traffic impacts from
individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic
impact studies of the individual projects.
Construction of these additional lanes at the intersection would aid in moving vehicles
through the intersection and will reduce the impacts to the intersection. However this
mitigation cannot reduce the impacts to an acceptable level (LOS D), so this impact remains
a significant cumulative impact.
SM-TRAFFIC-8: In addition to the above additional lane configurations (in Supplemental
Mitigation Traffic 7), the Project developers shall pay for studies to assess the feasibility of
locating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection farther north to allow for a
signalized Project intersection between the 1-580 westbound ramps/Fallon Road intersection
and the Fall0n Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (the "auxiliary intersection"). This new
Project auxiliary intersection should consist of seven northbound Fallon Road lanes (2 left, 4
through, 1 right), seven southbound Fallon Road lanes (2 left turn, 4 through, 1 right turn),
and 4 lanes for the new Project street; in the westbound direction three left turn lanes and a
shared through/right turn lane; and in the eastbound direction, two right-turn lanes, one
through and two left turn lanes. If the studies show that a new Project auxiliary intersection
in such location is feasible, the Project developers shall construct such intersection.
Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when traffic impacts from
individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic
impact studies of the individual projects.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 18
This "auxiliary" intersection, identified as "XX' in Table 3.6-6 would provide for three left-
turn lanes onto southbound Fallon Road to absorb some of the Project.generated
southbound left-turns at the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Construction of
this auxiliary intersection would require modifications to the planned Fallon Road and
Dublin Boulevard alignments to provide the necessary 750 feet distance between
intersections. Land uses and planned building locations on the west side of Fallon Road
may have to be modified to accommodate this new intersection. This new intersection is
anticipated to function at LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour.
However, even with this new auxiliary intersection, the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard
intersection would operate at LOS E (0.91) in the PM peak hour, just above the acceptable
standard of LOS D (0.90). Even with this mitigation then, this impact remains a significant
cumulative impact.
Additional improvements to reduce the impacts at the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard
intersection to an acceptable LOS would require adding a fourth westbound left turn lanes.
Allowing four lanes of traffic to perform a left turn movement simultaneously would raise
major concerns regarding the safety of such an operation. It is recommended that the City
monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis and continue to obtain
updated volume forecasts for future horizon years (i.e., Year 2025). Such monitoring will be
done to assist the City and Project developer to comply with General Plan Policies requiring
implementation of transportation measures to improve levels of service. . Such'
transportation measures to be considered at the Stage 2 Development Plan include requiring
a comprehensive transportation demand program; ride sharing; free or discounted BART or
other transit passes for employees; vanpools; staggered work hours; and other trip
reduction programs as specified in Chapter 5 (Travel Demand Management Element) of the
ACCMA Congestion Management Program. In addition, current and future phases of the 1-
580 Smart Corridor Project would likely relieve some congestion at the Fallon Road/Dublin
Boulevard intersection through ITS measures and discourage traffic from diverting off the
freeway due to congestion or incidents.
As part of the future phases of the Io580 Smart Corridor project, the City of Dublin will
implement advanced traffic signal timing techniques (e.g., adaptive signal timing) along
Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road to improve the operation of this intersection by utilizing
the intersection's throughput capacity more efficiently.
Therefore, the impact at the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection remains a
significant cumulative impact.
Roadway Segment Conditions with the Project
Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 9: Future Base with Project scenario, Fallon Road will be
overloaded at planned interim lane configurations.
Figure 3.6-F indicates the future traffic volumes with and without Project traffic volumes on
roadway segments. The Dublin Model provides comprehensive daily traffic volume
forecasts on roadway segments adjacent to the Project. Based on the Dublin Model, Fallon
Road between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard is expected to carry an increase of 16,600 ADT
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.6 - 19
due to Project traffic over future baseline traffic of 36,500 ADT, for a total of 53,100 vpd,
between 1-580 eastbound and westbound off-ramp intersections an increase of 16,200 ADT
(over 17,500 ADT baseline for a total of 33,700 ADT), between Dublin Boulevard and Central
Parkway an increase of 22,200 ADT (over 19,000 ADT baseline for a total of 41,200 ADT),
and Fallon Road between Central Parkway and Project Road and increase of 18,200 ADT
(over 4,000 ADT baseline for a total of 22,200 ADT).
Project traffic volumes would require that certain segments of Fallon Road be widened to
accommodate expected average daily traffic volumes. This increase in ADT is considered a
significant impact.
Dublin Boulevard east of Fallon Road to Street D is expected to reach an ADT of 45,800 vpd
and 34,100 vpd west of Fallon Road, based on the TVTM model with Project traffic.
SM-TRAFFIC-9: The Project developers shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road
between 1-580 and Dublin Road to its ultimate eight lanes and shall be responsible for
widening Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to its ultimate six-
lane width. The Project developers shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between
Central Parkway and Project Road to four lanes. The Project developers also shall be
responsible for widening the. Fallon Road overcrossing (between the eastbound and,
westbound 1-580 ramps) from four lanes to six lanes.
Project developers shall imPlement this mitigation measure when traffic impacts from
individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic
impact studies of the individual projects.
With this mitigation, Fallon Road would be wide enough to carry the expected traffic
volumes at an acceptable level. This impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 10: Future Base with Project Scenario, Central Parkway
will be overloaded at planned interim lane configurations.
Based on the Dublin Model, Central Parkway between Fallon Road and Tassajara Road is
expected to carry an increase of 1,300 ADT due to Project traffic over future baseline traffic,
for a total of 16,800 vpd. This increase in ADT is considered a significant impact.
SM-TRAFFIC-10: The Project developers shall be responsible for widening Central
Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road from two lanes to four lanes.
Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when traffic impacts from
individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic
impact studies of the individual projects.
With this mitigation, Fallon Road would be wide enough to carry the expected traffic
volumes at an acceptable level. This impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 20
Freeway Segment Conditions with the Project
Year 2025 Without Project. Mainline AM and PM peak hour directional volumes on
Interstates 580 and 680 have been evaluated for the Year 2025 without the Project. As
shown in Table 3.6-7, nine mainline freeway segments were analyzed along 1-580 and 1-680
in the Project study area. These include the following segments:
1-580:
West of 1-680
1-680 to Dougherty Road
Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
East of Airway Boulevard
1-680: North of 1-580
South of 1-580
As shown in Table 3.6-7, the 1-580 segment west of 1-680 in the westbound commute
direction is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour in Year 2025 without,
Project volumes. The other six segments analyzed on 1-580 between 1-680 and east of
Airway Boulevard are projected to operate at LOS F in the westbound commute direction
during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the three 1-580 segments between
Tassajara Road and east of Airway Boulevard and the 1-680 to Dougherty Road segment
would be operating at LOS F in the eastbound commute direction. The 1-580 segments west
of 1-680, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive, and Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road would
be operating at LOS E, D and E, respectively in the eastbound commute direction during the
PM peak hour.
As shown in Table 3.6-7, the 1-680 segment north of 1-580 is projected to operate at LOS E in
both directions of travel during the AM peak hour in Year 2025 without Project volumes.
During the PM peak hour, the 1-680 segment north of 1-580 is projected to operate at LOS F
and E in the northbound and southbound directions, respectively. The 1-680 segment south
of 1-580 is projected to operate at LOS E in the southbound direction during the PM peak
hour.
Year 2025 With Project
Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 11: In the Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project
Scenario, freeway segments on 1-580 and 1-680 in the Project area would operate at
unacceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours.
With the proposed Project traffic added to Year 2025 No Project mainline freeway volumes,
projected LOS for' eastbound and westbound commute directions on 1-580 would remain
unchanged. However, with a projected LOS F in the AM westbound commute direction
between east of Airway Boulevard and 1-680, the proposed Project trips would be adding to
an already deficient condition. During the PM peak houx, Project trips also would be
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.6 - 21
adding to a deficient condition between Tassajara Road and east of Airway Boulevard and
between 1-680 and Dougherty Road in the eastbound commute direction. These specific
segments of 1-580 would not meet the ACCMA standard of LOS E during the AM or PM
peak hour, even without the Project trips. This is considered a ..significant cumulative
impact.
The only mainline freeway improvement identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is the
widening of the 1-580 freeway to provide a fifth auxiliary lane in each direction between
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Although efficiency improvements (such as HOV Lanes)
and expanded public transportation could be added in this corridor, little or no additional
capacity for single-occupant vehicles is planned. Actions to encourage alternative travel
modes include advocating HOV lanes on 1-580, extending BART to Livermore,
implementing the b580 Smart Corridor approach (including adaptive signal timing, transit
priority systems, incident management, and possibly ramp metering), and supporting other
major investments in transit.
With the proposed Project traffic added to Year 2025 No Project mainline freeway volumes,
projected LOS for both directions of travel on 1-680 would remain unchanged during the
AM and PM peak hours. With a projected LOS F in the PM peak hour northbound direction
north of 1-580, the proposed Project trips would be adding to an already deficient condition.
However, the 1-680 segment north of 1-580 would not meet the ACCMA standard of LOS E'
in the PM peak hour northbound direction, even without the Project trips.
Mitigation Measure 3.3/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR remains applicable to this impact.
This mitigation measure requires the Project to contribute a proportionate share to the
construction of auxiliary lanes (for a total of 10) on 1-580 east of Airway Boulevard, for
implementation by Caltrans and to coordinate with other local jurisdictions to require that
all future development projects participate in regional transportation mitigation programs
as determined by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council study. In 1998, the City of Dublin
adopted a Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee for future developments
within the City of Dublin. TVTD Fees paid by Project developers pay for regional
improvements to the freeway system.
Therefore, the impact on the freeway system of 1-580 and 1-680 in the Project area remains a
significant cumulative impact.
Increase in Hazards/Inadequate Emergency Access
The Initial Study identified two other impacts where the Project may have a potential
impact greater than that identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR: 1) the potential to increase
hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use; and 2) emergency access so that access
to property or structures is inadequate.
Approval of the proposed Project and future development of the Project area would add
new driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways. Construction of
new residences and commercial development within the Project area could increase the
need for emergency service and related access to new residences and commercial
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.6 - 22
establishments. The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated and addressed these impacts and
suggested mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. The Initial Study noted that changes
in Tri-Valley commute patterns and traffic intensities might have the potential to increase
those impacts above levels anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Although additional cumulative traffic will occur within the Project area, the location of
land uses and roadways and the intensity of development will not change from that
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The location of land uses already has been determined
to be compatible in the Project area, since mixed-use development is not planned. As Stage
2 development plans, tentative maps and Site Development Review applications are
submitted for review and approval, each development will be reviewed for compliance with
City standards which dictate street safety standards such as sight distance, vertical and
horizontal curves, gradient, intersection geometries, distance between intersections,
driveway locations, etc. Conformance with these City standards will ensure that potential
traffic-related hazards will be minimized to a level of insignificance. Similarly, all
development projects will be reviewed to ensure that adequate emergency access is
maintained to properties and structures. Where necessary, the City may require emergency
vehicle access in accordance with City standards and Project-specific conditions may be
imposed to ensure City standards for adequate emergency access is provided. These
impacts are insignificant and no supplemental mitigations are required.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.6 - 23
Table 3.6-1
East Dublin Properties Trip Generation: Proposed Project
Use FAR Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Ou! In Out Total
Residential
L - 1,73~ du 9.57 16,594 0.75 25:75 325 975 1,300 1'.01 64:36 1,121 630 1,751
M -- 94 du 9.57. 900 0.75 25:75 18 53 71 1.01 64:36 61 34 95
MH -- 696 du 6.63 4,615 0.51 16:84 57 298 355 0.62 67:33 289 143 432
RKA -- 2 du 9.57 19 0.75 25:75 1 1 2 ' 1.01 64:36 1 1 2
Sub Total -- 2,526du 22,128 401 1,327 1,728 1,472 808 2,280
Commercia
GC* 0.25 446.5 ksf 39.96 17,842 0.87 61:39 237 151 388 3.78 48:52 810 878 1,688
NC 0.30 134.6 ksf 61.31 8,252 1.42 61:39 117 74 191 5.68 48:52 367 ' 397 764
Sub Total 26,094 354 · 225 579 1,177 1,275 2,452
Industrial
I 0.28 840.4 ksf 6.96 5,849 0.89 82:18 613 135 748 0.92 21:79 162 6]1 773
Total
Future
Study Area 0.0 ...... , ........
(GC and I)
GRAND
54,071 1,368 1,687 3,055 2,811 2,694 5,505
~otes:
Du = dwelling units
Ksf= 1,000 square feet
L = Low Density Residential
M = Medium Density Residential
MH = Medium High Density Residential
RRA = Rural Residential / Agriculture
GC* = General Commercial (Large Shopping Center)
GC = General Commercial
NC = Neighborhood Commercial
1 = Indus~ial Park
Note:
Table 3.6-2
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Existing Conditions
Unmitigated
Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
* LOS * LOS
I Dougherty Road/Dublin Blvd Signal 0.68 B 0.81 D
2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.44 A 0.27 A
3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.28 A 0.13 A
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.18 A 0.26 A
5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.65 A 0.68 B
6 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.38 A 0.48 A
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Blvd Signal 0.23 A 0.24 A
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.49 A 0.36 A
13 El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps One-Way STOP 5.2 B 4.6 A
14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps One-Way STOP 3.1 A 3.1 A
* = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections;
Average Delay in SeConds for stopping and yielding movements at 1-way STOP-controlled intersections.
** = The signal at Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive is currently under construction, and is not operational at this time
Table 3.6-3
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing plus Approved plus Pending (Dublin Model - No pro ect
Unmitigated Mitigated
Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
* LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS
I Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.74 C 0.86 D
(w/Scarlett Drive Bypass)
2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.93 E 0.86 D 0.74 C 0.73 C
3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 1.20 F 0.74 C 0.86 D 0.56 A
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.63 B 0.82 D
5 Santa Rita Road/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.98 E 0.97 E 0.83 D 0.90 D
6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.79 C 0.81 D
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.61 B 0.84 D
8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway** Signal 0.42 A 0.50 A
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.52 A 0.58 A
10 Grafion Street/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.55 A 0.65 B
11 Grafion Street/Central Parkway** Signal 0.22 A 0.23 A
12 Grafion Street/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.06 A 0.05 A
13 E! Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps** Signal 0.17 A 0.31 A
14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps** Signal 0.23 A 0.38 A
15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.42 A 0.48 A
16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway** Signal 0.29 A 0.39 A
17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.09 A 0.09 A
e-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections;
Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at 1-way STOP-controlled ihtersections.
** = Traffic signals at these intersections are either under construction or are anticipated to be installed in the future.
Table 3.64
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service:
Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 (No Project)
Unmitigated Mitigated
Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
* LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.94 E 1.00 E .....
2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.73 C 0.84 D
3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.84 D 0.93 E 0.66 B 0.72 C
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.84 D 0.97 E ........
5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.85 D 0.77 C
6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.75 C
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.72 C 0.88 D
8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.71 C 0.63 B
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.59 A 0.50 A
10 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.31 A 0.41 A
11 Grat~on Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.06 A 0.09 A
12 Grafton Street/Gleason Drive Signal 0.44 A 0.36 A
13 El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.47 A 0.54 A
14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.57 A 0.69 B
15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.67 B 0.88 D
16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.54 A 0.72 C
17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.42 A 0.28 A
Note:
* = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections.
Table 3.6-5
Peak Hour IntersectiOn Levels of Service - Existin i plus At ~lus Pendin
Unmitigated Mitigated
Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
* LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.75 C 0.88 D
· (w/Scarlett Drive Bypass)
2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.93 E 0.87 D 0.75 C 0.74 C
3 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 1.21 F 0.76 C 0.86 D 0.57 A
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.67 B 0.90 D
5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.99 E 0.98 E 0.84 D 0.90 D
6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.80 C 0.82 D
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.66 B 0.85 D
8 Tassajara Road/Central Park~vay** Signal 0.44 A 0.54 A
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.52 A 0.60 A
10 Grafton Street/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.55 A 0.72 C
11 Gra~on Street/Central Parkway** Signal 0.23 A 0.25 A
12 Grafton Street/Gieason Drive** Signal 0.06 A 0.06 A
13 El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps** Signal 0.38 A 0.81 D
14 Fallon Road/l-580 Westbound Ramps** Signal 0.42 B 0.75 C
15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard** Signal 0.54 A 0.83 D
16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway** Signal 0.60 A 0.67 B
17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive** Signal 0.13 A 0.13 A
18 Street D/Dublin Boulevard One-Way STOP 13.4 C 140.1 F
Street D/Dublin Boulevard - Mitigated Signal ........ 0.22 A 0.31 A
19 Fallon Road/"project Road" One-Way STOP 60.7 F 50.0 F
Fallon Road/"Project Road"** Signal .... '
.... 0.42 A 0.41 A
20 Street D/Central Parkxvay One-Way STOP 3.3 A 3.9 A
21 Street B/Central Parlcway One-Way STOP 3.2 A 3.2 A
! I ! I I ~ ! I ! ! I g m m m ~ m m m
) I I I 1 i t ! 1 I I I } 1 ) 1 1 1 I
Note:
* = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections;
Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at l-way STOP-controlled intersections.
** = Traffic signals at these intersections are either under construction or are anticipated to be installed in the future.
Table 3.6-6
Peak Hour Intersection Level~ of Service: Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulatiw Year 21
Intersection Control Unmitigated Mitigated
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
* LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard' Signal 0.93 E 1.03 F ......
