HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 DubRchWest Attch 8b
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix 8.2
Notice of Preparation
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 151
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
Website: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
To:
Distribution List (see attached)
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
February 14, 2003
Subject
Date:
RECEIVED
FES f 4 2::3
Lead Agency: City of Dublin
Ikvdopment Services ûpartment
100 Civic Plaza DUBLIN
Dublin C4 94568 POLICË SËRViC2S
Contact: Eddie Peabody Jr., AlCP, planningDepartment, (925) 833 6610
The City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and hereby invites comments on the proposed scope and content
of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below, Your agency may need to
use the EIRprepared by the Lead Agency when considering follow-on permits or other approvals for this
project.
_ Project Title: Wallis Ranch Reorganization and Development (P A 02-028).
Project Location: Generally bounded by the Alameda/Contra Costa line to the north, Camp Parks Reserves
Forces Training Area to the west, Tassajara Road to the east and the existing Dublin City limit line to the
south.
Project Description; A Reorganization to aDllex the Wallis Ranch, Sperfslage, and Bragg to the City of
- Dublin mid Dublin San Ramon Services District, totaling approximately 188 acres of land. The proposed
requested entitl=ents include an amendment to the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan and
prezoning of the site to Planned Development (PD).
The attached Initial Study identifies potential environmental effects anticipated to be discussed m a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR).
Due to time limits mandated by State law, your response must be remmed at the earliest possible time but
not later than 30 days following receipt of this notice. Please send your response to the contact person
identified above.
SIGNATURE; ~- _
TITLE; f\a........·j ~..d '0'"
TELEPHONE; q"l..<;,-~¡3· Cø\olO
- -
"'blin Únüied School District
~bn Sugiyama
~:;'I LarkdaJe Avenue
.~lin, CA 94568
&1ameda County
_lanning Department Room 136
399 Elmhurst .
faywaro, CA 94544
e· rt Land Use Commission
hil Sâwrey-Kubicek -
99 ElmhlIl'St, Room 136
Hayward, CA 94544
I
_aciñc'Bell .
arshad Arfaa
410 Camino Ralnon RIll. 350Q
San Ramon, CA 94583
1
BAAQMD
þvironmental Review Division
.39 EllisSt.. .
San Franeisco CA 94 109
I City of Pleasanton
PlaMing Departmen1
1200 Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
I BART
Mary Ann Payne
P.O. Box 12688
I Oakland, CA 94604~2688
I California Pept.. ofFish & Game
Attn: Region 3-0fft. Powell
P.O. Box 47
I Yountvill, CA 94599
Martin W 1nderbitMI
17077 Koll Center Parkway #120
Pleasanton, CA 94566
I
I
r:2000:0CJ-.025:DIJlS1'RJBUTION 00·025
LÂVTA
Vic Sood
1362 Rutan Ct., Suite 100
Livennore, CA 94550
Alameda County Surplus Property
Pat Cashman
224 West Winton, Room 151
Hayward, CA 94544
Alameda Cowny Congestion Mg¡nt
Agency
Jean Hart
1333 Broadway, Suite 220
Ollkland, CA 94612
US Parks Reserve Forces Training
Area-Camp Parks
Ann: Cotnmander
LCC Parks, RFT A Bldg. 790
Dublin, CA 94568-5201
AT&T Cable
Tom Baker
2333 Nissen
Liv=ore, CA 94550
City ofLivermore·P!al1ning Dept..
Ann: Marc Roberts
1 052 South Livennore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
LA VWMA
623 W. Myrick Court
Clayton, CA 94517-1648
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ann: State Supervisor
2800 Cottage Wu;y, Room E1823
Sacramento, CA 94825
Citizens for Balanced Growth, P ARC-
Attn: Stuart Flashman
5626 Ocean View Dr.
Oakland, CA 94618
Zone 7 ACFC & WCD
Jim Horen
5997 Parkside Drive
Pleasamon, CA 94566
Alameda County
399 E1n1.1>umt
Hayward, CA 94544
Public Works Department RIll. 111
East Bay Regional Park District
2950 Peralta Oaks Court
Oakland, CA 94605
Brad Olson
PG&E
Sam Crawford
998 MUIrieta Blvei
Livermore, CA 94550
U.S. Postal Service
postmaster
4300 Black Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566-9998
CalTrans District 4 CEQA
Coord. & Project Development
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623 -0660
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
21 1 Main Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1905
Attn: Reguiatory Branch
LAFCO
Lou Ann Texeria
1221 Oak St.. Rm. 555
Oakland, CA 94612
Richard Ambrose, City Manager
Carole PeIT)'
Administrative Services Director
Ed Lsudarri
Dublin Fire Preve¡¡tion
Meyers, Nave, Riback, et. aI
Attn; Kit Faubion
777 Davis Street, Suite 300
San Leandro, CA 94577
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Attn: Dave Behrens
7051 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin, CA 9456S
Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
10 1 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
<\..:2000:00-025:DIRS'l'RIJ:IUTJON OM2S
Captain Gary Thuman
Police Services
Eddie Peabody Jr. "'
ColWIlunity Development Director
Elizabeth SHver, City Attomey
DianeLowan
Parks & Community Services Dir.
SF Bay Regional WQCB
1515 Clay Street Suite 1400
Oakland CA 94612
Lee Thompson
Public Works Director
Livennore-Duhlin Disposal Service
6175 So. Front Road '
Livennore, CA 94550
Association of Bay Area Governments
POBox 2050
Oaldand, CA 94604-2050
~ Office of Planning & Research
Attn: Terry Roberts
1400 Tenth Street
POBox 3044
Sacramento, CA 958;2-3044
Alameda County Mosquito Abatement
Dist.
At1:n: Jolm R Rusrnisel
23 ¡ 97 Connecticut $t
Hayward, CA 94545
City of San Ramon
Planning Department
P.O. Box 5]48
Phil Wong, Planning Director
Contra Costa County
Planning Department
65 ¡ Pine Street, 4th floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Dennis BBII)', Director
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix 8.3
Responses to Notice of Preparation
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of DUblin
Page 152
November 2004
I .
I @
11.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~:
I
I
I
I
~ç"'~
i* 1!;
\.~~!
""',,~
Ta] Finney
Interim Director
S TAT E OF CALI FOR N I A
Governor's
Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
GrayD.a.vis
Governor
Notice of Preparation
FebnJary 18. 2003
To:
Reviewing Agencies
Re:
Waliis Ranch Reorganization and Development (P A 02-028)
SCH# 2003022082
Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Wallis Ranch Reorganization and
Development (P A 02-028) draft Environmental iß1pact Report (EIR)_
Responsible agencies mU$t transmit their conunents on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific
infonnation related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 davs ofreceiot of the NOP from the Lead A"encv_
This is a courtesy notice provided by the State ClearinghOU$e with a reminder for you to comment in a timely
manner . We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the
environmental review process. .
Please direct your comments to:
Eddie Peabody Jr.
City of Dublin
Development Services Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in Ibe Office of PlanniDg and Research. Please refer to the SCH number
noted above in all correspondence concerning this project.
If you have any questions about the envirorunental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at
(916) 445·0613_
- P . P Crimmins
Project Analyst, State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc; Lead Agency
'RECE'VED
q::B 2 1 2.003
èJUBLlN PLANNING
/
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
(916)445-0õI3 fAX(91õ)323·301S www_opr.<a.gov
,~..
95812-3044·
Lead Agency Contact
Name Eddie Peabody Jr.
Agency City of Dublin
Phone 925 833-6610
email
Address
Project Location
County Alameda, Contra Costa
CIty
Region
Cross streets Tassajara Road
Parcei No.
Township Range
SCH#
Projecf TItle
Lead Agency
Type
Descri¡rtion
Proximity to:
Higtrwlrys
Airports
Railways
WatetwaJlS
Schools
Land Use
Projecf iS$ues
Reviewing
Agenoies
- Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2003022082
Wallis Ranch Reorgani""tion and Development (PA 02-028)
Dublin, City of
NOP Notice of Preparation
A Reorganization to annex the Wallis Ranch, Sperfslage, and Bragg to the City- of Dublin and Dublin
San Ramon Services District. totaling approximately' 88 acres of land. The proposed requested
entitlements include an amendment to the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan and
prezonlng of the site to Planned Development (PD).
Fax
City
Development Services Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin
State CA Zip - 94568
Section Base
Medium High Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Sperfslage Property
Medium Density Residential
\
Open Space .
, .
Agricultural Land; Air Quafrty; Biological Resources; Landuse; Population/Housing Balance; PubUc
Servicea; RøcreatiorvPar!<s; Tralfic/Circ:ulatlon
Røsourœs Agency; Døpartment of Conservation; Døpanment of Parks and Recreation; Døpaltment of
Water Ræourr:es; Department of FISh and Gamø, Region 3; Native American Heritage Commission;
Slatø Lands Commission; Callr.lOs, District 4; Callrans, Division of Aeronautics; Caltlomia Highway
Patrol; Regional WrIWr Quality Control Board, Region 2 .
Date Received 0211812003
Slart of Review 02/1812003
End of Review 0311912003
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
I
Q
I
I
I
-¡;
'2 ,¡;. ~ 'È1 e E
~ 0
1;! <.1 'E E §: ¡¡;-
0 ~ 0 -" -~ ã
<.1 ~ 0 " ü " 51'! "" l
~ " ,¡;. <.1 " 'Ë " € §: -§,Ô 1e.0
-¡; ~ J!1 " ~ " l ~E
ª .. ~ ~
>: -¡; .. -" :::. ~ 15 a:o " U g" §:
~ '" "'E -¡¡; a:£ .;;
" 6 0 ¡;o; .0" " E § ,..", g
" 0 :::> ,,£I ", '5> ]' o::~e ¡a
~~ffi "<.1 c '" %1 u.~i! " §
Æ ~ .EiD "'", 0 ¡¡¡¡¡> " '" æ a: ã ~!:l::~ '" c
. " ;¡ æ .!!!10 ",111 ~~~ 'Eo ~
E:::>o: ~ " ~i:C ~a: m § m -"a: ", ",>c> -", "'c'" ¡;; "
~ iB: ~~ ~o ~ ",Æ = '" '" ,,= "
E" ~ m ...¡¡;j (,JmD tJe.E <.1-~ . a:
J!! .5 ":£ Õ S ,,- t-E "":1 _::I:¡ ~ 15 6-rs ...0 ",111 ""'~ ",a: Cleo ,..íi: :~ ..0
.. m ..,0 3:3: ="0 ",q~ ",<.1 mi& III> ~~:¡¡ mr:: ~,g~ ",0 ",ar
;;",,-g~§ 3:"C ;f§ -t- g¡""
~¡§ u ~u ghu. <.1- <.1-,," g:§ ðü: <.1'" <.1 '" j$ ,-,'0 g", ,,-
4I1.."'D~:i. .! 1.0 G:I ]å -¡¡;CI:: 0-'" ,,]¡ O'-morJ:: ,,~ a!!! ,,"
E~.3æ~ mca,:¡¡:~ %w c: ~.5t o:!8ii i!1ð 0: " '" ~ðO 0 i!150 ~ð õ:~ ~!
¡¡;,¡s~i5 .2'E .. 0 c::~.9
ØI::rHDUP e" 00:': a: U..H..Hf.! "'''
0 0 0 '="m CJ III CJ 0 CJ 0 CJ 0 0
&Æ
I
UJ
I
I
I
'E ."
m ro
o 5
In"
t tE
~E
"';::¡
C .go:
~ ~i
r ,,<.:>
o
I
I
I
I
13
c
o
I~
E
UI
I~
o
z
1;!
" "
E ~
Q. '"
0 "
1 m
"
= ,.. .. c: e
~ .,.. - " .t
" c " " ~
'" £I .!! is " '13
'" -'i ;¡ -¡; 0
0 "
" " " " '" "
0 0 ·0 "" E 0
Q. Q. ~ E ð ~~
" '," " 0- ~
" c " c: <.11=
E '" m E-" m is,,
t- ~ '" t:~T""" I- g-C"Ii ~ IIð ~~ ~
E ' "
~ ; 'E ~~ ~ w~ "'00 '" @:I:
.--" "0'tJ " .5 '>. t= ~f
ë.E~· -u.", "'""''''' " ØJ~iii
tæ.!! Q...o 1ñ' '" h~
" c_ ~gi5
CI-CJ" "IIIe c: "'<.1 ""
.¡;;
0 0 :;¡ 0 !!II
i:C
i "
0
~ 'i
g> z ~
" E "
'2 "'- !
" E
c H
m 8 c
¡¡: ij
"<' ~;:¡¡. m ;:¡¡
.e
6<>' ~i 'i$", -ª ~Iii
-art:;3;: '¡;S ~!ii.§
m t- "
"'-;;E ~w ~.g
" ~ m "a: <>.", = :.w
0"'" æii 0.0
.o"c :¡¡ij ë§'5
0"'''' o~ m '"
t-<t-' "e .,,,<>.
0 CJ 0 0
Ë!
m
~
"
c
m
.c:
'"
¡¡:
c
°
"
'"
i5
i ~
" "
.. '"
'Ii ~
i!:-g;:¡
Õ.EE
¡¡;"
~~~
..E"
,,"'W
-
"
E
..
"
..
i.¡¡
I!: 0
_:.<~
~" .§
ë. '! i'
.!J8a:
N
i
t!>
..
-"~
.!1'2
u."
~",N
~~15
~¡¡¡!
,,<01>:
...
"
E
m
t!>
.."
'<:'¡;;
" "
¡::~
-II.'"
o '" ~
...:; m.9
g--S g'
g",'"
o
o
o _
...
"
5
....,
,,=
..5
","
,,"
~.3..
o E "
",,,0
....",
"'- "
,,0:0:
o
~ .. ... ... '" .. ,.. oo ..
is c c 0 " š 0 c ~
0 .e 0 .e 0 .e
'" ~ ~ ~ 'Ii '" :¡¡ 'Ii
..- " m
" " ." .,,- " ."
0 8- , 8. 0 0 01 a 0
Ii .. Q. liE Q. Q.~
i~ ~ c !J .. Ii" .. " .
" . . !f 0" ¡¡III o . c."
f!o ~~ e E .. ~~ E"
t-" ,::" t-" ~~'" ~.....; t-m
- i'~ 'Er' õ~~ -:is''' õ~'" _ "r-- ~""" ~c '"
°W:i "'15 0.._ ",,,'tJ -,'~ ~ ~.p ot!>'tJ 0'" Õ
i.,1J~ iã~ -s.a..~ .;"'''' "''''''' .;.!1 ""
Q.E'" <>.'5'" ..- ë.1D~ g,,'!: "t; ti'ò ;;
Æ:ië !~~ ~F5 .!,,;; .."... .!ã5C5 g.li- 15
cci5 ciS· ",;:¡¡c -'C "CJ
0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0
ë
l
'"
;
.c "
m"i!
:; ;;>..
mIL'"
e,,'õ
.g~d)
--,£
'i..,=
u-,O
.. 0
'I> 0
e ¡
0.. S ~
0. -
.."E
00"
Ei\:E:
t- c;, ,
'13m:!!
.;:I:]¡
%E"
ca:<.1
.. 0
c:
.1<
-¡¡¡
'"
o
'"
o
15
"' 1
Ë §
.. <.1
" !
.....",
.cD"
.!!!~:¡:
11.." .
~!~E
.;oo.s¡!t
g.§~Ë
eCI>:I'.
o
§
'fi
.. m
~ <JJ
1 I
f! ~
?1 i:i:E
(;î~
'E"'~
.;¡e
..'" "
"0"
ca:w
o
ã
= 1
e ~
. 8
:1112
.c13~
~1i'I:I:
¡¡: CJ .
.... iii (C E.
~Jii ¡;;; I!
'a..J5~15'
uæö:
o
..
'Ü
"E %¡,.
m ... CD
= <>. E
!·l~
g ~~
~o
:æ
~
t
0.. {j
Ii t!
~';:¡
~~ !!';;
eš "D~
¡.- '" .5:!
o 0
.!
..
~
~'E
-6
g>=
"'ëi: .....
_.. c-
"q
'ë ~"
~mO
= Iii "
~:E5~
o
ê
o
¡¡¡
!!l
E
E
o
ü
~
..
E
E
8..
¡;;~
h
.."
Ë~
,gE
n
o .
'2 Ë
~ J
ë :æ
" 0:
Ii 0
.. "",
== "E~
~ .. <.1
.¡ ,ªc
;!: w"
IÞ'"E: m..!2
-"j~
.!" -
wECCP
o
.
'"
..
'ë
.
'"
c
11
i
~ ~
~E:!!
'" E.o
.. 0"
zoP
!<. j
~ c
a .. ~ ..
S '" ~ .. ;;
E m ~
~ " I!! .. c '"
0 ¡¡; "E .e L ~
" ~
¡; .. 'iii .. " !:¡ " 'i
-¡¡; £ i:\' f " '" 0 " ~ ~ I!! ð
0 c 8' ;; e' "1j!1i5 0 a: "
" ~ õ " '"
C !fa :; .. a m.... ¡;¡ Ht III .. . E š.¥'= ~ ªþ
" m 0,,11. C .. :.=s 6 æ c E " ,g " -
.& o ~ <.1 0 . ot- 0;:; ~ "'~ 8g~ .. c õ:~m
<t "'~ 1:I"ii~ :1:" :¡::Ë o:~"
" " "'" 11."-,, 'iiiê . " '" .. ::
2<.:> 'E'~ r= -" ~" ~" ;!:¡ 3:
'" '\;]& o¡:", '13 et!>
" ,,- .m E~ .':~ B II) tI) Õi~5 ii'" "'''' " d) ",,,0
~ Ii " '" " .... 0 e~ "" -" .
d 'a.- -E" 0." "-0" c:e" c..Z> -a .ü E .'"> "> - ¡¡-'a.
is ~JJ -¡Q~ "0 Æõ:=1 - " ell . G ~ U ~Q; .:æ "" ,¡::¡ :¡¡ 0: "
<.1,-,w ",a: O<>.:I: c to UH/J "''''''' ca: '" "
" . -¡¡;
" . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 II " 0
C<: ;¡:
."~ .
~"i~?¥
~ ~
oo ..
! ~!
~ ~ ë
.c Iii g, ';;
.æ~.E..!2
~~¿m
o >'c ¡
ï5.Hi!!
aI III tf D
C't-.C:::t.J
:¡¡
"
E
..
t!>
.. "
J: 0
"-'!J>
I!:-s.'"
-"a:
~'" II!
ë.¡¡';;
.!Jt-~
o
o
-
c:
'"
'0
C
'0
S
6
:;
ª
o
I ¡
="
~!
:is,,
" ..
<>.'"
o
.
"
'5-
'"
=
D
¡¡ ~
:Š ."
.. ¡¡
,,~'O
;:~D
"'..0
<O:J:"-
.."''¡;
." §: .
8.æ"ª
u.",ð
D·
-
!
..
i
8
i..
...i!:
-'Oõ
;H'
.,,,,
g>
'2
"
m
¡¡:
-
o "
~ ~
" '"
.e]í
.... "
~ g¡u
" "'.!1
1; '" '"
~~tE
~
"
"
¡¡;
o
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
/¡~
Lead Agency: CityofDubljI! L-C·E)VI2D
Developme¡¡t$erric(:$ Department FEB 1 0'
100 Civic Plaza S747'1: 0 Z003 I
Dublin C4 94568 CL~4AÎI\¡G H
Contact: Eddie Peabody Jr., AJcp, Planning Department, (925) 833 6610 oUSë I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2003022082
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic PI6Za. Dublin, Califomia 94568
Website; http;flwww.ci_dublin.c8.us
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
To; -
Distribution List (see attached)
Subject:
Date;
February 14, 2003
The City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and œreby invites comments on the proposed scope and content
of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. Your agency may need to
use the EIR .prepared by the Lead Agency when considering follow-on permits or other approvals for this
project.
- Project Title: Wallis Ranch Reorganization and Development (P A 02-028).
Project Location; Generally bounded by the Alameda/Contra Costa line to the north, Camp Parks Reserves
Forces Training Area to the west, Tassajara Road to the east and the existÎJlg Dublin City limit line t.;fue
south.
Project Description: A Reorganization to annex the Wallis Ranch, Sperfslage, and Bragg to the City of
Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services Dístrict, totalil'!g approximately 188 acres of land. The proposed
requested entitlements mc1ude an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan and
prezoning of the site to Planned Development (PD).
The attached Initial Study identifies potential environmental effects anticipated to be discussed in a
Suppl=ental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR).
Due to time limits mandated by State law, your response must be returned at the earliest possible time but
not later than 30 days followmg receipt of this notice. Please send your response to the contact person
identified above.
~~
f\a........"'j n-.. - ·~tf..
'1.2..," -1';; ~ . tø'- L()
SIGNATURE;
TITLE:
TELEPHONE;
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EAST BAY REGIONAL
PARK DISTRICT
.:::>---
RECEIVED
MAR 1 ~ zùl,)3
. guÐUN PLANIIIING
March 18, 2003
Eddie Peabody Jr., AlCP
City of Dublin
Planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Via Fax and US Postal Service
RE: Tassajara Creek Regional Trail- Wallis Ranch Reorg81Û1lltion and
Development(p A 02-028) Notice of Preparation of Draft Supplemental
Envíronmental Impact Report
~e.-
Dear ~dY;
'f1¡¡¡J)k you fur providing the East Bay Regional Park District ("District'') with a
copy of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (SEIR) for the Wallis Ranch proposed project. As a responsible
agency under the State CEQA Guidelines, the District is providing this response
to the Notice of Preparation. The proposed project is described as including a
General Plan amenciJnent, Specific Plan amendment, annexation, and prezonÎng.
The proposed project has potential for environmental impacts reJated to the
Tassajara Creek Regional Trail. Development of the regional trail might need to
rely upon the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. The potential
enviromnenial impacts, and a reasonáble alternative ~1ig"mf'!1)t oftbe regional
trail, should be discussed in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
Tassaiara Creek Re2ional Trail
As part of the implementation of the District's adopted Ma5ter Plan 1997, the
District seeks to develop the Tassajara Creek Reglonal Trail from Dublin Blvd.,
through the proposed project, continuing northward and eventually coIJDecting to
Mt. Diablo State Park. The District controls (through a combination of ownership
and easements) the Tassajara Creek. Regional Trail corridor, which is located
immediately adjacent to the proposed project area. Currently, this corridor is 22.8
acres in size with m;"im81 facilities, consisting of a picnic table, restrooms, and
bridge over Tassajara Creek. The regional trail corridor includes lands on Parks
Reserve Forces Training Center (Camp Parks) which is adjacent to the proposed
project.
Overall environmental issues
-
..
2950 Peralt. OaKS Court P_O_ Box 5381 Oakland, CA 94605·0381
T" 510635-0135 FA> 510 569-4319 700 510633-0460 www.ebparks_org
BOARD Of Dll1eC'I'ORS
Ted Ratjk~
President
Wi.rd7
Doug SiQi;Jn
Vie.-Presiden!
Wtltdil
J6i!n SÚi
Trea.!!urer
W,ard 1
B!'Ierly Lêlne
S8efetary
WSIdS
C~rol S~vefjn
WBrd3
John Surfer
Wald 2
Ayn Wi~5kêlmp
WtI,td5
pa.t O'8rien
GenE!tal Manal; tr
~
~
.,
,
~
~
I
,
8
"
.~
~
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The three (3) most significant environmental issues of the proposed project for the
District are:
1) the loss of open space Jands available for the regional trail corridor;
2) the proposed expansion of residential development on the ridge1ands over
looking the regional trail corridor; and
3) without provision in the proposed project for a reasonable alternative
alignment for the regional trail, and with the potential conflicts with
resource protection policies of the regulatory authorities (Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department ofFish and Game), the proposed project
effectively precludes the completion of this segment of the regional trail.
Detailed environmental issues
Initial Studv. Section IX Land Use and PlAnning
The proposed project would appear to be in conflict with the East Bay Regional
Park District Master Plan 1997. The Master Plan includes the development of the
Tassajara Creek Regional Trail from Dublin Blvd. to Mt. Diablo State Park. The
Master Plan allows some flexibility in the specific alignment so that there can be a
balance between conserving resources ai1d providing recreational uses. The
proposed project seems to lack a reasonable alternative alignment fur the regional
trail.
The proposed project would appear to be in conflict with the Dublin General Plan
and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
The proposed project seems to be inconsistent with the Dublin General Plan Land
Use Element, Open Space Element, and open space action program which provide
for a significantly larger amount of open space land that would be available for
the regional trail corridor. The proposed project would provide a narrow corridor
for the regional trail.
The proposed project seems to be inconsistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan land use policies for the Foothill Residential subarea. The intent is to
preserve the ridgelands and higher elevations within the subarea as open space.
The proposed project would enlarge the amount and area of residential
development on the ridgelamis over looking a much reduced regional trail
corridor.
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The proposed project seems to be inconsistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan traffic and circulation policies, ¡rod resource matlBgement policies. The
policies call for a north-south trail generally along Tassajara Creek, connecting
with areas both north and south as part of a larger regional trail network. The
regional trail is supposed to be balanced with resource protection in the open
space network in coIlS\Ùtation with the regulatory agencies. To the extent that a
regional trail corridor along Tassajara Creek might conflict With resource
protection policies of the regulatory authorities, an alternati",e alignment would be
through the open space corridor on the ridgelands and higher elevations. The
proposed prOject would seem to result in either 1) a regional trail corridor
alignment potentially in conflict with resource protection policies of the
regulatory authorities (Fish ¡rod Wildlife Service, Department ofFish ¡rod Game),
or 2) allow an alternative alignment within an open space corridor much narrower
than the General Plan and Specific Plan provide for. The net effect might be to
preclude the completion of this segment of the regional trail.
Initial Study. Other Sections
The SEIR should also discuss the other potentially significant issues that were
identified in the Initial Study.
Alternative
The SEIR should explore a reasonable ahernative with a regional trail corridor on
an alignment on the ridge1ands ¡rod higher elevations that are within an open
space area as large or larger than that identified in the General Plan ¡rod Specific
Plan. Perhaps some of the residential density proposed on the open space area
could be transferred to areas designated in the General Plan and Specific Plan for
residential development.
Please call IDe at 510/544-2621 if you would like to discuss this further. Steve
Fiala, Trails Development Program Manager, and Brad Olson, Environmental
Program Manager, are also available to further discuss this item.
L
Interagency pt"nning Manager
3
AC.....1IOft
......
PaIiBm:Pias
Ala.... Couaty
-
..,"""
.""-
CIIy Of_.
-
-..-
CIIy Of AIb..,
""'"
--
BART
lb-
O_
...-
CIty Of B....'oy
"""""""""'
t(ri:;::;WOMn¡¡too
CIty of Dlblln
~
-~""
CIIy Of EmIty<IIIIe
""""""'"'
~J'ilL'riMs
Cllyol_
-,
""-
CIty 01 Haywant
...",
-..-,
CIty Of live......
""""""""
'00"'.""
CIty Of_
""-
""-
CIty Of 0.......
"""""""',
""'''''
C., 01 __II
""".......
J"",,",
CIIy of _lien
-
"""
TQmPto
City .. SIn Leandro
.......
-y"""
CIIy Of Union I:/IJ
""',
'""'-
ExeGutJve DinctJ,r
~A,Fa~
ÄLÞMEDA COUN1Y
CONGES1l0N rv1ÄNAGEMENT AGENCY
1333 SROAOWAY, SUrTE 220' OAKLANO, CA94612' PHONE (510) 836"2560' FAA: (510) 836-2165
E-MAll..:mail@accma.ca.gov.WEBSlTE:!ccma.ca.gov
Mr. Eddie Peabody
Planning Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
SUBmCT; Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Suppl=ental
Environmental hnpact Report and General Plan Amendment for the
Wallis Ranch Reorganization and Development in the City of Dublin (P A
02-028)
Dear Mr. Peabody:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Dublin's General Plan
Amendment (GPA) for Dublin Ranch West/Wallis Ranch. The project would consist of
changing the laBd use designations for approximately 188 acres of land. The land use
cbangesproposëd'inchide' redesignating approximately 9_9 acres of neighborhood park,
neighborhood square and neighborhood commercial development to Open Space,
converting an elementary school to Medium-High Density Residential and other minor
changes. Overall there would 1;>e a pontential increase of up to 277 dwelling units, a
decrease of 10,454 square feet of neighborhood commercial, deletion of an elementary
school, and an increase of 9.9 acres of Open Space_ The project is bounded by the
Alameda/Contra Costa line to the north, Camp Parks Reserves forces Training Area to
the west, Tassajara Road to the east, and the Dublin City limit line to the south.
Based on our review of the GP A and conversations with sta.ff; the ACCMA has no
comment because the project does not appear to meet the Tier I requirements; therefore,
it is exempt from the Land Use Analysis Program of the CMP.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to conunent on tills NOP!GP A. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at 510/836-2560 ext_ 13 if you require additional information_
Sincerely,
tJJL {jJ<Lvt~
Beth Walukas RECEIVED.
Senior Transportation Planne~;1AR 0 ~ 2003
cc: Chron PJUBLIN PLANNING
Jeri Ram, City of Dublin
fiJe; CMP - Environmental Review Opinions - Responses - 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1'0
linston H. illokox
Se.cretary for
Environment111
I Protection
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region
Internet Address: http://www_swrcb.ca.gQv
1515 Clay Strec:t, Suite 14001 Oakland. California. 94612
Phone (510) 622·2200 - FAX (510) 622·2460
Gray Davis
GovernDr'
Date; !FEB Z 4 2003
File No. 2198.09 (BKW)
Eddie Peabody, Jr.
City of Dublin
Development Services Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
ReI
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report,
Wallis Ranch Reorganization and Development (pA 02-028)
Dear Mr. Peabody;
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) staff have reviewed the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR),
Wallis Ranch ReorganÍ$ation and Dwelopment (PA 02-028) (project). The DSEm.
evaluates the potential environmental impacts that might reasonably be anticipated to result
from the proposed Project, which includes a reorgarrization to annex the Wallis Ranch,
Sperfslage, and Bragg to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. The
Project area consists of about 188 acres ofland in an unincorporated area of Alameda
County. The DSEm. is being prepared because conditions related to agricultural resources,
biological resources, noise, public services (schools), transportation and circulation and
utilities service systems may have changed since the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact
Report was prepared. The original Eastern Dublin Enviromnental Impact Report was
prepared in 1992 and was certified by the City of Dublin in 1993. Regional Board staff
have the following comments on the DSEm..
Comment 1
Initial Study, Section 8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Project Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, a) violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements,
page 40. Text in this section of the Initial Study refers to post-construction Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate for the impacts of the Project on stormwater
runoff quality and quantity. Since the original Em. for the Project was prepared in 1992,
- please verify that the proposed mitigation measures are still consistent with Alameda·
County's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for
stormwater discharges. Under the terms of the NPDES permit, post-construction best
management practices (BMPs) are to meet the maximum extant practicable (MEP)
definition of treatment specified in the Clean Water Act (CW A). Cities in Alameda
County are implementing the current NDPES permit for discharges of stoIn1water under
the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, Stormwater Management Plan (SMP)
(EOA, Inc., February 1997). New Development and Construction Goals are discussed in
I c ~ ReCelV@Ð:tion 7 of the SMP. These goals include the following;
,. t 8 2 6 2003
ïl'BlIN PLANNING
California Environmental Protection Agency
o &cycled poper
lfYcled Paper
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Peabody - 2 - Wallis Ranch Reorganiution NOP for DSEIR
· Incorporate stormwater quality controls into the planning and pennitting of new
development/significant redevelopment projects;
· Continue to promote implementation of the Regional Board Staff
Recommendations for New /2] d Redevelopment Controls for Stonnwater
Programs.
Tables 2 and 4 of the Regional Board Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment
Controls for Stonnwater Prpgrams state that residential and commercial projects with
greater than five acres of directly coupled impervious area are required to implement Tier 3
post-construction stormwater best management practices (BMPs). Tier 3 BMPs are
required to be treatment controls that are based on performance goals, including a
reduction by 80 percent of the annual total suspended solid loadings expected from the site
in its developed condition. Appropriate Tier 3 controls are specified as; wet ponds;
constructed wetlands; swales and vegetated filter strips; extended detention basins; and
sand filters.
The Alameda County NDPES pennit was re-issued on February 19, 2003. New
development and significant redevelopment Projects that are constructed after February of
2005 will be required to comply with the numeric standards for post-construction
stonnwater BMPs in the re-issued pennit. Treatment BMPs are to be constructed that
incorporate, at a minimum, the following hydraulic sizing design criteria to treat
stormwater runoff. As appropriate for eacb criterion, local rainfall data are to be used or
appropriately analyzed for the design of the BMPs.
Volume Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment BMPs whose primary mode of action
depends on volume capacity, such as detention/retention units or infiltration
structures, shall be designed to treat stormwater runoff equal to;
I. the maxiInized stormwater quality capture volwne for the area,
based on historical rainfall records, determined nsing the formula
and volume capture coefficients set forth in Urban Runoff Quality
Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/ ASCE Manual of
Practice No. 87, (1998), pages 175-178 (e.g., approximately the 85th
percentile 24-hour stonn runoff event); or
2. the volwne of annual runoff required to achieve 80 percent or more
capture, determined in accordance with the methodology set forth in
Appendix D of the California Stonnwater Best Management
Practices Handbook, (1993), using local rainfall data.
California Environmental Protection Agency
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Peabody
_ 3 - Wallis Ranch Reorganization NOP for DSElR
Flow Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment HMPs whose primary mode of action
depends on flow capacity, such as swales, sand filters, or wetlands, shall be sized to
treat;
1. 10% of the 50-year peak flow rate; or
2. the flow of runoff produced by a rain event equal to at least two
times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity for the applicable
area, based on historical records of hourly rainfall depths; or
3. the flow of runoff resulting from a rain event equal to at least 0.2
inches per hour intensity.
Regional Board staff strongly encourage the use of landscape-based stO!n1water treatment
measures, such as biofilters and vegetated swales, to manage runoff ITom the project sites.
Since landscape-based stO!n1water treatment measures require that some of the site surface
area be set aside for their construction, the proper sizing and plac=ent of these features
should be evaluated early in the design process to facilitate incorporation of the features
into the site lanœcaping. Regional Board staff discourage the use of inlet filter devices for
sto!n1water management. Filtration systems require a maintenance program that is
adequate to maintain the functional integrity of the systems and to ensure that improperly
maintained filtration devices do not themselves become sources of stO!n1water
,cont"rni"",,ts or fail to function. Regional Board staff have observed problems with the
use of inlet filter inserts, since these devices require high levels of maintenance and are
easily clogged by -leaves or other commonly occurring debris, rendering them ineffective.
Research conducted by the California Department of Transportation has demonstrated that
inlet filters can be clogged by a single stOIIIl event. The study foWld that these devices
required maintenance before and after storm events as small as 0.1 inch of rain. In
addition, trash, debris, and sediment in the catchment had a significant impact on the
ITequency of maintenance. Therefore, adequate maintenance of inlet filters to provide
MEP water quality treatment would be prohibitively expensive .and impractically time
consummg.
Regional Board staff recommend that the City refer to Start at the Source, a design
guidance manual for storm water quality protection, for a fuller _discussion of the selection
of stormwater management practices. This manual provides innovative procedures for
designing structures, parking lots, drainage systems, and landscaping to mitigate the
impacts of storrnwater runoff on receiving waters. This manual may be obtained ITom
most cities' planning departments, or by contacting the San Francisco Estuary Project
(510--622-2465).
CalifQrnia EnvirQnmental Protection Agency
&cled Paper
.~
w~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Peabody
- 4 - Wallis R3JJCh Reorganization NOP for DSEIR
Conunent2
Initial Study, Section 8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Project Impacts and Mitigation
Mell$ures, a) violate any water quality standard$ or waste discharge requirements,
page 40. The second complete paragraph on page 40 states that a Notice of Intent (NO!)
must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board prior to initiating
construction on sites that are 5 acres or larger. Please note that the threshold for submitting
an NO! drops to 1 acre of disturbed soil in March of 2003.
Conunent 3
Initial Study, Section 8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Project Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, d) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns or resul¡ in flooding, either on
or off the project site, page 41. The Environmental Setting description on page 39 notes
that there are intermittent unnamed streams and defined drainages in the Project area.
Please verify that the mitigation measures referenced on pages 40 and 41 note that these
unnamed streams and defined drainages are regulated as waters of the State by the
Regional Board and may also be regulated as waters of the United States by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps). Mitigation measures should note that discharges of fill to
waters of the United States (e.g., channel re-alignments, cham:tel culverting, construction of
outfallson the banks of channels, armoring of channel banks, etc.) must be authorized by
the issuance of a permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CW A).
Permits issued by the Corps under Section 404 of the CW A are not valid until they have
been certified by the Regional Board under Section 401 of the CW A. The mitigation
measures should also note that activities in areas that are outside of the jurisdiction of the
Corps (e:g., isolated wetlands, vernal pools, or stream banks above the ordinary high water
mark) are regulated by the Regionsl Board, under the authority of the Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act. Activities that lie outside of Corps jurisdiction may require the
issuance, or waiver, of waste discharge requirements from the Regional Board.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 622-5680 or bye-mail at
bkw@.rb2.swrcb.ca.l!ov.
Sincerely,
Brian Wines
Water Resources Control Engineer
SouthJEast Bay Section
cc State Clearinghouse, Attn; Katie Shulte Joung, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA
95812-3044
California Environmental Protection Agency
~led Paper
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cC- " ~'?<=ð
~\J1/ccJ.
~,,-f
City Manager's Office
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 14, 2003
J en :Ra.-m. Planning Manager - . ¡;¡(
Richard Ambrose, City Manager \I.JI~
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IM:P ACT REPORT - PROJECT WALLIS RANCH
REORGANIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT
I have had the opport:uDÎtyto review the Initial Study and would offer the following COTTtmpnts on
the Wallis Ranch Reorganization and Development;
1. P~e 4; I am concerned that the AppJiçant has elimin:Lted the neighborhood square and
approximately an additional 6.8 acres of neighborhood park land.
2. Pg,¡e 5; How soon would the City need to detenuine if it -wishes to preserve the old
schoolhouse?
3. Pa~ 5; The paragraph on the atyof Dublin's InclusionaryZoning Ordinance is not correct.
It indicates that the Applicant could satisfy-the required Inclusionaryunits bypaying in-lieu fees
only. As you know, the Applicant can pay fees in combination with bl'n"!iT1g 7.5% affordable
units as an option to building the entire 12.5% in affordable units.
4. Pg,g.e 33; The discussion ...cith respect to the historic stru.ctures indicated that William self and
AssociateS did an analysis of the str\Jct1lres that comprised the dairy complex.. No reference is
made as to whether or not the Consultant looked closely at the old schoolhouse. Has that
evaluation been conducted?
5. Page 46; The Fire Protection paragraph is not accttrate. It should say ~ire protection Services
for the project will be provided by the at}' of Dublin through a contract with AŒD.
6. P~e 49; The paragraph at the top of the page indicates that the proposed development on the
Lin property would reduce park acreage from 11.8 acres to 5.0 acres. This is correct; however,
no mention is made of elimiT10tÏng the 2.8 acre neighborhood square that is cUITently in the
. plan, which is proposed by the Applicarrt.
. This concludes my comments on the lDitial Study. If you would like fu.rt:her clarification, please
contact me.
RCA:fh
G,\!>.CA\2003 """"'" to ~1Ipr\J..l+D3 """...n;, prop-<ioc
March 10, 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-r,,*"-þ I
~
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITEO STATES ARMY GARRISON
PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA
700 FIF1H STREIIT
CUBUNt CALIFORNIA 94S6Ba..!201
FtEPLVïO
ATTENTION OF;
Mr. Eddy Peabody Jr., AICP
City of Dublin
Plmuring Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Peabody;
The FebIUllI)' 2003 Initial Study of the Wallis Ranch Reorganization and Development (IS) proposes
development of a site adjacent to Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA). The IS contams the
proposed scope and content of a supplement to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (DGP~EDSP EIR). The U.S. Army is required to traw units w the defense
of our nation and Parks RFT A plays an important role in that mission. Parks RFTA providcs
administrative facilities and approximately 2,000 acres of open grassland for year-round trallring.
Chapter 11 (noise) of the IS states that no further analysis is required for noise impacts from military
operations at Parks RFTA because the impact was identified as significant and unmitigatable in the DGP-
EDSP EIR.. The DGP-FDSP EIR states, however, that development in the Foothill Residential and
Tassajara Vî11age Center Planning Subareas (of which Wallis Ranch is part of) requires an acoustical .
stUdy (MM 3.10/4.0). The DGP-FDSP EIR states that the purpose of the study would be to identify all
potential noise-getÍ.erating operations and determine if future noise levels will exceed the acceptable
levels as defined by the City and Army. The DGP-FDSP EIR also recommends that mitigation measures
be developed from the results of the study. A number of training activities, including-artillery
bombardment simulations, tactical vehicle operations, field training exercises, and military helicopter
operations, may occur within 330 feet of proposed medillt!1-high density residential development.
Building sensitive noise receptors such as houses so close to military activity wammts detailed acoustical
analysis and appropriate mitigation measures. We request that a detailed acoustical study with
recommended mitigation measures be perfonned. We also request that prospective residents be fully
informed of the potential noise they will be exposed to.
Parks RFTA is referred to incorrectly as Camp Parks Reserves Forces Training Area. The correct title is
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area or Parks, RITA.
Please contact Mr. Paul Kot (925) 875-4682 with any questions.
~eceV!D
MAR 1 4 2003
DUBUN PLANNING
Enclosures (2)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUPPLEMENT A: DEED DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
This Agreement is between (name ofnropertv owner) (hereinafter "Grantor") and the (name of
jurisdiction) through its planning Board.
Grantor herein gives notice that the real estate located at (address ofpropertv) and recorded in
the (jurisdiction-city. county. etc.) Registry ofDeOOs in Book #, Page # (Book of Plans #, Page #)
is subject to certain over flight rights of the United States Army to/from Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area.
A ])lore definitive description of said rights as they way affect the aforesaid premises is available
at the Office of the Planning Board of the (iuri~ction and address of office) and as specifically
described in an Environm.ental Noise ManageJl1ent Plan dated Decewber 2000.
Grantor agrees that reference to this notice shall roD with the land and shall obligate the Grantor
and bis heirs and successors and assigns to make reference to this notice in each and every
conveyance of this parcel or any part thereof.
Dated; ,
(Typed name of signer)
(Typed name) Planning Board
(Typed name) Planning Board
(Typed name) Planning Board
(Typed name) Planning Board
SUPPLEMENT B: REAL ESTATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Significant Property Uses in the Vicinity of (¡?ame 1)( the develo¡)ment),
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA),
Parks RFT A is an U.s. Army Reserve installation located approximately (distance from
Parks RFTAJ from (name of the dewlollment), The Buyer and Seller hereby
acknowledge that as ofthe date of this Purchase Agreement the described property is
situated in an area that may be subjected to conditions resulting fi-om military training at
Parks RFT A. Parks RFT A has approxîmately 500 acres of administrative facilities and
approximately 2,000 acres of open grassland for year-round weapons and field training.
Activities with the potential to generate significant noise levels outside of Parks RFT A
include: weapons firing, including night firing; tactical vehicle operation; field power
generator operation; and helicopter operations. Helicopters enter and exit from the
southern and eastern boundaries of Parks RFTA. The noise from these helicopters
directly overhead at an altitude of500 feet will approach 90 A-weighted decibels (dBA).
Historically, 35% of the population exposed to 90 dBA are expected to be highly
annoyed. Parks RFT A periodically conducts controlled burning activities, which
generate large amounts of smoke. Buyers of homes adjacent to Parks RFT A should
carefully consider the impact of these activities that ordinarily and necessarily
produce nuisances including, but not limited to, noise, smoke, and dust. The Buyer
and Seller hereby acknowledge the existence of Parks RFTA and waive ~l common law
rights to obj ect to normal and necessary military training activities legally conducted on
Parks RFT A. For more infonnation, contact the Parks RFTA Public Affairs Office at
(925) 875-4269.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) staff have received your
agency's Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental
cONTRA COSTA COUNTY Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the Wallis Ranch Reorganization and
Marl< DeSaulnie, Development Project. The Wallis Ranch project includes the annexation and pre-
G~~:' u~::::~a zoning of three parcels in Eastern Dublm. The proposed land uses include up to
(Secretary) 1,124 residential units, 7,841 square feet of neighborhood commercial Uses, 82 acres
of open space and a 5-acre neighborhood park.
District staff agree with the NOP's conclusion that the DSEIR should analyze
NAPA COUNTY the project's potential impacts upon air quality. The Bay Area is currently a non-
Brad Wagenknecht attainment arpa for federal and state ambient air quality standards for ground level
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY ozone and state standards for particulate matter. The air quality s~dards are set at
Willie Brown, Jr. levels to protect public health and welfare. As general background for readers, the
Jak;h~~~~~Ck DSEIR should discuss the health effects of air pollution, and it should provide
quantitative summaries of the region's attaiIunent status with regard to ambient air
quality standards and the contribution of mobile and stationary sources to air
pollution enrissions.
I
k -
I~~
~..... -
~
I
I MANAGEMENT
D [ S T I'. leT
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BAY AREA
AIR Qj¿AUTY
ALAMEDA COUWTY
Roberta Cooper
Scott Haggerty
(Chalrpe=n)
Nate Miley
Shelia Young
MARIN COUNTY
Harold C. Brown. Jr.
SAN MA 'WO COUNTY
Jerry Hill
Marland Townsend
(Vice-Chairperson)
SANTA CI-ARA COUNTY
Liz Kniss
Julia Mille'
Dena Massar
(Vacant)
SOlANO cOUmY
John F _ Silva
SONOMA COUNTY
Tim Smith
Pamela ToMlall
William C. Norton
EXECUTIIIE OFFICERlAPCO
RECEIV¡::O
MAR 1 4 2u03
DUBUN PLANNING
March 14,2003
Eddie Peabody, Jr.
Development Services Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject;
Wallis Ranch Reorganization and Development Project
Dear Mr. Peabody:
The DSEIR should also evaluate potential nuisance impacts, such as odors
and dust that could result from project implementation. Odors and dust may not
necessarily cause physical harm, but can still be unpleasant and can motivate citizen
complaints. Odor and dust from nearby agricultural uses might impact new residents
and other sensitive receptors. Particulate matter (PM) is a pollutant of concern for
both nuisance and health-related reasons. PM larger than ten microns is more likely
to be a public nuisance than a serious health hazard. On the other hand, research has
demonstrated a correlation between high levels of fine PM mId increased mortality
rates and high incidences of chronic respiratory illness. The DSEIR should evaluate
potential impacts and propose appropriate nritigation measures.
The DSEIR should analyze the potential impact on air quality from proj ect
construction and proj ect operation at buildout. We understand that the project area
was included in a Program Environmental Impact Report, the Eastern bublin EIR,
which was certified by the City in 1993. According to the Initial Study, the Wallis
Ranch project proposes a higher rate of urbanization than was addressed in the
earlier Eastern Dublin EIR; therefore the previously adopted air quality mitigation
939 ELLIS STREET' SAN FRANCISCO CAliFORNIA 94109'415.771.6000' lVlV'l'_htlaqmdgov
Mr_ Eddie Peabody
-2-
March 14, 2003
measures may no longer be adequate. Without appropriate mitigation, a project of this size is
likely to have significant air quality impacts through an increase in motor vehicle traffic. Motor
vehicles constitute the largest source of air pollution in the Bay Area; therefore, we are
concerned about the air quality impacts of automobile use from this project.
District staff have concerns about the project's potential air quality impacts. While we
are generally supportive of providing more housing in the region, the location and density of new
residential development and its proximity to services is exti'emely important. The District is in
favor of appropriate infill development that is of a moderate to high density, has a variety of land
uses and encourages alternative modes of transportation. Such projects are generally much less
automobile-dependent and thereby generate less air pollution than conventional sprawl
development. District staff believe that the urban fiinge is an inappropriate location for the level
of development proposed for the Wallis Ranch project. We consider the development of
residential units on infill properties near transit to be a more sustainable approach to providing
additional housing in the region.
As part of the Regional Agencies Smart Growth StrategylRegional Livability Footprint
Project, Alameda County residents recently expressed a strong preference for more infill and
mixed use development that provides a range of travel options. We strongly recorrunend that the
City implement smart growth strategies that have emerged ftom that region-wide planning
process. District staff encourage the City to consider accorrunodating future growth by
channeling housing and infrastructure investments to central Dublin, other existing urbanized
areas, or along transit corridors where development would be less reliant on automobiles. The
approval of projects like Wallis Ranch eliminates much of the incentive to take advantage of
infill opportunities. We encourage the City to make land use decisions that support transit,
walking and cycling, in order to reduce the tate of increase in vehicle miles traveled and improve
local and regional air quality.
If the City decides that the Wallis Ranch site is an appropriate location for development,
then we recommend that the City mitigate the potential air quality impacts of this project as
much as possible. First, the Initial Study makes no mention of transit service to the Wallis
Ranch site. Motor vehicles constitute the largest source of air pollution in the Bay Area;
therefore, the District has a strong interest in promoting alternative modes of transportation. A
proj ect of this size located at the periphery of the region is likely to have significant air quality
impacts through a substantial increase in motor vehicle traffic. Currently, the nearest Livermore
Amador Valley Transit Authority (LA VTA) bus line is ahnost 2 miles away fÌ'om the project
site. This lack of public transit options is a cause for concern to District staff. In both the air
quality and transportation sections, the DSEIR should provide detail on how the project
proponents will work with LAVTA to provide transit services to the Wallis Ranch area.
Second, the City should consider reworking the land use component of this project to
make it less auto-dependent. The project should incorporate more neighborhood-serving
commercial and corrununity uses throughout the plan area, not just on the Bragg Property in the
eastern portion of the project area. Finally, the corrunercial and community uses should be
located within close proximity to the residential units and be pedestrian and bicycle accessible.
If shops and corrununity services are in walking or biking distance fÌ'om homes, residents will be
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Eddie Peabody
-3-
March 14, 2003
less likely to drive and fewer vehicle trips will be generated, thereby reducing the air quality
impacts of the development.
For the residential uses, we reconunend including on-site measures to mitigate the air
quality impacts of traffic generated by the project. If LA VTA cannot provide public transit
service to the site, the project sponsors could work together to provide a private shuttle service
from the Wallis Ranch area to the Dublin1Pleasanton BART station and other activity centers.
We suggest that shuttle services be closely monitored and adjusted as necessary to assure that the
number and scheduling of shuttles provides prompt, convenient service. In addition, the proj ect
sponsors could provide small electric vehicles for shared use by residents to access nearby transit
nodes and to use on other short, local trips within a certain vicinity of the development.
Additionally, the City should require the project sponsors to link the site's proposed bicycle and
pedestrian system with the greater local and regional bicycle route network.
If significant air quality impacts are identified, the DSEIR must include all feasible
mitigation measures to reduce those air quality impacts. If air quality impacts cannot be reduced
to a level less than significant, project alternatives should be identified that would not result in
significant air quality impacts. District staff recommend the City analyze an off-site alternative
that would accommodate the same amount of proposed residential units on infill sites located
closer to existing transit and services.
For more details.on our agency's guidance regarding environmental review, we
recommend that the City refer to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality
Impacts Qf Projects and Plans (1999). The document provides mformation on best practices for
assessing and mitigating air quality impacts related to projects and plans, including construction
emissions, land use/design measures, project operations, motor vehicles, nnisance impacts and
more. If you do not already have a copy of our guidelines, we recommend that you obtain a
copy by calling our Public Information Division at (415) 749-4900 or downloading the online
version from the District's web site at Iittp;llwww.baaqmd.gov/planning/plntmslceqaguid.htm.
If you have any questions regarding these cotuments, please contact Suzanne
Bourguignon, Environmental Planner, at (415) 749-5093.
Sincerely,
~~?1~
Executive Officer/APCO
WN:SB
ee: BAAQMD Director Roberta Cooper
BAAQMD Director Scott Haggerty
BAAQMD Director Nate Miley
BAAQMD DirectOT Shelia Young
March 17, 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
'I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
5997 PARKS!OE PFllve . ~LEASANTON, CALIFORNIA S4~8er5127 4 PHONE (925) 484-:2600 FAX (925J 462-3914
Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr.
Development Services Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dubhn, CA 94568
RECEIVED
MAR 1 8 2003
EJUBUN PLANNING
Re: Notice of Preparation for Supplemental Envirorunental Impact Report for
Wallis Ranch Reorganization and Developmeni (P A 02-028) and Initial Study
Dear Mr. Peabody:
Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initi_al Study. We have several
comments which are made in the context of Zone 7' s responsibilities in our service area to provide
wholesale treated water, non-potable water for agriculture and irrigated turf, flood protection, and
groundwater and stream management. Our comments are listed below and are organized to follow the
order of the environmental checklist in this Initial Study:
1. Proj ect Background and Description ~ Infrastructure, page 5
Tassajara Creek, extending from the southerly boundary of the project to approximately 2,100
feet south of the Alameda County/Contra Costa County line, and an approximate 400-foot long
reach of the tributary to Tassajara Creek, are authorized Zone 7 facilities. If any alteration of
Tassajara Creek or the tributary are proposed, then a hydraulic study of the effect of such
alteration On the water surface under the IOO-year flow conditions and the proposed development
should be submitted to Zone 7 for review and comment.
2. Section 8, Hydrology and Water Quality, item c), page 41
Mitigation for the creation of new impervious areas within the Livermore-Amador Valley is
addressed through the collection of Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 drainage fees. Zone 7's
standard mitigation practice is to collect an SDA 7-1 fee on any new buildings, improvements
{including, but not limited to paving), or structures to be constructed that substantially increase
the imperviousness of the land surface.
3. Section 8, Hydrology and Water Quality, item e), page 41
A hydrology study is needed to determine the impacts to Zone 7's facilities. Zone 7 requests that
it be able to review and comment prior to commencement of the project.
4. Section 8, Hydrology and Water Quality, items g and i), page 42
A hydraulic study is needed to determine the impacts of the project on the 1 OO-year water surface
in Tassajara Creek. Zone 7 requests that it be able to review arid conunent prior to
connnencement of the project.
Very truly your$,
Iþ-~
¿?~~;~en
( / Principal Engineer
Advance Planning Section
r
,-
r
J
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr.
City of Dublin
March 17, 2003
Page 2
5. Section 13, Public Service$, Water and Sewer, page 46
Thi$ project will al$O be annexed to DSRSD for water and $ewer $ervice$ and DSRSD'$ master
uti1itie$ plans, including recycled water, will cover thi$ project area. The Initial Study does not
a$$eS$ the potential $a1t loading impact$ over our main groundwater basin_ Zone 7 considers all
applied water (rainwater i$ an exception), including both potable water and recycled water, to
contribute salt loading to the groundwater ba$in and there must be mitigation of the a$$ociated
impacts.
Zone 7'$ GroWldwater Demineralization Project is the recommended project to accomplish Zone
7' $ Salt Management Prognun' $ goal of ncn-degradation of our main groundwater basin :from the
long-term buildup of salts. Zone 7 expects to begin design in 2004, with project completion
expected in 2006. We request that the City of Dublin expres$ $Upport for the Groundwater
Demineralization Project within the Draft EIR as the appropriate mitigation for any projects
proposed_ OtherwÌ$e, we request the City addres$ the mitigation of any salt loading impacts of the
project ,mould Zone 7'$ proposed Groundwater Demineralization Project not be constructed and
placed into operation.
