HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.3 Approval of Plan and Specifications and Award Contract to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture, Waiver of a Minor Bid Irregularity, and Approval of Budget Change for Iron Horse Trail BridgeSTAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Page 1 of 4
Agenda Item 4.3
DATE:March 1, 2022
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:Approval of Plans and Specifications and Award of Contract to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture, Waiver of a Minor Bid Irregularity, and Approval of a Budget Change for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard, CIP No. ST0118Prepared by:William Wahbeh,Associate Civil Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The City Council will consider approving the plans and specifications, waiving a minor bid irregularity,and awarding a construction contract to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard Project. The project will construct a pedestrian andbicycle bridge structure, support foundations, and graduated ramps facilitating connection to theexisting trail on the north and south sides of Dublin Boulevard at the intersection of Scarlett Drive.The City Council will also consider approving a budget change to increase the project funding.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Adopt the Resolution Approving the Plans and Specifications, Waiving a Minor Bid Irregularity,and Awarding a Contract to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard Project (CIP No. ST0118),and approve the budget change.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:As approved in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the total budget for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge (CIP No. ST0118) is $11,604,439 (Attachment 2) and is funded with a combination of transportation funds, grants, and the Dublin Crossing Fund. The base bid submitted by Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture is $10,202,650.80. Staff recommends a 10% construction contingency in the amount of $1,020,000 to facilitate change orders for unforeseen construction issues, bringing the total potential construction cost to $11,222,650.80.In addition to the construction contract, the project budget includes expenditures for soft costs which include staff, consultants, permits, fees, and other miscellaneous costs. With these, Staff estimates the total project budget needs to be $14,004,439, requiring a budget increase of
36
Page 2 of 4
$2,400,000. Of this amount, Staff anticipates covering $600,000 through an appropriation by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), which will be included in the project budget when City Council considers the 2022-2027 CIP later this year.The remaining increase of $1,800,000 requires City Council approval of a budget increase to utilize State Gas Tax, Measure B and BB, and Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee funds, as shown below:Current Total Project Funding $11,604,439.00Project CostsBase Bid $10,202,650.80Construction Contingency $1,020,000.00Soft Costs $2,781,788.20Total Estimated Expenditures $14,004,439.00Funding Shortfall $2,400,000.00Additional Funding SourcesState Gas Tax $400,000.00Measure B Bike & Ped $300,000.00Measure BB Bike & Ped $200,000.00Measure BB Local Streets $400,000.00Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee $500,000.00Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (future)$600,000.00Total Additional Funding $2,400,000.00Current Proposed Budget Increase $1,800,000.00Future Budget Increase $600,000.00
DESCRIPTION:The Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard Project (CIP No. ST0118, Attachment 2). The project will construct a pedestrian and bicycle bridge structure, support foundations, and graduated ramps facilitating connection to the existing at-grade trail on the north and south sides of Dublin Boulevard at the intersection of Scarlett Drive. The bridge ramps will also connect to Don Biddle Community Park, which is located on the north side of Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail. The free-span bridge will be approximately 230 feet in length and provide a minimum of 17 feet of vertical clearance from the Dublin Boulevard surface. The entire length of the project, including landings north and south of Dublin Boulevard, as well as the bridge span itself, is approximately 1,200 feet. The project will provide a safer and easier crossing for trail users and facilitate improved trafficflow along Dublin Boulevard by providing a grade-separated crossing over Dublin Boulevard for pedestrians, bicyclists, and BART commuters. The terminus of the southeasterly side of the bridge
37
Page 3 of 4
crossing leads directly to the Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station.Bid Results and ConstructionThe City of Dublin issued the bid package on November 12, 2021 for the bridge improvements, which was made up of 43 base bids items and three bid alternate items. A total of nine sealed bids were received on January 20, 2022, with the base bids ranging from $10,202,650.80 to $13,242,978.00. A summary of the bids is provided as Attachment 3. The lowest base bid of $10,202,650.80 was submitted by Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture. Staff is not recommending award of any of the add alternate bid items, as the cost for these items was significantly over the Engineers Estimate and they are not necessary to complete the Project.The bid submitted by Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture contained a clerical error for Add Alternate Item 3 (Section TP-47C) in which the entry was incorrectly entered. As the City is not selecting any of the add alternates, this error is found to be immaterial. In addition, the Base Contract Total was written in numbers only and was not spelled out in words. The written numbers were consistent with the summation of the base bid extensions and the total base bid amount; therefore, this omission is found to be immaterial. The Public Contract Code and the City’s bid documents define these inconsistencies as “minor bid irregularities,” and authorize the City to waive these irregularities and proceed with the award of the contract.Staff reviewed the bid results, checked references and necessary licenses, and recommends that the City Council waive the minor bid irregularities and award the project construction contract to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture as the lowest responsive bidder. Additionally, to facilitate change orders for unforeseen construction issues and avoid related construction delays, Staff recommends that the City Manager be authorized to approve change orders up to a contingency amount of $1,020,000.00. Staff expects the project to begin in Spring 2022 and be substantially complete by Spring 2023. As part of the construction sequence, two full road closures of Dublin Boulevard are anticipated. The first closure will allow for setting the prefabricated bridge (Saturday 9:00 p.m. to Sunday 9:00 p.m.) and the second for the pouring of concrete for the bridge deck (Saturday 11:00 p.m. to Sunday 7:00 a.m.). Public notification will be provided well in advance of these closures through on-street signage, posting on the City’s website, and contact with surrounding businesses and residences. A motorist detour plan has been designed and coordinated with the City of Pleasanton to minimize impacts to the public during these road closures.California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)On April 7, 2020, the City Council determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment, and approved Resolution No. 23-20adopting the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 5).
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None.
38
Page 4 of 4
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:A copy of this Staff Report was sent to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture, Alameda County Transportation Commission’s Independent Watchdog Committee, and Bay Area Rapid Transit(BART). The City Council Agenda was posted.
ATTACHMENTS:1) Resolution Approving the Plans and Specifications, Waiving a Minor Bid Irregularity, and Awarding a Contract to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard Project, CIP No. ST01182) CIP No. ST01183) Bid Results 4) Budget Change Form5) Resolution No. 23-20 Adopting the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
39
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, WAIVING A MINOR BID
IRREGULARITY, AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO GOODFELLOW SEQUOIA JOINT
VENTURE FOR THE IRON HORSE TRAIL BRIDGE AT DUBLIN BOULEVARD PROJECT,
CIP NO. ST0118
WHEREAS,on February 20, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-18,
approving a new Capital Improvement Program Project, the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin
Boulevard (“Project”) and approving a Consulting Services Agreement with Mark Thomas &
Company, Inc. for the final design phase for the Project; and
WHEREAS,the design team has completed the plans and specifications for Project, which
will construct a pedestrian and bicycle bridge structure, support foundations, and graduated ramps
facilitating connection to the existing at-grade trail on the north and south sides of Dublin
Boulevard at the intersection of Scarlett Drive; and
WHEREAS,the City of Dublin did, on January 20, 2022, publicly open, examine, and
declare all sealed bids for doing the work described in the approved Plans and Specifications for
the Project, which Plans and Specifications are hereby expressly referred to for a description of
said work and for all particulars relative to the proceedings under the request for bids; and
WHEREAS,Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture’s bid contained minor bid irregularities in
that there was a clerical error in the entry of Alternate Item 3 which is not considered as a basis
of the lowest bid price nor are any alternate bid items being awarded, and the base contract total
was written in numbers only, not spelled out in words, but consistent with the summation of the
base bid extensions, and the Public Contract Code and the City’s bid documents authorize the
City to waive any minor irregularity and proceed with the award of the contract; and
WHEREAS,said bids were submitted to City Staff and that Goodfellow Sequoia Joint
Venture was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for doing said work.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby
approves the Plans and Specifications for the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby waive
the minor bid irregularities since the clerical errors do not change the lowest bid price on the Base
Contract.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby award
the Contract for the Project to the lowest responsive bidder, Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture, at
a bid of $10,202,650.80, the particulars of which bids are on file in the Office of the Public Works
Director.
40
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 2 of 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby
authorize the City Manager or designee to approve the Project Contract Change Orders based
on the appropriated funds designated for the Project up to the contingency amount of $1,020,000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or designee is authorized to execute
the Construction Agreement with Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture and make any necessary,
non-substantive changes to carry out the intent of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
41
Number ST0118ProgramSTREETSESTIMATED COSTSPRIOR YEARS 2020-2021 BUDGET 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 FUTURE YEARS TOTALS9100 $17,475 $137,985$155,4609200 $816,193 $1,603,347$2,419,5409400 $9,016,979$9,016,9799500 $2,460 $10,000$12,460$836,128 $10,768,311$11,604,439FUNDING SOURCEPRIOR YEARS 2020-2021 BUDGET 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 FUTURE YEARS TOTALS2201 $12,325 $432,715$445,0402204 $587,980$587,9802205 $100,000$100,0002207 $856,419$856,4192215 $100,000$100,0002217 $660,320 $5,384,680$6,045,0002218 $1,500,000$1,500,0002220 $163,482 $806,518$970,0004401 $1,000,000$1,000,000$836,128 $10,768,311$11,604,439ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT $50,000 $50,000 $50,000MiscellaneousTOTALState Gas TaxTOTALMeasure RR - Safe Routes to BARTDublin Crossing FundTFCA/Transportation for Clean AirMeasure B Sales Tax - Local Streets Fund (ACTC)Measure B Sales Tax - Bike & Pedestrian Fund (ACTC)Measure BB Sales Tax - Bike & Pedestrian FundMeasure BB GrantsRoad Maint. & Rehab. Account (RMRA)Contract ServicesImprovementsIRON HORSE TRAIL BRIDGE AT DUBLIN BOULEVARDSalaries & Benefits2020-2025 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMPROJECT DESCRIPTIONThis project provides for the planning, design, and construction of the Iron Horse Trail bridge for bicycles and pedestrians over Dublin Boulevard. The project will construct a truss arch bridge consistent with the Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study and preliminary bridge design, approved by the City Council on November 7, 2017. The bridge will provide safer and easier trail access, including access to and from the Dublin-Pleasanton BART station. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) approved an allocation of $1,294,000 of Measure BB discretionary funds in Fiscal Year 2017-2018 for the bridge design and environmental clearance. On June 17, 2019 ACTC approved additional funding in the amount of $4,751,000 of Measure BB and $856,419 of Transportation for Clean Air funds for the construction phase of the project. The project will also receive funding of $1,000,000 for construction from a Developer contribution from the Boulevard Project. Fall 2020 BART approved $1,500,000 of Measure RR Safe Routes to BART Grant for the construction phase of the project.ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT: $50,000MANAGING DEPARTMENT: Public WorksAttachment 242
Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin BoulevardST0118Bid Date:ITEM Qty.UNITUnit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension11LS$810,000.00$810,000.00$1,000,000.00$1,000,000.00$1,100,000.00$1,100,000.00$1,100,000.00$1,100,000.00$848,000.00$848,000.00$1,055,000.00$1,055,000.00$1,200,000.00$1,200,000.00$538,847.29$538,847.29$1,200,000.00$1,200,000.0021LS$100,000.00$100,000.00$15,000.00$15,000.00$15,000.00$15,000.00$20,000.00$20,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$5,000.00$100,000.00$100,000.00$150,000.00$150,000.00$10,000.00$10,000.0031LS$90,000.00$90,000.00$50,000.00$50,000.00$100,000.00$100,000.00$150,000.00$150,000.00$48,000.00$48,000.00$166,000.00$166,000.00$120,000.00$120,000.00$175,000.00$175,000.00$80,000.00$80,000.0041LS$175,000.00$175,000.00$150,000.00$150,000.00$340,000.00$340,000.00$250,000.00$250,000.00$227,000.00$227,000.00$100,000.00$100,000.00$200,000.00$200,000.00$250,000.00$250,000.00$450,000.00$450,000.0051LS$250,000.00$250,000.00$50,000.00$50,000.00$50,000.00$50,000.00$25,000.00$25,000.00$4,450.00$4,450.00$20,000.00$20,000.00$25,000.00$25,000.00$33,000.00$33,000.00$15,000.00$15,000.0067,610 SF$1.00$7,610.00$1.00$7,610.00$2.00$15,220.00$5.00$38,050.00$2.00$15,220.00$1.50$11,415.00$5.00$38,050.00$1.00$7,610.00$5.00$38,050.00714 EA$495.00$6,930.00$545.00$7,630.00$1,000.00$14,000.00$500.00$7,000.00$550.00$7,700.00$1,300.00$18,200.00$1,500.00$21,000.00$400.00$5,600.00$520.00$7,280.008680 CY$80.00$54,400.00$100.00$68,000.00$150.00$102,000.00$135.00$91,800.00$120.00$81,600.00$140.00$95,200.00$185.00$125,800.00$100.00$68,000.00$210.00$142,800.0091LS$20,000.00$20,000.00$70,000.00$70,000.00$150,000.00$150,000.00$100,000.00$100,000.00$11,500.00$11,500.00$240,700.00$240,700.00$45,000.00$45,000.00$20,000.00$20,000.00$20,000.00$20,000.0010325 CY$65.00$21,125.00$175.00$56,875.00$100.00$32,500.00$175.00$56,875.00$140.00$45,500.00$147.00$47,775.00$115.00$37,375.00$124.00$40,300.00$130.00$42,250.0011200 TON$130.00$26,000.00$193.53$38,706.00$250.00$50,000.00$250.00$50,000.00$160.00$32,000.00$188.00$37,600.00$275.00$55,000.00$300.00$60,000.00$314.00** $62,800.0012100 SF$33.00$3,300.00$50.00$5,000.00$60.00$6,000.00$125.00$12,500.00$35.00$3,500.00$100.00$10,000.00$70.00$7,000.00$75.00$7,500.00$6.00$600.00137,450 SF$11.00$81,950.00$11.00$81,950.00$10.00$74,500.00$15.00$111,750.00$13.00$96,850.00$24.00$178,800.00$14.00$104,300.00$20.00$149,000.00$12.00$89,400.00141LS$400.00$400.00$400.00$400.00$400.00$400.00$400.00$400.00$385.00$385.00$400.00$400.00$425.00$425.00$950.00$950.00$300.00$300.00151,212 CY$150.00$181,800.00$150.00$181,800.00$100.00$121,200.00$175.00$212,100.00$90.00$109,080.00$110.00$133,320.00$60.00$72,720.00$65.00$78,780.00$175.00$212,100.0016176 CY$35.00$6,160.00$88.00$15,488.00$100.00$17,600.00$200.00$35,200.00$240.00$42,240.00$280.00$49,280.00$325.00$57,200.00$120.00$21,120.00$135.00$23,760.0017298 CY$300.00$89,400.00$110.00$32,780.00$250.00$74,500.00$250.00$74,500.00$180.00$53,640.00$240.00$71,520.00$120.00$35,760.00$75.00$22,350.00$155.00$46,190.0018161 CY$80.00$12,880.00$160.00$25,760.00$100.00$16,100.00$150.00$24,150.00$110.00$17,710.00$773.00$124,453.00$140.00$22,540.00$65.00$10,465.00$160.00$25,760.00191,435 CY$150.00$215,250.00$90.00$129,150.00$140.00$200,900.00$85.00$121,975.00$140.00$200,900.00$124.00$177,940.00$125.00$179,375.00$136.00$195,160.00$90.00$129,150.00201,406 LF$250.00$351,500.00$270.00$379,620.00$330.00$463,980.00$265.00$372,590.00$280.00$393,680.00$275.00$386,650.00$300.00$421,800.00$325.00$456,950.00$360.00$506,160.0021268 LF$500.00$134,000.00$533.00$142,844.00$610.00$163,480.00$575.00$154,100.00$580.00$155,440.00$595.00$159,460.00$700.00$187,600.00$650.00$174,200.00$700.00$187,600.00221LS$110,500.00$110,500.00$105,000.00$105,000.00$100,000.00$100,000.00$105,000.00$105,000.00$130,000.00$130,000.00$127,000.00$127,000.00$115,000.00$115,000.00$120,000.00$120,000.00$130,000.00$130,000.0023237 CY$2,200.00$521,400.00$3,600.00$853,200.00$2,600.00$616,200.00$3,500.00$829,500.00$3,500.00$829,500.00$4,030.00$955,110.00$2,000.00$474,000.00$5,000.00$1,185,000.00$3,000.00$711,000.0024329 CY$325.00$106,925.00$1,000.00$329,000.00$550.00$180,950.00$1,000.00$329,000.00$1,000.00$329,000.00$500.00$164,500.00$600.00$197,400.00$425.00$139,825.00$600.00$197,400.002595 CY$450.00$42,750.00$700.00$66,500.00$750.00$71,250.00$1,250.00$118,750.00$1,000.00$95,000.00$725.00$68,875.00$700.00$66,500.00$700.00$66,500.00$600.00$57,000.0026156 CY$1,800.00$280,800.00$2,150.00$335,400.00$5,000.00$780,000.00$2,250.00$351,000.00$3,400.00$530,400.00$2,200.00$343,200.00$3,194.00$498,264.00$2,700.00$421,200.00$3,000.00$468,000.0027349 CY$2,100.00$732,900.00$1,850.00$645,650.00$1,200.00$418,800.00$2,500.00$872,500.00$3,000.00$1,047,000.00$2,750.00$959,750.00$1,323.00$461,727.00$2,800.00$977,200.00$2,200.00$767,800.002863 CY$1,500.00$94,500.00$1,550.00$97,650.00$2,000.00$126,000.00$865.00$54,495.00$2,000.00$126,000.00$2,550.00$160,650.00$2,200.00$138,600.00$2,600.00$163,800.00$1,800.00$113,400.00295,448 SF$175.00$953,400.00$200.00$1,089,600.00$210.00$1,144,080.00$25.00$136,200.00$200.00$1,089,600.00$210.00$1,144,080.00$175.00$953,400.00$225.00$1,225,800.00$215.00$1,171,320.003019,272 SF$1.00$19,272.00$15.00$289,080.00$15.00$289,080.00$3.50$67,452.00$3.00$57,816.00$2.00$38,544.00$5.00$96,360.00$10.00$192,720.00$3.00$57,816.003124 LF$250.00$6,000.00$250.00$6,000.00$235.00$5,640.00$75.00$1,800.00$232.00$5,568.00$232.00$5,568.00$150.00$3,600.00$225.00$5,400.00$150.00$3,600.003272,484 LB$2.50$181,210.00$1.50$108,726.00$2.00$144,968.00$1.75$126,847.00$1.46$105,826.64$1.50$108,726.00$2.00$144,968.00$1.75$126,847.00$1.75$126,847.0033204,940 LB$1.50$307,410.00$1.30$266,422.00$1.50$307,410.00$1.75$358,645.00$1.26$258,224.40$1.35$276,669.00$2.00$409,880.00$1.55$317,657.00$1.55$317,657.0034154 EA$9.00$1,386.00$9.00$1,386.00$15.00$2,310.00$15.00$2,310.00$8.75$1,347.50$9.00$1,386.00$15.00$2,310.00$11.00$1,694.00$23.00$3,542.00351,324 LB$13.00$17,212.00$25.00$33,100.00$15.00$19,860.00$90.00$119,160.00$20.00$26,480.00$23.00$30,452.00$30.00$39,720.00$34.00$45,016.00$12.00$15,888.00361LS$93,000.00$93,000.00$131,000.00$131,000.00$50,000.00$50,000.00$85,000.00$85,000.00$38,000.00$38,000.00$72,000.00$72,000.00$75,000.00$75,000.00$65,000.00$65,000.00$25,000.00$25,000.003719,272 SF$1.40$26,980.80$1.25$24,090.00$1.50$28,908.00$3.25$62,634.00$1.25$24,090.00$2.25$43,362.00$6.50$125,268.00$2.25$43,362.00$1.50$28,908.00382,169 LF$500.00$1,084,500.00$476.00$1,032,444.00$520.00$1,127,880.00$865.00$1,876,185.00$795.00$1,724,355.00$880.00$1,908,720.00$900.00$1,952,100.00$550.00$1,192,950.00$600.00$1,301,400.0039460 LF$380.00$174,800.00$355.00$163,300.00$500.00$230,000.00$850.00$391,000.00$760.00$349,600.00$880.00$404,800.00$900.00$414,000.00$425.00$195,500.00$570.00$262,200.00401EA$1,660,000.00$1,660,000.00$1,782,300.00$1,782,300.00$2,000,000.00$2,000,000.00$2,250,000.00$2,250,000.00$1,688,000.00$1,688,000.00$1,980,000.00$1,980,000.00$1,800,000.00$1,800,000.00$2,480,000.00$2,480,000.00$2,300,000.00$2,300,000.00411EA$250,000.00$250,000.00$350,000.00$350,000.00$300,000.00$300,000.00$515,000.00$515,000.00$808,000.00$808,000.00$372,000.00$372,000.00$1,100,000.00$1,100,000.00$640,000.00$640,000.00$205,000.00$205,000.00421LS$200,000.00$200,000.00$100,000.00$100,000.00$190,000.00$190,000.00$115,000.00$115,000.00$198,000.00$198,000.00$118,000.00$118,000.00$215,000.00$215,000.00$125,000.00$125,000.00$175,000.00$175,000.00431LS$700,000.00$700,000.00$679,539.00$679,539.00$650,000.00$650,000.00$700,000.00$700,000.00$700,000.00$700,000.00$690,000.00$690,000.00$800,000.00$800,000.00$975,000.00$975,000.00$1,515,000.00$1,515,000.00TOTAL$10,202,650.80$10,998,000.00$11,890,716.00*$12,475,468.00$12,561,202.54$13,062,105.00$13,139,042.00$13,170,303.29*$13,242,978.00*Mathematical error "summation of bid items"**Mathematical error "unit cost extension" Add Alternates1A1LS$1,500,000.00$1,500,000.00$1,000,000.00$1,000,000.00$993,000.00$993,000.00$865,000.00$865,000.00$1,608,000.00$1,608,000.00$1,525,000.00$1,525,000.00$1,850,000.00$1,850,000.00$232,000.00$232,000.00$306,250.00$306,250.001B1LS$2,000,000.00$2,000,000.00$1,250,000.00$1,250,000.00$1,067,000.00$1,067,000.00$1,125,000.00$1,125,000.00$2,020,000.00$2,020,000.00$1,770,000.00$1,770,000.00$1,950,000.00$1,950,000.00$556,000.00$556,000.00$368,750.00$368,750.001C1LS$360,000.00$360,000.00$1,550,000.00$1,550,000.00$1,256,000.00$1,256,000.00$1,400,000.00$1,400,000.00$2,468,000.00$2,468,000.00$2,076,000.00$2,076,000.00$2,250,000.00$2,250,000.00$967,000.00$967,000.00$609,375.00$609,375.00List of Sub-ContractorsOliveira FenceBay Cities Paving & Grading Bay Cities Paving & GradingIMRAE Painting IMRAE PaintngPeninsula Crane & Rigging Maxim Crane WorksTechno CoatingsCITY OF DUBLINPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTENGINEERING DIVISIONBID SUMMARYProject Name: Project No. :Structural Concrete, BridgeStructural Concrete, Bridge (Polymer Fiber)Lightweight ConcreteTrail Lighting (Base Bid)Joint Seal (MR 1 1/2")Bar Reinforcing Steel (Bridge)Headed Bar ReinforcementMiscellaneous Metal (Bridge)Bridge Deck Drainage SystemModified Metal Bridge RailingFurnish Prefabricated Steel Truss Bridge (230')Erect Prefabricated Steel Truss Bridge (230')Structural Steel (Wave Railing)PaintingMyers & Sons Ghilotti Granite Rock MCM Construction Walsh Construction Bridgeway Civil ConstructorsBridgeway Civil ConstructorsDescriptionGoodfellow Sequoia JV Granite Construction Gordon N. Ball Myers & Sons GhilottiDESCRIPTIONLOW BIDDERTrail Lighting (Alternative 1)Trail Lighting (Alternative 2)Trail Lighting (Alternative 3)Structural Backfill (Retaining Wall)Light Weight Cellular Concrete Backfill (Class II)Structural Concrete, Retaining WallStructural Concrete, Retaining Wall (Footing)Architectural TreatmentBar Reinforcing Steel (Retaining Wall)January 20, 2022BASE BID Goodfellow Sequoia JV Granite Construction Gordon N. BallGranite Rock MCM Construction Walsh ConstructionMobilization (10% of construction cost)COVID Health and Safety ProtocolWater Pollution Control (Includes SWPPP)Traffic ControlClearing and GrubbingRemove Landscape and IrrigationRemove TreeRoadway ExcavationSheeting, Shoring, and BracingClass 2 Aggregate BaseHot Mix AsphaltRoadside SignMinor Concrete (Sidewalk - ADA Ramp)Energy Dissipation CobblestoneStructural Excavation (Retaining Wall)Spray-On Concrete VeneerAnti-Graffiti CoatingMetal Bridge RailingStructure Excavation (Bridge)Structure Backfill (Bridge)24" Cast-In-Drilled-Hole Concrete Piling36" Cast-In-Drilled-Hole Concrete PilingPrestressing Cast-In-Place ConcreteStructural Concrete, Bridge FootingTennyson ElectricReinforcing SteelCMC Rebar CMC Rebar CMC Rebar CMC Rebar CMC Rebar CMC Rebar CMC Rebar CMC Rebar CMC RebarElectricalColumbia Electric W. Bradley Electric Lee Contractors & Consultants W Bradley Electric Columbia Electric W Bradley Electric St. Francis Electric Phoenix ElectricCell-Crete CorporationCIDH PileDrill Tech Drilling Mahaffey Drilling Drill Tech Drilling Mahaffey Drilling Drill Tech Drilling West Coast Drilling Drill Tech Drilling Mahaffey DrillingCellular ConcreteCell-Crete Corporation Cell-Crete Corporation Cell-Crete Corporation Cell-Crete Corporation Cell-Crete Corporation Cell-Crete Corporation Conco Cell-Crete CorporationSchwager DavisConstruction Area SignsSchotka ConstructionPre-StressingSchwager Davis Schwager Davis Schwager Davis Schwager Davis Schwager Davis Schwager Davis Schwager Davis Schwager DavisHandrailCraneVeyor Corporation CraneVeyor Corporation Golden Bay Fence Golden Bay Fence Golden Bay Fence Golden Bay Fence CraneVeyor CorporationFurnish & Erect Steel Truss BridgeAdams & Smith Stinger Bridge & Iron Stinger Bridge & IronAnti Graffiti CNJ Enterprise CNJ EnterpriseJoint SealAustin EnterpriseCrane ServiceFencePaving & GradingMinor Concrete FBN VanguardAttachment 343
Budget Change Reference #:
From Un-Appropriated Reserves X get Transfer Between Funds
From Designated Reserves Other
Account Amount Account Amount
ST0118.9400.9401 (Improvements) $1,800,000
3600.9601.49999 (Transfers In) $1,800,000
ST0118.2201 (2201.9601.89101) - Gas Tax Fund Transfers Out $400,000
ST0118.2205 (2205.9601.89101) - Measure B Bike & Ped Fund Transfers Out $300,000
ST0118.2215 (2215.9601.89101) - Measure BB Bike & Ped Fund Transfers Out $200,000
ST0118.2214 (2214.9601.89101) - Measure BB Local Streets Fund Transfers Out $400,000
ST0118.4301 (4301.9601.89101) - EDTIF Fund Transfers Out $500,000
3/1/2022
Posted By:Date:
As Presented at the City Council Meeting
**********Finance Use Only**********
CITY OF DUBLIN
REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE
FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
BUDGET CHANGE FORM
DECREASE BUDGET AMOUNT INCREASE BUDGET AMOUNT
City Council's Approval Required
EXP: Iron Horse Bridge at DublinBlvd (PK0422)
Increase in project cost due to higher bids received for the project
Attachment 4
44
Reso No. 23-20, Item 4.11, Adopted 04/07/20 Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 23 - 20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING
A PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION FOR THE IRON HORSE TRAIL BRIDGE AT DUBLIN BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard Project (PROJECT) is
proposing to construct a bicycle and pedestrian bridge in the general vicinity of Dublin Boulevard
and Scarlett Drive Intersection; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2019, the Alameda County Transportation Commission allocated
5,607,419 in grant funding to the City of Dublin for the Construction phase of the PROJECT;
and
WHEREAS, to receive this grant funding a local match of $2,694,581 will be required and
adequate local transportation and developer funds are available to meet this requirement ; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2013, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 186 -13,
incorporated herein by reference, certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopted
findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
project (“Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR”, SCH 2012062009) ("DCEIR”); and
WHEREAS, the construction of a bridge (grade-separated) crossing for Iron Horse Trail
across Dublin Boulevard was included as a mitigation measure in the DCEIR; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2015, the City Council adopted a CEQA Addendum pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin
Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (“Addendum”), concluding that the minor
changes proposed would not result in any of the conditions that would require preparation of a
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR and therefore that an addendum to the DCEIR should be
prepared; the City Council also confirmed the findings of the DCEIR and the statement of
overriding considerations originally adopted in 2013; and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2017, the Dublin City Council approved the Iron Horse Trail
Feasibility Study as well as the proposed design of a bridge crossing at Dublin Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2018, a public meeting was held to discuss the PROJECT;
and
WHEREAS, there is a portion of the PROJECT that occurs outside the DCEIR study area
on lands that have not previously been studied; and
Attachment 5
45
Reso No. 23-20, Item 4.11, Adopted 04/07/20 Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/SMND) to determine whether supplemental environmental review was required
for the currently proposed PROJECT under CEQA standards. The IS/SMND examined whether
there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in
circumstances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant
impacts than analyzed in the DCEIR or whether any other standards for supplement
environmental review were met; and
WHEREAS, the IS/SMND for the PROJECT included a wetland delineation study and a
cultural resources report, and determined that the DCEIR adequately addresses the potential
environmental impacts for the PROJECT with the supplemental analyse s set forth in the
IS/SMND; and
WHEREAS, all relevant mitigation measures from the DCEIR will be implemented for the
PROJECT as the DCEIR adequately describes the impacts and mitigations for the PROJECT;
and
WHEREAS, the IS/SMND determined that the PROJECT would not result in any of the
conditions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a Subsequent or
Supplemental EIR; and
WHEREAS, a notice of public review and intent to adopt a Supplemental Mitigated
Negative Declaration was thereafter duly posted on November 22, 2019, and the draft IS/SMND
was circulated for public review from November 25, 2019 to December 16, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received one comment letter during the public review period;
and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated April 7, 2020 and incorporated herein by reference
described and analyzed the PROJECT and related IS/SMND for the City Council and
recommended adoption of the IS/SMND and approval of the PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the IS/SMND, as well as the prior DCEIR, the
Addendum, and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before taking any
action on the PROJECT.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds the following:
A. The Dublin City Council has reviewed and considered the Supplemental Mitigated Negative
Declaration including comments received during the public review period, prior to taking
action on the PROJECT.
B. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately describes the environmental
impacts of the PROJECT.
C. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as identified in the DCEIR, adequately
describes the impacts and mitigations for this PROJECT and is incorporated by reference
herein, to the extent applicable to this PROJECT.
46
Reso No. 23-20, Item 4.11, Adopted 04/07/20 Page 3 of 3
D.On the basis of the whole record before it, the City Council finds that there is no substantial
evidence that the PROJECT as approved with mitigation will have a significant effect on
the environment.
E.The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with
CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Regulations.
F.The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects
the City’s independent judgement and analysis as to the environmental effects of the
PROJECT.
G.Following adoption of this Resolution, City staff is authorized and directed to file with the
County of Alameda a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the Dublin City Council
adopts the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit A for the PROJECT
and the applicable mitigation measures in the DCEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby approves
the Project Funding Agreement with the Alameda County Transportation Commission attached
hereto as Exhibit B to this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute the Project
Funding Agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of April 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Goel, Hernandez, Josey, Kumagai and Mayor Haubert
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
47
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019
48
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
The City of Dublin is considering construction of the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard
Overcrossing (Overcrossing Project) that would include a free-span bridge structure and ramps
to connect the bridge with the existing Iron Horse Trail where it occurs on the north and south
sides of Dublin Boulevard. The City’s decision to construct the overcrossing constitutes a
project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and requires a discretionary
action by the City of Dublin (approve the Overcrossing Project for construction). As such,
pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must
evaluate the potential for construction or operation of the Overcrossing Project to create
adverse environmental effects. This Initial Study/Supplemental MND (IS/SMND) has been
prepared for the Overcrossing Project pursuant to the rules for supplemental environmental
review under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, as
described below.
Description of the Proposed Project
The Iron Horse Regional Trail is a major regional pedestrian and bicycle trail through central
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, providing non-motorized access to local communities and
regional transit facilities including the nearby Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Generally
following a former Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way that was abandoned in 1977, the trail
passes through the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon, Danville, Alamo, Walnut
Creek, and Concord and unincorporated areas of the Counties of Contra Costa and Alameda.
The Iron Horse Regional Trail is maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District. It has several
existing bridges over busy roadways to help improve traffic flow on the roadways and facilitate
pedestrian/bicycle movement along the trail.
Within the City of Dublin, the existing trail runs from northwest to southeast as it approaches
Dublin Boulevard, which is a heavily travelled east-west roadway. Trail users crossing Dublin
Boulevard must use the sidewalk along the south side of Dublin Boulevard for approximately
200 feet to cross the street at the existing Scarlett Drive signalized intersection and use the
sidewalk along the north side of Dublin Boulevard for approximately 100 feet to get back to the
trail (Figure 1).
The primary objective of the Overcrossing Project is to provide a safe crossing for trail users and
to facilitate improved traffic flow along Dublin Boulevard by providing a grade-separated bridge
crossing over Dublin Boulevard for pedestrians and bicyclists. The Overcrossing Project would
49
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 2
allow trail users to stay on the trail and cross over multiple lanes of automobile traffic on the
proposed free-span bridge structure (Figure 2) without disrupting vehicular traffic flow.
The Overcrossing Project would require construction of bridge structure, support foundations,
and graduated ramps facilitating connection to the existing at-grade trail on the north and
south side of Dublin Boulevard. The bridge ramps will also connect to Don Biddle Park which is
currently under construction and is located on the north side of Dublin Boulevard adjacent to
the existing Iron Horse Trail right-of-way. The proposed free-span overcrossing structure would
be approximately 230 feet in length and provide a minimum of 17 feet of vertical clearance
from the Dublin Boulevard road surface (Figure 2). The entire length of the Overcrossing
Project, including landings north and south of Dublin Boulevard, as well as the bridge span
itself, is approximately 1,200 feet in length. The project area, which includes the total area that
would be utilized for project construction encompasses approximately 2 acres (Figure 3).
CEQA Background
On November 5, 2013, the City Council approved Resolutions 186-13 (EIR certification) and
187-13 (Dublin Crossing Specific Plan [DCSP] approval and General Plan amendments), as well
as Ordinances 07-13 (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map changes) and 08-13 (Development
Agreement). The DCSP covers an area of 189 acres and is generally bound by 5th Street to the
north, Scarlett Drive to the west, Dublin Boulevard to the south, and Arnold Road to the
east. Buildout of the DCSP is currently under way and includes construction of a residential
mixed-use project with up to 1,995 single- and multi-family residential units; up to 200,000
square feet of retail, office, and/or commercial uses; a 30-acre Community Park (Don Biddle
Park); a 5-acre Neighborhood Park, and a 12-acre school site.
The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR (DCEIR), which was certified as part of the approvals listed
above, concluded that build out of the DCSP would result in significant cumulative impacts from
short-term construction air quality emissions and long-term operational emissions primarily in
the form of vehicle and equipment exhaust.
The DCEIR document determined that the intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard
would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service F in the PM peak hour under both 2035
cumulative no project and 2035 cumulative plus project conditions. The DCEIR concluded that a
grade separated crossing of the trail over Dublin Boulevard would allow more green time to be
allotted to through traffic on Dublin Boulevard at its intersection with Scarlett Drive. With
implementation of DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 requiring a grade-separated crossing for
the Iron Horse trail over Dublin Boulevard, the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection
would operate at level of service (LOS) C during the PM peak hour. Mitigation Measure 3.12-3
was also established in the DCEIR to reduce future emissions from Dublin Boulevard motorists
stopping at the crosswalk at Scarlett Drive during commute hours to allow pedestrians and
bicyclists to cross Dublin Boulevard to access the Iron Horse Trail. Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 in
50
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 3
the DCEIR specifically requires construction of a bridge crossing for the Iron Horse Trail over
Dublin Boulevard:
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-3: Construction of a Grade Separated Crossing at the
Intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard. To mitigate the impacts at the
intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard due to higher rate of
pedestrians/bicyclists crossings at Dublin Boulevard, a grade separated crossing should
be utilized. The grade separated crossing would eliminate the need for at-grade
pedestrian actuations at the traffic signal, which would allow more green time to be
allocated to through traffic on Dublin Boulevard.
Although impacts at the intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard could be mitigated
to less than significant, the DCEIR determined that the following impacts would remain
significant even with implementation of all feasible mitigation:
Short-term Construction Air Quality – The DCEIR concluded that even with all feasible
construction mitigation measures, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan project would
generate construction emissions exceeding BAAQMD thresholds.
Long-term Operational Air Quality –With application of the measures/design features
regarding area and mobile source emissions within the Specific Plan, the DCEIR
determined that operational emissions would exceed the thresholds for ROG, NOx, and
PM10.
Long-term Operational Impacts to Freeway Ramps – The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
project would result in significant impacts to the following freeway ramps:
o Southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 Eastbound On-ramp under project and
cumulative conditions
o Southbound Tassajara Road to I-580 Westbound On-ramp under cumulative
conditions.
The DCEIR set forth Mitigation Measure 3.12-7 to modify ramp metering rates so that
more vehicles could access the freeway. However, because the freeway ramps are
operated by Caltrans, the City could not guarantee implementation of this mitigation
measure.
Because the DCEIR concluded that, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation
measures, these impacts could not be reduced to a less-than-significant level, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted along with the DCEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064 (a)(2).
51
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 4
Subsequently, on June 2, 2015 the City Council adopted a CEQA Addendum pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Amendments to the General Plan,
DCSP, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. The
addendum concluded that the minor changes proposed for the General Plan, DCSP, and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would not result in any of the conditions that would require
preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR and therefore concluded that an
addendum to the DCEIR should be prepared. The City Council also confirmed the findings
of the Final EIR and the statement of overriding considerations originally adopted in 2013.
Applicable CEQA Requirements and Conclusions
Although a grade-separated overcrossing for the Iron Horse Trail over Dublin Boulevard is
described in the DCEIR and is included as a mitigation for traffic impacts, the analysis in
the DCEIR does not specifically address the environmental impacts of construction and
operation of the Overcrossing Project. Thus, it is the purpose of this document to analyze
environmental impacts specifically related to the Overcrossing Project pursuant to the
requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which identifies the following conditions
requiring subsequent environmental review following certification of an EIR:
a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one
or more of the following:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted,
shows any of the following:
A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
52
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 5
C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt
the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
The environmental impacts of the Overcrossing Project were therefore analyzed based on
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 in the form of the following questions:
a) Would the proposed Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project involve
substantial changes to the project analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR that would result in
either (1) new significant impacts not identified in the Dublin Crossing EIR or (2) any of the
significant unavoidable impacts identified in the DCEIR being substantially more severe?
Findings: There are no substantial changes to the overall 189-acre project analyzed in
the DCSP EIR. The proposed Overcrossing Project will add foundation and footings for
the free-span overcrossing of Dublin Boulevard plus ramps to connect with the existing
trail at grade. Land use and approved development in the DCSP would not be changed as
a result of construction and operation of the overcrossing structure and associated
access ramps connecting the structure to the Iron Horse Trail. The project would not
result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.
b) Have any substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances under which
the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan is being undertaken such that the proposed Iron Horse
Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project would involve either new or substantially
more severe significant impacts than those identified in the Dublin Crossing EIR?
Finding: While the DCEIR did not specifically address impacts associated with the
Overcrossing Project, the northern landing for the project is located within the
westernmost portion of Don Biddle Community Park adjacent to the east side of the
Scarlett Drive right-of-way, and the impacts associated with both the park and Scarlett
Drive were analyzed in the DCSP.
Construction of the Overcrossing Project would begin after development of the 30-acre
Don Biddle Community Park has been completed. Temporary construction impacts of
the proposed bridge crossing on park uses will be subject to the mitigation measures
established in the DCEIR.
Neither the bridge crossing itself nor the southern landing of the overcrossing are within
the area analyzed in the DCEIR. Therefore, the analyses were undertaken for this
53
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 6
IS/SMND, including a wetland delineation study (Appendix B) and a cultural resources
report (Appendix C). These analyses substantiate that the modifications to Don Biddle
Community Park, along with addition of the proposed bridge crossing and southerly
landing to the project area analyzed in the DCEIR would not cause any new or
substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in that EIR.
c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time of the DCEIR that shows (1) the Overcrossing Project at
Dublin Boulevard would result in a new significant effect not addressed in that EIR or a
substantially severe significant effect than was identified in that EIR; (2) that mitigation
measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible but the
Applicant has declined to adopt them; or (3) mitigation measures or alternatives
considerably different from those in the DCEIR would substantially reduce significant
effects but the Applicant declines to adopt them?
Finding: The design of the trail overcrossing of Dublin Boulevard and related
construction details were not known and could not have been known at the time of the
DCEIR. However, the analyses undertaken for this IS/SMND, including a wetland
delineation study and a cultural resources report, have determined there is no new
information showing a new or substantially more severe significant effect than those
identified in the DCEIR would result. No mitigation measures previously determined to
be infeasible are now feasible, nor are any mitigation measures considerably different
than those set forth in the DCEIR now needed to address the impacts of the proposed
Iron Horse Trail bridge crossing over Dublin Boulevard. All relevant mitigation measures
from the DCEIR will be implemented for the bridge crossing project as that EIR
adequately describes the impacts and mitigations associated with the proposed
development. Appendix D includes a list of the DCEIR mitigation measures that would
apply to the Overcrossing Project.
The DCEIR identified and analyzed three alternatives (No Project, Reduced Development,
Alternate Use) and did not identify any additional alternatives that were considered and
rejected from further analysis because they were infeasible. The three alternatives
analyzed in the DCEIR were rejected as they did not attain most basic project objectives,
did not significantly reduce Project impacts, and cannot now be feasibly developed since
construction of the Specific Plan, as it was approved, is well under way. No alternatives
exist that are considerably different than those set forth in the DCEIR which would
address the impacts of the proposed Iron Horse Trail bridge crossing over Dublin
Boulevard.
d) Should a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration be prepared?
Finding: This IS/SMND evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed Overcrossing
Project at Dublin Boulevard and demonstrates that the Overcrossing Project would not
54
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 7
result in any of the conditions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring
preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. Because the proposed Overcrossing
Project is subject to mitigation measures set forth in the DCEIR, a Supplemental
Mitigated Negative Declaration was therefore prepared.
Conclusion
This Supplemental MND is prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The City further determines that the Dublin Crossing Specific
Plan EIR adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts for the project with the
supplemental analyses set forth in this IS/SMND.
This Supplemental MND will be circulated for public review for 20 days in accordance with
CEQA requirements. A 20-day public review is appropriate since the proposed Overcrossing
Project does not meet any of the criteria set forth for Projects of Statewide, Regional, or
Areawide Significance set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15026.
The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR and all resolutions cited above are incorporated herein by
reference and are available for public review during normal business hours in the Community
Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA.
55
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019
56
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page i
Table of Contents
Background and Project Description ........................................................................................ 1
Environmental Checklist .......................................................................................................... 8
Appendices
A Special Status Species Table
B Wetland Delineation Report
C Cultural Resources Technical Study
D DCEIR Mitigation Measures
List of Figures
Figure 1: Existing Conditions
Figure 2: Proposed Project
Figure 3: Project Area
Figure 4: Simulated View of Proposed Project
Figure 5: Project Area South of Dublin Boulevard
Figure 6: Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation
Figure 7: Flood Hazard Map
Note: All figures are included at the end of the document.
List of Tables
Table 1. San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status ……………………………………………. 20
Table 2. Previous Cultural Resource Studies within the Project Area ………………………… 39
Table 3. Typical Construction Activities Noise Levels ………………………………………………… 80
Table 4. Typical Noise from Construction Equipment ……………………………………………….. 81
57
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page ii
List of Acronyms
A-P Alquist-Priolo
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACE Altamont Commuter Express
AQMPs Air Quality Management Plans
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards(
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAP Clean Air Plan
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CARE Community Air Risk Evaluation
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDMG California Department of Mines and Geology
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO carbon monoxide
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
DBH diameter at breast height
DCEIR Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR
DCSP Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOSH Division of Occupational Safety and Health
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EACCS Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
58
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page iii
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FEMA Federal Environmental Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FGC Fish and Game Code
GHG greenhouse gas
HAPs hazardous air pollutants
HOV high occupancy vehicle
Hp horsepower
HRS Hazard Ranking System
IS/SMND Initial Study/Supplemental MND
LOS level of service
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MLD Most Likely Descendent
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOI Notice of Intent
NOx nitrogen oxide
NPL National Priority List
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
O3 Ozone
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PDAs Priority Development Areas
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
PM10 coarse particulate matter
ROGs Reactive Organic Gases
SB Senate Bill
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SHPO State Historical Preservation Office
SLF Sacred Lands File
59
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page iv
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOx sulfur oxide
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
USC United States Code
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Services
USGS United States Geologic Survey
VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled
VOCs volatile organic compounds
60
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
Background and Project Description
Project Title
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Contact Person and Phone Number
Obaid Khan
Transportation and Operations Manager
Phone: 925-833-6630
obaid.khan@dublin.ca.gov
Project Location and Setting
The Iron Horse Regional Trail is a major regional pedestrian and bicycle trail through central
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, generally following a former Southern Pacific Railroad
right-of-way that was abandoned in 1977. The Iron Horse Regional Trail was first established in
1986. The trail currently passes through the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon,
Danville, Alamo, Walnut Creek, and Concord and unincorporated areas of the Counties of
Contra Costa and Alameda. The Iron Horse Regional Trail, which is maintained by the East Bay
Regional Park District, has several existing bridges over busy roadways to help improve traffic
flow on the roadways and facilitate pedestrian/bicycle movement along the trail.
The proposed project is a free-span bridge crossing for the Iron Horse Regional Trail over Dublin
Boulevard within the City of Dublin. Currently, the trail runs from northwest to southeast as it
approaches Dublin Boulevard, which is a heavily travelled east-west roadway. The existing at-
grade trail crossing of Dublin Boulevard is skewed and requires awkward movement for trail
users attempting to cross Dublin Boulevard. Trail users approaching Dublin Boulevard from the
mailto:obaid.khan@du
blin.ca.gov
61
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 2
southeast are currently required to turn left and use the sidewalk along the south side of Dublin
Boulevard for approximately 200 feet, cross the street at the existing Scarlett Drive signalized
intersection, and then turn right and use the sidewalk along the north side of Dublin Boulevard
for approximately 100 feet to get back to the trail (Figure 1).
The primary objective of the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project is to
provide a safe crossing for trail users and facilitate improved traffic flow along Dublin Boulevard
by providing a grade-separated bridge crossing over Dublin Boulevard for pedestrians and
bicyclists. Construction of the proposed bridge crossing would allow trail users to stay on the
trail and cross over multiple lanes of automobile traffic on the proposed bridge (Figure 2)
without disrupting vehicular traffic flow.
The overcrossing would require construction of touchdown landings with graduated ramps on
the north side of Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the Scarlett Drive right-of-way, within the
westernmost portion of Don Biddle Park and on the south side of Dublin Boulevard within the
existing Iron Horse Trail right-of-way. The proposed free-span bridge structure would be
approximately 230 feet in length and would a minimum 17 feet of clearance over the Dublin
Boulevard road surface (Figure 2). The entire Overcrossing Project length, including landings
north and south of Dublin Boulevard, as well as the bridge span itself, is approximately 1,200
feet in length.
Adjacent development includes commercial and residential development along Dublin
Boulevard including development of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area with parks, open
space, residential, and commercial uses. The Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is located
approximately 0.25 miles south of the project area. The project would provide a grade-
separated crossing for Iron Horse Trail users accessing the BART station or heading to and
from other regional locations in the vicinity of Dublin Boulevard and the Specific Plan area.
The project is included as Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 to reduce emissions in the DCEIR.
Project Applicant’s Name and Address
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
General Plan Designation and Zoning
Open Space/Park (P)
Technical Studies Prepared Subsequent to the Dublin Specific Plan Crossing EIR
The Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/SMND) presented
62
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 3
below relies and builds on the technical studies and analysis presented in the DCEIR
document. In addition to the DCEIR technical reports and their findings which analyzed
in detail the impacts of a 189-acre study area, the IS/SMND addresses the entire area
affected by the proposed Overcrossing project, including the bridge over Dublin
Boulevard and its southerly landing, which are outside of the area analyzed in the DCEIR.
In addition, two additional technical studies were completed specifically for the
Overcrossing Project: Biological Resources, Appendix B and Cultural Resources Appendix
C analysis for the proposed Overcrossing Project. The two additional technical studies
are summarized below.
Biological Resources
Based on the current development plan and schedule for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, the
Don Biddle Community Park will be constructed as far west as the Scarlett Drive right-of-way
and will be in use prior to initiation of the construction for the Overcrossing Project’s
foundations and ramps and the installation of the free-span bridge structure. Thus, the
northerly landing of the proposed project would occur within the community park. Within this
portion of the Overcrossing Project area, the Chabot Channel and associated riparian
vegetation would be restored as part of development of the community park. During
construction of the Overcrossing Project, the channel and any restored habitats within the park
would be avoided, which is a requirement established in DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-1.
Therefore, no additional study of this portion of the project area was initiated during
preparation of the IS/SMND.
