HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 Nielsen Property Residential Project Attch 3i~~ - ~~~
~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
CERTIFYING FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
UNDER CEQA FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
(6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02)
PA 07-057
WHEREAS, Robert Nielsen submitted applications for the creation of thirty-four (34)
residential lots on the property located at 6407 Tassajara Road in the City of Dublin ( Alameda
County Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is 985-0002-009-02) ("Project Site"). The maximum
number of dwelling units that would be located on the Project Site are thirty-six (36). The project
includes applications for the following: (1) a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment to modify the land use designation from Rural Residential/ Agriculture to Single
Family Residential and to reduce the width of on-site streets; (2) a Planned Development Rezone
with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan from PD-
RR/A to PD-SFR to allow construction of up to 36 dwellings on 34 lots on the Project Site; and (3)
a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the Project Site. The applications are collectively known
as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in Eastern Dublin and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution
51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (incorporated herein by
reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern
Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted
environmental findings, mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program, and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference) in accordance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, significant unavoidable impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR that
apply to the Project and Project site, therefore, any Project approval must be supported by a
Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared an Initial
Study to determine if the proposed Project would require additional environmental review beyond
that analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial Study found that many anticipated impacts of
the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This is
consistent with the comprehensive environmental analysis undertaken as part of the Eastern
Dublin EIR with a 20-30 year build-out horizon. Although the Initial Study concluded that the
Eastern Dublin EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed Project, it also identified the potential for certain new significant impacts or substantially
more severe impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City of Dublin
determined that the potential for new and/or substantially more severe impacts required
ATTACHMENT 3
1 ~37 75e~
~
preparation of a supplemental EIR for certain impact areas pursuant to the requirements of CEQA;
and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated May 23, 2008, with the Initial
Study to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the supplemental
EIR. The City also conducted a public scoping meeting on June 18, 2008; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City
prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) dated January 2009 for the
proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential
environmental impacts of the Project beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (See
Exhibit D, incorporated herein by reference). The DSEIR confirmed that many aspects of the
Project were within the scope of the Eastern Dublin program and that the certified Eastern Dublin
EIR adequately described these aspects of the Project for CEQA purposes; and
WHEREAS, the DSEIR was circulated for public review from February 2, 2009 to March 25,
2009; and
WHEREAS, the City received comment letters from State and local agencies and interested
parties during the public review period. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City
prepared written responses to all the comments received during the public comment period. The
City prepared a Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR), dated April 2010, for the proposed Project which
included an annotated copy of each comment letter identifying specific comments, responses to
each specific comment, and clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the
DSEIR. The FSEIR incorporates the DSEIR. The responses to comments provide the City's good
faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments (Exhibit E,
incorporated herein by reference); and
WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and
determined that the FSEIR, including the clarifications and minor corrections to the DSEIR, do not
constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DSEIR under the standards in
CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, the FSEIR, including comments and responses, reflects the City's independent
judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project; and
WHEREAS, the FSEIR and related Project and environmental documents, including the
Eastern Dublin EIR, and all of the documents relating to the Project are incorporated herein by
reference, and are available for review in the City planning division at the Dublin City Hall, file PA
07-057, during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the FSEIR and other
documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community
Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PA 07-057; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff reports, and the FSEIR at a duly
noticed public hearing on April 27, 2010 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to
be heard. Following the hearing and based on the record before it, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution 10-18 recommending certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report and adoption of environmental findings under CEQA for the Project and Resolution
10-20 recommending approval of the Project, both of which resolutions are incorporated herein by
2
)~.3~~ ~~
reference and available for review at the Planning Division in City Hall at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin,
CA 94568; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated May 18, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project for the City Council and contained information on the Eastern
Dublin EIR and FSEIR; and
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2010, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the Project and the FSEIR at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the staff report, the Eastern
Dublin EIR, the FSEIR, including comments and responses, and all other information in the record
on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the FSEIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the
potential for environmental impacts for the Project ; and
WHEREAS, the Project would have significant supplemental effects on the environment,
which can be substantially reduced through supplemental mitigation measures, except for visual
impacts; therefore, approval of the Project must include mitigation findings as set forth in attached
Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the FSEIR identified the Project's effects due to visual impacts as significant
and unavoidable and cannot be lessened to a level of less than significant; therefore, approval of
the Project must include findings regarding alternatives as set forth in attached Exhibit B, and must
include a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in attached Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as required by CEQA, is
contained in the Final EIR, which is attached as Exhibit E; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Dublin City Council hereby makes the
following findings on the FSEIR and the environmental impacts of the Project under CEQA:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
B. The FSEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the
City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
C. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in
Eastern Dublin EIR and FSEIR, including the written comments received during the DSEIR review
period and the oral and written comments received at the public hearing, prior to making its
recommendation on the proposed Project.
D. The FSEIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The FSEIR provides information to the decision-
makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the proposed Project.
E. The FSEIR adequately describes the proposed Project, its significant environmental
impacts, mitigation measures and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project.
13~ ~ ~ ~s~
~
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council adopts the mitigation measures
and mitigation findings set forth in Exhibit A, the Findings regarding Alternatives set forth in Exhibit
B, the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit C, and the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit E, which Exhibits A, B, C, D and E are incorporated
herein by reference, all in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\PA#~2007\07-057 Nielsen\CC Mtg 5.18.10Wtt 1- Nielsen CEQA Reso.DOC
4
1~/ ~ ~ ~ 7~~
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091
and 15163, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the
potential for significant supplemental environmental impacts from the Nielsen Property
Residential Project, PA 07-057, and means for mitigating those impacts. Many of the
impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized rather than set
forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs (SEIRs) should be
consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations. Findings pursuant to
section 21081 relating to Project alternatives are made in Exhibit B.
Supplemental Impact SM-WATER-1 (water quality): The quality of stormwater
runoff from the Project Site would be expected to decline resulting from an increase in
the production of non-point source urban pollutants. Such contaminants include debris,
landscaping fertilizers and pesticides, heavy metals, oil and gas residues, tire fragments
and debris normally deposited by vehicular traffic. Stormwater runoff from developed
areas on the Site would carry non-point source pollutants into surface waters within the
drainage channels, where they would cause a cumulative degradation of water quality in
San Francisco Bay.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-WATER-1 (water quality): Project
Developer(s) shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that
incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction and post-construction
conditions. The SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Quality Control Board
standards and Alameda County Clean Water Program requirements. The SWPPP shall be
prepared prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the City of Dublin to avoid spill over
of material into Tassajara Creek and other bodies of water during demolition. The BMPs
may include, but not limited to, incorporation of grassy swales into landscaped areas, use
of filtration devices and similar features.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
that avoid or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the
SEIR.
Rationale for Findin~. The mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring the Project developer(s) to incorporate state-of-the-art Best
Management Practices into the Project during construction and post-construction to
reduce impacts to water quality from stormwater runoff from the Project.
Supplemental Impact SM-WATER-2 (increased stormwater runoffj: Development
of the Project would introduce new impervious surfaces (primarily buildings, driveways,
roads and hardscape elements) onto the now vacant portions of the Site, increasing the
EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 3
' ~' ~ ~~
amount, direction and rate of stormwater runoff. Stormwater increases could exceed the
capacity of local and regional drainage systems to accommodate such increases.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-WATER-2 (increased stormwater runoff~:
Project Developer(s) shall prepare a drainage and hydrology plan using Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Zone 7 and City drainage criteria which shall indicate that
adequate on and off-site capacity exists in local and regional drainage facilities to
accommodate the direction, rate and amount of increased stormwater runoff. If necessary,
developer(s) shall upgrade undersized drainage facilities to ensure that: a) no on-site
flooding would occur and b) downstream drainage facilities are not overburdened by
Project drainage. The drainage and hydrology plan shall be approved by the Dublin
Public Works Department and all recommendations for drainage improvements shall be
incorporated into Project improvement plans.
Findin . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
that avoid or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the
SEIR.
Rationale for Findin~. The mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by ensuring that adequate capacity exists in downstream drainage
facilities to accommodate any significant increases in the amount, direction and rate of
stormwater from the Proj ect Site due to Proj ect development.
Supplemental Impact SM-BIO-1 (impacts to special-status plant species):
Development of the proposed Project has the potential to impact four special-status plant
species: big scale balsamroot, big tarplant, Congdon's taiplant, and showy madia.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1 (impacts to special-status plant
species): Pre-construction surveys shall be completed for the four special-status plant
species: big scale balsamroot, big tarplant, Congdon's tarplant, and showy madia
consistent with California Department of Fish and Game protocols. If such species are
found, the Project development plan shall be modified to avoid the locations of such
plant(s). If avoidance is not feasible, plants shall be transplanted (or seed collected and
relocated) to a suitable on- or off-site location pursuant to necessary permits from the
California Department of Fish and Game and/or other regulatory agencies or other
acceptable method(s) approved by the City of Dublin, California Department of Fish and
Game and/or other regulatory agencies. Relocation plans shall include on-going
monitoring for a period of five years to ensure that transplantations are established.
Findin~• Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
that avoid or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the
SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring pre-construction surveys for special-status plants and, if
found, either avoiding the locations of such species, transplanting these species to a
2
i~~ ~~~
suitable off-site location pursuant to necessary permits and approvals from the California
Department of Fish and Game and/ar other regulatory agencies, or other acceptable
method(s) approved by the City of Dublin, California Department of Fish and Game
andlor other regulatory agencies.
Supplemental Impact SM-BIO-2 (impacts to special-status bird species):
Development of the proposed Project has the potential to impact three special-status bird
species: Western Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead Shrike, and White-tailed Kite.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 (impacts to special-status bird
species): Pre-construction surveys shall be completed to prevent impacts to nesting
Burrowing Owl, White-tailed Kite, and/or Loggerhead Shrike. If active nests or occupied
burrows are found, setbacks from a burrow/nest site shall be established by a qualified
biologist and maintained until the young have fledged. If burrowing owls are detected
outside of the nesting season they shall be passively relocated outside of any
development area subject to the authorization of the Department of Fish and Game.
Findin~• Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
that avoid or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the
SEIR.
Rationale for Findin~. The mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring pre-construction breeding surveys for special-status birds
and, if found, establishing setbacks from such nests until young have left each nest. If
owls are found outside of the nesting season, they shall be relocated outside of any
development area.
Supplemental Impact SM-BIO-3 (impacts on Heritage Tree): Implementation of the
proposed Project would result in the loss of one Heritage Tree on the Site. Loss of this
tree would remove a significant scenic resource on the Site.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 (impacts on Heritage Tree): The final
landscape plan shall show that the existing Heritage Tree, which is proposed to be
removed as a part of the residential development, shall be replaced with three 36-inch
box size oak trees on the Site. Appropriate maintenance shall be performed by the
Project landscape contractor, similar to other plantings in the Project area. Monitoring of
the three replacement trees' health, undertaken by a qualified arborist for a one-year
period following installation.
Findin~• Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
that avoid or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the
SEIR.
Rationale for Findin~. The mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring replanting of large replacement trees on the Site to replace
the removed Heritage Tree.
3
~~ ~+ ~
~ ' ~
r~
Supplemental Impact SM-VIS-1 (impacts to scenic resources and the visual
character of the Site): The proposed Project would have adverse impacts on scenic
vistas and corridors due to development silhouetted above ridgelines, minimal
preservation of natural hillside area and limited view corridors to natural hillside areas.
SM-VIS-1. No feasible supplemental mitigation measures are identified in the SEIR.
Findin . The Project incorporates several design features that would be consistent with
applicable Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures and related visual policies and
reduce the visual impacts of the Project (see DSEIR, p. 82). Design features to reduce
visual impacts include:
• Providing ten foot stepped building pads, a first for a single family neighborhood
in East Dublin. This feature would allow the development to better fit the terrain and
reduce grading and open up the vista along the property frontage.
• Providing an increased building setback of up to eighty (80) feet along Tassajara
Road to reduce visual impacts.
• The site entry road, Silvera Ranch Drive, would provide a view corridor to the
hills and knolls beyond the Project, as does the area at the southern end of the Project.
• Minimizing the cut of the prominent knoll on-site to eight feet to maintain the
natural land form and minimize significant elevation changes.
• Reducing the number of lots on the top of the hill to minimize the visual impact,
as well as locating other lots further back onto the hill.
• Ensuring that graded slopes would be recontoured to follow the landforms of the
surrounding area.
However, even with the incorporate of these measures, the visual impact remains
significant. There no feasible additional mitigations to reduce this impact to less than
significant. The small size (approximately 10 acres) of the property, with a short frontage
along Tassajara Road, (approximately 600 feet), constrain where development can occur,
and also limit opportunities for view corridors. The topography of the site mandates
development towards Tassajara Road which would cause silhouetting against the sky
line. The westward knoll form and sloping topography of the site encourages
development to be located on the flatter portions of the site, which are the top of the knoll
and along the base of the knoll that parallels Tassajara Road. Reducing proposed
development to a few lots at the base of the knoll with enough open area and setback
from the scenic corridor to comply with the standards and policies would result in a
financially infeasible project based on the amount of infrastructure required to develop
~the Project site. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted
upon approval of the Project. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Findin~. No feasible supplemental measures or project alternatives are
available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, the supplemental impact remains
significant and unavoidable.
4
~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~
Supplemental Impact SM-VIS-2 (light and glare impacts). The proposed Project
would increase the amount of light sources on the Property, which would result in spill
over of light and associated glare onto adj acent properties and roadways.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-VIS-2 (light and glare impacts). Light fixtures
installed as part of the Project shall be equipped with cut-off lenses and directed
downward to avoid spill over of lights onto adjacent properties or roadways. The design
of light fixtures shall be specified on final building and improvement plans.
Findin~• Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
that avoid or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the
SEIR.
Rationale for Finding. The mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring light fixtures with certain features to avoid spill-over of
lights onto adjacent properties or roadways.
Supplemental Impact SM-AIR-1 (consistency with Clean Air Plan): If approved, the
proposed Project would increase the number of dwellings on the Project Site by up to 34
dwellings that are not currently included in the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) Clean Air Plan.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AIR-1. If the requested land use entitlements
are approved, the City of Dublin shall transmit appropriate documentation of land use
buildout. In addition, the following steps shall be taken by the Project Applicant:
• The project proponent shall negotiate with LAVTA for the construction or
reservation of land for transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches, and
related public transit facilities.
• Provide on site bicycle land and/or paths, connected to community-wide network.
• Provide on site sidewalks and/or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops, .
and/or community-wide network.
• Allow only natural gas fireplaces and heating stoves. No wood burning devices shall
be allowed.
• Require dwellings to have outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric
lawn and garden equipment for landscaping and maintenance.
• Install ENERGY-STAR appliances.
Findin . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
that avoid or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the
SEIR.
Rationale for Findin~. The mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by applying additional mitigation beyond that required by Mitigation
Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 of the East Dublin EIR, reducing the additional vehicle miles
traveled and regional emissions resulting from the land use redesignation of the Project
5
1 ~i 5 ~ ~ ~~~
Site. Implementation of these measures will result in consistency between the City of
Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Clean Air Plan.
Supplemental Impact SM-AIR-1 (emissions from construction activities): Although
the Eastern Dublin EIR contained mitigation measures to address emissions from
construction activities, the Project will need to comply with the current additional
requirements of the BAAQMD which are set forth in Supplemental Mitigation Measure
SM-AQ-2.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2. In addition to measures identified in
MM 3.11/1.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the developer of the Project shall comply with
the following:
a) Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand
or other materials that can be blown by the wind.
b) Require construction contractors to sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers)
all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
c) Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control
measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
d) On-site idling of construction equipment and trucks shall be minimized as much
as feasible (no more than five minutes maximum).
e) All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and fitted with manufacturer's
standard level exhaust controls.
Findin~• Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
that avoid or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the
SEIR.
Rationale for Findin~. The mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring the Project to comply with all current regulations of
BAAQMD to address impacts from emissions from construction activities. According to
the current BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, implementation of these mitigation measures
would reduce construction period air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Supplemental Impact SM-NOISE-1 (exterior and interior noise exposure): Noise
levels adjacent to the Project Site along Tassajara Road would exceed City exterior noise
exposure levels for the rear yards of proposed Lots 1 through 3 and for any balconies and
upper floor windows facing Tassajara Road. Interior noise levels within upper floors for
dwellings facing Tassajara Road could also exceed City and State requirements.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1. The following features shall be
incorporated into final building plans:
a) For Lots 1 through 3, a minimum 6-foot-tall property line noise barrier shall be
installed to acoustically shield future Tassajara Road traffic noise. Noise barriers could
include either a masonry sound wall or an acoustical wood fence.
6
1 ~~ ~ ~ 5~
~~
b) For any upper floor balconies for homes constructed on Lots 1 through 9 that
would face west, 3-1/2-foot-tall, solid railing shall be installed to acoustically shield
Tassajara Road noise to seated receivers.
c) Upper floor windows facing Tassajara Road shall be sound-rated and non-
operable to ensure that interior noise standards are met.
Findin . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
that avoid or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the
SEIR.
Rationale for Findin~. The mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring installation of certain noise attenuation measures to reduce
noise impacts at the Project site to acceptable levels for residential uses under City and
State requirements.
Supplemental Impact SM-HAZ-1 (asbestos and lead based paint): Demolition of
existing buildings and related improvements could result in potentially significant
impacts due to release of asbestos and lead based paint into the atmosphere. There could
also be a release of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are listed as a pollutant of
concern on the City's Regional Permit for Stormwater.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-HAZ-1. The following actions shall be taken
before issuance of the first demolition permit, if multiple permits are issued by the City:
a) Asbestos containing material shall be tested for, and if found, removed by a
licensed contractor and disposed of in a landfill licensed to accept this level of
contaminated material. If required, a permit shall be obtained from the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District prior to commencement of work.
b) Testing and analysis for lead based paints and PCBs shall be conducted. If such
materials are found, remediation shall be completed by a licensed contractor.
Necessary permits shall be obtained prior to commencement of work.
Findin~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
that avoid or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the
SEIR.
Rationale for Findin~. The mitigation measures will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring removal of asbestos and lead based paints prior to building
demolition in accordance with regulatory requirements.
7
1~{~ ~. ~ ~ ~'
EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
Introduction. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified four alternatives relating to overall
development under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: No Project, Reduced Planning
Area, Reduced Land Use Intensities and No Development. In approving the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and certifying the Eastern Dublin EIR, the City Council found the
No Project, Reduced Land Use Intensities and No Development alternatives infeasible
and then approved a modification of the Reduced Planning Area alternative.
The Supplemental EIR (SEIR) updates the analysis of the Eastern Dublin EIR to address
alternatives to the Nielsen Residential Project ("Project"). These alternatives are to
address the supplemental impacts of the Project identified in the SEIR, in particular, the
significant and unavoidable visual impact of the proposed Project. The Alternatives
selected for analysis in the SEIR are:
Alternative 1: No Proj ect/No development.
Alternative 2: Clustered Development.
Alternative 3: Reduced Project.
These three Alternatives are described in detail in the SEIIZ (p. 121-133). The SEIlZ also
analyzed the environmental impacts of each Alternative and compared the impacts of
each alternative to the impacts of the proposed Project. In summary, the No Project
Alternative assumes that the existing development on the Property will remain - the
existing single-family residence, agricultural mobile home, horse arena, wireless
communication facilities and other site improvements. No new development would
occur. The Clustered Development Alternative includes assumes new construction of 32
three-story townhouses and 5 single-family dwellings, the retention of the primary
existing dwelling unit, removal of the smaller secondary dwelling, and other related
improvements on the Property. The development would be clustered on those portions of
the Property along Tassajara Road and Silver Ranch Drive with more limited
development on the higher elevations of the Property. The Reduced Project includes new
construction of 10 single-family dwellings along Tassajara Road and retention of the
existing primary dwelling on the upper portion of the Property. The single family homes
would be located on the lower elevations of the Property along Tassajara Road, and the
higher elevations of the Property would not be developed except for retention of the
existing single family home.
A comment letter on the Draft SEIR suggested that the City should consider elimination
of eleven lots from the proposed Project (Lots 23-33) to reduce the visual impacts of the
Project. The City finds that this alternative is not significantly different from the
Clustered Development Alternative and Reduced Project Alternative. Similar to these
Alternatives, the alternative suggested in the comment letter reduces development on the
higher elevations of the south-east portion of the Property. The City is not required to
EXHIBIT B TO
ATTACHMENT 3
1~~ ~, ~ 5~
~
separately analyze the impacts of this suggested alternative under CEQA. CEQA does
not require the analysis of variations on alternatives that are already considered. The City
finds that the suggested alternative is a variation of the Alternatives analyzed in the EIR
and does not present significant advantages in reducing environmental impacts than those
alternatives considered in the SEIR. Nevertheless, although not required under CEQA,
the City Council rejects the suggested alternative as infeasible based on the findings set
forth below.
The City Council considered the three Alternatives identified and described in the SEIR
and the alterative suggested in the comment letters and finds all of them to be
"infeasible" under CEQA standards for the reasons set forth below. "Feasible" means
capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,
taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors (Public
Resources code section 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15364). Alternatives also
may be found "infeasible" under CEQA if they would not accomplish most of the basic
objectives of the Project or would not avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the
significant effects of the proposed Project. The Project objectives are identified in
Section 3.5 of the Draft SEIR (p. 17).
Alternative 1: No Project/No Development. (Draft SEIR pp. 122-124.)
Finding: Infeasible. Under this Alternative, no new development would occur on the
Project site but existing development would remain. Generally, the impacts of this
Alternative would less than the impacts of the proposed Project. However, this
Alternative would not achieve any of the Project Objectives, including creation of a
neighborhood that is compatible with the residential and non-residential uses in the
immediate vicinity, provide local and regional roadway improvements needed along
Tassajara Road, allow development that will contribute to construction of needed public
infrastructure and community facilities through payment of fees, assist in meeting the
City's quantified housing objectives, and allow for a residential project of sufficient
density to provide economies of scale to allow for high quality design and construction.
Therefore, for these reasons, the City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, make infeasible the No Project/No Development Alternative.
Alternative 2: Clustered Development. (DSEIR pp. 124-128.)
Finding: Infeasible. This Alternative would reduce the following impacts as compared to
the proposed Project: population and housing, amount of grading, loss of open space, and
visual impacts. However, the other impacts of this Alternative would be largely similar
to the impacts of the proposed Project. This Alternative would reduce, but not eliminate
visual impacts, by reducing the number of residential units in the higher elevations of the
Property and providing more visual corridors to open space from Tassajara Road. This
Alternative is economically infeasible based on information submitted by the Applicant.
The Applicant performed a feasibility analysis which shows this Alternative would result
in a potential loss of several million dollars because the development costs would be
i ~~ ~~ ~
~
largely similar to the proposed Project but the sales price for the 32 townhome products
under this Alternative would be substantially less than the sales price for detached single
family homes as proposed by the Project. In addition, since this Alternative is
economically infeasible, it does not accomplish the Project Objectives of allowing a
residential project which provides for high quality design and construction, providing
local and regional roadway improvements needed along Tassajara Road, and allowing
development that will contribute to construction of needed public infrastructure and
community facilities through payment of fees. Therefore, for these reasons, the City
Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations
identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, make infeasible the Clustered
Development Alternative.
Alternative 3: Reduced Development. (DSEIR pp. 128-132.)
Finding: Infeasible. This Alternative would reduce the following impacts as compared to
the proposed Project: population and housing, traffic, water demand, stormwater runoff,
open space, loss of heritage tree, and visual impacts. On visual impacts, the elimination
of new residential units on higher elevations of Property would reduce, but not eliminate,
visual impacts. This Alternative is economically infeasible based on information
submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant performed a feasibility analysis which shows
this Alternative would result in a potential loss of over one million dollars because the
development costs of this Alternative (although lower than the proposed Project and
Alternative 2) would exceed the revenue from the sale of only 10 residential homes. In
addition, since this Alternative is economically infeasible, it does not accomplish the
Project Objectives of allowing a residential project which provides for high quality
design and construction, providing local and regional roadway improvements needed
along Tassajara Road, and allowing development that will contribute to construction of
needed public infrastructure and community facilities through payment of fees.
Therefore, for these reasons, the City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, make infeasible the Reduced Development Alternative.
Alternative Suggested in Comment Letter - Elimination of Lots 23-33 from
proposed Project
Although the City Council is not required under CEQA to make infeasibility findings on
this proposed alternative since it is a variation of Alternatives 2 and 3, the City Council
finds this alternative infeasible for similar reasons as Alternatives 2 and 3. This
Alternative may potentially reduce some impacts relating to population and housing,
amount of grading, loss of open space, and visual impacts. However, the infrastructure
and site work to develop this proposed alternative would be similar to the proposed
Project. The elimination of 11 single residential units with some of the best views
offered by development of the Property would significantly reduce the Project revenue
15n~~ ~~~
~
from home sales. Therefore, based on information provided by the Applicant, the
proposed alternative is economically infeasible. In addition, since this Alternative is
economically infeasible, it does not accomplish the Project Objectives of allowing a
residential project which provides for high quality design and construction, providing
local and regional roadway improvements needed along Tassajara Road, and allowing
development that will contribute to construction of needed public infrastructure and
community facilities through payment of fees. Therefore, for these reasons, the City
Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations
identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, make infeasible this proposed
alternative.
4
- ~~ ~s~
:.~.
EXHIBIT C
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City
of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified
in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53-93, May 10,
1993.) The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve
urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan project. The City Council is currently considering the
Nielsen Property Residential Project, PA 07-057. The Project includes entitlements
necessary to allow residential development of up to 36 units on the Nielsen Property.
These actions are collectively referred to herein as the "Project". The City prepared a
Supplemental EIR for the Project which identified supplemental impacts that could be
mitigated to less than significant. The Supplemental EIR also identified a supplemental
visual impact that could not be mitigated to less than significant.
The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the 1993 land
use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin, including the Nielsen Property.
Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt new overriding
considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the current
Project.l The City Council must also adopt overriding considerations for the one
supplemental visual impact (on scenic resources and visual character of the Property),
identified in the Supplemental EIR as significant and unavoidable. The City Council
believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation
measures adopted with the original Eastern Dublin approvals and by the environmental
protection measures included in the Project design or adopted through the Project
approvals, to be implemented with the development of the Project. Even with mitigation,
the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the Project carries with it
unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
the Project Supplemental EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that
the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been
mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land
use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project.
2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The
following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Project.
Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual
Impacts 3.88; and, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. Although development
~"...public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the
later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a
Better Environment v. California Resources Aqencv 103 Cal.App. 4'h 98, _(2002).
EXHIBIT C TO
ATTACHMENT 3
~ ~ ;~~~~ ~~~
~d..: q
has occurred south of the project area, the site is largely undeveloped open space land.
Future development of the Project site will contribute to the cumulative loss of open
space land.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E. I-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway
Impacts: While city street and interchange impacts can be mitigated through planned
improvements, transportation demand management, the I-580 Smart Corridor program
and other similar measures, mainline freeway impacts continue to be identified as
unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Future development on the
Project site will still incrementally contribute to the unavoidable freeway impacts.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/l, 3.3/M. Santa Rita Road/I-580 Ramps, Cumulative
Dublin Boulevard Impacts: The Project will be required to implement all applicable
adopted traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to the City's TIF program;
however even with mitigation these impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as
anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S. Consumption of Non-Renewable
Natural Resources and Sewer, Water; and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases
in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water
Distribution System: Future development of the Project will contribute to increased
energy consumption.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary
Effects: Even with seismic design, future development of the Project could be subject to
damage from large earthquakes, much like the rest of the Eastern Dublin planning area.
Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, and E. Future development of the Project will
contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and
stationary source emissions.
3. Unavoidable SiEni~cant Adverse Impact from the Nielsen Property
Supplemental EIR. The following unavoidable significant supplemental environmental
impact was identified in the Supplemental EIR for the Project.
Supplemental Impact SM-VIS-1 (impacts to scenic resources and the visual
character of the Site): The proposed Project would have adverse impacts on scenic
vistas and corridors due to development silhouetted above ridgelines, limited preservation
of natural hillside area, and limited view corridors to natural hillside areas.
4. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of
the Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant
adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council now balances
those unavoidable impacts that apply to future development on the Project site as well as
the supplemental unavoidable visual impact identified in the Supplemental EIR, against
its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the
benefits of the Project as further set forth below. The City declares that each one of the
2
~ ~~~
~ ~~~
benefits included below, independent of any other benefits, would be sufficient to justify
approval of the Project and override the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts.
The substantial evidence demonstrating the benefits of the Project are found in these
findings, and in the documents found in the administrative record for the Project.
The Project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the
comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals. The
Project will create a neighborhood that is compatible with the urban development in the
vicinity of the Project along Tassajara Road. The Project will provide local and regional
roadway improvements needed along Tassajara Road. The Project will help the City
toward their RHNA goal for new housing units and will help implement policies
contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan. The Project will provide
streetscape improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping that will be an
amenity to the larger community and provide safer pedestrian and bicycle access between
existing neighborhoods. The Project will create new revenue for the City, County, and
State through the transfer and reassessment of property due to the improvement of the
property and the corresponding increase in value. The Project will contribute funds to
construct schools, parks, and other community facilities that are a benefit City-wide.
Development of the site will provide construction employment opportunities for Dublin
residents.
3
~~4 ~ ~~~
Nielsen I~evelo ment
p
Pro'ect
J
General Plan & Specific Plan Amendments
Stage 1 & 2 Rezoning
Vesting Subdivision Map
PA 07-057
Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
SCH#2008052117
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
January 2009
EXHIBIT D TO
ATTACHMENT 3
~,
Table of Contents
- ~~ a,~: 7S~
1.0 Project Summary .......................
.................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction ..................
.......................................................................
1.2 Summary of Project Description ................................................................................. 1
1.3 Summary of Environmental Issues ............................................................................ 2
1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 2
1.5 Summary of Alternatives ............................................................................................ 3
1.6 Areas of Known Controversy ..................................................................................... 3
2.0 Introduction.
.............................................................................
2.1 Purpose of Environmental Review ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'"~~~"" 5
2.2 Scope of Supplemental EIR ........... ............................................................................ 5
2.3 Legal Basis'`or Supplemental EIR .............................................................................. 6
' ........................................................
2.4 Organization of Draft Supplemental EIR ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
.................................................................. 7
2.5 DSEIR Review Process
2.6 SNotice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ g
3.0 Project Description .................. .......................................................... 8
................................................................................... 9
3.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................ 9
3.2 Project Site Features ..................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Prior Planning Approvals ..........................................................................................10
3.4 Project Applications ....................................................................................................14
` 3.5 Project Objectives .......................
3.6 Future Actions Using the DSEIR ...............................................................................17
4.0 Environmental Analysis ........... ..............................................................................18
................................................................................26
.' 4.1 Land Use .................g p
............... .................................................................................27
4.2 Population, Housin and Em lo
..... yment ....................................................................27
4.3 Traffic and Circulation ................
................ ...........................................................43
"° 4.4 Water Supply and Storm Drainage/Water Quality
4.5 Soils and Geologt ...................... .................................................
..................................................................................62
4.6 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................67
4.7 Visual Resources .........................................................................................................75
.................................
4.8 Air Quality............ ......................................................................88
4.9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................97
4.10 Noise .................. .........................................................113
4.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~11$
...................................................
~
5.1 Alternatives Identified in Eastern Dublin EIR ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1
5.2 Alternatives Identified in 2008 SEIR ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~""""""""""""'••••121
.r, .......................................................................122
.............................................
5.3 No Project .................. ...................................................122
~ 5.4 Alternative 2: Clusterd Development .....................................................................124
5.5 Alternative 3: Reduced Development .....................................................................128
5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...................................................................132
6.0 Required CEQA Discussion. .140
.................................................................................
...... ..................
6.1 Cumulative Impacts ................ ................................................140
6.4 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts ...........................................141
;= 7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted ..................................................................142
7.1 Persons and Organizations .....................................................
7.2 References ..................................................................................................................142
l~ ~ ~ ~g ~
144
8.0 Appendices ........................................................................ .......................................
145
Appendix 8.1 .............................................................................. .......................................
146
Appendix 8.2 .............................................................................. .......................................
..............147
Appendix 8.3 .............................................................................. .........................
148
Appendix 8.4 .............................................................................. .......................................
...............149
Appendix 8.5 .............................................................................. ........................
...............150
Appendix 8.6 .............................................................................. ........................
.............151
Appendix 8.7 .............................................................................. ..........................
List of Tables
1
Table 1 Summary of Supplemental Imapcts/ Mitigations ... ...................I-1
.
Table 3.2-1 Proposed Neilsen Project Population ....................... ..................:
32
3-1
Table 4 Peak Hour Intersection LOS-Buildout (2025) .......... .
..................
.
.
Table 4.3-2. Project Trip Generation ............................................. ....................36
38
3-3
Table 4 Buildout (2025) + Project Buildout LOS ................... ....................
.
.
Table 4.3-4 Freeway Segment Analysis ....................................... ....................39
44
Table 4.4-1. Projected DSRSD Water Demand ............................ .....................
6
4-2
Table 4 Estimated Neilsen Project Potable Water Demand ...................::9
.
.
8-1
Table 4 Federal and State Air Quality Standards ................ ...................
.
.
Table 4.8-2. Air Quality Data Summary for Livermore ............. .....................92
96
Table 4.8-3. Project Regional Emissions ...................................... .....................
8
Table 4.9-1. Global Warming Potential for Greenhouse Gas ..... ...................::8
Table 5.2-1.
2-2.
Table 5 Not Used .................... ......................................
Proposed Project v. Alt. 2 Population Generation ...................125
••••••••~•••"""
.
Table 5.2-3.
Trip Generation Comparison ................................... .125
..................
126
Table 5.2-4. Potable Daily Water Demand Comparison ...............................
129
2-5.
Table 5 Proposed Project v. Alt. 3 Population Generation . ...................
.
Table 5.2-6. Propsed Project v. Alt. 3 Trip Generation ..................................129
130
Table 5.2-7. Potable Water Demand Comparison ..................... ....................
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 3-1
Exhibit 3-2
Exhibit 3-3
Exhibit 3.4.
Exhibit 3-5.
Exhibit 3.6.
Exhibit 4.3-1.
Exhibit 4.3-2.
Exhibit 4.3-2.
Exhibit 4.7-1a.
Exhibit 4.7-1b.
Exhibit 4.7-2a.
Exhibit 4.7-2b.
.........................................
ti
l L 19
on ..............................
oca
Regiona
.........................................
ti
L 20
on ..................................
oca
Project
...........................................
t
l Ph
i 21
o ...............................
o
a
Site Aer
Proposed Stage 1 Development Plan ........................................ 22
............................
e Plan •••••••••••••
d
d L 23
.................
scap
an
Propose
Proposed Vesting Tentative Map .............................................. 20
.........................................
lumes
V
ffi
T 40
...................
o
c
ra
Existing 41
........................................
ibution
t
Di
i
.....................
r
s
p
Project Tr
...........................................
mes
l
V
i
T .42
......................
u
o
r
p
Project
Existing Conditions From Tassajara Road ............................... .84
Existing Conditions From Tassaj ara Rd. / Silvera Ranch ....... .85
Simulation From Tassajara Road .............................................. .86
Simulation From Tassaj ara Rd. / Silvera Ranch Rd . ................ .87
~
~
~
J ~" ~~' 7S~
Exhibit 5.1-1.
Exhibit 5.1-2a
Exhibit 5.1-2b
Exhibit 5.2-1.
Exhibit 5.2-2a
Exhibit 5.2-2b
Alternative 2 ..............................................................................134
Simulation From Silvera Ranch Road .....................................135
Simulation from Tasssajara Road ............................................136
Alternative 3 ..............................................................................137
Simulation from Tassajara Rd/Silvera Rd ..............................138
Simulation from Tassajara Road ..............................................199
~ ~ .
Section 1.0: Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Mitiaations
Impact Topic/ Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
1.0 SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
Table 1.1 below summarizes the environmental impacts and mitigations which are discussed in detail in the
remainder of this Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Supp.
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
WATER- Water c~uality. The quality of stormwater SM-WATER-1. Project Developer(s) Less-than-Significant
1 runoff from the Project Site would be shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution
expected to decline resulting from an Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that
increase in the production of non-point incorporates Best Management Practices
source urban pollutants. Such contaminants (BMPs) for construction and post-
include debris, landscaping fertilizers and construction conditions. The SWPPP
pesticides, heavy metals, oil and gas shall be prepared to Regional Water
residues, tire fragments and debris normally Quality Control Board standards and
deposited by vehicular traffic. Stormwater Alameda County Clean Water Program
runoff from developed areas on the Site requirements. The SWPPP shall be
would carry non-point source pollutants into prepared prior to issuance of a
surface waters within the drainage channels, demolition permit by the City of Dublin
where they would cause a cumulative to avoid spill over of material into
degradation of water quality in San Tassajara Creek and other bodies of
Francisco Bay. water during demolition. The BMPs
may include, but not limited to,
incorporation of grassy swales into
landscaped areas, use of filtration
devices and similar features.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
Page I-1
January 2009
~
~4
~
~
~
Section 1.0: Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Mitigations
Impact Topic/ Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
WATER- Increased stormwater runoff. Development SM-WATER-2. Project Developer(s) Less-than-Significant
2 of the Project would introduce new shall prepare a drainage and hydrology
impervious surfaces (primarily buildings, plan using Regional Water Quality
driveways, roads and hardscape elements) Control Board, Zone 7 and City
onto the now vacant portions of the Site, drainage criteria which shall indicate
increasing the amount , direction and rate of that adequate on and off-site capacity
stormwater runoff. Stormwater increases exists in local and regional drainage
could exceed the capacity of local and facilities to accommodate the direction,
regional drainage systems to accommodate rate and amount of increased
such increases stormwater runoff. If necessary,
developer(s) shall upgrade undersized
drainage facilities to ensure that: a) no
on-Site flooding would occur and b)
downstream drainage facilities are not
overburdened by Project drainage. The
drainage and hydrology plan shall be
approved by the Dublin Public Works
Department and all recommendations
for drainage improvements shall be
incorporated into Project improvement
plans.
BIO-1 Impacts to special-status lant s ep cies• SM-BIO-1. Pre-construction surveys Less-than-Significant
Development of the proposed Project has the shall be completed for the four special-
potential to impact four special-status plant status plant species: big scale
~ species: big scale balsamroot, big tarplant, balsamroot, big tarplant, Congdon's
Congdon's tarplant, and showy madia. tarplant, and showy madia consistent
with CDFG protocols. If such species are
found, the Pro~ect develo ment lan
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
Page I-2
January 2009
vl
-,i~
`.~'.,~?
~
~
~, ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ . ~ ,_ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~
Section 1.0: Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Miti ations
Impact Topic/ Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
~ Impact After Mitigation
shall be modified to avoid the locations
of such plant(s). If avoidance is not
feasible, plants shall be transplanted (or
seed collected and relocated) to a
suitable on- or off-site location pursuant
to necessary permits from the California
Department of Fish and Game and/or
other regulatory agencies or other
acceptable method(s) approved by the
City of Dublin, California Department
of Fish and Game and / or other
regulatory agencies.
BIO-2 Impacts to special-status bird s ecies. SM-BIO-2. Pre-consiruction surveys Less-than-Significant
Development of the proposed Project has the shall be completed to prevent impacts to
potential to impact three special-status bird nesting Burrowing Owl, White-tailed
species: Western Burrowing Owl, Kite, and/or Loggerhead Shrike. If
Loggerhead Shrike, and White-tailed Kite. active nests or occupied burrows are
found, setbacks from a burrow / nest site
shall be established by a qualified
biologist and maintained until the
young have fledged. If burrowing owls
are detected outside of the nesting
season they shall be passively relocated
outside of any development area subject
to the authorization of the Department
of Fish and Game.
BIO-3 Impacts on Herita eg Tree. Im Iementation of SM-BIO-3. The final landsca e lan Les-than-Si nificant
~
C~
~
Neilsen ProjecbDraft Supplemental EIR Page I-3 ~
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057 QO
Section 1.0: Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Miti~ations
Impact Topic/ Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
the proposed Project would result in the loss shall show that the existing Heritage
of one Heritage Tree on the Site. Loss of this Tree which is proposed to be removed
tree would remove a significant scenic as a part of the residential development
resource on the Site. shall be replaced with three 36-inch box
size oak trees on the Site.
VIS-1 Impacts to scenic resources and the visual None available Significant and
character of the Site. The proposed Project Unavoidable
would have adverse impacts on scenic vistas
and corridors due to development silhouetted
above ridgelines, minimal preservation of
natural hillside area and limited view
corridors to natural hillside areas.
VIS-2 Light and glare impacts. The proposed SM-VIS-2. Light fixtures installed as Less-than-Significant
Project would increase the amount of light part of the Project shall be equipped
sources on the Site, which would result in with cut-off lenses and directed
spill over of light and associated glare onto downward to avoid spill over of lights
adjacent properties and roadways. onto adjacent properties or roadways.
The design of light fixtures shall be
specified on final building and
improvement plans.
AIR-1 Consistency with Clean Air Plan. If SM-AIR-1. If the requested land use Less-than-Significant
approved, the proposed Project would entitlements are approved, the City of
increase the number of dwellings on the Dublin shall transmit appropriate
Project Site by up to 34 dwellings that are not documentation of land use buildout.
currently included in the BAAQMD Clean In addition, the following steps shall be
Air Plan. taken b the Pro~ect A licant:
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
, l ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~
~
a~
~
~
~
~
Page I-4
January 2009
~ ~ ~ ~
Section 1.0: Summary of Supplementat Environmental Impacts and Mitigations
Impact Topic/ Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
• The project proponent shall
negotiate with LAVTA for the
construction or reservation of land
for transit facilities such as bus
. turnouts / bus bulbs, benches, and
related public transit facilities.
• Provide on site bicycle land and/ or
paths, connected to community-
wide network.
• Provide on site sidewalks and/or
paths, connected to adjacent land
uses, transit stops, and/or
community-wide network.
• Allow only natural gas fireplaces
and heating stoves. No wood
burning devices shall be allowed.
• Require dwellings to have outdoor
electrical outlets to encourage the
use of electric lawn and garden
equipment for landscaping and
maintenance.
• Install ENERGY-STAR appliances.
_ SM"AQ_2. In addition to measures Less-than-Significant
identified in MM 3.11 / 1.0 of the Eastern
Dublin EIR, the City of Dublin shall:
a) Require construction contractors to
water or cover stockpiles of debris,
soil, sand or other materials that ~
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
Page I-5
January 2009
~
~
~
~
OGi
_ Section 1.0: Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Mitigations
Impact Topic/ Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
can be blown by the wind.
b) Require constnxctiori contractors to
sweep daily (preferably with water
sweepers) all paved access road,
parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites.
c) Require construction contractors to
install sandbags or other erosion
control measures to prevent silt
runoff to public roadways.
d) On-site idling of construction
equipment and trucks shall be
minimized as much as feasible (no
more than five minutes maximum).
e) All construction equipment shall be
properly tuned and fitted with
manufacturer's standard level
exhaust controls.
NOISE-1 Exterior and interior noise exposure. Noise SM-NOISE-1. The following features Less-than-Significant
levels adjacent to the Project Site along shall be incorporated into final building
Tassajara Road would exceed City exterior plans:
noise exposure levels for the rear yards of a) For Lots 1 through 3, a minimum 6-
proposed Lots 1 through 3 and for any foot-tall property line noise barrier
balconies and upper floor windows facing shall be installed to acoustically
Tassajara Road. Interior noise levels within shield future Tassajara Road traffic
upper floors for dwellings facing Tassajara noise. Noise barriers could include
Road could also exceed City and State either a masonry sound wall or an
re uirements. acoustical wood fence.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
~ , ~
~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . _~ ~ ~ ~
Page I-6
January 2009
~ r
~
W
~
~
~
~
Section 1.0: Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Mitigations
Impact Topic/ Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
b) For any upper floor balconies for
homes constructed on Lots 1
through 9 that would face west, 3-
1/2-foot-tall, solid railing shall be
installed to acoustically shield
Tassajara Road noise to seated
receivers.
c) Upper floor windows facing
Tassajara Road shall be sound-rated
and non-operable to ensure that
interior noise standards are met.
HAZ-1
Asbestos and lead based paint.
Demolition of existing buildings and
related improvements could result in
potentially significant impacts due to
release of asbestos and lead based paint
into the atmosphere. There could also be a
release of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), which are listed as a pollutant of
concern on the City's Regional Permit for
Stormwater.
SM-HAZ-1. The following actions shall
be taken before issuance of the first
demolition permit, if multiple permits
are issued by the City:
a) Asbestos containing material shall
be tested for, and if found,
removed by a licensed contractor
and disposed of in a landfill
licensed to accept this level of
contaminated material. If required,
a permit shall be obtained from the
Bay Area Air Quality Management
District prior to commencement of
work.
b) Testing and analysis for lead based
paints and PCBs shall be
conducted. If such materials are
Less-than-Significant
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
Page I-7
January 2009
n
-,L`-
~
~
~
Section 1.0: Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Mitigations
Impact Topic/ Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
found, remediation shall be
completed by a licensed
contractor. Necessary permits shall
be obtained prior to
commencement of work.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
~ ~
~ 3 = ,~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " #
Page I-8
January 2009
~ ~ ~J ~ ~ ~
~
V`1
~
~
~'
~
l~ 6 ~5g
1.0 Project Summary
1.1 Introduction
This chapter consists of a summary of the proposed Project, a list of environmental
issues to be resolved and a summary identification of each environmental impact and
associated mitigation measures.
A discussion of the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and implementing Guidelines to the proposed Project is outlined in Chapter 2. Chapter
3 contains a detailed discussion of the proposed Project. Chapter 4 includes a thorough
analysis of supplemental Project impacts and mitigation measures. Chapter 5 provides a
range of alternatives to the proposed Project as required by CEQA and a discussion of
each alternative. Chapter 6 contains all other CEQA-mandated sections. Finally,
Chapter 7 includes the names of the DEIR preparers, individuals and agencies
contacted in the preparation of this document and references. Appendices are included
as Chapter 8.
' 1.2 Summary of Project Description
The Project Site is located in the Eastern Dublin Planning area, more specifically, on the
east side of Tassajara Road north of Quarry Lane School (a kindergarten through 12t"
grade private school) and south of the Silvera Ranch property (developed with a
residential housing development), approximately 1.5 miles north of the I-580 freeway.
, The property address is 6407 Tassajara Road and the Alameda County Assessor's Parcel
Number (APN) is 985-0002-009-02.
The westerly portion of the Site is used for cattle grazing and seasonal Christmas tree
sales. One residential dwelling, an agricultural mobile home, horse arena and associated
outbuildings have been built on the Site.
Access to the Site is provided by Silvera Ranch Road via Tassajara Road, immediately
west of the Site. In turn, Tassajara Road is linked to Interstate 580 via an existing
interchange thus providing regional connections.
The Project includes the creation of thirty-four (34) lots on the Site. Proposed lots have
t been arranged on two cul-de-sac streets. Lots would either be located on flatter portions
of the Site or would contain split-level dwellings to minimize the amount of grading.
Each of the proposed lots would accommodate a single-family dwelling and a garage.
Proposed Lots 15 and 20 could each accommodate a duplex dwelling (for the provision
of affordable housing only), so the number of dwellings could be thirty-six (36). If the
proposed Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) located in the southwest corner of the Site is
not needed or relocated, Lot 34 could be developed with a house in the future.
Steeper portions of the Project Site, in the northeast corner of the Site, would remain as
non-buildable open space. A landscaped setback would also be provided along
~ Tassaj ara Road.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 1
~ City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
l~7 ~7~~
~
Existing wireless telecommunication facilities (cell towers) on the Site are proposed to
remain, or could be relocated on the Site or eliminated.
Access to the Project Site would be provided by expanding the existing driveway off of
Silvera Ranch Drive to the north. Silvera Ranch Drive in turn intersects with Tassajara
Road at a signalized intersection.
Requested land use entitlements that would allow the proposed Project to proceed
include:
• A General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, to modify
the land use designation from Rural Residential / Agriculture to Single
Family Residential and to reduce the width of on-site streets.
~ A Stage 1 PD Rezone Amendment & Stage 2 PD Rezoning from PD-
IZR/A to PD-SFR to allow construction of up to 36 dwellings on the Site.
A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the Site.
1.3 Summary of Environmental Issues
Based on the environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study for this Project (see
Appendix 8.1) and responses (see DSEIR Appendices 8.2 and 8.3) to the Notice of
Preparation issued by the City of Dublin, the following topics are addressed in the
DEIR.
• Land Use
~ Population and Housing
• Traffic and Circulation
• Water Supply & Storm Drainage and Water Quality
• Soils, Geology & Seismicity
• Biological Resources
• Visual Resources
• Air Quality
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Noise
~ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1.4 Summary of Irnpacts and Mitigation Measures
Each potentially significant impact and associated mitigation measure (if required)
identified in this DSEIR is summarized in Table 1.1. The summary chart has been
organized to correspond with the more detailed impact and mitigation measure
discussion found in Chapter 4. Table 1.1 is arranged in three columns. The first column
identifies environmental impacts by topic area and level of impact (i.e. significant
impact, less-than-significant impact or no impact) prior to implementation of any
mitigation measures. The second column includes mitigation measures. This summary
only includes new mitigation measures under this DSEIR. It does not include references
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 2
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~
~.;
i~~ ~~~
to the mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project under the
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan (SCH # 91103064). These mitigation measures will be incorporated into the
Project approvals.
This chapter is a summary of the following DSEIR, consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Sec. 15123. For a complete description of the environmental setting, impacts associated
with this proposed Project and mitigation measures, refer to Chapter 4 of this DSEIR.
1.5 Summary of Alternatives
The DSEIR analyzes three alternatives to the proposed Project, in addition to the
alternatives analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the entire Eastern Dublin planning
area.
• Alternative 1: "No Project," which assumes that the Site remains in its current
condition with one single family dwelling, one agricultural mobile home and
associated accessory structures.
• Alternative 2: Clustered Development. The second alternative assumes
retention of the existing main house and construction of 5 single-family
dwellings and 32 three-story townhouses.
Alternative 3: Reduced Development. The third alternative includes
retention of the existing dwellings on the upper portion of the Site and
construction of 12 single-family dwellings on the east side of Tassajara Road.
Access would include use of the current driveway to the two existing
dwellings and construction of a cul-de-sac street paralleling Tassajara Road
to serve the proposed single-family dwellings.
These alternatives are detailed and analyzed in Chapter 5 of the DSEIR.
1.6 Areas of Known Controversy
The Project site consists of constructing a housing Project within an existing Specific
Plan area. There are no known areas of controversy with respect to environmental
issues.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 3
~ City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
/~ ~ -'~~ , .
~
Table 1.1-Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 4
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
I~o ~ 7~~
2.0 Introduction
2.1 EIR Requirement
This Environmental Impact Report supplements an Environmental Impact Report
prepared to address the impacts of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan.
The Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan ("Eastern Dublin EIR") was adopted by the City of Dublin on May 10, 1993
by Resolution No. 53-93 and included approximately 6,920 acres of land for the General
Plan Amendment (GPA) and 3,328 acres of land for the Specific Plan within the GPA
area. The property considered in this document includes properties generally bounded
by the I-580 freeway to the south, the Alameda County/Contra Costa County line to the
north, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks IZFTA) to the west and the ridgeline
betcveen Collier and Doolan Canyon to the east. This Environmental Impact Report is
hereafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The State Clearinghouse Number (SCH)
for this EIR is 91103064.
This proposed Project includes consideration of amendments to the Dublin General
Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and an amendment to the current Planned
Development zoning that would facilitate development of a single family subdivision
on a 10.9 gross acre parcel of land located on the east side of Tassajara Road north of
Quarry Lane School.
w Consistent with the City's practice for projects in Eastern Dublin, the City recently
prepared an Initial Study to determine if the proposed Project for the property would
require additional environmental review beyond that analyzed in the previous EIR. The
Initial Study is found in Appendix 8.1 of this DSEIR. The Initial Study disclosed that
many anticipated impacts of the proposed actions have been adequately addressed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. This is consistent with the comprehensive environmental
analysis undertaken as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR with a 20-30 year build-out
horizon. Although the Initial Study concluded that the previous EIR adequately
analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project, it also
identified the potential for a number of new significant impacts or potentially
intensified impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City of
Dublin has determined that the potential for new and/or substantially intensified
impacts required review at an EIR level and concluded that a Supplemental EIR should
be prepared.
, Consequently, as required by CEQA, the City prepared and circulated a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) to interested public and private parties. A copy of the NOP is
included as Appendix 8.2 and responses to the NOP are included in Appendix 8.3.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 5
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~ ~i~ -~~ ~
~
2.2 5cope of Supplemental EIR
Once an EIR is certified for a project, CEQA prohibits Lead Agencies from preparing a
supplemental or subsequent EIR except under specific circumstances. According to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, additional EIR-level review may be required only
when substantial changes to a project would cause new or substantially increased
significant effects, or when substantial changes in circumstances would result in new or
substantially increased significant effects, or when substantial new information shows a
project would cause new or substantially increased significant effects, or when it is
shown that previously infeasible mitigation measures would now be feasible but the
project proponent declines to adopt them. As described in the Initial Study, the
proposed Project includes changes to the land use designation and density for the
property that may result in potentially new or substantially increased impacts from
those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore, this supplemental EIR analyzes
those potential impacts.
This DSEIR describes the degree to which the Project's potential impacts to these
environmental categories were adequately addressed in the previously certified Eastern
Dublin EIR. It further describes the type and extent of potential significant impacts
beyond those analyzed in the previous Eastern Dublin EIR. Where supplemental
significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the
impacts to a less-than-significant level.
CEQA requires that an EIR identify a reasonable range of alternatives, which was done
in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the Specific Plan area. One of these alternatives was
adopted in modified form in the 1993 approvals. To address the potential for new
and/or substantially intensified significant impacts, this revised DSEIR identifies
additional alternatives for the Project area that could avoid or potentially lessen
identified impacts.
This DSEIR is based on the Project applications and available level of detail, including
technical studies to amend both the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, to amend the current Planned Development zoning on the site and to approve a
Development Agreement. If these entitlements are approved, the Applicant would be
allowed to subdivide the Site and construct up to 36 dwellings. The Eastern Dublin EIR
and this Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR) together identify and assess the potentially
significant impacts of the proposed actions associated with this Project.
The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR is available for review at the City of Dublin Community
Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568 during normal business
hours.
2.3 Legal Basis for Supplemental EIR
Based on the previous EIR analysis and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, the
City has determined that a Supplemental EIR should be prepared for this Project rather
than a Subsequent EIR. Subsequent and Supplemental EIRs are both similar in
procedural and substantive respects. Both types of EIRs build on a previously certified
EIR. Both types of EIRs analyze potentially significant changes to a project and/or
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 6
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
l 7°~ ~ ~~~
environmental circumstances when those changes would result in a new significant
impact or would substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts.
Both types of EIRs are circulated by themselves, without the previously certified EIR.
With the above similarities, the choice between a Subsequent and Supplemental EIR is a
matter of the degree of additions or modifications to the previous EIR needed to
analyze the new or substantially increased significant impacts. Neither is a"new" EIR;
both types of EIRs analyze the substantial changes from the previous analysis. Based on
the Initial Study prepared for the Project, the City has determined that a Supplemental
EIR is appropriate for the following reasons:
1. The overall type and urban character of land uses within the Project area are
consistent with the type of approved urban land uses generally as shown in the
Eastern Dublin General Plan in the adjacent area.
2. Proposed additions or modifications needed to update the previous EIR to reflect
the scope of this Project do not require a full re-analysis of a particular impact.
3. The proposed Project includes undertaking actions identified in the previously
certified EIR as implementing actions.
For the above reasons, the City has determined that the current Project does not raise
new policy issues as to the general type, location, direction or extent of growth as
addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Further, the range of potential impacts identified
in the Initial Study (see Appendix 8.1) is the same range as previously analyzed in
previous EIR. Finally, the nature of the potential changes identified in the Project Initial
Study generally requires updating or refinement of the previous EIR analysis, rather
than a full re-analysis. Irrespective of the label, and consistent with both Subsequent
and Supplemental EIR provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, the
City will not approve the Project without first certifying an EIR which comprehensively
~ addresses the potential for significant environmental impacts of the current Project
~ beyond those addressed in the previous EIR.
~' 2.4 Organization of Draft Supplemental EIR
The Draft Supplemental EIR ("DSEIR") supplements the Program EIR and Addenda
certified by the City of Dublin for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan (SCH #911003064, "Eastern Dublin EIR, or "EDEIR," incorporated herein
by reference) also incorporated by reference.
This document is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1: Summary of impacts and rnitigation measures. This is presented in
tabular form.
~ Chapter 2: Introduction. Chapter 2 describes the organization of the DSEIR.
• Chapter 3: Project Description. This chapter describes the proposed Project,
Project location and setting. Project Objectives are also described as well as future
~ approvals required to implement the proposed Project.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 7
~ City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
"13 ~5g ~`
~
~
• Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Chapter 4
includes the impact and mitigation analysis for the Project. Each environmental
topic includes existing conditions (the setting); potential supplemental
environmental impacts and their level of significance; and mitigation measures
recommended to reduce identified significant impacts.