6. Section 16, Utilitie$ and Service SY$lemS, item d), page 52
A portion of the project area i$located in Contra Costa County. Zone 7'$ service area i$ in
Alameda County. The only portion of Contra Costa County that receives Zone 7 water is a
portion of Dougherty Valley, and that is through a special agreement. Plea$e explain if there was
an intent to serve the Contra Costa COWltyportion of the project area with Zone 7 water.
.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these documents. Please feel free to call me at (925) 484-
2600, ext. 400, or Jack Fong at ext. 245, if you have any qUC$tions.
JH;JF:arr
cc:
Dave Requa, DSRSD
Ed Cunnnings, Zone 7
John Mahoney, Zone 7
Dave Lunn, Zone 7
Joe Seto, Zone 7
Matt Katen, Zone 7
Jack Fong, Zone 7
File;: P~\Ad.."l~n\ÇEQA Rdcm'als\W:altisRa1lchRcorganizat:iønDeve1op:ment.dQc
·.-.--.-.-..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix 8.4
Dublin City Council Resolution No. 53-93
DUblin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 153
November 2004
· ."-"
~',
..
f. The February 14, 1991, study session considered a
J.and use pJ.an that incorporated comments :made at the th1"ee
workshops and incJ.uded a discussion of major issues, such as the
J.ocation of a high schooJ., connection to existing DubJ.in, size of
streets and types of parks.
3. With the identification of a preferred aJ.ternative on
February 14, 1.991., the City prepared a Draft GeneraJ. pJ.an beru:1ment
for approx±mateJ.y 6,920 acres to pJ.an for future developaent of a
mixed use community of singJ.e- and mUltiple-family residences,
cO!Dllercial uses (general commercial, neighborhood commercial,
c~pus office and industrial park), public and seai-public
facil.ities (incluciinq schools), parkG and open space.
-Draft General Plan Amendment
4. The Draft General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1.992,
designates the proposed general distribution and general location
and extent of the uses of Eastern Dublin for residential,
commercial, industrial, public, open space and parks, and other
categories of public and private uses of .land.
S. The Draft General plan Anlendment includes a statement of
standards of population density and standards of building intensity
for Eastern Dublin.
6. Pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning
Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning commission of the
City of Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed
amendments to the City's General Plan.
7. The Planning cOJD1IIission held a duly notiCêd publio hearing
on the Eastern DUblin Draft General Plan Anlend:rnent on october 1,
1992, which hearing was continued to October 6, 1992, October 12.
1992, and October 15, 1992.
B. Based on comments reoe.i ved during the pub~ic hearing,
related text revisions, dated Dec~r 21, 1992, were made to the
Draft General Plan Amendment and. were reviewed by the Planning'
C~5sion on December 21, 1.992.
9. The Draft General Plan Amend1nent was reviewed by the
Planning C01lDD.ission in aocordance with the provisions of the
California Enviro~ntaJ. QuaJ.ity Act through the preparation and
review of an Environmental Impact Report. On DeCG!Il1ber 21, 1992,
by Resolution No. 92-060, the Planning Commission recommended
certification of the Final Envirornnental Impact Report.
10. On December 21, 1992, the Planning Commission, after
considering all written and oral testiJnony submitted at the public
hearing, adopted of Resolution No. 92-061, recommending City
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..-.-
~.
counci~ adoption of the Draft Genera~ P~an Amendment, as revised
Dece~r 21,1992.
Draft s~eeific plan
11. The Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, implements
an approxiJnate~y 3, 32B-a=e portion of the Eastern DuÞlin General
Plan AmenðJnent by providing a detailed framework, including
policies, standards and i1l\PleIllentation programs, for evaluat,ion of
developll1ent projects proposed in the portion of eastern DUblin
covered by the Draft specific Plan. '
12. Pursuant to State Law, the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific
Plan was prepared and reviewed in the sall1e :manner as a general plan
amendll1ent.
13. The Planning commission' held a duly noticed puÞlic
hearing on the Eastern DUblin Draft specific Plan on october 6,
1992, which hearing was continued to october 12, 1992, and October
15, 1992.
14. Based on comments received during the public hearings,
related tart revisions, dated Decell1ber 21, 1992, were :made to the
Draft Specific Plan and were reviewed by the Planning commission
on December 21, 1992.
15. The Draft specific Plan was reviewed by the Planning
comJl1ission in accÇ)rdance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act through the preparation and review of a
Final Environmental 1II1pact Report. On December 21, 1992, by
ftesolution No. 92-060, the Planning- COmJllission· recommended
certification of the Final Environmental l1I\Pact Report.
16. on December 21, 1992, the Planning commission, after
CODsiderino¡ all written and oral testiJllony su3Jm.itted at the public
hearing, adopted Resolution NO. 92-062, recomJIlendinq city council
adoption of the Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, as revised
December 21, 1992.
Council Public Rearina
17. The city council held a duly noticed public hearing on
the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan AmenàJlle.nt and Draft Specific
Plan on January 14, 1993, which hearing was continued to January
21, 1993, FebruaÌy 23, 1993, March 30, 1993, and April 27, 1993.
lB. on April 27, 1993, the city council, by Re~olution No.
45-93, voted to refer Alternative. 2~ Reduced planning Area
("Alternative 2") with lI1odifications back to the Planning
commission for its recCJI1lllendation, pursuant to Government Code
section 65356.
3
-----
-~,
19 . The Planning commission held a public hearing on May 3,
1993, to con,;ider Alternative 2 with modific/¡!:tions and halO reported
back to the city council by Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-
013.
20. '!'he City COuncil considered all written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearing and all written testimony
submi tted prior to the public hearing' and the recommendation Qf the
Planning c01IDIIissicm as set fQrth in Planning CommissiQn Resolution
Nos. 92-061, 92-062 and 93-013.
21. on May 10, 1993 the Council held duly noticed a public
hearing to hear testimQny reqarding the Planning Commission I s
recommendation as set forth in Planning commissiQn Resolution No.
93-013.
22. On May 10, 1993, the City'council adopted Resolution NO.
51-93, certifying the Addendum to the Draft EIR and the Fina1
Environmental Impact Report (nFinal EIR") as adequa:l:e and comp1ete.
The Final EIR identified siqnificant adverseenvironmenta1 impacts
which can be mitigated to a level of insiqnificance through changes
or a1terations in the project. TherefQre, pursuant to CEQA,
findings adopting the changes or a1terations are required and are
contained in this. rêso1ution. Some' of the significant impacts
cannot Þe mitigated to a leve1 of insignificance and a statement
of overriding considerations is therefore required pursuant to CEQA
and is also contained in this resolution.
23. Upon consideratiQn of the land use and enviromnental
effects of the project, as descriÞed in the Final EIR, the council
ha!; detennined to adopt Alternative 2, as de&cribed in the Final
EIR, with c~ain modification!; which are described in the Addendum
to the DraftEI:R ("Alternative 2 -With Modifications"). Alternative
2 With MOdification& reduces land use impacts, doel5 not disrupt the
existing rural residential c01llll1unity in Do01an Canyon, potentia11y
reduces growth-inducing impacts on aqricu1tural land$, reduces
certain traffic impacts to a level of insignificance, produces less
demand for infrastructure, redu~s the noise impacts for DOolan
Road to a level of insignificance and will have a positive fiscal
impact on the city.
24. AJ.têrnative. 2 was considered by the Planning commission
at its hearings, in testimony at the public hearings, in staff
reports presented to the co~ission at its hearings, in the EIR
reviewed Þy the Planning Commission at its hearings and in its
deliberations.
25. Alternative 2 With Modifications includes several
sUbstantial modifications to AJ.ternative 2. as Alternative 2 is
described in the Draft EIR. Although several of these
modifications were considered by the Planning commission at its
hearings, the Planning Commission has considered Alternative 2 With
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
~
Modifications and has reported back to the council with its
reco~endation régarding Alternative 2 With Modification5. The
council -bas determined to follow the Planning ccmmission'5
reco~end.ation as set forth in it5 Resolution No. 93-013, except
with respect to the width of the Transit spine and with the
addition of the phrase "or other appropriate agreements" on page
160 of the Draft Specific Plan (§ 11.3.1; first sentence).
Fìndinøs/overridina Considerations I
Mitiaation Monitorina proaram
26. PUblic Resources Code section 21081 requires the city to
make certain findings if the city approves a project for which an
environmental impact report has been prepared that identifies
significant environmental effects.
27 . Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires
adoption by the city eouncil of a statement of overriding
considerations if the Council approves a project which will result
in unavoidable significant effects on the environment.
28. PUblic Resource Code section 21085 and 5ection 15092 of
the state CEQA Guideline=> require the city to JI18ke certain
determinations if it approves a project which reduces the nU1Dber
of housing units considered in the environmental impact report.
. .
29. The Final EIR for the Eastern DUblin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan identifies ce~in significant adverse
environmental effects.
30. certain of the significant adverse environmental effects
can be reduced to a level of insignificance by changes or
alteratio~ in the proj~ct.
31. certain of the significant adverse environmental effects
cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
32. The Council has selected Alternative 2 identified in the
Final EIR with modifications descriÞed in the Addendum to the Draft
ErR, reducing the number of housing units for such property from
the project as reviewed by the Final EIR for the Eastern DUblin
General Plan J\JIIePcment and Specific Plan.
33. PUblic Resources code section 210Bl.6 requires the city
to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for changes in a project
or conditions imposed to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects in order to ensure compliance during project
iJDplementation.
34. Govermnent Code section 65300 authorizes a city cOWlcD.
to adopt a general plan for land outside its boundaries which in
the Planning CODJIIission' s judgment bears relation to its planning.
5
~.
-
considered whether land
relation to the City's
35. The PllUUling commission has
outside the City's boundaries bears
planning.
36. The City has re£erred Alternative 2 With Modifications
to the Ala1Deda County Airport Land Use commission ("ALUC") pursuant
to Public utilities Code section 21676 (b). The City has not
received a determination from the ALUC. The 60-day time period for
the ALUC to make a determination has not yet run.
HO., 'lBEREJ'ORB, BB IT RESOLVED '1'BA'1'
A. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve "Alternative
2: Reduced Planning Area" as the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment, with the Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and with the
Modifications described in the AddendUm to Draft EIR, dated May 4,
1993.
B. The Dublin city Council finds the Eastern Dublin Speciric
Plan, as described in the Final EIR as "Alternative 2: Reduced
Planning Area," with Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and with
the modifications descriÞed in .the Addendum to Draft EIR dated May
4, 1993, to be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as revised
by the Eastern Dublin General Plan AmendJnent.
c. The Dublin city Council does hereby approve the Eastern
Dublin specific Plan, with the Revisions dated Deceæber 21, 1992,
and with the Modific::ation6 described in the Addendum to Draft EIR,
dated May 4, 1993 and with the revision to page 160 referred to in
paragraph 25 above.
D. The Dublin City Counc:il does herêby direct the Staff to
edit, format, and print the up-to-date Dublin General Plan with
all City council approved revisions and without any other
substantive changes.
E. The Dublin city Counci1 does hereby direct the Staff to
edit, format, And print the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan with 11.11
city council approved revisions and without any othêr substantive
changes.
BE IT i'tJRTDR ItBSDLVBD TnT the_ DUblin City cOWlcil does
herGby make the findings set forth in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 or
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan.
BE :J:!I! J'tIR!I!JŒR ItBSOLVBD Tn'!' the Dub1in city counci1 finds and
declares that the rationale for each of the findings set forth in
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of its findings (Exhibit A) is contained
in the para<;Jril.ph entitled "Rationale for Finding" in EXhibit A.
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.....-...,
"-'
The Council further finds that the ¡nitigation measures for each
identified i1D.pact in Exhibit A make changes to, or alterations to,
the Eastern Dub1in Genera1 Plan 1IJnendJDent and specific Plan, or are
¡neasures incorporated in the Eastern Dublin specific Plan that,
once impleJllented as descd.Jx!d in the Mitigation Monitoring ProqraJll
(Exhibit B heretO), will avoid or Substantially lessen the
significant effects of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Arø.endment
and Specific Plan on the environment.
BE IT POR'tHD U80LVED TnT the Dublin city council does
hereby adopt the state¡nent of overriding considerations set forth
in section 6 of Exhibit A, attached here-to, which stat(¡]lent sha11
be' included in the record of the project approval.
BB :IT PlJRTKBR :aBSOLVBÐ TnT the Dublin City Council does
hereby adopt the "Mitigation Monitoring Proqr811l: Bastern Dublin
Specific Plan/General Plan AJnendJDent" attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit 1'1, as the reporting and IDonitoring
pro~am required by Public Resources code section 21081.6 for the
BasterD Dublin Genera1 Plan Amend1nent ano Specific Plan.
BE :IT PUR1'HD RESOLVED 'fiI]I.T the Dublin city Council does
hereby direct that the Applicants for land use approvals in the
Specific Plan area shall pay their pro rata share of a11 costs
associated with the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring
PrograJII.
:BE :IT l"tJRTHDRESOLVED TnT the Dublin City Council does
hereby direct that a11 fees estal:>lished pursuant to GovarIlJDent Code
section 65456, to recover costs of preparation of the specific
Plan, shall include the cost of preparation, adoption and
admi1\istration of the specific Plan plus interest on such costs
based upon the City of DUblin's average 1I\Onthly weighted inves'ÞIent
yield calCl.llated for each year or fraction thereof that 5Uch cost5
are unpaid.
BE rr PURTHBR REBO:LVBD !L'DT the Dub1in City council does
hereby direct the City cler~ to fi1e a Notice of Deter1D.ination for
the Eastern Dublin General Plan 1IJnendment and Specific Plan project
with the Alameda county Clerk and the state Office of Planning and
Research.
BE :IT FWTHBR RBSOLVED TEAT the Dublin city council does
hereby direct the city Clerk to make available to the pub~ic,
within one working day of the date of adoption of this resolution,
copies of this resolution (including all Exhibits) and the Eastern
Dublin General plan AmendIDent, dated May 27, 1992, with the
Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and the ¡nodifications described
in the Addendum to Draft ErR dated May 4, 1993, and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, with the Revisions to
Draft Specific Plan, dated December 21, 1992, and the modifications
7
.'~
-,
described in the Addendum to Draft 'EIR, all as modified by this
resolution.
BE IT :l'tJR.'rBD 1UISOLVED 'rEA'.r this resolution shall become
effective thirty (30) days from the date of passage.
BE IT PDR'lHBR RBSOLVED ~'.r if, on the erfective date or this
resolution or within the reæaininq GO-day period for ALUC action,
the ALDC has found' that Alternative 2 With ModificatioM is not
consistent with the ALOC's Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy
Plan, the city shall submit all regulations, permits or other
actions iDplementinq the EasterTl Dublin General. Plan A'II1endment and
specific Plan to the ALDC for review until such tiDe that the city
Council revises the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
specific Plan to be consistent- with the ALUC's Alameda County
_Airport Land use Policy Plan or adopts specific findings by a two-
thirds vote that the General Plan JU1\E!ndment and specific Plan are
consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of part
J. of Division 9 of the Public Utilities code as stated in section
21670 of such Code.
PUSIID, APPROVED. UID AÐOPTBD this lOth day of May, 1993, by
the following vote:
AYES; Counci.1meI!t>es EbrtCll; Houston, Howard, !!bfflltt & Mayor Snyder
NOES: None
ABSENT; N;x1e
ABSTAIN: None
é/~¿k.çfô"·.J
Mayor
~éd
it Clerk
114 \_to \29\:RBSOLUTIOJl
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
."-'
-",
8eetion ~
FIJID:J:BGS COBCBRB:J:BG S:J:GBIF:J:CAlII'r nœAC!1'S
ABJ) XJ:T:J:GA!1':J:OB HEAS1JlŒS
Pursuant to PUblic Resouroes Code section 2J.OBJ., the city
Council hr::eby makes the following- finding-s with respect to the
Project. s potential :significant environmental bnpacts and means
for mitiqatinq those i1npacts. Findings pursuant to section
21081, subdivision (c), as they reJ..ateto IIproj~ aJ.ternatives, n
- are made in Section 3.
·Seoi:ion :1.1 :.-- Land Use
DØAeT 3.1/F. C\DI.Ulative LOSS of Agrieultural and 'open space
LiJ.nds. A~icultural ~iuÜnq land and open space in Alameda and
. Contra Costa counties will be converted to urban uses by proposed
projects sueh as Dougherty Valley, Tassaj era VaJ.1ey, North
Liver1llOre, and Eastern Dublin. Because it wouJ.d result in the
urbanization of a larqe area of open space, the proposed Project
would contribute to this c:wnulative loss of aqricultura1 land and
open space in the Tri-Valley area. This is considered a signifi-
. cant unavoidaÞle cumulative i1npact.. Response to Comments (nRC")
# 34-9.
Findina. No mitigation 1IIeasures are
impact to a level of insignificance.
of overriding considerations :mw;;t be
of the Project.
-Rationale for p.indina. The totaL amount of open space
within :the RPA that will be urbanized will be cwnulativEÜy
oIiiiqnificant, in liqht of nWllerous other open space areas
within-the region that is also anticipated for urbanization.
proposed to raduce this
Therefore, a Statement
adopted upon approlral
DlPACT 3.1/G" Potelltial COJ1flicts with LaJ14 Uses to the west.
The Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (ncamp Parks") is looated
due west or ;the Specific Plan area. Existing" and future ArtIly
training activities, such as the use of hiqh velocity weapons and
helicopters, could result in noise and safety çonflicts with
adjacent open space and sinqle-fa1llily residential areas of the
specific Plan. The extent of future ar1IIY activity is unknown and
!.rhe "Projectn is Alternative 2 described in the DE:J:R at
pages 4-9 throuqh 4-14 with the modificatioD5 described in the
May 4, 1993 Addendum to the EIR. Alternative 2 ca11ß for
development in the Reduced Planninq Area (the portion of eastern
DUblin within its sphere-of-influence) (hereafter "RPAn).
114\..~Ub\f~(4)
J.
f\=r-rACtt 14eÑT' b :
- -
RDr1'1l.1'1' A
...-..
.-,
the Army has not yet completed. its Camp parks Master Plan. DEIR
paqe 3.1-13.
Mitiaation Measure 3.1/1.0. The city of Dublin should
coordinate its planning activities with the Army to achieve
c01llPatibility with adjacent c:unp Parks land uses, to solve
potential future conf1icts, and to reconcile land use incom-
patibilities. The city should consu1t with the Ar1ny for any
specific devel~ent proposals within the RPA. DEIR pages
3.1-13, -22.
Findinc:i~ Changes or alterations have been required in, Ór
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen ;tbe significant effect identified. in the Final EIR.
Rationa1e for Findinc. Coordinated planning activities will
allow the City and Ar1IIy to identify potential noise and
safety impacts before they occur and will allow specific
lI1itiqation measures, includinq redesign, to be incorporated
into development in the Project Area.'
S.et~on ~.~ -- ~ra~fic and circu1ation
When a mitigation measure referenced in this section requires
development ,projects within the RPA to pay for a proportionate
cost of regional transportation proqra=s and/or traffic and _
circulationiblprovements, the proportion shall be as determined
by regional ftransportation studies, such sa the current stu.dy by
thliO 'tri-valley Trançortation Council.
~ 3.3/~. X-S80 Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon. Year 2,010 growth
without the -¡Project would cause cumulative freeway volWle$ to
exceed Level of service E on I-SSO ~etween Tassajara Roa4 and
Fallon Road. DE:IR paqes 3.3-21 (a$ revi$ed), 5.0-3.
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/1.0. CBltrans, in cooperation with
-local jurisdictions, could construct auxiliary lanØ$ on I-
580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to create a total
of ten lanes, which would provide Level. of Service D opera-
tions, consistent with the cal tral'lS Route Concept Report for
I-SSO. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (a$ revi$ed), 5.0-3.
Findina. Approval of the construction of the auxiliary
lanes, .,and cooperation by jurisdictions other than the city
of Dublin, are within the respom~ibility and jurisdiction of
other public aqencies and not the city of Dublin. Such
actionS can and shou.1d be taken by other agencies. If
taken, L$uch action$ would avoid or substantially lessen the
signiti,cant effect identified in the Fina1 Em.
~
-¡
..
,.,
l1f\east4ub\fiÐd(f)
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
~
-
,~,
Rationale for Findina. Thia mitigation mea.sure provides
acceptãble Level of servioe D operations during peak hours
on the_,freeway.
nŒ'AC'.r 3.3/B. ;[-580 fteewa:y, ;[-680 to Kac::ien4a. Year 2010
growth with the Project would cause I-5BO between I-680 and
Pougherty Road to exc:eed Level of Service E. Thia is also a
significant cumulative impact. PEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised),
4-11. 5.0-3.
Hitiaation ~easure 3.312.0. consistent with specifio Plan
Po1.ic:y 5-;21 , al1. non-residentia1. projects with 50 or more
emp1.oyeea in the RPA shall participate in a Transportation
systems. Management (TSH) program to reduc:e the use of sing1.e
occ:upaI}t vehicles through strategies including but not
1.i1niteq. to encouraging pub1.ic transit use, carpoo1.ing, and
f1.exible work hours. PEIR pages 3.3-;21 (as revised), 5.0-
3. '
.-
Mitiaation Measure 3.312.1. A1.1 projects within the RPA
area sha1.1. contribute a proportionate share of the costs of
regional transportation mitigation programs, as determined
by regiona1. transportation studies. SUch regional miti-
gation ;'programs may include enhanced pub1.ic transit servic:e
and/or upgrading alternate road corridors to re1.ieve demand
on I-580 or I-680. DEIR page 3.3-21-(as rev~sed).
Findino. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Proj ect. However, even with these
changes, the impact miÇJht not be avoided or substantially
1.ess:ened. Therefore, a Statement cf overriding' considera-
tions 1II.ust be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Pindina. Approval of A1.ternative 2 reduces to
a 1.eve:Ji ot insignificance the impact on I-580 between
DOugherty ROad and Hacienda Drive. DEIR page 4-11. The TsH
prograJ\Í. strategiés wi1.1 reduce single c:ar occupancy, thereby
reducing the n1Dlber of cars expected to use the subject
stret,* ø£ I-5BO. Regional actions may focus not on1.y øn
reduc1ij.q auto use by reducing sing1.a occupant vehic1.es, but
a1.$o ~ increasing Project area road c:apacities through
2 This policy appears in the Eastern DUblin Specific P1.an,
wnic:h plan app1.ies on1.y to the identified specific P1.an area.
The provisions of this policy provide useful 1II.itigation outside
the specific Plan area as well. Therefore, the En and thes;e
findinqs adopt these provisions for the entire RPA. Hereinafter,
those Specific Plan goa1.s, policies, and action programs whose
provisions are similarly adopted for the RPA throughout these
findings win be indicated by an asterisk.
"
;
114\eastdub\f~(4)
,
.,-
3
¡
!
,--..,
'--"-,
construction of routes providing convenient alternatives to
I-580 and I-680. Given the overall expected increase in
traffic, however, these 1Deasures are not sufficient to
reduce ,the cU1llulative impacts on I-580 between I-680 and
Doughe:rty Road to insignificance.
j
DlPAC'r 3.3/r;. I-580 ftetevay, 'h.ssaj~-J'aJ.:LoD-u.rway. Year 2010
growth with,the Project would cause freeway volumes to exceed
Level of S~ice E on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway
Boulevard. ~This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR
page 3.3-21iCas revised), 5.0-3.
"
Mitiaatiion Measure 3.313.0. The city shall coordinate with
Caltraris and the City of Pleasanton to construct auxiliary
lanes on I-S80 þetweenTassajara ROad and Airway Boulevard.
All projects within the RPA shall contribute a proportionate
lihare of the costs of the$e iDtproveJllents. DEIR pages 3.3-
22 (as revised), 5.0-3; RC #7-6
'Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR.
Freeway construction actions are within the ultimate res-
ponsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, -who can and should
take such actions. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substa4tially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Pina1 EIR.
,
Rationale for Findina. The auxi1iary .lanes wj,11 provide
sufficient additiona~ capacity on I-580 to provide Levelo~
Se:rvi~ D between Fa~lon ROad and Airway Boulevard, and
Level óf service E between Tassajara Road and Fa~lón Road.
Both Level o~ service Ð and E are aoceptable during peak ,
freeway hours. DEiR pages 3.3-2, -18. Development in the
RPA will be required to contribute its fair share to the
auxiliary lane improvements so that when such impJ:'ovements
are needed, they will be provided by new developJllent
qen~ating the need. state law authorizes the City to entGOr
into a cooperative agreement with ca1trans to make the
freeway improvements (see. e.a., StJ:'eets & Highways Code
55 113.5, 114).
nä>:ê.C'l 3.3/~. I-680 I'reteway, Borth of I-580. Year 2010 growth
with the Prqject would cause freeway volumes to ex:oeed Level of
Service E ad I-680 north of the I-580 interchange. This is also
a significarlt cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.3-22, 5.0-4.
"
-,
Hitiaa£ion MeasUJ:'e 3.3/4.0. All projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of the costs of Caltrans'
planne~ improvements at the I-580/I-680 inteJ:'change, in-
cludin~ a new two-lane freeway-to-freeway flyover with
llä\...~\fiDd(4)
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.--
.~
relateð, book ramps to the City of DUblin. DEIR paqe 3.3-22_
(as reyised) (see also page 3.3-~7 (as revised».
.'
Findin~. Changes or alterations bave been required in, or
ineorpé!rated into the Project that' avoid or s~stantially
lessen~the significant effects identified in the Final ErR.
Freewa:Y interchange improvement actions are within the
resporu#bility and· jurisdiction of caltrans, who can and
shouJ.dltake such actions. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Ratione1e for Findina. The expected interchanges and
related improveaents wiJ.l provide sufficient additional
capacity on I-680 to provide Level of Service'D north of the
I-580 interchang-e. DeVelopment in the RPA will be required
to contribute its fair share to the interchang-e and related
im:provements so that wben such iJDprovements are needed, they
wi11 be provided by new development g-enerating- the need.
IHPAd 3.3,4. cum.uiative Freeway DDpaots. cumulative buildout
with the Próject would cause additional freeway sections, in-
cluding :I:-5~0 east of Airway Boulevard, and the segment of 1-580
between Douqherty and Hacienda to exceed level of service E.
DEIR pages ~.3-22 (as revised), 5.0-4.
~~
Mitiaation Measure3.3f5.0. The Project shall contribute a
proportionate'Share to the constructionaf auxiliary lanes
(for a total of 10) on 1-580 east of AirWay Boulevard, tor
implementation Þy caltran!:. The city shall coordinate with
other local jurisdictions to require that all future de-
velopment projects participate in regional transportation
mitigation prograJIIS as deter1l1ined Þy the current Tri-Valley
Transportation council f;tudy. DEIR pages 3.3-22 (as re-
vised), 5.0-4.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project. Actions by other agencies
and Ca~trans to implement this mitigation measure are within
the reliPonsibility and jurisdiction of those other agencies
and noú the city of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken »Y the other agencies. However, even with these
cbanqe~ the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessenéd. Therefore, a statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted.
Rationále for Finding. The auxiliary lanes wiJ.l provide
sufficient additional capacity to provide acceptable level
of service on part of 1-580 widening to ten lanes is
consistent with the Route concept Report. DEn page 3.3-22
(as revised). Regional transportation mitigations can
114\..s~\fin4(')
5
r
i
"'
¡
,
í
f.
,
,.--
,"".
reduce cumulative impacts through measures to decrease
single occupant vehicle use and increase public transit use
to further decrease traffic impacts. However, even with
these improvements, part of 1...,580 (between !-680anð.
Bacienc,\a Drive) will stiJ.l be beyond acceptaJ:JleLOS E. DEIR
_pages 3.3-20, 3.3-21 (as revised) t" 4-11-
:J:MPAC!I!3~3/p. DOugherty R_IS IUU! DtlbJ.Ù1 Bo\1levud~ Year 2010
developmoatttwith the Project would cause .Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of t>ouqherty Road with Dublin
BOUleva.rð..!DEIR paqe3.3~25.
Mitiaafion Measure 3.:H6.0. The city Qf Dublin shall
monitor the intersection and imple!ll.ent construction of
additicina1 1anes whenrequtred to maintain LOS D·operations.
A11 prQjects witJiin· 'the RPA shaJ.l contributE! a proportionate
sha:l::e i!ifthe impróvG:ment costs. DE1Rpaqe. 3.3-25 (as
revis~) .
Findina. . Chanqes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
. lëssen.the significant effect identified int:he Final EIR.
Rational"" for Findina. The additional lanes at the
Douqherty Roað/Dublin Boulevard intersection will þ1"oVide
sufficient capacity for Level of service D operations, which
is acceptabl.e at street intersections in Dublin (DEIR paqes
3.3....2, -18 (as revised». Development in the RPA will be
requir~ to contribute its faÎJ:' share of the intersection.
improvéments 1110 that, when suchilllprovell1entsare needed,
theywÍ1l. be provided by new development qener-atinq the
need., ~,-
f ,.
·nøAdT3.31'. BacieDdaDrive-uAI-S80BaatJ:loUJId Ramps. Year
2010 develoPment with the Project would cause Levelóf Se1:Vice F
operations ~t the intersection of Hacienda Drive _with the !-580
eastbound- <ràmps. DEIR paqe-3.3-25, (as revised).
- ,
!
Hi tiaation Measure 3 . 3/7 . 0 . The city of Dublil:1 sbal.l
implement impròvements in coordination with the city of
Pl.easanton and Caltrans to widen the eastboundoff-ratøp to
provide a seoondle!·tturnlane. All projects in the RPA
shail contribute a proportionate share of the improvement
costs. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised); RC # 7-9.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated irito the Project, that avoid or substantially
leasentthe significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Oft-raJÍ1p widening actions are within the ul.t!mate respon-
sibil.i1¡;y and jurisdictiono! Caltrans. SUch- actions can and
ShOUld)be taken by Cal.tZ"ans. If taken, such actions would
.>
x
r
11~\eaB~Ub\f~(~) 6
i!
.~:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.-.
,--
avoid qr substantially lessen the significant effect identi-
fied i. the Final EIR.
Ration<¡!.le for Findina. The additional lanes at the east-
bound Qff-ramp will provide acceptable Level of Service C
operat~ons. Development in the Project area wi11 be
required to contribute its fair share of the intersection
iJnprovëJllents, so that when such i.1aprovements are needed,
they will be provided by new development generating the
need. state law authorizes the city to enter into a
cooperative. aqreement with Caltrans to make the off-ramp
improVeIllents (!ilee. e.o_, Stteets & Righways code SS 113.5,
U4).
DŒAC:'J! 3.3 ,.a. !raSsajaJ:a Road and I-.!I80 ..st1loun4 1WIIPø. year
2010 development with the Project would cause Level of service F
operations at the intersection of Tassajara Road with the I-5S0
we5tbound r~ps. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised).
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/8.0. The city of Dublin shall
iJnplem~t iJnproVeIllents in coordination with Caltrans to
widen the I-5BO westbound off-ramp and to modify the
nor'thboi!und approach to provide additional turn and through
lanes. ;. All projects in the RPA shall contriJ:>ute a pro-
portio¡¡;ate share. Clf the improvement costs. DEIR page 3.3-
26 (as~revise.d). .
FindÏIla. Changes or alterations have Þeen required in, or
incorporated into th~ Project, that avoid Clr su}:)stantially
lessen the signifieant effect identified in the Final EIR.
CClordinating and ramp widening actions are within the ulti-
mate responsil:lility and jurisdiction of caltrans, which can
and shCluld take such actions. If taken, such actions would
aVClid or substantially lessen the significant effect identi-
fied in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. The reconfigured lanes at the east-
bound Ciff-rmop will provide acceptable Level of service B
operations. DevelClpment in the Proj ect area will be
requirid tCl contribute its fair share of the intersection
improvèments so that when such improvements are needed, they
will bé provided by new develClpment generating the need.
State law authClrizes the city to enter into a _cooperative
agr~t with Caltrans to make the off-:ramp i.1aprovements
(see. é_a., Streets & Highways Code §§ 113.5, 114).
IHPACT 3.3/I. S_i:a Rit~ Road and %-S80 Bas~wui :Ram¡>a. Year
2010 development with the Project wCluld cause Level of service F
operatiClns at the intersection of Santa Rita Road with the 1-580
eastbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-26.
114\east4ub\£1nd(4)
7
---.
-
- Mitiaation Measure 3.319.0. The city of Dub~in sba~~
iMp~eJII<Ù1t improvements in coordination with the City of
Pleasantan and ca~trans to widen the r-580 eastbound off-
ramp tÇ¡ provide two ~e£t-turn lanes, one through lane, and
one riqht-turn ~ane to provide Level of service E at this
intersection. A~~ projects in the lG'A sha,1.1 contribute a
proportionate share of the iJIIprovement costs. The City of
Dub~in shall continue to work with the city of P~ea 1;anton to
~onitor level of service at this intersection and partici-
pate in implementing improvements which may be identified in
the future to improve traffic operations. DEm page 3.3-26
(as, revised); RC # 7-11.
Finðina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the PrOject. Ramp widening actions are
within,'the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of
Ca.~ trans, which can and s;houJ.d take such actions. However ,
even with these cha1'I.qes and actions" the impact will. not be
_ avoided or substantiall.y lessened. Therefore, a statement
of OVetriding considerations ~ust be adopted upon approval.
of thetProject.
'!.
Rationâle for Findina. The off-ramp widening wil~ provide
LOS. E cilperations, which is still significant. Deve~opment
in the' Project area will. be required to contribute its fair
share of the intersection improvements, so that.- when such
improVeJllênts are needed, they will be provided by new
deve~op¡aent, qenerating the need.
DIP1C!L' 3.3/E. Airway Boulevard IU1ð X-S80 WestboUDd'R.UlpS. Year
2010 development with the Project would cause Level of servioê F
operations at the intersection of Airway Boulevard with the 1-
580 westbound rænps. DEIR page ~. 3-27 (as revised).
Hi tiaation Measure 3. 3 111_ O. The city of Dub~in shall
implemf¡!nt improvements in coordination with the City of
Livermere and calt:rans to replaoe or widen the Airway
Bou~eViird overcrossing .of I-580 and to widen the offramp for-
additiÐna~ turn l.anes. All projects within the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs.
DEIR påge ~.3-27 (as revised); RC #17-2
\,
;:,
Findinb. Changes or a~terations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. that avoid or substantial~y
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Road and ramp widening actions are within the ultimate
responsibility and jurisdiction of caltran:;;;, which can and
should take such actions. If taken such actions would avoid
or substantial~y les$ên the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
114\.a8~\fiDÄ(4)
;.
s
-,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.-.
,---
Rationale for Findina. The Airway :BQulevard and 1-580
ÜD.provem.ents wi].l provide an acceptable Level of SerVice P.
Development in the Project area will: be required to contri-
bute it$ fair share of the iEprovements so that when such
ÜD.provements are needed, they will be provided bY. new
development generating the need. State' law authorizes the
City to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to
make the road and ramp ÜD.p¡:-ovements (s~. e.a., streets &
Righwa~ code 5S 113.5,114).
IKPACT 3.3/'1.. El Ch~ Road. Project traffic could introduce
stops and delaY5 for loaded truck ¡ from the quarries on El Ch.a%TO
Road south 6f 1-580. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised).
Mitiaation Meao::ure 3.3/12.0. The city of Dublin shall
ilIIplement i1n:provementsin coordination with Caltrans, the
city of Pleasanton, and Ala:mec:ia County to ensure that
~odifications to the 1-580 interchange at Fallon RoadlEl
Charro Road include prcivisions for unÜD.peded truck ~ove:ments
to and from E1 CharX'o Road. .All projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of improve1l1ent costs. DEIR
page 3.3-27 (as revised).
Findina. Chanqes or alterations have. been required in, or
incorp6rated into the Project, that avoid or substantia1ly
lessen~the siqniticant effect identified in the Binal EIR.
Freeway intercha.nqe ~odi!ic:ation actions are w±thin the
ultiJnate responsibility and jurisdiotion of Ca'1-ttans, whioh
can and should take such actions. If taken, such actions
would avoid or substantially 1essen the siqnifi'Cant effect
identitied in the Final EIR.
Rationztle for F] ndba. Providinq unimpeded aoeess for the
quarry trucks will prevent other traffic from ])ackinq up
behind the heavily laden trucks with their slow starts and
stops. Deve10plltBPt in the PrOject area will be required to
contribute its fair share of the improvements so that when
such improvements are needed, they will be provided Þy new
development qenerating the need. state law authorizes the
city to enter into a cooperative agreement with ca1trans to
JDake the off-ra1l1p improvements (see. a. a., streets &
Highways Code 5S 113.5, 114).
~
nœACT 3.3/i. emmlative :rmpacta on t)Ul)1-in Bou1evar4. C\UDUlative
buildout with the Project woul-d c:ause Leve1 of service F opera-
tions at thoii intersection of Hacienda Drive with Dublin Boulevard
and Level of servi~ E operations at the intersection of Tassa-
jara Road with trob1in Boulevard. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised),
5" 0-4 " ~:~
~
11'\e.$~\find(')
9
"
~,
---
~;
;\:
r
..
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/1.3.0. The city shall continue to
p~icipate in regional studi~$ of future transportation
requirement", iJIIproveJBE!nt alternatives, and funding pro-
grams. . Buildout of proposed proj ects outlÜde Eastern DuÞlin
would require the City to build grade-separated interchanges
on Dublin Boulevard and/or establish alternate routes to
r<!!d.istribute traffic flow. All projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of improvement costs. DEIR
pages 3.3-27 (as revised), 5.0-4.
Pindina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporat·eã into the Project. However, eVen with these
changes, the i1npact miqht not be avoided or suÞstantially
lessenÉíd. Therefore, a statement of overriding considera-
tions must be adopted 'upon approval of the Project.
Rationåle for Findina. Regional transportation programs
will at-tempt to reduce the aJIIount of future traffic and
associàted impacts. Even with these eff()rts, however, the
cumulative ·traffic impacts on Dublin Boulevard might not be
reduced to insignificance.
DIPAC~ 3.3/.. C1:IIIIUlilltive Impacts OJ!, ~asslLj~. Road. CUmulative
buildout with the Project WCluld cause Level of Service. F opera-
tions at the intersections of Tassajara Road with Fallon Road,
Gleason Road, and the Transit spine. 't'hese impactsi:w:ould be
caused priDarily by traffic from the Ta~sajara connection to
Douqherty Valley, and full buildout of the 'J'assajara Valley.
DEiR paqe 3.3-28 (as revised), 5.0-4.
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/14.0. The City shall reserve suffi-
cient ~iqht-of-way to widen Tassajara Road to six lanes
between nublin Boulevard and the contra Costa County line
and monitor traffic condition!!: and implement widening- pro-
jects as required to ¡¡¡aintain LOS D operations on 'rassajara
Road. ¡;All projects in the RPA shall contribute a prc:>por-
tionatë share of the improvement costs. DEIR. pages 3.3-28
(as reyised), 5.0-4 and -5, RC #5-2, 7-13,8-2
"
Pindinä. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or suJ:Istantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Allowing for the widening of
Tassajara Road to six lanes, if needed, will allow the city
to maintain an acceptable LOS D. Development in the Projeet
area will be required to contribute its fair sh~e of the
improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they
wil.l be provided by new development qenGri!.ting the need.
. ~
!
:U4\eaS't.duI>\f~(4)
~
,
10
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. ,
ì'.
,.--.
.-
DlPAC'r 3.3/0. 'rraDsit service Jbrt;eJlsions. The Project wou~d
:introduce significant development in an area not current~y served
Þy public tr..nsit, creatinq the neli!d for substantial expansion of
existinq transit systems. DEI1/. paqe 3.3-28.
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/15.0. Specific Plan Policy 5-10*
requires the City of Dublin to coordinate with LAV'I'A to
provide transit service within one quarter mile of 95-% of
the population, in accordance with LAVTA service standardS.
(*specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.)' DEIR
paqe 3.;3-28.
"
Mitiaa~ion Measure 3.3/15.1. Specific Plan pOlicy 5-11*
requ.ires the City of Dublin to coordinate with LAV'I'A to
provid~ at least one !:>us every 30 minutes during peak hours,
to 90t ':of employment centers with 100 or 1aQre øøployêes, in
accordëince with LAVTA service standards. (*Specific Plan
, provisions adopted throuqhout RPA.) DEIR page 3.3-28.
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/15.2. All projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share to the capital and
operation costs of transit service extensions. DnR paqe
3.3-28.
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/15.3. The city $hall coordinate with.
BART and LAVTA to provide feeder service to the. planned BART-
stations. tlntil the BART e)Ctension is cOIIIpleted: (projected
for 1995), the city shall coordinate with BART. to ensure
that BART expre5$ bus service is aVa.i~able to eastern DUb~in,
resid~ts. DEIR paqe 3.3-28.
Findinc;. Chang-es or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. Some of tbe transit service
coordi~ation actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of Bart and .LAVTA aqencies and not the City of
DUbl:in~ SUch actions can and ehould be tüen by those
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. The mitigations provide for
expansion of existing transit systems to meet Project
d~nd, not only on the local level through LAV'I'A but also
on a local and regional level through BAR'1'.
IHPAC'l 3. 3/P. 8"eøt <:ossinqa fO:l: pe4estJ:ics and Bicyclea.
Pedestrians 'and bicycles would cross :major streets with higb.
projected traffic volumes, such as Dublin Boulevard, 'Tassajara
Road and Fallon Read, introducing potQJltial safety hazards for
pedestrians ,and bicyclists. DEIR paqe 3.3-29.
~j
,
11&\eas~\f~(&)
11
--.
.'-',
"
Mitiaation Measuré 3.3/1ð.O. Specific Plan Policy 5-15* and
Specific Plan Figure 5.3* require a Class ¡ paved
bicycl$/pedestrian path along Tassajara creek and trails
aiong other stream corridors in the Project area.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) -DEIR
page 3~'3-29.
Mitiaation Mê8sure 3.3/16.1.
pedesti'ianand bicycle paths
at signalized intersections.
The City shall locate
to cross major arterial
DEIR page 3.3-29.
streets
Findina. Changes or alterations have beén required in, or
incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Placing a maj or bicycle/pedestrian
pa~ along Tassajara creek and using trails along other
streUl corridors allows bicycles and pedestrians to avoid
traveling on major streets with their high traffic volUJl\es.
Where the paths !lust cross a JDajor arterial street, re-
quirinw the crossing at a signalized intersection !lini !lizes
path ~d traffic conflicts :by stopping traffic on a regular
basis 1;.0 let path travelers cross the street safeJ.y.
seotio:Þ., 3.4~-- ,i"'ntmnunitv Services a!l.èI paoilities
næAC'l' 3.4/'Â an4 B. Dema:Þ.èI for J::Þ.creased police S8rv:ices antS
ÞOlice Service. Acceøsibility. The Project will increase deJDand
for police services from the Dublin Police Department's adm.ini-
strativa and sworn staff, and will require reorganiczation. of the
police operations to provide new patrol beats in tbè Project
area. The hilly topography of .ost of the Project site may
present some accessibility and criJDe-prev&Iltion problems. DEIR
page 3.4-2.
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/~.O.
policya-4,* the City shall
facilities and revise beats
and ma.þtain city standards
Easter$'Dublin. (*Specific
througlìout RPA.) DEIR page
~~
Kitiaation Measure 3.4/2.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action~Program aD,* the City shall coordinate with the city
pOlice;DeparbDent regarding the tiJDing of annexation and
proposed development, so that the Department can adequaœly
plan fçr the necessary expansion of services in the RPA.'
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.4-2
Pursuant to Specific Plan
provide additional personnel and
as needed in order to esta:blish
for police protection service in
Plan provisions adopted
3.4-2. -
114\e.s~\fÌDd(4)
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
~
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/3.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action ProgramSE,* the City shall incorporate into the
requirements of project approval Police Department recouunen-
dations on project design that affect traffic safety and
cri1ne prevention. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-2.
Miticration Measure 3.4/4.0. Upon annexation of the RPA, the
City oj; Dublin police Department will be responsible for
police ¡'services. The city will prQpare a budget strategy to
hire the required additional personnel and iMplement a beat
system; DE!-R page 3.4-:-2.
Miticrat.ion Measure 3.4/5.0. As part of the development
review process for residential and non-residential projects,
the police Department shall review development projects'
design and circulation for visibility, security, safety,
access ~ and emergency response ti1nes and any other police
issues. DEIR pages 3.4-2 to -3.
Findincr. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationa1e for Findincr. The five mitigations identified will
ensure that additional police will be hired and, that other
administrative lIIBa.sures will be employed to provide adequate
proted;.ion for Project area residents. poliCè .Department ..
input into design of Project development will insure that
pOlice\serviaes are efficiently provided.
XMPACT 3.4/ë. Demand for ~ncreased Fire services. Buildout of
the Project ,_ will substantially expand the DlUI'A service area and
increase demand for new fire stations and firefighting personnel.
~hiswill significantly increase response t~es and reduce
service standards unless new facilities and personnel are added.
DEIR page 3~4-5.
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/6.0. PUrsuant to specific Plan
policy 8-5,'" the City shall ti1ne the construction of new
facilities to coincide with new service d~nd in order to
avoid periods of reduced service effioiency. The first
station will De sited and will begin construction concurrent
with initial development in the planning area. ("'Spec-itic
Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5.
,
,
MitiaationMeasure 3.4/7.0. Purs~t to Specific Plan
Action:.Prog'ram 8F,* tbe city shall establish appropriate
funding mecbanisms to cover up-front costs ot capital
improv~ents. ("'Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.).DEIR page 3.4-5.
114\eas~dub\find(4)
13
·,.--,
,.--..
.-
i
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/8.0. I'ursuant to Specific Plan
Action,-Proqram 8Gr'" the City shall coordinate with DRFA to
identify and acquire specific sites for new fire stations;
with the westernmost site in the Specific Plan area assured
prior to approval of any d.eveloplllent plans. ("'Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5; RC #
~5-26. -
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/9.0. PUrsuant to Specific Plan
Action Progralll BHr 1< the - city :shall incorporate DRFA
recommenðations on project design relating to acc:essr water
pressure. fire safety and prevention into developuent
approvals. Require cOlllpliance with. DRFA design standards
such as non-combustible roof materials, minimum fire hydrant
flow requireDIents¡ buffer zones along open space areas, fire
alarm anc1 sprinkler SysteDIS, road acc:ess, and parking
requireDIents. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA. ) "DEn page$. 3. 4-5 to -6.
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/~0.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action,Program 81,'" the city shall ensure, as a requireÐent
Of Project approval. that an assessment district, homeowners
association, or some other mechanism is in place that will
, provide regular long-terJII lIIaintenance of the urban/open
space interface. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
. throughout RPA.) DEm page 3.4-6. .
Mitiaatiori MeaSure 3.4/~~.0. Pursuant to Spec1.fic Plan
Action Program 8J. '" the City sball ensure that fire trails,
and fire breaks are integrated into the open space trail
system. And that fire district standards for access roads
in these areas are met while environmental impaêts are
mini.mboed. ("Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR paqe 3.4-6.
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/12.0. Tbe city of Dublin, in
consultation with DRFA and a qualified wildlife biologist.
shall prepare a wildfire management plan for the RPA to
~educe i;open land wildfire risks consistent with habitat
protect,ion and other open space values. TIle plan shall
specify ownership, maintenance, use, brush control, and
fire-resistant landscaping measures, as well as periodic
review ,'of these measures, for RPA open lands. Any park
distridts or other open space agencies with jurisdiction
over lands within the RPA shall þQ encouraged to participate
in the preparation of the plan. DEIR pages 3.4,-6 to -7.
Mitiaation :Measure 3.4/~3.0. The City shall consult with
DRFA to determine the nUJDber, location and timing of
additional fire stations for areas within the RPA outside
114\Gas~ab\~ia4(4)
"
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-,
,,'--"
the specific plan when such areas arGo proposed for
annexation to the City. DEIR page 3.4-7.
Findinct. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to determine the number and location of fire
stations are within the responsiJ:>i1.ity and jurisdiction of
DRFA and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and
should be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and
would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for 'Findinct. New fire facilities will be
constrtLcted to :llèet the needs of Project residents; DRFA
input into Project design features will enable additional
and ef~icient provision of fire services. The wildfire
managelilent plan should further l:iJD.it the Project fire
protection impacts by reducing the risk of wildfires.
DIl'AC'r 3.41i). Fire Response to outlyinq Areas. Based on DRl"A' s
preliminary",locations :for new fire stations, the northern-most
portions of. the RPA would be outside the District I s standard
response area. Development in these areas (especia1.ly the north
end of Tassajara Road) could experience adverse fire ~zard
exposure and emergency reSponse impacts. DEIR page - 3',.4-5.
Mi tiaation M",asures. I!!litigation measures 3.4/6,.0 to ~3. 0 as
descril::led above. DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -7.
Findino;¡-. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final ErR.
ACtions to determine the nU1llber and location of fire
stations are within the responsiJ:>ility and jurißdiction of
DRFA ~d not the City of DUblin. Such actions lShould be
taken by DRFA. If taken, such actionß can and would avoid
or substant.ially 1essen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
~:
Rationåle for Findina. New fire facilities will be
constructed to meet the needs of all Project residents,
including those in the outerlyinq areas; DRFA input into
project design features will enable additional and efficient
provision of fire services. The wildfire management plan
should further limit the Project fire protection impacts by
reducing the risk of wildfires.
IMPACT 3.4/E. EXpOsure to wildfire Bazar4s. settlement of
population and construction of new cOIImIunities in proximity to
high fire hazard open space areas with difficult access poses an
114\eastdub\fiDd(4)
1.5
r-"
~,
increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if open space
areas are not maintained tor fire safety. This is also a
significant cumulative ~ct in that increased development in
steep grass ,'and woodlands around the edges of the Tri-Valley's
core c::=ities :may reduce response times and strain fire-
fighting resources for regional firefighting services, many of
wh01ll participate in 1IIUtual aiã systems. DEIR pages 3.4-5, 5.0""
5.
Mîtiaation Measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0. ,
3.4/6.0 to 13.0, as described above.
-7, 5.0-5; RC #26-26.
Mitigation measures
DE:tR pages 3.4-5 to
Findina. Changes or a1.terations have Þeen required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to deteJ:1tline the nUJDber and location of fire
stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
DRFA agenc::ies and the city of Dublin. Such actions should
be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would
sUbstantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the pinal EIR. DE:tR pages 3.4-4 to -7.
..~
Rationale for Findina. New fire :facilities will be
cons~cted to meet the needs of all Project residents,
includ.;nq those near oþen space areas; DRFA input. into
~oject design features will enab~e additional ,and efficient
provision of fire services. The wildfire 12IanaqeJ!lent plan
shoul.d;,furtber lbnit the Project wildfire exposure impacts
through fire safety planninq and open space management.
J:KPACT 3.4/", G. D""""'ftd for N.w cJ.assrooa space; Demand :for
J1mior High Schools. Buildout of the Project will increase the
à""".,,d for new classroo12l space. and school faoilities beyond
=ent available oapaci ty. At the junior hiqh school level,
classroom demand.:may exceed both current and planned capacity
levels. DE:tR page 3.4-11 to -12.
Mitiaat;,on Measure 3.4/13.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy a-1., * the City shall reserve school sites within the
RPA designated on the Specific Plan ud General Plan
Amendment Land Use Maps. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throuq~out RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-12.
;,
Mitiaat.ion Measure 3.4/1.4.0. The city shall ensure that the
two proposed junior high schools are designed to 'accommodate
the projected nUJDboar o:f junior high ¡¡obool students. DEIR
page 3.,4-12.
Findina. Chanqes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
11t\eastdab\fiad(4)
:1.6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-,.--.
,~
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final ErR.
some actiens to. determine junier high scheel siting and
design are within the responsibility and jurisdictien of
ether public agencies and not the city ef Dublin. Such
actions can and should be taken by such ether agencies. If
taken, such actions would aveid or substantially lessen the
significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationa1e for Findine. Previding eleøentary, junior high,
and hiqh school sites will accONmodate classro~ demand
generated by Project residents. Mitigatien Measures
3.4/17~0 threugh 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient funding for
such d~velopment.
Dn'ACT 3.4''Ì1. 09'Brcraw4inq of Scbools. Existing scboo1s may be
overcrowded;_if insufficient new classro~ space is provided for
new residential development. DEIR page 3.4-12.
Mitiaation Me"sures 3.4/13.0 to 14.0. Mitigation Measures
3.4/13;0 to. 14.0, as described above.
Mitic:ration Meas:ure 3.4/15.0. Pursuant to. Specific Plan
P01icy B-2," the city shall pr011lote a consolidated deve10p-
ment. pattern that supports the logical development of
planning area schools, and in consultation with the appro-
priate school district(s), ensure that adequate classro011l
space is available prier to. the develepment'of new homes.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughoutRPA.) DEIR
page'3j4-J.2.
: ~
FindinG. changes or alterations have been required in, o~
incorpOrated into., the Project that avoid or su1:lstantially
lessen;the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
same actions to site and design sebools are within the
respon:Hbility and jurisdiction of other pu1:llic agencies and
not the city of Dublin. such actions can and should be
taken by suc:h other aqencies. If taken, such actiQDs wouJ..d
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Providing elementary, junier high,
and high school sites will accommodate classr~ deæand
generated by Project residents, while a consolidated
development pattern en5ures that the classreom space will be
available when it is needed. Mitigation Measures 3.4/17.0
tbrougl'¡. 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient funding for such
development.
-,
,
DlPACT 3.4/1. Impact on school Fiuancinq District JUrisdiction.
Develepment;:ef the RPAunder existinq jurisdictional boundaries
would result in the area being served by two different school
:=;
L14\eastdub\fiDd(4)
~7
;,
,-
..-..
~,
districts and would adversely affect financing of schools and
provi!Üon of educational services. DEIR page 3.4-1.2.
Mitiaation Measures 3.4/1.6.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action _ Procp:'am SA, * the city shall work with the school
districts to resolve the jurisdictional issue to best serve
rtudent needs and minimize the fii:cal :burden of the service
providers. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.)_DEIR pages 3.4-1.2 to -1.3.
~,
Findinà. Changes or alterations have been re~ired in, or
inco~rated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen "the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to resolve the jurisdictional issue are within
the reSponsibility and jurisc1iction of other public agencies
and not thGo C'i ty of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Resolving the school district
jurisdiction issue will limit conflicts and ensure that
school services are efficiently provided.
:IXPACT 3. 4/ J . :r1naut::ial BUrdeu on SChool D19U11::ts. The cost of
providing new school facilities could adversely impact local
sChool districts by creating an unwieldy financial burden unless·
some form 0; financing is identified. OEm page 3. -i--1.3.
Mitiaa~ion Measures 3.4/17.0 to 19.0. Pursuant to Specificr
Plan policy S-3* and Action Program SB, ensure that adequate
school' facilities are availaÞle prior to development in the
RPA to'the extent permitted by law, for example, by
requiring dedication of school sites and/or payment' of
develoPer fees by new development. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Aèticn Program 8C,. the City shall work with school
districts to establish appropriate funding mechanisms to
fund new school development and encouragE! school districts
to use best effcrts to obtain state funding for new con-
struction. (.Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) 'DEIR p. 3.4-13; RC #15-31.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen,the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Seme a¢tions to fund new school development are within the
responSibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and
not the City of DUblin. such actions can and should be
taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would
avoid or sUbstantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final ~.
r
114\e&stdub\ffød(4)
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-'''''''''
,
,---,
Rationiile for Findincr. Through these mitigations,develop-
ment creating school facilities de¡nand will have pri1'øary
responsibility for accommodating that de¡nand, with the
school~distriots being provided with back-up financial
support from other source$.
