Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 6.3 EDubProp PDPrezone
CITY CLERK 450-30 AG E N DA STATEM E NT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 2, 2001 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 00-025 Eastern Dublin Properties Planned Development (PD) Prezone (Stage 1 Development Plan) (Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner) ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance approving a Planned Development (PD) Prezone (with the Prezoning Exhibit attached as Exhibit A-1 and Stage 1 Development Plan attached as Exhibit A-2) Project area map East Dublin Property Owners Stage 1 Development Plan Submission Notice of Preparation/Initial Study Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) Comments Received on DSEIR RECOMMENDATION: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Hear Staff Presentation Open Public Hearing Hear Applicant's Presentation Question Staff, Applicant and the Public Close Public Hearing Deliberate Waive Reading and introduce Ordinance (Attachment 1) adopting a Planned Development (PD) Prezone Stage 1 Development Plan (with the Prezoning Exhibit attached as Exhibit A-1 and Development Plan attached as Exhibit A-2) Continue the public hearing for the Ordinance to the October 16, 2001, City Council meeting. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project area is approximately 1,120 acres in size 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 Project area abuts the eastern Dublin City limit boundary. Approximately 472 acres of the Project area are included within the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan boundary, while the remainder is within the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area. The entire Project area is located within the City COPIES TO: Applicant(s) Property Owners PA file ITEM NO. ~ of Dublin's General Plan Planning Area and Sphere of Influence (SO1). The Project area consists of thirteen (13) different parcels of land, under eleven (11) separate ownerships (See Aerial Photo under Project References contained within Exhibit A- 1). The Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) are the applicants for this proposed annexation and prezoning. The EDPO consist of the following property owners: Campbell~ Branaugh, Anderson, Braddock and Logan, Chen, and Fallon Enterprises. The table below includes a list of all of the properties within the Project area and includes the following information: owners, APN's, acreages, locations, and if the property owner is consenting to the annexation (see the aerial photograph included under Project References contained within Attachment 3 for locations of APNs). Assessor Parcel Consent Address Area Proper.ty Owner No. to Annex? 905-0001-004-03 Yes North ofi-580, 8.8 ac Campbell east of Croak Rd. 905-0001-004-04 Yes North ofi-580, 39.8 ac Branaugh east of Croak Rd. 905-0001-005-02 Yes NorthofI-580, 48.8 ac RighettiPartners east of Croak Rd. 985-0006-006-03 Yes North ofi-580, 48.9 ac Anderson Second Family Limited east of Croak Rd. Partnership 905-0002-002 Not at Approx. 1 mile 164 ac Croak 905-0002-001-01 this north of 1-580, east time of Fallon Rd., north & east of Jordan Ranch 905-0002-003 Yes Approx. 1 mile 160.9ac Braddock & Logan Group north 0fi-580, east of Jordan Ranch 985-0006-004 Yes North east 136 ac Chen Quadrant of 1-580 at Fallon Rd. 985-0006-006-02 Not at North ofi-580, .8 ac EBJ Partners, L.P. this west of Croak Rd. time 905-0001-006-03 Not at North ofi~580, .2 ac Pleasanton Ranch Investments this east of Croak Rd. time 985-0006-010 Not at 4233 Fatlon Road 189 ac First American Title Guaranty Co., 985-0006-009 this (Jordan Charitable Trust) time 985-0007-002-.14 Yes East of Current 313.8 ac Fallon Enterprises City of Dublin Limits, North of Jordan Ranch The proposed Project includes: prezOning the area to the City of Dublin PD-Planned Development Zoning District and considering a related Stage 1 Development Plan to guide future development of the Project Area, annexation of the Project area to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), detachment from Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD), and the execution of a pre-annexation agreement with the consenting property owners. Annexation: The project site is currently within unincorporated portion of Alameda County. In order for the project to come under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin, and to receive urban services from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), annexation of the site to the City and to DSRSD must be approved by the.Alameda County Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCo), which is a State mandated local agency that oversees boundary changes to cities and speciai districts, the formation of new agencies including incorporation of new cities, and the consolidation of existing agencies. In order for the area to be annexed into the City of Dublin, LAFCo requires the area be prezoned, and that prezoning must be consistent with the approved General Plan and Specific Plan uses for the property. The PD Prezoning proposed for adoption wOuld address this requirement, and would establish the appropriate land uses to be in effect at the time the project site becomes a part of the city. (See below.) City Staff will be coming before the City Council on October 16, 2001 with a request to authorize Staffto submit a formal application to LAFCo to initiate annexation/reorganization of. this to the City. LAFCO has established spheres of influence for the City and DSRSD. A "Sphere of Influence" is the probable physical boundary and service area that a local governmental agency is expected to serve in the future. Establishment of this boundary is necessary to determine which governmental agencies can provide services in the most efficient way to the people and property in any given area. The entire Project area is within the sphere of influence (SOD of Dublin and has been since LAFCo originally established the eastern SOI boUndary for the City in 1983. The project area is also within the SOI for Dublin San Ramon Services District (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 3000 feet west of the Project area by various developers within the Dublin Ranch Area. Planned Development Prezoning: Development under the proposed PD prezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan would reflect the land uses specified in the current City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The uses 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, a portion of a community park, and a multi-use trail system to link the developed areas with the parks and trails within project open space. A Planned Development (PD) Prezoning has been prepared for the subject property to establish regulations for future use. The proposed land uses are as shown on the Prezoning Exhibit, labeled Exhibit A-1 of Attachment 1 to the staff report. The proposed land uses are consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan. The draft PD District provisions (Attachment 1) specify the intent, intensity of use, permitted and conditional uses of the land use designations in accordance with the 'Specific Plan sand General Plan. Any future residential development on this property shall conform to the policies and intent of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan including the design guidelines. Page 4 of Attachment 3 shoWs the potential development of the area. No development may occur until a Stage 2 Development Plan is adopted by the City identifying regulations for the improvement and maintenance of the property in accordance with Dublin's Zoning Ordinance. 'Properties not currently subject to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would also need to apply for a Specific Plan prior to or concurrently with the Stage 2 Development Plan. The Stage 1 Development Plan proposes an "Existing Agricultural and Residential Uses" land use that would allow the existing residential and agricultural uses approved under the Alameda County's Zoning Ordinance to remain until such time the landowner of this property applies for a Specific Plan as applicable, and Stage 2 Development Plan in accordance with Section 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, to develop the property. Staff finds the project to be consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations and policies and recommends the City Council find the project consistent with adopted General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Project includes the same land uses and densities as approved in the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and as analyzed in the related EIR. The City prepared an Initial Study for the Project to determine if any subsequent environmental review was required beyond'the 1993 EIR. The Initial Study concluded that much of the impact analysis in the t 993 EIR continues to apply to the Project. However, the Initial Study concluded that additional environmental review was required under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162. and 15163 based primarily on newly identified sensitive biological speCies, substantially increased regional .traffic and related noise and air quality effects, and on potential power shortages. A Draft Supplemental EIR was prepared and was circulated for public review. The comment period was open from July 31, 2001, to September 14, 2001. The City received 12 comment letters during the public review. City Staff anticipates returning to the City Council on October 16, 2001, to review: (1) the comments letters, (2) Staff's responses to the comments, both as compiled in a Final Supplemental EIR. Subject to the City Council's review of the previous items, Staff will be asking the Council to: (1) Certify the Supplemental EIR, (2) make all the findings to approve the project under CEQA, and (3) approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. The following, environmental issues were analyzed in the Draft Supplemental EIR: Agricultural Resources: The 1993 EIR analyzed conversion of agricultural lands due to development of the Eastern Dublin area, including the Project site. The Draft Supplemental EIR examined recent changes in the definition of "prime" agricultural lands under AB 2838 and determined that the new definition would not result in conversion of more. prime agricultural lands than in the 1993 EIR. The Draft Supplemental EIR also determined that cancellation rather than non-renewal of Williamson Act contracts on the Project area was not a new significant impact. Air Quality: The 1993 EIR identified cumulative air quality impacts as a significant unavoidable imPact of development in Eastern Dublin. In 1998, the EPA downgraded Bay Area air quality to "non-attainment" for ozone and new, strict standards have been adopted for "precursor" pollutants, which lead to ozone formation. Even 'with mitigation, the. Project exceeds those standards, therefore the Draft Supplemental EIR identifies significant unavoidable air quality impacts. Biology: Numerous sensitive habitats and protected species potentially occur on the site, as described in the 1993 EIR, which identified the cumulative loss of sensitive habitat as a significant unavoidable impact of development in Eastern Dublin. The Draft Supplemental EIR identified new sensitive species and habitats, which could potentially be affected by development of the Project area. It also analyzed the 4 effect of recent regulatory changes such as USFWS' designation of critical habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog. The Draft. Supplemental EIR updated previously adopted mitigation measures to ensure implementation of the most current species survey protocols; however even with mitigation, cumulative loss of sensitive habitat was identified as a significant unavoidable impact. Noise: The 1993 EIR concluded that projected increases in noise from development of Eastern Dublin could be reduced to less than significant through acoustical mitigation, except in the case of existing residences 'for which noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The Draft Supplemental EIR concluded that noise from increaSed regional traffic beyond the 1993 EIR projections would also be significant and unavoidable for existing homes. Acoustical mitigation would continue to be required for future residences and businesses in the Project area. Traffic and Circulation: The Draft Supplemental EIR concluded that increased regional traffic beyond that anticipated in the 1993 EIR would result in potentially significant impacts on several intersections and road segments. Mitigation measures in the Draft Supplemental EIR proposed improvements to reduce these impacts to less than significant except at Cumulative Buildout for 2025 for three Dublin Boulevard intersections and for 1-580 and 1-680 freeway segments. Utilities and Service Systems: The Draft Supplemental EIR analyzed whether utility and services impacts have substantially changed since the 1993 EIR. Substantial changes were identified with respect to water supplies, and electrical power supply and distribution; mitigation measures were also identified to reduce these impacts to less than significant. Environmental.4nalysis Conclusion: The project is within, the Dublin General Plan's Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, which was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report, certified by the City of Dublin in 1993. The General Plan/Specific Plan EIR is a program EIR, which analyzed the environmental issues related to the land use locations, development plans and policies contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The EIR also anticipated several subsequent actions related to future development in Eastern Dublin. The EIR did identify some impacts from implementation of the General Plan/Specific Plan that were not able to be mitigated. Upon certification of the EIR, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for several impacts, some of which relate to this project. The City also adopted a mitigation monitoring program, which included measures intended to reduce impacts from the develoPment of Eastern Dublin area. These mitigation measures apply to project approvals and actions at various stages in the development process, and will be applied to this project as applicable. The timing of these mitigation measures is indicated in the City's EIR mitigation monitoring matrix (City Council Resolution # 53-93). The Initial Study and Draft Supplemental EIR thoroughly and comprehensively assessed the potential for the Project to Cause or contribute to significant impacts beyond those identified in the 1993 EIR. Where new potentially significant impacts were identified, appropriate mitigation measures were also proposed to reduce or avoid the impacts. These impacts will be addressed in mitigation findings upon City Council approval of the Project. Even with mitigation, however, certain new impacts cannot be reduced to less than significant and any City approval of the Project will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. At that time, the City will also adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program to ensure 'compliance with mitigation measures proposed in the Supplemental EIR. PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT: The goals and policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require annexation and new development to be revenue neutral. Prior to the submittal of the annexation request to LAFCo, the consenting property owners within the annexation area will be required to enter into a pre-annexation agreement with the City. The agreement will assure that the financing goals and policies of the Specific Plan are met. City Staff anticipates returning to the Council on October 16, 2001, with a request to execute a Pre- Annexation agreement. DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: The Dublin General Plan policies state "schools located within the city should be operated by the Dublin Unified School District". It is the intent of the City that the boundaries of the Dublin School District should be coterminous with the City limits. The project site is currently located within the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. The detachment of the Project area from the Livermore School District and annexation to the Dublin School District is not subject to LAFCo approval. The Planned Development Prezone contains a provision which requires that the applicant cooperate and actively work with other property owners within the City of Dublin's sphere of Influence to initiate and complete the annexation process to the Dublin Unified School District. CONCLUSION: The proposed Planned Development Prezone and Annexation request for the Project area is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The project ,will accommodate the logical extension of public services within Eastern Dublin and will provide for future land uses anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and City of Dublin General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council, deliberate and adopt the following: 1. Waive reading and introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 1) adopting a Planned Development (PD) Prezone/Development Plan for Project area (with the Prezoning Exhibit attached as Exhibit A-1 and the Development Plan attached as Exhibits A-2); and 2. Continue the public hearing for the Ordinance to the October 16, 2001, City Council meeting. G:\PA#L2000\00-025\CC Staff Reports and Resos\cc pd staff report 9-24-01 .doc 6 ORDINANCE NO. - 01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO PREZONE PROPERTY AND APPROVE A STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FoR 1,120 ACRES EAST OF FALLON ROAD PA 00-025 WHEREAS, the applicant, Braddock and Logan on behalf of the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO), .has requested approval of a Planned Development (PD) Prezoning, Stage 1 Development Plan, and reorganization of an area of approximately 1,120-acres generally located in an unincorporated area of Alameda County bounded by Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south andFallon Road to the west, located east of the current City Limits and within the Eastern Dublin' Specific Plan area (APNs: 985-0007-002-14, 905-0002-003, 985-0006-010, 985-0006-009, 905-0002-0~)2, 905-0002-00i-01,985-0006-004, 985-0006- 006-02, 985-0006-006-03, 905-0001-006-03, 905-0001-005-02, 905-0001-004-04, 905-0001-004-03), which reorganization includes the annexation of the territory to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District and the detachment of the territory from the Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District; and WHEREAS, a complete application for the project is available and on file in the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Prezoning and a Stage 1 Planned Development application to the City as required by Section 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Unless otherwise specified, reference to the Prezoning also include the required the Stage 1 Development Plan; and WHEREAS, proper notice of this public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the City Council certified a program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP Project and an addendum thereto, dated May 4, 1993 (SCH 91103064). On August 22, 1994, the City Council approved another addendum to update plans and provide sewer service. 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; and WHEREAS, upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP Project, the City Council adopted mitigation findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring program as set forth in Resolution 53-93, included in the' Draft Supplemental EIR referenced below; and WHEREAS,. the Project is consistent with the type, location and density of land uses approved through the GPA/SP Project. All mitigation measures adopted for the GPA/SP Project continue to apply to implementing projects such as the current annexation and prezoning Project; and all applicable City development ordinances and standards apPly to the Project except as otherwise' approved through the Project prezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the City completed an Initial Study for the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 and determined that a Supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR ("Supplemental EIR") was required in order to analyze substantial changes in circumstances and new information since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. A Notice of Preparation dated May 25, 2001, was circulated with the Initial Study to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the Supplemental EIR; and Attachment 1 WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study and responses to the Notice of t'reparation, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental EIR dated July 2001 and consisting of two bound volumes. Volume 1 contains the Draft Supplemental EIR text; Volume 2 contains appendices, including the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study. The 2-volume Draft Supplemental EIR (SCH 2001052114) is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Draft Supplemental EIR was circulated for the required 45 day public review period, from July 31, 2001 through September 14, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on said applications on September 25, 2001, and did adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Planned Development Prezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan for PA 00-025; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City CoUncil On October 2, 2001; and October 16, 2001; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the application; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Planned Development Prezone/Stage 1 Development Plan for PA 00-025: The proposed Planned Development Prezone/Stage 1 Development Plan meets the intent and purpose of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance because it provides a comprehensive Development Plan which will create a desirable use of land and an environment that will be sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layom and design of the site plan; and The Planned Development Prezone wilt be appropriate for the subject property in terms of setting forth the purpose, applicable provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses and development standards, which will be compatible with existing and proposed residential and open space uses in the immediate vicinity and will enhance the development of the area; and The Planned Development Prezone will provide for the future development of the property. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan specified the Project Area as subareas D, E, G, and H to be developed with residential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses as well as uses including public schools and parks; the project is consistent with the general provisions, intent, and purpose of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and will contribute towards implementation of said Plan; and The Planned Development Prezone is consistent with the general provisions, intent, and purpose of the PD Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance in that it contains all information required by Section 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance and accomplishes the objectives of Section 8.32.010, A through H, of the Zoning Ordinance; and o The Planned Development Prezone will provide efficient use of land and will preserve an area of open space and undisturbed hillside along the north and primarily the northeast 2 comer of the property; and will be compatible with and enhance the general development of the'area; and will create an attractive, efficient and safe environment; and The Planned Development Prezone will not have a substantial adverse effect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement, as all applicable regulations will be met; and The Planned Development Prezone will not overburden public services or facilities as all agencies must commit to the availability of public services prior to the issuance of any building permits as required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies and Mitigation Measures contained within the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Eastern Dublin Properties Supplemental EIR; and The Planned Development Prezone will be consistent with the land use designations and policies of the Dublin General Plan; and The Planned Development Prezone will benefit the public necessity, convenience and general welfare; and 10. The adopted Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program and the additional site specific mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin Properties Supplemental EIR will apply to the Project, as the reporting and monitoring program required by Public Resources Code 21081.6 for the Project. WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, the Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map is amended to prezone the following property ("the Property") to a Planned Development Zoning District: 1,120-acres generally located in an unincorporated area of Alameda County bounded by Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south and Fallon Road to the west, located east of the current City Limits and within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (APNs: 985-0007-002-14, 905-0002- 003, 985-0006-010, 985-0006-009, 905-0002-002, 905-0002-001-01, 985-0006-004, 985- 0006-006-02, 985-0006-006-03, 905-0001-006-03, 905-0001-005-02, 905-0001-004-04, 905- 0001-004-03). A map of the rezoning area is shown below: DUBLIN East Dublin Properties] ~ICl'NrrY MAP ........ PLEASANTON SECTION 2. The regulations of the use, develoPment, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the Stage 1 Development Plan for the Project Area (Exhibits A-1 & A-2, hereto) which are hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. SECTION 3. No development shall occur on this property until a Specific Plan, as applicable, and Stage 2 Development Plan have been adopted by the City. Except as provided in the Stage 1 Development Plan, the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the Property shall be governed by the provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 4. The goals and policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require annexation and new development to be revenue neutral. Prior to the submittal of the annexation request to LAFCo, all consenting property owners within the annexation area will be required to enter into a pre-annexation agreement with the City. The agreement will assure that the financing goals and policies of the Specific Plan are met. 4 SECTION 5. ¢>~'~ General Plan Policy 4.1 states, "Schools' located within the city should be operated by the Dublin Unified School District". It is the intent of the City that the boundaries Of the Dublin School District should be coterminous with the City limits. The property owners within this annexation area shall cooperate and actively work with other property owners within the City of Dublin's Sphere of Influence to initiate and complete the detachment process from the Livermore Val!ey Joint Unified School District and annexation process to the Dublin Unified School District. SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced upon the effective date of the annexation. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted: in at least three (3) public places in the City of. Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 2001, by the following votes: __th day of AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:~PA#X2000\00-025\CC StaffReports and Resos\CC 1st PD or&doc 5 -. jH- Juh'i~ High School . L- L0w. D~'ns!~ R'eslde~ti~l 'M ~ Me~i~irn:~e~nsi~ Residential · SH~ Medlurh' High Densi~ Residential - Neighb6'rh~od' Square · NP - Neighborhood Park CP- ~0mmuni~ Pa~k OS.- op,~ sp~ '..': R~ - Rural Residential / Agrkulture NC - Neighborhood Commercial GC ~ General Commercial i MS CO Zone $ Tank CP CO I I Dooi~n West I ! [;UT ?d~ STUDY AEEA AGRICULTURE East Dublin Properties 5rage I Developmen~ Plan M_ASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN Recycled Water System (by rroe*ew ~e~s) Recycled Water System (W ot~c~*) 5term Dran 5ys~em ~ omen,) Pump.5~abon / Tumoub / Tank 5~e Frojec~ 5~te Doundary plan is conceptual and based Upon D~RSD's Master Plan. Size and location of utilities will be verified as land plans and demands are developed. tlvermor~ VaU~y Jom~ ..... mACKAY 8[ SomPs O5 Croak Guaranf.~_C~J_ .... ; } East Dublin Properties ~5~aOe I D~v~loFm~n~ Plan PHASING PLAN ,~,~,.o/ Inv~sCm~n'C5 mAllKA~&~omPs T [ J / East Dublin Properties ,~:a~je I Development; Pla~ MASTER NEIGHBORHOOD LANDSCAPE PLAN and PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CIRCULATION PLAN i~ ; ,, ; ; , NORTN ¢ 20o' 400' ~oo' Maxf~num number of Residential Units and Maximum Non-Residential Square Footage For the Eastern Dublin Properties PA 00-025 NORTH SOUTH PARKWAY STRIP SIDEWALK PUBLIC SERVICE/- LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ' ' -~ IDiXE~rRAVEL~RAVELI~RAVm MEDIAN/ ' ~.AV~,mAVmLITmAVm{I~,K~I'~I~ -PAm~AV svmm ~N~NE ~NE ~NE TURN ~NES ~NE' ~NE ' ~NE '~NE'~ -SIDEWALK 58' 6~' ~ - PUBLIC SERVICE/ 148' ~NDSCAPE EASEMEN. R0~ ROW 1. DUBLIN BOULEVARD - 148' ROW N.T.S. East Dublin Properties 5tage I Development Plan STREET SECTIONS 10' 8'~ 8'~ 8'.,. 12' ~ 12'. 14'-18' 12' , 12' 1.8'.1.8'.1.8' 1C[_J PARKWAY STRIP y ljIPKG["I'RAVEL[I'RAVEL MED,AN/TRAVEI~TRAVEL~PKG1%-] ' -- PARKWAY STRIP SIDEWALK -- LANDLANE ~LANE TURN LANE· LANE q_ANI,~ ' ~- -I- SIDEWALK PUBLIC SERVICE/-- J 48' . LANES . 48' -- .0'-m' ~- [-- PUBLIC SERVICE/ LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ROW ROW LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 2. CENTRAL PARKWAY - 110' -114' ROW N.T.S. IllAOKAY&$OmPS PARKWAY STEIP SIDEWALK PUBLIC SERVICE/- LANDSCAPE EASEMENT WEST EAST 10' _6'.1_6'_~ 8' ~ 12' ~, 12' ~ 12' 16' 12' ~ 1W, 1W MEDIAN) _j I ILANEILANE/LANE LANE TURN LANE/ LANE I LANE ~, 56' , ~NES128, ' 56' ROW ROW 3. FALLON ROAD (North of Central Parkway) - 128' ROW N.T.S. - PARKWAY STRIP - SIDEWALK - PUBLIC SERVICE/ LANDSCAPE EASEMENT East Dublin Properties 5~:aVJe I Developmant Plan STREET SECTIONS WEST EAST 10' 16'~6'~ 8' I. 12' ~. 12' , 12' , 12' . PARKWAY STRIP ' - L_ ~ iBIK~RAVE~RAVEL[rRAVEL~rRAVEI~ S,DEW,',LK___/'---- - -- ' -UN'~LANE'6~NE'LANE LANE[ ROW 28' MEDIAN/ TURN LANES 164' 12'.~ 12' I 12' ~ 12'.1~8'~6'~6'l 10'_l ITRAVE~RAVEL~RAVEL~RAVE~I~IK~I L-~I I-PARKWAY STRIP LANE! LANE |LANE |LANE ~ANg I~.~ / 68' . ] - SIDEWALK ' I L__[ PUBLIC SERVICE/ J ]- ~NDSCAPE EASEMENT ROW 4. FALLON ROAD (South of Central Parkway) - 164' ROW N.T.S. mACKAY S0mPS I,~o',18',!~' ~' ~z/ ~o' PARKWAY STRIP ] IPKG]TRAVEI~ MEDIAN/ MULTI-USE TRAIL--- -/ LANE LANE[ TURN PUBLIC SERVICE/~ 38' [ IANE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT · ROW g2' 5. CLASS H COLLECTOR - 92' ROW N.T.S. 12' [ 8'1 8~[ 8' 10' ~'RAVE~{ ~KG{ ' PARKWAY STRIP tlANE LANE ---~~- MULTI-USE TRAIL I. 3o' PUBLIC SERV,CE/ LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ROW East Dublin Properties Dtaoel Development Plan STREET SECTIONS SIDEWALK LANE LANE LANE 'LANE --SIDEWALK 36' 36' PUBLIC SERVICE/ J '! 72' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ROW ROW LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 8' , 5', 34' OR 36' ~ 5', 8' , PUBLIC SERVICE/ ~-/ ] -I-~. -- SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ~----PUBLIC SERVICE/ SIDEWALK-- / 4-4' OR 46' . LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ROW ROW 6. RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR - 72' ROW N.T.S. 7. RESIDENT/AL STREET- 44' CUL-DE-SAC OR 46' STREET ROW (Public) N.T.S. mA :KAY&SmPS STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN EASTERN DUBLIN PROPERTIES (PA 00-025) This is a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance for the Eastern Dublin Properties project, bounded by Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south and Fallon Road to the west and the City Sphere of Influence line on the east (APNs: 985~0007-002-14, 905-0002-003, 985-0006-010, 985-0006-009, 905-0002-002, 905-0002-001-01,985-0006-004, 985-0006-006-02, 985-0006-006-03, 905-0001-006-05, 905-0001-005-02, 905-0001-004-04, 905-0001-004-03). This Development Plan meets all of the requirements for Stage I review of the project, This Development Plan is alsO represented by the, Aerial Photo, Stage I Site Plan, Master Infrastructure Plan, Phasing Plan, Master Neighborhood Landscape Plan/Pedestrian~icycle Circulation Plan, Maximum Non-Residential Square Footage/Residential Units Table, and Street Sections sheets dated November 2000 and Revised July 2001 labeled Exhibit A-1 to the Ordinance approving this Development Plan (City Council Ordinance No. O1 - ), and on file in the Planning Department. The Planned Development District allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and provisions of Section 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. Zoning: This PD Planned Development Zoning District is to provide for and regulate the development of the Eastern Dublin Properties as shown on Exhibit A-1. (General Plan land use designations include: General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Industrial Park, Rural Residential/Agriculture, Single Family Residential, Medium Density 'Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, High Density Residential, Schools, Parks, and Open Space) 2. Permitted Uses: The following are uses permitted for this site: A) PD General Commercial Intent: General Commercial land use designations are established to: a) accommodate a range of regional-serving and community-serving retail and mixed use projects incorporating retail, service and/or office used with residential used when location and design ensure compatibility: b) provide appropriately located areas for retail stores, offices, service establishments, amusement establishments, and wholesale businesses to concrete for the convenience for the public and in mutually beneficial relationship to each other; d) provide space for community facilities and inStitutions that appropriately may be located in commercial areas; d) provide adequate space to meet the needs of modern commercial development, including off-street .parking and truck loading areas; and e) minimize traffic congestion and to avoid overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the amount of land around them. Exhibit A-2 Intensity of Use: .20 - .60 Floor Area Ratio Permitted Uses: Office and service establishments including, but not limited to: Accounting Architect Athletic Club Cleaner and dryer, not including on-site processing Communication Technology Development Employment Agency Formal wear/rental Hair/Beauty Salon Internet Technology Development Key Shop Legal Medical and Dental Optometrist Other administrative and professional offices Real Estate / title offices Shoe repair Software Development Tailor Technology access center Tele-commuting center Tele-marketing center Travel Agency Conditional Uses: Community, religious and charitable institutional facilities Drive-through establishments (also drive-in) Eating and drinking establishments In-patient and out-patient facilities as licensed by the State Department of Health Services Other conditional permitted uses which meet the intent of the zone shall be considered by the Planning Commission on an individual case basis Public facilities and uses Retail commercial establishments to serve site users Veterinary office 'Accessory Uses: All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Temporary Uses: Temporary Construction Trailer Outdoor Sale (on-site) by established business Festival/Street Fair Office Trailer Christmas Tree/Pumpkin sales lot Arts and Crafts Fair Farmers Market Newspaper Recycling Bin B) PD Neighborhood Commercial Intent: Neighborhood Commercial land use designations are established to: a) provide for the creation of community-oriented and neighborhood-oriented commercial centers to serve local retail, service and entertainment needs; and b) provide for mixed use projects incorporating combinations of commercial, service, office and/or residential uses. Intensity of Use: .25 - .60 Floor Area Ratio Permitted Uses: Automobile/Vehicle Brokerage Banks and Financial Services, including, but not limited to: Mortgage services Investment services Credit unions Copying (photocopying) and blueprinting Office: Administrative Professional, including, but not limited to: Medical Dental Optometrist Legal Counseling Personal Services, including but not limited to: Beauty/barber salons Dry cleaners (no plant on premises) Florists Tailor/seamstress Travel agencies Repair Shop, including but not limited to: Jewelry repair Small appliance repair shops Shoe Watch Retail stores, including but not limited to: Apparel and shoe stores Art galleries and art supply stores Book/video stores Boutiques/gift shops Drug stores/pharmacies Grocery stores/delicatessens Hardware stores Home d6cor/kitchen supply stores Office supply/stationery stores Post office (US or other) Restaurants (incl. take-out service) Conditional Uses: Schools, including but not limited to: Business General tutoring Music or art schools Trade Studios, martial arts, dance, general fitness etc. (gymnasiums and health clubs), Accessory Uses: All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Temporary Uses: Temporary Construction Trailer Outdoor Sale (on-site) by established business Festival/Street Fair Office Trailer Christmas Tree/Pumpkin sales lot Arts and Crafts Fair Farmers Market NewspaPer Recycling Bin C) PD Industrial Park Intent: Accommodates a wide variety of minimum-impact, light industrial uses, . provided these activities do not produce offensive levels of noise, dust, glare, or odor. Residential uses are not permitted within this designation. Intensity of Use: Maximum .35 Floor Area Ratio Permitted Uses: Ambulance service Industrial- heavy Industrial- light including but not limited to: Laboratory Office- contractors Parking lot/garage- commercial Printing and publishing Research and development laboratory Storage of petroleum products for on-site use Trucking terminal Warehousing and distribution Conditional Uses: Animal sales and service Auction yard Automobile/vehicle rental Automobile/vehicle repairs and service Automobile/vehicle sales and service Automobile/vehicle storage lot Bed and breakfast Inn Caretaker residence Cemeteries, columbariums and mortuaries Community care facility- large Community facility Dance floor Day care center- 15+ children Equipment and materials storage yard Housemovers storage lot Impound yard Industrial transfer/storage/treatment facility Outdoor mobile vendor Recreational facility- indoor Recreational facility- outdoor Recycling facility-commercial Salvage and wrecking yard Service station Small scale transfer and storage facility Temporary outdoor sale not related to on-site established business Vehicle storage yard- commercial Accessory Uses: All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Temporary Uses: Temporary Construction Trailer Outdoor Sale (on-site) by established business Festival/Street Fair Office Trailer Storage Container Arts and Crafts Fair Farmers Market Newspaper Recycling Bin D) PD Rural Residential/Agricultural Intent: Rural residential Agriculture land use designations are established to accommodate agricultural activities and other open space uses, such as range and watershed management. They are also established to provide space for and encourage such uses in places where more intensive development is not desirable or necessary for the general welfare. Intensity of Use:' .01 dwelling unit per acre Permitted Uses: Agricultural Accessory Use- Office Animal Keeping- Residential Community Care Facility- Small Mobile Home Single Family Residence Small Family Day Care Home Conditional Uses: Agricultural Housing ' Agricultural Processing Animal Keeping- Agricultural Animal Keeping- Commercial Animal Sales and Services Bed and Breakfast Inn Bird Keeping- Commercial Caretaker Residence Community Facility 6 Crop Production Farm Mobile Home Horse Keeping Horse Stable/Riding Academy Home Occupation Large Family Day Care Home Plant Nursery Recreational' Facility- Outdoor Temporary Uses: Temporary Construction Trailer Temporary Mobile Home/Manufactured Home Arts and Crafts Fair Festival Street Fair Accessory Uses: All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance E) PD Single Family Residential Intent: Single Family land use designations are established to: a) reserve appropriately located areas for family living at reasonable population densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety; b) ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling; c) provide space for semi-public facilities needed to complement urban residential areas and for institutions that require a residential environment; and d) accommodate single family housing, including a wide range of units from small-lot and zero-lot line units to large lot estate units. Intensity of Use: .9 - 6.0 dwelling units per acre Permitted Uses: Active adult community Community care facility/small (permitted if required by law, otherwise as conditional use) Home occupation in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Private recreation facility (for homeoWners' association and/or tenant use only) Single family dwelling Small family day care home Conditional Uses: Active Adult/Senior community w/group services (centralized meal service, group activities, etc.) Ambulance service Bed and breakfast inn Day care center Large family day care home Parking lot - residential Religious facility Second unit, temporary mobile home or permanent structure School/private Second unit in accordance with Dublin Zoning Ordinance Temporary Uses: Temporary construction trailer Tract and sales office/model home complex Accessory Uses: All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance F) PD Medium Density Residential Intent: Medium Density land use designations are established to: a) reserve appropriately located areas for family living in a variety of types of dwellings at a reasonable range of population densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety; b) preserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the one-family residential district while permitting higher population densities; c) ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit; d) minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by pre~enting the construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around them; e) provide necessary space for off-street parking of automobiles and, where appropriate, for off- street loading of trucks; and f) protect residential properties from the hazards, noise and congestion created by commercial and industrial traffic. Intensity: 6.1 - 14.0 dwelling units per acre Permitted Uses: Community care facility/small (permitted if required by law, otherwise as conditional use) Home occupations (per Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance) Multi-family dwelling Private recreation facility (for homeOwners' association and/or tenants use only) Single family dwelling Small family day care home Conditional Uses: Active Adult/Senior community with group and life care services Bed and breakfast inn Boarding house Day care center Large family day care home Parking lot - residential Religious facility School/private Community center Accessory Uses: All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Temporary Uses: Temporary construction trailer Tract and sales office/model home complex G) PD Medium-High Density Residential Intent: Intensity Medium High Density land use designations are established to: a) reserve appropriately located areas for family living in a variety of types of dwellings at a reasonable range of population densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety; b) preserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the one-family residential district while permitting higher population densities; c) ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit; d) minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive six in relation to the land around them; e) provide necessary space for off-street parking of automobiles and, where appropriate, for off- street loading of tracks; and f) protect residential properties from the hazards, noise and congestion created by commercial and industrial traffic. of Use: 14.1 - 25.0 dwelling units per acre Permitted Uses: Community care facility/small (permitted if required by law, otherwise as conditional use) Home occupations (per Chapter 8.64) Multi,family dwelling Private recreation facility (for homeowners' association and/or tenants use only) Small family day care home Conditional Uses: Active Adult/Senior community with group and life care services Bed and breakfast inn Boarding house Community care facility/large Day Care center Large family day care home Parking lot - residential Religious facility School/private Accessory Uses: All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Temporary Uses: Sales office/model home complex Temporary construction trailer Arts and Crafts Fair H) PD High Density Residential Intent: High Density land use designations are established to: a) reserve appropriately located areas for family living in a variety of types of dwellings at a reasonable range of population densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety; b) preserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the one-family residential district while permitting higher population densities; c) ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit; d) minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities b'y preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around them; e) provide necessary space for off-street parking of automobiles and, where appropriate, for off- street loading of trucks; and'f) protect residential properties from' the hazards, noise and congestion created by commercial and industrial traffic. Intensity of Use: 25.1+ dwelling units per acre 10 Permitted Uses: Accessory structures and uses Community care facility/small (if required by statute, otherwise it should be a conditional use) Home occupations (per Chapter 8.64) Multi-family dwelling Private recreation facility (for homeowners' association and/or tenants use only) Small family day care home Conditional Uses: Active Adult/Senior community with group and life care services Bed and breakfast inn Boarding house Community care facility/large Community center Day care center Large family day care home Hospital/medical center Parking lot - residential Religious facility School/private I) Accessory Uses: All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Temporary Uses: Sales office/model home complex/rental office Temporary construction trailer Arts and Crafts Fair PD Schools Intent: Provides facilities. for the future development of public or private educational Intensity of Use: No Floor Area Ratio Requirements Permitted Uses: Middle School il Elementary School Accessory Uses: All Accessory Uses shall be in accordance with Section 8.40. of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance J) PD Parks Intent: Provides for the recreation needs of the area. Intensity of Use: No Floor Area Ratio Requirements Permitted Uses: Community Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Square K) PD Open Space Intent: Protects areas with important and/or sensitive resources and areas with natural hazard from development. Permitted Uses: Recreational- passive Trails L) M) PD Rural Residential/Agriculture - Future Study Area Permitted Uses: Future land use designations to be determined at a later date. Until then, land uses under this zone shall abide by those listed under PD Rural Residential/Agriculture~ Existing land uses may continue and shall be considered to be legal, non-conforming uses subject to the City of Dublin zoning ordinance regarding such uses. Intensity of Use: . O1 dwelling unit per acre PD General Commercial- Future Study Area Permitted Uses: The Rural Residential/Agriculture land use designation is established to accommodate uses under the Rural Residential/Agriculture and Open Space land use designations and also provides for the future study of land use 12 N) designations to determine the most appropriate use for these lands prior to future PD rezoning of the property. Intensity of Use: . O1 dwelling unit per acre Existing Agricultural and Residential Uses Intent: To allow all existing residential and agricultural uses that were in existence prior to the effective date of annexation. These uses shall be allowed to continue until such time the landowner of this property applies for a SPecific Plan as applicable, and Stage 2 Development Plan in accordance with Section 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, to develop the property. Any minor expansion of any existing uses shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. Permitted Uses: Existing residential and agricultural uses in effect prior to the effective date of annexation Similar and related uses (to the existing residential and agricultural uses) shall be determined by the Director of Community Development Dublin Zoning Ordinance - Applicable Requirements: Except as specifically modified by the provisions of this PD District Rezone/Development Plan, all applicable general requirements and procedures of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to the land uses designated in this PD District Rezone. Phasing Plan. Refer to Exhibit A-2, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan, Phasing Plan. 5. Landscaping Plan. Refer to Exhibit A-2, Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan. Maximum Non-Residential Square Footage/Residential Units. Refer to Exhibit A-2 for Table. 