DUBLIN CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 2013
SCH #2012062009
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 1
1. Introduction 1-1 Purpose ...... 1-1 Environmental Review Process ...... 1-1 Report Organization ...... 1-3 Impact Terminology ...... 1-7
2. Project Description 2-1 Background and Overview of the Proposed Project ...... 2-1 2.2 Regional Location ...... 2-2 2.3 Project Location ...... 2-2 Existing Setting/Baseline Conditions ...... 2-2 2.4 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning ...... 2-5 2.5 Purpose and Objectives ...... 2-5 2.6 Proposed Land Uses and Development Plan ...... 2-7 2.7 Site Access and Circulation ...... 2-11 2.8 Infrastructure Improvements...... 2-13 2.9 Construction Activities ...... 2-15 2.10 Project Phasing ...... 2-16 2.11 Requested Actions, Entitlements, and Required Approvals ...... 2-17
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ...... 3-3 3.2 Air Quality ...... 3-15 3.3 Biological Resources ...... 3-45 3.4 Cultural Resources ...... 3-83 3.5 Geology and Soils ...... 3-95 3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ...... 3-111 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 3-127 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 3-140 3.9 Land Use and Planning ...... 3-160 3.10 Noise...... 3-168
Page ii
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Table of Contents
3.11 Public Services and Utilities ...... 3-186 3.12 Transportation & Circulation ...... 3-210
4. CEQA Considerations 4-1 4.1 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects ...... 4-1 4.2 Significant Irreversible Changes ...... 4-2 4.3 Growth Inducement ...... 4-2 4.4 Energy Conservation ...... 4-5 4.5 Effects Found Not to be Significant ...... 4-8 4.6 Cumulative Impacts ...... 4-9 4.7 Project Alternatives ...... 4-20
5. References 5-1 References Cited ...... 5-1 List of Preparers ...... 5-4
Appendices
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Responses to the NOP Appendix B: Air Quality – Air Quality Modeling Appendix C: Biological Resources - Biological Technical Report Appendix D: Geology and Soils - Preliminary Geotechnical Analysis and Fault Rupture Investigation Appendix E: Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Appendix F: Hydrology and Water Quality - Hydrology Report Appendix G: Noise - Noise Modeling Appendix H: Public Services and Utilities - Water Supply Assessment (WSA) Appendix I: Transportation and Circulation - Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Appendices
Page iii
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Table of Contents
List of Figures
Note – Figures are located at the end of each respective section in the EIR.
Figure 2-1: Regional Location
Figure 2-2: Project Vicinity
Figures 2-3a: Photographs of the Project Site
Figure 2-3b: Photographs of the Project Site
Figure 2-4: Surrounding Land Uses
Figure 2-5: General Plan Land Use Designations
Figure 2-6: Current Zoning
Figure 2-7: Conceptual Land Use Plan
Figure 2-8: Illustrative Site Plan
Figure 2-9: Proposed Backbone Infrastructure Street Network
Figure 2-10: FEMA Flood Zones
Figure 2-11: Conceptual Stormwater Drainage and Detention System
Figure 2-12: Conceptual Sanitary Sewer System
Figure 2-13: Conceptual Potable Water System
Figure 2-14: Conceptual Recycled Water System
Figure 2-15: Conceptual Phasing Map
Figures 3.1-1a: Visual Simulations
Figure 3.1-1b: Visual Simulations
Figure 3.1-1c: Visual Simulations
Figure 3.3-1: Existing Biological Habitats
Figure 3.3-2: Preliminary Wetlands and Other Waters
Figure 3.5-1: Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for the Pleasanton Fault
Page iv
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Table of Contents
Figure 3.7-1: Sound Levels and Human Response
Figure 3.8-1: Hydrologic Features
Figure 3.8-2: Existing Drainage
Figure 3.8-3: Proposed Drainage
Figure 3.10-1: Sound Levels and Human Response
Figure 3.12-1: Site Location and Off-Site Study Intersections
Figure 3.12-2: Future Project Study Intersections
Figure 3.12-3: Existing Bicycle Facilities
Figure 3.12-4: Existing Transit Routes
Figure 3.12-5a and 3.12-5b: Existing Lane Configurations
Figure 3.12-6a and 3.12-6b: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Figure 3.12-7: Project Trip Distribution
Figure 3.12-8a and 3.12-8b: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Figure 3.12-9a and 3.12-9b: 2020 Background No Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Figure 3.12-10a and 3.12-10b: 2020 Background No Project Lane Configurations
Figure 3.12-11: 2020 Background No Project Roadway Configurations
Figure 3.12-12a and 3.12-12b: 2020 Background Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Figure 3.12-13a and 3.12-13b: 2035 Cumulative No Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Figure 3.12-14a and 3.12-14b: 2035 Cumulative No Project Lane Configurations
Figure 3.12-15: 2035 Cumulative No Project Roadway Improvements