The portion of the Overcrossing Project area south of Dublin Boulevard as it exists today is
flanked by urban development and encompasses the Iron Horse Trail, adjacent annual
grassland/ruderal habitats, a large palm tree, and a row of small valley oak trees planted
adjacent to the trail (Figure 5). Biologists conducted field surveys of the project area south of
Dublin Boulevard in February, March, June, and August of 2018, to evaluate the potential for
this portion of the project area to support protected plant and animal species. Field surveys
were conducted during the appropriate period during which species could be observed if they
were present in the project area. A summary of the individual species with the potential to
occur in the project area and the conclusion of the analysis based on biologist’s field surveys is
included in Appendix A. In addition, biologists conducted a formal wetland delineation which is
included as Appendix B. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a site visit, concurred with
the findings of the formal delineation report, and issued a Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination (Figure 6).
Cultural Resources
No cultural resources are located within the Overcrossing Project area. There were no Cultural
Resources or Tribal Cultural Resources identified within the portion of the project area where it
overlaps the community park on the north side of Dublin Boulevard, according to the DCEIR.
63
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 4
Also, as stated above, the community park will be in operation prior to construction of the
proposed Overcrossing Project. A site survey and archival research for the project area south of
Dublin Boulevard did not result in identification of any historic resources. Cultural Resource site
survey, archival research and tribal consultation undertaken for the proposed project has been
summarized and is included in Appendix C.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Subsequent to certification of the DCEIR, AB 52 was adopted, requiring CEQA Lead Agencies to
address potential effects of proposed projects upon Tribal Cultural Resources. A tribal cultural
resource is defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and
that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American tribe.
For the Overcrossing Project, the City of Dublin initiated communication with local Native
American Tribes in June 2018 to request knowledge or documentation pertaining to tribal
resources in the project area. This communication is summarized in Appendix C and includes a
letter requesting that a Native American Monitor be present during construction. The
Overcrossing Project accommodates this request by including in the Project Description the
commitment to retain a Native American Monitor to be present during any construction activity
that would result in ground disturbance such as grading, or excavation needed to create
foundations and footings.
Project Description
The Overcrossing Project consists of a free-span bridge that would create a grade-separated
crossing of Dublin Boulevard where it intersects the Iron Horse Regional Trail within the City of
Dublin. Currently, the Trail runs from northwest to southeast as it approaches Dublin
Boulevard, which is a heavily traveled east-west roadway. The existing at-grade trail crossing of
Dublin Boulevard is skewed. Trail users approaching Dublin Boulevard from the southeast are
currently required to turn left and use the sidewalk along the south side of Dublin Boulevard for
approximately 200 feet, cross the street at the existing Scarlett Drive signalized intersection,
64
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 5
and then turn right and use the sidewalk along the north side of Dublin Boulevard for
approximately 100 feet to get back to the Trail (Figure 1).
The Overcrossing Project would permit trail users to cross over multiple lanes of automobile
traffic on Dublin Boulevard, while shortening the delay time at the Scarlet Drive intersection for
vehicles travelling along Dublin Boulevard (Figure 2). The Overcrossing Project would require
construction of foundation footings to support the free-span bridge structure and the ramps
into Don Biddle Community Park on the north side of Dublin Boulevard and along the south side
of Dublin Boulevard, connecting to the existing at-grade trail to the north and south of Dublin
Boulevard. The approximately 230-foot long free-span overcrossing structure would be
fabricated off-site and would be delivered to the project site when it is ready to be installed.
The bridge structure, when installed, would provide a minimum of 17 feet of vertical clearance
from the Dublin Boulevard road surface (Figure 2). The total length of the Overcrossing Project
is approximately 1,200 feet.
Construction Program
The proposed Overcrossing Project would be constructed over a period of approximately
180 working days. All construction and staging will be accommodated within the project
area (Figure 3) and perimeter fencing will be established around construction areas to
prevent encroachment into adjacent areas and to prevent trail users from coming into
direct contact with construction activities. The free-span bridge structure will be fabricated
off-site at a manufacturing facility and delivered to the project area for assembly and
placement. Assembly of the free-span superstructure will take approximately one week and
placement of the structure over Dublin Boulevard will be scheduled to occur one day during
non-peak traffic hours over night. Installation of the bridge will adhere to the
traffic/transportation mitigation measures identified in the DCEIR which established
requirements for construction vehicles and anticipated the potential need to reduce travel
lanes or temporarily close Dublin Boulevard (if needed).
A Native American Monitor will be present on the site during construction any time grading
or excavation or ground disturbance occurs as a result of requests pertaining to Tribal
Cultural Resources as described in AB 52 and summarized above and summarized in more
detail in the Cultural Resources Technical Report (Appendix C).
Trail use will be maintained at all times during construction and bridge installation.
However, construction may require short-term trail re-routing within the project area to
accommodate specific construction tasks north and south of Dublin Boulevard so that the
trail remains open at all times during project construction. All temporary trail rerouting will
occur within the existing right-of-way for the trail, which was previously disturbed as part of
trail construction. The impacts of such temporary rerouting are addressed in this document
as part of the overall construction of the proposed Overcrossing Project.
All construction and staging will be accommodated within the project area and perimeter
fencing will be established around construction areas to prevent trail users from coming
65
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 6
into contact with construction activities.
Site Access and Circulation
During construction of the foundations and footings and during installation of the free-span
bridge structure all construction crews and equipment will gain access to the project area
directly from Dublin Boulevard.
Independent Utility of the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
The proposed Iron Horse Trail bridge crossing over Dublin Boulevard was described in the
City of Dublin’s Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study) published in 2017 and
approved by the City Council on November 7, 2017. The Feasibility Study identified a series
of potential improvements to the Iron Horse Trail intended to increase trail access for users
of all ages and abilities, and to connect more communities to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station. The Feasibility Study focused on access to the multi-use trail near BART stations and
explored options for improving trail crossings at Dougherty and Dublin Boulevard.
Because of the existing need to (1) provide a safe crossing for the trail over Dublin
Boulevard for pedestrian/bicycle traffic, (2) facilitate vehicular movement along Dublin
Boulevard, and (3) implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 from the DCEIR, the City of Dublin
would pursue a bridge crossing for the trail over Dublin Boulevard even if none of the other
trail improvements identified in the Feasibility Study were to be implemented. The
proposed Iron Horse Trail bridge crossing therefore has independent utility and is analyzed
under CEQA as a separate and distinct project from other potential trail improvements
identified in the 2017 Feasibility Study.
66
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 7
Determination
On the basis of this initial study which reflects the independent judgment of the City of Dublin:
I find that the proposed project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the
environment other than those disclosed in the certified Dublin Crossing
Environmental Impact Report, nor will any of the significant environmental effects
disclosed in that document be substantially more severe as the result of the
proposed project. Because the proposed project will be subject to the mitigation
measures set forth in the Dublin Crossing Environmental Impact Report, a
SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
CITY OF DUBLIN
Obaid Khan Date
67
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 8
Environmental Checklist
The checklist for the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing focuses on the following key
questions:
Will the Iron Horse Trail Bridge Crossing result in new or substantially more severe impacts
compared to those disclosed in the Dublin Crossing EIR?
Will the Iron Horse Trail Bridge Crossing introduce mitigation measures that were previously
found to be infeasible in the Dublin Crossing EIR or mitigation measures that the Dublin Crossing
project proponents declined to implement?
Will the Iron Horse Trail Bridge Crossing implement mitigation measures that would avoid new
or substantially more severe impacts compared to those disclosed in the Dublin Crossing EIR?
The answers to these three questions encompass all of the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162(a) and will be used in the Checklist for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge Crossing as
illustrated below. If any of the boxes in either column (1) or (2), below, are checked, a
Subsequent or supplemental EIR would be required. If any of the boxes in column (3) are
checked, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration would be prepared. Finally, if only the
boxes in Column 4 are checked, a Supplemental Mitigation Negative Declaration would be
prepared if the project were subject to mitigation measures from the previous EIR. A
Subsequent Negative Declaration would be prepared if the proposed project would not be
subject to mitigation from the previous EIR.
68
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 9
Aesthetics
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative
Previously found
to be Infeasible
or Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
1. AESTHETICS — Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) Conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic
quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect daytime or nighttime views in
the area?
Existing Setting
The Overcrossing Project is located north of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, along the Iron
Horse Trail right-of-way where it intersects with Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin.
Surrounding development along Dublin Boulevard is mixed-use, primarily commercial, with new
residences located directly adjacent to the east. A community park is being constructed along
the north side of Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail as described and addressed
in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR.
Trail users in the project area primarily see urban development and transportation
infrastructure in the foreground, with distant views of Pleasanton Ridge to the west, and
distant views of Altamont Pass and undeveloped hills to the east when crossing Dublin
Boulevard. Even though motorists traveling along Dublin Boulevard in the vicinity of the project
area currently see adjacent urban development in the immediate view, distant views of
69
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 10
undeveloped hills to the east are afforded from the roadway, and distant views of undeveloped
lands along Pleasanton Ridge are visible to motorists traveling west on Dublin Boulevard.
Regulatory Framework
A scenic vista is a view that possesses visual and aesthetic qualities of high value to the
community. Scenic vistas can provide views of natural features or significant structures and
buildings. The term “vista” generally implies an expansive view, usually from an elevated point
or open area.
I-680 is designated as a State Scenic Highway. According to the State Scenic Highway website,
the scenic aspects of the corridor feature the rolling wooded hills of the Contra Costa range
contrasted with the flat Sunol Valley ringed by distance hills to the north and east. While not
officially listed, I-580 is eligible for listing as a State Scenic Highway.
The City of Dublin General Plan indicates that I-580, I-680, and Dougherty Road were
designated scenic routes by Alameda County in 1966. These are primary routes from which
people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the City. Section 5.6, Implementing
Policy B in the City of Dublin General Plan requires that design review be conducted for all projects
visible from a designated scenic route. Because a portion of the project area may be visible from I-
580, the City of Dublin General Plan requires that design review be conducted for all projects
visible from a designated scenic route. In addition, the DCEIR states that the design guidelines
set forth in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan “apply to all new construction within the Specific Plan
area.” Therefore, the proposed Overcrossing project will be subject to the City’s design review
process.
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR Findings
The DCEIR concluded that buildout of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would not result in
significant impacts to aesthetic resources and would not substantially increase light and glare.
The analysis leading to this conclusion was based on an compliance with the DCSP and its
provisions for design guidelines associated with proposed development.
Design Guidelines included in the DCSP that would apply to the Overcrossing Project include the
following:
Adequate lighting should be provided throughout the site to create a safe and non-
threatening environment. The scale, materials, colors, and design detail of light posts
and fixtures should reflect the desired character of Dublin Crossing and the architectural
style of the surrounding buildings. Light posts should be appropriately scaled to
pedestrians near sidewalks and other areas of pedestrian circulation. Extremely tall light
posts and fixtures should be avoided.
70
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 11
Lighting fixtures should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the
building. The color, size, placement, and number of fixtures should enhance the overall
design and character of the building and site.
Energy efficient, low voltage lighting is encouraged.
Exterior lighting should be unobtrusive and not cause glare or spillover into neighboring
properties, and lighting fixtures should direct illumination downward to minimize light
pollution impacts. Up-lighting, spot-lighting, and decorative color lighting may be
appropriate for prominent buildings and features, but illumination should not adversely
impact neighboring properties with sensitive uses, such as residential.
If necessary, security lighting fixtures should be hooded, recessed, and/or located in
such a manner to only illuminate the intended area.
Pedestrian scale fixtures are encouraged and should shine downward and emit a warm
light along walkways.
All building entrances, including alleys, plazas, drive isles, paseos, walkways, common
areas, and others should be well lit.
Lighting sources should be concealed from view to prevent glare and promote lighting
uniformity.
Illuminated bollards or pathway lights should be integrated into the pedestrian
circulation system when other lighting is not provided.
Impacts Evaluation
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Since the project area and its immediate surroundings do not currently include views of
monuments, or unique buildings that would be classified as scenic resources there would be no
adverse effects to scenic resources and no new or significant impacts as a result of construction
and operation of the overcrossing.
Trail users and motorists within the project area and vicinity are afforded distant views of
undeveloped hills and ridgelines particularly when positioned within the travel lanes of Dublin
Boulevard. Once constructed, the free-span bridge overcrossing would be experienced by
motorists as a momentary obstruction of the distant views of undeveloped hills or ridgelines
afforded from the roadway when traveling along Dublin Boulevard (see below). However,
compared to existing conditions, trail users would have expanded views of undeveloped hills
and ridgelines afforded by the elevation of the Dublin Boulevard overcrossing structure.
71
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 12
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
There are no scenic resources identified in the project area. The southeast portion of the
project area may be momentarily visible to motorists traveling along I-580 which is a
designated scenic route. The overcrossing structure would be consistent with the urban
character of the existing views from the highway and would not obstruct views or substantially
damage scenic resources viewed from the scenic route.
c) Conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The urban nature of the surroundings and the proximity of the proposed Overcrossing project
to BART and the community park make this project and its design consistent with the existing
visual character of the site and surrounding area. The visual character of the site within the
developed urban environment along Dublin Boulevard would not be substantially changed by
construction and operation of the overcrossing. In addition, because the Overcrossing Project is
designed to comply with all applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, no
new or substantially more severe significant impacts would result.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in
the area?
The DCEIR’s analysis of aesthetics is based on the urban design provisions of the Dublin Crossing
Specific Plan. Because the proposed Overcrossing Project is subject to the mitigation measures
set forth in the DCEIR, it is also subject to the project design features of the Dublin Crossing
Specific Plan that were used in the analyses of the DCEIR. As noted in the Regulatory
Framework section, above, the Overcrossing Project would be required to comply with design
guidelines included in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan by demonstrating the proposed exterior
lighting is non-intrusive while still providing an adequate amount of light. To ensure traffic
safety, lighting on bridge structure and bridge approaches would be designed so as not to shine
onto Dublin Boulevard motorists. Compliance with these design guidelines would ensure that
the proposed Overcrossing Project does not introduce substantial light and glare which would
pose a hazard or nuisance. Therefore, the Overcrossing Project would result in no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts.
72
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 13
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4256), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
73
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 14
Existing Setting
The project area is not being utilized for agricultural uses and is designated as “Other Land” on
the Alameda County Important Farmland Map that is published by the California Department of
Conservation (DOC). The narrow corridor within the project area is not suitable for agricultural
purposes. In addition, the project area does not contain any forest resources as defined by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Dublin Crossing EIR Findings
Because the area and adjacent lands were not being utilized for agricultural uses, nor were any
lands in the area mapped as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance, the DCEIR concluded that no impacts in relation to agricultural resources would
result. In addition, because Dublin Crossing was located within an urban setting with no forest
resources within or adjacent to the project area, the DCEIR concluded that no impacts in
relation to agricultural resources would result.
Impacts Evaluation
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-
agricultural use?
No lands mapped as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
existing within or adjacent to the proposed Overcrossing projects. No impacts will therefore
result.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
The project site for the proposed trail crossing of Dublin Boulevard is not zoned or suitable for
agricultural use and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. No impacts will therefore result.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland zoned Timberland?
The project site for the proposed trail crossing of Dublin Boulevard is not zoned or suitable for
use as forest or timberland. No impacts will therefore result.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
See Response c), above.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Because the project site and adjacent lands are within an urban setting and not suitable for
agricultural or forest use, no impacts will result.
74
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 15
Air Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
3. AIR QUALITY — Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the Bay Area Clean
Air Plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
Existing Setting
The City of Dublin is located in eastern Alameda County, which is within the San Francisco Bay
Area Air Basin (hereinafter “Basin”). The Basin includes San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda,
Contra Costa, Napa, and Marin counties, and forms a climatological sub-region. This
climatological sub-region stretches from Richmond to San Leandro, bounded to the west by the
San Francisco Bay and to the east by the Oakland-Berkeley Hills. The Oakland-Berkeley Hills
have a ridgeline height of approximately 1,500 feet, a significant barrier to air flow. In this area,
marine air traveling through the Golden Gate, as well as across San Francisco and through the
San Bruno Gap, is a dominant weather factor. The Oakland-Berkeley Hills cause the westerly
flow of air to split off to the north and south of Oakland, which causes diminished wind speeds.
75
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 16
Criteria Air Pollutants
Local ambient air quality is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB monitors ambient air quality at
approximately 250 air-monitoring stations across the State. Air quality monitoring stations
usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above-ground level; therefore, air quality is
often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations.
Ozone
Ozone (O3) occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth's surface is
the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it
meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric (the "good" O3) layer extends
upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet
rays (UV-B).
What is referred to as “Bad” O3 is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxide (NOx), and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOx are O3
precursors. VOCs and NOx are emitted from various sources throughout the area. To reduce O3
concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these O3 precursors. High O3
concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary
sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and
stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based
fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. At high
concentrations, CO can reduce the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and cause headaches,
dizziness, unconsciousness, and death.
Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx’s are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of
ground-level O3 and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), often
used interchangeably with NOx, is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at
high levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion
sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations).
NOx can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as
influenza.
76
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 17
Coarse Particulate Matter
Coarse particulate matter (PM10) refers to suspended particulate matter (PM) which is smaller
than 10 microns. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products,
construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility.
In addition, these particulates penetrate the lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory
tract.
Fine Particulate Matter
Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter, both
Federal and State standards have been created for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The impacts
of fine particulate matter primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-
existing cardiopulmonary disease.
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas belonging to the family of sulfur oxide (SOx)
gases, formed primarily by combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels (primarily coal and oil),
and during metal smelting and other industrial processes. SO2 is often used interchangeably
with SOx. The major health concerns associated with exposure to high concentrations of SOx
are effects on breathing, respiratory illness, diminishment of pulmonary defenses, and
aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease. Emissions of SOx also can damage the foliage of
trees and agricultural crops. Together, SOx and NOx are the major precursors to acid rain,
which is associated with the acidification of lakes and streams, and the accelerated corrosion of
buildings and public monuments.
Toxic Air Contaminants
According to Section 39655 of the California Health and Safety Code, a TAC is "an air pollutant
which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or
which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health." In addition, substances that
have been listed as federal hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) pursuant to Section 7412 of Title 42
of the United States Code are TACs under the State's air toxics program pursuant to Section
39657 (b) of the California Health and Safety Code.
TACs of particular concern for posing health risks in California are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1-3
butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde,
methylene chloride, perchlorethylene, and diesel particulate matter.
77
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 18
Reactive Organic Gases and Volatile Organic Compounds
VOCs are organic chemical compounds with sufficiently high vapor pressure such that they will
tend to vaporize and enter ambient air under standard conditions. A wide range of carbon-
based molecules, such as aldehydes, ketones, and hydrocarbons are VOCs. Hydrocarbons are
organic gases, liquids, or solids that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. A subset of
VOCs is reactive in the context of O3 formation at urban (and possibly regional) scales. Reactive
Organic Gases (ROGs) are defined to be those VOCs that are regulated because they lead to O3
formation. Both ROGs and VOCs can be emitted from the incomplete combustion of
hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. The major sources of VOCs are combustion engine
exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels,
solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general
population. Sensitive populations are referred to as sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors
include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health
care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes.
Odors
Offensive odors rarely cause physical harm; however, they can be very unpleasant, leading to
considerable stress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local
governments and agencies. Facilities commonly known to produce odors include wastewater
treatment facilities, chemical manufacturing, painting/coating operations, feed lots/dairies,
composting facilities, landfills, and transfer stations. Offensive odors rarely cause physical harm,
and no requirements for their control are included in State and Federal air quality regulations.
The project does not propose uses identified by the BAAQMD as sources of odors.
Regulatory Setting
Environmental Protection Agency
The principal air quality regulatory mechanism on the Federal level is the Clean Air Act (FCAA)
and, in particular, the 1990 amendments to the FCAA and the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) that it establishes. These standards identify levels of air quality for “criteria”
pollutants that are considered the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants
considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare.
The criteria pollutants are O3, CO, NO2 (a form of NOx), SO2 (a form of SOx), PM10, PM2.5, and
lead (Pb); refer to DCEIR Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over
emission sources beyond State waters (outer continental shelf) and those that are under the
78
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 19
exclusive authority of the Federal government, such as aircraft, locomotives, and interstate
trucking.
California Air Resources Board
CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. These
standards, included with the NAAQS in DCEIR Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air
Quality Standards, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS.
In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing
particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is responsible for regulating stationary, indirect, and area sources of pollution
within the Basin. The BAAQMD is one out of 35 air quality management districts that have
prepared Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to accomplish the 5 percent annual reduction
goal required by the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The following notes efforts by the
BAAQMD to address O3 and O3 precursors through the implementation of the Ozone Strategy
and Clean Air Plan.
2005 Ozone Strategy
The BAAQMD prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, which was adopted on January 4,
2006, and describes how the Basin will fulfill CCAA planning requirements for the State 1-hour
O3 standard and transport mitigation requirements through the proposed control strategy. The
2005 Ozone Strategy explains how the BAAQMD plans to achieve these goals with regard to O3,
and also discusses related air quality issues of interest, including the public involvement
process, climate change, fine particulate matter, the BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation
CARE) program, local benefits of O3 control measures, the environmental review process,
national O3 standards, and photochemical modeling. The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan updates
the 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the CCAA to achieve the
following:
Implement all feasible measures to reduce O3; provide a control strategy to reduce O3,
particulate matter, TACs, and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in a single, integrated plan;
Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and
Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 to 2012
time-frame.
The BAAQMD adopted their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating air
quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Basin. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
provide BAAQMD-recommended procedures for evaluating potential air quality and GHG
79
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 20
impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements. In
addition to providing new thresholds for GHG emissions, the 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
provide updated significance thresholds for criteria pollutants and supersede the BAAQMD’s
previous CEQA guidance titled BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of
Projects and Plans (1999).
If the project is in excess of the established plan level thresholds a significant air quality impact
would occur.
State Air Toxics Program
TACs are another group of pollutants of concern in California. There are hundreds of different
types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes
such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as
gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle engine exhaust. Public exposure to TACs
can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as accidental releases of hazardous
materials during upset spill conditions. Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects,
neurological damage, and death.
Attainment Status
The USEPA has classified air basins as being in “attainment,” “nonattainment,” or “unclassified”
for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the NAAQS have been achieved. If an
area is designated unclassified, it is because inadequate air quality data were available as a
basis for a nonattainment or attainment designation.
The project area is located within a portion of the Bay Area that is considered in attainment or
unclassified for most of the criteria pollutants for State and federal considerations, except for
O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Under federal regulations the area is designated an unclassified/
attainment area for PM10 standards (see Table 1 below).
Table 1. San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Statusa
Pollutant State Federal
Carbon Monoxide (CO) – 8 hour Attainment Attainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) –1 hour Attainment Attainment
Ozone (O3) – 8 hour Non-attainment Non-Attainment
Ozone (O3) – 1 hour Non-attainment N/Ab
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) – 1 hour Attainment Unclassified
Nitrogen Dioxide – Annual Arithmetic Mean -- Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – 24 hour Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – 1 hour Attainment Attainment
80
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 21
Pollutant State Federal
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – Annual Arithmetic
Mean -- Attainment
Particulate Matter (PM10) – Annual Arithmetic
Mean Non-Attainment --
Particulate Matter (PM10) – 24 hour Non-Attainment Unclassified
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Annual Arithmetic Mean Non-attainment Attainment
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – 24 hour -- Non-attainment
Sulfates – 24 hour Attainment --
Lead – Calendar Quarter -- Attainment
Lead – 30 Day Average -- Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide – 1 hour Unclassified --
Vinyl Chloride (Chloroethene) – 24 hour -- --
Visibility Reducing Particulatesc Unclassified --
Notes: N/A – Not Applicable/No Standard Exists
a In order for an area to meet a particular standard, all time tests of the applicable standard must be met. Separate designations
are not made for each time component of the standard. For instance, an area might meet the annual criteria of the State PM10
standard but not the 24-hour requirement. In that case, the area fails to meet the standard and would be designated
nonattainment for the State PM10 standard. Thus, a single designation is made for each State and Federal standard based on
whether or not the area meets all the aspects of the standard.
b The Federal 1-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15, 2005 in all areas except the 14 8-hour ozone nonattainment
Early Action Compact (EAC) areas.
Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Bay Area
Clean Air Plan, violate air quality standards, or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Short-Term Construction Emissions
The DCEIR concludes that short-term air quality impacts associated with construction activities
such as grading, operation of equipment would occur (Impact 3.2-1), potentially exceeding
BAAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation
measures, construction emissions were determined to have a significant unavoidable impact.
Because of the variable nature of construction activities on a day-to-day basis and because
construction emissions are measured on a pounds-per-day basis, the DCEIR did not quantify
emissions of air pollutants. The greatest source of air pollutant emissions during construction of
a development as large as the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would occur during site grading
when heavy, diesel-fueled construction equipment is used in large numbers and fugitive dust is
generated from large-scale earthmoving activities (PM10 and PM2.5)).
81
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 22
Site grading and excavation activities associated with the proposed Overcrossing project would
be a temporary source of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions, as well as emissions from
construction equipment. The short-term construction impacts of Overcrossing Project would be
much less than for the DCSP, and would not cause the significant construction impacts of the
DCSP to be substantially more severe than was disclosed in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR
for the following reasons:
Because the 2-acre Overcrossing Project area is very small relative to the overall Dublin
Crossing Specific Plan’s 189-acre area, the area subject to earth moving activities on a
daily basis would be far smaller for the Overcrossing Project with substantially fewer
emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 than would occur for grading of the Specific Plan area.
Whereas large numbers of heavy-duty equipment would be needed to grade the
Specific Plan area, the Overcrossing Project would not require heavy-duty earth moving
equipment and would be graded using smaller-scale equipment (e.g., bobcats and back
hoes), resulting in lower daily emissions.
Fewer construction workers would be employed for construction of the Overcrossing
Project than for development of the Specific Plan, reducing daily emissions from
construction worker travel.
Construction of the Overcrossing Project would not overlap the major grading
operations for the DCSP. Daily construction-related air pollutant emissions would
therefore not add to the peak construction emissions resulting from the DCSP.
The Overcrossing Project would be required to implement the mitigation measures
taken set forth in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR to reduce construction-related air
pollutant emissions:
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public
Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building
Plans, and specifications stipulate that the following basic construction mitigation
measures shall be implemented for all construction projects:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible.
82
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 23
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all
access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead
agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted. This person shall respond and
take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-1b. Additional Short-Term Construction Best
Management. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and
the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and
specifications stipulate that the following additional construction mitigation measures
shall be implemented for all construction projects:
All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when winds
instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph.
Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively
disturbed areas of construction.
Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in
disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is
established.
All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving
the site.
Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6-
to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff
to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
The applicant shall reduce exhaust emissions during construction and, in particular,
emissions of NOx, when using construction equipment and vehicles by implementing
the following measures:
o Require the use of diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil
import/export) that meet EPA 2007 model year NOX emissions requirements
o The following note shall be included on all grading plans: During project
construction, all internal combustion engines/construction, equipment operating
83
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 24
on the project area shall meet EPA-Certified Tier 3 emissions standards, or higher
according to the following:
January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014: Off-road diesel-powered
construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet Tier 3
off-road emissions standards. Alternatively, construction equipment shall be
outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device
used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less
than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy
for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
Post-January 1, 2015: Off-road diesel-powered construction equipment
greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available.
Alternatively, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices
certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall
achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by
a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as
defined by CARB regulations.
o The contractor and applicant, if the applicant’s equipment is used, shall maintain
construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned and regularly serviced
to minimize exhaust emissions.
o Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when available. This measure
would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators.
o Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor
vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more
than five minutes.
Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8,
Rule 3: Architectural Coatings).
Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped
with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM.
Long-Term Operational Emissions – Clean Air Plan Consistency
The DCEIR concluded that buildout of the DCSP is consistent with population growth
assumptions in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, is anticipated to result in reduced Vehicle
Miles Travelled (VMT) compared to population growth and is consistent with several of the
Clean Air Plan’s Control Measures. Operation of the Overcrossing Project would not increase
population or vehicle miles traveled. The Overcrossing project facilitates non-motorized travel
and would not result in additional long-term emissions or any new or substantially more
significant impacts.
84
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 25
Energy Source Emissions
The DCEIR concludes that energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity
and natural gas (non-hearth) usage including space heating and cooling, water heating,
ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Ongoing operations of Iron Horse Trail Dublin
Boulevard Overcrossing project would involve lighting of the bridge crossing (no changes are
proposed in relation to trail lighting. The energy consumption and resulting air pollutant
emissions of such lighting would be extremely small in relation to the energy demands of the
entire Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area. As shown in Table 3.2-6 of the DCEIR, energy use is
not a major source of air pollutant emissions (1.2 to 11.0 percent of emissions, depending on
pollutant). The electrical consumption associated with bridge lighting would not therefore
result in the significant unavoidable operational air pollutant emissions impacts disclosed in the
DCEIR being substantially more severe.
Mobile Source Emissions
Ongoing operation of the Overcrossing Project would involve pedestrians and bicyclist using the
bridge crossing and would not result in any mobile source emissions. By implementing DCEIR
Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 requiring construction of a bridge crossing for the Iron Horse Trail
over Dublin Boulevard, the Overcrossing Project would reduce vehicular delay along Dublin
Boulevard and thereby result in a slight decrease in mobile source emissions.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality?
The DCEIR concluded that the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would result in a significant unavoidable
impact from both construction-related and long-term operational emissions, and the Specific Plan’s
contribution to significant cumulative impacts would therefore be considered to be cumulatively
considerable. As discussed above, the Overcrossing Project would result in only very minor
increases of criteria pollutants during construction and ongoing operations. The Overcrossing
Project would also result in a slight decrease in mobile source emissions by reducing vehicular
delay along Dublin Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed Overcrossing Project would not result in
the cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts disclosed in the
DCEIR being substantially more severe.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
The BAAQMD requires that projects be analyzed for the potential to cause localized CO
hotspots. Per the BAAQMD CO screening guidelines, a project would have CO impacts if the
following were to occur:
Project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at level of service
LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F.
85
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 26
Project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10 percent or
more.
Project would contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality
Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm for one hour.
The analysis conducted in the DCEIR concluded that CO concentrations at area intersections
would be no greater than 16 percent of the applicable 1-hour standard for CO and no greater
than 24.9 percent of the applicable 8-hour standard with development of the entire Dublin
Crossing Specific Plan. Recognizing that traffic and resulting CO emissions from the proposed
Overcrossing Project would be far less than for the Specific Plan project, the Overcrossing
Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact compared to the impacts
disclosed in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Construction of the proposed project would allow some uses which generate airborne odors,
such as during application of coatings to the bridge structure, which could be considered to
generate odors; however, limited exposure and compliance with applicable regulatory
requirements during construction will ensure that any impact is less than significant. These
potential odors generated during construction would be short-term, intermittent and would
not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact.
86
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 27
Biological Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
Found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with City of Dublin Tree
Regulations protecting biological
resources?
87
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 28
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
Found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Study Methods and Data Sources
Biologists Julia King and Patricia Berryhill from Metis Environmental Group conducted
reconnaissance-level surveys of the project area on February 22, March 6, and August 18, 2018
and on September 12, 2019. In addition, a search of the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was conducted and the following
technical reports prepared for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR were reviewed:
Cardno Entrix March 6, 2012, reconnaissance-level survey.
Jones & Stokes 1995, special-status plant and animal surveys for Camp Parks.
Jones & Stokes 2006, surveys for vernal pool invertebrates, California red-legged frog,
burrowing owls, San Joaquin kit foxes, and other sensitive species including raptors and
loggerhead shrikes.
Steele, K., and D. Petersen. 2005. Floristic survey of Parks Reserve Forces Training Area,
Alameda and Contra Counties, California. August.
Booz Allen Hamilton. 2004. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Biological Field Surveys.
Prepared for Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Directorate of Public Works. March
2004. 98 pp + Appendices.
Appendix B includes a formal wetland delineation that was prepared for the portion of the
project area located south of Dublin Boulevard. The delineation was submitted to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Staff from the Corps of Engineers have visited the site and a Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination has been issued (Figure 6).
88
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 29
Plant Communities and Habitats
North of Dublin Boulevard, the project area is within the footprint of a community park being
developed with turf and landscape plantings. Within the park area, the Chabot Channel and
adjacent riparian habitats are subject to ecological restoration treatments during park
development. The channel bisects the project area. Ecological restoration efforts are on-going
and will result in riparian habitat directly adjacent on both sides of the channel and will include
oaks, willows and native grasses adjacent to Chabot Channel. Restoration activities that would
occur within the channel and riparian areas are addressed in the DCEIR and the restoration
activities would comply with DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-1:
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Prepare and Implement a Wetland Mitigation Plan.
Prior to commencing any activities that would impact wetlands or waters habitat, the
project applicant shall obtain all required public agency permits and shall prepare a
wetland mitigation plan that ensures no-net-loss of wetland and waters habitat and is
approved by the City and applicable resource agencies. The wetland mitigation plan
shall include measures for avoidance, minimization, and compensation for wetland
impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the designation of buffers
around wetland features to be avoided, or project design measures, such as free-span
bridges. Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of
wetland or waters. The final mitigation ratios (the amount of wetlands and waters
created or preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the
applicable resource agencies and the City. The wetland mitigation and monitoring plan
shall include the following:
Descriptions of the wetland types, and their expected functions and values;
Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the
mitigation wetlands over a period to be determined by the resource agencies;
Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be
created or restored;
An implementation schedule showing that construction or preservation of mitigation
areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction;
and
A description of legal protection measures for the preserved wetlands (i.e.,
dedication of fee title, conservation easement, and/or an endowment held by an
approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank).
South of Dublin Boulevard the following habitats were identified during field surveys conducted
in 2018 and 2019:
Non-Native Grassland and Ruderal Vegetation. This habitat type occurs over the majority of
the southerly portion of the project area on both sides of the paved trail. This habitat is
89
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 30
dominated by common invasive weed species such as rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild
oat (Avena fatua), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), winter vetch (Vicia sativa), and prickly ox-
tongue (Helminthotheca echioides). Landscape bark is spread directly adjacent to the edge of
the paved Iron Horse Trail.
Oak Trees. A row of 10- to 15-foot tall valley oak (Quercus lobata) trees occurs along the
southwest edge of the Iron Horse Trail, extending south from Dublin Boulevard. These trees are
all less than 10 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at approximately four
feet above the ground. A single ornamental palm tree occurs on the northeastern side of the
Iron Horse Trail levee near the concrete retaining walls associated with the residential
development to the east.
Seasonal Wetlands. Although there are no seasonal wetland features in the project area,
biologists mapped seasonal wetlands adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail south of Dublin
Boulevard. These wetland areas are shown in the Wetland Delineation provided in Appendix B
and are populated with annual herbaceous vegetation species typically found within ephemeral
depressions in California. With a slightly alkaline soil underlying the area, the wetland
vegetation skews toward alkali tolerant plants species. Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), a dominant
perennial species within the study area and alkali heath (Frankenia salina), a less common
subshrub measuring less than 10 inches high, were observed at the wetland data points. Other
species observed included spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachya), umbrella sedge (Cyperus
eragrostis), creeping wild rye (Lemus tritichoides), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), rabbit’s
foot grass (Polypogon monospelinensis), and prickly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides).
Special Status Species with the Potential to Occur in the Project Area
Plant species and animal species afforded protections under State and Federal laws and are
referred to as having “Special Status.” Appendix A includes a summary evaluation of special
status species that could occur in the project area based on direct observation of existing
conditions observed in the field, findings in the DCEIR, and a query of the CNDDB. Each of the
species or groups of species discussed below is also addressed in the DCEIR and in Appendix C
of the DCEIR.
Western Burrowing Owl. The western burrowing owl is a ground-nesting owl species that is
known from the DCSP area and annual grassland habitats addressed in the DCEIR. The project
area north of Dublin Boulevard developed as a community park would not support burrowing
owls. However, the non-native annual grassland and ruderal vegetation within the project area
located south of Dublin Boulevard is suitable for burrowing owls. Burrowing owls were not
observed in the project area during field surveys conducted in February, March and August
2018.
Special Status Plants. Congdon’s tarplant has the potential to occur in the project area south of
Dublin Boulevard. This Special Status plant species was also found near the BART facility to the
90
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 31
south of the project area in 2000 but it was not observed in the project area during field
surveys conducted in August of 2018 and September 2019.
Special Status Habitats in the Project Area
Special status habitats in the project area include the Chabot Channel and the associated
riparian habitat being restored adjacent to the channel within the Don Biddle community park
north of Dublin Boulevard.
The oak trees located in the project area south of Dublin Boulevard do not meet the definition
of Heritage Trees, as described in Section 5.60 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code and are not
considered to be special status species.
Regulatory Setting
Regulations that apply to individual species and habitats in the project area are summarized
below.
Federal and California Endangered Species Acts. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of
1973 prohibits federal agencies from authorizing, permitting, or funding any action that would
jeopardize the continued existence of a plant or animal species listed or a candidate for listing
as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA. If a federal agency is involved with a proposed
action or project that may adversely affect a listed plant or animal, that agency must enter into
consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) under Section 7(a)(2) of
the FESA. Individuals, corporations, and state or local agencies with proposed actions or
projects that do not require authorizing, permitting, or funding from a federal agency but that
may result in the "take" of listed species or candidate species are required to apply to the
USFWS for a Section 10(a) incidental take permit.
The State of California enacted similar laws to the FESA, the California Native Plant Protection
Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. The CESA
expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for plants, but the NPPA
remains part of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. To align with the FESA, CESA created the
categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. The State converted all animal species
listed as "rare" under the FESA into the CESA as threatened species but did not do so for rare
plants. Thus, these laws provide the legal framework for protection of California-listed rare,
threatened, and endangered plant and animal species. The California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch
maintain the California Natural Diversity Database, a computerized inventory of information on
the general location and status of California's rarest plants, animals, and natural communities.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements international
treaties between the United States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, their
parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and
91
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 32
shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. The USFWS administers
the MBTA. The State of California has incorporated the protection of birds of prey in Sections
3800, 3513, and 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC).
All raptors and their nests are protected from take or disturbance under the MBTA (16 United
States Code [USC], section 703, et seq.) and California statute (FGC section 3503.5). The golden
eagle and bald eagle are also afforded additional protection under the Eagle Protection Act,
amended in 1973 (16 USC, section 669, et seq.).
Waters of the United States. The United States Army Corp of Engineers regulates “Waters of
the United States” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Waters of the U.S. are
defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as waters susceptible to use in commerce, including
interstate waters and wetlands, all other waters (intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands),
and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas, according to the three criteria
used to delineate wetlands as defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
Environmental Laboratory 1987), are identified by the presence of (1) hydrophytic vegetation,
2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology.
Areas that are inundated at a sufficient depth and for a sufficient duration to exclude growth of
hydrophytic vegetation are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction as “other waters” and are often
characterized by an ordinary high-water mark, and herein referred to as non-wetland waters.
Non-wetland waters, for example, generally include lakes, rivers, and streams. The placement
of fill material into Waters of the U.S. generally requires an individual or nationwide permit
from the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA.
Waters of the State. The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as
any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the
state.” The RWQCB protects all waters in its regulatory scope and has special responsibility for
wetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters. These waterbodies have high resource value, are
vulnerable to filling, and are not systematically protected by other programs. RWQCB
jurisdiction includes wetlands and waters that may not be regulated by the Corps under
Section 404.
Waters of the State are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification
Program which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the CWA
and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Corps permit or fall
under other federal jurisdiction and have the potential to impact Waters of the State are
required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certification determination. If a
proposed project does not require a federal permit but does involve dredge or fill activities that
may result in a discharge to Waters of the State, the RWQCB has the option to regulate the
dredge and fill activities under its state authority in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements.
Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. The Eastern Alameda
County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) is a document which is intended help planners protect
92
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 33
endangered species by working with landowners to implement long term conservation
stewardship to offset potential impacts associated with urban and agricultural development.
The project area does not fall within the boundaries of the EACCS.
Impacts Evaluation
The following mitigation measures established in the DCEIR would apply to the Overcrossing
Project:
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a: Conduct a Floristic Survey and Consult with CDFG
and USFWS if State or Federally Listed Plants are Found and Comply with Incidental
Take Permits. The project applicant shall retain a qualified botanist to conduct rare
plant surveys within the construction zone for Congdon’s tarplant or other species with
potential habitat within the project area during the appropriate time of year in
accordance with agency protocols. These plant surveys shall be conducted in
accordance with the 2009 California Department of Fish and Game and United States
Fish and Wildlife Service rare plant survey protocols. The results of the survey shall be
summarized in a report and submitted to CDFW and USFWS and would be valid for two
years. If no special-status plants are located during the surveys, no further mitigation
measures would be required. If any federal or state plant species are found during the
rare plant surveys, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and USFWS to
obtain incidental take permits under Section 2081 of the CESA and either Section 7 or 10
of the FESA. Consultation with USFWS under Section 7 of the FESA could occur as part of
the CWA Section 404 permit process as part of the wetland mitigation, described under
Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-1.
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b: Develop and Implement Mitigation in Consultation
with CDFW if Other Special Status Plant Species Are Found. If special-status plant
species (excluding federal or state listed plants) are found during the rare plant surveys,
the project applicant shall notify the CDFW. A mitigation plan shall be developed in
consultation with and approved by the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement
of any activities that would impact any special status plants. The mitigation plan shall
include measures such as transplanting plants, collecting seed or clippings and
replanting species in an on-site location, if feasible or other location approved by
Department of Fish and Game.
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-3a: Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact
Assessment. The project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a
California burrowing owls surveys and impact assessment following the 2012 California
Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012)
or as updated at the time of the implementation of the proposed project. The report(s)
shall be submitted to California Department of Fish and Game as indicated in the CDFW
2012 Staff Report. If it is determined that project activities may result in impacts to
93
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 34
nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the project
applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan such that
the habitat acreage, number of burrows, and burrowing owl impacted are replaced. The
mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW
2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-3b: Implement Avoidance Measures. If California
burrowing owl are located within the project area and direct impacts can be avoided,
the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all
phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing
owls.
Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from 1 February
through 31 August.
Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or
non-migratory resident burrowing owls.
Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over
an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural
development.
Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site
worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection.
Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that farm equipment and other
machinery does not collapse burrows.
Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in
areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed
with nesting owls, designated use areas).
Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the months of January and
February.
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-3c: Conduct Burrow Exclusion. In the event that
California burrowing owls are located within the project area, the project applicant shall
conduct a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their
burrows is not possible, the project applicant in consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as
indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of the excluded owls
shall be carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff
Report. Mitigation for permanent impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrow
and/or burrowing owls shall be developed based on the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
94
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 35
a) Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
During seasonal surveys of the project area South of Dublin Boulevard in February, March and
August of 2018 and in September 2019 there were no burrowing owls observed. However,
should the species colonize the annual grassland/ruderal habitat in the project area in the
interim period between when the project is approved and when construction is initiated,
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 from the DCEIR would be implemented, reducing the impact to a
level that is less than significant.
Conclusion. Because the same types of impacts to special status species that were analyzed for
the DCEIR would occur as part of the Overcrossing Project and the same mitigation measures
will be implemented, a new or substantially more severe significant impact would be avoided
with implementation of DCEIR in Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a and 3.3-2b, and 3.3-3a-c, above.
b) Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
North of Dublin Boulevard, the project area includes a Community Park within which the
Chabot Channel and associated riparian habitat restoration adjacent to the channel. The
channel and riparian within Community Park are considered to be sensitive habitat types and
the Overcrossing Project is intended to be designed and constructed to entirely avoid these
habitats. The graduated ramp structure to connect the free-span bridge with at grade
elevations north of Dublin Boulevard would not require excavation or encroachment onto the
sensitive restored habitats in order for construction to occur. The ramp design would span the
restored Chabot Channel and adjacent restored riparian habitat. However, if the channel and
vegetation could not be avoided for any reason, Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 from the DCEIR
above) would apply and would reduce the impact to a level considered less than significant.
There are no sensitive natural communities or habitats within the project area south of Dublin
Boulevard.
There would be no physical change and no impacts to sensitive natural communities or habitats
in the project area during construction of the overcrossing structure or as a result of use of the
structure.
Conclusion. As shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6, there are no wetlands in the project area.
Seasonal wetlands would not be impacted during construction and operation of the
Overcrossing Project, no new or substantially more severe significant impact would occur.
95
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 36
c) Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The design of the ramps connecting the free-span bridge to the Iron Horse Trail north of Dublin
Boulevard would span Chabot Channel and associated restored riparian habitat included in the
Don Biddle Community Park. There are no wetlands or waters in the project area South of
Dublin Boulevard. Wetlands or waters of the U.S. would not be impacted as a result of
construction of foundations and footings to support the free-span bridge structure.
Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe significant impact would occur.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Currently, terrestrial species that occur in the area may use the project area to gain access to
habitats to the north and south, however doing so would require crossing Dublin Boulevard at
grade or crossing I-580. With development of the Overcrossing Project terrestrial species that
occur in the area would still need to cross Dublin Boulevard at grade.
The Chabot Channel and associated restored riparian habitats provide cover for localized
animal movement. The design of the ramps connecting the bridge structure north of Dublin
Boulevard includes spanning these habitats with no physical changes to the substrate.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact in relation to wildlife movement during
construction or subsequent use of the overcrossing.
Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe significant impact would occur.
e) Conflict with City of Dublin Tree Regulations protecting biological resources?
The valley oak trees planted on the west side of the Iron Horse Trail do not meet the City of
Dublin heritage tree ordinance definition as their size is smaller than specified in the City Code,
nor were these trees planted as part of a mitigation requirement or as specified in subsections
1, 2 or 3 of Section 5.60.040 of the City of Dublin municipal code which defines heritage trees.
The valley oak trees within the project are all less than approximately 10 inches in diameter at
breast height, thus not meeting the minimum size requirement in the code, which protects
those trees 24 inches and greater in diameter at breast height.
The project area is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan.
Conclusion. Because no heritage trees are located within the project area and the project area
is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan, no new or substantially
more severe significant impact would occur.
96
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 37
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternatives that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project is
Proponent now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
5. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
d) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k); or
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
97
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 38
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternatives that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project is
Proponent now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Resources Code Section 5024.1? In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
Existing Setting
Mission records and ethnographies identify the Native Americans living in the Pleasanton area
at the time of European contact in the latter half of the 18th century as members of various
groups that are now referred to collectively as Ohlone. On the basis of linguistic evidence, it has
been suggested that the ancestors of the Ohlone arrived in the San Francisco Bay area about
A.D. 500, having moved south and west from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region.
Linguistic evidence has been interpreted to indicate that prior to about A.D. 500, speakers of
the Hokan language occupied territories that included the project area until the ancestral
Ohlone displaced them (Levy 1978).
Ethnographic Context
At the time of initial contact with European explorers (1772), the project area was occupied by
the Ohlone, and more specifically an Ohlone triblet, known as Pelnen, of 300 to 500 who
inhabited semi-permanent villages and seasonal campsites (Kroeber 1932; Levy 1978). Although
ethnographic information about the Pelnen is sparse, they may have shared the resources of
the former Willow Marsh, located in the low-lying area between Dublin and Pleasanton, with
the nearby Seunen and Souyen Ohlone tribal groups. This marsh was an important source for
seasonal foods such as migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, which provided protein-rich
supplements to the typical aboriginal diet of greens, roots and bulbs, seeds, and acorns
Levy 1978).
98
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 39
The arrival of the Spanish led to the rapid demise of native California populations. Diseases,
declining birth rates, and the effects of the mission system served to eradicate the aboriginal
life ways (which are currently experiencing resurgence among Ohlone descendants). Brought
into the missions, the surviving Ohlone along with former neighboring groups of Esselen,
Yokuts, and Miwok were transformed from hunters and gatherers into agricultural laborers
Cambra et al. 1996; Levy 1978; Shoup and Milliken 1999).
Project Area Records Search
A literature review and records search was conducted by Patrick Allen, Staff Archaeologist, on
June 14, 2018 at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) housed at Sonoma State University,
Rohnert Park (IC File Number 17-3021). The records search area included the project area as
well as an additional half-mile radius. The purpose of the records search was to identify any
known cultural resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area. The records search
also included a review of the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Archaeological
Determination of Eligibility and the OHP Directory of Historic Properties Data File.
The records search indicated that no prehistoric or historical archaeological resources have
been previously recorded within or within a half-mile radius of the project area. A total of 29
historical built-environment resources have been previously recorded within a half-mile radius
of the project area; however, none of these resources are located within the project area.
These resources include a section of the Southern Pacific Railroad, and buildings and structures
associated with the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, commonly known as Camp Parks. The
section of the Southern Pacific Railroad, P-01-001783, is located less than one tenth of a mile
northwest of the project area, it no longer extends through the project area.
The records search also indicated that a total of 150 cultural resource studies have been
conducted within a half-mile radius of the project area (see full list in Appendix A). Of these 150
studies, 10 intersect or include portions of the project area (see Table 2).
Table 2. Previous Cultural Resource Studies within the Project Area
Report
No. Year Author(s) Title
S-000727 1977 Miley Holman and
David Chavez
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Two New Proposed
Waste Water Pipeline Routes, Livermore-Amador Valley Water
Management Agency, Alameda County, California
S-016307 1994 Alison MacDougall
Cultural Resource Investigation of PG&E's Proposed Willow Pass
Substation Addition, Willow Pass Tap, East Dublin BART
Dedicated Substation, and Castro Valley Substation Addition,
Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, California
S-017993 1995
Brian Hatoff, Barb
Voss, Sharon
Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave
Northward Expansion Project
99
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 40
Report
No. Year Author(s) Title
S-025313 2002
Rand Herbert, Bryan
Larson, Jessica
Herrick, Amanda
Blosser, Andrew
Walters, and Eric
Johnson
Final Report: National Register of Historic Places, Inventory and
Evaluation of Previously Unevaluated World War II and Cold War
Era Buildings, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties, California
S-026071 1998 Shahira Ashkar and
Dana McGowan
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Built Environment Inventory
and Evaluation
S-026096 1981 Earth Metrics
Incorporated
Historic Property Survey Report for the Reactivation and
Development Plans, Camp Parks, Pleasanton, CA
S-028826 2001 Damon Mark Haydu
A Cultural Resources Study of Portions of the Training Area and
Cantonment Area Within Camp Parks (PRFTA), Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties, California
S-028835 2004 Jack Meyer and
Graham Dalldorf
Geoarchaeological Investigation in the Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California.