7. Inelusionary Zoning Ordinance. Dublin's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requires five-percent of all housing to be affordable to those of very low, l°w, and moderate incomes or pay 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 ~nclusionary Zoning Ordinance requirements by paying an in-lieu fee, providing land, constructing such housing, or executing a combination of these options. The implementation of this ordinance will be identified when the Stage 2 Development Plan is prepared and submitted for each individual property. . G:~PA#L2000\00-025~PC Staff Reports-Resos\development plan. DOC 13 East Dublin Properties ~ta~je I Developmenf. Plan VICINITY MAP DUBLIN I=580 1-580 PLEASANTON ATTACHMENT East Dublin Property Owners Stage 1 Development Plan Submission This document can be viewed at the Planning Department Counter 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA '94568 Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Attachment 3 · CITY OF DUBLIN ~ I00 Civic Plaza, Dublin California 94.568 Notice of Preparation Website: http://www, ci. dublin.ce.us To: Subject: Distribution LiSt (see attached) Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Date: May 25, 2001 Lead Agency: City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 Contact: Anne Kinney, A/CP, Planning Department, (925) 833 6d] O The City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and hereby invites comments on the proposed scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. Your agency. may need to use the EIR prepared by the Lead Agency when considering follow-on permits or other approvals for this project? Project Title: East Dublin Properties (PA 00-025). Project Location: UnincorpOrated area of Alameda coUnty, .adjacent to City of . Dublin eastern city limits, immediately north of Interstate 580 and eaSt of Fallon Road. See attached project location map. The site encompasses approximately 1,120 acres of land. Project Description: Planned Development Prezone / Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation/Detachment application to facilitate the annexation of approximately 1,120 acres of land to the City of Dublin and attachment to and detachment from various service districts. The Planned Development (PD) Prezone / Stage 1 Development Plan would provide zoning for various land uses including cormnercial, industrial and residential development, parks, schools, open space and other uses. The attached Initial Study identifies potential environmental effects 'anticipated to be discussed in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Due to time limits mandated by State 1aw, your response must be returned at the earliest possible time but not later than June 27, 2001. Please send your response to the contact person identified above. Signature: Title: ~t.,~oc,z~ Telephone: Area Code (925) · City Manager 833-6650 · City Council 833-6650 · Personnel 833-8605 · Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 · Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 · Parks & Community Services 833-6645 · Potice 833-6670 Planning/Code Enforcement 833-66t0 o Building inspection 833~6620 - Fire Prevention Bu,;eau 833-6606 Printed onReoycledPaper ATTACHMENT INITIAL STUDY - SUPPLEMENTAL EIR East Dublin Properties City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, as amended), and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described betowl The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Because the proposed project is based on the land use designations, circulation patterns, etc. assigned to the project area by the City of Dublin's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, this Initial Study relies upon a Program EIR certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report", State Clearinghouse No. 91103064). That EIR, which is referred to in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR", evaluated the following impacts: Land Use; Population, EmplOyment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation; Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils, Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations. Some of the potentially significant impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin E[R apply to the proposed project and, therefore, the adopted mitigation measures also apply and are included in this Initial Study by reference. However, as indicated in the environmental checklist, conditions related to Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological ResourCes, Noise, Public Services (schools), Transportation/Circulation,. and Utilities/Service Systems may have changed enough since the EIR was certified that new potentially significant environmental impacts may exist for those topics, or a potentially substantial increase in the seventy of the previously identified significant effects for those topics may exist. However, because only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the Eastern Dublin EIR adequate in light of those changed circumstances, a focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) will be prepared for the proposed project. Applicant/Contact Person East Dublin Property Owners c/o Shea Homes, Kathryn Watt 2580 Shea Center Drive Livermore, CA 94550 Phone: (925) 245-3600 FAX: (925) 245-8833 Project Location and Context The project site is approximately 1,110 acres in area 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. Exhibit 1 shows the project location in relation to the general Bay Area. The area abuts the eastern city limit boundary of the City of Dublin (please refer to Exhibit 2). The entire project area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan Planning Area and Sphere of Influence. Approximately 472 acres of the project area also are included within the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (please refer to Exhibit 4). The project site consists of thirteen (13) different parcels under eleven (1t) separate ownerships (please refer to Exhibit 7). The topography of the site ranges from relatively flat at the southern portion near the freeway, to gently rolling hills at the center of the site, to relatively steep slopes; some exceeding 30% in some places. A series of low knolls trending from northwest to southeast bisect the southern portion of the property and provide a backdrop to the flatter portions of the site near the freeway. A few drainages flow in a north to south orientation, transecting the project area along its length. Exhibit 3 shows the topography of the project site. A small number of trees exist beyond those planted around existing homesteads and scattered in the drainages. The project properties currently are used primarily for dryland farming and cattle grazing with rural residences, a horse ranch and associated outbuildings scattered throughout the site. Improvements to the agricultural lands generally consist of paved and unpaved roads, fences, barns, corrals, wells, water tanks, ponds, single-family homes and various outbuildings. In 1994 the City of Dublin adopted a General Plan' Amendment and a Specific Plan which addressed long-term development of approximately 4,200 acres of land east' of the central portion of Dublin. The entire project site is located in the easternmost portion of that General Plan Amendment area and a portion of the site (approx. 472 acres) is located within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would implement the eastemrnost portion of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan. For the portion of the project area located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), the Specific Plan identifies land uses, circulation patterns, infrastructure requirements, and programs and policies which. At build-out, this portion of the project's. 472 acres would provide 2 approximately 1,240 dwelling units and almost 1.4million square, feet of office, commercial and industrial floor spaCe at the mid-point densities contemplated bY the EDSP. This represents approximately 10% of the total EDSP residential units and 11% of the total office, commercial, industrial and institutional floor space (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, page 16).~ This portion of the project site also provides 103 acres for schools, public parks and open space, approximately 1t% of the total EDSP acreage designated for such uses (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, pp. 24-25). The other 637 acres of the project site have been designated by the General Plan for residential land uses and would provide 1,286 dwelling units at mid-point densities for Iow density and rural residential/agriculture uses 'indicated by the General Plan, with 3-4.5 acres dedicated to schools, parks and open space. Project Description All of the subject property is located within the unincOrporated area of Alameda County. The proposed project consists of: a Stage 1 Development Plan application to the City of Dublin requesting a pre-zoning of the site in accordance with the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; annexation of the project area to the City of Dubtin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD); execution of a Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Dublin and 'the project proponents/property-owners; detachment from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) upon annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin; and; post-annexation, probable cancellation of Williamson Act contracts for several of the properties within the project area. Although not requiring City action, the project proponents also are requesting detachment of the project area from the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) and attachment to the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). This Initial Study evaluates all of those actions. Stage 1 Planned DeVelopment (Prezoning) State law requires property to be prezoned before annexation can take place. Prezoning is an action to indicate what city zoning will take effect once the annexed, property becomes. part of the city. The City of Dublin uses a Stage I Planned Development (PD) under Chapter 8.32 of its zoning ordinance to prezone property in accordance with the City's General Plan and, in this case, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations. Under the City's zoning ordinance a Stage 1 development plan must establish: a plan of proposed land use by type and density of use; the maximum number of dwelling units and commercial/office/industrial'areas; a master landscape plan; and a preliminarY development phasing plan. Once the site is annexed, project'proponents will apply for a Stage 2 PD for site-specific zoning and development plan approval. City approval of a Stage 2 development plan must be received to complete the PD zoning process. . Table 1 indicates the land uses and development intensities proposed for the project site. Proposed land uses, residential densities and development intensities are consistent with the City's recommended midpoint densities of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project: proposes a maximum of 2,526 dwelling units and approximately 1.4 million square feet of neighborhood commercial, general commercial and. industrial park development. Also included in the plan are approximately 32 acres for school sites, 41 acres for parks, and a minimum of 77 acres of open space. Residential densities range from Low (0.9 - 6 du/acre) to Medium High (14-25 du/acre), although 270 acres of the project area is designated for Rural Residential density which allows only 1 unit for every one hundred acres. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed land uses and pre-zoning designations for the project area. Commercial and industrial uses are located generally along the freeway corridor where noise would overly impact residential uses and where access is easiest for such uses. Residential uses are located in the northern two thirds of the project area. Parks and schools are distributed throughout the project site as indicated by the Specific Plan and Gerieral Plan: two elementary schools, one junior high school, four neighborhood parks, and a neighborhood square with additional acreage to be dedicated to a large planned community park just west of the proposed project. The EDSP anticipated that the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission might adopt an Airport Protection Area (APA) for the Livermore Municipal Airport which would prohibit residential uses within 5000 feet of the airport runways. Some areas of the EDSP designated for residential land uses and which were anticipated to be within the future APA, also are designated in the EDSP as Future Study Area, requiring additional review and action by the City to determine the most appropriate land use (see also page 16 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan). This designation affects 92.6 acres of the project site. As part of the proposed project, the project developers would construct all major roadways and public infrastructure such as water, wastewater, recycled water, and storm drainage facilities. Major roadways would be constructed to and through the project area with project proponents utilizing assessment districts, Mello Roos districts or other appropriate financing mechanisms to help fund construction. Grading activities would occur within the project area to accommodate planned land uses, roads and utilities, although the amount of grading will not be established until the Stage 2 Planned Development when detailed site and grading plans are developed. Water, sewer and recycled water services would be provided to the area by DSRSD in accordance with plans formulated by DSRSD and the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As development in Dublin continues expanding eastward to Fallon Road and the project site, public utilities will be extended concomitantly. The project developers would continue the extension of these services throughout the project site as it is developed. Water distribution mains are planned to be located in all major streets. Construction of water storage reservoirs are not anticipated to be part of this project. Sewer service for the project would be provided through connection to the DSRSD sewer system once it is extended through Dublin Ranch, located to the west of the project area. Gravity flow sewer mains would be installed along Central Parkway and DUblin Boulevard. Temporary. pumping stations may be needed in the initial stages of development. When and where available, DSRSD would provide recycled water for irrigation purposes, reducing the need for potable water. The storm drainage system would consist of underground pipes and culverts throughout the site connecting to box culverts and/or open channels that would flow southerly and westerly along 1-580 to the existing G-3 drainage channel, an Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District facility. The City of Dublin's inclusionary zorfing ordinance requires that 5% of a project's dwelling units must be affordable to very Iow, low and moderate income households. Compliance could consist of constructing the required number of inclusionary units or paying an in-lieu fee to the City. The project proponents will be required to comply with the ordinance, although the specific method generally would not be determined until the Stage 2 PD and related subdivision maps are reviewed. The project applicants indicate that land uses and infrastructure would be phased over a number of years to ensure that roads and other infrastructure facilities would be avaitable to support land uses as they are needed. As indicated in the applicants' stage 1 PD submittal to the City, preliminary development of the first phases could commence in two years with project build-out anticipated to be completed over the ensuing five to ten years. Proposed Reorganization (annexations and detachments,) The project site is contiguous with the City of Dublin and all of its 1,120 acres lie within Dublin's Sphere of Influence and within the Sphere of Influence of the Dublin San Ram0n Services District (DSRSD). The City's General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (which addresses 472 acres of the project area), contemplated the eventual annexation and development of the project site in accordance with the land use designations, programs and policies of each Plan. The annexation of the project site by Dublin would complete the expansion of the City in ti'ds area per its current Sphere of Influence. Similarly, the project area is within the expected service area of DSRSD and all of DSRSD's master plans for the provision and distribution of water, wastewater service, and recycled water include the annexation of, and service to, the project site. Because the water, wastewater, and recycled water services are provided to the City of Dublin by DSRSD, the City and DSRSD have concurred in policy that their boundaries and Spheres of Influence will be coterminous (except for that portion of DSRSD's service area which extends to portions of Contra Costa County). Hence, annexation of the area to the City also requires annexation of the area to DSRSD to provide needed services. One of the City's General Plan Guiding, Policies (3.3 A) is to expand park area to serve new development. Both the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contemplate the expansion of park services to the project site and indicated preferred park locations within the project area. However, the project site currently is within the boundaries of LARPD. Detachment of the project area from the LARPD service area is a logical step once annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin is assured, particularly since Dublin has planned for the expansion of its park services. A similar detachment was carried out when the property immediately to. the west was annexed to the City. The pr9ject site is located within the City's General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area. A City of Dublin Guiding Policy (4.1 B) promotes cooperation with the Dublin Unified School District to ensure provision of school facilities in the Extended Planning Area, thereby ensuring that all incorporated areas of the City are served by one school district. The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan have indicated potential school sites within the project area which are to be offered for dedication to DUSD. Dublin Unified School District has considered the project area for service since adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Extended Planning Area. However, as 'above, the project area currently is within the boundaries of the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. Dearmexation of the project area from the LVJUSD service area is a logical step once annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin is assured, particularly since DUSD and the City have planned for school service to the project area. A similar reorganization of school district boundaries occurred when property immediately to the west was annexed. A reorganization of school district boundaries, however, does not require a City action or LAFCO action, but does require approval by the two involved school boards. The project applicant already has been in contact with the staffs of both school districts and will make a request for reorganization to the m'o boards. Pre-annexation Agreement/Development Agreements The City requires that the project proponents and property owners enter into pre, annexation and development agreements with the City. Pre-annexation agreements encourage project proponents and the City to meet certain mutual obligations while the area proposed for annexation is proceeding through entitlement processes and ensure that the proposed project will not be a financial burden to the City. Development agreements vest development approvals for a specified period of time so that developers of large, time extensive projects have the ability to construct such projects in a time frame and under mutual obligations beneficial to the City and the project proponent. Issues typically .addressed in development agreements include, but are not limited to: density and intensity of land use; timing of development; financing methods and timing of infrastructure; determination of traffic, noise, public facility and other impact fees; and obligations for construction of streets and roads. Development agreements would be part of a later City action generally occurring with City approval of a Stage 2 Planned Development, Site Development Review and tentative subdivision map.. [Villiamson Act ~ancetlation Four of the thirteen parcels, approximately 637 acres, are under Williamson Act contracts (please refer to Exhibit 8). Under the Williamson Act, the landowner agrees to limit the use of land to agriculture and compatible uses for a minimum period of ten years. In turn, the county in which the land is located agrees to tax the land at a lower rate based upon its agricultural use rather than its real estate market value. To withdraw 6 from a contract, the land-owner must notify the county with a Notice of Non-Renewal. Withdrawal involves a ten,year period of tax adjustments based upon full market value before land can be removed from the preserve program. Notices of non-renewal have been filed on the four parcels noted above, with contracts expiring in 2006, 20,09 and 2010. It is antiCipated that at least several of the property-owners of these four parcels will request earlY cancellation of these contracts upon annexation to the City. 1. Project description 2. Lead agency: Contact person: 4. Project location: 5. Project contact person: 6. General Plan designations: 7. Proposed Pre-zoning: Application for a Stage I PD (prezoning), request -fbr annexation to the City of Dublin and DSRSD, detachment fi'om LARPD, request to enter into pre- annexation agreements; and potential Williamson Act contract cancellation for the four parcels in Exhibit 8. City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 Anne Kinney, Dublin Planning Department (925) 833-66t0 North of 1-580 and east of Fallon Road East Dublin Property Owners cio Shea Homes, Kathryn Watt 2580 Shea Center Drive Livermore, CA 94550 (925) 245 3600 Low Density Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac), Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/ac), Medium High Density Residential (14.1-25.0 dtffac),. Rural Residential/Agriculture (0.01 du/ac), Neighborhood Commercial (.25-.60 FAR), General Commercial (.20-.60 FAR), Industrial Park (.35 FAR maximum), Elementary School, Junior High School, Neighbor- hood Park, Community Park, Neighborhood Square, Open Space and Stream Corridor PD-Single Family Residential, PD-Medium Density Residential, PD-Medium High Density Residential, PD-Neighborhood Commercial, PD-GeneraI Commercial, PD-Industrial Park, PD - Future Study Area (Rural Residential/Agriculture and General · Commercial), PD-Elementary School, PD-Junior 7 High School, PD-Neighborhood Park, PD-. Neighborhood Square, PD-Community Park, PD-Rural Residential/Agriculture, and PD- Open Space. 8. Other public agency required approvals: · Annexation (City of Dublin) · Annexation (DSRSD) · Referral to Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) · Detachment (LVJUSD) · Detachment (LARPD) · Attachment (DUSD) · Stage 2 Development Plans (City of Dublin) · Development Agreement, · Vesting tentative and final subdivision maps (Dublin) · Site Development Review · Grading and building permits (City of Dublkn) · Sewer and water connections (DSRSD) · Encroachment permits (City of Dublin) · Potentially: Notice of Intent (Water Resources Control Board) 404 Permit (US Army Corps of Engineers) Streambed Alteration Permit (California Department ofFish and Game) Permits from San Francisco Bay Region Water Quality Control Board Permits fi.om U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Encroachment or other permits from CalTrans 8 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below may be potentially affected by this project, · involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics X Agricultural X Air Quality Resources X Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards and Hazardous Hydrology/Water Land Use/ Materials Quality Planning Mineral Resources X Noise Population/ Housing X ' Public Services Recreation X Transportation/ Circulation X Utilities/Service X Mandatory Findings Systems of Significance Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect .on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. ~ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project may have a potentially significant effect, or a Potentially. significant effect unless mitigated, on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document purSUant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. A focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the propc~sed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially 9 s/gnificant' effects: a) have been aradyz~ adequately in an earlier EIR. pursuant to applicable standards; and Co) have been avoided or mitigated pursumt to that earlier EIR, including revifions or mitigation mca.rares that are impos.ed on the proposed projeot, Printed Name: . /~-,,/,-~ /cl..,.,,,~ ~For: . . Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are supported by the information ~ourc~s a lead agency ekes in thc parenth~is following each question. A "no impact" anawer i$. adequately supported if the mfereac~l i~o,--matioa sourcea show th,at the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. tho l:maject £alls outside a fault ruptur~ zone), or, in this case, there is no impact of the proposed project b~.ond that which was c~nfldered prevloully In the E~tern Dublin ErR antlJor for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by th, City Council at the time the Eastern Dublin ErR was certified. A "no impa~t" answer should be =2.plah:ed where it is based on projoct-a~pecific racers aa well ~ general factors (e.g. the project will not expose semifive receptors to pollutants, based on a projex~t-~e,ifi¢ $creen~g 2) All answ~ must take account of the whole a~tion, including off-site ~s well as on-site, cumulative as welt ~ project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Imp;t~ is appropriate if thor, i~ substantial evidence that an et~t is sigrfifleant. It them are one err more "potentially s~gnificant irapa~t" entri es when the-d~ermination is made, an EIR is ~:equired. 4) "Negative D,claration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation ln~rporatcd" implies elsewhere th~ incorporation of mitigation maasure~ has reduced ~ effect f~m "potentially significant ,ffe~" to a 'les~ than significant impact", The lead agency mm describe thc mitigation measure~ and briefly explain how they reduce tho effect to a less than significant level. Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to d~emfine each potential impact at the end ofthe checklist,) 10 Issues; I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps Prepared :pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 0fthe California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? Potentially Significant Impact X Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact X X X No Impact X 11 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Potentially Significant Impact X X Less. Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY '-- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the prOject: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the appliCable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or cOntribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X X X X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: 12 Potentially Significant Impact Less. Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X 13 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ora historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeolo~cal resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-.I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS--Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? c) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemrnent Code Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact X X X X X X x No lmpact X 15 Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact X X X X X No Impact X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a 16 ¥? level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onZ or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,. including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoffin a manner which, would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving floodihg, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Potentially Significant Impact Less.Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact x X X X No Impact X X X 17 Potentially Significant Impact Less. Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X IX. LAND USE AND'PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or 18 noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) ExpoSure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A subs!antial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstr/p, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact X X x Less. Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No .Impact X X X XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirec!ly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the X 19 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance obi ectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? XIV. RECREATION-- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which Potentially Significant Impact X 'Less. Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact X X X X No Impact X X 20 might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact X X X X Less .Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X 21 a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, theconstruction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construct/on of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the prov/ders existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid Waste? h). Have sufficient gas and electricity Supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources? Potentially Significant Impact X X X X X X X Less. Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact NO Impact X 22 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past prOjects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation X X X No Impact Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts: 1. City of Dublin General Plan (Revised July 7, 1998) 2. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, City of Dublin (June 6, 1998) 3. Certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 91103064), Eastern Dubl~ General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (including the Draft and Final EIRs, Addenda, etc.) 23 These documents are available for review at: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 XVII. Earlier An.alyses This Initial Study is being prepared to determine whether an earlier EIR (the EIR prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064) may be used to evaluate the proposed project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15063 (c)(7)). Earlier analyses used, Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Portions of the environmental' setting, project.imPacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1992 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact. Report (State .Clearinghouse No. 91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR is a Program EIR which was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan of which this Project is a part. It was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993. As part of the certification the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a large number of mitigation measures which apply to this Project and which would be applied to any development within the Project area. Specific mitigation measures identified in the certified Eastern Dublin EIR for potential impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, several changes in circumstances in which the Project will take place have occurred and which could effect the impacts and/or mitigations analysis of the Project. Such changes in circumstances include, but are not limited to: 1) additions of species to the California and/or Federal Endangered or Threatened Species Lists; 2) continued development in the Tri-Valley area and beyond with potential changes in commute patterns and traffic intensities, which also may affect air quality and noise within or on the project area; 3) changes in California law regarding annexations (i.e., adoption of AB 2838) which may affect the designation of portions of the project site as prime agricultural soils; and 4) changes in the provision and distribution of some public services (schools) and public utilities (water, wastewater, storm drainage and gas and electricity). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts on or of 24 the Project which were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. and which would require additional environmental review. Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist Legend PS: LS: NI: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant; or Less Than Significant due to the previously adopted mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR No Impact; or No Additional Impact beyond that which was previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR anti/or for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted I. AESTHETICS Environmental Setting The project site is vacant except for nine residences and some scattered agricultural buildings. The Eastern Dublin EIR classifies the project site mainly as "dw-farming rotational cropland" covering approximately the southern two-thirds of the site and "non- native grassland" covering the northern one third. Where agricultural activity, including grazing, historically has taken place, the visual image of the land is formed by patterns of the soil that have been furrowed by mechanical means or livestock. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (pp. 71-72) identifies certain ridgelands and ridgelines within the Project area as "visually sensitive". The lower spur ridges may be developed consistent with Specific Plan land use designations as long as they meet certain requirements specified in the Specific Plan. These include the lower, southern series of east-west trending foothills and three other ridgelines behind these at a general elevation of 500 feet. Development is prohibited on other ridgelines further to the east and north (please refer to Figure 6.3 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan). The City's General Plan also identifies an elevation "cap" above which certain development is prohibited and provides guidelines for sensitive development at certain elevations and slopes. Prqiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? LS. Approval and construction of the proposed Project would alter the character of existing scenic vistas and could obscure important sightlines if not mitigated. 25 This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.8/C, 3.8/D, 3.8/E, 3.8/G and 3.8/1)) and with implementation of mitigation measures the identified impacts on scenic vistas are less-than-significant. These mitigation measures include: 3.8/3.0, 3.8/4.0-4.5, 3.8/5.0-5.2, 3.8'/6.0, 3.8/7.0 and 3.8/7.1 (pages 3.8-4 through 3.8-9 of the Eastern Dublin EIR). These mitigation measures encourage preservation of important visual resources, minimized grading for development; grading and building to preserve natural contours; prohibition of development along identified ridgelines; and preservation of views of designated 'open spaces. These mitigation measures apply to the entire project area. In addition, Policies 6-29 through 6-38 and text discussion within the Specific Plan provide direction for the type of development which may occur in "visually sensitive" areas. These policies are directed towards preserving scenic vistas and view corridors and provide guidelines for grading and building design and apply in addition to the above- listed mitigation measures, to the 472-acre of the projecfwithin the Specific Plan area. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highways? LS. Development of the project site will alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic routes in eastern Dublin. InterState 580 has been designated as a scenic corridor by Alameda CoUnty. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan anticipates that the proposed Fallon Road, which borders the Project area to the west, may be designated by the City as a scenic corridor. This potential impact (Impact 3.8/J) was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and implementation of mitigation measures 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8.1 (page 3.8-9) reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures encourage the City to adopt certain roads as scenic corridors (including Fallon Road), and encourage the City to require detailed visual analyses with development project applications (i.e., Stage 2 Planned Development applications). These mitigation measures apply to the entire project area. Additionally, Policies 6-30 and 6-31 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provide gu/dance for areas of the Project visible fi.om a scenic corridor. These policies, in addition to the above-listed mitigation measures, apply to the 472-acre of the project within the Specific Plan area The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apPly to the entire project, and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. 26 c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? NI. This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.8/B - Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character and Impact 3.8/F - Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands). Development of the Project area would alter the existing rural and open space qualities and alter the existing visual character of valley grasses and agricultural fields. The EIR concluded that no mitigation, measures could be identified to either fully or partially reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the EIR concluded this impact would be a potentially significant unavoidable impact and an in'eversible change and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this impact. The proposed project would not change the scale of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area and would not change the level of intensity of impact, therefore, no additional discussion or analysis is necessary. d) Create light or glare? LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase the amount of light and glare due to new street lighting and building security lighting. In some instances the additional lighting could result as perceived negative aesthetic impacts through the "spill over" of unwanted lighting onto adjacent properties, parks and other areas that are not intended to be lighted. The anticipated light and glare generated by the proposed Project would not be unique or sufficiently different from other development projects within the City or the Eastern Dublin planning area. In addition, development within a portion of the proposed Project area is subject to review by the 'Airport Land Use CommiSsion for the Livermore Municipal Airport: all potential light sources must meet the criteria established by the ALUC prior to development. The City of Dublin has adopted regulations which limit the amount of"spiIl-over" hghting and conditions of approval also are routinely adopted with each project which address potential light and glare impacts. The City's zoning ordinance, adopted site development review guidelines, and conditions of approval become part of the project, if approved and the project would have impacts that are less- than-significant. Because light and glare created by the proposed Project would be typical of development elsewhere in the City, and due to standard City regulations, light and glare impacts would be less-than-significant. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Setting Historically the Project site has been used for grazing, dry-land farming, a horse ranch, and other non,intensive agricultural endeavors. The Eastern Dublin EI~ characterizes the majority of the area as farmland "of local importance" (Figure 3.l-B), which is defined as those farmlands which contribute to the local production of food, feed, fiber, forage and oilseed crops (p. 3.1-2). The Eastern Dublin EI~ considered the discontinuation of 27 agricultural uses as an insignificant impact due to the high percentage of Williarnson Act contracts which were non-renewed and the limited value of the non-pr/me soils. And, because the farmlands on the Project site were not considered "prime", their loss was judged to be insignificant. However, since certification o f the Eastern Dublin EIR, the evaluation of soils considered as "prime" for annexation purposes has been modified through adoption of criteria · established by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (Government Code Section 56064, referred to as Assembly Bill 2838). Soils which previously would not have been considered as "prime agricultural soils" and land which was not considered significant or important for agricultural purposes may now be considered as such by the new law, Project Impacts and Mititation Measures a, c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could result'in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? PS. According to the Agricultural Suitability Map for the Project area prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, much of the site supports farmlands of "local importance" since it contr/butes to the production of feed'(grazing). Almost 59 acres of the site are shown as containing Class I and 11 soils in the Land Use Capability Classification system of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Under Assembly Bill 2838, Class I and 11 soils are considered "prime" as long as they have not been developed with non-agricultural uses. Since the proposed Project includes annexation to the City of Dublin and the Project area contains Class I and tl soils, the effect of. conversion of the property from gazing use to non-agricultural, planned urban uses may be a potentially significant environmental impact. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a I, Villiamson Act contract? PS. Four of the thirteen parcels, approximately 637 acres, are under Wiltiamson Act contracts (please refer to Exhibit 8). Under the Williamson Act, the landowner agrees to limit the use of land to agriculture and compatible uses for a minimum period of ten years. In turn, the county in which the land is located agrees to tax the land at a lower rate based upon its agricultural use rather than its real estate market value. To withdraw from a contract, the land-owner must notify the county with a Notice of Non-Renewal. Withdrawal involves a ten-year period of tax adjustments based upon full market value before land can be removed from the preserve program. Notices of non-renewal have been filed on the four parcels noted above, with contracts expiring in 2006, 2009 and 2010. It is anticipated that several of the property-owners of these four parcels will request cancellation of these contracts. With recent amendments to annexation statutes regarding the definition of prime agriculture lands further investigation of this 'potential impact is warranted to determine if this will be significant. 28 III. AIR QUALITY Environmental Setting Dublin is located in the Th-Valley Air Basin. Within the Basin, state and federal standards for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. 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. Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Would the'project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air .quality plan? PS. Although the project itself may not contribute any more pollutants than originally anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR, as a result of more rapid urbanization in the Tri- Valley area than originally expected, an increase in traffic through the Th-Valley from other areas, and changing commute patterns, the environment in which the project would occur may have Changed enough such that the project could contribute to emissions exceeding Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards ? PS. For the reasons noted above (i.e., changed environmental setting of the project), the project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? PS. For the reasons noted in a) above (i.e., the changed environmental setting of the project), the project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQ1VfD significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact. d, e). Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? NI. Development of the Project area with urban uses will create emissions from a variety of miscellaneous stationary (non-vehicular) sources such as fuel combustion in power plants or water heaters, industrial and commercial uses, evaporative emissions from paints and cleaning products, etc. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that although such emissions would be extremely small for any individual resident, they could be substantial when summed over the entire scope of the project (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 3.11-6). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified this impact as a potentially significant cumulative impact which could not be mitigated to achieve the eight-fold reduction in stationary source emissions needed to meet the insignificant threshold and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this impact. The proposed project would not change the scale of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR 29 for'the project area and would not change the level of intensity of impact, therefore, no additional discussion or analysis is necessary IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Environmental Setting Figure 3.7-A of the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the Project area is dominated by dry-farming rotational cropland and non-native grasslands. A small area of arroyo willow riparian woodland is located j~ast to the east of Fallon Road.' Several intermittent streams and stock ponds also are indicated in this figure. Fields utilized for dry-farming typically are cropped through various seasonal and annual rotations followed by fallow years. Crops and croplands are not irrigatedl The site is traversed generally north to south by several drainages which may contain sensitive plant and/or animal species. Pro_iect Impacts and Mitigation Measures Have a substantial adverse impact on a 'candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified'twelve special status plant species, seventeen special status amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species, and ten special status invertebrate species which could potentially occur within the entire Eastern Dublin .planning area (Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-2, pp. 3-7.19-21), based upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Fish and Game Commission listings at that time. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin Ell[, the regulatory status of some of these species may have changed. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes policies to protect special status species (Policies 6-17 and 6-20). Although the proposed Project would adhere to the adopted mitigation measures and Specific Plan policies, changes in regulatory circumstances such as the adoption of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytoniO critical habitat area and its recommendations for habitat preservation and creation, could create a potentially significant environmental impact if not re-addressed. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? PS. Figure 3.7 - B of the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies areas within the Project area wi'rich potentially contain riparian habitat and springs based upon the location of intermittent streams, stock ponds, seeps, etc. Utilizing Figure 3.7-B, it is estimated that at least 14,000 linear feet of potential riparian habitat coUld exist within the Project area. Although the EtR identifies mitigation measures and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains policies to address stream corridors and riparian and wetland areas (policies 6-9 through 6-13 and 6-15), regulatory standards for such riparian habitats may have changed since certification of the EIR (e.g.,. new standards for the California red-legged frog 30 identified in the recently approved critical habitat designation may require different treatment of riparian and upland habitats). Although the proposed Project would adhere to the adopted mitigation measures and Specific Plan policies, due to a change in regulatory circumstances, the Project could have a potentially significant environmental impact. · d) Interfere with movement ofnativefish or wildlife species? PS. As noted above, the Eastern Dublin EIR idei~tified a number of special status wildlife species. Although mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and .policies within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 6-18 through 6-20) address potential impacts to the movement ofwildlife species, and this Project would be required to adhere to those mitigation measures and policies~ the Project may still have a potentially significant impact due to changed regulatory standards regarding the movement of wildlife. .For example, recent approval of the critical habitat designation for the California red-legged frog could require refinement of the impacts and/or mitigations analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. e,f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources Or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? PS. The Project would be required to comply will all local policies and ordinances imposed by the City of Dublin. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains policies and programs intended to protect biological resources and habitat areas and restore and revegetate habitat where necessary and appropriate (Policies 6-15 through 6-23; Programs 6K-60). However, the Project site Iies within the boundaries of the approximately 5.3 million acres in California recently approved as critical habitat for the California red- legged frog. The proposed designation of the Project area as critical habitat is a changed regulatory circumstance which could impact local policies and implementation of the project as contemplated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. Hence, the changed regulatory circumstance would result in apotentially significant environmental impact. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Setting Chapter 3.9 of the Eastern Dublin EIR addresses the potential impacts on cultural resources which may be located within the Project area. A field inspection of the entire Eastern Dublin areas was performed in 1988. Three potential pre-historic sites (two of them isolated· locales) and two historic sites were identified within the proposed Project area (see pp. 3.9-4 - 3.9-6 of the Eastern Dublin EIR). Maps of these sites were not included in the EIR to protect them fi.om possible vandalism. The Eastern Dublin EIR mandated additional project-level archeological surveys. .. 31 Project ImpaCts and Mitigation Measures a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? LS. Only two' historic sites (a 1940's-era barn and an early 20th-century ranch/homestead complex) were identified in the Project area. Due to the expected level of development within the Project area, the Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner, even those located in areas designated for Open Space. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.9/C) and mitigation measures 3.9/7.0 through 3.9/12.0 (page 3.9-8) will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require detailed archival research for each structure to assess the structure's significance; encourage adaptive re-use where feasible; and encourage the City to develop a preservation program for historic sites which qualify under CEQA gUidelines. Additionally, mitigation measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0 (page 3.9-7) also-would apply to the project. These mitigations require cessation of all construction activities upon discovery of any previously-unidentified historic sites. Additionally, Policies 6-26 and 6-27 of the Eastern Dublin SPecific Plan require in-depth · archival research to determine the significance of any resource prior to alteration and encourage the adaptive re-use or restoration of historic structures whenever feasible. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeotogical or paleontological resources ? LS. There is a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on the site. The Eastern Dublin EIR categorized these resources as pre-historic cultural resources. Three potential pre-historic sites were identified by the EIR within the-proposed Project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all pre-historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.9/A) and implementation of mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 - 3.9-7) reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require subsurface testing for archeological resources; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Appendix K of CEQA. Mitigation measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described above, also were adopted to address the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre-historic resources and these mitigation measures reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level. 32 The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (Policies 6-24 and 6-25) requiting research of archaeological resources prior to construction and determination of the significance and extent of any resources uncovered during grading and construction. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. d) Disturb any human resources? LS. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human resources could be uncovered on the site during construction activities. Implicit in the mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies is the potential for discovery of human resources near or within the identified pre-historic and historic sites. With implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures adopted with certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR (mitigation measures 3.9/1.0- 12) and adherence to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies relating to cultural resources (Policies 6-24 and 6-25), this impact is less-than-significant. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Environmental Setting This section of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issues, topography and landforms, drainage and erosion and the potential impacts of localized soil types. Seismic The Project area is a part of the San Francisco Bay area, one of the most seismically active regions in the nation. The Eastern'Dublin EIR notes the presence of several nearby significant faults, including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Hayward Fault and San Andreas Fault (_pp. 3.6-1 - 3.6-2 and Figures 3.6-A and 3.6-B). The likelihood ora major seismic event on one or more of these faults within the near future is believed to be high. However, no active faults are known to traverse the Project site and the site is not identified as located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as determined" by the California Division of Mines and Geology. A second thrust fault system has been inferred in the Coast Ranges of the Bay Area that may.b.e seismically active. A belt of faults and folds has been mapped in sedimentary rocks south of Mount Diablo, including one identified as the "leading edge-blind thrust~ 33 Mount Diablo Domain". Further investigation of this inferred fault has concluded that the risk of ground rupture from thi~ inferred fault is Iow within the Project area. Site Geology and Soils The site is underlain by the Tassajara geologic formation on the south and extensive landslide deposits to the north. The Tassajara Formation consists of undifferentiated claystone and siltstone, locally undifferentiated into sandstone, conglomerate and siltstone-claystone members. Landforms and Topography The project area is part of a broad north-south trending plain known as the Livermore- Amador Valley. Elevations Of the subject site range from approximately 350 feet to 910 feet above sea level. Much of the property is gently rolling to almost flat but the extreme northern and northeastern portions are steeply sloping terrain. Geotechnical reports cited in the Eastern Dublin EIR indicate a history of landslides on the site. The more steeply sloping northern and northeastern portions of the site contain landslide areas. Many of these slides are relatively shallow and it is estimated that all can be repaired or mitigated in the areas slated for urban development. Drainage Existing drainage patterns on the site includes a series of small, unnamed intermittent streams. These streams are shown in Figures 3.7-A and -B in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These intermittent streams generally follow a north-to-south direction, consistent with the overall topography of the Eastern Dublin area. These streams are not delineated drainages and do not terminate in other local creeks (such as Tassajara Creek) or modified natural drainages (such as the Arroyo Mocho). Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure or landslides? LS. Similar to many areas of California, the site could be subject to ground shaking caused by the regional faults identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events which are probable in the Bay Area over the next 30 years, buildings, utilities and other improvements constructed in the project area would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking. However, since the Project area is not located Mthin an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, the potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal. The Eastern Dublin EI~R identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground- shaking (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C) could be potentially significant impacts. With implementation of mitigation measure 3.6/1.0 the primary effects of ground-shaking 34 (Impact 3.6/]3 - damage to structures and infrastructure,, potential: loss of life) are reduced to a less-than-significant level by using modem seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for structure failure, major structural damage and loss of life. Mitigation measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/8.0 will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects of ground-shaking (Impact 3.6/C - seismically induced landslides, differential compaction/settlement, etc.), to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require: stabilization of unstable landforms where possible or'restriction of improvements from unstable landforms;' appropriate grading in hillside areas; utilization of properly engineered retention structures and fill; design of roads and infrastructure to accommodate potential settlement; and completion of design-level geotechnical investigations (pp. 356-8 through 3.6-9), Adherence to Mitigation Measures MM 3.6/1.0 through 8.0 will ensure that new structures and infrastructure built within the project area will comply with generally recognized seismic safety standards so that effects due to ground shaking will be less- than-significant. The majority of the Project area contains gently to steeply sloping hillsides. The northern and northeastern portions have a history of landslides. As part of the development of the area the site is proposed to be graded and re-contoured to accommodate building pads, roads, infrastructure, parks, schools, parking areas and other development features. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that development of the Project site could result in permanent changes in existing landforms, particularly if substantial grading occurs. Two mitigation measures reduce this impact to less-than-significant. Mitigation measure 3.6/9.0 states that grading plans which adapt improvements to natural landforms, use retaining structures and steeper cut and fill slopes where appropriate, and construction of roads on ridges reduce impacts to landforms. Mitigation measure 3.6/10.0 states that specific project lot. and infrastructure alignment should be based on the identification of geotechnically feasible building areas, clustering structures, and avoiding adverse conditions by utilizing lower density development in the hillside areaS. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies aimed at reducing impacts related to landform changes and reducing potential impacts related to landslides. Policies 6-40 through 6-42 restrict structures on slopes of 10-30% and generally preclude structures on slopes of greater than 30%. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the .Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. 35 b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that development of the Project site will modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could resUlt in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities (Impact 3.6/K). Long-term impacts could result from modification of the ground-surface and removal of existing vegetation (Impact 3.6/L). With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 (pp. 3.6-14 -3.6-15) these impacts are less-than-significant. These mitigation measures specify and require the .preparation and implementation of erosion control measUres to be utilized on a short-term and long-term basis. In addition to these measures, the Project would be subject to erosion' control and water quality control measures implemented by the state Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a policy (Policy 6-43)which requires that new development be designed to provide effective control of soil erosion as a result of construction activities, The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply t° the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. c, d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or will result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. Portions of the Project area are underlain by soil types with high shrink-swell .potential which have the potential to cause damage to foundations, .slabs, and pavement (impact 3.6/H). With adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 (pp. 3.6- 11 - 12) and by requiring appropriate structural foundations and other techniques to overcome shrink-swell effects, potential shrink-swell impacts will be less-than- significant. The Eastern Dublin EIR also notes that impacts of slope instability are considered to be potentially significant (impacts 3.6/1 and 3.6/J), but can be reduced to a less-than- significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0 - 26,0 (pp. 3.6-12 - 3.6-14). These mitigation measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and geotechnical studies minimizing grading on steep slopes and the formulation of appropriate design criteria; removal/reconstruction of unstable materials; construction of surface and subsurface drainage improvements; reduction of cut-and-fill; maintaining 3:1 cut slopes unless retained; maintaining minimum 2:1 fill slopes unless properly benched, keyed or treated with a geo-grid; utilizing engineered fill; and adherence to the Uniform Building Code and other City requirements for grading. The adopted mitigation measures would continue 'to apply to the entire project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. 36 e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. All new development within the Project area would be connected to a public sanitary sewer system installed by the Project developer and maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District which serves all of the City of Dublin. No septic sYstems are proposed. Therefore, no impact is anticipated With regard to septic tanks. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Environmental Setting The site is primarily open grasslands and currently contains nine single family residences and some agricultural out-buildings. Historically, the Project site has been used for agriculture, primarily as grazing land and limited dry-farming of' crops. Much of the Project area currentlY is utilized for grazing. Some pesticide and organicide use may be associated with these agricultural uses and some petroleum-based products probably have been used to run and maintain farm equipment. Similar types of petroleum-based products may be in use at a limited trucking and truck storage use located on one of the parcels. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been performed for each parcel comprising the Project .site and typical levels of organicides, pesticides and limited amounts of petroleum-based products have been identified in localized areas around outbuildings. Additionally, one of the parcels was discovered to have been used as a gasoline service station but this use was discontinued in the 1960's and no structures remain. No parcels within the Project area have been listed as a hazardous site or as a hazardous materials generator. Based upon the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments performed for each property within the Project area, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment would be required for some of those parcels to further identify any potential hazardous materials. Policy 11-1 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that prior to the issuance of building permits for sites 'in the project area, such environmental site .assessments are required. I'f applicable, remediation measures would be recommended and required prior to development in accordance with State law. Project Impacts and MitigatiOn Measures a, b) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or emission of haZardous materials? 'LS. prOPosed uses of the site would include residential, general and retail commercial, industrial park, schools, and parks. Only minor less-than-significant quantities of potentially hazardous materials such as lawn chemicals, household solvents, etc., would be associated with the majority of the proposed uses. The Project's proposed Industrial Park designation and the Project's proposed uses relate most closely to the City of Dublin's M-1. or Light Industrial District, although the types of industrial uses permitted 37 under the zoning ordinance include light and heavier industrial uses with some manufacturing. Some potentially hazardous materials may be utilized by these industrial type uses but the storage, use and disposal of such materials would be controlled' through a hazardous materials business plan required to be filed by any such user with the Alameda County Fire Department which provides such service to the City of Dublin. With the expected minimal use of hazardous materials and the requirement for' adhering to a hazardous materials business plan, this impact is less-than-significant. c) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? LS. None of the parcels comprising the Project area have been listed as a hazardous materials site. As nOted above, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments have been completed for each individual parcel comprising the Project area. Levels of organicides, pesticides, and .petroleum-based products typical of agricultural uses have been discovered near existing agricultural outbuildings but these levels are less-than- significant. Should the Project be approved, Phase I1 Environmental Site'Assessments will be performed on each parcel prior to construction. Remediation measures, if needed, would be recommended and completed in accordance with State and Federal requirements. This impact is considered to be less-than-significant. d) Is the site located within an airport land use plan ora public airport or private airstrip? LS. The Livermore Municipal Airport is located to the south of the Project area across 1- 580 and south of the Los Positas Golf Course. The Federal Aviation Administration classifies the airport as a ?~general transport" airport and the airport can accommodate turbojets under 60,000 pounds and general aviation aircraft of lesser weight. The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted an Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan in 1986 which defines "General. Referral and Height Referral Areas" for the Livermore Municipal Airport. Portions of the Project area fall within these referral areas. The General Referral Area extends 4,000 feet north of 1- 580. Proposed land uses and activities subject to review under State ALUC law must be referred to the County ALUC. The Height Referral area encompasses an area 20,000 feet from the runways in all directions (approximately 15,000 feet north of 1-580) and 200 feet above ground level in the Height Referral area. The ALUC amended the Policy Plan in 1993 to create an Airport Protection Area (A_PA) around the Livermore Airport. Development or expansion of residential uses within the APA is prohibited. At the time the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted, this APA had not yet been established.' However, the Specific Plan anticipated that some res. identially-designated land within the Eastern Dublin area would be located within the future APA. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 'indicates that resident/ally-designated lands so affected, by adoption of the APA must be designated "Future Study Area" (p.16). The APA does affect approximately 22 percent of the southern portion of the Project area. Approximately 96 acres of the project area, originally slated for potential residential development, now are designated as Future 38 Study Area with an ..underlying designation of rurat:, residentiat/agriCulture,:a degignation which esSentially will not allow for any intensityofland nse greater:than what is eX~Sting. The project'.is :not .proposing any. changes to this land use designatiOn and hence; is in compliance with ~the established APA.. Since the SPecific Plan:already'anticipated land use changes which might occur asa result of the ALUC's actions, and~designated t~e land accorflingly~ this.is a~'t'ess-than~significant.impaet. e) Represent a safety hazard to persons if located within two miles of a private airstrip? -.The project.iS not located within two miles ofa priv.ate airstrip.. f) Interference with ~an emergency evacuation plan? LS. The proposed Project.: would be developed in, phases:; as is feasible with the extension of services and milities to. the' area. Adequate emergency access to all portions of the ~Projeet site under construction would be required to. be provided per the City of Dublin's ordinances and poticies.~ Emergency access requires that structures and occupants of structures can.be accessed by emergency vehicles-and personnel and also requires that residents are able to evacuate an area in case o.f some form of hazard or threat of hazard. Adequate water service for fire-fighting and installation, o.f hydrants or other approved alternative water supply systems would be required per City policy as the project develops. The.Eastern Dublin EtR indicated a mitigation measure.:(3;4/9,0) ~o address':aecess, water pressure, fire safety.,,and prevention to reduce,,this potential impact :to a less~th.an, significant level, This. mitigation measure requires: that.,ce~ain design standards are incorporated into Project approvals such as: available capacity of 1,000 GPM at 20 PSI fire flow from project fire hydrants on public: mains; .installatiOn of a buffer zone ,along the backs of homes contiguous with wildland .open space areas; and compliance with minimum road widths, maximum street:slopes, parking requirements, and secondary access road requirements.~ Policy 8~6 off:the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also requires provisi.on of emergency vehicle access from.' subdivisions to open space .areas among other fire prevention.methods.to address,conCerns with emergency, access and:evaCuatiOn, The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire .project. and the Specific Plan policy would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan..There are no impacts beyond those analyz, eddn the Eastern-~.Dublin. EIR and thirefore :no additional review-or analysis is ,necessary. g) Expo~e people and structures to a significant risk of loss,, injury or death involving wildland fires~or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? LS, The proposed project inetudes a significant amoun[ of open space, intermixed with proposed residential uses in accordance with the'land use designations of.the General Plan. and ,Eastern Dublin Specific I~lan. However, the relationship ofwildlandopen space to :~banized -uses:- has . the potential to increase the:risk of.wildland fires spreading to 39 urban areas. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the risk of constructing new communities in proximity to high fire hazard open Space areas since it would pose an increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if open space areas Were not maintained for fire safety (Impact 3.4/E). Mitigation measures 3.4/6.0- 13.0 (pp. 3.4-5 -3.4-7) will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require construction of new facilities to coincide with new service demands;, establishment of funding mechanisms for construction of such facilities; incorporation of Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (and, implicitly, any other fire authority which would service the area), requirements into the project, design; integration of fire trails and fire breaks into the open space trail system; and preparation and implementation of a wildfire management plan for the. area. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains two policies (Policy 8-5 and 8-6, p. 125) which address the construction of new facilities and requirements to minimize the potential for impacts from wildland fires. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There .are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Environmental Setting The Project area is located within the Alameda Creek waterShed which drains to the San Francisco Bay. The Project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). The northern portion of the site is hilly and transitions to relatively flat areas immediately adjacent to the 1-580 freeway. Three intermittent streams flowing in a north-south direction, transect the Project area. These drainages appear to originate in the northern, hilly portions of the site but do not drain into any distinct creek or channel. In some locations these drainages have been impounded for use as stock ponds. These drainages do not carry water consistently year-round and are more apparent during the .spring season. Based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) [Community Panel No. 115 of 325, 060001-0115-C; Alameda County, dated September 17, 1997], none of the Project area is located within a 500-year or 100-year flood plain. Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. Site grading (cut and fill) will'occur to construct roadways, building pads, utilities connections and similar improvements. Proposed grading could increase the potential of 40 erosion and increase the amount of sediments carried by storm-water run-off into creeks and other bodies of water, on and off the Project site. These impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA). With adherence to mitigation measures 3.5/44.0 - 46.0, 49.0, 51.0 and 52.0 of the Eastem Dublin EIR (pp. 3.5-35 - 3.5 - 27) these impacts would be less-than-significant. These mitigation measures require: drainage facilities to minimize any increased potential for erosion; channel improvements consisting of natural creek bottoms and side slopes with natural vegetation where possible; preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for each development prior to development (Stage 2'Planned Development)' approval; facilities and management practices which protect and enhance water quality; specific water quality investigations which address xvater quantity and quality of run-off; and community-based programs to educate local residents and business on methods to reduce non-point sources of pollutants. Additionally, development of individual parcels within the Project area will be required to prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), listing Best Management Practices which reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction and post-construction activities. These measures can include revegetation of graded areas, silt fencing and use of biofilters within parks and other landscaped areas. These individual SWPPPs must conform to standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Dubtin and shall be approved by the City of Dublin prior to issuance of grading permits. Both agencies monitor construction and post-construction activities according to the SWPPP and adjustments are made during project construction as necessary to erosion control methods and water quality protection as field conditions warrant. Specific development projects containing five acres of more are also required to submit a Notice of Intent from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to commencement of grading. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies which reflect the mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan listed above. Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X (pp. 133-134) address the potential for erosion and changes in water quality, storm water run-off and storm drainage due to development of the Project area. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There 'are no impacts, beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. b) SUbstantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lower the local groundwater table? LS. Current uses of the property depend upon wells (groundwater), irrigation wells (groundwater) and impounded surface waters (stock ponds) for domestic use and agricultural uses. As development of the Project area occurs, public water systems would be extended to serve the area, reducing the direct need for individual wells to service each 41 property. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that development of the Project could have an impact on local ground water resources and groundwater recharge due to an increase in the amOUnt of impervious surfaces within the Project site (Impact 3.5/Z). With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 (page 3.5-26), this impact is less-than-significant. The Eastern Dublin EIR also noted that the Project is located in an area of minimal groundwater recharge stating that groundwater reserves and the majority of the Tri-Valley's groundwater resources are in the Central Basin, south of the Project area. Mitigation measure 3.5/50.0 notes that Zone 7 supports on-going groundwater recharge programs for the Central Basin. The adopted mitigation measures would Continue to apply to the entire project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including stream courses, such that substantial siltation or erosion Would occur? LS. Development of the project site could change existing natural drainage patterns in the area. Approval of the proposed Project and implementation of individual development projects within the Project area could increase stormwater runoff from the site due to construction and post-construction activities and thereby increase the potential for erosion. These impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA) in relation to. item a) above. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 - 46.0, 49.0, 51.0 and 52.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR (pp. 3.5-35 - 3.5 - 27) these impacts are less-than-significant. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies and programs (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X, pp. 133, 134) which reduce these impact ~o a less-than-significant level. Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies. With implementation of other mitigation measures enacted to reduce erosion due to grading activities (Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0), these impacts would be less- than-significant. Please refer to the previous section entitled Geology and Soils for a discussion of these mitigation measures. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to. apPly to the entire project 'and the Specific Plan policies would continue to applY to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. d) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off th e project site ? LS. Approval of the proposed project and construction of new housing units and other land uses envisioned in the proposed project would change drainage patterns within the project area. This impact was identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.5Y) and with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 - 3.5/48.0 it is less-than- 42 significant. These mitigation measures require drainage facilities to minimize flooding'; channel improvements consisting of natural creek bottoms and side slopes with natural vegetation where possible; a Master Drainage Plan for each development prior to development approval; facilities to alleviate potential downstream flooding due to project development; and the construction of backbone storm drainage facilities., The adopted mitigati, on measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff?. LS. Development of the Project area and post-construction activities unrelated to Project construction could lead to greater quantities of stormwater runoff and could include pollutants in the runoff. These potential impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EI~P,. (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA). 'With implementation of mitigation measures 3.5/44.0- 49.0 and 3.5/51.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR this impact is less-than-significant. Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X, pp. 133-134) also would be implemented and, as such, these impacts would be less- than-significant. Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to' apply to the entire project and the .Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS. Construction activities related to development of the Project area and post- Construction activities could degrade water quality through improper construction practices and poor control of storm water runoff resulting in additional sedimentation and potential pollutants in on-site or down-stream waters. These impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin Ell>,. (Impacts 3.5/Y. and 3.5/AA). With mitigation measures 3.5/44.0, 49.0 and 51.0 adopted in the Eastern Dublin EIR this impact is less-than-significant. Policies of the Eastern Dublin SPecific Plan (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X, pp. 133-134) also would be implemented and, as such, these impacts would be less-than-significant. Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. 43 g, i) Place housing within a ]O0-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or expose people or structures to a szgnificant risk due to flooding or failure of a levee or dam ? NI. None of the project area is located within a 100-year flood plain as mapped by FEMA and no new dwellings would be located in a flood hazard area. There are no upstream dams in the Project area which would place people or structures within the project area in flood danger due to dam failure. There would be no impact in regard to flooding hazards. h) Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flow ? NI. As noted in the response to "g" above, none of the project area is located within a 100 year flood hazard area as defined by FEMA. Development of the Project site is not expected to impede or redirect flood flows and no impact is anticipated. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? LS. The site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche or tsunami. The risk of potential mudflow is considered Iow. With mitigation measures adopted in the Eastern Dublin EIR (measures 3.6/17.0 - 28.0, pp. 3.6-12 - 3.6-15), potential impacts of natural and engineered slope stability, and erosion and sedimentation impacts which could create mudflows would be less-than significant. These mitigatioh measures require the preparation of site~specific soils and geotechnical studies minimizing grading on steep slopes and the formulation of appropriate design criteria; removal/reconstruction of unstable materials; construction of surface and subsurface drainage improvements; reduction of cut-and-fill; maintaining 3:1 cut slopes unless retained; maintaining minimum 2:1 fill slopes unless properly benched, keyed or treated with a geo-gfid; utilizing engineered fill; and adherence to the Uniform'Building Code and other City requirements for grading. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Environmental Setting The Project area abuts the eastern city limit boundary of the City of Dublin (please refer to Exhibit 2). The entire project area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan Planning Area and Sphere of Influence. Approximately 472 acres of the project area also are included within the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (please refer to Exhibit 4). The project site consists of thirteen (13) different parcels under eleven (11) separate 44 ownerships (please refer to Exhibit 7). The proposed land use designations of the Project reflect the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations for the Project area. The proposed residential densities and non-residential development intensity are consistent with the mid-point density and development intensity (floor area ratio) ranges listed in the General Plan and Specific Plan. The proposed land uses associated with each of the proposed land use designations are consistent with the City zoning districts which would implement those land uses and they are consistent with the types of uses approved and/or developed within other areas of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan. Measure D In November of 2000, voters in Alameda County adopted a local land use initiative known as "Measure D." This initiative created a County Urban Growth BOundary within the Alameda County East County Planning Area (ECAP). One of the purposes of this initiative is to. "focus urban-type development in and near existing cities where it will be efficiently served by public facilities, thereby avoiding high costs to taxpayers and users as well as to the environment". The initiative is designed to prohibit the County government from considering urban development outside the "Growth Boundary." The 472-acre portion of the project site that is within the City's Specific Plan is located within the Urban Growth Boundary adopted by Measure D. The remainder of the project site, although within the City's adopted, and recognized Sphere of Influence and within the City's General Plan Planning Area, appears to lie outside of the Measure D Urban Growth Boundary Limit. [NOTE: Review of Measure D indicates a discrepancy between the Urban Growth Boundary Limit Map and the text describing which areas are within the Urban Growth Boundary Limit. This potential discrepancy does not change the analysis, below.] Measure D restricts development in the County, but it does not limit development by cities that are within the County, nor does it create or impose any urban growth boundaries on those cities. Because the entire project site is within the City's Sphere of Influence and the proposed development within the project area is addressed by the General Plan, the project is not constrained or otherwise limited by Measure D. The County recognized that, in the case of Eastern Dublin, the area akeady has been planned for development and eventual annexation is anticipated. (Alameda County Community Development Agency Report to Board of Supervisors dated July 25, 2000.) Measure D also contains language that limits the County's ability to cancel Williamson Act contracts. Upon annexation of the project area to the City, the Williamson Act contracts would be assigned to and assumed by the City. The City would then have the discretion whether or not to cancel th~ contracts should cancellation be requested for the proposed Project. 'Measure D does not restrict the City's actions regarding Williamson Act contracts, however, any requested cancellation would be processed in accordance with statutory provisions and procedures. Measure D provides that the County encourage Zone 7 to pursue new water supply sources and storage facilities only to the extent necessary to serve the rates' and levels of growth established by Measure D and by the general plans of the cities within the service 45 area. Since the City's General Plan provides for the development proposed, any additional water supply sources or facilities required to serve the Project are consistent with Measure D. Measure D's restriction on the County's ability to provide or authorize public facilities in excess of that needed for permissible development consistent with Measure D does not limit the ability to provide the services needed to serve the project area. /74 Hence, Measure D does not contain any language which would create 'a changed circumstance or potential for new impacts not already addressed or analyzed by the Eastern Dublin EIR. Project. Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Physically divide an established community? NI. All parcels which comprise the Project site are contiguous and are not separated by freeways, arterial roadways, or natural barriers. The Project area is adjacent to the City of Dublin's eastern boundary and current urban development area; land to the east of the Project area is as-yet undeveloped. Development of the Project area with the urban uses designated in the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would be a continuation of Dublin as a community. Development of the project site would not divide any established communities or neighborhoods and hence, there would be no impact... b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The Project as proPosed is consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project's proposed "pre-zoning" designations are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the potential land use impacts of the project based upon the assumption that residential development would occur at the mid-point of the residential development densities, and commercial, office and industrial development would occur at the mid-range of the floor area ratios designated for each of those land uses. The project does not propose densities or land use intensities different fi.om that anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The project is required to adhere to all policies and programs of the General Plan and, as applicable to the 472 acres, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project is required to adhere to all City ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of project development. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan ? NI. No habitat conservation P!an or natural community conservation plan 'has been adopted by the City or other agency. The Project area recently has been included in the approximately 5.4'million acres in California proposed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as critical habitat for the red-legged frog. Although this may not be a potentially significant land use impact, land uses within the Project area could be affected 46 by this designation and, as such, the location and intensity' of land uses indicated in the City's General Plan 'and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan could be impacted by this changed circumstance There would be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, but changed circumstances due to other agencies' potential regulatory action could create an impact. This impact, however, is related to biologic resources and has been identified as a potentially significant impact under the BiolOgic Resources section of this Initial Study. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Environmental Setting The subject area currently contains no known mineral resoUrces although a now-defunct gravel pit is located within the Project area on the Fallon Enterprises property just to the east of Fallon Road. The gravel pit has not been in operation for a.number of years and is not currently extracting, producing, or processing any resources. Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources ? NI. The former quarry is not currently extracting resources and there is no indication that the current property-owners wish to renew quarry operations. In any case, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan land uses designations for the area do not specifically permit such use. There are no other known significant mineral resources located within the Project. Development of the Project as proposed (or modified) would have no impact on mineral.resources. XI. NOISE Environmental .Setting Major sources of noise on and adjacent to the project area include noise generated b~ vehicles on 1-580, noise generated by traffic on arterial roadways near the project area, and aircraft flyovers, mainly from aircraft utilizing the Livermore Airport. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a,d) Would the project expose persons to generation of noise levels in, excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard or to substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels? PS. Vehicle noise from 1-580 would be most apparent to new land uses immediately adjacent to the freeway. 'Development of the project as proposed and in accordance with the land use designations of the General Plan and Specific' Plan would include the construction of new arterial roadways and streets. Traffic would be introduced into new residential neighborhoods and urban noise associated with commercial, industrial and other uses would be introduced to the Project area. Although the Eastern Dublin EIR addresses impacts due to this type of noise (Impacts 3.10/A and 3.10/F) and adopted mitigation measures-to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level (Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0, 3.10/6.0), changed environmental circumstances related to urbanization in the Th-valley and beyond with potential changes in commute patterns and increased traffic along 1-580 - may create apotentially significant impact. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? PS. Groundbome vibrations could be caused primarily by heavy traffic along the freeway and along new arterial streets from heavv vehicles traveling primarily to the commercial or industrial sites within the project area. These ambient vibrations would increase permanently due to the proposed change in land use from primarily agriculture to urban uses, and the traffic associated with them. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified permanent impacts related to .vehicular traffic increases (and implicitly, impacts due to urban noise ,and vibration), as an unavoidable and unmifigatable impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council for this impact. The proposed project would not change the scale or type of' development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for areas within the project area and would not change the level of intensity of impact; therefore, no additional discussion or analysis is necessary. However, as noted above, development of the Project area according to the General Plan and Specific Plan includes construction of arterial roads and local streets. These arterial roadways have the potential to create excessive groundborne noise to the volume of daily and peak hour traffic. Similarly, construction .activities within the Project area could create temporary vibrations and noise in localized areas. Although the Eastern Dublin EIR addresses impacts related to ground-borne noise (Impact 3.10/A and F) and indicates mitigation measures which could reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level, changed circumstances due to the level of urbanization within the Th-Valley and beyond which has changed commute patterns 'and traffic intensities and could change the expected level of groundborne noise anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. This changed circumstance could result in apotentially significant impact. c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels? NI. Development of the Project area 'with urban uses will introduce noise to the Project area. Ambient noise levels would increase permanently due to the proposed change in land use fi'om primarily agriculture to urban uses. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified permanent noise impacts related to vehicular traffic increases (and implicitly urban noises) as an unavoidable and unmitigatable imPact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council for this impact; no additional discussion or analysis is necessary. The proposed project would not change the scale of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area and would not change the level of intensity of impact. e, f) Expose people residing or working within two miles ora public airport or in the vicinity of a private airstrip to excessive nOiSe levels ? NI. There is no private airstrip in the. vicinity of the proposed project, therefore, no impact would result. The project area is .located near the Livermore Airport and new residents and workers within the project area could be exposed to aircraft noise from aircraft traveling to and froTM the airport. The Eastern Dublin EIR determined that aircraft noise was a less-than-significant impact (Impact 3.10/C, p. 3.10-4) and no mitigation measure was proposed. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Environmental Setting Data from Projections 2000, published by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), expects the nine-county San Francisco Bay Region to add approXimately 1,096,300 new residents by the year 2020. This represents an increase of about 16 percent over the 20-year forecast period from 2000 - 2020. ABAG expects approximately 401, 750 new households in the region by year 2020.. ABAG estimates that Dublin's population (including its Sphere of Influence) was 31,500 in the year' 2000 and is projected to grow to 66,600 by 2020, and increase of 111%. ABAG estimates that the increase in new households' will create a demand for at least 20,000 new dwellings each year. The City of Dublin is expected to provide 21,290 dwellings by the year 2020. The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated that the Eastern Dublin area would Create 12,458 new dwelling un/ts (Table 3.2-5, page 3.2-7), generating a new resident population of 27,794. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? NI. Development of the project area according to the City's General Plan-and as expected by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would increase population in the project area but not beyond that anticipated or planned-for according to ithe City's General Plan or as anticipated or evaluated by the Eastern Dublin Ell>,.. The City's General Plan contains Guiding and Implementing policies (6.3.A, 2.1.2.C, 2.1.3.A, 2.1.4.A, 6.4B, and 6.4E) to provide a range of housing types. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains policies to provide a diversity of housing opportunities that meets the social, economic and physical needs of future residents (policies 4-2 through 4-6). 49 b, c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI. The project area contains nine existing residences and various agricultural out- buildings and land uses. Current residents and uses could remain in place until such time as development of those particular parcels occurs over time. Due to the limited number of current residents, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people and no impact is expected. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Environmental Setting Water~ Sewer. The project area currently is located within the jurisdiction of Alameda County. The County has limited abilities to provide water or wastewater services to the project area: current residents and land uses rely upon private wells and septic systems for these services. The City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) have worked jointly to ensure that areas annexed to the City also are annexed to DSRSD. The Eastern Dublin EI2~ and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan anticipated that the Project area would be serviced by DSRSD. Additionally, DSRSD's master utilities plans for water, wastewater and recycled watei' include the Project area. The Project area must be annexed into. the DSRSD service area. Fire Protection. Fire protection services for the project area are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD). Since the City of Dublin contracts with ACFD for services, upon annexation to the City, the ACFD would continue service to the Project area. Police Protection. The Alameda County Sheriff's Office and the California Highway Patrol (CH2P) currently provide police services to the project area. Upon annexation, Dublin Police Services would provide services to the area including enforcement of traffic laws which the CHP currently provides and enforcement of city ordinances and state law. Dublin Police Services is under contract with the Alameda County Sheriff's office: the City of Dublin owns the department's facilities and equipment but the personnel are employed by the Sheriff's Office Police and security protection includes 24 hour security patrols throughout the community in addition to crime prevention, crime suppression and traffic safety. Schools. The Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) provides educational services to the project area. However, a request is being prepared to detach from the LVJUSD and attach it to the service area of the Dublin Unified School District. The City of Dublin and the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) prefer that all areas within the City of Dublin be served by DUSD schools. In this case, the Project area is more readily served by DUSD than LJVUSD since the project area is adjacent to DUSD. 50 Maintenance. Other than limited County roads within the project area (Fallon Road and Croak Road), the County provides limited maintenance service to the Project area. Upon annexation to the City of Dublin maintenance of streets~ roads and other public facilities within the project area would be the responsibility of the City of Dublin Public Works Department. Solid Waste Service. The County does not currently provide solid waste disposal service: propertyTowners must dispose of waste at local transfer stations. Upon annexation to the City of Dublin, solid waste service would be Provided by the Livermore/Dublin Disposal Company. Other services. The project area utilizes the Alameda County library services and other government services provided to Alameda County residents. Upon annexation to the City of Dublin, many of these services would be provided by the City. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Although the Eastern Dublin EtR :addressed the impacts of development of the project area on services and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce the identified impacts to a less than significant level, some of these impacts still may be potentially significant for the project area due to Changed circumstances. a) Fire protection ? LS. The project proposes approximately 2,526 new residences and a little over 1.4 million square feet of commercial and industrial building area to be developed in phases. The number of new residences and amount of commercial, industrial and institutional floor space was evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area. Demand for fire services and fire response to outlying areas were considered significant impacts (IM 3.4/D and 3.4/E) and with implementation of mitigation measures (MM 3.4/6.0 - MM3.4/11), these impacts are less-than-significant. These mitigation measures require construction of new facilities timed to coincide with development; require appropriate funding mechaniSms for capital improvements; identify and acquire new fire station sites; and incorporate fire safety measures into project design. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire Pr0j ect. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin E[R and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. b) Police protection ? LS. Developmen~ of the project as proposed could result in almost 6,000 new residents and almost 3,000 new employees in the Project area. The number of new residents and amount of commercial, 'industrial and institutional floor space was evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area. Demand for police services and police services accessibility ~vere considered significant impacts (IM 3.4/A and 3.4/B) and with implementation of mitigation measures (MM 3.4/6.0 - MM3.4/11), these impacts are 51 less-than-significant. These mitigation measures include provision of additional personal and facilities; coordination of development timing to services can be expanded; incorporation of police department recommendations into project design; and preparation of budget strategies 'for personnel and facilities as annexing areas become served by Dublin's Police Department. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. c) Schools? PS. Up to 1,400 new K-12 students could be generated by the project. Changes in student generation rates' due to changed regional economic circumstances may have a different impact on the number and age distribution of students originally anticipated and evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. In addition, the type of schools originally expected to have been constructed according to the Eastern Dublin EIR may have changed. Also, the level of funding and amount of school fees which may be charged according to State law may have changed so that the project could have a different impact on the provision of school facilities and programs. This could be a'potentially significant impact. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. Numerous arterial, collector and local streets and roads will be constructed in the project area. All such streets and public facilities would be constructed by the project developers. Maintenance of these facilities was anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EI~R and considered a significant impact (IM 3.12/A and 3.12/B). Implementation of mitigation measures (MM 3.12/1.0- 8.0)reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. These mitigation measures encourage development agreements; adoption ,by the City of an area of benefit ordinance; creation of Special Assessment of Mello Roos Community Facilities Districts; City evaluation of Marks-Roos bond pooling; and consideration of City-wide developer and builder impact fees. The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. XIV. RECREATION Environmental Setting Since the project area is nor currently developed with urban uses the area contains no parks or other recreational facilities. Nearby community and regional parks include Emerald Glen Park, a 50-acre city park now being developed by the City of Dublin immediately west of Tassajara Road, and two community parks slated for development elsewhere in the Eastern Dublin area. The combined area of the two community parks is 52 126 acres. Each of these parks would allow for organized sports activities and individual sports as well as for passive recreation. Numerous neighborhood parks and neighborhood squares have been included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan planning areas. The East Bay Regional Park District also has developed a staging area on the west side of Tassajara Road as part of a regional recreational trail system. The Project proposes adding approximately 14 acres to one of the community parks listed above and several neighborhood parks and squares to serve the new residents and employees generated by project development. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks ? LS. The proposed development would cause an increase in demand for neighborhood, community and regional park facilities due to an increase in the number of people within the project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the demand for park facilities as a potentially significant impact (IM 3.4/K). Implementation of the mitigation measures as policies within the General Plan and'the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (MM 3.4/20.0 - 28.0) reduce 'this impact to a level of insignificance. These mitigation measures and .policies encourage expanding park areas; maintaining and improving outdoor facilities in conformance with the City's 'Park and Recreation master Plan; acquire and improve parklands; require land dedication and improvements for parks; designate sites in the General Plan and Specific Plan areas; and implement Specific Plan policies for the provision and maintenance of open space. The Eastern Dublin EIR also identified park facilities as a fiscal impact (l/vi 3.4/L). Implementation of the three mitigation measures (MM 3.4/29.0 - 31.0) reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. The adOpted mitigation measures and General Plan policies would continue to apply to the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific Plan..There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational fa cilities ? LS. The project includes neighborhood parks, open space and an addition to a planned community park in accordance with the General Plan and Specific Plan.. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the construction of park facilities and the cost of those facilities as impacts (IM 3.4/k and 3.4/L) and, 'with implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, these impacts are less-than-significant (please see a) above for a full discussion). The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. 