Figure 3.12-16a and 3.12-16b: 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Figure 3.12-17: 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Lane Configurations
Page v
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table S-1: Executive Summary of Project Impacts ...... 3
Table 2-1: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Land Use Breakdown ...... 2-7
Table 2-2: Phasing Plan ...... 2-17
Table 3.2-1 Local Ambient Air Quality Levels ...... 3-17
Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 3-22
Table 3.2-3: BAAQMD Plan Level Thresholds ...... 3-25
1 Table 3.2-4: San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status ...... 3-26
Table 3.2-5: San Francisco Bay Air Quality Management District Construction Control Measures ...... 3-28
Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational Emissions ...... 3-33
Table 3.2-7: Project Buildout Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ...... 3-35
Table 3.2-8: Project Consistency With Applicable 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan Control Measures ...... 3-41
Table 3.2-9: Population and Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary ...... 3-42
Table 3.3-1. Habitats and Vegetation Communities within the Project Area ...... 3-45
Table 3.6-1: BAAQMD GHG Thresholds ...... 3-119
Table 3.6-2: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 3-122
Table 3.6-3: Project Consistency with the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan ...... 3-124
Table 3.6-4: Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measures ...... 3-126
Table 3.9-1: City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis ...... 3-166
Table 3.10-1: Noise Descriptors...... 3-169
Table 3.10-2: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ...... 3-170
Table 3.10-3: City of Dublin – Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments ...... 3-173
Table 3.10-4: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ...... 3-178
Page vi
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Table of Contents
Table 3.10-5: Existing and Proposed Noise Scenarios...... 3-181
Table 3.11-1: Optimum Capacity of Schools Serving the Project Area ...... 3-187
Table 3.11-2: DSRSD Current and Projected Water Meter Connections by Customer Type (Potable and Reclaimed) ...... 3-190
Table 3.11-3: Enrollment Capacity of Schools Serving the Project Area ...... 3-199
Table 3.11-4: Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation Rates ...... 3-209
Table 3.12-1: LAVTA Service Summary ...... 3-216
Table 3.12-2: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria ...... 3-218
Table 3.12-3: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria ...... 3-218
Table 3.12-4: Freeway LOS Criteria ...... 3-219
Table 3.12-5: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ...... 3-220
Table 3.12-6: Existing Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis ...... 3-222
Table 3.12-7: Proposed Project Trip Generation Rates ...... 3-226
Table 3.12-8: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ...... 3-239
Table 3.12-9: 2020 Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ...... 3-242
Table 3.12-10: 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ...... 3-246
Table 3.12-11: Existing Plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis ...... 3-249
Table 3.12-12: 2020 Background Plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis ...... 3-250
Table 3.12-13: 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis ...... 3-251
Table 3.12-14: 2012 No Project and Plus Project AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service ...... 3-255
Table 3.12-15: 2012 No Project and Plus Project PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service ...... 3-256
Table 3.12-16: 2020 No Project and Plus Project AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service ...... 3-257
Table 3.12-17: 2020 No Project and Plus Project PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service ...... 3-259
Page vii
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Table of Contents
Table 3.12-18: 2035 No Project and Plus Project AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service ...... 3-261
Table 3.12-19: 2035 No Project and Plus Project PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service ...... 3-263
Table 4-1: Cumulative Noise Scenarios ...... 4-17
Table 4 -2: Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project ...... 4-30
Page viii
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank
Page ix
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Executive Summary
This summary provides a brief description of the proposed project, known areas of concern, project alternatives, and all potentially significant impacts identified during the course of this environmental analysis. This summary is intended as an overview and should be used in conjunction with a thorough reading of the EIR. The text of this report, including figures, tables and appendices, serves as the basis for this summary.