~ Chapter 5: Alternatives. This chapter addresses alternatives to the proposed
Project and a discussion of an environmentally superior alternative.
• Chapter 6: Required CEQA Discussions: Chapter 6 includes additional
discussion as required by CEQA.
• Chapter 7: Report Authors and References. Chapter 7lists the authors of the EIR
and organizations and persons consulted as part of the environmental analysis as
well as references used in the preparation of this DSEIR.
~ Chapter 8: Appendices. Contained in the Appendices are the Initial Study,
Notice of Preparation (NOP), responses to the NOP, Resolution No. 53-93
approving the Eastern Dublin Project, including mitigation findings, overriding
considerations and mitigation monitoring program; and copies of the
supplemental air quality analysis, biological analysis, noise analysis and traffic
analysis.
2.5 DSEIR Review Process
The DSEIR will be circulated for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA.
Written responses will be prepared to all relevant comments on environmental issues
received during the 45-day public review period. Public comments and responses will
be compiled in a Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR), which will be available for public
review at least 10 days prior to certification of the SEIR by the City of Dublin. After
certification of the SEIR, the City will consider the requested Project approvals and
make appropriate findings based on the certified SEIR.
2.6 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting
The City of Dublin has completed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed
Project and has circulated the NOP to the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
State Clearinghouse, all responsible and trustee agencies, other public agencies and
interested citizens as required by CEQA. A scoping meeting for the proposed DSEIR
was conducted on June 18, 2008..
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 8
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~,
I 7y ~' ~.~~
3.0 Project Description
3.1 Project Location. The Project Site is located in the Eastern Dublin Planning
area, more specifically, on the east side of Tassajara Road north of Quarry Lane
School and south of the Silvera Ranch property, approximately 1.5 miles north of
the I-580 freeway. The property address is 6407 Tassajara Road and the Alameda
County Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is 985-0002-009-02.
The westerly portion of the Site is used for cattle grazing and seasonal Christmas tree
sales. One single-family dwelling, one agricultural mobile home, horse arena and
associated outbuildings have been built on the Site.
Exhibit 3.1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin and Exhibit 3.2 shows the location of
the Project area in context of the City of Dublin. Exhibit 3.3 is an aerial photo of the Site
showing on-site uses and nearby features, including Tassajara Road.
3.2 Project Site Features
Existing land uses. The Site, which was annexed to the City of Dublin in 2003, consists of
approximately 10.9 gross acres of land containing one single-family dwelling, one
agricultural mobile home, detached garages, a horse arena, an agricultural out building
and wireless communication facilities and related equipment enclosures. The Site
typically exhibits moderate to steep topography with the northeast corner of the site
rising to a height of approximately 570 feet above mean sea level. A flat area exists in
the northwest corner. A flat pad has been graded at an elevation of approximately 444
feet above sea level in the north-central portion section of the Site for a horse arena.. [is
this the correct location or are you talking about the flat area at the entry/Tassajara
Road. If the entry, we believe this is flat valley bottom] The main dwelling is located in
the south central portion of the Site and is located on a flat graded pad with an
estimated elevation of 558 feet above sea level. An agricultural mobile home and horse
arena are located in the northerly portion of the Site.
The Site also contains two wireless communication facilities. One monopole-type tower
is located on the southeastern corner of the site and a second facility (designed to
,~ appear to be several low shrubs) is located on the southwestern corner of the Site.
Access to the Nielsen Property is gained via a driveway off of Silvera Ranch Road to the
,,~ north of the Site. An unimproved private roadway then provides on-site access to the
flat Christmas tree lot and arena and the dwellings.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 9
~<{ City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
- 75 ~ ~~
Adjacent land uses. Existing land uses adjacent to the Project area include recently
constructed single and multi-family dwellings to the north on the Silvera Ranch
property; vacant land to the east within Dublin Ranch, Quarry Lane School; a private
education facility to the south; and vacant land to the west, part of the approved but not
yet constructed Dublin Ranch West (Wallis Ranch) property.
3.3 Prior Planning Approvals
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment. In 1993, the City Council approved the Eastern "`~'
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (hereafter, "Eastern Dublin
project"). The approved project was a modified version of the original General Plan
Amendment (hereafter, "GPA") for a 6,920-acre planning area generally known as `~
Eastern Dublin. The original GPA proposed to change commercial land use
designations on County property in the southwest portion of the GPA area and
agriculture/open space designations elsewhere in the planning area to a range of urban '""
uses, as shown on Figure 2-E of the Eastern Dublin Draft EIR. Within the nearly 7,000 ~_
acre planning area, a new Eastern Dublin Specific Plan proposed land use policy at a
greater level of detail in order to "bridge" general plan policy and individual ~
development projects. Intended for both policy and regulatory use, the Specific Plan ~.
addressed 3,328 acres, supplementing the GPA with more detailed land use
designations, policies, programs and regulations. (Eastern Dublin Draft EIR, hereafter, +~
"Eastern Dublin EIR.")
The GPA planning area was located east of the City of Dublin as it existed in 1993. The
planning area is characterized by a relatively flat plain along I-580, which gives way to
rolling foothills and increasingly steep slopes to the northeast. Apart from facilities on
County property in the southwest portion of the planning area (former Santa Rita
Rehabilitation Center, U.S. Naval Hospital), the Eastern Dublin project area consisted
primarily of open grasslands used for grazing and dry farming, and scattered
residences. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-3.)
The original GPA land use plan proposed to replace the undeveloped planning area
with a mixed-use urban community. The project concept is set forth in the following
excerpt from the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Residential and employment-generating uses will be balanced to enable residents
to live near work. Employment-generating uses include retail, service, office,
governmental, research and development ("R and D"), and light industrial.
Residential designations range from Rural Residential to High Density multi-
family. Higher density housing has been located near the future BART station
and along a key transit corridor. Higher densities have also been located close to
commercial centers where the concentration of population will contribute to that
center's social and economic vitality.
The project provides a full complement of regional office and retail land uses
located near freeway interchanges, local-serving commercial centers are
envisioned as pedestrian- and transit-oriented mixed-use concentrations which
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 10
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~'7~ -~~8f
~
include retail, service, office, and residential uses, and are carefully integrated
with surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Open space is a major component of the project's land use plan, giving form and
character to the urban development pattern. The open space concept envisions a
community ringed by undeveloped ridgelines. Urban and open space areas will
be linked by an open space network structured along enhanced stream corridors.
The circulation concept calls for an integrated, multi-modal system that reduces
potential traffic impacts by providing area residents with choices for a preferred
mode of transportation. (DEIR pp. 2-4, Eastern Dublin Responses to Comments,
hereafter, "FEIR" p. 66.)
At build-out, the GPA planning area was projected to provide 17,970 new residences,
including 2,672 acres designated for Rural Residential with a 100-acre minimum parcel
size. Approximately 10.6 million square feet of new commercial space, 25 parks on 287
acres, 571 acres of designated open space, and 12 new schools were also planned, all on
6,920 acres of land. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-7.) Build-out was expected to occur over a
20 - 30 year period from the start of construction. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-6, Eastern
Dublin Final EIR p. 8.) The major policies of the GPA are summarized on pages 2-9 -10
of the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan addresses 3,301 acres in
the western portion of the GPA planning area. Seventy percent of the GPA residential
development and 94% of the new commercial space was planned for in the Specific Plan
area. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-8.) The land use plan calls for compact villages with
residential and neighborhood serving uses. Employment-generating commercial uses
are provided along arterials with transit access. (Id.) The major policies of the Specific
Plan are set forth on pages 2-10 to 2-14 of the Eastern Dublin EIR.
The EDSP designates the Project Site as Rural Residential/Agricultural, which allows
one single-family residential unit, agricultural and grazing uses and ancillary uses on
minimum 100-acre lots.
Eastern Dublin EIR. The City of Dublin prepared a Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin
project based on the origina16,920-acre GPA planning area and land use designations,
and 3,301 acre Specific Plan area, both as described above. (SCH # 91103064.) The EIR
also identifies a third component of Project Implementation. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-
4.) This component includes "procedural steps ... to be undertaken for full
implementation of the [GPA and Specific Plan] Project." This included Alameda County
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) determinations on annexation to the
City of Dublin and other similar actions. One of these actions includes resolution of
school district boundaries between the Dublin Unified School District and the
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District boundary.
~
The City initiated the Eastern Dublin project in 1988 after several separate development
projects were proposed for the area. The goal of the project was to provide
'" comprehensive planning~for development types, locations and patterns in Eastern
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 11
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~ ~ 7 ~7~~- ~A
~
Dublin, which would be implemented through future individual development projects.
As noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR statement of project objectives, one of the objectives
of the project was to preserve visually-sensitive and biologically-sensitive habitat areas,
encourage development patterns that support transit on local and regional levels, and
maintain balanced employment and housing opportunities to reduce traffic congestion
and air pollution. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-5.)
The EIR analyzes the potential environmental effects of adopting and implementing the
GPA and Specific Plan project. The EIR also analyzes the cumulative effects of the
Eastern Dublin project, that is, the project "within the context of regional development."
(DEIR p. 5.0-1.) As required by CEQA, the Eastern Dublin EIR includes a list of ongoing
and future development projects that, together with the Eastern Dublin project, might
"compound subregional (i.e. Tri-Valley) environmental problems." (Id.) Reflecting a
surge of development interest at the time, the cumulative projects in Dublin alone
included 924 units, plus another 3,133 units on 3,140 acres in Western Dublin, and the
potential intensification of uses at Parks RFTA. The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan
projected 11,000 units; while the City of Livermore was considering the North
Livermore General Plan Amendment with a build-out potential between 3,713 and
16,513 units. The various cumulative projects also proposed several million square feet
of non-residential development. The list of cumulative projects from the Eastern Dublin
EIR is shown on Figure 5-A of that DEIR. Virtually all of the potential new development
areas in the list of cumulative projects was undeveloped land, primarily in agriculture
and/or open space uses, as evidenced by the aerial photographs which form the base
maps for Figures 2-B and 2-C of the Eastern Dublin DEIR.
As would be expected for a major general plan level project during a time of major
development activity, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified many potential significant
impacts on both a project (GPA and Specific Plan) level and a cumulative (regional)
level. Mitigation measures were proposed and adopted for most of the significant
impacts to reduce them to less than significant. The City of Dublin would implement
some of the mitigation measures directly; examples include but are not limited to
adopting a stream corridor restoration program, designating substantial areas within
the project area as Open Space or Rural Residential where low density development
will also provide foraging habitat, and continuing to participate in regional studies of
future transportation requirements, improvements and funding. Other mitigations
would be implemented through conditions or development standards for future
development projects; examples include but are not limited to proportionate-share
contributions to roadway improvements and transit service extensions. Many of the
mitigation measures also included policies and action programs identified in the
Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan documents.
Even with mitigation, however, some of the identified significant impacts could not be
reduced to a less than significant level. Several of these impacts were cumulative level
impacts, such as loss of agriculture and open space, I-580 and other regional traffic
impacts, and air quality impacts. As required by CEQA, the Draft EIR identified project
alternatives, including No Project and No Development alternatives, a Reduced Land
Use Intensities alternative, and a Reduced Planning Area alternative, and analyzed
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 12
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~.~.
~.,
~
17~ 75 ~
~
whether the alternatives would avoid any of the otherwise unavoidable impacts. As
further discussed below, the City Council adopted a modified version of the Reduced
Planning Area alternative after certifying the EIR as adequate and in compliance with
CEQA on May 10, 1993. (Resolution 51-93.) The City Council also certified an
Addendum dated May 4, 1993 which assessed the modifications to the Reduced
Planning Area alternative and concluded that this alternative "will have no
environmental impacts not addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan." (May 4, 1993 Addendum,
p. 1.) The Addendum further concluded that no subsequent or supplemental EIR was
required under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or 15163 for approval of the modified
alternative.
A second Addendum was later prepared. Dated August 22, 1994, the second
Addendum updated plans for providing sewer services to Eastern Dublin. The May 10,
1993 certified EIR, the May 4, 1993 Addendum and the August 22, 1994 Addendum are
collectively referred to hereafter as the Eastern Dublin EIR, or the "EDEIR" and are
incorporated herein by reference.
Appendix 8.4 includes Dublin City Council Resolution No. 53-93, certifying the Eastern
Dublin EIR and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Eastern Dublin project approval. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan planning process spanned some five years beginning in 1988. The City
identified a preferred alternative in 1991 and prepared a draft GPA for the 6,920-acre
planning area and a Specific Plan for 3,228 acres in 1992. A Draft EIR was prepared and
circulated for public review in August of 1992. After numerous Planning Commission
and City Council hearings, the City Council declined to approve the origina16,920-acre
GPA. Instead, the City Council approved a modified version of the Eastern Dublin
EIR's Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area. (Resolution 53-93, see Appendix 8.4 of this
DSEIR.)
Alternative 2 reduced the GPA area by 2,744 acres, a nearly 40% reduction in project
area. More specifically, Alternative 2 provided for build-out of the Specific Plan area,
build-out of the GPA area only within the Dublin Sphere of Influence, but no
~ annexation and no GPA for poolan Canyon. (DEIR p. 4-9.) Intended as a"midpoint"
between development and environmental concerns:
~ Doolan Canyon would not develop and its current agricultural land uses and
rural character would be maintained. The importance of this area's function as a
"green" community separator between Dublin, Livermore and the Tassajara
° Valley would increase as development occurred in eastern Dublin, and North
Livermore, and lands east of San Ramon. (Id.)
'~ Following certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the modified Reduced
Planning Area alternative, a lawsuit was filed challenging the validity of the EIR. The
Court upheld the EIR, finding it in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
~ The City has since implemented the mitigation monitoring program adopted by the
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 13
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
1 ~1 --~~5 8- ~.
~ ~
Council (Resolutions No. 53-93 and 123-96), as interpreted by the Court's Memorandum
of Decision. Copies of the resolution and the Court's Memorandum of Decision may be
obtained from the City Clerk.
3.4 Project Applications
Overview. An application has been filed with the City of Dublin to create thirty-four
(34) lots on the Site. Exhibit 3.4 shows the proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 PD-
Development Plan for the Site. Proposed lots have been arranged on two cul-de-sac
streets. Lots would either be located on flatter portions of the Site or would contain
split-level dwellings to minimize the amount of grading. Each of the proposed lots
would accommodate a single-family dwelling and a garage. Proposed Lots 15 and 20
could each accommodate a duplex dwelling (for the provision of affordable housing
only), so the number of dwellings could be thirty-six (36). If the proposed Emergency
Vehicle Access (EVA) located in the southwest corner of the Site is not needed or
relocated. Lot 341ot could be developed with a single family dwelling.
Project characteristics. The Applicant proposes to construct up to 36 single family
detached and duplex dwellings on the Project Site. The proposed Stage 2 PD-
Development Plan is shown on Exhibit 3.4. The proposed lots would be arranged on
two cul-de-sac streets (Streets "A" and "B"), with the minimum lot size being 5,000
square feet, excluding lots with duplex units.
Many of the proposed lots would accommodate dwellings with up-split or down-split
foundations to assist in minimizing the amount of grading, although a few of the lots
could be designed to have a flatter (less steep) grade.
Steeper portions of the Project Site, in the northeast corner of the Site, would remain as
non-buildable open space. A landscaped setback would also be provided along
Tassajara Road.
Existing wireless telecommunication facilities (cell towers) on the Site are proposed to
remain, or could be relocated on the site or eliminated.
Access and circulation. Access to the Project Site would be provided by expanding the
existing driveway off of Silvera Ranch Drive located to the north. Silvera Ranch Drive in
turn intersects with Tassajara Road at a signalized intersection. This access is shown on
Exhibit 3.4. The requested amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan include reducing the right-of-way widths of streets from 46 feet to 45 feet (34 feet
for single loaded streets) and the curb-to-curb width from 32 feet to 29 feet for single
loaded streets. The request also includes reducing the right-of-way radii for cul-de-sac
bulbs from 46 feet to 44.5 feet.
As part of the proposed subdivision map, the Applicant will be required to dedicate
additional property along the westerly side of the site for the widening of Tassajara
Road to an ultimate of six (6) travel lanes, three lanes northbound and three lanes
southbound, plus sidewalks and parkway landscaping.
~
~
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 14
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~ ~~ -7' S8
~
Sidewalks will be provided at the entry to the development and inside of the residential
development. Sidewalks would be constructed on both sides of the street where there
are houses. For single loaded streets, the sidewalk will be located in front of the
dwellings only. A meandering sidewalk would also be provided along the Project's
Tassajara Road frontage.
A 20-foot wide Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) roadway is proposed from the
southerly terminus of Street A to Tassajara Road for police, fire and other emergency
vehicle access.
Grading and infrastructure. The developer of the Project Site would construct the road
and sidewalk system described above as well as on-site water, wastewater, recycled
water, and storm drainage facilities required to support proposed future development.
Grading of the Site would also occur.
Grading activities would consist of grading and recontouring the central and southerly
portions of the Site to accommodate proposed roads and split building pads. The
northwesterly and southeasterly portions of the Site would have minimum grading,
since these sites currently have moderate to flat slopes. The northeasterly portion of the
Site, which has steep slopes, would not be graded and would remain in nonbuildable
open space. A number of retaining walls, ranging in size from approximately 2 to 6 feet
in height, would be needed to allow the proposed development Project to be
constructed.
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would provide domestic and recycled
water to the site as well as wastewater treatment and disposal services. These services
are planned in accordance with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan, as
revised. DSRSD has constructed and currently maintains potable water lines within the
right-of-way of Tassajara Road and, should the Project be approved, laterals would be
constructed between the Project Site and these existing water lines.
The Project Developer will also be required to pay facility fees to DSRSD to assist in
funding upgraded water facilities in this portion of Eastern Dublin.
Wastewater service would require the Project developer to install on-site local
underground sewer lines to transport wastewater to existing sewer lines in Tassajara
"' Road where it is conveyed on to DSIZSD's regional treatment plant. Sewer lines are all
proposed to be gravity flow.
Recycled water would be provided to the Project Site from Tassajara Road for use in
irrigation of common open space areas and other areas. This would reduce the need for
potable water for the proposed Project. A recycled water line main exists south of the
site within the Tassajara Road right-of-way. The DSRSD Master Plan includes a
provision to extend this line north to the intersection, adjacent to the Project frontage, to
the intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. On-site recycled water lines would
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 15
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~~ ~
~ ~~g
be installed as part of Project construction and would be connected to the recycled
water main once it is extended to the north.
Storm drainage would be accommodated by local facilities, which consist of smaller
pipes connecting individual sites to the City's collector system in Tassajara Road. The
Project Site lies within the boundary of Zone 7, the agency that maintains regional
drainage facilities in the Tri-Valley area and stormwater would ultimately be
transported in Zone 7 regional facilities to the south for ultimate disposal into San
Francisco Bay.
In terms of water quality protection, the proposed Project will be subject to Best
Management Practices to support water quality standards as enforced by the City of
Dublin. The Applicant has proposed the installation and use of a bio-retention cell or
other water quality features to be located in the northwest corner of the Site or
potentially combined with facilities on adjacent parcels. The ultimate size and design of
this facility will be determined in conjunction with the City of Dublin.
Landscaping. A preliminary landscaping plan has been prepared for common
ownership portions of the Project Site. Proposed landscaping is shown on Exhibit 3.5
and would include a mix of canopy and accent trees along the Tassajara Road frontage
and along interior Project streets. A combination of shrubs and other landscape material
would be planted along Tassajara Road. Open spaces would be planted with a
combination of grasses and wildflowers.
Tentative Subdivision Map. The Applicant proposes to subdivide the 10.9-acre
Site into 34 smaller lots for the purpose of constructing dwellings on each of
these lots. A number of other lots would also be subdivided for open space,
water quality improvement and emergency vehicle access purposes. The
proposed Tentative Subdivision Map is shown on Exhibit 3.6.
Inclusionary Housing Requirement. Dubliri s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68)
requires that 12.5 percent of the number of dwelling units in each development Project
be reserved for occupancy by very-low, low and moderate-income households. This
requirement can be met by construction of the specified number of dwellings, payment
of in-lieu fees to the City for up to 5% of the requirement, dedicating land for
construction of future housing projects, rehabilitating existing qualifying units, or any
combination thereof; or by alternative methods approved by the City Council. Prior to
final approval of the requested land use entitlements, the Applicant and City of Dublin
will determine specific methods by which the proposed Project would comply with City
requirements.
Phasing. Phasing for the proposed Project is unknown and would be subject to market ~
and economic conditions. Pursuant to the Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Plan, Project
construction will be accomplished in one phase that would include mass and final
grading of the Site and installation of Project infrastructure. _
Requested land use entitlements. The following land use entitl~ements have been
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 16
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~
i~ 7~
~~
requested to allow implementation of the proposed Project:
• General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, to modify the land
use designation from Rural Residential/Agriculture to Single Family Residential
and to reduce the width of on-site streets.
• Stage 1 PD Rezoning Amendment & Stage 2 PD Rezoning from PD-RR/A to PD-
SFR to allow construction of up to 36 dwellings on the Site.
~ A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to divide the Site into smaller building and
open space lots.
3.5 Project Objectives
The objectives of the Eastern Dublin project are set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
(DEIR p. 2-5.) All of the identified objectives are objectives of the current Project as it
implements the comprehensive land use plan adopted in 1993. Additional objectives of
the Project include.
a) Implement the City's objectives for Eastern Dublin as set forth in the
General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin EIR;
b) Initiate a zoning level framework to guide future development projects
within the Project area consistent with the General Plan, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and surrounding urban-type land uses;
c) Achieve development of up to 36 dwellings, including single family
detached and attached dwellings, to assist in meeting the City of Dubliri s
quantified housing objectives included in the adopted Housing Element of
the General Plan;
d) Assist in the future development of other properties within this Project
area, consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan;
e) Create an attractive neighborhood that works with the terrain and
' maintains landform through product type and grading while achieving
the development density as prescribed by the proposed General Plan land
use category;
f) Allow for a residential project of sufficient density to provide economies
of scale that allow for high quality design and construction;
g) Allow for the development of a project that achieves the goal of providing
usable rear yards with single-family homes;
h) Create a neighborhood that is compatible with both the residential and
non-residential uses in the immediate vicinity;
i) Allow for the development of a project that can provide needed local and
regional roadway improvements along the Project Site's frontage on
Tassajara Road as well as improvements to the Silvera Ranch water
quality basin.
j) Allow for the development of a project that can contribute funds to
construct schools, parks, and other community facilities that are a benefit
~ citywide.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 17
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
I ~ 3 -~58 ~
~
3.6 Future Actions Using This Draft Supplemental EIR
This Draft SEIR supplements the certified Eastern Dublin EIR pursuant to Sections
15162 and 16163 of the CEQA Guidelines for the following requested land use
entitlements related to the proposed Project.
Approval of Amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan to replace the existing "Rural Residential/Agriculture"
land use designation with a"Single Family Residential" land use
designation.
Approval of a Stage 1 PD Rezoning Amendment and Stage 2 Planned
Development Rezoning.
Approval of Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps.
The following additional land use entitlements, permits and approvals will also
be required in order to implement the proposed Project:
• Site Development Review for proposed building elevations and related
review of the design aspects of the proposed Project (City of Dublin)
• Approval of a Development Agreement (City of Dublin)
• Grading Plan, Improvement Plans, Demolition and Building Permits (City
of Dublin)
• Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
• Encroachment permits (City of Dublin)
• Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board)
• Determination of Conformity with Alameda County Airport Land Use
Policy Plan (Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission)
In addition to the above approvals, the DSEIR may also be used by State or regional
agencies in their review of other permits required for the Project.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 18
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~
~-
S~
0 " 10 Miles
~~
EXHIBIT 3.1-REGIONAL LOCATION
CITY OF DUBLIN .
NIELSENPROPERTY- TASSAJARA VALLEY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
IIIACKAY ~ S~
~ ~.o. .~.
nrx~.a, a p~q ~sa~o
Pacific Ocean
08-14-2008 2:13pmLisa ~Ihauer P:\19374\PLANNING\INITIALSTUDY~EXH1-REGIONALLOCATION.DWG
__ J85~-7~
E~HIBIT 3.2-PRC~JECT LOCATION
CITY QF D UBLIN N NTS ~
NIELSEN PR D~'ERTY - TASSAJA~A VALLEY
ENVIRONMENTAL Il'VIPACT REP4RT
IIACKAY 8c
~. ~ ..~.
~~ a u~ ~
~
08-14-2008 2:30om~isa Vilhauer P:\19374\PLANNING\INITIALSTUDIIEXH2-CITYCONTEXT.DWG
~~ ~ ~~
~ ~~ ~ ~
;~"`~ ~ ,,, ~ ~~* , ~ ~~ r
~ i r~~ Y~ - ~ ~~~'a~;~+~~t~
~,f ~' ~ ~ , 'i
~ 7 ~~~`~ ` ~ ~ ,€° "'°~
~ E ~ ~s . ~~ ~~ ~ ~
z "F^ 1i',~ ~sr = ~~ , r ~~:`~
h
d f
~t {~ ~ ~~ ,ie ~ ~ d~ ,
~ y ~ ~ ~` ~ L ~ ~
s
-...~.,.,~,,,R ~~'~ ~ Y ~ 1~{ £ 7~ ~ K:s ~ ~•-~ ~A '.w~ ~` ~~
~Y P. ~ . v ~L&t~wF!~5'~ Pb R t.}~ ~a_. 1~~ r L+lltl '~~`.~ ~~x(
RA RANCH DRNE ": ~ ° ~` .. ' V ~` ~
~.~.~ ~ >~. ~.~:~ N~
&~~ g ,~' ~~ ( . 3Ma'`°~".....,r , ,,.~. a ~ w R..a ^ ~ "~"33.,,~t , ~ : ~'~ -
yv ~ . . ~~ ~ ^""~ ~: ~~ ^ a *ey~~ `~
R ~F , ~ ~7 ~, ~ ~ t~ 7~.'. ~ ' r n
;~ •~ ~ ~ ~A ~ ~
~ ' ~ f~y.. ~ ~~ ~~ _ g~y 't~ , .*_ ~'~+~ ,~~~ '_ , ~S
~' ~ ~ z ~~r~ry+ .~, wrt`~r ~ ~ ~, ~' r a
`~~ ~ ~ -~ ~"~ ~ ,~+^ 7~. ~ '~.~f ~~ ~ #' ya/ 4 ~`~~ I ..
,~{~ f '~`c ~ ~
~ ~ ~ }y_y~r~ t } .
~~~, ~ E ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~~~;~, ~' `~~~,„,y~ ~ ~'~~~~ , ~ n~si~rxarrcx ;
:_~ ~ ~ ~; ~
' k ;~ ~TIELSEN PRQP Y
~: ~y t M ~ ..~ I
~ H'~ ~,. • ..
sw , ~j,, p+ ~g ..i'b3 r ~ ~ ~« .-
j ~ ~
~z ~~ M~' it s~ 8:~ r or`~ y~, '~ ~ t .
~~~~ ~ ~ v~' w , ~~ A+Iv`~iwl
~ ~ ~ ,~ . ~y` @ ~~tr ~ s. a ~ y ~ ~ ~ +~ : ~ g .
t a. ~ «~ •~~ ~-„~,~ ~ ' #~ ~~i.
~° ~ ~ ~~~'' t,~,, ~ '~
~~ ~'~~~ ~a3. a"~-~ i°~ts~~~ ~ "~ ~s. ~ 1~ . i~w' .
"a' d ~ ~ ~a 4~~..
4-
~~~ k~~~~ ~.~tr ~~ z~7y' Y„~ R k+y,.~ ~ ;`sg~~,~, a
.g..~} s .,: a° .~ f § F ,[C f .~ ):' p°,.. ~d . .. ~i ^s~v~.
~ ~ ",~ w~`~ '~ ~ ~ a v ~ l ~ 1 '~, G -~ ' " ~ ~,1~`° "- ~ ;- '~ ~~-`~~ ~ r ~
~
h~i'' ~ ~~.~'~ ' : a~~ ~ ~~~ ? ~y. ~ ~.~ r~ ~,~ Z .
~- ~zNr~ik ; s y. ; . ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~: . p w ~t-~` E .'} ry. t .~m"c ~' ..
~~.~ ~ t ~, ~$AU~, ~~ g `a: ~.~^+4 t `l ~ ~ 1p;i- d f !
~ R;~ ,x-x .,v^~ ~ y rt r ~ .. .,~, y ~" * a ~,~r a d . ~6 ~,~ r~,~ .b
~ -,~ ~ 9 m ~*. w ~ ~ S~- r< ~-s,~ ~ ~['5 ~'t't~ ry
~~~~ ~ R tF~~ '.+n"'~~` ~~~ ~ ~~ ,
r ' x iw~,
.{~~ tt~~'~~ µ ~~~s, ~ ' r;~/ '~ y ~, ~ ~`` ~ °~~`..u ~r i~ ,~~~ '' ~aa ~ ~'`~'4'~~. S
~ i ~ ~~ ~
~ ~~ r ? ;S .~ ~ ~` ' Kf x t" a3 _ ~~ '~ , a + t~ „ . . .; ,s a~ ~*'u. ~'~ ~ +" ~ x . .
~~ .. ~~~~~ ~ ,~~ R-r ~ ~~7 ~t ~ ~ ~~z ~f('~~^~ /'~T ~ ~ 't ~ ~ ~ 1
{ ., ~ ~ 'lAk +A' A
,~y,.~" , ~~~ ~ ~~ ~`~ ~~~ ~'~~ ~~l~Y ~~ F74A~VL s' ~' ~ f:'~ ~ ~ ~ ~' e a~ r ~..
,~'~r~ .~ "~ `3 ~y~'^~.;I'G+~, X '1„ ~, ~~,; ° ~ ~ ty ~~ ~ ~`
~ ? ~ ~ +w. wa '~'~ fiK Y ~. Z 9 ~' '.
k . . ~~ ,~ x r a ~y . rt x . ~»~ +~ yp ;d~ ~ ~
( ~./ .^ b ~~ ~ y„ya ~ ' ti ~ t ~ ~ ~,+~ ~. Ss 2
T4~1,~ ~ 2 ~ ~ Yw~ '~ fi~~, , ~~ R ~a` ~dE'~iiH',~~ 1
} ~ ~~ ' ~e yr' ; ,~`
~ # ~ 3 ~ 5 _'Y- ,
t~~ tP 7 1 t
~~i~ . ~ ; ' ~,n. ~ ~' ~s ~~,~x ~ ~ ~pl'.~ C~~;~"~ .~ "~ ~ , ~'.~ ~~s ~~t'~ ~r ,~ ~,~~`r~?~`~~
~-i.~ ~ ~ ,. ~ . 6`~& ~ 'a~6 ~y ~ r ~~ ~ ~ E, ,~, . .~, y, #~s~.:.
~ ~ ~~ ~`;.. ~ "~ r . ~ ~ i ' ~~ k . ~: .r~t '~'~+ . ~ .~ . y~'tl }'
~~ ' ~ ~, ,~; ~ ~`"~~~~'~~^~~;'~ ~ '~ f~' r
~~~ ~ ~ a,
• ~ . ~ ~ ~e~~~ ~ ~~a~ a ~ ~„ ~ a F mi k ~ ~ ~~{.~ y a t ..,~~ a .~ t ~~.
~ ~ ~M ~,~ i.
~ r „ r . ~'q~~V~ ~ 'y "3` e,~ Y .tt ~ ~'+~y' 1".`.
~ ~ , ~ ,,, , " , ,,,~L4 ~ ~.[ Sa~"`sr~Y ~ ; `~ ta i. 1r.~~ ~ !a e °
: ro.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ', ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, r ,, ~ { .
~~.
#~ ~'~! t ~' '~ f ~ ~ c ~ i'~'~"s~ ~~~`-~ " ;r~ ~''
~ ~ - ` ,
}; ~ ~ r
~
r_ ~ ,.' ~{ +a ~ ~S ~~~
~e e ~ f~~ ~ '^ + ~
~ r ~.....~~.'~~ ,t~ t xu~, . ~ ,
I
~
~
EXHIBIT 3.3-SITE CONTEXT
I
CITI' 0'F DUBLIN .
I NIELSEN PR DPER ~'Y - TASSAJA~ VA~LEY
EI~fVIRQI~IMENTAL IMPA~T REPQRT
~
MCKJIY 8c S
~ ,,.~.~. ..~.
nwwicM, a ry~7 naauo
~~
~~~ 7~~
~\~~_~ ' ~ I ~~ ~~ ; ii
1 ~
. ~ ~ ~ _ _ J ,
5~~~ ~C$ DRIVE ~ 51LYERA RANCH (PFEIFFER RANCHI
--------~ , -.--.-.. _-~'~ MEd1UM DEN51"fY RE5IDENTfAL
1 . ~'
~ I ~ ~ l, ,~ Y' -= r+_=_ _ _ - - ~ ~
I _ _ - - - ,~u_~° -= ~ -- j ~ 1 I
i __-_-- _- ~ ' 1 12 ~ 13 I 14 I ~ I
~ 1t
~ ~ ~ 10 ~ I ~_ ~ 1
i i j ^ I ~ - 1 ~ j ~ I I
I I
II ------ ~ ~ I ~ I
i ~~ / ~- I--~ l °'- I
I i ~ _ ~, 4 ~~~ H ~ ~ ~. ~ ~
fl ~ ~~
~ I r------- -- ~ ~
I ~
~, I ~ ~~ I
I I I$ ---- ~~15_. ~ iF I i~ I ix I~y ~ .
~I ~ ~- I- - I ~ I I 20 _\\ 2 I
~ ~ - a~o V I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I , -~-- ~
i \~ ~ I'~ - I ' ~--- ! -- ~--- i ~ y; `
~ ~ I ~ I 3q~ ~-_--- ~~---
, I ~ ~------~\ 1 r
~ ~ r---- -- Z~' a99- - - _ J f
I / ~ y~ I - ,- ~ ~~~ = a1~5 F11a _ .
I ~ I _~ ~~' ~ ~ ~~ ~1 \1 I
f -- -- I ~9' ~- - i _ 1 1 1 ~~ 1 ~ I
~ i e ~ 53~ t__~q~- ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~~ -- "~j
~ i~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ i i~__i~ -i~ ~ ii Z~ ~ i
~~j 6 ---- -- ~ ~ I ~ v~ ~ I~ u ~ 1 23 1~~ I~ 5s ~ 0
`~ u / /i ( ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ s' ~ ~~----~- ~
I L~~__
~ ~ ~ za ~----- _-~ ~ i ---- I--, ~S4j ; ~ , ~
~ i~ i ~ b ~~ ~.. ~~ -
`;. ~I __- I '~~ / /' ___-- I -~ ~ ~`, I 3~1 1 3? ~ i=3
i ~--- -r-~ ~~ - Z9-~ ~ 30 ~, ~- -
~
~ ~ ~ i a 7 'I ~~ _ ~_-- ~ i-1-i1 i i i' '' - ~
i ~
1 o i\ I ~ ___=- ---- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~;`~
I _ -- - --~C ;
I 1 ~`-~ - ' N 'w \ ~ ,I ~ ~ `~° ~
o~
i 1 ~ ~ _'~ L- _' ~~
~ '
i ~ ~~_-
~ ~o~ ~so ~~c .~~
~t>~ ~ ~~~ ~ - c~yy~ra~
L. ~ ,`~"v+~x ~
QUARRY LANE SCHOOL (ARAC)
ME~JIUM DEN5ITY RE5IDEN-fIAL/RRA
• DENOTES ITiEPOSS18IL1TPFOR A DUPLEX UMiSINCRE~LSESTHE TOTAL LOT COUNT IY136.
•IAT 341VbL ONLPBE BUILT ~' THEEVA ISMOVED TOA DIFFERENT LOCATTON.
EXHIBIT 3.4-STAGE 2 PD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CITY OF D UBLIN
NIELSENPROPERTY- TASSAJARA VALLEY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
IIIACKAIf 8~ SO~S
~~ ~~ ~
.~a p cm~ n~-~
~~~~5
~ ' ~ ~
~ 1
, :
,
~ ~ ~~ ( ~5~~ i~
i I
~ n
r
/ .~ ~`'I . . ~ '
~ / ~~ v
~ ; _~
R~.4N~CH - ''~~~-------~~
`° !
° AOAD . _
~ SII.VERA RANC$ DRIVE
~
~i~
~
I
~
~
I I
I 1
' . I
~
I i
I ~ I
I
~:
' I
I I
i y I
I ~~~
~
j i '
~
~
~ i o
a
9~
i ~I
I ~I
~
~ "~ ~ ~
~
i i
1
~
~ I
I
~
I, I
i
~ ~
~
~
~
~
I I
~
~,
' I ~ i
~~ j
NEIGHBORHOOD - SILVER~1 RANCH ( PFEIFf ER RAi~1CH)
INTRY MEDIUM DEN5ITY RESIDEN7IAL
QUARPY l~iVr SCHOOL (A~AC)
1vIEDIUM D~N51-(Y RE5IDENTIAL/RRA
EXHIBIT 3.5-STAGE 2 PD LANDSCAPING PLAN
CITY OF D UBLIN
NIELSEN PROPERTY - TASSAJARA VALLEY
ENVIROl~fMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
IIIACKAY ~C SO~s
ENtlMmIS R/MER SUIMAI6
RfAW[U~, p 19]5~ 1/5--0890
t ~
` ~ ~
f i ~
.t~ ~ . ~ ~. i . ..... .
pf . . ~. ~ ` .. ~
i ~ ~
p
~ ~ ~
08-14-2008 2:14pm Lisa Vilhouer P:\19374\PLANNING\INITIALSTUDY~EXHS-LANDSCAPE.DWG
1~9 ~75~ .
~
~~ ~~ ; ~ : ,
~
__
, ~ ~ _ -- .~ ~:~ ~ ~~ - -_ _ 3 t
, _ ~ _
~ .r ~:
~ ; ' °'~ i
~ - _ ~ ~ ~
_ _ _ ~. f'
~
~ I-I ~ , ~ _ -- _ ~, ; , ~ ~;__ _ _ ~
, _ ~~,,~,~ _.
I '
I ~ ~ ~ _ ; ~~~`1 - ~ I;' ._ ___. _ , I I I;I ~~- ; ~,.
~ ~,' _ ~
} ~~~- ' ; ~ I~ ~ ' ~ I;~ ; ' I ~ ~~ _ _. ,~~ ~' ~
- ~ f
~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~- , ~ ~i
i -
~ ~
~ -~- _ _ ~ p ~ ~ ~
f`
, ,
~ ~ ~ ~vs~e~u+s~~~'~° ti~ ~' ~~_ ~ ~~/ ~' ~ .~
- ~ ,
r ~
r- - -•- -x~-= - ~ , , _ / - _ `( ; ' ;~" i
_ ~,, ;
~~~H / 7
- - ,~ _ --`~---~ - a ~ ~ = ~ g- ~ ' ~ r. "° . ~ ' , ~511.~ ~E~°,~'~b t~
~ _ pS ~p ~ ~ '~ /
~x-~. -
~~ ' ~ ~ ,...~_~ s- ~.' - =~- " _ ~~ ~ ~v~ ~~A , ~i
_ .,. ,
~»~ i ,- ~ _ _ -_ _ ~ , ( , ~I '~ ~~ _ _ ~.-- ~ ~
~ ~~ - - :...
_- . . M, _ 1 0.05t AC gy',.
(~ ~ ~(~f ~ ~ m,.r-- - ~- I ~
~
,,. ~.
~ I I ~ '~ ~ 17 ( ( ° ~`y . ~ _ -- (= --- ~ .. ~ ~ ~ , ~
~ 1~ I 'i . .. .,~. s ~~~,- ~ ~ ~ ~a.~ s;~ __~ , 1~~~~ ~ .~ .,,
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~ , _ ~ % fi., ~ ~ ',
~ ~~ ~ ~ `~( .EI ~ -°, _~-~~ ,, - . - " ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~'+ ~
_ -
, ~
;
~ ~ ~ ~ ( i I «w .: :,F ~ ----" d _-_ . _ _ ~ ~ ~ 1 ,-~ ( 13 ~ 14~ l O~t~ AC ~i~ ~
~ , _
~
~~} _ , . ~- - ,. -- ~ ~ ~ - ,~ - _ ,
2
~ ~~ ' ' f ` ~ `` ~
~ _ . \ %,',. », ~ ; ; ~0 ~ i /`Y1 7 ~ ~ ("` '~ ~;~ ~ ~~y~`"~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~ ,~,~ ~
~ - ; . ,/
~ i ; ~ ` `~ , ~ ~~`~ . 'f / ~ ~~~~ ~ 1 '~
,
_ , ~
~ ~~ - ~ ~ ~ _ - ~~~.
; ~
,~ ~~ ( ~ ~ ~ " ~' ~ 1, t ~ - ~ ~~ ~ 1' i t ~` ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ,
\ ~,1
~ i' , . . _~ ~
~ ,
~ ~~ _ ; ~ - -
I n . -r f ' ~
, _.
, ; , ~~ ;~ ~ ~~~~
~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~ ~
~- ~ r~ lsl
~ ~~~~ ~~ I t ~ ~ -~7~ ~ ~ -~ _
. ' N ~
r
' ( ~ ~ ~ ~ rt i ~r• $T- B- ~ ~ - ~ ws=~~
~ ' I ~~~~~ / ; ~ '$1RE _ T. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~t1,
~~ i ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~
I
' ~---°--
,I i ~
~~ f ~ ~ _ ~
I I I }I I i L~ ~.-1 ~ ~ t f ~, : ~~, ~ f .... ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~,~ ...., , ~+ ~
~.3,' ~ ~~ ~ , ~ ,.' ~ ~ ~l ;' tt 16 ~~ ~
.
;
~~ ~ ~ ~ 1d ~ ill~a
I ~ , ~ ~ ~~ ~
.
, ~
~ .~
\ k ~
~~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ ~
__
, ~ t ~ ~ "~ , ; / 1~ ~ !~ ~ ,.a~~ j
9 I
_ ~ }
g ~ ~ < < . ; ~ r
~~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ , ~ ~F~ ~ f 1 `I ~ , ' °~ ~'
5 '- ~ ~~ ~° J t ~ f i , ,~ ~,~ - ' ~~.~ ~•
I 1~.~ i ; ~ ~~~
~
~ ~
~,~, .~ ~:_~ ~~ % ~ , i ~~~ ~yyv„-~~_~~~ ~~~ ~ l.y :
~ ~ ~ ~ ;. ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -^ _ ~_ ` ~ „~µ° ,. ~ 7 ' ~ ~ ~ ( ~:
,
,
~~~' _ i i ~ ~,r~._. ~`~ ~ ~~ ' .~
ba ~ ~
,
} ~ ~ I , ."~~ ~ ~I ~~~ ~~ %~
'~ ),.. .# ~, ~.
,
,
~ , ~ ~ ~' ~ '~ ~
~ ~~~ ~ I ~ . , ~ ~ ~° ~ ~k+ ~~ ./
~ ~i. ~ ° I I . , ~ ~ .~ w ~..
.: , i ~"~ m , ~ " ~ , ~ ~`~ ~ ~ . ...,~ ~ !
, ,
I~ I /
I i
~, ~.L ; / ~ `,
i F ~ ~ n , 4q ~ ~~ .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
i r
~ , , ...J
4 I
, ,
K I I .I i ~ .~. ~ ' ~.'~~ I , ~ ~/ ~ i , , ~~A^' ~. I . P"Ir'.
, ,.
~
$ + ' B -
,
~~ ..~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ --
, ~ ,~ ,
, , ,I ~
•~
,
`
~ ! , , ~. ~ _
li
~ i !~
,~ 1 , , ~ ~ ~ _
~~~ ~ ~A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;
,
~ ~ ~' ~, ~ ~ ~ ~'~ I ~ ~; ~ ; ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ixER~'
~ ~~~ ~, 1 I I o ~ , 1 ~ , ~ ~ _ ~ ~~c~aaunES; e^~-
~~ ~ ~ ~
I ~ I
; _
~~ ~', I ` ~ ~ >~ ~'~~~~ ~G , ~ ' ' ^~ ° ~~ ~ so ~ ~
,, ~ , ~
I ~ , , ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a ab ~q ' "~~ ,~
~
t
.. _
~~~` ?' ~~~ ~
. ,
i1~,~, ;~,~:~ ~ .~„~ x ~ _ ~ ~. -~
~ ~
, ~, ~
~,~ i ~ , ,
E ~ ~ , , , ~ _
;~ , ~ ~ p ~~, , ~ , ~ _ ~
~ ~ . ~. ,, ; ~°~ , ~` ~ ~u .
~ ~~, ~~
~~ ~ ~ ~ t t I , ~r =: ~. ~ s ~ ~~, ~ _ ~~ ~ _ _ ~ ~
~ I ~ i~ . ~. ~i '{ t `, , ~
~ ~ ' w.
~ ~ ~~ j ~ ~ \~ V ` ~ _ ~} , ~
~ " ~'
~ ~ ~_ ~
3 ti ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.
, . ,
~ ~ ~;~ ~'~~ i V ~ ~y~$ ~C ~ ~"~~~ ~
I T ~ I I ~' I i' l_;~' Tpw~~nc~lmES ~ ~' 0. ) I ,~°. :
~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' , ' LJ ~ ~ ~'~ s. ~ ~ gCH00L ~p,L/ RRA
`~ ~~'~` _ '' ~-°~~ ~a~ARRY v~N ~Y ~~s-~~~ l CAGyQ a;,
~'ul a (_ ~ MEpIUM wn~ ~'
I I: il r~crc~u wa~ -
~
i snriRa~r s~-v~t i ~,
~ , , ~ --- ~
' I I ~ srow,+ o~wN - ---
~: I ~ I '.I LOTCU~IBER m ~
~' ~ ; ~~ ~ ,.~ I
~~,
~
EXHIBIT 3.6-PROPOSED TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP ~
~
CITY OF D UBLIN ~.
NIELSENPROPERTY- TASSAJARA VALLEY ~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ~
IMCKAV & SOIIIPS ,~
~~ ~ ~
aus~wra~ u ~ru> ns-oeso
~
08-14-2008 2:32om Lisa Vlhauer P:\19374\PLANNING\INITIALSTUDY\EXH6-TMAP-UTILITIES.DWG
1q~ `15~
This Page Not Used
e~
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 25
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
19J ~~~ ~..
4.0 Environmental Analysis
Topics Addressed in the DSEIR
This section of the DSEIR identifies specific environmental areas which
may be affected as a result of the implementation of the proposed Project.
The impact areas are discussed individually in subsections 4.1 through
4.11:
Each topic area is covered in the following manner:
A. Environmental Settin~
A discussion of existing conditions, facilities, services and general
environmental conditions on and around the Project Site.
B. Im~acts and Miti~;ation Measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR
C. Su~plemental Environmental Impacts
An identification and evaluation of whether the potential impacts on the
environment identified in the Initial Study, should the Project be
constructed as proposed would result in a significant substantially
increased manner beyond the analysis in the Eastern Dublin EIR based on
the standards of significance set forth therein.
D. Su~plemental Miti~ation Measures
An identification of specific efforts and measures which can be
incorporated into the Project to reduce identified supplemental
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance.
Neilsen ProjecVDraft Supplemental EIR Page 26
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~,~~
~
.~
i~a -~~~_
~
4.1 Land Use
The proposed Project would conflict with the current General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan land use designations of "Rural Residential/Agriculture." This
designation allows general agricultural uses as well as one dwelling unit per 100-acre
lot. The Applicant has requested amendments to both the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to re-designate the Site as "Single Family Residential." Rezoning of
the Site has also been requested to a zoning district that would be consistent with the
proposed General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations. If approved by the City
of Dublin, no land use conflict would exist.
4.2 Population, Housing and Employment
Section 3.2 of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR addressed Population, Housing and
Employment. The EIR included a general description of expected Bay Area and Tri-
Valley population growth, but noted that "[this] section does not analyze these
projections in terms of potential environmental impacts because the physical
environmental effects associated with population, employment and housing are
addressed in the appropriate environmental analysis ...of the this EIR."
ENVIRONENTAL SETTING
This section updates Section 3.2 of the Eastern Dublin EIR discussion of the
demographic, employment and housing context of the proposed Project. It contains a
general description of expected Bay Area growth as well as more detailed population
and housing development projections for the Tri-Valley subregion and for the City of
Dublin. Population and housing projections for the Project are described. The physical
environmental (secondary) effects associated with population, employment and
a housing are addressed as applicable in the sections 3.3 through 3.12 of the Eastern
Dublin EIR, as updated by this DSEIR.
.~ Regional Overview. The Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) "Projections
2007" provides current population, household, income and employment forecasts for
the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Region. In order to place the proposed Project
in its overall regional context, several findings of ABAG's projections are summarized
'~ in this section.
Population. ABAG expects the nine-county San Francisco Bay Region to add nearly 1.3
~` million new residents between 2000 and 2020, reaching a total estimated population of
, 8,069,700. This represents an increase of about 18 percent over the 20-year forecast
period from 2000 to 2020 and a decrease from the 15 percent growth the region
~ experienced between 1990 and 2000.
The ratio of population to household growth has differed significantly in the region
~ over the past several decades. Between 1960 and 1970 household growth in the Bay
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 27
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~~ ~~~
~
Area was approximately one-third of population growth: i.e., an additional household
was added for every three new residents. In the 1970s, the number of new residents
added was only slightly higher than the number of new households. In the 1980s, the
pattern of the 1960s was reestablished -- one new household was formed per every
three new residents. Housing affordability affects household size by reducing the
household formation rate. Household size in the Bay Area changed from 2.57 persons
per household in 1980, to 2.61 persons per household in 1990, and then rapidly
increased to 2.68 persons per household in 1995. Current projections estimate that
persons per household will reach 2.69 and maintain that figure through 2035,
Housing. ABAG estimates that the increase of 475,740 new households expected in the
region by 2020 will create a demand for at least 23,000 new dwellings each year. (In the
ABAG projections, households are approximately the same as occupied housing units.)
Employment. ABAG predicts that job growth in the Bay Area will be in a broad variety
of sectors located throughout the Bay Area. The region is expected to add
approximately 527,240 jobs by year 2020, an increase of over 26,000 new jobs annually.
Most of this growth is projected to occur in services (business and professional, health
and recreation, social and personal), manufacturing, and retail trade, with more than 50
percent of new jobs in the services sector.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN
EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR discusses impacts related to population, regional housing need
and jobs/housing balance. The EIR identifies an estimated 12,458 dwelling units in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area with a build-out population of 42,700 residents and
28,288 jobs. These estimates have changed since adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and General Plan Amendment based on a number of recent amendments to the
Specific Plan, primarily due to the inclusion of the Dublin Transit Center into the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and an increase in non-residential floor space
included in the Fallon Village area.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
An application has been filed for the Neilsen property within the Eastern Dublin
planning area to amend the respective land use diagrams of both the Dublin General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that would change the existing "Rural
Residential/Agriculture" designation that allows one single family dwelling, accessory
buildings and agricultural uses on 100-acre minimum lots to "Single Family
Residential." The Single Family Residential designation allows residential development
at a density range from 0.9 to 6.0 per gross acre of land. Residential development types
could include detached and attached housing types.
The total number of residential units on the Project Site would increase from two
dwellings to 36 dwellings. Although the existing Rural Residential/Agriculfiure
designation limits the number of dwellings to one dwelling on the Site, an agricultural
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
~.
Page 28
January 2009
~
~~~ ~-~,~
mobile home was approved by Alameda County and constructed prior to incorporation
of the Site into the City of Dublin, and is permitted by the City of Dublin's Zoning
Ordinance allowing Agricultural Housing and Farm Mobile Homes on Agricultural
land.
Population and housing impacts of this proposed change are discussed below.
Significance Criteria. A population and housing impact would be considered
significant if a proposed project would induce substantial population growth,
either directly or indirectly.
Less than Significant Supplemental Impacts. Less than significant supplemental
impacts are expected from the proposed amendment to the Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Under the proposed amendments,
implementation of the proposed Project would result in an increase of approximately
109 residents over the current General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations and
current development on the Site, as shown on Table 3.2-1, below.
Table 3.2-1. Proposed Neilsen Project Population Generation
Residential
T e Persons DU Existing GP SP Proposed GP/SP
D.U. Po D.U. Po .
Rural
Residential 3.2 2 6 0 0
Single Family
Residential
3.2
0
0
36
115
Totals 2 6 36 115
Note: household population based on Section 1.8.1 of the Dublin General Plan and 4.8.1 ot the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
'~ Population impacts. Approval and implementation of the proposed Project would add
. an estimated 109 residents on the Project Site. This includes a deduction of 6 people for
the two dwellings proposed to be removed from the Site. With an estimated total
~ population within the EDSP area of over 42,000, the addition of 109 residents would
, result in a less-than-significant supplemental impact. The proposed Project would not
substantially increase the impact described in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Impacts
~ associated with the proposed population increase, such as additional traffic, air quality
impacts and demand for utility services are addressed elsewhere in this DSEIR.
>~ Jobs/housing balance. The jobs/housing balance for the Eastern Dublin area would not
be significantly affected by the proposed addition of 109 residents within the Eastern
Dublin area. The EDSP noted that the original Specific Plan was somewhat out of
~ balance between jobs and housing units, with many more jobs planned than housing
units. Since the adoption of the Specific Plan, the City of Dublin approved the Transit
Center Amendment to the Specific Plan that would add 2,000,000 square feet of campus
r office and 70,000 square feet of retail floor space. This amendment assisted in shifting
the overall jobs-housing ratio closer to balance by adding additional up to 1500
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 29
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~9~ ~~
additional housing units. Within this overall framework, there would be a less-than-
significant impact with regard to the proposed Neilsen Project.
4.3 Traffic and Circulation
INTRODUCTION
Transportation and Circulation was analyzed in Chapter 3.3 of the Eastern Dublin EIR.
This supplement to the previous EIR examines the proposed Project to determine if any
new or more significant impacts would exist regarding traffic or circulation issues as a
result of changed conditions, including but not limited to increased urban development
in the Tri-Valley area and beyond.
Information and analysis included in the following section is based on the "Revised
Traffic Impact Evaluation for the Proposed 36-unit Single Family
Residential Development in the City of Dublin, California" prepared by TJKM
Associates in April, 2008. This report is included in Appendix 8.5 of this DSEIR and is
incorporated by reference into this document.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Roadways. Existing roadways serving the Project Site include:
Tassajara Road connects with Santa Rita Road at I-580 to the south and continues
north to the Town of Danville. It is four to six lanes wide between I-580 and North
Dublin Ranch Drive. North of the Contra Costa County line, it is named Camino
Tassajara. Camino Tassajara is used primarily for local traffic in the Tassajara Valley,
with some through traffic.
Silvera Ranch Road is a local roadway east of Tassajara Road serving the existing
Silvera Ranch development. This road has two vehicle travel lanes and terminates at
Tassajara Road. The Silvera Ranch Road/Tassajara Road intersection is signalized.
Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial in the City of Dublin. Dublin
Boulevard, west of Dougherty Road is a four to six lane divided road fronted largely
by retail and commercial uses. Between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road,
Dublin Boulevard is a six-lane divided arterial fronted primarily by residential,
commercial and vacant lands. Dublin Boulevard extends east of Tassajara Road to
Keegan Street as a four-to-five lane roadway fronted by new residential
development. It will eventually extend to Fallon Road.
Fallon Road is a north-south two to four lane arterial extending from I-580 to about 2
miles north of I-580. It will be extended to connect to Tassajara Road on the north in
the future. As a part of on-going development in east Dublin, it will eventually be
widened to eight lanes near I-580, six lanes near Dublin Boulevard and four lanes to
the north.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
~
Page 30
January 2009
~
~~,>
~~~ ~5£~
Regional access to and the from the Project Site is provided by Interstate 580 is an eight-
lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such as Livermore and
Pleasanton as well as regional origins and destinations such as Oakland, Hayward and
Tracy. In the vicinity of the proposed Project, I-580 carries between 184,000 and 196,000
vehicles per day (vpd) (according to Caltrans 2003 Traffic Volumes on California State
Highways) with interchanges at Dougherty Road / Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive,
Tassajara Road / Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road / El Charro Road.
Project impacts on Existing Conditions in the near term will be less than significant
based on the following information and analysis:
1. Based on a review of the traffic study for the Fallon Village Traffic Study
conducted in August 2005, Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard currently operates
at a Level of Service (LOS) of A. Therefore the intersection is expected to operate
acceptably with the addition of minimal Project traffic (27 total Project trips in
AM peak and 37 total Project trips in PM peak). Additionally, traffic levels are
currently low at the intersection of Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch and that
intersection currently operates at acceptable levels of service. The level of service
is expected to remain unchanged with the addition of the Project traffic.
