Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 EDubProp Attach5 EIRFinal SuPplemental Environmental Impact Report East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Comments and Responses SCH No. 2001052114 Lead Agency City of Dublin October 2001 ATTACHUENT Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Comments and Responses SCH No. 2001052114 City of Dul31in Planning Department 100 Civic Center Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 833-6610 October 2001 II III. Table of Contents Introduction Annotated Comment Letters and Responses Clarifications and Staff-Initiated Modifications to the DEIR Page 2 Page 3 Page 200 I. Introduction A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed project was prepared and distributed in July and August 2001. The proposed Project includes annexation of the Project area to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), prezoning the area to the City of Dublin PD-Planned Development Zoning District and a ~'elated Stage 1 Development Plan to guide future development of the Project area. A full description of the proposed project is contained in the DEIR document. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA Guidelines, after completion of the Draft EIR, lead agencies are required to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies and organizations having jurisdiction by law over elements of the project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. Lead agencies are also required to respond to substantive comments on environmental issues raised during the EIR review period. As the lead agency for this project, the City of Dublin held a 45-day public review period between July 31 and September 14, 2001. This document contains all public and agency comments received during the 45-daY public review process regarding the DEIR and responses to those comments. The City reviewed all comments received and prepared responses in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. These responses reflect good faith reasoned analysis, supported by factual information, to identify and resolve environmental issues raised through the comments. This Final EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15089. Included within the document is an annotated copy of the comment letter, identifying specific comments, followed by a response to that comment. Following the comments and responses is a section containing staff-initiated text changes and corrections. All revisions have been reviewed and considered with respect to whether they raise substantive issues requiring recirculation of the DSEIR (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The City has determined that none of the responses trigger the requirement to recirculate the DSEIR contained in the Guidelines. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 2 October 2001 II Annotated Comment Letters and Responses Letter Commenter No. Federal Agencies None State Agencies I Cal Trans 2 Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Local Agencies Dublin San Ramon Services District WHEELS Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District East Bay Regional Park District City of Livermore Individuals Tony Varni (representing Jordan Trust) Patrick Croak Allen Matkins (representing local property owners) Stuart Flashman Date 9/12/01 9/12/01 9/10/01 9/12/01 9/13/01 9/14/01 9/14/01 9/14/01 9/11/01 9/12/01 9/14/01 9/14/01 Comment Page # 4 12 18 21 23 45 60 62 164 169 177 182 EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 3 October 2001 09/12/01 15:29 FAI 5102865513 TRANS PLANNING B ~ STATE CLEARINGHO ~001 STA~= OF CALIFORNIA~USINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P, O, BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 (510) 286-4444 TDD (510) 286-4454 GRAY DAV S, Govern. or September 10, 2001 ALA-580-16.7 File #ALA580712 ;C~1052-144 Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. AICP Q,9/,.~ }~¢ *~ (¢ ~ ~..~ City of Dublin elanningDepartment ~ [(~'/~! ~i SEP 12 2f10~ 100 Civic plaza '.' Dublin, CA 94568 ~' STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Dear Mr. Peabody: t_ .. - East Dublin Properties (PA 99-025) - Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We have examined the Draft 'Environmental Impact Report and have the following comments to offer: We are concerned about the additional traffic volumes that this project will add to Interstate 580 580). The impacts to State transportation facilities should be discussed in greater detail. We would like to see the traffic impact data for the on-ramps and off-ramps, to compare conditions without the project and with the project. With the proposed project traffic added to the Year 2025 No Project mainline freeway volumes, both 1-580 and 1-680 are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS). We would like to see the traffic operations impact, including the LOS and the delay information for the conditions without the project, and also with the project. Impact 3.3/E states that the proposed East Dublin Properties project will have significant and unavoidable impact on the mainline 1-580 freeway operation, and that mitigation is not feasible because freeway improvement is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin. The Department is currently planning impro'vements to 1-580 by installing a ramp metering system at interchanges along the freeway corridor, as well as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. We urge the City to meet its mitigation obligations by participating in the development and funding of these projects. On Page 3.6-13, mitigation measures at the 1-580/Hacienda Drive interchange involving the westbound loop on-ramp need to include a ramp metering system and HOV by-pass lane. On Page 3.6-11, the Santa RitaJTassajara overcrossing is referred to incorrectly as an overpass. Likewise, the E1 Charro/Fallon Road overcrossing is referred to as an overpass. Please correct the term. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 ~/12/01 15:29 5102865513 TRANS PLANNING B ~ STATE CLEARINGHO ~002 ,ody/DEIR ember 10, 2001 Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Paul Svedersky of my staff at (510) 622-1639. Sincerely, HARRY Y. YAHATA District Director By ~,.~ ~ JEAN C. R. FINNEY District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Katie Shulte Joung, State Clearinghouse Responses to Caltrans Letter Response 1.1: The comment requested Project impact data on 1-580 on-ramps and off-ramps. Table 1.1 below provides a summary of the trips that are expected to use the on- and off-ramps on 1-580 at Hacienda Drive, Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road/E1 Charro Road during the AM and PM peak hours under Year 2025 conditions. The peak hour volumes were obtained from the Tri-Valley Transportation Model. As shown in Table 1.1, most of the project trips will use the Fallon Road/E1 Charro Road interchange to access the Project'site. With the minimal number of additional trips, the City determined that the additional trips would not result in significant traffic impacts at this interchange. No mitigations beyond the improvements identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the DSEIR are required. All of the intersections near this interchange, including the overcrossing, are being sized and reconfigured to accommodate added traffic. The Project will contribute its proportionate share to the cumulative widening of Fallon Road through payment of Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees (see DSEIR, p. 3.6-6). Separate traffic operations studies have been prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants for the 1-580 off-ramps at Hacienda Drive, Tassajara/Santa Rita Roads and Fallon/E1 Charro Roads to 'ensure that queuing onto mainline 1-580 would not occur under cumulative conditions. These studies were conducted as part of the Project Study Reports (PSR) for the 1-580 interchange improvement projects at these three locations. In addition, continuous auxiliary lanes are planned along this segment of 1-580 in both directions so that there would not be weaving as vehicles enter the freeway. (See Response 8.TC-7 [which describes the contribution the Project will make to HOV lanes on 1-580].) The auxiliary lanes provide adequate distance to allow vehicles to merge into the traffic stream. Therefore, added traffic due to the proposed project at the on- and off-ramps is not expected to result in significant traffic impacts. The above information provides Project traffic data for.the 1-580 ramps in the Project site vicinity and compares conditions with and without the Project, as requested by Caltrans. This analysis shows that Project traffic added to the ramps will not cause significant traffic impacts. Response 1.2: The comment requested information regarding traffic operations impacts from the Project on mainline 1-580 and 1-680 under Year 2025 conditions. In response to this request, additional freeway segment operational analysis was conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 methodology for basic freeway sections under Cumulative Year 2025. The levels of service are based on density and speeds. Table 1.2 is provided to show the change in speeds without and with the project at the study freeway segments. "Speed" as a measure of EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 6 October 2001 effectiveness was chosen for presentation since the general public is more familiar with this parameter. Delay is not a standard measurement in freeway analysis. Speeds below 51.1 mph correspond to Level of Service (LOS) F, and are not computable. Under these conditions traffic is assumed to be stop and go since the volumes are near or exceed capacity. As shown in Table 1.2, without and with the project, 1-580 experiences congestion (LOS F) in the westbound peak commute direction between 1-680 and east of Airway. during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, 1-580 is forecasted to operate at LOS F in the eastbound peak commute direction between 1-680 and east of Airway, except between Dougherty and Tassajara where there are more lanes. This segment would operate at LOS D and E with speeds between 53.0 and 59.7 mph without and with the project. 1-680 is projected to operate at LOS D, E and F, and SR-84 is projected to operate at LOS A south of 1-580 during the AM and PM peak hours without and with the project. Westbound 1-580 between Tassajara and Fallon Roads is expected to experience the greatest reduction in speed of 3.2 mph due to Project traffic during the PM peak hour; although the speed is reduced, the LOS remains the same, however. The above Project traffic impact results are consistent with the DSEIR discussion of Freeway Segment Conditions with and without the Project. (DSEIR pp. 3-6-21 and 22.) The above analysis provides information on Project traffic impacts on 1-580 and 1-680 mainline segments, as requested by Caltrans. Based on the above analysis, the added traffic by the proposed Project would not cause a change in levels of service and does not change the impact conclusions set forth in the DSEIR. Response 1.3: The comment summarizes Impact 3.3/E of the Eastern Dublin EIR, which found certain segments of 1-580 would exceed LOS E at cumulative buildout with the Project, and suggests that the City participate in the development and funding of Caltrans' planned improvements to 1-580, consisting 'of the installation of ramp metering and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Mitigation Measure 3.3/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR corresponding to Impact 3.3/E states: "The City shall coordinate with other local jurisdictions to require that all future development projects participate in regional transportation mitigation programs as determined by the current Tri-Valley Transportation Council study." EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 7 October 2001 Table 1.1 Year 2025 Traffic Impacts at 1-580 On- and Off-ramps between Hacienda and Fallon Year 2025 No Year 2025 + Project Change in traffic* Location Project A M PM Peak A M PM Peak A M PM Peak Peak Peak Peak 1-580 On-ramps at: Hacienda - 1,075 1,748 1,169 1,810 94 62 Eastbound Hacienda - 1,397 2,347- 1,258 2,237 (139) (110) Westbound Santa Rita - 706 1,146 746 1,157 40 11 Eastbound Tassajara - 1,519 1,568 1,483 ~1,432 (36) (136) Westbound E1 Charro - 851 977 931 963 80 (14) Eastbound Fallon - 1,051 1,334 1,354 1,727 303 393 Westbound 1-580 Off-ramps at: Hacienda - EBL 681 636 701 717 20 81 Hacienda - EBR 1,186 1,100 1,200 1,056 14 (44) Hacienda - WBL 645 692 606 675 (39) (17) Hacienda - WBR 1,017 990 1,000 1,096 (17) 106 Santa Rita - EBL 831 530 805 418 (26) (112) Santa Rita - EBT 104 208 102 203 (2) (5) Santa Rita - EBR 181 113 181 110 0 (3) Tassajara - WBL 474 493 512 508 38 15 Tassajara - WBR 743 650 731 679 (12) 29 E1 Charro - EBL 798 895 1,133- 1,077 335 182 E1 Charro - EBR 103 48 100 46 (3) (2) Fallon - WBL. 693 747 643 715 (50)' (32) Fallon - WBR 806 1,254 855 1,299 49 45 Note: *Parentheses indicate a reduction in traffic. The peak hour volumes are generated based on the Tri-Valley Transportation Model. Reductions are possible with the development of the proposed project as background traffic may be reassigned to other locations as new traffic is introduced. The reassigned background traffic may be replaced with less project traffic resulting in overall reductions. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 8 October 2001 Table 1.2 Peak Hour Mainline Freeway Levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 No Project' Plus Project Change in' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Speed3 Location Cap. (mph) Vol. Speed] LOS2 Vol. Speed] LOS2 Vol. Speedl LOS2 Vol. Speedl LOS2 AM PM (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) 1-580, west of 1-680 Eastbound 9,200 5,320 60.0 C 8,282 <51.1 F 5,437 60.0 C 8,351 <51.1 F 0.0 eda Westbound 9,200 8,126 52.5 E 6,749 59.2 D 8,192 51.9 E 6,871 58.9 D (0.6) (0.31 1-580, 1-680 to Dougherty Eastbound 9,200 8,047 53.1 E 10,084 <51.1 F 8,232 51.5 E 10,139' <51.1 F (1.6) n/a Westbound 9,200 10,387 <51.1 F 9,442 <51.1 F 10,554 <51.1 F 9,677 <51.1 F n/a n/a 1-580, Dougherty to Hacienda Eastbound 13,800 7,460 60.0 C 9,722 59.7 D 7,728 60.0 C 9,824 59.6 D 0.0 (0.1 Westbound 9,200 10,042 <51.1 F 8,714 <51.1 F 10,473 <51.1 F 8,944 <51.1 F n/a n/a 1-580, Hacienda to Tassajara Eastbound 11,500 6,154 60.0 C 9,897 54.1 E 6,823 60.0 C 10,077 53.0 E 0.0 (1.1' Westbound 9,200 10,665 <51.1 F 7,706 55.5 E 10,425 <51.1 F 8,111 52.6 E n/a (2.91 1-580, Tassajara to Fallon Eastbound 9,200 5,747 60.0 D 10,219 <51.1 F 6,499 59.6 D 10,482 <51.1 F (0.4) n/a Westbound 9,200 10,353 <51.1 F 7,277 57.6 E 10,237 <51.1 F 7,870 54.4 E n/a (3.21 1-580, Fallon to Airway Eastbound 9,200 6,888 58.9 D 11,t45 <51.1 F 7,285 57.9 D I 1,249 <51.1 F (1.0) n/a Westbound 9,200 10,731 <51.1 F 7,785 55.0 E 10,453 <51.1 F 7,967 53.7 E n/a (1.3' 1-580, East of Airway Eastbound 9,200 6,472 59.7 D 10,465 <51.1 F 6,922 58.8 D 10,512 <51.1 F (0.9) n/a Westbound 9,200 10,437 <51.1 F 7,272 57.6 E 10,306 <51.1 F 7,500 56.6 E n/a (1.0' 1-680, North of 1-580 ~ Northbound 6,900 6,038 53.1 E 7,053 <51.1 F 6,017 53.3 E 7,089 <51.1 F 0.2 rda Southbound 6,900 6,000 53.5 E 5,676 56.3 E 6,075 52.7 E 5,641 56.5 E (0.8) 0.2 1-680, South of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 4,674 59.9 D 5,436 57.7 D 4,572 60.0 D 5,370 58.1 D 0.1 0.4 Southbound 6,900 5,565 57.0 E 5,647 56.5 E 5,586 56.9 E 5,653 56.4 E (0.!) (0.11 SR 84, South of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 735 60.0 A 1,137 60.0 A 721 60.0 A 1,133 60.0 A 0.0 0.0 Southbound 6,900 1,015 60.0 A 792 60.0 A 1,030 60.0 A 778 60.0 A 0.0 0.0 Notes: 1) The maximum speed for LOS E is 51.1 mph. Speeds less than 51.1 mph correspond to LOS F. Under these conditions it is assumed that traffic is stop and go since the estimated volumes near or exceed capacity. 2) LOS = Level of service. Levels of service are calculated based on Highway Capacity Manual 2000 by the Transportation Research Board. 3) Parentheses ( ) indicate that speeds are slower with the development of the proposed project. In June 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-98 establishing a Tri- Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee for future developments within the City of Dublin. This resolution was adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement that Dublin entered into with Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, Danville, Alameda County and Contra Costa County in which all the parties agreed to impose TVTD Fees on development that receives a land use entitlement. (Refer to page 3.6-6 of the DSEIR for a description of the current Fee Program in the City of Dublin.) The TVTD Fee Strategic Expenditure Plan identifies eleven planned projects as being the most regionally significant, including installation of HOV lanes on I-$80 between Tassajara Road and Vasco Road. These projects have been given priority for funding with revenues from the TVTD Fee program. In September 2001, the City adopted Resolution No. 168-01 supporting the 1-580 Smart Corridor Management Plan that was previously approved by the 1-580 Smart Corridor Policy Advisory Committee. The Plan supports the phased implementation of a Ramp Metering Plan on 1-580 from 1-880 to the Altamont Pass. The member jurisdictions of the 1-580 Smart Corridor project, including Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and Alameda County, are committed to petition the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Caltrans to elevate the priority funding for the next phase of the 1-580 Smart Corridor project to implement a coordinated system of ramp metering on 1-580. The issue of funding for Caltrans' planned improvements to 1-580 was adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the DSEIR. As described above, the City is an active participant in the development and funding of regional transportation mitigations, in compliance with adopted Eastern Dublin mitigation measures. Response 1.4: The commentor suggests the westbound loop on-ramp at 1-580/ Hacienda Drive include a ramp metering system and a HOV by-pass lane. The DSEIR includes a supplemental mitigation measure (SM-TRAFFIC-2) on page 3.6-13 of the Draft Supplemental EIR. SM-TRAFFIC-2 is modified to read as follows to clarify that Caltrans' standards and design criteria will be followed: SM-TRAFFIC-2: Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing .from 3 lanes to 4 lanes including three through lanes and one auxiliary lane that leads exclusively to the 1-580 westbound loop on- ramp. The westbound loop on-ramp shall be modified as necessary to meet Caltrans' standards and design criteria. Project developers also shall contribute to widening the westbound off ramp approach to add a third westbound left-turn lane. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 10 October 2001 The City of Dublin shall implement this mitigation measure in coordination with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans. This improvement shall occur when traffic impacts from individual projects are determined to trigger the need for this improvement based on traffic impact studies of the individual projects. With this mitigation, levels od: service. This insignificance. this intersection will operate at acceptable impact will be reduced to a level of Response 1.5: The correction is noted. On page 3.6-11 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the first bullet item is revised as follows: Santa Rita/Tassajara Road: The northbound overcrossing over 1-580 will be widened to three lanes and lane additions will be made to the eastbound off-ramp approach to Santa Rita Road. On page 3.6-11 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the second bullet item is revised as follows: · E1 Charro/Fallon Roads: the existing two-lane overcrossing over 1-580 will be widened to four lanes, the intersections involving the eastbound and the westbound ramps will be signalized, and the ramps will be improved near the new signals. Included in this project are new auxiliary freeway lanes on t-580 between E1 Charro/Fallon Roads and Santa Rita/Tassajara Roads. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 11 October 2001 STATE OF CALI~ORNIABUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DE PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS - M.S.~0 1120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942973 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 PHONE (916) 654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 RECEIVED SEP I 4 2001 DUBUN PLANNING Septl2,2001 Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr. City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mr. Peabody: Re: City of Dublin's Draft Supplemental EIR for East Dublin Properties; SCH# 2001052114 GRAY DAVIS, Governor The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has reviewed the above-referenced document pursuant to CEQA. The following comments are offered for your consideration. The proposal is for the annexation of the 1,120-acre project area to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ra'mon Services District (DSRSD), prezoning the area to the City of Dublin PD-Planned Development Zoning District, and considering a related Stage 1 Development Plan to guide future development of the project area. Development under the proposed prezoning and Stage 1 Planned Development would include a mixed density residential uses, retail, service, office and light industrial, parks, open spaces, community facilities, roadways and similar land uses. The proposal also includes four school sites within two miles of the Livermore Municipal Airport. We do have a school site evaluation on file dated January 15, 1993 (also enclosed) for several school sites in the general area of the project site. In our January 1993 letter, we stated that a portion of one of the middle schools fell within the a!rport protection area (APA) and we recommended that the school be moved north of the APA. We also expressed concern with potential noise impacts associated with frequent high single event noise levels due to the proximity of certain school sites to the airport traffic pattern. However, since school site evaluations are only good for five years, the school district should be advised to notify the State Department of Education of the need for a school site evaluation by the Division of Aeronautics in accordance with Education Code Section 17215 (enclosed). For questions concerning the school site evaluation, the school district should be advised to contact the Department's A~/iation Consultant for Alameda County, Dan Gargas, at 916/654-5222. 2.1 Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr. September 12,2001 'Page 2 The southern portion of the project site also lies within Safety Zones A, B and C of the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) modified APA. The proposal should be submitted to the ALUC for a consistency determination. The proposal should also be submitted to the Livermore Municipal Airport Manager, Leander Hauri, to ensure that the proposal will be compatible with future as well as existing airport operations. The need for compatible and safe land uses near airports in California is both a local and a state issue. Along with protecting individuals who reside or work near an airport, the Division of Aeronautics views each of the 250 public use airports in California as part of the statewide transportation system, which is vital to the state's continued prosperity. This role will no doubt increase as California's population continues to grow and the need for efficient mobility becomes more Crucial. We strongly feel that the protection of airports from incompatible land use encroachment is vital to California's economic future. Thank. you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please call me at 916/654-5314. Sincerely, SANDY ~HESNARD Environmental Planner Enclosure C~ State Clearinghouse, Alameda County ALUC, Livermore Muni Airport, State Dept of Education 2.2 2.3 Education Code Section 17215, as amended by AB 747, Chapter 837 of the Statutes of 1999 17215. (a) In order to promote the safety of pupils, comprehensive community planning, and greater educational usefulness of schoolsites before acquiring title to property for a new schoolsite, the governing board of each school district, including any district governed by a city board of education, shall give the State Department of Education wrirten notice of the proposed acquisition and shall submit any information required by the State Department of Education if the proposed site is within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway or a potential runway included in an airport master plan that is nearest to the site. (b) Upon receipt of the notice required pursuant to subdivision (a), the State Department of Education shall notify the Department of Transportation in writing of the proposed acquisition. If the Department of Transportation is no longer in operation, the State Departmen'c of Education shall, in lieu of notifying the Department of Transportation/notify the United States Department of Transportation or any other appropriate agency, in writing, of the proposed acquisition for the purpose of obtaining from the department or other agency any information or assistance that it may desire to give. (c) The Department of Transportation shall investigate the proposed site and, within 30 working days after receipt of the notice, shall submit to the State Department of Education a written report of its findings including recommendations concerning acquisition of the site. As part of the investigation, the Department of Transportation shall give notice thereof to the owner and operator of the airport who shall be granted the opportunity to comment upon the proposed schoolsite. The Department of Transportation shall adopt regulations setting forth the criteria by which, a proposed site will be evaluated pursuant to this section. (d) The State Department of Education shall, within 10 days of receiving the Department of Transportation's report, forward the report to the governing board of the school district. The governing board may not acquire title to the property until the report of the Department of Transportation has been received. If the report does not favor the acquisition of the property for a schoolsite or an addition to a present schoolsite, the governing board may not acquire title to the property. If the report does favor the acquisition of the property for a schoolsite or an addition to a present schoolsite, the governing board shall hold a public hearing on the matter prior to acquiring the site. (e) If the Department of Transportation's recommendation does not favor acquisition of a proposed site, state funds or local funds may not be apportioned or expended for the acqmsition of that site, construction of any school building on that site, or for the expansion of any existing site to include that site. (f) This section does not apply to sites acquired prior to January 1, 1966, nor to any additions or extensions to those sites. From Internet: http://www.leginfo.ca, gov/calaw.html Caltrans Aeronautics Program: January 13, 2000 Dublin U.S.D. Livermore Airpor~ (Alameda County) January 15, 1993 Ms. Jeanne Howland Governing Board Dublin Unified School District 7471 Larkdale Avenue Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Ms. Howland: In response to your request of October 13, 1992 and Section 39006 of the Education Code, the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has analyzed the school site proposals by the Dublin Unified School District. The proposed sites are located one to two miles northwest of the Livermore Municipal Airport, and are outside the current approved traffic patterns to the airport. Our analysis consisted of a thorough review of our files concerning the Livermore Municipal Airport, including layout plans and vicinity maps depicting the relationship of the airport traffic patterns to the proposed sites. In addition, the airport was offered the opportunity to respond. Their comments were considered. Our evaluation revealed that, although most of the sites may be subject to very occasional overflights by aircraft maneuvering to establish themselves for approach to the airport, they would not present an undue safety hazard. However, a portion of one of the middle schools (see the attached layouts) falls within the airport protection area (APA) and therefore we recommend that the school be moved north so as to be located north of the APA. Some of the sites are close enough to the traffic pattern to where they will experience frequent high single event noise levels. Therefore, this should be considered in the location and design of proposed facilities. Ms. Jeanne Howland January 15, 1993 Page 2 The Department cannot guarantee the safety of these (or any) sites. However, based upon our evaluation of existing conditions and planned development, these sites (excluding the middle school previously mentioned) are considered to provide the level of safety suitable for a school. We, therefore,, do not object to the acquisition of the remaining proposed school sites. However, if the sites are not acquired by November 30, 1997 another site evaluation will be required. Sincerely, Enclosures bcc: Dottie Odeil - District 4 DRG:bp DW4DRG#8(HOWLAND.LTR) DANIEL R. GARGAS Aviation Consultant OITY OF 8Pt4ERE OF INFLU DUBLIN RA:VCH 11 ! II II II LIN F4LL ON CE// i, CR OA N VERID(;E Mohr /OI ,$'EI~ ........ sAFo GRA VEL B~TD~-D;,~'~I~ [~T~ql],~I]D&fL L~B~{5~ AIRPORT PROTECTION AREA INITIAL STUDY M~CLINTOCK, BECKER & ASSOCIA?ES. FOSTER CITY~ CA DOOLAN ~ EA.?T) mmmimm / L,'rs posl. tas Col/ ['ours I,ONESTAR Bh~d- [ND USTRIA L LEGEND [~ VARYING RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES ~Z~:~ OPEN SPACE/NEIGHBORHOOD SQ. OR PARK ~1~[~ COMMERCIAL i(~EN./PARK/NEIGtIBORIIOODI ~ SCHOOLS E-~ INDUBTRIAL PARK H~-et.ma'n Rd. CITY OF LIVERMORE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE College &REA 1-580 ;as Pos4tc~s SCALE ~ ~oo o ~ooo 2000 ~ooo , EXHIBIT IV-14 EAST DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN Responses to Letter 2: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Response 2.1: In 'regard to the four school sites proposed within the Eastern Dublin Property OWners Association project area, the project applicant has been made aware of the need to update school site evaluations prior to final siting of schools. Information on the State Education Code, attached to the comment letter from the Division of Aeronautics, will be forwarded to the project applicants for appropriate action. Response 2.2: Regarding referral to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission, this referral is clearly identified on page 8 of the Initial Study for the proposed project. No further analysis is required at this level of environmental review. Response 2.3: Comments from the Division of Aeronautics regarding the need for safe and compatible land uses near airports is acknowledged. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 17 October 2001 DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT 7051 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, California 94568 FAX: 925 829 1t80 925 828 0515 Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. AICP City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 September 10, 2001 RECEIVED $£P 1 1 200! DUBLIN PLANNING Subject: Draft Supplemental EIR for East Dublin Properties, Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Dear Mr. PeabOdy: Thank you for the .opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) has identified no impacts or necessary mitigations beyond those identified in the Draft Supplemental EIR. Our comments on the specific areas of our service to the community in the area of the East Dublin Properties Annexation are detailed below. Potable Wafer'Supply and Service As you state in the Draft Supplemental EIR, DSRSD (as part of an agreement to settle a lawsuit with Citizens for Balanced Growth (CBG) and the City, of Livermore) was obligated upon receipt of a Notice of Preparation of the subject EIR, to prepare and submit to the City a"Programmatic Water Service Analysis" (PWSA) and "Preliminary Impact Analysis" analyzing the water-related impacts of the proposed project. In accordance with the November 1999 settlement agreement, DSRSD completed the PWSA in June 2001, and submitted the document to the City. As you point out in your report, DSRSD's PWSA demonstrates that Zone 7 has already secured sufficient supplies to serve the 5,620 AF demands of all of eastern Dublin. Furthermore, the fhcilities currently planned by DSRSD for this area will be of sufficient capacity to meet the increased demand at full build out of this project; and this demand will be mitigated somewhat by the extension of recycled water pipelines through the project area and adherence to Dublin's standard water conservation measures. Therefore, no additional mitigation is necessary for obtaining additional water supply for this project. 3.! Please note that CBG and the City of Livermore have exercised their right under the settlement agreement to challenge the findings of the PWSA, and all parties of the settlement agreement are currently participating in the required dispute-resolution process. The Dublin San Raraon Services District is a Public Entity Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. City of Dublin September 10, 2001 Page 2 of 2 RecFcled Water Supply and Service As you note in the Draft Supplemental EIR, when available DSRSD will provide recycled water to the .proposed project for irrigation of large landscaped areas. The facilities will be installed in accordance with DSRSD's Water Master Plan. Therefore, no additional mitigation is necessary foi' obtaining additional recycled water supply for this project. Wastewater Services and Wastewater Effluent Disposal The Draft Supplemental EIR notes that the 1994 eastern Dublin EIR identified mitigation measures for the wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. The mitigation measures were DSRSD's inclusion of eastern Dublin in its long-range wastewater planning to ensure that limited treatment plant capacity is not a new significant impact. Since DSRSD has included this wastewater demand in the planned capacity expansions of DSRSD's Wastewater Treatment Plant and LAVWMA's planned increase in volume of wastewater effluent disposal facilities, no further mitigation appears to be necessary. As noted above, our agency does not deem any mitigation beyond those specified in the Draft Supplemental EIR for the areas of our Potable Water, Recycled Water or Wastewater Collection and Disposal services to the community. We feel that the joint planning effort done between the City of Dublin and DSRSD has successfully identified those areas of concern and planned reasonable solutions to those areas. Please note that DSRSD will require all properties within the project area to obtain pre-development approvals through a Public Facility, Agreement, Services Planning Agreement and/or an Area-Wide Facility Agreement. Sincerely, DAVID K. BEHRENS, P.E. Principal Engineer DB:jg Cc: Bert Michalczyk, DSRSD Dave Requa, DSRSD 3.2 3.3 G:LENGDEPT~CEQALDSKSD Response to CEQA Documents\City of Dublin\Draft Comments to Dublin Supp Ell>. for E Dublin Annex_901 .doc - Responses to Letter 3: DSRSD . Response 3.1: The comment that adequate potable water supply and service can be provided by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) to serve the proposed Project and no mitigation measures are required is acknowledged. The City of Dublin is aware that Citizens for Balanced Growth and City of Livermore have challenged the Programmatic Water Service Analysis for this project. No additional analysis is therefore required on this topic. Response 3.2: The comment that DSRSD will provide recycled water to serve the Project when this becomes available and no mitigation measures are required is acknowledged. The City will require installation of infrastructure for recycled water service. Response 3.3: The comment by DSRSD that long term planning is underway to include the Project area into DSRSD's wastewater master plans is acknowledged and no mitigation measures will be required. The City also acknowledges that DSRSD may require a Public Facility Agreemem, Service Planning Agreement and/or an Area-Wide Facility Agreement at later stages of Project entitlement. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 20 October 2001 ~9,/14/01 FRI 17:31 FAX 510 413 1375 LAVrA ~001 SUBJECT: Andy Byde, Associate Planner, City of Dublin Developments FROM: Virginia Frazier, Transit Planner DATE: September 12, 2001 DISCUSSION LAV'rA received the following relating to transit improvements. plans to review and provided comments Project- Project Project 1%T~,me # Location Cit7 Type East Dublin P-A00-025 East Dublin Dublin Annexation Properties (Eastern Properties Dublin Specific Plan)- COMMENTS We are requesting that Dublin Planning consider the need for public transit as conditions are developed for the East Dublin Specific Plan. 4.1 The services We are currently providing in Dublin and the surrounding area are regular scheduled bus service Fixed Route, Direct Access Response Transit, Express Buses, Commuter Service and Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Shuttle. In addition we provide numerous morning and afternoon routes that are scheduled to serve middle and high schools. .Providing service to the new areas of East Dublin consider Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC), The creation of transit friendly areas includes planning for bus putlouts on major arterial. Feeder and collector streets wide enough to allow buses to make curb stops where appropriate. Improvements such as shelters, benches, trash receptacles, schedule displays and bicycle racks should be required where appropriate as well. The cost and maintenance of these improvements should be passed along to the Developers, Special consideration should be given te school sites, Traffic flow, bus stop locations are important so that buses can get the students to and from school safely and efficiently. Another area to consider would be commercial/retail centers where central bus zones strategically located would aid transit users by providing convenient access and limit the number of stops necessary to serve one area. 4.2 4.3 I can be reached at 455.75,57 if you have questions or comments, Liverrnore Amador VafleY Transit Authority Responses to Letter 4: WHEELS Response 4.1: The commentor requests that Dublin Planning consider the need for public transit as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The need for transit in the Eastern Dublin area has been addressed in Section 3.3 (Traffic and Circulation) of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Impact IM 3.3/0 and associated Mitigation Measures MM 3.3/15.0 through 15.3 of the Eastern Dublin EIR require the City to coordinate provision of transit in the Specific Plan area with LAVTA and also provides specific standards of operation for future bus service. Thus, this topic has been addressed by the City and no additional analysis is needed. Response 4.2: The commentor requests the City provide transit-friendly design features and facilities, including but not limited to wide streets, bus turn-outs, bus shelters, benches and similar improvements. City planning and design standards currently provide for all of the transit-friendly facilities and improvements identified by the commentor. These improvements and facilities will be required to be installed as part of future land use entitlements of the project, specifically Stage 2 Planned Development rezonings, Site Development Reviews and subdivision maps. No further analysis is therefore needed. Response 4.3: The comment that special consideration be given to school sites and shopping center is noted. This request has been transmitted to the Dublin Public Works Department for incorporation into individual site plans for schools and shopping centers as part of review of Site Development Review applications. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 22 October 2001 2t.I'~AMEDA AC Tramlt Director Mau William~ Supen, i~ov~ Scot~ ~agg~ro'. Mayor Cl~ Of ~baay M~yor Pc~ ~T Dirccmr P~I~ Snyd~r Cay o~ Berkeley l~ wo~h}ngton Cnuncilmcmbcr Geor~ ~ ~u~c{lmember Nora Davis Ma~r ~ Mn~soml Ci~ of Ha~rR Mayor, Rnbe~a Cooper Tom .Vaeg~ Oi~ of CiaT. of Cu~mcilmembee ~r~ ~id Councilmemb~e Mkh~el Bruek Tom PMo , 8hclia Youn~ of U~on ~ayor' Mark Gr~ n Denni~ R. September 13, 2001 Mr, Eddie Peabody City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin~ CA 94568 · SUBIECT: Corcanents on the East Dublin Properties Draft SupPlemental Environmental Impact. Report'in the City. ~fDublin Dear Mr. Peabody,: .Thank. you for the opportunity to' comment on the City of Dublin's Draft SUpplemental Environmental' Impact Keport for the East DublLu Properties in the City of Dublin. The project consists Of the future development of up to 1120 am-es located in the unincorporated 'area of Alameda County. The project is bounded .by 1-580 to the south and Fa/Ion Road to the west and abuts, the eastern Dublin city limit boundary. The City of Dublin proposes to annex the land from Alameda COunty. The project prOposes'a maximum' of 2,526 dwelling units and 134,600 square feet ofneighborh0ed commerciM, 446,500 .square feet of general commercial and 840,400 square feet industrial park development. The ACCMA respectfully submits the following comments. Where possible 'Page numbers in the DSEIX are referenced. ' ' Page 3.6-7 and 8, ~Fr~eways: The ACCMA does not. have established significance criteria, guidelines for freewaYs or arterials. The LOS E standard referred to' in this. section applies ohly to the monitoring o£eXisting conditions that' is done every two years· .by the ACCMA_ The LOS'E is not applicable to the Land use Analy.sis Program and .'reference ~/o it .in thii and future environmental documents must be de!et:d.' Page 3.6.-8, 3~ paragraph: The discussions on'use of the Dublin and'Tri-Valley Modeis 5.2 occurred in AuguSt.2001. (See attached l~ter dated August '21, 2001' t° Mr, Ray { Kuzbari). The comparison of the traffic volumes among the models and the analysis, of 1VCl'S routes and transit systems as specified in the attached letter a~d our July 6m.'.[ 5.3 response to the NOP must be included in the environmemM document. The MTS roules that-are subject to the'CMP Land Use Analysis Program requirements'include: 1-580, I- 5.4 680; SR 84, Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road/Santa Rim ROad, Fallon Road/El Charro Road, ~ well as BART and LAVTA. ' .. ' 5.1 BROADWAy.,, SUITE 220 -' OAKLAi~D, CA'.94612 · P~ONE; (~I0) 88~560 · F~': (510) SB~2185 E-~L: mail~accmmca,g'ov · ~B S~E~ accma.~g~v Mr. Eddie Peabody September 13, 2001 Page 2 I£you have any questions or require m:Iciitional assistance, please give me a call at 510/836~2560 cx"t, 13. Sincerely, Beth Waluka~ Senior Transportation Planner cc: . Kay Kuzbm'i, City of Dublin Public Works Department file: CMP - Environmental Review Opinions - Responses - 2001 I M~yor ~tph Appc~zu~ Ci~ of M~or Peg~ ~om~n Director C~uncilmem~r ~om Davi~ M~y~r ~h~rm Cooper ot Councilmembcr Tom Va~m Councltm~mbcr $u~n Bogg~. Gounci]~umb~ L~ Reid Coundtm~m~r To~ Pice ~yo r Union M~k Green ~e~ve ~tOt August 21, 2001 Mr. Ray Kuzbari City of Dublin Public Works Department 100 Civio Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 SUBJECT: Commems on the CMP Land Use Analysis Program Transportation Analysis for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the East D~blin Properties Dear Ray: I have row/ewer the 2005 and 2025 traffio volume comparison of the Dublin Model,. Tr/- Valley Model, and Alameda Countywide ModeI. Based on this review, the C1VI~ Land Usc Analysis Program analysis can be done udng the gen~-ally more conservative traffic volumes from the other models. The impacts to those MTS routes listed on our response to the NOP shOUld be analyzed for 2005 and 2025 conditions and included in the environmental document. The comparison of tr~.~ic volumes among the three models along with the percent change should also be included in the environmental document. For 2005 conditions, volumes from the Dublin ModeI for Hacienda Drive between Central. and Gleason should be provided. For 2005 and 2025 conditions, the following language should be included in a footnote for the Alameda Countywide Model segments *.hat have higher volumes than the other two modeI$, ' "The Countywide Transportation Model has a regional focus, has larger traffic analysis zones and fewer centroid connectors. Therefore, it van be expected that traffic loading onto specific segments of roadways will be more variable than tn more refined models such as the TVTC Model and the Dublin Model. Traffic volumes generated fi'om the more refined models are more conservative on surrounding segments and therefore those volumes should be used." These segments include: I-!aciend. a Drive between Central and Gteason (2005) Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard (2005) 1-580 be/ween Hacienda and Tassajara (2025) 1-580 between Dougherty and Hacienda (2025) lSS$ BROADX4;.~y, SUITE ~20 *OAF, L%N'D, Ca. 941512 * PHONE: (510) 836-2580 - FAX: (510) 856-~185 E-MA,IL: mail@accraa, ca.gov * WElt SITE.' acorns.cagey ~00~=~ NI~FIO Mr. RayKu ,H August21,2001 ~age2 JO ~iiD¢OI Nd6~ :£0 ~00~-£~-dqS Fallon Road between Dublin and Central (2025) Tassajara Road between Dublin and Central (2025) Hacienda Drive b'~twe'en Dublin and Central (2025) Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard (2025) Please do not hesitate to contact me at 510/836-2560 ext. 13 if you require additional information. Sincerely, Beth Waluka$ Senior Tranbportation Planner cc: Anne Kinney, City of Dublin file: CMP - Environmental Review Opinions - Responses - 2001 900: R~dc:l NIqSFIC JO AI!D(OI qsIEg£80~q[qB± Wd6S :EO I00E-£I-dBS 1,170 . J " ~00~=~ 100:BBW~ NI98no ~0 i±ID£OI ~8~9£B0~S(93± N~6S:£0 ~00~-£~-~3S ~y ~, u~Ir~ ~/e - 9~ ~29 9248; 07 /2001 1:12PM; #~O; Page ~/7 ' tr,~-~ JELtcien~, aad l['~{ar'4. 9,S~ ~,~7~ 1,60~ 1,079 2,0~t l,gO~ Z,~79 1,165 460 , 75O S8~£~0~S[q~± ~00:~0 ~008-£~-~S 7/7 - .~onl~ $.406 76/ Responses to Letter 5: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Response 5.1: The commentor notes that the ACCMA does not have established significance criteria guidelines for freeways or arterials, although it has a LOS standard for monitoring. The comment is noted. On pages 3.6-7 and 3.6-8 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the paragraph entitled Freeways is amended to read as follows; these changes are for clarification and ,are not substantive. Freeways. Freeway impacts are significant if the amount of traffic is increased substantially beyond the levels anticipated in the Eastern Dublin E[R so as to exceed Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) standards. ACCMA has established LOS standard of E for the Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway network, except where F was the level of service originally measured, in which case the standard shall be F. Although the LOS E standard was established for the purpose of monitoring existing level of service conditions for the Alameda County CMP Designated Roadway System, this standard provides a standard of significance for determining potential project environmental impacts on adjacent freeway systems within Alameda County. Specifically, the CMP identifies a specific system of,freeways and roadways that must be monitored for conformance to the ACCMA LOS standards. These roadways, identified as Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) routes are designated as "key routes" and include highways and principal arterials. For arterials to be considered MTS routes, the following criteria must be met: Must carry 30,000 vehicles per day for at least one mile; 'Must be a four lane (or more) roadway; 'Must be a major crossdtown connector; Must connect at both ends to another CMP route. In the project area, ACCMA has identified 1-580, 1-680, SR 84, Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road~El Charro Road as MTS routes. Since the City's standard is LOS D for Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, the LOS E standard (except where F is the level of service without Project traffic, in which case the standard is F) is applicable only to freeways. Response 5.2: The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA)'s comment clarifies that the Dublin Model and the Tri-Valley Model can be used to analyze Project traffic, rather than the ACCMA's Alameda Countywide Model. The 3ra paragraph on page 3.6-8 of the DSEIR is revised to read as follows: EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 30 October 2001 In addition to LOS roadway standards, ACCMA guidelines also specify that any proposed project generating 100 PM peak hour trips over existing conditions must conduct a traffic analysis of the project using the Countywide Transportation Demand Model ,for the base years 2005 and 2020. However, the guidelines also allow ,for other transportation models / projections to be used and Year 2025 must be compared to the Countywide Transportation Model to ensure that the more conservative of the two traffic projections are. used .for CEQA purposes. Discussions with ACCMA staff in November 2000 indicate that Year 2025 analysis using the Tri-Valley Transportation Model is appropriate to use `for the proposed Dublin Transit Center project (Draft EIR ,for Dublin Transit Center, SCH No. 20001120395 [July 2001], available at City of Dublin). Additional discussions with ACCMA staff in August 2001 confirmed that Year 2005 and 2025 analysis for the proposed Project can be done using the generally more conservative traffic volumes from models other than the Countywide Transportation Demand Model. Therefore, the use of the generally more conservative Year 2025 Tri-Valley Transportation Model to analyze impacts of the proposed Project should be appropriate. Compared to the Countywide Transportation Demand Model, the Tri-Valley Transportation Model represents a more specific and focused travel demand- forecasting tool .for the Tri-Valley area o.f Alameda County. Response 5.3: -The ACCMA asks that the DSEIR include a comparison of the traffic volumes obtained from the 2005 Dublin Model and the 2025 TVTM Model to the traffic volumes from the Countywide Transportation Model during the PM peak hour. This information is provided in Tables 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 below; however, it should be noted that its relevance is only to whether the Dublin Model and the TVTC Model can be used for the ACCMA's Congestion Management Plan Land Use AnalYsis Program analysis, rather than the Countywide Transportation Model. This information does not provide an analysis of the impacts of the Project traffic. Under Year 2005, all of the "Dublin Model" volumes within the study area are higher than the Countywide Transportation Model, except at three locations where the volumes are shown in bold in Table 5.3.1. Please note that the Dublin Model assumes that Dublin Boulevard does not extend east of Fallon Road without the Project and, hence, no volumes are reported for Dublin Boulevard east of Fallon Road under the Dublin Model. Under Year 2025, the reported traffic volumes from the TVTM Model within the study area are generally higher than the Countywide Transportation Model, except at some locations where the volumes are sh6wn in bold in Table 5.3.2. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 31 October 2001 The Countywide Transportation Model segments that have higher volumes than the other two models include: Hacienda Drive south of Dublin Boulevard (2005) Dougherty Road south of Dublin Boulevard (2005) Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard (2005 & 2025) 1-580 between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road (2025) 1-580 between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive (2025) Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive (2025) Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway (2025) Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway (2025) Hacienda Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway (2025) The higher volumes forecasted by the 2025 Countywide Model on Fallon Road, Tassajara Road, and Hacienda Drive appear to be concentrated within the blocks between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. However, the volumes on these roadways decrease more than expected north of Central Parkway in the Countywide Model. The Countywide Transportation Model has a regional focus, larger traffic analysis zones and fewer centroid connectors. Therefore, it can be expected that traffic loading onto specific segments of roadways will be more variable than in more refined models such as the TVTM Model and the Dublin Model. Traffic volumes generated from the more refined models are more conservative on surrounding segments and, therefore, those volumes should be used. Response 5.4: The ACCMA asks that the DSEIR include these MTS routes that are subject to the CMP Land Use Analysis Program requirements: 1-580, 1-680, SR 84, Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road, Fallon Road/E1 Charro Road, as well as BART and LAVTA. Potential impacts of the Project on the MTS routes of Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road are analyzed in the DSEIR for Year 2005 and Year 2025 conditions, and presented with two supplemental mitigation measures (SM-TRAFFIC-9 and SM-TRAFFIC-10) under the section entitled "Roadway Segment Conditions with the Project" on pages 3.6-19 and 3.6-20 of the DSEIR. Estimated daily volumes used in the analysis of Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road are shown in Figure 3.6-F of the DSEIR. In order to include Santa Rita Road and E1 Charro Road (located within the City of Pleasanton) in the MTS route analysis for Year 2005 and Year 2025 conditions, as requested by the ACCMA, Figure 3.6-F of the DSEIR is now amended as shown below in Figure 3.6-F "amended" to add the estimated daily volumes for Santa Rita Road and E1 Charro Road. As shown in FigUre 3.6-F "amended", the additional Project traffic volumes on Santa Rita Road are insignificant and would not require widening the roadway for additional lanes. Similarly, the EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 32 October 2001 Project would not have a significant impact on E1 Charro Road and would not require the widening of the roadway. Potential impacts of the Project on the MTS routes of 1-580 and 1-680 are analyzed in the DSEIR for Year 2025 conditions, and are presented under the section entitled "Freeway Segment Conditions with the Project" on pages 3.6-21 and 3.6- 22 of the DSEIR. In order to include SR 84 in the MTS route analysis for Year 2025 conditions, as requested by the ACCMA, Figure 3.6-7 of the DSEIR is now amended as shown below in Figure 3.6,7 "amended" to add the level of service . analysis for SR 84 south of 1-580. The volumes for this segment were obtained from the Tri-Valley Transportation Model for cumulative Year 2025 conditions. This is consistent with the other previously projected volumes for 1-580 and 1- 680. Roadway improvements currently under planning for SR 84 were assumed to be in place for this analysis; these improvements are included in the Tri- Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee Strategic Expenditure Plan as one of eleven most regionally significant projects that have been given priority for funding with revenues from the TVTD Fee program. The Project Study Report (PSR) for the SR 84 improvement project is currently underway and is evaluating a number of roadway configuration alternatives, including a possible ultimate configuration of six lanes on Isabel Avenue from 1-580 to Vineyard Avenue and four lanes from Vineyard Avenue to 1-680. The total length of the project is approximately ten miles. As shown in Figure 3.6-7 "amended", SR 84 south of 1-580 is anticipated to operate at LOS A without and with the proposed project during the AM and PM peak hours under Year 2025 conditions. In order to include 1-580, I-'680 and SR 84 in the MTS route analysis for Year 2005 conditions, as requested by the ACCMA, Table 5.4 is presented below to show the volume-to-capacity and corresponding level of service analysis without and with the proposed Project during the PM peak hour in Year 2005. The PM peak hour volume projections were obtained from the 2005 Countywide Transportation Model since the Dublin Model does not include freeway volumes. Based on this analysis and as shown in Table-5.4, the proposed Project is not expected to cause levels of service on 1-580, 1-680 and SR 84 to change during the PM peak hour under Year 2005 conditions. The discussion belOw presents an analysis of Project impacts to BART and LAVTA, as requested by the ACCMA. BART The impact on BART was evaluated by estimating increased ridership with the development of the proposed Project. Future ridership projections used in the Eastern Dublin EIR were based on the assumption that the East Dublin/Pleasanton station would be the only station constructed in the Tri- Valley area. However, it is expected that the currently planned West EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 33 October 2001 Dublin/Pleasanton BART station would also be available in the Tri-Valley area at the time when the proposed Project is constructed. The Project consists of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. It is anticipated that a small percentage of commercial and retail employees/visitors would use BART to and from the site. These riders would be in the reverse commute direction (eastbound) coming to the Project and capacity would be available to accommodate the added riders generated by these uses. Additional riders generated by the residential uses were calculated based on the methodology used in the DEIR for the Dublin Transit Center, July 2001. For the Transit Center, it is assumed that 32.1 percent of households would use BART since the residential portion of that project is located within the Transit Center area (Draft EIR for Dublin Transit Center, SCH No. 20001120395' [July 2001], available at the City of Dublin). However, since the proposed Project would not be in the immediate vicinity of a BART station, it is assumed that approximately two percent of the Project households would use BART, which is consistent with current BART ridership estimates within the Tri~Valley area containing the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and part of San Ramon. The traffic- consulting firm of TJKM Transportation Consultants calculated this two percent ridership estimate, and the calculation sheets are available atthe City of Dublin. Approximately $0 additional riders are estimated to use BART due to the proposed Project as calculated below. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 34 October 2001 1 I 1 1 i I ] 1 I I ] 1 l I I I I I I Table 5.4 Peak Hour Mainline Freeway Levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2005 Year 2005 No Project Year 2005 + Project Location Capacity P.M. Peak P.M. Peak Vol. v/C LOS Vol. V/C ' LOS 1-580, west of 1-680 Eastbound 9,200 7,438 0.81 D 7,489 0.81 D Westbound 9,200 6,999 0.76 D 7,121 0.77 D 1-580, 1-680 to Dougherty Eastbound 9,200 6,347 0.69 D 6,402 0.70 D Westbound 9,200 6,899 0.75 D 7,134 0.78 D 1-580, Dougherty to Hacienda Eastbound 13,800 8,684 0.63 C 8,786 0.64 · C Westbound 9,200 5,361 0.59 C 5,629 0.61 C 1-580, Hacienda to Tassajara Eastbound 11,500 8,048 0.70 D 8,228 0.72 D Westbound 9,200 5,361 0.58 C 5,766 0.63' C 1-580, Tassajara to Fallon Eastbound 9,200 81267 0.90 E 8,530 0.93 E Westbound 9,200 6,033 0.66 D 6,626 0.72 D 1-580, Fallon to Airway Eastbound 9,200 8,475 0.92 E 8,579 0.93 E Westbound 9,200 6,016 0.65 D 6,198 0.67 D 1-580, East of Airway Eastbound 9,200 9, t 81 1.00 F 9,631 1.05 F Westbound 9,200 5,927 0.64 D 6,058 0.66 D 1-680, North of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 6,404 0.93 E 6,440 0.93 Southbound 6,900 5,027 - 0.73 D 4,992 0.72 D 1-680, South of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 6,033 0.87 E 5,967 0.86 E Southbound 6,900 4,447 0.64 D 4,453 0.65 D SR 84, South of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 2,066 0.30 B 2,080 0.30 B Southbound 6,900 1,385 0.20 A 1,400 0.20 A Notes: Levels of service calculated based on Highway Capacity Manual 1997 by the Transportation Research Board, Chapter 3, Table 3-1, LOS Criteria for Basic Freeway Sections. Assumes maximum service flow rate of 2,300 passenger cars per hour per lane. Peak hour volumes were based on the ACCMA Model Year 2005. Residential: 2,526 dwelling units x I Adult/unit x 2% x 2 trips per day -- 100 trips/day (50 riders inbound to BART during the AM/50 riders outbound to BART during the PM) Currently, BART runs four 8-car trains to/from the Dublin/Pleasanton Station during the peak hours. Each train has a capacity of 560 seats, which translates into 2,240 seats during the peak hour. At this station, approximately 1,063 riders enter the station during the AM peak hour and 325 exit the station (total of 1,388 riders). BART assumes a ridership load capacity of 1.35 persons per seat during the peak commute periods to account for sitting and standing passengers. During the PM peak hour, BART ridership is lower with a total of 1,266 riders (entering and exiting). Adding 50 more entering riders during the AM peak hour would result in 1,113 riders to the peak commute direction (westbound). With the added ridership from the proposed project, it is determined that the seating capacity would be 0.50 persons per seat (1,113 riders/2,240 seats), which is below BART's load caPacity. During the PM peak hour, the capacity would be even lower with the additional 50 riders generated by the proposed project. This analysis is conservative in that it assumes that all of the riders would use BART during the peak one hour ~n the AM and PM. The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that the GPA/SP Project would create a need for substantial expansion of existing transit systems (BART and LAVTA), resulting in a significant impact (IM 3.3/0). The impact of the Project on BART was adequately analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR remain applicable to the Project (MM 3.3/15.2 and 3.3/15.3). The Project will contribute towards the construction of park and ride lots, through payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and to improvements .to transit service through payment of the TVTD Fee. LAVTA (Livermore -Amador Valley Transit Authority) -- Wheels Several bus lines currently provide service to east Dublin, including lines 12, 12X, 10A, lA, lB, and 20X. None of these lines, however, provide service immediately adjacent to the proposed project (Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard) simply because roadways do not exist. It is assumed that LAVTA would introduce new bus lines or reroute existing bus lines to accommodate the riders from the Project as it becomes built. It is also expected that LAVTA would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate riders, as needed. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 36 October 2001 A calculation is provided to estimate the number of monthly riders estimated to be generated by the proposed project. Two percent of the residential uses are expected to use transit: 2,526 dwelling units x 2% x 2 trips/day x 20 working days per month = 2,020 monthly riders. It is expected that the commercial and industrial employees/visitors would generate a minimal number of riders. The impacts of the GPA/SP, of which the Project is a part, on the need for expanded transit were adequately analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Chapter 3.3 of Eastern Dublin EIR) and, as noted above, mitigation measures were imposed to reduce the impact .to a less than significant level. (See MM 3.3/15.0 [provide transit service within .25 mile]; MM 3.3/15.1 [provide transit service at minimum frequency of 30 minutes during peak .hours]; MM 3.3/15.2 [GPA/SP Project to contribute to capital and operating costs of transit service extensions]; and MM 3.3/15.3 [coordinate with BART and LAVTA to provide bus service to BART station].) These mitigation measures remain applicable to the Project an no additional mitigation measures are required EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 37 October 2001 Table 5.3.1 DUBLIN AND COUNTYWIDE MODELS: YEAR 2005 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES NO PROJECT) , Dublin Model ACCMA Model Location Dublin Boulevard East of Fallon -eastbound -westbound Between Tassajara and Fallon -eastbound -westbotmd Between Hacienda and Tassajara -eastbound -westbound Between Dougherty and Hacienda -eastbound -westbound West of Dougherty -eastbound -westbound Fallon Road South of Dublin Boulevard -northbound -southbound Between Dublin and Central -northbound -southbound Between Central and Gleason -northbound -southbound North of Gleason -northbound -southbound Tassajara Road South of Dublin Boulevard -northbotmd -southbound Between Dublin and Central -northbound -southbound Between Central and Gleason -northbound -southbound North of Gleason -northbound -southbound PM Peak hour (1) 1,260 1,960 2,384 1,686 1,356 2,254 1,876 2,017 1,547 1,506 1,133 729 216 185 94 86 2,629 3,416 2,084 1,285 1,860 1,245 1,787 1,111 PM peak hour (2) 778 2 446 183 11 731 264 936 1,724 311 138 235 410 45 127 6 12 921 747 827 926 377 276 167 60 % Difference from ACCMA Model {[(1)-(2)]+(2)L100 183% 1,203% 15,227% 85% 754% 100% 17% 397% 991% 382% 78% 380% 46% 1,467% 617% 185% 357% 152% 39% 393% 351% 97O% 1,752% EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 38 October 2001 Table 5.3.1 (Cont.) DUBLIN AND COUNTYWIDE MODELS: YEAR 2005 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (NO PROJECT) Dublin Model ACCMA % Difference PM peak hour Model from ACCMA Location PM peak hour Model (1) (2) {[(1)- (2)]+(2)}_100 Hacienda Drive South of Dublin Boulevard -northbound 1,546 746 107% -southbound 1,178 1,375 -14% Between Dublin and Centr~ -northbound 1,027 436 136% -southbound 1,197 826 45% Between Central and Gleas, -northbound 558 144 288% -southbound 650 347 87% Dougherty Road South of Dublin Boulevard -northbound 2,709 3,136 -14% -southbound 3,064 2,598 18% North of Dublin Boulevarc -northbound 1,681 2,040 -18% -southbound 1,279 1,170 9% EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 39 October 2001 Table 5.3.2 TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AND COUNTYWIDE MODELS: YEAR 2025 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (NO PROJECT) Tri-Valley Trans. ACCMA Model PM peak hour Model % Difference Location AM peak PM AM peak PM peak from ACCMA hour peak hour hour(2) Model hour( 1 ) {[(1 )(2)] +(2)}_10 0 1-580 East of Fallon -eastbound 6,740 10,696 -- 9,222 16% -westbound 10,201 7,623 -- 7,011 9% Between Tassajara and FallOn -eastbound 5,599 9,770 -- 9,564 2 % -westbound 9,823 7,115 -- 6,643 7% Between Hacienda and Tassajara -eastbound 6,036 9,483 -- 9,573 -1% -westbound 10,178 7,562 -- 6,047 25% Between Dougherty and Hacienda -eastbound 6,904 9,558 -- 10,324 -7% -westbound 9,907 8,240 -- 7,838 5 % West of Dougherty -eastbound 7,145 9,813 -- 7,464 31% -westbound 10,166 8,674 --. 7,455 16% Dublin Boulevard East of Fallon -eastbound 1,608 2,632 -- 1,013 160% -westbound 2,405 1,999 -- 20 9,895% Between Tassajara and Fallon -eastbound 892 1,767 -- 750 136% -westbound 1,385 501 ...... Between Hacienda and Tassajara -eastbound 1,079 2,534 -- ,048 142% -westbound 2,031 1,346 -- 86 1,465% Between Dougherty and Hacienda -eastbound 1,502 2,179 -- 2,127 2% -westbound 1,920 1,837 -- 2,770 -34% EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 40 October 2001 West of Dougherty -eaStbound -westbound Fallon Road South of Dublin Boulevarc -northbound -southbound Between Dublin and Centn -northbound -southbound Between Central and Gleas -northbound -southbound North of Gleason -northbound -southbound 1,905 2,517 2,243 2,849 411 1,259 582 1,364 603 1,399 2,612 2,704 2,879 3,007 1,165 46O 1,329 697 1,350 709 1,590 2,349 1,t37 743 1,341 1,190 283 322 115 5O 64% 15% 153% 305% -13% -61% 370% 1t6% 1,074% 1,318% EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 41 October 2001 Table 5.3.2 (Cont.) TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AND COUNTYWIDE MODELS: YEAR 2025 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (NO PROJECT) Tri-Valley Trans. ACCMA Model PM peak hOur Model % Difference Location AM peak PM AM peak PM from ACCMA hour peak hour peak Model hour hour {[(1)- (1) (2) (2)]+(2)}_100 Tassajara Road South of Dublin Boulevard -northbound 2,521 2,633 -- 2,403 10% -southbound 2,461 2,982 -- 1,838 62% Between Dublin and Centr~ -northbound 1,643 2,494 -- 2,933 -15% -southbound 2,773 1,815 -- 2,156 -16% Between Central and Gleas. -northbound 876 1,832 -- 1,252 46% -southbound 2,215 1,125 -- 738 52% North of Gleason -northbound 563 ,1,856 -- 595 212% -southbound 2,137 738 -- 213 246% Hacienda DriVe South of Dublin Boulevard -northbound 2,935 3,269 -- 1,861 76% -southbound 2,215 3,456 -- 2,222 56% Between Dublin and Centr~ -northbound 672 759 -- 1,054 -28% -southbound 1,063 759 -- 1,430 -47% Between Central and Gleasl -northbound 327 854 -- 497 72% -southbound 509 722 -- 578 25% Dougherty Road South of Dublin Boulevarc~ -northbound 2,441 4,291 -- 4,246 1% -southbound 3,692 3,406 -- 3,333 2% North of Dublin Boulevarc -northbound 767 ~ 2,157 - 2,944 -27% -southbound 2,283 1,560 -- 2,148 -27% EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 42 October 2001 I I t t I I ~ I I t I I I l I 1 I I I North Not to Scale LEGEND 17,500 Existing + Approved + Pending 3%700 Existing + Approved + Pending + ProJecl 40~00i] Cumulative 2025 47~50{~ Cumulative 2025 + Project 6 Required No. of Lanes .... Future Roadway Note: The plannea no. of lanes is 6 lanes *' The planned no. of lanes is 8 lanes **' Estimated ADT based on pending Pleasanton Staples Ranch developmem GLEASON DR. THE BLVD. Proposed Project PIMLICO DR. ~ City of Dublin ~'~ East Dublin Annexation Estimated Daily Volumes 157-143 - 10/01 - LH Figure 3.6-F "amended" Table 3.6-7 "amended" Peak Hour Mainline Freeway Levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 Year 2025 No Project Year 2025 + Project Location Capacity A.M. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Vol. WC LOS Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C LOS 1-580, west of 1-680 Eastbound 9,200 5,320 0.58 C 8,261 0.90 E 5,437 0.59 C 8,351 0.91 E Westbound 9,200 8,126 0.88 E 6,749 0.73 D 8,192 0.89 E 6,871 0.75 D 1-580, 1~680 to Dougherty ~ Eastbound 9,200 8,047 0.87 E 10,084 1.10 F 8,232 0.89 E 10,139 1.10 F Westbound 9,200 10,387 1.13 F 9,442 1.03 F ' 10,554 1.15 F 9,677 1.05 F 1-580, Dougherty to Hacienda Eastbound 13,800 7,460 0.54 C 9,722 0.70 D 7,728 0.56 C 9,824 0.71 D Westbound 9,200 10,042 1.09 F 8,714 0.95 E 10,473 1.14 F 8,944 0.97 E 1-580, Hacienda to Tassajara Eastbound 11,500 6,154 0.54 C 9,897 0:86 E 6,823 0.59 C 10,077 0.88 E Westbound 9,200 10,665. 1.16 F 7,706 0.84 E 10,425 1.13 F 8,111 0.88 E 1-580, Tassajara to Fallon Eastbound 9,200 5,747 0.62 C 10,219 1.11 F 6,499 0.71 D 10,482 1.14 F Westbound 9,200 10,353 1.13 F 7,277 0.79 D 10,237 1.11 F 7,870 0.86 E 1-580, Fallon to Airway "' ~ Eastbound 9,200 6,888 0.75 D 11,145 1.21 F 7,285 0.79 D 11,249 1.22 F Westbound 9,200 10,731 1.17 F 7,785 0.85 E 10,453 1.14 F 7,967 0.87 E 1-580, East of Airway Eastbound 9,200 6,472 0.70 D 10,~65 1.14 F 6,922 0.75 D 10,512 1.14 F Westbound 9,200 10,437 1.13 F 7,272 0.79 D 10,306 1.12 F 7,500 0.82 E 1-680, North of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 6,038 0.88 E 7,053 1.02 F 6,017 0.87 E 7,089 1.03 F Southbound 6,900 6,000 0.87 E 5,676 0.82 E 6,075 0.88 E 5,641 0.82 E 1-680, South of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 4,674 0.68 D 5,436 0.79 D 4,572 0.66 D 5,370 0.78 D Southbound 6,900 5,565 0.81 D 5,647 0.82 E 5,586 0.81 D 5,653 0.82 E SR 84, South of 1-580 Northbound 6,900 735 0.11 A 1,137 0.16 A 721 0.10 A 1,133 0.16 A Southbound 6,900 1,015 0.15 A 792 0.11 A 1,030 0.15 A 778 0.11 A Notes: Levels of service calculated based on Highway Capacity Manual 1997 by the Transportation Research Board, Chapter 3, Table 3-1, LOS Criteria for Basic Freeway Sections. Assumes maximum service flow rate of 2,300 passenger cars per hour per lane. Peak hour volumes were based on the Tri-Valley Transportation Model Year 2025 without and with the Proposed Project. The Proposed Dublin Transit Center peak hour trips were manually added into the volumes based on the traffic study conducted by Omni Means in April 2001 09:30A LARPD PARK DIV:'~ 925 4-4-7 0782 P .02 l_ lv,2l'l'V ' V:-' R,.:.crea': ,m .~? Park Distric~ 71 Trevamo R~d. Li~o~. CA q455~-2277 ;925~ 373-5700, Fax (925) 447-2754. September 14, 2001 General Manager Douglas A. Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. Director of Community Development City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 RE: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR), East Dublin Properties Dear Mr. Peabody: The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DSEIR. I was disappointed to find upon my return from vacation that the City chose not to consider a ten-day extension request by LARPD for the review of this regionally significant project. This extension request was based on LARPD's failure to be notified orto receive the DSEIR for review and comment. This was communicated to your staffbased on my personal visit as well as by a letter from District Legal Counsel Michael Kyte (dated August 24, 2001). We simply did not receive the notice of the release of the DSEIR nor the complimentary copy of the DSEIR provided to other interested parties and agencies. As a result, we have been significantly delayed and not afforded the same time to review and respond to this document as provided to other agencies and interested parties. To date, we have received no indication from the City that the mailing.took place as stated. We have only received a list of agencies that were supposed to have been sent notifications and/or DSEIR documents. This list, of course, only exhibits your intent to notit¥, not any proof of your required action to notify affected parties. The District was also disappointed to discover that the City did not consider the comments that LARPD provided in it's letter dated June 26, 2001 in response to the Notice of Preparation for this DSEIR (letter enclosed). We continue to believe that the propesed project has the potential to have significant impacts on the District that must be adequately addressed and that the issues have not been properly considered and analyzed as either a part of this Supplemental EIR or the original 1993 Program As well, we find particularly disconcerting that under Section 6. References. Other Agencies and Organizations Consulted, the DSEIR notes no consultation with LARPD, yet appropriately lists most other agencies and organizations one might expect to be consulted on this type of project. It is in fact an accurate portrayal of the lack of consultation with the District by the City on this project. To not have the professional courtesy to contact and discuss these matters with District Board of Directors Maryaticc Fairings Scott Kamcna Alice Ouinn Emie RodHgues Dale Turner 6.1 612 6.3 Sep-14-01 09:31A LARPD PARK DIVISION 925 447 0782 Mr. Eddie Peabody, Ir. City of Dublin Page 2 of 5 September 14, 2001 representatives is most disappointing. The lack of interest or concern for the impacts on this District axe reflected by this apparent failure to discuss the City's desires or intentions with District staffand is evidenced by its omission in this Section. Preparation of a Supplemental EIR LARPD continues to be surprised and disappointed with Dublin's approach for assessing the potential environmental impacts of this project by utilizing a Supplemental EIR process. We made note of this concern in our Response to NOP comments, 6.4 LARPD has reviewed the City ofLivermore's detailed comments on thc DSEIR and we support their position and reasoning on these matters. As a result, we will not duplicate these clear but important points except to reiterate that circumstances have dramatically changed since the 1995 EIR was undertaken. In addition, the document fails to adequately cover issues such as impacts on LARPD and its e~risting and future facilities and programs. Anything less than a new complete and comprehensive review and analysis of the proposed project does not meet the requirements of CEQA to fully assess environmental impacts using currently available information for evaluation 'and consideration. Regretfully, it is apparent that Dublin's approach is a risk-based avoidance strategy instead of one intended to provide the environmental disclosures and mitigation required by CEQA. 6.5 Parks and Recreation As noted in our June 26, 2001 letter, LARPD is very concerned about the proposed impacts of this project on existing and future Distri~ parks and programs. The 1993 EIR and DSEIR have ignored the impacts of the proposed project on. LARPD facilities. Whereas the documents note the requirements to provide parks and recreation facilities consistent w/th the City's 1992 Parks Master Plan, it fails to analyze the requirements of the City's Master Plan in the EIR or DSEIR vis-fl.-vis the project's proposal and the riming of the provision of these parks and service facilities to meet expected demand. This is particularly important in understanding the potential for the project to cause impacts to LARPD or to other City parks and recreation programs. The EIR and DSE[R simply state that parks will be provided consistent with the Parks Master Plan. Given the size and significance of the proposed project, it is essential that the EIR and DSE1K evaluate how the City is meeting its recreation requirements relative to its planning goals. The EIK and DSEIR also fail to evaluate the proximity of the proposed development to LARPD's core service area and it's potential to increase demands on our parks, services and programs. To do so requires that a more comprehensive evaluation of these issues be undertaken. The 1993 EIR and DSEIR fail to consider several important changes in the provision of ! 6.6 regional parklands in the rd-Valley. Specifically, in 1998, 370 acres of regional 6.5a 6.5b 6.5c SEP-14-a001 OC:j:3~St=lFI TEL)gaS 447 07aE~ ID)CITY OF DUBlIN S6p-14-01 O9:31A' LARPD PARK DIVISION 925 447 0782 P.04 Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. City of Dublin Page 3 of 5 September 14, 2001 parklands were added to LARPD's Sycamore Grove Regional Park, essentially doubling its size. Additionally in 1994, LARPD purchased 507 acres containing Brushy Peak (consistent with our Master Plan Goals) north ofi-580. These 507 acres have now become the nucleus from which East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) and LARPD have created over 2,000 acres of regional parkland in the Brushy Peak area. This is not even mentioned in the environmental documents. The proposed project and its placement of 2, 526 units or approximately 7,400 people (2, 526 times 2.94 persons per household) in close proximity to these parks will have impacts on these regional park facilities. This too has not been considered by the EIR or DSEIR. Any environmental review must evaluate the impacts of such a large project on these regional parkland facilities. The 1993 EIR notes that Dublin's ratio of developed parkland to population is below S- acres/1000-population, a common standard for determining provision of adequate park facilities. The DSEIR simply states that it will meet a 5-acrodl000-population requirement of the 1992 Parks Master Plan (page 2-8). Any lack of park facilities below this standard could have a significant impaCt on LARPD as the District provides parkland in excess of i 6-acres/1000-population. Given the proximity of the proposed residential development to LARPD's existing and potential future (bi. Livermore and Vasco/Laughlin Planning Areas) facilities, Dublin residents unable to meet their recreational needs within Dublin's city limits will seek use of the closer LARPD facilities. They will also seek use of the more convenient and broader services that meet theii' needs. This could have significant impacts on our ability to provide adequate services and programs to our existing and future residents. This impact was not addressed under the previous EIR nor is it addressed in the DSEIIK. For example, LARPD is currently in the process of developing a $20 million Community Center that will contain a large variety of services, activities and opportunities for the Livermore community. The District is very concerned that the proposed project will impact the demand for services at this facility. Given the proximity of the project to Livermore, the EIR must comprehensively evaluate the existing and proposed services provided by Dublin and Livermore and assess the potential impacts this project will have on services and programs in Livermore. This must cover the full range of services and programs provided by LARPD including, but not limited to, childcare services; teen and senior care services and programs; adult recreational programs; outdoor recreational and environmental programs as well as others. This was not addressed under the previous EIR. The DSEIR reference to the provision of similar facilities (page 2-8) funded by Public Facilities Fees does not address the potential for impacts as it fails to evaluate the type of facilities, the level of services and the timing by which these facilities wilt or can be provided. 6.7 6.8 Neither the DSEIR nor 1993 EllL which noted (Impact 3.4/K and Mitigation Measures) j 6.9 the plan's requirement to provide sufficient parkland to satisfy the City's 1992 Park and ~ Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. City of Dublin Page 4 of 5 September 14, 2001 Recreational Master Plan, addresses how the plan would meet LARPD's Master Plan requirements for parkland and recreation should LAFCO not agree to de-annex this property from LARPD's jurisdiction. Both the EIR and Supplemental.DEIR failed to address the existing jurisdictional authority of LARPD for the provision of park and recreation services in this area and to provide the required analysis. The DSEIR (page 2-8) notes discussion of the overlapping jurisdiction of EBRPD and LARPD in terms of providing regional parks and trails. Unfortunately, no detailed discussion was included either in the 1993 EIR nor the DSEIR and therefore, its potential significant environmental impacts have not been ascertained or evaluated. Analysis of overlapping jurisdictional issues must be discussed as they relate to the impacts of the project on the provision of services by either LARPD or the City of Dublin. This section further notes that the City's Public Facilities Fee, which is applicable to the project, requires payment of fees for "community and neighborhood park land and improvements, as well as community facilities such as a second community center, a recreation center, a community theater, a second aquatic center, a senior center and a new library." No discussion or mention of fees for provision of regional parks is noted. It is apparently assumed by this that the City of Dublin is relying upon LARPD (and EBRPD) to provide regional park facilities and services to its residents. While future residents will be paying taxes to the EBRPD to support regional park facilities, LARPD would lose these residents from our tax roles yet have to carry the burden of increase in demand for services and impacts of the proposed project on our existing and future facilities. The District cannot be expected to simply absorb the cost of these impacts. These issues have not even been discussed or evaluated in the EIR or DSEIK LARPD is concerned that the 1993 EIR and DSEIR have not addressed the impact of the proposed project on these regional parks. Although the project is proposing passive open space, this kind of resource is not a viable substitute for the unique recreational opportunities afforded by a regional park containing significant regional views, trails, cultural/biological resources, and environmental/educational programs and services. The lack of regional parkland provided by the East Dublin SP/GPA and the supplemental planning area will have impacts on LARPD regional parkland that must be comprehensively evaluated and mitigated. The D SEIR includes de-annexation of the area within LARPD's jurisdictional boundaries as one of the actions in the project description. However, the EIR or DSEIR failed to analyze the impacts of de-annexation from LARPD. Furthermore, it fails to evaluate those impacts vis-/t-vis the impacts of the proposed project on existing and future LARPD regional parks, community parks, facilities and programs including, but not limited to, childcare programs provided by the District. 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 Sep-14-01 09:47A LARPD PARK DIVISION 925 447 0782 P.02 Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr. City of Dublin Page 5 of 5 September 14, 2001 Thank you for the opportunity to provide these' comments. LARPD looks forWard to' discussing these very important matters with you. We would appreciate being informed of ail matters related to this proposal including meetings, hearings, written communications, ere, We respectfully request that all future correspondence on these and related matters be sent by certified mail or other delivery method that requires a signed receipt. If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at (925) 373-5729. Sincerel'~7 / Kenneth H. Craig t~ Superintendent ofPlanning an~l>arks KHC:sk EnClosure · LARPD Board of Directors Mayor Brown and Livermore City Council Adolph Martinelli~ County of Alameda Brian Swift, City of Pleasanton Marc Roberts, City of Livermore Larry Tong, EBRPD Michael Kyle, LARPD Legal' COunsel Mark Weinberger, Attorney for City of Livermore I:.a.,~ d~b lirm~ne xa't[ on. clair. 1I ! 7 t Trevarno Road. Livermore, CA 94550-2277 (925) 375-5700. Fax (925) 447-2754. www,larpd.dst.ca.us General Manager DougIas A. Bell June 26, 200t Anne Kinney City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 Copk - Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the East Dublin Properties (PA #00-025) Dear Ms. Kinney: Thank you for referring the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIK) for the proposed East Dublin Properties Project to the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District for review and comment. Please accept the following comments regarding the NOP for the DSEIR: LARPD is very concerned about the proposed de-annexation of the area within our jurisdictional boundaries and the resultant loss of property tax base. And of equal concern is the proximity of the proposed development to our core service area and its potential to increase demands on our parks, services and programs if comparable parks, services and programs are not available or are not being provided in the area of these new residences and businesses. The 1993 EIK notes that Dublin' s ratio of developed parkland to population is below 5-acres/1000 population, a common standard for determining provision of adequate park facilities· Any lack of park facilities could have a significant impact on LARPD. This is particularly true of larger community park facilities that provide facilities to meet the demands for organized recreational park activities. Criven the proximky of the proposed residential development to LARPD's existing and future (N. Livermore and Vasco/Lauglin Planning Areas) facilities, Dublin residents unable to meet their recreational needs will seek use of the closest LAKPD facilities. This could have sigTLificant impacts on our ability to provide adequate services and programs to residents. This was not addressed under the previous EI2K and is a potentially significant impact on this District. For example, LARPD is currently in the process of developing a $20 million Community Center that will contain a large variety of services, activities and opportunities for the Livermore Community. The District is very concerned that Board of Directors Larry Fairings Maryalice Fakings ALice Ouinn Ernie Rodrigues Dale Turner the proposed project will impact the demand for services at this facility. Criven the proximity of the project'to Livermore, the EIR needs to look comprehensively at the existing and proposed services provided by Dublin and Livermore and assess the potential impacts this project will have on services and programs in Livermore. This must include the fUll range of services and programs provided by LARPD including but not limited to chitdcare services, teen and senior care services and programs, aduk recreational programs, outdoor recreational and environmental programs and well as others. This was not addressed under the previous EIR and must be evaluated in a subsequent Section 3.4-14 of the East Dublin SP/GPA EIR incorrectly states that "All regional parkland in the Tri-Valley is owned and operated by the East Bay Regional Park District (-EBRPD)." In fact, Sycamore Grove Regional Park has been owned and operated by LARPD since-1978. In 1998, the park doubled in size t° more than 760 acres. In 1994 LARPD purchased 507 acres of Brushy Peak which has become core parkland area that has now been expanded through the addition of approximately 1,500 acres including mitigation property owned and managed by EBRPD. LARPD is concerned that the East Dublin SP/GPA EIR has not addressed the impact of the proposed project on these regional parks. Although the project is proposing passive open space (to address hillside development issues and visual resource impacts?) this kind of resource is not a viable substitute for the unique recreational opportunities afforded by a re~onal park containing significant regional views, and cultural and biological resources. The lack of regional parkland provided by the East Dublin SP/GPA and the supplemental planning area will have impacts on LARPD regional parkland that must be comprehensively evaluated. LARPD is surprised and disappointed with Dublin's proposal to assess the potential for environmental impacts of this project by utilizing a Supplemental EIR. As you know, a supplemental EIR is used when minor revisions are anticipated or required. A subsequent EIR is prepared if the previous EIR requires major revisions resulting in sigx~ificant impacts on the environment. LARPD agrees with the City of Livermore's comments noting the substantial changes that have taken place since 1993 in the Tri-Valley in such areas as biological resources, land use, hydrology, agricultural resources, air quality, traffic/transportation, and affordable housing. These factors, among others; unequivocally point to the need to re-evaluate the Project with a subsequent EIR that looks at these and other issues (including more comprehensively regional and communky park, program and services issues). Anything less does not meet the spirit or intent of CEQA. LARPD is concerned with the inclusion of the 637 acres into this supplemental BIR~ As we understand it, 472 acres is currently within the Bastern Dublin Specific Planning Area and 637 acres outside the Eastern Dublin Specific Planning Area. If this BIK is supplemental to the 1993 City of'Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, then no Specific Plan has been required for the 63 7 acres (though we understand that your General Plan specifically requires a Specific Plan to be done). This suggests that you are using a General Plan level supplemental environmental evaluation to satisfy future project level environmental review ("Stage 2 PD for site-specific zoning and development plan approval") that 'will be take place without the benefit of Specific Planning. LAKPD is very concerned with this approach and we would like the City of Dublin to make very clear that this supplemental BIK wilt not substitute for a more rigorous project level analysis and evaluation. We also want the City to implement its General Plan policy to undertake the Specific Plan for this area as is required. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. LARPD looks forward to discussing these very important matters with you. We would appreciate being informed of all matters related to this proposal including meetings, hearings, written communications, etc. If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at (925) 373-5729. Since~'/,vf/ , ,,f / Ke~fiudth H. CnSg' ' f7 Superintendent of PIanning and-Parks C~ LARPD Board of Directors Mayor Brown and Livermore City Council Adolph Martineili, County of Alameda Brian SwiiS, City of Pleasanton Marc Roberts, City of Livermore Larry Tong, EBRPD E~mdublinarmexation. nop.lt 1 Responses to Letter 6: Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District Response 6.1: The commentor notes that the District's request for an extension of time for the 45-day public review period was not granted. The City of Dublin transmitted copies of the SEIR to all affected public agencies and organizations at the commencement of the public review period, including the LAPRD. The City did not believe that a substantial reason for granting an extension existed at the time of the District's request and therefore chose not to extend the review period. Response 6.2: The commentor notes that the District is concerned that their environmental issues as expressed in response to the Notice of PreParation have not been addressed in the DSEIR. The City of Dublin considered all responses to the Notice of Preparation in determining the scope of review for recreation and other topics. The City believes that the Initial Study prepared for the proposed Project dearly indicates that the project is consistent with the existing Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan with respect to land use and recreation facilities. Recreational impacts were fully identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and mitigation measures were adopted to ensure that any potential recreational impacts would be less- than-significant. (See Chapter 3.4 of the Eastern Dublin EIR.) The City of Dublin has no record that the LARPD submitted comments during the 45 day public review period for the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 regarding inadequacies in the analysis of recreation. Response 6.3: The commentor notes that it was not consulted regarding preparation of the DSEIR. The City determined to prepare a Supplemental EIR and no new impacts were identified in the Initial Study for the Project with respect to Parks and Recreation that have not been addressed in Chapter 3.4 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore the City of Dublin did not believe consultation with the LARPD was required. Response 6.4: The eommentor notes that it is surprised at the City of Dublin's approach in assessing environmental impacts for the proposed project through preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. The City's reasons for preparing a Supplemental EIR are outlined in the Initial Study and in Section 2.3, Update of Prior Environmental Documentation, Project Description, of the DSEIR. That section details the background of the Project and the reason why a supplemental EIR has been prepared to comply with CEQA. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 53 October 2001 Response 6.5: The commentor notes that it concurs with the City of Livermore's comments on the DSEIR and states that environmental concerns have changed since the adoption of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Please refer generally to responses to Letter 8. In addition, as noted in the Response 6.4, Section 2.0 of the DSEIR outlines in detail the changed conditions and/or new information that result in n~w or intensified significant impacts beyond those in the Eastern Dublin EIR, and consequently that necessitate preparation of a Supplemental EIR. These include a change in status of previously identified sensitive biological species and identification of new sensitive species not previously identified, changes in regional traffic patterns, possible related changes in noise and air quality conditions, potential for cancellation of Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreements on certain properties, and changes in the provision and distribution of schools and other public utilities. The Initial Study prepared for the Project, contained in' Volume 2 of the DSEIR, does not identify major or substantial changes to parks or recreational facilities that would require new environmental analysis, since the type, density and location of potential development pursuant to the Project is consistent with that addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Addenda. Response 6.5a: The commentor notes that the DSEIR fails to consider impacts to LARPD and its facilities and programs. As identified in the following Responses 6.5b, 6.7, and 6.8, the City of Dublin believes that impacts to LARPD facilities and programs would be less-than-significant based on the facts that the Eastern Dublin project plans to supply local and community parks in a manner consistent with the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the close proximity of other City of Dublin community parks and facilities to the Project area (including regional park facilities in Pleasanton operated by the Eastern Dublin Park District) and the distance and inconvenience of future Project residents to LARPD facilities. Response 6.5b: The commentor notes that the DSEIR fails to consider impacts to LARPD and its facilities .and programs, including timing of providing parks. The City of Dublin does not believe the proposed Project would result in' significant impacts to LARPD facilities or programs. This has been reflected in both the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and Initial Study for the Eastern Dublin Project. As noted in the response to Comment 6.7, the Stage 1 Planned Development application shows that Project would provide a greater amount of neighborhood and community park facilities that currently required by the City of Dublin. The City of Dublin has also constructed major community park and recreation facilities near the Project areas, as identified in the response to Comment 6.8. Therefore, there will be minimal need for Project residents to travel outside of Dublin in order to use park facilities so that impacts to LARPD facilities would be less than significant. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 54 October 2001 Timing of park development will be considered by the City of Dublin as part of individual Stage 2 Planned Development rezoning applications for individual projects within the Project area. Response 6.5c: This comment notes that the 1993 EIR and DSEIR do not consider the proximity of proposed development to LARPD's core service area and estimated increase on District facilities. As noted in Responses 6.3, 6.5a, 6.5b, 6.7 and 6.8, the City of Dublin does not anticipate significant impacts to LARPD facilities as a result of the approval of the Project since ample park land is proposed to be provided within the Project area, consistent with City of Dublin standards, proximity of other nearby community park and recreation facilities in the Eastern Dublin area and the distance of LARPD facilities within Livermore from the Project area. Response 6.6: The commentor states that the DSEIR fails to consider changes to and the addition of regional parklands in the Tri-Valley area since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. The provision of new regional parklands by the LARPD is not a substantial change or significant new information. The type, density and location of development within the Project area, as detailed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan, have been available to the District for planning park facilities since 1993. The City of Dublin also notes that the location of the new LARPD facilities (Sycamore Grove Regional Park and Brushy Peak Regional Park) is sited some distance (estimated 10-12 miles) from the project site. Use of these facilities by future residents' of the Project area is therefore anticipated to be limited due to the inconvenience of the new facilities from Eastern Dublin and the Project site, in particular. Use of other regional park and recreational facilities, such as the Iron Horse Trail and Shadow Cliffs Regional Park in the City of Pleasanton, is anticipated to be greater from project residents due to closer proximity to the Project area and associated convenience of use. Response 6.7: The commentor states there will be a potential lack of sufficient parklands within the Project area and impacts to LARPD facilities. Consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the Stage 1 Development Plan for the Project provides for 40.8 gross acres of park land, of which 14.1 acres are community parks, 24 acres are neighborhood parks and 2.7 are neighborhood squares. This total acreage is equivalent to 5.72 acres of parkland per 1,000 anticipated residents within the Project area. This number exceeds the 5 acres per 1,000 resident park ratio established by the City of Dublin (see DSEIR [p. 2-8], Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 [Quimby Act Ordinance] and Resolution 60-99 [requiring payment of a Public Facilities Fee to provide a EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 55 October 2001 ratio of 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents]). Therefore, there will be sufficient parklands in the Project area; no significant impacts are anticipated on LARPD park facilities, which are located 8 to 10 miles east of the Project area. Response 6.8: The commentor expresses concern that development of the Project would impact demand for the District's planned Community Center and services and programs which will be offered at this facility. The District's Community Center is located over 8 miles east of the Project area on the corner of East Avenue and Loyola Way. Users of this facility from the City of Dublin would have to use the 1-580 freeway to access the site, which is sometimes congested. The City believes that future residents of the Project are more likely to use the parks and recreation facilities provided by the City of Dublin because they are closer and more easily accessible. According to the City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Department, the following services and facilities are either presently available to Dublin residents or have been funded for construction in the near term: Emerald Glen Park, is a community-level park containing 29.6 acres of land located on the west side of' Tassajara Road between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive, approximately 2 miles west of the site. This park includes baseball fields, soccer fields, lighted tennis and basketball courts, a skateboard park, a children's play area, picnic and open areas. Future expansions are planned so that the ultimate size of Emerald Glen Park will encompass over 57 acres of land with a 29,000 square foot recreation/gymnasium center, 23,000 square foot community center, outdoor amphitheater, aquatic center and additional playfields. This park is such that future residents of the Project area could drive due west on Central Parkway to reach the facility. Ted Fairfield Park is a recently constructed 5-acre facility located approximately two miles due west of the Project area containing a combination baseball/soccer field, basketball court, sand volleyball court, play and picnic areas. Dublin Ranch Sports/Community Park is being developed in Dublin Ranch just west of the Project area; a portion of the park will be located within the adjacent Project area. Planned to contain approximately 68 acres, this park will provide a wide range of active and passive activities as well as being a focus of organized activities by the Dublin Parks and Community Services Department. · The Dublin Senior Center is currently located at 7437 Larkdale Avenue, but is being planned for relocation and expansion to 7600 EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 56 October 2001 Amador Valley Boulevard by mid-2004. The relocated Senior Center would be located approximately 5 miles west of the Project area and accessible via Dublin Boulevard and the planned extension of Central Parkway. Recreation programs currently offered by the City of Dublin in the Eastern Dublin area (primarily at Emerald Gleft Park but also at Dougherty Elementary School) include after school recreation programs, summer fun-in-the-sun programs, tennis programs, youth t-ball, Little League, the Dublin United Soccer League and on-going special events. The City does not anticipate any significant impacts to LARPD's Community Center. Response 6.9: The commentor asserts that neither the Eastern Dublin EIR nor the DSEIR addressed whether the parks planned in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan will meet LARPD's Master Plan if the Project area is not detached from LARPD. The Project meets City of Dublin park requirements (see Response 6.7); all park and recreation facilities are also consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The entire Project area lies within the City of Dublin's sphere of influence as approved by LAFCO. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the impact of jurisdictional boundary issues with respect to parks and found that the i. ssue was adequately addressed by General Plan Implementing Policy J which requires the City to work to revise jurisdictional boundaries. The Project includes detachment from LARPD. Should the Local Agency Formation Commission not detach the Project area from the LARPD, the City and LARPD would need to discuss ownership and maintenance of the planned park and recreational facilities. Response 6.10: The commentor states that the DSEIR does not include a detailed discussion regarding overlapping jurisdictional boundaries between the LARPD and East Bay Regional Park District. Approval of the proposed Project as proposed ensures that any overlapping jurisdictional boundaries would be eliminated between these two districts. This action is consistent with Implementing Policy J of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan:" Work with the LARPD to revise jurisdictional lines so that City of Dublin departments have jurisdiction over all parkland within the Dublin Sphere of Influence." Upon the approval of the Project, the Project area would be removed from LARPD jurisdiction but left within the East Bay Regional Park District. Thus, only one agency would be responsible for providing regional park facilities, not two districts as presently exists. Jurisdictional issues have been EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 57 October 2001 adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, no further environmental analysis is required. Response 6.11: The commentor states that the DsEIR fails to discuss regional park fees and states that the loss of property tax revenues if the Project area is detached from LARPD will be an impact that the LARPD cannot absorb. The City's Public Facilities Fee will be required of all future developers of individual projects within the Project area upon approval of individual projects. As noted by the commentor, this fee is intended to cover development of neighborhood and community park facilities as well as a new community library, a new senior center and other related community facilities. Since the City does'not provide regional park facilities, this responsibility would continue to reside with the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). Funding of regional facilities and services by the EBRPD is anticipated to continue to be from property taxes, assessments, bond revenues, facility use fees and other sources of funding. There would be no funding of LARPD facilities from the Project area, since the Project area would no longer be within the District unless LAFCO approves the continuation of bonded debt. However, the City and EBRPD facilities are located significantly closer to the project area than LARPD facilities, including, for example, an EBRPD staging area on the west side of Tassajara Road. As noted earlier, use of LARPD facilities by Project residents is anticipated to be minimal. The Eastern Dublin EIR and Project Initial Study have adequately addressed the environmental effects of future Project development on all levels of park facilities and are not required to address economic effects. The potential detachment of the Project area from LARPD has been a part of the City's Eastern Dublin planning since the 1993 Eastern Dublin approvals. Response 6,12: The commentor States that the failure to include regional park land in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP area will impact LARPD. The Eastern Dublin EIR clearly identifies the East Bay Regional Parks District as the primary provider of regional parks within the Eastern Dublin planning area. No existing or future regional parks are identified on the Project area in terms of future EPRPD or LARPD park facilities, so no direct impacts would occur. Although approval and construction of the Project would likely increase usage of regional parks, this use would be offset with additional property taxes and use fees. Any impacts related to increased use of regional park facilities have been adequately addressed; no further CEQA analysis is required for this Project. Response 6.13: The commentor states that the DSEIR fails to analyze the impacts of detachment of the Project from the LARPD. The City of Dublin believes approval of the proposed project would have no significant environmental impacts on the District. Future project residents EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 58 October 2001 would be far more likely to use City facilities and East Bay Regional Parks District facilities that are significantly closer to the project area. As noted in Response 6.7, the City of Dublin offers a similar level and range of parks and recreational services as provided by LARPD. In regards to child care services, the City of Dublin does not provide these services to local residents, but instead relies on local private entities within the community. Given the significant distance of LARPD child care facilities (approximately 8-10 miles from the Project area), use of LARPD child care facilities is not anticipated to be significant when competing services are available in closer proximity. Also, use of LARPD child care facilities may be limited to residents of the District. If the Project is approved, future Project residents would not be eligible to use District facilities since they would be outside of District boundaries. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 59 October 2001 ~P-14-~UUI U4:18 F~ PflA flU, q F, UZ/U~ E A S T B A Y REGIONAL ~ PARK DIS 'i' Scptc4-nbcr 14, 2001 ~ddio Peabody, .Ir., AICP Corn, nunity Development Director City o f l)ubEn 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 SENT VIA FACSIM{LE: 925/833-6628 Re: East DuN in Properties Draft Supplemental Dear ~0 dy: Thank you for providing us with a copy of the Draft Supplementtd ET~wronmenml Impact Report (ELK) _tot fi're East DuN in Properties project (PA. 00-025). As we previously emm-nented (letter dated June 2'7. 2001), the East Bay Regional Park District is vm~d ~oncemed with the potential 0nvironmcmlal impacts oi' file groposcd project. The two (2) most cracial environmental concerns for the District are: 1, Impacts from the increase/a~ demand for new regional park and r~rcadon facilities; and 2. Impacts on the ownership, management, andmaintenanee of open space areas in lhe project area. '1'h¢~¢ two potentially si~m~ificant impacts m the environment are not adequately addressed in the Draft Supplemental EIR and tiao District requests the City of Dublin to prepare an environmental doctm~cnt that fully addresses these concerns. The Di~teiet would also indicate a witlin~:~css to explore coopera~kxg with the City regarding large contiguous open space areas and habitat protection. Should the City wish to further expIOrv this concept or if you lin,ce arty questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (510) 544-2621, or Brad Olson, Environm~.mtal Speeialist, at (510) 544-2622. Sincerely, Interagency Planning Manager (I ~T/rb) cc: Brad Olson 2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O. Box 5381 Oakk-~nd. CA 94605-0381 510 63b-0135 ~x~ 510 569.4319 rod 5 I0 833-0460 ww~w~w.ebpaek0.org I C'[' 7.1 7.2 Responses to Letter 7: East Bay Regional Park District Response 7.1: The commentor is concerned with potential impacts on regional park facilities maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) from the Project. Approval of the Project would increase use of EBRPD facilities since additional population would be located in the Eastern Dublin area. However, the type, density and location of proposed housing is consistent with the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan, which plans have been available to the EBRPD for long range planning. Given the large extent of EBRPD district facilities and services offered to East Bay residents (over 92,000 acres of park and open space lands in Alameda and Contra Costa County, including 59 regional parks, recreation areas, wilderness areas, shorelines, preserves and land bank areas, according to the District's official web site), an increase of 2,526 dwelling units within the project area would represent a less-than-significant increase in use of EBRPD facilities. Potential impacts to District facilities would be off-set by increased property tax revenues received by the District, additional assessment revenues from. new housing and revenues from user fees charged by the District. Response 7.2: The Commentor is concerned with impacts from the Project on the ownership, management and maintenance of open space areas within the Project area. The proposed Stage I Development Plan (SDEIR Figure 2-G) indicates that steeper lands located along the northerly and westerly periphery of the project area would be designated as "RRA-Rural Residential/Agricultural." At this time and subject to refinements as part of more refined Stage 2 Planned Development actions, these properties are intended to be privately owned and managed. Options for this would include private individual ownership, ownership and management by one or more owner's associations or dedication to a land trust. No impacts are anticipated to the East Bay Regional Park District. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 61 October 2001 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 052 S. Livermore Avenue Livermore. CA 94550-4899 Ph: (925) 373-5100 Fax: (925) 373-5135 TDD (925) 573-5052 MAYOR / COUNCIL 373-5149 CITY MANAGER Pt: 373.5140 · Fax: 373.5061 C1TY ATTORNEY 373-5120 * Fax: 373-51.25 CITY CLERK 373-5130 · Fax: 373-5135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Division ~': 373-5180 · Fax: 373-5183 Engineering Division : 373-5240 * Fax: 373-5267 Housing Division Pt: 373.5200 · Fax: 373-5318 Planning Division : 373-5200 · Fax: 373-53).8 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT : 373-5095 · Fax: 454-2379 .. INANCE DEPARTMENT Pt: 373-5150, Fax: 373-5165 FIRE DEPARTMENT 4550 East Avenue ~: 454-2361 * Fax: 454-2367 ~ 000 S. Liverraore Avenue ,: 373-5500 · Fax: 373-5503 PERSONNEL 373-5 t03 * Fax: 373-5035 POLICE DEPARTMENT 1.110 S. Livermore Avenue · 371-4900 * Fax: 371.4950 TDD 371-4982 PUBLIC SERVICES 3500 Robertson Park Rd. 373-5270 * Fax: 373-5317 Airport Division 636 Terminal Circ{e Ph: 373-5280 · Fax: 373-5042 Golf Coar~e Dlvizion : 909 Clubhouse Drive : 373-5239 · Fax: 373-5203 ~aintenance Division 3500 Robertson Park Rd. m-~ 373-5220 · Fax: 373-5033 ?ater Rezource~ Division 01 W. Jack London Blvd. t'n: 373-5230 ,, Fax: 373-5295 S~e 1849" C rr or LIw, m,to September 14, 2001 HAND DELIVERED Eddie Peabody, Jr. Director of Community Development 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 Re: Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the East Dublin Properties (PA 00-025) Dear Mr. Peabody: Attached to this letter are the City of Livermore's comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) issued by the City of Dublin for the East Dublin Properties projecL As you are aware, Livermore provided extensive comments in a June 26, 2001 letter responding to Dublin's Notice of Preparation of the DSEIR. Unfortunately, in Livermore's view the DSEIR does not appear to address many of the concerns set forth in Livermore's response to the Notice of Preparation. As Livermore's attached comments demonstrate, neither the scope nor the content of the DSEIR comply with the disclosure requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Livermore requests that Dublin defer action . on this project until an environmental document is prepared and circulated for public comment that fully complies with CEQA. Preparation of an adequate Environmental Impact Report is especially important because of the project's numerous potential impacts on Livermore and its planning area. We hope Dublin will join Livermore in giving priority attention to the discussion and resolution of Livermore's concerns with the project and its impacts as outlined in our comments. I will be glad to coordinate with you in establishing a meeting schedule between representatives of our two cities. These comments were prepared with the assistance of Lampl'fier-Gregory; Terrell Watt, Planning Consultant; Jones & Stokes (biology); Saracino-Kirby- Snow (Water Resources); and Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger LLP, Attorneys at Law. City of Dublin Community.Development September 14, 2001 Page 2 If you desire further information concerning these comments, please contact Susan Frost, Senior Planner, at (925) 373-5200. Sincerely, Marc Roberts Community Development Director C~ Mayor / City Council Linda Barton, City Manager Adolph Martinelli, Alameda County Brian Swift, City of Pleasanton Dale Myers, Zone 7 Vivian Housen, LAVWMA Bert Michalczyk, DSRSD Ken Craig, LARPD Brad Olson, EBRPD She/la Larsen, USFWS Carl Wilcox, CDFG CITY OF LIVERMORE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EAST DUBLIN PROPERTIES (SCH # 2001 052144) SEPTEMBER 13, 2001 The City of Livermore hereby provides its comments on the City of Dublin's Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("DSEIR") for the proposed East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation project. Livermore is disappointed that the City of Dublin has chosen not to consider the comments that Livermore provided in a letter dated June 26, 2001, in response to the Notice of Preparation for this Supplemental Draft EIR. Livermore believes the comments contained in that letter (attached hereto as Attachment #1, and incorporated herein by reference) provided an approach and scope to this project and its environmental review that would have greatly enhanced the value of this EIR as a full disclosure document pursuant to CEQA. Livermore maintains its concern that the Supplemental EIR approach taken by the City of Dublin for this project is inadequate for the following reasons: · The Supplemental DEIR lacks a flail and adequate project description. Circumstances have changed since certification of the 1993 Eastern Dublin Final EIR that have not been fully addressed in this Supplemental EIR. The City of Dublin has chosen to focus the supplemental environmental review for this project on a small number of changed circumstances that have occurred since 1993, rather than recognizing the vastly changed circumstances surroundirfg regionally significant issues within the Th-Valley. The scope and depth of analysis contained in the Supplemental Draft EIR is inadequate to fully identify potentially significant cumulative effects, and does not begin to recommend adequate mitigation measures to reduce or avoid such effects. Each of these issues is more fully described below in specific comments on the document. The City of Livermore requests that Dublin conduct a comprehensive environmental review consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, Livermore's following recommendations for reasonable and feasible mitigation of cumulative and regionally significant effects are consistent with the mitigation measures that this city has traditionally and histor/cally imposed. It is important that each community within the Th- Valley area does its fair share in addressing cumulative impacts that affect all neighboring jurisdictions. Inadequate Project Description The Supplemental DEIR includes the following actions in the project description: · A Stage 1 Development Plan application to the City of Dublin requesting pre-zoning of the sire in accordance with the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; Annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District for provision of water, sewer and recycled water services; · Execution ora Pre-annexation Agreement between the City of Dublin and the project proponents/property owners; · Detachment from Livermore Area Recreation and Park District upon annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin; · Post-annexanon probable cancellation of Williamson Act contracts for several of the properties within the project area; and · Detachment of the project area from the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District and attachment to the Dublin Unified School District. However, this Project Description does not address the following issues: Inconsistency with General Plan Policies for a Specific Plan. The project site is approximately 1,110 acres in size. The entire project site is within the Eastern Extended Planning Area adopted by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("EDGPA") in 1994, but only 472 acres are within the East Dublin Specific Plan Area. Although the Dublin General Plan designates this Extended Planning Area primarily for residential uses, Implementing Policy 2. IA(B) of the EDGPA requires that: "A Specific Plan(s) will be required for the remainder of the extended plann/ng area to provide similar direction for its ultimate development." The EDGPA goes on ro state that, "Approval of residential development in the Eastern Extended Plann/ng Area will require determination that.., the proposed project is consistent with all applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies." The project description included in the SDEIR does not include preparation of a Specific Plan for the approximately 637 acres within the project site but outside the Specific Plan Area, which is in direct conflict with this General Plan policy. This is of particular concern to the City of Livermore. According to the EDGPA, a Specific Plan is intended ro ensure, among other issues, that proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands, and that the riming of development will not result in premature termination of viable agricultural operations on adjoining lands. Both o f these issues are of regional .and cumulative concern. Additionally, in the last decade there has been a growing recognition of the importance of "smart growth" planning principles and what constitutes sustainable development. An adequate definition of such "smart growth" includes intelligently planned communities that 8.2 8.3 channel growth into existing communities or areas with existing services, that provide for public transportation, are walk-able and bike-able, include a mix of uses, and provide for permanent protection of surrounding open space. Presumably, a Specific Plan for this area would provide an opportunity for Dublin to consider and emphasize the importance of such "smart growth" strategies in the development of this area. Need for Greenbelt/Buffer. Related to the issue of impacts to viable agriculture on adjoining lands, the EDGPA also indicates that the lands immediately to the east of the project' site are identified as a Future Study Area. This designation indicates".., the City of Dublin's interest in the area and the need for additional studies of environmental constraints, future land uses, infrastructure and other issues." The City of Livermore shares hhis interest in the area and wishes to ensure, in accordance with Livermore's General Plan, that these lands will be permanently preserved as an agricultural greenbelt / buffer between our two cities. In Livermore's view, any project proposed in the Eastern Extended Planning Area adjacent to Dublin's "Future Study Area" must adch'ess how this area can be maintained and preserved into the future, and include safeguards that prevent potential future urban encroachment. Inadequate Discussion of Future Study Area. Finally, the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Site Plan indicates that approximately 126 acres immediately north of the Dublin Boulevard extension will be designated as ':Future Study Area" because these lands are located within the Airport Protection Area (APA) for the Livermore Municipal Airport. However, the EDGPA designates these lands for Iow and medium density residential use and indicates that, "If, at the time of pre-zoning, the residential designations are inconsistent with the APA, the residential designations will convert to Future Study Area with an underlying Rural Residential / Agriculture designation. The SDIER should provide clarification that, inasmuch at the property m question is located within the APA and inconsistent with low and medium density residential use, these properties should be permanently designated as Rural Residential/Agr/culture, including the 10.4-acre parcel indicated as General Commercial. Reliance on Programmatic Mitigation for a Proiect EIR The EIR for the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan (SCH #91103064) certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 was a "Program" EIR, designed to assess the environmental impacts of the policies contained in these planning documents. As stated on page 1-2 of that Draft Program EIR, "Once the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are approved, specific development proposals for the project site may require a Project EIt~ to assess project-specific issues." Given the programmatic nature of the 1993 EIR, many of the mitigation measures contained in that document do not provide the specificity required in a project-level EIR. Similarly, many of the mitigation measures contained in the 1993 document rely on subsequent studies to ensure adequate mitigation of impacts not fully disclosed at a project- level analysis. Examples of such mitigation measures contained in the 1993 EIR include: MM 3.8/7.1: The City will conduct a visual survey for the project site to identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas. 8.4 8.5 8.6 3 3.8/8.1: The City should require that projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors submit detailed visual analyses with development project applications. Applicants will be required to submit graphic simulations and/or section drawings from affected travel corridors through the parcel in question, representing typical views of the parcel from the scenic route. The graphic depiction of the location and massing of the structure and associated landscaping can then be used to adjust the project design to mimmize visual impacts. MM 3.7/13: The City should require dedications .of land and improvements along both sides of stream corridors as a condition of development project approval. The width of dedicated corridors will be established in consultation with the regulatory agenctes since these may vary with specific sites. MM 3.7/4.0: Grazing management plans shall be developed by the City and implemented soon after approval of the GPA and Specific Plan. Management plans shall favor protection of wetland and riparian areas, increased plant diversity, and the recovery of native plants, in particular perennial grasses. MM 3.11/4. O: Require preparation of a construction impact reduction plan that incorporates all proposed air quality mitigation strategies with clearly defined responsibilities for plan implementation and supervision. MM 3.6/9.0: While some permanent landform changes are unavoidable with any development, their magnitude can be reduced by developing minimal grading plans that adapt improvements to the natural landform& thus mznimizing cuts and fills. Construction of traditional flat building pads in hillside areas requires more grading than construction of partial pads, or developing custom lots. Construction of roads or ridges also minimizes grading in hillside areas. Use of retaining structures and steeper cut and fitl slopes, where appropriate and properly designed, also minimizes grading in hillside areas. MM 3.6/10: .. Specific project lot and infrastructure alignment planning should be based on the identification of geotechnically feasible building areas by the project geotechnical consultant.