"
ZHPAC'1' 3.."X. Ð-!"fto/ :ror park :I'&ci11ti... without the addition
of new park~ and facilities, the increased demand for new park
anc:l recreation facil.ities resulting from buildout of the Project
woul.d not be met, resulting in deterioration of the city's park
provision standard and of the city's ability to maintain existing
services ,and facilities. This is al.so a significant cumulative
impact. DE~ pages 3.4-16, 5.0-5.
Mitiaation Measures 3.4/20.0 to 24.0. General Plan
Amendment Guiding Policies A, B, and G and :rmplementing
policy D require the City of DUblin to provide and maintain
parks and related facilities adequate to meet Project and
citywi~e needs and in conformance with the city's park and
Recrea~ion Master Plan 1992. Implementing Policy K
specifically requires dedication and improvements for the 20
parks ~esignated in the RPA with collection of in-lieu fees
as reqûired by city standards. DEIR pages 3.4-16 to -17,
5.0-5.. ;>
Mitiaation Measures 3.4/25.0 to 27.0. Sufficient parkland
shall. :be designated and set aside in the RPA to' satisfy the
CitY's',park and Recreation Master Plan 1992 and. its park
provision and phasing .standards. DEIR paglUõ 3~4-1'7, 5.0-5.
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/28. The city shall implement
Specific Plan policies 6-1 to -6* to establish large,
continuous natlJral open space areas with convenient access
for users, and adequate access for maintenance and manage-
ment1 to preserve views of designated open space areas; and
to establish a mechanism for open space ownership, manage-
ment, and maintenance. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throuqJ;i.out RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-18 to -19.
- ,
"
Findinti. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorpørated into, the Proj ect that avoid or substantially
lessen~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
".',
Rationá.le for Findinc¡. These mitigations provide added new
parks ånd facilities to meet increased demand fram Project
residefits, and require compliance with phasing plans in the
park and Recreation Master Plan 1992, to ensure that new
parks and facilities construction will keep pace with new
residential construction.
11~\ea.~Ub\fínd(~)
19
,--"
---.
XKPAC'l' 3.4/L. park Facilities Fiscal :rmpact. Acqu.isition and
improvement of new park and recreation facilities may place a
financial strain on existing city of Dublin revenue sources
unless adequate financing and implementation mec::hani$1l1S are
designed. DEIR page 3.4-18.
Mitiaation Measurl!!s 3.4/20.0 to 31.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 4-29* and Action PrograJn 4N, * the city shall
ensure that development provides its fair share of planned
open space; for example, through in-lieu fees under the
city's ,parkland dedication ordinance. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Piogram 4M,* the city shall develop a parks Imple-
mentation Plan identifying phasing, facilities priorities
and location, and design and construction responsibilities.
(*specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
_ pag-e 3,:4-18.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant ~fect identified in the Final EIR.
RationaJ.e for FindinCf. These mitigations ensure that needed
park facilities will be provided by developers at the time
of development, thereby avoiding- the use of existing revenue
sources to build new parks for Project area residents.
IKP.1Q'l' 3. 4/K, If. :tmpaC't 011 ReqioDB1 '.I!rail syst_ &:ftd' Impact.on
Ope:l1 space COD!leC'tioJl.s. without adequate provisionS. for trail ,
easeJl.\ents ana without adequate aesign and imple¡nentation, urban
development:along streaJn corridors and ridqeJ.ands would obstruct
formation of a regional trail syste¡n and an interconnected open
space systø. DEIR page 3.4-18 to -19.
Mi.tiaation Measure 3.4/32. O. Pursuant to General Plan
AJIlenchiènt Guiding Policy -H, * establish a trail system with
regional and subregional connections, including- a trail
along- the Tassajara creek corridor. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout _RPA. ) DEIR page 3.4-19.
Mitiaation Measures 3.4/23.0 and 33.0 to 36.0. PUrsuant to
General Plan Amenàment Guiding Policy I, Implementation
Policy D, Specific Plan policies 6-1,* 6-3,* Action Program
40,* and consistent with the city's Parks and Recreation
Master Plan 1992, use natural stream corridors and major
ridgelines as the basis for a trail system with a conti-
nuous, ::integrated open space network, e1IIphasizinq convenient
user aCcess:, pedestrian and bicycle connections between
developed and open space areas, and developer dedication of
ridgetQp and stream corridor public access easements.
(*Spec±fic Plan provisions adopted throug-hout RPA.) DEIR
pages ~.4-l7, -19.
114\eaa~ub\f~(4)
20-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
"
r
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the PrOject: that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Establishing- a Project area trail
system. incorporating planned regional connections contri-
butes to developxa.ent of a regional trail system and allows
the trail planning to be considered and incorporated into
individual Project area developments in the RPA. By
requir*ng that open space and trail planning be based' on
cont~ous physical fee.tures such as stream corridors and
:ridgeU:nes, and that public access be provided along these
. features , these mitigations avoid a disconnected open space
system~'
DlPAC'T 3. 4/0, P. IDer_se4 soli4 waste Produ.ction and Impact CD
Solia. waste Ðiøposal :racilU:ies. Increased population and
commercial land use will cause a proportional increase in the
total projected. amount of solid waste and household hazardous
waste generated by the city of ÐUblin. This increase creates the
need for additional capacity, personnel, and vehicles to dispose
of the wastês. - It can create public health risks from içroper
handling. The increased solid waste and household hazardous
waste generated by the Project may accelerate the closing
schedule for A:Ltamont landfill unless additional capacity is
developed. or altenlate disposal sites are identified,. This
impact on the Altamont landfill is also a potentiai1y significant
cumulative i:1a.pact. DEIR pages 3.4-21 to -22, 5.0-6.
MitiaationMeasures 3.4/37.0 to 40.0. Pursuant to .specific
Plan Action Program 8K* and other EIR mitigations, adopt a
Solid wa$te Management Plan for the WA, including waste
reduct:j.on programs such as coçosting and curbside and other
collection of recyclables. IncJ.ude goals, objectives, and.
programs necessary to .integrate with the diversion targets
o;f the city' s Source Reduction and Recycling Element and
Household ID!.zardous Waste Element. New development in the
RPA shâll demonstrate adequate available landfill capacity
for anticipated wastes. (*specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3-4.22 to -23, 5.0-6.
Findinct. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project: that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect iò.entified .in the Final EIR.
RationiÜe for Findina. These :IIIitigations minimize the
aJIIount :_of solid waste production and related neêds and risks
througb compliance with AB 939 solid waste planning.
Reducing the amount of Project-generated waste will also
avoid. an accelerated closing schedule for the Altam.ont
landfiÏl. In addition, these mitigations require that new
;.
114\eas~daR\£~(4)
21
:.1
,-...
...-. .
'.
...
,"
-.
j
-,
develoPment anticipate and provide for adequate waste
disposäl before the deve10pment is approved.
:DIPAC'l' 3.4/0. Dell.aDd for Utility BXtensioruJ. Development of the
Project site will significantly increase demand for gas, electric
and. tel'ephone services. Meeting this demand will require
construction of a new Project-wide distribution system. This is
a significant growth-inducing impact. DEIR pages 3.4-24, 5.0-14
to -15.
Mitiaation Measures. None proposed. DEIR page 3.4-2.4.
Findina. No changes or alterations are available to avoid
or substantially lessen this impact. Therefore, a Statement
of OVerriding considerations must be adopted upon approval
of the'.,:Project.
XKPACT 3.4/R. Utility EXtension Visual and BiologiQal Impacts.
Expansion o~ electrical, gas, and telephone lines could adversely
affect visuäl and biological resources if not appropriately
sited. DE~ page 3.4-24.
,.
Mj~iaa~ion Measures 3.4/41.0 to 44.0. PUrsuant to Specific-
Plan Action Progrmn 8L* and other identified :mitigation
measures, development wi thin the RPA aust docmnent: the
availability of electric, gas, and telephone service and
must place utili ties below grade or,- preferably, underground
and routed away from sensitive habitat and open space lands.
A development project: service report shall be reviewed by
the city prior to impròvement plan approva.l. - r*Specific
Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEll page 3.4-24
to -25. .
J'indinr¡¡. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorpçrated into, the Proje.ct that avoid or suhsta.ntia11y
leSSen;the significant effect identified in the Final EIn.
Ratio~le for Findina. Undergrounding utilities will avoid
visual¡,effects by placing thè utility extensions where they
cannot~be seen. Routing the utility extensions away from
sensitive habitat and open space areas will avoid impacts on
biological resources by avoiding the resources themselves.
IKPJlCT 3.4/8. COnsWlption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources.
Natural gas and electrical service would increase consumption of
non-renewable natural resources. DEJ:R page 3.4-25.
Mitiaat:ion Measures 3.4/45.0 to 46.0. Major developer!:: in
the Project area shall provide d~nstration projects on
cost-effective energy conservation techniques including but
not Ibid ted to solar water and space heating, landscaping
1J.4\eastd..J>\f.iÌ1d(4)
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.--,
-
for water conservation, and shading. All development
projects in the RPA shall prepare an energy conservation
plan as part of their proposals. The plan shaJ.l demonstratE>
how site planning, building design, and landscaping will
conserve use of energy during construction and long term
operation. DEIR page 3.4-25.
Findinå. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
change~, the i1npact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of overriding considera-
tionS lj1ust be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findina. Tbrough the demonstration projects,
developers can educate themselves and Project residents
about available and feasible techniques to reduce
consU1llption of energy resources. Requiring energy
conservation plans forces both developers and the city to
actively consider various techniques to reduce energy
cons'Wllption and to build those techniques directly into the
Projeot. 'These actions cannot, however, fully mitigate the
impact .
IHP1œ' 3.4/~.
will increiil5e
DemaDd for IftCreased postal service. The Project
the demand for postal service. DEIR page 3.4-26.
Mitiaation Measures 3.4/47.0 to 48.0. pUrsuant to Speoific
Plan PCilicy 8-10 and Action Program 8M, the City shall
encour~ge the U.s.P.S. to locate a new post office in the
Eastern Dublin town cen1:.er. DEIR paqe 3.4-261-RC # .15-37.
Findina. Changes or al1:.erations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substan1:.ially
kessan the significant effect iden1:.ified in the Final EIR.
Actions to site a new pos1:. office within the town center are
within the ul.timate responsibility and jurisdiction of the
USPS' and not the city of Dublin. Such actions can and
should be taken by the USPS. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Ratlonåle for Flndina. A pos1:. office conveniently located in
the toWn center area will provide postal service to meet the
Project:. generated demand.
IMPACT ,.4/D. DemaDd for Increased Li~rary service. Without
addi1:.ional $ibrary facilities and staff, the increase in
population ~esUltinq from the Project would adversely affect
existing library services and facilities DEIR page 3.4-27.
114\eactdub\find(4)
23
.'
,.--,
,-.-
,.
·i;
"
f~
Mitiaation Measures 3.4/49.0 to 51.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan policy 8-11* and Action Program BN* and other identi-
fied mitigation measures, the city shall encourage and
assist the Alameda County Library system to provide adequate
library service in eastern Dublin, considering such ractors
as location, phasing, and funding of needed library ,
services. (*Specific Plan provisions-· adopted throughout
RPA.) DE:tR pages 3.4-27 to -28; RC #15-3B.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actionii' to provide library facilities are within the
ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the Alameda
County::Library system and not the city of Dublin. such
actionS can and should be taken by the AlB!l1eda County
Library Syste:m. If taken, such actions would avoid' or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Providing library services to the RPA
will meet Project generated demand. Planning how and When
to provide those services will ensure that they are
efficient and convenient to the maxhlwn nW11ber of users.
,
Section 3.5 -- áewer. Water. ana storm Drainaae
DlPAC!1' 3.5fA. J:nðireClt zmpacts Resultihg from 'the Lac=k of a
Wastewater service Provider. Although Specific Plan Policy 9-4
(page 127) calls for the expan~ion of DSRSD's service boundarie~
to inolude the specific Plan area, the Project does not provide
for wastewa~er service to areas in the RPA outside the specific
plan area. ¡This could result in uncoordinated efforts by future
developers in this area to secure wastewater services. DE:tR page
3.5-5, RC #~32-18.
Hitiaat.ion Measure 3.5/:1.0a. Pur5uant to Specific Plan
Policy~9-4,* the city shall coordinate with DSRSD to expand
its service boundaries to encompass the entire RPA.
(*specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) RC #
32-18.
Findinc:r. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to expand DSRSD's service boundaries are within the
ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the DSRSD and
not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by the DSRSD. If taken, suob. actions would avoid or
substa~tially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Fi~al ErR.'
114'eas~ub\find(4)
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,..-..,
,-
Rational for Findina. ExPanding DSRSD's service
boundaries to include the. entire RPA will ensure that
securing wastewater services will be coordinated
through one agency.
nœAœ 3.5/B. ¡.ac:=k Of a wastewater Collection 8yst_. Estimated
wastewater flow for thGl RPA is 4.6 MGD; however, there currently
is no wastewater collection system adequate to serve the project
area. DEIR page 3.5-5.
Mitiaation Measures 3.511.0 to 5.0. Pursuant to specific
Plan Action Praqraø5 9P,* 91,. 90,* 9M,* and 9N,* all
development in the RPA shall be connected to public· sewers
and shall obtain a "will-serve" letter prior to grading
permits; on-site package plants and septic systems shall be
discouraged. '!'he City shall request that DSRSD update its
collection system master plan to reflect Project area
proposed land uses, with the cost of the plan to be borne :by
future'development in the RPA. All wastewater systems shall
be designed and built in accordance with DSRSD standards.
<"'Specå;fic Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3 :,5-6; RC # 32-19, 32-20. -
Findina. Chanqas or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Pròject that avoid or substantially
lessen: the significant effect identified in the: Flnal EIR.
Rationale for Findina. These mitigations will provide a
wastewater collection system adequate to meet Project
generated detnand, and wi~l ensure the system m~s design
and construction standards of DSRSD.
.
:nŒACT- 3.5/0. BZttmSion of a sewer Trmdt ¡.ine with capacity to
serve ._ Developments. Construction or a wastewater oollection
system could result in development outside the RPA that would
connect to the Project's collection system. This is 11.180 a
potentially significant growth-inducing i1npact. DEIB pages 3.5-
6, 5.0-15.
MitiGation Measure 3.5/6.0.
shall be sized only for the
11, 5.0-15.
.:¡
Findinèf. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
1essen:the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
The proposed wastewater system
RPA area. DEIB pages 3.5-6, 4-
Rationa1e for Findina. By sizing the planned wastewater
collection system only to serve the RPA, growth inducing
i1npacts on lands QUtside that area are avoided.
114\eastdub\£iDd(4)
25
----
,-
IØPAC'l' ,.5/D. Allocation of DSRSD '.rreaUent and Disposal
capacity. There is limited available capacity at the DSRSD
Treatment Plant, limiting the nwnber of sewer permits available
for nêW developments. It is Vêry unlikely that any of the
p1:'!!Osently remaining DUE's will be available for the East=
DuÞJ.in Area. DEIR page 3.5-7; RC #32-21-
Hit.iaat.ion Heasure 3.5/7.0~ Pursuant. t.o specific plan
Act.ion program 9L,'" development project applicants in the
RPA shall prepare. a design level wat.er capacity investi-
gat.ion, including means to minimize anticipated. wastewater
flows and reflec.ting deveJ.opmGnt phased ac.c.ordinq to sewer
permit. allocation.. ("'Spec.ifie Plan provisions- adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-7.
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/7.1. Development project applicants
in the-,RPA shall oJ:>tain a wastewater hwill,...serveh 1etter
from D~RSD before .rec.eivinq a grading permit. RC #32-22.
Findind. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
ineorp¢rated into, the Project that avoid or sub$tantiaJ.ly
lessen j:the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
RationaJ.e for Findina. The required investigation will alJ.ow
development to be phased to ensure there are. adequate
wastewater facilities availaJ)le to 1IIeet ProjeGi:;.-qenerated
demand. The require1llent of a "wiJ.l-s!!OrVe" letter will
insure that adequate wa¡;:tewater facilities will., exist for
aJ.l new development. If capacity is not available, DSRSD
will not issue a will-serve letter. RC#32-22.
IMPAC'l' 3.S/E. Fu'ture Lack of wastewater Trea'tlllent Þlan't
ca~city. DeveJ.opment of the Project require an increase in
wa¡;:tewater treabent plant capacity within DSRSD to adequately
treat the additional wastewater flows to meet discharge
standards. .This is a1so a potentially significant cumulative
i1IIpact in that increased demand on area wastewater treabnent
facilities exceeds =ent remaining capacity. DEIR page 3.5-7
to -8, 5.0-$.
:'
Mi tiaaidon Measures 3.5/7.1. 8.0. 9.0. Pursuant to Specific
Flan policy 9-6* and mitigations identified in the ErR,
ensure:'that wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are
available for future development in the RPA throuqh
cOlllþliance with 'DSRSD's master plan to fund, design, and
corn::truct wastewater treatment plant e.xpansion once export
capacity is avaiJ.abJ.e (unle~s TWA approves export of D!J!
wastewater, in which case DSRSD I S wastewater treatlD.ent plant
expansion will not be necessary). Also, development project
applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serveh
J.etter from DSRSD before receivinq a gradinq permit.
114\Qas~uÞ\finQ(4)
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~,
.~
:i
".
I':
C*specd:fic Plan provisiQJls adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
pages 3.5-7 to -B, 5.0-6; RC #32-23.
F1ndina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationa1.a for Findina. comp1.iance with DSRSD's master p1.an
will. ensure that adequate wastewater treat:ment pl.ant
capacity will be available in the future to serve Project
generated demand once export capacity of treated wastewater
is providec1_Csee Hitigation Measure 3.5/11_.0). A1ternative-
ly, expanded treatment capacity will net be necessary if
expert,_of raw wastewater is approved. The requirement of a
"wlll.-=i;erve" letter will insure that adequate wastewater
facilities will exi$t for all new development. If capacity
is not avai1.a.ble,DSRSD will not issue a will-serve letter.
RC #32~22. .
IIØAC'l' 3.5 to;,. ncr_se in BDergy uSage ~hrOU9h IJI,~.ase4
wastewater Treatment. Development of the Project will result in
increasec1wastewater flows and will require increased energy use
for treatJnent of wastewater. DEIR page 3.5-8; RC #32-24.
!
Mitiaation MeasUre 3.5110.0. Include energy efficient
treatment systems in any wastewater treat:JDent p1.-ant
expansion and operate the plant to take advantage of off-
peak energy. DEIR page 3.5-81 RC #32-24.
Findina. Such actions are wi thin the! responsibility and
jurisdi<::tion of othC!!:t' public age!ncie!s ana not the city of
Dublin-,;; Such aatiens can and should be taken by other
agenci~s. However, eVe!n if such aationlS are taken, this
impact'::will not be avoided or substantially lessened.
There:f¢re, a statement of overriding Considerations must be
adopted upon approval. of the Project.
Rationále for Findina. Use of enerqy efficient treatment
systemš and plant operations wi1.l reduoe! the! ~ount of
energy; USle 1:tUt these a<::tions oannot ful1.y mitigate the
impact;
IHPa.C'l 3.5/G. Lack of wastewater curent Disposal capacity. The
increase in wastewater flowli from the Prej eat and other sub-
regional development will exce!e!d available wastewater disposal
capaoity until additional export capacity is developed. This is
also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.5-B, 5.0-6.
Mitiaation Me!asures 3.517.1. 11. to 14.Q. pursuant to
Specif~c Plan Policy 9-5* and Action Progr~9Ht* 9J,* and
9R,. the City shall support current efforts to deve1.op
114\e&stdUb\fiDd(4)
i
27
j;.
-----
-.
additional export oapaoity. The City shall require use of
recycled water for land$cape irrigation in accordance with
DSRSD's Recycled Water Policy and require development within
the RPA to fund a recycled water distribution system mOdel
to reflect proposed land uses. Also, development project
applicants in the RPA shall. obtain a wastewater "will-serve"
le.tter·from DSRSD before receiving a grac1.ing permit.
(*Spec!fic Plan provisions adoptec1. throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3 ~_5-9, 5.0-6 to -7, RC #32-22, 32-25, 32-26, 32-27.
. ~
Findinå. Chanqes or alterations have been required in, ot"
incorpörated into, the P:!:'oj$!ct that avoid or substantially
l.essen;the·siqnifioant effect identifiec1. in the Final EIR.
Actions to devel.op additional export capacity are within the'
responsibility and jurisdiction of other publ.ic agencies,
and not the City of DUblin. SUch actions can and shou1d
take by liiuch agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid
or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale fo:!:' Findina. These mitigations will. provide the
additional wastewater disposal capacity necessary to meet
Project generated demand. 'l'he requirement of a "will-serve"
letter will insure that adequate wastewater facilities will
exist for &.11 new development. If capacity is not avail-
able, DSRSD will not issue a will-serve letter~::;RC #32-22.-
næA~ 3.5/.. :J:¡:u::rease in Bnergy tJsag-e ".r!lrouqh Increased
wast.ewater nisposal. Veve.lopmfiUlt of the Project will result in
increased wastewater flows and will require increas~ energy use
tor disposal of wastewater; more specifically, for (1) pumping-
raw wastewater to CCCSD for treatment under the TWA proposed
project; and/or (2) operation of an advanced treatment and
distribution system for recyoled water. DEIR pag-e 3-5. 9.
Mitiaaiion Measures 3.5/15.0 to i6.0. The city shall
encourage off peak pumping to the proposed TWA export
liiystem. The City shaJ.l plan, design, and construct the
Project recycJ.ed water treatment system for enerqy efficient
operation incJ.udinq use of energ-y efficient treatment
systemS, optÍDlal use of storage faci1i ties, and pumping at
off peak hours. DEIR pages 3.5-10 to -11.
Findina. SUch actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the city of
Dublin~ SUch actions can and should be taken by other
agenoies. However, even if such actions are taken, this
impactiwill not be avoidec1. or substantia1ly lessened.
TherefQre, a Statement of OVerriding Considerations must be
adopt~ upon approval of the Proj ect.
114\ea.~~\£iDà(4)
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...-. -
~
--
;,
!'
..-
,.
Ration';'le for FindinCl. The proposed mitigations will reduce
the amóunt of energy used for wastewater disposal but these
actions cannot fu1.ly mitigate the impact.
DŒ'ACT 3.5/7.. potential Failure of' Expoñ Disposal systeø.. A
failur~ in the operation of t1w proposed TWA wastewater p\Ull.P
stations would adversely affect the overall operation of the
wastewater oollection systeJll for the Tri-Valley subregion, as
well as the Eastern Dublin Project. DEIR page 3.5-10.
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/17.0. Engineering redundancy wi1l Þe
built into the TWA pump stations, which will a1.so have
provisions for emergency power generators. DEIR page
3.5-10.
Findina. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other pub1.ic agencies and not the city of
Dublin;' Such actions can and should b~ taken by other
agenci~s. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub-
stantiålly lessen the significant effect identified in the
Final ÉIR.
Ration~le for Findina. Engineering redundancy will minimize
the riSk of pump station system failure; providing emergency
power generators will ensure that any systell:l failure which
does oecur will be short liveà, thereby avoiàirig'-the effects
of such failure. RC #32-28.
~ 3.5/J. Puøp station Noise and Odors. The pr.oposed TWA
wastewater pwn.p stations could generate noise during their
operation and could potentially produce odors. DEIR page 3.5-10.
~i tiaation Measure 3.5/18.0. TWA r s pumps and :motors will be
designêd to camp1y with 10cal noise standards and will be-
proviàêd with odor control equipment. DEIR page. 3.5-10.
,.
~:
Findinq. Such actions are within the responsibility.and
jurisd~ction of other public aqencies and not the city of
Dublin ~ such actions can and should be taken by other
agenciés. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub-
stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the
Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Requirinq compliance with local noise
standards will ensure that axty noise produced not exceed
acceptable levels. Odor control equipment will ensure that
odor production effects ar~ avoided. RC #32-28.
IMPAC'l' 3.5/£. storage Basin Odors ~ potential Failla.. The
proposed TWA Emergency Wastewater storage Basins could poten-
tially e5it odors and/Or the basins eould have structural failure
ll4\eastdub\f~(4)
29
.;
ii
i;
,r-,
,
.------.
due to landslides, earthquakes, or undermining of the reservoir
fr01l\ inadequate drainage. DEIR page 3.5-:1.0.
Xi~iaation Mêasure 3.5/19.0. TWA1s basins will be covered,
buried_tanks with odor control equipment and will be
desi~d to :meet current seismic codes. DEIR page 3.5-n..
Findina. SUch actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
DUblin" Such actions can and should be taken by other
agenciés. :If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. These mitigations ensure that any
odors related to the TWA basins are contained and controlled
within the basins so as not to be detectaJJle beyona. the
basins. C01Ilpliance with seiSJllic codes wi11 enSUJ:'e that the
basins are proper1y constructed to withstand 1andslides and
earthquakes and are provided. with adequate drainage to avoid
structural failure. RC #32-28.
DlPAC'f 3.5/L. Recycled water systq operation. The proposed
recycled water system must be constructed and operated proper1y
in order to ;¡prevent any potential contamination or cross-
connection with potable water supply systems. DEIR-"paqe 3,.5-1.1..
..
Mitiaafion MQasure 3.5/20.0. Construction of tþ.e recycled
water distribution system will meet all applicable standärds
of the: Department of Health services (DES) and·.San, !!'rancisco
Bay Reqional Water Quality COntrol Board (RWQCB). DEIR page
3_S-11~-
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incœ:porated into, the Project that avoid or substantia~ly
lessen the significant effect identified iJ:I the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. App~icable regulations of the DHS and
RWQCB are designed to prevent cross-connection contaJllina-
tion; coçliance with these regulations will therefore avoid
the contamination impact.
DlPACT 3.5/](,. Recycled Water storage Failure. Loss of recycled
water storage through structural da1Dage from lands~ide, earth-
quake, and undermining of the reservoir tbrough iJ:Iadequate
èlrainage. ¡;IBm page 3.5-1:1..
Mitiaa~ion Measure 3.5/21.0. The city sha~i require
reservoir construction to meet all app~icable DSRSD and
other health standards and shal~ require preparation of
soils and geotechnical investigations to determine potential
~14\~~ub\fÍDd(4)
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
...--
,-
.~;
i
landslide and earthquake
designed to :meet current
adequat,e site ~ainaqe.
impacts. Reservoirs shall be
seismic codes and to provide
DE!R page 3.5-11.
FindinQ. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or suÞ$tantia11y
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for FindinQ. Soils and geotechnical studies will
ensure that reservoirs will be designed and constructed to
cOlDply with current seis:mic, DSRSD, and other applicable
health standards, the purpose of which is: ,to avoid
sUuctural failure.
iKPAcr 3.5/.. LOSS of Recycled water system pressure. Loss of
pressure in ':the proposed recycled water distribution systems
could result in the system being- unablê to meet peak irrigation
demand, which could'result in loss of vegetation throuqh lack of
irrigation water. DEIR page 3.5-12; RC #32-30.
Mitfaation Measure 3.5/22.0. The recyoled water pwnp
stations shall meet all applicable DSRSD standards. DEiR
page 3.'5-12 ;RC #32-31.
FindinQ. Changes or alterations haVe been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the si~ificant effeot identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. compliance with DSRSD standards will
minimize the risk of ~essure being lost.
:tKPAC'1' 3.5/0. SecoD4~J:lllpacts from Recycled WatersystØIII
Operation. Failure to identify and implement treatment plant
improvementš related to recyoled water use may in=ea&e salinity
in the c¡roui'ldwater basin. DEIR page 3.5-12.
Mitiaat:ion Measures 3.5/20.0. Recycled water projects shall
incorporate salt mitigation requ.ired by Zone 7. DEIR paqe
3.5-12. -
f
Findind. Chi!l.nqes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findimf. Compliance with salt mitigation
requirements will reduce the salinity of the recycled water,
thereby avoidinq the risk of increased salinity in the
groundwater basin.
:rKPAC'J! 3. SIP. overdraft of Local Groundwater Resources. If the
Project area is not annexed to Ds:RSD and development projects are
114\eastd~\f~(4)
31
"
~
-.--.
..-...,
¡;
"
Mi tiaation Measure 3.5/43.0. Design pump stations to reduoe
sound levels fro. operating pump :motors and emergency
genera;tors. DEIR page 3.5-22.
Findincr. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the PrOject that avoid or suÞstantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinc:r. Reducing sound l.evel.s of the
mechanioal. equipment wil.l. reduce the aJIIount of noise
perceivaÞl.e by surrounding residents, thereÞy avoiding the
impact .
ntPAC'l' 305fT. potential Flc:ioc1inq. Development of the Project
and deV8l.cpiiient of for:mer agricultural., rural, and open space
l.andsthroug-hout the Tri-Val.ley will result in an increase in
runoff to creeks and will result in an increased potential for
flooding. This is also a potentially significant cumulative
impact. cEra page 3.5-25, 5.0-9.
Mitiaa~ion Measure 3_5/44.0 to 48.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policies 9-7* and 9-8,* Action Programs 9R* and 9S,*
and other EI'R mitigations, require a master drainage plan
for each development projeot in the RPA to provide drainage
faoilities adequate to prevent incrêased erosion or flood-
ing, including channel i1llprove:ments with nat=.al- creek
bottoms, and side slopes with nat=al vegetatìon. This
design l.evel plan shall include studies of thedevelapment
project area hydrology, potential impacts of the development
project, and proposed design features to minimize runoff
_flows and their effects on erosion and riparian vegetation.
Development projects shal.l also address potential downstream
fl.oodimg, and shall include retention/detention facilities
andlor?energy dissipator!.': to mini1nize and control runoff,
dischairge, and to 1IIinimize adverse lJioloqical and visual
effects. construct storm drainage facilities in accordance
with approved stO:r1ll drainage ma$ter plan. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throuqhout RPA.) DEIR 3.5-25 to -26,
5.0-9.~
Findinå. Changes or alterations have :)een requireã in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoiã or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for F; ndina. Through planning and i.J!Iplementation
of storm drainage master plans, development projects will
mini1llize the amount of runoff to creeks and will provide
drainage facilities to control the rate and location of
runoff that does discharqe into creeks. These meas=es wil.l
miniJnize the increase in runoff, thereby avoiding increaseã
floodiriq potential.
..~
114\eastdUb\fin4(4)
36
'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r--.
,~
nlPACT 3.5/Z. Reduced Groundwater Recharge. Increasing the
amount Of Lmpervious surfaces in the project area could reduce
the area's already :minimal groundwater recharge capabilities.
This is also a potentially significant cumulative impact, as
impervious surfaces increase throughout the Tri-Valley. DEIR
page 3.5-26; 5.0-9 to -10.
Mitiaation Measure~.5149.0 to 50.0. PUrsuant to Specific
P1an Po1icy 9-9* and other EIR 1Ititiqations, plan facilities
and operations that protect and enhance water quality;
support Zone 7' s onqoinq groundwater recharqe progrëIJII. for
the nearby central Basin, which contains the majority of the
Tri-Valley's groundWater resources. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throuqhout RPA.) DEIR page 2.5-26,
5.0-9.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incoJ:;porated into, the Project that avoid or s\Wstantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. These 1Ititigation measures protect
and efÙlanoe what minblal groundwater recharge capability
exist:s'dn the Project area.
.J:
nlPAC'l' 3.5/U. lIIon-Point Sources of Pollution. Develop:ment of
the Project 'could result in a deterioration of the qµality of
stormwater. due to an increase in non-point sources of pollution
including (1) urban runoff; (2) non-stormwater discharges to
storm drains; (3) subsurface drainage; and (4) construction site
runoff (erosion and sedi:mentation). This is also a-potentially
signiticant~cumulative impact as other projects in the subregion
are developed. DEnt page 3.5-26.
Mitiaation MeaSUTe 3.5/52.0 to 55.0. The city shall develop
a co:mmunity based education progrilJll on non-point sources of
pollution, c(lo~inating such programs with current AlilJlleda
county prog;r¡u1ls. 'l'he city shall require all development to
meet the requirements of the city's "Best Management
practices", the city's NPDES permit, and the County's urban
Runoff.Clean Water Program to mitigate stormwater pollution.
DEIR 3.5-27, 5.0-10, Add.endum.
Findim:Ì-. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the signiricànt ef;fect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationå1e for Findina. Education progra.1l\S will acquaint all
Project area residents with the issue of non-point
pollution, and will suggest ways residents can avoid such
pollution. EX:isting city, County, and state regulatory
proc;¡ra.1l\S will insure that potential impacts of non-point
114\easbd~\fin4(4)
37
,'-
~
Slopes:,greater than about 30%, and providing lower density
develoþtnent in steep, unstable areas. Where unstable areas
cannot be avoided, design measures and mitigations include
J:'emovirtg the unstable material, reoonstructing or repairing
the unStable aJ:'ea, or engineering- structural responses,'
including SuDSU:J:'faCe drainage improvements. (See also MM
3.6/26.0, recommending maintenanoe and inspeotion pJ.ans for
d1:'ainage systems. DEIR page 3.6-14.) DE:IR page 3.6-12 to
-13.
Findina. Chanqes OJ:' alterations have been required in, or
inoorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen. the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale tor Findina. The design level geotechnical
investigation will disclose areas which may be susceptible
tosløpe instability. Special techniques, such as siting of-
structUre and improvements, removing the unstable materials,
and providing structural remediation, will iJnprove slope
stability.
!: ,.
XKPAC~ 3.G/J. cut and fiJ.l-S1ope Stability. potentially
unstable cut and fill slopes may fail or settle, causing dmnage
to structures and infrastructure. DEIR page 3. 6-13.
Mitiaation Measures 3.6/20.0 to 21.0. Requiriá:';<¡rading plans
for hillside areas, which plans minimize gradiD-g and
required cuts and rills by adapting roads to natUraJ.
land£orms, stepping structures down steeper slopes, and.
demonstrating compliance with applicable buildi'ng oede and
other applicable city and County requirements. DEm page
3.6-1.3. ..
Mitiaation Measures 3.6122.0 to 25.0. Detailed design level
geotechnical investigations such as that required by
Ditiga~ion measure 3.6/17.0 should describe and evaluate cut
and fi~l slopes proposed for development projects in the
RPA. ~etaining structures, reinforcement and drainage
:measures sbould be provided on cut slopes as determined by
code rèquirements and the specific conditions identified in
the geÇtechnical investigation. unretained cut slopes
sbould'generally not exceed 3:1. Filled slopes steeper than
5: 1 shòuld be keyed and :benched into competent material and
provided with subdrainage prior to plaoing engineered fill.
DEIR pages 3.16-13 to _14.
Mitiaation Measure 3.6/26.0. Development projects in the
Project area should prepare plans for tbe periodic in-
spection and maintenance of subsurface d1:'ainage features,
and the removal and disposal of materials deposited in
surface drains and catch basins. (See also measures
114\ea~\£~(4)
42
.,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-,-..-
,-..
described in MM 3.6{28.0.) The plans should include
inspection and dißposal procedures, schedule and reporting
requirements, and a responsible party, and should emphasize
overall long-têrm Project monitoring -and maintenance. DEIR
page 3._6-14.
Findina. _ Challges or alterations have been required in, or
inco~rated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
1ess;en :.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina-. The detailed design level qeotechni-
ca1 investigation wi11 identify areas where cut and fi11
s10pes are proposed. Specific grading p1ans affecting these
conditions would be required to show how each development
project will mitlimize cut and fill slopes, and how the
remaining slopes will be stabilized through siting or engi-
neering features. Long-term monitoring and maintenance
plans wi1l ensure that the design facilities and engineered
features effectively protect the cut and £111 slopes over
the 10J)g term.
IHÞAC'1' 3.6/E. L. Erosion ~4 saðimen\:ation; constraCltio21-Related
and LolI.g-~erm. Construction of development projects in the RPA
will modify ,the ground surface and its protective vegetative
cover and will alter surface runoff and infiltration patterns,
causinq sho)ft-term erosion and sedimentation during_'c:'ponstruction,
and- lonq-term erosion and s;eciimentat10n once permanent structures
and improvements .are in place. The long-term impact. is also a
significant. cumulative impact as similar sites are developed
throughout the Tri-Va11ey. DEIR page. 3.6-1.4, 5.0-n.
Mitiaation Measure 3.6/27.0. Time grading activities to
avoid the rainy season as much as possib1e, and imp1ement
interim control :¡¡¡easures, including but not limited to,
providing water DarS, mulch and net blankets on exposed
slopes, straw bale dikes, temporary culverts and swales,
sediment traps, andlor silt :rences. DEIR page 3.6-~4.
Mitiaation Measure 3.6/2B.0. Reduce long-term erosion and
sedimentation impacts through appropriate design, construc-
tion, and c_ontinued maintenance of surface and subsurface
drainage. Appropriate measures inc1ude, but are not limited
to, constructing sediment catch basins, ad.equate storm sewer
systems, stabilizing creek banks, revegetating and main";
taining wooded slopes, constructing facilities to control
drainage and runoff, and elllPhasizing periodic h011lêOWDar I
landowøer maintenance. (See also MM 3. 6/26. ) DE:rR page
3.6-1.5; 5.0-1.1.
114\eastduÞ\~~(4)
43
-
'-,
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid. or substantially
lessen',the siqnificant effect identified in the Final Em.
Ra.tionale for Findina. These mitigations include measures
to prevent concentration of runoff, control runoff veloc! ty ,
and trap ail ts on bcrth a short-term and long-term basis,
thereby minimizing the iden'tified impact.
sectioD 3.?:-- Bio1o~iaa1 Resources
IHPAC'l' 3.7/A. tlirect ~itat Loss. Under Alternative 2, the
project will result in the loss, degradation, or disturbance of
1900 aCX'es of existing vegetation. No unique or rare plant
species occur in the Project area; however, urbanization wi1.l
substantia1.ly reduce the habitat and range for botanical and
wildlife s~cies which are resident or migratory users of the
RPA. The Project contributes to the cwnulative" ongoing -loss of
na.tural habitat in the Tri-Valley region, and is also a
potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.7-9, 5.0-
1-1-, Addendwn.
)
Mithmtion'Measures 3.7/1.0 to 3.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan policies 6-21* and 6-23,* and Action Program 60,*
direct fdisturbance of trees or vegetation should be
minimized and restricted to those areas actually designated
for construction of improvements. DeveJ.opment"projects
shoUld,include vegetation enhancement/managemeirt:.,plans fo:t:'
all opén space a:t:'eas identifying ways to enhanCe the
biological potential of the area as wildlife habitat and
focusirig on such measures as reintroduclng native' spécies to
increase vegetative cover and plant diversity. DeveJ.opment
projects shall also be required to prepare a detailed
:t:'evegeta~ion/rGstoration pJ.an, developed ,by a qualified
:t:'evegetation specialist, for aJ.l disturbed areas that are to
rema.inundeveloped. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEm page 3.7-9, 5.0-11.
~itiaatioh Measure 3.7/4.0. The city shall develop and
içle1llent grazing management pJ.ans to protect riparian and
wetlanq areas, increaae plant di versi ty, and encourage the
recovery of native plants, especially perennial grasses.
DEIR pàge 3.7-9, 5.0-1.1-.
Findincii. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Proj ect that avoid or substantially
lessen"the significant effect identified in the Fina1. Em.
Rationàle for FiJldina. Restricting direct disturbance to
actual' construction areas will reduce the aJIIOunt of habitat
lost. The vegetation and grazing plans will protect and
restore disturbed areas to minimize the amount of habitat
ll'\ea&~~\£~(')
44
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.--
-..
loss and to enhance the value of the habitat ~ea remaining.
IKPACT 3. 7/B. Indirect :Impacts Of veqetatiol1 ReJaOva1.
Constructio~ activities on the Project site may cause dust
deposition, increased soil erosion and sedimentation, increased
potential for sJ.ope fail.ures. and alteration of surface and
subsurface drainage patterns. DE:XR page 3.7-9 to -10.
Miticration Measure 3.7/5.0. PUrsuant to specific Plan
pol.icy':6-22, '* all disturbed areas should be revegetated as
quick.l.y as possible with native trees, shrubs, herbs, and
grasse~, to prevent erosion. The City shall. .determine
specific physical characteristics of proposed revegetation
areas to evaluate the long-term feasibility of the proposed
mitigsi:ion and to identify potential conflicts at the site.
Plaptsused for revegetation will be native to the Tri-
Val.ley.Area. ("Specific P1.an provisions adopted throughout
RPA.)DEIR page 3.7-10; RC # 13-18.
Mitiaation Measures 3.6/18.0. 22.0. 23.0. and 3.11/1.0.
Devel.opment should avoid siting on steep slopes and shO\ll.d
observe special. design and engineering mitigation features
where constrUction occurs on 3: 1 or steeper sl.opes. The
city of Dubl.in shal.l require dust deposition mitigations
during construction, including but not limited 1:0, wa.1:erinq
the construction site, dai1.y clean-up of 1II\1d arid-dus1:,
replan1:ing and repaving and other measures to r.educe wind
erosio~. DEIR pages 3.6-12 1:0 -13, 3.7-10, 3.11-3 1:0 -4.
Findind. Changes or alterations have been requ.ired in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid o:r substantially
lessen,rthe siqnificant effect identified in the Final EIR.
,-
Ration.å3 e for Findina. Requiring construction to avoid
siting-,-on steep slopes will protect hillside vegetation and
redu.ce: erosion impacts. Where disturbance is necessary,
engineering and other. techniques to reduce er-osion and
'sedimentation and promote sl.ope stability wil.l. al.50 ensure
that revegetation efforts to control erosion will be more
efficient and successful.
ZHPAaf 3,7!C. LoSS or Deqra.dation or Botanic&ll~ sensitive
-Habitat. Direct loss and degradation from qradi11g, road
construction, and culvert crossings could adversely affect the
Project area's unique and sensitive Northern Riparian Forest,
Arroyo willow Riparian Woodland, and Freshwater Marsh habitats.
Indirect impacts coul.d :result fram increased sed~ntation or
spoil. deposition affecting stream flow pat't.erns and damaging
young seedl.ings and the-roots of woody plants. This impact is
also a. pote~tiallY significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.7-
10, 5.0-11.;
t
114\ea~\f~Dd(G)
45
,-..
..-.
Mi1:iaation Measures ~.7/6.0. 7.0. and 11.0. Riparian and
Wet1and Areas. PUrsuant to specific P1an p01icies 6-9,*
6-10, '* and Action PrograJ:Il 6E, * natura1 riparian and wet1and
areas: sha11 be preserved wherever possible. A11 deve10pment
projects in the RPA shall consult with the Army COrps of
Engine.ers (COE) and the ealifo::mia Department of Fish and
Game (ÐFG) to determine these agencies' jurisdiction over
the riparian or wet1and area. These areas shall be
inco;rpè; ;:ated into project open space areas. Any lost
ripari;þ1 habitat shall De replaced as required tJy DFG. Any
lost we,tlands shall ]:¡a mitigated per COE's "no net loss"
policy.. (*specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.)
DEiR p~ge 3.7-10, and -11, 5.0-12.
Mitiaation Measures 3.7/8.0 to 10.0. 12.0 to 14.0. PUrsuant
to Specific Plan POlicie¡¡ 6-11 to 6-13,. and Action Programs
6F to 6R, '* the City' sha.ll :r:equire revegetation of natural
stream corridors with native plant species and preservation
and maintenance of natural stream co=idors in the _Project
area, through measures including, but not limited to,
avoiding unde:r:qround drainage systems in favor of natural
open-¡;;tream channels and retention basins. The city shall
e¡;;tablish i!I. 5trØ81Il corrido:r: system (see specific Plan Figure
6.1) to provide ~ti-purpose open space corridors for
pedestrian and wildlife ci:I:culation. The City should also
work with Zone 7 anð DFG to develop a stream corridor
restoration program, with standards ror grading, stabiliza-
tion t iÌnd revegetation, and long-term managemen~ of RPA
streamr,channels. Development projects in the RPA are to be
reviewEid against, and any approval shall be con~i$tent with,
the program standards. (.specific Plan provisions adopted
througnout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-10 to -12, 5.0-12¡ RC #~4-
7, 35-25.
Mitiuation Measure 3.7/15.0. PUrsuant to Specific Plan
Action program 6K,. the city of Dublin shall establish and
maintain a liaison with state and federal resource manaqe-
ment agencies ~oughout the plaJ1Iling and development
process of individual development projects, in order to
avoid violations of state and federal regulations and insure
that specific issues and concerns are recognized and
addressed. (.Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-12, 5.0-12.
Mitiaa.f.:ion Measures 3.7/16.0 to 17.0. Existing sensitive
habitats shall be avoided and protected where feasible.
cons~ction near drainages shall take place during the dry
season~: DEIR page 3.7-12, 5.0-12.
;:
FindinCii:. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the project. These changes will avoid or
114\ea~ub\~ind(4)
46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
~.~
¡;
¡'
~
i'
...-.
,"---
substantially lessen the Projeot-~elated siqnificant effects
identified in the fmal EIR. However, these changes win
nOt av6id the c:umulative effects of l.ost o~ degraded
biologically sensitive habitat. Therefo~e, a statement of
overriding considerations must be adopted upon approval of
the PrOject.
Rationale fo~ Findina. Requiring comp1.iance with "no net
lossh policies will ensure that the iUIIount of habitat shall
~emain - constant. 5y incorpo~ating wildlife corrido~s into
Project plans, wildlife habitats will be enhanced and will
not becOme isolated because wildlife will be able to migrate
through these corridors as necessary. Disturbance of
natuxal stream corrid~s can J:'eduCê the habitat va1.ue of
these õiJ:'ea$, but will be minblized by requirements to
preserle and maintain these corzoidors in a natuxal, open
concUtion, and by requiring construction to take place in
the drY seaSon. . Any disturbed streams shall be rebuilt,
reconstructed and revegetated according to the stream
corridor plan, wbich will further enhance and. porotect
habitat:. values in the RPA. Even with these protections for
the RP~'s biologically sensitive resouxce, the cumulative
impacttcannot be fully mitigated.
r
DlPAC'r 3.7/D. .SaD JOaqQ.in Kit ]'os. construction of new roads
and facilities could adversely impact kit fox by de$trDying
potential dens or burying foxes occupying dens at the .t:ÏJDe of
construction. Modification of natuxal habitat could, reduce
available prey and den sites. Increased vehicle traffic, the
presence of humans and domestic dogs, and resident:liSS'" of poison
for rodent contro~ could kill or disturb foxes or reduce their
prey populations. ' DEIR page 3.7-12 to -13.
Mitiaaiion Measure 3.7/18.0. The city shall require all
development in the RPA to comply with the East Dublin San
Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan outlined in Appendix E, DEn
Part :Ii. Extensive 1IIitigation measures stress siting urban
deVeloPment to avoid kit fox habitat where possible, and
protec1iing and enhancing the habitat which reJnamS prmarily
in the('Open Space and Rural Residential areas. Mitigations
includoj! .easures for pre-construction and construction
conditions, and adckess steps to be taken if potential or
known dens are identified. DEIR page 3.7-13, DEIR Appendix
E (as revised following RC #20-7.)
Mitiaation Measure 3.7/18.1. The city of DUblin shal~ work
with other agencies to develop a !1Iilnag~nt plan that
identifies measuxes to protect viable haJ:>itat for the kit
fox in the Tri-Valley area. RC #20-5.
11'\eaøtdûb\~~(')
47
.,
"
"
,---
-..
~
Mitiaation Measure 3.7/19.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action;Program 6N,. the city shall restrict rodenticide and
herbicide Use. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
'throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-13.
Findinct. Chanqes or alterations have been required in, or
incorpÇlrated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Appendix E provides a comprehensive
protection plan addressing several phases of kit fox
protection, fr01n avoidance of potential dens to maintenance
of ha:bitat. Through this plan, the Project will avoid most
direct~'and indirect adverli8 effects on any kit fox that
might be present in the Project area.
or
:IKPACTS 3"iF to I. Red-leqqed Froq, Califortda '1'ig-æ:
salaman4er,....tern pOnd Turt.le, '1'ri-Colore4 BlackÞir4. The
destruction:and alteration of water Uøpoundments and stream
courses in the RPA threatens to eliminate habitat for these
species. InCreaE!ed sediJllentation int;.o the riparian areas could
reduce water quality and threaten breeding and larval habitat.
Disturbance of the already minimal vegetation in the stream
courses could reduce habitat opportunity for adult species.
Increased vehicle traffic and new road construction could
increase direct lDortality. a:arasSJDent and predation- by feral
doCJ$ and cats already occurs, and would increase with increased
residential developJDent. DEIR page 3.7-13 to -14.
Mi.tic:ration Measures 3.7/20.0 to 22.0. Pursuant to Specific
P1an AÇtion Proqram· 6L* and other En mitigations, develop-
ment pi;ojeats in the RPA shaH prepare open space plans to
enhancë and preserve existing habitat and revegetation plam:
for anY disturbed open space or habitat areas and shall
preserve and protect riparian, wetland, and streaJll corridor
areas Whenever possible. (see MMs 3.7/2.0 to 3.0.)
Maintain a IDÍnimum buffer of at least 100 feet around
breeding sites of the red-legged frog, california tiger
salamander, and Western pond turtle. DevelopJDellt projects
in the' RPA shall conduct a pre-construction survey within
sixty days prior to habitat 1D0dification to verify the
presence 01' sensitive species. ("'specific Plan provisions
adopted throughout RPA.) DEn page 3.7-14.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated intQ, the PrQject that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final En.
Rationale for Findina. Open space protection, revegetation,
and restoration planning, as well as planning to protect and
enhancë wetland and riparian areas will also protect and
11~\eastðub\£±Dd(~)
48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.---
_.
:minimize iJapacts to the riparian habitat necessary for the
specie~ identified in this i~ct.
IMPACTS 3.7/-'&. Golden Bagle.= Tbe oonversion of grasslands and
the consequent reduction of potential prey could reduce the
a1Ilount and quality of foraging habitat for golden eagles. Noise
and htn\aJl activity associated with development oou1d also disrupt
foraging activities. Elimination of golden eagle foraqing habi-
tat is also-a potentially signifioant cumulative impact which
oontributes .to the overall reg-lonal loss of foraging habitat for
this species. DEIR page 3.7-15, 5.0-12.
Mitiaation Measure 3.7/25.0. Designate substantial areas of
land in the Project area as Open Space or Rural Residential
(inoluding future study areas), providing open space
protection and low intensity develOp1l1ent that will also
provide a suitable foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7-15,
5.0-12. .
FindinCi. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen\tbe significant effect identified in the Pinal ErR.
Rationale for Findina. Providing a natural open space zone
around ,the existing golden eagle nest avoids destruction of
the nesting site; providing an additional œftsc- during the
qolden ; eagle reproductive period further proteCts the
integrity of the existing nesting site. The natural open
space zone, together with the over acreS of open.
space and low intensity developm.ent across the,' project site
provides ample opportunity to maintain effective foraging
habitat for golden eagles.
IKPAC'l" 3. 7/L. Golden Eagle and other Raptor Blec:trOcutio:lls.
GOlden eagles and other raptors which perch or fly into high-
voltage transmission lines may be electxocuted. DEIR. page
3.7-15.
Mitjaat.ion Measur@s 3.7/26.0 and 3.4/42.0. Require all
utili tj;es to be located below grade where feasibl.e.
PUrsuant to specific Plan Action Program 6M,. require all
tranSJllission lines to be undergrounded where feasible.
Where riot feasible, design specifications to protect raptors
fr01ll electroCUtion shall be imp1emented. These specifica-
tions incluc1e, but are not limited to, spacing dangerous
oomponents; insulating conductors,. using non-conductive
materials, or providing perch guards on cross: arII1Si and
avoiding grounded steel crO$S a= braces. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-24, 3.7-
1.5 to -16.
114\eas~úÞ\fiDd(')
49
"
r--
.-
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or suJ:>stantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final ErR.
Rationale for Findina. underlp:'ounding utilities, including
all transmission lines, avoids the electrocution hazard.
Where the hazard cannot be avoided through underlp:'ounding,
the design specifications identified in the mitigations
reduceithe electrocution hazards by neutralizing and/or
coveri#q the features that provide opportunities for
eleotròcution.
IHl'AC'J! 3.7/., Ii. BUrrOwiDg OWl and. American Badger. Annual
Ip:'s-sslands in the:RPA provide suitable habitat for bUrrowing
owls. Development and related construction activity could
destroy both :burrowing owl and American :badger :burrows. Harass-
ment by feral dogs and cats, as well as use of poisons tor rodent
control, could harm these species and/or reduce their prey
populations. DEIR paqe 3.7-16 to -17.
Mitiaation Mea=es 3.7/20.0 and 27.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan. ACtion Program 6L* and other EIR mitigations, develop-
ment projects in the RPA shall conduct a pre-construction
survey within sixty days prior to habitat modification to
verify ~e presence of sensitive species. The projects
shall maintain a minimwn :buffer of at least 3007, feet around
the !:!reeding sites of the American badger during the
breeding season (March to September) to avoid direct loss of
individuals. Also, projects shall maintain a -minimum buffer
of at ~e.ast 300 fe.et around known or identifiel!f nesting
sites of the burrowing owl, or implement other mitigation
actions pu:esuant to standardized protoc:o~ now under
develoPment, including relocation of nesting sites in
coordination with the USFWS and the CDFG. (*Spec:ifio Plan
provisions adQpted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3.7-14, and
-~7; RC t~5-60.
Pindina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationa1e. for Findina. The. pre-construction survey and
required buffer zone around known nesting and :breeding sites
preserves these species I burrows :by allowing thê1ll to be
avoided during the construction and development process.
nœAC'1' 3.7/9. Prairie Fa~coD.. Northern n=ie:e, and Black-
ShouJ.dered :kite. Development in the RPA CQuld cause loss of
foraging habitat. DEIR.page 3.7~17.
¥
"
,
114\ea8~~\~~(4)
50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,..-,
-'-
Miticrs-t;;ion MeaSure 3.7/25.0. Substantial areas of land in
the Project area are designated for Open space and ~ow
intens.:i,ty Rura~ Residential ~and uses (inc~uding future
study äreas). DErR pages 3.7-15 and -17.
,-
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Ratione!.e for Findina. The designated open space and low
intensity rural residential uses provide adequate foraging
habitat for these species.
DŒ'AC'i' 3. 7/P. Sh&rp-Shi1mec! Hawk and Cooper I iii Hawk. Development
in the RPA could oause 10:5s ot foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7-
17.
Mitiaation Measures 3.7/6.0 throuah 17.0 and 21.0.
Establish protective buffer zones for riparian and fresh-
water 1\!,arsh habitats to protect and enhance sensitive-
ha])ita'és. Preserve riparian, wetland, and stream corridor
areas; lwhere avoidance çf these areas is not feasible,
prepare and implement habitat restoration, enhancement and
maintenance plans. DEIR pages 3.7-10 to -12, -3.4, -17.
,J
FindinG. Changes or alterations have been reqt,j!ired in, or
inco:rporated into, the Project that avoid or· suþstantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the:'Final.EIR.
Rationale for Findina. The mitigations provide'-
preservation, enhano_ent and maintenance features for
riparian and freshwater marsh habitats upon which the.se.
speoieS rely for foraqe. Protectinq and enhancing this
haDitat avoids the iJDpaot of lost habitat.