2. The Fallon Road/Silvera Ranch Drive intersection currently serves only
construction traffic and the Tassajara Road/Fallon Road intersection will be
modified with the future Fallon Road extension. The intersection modification
will include the ultimate lane configuration and traffic control shown in Exhibit
~ 4.3-1. The intersection is expected to adequately accommodate additional trips
from the proposed Project
m Build-out Traffic Conditions. Build-out (2025) traffic volumes at the Tassajara
Road/Fallon Road intersection were obtained from the Build-out plus Project traffic
volumes of the Fallon Village Traffic Study. The "Fallon Village Traffic Study" prepared
by TJKM Transportation Consultants in August of 2005 is hereby incorporated by
reference into this DSEIR. Traffic volumes at Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive and
- Fallon Road/Silvera Drive were derived from the Wallis Property Traffic Study dated
August 2002 and the Silvera Property Traffic Study dated October 2000, respectively.
At the time of the Nielsen traffic study, the most recent City of Dublin Travel Demand
Forecasting Model was used to forecast traffic volumes used for the Fallon Village
Study. No other model was developed subsequent to the one used for the Fallon Village
t Study. TJKM reviewed the Silvera Ranch and Wallis Property traffic studies to
determine the expected trip generation from the full build-out of the developments.
;,;~
Unlike traffic counts, trip generation estimates are independent of the time of the study.
- As noted, the rates are based on the ITE data. The estimated trips from the
developments were distributed to obtain the traffic volumes entering and exiting the
~u~ Silvera Ranch driveway located at Fallon Road, and the future fourth leg of the
intersection of Tassajara Road and Silvera Ranch Drive.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 31
~ City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
I ~'~ ~5~ °~
~
Exhibit 4.3-1 shows the resulting volumes under Build-out Plus Project Conditions and
the planned lane configurations at the study intersections.
Intersection Level of Service Analysis. Table 4.3-1 shows the results of the level of
service analysis for the Project intersections under Build-out Conditions. The
intersections of Tassaj ara Road / Fallon Road and Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard are
expected to operate acceptably at LOS D or better under Build-out Conditions.
The intersection of Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive is currently a signalized T-
intersection. In the future, the intersection is proposed to be reconfigured with the
addition of a west leg to provide access to the approved Wallis Ranch (Dublin Ranch
West) development on the west side of Tassajara Road. Therefore, the intersection was
analyzed as a four-way intersection, incorporating traffic volumes from the traffic
reports of the proposed Wallis Ranch and the Silvera Ranch developments.
As shown in Table 4.3-1, the intersection of Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive is
expected to operate acceptably at LOS B or better under Build-out Conditions.
Appendix B, included in the full traffic analysis, contains the TRAFFIX LOS worksheets.
Additionally, a traffic signal has been installed at the intersection of Fallon
Road/Silvera Ranch Drive but has not yet been activated. It has been planned for
signalization and the City has approved traffic signal plans. With signalization, the
intersection is expected to operate acceptably at LOS A during both the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours under Build-out Conditions.
Table 4.3-1. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service-
Build-out Conditions (2025)
Si
li
d Build-out Conditions
gna
ze
Intersections A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Tassa'ara Road / Fallon Road 0.54 A 0.89 D
Tassa'ara Road Silvera Ranch Drive 0.67 B 0.51 A
Tassa'ara Ro~d Dublin Blvd 0.89 D 0.80 D
Fallon Road Silvera Ranch Drive 0.41 A 0.40 A
Notes: V/C = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service;
Source: TJKM, 2008
Regulatory Framework. Chapter 5 of the City of Dublin General Plan, Land Use and
Circulation establishes guiding and implementing poliaes related to roadways, transit,
bikeways and scenic highways. Applicable policies include:
Roadwavs
Guiding Policy B: Design residential collector streets, residential streets and cul-de-
sacs to serve a balance of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic and to prevent
misuse of residential areas by through vehicular traffic.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 32
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~,~.
~
~:
i~~ ~ ~~~-
Guiding Policy D: Reserve right-of-way and construct improvements necessary to
allow streets to accommodate projected traffic with the least friction.
Guiding Policy E: For Streets defined as Routes of Regional Significance (including
Tassajara Road), the City of Dublin is required to make a good faith effort to
maintain LOS D on arterial segments and at intersections
Transit
Guiding Policy B: Support improved local transit as essential to a quality urban
environment, particularly for residents who do not drive.
Guiding Policy D: Support the development of a community that facilitates and
encourages the use of local and regional transit systems.
Bikewavs
Guiding Policy A: Provide safe bikeways along arterials.
Implementing Policy B: Complete the bikeways systems illustrated in the General
Plan, Figures 5-3a and b.
Scenic Highways
Guiding Policy A: Incorporate County-designated scenic routes and the proposed
Fallon Road extension, in the General Plan as adopted City-designated scenic
routes, and work to enhance a positive image of Dublin by through travelers.
" Implementing Policy B: Exercise design review of all projects visible from a
designated scenic route.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes the following goals and policies relating to
traffic and circulation.
"' Goal: To provide a circulation system for Eastern Dublin that is convenient and
efficient and encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation as a means of
improving community character and reducing environmental impacts.
Policy 5-1: Encourage higher intensity development near transit corridors.
Policy 5-2: Require all development to provide a balanced orientation toward
pedestrian, bicycle and automobile circulation.
Policy 5-3: Plan development in Eastern Dublin to maintain LOS D or better as the
average intersection level of service at all intersections within the Specific Plan area
during AM PM and mid day peak periods. The average intersection level of service
is defined as the hourly average.
Policy 5-10: Provide transit service within one-quarter mile of 95 percent of
population in the Specific Plan area in accordance with LAVTA service standards.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 33
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
l 9 g ~15~- e.
~
Policy 5-13: Establish design guidelines for residential and commercial development
so that there are clear and safe pedestrian paths between building entrances and
transit stops.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the following impacts with regard to traffic and
transportation.
Freeways. The Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified significant,
significant cumulative, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to daily
traffic volumes on I-580 for Year 2010 with and without build-out of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment and under a Year 2010 cumulative build-out
scenario (Impacts 3.3/A, B, C, D, and E). The significance criteria for freeway segments
were operations that exceed level of service (LOS) E.
~~~
Mitigation Measures (3.3/1.0 and 3.3/4.0) were adopted which reduced impacts on I-580 '~
between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on I-680 north of I-580 to a level of ~~,
insignificance. Other mitigations (3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0) were adopted to reduce
impacts on the remaining I-580 freeway segments and the I-580/680 interchange. Even ~
with mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts remained on I-580 freeway
segments between I-680 and Dougherty Road and, at the build-out scenario of 2010, on
other segments of I-580. Upon certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the ~
Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Resolution No. 53-93), for these significant unavoidable cumulative impacts (Impacts
3.3/B and E).
All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA and EDSP
continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed Project.
Intersections and Roads. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated levels of service and PM
peak hour traffic volumes at 18 intersections with roads and I-580 ramps. The significance
criteria for intersections were operations that exceed LOS D. Mitigation measures were
identified for each intersection that was projected to exceed the LOS D standard in each
scenario. The following scenarios were analyzed:
1) Year 2010 without the Eastern Dublin project
2) Year 2010 with the Eastern Dublin project
3) Cumulative Build-out with the Eastern Dublin project
Mitigation Measures (3.3 / 6.0 - 8.0,10 -12) for impacts 3.3 / F, G, H, J, K and L were
adopted to reduce impacts to each of these intersections to a level of insignificance. These
mitigations include construction of additional lanes at intersections, coordination with
Caltrans and the neighboring cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to restripe, widen or
modify on-ramps and off-ramps and interchange intersections, and coordination with
Caltrans to modify certain interchanges. Development projects within the Eastern Dublin
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 34
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~:
~
~_.
~ ~~~
~
project area contribute a proportionate share to the multi-jurisdictional improvements
through payment of traffic impact fees or construction of the required improvements for
a credit against payment of such fees.
Other mitigations (3.3/ 13.0 and 14.0) were adopted to reduce impacts on other identified
intersections with Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impacts 3.3/M, N).
All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/ SP and
Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to implementing actions and projects within
Eastern Dublin, such as the proposed Project. Individual development projects within the
GPA/SP area contribute a proportionate share to fund these improvements through
payment of traffic impact fees or construction of the required improvements for a credit
against payment of such fees. Even with mitigations, however, significant cumulative
impacts remained on several identified intersections: I-580/I-680/Hacienda Drive
(Impact 3.3/B); cumulative freeway impacts (Impact 3.3/E), Santa Rita Road/I-580
Eastbound ramps (Impact 3.3 / I), Dublin Boulevard / Hacienda Drive and Dublin
Boulevard/Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M). Upon certification of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a
;~ Statement of Overriding Consideration (Resolution No. 53-93), for these significant
unavoidable and cumulative impacts.
Transit, Pedestrians and Bicyclists_ The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts
~ related to transit service extensions and the provision of safe street crossings for
pedestrians and bicycles (Impacts 3.3/O and P). Mitigation Measures 3.3/ 15.0 -15.3 and
16.0 -16.1 were adopted which reduced these impacts to a level of insignificance. These
~ mitigations generally require coordination with transit providers to extend transit
services (for which the GPA/SP projects contribute a proportionate share through
payment of traffic impact fees) and coincide pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at
major street crossings. All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern
Dublin GPA/SP and Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to implementing actions and
projects such as the proposed Project.
.xi
, Fee Programs. Prior to approval of any development in Eastern Dublin, in January 1995
the City adopted (and has since updated) the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee which
"~ consisted of three "categories": Category 1 was, in general, to pay for required
transportation improvements in the SP/GPA project area; Category 2 was, in general, to
pay for required improvements in other areas of Dublin; and Category 3 was to pay for
`~" regional improvements to which development in Eastern Dublin should contribute. The
, improvements for which the fee is collected included those improvements assumed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, those improvements necessary for Eastern Dublin to develop, and
~~ those improvements identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as mitigation measures. In June
1998, the City adopted the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee, in conjunction
with the cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon and Danville and the Counties of
°~ Alameda and Contra Costa to fund regional improvements. This fee replaced the
Category 3 fee. In addition, the City has adopted a Freeway Interchange Fee to reimburse
Pleasanton for funding construction of certain interchanges on I-580 that also benefit
Eastern Dublin. All development projects in Eastern Dublin are required to pay these fees
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 35
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~ ~ 58
~
prior to issuance of a building permit or construct the improvements included in the fee
programs.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Introduction. This section assesses whether significant new or intensified traffic impacts
may result from increasing regional traffic, or changed traffic distribution in the Project
area.
Standards of Significance. The following standards of significance are used in the
DSEIR.
An impact to a study intersection would be significant if an intersection
operating at an acceptable level of service would deteriorate to unacceptable
levels with the addition of project or cumulative traffic. The City of Dublin
General Plan Circulation Element and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy
standards require that the City strive for LOS D at intersections. Therefore, any
study intersections operating below LOS D are considered potentially significant
and will be evaluated for mitigation; or
The LOS standard for CMA analysis is LOS E. The CMA does not have a policy for
determining a threshold of significance for segments operating unacceptably
without the project. Rather, professional judgment is required to determine Project
level impacts. Therefore, for the purpose of this traffic impact assessment, if a
CMA or freeway segment operates unacceptably without the Project, the impacts
of the proposed Project are considered significant if the contribution of Project
traffic is at least two percent of the total traffic.
Project Trip Generation. Trip generation is defined as the number of "vehicle trips"
produced by a particular land use or project. A trip is defined as a one-direction vehicle
movement. The total number of trips generated by each land use includes the inbound
and outbound trips.
Trip generation for the proposed Project has been estimated based on standard
rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trfp
Generation, 7`" Edition. As shown in Table 4.3-2, the Project is expected to generate
approximately 345 daily trips, with 27 trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour
and 37 trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour.
Table 4.3-2. Project Trip Generation
Use Size Daily A.M. Street Peak P.M. Street Peak
(ITE Code) (du) !
Rate ~ Trips ' in Out ;
Rate ~
~ In Out
Total 7n ~: out !
Rate ~
~ In Out : Total
%;%
~ %a ;%
~
Residential
(210)
36
9.57 345 ~ ~ ~
0.75 ~ 0.25 ` 0.75 7 i 20 ~ 27 ~ i
1.01 } 0.63 0.37 23 , 14 i 37
Note: du= dwelling unit
Source: TJKM, 2008
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
~
Page 36
January 2009 ~
~
~C ~~~
~
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment. Trip distribution is the process of
determining what proportions of vehicle trips would travel between the Project Site and
various destinations within a study area. Trip assignment is the process of determining
the various paths vehicles would take from the Project Site to each destination. Based on
existing turning movement counts taken in November 2007 at the Tassajara
Road / Silvera Ranch Drive intersection, and taking into consideration the future
extension of Fallon Road south of Silvera Ranch Drive, the following trip distribution
was assumed:
• Approximately 88 percent will travel to and from the south on Tassajara Road, of
which approximately 5 percent will head toward downtown Dublin via the
Dublin Boulevard/ Dougherty Road intersection. The remaining 83 percent will
access the I-580 / Tassaj ara Road / Santa Rita Road interchange to go elsewhere.
• Approximately 8 percent will travel to and from the north on Tassajara Road.
• Approximately 4 percent will travel to and from the south on the future Fallon
Road extension, which will connect to the existing Fallon Road to the south.
Exhibit 4.3-2 shows the Project trip distribution. Exhibit 4.3-3 shows the resulting
~ Project-only volumes and existing volumes at the Tassajara Road/Silvera Ranch Drive
intersection (shown in the circle). Existing traffic volumes at Tassajara Road/Silvera
Ranch Drive do not include trips from the full-build of the Silvera Ranch Development,
~ of which only a portion of the development is currently occupied.
Planned Roadway Improvements. The following roadway and transportation
improvements have been assumed for this analysis.
1. Extension of Fallon Road between Tassajara Road and Upper Loop Road. Fallon
Road will be constructed to its ultimate width, which includes a four through
lane section.
2. The current realignment of the Fallon Road and Tassajara Road intersection will
soon be signalized and completed.
3. A traffic signal has been installed at the intersection of Fallon Road and Silvera
Ranch Drive but has not yet been energized. It has been planned for signalization
and the City has approved traffic signal plans designed by TJKM.
~ 4. Widening the segment of Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch
Drive/Somerset Lane and Fallon Road from two to six lane section.
5. Adding a fourth leg at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Silvera Ranch
TM Drive.
6. Modifying the traffic signal located at Tassajara Road and Silvera Ranch Drive.
- Build-out Plus Project Roadway Levels of Service. Table 4.3-3 shows the results of the
level of service analysis for the Project study intersections under Build-out Conditions
and Build-out plus Project Conditions. The intersections of Tassajara Road/Fallon Road
and Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard are expected to operate acceptably at LOS D or
better under both Build-out and Build-out plus Project Conditions. As shown in the table,
the LOS and delay results for both study scenarios are similar because of the minimal
Neiisen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 37
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
02...~~ `~1 rJ ~ ~
Project traffic that is expected to use the intersections of Tassajara Road/Fallon Road and
Tassaj ara Road / Dublin Boulevard.
As shown in Table 4.3-3, the intersection of Tassajara Road / Silvera Ranch Drive is
expected to operate acceptably at LOS B or better under both Build-out and Build-out
plus Project Conditions.
Additionally, a traffic signal has been installed at the intersection of Fallon Road/
Silvera Ranch Drive but has not yet been activated. With signalization, the intersection
is expected to operate acceptably at LOS A during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours
under Build-out and Build-out plus Project Conditions.
Based on the results of the LOS analysis, there would be no significant supplemental
impacts with regard to Project and Project Plus Build-out peak hour conditions.
Table 4.3-3. Build-out (2025) Plus Project Intersection Level of Service
Build-out Conditions Build-out + Project Conditions
Signalized
Intersections A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS
Tassajara Road / Fallon Road 0.54 A 0.89 D 0.54 A 0.89 D
Tassajara Road / Silvera Ranch
Drive 0.67 B 0.51 A 0.69 B 0.52 A
Tassajara Road / Dublin Blvd 0.89 D 0.80 D 0.89 D 0.80 D
Fallon Road / Silvera Ranch
Drive 0.41 A 0.40 A 0.41 A 0.40 A
Notes: V/C = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service;
Source: TJKM, 2008
Freeway Segment Level of Service Analysis. Table 4.3-4, below, shows the results of
the LOS analysis of three Interstate 580 segments under 2030 Conditions with and
without the Project. Calfirans currently uses 2030 as the horizon year for analysis of
freeway conditions. Regional commute pattern from the Dublin area are assumed to be
approximately 80 percent westbound to the East Bay and 20 percent eastbound to
Livermore. The Project is expected to contribute approximately 17 westbound trips and
4 eastbound trips during the a.m. peak period from the I-580/Tassajara Road/Santa
Rita Road Interchange; and 19 eastbound trips and five westbound trips during the
p.m. peak period. Additionally, less than two Project trips are expected to access the I-
580 / Fallon Road interchange during the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour.
As shown in Table 4.3-4 under 2030 Conditions Westbound I-580 west of Tassajara
Road is expected to operate unacceptably at LOS F during both a.m. and p.m. peak
hours with or without the proposed Project. The Project is expected to contribute
marginal (i.e. less than one percent [1%]) traffic to the congestion on I-580.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 38
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~,
.~
~;
.~.
~_.
a°C~ ~~$
~
Table 4.3-4. Freeway Segment Analysis
Year2030 (No Project) Year2030 with Project Project
Contribution
No of Lanes Capacity A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak (qo)
Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Vol. LOS A.M. P.M.
I-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive
Eastbound 6+ aux. 14,800 11,656 D 11,198 D 11,662 D 11,217 D 0.05 0.17
Westbound 4+ aux. 10,200 10,537 F 10,931 F 10,554 F 10,942 F 0.16 0.10
I-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Eastbound 5 11,500 8,839 D 11,566 F 8,845 D 11,585 F 0.07 0.16
Westbound 4+ aux. 10,200 11,253 F 10,503 F 11,270 F 10,514 F 0.15 0.11
I-580, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
Eastbound 4+ aux. 10,200 8,775 D 10,350 F 8,779 D 10,352 F 0.05 0.02
Westbound 4+ aux. 10,200 8,943 D 8,244 D 8,945 D 8,248 D 0.02 0.05
. Notes: Source: 2000 Highway Capacity 1Vlanual, Chapter 23, Exhibit 23.2, Levels of Service
Criteria for Basic Freeway Sections; Maximum Service Flow rate for freeway segments=2,300
vehicles/hr/lane, aux.=Auxiliary Lane; When number of lanes on freeway segment= N+aux.,
capacity of segment=(N*2000+1000) vehicles/hr
The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that even with mitigation measures included in the
EIR, significant cumulative impacts remained on I-580 freeway segments between I-680
and Dougherty Road and, at the build-out scenario of 2010, on other segments of I-580.
Based on the above analysis, the proposed Neilsen Project would contribute less than
two percent of increased traffic to an existing impacted condition and would not result
in a significant supplemental impact with regard to freeway or CMA facility roadway
facility.
~ Queuing Analysis. A queuing analysis for the intersection of Tassajara Road / Silvera
Ranch Drive was undertaken to determine whether the existing 150-foot westbound
" storage length at this intersection would require extension to accommodate added
.~, Project trips. The analysis revealed that a maximum of three westbound left-turn
vehicles (or approximately 75 feet) are expected to queue during the a.m. peak hour
~" under Buildout Conditions. Even with the addition of Project vehicles, adequate
~ westbound left-turn storage is still expected. No supplemental impacts would therefore
occur.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 39
a City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
, n. o
~~ -~3~5~
r~a r-ss~tr}
Existing } I'~
Volumes ~, ~
~~
\ 3 ~ ~
N
-'i_.~
--~:
~
N
~_
I
~ I
Q'. I
~
d I
I
I
I
I
~
I
~
~
~
I
I
I
~
I
~
_ -"" - .~.- .J
~
N O R T H
Nr~! io 5<a`F~
I 57-2I0 - 4l2b68 - DM
EXHIBIT 4.3-1: PRCJJECT ONLY PEAK HOUR
TURNING MOVEMENT VC)LUMES
CITY OF D UBLIN
NIELSE~V PROPERTY ~ TASSAJARA VALLEY
INITIAL STUDY
~IACKAI( ~ SOIM'S
~ ~ ~
nrxi~o~, a ~q ~-~o
4-28-2008 14:53:35 Ivilhauer P:\19374\planning\InitialStudy\EXH3-SiteContext.dwg
LEGEND
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak HourVolume
~
u°
c
P
v
r
Silvera Ranch Drive m
'z i,a) ~-~~,~
_ 7 t2T1_. _
p`y--•-- '"_ ----'_' - l I
~- ___ .~_ "'""" """ "'_ ' "'"'_ I
_"""_' " i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~
_"""_' I
i "' r ~"""_i
~ ' ~'"""._~ ~
~ ~ I
'-----•' StreetB
---------- - -•- ---' I
--- - •--- ---- i
' ---.~_~_ I
, ~ ~ ~
, ,
~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ ~ ----
~ ' ~ '-- ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '----- ~ ' ~
--------- I
~ ~ I
I ' !
----------- I
------•----- a ~ . --- ~
< - -------- ~ , .--- -- _. - i
- -
- ~
41 .._..._.-
~"""""° • - ' -
~-~-"' ~ • ~
'- r, I
". _ - ^` r'
"""""' "" "" r.._ (
""'_'_"•_ ' ' -" _ '"- ~
~C~
7--- r
~. j -a '`, `°`,
~
I.,. w `c~+ 'w ~ ~ g~a ~ ~,,. __~
~ ~~
~o ~
~ ~
n ~s
T ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~y
m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `F9~, rv~y.~
I~ ^~`L~~l~ ~r~~'~SJ v~*J- ~365(9~ ~ 67~ .
1 ~1'
~6y~~ ry9~ `~ti~ ~' ~,~ss~~~ 4 /r?~ ~ i ~ ! `S/26~ '~S91
, ,
~
.
*~, _ - ~ ~:
., . .
~ ~~ ~ ry
( ~%~M~'pe ~' ti
_,
.. ~~ ~.
I. a , _ __ ..__ ~, -.
m
`" Study~ ~~
,~ o ~ ~ .,~ e ~s~
I ' c4~7 Area ' ~~~~aY~N
~~~~ ~ ~- 87 (55) cE~oo~awr
4 (4) 1 ~l~iT~+(~ o
4(~~._. w v rn `~` a d
375 (225) '1~ o o rn =~ rc ~
.,~ °~ `O. M1 d' ~ z
I O ~. N U) ~
M ~01 (~/ ~
M ~/~a' ~t~JJ~~H p~
.._.._.,. i ° l ~ ~J`D ~pptR ~OOF~ Rp . '
(' '
~~, ~ ' ~N~~~
r
~ ~, ~ ~BLIN HPN(.7°~ ~~
r
~ ,~ ,~ Mt.U~EN m. ~
~ .,..._.,._..-...- ~ ~ a~s
i
,~ r~. E nsow ori ~_ o,
[:~ ~ , ._..__ ~_._-......_._ __-____._...~\ ~' ..~~ ~ ut~rti+ON~ ~ ~ ~u~~
k ¢ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ _'
, .n: p~-,'I , ~ (:EN'fitAl.~=~, ~ Q 'Y - '._""
~"~ t,~ CENSRAIPx~W ~_ ' ~
L ~ \ X K~~ ' _ i
~` `.,-...;._. ~ /
~ .
.. ~UEiLiN ~LVD _ '\ a N NrY b~ ~ r..-/ "~
• N-. w~-~ . 6 i (,`(/fRe LL~Vi~.
--......_r" " .._~
r
,, ~ w ....... ~ ~
U MAR1lNL:L4( I r H
~ x ~ ~~ ___ i Z p •_" " _'"__..
~ w ~~
I 4 2 _ ~ ~ ~Y
e ~~~ ~ ° _~ ~ ~ l~, rr'r / ~"'" ~ C~'',~.
' '.'~ (` ~~~°~r'I : 1 ..-° ~ +.
~ ~ ~-""
.:~, _PIMLICUOR ~~
~ ~ u c~
~ ~ ~9p ~ Q ~,
~= n
p~ ~ 5~~ o °- "~ ~ 124 (274)
~ ~ ° N i-1.265 (641}
( N i N N ~- 1,1SS (1,OBE)
•:t'~~~~`i~ ~_
}I ~ir~R4t~1^r'
~ 126 (939) ~,1
i
~~f ~~ ~ -_ 298 {830)-: ~ a ~
226 (745} ~~-~ ~ '-` ~
LEGEND Overlapi °i M "'
_.____ ------._...---- ~
~ Existing Intersection ~ `
~'~ Existing Road
~4 ------- Future Road
XX AM Peak FiourVolume
~ (XX) PM Peak HourVolume
;yj _._____ _._.._~_- .._.._____._..__..___....__._.__..__......__..__.___._____._..._ ................_..____------_....._..._._.___ __.__._._...__..
~ .. .
~~ EXHIBIT 4.3-3: PRC~ ECT TURNING MC~VEMENT
J
~~ VOLUMES & LANE C4NFIGURATIONS
~~ CIT~' ~F D~IBLIN
~ NIELSEN PROPERTY - T~1SSA.~ARA VALLEY
~~~ INITIAL STUDY
4-
14:53:35
iId
U ~
~
~
N O R T H
Nr;t to Sc~ile
Ivilhauer P:\19374\plon
alStudy\EXH3-
mIAICICAY ~C 50~1'S
~ ~ ~
nuawa a o~q ~-~a
.~s~7 ~,n -1cSt
;~~~-
,
8°/a~ ~
Mss
g
,'~'~,, oe'~ .,~4%
y~
Study
Area ~ ~~
~ I QUARRY LN.
GHOOLOWV
¢
l ~
~ Q
n:
u
U ~ v~i ~
~'am! F ~v~Ch~a ~
(
H
~
~
p / N ~JQ' Jpv~{y ~(KJP RD
80~IQ '
~ nN70NEV~~
I S.OU[i~~ MNi,H~ ,
1~
N WY~_ C
Mf~DOfi
`
`
~~
GLEASON OR ~
F K014NEN WY. a,
-."""".~~ p U
~
_~-„ `~
/
~ ~ V~ O
{ Gl EASCµ ~ ~ ~.,~
, ,
~ ~_, f ~ ~
~
u
~
~ LL
,. d z ;
. r ----_.
ie a ~ ce
'
~ '-
n
ra
------
.-„~(. p~~~, U' t
T GENTRAIPKY~Y ~ l
~
'ti-~_ .
._.__ .__. '`
Y
~+N
~ .
~ ~
. \
G ~iJ%~
~ `
N!"~N
¢ '
, ~_
. ./-~. DU6tIN 6LVU \ ~
WY , ?~
`-.
__.._......~. ~. ~ -_ .~,..... , a C;U
i' ^----~ p '___'_ _._...._.._ _.-_-„~ iR~ iu WY.
~j ~ hihFiTINELLI ~ (p~%,
N~ Y
- _ "_' "'
'
~
+ ~ ~
L ~ DR.
/ ~I ~bR .
~
r
~
~ ~
~
~ '
"
r
/
\
i
,
~
:1
~
'~ FIMUCO DR
~~
,~,~x ~ _ ~4 _.~
~p0 ~~ ~ ¢
~P
~ ~'
F ~ ~
i
~
¢
u
i ~
LEGEND ~~ N~~~
• Exiscing intersection ~~oi to Sc~1Y
-- Existing Road ~
------- Future Road
(5%) Percent split from 88~
~ ~ "
I57-210 - 3114f08 • DM
EXHIBIT 4.3-2: TRYP DISTRIBUTION ASSUMPTION
Cl~'Y OF DUBLIN
NIELSEN PROPERTY - TASSAJARA VALLEY
INITIAL STUDY ~
111ACKAY ~C SOIMS '
~
~ ~
4-28-2008 14:53:35 Ivilhauer P: 19374 lannin InitialStud EXH3-SiteContext.dw "~°"'a °""'~"° ~
G~ '_] f'J ~
4.4 Water Supply and Storm Drainage/Water Quality
~
Sewer, water, storm drainage, electricity and natural gas, and solid waste were
analyzed in Chapter 3.4 and Chapter 3.5 of the Eastern Dublin EIR; in 1994, an
Addendum to the Chapter 3.5 analysis of sewer treatment and disposal (dated August
~ 22, 1994) was approved by the City Council.
This section of the DSEIR analyzes if any new or more significant impacts would occur
beyond those analyzed in the 1993 EIR with regard to water supply and storm drainage.
WATER
Sewer, water, storm drainage, electricity and natural gas, and solid waste were
analyzed in Chapter 3.4 and Chapter 3.5 of the Eastern Dublin EIR; in 1994, an
Addendum to the Chapter 3.5 analysis of sewer treatment and disposal (dated August
22, 1994) was approved by the City Council.
This section of the DSEIR analyzes if any new or more significant impacts would occur
beyond those analyzed in the 1993 EIR with regard to water supply and storm drainage.
WATER
Water supply and distribution impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.5, Sewer, Water, and
._.. Storm Drainage, of the Eastern Dublin EIR and in an addendum dated August 22, 1994.
This supplement analyzes the Project's impacts when evaluated against new
~ information concerning water supply subsequent to the earlier analysis.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
~ Existing water supply. The Project Site obtains domestic water from private on-site
wells. The Applicant has requested potable and non-potable (recycled) water from
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The Project Site lies within the service
boundaries of DSRSD.
Water demand and supply. The City of Dublin and the Dougherty valley portion of San
Ramon are supplied by water provided by DSRSD, headquartered in Dublin. DSRSD
owns and operates a water distribution system, including transmission lines, pump
stations, reservoirs and water turnouts. DSRSD obtains water from Zone 7, which is
discussed below. DSRSD was formed in 1953, formerly known as the Parks Community
Services District and later as the Valley Community Services District.
Treated water is supplied to DSRSD by Zone 7 via four pipelines owned by Zone 7:
Cross Valley Pipeline, Santa Rita-Dougherty Pipeline, Santa Rita Pipeline, and
Dougherty Pipeline. This water is supplied through five turnouts. Turnout No. 1 is
located at the intersection of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail, just south of the
Project Site. Turnout No. 2 is located at the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 43
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~-o ~ ~ 5 g
~
and Stagecoach Road. The third turnout is in the vicinity of Arnold Drive and
Altamirano Road. The fourth turnout is located on Friesman Road, south of I-580
adjacent to Eastern Dublin. A fifth, seldom used, emergency turnout is located on 4t''
Street within Camp Parks. ~
Water received from the turnouts is distributed throughout DSRSD's water service area
including Dublin via a grid of underground water transmission lines, delivering water
to residences, businesses and other customers within the District's service area. Such
water transmission facilities are present in Tassajara Road adjacent to the Project site.
The District also provides recycled (reclaimed) water for irrigation and other non-
potable uses. DSRSD Ordinance No. 301 requires recycled water use for approved ""`
customer categories for all new land uses, including commercial, multi-family
residential and institutional irrigation uses within the DSRSD potable water service
area. New development within the Eastern Dublin area has been required to install dual '"~"
water systems and a recycled water distribution system has been installed within the
major streets, including Dublin Boulevard. A recycled water pipeline is present in
Tassajara Road adjacent to the Project site, and recycled water is available to serve the ~
Project. Zone 7 and DSRSD currently charge connection and other fees on new
development within the District's service area. Fees are used for construction of
planned water system capital improvements including storage, pumping, transmission --
and on-going system water maintenance and improvements. Some of the Project's
water needs will be met by recycled water. The City of Dublin has Water-Efficient
Landscaping Regulations that reduce water use for irrigation (Dublin Municipal Code ~~
Chapter 8.88).
DSRSD's Urban Water Management Plan (May 2005) (DSRSD UWMP) includes a
projection of future potable and reclaimed water use through the year 2030. This
projection is shown on Table 4.12-1, following. The DSRSD UWMP is incorporated
herein by reference and is available for public review at the City Public Works
Department during normal business hours. The analysis of water supply and demand
for the DSRSD service area relies on this most recent UWMP as permitted under CEQA.
Table 4.4-1. Projected DSRSD Water Demand
(Potable & Reclaimed) (Acre-Feet/Year)
Demand Source 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Potable Water
Dublin 9,300 10,600 11,900 13,700 13,700 13,700
Doug erty
Valle 1,250 2,800 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400
Subtotal 10,550 13,400 15,300 17,100 17,100 17,100
Rec cled Water 2,000 2,700 3,250 3,700 3,700 3,700
Total 12,550 16,100 18,550 20,800 20,800 20,800
Source: DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
~
Page 44
January 2009
~
~ ~ ~ 7~ 8~
~
DSRSD is responsible for planning to supply sufficient water to meet the anticipated
growth in demand. DSRSD plans to use a combination of potable and recycled water
supplies as well as conservation of water resources to meet demand. DSRSD's UWMP
shows that it has sufficient supply to meet demand through 2030 under all hydrologic
conditions (DSRSD UWMP, Tables 7-1- 7-5). Note that the 2005 DSRSD UWMP
projected water demand from buildout of Dublin would occur by 2020 in accordance
with the City General Plan. Based on more recent information, it appears that buildout
would occur at a later date due to the timing and development patterns in the City.
However, the amount of development and projected water demand would be similar to
that under the General Plan. So, for the purposes of this analysis, the water demand
under General Plan buildout is assumed the same as the amount in the DSIZSD UWMP
(20,800 afy), but the date of buildout is projected to be beyond 2020 (see discussion on
Future Water Demand in Section C.3 below).
The wholesale supplier of water to DSRSD is Zone 7. DSRSD has a contract with Zone 7
which establishes the obligations between the parties to meet demand in the DSRSD
service area. Under the contract, DSRSD is obligated to purchase all of the treated water
it requires from Zone 7, unless Zone 7 is unable to deliver sufficient water. If Zone 7 is
unable for a period of time to deliver sufficient water to satisfy DSRSD's needs, DSRSD
is permitted to acquire water from other sources during the period that Zone 7 has
insufficient water. Zone 7 has indicated that they will endeavor to meet DSRSD's water
, needs. Zone 7 relies on a combination of supplies to meet treated and untreated (i.e.,
raw surface water) water demands. Under Zone 7's most recently adopted UWMP
(2005), Zone 7 determined that sufficient water supply existed to serve water demand
through buildout of the Livermore-Amador Valley in 2030. The Zone 7 2005 UWMP is
incorporated herein by reference and is available for public review at the City Public
Works Department during normal business hours.
$ Zone 7 conducts an annual review of its water supply reliability. The most recent
- review was completed in May 2008 (Zone 7 Annual Review of Sustainable Water
~ Supply dated May 21, 2008 (2008 Annual Review)). The 2008 Annual Review concludes
Y that Zone 7's sustainable water supply is adequate to meet its 100% Reliability Policy
for existing and future demand through 2015. However, after 2015, the current
estimated sustainable water supply is insufficient to meet Zone 7's 100% Reliability
"~` Policy. At buildout, projected demand will exceed the estimated sustainable water
supply by about 6,000 acre feet a year. The 2008 Annual Review lists the basic
assumptions that the analysis used for water sources and amounts, demand growth,
~` and development (2008 Annual Review, p. 1). Any change in those basic assumptions
would impact the conclusions. Since the 2008 Annual Review is the most recent
information available from Zone 7 on its water supply, this EIR includes and analyzes
this information.
A. Zone 7 Water Supplv Sources and Amounts Identified in 2008 Annual Review
Below is a summary of the available water sources and amounts as described in Zone
7's 2008 Annual Review:
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 45
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
a ii ~ -~5~
State Water Project Su~plies: In a typical year, Zone 7 gets approximately 70 to 80
percent of its water supply from water conveyed through the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta by the State Water Project. Zone 7 has a 75-year contract with the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to receive water from the State
Water Project (SWP) that has almost 30 years remaining. The current Table A
Water under this contract is 80,619 acre feet a year (afy). SWP water is delivered
to Zone 7 from the Feather River Watershed via the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta. This water is then transported to Zone 7 through the California Aqueduct
to the South Bay Aqueduct and Lake Del Valle (if sufficient capacity is available).
Water enters the Zone 7 system from the South Bay Aqueduct and from Lake Del
Valle at two Zone 7 treatment plants: the Patterson Pass Treatment Plant and the
Del Valle Water Treatment Plant.
With regard to all of these SWP entitlements, actual water deliveries vary from
year to year, depending on hydrologic conditions, requests by other contractors,
delivery capacity, and environmental/regulatory requirements.
Historically, for planning purposes, Zone 7 anticipated a long-term annual
average delivery of 76% of its SWP entitlement or 60,900 afy. Recently, however,
SWP water deliveries have been resfiricted by an interim federal court order
restr-icting Delta pumping, which is designed to protect the Delta Smelt, an
endangered species. The interim court order is in place pending the issuance by
USF&WS of a new Biological Opinion addressing the impacts of Delta pumping
for the SWP on the Delta Smelt. Additional species-related restrictions on the
State Water Project's ability to deliver water from the Delta are possible (See
discussion below in Section C.2). Based on current restrictions in place for Delta
Smelt and global warming impacts on water supply (as estimated by DWR in its
2008 Reliability Report), Zone 7 currently anticipates a long-term annual average
delivery to be approximately 66% of its entitlements or 53,200 afy, a reduction of
7,700 afy from its historical available water supply estimates (2008 Annual
Review). The reduction in SWP annual supply delivery is mostly the result of the
Delta pumping restrictions under the interim court order (which accounts for
82% of the reduction).
Byron-Bethany Irri~ation District: Zone 7 has a long-term contract (15 year
renewable every 5 years) with the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID) for
delivery of up to 5,000 afy. Zone 7 has taken up to 4,000 afy in certain years
under the BBID agreement. However, for estimating sustainable water supply for
planning purposes, Zone 7 estimated only 2,000 afy from this source due to
constraints that limit Zone 7's ability to take full delivery, including actual
quantity of fallowed lands and conveyance through State Water Project facilities.
Local Surface Water: Lake Del Valle is a local storage reservoir operated as part
of the SWP. Zone 7 has rights to water from Lake Del Valle under its water rights
permit for the Arroyo Del Valle. This water is made available through operating
agreements with the DWR. Zone 7 estimates the future and long-term yield from
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
~
Page 46
January 2009 ~*°
~
~::-
~~ ~~ ~
this source at 9,300 afy based on modeling of historic runoff data and future
Zone 7 winter-season demands (2008 Annual Review).
Local Groundwater: Zone 7 uses the local underground aquifer basin as storage
and another source of water. It is estimated that a safe yield of 13,400 afy can be
withdrawn from the basin.
Recycled Water: Tertiary-treated recycled water is currently distributed for
irrigation by DSRSD and the City of Livermore. Zone 7 includes only the current
= amount of recycled water used for irrigation in its sustainable supply estimate -
3,300 afy. Although, Zone 7 acknowledges that the amount of recycled water
used in the Zone 7 district area will increase over time, its estimate of future
supply through 2030 assumes no increase.
B. Additional Water Which is Reasonablv Likelv to Be Available for Proiect
The 2008 Annual Review is a water supply planning document which evaluates
sustainable water supply based on Zone 7 policies, including its 100% Reliability Policy.
~~ Under CEQA, the standard for evaluating available water supply for a project is
whether the supply has a"reasonable likelihood" of becoming available (See discussion
below under CEQA Standards of Significance). There is additional water that is
,~ "reasonably likely" to become available to Zone 7 that was not included in the 2008
Annual Review. DSRSD also has water supplies available to serve the Project. This
water and its likelihood of availability to serve the proposed Project and buildout are
discussed below.
1. Additional Water Supplies That are Reasonably Likely to Become Available to Zone 7.
~ Under Zone 7's existing agreement with BBID, there are 3,000 afy which may
become available in the fuiure that were not included in estimated sustainable
supply in the 2008 Annual Review. The 3,000 afy were not included in the 2008
Annual Review based on assumptions regarding constraints on taking full
~ delivery of the water. However, Zone 7 is working with DWR and BBID to allow
Zone 7 to take full delivery of its BBID water supply. This water supply is
considered "reasonably likely" in the long-term given the negotiation efforts and
~ potential change in circumstances that would result in a change in the
assumptions underlying the constraints on taking the extra water.
~' Additionally, Zone 7, as the wholesale water agency in the Livermore-Amador
Valley, is committed to providing a reliable supply of high-quality drinking
water to its customers. Zone 7's water supply planning process is an on-going
'~ and cooperative process with its water retailers, which is continuously reviewed
and updated as statewide, regional and local water supply issues and conditions
change. Currently, Zone 7 and its retailers are actively working together to
~ address and respond to changing water supply conditions to provide reliable
water supplies that will meet future water demands within its service area. This
includes a series of actions for increasing the reliability of current water supplies
and augmenting the amourit of available water supply. Specific actions include
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 47
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
a -3~ ~~s-
the following. Zone 7 is actively engaged in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan
(BDCP), a long-term planning process to increase reliability of water supply
through the Delta by changing water delivery options (ex. dual conveyance ~
facility) and/or restoring Delta habitat. Zone 7 also is currently undertaking a
"Delta Supply Reliability Assessment Study" to review augmenting water
supply opportunities through interties with other wholesale water agencies and ~
regional water supply expansion projects such as the Las Vaqueros Reservoir
expansion. Other statewide efforts include fish protections that rely less on
overall water supply as part of the Operational Criteria and Planning Process
(OCAP) and interim Delta projects such as the "Frank Tracts, Two-Gate Project"
that could protect Delta fishes and enhance water supplies. These various efforts
to stabilize and augment available water supply are discussed in the Tri-Valley """'
Water Retailers Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2007/08 (approved October 29, 2008),
a copy of which is available for public review at the City Planning Department
during normal business hours. The Tri-Valley Water Retailers Annual Report is `"
incorporated herein by reference. Based on these efforts, it is reasonably likely
that the estimated long-term water supply shortfall of 6,000 afy estimated in the
2008 Annual Review will be met by increasing the reliability of existing water T
supplies or augmenting water supplies.
2. DSRSD Available Water Sources and Recycled Water. DSRSD also has water
supplies that are "reasonably likely" and would be available to serve the
proposed Project and other future long-term demands. DSRSD has an agreement
with Berrenda Mesa Water District for 5,000 afy of SWP water entitlements.
DSIZSD has a"right of first refusal" for these water entitlements. Since this water
is delivered through the Delta, it would be subject to the current interim
restrictions on Delta pumping under the federal court order in the Delta Smelt
litigation (see discussion below in Section C.2).
DSRSD, Livermore, and Pleasanton also have significant additional amounts of
recycled water and planned recycled water use which are "reasonably likely"
and not included in the 2008 Annual Review. The 2008 Annual Review assumes
recycled water use Valley-wide (including Livermore, Pleasanton and DSRSD
service area) will not increase over current use of 3,300 afy over next 22 years.
However, both Zone 7 and DSRSD state that the use of recycled water is
expected to increase in the future. DSRSD has established policies for the use,
promotion and priority for recycled water service (DSRSD UWMP, pp. 23-24).
Infrastructure is already in place in Dublin (including at the Project site) to use
recycled water in place of potable water, especially for irrigation. The use of
recycled water offsets potable water demand and frees up potable water supply.
The available recycled water supply is much greater than the 3,300 afy included
in the 2008 Annual Review. Currently, DSRSD delivers about 1,800 afy to its
service area (Rhodora Biagtan, DSRSD, personal communication, November 21,
2008). Use of recycled water in DSRSD's service area is expected to increase to
3700 afy by 2030 (Rhodora Biagtan, DSRSD, personal communication, November
2008). Additionally, DSRSD is seeking to implement other projects which are
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 48
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~
~t~
~-~`~! Y ~ ~~~
expected to permanently offset approximately 400 afy of existing potable water
demand by using recycled water. Other recycled water sources and users in Zone
7 include the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton. Livermore currently provides
about 930 afy of recycled water to users within the City (Darren Greenwood,
Water Resources Manager, City of Livermore, personal communication,
November 18, 2008). Recycled water use in Livermore is expected to expand to
1,650 afy upon buildout in the City's Recycled Water Use Area in the next 6-10
years (2014-2018) (Darren Greenwood, Water Resources Manager, City of
Livermore, personal communication, November 18, 2008). For the City of
Pleasanton, recycled water is expected to grow to 1,695 afy if implemented as
part of the buildout of North Pleasanton (mainly the Hacienda Business Park)
(Emily Wagner, Economic Development Fiscal Officer, City of Pleasanton,
personal communication, November 20, 2008). Under City plans, recycled water
use could grow to 5552 afy upon buildout of the City in 2029/30 (Emily Wagner,
Economic Development Fiscal Officer, City of Pleasanton, personal
communication, November 20, 2008). So, overall, recycled water use in Zone 7 is
expected to increase to at least 7000-10000 afy by 2030 or earlier, which is 3700-
6700 afy more than the amount included in the 2008 Annual Review for 2008 -
2030. The increased recycled water supply will offset potable water demand from
current potable water demand projections and free up potable water supply.
C. Water Reliabilit~ Plannin~ Assum~tions in 2008 Annual Review
The 2008 Annual Review also has series of assumptions that are used for water
reliability planning purposes. The level of reliability used for these planning purposes is
much greater than the CEQA standard of "reasonably likely". The assumptions used for
these water planning purposes are not required to be used for a CEQA "reasonably
likely" analysis. Therefore, under the CEQA standard, there is a"reasonable likelihood"
that future water supplies may be greater and future demand will be less than those
assumed in the 2008 Annual Review. The key assumptions that underlie the analysis in
the 2008 Annual Review, and are more conservative than the "reasonably likely"
standard, are discussed below.
1. Zone 7's 100% Reliability Policy. The 2008 Annual Review analyzed whether Zone
~' 7's sustainable water supply is sufficient to provide 100% reliable supply under
specified hydrologic conditions to meet existing and future demand. The
standard of 100% reliable supply under specified hydrologic conditions is part of
` Zone 7's Water Supply Reliability Policy (100% Reliability Policy). The Policy
states that Zone 7 will "endeavor to meet" 100% of its treated water customer
supply needs "during an average water year, a single dry water year, and
° multiple dry water years". These hydrologic conditions are further refined in the
Policy as conditions chosen by Zone 7 staff based on the historic record (ex. key
hydrologic conditions typically used for water supply planning include a
critically dry year (1977) and multiple dry years (1928 to 1934 and 1987 to 1992)).
Under the 2008 Annual Review, Zone 7 has sufficient water supplies to meet its
100% Reliability Policy through 2015. In other words, all the water demand of
projected growth could be met with 100% reliability under specified hydrologic
Neiisen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 49
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
a~~ ~~
conditions, including worst-case drought years (i.e., 1977 and 1987 to 1992) even
with the current Delta pumping restrictions remaining in place through 2015.
However, after 2015, Zone 7 may not be able to provide 100% of projected water
delivery demands under all specified hydrologic conditions if the current Delta
restrictions remained in place and based on other assumptions. The 100%
Reliability Policy is a conservative approach taken for water supply reliability
planning purposes and is stricter than the CEQA "reasonably likely" standard.
Zone 7's 100% Reliability Policy also is different than the level of reliability '
adopted by other water agencies around California. Most water purveyors
recognize that reductions in water delivery will be required in a certain
percentage of years and the amount of reductions will vary. The majority of `
California water purveyors set their reliability standards for planning purposes
at 80-90% generally meaning either (a) that in years of hydrological shortfall, the
required cutbacks in water delivery would have to be 10-20% or (b) that in 80- ~R'
90% of the hydrological years, an agency is able to make full deliveries.
("Evaluation of Water Supply Reliability Policies for Other Bay Area and
California Water Systems", Memorandum from West Yost Associates to DSRSD, ~'
dated November 12, 2008). So, the majority of water purveyors assume as part of ,;,
their water supply planning that some conservation or reduction in demand will
be required from customers to meet water needs in certain hydrologic *~
conditions. An alteration in the 100% Reliability Policy to provide for less than
100% delivery in certain years could be a means for Zone 7 to meet projected ~
demand after 2015. ~,
2. Interim Delta Pumping Restrictions Assumed Permanent. The State Water Project
(SWP) is the main source of water for Zone 7. Recently, SWP deliveries have been
reduced by restrictions on pumping water from the Delta under Court decisions
and regulatory agency action. The 2008 Annual Review assumes that the interim
restrictions on Delta pumping imposed by the federal court in the Delta smelt
litigation (Wanger decision) will continue long-term. However, the Wanger
decision states that these are interim restrictions that will be reviewed upon the
completion of a Biological Opinion on the Delta Smelt by U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service (USF&WS). On December 15, 2008, USF&WS released its revised
Biological Opinion. It appears that the Biological Opinion will result in similar
Delta pumping restrictions to those currently in place under the Wanger
decision. Water purveyors and others have expressed some concerns about the
Biological Opinion, so it may be subject to challenge or revised. One entity (the
Family Farm Alliance) has filed a lawsuit challenging the new Biological
Opinion. The final resolution of any long-term restrictions on Delta pumping due
to the Delta Smelt is not known at this time.
A second federal court decision has invalidated the USF&WS Biological Opinion
on the impact of Delta pumping on salmon and steelhead trout (Pacific Coast
Federation of Fisherman's Association v. Gutierrez Federal District Court Case #
06-CV-00245). No interim pumping restrictions have been imposed in the
litigation relating to the impacts of Delta exports on the salmon and steelhead
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
~
Page 50
January 2009 h ~
~
«~-
a~~ ~s~-
trout. In that litigation, a request for restrictions was denied by the Court based
on findings that (1) evidence seems to show that pumping and export restrictions
may not greatly benefit the species and have significant adverse consequences
for water users; and (2) there are substantial scientific disagreements about the
need for and effectiveness of the remedies on species viability. As part of that
litigation, USF&WS is preparing a new Biological Opinion on salmon and
steelhead which is anticipated to be completed in March 2009. The resolution of
any long-term restrictions on Delta pumping due to the salmon and steelhead
trout are not known at this time.
The Department of Fish & Game also has adopted regulations to protect longfin
smelt that might result in restrictions on Delta pumping. The regulations provide
temporary protection for the longfin smelt while the State considers whether to
list the fish as an endangered species. Whether and when these restrictions will
go into effect is unclear and uncertain. The restrictions take effect only in certain
situations. The State Water Contractors have filed a lawsuit challenging the
regulations.
In light of these litigation and regulatory issues, various federal and state
agencies are considering long-term solutions to the Delta pumping issue. Since a
substantial portion of the State's water supplies are derived from the Delta,
various state and federal efforts are underway to ensure that water deliveries
from the Delta can be maintained while at the same time protecting species that
rely on the Delta habitat. These efforts include near-term (or interim) projects,
such as the Franks Tract Project, which would install a physical barrier in the
Delta that would serve to reduce the impact of pumping on Delta Smelt; and
long-term projects, such as the construction of dual- or isolated-conveyance
system. Such a dual- or isolated-conveyance system would involve the
construction of a canal between an intake at the Sacramento River upstream of
the Delta and the SWP pumps at the southern end of the Delta, which would
allow SWP water to be conveyed separately from the Delta. As discussed above
in Section B.1, Zone 7 and the Tri-Valley Retailers are actively working on
various solutions to increase the reliability of water currently delivered through
the Delta. Based on the importance to the entire State of resolving the Delta
pumping situation and the various options available for resolution, it is
"reasonably likely" to assume that either the restrictions will be lifted, a solution
to the Delta conveyance impacts on species and habitat will be implemented, an
alternative source of water will be found by Zone 7 to replace the approximately
6,000 afy water "shortfall" by 2030, or new policies will offset the negative
impacts of the restrictions (e.g., state legislation (ex. Laird bill (AB 2175) or a
revised Zone 7 policy).
3. Future Water Demand Likely Overstated. The water "shortfall" conclusions in the
2008 Annual Review result from very conservative demand assumptions which
include no reduction in per capita demand over the next 22 years and no further
implementation of conservation measures or requirements. However, recent
demand data from DSRSD and Zone 7 show water demand is decreasing. The
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 51
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~ ~ ~7 7v 8
~
2008 Annual Review does not reflect this decrease in demand. In addition, the
2008 Annual Review does not consider future reductions in demand due to State
regulations and the implementation of water conservation measures. Based on
the following discussion, it appears "reasonably likely" that the growth in
potable water demand assumed under the 2008 Annual Review will occur at a
slower rate or will be less than that projected at buildout.
a. Recent Decreases in Water Demand
DSRSD's billing account data shows that per water account demand has
decreased 38% over the last 3 years (2005-2008) (Rhodora Biagtan, DSRSD,
personal communication, November 21, 2008). The water demand per account
decrease from January - October was 25% in 2005-2006, 4.7% in 2006-2007, and
14% in 2007-2008 (Rhodora Biagtan, DSRSD, personal communication,
November 21, 2008). This decrease may be attributed to a number of reasons,
including but not limited to, increased use of recycled water for irrigation,
increased density of developments, lower ntunber of occupants per residential
unit, voluntary water conservation efforts, and the current economic slowdown.
This data shows a pattern of significant, recent overall demand reduction. As
part of DSRSD's next Water Master Planning effort, it is reviewing water demand
data and will adjust projections as necessary.
Zone's 7's recent 5 year delivery requests show a 3% reduction in potable water
requests for 2009 from delivery requests made in 2008 (Zone 7 Five Year Delivery
Requests 2009-2013, dated October 15, 2008 (2008 5 Year Delivery Request)).
DSRSD reduced their delivery rate by 9% due to the economic slowdown and the
reduced rate of growth in their service area (2008 5 Year Delivery Request, p. 3).
California Water Service and Livermore each reduced their delivery requests by
2% (2008 5 Year Delivery Request, p. 3). Also, in 2008, some contractors took less
of their requested water deliveries due to increased conservation efforts. (2008 5
Year Delivery Request, p. 4). Overestimates of estimated delivery requests have
also occurred recently. In 2006, Pleasanton and Livermore actual deliveries were
8-10% below amounts included in Zone 7 plans (2008 5 Year Delivery Request, p.
4).
Water demand also seems to be decreasing due to the economic downturn.
Within the last year in particular, the DSRSD service area has begun to
experience a reduction in requested water connections due to the economic
slowdown, especially the significant reduction in construction of new single
family homes. The number of new 5/8-inch water meter equivalent water
connections requests in the first 9 months of 2008 was 67 compared to 1,022 for
the first 9 months of 2007, a reduction of 93.4%. The drop in water connections is
evidence of an economic slowdown which will result in a slowdown in the rate
of growth of future water demand.
The recent reduction in water demand documented above could extend available
water supplies to meet Zone 7's 100% Reliability Policy beyond 2015 as estimated
in the 2008 Annual Review.
,~.,
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 52
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~,
a ~g ,~. ~~
b. Reductions in Future Water Demand Due to State Regulations and Water
Conservation
The demand estimates in the 2008 Annual Review do not reflect the mandatory
20% reduction in indoor water use in residential development required in 2011
under the recently adopted 2008 California Green Building Code Standards. The
Green Building Code also includes a comparable 20% reduction in commercial
development which is currently voluntary, but is expected to be adopted as part
of the 2010 California Building Code revisions. A 50% reduction in potable water
use in outdoor landscape irrigation will be part of the 2010 California Building
Code. Therefore, it is "reasonably likely" that the 2008 Annual Review over-
estimated future water demand since it did not assume any reduction in per
capita demand in future. A future reduction of demand greater than the 6-9%
"shortfall" identified in the 2008 Annual Review seems "reasonably likely"
especially in light of the 20% indoor water use reduction and 50% outdoor water
use reduction mandates in the California Green Building Code. The 2008 Annual
Review states that a 20% reduction in per capita water use would result in Zone 7
having adequate supplies to meet demand through buildout (2008 Annual
Review, p. 1).
The 2008 Annual Review also does not include any reduction in demand due to
the implementation of voluntary or mandatory conservation measures. Although
conservation measures are greatest in drought years, they carry-over to non-
drought years, especially structural conservation measures. For example,
permanent conservation based on structural changes include replacing existing
potable-water landscape irrigation systems with recycled water systems and
retrofitting existing structures with water conserving fixtures. Additional water
conservation measures and use of recycled water is increasing in new
development and could be required. Several proposed programs to offset
existing demand (ex. toilet flush retrofit at Alameda County Santa Rita Prison)
could free up potable water supplies for future demand. Overall, these measures
would significantly reduce future water demand.
DSRSD currently has an extensive water conservation program in place, as
described in Chapter 8 of DSRSD's 2005 UWMP. The projected future water
demands presented in Table 4.12-1 include continued implementation of
DSRSD's water conservation programs. In single dry or multiple dry years, the
projected demands would likely decrease as a result of additional mandated
water conservation measures and increased awareness by DSRSD's customers.
Based on water conservation by DSRSD' s customers in past droughts, a
reduction in water demand of up to 25 percent is assumed to occur during single
dry or multiple dry years with implementation of mandatory water use
restrictions and prohibitions as outlined in DSRSD's Water Shortage Contingency
Plan (Chapter 9 of DSRSD's 2005 UWMP). The Zone 7 UWMP also sets forth
detailed Water Demand Management Measures that reduce water use. Zone 7
reached a voluntary demand reduction of 25% during the critical dry year of
1991 (when Zone 7 received only 30% of its SWP water supply). This demand
reduction has been assumed for DSRSD' s City of Dublin service area, but not for
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 53
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
al9 `75~
~
the Dougherty Valley service area, due to the nature of the supply agreements
for pougherty Valley. However, some reduction will also likely occur in the
Dougherty Valley service area due to increased awareness by DSRSD's
customers. Also, both DSRSD and Zone 7 have adopted contingency plans for
water cutbacks in the event of a drought that are not included in the assumptions
in the 2008 Annual Review.
