HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 SB343 Dublin Crossings GP 11-5-13
SB 343
Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been
received by the City Clerk's office that relate to an agenda item after
the agenda packets have been distributed to the City Council be
available to the public.
The attached documents were received in the City Clerk's office after
distribution of the November 5, 2013 City Council meeting agenda
packet.
Item 6.1
E--,xti.tb►-i- A t ev ATri-
Exhibit—"A"
United States of America Property
Land Description of a parcel of land situate in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of
California, and being a portion of the lands described in the Final Judgment on the Declaration of
Taking, Amendment to Declaration of Taking, and Second Amendment to Declaration of Taking
entitled United States of America v. 3396 acres of land, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties,
California, Ada Clement, et al., filed on July 21, 1947 in the District Court of the United States in
and for the Northern District of California Southern Division, and recorded in Book 5132, at Page
1 of Official Records of Alameda County, same parcel being a portion of that 180.126 acre Parcel
shown on that certain map entitled Record of Survey No. 2031, filed on May 8, 2006 in Book 31
at Page 28 of Maps, Official Records of said County and being more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at the northeast corner of Parcel E as shown on Parcel Map 7395 filed on October
31, 2000 in Book 254 of Maps at Page 28, Official Records of said County, said point also being
on the easterly line of said 180.126 acre Parcel; Thence along the boundary of the 180.126 acre
Parcel and the northerly line of the subdivision shown on said Parcel Map 7395 for the following
three (3) courses: (1) South 52° 40' 40" West - 871.43 feet to the beginning of a curve to the
right, (2) in a southwesterly direction, 1281.68 feet along the arc of said curve to the right, having
a radius of 1905.00 feet, and through a central angle of 38° 32' 55", and (3) North 88° 46' 31"
West - 1214.28 feet to the most southwesterly corner of the 180.126 acre Parcel; Thence
continuing along the boundary of the 180.126 acre Parcel for the following nine (9) courses: (1)
North 46° 28' 46" West- 1113.05 feet, (2) North 43° 31' 14" East- 100.00 feet, (3) North 46° 28'
G:\job2008\081076\Survey\Documents\Descriptions\DA_USA.docx
46" West - 1123.43 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right, (4) in a northwesterly direction,
308.06 feet along the arc of said curve to the right, having a radius of 11309.19 feet, and through
a central angle of 01° 33' 39, (5) North 01° 13' 09" East- 105.60 feet, (6) South 88° 24' 09" East
-3107.51 feet, (7) North 38°42' 03" East-720.96 feet, (8) South 88° 24' 09" East- 1353.13 feet,
(9) South 01° 23' 35" West - 1480.06 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Excepting therefrom that parcel of land shown as NASA on said Record of Survey No. 2031,
more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of that parcel of land shown as NASA; Thence South 88° 26'
23" East- 1245.99 feet; Thence South 01° 35' 20" West - 315.58 feet; Thence South 42° 12' 34"
West- 47.81 feet; Thence North 88° 24' 15"West - 823.94 feet; Thence North 46° 28' 46"West -
525.48 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 171.7 acres of land area, more or less.
End of Description
G:\j ob2008\08l 076\Survey\Documents\Descriptions\DA_USA.docx
Line Table _
Line Bearing Distance
L i N46�8'46"W 1113.05'
L2 N43°31'14"E 100.00'
L3 N46 X8'46"W 1123.43'
L4 N01%3'09"E 105.60' —N —
L5 N88 24'09'W 3107.51'
L6 N38°42 03 E 720.96'
L7 N88�44'09'W 1353.13'
L8 NOi X3'35"E 1480.06'
L9 N52°40'40"E 871.43'
L10 N88°46'31"W 1214.28'
L11 N46�8'46'W 525.48' 0 800 1600
L 12 N88 26'23'W 1245.99'
L 13 N01°35'20"E 315.58'
L14 N42%2'34"E 47.81' ( IN FEET )
L15 N88°24'15'W 823.94' 1 inch = 800 ft.
e=/y �'r
Q Curve Table _
'` Curve Radius Delta Length L7
Ci 11309.19' 1°33'39" 308.06, .fib a i.
C2 1905.00' 38°32'55" 1281.68' �cm
1 € t a u z b } t i41
a 3 s h' —� I 17 s ° ,
c� f , : .RE 'OR.� OP sS RVEY 20731
i E e
31 RO 2f ,gypp i g sf, r
, :1-:':',..-'..!, L12 k ] ,� i s i b v 1:5 Y 3 .l
\�� E UNITED 7AYES OP AMERICA ` I
NASA *� 11�rI ��p�
,E E v7 f 33 b � ' k q �iEI11/NYL
3 rs �,,� d t F .� �x t .. P IIf�1
�`� 15 L i4 17t 7±l ACRE = 1
' k7 ri P.O.B.
.� + H , -# ,.. COUNTY
e PM 7395
2 ARD
L10 ' C2
BOULEVARD
a 1 l0e10764 APPNVVIA rslau°M°
EXHIBIT A �y .
FIAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1� X11
FOR RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYOR S
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PROPERTY 4690 C PHONE: DRIVE, SUITE 200 PLEASANT 27 CA 94588
PHONE: (925) 227-9100 FAX: (925) 227 9300
SCALE: DATE: JOB NO.:
CITY OF DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1"=800' I 10-31-2013 081076
Exhibit—"A" tD'
NASA Property
Land Description of a parcel of land situate in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of
California, and being a portion of the lands described in the Final Judgment on the Declaration of
Taking, Amendment to Declaration of Taking, and Second Amendment to Declaration of Taking
entitled United States of America v. 3396 acres of land, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties,
California, Ada Clement, et al., filed on July 21, 1947 in the District Court of the United States in
and for the Northern District of California Southern Division, and recorded in Book 5132, at Page
1 of Official Records of Alameda County, same parcel being all of that parcel of land shown as
NASA on that certain map entitled Record of Survey No. 2031, filed on May 8, 2006 in Book 31
at Page 28 of Maps, Official Records of said County and being more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of that parcel of land shown as NASA; Thence along the
boundary of said land South 88° 26' 23" East - 1245.99 feet to the northeast corner of said land;
Thence South 01° 35' 20" West- 315.58 feet to the more northerly southeast corner of said land;
Thence South 42° 12' 34" West- 47.81 feet to the more southerly southeast corner of said land;
Thence North 88° 24' 15" West- 823.94 feet to the southwest corner of said land; Thence North
46° 28' 46" West - 525.48 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 8.5 acres of land area, more or less.
End of Description
G:\j ob2008\081076\Survey\Documents\Descriptions\DA_N ASA.docx
, if(
LEGEND
P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING
-N -
0 200 400
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 200 ft.
U/VIT'ED STA TES Of AMERICA
5 133 OR 1
S�c�. S88 T6'23"E 1245.99'
'9,p �r,� ' 1 ' ,, .f.''' ', I RECORD OF SL/RV, Y 203'' h,.:_�� 3,fiir.'. ;I (::c...,,,,,,,,
�ry :,;',..;i:::_,;"..::: 8 5 e1 Y R0L # y 1 % 'j ' I
gyp , 8, 4E r
�'A I '
� o
� F
._ ,'
`s � � � d Nfg�°24`��"`"W 1 823.94' , r.
N43°31'14"E "-
100.00'
S42°12'34"W
47.81
UIVITE'D S7A TES OF AMER/CA
4,3,6' 5133 OR 1
,r6,.
!J'
.°s-
EXHIBITB a1.�+\�aM wA,S�x.°�
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR
FOR ENGINEERS • PLANNERS ■ SURVEYORS
NASA PROPERTY
4690 PHONE:CHABOT ORIVG, SUITE 200 PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 227-9100 FAX: (925) 227-9300
SCALE: DATE: JOB NO.:
CITY OF DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1"=200'
, 10-31-2013 081076
E x.LL ±C.. -(-o t)e.v -
Exhibit—"A"
Alameda County Property
Land Description of a parcel of land situate in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of
California, and being all of Parcel"C" and Parcel 3 as shown on Parcel Map 7395 filed on October
31, 2000 in Book 254 of Maps at Page 28, Official Records of said County and being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the most southwesterly corner of Parcel "C" as shown on the attached plat; Thence
along the boundary of said Parcel "C" the following three (3)courses: (1) North 20° 35' 11" West
- 21.65 feet, to the beginning of a curve to the left, from which point the center bears North 20°
35' 11" West, (2) in a northeasterly direction, 556.44 feet along the arc of said curve to the left,
having a radius of 1905.00 feet, and through a central angle of 16° 44' 09", and (3) North 52° 40'
40" East-848.36 feet to the most northerly corner of Parcel "C"; Thence along the easterly lines
of Parcel "C" and Parcel 3 South 01° 23' 35" West- 762.26 feet to the most southeasterly corner
of Parcel 3;Thence South 46° 33'45" West-7.28 feet;Thence along the southerly lines of Parcel
3 and Parcel"C"for the following two (2) courses: (1) North 88° 16' 05" West- 590.44 feet to the
beginning of a curve to the left, and (2) in a southwesterly direction, 542.42 feet along the arc of
said curve to the left, having a radius of 2087.00 feet, and through a central angle of 14° 53' 29"
to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 8.7 acres of land area, more or less.
End of Description
G:\job2008\081076\Survey\Documents\Descriptions\DA_County.docx
LEGEND
1 P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING
—N — (T) TOTAL
Sv
0 200 400 Z
4 Q 7 -
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 200 ft. q'ZIN
Q 0".
A , 'c1 9; 0
��2 Og o ,,� , ;t Q
�A o .,� CN
T4 ,,trrf,,,; tf-:,11:-,:c,r:ItA-4,A;r:I�3 °
�� �. : 3
ft 1.-A.tivi.474,-Ak,•:-,,ef 1,-, rftrillit h',0'.$2:-f:'',,i,'4'44 4 V filip.:7 ii a.,. ..:f :'f,,:,t;',,v:4,:ti:;:" ".N
ni(1 Aritrt, J7-`7::17.4.1*, eit,i42;eAl'i if4,i,;,?..'%-,':,410`'At. tr)
aat EP N 11113,fil, 'it:41 r 14.ge-441:1 i,Vd itt 77-l',77-;°Ilif..0:7 ;;?1.11.1,,,,,„y
2
$°3_,a5"
55 F a 4,f,,te:Wail Cji."-`4/4:"..1 1 „V`I;01° 41'e'..ILLI.eee';,04.1i:tif,:t.Eteklave'4i;„I°, ;.„-a,v:,,,,.1`-'fi d;r1°;74.
R,....1 905.0u 2087.00, 42.42 14329 N88%6'05'W 590.44'
R— 5 DUBLIN BOULEVARD
N20035'65W(R) P.O.B. S46°33'45'W
21 N1309'34'W(R) Z28'
EXHIBITC . : 6 c.,,rmo�a:,anmsuuP.6wu>=wAEu,arN+n. w
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION I 1
FOR RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR
ALAMEDA COUNTY ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
4690 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 200 PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE: (925) 2 7_9100 FAX: (925) 227-9300
SURPLUS AUTHORITY PROPERTY SCALE: DATE: JOB NO.:
CITY OF DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1"=200' ' 10-31-2013 I 081076
'x.1416,4.
(Q • J
Exhibit I
Transportation Improvements and Triggers
The following additional conditions are hereby imposed pursuant to Paragraph 10.3 of
the Agreement.
Infrastructure Sequencing Program
1. Internal Subdivision Improvements
Right-of-way dedication and construction of public improvements internal to the Project
shall be completed in accordance with the Phasing Plan identified in the Dublin
Crossings Specific Plan and the requirements of section 10.4 of this Agreement and
shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. The City Engineer
shall identify all improvements necessary to serve and access the lots created with each
subdivision map. All rights-of-way and improvements, including new traffic signals,
identified by the City Engineer for construction within the boundaries of each phase of
the development shall be required with the subdivision map for that phase.
2. External Subdivision Improvements
Right-of-way dedication and construction of public improvements external to the Project
shall be done in accordance with the phases described below and the Dublin Crossings
Specific Plan. The following table identifies the external improvements and the phase in
which said improvements are to be constructed. More detailed information of each
external improvement is provided in the subsections following the table.