IMPACT 3.7/8. spacial sta~us J:nvertebr.tes. Dnpacts to special
status invertebrates cannot be. esti1nated at this time. DEJ:R page
3. 7-J.8. ~
.,
~
Mitiða€ion Measure 3.7/28.0. Species-specific surveys shall
bEl con4,ucted i·n appropriate riparian/wetland habitats prior
to appi>oval of specific projects in the RPA.' DEIR page 3.7-
18, Aðd,endUIII.
-,
Findin6. Changes or a.lterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
leSsen the siqnificant effect identified in the Final EIR.
RationaJ.e foY' Findina. Any potential impacts to Special
status J:nvertebrates will be addressed during CEQA review of
specific development projects in the RPA.
114\ea.~ub\£~(4)
51
:.~
.-
,-
-'
..--.-
i
.~,
Sec~iOD 3.8 -~ Visua1 Resources
nŒACT 3.8/1.. stan4a:r4:Lsed "orract" Develop¡aent. Generic::
"cookie-cutter" development oould obscure the speoific natura~
features of the RPA, such as its landfor:lllS, vegetation, and
watercourses, that aake it a unique place with its own identity.
DErR page3;S-4.
-'
Mi tiaation Measure 3. a/i. 0 . Pursuant to the! goal i!>tateJD.ent
in Spe~ific Plan Seotion 6.3.4,* establisb a visua~ly
distin¢tive community wbich preserves the chaJ:'acter of the
natural landscape by protecting key visual el~nts and
maintaining views fJ:'c:m majoJ:' travel oorridoJ:'s and public
spaces; Implement the extensive design guidelines for
develoPment as described in Chapter 7* of the Specific Plan.
TheISS guidelines provide a flexible design fJ:'ðJI\ework, but do
not cc:mpromise the cœumun1 ty character as a whole.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted througbout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.8-5.
Findina. Cbanges or alterations bave been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale-for Findina. By protecting key natural and visual
elements, the Project maintains the natural feat:ures of the
RPA, which make it unique. The general design guidelines
for th~ Projeo~, including a village cen~er, town center,
mixed 1151e orientation, and varying lot sizes¡ ,provide a
varied "development pattern, which avoids the Look of
standard cookie-cutter trao~ developments.
" ~.
l
:œPAC'1' 3.8/B. Uteration of Rural/Open Spaoe Visual Cbaraoter.
TJrban development of the 1ŒA will subs~antially alter the
exil;¡ting rural and open space qualities that characterize eastern
Dub1.in. This is also a significant cumulative impact as the
natural rural character of the Tri-Valley subregion is replaced
by urban developmen~. DEIR page 3.8-5, 5.10-12.
Mitiaation Measure. 3.8/2.0. IfnP1ement the land use plan for
the RPA, which plan emphasizes retaining the predominant
natural features, such as ridgelines and wateroourses, and
preserves the sense of openness that charaoterizes Eastern
Dublin. DEIR page 3.a-S, 5.0-12.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
change~, the impclct wiil not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of overriding
considê:rations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
.,;
11'\eas~dUb\fiDd(')
52
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,~
,'-"
Rationil.le for Findina. Kaintaininq predominant natural
features minimizes the alteration of the RPA'S current rural
open sPace character; however, it does not fully Dlitigate
this impact.
nœACT 3.8/C. OÞscuriD¡; Distinctive NIiI.'t:ural ]!'ea~es. The
characteristic unvegetated landscape of the RPA heightens the
visual iDlportance of existing trees, watercourses, and other
salient natural and cultural features. '!'he Project has the
potential to o:bscure or alter these existing ;!:eatures and thereÞy
reãuce the visual uniqueness of the site. DEIR page 3.8-5.
Mitiaation Measnre 3.8/3.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 6-28,* preserve the natural open beauty of the hills
and other important visual resources, such as creeks and
major stands of vegetation. (*specific Plan provisions
adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-5.
,
Findinâ. Changes or alterations· have :been required in, or
incorpQt.'ated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessenrtbe significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationále for Findina. This mitigation measure calls for
preservation of the RPA's important visual resources,
there~ avoiding the impact of obs=ed or altered. visually
important features.
DMPACT 3.8/D. AlteratioD of visual QUality of uillaides.
Grading and excavation of building sites in hil~side areas will
severely compromise the visual quality of the RPA."'DEIR page
3.8-6.
Mitiaation Mea~u~es 3.8/4.0 to 4.5. Pursuant to Specific
Plan policies 6-32,* and 6-34 to -38,* grading and
excavation throughout the RPA should be mintmized, by using
such g~adin9 features as gradual transitions frQIII graded
ares to natural slopes, by revegetation of graded areas, by
mainta;ning natural contours aß much as possiJ::>le and grading
only tÞ)e actual development areas. Building padß in
hillside areas should be graded individually or stepped,
wherever possiJ::>le. strUctures and roadways should be
designed in t.'esponse to the topographical and geqtechnical
conditions. structures ßhould be del!iigned to blend in with
surrounding slopes and topography and the heiqht and grade
of cut and fill slopes should be minimized wherever
feasible. (*spe.cific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-6.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final E~.
114\eas~\f~4(4)
53
-'-
"
,'--"
Ra~ionale for Findinq. The vaxious grading ~echniques
identit'ied, together with revegetation and sensitive
building design will avoid the impact by minimizing physical
alteration throuqhout. the RPA.
IMPACT 3../'S. Alt..rat.iena of Visual Q\1~lity of Ridges.
structures built. in proximity to ridqes may obscure or fragment
the pJ:'Ofi1e -, of visually-sensitive, ridge1ines. DEIR page 3.8-6.
Mitiaation Measures 3. B 15.0 to 5.2. Pursuant to Specific::
Plan Policy 6-29,* development is not permitted on the main
ridgeline that borders the Specific:: Plan area to the north-
and eaSt, but may :be permitted on the foreground hill!; and
ridqelands. Minor interruptions of views of the main
ridqeline by individual bui1.ding masses may be permitted
only where all other remedies have been exhausted. PUrsuant
to Specific Plan Policy 6-30* and General Plan Aaendment
Guiding policy E, structures shall not obstruct scenic views
and shall not appear to extend aÞove an identified scenic
ridqetop when viewed from scenic routes. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7.
Findinâ. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated, into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen :'the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for l"indina. ProhiÞitinq develop%Dent along the
, main ridge line in the. RPA preserves the visual',quality of
this- resource. Li:miting- development so that structurès are
not silhouetted against other scenic:: ridgetops'., as well as
requiring that a backdrop of natural ridgeline remain
visible, %Dinimi:r;es the obstruction or fragmentation of
visually sensitive ridgelines.
~ 3.8/F. Alteration of Visual CharaQter of Flatlands.
CO%DÐBrcial and residential develo~ent of the RPA's flatlands
will completely alter the existing visual character resulting
from valley grasses and agricultural fields. DEIR page 3.8-7.
Mitiaation Measures. None identified. DEIR paqe 3.8-7.
Findina. No cha71qes or alterations are availaÞle to
substantially lessen this impact. Therefore, a Statement of
Overriding considerations must tie adopted upon approval of,
the Project.
Rationale for Findina. Development of the project site's
flatter areas is regarded as a "trade-ofr" measure designed
to preServe slopes, hillsides, and ridgelines.
114\eas~Qb\f~(4)
54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,-
-,
D!PACT 3.8/G. A1.teratioD of the visua1. Character of lhLter-
courses. Urban deveJ.opment of the Project site in pro:dmity to
watercourse~ may ñi~inisb or e1.iminate their visibi1.ity and
function as ;!distinct landscape elements. DEIR page 3.8-7.
Jlitiaat.ion Measure 3.8/6.0. pursuant to Specific P1.an
Po1.icy6-39,. protect the visua1. character of Tassajara
Creek and other stream corridors from unnecessary a~teration
or disturbance. Adjoining deve1.opment shou1.d be sited to
mainta';n visual access to the stream corridors. Intplement
earlier identified .itigation measures 3.7/8.0, 12.0, and
13.0, to revegetate stream corridors to enhance their
natural appearance, to prepare a comprehensive stream
corridor restoration program, and to establisb dedication of
land along both sides of stream. corridors. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7 to -8,
3.7-10 to -1.1.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been relJllired in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Preserving the RPA watercourses will
retain both their visibi1ity and function as distinct
landsC<lpe elements. Special attention to stream corridors
through revegetation, restoration, and dedication of 1and
along both sides, will further enhance this distinct
landscape el~ent.
D!PAC~ 3.8/'I.. Scenic vistiul. Development on the RPA wi1l a1ter
the character of existing scenic vistas and ¡nay obscure i1nportant
siqhtlines.: DEIR page 3.B-B.
Mitiaation Jlea!f:l11re 3.8/7.0 to 7.~. Pursuant to 5pècific
P1an policy 6-5* and other EIR .itiqations, preserve views
of designated open space u&as. The city will conduct a
visua1 survey of the RPA to identify and map viewsheds of
scenic vistas. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.)
Findina.· Changes or a1terations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen ·,the significant effect identified in the Final ErR.
Ratiomne for Findina. Identifying and ¡napping critical
viewSheds allows the city to consider specific ways of
preserving those views when reviewing development projects
within: the RPA.
~
IHAGS 3.8/J. scenic Routes. urban development of the RPA wil1
significantly alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic
11'\eaB~dUb\f~d(4)
55
,--..
.~.
routes in eåstern Dublin. As quiet rural roads become major
suburban thoroughfares, foreground and distant views may be
obstructed. DE1R page :3.B-8 to -9.
Mitiaation Measurê 3.8/8.0. Pursuant to specific Plan
Action Program 6Q,* the City should officially adopt
Tassajara Road, 1-580, and Fallon Road as designated scenic
corridors, should adopt 5cenic corridor policies, and should
establish development review proc:edures and standards to
preserve scenic vistas. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-9.
Mitiaation Measure 3.8/8.1. pUrsuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 6R,* the city should require that projects
with potential impacts on scenic corridors sUbmit detailed
visual. analysis with development project applications. The
analysis shall include graphic simulations andlor sectioI1$
drawn from affected travel corridors and representing
typical views from scenic routes. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page :3.8-9.
, .
FindinCl. Chanqes or alterations have been requiX'ed in. oX'
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen'the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Establishinq scenic corxidor
policies will insure that the visual BXpeX'ience,of travelers
along scenic routes be maintained as much as possible.
Requiring vbual. analyses will allow the city to specj,fi-
cally review development projects for their v±sual impacts
and to review how locations of structures and associated
landscaping can be used to adjust the project design to
minimize its visual impacts from scenic routes.
Sec'tiðB :2.9, -- cu.]. 't.~J. ResoureCtSl
,;.;
XMPACT 3.'/~. »is~tion or Destruction of 74entifie4
Prabistoric!,llesourcas. Due to the level of development proposed
in 'the RPA,¡it is assumed that all prehistoric sites identified
in the 1988;'inventory will be disturbed or altered in some
manner. DE¡R page :3.9~6.
Mitiaation Measures 3.9/J..0 to 4.0. Develop a testing
proqram to determine the presence or absence of hidden
deposits in all locations of prehistoric resources. All
locations containinq these CODlPOnent:æ: shall be recorded with
the State of California and their boJ:'ders will kle staked so
that professional survey teams may develop ac:ourate location
maps. If any of these recorded and. mapped locations are
affected. by future construction or increased access to the
areas, evaluative testing, consistinq of collectinq and
11~\eas~\£iDd(~)
56
,'-
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,..-..
....-...,
analyzing any surface concentration of materials, shall þe
undertaken in order to prepare responsive :mitigation
measures. The city shall hire a qualified archaeologist to
develop a protection progræn for prehistoric sites con-
taining significant surface or suÞsurface deposits of
cultural materials in areas where development will alter the
=r~t condition of the resource. DEIR page 3.9-6 to -7.
Findina. Changes or alterations have Þeen required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantia1ly
1essen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationa1e for Findina. Through these mitigations,
prehil;;toric resources can Þe identified and mapped, and
specific mitigation plans prepared as part of review of
d~elopment projects that will affect the resources.
XHPACT 3.'/B. Disraptioø or Destruction of unidentified Pre-
Historic Res~ces. .Previously ~identified pre-historic
resources may exist in the RPA and would be suÞject to potential
disruption or destruction by construction and development
activities associated with the Project. DEIR page 3.9-7.
Mitiaa:hion Measures 3.9/5.0 to 6.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 6-25* and Action Progræn 6P,* cease any grading
or constrUction activity if historic or prehistor.ic re111ains
are discovered until the significance and extán~ of those
remain$ can be ascertained by a certified archåeoloqist.
Deve10pment projects in the RPA shall prepare an archaeolo-
qical $itesensitivity' determination and d.etai\1'éd research
and field reconnaissance by a certified archaeologist, and
develop a mitigation plan. C*Specific Plan provisions
adopted throug-hout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-7.
Findina. Chanqes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, thê Project that avoid or substantia11y
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findrncr. These mitigations will insure that
any significant prehistoric relilources which are discovered
during"'CieVelopment activities are not disrupted or
destr0S>:ed.
~ .
DlPACT 3.9/e. DisrupUon or Destruc1:ioD of Ident:ified Historic
:aesourc::es. iDue to the level of development proposed in the :RPA,
it is assumed that all historic sites identified in the 1988
inventory will be disturbed or altered in SOJlle manner. EVen
cultural resources in the proposed open space and Rural Residen-
tial areas wi11 potentially þe disturbed or altered due to the
presence of new residential. population in the area. DEIR page
3.9-B. -
114\ee&tdub\f~(4)
57
.-
-,
Mitiaation Measures 3.9/7.0 to 12.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan pOlicies 6-26* and 6-27* and other .itigations
identified in the EIR, all properties with historic
resources and all standing structural reJnainsshall be
evaluated by an architectural historian. as part of in-depth
archival research to deterJlline the siqnificance of the
resourQe prior to any alteration. AJ.l historic locations :in
the 19~8 inventory shall be recorded on official State of
california historical site inventory forms. These records
$hOulc1(be used to make sure that historical locations are
recorâëd'onto development .aps by professional surveyors.
Where the disruption of historical resources is unavoidable,
encourage the adaptive reuse or restoration of the struc-
tures whenever feasible. A qualified architectural
historian shall be hired to develop a preservation program
for historic sites tound to be significant under Appendix K
of the CEQA guidelines. (*specific Plan provi'sions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-8.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that aVc;lid or substantially
1essen:.,the siqnificant effect identifie<1 in the Final EIR.
,~,
Rationale for Findina. Archival research and - recordation of
historical sites on state inventory forms will insure that
histor~cal resources are identified tbrouqhout"the Project
area. ·~Encouraqin9 adaptive reuse or restoration: ot' historic
structwes and ·deve1.op1llent of a preservation program for
historic sites will insure that identified resOurces are nc;lt
disturJÞed or destroyed. -.
1KPAcr 3.9/D. DisraptioB or DestructioB of v.midentitia4 Historic
llesources. Previously unidentified historio re$ources .ay exist
in the RPAand wou1.d be subject to potential disruption or
destruction by construction and development activities associated
with the Project. DEIR paqe 3.9-8.
Hitiaation Measures 3.9/5.0 to 7.0. 9.Q. 10.0. and 12.0.
These previously identified mitigation Measures will be used
to ascertain the presenoe of unidentified historic resources
on a d.êvelop.ent project site in the RPA. If a historic
reSOUrQe is identified, archival research shall be performed.
to determine the significance of the resource or structure.
The Ci~y shall hire a qualified architectural historian to
develop' a preservation program for significant historic
~ites.~ DEIR page 3.9-7 to -9.
l'
.'
Findinéi. changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorparated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen'the significant effect identified in the Final ErR.
114\..~ûb\fÍAd(4)
58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.
-,
~
¡,
"
,-
-~_.
Rationale for Findina. Mitigations will ensure that any
signif~cant historic resources which are discovered during
development activities are not disrupted or destroyed.
Section 3.10 -- Hoise
nrPAC'l" 3 .10JA. Ez:po~e of Proposed KO\1SÙlQ 1:0 Future Roaciway
Hoise. Proposed residential housing along Dublin Boulevard,
Tassajara Road, Fallon Road, and Hacienda Drive will be expo$ed
to future noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. DEIR page 3.10-
2.
Mitiaation Measure 3.10/:1..0. Require acoustical studies for
all residential development projects within the future CNEL
60 contour to show how interior noise levels will be reduced
to 45 dB.
Findin~. Changes or alterations have beên required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen ,'the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
l
Rationå1e for Findina. The required acoustical studies must
shOW how interior noise exposures are reduced to 45 dB CNEL,.
the minimum acceptable noise level.
IMPACT 3.10JB. EZ¡1OS\U"8 of EXisting Residences to ~ture Roadway
Hoise. Increased traffic noise on local roads wou1&result in
significant ,cumulative noise level increases along Tassajara _(4
dB), Fallon (6dB) , and Bacienda Roads of 6 dB. This is a
potentially significant cumulative impact in that sma11 indivi-
dual Project noise increases considered together and over the
long term, will substantially increase overall noise levels.
DEIR page 3;'10-3, 5.0-13.'
t
Mitiaa'¡don Measures 3.10/2.0. All development projects in
the. RP,ft shall provide noise barriers or berms near exis,\:inq
residen.ces to control noise in outdoor use spaces. DEIR
page 3 :10-3 .
.,
~,
Mitiaa~iòn Measure 3.10/7.0. To mitigate cumulative noise
impactS, the city shall develop a noise JD,itigation fee to
pay for on- and off-site noise .ïtiqations, including but
not limited to, noise 1:>arriers, earthen:berms, or
retrofitting- structures with sound-rated windows. DEIR page
5.0-13.
,
Findina. Change$ or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact wil1 not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Th~efore, a Statement of OVerriding- considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
114\eaB~agþ\f~(4)
1
59
·.-..
,--.,
Rationale for Findina. Providing noise barriers or ber)ns
will reduce noi$e exposure for existing residences; however,
mitigation may not be feasible at all locations because of
site constraints such as driveways and proximity to road-
ways. Furthermore, while developers will provide funding for
noise ~itigations to reduce overall noise levels, funds
derived from. the experiJnental program may not adequately
mitigate the cumulative impact. Therefore, this noise
impact".cannot be fully mitigated.
:IMPACT 3.10 ID. Bq108ure of Proposed Residential Development to
liaise :f~oa hture Xi1;i.t:ary T~a:UU.Dq Activities at PUks Reserve
Foroes TrainiDq Area (CUp parks RnA) aÐC1 the COunty Jail.
Residential development on the Project site within 6000 feet of
Camp Parks RFTA and the County Jail could be -exposed to noise
impacts from gunshots and helicopter overflights. DEIR. page
3.10-4.
Mitiaation Measure 3.10/3.0. The city shall require an
acoustical study prior to future development in the Foothill
Residential, 'l'assajara Village center, County Center, and
Hacienda Gateway subareas (as defined in Figure 4.2 of the
Specific Plan) to determine whether future noise impacts
from camp Parks and-the county jail will be within accept-
able limits. This study should identify and evaluate all
potential noÜ;e generating operations. DEIR. page 3.10-4.
. .
Findina. Changes or a~terations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. HOwever, even with these
changes, the i1l!þact wil~ not be avoided or substantial~y
lessened. Therefore, a statement of overriding Considera-
tions tt\1St be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findina. The required acoustical study will
identify noise sensitive areas in the Project site and noise
generating operations at Camp Parks and the jail and will
propose mitigation to reduce noise impacts to acceptab~e
limits. However, lIIitigation may not be possible at all
critical ~oéations, so the impact may not be ful~y
mitigated.
:IJIP1CT 3.101E. EXpOsure of bistiDg U1d Propose<! Resièl.enoes to
COnsb:uct.ioD 1I10is8. Construction would oc= over years on the
Project site and will be accompanied by noise from truck activity
on loca~ roads, heaVY equipment used in grading and. paving,
impact noiees during structural framing, and pile driving.
Construction impaots wilJ. be most severe near ~stinq residen-
tial uses along Tassajara Road and near existing uses in the
southern portion of the Project area. DEIR page 3.10-4.
114\eastãUÞ\Ei#4(4)
60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.
..
.---'
.-..
t.
,
Mitiaation Measures 3_10/4.0 to 5.0. Development projects
in the RPA shall submit a Construction Noise Management
program that identifies measures proposed to IrIinimize
con$truction noise impacts on existing residents. The
Program shall include a schedule for grading and other major
noise-qeneratlnqactivities, limiting these activities to
the short"$t possible nU'Ølber of days. Other noise
mitigation measures include, but are not limited to,
restricting hours of construction activity, developing
construction vehicle acceSls routes which minimize truck
'traffic "through residential areas, and developing a
mltiqa1¡.ion plan for cotwtruction traffic that cannot be
avoideQ in residential areas. In addition, all development-
related operations should comply with local noise standards,
including- limi'tinq activity to daytime hours, muffling
stationary equipment, and locating that equipment as far
away from sensitive receptors al!! possible. DEIR paqe 3.10-
4 to -5.
Findinà. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lesl!!en the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Through these mitigation measures,
developers will limit the intensity and duration of noise
exposure experienced by existing X'esidences 1n:!.com;truction
areas. Other mitigations will limit noise exposure by
lIIoviD.c;¡ the noise-qenerating equipment as far a_y fX'om
residential uses as possible.
IMPACt' 3.1011'. lIoise Conflicts dU8 to tbe Adjacency of Diverse
Land UsesÞèrmittedbf Plan p01ioies support~ Mized-Us8 '
Developent,;¡ The presence of different land use types wi thin the
same develop¡nent creates the possibility of noise. impacts between
adjoining uses, particularly when commercial and residential land
uses abut. ~DEIR page 3.10-5.
Mitiaation Measure 3.10/6.0. Development proj-ects in the
RPA shall prepare noise JllBßagelllent plans to be reviewed as
part of the development application for all mixed use
projects involvil19 residential uses and non-residential
U$es.. TO be prepared by a qualified ac::oustical-con5Ultant,
the plan should aim to provide a high quality acoustic
environment for residential and non-residential users and
should propose steps to minimize or avoid potential noise
problems. The plan should address the concerns of resi-
dents, non-residential U$BrS, and maintenance personnel, and
should 'make maxi1tl1n!l use .of site planning to avoid noÜ.e
conflicts.' DEIR page 3.10-5 to -6.
¡.
,-
11~\east4~\£~(~)
61
--
-.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final ErR.
Rationale for Findina. The required noise management p1.ans
a1.1ow both the developer and the city to anticipate possible
noise conflicts in JUixed-use developments and to propose
specific measures to address the specific conf1.icts identi-
fied. ¡OccUrring at an early stage in the process and
reviewèd with the development -application, projects can make
use of . the qreatest array of conflict reducing' techniques,
inc1.ud1nq building' design and site planninq. eomp1.iance
with-these mitiqations will lessen or avoid potential noise
conflicts from adjacent mixed uses.
IMPACT 3.11/1. Dust Deposition Soilinq Nuisanoe from
co:Þ.St:ructiol1 ACtivity. Clearing, qradinq, excavation, and
unpaved roadway travel re1.ateð. to project construction will
qenerate particulate 1Imtter which may settle out near the
construction sites, creating a soilinq nuisance. Any additional
dust pOllution will worsen the air basin's non-attainment status
for particulates. Dust ~issions is therefore also a potentially
significant cumulative impact. DEIR paqe 3.1.1-3, 5.0-J.3.
Miticration Measure 3.~1/~.O. Require development projects
in the -Project area to implement dust control''lileasures,
includ,tnq but not l.imited to, waterinq constrúcition sites,
oleaning up mud and dust carried by constructi6n vehicles,
effective covers on haul trucks, p~anting, repå.vinq, and
other reveqetation measures on exposed soil surfaces,
avoidinq unnecessary idling of construction equipment,
limitiriq on-site vehicle speeds, and monitoring particulate
matter':levels. These measures wi1.l reduce project dust
deposition to acceptable levels, but will not avoid
cumulative impacts of dust generation. DEIR page 3.11-3 to
-4, 5~O-13.
Finding. Chanqes or alterations have been required :in, or
inéorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, cumu~ative dust generation impacts will not be
substantially avoided. Therefore, a statement of overrldinq
considerations must be adopted upon approval of the project.
Rationale for PindinQ'. The mitiqation measures identify
various feasible and reasonable dust control æeasures that
. developers can take during construction activity. These
measures eliJI.inate and/or minimize the amount and. effect of
dust deposition in construction areas. Even with these
measures, however, some small amount of additional pollution
will oç=. Therefore, the oumulative itnpacts of dust
emissiøns cannot Þe fully mitiqated.
11&\eastdub\£iDd(G)
62
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1\
-,
.-,
!:.
,
.'
:DI1'AC'r 3.1.1/B. Cou~ructiol1 Bquipøent/Vehicle Bm.iasiolUl.
Construction equipment operation qeneJ:'ates daily exhaust
emissions. Normally considered a teaporary i~pact, buildoutof
the Project area over the long term will be a chronic source of
equipment/vehicle emissionS. This is also a potentially siqnifi~
Cant CUJaUlative impact due to the non-attainment status of the
air basin. DEIR page 3.~1-4, 5.0-~3.
Miti~ation Measures 3.11/2.0 to 4.0. Minimize construction
interference with regional non-Project traffic JIIovement by
scheduling and routinq construction traffic to non-peak
times and locations. Provide ride-sharing incentives for
construction personnel. ReqUire routine low-elllission tune-
ups for on-site equipment. Require development projects in
the Project area to prepare a construction Impact Reduction
Plan mcorporating all pJ:'oposed air quality mitigation
strategies with clearly defined responsibilities for plan
i:mplementation and supervision. DEIR page 3.11-4, 5.0-13.
Findincii. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorpÓrated into the Project. However, even with these
changeS, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of overriding Considera-
tions tmat be adopted upon a,pproval of the Project.
:'
Rationale for Findina. The mitigations includ~. construction
tiJúng and sitinq 1II8asures that will reduce eqµ;tp~ent and.
vehiole emissions over the long-term buildout Cif the
Project. EVen with these mitigations, however" neith.êr
Project nor cumulative air quality impaots can,):re fu'lly
mitigated.
IHPAC'r 3.U/C. Hcibl1e Source BIIissions: ROG or »OZ:. Project
implementation at full buildout will generate 500,000 daily
automobile trips within the aiJ:' basin. Mobile source emissions
for ROG and:.NOX assooiated with these vehicle trips are
precursors to ozone formation. The emissions aSE!lociated with
this level öf vehicle use will far exceed BAAQ!Ø thresholds for
siqnificantieffect. This is also a potentially significant
cumulative ~paot. DEIR page 3.11-5, 5.0-14.
Mitiaation Measures 3.~1/5.0 to ~J..O. E¡¡;ercise interagency
cooperation on a subregional and reqional basis to integrate
local air quality planning efforts with transportation,
transit and other infrastructure plans. Implement techni-
ques, such as transportation demand management (TDM) ,
shiftinq travel to non-peak periods, and encouraging mixed-
use development which provides housing, jobs, goods and
services in close proximity as a means of reducing vehicle
trips and related emissions and congestion. At the
development Project level, maintain consistency between
~,
<,
114\eastduÞ\ffDd(4)
63
-.
:;;
,-.
.--..,
specific develop.ent plans and regional t:J:"ansportation and
g%'owth Jnanage:m.ent plans, coordinate levels of growth with
roadway transportation facilities and iJDproveJllents, and
require linkage between housíng growth and joÞ opportunities
to achieve a positive suÞregional_jobs/bousing balance.
DEIR p~ge 3.11-5, 5.0-14.
..,
Findinâ. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorpbratedínto'the Project. However' ,even with these
changes, the içact-will not be avoided or substantially
lessenSd. TheJ:'efore, a statement of overriding considera-
tions: -]l(Ust <bea.dopted upon approval of the Projec:t..
. .
Rationale for Findina. The various techniques des~ibed in
the mitigation measures provide opportunities to reduce
vehicle trips, and therefore reduce vehicle emissions.
However, because of the size of this Project, neither
P3:'oject nor CUJIIulative impacts can be fully mitigated.
!HPAC'l' 3.1!/E. SQtionary SOurce Emissions. Specific Plan
buildout wiil ~eate emissions from a variety of sources,
including but not limited to, fuel. cOIDbustion in power plants,
evaporative-emissions f:J:"om paints, and subsurface decay of
organic mat~ials associated with solid waste disposal. Tbis is
also a pot~tiall.Y significant cumulative impact. DEIR page
3.11-6, 5.0...14.
;-1
,
Mitiaauion Measures 3.11/12.0 to 13.0. MiniIDiie stationary
source (eJlLissions associated .with P3:'oject devel.ópmentwhere
feasib: .e, with the goal of achieving ,10 percefit above the.
min.imum conservation target ~evels established in Title 24
'of the ',calffornfa Code of Regulations. Include sol.id waste
;recycling in all deve1.opment planning. DEIR page 3.11-6,
5.0-14.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or subst.antially
lessened. TheJ:'efore, a Statement of OVerriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon apProval of the Project.-
Rationale for Findina. Focusing on reducing eaissions from
various sources wil.l allow an incremental reduction in
- statioriary source emissions. These reductions wi~l not,
however, be sufficient to avoid either Project-related or
OUIIIula1;;iv8 iJnpacts.
.:!
"
,.
;
.¡~
114\..std~\f~(4)
64
¡
L
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-j
~;
-<
~-
. ---..
."
section 2
l5I!Iu.l!'nNV1I!N'l'ALLY :tNSJ:GHJ:FJ:eurr J:KPAC'l'S
The city counci~. finds that a~~ otheJ:' impact:s of the proposed
Project are not environDIenta~~y significant as documented in the
PEIR and supported by evidence e~sewhere in the record. No
mitigation is required for these insignificant apacts.
114\eaatðUb\£ìad(4)
65
.-,
..--.
section 3
1'D1D:rJlGS COIICBlUttIl1G Mo'rB1Ui1n'rJ:VES
The city council is adopting litamative .2 (with .inor changes)
describéd iri"the -Final JnR in,placeoftha originally proposed
Project. TJ;1e. city hereby find& the reJllaining three alternatives
'identlfiëd-and described in the FinalEIR wer.e considered and are
found to be infeasibl~for the specificeconOJllic,' social, or
other considerations lIIet forth below pUX'suant to CEQA Section
21081, subdivision (c). The city also declines to adopt the
Project all originally ·proposedfor thérea!;:,ons__~etfortb,-below.
. ," , .
'J!BB O1n:aTml.T.T.y PROPOSBD PROnC'!'. .
l I
- -
section :2'loSr,- suJ:ldivision(c)-does not require the city_ Council
to 'make findinqs aatowhythe or~ginally ·propollled Proj_øett was
not adopted. sucm :findings needonly.,.bemadeas to project
alternatives whicm WOuld .itigate-signifietant environmen,tal
effects. Alternative 2 has no significantenviro~taleffects
whicm could be avoided by adopting the originally proposed
project in"its:s':tead.- Rather, the city council finds '-that.
Alternative 2 wi:!l -pose no significant environmental_ effects that
wouJ::d.not be posed at "least to the saDIe extent (and' O1:ten to a
greater eXtent)Þy the Project as, originally- proposed..
Public';Resources Code section 210B5 prc,hibits, pubHc
agènciesfrOm ,redUCing _ theproposednwaÞer.of housin,g ~itsas a
projéct alternative pursuant to CEQA for a particular significant
affect on the environment if it determines that there is another
feasible specitìcmitlg-ation ~,asureor.proj~ctalt~a.tivethat
would. provid.e å comparable level Ofinitig-atipn.· 'I'he P;!:'pject as
adopted 'does indeed involve a reduction of the n1.t1llÞi:!r of hou.sinq
unitsthaJiwereorigina1.ly proposed, b9thbeca\lt:>~the~oject as
adopted does not:provide':;for residential ,c:leveloþinentin.thè
Liver:móreMuniclpalAirport Protection ,~oIle anti because the
Project. as -adoptedonly-_involvlõ!s residential·· development, ..
approximately two-thirds 'ofthlõ! area: o~iginally:proposed for
development.. M~eover. thesereduçticns do result in.mi tigation
of some significant environmental impacts, especially iJIIpact.s on
Doolan- Canyon.
...,
,-
. .
The pröhibition of residential development within the
Liverl1lo:J::'e Mùnicipal Airport Protection zone is adopted in order
to comply with PUblic utilities Code.s~tionn676 and the
deoision of -the Alameda County Airport Land Use co:mmission
pUX'suant to:that e,ction to.prohibit,resldential development in
,
,
~.
114\eaBtd~\fiDd(4)
66
(
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,'-".
.'---\
the Zone. this prohibition is, thus, not adopted merely as a
mitigation measure pursuant to CEQA.
The city also finds that no feasible alternatives or
mitigation JReasures will provide the level or JRitigation of
signifioantenvironmental effeots as are provided by the adoption
of Alternative 2 rather than the project as originally proposed.
Alternative 2 will leave Doolan Canyon in its ourrent largely
undeveloped state, thereby mitigating significant impaots
invo1vinq loss of open spaoe/ and bio1ogic:alJ.y sensitive habitat
in a way that could not be aocompJ.ished by any mitigation Jlteasure
or alternative were Doolan eanyon in fact developed as originally
p1:'9posed.
þT.'I'Im1B'1':rvE 1: 1110 PROJEC'l'. DEn pages 4-1 to 4-8, 4-20
Findina: ïnfeasible. This option assUmes the Project as prOposed
wou1.d not be built on the site; instead any develop¡nent would be
pursuant to ,the existing general plan. under that plan, a
1.imited amoUnt of business park/industrial deve1op¡nent cou1.d
occur on the 600 acre County property and on the 200 acre portion
of the Project area south of the proposad Dublin Boulevard
extension.'
The No Project Alternative is foUnd to be infeasible because the
City's General P1.an has designated the Eastern DUb1.Ìin- area fçr
p1.anned developJltent/ subject to the preparation of a Specific
PJ.an. In addition, the No Project Alternative fai1.$ to provide
needed housing. The need for housing is dOCUJllented in the
Hou~>inq EleIllènt of the city's GeneraJ. Plan, and in o:ther plan
documents of the city ana other jurisdictions in the area.
ALTDDT:rvE 3: REDO'CBD T.'&tm USE :œ'1'ENIJ:TJ:ES.
DEIR pages 4-14 to 4-19
Findina: J:nfeasible. This option assumes development of both the
Specific P1.a.n and the Genera1. Plan Amendment except that 285
acres of hiqher traffic generating commercial uses will be
replaCed with lower traffio generatinq residential uses. The
Reduced Land Use J:ntensities alternative is found to be
infeasible for the following reasons:
(1)
Airuort Safetv. This alternative wil1. increase the number'
of housing units within the Livermore Municipal Airport
Protection Zone. (p. 4-1S).
(2)
unavoidab1.e imcacts. Even with the reduced intensities of
this alternative, a1.J. the unavoidable impacts identified for
the Project would remain except traffic impacts at I-S80, J:-
680/Hacienda, at J:-S80, Tassajara/Airway, at Airway
114 \e&FbdUb \fiDd (4)
67
,--.
,~-
.'
f
Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard and cumulative traffic impacts on
Dublin Boulevard (Impacts 3.3/B, C, J, aJKl M). DEIR page 4-
~5.
(3) Fiscal im'Dacts. This alternative !!lay have potentially
signifioant fiscal impacts on the City budget's cost/revenue
balance by reducing oommercial develop1tlent which generally
generates less service costs and. more property tax revenues
than housing. These potential i1Dpacts can be mitigated.
HCiWever, any mitigating revenues raised would. have to be
shared.mit.igation for capital facilit.ies, possibly red.ucing-
the a1IIÖunt of revenue available for both the budget. and
capital facility programs. (page 4-~9, 3.12-2 to -4).
AL'1'1I!12Jn.TTVE4: JJC 1'\1nn!T.A1>If1I!N'II. DEJ:R page 4-19
FindrnQ': :Infeasible. This alternative assumes no development. of
the Project,sit.e beyond existing conditions, assumes no annexa-
tion and therefore no application of even the ourrent General
Plan. The No eevelOp1llent alternative is found to be infeasible
because the city's General Plan has designated the Eastern Dublin
area for planned development, subject to the preparation of a
Specific Plan. :In addition, the No Development Alternative fails
to provide needed housing. The need for housing is documented in
the Housirig Element of the City's General Plan, and in other plan
documents of the City and other jurils:dictioll$ in the. area. (page
4-19 to -20). .
~ ~
114\8.=~Ub\fim4(4)
68
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----,
'-'.
seotiO!1 "
S'l'ATEKBlII'l' OF OVB1UI.J:DDIG COHSJ:DBRA'J!J:OHS
1. GeDBr.~.
PUr$uant to . CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City council of
the City of· Dublin makes the following statement of overriding
Considerations.
The city council has œlanced the benefits of the eastern Dublin
Project to the City of Dublin aqainst the adverse t.pacts
identified in the EIR as significant and potentially significant
which have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
The city council, acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, hereby determines that the benefits. of the Project
outweigh thE! unmitigated adverse impacts and the Project should
De approved~
The city Council has carefully considered each impact in reachinq
its decision to a.èlopt the Project and. to allow urban:i;¡¡ation of
the eastern:iDublin Project area. Al.though the city"'COuncil
believes thåtmany of the unavoidal:lle environmental effects
identified in the EIR will be substantially lesseneð: by mitiqa-
tion measures incorporated into the General Plan Amei1d:inent,
Specific plan, and future development plans as well as future
mitigation measures implemented with future approvals, it
recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it
unavoidable adver$e environmental effects.
The city Council specifically finds that to the extent that the
identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts have not been
mitiqated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic,
social_, environmentai, land use, and other considerations which
support approval of the Project. The City council :further fims
that anyone of the overriding considerations identified herein-
after in subsection 3 is sufficient basis to approve the Project
as mitigated.
2. nnavoidab1e Sianificant Adverse rmcBots
,.
The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts are
associated with the proposed Project as identified in the Final
Environt1lBntal J:mpact Report for the Project, which consÜ:ts of a
Draft Environmental Impact Report, Parts I and. II (Appendix),
dated August 28,1992; Comments and Response to Comments, dated
11'\ea8~ub\fiDd(4)
69
-----
,~
December 7 and December 21, 1992; ~etter of December 15, 1992
fr01ll DKS ASsociates to Laurence Tong; and the Addendum to draft
EIR dated May 4, 1993. These impacts cannot be fully mitigated
by chanqes or alterations to the Project.
Land Use T-mnact 3.1/F. cumu~ative Loss of Aaricu1tura1 and ODen
St>ace Lands. Even with mitiqation, the Project would stiU
result in the 10S5 of a ~arge area of open space. This loss is
cumu1ative1y significant, given the ~oss of numerous other- areas
of open spade in the area. No feasible mitigation measures .are
avai~a]::lle to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
The only Prôject alternatives which cou~d reðuce this impact to a
level of insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the NQ
Deve1opmentA1ternative, both of which have been found to ]::Ie
infeasib~e (see Section 3 above). RC #34-9.
Traffic and Cirou1ation ImDact 3.3/B: I-saD Freewav. 1-680-
Hacienda. Even with mitigation, the Level of service on 1-580
between I-680 and Dougberty Road could exceed Leve1 of service E,
the minimum acceptab1e level of service. No feasible mitigation
measures are avai1ab1e to reduce this impact to a ~eve~ of
insignificance, since the freeway has a1ready been widened to its
maximum practica1 capacity. Project alternatives which cou~d
reduce this içaot to a 1eve1 at; insignificance are the No
Projee::t Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These
a1te.rnativBS have been found to be infeasib~e (see/section :3
abqve). (DEIR pages 3.3-21,5.0-16). .
Traffic and ircirð1ÌJAtion I}D'DBat 3 _ 3/E:: CI.1mulative Fr~av Imuacts..
EVen with mitigation, portions of 1-580 wi11 operatä at Leve1 of
Service po wider the CWIIulative Buildout with Project soenario. NO
feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this iMpact
to a level of insignificance. The only Project aJ.ternative which
oouJ.d reduce this impact to a leve~ of insignificance is the NO
Deve~opment Alternative. This alternative has been found to be
infeasibJ.e (see section:3 above). (DEIR pages 3.3-22, 5.0-16)
Traffic and Circulation rmnact 3.3/1: Santa Rita Road and 1-580
Eastbound Ramcs. Year 2010 deve10pment with the Projeot wi11
cause Level of Service F operations at this intersection. No
feasib1e mitiqation measures are available to reduce this impact
to a level of insignificance. Project alternatives which could
reduce this -',impact to a leve~ of insignificance are the No
Project AJ.te.rnative and the NO Development Alternative. These
a1ternatives have been found to be infeasible (see section 3
above). (DEIR pages 3.3-26, 5.0-16)
?;
Traffic and [circu~ation ImDil.ct 3. 31M: CUmu1ati ve Imnacts on
Dublin Boulevard. CUmulative Buildout with the Project will
cause Leve1'lof Service F operations at the Hacienda Drive
interßectiori and Level of service E operations at the Tassaj ara
114\eastðab\fiDd(4)
70
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
,-,
Road intersection. No feasible :mitigation :measures are available
to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. Project
alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance are the Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative
and the No Ðsvelopment Alternative. These alternatives have been
found to be:infeasible (see section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.3-
27, 5.0-;L6).
communitv sérvices and Facilities I1I1Ðact 3.4/0: D..",·...·II'I for
utilitv Extensions. The extension of gas, electric and telephone
service lines onto the ProjeCt site is neoessary for development
and will require new distribution systems or sw:.stantial exten-
sions of existing systeJIIS onto undeveloped lands currently in
agriaultural and open space uses. No feasible mitigation
:measures are available to reduoe this growth inducing impact to a
level of insignificance. Project alternatives which could reduce
this impact to a level of insignificance are the No Project
Alternative and the No Development Alternative. Thelie
alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3
above). (DErR pages 3.4-24,5.0-16).
communitv sêrvices and Faci1ities Imaact 3.4/S! Consumotion of
Non-Renewable Natural Resourcss. Natural Gas and electrical
service would increase consumption of non-renewable natural
resources. -Requiring energy conservation plans provides partial
mitigation.·· However, because energy use will still_- increase, the
Upact cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. Project
alternativeS which could reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No
Development· Alternative. These alternatives have been found to
be infeasible (see Section :3 above). DEIR page 3.4-25.
:~ wa~~. and stor:in orainaae ImDact 3.5/F.H.U: Increases in
Us Th-rouah IDt"!rAasad Water Treatment and DisDosal and
Thorouah "i'eration of the water Distribution svstem. Increased
wastewater Flows to and from the Project will require increased
ênergy. using energy efficient water distribution treatment, and
disposal systems provides partial :mitigation. However, because
energy use will still increase, the impact cannot be reduced to a
level of insignificance. project alternatives which could reduce
this i:mpactèto a level of insignificance are the No Project
AlternativetMd the No DeveloP'lent Alternative. ,These alterna-
tives have hen found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above).
DEIR pages 3.5-8 to -10.
Sewer. water and Stor:m Drainaae ImDact 3.5/T: Inducement of
SUbstantial i;Growth and concentration of PODu1ation. The proposed
water distribution system will induce significant growth in the
Project area. No feasible mitigations are available to reduce
this impact to a level of insignificance. The only Project
alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of
114\east~\fiDd(4)
71
.,
r-.
,-"",,\.
insignifica:Ρlce are the No Project alternative and the No
Development i alternative. These alternatives have been found to
be infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEIR, pages 3.5-20, 5.0-
15).
~I
Soils. Geoleav. and Seismicitv I1I1cact 3.6/8: Earthauake Ground
Shakina. . Primarv Effects. Development of the RPA will. expose
more residents to the risk of potentially large earthquakes on
active fault zones in the region, which could result in damage to
structures and infrastructure and, in extre;me cases, loss 0:£
life. Using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral
force in construction of development projects, and building in
acoordance with the uniform Building Code and applicable local
code require:ments will partially mitigate this impact. However,
the impact cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. The
only Project alternative which could reduce this impact to a
level of insignificance is the No Development alternative. This
a1.terna.tive'has been found to be infeasible (see section 3
above). (DEIR page 3.6-7.)
"
Bioloaical Re.sources Imnact 3.7/C: Loss or Dearadation of
Botanicallv,Sensitive Habitat. Development of the RPA will
result in a;significant loss and degradation of biologically
sensitive habitat. As described in section 1, mitigation
measures will partia11y reduce this impact. Bowever, because
biologically sensitive habitat will stil1 be lost,','tbe impact
cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. The on1y Project
alternative which cou1d reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance is the No Deve10pment alternative. -.Whis
alternative has been found to be infeasib1e (see Sec:tion 3,
above) . (DEIR pages :3.7-10,5.0-11).
'lTisua1 Imnacts 3.8/B: Alteration of Rural/OÐen Stlace Visua1
Character and :3.8/F: A1teration of Visual Character of Flatlands.
Project deve10pment will pe=llmently alter the existing rural,
agricultural character of the Project area. A1though the highest
riàgelines will be preserved as open space, the visual character
of the rounded lower foothills along I-5SD wi11 be altered by
construction of homes and roads. No feaeible :mitigations are
available tø reduce these visua1 impacts to a level of insignifi-
cance. The ; only Project alternative which cou1d reduce these
impacts to a 1evel of insignificance is the No Development
alternative;' This alternative has been found to be infeasible
(see section :3 above). (pages 3.8-5, -7, 5.0-17).
Noise Imn8ct 3.10/B: ExDosure of Existina Residences to Future.
Roadwav Noise. Increased 'traffic on area roadways 111'111
significantly increase noise levels, thus adversely affecting
existing residences and population. Mitigation can be achieved
to buffer'residents from levels that exceed acceptab1e standards,
by providing be:r1tlS or wa11s adjacent to outdoor use spaces of
114\Qas~\fiDd(4)
72
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.
-
.---
-
^'
existing residences. However, the magnitude of chanqe in the
noise environment, from quiet rural roads with little traffic to
busy suburm.,n thoroughfares, cannot be avoided. Project
alternatives which coul.d reduce this impact to a level. of
insignifioance are the No Project Alternative and the No
Development Alternative. These alternatives have been found to
be infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DE:I:R pages 3.10-3 to 4,
5.0-16).
~~ise I:cac~3_10~~ ~osure of ProDosed Residential. Develottment
Nois fr PUt M·1itarv Trainina ActivitiQS at Came Parks;
and from the county Jail.. Residential. devel.opment in the
Specific Plan area would be within 6000 feet of CUIþ parks and
the county jail. and could be exposed to noi&e from gunshots and
helicopter overfl.ight. Mitigations calling for noise studies may
not be feuibl.e at al.l locations; therefore this impaot might not
be reduced 1:0 a level. of insignificance. Project a·lternatives
which coul.d.· reduce this impact to a level- of insignificance are
the No Project Alternative and the NO Development Alternative.
These alteriiatives have been found to be infeasibl.e (see section
3 above). (page 3.10-4, 5.0-16).
".1
Air OUalitv¡;ImDBcts 3.11/A.B.C.E. Project development will have
a potentially significant cumulative impact on air qual.ity as a
resul.t of dÜst deposition, construction equipment emissions,
mobile so=ce emissions of ROf and NOx, and station;uy source
emissions. While some measures have been adopted to partially
mitigate these impacts, the impacts remain potentia.LJ.y signifi-
cant, especially given the regiQn's existing non-coPpl.iance with
ai1:' qual.i1:y standárds. The only Project alternative which could
1:'Gduce these i1Dpacts to a level. of insignificance is the No
Development alternative. This al.tenlative hu; been' found to Þe
infeasibl.e (see section 3 above). (DEn pages 3 .11-3 tœough -
6, 5.0-13 through -16.)
,-
3. overridíaa CODaiðeratioDS
"
The City OO~cil. has considered the publ.ic record o~ p1:'oceedinq~
on the proposed Project and does determine that app1:'oval and
implementation of the Project would result in the following
substantial;:public benefits.
Economic conside:rations. Substantial evidence is inc1uded in the
record demonstrating the economic Þenefits which the city would
dBJ:'ive from içlementation of the Project. Specifically, the
Project wil.l resul.t in:
a. The creation of about 2B,200 n_ jobs in the specific Plan
i!l.1:'ea alone, and a substantial number of construction jobs.
b. increases in sales 1:'evenues fo1:' the city.
,.
114\eastdab\f~~(4)
~i
73
·.....-.,
---..,
c. Substantial increases in property tax revenues.
social Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record
demonstrating the social benefits which the city would derive
from the implementation of the Project. Specifically, the
Project will res~t in:
a. Increases in housing opportunities in the city and in a
region ,'where housing is costly and in short supply.
b. Inc:rea~es in the amount of affordable !:lousing in the
community.
c. Ana:rriinqe¡nent for the city to contribUte its fair share of
reg-ional housing opportunities.
d. Pi-ovision of upper-end executive housing in the city.
Other Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record
demonstrating other public benefits which the city would derive
from implementation of the Project. They inc1.ude:
a. Comprehensive planning incorporating innovative and
extensive environmental premitigation measures not usually
found in p~ojects of this type. '
b. Designating substantial areas of land for Open;: Space and low
intensity RUral Residential uses. This includes a potential
reqionål trail system link through the open spàce of the
Project site. This open space will conserve ~e Gcologica1.
values' of the liIite and surroundinq areas and provide
recreational and, open space amenity opportunities for
residents of the Project, the city, and th.e region. 3.4-
15, 3.7-15.
I
,
c' .
,
,
114\eastdub\find(4)
74
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..,,-.....
.-..
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN:
EASTERN DUBLIN
SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
prepared by
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD
-,
May 7, 1993
ATr~Me+J\ ~ ':.
f:)q.\\&I"T &
.. - .-
r-
----.
Ci.,. <>fDublin
)daY T I lGGS
&. _ Dublm SpediIc PI... '" GP A Em
M;t;¡p.t "" Mø¡¡.QI'ÍII ¡ Pion
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The State of California nOW requires public agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring program for
changes to the -project or conditiOI1$ of approval which have been identified and adopted as methods
to reduce enviroDID~tal impw;:ts. Thus with the certification of the Eastern Dublin ErR and adoption
of the Specific Plan and General PJ3n Amendtnent, the City of Dublin is required to establish a
mitigation mODÍtoring program for aU approved mitigation measures.
In order to ens\lI'e that all adopted mitiption measures are Unplemented in a timely fashion, the
Mitigation Monitoring Progra¡n. provi4es the following information for each measure:
· Jlhy has the mitigation JIlS83111'e been recommended?
· :ID!£ is resvol1$ible for implementing the mitigation?
· 1lhJI! is the mitigation measure being monitored and how?
· When should mitigation monitoring be undertaken? What schedule is requiTed?
· Comnletion: when sho1.1ld the mítigation measure be in pla.c;e and monitoring be
completed?
· Verification: what agency is required to el1$ure that the mitigation measure was
implemented?
~
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,,-.
~
City of DubII:D
May1,1S19S
EaI. <Dublin Spec:lli. PI... " GFA Em
M!Oipt.iOll M~ Plor1
"ECflON 3:1 J.AND USE
-1. IInDact. Reoulriue Mitigation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
IM: 3.1/0 Potential Conflkts with Land Uses to the West
2. Miti«atioD Imnlem8r.tatioD and MonitoriulP ProI!1'all1
Impa"t 3.1/G Potential Conf1ic:ts with Land Uses to the West
MitieQiÏnn MeasW'e 3.1/10_' COm'dirtL1tion of PI_nine ¡ktitlirles with U..s Armv
Why:
To resolve potential land use conflicts between activitie$ at Camp Parks and
proposed uses in the Project area
PJannmg Department/U.8. Army; Directorate of Engineering and Housing.
Establish a liaison committee between the City and the Army. Establish a
schedule for periodic: meetings to discuss and provide updates on planning
and develoPIDent efforts within the Project site and in CaJ:np Parks. The
City of Dublin P1aDning Department will send to the base commander a
copy of new applications for development adjacent to CamP Parks for
review and. comme1lt. Projects will be considered. by liaison committee at
request of CamP Parks.
PerioclicaJ1y, PllrSwmt to agreed-upon calendar. and as required for review
of spedfic project proposals.
Qn.going. Speçific project review will be considered complete wben City
has received written çomments f= CamP Parks.
City of Dublin Planning Director.
Who:
What:
When:
ÇOØlpletion;
VerifieatioD:
SECTION 3.2, POPULATION. HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT
This section provides baseline i:\ata related to population, housing and employment and does not
identify environmental impactS or related II1itigation measures. No ØlÏtÎgaûon monitoring program
is required..
SECflON 3.3, TIlAFFlC .AND CIRCULATION
1. Imllal:tS Reøulrill2 Mitiutloll
This section identiÏ18S the following impacts requiring mitigt.tion:
IM: 3_1/G Potential Conflicts with Land Uses to the West
1M 3.3/B 1-580 Freeway; between 1-680 and Hacienda
1M 3.3(C 1-580 Freeway; between Tassajara-FaUon-Airway
1M 3.3/D 1-680 Freeway; North of the 1-580 Interchange
1M 3.3/E Cumulative Freeway Impacts (1-580 west of 1-680; 1-580 east of Airway)
1M 3.3/F Do\lgherty Road and Dublin Boulevard
1M 3.3/0 Hacienda Drive and 1-580 Eastbound Ramøs
1M: 3.3/H Tassajara Road and 1-580 Westbound Ramps
3
" ,
..-..,
!!;.. Dubtû>- S,...,m. PloD I/: GP A EIR
MIti""liou _g Pi""
Cily of Dublin
Mq't,199a
1M 3.3/1 Santa Rita Road &, I-S80 Eastbound Ramps
1M 3.3/J Airway Boulevard and Dublin BOulevard
1M 3.3/K. Airway Boulevard &, 1-580 Westbound Ramps
1M 3.3/L Impecfunents to Truck Trnffic on El Charto Road _
1M 3.3/M Cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard (Dublin/Hacienda; Dublin/Tasaajara.)
1M 3.3/N Cumulative Impacts on Tusajara Road (Tassajara/Fallon; Tassajara/Fallon;
Tassaja.ra/Transit Spine)
1M 3.3/0 Transit service Extenaiou
1M 3.3/1' Street Crossings
2. Min.adon Im.lementAtio.. ....d Mo..ltoñnl! Pro2ram
Daily Traffic Volumes (Year 2010 With Project)
ImpJlCt 3.3/B 1-580 Freeway; between 1-680 and Hac:ienda
Miti(!tl1imr. MÆl1SI/J'P. ~ ~/2 O~· TrlDUlJortfllion L~vstems Man{lV2m~nt (TSM)
Why:
Who:
What:
To reduce project-generated vehicle trips
All non-re¡¡idential projects with SO± employees.
Require compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 13 Transportalion Control
Meø.sures Rule 1 to satisfaction of BAAQMD or City of Dl1blin (Public
Works Ðepartntent)
Prior to occupancy
Upon issuance of Planning Department sjgn-off on compliance
City of Dublin Planning Director
When:
Completion:
Ve:rificatlou:
MitivDtÎtm Mea.mTl! 33/2.1: Rp.l'itmLll T'ml.s1Jo~tD1.ion Mititll1tinn. p,.ot!rnm.r;
Why:
Who:
Wh..t:
To assist in the funding of improvements to :regional transpartation sy¡;tem
All approved. projects
Proportionate monewy contribution to regional transportation mitigation
prognuns as approved by the City of Dublin.