2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.8 ! D
3 Hacienda Drive/I-f80 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.83 D 0.96 E 0.65 B 0.75 C
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.82 D 1.00 E ........
5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.86 D 0.74 C
6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.69 B' 0.73 C
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.74 C 0.86 D
8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.70 B 0.61 B
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.56 A 0.47 A
10 Grafion Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.35 A 0.44 A
11 Grafion Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.10 A 0.12 A
12 Grafion Street/Gleason Drive Signal 0.44 A 0.37 A
13 El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.60 A 0.63 B
14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.63 B 0.76 C
15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.88 D 1.11 F ........
15A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Signal ....
- -- 0.77 C 0.91 E
XX Fallon Road/New Intersection Signal ........ 0.62 B 0.71 C
16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.83 D 0.84 D
17 Fallon Road/Gleas0n Drive Signal 0.51 A 0.31 A
18 Street D/Dublin Boulevard One-Way STOP > 120 F > 120 F
Street D/Dublin Boulevard - Mitigated Signal ........ 0.80 C 0.83 D
19 Fallon Road/"Project Road" One-Way STOP > 120 F > 120 F
Fall0n Road/"Project Road" - Mitigated Signal .... ·.... 0.55 A 0.49 A
20 Street D/Central Parkway One-Way STOP 7.6 B 7.6 B
21 Street B/Central Parkway One-Way STOP 7.7 B 4.9 A
Note:* =Volume-to-O, anaeitv
; tge y in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at 1-way STOP-controlled intersections.
i 1 1 j I I I ~ i t i I 1 I J I I I I
Table 3.6-7
Peak Hour Mainline Freewa~ r Levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2025
Year 2025 No Project Year 2025 + Project
Location Capacity A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS
1-580, west of 1-680
Eastbound. 9,200 5,320 0.58 C 8,261 0.90 E 5,437 0.59 C 8,351 0.91 E
Westbound 9,200 8,126 0.88 E 6,749 0.73 D 8,192 0.89 E 6,871 0.75 D
1-580,1-680 to Dougherty
Eastbound 9,200 8,047 0.87 E 10,084 1.10 F 8,232 0.89 E 10,139 1.10 F
Westbound 9,200 10,387 1.13 F 9,442 1.03 F 10,554 1.15 F 9,677 1.05 F
1-580, Dougherty to Hacienda
Eastbound 13,800 7,460 0.54 C 9,722 0.70 D 7,728 0.56 C 9,824 0.71 D
Westbound 9,200 10,042 1.09 F 8,714 0.95 E 10,473 1.14 F 8,944 0.97 E
1-580, Hacienda to Tassajara
Eastbound 11,500 6,154 0.54 C 9,897 0.86 E 6,823 0.59 C 10,077 0.88 E
Westbound 9,200 10,665 1.16 F 7,706 0.84 E 10,425 1.13 F 8,111 0.88 E
1-580, Tassajara to Fallon
Eastbound · 9,200 5,747 0.62 C 10,219 1.11 F 6,499 0.71 D 10,482 1.14 F
Westbound 9,200 10,353 1.13 F 7,277 0.79 D 10,237 1.11 F 7,870 0.86 E
1-580, Fallon to Airway
Eastbound 9,200 6,888 0.75 D 11,145 1.21 F 7,285 0.79 D 11,249 1.22 F
Westbound 9,200 10,731 1.17 F 7,785 0.85 E 10,453 1.14 F 7,967 0.87 E
1-580, East of Airway
Eastbound 9,200 6,472 0.70 D 10,465 1.14 F 6,922 0.75 D 10,512 1.14 F
Westbound 9,200 10,437 1.13 F 7,272 0.79 D 10,306 1.12 F 7,500 0.82 E
1-680, North of 1-580
Northbound 6,900 6,038 0.88 E 7,053 1.02 F 6,017 0.87 E 7,089 1.03 F
Southbound 6,900 6,000 0.87 E 5,676 0.82 E 6,075 0.88 E 5,641 0.82 E
1-680, South of 1-580
Northbound 6,900 4,674 0.68 D 5,436 0.79 D 4,572 0.66 D 5,370 0.78 D
Southbound 6,900 5,565 0.81 D 5,647 0.82 E 5,586 0.81 D 5,653 0.82 E
righway Capacity Manual 1997 by the Transportation Research Board, Chapter 3, Table 3-1, LOS Criteria for Basic Freeway
Sections. Assumes maximum service flow rate of 2,300 passenger cars per hour per lane.
Peak hour volumes were based on the Th-Valley Transportation Model Year 2025 without and with the Proposed Project. The Proposed Dublin Transit Center peak
hour trips were manually added into the volumes based on the traffic study conducted by Omni Means in April 2001.
IntarsecUon ltl , Intersection 12 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection
Dougherty/Dubtin Heclendaa.580 EB Ramps Heclenda/l.580 WB Ramps Hacienda/Dublin Santa Rlta/I-580 EB Ramp~ Tassajara/I.580 WB Ramp~ Tassajara/Dublin Tassajara/G!eason
,,~rt'~ /1~'179(245 ~1~ ~1~ ~'-704(212) ....... ,~l~ ~-131 (83) ~,1'~ y-'199(104) ~1~ ~¢-818(523) ~1~ ~J~,
37 (75)'-'~ ~1 144 (68)-~ fl,~' , {I~' 48 (631)-~'~,1~' 140 (99)-~
239 (518)-I~
j ~ ~o~'~ 114 (254)-'~ mom~ 152582(283):(901_,~
;i~t~ection #13 Intersection #14
El Charro/I.580 EB Ramp~ Fallon/I-580 WB Raml~ / :; ,-~ ._
· ~;i sa. ~:~ ......... ·
~ o o ~-6 [6) ~ !,!:i:~:t~:~:> :: ~ ':~"~;~'~ -; ;>'~:;:~; ~ ~ ~ - ~ .:: ~:':~ -' ·
~ ,~ . · .... ~. ~: ~ -. . Project
181 120 '- : ? : ~ ;' -
3,10, ~-:-~-:- ~ .~ ...... , .,.,: ~ ....... ~ ..... · ,
236 (129)-~ ~ ~ ~ - ,
.. ~ :~::,,',::;'~::~ SOW,; ~ ~. :', ''~ ~c~=~L?~
~ '~: ~'~ ~1~ ~:~
LEGEND 1~ ....... ~1 I~¢~ Z b~m~a: 'mEBLVO M~°~;~I:;'~,
.... Future Roadway ~f ~ '~ ~. ~o DR
:: ,I Baseline P,oi~-- ~ 7 ~ .~ ~ - ' ~ ~3
XX AM Peak Hour Volume ~ I~
City of Dublin
East Dublin Properties
Existing Turning Movement Volumes
I II
157-143 - 7/01 - LH
East Dublin Properties
FIGURE 3.6-.A
Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Intersection #8
Dougherty/Oubiin Heclsnda/l-580 EB Ramps Hacienda/l-580 WB Ramps Hacienda/Dublin Santa RIta/I-580 EB Ramps Tassajara/I-580 WB Ramp. Tassajara/Dublin Taasjara/Central
49(103)--d ~fl~ 1,777(1,382)-4 +~lr !_~r 152(361)-d ~+{I~ 1,367(1,232)-~
858 (834)?~ 1,834 (218)-'~~~:~ 594 (1,601)?~,,~--,~, 161 {303)--~~ ~ 609 (570)-~ ~.~--.~. 47(178)+ --
6o5 (163)~
Intm~ection #9 Intar~ection #10 Inta~ection #11 Intersection #12 Intar~ection
Tas~aJargGlea~on Grsfton/Dublin Grafton/Central Grafton/Glenson El Charro/I.560 EB Ramps
~' ~P~-47 (40)r,,c~°e-- ~P~_8 (39) ~j~'~ ~--11(37) ,~'
~-27 (17) ,-...- ~ 'd-208 (1,1381 '+;126 (102) *-42 (32)
,~l~r~ ~-38 (24) ~,~ ~84 (§2) ~106(32) ~-1 (2)
111 (339)-d ~ 37 (182)-d ~,~ 50 (172)-.d '' ~~)~ 15 (54)--~ ' ~' 179 (573)-d ,~
9 (30)? 794 (7~)''l'~ ~ (163)+ ~ 27 (79)-~ ~ 13 (10)? ~-~- '-
36 (155) '~ 523 (212)-'~ 24 (69)-~ ~ 236 (129) '~
_~_-- ' ~ ~ ~ /~ ~3 .- ..... -.
~ ~:~'~j~!::~.. ~:~ ~,'-'~<.~.:'.. , Project
Fallon/I-580 WB Rlml~ Fallon/DuMin FallordCentml . LEGEND -
~,~' ~ ~ Existing lntersectlon · ~':' '~.~"~;'~'~ ~i~ :~,!:7, .- ..... > ........
~ O Future Inter~ection ,
~ ~ ~.384 (497) ~ ~o ~ .... Future Roadway ' ~," ' '~: ~ ~_,,~ :; :. s~ .. ~.~ .......
315 (823)-'~ 523 (566)--~ ~ XX AM Peak Hour Volume
~ (XX) PM Peak Hour Volume /'~'~ ''~ ,~'?~: ';" ':" '-"~'~:~:~'~: '
3
~L~l.?
Not tO
City of Dublin East Dublin Properties
East Dublin Properties · FIGURE 3.~-B ~
Existing + Approved + Pending Turning Movement ¥olumes (Dublin Model)
157-143 - 7/01 - LH
Inter_~ecfion #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 InterSection #4 Intersection #5 ' Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Intersection #8
Dougherty/Oublin Hacienda/t-580 EB Ramps Hacienda/I-580 WB Ramps HeciendeJDublin Santa Rita/I-580 EB Ramp{ Tassajara/I-580 WB Ramps Tassajara/Dublin Tassjara/Central
"'-'~ ...... E,~'''-'~' ~' o%"~
~o.~.~, ~ m'~m~ k40(33) ~ ~mm k743(650) ~,.T,'~6 /'~-966(326);~ ~-56(75)
--~o~ '1-1,204(1204) 'T' ~'1,017(990) o) o) . .~1_1,009 (685) . . . ~', tL47(63) mo.~o ~.-67(146)
.arl~ ~-I~-(:7'~1~) '~ ~+ /¢"645 (§92) ,arl~'~ P'-958(634-) ~'~ ~_§78 (290) ~1'~ ,K-474 (493) J~rLA'!'F-516 (1'031) '~V~ P'-516 (638)
914940 (1,334)'"~ ~---'"~'~'(1,191).~ ~ 1,186 (1,100)'"~ ~O~J ~' 517 (1242}-I" ~ 456 i877~-~ ~.- ~*o 10411208 ~ ~"~'~' 380(1,363)'+ 48 (55)*-'~ ~*.,~.;.~._
~J~;[ 181 113-~ ~' 203(384)-~ ~ 188(163)-~
li~eriecfl~n #9 Inter__se~___k,n #10 ;,d~v~ection #11 ;n{e~iection #12 Intersection #13
Tassajera/Gleason Grafton/Dublln Grafton/Central Grafton/Gle-~ El Charro/I.580 EB Ramps
~- .
*-17g(36) ~ t~_14(44) ~J[~ it~.11 (10)
~ ~47~1) I-~,*-1,363(907) ~--4~(9) . ~{1~ *-308(122)
4~ (235)+ ~ 87'~t ~23 (30~)_-+ ~ ~03
99 (273)"'~~ ~ I (2)% :~ c~
~.~ , = -= ~w~ ..).
= ~ ~ .._ : ..... :"
Intersection #14 Intersection #15 Intersection #16
FallonA.580 WB Ramp~ F, allon/Dublin FallordCentral
Proposed
~ LEGEND ~' ,, ..~ ~. Project
~ · Existing Intersection ,
U Future Intersection ~/ ~b~[ ~ ;: ~ --.
.... ~aa)0m) ~.o.R ~2~ ..... &:' ' ' , '
~'~ ~3(1~-°06)--~0(1)_4 I~1~' 14(7)_,4 ~ XX AM Peak Hour Volume /
.~~.~ I (XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
27s(444)-~ ~ ' ~(~75)_-~ ' "~ .....
,- 207 (75)~ w °' "
Interse~tion 917
Fallon/Gleason · ~-a='"
'~ ~ : sy,,., v,,,-.I
II' '~ "' -'~h"-
North %.\ . 2 ~ ; y.o. "-~3
City of Dublin - East Dublin Properties
Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025
Turning Movement Volumes
iii
157-143 - 7/01 - ~
East Dublin PrOperties
FIGURE 3.6-C
Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Intersection
Dougherty/Dublln Hacienda/I-580 EB Ramps Hacienda/I-580 WB Ram )s Hacienda/Dublin Santa Rita/].580 EB Ramps T_~_~_~j-=ra/I-580 WE Ramps Te_=s~jara/Dublin T~_=sjara/Centrel
49(103)-~1~1~ 1,777 (1,382)-~ +1~' +1~' 152(361)--~ ~{~' 1,367(1,232)_,~ +~' {~t" 103 (399)-~{~ 31 (10)-~{~
568(939)~ ~ ,e,e_. . . 26C)i~)781'-~ 605(183)-~. ~oo~ 338(1,297)-~ ~(~,~- 6§(117)-~ eoc~m~°°~
Inte~ ~ ~ters~n ~0 In~r~fion ~ 1 intem~on ~ 2 ' Intame~ ~13 ' Inters~ion ~14 Intersection ~15
Tas~j~Gl~son Gm~u~in Gr~o~enbal Grafl~Gl~son El C~.~0 EB Ram~ Fallo~80 WB Ramps Fallo~ublin
~ ,
~7 (17) ~
111 (339)~ ~ 37(1~)~ ~(172)~ ~ 29(81)+~ ~ ~1'(1;255~
9 (~)~= ~ (1,1~)~ ~ 71 (~9)~ 13 (10)~ 141
m ~ 315 ~323)~
Inters~n.ll~ Intere~n 117 Inters~ti~ ~18 . ~ . ~/...:
Fall~n~al Fallo~Gl~n Strut D~ublln LEGEND~ '
~ I Ex~sting Interse~on
~ ~ --~ ;~ ....... .::.-:-.,: :..: · ~ ~-, .
{ ......... '....'..... .. ;.:....- ~. * Proposed
+35(21)~ ~1~52(~) .... Future Roadway~=~..~. ...... :' ~ .-', :.~-..~,. ~ . · . . 3 ,' ~1
~315 (1~)
Basehne Projec~
21 C~)~ ~; ~ ~(~)+16 (~)~ AM Peak Hour Volume ~ ' .-
City of Dublin - East Dublin Properties
Existing + Approved + Pending + Project .o~O~ East Dublin Properties
Turning Movement Volumes (Dublin Model) .e FIGURE 3.~-D
157-143 - 7/O1 - LH
Interaec~on #1 ;~;~-section #2 IntersecUon #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Intersection ~ Intersection #7 Intersection #8
Dougherly/Dublin Haclenda/i-580 El} Ram )s Hacienda/I-560 WB Ramps Hacienda/Dublin Santa Rita/I-580 EB Ramps Te_~$n_jara/I-580 WB Ramps Tassajara/Dublin Tassjara/Central
~' +1.337 0,15~ - m.-' ~_1,000(1,006) ?),~71~1-1,147(6851 ~-~ ~L731 (679) q'°)c~ }.-53(61) ~,m }..64(138)
F500 (960) ~1~ ~-551 (619)
~ 7°1 (717)-d' I~'
14 (60)-~ ,+_ + 52 (7a)-~ '*l ~'~' 805 (418)_~ +~ 397 (97a)_~; % + r~ 34 (41)_~ ./~~.
~08 (1,371)? 1,200 (1,056)-% ~ ~- 529 (1 282)+ ~ 102 (203)-~' ~--'~ ~ 420 (1,412)-~ .-I '_..~.~.'.
~- m~ 010)-%
- .~ ,tr.m ~ 189 (162)'~ ~'~'~'
Icter_~ec~o~ t~ ;~,-~!!en #10 Intersection #11 Intersection #12 Intersection #13 Intersection #14 Intersection #15 Inter~ec!!on #15a
Tassajara/Gleason Grafton/Dublln Grafto~/Central Grafton/Glea~on El Charro/I-5~0 El) Ramps Fallon/l-$60 WB Ramps Fallon/Dublin Fallon/D.hl|n
(o m~ klO (9) ~ ~ k.8 (256) ~.-.8(256)
'~-23O(48) ~ }.-32(53) ~ .I-371 (132) ~ .-'c4 (1,299) +1,017(190) ',F1,017 (1~:))
~Jl~,l.4, ~-454(258) .1-1,530(927 +137(34) ~1{I.4, ~-1 (0) ~' ~J~, ~o43(715) , ~J~,l~ ~-'1,438(2,005 ~J~I~.j~-1~q3O(1,471
37 (437)-~ ~1~'1~ 890 (2,014)--~ 42 (151)-~' ~1 126 (374)-d = ~1 '~ 1,133 (1,077)--~
39 (254)+ ~~ H1 (120)-% ~' 109 (359)? ~ 100 (46)..~ fl~ ~' 296 (1 190)+
109(270)-% ~ ~ 0(2) '~ ~?-- 8~ ~ 301 i548)-% ~ _:/(J6(1,190)-I'
Intersection #15
Inta~,~v~;on #17
Intaraectlon #18
FallonYCentral Fallon/Gleaaon Street D/Dublin LEGEND
~.~' ~.<p ~ · Existing Intersection
m~..~) ~.~ ~ ~.=r~ .. ~ Proposed
: ~ ~?.56 (214) ~r~.-.~ O Future Intersection
~, ~-80(28) ~ ~-P_.~(I~:~ XX AM Peak Hour Volume =' ' ~'~"" .... - .... ~ ...........