Improvement Subsection Construction EIR EIR Fair Transportation
During Mitigation Share Fee Credit
Phase (Yes/No) Contribution Eligible
(Yes/No) (Yes/No)
Arnold Road a. 3 No No Yes
Widening
Arnold Road b. 3 No No Yes
& Central
Parkway
Signal
Modifications
Arnold Road c. 4 No No No
& G Street
Signal
Dublin Crossing Development Agreement 1 Exhibit I
Dougherty d. 1 Yes Yes Yes
Road & (MM 3.12-1)
Amador
Valley
Boulevard
Intersection
Dublin e. 3 No No No
Boulevard
Auxiliary Lane
Dublin f. 3 No No Yes
Boulevard &
Arnold Road
Intersection
I Dublin g. 31 No No No
Boulevard &
Demarcus
Boulevard
Intersection
I Dublin h. 42 Yes Yes Yes
Boulevard & (MM 3.12-4)
Iron Horse
Parkway
Intersection
Dublin i. 5 Yes Yes Yes
Boulevard & (MM 3.12-5)
Hacienda
Drive
Intersection
--- ---------------Dublin j. 5 Yes Yes Yes
Boulevard & (MM 3.12-6)
Tassajara
Road
Intersection
Scarlett Drive k. 2 or Year No No Yes
Extension/ 2020,
Widening whichever
between comes first
Dougherty Rd
& southerly
boundary of
Phase 2 park
parcel
Dublin Crossing Development Agreement 2 Exhibit I
Scarlett Drive k. 3 No No Yes
Extension
between
southerly
boundary of
Phase 2 park
parcel and
Dublin Blvd
a. Arnold Road Widening
(i) Overview - The Developer agrees not to oppose conditions on tentative maps
that require it, in conjunction with Phase 3, to (a) widen Arnold Road to four lanes
between Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard and (b) dedicate land associated with
the improvements. Widening includes the realignment of the existing Arnold Road
drainage canal north of Central Parkway.
(ii) Timing - Developer shall complete construction of or shall agree to and provide
bonds guaranteeing construction of the Arnold Road Widening in accordance with the
approved final design before the first subdivision map is recorded for Phase 3.
(iii) Transportation Fee Credits — The Developer shall be eligible for Transportation Fee
Credits for Arnold Road Widening.
b. Arnold Road & Central Parkway Signal Modifications
(i) Overview - The Developer agrees not to oppose conditions on tentative maps
that require it, in conjunction with Phase 3, to (a) modify the existing signal, construct a
northbound left turn lane on Arnold Road, and construct pedestrian, streetscape, and
bicycle access improvements at the Arnold Road and Central Parkway intersection and
(b) dedicate land in conjunction with those improvements. Bicycle and Pedestrian
improvements shall include specific improvements to ensure safe and appropriate
connection between Class I and Class II bikeways in the vicinity of the intersection.
(ii) Timing - Developer shall complete construction of or shall agree to and provide
bonds guaranteeing construction of the Arnold Road & Central Parkway Signal
modifications in accordance with the approved final design before the first subdivision
map is recorded for Phase 3.
(v) Transportation Fee Credits — The Developer shall be eligible for Transportation Fee
Credits for the portions of the Arnold Road & Central Parkway Signal modifications that
are included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee.
c. Arnold Road & G Street Signal
Dublin Crossing Development Agreement 3 Exhibit I
(i) Overview - The Developer agrees not to oppose conditions on tentative maps
that require it, in conjunction with Phase 4, to (a) install a traffic signal, construct a
southbound right turn lane on Arnold Road, construct a northbound left turn lane on
Arnold Road, and construct pedestrian, streetscape, and bicycle access improvements
at the Arnold Road and G Street intersection and (b) dedicate land in conjunction with
those improvements. The improvements shall include specific pedestrian and bicycle
improvements to ensure safe and appropriate connection between Class I and Class II
bikeways in the vicinity of the intersection.
(ii) Timing - Developer shall complete construction of or shall agree to and provide
bonds guaranteeing construction of the Arnold Road & G Street Signal in accordance
with the approved final design before the first subdivision map is recorded for Phase 4.
(iii) Transportation Fee Credits — The Developer shall not be eligible for Transportation
Fee Credits for Arnold Road and G Street Traffic Signal.
d. Dougherty Road & Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection
(i) Overview - The Developer agrees not to oppose conditions on tentative maps
that require it, in conjunction with Phase 1, to (a) either (1) install a second north bound
left turn lane on Dougherty Road at the Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard
Intersection or (2) pay its fair share thereof.
(ii) Timing - Developer shall make the fair share contribution to, complete
construction of, or shall agree to and provide bonds guaranteeing construction of the
required improvements at the Dougherty & Amador Valley Intersection in accordance
with the approved final design before the first subdivision map is recorded for Phase 1.
(iii) Transportation Fee Credits — The Developer shall be eligible for Transportation
Fee Credits for land acquisition and construction of the additional northbound left turn
lane at the Dougherty Road & Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection in excess of its fair
share obligation.
e. Dublin Boulevard Auxiliary Lane
(i) Overview - The Developer agrees not to oppose conditions on tentative maps
I that require it, in conjunction with Phase 1-3, to (a) construct a westbound right turn and
auxiliary lane on the Dublin Boulevard frontage of the Project and (b) dedicate land in
conjunction with those improvements.
(ii) Timing - Developer shall complete construction of or shall agree to and provide
bonds guaranteeing construction of the Dublin Boulevard Auxiliary Lane in accordance
with the approved final design before the first subdivision map is recorded for Phase 3.
(iii) Transportation Fee Credits — The Developer shall not be eligible for Transportation
Fee Credits for the Dublin Boulevard Auxiliary Lane.
Dublin Crossing Development Agreement 4 Exhibit I
f. Dublin Boulevard & Arnold Road Intersection
(i) Overview - The Developer agrees not to oppose conditions on tentative maps
that require it, in conjunction with Phase 3, to (a) construct intersection improvements at
the Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road intersection and (b) dedicate land in conjunction
with those improvements.
(ii) Timing - Developer shall complete construction of or shall agree to and provide
bonds guaranteeing construction of the Dublin Boulevard & Arnold Road Intersection
improvements in accordance with the approved final design before the first subdivision
map is recorded for Phase 3.
(iii) Transportation Fee Credits — The Developer shall be eligible for Transportation Fee
Credits for the Dublin Boulevard &Arnold Road Intersection improvements.
g. Dublin Boulevard & Demarcus Boulevard Intersection
(i) Overview - The Developer agrees not to oppose conditions on tentative maps
I that require it, in conjunction with Phase 31, to (a) to construct pedestrian, and
streetscape improvements at the Dublin Boulevard and Demarcus Boulevard
intersection and modify signal to accommodate 4th leg (B Street) at this intersection as
specified in the Specific Plan and the EIR and (b) dedicate land in conjunction with
those improvements. The improvements shall include specific bicycle and pedestrian
improvements to ensure safe and appropriate connection between Class I and Class II
bikeways in the vicinity of the intersection.
(ii) Timing - Developer shall complete construction of or shall agree to and provide
bonds guaranteeing construction of the Dublin Boulevard & Demarcus Boulevard
Intersection improvements in accordance with the approved final design before the first
subdivision map is recorded for Phase 31.
(iii) Transportation Fee Credits — The Developer shall not be eligible for Transportation
Fee Credits for Dublin Boulevard & Demarcus Boulevard Intersection improvements.
h. Dublin Boulevard & Iron Horse Parkway Intersection
(i) Overview - The Developer agrees not to oppose conditions on tentative maps
I that require it, in conjunction with Phase 42, to mitigate the impact at the intersection of
Iron Horse Parkway and Dublin Boulevard as specified in the EIR. The mitigation would
require the removal of parking on the east side of Iron Horse Parkway, traffic signal
modifications, and changing the travel lane configuration and alignment to create: one
16-foot wide southbound receiving lane on Iron Horse Parkway; two 10-foot wide
northbound left turn lanes on Iron Horse Parkway; and one 14-foot wide northbound
shared through-right turn lane. Other improvements include modifying the existing
traffic signal to add D Street to the intersection and constructing a westbound right turn
Dublin Crossing Development Agreement 5 Exhibit I
lane on Dublin Boulevard at the Dublin Boulevard, Iron Horse Parkway/D Street
intersection.
(ii) Timing - Developer shall complete construction of or shall agree to and provide
bonds guaranteeing construction of the Dublin Boulevard & Iron Horse Parkway
Intersection improvements in accordance with the approved final design before the first
I subdivision map is recorded for Phase 42.
(iii) Transportation Fee Credits — The Developer shall be eligible for Transportation Fee
Credits for improvements along the south leg of Iron Horse Parkway as per the EIR
mitigation. All other required improvements at the Dublin Boulevard and Iron Horse
Parkway/D Street intersection will not be eligible for such credits.
i. Dublin Boulevard & Hacienda Drive Intersection Improvements
(i) Overview - The Developer agrees not to oppose conditions on tentative maps
that require it, in conjunction with Phase 5, to modify and restripe the Dublin Boulevard
and Hacienda Drive intersection as specified in the EIR.
(ii) Timing - Developer shall complete construction of or shall agree to and provide
bonds guaranteeing construction of the Dublin Boulevard & Hacienda Drive Intersection
improvements in accordance with the approved final design before the first subdivision
map is recorded for Phase 5.
(iii) Transportation Fee Credits — The Developer shall be eligible for Transportation Fee
Credits for the Dublin Boulevard & Hacienda Drive Intersection improvements.
j. Dublin Boulevard & Tassajara Road Intersection Improvements
(i) Overview - The Developer agrees not to oppose conditions on tentative maps
that require it, in conjunction with Phase 5, to construct, or pay its fair share of, a new
eastbound through and receiving lane on Dublin Boulevard at the Dublin Boulevard and
Tassajara Road Intersection.
(ii) Timing - Developer shall complete construction of or shall agree to and provide
bonds guaranteeing construction of the Dublin Boulevard & Tassajara Road Intersection
in accordance with the approved final design before the first subdivision map is
recorded for Phase 5.
(iii) Transportation Fee Credits — The Developer shall be eligible for Transportation Fee
Credits for the Dublin Boulevard & Tassajara Road Intersection improvements.
k. Scarlett Drive Improvements
(i) Overview — The Developer agrees not to oppose conditions on tentative maps
that require it, in conjunction with Phase 2 or prior to the Year 2020, whichever occurs
Dublin Crossing Development Agreement 6 Exhibit I
first, to : widen and extend Scarlett Drive and realign the existing Iron Horse Trail
between Dougherty Road and the southerly boundary of the Phase 2 park parcel as
shown in Figure 2-4 of the Specific Plan; signalize the G Street and Scarlett Drive
intersection and/or the Houston Place and Scarlett Drive intersection as per Section
9.6.; and construct Pedestrian/Streetscape/Bicycle access improvements to Scarlett
Drive and G Street intersection and the Scarlett Drive and Houston Place intersection.
The Developer further agrees not to oppose conditions on tentative maps that require
it, in conjunction with Phase 3, to : extend Scarlett Drive and realign the existing Iron
Horse Trail between the southerly boundary of the Phase 2 park parcel as shown in
Figure 2-4 of the Specific Plan and Dublin Boulevard.
(ii) Right-of-Way — The Developer agrees not to oppose conditions on tentative
maps that require it, in conjunction with Phase 2 or Phase 3 as outlined above in
subsection (i), to offer for dedication the right-of-way necessary to construct those
portions of the Scarlett Drive Improvements identified above. If any right-of-way, access
rights and other consents and approvals from other property owners is necessary to
complete and dedicate those portions of the Scarlett Drive Improvements outside of the
Project site limits ("Necessary Rights of Way"), the Parties agree to comply with
Government Code section 66462.5. The Parties further agree that the agreement
contemplated by Government Code section 66462.5 will require Developer to use
diligent commercially reasonable efforts to obtain, at its cost, any Necessary Rights of
Way and, if those efforts are unsuccessful, require the Developer to pay all of the City's
costs of acquiring the Necessary Rights of Way, including, but not limited to, the costs
of appraisals and attorneys' fees.
(iii) Timing - Developer shall complete construction of or shall agree to and provide
bonds guaranteeing construction of the Scarlett Drive Improvements in accordance with
the approved final design before the first subdivision map is recorded for Phase 2 or
Phase 3, as outlined above in subsection (i).
(iv) Transportation Fee Credits - The Developer shall be eligible for Transportation Fee
Credits for the Scarlett Drive Improvements, except for improvements associated with
signalization of G Street and Scarlett Drive intersection and/or the Houston Place and
Scarlett Drive intersection as per Section 9.6 of this Agreement. 2186843.1
Dublin Crossing Development Agreement 7 Exhibit I
`��tip SC/yD.
DUBLIN
DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
DUBLIN9
Stephen Hanke,Ed.D.,Superintendent • 7471 LARKDALE AVENUE•DUBLIN,CA 94568 •
All Dublin Students will (925)828-2551 • www.dublinusd.org
Become Lifelong Learners
November 1, 2013
Kristi Bascom
City of Dublin, Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Re: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR (State Clearing House Number 2012062009)
Dear Ms. Bascom:
The Dublin Unified School District previously submitted comments and questions to the City of
Dublin in a letter dated August 7, 2013 on the above reference project. Responses were
provided in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Final EIR dated October 2013. Acknowledging
the public review period for the Draft EIR ended August 8, 2013, with this letter the District
respectfully submits additional comments in response to both the Dublin Crossing Specific
Plan Draft EIR and the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Final EIR, for review and notation by the
City of Dublin. The comments are as follows.
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR
• Page 3-187, Schools Section, first paragraph. Though not noted in the District's
comment letter of August 7, 2013, the beginning of the second sentence should be
revised from "The DUSD includes five elementary schools, one K-8 school, one middle
school..."to "The DUSD includes six elementary schools, two middle schools...".