As a condition of project approval. When applying for a permit, the
applicant cieveloper will be notified of tiU:; fee assessment
PaYments shall be made prior to issuance of bullding permits
City of Dublin Department of Public Works
When:
Completion:
Ve:rificatiou:
hnpaçt 3.3/C 1-580 Freeway; between Tassajar..~Fallon-Airway
Mitifration MetllUTe 3.3/3 Q. Construction of Araiiiarv Lanes
Why:
To assist in the fnnding of the consttuction of awdJiury lanes on 1-580
between Tassajam. and Airway boulevards
Caltrans/City of Dublin Public Works Department.
PaYment of a regionally-assessed fee for all new development voitbi1l the
Project area as approved by the City of Dublin.
As a condition of project approval. When applying for a permit. the
applicant developer will be notified of this fee .assessment.
Who:
What:
Whem
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.--
~
Cîb" of DubJin
May 7. 1995
Ell.
I>1Ib1ia Spoc!& PI...,. GPA Em
Mi;¡poDMo~p¡...,
Completion:
Verific:ation:
Payments shall be made prior to issuance of buildiDg permits
City of Dublin Department of Public Works
Impad 3.3/D 1-680 Freeway; North of the 1-580 IDterchanae
Mitip'lItion Mea.<UJ'€ 3 3/4.0: 1-580/1-680 Interchanr!e Imnrovements
Whø:
To establish funding for construction of future 1-:580/[-680 Interdlange
improvements.
Caltrans/City of Dublin Public Works Department.
PaYJl1ent of II regionally-assessed fee for all new development within tb.e
Project area as approve<! by tb.e City of Dublin.
As a condition of project approval, tb.e applicant developer will be notií1ed
of this fee assessment.
Payments shall be"made prior to issuance of building permits
City of Dublin Department of Public Works
Why:
Who:
What:
Completion:
Verification:
Daily Traffic Volumes (Cumulative Dulldout with Project)
Impact 3.3/E Cum.dative Freeway Impads
MitivtJtion MeaSfLrp. J 3/5.0: TrQ/ffó1HlFtation Svstl!m3 Manarurment (TSM J
Completion:
To es~b1ish funding for construction of auxiliary lanes on 1-:580 east of
Airway Boulevard
All -approved development projects in the Project area/City of Dublin.
1) Proportionate monetary contribution to regional tranSpOrtatiOIl mitigation
programs as approved by tb.e City of Dublin.
2) City coordination witb. other local j1lI'ÎSdictious to require that all fu.ture
development projects participate in regional traDS Jortation mitigation
prograDlS.
]) The contribution to regionaJ improveJUents will be implemented as a
condition· of project apprOV1ll. Applicants will be IlOtÎÍred of tb.h fee
assessIDðDt.
1) Pay¡nents shall be lI1Ide prior to issuance of building permits.
2) Coordination will be ongoÍDg.
1) Fee payments will be verified by tb.e City of Du.blin Planning
Department.
2) Coordination will be the responsibility of tb.e Department of Public: Works
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
V erificatioJl:
Peak Hour latenection Operatiou (Year 2010 with Project)
Impact 3.3/F Doagherty Road and Dablin Bowevar.
Mitir!t2lion Measure 3 3/6.0.- Con<;t,uctÎon of Addittonal Lanes
Who:
To ensure the funding and constrUction of improvements to the Dougherty
Road.jDublin Blvd. intersection as needed
City of Dublin Department of Public Works/All approved projects.
Why:
:5
C"" <4 V"¡,¡¡,,
M...- 7, 1993
What:
When:
Completi01l:
Verif"lCation:
/....,
..-....
Eo. _ Vu¡'¡¡" SI*'Ifì< pt.., k GPA EIR
MîÜlO'l",,~PIm
1) Payment of fees toW1lrds the CODStruction of additional laDes at the
interseotion of Dougherty Road and Dl1blin Boulevard..
2) Monitoring of the Deed for intersection improvements and coordination
of their construction..
1) Fees will be co11ected as a condition of project approval Ap )licants will
be notified of feelS.
2) Monitoring will be ongoing annually.
3) Construction will ()Çcur prior to intersection declining to LOS F.
1) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of b\Ùlding permits.
2) Monitoring of intersection le~1 of service will be ongoing.
3) Conrtruction will be complete with implementation of specific
improvements or equivalent as jcle11tified in mitigation measure.
I) City of Dublin Planning Departtne:D.t will verify pa}'l\1eDt of fees.
2) DepartØ1ent of Public Works will be uspol1S.Îble for monitoring
ca1cu1aÛllg fees and construçtjon..
Impact 3.3/G Hacienda Drive and 1-580 EasthollDd RalDps
MitilrtIJion MeDSUTe 3.3/7 O' WidePlinlr of EQ$tbmmd Off-RamD
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide inlprovements that Will prevent congestion on the eastbound off-
ramps from I- 580 at Hacienda Drive.
Caltrans/City of Pleasant on/City of Dub tin PllbHc Works/ProjectApplicants .
I) Payment of fee towards widening.
2) Coordination of improvement with CaItI'an!¡ and the· City ofPl-<¡<>"rnn.
I) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approval.
2) Coordination will occur as needed prior to .ímplem.entation of lDÎtiption..
3) Constrnction will be underway prior to decline of level of service to
unacceptable.LOS E.
4) Monitoring and coordination will begin with development review
processing.
1) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of bW1ding permits.
2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of widening described
in mitigation measwe.
I) City of Dublin Planning Departtnent will verify payment of fees.
2) Departm.ent of Publio Works will be responsible for calculating fees and
coordination with other agencies.
Impct 3.3/H Tassajata Road and 1-580 WestbouDd Ramps
Mitilration Mnuure 3.3/8.0: Widellinf' of /-58<1 Westbound RamDS
Why:
Who:
What:
TO fund and inlplement .ímproveD1ent!l necessary to ensure the efficient
operation of the intersection of Tassajara Road with. the 1-580. westbound
ramps.
Caltrans/Pleasanton and Dublin Departments of Public: Works/Developers
1) Payment of fee to fund design and construction of inlprovements,
including widening of the 1-580 westbo11l1d off-ramp and modification of
northbound approach to provide additional turn and through lanes.
2) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of çonsrruction.
6
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,-.
--."
¡;:",. .>ublm Sped1!c PI"" & GP A ElK
MitipÜ01> McmltoJiD.- PI",
Cily of Dublin
),by 7. J QS
Completloa:
1) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approval.
2) Monitoring and coordination will be begin with development review
processing.
3) Construction will be underwa.y prior to decline of level of service to
unacceptable level (LOS E).
1) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits.
2) Mitiption will be complete with imPlementation of widening described
in mitigation measure.
1) City of Dublin P1anIrlng De ')llrtIIlent will verify 113yment of fees.
2) Department of :Public Works will be respOnsible for coordinating
cODS~n.
Whm:
Verification:
Impact 3.3/1 Santa Rita Road" I-S80 Eastbollnd Ramps
Mitituztion Mea.wre 3.3/9 o· fmrTl'o.emtm1s to T - 580 Eastbmmd Ramn.ç
Completioa:
To fund and-implement improveøents necessary to ensure adequate service
levels on SsJIta Rita Road and I-S80 eastbound ramps.
Caltrans/pleasanton and Dublin Deþ UtDlents of Public Works/Developets
1) Payment of fee to fund design and construçÛon of improvements;
including widening of I-S80 eastbound off-ramps.
2) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of C01IStruçtjon.
1) Fees will be assessed as -a condition of project approval.
2) Monitoring and coordination will be begin with development review
processing.
3} Wid~ni"g of eastbound ramps will occur prior to decline of level of
service to UIlIcceptable level (LOS E).
1) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issu-ance of building permits.
2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of widening described
in miûp.tion meas1.lre.
1) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees.
2) City of Dublin Departme.nt of Public Works will be responsible for
coordinating imprOvements with the City of Pleasanton Department of
Public Works and CaltraDS.
Why:
Who:
What:
Whea:
Veñfic:ation:
Impact 3.3/K Airway BollleTard" 1-580 Westbound Ramps
Mitiruztinn Meli.ttO'e 3.3 / 110· Wideninp' of Ail'wQV Raul/rtlard O'PeTCrosr:¡in-v
When:
To fund and implement improvements ncce$S3!')' to eIm!f' adeqnate se:rvice
levels at the intersection of Airway :Bolllevard and the westbound ramps.
City of Dublin/Caltrans/City of Livermore/DBvelopers
I) Payment of fee to fund design and construçÛon of improvements;
including the widening or replacement of the Airway Blvd. overcrossing and
the widening of the I-SgO westbound off-ramp.
2) Monitoring of service levels and. coordination of constrUction.
I) Fees will be assessed as a condition of prOject approval.
2) Monitoring and coordination will be begin with development review
process.
3) Improvements to ramps and overcrossing will occur prior to decliD.e of
Why:
Who:
What:
7
(My otDubliD
Mo.y 7, t99S
Completiom
Verification:
r-.
--..
Ea._ ·DubUn Spodf'''' Plan &: GÞ'\ Bm.
~!cm_IœiDeÞ"'"
level of service to unacceptable level (LOS E).
1) Payment of ffJe$ shall be made prior to issuance of building permits.
2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of ÌJnprovements
described. In mitigation measure.
I} City of Dublin PlaDning Departn1ent Will verify payment of fees.
2) City of Dublin Department of Public Works will be responsible for
coordinating impwvements with the City of Livennore Department of
Public Works and Caltmns.
Impact 3.3/L Impedlmeøts to TfUCk Traffic On EI Chano Road.
Why:
Mit;fration Mefll'lD'1! 3.3/12 ()- PrDvisitJl'lt ta Ensu1"(! U'1'I.imDl!dsd T1'UCk Trllffic
Who:
What:
WheJi:
ColØpletioø:
Verification:
To fund and implement ÌJnprovements neces$ary to ensure uniJDpeded
movement of trucks to and from the quaITies on 1S1 Charro Road south of
1-580.
City of Dublin/Caltrans/City of Pleasanton/ÐevelopeI1ò/City of Livermore
I) Payment of fees to fund design and cOIlStructÎon of ne<.11!SSary
improvements.
2) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of improvements with
Caltrans and the City of Pll!a$anton DepartJllent of Public Works.
-1) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approval.
2) Monitoring and coordination will begin with development review
processing.
3) Improvements will occur prior to decline of level of service to
......œeptable level (LOS E).
1) Payment of fees shall be made ørior to issuance of building permits.
2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of improvements.
I) City of Dublin Planning Department wj11 verify pa.yment of fees.
2) City of Dublin Department of Public Works will be rl!Søonsible for
coordinating improvements with the City of Pleasanton Department of
Public Works and Caltrans and City of Livermore.
Impact 3.3/M Cumnlative Impiu:ts on Dublin Boulevard
Why:
Mitiø-atian MtULtuT£~ 3 ~/13 0." Maintain Adeoualp. £021.-: of Suvice t111ntersecti(Jn~
Who:
What:
When:
To identify, fund and implement improvements that willlDaintain adequate
service levels a.t the intersections Dublin Blvd with Hacienda Drive and
Tassajara Road with buildout of çumuJative projects.
City of Dublin
1) The City of Dublin will participate in the regularl;r-sched111ed meetings
of the Congestion ManageØl8nt Agency and Tri- Va1ley Transportation
Council to determine long-term mitigation measures for çuroulative impacts
on Dablin Boulevard.
2) Payment of fees to fund design and construction of necessary
imørovements.
3) MonitorØig of service levels and coordination of improvements with
Caltnns and the City of Pleasanton Department of Public Works.
I) Parû;:ipation In the Tri- Valley Transportation Council is current and on-
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,-"
-...
City o!DIIIilln
May 7, 1993
E.. DubJin SpeciJi.. PIIm.!l GP A Em
Mitî¢;.., Moui'orinI: Plan
Completi01l:
going.
2) Fees will be assessed as a condiûon of project approval.
3) Monitoring and coordination will be begin with development review
process and çoritinue thro~ to identification and construction of n~5sary
iIIlprove¡nents.
4) Construction will be underway prior to decline of level of service to
unacceptable level (LOS E).
1) Participation in the Tri- Valley TranspOrtation C01lDcil is all-going.
2) Pay¡:nent of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building øermits.
3) Mitisation will be complete with Îlnplementation of improvements.'
1) City of Dublin PlaIming Department will verify payment of fees.
2) City of Dublin Department of Public Works will be responsible for
coordinating Project area iIIlprovements resulting from ß!8ional growth.
Verification:
Impact 3.3/N Cumulative Impacts on TassaJara Road
Mitisuztion Mea.<ure 33/14.0; Widtminlt of Tasso iaro. Road to Six Lanes
Why: To reserve sufficient right-of-way along Tassajara Road to ae<:oromodate
cumulative development of projects north of the Project area.
Who: City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Department Public
Works.
What: ' Reservation of sufficient right-of-way to accmnmodate m travel lanes on
Tassajar:a. Road.
When: Reservatioll of right-of ·way to be adopted prior to approval of tentative
map.
Completicm: Dedication of right-of-w$.y required prior to' filing of FJna1 maps for
develoøment projectS adjacent to the Tassajara. Road corridor.
Veriflealion: City of Dublin Planning DepartJnent.
Impact 3.3/0 Tran$it Service ExteDsiolls
Mitilta1ion Measure 3.3/15.0; Pr01.i,~on of TransU Service to Meet LAVT 4 standards
WbeD:
To extend transit service within 1/4 IDile of 95% of the Project area
þopulation.
City of Dublin pt."",I1\g DeplU'tU1entjDeþan:ment of Public WorksjLA VT A
1) Meetings betWeen 1:111' City of Dublin and LAVTA to coordinate
e¡¡;tension of bus service to the Project area.
;2) Notification to LA VT A of development approvals involving pOtential for
100 or more employees or 1'C$idents.
1) Initial meeting to re'VÎew the plan and 1I1tûnate ser'VÎce needs should be
held within one year of plan adOPÛOII to allow LA VT A to plan for future
e¡¡;pansion. Thereafter, meetings should be held periodicaJ1y at the request
of either the City or LA VT A.
On-going.
City of Dublin Plann.ing Department.
Why:
Who:
What:
Completion:
VerificatioD:
9
City m Dublin
May 7¡ 11*)3
-~
~
E.. Dublin Spøcific PI""," GPAEIR
Mtl:iptið.D Momicri:cla: Plan
Miti"alio7/ Measure 3 ~ /1 j l' BIL' Benke to EmDlovment Ctmters with 100... Em"lovees
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Veñfiçation:
TO provide transit service at a minimum frequency of one bus every 30
minutes dllI'mg peak hcUI'$, to employment centers with 100 or ¡nore
emplayees.
City of Dllblin Planning Department,lDepartment of Public WorkslLA VT A
1) Meetings between the City of Dublin and LA VTA to coordinate
extension of bus service to em.ployment centers.
2) Notification to LA VTA of development approvals involving potential for
100 or more employees.
1) Meetings should be held periodically at the request of either the City or
LAVTA.
On-gomg.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitistai;o7/ Measure 33/15.2: MtmètaT1J Contribu1io/t In SUMorl Transit Service ErttmÛons
Why:
Who:
What:
WheD:
Comple1ioa:
Veriflc:ationt
To provide funding in support of expansion of transit'service to the Project
area..
City of Dublin Planlling Department/Department of Public
Works/LA VT A!Developers
PaYIDent of fees or construction of capital improvem.ents to support
extension of transit service.
Fees/improvements will be identified, as a condition of project approval.
Prior to approval of Final MaP.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitif!alim: Measure 33/153' Feeder TrQJ!sit .<;er.ice to the Ea."t Dul>lin/PJeasQJ!ttm BART
st01i011.
Why:
Who:
What:
WheJl:
Completion.:
Verification:
To coordinate provision of feeder bus service to the planned BART stations
from the Project area.
City of Dublin Planning DepartInent/DepartJnent of Publie
Wotks/LA VTA/BART
Meetings with BART aDd LA VTA to coordinate feeder transit service to
BART.
Initial meeting to review the plan and ultimate semee needs should be held
within oIle year of plan adoption to allow BART and LA VTA to plan for'
future expansion. Thereafter, meetings should be held periodically at the
request of the City, BART, or LA VTA.
On-going.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact 3.3{p Street Crossings
Mitirzo.tio/t MetttW'e 33/16.0: PrrwÚion of a Classl bicvcll!/M.de~tritm tJQth
Why:
Who:
To provide a paved bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara CN E!k.
Developers in consultation with the City of Dublin Planning Department,
10
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---
.----
E.. .1)"btIn. SpeciIio PI""&< GPAEIR
Mi,;p'io» M"'¡~1'¡""
City of Dubli»
May T. 199$
Compleûon:
De )artlneot of Public Works, and. East Ba.y Regional Park DJstrict.
Design ana constrUCtion of a Class I bicyçle/¡:oedestrian path along Tassajara
Creek. .
As a concliûon ..,f approval for develop¡nent projeçts adjacent to the
Tassajara Creek corrid.or.
Construction to occur prior w occupation of fint phase of homes
responsible for provic1ing the path.
City of Dablin Department of Public Works.
What:
Wbel1:
Verification:
MitlSlation MelZSUT<! 3.31161' Sifmalized BicvclelPedestril11l Intersections
Why:
Who:
What:
Whem
Completion:
Verification:
To proviae for safe pedestrian/bicycle crossings of :major arterjal streets.
DevelopersfDepart1Dent of Public Works
Locate pedestrian and bicycle crossings at signafued interSeCtions.
As a condition of project approval
Final approval of detailed improvement planS.
Department of Public Works.
SECTION 3.4: COMMUNITY SEll VICES AND FACILITIE..Cj
Prior to 9.nnrovaJ of nnzonillR.lA ImBsm ~f!!auiriRoQ= Mttip'stion
This sec:tion identifies the following impacts requiring JIÚtigation:
1M 3.4/ A Demand for Increased Police Services.
1M 3.4/B Police Services Acce8$ibility
1M 3.4/C Demand for Increased Fire Services
1M 3.4/D Fire Response to Outlying Areas
1M 3.4/E Exposure t(l Wildlands Ha7.3rds
1M 3.4/F Den1and for New Classroom Space
1M 3.4/G Demand for 1unior High School Space
1M 3.4/8 Overcrowding of Schools
1M 3.4/1Impø.ct on School District Jurisdiction
1M 3.4/1 Financial Burden on School Dil;tricts
1M 3.4/K Demand for Park Facilities
1M 3.4/L Park Facilities Fisc8l Impact
1M 3.4JM Impact on Regional Tra.i1 System
1M 3.4/N Impact on Open-Space Connectioll$
1M 3.4/0 Increased Solid Waste Production
1M 3.4/p Impact on Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
1M 3.4/Q Demand for Utility Extensions
1M 3.4/R Utility Extension: Visual and Biological Impacts
1M 3.4/S Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources
1M 3.4fT Demand for Increased Postal Service
1M 3.4/U Demand for Increased Library Service
11
Oily of Dublin
!day 7. l!$ll
-~
-.,
E... ·Dubl;'" Speoifi<.PI"" It GPA)!:III.
M¡tipt:iolt MonIto<iIt¡; PIon
Police Services
2. Miti'l!atioD Imn1ementatioD and MDDitnrinp' Pmß'a.m
Impact 3.4/A DemaDd for IDcreased Police Services
Impact 3.4/B Police SerTÎces Aceessibitity
Why:
Mttil!ation Met13ttre 3.4/1.0: Additional Pe?sonnel. FilZcilities a1Id ·Bems·
Who:
What:
Whew
Completioa:
Verific:atioa:
To provide additional personnel, facilities, and procedures to police service
standards.
City of Dublin Police DepartmentjPlanning Department.
1) Police Department will hire' and train new sworn and civilian staff, revise
"beat" system to !lBIVe eastern Dublin, QD.d estimate and schedule projected
facility needs in eastern Dublin.
2) Planning Department to notify Police Department of development
approvals to assist the Police Department in it!; annual budget formlllation.
On-going.
Annually as part of the Police Deparlment's planning and budgetary proœss.
Chief of Police.
Why.
Mitil!ation MeasW'e 3 4/2.0' Coordination of exobMion ()( Police seryices
.
Who:
What:
When:
CompletiDD:
Veriflc:atIDu:
To provicle the Police Department information needed to adequately-plan for
expansion of services.
Planning Department/City of Dublin Police Department.
Notification to the Polke Department of the timing of annexation and
approved development.
During prooessing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Ongoing. .
P1anning Department
Why:
Mitff!azion MeDsure 3.4/3.0: Police lMrJIZl'tmtrnt Re.iew
Who:
What:
Wheu:
Completiou:
Verific:ati....,
To provide for Police Department iDput into the design of proposed
development.
City of Dublin Police DepartmentfPlannirlg Department.
Police Department review of propOsed development plans for safety issues,
and provide the Plannjug Deparaoent with recommeudations for inclusion
in the Ímal plans.
During development review prOCBS$.
Prior to final site plan approval.
Chief of Police or represenmtíve.
Why:
Mitillation Measure 3 4/4.0: BudfTetinv for Police Services
Who:
To prepare a budget strategy to hire the reCl\rlred. additional personnel and
implement ·necessary changes in the "beat" system. .
City of Dublin/City of Dublin Police Department
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cilf at DabJi..
May T. 1998
What:
Wheu:
Completion:
Verifiutiou:
.---,
--
Eo> DuIili» s....,;¡;. p",", " (;IP A E\IB.
d;tIp_ Mclai_r 1'1...
I) Police Department will estimate projected pel'$OIIi1e1 and facility needs
for eastern Dublin and develop a budget stra.1egy to meet these need¡¡.
2) Plarorlng DepartlIlent will notify Police Department of development
approvals in order to I\$Sist the Police Department in its annual budget
fonnulation.
On~gojng.
Annually as part of the Police Department's planniDg and budgetary process.
Chief of Police.
Mttilrorilm Measure 3.4/5.0' Police De'M1rtme7ll Reriew
Why:
-Who:
What
When:
Completiou:
Verifieation:
Fire Protection
To ensure Police Department _review of proposed development for safety
jssues.
City of Dublin Police DepartmentfPlanning Department.
Police DepartmeI1t review of propoSed development pJans for safety issues.
During development review process.
Prior to final site plan approv31.
Chief of Police or repI'8$entsûve.
Impact 3A/C Demand for Increased Fire Serric:es
Impact 3.4(D Fire Response to QutlyiJag Areas
Impact 3.4/E Exponre to WUdlands Buards
,
Why:
Mitilrt1timt Measwe 3.4/6.0: Construction of New Fire Facilities
Who:
What
WheD:
Completion:
VerifÏcation:
To provide for the constrUCtion of new facilities coincident with new
service demand in eastern Dublin.
Developers!Dougherty Regional Fire A\lthority
Design and Construction of New Facilities
Condition of tentative map and/or development review approval
Construction of Í1re statiOll(S) will oc:cur conc:urrently with new service
demand not adar-d by other agreements.
DRF A/City Planning Department.
Mitiflalion M "f1.~e 3 4/7 .0: ¡¡;mdt,,,, 0 f Np.w Pire F adUties
Why:
Who:
What:
WheD:
Completion:
Verification:
To establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of
capital improvements.
City of Dublin City Manager's Office/DRFA.
Establish funding mechanism for capital improvements.
Condition of tentative map and/or development review approval
COll3truction of fire station(s) will occur conourrently with new service
demand not addressed by other agreements.
City of Dublin City Manager respOnsible for estab\i$hÌng funding
mecha:Di31:ru¡; Planning Department responsible for verifying completion
prior to project approval.
13
CIIy of DublîD
Nay 1. 1993
...-.
. ----.
Eoo. <Dublin Spocffio P1m " GPA Em
Nitipion Nonik>ri»g Pion
MitivOiirm Mea.sllTe 3.4/8.0: Sites 'nr New FiT/! Fl1£ilities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensW'e scqllÎsÎtion of sites for construction of new fire stations.
City of Dublin Planning Department in consultation with DRF A.
Identification and acquisition of sites for new fire stations.
Condition of tentative map and/or development review approval
Construction of fire station(s) win occur concurrently with new service
demand Dot addressed by other agreements.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitif!Oiion M ea.sure 3 4 /9 0: Fire DeoDrlm;/!nt Review
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verificatioo;
To ensure DRF A input on project design relating to acc:ess, water presSure,
rue safety and. prevention.
DRF A/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Review of praposed developments by DRFA for fire safety. Incorporation
of DRF A recommendations inro projecr conditions by Planning Department.
During development review pro<::ess.
Prior to development review and/or Final Map approval
FIre Chief or representative to þ/"ovide recommendations; Planning
Department to verify. inçorporation of DRF A rec:oIllD18nda1Íons as
conditions of project approval.
MitÏf:ration Measur~ j 4/10 O· U,-btDf/OlJt!1l .ft;1KJ.(!i! T"t~rfŒI!. MDYUZ.f!p.77Zenl
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verificatioo:
To ensure that a mechanism is in plac;e to provide long-term maintenance
for the urban/open space interface.
Developers/DRFA/City of Dublin PI~nn;,'g Department.
Establishment of an assessment district or other $nitable mec¡'~n;,,", to
maintain safe r11'e conditions along the urban/open space interface.
Condition of tentative map IIþProval.
Prior to Final Map approwl.
City of Dublin Planning Depa.rtn1ent.
MitilrOiion Mel1SUl'e J 4/11.0· Fire TTails/0Den SDa¡:e Svstem
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To integrate fire trails and rue breaks into the open space trail system.
City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Recreation
Departme:ntfDFRAfDeve1opers.
Design and declic:atiOD of fire trails and. fire breaks.
Condition of tentative ¡nap approval.
Prior to Final MIIþ approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitif!aJ.ion MetL'<Ure 34/12.0: Wildfire Manatement Plan
Why:
To prepare a wildfire management plan for the Project area in order to
14
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Clq. ..r Dublin
~ 7. 11193
Who:
What:
When;
Completion:
Verification:
~-
-
Eao¡-. VuI>IID Spoo!lid'lan &< GPA E!R
Mliiption Moni-': Plan
reduce the risk of impaCt related to wildland fire.
City of Dublin¡DRFA.
Prepare a wildfire management plan.
During prezoning and armexation applicatioD processing.
Prior to approval of any developme1lt in lands adjacent to land designated
for permanent open space or I11rat residential/agriculture.
City of Dublin P!amting DepaTtll:1lmt.
Mitirral.imt MfH1SurP. ~ 4/1~.O SitP..f fOT Fire Fa£ilitie~ for the CPA lncremem
Why:
Who:
What:
When;
COmpletion:
Verifieation:
Sehools
To determine the Dwnber ,location and tiroing of additional Ílle stations for
æ-ea5 within the Project area yet olltside the Specjfic Plan area.
DRFA{City of Dublin Planning Department
Identification of future fire station sites.
During prezoning and armexation application processing.
Prior to development approvals in the areas Olltside the Specific Plan area.
City of Dublin PllIIlIIÎIIg Department.
Impact 3.4/F DemllDd £01' New Classroom Space
Impact 3.4{G Demand fin .JoDlol High School Space
Mitif!alion Mansur,; 3.4/13.0: Dedicalion of Naw .')rhool SÎte~
Why;
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
V Brifleation:
To reserve school sites within the Project area as designated in the Specific
Plan and OPA.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning De )3rtlI1ent/DUSDfL VWSD
Identificaûon of DeW school sites.
Condition of tentative map awrowL
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitivalion Measure 3.4/14.0: Planni-nrr for AdditinMl Junior Hif!h School Canacitv
Why:
Who;
What:
When:
Comple1ion;
Verification:
To ensure that adequate capacity i:; provided for junior high school age
students.
DUSD.
P\aIIIliDg for projected junior high school demand withÏD. twO proposed sites
and/or provide for Ii. third site in the PlltuTe Study Area to the east of the
projeçt area.
During planning and design of the first Junior High School site.
Prior to Ímal map approval for the fir.;t junior high school.
City of DubJmfDUSD.
15
Ci"Y of Dublin
May 7, 1993
.~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.
Eos. DubtiD Specifio PI"" &t GPA Em
Mmp_M~PI=
1M 3.4/B Overcrowdine of SehoolS
Mitiflation Measur" 3-4/15.0.. Provi_io/'l of AdI!OUOZi! School_ to SeMI" the Project site
Why:
Who:
What:
WheD:
CompletiOD:
Verification:
To ensure that adequate classroom space is provided prior to tbe
development of new homes.
DUSD/City of Dublin Plann.ing DepartmeD.t.
1) Coor4imtion between City of Dublin and DUm to monitor available
school capacity and proposed development.
2) DUSD sign-off on available çapaçity to açoommodate new development.
Coordination to occur during development review proc:ess. with written
sign-off from DUSD fUbmitted prior to teI1ta1Ïve map approval
Prior to occupancy approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact 3.4/1 Impact on School DIstrict .Jnrisdiction
Miti"atio/'l Measure 3-4/16.0: Resolution of School Distrii!t Jurisdiction IssUi!
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
CompledoD:
Verific:atiou:
To resolve the juriscfictional issue of which school district(s) will provide
service to the Project area.
City of Dublin/DUSD/L VJUSD.
City will assist with resolution of District boundary dispute.
Within two yurs of plan adoption.
Prior to occupancy of residential units within tbe Project area.
City of Du.blin Pl.anD.ÍIlg Department.
hapac:t 3.4/J Financial Bunten OD School Districts
Mitisroiion Measure 3 4/17_0: Full mftivation of Profect imtJact on .cMol facilities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Vewifica1ÏoD:
To ellSW'e that adequate school facilities us available prior to development
in the Project uea to the extent permitted by 1aw.
City of Dublin/DUSD/L VIUSD.
Establish liaison between City of Dublin and s<:hool districts.
Ongoing as part of development review process.
On~going.
Çity of Dublin plannirig Department with input from school districl$.
Mitivoifo" Me/1SlHe 3 4/18.0: Pro.ffdrm of S~hnoI Siter
Why:
Who:
Wbat:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that the development of new faciliti~ is provided for through the
decfication of school sites and/or payment of development fees by
developers.
Developers/City of Dublin/DUSD/L VJUSD.
Dedication of School Sites!Payment of Development Fees.
Condition of Tentative Map Approval
Prior to occupancy approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ci~ o!Dubt;n
M"'Y 7J 1993
........
,.......,
Bu, . :Cu¡,¡m S¡>e.;!io Piau'" GPA):IR
Wtipioi<>,. Mom_I Pi=
MitirtaJ.imz M~lLçurl! 1.4/]9.0: Funding of New Schools
Why.
Who:
What:
Whep:
CoDIpletlon:
Verifiçatlon:
Parks and :Recreation
Park Fac:UUles
To establish apøropriate fUIld.ing l11ecb....i.m., such as Mello Roos
Community Facilities District, development impact fees. or a general
obligation bond measure, to fund new school deve1op¡nent m eBStenl Dublin.
City of Ðnblin¡DUSD/LVJUSD.
Creation of fonding mechanism(s).
During processing of prezoning and annexarlon applications.
Prior to OCCnpancy of residential units within tile Project area..
City of Dublin PlaIlning Departnlent.
bnpact 3.4fK Demand for Park Facilities
Miti"minn Mpo..WJ'e 34/20JJ- EXÐm!~i()n of '1Jmk mea (tdlidin.v Poli~ No mnnitorinll
annlicn},le or rP.aUired J
~it%-:::: :r:.~<u': ¡::}~.~: M.~i"~"asm;:e mrd i"H1~·o.e"'e~2t of ouJdr:o'. faci/iti,:s i"
tm c. lth. P ,. 2. relllz 1'1. 1 7" Plan (GwaJnã·P"b£v No monrtn,.Z711!' annlzl':able
or reauirP.d )
Mïti ø-nJ:inn M P.a.mre i .4/22.0 . 'Providtt adeaUf1J.R activl! -nark!: and f QciliLi~., (r.,uîdi1f~ PoUr-v No
monitnrillr! QÐnUcable or "lfnuirs.d~)
Mitivl1t.ion M~lLnnt! 3.4/130: Acouire tmd. imMf'I'Ut 7'»2rklands
Wh}':
Who:
What:
When:
CompletiuD:
Verifieation:
To acquire and improve paddands in conformance with the priorities and
phasing recoIDIllended in the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan.
City of Dublin Planning Depanment/Dublin Recreation Depanment.
Coordination between the Pbnning Department and Recreation Department
to enswe adherence with standards of Park and Recreation Master Plan.
Ongoing lIS part of the development review process.
Ongoing.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation MPiI.t1D"e 3.4124 0: Land dedication t'I1Id narks imlJrooementslColleciion of ¡,,-lieu.
nnrk fees
Why.
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verlfieation:
To reqwre land dedication and intproveIllents as designated in the GP A and
collect in-lieu fees per City staDdards.
City of Dublin Planning Department/Recreation Department.
Require land dedication or paytneDt of in-lieu fees as condition of approval
for individual projects.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
17
City 0( Dublin
May T, 1993
.----
,
.-....
¡;:... . D"¡'¡;" Spo<Ifi. Pl"" . GP A Em
Uit-ÎS"'H= Monitor.ir"g Plan
Mžtiftation Mea.'<UTe ~.4 /25.0: Pa,k Ac,eape Dedication
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verlficatlon:
To provide an adequate ratio of developed parldands to population.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Park dedication.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to fiDaJ map approval.
City of Dublin P1amùnll Department.
Mitisrarion M2tl.ttl.r2 3" 4/26 0.- S1Jecific Park ACTtUlfl'e Dp.dicalion
Why:
Wh():
What:
When:
Completiou:
Verification:
To provide an adequate ratio of developed par1dands to population.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Park dedication.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to ÍmallD8þ approval.
City of Dublin Plamting Department.
Why:
Mitiftation Mea.m,e ~ <1/27.0: PM'k standa,ds
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ell$Dre that -øark development is con:<ÎStent with"the standards and
phasing recommended in the City's Park and Recreation Master P1an..
Developen/City of Dublin Recreation Department.
Moni.tor individUal projeçt conformance with standards ,in Master Plan.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to fina1 map approval.
City of I>ublin Recreation Deøartment.
Mrtifurtitm M~asu.r~ 3A /280 °lmrJlemlm1n1ion of S-necific Plmz m)lici£~ ""ZiZled ¡(¡the Drovision
of ODen si:JacP..
Why:
Who:
What
Whell:
Completion;
Verificatioil:
Park Financial:
To ensure the provision of open space, access and areas for public
recreation.
Developen/City of Dublin Pbft"ing Department.
Monitor individuaJ project çonformance ....ith open space policies.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to fina1lD8p approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact 3.4/L Park Facilities F"1S1:a1 Impact
Why:
Mitiftation M8f1SUi:e 34129.0: Pmp;sion of Fal, Share of Park SlJaœ
To omsure that each neVi development reserves the open space IIIld parkland
designated in the PIaIl.
]8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cil>' or D'I.Ib1in
Mo.y T, 19S1S
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verlfieation:
.---
>
--.
Ea>. . DubUn SpOcIfIo Plan .II: GPA Ell!.
MitipnoD Mom~ Plan
Developers/City of Dublin Plamling Department
Review each development proposal apinst the Specffic Plan/GPA to ensure
that designated pu-k and open space is set aside.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to ima1 map approval.
City of Dublin pt""nõ"g Department.
Mžtirrntinn Mei1.sure 3~4130.0· Parks [m"l~m/!lItation Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
V erifieation:
To develop a Parks Implementation Plan for eastern Dub1in.
Dublin Recreaûon Department
Preparation of a Parb ImpleID6Dtaûon Plan.
Within two YeaI1! of Plan adoption or prior to any signií1C3Dt residenûal
development, whichever occurs fint.
Prior to imal map approval on the first residential projects.
Dublin Recreation Departmßnt.
Mitir!atÎon MeiJSu,e;$ 4/31.0.' CalClllt11ion and Assessment of In-Lieu Park Fees
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verlfieation:
To calculate and assess in·lieu park feeS.
City of Dublin Planning Department
Assessment of In-Lieu Park Fees.
NotificlI.tion at túne of permit a )plication. ConditioD of tentative map
II.pprovul.
Pà.yment at tiIne of final map approval.
City of Dublin P!a:tming Department.
JmpKt: 3.4/M Jrnpaet On Reglollal Trail System
Mitivntimt Mp.a...~e 3.4/~2~O: TraiT Linkfll'e fmLi. Access
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To establish a trail system with con¡:¡ections - to planned regional and
sUbregional system..
Developers/City of Dublin Pl.nn;.,s DepartIneDt
Dedication of trail rights-oC-way.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impaçt 3.4/N Impact on Open Space Connections
Miti!!'ation M~asure :J 4 /33.0- Establish a com()rehp."~ill~ trail n~work
Why:
Who:
What:
To establish a comprehensive. integrated trail network that permits safe and
convenient pedestrian and bicycle access.
DevelOpers/City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dablin Recrea.tion
Department.
Provide guidelines to developers on right-of-way alignment and design
19
C¡tyafD..bIm
May 7, 1993
WheD:
Completion:
Verifica1io1ll:
-
--
Eat. D"¡,¡¡,, speo¡¡¡. PIæ1 ,. GPA EIR
MltI aO\o. M""'torioS P....
standards, and eusure implementation.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final ¡;nap approval.
City of Du.btin Planning Department.
Why.
Miti(!atinft Meo..ture 3 4/~J4.n· E.t¡tañli~h lZ contimmu.t nnen !i"1U1£€ netwo,k
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verincation:
To establish a continuous open space network that llrtegntes large natimll
open space areas, stream cOITidon, and developed parks and recreation
ar~. _
Developers/City of DublinPlaJming Department/City of Dublin Recreation
De])Utrnent.
Ensure dedication/preservation of designated open space areas.
ConditiOn of tenœtive map approval
Prior to final map approval
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Why.
Mitisrmion Mi!l1S18l! 3 4/35..0· Prrwifion fir ar-~effi to otJen S11tH:e areas
\Tho;
What:
%eD:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide convenient pedestriaD connections between developed areas and
designated open space areu and trails.
Developers/City of Dublin PJanning DepartInent/City of Dublin Recreation
Department.
Ensure designation of appropriately located traiIs and access pOints as þIItI:
of develO roleDt review.
Condition of tenœtive map approval
Prior to final map approval.
City of Du.blin Planning Department.
Why.
Miti1!t2lÜm MetlSUJ'e 3 4/36 0.. RellUire rmblic DL:cess el1Semmtls
Who:
Whitt:
When:
Completion:
Vedf1cation:
Solid Waste
To require developen to dedicate public aç= easements along ridzetops
and stream corridon to accommodate the development of trails and staging
areas.
Developers/City of Dublin PJanning Department.
Ensure dedication of public access BSS8ments.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to fimJ. map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact 3.4/0 Iacuaud Solid Waste PrOductiOll
Impact3.4/P Impact on Solid Waste Disposal Faciüties
20
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C"1ty oCD",¡'¡¡"
)d,.y 1, 1m
.---
--.
Bas 1>_ s~ FIan &; GJ'A EIR
M;tigaCiou ~ Plan
MitÍl!luion Ml!tl3UU 3 4137_0: p'~rtm'ari(m of Solid Wast~ Mantlveml!1lt Plan
Why:
. Who:
What:
. When:
Completion:
Verifieation:
To prepare/update a Solid Waste Management Plan as needed to address
eastern Dublin. .
Dublin City Manager's Office.
Prepare plan.
Within two yeatS of the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific PIao/GPA.
Prior to isswmœ of building permits.
Dublin City Manager's Office.
Mitivmion Mpnflw, 3.4/311.0: Revit2 Wtl~¡te ttP.ftP.ration. Proiections
Why:
Who:
What:
WheD:
Completion:
Verirlcation:
To revise W8$te generation projections of the City's SRRE/HHWE as needed
to refleçt the popu1ati.on and commercia1land use projections of the adoøted
Project.
Du.blin City Manager's Office.
Revise projectiollS and update solid waste generation and disposa1 capacity
chaI3Cteristlcs.
Within two years of the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/GPA.
Prior to issuance of building permits.
Du.blin City M3Dager's Office.
.
Mitiruziion Mennue 3.4/i9 O· Intp.vl"a1Îon of P.LL~tem T>uhlin. Solid Waste Pltm. into Citv1s
SRREIHHWE
Why:
Who:
What:
Whea:
Completion:
Verificattoø:
To ensUTe that the Solid Waste Management Plan for :Eastern Dublin
addresses and inc;:()rporates the goals, objectives, and programs of Du.blin's
SRRE and HHWE.
Du.blin City Manager's Offiœtpublic Works Department.
Updating of SRRE/HHWE to reflect Project.
Within two yjIat$ of the adoption of the Eastern Dublin SpeciflC Plan/GPA.
Prior to issuance of building permits.
Dublin City Manager's Office.
MitirllJtio,,- Measure 3.4 40: Assessmen.t of LlDtdfill C.t1.1J~ilV
Why:
Who:
What:
WheJI:
Completion:
VerificadoIC
To ensure that adequate landf"ùl capacity is available to accommodate
project wate.
City Manager's Office/City Pla.nning Departmentl AlaIneda COllnty Solid
Waste ManageIJ1ent Authority.
Determ.ine the adequacy of available disposal çaoacity.
As a c;:()ndition of Tentative MIll' approval.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
21
Cît,' of Dublin
May 1. 1993
--.
--....
Þ- Dubtin SpeoI1i<> Pion &<: GPA:&IR
MltipilOD MODiI"""S Plan
)
Eleclriçity, Nata.... Gas and Telephone Sentce
Imparl 3.4/Q Demand for Utility Extensiollli
Impact 3.4;R Utility Extension: VlSualnd Biological œpaeU
Mitivarinn Mp.lL.ttJ.re J Ii /41 no" Þrmbâ011 flf documenl.l11ian. that electric rras tmd tt!lelJhon~
service cmI be Drovided.
Why:
Who:
What:
Wheu: .
Completion:
Verific:atioD:
To reQuire project applicants to provide documentation that electric, gas,
and telephone service can be provided to all new developJD.ent.
Developers/City of Dublil1 Planning Department.
Submit documentation from utilities providers.
As a condition of Tentative Map approval.
Prior to final maø approval.
City of Dublin PlanllÌIlg Department.
Why:
MitituJtÎfm Measure 3.4/42.0: Undert!roundin" of Utilities
Who:
What: '
When:
CODlpletioD:
Verific.tion:
To require all utilities to be loçated below grade w1=e feasible and designed
to City standards.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
ReQuire developers to provide for iIIstallatiou of utilities below grade.
Prior to ÎSsuanc:e of building pennits.
COJIStnJÇtion of infrastnICIUre iJnprovements.
City of Dublil1 Public Works Department.
Why:
Mttittt'Itfrm Measure 3.4/43.0' A.oid01fce of Infrastructure ImDt'ICts on Sensitive Habltllt
Who:
What:
When:
CoDlpletion:
Verific:atioa:
To mitigate the effects of utilities expansion, the çity will ,work with PG&.E
to plan the undergrounding of all new electric lines and to route
infrastructure away from seœitive habitat and open space lands.
Developers/City of Dublin Public Works Department¡pG&E.
Coordinate routing of electric lines.
During site design phase.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Why:
MiU"at.ion M2l1.turt! ~ 4/44 n· Submittal of S~n;icE! Reoort
Who:
What:
When:
COlU.pletion:
Verification:
To require project applicants to submit a utilities service report to the City
prior to Public Improvelllent PJan aøproval.
Project Applicants/City of Dublin PI.nn;ng Department..
Submittal of utilities service report.
Prior to approval of Public ImproveIIle1lt Plan.
Prior to issuance of building permits.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City ofD,,¡'¡¡"
May 7. 1993
.-
~
Eae ,D..òw.S~PIan&GPA!WI.
MlOIØion MoDiIc>";"'; Plan
Impaçt 3.4/8 Consumption of Non-Renewable Natnnl Resources
MiziS!aJion MelL'IttJ"e 34/45.0: Demonstrt1lio1l Proiects
Why,:
Who;
What:
When:
eompletioB:
Verification:
To require the ilUtallation of a demonstration project(s) of cost-effective
energy conservation techniques.
Developer¡;/pG&E/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Meet with major la11d oWllers and PG&E to determine how to set up an
Energy Coœ;ervation Demonstration Project within the Project area.
During development review process.
Prior to occupancy approval.
City of Dublin PJgnning Ðepa.tt:II1ent.
Mitirtt1titJ1I M=e 3.4/46 O' Site Planninl!. Buildinrt Desim and Lantiscßl1intl
Why:
Whn:
What:
When,
Colßpletion,
Verificatioo:
Postal Serrice
To require developers to demonstrate the iDcomoration of energy
collServation measures into the design, construction, and operation of
proposed development.
Developers/City of Dublin P\2nning Department.
Preparation of an Energy Conservation Plan.
Upon riling of tentative map.
. Prior to building pennit approval.
City of Dublin plgnD;ng Department.
Impact 3.4/T DemaJld for Inmased Pnsta! Service
Mitivatitm Measure 3.4/47.D:.PrlWision of Q Post OffíCl! În EtJ.stern Dublin
Why:
Who:
Wha.t:
When,
Completion:
Verlfieation:
To provide for the creation of a post office with the eastern Dublin Town
Center.
Developer/City of Dublin PJanning Depamnent.
The City will work with developers of Town center and the U.5. Postal
service to determine need and proceduœs for implementation.
Prior to tentative :map approval for the Public/Se:mi-Publiç designated area
in the Town Center subarea.
Prior to approval of 'Final Map.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Milivatit'J1I M~o..sure 3.4/48.0: Coordination wiih U S_ Postal Serlice
Why:
Who:
What:
When'
To provide for the creation of a post office with the eastern Dublin Town
Center.
Developer/City of Dublin PlllIlIling Department.
The City will work with developers of Town Center and the u.s. Postal
Service to determine need and procedures for implemeutaûon.
Prior to tsn.t:riive:map approval for the PublioJSemi-Publk: designated area
iD. the Town Center subarea.
23
City of Dublm
Mal' 7. 1998
CompletioD:
VerificaüOD:
Library Service
--
.~-
,
¡¡:... Dub1l.n Spoeiœ PloD .!I: GPA EIR
Mí~ ....Di'..,;"" Plan
Prior to approvul of Final Map.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact 3.4/U DemaDd for IBcreased Library Senice
MlIIøotian Measure 3.4/49.0: Pra"¡sion at AdeOUDle LÎbr-arv Ser-1IÎces
WhY'
Who;
What:
When:
Completion:
Verific:atioD:
To provide II- library(ies) and IISSOciated services for eastern Dublin.
Alameda COllIlty LibraIy System/City of Dublin Plann.ing Department.
Assessment of eastem Dublin library needs and formulation of strategy to
meet these needs.
During processing of prezolliDg and annexation applications.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dnblin Planning Department.
MitΣation Measure 3.4/50 0: CoordÎnQ/.Îon with Alameda Count v LÎbr-orv Svstem
WhY'
Who:
What:
When:
CompleüoD:
Verification:
To provide a library(ies) and aSliociated services for eastern Dublin.
A1aD1eda County Libruy System/City of Dublin Plann.ing Department.
A.sSesIm1ent of e!\Stem Dublin library needs and formulation of strategy to
meet these needs.
During processing of prezoning and annexation applicatiollS.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dub)in Plgnnh'g Department.
WhY'
Mitløation MetuUl'e 3.4/51 0: SlJecîfÎc Site Selet:tion for- New Libr-ar'V
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
VerificaÜQJC
To have the City Library Task Force identify appropriate location and.
timing for development of new library(iès).
City Libruy Task Force.
Assessment.of site lequireJuents and timing of projectad need.
During processing of prezoniDg and annexation applications.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
SEcrION 3.S, SEWER. WATER AND STORM DRAINAGE
I. Imna.c:ts Reoulrin2 Miti2SttOD
'I1ùs section identifies the following impacts requking mitigation:
1M 3's/B lack of a Wastewater Collection System
1M 3,S/C Extension of Sewer Trunk Line
1M 3.5/D Current Limited Treatment P1ant Capacity
1M 3.SIE Future Lack of Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity
1M 3.5/F Increase in Energy Usage Through wcreased Wastewater Treatment
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City otDubli»
M...,.7'~1~
,'~
~"
Eoa Dublin SpocifIo 1'Ian o!¡; GP A I!JIR
IMIption Mo"¡t"riD; p¡...,
"
1M 3.5/G Lack of Current Wastewater Disposal Capacity
1M 3.5/H Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater DispOsal
1M 3.5/1 Potential Failwe of Export Disposal System
1M 3.5/J Pump Station Noise and Odors
1M 3.5/K Storage Basin Odo,rs and Potential Failwe
1M 3.5/L Recycled Water System Operation
1M 3.5/M RecycIed Water Storage Failure
1M 3.5/N Loss of Reçye1ed Water System Pressure
1M 3.5/0 Secondary Impacts from Recycled Water System Operation
Ilvl'.3.5jP Overdraft of Local GrOlIlldwater Resources
1M 3.5/Q Increase in Demand. for Water
1M 3.5jR Additional Water Treatment Plant Capacity
1M 3.51S Lack of Water Distribution System
1M 3.5rr Inducement of Substantial Growth and Concentration of Population
1M 3.5/U Increase Ui :Energy Usage Thr<.n1gh Operation of the Water Distribution System
1M 3.5/y Potential Water Storage Reservoir Failure
1M 3.5/W Potential Loss of System Pressure
1M 3.5/X Potential Pump Station Noise
1M 3.5/Y Potential Flooding
1M 3.5/Z Reduced Groundwater Recharge
1M 3.5/ AA Non-Point, Sources of Polluûon
2. Miti~stinD Imblem@utation and Monitorinv Proº,ts.m
Impact 3.5/B Lack of a Wastewater Collection System
MiU"atimt Mea.tr:u.,..~ 3.5/1.04..- Ex~tmri()n of DSRSD Service Boun.darie."i.
Why:
Who:
What:
Whem
Completion:
Verifieatloo:
To provide for the expansion of DSRSD's service boundaries to include the
Ptojeçt area.
DSRSD.
DSRSD will revise its service area l)oU¡1daries.
Prior to approval of any development outside the currenuervice boundaries.
Prior to tentative map apprOV1ll.
City of Dublin Department of PUblic Works.
Mitillation MetlSUl'e 3.5/1.0: Conne~ion to Public Sewers
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
VeriÏu:atÎou:
To require that 1111 development within the Project area be connected to
public sewers.
City of Dublin Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Require connection to public sewers.
Condition of approval for tentative map.
-Prior to final map approVlll.
Department of Public Works.
25
City c.ft)oblin
Yay 7, 1_
-------,
--,
... Dublû1 Spooltic PI... II: CPA Ell!.
Milipti"" ~ PIaD
Whr.
Miûf'ati"n Me=e ~.512.0· Wa.r"",ater CoH«titm Svstem Master Plan
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To have DSRSD update its wastewater çOnec:tion sy$teII1 master plan
computer model to ,reßeçt the adopted Specifjç PIan/GPA.
Department of P1Iblic Wof!<s¡'DSRSD.
PUblic Works will request DSRSD to update Master Plan. DSRSD will be
reSponsible to update the Ma$ter Plan.
As soon as possible after the adoption of the Specific PJan¡GPA.
Before approval of any deÞiled. wastewater improvement plaDs.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Miiif'tUion Measure 3.5/3.0' O..-site Wastewater T,eatment
Why.
Who:
What
When:
Comple1ion:
Verifiçation:
To discourage the \$e of on-sib! package plants and septic systems within
the Proje~ area.
Depanment of Public Works/DSRSD.
Communicate to project applicants the City's desire that all projects be
connected to the'DSRSD sewer system.
Ongoing, as part of the development application process.
Prior to tentative map riling.
Department of P1Iblic Works.
Why;
Mitirration Measu,e 3.5/4.0: DSRSD Service
Who:
What:
When:
, Completion:
Veriflçation:
To require a "will serve" letter from DSRSD prior to permit approval for
gniding.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
ConÍmn receipt of a "wi11-serve" letter for all proposed projects.
Prior totenœtive map approval.
Prior to issuam:e of grndÎDg pernrlt.
Depart:nlent of Public Works.
MititrtJtion MetJ.tu'e 3.5/5.0: DSRSD Standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that design and collStruction of all wastewater systems is in
conformance with DSRSD standards.
Deparnnent of Public Works/DSRSD.
Confirm that wastewater system meet DSRSD standards.
Prior to issuance of building permits.
Approval of improvement plans.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
1mpaet 3.5¡C Extensioa of Sewer Tr....k LiDe
Why:
Mitîrrarion Measure 3-5/6.0: Sizim! of Wastewater Svstem
To ensure that the planned wastewater collection system has been sized to
accommodate only the development within the Project area.
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ci*7 of J>\>loIi..
May 7, 100$
Who;
What:
Whea:
Completion:
VeririeatioD:
.-.
-..
Bas. DI>bIin spodlio PIon &t GPA ED!.
MitieUl"" ~1Ii"""" Plan
DSRSD.
Engineer wastewater capacity for Project site capacity only.
Wastewater system design phase.
Prior to installation of Project area sewer system.
DSRSD.
Iœpact 3.5/D Carrent Limited Treatment PlaDt Capacity
Mitigalil1l'- Measun ~ ~ /7 O' Desifrn Level Wmtewate, lmeçtiealioll
Whr-
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require project appliamts to prepare detailed wastewater capacity
investigations, including means to m;n¡...¡_ wastewater flows.
Applli:anœ in coordination with DSRSD.
Prepare a detailed wasteWater capacity investigation.
Prep:u:ation of )n'1;...¡n.ry Public ImprovlOment Plan.
FInal Public Improvement PlaD. Approval.
DSRSDjDepartment of Public Works.
Mitfgalirm Meamre 3 S /7.1' DSRSD Ser-vice
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
CoaapldloD:
VerU'icaûon:
To require a "will serve" letter from DSRSD prior to permit approval for
gradilIg.
Department of Public WorksfDSRSD·
ConÍum reçeipt of a "will-5erve" letter for aU proposed projects.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to issuanœ of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
Impact 3.5IE Faore Lack of Wastewater Treatment Plut Capacity
Mitigalion MettlUre 3.5/lJ.0.' Ensure Adeaußle Wastewtller Trt!flimet!t ClZlJadtv
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
VerifieatloD:
To ensure that wastewater neatmelLt and disposal facilities are available to
meet the needs of future development in eastem Dublin.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
DSRSD will prepftIe a Master Plan including growth projections and facility
expansion needs and timing to meet the needs of projected development.
As soon as pOS$ible after B<1option of the Specific PJan/GPA.
Prior to approval of aDY development.
DepftItment of Public Works.
Mitigation Mel1S1fft!.3 5/9.0: Wattewate, Treatment Pimrt Ex11tn'iSiol1 SchP.dule
Why.
Who:
What:
To eDSure that proposed development is con:sÎSlent with wastewater
treatment plant expansion as set forth in DSRSD's master plaIl.
DSRSDfDepartment of Public Works.
The City must confirm that proposed. development is consistent with the
capaCity and timing identined in DSRSD's Master Plan
27
Cü7 of D.,bfin
Mar T, 1993
When:
Cømpletloo:
Verification:
.. --...
..-..,
Eo> Dublin Spedlio PIa;, " GPAmR
MüiptÎoD ~PI""
Duxing review of tentative map.
Prior to approwl of Final Map.
Departulent of Public Works.
ImpBd 3.S/F In<:resse In Energy Usage 'Ibronlh Inereøed Wastewater Treatmomt
Mîtif!tzticm MsQ.~ur€ 3.5/10 0- U$~ of Enerf"v-Efficienf Tr~t1l.meftt System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completioø:
Verlt"lcatlon:
To include eDer8Y efÍroient tteatlJlent systems in any wastewater treatJllent
plant expansion and operate the plant to take adV!Ultage of off-peak energy.