61 (106)-~ ~ '
223 {151)-% ~,;-- , %~9~k~ --~-.~.~ 1~)37(2,540)'-~ (XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Intersection #1~ Inlersecfion ~ Inte~section #21
Fallon/Residentlal Central/~treet D Cemral/$treer B
.% ~ ~ ~ ' , ~.~ . - . , ..- , , .-
,--. .. . ....... , .... ., :
~'. ~ ~ .~ ~1 ~ ~.'--~ /L..~l~'~' J.1~ ..~,~ , ,.~ -,
-,~ u) North
~ Not to Scale
City of Dublin - East Dublin Properties
Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 +'Project
Turning Movement Volumes
157-~43 - 7/01 - I.H
East DublinF~cum~Properties3.6.E, _
ILEGEND.
~ Exisli~g + Approved + Pending
~ Existing + Approved + Pending + Projecl
~Cumulattve 2025
~ Cumulative 2025 + Project
Required No. of Lanes
Future Roadway
Note:
* Theplannedno. oflanesis61anes
** The planned no. of lanes is 81anes
North
Not to Scale
CENTRAL PKW~,-
DUBLIN BLVD.
THE BLVD.
Proposed
Project
PIMLICO DR. --
City of Dublin
East Dublin Annexation
Estimated Daily Volumes
I I I I
lb'7-14~ :- 7/01 - LH
East Dublin Properties
FIGURE 3.6-F
I I
3.7 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Sewer, water, storm drainage, electricity and natural gas, and solid waste were analyzed in
Chapter 3.4 and Chapter 3.5 of the Eastern Dublin EIR; in 1994, an addendum to the
Chapter 3.5 analysis of sewer treatment and disposal (dated August 22,1994) was approved
by the City Council.
SEWER
Sewer issues (also referred to as "wastewater') were analyzed in Chapter 3.5 of the Eastern
Dublin EIR and a 1994 Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement to the EIR
examines the effect of recent planning for additional wastewater disposal capacity in the
Tri-Valley area. It also examines the impact of faster-than-expected growth in the Tri-Valley
area and the impact on planned expansion of DSRSD's treatment plant facilit/es.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Eastern Dublin EIR thoroughly examined wastewater collection, treatment, and
disposal issues for the Project area. The Project area currently is not served by a wastewater
service provider and would require wastewater collection facilities. The Dublin San Ramon
Services District (DSRSD), which owns and operates a treatment plant in Pleasanton, was
identified as the future provider of collection and treatment services for the Project area.
Disposal was to be provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency
(LAVWMA), a joint powers authority composed of Livermore, Pleasanton and DSRSD,
which operates a pipeline that carries treated wastewater over the Dublin grade and into
East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) facilities for eventual discharge into San Francisco
Bay, and by the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA), a joint powers authority which at
the time was planning for necessary disposal capacity beyond that provided by LAVWMA.
At the t/me of the Eastern Dublin EIR, TWA was proposing to transport untreated
wastewater through the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District system for treatment and
disposal in Martinez. In 1994, TWA transferred authority over acquiring/constructing
additional disposal capacity to LAVWMA and LAVWMA later chose as its preferred
alternative the construction of a second disposal pipeline over the Dublin Grade for
discharge into San Francisco Bay using EBDA facilities (1994 Addendum to the Eastern
Dublin EIR).
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified numerous potential impacts related to wastewater. The
lack of a collection system was identified as a significant impact and Mitigation Measures
3.5/1.0 - 5.0 generally preventing development until such facilities are constructed by
developers were adopted to mitigate this impact to less than significant. Potential growth-
inducing impacts of pipeline construction were mitigated by preventing the construction of
facilities greater than those required for the GPA/SP project. Inadequate treatment plant
capacity in DSRSD's treatment plan and inadequate disposal capacity were identified as
significant impacts: both were mitigated to a less-than-significant level by mitigation
measures requiring developers to obtain "will-serve" letters from DSRSD prior to issuance
of grading permits; DSRSD will not issue a "will-serve" letter in the absence of treatment-
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-1
plant and disposal capacity. An additional mitigation measure requires Eastern Dublin
developers to prepare detailed wastewater capacity investigations. Other mitigation
measures supported DSRSD, TWA and, subsequently, LAVWMA in efforts to expand
treatment and disposal capacity (along with recycled water projects)'. Other impacts to the
planned TWA disposal systems and the recycled water systems related to noise, odors and
potential spills also were identified and mitigated to levels of insignificance. The impact of
the use of recycled water on the main groundwater basin was identified as a potential
impact and a mitigation measure requiring coordination of recycled water projects with
Zone 7's salt mitigation program mitigated this impact to insignificance. Even with
mitigation measures, significant impacts related to increased energy use for the sewer
systems (Impact 3.5/F, H, V) and growth-inducement (Impact 3.5/T) remained significant
and unavoidable. Upon approval of the GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for these impacts (Resolution No. 53-93).
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Project proposes the same type and density of development assumed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. However, the Initial Study identified potentially significant changes since the
Eastern Dublin EIR due to subsequent planning for additional wastewater treatment and
disposal capacity.
Significance Criteria. Wastewater treatment and disposal impacts are considered
significant if they would require new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities beyond
what was anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR or if there would be inadequate treatment
and/or disposal capacity to serve the Project.
Supplemental Impacts. Since improvements identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR will
accommodate potential development of the Project area, no supplemental significant
impacts are anticipated.
Treatment Plant Capacity. There continues to be limited available treatment capacity at the
DSRSD wastewater treatment plant. DSRSD wastewater is directed to the District's
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located north of Stoneridge Drive in Pleasanton. The
WWTP serves the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton. It currently has an average dry weather
flow (ADWF) capacity of 11.5 million gallons per day (mgd). Anticipating that additional
disposal capacity will be available following completion of the second LAVWMA pipeline
(described below), DSRSD has embarked on the first stage of its planned expansion to serve
additional growth in its service area. The first expansion will add 5.5 mgd ADWF to the
treatment plant for a total of 17.0 mgd ADWF. This expansion is consistent with Mitigation
Measure 3.5/9.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, which anticipated the expansion of DSRSD's
treatment plant in stages, as capacity needs increased. DSRSD approved a negative
declaration for the WWTP expansion on August 17, 1999 (Webb, pers. comm. 2001). Plant
expansion is expected to be complete on or before November 2003 and is expected to
provide sufficient capacity to accommodate development under the proposed prezoning
and annexation. In any event, the mitigation measures in the EIR and DSRSD's inclusion of
Eastern Dublin in its long-range wastewater planning ensure that the limited treatment
plant capacity is a not a new significant impact. Therefore, there is no new significant
impact due to treatment plant capacity.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3,7-2
Disposal Capacity. As was noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR the increase in wastewater
flows resulting from the GPA/SP requires an increase in wastewater disposal'capacity. As
noted above, LAVWMA, rather than TWA, is the agency charged with increasing
wastewater disposal capacity for the Tri-Valley area. LAVWMA needs disposal capacity
above and beyond its current pipeline to serve Eastern Dublin and other development
within the Livermore/Amador Valley. In addition, LAVWMA's existing pipeline is
deteriorating. Therefore, LAVWMA is repairing its existing export pipeline, constructing a
new parallel pipeline, and/or replacing the existing pipeline to create additional disposal
capacity and connecting it to the EBDA outfall. When completed the LAVWMA system
will have a capacity of 41.2 MGD (8.7 Livermore, 16.25 Pleasanton and 16.25 DSRSD).
Livermore may decide to pay into the expansion portion of the pipeline project in the next
five years. If Livermore does participate, capacity will be allocated as 12.4 MGD to
Livermore, 14.4 MGD to Pleasanton and 14.4 MGD to DSRSD. Through the LAVWMA
contract, ADWF is limited to 11.1 MGD from Livermore, 10.3 MGD from Pleasanton and
10.4 MGD from DSRSD. LAVWMA and EBDA agreed to terms for the new connection on
March 18, 1998, but the proposal was subject to ratification by the voters of Livermore and
Pleasanton. On November 3, 1998, Pleasanton voters approved the proposal but Livermore
voters rejected it. In December 2000, Pleasanton's City Council approved the financing plan
for the LAVWMA pipeline. Under the terms of the LAVWMA agreement, the citizens of
Livermore may vote on the project again and have until the election of November 2005 to'
approve it. Design of ali phases is nearly complete. A portion of the project -- the pump
station and force main from the pump station to the top of the Dublin Grade -- is under
construction. Once the expansion is completed, the disposal capacity needed to serve the
Project area would be available. Since LAVWMA's capacity expansion project has been
approved by the LAVWMA Board, is adequately financed, and portions are under contract,
adequate wastewater capacity is anticipated to be available when the Project area is
developed. In any event, mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR ensure that
development will not take place if there is insufficient wastewater disposal capacity.
Therefore, there is no new significant impact due to disposal capacity.
WATER
Water service was analyzed in Chapter 3.5 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement to
the EIR examines whether new water supply contracts and litigation concerning the
sufficiency of DSRSD and Zone 7's water supplies to serve future development are
significant new impacts beyond what was analyzed in the Eastem Dublin EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETFING
No public water service currently is provided to the Project area. The residences and other
land uses in the Project area use well water. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies DSRSD as
the provider of water service to Eastern Dublin. DSRSD's long-range water planning for
Eastern Dublin includes the Project area. DSRSD obtains its water supplies from Zone 7 of
the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), which
wholesales treated local surface water, groundwater and imported water from the State
Water Project to retail water agencies.
EDPO Draft SEIR 'Page 3.7-3
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the
GPA/SP area. Mitigation measure 3.5/23.0 addresses possible salinity in the groundwater
basin. Mitigation measures 3.5/24.0 - 40.0 were adopted to prevent overdraft of ground
water resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and connection to DSRSD; to
minimize the effect of additional demand for water by encouraging water recycling and
conservation and by encouraging the development of new facilities and supplies; and to
ensure the development of a water distribution system by generally preventing
development until such facilities are constructed by developers. Other mitigations (3.5/41.0
- 43.0) were adopted to deal with the potential for reservoir failures, the potential for loss of
system pressure, and noise from water system pump stations. The Eastern Dublin EIR
noted that the General Plan and Specific Plan would increase demand to serve development
at build-out under the then-applicable general plans and required an additional 25,000 acre-
feet annually (AFA). Mitigation Measure 3.5/28.0 relied on Zone 7's planning to acquire
additional supplies. Impact 3.5/T, Inducement of Substantial Growth, was deemed to be
sigr~.ificant even after mitigation Impact 3.5/S found a lack of a water distribution, system
and required a "will serve" letter prior to grading permit (mitigation measure 3.5/3.8.0).
Upon approval of the GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration
for this significant unavoidable impact (Resolution No. 53-93).
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed Project envisions the same type and density of proposed development
assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Thus, water use related to potential development of the
Project area is not expected to differ from the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement
examines whether new water supply contracts and settlement of litigation concerning the
legality of a 1998 amendment to a 1994 water supply agreement between DSRSD and Zone
7 to serve future development in Dougherty Valley affect the sufficiency of water available
to serve the project area.
Significance Criteria. Water supply impacts are considered significant if there would be
insufficient water supplies for the Project.
Supplemental Impacts. No supplemental significant impacts are expected due to new
water supply contracts or the settlement of the Dougherty Valley litigation concerning the
sufficiency of DSRSD's water supplies to serve future development.
Water Supply Contracts. Pursuant to its 1994 contract with DSRSD, Zone 7 is obligated to
supply water requested by DSRSD, subject to its availability. In 1994, DSRSD renegotiated
its water supply contract with Zone 7. The renewed contract is for a term of 30 years and is
renewable upon expiration. It obligates Zone 7 to supply water requested by DSRSD,
subject to its availability. The agreement also provides DSRSD with the ability to secure
alternative sources of water. Alternatives include: water transfers, construction of wells and
pumps from the groundwater basin that Zone 7 manages, and recycled water.
Zone 7 has, consistent with its contractual obligation to provide water to DSRSD and other
retailers and the mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR, obtained additional
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.7-4
supplies and entitlements to water necessary to serve its service area. Zone 7's Water
Supply Planning Program sets forth its long-term water supply and facility needs through
the year 2020. A twenty-year water-supply planning horizon customarily is used in the
industry (see Water Code section 10631). Zone 7's Water Suppl!/ Planning Study Update
(Water Transfer Associates, February 1999) identified Zone 7's water supply acquisition
program. Based on input from the water retailers, cities, and agricultural users within its
service area, Zone 7 estimated that by the year 2020 (near buildout of Zone 7's service area),
it would need an additional average year water supply of approximately 40,400 AFA. To
meet projected demands, Zone 7 identified water supply options based on average, wet and
dry year scenarios. The planning program addresses potential water supply options,
groundwater management, and conveyance and treatment facilities. Zone 7 has secured or
is in the process of securing the identified water supplies and is planning the necessary
facilities, as evaluated in the Zone 7 Water Agency Water Supply Planning Program EIR (Wong,
pers. comm. 2001). Zone 7's long-term and drought-year protection water sources are
shown in Table 3.7-1 below. DSRSD's Programmatic Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin
(PWSA, June 2001, pp. 2-14), demonstrates that Zone 7 already has secured sufficient
supplies to serve the 5,620 AFA demand of all of Eastern Dublin.
Therefore, there is no supplemental kignificant impact due to new water supply contracts.
Water Supply Litigation. In 1998, DSRSD and Zone 7 entered into an amendment to their,
water supply agreement that permitted DSRSD to expand its service area to include the
Dougherty Valley Service Area. The expansion process included various approvals by Zone
7 and DSRSD and the purchase from third parties of State Water Project entitlements.
Following the approvals, Citizens for Balanced Growth (Citizens) and the City of Livermore
(Livermore) filed separate lawsuits challenging the legality of the amendment to the water
supply agreement. The litigation was concluded by a multi-party settlement agreement (the
"Settlement Agreement"). DSRSD also entered into a "Memorandum of Understanding
Regarding Cooperative Implementation of Agreement to Settle Water Litigation" with the
City of Dublin in December 1999.
Although the City was not a party to the htigation or the Settlement Agreement and the
litigation did not concern Dublin or the territory in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP area,
Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement obligates DSRSD upon receipt of a Notice of
Preparation of an EIR concerning a project in Eastern Dublin, to prepare a prehminary
water service analysis and a preliminary impact analysis which analyzes the water-related
impacts of the proposed project. Two of the parties to the Settlement Agreement, Citizens
and Livermore, may comment on the adequacy of the documents and may engage DSRSD
in a dispute-resolution process pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. At the conclusion of
the dispute-resolution, final analyses likely will be produced. The information provided by
DSRSD pursuant to this Settlement Agreement process is intended to assist the City in its
CEQA review and land use approval process for development projects in Eastern Dublin.
The level of analysis required by the Settlement Agreement is significantly more detailed
than is required under CEQA or any other state or local law. The preliminary water service
analysis (PWSA) and Preliminary Impact Analysis provided by DSRSD with respect to this
Project demonstrates that there is a firm, sustainable water suPply to serve the Project
without significant adverse effect on existing customers. The City prezoning and LAFCO
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-5
annexation processes are independent of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement,
which is binding on the parties to the agreement only.
As required by the Settlement Agreement, DSRSD prepared and submitted to the City a
PWSA and preliminary impact analysis for the proposed Project. The PWSA demonstrates
that:
· The water demand for the Project area is set forth in DSRSD's most recently adopted
Urban Water Management Plan (adopted May 2000);
Total firm sustainable water supplies (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) that
reasonably may be expected to be available to DSRSD will meet the projected water
demand associated with the Project, together with all other existing uses and uses
under build-out of the applicable general plans for all areas lying within DSRSD's
water service area, as and when demand is expected to arise. This conclusion is
based on Zone 7's contractual obligation to provide DSRSD with sufficient water to
serve DSRSD's customers, along with an analysis of Zone 7's available resources in
the future;
During a "credible worst case drought scenario" (as defined in the Settlement
Agreement), providing water to the Project area will not significantly and adversely'
affect the reliability of water service to DSRSD's existing customers; and
During a "credible worst case drought scenario" (as defined in the Settlement
Agreement), providing water to the Project area will not significantly and adversely
affect the quality of water service to DSRSD's existing customers.
The City does not anticipate the dispute-resolution process under the Settlement
Agreement, if it is ~voked, to be complete until after the comment period on this
Supplemental EIR closes.
Supplemental Impact UTS 1: Available Water Supplies.
DSRSD's required showing of available water supplies under the Settlement Agreement
may exceed the otherwise required showing under CEQA. Failure to prepare an adequate
PWSA pursuant to the Settlement Agreement would be a potentially significant impact.
SM-UTS-l: Prior to approval of future Subdivision Maps or Site Development Review
(SDR) applications (as may be applicable) by the City of Dublin, project developers shall
submit "will serve" letters from DSRSD indicating that adequate water is available to serve
the Proposed development project.