S-029314 2004 Christopher Caputo Archaeological Survey Report for Portions of the Training Area,
Parks RFTA, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California.
S-023385 2000 Colin I. Busby and
Stuart A. Guedon
Cultural Resources Assessment for an Extension of the Iron Horse
Trail Between Dougherty Road and Dublin BART Station, City of
Dublin, Alameda County (letter report)
There are no resources listed on the OHP directory within the project area. Numerous industrial
buildings and structures associated with National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
and the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, located less than one tenth of a mile from the
project area, are listed in the OHP directory.
Historic Topographic Map and Aerial Review
In addition to the records search, a review was conducted of the historical topographic maps
and historic aerials that depict the project area. The Fairchild Aerial Surveys 1938 aerials (Flight
C-5750) depict the project area in an undeveloped region with the Southern Pacific Railroad
running northwest to southeast. The 1906 United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Pleasanton 15-
minute quadrangle map also depicts the project area as undeveloped with only a few roads in
the general vicinity. The 1953 USGS Dublin 7.5-minute map shows the project area atop the
existing Southern Pacific Railroad line and crossing the convergence of two unnamed seasonal
drainages. The 1953 Dublin map also depicts numerous rectangular industrial style buildings to
the north/northwest of the project area. These buildings are likely portions of the Parks
Reserve Forces Training Area which was commissioned in January of 1943
http://www.usar.army. mil/Commands/US-Army-Reserve-Command-USARC/Camp- Parks-
Main/Camp-Parks/).
100
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 41
A review of the 1950 United States Department of Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation
Service survey for Flight BUT-1950 shows the project area south of Camp Parks with small
buildings located in between the northern edge of Highway 580 and the diagonal tracks of the
Southern Pacific Railroad. The 1961 Dublin 7.5-minute map shows the project area intersecting
the Southern Pacific Railroad line and crossing an unnamed seasonal drainage. In addition, the
1961 Dublin quadrangle illustrates numerous buildings associated with NASA located to the
northwest of the project area. The Cartwright Aerial Survey from 1965 (Flight CAS-65-130)
depicts the project area to the southeast of Camp Parks with the parcels directly surrounding
the project area still mostly undeveloped. The 1980 photo revised Dublin topographic
quadrangle map indicates that while the majority of the Dublin area has been developed by
1980, the project area remained undeveloped.
Tribal Coordination and Consultation
A request for information on sacred sites or tribal cultural resources (e.g., traditional use or
gathering area, place of religious or sacred activity, etc.) within the immediate vicinity of the
project area was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on June 15, 2018
along with a request for a list of Native American tribal representatives with heritage ties to the
area. The NAHC responded on June 25, 2018, stating that the Sacred Lands File search was
completed with negative results, indicating no resources were known to be present within or
near the project site (Appendix C). However, the NAHC did state that the absence of specific
site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of Native American tribal cultural
resources. As such, the NAHC recommended that six Native American representatives be
contacted to elicit information regarding cultural resource issues related to the project.
Scoping letters were sent via email on July 12, 2018 to all six recommended Native American
representatives. Since no written response had been received, follow up phone calls were
placed to each representative on July 26, 2018. Ms. Perez, Northern Valley Yokut, indicated that
typically railroad tracks follow traditional Native trails and as such she recommends a Native
American monitor be present during ground disturbing activities. She also requested a copy of
the final report. Ms. Sayers, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, indicated she has no
knowledge of the area or its potential sensitivity. No other responses were received as a result
of the outreach efforts. Subsequently, messages and follow up emails describing the project
were sent to the contacts who were unable to be reached by phone.
Regulatory Setting
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) established the National Register of
Historic Places (National Register), which is the official register of designated historic places.
The National Register is administered by the National Park Service, and includes listings of
buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historical, architectural,
engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level.
101
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 42
To be eligible for the National Register, a property must be significant under one or more of the
following criteria pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60:
A. Properties that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history;
B. Properties that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
C. Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or
that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or
D. Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory
or history.
In addition to meeting one or more of the aforementioned criteria, an eligible property must
also possess historic “integrity,” which is “the ability of a property to convey its significance.”
The National Register criteria recognize seven qualities that define integrity: location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Structures, sites, buildings, districts, and objects over 50 years of age can be listed in the
National Register as significant historical resources. Properties under 50 years of age that are of
exceptional importance or are contributors to a district can also be included in the National
Register. Properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register are also eligible for
listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (described below), and as such, are
considered historical resources for CEQA purposes.
The California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) is the official state-level list of properties,
structures, districts, and objects significant at the local, state, or national level. CRHR-eligible
properties are considered to be historical resources under CEQA and must have significance
under at least one of the four criteria presented below. A property may be considered a historic
resource if it:
1) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California's history and cultural heritage;
2) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values; or
4) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
102
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 43
In order to meet one or more of these criteria, a cultural resource must possess integrity to
qualify for listing in the CRHR. Integrity is generally evaluated with reference to qualities
including location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association. A
potentially eligible site must retain the integrity of the values that would make it significant.
Typically, integrity is indicated by evidence of the preservation of the contextual association of
artifacts, ecofacts, and features within the archaeological matrix (Criterion 4) or the retention
of the features that maintain contextual association with historical developments or
personages that render them significant (Criteria 1, 2, or 3). Evidence of the preservation of this
context is typically determined by stratigraphic analysis and analysis of diagnostic artifacts and
other temporal data (e.g., obsidian hydration, radiocarbon assay) to ascertain depositional
integrity or by the level of preservation of historic and architectural features that associate a
property with significant events, personages, or styles.
Integrity refers both to the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, as shown by the
survival of physical characteristics that existed during its historic period and to the ability of the
property to convey its significance. This is often not an all-or-nothing scenario (determinations
can be subjective); however, the final judgment must be based on the relationship between a
property’s features and its significance. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines indicates a
project may have a significant environmental effect if it causes "substantial adverse change" in
the significance of an "historical resource" or a "unique archaeological resource" as defined or
referenced in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b, c] (revised October 26, 1998). Such changes
include "physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its
immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially
impaired" (CEQA Guidelines 1998 Section 15064.5 [b]).
Impacts Evaluation
a,b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or an
archeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 or 15064.5?
Project Area North of Dublin Boulevard
The DCEIR identified 12 cultural resources within the DCSP area. These resources were all
components of Camp Parks and as such were evaluated using the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) criteria. Only one of the resources, the Camp Parks entrance sign (P-01-010333),
was determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP by the State Historical Preservation Office
SHPO) (October 26, 1999). As the resource was determined eligible for listing on the NRHP, it is
now also recommended as eligible for listing on the CRHR. The DCEIR concluded no significant
impacts to historic or archaeological resources would occur with the incorporation of Mitigation
Measures 3.4-2, 3.4-3 which are presented below.
103
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 44
Project Area South of Dublin Boulevard
Technical review and analysis of cultural resources included in Appendix C and summarized
above in the project area Records Search section concluded that there are no cultural resources
in the project area south of Dublin Boulevard. Therefore, site preparation, excavation and
construction of footing, foundations, and access ramps for the Overcrossing Project would not
result in disturbance of cultural resources and no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts are anticipated other than what has already been identified and mitigated in the DCEIR.
However, as stated in the DCEIR, it is possible unanticipated resources could be uncovered or
found during construction. The following Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure
which address potential significant impacts to unknown archaeological or historic resources
that could be found or uncovered during construction activities are incorporated into the
proposed Overcrossing Project:
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.4–2: Halt Work/Archaeological Evaluation/Site-Specific
Mitigation. If any potential archaeological, pre-historic or cultural artifacts are
encountered during site grading or other construction activities, all ground disturbances
within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify
and evaluate the resource(s) in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(f). The
archeological consultant shall immediately notify the project sponsor and the City staff
of the encountered archeological deposit. If the deposit does not qualify as an
archaeological resource, then no further protection or study is necessary. If the deposit
does qualify as an archaeological resource, then the impacts shall be avoided by project
activities. If the deposit cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the deposit shall be
addressed in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(b). Measures may include,
but are not limited to archaeological data recovery, etc. Upon completion of the
assessment by the archaeologist, a professional-quality report shall be submitted to the
City, the project applicant, and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State
University in Rohnert Park. The project applicant shall fund and implement the
mitigation in accordance with Section 15064.5(c) through (f) of the CEQA Guidelines and
Public Resources Code 21083.2.
Conclusion. With incorporation of the DCEIR mitigation measures above, the Overcrossing
Project would not create new or substantially more severe significant impacts to resources as
defined by CEQA in Sections 15064 or 15064.5.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
As summarized above, there is no evidence to suggest that human remains would be found as a
result of subsurface construction activities in the project area. However, the project
incorporates the DCEIR mitigation measure (below) which would be implemented in the case
that human remains are encountered during subsurface construction activities:
104
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 45
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Halt Work/Coroner’s Evaluation/Native American
Heritage Consultant/Compliance with Most Likely Descendent Recommendations. In
the event that human remains are encountered during grading and site preparation
activities, all ground-disturbing work within 50 feet of the remains shall cease
immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall notify the Office of the Alameda County
Coroner and advise that office as to whether the remains are likely to be Native
American. If determined to be Native American, the Alameda County Coroner’s Office
shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission of the find, which in turn will then
appoint a “Most Likely Descendent. (MLD).” The MLD in consultation with the
archaeological consultant and the project sponsor will advise and help formulate an
appropriate plan for treatment of the remains, which might include recordation,
removal, and scientific study of the remains and any associated artifacts. After
completion of the analysis and preparation of the report of findings, the remains and
associated grave goods shall be returned to the MLD for burial.
Conclusion. With incorporation of the DCEIR mitigation measures presented above, the
Overcrossing Project would not create new or substantially more severe significant impacts to
human remains.
d) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in significance of a tribal cultural resource?
Tribal cultural resources are defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope
of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe. The resources must be listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k), or it is significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1.
As discussed above and summarized in Appendix C, the City of Dublin reached out to local
tribes regarding Tribal Resources in the project area pursuant to the requirements of AB 52.
Following required consultation with Native American representatives, no Tribal Cultural
Resources were identified.
Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe significant impacts to Tribal Cultural
Resources would result from the Overcrossing Project.
105
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 46
Energy Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure of
alternatives that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
6. ENERGY RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Existing Setting
The Iron Horse Regional Trail is not lighted in the vicinity of Dublin Boulevard and is restricted
to non-motorized travel. The trail does not, therefore directly or indirectly consume any energy
resources.
Regulatory Framework
Senate Bill 1389, State of California Integrated Energy Policy
In 2002, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389, which required the California Energy
Commission to develop an integrated energy plan biannually for electricity, natural gas, and
transportation fuels, for the California Energy Report. The plan calls for the state to assist in the
transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and
increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To
further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public
agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for Zero Emission Vehicles
and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles
traveled and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
106
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 47
An overarching goal of the integrated energy plan is to achieve the statewide greenhouse gas
reduction targets, while improving overall energy efficiency is the main focus. The integrated
energy plan is the State’s chief program intended to provide a comprehensive statewide energy
strategy to guide energy investments, energy-related regulatory efforts and greenhouse gas
reduction measures.
Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, conserving energy consists of decreasing overall per
capita energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance
on renewable energy sources. As discussed in relation to Transportation issues, the proposed
Overcrossing Project would decrease congestion and reduce idling time at the Dublin Boulevard
intersection with Scarlett Drive and also encourage increase use of pedestrian and bicycle travel
along the trail. As a result, the proposed project would conserve energy and reduce “the
wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy” associated with automobile
travel.
While construction of the Dublin Boulevard overcrossing would consume energy resources,
construction activities would avoid use of diesel generators and draw power from the adjacent
electrical grid, thereby decreasing reliance on fossil fuels during construction. All construction
activities will be subject to DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a, Implement Short-term
Construction Best Management Practices. As a result, all construction equipment will be
required to be well maintained and will not left to idle when not in use. Construction-related
travel routes will also be planned to minimize vehicle miles traveled. With the exception of one
night of activity to install the bridge structure, all construction activities will occur during
daytime hours and nighttime lighting will not be required. Thus, project construction will not
result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
By (1) decreasing congestion and reducing idling time at the Dublin Boulevard intersection with
Scarlett Drive and (2) also encouraging increased use of pedestrian and bicycle travel along Iron
Horse Regional Trail, including non-motorized travel to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, the
proposed Overcrossing Project would assist in reducing use of non-renewable energy and
increasing the efficiency of travel within areas near the trail. The project would, therefore, not
obstruct any plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
107
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 48
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure of
alternatives that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
7. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY — Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to
life or property?
108
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 49
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure of
alternatives that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique
geologic feature?
Existing Setting
The project area is generally flat with a slope to the southwest. On-site elevation is
approximately 336 feet at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and the Iron Horse Regional
Trail. According to the Alameda County Soil Survey (NRCS 1996), the project area is comprised
of Clear Lake Clay (0 to 3 percent slopes). Clear Lake clay is a very deep, poorly drained soil.
Permeability is slow to very slow, runoff is negligible to high.
Expansive Soils
Results of the Atterberg limits tests conducted for the DCEIR indicate that the clayey soils near
the existing ground surface are highly expansive. Expansive soils shrink or swell significantly
with changes in moisture content. Clay content and porosity of the soil also influence the
change in volume. The most common cause of changing soil moisture content is seasonal
fluctuation due to rainfall. The shrinking and swelling caused by expansive clay rich soil often
results in damage to overlying structures, including foundations, floor slabs, pavements,
sidewalks, and other improvements that are sensitive to soil movements. Usually, damage from
expansive soils can be minimized or eliminated by using site-specific engineering techniques.
109
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 50
Erosion Potential
Soil erosion is the process by which soil particles are removed from a land surface by wind,
water, or gravity. Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil, usually the top six to eight inches, and
has the highest concentration of organic matter and microorganisms. Topsoil erosion is of
concern when the topsoil layer is blown or washed away. Most natural erosion occurs at
relatively slow rates; however, the rate of erosion increases where the ground surface is steep
and when land is cleared and/or left in a disturbed condition, such as may occur during the
preparation and excavation phases of construction activities. According to the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Clear Lake soil at the project area is characterized
as having slow to very slow erosion potential.
Liquefaction, Landslide Risk, and Other Soil Hazards
The project area is located within a California Geological Survey (CGS) Seismic Hazard Zone
where liquefaction may occur during a strong earthquake. Based on the geotechnical
investigation undertaken for the DCEIR, there is the potential for liquefaction to occur within
the occasional interbedded layers of loose to medium dense sandy soils that exist below the
groundwater table. These potentially liquefiable layers generally range from approximately half
of a foot to two feet thick and are overlain by at least ten feet of non-liquefiable cover.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is the lateral movement of soil towards a free face (such as incised river
channel or open body of water) during earthquakes. There are no such features in the project
vicinity. Alamo Creek and Tassajara Creek are located more than 1,500 feet to the northwest
and 4,000 feet to the east, respectively. Chabot Canal is less than five feet deep and is not
anticipated to pose a risk for lateral spreading. Therefore, the risk of lateral spreading to occur
within the project area is considered low.
Seismic Compression
Settlement of ground surface can also occur as a result of seismic compression. The
unsaturated soils encountered in the borings performed within the project area were
predominantly stiff to very stiff clayey soils. Therefore, the potential for significant ground
settlement due to seismic compression within the project area is considered low.
Landsliding
The project area is generally flat and there are no major slopes within or adjacent to the project
area. Therefore, there is no potential for landsides affecting the project area.
110
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 51
Faults/Seismic Hazards
A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which land on one side has moved relative to
land on the other side. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements over a long period
of time. A fault trace is the line on the earth’s surface defining the fault. An active fault is
defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as a fault that has “had surface displacement
within Holocene times (about the last 11,000 years).” This definition does not mean that faults
lacking evidence of surface displacement within Holocene times are necessarily inactive. A fault
may be presumed to be inactive based on satisfactory geologic evidence; however, the
evidence necessary to prove inactivity is sometimes difficult to obtain and locally may not exist.
A potentially active fault is a fault that shows evidence of surface displacement during
Quaternary time (about the last 1.6 million years).
The project area is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone.1 Several active faults in the vicinity of the project area include the Pleasanton, Calaveras,
Hayward, and San Andreas faults located approximately two, 10 and 29 miles to the southwest,
respectively. The Mount Diablo Thrust and Greenville faults are located approximately two and
8½ miles to the northeast, respectively and the Las Positas Fault is located approximately 10½
miles to the southeast and the Concord-Green Valley fault approximately 12 miles to the
northwest of the project area.
Pleasanton Fault
The California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) determined that the epicenters for
several micro-earthquakes were plotted near the mapped surface location of the Pleasanton
Fault, north of Camp Parks. However, according to CDMG it is believed that these earthquakes
are associated with the active Calaveras fault, located approximately 1.3 miles west of the
Pleasanton fault and there is no confirmed evidence to support historical seismicity on the
Pleasanton Fault. No features were found within the project area associated with active
faulting.
Ground Shaking
The project area is located within the San Francisco Bay area, which is a region of high
seismicity. Similar to all sites located in the San Francisco Bay area, the project area is expected
1 The Alquist-Priolo Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (now referred to as “Earthquake
Fault Zones”) around the mapped surface traces of active faults. The Act requires local agencies to regulate
development within Earthquake Fault Zones. Before a development project can be permitted within an Earthquake
Fault Zone, a geologic investigation is required to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed
across active faults. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of
the fault and must be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the fault.
111
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 52
to experience at least one moderate to large earthquake during the lifespan of the proposed
project.
Regulatory Setting
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 (originally enacted as the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and renamed in 1994) and is intended to reduce the
risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The main purpose of the
law is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace
of active faults. The law only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed
toward other earthquake hazards. The Alquist-Priolo Act requires the State Geologist to
establish regulatory zones known as “Earthquake Fault Zones” around the surface traces of
active faults and to issue appropriate maps. The maps are distributed to all affected cities,
counties, and state agencies for their use in planning efforts. Local agencies must regulate most
development projects within the zones. Projects include all land divisions and most structures
for human occupancy. Before a development project can be permitted within an Earthquake
Fault Zone, a geologic investigation is required to demonstrate that proposed buildings would
not be constructed across active faults. A site-specific evaluation and written report must be
prepared by a licensed geologist. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy
cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back a minimum of 50 feet from
the fault.
California Building Standards Code (CBC)
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the CBC. The
CBC is based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which is used widely throughout the United
States (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by district basis), and has been
modified for conditions within California. The CBC requires extensive geotechnical analysis and
engineering for grading, foundations, retaining walls, and other structures, including criteria for
seismic design. The proposed project is located within Seismic Zone 4, which is expected to
experience the greatest effects from earthquakes and requires the most stringent requirements
for seismic design.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The CGS provides guidance with regard to seismic hazards under the Seismic Hazards Mapping
Act. Seismic hazard zones are identified and mapped by the CGS to assist local governments in
land use planning. The intent of the Act is to protect the public from the effects of strong
ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, or other hazards caused by
earthquakes. In addition, CGS Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, provides guidance for the evaluation and mitigation of
112
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 53
earthquake-related hazards for projects within designated zones of required investigations. The
proposed project is located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where liquefaction may occur
during a strong earthquake; however, the proposed project is not located within a CGS Seismic
Hazard Zone where landslides may occur during a strong earthquake.
Impacts Evaluation
The DCEIR found that ground shaking is likely to occur in the event of a major earthquake on
one of the nearby faults resulting in the exposure of people and/or structures to potentially
significant adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death. The DCEIR concluded this
was potentially significant impact. The EIR also concluded development associated with the
DCSP could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects of liquefaction.
Implementation of the Overcrossing Project constitutes future development within an area of
expansive soils. Adherence to the City’s Building Code and CBC requirements along with
implementation of the following mitigation measures included in the DCEIR would apply to the
Overcrossing Project:
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: Preparation of Design-Level Geotechnical Report.
Future development within the project area shall consult with a registered geotechnical
engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical report that incorporates the
recommendations included in the DCEIR’s preliminary geotechnical investigation by
Berlogar, Stevens and Associates (March 2012). The design level geotechnical report
shall address site preparation and grading (including measures to address potential
liquefaction and expansive soils), building foundations, CBC seismic design parameters,
and preliminary pavement sections. This report shall be submitted in conjunction with
Building Permit application(s) and reviewed and approved by the City. The Report’s
recommendations shall be incorporated into the project design and construction
documents.
a-c) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving: i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, ii) strong seismic ground shaking, iii)
seismic-related ground failure, or iv) landslides? Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Surface Fault Rapture and Seismic Shaking
The project site is located within the seismically-active San Francisco Bay region but is not
located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. There are no known earthquake faults
crossing the site.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has reported that the Working Group on
California Earthquake Probabilities (2007) has estimated that there is a 63 percent probability
that one or more major earthquakes would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area between 2007
113
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 54
and 2036. An earthquake occurring on any of the fault lines in the region may induce seismic
ground shaking at the project site. The proposed Overcrossing Project will be designed to
withstand a major earthquake without collapse based on site-specific geologic conditions and
regional earthquake probabilities. The project would not, therefore, result in a new or
substantially more severe impact than was disclosed in the DCEIR.
Seismic-Related Ground Failure
Construction of the proposed bridge overcrossing would be required to comply with applicable
provisions of the California Building Code, City engineering design requirements, and standard
engineering design requirements, as well as any requirements set forth in a site-specific
geologic and soils investigation to be undertaken for the project. As a result, the project would
not expose people or structures to seismic-related ground failure hazards.
Landslides
The project area is generally flat with no potential for landslides. The north and south bridge
approaches require construction of manufactured slopes. Such slopes will be designed to avoid
erosion and surficial failure. As a result, no impacts in relation to landslides would result.
Liquefaction
Based on the geotechnical investigation undertaken for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, there
is the potential for liquefaction to occur in the area within the occasional interbedded layers of
loose to medium dense sandy soils that exist below the groundwater table. These potentially
liquefiable layers generally range from approximately half a foot to two feet thick and are
overlain by at least ten feet of non-liquefiable cover.
The DCEIR requires that future development comply with the City’s Building Code, liquefaction
regulations of the California. Building Code, and the City’s standard engineering practices and
design criteria. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM 3.5-3 requires preparation of a design-level
geotechnical report, which would address liquefaction and reduce this potentially significant
impact to a less than significant level. As a result, the project would not expose people or
structures to liquefaction hazards.
d) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Would the project be located on
expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
Loss of Topsoil
The project site is generally flat and not adjacent to any steep slopes. The project would require
minimal soil disturbance within the project area to prepare foundations and footings for a free-
span bridge structure and associated ramps designed to create access to and from the
114
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 55
overcrossing. This minor amount of soil disturbance is not likely to result in any substantial soil
erosion.
Expansive Soil
According to the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared for the Dublin Crossing Specific
Plan, soils in the area have a very high expansion potential. A design level geotechnical analysis
would be required for the Overcrossing Project as required by DCEIR Mitigation Measure MM 3.5-3.
In addition, the proposed project would be required to adhere to the City’s Building Code and CBC
requirements. Therefore, with compliance with regulatory requirements and measures in the
design level geotechnical report which would address expansive soils, the proposed project would
not result in a significant or substantially more severe impact than was disclosed in the DCEIR.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems. No impacts would result.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or a unique geologic
feature?
As summarized above, there are no known paleontological resources within the project area. In
addition, the project incorporates the DCEIR mitigation measure (below) which would be
implemented in the case that previously unknown paleontological resources are encountered
during subsurface construction activities:
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: Halt Work/Paleontological Evaluation/Site-Specific
Mitigation. If paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface construction
activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified
paleontologist can evaluate the finds. If the paleontological resources are found to be
significant, they shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a
qualified paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment
shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring for
paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include: I) the results of any
geotechnical investigation prepared for the project area; 2) specific details of the
construction plans for the project area; 3) background research; and 4) limited
subsurface investigation within the project area. If a high potential to encounter
paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring plan of further project subsurface
construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this assessment. After project
subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods,
findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be
prepared and submitted to the Community Planning Director.
115
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 56
Conclusion. The Overcrossing Project would not create new or substantially more severe
significant impacts to paleontological resources.
116
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 57
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Measure
Previously found
to be Infeasible
or Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS— Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Existing Setting
Global warming associated with the “greenhouse effect” is a process whereby greenhouse gas
GHG) accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the
earth’s atmosphere over time. Therefore, unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants
discussed in above in relation to air quality, emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) have a
broader, global impact. The principal GHGs contributing to global warming and associated
climate change are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated
compounds. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large
part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/manufacturing, utility,
residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors.
Regulatory Setting
California Assembly Bill 32 and Executive Order S-3-05
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed in 2006
and established a goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Prior to the adoption of
AB 32, the Governor of California also signed Executive Order S-3-05 into law, which set a long-
term objective to reduce GHG emissions to 90 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) is the state agency in charge of
coordinating the GHG emissions reduction effort and establishing targets along the way.
117
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 58
In December 2008, CARB approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which proposes a
comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce California’s dependence on oil, diversify
energy sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other goals. Per AB 32, the
Scoping Plan must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure
that California is on track to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal.
In May 2014, CARB adopted an updated Scoping Plan document. The 2014 Update highlights
California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 greenhouse gas emission reduction
goals defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan and evaluates how to align the State’s longer-term
greenhouse gas reduction strategies with other State policy priorities, such as for water, natural
resources, agriculture, clean energy, and transportation and land use.
California Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate
Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. It builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to
develop regional GHG reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck
sectors for 2020 and 2035 in comparison to 2005 emissions. The per capita reduction targets
for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020
and a 15 percent reduction by 2035, consistent with the requirements of SB 375, MTC, and the
ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area in July 2013. The strategies in the plan are intended to promote
compact, mixed-use development close to public transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks,
recreation, and other amenities, particularly within Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
identified by local jurisdictions. The project site is located in a PDA.
Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued Executive Order B-30-15, setting a new
interim statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction target. The purpose of establishing the
interim target is to ensure California meets its previously established target of reducing GHG
emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as set forth in Executive Order S-3-05 in
2005.
Under Executive Order B-30-15, the interim target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40
percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
As a part of this effort, CARB is required to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express
the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. CARB will initiate a
public process in the summer of 2015 to update the State’s Climate Change Scoping Plan. The
updated Scoping Plan will provide a framework for achieving the 2030 target and will be
completed and adopted by CARB in 2016.
118
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 59
This Executive Order also calls for the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) to update
the State of California’s climate adaption strategy, Safeguarding California, every three years.
The Safeguarding California plan will identify vulnerabilities to climate change by region and
sector, including water, energy, transportation, public health, agriculture, emergency services,
forestry, biodiversity and habitat, and ocean and coastal resources. It also will identify actions
needed to reduce risks to residents, property, communities, and natural systems from the
vulnerabilities. A lead agency or group of agencies will be identified to lead adaptation efforts in
each sector. Overall, the CNRA will be responsible for ensuring that the provisions in the State’s
climate adaption strategy are fully implemented and state agencies must take climate change
impacts into account in their planning decisions, including for all infrastructure projects.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is the regional government agency that regulates sources of air pollution within
the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. The BAAQMD regulates GHG emissions through the
following plans, programs, and guidelines.
Regional Clean Air Plans
BAAQMD and other air districts prepare clean air plans in accordance with the state and federal
Clean Air Acts. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) provides an Atherton Channel Pedestrian
and Bicycle Bridge Project 43 Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration comprehensive
plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health through implementation of a
control strategy designed to reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful
pollutants. The most recent CAP also includes measures design to reduce GHG emissions.
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include thresholds of significance for GHG emissions
and provide additional guidance for tiering under CEQA. Under the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines,
a local government may prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that is consistent with AB
32 goals. If a project is consistent with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy and
General Plan that address the project’s GHG emissions, it can be presumed that the project
would not have significant GHG emissions under CEQA.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
The City of Dublin prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and IS/MND in October 2010. The City’s
CAP provides background on actions taken to curb GHG emissions; presents Dublin’s baseline
GHG emissions inventory in 2005 and forecast for GHG emissions in 2020 based on business-as-
usual scenario; establishes a GHG emissions reduction target; and presents steps for
implementation of the CAP and monitoring and verification of the CAP to achieve the
designated emissions reduction target.
119
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 60
The City’s CAP serves as the City of Dublin’s qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic
tiering document for the purposes of CEQA for the analysis of impacts to GHG emissions and
climate change. The City has determined that the reduction target under the CAP will reduce
the impact from activities under the CAP to a less than significant level under CEQA. If a
proposed project is consistent with the applicable emission reduction measures identified in
the CAP, the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact (i.e., less than
cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact) due to GHG emissions
and climate change consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15183.5, 15064, and 15130.
Summary of Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR
The DCEIR addressed greenhouse gas emissions associated with buildout of the 189-acre Plan
area and its housing, commercial and open space and park uses. Several measures that would
be consistent with the CAP measures are included in the DCEIR. leading to the conclusion that
the project is consistent with the CAP. Since the CAP is consistent with AB 32, the proposed
project would not hinder the State's GHG reduction strategies for meeting the goals established
by AB 32.
Impacts Evaluation
a,b) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment? Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The Bay Area AQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related
GHG emissions. In its analysis of Greenhouse Gas emissions, the DCEIR determined that GHG
emissions would be generated by construction activities, as well as from increased vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), area sources, energy consumption, water supply, and solid waste generation. The
DCEIR provided quantified emissions for area sources, energy consumption, mobile sources, water
supply, and solid waste generation, since these were the only GHG emissions sources large enough
to provide for meaningful analysis. Greenhouse gas emissions would occur during construction of
the footings, foundation and user-access ramps, and during delivery and installation of the
Overcrossing Project. Minimal vehicle trips would be necessary to complete the project. Based
on the limited amount of construction-related activities necessary to complete the
Overcrossing Project in relation to construction activities needed for buildout of the Dublin
Crossing Specific Plan and implementation of Basic Construction Measures discussed in Section
4.3, Air Quality, of the DCEIR, the Overcrossing Project would not result in new or substantially
more severe significant GHG impacts than were disclosed in the DCEIR.
120
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 61
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
121
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 62
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
Existing Setting
Hazardous waste in California is regulated primarily under the authority of the federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and the California Health and Safety Code. Other
California laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation,
disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup and emergency planning. In California, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted most enforcement authority of federal
hazardous materials regulations to the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA).
Under the authority of Cal/EPA, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) is responsible for
overseeing the remediation of contaminated sites in the San Francisco Bay area.
Worker health and safety and public safety are key issues when dealing with hazardous
materials that may affect human health and the environment. Proper disposal of hazardous
material is vital if it is disturbed during project construction. The California Department of
Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) enforces state worker
health and safety regulations related to construction activities. Regulations include exposure
limits, protective clothing, and training requirements to prevent exposure to hazardous
materials. DOSH also enforces occupational health and safety regulations specific to lead and
asbestos investigations and abatement, which equal or exceed their federal counterparts.
Hazardous waste generators and hazardous materials users in the City are required to comply
with regulations enforced by several federal, state, and county agencies. The regulations are
designed to reduce the risk associated with the human exposure to hazardous materials and
minimize adverse environmental effects. State and federal construction worker health and
safety regulations require protective measures during construction activities where workers
may be exposed to asbestos, lead, and/or other hazardous materials.
122
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 63
Regulatory Setting
Federal, State, and local regulatory hazardous materials databases record the type of hazardous
source, the status for cleanup, monitoring, and/or remediation, and the location of the source.
These databases include:
National Priority List (NPL): Also known as Superfund, the NPL database identifies
properties for priority cleanup under the Superfund program. The purpose of this
database is to assist the U.S. EPA in prioritizing and determining sites that warrant
further investigation through utilizing the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). The EPA
requires that the criteria provided by the HRS be used to make a list of national
priorities of the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants in the United States.
Envirostor: The DTSC’s Envirostor database identifies sites that have known
contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further.
The database includes the following site types: Federal Superfund sites; State Response,
including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites.
GeoTracker: This database contains registered underground storage tanks (USTs) as well
as other hazardous material sites. The data originates from the State Water Resources
Control Board’s Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database.
A review of the Envirostor and GeoTracker databases did not identify any hazardous sources
on-site or within 1,000 feet of the proposed project site
Impacts Evaluation
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
Hazardous materials and substances are highly regulated at the federal, state, and local levels.
As stated in the DCEIR, compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws that
regulate, control, or respond to hazardous waste, transport, disposal, or clean-up would ensure
that construction and operations would have a less than significant impact in regard to hazards
and hazardous materials. Because the Overcrossing Project would be subject to the same local,
state, and federal laws that regulate, control, or respond to hazardous waste, transport,
disposal, or clean-up, no new or substantially more severe impacts would result.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, lubricating grease,
automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, glues, and other substances will be utilized
during construction. An accidental release of any of these substances could degrade the water
123
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 64
quality of the surface water runoff and add additional sources of pollution into the drainage
system. As stated in the DCEIR, “Handling procedures of the Alameda County Environmental
Health Department and the Alameda County Fire Department would be required during all
phases of future development within the project area. These measures include standards and
regulations regarding the storage, handling, and use of these materials.” As a result, the DCEIR
concluded that impacts related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than
significant. Because the Overcrossing Project would (1) be subject to the same standards and
regulations regarding the storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials, (2) involve far
lesser amounts of such materials dues to the far small size of the project compared to the
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, (3) have a far shorter construction period (60 days) compared to
the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (intermittent construction activities over 8-12 years), no new
or substantially more severe significant impacts would result.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The Overcrossing Project is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
The location of the Overcrossing Project is not on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
The closest airport to the project area is the Livermore Municipal Airport which is located
approximately five miles east of the project area. According to the Livermore Municipal Airport
Master Plan, the project area is not located within the approach zones and is not located within
an unacceptable noise contour. Therefore, the Overcrossing Project would not result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise levels for any people residing or working in the area.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
The Overcrossing Project includes a free-span bridge structure with a minimum 17-foot
clearance over Dublin Boulevard, which is primarily a six lane east/west arterial and a route of
regional significance. Dublin Boulevard is also an important emergency evacuation route within
the City. The minimum 17-foot vertical clearance provided by the Overcrossing Project provides
for safe passage by large truck-trailer combinations and emergency vehicles, including fire
engines and ladder trucks. The Overcrossing Project would not obstruct or impair operation of
124
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 65
Dublin Boulevard and therefore would not physically interfere with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan through the City.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
As the project area is located in an urban area and is surrounded by existing development, the
Overcrossing Project would not expose people or structures to wildfire hazards.
Conclusion
The Overcrossing Project would not result in significant hazardous materials or hazard impacts
and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant Impacts.
125
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 66
Hydrology and Water Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternatives that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner that would:
1) result in substantial on- or off-site
erosion or siltation?
2) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
3) create or contribute to runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
4) impede or redirect flood flows?
126
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 67
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternatives that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Existing Setting
Flooding
National Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicate that a portion of the project area north of Dublin
Boulevard is located within Zone X defined as “areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood; areas
of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or within drainage
areas less than one square mile; and areas protected by levees from one percent annual flood.”
The portion of the project area south of Dublin Boulevard is designated as Zone AE which is a
special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual flood.
Groundwater
The Overcrossing Project is located within the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, which
contains a surface area of approximately 109 square miles. The Livermore Valley Groundwater
Basin lies approximately 40 miles east of San Francisco and 30 miles southwest of Stockton,
within a structural trough of the Diablo Range. The entire floor of the Livermore Valley and
portions of the upland areas on all sides of the valley overlie groundwater bearing materials.
The materials are mostly continental deposits from alluvial fans, outwash plains, and lakes.
They include valley-fill materials, the Livermore Formation and the Tassajara Formation.
127
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 68
Water Quality
The quality of surface and groundwater at the proposed project area is affected by land uses
within the entire watershed. Water quality in surface and groundwater bodies is regulated
primarily by the State and RWQCBs (discussed below).
Watershed Characteristics
The City of Dublin and the project site are located within the Livermore Drainage Unit, which is
one of two major drainage basins in the Alameda Creek Watershed. The 660-square mile
Alameda Creek Watershed is the largest watershed in the Bay Area, extending as far south as
Mount Hamilton, north to Mount Diablo, east to the Altamont Hills in Livermore, and west to
San Francisco Bay. The Overcrossing Project is within an 1,800+ acre watershed that conveys
storm flows through natural and man-made features. The largest portion of this watershed is
located north of the DCSP and drains south within the main channel of Chabot Channel,
concentrating near the intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard. Much of the area is
currently a mapped Federal Environmental Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain.
Regulatory Setting
Federal Clean Water Act
The principal law governing pollution of the nation’s surface waters is the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act [CWA]). Originally enacted in 1948, it was amended in
1972 and has remained substantially the same since. The CWA consists of two major parts:
provisions that authorize federal financial assistance for municipal sewage treatment plant
construction and regulatory requirements that apply to industrial and municipal dischargers.
The CWA authorizes the establishment of effluent standards on an industry basis. The CWA also
requires states to adopt water quality standards that “consist of the designated uses of the
navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses”.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
To achieve its objectives, the CWA is based on the concept that all discharges into the nation’s
waters are unlawful, unless specifically authorized by a permit. The NPDES is the permitting
program for discharge of pollutants into surface waters of the United States under Section 402
of the CWA. Thus, industrial and municipal dischargers (point source discharges) must obtain
NPDES permits from the appropriate RWQCB (i.e., the Central Valley region). The existing
NPDES (Phase I) stormwater program requires municipalities serving more than 1,000,000
persons to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit for any construction project larger than five
acres. Proposed NPDES stormwater regulations (Phase II) expand this existing national program
to smaller municipalities with populations of 10,000 persons or more and construction sites
that disturb more than one acre. For other dischargers, such as those affecting groundwater or
128
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 69
from non-point sources, a Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the RWQCB. For
specified situations, some permits may be waived, and some discharge activities may be
handled through being included in an existing General Permit.
Construction activity subject to a General Permit includes any clearing, grading, stockpiling, or
excavation that results in soil disturbances of one acre of total land area or more. Construction
activities disturbing less than 1 acre are still subject to this permit if the activity is part of a large
common plan of development or if significant water quality impairment will result from the
activity. The General Permit requires all dischargers whose construction activity disturbs one
acre or more to:
Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent all construction pollutants from
contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from
moving off-site into receiving waters; and,
Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharge to storm sewer systems and other
waters of the United States and inspect all BMPs.
Impaired Waterbodies
CWA Section 303(d) and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (described
below) require the State to establish the beneficial uses of its State waters and to adopt water
quality standards to protect those beneficial uses. Section 303(d) establishes a total maximum
daily load (TMDL), which is the maximum quantity of a particular contaminant that a water
body can maintain without experiencing adverse effects, to guide the application of State water
quality standards. Section 303(d) also requires the State to identify “impaired” streams (water
bodies affected by the presence of pollutants or contaminants) and to establish the TMDL for
each stream.
Federal Flood Insurance Program
Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973. The intent of these acts is to reduce the need for large publicly funded flood control
structures and disaster relief by restricting development on floodplains. FEMA administers the
NFIP to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations
limiting development on floodplains. FEMA issues FIRMs for communities participating in the
NFIP. FIRMs delineate flood hazard zones in the community.
A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is an area within a floodplain having a one percent or
greater chance of flood occurrence within any given year (commonly referred to as the 100
year flood zone). SFHAs are delineated on flood hazard boundary maps issued by FEMA. The
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994
make flood insurance mandatory for most properties in SFHAs.
129
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 70
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act acts in cooperation with the CWA to establish
the SWRCB. The SWRCB is divided into nine regions, each overseen by a RWQCB. The SWRCB,
and thus each RWQCB, is responsible for protecting California’s surface waters and
groundwater supplies. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act develops Basin Plans that
designate the beneficial uses of California’s rivers and groundwater basins. The Basin Plans also
establish narrative and numerical water quality objectives for those waters. Basin Plans are
updated every three years and provide the basis of determining waste discharge requirements,
taking enforcement actions, and evaluating clean water grant proposals. The Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act is also responsible for implementing CWA Sections 401-402 and
303(d) to SWRCB and RWQCBs.
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulates surface water and groundwater quality in San
Francisco Bay, including the City of Dublin. The area under the RWQCB’s jurisdiction comprises
all of the San Francisco Bay segments extending to the mouth of the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta (Winter Island near Pittsburg). In its efforts to protect surface waters and groundwaters
of the San Francisco region, the RWQCB addresses region wide water quality concerns through
the creation and triennial update of a Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay
Basin (Basin Plan, 2011) and adopts, monitors compliance with, and enforces waste discharge
requirements and NPDES permits.
The RWQCB’s overall mission is to protect surface waters and groundwater in the Region. The
Water Board carries out its mission by:
Addressing Region wide water quality concerns through the creation and triennial
Update of a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan);
Preparing new or revised policies addressing Region wide water quality concerns;
Adopting, monitoring compliance with, and enforcing waste discharge requirements and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits;
Providing recommendations to the State Water Board on financial assistance programs,
proposals for water diversion, budget development, and other statewide programs and
policies;
Coordinating with other public agencies that are concerned with water quality control;
and
Informing and involving the public on water quality issues.
130
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 71
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP has two major objectives: 1) to help identify the sources of sediment and other
pollutants that affect the quality of storm water discharges, and 2) to describe and ensure the
implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in both
stormwater and in non-stormwater discharges.
BMPs include activities, practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices
that reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater
discharges. BMPs include treatment requirements, operation procedures, and practices to
control site runoff, spillage, leaks, waste disposal, and drainage from raw materials storage.
BMP implementation must take into account changing weather conditions and construction
activities, and various combinations of BMPs may be used over the life of the project to
maintain compliance with the CWA. The General NPDES Permit gives the owner the discretion
to determine the most economical, effective, and innovative BMPs to achieve the performance-
based goals of the General NPDES Permit.
There are two categories of BMPs: structural and non-structural. Structural BMPs are the
specific construction, modification, operation, maintenance, or monitoring of facilities that
would minimize the introduction of pollutants into the drainage system or would remove
pollutants from the drainage system. Non-structural BMPs are activities, programs, and other
nonphysical measures that help reduce pollutants from non-point sources to the drainage
system. In general, nonstructural BMPs are source control measures.
The issue of pollution in stormwater and urban runoff has been recognized by both federal and
state agencies, and there has been a growing concern regarding activities that discharge water
affecting California’s surface water, coastal waters, and groundwater. Discharges of water are
classified as either point source or non-point source discharges. A point source discharge
usually refers to waste emanating from a single, identifiable point. Regulated point sources
include municipal wastewater, oil field wastewater, winery discharges, solid waste sites, and
other industrial discharges. Point source discharge must be actively managed to protect the
state’s waters. A non-point source discharge usually is a waste emanating from diffused
locations. As a result, specific sources of non-point source pollution may be difficult to identify,
treat, or regulate. The goal is to reduce the adverse impact of non-point source discharges on
water resources through better management of these activities. Non-point sources include
drainage and percolation from a variety of activities such as agriculture, forestry, recreation,
and storm runoff with the latter being the most common in the Dublin area.
131
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 72
Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Construction of the Overcrossing Project will require limited grading and excavation to create
footings and foundations on the north and south sides of Dublin Boulevard where the free span
bridge structure would touch down and connect to ramps extending from the bridge back down
to the Iron Horse Trail. Construction disturbance of soil surfaces in the project area will create
the potential for surface water to carry sediment from onsite erosion into the storm water
system and local waterways. Construction of the proposed project will also require the use of
gasoline and diesel powered equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, water pumps, and air
compressors. Chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, lubricating
grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, glues, and other substances will be
utilized during construction. An accidental release of any of these substances could degrade the
water quality of the surface water runoff and add additional sources of pollution into the
drainage system.
As stated in the DCEIR for Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, all construction would be required to
comply with NPDES permit requirements including preparation of a SWPPP, which would
incorporate BMPs to control erosion, siltation, and contaminated runoff from construction
sites. The proposed Overcrossing Project will be subject to the same requirements for
implementation of BMPs during construction.
The BMPs for storm water quality treatment set forth in the DCEIR include structural and
nonstructural measures. Structural measures may include bio-filters, wetlands, infiltration
basins, or mechanical structures designed to remove pollutants from stormwater. Non-
structural measures such as street sweeping, public education, or hazardous substance
recycling centers are preventive measures intended to control the source of pollutants. Typical
BMPs that are included within NPDES permit requirements include:
Use of sand bags and temporary desiltation basins during project grading and
construction during the rainy season (November through April) to prevent discharge of
sediment-laden runoff into storm water facilities;
Installation of landscaping as soon as possible after completion of grading to reduce
sediment transport during storms;
Hydroseeding of graded building pads if they are not built upon before the onset of the
rainy season;
Incorporation of structural BMPs (e.g., grease traps, debris, screens, continuous
deflection separators, oil/water separators, drain inlet inserts) into the project design to
provide detention and filtering of contaminants in urban runoff from the developed site
prior to discharge to storm water facilities; and
132
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 73
Stenciling of catch basins and other publicly visible flood control facilities with the
phrase, “Don’t Dump - Pollutes Our Creeks.”
Additionally, prior to construction grading, the project applicant are required to file a Notice of
Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit and prepare the SWPPP, which addresses the
measures that will be included in the project to minimize and control construction and post-
construction runoff to the “maximum extent practicable.” Such a notice will be filed for the
Overcrossing Project.
Stormwater Pollution Previsions Plans (SWPPPs) would also be prepared, as a separate
document, to control short-term construction-related discharge pollutants as required by the
CA State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 99-08-DWQ. Project grading plans would
conform to the Alameda County Clean Water Program, low impact design (LID) site design
measures for water quality protection and would be required to show compliance with the
post-construction, long-term requirements of Provision C.3. Project design would be review by
the City of Dublin and are subject to City approval. The required SWPPP for the Overcrossing
Project will also be reviewed by the Zone 7 Water Agency to ensure adequacy and
appropriateness of BMPs.
Typical measures, or their equivalent, will be included in the SWPPP for the overcrossing
Project, which will be implemented to prevent storm water pollution and minimize potential
sedimentation during construction.
Restrict grading to dry season (April through October) or use BMPs for wet season
erosion control;
Preclude non-storm water discharges to the storm water system;
Perform monitoring of discharges to the storm water system;
Construction practices will include the use of stabilized construction entrances and/or
wash racks, street sweeping, use of erosion control devices
Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe impacts beyond what was analyzed and
addressed in the DCEIR would occur as a result of construction and operation of the
overcrossing structure and user access ramps.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that
the project may impede sustainable management of the basin?
The Overcrossing Project could affect groundwater supplies in three ways: use of water during
construction, use of water during operations, and increasing impervious surface area leading to
reduction in groundwater recharge.
Water use during construction will occur during an estimated 60-day construction period
primarily during site excavation and grading to reduce fugitive dust and emissions of PM10 and
133
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 74
PM2.5. Only minor intermittent use of water may be required as part of long-term maintenance
of the bridge structure and its approaches. The DCEIR determined that water used during site
grading and construction of the 189-acre Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would not result in
significant impacts. Because grading and earthmoving activities associated with the
Overcrossing Project would not occur at the same time as grading of the 189-acre Specific Plan
area, no significant impacts would result from the Overcrossing project.
The DCEIR concluded that development associated with the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would
not increase impervious areas to the extent adverse impacts to the amount of available
groundwater would result. While the DCEIR does not specifically quantify increased impervious
surface area, the development of up to 1,995 dwelling units and 200,000 square feet of
commercial uses along with required parking areas, a 12-acre school, and 23.8 acres of
roadways would represent approximately 62 acres of impervious surface area. Because of the
very small increase in impervious surface area that would result from the Overcrossing Project
approximately 0.3 acres), its construction and operation would not affect groundwater or
groundwater recharge and impacts would remain less than significant.
c1) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through addition of impervious surfaces in a manner that would result in
substantial on- or off-site erosion or siltation?
The project site is generally flat and not adjacent to any steep slopes. The project would require
minimal soil disturbance within the project area to prepare foundations and footings for a free-
span bridge structure and associated ramps designed to create access to and from the
overcrossing. This minor amount of soil disturbance, combined with implementation of best
management practices during construction, would not result in any substantial soil erosion or
siltation.
c2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
The DCEIR concludes that development of the 189-acre Specific Plan area for residences,
commercial uses, parks and schools would substantially increase the impervious surface area,
thereby altering the existing drainage pattern and amount of surface runoff resulting in a
potential increase in peak storm water flows (i.e., 10- and 100-year storm events). The
mitigation measures to address this potentially significant impact, and the associated
regulatory requirements for development are identified in the DCEIR and include requirements
for the construction of detention basins and storm drainage plans to accommodate the
increased runoff associated with the development of the 189 acres in the Specific Plan area.
The Overcrossing Project’s free-span bridge structure foundations and footings and the user
access ramps would create minimal additional impervious surface area (approximately 0.3
acres) which would not result in an exceedance of the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems.
134
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 75
c3) Create or contribute to runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Construction of footings, foundation and user access ramps would involve grading and
excavation would have the potential to create storm runoff during construction. However,
compliance with regulatory requirements included in the DCEIR as summarized above would
not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts associated with water quality and
runoff beyond what was analyzed and addressed for the Specific Plan’s 189-acre development.
Rain falling directly onto the bridge structure would flow down the approach ramps on either
side of Dublin Boulevard rather than directly onto Dublin Boulevard. Because the portion of the
bridge structure directly above Dublin Boulevard is small in area (less than 0.1 acres) and does
not increase impervious surface area within the project site, such diversion of rain water from
Dublin Boulevard to the north and south approach ramps would not cause the capacity of any
existing or planned stormwater drainage facility to be exceeded. In addition, because the bridge
and approach ramps would be open only to non-motorized traffic, the Overcrossing Project
would not represent a substantial additional source of polluted runoff.
c4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
The overcrossing project does not include any structures that might impede flood flows.
d) In a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The project is located more than 14 miles from the shore of the San Francisco Bay and
approximately 32 miles from the Pacific Ocean. In addition, there are no large water bodies in
the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not be affected by a
tsunami or seiche.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
The proposed Overcrossing Project would comply with all applicable water quality
requirements and would not decrease groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable management of the basin.
Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Conclusion
The Overcrossing Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant
impacts from flooding.
135
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 76
Land Use and Planning
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Measure
Previously found
to be Infeasible
or Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Existing Setting
Land uses along both sides of Dublin Boulevard include a mix of commercial, industrial and
residential uses. Lands immediately to the west are zoned M-1 light Industrial and to the east
the designation is Priority Development area. The land use north of Dublin Boulevard within the
project area is a community park zoned Open Space/Parks (P) that includes a 30-acre
community park (Don Biddle Park). The park is a gathering place for the residents of Dublin
Crossing and the broader community of Dublin. The project area also is centered along the Iron
Horse Regional Trail which is an existing multi-use pathway that runs north-south through
Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, connecting the cities of Concord, Walnut Creek, San
Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and the Town of Danville; and is managed by the East
Bay Regional Parks District.
Summary of Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR Findings
The DCEIR concluded that development of the 189-acre Specific Plan area would not conflict
with planning documents, is compatible with adjacent land uses in terms of scale of
development, noise, traffic, and hours of operation compared with existing conditions, and
would not physically divide an established community.
The DCEIR requires that development in the Specific Plan area would be subject to the City’s
design review process, including formal Site Development Review. The DCEIR concludes that
implementation of the development standards and design guidelines would ensure
compatibility with existing and potential adjacent uses.
136
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 77
With implementation of the development standards and design guidelines and implementation
of a formal Site Design Review, the DCEIR concluded that build out of the Specific Plan would be
compatible with existing and potential adjacent land uses and would not physically divide an
established community.
Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
The Iron Horse Trail overcrossing project would facilitate safe crossing of Dublin Boulevard for
users of the Iron Horse Trail and as such would serve to better connect and not divide
established communities. The Overcrossing Project would be subject to the design guidelines
and standards included in the DCEIR which prevent incompatibility with adjacent and future
land uses in the vicinity.
Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe significant impact would occur.
b) Would the project conflict with the General Plan or other applicable City land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The overcrossing project is included in the DCEIR as a mitigation measure. The overcrossing
project is consistent with City land use, policy, and regulations and would be subject to design
guidelines included in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan.
Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe significant impact.
137
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 78
Mineral Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Measure
Previously found
to be Infeasible
or Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
12. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be either locally important or of value
to the region and the residents of the
state?
Existing Setting
The DCEIR concludes there are no mineral resources in the DCSP area which includes the Don
Biddle Community Park and the project area north of Dublin Boulevard. Mineral resources do
not exist on the project area south of Dublin Boulevard (DOC 2018).
Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be either locally
important or of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Because there are no known mineral resources within the project area, no impacts would result
from the Overcrossing Project.
Source(s)
California Department of Conservation (DOC), California Geological Survey,
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mlc/Pages/Index.aspx, accessed November 5, 2018. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mlc/Pages/Index.aspx,%20access
ed%20November%205
138
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 79
Noise
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
13. NOISE — Would the project:
a) Result in generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Result in generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) Exposure of people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels from a private
airstrip, public airport, or public use
airport?
Existing Setting
Mobile and Stationary Noise Sources
Both mobile and stationary noise sources contribute to the existing noise levels within the
project area. The primary noise sources are mobile noise sources from car and truck traffic with
high volumes of traffic along Interstate 580 (I-580), Interstate 680 (I-680), and noise automobile
traffic from adjacent Dublin Boulevard and from vehicles using Scarlett Drive, which will be
completed and in use at the time construction is initiated in the project area. Another mobile
source of noise, the BART station, is located approximately 1,500 feet south of the project
boundary. The station is located within the median of I-580 and any associated noise is
generally masked by freeway traffic noise which is audible from the project site. The primary
139
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 80
stationary noise sources are the adjacent commercial and residential uses and includes parking
lot noise, as well as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment.
Sensitive Receptors
Land uses that are considered sensitive receptors to noise include residential areas, schools,
hospitals, churches, recreational areas, and transient lodging. Residential areas are also
considered particularly sensitive to noise during the nighttime hours. Sensitive receptors for the
Overcrossing Project would include park users, trail users, and the adjacent residential uses
located east of the Iron Horse Trail on the south side of Dublin Boulevard.
Regulatory Setting
State of California Guidelines
The State of California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Noise Element Guidelines include
recommended interior and exterior level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and
prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The OPR Guidelines describe the
compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of dBA
CNEL.
According to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines, single-family homes are
considered to be “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and
conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are “normally
acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. The State indicates
that locating residential units, parks, and institutions (such as churches, schools, libraries, and
hospitals) in areas where exterior ambient noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL is undesirable. The
OPR recommendations also note that, under certain conditions, more restrictive standards than
the maximum levels cited may be appropriate. As an example, the standards for quiet suburban
and rural communities may be reduced by 5 to 10 dB to reflect their lower existing outdoor
noise levels in comparison with urban environments.
City of Dublin Municipal Code
The City’s Municipal Code includes standards pertaining to noise control within the City.
Municipal Code Section 5.28.020 prohibits any person within the City to make any loud, or
disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or disturbs
or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal
sensitivity present in the area. As noted in the DCEIR, the noise standards set forth in the
Municipal Code pertain to stationary sources and do not apply to construction noise. In
addition, the standards set forth in the General Plan Noise element do not address noise from
trails or construction activities.
140
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 81
Section 8.36.060(C)(3) states that for lots 5,000 square feet or larger, mechanical equipment
that generates noise when located within a required setback as allowed by this subsection, and
within 10 feet of an existing or potential residence, or an existing paved patio area on adjoining
property, shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line to a maximum of
50 dBA at any time.
Summary of Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR Noise Impacts
The DCEIR concludes that buildout of the 189-acre Specific Plan area would have the potential
to increase noise levels by 3 dBA or more, would exceed the City’s noise standard, and that
short-term construction noise would impact nearby sensitive receptors.
Mitigation measures set forth in the DCEIR to address significant potential noise impacts are
summarized below:
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.10-1a: Prepare Construction Noise Management Plan.
The project applicant shall prepare a construction noise management plan that
identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding sensitive
receptors (e.g., residential uses and schools) and includes specific noise management
measures to be included into project plans and specifications subject to review and
approval by the City. These measures shall include, but not be limited to the following:
All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control
devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those
provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an un-muffled
exhaust.
The contractor shall maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize
noise emissions.
Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible
distance to the sensitive receptors.
All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible
distance to the sensitive receptors.
The project applicant(s) shall provide, to the satisfaction of the City of Dublin
Planning Department, a qualified “Noise Disturbance Coordinator.” The Noise
Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints
about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Disturbance
Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the
cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, malfunctioning muffler, etc.)
and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the compliant, as deemed
acceptable by the Dublin Planning Department. If any notices are sent to residential
units immediately surrounding the construction site by the City and all signs posted
141
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 82
at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number
for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator.
Select demolition methods to minimize vibration, where possible (e.g., sawing
masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers).
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.10-1b: Construction Routes Less Disruptive to Sensitive
Receptors. Construction trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive
receptors, preferably major roadways (I-580, I-680, Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road,
and Arnold Road). Construction trucks should, to the extent practical, avoid the
weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m. peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
to 6:00 p.m.)
Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Construction Noise
Noise generated by project construction activities would have a temporary duration
approximately 60 days). Construction-related noise will be generated by vehicular traffic
related to onsite workers and delivery of construction materials (including the bridge structure
itself), excavation for footings, construction of bridge piers and the trail, and placement of the
bridge structure over Dublin Boulevard. The noise levels that would be generated by the
Overcrossing Project would be similar to the noise levels addressed in the DCEIR for site
construction and operation of heavy-duty trucks, backhoes, and other heavy-duty construction
equipment. Because of the variability in daily construction operations (types and amount of
equipment and their location at any given time), noise levels from project construction cannot
be accurately estimated. Typical noise levels from construction activities are illustrated in
Table 3, and typical noise levels from specific types of construction equipment are illustrated in
Table 4.
Construction of the Overcrossing Project would have a shorter duration and use fewer pieces of
noise-generating equipment than would the large-scale construction of the 189-acre Specific
Plan area analyzed in the DEIR. The Overcrossing Project would also not require use of large
earthmoving equipment for site grading as would be required for the Specific Plan area.
Construction activities for the Overcrossing Project would be conducted during weekday.
daytime hours with the exception of installation of the bridge structure over Dublin Boulevard.
Because installation of the bridge structure, which would be constructed offsite before being
delivered to the project site, would require closure of Dublin Boulevard, the bridge structure
would be installed in a single overnight operation. In addition, construction of the Overcrossing
142
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 83
Table 3. Typical Construction Activity Noise Levels
Phase
Noise Level (Leq)
at 50 Feeta
Noise Level (Leq)
at 200 Feet
Noise Level (Leq)
at 400 Feet
Noise Level (Leq)
at 1,600 Feet
Ground Clearing 84 75 66 54
Excavation 89 80 71 59
Foundations 78 69 60 48
Erection 85 76 67 56
Exterior Finishing 89 80 71 59
NOTES: Leq = equivalent sound level.
a 50-foot estimates correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase and
200 feet from the other equipment associated with that phase.
SOURCE: Bolt, Baranek, and Newman, 1971.
Table 4. Typical Noise Levels From Construction Equipment
Construction Equipment
Noise Level
dBA, Leq at 50 Feet)
Dump truck 88
Portable air compressor 81
Concrete mixer (truck) 85
Scraper 88
Jackhammer 88
Dozer 87
Paver 89
Generator 76
Backhoe 85
NOTES: dBA = A-weighted decibels. Leq = equivalent sound level.
SOURCE: FTA, 2006.
Project would not overlap the noisiest portion of Specific Plan construction activities such as
major grading operations. The Overcrossing Project would comply with all construction noise-
related mitigation measures set forth in the DCEIR.
Operational Noise
Because the trail would be used by pedestrians and bicyclists, the Overcrossing Project would
not result in long-term stationary noise impacts on sensitive receptors.
Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe impacts would result from the Overcrossing
Project.
143
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 84
b) Result in a generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the
construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction
equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with
distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction
activities often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of
the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the
lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to
slight damage at the highest levels. Ground-borne vibrations from construction activities rarely
reach levels that damage structures.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for
construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for
continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 inch/second) appears to be conservative.
The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage.
Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage
e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending
on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and
receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction
equipment.
Ground-borne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. As indicated in the DCEIR, based on
the FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that
would be used during project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch-per-second peak
particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the source of activity. The DCEIR estimated the closest
structures to the project construction activities would be approximately 50 feet away. At 50
feet from the source of activity, the DCEIR concluded that construction-related vibration
velocities would range from 0.001 to 0.031 inch-per-second PPV, well below the 0.2 inch-per-
second PPV significance threshold. The DCEIR thus concluded that vibration impacts associated
with construction would be less than significant.
Construction of the Overcrossing Project would not involve the use of large bulldozers 2 for site
grading analyzed in the DCEIR for grading of the Specific Plan area. In addition, construction
activities for the Overcrossing Project would be separated by a minimum of approximately 70
feet from the closest structures, which are located along the south side of Dublin Boulevard
east of the existing Iron Horse trail.
2 Over the various types of construction equipment analyzed in he DCEIR, large bulldozers would generate the
greatest viubration impacts.
144
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 85
Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe impacts would result from the Overcrossing
Project.
c) Would the project expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels from a private
airstrip, public airport, or public use airport?
The closest airport to the project area is the Livermore Municipal Airport which is located
approximately 3.5 miles east of the project area. According to the Livermore Municipal Airport
Master Plan, the City of Dublin is not located within the approach zones and is not located
within an unacceptable noise contour as defined in the City’s plan. Therefore, the proposed
project would not expose residents or workers in the project area to excess airport-related
noise.
Conclusion. No impacts would result from the Overcrossing Project.
145
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 86
Population and Housing
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in the area, either
directly or indirectly?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Existing Setting
The DCEIR concludes that, although the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would increase the
population in the City, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the nature of
surrounding development; would be within the estimate of population growth per the City of
Dublin Housing Element.
Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
The Overcrossing Project does not include any residential uses that would directly generate
population growth. The Overcrossing Project would enhance the desirability of the Iron Horse
Trail by eliminating an awkward at-grade crossing. However, it would be highly unlikely that
such an improvement to the trail would be sufficient to indirectly induce population growth in
the area beyond that anticipated in the DCEIR.
146
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 87
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The Overcrossing Project includes the construction and operation of a pedestrian and bicycle
bridge and would not displace any existing housing or people.
147
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 88
Public Services
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
15. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered facilities
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any
of the following:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Existing Setting
Fire Protection Services
The project area is served by the Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD), which provides fire
protection and suppression services under contract to the City of Dublin. ACDF has 28 fire
stations, three of which are located in the City of Dublin. Station No. 17, located at 6200
Madigan Avenue, provides service to the west, and central core sections of Dublin and would
provide initial response to the project area. This station, which is located approximately 1.3
miles northeast of the project site, houses one engine and one truck company and could
respond to a request for service within five minutes.
148
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 89
Police Protection Services
Police services for the City of Dublin are performed under contract by Alameda County Sheriff
personnel located at the Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Center Plaza.
Libraries
The Dublin Public Library is located at 200 Civic Plaza and is a partnership between the City of
Dublin and the Alameda County Library.
Parks/Recreation Facilities
The City of Dublin’s current park system includes thirteen parks and two open space areas. The
City’s Parks and Community Services Department manages park planning and development,
and the Public Works Department coordinates park maintenance.
In addition to the Iron Horse Regional Trail, the City's existing trail network consists of bikeways
located along Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway, San Ramon Road, Alamo Creek, Dublin
Boulevard, Tassajara Creek and Dougherty Road, a public local trail along Martin Canyon Creek,
and a regional trail link along the Iron Horse Trail.
Impacts Evaluation
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for public services?
The Overcrossing Project would be constructed to current California Building Code standards
and would not involve the provision of any new or physically altered governmental facilities
other than the bridge crossing itself. By improving the trail crossing of Dublin Boulevard, there
may be an increase in trail use, which could in turn, result in increased police and fire service
requests. The number of such calls for service would be minimal compared to the number of
calls for service analyzed in the DCEIR for the development of 1,995 residential units, 200,000
square feet of commercial uses, the 30-acre Don Biddle Park and a 5-acre neighborhood park,
and a 12-acre elementary school for which the DCEIR determined impacts to be less than
significant. In addition, the added safety for trail users of replacing an awkward at-grade
crossing of Dublin Boulevard with a grade-separated overcrossing might reduce any potential
increase in calls for service resulting from the proposed project. The proposed Overcrossing
Project does not involve development of residential uses and would not, therefore, generate
any demand for school or library facilities. Because the proposed project involves enhancement
of an existing recreational trail, no impacts in relation to recreational facilities would result.
149
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 90
Conclusion
The Overcrossing Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant
impacts in relation to public services.
150
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 91
Recreation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
16. RECREATION — Would the project:
a) Increase the demand for existing
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of such a facility could
occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Existing Setting
Parks/Recreation Facilities
The City of Dublin’s current park system includes thirteen parks and two open space areas. The
City’s Parks and Community Services Department manages park planning and development,
and the Public Works Department coordinates park maintenance.
In addition to the Iron Horse Regional Trail, the City's existing trail network consists of bikeways
located along Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway, San Ramon Road, Alamo Creek, Dublin
Boulevard, Tassajara Creek and Dougherty Road, a public local trail along Martin Canyon Creek,
and a regional trail link along the Iron Horse Trail.
151
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 92
Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project increase the demand for existing parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of such a facility could occur or be accelerated?
Connections between the Iron Horse Regional Trail and Don Biddle Park were anticipated as
part of the design of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. While some pedestrians and bicyclists
using the Iron Horse Trail might also utilize Don Biddle Park, the construction and operation of
the Overcrossing Project would not be likely to increase such use or to cause substantial
deterioration of the park once its construction is complete because:
The proposed project does not involve development of new housing that generate
demand for park facilities;
Use of Don Biddle Park by trail users was contemplated in the original design of the
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and the park; and
The primary use of the trail at Dublin Boulevard would be for pedestrian and bicycle
movement, and in particular, for access to and from the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
station.
b) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The Overcrossing Project is itself a recreational facility, the physical environmental effects of
which are addressed throughout this document.
Conclusion
No new or substantially more severe Impacts to recreational facilities would result from the
Overcrossing Project.
152
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 93
Transportation and Traffic
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
17. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC — Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses?
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Existing Setting
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard is primarily a six-lane east/west arterial south of the project area and provides
access to residential and commercial/retail areas. According to the Tri-Valley Transportation
Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (TVTP), Dublin Boulevard is a route of
regional significance. Dublin Boulevard extends from the City limit in the west to Fallon Road in
the east.
Scarlett Drive
Scarlett Drive is a two-lane north/south collector along the northwest border of the project site.
Scarlett Drive begins at Dougherty Road and continues southeast to Houston Place where it
153
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 94
terminates near commercial uses approximately 1,100 feet north of Dublin Boulevard. Scarlett
Drive continues south of Dublin Boulevard to Scarlett Court. At the time construction of
Overcrossing Project is initiated, Scarlett Drive would have been extended from Dublin
Boulevard to Houston Place.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Iron Horse Trail is an East Bay Regional Park District Regional Trail that consists of a 12-foot-
wide asphalt surface and extends from Pleasanton to Concord. Within the City of Dublin, the
trail extends from the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to the San Ramon Border. The Iron Horse
Trail intersects with the Alamo Creek Trail, Alamo Canal Trail, and the Dougherty Road bike
path.
Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
Commuter rail service to Dublin is provided by BART. The closest access to the BART system is
located about 0.25 miles south of the project area at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. BART
provides service to San Francisco and many locations in the East Bay. BART is accessible by foot
via sidewalks on Dublin Boulevard, Demarcus Boulevard, and Iron Horse Parkway. BART trains
operate on 15-minute headways during the commute periods.
Summary of Dublin Crossing EIR Traffic Impacts
Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard Intersection
The DCEIR concluded that build out of the Specific Plan area would create unacceptable
operational conditions at certain intersections including the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard
intersection adjacent to the project area. This potential significant impact would occur due to
the higher rate of pedestrian/bicyclist crossings at Dublin Boulevard once the Specific Plan area
is built out. The DCEIR document concluded that a grade separated crossing could be utilized at
this intersection to allow more green time to be allotted to through traffic on Dublin Boulevard.
With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the Scarlett Drive and Dublin
Boulevard intersection would operate at level of service (LOS) C during the PM peak hour.
Therefore, this mitigation measure (below) would reduce this impact to a less than significant
level.
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-3: Construction of a Grade Separated Crossing at the
Intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard. To mitigate the impacts at the
intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard due to higher rate of pedestrians/
bicyclists crossings at Dublin Boulevard, a grade separated crossing should be utilized.
The grade separated crossing would eliminate the need for at-grade pedestrian
actuations at the traffic signal, which would allow more green time to be allocated to
through traffic on Dublin Boulevard.
154
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 95
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Construction Impacts
Heavy Vehicle Trips
The DCEIR addresses construction related traffic impacts associated with build out of the
Specific Plan area over an estimated time period of eight to twelve years. The construction
phase would increase the number of daily truck trips in the project vicinity while the site is
graded and materials are delivered. All truck movements to and from the site during
construction would likely occur on the arterials and collector streets around the project site.
While heavy vehicle traffic is common on arterial streets near industrial, commercial, and high
density residential land uses, truck traffic on streets directly adjacent to low density residential
development should be minimized to the greatest extent possible. Low density residential
development occurs along Scarlett Drive, west of the Specific Plan area, north of Dublin
Boulevard. Large numbers of heavy vehicle trips on Scarlett Drive during the construction phase
may result in a potentially significant impact. The DCEIR concludes that implementation of the
following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-11: Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s). Prior to the
issuance of any grading permit or any permit that authorizes construction activities on
the Specific Plan site or construction of off-site improvements relating to the Specific
Plan, the project applicants shall provide Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) for City
Staff review and approval as part of the permit application. The Mitigation Plan(s) shall
include measures to minimize the construction traffic entering the roadway system
during periods of peak traffic volumes (i.e., AM and PM Peak Hour). The Mitigation
Plan(s) shall also include measures to minimize the number of truck trips on Scarlett
Drive and should route heavy vehicle traffic to driveways on Dublin Boulevard and
Arnold Road to access the site during the construction phase of the project. At a
minimum, the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan should include the following
implementation measures:
Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate principal haul routes for
trucks delivering materials to and from the construction site.
Should a temporary road and/or lane closure be necessary during construction, the
project applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary,
to minimize traffic impacts. This may include detour signage, cones, construction
area signage, flagmen, and other measures as required for safe traffic handling in
the construction zone.
The project applicant shall be required to keep a minimum of one lane in each
direction free from encumbrances at all times on perimeter streets accessing the
project site. In the event a full road closure is required, the contractor shall
coordinate with the City to designate proper detour routes and signage to
appropriate proper access routes.
155
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 96
Lane Closures
During build out of the DCSP, closure of travel lanes on Dublin Boulevard, Scarlett Drive, and
Arnold Road may be needed while constructing frontage improvements, intersection
improvements for new proposed roadways (G Street, B Street, Central Parkway East, E Street,
D Street, and A Street), and traffic signal modifications where new intersection legs are
proposed. Closure of travel lanes during peak commute hours could result in restricted traffic
flow on the public streets surrounding the project area and the DCEIR concluded that lane
closures would be a potentially significant impact and required implementation of the following
mitigation measure:
DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-12: Restrict Land Closures Along Dublin Boulevard and
Arnold Road to Off-Peak Hours. During project construction, the lane closures along
Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road shall be restricted to off-peak hours to the greatest
extent feasible. In addition, traffic handling plans shall be prepared for construction
work in the public right-of-way in accordance with current California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards and guidelines.
Impacts Evaluation
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, pedestrian and bicycle facilities?
The Overcrossing Project implements DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-3, requiring a grade-
separated crossing for the Iron Horse trail over Dublin Boulevard. As noted in the DCEIR, the
proposed bridge crossing of Iron Horse Trail over Dublin Boulevard is needed for the Scarlett
Drive - Dublin Boulevard intersection to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) C
during the PM peak hour.
The Overcrossing Project would enhance the existing Iron Horse Trail for use by pedestrians and
bicyclists and would thus improve non-vehicular access to the Dublin/Pleasanton Station BART
Station. The Overcrossing Project does not include any new employment or residential uses
that would generate traffic. The project would generate a small amount of temporary traffic
during construction from workers and delivery of construction materials, including delivery of
the bridge span itself. The only temporary lane closure that would be needed for the proposed
project would be for installation of the bridge structure. This structure would be manufactured
at an offsite location and delivered to the site. Dublin Boulevard would be closed in both
directions overnight for one night while the bridge structure is lifted by crane and installed over
Dublin Boulevard. This one-night closure would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the area’s roadway system.
156
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 97
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
The Overcrossing Project is a grade-separated crossing for the multi-use Iron Horse Trail over
Dublin Boulevard. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b)(2), transportation projects
that “reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less
than significant transportation impact.” Because the proposed overcrossing would enhance
bicycle and pedestrian travel, including access to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, by
replacing an awkward at-grade crossing of Dublin Boulevard with a grade-separated
overcrossing the existing, the proposed project would reduce vehicle miles traveled. The
proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b).
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses?
The Overcrossing Project would be constructed according to California Building Code and the
user access ramps will be subject to ADA requirements. The project would eliminate an
awkward at-grade pedestrian and bicycle crossings of Dublin Boulevard with potentially higher
exposure of vulnerable users (bicycle and pedestrians) to vehicular traffic. There would be no
increase in hazards due to the construction and operation of Overcrossing Project.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
By improving traffic flow along Dublin Boulevard, the Overcrossing Project would improve
emergency access in the area. Dublin Boulevard would be closed in both directions overnight
for one night while the bridge structure is lifted by crane and installed over Dublin Boulevard.
This one-night closure would constitute the only closure of vehicular travel lanes required for
construction of the proposed project. Emergency access along Dublin Boulevard at the Iron
Horse Trail would be constrained during installation of the bridge structure. Because the ACFD
maintains fire stations both to the west and east within 1.6 miles and 1.3 miles of the project
site, respectively, access for emergency fire response would not be adversely affected during
bridge installation.
Conclusion
The Overcrossing Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact to
transportation or traffic.
157
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 98
Utilities and Service Systems
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure that was
Previously found
to be Infeasible
or Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment,
stormwater drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
state or local standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes or regulations related to solid
waste?
Existing Setting
The project site is located within a fully urbanized area with the full range of utilities available in
the immediate area. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is the purveyor of potable
158
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 99
water in the City of Dublin. DSRSD also provides recycled (reclaimed) water for irrigation and
other non-potable uses. Existing water infrastructure currently serves developed lands adjacent
to the project site.
DSRSD provides wastewater collection services in the project vicinity. DSRSD maintains a variety
of collection mains within the existing public streets, including Scarlett Drive and Dublin
Boulevard serving developed lands adjacent to the project site.
The City of Dublin Public Works Department maintains the City’s stormwater drainage facilities
located within public street rights-of-way. The Alameda County Water Conservation District
Zone 7 owns and operates regional drainage facilities that collect runoff from the City.
Engineered swales direct stormwater from the Iron Horse trail into Zone 7 drainage facilities.
Solid waste services are currently provided by Amador Valley Industries and include the
collection of waste, recycling, and organics. Solid waste generated by the proposed project
would be deposited at the Altamont Landfill, which has a total estimated permitted capacity of
62,000,000 cubic yards and an estimated closure date of January 2029.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas service to the City
of Dublin. PG&E maintains electrical and natural gas facilities within the Dublin Boulevard right-
of-way that currently serve developed lands adjacent to the project site.
Comcast currently provides cable television and internet service; AT&T and numerous long-
distance telecommunication companies provide telephone and cellular phone service to
developed lands adjacent to the project site.
Regulatory Setting
Title 22 California Code of Regulations
Senate Bill 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) and Senate Bill 221 (Chapter 642, Statutes of
2001) amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, in order to improve the link between
information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and
counties. SB 610 Water Supply Assessments and SB 221 Written Verifications of Water Supply
are companion measures, which seek to promote more collaborative planning between local
water suppliers and cities and counties. Both statutes require detailed information regarding
water availability to be provided to the city and county decision-makers prior to approval of
specified large development projects and that the information is included in the administrative
record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such
projects.
159
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 100
Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (CWA (33 U.S.C 1251 et seq.))
have as their goal restoration of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s
waters. The primary regulatory mechanism to achieve this goal in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Clean Water Act requires that parties seeking to
discharge pollutants into waters of the Unites States obtain a permit under the NPDES.
Responsibility for implementing the NPDES program in California has been delegated to the
State.
Integrated Waste Management Act
The Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) mandates that communities reduce their solid
waste. The Act requires local jurisdictions to divert 25 percent of their solid waste by 1995 and
50 percent by 2000, compared to a baseline of 1990. AB 939 also establishes an integrated
framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and
landfill compliance.
Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The Overcrossing Project consists of approach ramps and a bridge structure and does not
include any landscaped areas that would require irrigation. Thus, the proposed project would
not consume water following construction, nor would the project generate any wastewater.
Thus, construction of new or expanded water or wastewater facilities would not be required.
Electrical infrastructure is available along Dublin. Boulevard. As discussed in relation to Energy
Resources, above, a minimal amount of energy will be required for lighting of the bridge and
approach structures. This would require connection to the existing electrical utility facilities
within the Dublin Boulevard right-of-way. The physical impacts of such a connection are minor
and would not require any physical changes to the environment beyond those described and
analyzed throughout this document. The proposed project would require any modification to
existing natural gas or telecommunications facilities. Thus, no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts would occur.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
The Overcrossing Project would not use any potable water other than during site construction
and would not require additional water supplies or new or expanded entitlements. As
demonstrated in the Water Supply Assessment for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, sufficient
water supplies available to serve that project and reasonably foreseeable future development
160
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 101
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Thus, no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts would occur.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
The Overcrossing Project would not generate any wastewater and no wastewater capacity
would be required.
d,e) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
The Overcrossing Project would generate solid waste in the form of asphalt from removal of
portions of the existing trail, wood debris, concrete, and trash generated by construction
workers. Pursuant to the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 7.30, a minimum of
50 percent of waste generated during construction will be recycled. Following construction, the
proposed project would not generate solid waste. Construction waste generated by the project
would be disposed of in accordance with state and local regulations and would not exceed the
permitted capacity of existing landfills.
Conclusion
The Overcrossing Project would not result in any demands for utility or service systems that
would require the construction of new infrastructure or facilities or the expansion of existing
facilities. Thus, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur.
161
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 102
Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Would the project:
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects that would cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Impacts Evaluation
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
The preceding analysis of Biological Resources, as well as analyses of Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources demonstrate that proposed Overcrossing Project would not result in a new
162
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Page 103
significant impact or cause any significant impact disclosed in the Dublin Crossing EIR to
become substantially more severe in relation to degradation of the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
The preceding analyses for each environmental issue demonstrate that the addition of impacts
of the proposed Overcrossing Project to those of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would not
result in a new significant impact or cause any significant impact disclosed in the Dublin
Crossing EIR to become substantially more severe. Thus, addition of the impacts of the
Overcrossing Project to those of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would not cause the
contribution of the Specific Plan to any significant cumulative impact disclosed in the DCEIR to
become cumulatively considerable, nor would any cumulatively considerable contribution to a
significant cumulative impact disclosed in the DCEIR become substantially more severe. In
addition, given how minor the impacts of the proposed Overcrossing Project are compared to
those of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and to those of the cumulative impacts addressed in
the DCEIR, the addition of the proposed project to the summary of projections in the adopted
City of Dublin General Plan (updated May 2013), the City’s Capital Improvement Program, and
implementation of the Camp Parks Master Plan, which together formed the basis for the
cumulative impacts analysis set forth in the DCEIR, would not cause any less than significant
cumulative impact to become significant, nor would any significant cumulative impact become
substantially more severe.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
The preceding analyses for each environmental issue demonstrate that the impacts of the
proposed Overcrossing Project would not cause any substantial adverse effect on human
beings, nor would any of the substantial adverse effects disclosed in the DCEIR become
substantially more severe as the result of the proposed project.
Conclusion
The preceding analyses for each environmental issue demonstrate that the impacts of the
proposed Overcrossing Project would not result in a new significant impact or cause any
significant impact disclosed in the Dublin Crossing EIR to become substantially more severe.
163
Iro
n
H
o
rs
e
Trail
Iro
n
H
o
rs
e
Trail
Iro
n
H
o
rs
e
Trail
Iro
n
H
o
rs
e
Trail
ScarlettDrScarlettDrDublin
BlvdDublin Blvd Figure 1: Existing Conditions for CrossingatDublinBoulevardIronHorseTrail – Dublin Boulevard
Overcrossing Project SOURCE: Google
Earth Pro
0
100
Feet
OAKLAND
BERKELEY
ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON
DUBLIN
SAN
RAMON
DANVILLE
WALNUT
CREEK
CONCORD
VALLEJO
MARTINEZ ProjectLocation
Iron
Horse
Trail
680
580
164
Iro
n
H
o
rs
e
Trail
Iro
n
H
o
rs
e
Trail
Iro
n
H
o
rs
e
Trail
Iro
n
H
o
rs
e
Trail
ScarlettDrScarlettDrDublin
BlvdDublin Blvd
Proposed
Project
0’
0’
2’
2’
4’
4’
6’
6’
8’
8’
10’
10’
12’
12’
14’
14’
16’
16’
18’
18’20’
Don Biddle
Community Park
Don Biddle Community
Park
SANFRANCISCO
OAKLAND
BERKELEY
RICHMOND
ALAMEDA
SANLEANDRO HAYWARD
UNION
CITY
PLEASANTON
DUBLIN
LIVERMORE
SANRAMON
ANTIOCH
WALNUTCREEK
CONCORD
MARTINEZ
ProjectLocation DANVILLE
Iron
HorseTrail 20’18’18’16’16’14’14’12’12’10’10’8’8’6’6’4’4’2’2’0’
Ground Level 2-
Story House(30’ Tall)
Dublin Blvd Profile of
Proposed
Project 0’Figure2: Proposed ProjectIron Horse Trail – Dublin Boulevard
Overcrossing Project SOURCE: Mark Thomas; Google
Earth Pro
0
165
Iro
n
H
ors
e
Trail
Iro
n
H
o
rs
e
Trail
Scarlett DrDublin
Blvd Don
Biddle Community
Park Figure 3: ProjectAreaIronHorseTrail – Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Project SOURCE: Google Earth Pro; Dublin Crossing Specific
Plan Project
Area Proposed
Project Dublin
Crossing Specific Plan
Area 0
200
166
20’
Iron Horse Trail – Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Plan View of Proposed Project with Simulation Viewpoint
Simulated View of Proposed Project
SOURCE: City of Dublin
Figure 4: Simulated View of Proposed Project
167
Iro
n
H
o
rs
e
TrailScarlett
DrDublin Blvd
Figure 5: Project Area South of DublinBoulevardIronHorseTrail – Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
SOURCE: Google Earth Pro
ProjectArea0100
Feet
168
Iro
n
H
o
rs
e
TrailScarlett
DrDublin Blvd
WDD-1
WDD-2
DP-1
DP-6
DP-4
DP-5
DP-3
DP-2
SW-1
SW-2
Detention Basin 1
Detention Basin 2
WDD-3
Map ID Acres Sq Ft Linear Ft
CORPS WETLANDS**
Wetland Drainage Ditch WDD-1 0.01 559.75 75.90
Wetland Drainage Ditch WDD-2 0.01 562.83 67.15
Wetland Drainage Ditch WDD-3 0.15 6632.97 558.86
TOTAL 0.17 7755.55 701.91
ISOLATED WETLANDS**
Seasonal Wetland SW-1 0.01 291.41 40.00
Seasonal Wetland SW-2 0.10 4178.91 308.98
TOTAL 0.11 4470.32 348.98
Data Points DP-1 to 6 — — —
Figure 6: Preliminary JurisdictionalDeterminationIronHorseTrail – Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Study Area
Project Area
Proposed Project
Detention Basin
Seasonal Wetlands
Data Point
0 100
Feet
169
Iro
n
H
ors
e
Trail
Scarlett DrDublin
BlvdDon
BiddleCommunity
ParkDublin/PleasantonBart
StationChabot CanalChabot
Canal
580
F
D
CCAAE
D338.1
2
33
6
6
633
833
7
E
334’332.
21’
332’
332’ZONE
AE ZONE
AE
TRS0
TRS0 ZONE
X ZONE
X ZONE
X ZONE
X ZONE
X
332’330’329’328’328’327.55’328.03’Figure 7:
Flood Hazard MapIron Horse Trail –
Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
SOURCE: Google
Earth
Pro; FEMA
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS 0 400 Feet
Zone AE Regulatory Floodway OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD 0.2% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less
than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile -
Zone
X Area
of Minimal
Flood Hazard - Zone X 332’Project
Area Proposed Project
Cross Sections with 1% Annual
Chance Water
Surface
170
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Initial Study/Supplemental MND
Appendices
Appendices
A Special Status Species Table
B Wetland Delineation Report
C Cultural Resources Technical Study
D DCEIR Mitigation Measures
3214684.1
171
APPENDIX A
Special Status Species Table
172
173
Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area for the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project A-1 December 2018
Species Name Common Name
Federal, State,
CNPS
Listing1
Habitat Preferences &
Distribution Information
Flowering
Phenology/
Life Form Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution
Potential For
Occurrence
Plants
Centromadia parryi
spp. congdonii
Congdon’s
tarplant
1B.1 Valley and foothill grasslands
on alkaline soils sometimes
described as heavy white clay.
May-November Found within Camp Parks and could
potentially occur in seasonal wetlands
late in the season when they are
completely dry.
Low
Chloropyron
palmatum
Palmate-bracted
salty bird’s-beak
FE, SE, 1B.1 Found in Alkali wetland and
alkali sinks.
May- October
Annual herb
hemiparasitic)
No suitable wetland or alkali vegetation
associations present.
None
Juglans hindsii Northern
California black
walnut
1B.1 Found in riparian forests and
woodlands.
April- May
Perennial
deciduous tree
Suitable riparian habitat is present
adjacent to the proposed project
alignment.
Not present
STATUS CODES:
FEDERAL STATE
FE = Listed as Endangered by the USFWS CE = Listed as Endangered by the State of California
FT = Listed as Threatened by the USFWS CT = Listed as Threatened by the State of California
FC = Candidate for Federal listing
CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY (CNPS STATUS)
1A – Plants presumed extinct in California 2 – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere
1B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 3 – Plants about which we need more information – a review list
4 – Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
174
Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area for the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project A-2 December 2018
Scientific Name Common Name Listing Status1 Habitat Requirements Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution
Potential for
Occurrence
Invertebrates
Branchinecta
lynchi
Vernal Pool Fairy
Shrimp
FT, CH Inhabit clear to tea-colored freshwater vernal
pools in grass or mud bottomed swales, or
basalt flow depression pools in unplowed
grasslands. Often occur in low densities and
rarely co-occur with other brachiopod species.
32 known populations in the Central Valley
from Shasta to Tulare counties, and along the
Central and South Coast Ranges from Solano
to San Benito counties. No known
occurrences within 5 miles of the proposed
project area.
None
Branchinecta
longiantenna
Longhorn fairy
shrimp
FE Endemic to the eastern margin of the coastal
mountains in seasonally astatic grassland
vernal pools.
Drainage ditches adjacent to the repurposed
train tracks (Iron Horse Trail levee) is not
suitable to support this species.
None
Hygrotus curvipes Curved-foot
hygrotus diving
beetle
Lives in mineralized pools, stock ponds, ponds,
or in intermittent streams. Distribution is
Outer Coast Ranges and San Joaquin delta and
in eastern Contra Costa and Alameda Counties.
This species was surveyed for within the
Dublin Crossing EIR study area and not
detected during 2002-2003 and 2012-2013
surveys.
Low
Ischnura gemina San Francisco
fortail dameselfly
Occurs in quiet, dense marsh habitat and slow
moving streams and canals in the San
Francisco Bay Region.
This species was surveyed for within the
Dublin Crossing EIR study area and not
detected during 2002-2003 and 2012-2013
surveys and conditions are similar in the
Project Area.
Low
Linderiella
occidentalis
California
linderiella
An aquatic crustacean that inhabits clear large
vernal pools and lakes. Most common fairy
shrimp in the Central Valley.
Occurrences have been reported north of I-
580. Species was not observed during Dublin
Crossing EIR surveys in 2002-2003, 2012-2013
and conditions are similar within the Iron
Horse Trail Project Area.
Low
Amphibians
Ambystoma
californiense
California tiger
salamander
FT, CH, ST, CSC Range includes the Central Valley and Central
Coast ranges from Colusa County south to San
Luis Obispo and Kern counties from sea level
to 1,054 meters (3,460 feet) in elevation. Need
underground refuges, especially ground
squirrel burrows and vernal pools or other
seasonal water sources for breeding.
No suitable aquatic or upland habitat.
Nearest CNDDB (CDFW 2016) record is
approximately 2 miles from the proposed
project alignment.
None
175
Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area for the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project A-3 December 2018
Scientific Name Common Name Listing Status1 Habitat Requirements Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution
Potential for
Occurrence
Rana boylii foothill yellow-
legged frog
CSC Streams and rivers with rocky substrate and
open, sunny banks, in forests, chaparral, and
woodlands; Sometimes found in isolated pools,
vegetated backwaters, and deep, shaded,
spring fed pools; Generally associated with
foothill and mountain streams but occurs from
sea level to 6,700 feet. (2,040 meters).
No suitable habitat present. Species not
known from eastern Alameda County.
None
Rana draytonii California red-
legged frog
FT, CH, CSC Lowlands or foothills in or near sources of
water with shrubby or emergent riparian
vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of
permanent water for larval development;
Must have access to estivation habitat;
Restricted to freshwater and slightly brackish
waters.
Critical habitat for this species is located
approximately 2 miles from the project
alignment. Alamo Canal is an artificial channel
devoid of emergent vegetation. This feature
lacks adjacent upland vegetated habitat to
support estivating red-legged frogs. Nearest
CNDDB (CDFW 2016) record is 2 miles from
the proposed project alignment.
None
Reptiles
Emys marmorata western pond
turtle
CSC Aquatic; Found in ponds, marshes, rivers,
streams, brackish estuarine water and
irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic
vegetation; Requires basking sites and suitable
upland habitat (sandy banks or grassy open
fields) up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying.
There is no permanent water within the study
area to support this species.
None
Masticophis
lateralis
euryxanthus
Alameda
Whipsnake
striped Racer)
FT, CH This is a subspecies of the California
whipsnake, (Masticophis lateralis). Inhabits
valleys, foothills and low mountains associated
with northern coastal scrub or chaparral
habitat; requires rock outcrops for cover and
foraging.
No suitable coastal scrub or chaparral habitat
present in project area.
None
176
Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area for the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project A-4 December 2018
Scientific Name Common Name Listing Status1 Habitat Requirements Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution
Potential for
Occurrence
Birds
Accipeter striatus Sharp-shinned
hawk
WL Inhabits north-facing slopes in conifers,
including ponderosa pine, black oak, & Jeffrey
pines, preferably in riparian areas. Forages
primarily for small birds along woodland edges
openings, hedgerows, brushy pastures, &
shorelines. Breeding begins in April; single-
brooded.
No suitable nesting habitat is present within
proposed project area; however, this species
could occur in winter, possible foraging at
bird feeders.
None
Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk WL Typically found in forests and woodlands. Nest
in pines, oaks, Douglas-firs, beeches, spruces
and other densely populated woodland tree
species.
Breeds across southern Canada and
southward to the southern extent of the
United States and Central Mexico. Winters
throughout the US and Mexico. Similar to
sharp-shinned, this species could occur during
the non-nesting season as a winter visitor.
None
Agelaius tricolor Tricolored
blackbird
SCT, CSC Open water, protected nesting substrate
blackberry/cattails), and foraging areas with
insect prey. Breeding colonies require a nearby
source of water, suitable nesting substrate and
natural grassland, woodland, or agricultural
cropland biomes in which to forage.
Historically, breeding colonies had been
strongly associated with emergent marshes,
but more recently there has been a shift to
non-natively vegetated and active agricultural
areas (USFWS 2015).
No suitable nesting habitat is present near
the proposed project alignment.
None
Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle FP Favor partially or completely open space near
mountains, hills and cliffs. Utilize habitats
ranging from arctic to desert, including tundra,
shrublands, grasslands, coniferous forests,
farmland and riparian corridors.
No suitable nesting habitat is present within
the project site. Agricultural fields provide
suitable foraging habitat for this species.
None
Ardea herodias Great blue heron A large wading bird that inhabits a variety of
aquatic habitats including shores, tide flats,
marshes, swamps, ponds, lakes, rivers, and
streams. Nests colonially in large trees near
water bodies.
No suitable habitat to support nesting
colonies is present.
None
177
Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area for the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project A-5 December 2018
Scientific Name Common Name Listing Status1 Habitat Requirements Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution
Potential for
Occurrence
Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl CSC Valley bottoms and foothills with low
vegetation and fossorial mammal activity such
as ground squirrel burrows the species can use
for refuge or breeding purposes. Breeding
begins in March; single-brooded.
Grassland habitat exists in the Project Area
which could potentially be used by burrowing
owls. Total foraging area is limited in size and
localized foot traffic and trail use likely
inhibits colonization. No ground squirrel
burrows observed.
Low
Buteo regalis Ferruginous
hawk
WL Breeds in the northern states and Canada;
winters south from California and Texas to
Mexico. Wintering habitat consists of open
grasslands, deserts, and cultivated fields.
Breeding begins in April; single-brooded.
No suitable foraging or wintering habitat
present within the project study area.
None
Circus cyaneus Northern harrier CSC Inhabits both freshwater and saltwater
marshes and adjacent upland grasslands. Nests
on the ground in tall grasses in grasslands and
meadows. Breeding begins in March; single-
brooded.
No suitable nesting habitat within the
proposed project alignment.
None
Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite FP Rolling foothills and valley margins with
scattered oaks and river bottomlands or
marshes next to deciduous woodland. Open
grasslands, meadows, or marshes for foraging
close to isolated, dense-topped trees for
nesting and perching.
No suitable nesting habitat present within the
project site.
None
Eremophila
alpestris actia
California horned
lark
WL Common, abundant resident in a variety of
open habitats, usually where large trees and
shrubs are absent, ranging from low-elevation
grasslands and deserts to dwarf shrub habitats
above tree line.
No nesting habitat present in the Project
Area.
None
Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon WL Nests on cliffs and at times in old raven or
eagle stick nests on cliff, bluff, or rock outcrop.
Inhabits perennial grasslands, savannahs,
rangeland, some agricultural fields, & desert
scrub communities. Breeding begins in April;
single-brooded.
No suitable nesting habitat present within the
project study area.
None
178
Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area for the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project A-6 December 2018
Scientific Name Common Name Listing Status1 Habitat Requirements Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution
Potential for
Occurrence
Falco peregrinus
anatum
American
peregrine falcon
DL, DL, FP Habitat includes many terrestrial landscapes in
North America; mainly cliffs and nesting near
water. Utilize open habitat for foraging. Will
also utilize artificial habitats like towers,
bridges and buildings.
Most widely found in Northern California;
migrates long distances along the western
coast of the US. No suitable nesting habitat
present within the project site.
None
Lanius
ludovicianus
Loggerhead
shrike
MBTA, SSC Breeds in grassland or shrublands with open
ground. Requires mature shrubs or small trees
for nesting. Fence lines are used for perching
and maintaining territory. Open areas used for
hunting.
Potential foraging habitat in grassland habitat
in Project Area. Nesting habitat not present.
None
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat CSC Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands
and forests. Most common in open, dry
habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts
must protect from high temperatures.
Sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.
CNDDB reports observations of this bat aprx.
2 miles to the southwest. No roosting habitat
within Project area.
None
Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis -/- Forests and woodlands with sources of water
over which to feed. Roosts in buildings, mines,
caves, crevices, occasionally under bridges.
CNDDB reports observations of this bat aprx.
2 miles to the southwest. No roosting habitat
and no open water foraging habitat within
Project area.
None
Vulpes macrotis
mutica
San Joaquin Kit
Fox
FE, ST Inhabits annual grasslands or grassy open
stages with scattered shrubby vegetation;
needs loose-textured sandy soils for
burrowing, as well as suitable prey base.
Grassland habitat not suitable within the
project area due to total isolation from
known occupied habitat.
None
STATE AND FEDERAL LISTING CODES:
FEDERAL
FE = Federally listed as Endangered
FT = Federally listed as Threatened
FPE = Candidate for Federal listing
DL = Delisted
FPD = Federally proposed for delisting
FC = Federal candidate species (former Category 1 candidates)
SC = Species of Concern (NMFS regulated species only)
CH = Critical Habitat (Proposed or Final) is designated
STATE
SE = State listed as Endangered
ST = State listed as Threatened
SR = State listed as Rare
SCE = State candidate for listing as Endangered
SCT = State candidate for listing as Threatened
CSC = California Species of Special Concern
FP = Fully Protected
WL = Watch List
179
APPENDIX B
Wetland Delineation Report
180
181
IRON HORSE TRAIL
DUBLIN BOULEVARD OVERCROSSING PROJECT
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the United States
Alameda County, California
Prepared for:
City of Dublin
Prepared by:
Metis Environmental Group
182
183
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing i METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.,
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing,
Alameda County, California
Page
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Objective 1
1.2 Summary of Results 1
1.3 Responsible Parties 4
1.4 Project Description 4
2 Setting 6
2.1 Delineation Study Area 6
2.2 Climate and Topography 6
2.3 Soils 8
2.4 Hydrology 8
2.5 Vegetation 8
3 Methods 11
3.1 Definitions 11
3.2 Regulatory Setting 13
3.3 Office Preparation 15
3.4 Field Survey Methods 15
4 Results 17
4.1 Organization 17
4.2 Results 17
4.3 Clean Water Act Analysis 19
5 Report Preparation 23
5.1 Report Preparation 23
5.2 References and Sources Consulted 23
184
Table of Contents
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL ii Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.
Appendices
A. Delineation Map A-1
B. Wetland Datasheets B-1
C. Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form C-1
D. USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map, Dublin D-1
E. Soils Map E-1
F. WETS Tables for Livermore, Alameda County F-1
G. Representative Photographs G-1
List of Figures
Figure 1 Project Location Map 3
Figure 2 Preliminary Jurisdictional Wetlands 7
List of Tables
Table 4-1 Waters of the US and State Within the Delineation Study Area 17
185
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing iii METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
USED IN THIS DOCUMENT
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers
CWA Clean Water Act
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FAC Facultative plant species
FACU Facultative upland plant species
FACW Facultative wetland plant species
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
OBL Obligate wetland plant species
OHWM Ordinary highwater mark
NI No wetland indicator assigned (for plants)
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NRPW Non-relatively permanent waters
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RPW Relatively permanent waters
SWANCC Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County
TNW Traditionally navigable waters
UPL Upland plant species
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
186
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in this Document
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL iv Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. 187
1. Introduction
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Objective
This report documents the extent of potentially jurisdictional waters of the United States,
including wetlands and other waters, which occur within the study area for the Iron Horse Trail
Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project, located within the City of Dublin in Alameda County,
California Figure 1).
The purpose of this document is to identify features within the study area that meet criteria and
conditions suitable to be considered the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
pursuant to the Clean Water Act, Section 404 and 401, and to provide the background
information necessary to support future permit applications (if necessary) under Section 404 and
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for the proposed project.
1.2 Summary of Results
Metis Environmental conducted a formal wetland delineation of the study area on March 6, 2018.
The field delineation identified and documented all potentially jurisdictional wetlands and other
waters of the U.S. within the delineation study area (Figure 2).
A total of 0.16 acres of Waters of the US and 0.26 acres of Waters of the State were identified in
the delineation study area. As indicated in Table 4-1 and included in the summary table below,
delineated features in the delineation study area are estimated for each feature type shown in
Figure 2.