53 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Environmental Setting The project site is served by a number of regional freeways and sub-regional arterial and collector roadways, including: Interstate 1-580, Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive, Arnold Road, Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road. Development of the Project as proposed or modified would introduce new arterial roadways and collector streets into the project area. The Project is proposing a minor change in the location of one collector street by removing it from a potentially sensitive intermittent stream area. Other roadways are proposed in the General Plan planning area which were not considered as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR (residential collector streets which could occur in the General Plan planning area were not addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR). Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the traffic and transportation impacts of development of the project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified impacts to a tess than significant level. Due to increased Urban development' in the Tri- Valley area and beyond which may impact roadways within the project area, there could be the potential for additional transportation/traffic impacts. a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic toad and street capacity? PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the project area with the proposed 2,526 dwelling units and 1.4 million square feet of commercial/industrial floor space, and indicated mitigation measures to address the impacts thereof. However, changes in Tri-Valley commute Patterns and traffic intensities in addition to the anticipated Project traffic, may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. These impacts could include traffic impacts within the project area, or at Project intersection, or on freeways, roads, etc. which the project may utilize. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads? PS. As noted above, the addition of approximately 2,526 dwelling units and 1.4 million square feet of commercial/industrial building area in the project area were anticipated and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR but the impacts of development on regional freeways and local roadways in conjunction with changing commute patterns and traffic intensities unrelated to the project may cause potentially, significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. 54 c) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The Livermore Airport is located to the south of the project Area. The Airport Land Use Commission of Alameda County has established land use policies for areas within the Airport Protection Area and the General Referral and Height Referral area of the airport. .Development of the project area is subject to the policies of the ALUC. Development of the project area is not expected to create a change in air traffic pattern§ at the airport and hence would have no impact on air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? PS. Approval of the proposed project and future development of the site would add new roads, driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist. The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated and addressed these potential impacts and suggested mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. However, changes in Tri-Valtey commute patterns and traffic intensities in addition to the anticipated project traffic may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. These impacts could include traffic impaCts within the project area, or at project intersection, or on freeways, roads, etc. wkich the project may utilize, such that traffic- related hazards to pedestrians or bicyclists using the new roads and other circulation features could increase. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? PS. The present need for emergency access is low, since there are few current residents or visitors to the site. Construction of new residences and commercial development within the project area could increase the need for emergency services and related access to new residences and commercial establishments. The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated and suggested mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. However, changes in. Tri- Valley commute patterns and traffic intensities in addition to the anticipated project traffic may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. For example, potential increased volumes of traffic unrelated to the project may create a potentially significant impact on emergency access capability on project streets or intersections during peak traffic hours. f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. Parking for individual projects within the project area would be reviewed by the City of Dublin at the time such proposals are submitted to ensure consistency with City parking requirements. No impact is anticipated. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs for alternative tranSPortation? NI. Individual projects within the subject site will be designed with sidewalks, pedestrian walk-ways and bicycle routes to minimize potential hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists and to support these alternative transportation modes. In accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, bicycle routes and pedestrian trails are included as part of the 55 proposed Project. The City and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan'have standards by which bus turn-outs, bicycle paths, trails and sidewalks must be planned and constructed. Bus mm-outs are required to be installed by project developers in accordance with City requirements and bus service plans. These improvements will be confirmed at the time each individual development project is reviewed by the City. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Environmental Settin~ The project area currently is served by the Alameda County Flood Con~ot District Zone 7 as a regional water supplier and distributor and for storm drain facilities. The Dubli~n San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would serve the project area as the water retailer; would provide wastewater collection and treatment; and would .provide opportunities for the use of recycled water for landscape purposes. Since the project area is mainly undeveloped except for nine residences and scattered outbuildings, current services to the Project area are minimal. Upon annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin, project developers would be required to extend new services to the area to provide a public water supply for domestic and fire flow use, a recycled water service for irrigation of public medians and parks, and a public wastewater treatment system, all of which would connect with: existing facilities maintained and controlled by DSRSD. Project developers would be required to install new storm drainage facilities which would connect with existing facilities maintained and controlled by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7. Althou. gh most of these infrastructure facilities would be installed by Project developers, all of these systems would be public and would be maintained by public agencies such as the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Cable TV utihties also.would be extended to the project area. Gas and Electricity (current settin ~) Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas to the project site. Existing service to the project area includes minor tow voltage distribution feeders at 21 kilovolts (kV) and service within the project vicinity is provide by PG&E distribution lines along Fallon, Croak, and Collier Canyon roads. There are no transmission lines within the project area. A natural gas main is proposed to be extended along Dublin Boulevard eastward from its current terminus to within 2,812 feet of the Project Site when PG&E and Pacific Bell install a joint trench in Dublin Ranch Area G in late 2001 or early 2002. Currently, California is experiencing an energy shortfall. 'PG&E declared bankruptcy in April, 2001; it is unknown if this will have any effect on the company's ability to continue to provide service. 56 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the provision and extension of services and utilities to the project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified impacts to a less than significant level. However, additional or new potential impacts may be potentially significant for the Project area due to changed circumstances (increased urban development in the Tri-Valley area, changes in water purveyor and distributor contracts, changes in the handling and disposal of wastewater, changes in supply and distribution of gas and electricity, etc.) a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the R WQCB? PS. Changes in circumstances due to regional policy changes, funding mechanisms and timing of infrastructure improvements may create a potentially significant impact. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? PS. As noted above, changes in circumstances due to regional policy changes, funding mechanisms and timing of wastewater infrastructure improvements may create a potentially significant impact. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? PS. New facilities will be needed as a result of development and may exceed those previously analyzed. This may be apotentially significant impact. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? PS. DSRSD, which would provide water service and supply to project area has included the project within its master plans and projections. However, water supplier contracts and recent litigation may have an impact on how, when and how much water is supplied to the project. This may be apotentially significant impact. e) Adequate Wastewater capacity to serve the prop °S ed project? PS. Approval of the proposed project' and development of the site could result in an increased demand for wastewater treatment over present conditions. Due to increased and more rapid development in the Th-Valley area there may be a potential need to expand the capacity of the treatment plant earlier than originally anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. This could be apotentially significant impact. f). Solid waste disposal? PS. Development of the project as proposed could incrementally increase the generation of solid waste. Although this 'impact was addressed in the Easlern Dublin EIR, changed Circumstances due to more rapid development in the Tri-Valley area in combination with 57 the anticipated project could have a potentially significant impact on the availability of solid waste disposal services. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. The City of Dublin and the solid waste hauler would ensure that developers of individual projects constructed in the Project area would adhere to federal, state and local solid waste regulations; therefore, no impact would result. h) Gas and electricity? PS. Prior to the current state-wide energy crisis, PG&E had the ability to adequately serve the Th-Valley with existing facilities until approximately June 2002. PG&E has proposed the Th-Valley 2002 Capacity Project 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). PG&E is proposing construction of aS-acre, 230/21 kV substation with four 45 megawatt transformers in eastern Dublin. If the Th- Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or a functional equivalent project 'is not constructed, PG&E would be forced to' respond to growing demand by expanding its existing sYStem to the extent that 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 Th-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project is delayed, then other alternatives would be identified. However,' given that PG&E has declared bankruptcy and the that there is an apparent energy provision shortfall within the state and from out-of-state providers, it is unclear Whether PG&E would or could pursue the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or, even if approved and constructed, whether there would be energy available to supply the new facilities. The impacts of the project on the consumption of non-renewable resources is identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (IM 3.4/S) and mitigation measures (MM 3.4/45.0 - 3:4/46.0) are adopted as part of the project in an effort to reduce natural resoUrCe consumption and encourage energy conservation, the impact was determined to be unavoidable and adverse. Pursuant to CEQA, a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by the City Council for this impact. However, the current uncertainty of the supply of energy to the state as a whole, the potential bankruptcy of the electricity and gas service provider, and the potential l'ack of new energy-providers/power facilities may haVe a potentially significant impact. XV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or 58 b) c) wildlife population to drop below self-sUstaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the. major periods of California history or prehistory? YES. Please refer to the discussion in the Biological Resources section above (Section IV) regarding changes regulatory circumstances and the adoPtion of the critical habitat for the California red-legged frog.. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of possible future projects.) 'YES. The project constitutes about 25 percent of the overall Eastern Dublin planning area. Other parts of this area have been or are being developed in accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Although the Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the cumulative impacts of development of the Project area within its evaluation of the overall Eastern Dublin planning area, changed circumstances mentioned throughout this Initial Study may contribute to changed cumulative impacts which should be further analyzed. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the potentially significant adverse impacts of the proposed Project through its evaluation of the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. The Eastern Dublin EI~R suggested mitigation measures which reduce many such impacts to a less-than significant level and where such impacts could not be reduced or otherwise had a cumulative adverse impact, the City Council adopted a Statement of Over-riding Consideration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. As discussed previously in this document, however, changes in circumstances since the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified have the potential for significant effects beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Initial Study Preparer Anne Kinney, Associate Planner, City of Dublin References Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental 59 Impact Report, Wallace Roberts and Todd, 1994. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, June 6, 1998 City of Dublin General Plan, revised July 7, 1998 Projections 2000, Association of Bay Area Governments, December 1999 Persons/Agencies Contacted in Preparation of this Document Grassetti Environmental Consulting City of Dublin, Public Works Department City of Dublin, Planning Department Dublin San Ramon Services District Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7 MacKay and Somps 60 TABLE 1' PROPOSED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACREAGES, LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT Proposed Pr°Ject Land Use Type Gross (Midpoint Density per City Policy) Acres density units or square feet Low Density Residential 433.5 i ,734 (0.9 - 6 du/acre) Medium Density Residential 9.4 94 (6.1 -'14 du/acre) Medium/High Density Residential 34.8 696' (14.1 - 25 du/acre) Rural Residential/Agriculture 269.1 2 (1 du/100 acres or parcel) Future Study Area1 92.6 0 General Commercial 41.0 446,490 (0.25 FAR) Neighborhood Commercial 10.3 134,600"' (0.30 .FAR) Industrial Park 68.9 840,360 (max. 0.28 FAR) Junior High School 14.6 N/A Elementary Schools 17.3 N/A Community Park 14.1 N/A Neighborhood Parks 24.0 N/A Neighborhood Square 2.7 N/A' Open Space 76.9 N/A Totals 1109.2~ 2,526 du 1,421,450 sf Notes: 1 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. 2 This acreage total is less than the 1,120 acre project area because it omits acreage Utilized for public dghts of way. San Francisco Pacific Ocean 0 (~ 10 Miles DetailI San Francisco Bay East Dublin Properties EXI-IIBIT 1 Vicinity Map TracY ! ! Fallon Enterprises First American /Title Guaranty Co. / / ! lllAI)KAY & SomP$ First American Title Guaranty Co. 19149~lagel~ hlh~tT-pmp.pad I ! I I % \ \ Chen Croak / / | / / / / Anderson Second Family .~ tted Partaers~ i East Dublin Properties EXHIBIT 7 Property Owners Braddock & Logan Group EBJ Partners, L.P.\ Pteasanton Ranch - / Investm~,nts 1-580 Croak Branaugh Righetfi [ Partners , Canyon Road ! ! | ! I I % \ \ East Dublin Properties EXHIBIT 4 Lands within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Lands Within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area IflAOKAY&.SomPs ~up-.T. ZR'~exh Ibif4-ED SPL~nds.psd 1-580 t Ii .?rojec~ ~re~., L I I FUTURE STUDY AREA! AGRICULTURE` 274¢.9 Acres L '14' Acres [' (Crosby) ~ Oellerel Commercial may be oermitted by e Planned Deva)ooment Zo~ Process (sea text f(:x- complete Cscusslon ] · ~ Wil convefl to Futtxe Sludy Area/Agriculture where determined incnnslslan! with APA (see text lot complele discussion) 1~19149\su p-EIR\exhibit5-EDGPA General Plan -Eastern Extended Planning Area LAND USE MAP Legend COMMERCIAL Neighbo3'x3od Commercia~ General Commercial Hdustdal Park RESDENTIAL ~ High Density 25- ~ac ~ MedkJm-High Density 14-25 du/ac ~ Medium Density 6-t4 ~b/ac ~ Low Density 0-6 d~ac ~ Rural ResidenliaVAgrtctJture 1 dJ/100 ac PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC/OPEN ~ Public/Semi,Pubic Fscilily ~ Elementary $choot (~ Jun[or H~gh School (~ High School (~ Public/Semi-Public ~ P~ks & Recreation (~)' City Park ~) Comn'~.~ity Park (~ Neighborhood Psrk Neighborhood Square Open Space Stream Corridor C~RCOLAT~ON ~ Arterial Street .... Colector Street ......... T;'amit E~k~e ~-~ SOl Boundary .... Genera) Plan Amendment Study A~oa · ---~ Specific Ran Study Area r:&.C:TI=RN .a, ,o. lgg3 DUBLIN East Dublin Properties EXHIBIT 5 East Dublin Properties ..... JH - 3unlor High Seh~t NP- Neighborh~ Park : ' ': :~: CP- CommuniD' Park 1 - tndust~l Park Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) This document can be viewed at the Planning Department Counter 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Attachment 5 La~ 0¢¢i~e o¢ S. Fla~hman Law Offices of Stuart M. Irlashmau 5626 Ocean View Drive Oakland, CA 94618-1533 (510) 652-5373 (voie~ & FAX) e-mail: stuflash~aol.oom delivery. ,bY fax, and mail September '14, 2001 Planning Department City of Dublin !00 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 RE: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan & Annexation, SCH #2001052114. To Whom it May Concern: This letter is written on behalf of. Citizens for Balanced Growth, Inc. (~CBG") and Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee (~PARC"), Inc. to conunent on the above-referenced DSEIR. As I am sure you are aware, we have already submitted a comment letter on the Notice of Preparation for the DSEIR. A copy of that letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Parenthetically, are disappointed that Dublin has chosen to ignore the comments contained in that letter, and in a similar letter written by the City of Livermore. CBG and PARC believe that Dublin's decisionmakers and the public deserve a full discussion of the potential impacts of this proposed project. We believe the best way to provide that information would have been to prepare a full EIR, rather than the more narrowly focused Supplemental EIR the Dublin has chosen. CBG and PARC are also disappointed that Dublin has chosen to ignore the comments contained in its earlier letter identifying additional project impacts. As a result, the DSEIR starts off from a position of inadequacy for failing to identify numerous potentially .significant impacts identified in the earlier letter. Generally, the DSEIR is inadequate for failing to fully identify and discuss the proposed project's potential impacts, for failing to adequately mitigate identified project impacts and for failing to consider an adequate range of alternatives. The specific deficiencies of the DSEIS/R are discussed in detail below. I~IL~ ~O ADEQUAT~LX IDENTIF~AND DISCUSS IMPACTS Of course, under Public Resources 'Code ~21166, the DSEIR need only identify those impacts that were not adequately treated in the prior 1992 EIR, or for~which the project, conditions, or information have changed significantly in a way that requires reconsideration of the prior EIR's discussion. .As the DSEIR notes, the nature of uses within the project area has not changed significantly from those discussed in the 1992 EIR. ATTACHMENT SEP-14-200t 02:41PM TEL)510 652 5373 ID)CITY OF DUBLIN PAGe002 R=99%'" From: Stuart M. Flashman (510) 652-5373 To: Cit~, of Dublin Planning Dept. Date: 9/17/01 Time: 9:53:26 AM Page 2 of 2 Comment letter on E.Dublin DSE!R 9/t7/01 Page 2 not changed significantly from those discussed in the 1992 EIR. However, the project itself is a significantly different project from the 1992 project. The 1992 EIR was for a general plan amendment and specific plan. The current EIR ccYers annexation, prezoning, and a Stage 1 Development Plan for the project area. It also includes a series of annexations and deannexations related to the annexation of the property to the City of Dublin. ~hile all of the project area was included in the 1992 general plan amendment, only part of the project area was included in the 1992 East Dublin Specific Plan. Consequenzty, 'the current project, which goes well beyond the level included in the 1992 general plan amendment, is significantly different from the 1992 project. The t992 EIR may have considered the entire project area at a programmatic level for the general plan amendment, but not at the project level at which this DSEiR is being prepared. While the current EIR may tier cff cf the prior prcgrammatic EIR, it cannot subs~/tuze that document's program level analysis for the project level analysis needed in this EIR. Consequently, at a very basic level the DSEIR is inadequate for the part cf the project area extending beyond that of the 1992 East Dublin Specific Plan. At the level of specific project impacts, the DSEIR fails to identify several significant project impacts not already adecuately discussed and mitigated az the project level in the 1992 EIR. These include 1) Ail project-level impacts for zhe area beyond that encompassed by the 1992 East Dublin Specific Plan, and specifically including land use, 2) agricultural impacts from conversion cf prime agricultural lands to Urban uses, 3) air quality impa.cts, and specifically impacts related to ozone production, 4) impacts on biological resources, including specifically lcss of wetlands, intermittent streams, ponds, alkali grasslands, and impacts on the rare, endangered and candidate species, including the California red-legged frog, fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp, San Coaquin Kit Fox, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle, the burrowing and short eared owls, etc., 5) traffic impacts, 6) utility impacts, including specifically impacts on water, wastewater, electric and natural gas service, 6) land use, population and housing impacts and hydrology and water quality impacts. These deficiencies are discussed more specifically below. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS In addition zo the deficiencies identified above, the DSEIR is defective in its analysis of alternative. Although the DSEIR adds one additional alternative to those ana'lyzed in the 1992 EIR, new information has developed over the intervening period, specifically development of what is commonly'called ~smart grce-th". (See, ABAG materials for 9/8/01 workshop on Smarz Grcwth, a copy of which is being forwarded herewith and is ~EP-17-2001 09:58RM TEL) ID)CITY OF DUBLIN PRGE:002 L~w 0¢¢i~e o¢ S. Fla~hm~n Comment letter on E.DUblin DSEIR 9/14/01. Page 3 lncorporated herein by this reference.) This concept calls for reduCing the impacts from new development by focusing new development within already developed areas, densifying development at public transit hubs and along major transit corridors, limiting development of new areas to the minimum necessary and focusing that development at relatively high densities in public transit-friendly designs. The East Dublin DSEIR needs to identify, analyze, and discuss additional alternatives consistent with the ~smart growth" strategy. Specifically, the SEIR needs to include 1) an alternative that attempts to accommodate the development planned for the Project Area within the existing city limits of Dublin (and adjoining cities) through densification of existing zoning and'2) an alternative focusing development within the project area to higher density clusters that are designed to be transit friendly - i.e., are located along major thoroughfares well-served by public transit, are completely within easy walking distance of public transit access, and are of sufficiently high density (e.g., greater than 10 units/acre residential) to financially support public transit. The latter alternative should also be planned to avoid areas of significant biological importance, including wetlands, intermittent streams, ponds, and other wildlife habitats. There can be little doubt that either of these alternatives would greatly reduce project impacts from those analyzed in the DSEIR. (See, CEQA Guidelines Sect. 15126(d) (1,3).) DETAILED DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS & MITIGATION The following section discusses mn more detail the deficiencies ±n the DSEIR's discussion of project impacts and their mitigation. 1) land use, housing and population - see comments in comment letter on NOP; these comments have not been addressed adequately in the DSEIR. 2) agricultural impacts - the DSEIR's analysis is contained in a short report included as a technical appendix. (Volume 2, Appendix C.) The report summarily concludes that while portions of the project area contain class I or II soils, irrigation is not feasible. However, the report ignores the DSE!R's own data showing that these parts of the project area will be in close proximity to major recycled water lines. (Figure 2-J.) The report does not explain why irrigation would not be possible using water from these lines. Further, while the site may be far from the main turnout from the South Bay Aqueduct, it is not far from the nearest Zone 7 turnout for untreated water. The report does not consider the feasibility of extending irrigation pipelines from the nearest Zone 7 untreated water facility. Also, while the DSEIR notes that the land is not located directly over the main groundwater basin, it is located over a peripheral basin. The DSEIR doesn't consider the potential use SEP-14-2001 02:42PM TEL~510 652 5373 ID%CITY OF DUBLIN PAGe003 R=99% Law O¢¢ice o¢ S. Flashman Comment letter on E.Dublin DSEIR 9/14/01 Page 4 of a peripheral basin to irrigate these lands, nor does it consider the possible use of slant wells to access the main groundwater basin, located just south of 1-580. (See attached map, taken from Zone 7 1996 F.I.O. Analysis for Dougherty Valley.) These considerations force the conclusion that the class I and II soils in the area are in fact irrigable. The EIR therefore needs to be revised to consider the removal from use of these prime agricultural lands. 3) Air Quality and Traffic Impacts - The DSEIR acknowledges significant air quality and traffic impacts beyond those identified in the 1992 EIR, but it concludes that these impacts cannot be further mitigated to a significant extent. This conclusion is unfounded. The DSEIR has failed to consider numerous feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the project's traffic and air quality impacts by reducing use of single occupancy vehicles (~SOV") and encouraging use of carpools and public transit. While the DSEiR identifies numerous roadway improvements to partially mitigate the project's traffic impacts, it puts off consideration of mitigation measures intended to decrease SOV ~use and increase public transit use (e.g., employer-funded free transit passes for employees, preferential parking for carpooi participants, staggered work hours, etc. - see page 3~6-i9) to the Stage 2 Development Plan. This is an improper deferment of mitigation, especially when the EIR concludes there are significant unmitigated cumulative impacts. Further, the DSEIR totally fails to consider numerous measures.that, would mitigate' both traffic and air quality impacts. Among these are the following: t) establish a transit assessment district for the project area to fund public transit improvements, including frequent shuttle service to and from the Pleasanton BART station. The City of Emeryville has had a similar successful program for more than ten years. 2) Require employers to implement fe~-based employee parking, with exemption for employees using carPools or vanpools. 3) Implement congestion pricing on both residential and commercial parking, with an exit and entry fee required at parking lots during peak commute hours. 4) Implement HOV lanes on major city arterials, especially those leading to and from 1-580. 5) Support implementation of HOV lanes on 1-580. These mitigation measures would all serve to decrease SOV use, simultaneously reducing both traffic and air quality impacts. 4) Impacts on Biological Resources - The primary problem with the DSEIR's analysis and discussion of biological resources is that it improperly relies on reports and mitigation measures that have yet to be written or fully devised.~ For example, the analysis of many of the biological resource impacts is based on several surveys and reports still in preparation. (See, e.g., reference at page 3.3-7 to "Sycamore, in prep". It should be obvious that the public cannot review or comment on a report that has not yet been completed. This DSEIR needs to be Comment letter on E.Dublin DSEIR 9/14/01 Page 5 withdrawn and reissued for comment once the referenced reports have been completed and are available for review and comraent. Of equal importance is that many of the proposed mitigation measures hinge on the preparation of a Resource Management Plan (~RMP") (SM-Bio-i). While the DSEIR identifies some of the expected contents of the RMP, it is of course impossible for the public to comment on the adequacy of a plan that has not yet been created. This is particularly true when it is not clear a priori ~hat all biological resOurce impacts are, in fact, fully mitigable, despite the DEIR's conclusion that preparation of the RMP will fully mitigate project impacts. (DSEIR, page 3.3-15.) It is also to be noted that the discussion of mitigation measures for biological resource impacts often include the term ~should" instead of the mandatory ~shall". (E.g., SM-BIO-1 at page 3.3-14, SM-BIO-3.) In the court case on the 1992 EIR, the court concluded that the use of~should was intended to be mandatory. The EIR needs to clarify if in this document as well "should" is to be considered mandatory. Preferably, those "shoulds" need to replaced by language that indicates more clearly whether the directive is mandatory or not. The DSEIR also often includes mitigation measures that include provisions to occur "if feasible". (E.g., SM-BIO-5, SM-BIO-II, SM-BIO-14, SM-BIO-19.) Often, the DSEIR allows for off-site mitigation without regard to the relative importance of the on,site habitat being lost and the of-site replacement habitat. Any of-site replacement habitat needs to have at least equal biological habitat value to the lost on-site habitat, particularly in regard to its role in retaining connectivity of habitat for the species involved. This has been recognized explicitly the the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in its designation of Critical Habitat for endangered species such as the red-legged frog. However the DSEIR does not discuss this important aspect of habitat suitability as a criterion for replacement habitat. Utilities - water, wastewater '& electricity - As the comment letter of the NOP indicates, the reliability of all of these utilities is open to question. While DSRSD has submitted a Preliminary Water Service Analysis for the East Dublin area, the adequacy of that docu~uent has been disputed by both CBG and the City of Livermore. As you are aware, the parties are now in a dispute resolution process which may lead to submission of a revised Final Water Service Analysis. If that revised FWSA identifies new potential impacts and/or new raitigation measures which would need to be implemented to avoid significant impacts, under Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 ~26 Cal. Rptr.2d 231; 864 P.2d 502], Dublin will need to reopen its environmental review process to take into account this significant new information. Comment letter on E.Dublin DSEIR 9/14/01 Page 6 The DSEIR also makes the assumption that a future provision of a ~will serve" letter is adequate mitigation for the possible inability of either DSRSD or PG&E to provide reliable service. However, requiring a will serve letter is not adequate analysis or mitigation for the possible future inability to provide service. What will happen if a will serve letter cannot be provided? Will only half the project be built? If so, what will be the impacts from not building the other half? These questions need to be answered now, not at some Later date when the project has already been approved. CBG and PARC look forward to reviewing a revised EIR that responds fully to these conunents. Most sincerely, Stuart-M. Flashman ..i C. OL H Alameda County i~ battling te~l~c con- gestiOn and expe~ie~cing an affordabl,~ fiousing cris~s. However; there ~re~m~n~ opportunltie~ to change current trendL Options for ~:he future include revitalization of elder downtowns and commercial corrldors~ mixed-use. deVeloPment around B~R? ~tation.~ ami e~her?transit faci~i'fles, and smarter patterns of Suburban DeYelopmenC Patterns and Growti~ Trends Alameda is the second most urbanized count)' in the region after San Francisco. Development originally cen- tered on established cities such as OaUand, Berkeley and Mameda, with additional town centers in places such as Hayward, .Pleasanton and LNermore, These communities now feature relatively compact, gridded street fabrics and retain shopping districts established at former streetcar stops. Later development spread soufl~ward to communities such as Castro Valley, Union City and Fremont, and east across the hills to Dublin and outlying portions of Pleasanton and Livermore. These newer areas are char- acterized by a greater separation of land uses and dis- continuous street patterns, making fl~em more auto- mobile-dependent. ]'hey are currently the most rapidly growing parts of the county. Development intensities vary remarkably across cities, Emeryville, which has been transforming industrial land to other uses, now has the highest average residen- tial density, (more than 20 units per acre) of any city in the region, including San Francisco. In contrast, average residential densities in the Tri-Valley cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore range from five to s~x un/ts per acre, Streetcar lines and ferries once provided extensive serv- ice within older Alameda County cities and across the Bay to San Francisco. Since these were discontiuued in the 1940s and 1950s, automobile infi'astrucml'e has served as the mainstay of the county's transportation system. By the t970s, freeways had been constructed throughout the county. Most of these routes hm, e been widened or otherwise improved in recent years, and now feature blgh-occupancy-vehicle {HOV) lanes. The Metropolitan 'lYausportation Commission is planning an express bus network using these Hov Facilities · will link parts of Alameda County with Contra Cc San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Since the early 1970s, BART has provided comme rail service for much of the county. Furore extensi are planned or contemplated to Whrm Sprit Livermore and even to San los,5 in Santa Clara Coul The Capitol Corridor provides long-distance rail se ice between Sacramento mad San ]os~, and since l AItamont Commuter Express {ACE) trains have set the hounty with trains traveling between Stockton Silicon Valle5: AC Transit and the Live:rmore-Ama, Valley Transit Authority ope~'ate extensive local bus terns. Despite these transit resources, only 5.6 percen trips in Alameda Count), are by transit. Key Challenges Housing construction has not kept pace with · growth in jobs during the last decade. Consequen between 1990 m~d 2000, there was an increase of alto 30,000 long-distance commuters coming into the cot t~; primarily ti'om outside the nine-county Bay Ar The largest increases were seen in commuters fix Stanislaus, San loaquin and Merced counties. Although the housing market cooled in 2001, Alame County housing prices are still rising due to this sho age and many- lower-income resident:; a~e being tbrc to seek affordable, housing elsewhen.,. According tc ]une 2001 study by the California Association of REA TORS, only 21 percent of Alameda County househol can a~fi)rd the median-priced Alameda G.)unty home $369,000, This shortage of housing has other effects well. Along with real estate prices, congestion , Alameda County's streets and fl'eeways is increasit whid~ affects all cotmty residents. 'lb keep pace with tHs projected job growth, Alameda County will need to add benveen ~0,000 and :.45,000 adclitional hou~,;ing u:aits in the next 120 years. Opgortunit'ies Older downtowns and commerdal corridors through- out the county present important opportunities f~r infill development that also can offer new housing and am enR~es fox local residents. Ci tie:; such as Hayw~rd, San Leandro, Fremont, Dublin, Livermore and Oakland are focusiug planning eflbrts in this direction. Transit-ori- ented development around BART sliafions and around well-served bus corridors offers locatior~s for future "transit villages."' such as the one plarme,:l adjacent to the. new West Dublin BART ~,.tafion. This project will i.nclude high-density residential develc,pn'tent and a full service hotel. The closure of former military facilities - Alameda Point, Oak Knoll, Oakland Army Base, the Oakland Harbor Transportation Center and the Mame&i Naval Air Station - offers yet anolher set of development opportunities in prime l~cations in the western part of the county. Such facilities as ,,veil as o:her clean,ed-up "brownfield" sites car~ h~mdle many new u:ies. Almost 50 percent of new A ameda County housing units i~.~ the aext 20 years are tbrecaSt m be bush in the Tri-Valley ci':ies of D'ablin, PleasantOn and Livermore. This develd~ment will offer key opportunities smarter subdivision design. Already, inew developments in places like Dublin offer a gre,qtev range of housing tTpes within more walkable, mixed~u~ neighborhoods. But much more can be done to improve subdivision design in wi~Ys thai will redure driving and use land more efficiently. Connecting slreet networks, a greater mix of land uses and housing types, more pedestrian- friendly street environments, and higher residential densities are among the possibilities. O??i~e o? ~. Flm~hm~n I.~w Offices of Stuart M. Flashman 5626 Ocean View Drive . Oakland, CA 94618-1533 (510) 652-53?3 (voice & FAX) e-mail: stuflash@a01.com DELIVERY BY FAX TO (92,5,),829-1180 .July 27, 2001 Mr. Bruce Webb, Senior Planner Dublin San Ramon Services District " 7051 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, CA 94568 ~ RE: Statement of Obiectio.ns to .Prelimina.ry Water Service AnalYsis for East Dublin Properties stage 1 DeVelopmentptan AnnexatiOn Project. ' Dear Mr. Webb, Citizens for Balanced Growth ("CBG") must regretfully ·object to DSRSD's recently issued Preliminary Water Service Analysis for the East-Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan Annexation Project and the accompanying Programmatic Water Service Analysis for EaStern Dublin. The prior water Service ,analyses for Eastern Dublin prepared bY DSRSD contained nu~rous unsupported and untenable assumptions about future water sUpply. The current dOcuments make a pretense, of providing actual data to support their assertions, but the.y continue to fall far shOrt of what is required Under the settlement' agreement govermng their preparation. It should be noted that most, if not'all, of th® actual data and analysis is contained in the Programmatic Water· Service Analysis ("PWSA"). The Preliminary Water Service AnalySis for the'specific project in question purports to tier off of the PWSA, and contains little in the way of information or analysis. Consequently, this critique will focUs on the deficiencies in the PWSA. Obviously, the project-specific water service analysis can only satisfy the settlement agreement if its supporting docUmentation, and specifically the PWSA, does So. Thus, to the extent the PWSA is inadequate; 'the project-SpecJfic water service analysis is also. The current analyses are inadequate in their discussions of both water qUality and water reliability. The data and evidence presented do not support the analyses' COnclusions that there will be no significant impact from the proposed project, tf they are to meet the requirementS of' the settlement agreement, they will need to be rewritten extensively to ~Jther D/~vjd~ ~de~tuatf~ s. wnort for' the nnnnlu,~inn,~ nr tn mviae the measures coma De .ac~opteCl [o mmgate tnose ~mpacts. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS A fundamental errOr in the PWSA's analysis of water quality impacts is its assumption that the only water quality impacts are those related to changes in the quality of water treatment. However, the PWSA itself acknowledges that standard water treatment.technolOgy has only minimal effect on many of thewater quality characteristiCs of the source water. (PWSA, Pages 3-3 and 3,4.) Further, the PWSA alSo acknowledges (PWSA, page 3,2) that the long-term source water quality depends largely on the qualitY' of Delta water. HoWever, the PWSA does not include an adequate O~fi~e o~ S. Fla~hm~n Mr. Bruce Webb 9/14/01 Page 2 O~?].,~70:3. 01: ~3~9P P. O1' analysis of the potential effects on the quality of DSRSD's water sources, particularly in drought years, of adding the Eastern Dublin area to DSRSD's service area. The PWSA acknowledges that the concentration of contaminants in the DSRSD's Delta sourCe waters varies both seasonally and from year to yeari (PWSA, page 3-3.) However, the PWSA conclusorily states that the only contaminant'whose concentration could be affected by the increase in demand due to annexation of Eastern Dublin is total dissolved solids (TDS). (PWSA, page 3-5.) ThiS assumption is not adequately supported. The data provided in Appendix I shows that seasonal and year-to-year variation can result in as much as a 5-6 fold variation in both total dissOlved solids (shown either directly or via conductivity; Figures 3-1 through 3-3) and THM-producing organic constituents (Figures 3-4 through 3-7). Unfortunately, the PWSA contains no corresponding data for groundwater water quality. Att it shows is figures for groundWater. TDS in :the ~2000-2001 water year. Those figures indiCate that the average groundwater TDS is 344 mg/l. While that figUre is higher than the' average TDS for treated surface water during that period, it is considerably lower that 400-500 rng/l concentrations shown for Delta water during drought periods. No figures are included for THM-prod ucing organic contaminants in. th® g roundwater,,~but groundwater would generally be expected to have iow concentrations of such contaminants. During as drought, the additional demand due to annexation of Eastern Dublin would require Zone 7 and DSRSD to draw additional water supplies from the Delta in such yeam'(e.g., withdrawals of water from SWSD, received as exchanges through the Delta), Based on the above; such additional Delta supplie~'WOuld actually significantly decrease'DSRSD Water' quality, both in' terms of TDS and THM precurSOrs. The PWSA does not provide suffiCie6t data to determine the effects on other contaminants, so it is impossible, based on the data presented, to determine if there would also be significant increases in concentrations of other contaminants. During a drought, hoWever levels of contaminants in Delta water would generally be expected increase dUe' to the decreased dilution by slowpack runoff. ConsequentlY, such levels would also rise in DSRSD water as a result of the East Dublin annexations. Overall, the PWSA does not contain data to support its conclusion that water qUality will not be impacted by the East Dublin annexations. To' the contrary, .even the meager data contained in the PWSA tends to indicate that there will be significant Water quality impacts. · WATER RELIABILITY IMpACTs As with water quality, the data and analysis in the PWSA do not support its conclusion that there will be nO significant water reliabilitY imp. acts from the East Dublin annexation. To begin with, DSRSD's analysis assumes that its contract with Zone 7 satisfies the SA's requirement for a reliable water supply. This requirement is that DSRSD hold a water right, contract, Or other entitlement that can be relied upon to provide such supplies for the foreseeable future, and atleast until August 23, 2024. By the verY terms of the DSRSD/Zone 7 contract, it does not, While the DSRSD/Zone 7 .contract generally proVides that Zone 7 will provide enough water to meet DSRSD's requested supply, the contract includes a prOvision (Paragraph 10) allowing Zone 7 to reduce its deliveries to DSRSD below those that DSRSD requests. Among the potential reasons for such delivery reductions are inadequate capacity to meet Peak demands (Paragraph 12) and inadequate supPly to Mr:. Bruce Webb 9/14/01 Page 3 ~ond the 2 firm a illed r the coU~: consequently, the status is very "~':' in the air', they cannot be ~i~.emd as reliable long-term supplies for Zone 7~up · The PWSA identifies 23 TAF of'storage as coming from Lake Del Valle. This is pure., speculation; particularly during a drought. If any Lake Del Valle storage is to be identified as firm supPly da~[ni]}::~a::dfb:~g:~t;:':~:.i{ must be based on analysis of historical data for rainfall in the Del Valle waterShed. . Likewise, DSRSD's analysis assumes that SWP average 75.6% of' entitlements. This assumption is 'unwarranted, of the SWP. Fu~her~ this assumption WOuld be pa~icularlv i~, vi rSt.case drought scenario. As the 15WSA con~e~, 'swP d~iiveries due to additional environmental requirements under the CalFed' !ia Endangered Species Act. Further,~The PWSA must be ures for both non-drought and drought deliveries to Zone 7 from the SWP. While Zone 7 (and indirectly DSRSD)may be able to'make up some deficiencies with water from SWSD, such deliveries will be limited by the amount of Storage Zone 7 hhaS ~acc. um.u, lated. O,f course, un. der Zone 7's contract with SWSD, the DoughertyVailey as ~rst cau on mucn of that wamr. The PWSA provides no analysis of how much of the. SWSD storage would have to be dedicated to meeting Dougherty Valley demand. Further, in a severe drought, SWP storage north of the Delta is likely to be greatly reduced. The SWP may therefore be unable to deliver additional water through the Delta during a severe drought even'if SWSD water were theoreticallY available. DSRSD also relies on recycled water to meet long-term demand, but its own analysis shows that by 2020 it will be unable to fullY meet demand for recycled water. The PWSA is also unrealistic in its projections of demand for Zone 7 water. The PWSA totally ignores potential future grOv;th in demand for untreated water for agricultural use. Even Dublin s own General Plan shOws future increases in such use. More importantly, the Livermore General plan and the South Livermore Specific Plan call for major increases in agricultural water use, both in South Livermore and North Livermore. Likewise, the Alameda County General Plan designates large portions of the East County area for agricUltural use. The PWSA totally ignores the demand for untreated Zone 7 water related to increased agricultural use (e.g., for vineyards).' At a minimum, there is projected to beat least 16 TAF of additional demand for untreated water. The analysis must be revised, to include this additional demand. o¢S. ~lm~hm~n Mr. Bruce Webb 9/14/01 Page 4 Finally, even DSRSD's overly optimistic analysis shows that projected total Zone 7 demand will exceed projected total Zone 7 .supply in a severe drought. When this haPPens, . Zone 7 will be fOrced to curtail deliveries to its customers, including DSRSD. Th~'PWSA argues that because DSRSD and the' other agencies served by Zone 7 ali have "demand management plans", them will. be no. shortfall in deliveries. However, demand management is often known by another name - rationing.. It is precisely suCh rationihg that tl~e SA defines as a Significant decreas® in reliability. DSRSD cannot use the cirCUla'r reaSoning of invoking "demand management" to avoid implementing increaSed rationing. In short, the PWSA's analysis of water quality and reliability impacts from annexation of Eastern Dublin to DSRSD is severely flawed. It needs to be entirely rewritten .before it can meet the specifications in the SA. CBG will be happy to meet with DSRSD to discuss its objections .further and consider possible modifications to the PWSA to meet these objections. Most' sincerely, Stuart M. Flashman CC: City of Dublin City of Livermore ~ Rossmann M. weinberger City of Pleasanton Zone 7 Water Agency DUBLIN VASCO -- SUBBASIN SPRING ** SUBBA$1N ** ... :. 3000 0 3000 6000 ~_..~ :, .L! TAMONT SUBBA$~ £ E EXP '-.LANATIOH GROUNDWATER BASIN BOUNDARY SUBBAS[N BOUNDARY MAIN BASIN BOUNDARY LAKE DEL VALLE THE LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY GROUNDVATER BASIN FIGURE 4.10 Source: DWR No. 11B-2, Figure 2 ~00~=~ . Matt W~lliam's Supcn,L~r~r~ Ralph Mayo~ Direcwr Cauncilm~m~cr Cl~ ot M~yor' · ob~a Cooper' Councilm~mbcr Tom .Vaeg~ ~ Of Neck Cmtncilmcmbe~ Lan7 Tom ~co ~i~ of U~On Mayor' Mark Green Denni~ R. NtqEBO AO AIIDC0I SBI~9£BOISCqBI AI',AM~Di C o L'.A:Ty S~ptember 13, 2001 lv~, ', Eddie- :Peabody City o£Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Ptaza Dublin~ CA 94568 'SUBJECT: I)mff Supplemental Comments on the East Dublin Properties Environmental Imp~ct. Keport'in the City. of Dublin Dear Mr. Peabody,: .Thank. you for the opportunfi'ty to' comment on the City of Dublin's Drai% Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the East Dublba Properties in the City of Dublit~. The project consist~ Of the future development of up to 1120 am'es located in the unincorporated 'area of Ahmeda County. The project is bounded by 1-580 to the south ~d Fallon l{oad to-thew, est and abuts, the eaztem Dublin ~'ity iimit boundary. The City of Dublin proposes to annex the.land from Alaraed~ Cbunty. The project pr0poses'a maximum of 2, 526 dwelling units and 134,6.00 square feet ofneighborh0od comme~ia], 446,500 square feet of g~ei~l commercial and 840,400 .sqUare feet industrial pm-k developmem. The ACCMA. respeetfuIb, subn~ts the following oomments. Where possible page numbexs in the DSBIK are' referenced. Page 3,6-7 and §, Freeways: The ACC~A doe~ not. have estabIizhed significance ' criteria, guidelines for freeways or arterials. The LOS E standard re/erred to in this. section applies ohly to the monit0 .ring of.eXisting ~onflifions that is done every two years .by the ACCMA. The LOS'E is not applicable to ,he Land Us~ Analy.sis Pro,ram and .'ret%fence io it in thi.~ and furore environmental documents must. be de!et:d. Page $.6.~8, 3~ paragraph: The discussions on'use of the Dublin andTfi-Valley Models occurred in August. 2001' (see attached letter dated August '2'I, 2001't6 Mr. Ray Kuzbari). The eompaxis0n of the traffic volumes among the models and the armlysis of MTS routes and *ransit systems as specified in the attavhed letter arid our' ~ruly response, to the NOP mu$t be included in the environmental document. The MTS routes that.are subject to th~'CMPL=d Use Analysis Program requirements'include: I-$80, 1- 680; SR 84, DuSLin BouIevard~ Tassajara Road/Santa Rite Road, Fallon l{oad/El Charro I~ad~ ~s well as BART and, LAVTA, NdB~ :£0 I00E-£$-dBS lSSS BROADWAY... SUITE 220 -'OAKLA_N~D, CA'.946i~2. pit, ONE: (5i0) E-MAIL: mail@accan~, ca.gov · %VEB SIT~: accrue.cagey S8I~9£80IS¢]B± WdSS :£0 I00~-PI-dBS If you have any questions or require additional a~si~ance, please give me a call 510/836-2560 ext. 13. Sincerely, Beth Waluka, Seauior Transportation Planner ac: Ray Kuzbari, City of Dubtin Public Works Department file: CMP - Environmental Keviaw Opin/ons - l~eSPonses - 20t)1 Ralph Appe~ Muyor C~mncfl~emb~r ~ai~on Mayor Councilme~bcr Tom Var~ . ~i~ of N~ ~uncilmembcr ~ Reid ~leha~] ' Mayor. To~ Pica ~yor M~k Green NI]SQO AT,A~fEDA ..C OLTNTy ' / Augur. 