DSRSD
Design and constrUct energy-efÏ1CÎent treatment S}'Stems.
Design )hase for WWTP ex )ansion.
On-gomg.
DSRSD.
Impaet 3.S/G Laek of Carreat Wastewater Disposal Capaçity
Mitigation MeOJlW'e 3.5/11.0- (PrDl110rn 9H) Exoort PiDelioœ
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verlfieation;
To SU )¡iort TWAin its curTent efforts to iDlp1ement a new wasteWllter
export pipeline system.
Tri- Valley Wastewater Authority /Dublin City Manager>s Office.
Support implementatÎDn of uew export pipeline.
Ongoing.
Approval of TWA improvement plllIlS.
Dublin City Manager's Office.
Mitilralion Mea.<Ule 3.5 /12.0: (Policy 9-5) Con:stnlCtion of Recvcled Water Svsrem
Why:
Who:
What:
When;
Completion:
VerUleatlon:
To prOtDOte recycled WIlter use for landscape irrigation in eastern Dublin
through upgr>lding of treatment and construction of a recycled water
distribution and stor.!.ge systero in eastern Dublin.
DSRSD.
Promote recycled water use.
Duxing development review process.
Ongoing.
DSRSD.
Mirieatinn Measure 3.5/13 O' (PrOgram 9JI Reevc/sd Water Disrrlhun07l Sv.ttem
Why:
Who:
What:
Whea:
Completioa:
To have DSRSD update its propOSed recycled water distribution system
computer model to reflect the adopted Specific PJan/GPA.
Department of Public WorksfDSRSD.
Public Works will request DSRSD to update its computer model. DSRSD
will be rll$poasible to update the model.
As soon as possible after the adoption of the Specific Plan/GP A.
Before approval of any detailed wastewater improvement )Ians.
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ci!;y of Dublin
M.,- 7, 1993
Verlficatioll:
,-.
-
E... . Dublin Spec fic PI... I/o G!'A Em
~ti<>n _lœÎDg 1'1...
Department òf Public Works/DSRSD.
MitivlIHnn Measure 3 5 /141J·' (Prnvram ØK) WL'Jlitl'!Wmp.l" R.2cvclinv Ll1'1.d Reuse
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To S"-PI»rt the efforU of the Tri· Valley Water Recycling Task Force Study
through Zone 7. encouraging wastewater recycling and reuse for landscape
irrigation.
City of Dublin Department òf Public Works/Zone 7.
Encourage wastewater reçyclliig as d.etaîled in the Tri- Valley Water
Recycling Task Force Study.
As soon as þQssible afteI the adoption of the Speçific Plan/GPA.
Ongoing.
Department of Public Works.
Impac:t 3.SjH Increase in :Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater Disposal
lWitivatinn M~I2."UTP. 3.5 / 15~O.. Enervv (Dr EXl1D,.t DisM5al
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Co!IIpleü"n:
V erlfkation:
To encourage LA VWMA to continue its program of off-peak pumping of
wastewater to balance electric deInaJlds in the PG&E system..
City of DublinJLA VWMA.
Encourage off.peak pumping.
UpOn adoption of the Specific PJan/GPA.
ûn·going.
Department of Public Works.
Mitiltation Measure 3.5 /] 6.0: Enenrll for DislJosat thrDUf!h Reeve1ed Water $lIstem
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verlfiutlon:
To ensure that the recyç]ed water treatment system is planned. designed and
constructed for eneriY efficiency in operation.
City of Dublin Depa.runent of Public WorkslDSRSD
Design, construction, and oþeration of energy-efficient system.
UpOn 3greement to use a rec:ycted water treatment system.
On-going..
DSRSD.
Impact 3.5/1 Potential Failure of Exp"rt Dispoul System
Mitirration MellS70e 3.5/17.0: Redundanev in Enrrmeeri,u!
Why:
Who:
What:
WbeD.:
Completion:
Verificaüon:
To avoid potential failure in the opention of the pumps ill the TWA
wastewater collection system.
TWA
Inc:orporate engineering redunr1.n"Y into the design of the pump stations
and provide emergency þQwer generators.
Design snd coDStnlCtÎon phase of export system.
Approval of export system improvement plans.
Department of Public Works.
29
City or Dublin
)4"",,1,199$
,-
----
];)00, , Dublin Specific :Plan Ie GP ^ J;:nt
)(¡tiplion Mcaitot'ing PI.,.
Impact 3.5/J Pump Station Noi.e and Odors
Mitigation Met1!ttlJ'e 3.51111 O· Dedrm of PumD and MotMS
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verlflcation:
To ensure that pump station design minimizes potential for impaets related
to noise and odors.
TWA
Design pump and motors to meet local noise standards. Install odor CQDtrol
equipment..
De$ign phase of export system.
Approval of export system improvement plans.
Department of Public Works.
Impact 3.5(K Storage Basin Odors and Potentia! FaUare
Mitif!'o'linTl M~1ZSU.re 3 5 / 19.0~· Desi~ /Enr!ineeriPlf! of Sto,.n.vP. Bl2Sins
Why;
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verific:ation:
To emure that wu1:ewater storage basins are desqne<! to control odors and
"';"'"';76 the risk of failure in the eveDt of an earthquake.
TWA
DesigD storage basins to meet seismic codes, and limit odors by burying
ta.uks III1d incorponting odor control equipment.
Design phase of export system.
Approval of eXpOrt system Îlnprovement plans.
Department of Public Works.
Impact 3.5/L Rec:ycled Water System Operation
Mitigation Mea.<UJ'e 3 5120.0: Constr-uetion of Recvcled.Water Distribw:ion System
Why;
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Vedfiçation;
To require that coD$trUction of the recycled water distribution system be jn
accordau<::e with all applicable State and local reguJations.
DSRSD
Reqnire compliance of recycled water distribution system with applicable
regulations of the DHS and the SFBR WQCB.
Condition of jlpproval for recycled water distribution system.
Approval of ÎlnprovelDent )Ians.
DSRSD.
Impact 3.S(M Recycled Water Storage Failure
Mftil!ation Mea.<UJ'e 3.5/21.0· Desil!1llEnl!ineering ofWlUer Stortue Ba.~ins
Why;
Who:
What:
Wh",,:
To ensure that reservoir construction meets all applicable standards of
DSRSD and appropriate health ageDcies.
DSRSD(DepartmeDI of Public Works.
(:(Infirm the reservoir design and construction meet:; all applicable
standards.
Design phase.
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Oi... <>f Dubllh
May 'T, 1993
CoUipletioD:
Verification:
.........
-~,
Eo. DobJJn speciti.c PQn "" GP..... ¡¡Ill.
Mitiptioo M~ 1>1...
Approval of improvement plans.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Impact 3.S~N Loss of Recyçled Wawr System Pressure
Miti~atinn Memure 3.5/22.0' CamDliance with DSRSD standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
CompletioD:
VeriflcatioD:
To ensure that proposed recycled water Pllmp stations meet all applicable
standards of DSRSD and inolude emergency power generation.
DSRSD¡Department of Public Works.
Confirm compliance of P'I'D!P slation design with D.5RSD standards, and
ÌDclucle emergency power generator¡¡.
Design phase.
Approval of improvement plans.
Department of Public Works.
Impact 3.5/0 Secondary Impad_ from Recycled Wam System Operation
Mitivati(J1t M~a.~ure 3 5" /13 0" Salt Rp.dudiolf.
Why:
Who:
What:
Wheu:
CoUipletion:
VerificatiDD:
To ensure that recycled water projects Ine\lt any applicable salt mitigation
recpUrements of Zone 7.
DSRSD.
Coordinate with Zone 7 to confinn whether or not a recycled water-system
iIi the Project area would require deminerslization. -
Design Phase.
Approval of improvement plaDS.
DSRSD.
Impact 3.Stp Overdraft of Local GroUDdwater Ile_onrc:es
Mitilranðlt Measure 3.5/14.0' (Policy 9-1) A-,mexation of S""dfic Plan Mea to DSRSD
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To expand DSRSD service boundaries to encompass the entire eastern_
Dublin Specific PlanjGPA area.
DSRSD.
Development of amlexation application.
Condition of approval for planned development pre zoning.
Prior to approval of detailed improvement plans.
DSRSD.
Mitit!D.tinn Met1...fiiUTe 3~5125.0· CtJll)tt?ctimr. t.o DSRSD Waté'r S"'V~lem
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To encourage all development ÌD the Project area to connett to the DSRSD
water system.
City of Dublin Public Works DepartmentjDSRSD.
Inform all project applicants of preference for connection of new
development to the DSRSD system.
During preparation of tentative map.
31
City of Du1:>1û>
M":r \', 1995
Completion:
Verification:
c-...,
,-,-
g.. Du¡'¡¡" Specific PIon '" Ç;PA Em
MmptOol1 Moni_S P....
Prior to apJ)rOval of final map.
City of Dublin Departmeut of Pu.blic Works.
Impact 3.5/Q mer_e ill Demand for Water .
MitiítatioM Mp.a.rore 3 5126~O: (Profl"ram 9.4 J Wate,. Conur,.alion
Wby:
Who:
What,
When:
CompletiOll:
Verificatitm:
To require water conservation measures to be designed into individnal
J)rOjects.
Developers/City of Publin Public Works Depa.mnent/DSRSD.
Review project applications for incorporation of water conservation
measures.
Condition of approval for tentative map.
Prior to approval of ima1 map.
Department of Public Works.
Miliul11ion Ml!d'tUfI! 3.5/27.0: (Prop-ram. OR) Water Recvclinll'
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completioa:
Verification:
To require water recycling measures be incorporated into individ118l
projects.
Developen/City of Dublin Public Works Depamnent/DSRSD.
Review project!¡ fOT incorporation of DSRSD and Zone 7 recommendations
relating to the use of recycled water.
Condition of approval fOr tentative tnaP.
Approval of detailed improvement plans.
Dublin Department of Public W()Tks.
Why:
Mitilullion MItQ.'uUE! 35/28.0' Zone 7 lmnrnvemettl$
Who:
What:
When:
Completion,
Verifieation:
To ensure that Zone 7 has water s\lØply needed -to meet requirements of the
Project.
Public Works DepanmentfDSRSD/Zone 7.
Confirm status of Zone 7 water supply imJ)rOvements.
Condition of approval for "will serve" letter.
Prior to approval of final map.
DSRSD/public Works DepartmenL
Mitií!ation Measure 3.5/29.0: New Ztme 7 Turntnlu
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
VerificatioD:
To provide for the constrnctilm of two additional turnouts from the Zone
7 Cross Valley Pipeline to serve the Eastern Dublin area..
Zone 7/DSRSD.
Construction of two additio118l turnouts.
A1; needed to provide adequate service to new development.
Ongoing.
DSRSD.
32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ClOy oI:Dublm
Mar 1, 1995
..-......,
..-.."
&0> Dublin SJ>"'ifiC PIal! &; GPA Em
MlllpiioD Monitorlnl¡: PIaI1
Mit;valion M~tlSU;'l! ~ 5/30· InJercmmeclions with Kxistinp" S,,~term
Why.
Who:
What:
Wheø:
Completion:
Verifiçatioa:
To Provide for ÎD,creased water source reliability, the Project water system
should be ÏI1tercQJUleCted with existing adjoining systems.
DSRSD/Publi¡;: Works Depanment.
Plan water system to interconnect with existing $)'SteIII$.
Ongoing as system within the Project uea is built out.
Ongoing.
Public Works Department.
M;t;f!ai;un Measure 3.51310' Reimh=semenl fo,. New DSRSD G7'mD'Idwale,. Wells
Why.
Who:
Wh.at:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide a backup source of water supply to its Zone 7 source, DSRSD
will re.imburSe City of Pleasa.nton for construction and ope1'3tion of new
groundwater weDs South of the Project area.
DSRSD/City of Plessanton.
DSRSD will reimburse City of Pleasanton for grOundwater weUs.
On schedule to be òetermined by DSRSP and the City of Pleasanton.
Ongoing.
DSRSD.
Impact 3.5/R Add1tioø.a1 Water Treatment Plant Capaçity
Miri{{aiio" Meam,.e 3.5/32.0: Zone 7 PlEas;,,/! fo,. Wale,. Trel1lment SlIstem ImUTo1leme'llts
Why:
Who:
Wh.at:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To meet iI1creasi'ng <1..........;15 on its 'Water system., Zone 7 has esti'hI;.b..,n a
phasing for water treatment systeD1 improvements.
Zone 7.
Implementation of phased im.prove:ments.
Punuant to established schedule.
Punuant to established sehe<1ule.
Zone 7.
MitiMlÌO"- MellSl#'e 3 5/33.0: Crmn7'læIion of New Chlorinalirm IFluoridalion Stalions
Why.
Who:
What:
Whea:
Completion:
Verification:
To meet increased demand resulting from the projec:t, DSRSD should
construct two new ¡;:hloriDatiOD/f1uori<.tation statiOD$ at the two proposed
Zone 7 turnouts to eastern Dublin.
DSRSD/Zone 7.
Construction of two new stations..
Aß, needed to provide adequate service, with the western turnout being
developed fin!. The eastern turnout wou1d not be (ieveloped until
development of the eutero portion of the Project area.
On schedule to be determined by DSRSD and Zone 7.
DSRSD.
33
CRy of Dublm
May 'T, ~9W
.-
-,
E..-. ':>uI>IIn Spod& PI... &I: GP A EIlt
)(i1íp&¡oI> MooIi1:otiIIg Pion
Impact 3..5/S Lack of a Water Distribution System
Mitipalitm Ml!a.mre 3-5/34.0· tPolfcv 9-1) P7o'lisÎon of on. A.d~te Water .t::un"lv System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
V erifieation:
To provide an adequate water supply system and related improvements and
storage façjIities fOf all new develo jment in the Project area.
DSRSDjDeve1opers.
Require new c1eveloø=t to bu.i1d the water supply system needed per
DSRSD.Mastsr PJan and service standards.
Condition of approval for tentative limp.
Prior to approval of Fmal Public Irnprovelllents Plan.
DSRSDfDepartment of PIlb1ic Works.
Why:
-Miti~{JUon Measu.re 3.5/35.0: (Pro~ram 9C) Water Svstem Mo<ter Pion
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verifi""tion:
To ensure that DSRSD updates its water system master plan computer model
to reflect the adopted Specific PJan/GPA land uses.
City of DublinjDSRSD
Request that DSRSD update its water system master plan computer model
As soon as possible after adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
Prior to the approval of a Public Improvement Plan for any new
development.
Public Works Department.
Why:
Mitivl11imr Mp.ãture 35 /Jfi n· {Prnvram 9D J Combininf! of WD1.P.r Sv.ttl!m.$
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To consolidate the Camp Parks and A1ameda County water systems and
turnouts with the DSRSD system.
City of Dublin Public Works Department/Camp Parks/Alameda
CountyjDSRSD.
Encourage agencies to combine water systems with DSRSD.
Ongoing from date of Project adoption.
Ongoing.
DSRSD.
Why:
Mitisuwon Meo.sure 3.5/37.0: DSRSD Standards
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verifiœtion:
To require that design and COnstnICtiOl1 of all water system facility
improvements be in accordance with DSRSD standards.
City of Dublin Public Works Department/DSRSÐ/Developers
Review each development proposal to verify that all water system facility
improvements conform to DSRSD sœndards.
Condition of approval for Public: Improvemenu PIan.
Prior to approval of Final Public Improvements Plan.
Public Works Department.
34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of D"blin
May r, 1993
..-....
--
Eo.» ûubIÎD Speci6<::P1on k GPA Em
MItipöoI>.~PIon
Miti1!ation M ""-<¡!Ire 3 5/18 O· DSRSD Servil!e
Why;
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require a "will serve" letter from DSRSD prior to issuance of a g:radÎng
permit.
City of Dublin/DSRSD,!Develaper,
Conf"'¡nn receipt of a 'will-serve" letter from DSRSD.
Condition of approval for tentative map.
Prior to approval of Ímal J22a1).
Planning Department.
Impad 3,5/T mdncement of SabstaDtial Growth II1Id Concentration of PopnlaUon
Mitieœitm MelL<¡ure 3.5/39.0: Sizi1H! of WaJer Dislribuliott SVSlem
Why;
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verificatioll:
.
To reduce the growth-inducing potentia1 of water system exøansion, the
water-~'3ßtributioo systen1 will be si:ed to a.c;çom1DOdate only the estimated
water delll30ds from a.pproved land uses witb.in the Project.
DSRSD.
LUnit capacity of water di$ttibutioo $)'Stem to serve only the hoject site.
Update of DSRSD water system :master plan computer model.
Prior to the approval of a Public Improvement Plan for any new
development in the Projeçt area.
Department of P\J.blic Works.
Impact 3.5/U mcrease io Enugy Usage throllllh Operatioll of the Water DIstribution System
Mili1!ation MelL'tUre 3.5/40.0: Ener!:!1I-Efficienl OllUtztion of Water Distribution Svstem
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
CompletiolC
Verificatloll:
To ensure that the Wliter distribution s~em is plaImed, desjgned and
constructed for energy-efficient opentioD,
City of Dublin/DSR$D.
Design and operation of energy efficient water distribution s~em..
Ongoing.
On-going.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.5/V Potential Water Storage ResBn'oir Failure
Milil!t1iion Meomne 3.5/41.0' Desien/EnlliJUlerin" of WaJer Stora1!e Basins
Why:
Who: '
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all reservoir constrUction to meet all the applicable standards of
DSRSD, to meet cllm!nt seismic building stBndards, and to provide adequate
site dr.ainage.
DSRSD.
Desjgl1 basins to reduce failure potentia.!.
Design phase.
Approval of improvelDent plans,
DSRSD.
3S
Cily of PubDD.
May r, 19~
--.
..-,
Eu. Dublin 9pOd!ic Plan &" GP A EIR
},fitñptiom M_Ir~
Impact '3.5/W Potential Loss 01 System Pre$sure
Mitif!lllion MeQfurr! j~5/42.1J· Comnlìan~2 With All DSRSD Slandards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completlou:
Vermcatloll:
To require the proposed new water pump stations to meet all the applicable
standards of DSRSD and iDcl\lde eJDeI'þDCY power gtl1ltm1toIS at e$h pUmp
station.
City of DubliD/DSRSD.
Engineering provisiolW for emergency conditiolW.
Design phase.
Approval of final improvemtent plaDs.
Public Works Department.
Impac:t 3.S4/X Potelltial pamp Station Nobe
Mit;~atÙm Measure 3.5/43.0: RedUL:tion of Por.emiDl Noise
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completiou:
Verlru:ation:
To include design provisioDS to pump stations that will reduce sound levels
from operating PUlllp DlOtors and emergency generators.
DSRSD.
Incorpomte necessary engineering provisions in design of pump stations to
m;nnn;7.e opemtional DOise.
Design phase.
Approval of final improvement plans.
Public: Works Department.
Impact 3.5/Y Potential FloodÌDlI
Miti"ati01l Men:mre 3.5/44 O' (Policv 9-7) Provision of Drainau Facilities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verifieatioa:
To provide dr1I.iDage facilities that wiU minimize any inc:reased potential for
erosion or flooding.
DevelopersfPSRSD·
Review drainage facilities design to verify that etollion/f1óodiDg pot:enóal
will be min;"';7.ed.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Approval of fiDal gradfug and improvement p1ans.
Public: Works Department.
Miti >atirm Measure 3.5/45.0: (Policv 9-8 ¡ Natural Chnnnel TmlJ1'(nemen/s
Why:
Who:
What:
WheJI:
Completion:
Veriflc:atioD:
To req.me channel improvements consilrtin.g of natnral creek bottom:; and
side :SI.opos with natural vegetation where possible.
Developers/ZOIIe 7.
Review required channel ÎII1provements for their attempt to tnaintain
natural-appearing conditions while addressing the drainage requirements.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final grading plan approval.
Department of Public Works with input from Zone 7.
36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ca,- øf ])11I>1in
May 1, 199:1
."--'"
,-
Eu" . ])ubliu SP«IIi< Pbn " GP.A. EIR
Mlllp$io.. MoII,itorillg pw.
Miti"ot!on Mea.<UTe 3.5 /46.0.· (Pro1!"ram 9R) Storm Drai1lllt!e Master Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Comp1edoa:
Veñficadoa:
To require the preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for each deve1op¡neat.
Developers.
Preparation of Storm Drainage Master Plan.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to f"mal map approval.
Public Works Department.
Mtti"tlÛnn Mea.nJ1'e 3.5/47.0: (PrOfamn 9$) Flood COnJ;,oI
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Compleúon:
Veñficadoa:
To require Project area development to provide facilities to alleviate
potential downstream flooding due to Projeçt area developœent.
Developers.
Provision of flood oontrol iJnprovements.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to f"mal map approval.
Public Works Department.
Miti1!aJion MeosUJ'e 3 5/480.. Construction of Storm Draino1!"e Flldlities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Compleöom
Verification:
To require the constrUction of the backbone drainage facilities consistent
with the Storm Drainage Master Plan.
Developers.
Construction of stonn dIainage facilities.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works DeþDrtment.
Impact 3.5/Z Reduced Groundwater Recharge
Miti"atian Measure 3.5/49 0: (Policv 9w9 ) Protecti"" and E"hanœmP.RI of Willer RestJ18Ct!s
Why:
Who:
What:
Whem
Completion:
VerificatiOD:
To piaD. facilities and management practices that protect and enhance water
quality.
City of D\Iblin Public Works Departlllellt/ZOne 7.
Oversight of facilities to protect and "",hunce water quality.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to fmal map approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitill:atiun Measun 35/50.0: Zone 7 Grmmdwater Rechmll:p. Pro"rfJ.m
Why:
Who:
What:
To proteçt groundwater resD1U'Ce$, Zone 7 supports an ollgc»ng groundwater
recharge program for the central Basin.
City of D\Iblin Public Works Department.
Snppon Zone 7 groundwater rec:harge program, by encouraging recharge
areas within the Project area where feasible.
37
City of n"bIû>-
May 7, 1.998
When:
Completion:
VeriIic:ation:
-.
-,
E.., Dl1bful SpodIIc PlaII " GPA Em
~>I:!"" ~rbq :Plon
Condition of tentative map approvaL
Prior to f"mal map approval.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.5/AA .NolI-PoiDt So,,"_ of Pollution
Mitivonnn Mea.VfD'þ. 3.5/52 O~· Comnumitv Ed"rntirm p,.oprnm:s
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verific:atioll:
To develop comm11JÜty-based programs to educate local residents and
businesses on methods to reduce non-po:int sources of pollution, and
coordinate sueh prOgn\DtS with current )0 1,,""eda County Programs.
City of Dublin Public Works DeP$rtD1eIlt.
Development/tI¡.......;,mûon of infonnation to reduce non-point sources of
pollution.
Condition of tentative map approval
On~:omg
Public Works Department.
Why:
Mitîf!atîmr Mé!""'p~ 3.5/53.0: "Bttt MtJ:t!agemen1 Practices"
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verific:ation:
To require all development ta meet the requirements of the City of Dublin's
"Best Msusgement Pradices" to mitigate stann water pollution.
City of Dublin Publiç Works Department.
Review propased development plam to ensure that "Best Management
Practices" have been incorporated to redl;lCe pOllution.
During develOpD),ej1.t review processing.
Prior to building permit approval.
Public Works Department.
Why:
Minl!i1titm Memure 3.5/54.0.. NDlimuil Pollution Dls~harl!e EIimi7'lDlion Svtlem Remli1'emenU
Who:
What:
Wbe..:
Completiom
Verifi¡:ation:
To require all development to meet the water Quality requirements of the
City of Dublin's NPDES pel1Dit.
City of Dublin Public Works Department. .
Review proposed development plans to ensure that NPDES reQUÎremenlS
have been ÎJ1¡:orpOratecl to red.uce poll1ltion.
During development review processing.
Prior to building permit approval..
Public Work:! Department.
Mitil!i1ti01! Measure 3.5/55.0.. Urbtm Rtmoff CleO"- Wi1ter pf'( l!1'am Retndremelfls
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To require all d.evelopment to meet the water Quality requirements of the
Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Review proposed development plans to ensure that the requiremenlS of the
County's Urban Runoff Clean Water Program have been incorporated to
reduce pollution.
During development review processing.
3g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City or DnlIlin
May 7, 1998
-
,
---.
,
Ea. . Dublin Sp<dß< PIan.!t GPA EJR
MilipOi_ MocitociDg t'bm
Completion: Prior to building permit approval.
Verificatiou:. Public Works Depsrtment.
SEcnON 3.6: snIT$;, GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
1. Iftllla.cts Reodiris!! Mitiø:atiod
This settion identifies the following ÎII1pac1S reqWring mitigation:
1M 3.6;B Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects
1M 3.6/C Earthquake Ground Shaking: Secondary Effects
1M 3.6/D Substantial Alteration to Project Site Landfoxms
1M 3.6/F Groundwater ImpaCtS
1M 3.6/G Groundwater Impacts ASSociated with Irrigation
1M 3.6/H Shrinking and Swelling of Expansive Soils and Beðrock
1M 3.6/1 Natural Slope Stability
1M 3.6/1 Cut-and-Fill Slope Stability
1M 3.6/K. Erosion and Sedimentation: Construction-Related
1M 3.6/L Erosion and Sedimentation: Long-Term
2. Miöl!II.tion Imnlemeutatiou and Mooltoriol! Prmttam
Impact 3.6/B Earthquake Ground Shaklnli:: Primary Effects
Mitifratiòn Mp.tLttlJ'e ~.6/I.0: fmnlp.men1Qtion of Curren! Seismic Design ,<;ttmdards
Who:
What:
When;
Completion:
Veriflcati(Øl;
To req1lÙe the 1.1$8 of modem seismjc: design in c:onstroc:tion of development
projects, and build in =rdaDce with Uniform Building CQde and
applicable C011Ilty and city code requirements.
Ðevelopers/Public Works DepartJ:nen.t.
Review plans to ensure conformance to UBC and all other applicable codes.
- Condition of tentative map approve!.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Publio Works Department.
Why:
Impad 3.6/C Earthquake Grollud Sbatiar- SeCOlldary Effects
Mitil!u1ion MelZllure 3.6/2.0: Denim Reouirm1e71ls for Flat A,eas
Whell;
Completion:
Verification:
To proVide setbacks from or modification of unstable and pOtentially
1.111St8ble landforms, and use of a.ppropriate design to ensure sekJnÏc safety.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify that Ïmprovements have been located away from unstable landforms;
that pOtentially UD$table landforms have been stabilized; an<l that
development plans conform to UBC and all other a.ppli<:able codes.
Condition of tentative mIl ) approval.
Prior to f-Ùl31 improvement p1a.n!gradjng plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Why:
Who:
What:
39
CiIy ð£D"blln
Ma77, 1993
.---.
---
Eao. D"bIi" Spoci!i<: Pion It GPA ED!.
~~PI""
MitivtI1Ù:~n MelZSW'l! 3.613.0~· ne~iYIl Reouiremt!'nt.1i; (or Hillside Ar~as
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completton:
Verificat1oø:
To require appropriate grading and design to completely remove ulIStable
and potentially unstable materia1s in hillside areas where development may
require sub£taDtial grading.
Developen/Public Works Department.
Verify that grading and design will remove \lJlSlable materials.
Condition of tentative map appreva1.
Prior to f"mal improvement plan/grnding plan approval.
Public Works Department.
MiUl!lúirm Measure 3.614.0: Desirm Reouiremerrts for Hfllside Fill~
Why.
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verific:atlon:
To use engineerin : techniques and improvements, sucn as retention
stnIctures, drainage improvements, properly designed keyways, and
adeq\late . compaction to improve the stability of f'ill areas and reduce
seismically ind\lce fill settlement. .
Developers/Pubüc Works Depart¡nent.
Require engiDeered retention 'sttuc:tures, surface and subsurface drainage
improvements.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to f'mal iIl1provement plan/grading pIan approval.
Public Warks Deþl\rtJ1\ent.
MitiFation Measure 3 615.0: Desir!'! Reouirements for Fill Settlement
Why:
Who:
What:
Whea:
Completion:
Verlfleation:
To use engineering techniques and improvements, such as retention
structures, drainage improvements, properly designed keyways, and
adequate compaction to improve the stability of rill areas and reduce
~~;"",i",,ny mduce fiJ1settlement.
Developer.¡/Public Works Department.
Require engineered retention SU'Uctures, s1lrl'ace and S\lhsurface drainage
improvements.
Condition of tenlative map approval.
Prior to f"mal improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitivatit'11'! Measwe ~ 6/6 o· Desirn Rp.t1Uir~me.7flS (rnant strur.tural fmmdmi()n~ O1td
underr!rmmd utilities J for Fill Settlt!m~t
Wby:
WhD:
What:
When:
CompletiDn:
To design roads, structural fOllndatioDs, a.nd Wlderground utilities to
accOlllntodate estimated :settlement without failllre, especia11y across
traIlSitions between rills and cuts, and to remove or reconstruct potentially
unstable stock pond embankmenU in developlllent areas.
DeveJopersfPublic Wades Depart¡nent.
Verify the effectiveness of improvements to ensure the stability of proposed
roads, S1rUctnral fOl.llldations and 1lIuiergrauø.d utilities.
Coø.dition of tentative map approval.
Prior to f"maI improvement plan/grading plan approval.
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City or DubIU>.
May 7, 199s
Verifiçation:
-~
'--
_ Dl>1>ün Spec!fi< PIon '" GP.\. Em
~M""¡~oriDIPJ;a>.
Public Works DepU1ment.
Mili~aI.ion Measure 3 6/7.0: DesÌ1m-L""el Geotechnicnl ¡7I~estieal.i(m_.
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
VeriCkation:
To require all developlllent projects in the Project area to perform design
level geotechnical investigations prior to issDing any permits.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Confirm reçeipt of geotechnical investigations (ie. stability lIIIalysis of
signific:ant slopes and. displacement analysis of critical slopes) in conj\lDction
with final design of improvement¡;.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to ímal improvement pJan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Miti~aI.i01l Measure 3.6/8.0: Eortht:lllllke Prel>aredness Plflns
Why;
Who:
What:
Wh....:
Completion:
VeriCication:
To provide for the development of earthquake preparedness plan$ and the
disseminatioD of approprlate emergency measures to a11 Project residents
and employees.
City of Dublin PJanning Department.
Develop earthquake preparedness plan. and prepare public information
s~tegy. .
Within two years of adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
Prior to substantial development in the Project Area.
Planning DeparttneDt
Impaet 3.6/D Sabstaatial Altenotioa 10 Projeet SIte Laradforms
Miti~ario.. Ml!ß$Ure 3.6/9.0: Grlllli..e PIQ>/S 10 Reduce Ltzndform Alteral.ion
Why:
Who:
What:
Wh....:
Completioa:
Verifieatioa:
'To reduce alteration to existing landforms through the preparation of
grnding plans that adapt improvements to natural land fonllS and
implementation of RICh techniques as partial pad:! and retaining struCt\Ire$.
Deve1opers/public Works Department.
Review grading plans to ensure th&t they do not resnlt in UDIlecessary or
avoidable a1œrations·to existing landfor:IIIs.
Conditron of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Mitirullioll Ueamrt! 3.6/10.0: SitŽ7ZV of l'm"ro~em.ents
Why;
Who:
What:
When:
'To reduce landform alteration by carefuJ1y siting individnal ÎDlprovemenlS
to avoid adverse conditions and thus the need for remedial grading.
Developen/pub!ic Works Department.
Review proponents geotechnical investigation to determine if improvements
have been sited to redl1<:e the Deed for grading.
Prior to submittal of tentative map.
41
Œiy at Dublin
).lay 1, 199$
Completioa:
Verific:atiou:
.-----
...-..
Ea.. _ n"bliD s~ Pbm I< GPA Em
Mililtaw... MœaitQri,.g1'laol
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Impac:t 3.6/F Groundwater Impac:ts
Impad 3.6/G GrolUtdwater Impacts Associated with IrriptiOD
MitÎ rclÎOH Measure 3.6/IJ.O: Geo1eehn¡cal Investi"atÎons to Locaie and ChmOJ:terize
Groundwater Conditions
Why.
Who:
What:
When:
ColDpletiOJl:
Verific:atioD:
To prepare detailed design level geotechnical investigatiOIlS on development
sites within the Project area, to loc:ate and chazacterize groundwater
conciliioD$ and fonnuJa.te design criteria and measures to mitigate adverse
conditiOD$.
Deve1opers/PIIblic Worles Department.
Verify the preparation of geotechnical investigations to locate and
characterÎ%e groundwater concütions.
One year prior to construction.
Prio¡ to issuance of gradjng permit.
Public Works Depart¡nent.
Miti,atiOlf. Mel1.swe 36/ J 2.0: Cmt.Etruction of Suhdrain Sv~tems
Why.
Who:
What:
Wbem
Completlou:
Verlf"u:atioD:
To reduce groundwater impacts, subdrain systems includ.ing draiDage pipe
and permeable materials can be constructed.
Developers/PIIblic Works Department.
Canstnlet subdr1ûn systems to cO!I.uoi groundwater impacts.
C<mdition of tenta.tive map approval
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Mì1ir!tliinn Met1Stl.re: 3.6/13.0: Slock Pn7td~ nnd Rp_rt¡umirs
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Comp1etioli:
Verlfieatloo:
To reduce groundwater impactS, stock )ond embankmeIlts should be
removed and. reservoir$ drained in development areas.
Developen/Public Works Department.
Remove stock pond embankments and drain reservoirs within development
areas.
Coodition of tenlative IDB.P approval.
I'fior-to final improvement plan/grading plan approval
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/H Sbrinkiog sod Swelllog of ExplIDsive Soils aod Bedrock
MitiiTation MI!t1.t1D'p. ~ 6/14.0: GeDtechn.iCl1.1 In.W!.mva1~on
Why:
To prepare design level geotec:hnic:a1 investigatiOIlS for development projects
in the I'foject area to characteIÛe site-søecjfic soils and bedrock conditions.
and. to formulate appropriate design criteria.
42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of D..¡'¡¡"
)01:.,.7,1_
Who:
What:
Wheo:
CosnpleöoD-:
Verificat1oø:
,---
'--.
.. »uI>lin spêdÖ< PIm '" GPA Jmt
Mi~:t.Icmi_gPIm
Developers/PUbHc Works Department.
Conï:um theprepar1lÛon of geotechnical investigations to characterize site-
specific soils and rock conditions, IUld the development of appropriate
design solutions.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Pu.blic Works Department.
Mitiø-atinn. MeLl.!iur~ 3.6/15.0: M()i~turl! CmztrnI Me4.ndes
Why:
Who:
What:
Wheo:
Completio1l:
VeriCic:a.tîoo:
To reduce the potential for impact resulting from eX¡)lUlsive soils and rock,
by imp1eIDenting measures to control moisture in the ground.
X>evelopersfPublic Works Department.
Verify the appropriate appliCation of moisture conditioDÎl1g; constnJction of
surface and subsurl'ace drainage to control iDfiltration; lime treatlllent.
Condition of tenutive map approval.
Prior to issuance of bu.ilding permits.
Pnblic Works Department.
<"
Mîtîtnmon Measure 3.~1l6.0: Foundatitm and Pavement DeSîli7l
Why:
- Who:
What:
WheD:
CcmIpletioD:
Verlficatioø:
To reduce the potential effectS of expansive soil and rock through
approøria.te foundation and pavement design.
Developers/public Works Departn>ent.
_ Verify that muctnra.l foundations have been located below the zone of
seasond moistlml change; the use stl'11CtW'21ly supporte4 floors; the use of
non.expansive fill beneath str\1c:ture sla~ and aspha!nÇ concrete.
Prior to submittal of tentative map.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Deportment.
Impact 3.6/1 Natural Slope Stability
Mitiva.tÎon Measurp. ~ 6/17 n· Geall!cJuticnllnvediruttions
Wby:
Who:
What:
Wheo:
Coinpletion:
VerUlcatioa:
To characterize site·specific slope stability conditions and w formulate
appropriate design criteria., develO¡:>Ø1eDt within the Project area $hollld
prepare design level geotechnical ÎJIve$tigations.
Developerstpub1ic Works DepartmenL
Confirm the preparation of geotechnical investigations to char&Ctetlze ùope
stability conditions and identify appropriate dellign solutions.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to fiDal· ÏD1provement plan/grad.ing plan approval.
Pu.blic Works Department.
MitîtrtJtÎtm Measure 3 6/18.0' Siti7t1! of lmrJrtwements
Why:
To avoid impacts from unstable slopes by siting development away from
43
CiW or Dublm
May 7, 1993
Who:
What
When:
eoaopletion:
Veri.fiçation:
-...-.-
---
Ea>. DubUn Spoci1\c PI... & GP À EIR
~_cr!n¡:PIoI1
1J1IS1able landforms and from slopes greater than 30%, and providing lower
density development in steep. unstable area5.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Co,nfin;n that plans avoid siting improvements downsJope or on uDStab]e and
pOtentially IDIStable 1a.ndfonns Or on 30%+ slopes.
CoDdition of slIbmitta1 of tentative map.
Prior to f"mal map approval.
Public Works Depanment.
Mitil!D.tion MelßUrl! 3~6/19 o~· De$i~ MNLwr~~ fo,. TmDrlJ'PenurnU O1L heltJw. Of' tJdilH!nt! lD
Utlstañlp. Slnm!s
Whr.
Who:
What:
Whea:
CompletIon:
Veriflcatioo:
To ÎII1p1ement measures 511Ch as removing, reconstructing, or repairing
IIDStable areas, or 51:rIIetUral engineering, when unstable areas Cl\.llBot be
avoided. , '
Developers/Public Works Department.
Review for appropriateness and safety the measures suggested to resolve
areas with steep and/or unstable slopes.
Prior to approval of tentative map.
Prior to final nnproveØlent plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Impaet 3.6/J Cut-aad-Fill Slope Stability
Mitivatioll. Mp.a.m"~ 3.6/20~O: Minimizinp' Gradi1!P
Whr.
Who:
What:
Wheu;
Completion:
Veriflçatioo:
To require grading pions for hillside areas. whic:h planS minim;_ gracIing
and required çuts and fills by adapting roads to wUUral landforms and
stepping structures d.own steeper slopes.
Developers,lPubIic Works Department.
Review plans to determine if propOSed development has attempted to
minimize grading.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading pennit.
Public Works Department.
Mitieaticm MetiS%de 3 6/210· COllfomumce Df Grtzdine Plans I() UBC
Whr.
Who:
What:
Whea:
Completion:
Verification:
To require compliance with the minimum :requirements of the Uniform
:Bllilrting Code and applicable County and CitY code requirements.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify that grading plans coDÍonn to chapters 70 and 22 of the Uni£'OI1D
Bui1c\ing Code and to other applicable codes.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Citt of Dublin
May 't I 1993
-,
--
Eo>< Dublin Bpecille P¡"", '" GPA EØt
MitlpIÍOD M<>,.;oori>lg PbI>
MitÎ9n1ion Measurp. 3 6/22.0· Â~oidlllZce of llnrettnFJed Cu1 SIOTJe~ Greater ThiZl1 33%
Wh)"
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
V eriïu:at1on:
To req1ilie that 1;IW'etained cut slopes should not exceed 3;1 unless detailed.
site-specific- geotechDiœ1 investigations indicate that steeper inclinations are
aØPl'Opriate and safe.
DevelopersjPublic Works Department.
Confirm that project avoids unretained cut slopes greater than 3;1; uses
retaining strUctures to reduce grading on slope$ greater than 3;1; and
provides be¡¡çhes and subsutface drainage on cut slopes where applicable,
Condition of tentative map approval,
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works ~ent.
Mitj~tl.tiOP't. M~tLture 3 6/23 (J. Mea.rnLre~ for S¡D"~S Grl!01I!T Thmr. 20%
Wby:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Veriliatiou:
,I'
To req1ilie that slopes rteeper than 5:1 should be keyed and bençhed into
competent material and provided with subdrainage, prior to placement of
engineeréd fill.
Deve10persjPublic Works Department.
Confirm that appropriate measures have been taken in areas where slopes
are greater than 20% are to be disturbed.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Miti€Tanon Mp4uue 3.6/24.0: Metz..TUTes. for SlolJl!s Gr~D.l.er Thlm 50%
Why;
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verific:ation:
To require that unreinforcad rill slopes should be no steeper than 2:1 and
prOvided with benches and snñac:e drainage, as appropriate.
DevelopersjPublic Works Department.
confirm that appropriate measures have been incorpol'1lted where
unreinforced rill slopes greater tba.n 2:1 are involved.
Condition of tentative map apptoval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Milif!a1ion Mp.tJ.'/W'1! 3.6/25.0.' ComDaCtirm of Fill
Why;
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verifleatioo:
To require that fill be engineered (compacted) to at least 90 percent relative
compaction.
Developers/Pl1blic Works Department.
Ensure that nil will be compacted to at least 90 per~nt relative compaction
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
4S
CIty of DubllD
May 7, 19U
...-.-
;--.
Eo> Dublin S~. PIan..It; GPA EIB.
Mßiea'Î<>n Mo..~ PI""
Mitif!atio-n. Measure j 6/26.0: Prenaration lOId Submittal of Subsurface Drainasre lnsnection
I!.lJJ!ä
Why:
Who:
What:
Wh....:
Completion:
Vedfic:atiOIl:
To reqaire that deve1opl!Ient projects preøare plans for the periodic
Inspection and JDaintenanc:e of subsurface drainage features. and the
removal and disposal of materials depOsited in surlace drains and catch
basins.
Deve1opers/Public Works Department.
Confirm that plans have be.en prepared and submitted for the ))eriodic
inspection and maintenance of subsurface aDd surface drainage fac:i1ities.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of gradiug permit.
Public Works Department.
bnpaçt 3.6/K Erosion and Sedimeatation: Construction-Rdateti
Milif!'Olion Measure 3.6/270: Timirlf' of Gradinf! Activities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completioa:
Verific:atioo:
To reQuire that grading activities be timed to avoid the rainy season as much
as possible, and that interim control measures be implemented to control
f\1noff and reduce erosion potential.
'Devèlopers/Public Works Departmeut.
Review Interim control measures to prevenT runoff. control runoff velocity
and trap silt fOr effectiveness.
Prior to issuance of grading pennit.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
bnpad. 3.6/L Erosion md SedimeDtation: Loal-Term
Mitifuliion Measure 3.6/28.0: Lam/-Term Con1rol MetuW"es
Why:
Who:
Wha1:
When:
Completion:
Verif"u:ation:
To reduce long-term erosion and sediÌnentation impacts through appropriate
design, coastruction, and continued maintenance of snrface and sDbsUJÍace
drainage.
Deve1.opers/Public Works ÐepartInent.
Review adeQWcy of long-term control measures based upon
recommendation5, of geotechnical consultants.
Condition of tentative map approvaL
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Dðpartment.
46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
~,
City of D"bIiI>
Ma., f, 1993
E... :D..bI!n S_iIi< Plan & GPA BII<
MiIip*Io... MonüariDg Plan
SEeMON 3.7, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Imnacts Reoulrine Mlti2ation
This section identifies the foUowing impacts requiring mitigation:
1M 3.7/A Direct Habitat Lœs
1M 3.7/B Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal
1M 3.7/C Loss or Degradation of Botanically SeIlSitive Habitat
1M 3.7 fD San 10aquin Kit Fox
1M 3.7 IF Red-Legged Frog
1M 3.7/G QIlifornia Tiger !'!A1omonder
1M 3.7/H Western Pond Turtle
1M 3.7/1 Tri-COlored Blackbird
1M 3.711 Golden Eagle: DesuuctiOD of Nesting Site
1M 3.7 fK- Golden Eagle: :Elimination of Foragms Habitat
1M 3.7/L Golden Eagle and Other Raptor EleçtrocutiollS
1M 3.7/M Burrowing Owl
1M 3.7/N American Badger
1M 3.7/0 PWrie Falcon., Northem Harrier, and Bl!1ck-Shouldered Kite
1M 3.7/p Shar;>-Shinned Hawk; and Cooper's Hawk;
1M 3.7 /S Special Status Invertebrates
2. Mitiøstioa Imnleme':tation s.:nd MDnitnrinR" Prorœ9.m
Impact 3.71 A Dired Habitat Loss
Miti"ati~ Metz$Un!.J 7 /]~O_· (Polìcv 6-21) Avoiding Džnurblmce/Rs'm.oval Df Vt!Ft!.tt11.ion
Who:
What:
To ensure that direçt disturbance or removal of trl!!!S or native vegetation
cover should. be minimized and be restricted to those areas actually
designated for the construction of illlProvements.
Developen/pbnning Depanment.
Review plans to verify that dist1lrbance/removal of vegetation ~ been k8þt
to a minimum.
Prior to approval of tentative map.
Prior to approval of final map.
planning De )artment.
Why'
When:
ColDpletion:
Verification:
Mitigation M2asure 3.7 ¡2.D· (Polîcv 6-2J j Vp'g~tatîon Mann.vP.mEnt Plam
Whell:
CoIDpletioJl:
Verilicattoll:
To provide for the preparntion of vegelation enhaucement/g>o'1agement
plans for all open space areas (whether held publicly or privately) with the
intent to eDhance. the biologic potential of the area as wildlife habitat.
Developers/ploT>n;"g Department.
Ensure that vegetation management plans have been prepared for designated
open space areas.
Prior to approval of tentative map.
Prior to approval of final map.
Planning Department.
Why:
Who:
What:
47
01.,. of Dublin
Mo.y f. 1993
.-
-.,
B... DubliD Specific PbI> & GP A Em
~ Monik>riD& PbI>
Why:
Miti;rlllion Mea,uTe 3 7/3 0: ( Actitm Provram 60 ) Rne;retati071. Plan
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verifieatiou:
To require a detailed revegetation/restontion plan to be develoøed for all
dÏ$turbed ITeM that are to remain wi.deveJoped.
Ðevelopers/PlanllÎDg De¡>1lrtment.
Ensure that revegetatioJl/re$toratioD plans have been prepared for clisturbed
areas.
Prior to approval of final map.
Prior to approval of grading plans.
Planning Department.
Why:
MiUíTlltitm Mp.a.fllrt! i 7/4.0· G,.IKiPlP' MtmL1.f!ém.8I.t Plan
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the City to develop and implement grazing management plans to
protect riparian and wetland areas, increase plant diversity. and encourage
the rec.wery of native plants.
Planning Department.
Prepare a Grazing MMage¡;¡¡ent Plan and develop a strategy for
impleœentation.
Upon annexation.
A$ soon as possible after """~.ations.
Planning Depanment.
Impad 3.7/B IDclireet Impacts of Veaetation Removal
Why:
MitilU1liOIl Measure 37/5.0: (Policv 6-22/ ReYeltetation
Who:
What:
When:
Co1npletiou:
Verifieation:
To ensure that all areas of clisturbance are revegetated as Quickly as possible
to prevent erosion.
Developers/PlanllÎDg Department.
I) pl.....ni"g Department will ensure that revegetation plans include schedule
for replanting.
2) Buikting Inspectors will ensure that revegetation occurs on. schedule.
I) Prior to approval of revegetation plans.
2) After site grading.
I) Prior to approval of fiDal grading plans.
2) Completion of revegetation.
Phuming DepartmentfPublic Works.
Impact 3.7 /C Loss Or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat
Mùi;ratinn Meaing" ~ 7/6.0' (Policv 6-9) PreSJ!MIarioll of Hvdrolof!Îc Features
Why:
Who:
What:
WheD:
To reQ\1Îre the pre&erv1ltion of natural stream corridors, ponds, springs,
seeps, and wetland areas wherever paS$ible.
Applicants/planning Department.
Ensure that California. Department of FISh and Game and Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) have been cOD$ulted to determine jurisdiction and provide
recommenda.noD$.
During processing of prezoning and annexation appJicatiOD$.
48
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ciqr of )"_
M.,y 7, 1993
Completion:
Vertflc:a1Ìoß:
,--
. ,
Ea.. D"¡'¡;" SpecifK Plan ,. OP A Em
Mml<aIå- y..mtonn ¡ Pbœ.
Prior to approval of ímal map.
Planning Department.
Mitil!Dtion Men~e 3~7 /70· (PtJlicv 6- T(J) PTP..tevl11.ia7t of Rinorinn i1J1.d Wetland~ Arl!tß
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
CODlpletion:
Veriflçation:
To require the incorporation of riparian and wetla.nd areas into project open
space areas, and ensure that loss of riparian or wetland habitat will be
mitigated. per Department of rJSh and GaIne/Corps of Engineers.
Developers/PI~"nml!i Department.
I) P1anning Department wiU ensure that riparian and wetland areas are
incorporated into open spaee areas wherever feasible., and that revegetation
p!alls provide appropriate miûgation for loss of riparian/wetlands habitat.
2) pl~nn;"s Department in conjunction with appropriate agency will ensun
that miti¡ation occun as planned.
I) Prior to approval of revegetation plans.
2) After àite grading.
I) Prior to approval of f'mal grading plans.
2) COmpletion of revegetaûon.
PlamrlIlg Department.
Mitit!alion MeLL'iUTe 3.7/8 O· (Polit:v 6-11) Vegettltitm. t'Jf St,.P.1Hft Co,.ri~ors
Why:
Who:
What:
Wh&D:
Completion:
Verilieation:
TO require that all stream corridors be revegetated with native plant speçies
to enhance their ¡¡atoral appearançe and im.prove habitat values. .
DevelopersJPlanning Department.
1) PJanning DepartntentwiU ensure that revegetation p~ provide for the
revegetation of stream corridors.
2) Pl~nn;ng DepartØ1ent in conjDIlction with appropriate agency will ensure
that revegetation o=rs as planned.
l) Prior to approval of revegetation plans.
2) After site ~.
I) Prior to approval of final grading plans.
2) Completion of revegetation.
pl.n"i.,g Department.
Mitivt1lion M~/UtLTe 3.7/9.0· (Policv 6-12) EIJ.1rin.~~rinf! fDr StfJrTIl RU1UJff
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verlfio:atlon:
To ensnre that storm runoff is carried in nanual stream channe1s wherever pOSsible, nther than replacing with UI1derground drainage sy:nerns.
Applioants/P\lblic: Works Departm.ent.
Ensure that storm ruDoff plans preserve/utiliu natural stream chamlels as
effectively as pO$$ible.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Fmal ]J1ap approval.
Public: Works Department.
49
CIty of.l)_
Wa¡r t. 1998
-.
. ---..
Baa. DublÎD Specifi. P1aII & GPAI1IR
J4i>ip_ Moz>i'oriD ¡ PI...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Î
I
I
I
I
I
I
Miti"atian Measu~e 3.7/10.0: (Policv 6-13) Ooen S~ace Ca~rido~ System
Why:
Who:
Wh~t:
When:
Completion:
V. e.¡fiçation:
To establish a stream corridor system that provides multi-purpose open
space cOlTidors capable of ar.:commOdaÜDg wildlife and pedestri~
circulation.
Deve10persjPlallniDg Department.
PlaDniDg Department, with o:onsultation from CDFG, will eD.Swe that plaDs
provide for the effective preservation/enhancement of stream corridors as
multi-pmpOSe corridors..
Prior to approval of tentative map.
Prior to approval of final gradjng plans.
Pla.an.iDg Department.
MWvatian MetnilTe 3 7/1 1.(J: (Prnv~am 6E) Submittal of Wetltmd. Delmeation·
Why.
Who:
What:
Whea:
Completion:
Verification:
TO require all project applicants to submit a multH:larameter wetlands
de!ineaûoD to the COE forverifica.tion and jurisdictional establi$! IO~x>t, and
subnrit plans for proposed alteration to any watercourse to the DFG for their
review and approval.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Verify subDlittal of multi-parameter wetlands deliDea.tiou to the CorpS of
Engineers, and !I\lbDlittaI of plans streaJllcourse alteration plans to the
'Department of Fish and Game.
Condition of approval for tentative map.
Final map approvaL
P!9nning Department.
Mititration Mea.mre ~71l20 (P~o"am 6F) Coml1rehen..ive Stream Corridor Restoration
Pm9rtutr.
Why.
Whn:
What:
WheD:
Completion:
V erlnc~tion:
To provide for the develOpment of a comprehensive stream corridor.
restoration program that identifies a detailed set of criteria for grading,
stabilization and revegetation of planning area stream chaDnels.
Planning Department/Pllblic Works/Zone 7 ;Department of Fish and Game
Develoø a comørehensive stream corridor restoration program.
During processing of prezonil!g and annention applications.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitivation Mea.'N1'e 3 7/13.0: (Prc",~am 6G) Dedication of Land and lmorovemellt~
Why.
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
To provide for the dedication of land and improvements (Le.., trails,
revegetation, etc.) along both sides of stream corridors as a condition of
project approval_
Developers/p1anning DepartDlent.
ReQum. dedication of land and iIDprovements along both sides of sueam
corridors.
Condition of tentative map approval,
Prior to Final map approval.
so
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of D-ooblln
~,. 7, 1993
Verification:
/--
..-."
Eæ. ¡¡ahlin Speci!i< PIorI '" ÇPA EUI.
MiligmoD MœPIoriDo: PIorI
Planning Department.
MitiflaJ.ion MetLmT€ 3.7 /14.(}: (PT()Pf'am 6H) SedimenttIlian Cnn1.,.oIOrdinœtCe
Why.
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verifiçation:
To provide for the enaetme.nt of an el'O$ion and sedUnentatioD. control
ordinance establishing performance standards to ensure mamtenance of
water quality BIld protection of meam chaDDels.
Public Works Department.
Enactment and enforœment of a sedimentation control ordinance.
During processing of prezoning and ..nnex¡¡tion applications.
Prior to tentative map approva! of the Project: site.
Public Works Department.
Mi1.irrnntm. Mel1_wre j 7/15.0: (Prot!~tun 6KJ LiaisðJf with Re~ozut!e MlUUll!i!mem A~P.7Icies
Why.
Who:
What:
When:
Completiolt:
Veriflcatiolt:
To estabJi<¡h a liaison between the City and resource nmnagement agencies
for the purpose of monitoring compliance with Specific PlBIl policies.
Planning Department.
Estabti$h and maÎJ:¡tain a lia.ison with resource management qencies. Set \lP
a meeting with a~ repre$eD.tatives to review with them the adopted plan
and points at wlUch thejr input will be impOrtant.
AS soon as possible after adoption of -the Speeific PIa.n/GP A.
On-going.
Planning Department.
Miti~ation. MltlZ..flØe 3.7 /160· Pr(JtP.r.tion. of Eri~tin.r! S~ritiye Habitats
.
Why.
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that seDSltive habitat areas will be avoided and proteÇted
wherever feasible.
DevelopersfPIQT1ni"R Department.
Verify that land U$e proposals avoid and protect existing sensitive habitat
areas.
Upon S11bmittal of tentative map.
Condition of fmal project approval.
Planning Department.
Miti"t1t1olt. MetJSU7l! 3.7 / 17~O· COJUtruclimz NI!Dr D,.m1l.o.t!~s Du,.in.l! tM Drv SeaSb1t
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Compleüon:
Veriiu:ation:
To requ3re~ coIlStrl1ctiOI1 near drainages to take place during the dry season..
Developers/Pllblic Works Department.
Require that COl!$truction near drainages take place only during the dry
season.
Upon submitta! of tentative map.
Condition of approva! of bWlding permit or grading permit.
P1Jblic Works Deœrtment.