Summary of Proposed Project
Project Location The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (hereinafter “Specific Plan” and/or “proposed project”) is a plan for the orderly development of approximately 189 acres (hereinafter “project area”) in the City of Dublin. The project area is located on a portion of the 2,485-acre Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks) in the center of Dublin, north of Interstate 680 and Dublin Boulevard.
Project Overview and Background The Specific Plan is the result of a nearly eleven-year effort by the U.S. Army, City of Dublin, community members, and Dublin Crossing Ventures (“project applicant”) to create a plan for development of the 189-acre Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Area (“Specific Plan Area”).
The Specific Plan process was conceived in 2001 by the Dublin City Council to initiate a comprehensive General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan program over a 172-acre portion of the 2,485-acre Camp Parks area, a 8.5-acre NASA parcel, and (at a later date) an 8.7-acre Alameda County Surplus Property Authority parcel. In 2002, the US Army formally requested an amendment to the General Plan to change the land use designation from “Public Lands” to a combination of commercial retail, office space, residential, and open space uses. On April 15, 2003, the Dublin City Council authorized the commencement of a General Plan Amendment study.
The General Plan Amendment study did not authorize a change in the land use designation on the property but permitted the City staff, in partnership with the U.S. Army, to engage the involvement of the community in several strategic visioning process meetings. These meetings were used to create a cohesive vision for future development of the site. Based on the information provided from several community meetings, five conceptual land use plans, each illustrating different land use scenarios, were formulated. The City Council held a series of meetings in 2005 to review the five conceptual land use alternatives. Input from these meetings served as the basis for selecting a preferred land use plan for future development of the proposed project.
In 2004, the US Army developed a master plan summary report describing the proposed future development and revitalization of the portion of the project area within Camp Parks.
Page ES 1
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on Master Planned Redevelopment at Camp Parks (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks 2009) was the federal environmental document prepared to analyze the environmental consequences of implementation of the master plan for redevelopment of Camp Parks. The FEIS included consideration of the proposed project. In December 2007 the Army prepared a “Notice of Availability” to solicit a master developer for the Camp Parks Real Property Exchange Area. The Exchange Agreement provides the Army with an opportunity to modernize facilities through the provision of 180-acres of Army owned property (including the NASA parcel but excluding the 8.7-acre Alameda County Surplus Property Authority parcel), to a developer in exchange for Camp Parks facilities improvements. The Exchange Agreement is not a part of the Specific Plan but was necessary to facilitate acquisition of the property by the project developer. In October 2008, the Army announced the selection of the master developer for the Project. In April 2011, the developer and the U.S. Army officially finalized the Exchange Agreement, authorizing the developer to commence the Specific Plan process.
Project Description The Specific Plan addresses the future development of the project area, which is comprised of residential, commercial, parks and open space, and an elementary school. Specifically, the proposed project includes up to 1,995 residential units (not including secondary units); up to 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, 30 net-acre community park; five acres of neighborhood parks; and provisional space for a 12-acre elementary school site.
Summary of Environmental Impacts All impacts identified in the subsequent environmental analysis are summarized in Table S- 1: Executive Summary of Project Impacts, which identifies impacts by each technical section.
Summary of Cumulative Considerable Effects The proposed project would result in a significant cumulative impact from short-term construction air quality emissions and long-term operational air quality emissions, as well as a significant cumulative impact to the Southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 Eastbound On- Ramp and the Southbound Tassajara Road to I-580 Westbound On-Ramp.
Summary of Alternatives CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe and evaluate alternatives to the project that could eliminate significant adverse project impacts or reduce them to a less-than-significant level. The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR in the Chapter 4 - CEQA Considerations.
Alternative #1 – No Project Alternative;
Alternative #2 – Reduced Development Alternative (Single Family Residential with 250,000 square feet of Commercial uses); and
Page ES-2
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Alternative #3 – Alternate Use Alternative (Residential and Regional Commercial).
Page ES 3
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Table S-1: Executive Summary of Project Impacts
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Impact 3.1-1: Portions of the project Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant area may be partially visible from I- 580, which is eligible as a State Scenic Highway and locally designated scenic routes. However, because the proposed project is an infill development, is visually consistent with the surrounding land uses, and would be required to comply with development standards and design guidelines as described in the Specific Plan, no scenic resources would be adversely affected as a result of implementation of the proposed project.