WATERS OF THE US AND STATE WITHIN THE
DELINEATION STUDY AREA
Feature Type
Data Points
DP)
Potential
State
Jurisdiction
Potential
Federal
Jurisdiction
Seasonal Wetlands
SW -1 1,2 0.01
SW -2 3,4 0.09
Wetland Drainage Ditch
WDD-1 0.01 0.01
188
1. Introduction
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL 2 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.
Feature Type
Data Points
DP)
Potential
State
Jurisdiction
Potential
Federal
Jurisdiction
WDD-2 0.01 0.01
WDD-3 5,6 0.14 0.14
Total 0.26 0.16
SOURCE: Metis Environmental, 2018.
A detailed summary of all waters of the U.S. and State documented within the delineation study
area is presented in Table 4-1 (see Chapter 4). Delineation maps are presented in Appendix A;
wetland datasheets are provided in Appendix B; approved jurisdictional delineation form
Rapanos Form) in Appendix C; a 7.5-minute USGS topographic map is located in Appendix D;
soil maps are provided in Appendix E; the climate summary (WETS Table) information table is
provided in Appendix F; and representative photographs are provided in Appendix G.
189
Alternative 1
45° to Dublin Blvd
Bridge Length: 230’
Alternative 3
90° to Dublin Blvd
Bridge Length: 140’
Alternative 2
65° to Dublin Blvd
Bridge Length: 160’
Iro
n
H
o
rs
e
Trail
Iro
n
H
o
rs
e
Trail
SterlingStSterlingStScarlett
DrScarlett
DrDublin
BlvdDublin
Blvd
SANFRANCISCO
OAKLAND
BERKELEY
RICHMOND ALAMEDA
SANLEANDRO
HAYWARD
UNION
CITY
PLEASANTON
DUBLIN
LIVERMORE
SANRAMON
ANTIOCH
WALNUTCREEK CONCORD MARTINEZProjectLocationFigure1: Project LocationIron Horse Trail –
Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project SOURCE: MarkThomas; Google Earth ProPreliminary Delineation of Waters
of the
U.
190
1. Introduction
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL 4 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.
1.3 Responsible Parties
The Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing project is proposed by the City of Dublin.
The contact person for the project is:
Obaid Khan, Transportation and Operations Manager
100 Civic Plaza
City of Dublin, CA 94568
Obaid.Khan@dublin.ca.gov
Contact:
Obaid.Khan@dublin.ca.gov
925-833-6630
1.4 Project Description
1.4.1 Overview
The City of Dublin proposes to construct a grade-separated overcrossing at Dublin Boulevard,
just north of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station along the multi-use Iron Horse Trail (Figure 1).
The overcrossing will span north to south over Dublin Boulevard and will provide an alternative
to the existing at-grade trail user-vehicular interface that currently occurs along the Iron Horse
Trail where it meets Dublin Boulevard.
North of Dublin Boulevard the overcrossing structure would be integrated into the Dublin
Crossing Central Park, within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area, along an alignment that
would gradually transition to at-grade conditions before re-connecting with the Iron Horse Trail
north of Dublin Boulevard. Figure 1 shows the three proposed alternatives being considered for
the North side touch down configuration. South of Dublin Boulevard the overcrossing would
touch down within the Iron Horse Trail right-of-way and would include a graduated ramp for
pedestrians and bicyclists to access the overcrossing. The southern touchdown area is the subject
of this report.
191
2. Setting
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 5 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018 192
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 6 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018
CHAPTER 2
Setting
2.1 Delineation Study Area
The delineation study area consists of the existing Iron Horse Trail right-of-way where it occurs
south of Dublin Boulevard near the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive in
Dublin, Alameda County, California (Figure 2). The delineation study area extends
approximately 880 linear feet to the south of Dublin Boulevard and spans approximately 100 feet
east to west across the Iron Horse Trail ROW accounting for approximately 2 acres of total area.
Non-native annual grassland, ruderal vegetation, seasonal wetland, and landscape trees occur
within the study area. North of Dublin Boulevard the overcrossing would touch down within the
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area for which a Jurisdictional Determination has already been
approved by the Corps.
Land use in the surrounding area consists of urban subdivision to the east and light commercial
development to the west. Additional urban development including the extension of Scarlett Drive
and construction of the Dublin Crossing Central Park facility adjacent to the Iron Horse trail on
the north side of Dublin Boulevard, (across Dublin Boulevard from the delineation study area),
are currently underway and are expected to be in place prior to construction of the proposed
overcrossing project.
The study area is defined by a concrete retaining wall along the eastern boundary, adjacent to
high density housing and associated parking. The western boundary occurs adjacent to
commercial and light industrial development and consists of chain link privacy fencing. The
study area is accessible from the paved surface of the Iron Horse Trail where it intersects Dublin
Boulevard and exetends south adjacent to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.
2.2 Climate and Topography
The overall Northern California climate is Mediterranean in nature, which is characterized by
warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters, with the bulk of precipitation occurring as rain in the
winter months. The average annual temperature in Dublin is 60.3ºF, while mean annual rainfall
is 14.23 inches (USDA, NRCS, 2018).
193
Iro
n
H
o
rs
e
Trail
Iro
n
H
o
rs
e
Trail
WDD-1
WDD-2
SW-1
SW-2
Detention Basin 1
Detention Basin 2
Study Area
Boundary
WDD-3
DP-1
DP-6
DP-4
DP-5
DP-3
DP-2
Figure 2: Potential Jurisdictional WetlandAreasIronHorseTrail – Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
SOURCE: Google EarthProPreliminaryDelineationofWatersoftheU.S.
0 100
Feet
Map ID Acres Sq Ft Linear Ft
CORPS WETLANDS
Wetland Drainage Ditch WDD-1 0.01 559.75 75.90
Wetland Drainage Ditch WDD-2 0.01 562.83 67.15
Wetland Drainage Ditch WDD-3 0.15 6632.97 558.86
TOTAL 0.17 7755.55 701.91
ISOLATED WETLANDS
Seasonal Wetland SW-1 0.01 291.41 40.00
Seasonal Wetland SW-2 0.10 4178.91 308.98
TOTAL 0.11 4470.32 348.98
Data Points DP-1 to 6 — — —
194
2. Setting
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL 8 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.
The study area follows the path of the Iron Horse Trail which occurs on a repurposed rail road
levee, located at approximately 400 feet above sea level.
2.3 Soils
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Naturals Resource Conservation Service
NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA NRCS, 2018) was consulted to determine the soil type occurring
within the delineation study area and it is:
Clear Lake clay, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes.
A map depicting the soil within the wetland delineation study area is presented in Appendix E.
Clear Lake clay is included on the National Hydric Soil list. A brief description of the soil series
within the delineation study area follows.
The Clear Lake series consists of very deep, poorly drained soils that are formed in fine textured
alluvium derived from mixed rock sources. Clear Lake soils are in flood basins, flood plains and in
swales of drainageways (USDA NRCS, 2018).
This series exhibits negligible to high runoff (if assumed concave runoff is always negligible); slow
to very slow permeability. A water table is at depths of 4 to 10 feet in the late summer and in some
areas is very near the surface during wet months of winter. Clear Lake clay soils are classified as
Xeric Endoaquerts.
2.4 Hydrology
Annual rainfall is the only source of water within the study area. Precipitation soaks into the soils
and drains off the paved or earthen sloped surface of the Iron Horse Trail where it contributes to
water ponding above the soil surface at the toe of the former railroad levee, i.e. within seasonal
wetlands. With average rainfall at 14.23 inches for the Dublin area, the rainfall for the winter
2017-2018 is approximately 60-70% of normal to date. Rainfall during the previous winter of
2016-2017 was 45 percent higher than the average. Years preceding 2017 consisted of a five-year
drought with substantially lower rainfall totals. For the current water year the total accumulated
rainfall is below average for the region.
2.5 Vegetation
Plant communities are assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area which
are defined by species composition and relative abundance. The study area contains non-native
annual grassland, ruderal vegetation, seasonal wetland, and a row of native valley oak trees
planted by the Urban Forestry Program under Proposition 40 and 84. The upland community is
described below, while the wetland community is described in Section 4.2.
195
2. Setting
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 9 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018
Non-native grassland and ruderal vegetation occur over the majority of the study area and it is
dominated by common invasive weed species such as rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild oat
Avena fatua), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), winter vetch (Vicia sativa), and prickly ox-
tongue (Helminthotheca echioides). Landscape bark is spread adjacent to the edge of the paved
Iron Horse Trail and some areas appear to have been sprayed with herbicide such that vegetation
is lacking.
A row of 10 to 15-foot tall valley oak (Quercus lobata) trees are planted on the southwest side of
the Iron Horse Trail, extending south from Dublin Boulevard. A single ornamental palm tree
occurs on the northeastern side of the Iron Horse Trail levee near the concrete retaining walls
associated with the residential development to the east.
Directly adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail, constructed water detention basins capture residential
runoff from the eastern high density residential development as shown in Figure 2. The detention
basins are vegetated with landscape species and are managed for water capture and settling. By
definition, the basins are not within the jurisdiction of the state or federal regulatory agencies.
196
197
Iron Horse Trail Bridge 11 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018
CHAPTER 3
Methods
3.1 Definitions
Many of the terms used throughout this report have specific meanings with respect to the
delineation of Waters of the U.S. These terms are defined below:
Waters of the United States: The Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR § 328.3[a]; 40 CFR
230.3[s]) defines ‘waters of the United States’ as:
1) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in
interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide; (2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) All other waters such as
intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mud flats, sand flats,
wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use,
degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including
any such waters which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational
or other purposes; or from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate
or foreign commerce; or which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries
in interstate commerce; (4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the
United States under the definition; (5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs
1) through (4); (6) Territorial seas; and (7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters
that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (1) through (6).
Wetlands: The Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define wetlands as,
Those areas that are saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support, and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for the life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas.” Corps wetlands must typically exhibit three parameters: 1) wetland
hydrology, 2) hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) hydric soils in order to meet the federal definition.
Wetland Hydrology: This term encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that
are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the
growing season. These include both riverine and non-riverine hydrology indicators, such as
sediment deposits, drift lines, and oxidized rhizospheres along living roots in the upper
12 inches of the soil. In the Arid West, hydrologic indicators may be absent in any given
year due to annual variability in precipitation and in times of drought. The Arid West
Supplement (Corps, 2008) cites a technical standard that can be used for disturbed or
problematic sites that support wetland vegetation and soils but where wetland hydrology is
not apparent. ‘This standard calls for 14 or more consecutive days of flooding, ponding, or
198
3. Methods
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL 12 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.
a water table 12 inches or less below the soil surface during the growing season at a
minimum frequency of 5 years in 10’.
Hydrophytic Vegetation: Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as plant life that occurs in
areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce
permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling
influence on the plant species present. Emphasis is placed on the assemblage of plant
species that exert a controlling influence on the character of the plant community, rather
than on a single indicator species, i.e., there must be a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation
present in order to satisfy this wetland parameter.
Wetland Indicator Status: Refers to the probability that a plant will occur in a
wetland or not. Indicator status categories are as follows:
Obligate (OBL): almost always occurs in wetlands
Facultative wetland (FACW): usually occurs in wetlands, sometimes may occur
in uplands
Facultative (FAC): equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands
Facultative upland (FACU): usually occurs in uplands but may occasionally
occur in wetlands
Obligate upland (UPL): almost never occurs in wetlands
No indicator (NI): no indicator assigned due to lack of information
Hydric Soil: A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing
season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Hydric soils are often characterized
by redoximorphic features (such as redox concentrations, formerly known as mottles), which
form by the reduction, translocation, and/or oxidation of iron and manganese oxides. Hydric
soils may lack hydric indicators for a number of reasons. In such cases the same standard
used to determine wetland hydrology when indicators are lacking can be used.
Ordinary High Water Mark: Ordinary high water mark (OHWM) is defined in 33 CFR
328.3[e] as ‘…that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by
physical characteristics, such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in
the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter or debris, or
other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area’.
Other Waters: The term “other waters of the United States” includes water bodies, such as rivers
and streams, that may not meet the full criteria for wetlands designation but that do exhibit
evidence of an OHWM and are navigable or hydrologically connected to a navigable water body.
Under the latest regulatory guidance, some types of other waters must have a significant nexus to
a navigable water body to be considered jurisdictional by the Corps.
Traditionally Navigable Waters: Traditionally navigable waters (TNW) are all waters that are
currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign
commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
199
3. Methods
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 13 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018
Relatively Permanent Waters: Relatively permanent waters (RPW) are non-navigable
tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent, meaning they typically
flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months).
Non-Relatively Permanent Waters: Non-relatively permanent waters (NRPW) include non-
navigable tributaries with ephemeral or seasonal flows lasting less than three months.
Significant Nexus: This term refers to the hydrologic and ecologic connection between a TNW
and its tributaries. Under recent guidance from the Corps and EPA certain wetlands and waters
must have a significant nexus with a TNW in order to be considered jurisdictional.
Growing Season: The growing season is that part of the year when soil temperatures at
19.7 inches below the soil surface are higher than biologic zero (5°C/41° F). Growing season
dates should be determined through onsite observations whenever possible. Since onsite data
gathering is often not possible growing season dates can be approximated by using WETS tables
from the nearest appropriate WETS station. The WETS table 70% probability average beginning
and ending dates for 28° F temperatures can be used to represent the "normal" growing season for
wetland determinations (NRCS, 1995). According to the Livermore WETS Station data (see
Appendix E) the normal growing season for the study area would be 365 days (USDA, NRCS,
2002).
3.2 Regulatory Setting
Wetlands and other waters (e.g., rivers, streams, and natural ponds) are a subset of waters of the
U.S. and receive protection under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Corps has
primary federal responsibility for administering regulations that concern waters of the U.S. and
requires a permit if a project proposes placement of structures within navigable waters and/or
alteration of waters of the U.S. The EPA has the ultimate authority under the CWA and can veto
the Corps’ issuance of a permit to fill jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
In recent years several Supreme Court cases have challenged the scope and extent of the Corps’
jurisdiction over waters of the United States and have led to several reinterpretations of that
authority. The most recent of these decisions are the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern
Cook County (SWANCC) v. the Army Corps of Engineers (January 9, 2001) and Rapanos v.
United States (June, 2006). The SWANCC decision found that jurisdiction over non-navigable,
isolated, intrastate waters could not be based solely on the use of such waters by migratory birds.
The reasoning behind the SWANCC decision could be extended to suggest that waters need a
demonstrable connection with a ‘navigable water’ to be protected under the CWA. The
introduction of the term isolated has led to the consideration of the relative connectivity between
waters and wetlands as a jurisdictionally relevant factor. The more recent Rapanos case further
questioned the definition of “waters of the United States” and the scope of federal regulatory
jurisdiction over such waters but resulted in a split decision which did not provide definitive
answers but expanded on the concept that a ‘significant nexus’ with traditional navigable waters
was needed for certain waters to be considered within the jurisdiction of the Corps.
200
3. Methods
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL 14 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.
On June 5, 2007 the EPA and the Corps released guidance on CWA jurisdiction in response to the
Rapanos Supreme Court decisions, which can be used to support a finding of CWA coverage for
a particular water body when either a) there is a significant nexus between the stream or wetland
in question and navigable waters in the traditional sense; or b) a relatively permanent water body
is hydrologically connected to traditional navigable waters and/or a wetland has a surface
connection with that water. According to this guidance the Corps and the EPA will take
jurisdiction over the following waters: 1) Traditional navigable waters; 2) Wetlands adjacent to
traditional navigable waters, including adjacent wetlands that do not have a continuous surface
connection to traditional navigable waters; 3) Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable
waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have
continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months); 4) Wetlands adjacent to
non-navigable tributaries, as defined above, that have a continuous surface connection to such
tributaries (e.g. they are not separated by uplands, a berm, dike, or similar feature).
The EPA and the Corps will claim jurisdiction over the following waters, based on a fact-specific
determination of significant nexus, as defined below, to a traditional navigable water:
non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; wetlands adjacent to non-navigable
tributaries that are not relatively permanent; and wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut
a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary.
The EPA and the Corps generally do not assert jurisdiction over the following features: swales or
erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short
duration flow); ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only
uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.
The EPA and the Corps have defined the significant nexus standard as follows:
A significant nexus analysis assesses the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary
itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if
they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream
traditional navigable waters.
Significant nexus analysis includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors including:
volume, duration, and frequency of flow; proximity to a traditional navigable water; size of the
watershed; average annual rainfall; average annual winter snow pack; potential of tributaries to
carry pollutants and flood waters to traditional navigable waters; provision of aquatic habitat that
supports a traditional navigable water; potential of wetlands to trap and filter pollutants or store
flood waters; and maintenance of water quality in traditional navigable waters.
201
3. Methods
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 15 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018
3.3 Office Preparation
Literature Review
Metis Environmental reviewed the following information relevant to this delineation:
Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project, 2018) and The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of
California (Hickman, 1993);
Google Earth Historic Aerials (1993-2018)
USDA NRCS, Web Soil Survey online application 2018
National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar and Kartesz, 2012)
3.4 Field Survey Methods
Dates
Metis Environmental Biologists J. King and P. Berryhill conducted a routine delineation of
waters of the U.S. within the wetland delineation study area on March 6, 2018.
Field Delineation Methods
Data Collection
Wetland signatures on the project site were investigated within the delineation study area and the
delineation study area was walked such that visual coverage was 100 percent. All potential
wetlands identified on the ground within the study area were delineated by comparing aerial
imagery to existing site conditions.
Data were collected at 6 points within the study area. In accordance with the Corp’s guidance,
sample points were taken at sites representative of the vegetation, hydrology, and physical
characteristics across the wetland types and at adjacent upland areas. Results were extrapolated to
nearby wetlands exhibiting similar vegetation and hydrologic conditions. Paired upland data
points were established for three wetland data points. Arid West data sheets were used to record
information at each data point after field data were gathered.
Determination of Hydrophytic Vegetation
At each data point vegetation was analyzed within a 9-foot radius for herbaceous species. All
species noted within the study plots were recorded on the data sheets. The indicator status of each
species was confirmed in the field, to the extent feasible, with Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland
Plant List (Lichvar, Banks, Kirchner, and Melvin 2016). Dominance and/or prevalence
calculations were performed in the field as well. When the vegetation passed either the
dominance or prevalence test the point was considered to have hydrophytic vegetation.
202
3. Methods
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL 16 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
July 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.
Determination of Hydric Soils
Soils were analyzed in accordance with the Corps’ Arid West Manual (2008). Soil pits were
excavated to the maximum depth possible and soil color was matched against a standard color
chart (Munsell, 2000). Soils were inspected for redoximorphic features and soil texture was
determined. It was then possible to determine if the soils met any of the hydric soils criteria listed
on the Arid West data sheets. Where soils did not exhibit hydric soil criteria consideration was
given as to whether the data point in question had the potential to be saturated, ponded or have a
water table within 12 inches of the surface for 14 or more consecutive days during the growing
season. With the presence of wetland vegetation and hydrology, this technical standard can be
used to characterize a soil as hydric (Corps, 2008).
Determination of Wetland Hydrology
Hydrology was assessed using the Corps’ 2008 Arid West Manual’s revised hydrology indicators
e.g., water inundation, water marks, inundation visible on aerial imagery, or biotic crusts). Soils
in the wetland areas were inundated or saturated at the time of the delineation field work. Where
hydrology indicators were weak, consideration was given as to whether the technical standard
quoted above for hydrology and soils might reasonably be applied to a given site.
Mapping and Acreage Calculations
Wetland boundaries were recorded in the field by the use of measuring tape and through
investigation of aerial signature correspondence on maps. Features were mapped by hand on
aerial images and field notes were taken on the specific characteristics of each feature (vegetation
type and quality, disturbance levels, etc.). Final mapping included correction of original data as
well as digitizing data using field maps, notes, and aerial photographs (air photos over several
years). Area calculations for potential wetlands were computed using ArcGIS 10.1 (preliminary
acreage calculated with google earth polygon tool).
203
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 17 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018
CHAPTER 4
Results
4.1 Organization
Field delineation results for the study area are presented below. Delineation maps and datasheets
for the project, and other supporting information, such as a jurisdictional determination analysis
map, a soils map, and representative photographs for the delineation study area are presented in
Appendices A through G.
4.2 Results
A total of 0.16 acres of waters of the US and 0.26 acres of waters of the State occur within the
delineation study area. Table 4-1 below presents all delineated features within the delineation
study area and summarizes estimated State jurisdictional areas for each feature type.
Five seasonal wetlands (waters of the State) have been identified in the study area:
TABLE 4-1
WATERS OF THE US AND STATE WITHIN THE
DELINEATION STUDY AREA
Feature Type
Data Points
DP)
Potential
State
Jurisdiction
Potential
Federal
Jurisdiction
Seasonal Wetlands
SW -1 1,2 0.01
SW -2 3,4 0.09
Wetland Drainage Ditch
WDD-1 0.01 0.01
WDD-2 0.01 0.01
WDD-3 5,6 0.14 0.14
Total 0.26 0.16
SOURCE: Metis Environmental, 2018.
4.2.1 Wetlands
Within the study area seasonal wetlands occur and are represented by sample points1, 3, and 5
see Appendix B for datasheets). The corresponding upland positions are represented by sample
204
4. Results
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 18 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018
points 2, 4, and 6. Seasonal Wetland-1 (SW-1), Seasonal Wetland-2 (SW-2), Wetland Drainage
Ditch-1 (WDD-1) and Wetland Drainage Ditch-2 (WDD-2), and Wetland Drainage Ditch-3
WDD-3) are mapped in Appendix A.
Seasonal Wetlands/Wetland Drainage Ditch
The seasonal wetland features within the study area are vegetated with annual herbaceous species
typically found within ephemeral depressions in California. With a slightly alkaline soil
underlying the study area, the vegetation skews toward alkali tolerant plants species. Saltgrass
Distichlis spicata-FAC), a dominant perennial species within the study area and alkali heath
Frankenia salina-FACW), a less common subshrub, were observed at the wetland data points.
Other species observed at the wetland locations included spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachya-
OBL), umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis-FACW), creeping wild rye (Lemus tritichoides-FAC),
cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium-FAC), rabbit’s foot grass (Polypogon monospelinensis-FACW),
and prickly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides-FAC).
The plant species observed in the wetland areas were dominated by hydrophytes and were
sufficient in dominance and prevalence to determine vegetative conditions are consistent with
wetland criteria. Wetland vegetation criteria were met at sample points 1, 3, and 5. Vegetation at
sample points 2, 4 and 6 was not indicative of wetland conditions as it was dominated by upland
species associated with non-native annual grasslands habitat.
4.2.2 Soils
Soil at wetland sample point 1, located at the topographic low point within SW-1, exhibited a
matrix of very dark gray (2.5 Y 3/1) clay loam from zero to nine inches. Between ten and 15
inches the soil darkens to a black (2.5 Y 2.5/1) clay with depletions colored a light olive brown
2.5 Y 5/6) representing 5 percent of the soil. This soil sample met hydric soil indicator F6:
Redox Dark Surface.
Soil sampled at sample point 3 and 5 had a matrix of very dark gray (2.5 Y 3/1) clay loam from
zero to five inches. Between six and 14 inches in the soil profile was represented by a black (2.5
Y 2.5/1) clay with depletions colored a light olive brown (2.5 Y 5/6) representing 10 percent of
the soil. This soil sample met hydric soil indicator F6: Redox Dark Surface.
Upland sample points 2, 4, and 6 exhibited a matrix of dark olive brown (2.5 Y 3/3) rocky loam.
Redox features were lacking in the uplands and this distinction was used to verify the edge of the
wetland polygons. The top five inches of the soils were populated with 20 percent base rock that
likely spilled over into the low-lying areas adjacent to the recently constructed residential
development. When the concrete retaining walls were built to the east this rock material likely
was deposited during construction. On the west side of the Iron Horse Trail rock is found on the
slope were ballast for the abandoned rail road line was incorporated in the soils during
construction and over the years of operation.
205
4. Results
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 19 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018
4.2.3 Hydrology
Numerous primary wetland hydrology indicators within the seasonal wetlands were recorded at
sample point 1 (which represents SW-1) where surface water (A1), high water table (A2), and
inundation on aerial imagery (B7) were observed. At sample points 3 and 5 (which represent
SW-2, WDD-1 and WDD-2, surface water (A1), saturation (A3), water marks (B1), sediment
deposits (B2), inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) and biotic crust (B12) were observed.
Approximately 2 inches of rainfall was recorded on February 28, 2018 prior to the field visit on
March 6, 2018. The study area was observed to have standing water at all the wetland locations.
No visible signs of flow were detected in the seasonal wetlands (SW-1 and SW-2) located on the
northeast side of the Iron Horse Trail. These appear to be confined to the limits of the topographic
low points between the levee toe to the west and the concrete retaining walls to the east. The Iron
Horse Trail levee is an impediment to water reaching the Chabot Channel to the west. In the
southern most reach of the study area, a culvert pipe occurs south of the SW-2. This pipe lies a
few feet above the elevation at which ponding occurs in SW-2. In the past, prior to subdivision
development and retaining wall and detention basin construction, it is likely that water from the
east contributed to ponding and water movement along the rail road levee toe. Current land
configuration has diverted water into retention basins from the high-density housing to the east. It
appears that water that once contributed to SW-1 and SW-2 is now diverted to urban detention
basins. It is possible that in the past water flows moved south from the existing location at SW-1
and SW-2. That does not appear to be possible with current barriers to water movement and
higher elevation of culvert pipe in relationship to elevation of levee toe.
On the southwestern toe of the Iron Horse Trail culverts exist to the north and south of WDD-1,
WDD-2 and WDD-3. Some evidence of water movement to the north was observed. It is likely
that under heavy rain fall water moves from the south to the north along the southwestern levee
toe and enters the storm drain located at Dublin Boulevard. A culvert pipe is present at the end of
the toe swale where it meets Dublin Boulevard to the north. WDD-1 lies adjacent to the culvert
pipe at Dublin Boulevard, while WDD-2 and WDD-3 likely contribute water flow under heavy
rainfall conditions, appearing to flow from south to north. There were limited signs of vegetation
being pressed to the ground along an approximately 240-linear foot section between WDD-2 and
WDD-3, but this area lacks a defined bed and bank and supports no wetland vegetation. A swale
is formed at the toe of the Iron Horse Trail levee, but the entirety of the toe does not support
wetland conditions between the three wetland drainage ditch features.
4.3 Clean Water Act Analysis
A Jurisdictional Determination Analysis Map, which summarizes the information presented here,
can be found in Appendix A. This section provides a brief summary of the Section III Clean
Water Act Analysis (CWA Analysis), Parts A and B for all delineated features, which is
supplemental information requested by the Corp’s San Francisco District. Information used to
support the CWA Analysis presented herein includes the following: Review of U.S. Geological
206
4. Results
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 20 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018
Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangles and high-resolution aerials covering the study area and
field studies conducted in April 2018.
4.3.1 Corps Jurisdictional Wetlands
Three wetland drainage ditches (WDD-1, WDD-2 and WDD-3) delineated within the study area
appear to be tributary to waters of the U.S. and therefore, would potentially fall under the
jurisdiction of the Corps based on the presence of a chemical, physical or biological connection to
waters of the U.S., as described in further detail below.
WDD-1, WDD-2, and WDD-3 are connected to each other along the toe of the Iron Horse Trail
levee and are wetlands located adjacent to a RPW via connection through the storm drain system
along Dublin Boulevard. The Chabot Channel is a relatively permanent water as established by its
seasonal flow that is present continuously for more than three months of the year, coinciding with
the rainy season. The water that collects within WDD-1, WDD-2, and WDD-3 can move to the
north under heavy rainfall events, entering the storm drain to Chabot Channel and thus directly
tributary to a water of the U.S. Some of the biological functions these wetlands perform include
the transport of water and nutrients to downstream waters, processing of organic wastes,
attenuation of downstream flooding through interception of surface runoff and water storage
onsite, reduction of suspended sediment delivered to downstream waters, groundwater
replenishment, and supporting biodiversity at the site and watershed levels through provision of
wetland habitat.
4.3.2 Non-Corps Jurisdictional Wetlands/Isolated Wetlands
State Jurisdiction)
Seasonal wetlands (SW-1 and SW-2) delineated within the study area are not tributary to waters
of the U.S. and therefore, do not appear to be under the jurisdiction of the Corps based on the
absence of a chemical, physical or biological connection to waters of the U.S., as described in
further detail below. Therefore, these seasonal wetlands fall within Sections F on the Approved
Jurisdictional Delineation Form (Rapanos Form) as issued by the Corps.
It appears that the SW-1 and SW-2 qualify under Section F as non-jurisdictional waters, including
wetlands, since these wetlands would likely have been regulated under the “Migratory Bird Rule”
prior to the “SWANCC” ruling by the Supreme Court on January 1st 2001. The site provides
limited winter foraging for migratory birds within the seasonal wetlands. The seasonal wetlands
are inundated for longer than two weeks and function in a low capacity in shore bird or water
fowl foraging (SW-2 supports water for a longer period of time). As such, these wetlands would
likely be considered waters of the State and regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board as isolated wetlands.
Substantiation of the lack of a chemical, physical or biological connection to waters of the U.S. is
provided below.
207
4. Results
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 21 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018
The hydrologic regime on the north side of the Iron Horse Trail consists of a contained system
where water does not flow off the 1-acre watershed to enter a water of the U.S. The isolated
wetlands within the study area were observed to consist of shallow topographic depressions at the
toe of a repurposed rail road levee. Seasonal rainfall sheet flows off the paved surfaces and
northeastern levee slope and collects in toe formed at the base of the levee where no outlet for
drainage is present, and thus no physical connection to waters of the U.S can be substantiated.
The study area is surrounded by paved road surfaces which prevent the potential movement of
water off site. Water which fills the topographic depressions on the site would not exceed a
quantity or volume that would flow off the study area based on the small size of the watershed (1
acre). Since water flows are not documented to move off of the study area there is no transport of
chemicals or other biological mater from the study area to a waters of the U.S. The nearest
potentially Corps jurisdictional feature in the vicinity is Chabot Channel which is separated from
connection through the Iron Horse Trail levee.
On site hydrology is limited to direct precipitation and there is no larger contributing watershed
located at higher elevations to add water volume to the hydrology of the study area. Rain water
that flows off the adjacent development to the east is funneled into onsite detention basins and
does not reach SW-1 and SW-2.
Based on the presence of ponded water above the soil surface within the study area, some form of
a restrictive layer is present below the top 12 inches of the soil matrix which does not allow for
water to permeate the soil in the locations where the seasonal wetlands have formed. Soils are
described by the NRCS as having very slow permeability which matches the conditions observed
on site. The lack of permeability contributes to the formation of seasonal wetlands on the site and
minimizes the potential for subsurface water flows to nearby waters of the U.S.
The seasonal wetlands within the study area meet the three Corps parameters for wetlands but are
not located adjacent to and/or abutting a waters of the U.S. and therefore are likely regulated as
isolated wetlands by the RWQCB as waters of the State.
208
4. Results
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 22 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018 209
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 23 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018
CHAPTER 5
Report Preparation and References
5.1 Report Preparation
Metis Environmental
437 Alcatraz Avenue
Oakland, CA 94609
Project Manager: P. Berryhill
Wetland Delineation: J. King
Report Preparation: J. King
Graphics: J. King
5.2 References and Sources Consulted
Cardno, March 13, 2018. Wetland Delineation Map, Scarlett Drive/Iron Horse Trail Extension
Project, Dublin CA.
Corps, 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid
West Region (Version 2.0), December 2008, Final Report, [ERDC/EL TR-08-28], U.S.
Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, January
1987, Final Report, Department of the Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Hickman, J.C., (Ed.) 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.
FEMA Flood Map, August 3, 2009. Map 06001CO309G.
Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2012. Jepson eFlora, http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html [Accessed
on November 20, 2012]
Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant
List: 2016 wetland ratings. Pytoneeuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016 ISSN
2153 733X.
Munsell Soil Color Charts, 2000 revised edition. Munsell Color, Macbeth Division of
Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation, New Windsor, NY.
RFB Consulting, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report 2013.
Appendix C, Biological Resources.
210
5.Report Preparation and References
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing 24 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. July 2018
USDA, NRCS, 20, Livermore, Alameda County WETS Table Documentation.
https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/climate/navigate_wets.html [March 20, 2018.]
USDA, NRCS, Soil Survey Staff, Web Soil Survey. Available online at
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [Accessed on March 28,
2018].
211
Iron Horse Trail Bridge A-1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018
APPENDIX A
Delineation Maps
212
Appendix A
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL A-2 Iron Horse Trail Bridge
June 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. 213
214
215
Iron Horse Trail Bridge B-1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018
APPENDIX B
Wetland Datasheets
216
Appendix B
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL B-2 Iron Horse Trail Bridge
June 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
Iron Horse Trail Bridge C-1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018
APPENDIX C
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (
Rapanos Form)
230
Appendix C
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL C-2 Iron Horse Trail Bridge
June 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. 231
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): May 30, 2018
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
San Francisco District
Iron Horse Bridge Trail Project
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: California County/parish/borough: Alameda City: Dublin
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 37 42' 20.40"° N, Long. 121 54'13.09"° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Chabot Canal
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: San Francisco Bay
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 18050004 (San Francisco Bay)
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc…) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no “navigable waters of the U.S.” within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain: .
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There are and are not “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.15 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known): .
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: Approximately 0.1 acre isolated wetland with no outlet to downstream receiving bodies. (Metis, 2018).
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least “seasonally”
e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. 232
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW: .
Summarize rationale supporting determination: .
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is “adjacent”: .
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are “relatively permanent
waters” (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 2 acres
Drainage area: 2 acres
Average annual rainfall: 14.23 inches
Average annual snowfall: 0 inches
ii) Physical Characteristics:
a) Relationship with TNW:
Tributary flows directly into TNW.
Tributary flows through 4 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 30 (or more) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1-2 river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 20-25 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1-2 aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: .
4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
233
Identify flow route to TNW5: Wetland SW-3 and SW-4 are tributary to Chabot Channel which drains south to Arroyo
Mocho. Arroyo Mocho is a tributary to Arroyo de la Laguna, which flows to Alameda Creek and eventually into San
Francisco Bay.
Tributary stream order, if known: 5th order: Chabot Canal.
b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: Natural
Artificial (man-made). Explain: The toe ditch at the base of the Iron Horse Trail levee is
coincedental to construction.
Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: The maintenance of the former rail road levee consisted of
periodic land alteration on either side of the levee base.
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: depending on tributary range is between 8 to 10 feet
Average depth: depending on tributary range is between 6 inches and 2 feet
Average side slopes: 3:1 .
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
Silts Sands Concrete
Cobbles Gravel Muck
Bedrock Vegetation. Type/% cover: Seasonal wetland and freshwater emergent vegetation is
between 50% and 90% cover within the Iron Horse Trail levee toe ditch
Other. Explain: .
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Stable levee slopes with paved walking
trail on levee top.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: None.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 1 %
c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Ephemeral flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 2-5
Describe flow regime: Winter storm events provide flow from rain fall runoff along the Iron Horse Trail during
heavy rainfall. Average storm precipitation fills the levee toe ditches and water remains ponded for a long duration. At the time of
heavy rainfall over a short time period the water levels can rise allowing flow to the north where water enters the culvert at Dublin
Boulevard to the Chabot Channel.
Other information on duration and volume: .
Surface flow is: Confined. Characteristics: .
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings: .
Dye (or other) test performed: .
Tributary has (check all that apply):
Bed and banks
OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
clear, natural line impressed on the bank the presence of litter and debris
changes in the character of soil destruction of terrestrial vegetation
shelving the presence of wrack line
vegetation matted down, bent, or absent sediment sorting
leaf litter disturbed or washed away scour
sediment deposition multiple observed or predicted flow events
water staining abrupt change in plant community
other (list):
Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain: Between WDD-1 and WDD-2, there occurs a higher topographic area (a
slight rise in elevation) along the length of the toe ditch which shows only signs of plants being pressed down by water flow, but does
not support or exhibit hydrophytic vegetation or standing water. WDD-1 and WDD-2 exhibit standing water and/or distinct hydrophytic
vegetation.
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody’s flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
7Ibid.
234
High Tide Line indicated by: Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
oil or scum line along shore objects survey to available datum;
fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) physical markings;
physical markings/characteristics vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
tidal gauges
other (list):
iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: .
Identify specific pollutants, if known: Various degrees of pollutants are possible. The toe drain lies at the base of a repurposed
rail road levee. Could have pollutants in the soil from rail road maintenance and/or construction.
235
iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): .
Wetland fringe. Characteristics: Some emergent vegetation occurs along edges of water in toe ditch.
Habitat for:
Federally Listed species. Explain findings: .
Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: .
Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: .
Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: .
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
i) Physical Characteristics:
a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 0.15 acres
Wetland type. Explain: Seasonal wetland.
Wetland quality. Explain: Low quality seasonal wetland and emergent wetland associated with levee toe. Low
diversity of wetland plants and presence of non-native species.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: .
b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Ephemeral flow. Explain: .
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined
Characteristics: .
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings: .
Dye (or other) test performed: .
c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
Directly abutting
Not directly abutting
Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: Culvert pipe located at north end of WDD-1 conveys water
into the Chabot Channel upon heavy rainfall events.
Ecological connection. Explain: .
Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: .
d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 30 (or more) river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 30 (or more) aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 50 - 100-year floodplain.
ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: Unknown.
Identify specific pollutants, if known: .
iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): .
Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: Seasonal wetland 50-75%.
Habitat for:
Federally Listed species. Explain findings: .
Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: .
Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: .
Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: .
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 2
Approximately ( 0.15 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
236
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
WDD-1 Y 0.01
WDD-2 Y 0.14
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Overall some of the biological functions
these wetlands perform include the transport of water and nutrients to downstream waters, processing of organic wastes, attenuation
of downstream flooding through interception of surface runoff and water storage onsite, reduction of suspended sediment delivered
to downstream waters, groundwater replenishment, and supporting biodiversity at the site and watershed levels through provision
of wetland habitat.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: .
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: .
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D: Linear wetlands located at the toe of the repurposed Iron Horse Trail levee support seasonal wetland vegetation and
standing water for more than 14 days during the growing season. During heavy rainfall water can rise to the level of connecting
culvert infrastructure and flow into a relatively permanent water within Chabot Channel.
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: .
237
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow “seasonally” (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: .
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: .
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: .
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: .
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow “seasonally.” Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: WDD-1 and WDD-2 occur within the toe of the Iron Horse Trail levee which appears only to support
water flow during the rainy season. Water roughly flows southeast to northwest entering a culvert at Dublin Boulevard
before entering RPW (Chabot Channel) and has a direct connection to the downstream tributary.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.15 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from “waters of the U.S.,” or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
8See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
238
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain: SW-1 and SW-2 occur on the northeast side of the Iron Horse Trail levee and are physically
isolated from the southern toe ditch which feeds to Chabot Channel.
Other factors. Explain: .
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: .
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: .
Wetlands:Isolated wetlands SW-1 0.01, SW-2 0.09 acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in “SWANCC,” the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
Migratory Bird Rule” (MBR).
Waters do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:Wetland meets
the three parameter - vegetation, soils, and hydrology criteria for Corps determination of a wetland condition.
Other: (explain, if not covered above): .
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: .
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: .
Wetlands: 0.01acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: .
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps: .
Corps navigable waters’ study: .
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: .
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Livermore 1:24,000.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Web Soil Survey: Alameda County 2018.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:NWI Online Wetland Mapper.
State/Local wetland inventory map(s): .
FEMA/FIRM maps: .
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date):Google Earth Aerial photos between 1993 and 2018.
239
or Other (Name & Date): .
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: .
Applicable/supporting case law: .
Applicable/supporting scientific literature: .
Other information (please specify): .
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: .
240
241
Iron Horse Trail Bridge D-1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018
APPENDIX D
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map, Dublin
242
Appendix D
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL D-2 Iron Horse Trail Bridge
June 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. 243
244
f
245
Iron Horse Trail Bridge E-1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018
APPENDIX E
Soils Map
246
Appendix E
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL E-2 Iron Horse Trail Bridge
June 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S.
247
Soil Map—Alameda Area, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/13/2018
Page 1 of34173520417359041736604173730417380041738704173940417359041736604173730417380041738704173940596320596390596460596530596600596670596740596810596880596950596320596390596460596530596600596670596740596810596880596950
37° 42' 27'' N 121° 54' 27'' W37°
42' 27'' N121° 54' 0'' W37° 42' 13''
N
121° 54' 27'' W37° 42' 13'' N 121° 54' 0'' WN Map projection:
Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84
Edge
tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84
0
100 200 400 600 Feet 0 40 80 160 240 Meters Map Scale: 1:3,
020 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.
248
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:20,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Alameda Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 13, 2017
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 11, 2015—Jun
17, 2015
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—Alameda Area, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/13/2018
Page 2 of 3 249
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
CdA Clear Lake clay, drained, 0 to 2
percent slopes, MLRA 14
46.4 98.3%
Pd Pescadero clay 0.0 0.0%
Sm Sunnyvale clay loam over clay 0.8 1.6%
Totals for Area of Interest 47.2 100.0%
Soil Map—Alameda Area, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/13/2018
Page 3 of 3
250
251
Iron Horse Trail Bridge F-1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018
APPENDIX F
WETS Tables for Livermore, Alameda County
252
Appendix F
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL F-2 Iron Horse Trail Bridge
June 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. 253
WETS Table
WETS Station: LIVERMORE,
CA
Requested years: 1971 -
2018
Month Avg Max
Temp
Avg Min
Temp
Avg
Mean
Temp
Avg
Precip
30%
chance
precip less
than
30%
chance
precip
more than
Avg number
days precip
0.10 or more
Avg
Snowfall
Jan 57.2 38.0 47.6 2.71 1.23 3.27 6 0.0
Feb 61.9 40.6 51.2 2.54 1.26 3.11 6 0.0
Mar 66.3 42.9 54.6 2.20 0.91 2.68 6 0.0
Apr 71.2 44.8 58.0 1.05 0.48 1.28 3 0.0
May 77.5 49.2 63.3 0.39 0.11 0.38 1 0.0
Jun 84.5 53.2 68.8 0.10 0.00 0.09 0 0.0
Jul 89.5 55.8 72.7 0.02 0.00 0.00 0 0.0
Aug 88.9 55.6 72.2 0.06 0.00 0.00 0 0.0
Sep 86.3 54.0 70.1 0.19 0.00 0.16 0 0.0
Oct 77.9 49.0 63.5 0.82 0.24 0.88 2 0.0
Nov 65.2 42.5 53.8 1.69 0.68 2.05 4 0.0
Dec 57.3 37.9 47.6 2.46 1.05 2.99 6 0.0
Annual:11.31 16.78
Average 73.6 47.0 60.3 -----
Total --- 14.23 35 0.0
GROWING SEASON DATES
Years with missing data: 24 deg = 5 28 deg =
8
32 deg =
8
Years with no occurrence: 24 deg = 39 28 deg =
8
32 deg =
0
Data years used: 24 deg = 43 28 deg =
40
32 deg =
40
Probability 24 F or
higher
28 F or
higher
32 F or
higher
50 percent *No
occurrence
1/12 to
12/23:
345 days
2/20 to
12/4: 287
days
70 percent *No
occurrence
12/28 to
1/7: 375
days
2/10 to
12/14:
307 days
Percent chance of the
growing season occurring
between the Beginning and
Ending dates.
STATS TABLE - total
precipitation (inches)
Yr Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annl
1903 3.19 0.94 5.65 0.81 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
00
T 2.16 0.59 13.
46
1904 0.89 4.18 3.71 1.56 0.24 T T 0.32 1.
62
1.
00
0.70 1.42 15.
64
1905 2.43 2.30 4.17 0.93 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 T 0.
00
1.61 1.18 14.
51
1906 5.56 2.67 5.18 0.95 1.61 0.56 T 0.00 0.
20
0.
03
1.34 6.45 24.
55
1907 4.13 1.86 6.85 0.47 0.16 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.
81
0.04 3.90 18.
78
1908 2.27 1.35 0.73 0.28 0.53 T T 0.00 0.
03
0.
27
0.60 1.55 7.61
1909 10.18 3.96 1.94 T 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.
62
0.
75
1.68 5.77 24.
95
1910 2.50 1.14 1.90 0.10 T 0.04 T 0.00 0.
10
0.
29
0.10 1.32 7.49
254
1911 12.60 1.42 4.45 0.69 0.24 0.07 T 0.00 T 0.
43
0.29 1.71 21.
90
1912 2.66 0.20 1.99 0.73 0.94 0.65 T 0.00 0.
48
0.
71
0.44 0.81 9.61
1913 2.63 0.38 1.65 0.54 0.58 0.01 0.27 0.02 T 0.
00
2.17 3.17 11.
42
1914 7.10 2.11 0.66 0.76 0.45 0.19 0.00 0.
00
0.
42
0.33 4.96 16.
98
1915 4.16 4.79 1.50 0.66 2.66 0.00 M0.00 0.00 T 0.
00
0.76 4.41 18.
94
1916 11.35 2.17 1.47 0.21 0.05 T 0.00 T 0.
44
0.
50
0.68 3.28 20.
15
1917 1.06 3.37 1.08 0.15 0.02 0.00 T 0.00 0.
04
0.
00
0.43 0.66 6.81
1918 0.59 3.08 3.32 0.61 M0.00 T 0.00 T 5.
72
0.
39
2.38 1.51 17.
60
1919 1.03 4.58 2.33 0.05 T 0.00 T T 0.
48
0.
15
0.33 2.21 11.
16
1920 0.22 0.71 3.52 1.07 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 T 2.
03
1.43 3.81 12.
92
1921 3.38 0.59 0.83 0.16 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
05
0.
15
1.17 3.38 10.
76
1922 1.51 5.46 1.83 0.23 0.27 T T T 0.
00
0.
54
2.86 5.43 18.
13
1923 1.80 0.65 0.15 2.15 T 0.02 0.00 T 0.
82
0.
25
0.76 0.87 7.47
1924 1.40 0.93 0.65 0.28 0.07 0.00 0.00 T T 1.
30
1.53 2.63 8.79
1925 1.02 3.74 1.14 1.75 1.41 0.04 0.00 0.00 T T 0.97 1.14 11.
21
1926 2.35 3.58 0.16 3.11 0.11 T 0.00 T 0.
00
0.
93
2.83 0.78 13.
85
1927 1.74 3.49 1.54 1.73 0.10 0.18 0.00 T 0.
03
1.
71
1.43 2.00 13.
95
1928 1.46 0.29 3.42 1.43 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
00
T 1.50 2.76 11.
31
1929 1.26 0.87 1.07 0.59 0.03 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.
00
0.
01
0.00 1.81 6.47
1930 3.64 1.91 1.88 0.63 0.43 0.00 0.00 T 0.
20
0.
00
1.14 0.26 10.
09
1931 3.45 1.67 0.57 0.36 0.93 0.11 T 0.00 T 0.
27
1.89 5.63 14.
88
1932 1.29 3.15 0.19 0.41 0.37 T 0.00 0.00 0.
00
0.
00
0.51 2.03 7.95
1933 4.51 0.44 2.09 0.13 0.70 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.
01
0.
75
0.00 3.69 12.
35
1934 1.29 2.86 0.00 0.13 0.60 0.53 0.00 T 0.
27
0.
62
2.71 2.32 11.
33
1935 3.53 0.52 3.16 3.28 0.00 0.00 T 0.04 0.
00
0.
79
0.21 1.53 13.
06
1936 3.28 6.76 0.71 0.63 0.46 0.10 T T 0.
00
0.
40
0.02 3.26 15.
62
1937 3.38 4.13 5.07 0.68 0.17 0.20 T 0.00 0.
00
0.
55
2.46 4.57 21.
21
1938 2.40 6.14 4.09 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 T 1.
00
1.08 0.52 16.
15
1939 2.40 1.57 2.18 0.53 0.18 T T 0.00 0.
16
1.
23
0.15 0.78 9.18
1940 8.13 5.14 2.60 0.35 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
25
0.
50
0.43 4.63 22.
17
1941 3.24 4.19 2.07 2.76 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.
00
0.
72
0.89 5.34 19.
47
1942 3.89 1.68 1.42 3.10 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
09
1.
08
3.05 1.73 17.
04
1943 4.48 1.68 2.39 1.14 T 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.
00
0.
30
0.53 1.23 11.
81
1944 2.36 4.89 1.01 0.94 0.73 T 0.00 0.00 0.
00
0.
77
3.41 2.03 16.
14
255
1945 0.87 3.68 3.19 0.20 0.17 T 0.00 0.02 0.
00
1.
07
2.07 M2.
50
13.
77
1946 0.76 1.23 1.69 0.02 0.61 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.
02
0.
02
2.93 2.07 9.59
1947 0.69 1.45 2.34 0.53 0.17 0.36 0.00 0.00 T 1.
84
0.85 0.51 8.74
1948 0.20 1.11 2.79 2.50 1.03 M0.16 0.03 0.00 T 0.
46
0.34 2.71 11.
33
1949 1.39 2.47 3.38 0.02 0.34 0.00 0.03 0.16 0.
05
0.
08
1.20 M0.
90
10.
02
1950 4.65 1.54 1.44 M0.85 M0.59 0.01 M0.00 0.00 0.
08
M1.
84
M5.
95
4.95 21.
90
1951 2.23 M1.81 M1.82 0.55 M0.35 M0.06 M0.00 M0.00 T 1.
04
M3.
01
6.07 16.
94
1952 7.60 1.40 M2.36 2.20 M0.16 0.04 M0.00 0.00 M0.
10
0.
01
2.11 6.33 22.
31
1953 2.07 0.05 M1.12 M1.42 0.61 0.59 M0.00 M0.15 0.
00
M0.
21
M1.
33
M0.
64
8.19
1954 2.19 2.27 M3.00 0.73 0.16 M0.27 0.00 0.00 M0.
04
MT 1.68 M3.
33
13.
67
1955 M2.45 1.69 M0.38 M1.28 0.65 0.00 T M0.01 0.
01
M0.
01
M1.
31
10.
15
17.
94
1956 5.49 M1.15 0.14 1.92 M0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 M0.