4. Conservative Planning Assumptions. The 2008 Annual Review also states that if any
one of the conservative planning assumptions upon which its analysis is based
changes, the analysis could significantly change. Zone 7 has identified the
following planning-level assumptions used in their analysis that could be subject
to change, which could extend the 100 percent reliability of Zone 7 supplies
beyond 2015 by reducing the projected demands, and / or increasing the
sustainable supply available to Zone 7:
• Slow-down in development due to economic or other factors, thus delaying
and/or reducing the rate of increase in projected future demands;
• Reduction in projected demand in normal years (including potential
reductions in per capita water demand consistent with State legislative or
executive proposal's for a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use
statewide and / or during dry years (as a result of water conservation by
DSRSD and the other retailers);
• Increases in recycled water use, thus reducing potable water demands; and
• Implementation of near-term and long-term Delta improvements to increase
long-term SWP deliveries to Zone 7.
Regulatory Framework. The EDSP established Goals, Policies and Action Programs to "
guide cooperation between the City, the DSRSD and the project developers in
producing new water supplies and water distribution facilities. Many of these
provisions were adopted as mitigation measures for all of Eastern Dublin. These "~
policies included coordinating with DSRSD on the expansion of their water service ~
boundary, supporting DSRSD and Zone 7's policies and capital improvement programs
and requiring developers to get "will-serve° letters from DSRSD prior to City grading ""'
permit approvaL
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to the supply of water.
Mitigation measure 3.5/23.0 addresses possible salinity in the groundwater basin.
Mitigation measures 3.5 / 24.0-40.0 were adopted to prevent overdraft of ground water
resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and connection to DSRSD; to
minimize the effect of additional demand for water by encouraging water recycling and
conservation and by encouraging the development of new facilities and supplies; and to
ensure the development of a water distribution system by generally preventing
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
~~:
Page 54
January 2009
~_
~ o ~- ~7 ~ ~-
development until such facilities are constructed by developers. Other mitigations
(3.5/41.0-43.0) were adopted to deal with the potential for reservoir failures, the
potential for loss of system pressure, and noise from water system pump stations. The
Eastern Dublin EIR noted that the Eastern Dublin General Plan and EDSP would
increase demand to serve development at build-out under the then-applicable general
plans and required an additional 25,000 acre-feet annually (AFA). Mitigation Measure
3.5 / 28.0 relied on Zone 7's planning to acquire additional supplies. Impact 3.5 / S found
a lack of a water distribution system and required a"will serve" letter prior to grading
permit (mitigation measure 3.5/3.8.0). Impact 3.5/T, Inducement of Substantial Growth,
was deemed to be significant even after mitigation. Upon approval of the GPA/SP, the
City adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this significant unavoidable
impact (Resolution No. 53-93).
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed Project has a greater number of dwelling units than assumed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. This DSEIR examines whether there is a reasonable likelihood that
water would be available to serve the Project.
Significance criteria. The proposed project would be considered to have a
significant impact on water supply and distribution if it were to:
• Require new or expanded water supply entitlements or facilities to serve the
proposed project.
Under CEQA standards, the EIR must analyze the "reasonable likelihood" that
adec~uate water supply will be available to serve the Project and other water
demand under near-term and long-term conditions. The "reasonably likely"
showing does not require certainty of future water supplies through signed,
enforceable agreements with providers and already built or approved facilities. An
EIR must include a reasoned analysis of the circumstances affecting the likelihood
of the water's availability. "Paper water," speculative sources or unrealistic
allocations are not "reasonably likely" sources under CEQA. Uncertainty in the
form of competition for identified water sources is an important point that should
be discussed, but it does not necessarily render development of the planned water
supply too unlikely. It is not necessary that the EIR show that total water supply in
the long-term would be sufficient to meet total demand, but a discussion of total
supply and demand is necessary to evaluate the cumulative impacts of
development on water supply.
There is a level of uncertainty regarding the availability of water
supplies that can be tolerated in an EIR. However, the EIR must
provide decision makers with information to evaluate the sources of
water for the project and their impacts. The EIR can rely on and
incorporate analysis of the impacts from water sources performed by
the water purveyors. The analysis of replacement or alternative
sources is only required if it is impossible to confidently determine that
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 55
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
aa~ ~-~~~
anticipated future water sources will not be available. As long as an
EIR discloses potential uncertainties and contains substantial evidence
demonstrating that water supplies will likely be available in the future
despite uncertainties, an EIR is not required to identify and analyze
alternative water supplies
Supplemental impacts. The following environmental impacts are anticipated
should the proposed Project be approved.
Water demand. Construction of proposed improvements on the Project Site would
increase demand for potable water for domestic purposes and for recycled (non-
potable) water for irrigation of Project open space areas. The Project would also
incorporate low-flow toilets and other permanent water conservation mechanisms, to
reduce the magnitude of the Project's overall water demand. The following table is an
estimate of potable water use requirements for the full build-out of the proposed
Project.
Table 4.4-2. Estimated Nielsen Project Potable Water Demand
in Gallons Per Day (GPD)
Land Use Dwellings Generation Factor Est. Water Demand
(gallons/day)
Low Density 32 393 12,576
Residential
Medium Density 4 225 900
Residential
Deduct existing 2 393 786
dzuellin s
Subtotal-Potable 12,690
Water
Notes:
1) Number of dwellings based on Project Description
2) Generation factors from West-Yost Associates "Nielsen Development Water Service Analysis-
Preliminary Hydraulic Results," August 20, 2008. This report is hereby incorporated into this
DSEiR. The report is available for review at the Dublin Planning Division during normal business
hours
Construction of the proposed Project would therefore increase estimated potable
water demand by 12,690 gallons per day or 14.2 afy. This would be an incremental
increase in water use for Dublin and surrounding communities served by DSRSD
and Zone 7. 14.2 afy constitutes only 0.08% of DSIZSD's long-term potable water
supply of 17,100 afy, and 0.017% of the conservative total sustainable water supply
of 81,200 afy, in the 2008 Annual Review.
In addition, there would be an increase in demand for non-potable irrigation water.
A recycled water distribution main is located adjacent to the Project property. There
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 56 ~
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
aad -~ ~g-
is a sufficient supply of recycled water available to serve this demand and a less-
than-significant impact would result with regard to this topic.
DSRSD has indicated that, as of the date of this SEIR, potable water is available for
this Project and will remain available until at least 2015 without any further
considerations. The incremental increase in potable water demand would be
relatively small and that DSRSD does not believe that the increase would have a
significant impact on the District's ability to provide water supplies to its customers
in this area (personal contact, Aaron Johnson, DSRSD, 4/ 8/ 08). 14.2 afy constitutes
only 0.08% of DSRSD's long-term potable water supply of 17,100 afy. DSRSD also
will not issue construction permits for the proposed Project if there is not available
water, in accordance with DSRSD Code Section 6.2.01. So, the proposed Project will
not be allowed to begin construction under DSRSD regulations unless there is
adequate water to serve Project demand. At collection of connection fees and issuance
of a construction permit, a connection to the DSRSD water supply system will be
made and water provided to the Project in accordance with DSRSD regulations.
Additionally, Mitigation Measure 3.5/38 in the Eastern Dublin EIR requires a"will-
serve" letter from DSRSD prior to grading permit approval.
Zone 7 has determined that it has sufficient supplies to serve projected demand with
100% delivery reliability through 2015 even with the continuation of the current
restrictions on SWP water due to restrictions on Delta pumping. The Project is
expected to be completed before 2015. Therefore, there is available water to serve the
proposed Project if it is completed before 2015 even under the conservative analysis
in the 2008 Annual Review. Zone 7 and DSRSD allocate water to users on a first-
come-first-served basis.
The analysis of water availability and reliability in the 2008 Annual Review is
different and stricter than the CEQA standards. CEQA requires that water supplies
are "reasonably likely" to be available to serve the Project in the near and long-term.
Under CEQA, the water supply analysis in an EIR may rely on a recently-adopted
UWMP. Zone 7's current 2005 UWMP concluded that it had sufficient water to meet
existing and future demand under its 100% Reliability Policy through 2030. Zone 7's
2005 UWMP did not consider species-related restrictions on Delta pumping. Zone 7
will update its UWMP in 2010. However, the 2008 Annual Review identifies a
potential "shortfall" in supply after 2015 to meet the 100% Reliability Policy. This
Review is a"snapshot" based on current conditions taken outside the formal UWMP
planning process that takes place every 5 years.
As discussed above, under the conservative analysis in the 2008 Annual Review,
existing water supplies may prove insufficient to meet demand with 100% delivery
reliability after 2015. The "shortfall" of supply to meet the 100% Reliability Policy
would equal about 6,000 afy in 2030.
Based on the above discussion, adequate water supplies to meet existing and future
demand (including the proposed Project) are reasonably likely. The 2008 Annual
Review is based on very conservative assumptions. It does not include the full
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 57
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
aa~ -~ ~
_
amount of "reasonably likely" water supply available to Zone 7 under existing
contracts and potentially new sources of supply being pursued. DSRSD also has
existing water supplies available under its contract with BMID and recycled water
and additional conservation measures that could be implemented which could be
used to meet Project and cumulative demand.
In addition, it is reasonably likely that existing and future demand would be at least
15% below that estimated in the 2008 Annual Review after 2015. The recently adopted
State Green Building Code requires a 20% reduction in indoor water use in
residential development in 2011 and a similar voluntary reduction for commercial
development is expected to become mandatory in the 2010 California Building Code.
In addition, a 50% reduction in outdoor water use is expected to be part of the 2010
California Building Code. Zone 7 and DSRSD also have current water conservations
measures that are in effect during droughts and may be expanded to address
shortages resulting from other causes. Historical figures show that these conservation
measures could reduce demand by about 25%.
Zone 7 acknowledges that if any of the basic assumptions used in the 2008 Annual
Review change, then the results could change. The current 2008 Annual Review
assumes: buildout proceeds in accordance with current General Plans in linear
fashion to 2030 without any slowdown due to current economic downtown; no
change in its 100% Reliability Policy; and existing interim restrictions on Delta
pumping will continue long-term.
In summary, it is "reasonably likely" that there are existing and future potential
water supplies greater than 6,000 afy that are not included in the 2008 Annual
Review. In addition, likely reduction in demand by 2030 will exceed the amount of
this identified shortfall.
Based on the foregoing, water supplies are reasonably likely to be available to serve
the proposed Project and existing demand in the near-term, and Project and
cumulative demand in the long-term. Therefore, the proposed Project impact is less
than significant. The Project contribution to any significant cumulative impact is
less than cumulatively considerable and, therefore, less than significant. Since water
supplies are reasonably likely, the EIR is not required to analyze alternative water
sources and supplies.
STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER Q UALITY
Storm drainage and water quality impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.5, Sewer, Water,
and Storm Drainage, of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement evaluates changes in
hydrology or regulatory standards since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. It further
evaluates the Project in light of the promulgation of regional water quality requirements
pursuant to the Clean Water Act subsequent to certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Lastly it evaluates the potential for the Project to contribute to increase in the salinity of
the groundwater basin.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
~
Page 58
January 2009 ~
~.
~~ ~ ~ ~5g
r
ENVIROMENTAL SETTING
Regional and local watersheds. The Project Site is located within the Alameda Creek
watershed. The closest regional drainage facility is Tassajara Creek, west of the Project
Site, that drains into to the Arroyo De La Laguna, which discharges into Alameda Creek
near Sunol, and ultimately discharges to San Francisco Bay near Union City.
Existing on-site drainage facilities. The Site is largely undeveloped and contains
minimum storm drainage improvements. Stormwater flows overland to Silvera Ranch
Road and Tassajara Road for transmission into Tassajara Creek.
Regulatory framework
Clean Water Program Rec~uirements. As discussed in the Eastern Dublin EIR the 1987
amendment of the federal Clean Water Act required that the Environmental Protection
Agency establish new programs to control non-point pollution in both surface and
groundwaters. Locally such programs directed at land development projects were not in
place in 1993, when the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified.
As of the mid-1990's the regulation of non-point source runoff is administered through
the Alameda County Municipal Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit. Dublin is a permittee city within the Alameda County permit.
Regionally the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) reviews and approves
both the Alameda County NPDES permit and the implementation of ineasures at a
project level. The Alameda County permit requires that dischargers address stormwater
quality impacts associated with land development projects. The regulations require that
the impacts of the project's stormwater discharge on downstream watercourses be
addressed. Potential impacts are described as 1) water quality associated or 2)
hydromodification (change in the timing or velocity of stormwater runoff in the post-
development condition) associated impacts.
The NPDES permit regulations are clear in establishing the need for analyzing and
mitigating for adverse impacts to receiving waters downstream of a proposed
development, but the criteria for assessing "adverse impacts to beneficial uses", and
guidance for acceptable methods for mitigating any potential impacts are not contained
in the NPDES permit and are undefined at this time. The Alameda County Clean Water
Program, which manages the County permit, has adopted a program relating to
hydromodification to the RWQCB. Locally, in the same fashion as described above
regarding water quality requirements, the City of Dublin attaches a standard condition
to each property's development application to comply with the hydromodification
requirements of the Alameda County NPDES permit.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the potentially significant impact of flooding (Impact
3.5/Y, Potential Flooding). The EIR established mitigation measures incorporating the
EDSP policies and action program requiring storm drainage master planning (Mitigation
Measure 3.5 / 46.0), requiring natural channel improvements wherever possible
(Mitigation Measure 3.5 / 45.0) and requiring that drainage facilities minimize any
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 59
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
02~5 ~ -75~
increased potential for erosion or flooding (Mitigation Measure 3.5/44.0). The EIR found
that with the implementation of these mitigation measures potential flooding impacts
would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Another potentially significant impact evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR concerned
the possibility that urban runoff might cause a deterioration of the quality of stormwater
discharging from the planning area (Impact 3.5/AA, Non-Point Sources of Pollution).
This was also considered a potentially significant cumulative impact. With the
implementation of mitigation measures requiring each development to prepare project-
specific water quality investigations addressing this issue (Mitigation Measure 3.5/51.0)
and the development of a community-based non-point-source control education
program (Mitigation Measure 3.5/52.0), requiring new development projects to meet the
City's Best Management Practices for stormwater pollution (Mitigation Measure 3.5/53),
requiring all development proposals to meet the City's National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Mitigation Measure 3.5/54.0 and requiring all
individual developments to meet the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water
Program (Mitigation Measure 3.5/55.0), that this potential impact and potential
cumulative impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Project proposes greater development intensity than was assumed in the General
Plan and the Eastern Dublin EIR. Also, new standards relating to the impact of non-point
source water quality have been put in place since the 1993 EIR was certified.
Significance criteria. Implementation of the Project would be considered to have a
significant impact on storm drainage/water quality if it were to result in any or all of the
following beyond levels analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR:
• Violate water quality standards;
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Site in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Site, including
the alteration of a course of a stream or river, that would substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, which would result in
on- or off-site flooding; or
• Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage
systems and/or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff or
substantially degrade water quality
Supplemental impacts. The following storm drainage, flooding and water quality issues
have been identified as potential supplemental impacts and are analyzed below: changes
in stormwater runoff exceeding capacity of local channels and changes in surface water
quality standards.
Violation of water quality standards. Impacts are anticipated with regard to soil
erosion and surface water quality. During Project construction, existing improvements
Neilsen ProjecbDraft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
~
Page 60
January 2009 9
~
~~~ ~758'
and vegetation would be removed and the potential for soil erosion will be at its
greatest. Upon completion and occupancy of a Project, potential water quality
contaminants may be produced from typical activities. Typical activities that may
produce contaminants include landscape chemical application, landscape trimmings,
automobile use, automobile fluid spillage, and other similar activities.
As part of the normal and customary development review process for new
development applications, the Dublin Public Works Department will require
preparation and adherence to a soil erosion control plan by the Project Developer(s) to
reduce soil erosion from the Site to a less-than-significant level.
Su~plemental Impact SM-WATER-1(water qualitv): The quality of stormwater
runoff from the Project Site would be expected to decline resulting from an
increase in the production of non-point source urban pollutants. Such
contaminants include debris, landscaping fertilizers and pesticides, heavy
metals, oil and gas residues, tire fragments and debris normally deposited by
vehicular traffic. Stormwater runoff from developed areas on the Site would
carry non-point source pollutants into surface waters within the drainage
channels, where they would cause a cumulative degradation of water quality in
San Francisco Bay (significant impact and mitigation requirec~.
The following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring the project developer(s) to incorporate state-of-the-art
Best Management Practices into the project during construction and post-
construction.
Su~plemental Mit~ation Measure SM-WAT'ER-1 (water qualitv): Project
Developer(s) shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that
incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction and post-
construction conditions. The SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Quality
Control Board standards and Alameda County Clean Water Program
requirements. The SWPPP shall be prepared prior to issuance of a demolition
permit by the City of Dublin to avoid spill over of material into Tassajara Creek
and other bodies of water during demolition. The BMPs may include, but not
limited to, incorporation of grassy swales into landscaped areas, use of filtration
devices and similar features.
Alteration of drainage patterns and drainage system capacity. Approval and
construction of the proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious
surfaces on the Site. A large portion of the Site is presently vacant, absorbs rainfall
and generates minimal stormwater runoff. These areas are located in the western
portion of the Site. The proposed Project includes construction on almost all
portions of the Site, with the exceptions of building setbacks, open spaces and
landscaped areas. Existing undeveloped portions of the Site would predominantly
be used for residential or vehicle parking and circulation areas.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 61
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
aa ~ ~5g
~
The anticipated increase in the amount of impervious surfaces would increase the
quantity and rate of stormwater leaving the Site and could increase the overall
general drainage pattern of the Site and the surrounding larger area. The amount of
such increase, rate of flow and the direction of flow could exceed the capacity of the
existing system to accommodate such increases and/or could direct stormwater in a
different direction. The existing storm drainage system could be inadequate to
accommodate increased rates and/or flows from the Site and localized flooding
could occur.
Supplemental Impact SM-WATER-2 (increased stormwater runoffl:
Development of the Project would introduce new impervious surfaces (primarily
buildings, driveways, roads and hardscape elements) onto the now vacant
portions of the Site, increasing the amount , direction and rate of stormwater
runoff. Stormwater increases could exceed the capacity of local and regional
drainage systems to accommodate such increases (significant impact and
mitigation required).
The following measure shall be implemented to reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by ensuring that adequate capacity exists in downstream drainage
facilities to accommodate any significant increases in the amount, direction and rate
of stormwater from the Project Site.
Supplemental Miti~ation Measure SM-WATER-2 (increased stormwater runoffl:
Project Developer(s) shall prepare a drainage and hydrology plan using Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Zone 7 and City drainage criteria which shall
indicate that adequate on and off-site capacity exists in local and regional
drainage facilities to accommodate the direction, rate and amount of increased
stormwater runoff. If necessary, developer(s) shall upgrade undersized drainage
facilities to ensure that: a) no on-Site flooding would occur and b) downstream
drainage facilities are not overburdened by Project drainage. The drainage and
hydrology plan shall be approved by the Dublin Public Works Department and
all recommendations for drainage improvements shall be incorporated into
Project improvement plans.
4.5 Soils and Geology
INTRODUCTION
This supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR examines whether any new or more ~
significant impacts would occur with regard to ground rupture, ground failure,
landslides, expansive soils, settlement, lateral spreading, or ground collapse as a result of
the proposed Project. '~`
This section of the DSEIR is based on a site-specific preliminary geotechnical
investigation completed by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants dated July 24, 2007, as '"""
updated based on an independent peer review conducted by CEG Engineers. The
original report, peer review letter and all other supplemental geotechnical information is
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 62
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~
a a-~ . -75 ~
~
hereby incorporated by reference into this DSEIR. All of the geotechnical information is
available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal
business hours.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Overview. The Site exhibits predominantly moderate to steep topography with the
northeast corner of the Site rising to a height of approximately 570 feet above mean sea
level. A flat area exists in the northwest corner. A flat pad has been graded at an
elevation of approximately 444 feet above sea level in the north central portion section of
the Site for a horse arena. The main dwelling is located in the south central portion of the
Site and is located on a flat graded pad with an estimated elevation of 558 feet above sea
level. An agricultural mobile home and horse arena are located in the northerly portion
of the Site.
Regional geology. The Site is situated within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of
California, which is characterized by northwest trending, folded and faulted mountain
chains. On this part of the province, sedimentary rocks of the Tassajara Formation, that
were deposited during the Pliocene and Pleistocene Epochs of geologic time
(approximately 11,000 to 5.3 million years before present), underlie the area. The region
has been folded and faulted as a result of the Pacific Plate moving northwestward
relative to the North American Plate. The majority of folding and faulting of the region
is believed to have occurred over the past few million years.
Subsurface geologic features. Artificial fill is located in the following portions of the
Project Site:
• Northwest corner in the flat-lying area, up to about 3 feet thick, consisting of soil
materials overlain by a thin veneer of gravel.
• Along the northern end of the property, possibly up to 10 to 15 feet thick, along
the centerline of the old drainage swale.
• In the southeast corner of the Site up to 10 feet thick, around the existing
ridgetop residence and the existing cell tower site.
• Other minor locations throughout the Site.
Other portions of the Site are underlain by colluvium. This is material that accumulates
in convergent portions of slopes and the along the toes of slopes by means of sheet
wash and/or slow downslope soil creep. A review of predevelopment topographic
maps indicates that a swale crosses through the Site that was underlain by colluvium.
The swale extended up from Silvera Ranch Drive at the entrance to the Site. The
Tassajara formation consists of thinly bedded deposits of sandstone, siltstone and
claystone with minor amounts of gravel. In general two main types of bedrock were
encountered in the test pits, sandstone and claystone. At the Site, the sandstones were
found to be fine-grained, highly fractured, and friable to weak. Claystone was highly
fractured, friable and shows signs of shrink-swell structures in some areas. The
Claystone is likely expansive.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 63
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~~ ~~~
Seismic conditions. The Site is not located within a State of California designated
Earthquake Fault zone for active faults. The State of California considers a fault active if
it has demonstrated Holocene activity, within the past 11,000 years. Active faults in the
region include but are not limited to the Mount Diablo thrust located about 2 miles to
the northeast, the Greenville fault located about 8 miles to the northeast, the Calaveras
fault located about 4 miles to the west, and the Hayward fault located about 12 miles to
the west.
Landslides. Regional landslide mapping by the U.S. Geological Survey (Nilsen, 1973;
Majmundar, 1991) shows a landslide deposit on the slightly convergent portion of the
west-facing slope along Tassajara Road. Based on the test pit exposures conducted by
Berlogar, no evidence of a landslide deposit was found, but rather found typical
gradational soil and bedrock contact. Additionally, the bedrock materials within the
convergent area consisted of clayey siltstone and silty claystone that are easily erodable
relative to the stronger sandstone beds encountered along the ridgeline to the south.
However, a lump was observed in the topography near the toe of the slope that has the
general shape of a landslide deposit. Numerous underground utilities were reported to
cross through this area that precluded safe excavation of test pits to explore the
features nature. Therefore, on a conservative basis this area is shown as a queried
landslide deposit by the symbol "Qls" on Plate 2 of the full geotechnical investigation.
Based on observations at the Site by the registered geotechnical professional and
experience in the area, if present, it is estimated that the landslide deposit is on the
order of less than about 10 to15 feet thick. Similar to the colluvium, the clayey soils of
the landslide debris are likely expansive.
Regulatory framework. The Environmental Resources Management Element of the
Dublin General Plan contains the following guiding and implementing policies relating
to seismic safety:
Guiding Polic,y A: Geologic hazards should be mitigated or development shall be ~
located away from geologic hazards in order to preserve life, protect property and
reasonably limit the financial risks to the City of Dublin and other public agencies .~
that would result from damage to poorly located public facilities.
Im~lementin Polic,~: All structures shall be designed to the standards delineated ,~
in the Uniform Building Code and Dublin grading ordinance. A"design earthquake"
shall be established by an engineering geologist for each structure for which ground ~
shaking is a significant design factor. „~
Im~lementing Policy C: Generally, facilities should not be built astride potential
rupture zones, although certain low-risk facilities may be considered. „~„
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes the following goals and policies regulating
geology, soils, erosion and grading.
Goal: To create a~land use pattern that ensures public health, safety and welfare.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
~
Page 64
January 2009 W
~
~~~~~~
Polic,~6-40: No structure shall be located on slopes between 20 to 30%, where this
location is downslope of colluvium or dormant landslides on sloes over 30% unless
detailed feasibility and design-level geotechnical investigations indicate that
development can be safely undertaken and/or mitigation measures can be
implemented which will reduce impacts to a level of insignificance.
Policy 6-41: No structures shall be located in slopes of 10-30% where underlain by
highly expansive soils, areas of unconsolidated fill, or within 100 feet of incised
stream channels, unless detailed feasibility and design-level geotechnical
investigations are undertaken and required engineered mitigations performed.
Policy 6-42: Development is generally not permitted in areas with slopes of 30
percent or greater. Limited grading and repair of landslides will be permitted in areas
of slopes of 30 percent or more under certain circumstances.
Polic,~ New development shall be designed to provide effective control of soil
erosion as a result of construction activities and the alteration of site drainage
characteristics.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE EASTERN DUSLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts associated with seismic
ground rupture, ground failure, landslides, lateral spreading and ground collapse
hazards. These include:
• Impact 3.6/A, impacts related to ground fault rupture, which was determined
to be insignificant due to lack of active faults in the Eastern Dublin area.
Impact 3.6/B, primary effects from earthquake ground shaking. This impact
was found to be significant and unavoidable since primary effects of
groundshaking is common through the region. Adherence to Mitigation
Measure 3.6/ 1.0 would reduce this impact by requiring project developers to
construct improvements in conformity with the Uniform Building Code and
other applicable City and County code requirements but not to a less-than-
significant level.
• Impact 3.6/C, secondary effects from earthquake ground shaking. This impact
is reduced to a less-than-significant level by requiring project developers to
remove unsuitable earthern material in hillside areas, use of engineered
retention structures, and use of keyways to stabilize slopes as outlined in
Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 through 8.0.
` • Impact 3.6/D, substantial alteration to project site landforms. This impact is
reduced to a less-than-significant level by requiring individual project
developers prepare grading plans that are adapted to natural topographic
features and developing custom building lots. Use of retaining walls would
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 65
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~~~ ~~ ~,
~~
also minimize the need for excessive grading. Clustering of structures is also
recommended as a method of reducing excessive hillside grading. These
methods are included in Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0 and 10.0.
Impact 3.6 / H, impacts related to shrinking and swelling of expansive soils and
bedrock. This is mitigated by adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/ 14.0
through 16.0 that require individual project developers to include site-specific
design criteria to overcome shrink-swell hazards, reducing and controlling
moisture content in soils surrounding development areas and use of
appropriate foundation designs.
Impact 3.6/I, impacts related to natural slope stability and landslide potential.
This impact is reduced by adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/ 17.0 through
19.0, by relying on site-specific geotechnical investigations, limiting
construction of improvements on potentially unstable downslopes or on
slopes of greater than 30 percent and, if required by the geotechnical
investigation, removal and reconstruction of historic landslide areas consistent
with the geotechnical report and installation of surface and subsurface
drainage improvements to minimize landslide hazard.
Impact 3.6/J, impacts related to cut and fill slope stability and landslide
potential. This impact is reduced by adherence to Mitigation Measures
3.6/20.0 through 26.0. These measures rely on reducing the amount of
individual site grading, conforming to the Uniform Building Code and other
applicable design standards, limitations on side slopes, meeting minimum
slope compaction standards and periodic inspection and maintenance of
slopes.
The proposed Project is required to adhere to these adopted mitigation measures.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Project proposes to increase the development intensity on the Site over and above
what is currently allowed under the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. If approved, there would be a greater resident population and visitors on the
Project Site than assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR that could be exposed to seismic
hazards. Since the Project Site generally has moderate to steep topography, as well as
evidence of a previous landslide, there could be impacts with regard to future landslides
and slope failures that could damage on-site improvements and off-site properties.
Significance criteria. Implementation of the Project would be considered to have a
significant geologic impact if it were to:
• Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse seismic-related
impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic
ground shaking, ground failure, and/or landslides; or
~.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 66
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~3a~ 7 ~~
• Expose people or structures to soil conditions that are unstable or expansive or
result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse.
Supplemental impacts. Based on the site-specific geotechnical investigation and
supplemental material related to on-site soil and geotechnical conditions, no significant
supplemental impacts related to soils or geologic conditions are anticipated, as discussed
below.
In terms of potential impacts related to seismic hazards, the Project Applicant has
completed a site-specific geotechnical analysis that has been reviewed for adequacy by
an independent engineering firm selected by the City of Dublin. The report concludes
that the Site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake hazard area so the risk of
damage from ground rupture is low.
As required by Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.6/ 14.0, 15.0, 17.0 and 22.0, the
site-specific geotechnical investigation includes specific recommendations to be
included into the engineering design of the Project to reduce potential impacts from
ground shaking to a less-than-significant level, as required by Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigation Measures. The City of Dublin Building Division and Public Works
Department will require these measures to be incorporated into final building and
engineering improvement plans as a normal and customary part of the development
review process. These measures include meeting seismic standards contained in the
California Building Code.
The Project geotechnical investigation also includes specific recommendations
regarding construction techniques to reduce hazards due to ground failure and
landslide hazard to a less-than-significant level, as required by Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigation Measures. The City of Dublin Building Division and Public Works
Department will require these measures to be incorporated into final building and
engineering improvement plans as a normal and customary part of the development
review process. These measures include recommendations as to construction methods
for building foundations, installation of subdrains and similar techniques.
The Project geotechnical investigation also includes specific measures to reduce impacts
to lateral spreading and liquefaction to a less-than-significant level, as required by
Eastern Dublin Mitigation Measures. The City of Dublin Building Division and Public
Works Department will require these measures to be incorporated into final building
and engineering improvement plans as a normal and customary part f the development
review process. Specific measures include appropriate placement and compaction of fill
under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer.
4.6 Biological Resources
The following section is based on a biological reconnaissance survey prepared by LSA
Associates in April 2008, and as updated based on an independent peer review
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 67
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
a3~ ~ ~ ~ ~
conducted by WRA, Inc. The original report, peer review letter and all other
supplemental biological information is hereby incorporated by reference into this DSEIR
and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during
normal business hours. The LSA report is included as Appendix 8.6 of this DSEIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Overview. The Project Site is located at the base of and on a portion of a west facing hill.
Existing conditions on the Site include developed and undeveloped portions of the Site.
Developed areas have been graded (with attendant cuts and fills), creating four pads
and a road connecting the pads. An existing private road generally extends along the
north property boundary. Barbed wire fencing separates developed areas from the
adjacent grassland area. Developed areas are found on a little less than half of the total
property.
The remainder of the property (a little more than half) is largely undeveloped and
supports a vegetative cover of non-native annual grassland. The grassland is found
almost entirely on the sloping portions of the property. Dominant grass species are
Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus) and wild oat (Avena
fatua) all of which are introduced. Common introduced broadleaf plants include fennel
(Foeniculum vulgare), mustard (Hirscllfeldia incana) and yellow-star thistle (Centaurea
solstitialis). Native plants make up only 20 percent of the total number of species found
on this Site (8 of 39). The majority of the grassland areas have been grazed in the last
year.
Two cell towers have been constructed on the Site, one on a slope below the primary
residence and one above the residence that is camouflaged as artificial trees and shrubs.
This same slope contains a number of planted Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) seedlings,
over half of which are dead or dying.
Wildlife directly or indirectly observed on the Site by the wildlife biologists included
western fence lizard, American kestrel, mourning dove, scrub jay, western meadowlark,
striped skunk, California ground squirrel and Botta pocket gopher. Turkey vultures and
red-tailed hawk were observed soaring above the Site.
~.
Research methods. Prior to conducting fieldwork the most recent update (CDFG 2007) ~.
of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was searched for records of
special status species in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants of California (CNPS, 2007 online update) was searched for ,~.x,
information on special status plants occurring in the site vicinity. Previous biological
studies conducted by LSA and other firms in the general area were reviewed for
information on special status species and habitats occurring in this area. For the ~~w
purposes of this report, special status species are defined as follows:
• Species that are listed, formally proposed, or designated as candidates for
listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA;
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 68
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~
~.~~,~ -~r.~~
• Species that are listed, or designated as candidates for listing, as rare,
threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act;
• Plant species on List 1B (rare, threatened, or endangered in California and
elsewhere) and List 2(rare, threatened, or endangered in California but
more common elsewhere) in CNPS' Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2001, 2007);
• Animal species designated as Species of Special Concern or Fully
Protected by the CDFG;
• Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under
Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
guidelines;
• Species considered to be a taxon of special concern by local agencies.
Field surveys were conducted by LSA wildlife biologists on October 23, 2007 to assess
current habitat conditions and evaluate the Site's potential to support special status
plant and/or animal species. All plants and animals observed were recorded in field
notes. Vegetative communities in this report are defined, when feasible, according to A
Mar2ual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Scientific names of plants
follow The jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California (Hickman 1993).
Special-status species. Table A includes in the LSA report (see Appendix 8.6) presents a
list of special status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity of the property
and which could occur in the non-native annual grassland. The table also presents the
status, habitat and blooming period of each species. The table does not include special
status plant species found in the region that occur in habitat types not found on the Site,
such as serpentine areas, alkali soils and wetlands. Of specific concern was the potential
presence of Congdori s tarplant, a species which in past years has been reported from
the field on the west side of Tassajara Road, across the road from the Project Site.
Congdori s tarplant was not observed on the Site.
Table B of the LSA report presents a list of special status wildlife species known to occur
in the general vicinity of the Project Site and which are known to use non-native
grassland. The table presents information on their status, habitat and an assessment of
their likelihood to be present on this Site.
Three special status bird species (CDFG species of special concern) could potentially
occur on this property, including burrowing owls or the nests of white-tailed kite,
burrowing owls and / or loggerhead shrike.
Tree resources. Based on an arborist report completed on the Project Site by
Hortscience, which is incorporated by reference into this document and included as
Appendix 8.6 of this DSEIR, one tree is present on the Site that qualifies as a Heritage
Tree under the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance. This tree is a cork oak (quercus suber), a
non-native oak tree, with a diameter of 31-inches, located in the southerly portion of the
Site, adjacent to the existing residence. ~
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 69
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
a~s ~ -~5 ~ ~.
Regulatory framework.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Endangered Species Act -The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has
jurisdiction over species that are formally listed as threatened or endangered under
the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act protects listed
wildlife species from harm or "take." The term "take" is broadly defined as to
"harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt
to engage in any such conduct." An activity can be a"take" even if it is unintentional
or accidental.
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act and its applicable regulations restrict
certain activities with respect to endangered and threatened plants, fish and wildlife
species. The provisions prohibit the removal of, malicious damage to, or destruction
of any listed plant species "from areas under federal jurisdiction." Listed plants may
not be cut, dug up, damaged or destroyed, or removed from any other area
(including private lands) in knowing violation of a state law or regulation.
An endangered plant or wildlife species is one that is considered in danger of
becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion of its range. A threatened
species is one that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. The
Fish and Wildlife Service also maintains a list of species proposed for listing.
Proposed species are those species for which a proposed rule to list as endangered
or threatened has been published in the Federal Register.
In addition to endangered, threatened, and proposed species, the Service maintains
a list of candidate species. Candidate (formerly category 1 candidate) species are
those species for which the Service has on file sufficient information to support
issuance of a proposed listing rule.
Any activities that could result in take of a federally listed species will require a
Section 10 take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before allowing take
activities to commence. Should another federal agency, such as the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) under the Clean Water Act, acting as the lead agency be
involved with permitting the project, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
requires the federal lead agency to consult with the Service before permitting any
activities that may take listed species.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides for protection for
migratory bird species, birds in danger of extinction, and their active nests
(including their eggs and young). Habitat features (e.g,, trees, shrubs, burrows, and
man-made structures (power poles) along migratory routes provide suitable nesting
Sites for migratory birds. Contractors are required to obtain a depredation permit
from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to disturb nesting migratory birds.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 70
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~:
~
~~
a3~ ~g -~~_~~ ~.
California De~artment of Fish and Game
California Endangered Species Act - The California Department of Fish and Game has
jurisdiction over threatened or endangered species that are formally listed by the
State under the California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered
Species Act is similar to the federal Endangered Species Act both in process and
substance; it is intended to provide additional protection to threatened and
endangered species in California. The California Endangered Species Act does not
supersede the federal act, but operates in conjunction with it. Species may be listed
as threatened or endangered under both acts (in which case the provisions of both
state and federal laws would apply) or under only one act.
Under Fish and Game Code 2050 -2068, the California Endangered Species Act
policy is to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance any threatened or endangered
species and its habitat (including acquiring lands for habitat). Compliance with the
California Endangered Species Act is required because the Project area is within
habitats historically or currently occupied by state-listed species. If Project field
assessments indicate that there is a likelihood of "take" of these species, consultation
with the California Departrnent of Fish and Game is required to be in compliance
with Fish and Game Code 2050 and 2091.
The California endangered species laws prohibit the take of any plant listed as
threatened, endangered, or rare. In California an activity on private lands (such as
development) will violate Section 9 of the federal Endangered Species Act if a plant
species, listed under both state and federal endangered species laws, is intentionally
removed, damaged, or destroyed.
The Department of Fish and Game maintains lists of species of special concern. These
„ species are broadly defined as plants and wildlife that are of concern to the
Department because of population declines and restricted distributions, and / or they
are associated with habitats that are declining in California. These species are
" 3 inventoried in the California Natural Diversity Data Base.
California Native Plant Societv. The California Native Plant Society has developed
~' lists of plants of special concern in California (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). A List IA
plant is a species, subspecies, or variety that is considered to be extinct. A List 1B
plant is considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. A
"~ List 2 plant is considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California but is more
common elsewhere.
~ All of the plant species on List 1 and List 2 meet the requirements of Section 1901,
Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California
Endangered Species Act) of the California Departrnent of Fish and Game Code, and
`~ are eligible for state listing. Therefore, List 1 and 2 species should be considered
under CEQA. Some List 3 plant species also meet the requirements of these portions
of the Fish and Game Code and are eligible for state listing. Very few List 4 plants
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 71
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
a3 ~ ~ ~ .~~~ ,~
are eligible for listing but may be locally important and their listing status could be
elevated if conditions change.
Eastern Dublin S~ecific Plan. This document contains a goal and several applicable
policies regarding biological resources as follows:
Goal: To protect and enhance existing biological resources in eastern Dublin.
Policy 6-16: To ensure long-term protection, high-value habitat areas either should be
dedicated as public open space or restricted from potentially harmful development
activities with deed restrictions and design standards.
Police~: Impacts to sensitive wildlife species that occur in the planning area will
be avoided whenever possible. Mitigation programs will be required as necessary to
reduce or eliminate impacts on special-status species.
Policy 6-18: Development in the planning area will be designed to maintain
contiguous areas of natural open space interconnected by functional wildlife
corridors that permit the free movement of wildlife throughout the open space areas.
Police~: Direct disturbance or removal of trees or native vegetation cover should
be minimized and should be restricted to those areas actually designated for the
construction of improvements.
Polic~ 6-22: All areas of disturbance should be revegetated as quickly as possible to
prevent erosion. Native trees (preferably those already on the site), shrubs, herbs and
grasses should be used for revegetaton of areas to remain as natural open spaces.
Introduction of non-native plant species should be avoided.
Policy 6-23: Vegetation enhancement/management should be prepared for all open
space areas (public or private) with the intent to enhance the biologic potential of the
area as wildlife habitat. The focus of such plans will be to reintroduce native species
in order to increase the vegetative cover and plant diversity.
City of Dublin Munici~al Code. The Dublin Municipal Code establishes a 20-foot wide
setback from the top of bank of major open stream courses within the community
(Ordinance No. 52-87). Chapter 5.60 of the Municipal Code also establishes regulations
controlling the removal of and the preservation of Heritage Trees in the City, including
oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore trees having a diameter of 24-
inches or more at breast height.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR included a comprehensive assessment of habitat and wildlife
resources in the EIR planning area. The EIR identified potential impacts related to the
general effects of potential development in Eastern Dublin, including direct habitat loss,
indirect habitat loss due to vegetation removal for construction and development
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 72
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~
~
~,~,'~ b/~ i ,!~ ~"T
~.,.J
activities, and loss or degradation of sensitive habitat (Impacts 3.7/A, B, and C). The
Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potential impacts related to wildlife species such as the
San Joaquin Kit Fox, California Red-Legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, and
others (Impacts 3.7/D - S). Raptor electrocutions associated with proposed high-voltage
power lines were addressed in depth in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and included a
number of mitigation measures (MM 3.7/26.Oa-d). Mitigation measures were adopted to,
among other things, prepare resource management plans, avoid development in sensitive
areas, and revegetate disturbed areas (generally MM 3.7/ 1.0 - 28.0). All mitigation
measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to the
proposed Project.
Even with mitigation, the City concluded that the cumulative loss or degradation of
botanically sensitive habitat was significant and unavoidable. Upon approval of the
Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for
this significant unavoidable impact (Resolution No. 53-93).
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified one significant cumulative biological impact. Impact
3.7/C identified the continued loss and deterioration of botanically sensitive habitat,
particularly riparian habitat.
An updated Kit Fox Protection Plan has been adopted by the City subsequent to the
certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. The proposed Project will be required to adhere to
this Plan.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Potentially significant impacts with regard to special-status plant and special-status bird
species are anticipated. A supplemental impact with regard to loss of a heritage tree is
also anticipated.
Standards of Significance. Project impacts on biological resources would be
considered significant if they resulted in any of the following:
• A substantial 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
Departrnent of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
"~' • A conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources.
~ Supplemental Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The following supplemental biological
resources impacts and mitigation measures concern impacts that are different from those
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and / or require supplemental analysis due to
`~~ changes in regulatory conditions since 1993.
Special-status plant species. The Project Site includes potential habitat for four special
M status plant species: big scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis), big
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 73
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
a3 y ~ t~~ ~
~
tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa ssp. plumosa), Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii), and showy madia (Madia radiata). These species were not specifically listed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. If found, development of the Project could remove any of these
plants present on the Site, which would be a significant supplemental impact.
Sup~lemental Impact SM-BIO-1 (impacts to special-status~lant species):
Development of the proposed Project has the potential to impact four special-status
plant species: big scale balsamroot, big tarplant, Congdon's tarplant, and showy
madia (potentially significant and mitigation requirec~.
The following measure shall be followed to ensure this impact is reduced to a less-than-
significant level by requiring pre-construction surveys for special-status plants and, if
found, either avoiding the locations of such species, transplanting these species to a
suitable off-site location pursuant to necessary permits and approvals from the California
Department of Fish and Game and / or other regulatory agencies, or other acceptable
method(s) approved by the City of Dublin, California Department of Fish and Game
and / or other regulatory agencies.
Supplemental Miti~ation Measure SM-BIO-1 (im~acts to special-status plant ~~„
s ecies : Pre-construction surveys shall be completed for the four special-status plant
species: big scale balsamroot, big tarplant, Congdon's tarplant, and showy madia ~
consistent with CDFG protocols. If such species are found, the Project development ~¢
plan shall be modified to avoid the locations of such plant(s). If avoidance is not
feasible, plants shall be transplanted (or seed collected and relocated) to a suitable ~
on- or off-site location pursuant to necessary permits from the California Department
of Fish and Game and/or other regulatory agencies or other acceptable method(s) ~
approved by the City of Dublin, California Department of Fish and Game and/or ~
other regulatory agencies.
Special-status bird species. The Project Site includes, suitable nesting habitat for Western
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea), White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) and
Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) within the Project area. Impacts on these
species were not specifically identified in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. Approval and
development of the Project could have a significant supplemental impact with regard to
these special-status bird species.
Su~lemental Impact SM-BIO-2 (irnpacts to special-status bird species):
Development of the proposed Project has the potential to impact three special-status
bird species: Western Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead Shrike, and White-tailed Kite
(potentially significant and mitigation requirec~.
The following measure shall be followed to ensure this impact is reduced to a less-than-
significant level by requiring pre-construction breeding surveys for special-status birds
and, if found, establishing setbacks from such nests until young have left each nest. If
owls are found outside of the nesting season, they shall be relocated outside of any
development area.
~
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 74
City of Dublin January 2009 -
PA #07-057
a ~a ~~ -,..~ ~~ ~~
Su~plemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 (impacts to special-status bird species):
Pre-construction surveys shall be completed to prevent impacts to nesting Burrowing
Owl, White-tailed Kite, and/or Loggerhead Shrike. If active nests or occupied
burrows are found, setbacks from a burrow/nest site shall be established by a
qualified biologist and maintained until the young have fledged. If burrowing owls
are detected outside of the nesting season they shall be passively relocated outside of
any development area subject to the authorization of the Department of Fish and
Game.
Heritage Tree impact. One Heritage Tree located on the south side of the Project Site is
proposed to be removed in order to accommodate the Project. The City's Heritage Tree
Ordinance (Section 5.60 of the Dublin Municipal Code) finds that preservation of
Heritage Trees is beneficial to the welfare of the City of Dublin by enhancing the scenic
beauty of the community, increasing property values, and counteracting air pollution.
The loss of this tree would result in a potentially significant impact by removing an
important scenic resource on the Project Site.
Su~plemental Impact SM-BIO-3 (impacts on Herita eg Tree): Implementation of
the proposed Project would result in the loss of one Heritage Tree on the Site.
Loss of this tree would remove a significant scenic resource on the Site
(significant impact and mitigation requirec~.
The following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring replanting of large replacement trees on the Site.
Supplemental Miti~ation Measure SM-BIO-3 (impacts on Heritage Tree): The
final landscape plan shall show that the existing Heritage Tree which is proposed
to be removed as a part of the residential development shall be replaced with
three 36-inch box size oak trees on the Site.
4.7 Visual Resources
INTRODUCTION
The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that the Eastern Dublin area is visually dominated by
expanses of grasslands and rolling hills. Generally, the southerly portion of the EDSP
area is flat, open and covered with grasslands and agricultural field crops. In the
northerly portions, steeper foothills frame canyons frame canyons settled with farms
and ranchettes. In 1993, the EDGPA/EDSP planning area was undeveloped at urban
levels and conveyed a distinct rural atmosphere characteristic of the inland coastal
valleys of Northern California.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains photographs of existing visual conditions of the
Eastern Dublin planning area as of 1993.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 75
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
ay~/ ~ ~.~ ~
Exhibits 4.7-1 and 4.7-1b show current Site conditions without the proposed Project.
A portion of the Neilsen Site located in the southeastern portion of the Site is identified
as "Visually Sensitive Ridgelands-Restricted Development." The Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (page 109) notes that these lower spur ridges may be developed, consistent
with Specific Plan land use designations, as long as they meet certain requirements,
including that development will not obscure or appear to extend above the major
ridgeline to the north; that development is not silhouetted against the horizon when
viewed from City or County designated scenic routes and that grading for such
development does not visually scar sensitive ridgelands or hillsides.
Limited sources of lighting exist on the Site, since two dwellings are present. However,
existing dwellings are one-story in height and do not emit significant light and glare.
Regulatory framework. Protection of visual resources in the Eastern Dublin panning
area is provided by the following:
Dublin General Plan. Applicable policies to protect visual resources adopted as part of
the Dublin General Plan are as follows.
Land Use Element (Eastern Extended Planning Area) Policy 2.1.4. C. 2. Proposed site
grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands.
Circulation and Scenic Highways Element. Policy 5.6.A. Incorporate County-
designated scenic routes and the proposed Fallon Road extension, in the General
Plan as adopted City-designated scenic routes and work to enhance a positive image
of Dublin as seen by through travelers.
Circulation and Scenic Highways Element. Policy 5.6.B. Exercise design review of all
projects visible from a designated scenic route.
Eastern Dublin S~ecific Plan. Section 6.3.4 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains
the following goals, policies and action programs regarding visual resources.
Visual Resource Goal: To establish a visually distinctive community which preserves
the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and
maintaining views from major travel corridors.
Policy 6-28: Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other visual resources,
such as creeks and major stands of vegetation.
Policy 6-29: Development is not permitted on the main ridgeline that borders the
planning area to the north and east, but may be permitted on the foreground hills
and ridgelands. Minor interruptions of views of the main ridgeline by individual
building may be permissible in limited circumstances where other remedies have
been exhausted.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 76
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~
a ~y~ ~~ ~r ~~
Policy 6-30: Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that
views of back-drop ridge (identified in Figure 6-3 of the EDSP as "visually sensitive
ridgelands-no development) are generally maintained when viewed from the scenic
corridors.
Policy 6-31: High quality design and visual character will be required for all
development visible from designated scenic corridors.
Policy 6-32: Visual impacts of extensive grading shall be reduced by sensitive
engineering design, by using gradual transitions from graded areas to natural slopes
and by revegetation.
Policy 6-33: Site grading and access roads shall maintain the natural appearance of
upper ridgelands or foreground hills within the viewshed of travelers along I-580,
Tassajara Road and the future extension of Fallon Road. Streets should be aligned to
follow the natural contours of the hillsides. Straight, linear rows of streets across the
face of hillsides shall be avoided.
Policy 6-34: Alterations of existing natural contours shall be minimized, grading
shall maintain the natural topographic contours as much as possible. grading
beyond actual development areas shall be for remedial purposes only.
Policy 6-35: Extensive areas of flat grading are not appropriate in hillside areas and
should be avoided, Building pads should be graded individually or stepped,
whenever possible.
Policy 6-36: Building design shall conform to the natural land form as much as
possible. Techniques such as multi-level foundations,to avoid a monotonous or
linear appearance should be used. In areas of steep topography, structures should be
sited near the stre~t to minimize required grading.
Policy 6-37: Graded slopes shall be recontoured to resemble existing landforms in
the immediate area. Cut and graded slopes shall be revegetated with native
vegetation suitable to hillside environments.
Policy 6-38: The height of cut and fill slopes shall be maintained to the greatest
degree possible. Grades for cut and fill slopes should be 3:1 or less whenever feasible
Action Program 6Q: The City should officially adopt Tassajara Road, I-580 and
Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors, adopt a set of scenic corridor policies
and establish review procedures and standards for projects within the scenic
corridor viewshed.
Action Program 6R: The City should require projects with potential impacts on
scenic corridors to submit detailed visual analysis with development project
applications. Applicants will be required to submit graphic simulations and/or
sections drawn from affected travel corridor through the parcel in question,
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 77
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
a~~ ~~ -~~g ~
~a
representing typical views of the parcel from the scenic corridor. 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 the visual impact.
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. In 1996, the City of Dublin
adopted scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin area, known as the Eastern
Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. The purpose of this document is to
implement EDSP visual protection polices as related to individual development
projects.
The document contains the following overall implementing policies for Eastern Dublin
scenic corridors.
1. Maintain a sense of place for Eastern Dublin with relation to natural landforms
and topography. ~
2. Allow the traveler along a Scenic Corridor to experience the varied features of ,
the landscape.
3. Assure that development along the Scenic Corridors is well planned and ~
sensitively sited to respect natural topography.
4. Achieve high quality design and visual character for all development visible for
all development visible from designated Scenic Corridors, generally within 700 ~
feet of a Scenic Corridor.
5. Assure that landscaping adjacent to the Scenic Corridor harmonizes with the
scenic environment. ~,
The following Policy applies to the Tassajara Creek Valley area:
Polic,~: Emphasize valley character by creating viewpoints and view corridors to
knolls, foreground hills and to Tassajara Creek
Standard 6.1: Allow intermittent views from Tassajara Road to the hills, knolls and
creek.
• Where clustering of buildings or varying roof heights and pitches allows for
views over or through to the hills beyond, this is strongly encouraged.
• Generally, site entry roads into developments so as to provide direct views
into the hills, knolls and creek vegetation beyond.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a number of potentially significant impacts related to
implementation of the EDSP with regard to visual resources. These include:
Impact 3.8/A, Standardized "Tract" Development identifies the potential impact for
development to inadequately respond to natural site conditions. Adherence to
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
Page 78 `~
January 2009
~
a ~~ ~ -~5~-
Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0, which requires consistency with EDSP Goa16.3.4 to
establish a visually distinctive community which preserves the character of the
landscape reduces this impact to a level of insignificance.
Impact 3.8/B, Alteration of Rural and Open Space Visual Character was identified as
a significant and unavoidable impact even with adherence to Mitigation Measure
3.8/2, which would implement the EDSP plan with retention of predominant
natural features and encourages a sense of place in Eastern Dublin.
Impact 3.8/C, Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features identifies the potential of
EDSP buildings and related improvements to obscure or alter existing features and
reduce the visual uniqueness of the Eastern Dublin area. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0, which would implement EDSP Policy 6-28 reduces this
impact to a level of insignificance.
Impact 3.8/D, Alteration of Visual Quality of Hillsides notes that grading and
excavation of building sites in hillside areas would compromise the visual quality of
the EDSP area. Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0 through 3.8/4.5 are included in the
Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce Impact 3.8/D to a level of insignificance. These
mitigation measures require implementation of EDSP Policies 6-32 through 6-38.
Impact 3.8/E, Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges states that structures built in
proximity to ridges may obscure or fragment the profile of visually sensitive
ridgelines. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0 through 3.8/5.2 would
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures require the
implementation of EDSP Policies 6-29 and 6-30 and General Plan Amendment
Guiding Policy E(this policy is now Policy C on page 22 of the General Plan).
Impact 3.8/I, Scenic Vistas, which includes alteration of the character of existing
scenic vistas and important sightlines. With implementation of Mitigation Measures
3.8 / 7.0 and 3.8 / 7.1, this impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.0 requires adherence to EDSP Policy 6-5 and Measure
3.8/7.1 requires the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP site and to identify
and map viewsheds of scenic vistas.
Impact 3.8/J, Scenic Routes, identifies that urban development of the EDSP will
significantly alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic routes in Eastern
Dublin. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/8.8 and 8.1 will reduce this
impact to a level of insignificance. These two measures require implementation of
EDSP Action Programs 6Q and 6R.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also contains Figure 3.8-H, Visually Sensitive Ridgelands,
depicting portions of the Eastern Dublin area that contains ridges and ridgelands that
~ are considered to be visually sensitive. The figure in the Eastern Dublin EIR is the same
as Figure 6.3 (Environmental Constraints) in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. These
two figures depict a hillside area and ridgeline located on the east side of Tassajara
~~ Road north of the "northern drainage° tributary to Tassajara Creek as a"visually ~
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 79
- City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
ayS~~~~ ~
sensitive ridgelands-restricted development." This area is generally located on the
southeastern portion of the Project Site, where the existing on-site dwelling and
ancillary structures are located.
These mitigation measures shall apply to the proposed Project.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria. The following criteria have been used to identify significant
visual impacts, if the following would occur to a substantially greater degree than was
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR:
• If a project would have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista;
~ If a project would damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees,
rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a scenic highway; or
• If a project were to emit significant increases in light and glare from existing
levels.
Supplemental Impacts. The Project proposes land use changes that could result in
potentially significant impacts to visual resources. Potential supplemental impacts are
identified as follows.
Irnpacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources. The proposed Project would include
grading of the currently largely vacant Site and construction of up to 36 net new
dwellings on the Site (on 341ots). The proposal includes extensive use of multi-level
dwellings, stepped graded pads, retaining walls and other techniques to reduce grading
consistent with EDSP policies and mitigation measures; however, construction of the
proposed Project would include grading and/or construction of a major portion of the
Site. One area on the Site located in the northeastern corner (Parcel C), which is the
highest portion of the Project site, would remain undeveloped. The Project would
generally result in a line of dwellings paralleling Tassajara Road with limited
undeveloped areas located on the southwest corner of the Site, which would be
reserved for an Emergency Vehicle Access.
Exhibit 4.7-2a shows a simulation of the proposed Project as it would appear from
Tassajara Road and Silvera Ranch Road. This exhibit shows a continuous frontage of
multi-story dwellings with landscaping and a 5-foot tall retaining wall adjacent to the
roadway. The exhibit also shows that one or more proposed structures would be
"silhouetted" against the horizon within the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands at the upper
elevation of the Site, similar to that which currently occurs with the existing residence.
This simulation shows how the proposed development would attempt to maintain the
existing shape of the knoll where the current home sits, with limited change in elevation
of this knoll (approx. 8-ft of cut) and a portion of the hillside facing Tassajara Road
would still be visible between houses.
Exhibit 4.7-2b shows a simulation of the proposed Project as it would appear from
Tassajara Road. This exhibit shows a continuous frontage of multi-story dwellings with
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 80
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~-_
~
~
a~~ ~~ 7~g.
landscaping and a 5-foot tall retaining wall adjacent to the roadway. The exhibit also
shows that one or more proposed structures would be "silhouetted" against the horizon
at the upper elevation of the Site, similar to the one existing residence on the Site.