• Page 3-187, Schools Section, first paragraph. The fourth sentence should be revised
from "optimum capacity" to "capacity".
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Final EIR
• As noted in the District's comment 8-12, third sentence, regarding Page 3-199 Table
3.11.3, "Enrollment information should be updated with current numbers". The
enrollment information shown on Table 3.11.3 should be revised to reflect the 2012-13
enrollment data in place of the 2011-12 information. On Page 16 of the Final EIR, the
City's response to Comment 8-12 —Clarification to Table 3.11-3, reads, "The City has
confirmed with DUSD that the existing data in the table is the most current data
available". Enrollment information for the District becomes available each year in
October. The figures on Table 3.11.3 should be updated to reflect the appropriate
2012-13 enrollment information, as follows.
o Frederiksen — 637
o Wells - 722
o Dublin High— 1,745
Thank you again for giving the District the opportunity to submit the additional comments
noted above. We look forward to working with you on this project.
Sincerely,
galeY6,441aeidee-1
Patty Benavidez
Facilities Planner
Cc: Beverly Heironimus, CPA—Assistant Superintendent Business Services
Kim McNeely, Senior Director of Facilities
page 2
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH&DELVAC LLP
LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS o LITIGATION o MUNICIPAL ADVOCACY
AMY E.FREILICH 11611 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD,SUITE 900 Tel: (310)209-8800
DIRECT DIAL: (310)254-2260 LOS ANGELES,CA 90049 Fax: (310)209-8801
E-MAIL: Amy@4GD-LandUse.com WEB: www.AGD-LandUse.com
November 5, 2013
VIA E-MAIL and U.S. MAIL
The Honorable City Council
The City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Caroline Soto, city.clerk @dublin.ca.gov
Re: Dublin Crossing Project File#400-20/420-30/450-30/600-60,
Environmental Impact Report(SCH#2012062009) ("EIR"),
General Plan Amendment,Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,
Rezoning and Development Agreement("Development Agreement")
Honorable City Council Members:
This firm represents the applicant,Dublin Crossing Ventures LLC ("DCV"),with regard to the
Dublin Crossing Project(the"Project") and the related entitlement approvals referenced above.
The Project before the City Council is a product of a City process that worked. The Project, and
the Specific Plan that is proposed to regulate it, reflect input, revisions, and reductions from
nearly 10 years of community outreach and meetings between the City,the community and the
U.S. Army and over 5 years of discussion between those parties and DCV. As a result of these
discussions, numerous public benefits and additional measures have been incorporated into the
Project including:
• Creating over$500 million in construction jobs;
• Providing approximately 35 acres of parkland(Community Park and Neighborhood
Park),which is in excess of City Park Master Plan requirements;
• Providing$15 million to design and construct parks,which is in excess of Park
Master Plan requirements; and
• Providing a Community Benefit Payment of$18.7 million which can be spent at the
City Council's discretion to meet the needs of the City.
See Attachment 1 for a more complete list of the public benefits provided by the Project.
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH&DELVAC LLP
The City Council
The City of Dublin
November 5, 2013
Page 2
As evidence of the communities' overall comfort with the Project, only three neighbors of the
Project raised concerns at the October 22, 2013 Planning Commission hearing—each addressing
the same focused concern about loss of existing street parking spaces. It was quickly determined
by City staff that those parking spaces would not in fact be removed, allaying these concerns.
This letter responds to two letters delivered to the City Planning Commission following the close
of the response to comments period for the EIR: (a) a submission from Scott Littlehale, a
research analyst for Carpenters Local Union 713 ("Local 713"), delivered immediately prior to
the Planning Commission hearing on October 22, 2013 and (b) a submission from the Alameda
Creek Alliance ("ACA") dated October 21, 2013. This letter also supplements the City's
responses to a few issues contained in a letter from the California Clean Energy Committee
("CCEC")through its counsel, Eugene Wilson, dated August 2, 2013, and a comment letter
submitted by the Alameda County Community Development Agency("ACCDA") dated August
8, 2013.
As detailed below,the arguments of these commenters are without merit; there is substantial
evidence in the record to support a determination by the City Council to approve the Project and
the entitlements.
A. The City is Not Required to Respond to Late Comments.
Neither Local 713 nor ACA submitted written comments on the Draft EIR. Despite the
availability of the Draft EIR for public comment and neither Mr. Littlehale, on behalf of Local
713, nor ACA filed any comments until the day of and the day before the City Planning
Commission hearing, respectively. ACA also requested that the City extend the public comment
period. This request was denied by the City,which cited the ongoing 11 years of discussion with
respect to redevelopment of portions of Camp Parks and five years of ongoing discussion with
DCV regarding the Dublin Crossing Project. In its response,the City noted that since 2011,the
Project has been brought forward to the City Council for direction at five different public
meetings and that the City fully complied with all the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") requirements associated with preparation, distribution and notice of the EIR,
including issuance of a Notice of Preparation in May 2012, conduct of a publicly-noticed CEQA
Scoping Meeting on June 20, 2012 and the issuance of a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR
through publication,website posting and by mail to OPR, state agencies and all interested parties
who had requested notice. Although CEQA expressly states that a lead agency is not required to
respond to late letters, substantive responses are provided below. 1
1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a), 15207.
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH&DELVAC LLP
The City Council
The City of Dublin
November 5, 2013
Page 3
B. Response to Local 713.
1. CEQA Does Not Require Review of Economic or Social Changes.
Mr. Littlehale seeks to create a new economic category of analysis not required by CEQA
and then wrongly asserts that there is no substantial evidence in the record to address the concern
he raises. Mr. Littlehale's allegation that the cost of housing and wages earned at a job site must
be analyzed in an EIR is unfounded. Similarly,whether non-union workers qualify for
affordable housing is also beyond the purview of an EIR. Mr. Littlehale's assertion that the
Development Agreement is silent on the question of employment of highly trained workers at
family-sustaining levels of wages and benefits is also beside the point. CEQA does not require
an analysis of pure economic impacts and a City is not required to address jobs or wages in a
development agreement.2 Therefore, no analysis of this issue in the EIR or in the Development
Agreement is required.
2. The EIR Fully Addresses Jobs/Housing Balance and Determines that the Project
is Consistent with Regional Requirements.
Mr. Littlehale seeks to link his allegations related to Project construction wages and
affordable housing with a jobs-housing imbalance. However,this assertion fails. Jobs/housing
balance is appropriately measured on a regional scale and not on a project by project basis, as
demonstrated by the thresholds developed by Bay Area Air Quality Management District
("BAAQMD") and adopted by the City in the EIR. Based on these criteria,the EIR concluded
that the Project is consistent with population growth assumptions in the 2010 Bay Area Clean
Air Plan, is anticipated to result in reduced VMT compared to population growth, and is
consistent with several of the Clean Air Plan's Control Measures.
Specifically,the EIR fully analyzes the Project's impacts on housing and vehicle miles
travelled("VMT") in accordance with the recommendations of BAAQMD. Under that analysis,
consistency between a project's projected population growth and VMT is determined in
relationship to the projections in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. BAAQMD requires that
specific plans include the latest air quality plan control measures and do not increase vehicle
travel at a greater rate than population growth. If a project's VMT does not exceed the project's
population increase,the project is considered to be consistent with population projections and the
local air quality plan. Here,the EIR analyzed the Project-related contribution to countywide
population and VMT projections, as citywide VMT is not available. As shown in Table 3.2-9 of
2"Economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment." CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064(d). See also,Government Code Section 65865.3 designating matters required to be addressed in a
development agreement("Development Agreement Statute").
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH&DELVAC LLP
The City Council
The City of Dublin
November 5, 2013
Page 4
the Draft EIR: Population and Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary,the VMT increase as a result of
the Project would not exceed the population increase that would occur as a result of the Project.
Based on these criteria,the EIR properly concluded that development of the proposed Project
would have a less than significant impact with respect to population and VMT.
Mr. Littlehale's arguments rely solely on conjecture and speculation and do not provide
substantial evidence.3 He attempts to extrapolate from 2007 data the ability of vertical
construction workers to live in the East Bay and the effect of that on VMT but offers only his
opinion and disagreement with the City's EIR analysis as the basis of his challenge. Mere
disagreement and differing opinion do not create a significant impact.
3. The Project Fully Complies with the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations and
Provides Over 50% of its Housing At Costs Affordable to Moderate Income
Households in Dublin.
Mr. Littlehale wrongly asserts that the Development Agreement for the Project will
reduce affordable housing by reducing the availability of funds. In fact,the Project fully satisfies
the requirements of the City's Inclusionary Zoning ("Regulations"),providing many more units
than would be provided pursuant to the in-lieu payment that Mr. Littlehale describes. The City is
fully within its authority, under both the City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and the
Development Agreement Statute,to accept the alternative method of compliance set forth in the
Development Agreement.
As discussed in the Development Agreement,more than half of the acres designated for
residential development are zoned with a minimum of 14 units to the acre. Therefore,the Project
has the ability to generate as many as 940 units that will meet the income requirements of
moderate income households, or more than 50%of the total Project. In addition,because the
Specific Plan zoning establishes density minimums, the Project will not produce housing in these
areas at less than the minimum density. Rather than shifting the burden of constructing
affordable housing to the City through payment of fees, DCV will construct housing that the City
has determined meets its affordable housing requirements. Further, under the Regulations,the
maximum number of units that would be provided in the absence of alternative compliance is
200 units (12.5%of 1600 units). Under the Development Agreement, homes constructed over
the 1600 unit limit are not subject to this alternative finding of compliance and are instead
required to separately comply with the Regulations.
3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15384(speculation is not substantial evidence).
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH&DELVAC LLP
The City Council
The City of Dublin
November 5, 2013
Page 5
This alternative method of compliance is consistent with prior actions by the City
Council, including with respect to the Jordan Ranch Development Agreement dated July 2012,
with many fewer affordable units developed at Jordan Ranch(in that case,the developer
proposed to construct only 25%of the units at 14.1 du/ac or more).
4. Council Has Full Discretion to Determine Method of Compliance by DCV with
the City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Littlehale raises matters discussed at a workshop for the City Council held in May
2013 and at a June 2013 City Council meeting at which the Dublin Crossing Community Benefit
and Potential Land Use Package dated June 12, 2013 ("Benefit Package")was accepted by the
City Council. Mr. Littlehale (referencing a"Development Agreement Points"document which
was not accepted by the Council and which he does not adequately identify)wrongly asserts that
the City Council has chosen to waive in-lieu fee under the Regulations.
The Regulations allow for three different methodologies for compliance: construction of
units,payment of a fee, or an alternative method of compliance approved by the City Council.
Specifically,the Regulations provide that"[t]he City Council, at its discretion, may waive,
wholly or partially,the requirements of this ordinance and approve alternate methods of
compliance with this Chapter if the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds,that such
alternate methods meet the purposes of this Chapter."4 In fact, since the self-described purpose
of the Regulations is to increase production of affordable housing,the payment of in-lieu fees is
not the City's preferred strategy under the Regulations, but is only required in lieu of other
compliance.5
The Development Agreement implements the provisions of the Regulations. Section 11
of the Development Agreement makes clear that: (a)the City has determined that a large
proportion of residential unit types that the Project will include are likely to meet the City
affordability standard for"moderate income"units and(b)"[t]hrough its approval of this
agreement,the City Council hereby finds that the "alternative method of compliance . . . meets
the purposes of the Regulations and will promote the City's affordability and Housing Element
goals, and hereby waives all requirements of the Regulations with respect to the first 1600 units."
4 Regulations Section 8.68.040E.
5 The purpose of the Regulations is twofold: (a)"to assure that further housing development contributes to the attainment of the
City's housing goals by increasing the production of residential units affordable by households of very low,low and moderate
income"and(b)"to assure that the limited remaining developable land in the City's planning area is utilized in a manner
consistent with the City's housing policy and needs". Regulations Section 8.68.010.
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH&DELVAC LLP
The City Council
The City of Dublin
November 5, 2013
Page 6
In addition, although the City Council is not bound in any manner by the Benefit
Package or its preliminary discussions,the Development Agreement is, in fact, fully consistent
with the Benefit Package,which states:
"City to make finding of compliance with inclusionary zoning ordinance based
upon alternative method of compliance which shall include the project meeting the City's
affordability and Housing Element goals through the construction of medium and high
density of a certain size which shall exceed more than 25%of the project's total unit
count and payment of a Community Benefit Payment as outlined below. "
Under the Regulations,the City Council is fully within its discretion in selecting an
alternative method of compliance at any time prior to the last discretionary approval. The
adoption of the Development Agreement is a legislative action for which the authority of the
City Council is presumed valid. The City Council's determination that an alternative method of
compliance has been achieved is entitled to substantial deference. Such determination is not a
waiver of fees,but is rather a conclusion that the Regulations, by their terms, are not applicable.
As such, no affordable housing fee is being foregone in this instance.
C. Response to ACA.
ACA alleges that the EIR did not disclose significant Project impacts on burrowing owls,
that impacts were inadequately evaluated, and that the burrowing owl mitigation measure will
not reduce impacts to burrowing owls to a less than significant level. These allegations are
incorrect.