63
0.
79
0.03 0.48 11.
26
1957 2.65 M2.23 1.30 1.14 M2.65 M0.04 0.00 0.00 M0.
05
1.
06
0.37 M1.
62
13.
11
1958 3.16 5.37 4.44 3.74 0.66 0.41 T T 0.
02
0.
09
0.14 0.86 18.
89
1959 2.45 3.59 0.29 0.35 T 0.00 0.00 0.07 1.
89
0.
00
T 0.75 9.39
1960 2.98 4.12 0.60 0.48 0.42 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.
01
0.
05
2.92 1.25 12.
85
1961 2.08 1.04 1.92 1.03 0.69 0.19 T 0.13 0.
16
0.
15
2.24 0.82 10.
45
1962 0.73 5.61 1.82 0.22 T 0.00 0.00 T 0.
00
3.
64
0.28 1.55 13.
85
1963 1.40 4.50 2.60 3.47 M0.70 T 0.00 T 0.
33
0.
93
3.18 0.19 17.
30
1964 2.37 0.08 1.57 0.21 0.48 0.32 T 0.12 0.
04
0.
85
2.44 4.91 13.
39
1965 2.11 0.59 1.73 1.53 0.00 0.00 T 0.21 T 0.
03
4.22 3.23 13.
65
1966 1.05 1.17 0.17 0.33 0.10 0.12 0.17 0.00 0.
11
0.
00
3.43 2.35 9.00
1967 6.14 0.29 4.15 4.65 0.19 0.48 0.00 T 0.
02
0.
24
0.88 1.62 18.
66
1968 3.93 0.90 2.40 0.43 0.15 0.00 0.00 T T 0.
43
2.48 3.04 13.
76
1969 6.28 4.76 0.55 1.24 0.08 T 0.00 0.00 0.
00
1.
10
0.49 2.34 16.
84
1970 5.38 1.18 1.42 0.40 0.07 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.
00
0.
41
5.24 5.27 19.
69
1971 1.19 0.33 1.75 1.37 0.54 T 0.00 T 0.
13
0.
04
0.46 3.27 9.08
1972 0.90 0.79 0.14 0.64 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.
58
2.
98
2.22 8.29
1973 5.50 0.29 0.03 T 0.00 0.00 0.
08
2.
08
3.71 3.80 15.
49
1974 1.50 0.71 2.69 1.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
00
0.
50
0.66 7.68
1975 0.84 3.65 5.24 1.42 T 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.
00
1.
27
0.08 0.21 13.
22
1976 0.30 1.46 0.48 0.39 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.91 0.
95
0.
50
0.50 0.73 6.40
1977 1.15 0.83 0.82 0.16 1.01 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.
22
0.
13
3.07 7.49
1978 5.44 2.95 2.49 0.01 T 0.00 0.00 0.
04
0.
00
2.16 0.58 13.
67
256
1979 4.52 3.19 1.86 0.88 0.34 0.00 0.06 T 0.
00
1.
51
1.13 2.66 16.
15
1980 4.16 4.24 1.36 1.32 0.48 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.
00
0.
04
0.28 1.18 13.
76
1981 3.97 1.11 2.94 0.61 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
06
2.
07
3.44 2.57 16.
88
1982 5.29 2.16 5.58 1.50 0.00 0.28 0.00 M0.01 1.
48
2.
24
3.72 2.80 25.
06
1983 6.28 5.56 6.14 3.51 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.
02
0.
27
5.44 3.44 32.
37
1984 0.33 1.87 1.00 0.53 0.01 0.03 T 0.00 0.
04
1.
25
4.71 1.51 11.
28
1985 0.48 1.25 2.62 0.32 0.07 0.22 T 0.03 0.
13
0.
89
2.69 1.97 10.
67
1986 2.04 7.11 4.09 0.40 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.
45
0.
04
0.08 0.92 15.
28
1987 2.73 3.47 2.30 0.16 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.
00
0.
87
1.40 2.30 13.
32
1988 1.78 0.38 0.26 1.15 0.45 0.10 0.00 T 0.
00
0.
11
1.92 2.03 8.18
1989 0.81 0.95 2.94 0.88 0.08 0.10 0.00 T 1.
33
1.
13
1.02 0.10 9.34
1990 1.54 2.46 0.87 0.37 1.78 T 0.02 T 0.
06
0.
08
0.39 1.45 9.02
1991 0.31 2.20 5.87 0.34 0.35 0.08 0.00 0.21 0.
04
1.
65
0.31 1.19 12.
55
1992 1.39 4.61 1.97 0.43 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.
00
0.
90
0.15 4.79 14.
33
1993 6.41 4.53 2.91 0.63 0.51 0.30 0.00 0.00 T 0.
57
2.00 1.81 19.
67
1994 0.94 3.33 0.15 1.20 1.78 0.04 T 0.00 T 0.
58
1.36 9.38
1995 6.64 0.33 6.66 1.02 0.92 0.70 T 0.00 0.
00
0.
00
0.01 5.37 21.
65
1996 5.17 4.10 2.34 1.91 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
00
1.
08
2.55 4.43 22.
63
1997 5.81 0.15 0.06 0.15 0.29 0.17 0.00 0.42 0.
00
0.
28
4.23 1.95 13.
51
1998 5.47 7.30 2.37 1.37 2.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.
18
0.
54
2.48 0.73 22.
57
1999 3.23 3.33 1.67 0.99 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.
04
0.
15
1.26 0.25 11.
04
2000 4.61 4.87 1.25 0.59 0.69 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.
24
0.49 0.45 13.
38
2001 1.92 2.89 1.22 1.80 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.
09
0.
37
1.92 5.09 15.
42
2002 0.72 0.62 1.65 0.16 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
00
0.
00
2.65 7.01 13.
49
2003 0.66 1.31 1.07 3.09 0.95 0.00 T 0.29 T 0.
02
2.02 3.57 12.
98
2004 2.19 4.01 0.39 0.18 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
58
2.
77
0.89 3.01 14.
13
2005 2.81 3.55 3.41 1.53 1.03 0.05 T 0.00 0.
25
0.
17
0.65 5.40 18.
85
2006 2.22 1.32 4.79 2.60 0.34 T T 0.00 0.
00
0.
20
1.68 2.25 15.
40
2007 0.52 3.92 0.33 0.44 0.11 0.00 T 0.00 0.
21
1.
12
0.71 2.05 9.41
2008 4.79 1.89 0.10 0.02 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
00
0.
33
1.40 1.56 10.
09
2009 1.34 3.31 2.29 0.23 0.41 0.11 T 0.00 0.
31
2.
79
0.21 2.02 13.
02
2010 3.53 2.36 1.57 2.10 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 T 1.
00
2.02 3.87 16.
69
2011 0.78 2.69 4.10 0.22 0.46 1.07 0.00 0.00 T 1.
06
0.93 0.04 11.
35
2012 1.52 0.52 2.57 2.01 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.
01
0.
27
3.40 4.22 14.
66
257
2013 1.07 0.47 0.33 0.44 0.14 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.
33
0.
00
1.30 0.38 4.50
2014 0.08 2.58 1.25 0.98 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.
22
0.
17
1.19 8.23 14.
71
2015 0.00 1.62 0.25 0.78 0.50 0.33 T 0.01 0.
05
0.
02
2.49 2.55 8.60
2016 3.95 0.69 3.30 2.14 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
00
3.
34
1.37 2.62 17.
62
2017 8.10 6.07 2.09 1.93 0.03 0.02 0.00 T T 0.
18
2.20 0.06 20.
68
2018 3.30 0.57 3.87
Notes: Data missing in any
month have an "M" flag. A
T" indicates a trace of
precipitation.
Data missing for all days in a
month or year is blank.
Creation date: 2016-07-22
258
259
Iron Horse Trail Bridge G-1 METIS ENVIRONMENTAL
Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. June 2018
APPENDIX G
Representative Photographs
260
Appendix G
METIS ENVIRONMENTAL G-2 Iron Horse Trail Bridge
June 2018 Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the U.S. 261
1
Appendix G. Representative photographs of the Iron Horse Trail Bridge Project Area and Wetlands
Photo 1. View south from Dublin Boulevard along the Iron Horse Regional Trail. Project area extends to
fencing on east and west.
Photo 2. Seasonal wetland 1 (SW-1) located on the north side of the Iron Horse Trail, exhibiting water
filled soil test pit. Vegetation consists of salt grass and annual hydrophytes consistent with seasonal
wetland conditions. View is to the north toward Dublin Blvd.
262
2
Photo 3. Seasonal Wetland 2 (SW-2) located between Iron Horse Regional Trail levee and a concrete
retaining wall associated with adjacent residential development. Water filled soil test pit and dense
spike rush are observed at this location.
Photo 4. Seasonal wetland 3 (SW-3) located on the west side of the Iron Horse Regional Trail. Toe ditch
exhibits standing water, algal matting, and emergent annual vegetation. Photo shows view to the south.
263
3
Photo 5. The northern end of ponding within SW-3 is shown in this photograph.
Photo 6. The northern extent (not inundated but saturated soils) within SW-3. Water flow through
upland swale occurs to the north of this location to meet with Seasonal Wetland 4 (SW-4).
264
4
Photo 7. Seasonal Wetland 4 (SW-4) occurs in narrow ditch on left side of photograph. Culvert located
at Dublin Boulevard intercepts water flows along this area.
Photo 8. Iron Horse Regional Trail to the north of Dublin Boulevard. Northern portion of project area
covered in Scarlett Drive Wetland Delineation.
265
APPENDIX C
Cultural Resources Technical Study
266
267
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Iron Horse Trail Project
City of Dublin, Alameda County, California
PREPARED BY:
Roberta Thomas, M.A., RPA, Christina Alonso, M.A., RPA
Project Number 18-188
Report Number 18-520
October 2018
PREPARED FOR:
Metis Environmental Group
437 Alcatraz Ave.
Oakland, CA 94609
61d Avenida de Orinda
Orinda, CA 94563
925)253-9070
268
i
This page left blank intentionally
269
ii
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................. 1
3.0 Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Environmental Setting .......................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Prehistoric Context................................................................................................................ 6
3.3 Local Amador Valley Chronology........................................................................................ 8
3.4 Ethnographic Context ........................................................................................................... 9
3.5 Historic Background ........................................................................................................... 10
4.0 Results of the Records Search................................................................................................. 12
4.1 Native American Coordination ............................................................................................ 15
5.0 Dublin Crossing EIR Findings ................................................................................................ 16
6.0 Methodology and Results of Field Survey of the Iron Horse Trail Project ............................ 17
6.1 Survey Methods .................................................................................................................. 17
6.2 Results of the Archaeological Field Survey........................................................................ 17
7.0 Project Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................................................... 18
8.0 References Cited ..................................................................................................................... 20
Figures
Figure 1. Project vicinity ........................................................................................…………….....2
Figure 2: Project area...........................................................................………………….…...….....3
Figure 3: Project location.........................................................................................………………4
Appendices
Appendix A: Previously Recorded Cultural Resource Studies within a Half-Mile of the Project
Area
Appendix B: Native American Correspondence / Assembly Bill 52 Notification Letters
Appendix C: Survey Photographs
270
iii
Management Summary
The City of Dublin’s Iron Horse Trail Project (Project) involves the construction of a new
overcrossing and pedestrian ramp spanning Dublin Boulevard in Dublin, California. PaleoWest
Archaeology (PaleoWest) conducted a cultural resources assessment of the proposed Project area
on behalf of Metis Environmental Group in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The City of Dublin is the Lead Agency for the purposes of CEQA.
A records search conducted on June 14, 2018 at the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State
University (NWIC). The records search indicated that no prehistoric or historical archaeological
resources have been previously recorded within the Project area. A total of 29 resources, all
historic-period buildings, are located outside of, but within a half-mile radius of the Project area.
A total of 150 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a half-mile of the Project
area; 10 of those studies intersect the Project area.
PaleoWest contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on June 15, 2018 with
a request for information on sacred sites or tribal cultural resources within the Project area, and for
a list of Native American tribal representatives with heritage ties to the area. The NAHC responded
on June 25, 2018, stating that a Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed with negative results but
that “the absence of specific site information does not preclude the presence of cultural resources
in any project area.” PaleoWest contacted the recommended Native American representatives on
July 12, 2018, requesting any pertinent cultural resource information they may have regarding the
Project area. One round of follow-up phone calls was made on July 26, 2018 and, as a result of
these outreach efforts cultural resources monitoring for the Project was recommended by a tribal
representative. All communication with Native American representatives is tabulated in Appendix
B.
PaleoWest conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project area on July 11, 2018. The survey failed
to identify any cultural materials. Based on the results of the records search, communication with
local Native American representatives, and the negative results of the pedestrian survey, the
archaeological sensitivity of the Project area is considered to be low. Given the negative results of
the current cultural resources assessment as well as the negative results for the overlapping Dublin
Crossing Specific Plan EIR project area (located immediately adjacent to the current Project),
PaleoWest recommends that no significant impacts to cultural resources will occur as a result of
the current Project (no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources
with regard to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR). In addition, PaleoWest recommends that
mitigation measure (MM) 3.4-2 and MM 3.4-4 from the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR be
applied for any unanticipated cultural resource discoveries or human remains associated with
Project construction activities. These mitigation measures are outlined herein.
271
Cultural Resources Technical Report 1 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The City of Dublin’s Iron Horse Trail Project (Project) involves the construction of a grade-
separated overcrossing at Dublin Boulevard, north of the Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) Station, along a section of the existing multi-use Iron Horse Trail. The
overcrossing will span north to south over Dublin Boulevard and will provide an alternative to
the existing at-grade crossing of the Iron Horse Trail where it meets Dublin Boulevard.
North of Dublin Boulevard, the overcrossing structure will be integrated into a community
park constructed as a part of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan project (RBF 2013). The new
overcrossing structure would gradually transition to at-grade conditions before reconnecting
with the Iron Horse Trail north of Dublin Boulevard. South of Dublin Boulevard, the
overcrossing would touch down within the existing Iron Horse Trail right-of-way and would
include a graduated ramp for both pedestrians and bicyclists to access the overcrossing. The
northern portion of the Project area lies within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan study area
and, as such, was previously assessed for cultural resources as part of the Dublin Crossing
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR ) (RBF 2013).
This Cultural Resources Technical Report was prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4, as a means of evaluating
the potential impacts cultural resources.
1.2 Project Location
The Project area is located in the city of Dublin within the Amador Valley, east of the
Pleasanton Ridge, in Alameda County, California (Figure 1). The Project area follows the
existing Iron Horse Trail where is crosses Dublin Boulevard (Figure 2). Specifically, the
Project area is located to the east of Highway 680, and directly north of Highway 580 in Section
6 of Township 3 South, Range 1 East as depicted on the 1980 Dublin, California 7.5-minute
USGS topographic quadrangle map (Figure 3). The elevation of the Project area is
approximately 336 feet above mean sea level.
2.0 Regulatory Framework
The California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) is the official state-level list of
properties, structures, districts, and objects significant at the local, state, or national level.
CRHR-eligible properties are considered to be historical resources under CEQA and must have
significance under at least one of the four criteria presented below. A property may be
considered a historic resource if it:
1)is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of California's history and cultural heritage;
2)is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
272
Project Vicinity
Figure1MetisEnvironmentalGroupIronHorseTrailProjectAlamedaCounty, CA
Project Vicinity Map
0 105Miles
273
Project Area
Figure2MetisEnvironmentalGroupIronHorseTrailProjectAlamedaCounty, CA
Project Area Map
0 21
Miles
274
ProjectLocation
Figure3MetisEnvironmentalGroup
IronHorseTrailProject
AlamedaCounty, CA
ProjectLocationMap
0 10.5
Miles
Dublin, CAUSGS7.5’ Quadrangle
ProjectLocation
275
Cultural Resources Technical Report 5 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
3)embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic values; or
4)has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In order to meet one or more of these criteria, a cultural resource must possess integrity to
qualify for listing in the CRHR. Integrity is generally evaluated with reference to qualities
including location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association. A
potentially eligible site must retain the integrity of the values that would make it significant.
Typically, integrity is indicated by evidence of the preservation of the contextual association
of artifacts, ecofacts, and features within the archaeological matrix (Criterion 4) or the retention
of the features that maintain contextual association with historical developments or personages
that render them significant (Criteria 1, 2, or 3). Evidence of the preservation of this context is
typically determined by stratigraphic analysis and analysis of diagnostic artifacts and other
temporal data (e.g., obsidian hydration, radiocarbon assay) to ascertain depositional integrity
or by the level of preservation of historic and architectural features that associate a property
with significant events, personages, or styles.
Integrity refers both to the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, as shown by the
survival of physical characteristics that existed during its historic period and to the ability of
the property to convey its significance. This is often not an all-or-nothing scenario
determinations can be subjective); however, the final judgment must be based on the
relationship between a property’s features and its significance.
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines indicates a project may have a significant
environmental effect if it causes "substantial adverse change" in the significance of an
historical resource" or a "unique archaeological resource" as defined or referenced in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5[b, c] (revised October 26, 1998). Such changes include "physical
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings
such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired" (CEQA
Guidelines 1998 Section 15064.5 [b]).
3.0 Setting
3.1 Environmental Setting
Pleasanton Ridge is a component of the Central Coast Ranges geomorphic province. Within
the Central Coast Ranges, non-marine sedimentary rocks, which were deposited during the
post-Miocene (within the last five million years), compose the lower lying foothills. Older
deposits of marine sedimentary, metamorphic, and volcanic rock with igneous rock intrusions
underlie the higher ridges. The Project is located on an alluvial plain that has been subject to
episodic flooding, erosion from the surrounding hillsides, and tectonic activity (Wiberg et al.
1996). Alamo Creek is located approximately 1,200 meters to the northwest. The hills to the
276
Cultural Resources Technical Report 6 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
north of the Project area consist predominantly of Clear Lake clay (90%), ranging in slope
from 0-2 percent (USDA 2017). Additional sediments in the area consist of unnamed alluvial
flats, Campbell and Sunnyvale soil series.
The flora and fauna of the area in recent times has been disrupted by many modern activities
but continues to thrive in the undeveloped periphery. A combination of woodland and open
grassland species can be found. Flora include valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia), and a variety of introduced annual grasses. Fauna include Mule Deer
Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), cottontail
rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.), squirrel (Sciurus sp.), quail (Lophortyx californicus), hawk
Accipitriidae) and various rodents (Wiberg et al. 1996).
3.2 Prehistoric Context
Research into local prehistoric cultures began in the early 20th century with the work of N. C.
Nelson of the University of California at Berkeley, who conducted the first intensive
archaeological surveys of the San Francisco Bay region (Nelson 1909). The 425 shellmounds
he documented along the bayshore showed that intensive use of shellfish -- a subsistence
strategy reflected in both coastal and bayshore middens -- indicated a general economic unity
in the region during prehistoric times (Moratto 1984).
In 1911, Nelson supervised excavations at CA-SFR-7 (the Crocker mound) near Hunter's
Point. The site was subsequently dated from 1050 B.C. to A.D. 450. L. L. Loud identified
archaeological components from this same period in Santa Clara County in 1911 while
excavating at CA-SCL-1 (the Ponce, Mayfield, or Castro Mound site). R. J. Drake recognized
the same components in San Mateo County in 1941and1942 at CA-SMA-23 (Mills Estate) in
San Bruno (Moratto 1984:233).
This work provided the impetus for investigation into the prehistory of central California in
the 1920s. J. A. Barr and E. J. Dawson excavated a number of sites and amassed substantial
collections in the area from 1893 to the 1930s. Based on artifact comparisons, three distinct
cultural traditions were identified, Early, Middle, and Late (Ragir 1972; Schenck and Dawson
1929). In the 1930s J. Lillard and W. Purves of Sacramento Junior College were conducting
excavations throughout the Sacramento Delta area. By seriating artifacts and mortuary
traditions they identified a three-phase sequence similar to Barr’s and Dawson’s, including
Early, Intermediate, and Recent cultures (Lillard and Purves 1936). This scheme went through
several permutations including Early, Transitional, and Late periods (Lillard et al. 1939), and
Early, Middle, and Late Horizons (Heizer and Fenenga 1939). In 1948 and again in 1954,
Richard Beardsley refined this system and extended it to include the region of San Francisco
Bay. The result is referred to as the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS) (Beardsley
277
Cultural Resources Technical Report 7 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
1948, 1954; Moratto 1984). Subsequently the CCTS system of Early, Middle, and Late
Horizons was applied widely to site dating and taxonomy throughout central California.
As more data were acquired through continued fieldwork, local exceptions to the CCTS were
discovered. Coupled with the accumulation of these exceptions, the development of
radiocarbon dating, introduced in the 1950s, and of obsidian hydration in the 1970s, opened
up the possibility of dating deposits more accurately. Given the expanse of central California
and the complex nature of cultural change over space and time, this single system is limited to
providing a general framework for assigning newly found materials to existing cultural
chronologies (Hughes 1994). Even though much of the subsequent archaeological
investigation in the Central Valley has focused on local variations of the CCTS, the tripartite
system of cultural history of the CCTS has been generally associated with adaptive patterns
known as the Windmiller, Berkeley, and Augustine.
Windmiller Pattern sites are most often found in the Early period (ca. 6000 to 500 B.C.) but
are known to extend into the Middle period, possibly as late as A.D. 500 in the Stockton Area
Moratto 1984). Some scholars have suggested that Windmiller Pattern sites are associated
with an influx of people from outside of California who introduced subsistence strategies
adapted for a riverine-wetlands environment (Moratto 1984), and that the subsequent Berkeley
Pattern developed in the San Francisco Bay region and expanded outward to the Central
Valley, eventually replacing the Windmiller Pattern. Windmiller assemblages have been found
to overlap in time with those of the Berkeley Pattern (Moratto 1984).
Windmiller Pattern sites are often situated in riverine, marshland, or valley floor settings, as
well as atop small knolls above prehistoric seasonal floodplains, locations that provide a wide
variety of plant and animal resources. Most Windmiller Pattern sites have contained burials
with remains that are extended ventrally, oriented to the west, and that contain copious amounts
of mortuary artifacts. These artifacts often include large projectile points and a variety of
fishing gear including net weights, bone hooks, and spear points. The faunal remains indicate
that the inhabitants hunted a range of large and small mammals. Stone mortars and grinding
stones for seed and nut processing are common finds. Other artifacts -- such as charmstones,
ochre, quartz crystals, Olivella shell beads and Haliotis shell ornaments -- suggest the practice
of ceremonialism and trade.
The Berkeley Pattern appears at around 1550 B.C. in the San Francisco Bay region and
expanded outward to the Central Valley after about 500 B.C. This pattern shares some
attributes with the Windmiller Pattern at the beginning of the sequence and with the Augustine
Pattern (Late period) at the end. Berkeley Pattern sites are much more common and well
documented, and therefore better understood than Windmiller Pattern sites. These sites are
scattered in more diverse environmental settings, but riverine settings are prevalent.
Deeply stratified midden deposits, which developed over generations of occupation, are
common to Berkeley Pattern sites. These middens contain numerous milling and grinding
stones for food preparation. The typical body position for burials is tightly flexed with no
278
Cultural Resources Technical Report 8 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
particular preference for orientation. Associated grave goods are much less frequent than with
either the Windmiller or the Augustine Pattern. Projectile points in this pattern become
progressively smaller and lighter over time, culminating in the introduction of bow-and-arrow
technology at the beginning of the Late period. Wiberg (1997) claims that large obsidian
lanceolate projectile points or blades are unique to the Berkeley Pattern. Olivella shell bead
types include Saddle (F) and Saucer (G) types. In addition, Haliotis pendants and ornaments
are present. Slate pendants, steatite beads, stone tubes, ear ornaments, and a general reduction
of mortuary goods are associated with Berkeley Pattern sites (Fredrickson 1973; Moratto
1984).
The Augustine Pattern characterizes the Late period, which has been dated from about A.D.
900 to about 1750. It is typified by intensive fishing, hunting, and gathering (especially acorns),
a large population increase, expanded trade and exchange networks, increased ceremonialism,
and the practice of cremation in addition to flexed burials. Certain artifacts are also distinctive
in this pattern: bone awls used in basketry, small notched and serrated projectile points that are
indicative of bow-and-arrow usage, occasional pottery, clay effigies, bone whistles, and stone
pipes. Beginning in the latter half of the 18th century, the Augustine Pattern was disrupted by
the Spanish explorers and the mission system (Moratto 1984).
3.3 Local Amador Valley Chronology
Research into the cultural history of the Amador-Livermore Valley indicates that prehistoric
occupation of the area began approximately 5,000 years ago during the Early period.
The Meganos Aspect is a cultural pattern that existed sometime between A.D. 450 and 800 and
has been documented at various sites in the Amador Valley, overlapping with, and differing
from, the Berkeley Pattern occupations that range from 210 B.C. through A.D. 1000 (Wiberg
1997). Heizer first identified the Meganos Aspect in 1938 when he noted an “atypical horizon”
at CA-CCO-141 (the Orowood Site) characterized by mortuary practices that were dominated
by ventrally extended burials (Bennyhoff 1994b). In 1968, based on the findings at 17 similar
sites, Bennyhoff defined the Meganos Aspect as a mixing of Windmiller and Berkeley Pattern
traits that was centered in the San Joaquin Valley but spread into parts of the Bay Area during
the Late and Terminal phases of the Middle period (Bennyhoff 1994a, 1994b). The classic
expression of the Meganos Aspect as defined by Bennyhoff (1994a, 1994b) included non-
midden burials that lacked specific orientation of corpse placement, though he noted a westerly
trend that he felt was reminiscent of Windmiller burials. In addition, the rarity of grave goods
in Meganos burials resembles the Berkeley Pattern. Bennyhoff's characteristic Meganos
assemblage is marked by mortar and pestle use (acorn economy). Leaf-shaped obsidian dart
points, spear points and knives occur, but chipped stone is relatively rare. Meganos burials are
associated with Olivella Saddle (F) and Saucer (G) beads, Haliotis ornaments, quartz crystals,
and a few charmstones (Wiberg 1997). The bone industry was less developed than the
contemporaneous Berkeley Pattern and mainly included awls, fish spears, and hairpins. With
279
Cultural Resources Technical Report 9 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
the discovery of the Meganos Aspect at sites investigated after 1968, Bennyhoff came to
recognize that there was more variability within the Meganos culture than he had originally
identified. This included interment within habitation areas, more substantial quantities of grave
goods, pre-interment fires, and a number of unique artifact forms. Meganos cemeteries in the
Stockton area are quite impoverished, while those to the west and south tend to have more
associated offerings.
Mission records and ethnographies identify the Native Americans living in the Pleasanton area
at the time of European contact in the latter half of the 18th century as members of various
groups that are now referred to collectively as Ohlone. On the basis of linguistic evidence, it
has been suggested that the ancestors of the Ohlone arrived in the San Francisco Bay area about
A.D. 500, having moved south and west from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region.
Linguistic evidence has been interpreted to indicate that prior to about A.D. 500, speakers of
the Hokan language occupied territories that included the Project area until the ancestral
Ohlone displaced them (Levy 1978). This cultural replacement may correspond to the
transition in archaeological material culture from the Berkeley to the Augustine Pattern
sometime between A.D. 500 and 1000.
3.4 Ethnographic Context
At the time of initial contact with European explorers (1772), the Project area was occupied by
the Ohlone, and more specifically an Ohlone triblet, known as Pelnen, of 300 to 500 who
inhabited semi-permanent villages and seasonal campsites (Kroeber 1932; Levy 1978).
Although ethnographic information about the Pelnen is sparse, they may have shared the
resources of the former Willow Marsh, located in the low-lying area between Dublin and
Pleasanton, with the nearby Seunen and Souyen Ohlone tribal groups. This marsh was an
important source for seasonal foods such as migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, which
provided protein-rich supplements to the typical aboriginal diet of greens, roots and bulbs,
seeds, and acorns (Levy 1978).
The group known as the Ohlone subdivided into smaller village complexes or tribal groups.
These groups were independent political entities, each occupying specific territories defined
by physiographic features. Each group controlled access to the natural resources of its territory.
Although each tribal group had one or more permanent villages, their territory contained
numerous smaller campsites used as needed during a seasonal round of resource exploitation.
Extended families lived in domed structures thatched with tule, grass, wild alfalfa, ferns or
carrizo (Levy 1978). Semi-subterranean sweathouses were built in pits excavated in stream
banks and covered with a structure against the bank. The tule raft, propelled by double-bladed
paddles similar to those used in the Santa Barbara Island region, were used to navigate across
San Francisco Bay (Kroeber 1970).
Warfare was quite common in Ohlone culture and usually centered around territorial disputes
Levy 1978). Music, ritual and myth were extensive in Costanoan life. Song was employed in
280
Cultural Resources Technical Report 10 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
the telling of myths, in hunting and courtship rituals, and in other ceremonial activities. Musical
instruments were typically whistles made of bird bone, and flutes and rattles made of wood
from the alder.
Mussels were an important staple in the Ohlone diet as were acorns of the coast live oak, valley
oak, tanbark oak and California black oak. Seeds and berries, roots, grasses, and the meat of
deer, elk, grizzly, sea lion, rabbit, and squirrel also contributed to the Ohlone diet. Careful
management of the land through controlled burning served to insure a plentiful and reliable
source of all these foods (Kroeber 1970; Levy 1978).
The arrival of the Spanish led to the rapid demise of native California populations. Diseases,
declining birth rates, and the effects of the mission system served to eradicate the aboriginal
life ways (which are currently experiencing resurgence among Ohlone descendants). Brought
into the missions, the surviving Ohlone along with former neighboring groups of Esselen,
Yokuts, and Miwok were transformed from hunters and gatherers into agricultural laborers
Cambra et al. 1996; Levy 1978; Shoup and Milliken 1999). With abandonment of the mission
system and Mexican takeover in the 1840s, numerous ranchos were established. Generally, the
few Ohlone who remained were then forced, by necessity, to work on the ranchos.
3.5 Historic Background
Spanish and Mexican Periods
Shortly after the Fages expedition, missions were founded at San Francisco and Santa Clara.
Their presence led to additional exploration of the area and Native American recruiting forays
into the Amador-Livermore Valley. It was not until the founding of Mission San Jose in 1797,
however, that people other than native Californians began to use the Project area extensively,
as the region provided primary grazing land for Mission San Jose. The mission itself had a
lasting effect on the surrounding Ohlone people, and between 1797 and 1810 the mission
priests baptized 1,494 people, many of whom came from the areas immediately surrounding
the mission settlement. By the end of that period 1,185 people had died at Mission San Jose
Milliken 1995).
As the mission herds grew, Native American vaqueros tended to the cattle, sheep, and horses
that grazed the abundant grasses of the valleys to the north of the mission. The trail through
Mission Pass, along the Sunol Valley, and east through Pleasanton to the San Joaquin Valley
became well-worn. Increasingly, soldiers and mission neophytes were sent along this route to
obtain new converts and punish those that had left the mission to return to their traditional
homes.
Early American Period
The transition to American control that began with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo in 1848 was accelerated with the discovery of gold in that same year. The influx of
miners drawn west in search of wealth quickly changed the population dynamics of the area
281
Cultural Resources Technical Report 11 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
and ensured that California would remain a part of the United States. Initially, the increased
demand for products that ranchers were able to provide generated great profits for Mexican
landholders. Along with increased demand, came increased settlement, and American interests
soon began to threaten the land grants and livelihoods of established Mexican-heritage
residents. A letter written in 1860 by Samuel B. Martin to John Kottinger, a son-in-law of Juan
Pablo Bernal who lived in Pleasanton, confirms that the number of sheep brought into the area
by settlers, most of them squatters, had grazed the pasture land so close that cattle throughout
the area were suffering from lack of food. The drought of 1864 further challenged many
families’ ability to pay the recently imposed property tax, while profits from cattle were rapidly
falling (Hagemann 1965).
In addition, under the American government it became necessary to produce documentary
proof of Mexican titles in order for the Mexican grantees to claim their ranchos under a United
States patent. Kottinger acted as an attorney and prepared the necessary documents for the
United States Land Commissioner and the United States District Court at San Francisco on
behalf of the Bernal family. In 1863 the United States government patented their grant to three
of the original four grantees (Hagemann 1965).
In 1853, lands including the modern-day towns of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, as well
as part of the Ohlone Regional Wilderness to the south were incorporated into the Murray
Township (Hagemann 1965). This township, comprising the eastern half of Alameda County,
was named after Michael Murray, who settled in Dublin around 1850.
As more land came under cultivation and the population continued to grow in the second half
of the 1800s, Native Americans in the region found it increasingly difficult to find work and
provide for themselves and their families. Recent immigrants were performing the labor the
Native Americans had once performed for local farmers and ranchers, and the grasslands that
had provided much of their traditional sustenance were now under the plow. At least 1,000
former mission Native Americans had lived in the vicinity of Mission San Jose in the early
1840s. By the early 1860s many of the remaining Native Americans from Mission San Jose
and Mission Santa Clara gathered at a refuge called Alisal. This refuge was located on the
ranch of Agostin Bernal, within modern-day Pleasanton, near the northwestern quadrant of the
intersection of Highway 680 and Sunol Boulevard. As stated by Field et al. (1992), “The Alisal
rancheria was unquestionably the most prominent and important community of Costañoan
descendants from the 1860s onward and well into the 20th century and constitutes the first
post-conquest Indian revitalization in the Bay Area.” Small groups of other missionized Native
Americans also settled at smaller rancherias in Niles and Sunol.
Alisal was a place where surviving Native Americans from all over the Bay Area and central
California came together. A new cultural vitality emerged as Costañoan, Miwok, and Yokuts
peoples shared aspects of their traditional cultures. Cultural practices such as the Ghost Dance
were embraced by the Native Americans at Alisal and showed a distinct blend of the old and
new. Those who taught the Ghost Dance believed it would help drive white men from their
282
Cultural Resources Technical Report 12 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
land. The men and women of Alisal combined the Ghost Dance with the Kuksu Dance, the
World Renewal Ceremonies, and other important traditions. The combination proved to be
very powerful for the Native Americans and became an important part of the revitalization of
indigenous culture (Field et al. 1992).
Site Specific History
During World War II, Camp Parks, located 0.3 miles north of the Project area, was
commissioned by the Navy to house 10,000 servicemen (City of Dublin 2017). Camp Parks
was leased and use as the Santa Rite Jail, an Air Force training center, in addition to an Army
training center. In 1980, Camp Parks was officially designated as a mobilization and training
center by the Army and has been a semi-active installation since.
Few tract homes were present in the Amador Livermore area until 1960 when the Volk-McLain
Company began to work on San Ramon Village which would provide several thousand
moderately-priced homes in the area. The effort the incorporate Dublin in 1967 was denied by
the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission. The County policy was to have
only one city in the east valley. In response, a subsequent referendum on annexation of Dublin
to Pleasanton also failed. Incorporation of Dublin was finally achieved in November of 1981.
At this point, the City of Dublin was 3.54 square miles, with 4,428 housing units and an
estimated population of 13,700.
By 1986, Camp Parks was annexed into Dublin and the City grew by 4.24 square miles.
Between 1995 and 2010, the City expanded to 14.62 square miles, with 15,782 housing units
and an estimated population of 40,262.
The Project area is currently a paved trail atop the historic Southern Pacific Railroad alignment.
While there are no remnants of the railroad still present, portions of the tracks still exist to the
northwest of the Project area
4.0 Results of the Records Search
A literature review and records search was conducted by Patrick Allen, Staff Archaeologist,
on June 14, 2018 at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) housed at Sonoma State
University, Rohnert Park (IC File Number 17-3021). The records search area included the
Project area as well as an additional half-mile radius. The purpose of the records search was to
identify any known cultural resources within the immediate vicinity of the Project area. The
records search also included a review of the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
Archaeological Determination of Eligibility and the OHP Directory of Historic Properties Data
File.
The records search indicated that no prehistoric or historical archaeological resources have
been previously recorded within or within a half-mile radius of the Project area. A total of 29
historical built-environment resources have been previously recorded within a half-mile radius
283
Cultural Resources Technical Report 13 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
of the Project area; however, none of these resources are located within the Project area (Table
1). These resources include a section of the Southern Pacific Railroad, and buildings and
structures associated with the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, commonly known as Camp
Parks. The section of the Southern Pacific Railroad, P-01-001783, is located less than one tenth
of a mile northwest of the Project area, it no longer extends through the Project area. The
records search also indicated that a total of 150 cultural resource studies have been conducted
within a half-mile radius of the Project area (see full list in Appendix A). Of these 150 studies,
10 intersect or include portions of the Project area (Table 2).
Table 1
Previously Recorded Historic Resources within a Half-Mile of the Project Area
Primary No.
Trinomial Age Type Description Eligibility
Recommendation
P-01-001783/
CA-ALA-
000623H
Historic Structure Portion of the Southern Pacific
Railroad (recorded in segments)
Not recommended
eligible for either
CRHR or NRHP
2017)
P-01-010333 Historic Building Camp Parks Sign 3S
P-01-010422 Historic Building Building 636 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-010468 Historic Building Building 610 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-010469 Historic Building Building 611(Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-010470 Historic Building Building 620 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-010471 Historic Building Building 796 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-010472 Historic Building Building 792 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-010475 Historic Building/Structure Drainage System and Building 740
Camp Parks)
6Y
P-01-010479 Historic Building Buildings 284, 860, 860A, 861, 880,
881Health Clinic and Regional
Medical Training site (Camp Parks)
6Y
P-01-010480 Historic Building Buildings 132, 133, 309, 334, 341,
495, 511, 793, 797, 798, and 862
Miscellaneous Storage Facilities
Camp Parks)
6Y
P-01-011868 Historic Building Buildings 131 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011869 Historic Building Building 141 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011870 Historic Building Buildings 162 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011871 Historic Building Building 171 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011872 Historic Building Building 180 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011873 Historic Building Building 210 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011874 Historic Building Building 212 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011906 Historic Building Building 637 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011908 Historic Building Building 730 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011909 Historic Building Building 730A (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011910 Historic Building Building 730B (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011911 Historic Building Building 730C (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011912 Historic Building Building 731 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011913 Historic Building Building 732 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011914 Historic Building Building 790 (Camp Parks) 6Y
284
Cultural Resources Technical Report 14 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
Primary No.
Trinomial Age Type Description Eligibility
Recommendation
P-01-011915 Historic Building Building 791 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011916 Historic Building Building 800 (Camp Parks) 6Y
P-01-011917 Historic Building Building 801 (Camp Parks) 6Y
Table 2
Previous Cultural Resource Studies within the Project Area
Report
No. Year Author(s) Title
S-000727 1977 Miley Holman and
David Chavez
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Two New Proposed
Waste Water Pipeline Routes, Livermore-Amador Valley
Water Management Agency, Alameda County, California
S-016307 1994 Alison MacDougall Cultural Resource Investigation of PG&E's Proposed Willow
Pass Substation Addition, Willow Pass Tap, East Dublin
BART Dedicated Substation, and Castro Valley Substation
Addition, Contra Costa and
Alameda Counties, California
S-017993 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb
Voss, Sharon
Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed
Mojave Northward Expansion Project
S-025313 2002 Rand Herbert, Bryan
Larson, Jessica
Herrick, Amanda
Blosser, Andrew
Walters, and Eric
Johnson
Final Report: National Register of Historic Places, Inventory
and Evaluation of Previously Unevaluated World War II and
Cold War Era Buildings, Parks Reserve Forces Training
Area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California
S-026071 1998 Shahira Ashkar and
Dana McGowan
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Built Environment
Inventory and Evaluation
S-026096 1981 Earth Metrics
Incorporated
Historic Property Survey Report for the
Reactivation and Development Plans, Camp
Parks, Pleasanton, CA
S-028826 2001 Damon Mark Haydu A Cultural Resources Study of Portions of the Training Area
and Cantonment Area Within Camp Parks (PRFTA),
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California
S-028835 2004 Jack Meyer and
Graham Dalldorf
Geoarchaeological Investigation in the Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties,
California.
S-029314 2004 Christopher Caputo Archaeological Survey Report for Portions of
the Training Area, Parks RFTA, Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties, California.
S-023385 2000 Colin I. Busby and
Stuart A. Guedon
Cultural Resources Assessment for an Extension of the Iron
Horse Trail Between Dougherty Road and Dublin BART
Station, City of Dublin, Alameda County (letter report)
PaleoWest staff also reviewed the OHP directory for the Project area. There are no resources
listed on the OHP directory within the Project area. Numerous industrial buildings and
structures associated with National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the
285
Cultural Resources Technical Report 15 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, located less than one tenth of a mile from the Project
area, are listed in the OHP directory.
Historic Topographic Map and Aerial Review
In addition to the records search, PaleoWest completed a review of the historical topographic
maps and historic aerials that depict the Project area. The Fairchild Aerial Surveys 1938 aerials
Flight C-5750) depict the Project area in an undeveloped region with the Southern Pacific
Railroad running northwest to southeast. The 1906 United States Geologic Survey (USGS)
Pleasanton 15-minute quadrangle map also depicts the Project area as undeveloped with only
a few roads in the general vicinity. The 1953 USGS Dublin 7.5-minute map shows the Project
area atop the existing Southern Pacific Railroad line and crossing the convergence of two
unnamed seasonal drainages. The 1953 Dublin map also depicts numerous rectangular
industrial style buildings to the north/northwest of the Project area. These buildings are likely
portions of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area which was commissioned in January of
1943 (http://www.usar.army. mil/Commands /US-Army-Reserve-Command-USARC/Camp-
Parks-Main/Camp-Parks/). A review of the 1950 United States Department of Agriculture
Stabilization and Conservation Service survey for Flight BUT-1950 shows the Project area
south of Camp Parks with small buildings located in between the northern edge of Highway
580 and the diagonal tracks of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The 1961 Dublin 7.5-minute map
shows the Project area intersecting the Southern Pacific Railroad line and crossing an unnamed
seasonal drainage. In addition, the 1961 Dublin quadrangle illustrates numerous buildings
associated with NASA located to the northwest of the Project area. The Cartwright Aerial
Survey from 1965 (Flight CAS-65-130) depicts the Project area to the southeast of Camp Parks
with the parcels directly surrounding the Project area still mostly undeveloped. The 1980 photo
revised Dublin topographic quadrangle map indicates that while the majority of the Dublin
area has been developed by 1980, the Project area remained undeveloped.
4.1 Native American Coordination
PaleoWest contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a review of the
Sacred Lands File (SLF) on June 15, 2018. The objective of the SLF search was to determine
if the NAHC had any knowledge of Native American cultural resources (e.g., traditional use
or gathering area, place of religious or sacred activity, etc.) within the immediate vicinity of
the Project area. The NAHC responded on June 25, 2018, stating that the SLF was completed
with negative results (Appendix B). However, the NAHC did state that the absence of specific
site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of Native American cultural
resources. As such, the NAHC recommended that six Native American individuals and/or
tribal groups be contacted to elicit information regarding cultural resource issues related to the
Project. Initial scoping letters were sent by email on July 12, 2018 to all six recommended
individuals. As no written response had been received, follow up phone calls were placed to
each individual on July 26, 2018. Ms. Perez, Northern Valley Yokut, indicated that typically
railroad tracks follow traditional Native trails and as such she recommends a Native American
286
Cultural Resources Technical Report 16 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
monitor be present during ground disturbing activities. She also requested a copy of the final
report. Ms. Sayers, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, indicated she has no knowledge
of the area or its potential sensitivity. No other responses were received as a result of the
outreach efforts. Subsequently, messages and follow up emails describing the Project were
sent to the contacts who were unable to be reached.
5.0 Dublin Crossing EIR Findings
A portion of the current Iron Horse Trail Project area overlaps with land previously assessed
in the Dublin Crossings Specific Plan EIR (2013). The Dublin Crossings Specific Plan EIR
identified 12 cultural resources within the EIR’s project area. These resources were all
components of Camp Parks and as such were evaluated using the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) criteria. Only one of the resources, the Camp Parks entrance sign (P-01-
010333), was determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP by the State Historical
Preservation Office (SHPO) (October 26, 1999). As the resource was determined eligible for
listing on the NRHP, it is now also recommended as eligible for listing on the CRHR. None of
these resources are located within the portion of the Iron Horse Trail Project area that overlaps
with the project area for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR .
The SLF search conducted for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR also failed to indicate
the presence of Native American cultural resources within the Project area. An amendment to
the City of Dublin’s General Plan was necessary for land use purposes associated with the
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. As such, Senate Bill (SB)18 consultation was conducted and
likewise failed to provide any additional information regarding cultural resources within the
Project area.
Subsequently, the records search and the pedestrian field survey conducted for the Dublin
Crossing Specific Plan EIR failed to identify any new archaeological or historic deposits within
the study area. As a result of the cultural resource assessment, two cultural resource mitigation
measures (MM) were proposed for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR to mitigate
significant impacts to unknown archaeological resources during construction activities. These
MM are outlined below. While the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR indicated that Impact
3.4-1 could potentially affect the NRHP eligible Camp Park Sign, this resource was located
outside of the Project area and therefore no mitigation measure was needed.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2, Halt Work/Archaeological Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation, for
unanticipated cultural resources.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-4, Halt Work/Coroner’s Evaluation/Native American Heritage
Consultant/Compliance with Most Likely Descended, for unanticipated discoveries and human
remains.
287
Cultural Resources Technical Report 17 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
6.0 Methodology and Results of Field Survey of the Iron Horse Trail Project
6.1 Survey Methods
A combination of intensive and reconnaissance pedestrian survey was conducted on July 11,
2018 by Staff Archaeologist Patrick Zingerella (Appendix B, Photos 1-10). The entirety of the
Project area was not intensively surveyed due to the developed nature of the entire Project area
as well as the fact that the northern half of the Project area was previously investigated for the
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR in April 2012.
Exposed ground surface within the Project area was examined for the presence of historic or
prehistoric site indicators. Historic site indicators include, but are not limited to foundations,
fence lines, ditches, standing buildings, objects or structures such as sheds, or concentrations
of materials at least 50 years in age, such as domestic refuse (glass bottles, ceramics, toys,
buttons or leather shoes), or refuse from other pursuits such as agriculture (e.g., metal tanks,
farm machinery parts, horse shoes) or structural materials (e.g., nails, glass window panes,
corrugated metal, wood posts or planks, metal pipes and fittings, etc.). Prehistoric site
indicators include but are not limited to areas of darker soil with concentrations of ash,
charcoal, animal bone (burned or unburned), shell, flaked stone, ground stone, or even human
bone.
6.2 Results of the Archaeological Field Survey
The survey was accessed from the north by trail access parking on Houston Place. The survey
commenced north of Dublin Boulevard, and continued southeast along the Project area. Much
of the Project area north of Dublin Boulevard is located to the north and east of the existing
trail in an area that has been graded for development (Appendix B, Photos 1-9). As a result,
surface visibility in this area was excellent (100%). An intensive pedestrian survey (15-meter
intervals) was conducted in this area. The Project area located north and west of Chabot Canal
contained non-native fill throughout, depth unknown. Sediments were brown, dry and crumbly
silty clay with local sub-angular and rounded gravels (Appendix B, Photo 5). This area
contained a diffuse, heavily disturbed refuse scatter containing over 20 pieces of plain
ironstone tableware fragments, more than 50 glass bottle fragments, and the only temporally
diagnostic artifact seen with the Project area: the bottom half of a Homer Loughlin mug with
a backstamp indicating its manufacture date as March 1944. This material appears to have been
graded into the ground by mechanical means and may have originated from other portions of
the property. Because the refuse scatter is not intact and is heavily disturbed, it does not retain
any information potential and, as such, was not documented as a cultural resource.
The Project area then crosses Chabot Canal, a channelized north-northeast trending ditch
Appendix B, Photo 6). Surface visibility was very poor (< 5%) in this area and included dried
bromes, foxtail and thistle. This area was disturbed by construction of three large culverts
Appendix B, Photo 2). The Project area met with the existing Iron Horse Trail approximately
288
Cultural Resources Technical Report 18 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
50 feet southeast of the footbridge over Chabot Canal. This area is located on a mechanically
disturbed 4-foot high berm, with asphalt and mulch significantly limiting surface visibility (<
10%). As such, this portion of the Project area does not contain culturally intact soils. The
survey proceeded southeast to Dublin Boulevard, at which point surface visibility reduces to
nil due to landscaping and paving (Appendix B, Photo 7).
The survey continued to the south of Dublin Boulevard toward the southeast, approximately
500 feet along the existing Iron Horse Trail to the end of the Project area (Appendix B, Photo
8). A single transect was surveyed on both sides of the existing trail. The trail is located on a
broad berm approximately 50 feet wide and varying from 3 to 6 feet above the surrounding
drainage ditches (Appendix B, Photo 9). Surface visibility was poor (0-10%) throughout.
Vegetation consisted of dried bromes, prickly lettuce, foxtail and landscaping with immature
oak trees. Mulch was also spread approximately 10 feet on either side of the paved trail.
Sediments were brown with a silty clay texture. No prehistoric or historic artifacts were
identified in the Project area south of Dublin Boulevard.
No intact historic or prehistoric-era deposits or features were identified on the ground surface
within the Project area; however, visibility of the ground surface was limited throughout.
7.0 Project Impacts and Mitigation
PaleoWest conducted a pedestrian cultural resources survey of the Project area on July 11,
2018. No intact cultural resources were observed during the survey. In addition, the records
search results indicated that there are no previously recorded cultural resources present within
the Project area.
Given the negative results of the current cultural resources assessment as well as the negative
results for the overlapping Dublin Crossing Specific Plan project area, PaleoWest recommends
that no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources will occur as
a result of the current Project. PaleoWest recommends that the two cultural resource
mitigations measures from the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR be applied to the current
Project for the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources and human remains. These
mitigation measures are outlined explicitly below (RBF 2013:ES-32).