~ £n some hillside areas, clustering structures may be the best approach to minimize grading and avid adverse conditions. - These examples illustrate the programmatic nature of the 1993 E]2R and demonstrate that mitigation measures contained in that document frequently rely on subsequent studies, pending coordination with other agencies, follow-up analyses and more detailed investigations. Reliance on such mitigation measures in this DSEIR do not provide the Ievel of detail and specific performance-based mitigation needed to assure that impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels. 4 Changed Circumstances Lack of Recognition of Changed Circumstances. Si=m~fificant changes have occurred within the local area and within the Tri-Valley region since the Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific. Plan (SCH #91103064) was certified by the City of Dublin in 1993. A list of these changes (more fully discussed in later sections of this letter) includes: The supply of large parcels within Alameda County necessary to accommodate grazing operations have substantially decreased, and state laws regarding the annexation of lands defined as prime agricultural soils have also changed. Alameda County lost approximately 3,958 acres of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses between 1998-2000. Contra Costa lost nearly 6,000 during the same period. · Rapid urbanization, increased regional traffic and changed commute patterns have resulted in significant degradation in the air quality of our region. New designations of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog, and the potential occurrence of special-status species were not considered in the 1993 EIR (e.g., the California tiger salamander and Livermore Valley tarweed). New standards have been applied by state and federal resource agencies that afford =o-rearer protection to riparian corridors than were applicable in 1993. · Recent efforts by both Contra Costa County and Tri-Valley communities to initiate regionally based habitat conservation plans may affect the project area. · Cumulative development within the entire watershed has led to significant increases in peak downstream flood flows. Increased urbanization and irrigation has led to an increased influx of salts into the Main groundwater basin. Significant changes in the demographic characteristics of not only the Th-Valley region, but also the entire Bay Area, have altered the region's jobs/housing balance and created a Bay Area commute-shed that stretches beyond the traditional 9-county 'Bay Area as far eastward as Sacramento. · Dramatic increases in housing prices throughout the Bay Area have resulted in a severe regional housing shortages PartiCularly for affordably priced housing opportunities. Changes in Tri-Valley commute patterns, traffic intensities and traffic generated by new development has substantially exacerbated traffic congestion on the regional freeway system. Newly constructed and planned improvements to the transportation system (e.g. Isabel Parkway, BART access, axed other transit opportunities) have occurred since 1993, and have not been, addressed in the SDEIR. 8.7 · Water supply contracts and recent litigation regarding the availability of water supplies have changed the availability of water supplies to serve new development. · Regional policy, funding mechanisms, and timing of wastewater infrastructure improvements have changed sig-nificantly since 1993. Natural gas and electrical servi ce capacity in the regaon has become increasingly constrained, combined with increased demand and uncertainty over required electrical transmission improvements. · Solid waste disposal needs have increased, combined with reductions in regionally available permitted disposal capacity. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15163 provides that, "a lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to a previous EIR if... only minor additiOns or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed circumstances." Clearly, in light of the substantial changes in circumstance listed above, more than "minor changes" are necessary to make the 1993 EIR applicable to the current project. The City of Livermore recommends that the City of Dublin should fully recognize these changed circumstances and initiate a fully adequate and comprehensive environmental review of the proposed project rather than relying on older, outdated and inadequate baseline information that render this SDEIR inadequate. Inconsistency With Adopted Land Use Policy The SDEIR fails to include an adequate analysis of plan consistency. The DSEIR must identify and discuss potential conflicts between the proposed project and any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (CEQA Gui. delines, Appendix G). Specifically, the EIR must "discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans," including, but not limited to, "air quality attainment or maintenance plan[s] or state implementation plans, area-wide waste treatment and water quality control plans, regional transportation plans, regional housing allocation plans, habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, and regional land use plans.''~ This "setting" information will allow the Lead Agency to focus on the changes to the environment with respect to policy inconsistencies, and identify ways to reduce the inconsistencies. Typically, Lead Agencies perform this review with a "checklist" or matrix of applicable policies and regulations and a discussion of project consistency with each policy and regulation. 8.8 The SDEIR alone and in combination with the 199.3 FEIR fails to adequately analyze the ~ '8.9 consistency of the proposed'project with the applicable Dublin General Plan, the Livermore I Municipal Airport Land Use Plan, with LAFCO policies, and County General Plan policies for the area. Specifically, the 1992 DEIR contained sections titled Consistency with Relevant ,~ 8.10 CEQA Guidelines section 15 t 25(d) Land Use Plans and Policies and Other Applicable County, City and Agency Plans. A table comparing the project to policies is included, but only for policies contained in the Dublin General Plan. The Sections in the 1992 DEIR are out of date and incomplete. Information contained in the FEIR and the 1993 and 1994 Addenda do not make up for the defects in the 1992 DEIR sections. Since 1992, the following changed circumstances with respect to applicable plans and regulations have occurred: ABAG issued its revised Regional Housing Needs Assessment (R_HNA) for Alameda County. The RHNA identified housing goals for the City of Dubhn, indicating a need for 1,327 affordable housing units 'from a total housing need of 5,436 units. This A_BAG housing goal indicates a need for approximately 24% of all future housing to be made affordable to low- and very-low income households. · The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued Recovery Plans for new species, and designated critical habitat for one of these species, the California red-legged frog. Measure D passed, which sign./ficantly modifies County planning policies and established a County Urban Growth Boundary generally co-terminus with eastern boundary of the East Dublin Specific Plan Area. · The Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Committee is preparing a Draft Airport Land Use Plan affecting areas within the project site. · AB 2838, the Hertzberg amendments to the Cortese-Knox LocM Reorganization Act, was approved by the Legislature. These and other major modifications of applicable plans and regulations warrant the preparation of a revised and thorough plan consistency section in a revised DEI~. LAFCO Issues. The SDEIt~ contains no analysis of the land use, policy and changed circumstances related to the impacts of the proposed annexation. The SDEIR relies on the 1992 EIR for this analysis. Neither the 1992 DEIR nor FEIR adequately address LAFCO issues. For example, in response to questions about the probable need for services and other factors, the FEIR responses were evasive and unsupported by evidence.2 This approach overlooks significant changed circumstances requiring more in depth consideration of a number of factors in order for boundary changes to be adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). LAFCO will rely on the SDEIR for its consideration of the annexation. While LAFCO will rely on the SDEIR for its consideration of the annexation, key information necessary for LAFCO consideration of the project is entirely missing. The project description calls for the annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District for provision of water, sewer and recycled water services. The project also includes the proposed detachment of the project area from the Livermore Area 2 See Response to Letter 24, EIR 24-43.RSP 8.11 8.12 8.13 7 Recreation and Park District. This central aspect of the proposed project is governed by state law as implemented by the LAFCO. LAFCO must approve the annexation. Since LAFCO must approve these proposed actions, it is essential that the project EIR address issues necessary for LAFCO's consideration of the project. As a result of the passage of AB 2838 in 2000, key amendments to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act took affect on January 1,2001. The Act is now referred to as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act. AB 2838 reiterated and emphasized the Legislature's policies of discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, "efficiently extending government serVices'', and that "providing housing for persons and families of all incomes is an important factor'in promoting orderly development"(Section 56001). Section 56001 also provides that the Legislature's policy should be "effected by the logical formation and modification of, the boundaries of those local agencies which can best accommodate and provide necessary governmental services and housing for persons and families of all incomes in the most efficient manner feasible? LAFCO authority was strengthened by the Hertzberg amendments. Specifically, to better prevent sprawl and enhance orderly development, all LAFCO actions must include new factors to be considered. Prior to the amendments, the Act listed nine "factors" including a total of 23 mandatory elements for LAFCO to consider before acting on a boundary proposal. LAFCO's are also authorized to consider other factors, particularly if included in adopted policies. The new factors to be considered include: 1. the ability of the agency to provide services and sufficiency of revenues for those services; 2. the timely availability of an adequate water supply; 3. the extent to which the proposal will assist the receiving entity with its fair share housing needs; 4. any comments from owners or landowners; and 5. information relating to existing land use designations. Also, Section 56668.5 authorizes the consideration of regional growth goals and policies estabhshed by a collaboration of elected officials only, formally representing their local jurisdictions in an official capacity on a regional or subregional basis. As such, LAFCO's may now consider such issue when reviewing proposals. Implementation of Section 566680): Service Plans are Now Essential to Review all Proposals. The analysis of an agency's ability to provide service and sufficiency of revenues to pay those service costs requires more thorough analysis than prior to AB 2838. Specifically, service plans are now essential to review all proposals. New guidelines have just been' issues for LAFCO's mandatory service plan review. If the City had prepared a Specific Plan for the entire project site, information about delivery of services and ability for the new development to pay for services without eroding existing service levels would be available. 8.14 8.15 3 Affordable housing ts most effectively and efficiently provided at higher densities, not in the predominantly Iow density configuration called for in the project.] ?c5 ql Service issues and ability of the new project to pay its own way must be addressed in a revised DEIR. Information contained in the 1994 Specific Plan is out of date. The limited information contained in the SDEIR defers both the analysis and resolution of these key issues. For exampte, the following mitigation measures all defer the critical issues of whether services are available and do not address whether the project will pay its own way: SM UTS-1: Prior to approval of future Subdivision Maps or Site Development Review (SDR) applications (as may be applicable) by the City of Dublin, project developers shall submit "will serve" letters from DSRSD indicating that adequate water is available to serve the proposed development project. (Page ST-2 7). SM UTS-2: Prior to approval of furure subdivision maps or Site Development Review applications (as may be applicable) by the City of Dublin, project developers shall submit "will serve" letters from PG&E indicating that adequate electricity and natural gas services are available to serve the proposed development project. (Page ST-27). Not only does the SDEIR omit analysis of many other essential services which must be demonstrated to be adequate and available to serve the project (schools, fire, police,...), but it defers the information needed for LAFCO to make its findings for the few service issues the SDEIR does address (energy and water). Moreover, no information is available that demonstrates the sufficiency of revenues for those services. A revised DEIR must include this information: £mplementation of Section 56668(k) Timely Availability of an Adequate Water Supply. Recent court decision clearly specify that local agencies including LAFCO specifically review adequacy of water supply associated with significant new development such as the proposed project. Availability of water supply includes the fluid water itself (entitlements) and infrastructure (treatment capacity, storage capacity, regional transmission) and local distribution systems. LAFCO must also determine whether extending supply to the new area will reduce the adequacy of service within the agency's existing boundaries and other adjacent areas. Adequacy of the water supply for the project itself and the effect of the additional demand on the total system (cumulative impact) must be considered. As stated above, the limited information contained in the SDEIR defers both the analysis and resolution of whether there is water and water infrastructure to serve the project area: SM UTS-l: Prior to approval of future Subdivision Maps or Site Development Review (SDR) applications (as may be applicable) by the City of Dublin, project developers shall submit "will serve" letters from DSRSD indicating that adequate water is available to serve the proposed development project. Page ST-27. Clearly, this issue must be addressed in a revised DEIR (see also specific comments regarding water supply in later sections of this letter). Implementation of Section 56668(l) Fair Share Housing. In enacting AB 2838, the legislature also recognized that providing housing for persons and families of all incomes is an important factor in promoting orderly development (Section 56668). LAFCO's must now 8.16 8.17 8.18 8.19 9 consider the extent to which the proposal will assist the receiving entity in achieving its fair share of the regional housing needs as determined by the local council of governments, in this case the Association of Bay Area Governments. The SDEIR provides little if any information to assist LAFCO to make this finding. The City of Dublin's ultimate ability to meet its fair share will depend on how the area is zoned and the land use designated in the General and Specific Plans. A revised DEIR must analyze these issues because they each implicate a potential policy inconsistency between the project and LAFCO policies, and each implicate potentially significant impacts, including but not limited to: 1. lack of available public services and infi'astructure to serve the project; 2. reduced services for existing development if services are insufficient or the project fails to pay its own way; 3.. a jobs-housing imbalance and/or insufficient housing thereby leading to indirect impacts to traffic, air quality. Airport Compatibility. In preparing EIR's on projects within the purview of an airport comprehensive land use plan, or within two nautical miles of a public or public use airport, the Lead Agency must evaluate the impacts of safety and noise by using the handbook prepared by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics.4 Such an analysis has not been conducted as part of this SDEIR, and therefore, no conclusions regarding consistency of the project with these requirements can be made. The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission created an Airport Protection Area for the Livermore Municipal Airport in 1993, after the East Dublin EIR was certified. The Airport Protection Area affects land uses within the southern portion of he project area. Although the SDEIR states that these affected properties are currently designated as "Future Study Areas", it is unclear what land uses may be proposed on these properties or how the "Future Study Area" designation will affect such uses. Additionally, the Airport Protection Area is based on a 1986 Airport Master Plan. Currently the City of Livermore is working toward preparation of a new, updated Airport Master Plan for the Livermore Municipal Airport, and this new Airport Master Plan should be considered when proposing new land use in the vicinity. General Plan Policies. The 1992 EIR evaluated the proposed East Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments with the City of Dublin General Plan (See Section 3. I Land Use). The proposed project is a proposal for a Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation for a portion of the East Dublin SP and GPA. Thus, an analysis of'the consistency of the proposed project with the relevant East Dublin SP and GPA policies is required. There are a number of potential inconsistencies between the proposed project and the EDGPA. The most significant of these is the requirement in the EDGPA for the completion of a specific plan for the remainder of the area: 8.20 8.21 8.22 8.23 8.24 Pub. Res. Code sec. 21096; Guidelines sec. 15154 10 jP/+5 e "Specific Plan(s) will be required for the remainder of the extended planning area to provide similar direction for its ultimate development." (Policy 2.1.4(B) of the EDGPA). In the absence of a specific plan, significant information about the project needed to demonstrate consistency with other applicable policies and regulations is not provided. For example, had a specific plan been prepared, information about the provision of public services and facilities and whether the project pays its own viay would be provided. Moreover, the Specific Plan has been identified by Dublin as the vehicle for ensuring, among other issues, that the proposed site grading and access will not disfigure the ridgelands, and that the timing of the development would not result in premature termination of agricultural operations to adjoining lands. This major General Plan inconsistency must be acknowledged in a revised DEIR and addressed.. The discussion should focus on the information that will not be available if the Specific Plan requirement is ignored. Other potential inconsistencies between the proposed project and the EDSP and GPA cannot be' ascertained by reviewing the SDEIR. For example, the project description is vague concerning project phasing and provision of services: "Timing for the Project's phasing would depend upon market demand. Ail necessary roadways, site grading, and utility backbone improvements would be expected to occur in a timely manner with each development phase." (DSEIR at page 2-6), and "A wide range of residential types would be alloWed by the proposed residential densities." (DSEIR at page 2-7), Given the lack of detail in the project description, a detailed analysis of proposed project consistency with guiding policies of the ED GPA and SP must be completed which illustrates how: · the proposed project will ensure the production of affordable housing within neighborhoods with character and identity. · adequate open space will be provided in the proposed project. · the proposed project will meet policies calling for reducing reliance on the single-occupant vehicle. · services and facilities will be provided to serve the project in a manner that will not overburden existing services or facilities., among other major policy requirements. Because the proposed project is a portion of the GPA and SP areas, it is even more essential that a plan consistency section in a revised DEIR demonstrate how the project is consistent with these applicable policies. 8.25 8.26 11 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The SDEIR fails to address the project's consistency with and contribution to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The project description is extremely vague as to how the project will meet the City's InClusionary Zoning Ordinance, and fails to address how the project will assist the City in meeting its assigned RHNA. The project description alludes to the City's density bonus ordinance, but fails to state whether the project will include additional density bonus un/ts. It is even further unclear how a maximum contribution of 5 % affordable housing units required of the project (page 2.8 of the SDEIR) will assist in meeting the 24% affordable housing need within the City of Dublin. Agricultural Resources The loss of as much a 1,100 acres, of agricultural lands, loss of 59 acres of Prime Farmland, and the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts prior to expiration of renewal should be considered as significant effects of the project. Livermore also does not believe that the DSEIR adequately addresses mitigation measures for these impacts. Appendix "C" of the DSEIR includes an analysis of the project area's potential for being irrigated, and concludes that the delivery of available water is economically infeasible. This conclusion fails to recognize the potential delivery of treated/reclaimed water supplies to serve as a source of irrigation water. Both' DSRSD and the City of Livermore have, or anticipate being able to supply, large amounts of reclaimed wastewater as an alternative to disposal of these waters into the Bay. The availability of reclaimed water to serve as an irrigation supply could render an agricultural water supply feasible. This potential is not discussed or addressed in the DSEIR, and is not mentioned in its Appendix "C". Similarly, Zone 7 is anticipating construction of the North Valley Pipeline, a water transmission facility carrying water supplies from its recently approved Altamont Water Treatment Plant across the Livermore-Amador Valley north of 1-580 and into Dublin. The potential availability of water supplies from this pipeline could potentially make irrigation of this area feasible, and should be addressed in the EIR. Lack of Mitigation Measures. The DSEI~R does not recommend potential mitigation measures to address the loss of agricultural lands, although such measures are available and feasible.- _~Mn example of such a measure includes, but is not limited to permanent protection Of other agricultural lands, either through direct dedication of easements or payment of mitigation funds to be used for acquisition by others. Protection of off-site lands should achieve greater than a 1:1 replacement ratio. Recommended Mitigation Measures The SDEIR Must Consider Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce the Project's Impacts on Agricultural and Open Space Lands. Both Alameda County and the City of Livermore identify lands in the area of the project as high priority for open space preservation. The proposed project would result in the loss of prime agricultural land and 1,120 acres of open space lands. The project is also likely to induce growth on adjacent lands that are designated "Future Study Area," if the project does not include measures that permanently protect these lands (e.g. urban growth boundary, dedicated greenbelt). The 1992 EIR found that impacts to agricultural land were insignificant without mitigation. To the contrary, the project's direct 8.27 8.28 8.29 8.30 12 impacts to prime agricultural land alone and in combination with the indirect growth inducing and cumulative impacts will be sig2ificant. Growing evidence suggests that open space conservation is not an expense, but a worthwhile investment that produces great economic benefits. Open space is a major attraction for employees, residents and visitors because it increases the attractiveness of an area as a place to live, work and recreate. As the Trust for Public Land explains in its 1999 publication: The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space: How Land Conservation Helps Communities Grow Smart and Protect the Bottom Line: "Too often we hear that communities cannot afford to 'grow smart' by conserving open space. But accumulating evidence indicates that open space conservation is not an expense but an'investment that pr3duces important economic benefits. Some of this evidencecomes from academic studies and economic analysis. Other evidence is from firsthand experience of community leaders and government officials who have found that open space protection does not 'cost' but 'pays.'" For example, a 1990 study in New England found that clustered housing desigmed to preserve open space appreciated faster than comparable homes on comparable lots. (Id. at 7). Open space used recreationally as trails can also have significant economic benefits.5 Local businesses benefit greatly from open space that attracts visitors from other areas.6 New development within the project area and existing development in the City of Dublin would particularly benefit from the permanent conservation of a greenbelt. Protection of these lands will have widespread benefits for residents and visitors to the areas, including views, recreational opportunities and continued agricultural use, and trails. The City shoul4take the unique oppommity presented by the proposed project to invest/2 the perm'anent protection of open space and agricultural land through effective mitigation measures. As set forth below, the SDEIR for the proposed project should be revised to consider the wide varietY of options available to mitigate the significant project-related, indirect and cumulative impacts to open space and agricultural lands. The SDEIR Does not Consider Feasible Mitigation Measures._ "The chief goal of CEQA is mitigation or avoidance-of environmental harm.''? "The core of an EIR is the mitigation and alternatives sections.''8 One of the fundamental objectives of CEQA is to facilitate the identification of "feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen'' significant environmental effects? To effectuate this purpose, CEQA cautions that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are... feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant 8.31 See Id. at 26-27 See Id. at-27 Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents, 47 Cal.3d 376,403. 1988 Citizens of Goleta Valle,/v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal. 3d 553,564. 1990. Pub. Res. Code section 21002; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisor~, 197 Cal. App.3d 1167, 182. 1988 environmental effects of such projects.''l° Consequently, an EIR must identify feasible mitigation measures to mitigate significant environmental impacts? The SDEIR and prior EIR fail to identify feasible mitigation measures ro mitigate the proposed project's significant direct and indirect impacts on agricultural land and open space. The SDEIR and EIR find the loss of 200 acres of prime agricultural land an unavoidable but not significant impact (see FEIR at page 3). The DEIR finds this impact insignificant "due to the high percentage of Williamson Act contracts that have been non-renewed and the limited value of non-prime soils on the Project site." (DEIR at SM-7). The DEIR finds the impact to alteration of rural/open space visual character potentially significant (SM-26). However, no true mitigation is proposed for this significant impact. Neither the SDEIR nor the EIR find the loss of open space a significant impact. Contrary to CEQA's mandate with respect to both the loss of agricultural and open space land, the SDEIR and EIR simply fail to consider any mitigation measures. Yet, as set forth below, a variety of widely accepted feasible measures exist that could reduce the project's significant impacts to open space and agricultural land. Feasible Mitigation Measures Exist To Reduce the Proposed Project's Significant Impact on Agricultural and Open Space Loss. The SDEIR's and EIR's failure to consider mitigation for the loss of open space and agricultural lands is particularly striking given the wide variety and number of successful programs that exist to address this issue. Mitigation is defined by the CEQA Guidelines to include: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimi.zing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementanon. (c) Rectifying the impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance. operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 12 Here, the proposed project's impact on agricultural and open space lands can be compensated for by the implementation of programs that provide for such lands on the project site or in other nearby locations that reduce the impact over time by preservation of such lands. Also, the establishment of a permanent growth boundary or urban limit line would assist in reducing the impact, as has been done in Livermore and Pleasamon, among other communities. The American Farmland Trust has identified a number of feasible mitigation measures for agricultural land conversion, including: 8.32 to Pub. Res. Code section 21002 CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4 CEQAGuidelines section 15370 14 · Requiring that remaining agricultural land, of an equal or greater amount of agricultural land be placed under Williamson Act contract. · Requiring conservation easements to be placed on remaining or alternate agricultural land. · Requiring that new agricultural land be brought into production. · Requiring a per-acre mitigation fee on development projects to be used for the acquisition of development rights on agricultural land nearby, la In addition to protecting agricultural land, conservation easements are also effective mechanisms for preserving habitat, watersheds, viewsheds, and community open space buffers. ~4 In addition to these general forms of mitigation, there are numerous examples of communities that have required land dedications and/or fees for purchase of land to compensate for the loss of open space and agricultural lands as mitigation. Examples include, but are not limited to: City of Davis General Plan and Ordinance 1823. Under Davis Right to Farmland Preservation Ordinance No. 1823, new development is required to protect an equivalent amount of agricultural acreage to that lost as a result of development. Agricultural mitigation can also be satisfied under the Ordinance by the payment of a fee based on the replacement ration. The City implements these requirements to mitigate for project impacts to agricultural lands. South Livermore Specific Plan. New residential and non-residential development in the South Livermore Valley are required to mitigate the loss of agricultural and open space lands by agricultural land dedications and planting, and payment of fees. Cayetano Corporate Campus. In order to mitigate for the toss of open space caused by the corporate campus, the Business Park paid a mitigation fee of $600,000 to implement an open space/habitat management program in North Livermore. Thus, among the feasible mitigation measures the SDEIR and EIR fail to include are the following: Clustering of the development to achieve smart growth principles and promote more affordable housing, as well as to protect on-site open space, habitat and agricultural lands and provide permanent protection of those lands through an appropriate instrument (e.g. dedication of lands). · Payment of a mitigation fee to an appropriate conservation organization for purchase of mitigation lands (e.g. the proposed fee accepted by landowners for North Livermore was ,~ Excerpt from Saving the Farm, January.1990, at 5 Regional Needs Briefing Book, page 6 $25,000 per developed acre; the proposed fee accepted by landowners for the Vasco- Laughlin project was $100,000 per acre with "clustering" of development fights to enhance overall densities which resulted in increased values of development areas for owners. Both programs are on-hold for the Livermore Visioning project). Purchase in fee title or conservation easement of comparable open space and agricultural lands in the area and permanent protection of those lands through a dedication to an appropriate open space conservation entity. · The establishment of a permanent urban growth boundary in combination with the above- program. To provide an adequate assessment ofrnitigation, a revised DEER must consider the measures described above for their feasibly and efficacy in reducing project impacts to open space and agnculturaI lands. Adoption of measures such as those identified above would clearly minimize the proposed project's impact on agricultural and open space lands both within the project area itself and through agricultural and open space preservation in the area. A Revised DEIR Must Consider Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce Cumulative Impacts on Agricultural and Open Space Lands. In addition to its significant project-specific' and growth inducing impacts, the proposed project's conversion of agricultural and open space lands to urban uses contributes to a significant cumulative impact on agricultural and Open space lands. The SDEER fails to proviae current information on the extent of such impacts. Several additional feasible mitigation measures that could effectively mitigate cumulative impacts exist. · The City could evaluate the transfer of development fights to within its existing boundaries. · The City could amend its general plan to include programs to generate fees for protection of open space outside its ultimate boundaries (e.g. Proposition 218), · The City could participate in regional programs directed at open space and biological resource protection. A revised DEER must consider these and other measures that could clearly off-set the proposed projects contribution to the cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands in the region. The SDEER as currently drafted, in combination with the EIR, is inadequate to provide the meaningful consideration or feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the project. Traffic and Circulation Central Parkway. The D SEIR's analysis of traffic and circulation issues pertaining to Central [8.34 Parkway is confusing, internally inconsistent and potentially misleading. The City of Livermore has long held its concern that the Doolan Canyon area be protected as an open space/greenbelt corridor that provides a visual and physical'separation between our two · 8.33 16 communities. The extension of two roads into this area (both Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway) would not be in keeping with Livermore' s understanding of open space protection. It is unclear from this document what the City of Dublin's plans are for the extension of roadways (particularly Central Parkway) in to this area. Internal Inconsistencies Pertaining to the Circulation Network. Internal inconsistencies in the document regarding Central Parkway include: The footnote on page 3.6-2 indicates that some maps "erroneously" show Central Parkway extending easterly and ending at the Sphere of Influence boundary. (i.e., the eastern edge of the project area). This footnote goes on to state that, in 1997, the Dublin Council amended the General Plan and East Dublin Specific Plan to show Central Parkway as a 4-lane road extending easterly of Fallon Road, and turning southward to connect with Dublin Boulevard within the Eastern Extended Planning Area (i.e., within Doolan Canyon). Two of these four lanes are part of the proposed project, and fights-of-way for the additional two lanes are reserved for the ultimate 4-lane width. Figure 2-D of the SDEIR (the East Dublin Specific Plan) indicates that central Parkway is to be extended only mid-way into the project area, terminating just east of the open space corridor. Figure 2-F of the SIER (Project Site and Dublin Ranch) indicates that Central Parkway would terminate at the western edge of the RRA land use designation area. However, th_is diagram does not indicate how the proposed elementary school at the edge of the project area would be accessed without the extension of Central Parkway, nor does it actually show Central Parkway ending at a cul-de-sac or other type of road terminus. · Figure 2-I (Eastern Dublin Circulation Network) indicates that Central Parkway would be extended as a 4-tane road easterly of the project area into Doolan Canyon. Figure 3.6-D and 3.6-F both show Central Parkway as terminating within the project area (similar to Figure 2-F), but indicate that volumes of traffic on this roadway may be as high as 107 vehicles traveling westbound during the peak hour, and as much as 9,200 average daily trips on this short, 2-lane road segment under cumulative conditions. This array of confusing information does not allow the City of Livermore to understand just what is being proposed by way of a circulation system for this area. 1. If Central Parkway is not proposed for extension into Doolan Canyon, then why does the traffic analysis project such high future volumes for tiffs roadway? 2. If Central Parkway is to terminate within the project area, then how will access to the school site be provided? 3. If the City of Dublin does propose to extend Central Park-way beyond the project area and into Doolan Canyon, then the SDEIR must address the potential environmental 17 consequences associated with that action. These consequences are not addressed in the current SDEIK. Aside from On-the-ground effects of such a roadway extension (i.e., grading of hillsides and ridgelines, impacts to biological and hydrologic resources, loss of agricultural resources, etc.), the cumulative and 'growth inducing effects of extending two roadways into this area have not been discussed in this SDEIR. Livermore requests that this SDEIR be revised and re-circulated-to clarify the circulation network proposed for this project, and to comprehensively and adequately analyze the potential effects associated with that system. This current document accomplishes neither of these two CEQA requirements. £nadequate Traffic Modeling. Page 3.6-8 of the SDEIR indicates that two traffic models have been used for this analysis, the TVTC model and the City of Dublin model. To ensure consistency with regional planning efforts, this EIR should also include a presentation of the results of the Alameda County Congestion Management Authority (CMA) model. All cities within the CMA jurisdiction are required to demonstrate the impacts of projects using this model. Inaccurate Description of "Funded" Street Network. Page 3.6-10 and -11 indicate a long list of roadway improvements that are assumed to be complete as part of the traffic modeling run analyses. However, it is unclear from this document the extent of actual funding available for these improvements. 1. Are all of these improvemems to be fully funded through the City TIF fee program? 2. When does the City of Dublin anticipate that the fees needed to implement these improvements will actually be in hand, and when will construction be completed? If these roadway improvements are needed to accommodate the project, then the funds must be available now and the improvements implemented prior to project construction. Otherwise, the SDEIR analysis should be revised and re-circulated to demonstrate the projects' traffic impacts on the existing and fully funded roadway system. Any improvements shown as needed to accommodate the project beyond this "funded" system should then be required as mitigation for the project. Only then would this SDEIR present a true and accurate indication of the likely traffic implications associated with this project, and the traffic conditions that are anticipated to occur if approved. Inaccurate Description of Cumulative Effects. The DSEIR speculates (on page 3.6-12) that regional traffic traveling through the City of Dublin's intersections is the cause of unacceptable levels of service along Dublin Boulevard. However, this document presents no evidence to support that assertion. It seems equally likely that the amount of Cumulative development that is currently being proposed and considered, by the City of Dublin throughout this area (e.g. this project, the Transit Center project, the Cisco project, other commercial and office development) will contribute to, and result in traffic congestion problems at these locations, even without an increase in regional through traffic. The DSEIR should be able to 8.35 8.36 8.37 18 demor~strate, based on select link analysis, the origin and destination of all traffic on the network and thereby determine if development in Dublin alone wilt cause this unacceptable traffic condition. Inaccurate Cumulative Scenario Modeling. The DSEIR (page 3.6-15) suggests that development of the project would improve traffic congestion at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection, even though no improvements at this intersection are proposed as part of the project. Similarly, traffic volumes on 1-580 are shown to be less under the Cumulative + Project condition than under the Cumulative-only condition. Is this DSEIR suggesting that traffic congestion would be worse if the City does not build out this project? If so, then the analysis must provide some sort of supporting evidence to this conclusion. It is Livermore's understanding that the TVTC traffic model will arbitrarily "assign" new housing opportunities throughout the modeled network in order to achieve a match between job and housing. If such arbitrary "assignments" have been made as part of this analysis, the DSEIR should indicate where these assignments have been made, and discuss the potential feasibility of such new housing opportunities as part of the cumulative scenario. Livermore believes that Dublin will find that such assignments are not reasonable or feasible, and that this analysis is misleading. The cumulative scenarios should be re-run with the traffic model accurately estimating the location of needed housing oppommities based on available capacity in neighboring jurisdiction, and this information presented in a re-circulated document. This modeling approach used in the DSEIR also serves to obscure the real impacts of the proposed project on the 1-580 corridor. The DSEIR should analyze how much of the unacceptably high traffic volumes on 1-580 would be attributable to the project. To service its function as a fult disclosure document, this information must be made available. Inadequate Mitigation Measures. Intersections on Dublin Boulevard at Hacienda and Dougherty Valley are shown to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Similarly, 1-580 is shown to continue to operate at unacceptable levels o f service. The project would contribute significant amounts of traffic to these roadways and intersection, exacerbating this condition. However, no real mitigation measures are proposed for these impacts. Improvements on Dublin Boulevard are described as infeasible (page 3.6-16 and -17), and improvements to 1- 580 have been identified as the responsibility of another jurisdiction (page 3.6-22). The DSEIR makes no effort at addressing these cumulative impacts from the perspective of reducing traffic generation from the project. Nor does it suggest any responsibility 'for addressing the regional traffic impacts on a project-specific basis. There is mention that the City of Dublin may consider transportation demand reduction measures (TDM) at a "Stage 2 Development Plan"(page 3.6-160. However, the actual impacts are known at this time. Why wait for some further analysis when the problems are akeady known? Measures such as fide-sharing, transit passes, van pools, staggered work hours, and improved transit infrastructure st~ould be required of the project as part of this DSEIR in order to mitigate, or at least reduce, its contribution to this cumulative impact. 8.38 8.39 19 Additionally; the DSEIR identifies actions to encourage alternative travel modes as "advocating" needed transit improvements. Advocacy is not a mitigation measure, whereas a financial commitment to regional solutions is. Such regional solutions include: · increased financial contributions toward the'construction of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on 1-580, and/or providing increased funding for improved transit opportunities. The EIR should analy-ze the appropriate level of contribution by the p.roject for the implementation of these measures. The need for mitigation of increased regional traffic congestion on a project-by-proj ect basis is evidenced by the list of cumulative development already approved in the City of Dublin, shown in the Draft EIR for the Dublin Transit Center. According to this list, the City of Dublin has akeady approved more than 4 million square feet of additional commercial/office space and 4,800 new residences. This mount of cumulative development will have substantial adverse effects on traffic congestion levels on 1-580. Simply passing the responsibility for transportation improvements needed to accommodate this cumulative development onto Caltrans or other regional agencies does not address the responsibility that this cumulative development has toward assisting in regionally-based solutions. The City of Livermore has recently adopted a regional component to its,local traffic impact fee program. The purpose of this regional component is to provide additional sources of funding that can be used to assist in f'mancing regional transportation and transit improvements needed to accommodate increased cumulative development. Livermore strongly urges its other local jurisdictional neighbors within the Tri-Valley to similarly address their responsibilityfor funding these needed regional improvements. Biological Resources Key £iological Data are Missing.from the DS£JR. The SEIR acknowledges in several places that key biological data are not provided because of on-going survey work that was not complete at the time the DSEIR was released. These data must be provided to the public to allow adequate review under CEQA of the potential for the Project to affect biological resources. The following key data are missing from the DSEIR and must be provided to allow proper assessment of Project impacts: Sensitive Habitats. The extent of three sensitive habitats, seasonal wetlands, freshwater marsh, and alkali grassland, was not quantified in the DSEI2K, presumably because field surveys were not done or were not complete in time for the publication of the DSEIR (page 3.3-2 and 3.3-3). This information is essential to be able to evaluate the impact of the Project on these sensitive habitats. Jurisdictional Wetlands. The DSEI2~ does not include any quantification or estimates of the extent of waters of the United States, including wetlands, in the Project area. Based on the presence of ponds, seasonal wetlands, and intermittent streams, it is likely that these sensitive jurisdictional areas occur on site. On page 3.3-12 the DSEIR acknowledges that a 8.3%. 8.40 8.41 8.42 20 wetland delineation was conducted on the Jordan Ranch property and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on November 16, 2000. However, the results oft his delineation were.not included in the DSEIR. The SIER also states that a "Request for Jurisdictional Determination" was submitted last year, but the preliminary results of that delineation were also not included. The results of wetland delineations throughout the Project area should be included in the DSEIR so that potential impacts to these features can be properly evaluated. Special-status Plants. The DSEIR acknowledges on page 3.3-4 that the Project area supports potential habitat for 12 special-status plants, including two specieS, the San Joaquin spearscale and the Livermore Valley tarweed, not considered in the original EIR. Botanical'surveys being conducted by Sycamore Associates must be completed in order for the public to properly evaluate the potential impacts on these species. Federally-listed Invertebrates. The DSEIR on page 3.3-5 also acknowledges that studies to determine the status of federally listed invertebrates on the Project site are also on going. It is unknown whether the site supports species such as the vernal pool fairy shrimp, Conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, and vernal Pool tadpole shrimp. California Red-legged Frog. The DSEIR on page 3.3-5 states that site assessments for California red-legged frog (CRLF) have been completed on the Fallon Enterprises and Braddock and Logan Group properties, yet the results of these assessments were not included in the DSEIR. A site assessment is also being conducted on the First American Titie Company property. However, it is unclear if site assessments are being conducted on the remaining properties (e.g., Croak, Chen, Branaugh, Righetti Partners, Anderson). The results of surveys in the entire Project Area are essential to evaluating the potential effects of the project on the CRLF. The DSEIR on page 3.3-5 concludes that the entire Project area provides suitable breeding and dispersal habitat for CRLF. While we concur with the assessment that the entire Project area provides suitable upland aestivation and dispersal habitat, the entire Project area clearly does not support suitable breeding habitat. CRLF only breed in unique aquatic habitats, which do not occur on the entire site. This erroneous conclusign indicates that site assessments are necessary to properly assess impacts to CRLFo California Tiger Salamander. The California tiger salamander is assumed to be present throughout the Project area (DSEIR page 3.3-7). We concur with this assessment given the extent of potentially suitable habitat and the known occurrence of this species on the Anderson property. However, it appears that protocol-level surveys are being conducted by Jennings and Flohr. The DSEIR should include the results of these surveys so that the potential impacts to this special-status species can be fully understood and evaluated. Tricolored Blackbird. On page 3.3-9 the DSEIR states that a tricolored blackbird colony was discovered in the southern portion of the Project area in 1999 but that "the project area may provide suitable breeding habitat for this species." These two statements are inconsistent. The presence of a breeding colony on the site means suitable habitat exists on the site. The condition and status of the 1999 breeding colony .and their habitat are not described in the DSEIR, so one must assume that the colony still exists. The location of this and other nearby colonies oftricolored blackbird is not shown on the sensitive species 8.43 8.44 8.45 8.46 8.47 21 map (figure 3.3-B). All relevant locations oftricolored blackbird' colonies must be shown on the site and in the project vicinity so that the impacts of the project can be evaluated and adequately mitigated. The nesting site, the colony size, and their foraging habitat (e.g., irrigated pasture, unused fields, non-native grassland, vernal pools)~5) should be described and shown on maps to be able to evaluate the potential impacts to this-species from the proposed Project. £nadequare Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects of Direct and Indirect Habitat Loss. In the methodology section for the impact analysis, the DSEIR claims on page 3.3-12 to rely on "ongoing surveys for biological resources w/thin the Project area." An analysis cannot rely on information not yet collected to determine the level of impact ~)f a project. All of the information on which the impact analysis is based must be included in the DSEIR or be properly referenced. Reports in preparation are not acceptable sources because they are not available to the public to review and verify. The DSEIR on page 3.3-12 adds supplemental impact BIO 1 to address direct and indirect habitat loss not contemplated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEIR acknowledges that some impacts would occur to seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams, habitats not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EZR. However, the DSEIR does not quantify these effects (presumably because the surveys were not done) and instead claims that "a small portion of the newly-identified seasonal wetlands would be accommodated in open space." One must therefore infer that the majority of the seasonal wetland would be filled by proposed development. The quality of the seasonal wetlands filled or remaining are not discussed, nor is their location. Similarly, the DSEIR does not quantify the effects on intermittent streams. Contrary to the. title of the impact, there is no discussion of the potential indirect effects of the project on seasonal wetlands or intermittent streams. For example, the DSEIR also does not evaluate whether the functions and values of the remaining seasonal wetlands could be preserved once development surrounds them. Furthermore, there is no discussion of the potential indirect effects on intermittent streams once development is built within the stream's watershed (e.g., runoff effects on aquatic communities, stream flow patterns). The impact analysis for direct and indirect habitat loss provides no useful data or conclusions on which to judge whether the impact is significant or not. The conclusion on page 3.3-13 that the impact is "potentially significant" is thus unwarranted. Without more data, the DSEIR must conclude that the impact to seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams is significant, Mitigation measure SM-BIO-1 describes a "comprehensive" Resource Management Plan (RMP) that will be prepared to provide additional mitigation for impacts for direct and indirect loss of habitats. This measure defers important mitigation until preparation of the RMP. Because the RMP is deferred, the adequacy and feasibility of the proposed mitigation are not 8.48 8.50 ~s Beedy, Ted, Ph.D. Biologist and tricolored blackbird expert. Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, CA; Hamilton, William, Ph.D.. Professor Emer/tus, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, U.C. Davis, Davis, CA. 22 stated in the.DSEIR and cannot be evaluated. The CEQA Guidelines state that "Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time.''~6 Furthermore, one of the key advantages of a Specific Plan is the ability to plan for development, open space preservation, and mitigation in a more comprehensive fashion than with individual development projects. Because the DSEIR defers the RMP until later, the existing Specific Plan includes no comprehensive planning for biological resources. Moreover, as indicated above, Dublin has not prepared a Specific Plan for the remainder of the project area, thereby deferring planning for biological resources for this area as well. Resources are only generally described and shown on maps but are not quantified in the DDSEIR. The proposed project is not specific at all when it comes to mitigating biological resources. At a minimum, the following aspects of the RMP should be provided in the DSEIR so that its adequacy and feasibility can be properly evaluated: · program goals and objectives · measures for maintaining on-site mitigation in perpetuity Identification of any proposed off-site mitigation and measures for maintaining offsite mitigation in perpetuity · mitigation ratios for preservation and creation · preconsrruction and construction avoidance and minimization measures · onsite avoidance and minimization measures Without these details of the RMP, the adequacy of mitigation for supplemental impact BIO-1 cannot be evaluated. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines,"... [mitigation] measures may specific performance standards which would mitigate the significant effects of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way.''~? Because mitigation measure SM- BIO-1 is inadequate, we disagree with the DSEIR that this impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Inadequate Impact Anat);sis of and Mitigation for Effects to Special-Status Plants. The DSEIR on page 3.3-15 aclchowledges that the Project area supports suitable habitat for at least five special-status plants, including the federally endangered palmate-bracted bird's-beak and the newly discovered Livermore Valley tarweed. However, the DSEIR provides no data on the results of ongoing surveys for these species. Therefore, for some species it is impossible to evaluate the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures. As described above, one of the key advantages of a Specific Plan is the ability to plan for development, open space preservation, and mitigation in a more comprehensive fashion than with individual development projects.. Because the DSE]2a. defers surveys and presenting survey results until later, presumably during submissions of development applications, the proposed Specific Plan is no different than individual development projects. 8.51 8.52 8.53 8.5.4, CEQA Guidelines 15126.4 (a)(1)(B) 15126.4 (a)(1)(B) 23 If a population of palmate-bracted bird' s-beak was found in the Project area, it would be highly significant because it would represent the western-most population known to exist (the nearest population is in the Springtown alkali sink east of the Project area), and only one of seven populations in the World. A new population of Livermore Valley rarweed on the site would also be highly significant because it would be only the third population known to exist in the world. This species is likely to be listed by the state or federal government in the near future as threatened or endangered. Mitigation proposed for a population of either palmate-bracted bird' s,beak of Livermore Valley tarweed consists of avoidance, if feasible (SM-BIO-3), or mitigation off-site, including transplanting (SM-BIO-4). These measures are inadequate because of the extreme rarity of these two species. If populations of either species are found on the site, they must be preserved and maintained through long-term management and adequate buffer zones from development to prevent indirect impacts. Seeding experiments conducted for palmate-bracted bird's-beak by researchers at Stanford University largely failed to establish new populations ~8). Transplanting mature plants of either species has not been attempted. Transplanting rare plants is not a feasible mitigation measure because of its high rate of failure, t9 Because of the lack of data on the occurrence of special-status plants on the site and the inadequacy of proposed mitigation measures, impacts to special-status plant species are not reduced to a less than significant level and therefore remain significant. Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects to Botanically Sensitive Habitats. The analysis of Project impacts to botanically sensitive habitats in inadequate because of the lack of appropriate data on the location and extent of these habitats in the Project area. The impact analysis also ignores potential indirect impacts to these sensitive habitats through adverse hydrblogic impacts (e.g., degredation of water quality, increase in nuisance runoff from development), disturbance from people in nearby development, and changes in topography that might affect patterns of surface water flow. Therefore, the DSEIR does not adequately evaluate the potential impacts of the Project on seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams. Mitigation proposed to offset impacts to these habitats is also inadequate to address the potential impacts. As discussed for special-status plants, one of the key advantages of a Specific Plan is the ability to plan for development, open space preservation, and mitigation in a more comprehensive fashion than with individual development projects. The DSEIR defers all surveys of seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams until specific development projects are proposed. Without data on the extent and condition of these resources on the site, or the magnitude of the impact to these resources, one cannot evaluate the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures. 8.55 8.56 18 Center for Conservation Biology (Stanford University). 1994. Conservation of the palmate-bracted bird's-beak, CordyIanthus palmatus. Prepared for the Endangered Plant Program, California Department offish and Game. Stanford, CA. ~9 Howald, A. 1996. Translocation as a Mitigauon Strategy: Lessons from Calift~rnia. Pp 293-329 in: Falk, D. A., C. I. Mitlar, and M. Olwell, editors. Restoring Diversity: Strategies for Reintroduction of Endangered Plants. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 24 Supplemental mitigation measure SM-BIO-6 proposes to mitigate any loss of seasonai wetland or intermittent streams using a mitigation ratio of 2:1 through creation, restoration, or enhancement of wetlands or other waters. The DSEIR does not demonstrate that this mitigation measure is feasible. It is not clear, for example, if enough mitigation acreage is available onsite or if there are suitable sites nearby that will provide enough suitable mitigation habitat to replace the lost functions and values of the seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams (SM-BIO-7). Because of a lack of appropriate data on existing conditions, an inadequate impact analysis, and inadequate mitigation measures, impacts to botanically sensitive habitat remain potentially significant. Inadequate Impact Analysis Of and Mitigation for Effects to San doaquin Kit Fox. The DSEIR acknowledges on page 3.3-6 that the Project area provides suitable habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox. We concur with this assessment. The DSEIX also states that there are no new impacts and no increased impacts to San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEI2P,. fails adequately evaluate the impact of the project on kit fox in light of recent mitigation policies of regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In a recent letter to the City of Livermore and Alameda County, the USFWS recommended mitigation ratios of 3:1 for the loss of unoccupied kit fox habitat adjacent to the proposed Project2°. However, the DSEIR (and the Eastern Dublin EIR) fails to provide any clear mitigation for the loss of approximately 550 acres of suitable kit fox habitata~. Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-11 proposes preservation of mitigation lands at a 1:1 ratio or other suitable ratio determined by the USFWS. However, it. is unclear if this mitigation measure is intended to apply only to occupied habitat or to all potentially suitable but currently unoccupied habitat. This mitigation measure must be clarified so that it applies to potentially suitable habitat. Until this mitigation measure is clarified, it is inadequate and this impact remains significant. Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects to California Red-legged Frog. The DSEIR states on page 3.3-18 that "Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, CKLF have been observed at several locations within the Project area, however the extent of their distribution within the Project area has not been determined specifically." The impact analysis is inadequate without including the new data of CRLF locations observed since publication of the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEIR correctly concludes that the proposed project "could have a broader impact on CRLF habitat and individual frogs than previously analyzed." And the DSEIR correctly concludes that this is a potentially significant effect. Mitigation SM-BIO-13 calls for CRLF habitat to be included in the Resource Management Plan outlined in mitigation SM-BIO-1. As discussed above, key components of the Resource Management Plan should be included as part of the project to demonstrate its feasibility and adequacy. 2o August 1, 2000, letter to Chris Bazar, Senior Planner, Alameda County Community Development Department on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the North Livermore Specific Plan Area. 2~ 1,120 acres (total Project area) - 535 acres of dry farming rotational cropland - 35 acres of developed areas = 550 acres. 8.57 8.58 8.59 25 Mitigation BIO-SM-14 states that development of the Proj eot area shall avoid all areas suitable £or CRLF to the extent feasible. These areas should be designated at this time so that the level of impact and adequacy of the mitigation measure can be evaluated. This mitigation measure also proposes the use of 600- to 1000-foot,wide open space corridors along streams that provide CRLF habitat. The DSEIR acknowledges that all streams within the Project area provide suitable breeding habitat for the CRLF (page 3.3-5). Fig-o~re 3.3-B also supports this conclusion (according to the DSEIR, there are presumably even more locations of CRLF in the Project area not shown in this figure). Therefore, according to BIO-SM-14, all streams within the project area should have a buffer zone or open space corridor of 600 to 1,000 feet. However, the DSEIR on Figures 2-F and 2-G shows riparian open splice corridors of approximately 100 feet. Thus the proposed project is inconsistent with mitigation measure BIO-SM-14. In addition, the DSEIR nowhere discusses why "a reasonable attemptv was not made to include 600-foot to 1,000-foot-wide corridors in the Specific Plan, as required in mitigation measure BIO-SM- 14. Figure 2-G also indicates that a trail would be built within the 100-foot-wide corridor. This is also inconsistent with mitigation measure BIO-SM-14 because a trail so close to riparian habitat would be a significant adverse impact on the CRLF (and other species), exceeding the "minor impact on the habitat" as altowed in mitigation measure BIO-SM-14. The DSEIR acknowledges on page 3.3-5 that the entire Project area provides suitable dispersal habitat for CRLF. Despite this, there is no discussion of the impacts of the project on CRLF dispersal habitat or to dispersal corridors, and there is no proposed mitigation to offset this important impact. Because the impact discussion is inadequate and the Specific Plan is inconsistent with the proposed mitigation measures, the impact to California red-legged frogs remains potentially significant. Inadequate Mitigation for Effects ro California Tiger Salamander. In Supplemental Impact BIO 7, the DSEIR acknowledges that California tiger salamander (CTS) were found in the southern portion of the Project area and that the entire Project area provides either suitable breeding habitat, aestivation habitat, dispersal habitat, or a combination of these habitats. Mitigation SMzBIO- 18 calls for CTS habitat to be included in the Resource Management Plan outlined in mitigation SM-BIO-1. As discussed above, key components of the Resource Management Plan should be included as part of the current project to demonstrate its feasibility and adequacy. Mitigation SM-BIO-19 includes protection of CTS habitat, if avoidance is not feasible, at a ratio of 1:1. However, there are no provisions in either mitigation measures SM-BIO-18 or SM-BIO- 19 for establishing mitigation sites that will maximize the protection of CTS by: · preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels · linking preserved areas to existing areas of'open space and other high-quality CTS habitat · excluding or Iimiting public use within preserved areas to minimize disturbance to CTS 8.60 8.61 8.62 8.63 8.64 8.65 26 With adoption of these provisions, implementation of mitigation measure SM-BIO-19 would reduce impacts to CTS habitat that could not be avoided to a level below significance. Inadequate Impact Analysis of and Mitigation for Effects ro Tricolored Blackbird. The impact analysis on page 3.3-25 does not state whether the known breeding colony of tricolored blackbird would be preserved or destroyed as a result of development. There is also no discussion of the significance of the colony or any potential direct or indirect impacts to it from the proposed Project. The Point Reyes Bird Observatory ~s conducting a statewide survey of tricolored blackbirds. This colony should be put in the context of this regional work. In general, tricolored blackbirds are very sensitive to construction-related disturbance near their breeding colonies, especially if their nesting substrate is affected. It may not be sufficient to just protect the nesting area because they require a large foraging area near a colony. If their foraging habitat is removed, the colony will likely be lost. They also require water on or near their nesting colonies, and if this is diverted or removed they also wilt not breed.22 Mitigation measures SM-BIO-38 and SM-BIO-42 appear to contradict each other. SM-BIO-38 calls for construction within nesting habitat for passerines during the non-breeding season, while mitigation SM-BIO-42 calls for preservation of nesting habitat. This difference should be addressed. In addition, the reference in SM-BIO-38 to "Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-42 to SM-BIO-44, below" appears to be wrong because SM-BIO-43 and 44 deals with bats. Mitigation SM-BIO-42 calls for habitat for nesting passerines, including tricolored blackbird, to be included in the Resource Management Plan outlined in mitigation SM-BIO-1. As discussed above, key components of the Resource Management Plan should be prepared at this time so that its feasibility and adequacy can be evaluated. Because of the inadequacy of the impact analysis and mitigation measures, the ~mpact to tricolored blackbirds remain potentially significant. Failure ro Acknowledge Regional Habitat Planning. Because of the project's large ~ acreage and lack of proposed open space (less than 7% of the project area), the project will ' have-significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on biological resources. These cumulative impacts could be mitigated through Dublin's participation in regionat habitat planning efforts such as a habitat conservation plan (HCP), which could provide comprehensive compliance with federal and state laws relating to biological resources. The City of Livermore is strongly supportive of comprehensive, multi-species habitat planning, and has initiated discussions with state and federal resources agencies concerning such an effort. Participation by both cities in regional habitat planning would allow for coordination of planning and mitigation efforts and compatibility of neighboring land uses. The DSEIR fails to acknowledge this ~mportant regional planning effort and how the proposed Project may affect this effort. 8.66 8.67 8.68 8.69 8.70 8.71 Beedy, pers. comm. 2001 27 Inadequate Analysis of and Mitigation for Cumulative Biological Impacts. The DSEI~ on page 5-2 acknowledges three supplemental cumulative effects related to biological resources: · BIO I: · BIO 2: · BIO 3: Direct and Indirect Habitat Loss Loss of Rare Plant Species Loss or De~adation of Botanically Sensitive Habitats The analysis of all three of these impacts is inadequate because there is no discussion of the basis for the cumulative impacts. CEQA requires that cumulative impact analyses identify related projects through a "list" or "projection" approach and summarize the effects of the related projects for all environmental topics, including biological reso'urces.23 The DSEIR fails to identify any projecrs that have been built or proposed since publication of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR that would cumulatively affect biological resources. There have been numerous such projects in the area since 1993 that have cumulatively affected biological resources, including Dublin Ranch in Dublin and the S hca Business Park in Livermore. The DSEIR claims that supplemental cumulative impacts BIO 1 and BIO 2 would be reduced to a level below significance through mitigation already proposed in chapter 3. However, as discussed above, these mitigation measures do not reduce the direct and indirect effects o£the Project below significance, so therefore cannot also reduce the cUmulative biological impacts to a level below significance. Thus, supplemental cumulative impacts BIO 1 and BIO 2 remain significant without additional mitigation. Mitigation that could reduce these impacts to a level below significance include participation in or contribution to regional habitat planning activities. Water Supply and wastewater Issues Inconsistent and Inadequate grater Supply Analysis. The DSEIR expressly relies on DSRSD's Programmatic Water Service Analysis ("PWSA") for assurance that there are adequate water supplies to meet the demands of eastern Dublin24. Review of the PWSA raised considerable questions regarding the analysis contained therein. See correspondence dated July 30i 2001, fi:om Saracino-Kirby-Snow to the City of Livermore (attached hereto as Attachment #2, and incorporated herein by reference). In addition to inconsistencies within the PWSA, there are also inconsistencies between this DSEIR, the 1993 EIR, and the PWSA. For example, the DSEIR relies upon the PWSA's water demand for the project of 5,620 annually. However, this demand differs from the demand indicated for eastern Dublin in the 1993 EIR of 8,620 acre-feet annually? The DSEIR states that "The proposed Project envisions the same type and density of proposed development assumed in the eastern Dublin EIR. Thus, water use related to potential development of the Project area is not expected to differ from the eastern Dublin EIR." If the demand in the 1993 EIR is correct, then the project would result in an relative increase in demand of 53% over 8.72 8.73 8.74 CEQA Guidelines 15130(b) 24 SEIR page 3.7-5 25 7.7MGD (from IM 3.5/Q) X 3.07(conversion factor to acre-feet per day) X 365 days = 8,620 ara (rounded down) 28 projections contained in the PWSA. Reliance on the PWSA would result in a deficit of 3,000 acre-feet annually. The PWSA relies on Zone 7's ability to meet all of its demand as a surrogate for determining whether DSRSD will be able to provide service to its customers. As stated in the DSEI~, communications with Zone 7 (V. Wong) affirmed projected demand, and the continued acquisition of additional supplies to meet that demand, as laid out in Zone 7's recent Water Supply Planning Study Update. However, annual demand projections in the PWSA are approximately 17,000 acre-feet Iower than estimates provided in Zone 7 documents. As stated in the DSEIR, "Mitigation Measure 3.5/28.0 relies on Zone 7's planning to acquire additional supplies." Reliance on the PWSA for determination of whether or not adequate supplies will be available to meet projected demand is inconsistent with MM 3.5/28.0. As stated in the DSEIR on page 3.7-5, "The level of analysis required by the Settlement Agreement is significantly more detailed than is required under CEQA or any other state or local law." This' standard, or any standard of showing pursuant to CEQA, has not yet been met. Because of the inconsistencies in the analysis produced pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the determination in the PWSA "...that Zone 7 already has secured sufficient supplies to serve the 5,620 AFA demand of all of eastern Dublin..." cannot be relied upon. 8.75 8.76 Inconsistent and Inadequate Sewer Analysis. With regards to wastewater treatment and capacity, the main issue is whether there will be sufficient facilities and capacity to deal with wastewater treatment and its subsequent disposal. According to the DSEIR, DSDRS through coordination with the developers, is providing the infrastructure to provide for deal with the collection and treatment of additional wastewater generated by the east Dublin project. What is not apparent is how the wastewater will be disposed of. For instance, the DSEIR, on page 3.7- 1 indicates the significant impacts associated with a lack of adequate collection facilities will be mitigated to an insignificant impact by implementing mitigation' measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These mitigation measures from the 1993 EIR require the developer and DSRSD to ensure adequate facilities will be provided to serve the additional development prior to issuance of grading permits. The DSEIR also states that, "Other mitigation measures supported DSRSD, TWA and, subsequently, LAVWMA in efforts to expand treatment and disposal capacity (along with recycled water projects)26.'' When comparing the diSposal capacity of 14.4 to 16.25 MGD27 with the anticipated capacity at buildout from implementing mitigation measure 3.5/9.0, or 36.0 MGD, there is a shortfall of 19.75 to 21.6 MGD. Mitigation measures 3.5/11.0-14.0 in the 1993 EIR recognize the importance of developing recycled water as a means of wastewater disposal to make up the difference between treatment and disposal capacity. It was also envisioned that use of treated wastewater would require the construction of both storage and transmission facilities? Figure 2-1, Major Infrastruc~ture Plan29, only indicates construction of transmission facilities and not storage facilities. [Additionally, the I 8.77 8.78 & 8.79 26 SEIR page ~.7-2 27 The expected disposal capacity in the LAVWMA pipeline that would be available to DSRSD once capacity improvements have been completed, page 3.7-3 2a 93EIK MM 3.5/12.0, "...construction ora recycled water distribution and storage system in eastern Dublin." 29 SEIR chapter 2, project description 29 Programmatic Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin, June 2001, (PWSA) does not support the DSRSD demand for recycled water at this level. As described in the PWSA, DSRSD anticipates a buildout (year 2020) annual demand at 3,910 acre-feet and an annual supply at 11,026 acre-feet3°. The amount ofwastewater associated with 19.75 to 21.6 MGD that would need disposal if mitigation measure 3.5/9.0 were implemented would be approximately 22,100 to 24,200 acre-feet'annually.3~ Even ifDSRSD were able to realize its projected annual demand of 3,910 acre-feet, approximately 18,000 to 20,000 acre-feet annually of treated wastewater would still need disposal. Even with the iinplementation of the LAVWMA expansion and repair project, there will be insufficient capacity allocated to DSRSD for accommodation of peak wet weather flows. The DSEIR should quantify this shortfall and identify mitigation measures, including new storage facilities or other feasible disposal methods, to accommodate these flows. An additional issue is whether the use of treated wastewater would have an impact on the ground water basin and those individuals that relv on the ground water basin. There are specific mitigation measures (3.5/23.0) that require "coordination with any Zone 7 salt mitigation requirements".32 This mitigation measure was drafted in 1993, and to date Zone 7 has been unable to implement its salt management plan. In the past 8 years the salt management plan has gone unimplemented, making mitigation measure 3.5/23.0 ineffective. DSRSD should develop mitigation measures to protect the water quality of the ground water basin that DSRSD can implement. Due to the large quantity of potential wastewater application within the valley, an analysis of the impacts on the ground water basin is warranted. Alteration of Scenic Vistas, Ridglelines and Viewsheds Interstate 1-580 is designated as a scenic corridor by Alameda County and by the City of Livermore. This corridor represents the primary entry into Livermore from the west, and its scenic quality is of paramount concern and interest. Inadequate Analysis of Visual Impacts. One of the DSEIR's inadequacies is that it does not contain any analysis of the potential impacts of the project on scenic vistas, ridgelines and viewshedk, particularly along this 1-580 corridor. The project's Initial Study recognizes that development of the project will alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic routes in eastern Dublin, and the East Dublin GPA Ell{ referenced in the Initial Study identifies this impact as significant. The inadequate and incomplete Initial Study suggests that mitigation measures 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8.1 of the EDGPA EIR would apply to this project, and reduce this impact to a less than significant level. However, MM 3.8/8.0 calls for the City of Dublin to "adopt a set of scenic corridor policies,.., and establish review procedures and standards... so that scenic vistas can be protected." MM 3.8/8.1 requires that "projects with potential impacts on scenic resources be required to submit detailed visual analyses with development project applications.., to be used to adjust the proi ect design and minimize the visual impact." There is no indication in the DEIR that the City of Dublin has adopted scenic corridor policies, 30 PWSA, page 2-10 31 MGD X 3.07(conversion factor to acre-feet per day) X 365 days = acre-feet annually 32 93EIR, page 12 8.80 8.81 8.82 8.83 8.84 30 or established review procedures and standards to protect scenic-vistas] Similarly, the DEIR does not contain any detailed visual analysis by which to consider potentially necessary changes to the project to reduce or avoid significant visual impacts. Without such policy basis and consistency analysis, it is not possible for the environmental review of the proposed project to conclude that this impact will be reduced to less than significant. In fact, based on the Stage 1 Development Plan shown as Figure 2*G in the DEIR, it would appear that the proposed project would place substantial amounts of low density- and medium density-residential development along the 1-580 hillsides, obscuring ridgelines and hillside forms. At a minimum, the DEIR should include visual simulations (per MM3.8/8.1) that indicate whether grading activities proposed within the hillsides would occur {n such a manner as to alter existing topography. These simulations should also indicate whether proposed new homes would obscure views of ridgelines, and whether scenic corridors and vistas would be blocked as a result of the proposed project. Only then can specific mitigation measures be developed to adjust the project's design in a manner to reduce or avoid these significant ~mpacts. Until such analysis has been conducted and mitigation measures applied to the project as necessary, this impact must be regarded as significant and unavoidable. Livermore's comments on this issue are consistent with what is required of new development projects along the 1-580 corridor within its community, tt has been long-standing policy of the City of Livermore to protect the scenic value of the ridgelines and hillsides along this corridor through implementation of restrictive policies on new development. These policies call for the protection of hillside and ridgeline views by establishing maximum building heights, setbacks, view corridors and other mechanisms as a parr of new development proposals. Analysis of impacts to visual resources is conducted as part of the environmental review process, and therefore, open to public comment and review. Of even greater concern to the City of Livermore is the apparent lack of consideration given by the City of Dublin to the permanent protection and preservation of the Doolan Canyon area as a greenbelt and permanent separator between our two cities. For many years, the City of Livermore has enacted policies and pursued planning programs intended to result in the permanent protection of biological resources, agricultural lands and open space in this area. In 1993 the City df Dublin's planning efforts ran contrary to Livermore's interests, proposing that this area be include within Dublin's Sphere of Influence and even considering development proposals that would have enabled construction of thousands of homes in this area. With the designation of this area by the City of Dublin in 1994 as a Future Study Area with an underlying General Plan designation of Agriculture, Livermore had hoped that its concerns for permanent protection of this area were acknowledged and accepted by Dublin. Livermore anticipated that any future planning efforts by Dublin for this area would involve mechanisms to ensure permanent protection for this canyon. The City of Livermore' s concerns for this area have been echoed by the open space desig-nation under the Alameda County East County Area Plan, and by provisions of Measure "D" which place this area outside of the County's Urban Growth Boundary. Despite this regional consensus, it now appears that Dublin intends to develop urb an land uses to the western edge of the Doolan Canyon area, and does not propose any programs or efforts geared toward providing for the permanent protection of the Future Study Area. In fact, the site 8.85 8.86 8.87 8.88 8.89 plan contained in the SDEIR suggests that both Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway (northerly of Dublin Boulevard) will be extended into the future study area to the east. While both cities plan for the extension of Dublin Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway, the planned extension of the Central Parkway is inconsistent with the designation of the property as Agriculture/Future Study Area. At a minimum, the Central Parkway should be designed to terminate in a manner consistent with an open space / agriculture designation of the Future Study Area, and other land uses in the project area should incorporate a buffer from the open space lands to the east. At best, we would hope ttlat the City of Dublin would defer this development proposal until such time as a multi-jurisdictional program can be put in place for the protection of the Doolan Canyon area and other regionally important habitat and agricultural areas. With the preparation of such a program, the remaining lands suitable for development can be successfully planned as efficient and sustainable communities. Other Environmental Issues The DSIER does not address a number of significant environmental issues, but instead references the EIR prepared in 1992/93 for such analysis. Conditions have changes so sigrfificantly since that time that the analyses contained in the 1993 FEIR are no Ionger applicable or relevant. Therefore, the DSEIR contains an inadequate analysis of the following issues, at a minimum: Increased Regional Emissions. Rapid urbanization within the Th-Valley area, along with increased regional traffic and changing commute patterns, have resulted in air quality conditions that may result in the project contributing to air em/ssions that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. The SDEIR should have identified appropriate mitigation strategies such as alternative modes of travel, increased transit opportunities, mixed-use land use patterns and other strategies that would mitigate impacts on air quality. Exacerbation of Downstream Flooding Conditions: Cumulative development within the entire watershed over the past ten years has significantly increased peak flood flows at downstream locations, particularly in the Arroyo de la Laguna at Bernal Avenue in Pleasanton. The current DSEIR should have evaluated the project's contribution to projected future flood flows, and identified appropriate fair-share contributions toward the cost of adequate regional flood control facilities throughout the Zone 7 drainage service area. £ncreased Salt Loading to the Main ;3asin: The DSEIR makes no reference to potential impacts associated with an increased influx of salts into the Main groundwater basin as a result of the project's urban irrigation. Salt accumulation resulting from such irrigation degrades the groundwater quality, which is a component of the drinking water supply for the region. The DSEIR should have assessed ~:he project's potential contribution to salt loading of the Main basin, and should identify appropriate and necessary mitigation measures such as a requirement to participate on a fair share financial basis towards implementation of Zone 7's Salt Management Program. 8.90 8.90a 8.9~ 8.92 8.93 Jobs/Housing Balance: The demographic characteristicg of the Th-Valley region have ~ 8.94 changed significantly over the past decade, substantially altering the regions' jobs/housing balance. The DSEIR should have included an analysis of the projects' effects on the ~ 32 cumulative regional and local jobs/housing balance. As part of this cumulative scenario, the DSEIR should also have taken into account the City of Dublin's recent intention to re-designate a portion of land within the East Dublin Planning area from residential use to commercial / office use. This re-designation is intended to accommodate the proposed new Cisco Systems office park, thereby further lowering the ratio of housing to jobs in the City. Affordable Housing Availabili~,: The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in housing prices throughout the Bay Area, resulting in a, severe regional housing shortage particularly for affordably pr/ced housing opportunities. If a sufficient number of affordable housing units cannot be provided within the local area, workers are forced to commute to jobs from outside areas where affordable housing is more readily available2 Generally, high housing costs can result in very long commutes for workers living in lower-cost areas. The more time spent commuting, the greater the cumulative air quality and traffic impacts associated with vehicles moving on the regional roadway nem'ork. The City of Dublin's 5% affordable housing requirement (which includes moderate-income housing as well as low- and very low- income housing) does not come close to matching the actual projected need for affordable housing opportunities based on state and ABAG projections for the City or the region. The City of Dublin's SDEIR should have addressed the impact that this project may have on exacerbating this housing affordability gap. Sub-Standard Levels of Service on Isabel Parkway/SR 84from 1-580 ro 1-680. At the time the 1993 EIR was prepared, there was no analysis of the project's potential impacts to Isabel Parkway/SR 84. The current SDEIR should have assessed the project's contribution of traffic to this new regional roadway. It should also identify appropriate mitigation measures necessary to mitigate this traffic ~mpact to levels of less than significant, including making fair- share contributions toward the widening of Isabel Parkway to 6-lanes between 1-580 and Vineyard, and vddening SR 84 to 4 lanes from Vineyard to 1-680. Parks and Recreation. As noted in the 1993 EIR, the City of Dublin does not maintain a 5-acres per 1,000 population ratio for developed parkland, and this situation has undoubtedly changes with the addition of substantial new housing opportunities in Dublin since that time. The DSEIR should have assessed the potential effects associated with Dublin residents seeking to use the nearest LARPD facilities should they be unable to meet their recreational needs locally. The City of Livermore supports the concerns raised by LARPD in their letter to you on this same issue. Cumulative Electrical Demands. During the p asr several years, existing electrical service capacity in the region has become constrained, and cumulative development in the area (including the project) will likely require significant electrical transmission improvements to adequately serve the area. Electrical demand is expected to exceed capacity for the region's customers during peak hours by mid-2002. The ability of PG&E to provide service to the area may be further affected by PG&E's recent declaration of bank_ruptcy. The DSEIR should have assessed the impacts to the region associated with the project's electrical service demands in light of these changed circumstances, and determine if there is any feasible mitigation available. Energy conservation strategies should have been considered as a means of reducing the project's demand for these services. 8.95 8.96 8.97 8.98 33 Cumulative Solid Waste Disposal. The capacity of re~onal permitted solid waste disposal facilities has changed significantly since 1993, with increased amounts of disposal needs combined with reductions in permitted disposal capacity. The DSEIR should have assessed the impacts to the region associated with the project's solid waste disposal demands in light of these changed circumstances, and determine if there is any feasible mitigation available. Requirements for recycling and waste reduction should have been considered as a means of reducing the project' s demand for these services. Alternatives Comments on Mitigated Traffic Alternative. The City of Dublin's selection of a Mitigated Traffic Altemative fails to recognize the potential of an alternative that would serve the CEQA.requirements of an alternative that seeks to reduce or avoid potential impacts. This alternative would be similar in certain respects to the Mitigated Traffic Alternative in that it would reduce the number of units and the commercial floor area by 25%, but would be different in several other aspects: A reduced development envelope could be achieved by simply retaining the same project densities as proposed by the project, but reducing the total development by 25% overall. This alternative would reduce the environmental impacts associated with grading, increased runoff and other area-wide impacts by apprOximately 25%. By selectively locating development away from those sites where significant and sensitive resources are located, additional impacts could be further avoided. Even greater environmental benefits could be achieved by reducing the development potential of the project by 25% as suggested by this alternative, but increasing the development densities (not decreasing densities as described in this alternative). By clustering development into higher densities, even greater environmental impact avoidance obi ectives could be achieved. Such an alternative could reduce, if not fully avoid impacts to biological resources, geologic hazards, loss of topsoil and agricultural resources. Lack of Identification of an Environmentally Superior Alternative. Although the SDEIR recognizes the CEQA requirement for identifying an environmentally superior alternative, it does not follow through with this requirement. No environmentally superior alternative is identified. The City of Livermore believes that a reduced development alternative that not only reduces the total development potential, but that also reduces the overall extent of the development envelop as described above would qualify as the environmentally superior alternative, and should be fully described and discussed in this DSEIR. Concluding Comments The City of Li vermore recommends that the East Dublin Properties EIR should not be prepared until a Specific Plan for the remaining portion of the Eastern Extended Planning Area has been developed. This recommendation is based on Livermore's understanding of changed circumstances within and surrounding the project area, new information about the 8.99 8.100 8.101 8.102 8.103 34 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1052 $. Livermore Avenue Livermore. CA 94550-4899 Ph: (925) 373-5100 Fax: (925) 373-5135 TDD {925] 373:5052 MAYOR / COUNCIL 373-5t49 CITY MANAGER 'h: 373-5 t40, Fax: 373-5061 C lq{~' ATTORNEY ah: 373-5120 o Fax: 373-5125 CITY' CLERK 373-5130 · Fax: 373-5135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Division ~: 373-5180 ~Fax: 373-5183 Engineering Division h: 373-5240 o F~: 373-5267 Housing Division ~: 373-5200 o Fax: 373-5318 Planning Division :: 373-5200, Fax: 373-5318 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 373-5095 ° Fax: 454-2379 INANCE DEPARTMENT : 373-5150 o Fax: 373-5165 FIRE DEPARTMENT 4550 E~t Avenue 54-2361 * Fa.x: 454-2367 L~BII. ARY l0 S. Livermore Avenue 13-5500 · Fax: 373-5503 PE~ONNEL '3-5103 * Fax: 373-5035 ©LICE DEPARTMENT 110 S. Livermore Avenue 371-4900 * Fax: 371.4950 TDD 371-4982 PUBLIC SERVICES 500 Robemon Park Rd. 373.5270 ~ Fax: 373-5317 Ai~ort Division 636 TcrminaJ Circle 373-5280 · Fax: 373-5042 ~olf Coar~e Div~ton 909 Clubhouse Drive 373-5239 * F~: 373-5203 500 Robenson P~k Rd. t73-5220 ~ F~: 373-5033 ~er ~esoarcea Div~ioa '1 W. Jack London Blvd. ~73-5230 ~ Fax: 373-5295 1349' C TY OF June 26, 2001 ViaFAX: (925) 833-6628 City of Dublin Planning Deparrmem Attn: Anne Kinney 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 Re: Notice of Preparation ora Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the East Dublin Properties (PA 00-025) Dear Ms. Kirmey: The City of Livermore appreciates the opportunity ro provide its comments on the Notics of Preparation ("NOP") ora Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("DSEIR") for the proposed East Dublin Properties Project. As an adjacent jurisdiction, the City of Livermore is concerned about the potential regionally significant impacts of this proposed project, and the potential cumulative impacts 'that affect us all in the Tri-Valley area. ~ The City of Livermore supports the City of Dublin's decision to require preparation of an EIR for the proposed East Dublin Properties Project ("proposed project',). Livermore is concerned; however, that the scope and content of the Supplemental EIR proposed by the City of Dublin may be inappropriate for the reasons set forth in the following comments. Of even greater concern ro the City of Livermore is the apparent lack of consideration given by the City of Dublin to the permanent protection and preservation of the Doolan Canyon area as a greenbelt and permanent separator between our two cities. For many years, the City of Livermore has enacted policies and pursued planning programs intended to result in the permanent protection of biological resources, agricultural lands and open space in this area. In 1993 the City of Dublin's plarm/ng efforts ran contrary to our interests, proposing that this area be include within Dublin's Sphere of Influence and evert. considering development proposals that would have enabled construction of thousands of homes in this area. With the designation of this area by the City of Dublin in 1994 as a Future Study Area with an underlying General Plan designation of Agriculture, Livermore had hoped that its concerns for permanent protection of this area were acknowledged and accepted by DUblin. Livermore anticipated that any future planning efforts by Dublin for this area would involve mechanisms to ensure permanent protection for this canyon. The City's concerns for this area have been echoed by the open space designation under the Alameda County East County Area Plan, and by provisions of Measure "D" which place this area outside of the County's Urban Growth Boundary. ATTACHMENT City of Dublin Planning Department July 26, 2001 Page 2 Despite this regional consensus, it now appears that Dublin intends to develop urban land uses to the western edge of the Doolan Canyon area, and does not propose any programs, or efforts geared toward providing for the permanent protection of the Future Study.Area. In fact, the site plan contained fin the NOP suggests that both Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway (northerly of Dublin Boulevard) will be extended into the future study area to the east. While both cities plan for the extension of Dublin Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway, the plarmed extension of the Central Parkway is inconsistent with the designation of the property as Agriculture/Future Study Area. At a minimum, the Central Parkway should be designed to terminate in a manner consistent with an open-space / agriculture designation of the Future Study Area. At best, we would hope that the City of Dublin would defer this development proposal until such time as a multi-jurisdictional program can be put in place for the protection of the Doolan Canyon area and other regionally important habitat and agricultural areas. With the preparation of such a program, the remaining lands suitable for development can be successfully planned as efficient and sustainable communities. l'he following sections describe in detail the reasons why the City of Dublin should prepare a new Specific Plan and E/R.-to comply with CEQA in connection with the proposed project. Substantial Changes in Existing Circumstances Significant changes have occurred within the local area and within the Tri-Valley region since the. Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan (SCH'#91103064) was certified by the City of Dublin in 1993. A list of these changes (more fully discussed in later sections of this letter) includes: a substantial decrease in the supply of large parcels within Alameda County necessary to accommodate grazing operations, and changes in state law regarding the annexation of lands defined as prime agricultural soils; rapid urbanization, increased regional traffic and changed commute patterns that have resulted in significant degradation in the air quality of our reg/on; new designations of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog, the potential occurrence of special-status species that were not considered in the 1993 EIR (e.g., the California tiger salamander and Livermore Valley tarweed), new standards applied by state and federal resource agencies that afford greater protection ro riparian corridors, and the c veralI cumulative effects of new development on biological resources; recent efforts by both Contra Costa County and Livermore to initiate regionally-based habitat conservation plans that may affect the project area; cumulative development within the entire watershed which has led to sig-nificant increases in peak flood flows; City of Dublin Planning Department July 26, 2001 Page 3 increased urbanization and irrigation which has Ied to an increased influx of salts into the Main groundwater basin; significant changes in the demographic characteristics of not only the Th-Valley region, but also the entire Bay Area. These changes have altered the region's jobs/housing balance and created a Bay Area commute-shed that stretches beyond the traditional 9-county Bay Area as far eastward as Sacramento; dramatic increases in housing prices throughout the Bay Area, resulting in a severe regional housing shortages particularly for affordably priced housing opportunities; changes in Tri-Valley commute patterns, traffic intensities and traffic generated by new development that has substantially exacerbated traffic congestion on the regional fi:eeway system; newly constructed and planned improvements to the transportation system (e.g. Isabel Parkway, BART access, and other transit opportunities); changes in water supply contracts and recent litigation regarding the availability of water supplies available to serve new development; changes in regional policy, funding mechanisms, and timing ofwastewater infrastructure improvements; increasingly constrained natural gas and electrical service capacity in the region, combined with increased demand and uncertainty over required electrical transmission improvements; and increased amounts of solid waste disposal needs combined with reductions in regionally available permitted disposal capacity. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15163 provides that, "a lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to a previous EIR if... only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed circumstances." Clearly, in light of the substantial changes in circumstance listed above, more than "minor changes" wilt be necessary to make the 1993 EIR applicable to the current project. Therefore, a new EIR must be prepared in order to comply with CEQA. The changed circumstances listed above are some of the very same reasons that the City of Livermore and Alameda County chose ro prepare a new, comprehensive EIR during preparation of the Draft North Livermore Specific Plan in t 999-2000 instead of relying on the 1993 EIR prepared for the North Livermore General Plan Amendment. It is also why Livermore chose to initiate a new, comprehensive EIR for the Vasco-Laughtin Specific Plan rather than relying on the 1988 Area City of Dublin Planning Department July 26, 2001 Page 4 "A" General Plan Amendment EIR. Livermore recommends that the City of Dublin should also recognize these changed circumstances and initiate a fully adequate and comprehensive environmental review of the proposed project rather than relying on older, outdated and inadequate baseline information that would render such an EIR inadequate. Lack of a Complete Project Description The City of Dublin's NOP and corresponding Initial Study include the following actions in the project description: A Stage 1 Development Plan application to the City of Dublin requesting pre-zoning of the site in accordance w/th the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; Annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District for provis ion of water, sewer and recycled water services; Execution of a Pre-annexation Agreement between the City of Dublin and the project proponents/property owners; Detachment from Livermore Area Recreation and Park District upon annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin; · Post-annexation probable cancellation of Williamson Act contracts for several of the properties within the project area; and Detachment of the project area from the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District and attachment to the Dublin Unified School District. However, this Project Description does not address the following issues: The project site is approximately 1,110 acres in size. The entire project site is within the Eastern Extended Planning Area adopted by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("EDGPA") in 1994, but only 472 acres are within the East Dublin Specific Plan Area. Although the Dublin General Plan designates this extended planning area primarily for residential uses, Implementing Policy 2.1.4(B) of the EDGPA requires that: "A SpeciSc Plan(s) will be required for the remainder of the extended plarming area to provide similar direction for its ultimate development." The EDGPA goes on to stare that, "Approval of residential development in the Eastern Extended Plarm/ng Area will require determination that.., the proposed project is consistent with all applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies." The project description included in the NOP does not include preparation of a Specific Plan for the approximately 637 acres within the project site but outside the Specific Plan area, which is in direct conflict with this General Plan policy. This is of particular concern to the City of Livermore. City of Dublin Planning Department July 26, 2001 Page 5 According to the EDGPA, this Specific Plan is intended to ensure, among other issues, that proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands, and that the timing of development will not result in premature termination of viable agricultural operations on adjoining lands. Both of these issues are of regional and cumulative concern. Additionally, in the last decade there has been a growing recognition of the importance of"smart growth" planning principles and what constitutes sustainable development. An adequate deiinition of such "smart growth" includes intelligently planned communities that channel growth into existing communities or areas with existing services, that provide for pubhc transportation, are walk-able and bike-able, include a mix of USes, and provide for permanent protection of surrounding open space. Presumably, a Specific Plan for this area would provide an opportunity for Dublin to consider and emphasize the importance of such "smart growth" strategies in the development of this area. Related ro the issue of impacts to viable agriculture on adjoining lands, the EDGPA also indicates that the lands immediately ro the east of the project site are identified as a Future Study Area. This designation indicates".., the City of Dublin's interest in the area and the need for additional studies of environmental constraints, future land uses, infrastructure and other issues." The City of Livermore shares this interest in the area and wishes to ensure that these lands will be permanently preserved as an agricultural greenbelt/buffer between our two cities. In Livermore's view, any project proposed in the Eastern Extended Planning Area adjacent to Dublin's "Future Study Area" must address how this area can be maintained and preserved into the future, and include safeguards that prevent potential future urban encroachment. Finally, the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Site Plan (Exhibit 6 of the NOP) indicates that approximately 126 acres immediately north of the Dublin Boulevard extension will be designated as "Future Study Area" because they are located within the Airport Protection Area (APA) for the Livermore Municipal Airport. However, the 'EDGPA designates these lands for low and medium density residential use and indicates that, "If, ar the time ofpre-zomng, the residential designations are inconsistent with the A_PA, the residential designations will convert ro Future Study Area with an underlying Rural Residential / Agriculture designation". The City of Livermore requests clarification from Dublin that these properties are in fact to be designated as Rural Residential/ Ag-riculture, including the 10.4-acre p~ce indicated on Exhibit 6 as General Commercial. Inadequate Mitigation The ElK for the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan (SCH #91103064) certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 was a "Program" ElK, designed to assess the environmental impacts of the policies contained in these planning documents. As stated on page 1-2 of that Draft Program ElK, "Once the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are approved, specific development proposals for the project site may require a Project ElK to assess project-specific issues." Given the programmatic nature of the 1993 ElK, many of the mitigation measures contained in that document do nor provide the specificity required in a project-level ElK. Similarly, many of the mitigation measures contained in the 1993 document rely on subsequent studies ro ensure adequate mitigation City of Dublin Ptanning Department July 26, 2001 Page 6 of impacts not fully disclosed at a proj ect-level analysis. Example's of such mitigation measures contained in the 1993 EIR include: MM 3. 8/7. _1: The City will conduct a visual survey for the project site to. identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas. MM 3.8/8.1: ]'he City should require that projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors submit detailed visual analyses with development project applications. Applicants will be required to submit graphic simulations and/or section drawings from affected travel corridors through the parcel in question, representing typical views of the parcel from the scenic route7 The graphic depiction of the location and massing of the structure and associated landscaping can then be used to adjust the project design to minimize visual impacts. MM 3.7/13: The City should requzre dedications of land and improvements along both sides of stream corridors as a condition of development project approval. The width of dedicated corridors will be established in consultation with the regulatory agencies since these may vary with specific sites. MM3.7/4.0: Grazing management plans shall be developed by the City and implemented soon after approval of the GPA and Specific Plan. Management plans shall favor protection of wetland and riparian areas, increased plant diversity, and the recovery of native plants, in particular perennial grasses. MM 3.1_I/4.0: Require preparation ora construction impact reduction plan .that incorporates ali proposed air quality mitigation strategzes with clearly defined responsibilities for plan implementation and supervision.. MM3.5/9~0: While some permanent landform changes are unavoidable with any development, their magnitude can be reduced by developing minimal grading plans that adapt improvements to the natural landform& thus minimizing cuts and fills. Construction of traditional flat building pads in hillside areas requires more grading than construction of partial pads, or developing custom lots. Construction of roads or ridges also minimizes grading in hillside areas. Use of retaining structures and steeper cut and filt slopes, where appropriate and properly designed, also minimizes grading in hillside areas. MM 3.6/I O: · . . Specific project lot and infrastructure alignmentplanning should be based on the identification of geotechnicalIy feasible building areas by the project geotechnical consultant. Jn some hillside areas, clustering structures may be the best approach to minimzze grading and avid adverse conditions. City of Dublin Planning D ep artment July 26, 2001 Page 7 These examples illustrate the programmatic nature of the 1993 EIR and demonstrate that mitigation measures contained in that document frequently rely on subsequent stud/es, pending coordination with other agencies, follow-up analyses and more detailed investigations. Reliance on such m~tigation measures for this currently proposed Subsequent Project EIR will not provide the level of detail and specific performance-based mitigation needed to assure that impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels. Cumulative'Impacts and Assessment of Impacts due to Changed Circumstances in the Re~ion The City must address the cumulative impact of the proposed project given the past, present, and probable future development in the region. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(1).) The cumulative analysis must include ali other planned, pending and foreseeable projects in the region, including the currently pending land use applications for the Cisco Systems office complex. The EIR for the proposed project must analyze cumulative impacts of the proposed project on ail environmental factors, including: aesthetics, biological resources, hazards, public services, utility service, cultural resources, hydrology, water, no~se, recreation, air quality, geology, land use, population/housing, and transportation/circulation. The cumulative impact analysis for each environmental resource should consider the following issues at a mimmum: Alteration of Scenic Vistas. Rid.~elines and Viewsheds: The NOP suggests that potentiaI visual impacts associated with this project will be mitigated through implementation ofmit/gation measures contained in the 1993 East Dublin EIR. However, a review of these mitigation measures indicates that, for the most part, these measures call for subsequent studies, the establishment of review procedures, and "other appropriate measures to minimize vi sual impacts". The EIR for this project should provide the deta/led analytical evaluation necessary to identify specific impacts to visual resources that might be associated with implementation of this project. This evaluation should be based on photo-simulations, montages, or other techniques that can demonstrate how development impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level. Loss of A~ricultural Uses: On a cumulative basis there has been a substantial change (decrease) in the supply of. large parcels within Alameda County necessary to accommodate grazing operation's. As this land supply diminishes, operation and transportation costs of grazing have increased, directly affecting the viability of grazing operations in the County as a whole. The removal of large parcels of agricultural land within the project area from the overall County land supply of active grazing land should be considered a sigrfificant cumulative impact, and adequately addressed in the E]X. Mitigation measures such as funding assistance for continued grazing and other agricultural operations in the vicinity, and the permanent protection of adjacent open space and grazing lands within the adjacent "Future Study Area" should be considered. Williamson Act Cancellation: The NOP anticipates that the City will consider requests for the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts on up to four parcels within the project area. Since the preparation of the 1993 EIR a statute has been enacted allowing the rescission in lieu of cancellation of a Williamson Act contract upon the placement of a permanent conservation easement over lands of comparable size and value. Government Code Section 51256. The EIR for this project should City of Dublin Planning Department July 26, 2001 Page 8 evaluate the use of this program in order to mitigate the project's contribution to cumulative impacts to agricultural lands. Increased Regional Emissions: The NOP recognizes that rapid urbarfization within the Tri-Valley area, along with increased regional traffic and changing commute patterns, have resulted in air quality conditions that may result in the project contributing to air emissions that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. The EIR should identify appropriate mitigation strategies such as alternative modes of travel, increased transit opportunities, mixed-use land use patterns and other strategies that would mitigate impacts on air quality. Impacts to Listed and Special Status Species: The NOP acknowledges that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated critical habitat for the California red-legged fi'og since publication of the 1993 EIR. However, the NOP does not acknowledge that the red-legged frog was listed as threatened in 1996, which is a significant changed circumstance. The ErR should assess the effect of the species' listing and designation of critical habitat on the project and its adopted mitigation measures.. The ErR should also consider the extensive surveys for federally- and state-listed species and species with special stares that have been performed since 1993. A thorough investigation of biological resources of the project area is warranted as other special-status species may occur in the project area that were not considered in the original ErR. One example is the Califorrfia tiger salamander, which may be listed in the next year. Another is the Livermore Valley tarweed, an extremely rare plant discovered in Livermore in 1999. Riparian Corridors: Standards applied by state and federal resource agencies since 1993 afford greater protection to r/parian corridors than currently required for stream corridors in the project area. The proj, ect area includes high-quality riparian corridors, particularly near Fallon Road. The proposed width of open space (40-50 feet) is inadequate to maintain this sig-nificant regional resource. Recent requirements by the US Fish and Wildlife Service have called for setbacks of 300 feet from the top of bank where riparian corridors contain special status species. There is also substantial restoration potential of other stream corridors that have been overgrazed and degraded. Riparian habitat restoration should be considered as mitigation for the loss of connectivity with adjacent upland habitat and as an aesthetic amenity to nearby development Habitat Conservation Planning: Because of the project's large acreage and lack of proposed open space (less than 7% of the project area), the project will have significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on biological resources. These cumulative impacts could be mitigated through Dublin's participation in a habitat conservation plan (HCP), which could provide comprehensive compliance with federal and state taws relating to biological resources. Liverrnore is close ro initiating a comprehensive, multi-species HCP, with a survey area including lands immediately east of Dublin's project area. Participation by both cities in an HCPprocess would allow for coordination of plarming and mitigation efforts and compatibility of neighboring land uses. Conflicts with Airport Uses: The NOP recognizes that the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission created the Airport Protection Area for the Livermore Municipal Airport in 1993, after the East Dublin ErR was certified. The Airport Protection Area affects land uses within the City of Dublin Plann/ng Department July 26, 2001 Page 9 southern portion of he project area. Although the NOP states that these affected properties are currently designated as "Future Study Areas", it is unclear what land uses may be proposed on these properties or how the "Furore Study Area" designation will affect such uses. Additionally, the Airport Protection Area is based on a 1986 Airport Master Plan. Currently the City of Livermore is working toward preparation of a new, updated Airport Master Plan for the Livermore Municipal Airport, and this new Airport Master Plan should be considered wh.en proposing new land use in the vicinity. Exacerbation of Downstream Flooding Conditions: Cumulative development within the entire watershed over the past ten years has significantly increased peak flood flows at downstream locations, particularly in the Arro.yo de la Laguna at Bernal Avenue in Pleasanton. The current EIR should evaluate the project's contr/bution to projected future flood flows, and identify appropriate fair-share contributions toward the cost .of adequate regional flood control facilities throughout the Zone 7 drainage service area. Increased Salt Loading to the Main Basin: Neither the 1993 EIR nor the NOP makes any reference to potential impacts associated with an increased, influx of salts into the Main groundwater basin as a result of the project's urban irrigation. Salt accumulation resulting from such irrigation degrades the groundwater quality, which is a component of the drinking water supply for the region. The EIR should assess the project's potential contribution to salt loading of the Main basin, and should identify appropriate and necessary mitigation measures such as a requirement to participate on a fair share financial basis towards implementation of Zone 7's Salt Management Program. General Plan Consistency: The EIR must assess whether the proposed project will conflict with any . applicable land use plan or.policy, including applicable general plans, community plans, and zorfing ordinances. Since the EDGPA requires preparation of a Specific Plan pr/or to any development for portions of the project area outside the current Specific Plan and the project description does not contain a Specific Plan, the project is not consistent with existing genera/plan policies. This inconsistency must be addressed in the EIR. Additionally, the EIR should address the potential land use incompatibility and growth-inducing effects associated with the proposed extension of Central Parkway through the Future Study Area / open space / agriculture area. Community Separation: The .exhibits in the NOP indicate an area of approximately 2,750 acres between the East Dublin Project Area and the City of Livermore as a "Future Study Area". Livermore's General Plan anticipates that this area will remain as permanently protected open space providing a separation between the cities of Dublin and Livermore. This area is also identified for open space uses in the East County Area Plan. The EIR should analyze differences between the applicable plans for this area and identify means to reconcile them. In particular, the E]~R should explore opportunities for this project to generate funding that can be used to assist in the securing of these lands as permanent open space. Livermore requests the opportunity to discuss with Dublin staff options for shared open space protection strategies for this area 'as part of the scoping efforts for this City of Dublin Planning Department July 26, 2001 Page 10 Measure D/East County Area Plan Policies: The NOP states that the Measure D's placement of a portion of the project area outside.of the County's Urban Growth Boundary does not directly restrict development within the cities. However, the EIR must recognize and discuss the inconsistencies between the proposed project and the County's adopted general plan for' the same area as required by CEQA Guidelines section i5125(d). Policies of the Alameda County East County Area Plan (ECAP) that are applicable to the proposed project include: Policy 26: The County shall work with the City of Dublin to exclude development from steep hillsides (shown as Rural Residential in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan) and from Doolan Canyon. and establish programs to acquire these areas as part of a contiguous open space system. Policy 6}: The County shall encourage the Alameda County Open Space Land Trust (see program 23) to acquire fee title or easements on strategic parcels that would permanently secure the Urban Growth Boundary and complete the continuous open space system surrounding Eastern Dublin, North Livermore, South Livermore, and the existing cities of Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore. Policy 72: The County shall encourage the City of Dublin to: ]. Re-designate in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area all Rural Residential (RR) and designated by Dublin easterly of Fallon Road, as well as Doolan Canyon, as "Resource Management, "consistent with the East County Area Plan. AlloWable uses may include agriculture, grazing, recreational, and open space uses. This shall not apply the lands with urban designation as adopted in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 2. Work with the AIameda County Open Space Land Trust to acquire parcels designated by Dublin as "Rural Residential" in Eastern Dublin, through purchase of fee title or easements with open space fees, by means of dedication and/or through density transfer or other funding mechanisms. 