First,the Project EIR analyzed the potential impacts on the burrowing owl—concluding
that before mitigation,that impacts would be significant, but that with the implementation of
mitigation, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. See DEIR ES-16-18; DEIR 3-56;
DEIR 3-70–3-72. Moreover, in response to comments,the City modified the burrowing owl
mitigation measure to be more consistent with resource agency guidance and to require both
California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") approval and compliance with CDFW
monitoring requirements. See FEIR revisions to ES 19-22; 3-74–3-77. Finally, it should be
noted that the CDFW was provided with and chose not to comment on the Draft EIR. As such,
the EIR did in fact disclose potential significant Project impacts on the burrowing owl.
A Senior Project Scientist for Cardno ENTRIX reviewed the proposed mitigation,the
FEIR and other relevant documents, including literature resources, and determined that the
mitigation is fully consistent with CDFW requirements. See October 31, 2013, Cardno ENTRIX
Memo: Dublin Crossing Burrowing Owl Review attached as Attachment 2 ("Cardno ENTRIX
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH &DELVAC LLP
The City Council
The City of Dublin
November 5, 2013
Page 7
Memo"). In addition,with respect to contentions that the burrowing owl population at Dublin
Crossing is regionally significant, Cardno ENTRIX cited recent data indicating between 1 and 5
successful nesting pairs of burrowing owl between 2011 and the present. With respect to the
relevance of this data,the Memo indicates:
"the burrowing owls in this area likely have a higher probability of detection and
are more often documented then burrowing owls in surrounding areas. While the Dublin
Crossing Project is expected to directly impact all burrowing owl habitats within the
Project site, the 189-acre site makes up a minority portion of the well documented
population within the 2,485-acre Camp Parks area. Cardno ENTRIX reviewed two peer-
reviewed literature resources, Townsend and Lenihan, 2007, and Wilkerson, R. L. and R.
B. Siegel, 2010. The studies were designed to track general population trends within their
respective study areas, but they did not include a comprehensive census of burrowing owl
populations in the region, therefore did not address the owl population within Camp
Parks and their significance in the region. Cardno ENTRIX was unable to draw a
conclusion from the two research documents as to how the loss of up to 189-acres of
potential burrowing owl habitat would cumulatively impact local populations."
Moreover,the Camp Parks environmental impact statement covered the entirety of the Camp
Parks Military Reservation which includes the proposed Project site and specifically addressed
burrowing owls and established mitigation for the Project,providing a potential location and a
process for achieving recommended mitigation. See excerpts from FEIS attached as Attachment
3.6
D. Response to CCEC.
1. City is Not Required to Respond to Voluminous Documents that Do Not Relate
to the Project.
CCEC's August 2, 2103 comment letter included a flash drive containing 94 documents
consisting of thousands upon thousands of pages. None of the documents in these thousands of
pages are Project specific and the comment letter makes no effort to direct the City to any
particular document or issue raised by the documents; rather the comment letter merely states:
"Accompanying this letter is a USB flash drive containing electronic copies in pdf format of
6 As noted in the Cardno ENTRIX Memo,"[t]he Dublin Crossing project site is considered urban in the EACCS,
which identifies it as a part of the Urban Growth Boundary. The Camp Parks Military Reservation north of the
Dublin Crossing Project is considered by the EACCS to be a Type 4 Open Space,which is defined as open space
that consists of developed portions that retain some ecological value. This would indicate that the Camp Parks
Military Reservation would be an ideal location for mitigation if feasible." Report at page 6.
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH&DELVAC LLP
The City Council
The City of Dublin
November 5, 2013
Page 8
each of the documents listed in the appendix to this letter." The courts have recently admonished
project opponents as to such tactics: An agency"cannot be expected to pore through thousands
of documents to find something that arguable supports [the commenter's] belief the project
should not go forward." See Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v.
City of San Diego, 196 Cal. App.4th 515, (2011) (finding that CREED's presentation of
thousands of pages of various materials at the last minute failed to satisfy the exhaustion
requirement because it failed to "fairly present information"to the City.) As such,the City did
not need to respond to each individual document.
2. CCEC's Air Quality and Traffic Mitigation Proposals are Unnecessary and
Would Not Reduce Significant Impacts.
CCEC's Comment 9-16 proposes additional mitigation categories regarding the
significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on air quality and transportation. With respect
to the Project,these concepts are already incorporated, are infeasible or unquantifiable and/or
would not result in measurable reductions in the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts.
• Transportation management district—Inclusion of a transportation management district
is simply an administrative mechanism to incorporate standard transportation management
efforts. This approach is unnecessary, as the Project already includes most, if not all, of
the features that would be typically incorporated into such a district. As noted in the EIR,
the Project is consistent with and incorporates many of the transportation control and land
use measures of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plana Two of the key objectives of the
Project are to provide a range of transportation choices; including walking, bicycling, and
access to transit(BART and bus service), ridesharing, and vanpooling to reduce traffic
congestion and greenhouse gas emissions and to provide enhanced transportation
amenities that encourage non-vehicular access to and on the Iron Horse Regional Trail,the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, and to both on-site and adjacent commercial services.8
Specifically, and as further described in the Specific Plan,the Draft EIR and the
Responses to Comments:
• The Project is designed as a transit oriented development to take advantage of
the location of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station approximately 1/3 mile
south of the Specific Plan boundary edge. As depicted in Figure 1-3 of the
Specific Plan,the areas of the site with the highest density lie within 1/2 mile
of the station, including the areas designated for general commercial/high
'Draft EIR Table 3.2-8.
8 Dublin Crossing Draft EIR Section 2.5 (Purpose and Objectives).
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH&DELVAC LLP
The City Council
The City of Dublin
November 5, 2013
Page 9
density residential uses,the commercial/residential mixed use area at the
intersection of Arnold Road and Dublin Boulevard and a significant portion of
the area designated for medium-high density residential density uses.9
• The Specific Plan provides for direct access along the Iron Horse Regional
Trail and B Street/Demarcus Boulevard to the Dublin Pleasanton BART
station and associated transit facilities. Transit amenities, such as bus pullouts
and shelters,will be provided at bus stops within or adjacent to the Specific
Plan area. The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority provides transit
service to regional and local destinations. RAPID, a high-capacity transit
system operates in the Tri-Valley from East Livermore to West Pleasanton,
largely along Dublin Boulevard, directly adjacent to the Project and
connecting the Project site with BART stations, Downtown Dublin,medical
services, and major employment centers such as Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratories and Valley Care Medical Center. Contra Costa County
Connection provides commuter express connections throughout the area, with
connections from the nearby BART station and along Dublin Boulevard.10
• The Project site is part of a Priority Development Area(PDA) for Dublin
identified in the Plan Bay Area which is called the "Transit Center." The
Transit Center includes the Dublin Crossing area and other adjacent
development areas, such as the Dublin Transit Center adjacent to the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.
• The Project is consistent with the type of development envisioned for PDA
area—mixed use,higher density, infill,transit-oriented development that
promotes the use of alternative modes of transportation and results in lower
greenhouse gas emissions from development.
• The Project is subject to General Plan Circulation Policies which require,
among other things: "minimiz[ing] the need for parking by allowing for
9 See Specific Plan Section 2.4.The Specific Plan implements numerous general plan land use policies of the City,
including those requiring location of higher density residential and commercial uses along Dublin Boulevard and
within 1/2 mile of walking or biking distance to transit facilities and providing for alternatives for automobile use.
10 Specific Plan Section 4.2.3. Mitigation Measure 3.12-9,incorporated into the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,requires that"as the plan area develops,the project applicant shall
coordinate with the City of Dublin and LAVTA to determine if route changes and/or increased service is required in
the project area. In addition,the project shall provide additional bus duckouts and transit shelters to support project
trips,where appropriate."
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH&DELVAC LLP
The City Council
The City of Dublin
November 5, 2013
Page 10
methods to reduce parking demand and appropriate Transportation Demand
Management(TDM) strategies for higher density residential development
along Dublin Boulevard (near the BART station). TDM strategies for
commercial development could include a commuter benefit program and
parking cash-out programs, among many others.""
The implementation of a transportation demand district would not add substantive new
mitigation and therefore would not reduce significant air quality or traffic impacts.
• Funded off-site bicycle enhancements—As described in detail in the City's Response to
Comment 9-17 and elsewhere in the EIR,the Project funds off-site bicycle enhancements
and includes numerous on-site and off-site measures to increase bicycle ridership and
safety. Specifically,the Project is adjacent to and would be connected with the Iron Horse
Regional Trail. The Project is contributing $50,000 to design and $1 million to the
construction of a bridge for the Iron Horse Trail over Dublin Boulevard. This trail is the
longest continuous trail in the region and also serves as a bicycle route to BART. The
Iron Horse Regional Trail would be reconfigured within the Project frontage and along
Scarlett Drive, and a secondary trail pathway could be integrated along the southwestern
edge of the Central Park, depending on the eventual park design. The EIR also
determined that the Project is consistent with the City's Bikeways Master Plan.12 The
Specific Plan incorporates the following measures, among others, from the City's
Bikeways Master Plan:
• Develop a bicycle commuter route system that connects residential
neighborhoods to employment areas, multi-modal terminals, and schools.
• Encourage employers to provide secure bicycle parking, showers and
changing rooms for bicycle commuters.
11 Specific Plan Section 4.1.4,citing CIR Policy 4.23.
12 Policies in the City's Bikeways Master Plan include the continued development of successful bicycle and
pedestrian trail corridors,improved bicycle access to parks and open space areas,improved bicycle lanes and/or
routes on several key cross-city corridors,bikeways on key freeway crossings,the development of education and
enforcement programs,and improvements to the City's Bicycle Parking Ordinance. The EIR indicates that the
Project is consistent with this Plan and with City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Measure A.1.10,by promoting
viable transportation alternatives to the automobile and supporting walking and bicycling throughout the Specific
Plan area,with safe and convenient access to transit,open space,trails,parks,and other recreational amenities. See
Draft EIR Table 3.6-3:Project Consistency with the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan.
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH&DELVAC LLP
The City Council
The City of Dublin
November 5, 2013
Page 11
• As a condition of project approval,require major development projects with
major transportation impacts to construct adjacent bicycle facilities included
in the proposed bicycle system.
• Install bicycle stencils and bicycle-sensitive loop detectors(or other detector
type) on bikeways as part of new signals, signal upgrades, and
resurfacing/restriping projects.
By complying with the City's Bikeway Master Plan and the other Project bikeway
requirements,the Project is increasing bicycling opportunities both on-site and for trips
throughout the region. No further mitigation is required and imposition of further
mitigation would not result in a reduction in significant air quality or transportation
impacts.
• Accelerated electric vehicle adoption–The recommendation of accelerated electric
vehicle adoption is vague—no specific measure is proposed. Moreover, adoption of
electric vehicles is a consumer issue, out of the control of the applicant and outside of the
purview of a land use entitlement to require, and therefore infeasible. Such an unspecified
measure is not quantifiable and as such could not be used to reduce significant impacts.
The Specific Plan does include internal circulation elements and amenities that are
designed to support electric vehicles, such as opportunities for electric vehicle charging
stations. The circulation network, including sidewalks, multi-use trails,bicycle parking,
transit stops with shelters, and traffic calming measures are designed to accommodate a
wide variety of vehicles and alternative modes of transportation to reduce dependence on
the automobile.
• Unbundled parking–CCEC recommends that parking spaces be leased or sold
separately from residential units in order to reduce demand for parking spaces. This
measure is infeasible as the Project is required to provide a certain amount of parking for
both the commercial and residential uses—as per the City Code and the Specific Plan. An
arbitrary reduction in parking is not permitted. This approach is also unquantifiable as
there is no way to ascertain how many cars are not driven or driven elsewhere. However,
the Specific Plan is specifically designed to achieve the goal of parking reduction in other
ways.13 CIR Policy 4.24, which the Specific Plan is required to implement, allows for
13 The Specific Plan"is designated for active streetscapes,which are pedestrian in scale and accommodate multiple
modes of travel. Residents,employees,students and visitors of all ages and abilities,will be able to live,work,learn
and play,with little need for automobiles. People coming to the Specific Plan area may come on foot,bike,transit
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH &DELVAC LLP
The City Council
The City of Dublin
November 5, 2013
Page 12
reduced parking in mixed-use areas by considering shared parking. In the Specific Plan,
the Developer is encouraged to reduce parking as "additional reductions in off-street
parking requirements [are authorized by the Specific Plan] when options such as employee
transit passes, sheltered bicycle parking, car share/van pool programs, and other
Transportation Demand Management strategies reduce the need for automobiles."14
Further, standard City parking requirements are already reduced at the Project,through
implementation of lower parking requirements in areas adjacent to transit.15 The City also
has reserved the right in the Specific Plan to allow variations from the parking standards
set forth in Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development Standards), as noted in each land use
district.16 In sum,the Project provides reduced parking in many areas within 1/2 mile of
the BART station and includes numerous design features to encourage alternative modes
of transportation. As such, implementation of this proposed measure would not lead to an
additional reduction in significant impacts.