51
Cßy or Dub¡¡"
),by 7, 1993
.-
---,
Eoo. Dublin S-= P1:m Ie GPA Em
Mílîp ôoaM~P1:m
Impact 3.7/D San Joaquin Kit Fox
MitiraiionMea.,ure ~ 7/18 O'USFWS Secti('J1!7Consultation¡CDFGSeClion2053Con.sultan('J1!
Why.:
Who:
What:
When:
ColDlIletioÞ:
VerifieatiOJl:
To reQUire all development in the Project area to C:OJD.ply with the Eastern
Dublin,san 10aquin Kit Fox: protec:tion Plan..
Deve1openlP1aJming Department.
Verify that development plans are CQlISistent with the provisions and
proc:edures set forth in the EasterII D\lblÌD San 10aquin Kit Pox: Protection
Plan.
COndition of tentative map approval.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Why:
Miti~atirm MeD...f;Jdl!.3 7 / 1~ J_o Kit Fox HabitDl Mannperrumt Plan
Who:
What:
Wheu:
Completioa:
Verification:
To provide for c:ooperatiOtl between the City and other appropriate ageo.c:ies
.in the preparation of a Kit FoJt Habitat Management Plan.
PI~nn¡ng Department.
Contaçt Det>artment of Fish and Game about the City's interest in
paniçipa.ting in the establishment of a habitat management plan with other
jurisdicûollS in the region.
Upon adoption of the, Specif"æ Plan/GPA.
Ongoing.
Plamring Department.
MitiluJlion Mea.wre 3 7/19 O' (Proe7'Dm 6N) Restriction. DPlllSe of Rodenticide. /Herbicides
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verifiçation:
To restrict the use of rodenticicles and herbicides within the Project area in
order to reduce potential inlpacts to wildlife.
Public Works/ Alameda County Department of Agriculture.
Monitor use of rodenticides/herbicides on Project site. ReqIlÌre any
poisoning programs to be done ÎI1 cooperation with and under supervision
of the Centy Department of Agriculture.
Ongoing as a condition of project approval.
On-going.
Public Work!; Department.
Impact 3.7/F Red-Legged Froc
Impact 3.7/G CalüonUa TIger Salamander
Impact 3.'7/H Westun PoDd Turtle
Impact 3.7/1 Tn-Colored Blackbird
Mftillation MeILUJ7'1! 3 7/20 0.. (Proe7't1J"1I 6L) Pre-Construction SW'VI!V
Why:
Who:
What:
To require (ievelo¡:len to c:onduc:t a pre-construction survey within 60 days
prior to habitat modification to verify the pre$ence of sensitive $Pecies.
Developen/Planning Department
Review results of pre-construction surveys.
52
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of DubJin
May 7. 1993
When:
Completion:
Verification:
,--.,
60 days prior to habitat modification.
Prior to grading plan approval.
Planning DepartInent.
Mitiflation MelZ.<UTe 3.7/21.0: HabitaJ Protection
Why:
Who:
What:
Whmr.
Completiun:
Verification:
----
Eas. . Dublin Spe<ifío P1eII , t GP A EIJI.
)d¡üp'1on Mœí~orine- Plan
To ensure the protection and enhancement of seDSitive spec:ilj$ habitat lUllS.
DeveIopersjP1,nn';1Ig Department.
Review p\aDs to ensure c:omp j:u¡ce -with Mitigation Measures 3.7/2.0,
3.7/3.0, and 3.7/6.0-3.7/18/0 inclusive.
Prior to tentaûV1 map approval -
Prior to grading pl&n approval.
Planning Department.
Mitivation Measure 3.7/220: Buffer Zones
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the maintenance C1f a b:uffer around breed.iDg sites of the red-
legged frog. California tiger ,..I~m<tnder. and the WesteJll pond turtle.
Developers/Public Works.
Maintenance of minimum buffer around breeding s.ites identified during the
pre-construçtion surveys.
Condition C1f grading plan approval.
End of constrUCtion.
Public: Works Department.
Impact 3.7/J Golden Eagle: Destruction of Nesting Site
MitiflationMeasuN!! 3.7123_0' ( Polir:v 6-20) (".nlden Eaflle ProtP.c:tùm Zone
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that a natural open pee ZODe (Golden Eagle Protection Zone) is
maintained around the golden eagle nest located in the northeast corner of
the p1a.nn.iog area.
Developerstp1a.múng Department.
Review development plans to ensure that a proteetion zone is maintained
around the golden eagle nest.
COndition of tentative map approval.
Fmal map approvaL
Planning DepartIDent.
Mitit!D1ian Ml!tL<rw"~ 3~7124..o· GoldP.1t Eo.~le P,nlectitm Znnt!· Additional TemDDral Ruffer
Why:
Who:
What:
To require that dwing the gOlden eagle reproductive period, 1.11 additional
temporaJ buffer will be established within 250 feet of the Golden Eagle
Protection Zone.
Develo-pers/Public Works Department.
Monitor construction activities to ensure that the temporal buffer around
golden eagle protection zone is maintained during the period between July
and January.
53
City of Dublin
Mar 7, 19911
When:
Completiom:
VerifieatiOD:
,'"'"
)
_-....\
Eao. :Dui>IiD S~ Pion '" GPA Em
!I4ii;p&n Mo:oIIœIDe: PI=
During consti'11Ction neu the golden eagle proteetion :zone.
Following reproductive period. Or end of coœtn>c:tion, whiehever 0=
f~. .
Public Works Deparnnent.
Impact 3.7/K Golden £ape: Elimination of Forqin¡ Habitat
Mitil!tllÎon MRtl-"ure 3.7 /1511; Pr~tllÎDII of Fnrmtinl!' Habitnt
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification: _
To provide !IIlÌlable forage for the golden eagles. the Project maintains
substantial rural resiclential/agric'ultura1 ac::reage.
Planning Department.
Ensure that fuaue plans do not reduce habilat area.
Condition of teDlative map ap )roval.
Final map approval.
Plam1ing Department.
Impact 3.7/L Golden Eagle and Other Rapt(lr Elec:troal1Ïons
MitiÞ'ntirm Mt!l1SU1'e 3.7/260_· (P1"Ot!1'lU1I 6M) U"de1'pr't'n.lndi1ifl or TriDlfmfssion Ling-s
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
VerIßœtlon:
To req\lÎre the placement of all m"-;";on lines underground- whenever
feasible. to avoid the pOtential far raptor eleetrocutions.
Public Works Department.
UnderyOlII1ding of traDSnUssion lines.
Condition of approval for Public:: Improvements Plan.
F'lDIIl Improvements Plan approwl.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.7/M Burrowing 0,,1
Impact 3.7 /N AmeriÇ:U1 Badger
Miti"tztir)1f MellSUrl: :J 7/21 O· Buffp.1' Ztmf!S
Why:
Wbo:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verifiœtion:
To require a minimum buffer be maintained around nesting sites of the
bUITowiDg owl and breeding site!; of the AIneriean badger during the
breeding season to avoid direet loss of individuals.
Deve!opers/P11b1ic Works Department.
Maintenance of a minimum buffer (at least 300 feet) aro\Uld nesting sites
(either known or those identified. in the pre·conslruCtion surveys)
During construction.
Following reproductive period Or end of construction, whichever 0CCU1S
ÎJnt.
Publie Works Department.
lIIIpaet 3.7/0 Prairie Fatcon, Northem Harrier, and Black-Sbouldered Kite
Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0 mitigates impacts to these species. Refer to monitoring of that
54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O¡;y or DubJI..
M"T T, 11193
",
~"-
Ea>._ Dublin Speo;¡¡< Plan " GP A Ell!.
M!tI~!o.. M<miIoriD", PÞn
mitigation measure.
bnpaet 3.7 IP Sharp-Shinned Hawk aød Cooper's Hawk
Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-3.7/17.0 and 3.7/21.0 are applicable. Refer to monitoring of
those mitigation measures.
bnpact 3.7 IS Special Statas mvertebrates
MiJir!a!.ion. MP.dtu1'1l 3.7/28.0: Prp.-cnnstructr."Oll SurvP.V~
WJ:ly:
Who:
What:
Whu:
COmpletion:
Verîfîcation:
To req\Ûre developers to c:onduct a pre-construc:tion survey within 60 days
prior to habiuU modification to verify the presence of sensitive spe<.åes.
Deve1opetsJJ'hmning DepartJDent .
Review results of pre-construction $DIVeys.
60 days prior to habitat modification.
Prior to grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
SECTION 3.8: VISUAL RESOURCES
1. ImDads Rea.in.." Mltleatlon
This section identif'"æs the following impat:1S reQuiring mitigation:
1M 3-.81 A Standardized "T=t" Development
1M 3.8/B Alteration of Rural/Open Space VISUal CJw:açter
1M 3.8/C Obscuring Distinctive NatuT1J1 Features
1M 3.8/D Altera.tion of Visual Quality of Hillsides
1M 3.8jE Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges
1M 3.8¡F Altera.tion of Visual Quality of F1atlands
1M 3.8/0 Alteration of Visual Quality of WateICO\U1i8$
1M 3.8/H Alteration of Dublin's Visual Identity as a Freestanding City
1M 3.8/1 Scenic: Vistas
1M 3.813 Scenic Routes
2. Mitiutîon ImnlementatIoø and Monitorial! ProB3DI
bnpac:t 3.8/A Standardized "Tract" Devalopment
MitirratiOll Measure 3_8/1.0: ViSllallv Disurrctîve Community
Why:
To establish a visually distinc:tive cOmDlUÐity whic:h preserves the character
of the naturallandsc:ape by protecting key visual elements and IDaintaining
views from =jor travel conidors and public spaces.
Planning Deparànent/DeveIopers.
EDSUre development prOposals comply with design guidelines set forth in
Who:
What:
55
CIV of Dublin
Mq 'I, ,gg3
When:
Completion:
Verifieatioo:
.-
)
~
Eas. bublin Spod!lc PI... " CPA E1R
MiÜgatiQn Moni'->riDg PI...
Chapter 7: ColIUl1unity Design of the speçjfiç PJan.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact 3..8/B Alteration of Rural/Opeo Space V....sual Character
Mitivatinn Metmnl! 3.8/2 (). ImlJlemen.tQlion of Land Uu Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Comple1ioD:
Verification:
To ensure imp1eIDeD.tation of the Specific Plan/GPA land use plan, wbjch
was developed to retain preðnmiMftt natural fe$Ures and a sense of
openness.
Applica:nts/Planning DepertmJ¡nt.
EIISure that development propOSals emphasize retention of predominant
na.tural featw:es and preservation of a sense of openness.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Final map approval.
PI~nn;ng Depart¡nent.
Impact 3..8/C Obscuring DisdDethe Natural Features
Mitil!'ati01f MefßUTe 3.8/3 O' rpoliC1' 6-28J preservation of natural features
Why:
Who:
What:
When;
Completion:
Verlfic:atioll:
To reqv.ire the preseJ'Vation of the natunl open beallty of the hills and other
impomot visual resources.
AppücantstplamIing De )lU'tØlent.
Ensure that development proposaJa preserve the na.turalopen beallty of the
hiI!$ and other important visœ1 resources on the site.
Prior to approval of pre%Oning.
FinallD@ approval.
pI..nn;ng DepartDlent.
Impact 3..8/D Alteration of Vbœ1 QuaUty of BIUsides
Mitir!lliinn M~n~/Nf 3.8/4./)· fPolicv 6-32) Reduditm Ðf 'Pimal žmnt1t!U due to P.::Jttmt~
ø-radi1t1!
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verifiea.tiou:
To reå.uce the visual impact of extensive grading throllgh sensitive
engineering design that uses graðual transitions from graded areas to natural
slope!¡ and revegetation. .
Developers¡p¡a.nning Depanment.
Review plans to ensure implementation of sensitive engineering design and
revegetation.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Prior to final grading plan approval.
PJanning Department.
56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ci..- of DubIID
May f. 1\19$
.-
-
Eas. Dubtin S¡>O<Õfi< Piau & GPA EJR
. - M!~M"'¡~p¡""
MWflation Measure 3.8/4.1: (Policv 6-34) Minimization of Contour, Alteration
Why:
Wha:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verifieatlon:
To min;mi..~ alterations to existing natural contours.
DevelopersjPJanning Department.
Review plans to see that they minimize alteration of D3.tura! contonrs.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Before final gnding plan approval.
pJanning De~ent.
Mitifrnnon Ml!tJ..:t11r1! 3.8/4.2" (Policv 6-35) A.{'Jidl11t~e of Flat G7adinp
Why:
Who:
What:
Wheø:
Completion:
Verification:
To avoid eJCtensive areas of Oat development.
Developers/PIanning Department.
Review pl3IIS for S\lccess at employing alternatives to Oat grading including
indiVi<ltœl grading, stepped grading, and design in respOnse to tOp0gI3.phical
and geotechnical conditions.
Prior to .approval of prezoning.
Before final grading plan approval
PlaIJ.Wng Department.
Mitiflation Measure 3.8/43: (Policv 6-3ðJ Buildin/! Desit/"ll
Why:
Who::
What:
Whea:
Completion:
Verification:
To enc:ourage building design to conform to natllrallami form as much as
possible.
Develope:rsjPlanning Department.
Review plans fot success at ~g building design that conforms to the
natural landforms of the Project site.
Prior to approval of prezOIring.
Before building permit is approved.
PlaIming De )SltlD.ent.
Miti"atÙm MelUW'e 3.8/44· (Polim; 6-37) ReConlnurinf! of Graded SloDes
Whr.
Who::
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require graded slopes to be re-contoured to resemble existing landforms
in the immediate area..
DevelopersjPlaDning Department.
Review p!aIl$ to ensure that graded slopes will be recontoured to blend into
existing landforms in the immediate area.
Prior to approval of pre:roning.
Final grading plan approval.
Public Works De.partment.
MitÎflai.Î(J1! Mea.<W'e 3..814.5: (Policv 6-381 Minimization of the Heif!ht of Cut mrd Fill SIorms
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To minimize the height of cnt and fill slopes as much as possible.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Require that the height of <;11t and fill slopes be minimized.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
57
Cùy of Dubtil1
MaT f, 1993
Completion:
Verlfieation:
-
,--.
Eao, D"btiJ:1 Spè<!fic P!= ok GP A Em
Miljption MomIO<Úll¡ p),m
Prior to issuanœ of grading permit.
Public Works Depa.rtment.
Impact 3.SIE Alteration of VlSaal Qøality of Rld;es
MitiIMtionMea.'<Ure3.8/S O· (Policv6-29 ProhihitionA.1!aitm DevelorJ//lI!1/.ton Main Ridvelh1e
Why;
Who:
What:
WhI!D:
Completion:
Verification:
To miniJnjze visual impacts by prohibiting development on the main
ridgeliae, and ensuring that development on foreground hills meel$ certain
standards.
pt..nni'/lg Department/ Applieanl$.
Review plaDs to ensure that no development is loc:ated on main ridgeline of
Specific: Plan area. and that development on foreground Jrllls maintains a
backdrop of natural ridp1ines.
Prior to approviù of prezoniDg.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Miti1!ation Measure 3.8 15 }. (Policy 6-30 ¡ Gme1'a1 Maintentmce of Scenic ViewS
Why:
- Who:
What:
When:
COmpletion:
Verification:
To control the location and design of struc:tures so they genera1ly maintain
scenic views Or appear to extend above an identified sceµic: backdrop when
viewed from a designated scenic route.
"I<.nn;..g Depamnent/Applic:anl$. -
EDSare that proposed develoPJDent mi..imi= obstruc:tion of scenic views.
Prior to approval of prezoBÏDg.
Prior to {"mal map approval.
Planning Department.
Miti1!'alion Mea.sur~ 3.8/52* (Gen.eral Pln:n AmmuIment ttllidîn:1!" PalžC"V E) Lf/;tru£tUres on
RidvlÛines
Why.
Who:
What:
When:
Completioa:
Verlfiø.tion:
To restrict struc:tures on the hiDsides that appear to project above major
rid¡¡elines.
pl....n;"8 Department/Applicants.
Ensure that proposed develOPJDent ØlÍDÎmizes obstruction of scellÎc views.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Prior to {"mal map approval.
Planning Department.
Impaçt 3.8/G Alteration of the VISual Charac:ter of Waterç""rses
Miti1!a!ion Measure 3.3 16jJ· (PoliCll 6-39) Protection of the Visual Characte1' ofWa!e1'course~
Why;
Who:
What
To protect the visual chsr:ic:ter of the stream corridors, UDUecessaTY
alteration or disturbance should be avoided and visual access to the stream
corridors should be maintained from adjoining development.
PlaI1l1Íng Depanmimt/ Applic:anl$
Review plans to ensure that W1\tercOUISe& are protected from unnecessary
58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ci<y of Dubw.
Moy f, 1_
WheJI:
Completion:
Verüic:aticm:
-
.---,
Eaa. .. Dublin Spod!!o Plat> " GPA Em
MltipOion~Pl...
/
alteration Or disturbance, and that vis1Lll1 access to the stream corridors is
Imrintained.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Prior to final map approval.
P1ann.ing Department.
hnpact 3.8/1 Scenic Vistas
MitÎsrtzlimt Mt!Q.w1'tI' ~..8/7 0- fPDlit!1J 6-5; P"s.r:P."P. Views of Dp..~iv'ÞU1led Omrn $Dace Areas
Why:
Who:
What:
Wbe..:
Completion:
Verifiatiun:
To preserve views of designated OpeD space areas.
P1ann.ing Department/ Applil:a1\ts.
Review piaJu to ensure that view corridors are maintai:i1ed between
developed and open søaœ areas.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
PriOt to ('mal map approvaL
Planning Depi¡rtm.ent.
Miril,mi01l M<!mure 3.8/7 ]. Vima] Survev of the Prn jecr Site
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verifica tiOB:
1M 3.8/J SceDic Routes
To provide for the preparaûon of a visual survey of the Project area to
identify and map viewsheds of sœnic vistas.
. P1~n.";,,g Department.
Identify and map viewsheds of sceDÎç vistas.
During proçessing of prezoning
Prior to any development east of Tassajara Road.
P1~nn;"g Departmoll-t.
Mititrt11ion. Measur~ 3.R Iii o· (Action. Prnøram 60) Dl!:çirmm.ioll. n~ Scenic Rnutt!S
Why:
Who:
What:
Wheu:
Completion:
Verifiça.öOll:
To provide for the designation of scenic conidors, and the adoption of
scenic c:orrldor policies and review procedures for projects within a scenic
corriclot viewshed.
PlaDning Department.
Designate Tassajara Road., 1-580 and FaIlolI. Road as sceniç corridors; dI3ft
and.l\dO )t scenic corridor poliçies and review proced\lI'ðS and sœndards for
projects within the sce1lÎc corridor viewshed.
D\1riJIg processing of prezoniDg.
Prior to annexation of new areas iI1to the City.
PlaI1IlÏI1g Department.
MtrirraJian Ml!lLtw'1! 3.8/8.]' r Action Provrtl1l1 6R I Vir<ut2l Ano.'".<ri~ or ProTects
Why:
Who:
What:
To require projects with potential impacts Oil. sc:enic corric1ors to submit
detailed visual aœlysis with development project applic$.tion.
Developers/planning Department. '
Review visual analysis of projeçts with potenûal impacts en scenic corridors
59
City of Dublin
M2.Y 7, 1993
When:
Completion:
Verification:
.-
,
-~,
E.. -D"blin Specifio PI>n &< CPA BIR
MiDgatio<>).[<mitoriD¡¡ PI>n
to emUTE: project conformance with visuaJ Q\ll\lity objecrlv8$.
During processing of preZODÎng.
Prior to Ímal map approval
pl....n;..g Department.
~cnON 3.9, a.n:nJRAL RESOURCES
I. ImDa~u. R@ßairillø' Miti'Jr9.tiOD
This section idenûíæs the fonowing iInpac:u requiting mitigation:
1M 3.9/A Disruption or DestruCtion of Identified Prehistoric Resources-
1M 3.9/B Disruption or-DestructioD of UDidentiÍted Prehistoric Resources
1M 3.9/C Disnlption or Destruction of Identified Historic Resources
1M 3.9/D Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Historic Resources
2. MitipstioD Imn1ementa1ion .and MDDi.miDt! Prot!Tam
Impacl3.9/A Disl'll.ptioa of Identified hehistoric Resources
Mitituuion MeQsu~e 3.9/1.0: Subsu~fl1£e Testi7l1!
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verifica1Îon:
To recpilie mechanical and/or hand subsurface testing on aU location of
prehistoric resources to determine the presence or absence of midden
deposits.
AppIicaDU/PI"n..ing Department.
Require submittal of findings of subsurface testing (mec¡''''';caI or hand) to
determine the presence or absence of midden deposiu.
COndition of tentative map approval.
Prior to ¡mal map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitil'atitm. MpLLr:w'e 3 Q/2.0: Rp.r:f}rdfnl! of Archt1l!rJlor!icol Material.s
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verificatiol1:
To require aU locations containing either midden components Or
\;oncentratiollS of cultural materials located. on the surface to be recorded on
State of california site survey forms.
Applicants/planning Department.
Record midden componenu or concentrations of cultural ¡naterials on State
of California site survey fOnDS.
Condition of tentative map approwl.
Prior to grading plan a:pproval.
Planning Department.
60
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cßy ol Dubl1J1
_77,1_
.~
.---
:s... . DubliD SP«IIIc Pl... of< GP A m
. 1041._ Monî>oriDs P¡"""
Miti~atiOll Measure ~ 9/'1 0: Evaluative Te.ui,,~
Why:
Who:
What
When:
Co1npletioa:
Vedficatiom
To reqWre evaluative terting if proposed development would directly or
indirectly ilnpaet recordèd and IDa )ped locations of resourc:es.
ApplicantstplaIming Departn1enr.
Review the findings of evaluative testing required fonecorded and mapped
locations that IIlIIY be impaçted by fut\lre constnlction or access.
Condition of tentative map approv:a1.
Prior to grading plan approval.
PlanDing Deparanent.
Mirivatitm M~4ndt! 3_9 /4~n· P:rotectinn Protrmm (0,. PTp.hit~toric L~itt!.Ç
Why:
Who:
What:
Whcm:
Cclmpletiou:
Verific:atlou:
TO require a. QUalified archaeologist to develop a. protection program for
"signifiClUlt" resources whose condition will be altered by proposed
developm.ent.
App1icants/Pl~nn;"'g DepQrtment.
Review protection program prepared for prehistoric site$ ....hich conlaÌt1
either a surface or S1lbsurface deposit of cultural materials, and incorPOrate
recommended mitigation iuto the conditions of approv:a1 for the project.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to grading plan approval
PJ~nn;"'g DepartnleDt. .
Imp""t 3.9/B DiS71lption or De&trUdiou of Uulde"tified Prehistoric Resources
Miti~i1lio" Measure i 9/5.0: r PoliC1J 6~25! Disœve,v of His/oric /P,ehistoric Rmwins
Why:
Who:
What:
Whea:
Completiou:
Verificatioa:
To req~ grading and construction to cease in the event that historic or
prehistoric remains are discovered during such activities.
Developers/P1"nn;ng Department.
Cea:¡e gradlng/constnIction activities when historic or prebÏ$toric resources
are discovered.. Retain a ceniÏted arcliaeologist to ascertain the significance
of the remains.
During gradin&/constroction.
Before grading/construction resume.
Planning Deparnuent.
Mltieation Met13UTe 5.9/6 0: r Action P,ovram 6P Additional Actions Related to Prehitlo,ic
R2gourt!es
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
To req~ as part of the development appliœtion process that stepS be taken
to ensure that cultural resources are not impacted.
Applican1S/PlaIming Department.
Prepare site sensitivity determination. If determined to be sensitive, require
detailed reseI\rCh and Ï1eld reconnaissance, and development of a :mitigation
plan as necessary.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
61
Oily of Dublin
Mq T, 1993
Verifieatiom
,-,
Eoo, ;Dul>W> S"..;t;~ p¡..., lo GPA.EJR
MI\!gation MODIloril>¡¡: PI...
pl~nn¡"g Department.
Impact 3.9/C DisruptioD or Destructîoo of Identified Historic: Resources
Miti~arion Met2SW'e 3 9/7,0: (Pnlicv 6-26) Archivtll Research
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completio.:
Verificadoo:
TO require aU properties with historic feOOurces which may be impacted by
development to be subjected to in-depth archival research.
Applic:ants¡Planning Department.
.Review ímc1ings of jn-depth archival researc:J1 on any historic resources
pOtentially. impac:ted by flltore development.
:Prior to tentative map IJ)ptOvaI.
:Prior to issuance of grading permit.
P1~nn;"g Department.
Mitivatinn Met2Sure 39/8.0: (Polit:v 6-Zl ¡ Adal1ti'Ve Reuse or Restoratinn of Historic
ReunJrces
Why:
Who:
What:
Wheu:
Completioa:
Verificatioa:
To encourage the adaptive re-use or restoration of historic: strUctures
whenever feasible.
- Deve1opers/Pl$nniDg Department.
. Review development propOsals to determine if reasonable consideration has
been given to the potential to reuse or restore historiC'SIXuc:tW'es.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to <mal map IlØprovaL
Planning Department.
MilivOiinn MebSW'e 3.9/9 O· E..aluaticm of StructurLÚ Remai"s
Why:
Who:
What:
When;
Completion:
_ V erlficatioa:
To require an architec:tural historian to assess the significance of all standing
stnu:tures and other indicators of historic: OCC11pation and/or use of the area.
Applic:ants¡p1anDi.¡¡g Depanment.
Review professional evaluation of struc:tuIa1 reIna.ins to detenDi.ne
significance porsuant to CEQA, and incorporate mitigation
recommendatioDS. as needed, as conditions of project approval.
:Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
pl~nn¡ng Department.
Mitil!arion Measure 3.9/10.0: Re.earch of Standiml Strw:ture LMatirms tmJi Other Indicator,
of Historic Occu'>l,tion
Why:
Who:
What:
To require archival research and oral interviews to determine the local or
regioIJal significance of suuc:tures or locations (identified in the 1988 report)
by their associa.tion with important persoDS or events.
Applic:ants¡planning Department.
Review professional ev1Ùua.tion of strv.c:tural remains to determine
sigDi.ficance porsllant to CEQA, and incorpora.te mitiga.tion
62
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.----.
,.-...
Ci<yofDublm
MolY 1. 1Qg3
Su_ . DubUD SP«'ffi< J'lon'&' GJ'/o. '&Œ.
. . Mitigamc Mo....ozmS PloD
Whe",
Completioa:
Verification:
recommeuda.tions, as needed, as conditions of project approval.
Prior to tentative map approvel.
Prior to fina!map approval.
Plam1ing Department.
Mitieatio" Mea.nue 3 '1/11.0: Record of A.ll Hi.<tf1rÎc Locatio1L<¡ in 10118 Reoo1't
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reQWre that all previously Doted locations (in 1988 repon) be recorded
On OfÏ1Cial State of catifomia HistoriçaJ. Site Inventory fonns..
ApplicaJlts/Planning Department.
Verify that all locations noted in 1983 repOrt have been recorded on State
of CaIifonùa HistoriçaJ. Site Inventory fonus..
Prior to tentative map approvel.
Prior to ("mal mal' approval
P1annin8 Department.
Why:
Who:
What:
Mili~tJtinn M~tzSUTe :J 9/12.0: Pr~'!:E!nl11.ion PT(J,,.,-am lor Historic Sitl!g
Who:
What:
To require the preparation of a preservation program for historic sites which
qualify UJlder CEQA Guidelines as historically significant.
Applicants/PlaDnÎDg Department.
Review the preservation program prepared for any histom sites, and
incorporate any recommended roitigations a.s a oondition of project
lj,p¡ rovaJ.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to filial map approval.
P¡""";"f Department.
Why:
When:
Completion:
V eriflcatioa:
sxcnON 3.10 NON!!
1. Imnacts Rt!( uirinp Mitiutlon
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
.1M 3.l0/A Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise
1M 3.10jB·E:qIosure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise .
1M 3.10/D Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Fuwre -
Military TnùnÏDg Activities at Parks Reserve Fort:es Training Area (Camp Parks RFT A) and
the County Jail
1M 3.10/:£ Exposv.re of Existing WId Proposed Residenoes to Const:ruc:ti(Jn Noise
1M 3.10jF Noise Couf1icts due to the Adjacency of Div=e Laud Uses Permitted by
PIau Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development
63
Oil)' of D"bIm
Job¡> f, I.Sæ
~-
'-.
:g." ,þubJin S¡>e<ffie Plou.s. GP/I. Ell\.
MlöØ... MODi..,.;"g Plon
>
2. Mithratlon Imnlementation and Monitorlm, Pr01!l'llttl
Impad 3.10/A Ex)105lUe of Proposed Housing to Fatll1'e Roadway Noise
MitÎlrat;on Mea.=r" 3 10/1.0.' Acoustit!al Stud... Within Future CNEL 60 Co7llaur
Why:
Who:
What:
Whea:
Completioa:
Verificatio.:
To require acoustiœl stndies for all residential developDl81'l.t projects within
the future CNEL 60 contour to show how interior noise levels will be
reduced to 4~ dB.
Applicants/pJanning Department.
Verify the prepan.tion of an acoustical stUdy for all residential projects
located within the futll1'e CNEL 60 noise contour, and confÙ'Dl the
incorporation of mitigation measun$ into the proposed plan.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to {'mal map approval.
PI"""¡"g Department.
Impact 3.10/8 Expasure of Exis~ Residences to Futare :Roadway Noise
MitiølJ:titJ1'l Met1SU1'i! 3~lD/2D· p,.nvision nf Noi~e CO'll.1rol M€tJsureJ
Why:
Who:
What:
Whem
Completion:
Verification:
To reqwe that all development projects in the Project area provide noise
barriers or berms near existing residences to control noise in outdoor use .
spaces. . . .'
Applicants/pI".,,,ing Department.
Verify that proposed plans provide noise abatement forexisting residences
or that SUCh mitigation is not necessary.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to FiD.ai map approval.
Planning Department.
MilÎlratiOJl Measure 3.10/7.0: No;'" Mit;tuztion Fee
Why:
Who:
What:
Whea:
Comple~on:
Verlfication:
To provide for the establishment of a noise mitigation fee to pay for on-
and off-$Îte noise mitigations, jncluding but not limited to, noise barriers,
earthen berms, or retrofitting structures with $ODIld-ra.ted windows.
Applicants/Plannl.ng Department.
Prepare an ordin:mce permitting the levying of a noise ntitigation fee.
During processing of prezoning and annexation applicatiODS.
Prior to tentative map approval for projects along Tassajara Road, Hacienda.
Road, or Fallon Road.
pI"nning Department.
Impact 3,10/]) Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to NoÛ;e from Future Military
TraUIiag Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Trainin~ Area (Camp Parks RFfA) and the County Jail
MWtlatio1l Measure 3.10/30' Perform ACOIL<tical S/ Jdle~
Why:
To reQuire aco\!$tiœl studies prior to futare developØ1ent in the Foothill
64
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cily or Ðub1Ø>
May 7, U93
Wbo:
What:
When:
CompletiOD:
Verifkatlou:
,.--
...-...,
Eooo. ,J)ublm Spo<!tio PI... & Gt'A Em
MilinIi.... M"";~ PI...
Residential, Tasss.jara Village Center, COllDty Center, and Hacienda
G$teway subueas to c1etermine whether future noise impacts from Camp
Parks and the county jail will be within acceptable limits.
Applicants/pIannmg Deþartment.
Verify -that açousti(:31 studies bave been øreøared for projects proþOSed m
identified subareas, and incorporate recommended mitigations as conditions
of project approval.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to ¡mal map approval.
PI.nning Department.
Iulpad 3.10/E Exposue of E,QstÎ111 aDd Proposed Residences to Constnetion Noise
MÎti~a1ion Mea..TU.Tp. J.I0/4.Ò.. Conslruc1Ïrm Nnì.'l8 Mmu1umP.7lt Pro(!"i"am
Why:
Who:
Wbat:
When:
Completion:
Verificatioa:
To req11ire development projects in the Project area to subnrit a
Construction Noise MaDageJ:lU!nt Program that identifies measures proposed
to minimi..... construction noise impacts on existing residents.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Review Construction Noise M:anqement Program. to ensure that adequate
measures have been taken to protect existing residents.
Prior to tentative map a )p1'( va1.
Prior to ÍmlÙ map approval.
Plamili1g Department.
Miti~t1tio,. Measure J 10/5 no Comoliœrce with Local Noise Szœrdard.
wþy:
Who:
What:
When:
Completiou:
Verific:atiou:
To minimi_ construction .noise inapact$, all operations should comply with
local DOise standards and be limited to nonnal daytime hours, and stationary
equipment shouJd be adequately muffled and located away from sensitive
r,,"ptors.
App1icantsJPlanning Department.
EDsure that nOOse mitigation measures have been included as cond.itions of
project approvaL
During constnlCtion.
Following construction.
P1anning Department.
Impact 3.10/F Noise Conflicts due to the Adjaçeacy of Dberse Land uses Permitted by PI.... Poliçies
Supporting Mixed.- Use Denlop..ent
Mili~f1li"" MeastlJ"e 3.10/6.0.. Noise Manat!ement PIons
Why:
Who:
What:
To require the preparation of noise management plans for all mixed-use
projects in which residential units would be combined with çommerçial,
office, or other urban non-residential uses.
ApplicantsjPlanning Department.
Verify the preparation of a Doise maDagement plan for nrixed-used projects,
and reYÍ8W plans for mitigation that should be incorporated as a condition
65
c;t:y of DubIiD
~f.199!1
Wben:
Completion:
Verificaûon:
,-.,
,--",
Ea>. :Oublm Specl& PJan &. GPA IiIIl
, Mi&;gan.:.. Moaik>riD, PloD
of approval.
Prior to tentative map approval
Prior to final map approval
Planning Department.
SF1'TION 3.11 AIR OUAUTY
1 ~ Im.acts Retiuirhtl!' :Mitit!.tiOft
This sec:tÎ.on identifies the following impacts reQ~g mitigation:
1M 3.11/ A Dust Deposition SoiliDg Nuisance From ConstrUCtion Activity
1M 3.11¡B Construction EQIrlpment/Vehic1e Emissions
1M 3.11/C Mobile Souree Emissions: ROO or NOx
1M 3.11¡D Mobile Source EmissiODO!: CO
1M 3.111E StatiOnary Source Emissions
2. Mitl!!3.tinn Tm'Dlementa.ñnn .snd MonltoriBi! PmfiSJU
Impact 3.11/ A Dut Deposition Soìlbtg NuÎsallce From Constnlc:ti.on Activity
Mitil!nnDn Measure 3.11/1.0' Construction-Reltl1ed Dust AbmemP.ttt Measures
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
VerifieatloD:
To require development projects 10 implement dust control II1ea$1IreS 10
reduçe project dust deposition to acceptable levels.
Peveloperstpub1ic Work:¡ Department.
) Req1rlre dust abatement measures to be outlined as Conditi()DS in the
grading plan.
2) Monitor implementation of measures dl1ring ccmstr\lc:tÎ.on..
I) Ensure inclusion of aba.lement measures in grading plan.
2) Monitor implementation of measwes during gnding and early phases of
C()nstruction.
Following CODStr\lction..
Planning Department/Pllblic Works Department.
Impact 3.11,IB COnstnlc:ti.OD Equipment/V ehide EmissioDS
Mitigation MetlSUTe 31 I J /2.0: Minimi:1:tl1ion of lmerference of Construction Traffic with
R~rrio1lal N(J'n-P,.o;~ Trh.'fi(! MD'Fe7m!nl
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
To miIUmize construction interference with regional non-project traffic
movem.ent.
Developen/pl1blic Works Departm.ent.
Routing and scheduling of constr\lction-related traffic to avoid interference
with non-project traffic m.OVimlent.
Prior to approval of building and/or gmding permits.
Following completion of cOlIStr1Iction.
66
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.--..\
E.., ilu/>Iin Specific P..... &< GPA EIII
M;~M~P"'"
City or DW>Im
May 7, 189$
Verificatiou:
Pllblic Worb.
MititUltio't! Men..<UFe 3 1113.0: EmissiD'tIS Colttt'Ol
CampletÎou:
VerificatiolC
To require emissions control from on~site equipment through a routine
mandatory program of low-emissions tune-nps.
DeveloPenjP!anning DepartrnentjPublic Works Deputment.
I) Verify the incorporation of this emissions control measure in the
conditioIlS of approval.
2) Monitor c:oDStrUction to ~ implementation of control meao¡l,Ire.
1) Prior to ïmaJ map approval.
2) During coDStrUCtion.
Following completion of constrllCÛ.on.
PlamlÎDg Department/Public Works Peparanent.
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Mitir!atlO1l Measure 3.1 114.1): Co'tlSt~tio't! ImtJact Reductitm PIOJI
When:
To reQuire prepatation of a constrUCtion iInpact reduction plan that
inçorparates all propOSed air Quality mitigation strategies.
PlamlÎDg DepartmentlPublic Works Departmentj Applicants.
Ensure that the constrUction impact reduction plan inc:orporate all proposed
an- Quality mitigation strategies, and clearly defines respOll$Îbilities for
ÎmpleIl1entation and supervision.
I) Prepa¡ation of plan prior to development reviéw approval.
2) Monitoring of ÎDIplemBntation dllring cOIlStruÇtÎon.
Following çompletion of construction.
pl§....¡ng DepartmBntlPublic Works Department.
Why:
Who:
What:
CamþJetiou:
Verification:
Impact 3.lljC Mobile Soun:e Emis$ions:ROG Or NOx
Mitirnmon M(!I'I'HJ"p 3.11 /'I O· R~l!imztJ.l Tnt~rQr!'en.cv C(Jn,,~,.ation.
When:
Campletiou:
Verificatiou:
To encourage cooperation to integrate air quality planning efforts on a
regional basis.
Planning Department(Tri- Valley and Regional Agençjes.
COordinate intemgençy cooperation to integrate air Quality planning with
tnulSpOrtation, transit and other infrastruc:ture plans.
Establish liaisons and begin coordination concurrent with plan adoption.
On-going.
Planning Department.
Why:
Who:
What:
MitirrtJlion Measure J 11 /6~O~" Plmmin" Consistl!llcv
Why:
To maintain consistency among specific development plans and regional
transpOrtation and growth management plans.
Planning Departmentrrri- Valley and Regional Agenci.es.
Review plans to ensure consistency between specific development plans for
the Project site and regional transportation and growth management plans.
Who:
What:
57
Ciiof G£ Dublin
~ T, 1_
Whem
Completian:
Verific:atirm:
~
-'.
¡W¡\ )ublm Spccliio p¡",. '" GPA!i\III.
MmP.'ÄOD Moni!:oria.g Plarr;
Prior to approval of tentative map .
Prior to rmal map approval.
PIam1.ing Department.
Miti~t2iion Ml!llSU7e 3.11/7 n· TrmtS1'Jl)rltztin1! DemLm.d MtmD.vemmzl (TnM J
Why:
Who:
What:
WheD:
Completian:
Verific:ation:
To .implement transportation demand manage¡nent technÎqlle$ to redllœ
mobile sourc:e emissions.
Pnblic Works Department.
Review plans for inclllSioD of TDM tec::hDiqnes to reduce mobile SOIUœ
emissions.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to rmal map àpproval.
Public Works.
Mil¡'sratinn Measul"e 3~11 /8.0: Datimization of E:cisti1'tt! Tr-tm..r:r;o,-tati01l ..':;"stem
Why:
Who:
What:
Wbea:
Completion:
Verifieation:
To optillÚ2:e the existing traDSPortation system to redllCe COng~tiOIl and
slùft t:/'avel to nOll-peak travel periods.
p1gnn;ng Department/Pltblic Works Department.
Work with LAVTA to development public information programs to
encoœage use of public: transit, and encourage large employers to .implement
measures to shift travel to non-peak travel periods.
Ongoing.
On-going.
PlaJming·Departm.eJltfPublic Works Department.
Mitivälim! Ml!l1.SUI"'- :f 11/9.0· COO1'din.tz1ion of De"YeloDmJm.1 with RotZÓ.wt1v Iml1r01lemenß
Why:
Who:
What
When:
Completion:
Verifieation:
To coordinate levels of growth with roadway transportation facilities
improvements to accommodate t:/'avel demand without inducing òe...·nd by
provjdins excess sYStem capacity.
Public: Works Department.
Phase roadway improvements so that they accommodate growth, bnt avoid
'over-building" facility improvements.
Review SChedule of roadway improvements concurrent with submittal of
tentative map.
Prior tei final map approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitituznon MetUuJ'e 3.11/10.0: Mixed-Use Develo">nl!7ll
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To ðJlcourage mi1ted-use development that provid.es hO\l$ing. job5, goods
and services in close proximity.
P1~nn;ng Department. _
Encourage developers to coDSider mixed-use development in their projects
as a means to redw:e d3sCJetionary vehicle tripS.
During pre-application disc1lSSÎOUS and application process.
68
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City or DUbJiD
May f. ms
Completion:
Verlncation:
~
~
¡¡... DubIiD Spe<iIj< Plo.D '" GP ~ BIB.
M>tjgal;lOD McmlloriII~ PIaD
Tentative map approval.
Planning Department.
Miti~ation Meosw-e .3~11111.0.. Jnh~/HmLl(inv LiJtk.a.~~
Wby;
Who:
Wbat:
Whea:
Completion:
Verifieation:
To require linkage between arowtb of ho\lS.Îng and job oppOrtunities
cousÎJitent with a positive sub-regional contribution to jobs/housing ratio
balances.
Planning Department.
Keep Planning Comm;'~;on and City Council aware of sub-regional
jobs/how¡ing status and the implications of project appro\'llls on that
balance.
Ongoing as part of individual development review process.
Ongoing.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.11/E Stationary Source ElDisslons
MWvation Measure 3.IlI1Z0· Co1tSel'1ltUiun Tar",,! Ltrw!l for Stationary SOW'"e Emis.ion.
Why;
Who:
What:
When:
Completicm:
Verification:
To minimize stationary source emissions associated with Project
development wherever feasible.
Planning Department.
I) Establish and implement a I:Onservation target level for stationary source
emissions at 10 percent above the Title 24 standards.
2) Review individual projeets to verify attempts tomeetC01iSBrVaûon target.
1) Prior to rezoning and anaexation approval '
2) Prior to finaJ. map approval.
Fmal project approval
Planning Department.
Mitil!atiun Measure 3.I11l3.0· Solid Waste Recvclirzl!
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To inc:orporate solid waste re-cycling in all deve1op¡nent planning.
PI.n,,;ng Department.
Develop a strategy for integt1!ting solid waste recyc:liDginto plaIming for all
new development, and work with developers to implement this strategy.
Prior 10 rezoning and annention approval.
Ongoing.
pI.nn;J1g Department.
69
City of Dublin
May 7, 1998
.-
.-..
E... DubUa SpecÜi< P1o.a &: GPA ma
}di~ ~Phm
SECTION 3.12: FTSCAI, CONSIDERATIONS
1. Im"'....u RenuÎ'rifu!" Mttil!a1ioB
'I1ili; seetion identifies the fonowing impact roquiring mitigation:
1M 3.12jB Fiscal Impacts Related to the Cost and Provision of Project-Related Infmtructure
bnprovements
2. Mitil2ation ImnJO!1I1entation and Monitorinll PrOI!I1i1.Dl
Impacts 3.1ZfB Impacts Related to the Cost and Prorision of Project-Related IDfrastructuJe
Improvements
Mitisratio1l Measure 3.12/1.0: DneloDment Al!1'eemen1S
Why:
Who:
What:
WheD:
Completion:
VerificatioD:
To provide for the prepamtion and adoption of a development agreement
for each project that spells ont the precjse financial responsibilities of the
developer. .
Cïn' Manager's Qffiee¡Deve1opet'$.
Prepare and adopt a development agreemeDt or the appropriate agreements
for each development project that sets forth the precise fiDancia1
responsibilities of the applicants.
Prior. to prezoning and annexation approval.
Condition of final project approval.
City Manager.
Miti,Ullion Measure 3 12/2.0: Area of Benefit Ordirtturee
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Vertfication:
To wopt an Area of Benefit Ordinance and form an Area of Benefit for
those properties benefiting from coDStrUction of public improvements
described in the Specific Plan.
City Manager's Office.
Prepare and adopt an Area of Beuef'rt Ordinance., and deÏme the Area(s) of
Benefit.
Prior to prezonJng and annexation approval.
Prior to fmal approval of any developnlent in the Project area.
City Manager.
MitÎf!ati017. MetlSure 3.12/3.0.- SœciiJI Å3S~SSm2nt Di~tt1ct or Mp.Il{J-Roo~ CFn
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
To create one or more Mello-Roos CFP or Special AsseSSment Districts to
finance co:ostruction of the infrastructure to serve the Area of Benefit.
City ~er·s Office.
Prepare and adopt one or more Mello-RoDS CFD or Special Assessment
Districts to finance ÏDfrastnlCtUre for Areas of Benef'rt.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Prior to any final project approV1Ù.
70
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City o!DubIiD
~7,mS
Verification:
~
-
Boot DUbIiD SpecäK Phu> &; GP A EUt
~oti...~P¡",
City MaIlage~.
Milil!aÛrm M2Q<Ure':¡ 12/4.0: Marb-Roos Band Paolinv
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To have bond couDSeI evaluate the benefit to the City, in terms of aaviDgs
of money and avoidanc:e of undue risk, of pOOling bonds UDder the Marks-
Roos Bond Pooling Act.
City Manager's Office.
Evaluate options related to bond pooling for Eastern Du.btin pursuant to the
provisions of the Marlœ-Roos Bond Pooling Act.
Prior to prezoDÍDg and annexation approval.
Prior to any fin.a1 project approval
City Manager.
Mitif!'l1lion M~,uUl'p. ~ 1215.ÇJ: Citv-Wide DI!Vp.I(HH!1' and Builder Im1JD£t Fee .~.,,(tl?ms
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To analyze city-wide iDfrastnActure needs to assess the usefulness of
implementing an impaçt fee program, in compliance with AB 1600, that
could dra.... some funding from ne.... development when imal map or
building permits are issued.
City Manager's Office.
Evaluate efficacy of implem.enW>.g of an impact fee system, as provided by
AB 1600. If found to be u.seful, draft and adopt an ordinance to implement.
Prior to prezoDÍDg and annexation approval
Prio~ to àny fin.a1 project approval.
City Manager. .
Mitiva1inlt MetlSW'e .:¡ 12/6.0· School ImDa.ct Fees
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To c:oordinate City and School District efforts to fund necessary school
facilities and IXIllect payable fees..
City Manage~/DUSD/LYJUSD.
Meet with school di$trlct(s) to coordinate efforts to fund. school facilities.
Prior to preZODÍDg and IIDIlexaûon approval
Prior to any fiDal project approva1.
City Manage~.
Mitir.rotion Measure 3.12/7 (J. Hif!:hwav Imerchtmrre Fundinrr
Why.
Who:
What:
When:
CompletilJn:
Verification:
To coo~dinate City and Caltrans efforts to fund necessary freeway
improvements and collect developers' share of costs.
City Manager's OfficefPublic Works/Caltrans.
Meet with Caltnws to coordinate efforts to fund freeway improvements and
collect proportionate share of costs from developers.
Prior to pre:wning and annexation approval.
Prior to any final p~oject app~oval.
City Manage~.
71
City of Dublin
May ft 199$
-
......;.
lias. ,}ubJm Spec:i:li.o 1"1a:>. 01< G1"A. Em.
M¡"pO¡""M~PJ.an
Why;
Mitikatitm MeD..tuTll 3.12/8..0· Utilitills ImDtJCl Fees
Who:
What:
Whea:
Completioa:
Vertfleatioa:
To coordinate City and DSRSD dfom to fund u.tilities service¡; and collect
. developers' share of costs.
City Manager's Office/public Works/DSRSD.
Meet with DSRSD to coordinate effOIt$ to fund utilities services and collect
proportionate share of costs from deve1open.
Prior to preZOIlÛlg IIDd annexation approval.
Prior to any final project approval.
City Manager.
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
\
;
E:lstern Dublin Sl'/Gl'A EIR
3.3 T""ffic and "arcultltion
REVISIONS TO DEIR TEXT ON PAGES 33-19 TO 3.3-28
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (YEAR. 2010
WITHOUT PROJECT)
Daily traffic volumes on various freeway and street segments were projected for Year 2010
conditions without and with the Project, and for cumulative buildout conditions with the Project
(Figure 3.3-E). These volumes were compared to estimated daily' capacities of each type of
roadway, as described in Table 3.3-1. The resultant levels of service were estimated based on
the daily traffic volumes (Table 3.3-9). "
1M 33/A 1-580 Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon
Year 2010 growth without the Project would cause freeway volumes to exceed level of service
Eon I-S80 between Tassajara Road and FallonRoac\.. This is a significant CUItI\'¡ative impact.
Mitigatioo Measure of the EIR
-.
MM 3.3/1.0'
Caltrans.. in cooperation with local j1.irisdictions, could construct
auxiliary lanes on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to
provide 0' WtIzl of 10 lanes in t/uzt m:ti.on, alnsÍ$tent with the CalJrorr.s
ROUle Concept IùpOlt jar 1·580.
Implementation of MM 3.3/1.0 would ptovide LOS D operations and reduce the impact to a
level of insignificance. "
.
4
Rzviwl Te:tI 12115/91
,
ißO
E:lstern Dublin SP/GPA EIR
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revised Tar 12115192
ssì I
·1
3.3 T""mc aad Cin:u)"tion
IMPACI:S AND MITIGATION MEASURES: DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (YEAR 2010
WITH PROJECT)
1M 3.3/B 1·580 Freeway, I-68O-Hacienda
Year 2010 growth with the Project would cause 1-580 between 1-680 and Hacienda Drive to"
exceed level of servic:; E. Thi$ freeway section has bec:n widened to its maximum practical
capacity within Ca!rrans' right-of-Way. This is a significant unpact. "
This" impact" is also a significant cumulative impact and an unavoidable adverse impact as
discusseâ in Chapter 5.
Mitigation Measure of the Specific Plan
MM 3.3/20
)
.
(Policy 5.21) Require all non-residential projects with 50 or more
employees within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan area to participa~ein a Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) program. "A TSM program would "include
strategies to reduce the 1.1Se of single-occupant vt:hicles such as on-
site distriblltion of transit information and passes; provision of shuttle
services to and from BART stations, participation in regional
ridesharing services, preferential parking for vanpools and carpools,
and flexible or staggered work hours. -
Mitigation Measllre of the J?IR
MM 33/21
The Project shall contrt"bute a proportionate amollnt to regional
transportation mitigation programs as determined by regiontd
trtznsportation szudks SlId. os tbe current stlldy by the Tri- Valley
Tran.'portation CollnciJ. Regional mitigation measures may iDclllde
implementation of enhanced rail and feeder bus transit services,
construction orupgradiDg of alterriative road corridors to relieve
demand on the 1-580 and 1-680 freeways.
MM's 3.3/20-3.3/21 are applicable to the total Project site.. Implemc:ntation of these mitigation
measures would redllce the impact, but the impact would remain significant.
'J
/
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
)
East.... Dublin SP/GPA EIR
3.3 TOlffic and Circulation
1M 33/C I-580'Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon-Airway
Year 2010 growth with the Project would cause freeway, volumes to c;ceed level of service E
on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard, This is a significant impact.
This impact is also a significant cumulative impact as discussed in Chaptet 5.
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 3.313.0
The. City ,q Dublin ¡1uúI r:oordina/e with CI11Jrons and tile City of
PleastznlOn to consrrua PrejeEit iBall eeøk1ë\tte IS tke eeæt~edef.L
e{ auxiliary lanes on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway
BouleVard. The "..Tln,,'Y lanes would provide 0 total of I 0 Innes on
this section (8 tllrough lanes and 2 au;dliary Jones), œnsistenZ ww. the
Callrons Route Corlcept Repot1 for 1-580. 'The Project sholI conZribute
o proportÍDnDle OI1Imurl to the cost of ùnprovenwnts, os determined by a
regional tronSportazion stUdy sw:h ~ t[le current rtUdy by the Tri-ValIey
Tronsportation' CounciJ. The auxiliary lanes would provide LOS E
operations between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, and LOS D
operations between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard.
MM 3313.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigatioD measure
would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance 1111 ~e fallllR .\õF 115' segæBftt 'aut l.Q€ IIR
.me "&:ssajaæ PaYee. Rsaå &8g:æ.eRt WB!dà rsmaiR fJeteRt¡s.~ sigB.iiie~Bt.
[NOTE: MM 3.313.0 would provide LOS E operstions between TlIS58jara and Fallon,
which is consldeted acceptable according to the Alameda County Congestion Management
progtam. The mitigation me8Surewould.reduce 1M 3.3/C to 8 level of insignîficance.]
6
RevisM Tœ 12115/92
112-,
EasIen1 Dublin SP/GPA Em
3.3 Trame ~nd CiTeultltion
1M 331D 1-680 Freeway, North of 1+580
Year 2010 growth with the Project would cause freeway volumes to exceed level of service E .
on 1-680 north of the 1-580 interchange. This is a significant impact.
This impact is also a significant cumulative impact as discussed iD Chapter 5.
Mitigation Measure of the Em
)
The Project ~ s1uz/l contribute a proportionate share to planned
uItimDJe improvements at the I+5801I-680 interchange os impletrllmred
by Callrwrs. The øssessed cœts of freeway in.tercJu¡nge improvements
shall iN:Iude the com of revisd freeway ramp t:O~ to Dublin
(such øs hook ramps) and the associated mitigation on local streets.
The proporticnote shore of com attributable to· the Project. shall be
determined through 0 regional traTlSportozion smdy such os the auTerrl
SlUdy by the Tri-Valley Transpo~n Council. The improvements
would provide additional capacity on 1-680 north of 1-580 and Would
provide LOS D operations.
MM 33/4.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation rneasl,lre
would reduce the impact toa level of insignifiC¡!,nce.
MM 3.3/4_0
)
7
Revised Tar 12115192
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
aS3
- I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I )
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E:lslern Dublin SP/GPA EIR
3-3 Troffie and Circulation
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(CUMULATIVE BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT)
1M 33/E Cumulative Freeway Impacts
Cumulative Buildout with the Project would cause additional freeway sections to exceed level
of service E compared to Year 2010 With Project. includÍIlg I ~gQ ,"'11191 ef I !íiQ (Hell'! ~ Ie F).
aM 1-580 east of Ajrway Boulevard (from E to F). This is a significant cumulative impact e!!<Ì
ae. yew 8iàaèle ad erse ø.~a6t as discussed in Chapter S. .
[NOTE: Ca!rraDS has indicated in their comments on rhe DEIR that 1-580 west of 1-680
can be evaluated as a ten·lane section due to the IWO auxiliary mergìng/Weaving lanes
which supplement the eight through lanes. Therefore, the LOS on 1.580 would nOt
exceed the LOS E standard.)
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 33/5.0
rile Project sludl r:()ntribute a propÒrtiollllN amount to ther:()nsmu:tÎon
of ~ia". lD.nes on 1-580 eøst of Airway BouIevczrri. as impl8mented
by Caltram. rile imp~ IVØUÚi provide ten lanes on 1-580,
r:()n.sÎstent willi the Qùtnm.s Route Con«pt Report for ]-S80. The City
of Dublin tludl eoordûuzle with other ±loea1 jurisdictions sàaIl to require
that all future developments participate in regional transpdrtation
mitigation programs as determined by regioruzl tTtl1I$portlllion studies
such as the current study by the Tn-Valley Transportation CounciL
Implementation of MM 3315.0 would· reliuce the impact to a level of insigniju:œu;e·, elit tèe
_past stili. Ieæaæ si=Hi¡¡sa",~
[NOTE: Widening of 1-580 east of p,jrway Boulevard. within the City of Livermore, is
not currently progr.muned for construction by Call1<lns. Widening to ten lanes is
consistent with the Route Concept ReporL] .