3. Require that land use activities conducted within this area adhere to management guidelines developed for the protection of biological resources, Program 23: ]'he County shall work with cities to establish a non-profit Alameda County Open Space Land Trust to acquire land within the East County open space system to other public agencies and, where appropriate, convey title or easements to other public agenctes. The Land Trust can use developer dedication, .fee purchase, open space or access easements, and other mechanisms ro acquire and permanently preserve an continuous open space system outside the Urban Growth Boundary. (Emphases in original) City of Dublin Planrfing Department July 26, 2001 Page 11 Jobs/Housing Balance: The demographic characteristics of the Th-Valley region have changed significantly over the past decade, substantially altering the regions' jobs/housing balance. The EIR should include an analysis of the projects' effects on the cumulative regional and local jobs/housing balanfie. As part of this cumulative scenario, the EIR should also take into account the City of Dublin's recent intention to re-designate a portion of land within the East Dublin Planning area from residential use to commercial / office use. This re-designation, is intended to accommodate the proposed new Cisco Systems office park, thereby further lowering the ratio of housing to jobs in the City. Affordable Housin~ Availability: The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in housing prices throughout the Bay Area, resulting in a severe regional housing shortage particularly for affordably priced housing opportunities. If a sufficient number of affordable housing units cannot be provided within the local area, workers are forced ro commute to jobs from outside areas where affordable housing is more readily available. Generally, high housing costs can result in very long commutes for workers living in lower-cost areas. The more time spent commuting, the greater the cumulative air quality and traffic impacts associated w/th vehicles moving on the regional roadway network. The City of Dublin's 5% affordable housing requirement (which includes moderate-income housing as well as/ow- and very low-income housing) does not come close to matching the acruat projected need for affordable housing opportunities based on state and A_BAG projections for the City or the region. The City of Dublin's EiR should address the impact that this project may have on exacerbating this housing affordability gap. Sub-Standard Levels of Service on 1-580: The NOP (page 54) recognizes that changes _in Tri- Valley commute patterns, traffic intensities and traffic generated by the project may cause traffic impacts on the regional freeway system that was not anticipated in the 1993 EIR. In order to address these ~ssues, the current EIR should specifically assess the project's contribution toward cumulatively sub-standard levels of service on 1-580. It should also identify appropriate mitigation measures necessary to reduce the project's contribution towards this impact, such as construction of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on 1-580, completion of North Canyons Parkway/Dublin Boulevard extension as a six-lane roadway, and/or providing increased transit opportunities. The EIt~. should analyze the appropriate level of contribution by the project for the implementation of these measures. Sub-Standard Levels of Service on Isabel Par~va¥/SR 84 fi.om ~[-580 ro 1-680: At the time the 1993 EIR was prepared, there was no analysis of the project's potential impacts to Isabel Parkway/SR 84. The cru-rent EIR should assess the project's contribution of traffic to this new regional roadway. It should also identify appropriate mitigation measures necessary to mitigate this traffic impact to levels of tess than s~gnif~cant, including making fair-share contributions toward the widening of Isabel Parkway to 6-lanes between 1-580 and Vineyard, and widening SR 84 ro 4 lanes from Vineyard to 1-680. Demand for Potable Water Supplies: The NOP recognizes that changes in water supply contracts and recent litigation may have an impact on how, when and how much water can be supplied to the project. Pursuant ro the settlement of litigation concerning the provision of water to the Dougherty City of Dublin Planning Department July 26, 2001 Page 12 Valley project, DSRSD is required to initiate a water service analysis for this project at such time as this NOP was released. The results of this DSRSD study should be used by the ErR to assess the project's projected water demand combined with cumulative water demands throughout the re,on. The EIR should also identify whether the project's water demand would exceed currently available water supply, and how water supplied to this project may affect water supplies to other cumulative development throughout the region. Additionally, the ErR should assess the extent of environmental impacts that will be caused by the procurement of supply, conveyance and storage capacity needed to meet this project's and other cumulative water demands, including the potential for increased seasonal storage facilities in the region. Wastewater Disposal Capacity Impacts: The NOP recognizes that changes in regional policy (e. g,, restrictions on the inj ection of RO-treated wastewater into the groundwater), funding mechanisms (e.g. non-particiPation by the City of Livermore in the LAVWMA pipeline expansion project), and the anticipated timing ofwastewater infrastructure improvements have occurred. The EIR should fully assess how these changed circumstances affect the ability ofwastewater service providers to meet the demands of the proposed project together with other cumulative demands. The analysis should include discussion of impacts associated with construction and operation of new facilities for the treatment, storage, transmission and use of reclaimed and reverse osmosis treated water. Parks and Recreation: As noted in the t993 ErR, the City of Dublin does not maintain a 5-acres per 1,000 population ratio for developed parkland, and this situation has undoubtedly changed with the addition of substantial new housing oppommities in Dublin since that time. The EIR should assess the potential effects associated with Dublin residents seeking to use the nearest LARPD facilities should they be unable to meet their recreational needs locally. The City of Livermore supports the concerns raised by LAR_PD in their letter to you on this same issue. Cumulative Electrical Demands: During the past several years, existing electrical service capacity in the region has become constrained, and cumulative development in the area (including the project) will likely require significant elecmical transmission improvements to adequately serve the area. Electrical demand is expected to exceed cap~acity for the region's customers during peak hours by mid-2002. The NOP also recognizes that the ability of PG&E to provide service to the' area may be further affected by PG&E's recent declaration of bankruptcy. The ErR should assess the impacts to the region associated with the project's electrical service demands in light of these changed circumstances, and determine if there is any feasible mitigation available. Energy conservation strategies should b'e considered as a means of reducing the project's demand for these' services. Cumulative Solid Waste Disposal: The capacity of regional permitted solid waste disposal facilities has changed sigrfificantty since 1993, with increased amounts of disposal needs combined with reductions in permitted.disposal capacity. The EIR should assess the impacts to the region associated with the project's solid waste dispos, al demands in light of these changed circumstances, and determine if there ~s any feasible mitigation available. Requirements for recycling and waste reduction should be considered as a means of reducing the project's demand for these services. City of Dublin Planning Department July 26, 2001 Page I3 Concluding Comments The City of Livermore recommends that the East Dublin Properties EIR should not be prepared until a Specific Plan for the remaining portion of the Eastern Extended Planning Area has been developed. This recommendation is based on our understanding of changed circumstances within and sUrrounding the project area, new information about the environmental sensitivity of the region, and the need for all local jurisdictions in the region to re-evaluate land use planning in the context of smart growth principles. Preparation of a Specific Plan for this area should start with recognition of the area's potential intercormection with other regionally based habitat conservation planning efforts, followed by a specific development plan that addresses the issues of · regional habitat planning, · sustainable development patterns including affordable housing opportunities, · needed transportation and transit facilities, · viability of agricultural operations in the region, and · oppormrfities/mechanisms for the permanent preservation of an agricultural / open space greenbelt between our communities. When prepared, the EIR should be a comprehensive one, utilizing updated information and project- level analysis and' mitigation. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide these comments. Livermore looks forward to working with Dublin representatives as the project review process proceeds. Please keep this office informed of all contracts, notices, hearings, staff reports, briefings, meetings, and other events related to the proposed project. Sincerely, Marc Roberts Community Development Director CC: Mayor / City Council Adolph Martinelli, County of Alameda Brian Swift, City of Pleasanton Dale Myers, Zone 7 Vivian Housen, LAVWMA Bert Michalczyk, DSRSD Ken Craig, LARPD Brad Olson, EBRPD Sheila Larsen, USFWS Carl Wilcox, CDFG Saracino A Schlumberger Company July 30, 2001 980 Ninth Street Suite I480 Sacramento, CA 95814 91§.329.9199 fax 916,37.9.9191 sks~vater.corn Mr. Michael H. Miller Public Services Director City of Livermore 1052 S. Livermore Avenue Livermore, CA 94550 Re: Preliminary Water Service Anatysis for East Dublin Properties Dear Mr. Miller: Saracino-Kirby-Snow has completed its initial review of the Preliminary Water Service Analysis (Preliminary WSA) and Preliminary £mpact Analysis for East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development and Anne. ration to City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District, June 24, 2001,~and the supporting analysis contained in the Programmatic Water Service Analysis (PWSA) for Eastern Dublin, June 2001. The Agreement to Settle Water Litigation By and Between Zone 7 Water Agency, DSRSD, City of Livermore and Citizens for Balanced Growth, November 2, 1999 (Settlement A~eement) requires that a firm sustainable water supply must be available to meet the projected demands through buildout of the communities served by DSRSD prior to making the determination that there will be no impact from providing service ro additionally annexed property in the eastern Dublin sphere of influence. During our review, a number of issues have been identified that require clarification prior to concurring with DSRSD that there wilI be no impact from providing service to the proposed annexation to eastern Dublin. It is typical for agencies with the responsibility for water supply planning in the State of California to match projected demands with projected supplies. In other words, it is common for water supply purveyors simply to identify a future source of water supply and plan for its acquisition when the demand arises. It is evident from the text of the Settlement A~eement that a higher standard of water resource planning is required to demonstrate adequacy of supply for ATTACHMENT #2 ~)?r~ ~- /// Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties July 30, 2001 Page 2 of 8 annexations to DSRSD. Section 4(b)(2)~ requires DSRSD to prepare a Preliminary Water Service Analysis that includes, among other things, "an evaluation by DSRSD of...whether the total firm sustainable water supplies that reasonably may be expected to be available to DSRSD ("Projected Supplies") will meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project, together with all other existing uses and uses under buildout of the applicable general plans for al1 areas lying w/thin DSRSD's water set. vice area, as and when such demand is expected to arise". The definition provided in section 4(b)(3) for "total firm sustainable water supplies available to DSRSD" is those water supplies for which "DSRSD (or Zone 7 acting as a wholesaler to DSRSD) will hold a water right, contract, or other entitlement that can be relied upon to provide such supplies for the then foreseeable future and at least until August 23, 2024". The focus of this review is the Prelirmnary WSA, and the supporting analysis provided in the PWSA, produced by DSRSD to comply with requirements contained within the Settlement Agreement. The additional demand projected to be assocmted with the eastern Dublin annexation is 1,300 ara of treated water and 950 afa of recycled water. To comply with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, and to meet the higher standards for water supply planning contained therein, DSRSD must provide assurance that the there are sufficient supplies available to meet this increased demand during the credible worst case drought scenario. Total Firm Sustainable Water Supplies DSRSD states that it has met the criteria that projected water supplies wiI1 meet the project water demands because DSRSD has a contract with Zone 72 tO provide water supplies. The contract with Zone 7 does not provide the sought after reliability. While the contract contains provisions concerning water service, groundwater extraction, and payment, it provides neither contractual nor factual assurance that firm sustainable water supplies will be available to meet projected water demand. The contract between DSRSD and Zone 7 provides that "the Contractor (DSRSD) shall purchase from Zone 7 all water required by Contractor for use within Contractor's service area...or obtain water from Other Sources under the conditions in Section 5". One of the conditions under section 5(c) is "in the case that Zone 7 is unable to deliver the quantity of treated water necessary to satisfy the requirements of Contractor .... ". This section provides an aff'zrmative responsibility for DSRSD to purchase its water from Zone 7 "to the extent Zone 7 can provide it," but does not obligate Zone 7 to provide water to DSRSD. DSRSD, in its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) dated May 2000, recognized that Zone 7 might not have the ability to provide additional water. Page 11 of the UWMP, reads; "In addition, future development will require additional water supplies, which may not be available from Zone 7". The DSRSD Board of Directors also passed, by resolution3, a water supply policy that contained as one of its elements: "To cooperate with Zone 7 to obtain the needed t Agreement to Settle Water Litigation By and Between Zone 7 Water Agency, Dublin San Ramon Services District, Alameda. County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, City of Livermore, Citizens for Balanced Growth, Windemere Ranch Properties, and Shapell Industries, Inc., November 2, 1999. 2 Contract Between Zone 7 Water Agency and Dublin San Rarnon Services District fro a municipaI and Industrial water supply, August 23, 1994. ~ Dublin San Ramon Services District, Resolution 5-92, February 4, 1992. Prelirninary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties July 30, 2001 Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties July 30, 2001 Page 3 of 8 water but to take the steps necessary to acquire this. .water from sources other than Zone 7 if water was not available from Zone 7,'. DSRSD asserts that the total firm sustainalsle~Ply t~a't ban reasonably be relied upon to be available in 2020 is 84,170 ara (PWSA, Table 2-1). In comparison with Zone 7's Water Supply Planning Study Update, February 1999, DSRSD overstated the amount of long-term sustainable yield for all sources available to Zone 7 by approximately 4,800 ara, or more than quadruple the treated water supply needed by the Project. The discrepancy appears to be an inclusion by DSRSD of an additional 2,300 ara from Lake Del Valle, 2,000 ara from a temporary transfer agreement, and 500 afa of recycled water. DSRSD's analysis does not provide assurance that these supplies will be available. Additional yield from Lake Del Valle is onlY anticipated, requires additional storage, and must be coordinated with other users of the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA). Sources for recycled water have been identified, but there are no current agreements with Zone 7that assure the availability of this water. Although Zone 7 relies upon extending the contract with BBID throughout the planning period, the contract with BBID and Zone 7 will expire in August of 2013, and there is no guarantee that BBID, or Zone 7, will chose to exercise any of the'five year options to extend the contract. Therefore, inclusion of these sources in the total firm sustainable yield appears to be inconsistent with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Although additional supplies from these sources may be available in the future, they cannot currently be relied upon as firm sustainable supplies. Additionally, the water transfers to Zone 7 from Lost Hills Water District and Belridge Water District relied upon by DSRSD as part of the ex/sting imported surface water from the State Water Project lack certainty due to the current litigation challenging the Monterey Agreement. Total Projected Demand Project demand for the'annexation that is at issue in the Preliminary WSA is estimated to be approximately 1,300 acre-feet annually (afa) of treated' water, and 950 afa for recycled water. DSRSD did not specifically provide an analysis of the impact of these additional demands on DSRSD's existing or future customers as required by the Settlement Agreement. As mentioned previously,. DSRSD inappropriately relies on its contract with Zone 7 to imply there will be sufficient water to meet the demand. Alternatively, the PWSA is premised on the assumption that if Zone 7 can meet the projected demands of all of lts customers, then there would be no impact to DSRSD's current and future customers from annexing the Project. Some inconsistencies exist regarding this approach and the analyzed demand. The demand projections, including the 1,300 afa of treated water, used by DSRSD in its analysis are too low. DSRSD estimates demand at buildout in 2020 to be 84,060 ara. This demand is inconsistent with previous Zone 7'* projections of a 2020 total demand of 100,300 ara. Current reports by Zone 7 indicate a low estimate based on current untreated demand and a high estimate based on a modest increase of 17,900 ara. The revised total untreated demand from the Agricultural Water System Study Vision 2010 Analysis, August 2000, of 96,000 ara indicates this demand could be much greater. Completely ignoring potential increases in untreated water Water Supply Planning Update, February 1999 Annual Review of the Sustainable Water Supply, Draft dated April 06, 2001 Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties July 30, 2001 Page 4 of 8 demand artificially reduces expected 2020 demand. By ignoring additional untreated demands, DSRSD has essentiallY ignored approximately one half of the water required by the City of Livermore for buildout in 2020, consistent with its approved General Plan. DSRSD states in the PWSA that an additional untreated water demand of 950 ara will result from the Project, and that this demand would be satisfied utilizing recycled Water. Whether recycled water will be available to meet this demand is not only dependent on DSRSD's ability to produce this water, but also on its ability to provide storage and transmission. DSRSD provided a table of its projected recycled water demands and supply, and also provided a figure of proposed transmission and storage facilities for eastern Dublin. DSRSD does not provide an assessment, the impact of providing this service to eastern Dublin will have on its other customers who rely on recycled water. Furthermore, DSRSD does not demonstrate that it has the capability to store, transmit, or produce this recycled water. Credible Worst-Case Drought Scenario Use of average annual supply as an indicator of water supply reliability is not sufficient. DSRSD does not demonstrate in the PWSA that it would be able to provide water service to the Proposed Project during a ",Credible Worst-Case Drought Scenario"...using the Projected Supplies, without significantly and adversely affecting the reliability of service or quality of water provided to DSRSD's then-existing customers" (Settlement Agreement, section 4c(iii)). As defined in the Settlement Agreement, "a Proposed Project shall be deemed to so "adversely affect the reliability of water only if it would cause a significant decrease in DSRSD's ability to fully meet customer demand at all times without significantly increasing the likelihood, severity or duration of use by DSRSD of those voluntary or mandatory rationing, conservation, or other demand reduction or water management measures described in DSRSD's current water use reduction plan"(Settlement Agreement, section 4c(ii)). DSRSD analyzed whether Zone 7 could meet its current policy of I00% reliability in all years in 2020. DSRSD recognized the-varying nature of average annual supplies, and "instead of using long-term averages, a continuous 71-year annual hydrologic analysis was conducted of projected, future, SWP deliveries to determine the ability of Zone7 to meet the treated and untreated water demands under all hydrologic conditions, as demands increased to projected buildout demands" (PWSA, page 2-1I). DSRSD did not provide information regarding construction of the 71-year annual hydrologic analysis; however, they did draw some conclusions based on this analysis and provided tables supporting their conclusions in the appendix. [t is not possible to confirm the calculations that lead DSRSD to conclude that "Zone 7 currently has sufficient water supplies to meet 100% of the projected treated and untreated water demands, under all hydrologic conditions through Year 2015, including the credible worst case drought scenario assumed to occur in hydrologic Years 1929 through 1934" (PWSA page 2- 11). There are inconsistencies on table 7c, projected 2020 conditionss, which cannot be reconciled without additional information. a) Column one, Total Zone 7 Valley Demand (AF), does not contain demand numbers that represent the projected demands put forth by DSRSD in the PWSA. 6 Programmatic Water Supply Assessment, June 200 l, Appendix I - This Appendix, consisting of tables that represent model output, was provided as support for conclusions made regarding the hydrologic model. //,/ Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties July 30, 2001 Page 5 of 8 b) Columns two and three deal with SWP deliveries, and-neither column can be confirmed using DWR quantities contained in Bulletin 132-99, March 2001, tables B-4 and B-5B. For instance, DSRSD has stated that delivery from the SWP was lowest in 1977, however deliveries were lower in 1991 in both quantity of water delivered and percent of entitlement. In several instances, the table indicates that the SWP delivers the full entitlement. Again, Bulletin 132-99 cannot confirm this assumption. c) Columns dealing with the Semitropic banking program do not provide any guidance as to the rules used to operate the bank. Also, it is assumed that the full 65,000 acre-foot of storage space has been filled at the beginning of the analysis. If the 65,000 acre-feet of storage were not filled at the beginning of the analysis there would be further impacts. In fact, Zone 7 modeling provided in the Water Supply Planning Study Update, February 1999, that sets storage in Semitropic starting at something less than 65,000 acre-feet of available water, indicates additional impacts to the Main Basin. d) Rules for the columns representing the Use of Chain-of-Lakes are not provided, and it is not intuitive from reading the columns how they add to the supply. For instance, cumulative storage in the Chain-of-Lakes is not reduced when water is extracted (see 4th row down in spreadsheet). Also, it is not apparent when the full 70,000 acre-feet of storage would be available in the Chain-of-Lakes because storage is increased to 70,000 in the model year of 1957. According to documents produced by Zone 77, there would not be 70,000 acre-feet of storage available earlier than 2030. e) According to the table, the Main Basin is full 50 of the 71 years represented by the hydrologic analysis. In only one year does the Main Basin drop below the kistoric low level of 130,000 acre-feet of storage. Zone 7 models indicate that even when the Main Basin and storag~ space in Semitropic are full, there are impacts ro the Main Basin 15% of the time due to a lack of dry year yield as well as much needed storage8. DSRSD incorrectly states that the impact is only 1.4% of the time and that this is not statistically significant (PWSA, page 2-11). f) It is not yet possible to ascertain the true impact of the "Credible Worst Case Drought Scenario" on DSRSD's customers based on the analysis provided. More information regarding model construction and operating rules must be made available to assess the accuracy of the analysis. g) There is no mention of the 100% reliability of the water supply to Dougherty Valley, and how this reliability would impact DSRSD's customers. Use of the 7,000 acre-foot entitlement specified for Dougherty Valley, and the associated 43,000 acre-foot of Semitropic storage to meet Dougherty Valley's needs first and foremost may impact DSRSD's other customers in dry years. An analysis of this relationship must be performed in order to determine whether or not an impact exists. The Project would be considered to "adversely affect the quality of water" provided to DSRSD's existing customers only if it would cause a significant ongoing increase in the Post-treatment concentration of any contaminant for which a maximum contaminant level is specified under the Water Supply Planning Study Update, February 1999; Integrated Water System Study, January 2000, etc. Water Supply Planning Study Update, February 1999, page 3-31 Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties July 30, 2001 Page 6 of 8 Safe Drinking Water Act to a level that exceeds the Post-treatment concentration of such contaminant in water then being delivered by DSRSD to its customers" (Settlement Agreement section 4c(ii)). DSRSD has determined that there would be no significant adverse affect on the quality of water provided to its customers. DSRSD relies on its contract with Zone 7 for a treated water supply, and on Zone 7's obligation to meet water quality standards. This reasoning provides no analysis or assurance that there will be no impact to DSRSD's CUstomers from the increased demand of the project. Analysis provided in Zone 7's Treated Water Facilities Master Plan, February 2000, indicates that Zone 7 recognizes that water quality from the Bay-Delta is extremely variable, and that selection of a water treatment process will need to take this variability into account. Although Zone 7 recognizes this variability, it also recognizes that there is currently not enough capacity to meet the treated needs for 2020. If the necessary treatment facilities were not constructed, it is uncertain whether the additional demand would cause a significant adverse affect in the quality of water being delivered, because the source of water for the Project has not been identified, nor has any analysis been provided. Because there was no analysis performed regarding the water quality impact associated with ground water resources, it is' not possible to ascertain if there would be an impact to ground water quality during the "credible worst case drought scenario" caused by the Project. Meetin~ Projected (2020) Demands With Current (2001) Supplies DSRSD did not perform specific analysis regarding whether it could provide water service to the proposed Project. Instead, DSRSD relies on analyzing whether or not Zone 7 has the current supplies to meet 2020 demands. DSRSD concludes that Zone 7 currently has adequate supplies to meet the projected 2020 treated and untreated water supply demand. DSRSD also concludes that Zone 7 can provide 100% reliability in all years by implementing demand reduction in the 6th year of a 6-year drought after 2015. By contrast, Zone 7 analysis provided in the Water Supply Planning Study Update¢ February 1999, and the associated environmental documentation, projects that the water supply will be sufficient to meet 2009 demand, but that significant additional dry year supplies will be necessary for Zone 7. to provide 100% reliability in ail years9. The additional dry year supply is needed for the Zone's current customers under current supply conditions without talcing into account demands in 2020. The current f'zrm sustainable yield that DSRSD relies upon is inadequate to meet DSRSDYs projected (2020) demands. Inclusion of additional untreated demand that is anticipated by Zone 7 will exacerbate this shortfall. Conclusions The analytical tools used by DSRSD to determine the reliability of dry year supplies are confusing and misleading. It is not obvious what operating criteria were applied, what water supply was available, or what demand was used. Also, data on SWP deliveries should be consistent with Bulletin 132-99. Clarification is also required concerning the water storage facilities that are assumed to be available in 2020 to provide dry year supplies, and the basis for those assumptions. 9 Zone 7 Water Agency Water Supply Planning Update, Program Environmental Impact Report, draft, January 1999, page 7-4 Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties July 30, 2001 Page 7 of 8 While most water supply planning study efforts in California rely on matching projected demands with projected Supplies, this approach is not adequate under the Settlement Agreement. ' The Settlement Agreement sets a more affirmative standard for addressing whether or not DSRSD will be able to provide service to the annexed areas. DSRSD must show that the "total firm sustainable water supplies that reasonably may be expected to be available to DSRSD... will meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project...". The performance standard for malting this determination is that "DSRSD shall consider its Projected Supplies to be adequate to meet the Projected Demand only if DSRSD would be able to provide water service to the Proposed Project during a "Credible Worst-Case Drought Scenario", using the PrOjected Supplies, without significantly and adversely affecting the reliability of service or quality of. water provided to DSRSD' s then-existing customers". The existing analysis provided in the Preliminary WSA and PWSA does not meet the foregoing standard. We summarize our primary concerns as follows: 1) Total Firm Sustainable Supplies a) BBID transfer terminates in 2013 and is subject to approval by both parties at 5 year intervals and cannot be considered firm for the extended term to 2020 b) An additional 2,300 afa from Lake Del Valle is conceptual and would require approvals from SWRCB, DWR, and other SBA contractors c) 500 ara of recycled water from Zone 7 is conceptual and would require additional storage and public acceptance d) DSRSD's projected recycled water supply quantification and availability needs to be supported e) Permanent Transfers from Lost Hills and Belridge may be affected by current litigation 2) Total Projected Demand a) DSRSD does. not demonstrate'that it has the capability to store, transmit, or produce 950 ara recycled water, and it is uncertain whether servicing this additional demand would cause impacts to its other recycled water customers b) DSRSD ignored a minimum 16,000 ara of additional untreated demand in 2020 with the possibility for a demand of 96,000 ara~° 3) Credible Worst-Case Drought Scenario a) Water Quality i) DSRSD has not analyzed possible impacts due to reliance on Zone 7 meeting the standards ii) Zone 7's water treatment capacity is not sufficient to meet demand in 2020. Without identifying the future water supply source, and any future treatment processes, determinations regarding water quality impacts are unsupported to Agricultural Water System Study Vision 2010 Analysis, August 2000, Figure ES-2, page ES-7 Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East DubIin Properties July 30, 2001 Page 8 of 8 iii) There was no analysis provided on the water quality impact of additional reliance on ground water supplies during dry years b) Dry_ Year Reliability i) The 71 year hydrologic anaIysis needs significant clarification ii) Zone 7 does not currently have enough storage capacity to meet dry year demands 1.00% of the time iii) DSRSD has not analyzed.the impact of preferential supply to Dougherty Valley using the.BMWD transfer in conjunction with SWSD storage 4) Meeting Pro, jeered (2020) Demand With Current (2001) Supplies a) Current supplies are inadequate to meet DSRSD's projected demand b) Any level of additional untreated demand witl exacerbate-the shortfall It is our opinion that the Preliminary and Programmatic Water Supply Analysis fall short of meeting the higher standard of water suppIy planning that is required by the Settlement Agreement. Saracino-Kirby-Snow is available to assist the City of Livermore in working with DSRSD and Zone 7 to address the inadequacies with the current analysis. Sincerely, Principal Responses to Letter 8: City of Livermore Response 8.1: The comments that the DSEIR does not contain a full project description, that circumstances have changed since certification of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, and that the scope of and depth of analysis in the SDEIR is not adequate, are acknowledged and are addressed in the comments and responses below. Response 8.2: Regarding the comment that the project description does not address an inconsistency with Dublin General Plan policies for a specific plan, the City of Dublin notes that a Specific Plan is not part of the project description for approximately 637 acres of the project area. The proposed project includes only annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin and a Stage 1 Planned Development prezoning. The project owners would be required to prepare and submit a Specific Plan for the 637 acres of land outside of the existing Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in conjunction with applications for Stage 2 Planned Development rezonings. This requirement is noted on page 2-13 of the DSEIR. Since the Dublin General Plan policy cited by the City of Livermore does not specify the timing of preparation of a Specific Plan, no conflict with Dublin General Plan policies exist-. The City of Dublin believes that sufficient information about the proposed project is provided in the Stage 1 Planned Development rezoning application to allow public agencies and the public at large to identify environmental impacts. This includes the location, type and densities of land uses, the proposed circulation system, provision of open space and resource protection areas, phasing of proposed development and financing. Response 8.3: Regarding the comment that "smart growth" principles would be used to guide a future Specific Plan for the project area, the City of Dublin acknowledges the existence of such principles and notes that many "smart growth" ideas have been used to guide the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the proposed Dublin Transit Center and the Western Dublin BART Specific Plan. Response 8.4: Regarding the comment concerning the need for a greenbelt/ buffer between Dublin and Livermore, please refer to Section 2.1 (p 2-1) of the DSEIR and to Response 8.89 and 8.90, below indicating the proposed project's relationship to the Future Study area (Doolan Canyon), which is located east of the proposed project area and west of the City of Livermore. Response 8.5: Regarding land uses in that portion of the project area designated as a Future Study Area, the DSEIR Project Description clearly points out that future land uses will be' dependent on development restrictions set forth in the Livermore Airport Master Plan. Comments provided by the City of Livermore EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 119 October 2001 (p.10, Airport Compatibility) indicate that the City of Livermore is currently updating the Livermore Airport Master Plan. It would therefore be more realistic to determine future land uses in the Future Study Area upon completion of this Master Plan. The Initial Study for the proposed project (page 8) notes that future development proposals within the project area must be referred to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission to determine compliance with the Livermore Airport Master Plan and appropriate airport safety zones. The growth inducing impacts of the project were discussed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. (See Addendum to Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 19; Eastern Dublin EIR, pp. 5.0- 14-5.0-15, IM 3.4/Q, IM 3.5/C, IM 3.5/T, responses to comments, 32-41, 32-55.) The analysis notes that the sewer and water systems are planned in a manner that generally restrains development beyond the boundaries of the Project site. Nonetheless, the analysis concluded that the growth inducing impacts of the Project's proposed extension of the water and utility system were significant, and the City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations. Furthermore, as pointed out in the footnote on p. 3.6-2 of the DEIR, Central Parkway has been realigned such that it does not proceed into the Doolan Canyon/Future Study Area. Thus, there are no new supplemental impacts beyond what was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Response 8.6: Regarding the comment that the proposed DSEIR does not provide the level of detail to assure that adequate mitigation to ensure that impacts can be reduced to a less-than-significant level, the City of Dublin notes that the location, type and densities of land uses in the proposed project are essentially unchanged from the current Eastern Dublin SpeCific Plan and General Plan so that environmental impacts have already been addressed and mitigated. One of mitigation measures identified in Comment 8.5, Mitigation 3.7/4.0 requiring preparation of a Grazing Management Plan, has already been completed by the City. The other mitigation measures cited in the comment require project specific actions that are beyond the scope of the proposed project, which includes annexation of the area to the City of Dublin and a Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning. These mitigation measures will be fulfilled at Stage 2 Planned Development rezonings for individual properties within the project area. Response 8.7: Regarding the comment that many changed circumstances have occurred n the Tri-Valley area since the Eastern Dublin EIR was adopted in 1993, the City of Dublin believes the issue of changed circumstances have been adequately addressed in Section 2.3, Update of Previous Environmental Documentation. Specific changed circumstances noted in the DSEIR include change of status of previously identified sensitive species and new sensitive EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 120 October 2001 species, potential increases in regional traffic, changes in noise and air quality conditions, the potential for cancellation of Williamson Act contracts, and changes in the provision of schools and other utilities to serve the project area. The listing of several items in the comment letter (reduction of grazing lands in Alameda County, efforts to undertake habitat conservation plans, increased cumulative stormwater runoff, influx of salts into he basin, changes to demographic characteristics, increases in housing process, changes to commute patterns, and improvements to the regional transportation system) are not believed to significant changes in the surrounding environment that would require additional analysis in the DSEIR. Rather, many of the items mentioned are the result of normal progression'in the continuing build out of the Tri-Valley and, as such, have been reasonably foreseen when the original Eastern Dublin EIR and associated addenda were adopted in 1993 and 1994. The City of Dublin therefore believes that no new analysis is required for the items listed in this paragraph. Response 8.8: Regarding the comment that the proposed DSEIR does not include an adequate analysis of the proposed plan's consistency with adopted land use polices.; the City of Dublin believes that, between the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Initial Study and the DSEIR, an adequate land use analysis has been provided. Of specific concern is a discussion of the proposed plan With the following planning efforts. The listing of each plan is followed by a listing of how each respective plan has been addressed: · Air Quality Attainment Plans: Refer to Section 3.2 of the DSEIR, pp 3.2-2 and 3.2-3, which references state and federal air quality standards and planning efforts. DSEIR Table 3.2-1 compares project-related air quality emissions with state and regional air quality standards. · Area-Wide Waste Treatment And Water Quality Control Plans: The Initial Study references that the project area has been anticipated to be annexed to the Dublin San Ramon Services District for water and wastewater service. 'The Eastern Dublin EIR contains an extensive discussion of regional issues and regional planning efforts, including LAVWMA and Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority. (See, in particular, August 22, 1994 Addenda) The DSEIR contains an extensive update of water supplies and long-term plans of DSRSD. Regional water quality issues are referenced and discussed in the Initial Study for the proposed project (Section VIII, Hydrology). The Initial Study references the requirement of future construction within the project to comply with water quality control standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 121 October 2001 · Regional Transportation Plan: Regional traffic considerations have been addressed through the use of the Tri-Valley Transportation Model (TVTM) to assess cumulative traffic impacts. A discussion of the TVTM is provided starting on p. 3.6-8 of the DSEIR.. · Regional Housing Allocation Plan: Regional housing needs and planning efforts are discussed on page 3.2-5 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR. · Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans and Regional Land Use Plans: No such plans have been adopted for the project area, so there is no requirement to address these in the environmental documents. Response 8.9: .Regarding the comment that the proposed DSEIR fails to discuss consistency of the proposed project with the Dublin General Plan, Livermore Airport Land Use Plan, LAFCO policies and County General Plan, please see the following: · Dublin General Plan: The Land Use and Planning Section of the Initial Study indicates that the proposed project is consistent with the existing Eastern Dublin General Plan and General Plan. The land use and circulation plan for the proposed Eastern Dublin Owners' project is essentially identical to the overall eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan. Additional analysis and discussion is provided on page 2-6 of the DSEIR. · Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Plan: Consistency between the proposed project and the Livermore Airport Plan is discussed on p. 2-7 of the DSEIR. · LAFCO Policies: Discussion of consistency between the proposed project and LAFCO policies is'found on p. 2-10 of the DSEIR. · County General Ptan: Since the project area lies within the sphere of influence of the City of Dublin and a majority of owners have requested annexation to Dublin, the primary discussion of Alameda East County Plan is contained on p. 2-10 of the DSEIR. The County General Plan also is discussed under the ECAP Alternative analysis. Since the City of Dublin has previously planned the project area, there is no need for additional discussion of the Alameda County General Plan. Response 8.10: The comment that defects exist in the 1992 DEIR and subsequent environmental documents for the Eastern Dublin area regarding Land Use Plans and other applicable City, County and Agency plans is acknowledged but is not relevant to this proposed project because the public review periods for these previous environmental documents have previously closed. The City notes, EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 122 October 2001 however, that the Eastern .Dublin EIR was upheld in a CEQA challenge after the 1993 approval. Response 8.11: Regarding potential changed circumstances with regard to land use programs, the following responses are noted: · Regional Housing Needs Assessment: As noted in the response to Comment 8.94, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment has been adequately addressed in the earlier Eastern Dublin EIR. This is an on-going program with periodic updates to each jurisdiction's housing requirements. The most recent update in regional housing allocation does not represent a changed environmental circumstance that requires additional analysis. Future project developers would be required to comply with City of Dublin inclusionary housing requirements. · Red-legged frog Recovery Plan: This topic has been addressed in Section 3.3 (Biological Resources) of the DSEIR. · Measure D: This regulatory program has been addressed in the Land Use and Planning Section of the Initial Study (p. 45-46). Based in the discussion contained in the Initial Study, the adoption of Measure D does not contain language that would create a changed environmental condition, since the Measure only affects properties within unincorporated portions of the County.~ Project property owners have requested annexation to the City of Dublin. · Livermore Municipal Airport Plan: This plan is addressed on p. 2-7 of the DSEIR. Since this Plan has not been adopted, it has no official status and need not be addressed-in the SEIR. · AB2838: This legislation is extensively addressed in Section 2.6 of the DSEIR (Regulatory Setting). That section discusses the proposed project consistency with.changed LAFCO requirements. Response 8.12: Regarding LAFCO issues, the City of Dublin believes that the proposed project is consistent with the most recent LAFCO policies and requirements. As noted in the response to the above comment, the Regulatory Setting section of the DSEIR includes an extensive discussion of LAFCO policies Response 8.13: Regarding the comment that LAFCO must approve the reorganization that would include an annexation of the affected properties to the City of Dublin and detachment from the Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District, this comment is acknowledged and no further analysis is required. Response 8.14: Regarding recent changes to LAFCO legislation, comments regarding LAFCO policies toward urban development patters, extension of government services, provision of housing and preserving open space is hereby EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 123 October 2001 acknowledged. This includes new factors to be considered in acting on boundary proposals. No further analysis is required. Response 8.15: Regarding lack of a Specific Plan for the proposed project and relationship to urban service plans, please refer to Response 8.2 which explains why a Specific Plan will be prepared at a later date. Service plans for various utilities have been prepared and are summarized in the DSEIR (see p 2-9, Utility Services). Response 8.16: Regarding proposed Mitigation Measures SM UTS-1 (water) and SM UTS-2 (electricity), these mitigations are based on extensive analyses of both topics. The City of Dublin believes adequate analyses of both are provided in the DSEIR. Response 8.17: Both the Eastern Dublin EIR and project Initial Study contain discussions of police, fire, schools and other service providers. Regarding sufficiency of revenues to support these services, CEQA does not require an analysis of economic effects and no further analysis is therefore required. Response 8.18: The commentor states that the DSEIR must address the new statutory requirement that LAFCO consider "timely availability of adequate water supplies for projected need." The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the adequacy of the water supply to serve the project and relied on mitigation measures requiring Zone 7 and DSRSD planning for adequate water supplies to serve future development. As is pointed out in Response 8.73 and following, below, since there is no additional demand beyond what was analyzed in 1993, no further CEQA analysis is required. However, LAFCO, perhaps in reliance on the Programmatic and Preliminary Water Service Analyses prepared bv DSRSD for the Project, will consider whether .adequate water supplies will be available for projected needs. The City is unaware of any recent court decisions that, as the commentor asserts, clearly specify that local agencies specifically review adequacy of water supply associated with significant new development. Furthermore, since this Project has been included in the City's general plan since 1994, it can hardly be said this is a new project for which water supply planning has not taken place. As DSRSD notes in its comment letter on the DSEIR, DSRSD and the City have cooperatively been engaged in facilities planning for Eastern Dublin, and DSRSD's currently planned facilities will be adequate to serve the project. Response 8.19: Page 2-8 of the DSEIR adequately discusses affordable housing and the project's contribution to meeting Dublin's fair share housing need through inclusionary housing and payment of housing fees to the City. No additional analysis is therefore required. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 124 October 2001 Response 8.20: Regarding the comment regarding lack of infrastructure, reduced services if the project cannot pay its own way, and jobs-housing imbalance, the City of Dublin believes the first and third portions of the comment have been adequately addressed either in the DSEIR (see Section 3.7 of the DSEIR) or the Eastern Dublin EIR ( Section 3.2, Population, Housing and Employment). The portion of the comment concerning the ability of the proposed project to pay its own way pertains to the economic feasibility of the project and does not need to be addressed pursuant to CEQA. Response 8.21: Regarding a review of the proposed project by the Lead Agency for consistency with the California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division, refer to Letter 2. Such an analysis was previously completed but is now outdated. The City of Dublin does not believe sttch an analysis needs to be completed at this point in the process, but would be completed as part of Stage 2 Planned Development rezoning applications for properties where schools are proposed. Response 8.22: Regarding the Airport Protection Area for Livermore Airport, this issue was addressed in comment 8.9 and 8.11. The City of Dublin believes the DSEIR adequately addresses airport issues as part of the project description. Any new information available regarding an adopted Livermore Municipal Airport would be reviewed in terms of follow-on project reviews for the project area. Response 8.23: 'The analysis of consistency between the proposed project and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan is provided in the Initial Study for the project under "Land Use and Planning." Response 8.24: In regard to the comment that a Specific Plan must be prepared as part of the proposed project, refer to response to Comment 8.2. The DSEIR notes that a Specific Plan will be undertaken for that portion of the project area not currently included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin believes that adequate information is presented in the DSEIR and Initial Study regarding public services, visual analysis and agricultural resources. No additional information is needed at this stage of development review. Response 8.25: Regarding phasing of proposed land uses and development, the DSEIR notes on page 2-6 that the first phase of development would include a 695- acre portion of the Project area nearest to existing utilities and services. A second phase of development would include portions of the .Project area lying further awav from existing utilities and services. The precise timing of development of thes~ two phases is not known at this time and will depend on market forces, as do all urban development projects. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 125 October 2001 As is done with all other phased projects submitted for City review, sub-phasing plans are required for all utilities and services as part of Stage 2 Planned Development rezoning applications. RespOnse 8.26: Table 3.1-4 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR presents a detailed comparison between the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan with relevant General Plan policies. The t~xt of the Eastern Dublin EIR notes that any inconsistencies that were identified in the table were corrected through appropriate policeS in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan. The City of Dublin therefore believes the proposed project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan. In regard to services and facilities to serve the proposed project, refer to Section 3.7 of the DSEIR that indicates that adequate utilities and services can be provided. In regard to services and facilities to serve the proposed project, refer to Section 3.7 of the DSEIR that indicates that adequate utilities and services can be provided. Response 8.27: Regarding consistency of the proposed project with the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment, this topic has been addressed in the response to Comments 8.8, 8.1-1, and 8.19. These responses noted that Regional Housing Allocation requirements have been addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Housing affordability provisions of the proposed project are also addressed in the Project Description of the DSEIR on p. 2-8 (Affordable Housing). No new impacts related to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment have been identified by the City of Dublin. Response 8.28: The comment misunderstands the nature of this Supplemental EIR, which is to determine if' there are' environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. As is noted in the DSEIR, the Eastern Dublin EIR found these impacts to be insignificant. The Eastern Dublin EIR specifically noted that the loss of farmlands of local importance was not an environmental impact. (IM 3.1/D.) The draft Eastern Dublin EIR found that there were no "prime farmlands" within the project area. The final Eastern Dublin EIR, in response to a comment, acknowledged that the Cortese-Knox Act contains a different definition of "prime agricultural lands," which resulted in approximately 200 acres of "prime" lands. (Eastern Dublin EIR, response to comment 24.3.) As the SDEIR points out, the Eastern Dublin EIR found the -impacts on prime lands to be insignificant for a number of reasons. (DSEIR, p. 3.1-3.) The DSEIR asks whether the new definition in Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act results in additional lands being designated "prime agricultural lands." After analysis of the new definition, including review by Berlogar Assoc., the DSEIR concludes that no additional lands would be designated. "prime" under the new definition because the land is not feasibly irrigable. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 126 October 2001 Whether the land is irrigable or not is not relevant for CEQA .purposes since the Eastern Dublin EIR previously determined that the lands in question are "prime agricultural lands." Nonetheless, since this issue may be relevant for LAFCO's review of the reorganization proposal, a response is appropriate. Zone 7's new transmission facility is a treated water pipeline. Because of the cost of treated water, it would be infeasible to use water from this facility for agriculture. Reclaimed water may be viable at the Project site, however it is infeasible to use this water for agricultural irrigation because of DSRSD's rate structure, which prices reclaimed water similar to potable water. The commentor is correct that using reclaimed water may indeed be feasible. Thus, the lands may indeed still be considered "prime agricultural lands" under Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg, but there are still no additional lands that are considered "prime agricultural lands" under the new definition. It should also be noted that with respect to an earlier Eastern Dublin annexation proposal that included the prime agricultural lands discussed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, LAFCO found that preserving the lands would not promote planned and orderly development and therefore was consistent with Cortese-Knox. (See Alameda LAFCO November 10; 1994 Agenda Report, Item 9, p. 11; Alameda LAFCO Resolution 94-21.) Response 8.29: Since there are no supplemental impacts related to the loss of agricultural lands, no supplemental mitigation measures are required or proposed. Response 8.30: Regarding the comment that the DSEIR does not address measures to reduce project impacts on agricultural and open space lands, these topics were fully addressed in both the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the DSEIR. Impacts 3.1/C through 3.1/E of the Eastern Dublin EIR address discontinuation of agricultural uses, loss of locally important farmland and indirect impacts of non- renewal of Williamson Act contracts. None of these were identified as significant impacts. Section 3.1 of the DSEIR contains a full discussion of the proposed project on agricultural resources and identifies no new impacts. In regard to open space loss, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan have identified urban uses on a portion of the affected properties for many years and no new impacts are noted. Information presented by the City of Livermore on preservation of open space and the benefits of open space is acknowledged. Response 8.31: The City agrees that the preservation of lands in open space can be economically beneficial to adjoining properties. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 127 October 2001 The comment proposes a number of potential mitigation measures to mitigate the impacts of loss of open space and agricultural lands, including (a) requiring remaining lands to be placed in Williamson Act contracts or conservation easements, (b) requiring that new agricultural lands be brought into production, and (c) collecting a per-acre mitigation fee to acquire development rights. Since there are no supplemental impacts, no mitigation measures are required. Response 8.32: The cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands in the Tri-Valley region was already considered in the Eastern DUblin EIR. (See IM 3.l/F, responses to comments, 34-9.) The Eastern Dublin EIR found this to be a significant unavoidable cumulative impact. Accordingly, the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations for the impact. The Project is consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, and approved in 1993. Accordingly, a supplemental analysis of the cumulative impacts is not required. Similarly, since there are no supplemental impacts due to the conversion of open space and agricultural lands to urban uses, no supplemental mitigation measures need be considered. Response 8.33: Regarding mitigation measures to reduce cumulative impacts on agricultural and open space lands, cumulative impacts of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan have been addressed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and loss of open space was not found to be significant. No mitigation measures are therefore needed. Response 8.34: The commentor states that the DSEIR's analysis of traffic and circulation issues pertaining to Central Parkway is confusing, internally inconsistent and misleading. The commentor states that the extension of both Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway into the Doolan Canyon area is not. discussed in the DSEIR. The commentor also questions how access will be provided to the elementary school at the eastern edge of the project area and questions the traffic volume forecasts. The first three bullets of the comment restate portions of footnote 1 on page 3.6-2 of the DSEIR, describe what is shown on Figures 2-D and 2-F of the DSEIR, ask how the elementary school at the eastern edge of the project site will be accessed and how Central Parkway will terminate. The DSEIR notes on page 2-9, under "Project Access and Circulation," that primary access through the project site will be via Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway and that secondary access will be via collector streets located throughout the Project. The location of collector streets will be determined by the tentative map and site development review stages when lotting patterns are known and a collector street, such as a residential collector or residential street, will serve the school. The design of the easterly end of Central Parkway will similarly be determined by the tentative map stage. Central Parkway could serve, for example, as a "T' intersection with EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 125 October 2001 collector streets connecting to it to serve the low-density residential properties to the north and south, as well as the school. The commentor incorrectly notes (in the fourth bullet) that Figure 2-I (Eastern Dublin Circulation Network) extends into Doolan Canyon. Footnote 1 on page 3.6-2 of the DSEIR explains that, as approved in 1993, the Transit Spine (now called Central Parkway) ran west to east from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road (May 4, 1993 Addendum to Eastern Dublin EIR). General Plan Figure 5-1b, added bv the 1997 amendment to the General Plan following approval of a negative declaration (Council Resolution 77-97), is the same as Figure 2-I of the DSEIR. Although not to scale, it is clear from both figures that central Parkway loops south-east to connect to Dublin Boulevard within the project site and not within the Future Study Area/Agriculture areas shown on the General Plan Land Use Map for the Eastern Extended Planning Area (referred to by the commentor as Doolan Canyon but shown on the General Plan Land Use Map for the Eastern Extended Planning Area as "Future Study Area/Agriculture"; see Figure 2-B of DSEIR and Figure 5.lb of the General Plan). A number of maps and figures'in the DSEIR show Central Parkway terminating west of the Future StUdy Area/Agriculture area (Doolan Canyon) (see Figure 2-D; Figure 2-F; Figure 2-G; Figure 2-I; Figure 2-J; Figure 3.3-C; Figure 3.4-B; Figure 3.6-A, -B, -C, -D, -E, and -F. The commentor also notes that the environmental impacts of extending Central Parkway into Doolan Canyon must be analyzed in the DSEIR. Because the Project does not propose the extension of Central Parkway into this area, such an analysis is not required. The impacts of extending Dublin Boulevard through this area were addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Revisions to DEIR Text, pages 3.3-16 to 3.3-18 [Dec. 15, 1992 letter from DKS Associates] and IM 3.3/J and MM 3.3/10.0 of Eastern Dublin EIR, finding an impact at the intersection of Airway Boulevard with Dublin Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway and finding the impact could be mitigated to a level of insignificance through payment of a regional transportation fee). The commentor questions the traffic volumes under cumulative conditions on the 2-lane portion of Central Parkway at its easterlv terminus and asks why Figure 3.6-F shows 9,200 estimated daily trips on t~is segment. As shown in Figure 3.6-F of the DSEIR and based on the TVTM Model, the estimated daily volume for this segment of Central Parkway is 8,700 vehicles per day under cumulative 2025 No Project conditions and 9,200 vehicles per day under cumulative 2025 plus Project conditions. In the TVTM Model, Central Parkway does not extend east to Doolan Canyon; instead, it extends easterly from Fallon Road for a short distance, then loops southerly to intersect with Dublin Boulevard. The 8,700-vehicle volume represents the forecasted amount of traffic that would occur if the Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard loop were actually constructed. This volume would occur even if the proposed Project was not developed, and is made up of two components: 1) traffic using Central Parkway EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 129 October 2001 to reach destinations in Eastern Dublin, and 2) traffic bypassing congested Dublin Boulevard. In reality, the Central Parkwav loop likely would not be constructed if the proposed Project were not developed. However, this volume represents what would occur if the street were actually in place but without any project development. With the development of the proposed Project, the daily traffic volume on this segment of Central Parkwav would be expected to increase to 9,200 vehicles per day, based on the Year 2025 TVTM Model. The issue of the location of Central Parkway, growth-inducing effects and any environmental impacts associated with such location were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the negative declaration approved for the 1997 General plan amendments and the DSEIR. No additional analysis is required. The issues relating to access to the school and the design of Central Parkway at its easterly terminus will be analyzed in connection with tentative map approval of specific development projects. Response 8.35: The commentor states that the DSEIR should present traffic modeling results from the ACCMA Model, also known as the Countywide Transportation Model. Please refer to Responses 5.2 and 5.3 for the response to this comment. Response 8.36: The commentor states that the DSEIR is unclear with respect to the extent of funding for the improvements listed on page 3.6-11 of the DSEIR. The commentor also asks for clarification with respect to the time when fees to implement the improvements will be available and when construction will be complete. As explained in the DSEIR at pages 3.6-6, 3.6-10 and 3.6-11, the City has adopted several traffic impact fees that are imposed on developers within the GPA/SP area to fund improvements that were assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and improvements which were required as mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Page 3.6-10 includes a general description of the type of improvements and page 3.6-11 lists improvements in the Project area that are part of the City's Traffic Impact Fee programs (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee; Freeway Interchange Fee and Tri-Valley Transportation Fee). The City conducts a project-specific traffic study for each project and requires construction of those improvements that are needed for the project, both on-site and off-site, to maintain the City's level of service standards. Some improvements have been or will be constructed by developers as a condition of project approval or as part of a development agreement; some improvements have been or will be constructed by the City through its Capital Improvement Program; and some improvements are within the jurisdiction of another entity and will be constructed bv that entity (e.g. Caltrans) or on behalf of that entity by the City. If a project will be constructed by a developer as a condition of project approval or as part of a development agreement, the City enters into an improvement EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 130 October 2001 agreement with the developer for such construction and requires bonds to secure the timely construction. If a project will be constructed by the City, the City assures that it has the funds available prior to awarding a contract for ~construction. Funding for City-constructed projects may come from several sources, including Traffic Impact Fees and state or federal grants. The City assures that improvements will be constructed and in place when needed' to maintain level of service standards through "triggering" studies that analyze when required improvements must be in place. Some of the improvements listed on page 3.6-11 have already been constructed either to the ultimate width or to the width required by current development (e.g., Dublin Boulevard to Tassajara Road; Central Parkway from Arnold Drive to Tassajara Road); Gleason Drive between Arnold Drive and Tassajara Road; Hacienda Drive between 1-580 and Gleason Drive) or are under construction (Tassajara Road north of 1-580 to North Dublin Ranch Drive). Improvements to the overcrossings at Santa Rita/Tassajara Road and 1-580 and E1 Charro/Fallon Road and 1-580 will be constructed by the City; funding for these improvements will be through advances of Traffic Impact Fees from developers in Eastern Dublin who are parties to agreements with the City to advance funds as needed for such construction. Through the above funding, construction and triggering mechanisms, the City ensures that necessary roadway improvements are in place to accommodate projects. These mitigation measures and processes will also apply to future development projects in the Project area. Response 8.37: The commentor suggests that the DSEIR include a select link analysis to determine if development in the City of Dublin alone will cause unacceptable traffic conditions on Dublin Boulevard. Page 3.6-12 of the DSEIR includes a statement that traffic impacts at the intersections of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard likely are created by regional traffic traveling through the City of Dublin intersections. This statement was made based on a direct comp.arison between intersection LOS resulting from the Dublin Model versus the TVTM Model, without Project traffic (refer to Tables 3.6-3 and 3.6-4 of the DSEIR for future baseline conditions). The Baseline Dublin Model assumes the full build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area west of the Project area, without a Dublin Boulevard connection in place east to North Canyons Parkway. Under the Dublin Model Baseline conditions, the intersections of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours. (See Table 3.6-3.) In contrast, the Tri-Valley Model evaluates regional traffic patterns and assesses cumulative traffic volumes for build-out conditions in the Tri-Valley area to the year 2025, including build-out of the North Livermore Specific Plan as proposed, EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 131 October 2001 and assuming Dublin Boulevard is extended to North Canyons Parkway. Under the Tri-Valley Model Baseline conditions, the intersections of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard would deteriorate to unacceptable levels of service during the AM and/or PM peak hours. (See Table 3.6-4.) Therefore, it can be said that these two intersections are likely to be impacted to unacceptable levels of service by regional traffic growth anticipated by year 2025, as Dublin Boulevard will likely serve the Tri-Valley region as an alternate reliever route to 1-580 during congested commute periods. The select link analysis that the commentor requested to determine if development in Dublin alone will cause unacceptable traffic conditions along Dublin Boulevard is unnecessary and would not contribute any new information to what is already provided in the DSEIR. Refer to pages 3.6-10 and 3.6-11 for the list of planned improvements in the Project area and an explanation of the Traffic Impact Fees established by the City of Dublin to fund ultimate improvements required for build-out of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan areas. (See also Response to Comment 8.36) Thus, the DSEIR and the above clarification support the City's position that regional traffic affects congestion at the Dublin/Dougherty and Dublin/Hacienda intersections. Response 8.38: The commentor questions the accuracy of the traffic model used in the DSEIR for cumulative conditions, including the assignment of new housing op,portunities within the modeled network, and suggests that the DSEIR be recirculated to reflect what the commentor perceives as the real impacts of the proposed Project on the 1-580 corridor. Generally, traffic volumes are not reduced substantially on 1-580 in the 2025 With Project scenario as compared with the 2025 No Project scenario. In most cases, the volumes increase slightly. It is not accurate to portray the main impact of the Project as reducing traffic on regional streets and freeways. Hov~ever, it is clear that additional housing provided near the Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore job centers will have the effect of displacing future regional traffic otherwise traveling from more distant points (such as the San Joaquin Valley) to reach Tri-Valley jobs. A very similar effect was propounded in the North Livermore Specific Plan DEIR, April 2000, prepared for the City of Livermore and the County of Alameda. The TVTM Model does not, as the commentor stated, "arbitrarily "assign" new housing opportunities throughout the modeled network in order to achieve a match between job (sic) and housing." As noted above, the TVTM Model does recognize proposed housing such as contained in the Project, and does reorganize its forecasted trips throughout the region to reflect the improved travel consequences of jobs and housing being placed in closer proximity. Such assignments are not arbitrary or unreasonable; on the Contrary, on a sub-regional EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 132 October 2001 scale they reflect real-world conditions that closely parallel the traffic and related benefits resulting from in-fill projects within cities. In this context, the modeling approach used in the DSEIR analysis hardly "obscures;' the real impacts on the 1-580 corridor. Table 3.6-7 fully discloses volumes along the 1-580 corridor. It is worth noting that the proposed Dublin Boulevard extension through the Project is expected to carry over 40,000 vehicles per day, with or without the Project. However, the Project is expected to facilitate the construction of Dublin Boulevard. This roadway provides immense benefits to the 1-580 corridor and is expected to allow the freeway itself to continue operating at reasonable levels with modest planned freeway improvements by creating significant arterial capacity increases. Response 8.39: The commentor states that the DSEIR does not propose adequate mitigation measures for impacts at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 6, p. 3.6-15) and Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection (Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 7, p. 3.6- 16) and on unspecified segments of 1-580 (Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 11, p. 3.6-21). The DSEIR identified significant cumulative impacts at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 6, p. 3.6- 15) and Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection (Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 7, p. 3.6-16), but found that physical improvements to widen these intersections to achieve LOS D were not feasible due both to safety concerns of additional turn 'lanes and .the physical constraints of the intersections. The DSEIR identified transportation measures that could be required as part of the Stage 2 Development Plans, such as the measures suggested by the commentor. The transportation measures identified in the DSEIR (comprehensive transportation demand program, ride sharing, free or discounted BART or other transit passes for employees, vanpools, staggered work hours, and other trip reduction programs specified in Chapter 5 of ACCMA's Congestion Management Program) and other similar measures will be required as part the Stage 2 Development Plans for projects, as appropriate to the project. There are no other feasible mitigation measures that would further reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. The commentor also states that unspecified segments of 1-580 will continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 11, p. 3.6-21) does conclude that certain freeway segments would' operate at unacceptable levels of service at cumulative buildout with the Project. The DSEIR noted that Mitigation Measure 3.3/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR regardit~g fair share contributions to freeway improvements remains applicable to this impact but, even with this mitigation, the impact remains a significant EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 133 October 2001 cumulative impact, and a statement of overriding considerations will need to be adopted. No further response is required because the commentator does not identify an additional impact or suggest an additional mitigation measure for 1- 580. Response 8.39a: The commentor notes that one of the measures included in the DSEIR to help reduce impacts to free'day segments on 1-580 (see Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 11, p. 3.6-21 to -22) is to encourage alternative travel modes by advocating HOV lanes on 1-580. The commentor suggests that advocacy is not a mitigation measure and suggests, instead, that the DSEIR should analyze the appropriate level of contributions by the Project for the implementation of financial funding for HOV lanes on 1-580 and funding for improved transit opportunities. What was meant by "advocating" HOV lanes on 1-580 and other projects described on Page 3.6-22 of the DSEIR is that the City of Dublin will coordinate with other local jurisdictions and attempt to obtain additional funds (e.g., from State and federal sources) to implement these projects. Moreover, the City of Dublin will support advancing the funding priority of the HOV lanes on 1-580 through participation in the Tri-Vallev Transportation Council. Mitigation Measure 3.3/2.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, which is applicable to the Project, requires participation in a Transportation Systems Management program, which would include strategies to reduce single-occupant vehicles. Moreover, as pa. rt of Mitigation Measures 3.3/3.0 and 3.3/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin E-'IR, the Project shall contribute a proportionate share to the construction of auxiliary lanes on 1-580 by paying a regional fee, which the City has implemented through Category 3 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, followed by the TVTD Fee (see pages 3.6-6 and 3.6-22). Both the Category 3 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and the TVTD Fee (which has substituted for the Category 3 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee) include HOV lanes on 1-580 from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road, as specified in the TVTD Fee Strategic Expenditure Plan. The third full paragraph on page 3.6-22 of the DSEIR is revised as' follows to clarify the operation of the above mitigation measures and fees: Mitigation Measure 3.3/3.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR remains applicable to this impact. This mitigation measure requires the City of Dublin to coordinate with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to cons truct auxiliary lanes (for a total of 10 lanes) on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard. Mitigation Measure 3.3/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR is also applicable to this impact. This mitigation measure requires the Project to contribute a proportionate share to the construction of auxiliary lanes (for a total of 10 lanes) on 1-580 east of Airway EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 134 October 2001 Boulevard, as implemented bY Caltrans. This mitigation measure also requires local jurisdictions to require that all future development projects participate in regional transportation mitigation programs as determined by the Tri-Valley Transportation'Council study. In 1998, the City of Dublin adopted a Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee for future developments within the City of Dublin. TVTD Fees paid by project developers pay for regional improvements to the freeWay system. The issue of mitigation for impacts to 1-580 was adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the DSEIR and the comment does not identify any new information requiring recirculation of the DSEIR. The commentor also notes that the City of Livermore has adopted a regional component to its local traffic impact fee to provide "additional" sources of funding to finance regional transportation and transit improvements, without noting what the regional component is in addition to. As discussed above, the Project will be required to pay for its proportionate share of impacts to 1-580 improvements, by payment of TVTD Fees. The Project will also pay its proportionate share toward transit improvements in the Tri-Valley Area (which includes Livermore) by payment of the TVTD Fee; one of the improvements to be funded by the TVTD Fees is express bus service in the Tri- Valley area. (See Resolution 89-98, adopting TVTD Fee [available in the City Clerk's office].) CEQA does not require mitigation beyond a project's impact. Livermore's adoption of a regional component to provide additional sources of funding for regional transportation and transit improvements is noted. Finally, .the commentor notes that Dublin has approved more than 4 million square feet of commercial/office space and 4,800 residences and suggests that the City cannot pass on the responsibility for transportation improvements needed to accommodate cumulative development. The new development that has been approved is part of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project approved in 1993. The Eastern Dublin EIR adequately analyzed the environmental impacts from such development and, to the extent feasible, imposed mitigation measures to mitigate impacts. (See Mitigation Measures in Eastern Dublin EIR, pages 3.3-21 to 3.3-29.) Through the Eastern Dublin EIR and the DSEIR, the City has provided adequate analysis and mitigation of freeway impacts, encouraging a multi-faceted approach to mitigation and maintaining fee programs to fund regional improvements. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 135 October 2001 Response 8.40: The SEIR is a program-level, not a project-level, environmental impact report. It is intended to update the Eastern Dublin EIR, itself a program EIR, with respect to the Project and the Project Area. See DSEIR, p. 2-4. The actions that may be taken upon completion of this SEIR are annexation of the property into the City of Dublin, prezoning the property, and approval of a Stage 1 Planned Development plan which assigns general land use designations to various properties and establishes a conceptual master infrastructure plan, as depicted in DSEIR Figures 2-G and 2-J. Thus, the SEIR properly analyzes potential environmental impacts at a programmatic level, as did the Eastern Dublin EIR. Detailed biological information for each of the properties within the Project Area is not necessary for this program-level SEIR. Approval of the actions described above would not constitute approval for any specific development. Consequently, before development of any of the properties included in the Project area can occur, detailed development proposals must later be prepared by property owners and approved by the City. Those specific development proposals will be subject to additional environmental review that must analyze on a property-specific basis the specific proposed development and any associated environmental impacts, all at a level of detail which is greater than for this program-level review. Nevertheless, at this point in time the City is aware that some property owners within the Project Area have conducted surveys of their properties for certain sensitive biological resources. Based on the final survey reports available to the City for some properties, the City knows that certain biological resources occur at some locations within the Project Area, though the location of all biological resources throughout the Project Area is not known at this time. Based on this information, which is addressed in the SEIR, the City has concluded that the potential exists for such biological resources to be affected by development that will later be the subject of later applications and environmental review. As a result, this SEIR establishes the mitigation requirements and standards that will apply to all such impacts. Among those mitigation measures is SM-BIO-l, which requires that a comprehensive Resource Management Plan be developed for the entire Project Area before the City can approve specific development proposals for any property within the Project Area. Detailed, property-specific surveys for biological resources, and associated detailed mapping of such biological resources, will have to be performed as part of developing the Resource Management Plan. As described in additional Responses below, the Resource Management Plan will incorporate all of the biological resource mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the SEIR. Response 8.41: Sensitive Habitat. Please refer to Response 8.40 above. The DSEIR identifies these three habitats as the least prevalent habitats in the Project area. The DSEIR also identifies, and assumes the presence of, the special-status species associated with each of these three habitats. This is appropriate for program-level review. Specific development projects within the Project area will require specific mapping of these habitats (as will, as part of the Resource EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 136 October 2001 Management Plan required by SM-BIO-I, all of the properties within the Project Area); where individual property owners have already conducted such mapping, the results are reported in the DSEIR. Response 8.42: Jurisdictional Wetlands. Property-specific, detailed delineations of "waters of the United States" have not been made available to the City. However, it is acknowledged in the SDEIR' that "waters of the United States" exist in the Project area, and may be affected. Accordingly, the SDEIR identifies appropriate mitigation requirements and standards (e.g., SM-BIO-5 and SM-BIO- 6). Please also refer to Response 8.40 above. -Response 8.43: Special-status Plants. Please refer to Response 8.40 above. The DSEIR, like the Eastern Dublin EIR before it, identifies the special-status plant species potentially present in the Project area based on current surveys. Response 8.44: Federally-listed Invertebrates. Please refer to Response 8.40 above. Response 8.45: California Red-legged Frog. Please refer to Response 8.40 above, which discusses why survey results for all properties in the Project Area are not necessary for this program-level SEIR, but that the SEIR does consider survey results where they are available. Certain survey efforts have been completed and the results reported in final reports and those results are included here consistent with that approach: (1) both a site assessment and a focused survey for red-legged frogs was performed on the Chen, Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh and Campbell properties in 2001. No red-legged frogs were detected, nor was any evidence of breeding (egg masses, larvae) observed. Nevertheless, the quarry pond on the Anderson property is considered to provide suitable breeding habitat, and suitable dispersal and upland aestivatiOn habitat are present in isolated wetland areas and uplands adjacent to aquatic features (Sycamore Letter Report, August 16, 2001; SyCamore Site Assessment Report, August 14, 2001; (2) a site assessment for red-legged frogs was performed on the Fallon Enterprises and Braddock & Logan Group properties in 2001. Four adult red-legged frogs were observed on the Fallon Enterprises property, and one adult on the Braddock & Logan Group property. These properties are considered to contain suitable breeding habitat in certain aquatic features, and suitable dispersal and upland refugia habitat. (Sycamore Site Assessment Report, July 14, 2001). With respect to the location of suitable breeding habitat, the Draft EIR on page 3.3-5 contains a statement that the 1,120-acre Project area provides suitable breeding and dispersal habitat for red- legged frogs. This statement was not meant to infer that the entire 1,120 acres was suitable breeding habitat but that within the 1,120 acres, areas of suitable breeding habitat are present. (See Table 1). Response 8.46: California Tiger Salamander. Please refer to Response 8.40 above, which discusses why survey results for all properties in the Project Area are not EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 137 October 2001 necessary for this programmatic SEIR, but that the SEIR does consider survey results where they are available. Certain survey efforts have been completed and the results reported in final reports and those results are included here consistent with that approach: (1) a focused survey for tiger salamanders was performed on the Chen, Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh and Campbell properties in 2001. One adult CTS was observed in the quarry pond on the Anderson property, and one adult CTS was observed in a burrow on the Branaugh property, during surveys conducted in 2001. No CTS larvae were observed during aquatic surveys on those properties in 2001. (Sycamore Letter Report, August 20, 2001). (2) a site assessment for California tiger salamanders was performed on the Fallon Enterprises and Braddock & Logan Group properties in 2001. No CTS were observed during the larval surveys conducted as part of the assessment. Since CTS are known to breed in ponds located less than one mile from these properties, and suitable di'spersal and upland aestivation habitat are present on site, Sycamore Associates has recommended that winter nocturnal surveys for CTS adults, and an additional season of larval surveys, be conducted in 2002. (Sycamore Site Assessment Report, July 14, 2001). (See Table 2). EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 138 October 2001 Table 1. California Red-legged Frog Reported Occurrences in the Vicinity of the East Dublin Properties Figure · Description of Sighting Date of Source Reference Occurrence . Impoundment 0.9 mi E of Tassajara Rd and 1992 CNDDB 1 0.35 mi N of Alameda- Contra Costa County (2000) line. Tassajara Creek, 0.15 mi E of Tassajara Rd 1992 'CNDDB 2 and ~0.5 mi N of Alameda/Contra Costa (2000) County line. Unnamed tributary to Tassajara Creek, 0.8 mi 1998 CNDDB 3 E of Tassaj .ara Rd and 2 mi N ofi-580. (2000) Unnamed eastern tributary of Tassaj ara Creek, 1998 CNDDB 4 just south of Alameda/Contra Costa County (2000) line, north of Pleasanton. Stock pond on unnamed tributary to Arroyo 2000 H.T. Harvey & 5 Las Positas, 0.35 mi E of Tassaj. ara Rd and 0.7 Associates mi N ofi-580. (2000b) Pond along W edge of Fallon Rd 0.4 mi N of 2000 H.T. Harvey & 6 1-580. Associates ' (2000b) Spring cistern on unnamed tributary to Arroyo 2000 H.T. Harvey & 7 Las Positas, 0.4 mi W of Fallon Rd and 0.4 mi Associates N ofi-580. (2000b) Unnamed eastern tributary to Tassajara Creek, 1989 Eastern Dublin 8 0.3 mi S of Alameda/Contra Costa County GPA- SP-EIR line and 0.2 mi E of Tassajara Rd. (1992) Stock pond on unnamed eaStern tributary to 1989 Eastern Dublin 9 ' Cottonwood Creek, midway between Doolan GPA- SP-EIR and Cottonwood canyons, ~2.5 mi N ofi-580. (1992) Unnamed eastern tributary to Cottonwood 1989 Eastern Dublin 10 · Creek, -1.6 mi N ofi-580 and 0.15 mi NE of GPA- SP-EIR Doolan Rd. (1992) · Impoundment on Alameda/Contra Costa 1989 Eastern Dublin 11 County line, -0.3 mi W of Cottonwood Creek. GPA- SP-EIR - (1992) Macintosh HD:Desktop Folder.'EDPOA.ACCM/I_Table 3.6-7 folder:Figure 3.7-B Table lO-4-O].doc Stock pond on unnamed tributary to Arroyo 1989 Eastern Dublin 12 Las Positas 0.6 mi NW of junction of Fallon GPA- SP-EIR Rd and 1-580, E of Dublin. (1992) Stock pond on unnamed tributary to Arroyo 2000 Gary Beeman, 13 Las Positas 0.65 mi N of junction of Fallon pers. comm. Rd and 1-580, E of Fallon Rd. Unnamed eastern tributary to Tassajara Creek, 1989 Eastern Dublin 14 0.9 mi S of Alameda/Contra Costa County GPA- SP-EIR line and 0.7mi E of Tassajara Rd. (1992) 2.1 mi N ofi-580 on Doolan Rd. 1993 Gary Beeman, 15 pers. comm. Cottonwood Creek in Doolan Canyon - 0.9 1992 Gary Beeman, 16 mi N of 1-580. pers. comm. Collier Canyon Rd - 2.5 mi N ofi-580. 1992 Gary Beeman, 17 pers. comm. Collier Creek at entrance to Las Positas 2000 CNDDB 18 College. (2000) weStern drainage of Fallon Enterprises, 2001 Sycamore 19 Property, -1.6 mi N of 1-580. Associates (200la) Western drainage of Fallon Enterprises, -1.4 2001 Sycamore 20 mi N ofi-580. Associates (2001a) Western drainage of Fallon Enterprises, -1.3 2001 Sycamore 21 ' mi N ofi-580. Associates (200la) Unmarked drainage of Fallon Enterprises, 2001 Sycamore 22 -1.4 mi N ofi-580. Associates (200la) Spring at head of central drainage of 2001 Sycamore 23 Braddock and Logan Group Property, - 1.35 Associates mi N ofi-580. (200la) Macintosh HD.'Desktop Folder:EDPO Files:EDPOA.ACCMA_Table 3.6-7 folder:Figure 3. 7-B Table 10-4- O l. doc p]~ ~_~ 1¢1 Table 2. California Tiger Salamander Reported Occurrences in the Vicinity of the East Dublin Properties Figure Description of Sighting Date of Source Reference Occurrence Vicinity of intersection of Doolan Rd and 1992 CNDDB 24 Collier Rd. (2000) Doolan Rd, 0.7 mi N ofi-580, NW of 1992 CNDDB 25 Livermore. (2000) Along Doolan Rd, 1.5 mi N of 1-580, NW of 1992 CNDDB 26 Livermore. (2000) Along Doolan Rd, 2.5 mi N ofi-580, NW of 1992 CNDDB 27 Livcrmore. (2000) Along Collier Canyon Rd, 2.5 mi N of 1-580, 1992 CNDDB NW of Livermore. (2000) 28 Along Collier Canyon Rd, 3 mi N ofi-580, 1992 CNDDB NW of Livermore. (2000) 29 0.6 mi NW o£junction of Fallon Rd and I- 1998 CNDDB 30 580, E of Dublin. (1998) (2000) Stock pond 0.8 mi NNE of intersection of 1998 CNDDB 31 Tassajara Rd and 1-580, E of Dublin. (2000) 1.2 mi NW of 1-580 and North Livermore 1998 CNDDB Avenue interchange, N of Livermore. (2000) 32 W of Tassajara Creek, 0.6 mi N of Santa Rita 1997 CNDDB 33 County Rehabilitation Center, N of Dublin. (2000) Stock pond along unnamed tributary to 2000 H.T. Harvey & 34 Arroyo Las Positas, - .35 mi N of 1-580 and Associates midway between Fallon and Tassajara Rds. (2000b) Along Doolan Rd, 2.7 mi N of 1-580, NW of 1993 Gary Beeman, 35 Livermore. pers. comm. Along Doolan Rd, 2.1 mi N ofi-580, NW of 1992 Gary Beeman, 36 Live,rmore. pers. comm. Abandoned swimming pool off Doolan Rd - 1993 Gary Beeman, 1.8 mi N ofi-580 pers. comm. 37 Macintosh HD.'Desktop Folder: EDP O Files : EDP OA.A CCMA_Tab le 3.6-7 folder:Figure 3. 7-B Table 10-4- O l. doc Quarry pond on W side of Croak Rd., 2001 Sycamore 38 · Anderson Property, -.5 mi N of 1-580. Associates (200la) Ground squirrel burrow in the northeast 2001 Sycamore 39 comer of the Branaugh property Associates (2001d) Table 3. San Joaquin Kit Fox, Golden Eagle and Tricolored Blackbird Colony Reported Occurrences in the Vicinity of the East Dublin Properties Figure Description of Occurrence Date of Source Reference Occurrence Unconfirmed San Joaquin kit fox den in 1975 The Habitat . 40 Collier Canyon, - 2mi N of'I-580. Restoration Group (1992) Active golden eagle nest in a eucalyptus, SE 1989 through Sue Townsend of unnamed tributary to Tassaj ara Creek, 0.9 present pers. Comm.. 41 mi E of Tassajara Rd and 2 mi N ofi-580. Golden eagle nest, along western tributary to Date unknown Gary Beeman, 42 Collier Canyon Creek, - 3 mi N ofi-580, pers. Comm.. Tricolored blackbird colony in freshwater 1999 Sue Townsend marsh in a quarry pond located on the & Colleen 43 Andersen Property. Lenihan pers. Comm I 2000 Macintosh HD.'Desktop Folder:EDPO Files:EDPOA.ACCMA_Table 3.6-7 folder:Figure 3.7-B Table 10-4- O l.doc Response 8.47: Tricolored Blackbird. Tri-colored blackbirds have been found breeding within the Project area and this statement should be revised to read: "Suitable breeding habitat for tri-colored blackbirds is present within the Project area." The location of the tri-colored blackbird breeding colony within the Project area is shown on the revised Figure 3.3-B and accompanying Table 3. Response 8.48: In general, the DSEIR updates the same type of program-level informatiOn that was presented, appropriately, in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The reference to ongoing biological surveys in the Methodology section refers to more detailed surveys, commissioned by some individual property owners in the Project area, that are currently underway or which have been completed but not published. Please Refer to Responses 8.41-8.47, above which include the results of completed surveys, contained in final reports made available to the City, for red-legged frogs and tiger salamanders on certain properties within the Project Area. Please also refer to Response 8.40. Response 8.49:: Please refer to Responses 8.40 and 8.42 for explanation why these impacts are not quantified. Please also see pages 3.3-12 to 3.3-15 and 3.3-16 to 3.3- 17 of the DSEIR for discussion of impacts to seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams and mitigation measures for those impacts. Response 8.50: As explained in Response 8.40, the DSEIR is a program-level document. Relying on information available to date, it acknowledges that certain biological resources likely exist within the Project Area, that future development of properties within the Project Area (which 'developments will later be subject to specific development plan review and additional environmental review analyzing the impacts of those specific development proposals) have the potential to affect those biological resources, and establishes mitigation requirements and standards for such impacts. The Resource Management Plan required by SM-BIO-1 is one such mitigation requirement. It requires that before any development application for any one property in the Project Area can be reviewed and approved by the City, a Resource Management Plan must be prepared for all properties in the Project Area. Under the terms of SM-BIO-l, the Resource Management Plan must address specific topics, and must provide for mitigation which satisfies certain specific standards. Specifically, as the DSEIR's discussion of SM-BIO-1 states, the Resource Management Plan will incorporate the specific Biological Resources mitigation measures listed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and in the DSEIR itself (measures SM-BIO-2 through 45). As a result, SM-BIO-1 does not defer mitigation, but instead establishes the specific mitigation requirements applicable to all properties within the Project Area. This will ensure that a unified, coherent approach is taken throughout the Project area to implement the biological resource mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the SEIR. It is the City's position that this EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 144 October 2001 mitigation measure thereby completely addresses and mitigates the anticipated biological resource impacts. Response 8.51: The comment about the nature of a Specific Plan, which is not part of the Project, is acknowledged. See response 8.2 regarding the appropriateness of a Specific Plan at this stage. With respect to performing comprehensive planning for biological resources, please refer to Responses 8.40 and 8.50. Response 8.52: Please refer to Response 8.50. Also, the specific aspects listed in the comment are part of the Resource Management Plan, as reflected in SM-BIO- 1. For example, with respect to "program goals and objectives" the RMP must incorporate and apply all of the specific mitigation standards for biological resources contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the SEIR. Also, with respect to "preconstruction and construction avoidance and minimization measures" these are again contained in the specific biological resource mitigation measures (SM-BIO-2 through -45) and will be reflected in the Resource Management Plan. "Identification of any proposed off-site mitigation" cannot occur at this time, as the specific type, quantity and location of impacts cannot be determined until specific development proposals for properties within the Project Area are created and presented to the City. Please also refer to Response 8.40. Response 8.53: Please refer to Responses 8.40 and 8.48. The mitigation measures for loss of special status plant species appropriately address the existing uncertainties regarding the potential existence of special-status species within the Project area by requiring protocol-level surveys to precede any development, avoidance of such species if possible, and if avoidance is impossible, on-site or off-site mitigation in perpetuity. (See SDEIR at 3.3-15 to 3.3-16.) Response 8.54: Surveys are not being deferred - as explained in Responses 8.40 and 8.48, even though survey data is not necessary for this programmatic SEIR, to the extent surveys have been completed the resulting data is addressed in the DSEIR. In addition, many surveys can only be conducted during certain times of the year (e.g., spring for many flowering .plants) and thus could not be conducted during the preparation of the DSEIR and SEIR. The comment is correct that if a population of either palmate-bracted bird's beak or Livermore tarweed were found within the Project area, such a finding would be significant. The DSEIR acknowledges this possibility, and establishes the mitigation requirements and standards that would apply in that event. First, under SM-BIO-3, areas supporting such species should be avoided. If avoidance cannot be accomplished, then SM-BIO-4 provides several options which can be pursued, so long as replacement on a 1:1 ratio (by acreage) is achieved. Which option is most appropriate will be determined based on site-specific and species-specific considerations. But regardless of which option is selected, the requirement to ensure replacement on a 1:! ratio is maintained. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 145 October 2001 Response 8.55: Please refer to Response 8.40. It is the City's position that the analysis of potential impacts to botanically sensitive habitats is adequate for this program-level EIR. With specific reference to this Comment, we also note that physical changes to topography and hydrology with the Project Area cannot be predicted at this time, as there are no specific development proposals pending for any of the properties within the Project Area. Assessments of such potential changes will be assessed, and the consequent environmental impacts analyzed, in the context of future specific development proposals. Response 8.56: Please refer to Responses 8.40 and 8.51. Also, SM-BIO-6 is feasible - it establishes a standard that must be met in order for development to occur. If a specific development proposal cannot meet that mitigation standard, then it must be revised to either avoid the impact, or reduce the impact so that compliance with the mitigation standard will be achieved. (See SM-BIO-5, DSEIR 3.3-16.) With respect to the Specific.Plan, please refer to Response 8.2. Response 8.57: The City acknowledges that the future development of properties within the Project Area may, depending on the type and location of specific developments that are later proposed, require certain permits under various state and federal laws, such as the California Endangered Species Act, the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the California Fish and Game Code, the federal Endangered Species Act and the federal Clean Water Act. The state and federal agencies which implement and issue permits under such laws (such as the California Department of Fish and Game, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) may require different and/or greater mitigation than required in the SEIR. Decisions on such mitigation will be up to those other agencies in the context of the permitting requirements they administer. Compliance with any applicable state or federal laws, and compliance with mitigation requirements imposed by other agencies under such laws, will be necessary in order for development to occur within the Project Area. With respect to Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-Il, it is intended to apply to all suitable kit fox habitat that is impacted within the Project area. This includes dry-farmed rotational cropland, non-native grassland, ruderal field, and alkali grassland. Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-Ii has been clarified to read: If avoidance of suitable kit fox habitat is infeasible, mitigation lands providing similar or better habitat for San Joaquin kit fox at either a 1:1 ratio or suitable ratio determined by the USFWS shall be set aside in perpetuity. Response 8.58: Please refer to Responses 8.40 and 8.45. The City's position is that this analysis is adequate for this program-level SEIR. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 146 October 2001 Response 8.59:SM-BIO-1 specifies key components of the Resource Management Plan, including the specific botanical communities and plant and animal species which- must be included in the Plan, the factors that must be analyzed for each such community and species, long-term protective measures, specific mitigation standards, etc. In addition, the Resource Management Plan will incorporate the specific red-legged frog mitigation measures identified in the Eastern DUblin EIR and in the DSEIR (SM-BIO-12, SM-BIO-14 to 15). Please also refer to Response 8.50. Response 8.60: Please refer to Responses 8.40 and 8.45. While it is known that red-legged frogs, and areas suitable for red-legged frogs, occur in the Project Area, the location of all such areas within the Project Area is not known. To the extent such information exists, as reflected in final reports available to the City, it has been included in the SEIR, even though such detailed information is not required for this program-level document. However, since red-legged flogs and areas suitable for red-legged flogs do exist, and thus have the potential to be affected by future development within the Project Area, the SEIR does impose specific red-legged frog mitigation measures applicable to such future development (SM-BIO-12, 13, 14, 15). With respect to Figures 2-F and 2-G, they merely depict at a general level the approximate location of open space, consistent with the general land use designations which comprise the Project. The actual location and dimensions of such open space corridors will be determined as part of the Stage 2 Development Plan and Tentative Map process for individual properties within the Project Area, which process will require additional environmental review specific to development plans for such properties. Any such development must comply with the mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the SEIR, including the red-legged frog mitigation measures. With respect to the Specific Plan, new information and mitigation approaches for the red-legged frog have evolved since the Specific Plan was approved, and are reflected in the red-legged frog mitigation measures in the SEIR. Response 8.61: The language of SM-BIO-14 specifically allows certain permanent development within red-legged frog buffer zones, such as a trail, so long as it will have onlv minor impacts. Response 8.62: Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-14 specifically refers to red-legged frog dispersal habitat and provides mitigation for impacts to dispersal habitat in the form of extensive buffer zones along streams which provide red-legged frog aquatic habitat. SM-BIO-15 addresses all red-legged frog habitat, aquatic and upland. Response 8.63: Please refer to Responses 8.40, 8.45, 8.58, 8.59, 8.60, 8.61 and 8.62. It is the City's position that the impact discussion is adequate for this program-level document, and that the mitigation measures for red-legged frogs in the Eastern EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 147 October 2001 Dublin EIR and the SEIR (SM-BIO-I, 12, 13, 14, 15) do reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. Response 8.64: Please refer to Response 8.59. In addition, the Resource Management Plan will incorporate the specific tiger salamander mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and in the DSEIR (SM-BIO-19). Response 8.65: Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-19 ensures either avoidance of cTs aquatic and upland habitat, or mitigation at a ratio no less than 1:1. It also specifically requires that the California Department of Fish and Game (the only agency with regulatory authority over the tiger salamander) participate in the implementation of this measure. The City agrees that the factors referenced in this comment for selecting mitigation sites that maximize protection of CTS are important to the success of such mitigation. As a result, SM-BIO-19 is revised to read in its entirety as follows: If avoidance is infeasible, mitigation lands, providing similar or better aquatic and upland habitat for California tiger salamander (CTS) at a 1:1 ratio or suitable ratio determined by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), shall be set aside in perpetuity. Upland habitat shall be mitigated by preserving additional upland on-site or, if necessary, by preserving currently-occupied tiger salamander habitat off-site. Aquatic habitat shall be mitigated by creating an equal number (or acreage) of new aquatic California tiger salamander habitat areas within the preserved upland habitat. This mitigation, included in a mitigation and monitoring plan, shall be required prior to submittal of Stage 2 development plans and tentative maps. In selecting off-site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high-quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. In order to be consistent, the mitigation measures for kit fox and red-legged frogs have similarly been modified to include these same factors. Mitigation measure SM-BIO-I.1 has been revised and now reads in its entirety as follows: SM-BIO-II: If avoidance is infeasible, mitigation lands, providing similar or better habitat for San Joaquin kit fox at a 1:1 ratio or suitable ratio determined by the USFWS shall be set aside in perpetuity off-site, if feasible, providing such land is available. This mitigation, proposed in a mitigation and monitoring plan, shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of a grading permit. In selecting off-site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high-quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 148 October 2001 The first paragraph of SM-BIO-15 has been revised and now reads in its entirety as follows: SM-BIO-15: If avoidance is znfeasible, mitigation lands, providing similar or better habitat for CRLF at'a 3:1 replacement ratio or suitable ratio determined by the USFWS, shall' be set aside zn perpetuity. This mitigation, proposed in a mitigation and monitoring plan, shall be required prior to submittal of Stage 2 Development Plans and tentative maps. In selecting off-site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high-quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. If the identified mitigation lands have been approved by the City, the following guidelines implemented prior to and during construction would reduce impacts to this species: Response 8;66: The location of the tri-colored blackbird breeding colony on the Anderson Second Family Limited Partnership property likely will be removed by development, eliminating this location as breeding habitat. The measures contained in SM-BIO-38 to SM-BIO-41 are sufficient to prevent direct loss of nesting tri-colored blackbirds, and will mitigate the potential impact to a less than significant level. CEQA does not require that the colony be evaluated in the context of a statewide survey for this species. Response 8.67: Sufficient foraging area will be available to nesting tri-colored blackbirds on adjacent lands designated "Future Study Area" and "Open Space" to the south and east of the nesting site if nearby construction occurs during a nesting season. Area outside of the study area to the east will also be available as foraging habitat. Response 8.68: Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-38 is directed to specific locations that are scheduled for construction activity during an upcoming year. It calls for removal of nesting substrate prior to the breeding season to prevent birds from nesting in those areas during the upcoming nesting season. SM-BIO-42 is a generic mitigation measure calling for including nesting passerine habitat in those lands protected by the Resource Management Plan. This does not result in a conflict between the two measures. The reference to Mitigation Measures SM- B10-42 to SM-BIO-44 in measure SM-BIO-38 is incorrect as noted in this comment. The sentence is corrected to read: "However, because the removal of grassland habitat is infeasible, mitigation for impacts to California horned lark are addressed more particularly in Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-39 to SM-BIO-41 below.' EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 149 October 2001 Response 8.69: Please refer to Response 8.59. In addition, the Resource Management Plan will incorporate the specific nesting passerine mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and in the DSEIR (SM-BIO-38 to 41). Response 8.70: Please refer to Response 8.66. Please also refer to Responses 8.40 and 8.48. It is the City's position that the imp/tct analysis is adequate for this program-level SEIR, and that the mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level. Response 8.71: The City agrees that a regional Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP') prepared pursuant to Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C.. § 1539, is one method by which impacts to biological resources could possibly be mitigated. However, the preparation of a regional HCP has not begun, and there is no indication whether a regional HCP will be prepared for this region. As a result, a regional HCP is not available for this Project. Instead, this SEIR identifies specific mitigation measures that will mitigate impacts to biological resources, and require full compliance with federal and state laws relating to biological resources. Response 8.72: The commentor asserts that the cumulative analysis for biological resources is inadequate because it doesn't identify projects built since the 1993 EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains an extensive discussion of cumulative impacts from potential buildout of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Befitting a General Plan level analysis, the EIR examined a broad base of cumulative projects throughout the Tri-Valley. (See p. 5.0-2.) Obviously Dublin Ranch was included in the analysis since it was within the GPA/SP Project. The Shea Business Park cited by the commentor is within the North Livermore General Plan Amendment area, and was also included in the cumulative analysis. Based on potential cumulative development, the discussion also included analyses of cumulative effects for each impact topic, including biological resources. (See p. 5.0-11, -12.) Consistent with CEQA, the DSEIR' analyzes only the potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Appropriate and feasible mitigation measures have been adopted through the Eastern Dublin EIR and are proposed through the DSEIR. The commentor cites participation in regional habitat planning as an additional mitigation; however, at present there are no regional habitat planning programs. Through the Eastern Dublin EIR and the DSEIR, the City has adequately identified and analyzed cumulative biological resources effects for the Project. Response 8.73: The commentor states that DSEIR relies on the Programmatic Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin (PWSA) prepared by DSRSD and that EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 150 October 2001 the commentor's review (set forth in July 30, 2001 correspondence from Saracino-Kirby-Snow) has raised substantial questions regarding the PWSA's analysis. The commentor is correct that the DSEIR relies on the PWSA to the extent that the DSEIR states that the PWSA "demonstrates that Zone 7 already has secured sufficient supplies to serve the 5620 AFA demand of all of Eastern Dublin." However, the conclusion of the DSEIR that there is no supplemental significant impact due to new water supply contracts is not based on the PWSA. Rather, it is based on the fact that DSRSD and Zone 7 water supply planning for future growth is continuing pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3.5/-28.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. As the City noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR, long term planning and monitoring of water supplies is the responsibility of DSRSD and Zone 7 and is beyond the scope of this EIR; Mitigation-Measure 3.5/38.0, requiring a will serve letter prior to issuance of grading permits, is the principal control to ensure adequate water supplies are available to serve new development. (Eastern Dublin EIR, responses to comments, pp. 23-24, comment #3-14.) Since the actual demand for Eastern Dublin, and the Project area, has not changed, and since Zone 7 and DSRSD continue to plan for adequate water supplies to serve their respective service areas, there is no supplemental impact due to new water supply contracts. Response 8.74: .The commerrtor is correct that demand figures used in the DSEIR and the PWSA are inconsistent. The demand figure from the Eastern Dublin EIR for the approved project (Reduced Planning Area Alternative in the Eastern Dublin EIR) was 6.4 MGD without recycled water for irrigation and 5.5 MGD with recycled water for irrigation. (Table 4.0-3, Responses to Comments, 32-52.) (The Reduced Planning Area Alternative was approved with modifications that actually reduced the number of residential units by approximately 625, which accordingly would reduce the demand numbers slightly. [See 1993 Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR].) The commentor incorrectly used the 7.7 MGD demand factor for the Project that was studied in the 1993 EIR rather than the project (modified Reduced Planning Area Alternative) that was actually approved. As the commentor points out, DSRSD, in its PWSA, uses a demand figure for all of Eastern Dublin of 5620 acre feet annually, which comes from Appendix C to DSRSD's Urban Water Management Plan (May 2000). DSRSD's demand figure assumes that landscaping would use recycled water. DSRSD informs the City that the noticeable reduction in Eastern Dublin potable water demand between the 1993 EIR, and the May 2000 UWMP (and subsequently the 2001 PWSA and 2001 DSEIR), is due to the District's progressive recycled water program and water conservation program. Furthermore, DSRSD states that the total water demands (potable and recycled water) actually increased when one compares the 1993 EIR estimates to the 2000 UWMP estimates but that potable water demands decreased. This is due primarily to the increase in park acreage and the addition of a golf course in Eastern Dublin, requiring greater usage of recycled water and EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 151 October 2001 correspondingly reducing potable water demands. It is also due to a decrease in residential densities. In any event, since demand has not increased, the water supply impacts are no greater that the impacts studied in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Response 8.75r See Response 8.74 above. DSRSD is the water provider to the Project areal As noted in DSRSD's comment letter, the District has adequate water supplies to serve the site. However, for informational purposes, the comment is addressed. First, it is not clear what Zone 7 documents to which the commentor is referring. Presumably, the reference is to Zone 7's 1999 Water Supply Planning Study Update, since this discrepancy is mentioned in the commentor's comments on the PWSA. DSRSD's response to the commentor's comments state that Zone 7's demand estimates for 1999 were based on an untreated water demand estimate of almost 27,000 AFA, which in more recent demand estimates was substantially revised downward in accordance with Zone 7 Board policies. (Memorandum from Gerry Nakano, West Yost & Associates to Dave Requa, dated August 7, 2001, p. 5 [on file with the City].) Response 8.76: See Response 8.74, above. The DSEIR does not rely directly on the PWSA. Response 8.77: The comment suggests that the information in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the DSEIR show that there is a disposal capacity shortfall of between 19.75 and 21.6 MGD. However, the commentor's calculation relies on a demand assumption that is based on the maximum capacity of the DSRSD treatment plant in Stage 6 of the planned staged expansion (36 MGD) that was set forth in DSRSD's master plan for treatment plant expansion, which was taken from MM 3./9.