MM 3.4–2 Halt Work/Archaeological Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation. If any potential
archaeological, pre-historic or cultural artifacts are encountered during site grading or other
construction activities, all ground disturbance within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted
until a qualified archaeologist can identify and evaluate the resource(s) in accordance with
State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(f). The archeological consultant shall immediately notify the
project sponsor and the City staff of the encountered archeological deposit. If the deposit does
not qualify as an archaeological resource, then no further protection or study is necessary. If
the deposit does qualify as an archaeological resource, then the impacts shall be avoided by
project activities. If the deposit cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the deposit shall be
addressed in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(b). Measures may include, but
289
Cultural Resources Technical Report 19 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
are not limited to archaeological data recovery, etc. Upon completion of the assessment by the
archaeologist, a professional-quality report shall be submitted to the City, the project applicant,
and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park.
MM 3.4-4 Halt Work/Coroner’s Evaluation/Native American Heritage
Consultant/Compliance with Most Likely Descendent Recommendations. In the event that
human remains are encountered during grading and site preparation activities, all ground-
disturbing work within 50 feet of the remains shall cease immediately and a qualified
archaeologist shall notify the Office of the Alameda County Coroner and advise that office as
to whether the remains are likely to be Native American. If determined to be Native American,
the Alameda County Coroner’s Office shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission
of the find, which in turn will then appoint a “Most Likely Descendent. (MLD).” The MLD in
consultation with the archaeological consultant and the project sponsor will advise and help
formulate an appropriate plan for treatment of the remains, which might include recordation,
removal, and scientific study of the remains and any associated artifacts. After completion of
the analysis and preparation of the report of findings, the remains and associated grave goods
shall be returned to the MLD for burial.
No additional mitigation measures are recommended for this Project; however, should
additional actions be proposed outside of the currently defined Project area that have the
potential for additional subsurface disturbance, further cultural resource management may be
required.
290
Cultural Resources Technical Report 20 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
8.0 References Cited
Beardsley, Richard K.
1948 Cultural Sequences in Central California Archaeology, American Antiquity
14(1):1-28.
1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology.
University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 24-25.
Bennyhoff, James
1994a A Delta Intrusion to the Bay in the Late Middle Period in Central California.
In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology:
Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by Richard E.
Hughes, pp.7-14. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological
Research Facility 52.
1994b Central California Augustine: Implications for Northern California
Archaeology. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California
Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited
by Richard E. Hughes, pp.65-74. Contributions of the University of California
Archaeological Research Facility 52.
Bennyhoff, James A. and Richard E. Hughes
1987 Shell Bead Ornament Exchange Networks Between California and the
Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History 64 (2):79-175.
Cambra, Rosemary, Alan Leventhal, Laura Jones, Les Field, and Naveran Sanchez
1996 Archaeological Investigations at Kaphan Umux (Three Wolves) Site, CA SCL
732: A Middle Period Prehistoric Cemetery on Coyote Creek in Southern San
Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report on file at Caltrans District 4
Offices, Oakland, CA.
Cartwright Aerial Surveys
1965 Flight CAS-65-130. Frame ALA 11-42, aerial photographs of Alameda
County. Electronic document available from UC Santa Barbara Library.
City of Dublin
2017 City of Dublin General Plan. Prepared for the Community Development
Department, Dublin, California, Amended as of November 21, 2017.
Fairchild Aerial Surveys
1938 Flight C-5750. Frame BUU-BUT 281-40, aerial photographs of Alameda
County. Electronic document available from UC Santa Barbara Library.
Field, Les, Alan Leventhal, Dolores Sanchez, and Rosemary Cambra
1992 A Contemporary Ohlone Tribal Revitalization Movement: A Perspective
From the Muwekma Costonoan/Ohlone Indians of the San Francisco Bay
Area. California History.
291
Cultural Resources Technical Report 21 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
Fredrickson, David A.
1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA.
Groza, Randy Gannon
2002 An AMS Chronology for Central California Olivella Shell Beads.
Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State
University, San Francisco.
Hagemann Jr., Herbert L.
1965 Abstract of Title: Rancho el Valle de San Jose. The Pacific Historian.
Heizer, Robert F. and Franklin Fenega
1939 Archaeological Horizons in Central California. American Anthropologist
41):378-399.
Hughes, Richard E.
1994 Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology:
Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson. Contributions of the
University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52.
Kroeber, A.L.
1970 Handbook of the Indians of California. California Book Company, Berkeley,
CA.
Lev y, R.
1978 Eastern Miwok. In R. F. Heizer, vol. ed. Handbook of North American
Indians Vol.8: California, pp. 398-413. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Lillard, Jeremiah B. and William K. Purves
1936 The Archaeology of the Deer Creek-Cosumnes area, Sacramento County,
California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin.
Sacramento, CA.
Lillard, Jeremiah B., Robert F. Heizer, and Franklin Fenenga
1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior
College Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento, CA.
Milliken, Randall T.
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San
Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Publishers Anthropological
Papers No. 43, Menlo Park, California.
292
Cultural Resources Technical Report 22 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
Milliken, Randall T., Richard T. Fitzgerald, Mark G. Hylkema, Randy Groza, Tom Origer,
David G. Bieling, Alan Leventhal, Randy S. Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, Donna Gillete,
Viviana Bellifemine, Eric Strother, Robert Cartier, and David A. Fredrickson
2007 Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California
Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones
and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 99-124. Altamira Press, Lanham, MD.
Moratto, M.J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Nelson, Nels C.
1909 The Ellis Landing Shellmound. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(5).
Ragir, Sonia
1972 The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Contributions of the
University of California Archaeological Research Facility 15. Berkeley.
RBF Consulting
2013 Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for
the City of Dublin.
Schenck, W. Egbert and Elmer J. Dawson
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4):289-413.
Berkeley.
Shoup, Laurence, and Randall T. Milliken
1999 Inigo of Rancho Polsomi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian and his
Land. Malki-Ballena Press, Banning, CA.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
n.d. SSURGO Soil Surveys, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil
Survey. Available online at https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed
6/29/18.
United States Department of Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service
1950 Flight BUT-1950. Frame BUT 4G-56, aerial photographs of Alameda County.
Electronic document available from UC Santa Barbara Library.
United States Army Reserve
n.d. Camp Parks California. Accessed from
http://www.usar.army.mil/Commands/US-Army-Reserve-Command-
USARC/Camp-Parks-Main/Camp-Parks/ on June 28, 2018.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1906 Pleasanton quadrangle, California [map]. 1:62,500. 15-Minute Series. Reston,
Va: United States Department of the Interior.
http://www.usar.army.mil/Commands/US-Army-
Reserve-Command-USARC/Camp-Parks-Main/
Camp-Parks/
http://www.usar.army.mil/Commands/US-Army-Reserve-Command-US
ARC/Camp-Parks-Main/Camp-Parks/
293
Cultural Resources Technical Report 23 PaleoWest
Iron Horse Trail Project October 2018
1953 Dublin quadrangle, California [map]. 1:24,000. 7.5-Minute Series. Reston, Va:
United States Department of the Interior.
1961 Dublin quadrangle, California [map]. 1:24,000. 7.5-Minute Series. Reston, Va:
United States Department of the Interior.
1980 Dublin quadrangle, California [map]. Photorevised 1980. 1:24,000. 7.5-Minute
Series. Reston, Va: United States Department of the Interior.
Vellanoweth, Rene L.
2001 AMS Radiocarbon Dating and Shell Bead Chronologies: Middle Holocene
Trade and Interaction in Western North America. Journal of Archaeological
Science 28: 941–950.
Wiberg, Randy S.
1997 Archaeological Investigations at Site CA-ALA-42, Alameda County,
California: Final Report. Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.
Wiberg, Randy S., David G. Bieling, Jennifer A. Ferneau, Randall T. Milliken, James P. Quinn,
Dwight Simons, and Eric Wohlgemuth
1996 Archaeological Excavations and Burial Removal at Sites CA-ALA 483, CA-
ALA-483 Extension, CA-ALA-555, Pleasanton, Alameda County, California.
Report Submitted to Davidon Homes, Walnut Creek, California (C-2109).
Holman and Associates, San Francisco, CA.
294
Appendix A
Previously Recorded Cultural Resource Studies within a Half-Mile of the Project Area
295
Report No. Year Author(s) Title
S-000898 1976 Edward M. Love, Miley Paul
Holman, and David Chavez
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed
Pipeline Routes and Reservoir Locations, Livermore-
Amador Valley Water Management Agency, Alameda
County, California
S-000914 1976 Miley P. Holman and David
Chavez
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed
Pipeline Routing Changes Along the Dublin Canyon to
the San Lorenzo Portion of the Livermore-Amador
Valley Waste Treatment Project, Alameda County,
California
S-001098 1978 Peter M. Banks A Preliminary Investigation of the Heritage Park Site,
Dublin, Alameda County, California.
S-002019 1979 Miley Paul Holman An archaeological reconnaissance of the proposed 5 acre
building site in Dublin, California (letter report)
S-002020 1979 Miley P. Holman An archaeological reconnaissance of the development
area located on the laborer's training center property near
the City of Dublin, Calif. (letter report)
S-002021 1979 Miley P. Holman Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of the Proposed
Kemco Development Area in the City of Dublin,
California (letter report)
S-002023 1979 Miley Paul Holman A field archaeological reconnaissance of the proposed
development area known as the "Calmet Project" in the
City of Dublin, California (letter report)
S-002024 1979 Miley P. Holman An Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of the
proposed development area known as the Neilsen
Property, in Dublin, Alameda County, Calif. (letter
report)
S-002400 1980 Michael J. Sawyer and
George R. Miller
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the San Ramon
Road / Amador Valley Road Interchange Project,
Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-002631 1980 Miley Paul Holman Archaeological field reconnaissance of the proposed
Silvergate development in the City of Dublin, Contra
Costa County (letter report)
S-002780 1981 Robert A. Stillinger An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Hacienda
Business Park, Tract 4857, Pleasanton, California
S-002806 1981 Matthew R. Clark and Miley
Paul Holman
Report of Archaeological Survey of Portions of the
Proposed Hacienda Business Park Development,
Pleasanton, Alameda County, California (letter report)
S-002806a 1982 Miley Paul Holman and
Sarah Slater
A report of archaeological site location at the Hacienda
Business Park, Pleasanton, California
S-002806b 1982 Miley Paul Holman and
Randy Wiberg
Further testing for buried archaeological site material at
the Hacienda Business Park, Pleasanton, California
S-002996 1975 Miley Paul Holman An archaeological reconnaissance of the "Willow West"
property, Pleasanton, Alameda County (letter report)
S-006422 1984 Margaret L. Buss Archaeological Survey Report, improvements to the
Hopland Road/Route 580 Interchange, 04-ALA-580
P.M. 19.8/20.0 210-113520
S-006516 1984 Miley Paul Holman Field Testing of the Abijah Baker House, Hacienda
Business Park, and Further Testing for Buried
Archaeological Resources, Pleasanton, Alameda County,
California
S-007529 1985 Peter M. Banks An Archaeological Reconnaissance for the San Ramon
Road Improvements Project: Phases 2, 3 and 4, Dublin,
Alameda County, California.
S-008738 1986 Jo Rainie Rodgers, George P.
Rodgers, and Mark Hylkema
A Cultural Resources Investigation of the Proposed
Veterans Administration Northern California National
Cemetery Sites at Santa Nella and Camp Parks
296
Report No. Year Author(s) Title
S-008785 1986 R. Paul Hampson Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Assessor’s Parcel
Number 941-1600-5-6,
Near Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-008785a 1987 R. Paul Hampson Archaeological Testing of That Portion of CA- ALA-43
Within Assessor’s Parcel Number 941-1600-5-6, Near
Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-010762 1990 Mara Melandry Historic Property Survey Report, proposed
reconstruction of the I-580/I-680 interchange in the cities
of Dublin and Pleasanton in Alameda County, 04-ALA-
580/680, Post Miles 18.2/R21.6, 18.8/21.9, 182-233040
S-010762a 1989 Marcia K. Kelly Archaeological Survey Report, proposed reconstruction
of the I-580/I-680 Interchange in the cities of Dublin and
Pleasanton in Alameda County, 4-ALA-580/680, Post
Miles 18.2/R21.6, 18.8/21.9, EA 4182-233040
S-010762b 1990 E.W. Blackmer Historical Architectural Survey Report, 4-Ala- 580/680,
18.2/R21.6, 18.8/21.9, 182-233040
letter report)
S-011161 1989 Suzanne Baker, Laurence H.
Shoup, and Anne Bloomfield
Technical Report - Cultural Resources, BART
Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project
S-011601 1988 Roger H. Werner Cultural Resources Survey for Proposed Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California
S-012132 1990 Patricia Ryan Farrell and
Roger H. Werner
Cultural Resources Survey of a Proposed Dougherty
Road Widening in Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-013798 1991 Miley Paul Holman Archaeological Field Inspection of the Proposed
Schaefer Ranch Road Interchange and Hook Ramp
Option, Dublin, Alameda County, California (letter
report)
S-017993a 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:
Appendix A - Native American Consultation
S-017993b 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:
Appendix B - Looping Segments - Class 1
S-017993c 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:
Appendix C -Monitoring and Emergency Discovery Plan
S-017993d 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:
Appendix D - General Construction Information
S-017993e 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:
Appendix E - Archaeological Site Records
S-017993f 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:
Appendix F - Historic Features Evaluation Forms
S-017993g 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:
Appendix G - Railroad Crossing Evaluation Forms
S-017993h 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:
Appendix H - Crossing Diagrams and Plan View Maps
S-017993I 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:
Appendix I - Railroad Depot NRHP Nomination Forms
and Related Records
S-017993j 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:
Appendix J - Looping Segment and Compressor Station
Site Records
297
Report No. Year Author(s) Title
S-017993k 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:
Appendix K - Historic Site Records / Isolate Forms
S-017993l 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:
Appendix L - Photodocumentation
S-017993m 1995 Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project:
Appendix M - Curricula Citae of Key Preparers
S-019293 1997 Matthew R. Clark An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Lands of
Lester on Dublin Canyon Road, Pleasanton, Alameda
County, California
S-020088 1997 Robert Gerry Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed National
Guard Armory and Organizational Maintenance Shop at
Camp Parks, Alameda County, California
S-021806 1999 Randy S. Wilberg Assessment of a Possible Archaeological Resource
Within Dublin Ranch Areas "F-H" (APN 985-5-1),
Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-021807 1999 Randy S. Wilberg Surface and Subsurface Mechanical Testing for
Archaeological Resources at Dublin Ranch Area "E"
APN 985-3-3-2), Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-021808 1999 Randy S. Wilberg Surface and Subsurface Mechanical Testing for
Archaeological Resources at Dublin Ranch Area "A"
APN 985-7-2-8, 985-6-7 and
985-6-8), Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-022071 1999 William Self Associates and
Ward M. Hill
Koller Ranch: Architectural Assessment and
Subsurface Testing of Site CA-ALA-570, Dublin,
Alameda County, CA
S-022501 1999 Historic Property Survey Report and Findings of No
Historic Properties Affected for I-680 "Sunol Grade"
Southbound Improvement
Project in the Cities of Pleasanton and Fremont &
Unincorporated Alameda County, and in the City of
Milpitas, Santa Clara County, 04-ALA-680 KP
0.0/R35.2 (PM 0.0/R21.9) and 04-SCL-680 KP
12.2/16.0 (PM 7.6/9.9), EA 04-259-253700
S-022501a 1999 Glenn Gmoser, Jeff
Rosenthal, William
Hildebrandt, and Pat
Mikkelsen
Archaeological Survey Report,
Archaeological Survey of the I-680 Corridor between
Dublin and Milpitas in Alameda and Santa Clara
Counties for the "Sunol Grade" Southbound
Improvement Project, 04-ALA- 680 PM 0.0/21.9 and 04-
SCL-680 PM 7.6/9.9; EA 04-259-253
S-022501b 1999 Elizabeth Krase, Marianne
Hurley, and William Kostura
Historic Architecture Survey Report for the I- 680
Sunol Grade" Southbound Improvement Project in the
Cities of Pleasanton and Fremont and unincorporated
Alameda County, and in the City of Milpitas, Santa
Clara County, 04-ALA-680 KP 0.0/R35.2 (PM
0.0/R21.
S-022501c 1999 Daniel Abeyta FHWA991122A: I-680 Sunol Grade
Southbound Improvement Project, Alameda
County
S-023216 2000 William Self Associates Archaeological Survey Report, Dublin
Boulevard Widening Project, Alameda
County, California
S-023230 1998 Shahira A. Ashkar Cultural Resources Inspection at the
Proposed Location of a New Front Gate at
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (letter
report)
298
Report No. Year Author(s) Title
S-023257 2000 Holly D. Knudson Review of the Proposed Nextel
Communications Wireless Facility CA-2076A, West
Livermore, 6005 Scarlett Court, Dublin, Alameda
County, California (letter report)
S-023352 1995 Allen G. Pastron Archival Literature Search and On-Site Archaeological
Surface Reconnaissance of an Approximately 5 Acre
Parcel, Located off San Pablo Avenue, near Dublin and
Murphy Drives, near the City Limits of Pinole in an
Unincorporated Portion of Contra Costa County,
California
S-023378 2000 Colin I. Busby and Stuart
A. Guedon
Constraints Analysis-Proposed Improvements of the
Fallon Road/El Charro Road Interchange, City of
Dublin/Unincorporated Alameda County (letter report)
S-023474 1995 Allen G. Pastron Archival Literature Review and On-Site Archaeological
Surface Reconnaissance of an Approximately 30 Acre
Parcel, Located on the North Side of Dublin Boulevard,
to the West of Tassajara Road, Within the City of
Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-023881 2001 Carolyn Losee Record Search for Sprint Spectrum's Personal
Communication Services (PCS) Wireless "South Central
Dublin" Site (Ref # SF36XC021D): No Further
Recommendations (letter report)
S-023918 2001 Leigh Martin, Marin Pilloud,
and Kimberley Popetz
Historic Evaluation Report, Dublin Ranch West,
Alameda County, California
S-024417 2001 Colin I. Busby Historic Properties Survey Report 1-580/ Tassajara Road
Interchange Modifications Project, Cities of Dublin and
Pleasanton, Alameda County, California, KP 27.2/29.2
PM 16.9/ 18.2) EA 25770k
S-024417a 2001 Colin I. Busby Archaeological Survey Report (Negative), I-
580/Tassajara Road Interchange Modifications Project,
Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, Alameda County,
California
S-024417b 2000 Colin I. Busby Constraints Analysis - Proposed Improvements of the
Tassajara Road
Interchange, Pleasanton/Livermore Area, Alameda
County
S-024417c 2001 Colin I. Busby Historic Property Survey Report - Negative Findings
S-024417d 2001 Colin I. Busby Archaeological Survey Report (Negative), I-
580/Tassajara Road Interchange Modifications Project,
Cities of Dublin and
Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
S-025126 2001 Leigh Martin and William
Self
Cultural Resources Assessment Report, Proposed Sewer
Rehabilitation, Camp Parks, Dublin, Alameda County,
California
S-025266 2000 Miley Holman Archival Research and Field Inspection of the Proposed
Dublin Transit Center EIR Project Area, Dublin,
Alameda County, California
letter report)
S-025277 2000 Miley Holman Phase I Archaeological Study of the Bart/ Dublin/
Pleasanton Extension Mitigation Project at Camp Parks,
Alameda County Proposed Construction of Ponds B-9
and B-
10 (letter report)
S-025277a 2000 Knox Mellon and John
W. Randolph
USA010122K; Proposed Construction of Mitigation
Wetlands, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin,
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California
S-025313a 2002 DawnLee DeYoung and
Knox Mellon
USA020415A: Re: Inventory and Evaluation of World
War II and Cold War Era Buildings, Parks Reserve
299
Report No. Year Author(s) Title
Forces Training Area, Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties, California
S-026071a 1999 Daniel Abeyta COE990927D: Re: Identification of Historic Properties
at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, CA
S-026075 2002 Damon Haydu and Melinda
Button
A Cultural Resources Study of Seven
Locations Within the Parks Reserve Forces Training
Area, Dublin, Contra Costa and Alameda Counties,
California
S-026096a 1981 William Roop and Katherine
Flynn
Cultural Resources Literature Search and Field
Reconnaissance of Camps Parks, Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties, California
S-026096b 1986 Structures Evaluation for National Register of Historic
Places for the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area,
Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, California
S-026096c 1996 George C. Widdel and
Kathryn Gualtieri
COE860227A through I; Re: SPKED-D, Parks Reserve
Forces Training Area, Determinations of Eligibility
S-027387 2001 Sara E. P. Gillies A Cultural Resources Study For the Santa Rita / Dublin
Site, Alameda County, California
S-027909 2004 Page and Turnbull, Inc Dublin Historic Resources Identification Project, Final
Report
S-027989 2001 Basin Research Associates Archaeological Resources Assessment Report, Alameda
County Juvenile Hall, City of Dublin, Alameda County,
California
S-028003 2002 Colin I. Busby Archaeological Resources Literature Review, Juvenile
Justice Facility Alternative Sites, East County
Government Center Alternative Parcel 15A Site, City of
Dublin, Alameda County, California (letter report)
S-028645 2003 Miley Paul Holman Result of a Phase I Archaeological Study of the
Tassajara Creek Fence Area West of Tassajara Road,
Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-028675 2004 Miley Paul Holman Archaeological Field Inspection of the Mission Peak
Property, East Dublin, Alameda County, California
letter report)
S-029041 2003 Kyle Brown, Aimee Arrigoni,
and William Self
Archaeological Assessment Report, Donlon Way Area
Specific Plan, City of Dublin, Alameda County,
California
S-029304 2004 Miley Paul Holman Archaeological Field Survey for the 7 Acre Alternate
DSRSD Location, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area,
Dublin, Alameda
County, California (letter report)
S-030166 1990 Frances Welling and Charles
Welling
Rasmussen Farm, Addendum to Historical
Evaluation Previously Conducted in 1985 by
California Archaeological Consultants.
S-030166a 1985 Gary F. Wirth Historic Architecture Report, Residence -
7436 San Ramon Road, Dublin
S-030248 2005 Beth A. Gordon Historic Resource Report, SNFCCA0065 /
Amador Valley Road, 7557 Amador Valley
Boulevard, Dublin, Alameda County,
California.
S-030253 2005 Beth A. Gordon Historic Resource Report,
SNFCCA1891A/Komandorski Village, AFRC FMC,
CDF
Dublin Road, Dublin, Alameda County, California.
S-030533 2000 George McHale Historical and Archaeological Review for Site Pl-383-
01, 6830 Village Parkway, Dublin, Alameda County, CA
50001-25/00)
S-030588 2004 Basin Research Associates Cultural Resources Report in Support of Eastern Dublin
Properties Resource Management Plan (RMP), City of
Dublin, Alameda County, California.
300
Report No. Year Author(s) Title
S-030607 2004 Colin I Busby Cultural Resources Assessment Report -Archaeology
and Built Environment Fallon Villages (Bankhead and
Mandeville Properties), City of Dublin, Alameda County
S-030607a 2004 Ward Hill Historic Evaluation Report Fallon Ranch
S-030611 2004 Colin I Busby 1881 Collier Canyon Road, Livermore (Collier Ranch),
Eastern Dublin Properties Resource Management Plan,
Supplemental Cultural Resources Review - Built
Environment, City of Dublin, Alameda County (APN
905-0001- 004-04) (letter report)
S-030628 2005 Robert Herrmann Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed
SNFCCA0065/Amador Valley Road Cellular Site, 7557
Amador Valley Road, Dublin, Alameda County,
California
S-031643 2006 Eric Strother, James Allan,
and William Self
Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Alamo
Creek Trunk Sewer Relocation Project, Dublin, Alameda
County, California
S-032162 2005 Lorna Billat New Tower ("NT") Submission Packet, FCC Form 620,
Dublin Ranch, SF-16030A
S-033429 2005 Christian Fish Draft Cultural Resource Assessment for the Camp Parks
RFTA Metering Project, Contra Costa County and
Alameda Counties, California
S-033429a 2001 John W. Randolph and Knox
Mellon
USA010228B, USA010228C: Re: Proposed Demolition
of Building 1160, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area,
Dublin, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties; Re:
Demolition of
Building 341, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area,
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
S-034221 2006 Colin I. Busby Cultural Resources Assessment
Vargas/Fredrich Properties, Dublin, Alameda County
letter report)
S-034997 2008 Miley Paul Holman Cultural Resources Investigation and Native American
Consultation for the Grafton Plaza Project, Dublin,
Alameda County, California
letter report)
S-034998 2008 Miley Paul Holman Cultural Resources Inspection and Native American
Consultation for the Nielsen Property, Dublin, Alameda
County, California
letter report)
S-035826 2008 Brian F. Byrd Historic Property Survey Report for the I-580
Westbound High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Project,
Greenville Road to San Ramon/Foothill Roads, Alameda
County, California: 4-Ala-580, P.M. 8.29/21.43, EA
29082K
S-035854 2008 Suzanne Baker and Nina Ilic Cultural Resources Monitoring Report, Dublin Historic
Park, City of Dublin, California
S-035854a 2009 Suzanne Baker Cultural Resources Monitoring Report #2, Dublin
Historic Park, City of Dublin, California
S-036316 2009 Mitch Marken Seismic Upgrade of Bay Division Pipeline Nos. 3 and 4
at Hayward Fault Project, Fremont, Alameda County,
California: Historic Context and Archaeological Survey
Report
S-036316a 1999 Glenn Gmoser, Jeff
Rosenthal, William
Hildebrandt, and Pat
Mikkelsen
Archaeological Survey of the I-680 Corridor between
Dublin and Milpitas in Alameda and Santa Clara
Counties for the "Sunol Grade" Southbound
Improvement Project
S-036316b 2009 Milford Wayne Donaldson
and Mitch Marken
COE090417A; San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC) Water System Improvement
Program, BDPL Pipeline Nos. 3 and 4 at Hayward Fault
301
Report No. Year Author(s) Title
Seismic Upgrade Project, Fremont, Alameda County,
California
S-036776 2009 Wayne Bonner and Sarah
Williams
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit
Results for T-Mobile West Corporation a Delaware
Corporation Candidae BA42651 (Nielson Ranch), 7478
San Ramon Road, Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-036958 2010 Carolyn Losee Cultural Resources Investigation for Clearwire #CA-
SFO0487A "Schaefer Ranch Water Tank", 10001 Dublin
Canyon Road, Castro Valley, Alameda County,
California 94552
S-037468 2010 Carrie D. Wills and Erin
McMurry
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit for
Sprint Nextel Candidate SF74XC432A (Tassajara
South), 6089
Madigan Road, Dublin, Alameda County, California.
Letter Report)
S-037500 2010 Carrie D. Wills Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit for T-
Mobile West Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
Candidate BA22803-A (DSA Dublin High School), 8151
Village Parkway, Dublin, Alameda County, California.
Letter Report)
S-037985 2011 Paul Farnsworth Archaeological Testing Report for the Arroyo Vista
Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California.
S-038860 2012 James M. Allan CEQA Cultural Resources Technical Study, Dougherty
Road Improvements Project, Dublin, Alameda County,
California (letter report)
S-039062 2009 Colin I. Busby Results, Field Inventory and Mechanically Assisted
Presence/Absence Archeological Testing within CA-
Ala-508/H, Dublin, Alameda County
S-039148 2012 Neal Kaptain Historic Property Survey Report, Iron Horse Trail, City
of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
S-039148a 2012 Neal Kaptain Archaeological Survey Report for the Iron Horse Trail
Project, Caltrans District 04, City of Pleasanton,
Alameda County, California, Federal ID No.: TGR2DGL
6075 (018)
S-040270 2012 Amy E. Foutch PG&E External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA)
on DFM 2408-11, Station 41+53,
Dublin California (Letter Report)
S-040758 2012 Virginia Hagensieker and
Janine M. Loyd
A Cultural Resources Study for a Proposed Recycled
Water Expansion Project, Dublin, Alameda County,
California
S-040758a 2013 Virginia Hagensiker and
Janine M. Loyd
A Cultural Resources Study for a Proposed Recycled
Water Expansion Project, Dublin, Alameda County,
California (revised)
S-040758b 2015 Julianne Polanco BUR_2015_0615_001; National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) Section 106 Consultation for the Western
Dublin Recycled Water Expansion Project, Alameda
County,
California (15-MPRO-110)
S-042292 2011 Aniela Travers Cultural Resources Analysis; San Ramon Rd d&
Shannon Ave/CC120; 6501 Golden Gate Drive, Dublin,
Alameda county, CA 94568; EBI Project # 61112580
S-042632 2013 Carolyn Losee Cultural Resources Investigation for AT&T Mobility
CCU1075 "Fallon Rd & Positano Pkwy" 4605 Lockhart
Street, Dublin, Alameda County, CA 94568 (letter
report)
S-042775 2013 Carolyn Losee Cultural Resources Investigation for AT&T Mobility
CNU0766 "Shannon Park" 8208 Rhoda Avenue, Dublin,
Alameda County, CA 94568(letter report)
302
Report No. Year Author(s) Title
S-042775a 2014 Carolyn Losee and Carol
Roland-Nawi
FCC_2014_0421_001, CCU0766
Pleasanton-Shannon Park 8208 Rhoda Avenue, Dublin,
Collocation
S-045735 2014 Carrie D. Wills Cultural Resources Records Search and site Visit Results
for Verizon Wireless Candidate Dublin Ranch, 4605
Lockharte Street, Dublin, Alameda County, California,
EBI Project No. 61145616 (letter report)
S-045994 2015 Justin Castells Submission Packet, FCC Form 620, for proposed New
Tower Project, 5220 Fallon Road, Dublin, Alameda
County, California, CCU2048 / Tassajara Relo-
TEMP/PERM, EBI Project Number: 61149468 (letter
report)
S-045994a 2015 Virginia Clifton and
MacKensie Cornelius
Cultural Resources Survey, Tassajara Relo -
TEMP/PERM / CCU2048, 5220 Fallon Road, Dublin,
Alameda County, California 94568, NE 1/4 of the SW
1/4 S27 T02S R01E, EBI
Project No. 61149468
S-046736 2014 Carolyn Losee Cultural Resources Investigation for AT&T CNU4975
Dougherty Road & North Avenue," 6955 Serra Court,
Dublin, Alameda County, California 94568 (letter
report)
S-046860 2009 Miley Paul Holman Cultural Resources Study of the Dublin Ranch North
Property, Alameda County, California - (letter report)
S-047534 2014 Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation
Report, City of Pleasanton Recycled Water Project
CWSRF) No. C-06-8024-110
S-047534a 2015 Update to the Section 106 Cultural Resources
Investigation Report, Recycled Water Project
S-047534b 2015 Steve Brown, Daniel Shoup,
and Steve Kirkpatrick
Section 106 Cultural Resource Issues with City of
Pleasanton's Recycled Water Project (letter report)
S-047534c 2015 Carol Roland-Nawi and
Cedric Irving
EPA_2014_1212_001; Section 106 Consultation for the
Pleasanton Recycled Water Project, City of Pleasanton,
Alameda County, California
S-047983 2011 Carrie D. Wills Section 106 Cultural Resources Assessment DSRSD
Central Dublin Recycled Water Distribution and Retrofit
Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California
S-047983a 2012 Milford Wayne Donaldson BUR111208A; Section 106 Compliance for the Dublin
San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) Central Dublin
Recycled Water Distribution and Retrofit Project in
Alameda County, California (Project #09-CCAO-165)
S-048110 2012 Vicki Beard Archival Search Results for the Property at 6707 Golden
Gate Drive in Dublin, Alameda County
S-048433 2016 Janine M. Origer Cultural Resources Study for the Dublin San Ramon
Services District Regional Wastewater Facility Project,
Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
S-048499 1993 Mark R. Hale Negative Archaeological Survey Report, BART
Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project, East
Dublin/Pleasanton Station, Pleasanton, Alameda County,
California
S-048940 2016 Jennifer Roland Phase I Investigation for the Crown Castle Pleasanton
Tower Installation Project, Pleasanton, Alameda County,
California.
S-048940a 2016 Dana Whitaker Collocation ("CO") Submission Packet, FCC FORM
612, Crown Castle-Pleasanton / BU
845523-Trileaf Project #625086, 3986 Santos Ranch
Road, Pleasanton CA 94588, Alameda County, Dublin
Quadrangle (DeLorme), Latitude: 37 39' 56.77" N.
Longitude: 121 55' 21.89" W
303
Report No. Year Author(s) Title
S-049423 2017 Carolyn Losee Cultural Resources Investigations for Trileaf
634236/Crown Castle 830171 "NEW DUBLIN" 10001
Dublin Canyon Road, Castro Valley, Alameda County,
California 94546
letter report)
304
Appendix B
Native American Correspondence / Assembly Bill 52 Notification Letters
305
SLF&Contactsform: rev: 05/07/14
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95501
916) 373-3710
916) 373-5471 – Fax
nahc@nahc.ca.gov
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search
Project:
County:
USGS Quadrangle
Name:
Township: Range: Section(s):
Company/Firm/Agency:
Contact Person:
Street Address:
City: Zip:
Phone: Extension:
Fax:
Email:
Project Description:
Project Location Map is attached
mailto:nahc@n
ahc.ca.gov
306
307
308
August 2, 2018
Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
P.O. Box 360791
Milpital, CA 95036
Transmitted via muwekma@muwekma.org
Re: Cultural Resource Investigation for the Iron Horse Trail Phase I Project, Dublin, Alameda
County, California
Dear Ms. Cambra,
On behalf of Metis Environmental, PaleoWest Archaeology (PaleoWest) is conducting a cultural
resource investigation, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
for the proposed Iron Horse Trail Phase I Project (Project) within the city of Dublin, in Alameda
County, California. The proposed Project involves development of an overcrossing at Dublin
Boulevard connecting two components of the Iron Horse Trail. The Project area is located on the
Dublin, Calif. 7.5’ USGS quadrangle map, within Section 3 in T3D/R1E (see attached map).
A cultural resource literature review and records search conducted at the Northwest Information
Center (NWIC) housed at Sonoma State University, indicates that no less than 150 cultural
resource studies have been conducted within a one-mile radius of the Project area; at least ten of
these studies include portions or all of the Project area. The records search also indicated that no
prehistoric or historical archaeological resources have been recorded within a half-mile radius of
the Project area. A total of 29 historical built resources have been previously recorded within a
half-mile radius of the Project area, however none of these resources are located within the
Project area.
As part of the cultural resource investigation of the Project area, PaleoWest requested a search of
the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC’s) Sacred Lands File on June 15, 2018.
The NAHC responded on June 27, 2018 indicating that no Native American cultural resources
were identified within the Project area. However, should your records show that cultural
properties exist within or near the Project area shown on the enclosed map, please contact me at (
925)253-9070 or via e-mail at calonso@paleowest.com. I will contact you with a follow-upphonecalloremailifIdonothearfromyou.
Your comments are very important to us, and to the successful completion of this Project. I look
forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to
review this request.
309
Respectfully yours,
Christina Alonso, M.A., RPA
Senior Archaeologist
PaleoWest Archaeology
310
Iron Horse Trail
Table #1. Record of Native American Contacts and Comments
Native American Contact
Date of
Notification
Letter
Date of
Phone
Contact
Katherine Erolinda Perez, Chairperson
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA 95236
209-887-3415
canutes@verizon.net
7/12/18 7/26/18
She mentioned that the trails her tribe made were
often used as lines for the railroads. She believes
there may be sites located along the railroad. She
recommends that the project be monitored by a
Native American monitor (Northern Valley Yokut).
Please send final report with recommendations
Kathy.
Tony Cerda
Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel
244 E. 1st Street
Pomona, CA 91766
909-524-8040 cell
909-629-6081
7/12/18 7/26/18 Mailbox is full, send follow up email.
Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan
Bautista
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA 94062
650-851-7489 (cell)
650-851-7747 (office)
amahmutsuntribal@gmail.com
7/12/18 7/26/18 No answer, left message, sent follow up email
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA 95024
831-637-4238
ams@indiancanyon.org
7/12/18 7/26/18
Spoke with Anne Marie, she is unfamiliar with the
area. As there are no recorded sites in ¼ mile she
has no knowledge of sensitivity of area.
Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay
Area
P.O. Box 360791
Milpitas, CA 95036
408-314-1898
510-581-5194
muwekma@muwekma.org
7/12/18 7/26/18 No answer, mailbox is full, sent follow up email.
Andrew Galvan
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
P.O. Box 3152
Fremont, CA 94539
510-882-0527 cell
510-687-9393 fax
chochenyo@aol.com
7/12/18 7/26/18 Sent follow up email
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
Appendix C
Survey Photographs
332
Photo 1: Overview of proposed APE where it diverts from existing trail. View toward north-northwest.
Photo 2: Overview of Chabot Canal and multiple culverts, viewing northeast.
Photo 3: Overview of Iron Horse Trail from northwest portion of APE, viewing southeast.
333
Photo 4: Overview of survey area north of Dublin Blvd, viewing northwest.
Photo 5: Detail view of surface visibility (100%) in the survey area north of Dublin Blvd.
Photo 6: View of Iron Horse Trail from across Chabot Canal, view toward southwest.
334
Photo 7: Iron Horse Trail immediately north of Dublin Boulevard, viewing northwest.
Photo 8: Overview of project area south of Dublin Boulevard, viewing southeast.
335
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project D-1 December 2018
APPENDIX D
DCEIR Mitigation Measures
336
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project D-2 December 2018
337
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project D-3 December 2018
Summary of DCEIR Mitigation Measures that would Apply to the Overcrossing Project
The IS/Supplemental MND identifies the specific mitigation measures established in the DCEIR that
would apply to the Overcrossing Project. The rationale and conditions that would trigger
implementation are described in more detail in the IS/Supplemental MND text.
MM 3.2-1a: Implement Short-term Construction Best Management Practices. Prior to issuance of any
Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan,
Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the following basic construction mitigation measures
shall be implemented for all construction projects:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas and unpaved access
roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure
Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency
regarding dust complaints shall be posted. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
MM 3.2-1b: Implement Additional Short-term Construction Best Management Practices. Prior to
issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the
Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the following additional construction
mitigation measures shall be implemented for all construction projects:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas and unpaved access
roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
338
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project D-4 December 2018
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure
Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency
regarding dust complaints shall be posted. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Additional Short-Term Construction Best Management. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the
Public Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and
specifications stipulate that the following additional construction mitigation measures shall be
implemented for all construction projects:
All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when winds (instantaneous
gusts) exceed 25 mph.
Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed
areas of construction.
Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas
as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch
compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
The applicant shall reduce exhaust emissions during construction and, in particular, emissions of
NOx, when using construction equipment and vehicles by implementing the following measures:
o Require the use of diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) that
meet EPA 2007 model year NOX emissions requirements
o The following note shall be included on all grading plans: During project construction, all internal
combustion engines/construction, equipment operating on the project area shall meet EPA-
Certified Tier 3 emissions standards, or higher according to the following:
January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014: Off-road diesel-powered construction equipment
greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards.
Alternatively, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by
CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions
reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions
control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
Post-January 1, 2015: Off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp
shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. Alternatively, construction
339
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project D-5 December 2018
equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control
device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what
could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine
as defined by CARB regulations.
o The contractor and applicant, if the applicant’s equipment is used, shall maintain construction
equipment engines by keeping them tuned and regularly serviced to minimize exhaust
emissions.
o Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when available. This measure would minimize
the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators.
o Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable
equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes.
Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3:
Architectural Coatings).
Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best
Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM.
MM 3.3-2a: Conduct a Floristic Survey and Consult with CDFG and USFWS if State or Federally Listed
Plants are Found and Comply with Incidental Take Permits. The project applicant shall retain a qualified
botanist to conduct rare plant surveys within the construction zone for Congdon’s tarplant or other
species with potential habitat within the project area during the appropriate time of year in accordance
with agency protocols.
MM 3.3-3a: Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment. The project applicant shall retain
a qualified biologist to conduct a California burrowing owls surveys and impact assessment following the
2012 California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) or
as updated at the time of the implementation of the proposed project.
MM 3.4–2: Halt Work/Archaeological Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation. If any potential archaeological,
pre-historic or cultural artifacts are encountered during site grading or other construction activities, all
ground disturbance within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can
identify and evaluate the resource(s) in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(f).
MM 3.4-3: Halt Work/Paleontological Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation. If paleontological resources
are encountered during subsurface construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall
be redirected until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the finds. If the paleontological resources are
found to be significant, they shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a
qualified paleontologist.
MM 3.4-4: Halt Work/Coroner’s Evaluation/Native American Heritage Consultant/Compliance with Most
Likely Descendent Recommendations. In the event that human remains are encountered during grading
and site preparation activities, all ground-disturbing work within 50 feet of the remains shall cease
immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall notify the Office of the Alameda County Coroner and
advise that office as to whether the remains are likely to be Native American. If determined to be Native
American, the Alameda County Coroner’s Office shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission
of the find, which in turn will then appoint a “Most Likely Descendent. (MLD).”
340
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project D-6 December 2018
MM 3.5-3: Preparation of Design-Level Geotechnical Report. Future development within the project
area shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical report
that incorporates the recommendations in the preliminary geotechnical investigation by Berlogar,
Stevens and Associates (March 2012). The design level geotechnical report shall address site preparation
and grading (including measures to address potential liquefaction and expansive soils), building
foundations, CBC seismic design parameters, and preliminary pavement sections. This report shall be
submitted in conjunction with building permits applications and shall be reviewed and approved by the
City.
MM 3.10-1b: Construction Routes Less Disruptive to Sensitive Receptors. Construction trucks shall utilize
a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways (Interstate 580,
Interstate 680, Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, and Arnold Road). Construction trucks should, to the
extent practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m. peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.).
MM 3.12-12: Restrict Lane Closures Along Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road to Off-Peak Hours. During
project construction, the lane closures along Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road shall be restricted to off-
peak hours to the greatest extent feasible. In addition, traffic handling plans shall be prepared for
construction work in the public right-of-way in accordance with current California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards and guidelines.
341
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 1 of 16
PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENT
between
ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
and the
CITY OF DUBLIN
for the
IRON HORSE TRAIL BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AT DUBLIN BOULEVARD
This Project Funding Agreement (“AGREEMENT”), dated for reference purposes only as of June 17,
2019, is by and between ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a joint powers agency
ALAMEDA CTC”), and the CITY OF DUBLIN, a public agency (“PROJECT SPONSOR”).
This AGREEMENT obligates funds from one or more ALAMEDA CTC administered funding programs as
indicated below, and as further specified in Appendix A: Project Control Information and Appendix B:
Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this AGREEMENT, for the PROJECT, as such term is defined
in Recital K below.
2000 Measure B
2014 Measure BB
Vehicle Registration Fee
Transportation Fund for Clean Air
CMA TIP
RECITALS
A. The voters of Alameda County, pursuant to the provisions of the Bay Area County Traffic
and Transportation Funding Act, Public Utilities Code Section 131000, et seq., approved Measure B at the
General Election held in November 1986, authorizing the collection of a one-half cent transaction and use
tax over a fifteen (15)-year period to address major transportation needs and congestion in Alameda County
and giving Alameda County Transportation Authority (“ACTA”) the responsibility for the administration of
the proceeds of the tax. The proceeds from the 1986 Measure B tax have been and continue to be used to
pay for investments as outlined in the 1986 Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan (“1986 TEP”),
as it may be amended. Although collection of the 1986 Measure B tax ceased in 2002, capital projects funded
wholly or in part by 1986 Measure B funds are still being delivered using these funds.
B. The voters of Alameda County, pursuant to the provisions of the Local Transportation
Authority and Improvement Act, Public Utilities Code Section 180000, et seq., approved the reauthorization
of Measure B at the General Election held on November 7, 2000, authorizing the collection of a one-half
cent transaction and use tax to be collected for twenty (20) years beginning April 1, 2002 and giving Alameda
County Transportation Improvement Authority (“ACTIA”) responsibility for the administration of the
proceeds of the tax.. The proceeds from the 2000 Measure B tax have been and continue to be used to pay
for investments as outlined in the 2000 Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan (“2000 TEP”), as
it may be amended.
C. The voters of Alameda County, pursuant to Section 65089.20 of the Government Code,
approved Measure F, the Vehicle Registration Fee (“VRF”), authorizing Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency (“ACCMA”) to administer the proceeds from a $10 per year vehicle registration fee on
342
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 2 of 16
each annual motor-vehicle registration in Alameda County, starting with registrations effective July 2011 with
collection beginning in May 2011, six months following approval of Measure F. Vehicles subject to the VRF
include all motorized vehicles, including passenger cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty
trucks, buses of all sizes, motorcycles, and motorized camper homes, unless vehicles are expressly exempted
from the payment of the VRF.
D. By resolutions adopted by the ACTA and ACTIA Boards on June 24, 2010, all of ACTA’s
functions and responsibilities were assigned to, and accepted by, ACTIA. On that same date, the ACTIA and
ACCMA Boards took the final actions to create ALAMEDA CTC, a joint powers authority with all
responsibilities of ACTIA and ACCMA. Pursuant to resolutions adopted by the ACTIA and ACCMA
Boards and the Commission of ALAMEDA CTC, ACCMA and ACTIA were terminated as of the close of
business on February 29, 2012, with ALAMEDA CTC designated as the successor entity. All of its
predecessors’ functions and responsibilities have been assigned to, and accepted by, ALAMEDA CTC.
E. The voters of Alameda County, pursuant to the provisions of the Local Transportation
Authority and Improvement Act, California Public Utilities Code Section 180000 et seq., approved Measure
BB at the General Election held on November 4, 2014, authorizing the extension of an existing one-half of
one percent transaction and use tax scheduled to terminate on March 31, 2022, and the augmentation of the
tax by one-half of one percent, and giving ALAMEDA CTC responsibility for the administration of the
proceeds of the 2014 Measure BB tax. The duration of the 2014 Measure BB tax will be 30 years from the
initial year of collection, which began April 1, 2015, with said tax to terminate/expire on March 31, 2045. The
proceeds from the 2014 Measure BB will be used to pay for investments as outlined in the 2014 Alameda
County Transportation Expenditure Plan (“2014 TEP”), as it may be amended.
F. As the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (“TFCA”) Program Manager in Alameda County,
ALAMEDA CTC annually programs 40 percent of the TFCA funds collected in Alameda County. ALAMEDA
CTC receives these funds from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”), and then
distributes these funds on a reimbursement basis to eligible project sponsors.
G. ALAMEDA CTC is continuing the implementation of the CMA Exchange Program, originally
established by the ACCMA, for the purpose of providing local or otherwise unrestricted funds to ALAMEDA
CTC for use in projects and programs adopted into the CMA Transportation Improvement Program (“CMA
TIP”) by ALAMEDA CTC.
H. The funding programs administered by ALAMEDA CTC and available for projects and
programs that benefit the Alameda County transportation system, consisting of 1986 Measure B, 2000
Measure B, 2014 Measure BB, VRF, TFCA, and CMA TIP, are collectively defined as and shall be referenced
herein as the “ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS”. Requirements related to 2000 Measure B, VRF and
2014 Measure BB Direct Local Distribution (“DLD”) funding distributed pursuant to 2000 Measure B, VRF
and 2014 Measure BB Transportation Expenditure Plans are covered by separate agreements between
ALAMEDA CTC and DLD recipients.
I. Measure B, Measure BB, VRF, and TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT shall be
programmed, allocated, and expended for the purpose defined and in accordance with the provisions set
forth in the applicable transportation expenditure plans, or the BAAQMD-approved TFCA County Program
Manager Policies.
343
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 3 of 16
J. ALAMEDA CTC programs and allocates ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS through
the ALAMEDA CTC Comprehensive Investment Plan (“CIP”) that is updated periodically to summarize the
programming and allocations of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, and the policies, procedures and
requirements related to the expenditure of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS.
K. The PROJECT SPONSOR is implementing a project or program (“PROJECT”) that is eligible
for ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS. The PROJECT and the strategy to implement the PROJECT are
described in greater detail in Appendix A: Project Control Information.
L. This AGREEMENT obligates funds from one or more of ALAMEDA CTC administered
funding programs as specified in Appendix B: Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this
Agreement, for the PROJECT and the phase(s) described in Appendix A: Project Control Information.
ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT are available to reimburse eligible
costs incurred by PROJECT SPONSOR for the PROJECT and the phase(s) described in Appendix A: Project
Control Information.
M. The issuance of bonds or another financing mechanism are possible funding options as part
of ALAMEDA CTC administered funding programs to meet cash flow requirements of each individual
program based on current schedule and project delivery information.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows:
SECTION I
PROJECT SPONSOR AGREES:
1. PROJECT SPONSOR shall implement the PROJECT in accordance with all requirements in this
AGREEMENT and the following appendices attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
a. Appendix A: Project Control Information
b. Appendix B: Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this Agreement
c. Appendix C: Alameda CTC Request for Reimbursement and Reporting Requirements
d. Appendix D: Local Business Contract Equity Program
e. Appendix E: Deliverables and Due Dates
f. Appendix F: Project Performance Measures
g. Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and Requirements
2. PROJECT SPONSOR shall perform the necessary work associated with the PROJECT required
to implement PROJECT as described in Appendix A: Project Control Information.
3. PROJECT SPONSOR shall inform ALAMEDA CTC in writing of any changes to the
information contained in Appendix A: Project Control Information as soon as PROJECT SPONSOR becomes
aware of such changes. Per Section III.2, any change that requires an amendment to this AGREEMENT must
be approved by ALAMEDA CTC prior to PROJECT SPONSOR implementing the change.
344
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 4 of 16
4. PROJECT SPONSOR shall commit to the timing of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS
as described in Appendix B: Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this Agreement.
5. PROJECT SPONSOR shall expend ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS received under
this AGREEMENT in accordance with all applicable provisions of law and shall return to ALAMEDA CTC all
funds that are not expended in accordance with all applicable provisions of law.
6. PROJECT SPONSOR shall be responsible for costs in excess of the total funding obligations
shown in Appendix A: Project Control Information. Costs in excess of the total funding obligations will not
be reimbursed with ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS unless this AGREEMENT is amended in writing
or the parties execute a separate agreement for a subsequent phase of the PROJECT.
7. PROJECT SPONSOR shall return to ALAMEDA CTC, on a pro-rated basis, funds realized from
the sale of any vehicle(s) purchased with ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, if the sale of the vehicle(s)
is completed prior to the last day of the last year listed as the PROJECT’S “Years of Effectiveness” as
identified in either Appendix A: Project Control Information or Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean
Air Policies and Requirements, as applicable. The amount of sale proceeds required to be returned to
ALAMEDA CTC shall be proportional to the percentage of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS originally
used to purchase the vehicle(s).