STORM DRAINA GE
Storm drainage was analyzed in Chapter 3.5 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement
analyzes whether storm drainage facilities needed to serve the Project area will exceed those
previously identified.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.7-6
ENVIRONMENTAL SETFING
The Project area is within the Alameda Creek watershed, which drains to the San Francisco
Bay. Zone 7 is responsible for master planning, overseeing construction coordination and
maintaining major storm drain channels and culverts for this area. The City has jurisdiction
and maintenance responsibility over local storm drains that discharge to the Zone 7 flood
control system and would be responsible for the approval of local storm drainage facilities.
Drainage on the Project area drains southerly toward 1-580 and leaves the area through
Zone 7's Line G-3. Line G-3 is a major Zone 7 drainage channel south of 1-580 that
discharges into Arroyo Mocho. Drainage from the Project area reaches Line G-3 through an
existing culvert approximately 2000 feet east of Tassajara Road. To serve new development
in Eastern Dublin, Zone 7 and the City in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan have designated
drainage Courses that will require upgraded drainage facilities. These include drainage
facilities that will be funded by developers of projects in Eastern Dublin.
To serve development on the Project area, a drainage channel or pipeline needs to be
extended easterly from the culvert beneath 1-580 connecting to Line G-3 (the "Line G-3
extension"). In an application to Zone 7, the City (with the assistance of the developer of
Dublin Ranch), has proposed that Line G-3 extension be installed underground in a box
culvert to Fallon Road. As anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR, this segment of the Line
G-3 extension would be constructed to have sufficient capacity to serve the Project area at,
build-out. The developer of Dublin Ranch has proposed that this segment of the Line G-3
extension be funded by a benefit assessment district to which the Project area eventually
would be annexed. As identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Figure 3.5-A), the Line G-3
extension would need to be extended further east to serve the Project area.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potential flooding related to increased runoff to creeks
(IM 3.5/Y). Adopted mitgafion measures required the construction of drainage facilities
designed to minimize erosion and flooding and requirmg the preparation of storm drainage
master plans for all development applications in Eastern Dublin (MM 3.5/44.0-48.0). The
potential for reduced groundwater recharge due to increased impervious surfaces (IM
3.5/Z) was mitigated by water quality planning and Zone 7 recharge programs (MM
3.5/49.0-50.0). The potential for increased non-point source pollution due to development
(IM 3.5/AA) was addressed in mitigations requiring compliance with storm water quality
programs (MM 3.5/51.0-55.0).
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed Project envisions the same type and density of potential development
assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to
contribute substantially greater quantifies of stormwater runoff than originally analyzed.
Pursuant to the Initial Study, this supplement analyzes whether new storm drainage
facilities required to serve the Project area exceed those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-7
Significance Criteria. Storm drainage impacts are considered significant if the Project area
would require new storm drainage facilities substantially in excess of those that were
anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Supplemental Impacts. No supplemental impacts are anticipated. Storm drainage
facilities described in the Eastern Dublin EIR will accommodate potential development of
the Project area.
SOLID WASTE
Solid waste was analyzed in Chapter 3.4 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement
analyzes whether rapid development in the Tri-Valley area would have a significant impact
on the availability of solid waste services.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Livermore Dublin Disposal Service/Valley Waste Management (LDDS/VWM) provides
solid waste collection and recycling service to the Project area. The 1995 franchise
agreement between LDDS/VWM and the City of Dublin expires in 2003 and is subject to
renewal for three years (Borges, pers. comm. 2000). The franchise agreement states that
LDDS/VWM has sufficient capacity in the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery'
Facility to account for development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General
Plan Amendment areas.
Solid waste collected by LDDS/VWM is transported to the Altamont Landfill and Resource
Recovery Facility in unincorporated Alameda County. The landfill is receiving
approximately 6,000 tons of solid waste from the LDDS/VWM service area per day. The
estimated remaining capacity at the landfill is approximately 9 million cubic yards. This is
anticipated to provide landfill capacity for 7 or 8 more years. In 2000, the Alameda County
Board of Supervisors and the Alameda County Waste Management Authority approved
expansion of the landfill. The expansion would add an additional 40 million cubic yards of
capacity which would provide about 25 additional years of service (Thompson, pers. comm.
20O0).
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to increased solid
waste production and to capacity at the Altamont landfill (Impacts 3.4/OP). Mitigation
measures 3.4/38.0 - 40.0 requiring preparation of a Solid Waste Management Plan were
adopted to reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance. All mitigation measures
adopted upon approval of the GPA/SP continue to apply to implementing actions and
projects such as the proposed pre-zoning and annexation.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.7-8
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria. Solid waste impacts are considered significant if the project requires
disposal capacity in excess of the current solid waste management capacity.
Supplemental Impacts. No supplemental impacts on solid waste disposal capacity are
anticipated from the rapid development of the Tri-Valley area. When the previous EIR was
certified, expansion of the Altamont landfill had not yet been permitted. Since the previous
EIR expansion of the landfill has been approved to provide long-term disposal for
development under the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, including the current Project area.
LDDS/VWM does not foresee any problems in collecting or disposing of the solid waste
generated by the proposed Project (Borges, pers. comm. 2000). In addition, the increase in
solid waste and recyclable materials would be accommodated at the Altamont Landfill and
Resource Recovery Facility (Thompson, pers. comm. 2000). Thus, there are no significant
impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS
Electricity and natural gas service was analyzed in Chapter 3.4 of the Eastern Dublin EIR.'
This supplement to the EIR analyzes whether the current energy crisis and other local
factors prevent an adequate supply of electricity.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETFING
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas to the Project
area. At the statewide level California is in the midst of an energy crisis resulting from its
deregulation of electricity markets. The crisis appears to be related to the regulatory factors
and a lack of an adequate supply of electricity. At the local level PG&E's ability to provide
electricity service to new customers in the Tri-Valley area is constrained by inadequate
capacity in its transmission and distribution facilities. Planning for future growth, PG&E
has begun a project to increase Tri-Valley capacity.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified three potential significant impacts related to electricity
and natural gas. Two of these impacts, Impact 3.4/Q Demand for Utility Extensions and
3.4/S Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources, were deemed to be potentially
significant impacts that would remain significant even with mitigation. Upon approval of
the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for
these significant unavoidable impacts (Resolution No. 53-93).
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Project proposes the same type and density of potential development assumed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial Study for this project identifies the current uncertainty
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-9
regarding supply of energy, including electricity and natural gas, to serve the proposed
project as a potentially significant impact.
Significance Criteria. Energy consumption impacts are considered significant if gas and
electricity supplies are insufficient to serve the Project from existing entitlements and
resources.
Supplemental Impact UTS 2: Uncertain Energy Supply.
The current energy crisis makes PG&E's ability to serve currently unserved territory with
gas and electric service somewhat uncertain. Currently, California is experiencing an
energy crisis that appears to be caused by a lack of sufficient electricity generation facilities.
Due to the electricity crisis as a whole and the transmission constraints in the Tri-Valley
area, a potential exists for increased use of distributed generation (i.e., small electricity
generators fired by natural gas and diesel) to ensure reliability for commercial and
industrial users.
However, several major power plants have come on-line in the last several weeks and a
number of new power plants shortly will begin operations. In 1999 and 2000, the California
Energy Commission (CEC) approved nme new power plants, which would provide
approximately 6,270 megawatts (MW). Numerous power plant proposals currently are,
before the CEC, which would generate approximately 5,915 MW (CEC 2001), and could
lessen the energy shortfall. In addition, PG&E has declared bankruptcy because of billion
of dollars of debt owed to generators of electricity for power purchased in California's
deregulated markets. Until PG&E emerges from bankruptcy some uncertainty concerning
the provision of gas and electricity services to new and existing PG&E customers exists.
Until the crisis is resolved the uncertainty created by the crisis is a new potentially
significant impact.
Supplemental Impact UTS 3: Local Electrical Distribution Constraints
Local electrical distribution constraints limit PG&E's ability to serve the Project area. PG&E
has stated that it is able to adequately serve the Tri-Valley with existing facilities until
approximately June 2002; however, service reliability may be problematic after that point.
PG&E's Tri-Valley electrical system was loaded at 98.6% of capacity in 1999 (Jones, pets.
comm. 2000). Because of these issues, PG&E has begun the process of seeking California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approval for the Tri-Valley .2002 Capacity Increase
Project. It filed a Proponent's Environmental Assessment (PEA), with the CPUC, which is
the CEQA lead agency. The CPUC will determine the siting of the proposed PG&E system
enhancements. PG&E is requesting that its Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project be in
operation by June 2002. Delays in the CPUC process would delay implementation of the
Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project until 2003 (Jones, pers. comm. 2000). The CPUC
released the EIR for the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project on December 26, 2000.
Public hearings were held in February 2001.
PG&E proposes to increase electric service by adding substations in Dublin and North
Livermore, expanding the Vineyard Substation in PleasantOn, and installing approximately
23.5 miles of 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to serve the substations (CPUC, 2000).
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 3.7-10
PG&E is proposing construction of a 5-acre, 230/21 kV substation with four 45 megawatt
transformers in Eastern Dublin (same as described below for the D2 alternative). The
proposed transmission line would come from the east through open space in North
Livermore and'possibly from areas to the northwest from Contra Costa County. The Tri-
Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project EIR provides mitigation measures, which, ~f adopted
by the CPUC or other responsible agencies, would avoid or minimize the environmental
impacts identified. The EIR identifies two alternatives in Dublin, the D1 Alternative and
the D2 Alternative. Under the D1 Alternative, the South Dublin Substation would be
located in Dublin Ranch between Fallon Road and Tassajara Road, north of Interstate 580 (I-
580). The 230 kV transmission line connection would be from the Vineyard Substation,
south of 1-580, through quarry lands from Stanley Boulevard north to the vicinity of E1
Charro Road. Under the D2 Alternative, the Dublin Substation would be fed from the west
from PG&E's existing San Ramon Substation, at the edge of the City of San Ramon, along
the south side of the Windemere development and other housing developments, and across
Tassajara Road.
If the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or a functionally equivalent project is not
constructed, PG&E would be forced to respond to growing demand by expanding its
existing system to the extent that it is possible and by curtailing service if growth in
demand exceeds the transmission system's capacity or reliability requirements for essential
services (such as hospitals). It is possible that if the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase'
Project were delayed then other alternatives would be identified. For example,
development of local, small power generation facilities partially could address the Tri-
Valley region's transmission constraints. However, a number of these generation facilities
would be required to supply the power needed to address effectively the present limits on
electric service. The impacts of thermal power generation, even small-scale, also can be
significant (air quality impacts, noise, and use of hazardous substances), although often
mitigable (CPUC 2000).
Until the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or a functional equivalent alternative is
approved, the impact would be significant. With construction and operation of the Tri-
Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or an equivalent alternative and project phasing as
described in the supplemental mitigation below the proposed annexation and prezoning
would result in a less than significant impact.
SM-UTS-2: Require discretionary City review prior to the installation and use of
distributed generators, including emergency generators.
SM-UTS-3: Prior to approval of future subdivision maps or Site Development Review
applications (as may be applicable) by the City of Dublin, project developers shall submit
"will serve" letters from PG&E indicating that adequate electricity and natural gas services
are available to serve the proposed development project.
Implementation of these supplemental mitigation measures will reduce supplemental
impacts UTS 2 and U;FS 3 to less than significant.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-11
TABLE 3.7-1
ZONE 7 WATER SUPPLY ACQUISITION PROJECTS
Project Name Amount Funding Status Term/Expiration
Source
Long-Term Water
Supply Sources
Byron-Bethany 2 - 5,000 afa Zone 7 Completed 1998 15 years,
Irrigation District Connection Fee Agt. No. A98-03- renewable.
Program BYR
Berrenda Mesa SWP 7,000 afa (920 Dougherty Completed Dec Until 11/20/36
Entitlement Transfer afa) (Net to Valley 1999
Zone 7) Developers SWC
Amendment 19
Lost Hills SWP 15,000 afa Zone 7 Completed Dec Until 11/20/36
Entitlement Transfer Connection Fee 1999
Program SWC
Amendment 20
Belridge SWP 10,000 ara Connection Fee Completed Dec Until 11/20/36
Entitlement Transfer Pre-payment 2000 SWC
from North Amendment 21
Livermore
Developers
Drought Year
Protection
Semitropic Water 3,870 afa min Dougherty Implemented Until 12/31/35
Storage Bank (43,000 Valley 1998 Agt. No.
at) Developers A98-07-SEM
Semitropic Water 1,980 afa rain Zone 7 Implemented Until 12/31/35
Storage Bank (22,000 Connection Fee 1999 Agt. No.
at') Program A98-07-SEM
Amendment
Semitropic Increased 13,000 afa Zone 7 Semitropic to
Pumpback Project rain Connection Fee Draft Agreement
Program
Dry-Year Options 15,000 ara Zone 7 May not be
Connection Fee needed w/
Program Semitropic
Pumpback
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-12
Project Name Amount Funding Status Term/Expiration
Source
Import Water
Conveyance
First 7/22nds of Future 7,000 ara Zone 7 Completed Dec Until 11/20/36
SBA Contractor's Share Connection Fee 1999 SWC
,, Program Amendment 19
Next 15/22nds of 15,000 afa Zone 7 Completed Dec Until 11/20/36
Future SBA Connection Fee 1999 w/5-yr w/opt out in
Contractor's Share Program opt-out SWC 2005
Amendment 20
SBA Conveyance 10-50,000 afa Zone 7 CDM & ESA
Alternatives, including Connection Fee Study
Upgrades & Line B-4A Program Completed
(SBA Parallel Pipe); In- DWR Study
Valley Pipeline Agreement and
Near Term SBA
Improvements
($7,035,000)
approved 5-2-01
*Cost excludes
pumping cost into
Zone 7 area ($15-20/af)
SBA = South Bay
Aqueduct
SWC = State Water
Contract
SWP = State Water
Project
Source: Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 2001
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 3.7-13
!rain.l~d
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that EIRs describe a reasonable range of
alternatives to the Project that feasibly would attain most of the basic project objectives and
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the project's significant effects. The purpose of
the analysis is to determine if the basic Project objectives can be met at a lesser
environmental cost.
ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED IN THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared for a major General Plan Amendment encompassing
6,920 acres and for a new Specific Plan for 3,328 acres within the General Plan Amendment
area. The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (GPA/SP) proposed a
comprehensive land use plan for an urban mixed use community. The land use plan
included a variety of types and densities of housing, as well as employment-generating
commercial, office and other uses. Portions of the planning area were designated for parks,
schools, open space and other community facilities. Protection for natural features of the
planning area, including riparian corridors and principal ridgelands, was provided through
restrictive land use designations and policies. The land use plan reflected the GPA/SP
project objectives as set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR Section 2.5.
As required by CEQA, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified project alternatives that could'
eliminate or reduce significant impacts of the GPA/SP project. The four identified
alternatives included No Project, Reduced Planning Area, Reduced Land Use Intensities,
and No Development, as follows:
No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative evaluated potential development of the
GPA/SP area under the then-applicable General Plan of Dublin for the incorporated
portion of the planning area and under the Alameda County General Plan for the
unincorporated portion of the planning area. This alternative also discussed other
jurisdictional scenarios including potential future annexatiOns to Dublin and/or Livermore,
but without the GPA/SP project.
Reduced Planning Area Alternative. The Reduced Planning Area Alternative evaluated
development of the Specific Plan area as proposed, but assumed development beyond the
Specific Plan only to the Dublin Sphere of Influence boundary. The effect of this alternative
was to exclude Upper or Lower Doolan Canyon from the project.
Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative. The Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative.
evaluated potential development of the entire GPA/SP area, but reduced some higher
traffic generating commercial uses in favor of increased residential uses.
No Development. The No Development Alternative assumed no development would
occur in the GPA/SP planning area other than the agriculture/open space uses under the
County General Plan.
The City Council certified the Eastern Dublin EIR on May 10, 1993 (Resolution No. 51-93).
The City Council found the.No-Project, Reduced Land Use Intensities and No Development
alternatives infeasible and then approved a modification of the Reduced Planning Area
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 4-1
Alternative rather than the GPA/SP project as proposed (Resolution No. 53-93). The
Council approved this alternative based on findings that this alternative land use plan
would reduce land use impacts, would not disrupt the Doolan Canyon community, would
reduce growth-inducing impacts on agricultural lands and would reduce traffic,
infrastructure, and noise impacts of the original proposed GPA/SP project. Even with the
alternative project, however, significant unavoidable impacts would remain. Therefore,
upon approval of the GPA/SP, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93). As discussed in this section, the "GPA/SP' refers to
the modified Reduced Planning Area Alternative approved by the City, unless otherwise
specified.
ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
The current Project proposes annexing the Project area to the City of Dublin, prezoning the
Project area to the PD, Planned Development District, and other related changes and
applications as described in Chapter 2, Project Description. The annexation and prezoning
request includes the same land use designations and densities as analyzed and approved in
the GPA/SP. Even with the same land uses and densities, the Initial Study prepared for the
Project (Appendix A) determined that there was the potential for new or substantially
intensified significant impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163. The potential new or intensified significant
impacts'primarily derive from increased regional traffic along 1-580. To the extent that air'
quality and noise impacts are a function of traffic, the Initial Study determined that these
impact areas also could be significantly affected. These and other impact areas are further
discussed in Chapter 3 and supplemental significant impacts have been identified together
with supplemental mitigation measures. Even with mitigation, some of the supplemental
impacts will be significant and unavoidable. Most of these impacts are traffic-related, sUch
as impacts which create unacceptable levels of service at intersections in the cumulative
build-out year of 2025.