E. Response to ACCDA.
In comment 3-1,ACCDA suggests that the incorrect ITE Trip Generation rate was used
for the commercial portion or the Project and that the rate used in the Village @Dublin project
was the correct rate. As the City noted in its response, ITE Trip Generation rates are applied on
a project by project basis and here, as confirmed by the City's traffic engineer,the ITE Trip
Generation rates were appropriately applied as to each respective project.
DCV had its traffic consultant review comment 3-1 and, as the technical memorandum
attached as Attachment 4 attests,the ITE TRIP Generation rates were appropriately applied to
this Project—and the Village @Dublin project; as noted in that technical memorandum,the
slightly different rates are appropriately applied due to differences between the projects.
Moreover,with respect to the assertion that ITE rates changed as between the 8th and 9th
Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Rates,the applicable rates actually decreased, not increased
as alleged in the comment.
and other modes. For those who drive,these guidelines promote and environment of`park once and walk,' as
opposed to parking multiple times." Specific Plan Section 3.6.1.
14 Ibid.
15 See e.g.,Specific Plan Sections 2.6.3 and 2.6.5,reducing parking requirements for the mixed-use and high density
residential components of the Project as compared with City of Dublin standard municipal code requirements.
16 Specific Plan Section 4.1.5(CIR Policy 4.24).
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH&DELVAC LLP
The City Council
The City of Dublin
November 5, 2013
Page 13
F. Conclusion.
The Project before the City Council reflects significant input and support from the
neighbors,the community and the City Planning Commission. Substantial evidence supports
every finding and conclusion made by the City's various departments, staff, and officials
throughout the administrative process. We respectfully ask that the City Council adopt the
recommendations of the City Planning Commission and approve this important Project.
Very truly yours,
--"L.....Lc....2-4.--A
Amy E. Freilich
cc: Joni Pattillo, City Manager, by U.S. Mail and email, city.manager @dublin.ca.gov
John Bakker, Esq., by U.S. Mail and email,jbakker @meyersnave.com
Frank Faye, by email, ffaye @suncal.com
Joe Guerra, by email,jguerra @suncal.com
Attachments
ATTACHMENT 1
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and Development Agreement Community Benefits
The Project will have the following benefits for the City of Dublin:
1. Create a strong connection between the eastern and western parts of the City, while also
maintaining a distinct identity.
2. Provide $50,000 in early funding to design a bridge over Dublin Boulevard for the Iron
Horse Trail to improve City grant funding requests.
3. Provide $1 million to construct a bridge over Dublin Boulevard for the Iron Horse Trail.
4. Provide parkland well in excess of that which would be required under the City's Park
Master Plan standards.
5. Provide a Community Benefit Payment of$18.7 million which can be spent at the City
Council's discretion to meet the needs of the city.
6. Provide a solution to the localized flooding that occurs on the site.
7. Provide a solution to the regional flooding that occurs in this watershed.
8. Provide $15 million to design and construct parks within the plan which is in excess of
fees that would be required under the Park Master Plan.
9. All units will be added into the East Dublin Traffic Improvement Fee to provide
additional funding for needed traffic improvements for the East Dublin Specific Plan.
10. Provide a$2.5 million park maintenance endowment to endow the future maintenance
costs of Central Park.
11. Assist the City in meeting affordability goals by providing a substantial mix of higher
density residential units of relatively smaller sizes that will promote the City's
affordability and Housing Element goals.
12. Provide 75,000 square feet of revenue producing commercial development that will
create new jobs and sales/property taxes
13. Create over$500 million worth of construction jobs.
14. Provide much needed facility upgrades and new facilities to improve and expand the
mission of Camp Parks which will not only create new jobs in town,but also position the
base to be a long term component of the local economy.
15. Provide diverse housing options to meet the needs of Dublin's current and future
population, and the creation of neighborhoods with a sense of place.
16. Maximize the use of pedestrian and bicycle friendly connections through the strategic
placement and variation of land uses and densities, and the creation of safe multi-modal
transportation networks both through the site and into the larger community.
17. Accommodate community needs by providing public spaces such as public parks, open
space,trails, community facilities, other public places, and school facilities.
18. Establish a new infill community that will not negatively impact the City infrastructure,
facilities, or services.
19. Create a project that has a fiscally beneficial impact on the City's financial and services
resources. The conservative estimate by the City's financial consultant showed a net
benefit of over$100,000 annually from the project upon full build out.
20. Provide 12 net acres of land for the Dublin Unified School District(DUSD)to construct
an elementary school within the project site to help alleviate current overcrowding in
Dublin schools.
21. Provide a new Community Park that will be the centerpiece of Dublin Crossing and serve
as the focus for major social, cultural, and recreational events for the project, residents of
Dublin, and the Tri-Valley region.
22. Provide needed funding for the City to acquire the Alameda County Surplus Property
Authority(ACSPA) 8.7-acre parcel that the City has been unable to afford since it was
planned years ago for park needs. $2.8 and zero interest loan and providing parkland
needed to meet the needs of the residents of the Transit Village.
23. Provide a range of transportation choices; including walking,bicycling, and access to
transit(BART and bus service)to reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas
emissions.
24. Provide enhanced transportation and circulation amenities that encourage non-vehicular
access to and on the Iron Horse Regional Trail,the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, and
to both on-site and adjacent commercial services.
25. Provide an east-west roadway through the project site to enhance circulation between the
points east and points west of the area.
26. Provide a neighborhood park that is conveniently located and can serve as a focal point
for recreation and neighborhood events.
27. Promote environmental stewardship through the inclusion of progressive energy
programs and standards in construction and ongoing operation of residential and
commercial buildings.
ATTACHMENT 2
Cardno
ENTRIX
Shaping the Future
October 31, 2013 Cardno ENTRIX
701 University Avenue
Joe Guerra Suite 200
SunCal Companies Sacramento,CA 95825
97 South Second Street, Suite 300 USA
San Jose, CA 95113 Phone 916 9231097
Toll-free 800 368 7511
Subject: Dublin Crossing Burrowing Owl Review Fax 916 923 6251
www.cardno.com
Dear Joe:
www.cardnoentrix.com
At the request of SunCal Companies(SunCal), Cardno ENTRIX conducted a preliminary review
of existing documentation regarding burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)within the proposed
Dublin Crossing Project(Project)area, located in Dublin, CA. A discussion related to potential
project-related impacts to burrowing owl habitat, mitigation guidelines, and a proposed project-
specific mitigation approach is included below.
Project Background
Dublin Crossing is an approximately 189-acre portion of the 2,485-acre Camp Park Reserve
Forces Training Area(Camp Parks) located in Dublin, CA. The entire Dublin Crossing Project
area falls within Alameda County,while Camp Parks spans both Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties. SunCal proposed to develop a 172-acre portion of the Project Area (Figure 1. Project
Site and Vicinity). Two additional parcels encompassing 17 acres will be developed at a later
date. The proposed project includes up to 1,995 residential units,
up to 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, 30 net-acre community parks; five acres of
neighborhood parks; and provisional space for a 12-acre elementary school site.
The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan is currently pending approval by the City of Dublin (City).As
part of the City's duty to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), a Notice
of Preparation (NOP)of a Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)was released on June 4,
2012. The Draft EIR was subsequently prepared and circulated for review and comment by the
public and other interested parties, agencies, and organizations for a 45-day review period from
Monday, June 24, 2013 through Thursday,August 8, 2013. No comments were received from
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW) or the public in regards to burrowing owl
during the NOP or Draft EIR comment periods. The Alameda County Community Development
Agency did comment on the Draft EIR, and noted that the mitigation guidelines were not
consistent with those in the Village @ Dublin Draft EIR, stating an opinion that the Dublin
Crossing mitigation measures were less stringent. Burrowing owl mitigation measures in the
final EIR were updated for consistency with the Village @ Dublin Draft EIR prior to Final EIR
being issued on October 11, 2013.
The Final EIR identified potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls by the proposed project,
which could result in the removal of suitable burrowing owl (breeding and wintering) habitat and
permanent loss of occupied burrow(s)and habitat, and recommended mitigation measures to
reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
Australia • Belgium • Canada • Colombia • Ecuador • Germany • Indonesia • Italy •
Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea • Peru • Tanzania • United Arab Emirates •
United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 85 countries
2 (or) Cardno
SunCal Companies ENTR/X
October 31,2013
Shaping the Future
On October 18, 2013 the Alameda Creek Alliance, on behalf of the Ohlone Audubon Society, Burrowing Owl
Conservation Network, Center for Biological Diversity, and Golden Gate Audubon Society, requested that the City
reopen the public comment period. On October 21, 2014 the Alameda Creek Alliance submitted a comment letter to
the City alleging that the EIR did not disclose significant project impacts on burrowing owls, that impacts were
inadequately evaluated, and that the mitigation measures will not reduce impacts to burrowing owls to a less than
significant level. SunCal met with Jeff Miller with the Alameda Creek Alliance on October 22, 2013 to discuss
potential mitigation options for the Dublin Crossing Project.
This letter has been prepared to outline current mitigation guidelines and address concerns regarding potential
Project-related impacts to burrowing owls within the greater vicinity.
Documents reviewed as part of this analysis included:
• Dublin Crossing Final Environmental Impact Report, October 2013 (EIR)
• East Alameda County Conservation Strategy, prepared for the East Alameda County Conservation
Strategy Steering Committee, October 2010 (EACCS)
• California Natural Diversity Database, Biogeographic Data Branch (CNDDB), Department of Fish and
Wildlife Date (March 13, 2013). Accessed March 2, 2012.
• California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of
California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. (2012 Staff Report)
• Burrowing owl status in the greater San Francisco Bay Area (Townsend and Lenihan, 2007)1
• Assessing changes in the distribution and abundance of burrowing owls in California, 1993-2007. Bird
Populations 10: 1-36. (Wilkerson, R. L. and R. B. Siegel, 2010)2
• Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, 2010 Burrowing Owl Survey report,Albion Environmental, Inc.
March 2011
• Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, 2011 Nesting Burrowing Owl Survey report,Albion
Environmental, Inc. February 2012
Species Description and Potential Impacts
The western burrowing owl is a California State Species of Special Concern. Burrowing owls are year-long
residents in generally flat, open dry grasslands, pastures, deserts, and shrub lands, and in grass, forbs and open
shrub stages of pinyon juniper and ponderosa pine habitats. They use communal ground squirrel and other small
mammal burrow colonies for nesting and cover, as well as artificial structures such as roadside embankments,
levees, berms, and rock or rip-rap piles. They prefer open, dry, nearly level grassland or prairie habitat and can
exhibit high site fidelity, often reusing burrows year after year.
CDFW considers burrowing owl to meet the criteria as engendered or"rare"for the purposes of CEQA, under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, and as such they were considered in the EIR. Due to the security fence
surrounding the Dublin Crossing Project site, low human use, and maintenance programs, the Project area
1
Townsend,S.E.and C.Lenihan.2007.Burrowing owl status in the greater San Francisco Bay Area.Pages 60-69 in Barclay,J.H.,K.W.
Hunting,J.L.Lincer,J.Linthicum,and T.A.Roberts(Eds.).Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium,November 2007.
Bird Populations Monographs No. 1.The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental,Inc.
2 Wilkerson,R.L.and R.B.Siegel.2010.Assessing changes in the distribution and abundance of burrowing owls in California,1993-2007.Bird
Populations 10:1-36.
www.cardnoentrix.com
3 Cardno
SunCal Companies ENTRIX
October 31,2013
Shaping the Future
provides suitable breeding,foraging, and wintering habitat for the burrowing owl. Per the Final EIR, the
implementation of the proposed project would result in the displacement of burrowing owls during phased
construction activities, and, once completed, the proposed project would result in the permanent removal of suitable
burrowing owl (breeding and wintering) habitat. Permanent loss of occupied burrow(s)and habitat are considered a
potentially significant impact under CEQA, and were considered such in the Final EIR.
Currently,the California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB)outlines multiple locations of reoccurring burrowing
owls within the Project Site(Figure 2); however, these occurrences are not segregated from the greater Camp
Parks site. Occurrence information for greater Camp Parks was recorded in 2003, 2004, 2008, and 2009, and
varies from four successfully nests to eight successful nests with approximate population counts of 28 to 38
individuals with the greater Camp Parks vicinity.
More detailed data was recently received (October 24, 2013)from the Department of the Army in the 2010 and
2011 Burrowing Owl reports, as well as an occurrence map prepared by Albion in 2013 showing a portion of the
site. These reports show surveyed burrowing owl nests by location, allowing for an analysis of the successful nests
in the Dublin Crossing Project area in the context of Camp Parks. That data is outlined in Table 1 below:
Table 1 Burrowing Owl Nest Success, Dublin Crossing and Camp Parks
Camp Parks, excluding 189-acre Dublin Dublin Crossing
Survey Year Crossing
Successful Unsuccessfully Successful Unsuccessfully
Nesting Pairs Nesting Pairs Nesting Pairs Nesting Pairs
2010 8 4 1 1
2011 11 0 5 1
2013 Data Not Received Data Not Received 5 2
It should be noted that due to the ongoing annual surveys and frequent informal observations within Camp Parks,
the burrowing owls in this area likely have a higher probability of detection and are more often documented then
burrowing owls in surrounding areas. While the Dublin Crossing Project is expected to directly impact all burrowing
owl habitats within the Project site,the 189-acre site makes up a minority portion of the well documented population
within the 2,485-acre Camp Parks area.