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIR. DSRSD's current wastewater treatment expansion project is Stage 4 of its master planning; according to DSRSD's Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years ending 2002 through 2011, Stage 5 improvements are not expected to take place until 2011 or later. (p. 38.) Thus, the 36 MGD capacity in the treatment plant is simply a potentiality to serve future flows. Furthermore, the Eastern Dublin EIR specifically noted that these expansions depended on available disposal capacity. (Eastern Dublin EIR, Appendix 6, p. A6-13.) Thus, there is no disposal capacity shortfall. DSRSD's current planned treatment plant expansions are nowhere near 36 MGD. When the second LAVWMA pipeline is completed, it will include sufficient capacity to serve the Project area at buildout. LAVWMA's expansion project was planned to include sufficient capacity for buildout of existing general plans, including development in Eastern Dublin pursuant to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment. (Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement fc~r the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency, dated july 21, 1997, § 15.6.) EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 152 October 2001 Response 8.78: Storage Of recycled water to serve much of Eastern Dublin, including the Project area, will be provided by an off-site storage facility at Dublin Ranch. Response 8.79: See Response 8.77 above. This comment incorrectly assumes that there is a disposal capacity shortfall of between 19.75 and 21.6 MGD. Response 8.80: As noted in Response 8.77 above, the LAVWMA expansion project has been planned to accommodate buildout of existing general plans. Even if the wet weather disposal capacity is insufficient, this shortfall will not arise until the expanded disposal.pipeline nears capacity. If at any point in time there is insufficient disposal capacity at peak wet weather, Mitigation Measure 3.5/4.0 of the Eastern-Dublin EIR will prevent development until such time as sufficient capacity is available. Response 8.81: As the commentor notes, salt-loading from recycled water use was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. It acknowledged that increased salinity in the groundwater basin was a significant impact. MM 3.5/23.0 required recycled water projects to be coordinated with any salt mitigation requirements of Zone 7. In 1999, Zone 7 adopted a Salt Management Plan that will completely offset salt loading that would otherwise take place, and it is actively implementing it over the next several years. The plan includes demineralizing shallow groundwater with high salt content and reinjecting it into the groundwater basin; the resulting salty brine is to be piped out of the basin through the LAVWMA disposal facility. (Zone 7, Salt Balance Annual Report, June 20, 2001.) MM 3.5/23.0 adequately mitigates the impact of salt-loading from recycled water use. Response 8.82: The issue of potential impacts of the proposed project on scenic vistas, ridgelines and viewsheds, especially the 1-580 corridor, was addressed in both the Initial Study for this proposed project (Initial Study, pages 25-27) and the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR (Section 3.8, Visual resources). The Initial Study determined that mitigation measures adopted as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR (Mitigation Measures 3.8/3.0, 3.8/4.0-4.5, 3.8/5.0-5.2, 3.8/6.0, 3.8/7.0, 3.8/G and 3.8/I) would reduce any potential impacts to scenic resources, nearby ridgelines and viewsheds along the 1-580 freeway to a less-than-significant level. Because the type, density and location of development proposed as part of this project would be the same as addressed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, no new analysis is needed with regard to this topic. Response 8.83: Regarding the comment that the Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.8/8.0 requiring the City of Dublin to adopt scenic corridor policies, the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards were prepared in 1996 by David Gates and Associates and adopted by the City of Dublin. This document is available for review at the City of Dublin Development Services Department during regular business hours. Included within the Policies and Standards EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 153 October 2001 document are specific requirements for both Fallon Road Open Space (Zone 5) and Fallon Road Gateway and Village (Zone 6). Therefore, the requirements of Mitigation Measure 3.8/8.0 have been fulfilled. Response 8.84: Regarding the comment that the Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.8/8.1 requires projects with potential scenic impacts to submit detailed visual analyses and to minimize visual impacts, the commentor is advised that the requested level of entitlement is a Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) rezoning and annexation to the City of Dublin. No specific development is therefore being proposed at this level of project review. The City of Dublin would require detailed visual analyses and similar studies as part of Stage 2 Planned Development (PD) rezonings and Site Development Review (SDR) applications for individual development applications within the project area. Such studies would ensure compliance with the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document and changes may be required in individual projects at that time to ensure consistency with the Corridor Policies at that time. This procedure is normally and customarily implemented for similar development projects by the City of Dublin in all other portions of the Eastern Dublin area. Response 8.85: Regarding lack of a detailed visual analysis as part of the SDEIR, the topic of visual analysis was fully described in Section I of the Initial Study (Aesthetics). The Initial Study concludes that visual impacts of the proposed project have been fully and adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and adequate mitigation measures have been adopted to reduce potential visual impacts to a less-than-significant level. As noted in Response 8.84, the proposed project involves a Stage ! Planned Development (PD) rezoning for the entire project area. No specific development proposals are being proposed at this time, so it would not be possible to undertake a detailed visual analysis. However, as more specific development projects are Submitted to the City of Dublin, detailed visual analyses would be undertaken as part of the Stage 2 Planned Development (PD) rezoning and Site Development Review (SDR) applications. As a part of normal and customary project review, detailed visual analyses are not required by the City of Dublin for Stage 1 rezonings. Response 8.86: Regarding the request from the City of Livermore that visual simulations must be included in the SDEIR, the City of Dublin notes that there is no requirement that such simulations be included as part of an EIR. However, should the proposed project be approved, the City of Dublin would require detailed visual analyses as part of follow-on land use entitlements, as described in previous responses, o EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 154 October 2001 Response 8.87: Regarding the comment from the City of Livermore that Livermore has adopted policies to protect scenic vistas and ridgelines and uses these policies as part of the environmental review process, this information is hereby acknowledged. Response 8.88: Regarding'the land use and planning status of the Doolan Canyon area lying northeast of the project area, this area has been classified as a 'Future Study Area" in the Eastern Dublin General Plan. No development is being proposed within the Doolan Canyon area as part of the proposed Eastern Dublin Property Owners' project, consistent with the General Plan. Response 8.89: Regarding the comment that development proposed in the EDPO Project area would impact-the western edge of the Doolan Canyon area and does not propose programs or efforts toward permanent protection 'of this area, the proposed Stage ! Development Plan (DSEIR Figure 2-G) clearly shows a land use designation of "Rural Residential/Agriculture" for a significant portion of the Project area bordering the Doolan Canyon area (See also Figure 2-f of DSEIR). The Rural Residential/ Agricultural land use designation would permit a maximum of 1 dwelling per 100 acres of land area. The City of Dublin also has adopted a restriction on new development for lands having a vertical elevation of 770 feet above sea level or higher. The City of Dublin believes that the combination of these factors, plus the fact that the Doolan Canyon area is separated from Eastern Dublin by a ridge, would protect the existing qualities of Doolan Canyon. In regard to the comment that the proposed project does not include preservation and protection programs for the Doolan Canyon area, please note that the project boundaries do not include properties within the Doolan Canyon area and it would not be appropriate for the project proponents to include properties that they do not own or control. Moreover the Doolan Canyon area is within the unincorporated area of Alameda County and is governed by the County General Plan land use designations. See also Section 2.1 (p. 2-1 ) of DSEIR [which explains the City General Plan designation for Doolan Canyon ] Response 8.90: Regarding the comment the "site plan" suggests that Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard will extend into the Future Study Area to the east, Figure 2-G of the DSEIR shows that Dublin Boulevard is planned to extend easterly of the project area. This planned extension is consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan. In regard to Central Parkway, the same Figure shows the termination of Central Parkway west of the easterly edge of the Project site' (see also Figure 2-f of the DSEIR). Central Parkway will serve the most easterly future development within the Project site, but will not continue easterly into the Rural Residential/Agricultural area. This proposed configuration of Central Parkway therefore appears to be consistent with the EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 155 October 2001 request of the City of Livermore. (Refer to Response 8.34 for more detailed discussion of Central Parkway). Response 8.90a: This comment is an introductory paragraph which states that analyses in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR are no longer applicable or relevant because conditions have changed since then. The commentor misstates the CEQA standard for subsequent environmental review when an EIR has been certified for a project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163, additional EIR level review may not be required based on' changed conditions alone. The changed conditions must be a new significant impact which was not addressed in the previous EIR; or a substantially more severe significant impact than addressed in the previous EIR. Consistent with these provisions, the Initial Study for the current Project carefully reviewed the nature and scope of the 'Eastern Dublin EIR, reviewed current conditions, and identified certain issues for which there was the potential for new significant or substantially intensified significant impacts beyond those in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City then analyzed these issues in the Draft Supplemental EIR. The City is not required under CEQA to re-analyze changes anticipated and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The 1993 EIR analyzed a comprehensive General Plan Amendment for nearly 7,.000 acres of land, and a Specific Plan with land uses, policies and development standards for some 4,200 acres within the GPA area. The purpose of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan was to provide for change in these areas, so the fact of changed Conditions is not unforeseen. The purpose of the 1993 EIR was to analyze the changes, so the fact of environmental changes is also not unforeseen. As reflected in responses to detailed comments below, the Draft Supplemental EIR was an appropriate means to supplement the Eastern Dublin EIR and will assist the City, responsible agencies, and the public in making an informed decision on the Project. Response 8.91: The various mitigations suggested in the comment are included in the Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 3.11-5, Mitigations 3.11/5.0 through 3.11-11.0. These mitigations are incorporated by reference on pp. 3.2-5 and 3.2-5 of the SEIR. As noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR and this SEIR, implementation of these mitigations would not reduce the project's contribution to cumulative (regional) emissions to a less than significant level. Response 8.92: Zone 7 completed a Special Drainage Area 7-1 program update of channel improvement cost by Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers dated June 30, 2000. The report took into consideration the increase of peak flood flows of all storm drainage channels within Zone 7. This drainage basin covers all of eastern Alameda County. Including the Project area. It identified the peak flows, cost estimates of needed mitigations of all channels, and fees needed to be collected in order to mitigate the needed improvements. Zoz-~e 7 is in the process EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 156 October 2001 of establishing, new fees pursuant to this report. The fees would be applied to all new development including future development of the Project. The project's contributions to projected future flood flows are accounted for through the report. Future development of the project would pay its fair share contribution of the cost of adequate regional flood control facilities through the Zone 7 service area fees: Consistent with the Eastern Dublin EIR's mitigation 3.5/46, the City of Dublin is currently working with Zone 7 on the adoption of a new and more detailed drainage analysis of annexation project area titled "Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan" that includes the drainage area of the project. This was completed by MacKay and Somps Infrastructure Group in August 2001. This document describes the needed improvements to the G-3 flood control channels down stream of the annexation project in order adequately to serve development in accordance with Zone 7 flood control criteria. Downstream mitigations within the Dublin Ranch development are currently under design and part of the master development agreement between the Lins and City of Dublin for the Dublin Ranch Development. Response 8.93: See Comment 8.81. The salt loading from project development within the annexation to the main ground water basin is caused mainly by the use of reclaimed water irrigation systems. (David Lund, Zone 7, pers. comm.). Salt loading to the Main Basin from this project development is considered by Zone 7 to be "minimal to no" impact. This impact is more of a regional salt- water management problem because it results from the accumulation of all existing and proposed irrigation system improvements of the entire region. Zone 7 has addressed the salt loading impacts to the main groundwater basin and the mitigations needed in a joint ACWD-DERWA study. Based on this study Zone 7 has included the construction of brine processing facilities as part of their Capital Improvement Program that is currently being funded by Zone 7 fees. The City will continue to work with Zone 7 and with the other agencies to resolve imp.acts of the problem. The funding for mitigations of salt loading will be paid for with increased water and sewer rates of Zones 7 and DSRSD. All development of the proposed projects within the annexation area will pay for mitigation of increased salt loading impacts through the payment of their water and sewer hook up fees and water rates. Response 8.94: The commentor notes that the demographic characteristics of the Tri-Valley have changed over the last decade and altered the regional jobs/housing balance. The commentor further asserts that the DSEIR should have analyzed the jobs/housing balance especially in light of the proposed Cisco systems office park. The balance of housing and jobs is an economic and policy issue, not an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required. As stated in the Eastern EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 157 October 2001 Dublin EIR, "the physical environmental effects associated with population, employment and housing are addressed in the appropriate environmental analysis subject areas.". (p. 3.2-1.) However, the City notes that maintaining a reasonable jobs/housing balance was among the identified Eastern Dublin GPA/SP project objectives. (Eastern Dublin EIR p. 2-5.) The Eastern Dublin EIR contains extensive discussion on housing policy issues that have and will accompany the changing conditions in Dublin and the region as potential development occurs. (See Eastern Dublin EIR Chapter 3.2.) The very purpose of the Eastern Dublin approvals was to plan for future change; as noted in Response 8.90a above, the City is not required to re-analyze the changed conditions anticipated and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City is also not required to address the Cisco Systems office project as the application has been withdrawn. Response 8.95: The commentor notes a regional shortage in housing, especially affordable housing, and states that Dublin's affordable housing requirement is inadequate. Provision for affordable housing is an economic and policy issue, not an environmental issue, therefore no response is required. However, the City notes that housing affordability is not a new issue. Section 4.4.2, Affordability, of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted in 1993, noted that "[h]ousing affordability is a critical issue in the Bay Area region and the Tri-Valley area." Through the Specific Plan, the City provides for diverse housing opportunities with a "wide range of residential classifications and densities," that recognize the changing needs of a diverse, less traditional household pattern. (Specific Plan p. 26). Policies in the Specific Plan encourage affordable housing throughout the Plan area, using various .strategies, including but not limited to inclusionary zoning requirements (which the City Council recently indicated its intent to increase from 5% to 15%). The inclusionary zoning ordinance, which is applicable to all residential developments within the City of 20 or more units, allows payment of a fee in lieu of providing the affordable housing. Significant funds have been collected and are available to provide affordable housing and the in lieu fee has recently been doubled. Specific Plan policies also encourage higher density develOpment near shopping and employment areas. See Chapter 4.4 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for discussion of Residential Land Uses generally. The City is also considering adoption of an impact fee on non-residential development to pay for affordable housing needs created by such non-residential development. See also the Jobs/Housing Balance section of the Eastern Dublin EIR for more discussion on policies and actiOn programs to support affordable housing (pp. 3.2-9, -10) and see Chapter 3.2 generally on housing policy issues. Response 8.96: The commentor states that the Eastern Dublin EIR included no analysis of potential project impaets to Isabel Parkway/SR 84 and that the DSEIR should identify mitigation measures to mitigate the sub-standard levels of EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 158 October 2001 service on Isabel Parkway/SR 84 from 1-580 to 1-680, including making fair share contributions toward the widening of Isabel Parkway and SR 84. The Eastern Dublin EIR did, in fact, consider the impact of the total project (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan) on Isabel Parkway/SR,84. In the response to comments on Section 3.3 (Traffic and Circulation) of the Eastern Dublin EIR,' the EIR notes that very little of the traffic to and from Eastern Dublin would use SR 84 and that assumptions regarding the status of SR 84 improvements would not significantly change the magnitude of Eastern Dublin traffic impacts. (See Response to Comment 15-14 on the Eastern Dublin EIR.) Table 5.4 and Table 3.6-7 "amended," corresponding to Response 5.4, show that the proposed Project would add a negligible number of trips to SR 84, south of 1-680, during the AM or PM peak hour under Year 2005 and Year 2025 conditions, respectively. According to the 2025 TVTM Model, reductions in peak hour volumes on SR 84 are possible in some cases due to the development of the proposed PrOject and the corresponding street improvements, as background traffic may be reassigned to other locations as new traffic is introduced. The reassigned background traffic may be replaced with less Project traffic resulting in overall reductions. Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to have any significant traffic impact on SR 84. The Eastern Dublin EIR also notes that SR 84 was assumed to be completed as a four lane highway between 1-680 and 1-580, with construction of a new interchange at 1-580, and that the Eastern Dublin projects would contribute to funding for the SR 84 improvements with the funding share to be determined by the TVTD Fee. '(See Eastern Dublin Final EIR [letter from DKS Associates to Laurence Tong, dated Dec. 15, 1992].) Accordingly, the contribution of the proposed Project was calculated as part of the contribution of the total project (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan) to SR 84 improvements. The Project will pay the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee which includes improvements to SR 84. The commentor refers to the.widening of Isabel Parkway to six lanes between 1- 580 and Vineyard Avenue, and the widening of SR 84 to four lanes between Vineyard Avenue and 1-680. This possible ultimate roadway configuration would be the most costly scenario and is consistent with the TVTD Fee Strategic Expenditure Plan. However, the Project Study Report (PSR) for the SR 84 improvement project is currently underway and alternate roadway widening scenarios are being evaluated for horizon Years 2005, 2015 and 2025. The proposed Project will still contribute TVTD Fee funds toward the SR 84 improvement project ' regardless of what interim or ultimate widening scenario is chosen. Response 8.97: Regarding the City of Livermore's concern that the City of Dublin does not maintain a 5-acre of parkland per 1000 population and potential impacts EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 159 October 2001 to Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) facilities, please refer to the responses to the LARPD comment letter (Letter 6). Briefly, the responses to Letter 6 note that the proposed project would provide a higher standard of neighborhood and community parkland than required by the City of Dublin. Also, the City of Dublin has developed or has planned major parks and recreation facilities in the Eastern Dublin area, including Emerald Park, Ted Fairfield Park, and a 54-acre Sports/Community Park in Dublin Ranch Area B that are equivalent in size and function as facilities offered by the LARPD as well as being significantly closer and more convenient to the project area. Any impacts to LARPD facilities would therefore be less-than-significant. Response 8.98: The DSEIR addressed this issue in depth. (See pp. 3.7-10-3.7-11 ["Supplemental Impact UTS 3: Local Electrical Distribution Constraints"].) Two mitigation measures were-proposed to remedy the impacts of potentially unreliable utilities. The commentor's proposed mitigation measure would only partially mitigate the impact, while Supplemental Mitigation Measure UTS-3, requiring a will serve letter from PG&E prior to subdivision or Site Development Review approvals, ensures that development will not be approved if transmission capacity is insufficient. Response 8.99: The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the impact of increased solid waste production and the impact on solid waste disposal facilities. (See IM 3.4/0 and IM 3.4/P.) It was specifically noted that the project could accelerate the closing schedule for the Altamont Landfill. The Eastern Dublin EIR found the impacts to be potentially significant. The impacts were reduced to the level of insignificance by mitigation measures that required the preparation of a comprehensive solid waste management plan for Eastern Dublin and that prevent approvals of development unless sufficient or a reasonable expectation of adequate landfill capacity is available to accommodate project wastes. Since there is no new solid waste production associated with the project, there are no supplemental impacts. In addition, the mitigation measures suggested by the commentor were already considered in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Response 8.100: The commentor asserts that the Draft SEIR fails to recognize other alternatives that could reduce potential impacts. The commentor identifies a "reduced development envelope" alternative. The nature of the commentor's "reduced development envelope" alternative is unclear. The commentor describes the alternative as reducing the number of units and square footage, like the Mitigated Traffic Alternative; but then describes it as retaining the Project densities, and reducing "the total development by 25% overall." A subsequent modification to the commentor's alternative refers to "increasing development densities" but appears to mean retaining the Project densities. For the purposes of this and the next response, the City assumes that the commentor's "reduced development envelope" EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 160 October 2001 alternative would be 25% less units/square footage than the Project and 25% less development area. The commentor's modified alternative addressed in the next response is assumed to be the same number of units/square footage as the Project, but on 25% less development area. The commentor states that the reduced development envelope alternative could avoid grading and runoff impacts and could locate development awav from sensitive resources. Under CEQA, the purpose of a project alternative is to identify ways to avoid significant impacts that cannot otherwise be mitigated to less than significant. (CEQA section 21002). The commentor suggests this alternative to avoid grading and runoff impacts; however, neither of these was identified as a significant impact in the Initial Study or Draft Supplemental EIR. To the extent the suggested alternative contains the same amount of residential and non-residential development as the Mitigated Traffic Alternative, it would provide no greater avoidance of significant traffic, air quality and traffic noise impacts than the DSEIR's Mitigated Traffic Alternative. The commentor suggests that the reduced development envelope alternative could further avoid sensitive (presumably biological) resources by reducing the Project's developable area. The Draft SEIR identifies cumulative loss of botanically sensitive habitat as significant and unavoidable. (Supplemental Impact BIO 3). To the extent that the commentor's alternative reduces the development area, it is similar to the No Project/ECAP alternative analyzed in the DSEIR (p. 4-7) that would prohibit development outside the Specific Plan area. Like the ECAP, commentor's alternative would reduce biology effects compared to the Project, but not enough to avoid the Project's identified cumulative unavoidable biological effects. (See also, DSEIR p. 4-9.) Under well-established CEQA practice, the City need not consider every possible alternative to the Project. The Mitigated Traffic Alternative is a reasonable alternative which directly responds to the potential for significant supplemental impacts due to increased regional traffic, air quality and traffic noise, as described in the Initial Study for the annexation/prezoning Project. Neither the Initial Study nor the Draft SEIR is inadequate for failure to consider the commentor's suggested alternative. Through the Eastern Dublin EIR, as supplemented by the current Draft SEIR, the City has identified a reasonable and comprehensive range of alternative land uses and densities throughout Eastern Dublin, and across the Project site. The City reviewed the range of alternatives when it considered the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project in 1993, and ultimately adopted one of the alternatives, the Reduced Planning Area Alternative (Alternative 2) with some modifications, as further set forth in City Council Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by. reference. The Reduced Planning Area Alternative is generally reflected in the current General Plan and Specific Plan EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 161 October 2001 VARNI, FRASER, HARTWELL & RODGERS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~ PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROfESSiONAL CORPORATIONS 22771 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 570 HAYWAE~D~ CALIFORNIA 94543-0570 (5!0) 886-5000 FAX: (510) 538-8797 LIVEI~MORE OFFICE September 11, 2001 Eddie Peabody, Jr. Director of Community Development City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RECEIVED SEP 1 4 ~001 · DUBLIN PI,.Ar~NIN~ Dear Mr. Peabody: Re: PA 00-025 East Dublin Properties Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report We represent the The Lowell and Hanabul Jordan Charitable Trust and Lowell Jordan, the owners of approximately 189.12 acres situated on Fallon Road adjacent to the City of Dublin, Assessor Parcel Nos. 985-0006-010 and 981-0006-090 (the "Jordan Property"). The Jordan Property is included in the Prezone (Planned Development (PD) / Stage 1 Development Plan) and Annexation/Detachment application and affected by the above- referenced Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Our clients' are concerned and, therefore, object to the EIR on the basis that it has the following deficiencies: It does not adequately address the effects of drainage, loss of light patterns, Changes in wind patterns~ changes in views, increased noise and heavy truck traffic which will be incurred by the'Jordan Property and the Jordan residence in the event of the relocation of Fallon Road. Fallon Road, as relocated, will be six (6) lanes, approximately 20 feet higher than the Jordan residence and within 100 feet of such residence. 9.1 o It does not adequately address the al[creative of leaving Fallon Road in its present location and expanding it to four (4) !lanes. It does not adequately address the alternative of relocating Fallon Road at a lower elevation or at a more easterly location. 9.2 proposed is. consistent with the Reduced Planning Area Alternative, which was eventually adopted with modifications as the land use plan for Eastern Dublin. As between the ECAP alternative and the Mitigated Traffic Alternative, and based on the discussion in the Draft SEIR, the Mitigated Traffic Alternative is superior to the extent it better reduces impacts related to regional traffic. It is also consistent with the adopted General Plan and Specific Plan and thus is consistent with the identified Project objectives. While the ECAP Alternative would provide more reduction of biological impacts, it would not reduce traffic-related impacts. This alternative is only partially consistent with the adopted General Plan and Specific Plan, and thus is only partially consistent with the Project objectives. Response 8.103: See responses to specific comments above. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 163 October 2001 VARNI, FRASER, HARTWELL & RODGERS ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PRCIFESS[ONAL CORPORATIONS 22771 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 570 HAYWARD. CALIFORNIA 94543-0570 (5!0) 886-5000 FAX: (510) 538-8797 LIVS~KMORE OFFICE LIVERMORe. CA 94S50 447- I 222 September 11, 2001 RECEiveD SEP 1 ' o0] , DUBLLN PLc,~NINGI Eddie Peabody, Jr. Director of Community Development City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mr. Peabody: Re: PA 00-025 East Dublin Properties Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report We represent the The Lowell and Hanabul Jordan Charitable Trust and Lowell Jordan, the owners of approximately 189.12 acres situated on Fallon Road adjacent to the City of Dublin, Assessor Parcel Nos. 985-0006-010 and 981-0006=090 (the "Jordan Property"). The Jordan Property is included in the Prezone (Planned Development (PD) / Stage 1 Development Plan) and Annexation/DetachmenT application and affected by the above- referenced Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Our clients' are concerned and, therefore, object to the EIR on the basis that it has the following deficiencies: It does not adequately address the effects of drainage, loss of light-patterns, Changes in wind patterns, changes in views, increased noise and heavy truck traffic which will be incurred by the'Jordan Property and the Jordan residence in the event of the relocation o£Fallon Road. Fallon Road, as relocated, will be six (6) lanes, approximately 20 feet higher than the Jordan residence and within 100 feet of such residence. 9.1 o It does not adequately address the aliemative of leaving Fallon Road in its present location and expanding it to four (4)~!anes. It does not adequately address the alternative of relocating Fallon Road at a lower elevation or at a more easterly location. 9.2 Eddie Peabody, Jr. Page 2 September 11, 2001 o It does not adequately address the impacts of speed; noise pollution (in particular from tracks), vibrations, mr pollution, and water pollution which will result from the construction of Fallon Road across the Jordan property. It does not adequately address mitigation in the form of delaying the construction of Fallon Road until such time as the present two-lane Fallon Road is inadequate to serve the properties which are the subject of the annexation. It does not adequately address possible mitigation by delay in the construction of the relocated Fallon Road until such time as the present Fallon Road has been expanded to four (4) lanes and has been found to be inadequate from a traffic carrying standpoint. It does not adequately provide mitigation monitoring to insure that the relocation of Fallon Road will only occur as recommended by the traffic study or actual traffic conditions, rather than prematurely due to agreements that the City of Dublin has made with other property owners and/or with the County of Alameda. The pre-existing obligations of the City of Dublin to the other property owners and/or to the County of Alameda should not be allowed to interfere with proper mitigation of the environmental impacts whick will flow from the premature. relocation of Fallon Road and/or the premature expansion of Fallon Road to six (6) lanes. Mitigation monitoring must be in place to insure that traffic needs and not pre-existing agreements dictate the relocation and expansion of Fallon Road. It does not adequately address the possible mitigation of the impacts of the relocation of Fallon Road that could be achieved by relocating the Jordan residence to a new location on the Jordan Property. It does not adequately address the impacts on the wetland areas, if any, which exist on the Jordan Property which will occur as the result of the relocation of Fallon Road. 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 Very truly yours, ABV/ch,/14 peabody.ltr VARNI, FRASER, HARTWELL & ~ Anthony B. farni CC: Client Elizabeth Silver, Esq. Responses to Letter 9: Tony Varni Response 9.1: The comment asserts that various effects of the relocation of Fallon Road have not been adequately addressed. The proposed location of Fallon Road, as shown on the Project Stage 1 Development Plan, was established with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan approvals in 1993. Fallon Road was proposed to be widened in place, relocated and extended to Tassajara Road; the "relocated" portion of the road begins south of Central Parkway and extends to the north to the southern boundary of the Dublin Ranch Area A project. (See Figure 2-F in the SDEIR.) The current Project does not propose to "relocate" Fallon Road from the approved general location shown in the General Plan and Specific Plan. This roadway location was established east of the present location of Fallon Road, so "relocation" of the roadway was within the project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the effects of roadway construction noise on existing residences (Impact 3.10/E) as well as dust and emissions from construction operations and equipment (Impacts 3.11/A, B). Mitigation measures were adopted for these impacts and would continue to apply to implementing projects as appropriate. (See Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.(3,5.0 and 3.11/1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0) No further review of the roadway "relocation" is required at this time since the roadway would not be constructed as part of the annexation and prezoning Project. Response 9.2: The commentor states that the EIR should address alternatives of leaving Fallon Road in its present location and expanding it to four lanes, or relocating it to a different location. As noted in Response 9.1, the location of Fallon Road was established upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and reviewed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The current Project proposes no change to · the established roadway location and no further review of the roadway location or alternatives is required in connection with the annexation and prezoning Project. Response 9.3: The commentor asserts that construction impacts of building Fallon Road across the Jordan Property [First American Title Guaranty Co. property] are not adequately addressed. Since much of the Eastern Dublin area was undeveloped at the time of the Eastern Dublin approvals in 1993, extensive and long term construction impacts were expected as future deVelopment implemented the approvals. Construction noise impacts on existing residences from trucks on local roads and heavy equipment were addressed ~n Impact 3.10/E of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Construction-related air quality impacts from dust generation and equipment EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 166 October 2001 emissions were addressed in Impacts 3.11/A, B. The supplemental effects of increased regional traffic on local roadways, and related noise impacts were also addressed in the DSEIR under Supplemental Impact NOISE 1. Ground borne noise and vibration from truck traffic was addressed under Supplemental Impact NOISE 3. Mitigation measures were adopted with the Eastern Dublin approvals, and truck noise and vibration mitigation measures are proposed in the DSEIR. Even with the adopted mitigation measures, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified the impacts as significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted with the 1993 approvals (see Resolution 53-93). Similarly, supplemental construction noise impacts described above are also identified as significant and unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required to support approval of the annexation/prezoning Project. As reflected above, construction related impacts have been addressed through the Eastern Dublin EIR and the DSEIR. No further review of impacts is required for the annexation/prezoning Project. Issues such as design speed and drainage control for runoff will be reviewed when project-level design and improvements plans are prepared. Response 9.4: The commentor asserts that the Draft SEIR does not adequately address mitigation in the form of delaying construction and/or expansion of Fallon Road from two lanes to four lanes. The comment infers that Fallon Road will be widened in its current location to 4-lanes. The City has no plans for such widening. Fallon Road is currently a 2- lane road; interim improvements are required to be made to the 2-1ane road as part of the Dublin Ranch Area A project. The comment does not state what impacts the suggested mitigations relate to; however, in general, the timing of roadway improvements will be determined by traffic studies which will determine when interim 2-lane Fallon Road will be inadequate and when Fallon Road needs to be constructed in the location shown in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Such determination will be made by the City and implemented by the City as a City project or through future tentative map approvals. Response 9.5: The commentor asserts that mitigation monitoring is inadequate to insure that Fallon Road is not prematurely relocated. The Comment does not state what impacts or mitigation measures would be inadequately monitored. A mitigation, monitoring program Was adopted with the Eastern Dublin approvals in 1993 (Resolution 53-93), and. continues to apply to implementing projects in Eastern Dublin. A mitigation monitoring program will likewise be adopted for all mitigation measures approved through the Supplemental EIR process, and will apply to all implementing projects within EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 167 October 2001 the Project area. As noted in Response 9.4, the timing for construction of Fallon Road will be established by the City based on traffic studies. Response 9.6: The commentor asserts that mitigation of impacts of the Fallon Road relocation should include relocating the Jordan residence. As noted'in Response 9.3, the proposed location of Fallon Road was previously analyzed and mitigation measures adopted in connection with the Eastern Dublin approvals. The road is not proposed for construction with the currently requested approvals, therefore, no additional review of mitigation measures is required at this time. Response 9.7: The commentor asserts that impacts on existing wetlands, if any, have not been adequately addressed. The comment presents no evidence to show that wetlands exist on the Jordan property. Nor is it clear from Figure 3.3-A of the DSEIR that wetlands are present on the Jordan property. As reflected in the Eastern Dublin EIR, as well as the current Project Initial Study and DSEIR, the Project site is largely undeveloped and contains a wide variety of biological resources that could be affected by future development. If it were determined that wetlands are present, Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0, 7.0 and 11.0 addressing protection of riparian and wetland areas would apply to future development requests. (See related discussion in the Eastern Dublin EIR, Impact 3.7/C). The Jordan property would also be subject to DSEIR supplemental mitigation measure SM-BIO-1 which requires that a Resource Management Plan be prepared for the entire Project area in order to provide comprehensive protection and preservation strategies for Project area resources. Even with this mitigation measure, the DSEIR finds that cumulative loss of sensitive habitat, such as seasonal wetlands, would be significant and unavoidable, and overriding considerations would be required to support Project approval. To the extent that there could be wetlands on the Jordan property, .impacts from implementation of the Project have been adequately addressed in both the Eastern Dublin and DSEIR. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 168 October 2001 RECEIVED SEP 1_ ZOO1 DUBLIN PLANNING Patrick F. Croak 4617 James Avenue Castro Valley, CA. 510-881-0383 Fax: 253-660-9676 September 12, 2001 Mr. Eddie Peabody Community Development Director City of Dublin 100 Civic Center Plaza Dublin~ California 94568 Subject: Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Dear Mr. Peabody: Thank you for the oppommity to review the Draft Supplemental EIR. Please accept the following comments on behalf of the owners of the Croak properties. Table 3.1-1 on Williamson Act Contracts contains errors in the expiration dates. The traffic and circulation information presented in the DSEIR for Central Parkway is not clearly presented. There have been numerous errors in the mapping and documentation of what has been planned, approved, and changed with regards to Central Parkway ottending eastward. Much of the confusion centers around how far Central will extend and where it will tie into Dublin Blvd. The Figure 5-lb referred to in Footnote 1 on page 3.6-2 is an out of scale diagram used to show traffic volume and provides little detail about the complete road system. The same map is referred to in the GP and SP while both documents contain more specific road system maps which appear to conflict with 5-1 b. Since this is not to scale and shows no bounderies, its impossible to ascertain where the tie in is. It could be in the-Project Area or the Extended Planning Area further east which includes Future Study Area in Doolan Canyon. Footnote 1 simply refers to a connection '%vithin the Eastern Extended Planning Area." The TJKM traffic analysis with the Dublin Model indicates very light traffic on Central Parkway east of Fallon Road. Figure 3.6-f shows only a two lane requirement in this area~ Yet Footnote 1 refers to reserving for the future ultimate 4 lane width. Reserving for a four lane arterial with a design ADT of 30,000vehicles on a roadway the Dublin Model estimates at only 1900 ADT appears excessive. This traffic volume could easily be accommodated by a Class II collector street or similar sized road. Under these circumstances, croak Road could easily handle the volume coming off Central Parkway and serve as the tie in for Central to Dublin Blvd. 10.1 10.2 10.3 For these reasons, and the general ambiguity of the circulation system as it is presented, the DSEIR should include a more complete analysis of the c/rculation system and related effects. Footnote 1 on page 3.6-2 should be rewritten with clear references to the amendments of the General and Specific Plans so that it can readily be ascertained whether there is consistency between these two documents and what is being presented in the SEIIL Figure 3.3c. The Stage 1 Development Plan states on page 5 that open space stream corridors have been adjusted for alignment purposes and topographic constraints. It should be clarified that this open space as it was created in the GP and SP documents may have to be further adjusted based on further development of environmental cOnstraints information and should be used for the purpose it was originally created like protecting a stream corridor. 10.4 10.5 10.6 Figure 2-f. To the extent there were errors in determining the areas containing slopes greater that [ 10.7 30% and thus designated as RRA there should be provision for adjusting the land use to match the I existing topography. Figure 2-f. To the extent that any neighborhood parks need to be moved due to environmental constraints or for any other reason, or to the extent any new park space is created, they should be located where the demand for them has been created. The distribution of these parks should be reflective of the levels of approved housing and located on a pro rata basis. SM-Traffic-4. This mitigation should state that the developers shall contribute a pro-rata share. Page 3.3-14. RMP. To the extent that the land plan needs to be modified to implement the RMP, these modifications should be made to the property requiring the mitigation unless otherwise agreed to. No property owner should be put in the position of having_to mitigate another's property. Costs of mitigating via the P,2vlP or otherwise should be borne by the respective property owners according to their mitgafion needs. This should be made clear in the SEIR. SM-BIO-21. Given that this region has been farmed for over 100 years these mitigation measures limiting agriculture uses to grazing without rodent control are inappropriate. The objective can be achieved by other means without curtailing existing land uses in this manner. Also, the "viewshed" as it is used here should be defined in a reasonable manner. Several of the mitigations measure require funding ma~utenance in perpetuity. The SDEIR should address the cost issue here and whether such azrangements are financially feasible. SM-BIO-35. Other alternative mitigation measures should be explored if available as this would appear to be extremely difficult and costly to implement. 10.8 10.9 10.10 t10.11 I10.12 110.13 Your close consideration of these comments is greatly appreciated. Hopefully, they will prove to be constructive and I look forward to your responses. Sincerely, atrick F. Croak 141 Responses to Letter 10: Patrick Croak Response 10.1: See corrections to this table made in response to Allen Matkins Letter, Response 11.6. Response 10.2. The commentor states that the Draft SEIR is unclear as to the easterly extension of Central Parkway and where it will tie in to Dublin Boulevard. The commentor correctly notes that mapping errors have shown Central Parkway extending to the easterly edge of the Project area. Through footnote 1 on page 3.6-2 of the DSEIR, the City summarizes the background planning for Central Parkway and confirms that this roadway is not planned to extend all the way through the Project area. Central Parkway will extend beyond Fallon Road to serve planned residential uses, but will turn southward to tie in to Dublin Boulevard. The 2-lane road shown on Figure 2-F of the DSEIR (Croak Road) will connect Central Parkway with Dublin Boulevard in the same general location as Central Parkway, as shown on General Plan Figure 5-1b. The general location of Central Parkway/Croak Road is consistent with General Plan Figure 5-1b showing a connection to Dublin Boulevard. The exact lOcation and configUration of Central Parkway/Croak Road will be determined when future tentative maps are processed. Any tentative maps or other future design level development plans must be consistent with the Stage 1 Development Plan, including the general location and nature of Central Parkway/Croak Road, and a Dublin Boulevard connection within the Project area. (See also Response 8.34). Response 10.3: The commentor questions the need to reserve the right-of-way for the future ultimate four-lane width on Central Parkway east of Fallon Road, considering the low average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 1,900 vehicles estimated for this roadway segment based on the Dublin Model. The commentor also suggests that the City of Dublin use Croak Road as the connector for Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard, and states that the DSEIR's analysis of the circulation system pertaining to Central Parkway is ambiguous and should be more complete. The near-term ADT forecasted for Central Parkway east of Fallon Road ranges between 1,900 and 6,100 vehicles per day based on the Dublin Model with Project traffic (see Figure 3.6-F of the DSEIR). In the long-term, this ADT is expected to range between 7,300 and 9,200 vehicles per day based on the Year 2025 TVTM Model with Project traffic. Based on these ADTs, Figure 3.6-F of the DSEIR shows two lanes being required on this roadway segment as part of the proposed Project. Figure 5-1b of the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan reflects a four-lane divided roadway configuration for Central Parkway between Arnold Road and Dublin Boulevard, including the segment extending easterly of Fallon EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 172 October 2001 Road and turning south to connect with Dublin Boulevard within the Eastern Extended Planning Area, Central Parkway is intended to connect 'the intenSively developed areas in Eastern Dublin with the existing Eastern Dublin BART station located approximately 2-3 miles west of the Project area. Furthermore, when Eastern Dublin is fully developed, Dublin Boulevard is expected to be extended to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore. At that time, Central Parkway will likely be used as a key alternate route to bypass congestion on Dublin Boulevard west of Fallon Road. This congestion would be the result of traffic diverting from 1-580 due to heavy commute traffic or unexpected freeway incidents. Therefore, the forecasted ADTs on Central Parkway from the TVTM Model could be exceeded in the future as a result of regional travel needs through the Tri-Valley area. This is especially true if Central Parkway is extended in the future Dougherty Road to make f ,~ .... c~__- .... .from Arnold Road to or a ....~ ~mc~ent regional circulation system in Dublin. The Class I Collector Street classification for Central Parkway is consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan street designations and fulfills all possible future needs to accommodate local trips within Dublin, as well as regional travel patterns within the Tri-Valley area in general. Central Parkway has been constructed between Arnold Road and Tassajara Road as an interim two-lane roadway with right-of-way reserved for the ultimate four- lane width. The DSEIR includes a supplemental mitigation measure (SM- TRAFFIC-10) on page 3.6-20, which requires the Project developers to widen Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road from two lanes to four lanes. East of Fallon Road, Central Parkway will have two lanes as part of the proposed Project, but, consistent with the 3est of Central Parkway, right-of-way will be reserved for the future ultimate four-lane width. The DSEIR notes on page 2-9, under "Project Access and Circulation," that primary access through the project site will be via Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway and fha t secondary access will be via collector streets located throughout the i'roject. The location of the collector streets and the possibility of using Croak Road as the connector for Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard will be determined by the tentative map and site development review stages when lotting patterns are known. Therefore, the DSEIR adequately describes the general circulation system in and around the Project area and no further analysis is required at this stage. Response 10.4: The commentor requests a more comprehensive analysis of the circulation system. , The City believes the comprehensive analyses in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the DSEIR adequately identify traffic irhpacts and mitigation measures. No further analysis is required unde~ CEQA. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 173 October 2001 Response 10.5: The commenter requests clarification of Footnote I on p. 3.6-2 regarding references to related General and Specific Plan amendments. See Response 10.2 for clarification of Footnote I and the background for the location of Central Parkway. Response 10.6: The commentor requests clarification of the potential need to relocate open space stream corridors based on further environmental constraints information. Based on past experience with development in Eastern Dublin, the City expects that minor adjustments will be made to the Project through the Stage 2 Development Plan and tentative map reviews on individual development projects, at which time more detailed Project site and improvement plans are required. Response 10.7: The commentor states that land uses should be adjusted where slope errors resulted in properties being designated as RRA. The areas designated RRA are shown in the Applicant's Stage I Development Plan. Staff has reviewed the proposed land use plan and finds it substantially consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan land use maps. Minor adjustments to the boundaries of the land use categories can be reviewed by the City through the Stage 2 Development Plan and tentative map reviews based on more detailed topographic information required as part of those applications. Response 10.8: The commentor asserts that Neighborhood Parks should be located where the demand for them is created, on a pro rata basis. The general location of park areas is established through the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan. The location and develOpment standards for parks is further detailed in the City's adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The parks shown on the Stage 1 Development Plan are consistent with applicable location and spacing standards in the General Plan, Specific Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan for neighborhood and community parks. Response 10.9: The commentor indicates that supplemental mitigation measure SM-TRAFFIC-4 on page 3.6-14 of the DSEIR should state that the Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share. This mitigation measure concerns installing a traffic signal at a new Project intersection to provide access in and out of the Project site from Dublin Boulevard. The turning vehicle movements at this intersection are all Project- EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 174 October 2001 related trips and, hence, the Project will be fully responsible for installing the traffic signal. The DSEIR explains that Project developers shall implement this mitigation measure when the traffic signal becomes warranted based on the estimated additional trips from individual projects. Therefore, supplemental mitigation measure SM-TRAFFIC-4 is properly stated on page 3.6-14 of the DSEIR, and adding that the developers shall contribute a pro-rata share would be unnecessary. Response 10.11: The commentor states that future adjustments to the land use plan to implement the RMP should show modifications only to the properties requiring mitigation. Minor adjustments to the Stage 1 Development Plan may be proposed as part of Stage 2 Development Plan. Specific biological resource mitigations and impacts on individual properties would be addressed in the Resource Management Plan prepared by the Applicants and submitted to the City for review prior to or with any Stage 2 Development Plan. Response 10.12: The commentor Objects to the prohibition of rodent control in SM-BIO 21 and requests a reasonable definition of "viewshed". The supplemental mitigation measure that prohibits rodent control is SM BIO 27. This mitigation applies within the foraging territory of the golden eagle, and is required to protect the golden eagle's prey base, which uses the undisturbed grazing lands within the northern portion of the Project area designated for Rural Residential/Agricultural. This mitigation measure would be included in the RMP required for mitigation measure SM BIO 1. The term "Viewshed" means the area of land that is: (1) within the view of all nest sites of the golden eagle and (2) is within clOse proximity to those nest sites. Development within the close proximity to the active nest may cause the eagle to abandon the nest. This requirement is consistent with Department of Fish and Game standards. Response 10.13: The commentor states that the cost and financial feasibility of mitigation measures requiring funding maintenance in perpetuity should be discussed. The purpose of requiring funding maintenance in perpetuity is to implement mitigations for the environmental protection of special status species and sensitive habitat. A financial analysis i.s not required. However, the City notes that the environmental analysis was completed for the entire Project area and mitigations were identified for the entire 1,120-acre Project area. Assuming a low basis for the value of the existing marginal agriculture land and the ability to EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 175 October 2001 spread the cost over large areas, funding maintenance in perpetuity would be feasible, financially and otherwise. Response 10.14: The commentor states that other less difficult and less costly mitigation measures should be explored for SM -BIO-35. Mitigation measure SM BIO 35 for burrowing owl requires a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird. This mitigation is consistent with Department of Fish and Game standards and no alternate mitigation measures need be identified for the DSEIR. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 176 October 2001 Allen Matkins AHen Matki.s Leek Gamble & Mallory LLp attorneys at lay/ 333 BuSh Street, 17th Floor San Francisco California 94104-2806 ~elephone. 415 837 15~.5 feosimile, 415 837 1516 www. eJlenmatkins,¢om wilted. Mlchaet PatrJe. k Dur'~ee t. 4:L$ 2?3 7455 file number, 8;/.002'001/SF551853,01 e. mdl~kee~aJlenr~et~ns.aom September I4, 2001 VgA FAX (92.5. 855. 6628) Eddie Peabody Community Development Director City of Dublin 100 Civic Center Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for East Dublin Properties dated July 2001 - - SCH No. 2002 0.52 1t4 Dear Mr. Peabody: On behalf of property owners within the Project Area, thank you for this opportanity to comment on the Draft Supplement EIR for thc East Dublin Property. We appreciate the excellent job the City has done on thc draft SEIR. We believe the Slqm. adequately addresses the potential supplemental impacts of the City's continued implementation of/ts long range development plans for ~e Eastern Dublin area. As one of the property owners, our commen~s are aimed at clarifying certain points and fine tuning certain discussion items. The order of these comments reflects the order in which the topic appears in the Draft SEIR. 7-0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION [] Section 2.2, Proicct Objectives (Page 2-2). In addition to furthering the objectives identified in this section., we also note-that the Project implements and brings to fruition thc City's long-term programmatic planning goals, policies and programs for Eastern Dublin. This cannot be overstressed. The City of Dublin haS carefully and systematically planned for its future. These efforts are not only reflected in the City's General Plan - - its highest policy document - - but in its actions as well: over the last several years, the City has planned for, sought, and secured the planning and incremental annexation of those eastern lands within its sphere of influence. This project completes that programmatic approach for those ]ands between the existing City limits and the City's eastern-most planning boundary. 11.1 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble &: Mallory LLP Eddie Peabody September 14, 2001 Page 2 · In the same vein, DSRSD and Dublin have worked closely to ensure that the City% programmatic planning' approach is matched and complimented by a programmatic water service expansion. Such forward planning by public agencies should be heralded. The approach in this S~.rn, reflects that programmatic approach. Both the original · - Eastern Dublin ~rR and this Supplement describe the actions that are intended to implement the City's long-term programmatic planning. Also included in this description is generalized information on future development to the extent that information is known on the k/nd, intensity and location of this development. The approach that is used allows for an evaluation of the annexation request and all other actions, yet, by design, it specifically seeks to avoid merely speculative or unnecessarily particularized examinations of future development at this stage. Among other advantages, this programmatic approach promotes the consideration of regional impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case examination of a particular development proposal (withi, the Project area) alone. Moreover, this programmatic approach allows the City to focus in these documents on the broad policy alternatives and programmatic mitigation that will be undertaken, while still promoting flexibility to address individual, particularized impacts at the appropriate time and development level. We recognize that ~he City intends that in furtherance of this approach, additional environmental review on future development proposals will be conducted. This review will rely upon t e revi w ~P,~,-,,~- ~v~ul-,m~,L p~t,l~. ~n:veaopment proponents wm also sup~emen~ and miti~a~inn information/surveys of species and habitat and will implement additional mitigation measures required by City, state and federal resource agencies. Ct~QA embraces this analytical 'continuum" from larger program to smaller development part. We believe the City's approach wiI1 assist in avoiding duplicative considerations and ftxmsing the analysis required to adequately review and address any and ali resultant impacts. 