With the potential for traffic-induced supplemental impacts, this supplement identifies a
new alternative for the Project area -- the Mitigated Traffic Alternative. The following
discussion describes the new alternative and compares it to the potential effects of the
proposed Project. Although the No Project and No Development alternatives in the Eastern
Dublin EIR were found infeasible upon approval of the GPA/SP, this alternatives.
discussion also will update those alternatives with respect to the Project area to assist in the
comparative evaluation of the Project's impacts. All mitigation measures from the Eastern
Dublin EIR and all mitigation measures proposed in this supplement are assumed to apply
to the alternatives (as applicable), unless otherwise stated.
Although this supplemental EIR only analyzed the seven impact categories identified by
the Initial Study, this alternatives discussion evaluates each alternative according to all of
the impact categories identified in the Eastern. Dublin EIR in an effort to adequately
compare the previous alternatives to the proposed alternatives in relation to the Project.
MITIGATED TRAFFIC ALTERNATIVE
The Mitigated .Traffic Alternative reduces traffic-generating residential and commercial/
industrial ("commercial") land use intensities within the Project area. Both the number of
residential units and the commercial floor area are reduced by 25% compared with the
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-2
Project. Potential development under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would occupy the
same area and create the same development "footprint" as the Project. The number of
residential units would be reduced from 2,526 to 1,895 units. General Commercial,
Neighborhood Commercial and Industrial land use Floor Area Ratios (FARs) would be
reduced to approximately 0.19, 0.23 and 0.21, respectively. The resulting total floor area of
approximately 1.06 million square feet compared to 1.4 million square feet for the Project.
Table 4-1 lists land use acreages and development intensifies for the Project and the
Mitigated Traffic Alternative (as well as the following alternatives), and Table 4-2 compares
the FARs of the alternatives with the Project. The following discussion compares the
impacts of the Mitigated Traffic Alternative to the Project impacts as set forth in the Eastern
Dublin Eastern Dublin EIR and this supplement. Unless otherwise noted, mitigation
measures identified for the ProjeCt in Chapter 3 also would be required for potential
development under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative.
Aesthetics. The effects of potential development of the Project on visual and scenic
resources, and on light and glare, is discussed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Initial Study.
The Initial Study determined that the Project would have no impacts beyond those
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR because the development footprint and intensity of
development was the same as previously analyzed. Similarly, the Mitigated Traffic
Alternative proposes the same footprint of development with land uses distributed in the
same fashion. At buildout, the visual character of the Mitigated Traffic Alternative may be
somewhat less intense than the Project due to the decrease in density across the Project area.'
However, the Project area still would be an urban landscape. Therefore, impacts to the
Project area's visual resources under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would be similar to
those of the Project. Adopted City policies and Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures
protecting the area's hillsides, ridgelines, scenic corridors, and watercourses would
continue to apply to future development of the Project area.
Agricultural Resources. The Project area is largely agricultural and grazing land at present.
This supplement examines the effects of the revised definition of prime agricultural lands
for the purposes of annexation, and of potential cancellation of Williamson Act contracts.
The supplement identifies no new significant impacts beyond the agricultural conversion
impacts of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative, the types and
locations of land uses would be the same as for the Project. Land use impacts related to
conversion of agricultural land would be similar to the Project since the same location and
amount of Project area could potentially be developed. 'therefore, impacts to the Project
area's agricultural resources under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would be the same as
for the Project.
Air Quality. As discussed in Section 3.2, the Bay Area air basin has been downgraded to
non-attainment status for ozone since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. In response,
new mobile source emissions standards for ozone precursors have been adopted. Project
emissions would exceed the new standards. Based on the non-attainment status in the local
air basin and the Project's exceedance of the new emissions standards, this supplement
identified significant unavoidable Project and cumulative impacts on air quality. The
Mitigated Traffic Alternative would reduce daffy traffic by approximately 25% compared
with the Project, with corresponding reductions in daffy emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM-
10 compared to the Project (see Table 4-3). Even with these reductions, emissions of the
Mitigated Traffic Alternative would remain substantially greater than the BAAQMD
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-3
significance threshold of 80 pounds per day. This alternative would reduce the air quality
impact compared to the Project, but not enough ~o avoid the identified significant impact.
Air quality would remain a ~ignifiran~ lm~Vo{clablo prn?et-lovol anH t'nrnnlaHvo impa_¢t for
the Mitigated Traffic Alternative.
Biological Resources. Section 3.3 describes regulatory and other changes affecting
biological resources since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Supplemental impacts
and related mitigations are identified to reflect additional sensitive habitats and special
status species beyond those in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would decrease potential development densities,
however, the development areas would be the same as for the Project. The resulting
disturbance to habitat and special status species would also be similar to the Project.
Mitigation measures have been identified for the supplemental habitat and species impacts.
Even with mitigation, however, loss of newly described botanically sensitive habitat would
be a ~ignlfi,-~nt nn~vc~M~hlo ('nmnl_a~ve impact for the Mitigated Traffic Alternative as well
as for the Project.
Cultural Resources. The Initial Study determined that he Project would not have
supplemental impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR because the
development footprint and intensity of development was the same as previously analyzed.,
Although the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would decrease development intensities, it
proposes the same footprint of development with land uses distributed in the same fashion
as the Project. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would have the same impacts to cultural
resources as the Project.
Geology and Soils. The Initial Study identified no potential supplemental impacts for
geology and soils because the potential development of the Project area is the same as
assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would decrease
development intensity but the development footprint would remain unchanged. Similarly,
construction activities, such as grading, to prepare for and support development would be
the same as for the Project. With the same distribution of land uses as the Project, geology
and soils impacts from the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would be the same as for the
Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would involve the
same kind and distribution of land uses as described for the Project in the Initial Study.
Lower residential and commercial densities would similarly decrease the already low
potential for hazardous materials impacts.
Hydrology and Water Quality. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would involve the same
development footprint as the Project. Potential development under the Mitigated Traffic
Alternative would require the same type of construction activities as the Project and would
also be subject to the same protective water quality regulations, such as erosion and
sedimentation controls. The overall network of storm drainage improvements for the
Mitigated Traffic Alternative would generally be the same as for the Project since the
development footprint would be unchanged. There could be some localized changes to
storm drain size due to lower intensity of development, but overall, the required channel
improvements would remain the same. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would have
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-4
approximately the same potential for increases in storm water runoff and non-point source
pollution as the Project since each would, ultimately develop the same total number of acres
of land.
Land Use and Planning. The type and distribution of land uses in the Mitigated Traffic
Alternative would be the same as for the Project. Land use impacts would be similar to
those of the Project as identified in the Initial Study to the extent that no established
communities exist within the Project area and the area is not subject to any existing adopted
HCP or NCCP. The type and location of land uses would be consistent with the City's
adopted General Plan and Specific Plan for the Project area.
Mineral Resources. The Project area contains no known mineral resources. Like the
Project, the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would have no impact on mineral resources.
Noise. This supplement analyzes noise impacts related to increased traffic on 1-580 and
related increases in traffic on local Dublin roadways. While regional traffic levels would
likely be unchanged, less intense development within the Project area under the Mitigated
Traffic Alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips, fewer mobile noise sources, and
fewer stationary noise sources. Thus, this alternative could reduce the noise levels along
internal streets, possibly reducing noise mitigation requirements such as soundwall heights.
In other respects, however, the noise impacts would be similar to the Project since the
streets and land uses would be in similar locations. Noise impacts on land uses adjacent to'
the freeway generally would not change. Noise impacts on existing residences may be
reduced somewhat from the Project as local traffic and related roadway noise is reduced,
but not enough to reduce this impact to less than significant.
Population, Housing, Employment. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would decrease
development intensity but would not eliminate urbanization of the Project area. Thus, the
effect of the Mitigated Traffic Alternative on growth inducement and existing housing
would be similar to the Project. The residential population under the Mitigated Traffic
Alternative would be 5,351 residents, which is 1,784 fewer residents than the Project. New
jobs under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would decrease to 2,355 from the Project's
projected 3,140 jobs due to a reduction in the intensity of commercial development. This
alternative would have fewer residential units than the Project, resulting in 3,069 employed
residents and 1,895 totaI dwelling units. The ratio of jobs to employed residents for the
Mitigated Traffic Alternative would be .77:1, the same as the Project, since both residential
and commercial uses would be reduced by 25%. An excess of jobs would remain under
both the Project and the Mitigated Traffic Alternative.
Public Services (Schools). This supplement analyzed the potential impacts of the Project
on school facilities since the Initial Study determined that the Project would not have any
impact on other community services or facilities. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would
generate 25% fewer elementary, junior high, and high school students than the Project. The
reduced number of future students could affect the timing of new school facility
construction. The reduction could potentially reduce the future number of facilities needed
to accommodate development, however, the proposed land use plan for the Mitigated
Traffic Alternative ktill retains the school sites shown in the Specific Plan.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 4-5
Recreation. The Mit4gated Traffic Alternative proposes the same type and distribution of
land uses as the Project. Park sites would be provided generally in the same location as for
the Project. Future development of parks would be based on the City's adopted 5
acres/I,000 population standard.
Transportation/Circulation (Traffic). The Mitigated Traffic Alternative evaluates a 25%
reduction in the number of residential units and the floor area of commercial uses. The
reduction in residential units and commercial floor area results in fewer vehicle trips,
although vehicles would be using the same roadway systems and would similarly affect
intersections during peak hours. As with the Project analysis, the Future Study Areas were
not included in this analysis of the Mitigated Traffic Alternative because no development is
assumed in those areas. The Tri-Valley Cumulative Year 2025 traffic model was used to
compare traffic impacts of the Project and the Mitigated Traffic Alternative because
significant unavoidable Cumulative Year 2025 impacts were identified for the Project. The
Mitigated Traffic Alternative was analyzed to deterrmne if it would avoid any of the
Project's unavoidable impacts.
The Mitigated Traffic Alternative is expected to generate approximately 43,000 daily trips,
including 2,300 AM peak hour trips, and 4,300 PM peak hour trips. Figure 4-A shows the
peak hour turning movement volumes for the Mitigated Traffic Alternative. Table 4-4
summarizes the project levels of service at key intersections. Under this scenario, the levels
of service at intersections are generally the same as for the Project. As with the Project, the'
intersections of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound
Ramps, Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard would
operate at unacceptable levels of service during one or both peak hours under the Mitigated
Traffic Alternative.
Under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative, however, the intersection of Fallon Road/Dublin
Boulevard would improve to acceptable levels of service with the construction of a new
intersection midway between the 1-580 westbound ramps and Dublin Boulevard, as
required by Supplemental Mitigation Traffic 8. By comparison, even with the new
intersection, the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at unacceptable
levels with development of the Project as proposed. Thus, the Mitigated Traffic Alternative
would avoid the Project's significant unavoidable cumulative impact at the Fallon
Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection.
Utilities. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would require infrastructure similar to the
Project since it consists of potential development of the same area and with similar uses.
The geographic extent of the infrastructure networks also would be similar to the Project
since the development footprint of the Mitigated Traffic Alternative is the same as th~
Project. Table 4-5 presents the estimated impact of the Mitigated Traffic Alternative on
water, sewer, and recycled water demand compared to the Project. As reflected in the table,
the decreased land use development intensity with the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would
similarly decrease the demand for water, sewer, and recycled water.
Domestic Wa.ter System. The water demand for the Mitigated Traffic Alternative is
estimated at 0.70 MGD, which is approximately 25% less that the Project demand of 0,93
MGD. The network of water .pipelines would be similar to the Project, but some pipeline
diameters may be downsized where the decreased land use intensities result in decreased
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-6
demand. The number of water storage reservoirs needed to meet fire flow requirements
would be similar to the Project.
Sewer System. The estimated wastewater flow for the Mitigated Traffic Alternative
is 0.60 MGD, approximately 23% less than the Project flows of 0.78 MGD. Impacts on the
DSRSD collection and treatment system would be somewhat less than for the Project.
DSRSD still would have to expand its wastewater treatment plant to handle flows from
potential development under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative as well as from the Project,
although the expansion would not be as great as for the Project. As shown in Table 4-5,
there is a potential recycled water demand of approximately 0.22 MGD, the same as the
Project, generally because the footprint of development is the same as the Project. Recycled
water is used primarily for irrigation of public and common area landscaping.
TABLE 4-5
MITIGATED TRAFFIC ALTERNATIVE:
WATER, SEWER, AND RECYCLED WATER IMPACTS
Item Estimated Average Estimated Average Estimated Average
Daily Water Daily Wastewater Daily Recycled Water
Demand IMGD~ Flow ~MGDI Demand IMGD~
Project 0.93 0.78 0.22
Mitigated Traffic 0.70 0.60 0.22
Alternative
Solid Waste. As discussed in this supplement, there are adequate solid waste
facilities to accommodate the Project. The reduced density of the Mitigated Traffic
Alternative would reduce the demand on waste disposal facilities and could potentially
extend the useful life of the facilities.
Electricity and Natural Gas Supply. Development under the Mitigated Traffic
Alt6rnative could potentially be subject to the recent energy supply shortfalls described in
this supplement. Reduced densities under the Mitigated Traffic Alternative would reduce
related energy demand compared to the Project, and would thus reduce the energy supply
needed to accommodate Project area development.
NO PROIECT (ECAP) ALTERNATIVE
The purpose of the No Project Alternative is "to allow decision makers to compare the
impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed
project" (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6). The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the No
Project Alternative for the entire GPA/SP area. Upon approval of the GPA/SP, the City
found the No Project Alternative infeasible. The Project proposes the same land uses and
densities as proposed for the Project area in the GPA/SP. This supplement updates the No
Project Alternative discussion as it applies specifically to the Project.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 4-7
Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no prezoning or annexation of the Project
area to the City of Dublin. The Project area would remain subject to the jurisdiction of
Alameda County and the County's adopted General Plan and East County Area Plan
(ECAP). If development of the Project area were to occur it would be according to the
existing ECAP. Hence, this No Project alternative addresses impacts which could be
generated by development of the Project area according to the ECAP.
At the November 2000 General Election, Alameda County's voters adopted Measure D, a
significant amendment to the County's 1994 East County Area Plan, the applicable County
General Plan document for the Project area. The ECAP had previously adopted an urban
growth boundary, which prohibited "urban development" outside the urban growth
boundary. (ECAP, p.5.) "Urban development" was defined as designations having
densities greater than I unit per acre, including such land uses as low-, medium-, and high-
density residential, industrial, major commercial business park, and supporting uses.
Measure D altered the urban growth boundary in Eastern Dublin to track the eastern
boundary of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. (See Text of Measure D [amending Policy1].)
Thus, only the Project area outside of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is affected by
Measure D. However, prior to the adoption of Measure D, much of the area was beyond
the urban growth boundary and was designated "resource management."
The County's intent in adopting the ECAP was to be consistent with applicable city plans in,
eastern Alameda County, including the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (see Figure 4-A:
Alameda County Land Use Designations). The ECAP specifies land uses and densities for
the Specific Plan portion of the Project area which are similar to those of the Specific Plan
except that the number of commercial acres is higher (see Table 4-1)and the non-residential
land use types in the ECAP (Major Commercial and Mixed Use) would have higher
employment generation than the Project The approximately 637 acre portion of the Project
area outside of the Specific Plan boundary is designated as Resource Management in the
ECAP. This land use designation has a minimum parcel size of 100 acres and a maximum
building intensity of 0.01 FAR (1 residential unit per every 100 acres). This County
designation would permit approximately six residential units in this portion of the Project
area rather than the approximately 1,286 dwelling units that potentially could be developed
under the Project's proposed residential designations. As discussed in the Initial Study and
above,. Measure D would prohibit urban development of the area outside of the Specific
Plan if the Project area were to be developed in the County rather than annexed to the City.
Development of the Project area could occur under the ECAP only if the required services,
including water and sewage collection and treatment, are provided. Water and sewage
treatment for the existing uses in the Project area currently are provided by wells and septic
systems, respectively. While it is technically possible that water and sewage treatment for
the full development permitted under ECAP could be provided by wells and septic
systems, this probably is not feasible due to salinity problems associated with water wells
and water quality problems associated with widespread use of septic systems. The entire
Project area is within the Sphere of Influence of the Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD). If wells and/or septic systems are not feasible, annexation to the DSRSD and
extension of services would be necessary to serve the Project area before the Specific Plan
portion of the Project area could be developed under the ECAP. Because of the low service
requirements, of rural residential development, the portion of the Project area outside of the
Specific Plan could be developed with the six potential units without annexation to, or
provision of services by, the DSRSD.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-8
Aesthetics. Impacts to the Project area's visual resources under the No Project /ECAP
Alternative would be less than the Project because the northern portion of the Project area
would retain most of its existing rural character. Development, and related visual
character, of the Specific Plan portion of the Project area would be similar to the Project as it
changes from a rural/agricultural to an urban landscape. Development would not be
subject to Eas tern Dublin Specific Plan policies and EIR mitigations tailored to protection of
the area's hillsides, ridgelines, and watercourses. County development policies would be
applicable.