Cardno ENTRIX reviewed two peer-reviewed literature resources, Townsend and Lenihan, 2007, and Wilkerson, R.
L. and R. B. Siegel, 2010. The studies were designed to track general population trends within their respective
study areas, but they did not include a comprehensive census of burrowing owl populations in the region,therefore
did not address the owl population within Camp Parks and their significance in the region. Cardno ENTRIX was
unable to draw a conclusion from the two research documents as to how the loss of up to 189-acres of potential
burrowing owl habitat would cumulatively impact local populations.
Mitigation Guidelines
Potential mitigation options were analyzed in the context of current written guidelines as incorporated into the 2012
Staff Report,the EACCS, and the EIR as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Mitigation Guidelines
EACCS FEIR 2012 Staff Report
If avoidance of burrowing owl Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact 1.Where habitat will be temporarily disturbed,restore
habitat is not.ossible,the.ro'ect Assessment.The .ro'ect a..licant shall the disturbed area to pre-project condition including
www.cardnoentrix.com
4 ‘..1") Camino
SunCal Companies ENTRIX
October 31,2013
Shaping the Future
EACCS FEIR 2012 Staff Report
applicant should mitigate the loss of retain a qualified biologist to conduct compacting soil and vegetating.Permanent habitat
habitat by protecting habitat in California burrowing owl take avoidance protection may be warranted if there is the potential that
accordance with the mitigation surveys 14 days prior to ground disturbing the temporary impacts may render a nesting site
guidelines outlined in the EACCS activities and impact assessment following (nesting burrow and satellite burrows)unsustainable or
(BUOW-3). These mitigation rations the 2012 California Department of Fish and unavailable depending on the time frame,resulting in
would be: Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl reduced survival or abandonment.For the latter
• 3:1 for mitigation within Mitigation(CDFW 2012)or as updated at the potential impact,see the permanent impact measures
the Livermore Valley time of the implementation of the proposed below.
Mitigation Area project.If no owls are found during this first 2.Mitigate for permanent impacts to nesting,occupied
survey,a final survey shall be conducted and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat such
• 3.5:1 for mitigation within within 48-hours prior to ground disturbance that the habitat acreage,number of burrows and
the East Bay Hills, to confirm that burrowing owls are still burrowing owls impacted are replaced based on the
Altamont Hills,or absent. If ground disturbing activities are information provided in Appendix A of the Staff Report.
Northern Diablo Range delayed or suspended for more than 14 days Note:A minimum habitat replacement
Mitigation Area after the initial take avoidance survey,the recommendation is not provided here as it has been
• Requires site—specific project area shall be resurveyed including shown to serve as a default,replacing any site-
agency approval for the final survey within 48-hours of specific analysis and discounting the wide variation
mitigation outside the disturbance.The report(s)shall be submitted in natal area,home range,foraging area,and other
EACCS Study Area to as indicated in the CDFW 2012 Staff factors influencing burrowing owls and burrowing
The project applicant could acquire Report.If it is determined that project owl population persistence in a particular area.
parcels,through fee title purchase activities may result in impacts to nesting, 3.Mitigate for permanent impacts to nesting,occupied
or conservation easement,where occupied,and satellite burrows and/or and satellite burrows and burrowing owl habitat with(a)
known nesting sites occur or where burrowing owl habitat,the project applicant permanent conservation of similar vegetation
nesting sites have occurred in the shall consult with the CDFW.More communities(grassland,scrublands,desert,urban,and
previous three nesting seasons specifically,if the surveys identify breeding agriculture)to provide for burrowing owl nesting,
(BUOW-1 and BUOW-2). or wintering burrowing owls on or adjacent to foraging,wintering,and dispersal(i.e.,during breeding
Additionally,the project applicant the project area,occupied burrows cannot be and non-breeding seasons)comparable to or better
could work with the Implementation disturbed and shall be provided with than that of the impact area,and(b)sufficiently large
Committee to fund the protective buffers.Where avoidance is not acreage,and presence of fossorial mammals.The
implementation of an annual feasible during the non-breeding season,a mitigation lands may require habitat enhancements
monitoring program in coordination site specific exclusion plan(i.e.a plan that including enhancement or expansion of burrows for
with local conservation groups on all considers the type and extent of the breeding,shelter and dispersal opportunity,and removal
burrowing owl nest colonies on proposed activity,the duration and timing of or control of population stressors.If the mitigation lands
protected lands using monitoring the activity,the sensitivity and habituation of are located adjacent to the impacted burrow site,ensure
protocols established by the the owls,and the dissimilarity of the the nearest neighbor artificial or natural burrow clusters
California Burrowing Owl proposed activity with background activities) are at least within 210 meters.
Consortium(1993).The results of shall be implemented to encourage the owls 4.Permanently protect mitigation land through a
these surveys would be submitted to to move away from the work area prior to conservation easement deeded to a nonprofit
the CNDDB and the Conservation construction and to minimize the potential to conservation organization or public agency with a
Strategy database(BUOW-4 and affect the reproductive success of the owls. conservation mission,for the purpose of conserving
BUOW-5). The exclusion plan shall be subject to the burrowing owl habitat and prohibiting activities
CDFW approval and monitoring incompatible with burrowing owl use.If the project is
requirements.Compensatory mitigation located within the service area of a Department approve
could also be required by the CDFW as part burrowing owl conservation bank,the project proponent
of the approval of an exclusion plan. may purchase available burrowing owl conservation
Mitigation may include the permanent bank credits.
protection of habitat at a nearby offsite 5.Develop and implement a mitigation land
location acceptable to the CDFW. management plan to address long-term ecological
sustainability and maintenance of the site for burrowing
owls(see Management Plan and Artificial Burrow
sections below,if applicable).
6.Fund the maintenance and management of mitigation
land through the establishment of a long-term funding
mechanism such as an endowment.
7.Habitat should not be altered or destroyed,and
burrowing owls should not be excluded from burrows,
until mitigation lands have been legally secured,are
managed for the benefit of burrowing owls according to
Department-approved management,monitoring and
reporting plans,and the endowment or other long-term
funding mechanism is in place or security is provided
until these measures are completed.
8.Mitigation lands should be on,adjacent or proximate
to the impact site where possible and where habitat is
www.cardnoentrix.com
5 Cardno
SunCal Companies ENTRIX
October 31,2013
Shaping the Future
EACCS FE1R 2012 Staff Report
sufficient to support burrowing owls present.
9.Where there is insufficient habitat on,adjacent to,or
near project sites where burrowing owls will be
excluded,acquire mitigation lands with burrowing owl
habitat away from the project site.The selection of
mitigation lands should then focus on consolidating and
enlarging conservation areas located outside of urban
and planned growth areas,within foraging distance of
other conserved lands.If mitigation lands are not
available adjacent to other conserved lands,increase
the mitigation land acreage requirement to ensure a
selected site is of sufficient size.Offsite mitigation may
not adequately offset the biological and habitat values
impacted on a one to one basis.Consult with the
Department when determining offsite mitigation
acreages.
10.Evaluate and select suitable mitigation lands based
on a comparison of the habitat attributes of the impacted
and conserved lands,including but not limited to:type
and structure of habitat being impacted or conserved;
density of burrowing owls in impacted and conserved
habitat;and significance of impacted or conserved
habitat to the species range-wide.Mitigate for the
highest quality burrowing owl habitat impacted first and
foremost when identifying mitigation lands,even if a
mitigation site is located outside of a lead agency's
jurisdictional boundary,particularly if the lead agency is
a city or special district.
11.Select mitigation lands taking into account the
potential human and wildlife conflicts or incompatibility,
including but not limited to,human foot and vehicle
traffic,and predation by cats,loose dogs and urban-
adapted wildlife,and incompatible species management
(i.e.,snowy plover).
12.Where a burrowing owl population appears to be
highly adapted to heavily altered habitats such as golf
courses,airports,athletic fields,and business
complexes,permanently protecting the land,
augmenting the site with artificial burrows,and
enhancing and maintaining those areas may enhance
sustainability of the burrowing owl population onsite.
Maintenance includes keeping lands grazed or mowed
with weedeaters or push mowers,free from trees and
shrubs,and preventing excessive human
and human-related disturbance(e.g.,walking,jogging,
off-road activity,dog-walking)and loose and feral pets
(chasing and,presumably,preying upon owls)that
make the environment uninhabitable for burrowing owls.
Items 4,5 and 6 also still apply to this mitigation
approach.
13.If there are no other feasible mitigation options
available and a lead agency is willing to establish and
oversee a Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Conservation
Fund that funds on a competitive basis acquisition and
permanent habitat conservation,the project proponent
may participate in the lead agency's program.
Cardno ENTRIX staff has begun outreach to CDFW but have not yet received formal guidance regarding the Dublin
Crossing Project and potential mitigation requirements.Additionally CDFW did not comment on the DEIR.
www.cardnoentrix.com
6 (.1) Camino
SunCal Companies ENTR/X
October 31,2013
Shaping the Future
While the EACCS provides a framework for mitigation for potential impacts to species and habitats throughout
eastern Alameda County and standardizes avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and compensation requirement, the
EACCS does not issue permits, and individual projects may need to implement different or more avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation measures.
The Dublin Crossing project site is considered urban in the EACCS, which identifies it as a part of the Urban
Growth Boundary. The Camp Parks Military Reservation north of the Dublin Crossing Project is considered by the
EACCS to be a Type 4 Open Space, which is defined as open space that consists of developed portions that retain
some ecological value. This would indicate that the Camp Parks Military Reservation would be an ideal location for
mitigation if feasible. However, as the EACCS is limited to Alameda County it does not provide mitigation ratios for
mitigation outside the EACCS study area, such as the portion of Camp Parks in southern Contra Costa County.
Mitigation outside the EACCS study area requires site-specific agency approval.Additionally, the EACCS was
developed based on the 1995 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, not utilizing the most recent guidelines in
the 2012 Staff Report.
Proposed Mitigation Approach
The FEIR assumes the site is occupied based on previous survey results, and acknowledges that the project will
results in a significant impact to burrowing owl, requiring mitigation consistent with current CDFW guidelines.
Individual burrowing owls have been documented moving between the Dublin Crossing Project area and the
remainder of Camp Parks in the annual reports prepared by Albion, and there is limited habitat to the south, east,
and west of the Project area, therefore mitigation site selection efforts should be focused on areas to the north of
the Project either within Camp Parks or in adjacent contiguous suitable habitat, if available. This strategy is not in
conflict with the EACCS, but requires CDFW approval. A mitigation and exclusion plan should be prepared, in
consultation with the CDFW, which incorporates the following elements:
• An assessment of suitable habitat within and adjacent to the Project area should be conducted to
determine areas that provide breeding or wintering burrowing owl habitat.
• A site-specific exclusion plan (i.e., a plan that considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the
duration and timing of the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of the owls, and the dissimilarity of the
proposed activity with background activities)should be developed for exclusion during both the breeding
and non-breeding season.
• A mitigation plan should be developed for permanent impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows
and/or burrowing owl habitat such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows and burrowing owls
impacted are replaced. Mitigation may include one or more of the following:
o Establish permanent conservation of similar vegetation communities(grassland, scrublands,
desert, urban, and agriculture)to provide for burrowing owl nesting,foraging,wintering, and
dispersal (i.e., during breeding and non-breeding seasons)comparable to or better than that of the
impact area, that includes sufficiently large acreage, and presence of fossorial mammals. The
mitigation lands may require habitat enhancements including enhancement or expansion of
burrows for breeding, shelter and dispersal opportunity, and removal or control of population
stressors. If the mitigation lands are located adjacent to the impacted burrow site, ensure that the
nearest neighbor artificial or natural burrow clusters are no greater than 210 meters from the
impacted burrows. Mitigation shall also include the development of a long-term Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan, which includes mechanisms for funding, monitoring, and legal protection of
mitigation area. While outside the EACCS study area, lands on (ideally),adjacent to, or near Camp
Parks in Contra Costa County likely provide the most continuity with existing populations.
www.cardnoentrix.com
7 Cardno
SunCal Companies ENTRIX
October 31,2013
Shaping the Future
o Acquire mitigation lands with burrowing owl habitat away from the project site. The selection of
mitigation lands should then focus on consolidating and enlarging conservation areas located
outside of urban and planned growth areas,within foraging distance of other conserved lands. If
mitigation lands are not available adjacent to other conserved lands, increase the mitigation land
acreage requirement to ensure a selected site is of sufficient size. Off-site mitigation lands should
be acquired at a 3:1 ratio within the Livermore Valley Mitigation Area, or a 3.5:1 within the East Bay
Hills, Altamont Hills, or Northern Diablo Range Mitigation Area. This is likely the least biologically
preferred option as it does not result in continuity with the existing Camp Parks population of
burrowing owl.