2I, 2001 Mr. Pay Kuzbari City of Dublin · Public Works Department 10o Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 945.68 SUBJECT: ' Comraems on the CMl? Land Use Analysis rrogram Transportation Analysis for :he Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the East 'Dublin Properties Dear Pay: I have rexdewed the 2005 and 2025 traffic volume comparison o£the Dublin Model, Tri- Valley Model, and Alameda Countywide Model. Based on ~his review, the C/ViP Lind Use Analysis Program analysis can be done using the generally more conservative traft~c volumes from the other models..The impacts to those/ViTS routes listed 0'n our response to the NOP sh6uld be analyzed for 2005 and '2025 conditions and.included in the envSronmental document. The comparison of tragic volumes among the three models along with the percent change should aisc· be included in the environmental document. For 2005 conditions, volumes from the Dublin Model for Hacienda Drive between Central. and Gleason should be provided. /:Or 2005 and 2025 conditions, the following language should be included in a footnote for the Alameda Countywide Model segments that have higher volumes than the other two models, ' ' '"The Countywide Transportation Model has a regional focus, has larger traffic analysis zones md fewer centroid cormevtors. Therefore, it can be expected that traffic loading onto specific segments of roadways wig be more variable titan in more refined models ~uch as the TVTC Model and {he DubJJn MOdal. Traffic volume~ generated fi'om the more refined models are more conservative on si~rrounding segments and therefore those voluraes should be used." · ' These segments include: Hacienda Drive'betwoen Centre/and Gleaaon (2005) Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard (2005) 1-580 be/ween Hadenda and Tassajara (2025) 1-580 between Dougherty and Hacienda (2025) SUITE i~l~0 - OAKL~N'D, C,A. 94612 * PHONE: (510) 8S6-2560 - tAX: (510) gg6-~185 . , E-MAIL: mai[@a¢¢ma_ca.gov · WEI~ SITE: a¢cma.cagov q00: ]~d NI]SFIO Mr. Eay K~ ~ August 21, 2001 Page 2 ~0 ~£I3C0i Wd6S: %'0 ]~00~-£]~-dBS Fallon Road be~xveen Dublin and Central (2025) Tassajam Road between Dublin ~nd Central (2025) Hacienda Drive b~'ween Dublin and Central (2025) Doughe~-y Road north ofDubtin Boule¥~fl (2025) Please do no~ hesitate to contac~ me at 510/$36-2560 ext. 13 if you require additional information. Sincerely, Beth Walukas Senior Transportation Plamuer cc: Anne Kinney, City of Dublin file: CMP - Environmental Review Opinious - Responses -.2001 4 1,7,6:7 2,534 2,~I2 ~7~ " -- g6 2,~4~9 .- NI98~0 ~0 A±IDCOI S8[~9£~0~S(93± Nd00:~O ~00~-£~-d3S Page 7/7 '73B ' SEP-14-20Ot FRI 04:19. PN F~× NO, 4 E A S T B AY R E G I 0 N A L P, 02/02 September 14, 2001 ~dctie'Pcabody, Ir., AICP Com~nunity Development Dkector . City of Dublin 100 Civic PIaz~ Dublin, CA 94568 PARK DISTRICT East Dublin Properties Draft Supplemental SENT VIA FAC$[MIL£: 925/833-6628 Dear ody: Thank you for providing us with a copy of the Draft Supplemental E~vironmcntaI Impact Report (ELK) for the EastDublinPropcrticsprojeot (PA D0-025), Aswe previ0asly ooiranented (letter dated Jane 27, 2001), the East Bay Regional Park DistTict iS very concerned wbth.the potential environmental, impacts o£ the proposed project. The two (2]) most crucial environmental concerns for the District are: I, [mpacts from the increase in &maud for'new regional park and recreation facilities; and ' 2, Impacts on the ownership, management, andmaintenanee of open space areas in the project ama, 'l'h~.~e two potentially significant impae~,s to tl~e environment are not adeqUately addressed in the Drag Supplemental EIR and thc District requests the City of Dublin to prepare an environmental dooum~n~ that fully addresses these coacems. 'l'h~ District would also indicate a willin~css to explore c0opemt{ng with the City regarding large contiguous open space area~ and habitat protection. Should the City wish'to further explor~ this concept or if you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (510) 544-2621, or Brad Olson, Environm~,mtal Specialist, at (510) 544.2622. Sincerely, Intemgeney Planning Maaager 0 cc: Brad Olson 295D Peralta Oaks Court P O. Box 5.t81 Oakland, CA 94805-0381 510 63.~-0~L~5 ,~'^. 510 569-4319 ' ro,o St0 8,33-0460 www.ebpacks.org 09/14/01 FR! 17:31 FAX ~TO: SUBJECT: FROM: DATE: 510 443 1375 LAVTA Andy Byde, Associate Planner, City of Dublin Developments Virginia Frazier, Transit Planner September 12, 2001. ~001 DISCUSSION LAVTA rsceived the following plans to review and provided comments relating to transit improvements. Project Project Project N~me # Location. City Type East Dublin P'A00-025 East Dublin Dublin '-Annexation Properties (Eastern Properties Dublin Spa.cElt Plan) COMMENTS We ere requesting that Dublin Planning consider the need for public transit as conditions are developed for the East Dublin Specific Plan. The services we are currently providing in Dublin and the surrounding area- are regular scheduled bus service Fixed Route, Direct Access Response Transit, Express Buses, Commuter Service and Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Shuffle. In addition we provide numerous morning and afternoon routes that are scheduled to serve middle and high schools. Providing service to the new areas of East Dublin consider Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC), The ~reation of transit friendly areas includes p~anning for bus pullouts on major arterial. Feeder and collector streets wide enough to allow buses to make curb stops where appropriate. Improvements such as shelters, benches, trash receptacles, schedule displays and bicycle racks should be required where appropriate as well. The cost and maintenance of these improvements should be passed along to the Developers, Special consideration should be given to school sites, Traffic flow, bus stop locations are important sc) that buses can get the students to and from school safely and efficiently. Another area to consider would be commercial/retail Centers where central bus zones strategically located would aid transit users by Providing convenient access and limit the number of Stops necessary to serve one area. I. can be reached at 455-7557 if you have questions or comments, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority 09/12/01 15:29 FAX 5102865513 TRANS PLANNING B STAT~E~OOF CALiFORNIA---BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 (510) 286-4444 TDD (510) 256-4454 STATE CLEAR tNGHO [~001 · GRAY DAVIS. Governor September 10, 2001 Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. AICP City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 ' ALA-580-16.? File #ALA580712 SCY~2~l.052-L1~ ................. ~. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Dear Mr. Peabody: ... East Dublin Properties (PA 99-025) - Draft Environmental Impact Report (D]EIR) Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We have examined the Draft Environmental Impact Report and have the following comments to offer: We are concerned about the additional traffic volumes that this project will add to Interstate 580 580). The impacts to State transportation facilities should be discussed in greater detail. We would like to see the traffic impact data for the on-ramps and of£-ramps, to compare conditions without the project and with the project. With the proposed project traffic added to the Year 2025 No Project mainline freeway volumes, both 1-580 and 1-680 are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS). We would like to see the traffic operations impact, including the LOS and the delay information for the conditions without the project, and also with the project. Impact 3.3/E states that the proposed East Dublin Properties project will have significant and unavoidable impact on the mainline 1-580 freeway operation, and that mitigation is not feasible because freeway improvement is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin. The Department is currently planning improvements to 1-580 by installing a ramp metering system at interchanges along the freeway corridor, as well as Fiigh Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. We urge the City to meet its mitigation obligations by participating in the development and funding of these projects. On Page 3.6-13, mitigation measures at the 1-580/Hacienda Drive interchange involving the westbound loop on-ramp need to include a ramp metering system and HOV by-pass lane. On Page 3.6-11, the Santa RitafI'assajara overcrossing is referred to incorrectly as an overpass. Likewise, the E1 Charro/Fallon Road overcrossing is referred to as an overpass. Please correct the teri~. 09/12/01 1~:29 FAX '510286~§13 Peabody/DEIR September 10, 2001 Page g TRANS PLANNING B STATE CLEARINGHO [~ 002 Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Paul Svedersky of my staff at (510) 622-1639:. Sincerely, HARRY Y. YAHATA District Director By ,~ ~ ~~-~ JEAN C. R. FINNEY District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Katie Shulte Joung, State Clearinghouse STATE OF CALIFORNiA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS - M.S.g40 1120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 PHONE (916) 654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 RECEIVED SEP 1 4 ZOO1 DUBUN PLANNING GRAY DAVIS, Governor Sept 12, 2001 Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr. City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mr. Peabody: Re: City of Dublin 's:Drafl Supplemental EIR for East Dublin Properties; SCH# 2001052114 The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has reviewed the above-referenced document pursuant to CEQA. The following comments are offered for your consideration. The proposal is for the annexation of the 1,120-acre project area to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), prezoning the area to the City of Dublin PD-Plarmed Development Zoning District, and considering a related Stage 1 Development Plan to guide future development of the project area. Development under the proposed prezoning and Stage 1 Planned Development would include a mixed density residential uses, retail, service, office and light industrial, parks, open spaces, community facilities, roadways and similar land uses. The proposal also includes four school sites within two miles of the Livermore Municipal Airport. We do have a school site evaluation on file dated January 15, 1993 (also enclosed) for several school sites in the general area of the project site. In our January 1993 letter, we stated that a portion of one of the middle schools fell within the airport protection area (APA) and we recommended that the school be moved north of the APA. We also expressed concern with potential noise impacts associated with frequent high single event noise levels due to the proximity of certain school sites to the airport traffic pattern. However, since school site evaluations are only good for five years, the scl~ool district should be advised to notify the State Department of Education of the need for a school site evaluation by the Division of Aeronautics in accordance with Education 'Code' Section 17215 (enclosed). For questions concerning the school site evaluation, the school district should be advised to contact the Department's Aviation Consultant for Alameda County, Dan Gargas, at 916/654-5222. Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr. September 12, 2001 · page 2 The southern portion of the project site also lies within Safety Zones A, B and C of the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) modified APA. The proposal should be submitted to the ALUC. for a consistency determination'. The proposal should also be submitted to the Livermore Municipal Airport Manager, Leander Hauri, to ensure that the proposal will be compatible with future as well as existing airport operations. The need for compatible and safe land uses near airports in California is both a local and a state issue. Along with protecting individuals who reside or work near an airport, the Division of Aeronautics views each of the 250 public use airports in California as Part of the statewide transportation system, which is vital to the state's continued prosperity. This role will no doubt increase as California's population continues to grow and the need for efficient mobility becomes more crucial. We strongly feel that the protection of airports from incompatible land use encroachment is vital to California's economic furore. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any ~questions, please call me at 916/654-5314. Sincerely, SAND'C~HESNARD Environmental Planner Enclosure C: State Clearinghouse, Alameda County ALUC, Livermore Muni Airport, State Dept of Education Education Code Section 17215, as amended b7 AB 747, Chapter 837 of the Statutes of 1999 17215. (a) In order to promote the safety of pupils, comprehensive community planning, and greater educational usefulness of schoolsites before acquiring title to property for a new · schoolsite, the governing board of each school district, including any. district governed by a city board of education, shall give the State Department of Education written notice of the proposed acquisition and shall submit any information required by the State Department of Education if the proposed site is within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway or a potential runway included in an airport master plan that is nearest to the site. (b) Upon receipt of the notice required pursuant to subdivision (a), the State Department of Education shall notify the Department of Transportation in writing of the proposed acquisition. If the Department of Transportation is no longer in operation, the State Department of Education shall, in lieu of notifying the Department of Transportation, notify the United States Department of Transportation or any other appropriate agency, in writing, of the proposed acquisition for the purpose of obtaining from the department or other agency any information or assistance that it may desire to give. · (c) The Department of Transportation shall investigate the prOposed site and, within 30 working days after receipt of the notice, shall submit to the State Department of Education a written report of its findings including recommendations concerning acquisition of the site. As part of the investigation, the Department of Transportation shall give notice thereof to the owner and operator of the airport who shall be granted the oppommity to comment upon the proposed schoolsite. The Department of-Transportation shall adopt regulations setting forth the criteria by which a proposed site will be evaluated pursuant to th/s section. (d) The State Department of Education shall, within 10 days of receiving the Department of Transportation's report, forward the report to the governing board of the school district. The governing board may not acquire title to the property until the report of the Department of Transportation has been received. If the report does not favor the acquisition of the property for a schoolsite or an addition to a present schoolsite, the governing board may not acquire title to the property. If the report does favor the acquisition of the property for a schoolsite or an addition to a present schoOlsite, the governing b6ard shall hold a public hearing on the matter prior to acquiring the site. (e) If the Department of Transportatioffs recommendation does not favor acquisition of a proposed site, state funds or local funds may not be apportioned or expended for the acquisition o5 that site, construction of any school building on that site, or for the expansion of any existing site to include that site. (f) This section does not apply to sites acquired prior to January 1, 1966, nor to any additions or extensions to those .sites. From Internet: http://www, leginfo.ca, gov/calaw.html Caltrans Aeronautics Program: January 13, 2000 ~;ep-14-O1 09:30A LARPD PARK DIVISION 925 4-4.7 0782 P.02 R..,.jcrc:.r~ .;n ..F~ Park District 71 Tre~a~o Eoad, Livc~o~, CA 94550-2277 ~925~ 373-5700, k~x (925) 447-2754, ~w,la~.dst.~a.us September 14, 200I General Manager Doughs A, Bell Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. Director of Community Development City of Dublin 100 Civic plaza. Dublin, CA 94583 RE: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Rep°rt (DSEIR), East Dublin Properties Dear Mr. peabody: The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DSEIR. I was disappointed to find upon my return from vacation that the City chose not to consider a ten-day extension request by LARPD for the review of this regionally significant project: This extension request, was based on LARPD' s failure to be notified or to receive the DSEIR for review and comment. This was communicated to your staffbased on my personal visit as well as by a letter from District Legal Counsel Michael Kyle (dated August 24, 2001). We simply did not receive the notice of the release of the DSEIR nor the complimentary copy of the DSEIR provided to other interested parties and agencies. As a result, we have been significantly delayed and not afforded the same time to review and respond to this document as provided to other agencies and interested parties. To date, we have received no indication from the City that the mailing took.place as stated. We have only received a list of agencies that were supposed to have been sent notifications and/or DSEIR documents. This list, of course, only exhibits your intent to notif3', not any proof of your required action to notify affected parties. The District was also disappointed to discover that the City did not consider the comments that LARPD provided in it's letter dated June 26, 2001 in response to the Notice of Preparation for this DSEIR (letterenclosed). We continue to believe that the proposed project has the potential to have significant impacts on the District that must be adequately addressed and that the issues have not been properly considered and analyzed as either a part of this SuPplemental E1R or the original 1993 Program EIR. As well, we find particularly disconcerting that under ,Section 6. References. Other Agencqes and Organizations (7on,~dted, the DSEIR notes no consultation with LARPD, yet appropriately lists most other agencies and organizations one might expect to be consulted.on this type of project. It is in fa~ an accurate portrayal of the lack of consultation with the District by the City on this project. To not have the professional courtesy to contact and discuss these matters with District Boa~d of Directors Maryalice Fairings Scott Kamena Alice Quinn Emie Rodrigues Dale Turner Sep-14-01 09:31A LARPD Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. City of Dublin Page 2 of 5 September 14, 2001 PARK DIVISION 925 447 0782 represt~tatives is moSt disappointing. The lack of interest or concern for the impacts on this DistriCt are reflected by this apparent failure to discuss the City's desires or intemions with District staff' and is evidenced by its omission in this ,Section. Preparation of a Supplemental EIR LARPD continues to be surprised and disappointed with Dublin's approach for assessing the potential environmental impacts of this project by utilizing a Supplemental EIR process. We made note of this concern ia our Response to NOP comments. LARPD has reviewed the City ofLivermore's detailed comments on the DSEIR and we support their position and reasoning on these matters. As a result, we will not duplicate these clear but important points except to reiterate that circumstances have dramatically changed since the 1993 EIR was undertaken. In addition, the document fails to adequately cover issues such as impacts on LARPD and its existing and future facilities and programs. Anything less than a new complete and comprehensive review and analysis oft_he proposed project does not meet the requirements of CEQA to fully assess environmental impacts using currently available information for evaluation and consideration. Regretfully, it is apparent that Dublin's approach is a risk-based avoidance strategy instead of one intended to provide the environmental disclosures and mitigation required by CEQA. Parks and Recreation 1. As noted in our June 26, 2001 letter, LARPD is very .concerned about the proposed impacts of thiS project on existing and future District parks and programs. The 1993 EIR and DSEIR have ignored the impacts of the proposed project on LARPD facilities. Whereas the documents note the requirements to provide' parks and recreation faci}ities consistent with the City's 1992 Parks Master Plan, it fails to analyze the requirements of the CitY's Master Plan in the EIR Or DSEIR vis-fl.-vis the project's proposal and the timing of the provision of these parks and service facilities to meet expected demand. This is particularly 'important in understanding the potential for the project to cause impactS'to LARPD or to other City parks and recreation programs. The EIR and DSEIR simply State that parks will be provided consistent with the Parks Master Plan. Given the size and significance of the proposed project, it is essential that the EIR and'DSE1R eValuate how the City is meeting its recreation requirements relative to its planning, goals. The ElK and DSEIR also fail to evaluate the proximity of the proposed development to LARPD's core service area and it's potential to increase demands on our parks, services and programs. To do so requires that a more comprehensive evaluation of these issues be undertaken. The 1993 EIR and DSEIR fail to consider several important changes in the provision of regional parklands in the Tri-Valley. Specifically, iii 1998, 370 acres ofregi0nal 5~p-14-01 09:31A' LARPD PARK DIVISION 925 447 0782 P.04 Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. City of Dublin Page3 of 5 September 14, 200t parklands were added to LARPD's Sycamore Grove Regional Park, essentially doubling its size. Additionally in 1994, LARPD purchased 507 acres containing Brushy Peak (consistent with our Master Plan Goals) north ofi-580. These 507 acres have now become the nucleus from Which East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) and LARPD have created over 2,000 acres of regional parkland in the Brushy Peak area. This is not even mentioned in the environmental documents. The proposed project and its placement of 2,526 units or approximately 7,400 people (2,526 times 2.94 persons per household) in close proximity to these parks will have impacts on these regional park facilities. This too has not been considered by the EIR or DSE1R. Any environmental review must evaluate ~he impacts of such a large project on these regional parkland facilities. The 1993 EIR notes that Dublin's ratio of developed parkland to population is below 5- acres/1000-population, a common standard for determining provision of adequate park facilities. The DSEIR simply states that it will meet a 5-acre/1000-population requirement of the 1992 Parks Master Plan (page 2-8). Any lack of park facilities below this standard could have a significant impact on LARPD as the District provides parkland in excess of 16-acres/t000-population. Given the proximity of the proposed residential .development to LARPD's existing and potential future (N. Livermore and Vasco/Laughlin Planning Areas) facilities, Dublin residents unable to meet their recreational needs within Dublin's city limits will seek use of the closer LARPD facilities. They will also seek use of the more convenient and broader services that meet their needs. This could have significant impacts on our ability to provide adequate services and programs to our existing and future residents. This impact was not addressed under the previous EtR nor is it addressed in the DSEIR. For example, LARPD is currently in the process of developing a $20 million CommuniW Center that will contain a large variety of services, activities and opportunities for the Livermore community. The District is very concerned that the proposed project will impact the demand for services at this facility. Given the proximity of the project to Livermore, the EIR must comprehensively evaluate the existing and proposed services provided by 'Dublin and Liverrnore and assess the potential impacts'this project wilt have on services and progra~ns in Livermore. This must cover the full range of services and programs provided by LARPD including, 'but not limited to, childcare services; teen and senior care services and programs; adult recreational programs; outdoor recreational and environmental programs as well as others. This was not addressed under the previous ELR. The DSEIR reference to the provision of similar facilities (page 2-8) funded by Public Facilities Fees does not address the potential for impacts as it fails to evaluate the type of facilities, lhe level of services and the timing by which these facilities wilt or can be provided. Neither the DSEIR nor 1993 E'ItL which noted (Impact 3.4/K and Mitigation Measures) the plan's requirement to provide sufficient parkland to ~atisfy the City's 1992 Park and ~P-14-~ol~l~l ~c~:7~AM T~I ]qP~ 447 fl7gP TF1]PTTY nF F/I I~1 TIN P~AP:~I~ ~.=c~% Mr. Eddie Peabody, Ir. City of Dublin Page 4 of 5 September 14, 2001 Recreational Master Plan, addresses how the plan would meet LARPD's.Master Plan requirements for parkland and recreation should LAFCO not agree to de-armex.this property from LARPD' s jurisdiction. Both the EIR and Supplemental DEIR failed to address the existing jurisdictional authority of LARPD for the provision of park and recreation services in this area and to provide the required analysis. The DSEIR (page 2-8) notes discussion of the overlapping jurisdiction of EBRPD and LARPD in terms of providing regional parks and trails. Unfommately, no detailed discussion was included either in the 1993 EIR nor the DSEIR and therefore, its potential significant environmental impacts have not been ascertained or evaluated. Analysis of overlapping jurisdictional issues must be discussed as they relate to the impacts of the project on the provision of services by either LARPD or the City of Dublin. This section further notes that the City's Public Facilities Fee, which is 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." No discussion or mention of fees for provision of regional, parks is noted. Itis apparently assumed by this that the City of Dublin is relying upon LARPD (and EBRPD) to provide regional park facilities and services to its residents. While future residents Will be paying taxes to the EBRPD to support regional park facilities, LARPD would lose. these residents from our tax roles yet have to carry the burden of increase in demand for services and impacts of the proposed project on our existing and future facilities. The District cannot be expected to simply absorb the cost of these impacts. These issues have not even been discussed or evaluated in theEIK or DSEIR. LARPD is concerned that the 1993 EIR and DSEIR have not.addressed the impact of the proposed project on these regional parks. Although the project is proposing passive open space, this kind of resource is not a viable substitute for the unique recreational opportunities afforded by a regional park containing significant regional views, trails, cultural/biological resources, and environmental/educational programs and services. The lack of regional parkland provided by the East Dublin SP/GPA and the supplemental planning area will have impacts on LARPD regional parkland that must be comprehensively evaluated and mitigated. The DSEIR includes de-annexation of the area within LARPD's jurisdictional boundaries as one of the actions in the project descriptiOn. However, the EIR or DSEIR failed to analyze the impacts of de-annexation from LARPD. Furthermore, it fails to evaluate those impacts vis-/t, vis the impacts of the proposed project on existing and future LARPD regional parks, community parks, facilities and programs including, but not timked to, childcare programs provided by the District. 5~p-14-01 09:47A LARPD PARK DIVISION 925 447 0782 P.02 Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. City of Dublin Page 5 of' 5 September ] 4, 2001 Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. LARPD looks forward to discussing these very important matters with you. We would appreciate being informed of all matters related to this proposal including meetings, hearings, written communicatiom, etc. We respectfully request that all future correspondence on these and related matters be sent by certified mail or other delivery method that requires a signed receipt. If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at (925) 373-5729. Sincerely/j / - /' i¢ " Superintendent o£Planning artCJParks KHC:sk Enclosure LARPD Board of Directors Mayor Brown and Livermore City Council Adolph Martinelli, County of Alameda Brian Swift, City of Pleasanton Marc Roberts, City of Livermore Larry Tong, EBRPD Michael Kyle, LARPD Legal Counsel Mark Weinberger, Attorney for City of Livermore F~-q dublirnuanexafion.d~ir. It 1 ¢::=:l:t_q ,tl_~Z,r'3f'}l,I f'3,=l- :;:q OM TI:'I "t,::lZ3t:;: alit1"2 1'~'712~:, Tr/,,F'TT'v' 1'31~' 1-mi IE;ll TIll 133,~m~lZ;- ffYlf~l::3 1Z3~__(33~3:~ 71 Trevarno RoacL.Livermore. CA 94550-2277 (925) 573-5700, Fax (925) 447-2754, www.larpd.dst, ea.us General Manager Douglas A. Bell June 26, 200t Anne Kinney City of Dubtin Planning Department 100. Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the East Dublin Properties (PA #00-025) Dear Ms. Kinney: Thank you for referring the Notice of Preparation (NOP)' of a Drat5 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEI/~,) for the proposed East Dublin Properties Project to the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District for review and comment. Please accept the following comments regarding the NOP for the DSE]2~: LAKPD is very concerned about the proposed de-annexation of the area within our iurisdictional boundaries and the resultant toss of property tax base. And of equal concern is the proximity of the proposed development to our core service area and its potential to increase demands on our parks, services and pro,ams if comparable parks, services and programs are not available or are not being provided in the area of these new residences and businesses. The t 993 EIR notes that Dublin's ratio of developed parkland to population is below 5-acres/1000 population, a common standard for determining provision of adequate park facilities. Any tack of park facilities could have a significant impact on LARPD. This is,particularly true of larger community park facilities that provide facilities to meet the demands for organized recreational park activities. Given the proximity of the proposed residential development to LARPD's existing and future ('N. Livermore and Vasco/Lauglin Planning Areas) facilities, Dublin residents unable to meet their recreational needs will seek use of the closest LARPD facilities. This 'could have significant impacts on our ability to provide adequate services and programs to residents. This was not addressed under the previous EIR and is a potentially sig-nificant impact on this District. For example, LARPD is currently in the process of developing a $20 million Community Center that will contain a large variety of services, activities and opportunities for the Livermore Community. The District is very concerned that Board of Directors Larry Fairings Maryalice Fairings Alice Ouinn Ernie Rodrigues Dale Turner the proposed project will impact the demand for services at this facility. Given the proximity of the project to Livermore, the EIK needs to look comprehensi:vely at the existing and proposed services provided by Dublin and Livermore and assess the potential impacts this project will have on services and prograrns in Livermore. This must include the full range of services and pro,rams provided by LARPD including but not limited to childcare services, teen and senior care services and pro,ams, aduk recreational proBTams, outdoor recreational and environmental .progranas and well as others. This was not addressed under the previous EIK and must be evaluated in a subsequent EI[( Section 3.4-t4 of the Bast Dublin sPiGPA EIK incorrectly states that "All regional parkland in the Tfi-Valley is owned and operated by the East Bay Re~ional Park District (EBKPD)." In fact, Sycamore Grove Kegional Park has been owned and operated by LAKPD since t972. In' 1998, the park doubled in size to more than 760' acres. In 1994 LAKPD purchased 507 acres of Brushy Peak which has become core parkland area that has now been expanded through the addition of approximately 1,500 acres including mitigation property owned and managed by BBRPD. LARPD is concerned that the East Dublin SP/GPA BIK has not addressed the impact of the proposed project on these regional parks. Although the project is proposing passive open space (to address hillside development issues and visual resource impacts?) this kind of resource is not a viable substitute for the unique recreational opportunities afforded by a regional-park containing signi, ficant re~onal views, and cultural and biological resources. The tack of regional parkland provided by the Bast Dublin SP/GPA and the supplemental planning area will have impacts on LARPD re~onal parkland that must be comprehensively evaluated. LARPD is surprised and disappointed with Dublin's proposal to assess the potential for environmental impacts of this project by utilizing a Supplemental EIK. As you know, a supplemental EI2~ is used when minor revisions are anticipated or required. A sUbsequent EIR is prepared if the previous EIR requires major revisions resuking in significant impacts.on the invironment. LARPD agrees with the City of Livermore's comments noting the substantial changes that have taken place since 1993 in the Tri-Valley in such areas as biological resources, land use, hydrology, agricultural resources, air quality, traffic/transportation,' and affordable housing. These factors, among others; unequivocally point to the need to: re-evaluate the project with a subsequent EIR that looks at these and other issues (including more comprehensively regional and community park, program and services issues). Anything less does not meet the spirit or intent of CEQA. LARPD is concerned with the inclusion of the 637 acres into this supplemental ElK. As we understand .it, 472 acres is currently within the Eastern Dublin Specific Planning Area and 637 acres outside the Eastern Dublin Specific Planning Area. If this ElK is supplemental to the 1993 City of'Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, then no Specific Plan has been required for the 637 acres (though we understand that your General Plan specifically requires a Specific Plan to be done). This suggests that you are using a General Plan level supplemental environmental evaluation to .satisfy future project level environmental review ("Stage 2 PD for site-specific zoning and develoPment ptan approval") that'will be take place without the benefit of Specific Planning. LARPD is very concerned with this approach and we would like the City of' Dublin to make very clear that this supplemental ElK will not substitute for a more rigorous project level analysis and evaluation. We also want the Cky to implement its General Plan policy to undertake the Specific Plan for this area as is required. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. LARPD looks forward to discussing these very important matters with you. We would appreciate being informed of all matters related to this proposal including meeting, hearings, written communications, etc. If you have anY questions or comments, I can be reached at (925) 373-5729. Since~,x5// ,, ,// / Kelindth H.' C~r/ig ' ' /9 Superintendent of Plarming and-Parks C~ LARPD Board of Directors Mayor Brown and Livermore Cky Council Adolph Martinelli, County of Alameda Brian Swim, Cky of Pleasanron Marc Roberts, Cky of Livermore Larry Tong, EBRPD Ea.qt dublinarmexa-d on. hop. It 1 DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT 7051 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, California 94568 FAX: 925 829 11.80 925 828 0515 Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. AICP City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 September 10, 2001 RECEIVED SF_P 1 1 D~JBLIN PLANNIJ~(~ Subject: Draft Supplemental. EIR for East Dublin Properties, Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Dear Mr. Peabody: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. Dublin San Rmuon Services District (DSRSD) has identified no impacts or necessary mitigations beyond those identified in the Draft Supplemental EIR. Our comments on the specific areas of our service to the community in the area of the East Dublin Properties Annexation are detailed below. potable Water'.Supply and Ser¥ice As you state in the Draft Supplemental EIR, DSRSD (as part of an agreement to settle, a lawsuit with Citizens for Balanced Growth (CBG) and the City of Livermore) was obligated upon receipt of a Notice of Preparation of the subject EIR, to prepare and submit to the City a "Programmatic Water Service Analysis" (PWSA) and "Preliminary Impact Analysis" analyzing the waterrelated impacts of the proposed project. In accordance with the November 1999 settlement agreement, DSRSD completed the PWSA in June 2001, and submitted the document to the City. As you point out in your report, DSRSD's PWSA demonstrates that Zone 7 has already secured sufficient supplies to serve the 5,620 AF demands of all of eastern Dublin. Furthermore, the facilities currently planned by DSRSD for this area will be of sufficient capacity to meet the increased demand at full build out of this project; and this demand will be mitigated somewhat by the extension of recycled water pipelines through the project area and adherence to Dublin's standard water conservation measures. Therefore, no additional mitigation is necessary for obtaining additional water supply for this project. Please note that CBG and the City of Livermore have exercised their right under the settlement agreement to challenge the findings of the PWSA, and all parties of the settlement agreement are currently participating in the required disput, resolution process. Dublin San Ramon Services District is a Public Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. City of Dublin September 10, 2001 Page 2 of 2 Recycled Water Supply and Service As you note in the Draft Supplemental EIR, when available DSRSD will provide recycled water to the proposed project for irrigation of large landscaped areas. The facilities will be installed h~ accordance with DSRSD's Water Master Plan. Therefore, no additional mitigation is necessary for obtaining additional recycled water supply for this project. Wastewater Services and Wastewater Effluent Disposal The Draft Supplemental EIR notes that the 1994 eastern Dublin EIR identified mitigation measures for the wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. The mitigation measures were DSRSD's inclusion of eastern Dublin in its long-range wastewater planning to ensure that limited treatment plant capacity is not a new significant impact. Since DSRSD has included this wastewater demand in the planned capacity expansions of DSRSD's Wastewater Treatment Plant and LAVWMA's planned increase in volume of wastewater effluent disposal facilities, no further mitigation appears to be necessary. As noted above, our agency does not deem any mitigation beyond those specified in the Draft Supplemental EIR for the areas of our Potable Water, Recycled Water or Wastewater Collection and Disposal services to the community. We feel that the joint planning effort done between flae City of Dublin and DSRSD has successfully identified those areas of concern and planned reasonable solutions to those areas. Please note that DSRSD will require all properties within the project area to obtain pre-development approvals through a Public Facility Agreement, Services Planning Agreement and/or an Area-Wide Facility Agreement. Sincerely, DAVID K. BEHRENS, P.E. Principal Engineer DB:jg Cc: Bert Michalczyk, DSRSD Dave Requa, DSRSD G:kE,IqGDEPTkCEQA\DSRSD Response to CEQA Documents\City of Dublin\Draft Comments to Dublin Supp EIR for E Dublin Annex_901 .doc Dublin U.S.D. Livermore Airport (Alameda County) January 15, 1993 Ms. Jeanne Howland Governing Board Dublin Unified School District 7471 Larkdale Avenue Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Ms. Howland: In response to your request of October 13, 1992 and Section 39006 of the Education Code, the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has analyzed the school site proposals by the Dublin Unified School District. The proposed sites are located one to two miles northwest of the Livermore Municipal Airport, and are outside the current approved traffic .patterns to the airport. Our analysis consisted of a thorough review of our files concerning the Livermore Municipal Airport, including layout plans and vicinity maps depicting the relationship of the. airport traffic patterns to the proposed sites. In addition, the airport was offered the opportunity to respond. Their comments were considered. Our evaluation revealed that, although most of the sites may be subject to very occasional overflights by aircraft maneuvering to establish themselves for approach to the airport, they would not 'present an undue safety hazard. However, a portion of one of the middle schools (see the attached layouts) falls within the airport protection area (APA) and therefore we recommend that the school be moved north so as to be located north of the APA. Some of the sites are close enough to the traffic pattern to where they will experience frequent high single event noise levels. Therefore, this should be considered in the location and design of proposed facilities.. Ms. jeanne Howland January 15, 1993 Page 2 The Department cannot guarantee the safety of these (or any) sites. However, based upon our evaluation of existing conditions and planned development, these sites (excluding the middle school previously mentioned) are considered to provide the level of safety suitable for a school. We, therefore, do not object to the acquisition of the remaining proposed school sites. However, if the sites are not acquired by November 30, 1997 another site evaluation Will be required. Sincerely, Enclosures bcc.: Dottie Odell - District 4 DRG: bp DW4DRG#8 (HOWLAND. LTR) DANIEL R.'GARGAS Aviation Consultant cITY OF SPHERE OF INFLU · DUBLhV .! RAN CH LIN FALLON 'i, CR OAK S TONERIDGE. '~A GRAI.~L AIRPORT PROTECTION AREA INITIAL STUDY M~CLINTOGK, sECKER & ASSOCIATES. POSTER GITY, CA DOOLAN RANCH (E.4,5:'r) Las CoU CITY OF LIVERMORE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Colle.qe , AREA .INE* ~- 5 8 0 LONESTAR L, VDUSTRML LEGEND L----'-[ i.I :.3 VARYING RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES ~ OPEN SPACE/NEIGHBORHOOD SQ. OR PARK ¢ COMMERCIAL [GEN./PARK/NEIGHBORHOODI ~ SCHOOLS t~ INDUGTRIAL PARK SCALE (~ 0 ~OOO 2000 2000 4000 IEXHIBIT iV-14 ' . EA~;T DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN L ADMINI~TI~-T~ON BUILDING 1052 $. Livermore Avenue Livermore. CA 94550-4899 Pr: (925) 373-5100 Fax: ~925} 373-5135 TDD (925) 373-5052 MAYOR / COL~CIL 373-5149 CITY MANAGER Pr: 373.5140 ,, Fax: 373.5061 CiTY ATTORNEY .u 373-5120 · Fax: 373~5125 CITY CLERK nh: 373-5].30 ,Fax~ 373.5135 COMMUNFI~ DEVELOPMENT Building Division ~' z 373.5180 * F~: ~73.5193 :: 373-5240 · F~: 373-5267 Ho~ing Div~n Pr: 373-5~0 * F~: 373-53t8 Pl~n~g Divan ,: 373-520~ · F~: 373-5318 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT : 373d5095 * Fax: 454-2379 .,INANCE DEPARTMEI~T Pr: 373-5].50 .Fax: 373-5165 : FIRE DEPARTMENT ZL550 East Avenue Pr: 454-2361 ,, Fax: 454-2367 LIBRARY t000 S. Livennore Avenue ..: 373-5500 * Fax: 373-5503 PERSONNEL ! 373-5103 o Fax: 373-5035 POLICE DEPARTMENT 11 I0 $. Livermore Avenue -' '. 371-4900 ~ Fax: 371-4950 TDD 371.4982 PUBLIC SERVICES 3500 Roberlson Park Rd, i 373-5270 * Fax: 373-5317 i Air~ort Division ~ 636 Terminal Circle Pr: 373-5280 * F~: 873-5042 Go~ ~u~e Div~n ~ 909 Clubhouse D~ve } 373-5239 · F~: 373-5203 3500 Robe~n P~k Rd. ~; 373-5220 · F~: 373-5033 ~r a~ourc~ [01 W. J~k ~ndon Blvd. vn~373-5230 *F~: ~73-5295 1549 ' L E oms HAND DELIVERED September 14, 2001 Eddie Peabody, Jr. Director of Community Development 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 Re: Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental ImpaCt Report for the East Dublin Properties (PA 00-025) Dear Mr. Peabody: " ': Attached :to this letter are the City of Livermord" s~.eommeniS on: the Draft. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSE!R).: issUedbY'the~Ciw-?~ Dublin for the East Dublin Properties projectl A§-~ou?are a~e; L~iverm0re provided extensive comments in a June 26, 2001. letter respon~n'g tO"Dttblin s NOtice of Preparation of the DSEIR. Unfortunately, in LiVenUore"s view the DSEIR does not appear to address many of the concerns set;roar in Livermore's response to the Notice of Preparation. AS LiVermore'%~ attached comments demonsu'ate, neither the scope nor the content 6fthe'DSEiR comply with the disclosure requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Livermore requests that Dublin defer action on this proj eot until'an environmental document is prepared and circulated for public comment that fully complies with CEQA. Preparation of an adequate Environmental Impact.Report is especially important because of the project's numerous potential impacts on Livermore and its planning area. We hope Dublin will join Livermorein giving priority attention to the discussion and resolution of Livermore's concerns with the project and its' impacts as outlined in our comments. I will be glad to .coordinate with you in establishing a meeting schedule between representatives of our two cities. These comments were prepared with the assistance of Lamphier-Gregory; Terrell Watt, Planning Consultant; Jones & Stokes (biology); Saracino-Kirby- Snow (Water Resources); and Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger LLP, Attorneys at Law. City of Dublin Community .D evel0Pment September 14, 2001 Page 2 If you desire fUrther information concerning these comments, please contact Susan Frost, Senior Planner, at (925) 373-5200. Sincerely, Marc Roberts Community Development Director C: Mayor / City Council Linda Barton, City Manager Adolph Martinelli, Alameda County Brian Swift, City of Pleasanton Dale Myers, Zone 7 Vivian Housen, LAVWMA Bert Michalczyk, DSRSD Ken Craig, LARPD Brad Olson, EBRPD Sheila Larsen, USFWS Carl Wilcox, CDFG CITY OF LIVERMORE COMMENTS ON TIlE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR TIlE EAST DUBLIN PROPERTIES (SCIt # 2001 052144) SEPTEMBER 13, 2001 The City of Livermore hereby provides its comments on the City of Dublin's Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("DSEIR") for the proposed East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation project. Livermore is disappointed that the City of Dublin has chosen not to consider the comments that Livermore provided in a letter dated June 26, 2001, in response to the Notice of Preparation for this 'Supplemental Draft EIR. Livermore believes the comments contained in that letter (attached hereto as Attachment #1, and incorporated herein by reference) provided an approach and scope to this project and its environmental review that would have greatly enhanced the value of this EIR as a full disclosure document pursuant to CEQA. Livermore maintains its concern that the Supplemental EIR approach taken by the City of Dublin for this project is inadequate for the following reasons: The Supplemental' DEIR lacks a full and adequate project description. · Circumstances have changed since certification of the 1993 Eastern Dublin Final EtR that have not been fully addressed in this Supplemental EIR. The City of Dublin has chosen to focus the supplemental environmental review for this project on a small number of changed circumstances that have occurred since 1993, rather than recognizing the vastly changed circumstances surrounding regionally significant issues within the Tri-Valley. · The scope and depth of analysis contained in the Supplemental Draft EIR is inadequate to fully identify potentially significant cumulative effects, and does not begin to recommend adequate mitigation measures to reduce or avoid such effects. Each of these issues is more fully described below in specific comments on the document. The City of Livermore requests that Dublin conduct a comprehensive environmental re~ciew consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, Livermore's following recommendations for reasonable and feasible mitigation of cumulative and regionally significant effects are consistent with the mitigation measures that this city has traditionally and historically imposed. It is important that each community within the Tri- Valley area does its fair share in addressing cumulative impacts that affect all neighboring jurisdictions. Inadequate Project Description The Supplemental DEli[ includes the following actions in the project description: · A Stage 1 Development Plan application to the City of Dublin'requesting pre-zoning of the site in accordance with the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; · Annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin and DUblin SanRamon Services District for provision of water, sewer and recycled water services; Execution of a Pre-annexation Agreement between the City of D4blin and the project proponents/property owners; · Detachment from Livermore Area Recreation and Park District upon annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin; · Post-annexation probable cancellation of Williamson Act Contracts for several of the properties within the project area; and · Detachment of the project area from the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District and attachment to the Dublin Unified School District. HoWever, this Project Description does not address the following issues: Inconsistency with General Plan Policies for a Specific Plan. The project site is approximately I, 110 acres in size. The entire project site is within the Eastern Extended Planning Area adopted by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("EDGPA") in 1994, but only 472 acres are w/thin the East Dublin Specific Plan Area. Although the Dublin General Plan designates this Extended Planning Area primarily for residential uses, Implementing Policy 2.1.4(B) of the EDGPA requires that: "A Specific Plan(s) will be required for the remainder of the extended planning area to provide similar direction for its ultimate development." The EDGPA goes on to state that, "Approval of residential development in the Eastern Extended Planning Area will require determination that.., the proposed project is consistent with all applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies." The Project description included in the SDEIR does not/nclude preparation of a Specific Plan for the approximately 637 acres within the project site but outside the Specific Plan Area, which is in direct conflict with this General Plan policy. This is of particular concern to the ,City of Livermore. According to the EDGPA, a Specific Plan is intended to ensure, among other issues; that proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands, and that the timing of development will not result in premature termination of viable agricultural operations on adjoining lands. Both of these issues are of regional and cumulative concern. · Additionally, in the last decade there has been a growing recognition of the importance of "smart growth" planning principles' and .what constitutes sustainable development. An adequate definition of such "smart growth" includes intelligently planned communities that 2 channel growth into existing communities or areas with existing services, that provide for public transportation, are walk-able and bike-.able, include a mix of uses, and provide for perm~ent protection of surrounding open space. Presumably, a Specific Plan for this area wouI~provide an-opportunity for Dublin to consider and emphasize the importance of such "smart growth" strategies in the development of this area. Need for Greenbelt/Buffer. Related to the issue of impacts to viable agriculture 'on adjoining lands, the EDGPA also indicates that the lands immediately to the east of the project site are identified as a Future Study Area. This designation indicates".., the City of Dublin's interest in the area and the need for additional studies of environmental constraints, future land uses, infrastructure and other issues." The City of Livermore shares ~zis interest in the area and wishes to ensure, in accordance with Livermore's General Plan, that these lands will be permanently preserved as an agricultural greenbelt / buffer between our two cities. In Livermore's view, any project proposed in the Eastern Extended Planning Area adjacent to Dublin's "Furore Study Area" must add~ess how this area can be maintained and preserved into the future, and include safeguards that prevent, potential future urban encroachment. Inadequate Discussion of Future Study Area. Fknally, the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Site Plan indicates that approximately 126 acres immediately north of the Dublin Boulevard extension will be designated as "Future Study Area" because these lands are located Within the Airport Protection Area (APA) for the Livermore Municipal Airport. However, the EDGPA designates these lands for low and medium density residential use and indicates that, "If, at the time of pre-zoning, the residential designations are inconsistent with the A_PA, the residential designations will convert to Future Study Area with an underlying Rural Residential / Agriculture designation. The SDIER should provide clarification that, inasmuch at the property in question is located within the APA and inconsistent with Iow and medium density residential use, these properties should be permanently designated as Rural Residential/Agriculture, including the 10.4-acre parcel indicated as General Commercial. Reliance on Programmatic Mitigation for a Project EIR The EIR for the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan (SCH #91103064) certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 was a "Program" EIR, designed to assess the environmental'impacts of the poticies contained in these planning documents. As stated on page 1-2 of that Draf[ Program EIR, "Once the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are approved, specific development proposals for the project site may require a Project EIR to assess project-specific issues." Given the programmatic nature of the 1993 EIR, many of the mitigation measures contained in that dOcument do not provide the specificity required in a project-level EIK. SimilarlY, many of the mitigation measures contained in the 1993 document rely on subsequent studies to ensure adequate mitigation of impacts not fully disclosed at a project- level analysis. Examples of such mitigation measures contained in the 1993 EIR include: MM 3.8/7,1: The City will conduct a visual survey for the project site to identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas. MM 3.818.1: The City should require that pr°Jects with potentiai impacts on scenic corridors .submit detailed visual analyses with development project applications. Applicants will be required to submit graphic simulations and/or section drawings from affected travel corridors through the parcel in question, representing typical views of the parcel from the scenic route. The graphic depiction of the location and massing of the structure and associated landscaping can then be used to adjust the project design to minimize visual impacts. MM3.7/13: The City should require dedications .of land and improvements along both sides of stream corridors as a condition of development project approval. The width of dedicated corridors will be established in consultation ¢2ith the regulatory agencies since these may vary with specific sites. MM 3.7/4. O: Grazing management plans shall be developed by the City and implemented soon after approval of the GPA and Specific Plan. Management plans shall favor protection of wetland and riparian areas, increased plant diversity,- and the recovery of native plants, in particutar perennial grasses. MM 3.11/4. O: Require preparation of a construction impact reduction plan that incorporates all proposed air quality mitigation strategies with clearly defined responsibilities for ptan implementation and supervision. MM 3.619. O: While some permanent landform changes are unavoidable with any development, their magnitude can be reduced by developing minimal grading plans that adapt improvements to the natural landform& thus minimizing cuts and fills. · Construction of traditional flat bui!dingpads in hillside areas requires more grading than construction of partial pads, or developing custom lots. Construction of roads or ridges also minimizes grading in hillside areas. Use of retaining structures and steeper cut and fill slopes, where appropriate and properly designed, also minimizes grading in hillside areas. MM 3. 