Agricultural Resources Development of the Specific Plan portion of the Project area would
be similar to the Project and would convert existing agricultural and grazing uses to urban
uses, as described in the Initial Study. Outside the Specific Plan portion of the Project area,
areas that are shown as low density and rural residential/agricultural in the Project would
be designated Resource Management, a non-urban designation with 100 acre minimum
parcel sizes. Thus, the ECAP, as amended by Measure D would prohibit urban
development outside the Specific Plan area. Compared to the Project, overall development
wotlld be reduced under this alternative. Related agricultural conversion impacts Would be
similarly reduced from those identified for the Project.
Air Quality. The No Project/ECAP Alternative would generate approximately 80 percent,
more trips than the Project, primarily because of the increased potential for
commercial/mixed use development. This alternative would generate 64.1 pounds per day
more of ROG, 133.3 pounds more of NO× and 88.7 pounds more of PM-10 than the Project
(Table 4-3). Like the Project, the emissions of this alternative would be substantially greater
than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 80 pounds per day. If the demand for single-
family housing is not met by this alternative and housing is shifted farther into the
Livermore Valley or even into the Central Valley, longer commuting distances may
generate additional emissions. This alternative would not avoid the Project's significant
unavoidable mobile source emissions impact. Instead, it would substantially increase that
' impact. Air quality would be a ~ignlflcnnt ,,navc~ict~hlo impact of this alternative.
Biological Resources. The No Project Alternative would produce less intense overall
impacts on biological resources than the Project because substantially less development
could occur in the 637-acre area outside of the Specific Plan. Not only the development
footprint, but also the intensity of development would be less than the Project. The
northern portion of the Project area would remain largely undeVeloped and hence, impacts
to sensitive biological resources in this area would be substantially less. Development of
residential and commercial land uses in the Specific Plan portion of the Project area would
have the same impacts to special status species and sensitive habitat as the Project since the
development footprint would be the same in this portion of the Project area. This
alternative would reduce biological resources impacts compared to the Project, but not
enough to avoid significant cumulative impacts related to the loss of botanically sensitive
habitat. This impact would be a ~ignff~c~nt ,,n~vnlc1~hlo e,,m,,l~five impact of this
alternative.
Cultural Resources. The No Project/ECAP Alternative coUld reduce potential impacts to
cultural resources in the northern portion of the .Project area since no urban level
development and related grOund disturbance would occur. Impacts in the Specific Plan
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 4-9
portion of the Project area would be similar to the Project since the development footprint
in the Specific Plan area would be similar to the Project.
Geology and Soils. The No Project/ECAP Alternative would involve similar geology and
soils impacts to the Project in the Specific Plan area since the development footprint would
be similar to the Project. Impacts outside of the Specific Plan area would be eliminated or
substantially reduced in comparison to the Project since no urban level development and
related ground disturbance would occur.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Development under the No Project Alternative would
be the same kind and distribution of uses as the Project and would result in similar impacts.
Development in the area outside the Specific Plan would be under the ECAP Resource
Management designation, and would generally be similar to existing agricultural and
grazing uses. The Project's already Iow hazards and hazardous materials impacts described
in the Initial Study would be further reduced with the No Project Alternative.
Hydrology and Water Quality. The No Project Alternative would involve the same
development footprint as the Project in the Specific Plan area. Potential development {n the
Specific Plan area would require the same type of construction activities as the Project and
would also be subject to the same protective water quality regulations, such as erosion and
sedimentation controls. The overall network of storm drainage improvements for the No,
Project/ECAP Alternative essentially would be the same as for the Project in the Specific
Plan portion of the Project area. No improvements would be necessary outside the Specific
Plan area.
Land Use and Planning. Potential development under the ECAP would be similar to the
Project for the Specific Plan portion of the Project area. This alternative would potentially
allow 281 low density units, 175 medium high density units and 1,300 high density
residential units resulting in a total of 1,764 residential units, which is about 44 percent
fewer dwelling units than the Project. However, the ECAP allows for greater
commercial/m/xed use development of up to 3.4 million square feet over 144 acres
compared to the Project development of 1.4 million square feet in 120 acres. About 724
acres would be designated for Resource Management and 94 acres for agriculture uses. The
ECAP Resource Management designations would be retained for the areas outside the
Specific Plan which are shown as Iow density and rural residential/agriculture in the
Project. If developed without annexation, both ECAP and Measure D would prohibit urban
development outside the Specific Plan area. Compared to the Project, overall development
would be reduced under this alternative, and any land use impacts would be similar to the
Project as identified in the Initial Study to the extent that no established communities exist
m the Project area. The Project area is not subject to any existing HCP or NCCP.
Mineral Resources. The Project area contains no known mineral resources. Like the
Project, the No Project Alternative would have no impact on mineral resources.
Noise. When the Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared, the County was updating its General
Plan, including revisions to what is now known as the ECAP. The EIR recognized that
development could occur under the No Project alternative depending on the outcome of the
County General Plan revisions. Under the ECAP adopted since the Eastern Dublin EIR, the
No Project Alternative would result in less residential development within the Project area
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 4-10
than the Project. This could reduce the noise levels along internal streets, possibly reducing
the required soundwall heights. However, this alternative permits substantially greater
commercial and mixed use development, thereby potentially increasing noise levels in the
Specific Plan portion of the Project area to levels higher than the Project. These increased
noise levels could exceed applicable noise standards, which would be a potentially
significant impact requiring future development to provide appropriate noise mitigation to
acceptable standards. Other noise impacts, such as freeway noise, would be similar to the
Project. To the extent that existing residences occur in the Specific Plan area, noise impacts
would be the same or greater than the Project; the No Project Alternative would not reduce
this impact to less than significant.
Population, Housing, Employment. The No Project Alternative would eliminate
urbanization outside the Specific Plan portion of the Project area but not within the Specific
Plan area. Thus, the effect of this alternative on growth inducement and existing housing
would be similar to the Project for the Specific Plan area. This alternative would reduce
growth inducement outside of the Specific Plan area. The projected residential population
in the Project area under the No Project Alternative would be 3,875. This is 3,260 fewer
residents than the 7,135 new residents estimated for the Project. New jobs would increase
to 7,898, from the Project projected level of 3,140 due to an increase in commercial acreage
and change in intensity and types of use. This alternative would reduce residential units
resulting in 1,764 total dwelling units compared to 2,526for the Project and 2,858 employed.
residents in the No Project/ECAP Alternative compared to 4,092 for the Project. The ratio
of jobs to employed residents for the No Project Alternative would be 2.76:1, substantially
greater than the 0.77:1 ratio of the Project. As such, this alternative would increase the
existing excess of jobs over employed residents in Dublin and the Tri-Valley area.
Public Services (Schools). This supplement analyzed the potential impacts of the Project
on school facilities since the Initial Study determined that the Project would not have any
impact on other community services or facilities. The No Project Alternative would have
more commercial and less residential development than the Project, and would generate
approximately 45 percent fewer elementary, junior high, and high school students. In
contrast to the Project, areas outside of the Specific Plan area would not provide schools
sites. Demand for other community services and facilities would be similar or somewhat
less than those of the Project.
Recreation. Under the No Project Alternative, urban development similar to the Project
could occur in the Specific Plan area. The mix of uses would be different, however, with
reduced residential and increased commercial uses. This reduced potential for residential
uses in the Specific Plan area, together with reduced development potential outside the
Specific Plan area also decreases the potential demand for parks and other recreational
resources compared to the Project.
Transportation/Circulation (Traffic). The No Project Alternative consists of 281 low
density units, 175 medium high density units and 1,300 high density residential units
resulting in a total of 1,764 residential units, which is about 44 percent fewer dwelling units
than the Project. In general there would be more high density residential units and less
Iow density residential units than the Project. The No Project Alternative consists mostly of
major commercial and mixed~ uses totaling. 3,441,240 (3.4 million) square feet over a
combined 144 acres. This alternative evaluates a reduced number of residential units and
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 4-11
an increased floor area of commercial and industrial uses.
The Cumulative Year 2025 traffic model was used to determine traffic impacts. This
alternative would generate approximately 80 percent more trips than the Project and more
than twice the trips of the Mitigated Traffic Alternative due to the increased
commercial/mixed use development. Figure 4-C shows the peak hour turning movement
volumes for this No Project/ACAP Alternative. Table 4-6 summarizes the levels of service
at the study intersections. Under this scenario, the levels of service are generally the same
as the Project. Similar to the Project, the No Project Alternative results in unacceptable
levels of service at the intersections of Dougherty Road/ Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda
Drive/1-580 Westbound Ramps, Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard, and Fallon
Road,/Dublin Boulevard.
Under the No Project Alternative, the intersection of Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard would
improve to acceptable levels of service with the construction of a new intersection midway
between the 1-580 westbound ramps and Dublin Boulevard, as recommended by SM-
TRAFFIC-8 in Section 3.6 of this supplement. However, this new intersection on Fallon
Road still would be anticipated to operate unacceptably at LOS E during the PM peak hour
and still represents a significant unavoidable cumulative impact.
Utilities. The No Project/ECAP Alternative would require infrastructure similar to the.
Project for the Specific Plan area since the footprint of development would be similar. Land
uses outside the Specific Plan area would be non-urban. Related land use intensities would
be substantially lower, reducing or eliminating the need for infrastructure networks as
compared to the Project. Table 4-7 presents the estimated impacts of the No Project/ECAP
Alternative on water, sewer, and recycled water as compared to the Project. As reflected in
the table, the decreased land use development intensity with the No Project Alternative
would similarly decrease the demand for water, sewer, and recycled water.
Domestic Water System. The water demand for the No Project Alternative is
estimated to be 0.68 MGD, approximately 27 percent less than the Project demand of 0.93
MGD. This alternative has lower overall intensities of potential development which would
reduce the water demand. Extension of pipelines to the northern portion of the Project area
where rural residential and Iow density residential uses predominate may not be required.
Smaller water storage reservoirs than for the Project would be adequate to meet fire flow
requirements.
Sewer System. The estimated wastewater flow for the No Project Alternative is 0.67
MGD, which would be 14 percent less than that estimated for the Project (0.78 MGD).
DSRSD would need to expand its wastewater treatment plant to handle these flows,
although the expansion could be approximately 14 percent less than for the Project. As
shown in Table 4-7, there is a potential recycled water demand of 0.11 MGD, 50 percent less
than for the Project. Because of the decrease in extent of residential development outside
the Specific Plan area, extension of sewer pipelines to the northern portion of the Project
area would not be required.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-12
TABLE 4-7
NO PROJECT/ECAP ALTERNATIVE:
WATER, SEWER, AND RECYCLED WATER IMPACTS
Item Estimated Average Estimated Average Estimated Average
Daily Water Daily Wastewater Daily Recycled
Demand (MGD) Flow (MGD) Water'Demand
(MGD).
Project 0.93 0.78 I 0.22
No Project Alternative 0.68 0.67I 0.11
Solid Waste. As discussed in this supplement, there are adequate solid waste
facilities to accommodate the Project. The reduced overall density of the No Project
Alternative would reduce the demand on waste disposal facilities and could potentially
extend the useful life of the facilities.
Electricity and Natural Gas. Development under the No Project Alternative could
potentially be subject to the recent energy supply shortfalls described in this supplement.
Reduced overall densities under the No Project Alternative would reduce related energy.
demand compared to the Project, and would thus reduce the energy supply needed to
accommodate Project area development.
NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
The purpose of the No Development Alternative is to compare the effects of approving the
Project against the existing physical character of the Project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR
analyzed the No Development Alternative for the entire GPA/SP area. Upon approval of
the GPA/SP, the City found the No Development Alternative infeasible. The Project
proposes the same land uses and densities as the GPA/SP. As described in the Initial Study
and this supplement, the existing character of the Project area is low-intensity agricultural
and grazing uses with some existing residences, agricultural buildings, and miscellaneous
other uses. Under the No Development Alternative, no development beyond the existing
uses would occur. All of the Project's impacts would be avoided, including the Project's
significant unavoidable impacts on mobile source emissions, traffic, loss of botanically
sensitive habitat, and noise, as these impacts are described in Sections 3 and 5. This
supplement updates the No Development Alternative discussion as it applies specifically to
the Project.
Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources. The existing agricultural, grazing and rural residential
character of the Project area would be maintained. There would be no disturbance or
alteration of the Project area's visual resources, such as its hillsides, ridgelines and
watercourses. There would be no conversion of agricultural lands to other uses.
Air Quality. No new vehicle trips and mobile source emissions or stationary sources of air
emissions would be generated. Any air quality impacts would be limited to emissions
related to existing uses.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 4-13
Biological Resources. Existing agriculture and grazing uses could continue on the Project
area. No new development would occur, so there would be no related disturbance or
alteration of ground surfaces, vegetation or watercourses, and no related impacts on
existing habitat, plants and wildlife. Any impacts to biological resources would be related
to existing uses.
Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality. Existing uses and
land forms would be maintained. No new development would occur so there would be no
related excavation, grading or other alteration of ground surfaces or watercourses. No
cultural resources would be unearthed, nor any erosion or sedimentation impacts created.
Any impacts would be related to existing uses and agricultural practices.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. No new hazards or hazardous materials would be
introduced to the Project area. Any impacts would be related to existing uses of the Project
area as further described in the Initial Study's Environmental Setting for this topic.
Land Use and Planning. Continuing existing use would maintain the undeveloped nature
of the Project area and would not divide an established community. There are no adopted
HCPs or NCCPs in the Project area. This alternative could be inconsistent with the Dublin
General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the ECAP to the extent that these
documents anticipate future urbanization of the Project area to one degree or another.
Mineral Resources. The Project area contains no known mineral resources. Like the
Project, the No Development Alternative would have no impact on mineral resources.
Noise. There would be no new noise generating uses. Any noise impacts would be related
to existing uses.
Population, Housing, Employment. The No Development Alternative would not generate
new residences or new jobs and thus, would not affect the current jobs/housing ratio. The
residential population for the Project area would be unchanged compared to the 7,135 new
residents estimated.for the Project. This alternative also would result in no new jobs in the
City as compared to the Project's 3,140 new jobs which, combined with the proposed
Project's 2,526 residential units, would reduce the ratio of jobs to employed residents,
although an excess of jobs would still remain.
Public Services (Schools), Recreation, Utilities. Under the No Development Alternative,
there would be no increased demand for public utilities, including water distribution and
storage systems, sewage collection and treatment facilities, and recycled water distribution
systems. There would be no additional impacts on sewer, water, storm drainage, or fire
flow requirements, and there would be no increase in storm water runoff and non-point
source water pollution. No utility infrastructure would be constructed within the Project
area and existing uses would continue to utilize wells and septic systems. There would be
no storm drain improvements. There would be no increased demand for community
services and facilities, parks and schools. No parks and schools would be developed within
the Project area.
Transportation/Circulation (Traffic). Under the No Development Alternative, there would
be no traffic generation and no change in levels of service at the existing intersections in and
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-14
near the Project area. The proposed roads and intersections would not be constructed.
None of the significant adverse traffic impacts of the proposed Project or the Mitigated
Traffic Alternative would occur, although significant cumulative 2025 impacts could still
occur since 2025 impacts are expected to occur even without development of the Project
area.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR identify the environmentally
superior alternative other than the No Project (or in this case the No Development)
alternative. The development scenarios in the Mitigated Traffic, No Project and No
Development alternatives all reduce some potential environmental impacts of the Project.
The relative impacts of the alternatives are shown in Table 4-8 and discussed in the list
below:
The No Development Alternative would achieve the greatest reduction of environmental
impacts compared to the Project. The Project area would remain in its existing
rural/agricultural condition. The impacts associated with the Project including impacts on
land use, traffic, biological resources, visual resources, and air quality would not occur.
This alternative would not fulfill the Project objectives or the City of Dublin's objectives for
Eastern Dublin.
The No Project/ECAP Alternative would achieve a substantial reduction of visual impacts
and impacts on biological resources because the portion of the Project area outside the
Specific Plan would not be developed. Noise impacts would be similar to those of the
Project but could be somewhat increased in the Specific Plan portion of the Project area due
to the potential for increased commercial development compared to the Project. Compared
to the Project, this alternative would have similar significant traffic impacts at several
intersections, and could have even greater impacts at the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard
intersections because of the greater intensity of commercial and industrial land uses. This
alternative would generate greater mobile and stationary source air emissions than the
Project. Development would be limited to the southern portion of the Project area and the
northern portion, approximately 637 acres or more than half of the Project area, would
remain in its existing rural/agricultural condition. This alternative partially would fulfill
the City's objectives as to the Specific Plan portion of the Project area, but would not meet
the City's General Plan goals for its Sphere of Influence. In addition, it would exacerbate
the City's existing excess of jobs compared to employed residents.
The Mitigated Traffic Alternative would reduce impacts on traffic and air quality but would
not substantially reduce visual, noise, or biological impacts compared with the Project. The
impacts of this alternative would be greater than the No Development Alternative, but less
than the Project. Compared to the No Project/ECAP Alternative, this alternative would
have greater impacts on visual and biological resources and lesser impacts on traffic and air
quality. This alternative would reduce the City's ratio of jobs to employed residents but to a
lesser degree than the Project, and would provide a smaller share of Dublin's contribution
to regional housing needs.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 4-15
TABLE 4-1
ALTERNATIVES BY LAND USE
Land Use Designation Project Mitigated No Project
Traffic (a) ~ECAP)
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 120.2 120.2 144.3
(Acres)
Square Feet 1,421,450 1,066,088 3,441,240
Jobs 2,575 1,931 7,898
RESIDENTIAL (Acres) 746.8 746.8 954.9
Units (low density) 1,734 1,301 281
Units (medium density) 94 71 175
Units (medium/high density) 696 522 1,300
Units (rural/agriculture) 2 2 6
Total Units 2,526 1,895 (b) 1,764
. Population 7,135 5,351 3,875
Employed Residents (c) 4,092 3,069 2,858
SCHOOLS (Acres) 31.9 31.9 0
Elementary (acres) 17.3 17.3 0
Junior High (acres) 14.6 14.6 0
Jobs 565 424 0
PARKS (Acres) 40.8 40.8 10
OPEN SPACE (Acres) 76.9 76.9 0
FUTURE STUDY AREAS (Acres) 92.6 92.6 0
TOTAL ACRES 1,109.2 1,109.2 1,109.2
NOTES:
No Development Alternative not included in table above because it would involve no development.