The simulations and the Stage 2 Development Plan indicate that a substantial amount of
the Project Site would be developed with urban uses such as dwellings, roads or similar
uses. The Project would include design techniques to reduce grading, such as those
required by Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.2 and 4.3.
Although a portion of the Project Site is identified as a Visually Sensitive Ridgeland-
restricted development in the EDSP and Eastern Dublin EIR, limited development is
allowed pursuant to these documents. However, the developed area would encompass
virtually the entire Site, leaving only one undeveloped area as natural open space
(shown as Parcel C on the plans).
Since the proposed Project Site is located along a scenic corridor (Tassajara Road),
Action Program 6R requires a detailed visual analysis, which has been done as part of
this DSEIR. The depiction of the location and massing of structures and associated
landscaping can then be used to adjust the Project design to minimize visual impacts.
Based on the simulations in Exhibits 4.7-1 and 4.7-2, the proposed Project design
presents some potentially adverse visual impacts. Under the proposed development
plan, a substantial portion of the hillside visible from Tassajara Road would be
developed for housing and minimal views would remain of the existing natural hillside
condition and features. This would include creation of 101ots (Lots 23-33) within the
visually sensitive ridgelands area. Additionally grading activities would occur in this
area that would alter the existing appearance of the area designated as visually
sensitive.
~ A number of proposed Project buildings would extend above a visually sensitive
ridgetop as viewed from a scenic route, such as Tassajara Road and would "silhouette"
against the sky. This condition is documented on Exhibit 4.7-2.
The proposed Project, as configured, does not contain any view corridors to knolls and
foreground hills.
The proposed Project, as configured, would contain a limited view corridors to knolls
and foreground hills. This would be at the Project entrance at the intersection of Silvera
'`" Ranch Road and Tassajara Road.
Supplemental Impact SM-VIS-1 (impacts to scenic resources and the visual character
'~ of the Site): The proposed Project would have adverse impacts on scenic vistas and
corridors due to development silhouetted above ridgelines, minimal preservation of
natural hillside area and limited view corridors to natural hillside areas (significant
°~" and unavoidable).
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
~ City of Dublin
PA #07-057
Page 81
January 2009
<:~
a~~~~~~ ~
~~
The Project Applicant has indicated that Project redesign or other mitigation measures
to reduce these significant impacts to visual resources are infeasible based on the
following:
The small size (approximately 10 acres) of the property, with a short frontage
along Tassajara Road, (approximately 600 feet), constrain where development
can occur, and also limit opportunities for view corridors.
The topography of the site mandates development towards Tassajara Road
which would cause silhouetting against the sky line. The westward knoll form
and sloping topography of the site encourages development to be located on the
flatter portions of the site, which are the top of the knoll and along the base of the
knoll that parallels Tassajara Road.
Reducing proposed development to a few lots at the base of the knoll with
enough open area and setback from the scenic corridor to comply with the
standards and policies would result in a financially infeasible project based on
the amount of infrastructure required to develop the Project site.
However, the Project would incorporated several design features that would be
consistent with applicable Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures and related visual
policies. These include:
• Providing ten foot stepped building pads, a first for a single family
neighborhood in East Dublin. This feature would allow the development to
better fit the terrain and reduce grading and open up the vista along the property
frontage.
• Providing an increased building setback of up to eighty (80) feet would be
provided along Tassajara Road to allow views to the hills beyond.
• The site entry road, Silvera Ranch Drive, would provide a view corridor to the
hills and knolls beyond the Project, as does the area at the southern end of the
Proj ect.
• Minimizing the cut of the prominent knoll on-site to eight feet to maintain the
natural land form and minimize significant elevation changes.
• Reducing the number of lots on the top of the hill to minimize the visual impact,
as well as locating other lots further back onto the hill.
• Ensuring that graded slopes would be recontoured to follow the landforms of the
surrounding area.
•"Stepping" lots up the hill from to reduce the amount of grading on the site, as
well as better fit the natural topography.
Light and glare impacts. As identified in the Environmental Setting section above,
limited development exists on the Site with corresponding low levels of light. If the
proposed Project is approved, more sources of light would be added in the form of new ~n~
street lights, yard lights and other lights. Additional light fixtures could spill over onto
adjacent roads and properties resulting in a significant supplemental impact.
Supplemental Impact SM-VIS-2 (li h~ t and ~lare impacts). The proposed Project
would increase the amount of light sources on the Site, which would result in spill
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 82
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
ays' ~7~~
over of light and associated glare onto adjacent properties and roadways (significant
impact and mitigation requirec~.
~ The following measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Supplemental Miti~ation Measure SM-VIS-2 (li ht and ~lare impacts) Light fixtures
installed as part of the Project shall be equipped with cut-off lenses and directed
downward to avoid spill over of lights onto adjacent properties or roadways. The
design of light fixtures shall be specified on final building and improvement plans.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 83
~w~ City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
EXHIBIT 4.7-1a: EXISTING CUNDITIONS
CITY OF D UBLIN
NIELS~NPR~PERT'~- TASSAJARA VALLEY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
?~ ~ i " ~ t ~ ~ ~ a , _
~
~
111ACKAT ~C ~ I
~a ~ ~~
~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~_ ~
'_ii~ k-~ ~ +~ < ~ , _ i~ E -.. -_ -- '-' . -, _ _•-~: ~ ,
EXHIBIT 4.7-1b: EXISTING CONDITIONS
CIT'Y ~F DUBLIN
NIELSENPRQPERTY- ~'ASSAJARA VALLE~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPQRT
IIIA~CAY ~ S~tMs
~ ~ ~
aue~aat a p~ mae
,:~-
~;
EXHIBIT 4.7-2a- PROJECT SIMULATION
c~~o~DUBLrN
NIELSEN PROPERT'.Y - TASSAJARA. VALLE.Y
~
-~
~
~
~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT m~ ~ ~
nuwax a pq m~
': _ __~~ _ ..~.,~..~ ~ ~ _~~ '' ~ ~~ ~ '' ~ ~ ~~- ~~'~ ~~ '- ~ ~
~ ~-. , - ~-~ ~. ~-s ~'
~_ _ ~__ v ~ ~_ . ,
EXHIBIT .4.7-2b - PROJECT SIMULATI4N
el~ oFD~BLrN
~, NIE~SEN PROPERTY - TASSAJARA VALLE~'
''~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
~IAaCAY ~c SItlM~
ae~ a pg ~.~c
~
~
~
J
~
a53 7~~- ~
~
~
4.8 AIR QUALITY
INTRODUCTION
This EIR section describes the impacts of the proposed Project on local and regional air
quality.
[Note: The information contained in this section is based on an air quality analysis
prepared by Donald Ballanti, Certified Meteorologist in June 2008. The full text of this
report is found in Appendix 8.7 and is incorporated by reference into this DEIR).
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Air pollution climatology. The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is
determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to
transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are
wind, atrnospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine.
The Project is within the Livermore Valley. The Livermore Valley forms a small sub
regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The
Livermore Valley air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains.
Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San
Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County.
The terrain of the Livermore-Amador Valley influences both the climate and air
pollution potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area ""`
has generally lighter winds and a higher frec~uency of calm conditions when compared ,
to the greater Bay Area. ~
The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion
conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically.
Inversions can be found during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are particularly
prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 90% of the time in both
morning and afternoon.
According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, air pollution potential is
high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall. High
temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally
generated pollutants but can be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors from
upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs between
the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east.
During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in
frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions pollutants such as carbon
monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and
agricultural burning can become concentrated.
~
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 88
City of Dubiin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
o?5~f ~..~ ~
Ambient air quality standards
Criteria Pollutants. Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California
Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common
pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that
represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each
pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants
because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria
documents. Table 1 found in the full air quality analysis (Appendix 8.4) identifies the
major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects and typical sources. The federal
and California state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 4.2-1.
The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing
purposes and methods, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related
effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the
California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and
particulate matter (PMIO and PM2.5).
Suspended particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of tiny particles that consists of
dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These
particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of
many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, and dust. "Inhalable" PM consists of
particles less than 10 microns in diameter and is defined as "suspended particulate
matter" or PMIO. Fine particles are less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). PM25r by
definition, is included in PMlo•
Toxic Air Contaminants. In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air
Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. There are many
different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include
industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations,
commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle
exhaust. Cars and trucks release at least forty different toxic air contaminants. The most
important, in terms of health risk, are diesel particulate, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-
butadiene and acetaldehyde.
Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as
accidental releases. Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological
damage and death.
Ambient air quality. The state and national ambient air quality standards cover a wide
variety of pollutants. Only a few of these pollutants are problems in the Bay Area either
due to the strength of the emission or the climate of the region. The BAAQMD
maintains a network of monitoring Sites in the Bay Area. The closest to the Project Site
is in Livermore. Table 4.9-2 summarizes violations of air quality standards at this
monitoring site for the period 2005-2007. Table 4.9-2 also shows that the federal ambient
air quality standards for ozone which are not met in the Livermore Valley, and state
standards for ozone and PMIO are exceeded.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 89
~ City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
a~~ -?.~~~ ~
Attainment status and regional air quality plans. The federal Clean Air Act and the
California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based on air
quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state
ambient air quality standards are not met as "non-attainment areas." Because of the
differences between the national and state standards, the designation of non-attainment
areas is different under the federal and state legislation.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay Area as
a non-attainment area for the federal8-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was
designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the federal PMIO and PM2.5 standards.
Under the California Clean Air Act Alameda County is a non-attainment area for ozone
and particulate matter (PMIO and PM2.5). The county is either attainment or unclassified
for other pollutants.
Air districts periodically prepare and update plans to achieve the goal of healthy air.
Typically, a plan will analyze emissions inventories (estimates of current and future
emissions from industry, motor vehicles, and other sources) and cornbine that
information with air monitoring data (used to assess progress in improving air quality)
and computer modeling simulations to test future strategies to reduce emissions in
order to achieve air quality standards. Air quality plans usually include measures to
reduce air pollutant emissions from industrial facilities, commercial processes, motor
vehicles, and other sources. Bay Area plans are prepared with the cooperation of the
Metra~~olita~l I'ransUOrtation Com~i~ission, and the Association af Ba.~Area
Gavernments. Ozone Attainment Demonstrations are prepared for the national ozone
standard and Clean Air Plans are prepared for the California ozone standard.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 90
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~
~
a~~° ~,~ r~'
Table 4.8-1. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Federal State
Time Primary Standard
Standard
Ozone 1-Hour -- 0.09 PPM
8-Hour 0.075 PPM 0.07 PPM
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM
1-Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM 0.03 PPM
1-Hour -- 0.18 PPM
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM --
24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.04 PPM
1-Hour -- 0.25 PPM
PM,o Annual Average -- 20 ~g/m3
24-Hour 150 ~ag / m3 50 ~/ m3
PM2.5 Annual 15 ~g / m3 12 ~ g/ m3
24-Hour 35 ~ag/m3 --
Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 ~g/m3 --
30 Day Average -- 1.5 ~/ m3
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 Ng/m3 --
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 PPM --
Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour 0.01 PPM --
PPM = Parts per Million
µg/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards (04/01/08)
http~//www arb ca~ov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
~„ City of Dublin
PA #07-057
Page 91
January 2009
~
d 5'7 ~'' 7~
4.8-2. Air Quality Data Summary for Livermore, 2005-2007
Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2008. (http:
//www.arb.ca.gov./adam/cgi-bin/adamtop/d2wstart)
Sensitive receptors. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where
sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the
chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools
playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and
medical clinics. The closest location of sensitive receptors is Quarry Lane School, located
just south of the Project Site.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to construction, mobile
source and stationary source emissions (Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E). Mitigation measures
were adopted to control construction dust and exhaust emissions, and to minimize
mobile and stationary source emissions through, among other things, cooperative
transportation and air quality planning and transportation demand management. All
mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP continue to
apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed Project. Even with
mitigation, however, significant cumulative construction, mobile source and stationary
source impacts remained. (Impacts 3.11A, 311B, 3011C, and 3.11E). Upon approval of
the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for these significant unavoidable impacts. (Resolution No. 53-93.)
Pollutant Standard Days Exceeding Standard In:
2005 2006 2007
Ozone State 1-Hour 6 13 2
Ozone State 8-Hour 7 15 3
Ozone Federal8-Hour 1 5 1
PM,o Federa124-Hour 0 0 0
PMIO State 24-Hour 0 3 2
PM2 5 Federa124-Hour 0 0 0
Carbon
Monoxide State/Federal
8-Hour 0 0 0
Nitrogen
Dioxide State 1-Hour 0 0 0
~
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 92 ~
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~ ~~~~
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria. The BAAQMD has revised recommended thresholds of
significance since publication of the East Dublin EIR (BAAQMD, 1999). The document
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines establishes the following impact criteria:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plan.
• A significant impact on local air quality is defined as an increase in carbon
monoxide concentrations that causes a violation of the most stringent ambient air
quality standard for carbon monoxide (20 ppm for the one-hour averaging
period, 9.0 ppm for the eight-hour averaging period).
• A significant impact on regional air quality is defined as an increase in emissions
of an ozone precursor or PM10 exceeding the BAAQMD thresholds of
significance. The current significance thresholds are 80 pounds per day (or 15
tons/year) for ozone precursors or PMIO•
• Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public
to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a
significant impact.
Despite the establishment of both federal and state standards for PM25 (particulate
matter, 2.5 microns), the BAAQMD has not developed a threshold of significance for
this pollutant. For this analysis, PM25 impacts would be considered significant if Project
emissions of PMIO exceed 80 pounds per day.
The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on
the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide
feasible control measures for construction emission of PMlo. If the appropriate
construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for
construction activities would be considered less-than-significant.
Regarding emission of greenhouse gases, a project would be considered significant if it
conflict with or impede the implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures
under AB 32 and other state laws.
Significant impacts. The following impacts are deemed to be significant.
Violation or obstruction of Clean Air Plan. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's
Clean Air Plan (CAP) is based on land uses included in the buildout assumptions of local
agency general plans within the boundaries of the District. The proposed Project includes
a request to amend the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan from "Rural
Residential / Agriculture° to "Single Family Residential." If approved, the number of
dwellings allowed on the Site would be increased from one dwelling and one worker
-= housing dwelling unit to a maximum of 36 dwellings, an increase of up to 34 dwellings.
Such an increase would be in excess of the number of dwellings assumed in the Clean Air
Plan and would represent a significant supplemental impact not analyzed in the 1993
Eastern Dublin EIR.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 93
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
a~q -~~ ~ ~
~
Su~plemental Impact SM-AIR-1 (consistenc~with Clean Air Plan): If approved, the
proposed Project would increase the number of dwellings on the Project Site by up to
34 dwellings that are not currently included in the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan
(significant impact and mitigation requirec~.
The following supplemental measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level by applying additional mitigation beyond that required by Mitigation Measures
3.11/5.0-11.0 of the East Dublin EIR, offsetting the additional VMT and regional emissions
resulting from the land use redesignation of the Project Site. The measure will also ensure
consistency between the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
and the Clean Air Plan.
Su~plemental Mitigation Measure SM-AIR-1 (consistency with Clean Air Plan): If the
requested land use entitlements are approved, the City of Dublin shall transmit
appropriate documentation of land use buildout to the BAAQMD for inclusion into
the next update of the regional Clean Air Plan.
In addition, the following steps shall be taken by the Project Applicant:
• The Project proponent shall negotiate with LAVTA for the construction
or reservation of land for transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus
bulbs, benches, and related public transit facilities.
• Provide on site bicycle land and/or paths, connected to community-wide
network.
• Provide on site sidewalks and/or paths, connected to adjacent land uses,
transit stops, and/or community-wide network.
• Allow only natural gas fireplaces and heating stoves. No wood burning
devices shall be allowed.
• Require dwellings to have outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the
use of electric lawn and garden equipment for landscaping and
maintenance.
• Install ENERGY-STAR appliances.
Construction tmpacts. The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust
impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. If the appropriate "~
construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction ~
activities would be considered less-than-significant. The Project Site is adjacent to a
sensitive receptor Quarry Lane School and adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation '~°-
Measure 3.11 / 1.0, as modified below, will reduce impacts to the school by requiring that
construction areas be watered or covered, covering haul trucks, sweeping streets on a ~
frequent basis and revegetating graded areas to minimize generation of fugitive dust 5
from the Project Site. ~,
Mitigation Measure MM 3.11 / 1.0 in the East Dublin EIR implements most, but not all, ~=}
of the currently recommended measures. The following supplemental measure is
recommended to ensure that construction impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant "~°
level by adherence to current BAAQMD standards that~ require watering of exposed ~,
materials, watering of construction sites and installation of erosion control measures
~
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 94
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~
a~ a ~ ~~
Su~plemental Miti~ation SM-AQ-2 (construction impacts). In addition to measures
identified in MM 3.11/1.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the City of Dublin shall:
a) Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand
or other materials that can be blown by the wind.
b) Require construction contractors to sweep daily (preferably with water
sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction
sites.
c) Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control
measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
d) On-site idling of construction equipment and trucks shall be minimized as much
as feasible (no more than five minutes maximum).
e) All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and fitted with
manufacturer's standard level exhaust controls.
According the current BAAQMD CEQA guidelines, implementation of these mitigation
measures would reduce construction period air quality impacts to a less-than-significant
level.
Less-than-significant impacts. Potential impacts dealing with Project and cumulative air
emissions and greenhouse gas emissions have been deemed to be less-than-significant, as
discussed below.
Regional Air Emissions. Vehicle trips generated by the Project would result in air
pollutant emissions affecting the entire San Franasco Bay Air Basin. Regional emissions
associated with Project vehicle use have been calculated using the URBEMIS2007
emission model.
The incremental daily emission increase associated with Project land uses is identified in
Table 4.2.3 for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors of ozone)
and PMIO. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has established threshold of
significance for ozone precursors and PMlo of 80 pounds per day. Proposed Project
emissions shown in Table 4.2.3 would not exceed these thresholds of significance, so the
proposed Project would not have significant effect on regional air quality.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
;~ City of Dublin
PA #07-057
Page 95
January 2009
~
aci~7~
Table 4.8-3. Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day
Reactive Nitrogen PMlo
Organic Oxides
Gases
Vehicular Emissions 2.9 3.7 5.1
Area Source Emissions
Total 2.6 0.5 3.0
5.5 4.2 8.1
BAAQMD Significance 80.0 80.0 80.0
Threshold
Source: Donald Ballanti, 2008
However, as discussed above, significant cumulative construction, mobile source and
stationary source impacts would result from the implementation of the Eastern Dublin
GPA/SP. (See Impacts 3.11A, 3.11B, 3.11C, and 3.11E of Eastern Dublin EIR). Upon
approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for these significant unavoidable impacts. (Resolution No. 5~93.) So,
even with the implementation of all mitigation measures for air quality impacts
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and this EIR, the cumulative impact of the Eastern
Dublin GPA/SP (of which this proposed Project is a part) would be significant and
unavoidable.
Local Carbon Monoxide Concentrations. The Project would change traffic on the local street
network, changing carbon monoxide levels along roadways used by Project traffic.
Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless poisonous gas whose primary source in the
Bay Area is automobiles. Concentrations of this gas are highest near intersections of
major roads.
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines document identifies situations where modeling of
carbon monoxide concentrations should be conducted to quantify project impacts 1 A
CO hot spot analysis should be performed for projects which meet any of the following
criteria: (1) vehicle emissions of CO would exceed 5501b / day, (2) project traffic would
impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E, or F or
would cause LOS to decline to D, E, or F; or (3) project traffic would increase traffic
volumes in nearby roadways by 10 percent or more. The peak hour volume for the
proposed Project is 37 vehicles in the PM peak traffic hour. So no quantitative analysis
is required to conclude that impacts on local carbon monoxide concentrations would be
less-than-significant.
' Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised
December 19991.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
~
Page 96
January 2009
~b ~ °~ 7.~~
4.9 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
INTRODUCTION
This EIR section describes the impacts of the proposed Project on the emission of
greenhouse gases. Calculations of Project greenhouse gas emissions prepared by
Donald Ballanti are included in Appendix 8.6 and are incorporated by reference into
this DSEIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change irnpacts. The greenhouse effect is a
natural process by which some of the radiant heat from the sun is captured in the lower
atmosphere of the earth. The gases that help capture the heat are called greenhouse
gases (GHG). While greenhouse gases are not normally considered air pollutants, these
gases have been identified as forcing the earth's atrnosphere and oceans to warm above
naturally occurring temperatures. Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the
atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occurring greenhouse
gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. Certain
human activities add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases.
For the purposes of this analysis, the following greenhouse gases will be considered:
Carbon Dioxide - Carbon dioxide (C02) is a colorless, odorless gas. C02 is emitted
naturally and through human activities. The largest source of C02 emissions from
human activities is the combustion of fossil fuels.
Methane - Methane (CH4) is a colorless, odorless gas and is the major component of
natural gas. It is emitted by natural processes and human activities. Human-related
sources include fossil fuel production, livestock raising, agriculture, and waste
management (landfills).
Nitrous Oxide - Nitrous oxide (N20) is a clear, colorless gas, with a slightly sweet odor.
N20 is produced by both natural sources and human activities. Primary sources from
human activities include agriculture (fertilizer), sewage treatment, and fossil fuel
combustion.
Hvdrofluorocarbons - Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are man-made chemicals used in
industrial, commercial, and consumer products, including refrigerants.
Perfluorocarbons - Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are colorless, inert, and non-toxic. There are
seven PFC gases: perfluoromethane (CF4), perfluoroethane (C2F6), perfluoropropane
` (C3F8), perfluorobutane (C4F10), perfluorocyclobutane (C4F8), perfluoropentane
(C5F12), and perfluorohexane (C6F14).
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 97
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
0?~3 ~ `~~~ ~.
4N9„
Sulfur Hexafluoride -Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic compound that is
colorless, odorless, and non-toxic. SF6 is primarily used as an electrical insulator by the
electric power industry.
Each GHG causes a different amount of heat-trapping activities in the earth's
atmosphere referred to as Global Warming Potential (GWP). High GWP gases are CH4,
HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than C02,
and N20 absorbs 310 times more heat per molecule than C02. Estimates of the GWP of
GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (C02e). Table 4.9-1 shows
the GWPs for different GHGs for a 100-year time horizon.
Table 4.9-1. Global Warming Potential for Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential
Carbon Dioxide (COz) 1
Methane (CH4) 21
Nitrous Dioxide (N20) 310
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 6,500
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 23,900
Source: BAAQMD Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. November 2006.
International and Federal Legislation
While there has been increasing attention to GHG in recent years, the potential for
global warming effects is not a new issue. In 1988, the United Nations and World
Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) to assess the risk of climate change. In 1994 the United States joined a
number of countries in signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC). A result of the UNFCCC efforts was a treaty known as the Kyoto
Protocol that commits signees to reduce their emissions of GHG or engage in emissions
trading. While more than 160 countries have participating in the Protocol, the United
States has not ratified the treaty.
Federal legislation to address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change has been ~''
proposed. No federal legislation has been passed by Congress on this issue. „~
California Executive Orders, Legislation, and Regulatory Agency Action
Executive Order S-03-05 - In 2005, in recognition of California's vulnerability to the
effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05,
which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emission of GHGs would be
progressively reduced, as follows: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 20001evels; by
2020, reduce GHG emissions to 19901evels; and by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80
percent below 1990 levels. Under the Order, the Climate Action Team (CAT) was
created to develop information on climate change and its impacts, and GHG reduction
programs. The CAT is comprised of inembers from various State agencies and
commissions.
~
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 98
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~~ ~~~
programs. The CAT is comprised of inembers from various State agencies and
commissions.
Assembl~Bill 32 - In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5,
Sections 38500, et seq. (AB 32)). AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board
(ARB) to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such
that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 19901evels by 2020 (representing about a
30 percent reduction in emissions). AB 32 states that global warming poses a serious
threat to the economic well being, public health, natural resources, and the environment
of California.
AB 32 establishes a timetable for ARB to adopt emission limits, rules, and regulations
designed to achieve the intent of the Act. On or before January 1, 2011, ARB must adopt
regulations on GHG emission limits and emission reduction measures to achieve the
maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions in
furtherance of achieving the statewide GHG emissions limit. These regulations are to
become effective beginning on January 1, 2012.
ARB staff is recommending a total of 44 early action measures Z. There are nine discrete
early action measures that will be enforceable by January 1, 2010. Measures that could
become effective during implementation of the proposed Project could pertain to
construction-related equipment operations. Some proposed early action measures will
require new regulations to implement, some will require subsidies, some have already
been developed, and some will require additional effort to evaluate and quantify.
Applicable early action measures that are ultimately adopted will become effective
during implementation of proposed Project. The Project could be subject to these
requirements, depending on its timeline.
AB 32 requires ARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that contains the main strategies
California will use to reduce the GHGs that contribute to climate change. In June 2008,
ARB released an initial draft of the Scoping Plan3. In October 2008, ARB released a
Proposed Scoping Plan which will be considered for adoption by the Air Resources
Board in December 2008. Under AB 32, ARB is required to adopt the Scoping Plan by
January 1, 2009. The Scoping Plan contains a series of recommended actions to reduce
GHG emissions that will provide the framework for development of specific regulations
that will be adopted by January 2011 and enforceable by January 2012. The key
elements of the Proposed Scoping Plan include:
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as
building and appliance standards;
• Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent;
2 California Air Resources Board, Draft Expanded List of Earlv Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse
Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration, September 2007.
~ 3 California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan: a framework for change.
June 2008.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 99
~ City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
a~5~ 7~g
~ Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western
Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system;
• Establishing targets for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions for
regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve
those targets;
• Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and
policies, including California's clean car standards, goods movement measures,
and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and
~ Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on
high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of
the State's long term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
Senate Bi1197 - Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), enacted in 2007, amends the CEQA statute to
directed the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop draft CEQA
guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse
gas emissions by July 1, 2009. It directs the Resources Agency to certify and adopt the
CEQA guidelines by January 1, 2010. No draft revisions to the CEQA Guidelines to
address GHGs had been proposed by OPR at the time this Draft EIR was completed in
December 2008.
OPR CEQA and Climate Change Technical Advisory - In June 2008, OPR released a
technical advisory document4 providing a recommended approach to addressing
climate change in CEQA documents. It recommends that lead agencies develop an
approach that follows three basic steps for analysis: (1) identify and quantify GHG
emissions; (2) assess the significance of the impact on climate change; and (3) if the
impact is significant, identify mitigafiion measures and/or alternatives to reduce the
impact to a less than significant level. OPR recommends that lead agencies undertake a
good-faith effort, based on available scientific and technical information, to estimate
GHG emissions from a project. OPR specifically identifies vehicle traffic, energy
consumption, water usage, and construction as potential sources of GHG emissions.
OPR recognizes that establishing a threshold of significance for GHG emissions is
"perhaps the most difficult part of the climate change analysis." OPR has asked ARB
technical staff to recommend a statewide threshold of significance for GHG emissions.
While this statewide threshold is pending, OPR recommends that lead agencies
"undertake a project-by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current
CEQA practice" to determine the significance of impacts. The Technical Advisory also
notes that while "climate change is ultimately a cumulative impact, not every individual
project that emits GHGs must necessarily be found to contribute to a significant
cumulative impact on the environment." Most importantly, OPR advises that a
significance threshold of no new GHG emissions is not required. OPR recognizes that a
significance standard can be qualitative or quantitative. If a lead agency determines a
project will have a significant impact due to GHG emissions, it should consider
alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce or offset project emissions.
° Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change
Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, June 19, 2008.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 100
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~~ ~~~
The OPR Technical Advisory notes that the most difficult part of a climate change
analysis is the determination of significance since there are no established regulatory
thresholds for GHGs from the state, air districts or any other source. Until the issuance
of amended CEQA Guidelines addressing GHG impacts (scheduled for release in
January 2009), the determination of a GHG threshold is left to the lead agency. On
October 24, 2008, ARB staff released a document entitled: Preliminary Draft Staff
Proposal - Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for
GHGs under CEQA. This Preliminary Draft document contained guidelines for the
development of significance thresholds for certain types of project. The draft proposal
identified types of approaches, but did not contain defined standards. For residential
projects, the proposal included a mixture of undefined performance standards for
energy use, water use, waste and transportation, and an unspecified quantitative
threshold for amount of emissions below which impacts would be considered less than
significant. At this time, the proposal is out for public review and comment. ARB will
hold a public workshop to respond to public comments in December 2008. It is
unknown if OPR will include any ARB recommendations on significance thresholds in
its proposed revisions to the CEQA Guidelines. It also is unknown if the Resources
Agency will ultimately adopt the ARB proposed thresholds when and if they are
finalized.
Senate Bi11375 - SB 375 takes effect on January 1, 2009. SB 375 helps implement AB 32's
GHG reduction goals by integrating planning for land use, regional transportation and
housing. SB 375 requires regional transportation plans to include a"sustainable
community strategy" (SCS) plan to meet GHG reduction targets for vehicle travel set
by ARB. The deadline for ARB to establish the GHG reduction target for individual
regional plans is September 30, 2010. A Regional Transportation Plan will need to
incorporate a SCS after October 2010. Projects consistent with a SCS qualify for relief
from some CEQA requirements (example, exemptions or streamlined review). The bill
also provides significant changes to Housing Element law, especially the timing and
requirements for Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) planning.
Assembly Bill 1493 - AB 1493 (Pavley) was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 requires
ARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks
manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. ARB adopted the standards in
September 2004. When fully phased in, the near-term (2009 to 2012) standards would
result in a reduction of approximately 22 percent in GHG emissions compared to the
emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the mid-term (2013 to 2016) standards would result
in a reduction of approximately 30 percent. To set its own GHG emissions limits on
motor vehicles, California must receive a waiver from the EPA. However, in December
2007, the EPA denied the request from California for the waiver. In January 2008, the
California Attorney General filed a petition for review of the EPA's decision in the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; no decision on that petition has been made. Thus,
California cannot implement AB 1493 at this time.
Senate Bill 1368 - SB 1368 requires the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to
establish a greenhouse gas emission performance standard for baseload generation.
These standards cannot exceed the greenhouse gas emission rate from a baseload
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 101
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
a~~ ~ ~sg ~
~
combined-cycle natural gas fired plant. The legislation further requires that all
electricity provided to California, including imported electricity, must be generated
from plants that meet the standards set by the PUC and CEC.
Local Agency Regulations
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has not adopted guidance '~
or regulations for analysis of GHGs or climate change in CEQA documents. In June, ~
2005, the BAAQMD adopted a resolution establishing the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District's Climate Change Program. The Climate Change Program is to ~"`
address climate change and climate protection through District activities including .
outreach and education campaigns, data collection and analysis, technical assistance,
hosting a regional conference on climate change, and support and leadership for local '""~
efforts in the Bay Area to reduce emissions that contribute to climate change. The
BAAQMD also has prepared a GHG emissions inventory for the Bay Area using 2002 as
the base year. The BAAQMD estimated that 85.4 million tons of C02-equivalent5 GHG ~'
gases were emitted from anthropogenic sources in the Bay Area in 2002. Fossil fuel
consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles) accounted for
approximately 43 percent. Stationary sources, including industrial and commercial ~
sources, power plants, oil refineries, and landfills, were responsible for approximately
49 percent. Construction and mining equipment was estimated to account for
approximately two percent (or about 1.7 million tons) of the total anthropogenic GHG ~
emissions.
Predicted Global Warming Effects in Cc~lifornia.
According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team Reportb (CAT), the following
climate change effects are predicted in California over the course of the next century:
• A diminishing Sierra snowpack, declining by 70% to 90%, threatening the state's
water supply.
~ Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit under the higher
emission scenarios, leading to a 25 to 35% increase in the number of days ozone
pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas.
• Coastal erosion along the length of California and seawater intrusion into the
Delta from a 4- to 33-inch rise in sea level. This would exacerbate flooding in
already vulnerable regions.
• Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation and increased
temperatures.
• Increased challenges for the State's important agriculture industry from water
shortage, increasing temperatures, and saltwater intrusion into the Delta.
~ Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months.
IMPACTS ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
~
5 Greenhouse gases are converted into COZ-equivalent values based on their potential to absorb heat in the
atmosphere. For instance, CH4 traps 21 times more heat per molecule than COZ and, therefore, one pound ..~.
of CH4 has a CO2-equivalent value of 21 pounds.
6 California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to ~"
Governor Schwarzeneeger and the LeQislation March 2006.
,~
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 102
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~ ~ ~~~
~
This section evaluates potential impacts to global climate change resulting from
implementation of the proposed Project. The evaluation of environmental effects
presented in this section focuses on potential climate change impacts associated with
the Project's increase in GHG emissions.
There is no CEQA statute, regulation or judicial decision that requires an EIR to analyze
the GHG emissions of a project or whether a project will have a significant impact on
global warming. Senate Bill 97 directs OPR to develop CEQA Guidelines to address
GHG emissions to be adopted by January 1, 2010. OPR had not issued any formal
regulations at the time this Draft EIR was completed. OPR has issued informal guidance
in the form of a Technical Advisory in June 2008 on how to address climate change
through CEQA review.
The recommended approach for GHG analysis included in OPR's Technical Advisory is
to (1) identify and quantify GHG emissions, (2) assess the significance of the impact on
climate change, and (3) if significant, identify alternatives and / or mitigation measures
to reduce the impact below significance. Neither the CEQA statute nor guidelines
prescribe thresholds of significance or a particular methodology for performing a GHG
impact analysis. No state agency or BAAQMD has issued any final regulations or
standards of significance for the analysis of GHGs under CEQA. Therefore, this issue is
left to the judgment and discretion of the lead agency. Currently, there is significant
uncertainty as to what constitutes a legally adequate GHG analysis under CEQA. The
discussion and analysis contained in this chapter is provided in accordance with the
purpose of CEQA to make a good faith disclosure to the public and decision makers of
potential environmental impacts, so they can make informed decisions.
Significance Criteria. Whether there is a direct connection between GHG emissions
"~ from an individual land use project and global climate change is unknown. No scientific
study has established a direct causal link between individual land use project impacts
and global warming. Climate change is a global environmental problem in which (a)
~~ any given development project contributes only an infinitesimally small portion of any
net increase in GHGs and (b) growth throughout the world is continuing to contribute
large amounts of GHGs. Therefore, this study addresses climate change as a potential
° cumulative impact of the project. The analysis of this issue as a cumulative impact is
consistent with all proposed regulatory guidance. The issue is what is the appropriate
significance threshold for determining whether the project has a cumulatively
~` considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global warming.
~ AB 32 requires statewide GHG emissions reductions to 19901evels by 2020. However,
°~ AB 32 does not amend CEQA. No generally applicable significance threshold for GHG
emissions has yet been established, nor is formal final State agency regulations on
global climate change analysis in CEQA documents anticipated to be available until
~ mid-2009 at the earliest.
~ State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) provides that the "determination of whether a
~~ project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
.~ City of Dublin
PA #07-057
Page103
January 2009
3~
as ~ 7s~
~
the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and
factual data". An "ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because
the significance of an activity may vary with the setting." (CEQA Guidelines Section
15064(b)). Lead agencies have discretion under CEQA to establish significance
thresholds. The State CEQA Guidelines further indicate that if thresholds are
established, they may include an "identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance
level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect
will normally be determined to be significant by the agency[.]" (State CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15064.7)
Some agencies have suggested that a zero emissions threshold would be appropriate
when evaluating GHGs and their potential effect on climate change. However, most
agencies believe that a"zero new emissions" threshold would be impractical to
implement and would hinder any new development. Further, prior CEQA case law
makes clear that the rule that "one additional molecule" could create a significant
impact is not consistent with CEQA. Such a rule also appears inconsistent with the
State's approach to addressing climate change impacts. AB 32 does not prohibit all new
GHG emissions; rather, it requires a reduction in statewide emissions to a given level.
Thus, AB 32 recognizes that new GHG emissions will continue to occur.
Bearing in mind that CEQA does not require "perfection" but instead "adequacy,
completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure," the analysis below is based on
methodologies and information available to the City at the time the study was
prepared. Estimation of GHG emissions in the future does not account for all changes in
technology that may reduce such emissions; therefore, the estimates are based on past
performance and represent a scenario that is worse than that which is likely to be
encountered. Additionally, as explained in greater detail below, many uncertainties
exist regarding the precise relationship between specific levels of GHG emissions and
the ultimate impact on the global climate. Significant uncertainties also exist regarding
potential reduction strategies. Thus, while information is presented to assist the public
and the City's decision makers in understanding the project's potential contribution to
global climate change impacts, the information available to the City is not sufficiently
detailed to allow a direct comparison between particular project characteristics and
particular climate change impacts, nor between any particular proposed reduction
measure and any corresponding reduction in climate change impacts.
Because no applicable numeric significance thresholds have yet been defined, and
because the precise causal link between an individual project's emissions and global
climate change has not been developed, it is reasonable to conclude that an individual
development project cannot generate a high enough quantity of GHG emissions to
affect global climate change. However, individual projects incrementally contribute
toward the potential for global climate change on a cumulative basis in concert with all
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. This study identifies
qualitative factors to determine whether this project's emissions should be considered
cumulatively significant. Until the City or other regulatory agency devises a generally
applicable climate change significance threshold or methodology for analysis, the
analysis used in this study may or may not be applicable to other ~ity projects.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 104
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~'~ 7.~~-
~
In the absence of regulatory agency rules or guidance on thresholds of significance
under CEQA, the City will analyze whether the project has a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global warming under the
following qualitative standard:
• Whether the proposed project conflicts with or obstructs the implementation of
greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32 or other state regulations.
If a project does not conflict with or obstruct GHG reduction strategies identified in AB
32 or other state regulations, the project would result in a less than significant
contribution to the cumulative impact of global climate change.
Supplemental Project Impacts. The following supplemental impacts are identified for
the proposed Project.
Direct Emission of greenhouse gases. Estimates of carbon dioxide generated by Project
traffic and area sources were made using a program called URBEMIS-2007 (Version
9.2.4). URBEMIS-2007 is a program used statewide that estimates the emissions that
result from development projects. Land use projects can include residential uses such
as single-family dwelling units, apartments and condominiums, and nonresidential
uses such as shopping centers, office buildings, and industrial facilities. URBEMIS-2007
contains default values for much of the information needed to calculate emissions.
However, project-specific, user-supplied information can also be used when it is
available.
Inputs to the URBEMIS-2007 program include trip generation rates, vehicle mix,
average trip length by trip type and average speed. The daily trip generation rate for
the Project was provided by the Project transportation consultant. Average trip lengths
and speeds for Alameda County were used. The analysis was carried out assuming a
2009 vehicle mix. URBEMIS-2007 utilizes a standard mix of vehicle types and ages for
each county and it varies with the year specified. The emission rates for vehicles
changes from year to year as newer, cleaner cars replace older, more polluting vehicles.
A year 2009 vehicle mix was assumed for this analysis, which is the earliest the Project
could be assumed to be operational. It is a worst-case assumption, as emissions rates in
later years would be lower.
Area source emissions of carbon dioxide were also quantified by the URBEMIS-2007
program. The URBEMIS program identifies 5 categories of area source emissions:
Natural Gas Combustion
Hearth Emissions
Landscaping Emissions
~ Architectural Coating
Consumer Products
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 105
~ City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
a~~ ~ s~- ~
~
~
Natural gas emissions result from the combustion of natural gas for cooking, space
heating and water heating. Estimates are based on the number of residential land uses
and the number and size of nonresidential land uses.
Hearth emissions consist of emissions from wood stoves, wood fireplaces, and natural
gas fireplaces related to residential uses.
URBEMIS calculates emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned
fuel by landscape maintenance equipment. Equipment in this category includes lawn
mowers, rotor tillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge
trimmers used in residential and commercial applications. This category also includes
air compressors, generators, and pumps used primarily in commercial applications.
Consumer product emissions are generated by a wide range of product categories,
including air fresheners, automotive products, household cleaners and personal care
products. Architectural coating emissions result from the evaporation of solvents
contained in paints, varnish, primers and other surface coatings associated with
maintenance of residential and nonresidential structures. In URBEMIS-2007, these
sources generate ROG emissions but not carbon dioxide.
The URBEMIS-2007 results for carbon dioxide are attached. The output shows annual
emissions of carbon dioxide.
While URBEMIS-2007 estimates carbon dioxide emissions from land use projects, there
are other global warming gases that should be considered. Emissions of inethane
(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) were estimated separately based on the URBEMIS-2007
estimates of carbon dioxide from vehicles and natural gas combustion. CH4 and N20
emission factors from Table 3 in BAAQMD's "Source Inventory of Bay Area
Greenhouse Gas Emissions" were utilized in a spreadsheet to estimate Project
emissions of these gases. Because these gases are more powerful global warming gases,
the emissions were multiplied by a correction factor to estimate "carbon dioxide
equivalents." CH4 was assumed to have a Global Warming Potential of 21 times that of
C02, while N20 was assumed to have a Global Warming Potential of 310 times that of
C02. The spreadsheet printout included in Appendix 8.7shows the estimated
calculation of CH4 and N20 carbon dioxide equivalents and the calculation of total
estimated C02 equivalent emissions for the Project from all identified sources.
Indirect emissions of greenhouse gases. Indirect emissions are related to secondary
emissions of global warming gases emitted away from the site and not directly related
to Project activities. The most important of these is that portion of the electricity used
by the Project that would be generated by fossil-fueled power plants that generate
global warming gases.
Global warming gas emissions related to electricity use were estimated using average
annual electrical consumption per residential unit and square foot of commercial space
recommended by the California Energy Commission. Emission rates for C02, CH4 and
N20 per megawatt hour were taken from the California Climate Action Registry
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 106
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
a7a ~5 ~
General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.0. The number of project residential units was
multiplied by the electrical usage factor and emission rates per megawatt hour to
obtain annual emissions for C02, CH4 and N20. These emissions were converted to
C02 equivalents. The calculation is shown in the attached spreadsheet.
Estimated~reenhouse gas emissions. Both construction and operation of the Project
would release new GHG emissions. Construction emissions, which are a one time
emissions, have been estimated by the URBEMIS-2007 program as 165.2 metric tons
C02 equivalent. Estimated daily operational emissions of greenhouse gases associated
with the Project are shown in Table 4.9-2. Emissions are expressed in COz equivalent
metric tons per year. Expressing emission in COZ equivalent metric tons per year
accounts for the greater global warming potential of inethane and nitrous oxide.
Table 4.9-2. Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
Metric Tons Per Year (COZ Eq.)
Vehicles Area Sources Indirect Sources Total
461.3 113.1 72.61 647.01
Source: Don Ballanti, 2008
Cumulative im~acts of Pro'lect•
Consistency of Project with GHG reduction measures urider AB 32 and other State
regulc~tions.
The California Climate Action Team (CAT) and the California Air Resources
Board (ARB) have developed programs and measures to achieve the GHG
reduction targets under AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05. These include the
CAT's 2006 "Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature," ARB's
"Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
in California, " and ARB's "Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: a
framework for change."
The reports identify strategies to reduce California's emissions to the levels
proposed in Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. Only some of these measures are
applicable to the proposed Project which is a residential development. The
strategies that apply to the Project are contained in Table 4.9-3, which discusses
the extent to which the Project complies with the strategies to help California
reach the GHG emission reduction targets.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 107
~ City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
:~
a73
~~~
~
Table 4.9-3. Project Compliance with Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reduction Strategies
Vehicle Climate Change Standards.' AB 1493
(Pavley) required the state to develop and
adopt regulations that achieve the maximum
feasible and cost-effective reduction of climate
change emissions emitted by passenger
vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations
were adopted by the ARB in September 2004.
Building Energy Efficiency Standards in
Place and in Progress.8 Public Resources Code
25402 authorizes the Energy Commission to
adopt and periodically update its building
energy efficiency standards (that apply to
newly constructed buildings and additions to
and alterations to existing buildings).
Energy Efficiency.9 Maximize energy
efficiency building and appliance standards,
and pursue additional efficiency efforts.
Reductions could be achieved through
enhancements to existing programs such as
increased incentives and even more stringent
building codes and appliance efficiency
standards. Green buildings offer a
comprehensive approach to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions that cross-cut
multiple sectors including Energy, Water,
Waste, and Transportation.
Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards in
Place and in Progress. 10 Public Resources
Code 25402 authorizes the Energy Commission
to adopt and periodically update its appliance
energy efficiency standards (that apply to
devices and equipment using energy that are
sold or offered for sale in California).
Measures to Improve Transportation Energy
Efficiency.11 Builds on current efforts to
provide a framework for expanded and new
initiatives including incentives, tools, and
information that advance cleaner
ect
Compliant. The vehicles from the Project wil
be in compliance with any vehicle standards
that the ARB adopts.
Compliant. The proposed project will be
required to comply with the updated Title 24
standards for building construction including
exterior lighting requirements. Residential
building constructed in 2011 would be
required to comply with the 2007 California
Green Building Code Standards. As described
below, the proposed Project includes other
measures which will reduce energy and water
use and promote alternative transportation.
The Project shall also incorporate Green
Building Measures. A Green Building plan will
be submitted to the City Building Official for
review and all dwellings shall follow the
"Build it Green" program with the goal of
obtaining 50 points. (Build It Green is a non-
profit organization whose mission is to
promote healthy, energy- and resource-
efficient building practices in California.)
Compliant. Appliances that are purchased tor
the Project will be consistent with existing
energy efficiency standards. The proposed
Project will include energy efficient heating
and cooling systems, appliances and
equipment, and control systems. The Project
Proponent will also provide education to home
buyers on energy efficiency in their homes
Compliant. 'l~he proposed 1'roject promotes
programs which encourage walking, bicycling
and public transportation use through site
planning and design elements. The proposed
Project includes sidewalks throughout Project
~ California Environmental Protection Agency
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March.
8 Ibid.
2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor
~ California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan: a framework for change.
June.
10 California Environmental Protection Agency
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March.
~~ Ibid.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Page108
January 2009
~_
r„..
a ~~ ~
transportation and reduce climate change
emissions.
5mart Land use ana tnte111gent
Transportation Systems (ITS).12 Smart land
use strategies encourage jobs/ housing
proximity, promote transit-oriented
development, and encourage high-density
residential/ commercial development along
transit corridors. ITS is the application of
advanced technology systems and
management strategies to improve operational
efficiency of transportation systems and move-
ment of people, goods and services.
Water Use Efficiency." Approximately 19~~0 of
all electricity, 30°0 of all natural gas, and 88
million gallons of diesel are used to convey,
treat, distriUute and use water and wastewater.
Increasing the efficiency of water transport and
reducing water use would reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.
Waste reduction and recycling: Keduce
amount of waste generated by projects and
increase recycling of products
site and incorporates access to sidewalks and
pathways off site to ensure that destinations
may be reached by walking or bicycling. Air
Quality mitigation measure SM-AIR-1 also
requires other measures to promote use of
alternative transportation to vehicle use.
Compliant. The proposed Project locates
residential uses near transit stops on local
transportation corridors, which can be
considered smart land use. The proposed
Project is an infill Project adjacent to existing
development, and it is located on Tassajara
Road, which is a major transportation corridor
serving both Alameda and Contra Costa
counties. Additionally, the Project Proponent
shall negotiate with LAVTA for the
construction or reservation of land for transit
facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs,
benches, and related public transit facilities,
provide on site bicycle land and/or paths,
connected to community-wide network, and
provide on site sidewalks and/or paths,
connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops,
and/or community-wide network.
c.omp~iant. i ne proposea rro~ect wiii
incorporate water- conservation measures,
including water efficient fixtures and
appliances, water-efficient landscaping and
design, the use of water efficient irrigation
systems and devices, will be using reclaimed
water for landscape irrigation, and will employ
water conservation measures required by the
City of Dublin (Chapter 8.88)
Compliant. The proposed 1'roject will reuse
and recycle construction and demolition waste
including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation,
concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard, as
required by the City of Dublin Municipal Code
(Chapter 7.30, Waste Management Plan).
~~~
GHG reduction measures applicable to Project
The Project's GHG emissions will be reduced by compliance with existing City policies
and regulations and the implementation of mitigation measures under this EIR and the
EDSP EIR. The Project also includes certain components that will reduce GHG
emissions. All of these measures that will reduce GHG emissions from the Project are
described below.
City regulations that reduce Project GHG emissions
" 1z Ibid.
13 Ibid.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 109
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~~ ~ 7~ ~-
The Dublin Municipal Code, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, City Ordinances, and
standard practices will all contribute to reducing the GHG emissions of the proposed
Project. Several city-wide GHG-reducing measures that will apply to the proposed
Project are described below:
1. The Project will be required to comply with the Chapter 8.88 of the Dublin
Municipal Code (Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations), which establishes a
sufficient but flexible structure for designing, installing and maintaining water-
efficient landscapes.
2. The Project will be required to comply with Chapter 7.30 of the Dublin
Municipal Code (Waste Management Plan), which requires the diversion of at
least fifty percent (50%) of all Project-related construction and demolition debris
from the landfill.
3. The Project will be required to comply with California's Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings.
4. In addition to a traditional garbage can, all single-family homes citywide are
provided, at no extra cost, with one 64-gallon cart for curbside recycling (glass,
paper, metal, plastics) and one 64-gallon cart for curbside green waste and
organics disposal. In addition to these services, which serve to minimize the
amount of waste headed for the landfill, the City also provides for oil filter
collection, household hazardous waste drop-off events, household battery
recycling, and on-call large item collection.
Project cornponents that will reduce GHG emissions
In addition to the above City regulations that reduce Project GHG emissions, there are
also Project-specific measures which are proposed to be incorporated into the Project
which will serve to reduce the GHG impacts.
The Project Proponent has committed that the Project will incorporate the following
measures, which will be included in the Planned Development Zoning Ordinance once
the Project is approved.
Energy Efficiency
1. Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment,
and control systems in each residential unit.
2. Provide education to home buyers on energy efficiency in their homes.
3. Incorporate Green Building Measures. The Green Building plan shall be
submitted to the City Building Official for review, and all dwellings shall follow
the "Build it Green" program with the goal of obtaining 50 points.
4. Flat roof areas shall have their roofing material coated with light colored gravel
or painted with light colored or reflective material designed for "Cool Roofs".
Water Conservation and Efficiency
5. Create water efficient landscapes including the use of drought-tolerant species.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 110
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~
a ~~ ~ ~s~-
6. Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices such as soil moisture-based
irrigation controls.
7. Use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation.
8. Design each residential unit to be water efficient and install water efficient
fixtures and appliances.
9. Design the Project site to maintain the existing hydrologic character of the site to
manage storm water and protect the environment. The proposed Project also
incorporates storm water retention in a pond on an adjacent piece of property.
10. The Project shall have a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that
incorporates Best Management Practices appropriate to the Project construction
activities. The SWPPP shall also include the erosion control measures.
11. Provide education to home buyers on water conservation and available
programs and incentives.
Solid Waste Measures
12. Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste including, but not limited
to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard.
13. Provide education to home buyers on reducing waste and available recycling
services.
Trarzsportation and Accessibility
14. Create travel routes that allow people to access destinations by public transit as
well as by walking and bicycling. Sidewalks are provided throughout the Project
site that connect with the citywide network of pedestrian and bicycle paths,
linking schools, parks, and other public destinations.
In addition to the City regulations and Project-specific measures that will serve to
reduce Project GHG emissions, there are also Mitigation Measures and requirements of
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) and/or the Eastern Dublin EIR which will
serve to reduce the GHG impacts.
1. Action Program 5B of the EDSP requires review and approval of (1) Public
transit routes and phasing plan, to be prepared in consultation with LAVTA. (2)
Bus turnouts and transit shelters, in consultation with LAVTA, and (3)
Pedestrian paths between transit stops and building entrances. The proposed
Project is coordinating with LAVTA on the above.
2. Action Program 5B of the EDSP requires the establishment of a bicycle
circulation system to help serve the need for non-motorized transportation and
recreation in Dublin. The proposed Project is accessible to the City's bicycle
circulation system.
3. Action Program 5B of the EDSP requires projects to include a detailed pedestrian
circulation plan. The proposed Project includes said plan.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 111
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
a~~ ~ 75g ~...
4. Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure No. 3.3/ 15.0 requires the extension of
transit service within 1/4 mile of 95% of the Project area population. The
proposed Project is currently .70 miles from the nearest bus stop, but the Project
Proponents are consulting with LAVTA to see if services changes are merited at
this time.
5. Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure No. 3.4/46.0 requires developers to
demonstrate the incorporation of energy conservation measures into the design,
construction, and operation of proposed development. The proposed Project is
accomplishing this as referenced in the project-specific energy conserving
measures noted above.
6. Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure No. 3.5/7.0 requires project applicants to
prepare detailed wastewater capacity investigations, including means to
minimize wastewater flows. The proposed Project is accomplishing this as
referenced in the project-specific water conserving measures noted above.
In addition to the City regulations and project-specific measures that will serve to
reduce Project GHG emissions, there are also two mitigation measures included in this
EIR which will serve to further reduce the GHG impacts:
Su~plemental Mitigation Measure SM-AIR-1 (consistency with Clean Air Plan): If
the requested land use entitlements are approved, the City of Dublin shall transmit
appropriate documentafiion of land use buildout to the BAAQMD for inclusion into
the next update of the regional Clean Air Plan.
In addition, the following steps shall be taken by the Project Applicant:
f) The Project proponent shall negotiate with LAVTA for the construction or
reservation of land for transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches,
and related public transit facilities.
g) Provide on site bicycle land and/or paths, connected to community-wide
network.
h) Provide on site sidewalks and/or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit
stops, and / or community-wide network.
i) Allow only natural gas fireplaces and heating stoves. No wood burning devices
shall be allowed.
j) Require dwellings to have outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of
electric lawn and garden equipment for landscaping and maintenance.
k) Install ENERGY-STAR appliances.
Su~plemental Mitigation SM-AQ-2 (construction impacts). In addition to
measures identified in MM 3.11 / 1.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the City of Dublin
shall:
a) Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand
or other materials that can be blown by the wind. .
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 112
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~
~~
~b~ ~p ~-~'S~;--
l
b) Require construction contractors to sweep daily (preferably with water
sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction
sites.
c) Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control
measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
d) On-site idling of construction equipment and trucks shall be minimized as much
as feasible (no more than five minutes maximum).
e) All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and fitted with
manufacturer's standard level exhaust controls.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project would not have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global warming
because the Project does not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of greenhouse
gas reduction measures under AB 32 or other state regulations. The GHG emissions
from the proposed Project will be reduced by compliance with City regulation,
mitigation measures (in this EIR and the EDSP EIR) and Project components described
above. Therefore, the Project's contribution to the cumulative impact of global warming
is less than significant.
4.10 Noise
Noise impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.9 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement
examines whether any changes in the proposed Project or applicable standards would
result in new impacts that were not previously identified in the 1993 EIR.
Information in this section is based on a technical memorandum prepared by the firm
of Charles Salter Associates dated May 15, 2008 that is incorporated by reference into
this DSEIR and included as Appendix 8.8.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTNG
Environmental noise fundamentals. Noise can be defined as unwanted sound and is
commonly measured with an instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level
meter "captures" sound with a microphone and converts it into a number called a
sound level. Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels (dB).
To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans
perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is used. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-
frequency and very high-frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The
use of A-weighting is required by most local agencies as well as other federal and state
noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is often
used when the A-weighted sound level is reported.
Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors
. that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone
"~ does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 113
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~-..~ ~ 75~ ~
~
~
accurately represent the noise environment. There are four descriptors that are
commonly used in environmental studies; the Lmax, Leq, L90 and DNL (or CNEL).
The maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness of
a single event such as a car pass-by or airplane flyover. To express the average noise
level, the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq can be measured over any length
of time but is typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The background
noise level (or residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. It is
usually generated by steady sources such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified
with a descriptor called the L90 which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the
time.
To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound Level
(Ldn/DNL) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors
are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dBA penalty for noises that occur
during nighttime hours (and a 5 dBA penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to
account for peoples increased sensitivity during these hours.
In environmental noise, a change in the noise level of 3 dBA is considered a just
noticeable difference. A 5 dBA change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10 dBA
change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness.
Existing noise conditions. On January 15 and 16, 2008, a long-term noise measurement
was conducted along Tassajara Road to document the current on-site noise exposure ~
from this roadway. At a distance of approximately 80 feet east of the current Tassajara ,
Road median centerline and at a height of 38 feet above the roadway elevation, a noise
exposure of CNEL 66 dB was documented based on this measurement. .~
Additionally, a short-term noise measurement was conducted at the proposed side yard
of Lot 9 at a location where the future graded elevation would be the same as the
current existing elevation. At a distance of 140 feet east of the current Tassajara Road
median centerline, a CNEL of 60 dB was documented at this location. For the second
floor noise exposure, the CNEL is estimated to be another 2 to 3 dB greater. It was noted
that children playing outside at the adjacent Quarry Lane School did not measurably
contribute to these noise levels. Other noise sources, such as mechanical equipment or
schoolyard bell, were not heard during this measurement period.