61] O: ... Specific project lot and infrastructure alignment planning should be based on the identificat~'on of geotechnically feasible building areas by the project geotechnical consultant. In some hillside areas, clustering structures may be the best approach to minimize grading and avid adverse conditions. These examples illustrate the programmatic nature of the 1993 EIR and demonstrate that mitigation measures contained in that document frequently rely on subsequent studies, pending coordination w/th other agencies, follow-up analyses and more detailed investigations'. Reliance on such mitigation measures in this DSEIR do not provide the level of detail and specific performance-based mitigation needed m assure that impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels. Chan~ed Circumstances Lack of Recognition of Changed Circumstances. Significant changes have occurred within the local area and within the Tri-Valley region since the ProgramEIR for the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan (SCH #91103064) was certified by the City of Dublin in 1993. A list of these changes (more fully discussed in later sections of this letter) includes: The supply of large parcels within Alameda County necessary to accommodate grazing operations have substantially decreased, and state laws regarding the annexation of lands defined as prime agricultural soils have also changed. Alameda County lost approximately 3,958 acres of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses between 1:998-2000. Contra COsta lost nearly 6,000 during the same period. · Rapid urbanization, increased regional traffic and changed commute patterns have resulted in significant degradation in the air quality of our region. New designations of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog, and the potential occurrence of special-status species were not considered in the 1993 EI~ (e.g., the California tiger salamander and Livermore Valley tarweed). New standards have been applied by state and federal resource agencies that afford greater protection to riparian corridors than were applicable in 1993. Recent efforts by both Contra Costa County and Th-Valley communities to initiate regionally based habitat conservation plans may affect the project area. Cumulative development within the entire watershed has led to significant increases in peak downstream flood flows. Increased urbanization and irrigation has led to an increased influx of salts into the Main gro~.mdwater basin. Significant changes in the demographic characteristics of not only the Th-Valley region, but also the entire Bay Area, have altered the region's jobs/housing balance and created a Bay Area commute-shed that stretches beyond the traditional 9-county Bay Area as far · eastward as Sacramento. · Dramatic increases in housing prices throughout the Bay Area have resulted in a severe regional housing shortages particularly for affordably priced housing opportunitieS. Changes in Th-Valley commute patterns, traffic intensities and traffic generated by new development has substantially exacerbated traffic congestion on the regional freeway system. Newly constructed and planned improvements to the transportation system (e.g. Isabel Parkway, BART access, and other transit opportunities) have occurred since 1993, and have not been. addressed in the SDEI~. Water supply contracts and recent litigation regarding the availability of water supplies have changed the availability of water supplies to serve new development. Regional policy, funding mechanisms, and timing of wasteWater infrastructure improvements have changed significantly since 1'993.. Natural gas and electrical service capacity in the region has become increasingly constrained, combined with increased demand and uncertainty over required electrical transmission improvements. Solid waste disposal needs have increased, combined with reductions in regionally available permitted disposal capacity. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15163 provides that, "a lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to a previous EIR if... only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed circumstances." Clearly, in light of the substantial changes in circumstance listed above, more than "minor changes" are necessary to make the 1993 EIR applicable to the current project. The City of Livermore recommends that the City of Dublin should fully recognize these changed circumstances and initiate a fully adequate and comprehensive environmental review of the proposed project rather than relying on older, outdated and inadequate baseline information that render this SDEIR inadequate. Inconsistency With 'Adopted Land Use Policy The SDEIR fails to include an adequate analysis of plan consistency. The DSEIR must identify and discuss potential conflicts between the proposed project and any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Specifically, the EIR must "discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans," including, but not limited to, "air quality attainment Or maintenance plan[s] or state implementation, plans, area-wide waste treatment and water quality control plans, regional transportation plans, regional housing allocation plans, habitat conservation · plans, natural community conservation plans, and regional Iand use plans.''~ This "setting" information will allow the Lead Agency to focus on the 'changes to the environment with respect to policy inconsistencies, and identify ways to reduce the inconsistencies. Typically, Lead Agencies perform this review with a "checklist" or matrix of applicable policies and regulations and a discussion of proj ect consistency with each policy.and regulation. The SDEIR alone and in combination with the 1993 FEIR fails to adequately analyze the consistency of the proposed'project with the applicable Dublin General Plan, the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Plan, with LAFCO policieS, and County General Plan policies for the area. Specifically, the 1992 DEIX contained sections titled Consistency with Relevant CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d) Land Use Plans and Policies and Other Applicable County, City and Agency Plans. A table comparing the project to policies is included, but only for policies contained in the Dublin General Plan. The Sections in the 1992 DEIR are out of date and incomplete. Information contained in the FEIR and the 1993 and 1994 Addenda do not make up for the defects in the 1992 DEIR sections. .Since 1992, the following changed circumstances with respect to applicable plans and regulations have occurred: ABAG issued its revised Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RB2qA) for Alameda County. The RI-INA identified housing goals for the City of Dublin, indicating a need for 1,327 affordable housing units from a total housing need of 5,436 units. This ABAG housing goal indicates a need for approximately 24% of all future housing to be' made affordable to low- and very-low income households. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued Recovery Plans for new species, and designated critical habitat for one of these species~ the California red-legged frog. Measure D passed, wi'rich sigrfificantly modifies County planning policies and established a County Urban Growth Boundary generally co-terminus with eastern boundary of the East Dublin Specific Plan Area. · The Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Committee is preparing a Draft Airport Land Use Plan affecting areas within the project site. AB 2838, the Hertzberg amendments to the Cortese-Knox Local Reorganization Act, was approved by the Legislature. These and other major modifications of applicable plans and regulations win-rant the preparation of a revised and thorough plan consistency section in a revised DEIR. LAFCO Issues. The SDEIR contains no analysis of the land use, policy and changed circumstances related to the impacts of the proposed annexation. The SDEIR relies on the 1992 EIR for this analysis. Neither the 1992 DEIR nor FEIR adequately address LAFCO issues. For example, in response to questions about the probable need for services and other factors, the FEIR responses were evasive and unsupported by evidence.2 This approach overlooks significant changed, circumstances requiring more in depth consideration of a number of factors in order for boundary changes to be adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). LAFCO will rely on the SDEIR for its consideration of the annexation. While LAFCO will rely on the SDEIR for its consideration of the annexation, key information necessary for LAFCO consideration of the project is entirely missing. The project Dublin San The project description calls for the annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin and the Ramon Services District for provision of water, sewer and recycled water services. also includes the proposed detachment of the project area from the Livermore Area See Response to Letter 24, EIR 24~43.RSP 7 Recreafi0'~-and Park Di~S~ffCt/.~kis central:.aspect':ofthe proposed projectis g6Verned by state law as implemented by~e. LAFCO: LAFCO must?apprOve the annexation.~ Since L~CO must appi~0¥~: these prOpos!ed .actions, it: is.'~ssenfial that 'the proj oct EIR ,,address. issues necessary f6r:LAFCO's consideration of the project: As a result of the passage of AB 2838 in 2000, key amendments to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization.Act:took.~fe.et on January t.~ ,2001.. The Act :is now referred. .to . as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act. AB 2838:reiterated and emphasized the Legislature's policies of discouraging urban sprawl, preserVing open space and prime agri~¢Ul~al tand~, ,~e~/ienttY extend~g, gove~ent' services"; and' that '~'pm:~i ding housing~ f~Sr ~ersofis~,~d ~f~li.~:S'.of all incomes is an:.'zmportant f~etor'in promo~g O~derly development;~.'(Section 56001): Seetion:5600.1..:~so provideS, that ~e.'Legislature'spolicy should bo"effected by ti~e logieaLformation ~d modifi~afi0n of, the boundari'es ~of~.those loeat agencies which can best accommodate and pro¢ide necessary~govemmental services attd housing for persons and families of all incomes in the most efficient manner feasible. ,3 LAFCO authority was srrengthetted by the Hertzberg amendments,.,'SpecifiCally, to better prevent sprawl and enhance orderly development, alt LAFCO actions must include new factors to be c:onsidere'd. ?ho~ to ~the amendments, the:Act listed nine "factors" including~ a total of 23 mandat0ry elemei~t~:f0i LA~FCO to consider:b~efore ac~fing on a boundary proposal. :LAFCO~s are also authorized to consider other factors, particularly if included in adopted policies. The new factors to be considered include: 1. the ability of the agency to provide services and: suffi¢iei~cyOfrevenues for::those services; 2. the timely:availabih~y of an adequate water supply; 3. the extent to which the proposal will assist the receiving entitywith its fair share housing needs; 4. any comments, from :owners or lando~merS; and 5. information r~iating to existing.land usedesignafions. Also, Section 56668;5 aUthorizes' the consideration of regional growth goals and policies established by a ~Ollabora~ion :6~ ele'~tedofficials only~ formally representing their local jurisdictions.::in an 0ffieiai capaeity.on~a.,regi,nal oi.~itbregional basis. As such, LAFCO's may now coh~ide~':such issue when reviewing proposals; [mplementatio~ ofSection 56668(j)~ Service Plans ,are Naw:Essential toRevie~.alI Proposals. The'.'anal~ysis of.an agency's ability:to provide.service and Sufficiency.of revenues to pay those se~ce:'eos:tg req~h:es more thorough analysis:than p~or~t0-.~ 28'38.~ Specificall,y~ service, plan:~ are now essential to,rev:iow all proposals: New. guidelines'have just been. issues for LAFCO's mandatory service'plan ~eview; If the City~ad prepared a Specific Plan for,the entire proj oct site, information about delivery of services and ability for the new development to pay'for so, ices without efi~ding 'existing serciee levels would, he"available. s Affordable housing is most effectively and efficiently provided at higher densities, not in the predominantly Iow detisity configuration called for in the project.] Service issues and ability of the new project to pay its own way must be addressed in a revised DEIR. Information contained in the 1994 Specific Plan is out of date. The limited information contained in the SDEIR defers both the analysis and resolution of these key issues. For example, the following mitigation measures all defer the critical issues of whether services .are available and do not address whether the project will pay its own way: SM UTS-1: Prior to approval o/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 devetopment project. (Page ST-27). 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 J?om PG&E indicating that adequate electricity and natural gas services are available to serve the proposed development.project. (Page ST-27). Not only does the SDEIR omit analysis of many other essential services which must be demonstrated to be adequate and available to serve the project (schools, fire, police,...), but it defers the information needed for LAFCO to make its findings for the few service issues the SDEIR does address (energy and water). Moreover, no information is ava/lable that demonstrates the sufficiency of revenues for those services. A revised DEIR must include this information. Implementation of Section 56668(k) Timely Availability of an Adequate Water Supply. Recent court decision clearly specify that local agencies including LAFCO specifically review adequacy of water supply associated with significant new development such as the proposed project. Availability of water supply includes the fluid water itself (entitlements) and infrastructure (treatment capacity, storage capacity, regional transmission) and local distribution systems. LAFCO must also determine whether extending supply to the new area will reduce the adequacy of service within the agency's existing boundaries and other adjacent areas. Adequacy of the water supply for the project itself and the effect of the additional demand on the total system (cumulative impact) must be considered. As stated above, the limited information contained in the SDEIR defers both the analysis and resolution of whether there is water and water' infrasxructure to serve the project area: SM UTS-1: Prior to approval o/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. Page ST-27. Clearly, this issue must be addressed in a revised DEIR (see also specific comments regarding water supply in later sections of this letter).. Implementation of Section 56668(l) Fair Share ]arousing. In enacting AB 2838, the legislature also recognized that providing housing for persons and families of all incomes is an important factor in promoting orderly development (Section 56668). LAFCO's must now 9 consider the extent to which the proposal will assist the receiving entity in achieving its fair share of the regional housing needs as determined by the local council of governments, in this case the Association of Bay Area Governments. The SDEIR provides little if any information to assist LAFCO to make this finding. The City of Dublin's ultimate ability to meet its fair share will depend on how the area is zoned and the land use designated in the General and Specific Plans. A revised DEIR must analyze these issues because they each implicate a potential policy inconsistency between the project and LAFCO policies, and each implicate potentially significant impacts, including but not limited to: 1, lack of available public services and infrastructure to serve the project; 2. reduced services for existing development if services are insufficient or the project fails to pay its own way; 3. a jobs-housing imbalance and/or insufficient housing thereby leading to indirect impacts to traffic, air. quality. Airport Compatibility. In preparing EIR's on projects within the purview of an airport comprehensive land use plan, or within two nautical miles of a public or public use airport, the Lead Agency must evaluate the impacts of safety and noise by using the handbook prepared by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics.4 Such an analysis has not been conducted as part of this SDEIR, and therefore, no. conclusions regarding consistency of the project with these requirements can be made. The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission created an Airport Protection Area for the Livermore Municipal Airport in 1993, after, the East Dublin EIR was certified. The Airport Protection Area affects land uses within the southern portion of he project area. Although the SDEIR states that these affected properties are currently designated as "Future Study Areas", it is unclear what land uses may be proposed on these properties or how the "Furore Study Area" designation will affect such uses. Additionally, the Airport Protection Area is based on a 1986 Airport Master Plan. Currently the City of Livermore is working toward preparation of a new,. updated Airport Master Plan for the Livermore Municipal Airport, and this new Airport Master Plan should be considered when proposing new land use in the vicinity. General Plan Policies. The 1992 EIR evaluated the proposed East Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments with the City of Dublin General Plan (See Section 3.1 Land Use). The proposed project is a proposal for a Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation for a portion of the East Dublin SP and GPA. Thus, an analysis of the consistency ofthe proposed project with'the relevant East Dublin SP and GPA policies is required. There are a number of potential inconsistencies between the proposed project and the EDGPA. The most significant of these is the requirement in the EDGPA for the completion of a specific plan for the remainder of the area: Pub. Res. Code sec. 21096; Guidelines sec. 15154 10 "Specific Plan(s) will be required for the remainder of the extended planning area to provide similar direction for its ultimate development." (Policy 2.1.4-03) of the EDGPA). In the absence of a specific plan, significant information about the project needed to demonstrate consistency with other applicable policies and regulations is not provided. For example, had a specific plan been prepared, information about the provision of public services and facilities and whether the project pays its own way would be provided. Moreover, the Specific Plan has been identified by Dublin as the vehicle for ensuring, among other issues, that the proposed site grading and access will not disfigure the ridgelands, and that the timing of the development would not result in premature termination of agriculturiI operations to adj oining lands. This major General Plan inconsistency must be acknowledged in a revised DEIR and addressed. The discussion should focus on the information that will not be available if the Specific Plan requirement is ignored. Other potential inconsistencies between the proposed project and the EDSP and GPA cannot be ascertained by reviewing the SDEtR. For example, the project description is vague concerning project phasing and provision Of services: "'Timing for the Project's phasing would depend upon market demand. Ail necessary roadways, site grading, and utility backbone improvements would be expected to occur in a timely manner w/th each development phase." (DSEIR at page 2-6), and "A wide range of residential types would be allowed by the proposed residential densities." (DSEIR at page 2-7), Given the lack of detail in the project description, a detailed analysis of proposed project consistency with' guiding policies of the ED GPA and SP must be completed which illustrates how: the proposed project will ensure the production of affordable housing within neighborhoods with character and identity. · adequate open space will be provided in the proposed project. the proposed project will meet policies calling for reducing reliance on the single-occupant vehicle. · services and facilities will be provided to serve the project in a manner that will not overburden ex/sting services or facihties., among other major policy requirements. Because the proposed project is a portion of the GPA and SP areas, it is even more essential that a plan consistency section in a revised DEIR demonstrate how the project is consistent with these applicable policies. 11 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The SDEIR fails to address the project's consistency with and contribution to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The project .description is extremely vague as to how the project will meet the City's In¢lusionary Zoning Ordinance, and fails to address how the project wilt assist the City in meeting its assigned RHNA. The project description alludes to the City's density bonus ordinance, but fails to state whether the project will include additional density bonus units. It is even further unclear how a maximum contribution of 5% affordable housing units required of the project (page 2,8 of the SDEIR) will assist in meeting the 24% affordable housing need within the City of Dublin. Agricultural Resources The loss of as much a 1,100 acres;of agricultural lands, loss of 59 acres of Prime Fannland,. and the cancellation of Williamson Act Contracts prior to expiration of renewal should be considered as significant effects of the project. Livermore also does not believe that the DSEIR adequately addresses mitigation measures for these impacts. Appendix "C" of the DSEIR includes an analysis of the project area's potential for being irrigated, and concludes that the delivery of available water is economically infeasible. This conclusion fails to recognize the potential delivery of treated/reclaimed water supplies to serve as a source of irrigation water. Both DSRSD and the City of Livermore have, or anticipate being able to supply, large amounts of reclaimed wastewater as an alternative to disposal of these waters into the Bay. The availability of reclaimed water to serve as an irrigation supply could render an agricultural water, supply feasible. This potential is not discussed or addressed in the DSEIR, and is not mentioned in its Appendix "C". Similarly, Zone 7 is anticipating constrUction of the North Valley Pipeline, a water transmission facility carrying water supplies from its recently approved Altamont Water Treatment Plant across the Livermore-Amador Valley north of 1-580 and into Dublin. The potential availability of water supplies from this pipeline could potentially make irrigation of this area feasible, and should be addressed in the EIR. Lack ofMitigation Measures. The DSEIR does not recommend potential mitigation measures to address the loss of ag, r/cultural lands, altkough such measures are available and feasible. An example of such a measure includes, but is not limited ro permanent protection of other agricultural lands, either through direct dedication of easements or payment of mitigation funds to be used for acquisition by others. Protection of off-site lands should achieve greater than a 1:1 replacement ratio. Recommended MitigatiOn Measures The SD£IR Must Consider Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce the Project's Impacts on Agricultural and Open Space Lands. Both Alameda County and the City of Livermore identify lands in the area of the project as high priority for open space preservation. The proposed proj eot would result in the loss of prime agricultural land and t,120 acres of open space lands. The project is also likely to induce growth on adjacent lands that are designated "Future Study Area," if the project does not include measures that permanently protec~ these lands (e.g. urban growth boundary, dedicated greenbelt). The 1992 EIR found that impacts to agricultural land were insignificant without mitigation. To the contrary, the project's direct 12 impacts to prime agricultural land alone and in combination with the indirect growth inducing and cumulative impacts will be significant. Growing evidence suggests that open space conservation is not an expense, but a worthwhile investment that produces great economic benefits.. Open space is a major attraction for employees, residents and visitors because it increases the attractiveness of an area as a place to live, work and recreate. As the Trust for Public Land explains in its 1999 publication: The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open. Space: How Land Conservation Helps Communities Grow Smart and Protect the Bottom Line: "Too often we hear that Commumt~es cannot afford to 'grow sham' by conserving open space. But accUmulating evidence indicates that open space conservation is not an expense but an investment that prsduces important economic benefits. Some of this evidence comes from academic studies and economic analysis. Other evidence is from firsthand experience of community leaders and government officials who have found that open space protection does not 'cost' but 'pays.'" For example, a 1990 study in New England found that clustered housing designed to preserve open space appreciated faster than comparable homes on comparable lots. (Id. at 7). Open space used recreationally as trails can also have significant economic benefits.5 Local businesses benefit greatly from open space that attracts visitors from other areas.6 New development within the project area and existing development in the City of Dublin would particularly benefit from the permanent conservation of a greenbelt: Protection of these lands will have widespread benefits for residents and visitors to the areas, including views, recreational opportunities and continued agricultural use, and trails. The City should take the unique oppommity presented by the proposed project to invest in the permanent protection of open space and agricultural land through effective mitigation measures. As set forth below, the SDEIR for the proposed project should be revised to consider the wide variety of options available to mitigate the significant project-related, indirect and cUmulative impacts to open space and agricultural lands. The SDEIR Does not Consider Feasible Mitigation Measures: "The chief goal of CEQA is mitigation or avoidance' of environmental harm. ''? "The core of an EIR is the mitigation and alternatives sections.''8 One of the fundamental objectives of CEQA is to facilitate the identification of "feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures wNch will avoid or substantially lessen" significant environmental effects.9 To effectuate this purpose, CEQA cautions that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are... feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant See Id. at 26-27 See Id. at 27 Laure! Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents, 47 Cal.3d 376,403. 1988 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal. 3d 553,564. 1990. Pub. Res. Code section 21002; Citizens ofGoteta Vattey v. Board of Supervisors., 197 Cal. App.3d 1167, 182. 1988 13 enVironmental effects of such projects.''1° Consequently, an EIR must identify feasible mitigation measUres to mitigate significant environmental impacts.~ The SDEIR and prior EIR fail to identify feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the proposed project's significant direct and indirect impacts on agricultural land and open space. The SDEIR and EIR find the loss of 200 acres of prime agricultural land an unavoidable but not. significant impact (see FEIR at page 3). The DEIR finds this .impact insignificant "due to the high percentage of Williamson Act contracts that have been non-renewed and the limited value of non-prime soils on the project site." (DEIR at SM-7). The DEIR finds the impact to alteration of ruraYopen space visual character potentially significant (SM-26). However, no true mitigation is proposed for this significant impact. Neither the SDEIR nor the EIR find the loss of open space a Significant impact. Contrary to CEQA's mandate with respect to both the loss of agricultural and open space land, the SDEIR and EIR simply fail to consider any mitigation measures. Yet, as set forth below, a variety of widely accepted feasible measures exist that could reduce the project's significant impacts to open Space and agricultural land. Feasible Mitigation Measures Exist To Reduce the Pro_posed Project's Significant Impact on Agricultural and Open Space Loss. The SDEIR's and EIR's failure to consider mitigation for the loss of open space and agricultural lands is particularly striking ~ven the wide variety and number of successful programs that exist to address this issue. Mitigation is defined by the CEQA Guidelines to include: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the hfe of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. ~2 Here, the proposed project's impact on agricultural and open space lands can be compensated for by the implementation of programs that provide for such lands on the project site or in other nearby locations that reduce the impact over time 'by preservation of such lands. Also, the establishment of a permanent growth boundary or urban limit line would assist in reducing the impact, as has been done in Livermore and Pleasanton, among other communities. The American Farmland Trust has identified a number of feasible mitigation measures for agricultural land conversion, including: Pub. Res. Code section 21002 CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4 CEQA Guidelines section 15370 14 Requiring that remaining agricultural' land, of an equal or greater mount of agricultural land be placed under Williamson Act contract. Requiring conservation easements to be placed on remaining or alternate agricultural land. · Requiring that new agricultural land be brought into production. · Requiring a per-acre mitigation fee on development l~rojects to be used for the acquisition of development rights on agricultural land nearby. ~3 In addition to protecting agricultural land, conservation easements are also effective mechanisms for preserving habitat, watersheds, viewsheds, and community open space buffers. ! 4 In addition to these general forms of mitigation, there are numerous examples of communities that have required land dedications and/or fees for purchase of land to compensate for the loss of open space and agricultural lands as mitigation. Examples include, but are not limited to: City of Davis General Plan and Ordinance 1823. Under Davis R/ght to Farmland Preservation Ordinance No. 1823, new development is required to protect an equivalent amount of agricultural acreage to that lost as a result of development. Agricultural mitigation can also be satisfied under the Ordinance by the payment of a fee based on the replacement ration. The City implements these requirements to mitigate for project impacts to agricultural lands. South Livermore Specific Plan. New residential and non-residential development in the South Livermore Valley are required to. mitigate the loss of agricultural and open space lands by agricultural land dedications and planting, and payment of fees. Cayetano Corporate Campus. In order to mitigate for the loss of open space caused by the corporate campus, the Business Park paid a mitigation fee of $600,000 to implement an open space/habitat management program in North Livermore. Thus, among the feasible mitigation measures the SDEIR and EIR fail to include are the following: Clustering of the development to achieve smart growth principles and promote more affordable housing, as well as to protect on-site open space, habitat and agricultural lands and provide permanent protection of those lands through an appropriate instrument (e.g. dedication of lands). Payment of a mitigation fee to an appropriate conservation organization for purchase. Of mitigation lands (e.g. the proposed fee accepted b)7 landowners for North Livermore was Excerpt from Saving the Farm, January ~990, at 5 Regional Needs Briefing Book, page 6 15 $25,000 per developed, acre; the proPosed fee accepted by landowners for the Vasco- Laughlin project was $100,000 per acre with "clustering' of development rights to enhance overall densities which resulted in increased values of development areas for owners. Both programs are °n-hold for the Livermore Visioning project). Purchase in fee title or conservation easement of comparable open space and agricultural lands in the area and permanent protection °fthose lands'through a dectication to an appropriate open space conservation entity. · The establishment of a permanent urban growth boundary in combination with the above- program. To provide an adequate assessment of mitigation, a revised DEIR must consider the measures described above for their feasibly and efficacy in reducing project impacts to open space and agiScultural lands. Adoption of measures such as those identified above would clearly minimize the proposed project's impact on agricultural and Open space lands both' within the project area itself and through agricultural and open space preservation in the area. A Revised DEIR Must Consider Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce Cumulative Impacts on Agricultural and Open Space Lands. In addition to its significant proj eot-specifiC and growth inducing impacts, the proposed project's conversion of agricultural and open space lands to urban uses contributes to a significant cumulative impact on agricultural and Open space lands. The SDEIK fails to provide current information on the extent of such impacts. Several additional feasible mitigation measures that could effectively mitigate cumulative impacts exist. The City could evaluate the transfer of development riDhts to within its existing boundaries. The City could amend its general plan to include programs to generate fees for protection of open space outside its ultimate boundaries (e.g, Proposition 218), The City could participate in regional programs directed at open space and biological resource protection. A revised DEli{ must consider these and other measures that could clearly off-set the proposed projects contribution to the cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands in the region. The SDEIR as currently drafted, in combination with the EIR, is inadequate to provide the meaningful consideration or feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the prOject. Traffic and Circulation Central Parkway. The DSEIR's analysis of traffic and circulation issues pertaining to Central Parkway is confusing, internally inconsistent and potentially misleading. The City of Livermore has long held its concern that the Doolan Canyon area be protected as an open space/greenbelt corridor that provides a visual and physical separation between.our two 16 communities. The extension of two roads into this area (both Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway) would not be in keeping with Livermore's understanding of open space protection. It is unclear from this document what the City of Dublin's plans are for the extension of roadways (particularly Central Parkway) in to this area. Internal Inconsistencies Pertaining to the Circulation Network. Internal inconsistencies in the document regarding Central Parkway include: The footnote on page 3.6-2 indicates that some maps "erroneously" show Central Parkway extending easterly and ending at the Sphere of Influence boundary. (i.e., the eastern edge of the project area). This footnote goes on to statethat, in 1997, the Dublin Council amended the General Plan and East Dublin Specific Plan to show Central Parkway as a 4-lane road extending easterly of Fallon Road, and mining southward to connect with Dublin Boulevard within the Eastern Extended Planning Area (i.e., within DoOlan Canyon). Two of these four lanes are part of the proposed project, and rights-of-way for the additional two lanes are reserved for the ultimate 4-lane width. Figure 2-D of the SDEIR (the East Dublin Specific'Plan) indicates that Central Parkway is to be extended only m/d-way into the project area, terminating just east of the open space corridor. Figure 2-F of the SIER (Project Site and Dublin Ranch) indicates that Central Parkway would terminate at the western edge of the RRA land use designation area. However, this diagram does not indicate how the proposed elementary school at the edge of the project area would be accessed without the extension of Central Parkway, nor does it actually show Central Parkway ending at a cut-de-sac or other type of road terminus. Figure 2-1 (Eastern Dublin Circulation Network) indicates that Central Parkway would be extended as a 4-lane road easterly of the project area into Doolan Canyon. Figure 3.6-D and 3.6-F both show Central Parkway as terminating within the project area (similar to Figure 2,F), but indicate that volumes of traffic on this roadway may be as high as 107 vehicles traveling westbound during the peak hour, and as much as 9,200 average daily trips on this short, 2-lane road segment under cumulative conditions. This array of confusing information does not allow the City of Livermore to understand just what is being proposed by way of a circulation system for this area. 1. If Central Parkway isnot proposed for extension into Doolan Canyon, then why does the traffic analysis project such kigh future volumes for this roadway? 2. If Central Parkway is to terminate within the project area, then how will access to the school site be provided? 3. If the City of Dublin does propose to extend Central Parkway beYond the project area and into Doolan Canyon, then the SDEIR must address the potential environmental 17 conseqUences associated with that action. These consequences are not addressed in the current SDEIR. Aside from On-the-ground effects of such a roadway extension (i.e., grading of hillsides and ridgelines, impacts to biological and hydrologic resources, loss of agricultural resources, etc.), the cumulative and growth inducing effects of extending two roadways into this area have not been discussed in this SDEI2R. . Livermore requests that this SDEIR be revised and re-circulated'to, clarify the circulation network proposed for this project, and to comprehensively and adequately analyze the potential effects'associated with that system. This current document accomplidhes neither of these two CEQA requirements. Inadequate Traffic Modeling. Page 3.6-8 of the SDEIR indicates that two traffic , models have been used for this analysis, the TVTC model and the City of Dublin model. To ensure consistency with regional planning efforts, this EIR should also include a presentation of the results of the Alameda County Congestion Management Authority (CMA) model. All cities within the CMA jurisdiction are required to demonstrate the impacts of projects using this model. Inaccurate Description of "Funded" Street Network. Page 3.6-10 and -11 indicate a long list of roadway improvements that are assumed to be complete as part of the traffic. modeling mn analyses. However, it is unclear from this document the extent of actual funding available for these improvements. Are all of these improvemen.ts to be fully funded through the City TIF fee program? When does the City (~fDublin anticipate that the fees needed to implement these improvements will actually be in hand, and when will construction be completed? If these roadway improvements are needed to accommodate the project, then the funds must be available now and the improvements implemented prior to project construction" Otherwise, the SDEIR analysis should be revised and re-circulated to demonstrate the projects' traffic impacts On the. existing and fully funded roadway system. Any improvements shown as needed to accommodate the project beyond this "funded" system should then be required as mitigation for the project. Only then would this SDEIR present a true and accurate indication of the likely traffic implications associated with this projectl and the traffic conditions that.are anticipated to occur if approved. Inaccurate Description of Cumulative Effects. The DSEIR speculates (on page 3.6-12) that regional traffic traveling through the City of Dublin's intersections is the cause of unacceptable levels of service along Dublin Boulevard. However,'this document presents' no evidence to support that assertion. It seems equally likely that the amount of cumulative development that is currently being proposed and considered, by the City of Dublin throughout . this area (e.g. this project, the Transit Center project, the CiscO project, other commercial 'and office development) will contribute to, and result in traffic congestion problems at these locations, even without an increase in regional through traffic. The DSEIR should be able to 18 demonstrate, based on select link analysis, the origin and destination' of all ~raffic on the network and thereby determine if development in Dublin alone will cause this unacceptable traffic condition. Inaccurate Cumulative Scenario Modeling. The DSEIR (page 3.6-15) suggests that development of the project would improve traffic congestion at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection, even though no improvements at this intersection are proposed as part of the project. Similarly, traffic votumes on 1-580 are shown to be less under the Cumulative + Project condition than under the Cumulative-only condition. Is this DSEIR suggesting that traffic congestion would be worse if the City does not build out this project? If so, then the analysis must provide some son of supporting evidence to this conclusion. It is Livermore's understanding that the TVTC traffic model will arbitrarily "assign" new housing opportun/ties throughout the modeled network in order to achieve a match between job and housing. If such arbitrary "assignments" have been made as part of this analysis, the DSEIR should indicate where these assignments have been made, and discuss the potential feasibility of such new housing opportunities as part of the cumulative scenario. Livermore beiieves thru Dublin w/il find that such assignments are not reasonable or feasible, and that this analysis is misleading. The cumulative scenarios should be re-run with the traffic model accurately estimating the location of needed housing opportunities based on available capacity in neighboring jurisdiction, and this information presented in a re-circulated document. This modeling approach used in the DSEIR also serves to obscure the real impacts of the proposed project on the 1-580 corridor. The DSEIR should analyze how much of the unacceptably kigh traffic volumes on 1-580 would be attributable to the project. To service its function as a full disclosure document, this information must be made available. Inadequate Mitigation Measures. Intersections on Dublin Boulevard at Hacienda and Dougherty Valley are shown to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Similarly, 1-580 is shown to continue to operate at unacceptable levels .of service. The project would contribute significant amounts of traffic to these roadways and intersection, exacerbating this condition. However, no real mitigation measures are proposed for these impacts. Improvements on Dublin Boulevard are described as infeasible (page 3.6-16 and -17), and improvements to 1- 580 have been identified as the responsibility o£ another jurisdiction (page 3.6-22). The DSEIR makes no effort at addressing these cumulative impacts from the perspective of reducing traffic generation from the project. Nor does it suggest any responsibility 'for addressing the regional traffic impacts on a proj ec.t-specific basis. There is mention that the City of Dublin may consider transportation demand reduction measures (TDM) at a "Stage 2 Development Plan"(page 3.6-160. However, the actual impacts are known at tkis time. Why wait for some further analysis when the problems are akeady known? Measures such as ride-sharing, transit passes, van pools, staggered work hours, and improved transit infrastructure should be required of the proj eot as part of this D SEIR in order to mitigate, or at least red~ce, its contribution to this cumulative impact. 19 Additionally, the DSEIR identifies actions to encourage alternative travel modes as "advocating" needed transit improvements. Advocacy is not a mitigation measure, whereas a financial commitment to regional solutions is. Such regional solutions include: · increased financial contributions toward the construction of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on 1-580, and~or providing increased funding for improved transit opportunities. The EIR should analyze the appropriate level of contribution by the p.roj ect for the implementation of these measures. The need for mitigation of increased regional traffic congestion on a project-by-project basis is evidenced by the list of cumulative development already approved in the City of Dublin, shown in the Draft EIR for the Dublin Transit Center. According to this list, the City of Dublin has already approved more than 4 million square feet of additional commercial/office space and 4,800 new residences. This mount of cumulative development will have substantial adverse effects on traffic congestion levels on 1-580. Simply passing the responsibility for transportation improvements needed to accommodate this cumulative development onto Caltrans or other regional agencies does not address the responsibility that this cumulative development has toward assisting in regionally-based solutions. The City of Livermore has recently adopted a regional component to its.local traffi6 impact fee program. The purpose of this regional component is to provide additional sources of funding that can be used to assist in f'mancing regional transportation and transit improvements needed to accommodate' increased cumulative development. Livermore strongly urges its other local jurisdictional neighbors within the TM-Valley to similarly address their responsibility for funding these needed regional improvements. Biological Resources lfey t~iological Data are Missing fora the DSEIR. The SEIR acknowledges in several places 'that key biological data are not provided because of on-going survey work that was not complete at the time the DSEIR was released. These data must be provided to the public to allow adequate review under CEQA of the potential for the Project to affect biological resources. The following key data are missing from the DSEIR and must be provided to allow proper assessment of Project impacts: Sensitive Habitats. The extent of three sensitive habitats, seasonal wetlands, freshwater marsh, and alkali grassland, was not quantified in the DSEIR, presumably because field surveys were not done or were not complete in time for the publication of the DSEIR (page 3.3-2 and 3.3-3). This information is essential to be able to evaluate the impact of the Project on these sensitive habitats. Jurisdictional Wetlands. The DSEIR does not include any quantification or estimates of the extent of waters of the United States, including wetlar)ds, in the Project area. Based on the presence of ponds, seasonal wetlands, and intermittent streams, it is likely that these sensitive jurisdictional areas occur on site. On page 3.3-12 the DSEIR acknowledges that a 20 wetland delineation was conducted on the Jordan Ranch property and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on November 16, 2000. However, the results of this delineation were. not included in the DSEIR. The SIER also states that a "Request for Jurisdictional Determination" was submitted last year, but the preliminary results of that delineation were also not included. The results of wetland delineations throughout the Project area should be included in the DSEIR so that potential impacts to these features can be properly evaluated. Special-status Plants. The DSEIR acknowledges on page 3.3-4 that the Pr~ect area supports potential habitat for 12 special-status plants, including two species~, the San Joaquin spearscale and the Livermore Valley tarweed, not considered in the original EIR. Botanical. surveys being conducted by Sycamore Associates must be completed in order for the public to prOperly evaluate the potential impacts on these species. Federally-listed Invertebrates. The DSEIR on page 3.3-5 also acknowledges that studies to determine the status of federally listed invertebrates on the Project site are also on going. It is unknown whether the site supports species such as the vernal pool fairy shrimp, Conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. California Red-legged Frog. The DSEIR on page 3.3-5 states that site assessments for California red-legged frog (CRLF) have been completed on the Fallon Enterprises and Braddock and Logan Group properties, yet the results of these assessments were not included in the DSEIR. A site assessment is also being conducted on the First American Title Company property. However, it is unclear if site assessments are being conducted on the remaining properties (e.g., Croak, Chert, Branaugh, Pdghetti Partners, Anderson). The results of surveys in the entire Project Area are essential to evaluating the potential effects of the project on the CRLF. The DSEIR on page 3.3-5 concludes that the entire Project area provides suitable breeding and dispersal habitat for CRLF. While we concur with the assessment that the entire Project area provides suitable upland aestivation and dispersal habitat, the entire Project area clearly does not support suitable breeding habitat. CRLF only breed in unique aquatic habitats, which do not occur on the entire site. This erroneous conclusion indicates that site assessments are necessary to properly assess impacts to California Tiger Salamander2 The California tiger salamander is assumed to be present . throughout the Project area (DSEIR page 3.3-7). We concur with this assessment given the extent, of potentially suitable habitat and the known occurrence of this species on the Anderson property. However, it. appears that protocol-level surveys are being conducted by Jennings and Flohr. The DSEIR should include the results of these surveys so that the potential impacts to this special-status species can be fully understood and evaluated. Tricolored Blackbird. On page 3.3-9 the DSEIR states that a tricolored blackbird.colony was discovered in the southern portion of the Project area in 1999 but that "the project area may provide suitable breeding habitat for this species." These two statements are inconsistent. The presence of a breeding colony on the site means suitable habitat exists on the site. The condition and status of the 1999 breeding colony and their habitat are not' described in the DSEIR, so one must assume that the colony still exists. The location of 'this and other nearby colonies oftricolored blackbird is not shown on the sensitive species map (figure 3.3-B). All relevant locations oftricolored blackbird colonies must be shown on the site and in the project vicinity so that the impacts of the project can be evaluated and adequately mitigated. The nesting site, the colony size, and their foraging habitat (e.g., irrigated pasture, unused fields, non-native grassland, vernal pools)~5) should be described and shown on maps to be able to evaluate the potential impacts to this species from the propo s ed Project. Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects of Direct and Indirect Habitat Loss. In the methodology section for the impact analysis, the DSEIR claims on page 3.3-12 to rely on ."ongoing surveys for biological resources within the Project area." An analysis cannot rely on information not yet collected to determine the level of impact ~f a project. All of the information on which the impact analysis is based must be included in the DSEIR or be properly referenced. Reports in preparation are not' acceptable sources because they are not available to the public to review and verify. The DSEIR on page 3.3-12 adds supplemental impact BIO 1 to address direct and indirect habitat loss not contemplated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEIR.acknowledges that some impacts would occur to seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams, habitats not Previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. However, the DSEIR does not quantify these effects (presumably because the surveys were not done).and instead claims that "a small portion of the newly-identified seasonal wetlands would be accommodated in open space." One must therefore infer that the maj or/ty of the seasonal wetland would be filled by proposed development. The quality of the seasonal wetlands filled or remaining are not discussed, nor is their location. Similarly, the DSEIR does not quantifY the effects on intermittent streams. Contrary to the. title of the impact, there is no discussion of the potential indirect effects of the project on seasonal wetlands or intermittent streams. For example, the DSEIR also does not evaluate whether the functions and values of the remaining seasonal wetlands could be preserved once development surrounds them. Furthermore, there is no discussion of the potential indirect effects on intermittent streams once development is built within the stream's watershed (e.g., runoff effects on aquatic communities, stream flow patterns). The impact analysis for direct and indirect habitat loss provides no useful data or conclusions on which to judge whether the impact is significant or not. The conclusion on page 3.3-13 that the impact is "potentially significant" is thus unwarranted. Without more data, the DSEIR must conclude that the impact to seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams is significant; Mitigation measure SM-BIO-1 describes a "comprehensive" ReSource Management Plan (RMP) that will be prepared to provide additional mitigation for impacts for direct and indirect loss of habitats. This measure defers important mitigation until preparation of the RMP. Because the RMP is deferred, the adequacy and feasibility of the proposed mitigation .are not ~ Beedy, Ted, Ph.D. Biologist and tricolored blackbird expert. Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, CA.; Hamilton, William, Ph.D.. Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, U.C. Davis, Davis, CA. 22 stated in the.DSEIR and cannot be evaluated. The CEQA Guidelines state that "Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time.''~6 Furthermore, .one of the key advantages of a Specific Plan is the ability to plan for development, open space preservation, and mitigation m a more comprehensive fashion than with individual development projects. Because the DSEIR defers the RMP until later, the existing Specific Plan includes no comprehensive planning for biological resources. Moreover, as indicated above, Dublin has not prepared a Specific Plan for the remainder of the project area, thereby deferring planning for biological resources for this area as well. Resources are only generally described and shown on maps but are not quantified in the DDSEIR. The proposed project is not specific at all when it comes to mitigating biological resources. At a minhnum, the following aspects of the RMP should be provided in the DSEIR so that its adequacy and feasibility can be properly evaluated: program goals and objectives measures for maintaining on-site mitigation in perpetuity Identification of any proposed off-site mitigation and measures for maintaining offsite mitigation in perpetuity mitigation ratios for preservation and creation preconsU'Uction and construction avoidance and minimization measures onsite avoidance and minimization measures Without these details of the RMP, the adequacy of mitigation for supplemental impact BIO-1 cannot be evaluated. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines,"... [mitigation] measures may specific performance standards which would mitigate the significant effects of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way."~? Because mitigation measure SM- BIO-1 is inadequate, we disagree with the DSEIR that th/s impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects to Special-Status Plants. The DSEIR on page 3.3-15 acknowledges that the Project area supports suitable habitat for at least five special-status plants, including the federally endangered palmate-bracted bird's-beak and the newly discovered Livermore Valley tarweed. However, the DSEIR provides no data on the results of ongoing surveys for these species. Therefore, for some species it i.s impossible to evaluate the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures. As described above, one of the key advantages of a Specific Plan is the ability to plan for development, open space preservation, and mitigation in a more comprehensive fashion than with individual development projects. Because the DSEtR defers surveys and presenting survey results until later, presumably during submissions of development applications', the proposed Specific Plan is no different than individual development projects. CEQA Guidelines 15126.4 (a)(1)(B) 15126.4 (a)(1)(B) 23 Ifa population ofpalmate-bracted bird's-b~ik wai' foUnd in the Project area, it would be highly significant because it would represent the western-most population known to exist (the nearest population is in the Springtown alkali sink east of the Project area), and.only one of seven populations in the World. A new population of Livermore Valley tarweed on the site would also be highly significant because it would be only the third population known to exist in. the world. This species is likely to be listed by the state or federal government in the near future as threatened or endangered. Mitigation proposed for a population of either palmate-bracted bird, s-beak of Livermore Valley tarweed consists of avoidance, if feasible (SM-BIO-3), or mitigation off-site, including transplanting (SM-BIO-4). These. measures are inadequate because o~'the'extreme rarity of these two species. If populations of either species are found on the site, they must be preserved and maintained through long-term management and adequate buffer zones from development to prevent indirect impacts. Seeding experiments conducted for palmate-bracted bird's-beak by researchers at' Stanford University largely failed to establish new populations ~8). Transplanting mature plants of either species has not been'attempted. Transplanting rare plants is not a feasible mitigation measure because of its high rate of failure.~9 Because of the lack of data on the occurrence of special-status plants on. the site and the inadequacy of proposed mitigation measures, impacts to special-status plant species are not reduced to a less than significant level and therefore remain significant. Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects to Boianically Sensitive Habitats. The analysis of Pr0ject impacts to botanically sensitive habitats in inadequate because of the lack of appropriate data on the location and extent of these habitats in the Project · area. The impact analysis also ignores potential indirect impacts to these sensitive habitats through adverse hydrologic impacts (e.g., degredation of water quality, increase in nuisance runoff from development), disturbance from people in nearby development, and changes in topography that might affect patterns of surface water flow. Therefore, the DSEIR does not adequately evaluate the potential impacts of the Project on seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams. Mitigation proposed to offset impacts to these habitats is also inadequate to address the potential impacts. As discussed for special-status plants, one of the key advantages ora Specific Plan is the abil/ty to plan for development, open space preservation, and mitigation in a more comprehensive fashion than with individual development projects. The DSEIR defers alt surveys of seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams until specific development projects are proposed. Without data on the extent and condition of these resources On the site, or the magnitude of the impact to these resources, one cannot evaluate the adequacy Of proposed mitigation measures. 18 Center for Conservation Biology (Stanford University). 1994. Conservation of the palmate-bracted bird's-beak, Cordylanthuspalmatus. Prepared for the Endangered Plant Program, California Department offish and Game. Stanford, CA. ~9 Howatd, A. 1996. Translocation as a Mitigation Strategy: Lessons from California. Pp. 293-329 in: Falk, D. A., C. I. Millar, and M. Olwell, editors. Restoring Diversity: Strategies for Reintroduction of Endangered Plants. Island Press, Washi'ngton, D.C. 24 Supplemental mitigation measure SM-BIO-6 proposes to mitigate any loss of seasonal wetland or intermittent streams using a mitigation ratio of 2:t through creation, restoration, or enhancement of wetlands or other waters. The DSEIR does not demonstrate that this mitigation measure is feasible. It is not clear, for example, if enough mitigation acreage is available onsite orifthere are suitable sites nearby that will provide enough suitable mitigation habitat to replace the lost functions and values of the seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams (SM-BIO-7). Because of a lack of appropriate data on existing conditions, an inadequate impact analysis, and inadequate mitigation measures, impacts to botanically sensitive habitat remain potentially significant. Inadequate Impact Analysis Of and Mitigation for Effects to San Joaquin'Kit Fox. The DSEIR acknowledges on page 3.3-6 that the Project area provides suitable habitat for the San ' Joaquin kit fox. We concur with this assessment. The DSEII~ also states that there are no new impacts and no increased impacts to San Joaqain kit fox and its habitat beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEIR fa/Is adequately evaluate the impact of the project on kit fox in light of recent mitigation policies of regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In a recent letter to the City of Livermore and Alameda County, the USFWS recommended mitigation ratios of 3:1 for the loss of unoccupied kit fox habitat adjacent to the proposed Project2°. However, the DSEIR (and the Eastern Dublin EIK) fails to provide any clear mitigation for the loss of approximately 550 acres of suitable kit fox habitat2~. Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-11 proposes preservation of mitigation lands at a 1:I ratio or other suitable ratio determined by the USFWS. However, it. is unclear if this mitigation measure is intended to apply only to occupied habitat or to all potentially suitable but currently unoccupied habitat. This mitigation measure must be clarified so that it applies to potentially suitable habitat. Until this mitigation measure is clarified, it is inadequate and this impact remains significant. Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects to California Red-legged Frog. The DSEIR states on page 3.3-18 that "Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, GRLF 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." The. impact analysis is inadequate without including the new data of CRLF locations observed since publication of the Eastern Dublin EI2~.. The DSEIR correctly concludes that the proposed project "could have a broader impact on CRLF habitat and individual frogs than previously analyzed." And the DSEIR correctly concludes that this is a potentially significant effect. Mitigation SM-BIO-13 calls for CRLF habitat to be included in the Resource Management Plan outlined in mitigation SM-BIO-1. As discussed above, key components of the Resource Management Plan should be included as part of the project to demonstrate its feasibility and adequacy. 20 August 1, 2000, letter to Chris Bazar, Senior Planner, Alameda County Community Development Deparmaent on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the North Livermore Specific Plan Area. 2~ t,120 acres (total Project area) -535 acres of dry farming rotational cropland-35 acres of developed areas = 550 acres. 25 Mitigation BIO-SM-14 states that development of the Project 'area shall avoid all areas suitable · .for CRLF to the extent feasible. These areas should be designated at this time so that the level ofimpact and adequacy of the mitigation measure can be evaluated. This mitigation measure also proposes the use of 600- to 1000-foot.-wide open space corridors along streams that provide CRLF habitat. The DSEIR acknowledges that all streams within the Project area provide suitable breeding habitat for the CRLF (page 3.3-5). Figure 3.3-B also supports this conclusion (according to the DSEIR, there are presumably even more locations of CRLF in the Project ~ea not shown in this figure). Therefore, according to BIO-SM-14, alt streams within the project area should have a buffer zone or open space corridor of 600 to t,000 feet. However, the DSEIR on Figures 2-F and 2-G shows riparian open space corridors of approximately.100 feet. Thus the' proposed project is inconsistent with mitigation measure BIO-SM-14. In addition, the DSEIR nowhere discusses why "a reasonable attempt'*' was not made to include 600-foot to 1,000-foot-wide corridors in the SpeCific Plan, as required in mitigation measure BIO-SM- t4. Figure 2-G also indicates that a trail would be built within the 100-foot-wide corridor. This is also inconsistent with mitigation measure BIO-SM-14 because a trail so close to riparian habitat would be a significant adverse impact· on the CRLF (and other species), exceeding the "minor impact on the habitat" as allowed in mitigation measure BIO-SM-14. The DSEIR acknowledges on page. 3.3-5 that the entire Project area provides sUitable dispersal habitat for CRLF. Despite this, there is no discussion of the imp·acts of the project on CRLF dispersal habitat or to dispersal corridors, and there is no proposed mitigation to offset this important impact. Because the impact discussion is inadequate and the Specific· Plan is inconsistent with the proposed mitigation measures, the 'impact to California red-legged frogs remains potentially significant, Inadequate Mitigation for Effects to California Tiger Salamander. In Supplemental · Impact BIO 7, the DSEIR acknowledges that California tiger salamander (CTS) were found in the southern portion of the Project area and that the entire Project area provides either suitable breeding habitat, aestivation habitat, dispersal habitat, or a combination of these habitats. Mitigation SM-BIO-t 8 callS for CTS habitat to be included in the Resource Management Plan outlined in mitigation SM-BIO-1. As discussed above, key components of the Resource Management Plan should be included as part of the current project to demonstrate its feasibility and adequacy. Mitigation SM-BIO-19 includes protection of. CTS habitat, if avoidance is not feasible, at a ratio of 1:1. However, there are no provisions in either mitigation measures SM-BIO-18 or SM-BIO-19 for establishing mitigation sites that wil'l maximize the protection of CTS by: · preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels · linking preserved areas to existing areas of'open space and other high-quality CTS habitat · excluding or limiting public use within preserved area§ to minimize disturbance to CTS 26 With adoption of these provisions, implementation of mitigation measure SM-BIO-19 would reduce impacts to CTS habitat that could not be avoided to a level below significance. Inadequate lmpact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects to Tricolored Blackbird, The impact analysis on page 3.3-25 does not state whether the knownbreeding colony of tricolored blackbird would be preserved or destroyed as a result of development. There is also no discussion of the significance of the colony or any potential direct or indirect impacts to it from the proposed Project. The Point Keyes Bird Observatory is conducting a statewide survey of tricotored blackbirds. This colony should be put in the context of this regional work. In general, tficolored blackbirds are very sensitive to constmction-rel/~ted disturbance near their breeding colonies, especially if their nesting substrate is affected. It may not be sufficient, to just protect the nesting area because they require a large foraging area near a colony. If their foraging habitat is removed, the colony will likely be lost. They also require water on or near their nesting colonies, and if this is diverted or removed they also will not breed.22 Mitigation measures SM-BIO-38 and SM-BIO-42 appear to contradict each other. SM-BIO-38 calls for construction within nesting habitat for passerines during the nombreeding season, while mitigation SM-BIO-42 calls for preservation of nesting habitat. This difference should be addressed. In addition, the reference in SM-BIO-38 to "Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-42 to SM-BIO-44, below" appears to be wrong because SM-BIO-43 and 44 deals with bats. Mitigation SM-BIO-42 calls for habitat for nesting passerines, including tricolored blackbird, to be included in the Resource Management Plan outlined in mitigation SM-BIO- 1. As discussed above, key components of the Resource Management Plan should be prepared at th_is time so that its .feasibility and adequacy can be evaluated. Because of the inadequacy of the impact analysis and mitigation measures, the impact to tricolored blackbirds remain potentially significant. Failure to Acknowledge Regional Habitat Planning. Because of the project's large acreage and lack of proposed open space (less than 7% of the project area), the project will have significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on biological resources. These cumulative impacts could be mitigated through Dublin's participation in regional habitat plannJmg efforts such as a habitat conservation plan (HCP), which could provide comprehensive compliance with federal and state laws relating to biological resources. The City of Livermore is su'ongly supportive of comprehensive, multi-species habitat planning, and has initiated discussions with state and federal resources agencies concerning such an effort. Participation by both cities in regional habitat planning would allow for coordination of planning and mitigation efforts and compatibility of neighboring land uses. The DSEIR fails to acknowledge this important regional Planning effort and how the proposed Project may affect this effort. 22 Beedy, pem. comm. 2001 27 Inadequate Analysis of and Mitigation for Cumulative Biological Impacts. The DSEIR on page 5-2 acknowledges three supplemental cumulative effects related to biological resources: BIO 1: BIO 2: BIO 3: Direct and Indirect Habitat Loss Loss of Rare Plant Species Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitats The analysis of ail three of these impacts is inadequate because there is no discussion of the basis for the cumulative impacts. CEQA requires that cumulative impact analyses identify related projects through a "list" or "projection" approach and summarize the effects of the related projects for all environmental topics, including biological reso'urces.23 The DSEIR fails to identify any projects that have been built or proposed since publication of the !993 Eastern Dublin EIR that would cumulatively affect biological resources. There'have been numerous such projects in the area since 1993 that have cumulatively affected biological resources, including Dublin Ranch in Dublin and the Shea Business Park in Livermore. The DSEIR claims that supplemental cumulative impacts BIO 1 and BIO 2 would be reduced to a level below significance through mitigation already proposed in .chapter 3. However, as discussed above, these mitigation measures do not reduce the direct and indirect effects of the Project below significance, so therefore cannot also reduce the cumulative biological impacts to a level below significance. Thus, supplemental cumulative impacts BIO 1 and BIO 2 remain .significant without additional mitigation. Mitigation that could reduce these impacts to a level below significance include participation in or contribution to regional habitat planning activities. Water Supply and wastewater Issues Inconsistent and Inadequate Water Supply Analysis. The DSEIR expressly relies on DSRSD's Programmatic Water Service Analysis" "for ( PWSA ) 24assurance that there are adequate water supplies to meet the demands of eastern Dublin . Review of the PWSA raised considerable questions regarding the analysis contained therein. See correspondence dated July 30, 2001, from Saracino'Kirby~Snow to the City of Livermore (attached hereto as Attachment #2, and incorporated herein by reference). In addition to inconsistencies within the PWSA, there are also inconsistencies between this DSEIR, the 1993 EIR, and the PWSA. For example, the DSEIR relies upon the PWSA's water demand for the project of 5,620 annually. However, this demand differs from the demand indicated for eastern Dublin in the 1993 EtR of 8,620 acre-feet annually? Thg DSEI[R states that "The proposed Project envisions the same type and density of proposed development assumed in the eastern Dublin EIK. Thus, water use related to potential development of the Project area is not expected to differ from the eastern Dublin EIR." If the demand in the 1993 EIR is correct, then the project would result in an relative increase in demand of 53% over CEQA Guidelines 15130(~) 24 SEIRpage 3.7-5 25 7.7MGD (from IM 3.5/0.) X 3,07(conversion factor to acre-feet per day) X 365 days = 8,620 ara. (rounded down) 28' projections contained in the PWSA, Reliance on the PWSA would result in a deficit of 3,000 acre-feet annually. The PWSA relies on Zone 7's ability to meet all of its demand as a surrogate for determining whether DSRSD will be able to provide service to its customers. As stated in the DSEIR, communications with Zone 7 (V. Wong) affirmed projected demand, and the continued acquisition of additional supplies to meet that'demand, as laid out in Zone 7's recent Water Supply Planning Study Update. However, annual demand projections in the PWSA are approximately 17,000 acre-feet lower than estimates provided in Zone 7 documents. As stated in the DSEIR, "Mitigation Measure 3.5/28.0 relies on Zone 7's planning to acquire additional supplies." Reliance on the PWSA for determination of whether or not adequate supplies will be available to meet projected demand is inconsistent with MM 3,5/28.0. As stated in the DSEIR on page 3.7-5, "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." This standard, Or.any standard of showing pursuant to CEQA, has not yet been met. Because of the inconsistencies in the analysis produced pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the determination in the PWSA "...that Zone 7 already has secured sufficient supplies to serve the 5,620 AFA demand of ail of eastern Dublin..." cannot be relied upon. Inconsistent and Inadequate Sewer Analysis. With regards to wastewater treatment and capacity, the ma/n issue is whether there wilt be sufficient facilities and capacity to deal with wastewater treatment and its subsequent disposal. According to the DSEIR, DSDRS through coordination with the developers, is providing the infrastructure to provide for deal with the collection and treatment of additional wastewater generated by the east Dublin project. What is not apparent is.how the wastewater will be disposed of. For instance, the DSEIR, on page 3.7- 1 indicates the significant impacts associated with a lack of adequate collection facilities will be mitigated to an insignificant impact by implementing mitigation, measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These mitigation measures from the 1993 EIR require the developer and DSRSD To ensure adequate facihties will be provided to serve the additional development prior to issuance of grading permits. The DSEIR also states that, "Other mitigation measures supported DSRSD, TWA and, subsequently, LAVWMA in efforts to expand treatment and disposal capacity (along with recycled water projects)26.'' When comparing the disposal capacity of 14.4 to 16.25 MGD27 with the anticipated capacity at buildout from implementing mitigation measure 3.5/9.0, or 36.0 MGD, there is a shortfall of 19.75 to 21.6 MGD. Mitigation measures 3.5/I1.0-14.0 in the 1993 EIR recognize the importance of developing recycled water as a means ofwastewater disposal to make up the difference between treatment and disposal capacity. It was also envisioned that use of'treated wastewater would require the construction of both storage and transmission facilities? Figure 2-J, Major Infrastructure Plan29, only indicates construction of transmission facilities and not storage facilities. Additionally, the 26 SEIR page 3.7-2 27 The expecmd disposal capacity in the LAVWMA pipeline that would be available to DSRSD once capacity improvements have been completed, page 3.7-3 2~ 93EIR MM 3.5/12.0, "... construction of a recycled water distribution and storage system in eastern Dublin." 29 SEIR chapter 2, project description 29 Programmatic Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin, June 2001, (PWSA) doesnot support the DSKSD demand for recycled water at this level. As described in the PWSA, DSRSD anticipates a buildout (year 2020) annual demand at 3,910 acre-feet and an annual supply at 11,026 acre-feet3°, The mount ofwastewater associated with 19.75 to 21.6 MGD that would need disposal if mitigation measure 3.5/9.0 were implemented would be approximately 22,100 to 24,200 acre-feet annually.3~ Even ifDSRSD were able to realize its projected annual demand of 3,910 acre-feet, approximately 18,000 to 20,000 acre-feet armualty of treated wastewater would still need disposal. Even with the iinplementation of the LAVWMA expansi°n and repair project, there will be insufficient capacityallocated to DSRSD for accommodation of peak' wet weather flows. The DSEI~ should quantify this shortfall and identify mitigation measures, including new storage facilities or other feasible disposal methods, to accommodate these flows. An additional issue is whether the use of treated wastewater would have an impact on the ' ground water basin and those individuals that rely on the ground water basin. There are specific mitigation measUres (3.5/23.0) that require "coordination with any Zone 7 salt mitigation requirements'.32 This mitigation measure was drafted in 1993, and to date Zone 7 has been unable to implement its salt management plan. In the past 8' years the salt management plan has gone unimptemented, making mitigation measure 3.5/23.0 ineffective. DSRSD. should develop mitigation measures to protect the water qualitY of the ground water basin that DSRSD can implement. DUe to the large quantity of potential wastewater application within the valley, an analysis of the impacts On the ground water basin is warranted. Alteration of Scenic Vistas, Ridgelines and Viewsheds Interstate 1-580 is designated as a scenic corridor by Alameda County and by the City of Livermore. This corridor represents the primary entry into Livermore from the west, and its scenic quality is of paramount concern and interest. Inadequate Analysis of Visual Impacts. One of the DSEIR' s inadequacies is that it does not contain any analysis of the potential impacts of the project on scenic vistas, ridgelines and viewsheds, particularly along this 1-580 corridor. The project's Initial Study recognizes that development of the project will alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic routes in eastern Dublin, and the East Dublin GPA EIR referenced in the Initial Study identifies this impact as sigrfificant. The inadequate and incomPlete Initial Study suggests that mitigation measures 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8.1 of the EDGPA EIR would apply to this project, and reduce this impact to a less than significant level. However, MM 3.8/8.0 calls for the City of Dublin to "adopt a set. of scenic corridor policies,.., and establish review procedures and standards... so that scenic vistas can be protected." MM 3.8/8.1 requires that."projects with potential impacts on scenic resources be required to submit detailed visual analyses with development project applications.., to be used to adjust the project design and minimize the visual impa6t." There is no indication in the DEIR that the City of Dublin has adopted scenic corridor policies, 30 PWSA, page 2-t0 31 MGD X 3.07(conversion factor to acre-feet per day) X 365 days = acre-feet annually 32 93EIR, page 12 30 · or established review procedures and standards to protect scenic vistas. Similarly, the DEIR does not contain any detailed visual analysis by which to consider potentially necessary changes to the project to reduce or avoid significant visual impacts. Without such policy basis and consistency analysis, it is not possible for the environmental review of the proposed project to conclude that this impact will be reduced to less than significant. In fact, based on the' Stage 1 Development Plan shown as Figure 2-G in the DEIR, it would appear that the proposed project would place substantial mounts of low density- and medium density-residential development along the 1-580 hillsides, obscuring ridgelines and hillside forms. At a minimum, the DEIR should include visual simulations (per MM3.8/8.1) that indicate whether grading activities proposed within the hillsides would occur i'n such a manner as to alter existing topography. These simulations should also indicate whether proposed new homes would obscure views ofridgelines, and whether scenic corridors and vistas would be blocked as a result of the proposed project. Only then can specific mitigation measures be developed to adjust the project's design'in a manner to reduce or avoid these significant impacts. Until such analysis has been conducted and mitigation measures applied to the project as necessary, this impact must be regarded as significant and unavoidable. Livermore's comments on this issue are consistent with what is required of new development projects along the 1-580 corridor within its community. It has been long-standing policy of the City of Livermore to protect the scenic value of the ridgelines and hillsides along this corridor through implementation of restrictive policies on new development. These policies call for the protection of hillside and ridgeline views by establishing maximum building heights, setbacks, view corridors and other mechanisms as a part of new development proposals. Analysis of impacts to visual resources is conducted as part of the environmental review process, and therefore, open' to public comment and review. Of even greater concern to the City of Livermore is the apparent lack of consideration given by the City of Dublin to the permanent protection and preservation of the Doolan Canyon area as a greenbelt and permanent separator between our two cities. For many years, the City of Livermore has enacted policies and pursued planning programs intended to result, in the permanent protection of biological resources, agricultural lands and open space in this area. In 1993 the City of Dublin's planning efforts ran contrary to Livermore's interests, proposing that this area be include within Dublin's Sphere of Influence and even considering development proposals that would have .enabled construction of thousands of homes in this area: With the designation of this area by the City of Dublin in 1994 as a Furore Study Area with an underlying General Plan designation of.Agriculture, Livermore had hoped that its concerns for permanent protection of this area were acknowledged and accepted by Dublin. Livermore anticipated that any future planning efforts by Dublin for this area would involve mechanisms to ensure.permanent protection for this canyon. The City of Livermore's concerns for this area have been echoed by the open space designation under the Alameda County East County Area Plan, and by provisions G f Measure "D" which place this area outside of the County's'Urban Growth Boundary. Despite this regional consensus, it now appears that Dublin intends to develop urban land uses to the western edge of the Doolan Canyon area, and does not propose any programs or efforts geared toward providing for the permanent protection of the Future Study Area. In fact, the site 31 plan contained in the SDEIR suggests that both Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway (northerly of Dublin Boulevard) will be extended into the fixture study area to the east. Wtfile both cities plan for the extension of Dublin Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway, the planned extension of the Central Parkway is inconsistent with the designation of the property as Agriculture/Future Study Area. At a minimum, the Central Parkway should be designed to terminate m a manner consistent' with an open space / agriculture designation of the Future Study Area, and other land uses in the project area should incorporate a buffer from the open space'lands to the east. At best, we would hope that the City of Dublin would defer this development proposal until such time as a multi-jurisdictional program can be put in place for the protection ofthe-Doolan Canyon area and other regionally important habitat and agricultural areas. With the preparation of such a program, the remai{2ing lands suitable for development can be successfully planned as efficient and sustainable communities. Other Environmental Issues The DSIER does not address a number of significant environmental issues, but instead references the EIR prepared in 1992/93 for such analysis. Conditions have changes so significantly since that time that the analyses contained in the 1993 FEIR are no longer applicable or relevant. Therefore, the DSEIR contains an inadequate analysis of the following issues, at a minimum: Increased Regional Emissions. Rapid urbanization within the Th-Valley area, along with increased regional traffic and changing commute patterns, have resulted in air quality conditions that may result in the proj eot contributing to air emissions that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. The SDEIR should have identified appropriate mitigation strategies such.as alternative modes of travel, increased transit opportunities, mixed-use land use patterns and other strategies that would mitigate impacts on air quality. Exacerbation of Downstream Flooding Conditions: Cumulative development within the entire watershed over the past ten years has significantly increased peak flood flows at downstream locations, particularly in the Arroyo de la Laguna at Bernal Avenue in Pleasanton. The current DSEIR should have evaluated the project's contribution to projected fixture flood flows,, and identified appropriate fair-share contributions toward the cost of adequate regional flood control facilities throughout the Zone 7 drainage service area. Increased Salt Loading to the Main Basin: The DSEIR makes no reference to potential impacts associated with an increased influx of salts into the Main groundwater basin as a result of the project's urban irrigation. Salt accumulation resulting from such irrigation degrades the groundwater quality, which is a component of the drinking water supply for the region. The DSEIR should have assessed the project's potential contribution to salt loading of the Main basin, and should identify appropriate and necessary mitigation measures such as a requirement to participate on a fair share financial basis towards implementation of Zone 7's Salt' Management Program. Jobs/Housing Balance: The demographic characteristics of the Tri-Valley region have changed significantly over the past decade, substantially altering the regions' jobs/housing balance. The DSEIR should have included an analysis of the projects' effects on the 32 cumulative regional and local jobs/housing balance. As part of this cumulative scenario, the D SEIR should also. have taken into account the CitY of Dublin's recent intention to re-designate a portion of land within the East Dublin Planning area from residential use to commercial / office use. This re-designation is intended to accommodate the proposed new Cisco Systems office park, thereby further lowering the ratio of housing to jobs in the City. Affordable Housing Availability: The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in housing prices throughout the Bay Area, resulting in a severe regional housing shortage particularly for aff°rdably priced housing opportunities. If a sufficient number of affordable housing units cannot be provided within the local area, workers are forced to commute to jobs from outside areas where affordable housing is more readily available2 Generally, high housing costs can result in very long commutes for Workers living in 'lower-cost areas. The more time spent commuting, the greater the cumulative air qualitY and traffic impacts associated with vehicles moving on the regional roadway network..The City of Dublin's 5% affordable housing requirement (which includes moderate-income housing as well as low- and very low- income housing) does not come close to matching the actual projected need for affordable housing opportunities based on state and ABAG projections for the City or the region. The City of Dublin's SDEIR should have addressed the impact that this project may have on exacerbating this housing affordability gap.. Sub-Standard Levels of Service on Isabel Parlcway/SR 84from 1-580 to 1-680. At the time the 1993 EIR was prepared, there was no analysis of the project's potential impacts to Isabel Parkway/SR 84, The current SDEIR should have assessed the project's contribution of. traffic to this new regional roadway, It should also identify appropriate mitigation measures necessary to mitigate this traffic impact to levels of tess than significant, including mak/ng fair- share contributions toward the widening 0flsabel ParkWay to 6-lanes between 1-580 and Vineyard, and widening SR 84 to 4 lanes from Vineyard to 1-680. Parks and Recreation. As noted in the 1993 EIR, the City of Dublin does not maintain a 5-acres per 1,000 population ratio for developed parkland, and this situation has undoubtedly ' changes with the addition of substantial new housing opportunities in Dublin since that time. The DSEIR should have assessed the potential effects associated with Dublin residents seeking to use the nearest LARPD facilities should, they be unable to meet their recreational needs locally. The City of Livermore supports the concerns raised by LARPD in their letter to you on this same issue. Cumulative Electrical Demands. During the Past several years, existing electrical service capacity in the region has become constrained, and cumulative development in the area (including the project) will likely require significant electrical transmission improvements to adequately serve the area. Electrical demand is expected to exceed capacity for the region's customers during peak hours by mid-2002. The ability of PG&E to provide service to the area may be further affected by. PG&E!s reCent declaration of bankruptcy. 'The DSEIR should have assessed the impacts to the region associated with the project's electrical service demands in light of these changed circumstances, and determine if there is any feasible mitigation available. Energy conservation strategies should have been considered as a means of reducing the project's demand for these services. 33 Cumulative Solid Waste Disposal. Thc capacity of regional permitted sol~d waste disposal facilities has changed significantly since 1993, with increased amounts of disposal needs combined with reductions in permitted disposal capacity. The DSEIR should have assessed thc impacts to the region associated with thc project's solid waste disposal demands in light of these changed circumstances, and determine if there is any feasible mitigation available. Requirements for recycling and waste reduction should have been considered as a means of reducing the project's demand for these services. Alternatives Comments on Mitigated Traffic Alternative. The City of Dublin's selection of a Mitigated Traffic ,Mternative fails to recognize the potential of an alternative that would serve the CEQA requirements of an .alternative that seeks to reduce or avoid potential impacts. This alternative would be similar in certain respects to the Mitigated Traffic Alternative in that it would reduce the number of units and the commercial floor area by 25%, but would be different in several other aspects: A reduced development envelope could be achieved by simply retaining the same project densities as proposed by the project, but reducing the total development by 25% overall. This alternative would reduce the environmental impacts associated with grading, increased runoff and other area-wide impacts by approximately 25%. By selectively locating development away from those sites where significant and sensitive resources are located, additional impacts could be fin'ther avoided. ' Even greater environmental'benefits could be ackieved by reducing the development potential of the project by 25% as suggested by this alternative, but increasing the development densities (not decreasing densities as described in this alternative). By clustering development into higher densities, even greater environmental impact avoidance objectives could be achieved. Such an alternative could reduce, if not fully avoid impacts to biological resources, geologic hazards, loss of topsoil and aghculmral resources. Lack of Identification of an Environmentally Superior Alternative. Although the SDEIR recognizes the CEQA requirement for identifying an environmentally superior alternative, it does not follow through with this requirement. No environmentally superior alternative is identified. The City of Livermore believes that a reduced development alternative that not only reduces the total development potential, but that also reduces the overall extent of the development envelop as described above would qualify as the environmentally superior alternative, and should be fully described and discussed in this DSEI2~. Coneludin~ Comments The City of Livermore recommends that the East Dublin Properties EIR should not be prepared until a Specific Plan for the remaining portion of the Eastern Extended Planning Area has been developed. This recommendation is based on Livermore's understanding of changed circumstances within and surrounding the project area, new information about the 34 ADII~INISTRATION ]~UILDING 1052 S. Live~ore Avenue Livermore. CA 94550-4899 Pr: (925] 373-5100 Faro (925) 373-5135 TDD (925) 373-5052 MAYO~ / COUNCIL 373-5149 Ph: 373-5 140 ~ F~: 373-50dl CI~ A~EY ~h: 378-5120 ~ Fax: 37~-5125 C~ C~EK Pr: 873-5130.~ Fax: BTB-5135 DEV~P~T Pr: 373-5130. Fax: Engi~e~g Div~n ~h: 373-5240 ~ F~: 373-5267 Ph: 373-5200 * F~: 373-5318 Planning Div~n ~: 373-5200 ~ F~: 373-5318 DE~P~ENT Pr: 37B-5095 ~ Fax: 45~2~79 ?INANCE DEP~E~ Pr: 373-5150 * F~: ~7~5165 4550 E~t Avenue .: 454-2361 * F~: 45~23~7 L~B~Y ~000 S. Livermore Argue ~ .373-5500 ~ Fag: 573-5503 PE~ONN~L ' ~ 373-5103 ~ F~: g73-50B5 ~O~CE DEP~TM~NT t110 S. Livermore Avenue ~h: 371-4900 ~ Fa;: 371-4950 TDD 371-4932 3500 Robe~son P~ Rd. 'h: ~73-5270 ~ Fax: 373-531T A~o~ 53~ Termin~ C~cte .; '373-5200 ~ Fax: 373-5042 ~lf Conrac Div~ 909 C~ubhouse Ddve ~73-5239 · F~: ~73-5203 3500 Robe~zon P~k h: 373-5220 o F~: ~1 W. Jack London Blvd. 373-5230 ~ Fa= 373-529~ CITY OF LIVERMORE 3une 26, 2001 Via FAX: (925) 833-6628 City of Dubtin Planning Department' Atto: Anne Kinney 1 O0 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 Re: Notice of Preparation ofa Draz2 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the East Dublin Properties (PA 00-025) Dear Ms. Kinney: The City of Livermore appreciates the opportunity to provide its comments on the Notice of Preparation ("NOP') of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("DSEIP,.") for the proposed East Dublin Properties Project. As an adjacent jurisdiction, the City of Livermore is concerned about the potential regionally significant impacts of this proposed project, and the potential, cumulative impacts'that affect us all in the Tri-Valley area. The City of Livermore supports the City of Dublin's decision to requ/re preparation of an' for the proposed East Dublin Properties Project ("proposed project"). Livermore is concerned; however, that the scope and content of the SUpplemental EIR proposed by the City of Dublin may be inappropriate for the reasons set forth in the following comments. Of even greater concern to the City of Livermore is the apparent tack of consideration given by the City of Dublin to the permanent protection and preservation of the Doolan Canyon area as a greenbelt and permanent separator between our two cities. For many years, the City of Livermore has enacted policies and pursued planning programs intended to result in the permanent protection of biological resources, agricultural lands and open space in this area. In 1993 the City of Dublin's planning efforts ran contrary to our interests, proposing that this area be include within Dublin's Sphere of Influence and evert considering development proposals that would have enabled construction of thousands of homes in this area. With the designation of this area by the City of Dublin in 1994 as a Future Study Area with an underlying General Plan designation of Agriculture, Livermore had hoped that its concerns for permanent protection of this area were acknowledged and accepted by Dublin. Livermore anticipated that any future planning efforts by Dublin for this area Would involve mechanisms to ensure permanent protection for this canyon. The City's concerns for this area have been echoed by the open space designation under the Alameda County East County Area Plan, and by provisions of Measure "D" which phc e this area outside of the County's Urban GroWth Boundary. ATTACHMENT #1 City of Dublin Planning Department Page 2 Despite this regional consensus, it now appears that Dublin intends to develop urban land uses to the western edge of the Doolan Canyon area, and does not propose any programs or efforts geared toward providing for the permanent protection of the Future Study.Area. In fact, the site plan contained in the NOP suggests that both Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway (northerly of Dublin Boulevard) will be extended into the future study area to the east. While both cities plan .for the extension of Dublin Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway, the planned extension of the Central Parkway is inconsistent with the designation of the property as Agriculture/Future Study Area. At~. a minimum, the central Parkway should be designed to tenninate in a manner Consistent with an open space / agriculture designation of the Future Study Area. At best, we would hope that the City of Dublin would defer this development proposal until such time as a multi-jurisdictional program can be put in place for the protection of the. Doolan Canyon area and other regionally important habitat and agricultural areas. With the preparation of such a program, the remaining lands suitable for development can be successfully planned as efficient and sustainable communities. The following sections describe in detail the reasons why the City of Dublin should prepare a new Specific Plan and EIR to comply with CEQA in connection with the proposed project. Substantial Changes in Existing Circumsfances Significant changes have occurred within the local area and within the Th-Valley region since the Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan (SCH #91103064) was certified by the City of Dublin in 1993. A list of these changes (more fully discussed in later sections of this letter) includes: ' a substantial decrease in the supply of large parcels within Alameda County necessary to accommodate grazing operations, and changes in state law regarding the annexation of lands defmed as prime agricultural soils; rapid .urbanization, increased regional traffic and changed commute patterns that have 'resulted in significant degradation in the air quality of our region; new designations of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog, the potential occurrence of special'-status species that were not considered in the 1993 EIR (e.g., the California tiger salamander and Livermore Valley tarweed), new standards applied by state and federal resource agencies that afford greater protection to riparian corridors, and the overall cumulative effects of new development on biological resources; recent efforts by both Contra Costa County and Livermore to initiate regionallY-based habitat conservation plans that may affect the project area; cumulative development within the entire watershed which has led to significant increases in ' peak flood flows; City of Dublin Planning Department fuly 26, 2001 Page 3 increased urbanization and irrigation which has led to an increased influx of salts into the Main groundwater basin; significant changes in the demographic characteristics of not only the Th-Valley region, but also the entire Bay Area. These changes have altered the region's jobs/housing balance and created a Bay Area commute-shed that stretches beyond the .traditional 9-county Bay Area as far eastward as Sacramento; . dramatic increases in housing prices tl~'oughout the Bay Area, resulting in a severe regional housing Shortages particularly for affOrdably priced housing opportunities; changes in Tri-Valley commute patterns, traffic intensities and traffic generated by new development that has substantially exacerbated traffic c~mgestion on the regional freeway system; newly constructed and planned improvements to the transportation system (e.g. Isabel Parkway, BART access, and other transit opportunities); changes in water supply contracts and recent litigation regarding the availability of water supplies available to serve new development; changes in regional policy, funding mechanisms, and timing of wastewater infrastructure improvements; increasingly constrained natural gas and electrical service capacity in the region, combined with increased demand and uncertainty over required electrical transmission improvements; and increased amounts of solid waste disposal needs combined with reductions in regionally available permitted disposal capacity. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15163 provides that, "a lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to a previous EtR if... only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed circumstances." Clearly, in light of the substantial changes in circumstance listed above, more than "minor changes" witl be necessary to make the 1993 EI1K applicable to the current project. Therefore, a new EIR must be prepared in order to comply with CEQA. The changed circumstances listed above are some of the very same reasons that the City cf Livermore and Alameda County chose to prepare a new, comprehensive EIR during preparation o£ the Draft North Livermore Specific'Plan in 1999-2000 instead of retying on the 1993 EIR prepared for the North Livermore General Plan Amendment. It is also why Livermore chose to initiate a new, comprehensive EI1K for the Vasco-Laughlin Specific Plan rather than relying on the 1988 Area City of Dublin .Pian.ning Department July 26~ 2001 Page 4 "A" General Plan Amendment ErR. Livermore recommends that the City of Dublin should also recognize these changed circumstances and inkiate a fully.adequate and comprehensive environmental review of the proposed project rather than relying on older, outdated and inadequate baseline infOrmati'on that would render such an EIR inadequate. Lack of a Complete Pro,iect Description The City of Dublin's NOP and corresponding Initial Study include the following actions in the projec~t description: A Stage 1 Development Plan application to the City o£Dublin requesting pre-zoning oft he site in accordance with the City's General Plan and Eastern DublinSpecific Plan; Annexation of the project area to the City ofDubI/n andDublin San Ramon Services District for provision of water, sewer and recycled water services; Execution of a Pre-annexation Agreement between the City of'Dublin and the project prOponents/property oWners; Detachment from Livermore Area'Recreation and Park District upon annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin; Post-annexation probable cancellation of Williamson Act contracts for several of the properties within the project area; and Detachment of the project area from the ~ivermore Valley Joint Unified School District and attachment to the Dublin Unified School District. However, .this Project Description does not address the following issues: The project site is approximately 1,.11© acres in size. The entire project site is within the Eastern Extended Planrfing Area adopted by the Eastern Dublin General P. lan Amendment ("EDGPA") in 1994, but only 472 acres are within the East Dublin Specific Plan Area. Although the Dubtin General Plan designates this extended planning area primarily for residential uses, Implementing Policy 2.1.4(B) o£ the EDGPA requires that: "A Specific Plan(s) will be required for the remainder of the extended planning area to provide similar direction for its ultimate development." The EDGPA goes on to state that, "Approval of residential development in the Eastern Extended Planning Area will require determination' that.., the proposed project is consistent with ali applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies." ..!. The project description included in the NOP does not include preparation of a Specific Plan for the approximately 637 acres within the project site but outside the Specific Plan area, which is in chrect conflict with this General Plan policy. This is of particular concern to the City of Livermore. City of Dublin Planning Department July 26, 2001 · Page 5 According to the EDGPA, this Specific Plan is intended to ensure, among other issues, that proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands, and that the timing of development will not result in premature termination of viable agricultural .operations on adjoining lands. Both of these issues are of regional and cumulative concern. Additionally, in the last decade there has been a growing recognitio.n of the importance of"smart growth" planning principles and what constitutes sustainable development. An adequ, a~:e definition of such' "smart growth" includes intelligently planned communities that channel growth into existing communities or areas' with eXisting services, that provide for publ/c transportation, are walk-able and bike-able, include a mix cf uses, and provide for permanent protection of surrounding open space. Presumably, a Specific Plan for this area would provide an opportunity for Dublin to consider and emphasize the importance of such "smart growth" strategies in the development of this area. Related to the issue of impacts to viable agriculture on adjoining lands, the EDGPA also indicates that the lands immediately to the east of the project site are identified as a Future Study Area. This designation indicates".., the City of Dublin's interest in the area and the need for additional studies of environmen.tal constraints, future land uses, infrastructure and other issues." The City of Livermore shares th/s interest in the area and wishes to ensure that these lands will be permanently preserved as an agricultural greenbelt / buffer between our two cities. In Livermore's view, any project proPosed in the Eastern Extended Planning Area adjacent to Dublin's "Future Study Area" must address how this area can be maintained and preserved into the future, and include safeguards that prevent potential future urban encroachment. Finally, the East Dublin Properties Stage t Site Plan (Exhibit 6 of the NOP) indicates that approximately 126 acres immediately north of the Dublin Boulevard extension will be designated as "Future Study Area" because they are located within the Airport Protection Area (APA) for the Livermore Municipal Airport. However, the EDGPA designates'these lands for low and medium density residential use and indicates that, "If, at the time of pre-zoning, the residential designations are inconsistent with the A_PA, the residential designations will convert to Future Study Area with an underlying Rural Residential / Agriculture designation". The City of Livermore requests clarification from Dublin that these properties are in fact to be designated as Rural ResidentiaV Agriculture, including the 10.4-acre pie'ce indicated on Exhibit 6 as General Commercial. Inadequate Mitigation The ELR for the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan (SCH #91103064) certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 was a "Program" El-R, designed to assess the environmental impacts of the policies contained in these p'iarming documents. As stated on page 1-2 of that Draft Program EIR, "Once the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are approved, specific development proposals for the project site may require' a Project ErR to assess project-specific issues." Given the programmatic nature o f the 1993 EIR, many of the mitigation measures contained in that document do not pro¥ide the specificity required in a project-level EtR. Similarly, many of the mitigation measures contained in the 1993 document rely on subsequent studies to ensure adequate mitigation City of Dublin Planning Department July 26, 2001 Page 6 of impacts not fully ddsclosed at a project-level analysis. Examples of such mitigation measures contained in the 1993 EIR include: MM 3. 8/7. ]: The City wilt conduct a visual survey for the Project site to identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas. MM 3.8/8. ]: The City should require that projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors submit detailed visual analyses with deveIopment project applications. Applicants, will be.required to submit graphic simulations and/or section drawings from affected travel corridors through the parcel in question, representing typical Views of the parcel from the scenic route. The graphic depiction of the location and massing of the structure and associated landscaping can then be used to adjust the project design to minimize visual impacts. MM 3.7/] 3: The City should require dedications of land and improvements along'both sides of stream corridors as a condition of development project approval The width of dedicated corridors will be established in consultation with the regulatory agencies since these may vary with specific sites, MM3.7/4.0: Grazing management)dans shall be developed by the City and implemented soon after approval of the GPA and Specific _Plan. Management ptans shall favor protection of wetland and riparian areas, increased plant diversity, and the recovery of native plants, in particular perennial grasses. MM 3. t 1/4. O: Require preparation of a construction impact reduction plan that incorporates aH proposed air quality mitigation strategies with clearly defned responsibilities for plan implementation and supervision. MM3.6/9.0: While some permanent landform changes are unavoidable with any development, their magnitude can be reduced by developing minimal grading plans that adapt ' improvements to the natural landform& thus minimizing cuts and filts. Construction of traditional flat building pads in hillside areas requires more grading than construction of fla:rtial pads, or developing custom lots. Construction. _ of roads or ridges also minimizes grading in hillside areas· Use of retaining structures and steeper cut and filt slopes, where appropriate and properly designed, also minimizes grading in hillside areas. MM3.6/IO: · . . SPecific project lot and infrastructure alignment planning should be based on the identification of geotechnically feasible building areas by the project geotechnical consultant. In some hillside areas, clustering structures may be the best approach to minimize grading and avid adverse conditions. City o f Dublin Planning Department July 26, 200I Page 7 These' examples illustrate the programmatic nature of the 1993 EIR and demonstrate that mitigation measures contained in that document frequentlY rely on subsequent studies, pending coordination with other agencies, follow-up analyses and more detailed investigations. Rehance on such mitigation measures for this currently proposed SubseqUent Project EIR will not provide the level of detail and specific performance-based mitigation needed to assure that impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels. ' Cumulative Impacts and ASsessment of Impacts due to Chan~ed Circumstances in the Re,,ion The City must address the cumulative impact of the proposed project given the past, present; and probable future development in the region. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15130Co)(1).) The cumulative analysis must include ail other plarmed, pending and foreseeable projects in the region, including the currently pending land use applications for the Cisco Systems office complex. The EIR for the proposed project must analyze cumulative impacts of the proposed project on all environmental factors, including: aesthetics, biological resources, hazards, public services, utility service, cultural' resources, hydrology, water, noise, recreation, air quality, geology, land use, population/housing, and transportation/circulation. The cumulative impact analysis for each environmental resource should consider the following issues at a minimum: .. Alteration of Scenic Vistas, Ridgelines and Viewsheds: The NOP suggests that potential visual impacts associated with this project will be mitigated through implementation of mitigation measures contained in the 1993 East Dublin EIR. However, a review of these mitigation measures indicates that, for the most part, these measures call for subsequent studies, the establi-shment of review procedures, and "other appropriate measures to minimize visual impacts". The EIR for this project should provide the detailed analytical evaluation necessary to identify specific impacts to visual resources that might be associated with implementation of this proj eot. This evaluation should be based on photo-simulations, montages, or other techniques that can demonstrate how development impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level. Loss of Agricultural Uses: On a cumulative basis there has been a substantial change (decrease) in the supply of large parcels within Alameda County necessary to accommodate grazing operation's. As this land supply diminishes, operation and transportation costs of grazing have increased, directly.affecting the viability of grazing operations in the County as a whole. The removal of large parcels of agricultural land within the project area from the overall County land supply of active grazing land should be considered a significant cumulative impact, and adequately addressed in the E]2q.. M/tigation measures such as funding, assistance for continued grazing and other ag'r/cultural -operations in the vicinity, and the permanent protection of adjacent open space and grazing lands within the adjacent "Future Study Area" should be Considered. Williamson Act Canceliation: The NOP anticipates that the City will consider requests for the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts on up to four parcels within the project area. Since the preparation of the 1993 EIR a statute has been en~[cted allowing the rescission in lieu of cancellation of a Wiliiamson Act contract upon the placement of a permanent conservation easement over lands of comparable size and value. Govermment Code Section 51256. The EIR for this project should City of Dublin planning D ep artment July 26, 2001 Page 8 /?6 evaluate the use of this program in order to mitigate the project's contribution to cumulative impacts to agricultural lands. Increased Regional Emissions: The NOP recognizes that rapid urbanization within the Tri-Valley area, along with increased regional traffic and changing commute patterns, have resulted in air quality conditions that may result in the project contr/bufing to air emissions that would exceed BA_AQMD significance thresholds. The EIR should identify appropriate mitigation strategies' such as alternative modes of travel, increased transit opportunities, mixed-use land use patterns and other strategies that would mitigate impacts on air quality. Impacts to Listed and Special Status Species: The NOP acknowledges that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated critical habitat for the California red-legged frog since publication of the 1993 EIR. However, the NOP does not acknowledge that the red-legged frog was listed as threatened in 1996, which is a significant changed circumstance. The EIR should assess the effect of the species', listing and designation of critical habitat on the project and its adopted mitigation measures. The EIR should also consider the extensive surveys for federally- and state-listed species and species with special status that have been p~rfonned since 1993. A thorough investigation of biological resources of the project area is warranted as other special-status species may occur in the project area that were not considered in the original EIR. One example is the' California tiger salamander, wkich may be listed in the next year. Another is the Livermore Valley tarweed, an extremely rare plant discovered in Liverm0re in 19991 ' Riparian Corridors: Standards applied by state and federal resource agencies since 1993 afford greater protection to riparian corridors than currently required for stream corridors in the project area. The project area includes high-quality riparian corridors, particularly near Fallon Road. The proposed width of open space (40-50 feet) is inadequate to maintain this significant regional resource. Recent requirements by the US Fish and Wildlife Service have called for setbacks of 300 feet from the top of bank where riparian corridors contain special status species. There is also substantial restoration potential of other stream corridors that have been.overgrazed and degraded. Riparian habitat restoration should be considered as mitigation for the loss of connectivity with adjacent upland habitat'and as an aesthetic amenity to nearby development Habitat Conservation planning: Because of the project's large acreage and lack ofpropos, ed open space (less than 7% of the project area), the project will have significan~ and unavoidable cumulative impacts on. biological resources. These cumulative impacts 9ould be mitigated through Dublin's participation in a habitat conservation ptan (HCP), which could provide comprehensive compliance with federal and state laws relating to biological resources. Livermore is close to initiating a comprehensive, multi-species HCP, with a survey area including lands immediately east of Dublin's project area. Participation by both cities in an HCP process wguld allow for coordination of planning and mitigation efforts and Compatibility of neighboring land uses. Conflicts with Airport Uses: The NOP recognizes that the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission created the Airport Protection Area for the Livermore Municipal Airport in 1993, after the East Dublin EIR was certified. The Airport Protection Area affects land uses within the City of Dublin Planning Department July 26, 200 t Page 9 southern portion of he project area. Although the NOP states that these affected properties are currently designated as "Future Study Areas", it is unclear what land uses may be proposed on these properties or how the "Future Study Area" designation will affect such uses~ Additionally, the Airport Protection Area is based on a 1986 Airport Master Plan. Currently the City of Livermore is working toward preparation of a new, updated Airport Master Plan for the Livermore Municipal Airport, and this new Airport Master Plan should be considered wh.en proposing new land use in the vicinity. Exacerbation of Downstream Flooding Conditions: Cumulative development witkin the entire watershed over the past ten years has significantly increased peak flood flows at downstream locations, particularly in the Arroyo de Ia Laguna at Bernal Avenue in Pleasanton. The current EIR should evaluate the project's contribution to projected future flood flows, and identify appropriate fair-share contributions toward the cost of adequate regional flood control facilities throughout the Zone 7 drainage service area. Increased Salt Loadin~ to the Main Basin: Neither the 1993 EIR nor the NOP makes any reference to potential impacts associated with an increased, influx of salts into the Main groundwater basin as a result of the project's urban irrigation. 'Salt accumulation resulting from such irrigation degrades the groundwater quality, which is a component of the drinking water supply for the region. The ElK should assess the project's potential contribution to salt loading of the Main basin, and should identify appropriate and necessary mitigation measures such as a requirement to participate on a fair share financial 'basis towards implementation of Zone 7's Salt Management Program. General Plan Consistency: The ElK must assess whether the proposed project will conflict with any . applicable land use plan or policy, including applicable general plans, community plans, and zon/ng ordinances. Since the EDGPA requires preparation of a Specific Plan prior to any development, for portions of the project area outside the current Specific Plan and the project description does not contain a Specific Plan, the project is not consistent with existing general plan policies. This inconsistency must be addressed in the EIR. Additionally, the ElK should address the potential land' use incompatibility and growth-inducing effects associated with the proposed extension of Central Parkway through the Future Study Area / open space / agriculture area.. · Community Separation: The exhibits in the NOP indicate an area of approximately 2,750 acres between the East Dublin Project Area and the City of Livermore as a "Future Study Area". Livermore's General Plan anticipates that this area wilt remain as permanently protected open space providing a separation between the cities of Dubtin and Livermore. This area is also identified for open space uses in the East County Area Plan. The ElK should analyze differences between the ' applicable plans for this area and identify means to reconcile'them, tn particular, the ElK should . explore opportunities for this project to generate funding that can be used to assist in the securing of these lands as permanent open space. Livermore requests the opportunity to discuss with Dublin staff options for shared open space protection strategies for this area as part of the scoping efforts 'for this EIR. City o f Dublin Planning Department ~uly 26, 2001 Page 10 Measure D/East County Area Plan Policies: The NOP'states that the Measure D's placement of a portion of the proj ect'area outside of the County's Urban Growth Boundary does not directly restrict development within the cities. However, the EIR must recognize and discuss the inconsistencies between the proposed project and the County's adopted generafplan for the same area as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d). Policies of the Alameda County East County Area Plan (ECAP) that are applicable to the proposed project include: Policy 26: The County shall work with the City of Dublin to exclude development from steep hillsides (shown as Rural Residential in .the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan) and from Doolan Canyon and establish programs to acquire these areas as part ora contiguous open space system. Policy 61: The County shall encourage the Alameda County Open Space Land Trust (see program 23) to acquire fee title or easements on strategic parcels that would permanently secure the Urban Growth Boundary and complete the Continuous open space system surrounding Eastern Dublin, North Livermore, South Livermore, and the existing cities of Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore. Policy 72: The County shall encourage the City of Dublin to: Re-designate in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area all Rural Residential (RR) and designated by Dublin easterly of Fallon Road, as well as Doolan Canyon, as "Resource Management, "consistent with the East County Area Plan. Allowable uses.may include agriculture, grazing, recreational, and open space uses. This shall not apply the lands with urban designation as adopted in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Work with the Alameda County Open Space Land Trust to acquire parcels designated by Dublin as "Rural Residential" in Eastern .Dublin, through purchase of fee title or easements with open space fees, by means of dedication' and/or through density transfer or other funding mechanisms. Require that land use activities conducted within this area adhere to management guidelines developed for the protection of biological resources.. Program 23: The County shall work with cities to establish a non-profit Alameda County Open Space Land Trust to acquire land within the East County open space system to other public agencies and, where appropriate, convey title or easements to other public agencies. The Land Trust can use developer dedication, fee purchase, open space or access easements, and other mechanisms to acquire and flermanently preserve an continuous open space system outside the Urban 'Growth Boundary. (Emphases in original) City of Dublin Planning Department July 26, 2001 Page t 1 Jobs/Housin~ Balance: The demographic characteristics of the Tri-Valley region have changed significantly over the past decade, substantially altering the regions' jobs/housing balance. The should include an analysis oft he projects' effects on the cumulative regional and local jobs/housing balance. As part of this cumulative scenario, the EIR should also take into account the City of Dublin's recent intention to re-designate a portion of land within the East Dublin Planning area from residential use to commercial / office use. This re-designation, is intended to accommodate the · proposed new Cisco Systems office park, thereby further lowering the ratio of housing to jobs in the City. Affordable Housing Availability: The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in housing prices throughout the Bay Area, resulting in a severe regional housing shortage particularly for affordably priced housing opportunities. If a sufficient number of affordable housing units cannot be provided within the local area, workers are forced to commute to jobs from outside areas where affordable housing is more readily available. Generally, high housing costs can result in very long Commutes for ~vorkers living in lower-cost areas. The more t/me spent commuting, the greater the cumulative air quality and traffic impacts associated with vehicles moving on the regional roadway network. The City of Dublin's 5% affordable'housing requirement (which includes, moderate-income housing as well as Iow- and very low-income housing) does not come close to matching the actual projected need for affordable'housing opportunities based on state and A.BAG projections for the City or the region. The City of Dublin's EIR should address the impact that this project may have on exacerbating this housing affordability gap. Sub-Standard Levels of. Service on 1-580: The NOP (page 54) recognizes that changes in Tri- Valley commute patterns, traffic intensities and traffic generated by the project may cause traffic impacts on the regional freeway system that was not anticipated in the 1993 EIR. In order to address these issues,, the current EIR should specifically assess the project's contribution toward cumulatively sub-standard levels of service on 1-580. It should also identify appropriate mitigation measures necessary to reduce the project's contribution towards this hnpact, such as construction of' high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on 1-580, completion of North Canyons Parkway/Dublin Boulevard extension as a s/x-lane roadway, and/or providing increased transit opportunities. The EIR should analyze the appropriate level of contribution by the project for the implementation of these measures. .. Sub-Standard Levels of Service on Isabel Parkway/SR 84 from L580 to 1-680: At the time the 1993 EIR was prepared, there was no analysis of the.project's potential impacts :to Isabel Parkway/SR 84. The current EtR should assess the project's contribution of traffic to this new re~onal, roadway. It should also .identify appropriate mitigation measures necessary to mitigate this traffic impact to levels of less than significant, including making fair-share contributions toward the widening of Isabel Parkway to 6-lanes between 1-580 and 'Vineyard, and widening SR. 84 to 4 lanes from Vineyard to 1-680. Demand for Potable Water Supplies: The NOP recognizes that changes in water supply cont/'acts and recent litigation may have an impact on how, when and how much water can be supplied to the project. Pursuant to the settlement of litigation concerning the provision of water to the Dougherty City of Dublin Planning Department July 26, 2001 Page 12 Valley project, DSRSD is required to knitiate a water service analysis for this project- at such time as this NOP was released. The results of this DSRSD study should be used by the EIR to assess the project's projected water demand combined with cumulative water demands throughout the region. The EIX should also identify wl~ether the project's water demand would exceed currently available water supply, and how water supplied to this project may affect water supplies to other cumulative development throughout the region. Additionally, the EIR should assess the extent of environmental impacts that will be caused by the procurement of supply, conveyance and storage capacity needed to meet this project's and other cumulative water demands, including the potential for increased seasonal storage facilities in the region. Wastewater Disposal Capacity Impacts: The NOP recognizes that changes in regional policy (e.g., resthctions on the injection of RO-treated wastewater into the groundwater), funding mechanisms (e.g. non-pa~icipation by the City ofLivermore in the LAVWMApipehne expansion project), and the anticipated timing of waste'~ater infrastructure improvements have occurred. The EIR should fully assess how these changed circumstances affect the ability of wastewater service providers to meet the demands of the proposed project together with other cumulative demands. The analysis should include discussion of impacts associated with construction and operation of new facilities for the treatment, storage, transmission and use of reclaimed and reverse osmosis treated water. Parks and Recreation: As noted in the 1993 El-R, the City of Dublin does not maintain a 5-acres per 1,000 population ratio for developed parkland, and this situation has undoubtedly changed with the addition of substantial new housing opportunities in Dublin since that time. The EIR should assess the potential effects associated with Dublin residents seeking to use the nearest LARPD facilities should they be unable to meet their recreational needs locally. The City of Livermore supports the concerns raised by LARPD in their letter to you on this same issue. Cumulative Electrical Demands: Dur/ng the past several years, existing electrical service capacity in the region has become constrained, and cumulative development in the area (including the project) will likely require significant electrical transmission improvements to adequately serve the area. Electrical demand is expected to exceed cap~acity for the region's customers during peak hours by mid-2002: The NOP also recognizes that the ability of PG&E to provide service to the' area may be further affected by PG&E's recent declaration of bankruptcy. The EIR should assess the impacts to the region associated with the project's electrical service demands in light of these changed circumstances, and determine if there is any feasible mitigation available. Energy conservation strategies should b'e considered as a means of reducing the project's demand for these' services. Cumulative Solid Waste Disposal: The capacity of regional permitted solid waste disposal facilities has changed significantly since 1993, with increased amounts of disposal needs combined with reductions in permitted.disposal capacity. The EIR should assess the hupacts to the region associated with the project's solid waste disposal demands in light of these changed circumstances, and determine if there'is any feasible mitigation available. Requirements for recycling and waste reduction should be considered as a means of reducing the project's demand for these services. City of Dublin Planning Department July 26, 2001 Page I3 Concluding Comments The City of Livermore recommends that the East Dublin Properties EIR should not be prepared until a Specific Plan for the remaining portion of the Eastern Extended Planning Area has been developed. This recommendation is based on our understanding of changed circumstances within and sUrrounding the project area, new information about the environmental sensitivity of the region, and the need for all local jurisdictions in the region to re-evaluate land use planning in the context of smart growth principles. Preparation of a Specific Plan.for this area should start with recognition. of the area's potential interconnection with other reg/onalty based habitat conservation planning efforts, followed by a specific development plan that addresses the issues of regional habitat planning, sustainable development patterns including affordable housing opportunities, needed transportation and transit facilities, viability of agricultural operations in the region, and opportunities/mechanisms for the permanent preservation of an agricultural / open space geenbelt between our communities. When prepared, the EIR should be a comprehensive one, utilizing updated information and project- level analysis and'rmifigation. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide these comments.. Livermore looks forward to working with Dublin representatives as the project review process proceeds. Please keep this office informed of all contracts, notices, heatings, staffreports, briefings, meet/ngs, and other events related to the proposed prgject. Sincerely, Marc Rob erts Community Development Director CC; Mayor / City Council Adolph Mart/ne!l/, County of Alameda Brian Swift, City of Pteasanton Dale Myers, Zone 7 Vivian Houssn, LAVWMA Bert Michalczyk, DSRSD ' ' Ken Craig, LARPD Brad Olson, EBRPD Sheila Larsen, USFWS Carl WilcOx, CDFG Saracino .Kirt Schlumberger Company July 30, 2001 Mr. Michael H. Miller Public Services Director City of Livermore 1052 S. Livermore Avenue Livermore, CA 94550 Re: Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties Dear Mr. Miller: Saracino-Kirby-Snow has completed its initial review of the Preliminary Water Service Analysis (Preliminary WSA) and Preliminary Impact Analysis for East. Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development and Annexation to City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District, June 24, 2001,...and the supporting analysis contained in the Programmatic Water Service Analysis (PWSA) for Eastern Dublin, June 2001. The Agreement to Settle Water Litigation By and Between Zone 7 Water Agency, DSRSD, City of Livermore and CitizenS for Balanced Growth, November 2, 1999 (Settlement Ag-reement) requires that a firm sustainable water supply must be available to meet the projected demands through buildout of the communities served by DsRsD prior to making the determination that there will be no impact from providing service to additionally annexed property in the eastern Dublin sphere of influence. During our review, a number of issues have been identified that require clarification prior to .. concurring with DSRSD that there will be no impact from providing service to the proposed annexation to eastern Dublin. It is typical for agencies with the responsibility for water supply planning in the State of California to match projected demands with projected supplies. In other words, it is common for water supply purveyors Simply to identify a future source of water supply and plan for its acquisition when the demand arises. It is evident from the text of the Settlement Agreement that a higher standard of water· resource planning is required to demonstrate adequacy of supply for ATTACHMENT #2 · r"3 · > Suite 1480 Sacramento, CA .95814 916.3~9.9199 fax 916.329.9191 skswater, com Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties July 30, 2001 Page 2 of 8 annexations to DSRSD. Section 4(b)(2)~ requires DSRSD to prepare a Preliminary Water Service Analysis that includes, among other things, "an evaluation by DSRSD of...wh ether the total firm sustainable water supplies that reasonably may be expected to be available to DSRSD ("Projected Supplies") will meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project, together with all other existing uses and uses under buildout of the applicable general plans for all areas lying within DSRSD's water service area, as and when such demand is expected to arise". The definition provided in Section 4(b)(3) for "total'firm sustainable water supplies available to DSRSD" is those wafer supplies for Which "DSRSD (or Zone 7 acting as a wholesaler to DSRSD) will hold a water right, contract, or other entitlement that can be relied upon to provide such supplies for the then foreseeable future and at least until August 23, 2024". The focus of this review is the Preliminary WSA, and the supporting analysis provided in the PWSA, produced by DSRSD to comply with requirements contained within the Settlement Agreement. The additional demand projected to be associated with the eastern Dublin annexation is 1,300 afa of treated water and 950 ara of recycled water. To comply with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, and to meet the higher standards for water supply planning contained therein, DSRSD must provide assurance that the there are sufficient supplies available to meet this increased demand during the credible, worst case drought scenario. Total Firm Sustainable Water Supplies DSRSD states that it has met the criteria that projected water supplies will meet the project water demands because DSRSD has a contract with Zone 72 tO provide water supplies. The contract with Zone 7 does not provide the sought after reliability. While the contract contains provisions concerning water service, groundwater extraction, and payment, it provides neither contractual nor factual assurance that firm sustainable water supplies wiI1 be available to meet projected water demand. The contract between DSRSD and Zone 7 provides that "the Contractor (DSRSD) shall purchase from Zone'7 all water required by Contractor for use within Contractor' s service area. ,. or obtain water from Other Sources under the cond.ifions in Section 5". One of the conditions under section 5(c) is "in the case that Zone 7 is unable to deliver the quantity of treated water necessary to satisfy the requirements of Contractor .... ". This section provides an affirmative responsibility for DSRSD to purchase its water from Zone 7 "to the extent Zone 7 can provide it," but does not obligate Zone 7 to provide water to DSRSD. DSRSD, in its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) dated May 2000, recognized that Zone 7 might not have the ability to provide additional water. Page t I of the UWMP, reads; "In addition, future development will require additional water supplies, which may not be avail able from Zone 7". The DSRSD Board of Directors also passed, by resolution3, a water supply policy that contained as one of its elements: "To cooperate with Zone 7 to obtain the needed t Agreement to Settle Water Litigation By and Between Zone 7 Water Agency, Dublin San Ramon Services District, Alameda. County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, City of Livermore, Citizens for Balanced Growth, Windemere Ranch Properties, and Shapell Industries, Inc., November 2, 1999. 2 Contract Between Zone 7 Water Agency and Dublin San Ramon Services District fro a munimpaI and Industrial water supply, August 23, 1994. ~ Dubiin San Ramon Services District, Resolution 5.-92, February 4, 1992. Prelim/nary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties July 30, 2001 Page 3 of 8 /7/ water but to take the steps 'necessary to acquire this water from sources other than Zone 7 if water was not available from Zone 7". DSRSD asserts that the total firm sustainable supply that can reasonably be relied upon to be available in 2020 is 84,170 ara (PWSA, Table 2-1). In comparison with Zone 7's Water Supply Planning Study Update, February 1999, DSRSD overstated the amount of long-term sustainable yield for all sources available to Zone 7 by approximately 4,800 ara, 'or more than quadruple the treated water supply needed by the Project. The discrepancy appears to be an inclusion by DSRSD of an additional 2,300 ara from Lake Del Valle, 2,000 ara from a temporary transfer agreement, and 5.00 ara of recycled water. DSRSD's analysis does not provide assurance that these supplies will be available. Additional yield from Lake Del Valle is only anticipated, requires additional storage, and must be coordinated with other users of the South BaY Aqueduct (SBA). Sources for recycled water have been identified, but there are no current agreements with Zone 7that assure the availability of this water. Although Zone 7 relies upon extending the contract with BBID throughout the planning per/od, the contract with BBID and Zone 7 will expire in August of 20t3, and there is no guarantee'that BBID, or Zone 7, will chose to exercise any of the five year options to extend the contract. Therefore, inclusion of 'these sources in the total firm sustainable yield appears to be inconsistent with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Although additional supplies from these sources may be available in the future, they cannot currently be relied upon as firm sustainable supplies. Additionally, the water transfers to Zone 7 from Lost Hills Water District and Belridge Water District relied upon by DSRSD as part of the ex/sting imported surface water from the State Water Project lack certainty due to the current litigation challenging the Monterey Agreement. Total Projected Demand Project demand for the annexation that is at issue in the Prelim/nary WSA is estimated to be approximately 1,300 acre-feet annually (ara) of treated water, and 950 ara for recycled water. DSRSD did not specifically provide an'analysis of the impact of these additional demands on DSRSD's existing or future customers as required by the Settlement Agreement. As mentioned previously, DSRSD inappropriately relies on its contract with Zone 7 to imply there will be sufficient water to meet the demand. Alternatively, the PWSA is premised on the assumption that if Zone 7 can meet the projected demands of all of its customers, then there would be no impact to DSRSD's current and future customers from annexing the Project. Some inconsistencies exist regarding this approach and the analyzed demand. The demand projections, including the 1,300 ara of treated water, used by DSRSD in its analysis are too low. DSRSD estimates demand at buildout in 2020 to be 84,060 ara. This demand is inconsistent with previous Zone 74 projections of a 2020 total demand of 100,300 ara. Current reports by Zone 7 indicate a low estimate based on current untreated demand and a high estimate based on a modest increase of 17,900 ara. The revised total untreated demand from the Agricultural Water System Study Vision 2010 Analysis,. August 2000, of 96,000 ara indicates this demand could be much greater..Completely ignoring potential increases in untreated water Water Supply Planning Update, February 1999 Annual Review of the Sustainable Water Supply, Draft dated April 06, 2001 Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties July 30, 2001 Page 4 of 8 /?,4. demand artificially reduces expected 2020 demand. By ignoring additional untreated demands, DSRSD has essentially ignored approximately one half of the water required by the City of Livermore for buildout in 2020, consistent with its approved GeneraiPlan. DSRSD states in the PWSA that an additional untreated water demand of 950 ara will result from the Project, and that this demand would be satisfied utilizing recycled water. Whether recycled water will be available to meet this demand is not only dependent on DSRSD's ability to produce this water, but also on its ability to provide storage and'transmission. DSRSD provided a table of its projected recycled water demands and supply, and also provided a figure of proposed transmission and storage, facilities for eastern Dublin. DSRSD does not provide an assessment the impact of providing this service [o eastern Dublin will have on its other customers who rely on recycled water. Furthermore, DSRSD does not demonstrate that it has the capability to store, transmit, or produce this recycled water. Credible Worst-Case Drought Scenario Use of average annual supply as an indicator of water supply reliability is not sufficient. DSRSD does not demonstrate in the PWSA that it would be able to provide water service to the Proposed Project during a .... Credible Worst Case Drought Scenario"...using the Projected Supplies, without significantly and adversely affecting the reliability of service or quality of water provided to DSRSD's then-ex/sting customers" (Settlement Agreement, section 4c(iii)). As defined in the Settlement Agreement, "a Proposed Project shall be deemed.to so "adversely affect the reliability of water only if it would cause a significant decrease in DSRSD's ability to fully meet customer demand at all times without significantly increasing the likelihood, severity or duration of use by DSRSD of those voluntary or mandatory rationing, conservation, or other demand reduction or water management measures described in DSRSD's current water use reduction plan"(Settlement Agreement, section 4c(ii)). DSRSD analyzed whether Zone 7 could meet its current policy of 100% reliability in alt years in 2020. DSRSD recognized the varying nature of average annual supplies, and "instead of using long-term averages, a continuous 71-year annual hydrologic analysis was Conducted of projected, future, SW'P deliveries to determine the ability of Zone7 to meet the treated and untreated water demands under all hydrologic conditions, as demands increased to projected buildout demands" (PWSA, page 2fl 1). DSRSD did not provide information regarding construction of the 71-year annual hydrologic analysis; however, they did draw some conclusions based on this analysis and pro¥ided tables supporting their conclusions in the ~- appendix..It is not possible to confirm the calculations that lead DSRSD to conclude that "Zone 7 currently has sufficient water supplies to meet 100% of the projected treated and untreated water demands, under all hydrologic conditions through Year 2015, including the credible worst case drought scenario assumed to occur in hydrologic Years 1929 through 1'934" (PWSA page 2- 11). There are inconsistencies on table 7c, projected 2020 conditions6, which cannot be reconciled without additional information. a) Column one, Total Zone 7 Valley Demand (AF), does not contain demand numbers that represent the projected demands put forth by DSRSD in the PWSA. * Programmatic Water Supply Assessment, June 200 i, Appendix I - This Appendix,' consisting of tables' that represent model output, was provided as support for conclusions made regarding the hydrologic model. Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties July 30, 200I Page 5 of 8 b) Columns two and three deal with SWP deliveries, and neither column can be confirmed using DWR quantities contained in Bulletin t32-99, March 2001,. tables B-4 and B-5B. For instance, DSRSD has stated that delivery from the SWP was lowest in 1977, however deliveries were lower in 1991 in both quantity of water delivered and percent of. entitlement. In several instances, the table indicates that the SWP delivers the full entitlement. Again, Bulletin'132-99 cannot confirm this assumption. c) Columns dealing with the Semitropic banking program do not provide any guidance as to the rules used to operate the bank. Also, it is assumed that the full 65,000 acre-foot of storage space has been filled at the beginning of the analysis. If the 65,000 acre-feet of storage were not filled at the beginning of the analysis there would be further impacts. In fact, Zone 7 modeling provided in the Water Supply Planning Study. Update, February 1999, that sets storage in Semitropic starting at something less than 65,000 acre-feet of available water, indicates additional impacts to the Main Basin. d) Rules for the columns representing the Use of Chain-of-Lakes are not provided, and it is not intuitive from reading the columns how they add to the supply. For instance, cumulative storage in the Chain-of-Lakes is not reduced when water is extracted (see 4th row down in spreadsheet). Also, it is not apparent when the full 70,000 acre-feet of storage would be available in the Chain-of-Lakes because storage is increased to 70,000 in the model year of 1957. According to documents produced by Zone 77, there would not be 70,000 acre-feet of storage available earlier than 2030. e) According to the table, the Main Basin is full 50 of the 71 years represented by the hydrologic analysis. In only one year does the Main Basin drop below the historic low level of 130,000 acre-feet of storage. Zone 7 models indicate that even when the Main Basin and storage space in Semitropic are full, there are impacts to the Main Basin 15% of the time due to a lack of dry year yield as well as much needed storage8. DSRSD incorrectly states that the impact is only 1.4% of the time and that this is not statistically significant (PWSA, page 2-1 t). f) It is not yet possible to ascertain the true impact of the "Credible Worst Case Drought Scenario" on DSRSD's customers based on the analysis provided. More information regarding model construction and operating rules must be made available to assess the accuracy of the analysis. g) There is no mention of the 100% reliability of the water supply to Dougherty Valley, and how this reliability would impact DSRSD's customers. Use of the 7,000 acre-foot entitlement specified for Dougherty Valley, and the associated 43,000 acre-foot of Semitropic storage to meet Dougherty Valley's needs first and foremost may impact DSRSD's other customers in dry years. An analysis of this relationship must be performed in order to determine whether or not an impact exists. The Project would be considered to "adversely affect the' quality of water" provided to DSRSD's existing customers only if it would cause a significant ongoing increase in the Post-treatment concentration of any contaminant for which a maximum contaminant level is specified under the Water Supply Planning Study Update, February 1999. Integrated Water System Study, January 2000, etc. Water Supply Planning Study Update, February 1999, page 3-3 i Preliminm-y Water Service Analysis forEast Dublin prOpoSes July 30, '2001 page 6 of 8 Safe Drinkingi. Water Act to alevei that~'excceds'~the'Post_treatment e0n'Scri~afion ~f such coma~n, ant in watee then being deli~emd, by DSRSD t0.its cUStomerS'!' (s:etflem~nt' ~eemeat section 4efii)). ~D.SRSD has determi'ned'.~fh~t: there ~v0atd' be no §ignifican~ adverse a/f~'ct.,6ia the~ qua;~i:~Y of~ water pm¥ided.to: frs cUstomem; DSRSD r~lie's treated w~er ::suPpty~ '~'d~on:~Zone 7?s':'Obligafi0n ':to meet::.water.q~ali~,:~t~fida~ds: ~s.~ea~ohig~P~V~d~s up ~g!~S~,S 6~"~ur~ce. :~at. there will be need t'~' t~e'ihls"~abiii~ :iht,6' a~eOuht."Al~;~gh:z6fie 7 r'ecogni~;s t~}s :v~abiiitg}' i~ais0[ recogmzes ~at there is cu~enfly not enough capaci~ to meet ~e teated needs for 2020. If ~e necess~: ~eatment facilities were,not,c~ns'~eted~ f:t, iS".unce~;n"wheth'er ~e addifion,~ dem~d would cause a sig~fic~t.adverse ~ect in'.'~¢, qualitY' Of'Water being deliVere~, beCaUse ~e source of water for the Project has not been identified, nor has,~y anal~sis..been pro~ided. Because ~ere was no ~ysis peffo~ed reg~ding the wa~:~:h'~'~iiff:'i~ci ground:water resources; it ~is not pOgSi~le m ascertain if there ~Would be ~ impact to ~ound water quality d~ng the "credible Worst ease ~ough:t s.een~o" caused by ~e Pr6ject: Meefin:¢,:Prafected'(202'0) 'D~mands With Current (200I),SUpPlie.¢ DSRSD ~d not peffo~ specific analysis reg~ding whe~er it could provide water so,ice to ~e proposed :~ojecr,..~s~ead; DSRSD: ~eties on..~alYZ~ng whe~er or not' Z6he7 has the cu~ent supplies to meet 2020 demands. DSRSD concludes ~at Zone 7 c~e~fly h~g' adequate, supplies to meet ~e projected 2020. ~eated ~d un,eared wa, tot:Supply domed. DSRSD ~So cohelUdes that Zone 7 can pr0~de 100% reliabi~ty in ~ ye~s by implementing demand reducfionin'~e 6th ye~ of a 6-ye~ drought ~ter 2015. 'By coneast;Zone 7 an'~ysis provided in ~e Water Supp¢ Planning Study ~&te; ~ebm~ 1999. and the associated envkomentat documentation, projects that' ~;:~t ~iy ~lii: ~e sufficient,to meet 2009 demand, but. that:significant additional '~ ye~'suppiies ~f~ be necesS~f0r Zone.7~'[t~ prOvide 100% retiab~H, in,~l year.s~: ~e ad~don~. ~'ye~ supply is needed for ~e Zone's cument customers under,'cu~ent.~supply condifi6ns..wi~out t~ng.in~0 account dem~ds in 2020. The cument fm sustainable yfetd ~at inadeqhate't6'meet D:SRSD~'s ~OjeCfed (2020j'~em~ds~ inC!~si°n 0f aadifi0nal u~eated demmd ~at is anticipated by Zone 7 will exacerbate thiSsh0~i. Conclusions - The ~alytic~ tools used by DSRSD to dete~ne ~e reliabili~ of ~ year suPpiifiS ~e con,sing and ~slea~ng: It:is not Obvious.. What:'operafing tritelY'were applied,' what'water supply was available, or what dem~d was used. Also, data on S~ deliveries sh6ald be consistent with Bulletin .132,.:99. C!~fication is Mso required concerning ~e: water ~tgrage hcili:ti'~g tfiat ~e assumed, t0,.~be available in 2020 ~to provide dw 7e~:~upplies, ~d,~e .basis for those assumpfi6hS. ~ Zone 7 Water Agency Water Supply Planning Update, Program Environmental Impact Rep0rtl draft, January 1999, page 7-4 Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties July 30, 2001 Page 7 of 8 While most water supply planning study efforts in California rely on matching projected demands with projected supplies, this approach is not adequate under the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement sets a more affirmative standard for addressing whether or not · DSRSD will be able to provide service to the annexed areas. DSRSD must show that the "total firm sustainable water supplies that reasonably may be expected to be available to DSRSD...wilI meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project...". The performance standard for making thisdetermination is that "DSRSD shall consider its Projected Supplies to be adequate to meet the Projected.Demand only if DSRSD would be abte to provide water service to the Proposed Project during a "Credible Worst-Case Drought Scenario", using the Projected Supplies, without significantly and adversely affecting the reliability of service or. quality of water prOvided to DSRSD' s then-existing customers". The existing analysis provided in the Preliminary WSA and PWSA does not meet the foregoing standard. We summarize our primary concerns as follows: 1) Total Firm Sustainable Supplies a) BBID transfer terminates in 2013 and is subject to approval by both parties at 5 year intervals and cannot be considered firm for the extended term to 2020 b) An additional 2,300 ara from Lake Del Valle is conceptuaI and would require approvals from SWRCB, DWR, and other SBA contractors c) 500 ara of recycled water from Zone 7 is conceptual and would require additional storage and public acceptance d) · DSRSD'S projected recycled water supply quantification and availability needs to be supported .~. e) Permanent Transfers from Lost Hills and Belridge may be affected by current litigation 2) Total Proiected Demand. a) DSRSD does not demonstrate'that it has the capability to store, transmit, or produce 950 ara recycled water, and it is uncertain whether servicing this additional demand would cause impacts to its other recycled water customers b) DSRSD ignored a minimum 16,000 ara of additional untreated demand in 2020 with the possibility for a demand of 96,000 ara~° 3) Credible Worst-Case Drought Scenario a) Water Quality i) DSRSD has not analyzed possible impacts due to reliance on Zone 7 meeting the standards ii) Zone 7's water treatment capacity is not sufficient to meet demand in 2020. Without identifying the future water supply source, and any futui-e treatment processes, determinations regarding water quality impacts are unsupported to Agricultural Water System Study Vision 2010 Analysis, August 2000, Figure ES-2, page ES-7 Preliminary Water Servi.ce Analysis for East Dublin Properties ~/~ July 30, 2001 ./ ~~?_~ Page 8 of 8 iii) There was no analysis provided on the water quality impact of additional reliance on ground water supplies during dry years b) Dry_ Year Reliability i) The 71 year hydrologic analysis needs significant clarification ii) Zone 7 does not currently have enough storage capacity to meet dry year demands 100% of the time iii) DSRSD has no[ analyzed the impact of preferential supply to Dougherry Valley using the.BMWD transfer in conjunction with SWSD storage 4) Meetin~ Projected (2020) Demand With Current (2001) Supplies a) Current supplies are inadequate to meet DSRSD's projected demand b) Any level of additional untreated demand will exacerbate the shortfall It is our opinion that the Preliminary and Programmatic Water Supply Analysis fall short of meeting the higher standard of water supply planning that is required by the Settlement Agreement. Saracino-Kirby-Snow is available to assist the City of Livermore in working with DSRSD and Zone 7 to address the inadequacies with the current analysis. Sincerely' tr' Principal