(a) Mitigated Traffic Alternative consists of a 25 percent reduction in development from the proposed
Project.
(b) Total residential units does not equal sum of components due to rounding.
(c) Projections assume a ratio of 1.62 employed residents per household based on ABAG's Projections
1990.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4-16
TABLE 4-2
FLOOR AREA RATIOS OF ALTERNATIVES
Land Use Designation Project Mitigated No Project
Traffic (ECAP/
General Commercial 0.25 0.1875 ....
Neighborhood Commercial 0.30 0.2250 ....
Industrial 0.28 0.2100 ....
Major Commercial ....... 0.60
Mixed Use ........ 0.50
NOTE:
No Development Alternative not included because it would involve no development.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 4-17
TABLE 4-3
REGIONAL VEHICULAR EMISSIONS COMPARISON
(Year = 2020)
EMISSIONS
Scenario A F)T R C}G NIC}x CC}* PM-10
Project
Mitigated Traffic Alternative
vs. Project
No Project/ECAP Alternative
vs. Project
BAAQMD Threshhold
54,071
40,553
-25 %
9Z400
8O%
156.6
117.5
-25%
220.7
41%
80
334.6
251.0
-25%
467.9
40%
80.
1,824.3
1,368.2
-25%
2,467.4
35%
55O
+314.5
235.9
-25%
+4O3.2
28%
80
Source: URBEMIS7 Computer Model
* = requires microscale analysis ff 550 lb/day is exceeded.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 4'18
Table 4-4
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service -Tri-Valley Transportation Model
Cumulative Year 2025 plus Mitigated Traffic Alternative
Intersection Control Unmitigated Mitigated
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
* LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.94 E 1.02 F ........
2 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.82 D
3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.83 D 0.96 E 0.65 B 0.75 C
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.84 D 1.01 F ........
5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.86 D 0.76 C
6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.73 C
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.73 C 0.88 D
8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.72 C 0.61 B
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.58 A 0.47 A
10 Grafion Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.34 A 0.44 A
1 ! Grafion Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.09 A 0.1~ A
12 Grafion Street/Gleason Drive Signal 0.45 A 0.37 A
13 El Charro Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.58 A 0.63 B
14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.62 B 0.75 C
15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.86 D 1.04 F
15A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Signal ........ 0.75 C 0.87 D
XX Fallon Road/New Intersection Signal ........ 0.60 A 0.68 B
16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.76 C 0.85 D
17 Falion Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.50 A 0.31 A
Note: * = Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio for signalized intersections
Table 4-6
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service -Tri-Valley Transportation Model
Cumulative Year 2025 )lus ECAP Alternative
Intersection Control Unmitigated Mitigated
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
* LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS
I Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.93 E 1.03 F ........
2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.71 C 0.81 D
3 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.80 D 0.93 E 0.65 B 0.76 C
4 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.82 D 1.03 F ........
5 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.84 D 0.77 C
6 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.72 C 0.73 C
7 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.72 C 0.87 D
8 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.71 C 0.62 B
9 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.57 A 0.47 A
10 Grafion Street/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.33 A 0.45 A
11 Grafion Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.10 A 0.13 A
12 Grafion Street/Gleason Drive Signal 0.41 A 0.35 ' A
13 El Charro Road/l-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.70 B 0.67 B
14 Fallon Road/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.74 C 0.84 D
15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.89 D 1.35 F ........
15A Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. w/New Int. Signal ........ 0.74 C 0.86 D
XX Fallon Road/New Intersection Signal ........ 0.78 C 0.96 E
16 Fallon Road/Central Parkway Signal 0.84 D 0.89 D
17 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive Signal 0.54 A 0.33 A
C) ~ .
TABLE 4-8
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL LEVEL OF IMPACT RELATIVE TO PROPOSED PROJECT:
IMPACT
No Development I No Project I Mitigated Traffic
Land Use No Impact Less I Similar
Population, Housing, and No Change Increase in Smaller Reduction
Employment Jobs/Housing in Jobs/Housing
Imbalance Imbalance
No Impact Additional Significant impact
significant impact at eliminated at one
one intersection; intersection
Traffic and Circulation significant impact
eliminated at one
intersection
Community Services and No Impact Similar Similar
Facilities
Public Utilities No Impact Less Less
Soils, Geology and No Impact Same Same
Seismicity
Biological Resources No Impact Less Same
Visual Resources No Impact Less Similar
Cultural Resources No Impact Possibly Less Same
Noise No Impact Similar , Similar
Air Quality No Impact Increased Emissions Fewer Emissions,
Still Significant
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 4-21
Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersect on #4 Intersection #5 Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Intersection #8
Dougherty/Dublin Haclenda/l.580 EB Ramps HeclendaA-580 WB Ramps Hacienda/Dublin Santa Rita/I-580 EB Ramp; rassajara/I-580 WB Ramps Tassajara/Dublin Tassjara/Central
- m o) ~-1~'7(1,178) - o.~ ~-754 (677) +1,055 (371)! +68 (77)
1,173 (1,~2)~ m~ ~
~(1,~ ~2 (1,447)~
~(1~1)~ ~. '~ ~m~'~ ~m' ~ (~5)~ ~.w ~ ~ 1~{112)~ ~o~
Inte*~U~ ~9 ;filog~tion ~10 ;.iem~tion ~11 Inters~tion ~12 Inter~ctlon ~13
Tassajar~Gle~n Gra~Dublln Gmffo~Cen~al Greff~Gleason El Charr~-580 EB Ramps
~ ~ ~ ~10 (10) m North
~ ~ ~ ~ (59) ~ ~ ~ Not to Scale
~ '~213(43) ~ ~(~ -
Inters~tl~ ~14 Inters~gon ~1~ Int~ ~Sa Intersection ~16 ~ ',, ae,~ ,,,' ~ Proposed
...Fallo~-580 Wa ~amps FalloNOublin Fallo~ublin Fallo~Central ~ ~ ", ~ ~ Proj~t
dl Ph~ [ , ~ , ~ '~
~0~) .
~ ~99 (728) ~1,419(~010 ~ ~(1~)~1,~(1,~ ~-~ ~143 (63)
~(1 ~)~ ~(1
__ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ s~i. ~ ~---. ..... , ' = ,, .).'~ '
Inters~tion ~17 /
e Existing Inters~tion 1~~' ~[ 1~ ~ CO~ ~SLVO. ~..
0 Future Intersection - ~ ~='B~ . ~l ~'~ /
.... . ., .' .
~ AM Peak Hour Volume ~X .2 ~ s7~~ ~,3
(~ PM Peak Hour Volume ~{~ {
_ ~ East Dublin Prnnorfio~
City of Dublin - East Dublin Properties
FIGURE
4-A
Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 + Mitigated Traffic ~
Land Use Alternative Turning Movement Volumes
157-143 - 7191 - LH
East Dublin Properties
FIGURE 4-B
Alameda County
Land Use Designations
Re,on rt~ Management
PD-
Community Park
Project,
PD-
Open SPaCe
PD-
General
Comme~ial
PD-
Campus
mu Y & somps
19149~up-EI R~flg4-A-exzone,l~l
1-580
Collier Can
R~oarte Managtm~nt
I.,~'ge Parcel Agriculture
Source: Dublin Ranch Area A PD,
Dublin Ranch Arras B-E PD,
East County Area Plan
Intersection #1 'Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Intersection #6 intersection #7 Intersection #8
Dougherty/Dublin Hacienda/I,580 EB Ramp~ Heclenda/I-580 WB Ramps Hacienda/Dublin Santa Rita/I-580 EB Ramps Taasajara/I-580 WB Ramps Tsesajara/Dublin Tassjara/Central
, ~ , . ~. ~- ~, ~ ~. ,
~cu'o~ ~-1216(1~8) ' 7; t~_998(1,097) ~o0a-!~-1.127(739 - - ~.-803(708) (~m +973(441) ~r~:~ +70(84)
,~J~,l~k ~-609(783) ~' ~-644 (658) ~Ai~-893(715) '~-4, ~._698(300) ~J~ ~-504 (551) ~J'~ ~'-502 (980) *~r~k J~-557(629)
14(~-.4 ~1~1~ 667(647)-~ ~l'~ ~ 58(69)~4 ~1~~ 78i (448)-~4 ~1~' !7 398 (949)-'4 ~1~1~ 33(39)-'4~1~
g67(1~3)? ~ 1.157 (1.072)-~ c%'"~ ~' ~05 (1 343)-~ ~-~ 102 (200)-~ ~ 534 (1,458)-~ 54 (63)'-~
i~[~(~,174)~ ~mm°)° eu° 483i858)'~ ~ 169(110)-'~ ~' ~ 200 (369)-~ ~'~'~
Intersec~on N) Intersection #10 Intersection #11 Intersection #12 Intersection #13
Tassajara/Gleaaon Grafton/Dublin Grafton/Central Grafton/Gleason El Charro/i-580 EB Ramps
~ ~-~ -~ North
. ~ ~_~0 (9) ~ ! Not to Scale
//-413 (252) ~ ,e-lA~8(1~57 .e-139 (56) ~J~ L~ ~'-1 (0)
~5 (2~4)~ 0 (2)-~ ~ '"
.~ ~ ~ , A~D oo.O ** Proposed
o~ ~ ;* " ' ; Project
Intersection #14 Intersection #15 Intersection #15a Intersection #16
Fallon/I-580 WB Ramps Fallon/Dublln Fallon/Dublin Fallon/Central ',~
~ ~,_966(1,306: ~ {~ ~--g02225) +902(225) ~o~ t~.197(168)
~5 (1,1~)~ ~5 (1 132)~ 43 (97)~ ~
LEGEND ~ ~ , , I ~ ,
· Existing Intersection '~ I~ ~ ~.~-~. ~, I
~~ O Futurelnters~tion ~ ~ .~, ~';
.... Future Roadway 1~~ ~ ~ ~ J~ . / x ~ .................
~' --~ XX AM Peak Hour Volume ~
.. ~ (~) PM Peak Hour Volume %~ ~
City of Dublin - East Dublin Properties
Tri-Valley Transportation Model Cumulative Year 2025 + ECAP Alternative
Turning Movement Volumes
157-143 - 7/01 - LH
aS'
'I
FIGURE .4-C
5.0 CEQA-REQUIRED DISCUSSIONS
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2 mandates discussion of the following topics in an EIR in
addition to those addressed in the project and alternatives impact assessment: cumulative
impacts; unavoidable significant adverse impacts; significant irreversible environmental
changes; and, growth inducing impact. These topics are addressed in Section 5.0 of the
Eastern Dublin EIR. Eastern Dublin EIR discussions of growth-inducing impacts and
significant irreversible changes are unchanged by the Project. Therefore, this section
summarizes the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) findings regarding the Project's identified
significant unavoidable and cumulative impacts, beyond those impacts identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR.
5.1 SUPPLEMENTAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 define "cumulative impacts" as "... two or more individual
effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase
other environmental impacts." Reasonably foreseeable development projects in the area
were fully considered in the Eastern Dublin EIR. A number of associated cumulative
impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the GPA/SP project. The cumulative
impacts addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, that are related to the impacts analyzed in this.
Supplement are summarized below.
· Cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands (Impact 3.1/F)
· Cumulative degradation of 1-580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road and
Fallon Road (Impact 3.3/A)
· Cumulative degradation of 1-580 freeway operations between 1-680 and Dougherty
Road (Impact 3.3/B)
· Cumulative degradation of 1-580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road and
Airway Boulevard (Impact 3.3/C)
· Cumulative degradation of 1-680 freeway operations north of 1-580 (Impact 3.3/D)
· Cumulative degradation of 1-580 east of Airway Boulevard and between Dougherty
and Hacienda (Impact 3.3/D)
· Cumulative degradation of Dublin Boulevard intersections with Hacienda Drive and
Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M)
· Cumulative degradation of Tassajara Road intersections with Gleason Road, Fallon
Road, and Transit Spine (Impact 3.3/N)
· Increased solid waste production and impact on solid waste disposal facilities
(Impacts 3.4/O, P)
· Future lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/E)
· Lack of current wastewater disposal capacity (Impact 3.5/G)
· Increase in demand for water (Impact 3.5/Q)
· Increase in potential flooding (Impact 3.5/Y)
· Increase in non-point sources of surface- and ground-water pollution(ImpaCt
3.5/AA)
· Direct habitat loss (Impact 3.7A)
· Loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat (Impact 3.7/C)
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 5-1
· Exposure of existing residence to future roadway noise (Impact 3.10/B)
· Dust deposition soiling nuisance from construction activity (Impact 3.11/A)
· Construction equipment/vehicle emissions ((Impact 3.11/B)
· Mobile source emissions of reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (Impact
3.11/C)
· Stationary source emissions (Impact 3.11/E)
The Project would create supplemental significant cumulative impacts beyond those already
addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The supplemental cumulative impacts identified in
this Supplement and further discussed in related impact analysis in Chapter 3 are:
AQ 1: Mobile Source Emissions. The Project and cumulative development would result in
mobile source emissions of Reactive Organics (RO), Nitrogen Oxide (Nox), and Particulate
Matter (PM-10) substantially exceeding Bay Area Air Quality Management District
significance thresholds and contribute to continued exceedences of state and federal Clean
Air Act ozone standards. Mitigation measures identified in this Supplement would reduce'
this impact, however it would remain cumulatively significant.
BIO 1: Direct and Indirect Habitat Loss. The Project and cumulative development would
significantly reduce habitat for special status species in the Eastern Dublin area. Thg
mitigation measures proposed in this SEIR would reduce the Project's contribution to this
impact to less than significant.
BIO 2: Loss of Rare Plant Species. The Project and cumulative development would
cumulatively significantly impact up to 13 species of rare plants not previously identified as
occurring or potentially occurring on the site. The mitigation measures proposed in this
SEIR would reduce the Project's contribution to this impact to less than significant.
BIO 3: Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitats. This supplemental analysis
identifies seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams as additional botanically sensitive
habitats that could be affected by direct and indirect impacts of development of the Project
area beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Mitigation measures identified in
this Supplement would reduce this impact, however it would remain cumulatively
significant.
TRAFFIC-6: Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Intersection Operations in Year 2025
Cumulative Buildout with Project Scenario. In this scenario, the Dougherty Road/Dublin
Boulevard intersection would operate at unacceptable levels of service during the AM and
PM peak hours. Mitigation measures identified in this Supplement would reduce this
impact, however it would remain cumulatively significant.
TRAFFIC-7: Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Intersection Operations in Year 2025
Cumulative Buildout with Project Scenario: In this scenario, the Hacienda Drive/Dublin
Boulevard intersecti6n would operate at unacceptable levels of service during the AM and
PM peak hours. Mitigation measures identified in this Supplement would reduce this
impact, however it would remain cumulatively significant.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 5-2
TRAFFIC-8: Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Intersection Operations in Year 2025
Cumulative Buildout with Project Scenario: In this scenario, the Fallon Road/Dublin
Boulevard intersection would operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS F [1.11]) during
the PM peak hour. Mitigation measures identified in this Supplement would reduce this
impact, however it would remain cumulatively significant.
TRAFFIC-II: 1-580 and 1-680 Operations in Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project
Scenario. Under this scenario, freeway segments in the Project area would operate at
unacceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. Mitigation measures
identified in this Supplement would reduce this impact, however it would remain
cumulatively significant.
5.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less
than significant level. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified nme unavoidable significant
adverse impacts (section 5.2). These are summarized below:
· Cumulative degradation of 1-580 freeway operations between 1-680 and Dougherty
Road (Impact 3.3/B)
· Under the Cumulative Buildout with Project scenario, cumulative freeway LOS will
exceed City significance thresholds (Impact 3.3/E).
· By the year 2010, development with the project will cause LOS F operations at the
intersection of Santa Rita Road with 1-580 eastbound ramps (Impact 3.3/I).
· Under the Cumulative Buildout with Project scenario, LOS will exceed City
significance thresholds at Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive and Dublin
Boulevard/Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/E).
· Project impacts on LOS at Tassajara Road intersections (Impact 3.3/N).
· Project contribution to regional ozone precursor emissions (Impact 3.11/C)
· Noise impacts on existing residents (Impact 3.10/B)
· Change in the area's visual character (Impact 3.8/B)
Significant and Unavoidable impacts identified in this Supplement all are cumulative
impacts. These impacts are summarized in Section 5.1, above. They are:
· AQ 1: Mobile Source Emissions;
· BIO 3: Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitats;
· TRAFFIC-6: Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard Intersection Operations in Year
2025 Cumulative Buildout with Project Scenario;
· TRAFFIC-7: Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard Intersection Operations in Year 2025
Cumulative Buildout with Project Scenario;
· TRAFFIC-8: Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard Intersection Operations in Year 2025
Cumulative Buildout with Project Scenario; and,
· TRAFFIC-II: 1-580 and 1-680 Operations in Year 2025 Cumulative Buildout with
Project Scenario.