During measurements, no noise from Parks RFTA was noted. However, in 2003 a noise
analysis for the Dublin Ranch West project (also known as the Wallis Ranch) was
prepared by this consultant, where some seasonal and intermittent noise sources from
Parks RFTA was identified. These sources included helicopters, gunshots at firing
ranges, and military training exercises. For additional information, the Army had also
prepared an Environmental Noise Management Plan for Parks RFTA, dated December
2000. Future purchasers of properties within the Project Site will be required to be
provided with disclosure of the potential presence of noise generated by aircraft
operations at Parks RFTA pursuant to SB 1462.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 114 ~
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~~~~ ~ ~5~
Future Noise Levels. The future build-out noise levels for the proposed widened and
the re-aligned Tassajara Road was calculated. Tassajara Road is proposed to be widened
from two to six lanes, and the median centerline is planned to be relocated
approximately 33 feet to the west of the current centerline. The build-out noise levels for
this roadway adjacent to the Project is based on the recent traffic volume predictions
summarized in the TJKM Transportation Consultants Traffic Study for the Silvera
Ranch Development, dated September 8, 2003. For Tassajara Road, the build-out CNEL
is calculated to be 76 dB at a distance of 50 feet east of the median centerline. This noise
increase reflects the projected quadrupling of traffic volumes in this future scenario.
Incorporating the roadway re-alignment, the build-out CNEL would be approximately
4 dB greater than the existing levels measured on-site. The approximate location of the
Build-out CNEL 65 dB contour, incorporating the future grading, is shown in the full
acoustic report.
Regulatory framework. The City of Dublin has a Noise Element and Noise Ordinance.
The Dublin Noise Element is found in Chapter 9 of the City's General Plan. It contains a
guiding policy to mitigate traffic noise levels to those indicated by Table 9.1 of the Noise
Element.
For residential development, a CNEL of 60 dBA or less is considered "Normally
Acceptable." A CNEL of 60 to 70 dBA is "Conditionally Acceptable" and requires that
noise insulation features be included in the project design. A CNEL of 70 to 75 dBA is
"Normally Unacceptable" for residences. For offices and retail commercial, the City is
more lenient since these uses are considered less noise sensitive. A CNEL of 70 dBA or
less is normally acceptable while a CNEL of 70 to 75 dBA is conditionally acceptable.
The current Airport Land Use Policy Plan for Alameda County was adopted by the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission on July 16, 1986. The ALUC Plan also
contains noise contour maps and a referral area map.
In 2004, The California Assembly adopted AB 2776. AB 2776 requires disclosure of all
existing and proposed airports within two statute miles of a residential subdivision.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of potentially significant impacts related to
noise. These include:
IM 3.10/A (Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise) identified
future vehicular traffic associated with development proposed in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan as potentially significant to future residents of Eastern
Dublin. This impact would be mitigated to a level of insignificance through
adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/ 1.0 that requires acoustic studies for all
future residential development in the Eastern Dublin area. The goal of the study
is to ensure that interior noise levels of future dwellings will be 45 CNEL or less.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 115
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
°z~l ~ 7~8 ~
~
IM 3.10/B (Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise) would be
a potentially significant impact to residents in the Eastern Dublin area as
development occurs in accord with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan. This impact would be reduced through adherence to
Mitigation Measure 3.10/2.0, which required future development projects to
provide noise protection to existing residential uses in Eastern Dublin; however,
noise impacts to existing residents along Fallon Road would remain significant
and unavoidable.
IM 3.10/C (Exposure of Existing and Proposed Development to Airport Noise)
was considered an insignificance impact and no mitigation was required.
IM 3.10/D (Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from
Future Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and
the County Jail) identified potentially significant noise for future residents within
6000 feet of Parks RFTA. This impact would be reduced through adherence to
Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0 that requires acoustic studies for development near
Parks RFTA for the Alameda County Government facility; however, reduction of
noise from Parks RFTA may not be feasible, so this impact would be significant
and unavoidable.
IM 3.10 / E(Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction ,,
Noise) would be a potentially significant impact related to noise associated with
construction of the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan improvements, ~
including but not limited to buildings, roads, and utilities. Adherence to
Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 would reduce construction noise impacts
to a level of insignificance through preparation and submittal of Construction ~
Noise Management Plans and compliance with local noise standards.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The same type of development is proposed for this Project as was assumed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, although a greater number of dwellings would be built, if the
requested land use entitlements were to be approved by the City of Dublin.
Significance Criteria. Implementation of the Project would be considered to have a
significant impact with respect to noise if it were to:
• Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies;
• Cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in a project
vicinity above existing levels without a project; or
• Expose people residing or working in a project area to excessive noise levels.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
Page 116
January 2009
~
~~~ ~ ~~~
Significant supplemental impacts. This SEIR addresses new or more significant
impacts related to noise beyond any noise impacts analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin
EIR. One such impact has been identified
Exterior and interior noise exposure. The outdoor use areas of proposed dwelling units on
the Project Site are required to meet the City's outdoor noise standard of CNEL 65 dB.
The Build-out CNEL at the backyards of homes on Lots 1 to 3 would be a high as 67 dB
without any noise mitigation. This level exceeds the City's goal by 2 dB. This would be
a significant supplemental impact. Noise levels generated by traffic along Tassajara
Road could also result in potenkially supplemental noise levels for interior portions of
upper floors for dwellings adjacent to Tassajara Road.
Su~plemental Impact SM-NOISE-1(exterior and interior noise exposure): Noise levels
adjacent to the Project Site along Tassajara Road would exceed City exterior noise
exposure levels for the rear yards of proposed Lots 1 through 3 and for any balconies
and upper floor windows facing Tassajara Road. Interior noise levels within upper
floors for dwellings facing Tassajara Road could also exceed City and State
requirements (potentially significant impact and mitigation requirec~.
This impact would be a significant impact and would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level by adherence to the following measure which requires installation of a
noise barrier wall to reduce future noise levels in the rear yard areas of Lots 1 through
3 to be consistent with City of Dublin noise exposure levels. Solid railings would also
be required for any upper floor balconies facing Tassajara Road.
Su~lemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1(exterior and interior noise exposure):
The following features shall be incorporated into final building plans:
a) For Lots 1 through 3, a minimum 6-foot-tall property line noise barrier shall be
installed to acoustically shield future Tassajara Road traffic noise. Noise
barriers could include either a masonry sound wall or an acoustical wood fence.
b) For any upper floor balconies for homes constructed on Lots 1 through 9 that
would face west, 3-1/2-foot-tall, solid railing shall be installed to acoustically
shield Tassajara Road noise to seated receivers'a
c) Upper floor windows facing Tassajara Road shall be sound-rated and non-
operable to ensure that interior noise standards are met.
Less-than-significant impacts. The technical noise memo prepared by Charles Salter
Associates identified other potential impacts associated with the Project, including
Project consistency with interior noise standards, noise sources from Parks RFTA and
construction impacts of the proposed Project. These potential impacts are not
considered new noise impacts, but are identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as Impact
3.10/A (Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise) that requires future
dwellings to meet interior noise levels (Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0), 3.10/D (Exposure
14 Based on a 25 April 2008 teleconference ~vith Lisa Vilhauer, Erica Fraser, City of Dublin Senior Planner,
said it was okav to use a"seated receiver" ~osition for balconv noise analvses.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 117
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
ag3 ~Sg--
~
of Proposed residential Development to Noise from Future Military Training Activities
from Parks RFTA) that is mitigated by Mitigation Measure 3.10 / 3.0 and Impact 3.10 / E
(Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise) that is mitigated
by adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0.
Regarding potential noise impacts of Project-generated traffic upon adjacent land uses
primarily caused by Project traffic, the Charles Salter Associates techrucal memorandum
found that the noise contribution due to the Project was calculated to be 0.5 dB off of the
Project Site. This noise contribution is not considered a noticeable or a significant
increase under the significance standard for change in existing noise levels, so the
impact of proposed Project traffic is less than significant.
Regarding the potential noise impact of Quarry Lane School on the Project, children
playing outside at the school was found not loud enough to measurably contribute to
the existing onsite noise environment. Other school noise sources, such as mechanical
equipment or schoolyard bells, though potential audible onsite, are not expected to
increase the overall noise levels. Therefore, Quarry Lane School is not predicted to
acoustically impact the Project.
Although the impact of construction impacts of the proposed Project will be reduced to
a less-than-significant level by adherence to EDSP Mitigation Measure 3.10/E that
requires individual project developers to prepare and implement Construction Noise
Management Plans, the Charles Salter Acoustic Report recommends that the following
items be included in the Construction Noise Management Plan for the Neilsen Project:
1. All noisy stationary equipment should be located away from the school
and existing homes.
2. All construction equipment should be in good working order and include
proper mufflers.
3. Designate a construction site noise coordinator who would be available to
respond to neighbors' complaints and take appropriate measures to
reduce noise.
4.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
This section of the EIR addresses potential soil contamination. Information in this
section is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the Project by
Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants completed in June 2008. This report is incorporated
by reference into this EIR and is available for review at the Dublin Planning Division
during normal business hours.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
Page 118 ~
January 2009
~
~:
a~~ ~5~
~
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project Site contains residential and seasonal commercial land uses. Existing
improvements consist of a detached single family residence with an associated garage,
swimming pool and pool house at the top of the existing hill. One unmanned cell tower
facility has also been built near the existing residence and one facility is located near
Tassajara Road. The remaining portion of the Site is undeveloped with the exception of
a horse corral and a second dwelling (agricultural mobile home) located at a lower
elevation and north of the main residence.
The Phase 1 report notes that the main dwelling was constructed in the 1970's and may
contain asbestos building materials and lead based paints.
The Phase 1 report also notes the presence of a diesel-powered generator and fuel tank
that are related to a cell tower facility. Two above-ground storage tanks have been built
on metal stands, each containing an estimated 1,000 gallons of fluid material. A pole-
mounted transformer is located south of the main residence. No leakage of
contaminants was observed from the transformer.
Based on a search of available local, state and federal records, no contamination cases
have been found on the Project Site.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Standards of Significance. A project would be considered to result in a significant
impact if there would be a reasonably foreseeable hazard due to the release of
hazardous materials into the environment.
Supplemental impacts. Based on the Berlogar Phase I analysis, the Project Site is
generally free from significant sources of contaminants. However, the analysis notes
that the possible release of asbestos and lead based paint from the demolition of
existing Site improvements into the atmosphere could be a significant supplemental
impact.
The Berlogar analysis has determined that the main dwelling on the Site was built in the
1970's when use of asbestos containing building materials and lead based paints was
common. The proposed Project includes demolition of the main dwelling, the second
dwelling and other existing Site improvements. Demolition could release asbestos and
lead based paint materials, which could result in a potentially significant supplemental
impact if not remediated.
Supplemental Impact SM-HAZ-1 (asbestos and lead based paint): Demolition of
existing buildings and related improvements could result in potentially significant
irnpacts due to release of asbestos and lead based paint into the atmosphere. There
could also be a release of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are listed as a
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 119
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~i 5 r7 5~ ~
~
pollutant of concern on the City's Regional Permit for Stormwater (potentially
significant and mitigation required).
The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potential impacts from
asbestos and lead based paints to a less than significant level by removing asbestos and
lead based paints prior to building demolition.
Su~plemental Mitigation Measure SM-HAZ-1 (asbestos and lead based paint): The
following actions shall be taken before issuance of the first demolition permit, if
multiple permits are issued by the City:
a) Asbestos containing material shall be tested for, and if found, removed by a
licensed contractor and disposed of in a landfill licensed to accept this level of
contaminated material. If required, a permit shall be obtained from the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District prior to commencement of work.
b) Testing and analysis for lead based paints and PCBs shall be conducted. If
such materials are found, remediation shall be completed by a licensed
contractor. Necessary permits shall be obtained prior to commencement of
work.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 120
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~
~
~6 ~ ~.~~-
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The California Environmental Quality Act requires identification and comparative
analysis of feasible alternatives to the proposed Project that have the potential to
feasibly achieve Project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any
significant impacts of the Project.
This Supplemental EIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable
impacts: regional cumulative air quality impacts, cumulative (Year 2025) traffic
impacts, impacts to mainline freeway operations near the Project Site and visual
resource impacts.
The following discussion considers alternative development scenarios. Through
comparison of these alternatives to the proposed Project, the advantages of each can
be weighed and considered by the public and by decision-makers. CEQA
Guidelines requires a range of alternatives "governed by a rule of reason" and
requires the EIR to set forth a range of alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned
choice.
5.1 Alternatives Identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared for a General Plan Amendment encompassing
approximately 6,920 acres of land and for a Specific Plan for 3,328 acres within the
General Plan Amendment area. The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
(GPA/SP) proposed a variety of types and densities of housing, as well as employment-
generating commercial, campus office and other land uses. Other portions of the
planning area were designated for schools, open space and other community facilities.
Protection for natural features of the planning area, including riparian corridors and
principal ridgelands, was provided through restrictive land use designations and
~ policies. The land use plan reflected the Eastern Dublin Project objectives as set forth in
the Eastern Dublin EIR, Section 2.5.
As required by CEQA, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified project alternatives that could
eliminate or reduce significant impacts of the Eastern Dublin project. The four identified
alternatives included: No Project, Reduced Planning Area, Reduced Land Use
~ Intensities and No Development. These are described below:
No Project Alternative. The No Project alternative evaluated potential development of
;~ the GPA/SP area under the then-applicable Dublin General Plan for the unincorporated
portion of the planning area under the Alameda County General Plan.
~~ Reduced Planning Area Alternative. The Reduced Planning Area Alternative
evaluated development of the Specific Plan as proposed, but assumed development
beyond the Specific Plan only to the Dublin Sphere of Influence boundary. The effect of
this alternative was to exclude Upper and Lower poolan Canyon properties from the
:~
project.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 121
.r City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~ ~ ~ 7s~ ~
~.
Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative. The Reduced Land Use Intensities
Alternative evaluated potential development of the entire GPA/SP area, but reduced
some higher traffic generating commercial uses in favor of increased residential
dwellings.
No Development. The No Development Alternative assumed no development would
occur in the planning area other than agricultural, open space and similar land uses
then in place.
The Dublin City Council certified the Eastern Dublin EIR on May 10, 1993, under
Resolution No. 51-93. The City Council found the No Project, Reduced Land Use
Intensities and No Development alternatives infeasible and then approved a
modification of the Reduced Planning Area Alternative rather than the GPA/SP project
as proposed (Resolution No. 53-93). This alternative was approved based on City
Council findings that this alternative land use plan would reduce land use impacts,
would not disrupt the Doolan Canyon community, would reduce growth-inducing
impacts on agricultural lands and would reduce traffic, infrastructure and noise impacts
of the originally proposed Eastern Dublin project. Even under this alternative project,
however, significant unavoidable impacts would remain. Therefore, upon approval of
the GPA/SP, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Resolution No. 53-93).
5.2 Alternatives Identified in the 2008 Supplemental EIR
Alternatives selected for analysis in this Supplemental DEIR document include:
• Alternative 1: No Project/No development (required by CEQA to be considered).
• Alternative 2: Clustered Development.
• Alternative 3: Reduced Project.
Alternatives are described and evaluated below.
5.3 No Proj ect
CEQA requires an analysis of a"no project" alternative. Under this alternative, the
existing single-family residence, agricultural mobile home, horse arena, wireless
communication facilities and other site improvements would remain.
This alternative would avoid the range of environmental impacts described in this
document, including:
~ Land Use: No changes to land uses would occur and existing single-family
dwellings and accessory buildings would remain. No supplemental
impacts with regard to this topic would occur. Impact would be less than
impact of proposed Project.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
~
Page 122
January 2009
~~
~ ~ -~~~.
• Population and Housing: The existing on-site population would remain with
no increases in either on-site population or housing. No displacement or
removal of dwellings would occur and no supplemental impacts with
regard to this topic would occur. Impact would be less than impact of
proposed Project.
~ Traffic and Circulation: Existing traffic patterns on local and regional
roadways would continue as they currently exist. No increase in public
transit demand would occur. Impact would be less than impact of
proposed Project.
Water ~ Storm Drainage: The water demand would continue to be met by on-site
water wells. In terms of storm drainage, existing drainage patterns on the Site
would remain unchanged since no construction would occur. No increases in the
amount of stormwater runoff or associated runoff would occur since there would
be no increase in the amount of impervious surfaces on the Site. Impact would be
less than impact of proposed Project.
Soils, Geology ~ Seismicity: No excavation, grading or related activities would
occur. No significant increases in the amount of erosion from the Site is
therefore anticipated. Similarly, there would be no anticipated impacts related
with exposing new and additional building improvements, residents and
visitors to the potential of seismic and geotechnical hazards since the number of
dwellings on the Site would not increase. Impact would be less than impact of
proposed Project.
~ Biological Resources: There would be no impacts to existing on-site biological
resources, since no additional dwellings or significant ground disturbing
activities would occur on the Site. Impact would be less than impact of proposed
Project.
• Visual Resources: There would be no aesthetic change to the Site. Buildings,
parking and landscaping would remain as they presently exist, as would current
levels of light and glare. Impact would be less than impact of proposed Project.
• Cultural Resources: There would be no impacts to cultural resources since no
construction or disruption of the soil would occur. Impact would be similar to or
less than impact of proposed Project.
• Air Quality: Existing sources of air emissions on the Site would remain. There
would be no short-term air quality impacts associated with demolition of
existing dwellings and construction of new dwellings and other improvements.
No long-term operational increase from vehicle emissions would occur since no
new trips would be created. There would be no increase in the amount of
greenhouse gas emissions from additional dwellings on the Site. Impact would
be less than impact of proposed Project.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 123
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~9~~~ ~
~
• Noise: Existing major noise generators near the Site would remain, including
Tassajara Road and Parks RFTA. No additional traffic would be generated by
existing land uses, so there would be no supplemental impacts caused by
vehicles. Impact would be less than impact of proposed Project.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: There would be no demolition of existing
dwellings that would release contaminants into the atmosphere. Impact would
be less than impact of proposed Project.
5.4 Alternative 2: Clustered Development
The second alternative assumes removal of the smaller secondary dwelling, the
retention of the primary existing dwelling unit, and other improvements on the Site and '"~
construction of 32 three-story townhouses and 5 single-family dwellings for a total of 37
dwellings.
Townhouse dwellings would be located in the western and northern portion of the Site
and would be "stepped" to conform to topographic constraints and minimize grading.
The dwellings would have a maximum height of approximately 40 feet. Individual rear
yards would not be provided due to topographic constraints.
The five single-family dwellings would be located on the southeastern portion of the
Site, east of the existing main dwelling and would have a flat pad design. The dwellings
would have a maximum height of approximately 35 feet.
The existing main dwelling on the Site and surrounding yard area at the top of the knoll
in the southeastern portion of the site would remain. The approximate central portion
of the site would remain as open space, although a portion of this open space area
would need to be graded to allow for construction of the roadway and proposed
dwellings, along with reconstructing the knoll for adequate slope stability and
prevention of erosion.
Access to the Site under this Alternative would be from Silvera Ranch Road, the same as
the proposed Project that would lead to a semi-circular internal roadway that would
serve the proposed hilltop dwellings.
Amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would be
required to implement this Alternative, as would be required for both Alternative 2 and
the Proposed Project. The existing "Rural Residential / Agriculture" land use
designation would need to be replaced with a land use designation of "Single Family."
Exhibit 5.2-1 shows this Alternative.
Anticipated impacts associated with this Alternative would include:
• Land Use: Similar to proposed Project, Alternative 2 would require an
amendment to the General Plan and EDSP to change the land use designation
from "Rural Residential / Agriculture" to "Single Family Residential."
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
~
Page 124
January 2009 •
~
~
~~~ ~~g
Population and Housing: Based on the following table, Alternative 2 would
generate a slightly smaller resident population than the proposed Project. Based
on the Table 5.2-2, a total of 81 residents could reside on the Site (including the
existing dwelling and deducting loss of the agricultural dwelling unit). This
would be smaller than the estimated 115 that could reside on the Site under the
proposed Project, but this would not be a significant supplemental impact in
comparison to the number of dwellings and residents allowed in the Eastern
Dublin planning area. This impact would be less than the proposed Project.
Table 5.2-2. Proposed Project v. Alternative 2 Population Generation
Residential
T e Persons DU Proposed Project Alternative 2
D.U. Po D.U. Po .
Single Family
Residential 3.2 36 115. 6 19
Attac ed
Residential 2.0 0 0 31 62
Totals 36 115 37 81
Note: household population based on Section 1.8.1 of the Dublin General Plan and 4.8.1 of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
• Traffic and Circulation: Table 5.2-3 compares the buildout a.m. and p.m. peak hour
trips between the proposed Project and the larger number of dwellings included
in Alternative 2.
Table 5.2-3. Trip Rate Comparison
Land Use Dwellin s A.M. Peak Tri s P.M. Peak Tri s
Proposed Project 36 single family 27 33
subtotal 27 33
Alternative 2 6 single family 5 6
31 15 17
attached/ townhous
subtotal 20 23
Difference -7 -10
Source: trip rates from ITE Handbook
As shown in the table, the number of a.m. peak hour trips would be less than the
'~' proposed Project due to a lower peak hour trip rate for attached dwellings as
compared to single family detached dwellings. Impact would be similar to but
slightly less than impact of proposed Project.
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 125
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
30l ~ 7~ g ~,
,
• Water £~ Storm Drainage: Water to serve proposed dwellings under this
Alternative would be provided DSRSD, the same as the proposed Project. Table
5.2-4 compares estimated daily water demand between Alternative 2 and the
proposed Project.
Table 5.2-4. Potable Daily Water Demand
Comparison in Gallons Per Day (GPD)
Land Use Dwellings Generation Factor Est. Water Demand
( allons/da )
Alternative 2
-Single family 6 393 2,358
dwellings
-Attached units 31 225 6,975
Subtotal 37 9,333
Proposed Project
-Single family 36 393 14,148
dwellings
-Attached units 0 225 0
Subtotal 36 14,148
Total -- -4,815
Notes:
1) Generation factors from West-Yost Associates "Neilsen Development Water Service Ana-ysis-
Preliminary Hydraulic Results," June 16, 2008.
As shown in the Table, estimated daily water demand for dwellings under
Alternative would be less by an estimated 4,761 gallons per day than the
proposed Project, although peak fire flow demand would be greater under
Alternative 2 than the proposed Project due to higher fire flow requirements for
attached dwellings than single family detached dwellings (3,000 gpm for
attached units v. 1000 gpm for single family dwellings). Similar to the proposed
Project, the amount of water needed to support development under this
Alternative would be less-than-significant.
In addition to potable water, non-potable recycled water would be required to
irrigate common open space areas, the same as the proposed Project. In terms of
storm drainage, there would be an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces
(although less than proposed Project) leading to increases in the amount of
stormwater runoff leaving the Site. Stormwater may be polluted, the same as the
proposed Project. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-WATER-2 and SM-
WATER-3 would be applied to the Alternative 2 to reduce potential impacts
related to increases in stormwater runoff and water quality to less-than-
significant impacts.
~k
~
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 126 ~
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~
~ ~ ~ . ~5~
~
Soils, Geology £~ Seisrnicity: Somewhat less grading would be required to
accommodate development under Alternative 2 than the proposed Project since
more open space would be preserved under this Alternative than the proposed
Project. Regardless, the knoll would need to be reconstructed for stability and
erosion protection purposes, even though it would remain as undeveloped open
space. Similar to the proposed Project, development under this Alternative will
be required to be constructed following recommendations of a site-specific soils
and geotechnical analysis and subject to other Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation
measures so that there would be no significant supplemental soil or geologic
impacts associated with this Alternative.
• Biological Resources: Development of dwellings and roadways under this
Alternative would have the same biological supplemental impacts to special-
status plant species as the proposed Project: big scale balsamroot, big tarplant,
Congdori s tarplant, and showy madia. Adherence to Mitigation Measure SM-
BIO-1 would reduce this to a less-than-significant level.
Alternative 2 could also result in potentially significant supplemental impacts to
special-status bird species, including Western Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead Shrike
and White-tailed Kite as would the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed
Project, adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2, requiring pre-
construction breeding surveys for special-status birds and, if found, establishing
setbacks from such nests until young have left each nest would reduce this to a
less-than-significant level. If owls are found outside of the nesting season, they
shall be relocated outside of any development area. Adherence to Mitigation
Measure SM-BIO-2 would reduce this to a less-than-significant level.
Alternative 2 would retain the existing Heritage Tree on the Site, unlike the
proposed Project.
• Visual Resources: As shown in two photosimulations (Exhibits 5.2-2a and 5.2-2b),
development of the Project site under Alternative 2 would be approximately the
same as under the proposed Project. Views of the Project site from Tassajara
Road would consist of dwelling.
Air Quality: Development under Alternative 2 would result in the same
supplemental impacts as the proposed Project, in that the additional number of
dwellings would exceed the maximum development on the Site as assumed in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Clean Air Plan. Adherence to
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AIR-1 will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring the City to report the Project General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to the BAAQMD as part of the next
Clean Air Plan update and requiring certain measures that will reduce vehicle
miles traveled from the Project and Project emissions of pollutants.
Similar to the proposed Project, a supplemental mitigation measure is
recommended to expand on existing construction air quality impacts contained
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 127
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
3 ~ ~ 75~ ~
~
in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This is Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1
that requires additional steps to be taken during grading and construction to
reduce release of fugitive dust.
Development allowed under Alternative 2 would increase emission of
greenhouse gasses, similar to the proposed Project: however, this would not be
a significant supplemental impact.
Noise: Similar to the proposed Project, the rear balconies of dwellings adjacent to
Tassajara Road under this Alternative would likely be subject to exterior noise
levels that would exceed City of Dublin standards and a noise barrier would be
required to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Adherence to
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 would reduce noise levels
within upper floor.s of dwellings fronting on Tassajara Road to a less-than-
significant level. No other significant supplemental noise impacts would be
created under this Alternative.
~
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Similar to the proposed Project, no ~`
supplemental significant impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials are ~,;
anticipated for this Alternative.
5.5 Alternative 3: Reduced Development
The third alternative includes retention of the existing primary dwelling on the
upper portion of the Site and construction of 10 single-family dwellings on the east
side of Tassajara Road. Access would include use of the current driveway to the
two existing dwellings and construction of a cul-de-sac street paralleling Tassajara
Road to serve the proposed single-family dwellings.
Amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would
be required to implement this Alternative, as would be required for both
Alternative 2 and the proposed Project. The existing "Rural Residential /
Agriculture" land use designation would need to be replaced with a land use
designation of "Single Family."
Alternative 3 is depicted on Exhibit 5.2-1.
Land Use: Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would require an
amendment to the General Plan and EDSP to change the land use designation
from "Rural Residential/Agriculture" to "Single Family Residential." Alternative
3 would result in fewer and less intensive impacts with regard to consistency
with Eastern Dublin EIR Visual Resource mitigation measures than the proposed
Project. This is discussed more fully in the Visual resource section below
• Population and Housing: Based on the following table, Alternative 3 would
generate a smaller resident population than the proposed Project. Assuming 3.2
residents per household, a total of 39 residents could reside on the Site (minus
the six existing residents). This would be smaller than the estimated 116 people
~
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 128
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
.~
~~~ ~ ~75~
that could reside on the Site under the proposed Project, and would not be a
significant supplemental impact in comparison to the number of dwellings and
residents allowed in the Eastern Dublin planning area.
Table 5.2-5. Proposed Project v. Alternative 3 Population Generation
Residential
T e Persons DU Proposed Project Alternative 2
D.U. Po D.U. Po .
Single Family
Residential 3.2 36 115.2 12 38.4
Totals
.,--- 36 116 12 39
~~~~C. nuuseno~a popuiation aasea on 5ection 1.8.1 of the Dublin General Plan and 4.8.1 of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
• Traffic and Circulation: Table 5.2-6 compares the buildout a.m. and p.m. peak hour
trips between the proposed Project and the smaller number of dwellings
included in Alternative 3.
Table 5.2-6. Proposed Project v. Alternative 3 Trip Rate Comparison
Land Use Dwellin s A.M. Peak Tri s P.M. Peak Tri s
Pro osed Pro'ect 36 sin le famil 27 33
Alternative 3 12 single family 9 13
Difference -18 -20
Source: trip rates from ITE Handbook
As shown in the above table, the number of peak hour trips would be an
estimated 18 fewer a.m. peak hour trips and 24 fewer p.m. peak hour firips than
the proposed Project since a small number of dwellings would be constructed
under this Alternative. No supplemental impacts would occur with regard to
traffic and circulation. Impact would be less than impact of proposed Project.
• Water £~ Storm Drainage: Water to serve proposed dwellings under this
Alternative would be provided by DSRSD, the same as the proposed Project.
Table 5.2-7 compares estimated daily water demand between Alternative 3 and
the proposed Project.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental E~R Page 129
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
3a5 gf '7.~8 ~
~~
~
Table 5.2-7. Potable Water Demand
Comparison in Gallons Per Day (GPD)
Land Use Dwellings Generation Factor Est. Water Demand
( allons/da )
Alternative 3
-Single family
12
393
4,716
dwellings
Proposed Project
-Single family
36
393
14,148
dwellings
Total -- -9,432
Notes:
1) Generation factors from West-Yost Associates "Neilsen Development Water Service Analysis-
Preliminary Hydraulic Results," June 16, 2008.
As shown in the Table, estimated daily water demand for dwellings under
Alternative would decrease by 9,432 gallons per day over the proposed Project.
Similar to the proposed Project, this impact would be less-than-significant since
less total water would be required under this Alternative.
In addition to potable water, non-potable recycled water would be required to
irrigate common open space areas, the same as the proposed Project. In terms of
storm drainage, there would be an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces
leading to increases in the amount of stormwater runoff leaving the Site over
existing conditions. The amount of the increase would be less than the proposed
Project since a small amount of the Site would be developed. Stormwater may be
polluted, the same as the proposed Project. Supplemental Mitigation Measures
SM-WATER-2 and SM-WATER-3 would be applied to the Alternative 3 to
reduce potential impacts related to increases in stormwater runoff and water
quality to less-than-significant impacts.
Soils, Geology F~ Seismicity: Less grading would be required to accommodate
development under Alternative 3 than the proposed Project since more open
space would be preserved under this Alternative than the proposed Project.
Regardless, the knoll would need to be reconstructed for stability and erosion
control purpose, and for the construction of the cul-de-sac, even though it would
remain as undeveloped. Similar to the proposed Project, improvements built
under this Alternative will be required to be constructed following
recommendations of a site-specific soils and geotechnical analysis and subject to
other Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures so that there would be no
significant supplemental soil or geologic impacts associated with this
Alternative. ~
Neilsen ProjecbDraft Supplemental EIR Page 130
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~ o~ Q_ ~'.~
~
Biological Resources: Development of dwellings and roadways under this
Alternative would have the same biological supplemental impacts to special-
status plant species as the proposed Project: big scale balsamroot, big tarplant,
Congdon's tarplant, and showy madia. Adherence to Mitigation Measure SM-
BIO-1 would reduce this to a less-than-significant level.
Alternative 3 could also result in potentially significant supplemental impacts to
special-status bird species, including Western Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead Shrike
and White-tailed Kite. Similar to the proposed Project, adherence to Supplemental
Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level by requiring pre-construction breeding surveys for special-status birds and, if
found, establishing setbacks from such nests until young have left each nest. If
owls are found outside of the nesting season, they shall be relocated outside of any
development area. This impact would be similar to the impact of the proposed
Proj ect.
Unlike the proposed Project, there would not be a loss of the heritage tree on the
Site, since the area in which the tree is located would be preserved as open space.
Visual Resources: Under Alternative 3, the portion of the Site which contains
Visually Sensitive Ridgelands identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, would remain
as open space, unlike the proposed Project. However, other portions of Visually
Sensitive Ridgelands located in the south-central portion of the Site would be
developed, similar to the proposed Project. Clustered dwellings along Tassajara
Road would provide visual corridors into open spaces on the Site that would not
exist under the proposed Project. Unlike the proposed Project, dwellings
constructed along Tassajara Road under Alternative 3 would be both closer to
the road and taller than under the proposed Project. Also, clustered dwellings
would be silhouetted against the ridge; similar to the proposed Project, but visual
corridors would be provided to open space areas, unlike the proposed Project.
The existing main residence that would remain under this Alternative would
generally block views of the five single-family dwellings on the eastern portion
of the Site.
Overall, as shown in two photosimulations for Alternative 3(Exhibits 5.2-2a and
5.2-2b), limited views of undeveloped hillsides would be visible from Tassajara
Road and development under Alternative 2 would result in a slightly less impact
to visual resources or Visually Sensitive Ridgelands as would the proposed
Project.
• Air Quality: Development under Alternative 3 would result in the same
supplemental impacts as the proposed Project, in that the additional number of
' dwellings would exceed the maximum development on the Site as assumed in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management Distric~s Clean Air Plan. Adherence to
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AIR-1 will reduce this impact to a less-than-
~` ~ significant level by requiring the City to report the Project General Plan
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 131
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~3 0~ -~5~ ~
~ h.
~
Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to the BAAQMD as part of the next
Clean Air Plan update and requiring certain measures that will reduce vehicle
miles traveled from the Project and Project emissions of pollutants.
Similar to the proposed Project, a supplemental mitigation measure is
recommended to expand on existing construction air quality impacts contained
in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This is Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1
that requires additional steps to be taken during grading and construction to
reduce release of fugitive dust and construction equipment loss.
Development allowed under Alternative 3 would increase emission of
greenhouse gasses, similar to the proposed Project but to a lesser degree, since
less development would occur. Similar to proposed Project, greenhouse gas
emissions would not be a significant supplemental impact
~ Noise: Similar to the proposed Project, the rear yards of dwellings adjacent to
Tassajara Road under this Alternative would likely be subject to exterior noise
levels that would exceed City of Dublin standards and a noise barrier would be
required to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Similar to the proposed Project, no
supplemental significant impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials are
anticipated for this Alternative.
5.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126 (d) (4) of the State of California CEQA Guidelines states that if the
environmentally superior alternative is the "No Project" alternative, the EIR shall also ~
identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. ~,,
Alternative 1, the No Project alternative, would result in fewer and less intensive
environmental impacts than the proposed Project and all other alternatives that propose ~
development, since the Project area would remain vacant (existing for the existing two ~3
dwellings and related ancillary improvements) and no development would occur.
Therefore, Alternative 1 would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. ,~
As between the remaining alternatives, Alternative 2 would result in less impacts to
visual resources than the proposed Project since development would be clustered and
more open space would remain. There would be fewer and less intensive traffic impacts
due to fewer dwellings units on the Project site. Alternative 2 would also result in fewer
and less intensive air quality and greenhouse gas emission than the proposed Project
due to fewer dwellings and associated fewer vehicle trips. This Alternative would have
approximately the same impacts as the proposed Project regarding land use, population
and housing, traffic and circulation, water and storm drainage, soils and geology,
biological resources, noise and hazardous materials.
Alternative 3 would result in fewer dwellings on the Project Site than the proposed
Project and would disturb a smaller portion of the Site for development purposes.
Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts than the proposed Project regarding land use,
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
Page 132
January 2009
r~
~~
~~ ~ ~~..1~°.
population and housing, traffic and circulation, water and storm drainage, soils and
geology, biological resources, air quality, noise and hazardous materials. Alternative 3
would result in fewer impacts than the proposed Project in regard to visual resources,
since development would occur adjacent to Tassajara Road and the Visually Sensitive
Ridgeland area on the Site would remain as open space. However, development under
Alternative 3 would still "silhouette" against the horizon and no view corridors into the
° center of the Site would be provided.
Therefore, Alternative 3 would be the next most Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 133
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
3~~ ~~g ~
( t ; ~r
f;# a i~~~~~ ~' I.~''~ :.;1~ rhj'~ ~,/' c~f j( ~~I~ ~'~ ~yV 1~, ~.. j~ r!„ ~ li ~, ~ I
~
! ; ` ' ~~;"'° „J ,r' ° ~ f~~ ~t~ s ' .~ ~~r ~~ ~ ~ /
~ 4 1 . ,+ '''7 ' - --
.., ~._ ~
' ~ ~~ 1 ~r 9 ~ .
~ "°'*+'.~,...,. ~~i. ..,. . a ` 1 ' ! ~Y ~ 1 ~ :. ; ;J ~ ~ " / I
. , :_
, 1r
, -__._~ ~ , ~~~- ~
~ `~~ 1/ ~~~ ~; , ~ ~=, ~
, , _ ~ )
; t _._ __ ~ ~ , , /
~ ~..._. I' , ~'7
j ~.. :I... P _ ~.:_ 'S SN ~~/ / ~ /
~ i
~ ' ~ ,
~
~ ~ ii ,,~
~ ~~ / r ~~
' ~+ SILVERA ~ ~ ~ ~' j
~~ 1 / f .~f
~~ ~ RANCH jDRI~ ~ ~ ;: f y { /~ j rrya /;;,~ ,,. ~~ % ~,
, , _. ,~
___ ~ .___ , ,J `
, --.- ~ _~.. . : .~. , ~- ~ / ' // i
/ /,/f~ ..~ t ..~.... ~,,:~,,,-_.:..,~ -- ' '~~r.,~~~ ( ( \~ ~' / / l ~/ // f ~.
- - /
t ~/ ,y~ ~/ /
.. 1 ~{ 1(l~,{ ~y r!_`1 ~~ '~~ *U . ~ -" ~"^~ ~/ / ~ :.s~'~ ~ . ~ :J ~p "." '~" l ( ~ j~ ~ ~ .._/ _ <- ~.. ^d '~£` ~
I j ~ i.1~11~/~i1~1(` ~~t ,^+ ~ j\~}Ifi ~. = ~~ (,L ( ~ , -~,~:~"-a'~^T~
i ~ i ! I ~ I i ~ f I " [ A 2C . f' ~ ~,1 ~` . k ~% ~ .,,,`a ,„...F x ~ "~~_ y, _.... *^^"',~~"'"~. ~ }~^ R / `i j ~ ~
I I ' ! i ~I .' ' ~ ~ . . .. -,; ~// ~ ~{~'t r , ~ V - ~ \~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~
... ~
~ j i ~ I ~ i I ~, ~ -'r , ~f ~ ~ /~.1 r ;c~ ~ ~7 _.. •~ 36 S ~ F~ I ~ ' ~
' ~ ~ I ~ ; I ~ i . y :~.•-J.s~a'~__r H ~ ; ~ _ 4.. ~ .. l~ ~ . ~~~~ I, 1 i I I
; I I i' i MNe ..s+f" _:- ~ j;~ ,~ '- 27 ~ t; y~ ~, ~rr
•~ - 21" ~ ,}t r t1 ` i k I I
~ ~ ~ ~ .I ! / ~ ~A " " ~ `~~ ~ ~ ~4~ 1, ~a~c~ .k'~ ~ ~ -r ~ ~ ~ I ~~ V 1 ~ ~~ ~'~ ~ t ~ F:~
~
~ ~~ ie
~ j
~ ,r ,
; : ~ %~ ~ ~ ~ .. _ _ . - - ~ .rS~ ~ ~,, ~s 1 ` ,
~ , - ~ ~i ~ ~ i .~:- -~ ~~ '~ rin ~ ~',j'~' --- . ~~~ ` ~ ~' ~ ~ ~
~ !
, -T
. ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ '~~ ; ~
, L `,`
bva~t _ '
~ , 1Y~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ .....~ ~ . ~ ~ ., ...._.~ ~ i ~ ~ /-~ %~~., ~~~L~~ A ~' ~ 1
p ,
~ ~ ~
~ ; '~ i~ ~~~~'~Pf ~~ ~°~~~ i~ t I ~ ~ ~,I~, - __. a-7 _,-~~~~ ~ A~~ ~~~~~ ~ '
:
~ ' ~ ~ i ~ ~ F ~ ~, ,~.~ ,~ ~_ ~ , ~' ~ ~ A '~
;
' II ~ _I / u .
' ..
~ ~ ~
~ i = d ~ ~ }~~ r ~, ~ ~ ~ / ' ~,~ , _~~ i ~ ,~u. ~ ~~v ~ ~ ~ j .
' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ i~ ~ ~ I ~~ ~ / ~ '///,~~~~~~ ~ /~ --/~ ~ ~ ~y ~.,,, .. \ v v °~
; ~ ~ ~ . ~ i k~ I ~ ~ r~~ ~~ ! ~ ~ ~7 ~! /% / ~ ~~i"~ '7~{}p ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ , . ~ i ~ " :. ,° r ,, / .. ~. i / ~\ ~5' '. I
~ , ,
~ / ,
~
~ ~~ ~~i ~~ ~I ~' I I ...,- ._ ,,, ~l/ 1 i ~~1q~ry4 f f ~ /~'///~'~ !~ ~~ '4°~~' ~',~ ~ .. ~ ~`~`n~~ `~ ~~ .
I ~ I + i~. ;Ili ~ ~ ~n ~,~/4 ~~I~ ~/ i~ ;~,j,°/ w~~ • ~~ ~~ ~ ~,J'd` ~ \ \. ,.
~ ~ ~; I ~ I ,; - ~ i ; f ~ ~,, ,y ,,`,j !~/ , , -~- ~ ~, ~ ~~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ \~ ~ '\~ ~.
,
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~'`~~~ }~ 1 I ,~.tti~~~ ~~~, i i ~ ~ ! A~r. ~ ~.,.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ } ~. ..
!
/~ ~ ~ ~/ ~' i ~ . ~ / .' ~,` ~ ~
~
i ~ . / M ~ ~~ le Y ~ I ~~ ~ ~\~ ~ ~ \e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
` ~ ~ <., ,
~ ,~ ~
~ ' ~~~~ , ~; ~'~ a~~,~` ~ f~~;~%.~, ~. ~ ~- -~ ~ `~ ~~„ s,~,~A ~,~ _~ ~ l ~~
~
~ ~ I r'~~- ~ ~ ~ ~i •'~ ~ y ~ ~' I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ .,.. .. ~~A, ~ "'~ ~ ~ Sr ~~ ~
' ~ ~ ~~ ' ; ~ ~~~ , .~ ,~ ,y'~ ~ .y,,~''/,~i /, / 'f ~/rr%i/-~ .:~ ~ ~ \~~~ s;;} ~ •;~ ~ ~ y ~; ~,~ 1 1
~ ~`~ t ~~ ~~~~j I `~ ~. ti~~C ~~~~ ~ %~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ / ~ ~, ~I / ~ ~?'~ . ~~`~$ ~~~_ ~g~4 ~ 'H.`.~ / ~r ~ i ( I ~ t
I , , Y , ~ r ~ ~ G, ~ ' ~~~`~ / I~~,~ /~` ~ ' ~~% ;~/~~~ , ,I \' ~ ~ ~ \~ ~` .~ _ ~~~' ~ % ', h ~ %,
~~ ~ ; ~ , 1 _ ~ , ,
~ i~ .~~,./~~ `~~~t~ ~~ ~/~~~~~" " ; ~ ~ ~ ~,i~Ai'.i~\i7-~ a ~-~ ~~~,' ~~
, i i l` ~ , r/~/ f ~ , , ~ , ~ ~,. T. ~. 7~ ~~~'til r~. ~z ~~ .. ~ ~ ~~~
~
, ~ ~, },
, _t +n w .cr rsa n» f
~ ,
~ !i /~ / ~ i ~ ~i ~ r~ / ~ ~. h f J ~~ F ~~~~-- %
! ~~1 ~ ~
,
It ~ i ~
~ O: r
i ; i' " ~ ~~ I / ;! ~' i ~ % ~~;f %;// i ~`; ` , `~ ~ 1 ~" , l~` ~. \ 1_ , ~ ~~ ~ i ~
, , ';
, , ,
; 'i , I~ /f~ ~~ i/,~~/~,~~/ / ~ i l~ ,r ' 2' ~ - "'.~ ;',r '-_I
r
' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C , ~ / r ~~ C Y
I
~ / -~..
I/ ; '
; , / ~i '
i +~ ~ iT! . ~t~ ~ ~~~ a7 ~~ j % ~ ~ ~~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~~~ .Y ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ / ~ ~~~ j
, ~ .~i ~ , /i ~ , ~ '' i ,
.
,
i ~ , , ~ : ~ ~ ~ i ..~, ~ ~~~.,W ~" ~ . ... ~ ~ r.
; ~
~~ ~' ~i{~'~ ~ ~~~~ ~l~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.:~ ~-~y t-i^r --... „
~ f ! i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ , ~
~ ( ,, ~ w ~ ,
, , ~~~~ ,~ ~~ ,~ ~.~ ~ ~;~ ~ + ( ~~ _~ ~~~ ,I ~ ~ I~~~ I ~~ - ~~
~~ r ~
~ ` ,C l a ~ ~ ~' ~~ \ ~ f rl ~I Ir~I~-14,
, , -
~ t ~ ,~ ` ' , ~
~ `
; ~ ~~ , i ~ i ( ~ ~~; ~ _ _ _ _ ,.; ~ ,~ u <
~ `.
~ i j , , ~ ~ I , ~ ~ , ~. ~ .J :, ",; ~l ~~\ ~. ~p . ``~ ~ ~ ~~- ~.._.._ =.,`~ _ _~ _ _
i
~ i ;i ~ ~ u , ~ ~ , ~ °° ~'~ ~ \ ~~l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^~, .'~l _ ^ ~ ~= , -- >
1 I .~ `.
, ~- ~u ~i ~ -~
~, , ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ``~ ' 1\ 1 ~~'~ ~~ ~` ~~ ~ V ` \ ~` '" . -----~~ 'V '
~ "~1 i ~ ~~ ` ~ i ~ z~~^^"~ ~~ v
~ ~ \ , \ \~ ~~ \,\ 4 ~°'~ ~ '
i ; ~~~~ ~'~, ~ t ~ ~ ~A ~ ~ ~~ ti ~
. ~ . '~ ~ ~
! ~ 1 1 r ~ Ks ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~„ ....~~ `~ .
.k. \
~+ r ~ ~ i ~ ~ ..~ ~ ~ ~ ry ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~y,... . ` ~ I
I ~ ~^
.
„ ~ ~ t~'~ ~t ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ J
. ~ ~ \
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ .- ' ->C"-'~~~ ~ti~ \ ~ ~. „ - .
~} ~\~ ~' ~~ ` t~ ~~~ - ~
~ \~ ti~~ ~ , i
i i' ~«.' ~\ ~\ \l ~ \ ~ ~ ^ i
~ \~ ~ \\
~i !
. ~~. ; ' ~'~ ~
EXHIBIT 5.1-1- ALTERNATIVE 2
CITY OF D UBLIN
NIELSEN PROPERTY - TASSAJARA VALLEY
ENVIRONMENTAL IlVIPACT REPORT
mAC~cuu~r ~ somps
~u ~ ~~~
INITIALSI UUY\ tXFiJ.
~.
a~
~
a
~
AAEg'
.,,,~.
7+w
~
~
~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ iC ~ ~ ~ ~ _
` ~ * z~. `. ~~ ~. ~ „ ~ i ~ . ~ 8 a~
~XHIBIT 5.1-2a,-ALTERNATIVE SIMULATION
CIfiY QF DU~LIN
1VIELSENPROPERTY- TASSA.IARA VALLEY
ENVIRONMENTAL IlVIpACT REPORT
m~~C i~MS ~
~
a
~
~n
r,-,
~~
~~~ x
~ ~•~ ~~~~ ;
. .,..z : ~,
W
~
EXHIBIT 5.12b-ALTERNATIVE SIMULATION
CITY OF D UBLIN
~TIELSEN PROPER.T~ - TASSAJARA VALLEY n~ ~ ~
w~ewot a Io9 ~~
E~ONMENTAL IlVIPACT REPORT °°~ ~° ~
~_.;.,,~.~_.~..~~--- p -~------~.. ; ~-~. ~-~- ~•- ~~ ~` ~ -" ~' ~" ~~` l~'F ?~
~ ~, ~
~
~
r ~
3~~~f~~~
u
' --.1,~ ~ ~ ~ / a _~~ 4 j ,..~ ~ w ~'~,,
I ~ ,@ ..._ . ~ . .
~ ~ ~ ,~ ~
`~~-- --~b ~ ' ~ ~
I '--
- - - ---
~ - ,. . ,,. s
I
~ .-
_.:~ ~
';
;
~
. .
_ .__ _
._-•~~~ _~
_.....
--
f,
`' ~
N! \ f
I
,~>
[
~ ~ ~
~ <"~
~
~I I
'I F\~
~
J ~ - . : .-..
3R
__• - r`,c.,`
~''~
... ~_~ '
I
~
++r~e .,.._
~
-"_ i
~
i . ...,.~ ~
._._ -.
......Y
~~ -~~ ; i ....._
. ~ . __
~ _ __
; -
, ,
,
I
~
-~-_~.~~ _ __..
,
'
~~ -- ~.
/
_. .
; ,
~
; .. .., _,.. ..
T :
I
d.,
~ -~ __I I
_ "
/
f; . ~..
.:
° J ~ ~ / ~-...
'
,
~
`
I ~-
I ~_-
__~
; ~
~
/ •
, ~ ~ ~ ~ L i
~ /
I I N~ I
~
~ ` ~ I/ ~
...... ~
~
! ~
~
~
~
I
~
f ...ll
~ ^
/r
/
~
(
j
,.
/ __ _..
~
~ ~
i I ~ ~
._.. .,. ~
~ ~~ ± ~ ...._......
~~/ ~ ~~ / ~ ~
. l ~/~ . / : ~ / i ~ ~
~ /'~ e
I~~ .~~ -..
5q
~, sb
:~`'` ~
tr, \
~
I
~
~
I
~ ' ~ 'V I ~ ~ j" `I ' %
~
'/ %
~~~~ / ,
/
'",%' ! ~ ~ , ~ ~
~
~ i i
i`% ' I ~~ ~ '" ' ~ '
/~
~ // ~
~~ ~-i,~- r,---~ ;,,
I i i ~ ~I~7f .k / '~ .. ~/
I I~ i I l I~
il~~~tl ~ f'
` ~ ~ , ~~ ~1
,~~\~ti ~~jl~ \
; ~ . ` ~ ~ ,
1 `
\l `
1` l ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~
~ .\
`~ ,\~`\~\ \~\~ ~ .
~
\ - `ti ~
' \
\ !~ ~
%" ) `:~ ~ ~, ~_~., ~~ `~ . ~ -
~1,> j ` `:, ~;~1 `,\~ `~,~ `., \
.. 1 ~l ~
~ ~ ~
'"\ /. ~; _. ) '.
~ti ~ ~ ~
~,
\.. ' I
'. A.~..._ . ~ . : ,
~
_. ~ ' P
;. ~ :~~ ~
_ =.. -~_.
.t ~ 9
ww y !
e~
~~ / ~ ~ ~~ ~~
t~' / % ~\
4~'// ~
/ ~ \
... (:;
,~ _
' ~~ ~ I ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~.
i ~ ;~. ~ ,,,~, , ti \1 ` ~ } .
~ i ~ ~~~~
'' , ~ ` ` ~ `
;A~~~ ~ ~~\ A \~~,~
`~ ~ ~~ ~.\~\ `1 `~\ ` \ ~ ` .
\.\
.,~ I ~ I j ~ \ ~~ ~. ~
EXHIBIT 5.2-1- ALTERNATIVE 3
~ ~ CITY OFDUBLIN
~ NIELSENPROPERTY- TASSAJARA VALL
EY
~ ` ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
~
09-24-2008 3:30pm Lisa Vilhauer P:\19374\PLANNING\INITIALSTUDY\EXH5.2-ALTERNATIVE.DWG
, .-- ~ _..._..,. _.
„~ ~ ;._..a- . c, ..,.__ ...-
! ~~ " ~
i i i r, ~,~
~r ~
,~
~; L~J ~ .
,
, ..
, . . _.,.~_
_ , ,~ . ,
_ _'~~,~-- _ ,
~~ ~~ .'~
I
I
I
mAC~Y ~ somps
~ G nn~ ~~
Ex~IBIT 5.2-2a.-ALTERNATIVE SIMULATION
CITY ~F D UBLIN
NIELSEN PROPERTY - TASSAJARA VA T LEY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
~_.~ _ ~:~
It1ACKAlf ~C ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~-~-- ~.-- ~---T ~ ~ ~--; ~-~ ~ ~ ~r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~
_ - - -__ ~. . _ ~ ~
;. ` ~
_ _~ b _ _, . , ,: t y
. . . .~.._ _ . , . ~~ .. . . . ~ a . ~. ~ _.
EXHIBIT 5.2 2b -AI,TERNATNE SIMULATION
CITY OF DUBLIN
1VIELSENPROPERTY- TASSAJARA. VALLEy
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
It1A~W(AY ~C ~111Mi ~
~. _ ~,,,~, ~
W
~
~
~
~
~ i5 ~ ~~ ~
~
~
6.0 Required CEQA Discussion
This section of the DEIR addresses the potential cumulative impacts of implementing
the proposed Project, as required by CEQA.
6.1 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are defined by CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.2) as those which
taken individually may be minor but, when combined with similar impacts associated
with existing development, proposed development projects and planned but not built
projects, have the potential to generate more substantial impacts. CEQA requires that
cumulative impacts be evaluated when they are significant and that the discussion
describe the severity of the impacts and the estimated likelihood of their occurrence.
CEQA also states that the discussion of cumulative impacts contained in an EIR need
not be as detailed as that provided for the Project alone.
A number of cumulative impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Those
related to this Project include:
• Cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands (Impact 3.1 / F)
• Cumulative degradation of I-580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road
and Fallon Road (Impact 3.3/A)
• Cumulative degradation of I-580 freeway operations between I-680 freeway and
Dougherty Road (Impact 3.3/B)
• Cumulative degradation of I-580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road
and Airway Boulevard Impact 3.3/C)
• Cumulative degradation of I-680 freeway operations north of I-580 (Impact
3.3/D)
~ Cumulative degradation of I-580 east of Airway Boulevard and between
Dougherty Road and Hacienda Boulevard (Impact 3.3/D)
• Cumulative degradation of Dublin Boulevard intersections with Hacienda Drive
and Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3 / M)
• Cumulative degradation of Tassajara Road intersections with Gleason Road,
Fallon Road and Transit Spine (renamed to Central Boulevard) (Impact 3.3 / N)
• Increased solid waste production and impact on solid waste facilities (Impact 3.4
O and P)
• Future lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/E)
• Increase in demand for water (Impact 3.5 / Q)
• Direct habitat loss (Impact 3.7/ A)
• Loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat (Impact 3/7/C)
• Construction equipment/vehicle emissions (Impact 3.11/B)
• Mobile source emissions of reactive organic gasses and oxides of
nitrogen (Impact 3.11 / C)
• Stationary source emissions (Impact 3.11 / E) ~
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA #07-057
Page140
January 2009 ~~~~
~
~~,
~
~ >l ~ ~~~ --~~~~
This DSEIR identifies no new significant supplemental impacts not analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR.
6.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level. CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the benefits of a
° proposed Project against its unavoidable impacts in considering whether to approve the
Project. If the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh the anticipated unavoidable
impacts, the adverse environmental impacts may be considered acceptable by the Lead
~~ Agency. To approve the Project without significantly reducing or eliminating an
adverse impact, the Lead Agency must make a Statement of Overriding Consideration
supported by the information in the record.
Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Project, the City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the
- Eastern Dublin EIR (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993.)
Pursuant to the recent Citizens for a Better Environment case, a Statement of Overriding
~ Considerations would also be required to address the significant unavoidable impacts
from the Eastern Dublin EIR that are related to this proposed Project.
No new or more significant and unavoidable impacts are identified in the DSEIR for the
proposed Neilsen development Project.
i~ciiacii ~~~~acvurart~uppiementa~ tlFi Page 141
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
3~~ ~ 7~- ~
7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted
7.1 Persons and Organizations
EIR Preparers
The following individuals participated in the preparation of this
document.
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner (project manager)
Donald Ballanti (air quality)
City of Dublin Staff
Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director
Tim Cremin, Assistant City Attorney
Frank Navarro, Sr. Civil Engineer
Jaimee Bourgeoise, P.E., Traffic Engineer
Darrell Jones, Alameda County Fire Department
Val Guzman, Police Department
Applicant Consulting Team
Connie Goldade, Mackay & Somps
Lisa Vilhauer, Mackay & Somps
Other Agencies and Organizations Coritacted
Dublin San Ramon Services District-Rhodora Biagtan and Aaron
Johnson
7.2 References
The following documents, in addition to those included in the Appendix, were used in
the preparation of this DSEIR and are included by reference herein.