Potential mitigation lands should be selected in consultation with CDFW as outlined the Final EIR and the 2012
Staff Report, focusing on continuity with the greater Camp Parks burrowing owl population and other recently
documented occurrences in the vicinity.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Peterson
Senior Project Scientist
for Cardno ENTRIX
Direct Line 916 386 3849
Email: bonnie.i etersonCa cardno.com
Enc: Figure(s)
cc: Tom Stoller/SunCal Companies
File: BUOW Memo 10 31 13V5.docx
www.cardnoentrix.com
p, i ` . '7;Y 4l i�� vwa MOWS Mai m.
,� canyon Danville l'•
.>' � � �'� �% '�. ��r' Tassajara t•
/=te I i �; �� �' ` San Ramon
1 �� _ Project Site S
pobi. �ISan Leandro
t'-iii'lLP4‘4,..... 4 -, 'N-4.,\' '---, ....-' - -, � '� ` As#iland ''-'1'1-'-i,
V o
r_
h �
t`,�r iiri► Hayward
, ! Pleasanton
:=L4ii'll,,,;„4-......„,,, , • 42 " 238
� ' ,
I
`!�. ,� ' ,, Union City
,,W
+ - '" y ` �; ',Fremont
. - - ' ..;" op,- „,,,-. « -^' ' '''77 Atillil
4. ,. .• alitt., 4.,,s, 41-,,••:F.:. : *,.. : ,, . • - , . _ .,,.. ,,,,, , „,„,
op. t
�'.ri 4a'...
r.Y ...,
irill,,,,,,,iti.„ 7w 680 � s, t ....
7iiki-----7:-..Z.,,; II -'...,-'31k.'-..lar ..s.,,.. . ,_: _r',,...„.:-„. --,:,; .. :-.-,,,,,;,-',-;„,7.-.--;;.., ,....-:,:',.-.:;.....,. ' - . ..,... :. ,,, : III"
,_,,,,,,,,.,11 \1 --,i,....;,,,,,,,,c( - ., .-„It, -....., , - ._ - ,,-,;;;.-...,.„--...„-,- ---.,- ,.,..-_,..z,7,-;.' --,.-..,1 lid pi, '-- . ., .
461161,
... _ ..... .
‘,.. .,...s, ........„,,,,...... ,......_ „. ....,,,,..... .„ ,......„ .. -.--7' '
r 50 „
4111
'''''''fiiii........ / *, 4%� x
pox x i,,,,' r „,.... ...,... . ,,,, . 1
.• . .
Citt
Y� �=� r9. td �+ *"f.1111''1`}��� k 14,re iiihs
_Adi*j 1%1/4. - A Tilt :---. . c.....7 - )06- . \ . ,......, fd"
,c,,,dr,„;/./.4r:k....7-1-Wip, ...",^4'..''''',.,,, ''"Or :;„11k-.:;"‘01.'4 ' =.'''(.*::rik ---:--,-..."-i. ' 'i , : -..„ , , 3.1111.10
lit
. 4,44t4 ,--, .04 ----- - i . '-
l
,..4 —41'.r, ieas,„.: :_„..4...„-..---.4160:-.7 'illilik.r_ -..ilit4,'..... - 7,,„iitifit: 4.-At.. P- . 'r.'
L DATA�SOURCES�Cardno ENTRIX 2012 "4, � �
Pr USGS Dublin 7.5 Minute'Quad�angle„
ik. " "7� . ,' � E .
• fie, ke,0400,ri a ,,i " ,, 0.25 OS "P. ,1
I w•e Miles . tr. . ti t- . -
-
Projection: UTM 10 North '" - - -`
L
9070013 Datum: NAD 83 r ji imok
Q Project Site (.1.) (i8/[110
ENTRIX
Dublin Crossing
Figure 1
Project Location
Z:\GIS\Entrix\0000000_Inactive\33634001_Dublin_Crossing\map\DC_BTR ProjSite_8i11 i_10.mxd
).... c''
Kear
.12
5 _c
‘.,.
sp
aF\
44-
ist ce
Holborn Nal A.„c
,re..v
..,...„5,"
ittito -
/0
C o .z
Q ..%
0
:N■•••
0 -,
.,
,i,
co
o. ?'
1 ....„.ORM
z N A:a,
--0;
-7
-..:,
ttiN Rd a.
c'4 4"
""t• 4,,"gr., x g ci
ct - rrci _-.,4
,....7
SF ,
a) 0.::'
C . 2 780 (
,
cc
iv
.LC1 rt: $—
4 140 5 RI
Itt ./. 7110 3 4
' 710 -,
0 , Alamo , :7
.CC CO
*1-' Creek Q
.17
g 94 Park ,.00.4: ,..
- ''
LP,
1C4CS.4
:oth St 12th ST..
ISO
6
iTRAL kotiv rl clor$ [
8th St Grader Blvd
4?
BUN Vila,* q„,fi
0
y11110,,,,,;,....
1 4 ''1,,,Z,;"soi. 1 1::Dublin Ran'
cc
• So Emerald c,f,
. . ..,.....::i.. '..'..' .
rhroer Glen Or -4:
Glen Park ftt
2
" central
o ' SO i-
ci ,....
., .,
Dublin Blvd
Dublin Blvd
0
Hacienda
0 0.25 0.5 C ,
.* Miles crossings
'Cr
Projection: UTM 10 North RI
10/31/2013 Datum: NAD 83 45 ,,,,-. -„.,-,,-, , , „ ; -„„ - ,°,-, - , 46 - 580 trio 47
Study Area ENTRIX
11111
Camp Parks Boundary
CNDDB GIS data downloaded September 13,2013,from the Califomia Deptartment of Fish and Wildlife
website(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodataionddb/mapsanddata.asp).
1 ‘,,I, Cardne
1:
Burrowing Owl Occurrence labeled by CNDDB Occurrence Number Dublin Crossing
Figure 2
Burrowing Owl
Occurrences Map
ZAGIS\Entrix\33634001_Dublin_Crossing\map\DC_CampParksBurowingOwls_8i11i_10.mxd
(1) Cardno®
ENTRIX
Shaping the Future
Bonnie Peterson
Summary of Experience
Senior Project Scientist Ms. Peterson has 10 years of professional experience working in the environmental field.
She has conducted biological monitoring tasks, site assessments, and special-status
species surveys throughout California. She has monitored constructed and reference
> Biological monitoring wetlands, monitored conservation areas and mitigation banks, and prepared annual reports
of open space for these areas; prepared Mitigation Monitoring Plans and Open Space Monitoring Plans;
preserves and and conducted biological assessments. She has conducted a range of activities to ensure
mitigation banks permit compliance in the field, including construction monitoring, environmental sensitivity
> Operations and training, and surveys and habitat assessments for valley elderberry longhorn beetle
management plans (VELB), burrowing owl, Swainson's hawk, giant garter snake, and other special-status
and mitigation species; riparian and oak tree monitoring; and vernal pool floristic monitoring.Additionally,
monitoring plans she is permitted to conduct surveys for Conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp,
> Special status Riverside fairy shrimp, San Diego fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole
species surveys shrimp, and rare plants throughout California.
> Water quality
monitoring and Ms. Peterson is a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC)and a
SWPPP/NPDES Qualified SWPPP Developer(QSD)and Qualified SWPPP Practitioner(QSP) in
compliance compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
> Wetland delineations Construction General Permit. She has acted as a liaison among developers, contractors,
city and county representatives, and various Regional Water Quality Control Boards
(RWQCB). She has experience in SWPPP implementation and monitoring, stormwater
10 Years management planning, water sampling, and water quality analysis as well as providing
general environmental support and recommendations for permit compliance to site crews
and subcontractors. She also has provided environmental sensitivity training and SWPPP
2008 training to contractors and city and county employees.
Ms. Peterson has prepare multiple permit applications associated with the Endangered
> BS, Conservation Species Act(ESA)and US Army Corps of Engineers(USACE)wetland regulatory
Biology, California (delineation and permitting) process and has consulted with federal, state, and local
State University, government and private interest groups regarding environmental projects and
Sacramento, 2004 documentation.
Significant Projects
> California Native Biological Surveys, Studies, and Environmental Permitting
Plant Society
> The Desert Tortoise Biologist- Biological Staff Augmentation. Multiple Projects. Pacific Gas and Electric
Council Company(r'G&L=). Northern and Central California
> The Western Section
of the Wildlife Society Ms. Peterson conducted biological constraints surveys and completed technical reports for
a variety of PG&E projects throughout northern and central California. The surveys were
used to assess potential biological constraints, identify sensitive plant or wildlife species
and potential habitat, and provide recommended measures to minimize or avoid impacts to
sensitive resources during the planned construction activities. She conducted construction
monitoring to reduce the risk of impacts to giant garter snake, California red-legged frog,
burrowing owl, northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, rare plants, and associated
sensitive habitats. Documents prepared included biological assessments,wetland
delineations, and permit applications to USACE, State Water Resources Control Board,
and California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG).
Project Biologist--Lakeview Farms 320-acre Mitigation Basin, Placer County California
Ms. Peterson prepared the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Operations and Management
www.cardnoentrix.com rCNN E PE`t F"',Ci,, Page 1 of6
www.cardno.com
Car ®
ENTR/X dno
Shaping the Future
Plan. The project included the development and entitlement of a dual-use basin; regional
flood mitigation and restoration of 154 acres of wetland and pond habitat. She assisted
within obtaining required environmental permits and provided preconstruction biological
surveys and post-construction long term resource monitoring assistance.
Biologist— Coal Canyon Penstock Replacement, PG&E, Butte County, California
Ms. Peterson assessed wetland habitat within the penstock replacement project area and
prepared the wetland delineation for review by the USACE to assist with project permitting.
Project Manager-Pit 1 Shasta Crayfish Endangered Species Act(ESA) Consultation,
PG&E, Shasta County. California
Ms. Peterson coordinated the preparation of the Biological Evaluation for submittal to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)to support consultation with the USFWS
regarding potential impacts to Shasta Crayfish due to the operation of the Pit 1
Hydroelectric Project(FERC No. 2687). She coordinated technical staff, subcontractors,
and client staff to facilitate the consultation process.
Project Manager—Hat Creek Shasta Crayfish Endangered Species Act(ESA) Consultation,
PG&E, Shasta County, California
Ms. Peterson coordinated the preparation of the Biological Evaluation for submittal to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)to support consultation with the USFWS
regarding potential impacts to Shasta Crayfish due to the operation of the Hat Creek
Hydroelectric Project(FERC No. 2661). She coordinated technical staff, subcontractors,
and client staff to facilitate the consultation process. She has overseen the preparation of
Consultation Approach and additional technical reviews required to analyze project
impacts.
Deputy Project Manager—Plainfield Tap 60kV. PG&E, Woodland California
Ms. Peterson coordinated compliance monitoring for construction of the Plainfield Tap
60kV project, providing a team of biologist to assist construction contractors in minimizing
impacts to giant garter snake habitat, wetlands and waters of the US, and nesting bird
species.
Biologist— Sheldon Road and Highway 99 Gas Main, PG&E, Sacramento County,
California
Ms. Peterson conducted biological studies, including a biological assessment and wetland
delineation report, and prepared permit applications under CWA Section 404 and 401,
ESA, and DFG Streambed Alteration Agreement(1602)for a gas main relocation project in
the City of Elk Grove. She conducted construction phase compliance activities, including
environmental sensitivity training and biological monitoring.
Biologist-- Gill Ranch Gas Storage, Gas Pipeline. and Electric Transmission Line. CRS
and PG&E, Madera and Fresno Counties, California
Ms. Peterson conducted preconstruction reconnaissance and habitat assessments for
special-status species along a 26 mile gas pipeline and surrounding areas in the Central
Valley. She identified and delineated sensitive wildlife and habitat areas in the project area,
performed protocol-level surveys for special-status species with potential to occur in the
project area, including VELB, vernal pool fairy shrimp, burrowing owl, Swainson's hawk,
San Joaquin kit fox, and nesting migratory birds. She also assisted with the presentation
and implementation of the worker environmental training program and compliance
monitoring.
Elivironrnental Specialist—FERC License Implementation for the Santa Felicia
BONNIE PE PERSON Page 2 of 6
(r) Cardna
ENTRIX
Shaping the Future
Hydropower Project, United Water Conservation District, Ventura County, California
In compliance with a FERC license issued for the Santa Felicia Project(FERC No. 2153),
Ms. Peterson prepared portions of the overarching Land Resources Management Plan,
which included a fire plan, visual plan, sign plan, and transportation plan. She was
responsible for reviewing license articles and 4(e)conditions, interviewing United staff,
reviewing facility documents, and conducting field surveys, including surveying existing
signs and visual resources throughout the project area.