8. PROJECT SPONSOR staff costs for any local agency which receives DLD funding shall not be
eligible for reimbursement of staff costs from ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS allocated to the
PROJECT unless staff costs are specifically identified as eligible in Appendix A: Project Control Information.
PROJECT SPONSOR staff costs can be included in the total cost and other funding amounts for the purpose of
meeting the cost and risk sharing provisions of this AGREEMENT.
9. Fringe benefits rates applied to PROJECT SPONSOR staff costs shall not exceed a maximum
rate of 70% of the hourly wage. PROJECT SPONSOR staff costs may include the individual’s actual hourly
wage plus a fringe benefit of no more than 70% of the hourly wage as approved by a cognizant agency or an
independent auditor, and staff costs also may include direct costs including contracts for services, such as
legal counsel, that are considered an extension of the PROJECT SPONSOR’S staff.
10. PROJECT SPONSOR overhead, or "indirect," costs are not eligible for reimbursement from
ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT, and shall not be included in the total
eligible PROJECT cost calculations used to determine the ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS share of
such total eligible PROJECT costs.
11. The cost of maintenance, security, or protection performed by PROJECT SPONSOR or third-
party contractors during any temporary suspension of activities associated with the PROJECT will not be
considered an eligible cost for reimbursement by ALAMEDA CTC.
12. PROJECT SPONSOR shall advertise, award and administer all professional services contracts for
PROJECT work not performed by PROJECT SPONSOR.
13. PROJECT SPONSOR shall invite ALAMEDA CTC staff to participate as a voting member of
PROJECT SPONSOR’s selection panel for the selection of all professional consultants and furnish drafts of all
345
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 5 of 16
professional services contracts utilizing Measure B, Measure BB, and Vehicle Registration Fee funds to
ALAMEDA CTC for ALAMEDA CTC’s review and approval prior to execution.
14. All locally funded contracts approved by PROJECT SPONSOR, funded wholly or in part with
Measure B, Measure BB, and/or Vehicle Registration Fee funds administered by ALAMEDA CTC, except for
contracts that also include state and/or federal funds or contracts funding non-capital projects (e.g., transit
operations), are required to comply with ALAMEDA CTC’s Local Business Contract Equity (LBCE) Program
as referenced in Appendix D: Local Business Contract Equity Program. This includes the obligation to
report LBE/SLBE/VLSBE participation with all invoices submitted for reimbursement for all contracts
partially or wholly funded by ALAMEDA CTC, whether or not the contract requires LBE participation.
15. PROJECT SPONSOR shall require insurance coverage that names ALAMEDA CTC, its
governing body, officers, employees and consultants as additional insureds of the PROJECT SPONSOR,
professional services consultants and subconsultants, construction services contractors and subcontractors,
volunteer service individuals, and any other contractors or subcontractors involved with the PROJECT on all
insurance required by PROJECT SPONSOR for PROJECT. PROJECT SPONSOR shall keep and maintain
insurance certificates and policy endorsements evidencing the policies on file, and furnish the same to
ALAMEDA CTC upon request. ALAMEDA CTC will not be responsible for any premiums or assessments on
any policy. If this AGREEMENT includes any TFCA funds, PROJECT SPONSOR shall also comply with the
insurance requirements specified in Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and
Requirements.
16. PROJECT SPONSOR shall provide ALAMEDA CTC with periodic (i.e., monthly, quarterly or
semi-annually) progress reports describing the current status of the PROJECT. The required progress reporting
frequency schedule and forms are provided in Appendix C: Alameda CTC Request for Reimbursement and
Reporting Requirements. Progress reports are due by the last day of each calendar month following the
established reporting period in which the work was performed. These reports shall include PROJECT status
information such as the scope of work completed to date, total costs incurred, future actions, project
performance, issues identification, changes to scope or schedule, and any additional relevant information
requested by ALAMEDA CTC.
17. PROJECT SPONSOR shall submit to ALAMEDA CTC a Request for Reimbursement in
accordance with the minimum required invoicing frequency established for the PROJECT, but not more than
one such request per month, for reimbursement of eligible PROJECT costs and expenses incurred by PROJECT
SPONSOR. The required minimum invoicing frequency and invoice forms are provided in Appendix C:
Alameda CTC Request for Reimbursement and Reporting Requirements. If PROJECT SPONSOR does not
incur any reimbursable expenses during the minimum invoicing period, in lieu of submitting an invoice,
PROJECT SPONSOR shall submit a letter or a statement as part of the required progress report for the same
period confirming that no reimbursable costs were incurred during the given period. If PROJECT SPONSOR
requests reimbursement for costs incurred as a result of a contract or agreement with a third party that
contains a contract value of $50,000 or greater, e.g. a consultant, contractor or other entity, PROJECT
SPONSOR shall submit an electronic copy of the fully executed contract or agreement to ALAMEDA CTC
prior to ALAMEDA CTC authorizing reimbursement of such costs. Each Request for Reimbursement shall
also include detailed supporting documentation for the total PROJECT costs with the reimbursable portion of
the total costs clearly identified. Supporting documentation for the Request for Reimbursement packages
346
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 6 of 16
includes copies of invoices from vendors, consultants, or contractors and summaries of eligible PROJECT
SPONSOR staff time charges. PROJECT SPONSOR may suggest an alternative method, subject to approval in
advance by ALAMEDA CTC, to document staff costs charged to the PROJECT.
18. PROJECT SPONSOR shall provide a Parcel and Utility Agreement Tracking Log in a format
approved by ALAMEDA CTC upon ALAMEDA CTC’s request, if the PROJECT includes the acquisition of
right-of-way and/or the relocation or protection of utility facilities. PROJECT SPONSOR shall also provide a
monthly update of the right-of-way acquisition plan to ALAMEDA CTC.
19. PROJECT SPONSOR shall keep all necessary PROJECT records to demonstrate compliance
with this AGREEMENT, including documentation of activities, performance, progress reports, final report,
expenses and charges to support invoices submitted to ALAMEDA CTC and other PROJECT reporting
requirements as described in Appendix C: Alameda CTC Request for Reimbursement and Reporting
Requirements in one central location for a period of not less than five (5) years after the later of (i) ALAMEDA
CTC’s payment of the final invoice, (ii) the PROJECT SPONSOR’S submittal of the Final Report for ALAMEDA
CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS under this AGREEMENT, and (iii) the end of the PROJECT’S established “Years
of Effectiveness” period (as identified in Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and
Requirements) if any TFCA funds are provided under this AGREEMENT.
a. PROJECT SPONSOR and PROJECT SPONSOR’s contractors and subcontractors shall each
maintain and make available for inspection and audit all books, documents, papers,
accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts,
including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts.
b. PROJECT SPONSOR shall allow ALAMEDA CTC or its authorized representatives to inspect,
audit, or make copies of any PROJECT records for a period of five (5) years after ALAMEDA
CTC’s payment of the final invoice and the PROJECT SPONSOR’S submittal of the Final
Report. The same access also shall be granted to BAAQMD or its authorized
representatives for TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT.
20. PROJECT SPONSOR shall comply with all of the following publicity requirements to inform
the public on the use of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS on the PROJECT.
a. PROJECT SPONSOR shall credit ALAMEDA CTC as a funding source and display the
approved ALAMEDA CTC logo, where practical, on construction informational signs,
vehicles or equipment operated or obtained as part of the PROJECT, and on any publically
distributed information (e.g., fact sheets, flyers, brochures, maps, schedules, websites, press
releases), created for or associated with the PROJECT. For TFCA funding obligated through
this AGREEMENT, SPONSOR shall also credit the BAAQMD as a funding source and display
the BAAQMD-approved TFCA logo.
b. PROJECT SPONSOR shall provide updated and accurate PROJECT information on the
PROJECT SPONSOR’s website, or create such a website if none exists, and provide a link to
ALAMEDA CTC website.
c. PROJECT SPONSOR shall publish an article in a printed or electronically distributed
publication such as a newsletter, local newspaper, e-publications, or website highlighting the
347
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 7 of 16
PROJECT and the use of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS at least once per fiscal year.
For TFCA funding obligated through this AGREEMENT, SPONSOR shall also credit the
BAAQMD as a funding source.
d. PROJECT SPONSOR shall document compliance with the publicity requirements and furnish
such documentation upon request, and regularly through the progress and final reporting
required by this AGREEMENT, through evidence such as photos of construction and vehicle
signage, copies of print, electronic and other media published to satisfy this requirement.
For TFCA funding obligated through this AGREEMENT, SPONSOR shall also document that
the BAAQMD was credited as a funding source and the BAAQMD-approved TFCA logos
were displayed.
e. PROJECT SPONSOR shall notify ALAMEDA CTC and request an exemption as soon as it is
reasonably known that the PROJECT SPONSOR is unable to fulfill the requirements under this
Section I.20 due to extraordinary circumstances.
21. PROJECT SPONSOR shall, to the extent not otherwise prohibited by law, and to the extent
required by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code section 6250 et seq.), place in
the public domain any software, written document, or other product developed with ALAMEDA CTC
ADMINISTERED FUNDS received through this AGREEMENT.
22. PROJECT SPONSOR shall participate, upon the request of ALAMEDA CTC, in a Public
Awareness Program in partnership with ALAMEDA CTC and/or its community advisory committees as a
means of informing the public of the benefits derived from the use of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED
FUNDS.
23. PROJECT SPONSOR shall obtain all state, local and federal permits and approvals for work,
including environmental approvals in accordance with the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) and the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as applicable. PROJECT SPONSOR will comply with all
applicable state and federal laws and regulations.
24. PROJECT SPONSOR shall render a report or answer any and all inquiries, upon ALAMEDA
CTC’s request, in regards to its receipt of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, compliance audit findings,
and usage of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS before the ALAMEDA CTC Commission, Independent
Watchdog Committee, and/or community advisory committees, as applicable.
25. For TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT, a PROJECT SPONSOR who has failed a
BAAQMD financial or performance audit for the PROJECT will be excluded from receiving an award of any
TFCA funds for five (5) years from the date of BAAQMD’s final audit determination. Existing TFCA funds
already awarded to the SPONSOR will not be released until all audit recommendations and remedies have been
satisfactorily implemented. A failed BAAQMD financial audit means a final audit report that includes an
uncorrected audit finding that confirms an ineligible expenditure of TFCA funds. A failed BAAQMD
performance audit means that the PROJECT was not implemented in accordance with the AGREEMENT.
SPONSOR shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to address/cure adverse audit findings.
26. For TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT, PROJECT SPONSOR shall return to
ALAMEDA CTC, on a pro-rated basis, TFCA funds received under this Agreement if PROJECT is not
348
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 8 of 16
maintained and/or operated throughout, and at least until the conclusion of, its “Years of Effectiveness” as
identified in Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and Requirements.
27. For TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT, PROJECT SPONSOR shall submit a TFCA
Final Report to the ALAMEDA CTC. The required content for the TFCA Final Report is identified in the
TFCA Final Report Form referenced in Appendix G.
SECTION II
ALAMEDA CTC AGREES:
1. ALAMEDA CTC shall make a good faith effort to provide all ALAMEDA CTC
ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT.
2. ALAMEDA CTC shall assist PROJECT SPONSOR when able, upon request and as necessary, in
resolving issues related to the PROJECT.
3. ALAMEDA CTC shall provide a copy of its approved logo for PROJECT SPONSOR to use as
required by this AGREEMENT.
4. ALAMEDA CTC shall provide notice to the PROJECT SPONSOR of any and all expenditures
made by PROJECT SPONSOR, which are not in compliance with the AGREEMENT or the applicable ALAMEDA
CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS promptly after ALAMEDA CTC becomes aware of any such expenditures.
5. ALAMEDA CTC shall provide timely notice to PROJECT SPONSOR prior to conducting an
audit of expenditures made by PROJECT SPONSOR to determine whether such expenditures are in compliance
with this agreement or the applicable ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS.
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT may be shifted
between the phases of the PROJECT or between activities in the same phase of the PROJECT, so long as each of
the following occurs: 1) PROJECT SPONSOR submits a written amendment request that provides revised and
updated Appendix A: Project Control Information forms documenting the requested funding obligation shift
and demonstrating to ALAMEDA CTC’s satisfaction that the phase or activity from which the funds were
shifted remains fully funded, and 2) the parties execute an amendment to this AGREEMENT incorporating the
revised and updated Appendix A forms as described above, which amendment shall be approved by
ALAMEDA CTC pursuant to applicable ALAMEDA CTC policies.
2. ALAMEDA CTC and the PROJECT SPONSOR may jointly authorize an “Administrative
Amendment” for any minor schedule revisions, deliverables, or budget revisions that do not increase the total
ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT. Any change in the PROJECT scope
349
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 9 of 16
of work must be approved by ALAMEDA CTC prior to implementation of the change by the PROJECT
SPONSOR. Administrative amendment requests sent to ALAMEDA CTC must include a revised Appendix A:
Project Control Information which reflects the requested changes by the PROJECT SPONSOR.
3. For the purposes of this AGREEMENT, (i) a “Contract” shall mean and refer to a third party
agreement with the PROJECT SPONSOR for services related to PROJECT, including agreements with another
public agency, consultant firm, contractor or entity; (ii) “PROJECT SPONSOR Staff” costs include costs related
to staff dedicated directly to management, oversight, or development work on the project and may include
direct costs including contracts for services, such as legal counsel, that are considered an extension of
PROJECT SPONSOR Staff; (iii) “Capital” with respect to any Right-of-Way Capital phase shall mean and refer
to the cost to acquire real property, access rights and other property interests; and (iv) “Agreement Expiration
Date” shall mean and refer to the expiration date of this AGREEMENT.
4. Funds expended for work directly related to the phases of the PROJECT covered by this
AGREEMENT prior to the applicable allowable start date identified in Appendix B: Alameda CTC
Administered Funds Obligated by this Agreement will not be considered for reimbursement pursuant to this
AGREEMENT. In all cases, reimbursable costs will be limited to those costs shown in Appendix A: Project
Control Information.
5. ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT are subject to fund
availability and any new requirements and policies imposed by ALAMEDA CTC. The AGREEMENT shall be
amended, as necessary, to reflect the applicable requirements.
6. If additional local, state or federal funding is obtained to partially offset ALAMEDA CTC
ADMINISTERED FUNDS planned for the PROJECT, ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS will not be
transferred from the PROJECT until after it is ensured that all phases of the PROJECT can be fully delivered.
ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS offset by additional local, state or federal funding shall be available
for PROJECT only after all other funding planned for PROJECT, as described in Appendix A: Project Control
Information, has been committed and/or encumbered to the PROJECT.
7. Should any portion of PROJECT be financed with federal or state funds, all applicable laws,
rules and policies relating to the use of such funds shall apply, notwithstanding other provisions of this
AGREEMENT.
8. For TFCA funds obligated by this AGREEMENT, this AGREEMENT is subject to the current
BAAQMD-approved TFCA County Program Manager Fund Policies included in Appendix G:
Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and Requirements and any new requirements imposed by the
BAAQMD upon ALAMEDA CTC with respect to the TFCA funds distributed hereunder. ALAMEDA CTC
will only distribute TFCA funds under this AGREEMENT to the extent the documented project costs are
eligible under the applicable BAAQMD TFCA Policies.
9. The laws of the State of California shall govern this AGREEMENT.
10. All correspondence and communications will contain ALAMEDA CTC project number and
name for PROJECT in a clearly identifiable location. For projects with TFCA funds obligated by this
350
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 10 of 16
AGREEMENT, all correspondence and communications will also contain the TFCA project number as
identified in Appendix G: Transportation Fund for Clean Air Policies and Requirements.
11. ALAMEDA CTC reserves the right to conduct technical and financial audits of PROJECT
work and records when determined to be necessary or appropriate and PROJECT SPONSOR agrees, and shall
require its contractors and subcontractors to agree, to cooperate with ALAMEDA CTC by making all
appropriate and relevant PROJECT records promptly available for audit and copying.
12. PROJECT costs incurred by PROJECT SPONSOR are only eligible for reimbursement on a pro-
rated basis unless specifically provided for in Appendix A: Project Control Information, and PROJECT
SPONSOR is expected to concurrently seek reimbursement from the other sources shown in Project A: Project
Control Information. Pro-rated basis, as used herein, equals the amount of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED
FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT to a phase, divided by the total funding for the phase, as shown in
Appendix A: Project Control Information. For any Request for Reimbursement which includes such
expenditures, PROJECT SPONSOR shall (i) report the total expenditures during the reimbursement period, (ii)
indicate the percentage of the total expenditures for the phase expected to be funded by ALAMEDA CTC
ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT, and (iii) request reimbursement for the dollar amount
which equals the product of such total expenditures and such percentage.
13. ALAMEDA CTC approval of PROJECT SPONSOR submitted Requests for Reimbursement will
be contingent on the submittal of progress reports and deliverables by PROJECT SPONSOR as required by this
AGREEMENT. In the event that progress reports and deliverables are not complete and current, approval of
Requests for Reimbursement shall be withheld until an acceptable remedy has been implemented and
approved by ALAMEDA CTC. If PROJECT SPONSOR fails to submit the required deliverables or otherwise fails
to meet the reporting and invoicing requirements of this AGREEMENT, ALAMEDA CTC may deobligate funds
from the PROJECT and this AGREEMENT. Not less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of any
such action, ALAMEDA CTC will endeavor to notify PROJECT SPONSOR in writing that the required
deliverables, invoicing and reporting is overdue.
14. Request for Reimbursements submitted after the Agreement Expiration Date identified in
Appendix B: Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by this AGREEMENT will not be considered for
reimbursement by ALAMEDA CTC unless an exception is requested by the PROJECT SPONSOR no less than
sixty (60) days before the Agreement Expiration Date, and the exception is approved by ALAMEDA CTC.
ALAMEDA CTC will deobligate any remaining ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS from PROJECT and
this AGREEMENT.
15. Each Right-of-Way transaction which is funded either wholly or in part with ALAMEDA CTC
ADMINISTERED FUNDS shall be subject to repayment or reimbursement to ALAMEDA CTC under ALAMEDA
CTC Policies in effect as of the effective date of this AGREEMENT, irrespective of the party holding title to
the real estate which is the subject of the Right-of-Way transaction in question. The parties agree that Section
III.16(a) through Section III.16(f), the provisions of which are intended to provide further detail regarding
the application of such Policies, shall govern the extent to which such repayment is required and the
conditions applicable to any such repayment. If such Policies are amended after the effective date of this
AGREEMENT by ALAMEDA CTC, the PROJECT SPONSOR and ALAMEDA CTC shall execute an amendment
to this AGREEMENT which references the revised Policies.
351
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 11 of 16
16. For the purposes of the following provisions, “ALAMEDA CTC Share” shall mean the
percentage share of the original property purchase price funded by ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS
i.e., if the purchase was fully funded by ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, ALAMEDA CTC Share shall
equal 100%); any appraisal required under Section III.16(a) and Section III.16(f) only, shall be conducted at
no cost to ALAMEDA CTC; “Fair Market Value” of a given property shall mean the net proceeds from the
sale of such property if such sale occurs in an open market transaction or by auction, or the value of the
property determined by an independent third-party appraisal of the property if some or all of the property is
retained by PROJECT SPONSOR or otherwise transferred to any other party without an auction or open market
transaction; and “CPI” means the Consumer Price Index, All Items for All Urban Consumers, San Francisco-
Oakland, San Jose, CA.
a. If any property is acquired for the PROJECT using ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS
to finance some or all of the acquisition, and the PROJECT is cancelled or otherwise does not
begin construction within three (3) years after the effective date of AGREEMENT (as such
deadline may be extended by agreement between the parties hereto), then PROJECT
SPONSOR shall, within one (1) year after such cancellation decision or the expiration of such
three (3) year period, reimburse ALAMEDA CTC for the greater of the following: ALAMEDA
CTC Share of the property’s Fair Market Value or the full amount of ALAMEDA CTC
ADMINISTERED FUNDS used to acquire the property, as escalated by the increase in the CPI
during the most recent period for which CPI data is available which is equal in length to the
period between the date ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS were paid to PROJECT
SPONSOR and the date reimbursement is made to ALAMEDA CTC.
b. If any property is acquired for the PROJECT using ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS
to finance some or all of the acquisition and only a portion of the acquired property is
required for the PROJECT, and if the PROJECT begins construction within three (3) years
after the effective date of this AGREEMENT (as such deadline may be extended by
agreement between the parties hereto), then PROJECT SPONSOR shall, within one (1) year
after PROJECT completion, reimburse ALAMEDA CTC for ALAMEDA CTC Share of the Fair
Market Value of any property determined to be “excess property”.
c. If the PROJECT begins construction within three (3) years after the effective date of this
AGREEMENT (as such deadline may be extended by agreement between the parties hereto),
then except as provided in subparagraph (d) below, no reimbursement is due with respect to
any property interest acquired for the project using ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS
if the entirety of the acquired property is required for the PROJECT.
d. If PROJECT SPONSOR anticipates receiving net revenues (i.e., rental or other income
generated by the property, less reasonable costs for insurance, maintenance and related
items) from any property acquired using ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, PROJECT
SPONSOR shall notify ALAMEDA CTC on how PROJECT SPONSOR will use such revenue to
offset other project costs, and document such revenue separately in project reimbursement
requests.
e. If PROJECT is suspended, PROJECT SPONSOR shall pay all property management costs.
352
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 12 of 16
f. Property that is required for the PROJECT and acquired wholly or in part with ALAMEDA
CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS shall be available for PROJECT construction within ten (10)
years of ALAMEDA CTC reimbursement to the PROJECT SPONSOR. If, after ten (10) years,
PROJECT has not been completed, PROJECT SPONSOR shall reimburse ALAMEDA CTC
Share of the fair market value of the property, based on the net proceeds from the sale of
the property or an appraisal of the property conducted at no cost to ALAMEDA CTC, within
one (1) year after the expiration of this ten (10) year period.
17. If condemnation procedures are required to obtain possession to Right-of-Way, ALAMEDA
CTC will consider the required deposit as an eligible cost and reimburse the PROJECT SPONSOR upon request.
PROJECT SPONSOR shall submit documentation of the final order of condemnation settlement within ninety
90) days after the date of the court recording of the final order of condemnation. If the amount of ALAMEDA
CTC reimbursement to the PROJECT SPONSOR is higher than ALAMEDA CTC Share of the amount of
settlement in the final order of condemnation, the PROJECT SPONSOR shall pay ALAMEDA CTC the difference
between the amount reimbursed and ALAMEDA CTC Share of the amount settled plus ALAMEDA CTC Share
of the interest accrued to the deposit account within one (1) year of the final order of condemnation.
18. PROJECT SPONSOR shall not initiate condemnation of any property until full funding for the
construction of the PROJECT has been secured.
19. Reimbursement to PROJECT SPONSOR by ALAMEDA CTC for PROJECT Right-of-Way is
limited to the following (and net of any relocation payments provided by other sources):
a. The cost to purchase all real property required for the PROJECT free and clear of liens
and/or conflicting easements, including the costs for preparation of documents,
negotiations and legal services.
b. The cost of damages to owners of the remainder of real property not actually taken but
injuriously affected by PROJECT.
c. The cost of relocation payments and services provided to owners and occupants pursuant to
the appropriate State laws and regulations when the PROJECT displaces an individual, family,
business, farm operation or nonprofit organization.
d. The cost of demolition and/or the sale of all improvements on the right-of-way. Proceeds
from the sale of any such improvements shall be credited to the PROJECT and used to offset
PROJECT costs.
e. The cost of all unavoidable utility relocation, protection or removal necessary for the
completion of the PROJECT.
f. The cost of all necessary hazardous material and hazardous waste treatment, encapsulation
or removal and protective storage for which PROJECT SPONSOR accepts responsibility and
where the actual generator cannot be identified and recovery made.
353
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 13 of 16
20. If PROJECT SPONSOR materially breaches this AGREEMENT, including but not limited to
failing to deliver the PROJECT within the schedule defined by this AGREEMENT without compelling reason,
failing to file required progress reports in the time specified by this AGREEMENT, or failing to comply with
applicable regulations, ALAMEDA CTC may either terminate this AGREEMENT or suspend payments to
PROJECT SPONSOR until such time as PROJECT SPONSOR makes reasonable efforts to comply with this
AGREEMENT.
21. Neither ALAMEDA CTC, nor its governing body or any officer, consultant, or employee
thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be
done by PROJECT SPONSOR in connection with the PROJECT. It is also understood and agreed, pursuant to
Government Code Section 895.4, PROJECT SPONSOR shall fully defend, protect, indemnify and hold harmless
ALAMEDA CTC, its governing body, and all its officers, employees, agents, representatives, and successors-in-
interest, against any and all liability, loss, expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, or claims for injury (as
defined in Government Code Section 810.8) or damages occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to
be done by PROJECT SPONSOR in connection with PROJECT, including the performance of the PROJECT or
operation or use of the equipment that is subject to this AGREEMENT. If TFCA funds are obligated by this
AGREEMENT, PROJECT SPONSOR shall also fully defend, protect, indemnify and hold harmless BAAQMD,
its governing body, and all its officers, employees, agents, representatives, and successors-in-interest, from
any liability imposed on BAAQMD for injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by
reason of anything done or omitted to be done by PROJECT SPONSOR in connection with PROJECT.
22. Neither PROJECT SPONSOR, nor its governing body or any officer, consultant, or employee
thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be
done by ALAMEDA CTC under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
ALAMEDA CTC under this AGREEMENT. It is also understood and agreed, pursuant to Government Code
Section 895.4, ALAMEDA CTC shall fully defend, protect, indemnify and hold harmless PROJECT SPONSOR,
its governing body, and all its officers, employees, agents, representatives, and successors-in-interest, against
any and all liability, loss, expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, or claims for injury (as defined in
Government Code Section 810.8) or damages occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
ALAMEDA CTC in connection with PROJECT, including the performance of the PROJECT or operation or use
of the equipment that is subject to this AGREEMENT.
23. Nothing in the provisions of this AGREEMENT is intended to create duties or obligations to
or rights in third parties not party to this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT gives no rights or benefits to anyone
other than ALAMEDA CTC and PROJECT SPONSOR and has no third-party beneficiaries.
24. All legal actions by either party against the other arising from this AGREEMENT, or for the
failure to perform in accordance with the applicable standard of care, or for any other cause of action, will be
subject to the statutes of limitations of the State of California.
25. Should it become necessary to enforce the terms of this AGREEMENT, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to recover reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees from the other party.
26. This AGREEMENT shall terminate upon the Agreement Expiration Date identified in
Appendix B: Funds Obligated by this AGREEMENT unless this AGREEMENT is extended by mutual
agreement of the parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Sections I.7, I.19, III.21 and III.22 shall survive the
termination or expiration of this AGREEMENT.
354
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 14 of 16
27. This AGREEMENT, including its Recitals and Appendices, constitutes the entire
AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT may be changed only as allowed in Sections III.1 and Section III.2 of this
AGREEMENT or by a written amendment executed by both parties.
Signatures on the next page]
355
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 15 of 16
CITY OF DUBLIN
PROJECT SPONSOR)
ALAMEDA COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ALAMEDA CTC)
By: By:
Linda Smith Date
City Manager
Tess Lengyel Date
Executive Director
Recommended
By:
Gary Huisingh Date
Deputy Executive Director of
Projects
Reviewed as to Budget/Financial Controls:
By:
Patricia Reavey Date
Deputy Executive Director of
Finance and Administration
Approved as to Legal Form: Approved as to Legal Form:
By: By:
John Bakker Date
Legal Counsel to CITY OF DUBLIN
Wendel Rosen LLP Date
Legal Counsel to ALAMEDA CTC
356
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Page 16 of 16
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: PROJECT CONTROL INFORMATION
Appendix A-1 Project Description
Appendix A-2 Project Scope Detail By Phase
Appendix A-3 Project Milestone Schedule
Appendix A-5 Project Funding Summary by Phase and Fund Source
Appendix A-6 Project Phase Cost Detail
APPENDIX B: ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS OBLIGATED BY THIS AGREEMENT
APPENDIX C: ALAMEDA CTC REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
APPENDIX D: LOCAL BUSINESS CONTRACT EQUITY PROGRAM
APPENDIX E: DELIVERABLES AND DUE DATES
APPENDIX F: PROJECT PERFORMANCE MEASURES
APPENDIX G: TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS
Appendix G-1 TFCA Project Number and “Years of Effectiveness”
Appendix G-2 BAAQMD-approved TFCA County Program Manager Fund Policies
Appendix G-3 Minimum required insurance for TFCA-funded projects
Appendix G-4 Reporting Forms to BAAQMD for TFCA-funded projects
Note: Appendix G is only included and attached to this AGREEMENT if TFCA funds are obligated and applicable to
AGREEMENT.
357
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix A – Page 1
APPENDIX A
PROJECT CONTROL INFORMATION
Appendix Index
Appendix A-1 Project Description
Appendix A-2 Project Scope Detail by Phase with Funds Obligated by the Agreement
Appendix A-3 Project Milestone Schedule
Appendix A-4 Project Funding Summary by Phase and Fund Source
Appendix A-5 Project Phase Cost Detail
358
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix A – Page 2
APPENDIX A-1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Title: Iron Horse Trail Bike and Pedestrian Bridge at Dublin Boulevard
Project Description:
This project will construct a Class 1 bicycle and pedestrian bridge over Dublin Boulevard near the
intersection of Scarlett Drive in the vicinity of the East Dublin Pleasanton BART Station. The bridge will
connect two existing segments of the Iron Horse Trail, creating a total separation of bicyclists and pedestrians
from motorized vehicles.
359
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix A – Page 3
APPENDIX A-2
PROJECT SCOPE DETAIL BY PHASE
The ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT are to support the project
phase(s) identified and described below:
CONSTRUCTION
The ALAMEDA CTC funds obligated in this AGREEMENT will fund the Construction phase of the
Project.
360
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix A – Page 4
APPENDIX A-3
PROJECT MILESTONE SCHEDULE
Phase/Milestone
Begin
Mo/Yr)
End
Mo/Yr)
Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Studies 11/2017 12/2019
CEQA Approval 9/2019 05/2020
NEPA Approval NA NA
Final Design (Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) 06/2018 07/2020
Right of Way Certification 06/2019 09/2020
Ready to List 12/2020
Construction 03/2021 09/2022
Final Invoice/ Closeout 12/2022
Environmental Clearance Status:
CEQA
Mo/Yr)
NEPA
Mo/Yr)
Environmental Document Type IS/SMND* N/A
Begin Environmental Process 03/2019
Draft Circulation (if known) 11/2019
Date of Public Meeting (if known)
Final Draft Submitted
Actual Certification Date TBD
Percent Complete 90
Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
361
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix A – Page 5
APPENDIX A-4
PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY BY PHASE AND FUND SOURCE
PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY BY PHASE AND FUND SOURCE
PHASE
Alameda CTC
Administered Funds Matching
Funds
Total
Funding
Reimbursement
Ratio
PercentageMBB
TEP-42
TFCA
CPM
2019/20
Construction Capital $4,751,000 $856,419 $2,694,581 $8,302,000 67.5%
Total Funding $4,751,000 $856,419 $2,694,581 $8,302,000
Notes:
1. PROJECT SPONSOR shall be reimbursed eligible costs in the percentage of Total ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS to Total
Funding per the Reimbursement Ratio Percentage for each phase. Each Alameda CTC Administered Fund amount identified is a
not-to-exceed amount. The Reimbursement Ratio is defined as ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS divided by the Total
Funding.
362
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix A – Page 6
APPENDIX A-5
PROJECT PHASE COST DETAIL
This Project Phase Cost Detail summarizes the total cost for each phase with ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED
FUNDS obligated in this AGREEMENT.
PHASE COST DETAIL
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
MBB TEP-
42
TFCA CPM
2019/20
Matching
Funds Total Cost
Contract(s)/Other Direct Costs1 $4,751,000 $856,419 $2,694,581 $8,302,000
Total Phase Cost
Staff + Contract Costs) $4,751,000 $856,419 $2,694,581 $8,302,000
Notes:
1. Contracts funded with any combination of Measure B, Measure BB, Vehicle Registration Fee and local funds that do not
contain State or federal funds are subject to Alameda CTC’s Local Business Contract Equity Program (refer to Appendix
D).
363
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix B - Page 1
APPENDIX B
ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS OBLIGATED BY THIS AGREEMENT
The following Table B-1 identifies the ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this
AGREEMENT and establishes a unique allowable start date for each obligated fund source.
TABLE B-1
FUNDS OBLIGATED BY THIS AGREEMENT
AND ALLOWABLE START AND EXPENDITURE DEADLINE DATES
Fund
Source Fund Subset Phase
Commission
Approval
Date
Allowable
Start Date
Expenditure
Deadline Date
Obligated
Amount
MBB TEP-42 Construction 6/17/19 7/1/19
The Agreement
Expiration Date serves
as the expenditure
deadline date.
4,751,000
TFCA 19/20 CPM Construction 6/17/19 7/1/19
11/1/21
Estimated date
See Notes 6 & 7)
856,419
Total Alameda CTC Administered Funds Obligated by AGREEMENT: $5,607,419
Agreement Expiration Date: December 31, 2023
Notes:
1. ALAMEDA CTC reimbursement amounts by fund source for PROJECT shall not exceed the total amount obligated by this
AGREEMENT, by fund source.
2. The Commission Approval Date is the date of the meeting at which the Commission approved the allocation.
3. The Allowable Start Date identified for each fund source is the earliest date at which costs eligible for reimbursement by the
fund source indicated may be incurred. Any costs incurred on the PROJECT before this date will not be eligible for
reimbursement under this AGREEMENT.
4. The Expenditure Deadline Date is the last date by which eligible reimbursable costs may be incurred. Any costs incurred
on the PROJECT after this date will not be eligible for reimbursement under this AGREEMENT.
5. The Agreement Expiration Date shall mean and refer to the expiration date of this AGREEMENT.
6. For TFCA funds obligated by this agreement, the Expenditure Deadline Date in the above table is two (2) years from the
date when ALAMEDA CTC first received funds from BAAQMD, unless an extended deadline is approved at the time of
programming or an extension has been approved by the ALAMEDA CTC. An estimated deadline date is noted in the above
table if at the time of this agreement the Alameda CTC has yet to receive funds from BAAQMD. Extended deadlines will
be reflected in an amended Table B-1, once approved.
7. ALAMEDA CTC may approve up to two one-year extensions to the Expenditure Deadline Date. Any additional extensions
require approval from both ALAMEDA CTC and BAAQMD.
364
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix B - Page 2
APPENDIX B (CONT.)
Reimbursement of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS obligated by this AGREEMENT shall be in
accordance with the Drawdown Limitation Schedule below.
TABLE B-2
ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS
REIMBURSEMENT - DRAWDOWN LIMITATION SCHEDULE
No. Fiscal Year Quarter Fund Source Drawdown
Limitation Amount
Cumulative
Drawdown
Limitation Amount
1 FY 2020-21 3 TFCA $400,000 $400,000
2 FY 2020-21 4 TFCA $456,419 $856,419
3 FY 2020-21 4 MBB $1,001,000 $1,857,419
4 FY 2021-22 1 MBB $1,000,000 $2,857,419
5 FY 2021-22 2 MBB $1,000,000 $3,857,419
6 FY 2021-22 3 MBB $1,000,000 $4,857,419
7 FY 2021-22 4 MBB $750,000 $5,607,419
Notes:
1. Fiscal Year (FY) begins July 1 and ends June 30.
2. Quarter 1 begins July 1 and ends September 30; Quarter 2 begins October 1 and ends December 31; Quarter 3 begins
January 1 and ends March 31; and Quarter 4 begins April 1 and ends June 30.
3. ALAMEDA CTC shall endeavor to transmit payments to PROJECT SPONSOR following the receipt and approval of a
complete Request for Reimbursement(s) submitted by the PROJECT SPONSOR.
4. Actual reimbursements from ALAMEDA CTC to the PROJECT SPONSOR shall not exceed the Cumulative Drawdown
Limitation Amount without Alameda CTC’s written approval. Any portion of a reimbursement request, which exceeds
the applicable Cumulative Drawdown Limitation without such prior approval by ALAMEDA CTC shall be deferred until
the following quarter or until sufficient capacity in the cumulative drawdown limitation amount is achieved.
365
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix C – Page 1
APPENDIX C
REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The below table establishes the required minimum frequency for Requests for Reimbursement and Progress Reports.
Requests for Reimbursements and Progress Reports are required either monthly, quarterly, or semi -annually, as indicated
below with an “X”.
REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND PROGRESS REPORTING
FREQUENCY AND DUE DATES
Frequency
Required
as checked)
Minimum Frequency Period Covered Due Dates
Monthly
once every month)
One month By 30 days following the end
of billed activity
Quarterly
once every 3 months)
Quarter 1: 7/1– 9/30
Quarter 2: 10/1 – 12/31
Quarter 3: 1/1– 3/31
Quarter 4: 4/1– 6/30
By October 31st
By January 31st
By April 30th
By July 31st
Semi-annually
once every 6 months)
Quarters 1 & 2: 7/1 – 12/31
Quarters 3 & 4: 1/1 – 6/30
By January 31st
By July 31st
Annually
TFCA Annual Report)
Fiscal Year: 7/1 – 6/30 By July 31st
Final Request for
Reimbursement
Any work period eligible
under Appendix B.
Must be submitted prior to the
Agreement Expiration Date
Notes:
1. For all projects, the maximum frequency for Requests for Reimbursement is one (1) per month.
2. If no costs were incurred during the reporting period, a progress report for the corresponding period is still required.
3. TFCA funding requires annual reporting to BAAQMD in addition to the minimum required frequency for Alameda CTC
progress reports and invoices.
4. Requests for Reimbursement must be submitted prior to the Agreement Expiration Date in order to be eligible for
reimbursement.
REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND REPORTING FORMS
Any PROJECT SPONSOR awarded ALAMEDA CTC Administered Funds shall use the following forms included
in the link below for progress reporting, final reporting, request for reimbursements, and requests for
amendments to this funding agreement. Note that the format and required content of these forms is subject
to change.
List of Downloadable Forms: https://www.alamedactc.org/funding/reporting-and-grant-forms/
1. Request for Reimbursement (RFR) Form
2. Alameda CTC Progress Report Form
3. Alameda CTC Final Report Form
4. Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Reporting Forms (Interim and Final Report)
5. Amendment Request Form
https://www.alamedactc.org/funding/reporting-and-g
rant-forms/
366
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix D – Page 1
APPENDIX D
LOCAL BUSINESS CONTRACT EQUITY PROGRAM
As noted in Section I.14, PROJECT SPONSOR is obligated to comply with all applicable provisions of the
Alameda CTC Local Business Contract Equity (LBCE) Program, incorporated herein by reference as if
attached hereto.
The following resources are available to guide Project Sponsors through the LBCE Program requirements for
procurement and contracting processes:
Sample template language for professional and construction services is available from ALAMEDA
CTC’s website: https://www.alamedactc.org/get-involved/contract-equity
The LBCE Program Guidelines, available at the above link, includes a Project Sponsor Responsibility
Checklist. Appendix B of the LBCE Program Guidelines identifies the Responsibilities of Sponsor
Agencies.
Direct inquiries about the LBCE Program to ALAMEDA CTC’s LBCE Liaison Officer:
Seung Cho
Director of Procurement and Information Technology
Alameda County Transportation Commission
Email: scho@alamedactc.org
Phone: (510) 208-7472
https://www.alamedactc.org/get-involved/cont
ract-equity
mailto:scho@al
amedactc.org
367
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix E - Page 1
APPENDIX E
DELIVERABLES AND DUE DATES
Project Deliverables and Due Dates: The Deliverables and Due Dates table below shows deliverables and
due dates, if any, for the phases listed in Appendix A-2 Project Phase Descriptions that contain ALAMEDA
CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS.
Deliverables and Due Dates
Deliverable Deliverable
Deliverable
Due Date to
Alameda CTC
1 Alameda CTC Progress Report #1: January to June, 2020 July 31, 2020
2 FY 2019-20 TFCA Interim Report (for BAAQMD) July 31, 2020
3 Alameda CTC Progress Report #2: July to December, 2020 January 31, 2021
4 Documentation of contract award Prior to first
invoice
5 Alameda CTC Progress Report #3: January to June, 2021 July 31, 2021
6 FY 2020-21 TFCA Interim Report (for BAAQMD) July 31, 2021
7 Alameda CTC Progress Report #4: July to December, 2021 January 31, 2022
8 Alameda CTC Progress Report #5: January to June, 2022 July 31, 2022
9 FY 2021-22 TFCA Interim Report (for BAAQMD) July 31, 2022
10 Alameda CTC Progress Report #6: July to December, 2022
Only due if Final Invoice & Final Reports cannot be submitted by January 31, 2023)
January 31, 2023
11 Documentation of project completion /contract acceptance Within 3 months of
project completion,
but no later than
the agreement
expiration date.
12 TFCA Final Report (for BAAQMD)
To include documentation of required funding agency credit/logo usage.)
13 Final Invoice
12 Alameda CTC Final Report
Note:
1. Alameda CTC shall withhold payment of reimbursement requests until past due deliverables are received and approved.
368
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix F – Page 1
APPENDIX F
PROJECT PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Project Performance Measures: The Project Performance Measures and Targets describes what outcome-
based performance measure(s) the PROJECT SPONSOR plans to evaluate to ensure that the project/program is
meeting its objectives.
Project Performance Outcomes
Improves trail connectivity/provide gap closure for bicyclist and pedestrian users.
Encourages alternative transportation modes for both commuting and recreation.
Improves safety by decreasing conflicts between non-motorized and motorized traffic.
Improves transit access and general congestion relief.
Note:
1. It is expected that the Project will achieve the performance measures targets and/or project outcomes as established herein.
369
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix G – Page 1
APPENDIX G
TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS
The contents of Appendix G is only included and attached to this AGREEMENT if TFCA funds are obligated and applicable
to AGREEMENT.
Appendix Index
Appendix G-1 TFCA Project Number and “Years of Effectiveness”
Appendix G-2 BAAQMD-approved TFCA County Program Manager Fund Policies
Appendix G-3 Minimum required insurance for TFCA-funded projects
Appendix G-4 Reporting Forms to BAAQMD for TFCA-funded projects
370
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix G – Page 2
APPENDIX G-1
TFCA PROJECT NUMBER AND “YEARS OF EFFECTIVENESS”
The PROJECT’s established TFCA Project Number is to be included on all PROJECT reports and invoices.
The PROJECT’s established period for TFCA “Years of Effectiveness” is used by Alameda CTC and
BAAQMD to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the PROJECT and represents the minimum period of time
PROJECT SPONSOR is to maintain and/or operate the PROJECT, per BAAQMD requirements. It is not
intended to reflect the number of years a capital project is expected to last.
TFCA Project Number:
20ALA05
TFCA “Years of Effectiveness”:
10 years
371
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix G – Page 3
APPENDIX G-2
BAAQMD-APPROVED TFCA COUNTY PROGRAM MANAGER FUND POLICIES
Projects awarded TFCA County Program Manager funding by Alameda CTC are to be consistent with the
BAAQMD’s Board-Adopted TFCA County Program Manager Fund Policies.
The following policies apply to the BAAQMD TFCA County Program Manager funding awarded to
PROJECT:
BAAQMD Board-Adopted TFCA County Program Manager Fund Policies for FYE 2020
These Policies are available for view and download from the Alameda CTC’s website:
https://www.alamedactc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/07/FYE_2020_TFCA_CPM_Policies_only.pdf?x33781
Note: The above link provides a copy of Appendix D: Board-Adopted TFCA County Program Manager Fund Policies
for FYE 2020 from BAAQMD’s TFCA County Program Manager Fund Expenditure Plan Guidance, Fiscal
Year Ending 2020. As incorporated into this AGREEMENT, (i) the term “Air District” in the policies shall be
deemed to mean and refer to BAAQMD, (ii) “Program Manager” shall be deemed to mean and refer to
ALAMEDA CTC, and (iii) “GRANTEE” shall be deemed to mean and refer to SPONSOR.
https://www.alamedactc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/FYE_2020_
TFCA_CPM_Policies_only.pdf?x33781
https://www.alamedactc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/FYE_2020_TFCA_CP
M_Policies_only.pdf?x33781
372
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix G – Page 4
APPENDIX G-3
TFCA INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
See Below and Attached]
Note: The below Alameda CTC insurance requirements for TFCA projects are followed by a copy of
BAAQMD’s Insurance Guidelines, Appendix F of BAAQMD’s TFCA County Program Manager Fund
Expenditure Plan Guidance, Fiscal Year Ending (FYE) 2020. As incorporated into this Agreement, (i) the term
Air District” in the attached shall be deemed to mean and refer to BAAQMD, (ii) “County Program
Manager” shall be deemed to mean and refer to ALAMEDA CTC, and (iii) “Grantee” shall be deemed to mean
and refer to SPONSOR.
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Verification of Coverage
SPONSOR is required to provide certificates and/or other evidence of the required insurance coverage prior to
the execution of a fund-transfer agreement and annually thereafter throughout and until project completion.
Certificates, policies and other evidence provided shall specify that the ALAMEDA CTC and BAAQMD shall
receive 30 days advanced notice of cancellation from the insurers.
Additionally, SPONSOR is to require all professional services consultants, contractors and subcontractors
involved with the PROJECT to name ALAMEDA CTC, its officers, employees and consultants as additional
insured on all insurance required by SPONSOR for PROJECT.
Minimum Scope of Insurance
Throughout the Term of the AGREEMENT, SPONSOR shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect the
Liability Insurance and Property Insurance as set forth below:
1. Liability Insurance: with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall be
of the type usual and customary to the business of SPONSOR, and to the operation of the vehicles,
vessels, engines or equipment operated by Sponsor.
2. Property Insurance: in an amount of not less than the insurable value of SPONSOR’s vehicles,
vessels, engines or equipment funded under the Agreement, and covering all risks of loss, damage or
destruction of such vehicles, vessels, engines or equipment.
3. Workers Compensation Insurance: As required by California law and employers’ insurance with a
limit not less than $1 million.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A: VII. The
ALAMEDA CTC may, at its sole discretion, waive or alter this requirement or accept self-insurance in lieu of
any required policy of insurance.
373
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix G – Page 5
County Program Manager Fund Expenditure Plan Guidance FYE 2020
Appendix F: Insurance Guidelines
This appendix provides guidance on the insurance coverage and documentation typically required
for TFCA County Program Manager Fund projects. Note that the Air District reserves the right to
specify different types or levels of insurance in the Funding Agreement.
The typical Funding Agreement requires that each Grantee provide documentation showing that
they meet the following requirements for each of their projects. The County Program Manager is
not required to meet these requirements itself, unless it is acting as a Grantee.
1. Liability Insurance:
Corporations and Public Entities - a limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such
insurance shall be of the type usual and customary to the business of the Grantee, and to the
operation of the vehicles, engines or equipment operated by the Project Sponsor.
Single Vehicle Owners - a limit of not less than $750,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall be
of the type usual and customary to the business of the Grantee, and to the operation of the
vehicles, engines or equipment operated by the Grantee.
2. Property Insurance:
New Equipment Purchases - an amount of not less than the insurable value of Grantee’s vehicles,
engines or equipment funded under this Agreement, and covering all risks of loss, damage or
destruction of such vehicles, engines or equipment.
Retrofit Projects - 2003 model year vehicles or engines or newer in an amount of not less than
the insurable value of Grantee’s vehicles, engines or equipment funded under this Agreement,
and covering all risks of loss, damage or destruction of such vehicles, engines or equipment.
3. Workers Compensation Insurance:
Construction projects – including but not limited to bike/pedestrian paths, bike lanes, smart
growth and vehicle infrastructure, as required by California law and employers’ insurance with a
limit not less than $1 million.
4. Acceptability of Insurers:
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A: VII. The
Air District may, at its sole discretion, waive or alter this requirement or accept self-insurance in
lieu of any required policy of insurance.
The following table lists the type of insurance coverage generally required for each project type. The
requirements may differ in specific cases. County Program Managers should contact the Air District
liaison with questions, especially about unusual projects.
BAAQMD Transportation Fund for Clean Air – County Program Manager Page 25
374
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix G – Page 6
County Program Manager Fund Expenditure Plan Guidance FYE 2020
BAAQMD Transportation Fund for Clean Air – County Program Manager Page 26
375
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A19-0064
Project No. 1481001
Appendix G – Page 7
APPENDIX G-4
REPORTING FORMS FOR TFCA-FUNDED PROJECTS
TFCA Interim Report Form:
The latest electronic version of the BAAQMD TFCA Interim Report form is available from the Alameda
CTC’s website at: https://www.alamedactc.org/funding/reporting-and-grant-forms/reimbursement-and-
reporting-forms/
TFCA Final Report Form:
The latest electronic version of the BAAQMD TFCA Final Report forms are available from the Alameda
CTC’s website at: https://www.alamedactc.org/funding/reporting-and-grant-forms/reimbursement-and-
reporting-forms/
Note: There are four TFCA report form templates. Use the appropriate form, as follows:
Form 1 - Trip Reduction Projects, for shuttles/feeder bus operations, ridesharing and transportation
demand management (TDM) programs, and Smart Growth projects
Form 2 - Alternative Fuel Vehicles, for all vehicle projects
Form 3 - Bicycle Projects, for bicycle lanes, bike sharing, lockers and racks
Form 4 - Arterial Management, for signal timing coordination and upgrades and transit signal priority
TSP)
https://www.
alamedactc.
org/funding/r
eporting-and
-grant-forms
/reimbursem
ent-and-rep
orting-forms/
https://www.alamedactc.org/funding/reporting-and-grant-forms/reimburs
ement-and-reporting-forms/
https://www.
alamedactc.
org/funding/r
eporting-and
-grant-forms
/reimbursem
ent-and-rep
orting-forms/
https://www.alamedactc.org/funding/reporting-and-grant-forms/reimburs
ement-and-reporting-forms/
376