Bay Area Air Quality Mana~ement District CEQA Guidelines, Revised
December 1999
Demo ra hic Stud and Facilities Plan Dublin Unified School District Shilts
Consultants, Inc. 2004
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9/14/06
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report,
Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 142
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
.~
3ig ~ -~1~~~
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program Sycamore
Associates, 1996
Eastern Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Draft
Supplemental EIR City Dublin, January 2002
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards David Gates &
Associates, 1996
Herita~e Tree Evaluation Neilsen Pro~ert~, Hortscience, January 2008
Parks and Recreation Master Plan City of Dublin, 2004 update
Preliminarv Geotechnical Investi~ation Neilsen Pro~er , Tassajara Road and
Silvera Ranch Drive Dublin CA Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, July
2007
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Neilsen Residence 6407 Tassa'ara Road
Dublin CA, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, June 2008
Wastewater Collection Svstem Master Plan Update Final Report DSRSD MWH
Engineers, 2005
Wildfire Management Plan City of Dublin City of Dublin & Dougherty
Regional Fire Authority, 1996
Urban Water Management Plan (Final) DSRSD West Yost Associates, 2005
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~C~~~ra~~ ~uppiementai tIH Page 143
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~~ ~5 ~
~
8.0 Appendices
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 144
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~ 7~~
Appendix 8.1
Initial Study
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 145
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~ ~ ~~ ~
Table of Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 2
Applicant ................................................................................................................... 2
Project Location and Context .................................................................................. 2
Project Description ................................................................................................... 3
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .......................................................... 16
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .................................................................... 18
Earlier Analyses ........................................................................................................ 30
Attachment to Initial Study ..................................................................................... 31
~' 1. Aesthetics ........................................................................................... 31
2. Agricultural Resources ..................................................................... 34
3. Air Quality ......................................................................................... 35
4. Biological Resources .......................................................................... 36
5. Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 43
6. Geology and Soils .............................................................................. 44
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................. 47
8. Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................... 49
9. Land Use and Planning .................................................................... 52
10. Mineral Resources ............................................................................. 53
11. Noise ................................................................................................... 53
12. Population and Housing .................................................................. 55
13. Public Services ................................................................................... 56
14. Recreation .......................................................................................... 58
15. Transportation/Traffic ..................................................................... 59
16. Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................... 60
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................ 63
Initial Study Preparers ............................................................................................. 64
. Agencies and Organizations Consulted ................................................................. 64
References ................................................................................................................. 64
~aa ~ -~~~.
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) and assesses the potential
environmental impacts of implementing the proposed Project described below.
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 generally based on the land use designations, circulation patterns
etc. assigned to the Project by the City of Dublin General Plan, the Initial Study relies
on a Program EIR certified by the City 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, also known 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. Pursuant to the Program EIR
standards and CEQA Guidelines section 15162, this Initial Study evaluates whether
further environmental review is required for the proposed Project due to new or
substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see
discussion below in Section XVII, Earlier Analysis).
All of the potentially significant impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR apply to
the proposed Project and, therefore, the adopted mitigation measures also apply and
are included in this Initial Study by reference.
Applicant
Robert Neilsen
6407 Tassajara Road
Dublin CA 94568
Phone: (925) 828 6193
Project Location and Context
The Project Site is located in the Eastern Dublin Planning area, more specifically, on
the east side of Tassajara Road north of Quarry Lane School and south of the Silvera
Ranch property, approximately 1.5 miles north of the I-580 freeway. The property
address is 6407 Tassajara Road and the Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Number
(APN) is 985-0002-009-02.
City of Dublin Page 2 ~
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~a3~ °~~~~
The Site, which was annexed to the City of Dublin in 2003, consists of approximately
10.9 acres of land containing one single-family dwelling, one agricultural mobile
home, detached garages, an agricultural out building and wireless communication
facilities and related equipment enclosures. The Site exhibits moderate to steep
topography with the northeast corner of the site rising to a height of approximately
570 feet above mean sea level. A flat pad has been graded at an elevation of
approximately 444 feet above sea level in the northwest section of the Site. The main
dwelling is located in the south central portion of the Site located on a graded pad
with an estimated elevation of 558 feet above sea level. An agricultural mobile home
and horse arena is located in the northerly portion of the Site.
The Site also contains two wireless communication facilities, one monopole is located
-' on the southeastern corner of the site and a second facility (designed to appear to be
several low shrubby trees) is located on the southwestern corner of the Site.
The westerly portion of the Site is used for cattle grazing and seasonal Christrnas tree
sales.
Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin and Exhibit 2 shows the location of
the Project area in context of the City of Dublin. Exhibit 3 is an aerial photo of the Site
showing on-site uses and nearby features, including Tassajara Road.
Existing land uses adjacent to the Project area include recently constructed single and
multi-family dwellings to the north on the Silvera Ranch property; vacant land to the
east within Dublin Ranch; Quarry Lane School; a private education facility to the
south; and vacant land to the west, part of the approved but not yet constructed
Dublin Ranch West (Wallis Ranch) property.
Access to the Nielsen Property is gained via a driveway off of Silvera Ranch Road to
the north of the Site. An unimproved private roadway then provides on-site access to
the flat pad and the dwelling.
Project Description
Overview
An application has been filed with the City of Dublin to create thirty-three (33) lots on
the Site. Exhibit 4 shows the proposed Stage 1 Planned Development and Exhibit 5
shows the proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Site. Proposed lots
have been arranged on two cul-de-sac streets. Lots would either be located on flatter
portions of the Site or would contain split-level dwellings to minimize the amount of
grading. Each of the proposed lots would accommodate a single-family dwelling and
a garage. Proposed Lots 15 and 20 could each accommodate a duplex dwelling (for the
provision of affordable housing only), so the number of dwellings could be thirty-six
(36). If the proposed Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) located in the southwest corner
of the Site is not needed or relocated, the applicant reserves the right to create one
additional lot, for a maximum of 341ots and 36 dwellings.
City of Dublin Page 3
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~~ ~ ~S~ ~
Local agency land use entitlements and approvals that the applicant has applied for
and are needed to allow implementation of the proposed development Project include
those listed below and are described more fully later in this Project Description.
• An Amendment to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to
change the land use designation from "Rural Residential/Agriculture" which
allows one dwelling unit per 100 acres to "Single Family Residential" which
allows .9 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Amendment would also
allow a smaller street cross section than shown in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan;
• Consideration of a Planned Development Stage 1& Stage 2 Development Plan
to establish precise building areas, densities, roadway locations, grading and
similar proposed improvements;
• A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to create individual building lot.;
• A Development Agreement,
Project characteristics
This applicant proposes to construct up to 36 single family detached and duplex
dwellings on the Project Site. The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan is shown on
Exhibit 5. The proposed lots would be arranged on two cul-de-sac streets (Streets "A"
and "B"), with the minimum lot size being 5,000 square feet.
Many of the proposed lots would accommodate dwellings with up-split or down-split
foundations to assist in minimizing the amount of grading, although a few of the lots
could be designed to be flat.
Steeper portions of the Project Site, in the northeast corner of the Site, would remain as
non-buildable open space. A landscaped setback would also be provided along
Tassajara Road.
Existing wireless telecommunication facilities (cell towers) on the Site are proposed to
remain, or could be relocated on the site or eliminated.
Access and circulation
Access to the Project Site would be provided by expanding the existing driveway off
of Silvera Ranch Drive to the north. Silvera Ranch Drive in turn intersects with
Tassajara Road at a signalized intersection. This access is shown on Exhibit 4. The
requested amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin include reducing the
right-of-way widths of streets from 46 feet to 45 feet (34 feet for single loaded streets)
and the curb-to-curb width from 32 feet to 29 feet for single loaded streets. The request
also includes reducing the right-of-way radii for cul-de-sac bulbs from 46 feet to 44.5
feet.
As part of the proposed subdivision map, the applicant will be required to dedicate
additional property along the westerly side of the site for the widening of Tassajara
Road to an ultimate of six (6) travel lanes, three lanes northbound and three lanes
southbound.
City of Dublin Page 4 ~
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~.
Sidewalks will be provided at the entry to the development and inside of the
residential development. Sidewalks would be constructed on both sides of the street
where there are houses. For single loaded streets, the sidewalk will be located in front
of the dwellings only. A meandering sidewalk would also be provided along the
Project's Tassajara Road frontage.
A 20-foot wide Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) roadway is proposed from the
southerly terminus of Street A to Tassajara Road for police, fire and other emergency
vehicle access.
Grading and infrastructure
_ The developer of the Project Site would construct the road and sidewalk system
described above as well as on-site water, wastewater, recycled water, and storm
drainage facilities required to support proposed future development. Grading of the
Site would also occur.
Grading activities would consist of recontouring the central and southerly portions of
`" the Site to accommodate proposed roads and split building pads. The northwesterly
and southeasterly portions of the Site would have minimum grading, since these sites
currently have moderate to flat slopes. The northeasterly portion of the Site, which has
steep slopes, would remain in nonbuildable open space. A number of retaining walls,
ranging in size from approximately 2 to 6 feet in height, would be needed to allow the
proposed development Project to be constructed.
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would provide domestic and recycled
water to the site as well as wastewater treatment and disposal services. These services
are planned in accordance with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan, as
revised.
The Project Developer will be required to install local water lines as well as paying
fees to DSRSD to assist in funding upgraded water facilities in this portion of Eastern
Dublin, consistent with applicable Facility Master Plans.
Wastewater service would.require the Project developer to install local underground
sewer lines to transport wastewater to DSRSD's regional treatrnent plant. Sewer lines
are all proposed to be gravity flow.
.. Recycled water would be provided to the Project Site from Tassajara Road for use in
irrigation of common open space areas and other areas. This would reduce the need
for potable water for the proposed Project.
Storm drainage would be accommodated by local facilities, which consist of smaller
pipes connecting individual sites to the City's collector system in Tassajara Road. The
Project Site lies within the boundary of Zone 7, the agency that maintains regional
drainage facilities in the Tri-Valley area and stormwater will ultimately be transported
in Zone 7 regional facilities to the south for ultimate disposal.
City of Dublin Page 5
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~~ ~~ ~~.
~
In terms of water quality protection, the proposed Project will be subject to Best
Management Practices to support water quality standards as enforced by the Cifiy of
Dublin. The applicant has proposed installation and use of a bio-retention cell or other
water quality features to be located in the northwest corner of the Site or potentially
combined with facilities on adjacent parcels. The ultimate size and design of this
facility will be determined in conjunction with the City of Dublin.
Landscaping
A preliminary landscaping plan has been prepared for common ownership portions
of the Project Site. Proposed landscaping is shown on Exhibit 6 and would include a
mix of canopy and accent trees along the Tassajara Road frontage and along interior
Project streets. A combination of shrubs and other landscape material would be
planted along Tassajara Road. Open spaces would be planted with a combination of
grass and wildflowers.
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
Exhibit 7 shows the proposed tentative subdivision map associated with the Project
`_' that would create up to 34 individual lots that would each contain a single-family
dwelling. Other non-buildable lots would be for open space, landscaping, the EVA
and the water quality pond.
Inclusionary housing requirement
Dublin's Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68) requires that 12.5 percent of the number of
dwelling units in each development Project be reserved for occupancy by very-low,
low and moderate income households. This requirement can be met by construction
of the specified number of dwellings, payment of in-lieu fees to the City for up to 5%
of the requirement, dedicating land for construction of fuhzre housing projects,
rehabilitating existing qualifying units, or any combination thereof; or by alternative
methods approved by the City Council. Prior to final approval of the requested land
use entitlements, the applicant and City of Dublin will determine specific methods by
which the proposed Project would comply with City requirements.
Development agreement
Although not part of these applications, the City requires project proponents in the
Eastern Dublin planning area enter into development agreements with the City, as
required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Such agreements vest development
approvals for a specified period of time in return for benefits granted to the City, as
mutually agreed by both parties. Issues typically addressed in development
agreements include density and intensity of land use, timing and financing of
infrastructure, determination of impact fees and obligations to construct public
facilities, such as streets and roads.
Requested entitlements
As described above, a number of land use entitlements and approvals are required to
construct land uses proposed as part of this Project. These are described below.
• General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, to modify the land
use designation from Rural Residential/Agriculture to Single Family
City of Dublin Page 6 ~
Initial Study/Nielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~
~a~ 7~~
~
Residential and to reduce the width of on-site streets.
• Stage 1& Stage 2 PD Rezoning from PD-RR/ A to PD-SFR to allow construction
of up to 36 dwellings on the Site.
• A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to create building lots and other lots.
City of Dublin Page 7
Initial Study/Nielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~~ ~ 7~.
0 " 10 Miles
~=~
EX:HIBIT 1-REGIflNAL LOCATION
CI?'~' D~' Dt~~~N
NIELSE~V PR~PER~"Y- TASSA.TARA V14L~EY
II~TITIAL STUDY
-30-20fl8 ~4:01:25 fvilhaner P:\19374\plonnir.q\3nitialS#udy\EXH1
~
~unr~so~s~
~a ~~ 1~1s~
san ~
Francisco
Pacific Ocean
`~ ~ ~~~
E~:HIBIT 2-PRaJECT LOCAT~UN
C~ 0~'D~BLIN
1VIELSENPROPE~tT'.~'- T'~SS~4.T~4.R~ YALL~Y
I~~AL STCTDY
~-30-2008 i4:t2:09
19374\ pionnina\ (
NOqTH
~S
~~~c~
~ ~ ~
~a ~~
~ 30 ~ ~~ ~
E~:HIBIT 3-SITE C~N~T`E~T
~~TY D~' DU~3~IN
1VIELSENPR4PERTY- TASSAJAR~4 YALLEY
a~]CI`IA.L STUDY
4-30-2008 14:01:22 fvithouer
^A~lUl~8c~1~PS
,°a~, a ~-~- mn ~
~..
.~~
~.
~
~,
~s
~ 31 ~ ~5g~
~-
,. ~ ~p
,~
~:_ ~
SB.~ERA ReNCH DRIVE SILVERA RANCH (PFEIFFEk R.ANCH)
~ MEDIUM DENSlTY RESIDENTIAL
i - ---- -
6'! __ --~' --- -~.~~
0 ~"-~ -~~ ~ --_ ~
r~'_ '
~ ~
p C
6 ~
~ ~
o ~
q ~
I ~
I
~ ~ UN
~ L - RRA
~ 10.9 fAC. GROSS ~
10.0 fAC. NET
~ ~
i ~
a° ~ ~
~; ~
~' ~
~! !
~ ~
i _~ °
~ _____-
~ _ _-- -
; _~__.--
_,_--
I "-
~~ """~~~ QUARRY LANc SCHOOL (ARAC)
MEDIUM DcN51TY RESIDLNTWL/RRA
EXHIBIT 4-STAGE 1 PD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CITY OF DUBLIN
NIELSEN PROPERTY - TASSAJARA VALLEY
IlvITIAL STUDY
4-30-2008 14:01:09 Ivilhauer P:~19374\planning\InitiolStudy\EXH4-STAGE1PD.dw
3~ `75~
~
SIIAE84 RANCH DRIpE
SILVFR.A RANCH lPFE1FFER R.4NCH)
MEDIUM DEN5J7Y RE51DEMfAL
__ ---~
: ~- - ~ ~
~ ~ t4 ~~ ~1 I
~ ~ J I I~ PARCELC I
~ 11~
` '
~
~ ~ , ~, I
._ , .
~8 i ~9 i `; t
_ i-i izo._,~ ~
i ~ I
i
__ ~___ i `\ ,~ ~
~------~~ 1 i
__._ - - _ J ~
~-~ ' - I
~ ~ ~ 1--~ ~ ~ ~`
-''- ; ~ ~ - ; ~ ~ _ `~ ~
~ - ~; ~
`- ~,i ~ -- ~' ~;-~s ~
~ ~` i ~,,~~,,~ ~-~•.-
~ ~ i i
~-~ ~
~~ ~ ~~ ~
rs,,.t ,~ ~ 31 ~ 1 ~ L~ --
~~~1~ j~ 111 1~ ~ I
1' ~; ;~ jl 1~ ..__, ~ _,
~ ~_.. ~ I ,,
~ T •~ ~t - ~~~--
`~' #r. ~Ao
I \ ..~c Mm ~ =
\ \ V~`~'~ a°i'~'
~~~a~
~"O'O` QUARiZY LANE SCHODL (ARAC)
MEDIUM DENSfTY RE51DEN7'lAL/RRA.
~DSNOItSTIlBPO~.aTF~d DUPlF•KUM7SDVCY£.LSET 7IIE 70TdLl.OTCODNI'7b 3Q
'WT3! NQLONL7B8BUfL7'II+IIBBYdLSY01~TDd0(PPFFFXILOGlTlOrS
EXHIBIT 5-STAGE 2 PD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CITY OF D UBLIN
1VIELSEN PROPERTY - TASSAJARA VALLEY
II~TITIAL STUDY
4-30-2008 12:03:18 Ivilhauer P: 19374 lannin InitialStud EXHS-STAGE2PD
~ ~~ }
~5~~ ~~~_,`~'.`
~~v_._.-~ ~._...~'
~3~3.~ ~ ~~~~.
.
' I
;~ ,
~
3 ~
I: N
;"I
i
'
'
I =
i
~
°
~I
a
~ ~
~ I
~ , '~ ~ I
~
I ' ~
~ I
t !
~~_~_--
QUARRY L4NE SCNOOL (ARAC)
MEDfUM DENSITY RESJDETT(IAL/RRA
~ %t1.~ I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT 6- STAGE 2 PD LANDSCAPING PLAN
CITYOFDUBLIN
NIEL5ENPROPERTY- TASSAJARA VALLEY
! II~IITIAL STUDY
macKa~r & ~mps
~ ~ ~
4-30-2008 12:03:24 Ivilhauer P: 19374 lannin InitialStud EXH6-LANDSCAPE.dw "°'"'°" "'~"~°°
334 ~5g
~
, ~ j l ; ' ~ _ i ~ i~ ;`-- ; ~ - ;
, ~ ~~' ~.~=~---~~ I; , I I;;~--. -_._ ' ; ~
I ' ~
~ ~ ~' ~ i ~ i~ ~ I~~ ~ ~i I I I!I -' ~~
~ ~ , _, ~~ , ~~ i
.
~ f~--- ~' ~i ~ ~', ~ ~ ~' ____ _~ / ~
, ,
~ , ,~ % i, ' ;
~ ~
i ~~ ~ '~
~ ~ ~ J SILVERA PANCH DRIV~ ° a~ ~° \ -=-~ _~~I~,` `' ~yGN i
.
_ .~~ ;_ ~ ~ ? 7
- ~ ~a _ ~_ °t~ ~~~~ ~ i / ~ CJII..Y L~ ~1 ~
~~ ~~
. CX.,~D
/ •- , ~ _~
~a ~ ~ ~~ $U . ~ ..3~ .~ j. - ~ ~
' I - ~. _,~. ~ _ ~.~_= ~~ I / .' A ','..'_ ~ ~' ~
I ~~.~ ~` I
, ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.05t ~ ~~ _ _
f ~ .~ w~'° '~ ~-_ _ - - - ~ ~
,,f .. ~~~ ~
~ ~~Ii~~~ _~ - ~ I
~ ~~ e I' I, _ 11 12 ~3 ~4 1 O.~t A~ I
~ I; I ~ i 10
~ ~~ xl II ~ I ~~
~ ~ ~ I I : I ~ ' ~ ~ ~ _..- - ~ -a ( ~
I Ililj~~n'~ I -... _ "` ~
~ I r'
II ~ I srRE~ $ - - ~ ~ o-
Il~f II ~_, ~ _- __-- ~ ~
II ' ~I I ~ ,a ~0 ~ °-
~ i ~ '° r ,a ,~
~ 16 ~ I Z
16 \
~ 1 ~I ~ ~ ' ` ~ ~ ~ i ._,
I ~ I
I I AI ~ \`~ ~ ~ ~ I ,
I~` i I i i ;______ _ ~- ~ I
I ~~~ ; ~ ,~ I - - ' ~ ~ ~' \ ~
o ~ ~ ~~ -~- I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a I I I ~ / I
~ I Rl I I I O I ~ / \ //~
I =I~~.1. , I I ~~ ..
I~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~~
~a ~ I i , i 1 1 gTREET B ~/ I
u4i I; ~ II f I I I I i` I ~
a I~i I 1 i i i ~ 1 ..-' / ~ I oc. ceu
~ ~TOWER FAG
F- I~i I.: I I I~ I I o ~ `t ~ I 3Z /
~ I ~I ! o.~~~ ~G ~ ~~~ ~ ~ g~ r- ~~
I V j I i i p~~~n 1~ ~~ '~~t1 ~ ~
I tl~ ;I ~ ~ ; -- ~ ~~, ~
~ _j I~ ~ ~ ; ~~ `Vl ~ ~--' -- I
~~'I I ~ I ` ~----- ~'
~ ~` ~~~ ~- --- -~ I
~ TI ~ ! ~ ~ • ' r ~f ~~ ~au~~~s Q _ o.a.o~ -
p0U L~ RRp, i
I~I I~ i ~ ~ LJ .-~ ' ~Q~pgRY 1~`~~ Y R s1DE~~'
~ x I~ _ M E p NM D~NS~f 1 FCFyQ
WATER
~ I `' RECYCLID WAlER
1 y ~: 1~ ~ SANfTAAY SEWFR ------ ~
~ I ~ ~ 5fORM DRNN - I
PARCEL m
l;,~i ~~ i_ LOT NUMBER 28
~~i I : q '
EXHIBIT 7- TENTATIVE MAP UTILI'I'Y PLAN
CITY OF D UBLIN
NIELSENPROPERTY- TA5SAJARA VALLEY
II~IITIAL STUDY
4-30-2008 13•30~31 acrabtree P:\19374\planninq\InitialStudy\EXH7-TMAP-UTILITIES.
~
~Y
3~.~ ~15~
1. Project description: Development of up to 341ots with up to 36 single
family and duplex dwellings along with an access
road, on-site roads, grading and infrastructure
extension on a 10.9 acre site. Requested entitlements
include an amendment to the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use
designation from "Rural Residential/Agriculture"
to "Single Family Residential" and to reduce
roadway widths, a Stage 1& Stage 2 Planned
Development zoning, a vesting tentative
subdivision map and a development agreement.
2. Lead agency: Cifiy of Dublin
Community Development Departrnent
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
3. Contact person:
Erica Fraser, AICP
Senior Planner
(925) 833 6610
4. Project location: The property address is 6407 Tassajara Road and the
Alameda County Assessor's Parcel number is 985-
0002-009-02. The property is located east of
Tassajara Road north of Quarry Lane School and
south of the Silvera Property, approximately 1.5
miles north of the I-580 freeway.
5. Project sponsor:
6. General Plan designation:
7. Zoning:
Robert Neilsen
Rural Residential/Agriculture
PD-RR/ A (Planned Development-Rural
Residential / Agriculture)
8. Public agency required approvals:
• Approval of Amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (City of Dublin
• Approval of Stage 1 Amendment and Stage 2 Planned
Development Rezoning (City of Dublin)
• Approval of Vesting Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps (City of
Dublin)
• Approval of Site Development Review (SDR) permit for building
architecture, landscaping and similar improvements (City of
Dublin)
City of Dublin Page 14
Initiai StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
<33~ ~ '7.~n"
• Approval of a Development Agreement (City of Dublin)
• Determination of Conformity with Alameda County Airport Land
Use Policy Plan (Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission)
• Issuance of demolition, building and grading permits (City of
Dublin)
• Approval of water and sewer connections (DSRSD)
~ Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board)
City of Dublin Page 15
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
3~7 ~~--
~
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project,
involving at least one impact that is a"potentially significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
x Aes etics - Agricultural x Air Quality
Resources
x Biological - Cultural Resources x Geology Soils
Resources
x Hazards and x Hydrology Water x Land Use
Hazardous Quality Planning
Materials
- Mineral R~sources x Noise x Population
. Housin
- Public Services - Recreation x Transportation
Circulation
x Utilities Service x Mandatory
Systems Findings of
Si nificance
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 the previous Negative Declaration certified for this Project by the
City of Dublin adequately addresses potential impacts.
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 the proposed Project may have a significant effect 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 earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a"potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." A Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze effects that were not
_ fully analyzed in the earlier EIR or present new or substantially more severe impacts.
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 all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed
Project.
City of Dublin Page 16
Initial Study/Nielsen Properry Project May 2008
° PA 07-057
~ 3~ ~~~~
~
Signature: ~~u ~S~-/ ( y~ Date: s~L3~` ~
Printed Name: t;d'~4 ~h3~,( For: ~~F Q~
~iry or uubnn Page 17 ,~
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
a~9 °~5~
~
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impacf"; answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parenthesis following each question. A"no impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to Projects like the one involved (e.g. the Project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A"no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
Project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the Project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a Project-specific screening analysis).
_ "No impact" is also used to describe those Project impacts that are addressed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR and require no new analysis or mitigation measures.
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as
well as on-site; cumulative as well as Project-level; indirect as well as direct; and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially
significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less-than-significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less-than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less-than-Significant Impact." The lead
agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,
"Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses rnay be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion
should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identity and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less-Than-Significant with
Mitigation Measures Incorporated", describe the mitigation measures
City of Dublin Page 18
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~yd 'Y5g ~
~
~
which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the Project.
6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances,
etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist
that are relevant to a Project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each agency should identify the significance criteria or
threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures
identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
City of Dublin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Page 19 +~
May 2008
~
~ ~ !~~
~
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of
sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found
following the checklist.
1. Aesthetics. Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? (Source: 1,2,4)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
.^ but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 1,2,4)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 4)
~ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Source: l, 4)
2. Agricultural Resources
Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 2, 4)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use,
or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 2,4,6)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 2,4)
3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district may be relied on to make
the following determinations). Would the
Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 2 ,4)
City of Dublin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project
' PA 07-057
Potentially
Significan[
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ~ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impac[
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 20
May 2008
3 ~a ~ ~ °~ _~
~~;
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?
(2,4)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Source: 2,4)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? (Source: 6)
4. Biological Resources. Would the Project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?(Source: 2,3, 4)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 2,3, 4)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or
other means?
(Source: Source: 2,3, 4)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2, 3,4)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 3, 4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
r~
~
City of Dublin Page 21 ~,,,
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~3 y 3 ~ ~S~
fl Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Source: 1,3, 4)
5. Cultural Resources. Would the Project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
^ Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2,4, 6)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
signi~cance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2,4)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
~ paleontological resource, site or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 2,4)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? (2)
6. Geology and Soils. Would the Project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault (Source: 2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2, 6)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (2, 6)
iv) Landslides? (2, 6)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Source: 2, 6)
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 similar hazards
(Source: 2, 6)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Source: 2, 6)
City of Dublin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti a[ion Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potentiall Less Than Less than No
Page 22
May 2008
3 U ~ e-{_ -~~
~"
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 1, 2)
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the
Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use o~
disposal of hazardous materials
(Source: 6)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeabte
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Source: 6)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school? (Source: 7)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Govemment Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Source: 6)
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 of public use
airport, would the Project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
Project area? (Source: 2, 6)
~ For a Project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the Project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 2, 6)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
(Source: 2, 6)
Significant
Impact Significant
With
Miti a[ion Significant
Impact Impact
X
' X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin Page 23 ~.
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~~,~ ~~
~
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1,2,6)
8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 4)
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 existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted? (2, 4)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2, 4)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or azeas, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or
off-site? (Source: 2, 6)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Source: 6)
fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Source: 4)
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
delineation map? (Source: 2,6)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
MitiQadon Less than
Sianificant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial StudyMieisen Property Project
PA 07-057
Page 24
May 2008
~ ~/6 ~ `~ t^~ '~
~
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 2,6)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, and death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? (2)
~ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1, 2, 4)
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, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,
2,4)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(1, 2,4)
10. 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? (Source: 1,
2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local General Plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Source: l, 2)
11. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (6)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels? (Source: 4)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the Project vicinity above existing
levels without the Project? (2. 4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Mitioation Less than
Sianificant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ciry of Dublin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Page 25
May 2008
~~~ ~~~.
~
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? (6)
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? (2,6)
~ For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 2,6)
~ 12. Population and Housing. Would the Project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Source: 2, 6)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (6)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement of
housing elsewhere? (Source: 6)
13. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
government facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service rations,
response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services? (Sources: 5)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
Solid Waste
City of Dublin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti~ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 26
May 2008
~~~ ~~
~..
~
14. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated (Source: 2, 4)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 2, 4)
15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the Project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing tr~c 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)? (2, 4)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (2, 4)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
~2, 4)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm
equipment? (2, 4)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (4)
fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? (4)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle facilities)
(4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti Qation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin Page 27 ~~
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~~~ ~~ ~~~
~
16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the Project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (2,5)
, b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
- ~2~ 5~
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (4)
-- d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (5)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the
providers ezisting commitments? (5)
fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (2)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (2)
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially 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?
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Nielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Mitiaation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 28
May 2008
~~ ~ ~~
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 cunent 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
Significant
Impact Less Than
Sianificant
With
Miti~ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
~ Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1. Eastern General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan
2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR
3. Project Biological Assessment (LSA)
4. Site Visit
5. Discussion with City Departrnent or Service Provider
6. Other Source
~
Ciry of Dublin Page 29 ~
initial StudyMielsen Property Project ~ May 2008
PA 07-057
~.
~~'1 ~.P ~58'
.-~
XVII. Earlier Analyses
a) 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 envirorunental information contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. This
_ EIR is hereby incorporated into this document as allowed by CEQA Guidelines Section
15150s 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 1V~ay 10, 1993. As part of the certification the
Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts including but
not limited to: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas,
`-" electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual.
The Eastern Dublin EIR and related Eastern Dublin land use regulatory documents are
available for public review at the City of Dublin Planning Division,100 Civic Plaza,
Dublin, during normal business hours.
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.
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
the Project which were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and which would
require additional environmental review.
City of Dublin Page 30
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~ ~ ~~~
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Settin~
The Project is set in the Tassajara Road corridor, which is transitioning from rural to
urban land uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted in 1993.
- ' The Project Site is characterized by moderate to steep sloping open space/grazing
areas with one single-family dwelling, one agricultural mobile home and associated
outbuildings present on the Site.
Surrounding properties consist of a newly constructed single and multi-family
~; residential area immediately north of the Project Site (Silvera Ranch), Quarry Lane
School to the south, and undeveloped lands to the east within the Dublin Ranch
community. The approved but not constructed Dublin Ranch West (Wallis Ranch)
Project is located immediately west of the Project Site.
Figure 3.8-H contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies Visually Sensitive
Ridgelands on the higher elevation portion of the Project site. Policies dealing with the
treatrnent of Visually Sensitive Ridgelands contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and in
other land use regulatory documents are set forth below.
As a largely undeveloped property, minimal light sources exist on the Site; however,
properties to the north and south are developed and significant sources of light are
present in these areas. Undeveloped properties east and west of the Site contain no
light sources.
Regulatory framework
Alameda County Scenic Route Element. In May, 1966, Alameda County adopted a
Scenic Route Element of the County General Plan. The Element identifies Tassajara `
Road as a Major Rural Road. The County's General Plan Element has been ~,
incorporated by reference into the City of Dublin General Plan.
The Scenic Route Element contains the following principles that apply to scenic route
rights-of-way:
~ Design scenic routes to minimize grading in rights-of-way;
• Landscape rights-of-way of existing and proposed routes;
• Utilize scenic route identification signs.
Dublin General Plan. The Project area is included in the Eastern Dublin Extended
Planning Area. Implementing Policy C.2 of the General Plan states that "proposed site
~rading and means of access will not disfi~re ridgelands." Further, Implementing
City of Dublin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Page 31 „~
May 2008
~ >:,
~
3~~ `75g
~
Policy C. 5 requires development Projects to be consistent with all applicable General
Plan and Specific Plan policies."
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan (EDSP) in 1993 to guide the future development of approximately 7,200 acres of
land in the Eastern Dublin area. The Specific Plan includes a number of policies and
programs dealing with visual resources, including but not limited to protection of
ridgelines and ridgelands, scenic corridors, and hillside development.
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP Project.
These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 1.0 would reduce Project impacts related to
standardized tract development (IM 3.8/B) to a less-than-significant level. This
mitigation requires future developers to establish visually distinct communities
that preserve the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual
~ elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 would reduce the impact of converting the rural and
open space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM
3.8/B) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B would remain
significant and unavoidable on both a Project and cumulative level.
• Mitigation Measure 3.8 / 3.0 would reduce the impact of obscuring distinctive
natural features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM
3.8/C) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features.
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0-4.5 would reduce the impact of altering the visual
quality of hillsides (I.M 3.8/D) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation
measures require implementation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
policies including but not limited to use of sensitive grading design to minimize
grading, use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for
construction, using building designs that conform to natural land forms,
recontouring hillside to resemble existing topography and minimizing the
height of cut and fill slopes.
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0-5.2 would reduce the impact of altering the visual
quality of ridges (IM 3.8/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation
measures limit development on main ridges that border the Specific Plan area to
` the north and east but are allowed on foreground hills, and would limit
development in locations where scenic views would be obscured or would
extend above a ridgetop.
City of Dubiin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Page 32
May 2008
~
~~{ ~58
~
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7.0/1 would reduce impacts on scenic vistas
(IM 3.8/I) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require
protection of designated open space areas and direct the City to conduct a visual
survey of the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds.
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/8.1 would assist in reducing impacts to scenic routes
(Impact 3.8/J) to an insignificant level. This measure requires applicants
adjacent to scenic routes, such as Tassajara Road, to submit visual analyses as
part of development proposals.
The proposed Project is required to adhere to applicable Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation
measures related to visual resources.
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Poliaes and Standards. In 1996, the City of Dublin
adopted scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin area, known as the
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards.
Overall scenic corridor policies included in this document applicable to this Project
include:
Policy 1: Maintain a strong visual identity relating to the natural landforms and key
visual elements in the Eastern Dublin area.
Policy 2: Create a positive image of Dublin for through travelers.
Policy 6: Emphasize valley character by creating viewpoints and view corridors to
knolls, foreground hills and foreground hills and to Tassajara Creek.
Policy 7: Emphasize the semi-rural character of the area.
Project Im~acts
a,b) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic
resources, including visual resources within state scenic highway? PS. Approval and
implementation of the proposed Project could impact Visually Sensitive
Ridgelands as viewed from travelers on Tassajara Road, immediately west of
the Project Site. Proposed grading and placement of dwellings on lots that could
be created as part of the Project could also be inconsistent with visual resource
policies set forth in the EDSP and included as mitigation measures which are in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. These could be potentially significant impacts and will
be addressed in the EIR.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? PS. The
design of the proposed Project could be inconsistent with goals and policies set
forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR and mitigation measures included in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. This topic will be addressed in the EIR.
d) Create light or glare? PS. The Project Site currently has minimal light sources and
construction of the proposed Project would add additional light sources in the
City of Dublin Page 33 ,~
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~-5~ .~5~-
form of streetlights, building and yard lights. This impact would be potentially
significant and will be addressed in the EIR.
2. Agricultural Resources
Environmental Settin~
The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a portion of the Project area as "lands of locally
important farmlands." Locally important farmland is defined as land that contributes
to the local production of food, feed, fiber, forage and oil seed. This Site is not
identified as prime farmland or of statewide importance in the Easter Dublin EIR nor is
^ it located on the Alameda County Important Farmland Map.
The Project Site has been historically used for livestock grazing purposes and a portion
of the site is still grazed.
No Williamson Act contract exists on the Site.
Regulatory framework
Eastern Dublin General Plan
Implementing Policy C.3 for the Eastern Extended Planning Area requires a
determination that "timing of development will not result in premature termination of
viable agricultural operations on adjoining lands."
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified several potential impacts related to agricultural
resources. Impact IM 3.1 / C stated that discontinuation of agricultural uses would be
an insignificant impact due to on-going urbanization trends in Dublin and the Tri-
Valley area. Impact 3.1 /D identified a loss of lands of Farmlands of Local Importance
with approval and implementation of the General Plan and Specific Plan. This was also
noted as an insignificant impact.
Project Impacts
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 ? NI. Implementation of
the proposed Project would convert a portion of locally important farmland and
grazing land to urban uses, since existing grazing would cease should
residences be constructed. The Site is not identified as "prime farmland" in the
Eastern Dublin EIR or on the Alameda County Important Farmland Map. The
Project Site is approximately 10 acres in size and is substantially surrounded by
existing or proposed residential and institutional land uses that would not be
compatible with livestock grazing. The size of the site (10 acres) may also not be
large enough to sustain large-scale agricultural uses and there could be conflicts
between agricultural uses, such as noise and odors, and recently constructed
dwellings just north of the site. The Eastern Dublin EIR states that the loss of
locally important farmland to urban uses is a less than significant impact.
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~~'~ `75 ~ "~
~
~
Conversion of the Nielsen property from a rural residential/agricultural to an
urban land use would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and no new or more significant impacts would result. No impacts
are anticipated with regard to this topic.
b) Canflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? NI. A
Williamson Act contract does not exist on the Site. The Project sponsor has
requested a rezoning that would allow single-family residences and that would
also remove agriculfiural uses on the site. No impacts would therefore result
with regard to this topic.
3. Air Quality
Environmental Settin~
The Project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air basin
distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-air basin
" is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills
surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends
northward into Contra Costa County.
Re~ulatorv Settin~
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce
anticipated air quality impacts from the General Plan and EDSP Project. These include:
Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 2.0-4.0 would reduce project and cumulative impacts
related to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11/B) but not to
a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on-
site equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others.
Even with adherence to these mitigations, this impact would remain significant
and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.11 /5.0-11.0 would reduce mobile source emission from
ROG and NOx (IM 3.11 / C) but not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation
measures require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other
measures; many of which are at a policy (not a Project) level. Even with
adherence to adopted mitigations, IM 3.11 / C would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 12.0-13.0 would reduce Project and cumulative
impacts related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11 / E) but not to a less-than-
significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary
source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques
and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures,
stationary source emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
City of Dublin Page 35 ~
Initial StudyMieisen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
,„.::
~35~7 ~'S8
~
The proposed Project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures
related to air quality. The proposed Project also will be required to adhere to all
applicable regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Pro~ect Impacts
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? PS. The
proposed Project includes amending the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to increase the allowed number of dwellings on the Site from
one to a maximum of 36 dwelling units if the duplex units and Lot 34 are
constructed. Since the BAAQMD's regional Clean Air Plan is based on the current
General Plan along with associated population projections and trip generation,
the Project would not be consistent with the Clean Air Plan. This inconsistency
-' would a potentially significant impact and will be analyzed in the EIR.
b) Would the Project violate any air quality standards? PS. Construction of the proposed
Project would generate dust and construction emissions that would contribute to
air pollution in the area and region. This would be a potentially significant impact
- j' and will be addressed in an EIR. The issue of global climate change was not
addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR since this was not recognized as a major
environmental issue at the time this EIR was certified in 1993. It is now
considered a potentially significant impact and will be addressed in the EIR.
c) Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? PS. The Eastern
Dublin EIR found that adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with regard
to mobile sources of Reactive Organic Gasses and Nitrogen Oxide (Impact 3.8/C).
Even with adherence to Mitigation measures 3.11 / 5.0 through 11.0, this impact
could not be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Since the proposed Project
would increase the number of dwellings and associated vehicles over that
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, this would continue to be a potentially
significant impact and will be analyzed in the EIR.
d,e) Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or
create objectionable odors? NI. The proposed Project is a residential development
project and does not include manufacturing or similar land uses, therefore no
objectionable odors would be created and no impact would result.
4. Biological Resources
(The following section is based on a biological reconnaissance survey prepared by LSA
Associates (Apri12008). This report is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study
, and is available for review at Dublin City Hall during normal business hours.)
Environmental Settin~
Existing biological conditions on the Project Site are classified into two broad
categories: developed and undeveloped. Developed portions of the Site have been
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/Nielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
3~g ~..sg
~
graded with cuts and fills, creating four building pads and an on-site road connecting
the pads. Pads are occupied by two houses, cattle corrals and an open area used for
seasonal Christrnas tree sales. Portions of the Site have been fenced with barded wire
fencing.
Approximately one-half of the Site is in a largely natural condition, and supports both
native and non-native grasslands. Grassland is found on sloping portions of the Site
and consists of Italian ryegrass, soft chess and wild oat all non-native, introduced
plant species. Common introduced broadleaf species included fennel, mustard and
yellow-star thistle. Native plants on the Site are estimated to make up approximately
20% of the total number of species on the Site.
A number of Monterey pine trees have been planted on a slope below the primary
residence, many of which are dead or dying.
Wildlife directly or indirectly observed on the Site by the wildlife biologists included
western fence lizard, American kestrel, mourning dove, scrub jay, western
`-' meadowlark, striped skunk, California ground squirrel and Botta pocket gopher.
Turkey vultures and red-tailed hawk were observed soaring above the Site.
Special-status species
Table 1 presents a list of special status plant species known to occur in the general
vicinity of the property and which could occur in the non-native annual grassland. The
table also presents the status, habitat and blooming period of each species. The table
does not include special status plant species found in the region that occur in habitat
types not found on the Site, such as serpentine areas, alkali soils and wetlands. Of
specific concern was the potential presence of Congdon's tarplant, a species which in
past years has been reported from the field on the west side of Tassajara Road, across
the road from the Project Site. Congdon's tarplant was not observed on the Site.
Table 2 presents a list of special status wildlife species known to occur in the general
vicinity of the Project Site and which are known to use non-native grassland. The table
presents information on their status, habitat and an assessment of their likelihood to be
present on this Site.
Four special status bird species (CDFG species of special concern) could potentially
occur on this property, including burrowing owls or the nests of white-tailed kite,
burrowing owls and / or loggerhead shrike.
Wetlands
No streams or wetlands were observed on the Site by the field biologist that would be
subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board or Departrnent of Fish and Game.
City of Dublin Page 37 ,~
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057 '
~.
~~~ ?~
~~
Re~ulatorX Settin~
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP
Proj ect. These include:
Mitigation Measures 3.7/ 1.0-4.0 would reduce impacts related to direct habitat
loss (IM 3.7/A) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require
minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of
vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing
management plan by the City of Dublin.
~ Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 would reduce impacts related to indirect loss of
vegetation removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation
Measure 3.7/5.0 requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as
possible.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 would reduce impacts related to loss or
degradation of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) to a less-than-significant
level. These measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future
developers to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving
natural stream corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into
development Projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations,
preparation of individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0-19.0 would reduce impacts related to the San
Joaquin kit fox (IM 3.7/D) to a less-than-significant level. These measures
require consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the
possibility of kit fox on Project sites and restrictions on use of pesticides and
herbicides.
- • Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0-22.0 would reduce impacts related to the tri-
colored blackbird (IM 3.7/I) to a less-than-significant level. These measures
require preconstruction surveys for this species and protection of impacted
habitat areas. These measures also apply to burrowing owl and badger species.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures
regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red-legged frog, California tiger salamander,
western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black-shouldered kite, sharp-
shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and California horned lizard.
The proposed Project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource
mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
' Pro~ect Im~acts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species?
PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified twelve special status plant species,
City of Dublin Page 38
Initiai Study/Nielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
v~~0 Js~
~
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
on the recent LSA biological reconnaissance on the Site, no new candidate,
sensitive or special-status species not identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR is
present o the Site. Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 contained in the Eastern
Dublin EIR to undertake preconstruction surveys for special-status species,
induding but not limited to burrowing owl, white-tailed kite and loggerhead
shrike. However, the LSA report does recommend that additional special-status
plant surveys are necessary to determine the presence or absence of such species
on the Neilsen site. This would be a potentially significant impact and will be
analyzed in the EIR.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands?
NI. Based on Chapter 3.7 of the Eastern Dublin EIR and the recently completed
biological reconnaissance prepared for this Project by LSA, no wetlands or
waters of the U.S. are present on the Site. No new or more significant impacts to
wetlands or riparian habitat than previously identified would therefore occur
should the Project be constructed.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? NI. The Project Site is
largely fenced as part of previous and on-going cattle ranching and residential
uses on the Site. Existing fencing precludes significant wildlife movement on or
through the Site. The absence of creeks or streams precludes movement or fish
or amphibian speaes, so no new or more severe impacts would result than were
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
e) Conffict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? PS.
Implementation of the Project would result in the loss of one tree that qualifies
as a Heritage Tree pursuant to the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance. The Project
applicant will be required to obtain a permit from the City prior to removing the
tree and plant replacement trees. Because the removal of the tree does not
comply with the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance, this impact is potentially
significant and will be analyzed in the EIR.
f) Conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community
Conservation Plans? NI. The Project area is not located within the boundaries of a
habitat conservation plan or a natural community conservation plan area.
City of Dublin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Page 39 ,,,~
May 2008
~
` ~~ ~5 ~
~
Table 1. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Plant Species
Status* Suitable
(Federal/State Habitat Present
S ecies /CNPS) Habitat Notes on Site
Balsamorhiza macrolepis -/-/ List 1B Thin, rocky soil on hillsides, No
var macrolepis sometimes on serpentine,
Big-scale balsamroot grasslands and woodlands;
blooms March-June
Blepharizonia plumosa ssp -/-/List 1B Thin soils in grasslands; blooms Not detected
plumose July-October
Bi ta lant
Centromadia parryi ssp. -/-/ List 1B Alkaline or saline clay soil in
annual grasslands in valleys; Yes
Not detected
congdonii
Con don's tar lant blooms June-November.
Cordylanthus palmatus FE/SE/List Valley and foothill grasslands in Marginal
Palmate-bracted 1B alkaline soil and in chenopod
bird's-beak scrub; Ma -October
Madia radiata -/-/List 1B Valley and foothill grasslands; Yes
Show madia blooms March-Ma
Trifolium depauperatum -/-/List 1B Valley and foothill grasslands Marginal
var. hydrophilum (mesic, alkaline) marshes and ,
saline clover swamps, and vernal pool
habitats. Blooms A ril-June
'Status:
CNPS List 1 B= rare, threatened or endangered in California and eisewhere
FE = Federal Endangered
SE = State Endangered
Source: LSA Associates, 2008
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
Table 2. Potentially Occurring Special Status Wildlife Species
Species Status*
Federal/State Habitat Notes
Potential to Occur On-site
Ambystoma californiense
California tiger salamander FT/SC Grassland/savanna habitats with Grassland with ground squirrel burrows is physically
seasonal ponds for breeding suitable upland habitat. New residential development,
Fallon Road construction and Tassajara Road
effectively isolate site from nearest breeding ponds
located 2,750 feet to northeast and 3,750 feet to east.
Rana aurora draytonii
California red-legged frog FT/SC Ponds and streams Species present in Dublin Ranch Northern Drainage
Mitigation Area and Tassajara Creek. Site is physically
suitable dispersal habitat. Value as dispersal habitat
minimal due to surroundin roads, develo ment.
Buteo regalis
Ferruginous Hawk -/SC Grassland, savanna Ferruginous hawks winter in this area. Site is marginal
foraging habitat. Species is not common in partially
develo ed areas.
Aquila chrysaetos
Golden eagle BA/SC Large trees, cliffs for nesting; Golden eagles nest approximately 4,000 feet to the east
forages over grasslands in the "Northern Drainage." May fly over site but is
unsuitable for foraging due to development on and
ad'acent to site.
Elanus leucurus
White-tailed kite -/CFP Nests in trees and tall shrubs, Species is resident in area and could forage on-site.
forages over a variety of Marginal nesting habitat is present.
habitats
Speotyto cunicularia hypugea
(nesting) -/SC Grassland/pastureland; nest in Grassland with ground squirrel burrows is physica]ly
Western burrowing owl ground squirrel dens suitable habitat. No evidence of presence detected
durin field surve . S ecies could occur here
Lanius ludovicianus (nesting)
Loggerhead shrike
-/SC
Nests in shrubs and low trees .
Marginal nesting habitat present in ornamental trees.
Grassland could be used for fora in .
City of Dublin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Pro Page 41
ject
PA 07-057
1 May 2008
~
~
~
J
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ! ~ ~ t a ~ a -
Species Status* Habitat Notes Potential to Occur On-site
Federal/State
City of Dublin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Page 41
May 2008
W
~
~
~1~1
~
S ecies
p Status*
Federal/State
Habitat Notes
Potential to Occur On-site
Eremophila alpestris (nesting) -/SC Nests in large patches of well Species prefers valley bottoms and ridgetop where
California horned lark grazed grassland barren, sparse grasslands occur. Steep hillside
grassland such as that found on this property
infre uentl used.
Taxidea tazus -/SC Grassland, savanna, and other Badgers found in areas of extensive grassland habitat
American badger open habitats with low levels of human disturbance. On-site
grassland too small and too much human activity to
support this species. No sign of badger activity
detected durin field surve .
Vulpes macrotus mutica FE/ST Grassland, savanna, and other Small size of property and level of on-site and
San Joaquin kit fox open habitats surroundin develo ment recludes use b this species.
Status: FE = federally listed as endangered
FT = federally listed as threatened
BA = Federal Bald Eagle Act
ST = California listed as threatened
SC = California species of special concern
CFP = California fully protected
Source: LSA Associates
~
~
~
~
J
~
~
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Nielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Page 42
May 2008
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :1 ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ # ~ - ,~ . ~ ~ a , „ .
~~~ ~ ~ g
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Settin~
The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR contains a comprehensive listing of historic,
archeological, Native American and other cultural resources in the overall Eastern
Dublin area. Chapter 3.9 of the EIR, Cultural Resources, does not identify the presence
of identified archeological or prehistoric resources on the Project Site.
The Site is largely vacant but does contain one single-family residence (constructed in
^ 1976), one agricultural mobile home (constructed in 1995) and various outbuildings
associated with agricultural uses. The Site has been disturbed as a result of
constructing existing buildings and roadways, disking the site for weed control and by
cattle grazing. '
Eastern Dublin EIR
`-' The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce
anticipated impacts to culhxral resources. The mitigation measures applicable to this
Project are:
Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts that could be caused as a
result of disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources. These
measures require approval of a program for testing for presence or absence of
midden deposits and, if significant deposits are found, recordation of such
resources on State survey forms, and retention of a qualified archeologist to
develop a protection plan for such resources in accordance with CEQA.
• Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or
destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 3.9B) to a less-than-
significant level.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable cultural resource
mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIIZ.
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. Although two
dwellings exist on the Site, these structures are less than fifty years old and do
not meet the standards for significant historic resources under federal, state or
local law. The Eastern Dublin EIR does not identify historic resources on this
Site, so there would no new or more significant impacts with regard to historic
resources on the Site that have not been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological
' resources or human remains? NI. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a remote but
potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site
grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological
and/or paleontological resources on development sites. Mitigation Measures
City of Dublin Nage 4;~
Initial StudyMieisen Property Project May 2008
-' PA 07-057
~3~6 ~ ~ ~5~
3.9/ 1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 - 3.9-7) require subsurface testing for
archeological resources if such are found during site disturbance; recordation
and mapping of such resources; and development of a protection program for
resources which qualify as "significant" under Appendix K of the CEQA
Guidelines. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described above, were
also adopted to address Eastern Dublin IM 3.9/B, the potential disruption of
any previously unidentified pre-historic resources and would apply to the
Project as may be appropriate. No new or more significant impacts beyond
those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR with regard to archeological or
paleontological impacts are therefore anticipated.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? NI.
A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human resources could
be uncovered on the Project Site during grading and construction activities. At
the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified, the potential for impacts on
unknown and unsurveyed human remains was not a separate CEQA checklist
item, as in current Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Former Appendix K,
Archeological Impacts, specifically addressed human remains, which provisions
now have been incorporated into CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and apply
to the Project pursuant to Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0.
No new or more significant impacts beyond those previously identified are
anticipated with regard to disturbance of human remains with adherence to
these Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures and no new mitigation measures
are required.
A Native American Tribal Consultation has been undertaken as part of the EIR
as required by SB 18.
6. Geology and Soils '~'
- Environmental Settin~ .
Soils, geologic and seismic conditions were analyzed in Chapter 3.6 of the Eastern ~'
Dublin EIR. A more recent report regarding Site soils and geology was prepared by ~~ry
Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants in July 2007, titled "Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation, Neilsen Property, Tassajara Road and Silvera Ranch Drive, Dublin, *'
California." This document is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is ,~.
available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during
normal business hours. .~
Site topography consists of hilly terrain with a northwest-southeast trending minor
ridge and swale.
Portions of the Site contain fill material, either graded on the Site or imported. Grading
has occurred in order to create a large relatively flat pad on the site that accommodates
a single family dwelling, relatively flat pads for a second dwelling on the Site, a horse
arena and for an on-site driveway.
City of Dublin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Page 44 ~
May 2008
~
~
~,
~~ ~sg
~
Similar to other properties in the San.Francisco Bay Area, the Project Site is subject to
the potential of moderate to severe groundshaking in the event of seismic activity on
regional faults.
The Berlogar report identifies an historic landslide in the northwest portion of the Site,
but was not found as part of this geologic investigation. Some Site soils have the
potential for shrink and swell as well as differential settlement.
Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce
anticipated impacts related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity from the General Plan and
EDSP Project. These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of
earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.6/B) but not to a less-than-significant level.
- This mitigation measure requires that future structure and infrastructure
facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/2.0-8.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary
effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9/C) to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides; stabilization of
unstable land forms; removal and reconstruction of unstable soils; use of
engineered retaining structures; use of appropriately designed and engineered
fill; and design of structures to account of potential soil failure.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0-10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial
alteration to landforms to a less-than significant level (IM 3.6/D). Mitigations
require minimal grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of
homes and improvements to avoid excessive grading.
- • Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils
(IM 3.6/H) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require
formulation of site-specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the
amount of moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement
' design.
~ • Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope
stability (IM 3.6 / I) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate
formulation of use of site-specific designs based on follow-on geotechnical
reviews of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on
downslopes of unstable soils, removal / reconstruction of potentially unstable
slope areas and installation of surface and subsurface slope drainage
improvements.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0-26.0 reduced impacts related to cut and fill slope
stability (IM 3.6/J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures include
City of Dublin Page 45
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~ ~ ~ ~5~
developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and
associated cuts and fills, ensuring that grading plans comply with appropriate
building codes, utilizing keys and benches as part of grading to ensure slope
stability and minimizing use of unreinforced fill slopes, appropriate compaction
of fill areas and on-going maintenance of slope drainage areas.
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 reduced the impact related to short-term
construction-related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/K) to a less-than-
significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid
the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control
measures.
- • Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long-term erosion
and sedimentation (IM 3.6/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure
includes installation of erosion control facilities into individual development
Projects, including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation
of graded areas and similar measures.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable soil, geologic and
seismic mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Project Impacts
a) 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? PS. The Berlogar report identified one historic landslide in the
northwest portion of the Site. Since a private school has been constructed
immediately south of the Project Site, a peer review of the geotechnical report
should be undertaken to ensure that other areas of landslide potential do not
e~cist on the Site and that adequate mitigation is identified. This issue will be
analyzed zn the EIR.
With regard to the potential for seismic ground rupture, groundshaking and
-- ground failure on the Project Site, adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0
through 3.6/7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will ensure that these
impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance and no new or more
significant impacts regarding seismic ground shaking beyond those analyzed in
. the Eastern Dublin EIR are antiaipated.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? NI. Construction of
the proposed Project improvements on the Neilsen Site would 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 (see Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/K). Long-term impacts
could result from modification of the ground-surface and removal of existing
vegetation (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/L). The Project applicant will be
required, as a standard condition of Project approval by the City of Dublin, to
prepare and implement an erosion control plan, consistent with City of Dublin
and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. With implementation of
City of Dublin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Page 46 ,~
May 2008
~
~~~ ~~
~
Mitigation Measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and standard
conditions of approval imposed by the City regarding water quality features, no
new or more significant impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would
occur than was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is
required.
c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral
spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? PS. Based on the Site-specific
geotechnical analysis, expansive soils are present on some site soils that could
result in differential settlement. The report also notes the presence of historic
landslides on the Site. These could result in potentially significant impacts and
will be analyzed in the EIR.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI.
Proposed residences on the Project Site would be connected to sanitary sewers
provided by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic
systems.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Settin~
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared on the Site in 2005 as part of
an application for a wireless cellular telephone facility on the property. This document
is titled "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on a Proposed Communication
Service Facility to be Located on an Agricultural Ranch Property at 6407 Tassajara
Road Near Dublin in Unincorporated Alameda County California." The report was
prepared by EarthTouch, Inc and is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study.
The EarthTouch report is available for review at the Dublin Community Development
Department during normal business hours.
The Phase I analysis identified minor potential contamination on the Site in the form of
three aboveground fuel storage tanks and five 55-gallon drums filled with oil from
agricultural operations on the site.
No leaking underground tanks were observed on the Site and no records were found
from regulatory agencies documenting previous hazardous materials spills, landfills
on the Site or similar contamination.
Based on Figure 3.1-D contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Project Site is located
within the height referral area from Livermore Municipal Airport but is outside of the
Airport Protection Zone of this Airport.