Biologist—Big Creek Hydropower Complex, Fresno County, California
Ms. Peterson provided field support for this Southern California Edison (SCE)project
complex in the South Fork San Joaquin River Basin. She characterized plant communities
and conducted botanical surveys for special-status plants, noxious weeds, and Native
American Plants of Cultural Concern, and prepared wetland delineation reports and
provided environmental permitting assistance for rehabilitation and reconstruction projects.
Surveys were performed in high elevation mixed conifer, riparian,wetland,woodland, and
chaparral communities in elevations ranging from 1,500 to 9,000 feet.
Biologist—FERC License Implementation for Pit 3, 4 and 5 Hydropower Water Quality
Monitoring and Wetland Delineation, PG&E, Shasta County, California
Ms. Peterson conducted in-stream water quality monitoring and reporting as required by
the 401 Water Quality Certification for the spawning gravel augmentation conducted below
the Pit 5 Dam, a feature of the Pit 3, 4, and 5 Hydro Project(FERC 233). The gravel
augmentation plan was developed through a collaborative process with the Technical
Review Group, consisting of representatives from the State Water Resources Control
Board, US Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Game, PG&E, and several
nongovernment organizations (NGOs)and was implemented as a condition of the FERC
license. She coordinated with PG&E construction crews to ensure monitoring activities
were conducted as required by project permits, provided immediate feedback on
compliance issues in the field, and prepared the final monitoring report for submittal to
agencies.Additionally, she conducted supplemental wetland delineations of the Pit 3 and
Pit 4 gravel augmentation areas.
SWPPP Inspector-- Folsom South Canal Pipeline, East Bay;Municipal Utility District
(EBMUD), Sacramento and San Joaquin County, California
Ms. Peterson conducted SWPPP compliance inspections, provided recommendations for
appropriate best management practices(BMPs), and acted as a liaison between
contractors and regulators.Additionally, she prepared an inspector training program for
onsite SWPPP inspectors and provided guidance as to regulatory requirements.
Project Biologist— City of Roseville. Placer County, California
Ms. Peterson acted as the consulting biologist for the City. She conducted surveys for
federally listed Branchiopods over multiple years as a component of the perpetual
monitoring of constructed and preserved vernal pools with Open Space Preserves, as well
as 5-year success criteria monitoring of constructed or restored wetlands for mitigation
purposes for all of the City's Open Space Preserves. She conducted annual vernal pool
floristic assessments and ground nesting bird surveys, recorded residual dry matter data
(RDM), and surveyed for factors such as invasive/nonnative plant species, hydrologic
integrity, fencing integrity, condition of signage, and evidence of unauthorized use. She has
written annual reports addressing the above issues and recommending necessary
maintenance and management actions.
Biologist and SWPPP Inspector-- Regional Sewer Pipe Line. City of Lincoln arid
Unincorporated Placer County California
BONNIE PETERSON Page 3 of P
CardXno®
ENTR/
Shaping the Future
Ms. Peterson conducted compliance monitoring for a 4-mile, 48-inch diameter sewer main
project extending from the center of the City into unincorporated Placer County. In
consultation with the RWQCB, she developed and implemented a dewatering monitoring
program that included water quality monitoring and reporting and required active contractor
cooperation. She conducted monitoring of nesting raptors and oak trees adjacent to active
work areas to minimize disturbance to adjacent habitat, and she conducted SWPPP
compliance inspections, provided recommendations for appropriate BMPs, and acted as a
liaison among contractors and regulators.
Lead Biologist— Gill Ranch Mitigation Bank, Sacramento County, California
Ms. Peterson led field teams in conducting dip net monitoring of historic(i.e., naturally
occurring)and constructed/restored mitigation vernal pools as mitigation for vernal pool
fairy shrimp, California fairy shrimp, and tadpole shrimp. She also monitored mitigation
pools for appropriate hydrology, a vegetative establishment, as required by the Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan, and reviewed associated reports. She has continued to provide
oversight over the long term monitoring efforts of on-site resources and coordination of
technical reports to agencies.
Lead Biologist— Yankee Slough Restoration Placer County, California
The project resulted in the restoration of more than 40 acres of vernal pools where they
have been degraded by past land use practices. Ms. Peterson lead field crews in the
collection of data and report preparation for the implementation of the ten-year monitoring
and reporting program set forth in the project's mitigation and monitoring plan.
Lead Biologist and SWPPP Inspector—Bickford Rauch. Placer County, California
Ms. Peterson prepared the SWPPP for a 1,942-acre mixed-use master development
project. She conducted SWPPP site inspections and provided recommendations to ensure
compliance with permits. She conducted riparian, vegetation, and hydrology monitoring for
the onsite mitigation areas, conducted monitoring for VELB, conducted preserve
monitoring, and provided management recommendations.
Biologist and SWPPP Inspector—Regional Sewer Pipe Line. City of Lincoln and
Unincorporated Placer County. California
Ms. Peterson conducted compliance monitoring for a 4-mile, 48-inch diameter sewer main
project extending from the center of the City into unincorporated Placer County. In
consultation with the RWQCB, she developed and implemented an unprecedented
dewatering monitoring program that included water quality monitoring and reporting and
required active contractor cooperation. She conducted monitoring of nesting raptors and
oak trees adjacent to active work areas to minimize disturbance to adjacent habitat. She
also conducted SWPPP compliance inspections, provided recommendations for
appropriate BMPs, and acted as a liaison among contractors and regulators.
Biologist— Yuba-Bear and Drum Spaulding Hydropower Projects. Nevada Irrigation District
(NID) and PG&E, Placer and El Dorado Counties, California
Ms. Peterson conducted field surveys for metamorph and postmetamorph foothill yellow
legged frogs throughout the Bear, Yuba, and American River watersheds for the joint
PG&E/NID flow studies as part of relicensing for the Yuba-Bear(FERC 2266)and Drum-
Spaulding (FERC 2310).
Biologist— SCE, Kern River. Tulare County. California
Ms. Peterson assisted with barge and backpack electrofishing, mark recapture surveys for
fish population studies. The survey included identifying, measuring, and weighing the
BONNIE-'E 'ERSOfd -'oe 4 of i;
(T) CardnoENTR/X ®
Shaping the Future
collection of scale samples and marking (fin clips)of trout and native minnow species.
Biologist—Laguna Creek Mitigation Bank. Sacramento County. California
Ms. Peterson located and counted all associated native and elderberry mitigation plantings
for survival rate, size class, and overall health.All elderberry shrubs were monitored for the
presence of VELB, and additional stem count data was taken. She collected and organized
the data for and prepared the annual monitoring report.
Project Biologist— Silverado Oaks Urban Reserve. Placer County, California
Ms. Peterson supervised the collection of data and report preparation for success criteria
monitoring for VELB and associated native plantings and oversaw the long-term monitoring
of the Open Space Preserve area as required by the Operations and Management Plan for
the site.
Project Biologist— Woodcreek West Open Space Preserve. City of Roseville. Placer
County, Califoniia
Ms. Peterson collected data and conducted branchiopod surveys and vegetative
monitoring at a 40-acre open space preserve with restored and historic wetlands as part of
an ongoing study on the effects of grazing and thatch accumulation in urban vernal pool
preserves.
Lab Assistant-- Shaffer Lab, UC Davis, California
Ms. Peterson was responsible for the care and aided in the initial test treatment of foothill
yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii)as part of a study on Chytrid fungus and pesticide as a
source of declining amphibian populations, Shaffer Lab, UC Davis, California.
Field Assistant— Coso Range. lrryo County. California
Ms. Peterson assisted Dr. Philip Lietner and Dr. Barbara Lietner during Mohave ground
squirrels (Spermophilus mohavensis)surveys conducted during two consecutive years.
Surveys were conducted using survey guidelines with standard grids of 100 Sherman traps
at 25-meter intervals and were checked at regular intervals to minimize heat stress to
animals. The trapped animals were microchipped and recorded prior to release.
> Basic Wetland Delineation Course, Wetland Training Institute
> CDFG Scientific Collecting Permit with authorizations 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, and 9(Permit
SC-9589)
> CDFG Threatened and Rare Plant Collection permit(Permit 09041)
> CPESC, CPESC Inc, Envirocert International (Certification 6193)
> QSP/QSD ,CASQA and California Construction General Permit Training Team
(Certification 00294),
> USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species Permit for federally listed Branchiopods
(Permit TE205600-0).
> Vernal Pool Taxonomy, CNPS Plant Sciences Training Program
N;ONNIL.PETERSON N Page of
(.4! R Cardno®
CMENT re IX no®
Shaping the Future
Month Year—Current > ECORP Consulting Inc,Associate Biologist, February 2005-November 2008
> California Department of Fish and Game, Scientific Aid, May 2003-January 2005
> Shaffer Lab, UCD, Laboratory Assistant, July 2003-January 2004
> Leitner Consulting, Field Assistant, Seasonal May-July 1999 and 2000
oONN!t PEI-EPSON Pager of
ATTACHMENT 3
FEIS Burrowing Owl Excerpt
C//:lP%Y:'It 1A:1LisI
—Ifl/P Ic1:4. S'
Western Burrowing Owl. The mitigation goal for the burrowing owl is to compensate
for the anticipated impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments
elsewhere on Camp Parks according to recommended guidelines published in the
California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
(CADFG 1995). Before initiating ground-disturbing activities in_ grassland habitats,
preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls would be conducted by a qualified biologist
within 150 meters(approx. 500 ft.) of construction areas. Surveys would be conducted
no more than 90 days before ground disturbance. If burrowing owls were found, the
burrow site would be avoided,if possible,and given at least a 50 meter(approx. 160 ft.)
buffer. If the burrow could not be avoided,the biologist would determine whether eggs
or young-were present in the nest. If eggs or young were present,no disturbance would
occur within 50`meters of the nest site until the young had fledged. If no young were
present or if young had fledged, burrowing owls would be passively relocated to other
nearby areas of suitable habitat on Camp Parks.
Owls would be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 50
meter buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. One-way doors(e.g.
modified dryer vents)should be left in place 48 hours to ensure owls have left the burrow
before excavation. Two artificial burrows would be provided for each burrow in the
project area that will be rendered biologically unsuitable. The project area would be
monitored daily for one week to confirm owl use of burrows before excavating burrows
in the immediate impact zones.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Sm rEMEN r 4-37
MASTER PLANNED REDEVELOPMENT AT CAMP PARKS
JULY 2009
Vision That MoveaYoiur Community ATTACHMENT 4
Transportation
Consultants
Technical Memorandum
Date: October 31, 2013
To: Joe Guerra, Dublin Crossing Project No.: 157-223
From: Chris Kinzel Jurisdiction: Dublin
Subject Trip Generation Rates
There was a slight change in the trip rates for retail uses in the Institute of Transportation
Engineer's Trip Generation 8th Edition and Trip Generation 9th Edition. The 8th Edition was used for the
Dublin Crossing EIR's traffic study and the 9th Edition was used for the Site I 6A EIR's traffic study.
The traffic studies both use a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour rates to calculate levels of service
during these two time periods.
The 16A study had two land use components—a Whole Foods Market and general retail. The
Whole Foods Market used a separate trip rate because it has different trip making characteristics.
So, although the I6A site overall has more retail (including the Whole Foods portion), when the
Whole Foods component is eliminated, Dublin Crossing has more retail square footage.
For the 8th Edition the"generic" rate is 1.00 trips per a.m. peak hour per thousand square feet
(KSF) of retail while the 9th Edition's "generic" rate is 0.96 trips per a.m. peak hour per KSF. In
these studies, the"generic" or default value was not used because the trip rates of shopping
centers vary inversely with the size of the shopping center:the larger the square footage, the
lower the trip rate. To account for this phenomena, a formula is used, not the"generic" rates.
Pleasanton The formulae for the two editions were slightly different, resulting in slightly larger trip rates in the
4305 Hacienda Drive g Y g• g Y g P
Suite 550 8th Edition for equal square footage. However,the differences obtained from using the formulae
Pleasanton,CA
94588-2798 can best described as insignificant, particularly when considering that the square footages of retail
925.463.0611 in the two developments are different. Dublin Crossing has a retail component of 150 KSF, while
925.463.3690 fax
Site I 6A has a non Whole Foods retail component of 123.2 KSF. The Dublin Crossing has a larger
516 W.Shaw Avenue
Frenue amount of retail, so it utilized a smaller trip rate.
Suite 200
Fresno,CA The p.m. peak hour retail trip rates are also very similar between the 8th and 9 Editions of Trip
93704-2515 P• P P rY p
559.325.7530 Generation. The rate in the 8th Edition is 3.73 trips per KSF vs. 3.71 in the 9th Edition. However,
559.221.4940fax
formulae were used in both cases, resulting in very similar actual rates.
Sacramento
980 Ninth Street
16th Floor It can be concluded that the basic or"generic"trip rates used in the two studies are essentially
Sacramento,CA identical with the changes in specific footages.
ic rates related to the different sizes of retail square foots
95814-2736 g P q g
916.449.9095
Santa Rosa
1400 N.Dutton Avenue
Suite 21
Santa Rosa,CA
95401-4643
707.575.5800
707.575.5888 fax
tjkm @tikm.com
www.tjkm.com