EDPO Draft SELR Page 5-3
6. REFERENCES
6.1 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Ci_ty of Dublin
Eddie Peabody, Jr., AICP, Community Development Director
Anne Kinney, Associate Planner
Andy Byde, Associate Planner
M. Kathleen Faubion, City Attorney
John Bakker, City Attorney
Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney
Ray Kuzbari, P.E., Traffic Engineer
Kevin Van Katwyck, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer
EIR Preparers
The following individuals participated in the preparation of this document.
Kim Briones, Biologist, Sycamore. Associates, LLC (biology)
Lori Cheung, Environmental Planner, Cheung Environmental Consulting
Hans Giroux, Air Quality Specialist, Giroux & Associates (air quality)
Morgana Finnangara, Cant-us
Lori Hileman, Transportation Engineer, TJKM Transportation Consultants (traffic)
Connie Goldade-Erickson, MacKay & Somps
Richard Grassetti, Grassetti Environmental Consulting
Marylee Guinon, Sycamore Associates, LLC (biology)
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
Rich Illingworth, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (noise)
Michael Kent, Technical Associate, Michael Kent & Associates
Ki Klm, Transportation Engineer, TJKM Transportation Consultants (traffic)
Chris Kinzel, P.E., Transportation Engineer, TJKM Transportation Consultants (traffic)
Malcolm Sproul, Biologist, LSA Associates, Inc. (biology)
Jim Templeton, Engineer, MacKay & Somps
Other Agencies and Organizations Consulted
Chris Bazar, 2000. Assistant Planning Director, Planning Department, Alameda County,
December 2000
Gary Beeman, 2001. Wildlife Biologist, June 14, 2001
Annette Borges, 2000. District Manager, Livermore Dublin Disposal Services/Valley Waste
Management, November 2000
John Brode. See Biosystems Analysis 1989
Debbie Chamberlain, 2001. Senior Planner, City of San Ramon Planning
Department, February 2001
Paul Fassinger, 2000. Research Director, Association of Bay Area Governments, November
2000.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 6-1
Vivian Housen, 2001. General Manager, Livermore Amador Valley Water Management
Agency
Grainger Hunt, 2001. Wildlife Biologist. June 28, 2001
Buck Jones, 2000. Planning and Compliance Department, Pacific Gas & Electric, Co.,
November 2000
Ray Kuzbari, 2000. Associate Engineer, City of Dublin, December 2000.
Colleen Lenihan, 2000. Wildlife Biologist, M.S., November 8, 2000.
John Sugiyama, Dr., 2001. Superintendent, Dublin Unified School District.
Karen Swaim, 1996. Biologist, Swaim Biological Consulting, October 27, 1996.
Bob Thompson, 2000. Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility, November 2000.
Susan' E. Townsend, Ph.D., 2000. Wildlife Biologist, November 8, 2000.
Kevin Van Katwyk, 2000. Senior Civil Engineer, City of Dublin~ December 2000.
Bruce Webb, 2000. Senior Planner, Dublin San Ramon Sanitary District, November 2000 and
February 2001.
Scott Wilson, 2001. Wildlife Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game, January 29,
2001.
Vince Wong, 2000 and 2001. Assistant General Manager, Alameda County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), November 2000 and February 2001.
6.2 REFERENCES
Abrams, L.R., 1923-1960. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Washington, Oregon and
California. Vol. 4 by R. Ferris. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 4 vols.
Abrams, L.R., 1944, 1951. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), 1999. Zone 7
Water Agency Water Supply Planning Program Draft Program Environmental Impact Report,
January 1999. Prepared by Environmental Science Associates.
Alameda County Flood C~ntrol and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), 2000. Urban
Water Management Plan Update. October 2000.
Arnold, R., 1997. Dry Season Status surveys for Endangered Tadpole and Fairy Shrimp Taxa at the
Pacific Commons Project Site and Stevenson Mitigation Site in Fremont (Alameda County),
California. Report prepared for Catellus Development Corporation and Entrix, Inc.,
Entomological Consulting ServiceS, Ltd., Pleasant Hill, California.
Balestreri, A., 1981. Status of the San Joaquin kit fox at Camp Roberts, California. Contract No.
DAK-F03-81-M-C736; Califol*nia-Potytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. 30pp.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 6-2
Bass, R.E., A.I., Herson, K.M. Bogdan, 1999. CEQA Deskbook: A Step-by-step Guide on how to
Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Solano Press Books, Point Arena,
California. 414 pp.
BioSystems Analysis, Inc., 1989. East Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Draft
Biological Assessment. 73 pp.
Caires, T., D. Dawn, D. DiNunzio, A. Harris, N. Kogut, M. Kutelek, S. H. Ladd, J. Stanziano,
M. Stickler, and A. Webber, 1993. Preliminary Survey o. fBiodiversity in the Warm Springs
Seasonal Wetland, Alameda County, California. Prepared for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1979. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1980. See Biosystems Analysis I989.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1988. Special Animals. Natural Diversity
Data Base.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1995. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation. Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1998. Fish and Game Code 1998: Unabridged .
California Edition. LawTech Publishing Co. LTD. San Clemente, California. 548 pp.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2000a. Special Plants. Natural Diversity
Database. January.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2000b. Special Animals. Natural Diversity
Data Base. January.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2000c. State and Federally Listed
Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Natural Diversity Data Base. January.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2000d. State and Federally Listed
Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity
Data Base. January.
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), 1988. California Department of Fish and
Game. Sacramento, California.
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), 1991; California Department of Fish and
Game. Sacramento, California.
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), 1999. California Department of Fish and
Game. Sacramento, California.
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), 2000. Data Base Print-out,for the Livermore,
Tassajara, Byron Hot Springs, Altamont, Mendenhall Springs, La Costa Valley, Niles, Dublin, and
Diablo Quads.
California Native.Plant Society (CNPS), 2000. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plants of California. Version 1.5.1. Sacramento~ California.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 6-3
California Public Utilities Commission, 2000. Tri-Valley 2002 Electric Power Capacity Increase
Project Environmental Impact,
Camp,' Dresser, & McKee Inc., West Yost & Associates Consulting Engineers, and Jerome B.
Gilbert, Consulting Engineer, 2001. Programmatic Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin.
Prepared for Dublin San Ramon Services District, June 2001.
Cheatham and Hailer, 1975. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Chuang and Constance, 1969. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Chuang and Heckard, 1973. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
City of Dublin, 1998. Dublin General Plan. Adopted in February 1985 and revised in July
1998.
City of Dublin, 1992. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Report, AugUst 28, 1992.
City of Dublin, 1992. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report, Part I, December 7, 1992.
City of Dublin, 1992. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report, Part II, December 21, 1992.
City of Dublin, 1993. Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, May 4, 1993.
City of Dublin, 1994. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, January 7, 1994.
City of Dublin, 1994. Final Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, January 7, 1994.
City of Dublin, 1994. Addendum to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Update to Provide Sewer Service, August 22, 1994.
City of Dublin, 1997. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal
COde, Ordinance Number 20-97, Adopted September 2, 1997.
City of Dublin, 1998. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, June 6, 1998.
Csuti and Kleinsmith, 1982. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Dublin San Ramon Services District, 1993. Eastern Dublin Facilities Plan Final Report,
December 1993.
Dublin 'San Ramon Services District, 2000. Draft Urban Water Management Plan, May 2000.
Dublin San Ramon Services District, 2001. Preliminahd Water Service Analysis and Preliminary
Impact Analysis for East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation to City of
Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District, June 24, 2001.
Dublin San Ramon Services District, 2001. Wastewater Master Plan.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 6-4
Ellis, S. 1987. Alameda Whtpsnake: Five-year status report. California Department of Fish and
Game. 6pp.
Fowler, C.H., and R.T. Golightly Jr., 1994. Fisher and Marten Survey Techniques on the Tahoe
National Forest. Report for U.S. Forest Service. Contract No. PSW-90-0034CA. 64 pp.
Frenkel, R.E., 1977. Ruderal Vegetation Along Some California Roadsides, University of
California Press, Berkeley, California. 163 pp.
Garret and Dunn, 1981. See Biosystems Analysis I989.
Hall, Jr., F., 1983. Status of the San Joaquin Kit Fox at Bethany Wind Turbine Generating Project
Site, Alameda, California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
Hegdal et al., 1986. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Hitchcock, 1951. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Hoffman, 1952. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions o, f the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
California Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency. 156 pp.
Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
California Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency. 156 pp.
Hood, 1975-1977. See Biosysterns Analysis 1989.
Howell, 1972. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
H.T. Harvey and Associates, 1990. Rare Plant Survey oJ: the East Dublin Property, Alameda
County. 9 pp.
H.T. Harvey and Associates, 1993. Dublin Ranch: Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile Surveys.
16 pp.
H.T. Harvey and Associates, 1996a. Dublin Ranch: Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile
Surveys. 16 pp.
H.T. Harvey and Associates, 1996b. Dublin Ranch: 1995 Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile
Surveys. 9 pp.
H.T. Harvey and Associates, 1997a. (Revised). Dublin Ranch San Joaquin kit Fox Survey.
H.T. Harvey and Associates, 1997b. San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys, Dublin Ranch, Alameda
County: Phase L 1993 USFWS Protocot, Fall 1996.
H.T. Harvey and Associates, 1997c. Dublin Ranch San Joaquin Kit Fox Preliminary Report and
Results from Earlier Phases of Kit Fox Surveys.
H.T. Harvey and Associates; ~t998. Dublin Ranch: Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile Surveys.
15 pp.
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 6-5
H.T. Harvey and Associates, 1999. Dublin Ranch Areas F, G, and H (Pao Yeh Lin Property)
Ecological Impacts and Mitigation. 49 pp.
H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2000a. Dublin Ranch Golden Eagle Nest Buffer-Zone Analysis. 8
PP.
H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2000b. Project Area Biological Assessment for the California Red-
legged Frog. 40 pp.
H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2000c. Dublin Ranch Area A Golden Eagle Report. 10 pp.
H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2000d. Project Area Mitigation and Monitoring Plan - Dublin,
California.
H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2000b. Botanical Surveys, April 17. April 1990, June and October
1998, March 1999
Ingles, 1965. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997. Trip Generation.
Jenkins and Harris-Hailer, 1981. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Jennings, M. and G. Flohr. 2001. California Tiger Salamander Protocol-level Surveys for the Jordan
Ranch (report pending).
Jennings, M. and .G. Flohr. 2001. California Red-legged Frog Protocol-levd Surveys (in progress).
Jones and Stokes'Associates, Inc., 1983. Field Survey Results of the San foaquin kit fox Study at
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California; Prepared for
Earth Metrics, Burlingame, California.
Kartesz and Kartesz, 1980. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Kruckeberg, 1957, 1958. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Leonard and Gould, 1974. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency, 1997. Amended and Restated Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency, July
21, 1997.
Luckenbach, 1975. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
McMinn, 1939. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Monk and Associates, 1996. Vernal Pool Crustacean Surveys. Stonechase Project Site, Alameda
County, California. 66 pp + appendices.
Monk and Associates, 1997. Vernal Pool Crustacean Surveys. Stonechase Project Site, Alameda
County, California. 50 pp + appendices.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 6-6
Morrell, S.H. 1975. San Joaquin Kit Fox Distribution and Abundance in 1975. Administrative
Report 75-3, California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Branch,
Sacramento, California. 28 pp.
Munz and Keck, 1959. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Murie, 1954. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Murie, 1965. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
O'Farrell, T.P. 1983. San Joaquin Kit Fox Recovery Plan; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Sacramento, CA. 84 pp.
Orloff S., L. Spiegel and F. Hall. 1986. Distribution and Habitat Requirements of the San Joaquin
Kit Fox in the Northern Extreme of its Range; Wildlife Society - (CAL-NEV) Trans. West. Sec.
Wild. Soc. 22:60-70.
Orloff et. al., 1976. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Orloff, S., F. Hall, and L. Speigal. 1986. Distribution and Habitat Requirements of the San Joaquin
Kit Fox in the Northern Extreme of Their Range. Transactions of the Western Section of the
Wildlife Society 22:60-70.
Orloff in press. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Orloff, S., A.W. Flannery, and K.C. Belt. 1993. Identification of San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes
macrotis mutica) Tracks on Aluminum Tracking Plates. Calif. Fish and Game 79(2):45-53.
Remsen, J. V., 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. An Annotated List of
Declining or Vulnerable Bird Species; California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife
Management Branch Admin. Rept. No. 78-1.
Schemnitz, 1980. See B iosystems Analysis 1989.
Shilts Consultants, Inc., 2001. Draft Dublin Unified School District Study of Demographic
Projections and School Construction Revenue Analysis, June 2001.
Schitoskey, 1975. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Snow, 1973. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Stebbins and Major, 1985. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Swaim, Karen, 1994. Aspects of the Ecology of the Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus). Masters Thesis, Hayward State University. 140 pp.
Sycamore Associates LLC, Balance Hydrologics, dk Associates. 1996. Eastern Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program. Technical report prepared for the City of Dublin.
JLlne.
Sycamore Associates LLC. Biological Assessment for the Bankhead/Mandeville PrOperties. In
preparation.
EDPO Draft SEIR Page 6-7
Sycamore Associates LLC. Focused Botanical Surveys for the Bankhead/Mandeville Properties. In
preparation.
Sycamore Associates LLC. Site Assessment for California Red-legged Frog and California Tiger
Salamander at the Bankhead/Mandeville Properties (in preparation)-
Sycamore Associates LLC. Wetland Delineation and Preliminary jurisdictional Determination for
the Bankhead/Mandeville Properties. In preparation.
Thomas, J.W. (Tech. Ed), 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forest: The Blue Mountains of
Oregon and Washington; U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook 'No.
553, Washington, D.C. 512 pp-
TJKIM, 2000. A Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Areas F-H Development.
TJKM, 2000. A Traffic study for the Proposed Emerald Glen Apartments Development.
TJKM, 2000. A Traffic Study for the Proposed' Sybase Headquarters.
TJKM, 2000. A Traffic Study f°r the Proposed Marriott Hotel.
TJKM, 2001. A Traffic Study for the Proposed Residential Development on the Silveria Property on ,
Tassajara Road.
U,S. Army Corps of Engineers (usCOE), 1986. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Endangered
Species Biological Data Report; U.S. Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Sacramento,
California.
... rm Corps of Engineers (usCOE), 2000. Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of
U S A ,Y - '-- =~deral Register Vol. 65 (47): 12818-12899.
Nationwide ~,erm~rs. re .
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (usFWS), 1993. San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol For the
Northern Range. U.S. Fish and V ildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office, SacramentO,
California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (usFWS), 1996a. Endangered and Threatened Plant and Animal
Taxa; Proposed Rule. 50 CFR part 17. February 28.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1996b. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting
Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. September 23.
tic Formal Endangered Species Act
SFWS), 1996c. Pro.gr.,amm, a.'. _,.. c,,,,l ffects on Listed Vernal
U,S. Fish and wildlife Service (U ...... ~'~*s wirn Retar~ve~'y ~,,~l EJ'fe
Consultation on Issuance of 404 Permits
Pool Crustaceans within the Jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field Office, California. February 28.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1997. San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol For the
Northern Range..U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office, SacramentO;
California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1997a. Standardization Recommendations For
Disturbance. U.S. Fish and
Service, Sacramento-Field Office, Sacramento, California.
ProteCtion of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground
Wildlife
Page 6-8
EDPO Draft SEIR
U.S. Fish and wildlife Service (usFWS), 1997b. Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field
Surveys for California Red-Legged Frog. Sacramento, California.
U.S. Fish and wildlife Service (usFWS), 1998. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
50 CFR 17.11 & 17.12. December 31.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (usFWS), 1999. Survey Protocol for the San [oaquin Kit Fox for
the Northern Range· june 1999.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Proposed Determination and Critical Habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus). March 8.
· and Wildlife Service (usFWS), 2000a. Dra~ Recovery Plan for the California Red-
~e~e~hrog (Rana aurora draytonii).13.S. Fish and Wildlife Service' P°rtland' Oreg°n' 258
Nevada;
pP.
Verner, J. and A.S. Boss. 1980. California Wildlife and Their Habitats: Western Sierra
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-37: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experimental Station., USDA,
Forest service. Berkeley.
Wallace, 1976. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Weinstein, 1978. See Biosystems Analysis 1989.
Weslar, H.B. 1987. The Range of the San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes Macrotis Mutica) North of Kings
County, California. M.S. Thesis, California State University, Iqayward. 99 pp.
.. ' les, 1999. Water Supply Planning study Update. Prepared for Alameda
Water Transf.er Ass~c~a er Conservation D~str~ct (Zone 7). February 1999.
County Flood Control and War September 2000. Prepared for the Dublin
West Yost & Associates, 2000. Water Master Plan,
San Ramon Services District.
willams, D.F. 1986. Mammal Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of
Fish and Game. 111 pp.
Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In A. Poole and F. Gill iedsl, The Birds
of North America, No. 231. AcacL Nat. Sci. Philadelphia; and Amer. Onithol. Union,
Washington, D. C.
Zander Associates. 2000. Request for jurisdictional Determination for the Jordan Ranch,. April
EDPO Draft SEIR
Page 6-9