Project Impacts
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? NI. There would be no impact with
regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the proposed
° Project involves construction of a residential development on the Neilsen
City of Dubiin Nage 4i
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
.~?~~ ~ ~ ~JG
Property. There would be normal and customary use and storage of hazardous
materials associated with the proposed development, including but not limited to
lawn and garden chemicals, paints and household solvents. Existing use of
chemicals associated with the current agricultural operation on the Site would
cease should the Project be approved.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment? PS. Demolition of existing residences on the Site, as proposed,
could release asbestos, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls and perhaps other
substances into the atrnosphere and would be a potentially significant impact that
should be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. This impact was not addressed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. In addition, additional site-specific hazardous materials
analyses should be undertaken on the full Project Site rather than just the
telecommunication facility on the Site.
c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? PS. *°
Approval and implementation of the proposed Project could release lead based ~
paint particles and/or asbestos into the atrnosphere due to demolition of existing
residences on the Site. Quarry Lane school exists immediately south of the Project ~$
Site. This could be a potentially significant impact and will be analyzed in the EIR.
d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. No properties comprising the ~.
Project area are listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances
Control as an identified hazardous site as of March 28, 2008. Therefore, there is no '
impact with regard to this topic. ~
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip?
LS. The Project Site is located west of the Livermore Municipal Airport and is
within the Height Referral Area of the airport, as identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR. This Project must therefore be reviewed by the Alameda County Airport
Land Use Commission for consistency with height requirements prior to Project
construction. The Site lies outside of the Airport Protection Area (APA) of the
airport, so that there would be no conflict between proposed residential uses and
airport safety zones for the Livermore Airport. Overall, Project impacts with
regard to airport hazazds would be less-than-significant.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. The proposed Project would
include the construction of a residential Project on private land. No emergency
evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked. No
impact would therefore result with regard to this topic.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires or where residences are intermixed wifh wildlands? NI. The Project Site is
located in a substantially developed area along Tassajara Road, although
properties to the east of the site are undeveloped. Impacts related to wildland
fires was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and, with adherence to mitigation
City of Dublin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Page 48 ,~
May 2008
~<:
~
~~.
~ ~'~ . ~~g
~
measures contained in this EIR, impacts related to wildland fire would be less-
than-significant. As required by Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, the
proposed Neilsen Project will be required to adhere to the City of Dublin Wildfire
Management Plan. This Plan requires each development Project to include a fire
buffer zone near wildlands, ensuring maintenance and brush dearing in buffer
zones, using fire resistant building materials and allowing adequate access for fire
equipment. Based on the analysis of wildfire hazard and with adherence to
mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, no new or more
significant impacts related to wildfires not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
would occur and no additional analysis is required.
~ 8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Settin~
Local surface water
-' The Project Site is located within the Alameda Creek watershed which drains to the
San Francisco Bay via the Arroyo Del Valle and Arroyo de la Laguna through Niles
Canyon. The nearest body of water to the Site is Tassajara Creek, which flows in a
north-south direction along the west of the Project Site across Tassajara Road.
The Project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance
of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County.
Surface water quality
Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the
discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San
Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program,
~` which is a coordinated effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve
water quality in San Francisco Bay.
>~- In 1994, the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment
Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendations include policies that
define watershed protection goals; set forth minimum non-point source pollutant
, control requirements for site planning; construction and post-construction activities;
and establish criteria for ongoing reporting of water quality construction activities.
Watershed protection goals are based on policies identified in the San Francisco Bay
„ Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the entire program relies on the
implementation of Best Management Practices to limit pollutant contact with
stormwater runoff at its source, and to remove pollutants before they are discharged
into receiving waters. The California Stormwater Quality Task Force has published a
° series of Best Management Practices handbooks for use in the design of source control;
City of Dublin Page 49
Initial StudyMieisen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~~
~:~ ;~ ~ "75g
and treatrnent programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin
Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters, wetland and marshes.
Existing surface water quality is affected by a number of pollutants generated from
existing structures, parking areas and agricultural uses on the Site, including but not
limited to petrochemicals (oil and grease), yard and landscape chemicals (herbicides,
pesticides and fertilizers), and similar sources.
Flooding
The topographic elevation of the Site is over 400 feet above Mean Sea Level. Based on
he Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, the
Project Site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard area (FIRM Map ~ommunity Panel
No. 0600010115, updated 9/97).
Regulatory Setting
Eastern Dublin EIR
-- The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce
anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage from the General Plan
and EDSP Project. These indude:
• Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48 would reduce impacts related potential
flooding (IM 3.5/Y) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
require new storm drainage facilities as part of new development; developers to
prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects; and requires
new flood control facilities to alleviate downstream flooding potential.
• Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 through 55.0 would reduce impacts related to
non-point source pollution (IM 3.5/AA) to a less-than-significant level. These
mitigation measures mandate that specific water quality investigations be
submitted as part of development Projects and that the City should develop
community-based programs to educate residents and businesses to reduce non-
point source pollution.
The proposed Project is also required to comply with all NPDES and RWQCB
regulations (including preparation of a SWPPP as described above).
Project Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? PS. The issue of
water quality standards was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This was Impact
3.5/AA, non-point sources of water pollution. Although Mitigation Measures
3.5/51.0 through 55.0 for each development Project within Eastern Dublin were
previously adopted, updated regional water quality standards have been adopted
since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Consistency with revised and more
stringent water quality standards could be a more significant impact than
analyzed in earlier documents and this topic will be addressed in the EIR.
City of Dublin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Page 50 „~
May 2008
~
~
~ ~' ~~ ~~ '~5~
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. Impact
3.5/Z contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR noted that the Eastern Dublin area
already has minimal recharge capabilities and that approval of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan could reduce the amount of undeveloped land in the region used for
groundwater recharge. No new or substantially more severe impacts would result
regarding depletion of groundwater recharge areas or lowering of the water table.
With adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 50.0, this impact would be
reduced to a level of less-than-significant. These mitigation measures require local
water supply agencies to plan faalities and undertake management to protect and
enhance water quality and to support Zone 7's on-going water recharge efforts.
The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed development of the Project Site, so the Project
would result in no new or significantly increased impacts than previously
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur? PS. New impexvious surfaces would be added to
the Site to accommodate new dwellings, roadways, driveways and similar
surfaces. Existing drainage patterns would be modified which could result in a
potentially significant impact that may not have fully analyzed in earlier
documents. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site?
PS. The proposed Project would likely alter existing drainage patterns from
existing conditions since no formal drainage system exists on the Site. This topic
will be analyzed in the EIR.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts of polluted runoff? PS. The ability of downstream drainage
facilities to accommodate additional quantities of stormwater runoff from the
Project Site could be a potentially significant impact due to the proposed level of
development on the Site. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR. ~
f) Substantially degrade water quality? PS. This is a potentially significant issue and
has been addressed above in item "a."
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rute
Map? NI. The Project Site lies outside of a 100-year flood plain and there would be
no new or substantially more severe impact with regard to flooding potential than
was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood
flow, including dam failures? NI. Refer to item "g," above.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. The Project area is located
well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted
by a tsunami or seiche. No new or substantially increased impacts would
therefore result with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR.
City of Dublin Page 51
Initiai Study/Nielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~~r~ ~ ~~ ~.
~
9. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Settin~
Existing land uses
Land use on the Site includes one single-family dwelling, one agricultural mobile
home, outbuildings, wireless communications facilities and a private driveway
accessing the residences. The property has historically been used for cattle grazing and
sales of seasonal products.
Property to the north contains single- and multi-family dwellings in the Silvera Ranch
development. West of the Project Site is vacant land known as the Dublin Ranch West
property, which has been approved for the development of a park and 935 residential
dwellings. Quarry Lane School, a private educational facility, has been constructed
south of the Site. Property east of the Neilsen Site is vacant.
Re u~ lato~ SettinQ
The Dublin General Plan designates the Project Site as "Rural
Residential/Agriculture." This land use designation allows one residential dwelling
per 100 acres of land as well as agricultural uses.
An application has also been filed with the City of Dublin to amend the General Plan
and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designation in both
documents from "Rural Residential/Agriculture" (1 dwelling unit per 100 acres) to
"Single Family Residential" (.9-6.0 dwelling units per acre). Surrounding land uses
include Open Space, Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential
and Rural Residential / Agriculture. An application for a Stage 1& Stage 2
Development Plan and tentative subdivision map has also been filed with the City.
Project Im~acts
a) Physically divide an established community? I~TI. The Project Site is surrounded by an
existing residential development to the north, a similar development to the west
which has been approved but not constructed (Dublin Ranch West) and a private
school to the south. If approved, development on the Neilsen Site would be
consistent with the general development pattern along Tassajara Road and no
established communities would be divided. No new or significandy increased
impacts than analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR would therefore result with
regard to this topic.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? PS. The design of the
proposed development may not be consistent with one or more goals or policies
regulating hillside development contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that
could result in a potentially significant impact. This topic will be addressed in the
EIR.
City of Dublin Page 52
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~3 7 ~ . ~5~
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? I~TI.
The Project Site is not located within a habitat conservation plan area or natural
community conservation plan area. See section 4"e" and "f" of this Initial Study.
There are no new or substantially more significant impacts beyond those
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR with regard to this Project.
10. Mineral Resources
Environmental Settin~
The Project area contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the Eastern
Dublin EIR.
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or iocally significant mineral resources? NI.
The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals
exist in the Project area, so no impacts would occur.
11. Noise
Environmental Settin~
The City defines "noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating,
objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concern with regard
to noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals.
Although noise is controlled around commerczal, industrial and recreation uses,
community noise levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses.
Regulatory setting
The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies the following primary sources of
noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the
}~ community and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway.
The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land
use type.
Ciry of Dublin Page 53
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~~~~ ~5~ ~ .
~.
Table 3. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels)
Land Use Normally
Acce table Conditionally
Acce table Normally
Unacce table Clearly
Unacce table
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+
Lod in Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ --
Schools,
churches, nursing
homes 60-70 70-80 80+ --
Neighborhood
arks 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+
Office/Retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80+
Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+ --
Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1
The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential
dwellings.
The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that major noise sources within Eastern Dublin include
traffic noise from arterial roadways, helicopter overflights from Camp Parks RFTA,
west of Tassajara Road, noise generated by development of land uses under the
Specific Plan and General Plan and construction noise.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce
anticipated noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP Project. These include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.10/ 1.0 would reduce impacts related to exposure of
proposed housing to future roadway noise (IM 3.10 / A) to a less-than-
significant level. This mitigation measure require that all future development
Projects have an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that future dwelling units
meet City noise exposure levels.
• Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 would reduce impacts related to
construction noise (IM 10/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation
measures require developers to submit construction noise management plans
and to limit hours of construction operations.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation
measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Project Impacts
a,c) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard and result in substantial
increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? PS. Based on the close proximity of
the Site to Tassajara Road, a major noise source in Eastern Dublin, future
residents on the Site could be subject to significant noise levels in excess of City
City of Dublin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Page 54 ~
May 2008
~;
~
~~
3~ 7 ~~~
~
noise levels. Future residents would also be subject to noise from Quarry Lane
School. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NI.
The proposed Project would include grading and recontouring of the Site but
such activities would include normal and customary construction activities and
would not generate excessive vibration levels. The Project applicant will be
required to adhere to noise mitigation measures identified in subsection "d,"
below. Operation of the Project (post construction) would indude a single-family
subdivision that would not generate significant vibration levels. No new or more
significant impacts are anticipated beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
~ EIR would occur with regard to construction noise impacts and no additional
analysis is needed.
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? NI. The proposed Project is required to adhere to
construction noise mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to
`-' minimize the impacts of construction noise. These are Mitigation Measures
3.10/4.0 and 5.0, which require all Project developers in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area to prepare and adhere to Construction Noise Management
Programs, such plans require limiting grading and other noise generating
activities to the shortest period of time as possible, minimizing truck access
through residential areas and limiting the hours and days of construction
activities. With adherence to these measures, no supplemental impact would
result regarding construction noise. No new or more significant impacts are
anticipated with regard to construction noise impacts beyond those analyzed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR are antiapated and no additional analysis is needed.
e,) For a project located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public
airport, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? PS. The Project Site is
located near the Livermore Muniapal Airport and future residents and visitors to
the proposed Project could be subjected to excessive noise levels from aircraft
using the airport. This could be a potentially significant impact and will be
analyzed in the EIR.
f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose
people to excessive noise levels? NI. The Project Site is not located near a private
airstrip and no impacts would result with regard to this topic.
12. Population and Housing
Environmental Settin~
The Project Site contains two dwellings: one single-family residence and an
agricultural mobile home.
~~~y ~~ ~uunn Page 55
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~-r~ ~ ~sg ~
~
Project Im~acts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? PS. The
Project Site has been planned for Rural Residential/Agricultural uses since
adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan in
1993. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the growth inducing impact (Impact
3.5/T) related to providing water service to the Eastern Dublin area. The
proposed Project would increase the number of dwellings on the Site by up to 34
net dwellings, should the requested land use entitlements be approved. There is
therefore a potential for the proposed Project to induce substantial population
growth into this area beyond that previously analyzed. This could be a potentially
significant impact and will be analyzed in the EIR.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI.
The Project Site currently contains two dwelling units and no impact would result
with regard to displacement of dwellings or population on the site. No additional "~`
analysis is needed regarding this topic.
13. Public Services
Environmental Settin~
The following provide essential services to the community:
Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County
Fire Departrnent. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency
medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services
and hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 17, located
south of the Project area at 6200 Madigan. The secondary responding station
is Station 18 at 4800 Fallon Road.
• Police Protection: The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County
Sheriff's Departrnent to provide patrols, crime prevention, crime
suppression and traffic safety in the City of Dublin.
• Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational
services for residents of Dublin.
• LibrarX Services: Alameda County Library service.
• Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities
are the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
Project Impacts
a) Fire protection? NI. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.4/C (demand for ~y
increased fire services), Impact 3.4/D (fire response to outlying areas) and Impact ~,,
3.4/E (exposure to wildland hazards) relating to fire service in Eastern Dublin.
Mitigation Measures 3.4 / 6.0 through 13.0 were included in the Eastern Dublin ~
Ciry of Dublin Page 56 .~
Initiai StudyMielsen Properry Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~
~;~
~`1~ ~5g
~
EIR to reduce fire service impacts to an insignificant level. These mitigation
~neasures require construction of new fire facilities in Eastern Dublin, establishing
fire service funding mechanisms, incorporation of fire safety design feafixres into
all development projects, maintenance of open space areas to reduce fire fuel
loads and providing adequate access for emergency vehicles. Although the
number of dwellings proposed in the Neilsen Project would be greater than what
was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR
mitigation measures relating to fire service, including potential installation of fire
sprinklers, would ensure that no new impacts would result with regard to this
topic (D. Jones, Alameda County Fire Department, 5/7/08.) The Project developer
will be required to adhere to these mitigation measures. No new or more
^ significant impacts are anticipated with regard to fire protection beyond those
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR are anticipated and no additional analysis is
needed.
b) Police protection? NI. The impact of providing police service to the Eastern Dublin
Planning Area was analyzed as Impacts 3.4/A (demand for increased police
`-' services) and Impact 3.4/B (police services availability) in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/ 1.0 through 5.0 were included in the EIR to reduce
police service impacts to a level of insignificance. These measures require funding
for additional police facilities and staffing, inclusion of safety and security
features into each development plan. The City of Dublin also levies a public
facilities fee on new development to offset capital costs of providing additional
police facilities. Although the number of dwellings proposed in the Neilsen
Project would be greater than addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, adherence to
Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures relating to police services would ensure
that no new impacts would result with regard to this topic (V, Guzman, Dublin
Police Services, 5/7/08). The Project developer will be required to adhere to these
mitigation measures. No new or more significant impacts are antiapated with
regard to police protection services beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR are anticipated and no additional analysis is needed.
c) Schools? NI. No impacts would result to school service should the proposed
Project be approved since payment of mandated statutory impact fees at the time
of issuance of building permits will provide mitigation of educational impacts
pursuant to CEQA. No additional analysis is needed regarding this topic.
d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? NI.
Maintenance of public faalities would continue to be provided by the City of
Dublin. New public facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of
Dublin standards, so that long-term maintenance is not anticipated to result in
any new or more significant impacts than those analyzed in previous
environmental documents. The Project developer will be required to pay Public
Facilities Fees to the City of Dublin to assist in constructing new and upgraded
public infrastructure to support the proposed Project.
e) Solid waste generation? NI. See item 16 "e" and "f," below.
City of Dublin Page 57
Initial Study/Nielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~v p ~
~,~~" O
~
~
14. Recreation
Environmental Settin~
No neighborhood or community parks and / or recreation services or facilities are
located on the Project Site or designated on the Site in the Eastern Dublin area in the
General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan or the City's Parks and Recreation
Master Plan.
The City of Dublin offers a range of park, recreation and cultural services. The nearest
City of Dublin community park to the Project Site is Emerald Glen Park, located on the
southwest corner of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive, south and west of the Project
area. Emerald Glen Park is 48.2 acres with 42 acres of developed park consisting of the
following amenities: childreri s play areas; baseball, soccer and cricket fields;
basketball, tennis and Bocce courts; skate park; group picnic area; and large grassy
open space areas. A neighborhood park is proposed to be constructed across Tassajara
Road from the Project Site on the Wallis Ranch (Dublin Ranch West) property.
The City of Dublin also maintains a large number of other park and recreational
facilities within the community and offers an extensive recreation program to
residents.
Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which
maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Pro~ect Im~acts
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NI.
Approval and construction of the proposed Project would increase the use of
nearby City and regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing
the on-site permanent population on the Site. However, the Project applicants are
required to comply with Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, including
payment of public facilities fees to assist the City to purchase and/or improve
parks throughout the community that could be used by Project residents.
Therefore, no new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to
increased use of neighborhood or regional parks beyond those analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR are anticipated and no additional analysis is needed.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? NI. See item "a," above Since the proposed Project will be subject to
Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, including payment of public facility
impact fees that includes funding of neighborhood and community parks, no new
or more severe impacts related to provision or construction of recreational facilities
would occur beyond that analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional
analysis is required.
Ciry of Dublin Page 58 *~
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~,
~ ~J~
~
15. Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Settin~
The Project area is served by Tassajara Road, an arterial road that provides access from
southern Contra Costa County to the I-580 freeway and southerly into Alameda
County south of the I-580 freeway. Direct access to the Site would be provided by a
new street into the Neilsen Property from Silvera Ranch Road that currently intersects
with Tassajara Road.
Public transit service to Dublin and surrounding Tri-Valley cities is provided by
WHEELS bus service, operated by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
~~ (LAVTA).
The Dublin Pleasanton BART station is located southwest of the Project Site. The West
Dublin BART station, currently under construction, is located west of the I-680
freeway.
Pedestrian access in the Project area is provided by sidewalks located within public or
private rights-of-way of nearby streets.
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street
capacity? PS. The proposed Project could increase the intensity of land use on the
Site than beyond that analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. There have also likely
been changes to local and regional commute patterns since previous
transportation analyses have been completed. This could result in a potentially
significant impact with regard to increasing traffic on local and regional roadways
and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County
CMA for designated roads)? PS. Based on the same reasons as stated in item "a,"
above, the proposed Project could result in a potentially significant impact with
regard to Alameda County Congestion Management Agency faalities. This topic
will be analyzed in the EIR.
c) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed Project would have no impact on
air traffic patterns, since it involves a proposed single-family residential
development.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. Proposed
k Project improvements would be constructed in a manner consistent with
approved City of Dublin public works design standards as well as in conformity
with General Plan and Specific Plan standards so that a less-than-significant
impact would result with regard to this topic.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. Approval and construction of the
proposed Project would not block any public streets and no impact would result.
City of Dublin Page 59
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
3 ~a ?~~
_~
f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. The amount of parking proposed on the Project
Site would comply with the City of Dublin on-site parking requirement; therefore,
no impact is anticipated with regard to this topic. ~
g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The proposed Project would
include construction of sidewalks on adjacent street frontages to facilitate
pedestrian access. Bicyclists could use adjacent roads as well to access Tassajara
Road and other roads, so that no impacts to this topic would result.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Settin~
The Project area is presently served by the following service providers:
• Water supply: Private water wells.
• Sewage collection and treatrnent: Private septic systems.
• Storm drainage: Sheet flow drainage into Tassajara Creek tributaries.
• Solid waste service: None.
• Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
• Communications: Southwestern Bell (formerly Pacific Bell).
Eastern Dublin EIR .
In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified overdraft of
groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact. Adherence to
Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to
develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that
all new development in the Eastern Dublin Project azea to connect to the DSIZSD water
system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially
significant impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures
require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development
projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded
by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR is the need for additional water treatrnent plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This
impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0-31.0, which requires improvement to
the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees.
Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially
significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an
insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures3.5/34.0-38.0. These
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Nielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Page 60 ~»
May 2008
v,;:
~
~.3 ~~ ~a .--~sg.
~
mitigations require upgrades to the Project area water system and provision of a"will
serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a
potentially significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and
concentration of population in the Project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that this
was a significant and unavoidable impact.
Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a
wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be
mitigated through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.51.0-5.0. These measures
require DSRSD to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system master plan,
requires all new development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system,
discourages on-site wastewater treatrnent, requires a"will-serve" letter from DSRSD
and requires that all sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards.
Impact 3.5 noted an impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity
to serve new development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the
proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate
increased sewer demand from the proposed Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5/G found
-~ that lack of wastewater disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded
wastewater disposal facility is presently being constructed by the Livermore Amador
Valley Water Management Agency. Impact 3.5/E identified lack of wastewater
treatrnent plant capacity as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to
an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure.
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? NI. The proposed Project
is located within the Dublin San Ramon Services Disfirict (DSRSD) that provides
wastewater collection, treatrnent and disposal service within Dublin, portions of
San Ramon and a number of unincorporated properties in Contra Costa County.
The Eastern Dublin EIR found that there would be limited wastewater treatrnent
capacity related to the adoption of the EDSP (Impacts 3.5/D and E). Adherence to
Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.0 through 9.0 would reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance. These measures call for expanding DSRSD's wastewater capacity
to support planned land uses in Eastern Dublin.
As part of the proposed Project, Project developers will be required to install
underground sewer lines to connect to DSRSD a trunk sewer line within Tassajara
Road. Wastewater would be transported to the District's Wastewater Treatrnent
Plant (WWTP) located south of Stoneridge Drive in Pleasanton. Consistent with
Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, the WWTP was recently upgraded to
treat a maximum daily flow of 17.0 million gallons per day (mgd). The WWTP
currently treats an average of approximately 11.3 mgd. A portion of the treated
flows is then used as recycled water and used for irrigation on local parks, golf
courses and similar open space areas. The remaining portion of treated effluent is
discharged to the Livermore Amador Valley Management Agency (LAVWMA)
effluent pipeline for disposal into San Francisco Bay. The LAVWMA treated
effluent pipeline was recently upgraded to accommodate increased flows.
~.i~y ~i vuoim Page 61
Initial Study/Nielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~~ ~s~ ~
~
Based on the above, DSRSD can provide adequate wastewater treatment and
disposal capacity for the Project and no new or more significant impacts are
anticipated with regard to wastewater impacts beyond those analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR are anticipated and no additional analysis is needed.
b,e) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
NI. Since the Project site is largely vacant and limited water and wastewater
systems exist, new water storage, distribution and wastewater collection systems
would be required to serve the amount of development proposed. As part of the
normal development process, DSRSD will require the Project Developer to design
and construct new or upgraded water and wastewater facilities to meet City and
District standards. Such upgraded water and wastewater systems will be required
-- to be operational prior to occupancy of any new dwellings on the site. Therefore,
no new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to wastewater
facilities beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR are anticipated and no
additional analysis is needed.
- c) Require new storm drainage facilities? PS. See Section 8, Hydrology, items "b," "c"
and "d."
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? PS. The District receives domestic water on a
wholesale basis from Zone 7. Zone 7 in turn receives water from a variety of
sources, including imported water from the State Water Project, water transfers
from the Byron Bethany Irrigation District, local surface water captured in the Del
Valle Reservoir, locally pumped groundwater, and local and non-local
groundwater storage.
Although the Project Site is within DSRSD's service area, the amount of water use
required to serve the proposed Project has not been anticipated by the District,
since the Site has been designed for Rural Residential / Agricultural uses in the „~.
Dublin General Plan and EDSP. Accordingly, single-family dwelling uses on the
Site, as proposed in the Project, are not induded in the District's Urban Water
Management Plan (UWM1')• This issue is potentially significant and will be ~,
analyzed in the EIR.
f) Solid waste disposal? NI. The Project Site is within the franchise area of Amador Valley
Industries, a company that provides residential and commercial solid waste pick-up and
recycling services. Impacts related to solid waste disposal were analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and no new or more significant impacts would result with regard to this
topic.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. The
existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste
regulations should the proposed reorganization be approved. No impacts are anticipated
in this regard.
City of Dublin Page 62
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~C~ ~j ~~~
~
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number 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. The Project has the potential to result in cumulatively
considerable impacts to biological resources and should be addressed in an EIR.
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). Yes. The Project has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable
impacts to biological resources, air quality, traffic and similar topics and should
be addressed in an EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes. The potential for Site contamination
with potentially hazardous materials will be analyzed in the EIR.
City of Dublin Page 63
Initial Study/Nielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
~~~ ~~~ ~
~
~
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, Project Manager
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of Dublin
Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director
Mary Jo Wilson, AICP, Planning ~Manager
Erica Fraser, AICP, Senior Planner
Mark Lander, City Engineer
-' Jamie Bourgeois, Senior Transportation Engineer
Darrell Jones, Alameda County Fire Departrnent
Val Guzman, Dublin Police Services
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Rhodora Biagton, Senior Engineer
Aaron johnson, Engineer
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Website
Applicant Consultants
Connie Goldade, MacKay & Somps
Lisa Vilhauer, MacKay & Somps
Allison Crabtree, MacKay & Somps
References
Alameda Counfiy Important Farmland Ma~, California Departrnent of
Conservation, 2000
City of Dublin Comprehensive Mana~ement Plan, undated
LSA Biological Report, Apri12008
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9/14/06
Eastern Dublin S~ecific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report,
Wallace Roberts & Todd,1994
City of Dublin Page 64 ,~
Initial Study/Nielsen Property Project May 2008
PA 07-057
= ~ -~ . ~7 J~d~
~
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards David Gates &
Associates, 1996
Parks and 4Recreation Master Plan City of Dublin, 2004 update
.,~ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for a Wireless Communication Service
at 6407 Tassajara Road near Dublin, EarthTouch, Inc, October 2005
July 2007
City of Dublin
Initial StudyMielsen Property Project
PA 07-057
Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants,
Page 65
May 2008
`j ~~ ~J~
Appendix 8.2
Notice of Preparation
~vciiacii ~,,,~C,;~,,,d,~ ~uppiementai tiH Page 146
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~~ ~ -~~-
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza, DuUlin, Cafifornia 945fi8 Websife: http://vwvw.ci.dublin ca us
Notice of Preparation of Environmental impact Report
and Notice of Scoping Mee~ting
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Community Deve%pmenf Deparfinent
900 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
Confact: Erica Fraser, AICP, SeniorPlanner, Planning Division (925) 833 6610
The City of Dublin wiil be the Lead Agency and hereby invites comments on fhe proposed scope and confent
of the Environmenta! Impact Report for the project identified below.
ProJect Title: Nielsen (PA 07-057j
Project Location: The property address is 6407 Tassaj.ara Road and the Alameda County
Assessor's Parcel number is 985-0002-C09-02. The property fs located east of
Tassajara Road north af Quarry Lane School and south of the Silvera Property,
approximately 1.5 miles north of the f-5~30 fresway. The latitude of the project
site is: 37-45-30N and the longitude is 12~1-52-30W.
Project Description: Development of up to 34 lots with up to 36 single family and duptex dwellings
, along with an access road, on-site road:~, grading and infrastructure extension
on a 10.9 acre site. Requested entitlements include an amendment to the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin S ~:
p cific Plan to change the land use
designation from "Rural Residential/ Agriculture" to "Single Famity Residentia!"
and to reduce roadway widths, a StagE: 1& Stage 2 Pianned Development
zoning, a vesting tentative subdivision map and a development agreemenf.
Scoping Meeting ~
Pursuant to State Law, the City of Dublin has scheduled a Scoping Me~eting for agencies and other interested
parties on the proposed ~IR as follows:
Date: Thursday June'18, 2008
Tlme: 6:OOpm-8:OOpm
Place: Regional Meeting f2aom, Dubiin Civic Center, 100 Civic Cen~?er Drive, Dublin
Due to time limits mandated by State law, comments on the scope of the Supplemental Environmentai tmpact
Report must be submitted at the eariiest possible time but not later than 30 days fol[owing receipt of this
notice. Please send your response to the contact person identified abo~/e.
Date: May 23, 2008 Signature: `~~~
Title: Senior Planner
Telephone: (925} 833-6690
Area Code (925) • City Manager 833-6650 • City Council 833-6650 ~ Personne1833•6605 • Ecoriomic Development 833-6650
C•inattce 833-6640 • PubEic Works/Engineering 833-6630 • Parks & Community Services 833-6645 ~ Police 833-6G70
Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 • Building [nspection 833-GG20 • Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6G06
~~~ ~- -7~g
_. _ ~ _.
LAVTA/WHEELS Zone 7 ACFC & WCD
Dublin Unified School District ~o~ ~y~, Deputy Exec Dir Jim Horen
Atn: Superintendent ~ 100 North Canyons Pkwy.
7471 Larkdale Avenue 1362 Rutan Court #100 Livermore, CA 94551
Dub~in, CA 94568 Livermore, CA. 94550
Alameda County Bay Area Air Quality Alameda County Pub. Works
Planning Department Management District 399 Eimhurst
399 Elmhurst 939 EUis St. Hayward, CA 94544
Hayward, CA 94544 San Francisco CA 94612
Alameda County Congestion East Bay Regional Park Distric#
Airport Land Use Commission Mgmt Attn: Brad Olson
399 Elmhurst. Room l36 Jean Hart 2950 Peralta Oaks Court
Hayward, CA 94544 1333 Broadway, Suite 220 4akland, CA 94605
Oakland, CA 94612
Alameda County Clerk g
F
s m Crawford
S
1106 Madison St # 1 Commander
Attn
Camp Pa ks
RFTA Bldg. 790
LCC Parks a
998 Murrieta Blvd.
Oak(and, CA 94607 (5 copies) ,
Dublin, CA 94568-5201 Livermore, CA 94550
AT&T ComCast Cable U.S. Postal Service
Jon Stradford Tom Baker Postmaster
4300 8lack Avenue
2600 Camino Ramon 2N45QH 2333 Nissen
CA 94550
Pleasanton, CA 9456b-9998
San Ramon, CA 94583 Livermore,
City of Livermore-Planning Dept. CalTrans District 4 CEQA
t
.
City of Pleasanton Attn: Marc Roberts Coord. & Project Developmen
Planning Department 1052 South Livermore Avenue P.O. Box 23660
CA 94623-0660
ktand
O
200 Old 8ernal Avenue
' Livermore, CA 94550 ,
a
~ Pleasanton, CA 94566
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
BART ~A~MA Attn: Regulatory Branch
Mary Ann Payne 623 W. Myrick Court 1455 Market Street, l6th Floor
P.O. Box 12688 Clayton, CA 94517-1648 San Francisco, CA. 94103-1398
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
Rhodora N. Biagtan, PE
California Dept. of Fish & Game U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Dubiin San Ramon Services District
Attn: Region 3-Offr. Powell Attn: State Supervisor
2800 Cottage Way, Room E1823 7051 Dublin Bivd.
CA 94568
P.O. Box 47
Yotantville, CA 94599 Sacramento, CA 94825 Dublin,
Patricia Curtin City of San Ramon
Regional Water Quality Control Morgan Miller 81air Attn: Planning Department
Board 1331 North California Boulevard p p Box 5148
1515 Ctay Street, Suite 1400 Suite 200 San Ramon, CA 94583
Oakland CA 94612 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Ofifice of Planning & Research
Alameda County Mosquito Association of Bay Area Attn: Terry Roberts (15 copies)
Abatement Dist. Government 1400 Tenth Street
Attn: John R Rusmisel p p Box 2050 p p Box 3044
23197 Connecticut St Oakland, CA 94604-2050 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
Hayward, CA 94545
n_ . ~_~-.h/T _ 1 r_ ~ ~ ~--
~
,~.
~'~ ~ ~~' ~7S ~
Paul Rankin
Adminis#rative Services Director
Libby Silver, City Attorney
Diane Lowart
Aarks & Community Services Dir.
Darrell Jones
Dublin Fire Prevention
Meyers, Nave, Riback, et. al
Attn: Tim Cremin
Mary Jo Wilson
Planning Manager
Mark Lander
City Engineer
Jeri Ram. Melissa Morton
Community Development Director Public Works Director
Captain Gary Thuman
Potice Services
Richard Ambrose, City Manager
Metropotitan 7ransportation
Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Amador Valley Industries
Attn: Debbie Jeffrey
PO Box 12617
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Robert Nielsen
6407 Tassajara Road
Dublin, CA 94568
Lisa Vifhauer
MacKay and Somps
5t42 Frnaklin Dr. Suite B
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Contra Costa County
Planning Department
Dennis Barry, Director
651 Pine Street, 4t'' floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
~
~
~
~.
~
~
~
Occupant
985-0056-043 Occupant
q86-0064-005-05 Occupant
6363 TASSA7ARA RD Dublin, CA 94568
6411 TASSA7ARA RD Dublin, CA 94568
3896 SILVERA RANCH DR Dublin, CA 94568
~Sa~ TASSA7ARA RD Dublin, CA 94568
~
~ .. _ . . . ~ r~, 1 t~ ~ -3~.~-
~~
J
~ ~ ~~~
Parcel_No Address 7ype Situs Address City Mail City St 2ip `
985-OOQ2-006-03 Occupant 6363 TASSAJARA RD Dubiin, CA 94568
985-0002-009-02 Occupant 6411 TASSA]ARA RD Dublin, CA 94568
985-0056-043 Occupant 3896 SILVERA RANCH DR Dubiin, CA 94568
986-OQ04-005-05 Occupant 6582 TASSA]ARA RD Dublin, CR 94568
__ _ J ~~ ~~C~
~`. .... . ___
No Address Type
Parcel Situs AddreSs City Maii City St Zip .
_
185-0002-006-03 Occupant 6363 TASSAJARA RD Dubltn, CA 94568
~85-OOQ2-009-02 Occupant 6411 TASSA]ARA RD Dublin, CA 94568
385-0056-043 Occupant 3896 SILVERA RANCH DR Dublin, CA 94568
,o~ nnnn_nn~_~~ llrn inant 6582 TASSAJARA RD DUblln~ CA 94568
°" ~ l,..7 ~.
~
Appendix 8.3
Responses to Notice of Preparation
Neilsen Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 147
City of Dublin January 2009
PA #07-057
~~~ ~ ~s~
._ .. ..,,_ ._....
e.. E'' o` TMFV' ... o~~`~EDFP~~yP
o ' ' ~"p
~ ~ " STATE OP CALIFORNIA ~`" ~k~~~~~~~
E
'. •~ GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLAI~INING AND RESEARCH m. ~~
C~IIFOPN~T
STATE CLEt1RTNGHOUSEAND PLANNING UNIT ~~rF~FCU.~FOQ~~~
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER C.'YNTIIU BRYANT
GpVL~RNOR
DIAECTOR
Notice of Preparation
May 27, zoas
~ e~,~~~~~~
To: Reviewing Agencies ~'~ q~ 2 s Z~08
Re: Neilsen Development Project (PA 07-057) ~"~~~ ~~ ~~°~°~~~~"~
SCH# 2U08052117
Aftached for your review and cornment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Neilsen Developrnent Project {PA
07-057} draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Responsible agencies rnust transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOl', focusing on specific
information reIated to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 davs of receipt of tha NOP from the Lead Aeencv.
This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely
manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express dieir concerns early in the
environmental review process.
Please direct your comments to:
Erica Fraser
City of Dublin
l OD Civic Pluz~
Dublin, CA 94568
with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Plaru~ing and Research. Please refer to the SCH number
noted above in all correspondence concerning this project.
If you have any guestions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Ctearinghouse at
(9l6)445-0613.
Sincerely,
~ /^ ) i,.
r ~~----~~-~.~ ~~~~~~
~~ Scott Morgan
~~' ~ Froject Analyst, State Clearinghouse ,.
Attachments
cc: Lead Agency
1900 IOth Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044
19161445-Ofi13 FAXl9lh1323-30t8 www.onr.ca.2ov
~97 ~,~
..
~ ~ ~ti Ct3tJ.i~i7''~C C3~' .t~I.:~.~Ei7~.
~'~J~3LIC ~~~~~ ~~EI*~~~'
r~U~L)~ ;99 F..t~nhurst Sta~€>et A I°i.iy~i~i~d, C:~~ ~~_~;~~-]. ~t)i
'Vf1~d~K~ _ ~5l()) 6ifl_5.};~(l
7une 2, 20~8
Ivls: Erica ~raser, AICP, Senior Plannex
City of T~ublin Cammunity Devaiopment Departmant
100 Ci~vic P1az~
T7ublin CA 9~568
~~c~~.e (925} 833-~61
Conamen4s on ~T~P of Supplemcntat EIR & dra~t Initixl Study - Neilsen Deveto~rzaent
Project (PA 07-{~57~
Dear Ms. Fraser:
Thanlc you far fhe opportiuiity to rev~ew your Notic~ of Preparution and dra~ Iaztia.l
Study of the above z~amed project. Becausa signi~icant runQff fram the Livermore Valley
includi:ng Dublin tiischarges through Arroyo Ae L~ La~a and Atameda CreEk into S~.n
Fra~cisco Bay, the F'lood Cantrol Dishact z~equests that ,proposed cjrafl Supplemental EIlZ
adec~uately disc~ss th~ patential effects of inc.reased runoff from che project site and its
impacts on #he r3ownstreUm reaches.
Please includ~ the Agency on your nnail list ~fl Teceive a copy of your supplemental
docun~i~nt wheri compl.etetl. If you further quesiions please cpntact me at 51.fl-6705772.
Yaurs t ly ~
Kwa ah ~ogbe ,.
Env. Conip ance Specialist
,~
~
~
~
[;m~Neilson prpj cnmmcnts- L)u61in ka
""Ic; Sr~rvc anii ~,r~serve C7rir C=t~nu;it~niYV"
~
~ % ~ ...1..~~
~
ALAMEDA COUMY
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY
1333 BROADWAY, SUITE 220 • OAKLAND, CA 94612 • PHONE: (510) 836-2560 • FAX: (510) 836-2185
E-MAIL: mailC~accma.ca.gov • WEB SffE: accma.ca.gov
June 11, 1008
~EwiOV~~
Ms. Erica Fraser, AICP
AChansit SeniorPlanner ~U~ i ~ 2008
Direcror
Greg Harper City of Dublin
Alameda Caunty Community Development Department ~,v~r~~ iR ~a r,~~~~~Y~:,
Supernsors 100 Civic Plaza
ScattlH ggerty Dublin, CA 94568
~,~~
City oMA~meda SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for
BevedyJahnson the Neilsen Development Project in the City of Dublin (PA 07-057)
City of A16any
Counc~7member Dear Ms. Fraser:
Farid Javandel
BART
Director
fiomasBlalock Thank ou for the o ,
y pportunity to comment on the City of Dub(in s Notice of Preparation
(jvOP) the Neilsen Development Project on 6407 Tassajara Road in the City of Dublin (PA 07-
City of Berkeley
Councilmember 057). The project site is east of Tassajara Road, north of Quarry Lane School and south of
KdssWoMington the Silver~ property. The project entails developing up to 34 lots on a 10.9 acre site with up
City of Du611n
M to 36 single family and duplex dwellings. Required entitlements include: 1) an amendment
ayor
Janet Lockhart to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designation from
C'~
o~V11e Rural Residential/Agriculture to Single Family Residential and to reduce roadway widths; 2)
Vice-May
RuthAlkin Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development zoning; 3) a vesting tentative subdivision ma
p,
and 4) a development agreement.
City of Fremont
Po6ertWeckowski The ACCMA respectfully submits the following comments:
City of Hayward
Mayor
MichaelSweeney The Cit p p g
' y of Dublin ado ted Resolution 120-92 on Se tember 28, 1992 establishin
C(ty of Livermore guidelines for reviewing the impacts of local land use decisions consistent with the
Mayor
Marshall Kamena Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Based on our review of the
Clty of Newark NOP and the land uses that are being considered, the proposed project appears to
Counciimember
LuisFreitas generate at least 100 p.m. peak hour trips over existing conditions. If this is the case, the
CMP Land Use Analysis Program re
uires th
Cit
Clty of 0akland
~
n
er q
e
y to conduct a traffic analysis of the
project using the Countywide Transportation Demand Model for Year 2015 and 2030
L
arry Red conditions. Please note the following paragraphs as they discuss the responsibility for
CltyoiPiedmont modeling.
Councilmem6er
John Chiang
'
City o} pleasanton o As of March 26`h, 1998, the CMA Board amended the CMP so that local jurisdictions
Mayor
~e""''e`"~`e`"'~, are responsible for conducting the model runs themselves or through a consultant
cn
t .
The ACCMA has a Countywide Model available for such purposes
To use the
y o
sa~ ~eandro
yc
ll .
Countywide Model, the City of Dublin must si n a Coun
Jo
eR
Staoscak with the ACCMA. A copy of the Model Agreement was del vere previ usly t~ the
City of Unlon City
""a''°` City of Dublin and has not yet been returned and signed to the ACCMA. In addition
Mark Green
YceChair to signing the agreement, a letter must be submitted to the ACCMA requesting use of
the model and describing the project. Copies of the Model Agreement and sample
l
Executive Director etter agreement are available from the ACCMA.
Dennis R. Fay
~~q ~
~ ~~
Ms. Erica Fraser
June 11, 2008
Page 2
o If the City chooses to use a model.other than the Countyw'ide Model for traffic
impact analysis, then for the purposes of the CMP Land Use Analysis Program, it
should be demonstrated that the selected model output traffic volumes are
conservative compared with the Alameda Countywide Model, regarding the MTS
roadways that are required to be analyzed. This comparison should be included in the
environmental document.
~
Potential impacts of the project on the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) need '
to be addressed. (See 2007 CMP Figures E-2 and E-3 and Figure 2). The DEIR should ~,
address all potential impacts of the project on the MTS roadway and transit systems.
These include project impacts on I-580 and Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road, as well as -
BART and LAVTA. Potential impacts of the project must be addressed for 2015 and ~
2030 conditions.
o Please note that the ACCMA does not have a policy for determining a threshold of ~~'
significance for Level of Service for the Land Use Analysis Program of the CMP. ~
Professional judgment should be applied to determine the significance of project
impacts (Please see chapter 6 of 2007 CMP for more information).
The CMA requests that•there be a discussion on the proposed funding sources of the
transportation mitigation measures identified in the environmental documentation. The
CMP establishes a Capital Improvement Program (See 2007 CMP, Chapter 7) that
assigns priorities for funding roadway and transit projects throughout Alameda County.
The improvements called for in the DEIR should be consistent with the CMP CIP. Given
the limited resources at the state and federal levels, it would be speculative to assume
funding of an improvement unless it is consistent with the project funding priorities
established in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) of the CMP, the federal
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), or the adopted Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP). Therefore, we are requesting that the environmental documentation include a
financial program for all roadway and transit improvements.
The adequacy of any project mitigation measures should be discussed. On February 25,
1993 the CMA Board adopted three criteria for evaluating the adequacy of DEIR project
mitigation measures:
- Project mitigation measures must be adequate to sustain CMP service standards for
roadways and transit;
- Project mitigation measures must be fully funded to be considered adequate;
- Project mitigation measures that rely on state or federal funds directed by or
influenced by the CMA must be consistent with the project funding priorities
established in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) section of the CMP or the
Regional Transportation P(an (RTP).
It would be helpful to indicate in the DEIR the adequacy of proposed mitigation
measures relative to these criteria. In particular, the DEIR should detail when proposed
roadway or transit route improvements are expected to be completed, how they will be
funded, and the effect on LOS if only the funded portions of these projects were assumed
to be built prior to project completion.
Potential impacts of the project on CMP transit levels of service must be analyzed. (See
2007 CMP, Chapter 4). Transit service standard for BART is 3.75-15 minute headways
Ms. Erica Fraser
June 11, 2008
Page 3
~ ~ ~~ -75~
during peak hours. The DEIR should address the issue of transit funding as a mitigation
measure in the context of the CMA's policies as discussed above.
• The DEIR should also consider demand-related strategies that are designed to reduce the
need for new roadway facilities over the long term and to make the most efficient use of
existing facilities (see 2007 CMP, Chapter 5). The DEIR could consider the use of TDM
measures, in conjunction with roadway and transit improvements, as a means of attaining
acceptable levels of service. Whenever possible, mechanisms that encourage
ridesharing, flextime, transit, bicycling, telecommuting and other means o£reducing peak
hour traffic trips should be considered.
The EIR should consider opportunities to promote countywide bicycle routes identified in
the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan, which was approved by the ACCMA Board on
October 26, 2006. The approved Countywide Bike Plan is available at
httn://www.accma.ca. ov/~a~es/HomeBicyclePl_ an_~aspx
• For projects adjacent to state roadway facilities, the analysis should address noise
impacts of the project. If the analysis finds an impact, then mitigation measures (i.e.,
soundwalls) should be incorporated as part of the conditions of approval of the proposed
project. It should not be assumed that federal or state funding is available.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Notice of Preparation. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at 510/836-2560 if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
~~
~.% ~ ~ .- . -
Diane Stark
Senior Transportation Planner
cc: file: CMP - Environmental Review Opinions - Responses - 2008
~J~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g' ~:
Attachment
~ Design Strategies Checklist
for the
Transportation Demand Management Element
of the
Alameda County CMP
The Transportation Demand Management Element included in the 2003 Congestion Management
Program requires each jurisdiction to comply with the `°' Required Program". This requirement
can be satisfied in three ways: 1) adoption of "Design Strategies for encouraging alternatives to
auto use through local development review" prepared by ABAG and the Bay Area Quality
Management District; 2) adoption of new design guidelines that meet the individual needs of the
local jurisdictions and the intent of the goals of the TDM Element or 3) evidence that existing
policies and programs meet the intent of the goals of the TDM Element.
For those jurisdictions who have chosen to satisfy this requirement by Option 2 or 3 the following
checklist has been prepared. In order to insure consistency and equity throughout the County, this
checklist identifies the components of a design strategy that should be included in a local program
to meet the minimum CMP conformity requirements. The required components are highlighted in
bold type and aze shown at the beginning of each section. A jurisdiction must answer Yes to each
of the required components to be considered consistent with the CMP. Each jurisdiction will be
asked to annually certify that it is complying with the TDM Element. Local jurisdictions will not
be asked to submit the back-up information to the CMA justifying its response; however it should
be available at the request of the public or neighboring jurisdictions.
Questions regarding optional program components are also included. You are encouraged but not
required to answer these questions. ACTAC and the TDM Task Force felt that it might be useful
to include additional strategies that could be considered for implementation by each jurisdiction.
CHECKLIST
Bicycle Facilities
Goal: To develop and implement design strategies that foster the development of a countywide
bicycle program that incorporates a wide range of bicycle facilities to reduce vehicle trips and
promote bicycle use for commuting, shopping and school activities. (Note: an example of
facilities are bike paths, lanes or racks.)
~
Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Pro~ am" in order to be
found in compliance with the Congestion Mana~ement Program.
~d
~~~° ~ ~s~
,~..
Local Responsibilities:
la. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or
adopted po~licies that include the following:
la.l provides a system of bicycle facilities that connect residential and/or non-
residential development to other major activity centers?
Yes No
1a.2 bicycle facilities that provide access to transit?
Yes No
1a.3 that provide for construction of bicycle facilities needed to fill gaps, (i.e. gap
clure), not provided through the development review process?
Yes No
1 a.4 that consider bicycle safety such as safe crossing of busy arterials or along bike
trails?
Yes No
1 a.5 that provide for bicycle storage and bicycle parking for (A) multi-family residential
and/or (B) non-residential developments?
Yes No
lb. How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify.
Zoning ordinance
Design Review
Standard Conditions of Approval
Capital Improvement Program
Specific PIan
Other
Pedestrian Facilities
Goal: To develop and implement design strategies that reduce vehicle trips and foster walking for
commuting, shopping and school activities.
Local Responsibilities
2a. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or
adopted policies that incorporate the following:
,~~,
2a.1 that provides reasonabiy direct, convenient, accessible and safe pedestrian
connections to major activity centers, transit stops or hubs parks/open space and
other pedestrian facilities?
Yes No
Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Pro~am" in order to be
found in compliance with the Congestion Mana~ement Program.
4~03 ~ '°1.5'& "~
2a.2 that provide for construction of pedestrian paths needed to fill gaps, ( i.e. gap
closure), not provided through the development process?
Yes No
2a.3 that include safety elements such as convenient crossing at arterials?
Yes No
2a.4 that provide for amenities such as lighting, street trees, trash receptacles that promote
walking?
Yes No
Za.S that encourage uses on the first floor that are pedestrian oriented, entrances that are
conveniently accessible from the sidewalk or transit stops or other strategies that promote
pedestrian activities in commercial areas?
Yes No
2b. How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify.
Zoning ordinance
Design Review, such as ADA Accessibility Design Standaxds
Standard Conditions of Approval
Capital Improvement Program
Specific Plan
Other
Transit
Goal: To develop and implement design strategies in cooperation with the appropriate transit
agencies that reduce vehicle trips and foster the use of transit for commuting, shopping and school
activities.
Loca1 Responsibilities
3a. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or
adopted policies that include the following:
3a.1 provide for the location of transit stops that minimize access time, facilitate
intermodal transfers, and promote reasonably direct, accessible, convenient and safe
connections to residential uses and major activity centers?
Yes No
~
Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Pro~ram" in order to be
found in compliance with the Con~estion Mana;ement Pro~am.
~~ ~_ . j~~~.
~
3aZ provide for transit stops that have shelters or benches, trash receptacles, street
trees or other street furniture that promote transit use?
Yes No
3a.3 that includes a process for including transit operators in development review?
Yes No
3a.4 provide for directional signage for transit stations and/or stops?
Yes No
3a.5 that include specifications for pavement width, bus pads or pavement structure,
len~h of bus stops, and turning radii that accommodates bus transit?
Yes No
3.b How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies?. Please identify.
Zoning ordinance
Design Review
Standard Conditions of Approval
Capital Improvement Program
Specific Plan
Other
Carpools and Vanpools
Goal: To develop and implement design strategies that reduce the overall number of vehicle trips
and foster carpool and vanpool use.
Local Responsibilities:
4a. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or adopted
policies that include the following:
4a.1 For publicly owned parking garages or lots, are there preferential parking spaces
and/or charges for carpools or vanpools?
Yes No
4a.2 that provide for convenient or preferential parking for carpools and vanpools in non-
residential developments?
Yes No
Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Pro~ram" in order to be
found in compliance with the Congestion Management Program.
~~ ~ ~~~ ~
4.b How does yaur jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify.
Zoning ordinance
Design Review
Standard Conditions of Approval
Capital Improvement Program
Specific Plan
Other
Park and Ride
Goal: To develop design strategies that reduce the overall number of vehicle trips and provide
park and ride lots at strategic locations.
Local Responsibilities:
Sa. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or adopted
policies that include the following:
Sa.l promote park and ride lots that are located near freeways or major transit hubs?
Yes No
Sa.2 a process that provides input to Caltrans to insure HOV by-pass at metered freeway
ramps?
Yes No
Sb. How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify.
Zoning ordinance
Design Review
Standard Conditions of Approval
Capital Improvement Program
Specific Plan
Other
~
~
Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Program" in order to be
found in compliance with the Congestion Management Program. ~,
~ ~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~.:~~
DUBLIN
SAN RAMON
SERVICES
DISTRICT
~`~MON SE,ppfc,
4`' , ~'
` s
,a ~~`~.~ ~ ~ / N u '
a
~o ~ ~
~P'~ _ . ~:
. ~: y;
. , ~,.,~tp ~ ~ ! ~i,,,, .
~ s~-- ~.~.,, E_r~ .
~~=.~
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, Califomia 94568
Phone: 925 828 0515
FAX: 925 829 1180
www.dsrsd.com
June 16, 2008
Erica Fraser, Project Planner
City of Dublin - Community Development Dept.
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Nielsen Development Project (PA 07-057) - Initial Study
Comments on Scope and Content of SEIR
Dear Ms. Fraser:
~'i~ ~'-~ ,, a
~.~~~d~~~
`JU'~ ~ 8 2008
~1'',.~~~..~91? t~s ~ni1~9'd9~C:i
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the document mentioned above. Dublin San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD) has reviewed the Initial Study for the Nielsen Development
Project (PA 07-057) and has the following comments:
Potable Water Service
The proposed project is within the current DSRSD Sphere of Influence and is included in the
current DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan and Water Master Plan Update. DSRSD and the
project developer have met and have entered into a Public Facilities Planning Agreement (PFPA)
in order to determine and document DSRSD's ability to provide potable and recycled water
service to this project. DSRSD is currently working on a water service analysis to determine
how potable water service will be provided to the proposed development. The project as
outlined in the Initial Study will entail a land use different from that in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and will create a higher demand for potable water than originally planned.
Once the determination has been made that DSRSD has sufficient water facilities capacity and
supply to serve the proposed project, construction of pipelines and related appurtenances needed
to serve the project area will be required. The planned configuration of the Zone 2 water
facilities in eastern Dublin along Tassajara Road has changed from what was specified in the
2005 Water Master Plan Update. Therefore, extension of potable water service to the proposed
development along Tassajara Road is not considered to be major infrastructure and shall be
completed by the developer at his cost.
Dublin San Ramon Services Dishict is a Public Entlty
~
~~'~~ ~75$ ti
Erica Fraser
June 16, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Recvcled Water Service
As specified in the 2005 DSRSD Water Master Plan Upclate, extension of recycled water service
to the proposed development along Tassajara Road is not considered to be major infrastructure
and shall be completed by the developer at his cost.
Wastewater Treatment
Similarly, the project is within the current DSRSD Sphere of Influence for wastewater services
and is included in the current DSRSD Waste~ater Collection System Master Plan Update.
DSRSD and the project developer have met and signed a PFPA in order to determine and
document DSRSD's ability to provide wastewater collection processing service to this project.
The project as outlined in the Initial Study will entail a land use different from that in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and will create a higher demand for wastewater services than originally
planned.
Once the determination has been made that DSRSD has a sufficient amount of sewer treatment
capacity to serve the proposed project, construction of pipelines and related appurtenances
needed to serve the project area will be required. The current DSRSD Wastewater Collection
System Master Plan update does not specify the extension of required sewer mains along
Tassajara Road as reimbursable major infrastructure. Extension of these services shall be
completed by the developer in accordance with all DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications
and Drawings for Design and Installation of Wastewater Facilities", all applicable DSRSD
Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this Initial Study. If you have any questions regarding
these comments, please contact me at (925) 875-2253.
Sincerely,
1
7
STAN KO DZIE
Associate Engineer
SK:es
cc: David Requa, DSRSD
Rhodora Biagtan, DSRSD
~
~,
H:~ENGDEPIICEQA~Nielum Prope~ty - Iaitial Study - Co~ents on Swpe and Content of SEIR - OCr04-08.doc ~
Chmn/File: 28PF08 Nielsen Pmperty Redevelopmrnt ~~~
~~~ RESp~~ ~ ~~ ~~15
~ZON ~~~
a ~ ALAMEDA COUNTY
d FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY, LIVERMORE, CA 94551-9486 ,
~
PHONE (925) 454-5000
~NqGEM~`~ Ju.ne 2S, 2008
Ms. Erica Fraser ~E ;~8~EI~
City of Dublin ~1 U N~ 6 2008
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza ~'".9E~Ll~1;~L~~~1~~
Dublin, Ca. 94568
Subject: Notice of Preparation for a DSEIR for the Neilson Development Project
Dear Ms. Fraser:
Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA document in the context of Zone 7's mission to
provide drinl~ing water, non-potable water for a
groundwater and stream management within th eL~~e m~re Amado~alley d We have n~ and
following comments for your consideration. ~e
1. On page 49, the first sentence of the first paragraph under Environmental Setting, should
read "...drains to the San Francisco Bay via the Arroyo M_ p~d ~.oyo de la
Laguna... ~~
2. On the same page, the last sentence of the second paragraph under Environmental Settin
should read "Zone 7 owns and maintains approximately 37 miles of regional storm g
drainage facilities..."
3. On page 51, with regards to items C and D, Zone 7 requests to review the hydrology
modeling prior to acceptance.
4. The project is subject to Zone 7's Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 Drainage Fees for
the creation of new impervious areas per Ala.meda County Flood Control & Water
Conservation District Ordinance 0-2002-24.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 925-454-5036 or via e-
mail at mlim(a~zone7water com.
Sincerely,
Mary Lim
Environmental Services Program Manager
Cc: Karla Nemeth, 7oe Seto, Jeff Tang
~~~ ~ ~758~
~
Appendix 8.4
Dublin City Council Resolution No. 53-93
(1993 Eastern Dublin EIR)
Neilsen ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin Page 148
PA #07-057 January 2009