IMP Acrs AND MITIGATION MEASURES: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATION
Detailed P.M_ peak hour turn movement traffic volumes were projected at· intersections which
would be significantly impacted by Project traffic (Figure 33-F). Levels of service were
evaluated at tbese intersections (Table 3.3-10) ancl mitigation measures were identified for each
interser:tion which is projected to exceed the LOS D standard. (projected interSection tum
volumes and capacity calculations are on file at the City of Dublin Department of Public
Works.)
8
Revised Tœ 12/15/92
-184
E>sten> Dublin SP/GPA Em
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revised Tœ 12115/92
is·
I
3j T....mc and Circulation
IMP ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATION
(YEAR 2010 WITH PROJECT)
1M 3.3ff Dougherty Road & Dublin Boulevard
Year 2010 development with the Project would cause level of service F operations at the
inte1'seCllon of Dougherty Road with Dublin Boulevard. This is a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 33/6.0
)
The City of Dublin shall seefèil'lale monitor trTlfflC condi.tiorrs at this
intersection and implemenl construction of additional lanes on all
approaches at the intersection when reqIlired to nuzinJ4jn LOS D
operations. The required ianes on the northbound approach on
Dougherty Road include two left-n¡m lanes, threli' through lanes (one
more than existing) and one right-turn lane (one more than existing).
The required lanes on the southbound approach on Dougherty Road
include two left-turn lanes (one more than existing). three through
lanes (one more than existing) and one right-turn lane. The required
lanes on the eastbound approach on Dublin Boulevard include one
left-turn lane. three through lanes (one more than existing) and one
right-turn lane. The required lanes on the westbound approaçh on
Dublin Boulevard include twO left-turn lanes, three through lanes and
one right-turn lane. The Project shall contribute a proportionate
share of the improvement costs as determÎlleli by a regional
trønsportation $tully $uell IZ$ the curnnt study by the rri-ValIey
Tronsponation CourlCil. These improvements would provide-LOS D
operations.
MM 33/6.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
)
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I )
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I i
I
E:lsten1 Dublin SP/GPA EIR
3.3 Trame and Circulation
1M 3.3/G Ha.cienda Drive & 1-580 Eastbound Ramps
Year 2010 development with the Project W01.1ld cause level of service F operations at the
intersection of Hacienda Drive with the 1-580 eastbound ramps. This is a sisnificant impact.
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 33/7.0
The City of Dublin shan impkmenl Ù71provemSnts ill t:tXJrtlinDtion
seeràîRue with the City of Pleasanton and Çaltrans to fe&ffi¡!e widen
the 1-580 eastbound off-ramp to provide two \eft~um lanes and eøe
two right-turn' lanes (existing lanes are one left-turn lane and twO
right-turn !anes). The projectshal! contribute a proportionate share
of the improvement costs asdetennined by a regiOllDl transportation
srudy such as the Ctlrrtlll study by the rri-YaUey rramportøtion CDuncil.
The improvements would provide LOS C operations.
MM 33/7.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
IM:3.3/H Tsssajafa Road & 1,,580 Westbound. Ramps
Year 201Q development with the Project would cause level of service F operations at the
intersection of Tsssajara Road with the 1-580 westbound ramps. This is a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure-of the EIR
The City of Dublin shall imple11lenl impt'l)Vf11TWll$ ill (:t1(JTIiinl1lion
eeeràÌl1Bte with Caltrans to widen the 1-580 westbound off-ramp to
provide two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes, and to modify
the northbound approach to provide three tbtough lanes. The
Project shall contribute a proportionate share of the improvement
costs as detennineti by a regionøl Þv1/$pOrtation $tU/iJ $UCh as the cunrmJ
study by the Tri-Yalky r1"Q1lS1JOl1lJtin CDuncil. The improvements
would provide LOS B operations. .
MM 33/8.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a leve! of insignificance.
MM 33/8..0
10
Revised Tø 12115/92
-,
996
Eastern Dublin SP/GPA Em
3-3 Troffic and Circulation
1M 3.3/I Santa Rita Road at 1-580 Eastbounli Ramps
Year 2010 development with the Project would cause level of se¡vjce F operations at the
intersection of Santa Rita Road with the 1-580 eastbound ramps.. This is a significant impact
This impact is also an unavoidable adverse impact as discussed in Chapter 5.
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 3319.0
The . City of Dublin shall itRplemtnl improvements . in coordination
eeenlillBte with the City of Pleasanton and CaltraftS to widen the 1-
580 eastbound off.ramp to provide two· left-turn lanes, OM through
Illne and 0118- right-turn l3.net. These improvements would provide
LOS E operations.. rlRther Mø!3re 'eæaat te tBi le'-sl sf seF"i¡¡¡e
~~~~ ~ I'r:~åeå \J~ prek~it~ßg lef~ ~æs ~felll eelit~~~~~ i::~
t _ R~ ad e easceel¡,t,B-å Punillse Dw.~e 8.1:Inng peali peneŠ5~ Th1s
~~: ~:; ;t:~ièiMee. .' ~lih¡ re,ltire. ellt ef Elifer;t,i8.11 ¡rEl'''el (e~ ~~~~
_ ft 1S sess pURMee PrF\ 8~ lay!. \fl.-auld pI'S ~å& le·;el af 5tf'VlûØ
];;I ep eraliellS. The ProjeCt shall be required to contribute a
proportionate share of the improvement costs as determined by ø
rwgional tra1I$pOrtoliOn $tudy such as the currenl muly by the Tri- Vø!ley
rransportol/on Council. The City of Dublin áhaH co1/limle to work wi1h
W City of pleasanton to monitor lmd of service ø1 this in/enedÍDII and
participate in implementing improvements which may be identif¡ed in the
future to improve traffIC operations. .
)
[NOTE: Furrher improvement to the level of ser'(ice could be provided by prohibiting
left tums from southbound Santa Rita Road to eastbound PimUco Drive dUrÍIlg the P.M.
peak period (4~ to 6:00 P.M.). This left-turn prohibition would require out.of-direCtion
rravel Cor drivers wishing to access Pimlico Drive dllring the P.M. peak period, bUI would
provide \eVel of service D operations. The City Or Pleasanton has· indicated that such a
left-tom prohibition would not be acœptable.)
MM 3.319.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure
wüI reduce the impact but .1I.iH iMrei~ee etit sf àiree1ÎeR H;p¡ eI fer ¡eft. åÁ' es, \keretly .
re511hieg in ø. peteRtiaD;· signÎHeMi! iæpaet the impøct will renuzin significant·
11
Revised Tw 12/1$/92
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IS7.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I )
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I 'I
/
I
EaStenl Dublin SPIGPA EIR
3-3 Traffic and Circulation
1M 3.3/J Airway Boulevard & Dublin Boulevard
Year 2010 development with the Project would cause level of service E operations at the
ÍIltersection of Airway Boulevard with Dublin BoulevardlNorth Dtnyons Parkway. This is a
significant impacL
Mitigation Measure of the ElR
MM 3.3/10.0
The City of Dublin shall ImpleIMrrJ inzpn1vemelllS in coordination
eeeràÎfiale with the City of Livermore to modify the intet$ection to
provide three through lanes and a right-turn lane eastbound, and twO
left-turn lanes anli twO through lanes westbound.. The Project shall
contnoute a proportionate share of the improvement costs as
delerrnined by a regioruzl tmrI$portation study such as the cu.1TfInt study
by dIe rri-Valley rran.spQrtlZtÏDn Counc:il. These improvements would
provide LOS C operations.
MM 33/10.0 is applicable to the total Ptoject site. .Itnplementation of this mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
1M 33/K Airway BouleVard & 1-580 Westbound Ramps
Year 2010 development with the Project would cause leVel of service F operations at the
ÍIltersection of Airway Boulevard with the 1-580 westbound ramps. This is a significant impacL
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
The City of Dublin shall Imp/emenl imprøvenzen# in ,coordination
eeeràieale with the City of Livermore and Caltrans to npIœt or
widen the Airway Boulevard overcrossing of 1-580 by 12 feet to
provide adequate storage for northbound left-turns, and widen e£ me
off-ramp to provide one left and one left-right lane. The Project
shall contribute a proportionate share toward the cost of these
improvements as detennined by a ngionDl trrllUportlllion snuiy such as
the curroit $lWiy by the rri-Yalley Trarr.sportation Council. The
improvements would provide LOS D operations.
MM 33/11.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
MM 33/11.0
12
Revised Tar 12/15/92
iSH
E3slem Dublin SP/GPA EIR
3-3 T",mc and Circulation
1M 331L E1 Cbarro Road
Project traffic could introduce stops and delays for loaded trucks from the. quarries on El
Charro Road south of I-580. This is a potentially sIgnificant impact eå sa ..as' eîåa¡'le ¡III, ese
Spii2t as åisEiY5Seà.iB ~pter S.,
[NOTE: 'IbIs impact can be mitigal=d to a level of insignificance through proper design
of the interchange improvements. Alternaûvc ÍIlrercbange designs prepared by Bissell and
Kam Engineers are .currently under review.}
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 3.3/12.0
The City of Dublin shaU implnnent improvemenrs in coordùwûon
eeeråiRele with. Caltrans, tlw City of P/eøanton aJUi Alameda County
to ensure that modifications to the I-S80 interchange· at Fallon
RoadlEl Charro Road include provisions for unimpeded truck
movements to and from EI ChaITo Road. The Project shall
contribute a proportionate share õr Improvement costs as determined
by a regiolllÚ transportllliolZ nudy $uch as the çUrTent stUdy by the Tri-
VaHey rnznsportalû;m' Council aJUi ..,uM"nal ,$tUliIes of relative· cost6
and benefits associated with. the spedd detign of this intørr;hanp.
)
Implementation of MM 33/12.0 would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
}
13
Revised Ta112/15192'
ass-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
j
E:!stem Dublin SP/GPA EIR
3-3 Tr.om. and Circulation
IMPACTS AND MmGATION MEASURES: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION
OPERATIONS (CUMULATIVE BUlLDOUT WITH PROJECT)
1M 331M Cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard
Cumulative buildout with the Pmject would cause level of service F operations at the
intersection of Hacienda Drive with Dublin Boulevard and level of service E operations at the
intersection of Tsssajara Road with Dublin Boulevard. No júrther widening of these intersections
would be feasible. This is a significant cumulative impact.
Mitigation Measure of the ErR
MM 33113.0
The CÜy of Dublin s/uJ11 r:()nJirzue to participate In regiomzl studies of'
future trøn$pOrtation requinf11Ienl$, improvemenJ QJzel"tll1tjvf15 anti funding
programs, such as the alI'lWItttudy by the rri- VaIIey Transportation
CouncU. rIa f'l:if!:Ber miåeøiftg sf laNe iB'8e.eetieas \"e~lil ee fe85ièle.
Buildout of proposed non-Pmject, related development (i.~ outside
Eastern Dublin) beyond Year '2010 levels would require the
construction of grade-separated interchanges on Dublin Boulevard
and/or establishment. of alternative routes to redistribute traffic flow.
The Project sh:lll participate in the implementation and funding of;
sad ¡¡eFti.il'a,lieH iH regional transportation improvement programs
as detennined by tke elRgeÎRg Tri YaIley TFiu,speftatisø CetlßeiI these
regional studies.
Implementation of MM ~3/13.0 would reduce the impact, but the· impact would remain
significant.
14
Revise.d T1!Xl12/15192
. too 0
,
Esste", Dublin SP/GPA EIR
3-3 Tr:lffiç 3nd Circul3ûon
1M 33/N Cumulative hnpacts on Tassajara Road
Cumulative buildout with the Project woulli cause level of service F operations at the
intersections of Tsssajars Road with Fallon Road, Gleason Road and the Transit Spine. These
impacts would be caused primanly by traffic from the Tsssajara connection to Dougherty Valley,
and full buildout of the Tsssajara Valley. This is a significant cumulative impact allà illI
aRa. eidal!le alt:e~e illl¡¡aet as discussed in Chapter 5.
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 33f14_0
BuiJdout of proposed non-Project related development (i.e. outside
Eastern Dublin) beyond Year 2010 levels would require the widening
of Tassajara Road to six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and the
Contra Costa County line. Tile City of Dublin siudl reserve right.o¡'
way for up to s~ lD.nes on rassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard
and tile Contra Co$ta County line. 17re Cily of Dublin shall monitor
traffIC r:()ndlJions 01 key intersections and segments on Ta$$qjara Road,
and implement widening project6 as rtlJuired ta m.aintaf.1¡ the LOS D
ttamlani. Tire project ùud1 contribute a proporlionule amount to the
pDSts of improvements on Tastajara Road, as detennUretl bS a regimud
traMporúJ1iDn S1lldy such as the <;tUrenl S1lldy by the rri·ValIey
.Tro.nsporto.tion CoUncil4 'J.fiseaiøg sf Ta9Sajara :Rsaå .. etdè mitigate
sa prejeeteà trams ilftpa6~ Bat 81:i1E1 set è e 6e~atiele . "8
,¡a"Red. laad øes in tke Iiasteæ Pt!è1iR gsøefal Plan ~~~:n~~~~
aRB ij!!eeiiie PlaR, )1artie1::l.18~ is IBe Ts 11 C8.ftter ~ea. B~tr;ß8R
IhieKB Re\ll~¡Bfel ¡ael CleaseR neBii
)
[NOTE: The Eastem Dublin Specific Plan will be modified to ensure that right-of-way
is reserved for six lanes on Tassajara Rcadbetween Dublin Boul~td and the Contra
Costa CoUnty line. The Specific Plan wiUalso ensure that pedeStrian and vehicle access
can be provided to proposed commercial deve10pmeni on Tassajara Road in the Town
center area between Dublin Boul~rd and Gleason Road in the event that this section
Is widened to six lanes.]
[NOTE: The Specific Plan provides for Project impletr,enlation of road improvements
including' four lanes on TassajarD Road. Regional calculaûons of funding shares for the
potential widening of Tassajara Road to six lanes should consider any prior contributions
of Eastern Dublin developments towards the COSts of tbe four lane roadway.]
hnplementation of MM ·3..3fI4.0 would reduce the impact, eat· said 1181 ee eSlI'!l'etiBlf! .:ila
plaBBeà IBRè. lì!5es, resl::!lHBg iB .a ~eleR1ially &ig~dHe¡aRt iæ~a.et ti> a leYel of insignifJDmce-
15
Revised T<I%I 12115191
tOOl
,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I )
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I )
I
- &'j ¡¡¡ &'j &'j
" '"
.. 5 0 (;t., ¡.¡. III '= 0:: '= '= III
:æ
;i¥ (;t., (;t., ¡.¡. (;t.,
1" .. ª ê § § ~ ~ § § ~
ih5 e
~i "
~ ~ ~ ~ ¡¡ ;¡ ¡;!: ... '"
... -
a - - - - - - - -
'" ~ Õ Q
- 9 0 11. 11. IIJ ·IE '= IIJ I:: IIJ
..
. ~ (;t., 11. 11.
;01 co!: I--
-=-
¡:s 2,: .. § § § § ~ ~ § ~ !
z = e
:s it .æ f;; s:: - :; .... :a ~
... "" "" -
=- ... - - ..- "" ..- "" "" - -
¡,,)
&: Q
- 9
~ - 0 0 Q III Q IIJ Q
.; IIJ I::
~ !: II-
==- ,.-
"".. -
r.¡¡ ·rn 2æ ~ § i ~ § § ~ § §.
::. :z: ,:
0 ~ "
=z .. ;! '" :! :a ~ ..- Ii; ~
z ¡o. '" ...
r.¡¡O",~ "" .. "" - ..- ..- ...
::1- ..
<~~t:
z;>.!!o §
~~;!¡ . 0 0 Q U Q Q Q 0 ¡,,)
;1
,.. ¡,,) Ñ_ -
~ : "''; I
"'- ë !
""~ ... ~ § ~ ! § § §
~ o;, Iii
"
~ .... S !;;! - ¡:¡ - i
~ .... ... N -
- - - - - ... ..-
z
:::s
=
;>
= .. 0 § g ê §
z ¡ = 0 o§ ..
.. ~
= ~. .. - ;::;' -
... "" ... ...
¡.. ""
'"
:i
.
..
I I!!
=: .g .å
t !II .. ~
- :: r.
= ~ i :c ~ æ = i ~
-" i , . « ! ":'
~ ~ « ~ .. -
- .. I!! '6 '6
.. ~ ~ '.
.. . g 'ª . ..
Πco ,: ,:
ï ii ~. .~ ~ ! 'ª ::; ä j '5
~ :c If &'I £
¡..
z z
- ..
iÎ
'E
...
I
!æ
i
¡-
d!
n
!.:1
[1
-=
'E=
1~
.£
-~
Qc
*6.
...
...¡¡
it
i'J!
'H
.. .
d
=&
--
...=
c-
-£
¡¡"'.
'!IE
~
1~
...=
II'!
e:!
~ II
-e ,i-=.
i Ii!
iji
a -jj
... II
!II j~ .
1: II §'i5
~.3 _II'
Q-;¡¡ Qi!
Ö U]~
'6 S B..
Z ~::: .:
¡
i
~
!
;¡
..
-.
100~
Res1tODSe to Letter 12: Garv F. Adams. ~.:altJos:bS Distri~t 4.
12-1 Comm@nt: Methadaloi!'V fDr Â...alvsi~ Dt Traffi~ Imll~ts. This repon does not analyze the
proposed project'S impact to traffic on freeway Q(lrridors and ramp intersectiOD$ in an
acceptable umnner. AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volumes should be used as a
basis in analysjs rather than ða.ily trafÍw volumes.
ReSDOnse to C..omm8nt 12-1: Peak hour traffic volumes (p.M.) were used in the analysis of
an freeway nunp intersections (see Table 3.3-10, page 3.3-24).
As shown in Table 3.3-7 on page 3.3-14; 47 perCent of the Project's trip generation would be
attributable to retail land uses. RetaillaDd tISe$ generate little of their traffic during the A_M.
peak hour, about 25 percent of the traffic they generate during the P.M. peak hour.
Therefore, the overall Project trip generation would be about 30 perr:ent lower during the
A.M. peak hO\lr compared to the P;M. peak ho1zr. It was determilledthat the P.M. peak hour
would be the most critical period for traffic analysis.
Freeway vol\lIlle$ were e'l1luated On a daily basis, consistent with the daily uaffic volume data
pub1ished by ca.JtraDS. Directional peIik hour traffic volumes have not been published by .
CaltraDS for the freeway segments adjacent to the Eastern Dublin Project.
12-2 Comment: I-S80 Imorovements. The Í1Íth a1lXiliary lane between DoughertyfHopyard Road
in each direction of 1-580 has not been added as of today. These, auxiliary lanes will be
included in BART's roadway reconstrUction which is scheduled to begin in mid-1993.
.
)
Resnonse to Comment 12-2: The Í1Íth auxiliary lane will be added prior to the 2010 analysis
year. The analysis of project ÎØ1pactS in Table 3.3-9 assumed the correct number of lanes.
The analysis of existing conditions for the sepænt of 1-580 between Dougherty
Road/Hopyard Road and Hacienda Drive is incorrect. The existing level of service on this
freeway segment would be "D" rather than "C". Conesponding revisions to text and tables are
incl\lded as an attachment to this Final EIR..
12-3 Commeat: ROIid Sel!ments. In Table 3_3-2: 1992 Existing Freeway Operations, the number
of ilDeswest of HacieDda Drive should· be eight, not ten.
ResnoDse to eo_meat 12-3; See response to Comment 12-2.
12-4 Comment: Fnewav o-r.tioDS. In Table 3.3~9: Fteeway Operations, the number of lanes just
west of 1-680 (between San RamonlFoothi1l Road) should be ten. West of Haçienda, the
number of laDes should be eight.
Res1lDDse to Commeat 12-4: As Doted in the comment, a Í1Íth auxiliary lane fo~ mergin¡ and
weaving is now provided in each direction on 1,..580 west of 1-680 between FoOthi1lfSan
Ramon and 1-680, for a tot81 of ten lanes (eight through lanes, two lU'rm.."Y lanes).
Corresponðing revisions to Tahle 3.3-9 are iDcl1lded as an attachment to this Final EIR.. The
fl vised number of lanes on 1-580 west of 1-680 would not cause a change in Project impacts
or mitigations.
(
As noted in the comment, there are currently eight lanes on·l,..580 west of Hacienda between
DoughertylHopyard and Hacienda Drive. ConespondÎDg revisions to Table 3;3-9'ror the
exiSting conditiGns are incl\ldec1 as an attachmeDt to this Final EIR. This section of 1-580 has
been programmed for construction to provide a total of ten lanes (eight through lanes, two
)
"
11m 1-aJI p
n
12/f/""
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
561
·
I
.)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
auxiliary lanes) as part of the current BART extension construction project. These lanes will
be cOJ;l1pleted prior to 2010. The analysis of Project and Cwnu1ative impacts on this section
of 1-580 asswned the correct nwnber of lanes which will exist >1t that time.
12-5 Comment: Prooortionate Share. The EIR recommends (MM J..3/4.o) "the project should
contribute a øro¡¡ortionate share to p1aJmed. improvements Itt the 1-580/1-680 interchange..:.
Please explain what the proportioœte share would be based on, and also <:Iescribe the
procedure which woul<:l ensure that the Project will contribute its share.
Re5DDD5e to Comment 12-5: The proportiODS of improvement costs to be pai<:l by Various
jurisdictiODS and develOp¡Dents should be based 011 a regional study of improvement needs,
such as the çurreut stu<:ly by the Tri- VaUey Tra:iIsportation Co~ The shares of
improvement costs should also consider prior contn"butioDS to regional road improvements,
The City of Dublin is panicipatiDg Ì1I regioœ.l studies of fUNn! traDSportation requirements
(Tri- Valley, Alameda County) and would estabJ¡sh a fee. strUCture to enstlt'e future
development pays for the appropriate share of regioDal road improvements based on those
rezioDal studies.
12-6 Comment: .mead of the 1'roiêet on Exi5ttnl! Interseetlon5. The level of $l!rviceand average
vehicle 4eJ.ay of PM peak hotit' Ì1Itel'Section operatiOtlS are .listed. without mitigation. Because
this proposed development is ma.iD1y resideutia1. the impltCt of projecte6 traffic au existing
itlteisecnons caused by the moming commute (AM peak) should also be considered. Any
ÍIltel'Sec:tion in which the LOS will become unacceptable during the AM peak will need
mitigation.
Res_o5e to Commellt 12-6: See the fB$PDDSe to Comment 12-1. As noted, nearly half of the
Project's daily trip generatinn would beatttibutable to retail land uses, which genente about
7$ percent fewer uipS during the A.M. peak hour compared to the P.M. peak botlt'.
Therefore, the 0verat1 Project traffic generation would be Ithout 30 percent lower during the .
A.M. peak botlt' compared to the P.M. peak hour. It was determined that the P.M. peak bour
would be more critical for traffic aDDlysis than the A.M.peak hour. However, recommended.
road improvements propose balanced lanes .in each direction to msure that reverse direçtion
Wile flows can be accommodated during other time periods.
12-7 Comment: Ram.. MeterilUr. The opentiooofltt Iea$t .five Ì1Iterchanges 001-5&0 and two
itlterehanges on 1-6&0 will be affected by the Project.. It is recomJI18tllied that ramp metering
be considered for all the on-ramps within the Projeet llinits. The pro )O$Cd on-ramp
improvements sbould provide adequate storage to accommodate the ramp metering operation.
The improvemeDt of local streets needs to be considered to,accommodate the IamPDletering.
Resooo~ to CDmment 12-'7: Ramp meœrin¡ would control vehicles entering the freeway OD
OD-rampS, to el1S11t'8 that traffic On the ....;..I;..e freeway operates smoothly during peak
periods. Ramp metering reduces delay on the ....;..¡;ne freeway, but increases delay for
driven On loea1 streets wishitlg to access the freeway. If designed properly, ramp metering
can reduce the total overall delay fOr all driven. The City of Dublin will coordinate with
Calt:raDS on aU Ì1Iterchange improvements to ensure that ramp metering, can be accommodated..
(
12-8 Comm~D,t: CoOrdiftAtioD. Dr SlnslizatlOD lif RaBID!!; .ad lutersections. There are seven!
signalized ramp intersections and local street itltersections ,within the project limits. USually,
the signals on local streets are designed and operated iÐ.depeudently by local authorizatiOD-
However, Ì1I order to operate the interchanges whicb will be affected by this project more
efficiently, the siaw itlterconnection between ramp intenections and local street .intersections
is esseDtia1. The coordiDation.between the State.and loca1 authorization to desian and operate
IIIItl-aJUIp
ft
12/T/92
r;6~
SIal.. of California
Suslnesa, Transportall"n and Housing Agency
;
Memorandum
\0 \3Þ Cale: October 9, 1992 .
File: ALA000079
121 SCH: 91103064
P.M.: 0.0
TO: MR. MIKE CHIRIATTI
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street. Room
Sacramento. Ca 95814
!
..~<:~<>_: - -~.-'
.~ .......
FflOM: DEPARTMENT. OF TRANSPORTATION .~'........
- 1',-· "" ' .:'
Transportation Planning Branch-District 4 1::/ % \:;'. ';:..:"
. ~ ~~~.~
$USJECT: EASTERN DUBl.IN GENERAl. PLAN AMENCMENT/SPEC FI~;N'\~.. "\_:. .',<,.
, <)ì·,--,.... - ---<:..".:-'
..........~ ril\..: ~_..
---,....-
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has reviewed
the above-referenced document and forwards the following comments:
This report ~oes not analyze the proposed project's impact to traffic l
o,n freeway corridors and ramp intersections in an acceptable manner. AM 12 1
peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volumes should be used as a basis in J-
analysis rather than daily traffic volumes.
)
3.3 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
EX/STING ROADS
Freewavs
'l
J2
The fifth auxiliary lane between Dougherty/Hopyard Road in each
direction of 1-580 has not been added as of today., These auxiliary lanes
will be included in BART's roadway reconstruction which is scheduled to
begin in mid 1993.
EX/STING TRAFRC OPERATIONS
;Road· Seo·ments
Table 3.3-2 - 1992 EXISTING FREEWAY OPERATIONS - The number of
Lanes West of Hacienda Drive should be 8 not 1 D.
(
)
.
I
-.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
5651
-,
12-3
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
ChirialtiJ ALA000079
Odobert 9. 1992
Page 3
-
Table 3.3-9 - FREEWAY OPEFlATIONS
The number of lanes just west of I-S80 (between San
Ramon/Foothill Road) should be 10, and west of Hacienda should be 8.
ì
12-4
J
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
MM3~/40
The EIR recommends "the project should contribute a proportionate ·l
share to planned improvements at thel-580/I-S80 interchange and ...." 2 5
Please explain what the proportion would be based on, and also describe J
the procedu,e "";ch would eosu,e thet the p<eject wm contribute as 1 -
share. . .
)
Tab!!'! 3.3-10
The level of service and average vehicle delay of PM peak hour l
intersection operations are listed without mitigation. Because this
proposed development is mainly residential, the impact of projected. .
traffic on existing intersections caused by morning commute (am peak) J12-6
from this new development should also be considered. Any intersection. in
which the level of service will become unacceptable during the am peak,
will ..need mitigation. ..
The operation of at least five interchanges on Route 580 and two l
interchanges on Route 680 will be affected bY' this proposed project. It is
recommended .that ramp· metering be considered for all the on-ramps 7
within the project limits. The proposed on-ramp improvements should J12-
provide adequate storage to accommodate the ramp metering operation.
The improvement of local streets need to be considered to accommodate
the ramp metering.
There are several signalized ramp intersections and local street l
intersections within the project limits. Usually, the signals on local
streets are designed and operated independently by local authorization. 12..$
However, in order to operate the interchanges which- will be affected by
this project more efficiently. the signal interconnection between ramp
,
.;
566
Chiriatti/ALA00007S1
October 9, 1992
Page <I
-
I
I
I
intersections and local street intersections is essential. The coordination 12~
between the State and local authorization to design and operate these coptd. I
signals should be arranged. " --'
. As a mitigation for the project, it is proposed to restripe the l
existing two right turn lanes and onelett turn lane at the Eastbound
Hacienda Drive off-ramp to two Jeft turn lanes and one right turn lane. 12-10 I
Justify how the estimated traffic at year 2010 with the project can be J .
accommodated by on·ly one right turn lane (reduced from two lanes to one).
. The proposed improvement· at eastbound Route 580 at Airway l I
Boulevard should be included on the Figure $.3-F.. Use estimated peak hour
traffic- volume at these interchange off-ramps to check if the warrant for 12-111
installation of signals is· satisfied. Some of the information shown on J
figure 3.3-F is not accurate. Revise the lane numbers on the existing I
intersection to reflect the actual situation. .
I
I
I
I
I
I
561
MAPS AND FIGURES
Fioure 3.3-8 Future Road Imnrovements
Existing number of lanes between Dougherty/Hopyard Road and·
Hacienda Drive should show 8 not 10.
FiçltJre ::; 3-F. Prooosed lnter!;edion Lanes
)
have
Alice
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If you
any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact
Jackson of my staff at (51Q) 286-5587.
Á"/~
ßf!.: dARY F. ADAMS
District CeOA Coordinator
.-
cc:
Sally Germain, ABAG
Susan Pultz., MTC
/'
)
"
l
~:r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
ResndD.Se to Letter l~: Nolan Sham. PresideDt~ T·d'!liaJ'8 Valley Prone"", Owners AssociatioD.
13-1 COlllmeDt: Intey;url5didiODaI CDGDentÎøll.. East Dublin, Dougherty Valley md T3$$;I.jara
Valley share a oommon Iocatlon, a common need for expansion of iDfrastru=, aud a
common time frame for development. Because of these common traits, the plaDI1Ìt1g agencies
should work together to coordinate expansion of public services and facilities, and to fmd
solutions to cor;nmon problems.
lIø'ODse to Comment 13-1: Comment acknow1edøed.
13-2 Cftmmelllt: Cøønlllllated Snbn!¥jODaI T....slt PlaD, TVPOA suggests that eastern Dublin
developers be required to cooperate with adjacent property OWl1ef$ (TVPOA and Dougherty
Valley) as wen as adjacent business parks (Hacienda and Bishop Ranch) and the nearby
regional shopping man (Stonerldge) to expiare the feasibility of a sub·regional trDDSit system
to serve the area. This effort should be done in cooperation with the Central Contra Costa
Transit Authority, Livermore-AltIDdor TtaIlSit Authority, and BART. It may be .thatsUch au
effort can be accomø1ished in conjunction with the TVTC plamiing study.
Resuoase to Cftmlll81lt 13-2: Comment1lCknow1edged. Mitigation measures MM 3.3/U.O
through MM 33/15.3, page 3.3-2& ·of the DEIR, recC'......end that the City of Dublin
coordinate with traDSit service agencies and that the Project ÇQntribute a proportionate share
to the cost of 1::raDSit service extensions. The City of Dublin is also,participating in the Tri
Valley TranS'POrtation Council study, which will recommend transpOrtation imørovements 00
a regional basis.
)
13-3 Comme~t% Laud U'se .l.ill:fMImotiD1u: forT4In:o iara Valley. The fiDal EIR should reflect current
Projections for total buiIdout aud timing of development in'Tassajara Valley. Cunent plans
oall for 6,100 dwelling units and 350,000 square feet of commercial/offioe space which wo.u1d
yield 700 employees. This update may reqUire modifications to the cumulative rrarÏ1c analysis
in those :ireas most impaered by trips leneratedby Tassajara Valley development, i.e.,
Tassajara Road.
RHIIODSe tft Cftmment 13.3: The analysis of Project traffic impaCtS in the DEIR was based
on ABAG Projections of land \ISe for the Bay Area.. These .2010 projections of ovenillland
use in each census tøCt are based on lID _ment of regional lrowth and absorption
potential of new land uses, and would lIot change sipificantly as a result of cba.nges in the
ultiøm.te projected buildout of each individual development project such as Tassajara Valley.
The Cumulative Buildout analysis in the DEIR aSs'llIDed developmellt levels in Tassajara
vaUey consistent .....i1h the application for a General P\aD. AJliendment submitted to Contra
Costa County, the most current pubfu:ly available document at the time of the analysis for the
DEIR.. Fun= traffic studies conducted for the Tassajara Valley development should address
the trafÏ1c impaCtS of c:haDges in potential deve1opm81lt levels in Tassajara Valley colt'l;lBred
to the initial GP A applicatiOl1.
)
13-04 Cmnmn.t: ·CD.al_tift Tdffie Imnsft 011 T'IIII4I!tI!siara Rðad. The Draft EIR. CODClud.es· that
developtDent outside :Eastem DubliD, pr:irøar:iJ.y in Dou¡herry and Taasajara Valleys, will cause
level of service F operations at three Tassajara Road intersections in the Eastern Dublin
platming. area. The Draft EIR detem1ÏDes that this impact can. be mitigated by .....itl....ing
Tsssajara Road (MM 3.3/14.0, page 3.3-28). Yet, the Draft EIR falls short of recoØIJDCnding
this mitigatiOn measure. Instead., the Draft EIR Iæves open the-pœsÏ.bi1ity that Tasøjara road'
will remain f0111" lanes despite concluding that to do so would IC$U.lt in a Signif"lCa11t iDipact.
Attempting to maintain Tassajara Road as 11 four lane road .....ould seem to be ineonsistent with
JIIIt l-=aap
'If
D/T/ft
59
a regional vision of the problem.
R"""ODse to Comment 13~4: See RespoDSl! to ColllItle,¡.¡ 5~2. The City of DUblin is
considering recommending a revision to the Specific Plan to reserve right-of ~way for six lanes
on Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Road.
)
13-5 Comment: ErleDsioD or Had..,ula Drive to Dou;;hertv Vallev. One solution to the uaffic
congestion problems projeçted for Tassajara Road is the extension of Hacienda Drive north
into the Dougherty Valley.
Dougherty Road is incapable df handling the entire vehicle traffic volume from new'
development in Dougherty Valley. To help solve this problem, WiDdemere Parkway is
exte¡lded from the east side of Dougheny Valley ea$t to Camino TUSlljara in T;usajara Valley.
This route will provide a primary, yet indirect, access to 1-580 via Tassajara· Road, but will
also increase ~ volume of traff':c on Tassajara Road and at'the I-SgO interchange almost to
a breaking point assuming development in Tassajara Valley and East Dublin.
An ~xtension of Hacienda Drive north into Dougherty Valley would provide direct access
routes to I~5g0 for the west and ea$t sides of Dougherty Vaney and Tassajara Valley. and thus
would balance the traff":c loads at the I-SgO interchanges and through Dublin and East Dublin.
AJso, a Hacienda Drive extension provides a direct link for the entire Dougherty Vaney to the
followinll: 1) the new BART station pian1led near Hacienck Drive and I~5g0; 2) the heart of
Hacienda "Business Park in Pleasanton, and 3) the new COIllItlerÇia , and office uses planned for
the County property in the Eist Dublin Specific Plan.
Extendinll Hacienda Drive into Dougherty Valley is a positive steP that will alleviate problems
on Tassajara Road. This alternative shoJlld be reviewed further in the EIR.
R~DODse to Commeat 13-;: Comment acknowledged. The circulation plan for the Eastém,
Dublin Spec:if':c Plan does not preçlude the potential exteDSion of Hacienda Drive north to
Dougherty Valley. An exœmion of Hacienda Drive north is a possibility that hasheen
explored by both the Dougherty Valley proponents and by the Eaten! Dublin plaDDiDg
co1lS11ltants. The U.s. Army has iDdic:ated that such an extension through CamP Parks would
be inconsistent with the Army's plan for the base. and therefore would not be permitted.
13-6 Commeat: C'.oordiuatioa with the 610/580 ÀSSOI:iatiDa. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
should include prOvisiODS to req1lÍrè property owners and developers to coordinate with the
680/S80 Corridor Traasponation Association and, if appropriate; to develop remote
œ1ecommute c:e:nters within the Project area. Also, çonsideration might be given to the
development of so-ø11ed "$mart houses" in the study area to facilitate at-home and/or
nei¡hborhood telecommuting. These concepts could be evaluated to detetmÏDe the potential
to reduce peù hour and/or to1ll1 Daily Vehicle Trips.
R_II"" to Commeat ] 3-6: Teieco_uting could help to reduce future ttaf'fic volumes, and
should be included as ODe of the potential components of the Transportation SY$teDlS
ManagemeDt programs ineluded as Mitigation Measure MM 3.3/2.0. Since there isi"....,~1IDte
existiD&. data available to qnantify the potential traffic reductions due to increased
telecolllItlutiDg, the DEIR conservatively assumed 110 redUctiOIl in traffic.
)
13-1 Commellc CoDsisteacv DeEIR with 'Rel!'loDal Trame Models. The F1D3l EIR should point out
the .;...;¡~Tjties and differellC:es of the Draft Em IUd use assumptions and trip d'istribuûOD
model with regional ttaf'fic models developed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority,
the Tri- Valley TraasponatiDII Council, and the A1ameda County Congestion Management
,
. ....1-:zsJISP
111
D/f/B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
561
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
Agency, if avt!.Ìiable.
)
Jl.esDODse to Comment 13-7: The traffic model used in the Draft EIR uses the standard
methodology for traffic forecasting, as do the other tnl.vel demand models c1lI'Tently being
used for Tri- Valley studies.
The Easlern Dublin analysis uses essentially the same ABAG Projections '90 2010 land use
fore=sts for the Tri- Valley area lIS the CUITent studies by the Contnl. Costa Transportation
Authority and the Tn-Valley Tramportation Council The Alameda COW1ty model also uses
ABAG Projections '90, but CllITently uses an evlier disaggregation of !and use data to
individual trafÍlC analysis %Ones. The earlier disaggregation did DOt consider the most recent
development proposals. The Eastern Dublin analysis QWllltif'æs non.,residentiallancluses in
terms of square footage, while. the other Ølodels _ ernployment, so there tIIIIy be SOØle
differences in the repOrted mnployment numbers by jurisdiction because of assumption:; used
in the .conversion betweeneØlployment and.!I( 1I3re footap.
The Eastern Dublin analysis detennines traffic generation by relating vehicle trips directly
to land uses. . The other models use a standard procedure to estitnale the number of person
trips (people coming in and out of each builcling rather than can), and then the persons are
allocated to tnl.vel modes suCh as auto driver, auto passenger, or' traD$ir passenger. The
resulting number of vehicle trips should be the $3JDe using either process.
AU of the ØIOdels use a sWl4ard. trip distribution proCl!$S basecl on data from the MetroPolitan
Tramportation Commission (MTC). The Eastern Dublin analysis assumes trip distribution
based on uncollStraituid travel conditions. The other models BSS1IJIle that future trip
distribution will be baianced based on .congestion; in other words, in the future, peOple may
choose to work and shop closer to home because congestion has increased. This procedure
·may result in a more realistic analysis of future travel patterns, but is somewhat less
conservative siDee it will tend to indicate mare future trips remA;fting internal to each
development. The Eastern DUblin aDalysis also assumes UJÌconstrained growth of traffic
demand over the AItamont Pass to San Joa4Uin County, while the other models assume some
type oh,onstraÎDt On trafílC demand over the Altamont Pass. Again, the procedures for trip
distribution used in the Eastern· Dublin DEIR will tend to provide a Ølore conservative
analysis of future traffic impacts. .
13-8 _ CammeDt: 1M 3.7/B: l.dire., : Imauts of V8I!etatioD Removal. The Draft EIR mitigates for
veBetationremoval and possible erosion by .....mllg for revegetation With native vegetation
(MM 3.7/5.o). TVPOA suUests expansion of this mitigation in the Fmal EIR by reqWring
verification of physical and biologic:al feasibility of planting locations, including topognphy,
aspeCt, soils, hydrologic condition, and potential competition. Also. the native shrubs, herbs,
and grasses should also be loeal to the Tri- Valley and the plant communities of eastern
Dublin.
ResDØDse to CammeDt ]3-8: Comment ackDowledged. 'The fonowin& text has been added
to MM 3.7/5.0, on page 3_7-10:'
All areas øf diswrbœlce should be megetflled as quickly 0$ possible tø prevenJ erosiOll.
Nfllive trees (preferably those speCies alreødy 0/1 site). shrubs. herbs and grasses shuuld
be used forrevegetfllitm of areas to remœn as nfllural open SpflCe. The introduction of
non-nfllive pltmt species should be avoided. Specif'ie ~ ~ of
... _~ :.!led ."', _. ,..;..." __ 1IIÌIl be cIeœnIÜQfId to e~ die tœa tam fl l S1òility .
of the þ& ~ ¡ w;I IlÙtip~ and to ideDtif1 pateD.tia1 c:mdIicts at the ..
Cba&_b...Q,b.-, -.oukt iDc1ude but _ be Idftitood to pomad Ad now hydroloc.
BIR l-:I$JISP
'IS
U/7~
57(1
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix 8.5
Supplemental Air Quality Analysis
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 154
November 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AIR QUALITY IMPACT EVALUATION FOR THE
DUBLIN RANCH WEST DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF DUBLIN
.
. Prepared for:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
2029 University Avenue
Berkeley, CA. 94704
October 2003
INTRODUCTION
Air quality impacts of the project were analyzed in Chapter 3.11 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This
supplement to the ErR examines compliance with applicable significance thresholds, utilizes
updated methods of analysis, and is based on current traffic forecasts that reflect changes in
roadway improvements and travel patterns that have occurred since certification of the Eastern
Dublin ErR. This supplement also examines changes in the regulatory standards since the
previous EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project is within the Livermore-Amador Valley. The Livermore-Amador Valley forms a
small subregional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay AIea Air Basin. The
Livermore-Amador 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 Raroon
Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County.
The terrain of the Livermore-Amador Valley influences both the climate and air pol1ution
potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area has generally
lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared to the greater Bay AIea.
The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions,
severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically. Inversions occur
during all seasons in the Bay AIea, 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 (BAAQMD, 1999). High
temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the val1ey not only traps locally generated
pollutants but also 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. .
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBliN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to construction, mobile source and
stationary source emissions (Impacts 3.1l/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 GP NSP 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 3.1lA, 31lB, 30llC, and 3.1 IE). Upon
?
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Consideration¡; for these significant unavoidable impacts. (Resolution No. 53-93.)
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendment would change land uses and
development intensity from those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The project would
increase daily traffic generation over that assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Since preparation of the Eastern Dublin EIR there have been several regulatory changes and
methods for air quality analysis as well as applicable thresholds of significance have changed.
Pursuant to Guidelines section 15162 and 15163, this supplement assesses whether new or
intensified air quality impacts will result from increased regional traffic and changed regulatory
standards.
Changes to the Regulatory Setting
Ambient Air Quality Standards
The federal and California ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table I for important
pollutants. The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing
purposes and methods, although both federal and state standards are intended to avoid
health-related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In genern1,
the California state standards are more stringent. Tbis is particularly true for ozone and PM1o·
The U.S. Envirorunental Protection Agency established new national air quality standards for
ground-level ozone and tOr fine particulate matter in 1997. The existing I-hour ozone standard of
0.12 PPM microns or less) is to be phased out and replaced by an 8-hour standard of 0.08 PPM.
Implementation of the 8-hour standard was delayed by litigation, but was determined to be valid
and enforceable by the U. S. Supreme Court in a decision issued in February of 2001. However,
the new federal ozone standard is not yet in effect pending final resolution of this litigation and
adoption of implementing regulations.
In 1997 new national standards for fine Particulate Matter (diameter 2.5 microns or less) were
adopted for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. The current PMlO standards were to be
retained, but the method and form for· determining compliance with the standards were to be
revised. Implementation of this standard was delayed by litigation and will not occur until the U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued court-approved guidance.
The State of California regularly reviews scientific literature regarding the health effects and
exposure to PM and other pollutants. On May 3, 2002, the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) staff recommended lowering the level of the annual standard for PM10 and establishing a
new annual standard for PMz.s (particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller). The
new standards became effective on July 5,2003.
..
<1
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 1
Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Federal State
Time Primary Standard
Standard
Ozone I-Hour 0.12 ppm 0.09 ppm
8-Hour 0.08 ppm --
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
I-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.05 ppm --
I-Hour -- 0.25 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 ppm --
24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm
I-Hour - 0.25 ppm
PMIO Annual 50 ug/m3 20 uglm3
24-Hour 150 ueim3 50 uzlm3
PM1.5 Annual 15 uglm3 12 uglm3
24-Hour 65 wm 3 --
Lead 3D-Day Avg. -- 1.5 uglm3
. 3-Month Avg. 1.5 uglm3 --
ppm = parts per million
ug/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are
another group ofpolJutants of concern. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are injurious in sma1l
quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification,
regulation and monitoring ofTACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants.
CUIrent Air Ouali1y
The project is within the nine-county Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) operates a network of air quality monitoring sites in the
region. The closest to the site is located in central Livermore on Old First Street. Table 2 shows
a summary of air quality data for this monitoring site for the period 2000-2002. Data are shown
for ozone, carbon monoxide, PM¡o, and nitrogen dioxide. The number of days exceeding each
standard is shown for each year.
Table 2 shows that concentrations of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide at the Livermore
monitoring site meet state/federal standards. Ozone concentrations exceed both the state and
federal standards, and exhibit wide variations from year-to-year related to meteorological
conditions. Years where the summer months tend to be Walmer than average tend to have higher
average ozone concentrations while years with cooler than average temperatures tend to have
lower average ozone concentrations.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
Table 2
A
ir Qualitv at Livermore Monitorin Site, 2000-2002
Days Standard Exceeded During:
Pollutant Standard
2000 2001 2002
Ozone Federal I-Hour 1 0 2
Ozone State I-Hour 7 9 10
Ozone Federal 8-Hour 2 2 6
PMIO Federal 24-Hour 0 0 0
PMIO State 24-Hour 2 3 0
PM2_5 Federal 24-Hour 0 I 0
Carbon StateIF ederal 0 0 0
Monoxide 8- Hour
Nitrogen State I-Hour 0 0 0
Dioxide
Source: CARB,2003
Levels ofPMIO and PM2.5 at Livermore meet the federal ambient standards but exceed the more
stringent state standards.
Attainment Status
The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), based on air quality monitoring data, designate air basins within the
state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as "non-attainment
areas". Because of the differences between the federal and state standards, the designation of
non-attainment areas is different under the federal and state legislation.
In 1995, after several years of minimal violations of the federal one-hour ozone standard, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) revised the designation of the Bay Area Air Basin from
"non-attainment" to "attairunent" for this standard. However, with less favorable meteorology in
subsequent years, violations of the one-hour ozone standard again were observed in the basin,
particularly at the Livermore monitoring station. Effective August 1998, the EPA downgraded
the Bay Area's classification for this standard from a "maintenance" area to an "unclassified
non-attainment" area. Also in 1998, after many years without violations of any carbon monoxide
(CO) standards, the attainment status for CO was upgraded to "attainment."
<
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently non-attairunent for ozone (state and federal
ambient standards) and PMIO (state ambient standard). However, inA:Þril2004;U.S.EPA:nwle
a final finding that the Bay Area has . attained the national l+hQurozonestandard. l'he'.findìngof
attainmenhloesnot meantlteI~aY.i\xeahasbeen,reclassifie(lasanattainmentarea for the a-hoW'
stan.dard~Ther:egionmustsubmitare-designationrequesttoEPA iri ordertobereclaSsified as an
attainÌnentarea.
TheC~lifomía-AirResoarces:$oàr4:¡;¡nd..tt.Sj·:E:IlVirommmtáÍPrqtec'tion.·Agencyhayé.bbth
pfOposedthatthe Ban Francisco Bay AreabeclasSlfiedasªnonatt!rimiieIltareaforthefedé1'ål8-
hour staridard. TheCalifo'mia AirResourcesl~oariland Dc $. ErivirorimentalProtectio 1Agency
have both proposed that the San Francisco·Bay Area be considered Undassifiablewith'resp~ctto
the.feder. al.. p.... M. 2. ..5.sta1idar.... ...... ...ds.V. ··lÌclaSSl.·.fià.b.le.·.·m........eans....ilia..... tan.... :are.. .a. ..'CanD. O.tbedas.. sified.·:o.. 11th.... ..e..._.·þaSi.:.... .·.s..,o.f. .
availableinf0rmaiiorrasmeetíngor nottj)eeting thenationalpripIaryor$econdaryambientair
quality.standard forthepollutarit. .. VB/EPA planstofimili:zePM20s ··designationsby .Decetnhet
15,2004.
While air quality plans exist for ozone, none exists (or is currently required) for PMIO. The
Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the i-Hour National Ozone Standard
(BAAQMD, 2001) is the current ozone air quality plan required Under the federal Clean Air.
The state-mandated regional air quality plan is the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD,
2000). These plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls and
transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the state and federal
ozone standards within the Bay Area Air Basin.
Significance Thresholds
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:
· A significant impact on l2W air quality is defined as an increase in carbon monoxide
concentrations that causes a violation of the most s1ringent ambient air quality standard
for carbon monoxide (20 ppm for the one-hour averagirig period, 9.0 ppm for the eight-
hour averaging period).
· A significant impact on rellional air quality is defined as an iricrease in emissions of an
ozone precursor or PMIO exceeding the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. The
current significance thresholds are 80 pounds per day (or 15 tons/year) for ozone
precursors or PMJO.
· Arly proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would
also be considered to have a signiñcant cumulative air quality impact.
· Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to
objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. 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 establislunent of both federal and state standards for PM2.5 (particulate matter, 2.5
microns), the BAAQMD has not developed a threshold of significance for this pollutant. For
this analysis, PM2.5 impacts would be considered significant if project emissions of P MID exceed
80 pounds per day.
The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the
appropriateness of construction dust controis. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible
control measures for construction emission of PM 10. If the appropriate construction controls are
to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered
less-than-significant.
Revised Mitillation Recommendations
The document BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines was published subsequent to the publicaton of the
East Dublin ErR. These guidelines provided recommended mitigation practices during
construction based on the size of the project and expanded recommended mitigations for
operational impacts of commercial projects.
Impacts aDd Mitigation Measures
Supplemental Impact AQ 1: Construction activities would hŒVe the potential to cause nuisance
reWed to dust and PMII).
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. Mitigation Measure MM 3.11/1.0 in the East Dublin EIR implements most, but
not all, of the currently recommeded measures.
Supplemental Mitigaton AQ 1: In addition to measures identified in MM 3.11/1.0 of the East
Dublin EIR, the City of Dublin shall:
$ Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other
materials that can be blo\Vt1 by the wind.
$ Require construction contractors to sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all
paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
$ Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control measures to
prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
According the current BAAQMD CEQA guidelines, implementation of these nritigation
measures would reduce construction period air quality impacts to a less-than-signiíicant level.
?
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Supplemental Impact AQ 2: The project would result in a regional emission increase that
would exceed the BAAQMD signifICance thresholdsfor ozone precursors.
Vehicle trips generated by the project would result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire
San Francisco Bay Air Basin. Regional emissions associated with project vehicle use have been
calculated using the URBEMIS-2002 emission model.
The incremental daily emission increase associated with project operational trip generation is
identified in Table 3 for reactive organic gases ând oxides of IÚtrogen (two precursors of ozone)
and PMIO. Also shown is the emission increase under the existing Specific Plan designations.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's thresholds of significance for these pollutants
are also shown. Proposed project emissions shown in Table 3 would exceed these thresholds of
Table 3
P R
IE . .
. p
d P D
rO.lect eElona mlSSlODS In OUD S er ay
. Reactive Nitrogen PMIO
Organic Oxides
Gases
Proj ect 116.9 116.6 89.9
Development under Existing 109.5 102.9 78.9
Specific Plan
BAAQMD ,significance 80.0 80.0 80.0
Threshold
significance for ROG and NO., so the proposed project would have a significant effect on
regional ozone air quality.
Supplemental Mitigaton AQ 2: In addition to measures identified in MM 3.11/5.0-11.0 of the
East Dublin EIR, the City of Dublin shall require that the following be implemented:
·
The project proponent should negotiate with LA VT A for the eventual extension of
transit service to the project site. Construct or reserve land fo transit facilities such as
bus turnoutslbus bulbs, benches, etc
·
Provide bicycle land and/or paths, connected to com.munity-wide network.
·
Provide sidewalks and/or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops, and/or
community-wide network.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Provide neighborhood-serving shops and services within or adjacent to residential project.
Revise land use to provide a mixed of residential and residential-serving land uses.
· Provide shuttle service to regional transit system or multimodal center.
· Provide a satellite telecommute center for project residents.
· Provide intercolU1ected street network, with a regular grid or similar interconnected street
pattern.
Implementation of the mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Mitigation Measures
3.11/5.0-11.0 together with the above measures will not achieve the more than 30% reduction in
project-related emissions that would be needed to reduce emissions below the BAAQMD
thresholds of signficance. Ozone air quality impacts will remain significant and unavoidable.
Supplemental Impact AQ 3: Project-related regional emi6$ioll$ would exceed the BAAQMD
thresholds of signifICance for ozone precursors, resulting in a signifICant cumulative impact
According to BAAQ:MD significance criteria, any proposed project that would individually have
a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air
quality impact. Since the proposed project, after mitigation, would exceed the BAAQMD
thresholds of significance for Reactive Organic Gases and Nitrogen Oxides, the project would
have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure AQ 3: Same as Supplemental Mitigation AQ-2.
Supplemental Impact A Q 4: The project would change traffic volumes and congestion levels,
changing carbon monoxide concentratioll$. Thit it a less-than-significant impact.
On the local scale, the project would change traffic on the local street network, "hHT1ging 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. New vehicle trips add to carbon monoxide
concentrations near streets providing access to the site.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District=s BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommends
estimation of carbon monoxide concentrations for projects where project traffic would impact
intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service D, E, or F or would cause Level of
Service to decline to D, E, or F.
The analysis of intersection Level of Service (LOS) prepared for the project fOlUld that, of the 19
existing intersections studied, none would operate at LOS D or worse after addition of project
traffic in either the AM or PM peak traffic hour. Therefore, the BAAQMD threshold trigger
level for estimating carbon monoxide modeling of concentrations would not be exceeded.
Q
In
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Considering that the proposed project is Î11 an attainment area for carbon monoxide (the state and
federal ambient standards are met) and that DublÎ11 has relatively low background levels of carbon
monoxide compared to other parts of the Bay Area and that Levels of Service at intersections
affected by project traffic would remaÎ11 relatively good, the conclusion of the East DublÎ11 EIR
that the project would have a less-than-significant impact on local carbon monoxide
concentrations is confirmed.
Carbon monoxide impact of development under the existing Specific Plan would be somewhat
less than that of the proposed project. Carbon monoxide impacts are roughly proportional to
velùc1e trips. Development of the site under existing Specific Plan designations would generate
about 92% of the daily trips of the current proposal. The impact of development under the
existÎ11g Specific Plan designations on carbon monoxide concentrations would be less-than-
significant.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1\
I
I
I
I
I
References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area CEOA Guidelines, 1999.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan and Triennial
Assessment. December 20, 2000.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Reyised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment
Plan for the I-Hour National Ozone Standard, October 24,2001.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM),
2003.
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Appendix 8.6
Supplemental Traffic Analysis
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page' 55
City of DUblin November 2004