11.2 11.3 Allen Matk~s Leek Gamble &Mallory L~p attorae?s at la~ Eddie Peabody September I4, 2()01 P. age 3 [] Section 2.4, Existing E~stern Dublin Gen .e. ral Plan/Specific Plan FrameWork (..Page 2-6) andTabl0. 2.4.-2 (Page 2]14)~ The Future Study Area, designated for purposes ~-~ the SEIR as Rural Residential/Agriculture [1 unit per i00 acres], is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan. These Plans recognized the practical fact that the East Dublin Specific Plan pro~ess needed to continue to completion yet also respected the fact that the later-in-time Livermore Airport Plan and its Protection Plan might recommend against residential development in that area. As such, the City artfully cra/ted the East Dublin SPecific Plan to have a safety valve for such an event., which in fact ctid occur. Therefore, the area was automatically designated for minimal development to ensure the safety the Airport Plan seeks. We agree with the statement in the SEIR that any proposed future development of that area other than as Rural Residential/Agriculture would require additional City approvals and euvironmental documentat/on to ensure that the purposes behind such Plans are met and preserved. I~ Section 2.6, Regulatory Setting (Page 2-10). The Initial Study and the text in SEIR do a good job discussing ~he effects of M~asure D. We concur with the analysis that' the Measure D affects development in the County, but does not limit development by cities that are within the County, nor does it Create or impose any urban growth boundaries on those cities. Therefore, we agree that Measure D will not affect development of the land after it is annexed to the City.- We also note that Measure D is not among the factors that a LAFCO should consider in evaluating the annexation request. The recently amended LAFCO law permit LAFCO to consider growth goals and policies established by elected officials only. The Iegislature deleted proposed language that would have allowed LAFCO to alSO consider growth boundaries adopted by the voters and, as such, MeaSure D is not a factor to be evaluated. 3.0 ENWIRONM'ENTAI, STLrDy~ IMPACTS AND MITIGATION M~&SURF.~ [] Table 3, I-5 (Page 3.1-2) has a typo in the last column identifying the exPiration date for the "Properties." This should i~e "14)1-i0" instead of "I-0141,' The fourth owner also includes a typo: "Factor" should be '~FATCo." [] Section 3,1, Agricultural Resource (Pa~e 3. I-5_)_:, We note that the Eastern Dublin' ~n:~ assessed conversion of agriculture to urban and the fact that the conversion my occur sooner as a result of cancellation of the William,son Act contracts does not change the analysis or result in any increased Or more significant impacts than those assessed therein." ~1 Section 3.3 Biological Resource,,. We recognize that all future development related to the Project will have to comply with ES& CESA, CWA and other resource laws and 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 ~n m~ ~i ~:i~ b~ Pt_LEN MATKINS 415 83? !516 TO ~i819i~i9258336 P.05×05 Allen Matkins Leek Gamble & Mallory rzp atro~ ~t la~ Eddie Peabody September 14, 2001 Page 4 understand that this may include the preparation and implementation of mitigation measures to address impacts to listed species and tahe undertaking of all habitat mitigation mea.~ures deemed necessary by CDFG, USFWS, the U.S. Army Corps of En~neers and other agencies. [] Water Su~r~IY Litigation.(Page 3.7-5 and 6). DSRSD has sent a letter to LAFCO confirming that DSRSD has a reliable wa[er supply to accommodate Eastern Dublin and other reasonably expected growth in Zone 7, without injuring the.water quali~ and reliability ro existing Zone 7 customers of Zone 7 and DSRSD. In addition, the lett,r no~¢s the current s~ams of challenges by the City of Livcrmore and the Citizens for Balanced Growth to DSRSD's wa~er analysis, but reemphasizes DSRSD's commitment to resolve those issues and continue to demons~ra[e the adequacy of the available water supply. MPD:elc V~~lichael Patrick Durkee 11.9 Responses to Letter 11: Allen Matkins Response 11.1: The comment regarding project objectives are noted and no further analysis is required. Response 11.2: The comment regarding cooperation between the City of Dublin in the preparation of the programmatic water analysis is acknowledged and no further analysis is required. Response 11.3: Regarding the programmatic approach of the DSEIR, this approach and its associated benefits is noted and acknowledged and no further analysis is needed. Response 11.4: The comment regarding consistency between proposed land uses in the Future Study Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan is acknowledged a~d no further analysis is required. Response 11.5: Regarding the comment that the DSEIR analysis of Measure D having no impact on limiting development within incorporated cities is noted. No further analysis is needed. Response 11.6: The comment noting a typOgraphic error in Table 3-1.5 (p. 3.1-2) is noted. The correct expiration for the Properties is hereby corrected by reference to read "1/01/10". Also, the name "Factor" should be corrected to read" , FATCO. Response 11.7: The comment regarding accelerated development of properties within the study area that currently have a Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement with no increased or significant impacts is noted. No further analysis is needed. Response 11.8: Regarding compliance of future development within the project area with state and federal resource laws and regulations is noted in the DSEIR and no further analysis is required. Response 11.9: The comment regarding water supply litigation and DSRSD's letter to LAFCO confirming a reliable water supply for the proposed development is noted. This comment supports analysis included in the Utilities section of the DSEIR and no further analysis is needed. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 181 October 2001 L~w Offic~ of StUart M. Flashman 5626 Ocean View Drive Oakland, CA 94618-1533 (510) 652-5373 (voice & FAX) e-maih stuflash~aol.com delivery, by fax anti mail September 14, 2001 Planning Department City of Dublin i00 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94553 RE: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for East Dublin Properties Stage t Development Plan & Annexation, SCH ~2001052114. To Whom it May Concern: This letter is written on behalf of Citizens for Balanced Growth, Inc. ("CBG") and Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee ("PARC"), Inc. to comment on the above-referenced DSEIR. As I am sure you are aware, we have already submitted a comment letter On the Notice of Preparation for the DSEIR. A copy of that letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Parenthetically, are disappointed that Dublin has chosen to ignore the comments contained in that letter, and in a similar letter written by the City of Livermore. CBG and PARC believe that Dublin's decisionmakers and the public deserve a full discussion of the potential impacts of this proposed project. We believe the best way to provide that information would have been to prepare a full EIR, rather than the more narrowly focused Supplemental EIR the Dublin has chosen. CBG and PARC are also disappointed that Dublin has chosen to ignore the comments contained in its earlier letter identifying additional project impacts. As a result, the DSEIR starts off from a position of inadequacy for failing to identify numerous potentially significant impacts identified in the earlier letter. Generally, the DSEIR is inadequate for failing to fully identify and discuss the proposed project's potential impacts, for failing to adequately mitigate identified project impacts and for failing to consider an adequate range of alternatives. The specific deficiencies of the DSEIS/R are discussed in detail below. 12.1 FAILURE TO ADEQUATELX IDENTIFXAND DISCUSS IMPACTS Of course, under Public Resources Code ~21166, the DSEIR need only identify those impacts that were not adequately treated in the prior 1992 EIR, or for which the project, conditions, or information, have changed significantly in a way that requires reconsideration of the prior EIR's discussion. As the DSEIR notes, the nature of uses within the project area has not changed significantly from those discussed in the 1992 EIR. 12.2 ATTACHMENT From: Stuart M. Flashman (510) 652-5373 To: Cit:/of Dublin Planning Dept. Date: 9/17/01 Time: 9:53:26 AM Page 2 of 2 Comment letter on E.Dublin DSEIR 9/17/01 Page 2 not changed significantly from those discussed in the 1992 EIR. However, the project itself is a significantly different project frcm the 1992 project. The 1992 EIR was for a general plan amendment and specific plan. The current EIR ccvers annexation, prezoning, and a Stage 1 Development Plan for the project area. It also includes ~ series of annexations and deannexations related to the annexation of the property to the City of Dublin. ~hile all of the project area was included in the 1992 general plan amendment, cnly part of the project area was included in the 1992 East Dublin Specific Plan. Consequenzly, the current ploject, which goes well beyond the level included in the 1992 general plan amendment, is significantly different frcm the 1992 project. The 1992 EIR may have considered the entire project area at a programmatic level for the general plan amendment, but not at the project level at which this DSEIR is being prepared. ~hite the current EIR may tier cfi cf the prior prcgrammatic EIR, it cannot subst!tuze that document's program level analysis for the project level analysis needed in this EIR. Consequently, au a very basic level the DSEIR is inacequa~e for the part cf the project area extending beyond Ehat of the 1992 East Euklin SDeczfic Plan. At the level of specific project impacEs, the DSEIR fails uo identify several significant pro3ect impacts not already adecuatelv discussed and mitigated az the projeet level in the 1992 .EIR. These include 1) Ail project-level impacEs for zhe area beyond that encompassed by the 1992 Ease Dublin Specific Plan, and specifically inoluding land use, 2) agriculuural impacts from conversion cf prime agricultural lands to urban uses, 3) air quality impacts, and specifically impacts related to ozone producEion, 4) impacts on biological resources, including specifically lcss of wetlands, inEermittent sEreams, ponds, alkalz grasslands, and impacts on the rare, endangered and candidate species, including the California red-legged frog, fairy shrimp and vernal pool ~adDote shrimp, San Coaquin Kit Pox, California uiger salamander, wesEern pond turtle, the burrowing and short eared owls, e~c., 5) uraffie impacts, 6) utility impacts, including specifically impacEs on waner, wasEewater, etec£rzc and natural gas service, 6) land use, population and housing impacts and hydrology ane water quality impacts. These deficiencies are discussed more specifically below. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS In addition zo ~he defieieno~es zdenuified abcve, the DSEIR is defective in its analysis of aiuernative. Although the DSEIR adds one additlonal alternaumve to those analyzed in the 1992 EIR, new ~nformau~on has developed over the inEervening period, specifically development of whau ms commonly called "smarE grcwth". (See, ABAG materials for 9/8/01 workshop on Smarz Grcwth, a copy of which is being forwarded herewith and ~s \ 12.3 12.4 Comment letter on E.Dubtin DSEIR 9/14/01 Page 3 incorporated herein by this reference.) This concept calls for reducing the impacts from new development by focusing new development within already developed areas, densifylng development at public transit hubs and along major transit corridors, limiting development of new areas to the minimum necessary and focusing that development at relatively high densities in public transit-friendly designs. The East Dublin DSEIR needs to identify, analyze, and discuss additional alternatives consistent with the "smart growth" strategy. Specifically, the SEIR needs to include 1) an alternative that attempts to accommodate the development planned for the Project Area within the existing city limits of Dublin (and adjoining cities) through densification of existing zoning and 2) an alternative focusing development within the project area to higher density clusters that are designed to be transit friendly - i.e., are located along major thoroughfares well-served by public transit, are completely within easy walking distance of public transit access, and are of sufficiently high density (e.g., greater than 10 units/acre residential) to financially support public transit. The latter alternative should also be planned to avoid areas of significant biological importance, including wetlands, intermittent streams, ponds, and other wildlife habitats. There can be little doubt that either of these alternatives would greatly reduce project impacts from those analyzed in the DSEIR. (See, CEQA Guidelines Sect. 15i26(d) (1-3).) 12.4 DETAILED DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS & MITIGATION The following section discusses in more detail the deficiencies in the DSEIR's discussion of project impacts and their mitigation. 1) land use, housing and population - see comments in comment letter on NOP; these comments have not been addressed adequately in the DSEIR. 2) agricultural impacts - the DSEIR's analysis is contained in a short report included as a technical appendix. (Volume 2, Appendix C.) The report summarily concludes that while portions of the project area contain class I or II soils, irrigation is non feasible. However, the report ignores the DSEIR's own data showing that these parts of the project area will be in close proximity to major recycled water lines. (Figure 2-J.) The report does not explain why irrigation would not be possible using water from these lines. Further, while the site may be far from the main turnout from the South Bay Aqueduct, it is not far from the nearest Zone 7 turnout for untreated water. The report does not consider the feasibility of extending irrigation pipelines from the nearest Zone 7 untreated water facility. Also, while the DSEIR notes that the land is not located directly over the main groundwater basin, it is located over a peripheral basin. The DSEIR doesn't co~sider the potential use t12.5 12.6 La~ 0¢¢ ce o¢ S. Flashman 09/14/02 0~:S9P P.O~ Comment letter on E.Dublin DSEIR 9/14/01 Page 4 of a peripheral basin to irrigate these lands, nor does it consider the possible use of slant wells to access the main groundwater basin, located just south of 1-580. (See attached map, taken from Zone 7 1996 F.I.O. Analysis for Dougherty Valley.) These considerations force the conclusion that the class I and II soils in the area are in fact irrigable. The EIR therefore needs to be revised to consider the removal from use of these prime agricultural lands. 3) Air Quality and Traffic Impacts - The DSEIR acknowledges significant air quality and traffic impacts beyond those identified in the 1992 EIR, but it concludes that these impacts cannot be further mitigated to a significant extent. This conclusion is unfounded. The DSEIR has failed to consider numerous feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the project's traffic and air quality impacts by reducing use of single occupancy vehicles (~SOV") and encouraging use of carpools and public transit. While the DSEIR identifies numerous roadway improvements to partially mitigate the project's traffic impacts, it puts off consideration of mitigation measures intended to decrease SOV use and increase public transit use (e.g., employer-funded free transit passes for employees, preferential parking for carpool participants, staggered work hours, etc. - see page 3.6-19) to the Stage 2 Development Plan. This is an improper deferment of mitigation, especially when the EIR concludes there are significant unmitigated cumulative impacts. Further, the DSEIR totally fails to consider numerous measures that would mitigate both traffic and air quality impacts. Among these are the following: 1) establish a transit assessment district for the project area to fund public transit improvements, including frequent shuttle service to and from the Pleasanton BART station. The City of Emeryville has had a similar successful program for more than ten years. 2) Require employers to imp. lement fee-based employee parking, with exemption for employees using carpools or vanpools. 3) Implement congestion pricing on both residential and commercial parking, with an exit and entry fee required at parking lots during peak commute hours. 4) Implement HOV lanes on major city arterials, especially those leading to and from 1-580. 5) Support implementation of HOV lanes on 1-580. These mitigation measures would all serve to decrease SOV use, simultaneously reducing both traffic and air quality impacts. 4) Impacts on Biological Resources - The primary problem with the DSEIR's analysis and discussion of biological resources is that it improperly relies on reports and mitigation measures that have yet To be written or fully devised. For example, the analysis of many of the biological resource impacts is based on several surveys and reports still in preparation. (See, e.g., reference at page 3.3-7 to "Sycamore, in prep". It should be obvious that the public cannot review or comment on a report that has not yet been completed. This DSEIR needs to be 12.6 12.7 12.8 1"')6 //.,.o ~' Comment letter on E.Dublin DSEIR 9/14/01 Page 5 withdrawn and reissued for comment once the referenced reports have been completed and are available for review and comment. Of equal importance is that many of the proposed mitigation measures hinge on the preparation of a Resource Management Plan ("RMP") (SM-Bio-l). While the DSEIR identifies some of the expected contents of the RMP, it is of course impossible for the public to comment on the adequacy of a plan that has not .yet been created. This is particularly true when it is not clear a priori that all biological resource impacts are, in fact, fully mitigable, despite the DEIR's conclusion that preparation of the RMP will fully mitigate project impacts. (DSEIR, page 3.3-15.) It is also to be noted that the discussion of mitigation measures for biological resource impacts often include the term ~should" instead of the mandatory "shall". (E.g., SM-BIO-1 at page 3.3-14, SM-BIO, 3.) In the court case on the 1992 EIR, the court concluded that the use of should was intended to be mandatory. The EIR needs to clarify if in this document as well "should" is to be considered mandatory. Preferably, those "shoulds" need to replaced by language that indicates more clearly whether the directive is mandatory or not. The DSEIR also often includes mitigation measures that include provisions to occur "if feasible". (E.g., SM-BIO-5, SM-BIO-it, SM-BIO-14, SM-BIO-19.) Often, the DSEIR allows for off-site mitigation without regard to the relative importance of the on-site habitat being lost and the of-site replacement habitat. Any of-site replacement habitat needs to have at least equal biological habitat value to the lost on-site habitat, particularly in regard to its role in retaining connectivity of habitat for the species involved. This has been recognized explicitly the the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in its designation of Critical Habitat for endangered species such as the red-legged frog. However the DSEIR does not discuss this important aspect of habitat suitability as a criterion for replacement habitat. Utilities - water, wastewater & electricity - As the cormment letter of the NOP indicates, the reliability of all of these utilities is open to question. While DSRSD has submitted a Preliminary Water Service Analysis for the East Dublin area, the adequacy of that document has been disputed by both CBG and the City of Livermore. As you are aware, the parties are now in a dispute resolution process which may lead to submission of a revised Final Water Service Analysis. If that revised FWSA identifies new potential impacts and/or new mitigation measures which would need to be implemented to avoid significant impacts, under Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 231; 864 P.2d 502], Dublin will need to reopen its environmental review process ~o take into account this sivnificant new information. 12.1( 12.1 12.1: 12.1: 12.14 Comment letter on E.Dublin DSEIR 9/14/01 Page 6 The DSEIR also makes the assumption that a future provision of a ~will serve"~letter is adequate mitigation for the possible inability of either DSRSD or PG&E to provide reliable service. However, requiring a will serve letter is not adequate analysis or mitigation for the possible, future inability to provide service. What will happen if a will serve letter cannot be provided? Will only half the project be built? If so, what will be the impacss from not building the other half? These questions need to be answered now, not at some later date when the project has already been approved. CBG and PARC look forward to reviewing a revised EIR that responds fully to these comments. Most sincerely, Stuart M. Flashman 12.1. ALAPIEDA COUNTY Alameda County i,.~ battling tmftic gestian and expe~iemcing an affordabl,,, housing cris~s. Howe~ei~ there opportunities to change curren~ trends. Options for I~he fiiture ~ndude revitMization of oldtr downtowns and commercial corridors, development a~und B~RT :~tations ~ncl other transit ~cititles, ~nd smarter patterns of suburban growth. Development Patterns and Growth Trends Alameda is the second mos! urbanized county in the region after San Francisco. Development originally cen- tered on established cities such as Oakland, Berkele>, - and Alameda, with additional town centers in places such as Hayward, Pleasanton and Livermore. These communities now feature relatively compact, gridded street hbrics and retain shopping districts established at foriner streetcar stops. Later development spread southward to communilies such as Castro Valley, Union City and Fremont, and east across the hills to Dublin and outlying portmns of Pleasanton and Livermore. These newer areas are char- acterized by a greater separation of land uses and dis- continuous street patterns, making them more auto- mnbile-dependent. They are currently the most rapidly growing parts of the county. Developmem intensities vary remarkably across cities. Emeryville, which bas been transforming industrial land to other uses. now has the highest average residen- tial density (more than 20 units per acre) of any city in the region, including San Francisco. In contrast, average residential densities in the Tri-Valley cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore range from five to six units per acre. Streetcar liues and £erries once provided extensive serv- ice within older Alameda County cities and across the Bay to San Francisco. Since these ,,'ere discontinued in the 1940s and 1950s. automobile infi'aslructure has served as the mainstay of the county's transportation system. By the 1970s, freeways lind been constructed Ihroughout thc count>'. Most of these routes have been widened or otherwise ina proved in recent years, and now feature high-occupancy-vehicle {HOV) lanes. The Metropolitan 'rmnsportation Commissicm is planning an express bus network using these HOV facilities will link parts of Alameda County with Contra Cc San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Since the early 1970s, BART has provided comm~ rail service for much of the county. Future extensi are planned or contemplated to Warm Sprit Livermore and even to San los,~ in Santa Clara Corn The Capitol Corridor provides long-distance rail se ice between Sacramento and San Jos~, and since 15 Altamont Commuter Express fACE) trains have set the county with trains traveling bclween Stockton t Silicon Valley. AC Transit and the Livermore-Ama, Valley Transit Authority operate extensive local bus .< terns. Despite these transit resources, only 5.6 l:,ercen trips in Alameda Count), are bt' transit. ICe>' Challenges Housing construction has not kept pace with growth in jobs during the last decade. Consequen between 1990 and 2000, there was au increase ofahn 30,000 long-distance commuters coming into the cot t); primarily from outside the nine-county Ba>, Ar The largest increases were seen in commuters fr( Stanislaus, San Ioaquin and Merced counties. ,Although the housing market cooled in ZOO l, Alame County housing prices are still rising due to this sho age and many lower-income resident:; are being fore to seek al'foMable housing elsewhen:. According t¢ }une 2001 study by tile C:~!iForvl, A~saciation of REA TORS, only 21 percent or ~:?:,: __ County househo] can affiM'd tile median-priced Almneda County home $369,000, This shortage of housing has other effects well. Along with real estate prices, congestion , Alameda County's streets and fi'eeways is increasu which affects all county residents. 'lb keep pace with ti:is projected job growth, Alameda County will need to ad;I benveen 90,000 and 245,000 additional housing u aits in th.: next 20 years. Op.aortunit'ie$ Older downtowns and commercial corridors through- out the county present important opportunities far infill development that also can offi~r new housing and amenities for local residents. Cities such as kla)~,~ rd, San l.eandro, Fremont, Dublin, 1.ivermore :,nd Oakland are focusing planning eflbrts in this direction. Transit-ori- ented development around BART statiom, and ..around well-served bus corridors offers iocalior, s for future "transit villages.:' such as the one planned adjacent to the new ~st Dublin BART :ration. This project will include high-density residential development and a full service hotel. Tiaa: closure of former military facilities - Alameda Point, Oak Knoll, Oakland Army Base, the Oakland Harbor Transportatkm Center and the Mameda Naval Air Statiou - offers ye~ anolher set of develc.pment opl:,ortmfities in prime locations in the western part of the county. Such facilities as ,,veil as o:he~ cleaued-up "brownfield" siles can hm~dle many new uses. Almost 50 percent of ~ew A ameda County housing units in the ~ext 20 years are lorecast to be bull! in the Tri-Valley ci':ies of I).~blin. Ph:asanton and Livermore. This development will offer key opportunities tbr smarter subdivision design. Ah'eady, new develoI,nents in places like E, ublin offer a greater range of housing typ,:s within more wa{kable, mixed-use neighborhoods. But much mor,r can be done to improve subdivision design in whys thru will redu:e driving and use land mine efficiently. Connecting s~reet networks, a greater mix of land uses and housing types, more pedestrian- friendly street envirc, nments, and higher residential densities are among the possibilities. I l I I [ I I I I I I I l I I I I I I Law Offices of Stuart M. Flashman 5626 Ocean View Drive Oakland, CA 94618-1533 (510) 652-5373 (voice & FAX) e-mail: stuflash~aol.com DELIVERY BY FAX TO (925), 829-1180 July 27, 2001 Mr. Bruce Webb, Senior Planner Dublin San Ramon Services District 7051 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Statement of Obiections to Preliminary Water Service Analysis for East Dublin Properties stage 1 Development Plan Annexation Proiect. Dear Mr. Webb, Citizens for Balanced Growth ("CBG') must regretfully object to DSRSD's recently issued Preliminary Water Service Analysis for the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan Annexation Project and the accompanying Programmatic Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin. The prior water service analyses for Eastern Dublin prepared by DSRSD contained numerous unsupported and untenable assumptions about future water supply. The current documents make a pretense of providing actual data to support their assertions, but they continue to fall far short of what is required under the settlement agreement governing their preparatiOn. It should be noted that most, if not all, of the actual data and analysis is contained in the Programmatic Water Service Analysis ("PWSA"). The Preliminary Water Service Analysis for the specific project in question purports to tier off of the PWSA, and contains little in the way of information or analysis. Consequently, this critique will focus on the deficiencies in the PWSA. Obviously, the project-specific water service analysis can only satisfy the settlement agreement if its supporting documentatiOn, and specifiCally the PWSA, does so. Thus, to the extent the PWSA is inadequate, the project-Specific water service analysis is also. The current analyses are inadequate in their discussions of both water quality and water reliability. The data and evidence presented do not sUpport the analyses' conclusions that there will be no significant impact from the proposed project. If they are to meet the requirements of the settlement agreement, they will need to be rewritten ~xtensiyel¥ to either provide ~de~uat¢ s.~)nort for thc. nnnchminn,~ nr tn rnvi,~n thn measures couldb-e adopted [o mmga[e mose ~mpac[s. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS A fundamental error in the PWSA's analysis of water quality impacts is its assumption that the only water quality impacts are those related to changes in the quality of water treatment. However, the PWSA itself acknowledges that standard water treatment technology has only minimal effect on many of the water quality' characteristics of the source water. (PWSA, pages 3,3 and 3-4.) Further, the PWSA also acknowledges (PWSA, page 3-2) that the' long-term source water quality depends largely on the quality of Delta water. HOwever, the PWSA doeS not include an adequate Law 0¢¢ ce o¢ S. Fla~hman Mr. Bruce Webb 9/14/01 Page 2 analysis of the potential effects on the quality of DSRSD's water sources, particularly in drought years, of adding the Eastern Dublin area to DSRSD's sen/ice area. The PWSA acknowledges that the concentration of contaminants in the DSRSD's Delta source waters varies both seasonally and from year to year. (PWSA, page 3-3.) However, the PWSA conclusorily states that the only contaminant whose concentration could be affected by the increase in demand due to annexation of Eastern Dublin is total dissolved solids (TDS). (PWSA, page 3-5.) This assumption is not adequately supported. The data provided in Appendix I shows that seasonal and year-to-year variation can result in as much as a 5-6 fold variation in both total dissolved solids (shown either directly or via conductivity; Figures 3-1 through 3-3) and THM-producing organic constituents (Figures 3-4 through 3-7). Unfortunately, the PWSA contains no corresponding data for groundwater water quality. Ail. it shows is figures for groundwater TDS in the 2000-2001 water year. Those figures indicate that the average groundwater TDS is 344 mg/I. While that figure is higher than the average TDS for treated surface water during that period, it is considerably lower that 400-500 mg/I concentrations shown for Delta water during drought periods. No figures are included for THM-producing organic contaminants in the groundwater, but groundwater would generally be expected to have Iow concentrations of such contaminants. During as drought, the additional demand due to annexation of Eastern Dublin would require Zone 7 and DSRSD to draw additional water supplies from the Delta in such years (e.g., withdrawals of water from SWSD, received as exchanges through the Delta). Based on the above, such additional Delta supplies would actually significantly decrease DSRSD water quality, both in terms of TDS and THM precursors. The PWSA does not provide sufficient data to determine the effects on other contaminants, so it is impossible, based on the data presented, to determine if there would also be significant increases in concentrations of other contaminants. During a drought, however levels of contaminants in Delta water would generally be expected increase due to the decreased dilution by slowpack runoff. Consequently, such levels would also rise in DSRSD water as a result of the East Dublin annexations. Overall, the PWSA does not contain data to support its conclusion that water quality will not be impacted by the East Dublin annexations. To the contrary, even the meager data contained in the PWSA tends to indicate that there will be significant water quality impacts. WATER RELIABILITY IMPACTS As with water quality, the data and analysis in the PWSA do not support its conclusion that there will be no significant water reliability impacts from the East Dublin annexation. To begin with, DSRSD's analysis assumes that its contract with Zone 7 satisfies the SA's requirement for a reliable water supply. This requirement is that DSRSD hold a water right, contract, or other entitlement that can be relied upon to provide such supplies for the foreseeable future, and at least until August 23, 2024. By the very terms of the DSRSD/Zone 7 contract, it does not. While the DSRSD/Zone 7 contract generally provides that Zone 7 will provide enough water to meet DSRSD's requested supply, the contract includes a provision (Paragraph 10) allowing Zone 7 to reduce its deliveries to DSRSD below those that DSRSD requests. Among the potential reasons for such delivery reductio.ns are inadequate capacity to meet peak demands (Paragraph 12) and inadequate supply to Mr. Bruce Webb 9/14/01 Page 3 meet Zone 7's demand (Paragraph 14). Consequently, the analysis must go beyond the DSRSD/Zone 7 contract to determine the extent of DSRSD's reliable supplies. DSRSD's does do some analysis of Zone 7 supplies. However, thatanalysis includes future supplies projected to be obtained by Zone 71 but which cannOt be relied upon. For example, the water contract with BBID, while potentially reneWable for up to thirty Years, is currentlY only binding through 2013. Beyond that time, BBID can withdraw from extensions of the contract. (BBID/Zone 7 Contract Amendment, ¶6.2.) the 2 TAF/yr minimum set by the contract, ¶1.1 .) It cannot therefore be considered a firm sustainable supply. The PWSA identifies other new supplies from tranSfer of entitlements from the Lost Hills and Belridge Water Districts. These transfers were made under the so-called Monterey Accords. As DSRSD is well aware, the Monterey Accords have been invalidated by the courts; Consequently, the status of these transfers is very much ,up in the air', and they cannot be considered as reliable long-term supplies for Zone 7. The PVVSA identifies 23 TAF of storage as coming from Lake Del Valle. This is pure speculation, particularly during a drought. If any Lake Del Valle storage is to be identified as firm supply during a drought, it must be based on analysis of historical data for rainfall in the Del Valle watershed. Likewise, DSRSD's analysis assumes that SWP deliveries to Zone 7 will average 75.6% of entitlements. This assumption is unwarranted, given the current status of the SWP. Further, this assumption would be particularly unwarranted dUring a worst-case drought scenario. As the PWSA concedes, SWP deliveries are likely to be reduced due to additional environmental requirements under the CalFed process and the California Endangered Species Act. Further, The PWSA must be revised to show realistic figures for both non-drOught and drought deliveries to Zone 7 from the SWP. While Zone 7 (and indirectly DSRSD) may be able to make up some deficiencies with water from SVVSD, such deliveries will be limited by the amount of storage Zone 7 has accumulated. Of course, under Zone 7's contract with SWSD, the Dougherty Valley has first call on much of that water. The PWSA provides no analysis of how much of the ~SWSD storage would have to be dedicated to meeting Dougherty Valley demand. Further, in a severe drOught, SWP storage north of the Delta is likely to be greatly reduced. The SWP may therefore be unable to deliver additional water through the Delta during a severe drought even if SWSD water were theoretically available. DSRSD also relies on recycled water to meet long-term demand, bUt its own analysis shows that bY 2020 it will be unable to fully meet demand for recycled water. The PWSA is also unrealistic in its projections of demand for Zone 7 water. The PWSA totally ignores potential future growth in demand for untreated water for agricultural use. Even Dublin's own General Plan shows future increases in such use. More importantly, the Livermore General Plan and the South Livermore Specific Plan call for major increases in agricultural water use, both in South Livermore and North Livermore.. Likewise, the Alameda County General Plan designates large portions of the East County area for agricUltural use. The PWSA totally ignores the demand for untreated Zone 7 water related to increased agricultural use (e.g., for vineyards). At a minimum, there is projected to be at least 16 TAF of additional demand for untreated water. The analysis must be revised to include this additional demand. Law Of"Fice of' S. P'ia~r'-~rnan 08/14/E~1 E;i:SSP p,~:] Mr. Bruce Webb 9/14/01 Page 4 Finally, even DSRSD's overly optimistic analysis shows that projected total Zone 7 demand will exceed projected total Zone 7 supply in a severe drought. When this happens, Zone 7 will be forced to curtail deliveries to its customers, including DSRSD. The PWSA argues that because DSRSD and the other agencies served by Zone 7 all have "demai~d management plans", there will be no shortfall in deliveries. However, demand management is often known by another name - rationing, it is precisely such rationing that the SA defines as a significant decrease in reliability. DSRSD cannot use the circular reasoning of invoking "demand management" to avoid implementing increased rationing. In short, the PWSA's analysis of water quality and reliability impacts from annexation of Eastern Dublin to DSRSD is severely flawed, it needs to be entirely rewritten before it can meet the specifications in the SA. CBG will be happy to meet with DSRSD to discuss its objections further and consider possible rectifications to the PWSA to meet these objections. Most sincerely, Stuart M. Flashman CC: City of. Dublin CftY of Livermore ,a~.Rossmann M. Weinberger City of Pleasanton Zone 7 Water Agency SUBBA$1N CASTLe. SU~eA CAYBtANO SUBBA$1N ~ SUBI~StN ! VASCO · - SUBBASIN ee SPRING % SUBBA$tN GROUNDWATER BASIN BOUNDARY SUBBASIN BOUNDARY MAIN BASIN BOUNDARY LAKE DEL VALLE THE LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY GROUNDVATER BASIN FIGURE 4.10 3000 0 3000 6000 ~ . ~ ~ ---I · - ALTAMONT SUBBASIN Source: DWR No.118-2, Figure 2 ,~ Responses to Letter 12: Stuart Flashman Response 12.1: The commentor asserts that the City ignored comments submitted on the Notice of Preparation and that the Draft SEIR does not fully identify, discuss or mitigate the Project's potential impacts. The commentor also states that a full EIR should have been prepared rather than a Supplemental EIR. The City received many letters in response to the Notice of Preparation. All the letters were considered and, together with the Initial Study, used to make a final determination on the type and scope of the EIR. The City conducted the review squarely within the analytic framework for subsequent/supplemental EIRs under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163. The commentor's impression of a "narrow focus" for the Supplemental EIR reflects the fact that the potential for significant impacts of the annexation/prezoning Project beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR are few and specific. This outcome is not surprising since the current Project is consistent with the land uses, density, development standards and patterns of the approved Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, which were in turn, analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. CEQA does not require unnecessary repetition of prior analyses; consistent with CEQA and the Guidelines mentioned above, the Initial Study and Draft SE!R focus on identifying significant environmental issues that were not addressed':i~':~e prior EIR. The impacts of the annexation/prezoning Project have been fully addressed, and the Draft Supplemental EIR was an appropriate means for addressing the impacts. The Eastern Dublin EIR together with the Supplemental EIR provide an adequate informational basis for the decisionmakers, responsible agencies and public to evaluate the environmental consequences of approving the Project. Response 12.2: Regarding the comment that this Project is different from the project assessed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, see Responses 8.6, 8.90a and 12.3. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed buildout pursuant to the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The Project actions such an annexation, prezoning and a Stage 1 Development Plan implement the buildout that has alreadv been analyzed. Therefore, the SEIR is the proper format of environmental review for the Project. Response 12.3: The commentator mistakenly notes that the DSEIR is a project- level document. The Eastern Dublin EIR was a program level EIR, and this DSEIR, which supplements that document, is also a program level document. (DSEIR p. 2-4). The Project is not individual development projects in the East Dublin area, but rather is the implementation of the Citv's long-range plans for development of the East Dublin area pursuant to the General Plan and Specific Plan. This programmatic approach ensures that the impacts of implementation of the City's long-range plans are examined. As noted in the DSEIR, "[a]dditional environmental review of individual development projects within the EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 195 October 2001 annexation and prezoning area may be required prior to the granting of additional land use entitlements." (Id.) This approach is consistent with the use of a Program EIR for subsequent implementing activities pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c). Furthermore, the commentator's concern relative to the City's general plan requirement that a specific plan be prepared for the Project area outside of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is addressed in Response 8.2. See also generally Responses to Letter 8. The DSEIR adequately analyzed the impacts of the annexation and prezoning Project and no additional analysis is required. Response 12.4: Regarding analysis of another EIR alternative that would address a "smart growth" development configuration for the project area, this alternative was not included in the SDEIR since it was not considered a feasible alternative to the proposed project. The "smart growth" concept is not a new planning idea and is employed in other portions of Dublin where major transit linkages exist, such as around the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and the East Dublin BART station. For the project site, no major transit services exist that could support the amount of development proposed. Finally, the commentor notes that the "smart growth" land use alternative would require densification of existing portions of Dublin, which would require major General Plan Amendments that are far beyond the scope of the proposed project. Response 12.5: Regarding the comment that land use, housing and population have not been adequately addressed in the DSEIR, refer to Responses 8.5, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 8.11, 8.19, 8.26, 8.27, 8.94, 8.95. The changes by Measure D are also adequately addressed in the Initial Study and DSEIR under the No Project (ECAP) Alternative. The DSEIR adequately analyzed !and use, housing and population impacts and no additional analysis is required. Response 12.6: With respect to irrigation with recycled water, please see Response 8.28. A supplemental report prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants in response to this comment finds that, based on communications with Zone 7, the nearest Zone 7 untreated water turnoUt is at the terminus of the South Bay Aqueduct in southeast Livermore and concludes that therefore it would be infeasible to bring water from this source for agricultural purposes. Similarly, the supplemental report concludes that potential yields from the peripheral groundwater basin (including slant-drilled wells) are too limited to be feasible for agricultural purposes. Response 12.7: The commentor states that the DSEIR concludes that air quality and traffic impacts beyond those identified in the 1992 EIR cannot be further mitigated to a significant extent, and feels that the DSEIR puts off consideration EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 196 October 2001 of mitigation measures intended to reduce use of single occupancy vehicles (SOV) and encourage use of carpools and public transit to the Stage 2 Development Plan. Further mitigations of Project traffic impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR are, in fact, included in the DSEIR, including ten supplemental mitigation measures listed on pages 3.6-13 to 3.6-20. These mitigation measures are identified in the DSEIR to the best extent possible to mitigate traffic impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEIR identified significant cumulative impacts at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 6, p. 3.6- 15), Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection (Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 7, p. 3.6-16) and Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 8, p. 3.6-17), but found that physical improvements, beyond those identified, to widen these intersections to achieve LOS D were not feasible due both to safety concerns of additional turn lanes and the physical constraints of the intersections.. In regards to Project traffic impacts on the freeway system in the vicinity of the Project, Supplemental Impact TRAFFIC 11, p. 3.6-21, does conclude that certain freeway segments on 1-580 and 1-680 would operate at unacceptable levels of service at cumulative buildout with the Project. The DSEIR noted that Mitigation Measure 3.3/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR remains applicable to this impact but, even with this mitigation, the impact remains a significant cumulative impact, and a statement of overriding considerations will need to be adopted. The commentor also lists a number of measures to mitigate traffic and air quality impacts, including establishing a transit assessment district for the project area to fund BART shuttle service and other public transit improvements, implementing fee-based employee parking programs, congestion pricing on residential and commercial parking, HOV lanes on major City arterials and on 1- 580. The Eastern Dublin EIR found the GPA/SP project would create a need for expansion of existing transit systems. (Impact 3.3/0.) Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0 [coordinate with LAVTA, the transit server, to provide transit service within .25 mile of 95% of population], 15.1 [provide transit service at LAVTA's frequency standards], 15.2 [contribute towards costs of transit service extensions which is done through the Tri-Vallev Transportation Development Fee] and 15.3 [City to coordinate with BART and LAVTA to provide feeder bus service to the BART station] were included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to mitigate the impact to a level of insignificance. These mitigation measures remain applicable to the Project. HOV lanes on City arterials would not be feasible, as this measure would impede traffic flow on City streets and deteriorate intersection levels of service to unacceptable levels during the peak periods due to the limited lane EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 197 October 2001 capacity available on surface streets. The other suggestions in the comment are noted. In order to reduce cumulative traffic impacts and improve levels of service at City intersections and on the freeway system in the vicinity of the Project, the DSEIR identified transportation measures that could be required as part of the Stage 2 Development Plans, such as the measures suggested by the commentor. The transportation measures identified in the DSEIR (comprehensive transportation demand program, ride-sharing, free or discounted BART or other transit passes for employees, vanpools, staggered work hours, and other trip reduction programs specified in Chapter 5 of ACCMA's Congestion Management Program) and other similar measures will be required as part the Stage 2 Development Plans for projects, as appropriate to the project. In addition, the DSEIR specifies implementing the 1-580 Smart Corridor approach (currently under Phase 1 design) to include adaptive signal timing, transit priority systems, incident management, and freeway ramp metering. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure 3.3/2.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, which is applicable to the Project, requires participation in a Transportation Systems Management program, which would include strategies to reduce single-occupant vehicles. Moreover, as part of Mitigation Measures 3.3/3.0 and 3.3/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Project shall contribute a proportionate share to the construction of auxiliary lanes on 1-580 by paying a regional fee, which the City has implemented through Category 3 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, followed by the TVTD Fee (see pages 3.6-6 and 3.6-22). Both the Category 3 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee 'and the TVTD Fee (which has substituted for the Category 3 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee) include installing HOV lanes on 1-580 from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road, as specified in the TVTD Fee Strategic Expenditure Plan. There are no other feasible mitigation measures that would further reduce the impact to a level of insignificance on 1-580, 1-680, and at the intersections of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard, and Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard. No further response is required because the commentor does not identifv an additional impact to intersections, roadway segments or freeways. Response 12.8: See Response 12.7, above. Response 12.9: Please refer to Responses 8.40 (General Comment), 8.48, 8.50 and 8.52. The SEIR includes survey results for which final survey reports have been completed and made available to the City. The mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the SEIR establish specific mitigation requirements and EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 198 October 2001 standards (SM-BIO-2 - 45), which will also be applied through the Resource Management Plan (SM-BIO-l). Response 12.10: Please refer to Responses 8.50 and 8.52. As explained in those responses, SM-BIO-1 requires that the Resource Management Plan apply the specific mitigation requirements and standards in the SEIR (SM-BIO-2 - 45), thereby ensuring adequate mitigation to render the potential impacts less than significant. Response 12.11: The mitigation measures purposefully use either "should" or "shall," with "should" intended to be permissive, and "shall" intended to be mandatory. Response 12.12: Where a mitigation measure (usually avoidance of habitat) is conditioned with the phrase "if feasible," alternate mitigation is also provided to ensure that the impact will be mitigated if the first measure is infeasible. Response 12.13: Please refer to Response 8.65. In addition, SM-BIO-1 requires that as part of the Resource Management Plan, "the long-term viability and sustainability of the natural resources on the preserved and mitigated lands shall be protected and managed in perpetuity." SM-BIO-7 requires the fill of wetlands or other waters to be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio - the doubling in size of lost aquatic features ensures more than full replacement of biological habitat values. Similarly, SM-BIO-15 requires replacement of red-legged frog habitat at a 3:1 ratio. Response 12.14: The DSEIR does not rely on the PWSA. Also, please see Responses 8.93, 8.98, and 8.99. Response 12.15: Long term planning for utility service is the responsibility of DSRSD and PG&E (or state regulators) and is beyond the scope of this DSEIR. The "will serve" letter is the principal control imposed as mitigation because the City is not responsible for providing utility service. The City must rely on DSRSD and PG&E fulfilling their responsibilities to provide adequate utility service to their customers. Because of the utility providers' obligations to provide utility service, the City must also presume that the "other half" of the project will eventually be completed. Accordingly, the analvsis suggested by the comment is unnecessary. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 199 October 2001 III. Clarifications and Staff-Initiated Modifications to the DEIR REVISIONS TO DSEIR In the course of preparing responses to comments on the DSEIR, staff identified 'the. following revisions to the text and/or figures of the DSEIR. The revisions reflect corrections and other minor modifications as set forth in the responses. Other modifications are provided by staff to clarify text or analysis, or to make corrections or editorial changes. Staff has carefully reviewed all of the modifications contained in the responses in Section II, and listed in Section III, to determine if anv of the responses or modifications constitute significant new information pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. Staff concludes that none of the responses or modifications constitute new information under CEQA and no recirculation of the DSEIR is required. Additions are indicated by double underscoreing. 1. Section 2.2, Project Objectives (Page 2-2). Revise the last objective to read as follows: "Implementing the City's long standing objectives for Eastern Dublin as set forth in the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin EIR." 2. Section 2.2, Project Objectives (Page 2-2). Add the following objective: "Implementing the City's long term programmatic planning approach for Eastern Dublin as set-forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR." 3. Section 2.3, Update of Prior Environmental Documentation (Page 2-2). Revise the last sentence of the third paragraph to read as follows: "The City has implemented the mitigation monitoring program, adopted by the Council (Resolution No. 53-93 and' Resolution No. 123-96), as interpreted by the Court's Memorandum of Decision (copies of Resolution No. 123-96 and the Court's Memorandum of Decision may be obtained from the Ci~ Clerk)." 4. Section 2.6, Regulatory Setting (Page 2-10). The following language should be added to the second paragraph under Regulatory Setting on Page 2-10 after the sentence that states "The effect of Measure D on the Project is discussed in the Initial Study under Land Use and Planning": The Initial Study notes that Measure D restricts development in the County, but it does not limit development by cities that are within the County, nor does it create or impose any urban growth boundaries on those cities. Thus, Mea~.;'.~re D will not restrict development of the land after it is annexed to the Ci .ty. tn addition, Measure D is not among the factors that a LAFCO should consider in evaluating the annexation request. The new LAFCO laws allow a LAFCO EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 200 October 2001 to consider growth goals and policies established by elected officials only. The legislature deleted proposed language that would have allowed a LAFCO to also consider growth boundaries adopted by the voters. 5. Section 2.7, Future Actions Using This Document (2-12). The following language is added at the beginning of the first paragraph: The Eastern Dublin EIR and this Supplemental EIR provide the foundational CEOA compliance documentation upon which this City's and other agencies consideration of certain actions and land use permits and other approvals shall be based. Likewise, the Eastern Dublin EIR and this Supplemental EIR provide environmental information and evaluation needed by responsible agencies acting on permits relative to the Project and Project Area. 6. Table 3.1-1, Williamson Act Contracts: Ownership and Contract Status Project Area (Page 3.1-2). Table 3.1-1 is revised as follows: TABLE 3~1-1 WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACTS: OWNERSHIP AND CONTRACT STATUS PROJECT AREA Assessor's Non-Renew Non-Renew Number Owner Acres Year Expiration 985-0007-002-14 Fallon Enterprises 313.8 1996 2-20-06 905-0002-003 Braddock and 'Logan 160.9 1999 3-29-09 985-0006-010 FATCo-Jordan 173.3 1989 1-01-99 985-0006-009 Ranch 15.8 1989 1-01-99 905-0002-002 FATCo-Jordan 124.2 2000 1-01-10 905-0002-001-01 Ranch 37.8 2000 1-01-10 Croak Croak Source: Eastern Dublin GPA/SP EIR; McKay & Somps, 2000. 7. Section 3.1, Agricultural Resources (Page 3.1-5). The fourth sentence of the first paragraph is revised to read as follows: Conversation to planned urban uses sooner rather than later is not a significant change that would substantially increase the identified impacts of conversion. The Eastern Dublin EIR assessed the conversion of agriculture to urban uses. The fact that the conversion may occur sooner as a result of cancellation of the Williamson Act contracts does not change the analysis or result in nay increased or more significant impacts than those assessed in that EIR. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 201 October 2001 8. Section 3.3, Biological Resources (Page 3.3-11,-12). The last paragraph that carries over from p. 3.3-11 to 3.3-12 is revised to read as follows: This chapter identifies potential impacts to special-status plant and animal species and their habitat, and identifies specific mitigation measures to address such impacts. Several species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA or classified as protected by CDFG are or may be present in the Project area. Depending on the circumstances, implementation of the Project and future development also may require permits from the state and federal agencies which implement the ESA, CESA and other resource protection laws, including laws to protect aquatic habitat areas. The City recognizes that those state and federal agencies may require mitigation measures in those permits, and that such mitigation measures could exceed the level of mitigation required by the City in this supplement. It .is recognized that all future development will have to comply with the ESA, CESA and CWA and other resource laws. When future development is planned, any proponent who wishes to develop the Project area will identify which other permits are necessary if any All future development will comply with all mitigation requirements contained in any applicable permits. 9. Section 3.6, Traffic (Page 3.6-10). The last sentence of the second paragraph under "Future Baseline Conditions/Dublin Model and Tri Valley Model," is revised to read as follows: "None of the projects described below are funded by Measure B (a ballot measure approved by the voters of Alameda County to provide increased funding for certain road improvement projects in Alameda County). 10. Section 3.7, Electricity, and Natural Gas (Page 3.7-10). The next to the last sentence in the first full paragraph from the bottom of the page is revised to read as follows: "The CPUC released the EIR for the Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project on December 26, 2000 (copies may be obtained from the City Clerk.. 11. Section 4.0, Alternatives (Page 4-8). The parenthetical reference to Measure D in the second paragraph is revised to read as follows: "(See Text of Measure D [amending Policy 1]; a copy of Measure D may be obtained from the City Clerk.)" Biological Resources - References Revisions Following the release of the Draft East Dublin Supplemental EIR (EDSEIR), it was noted that that several of references needed to be deleted, as their corresponding information was no longer referenced in the document or the documents were incomplete. The following is a li~ of references that should be deleted and not included in the Final EDSEIR: EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 202 October 2001 The following reports were not available prior to printing and are therefore deleted from the text of the document: 1. ]ennings, M. and G. Flohr. 2001. California tiger Salamander Protocol-level Surveys for the Jordan Ranch. 2. Jennings, M., and G. Flohr. 2001. California red-legged Frog Protocol Level Surveys for the ,fordan Ranch. 3. Zander Associates. 2000. Wetland Delineation .for the Jordan Ranch. PUBLICATIONS Abrams, L.R., 1923-1960. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Washington, Oregon and California. Vol. 4 by R. Ferris. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 4 vols. Arnold, R., 1997. Dry Season Status surveys for Endangered Tadpole and Fairy Shrimp Taxa at the Pacific Commons Project Site and Stevenson Mitigation Site in Fremont (Alameda County), California. Report prepared for Catellus Development Corporation and Entrix, Inc., Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd., Pleasant Hill, California. Balestreri, A., 1981. Status of the San Joaquin kit fox at Camp Roberts, California. Contract No. DAK-F03-81-M-C736; California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. 30pp. Caires, T., D. Dawn, D. DiNunzio, A. Harris, N. Kogut, M. Kutelek, S. H. Ladd, J. Stanziano, M. Stickler, and A. Webber, 1993. Preliminary Survey of Biodiversity in the Warm Springs Seasonal Wetland, Alameda County, California. Prepared for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Ellis, S. 1987. Alameda Whipsnake: Five-year status report. California Department of Fish and Game. 6pp. Fowler, C.H., and R.T. Golightly Jr., 1994. Fisher and Marten Survey Techniques on the Tahoe National Forest. Report for U.S. Forest Service. Contract No. PSW- 90-0034CA. 64 pp. Hall, Jr., F., 1983. Status of the San Joaquin Kit Fox at Bethany Wind Turbine Generating Project Site, Alameda, California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. H.T. Harvey and Associates, 1993. Dublin Ranch: Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile Surveys. 16 pp. EDPO Supplemental EIR Response to Public Agency Comments City of Dublin Page 203 October 2001