Impact 3.1-2: Implementation of the Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary Less than Significant proposed project would alter the existing aesthetic character of the project area by redeveloping the project area with residential, commercial and mixed-use development. However, the project area has been partially disturbed as part of its use as the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. In addition, the proposed Specific Plan includes development standards and
Page ES-3
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance design guidelines that are designed to create a more visually appealing environment within the project area.
Impact 3.1-3: The project area and Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant its surroundings are currently developed with some buildings and site improvements that were part of the Camp Parks facility, which generate daytime and night-time light and glare. Additional sources of daytime glare and nighttime lighting would be introduced through buildout of the Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan includes development standards and design guidelines to reduce light and glare.
Air Quality Impact 3.2-1: The proposed project Significant MM 3.2-1a: Implement Short-term Construction Significant Unavoidable would result in future short-term air Best Management Practices. Prior to issuance of any quality impacts associated with Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the construction activities, including Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, grading, operation of equipment, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the and demolition of existing structures following basic construction mitigation measures within the project area. However, shall be implemented for all construction projects: future development within the . All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, project area would be required to staging areas, soil piles, graded areas and comply with the BAAQMD Control unpaved access roads) shall be watered Measures for particulate matter and two times per day. equipment emissions during
Page ES-4
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance construction activities. . All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. . All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. . All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. . All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. . Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. . All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. . A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead
Page ES-5
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM 3.2-1b: Implement Additional Short-term Construction Best Management Practices. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the following additional construction mitigation measures shall be implemented for all construction projects: . All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. . Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. . Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast- germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. . All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. . Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips,
Page ES-6
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance mulch, or gravel. . Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. . The applicant shall reduce exhaust emissions during construction and, in particular, emissions of NOX, when using construction equipment and vehicles by implementing the following measures:
o Require the use of diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) that meet EPA 2007 model year NOX emissions requirements
o The following note shall be included on all grading plans: During project construction, all internal combustion engines/construction, equipment operating on the project area shall meet EPA-Certified Tier 3 emissions standards, or higher according to the following: - January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014: Off- road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards.
Page ES-7
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Alternatively, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. - Post-January 1, 2015: Off- road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. Alternatively, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as
Page ES-8
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance defined by CARB regulations.
o The contractor and applicant, if the applicant’s equipment is used, shall maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned and regularly serviced to minimize exhaust emissions.
o Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when available. This measure would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators.
o Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. . Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). . Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM.
Impact 3.2-2: The proposed project Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant would result in the demolition and
Page ES-9
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance removal of structures within the project area which may contain asbestos and/or lead based paint (LBPs). Impact 3.2-3: Buildout of the Significant No mitigation measures would reduce this impact to Significant and Unavoidable proposed project would result in a less than significant level. regional air emissions from operational sources in exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds.
Impact 3.2-4: Carbon monoxide Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant concentrations are low in the project vicinity and the proposed project would result in carbon monoxide concentrations that would be well below the State and Federal standards.
Impact 3.2-5: The proposed project Significant MM 3.2-5: Locate Sensitive Receptors Away from Significant Unavoidable could result in exposure of sensitive Existing Toxic Air Contaminants and Implement land uses in excess of applicable HVAC systems for Sensitive Receptors in the vicinity Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) of BAAQMD permitted Toxic Air Contaminant standards. sources. Prior to building permit issuance, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Dublin Community Development Director that the following mitigation measures will be implemented in order to reduce the potential impact from TAC exposure due to the potential siting of residential or other sensitive receptor development within 1,000 feet of a BAAQMD identified stationary TAC source:
All new development projects that include
Page ES-10
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance sensitive receptors shall be located 1,000 feet away from existing TAC sources, unless a project-specific evaluation of human health risks is conducted and the results of the evaluation determine that no significant impact would occur.. Sensitive receptors include residential, schools, day care facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term residency.
Mixed-use, residential, or school development within 1,000 feet of a BAAQMD permitted TAC source shall implement sealed HVAC systems for all multi-family development. The sealed air system shall be certified to achieve a performance effectiveness, For example, to remove at least 85 percent of ambient PM2.5 concentrations from indoor areas. Air intakes shall be located away from emission sources areas, such as major roadways and stationary sources. Impact 3.2-6: The proposed project Potentially Significant MM 3.2-6: Locate Commercial Development That Less than Significant would not result in increased Emits Toxic Air Contaminants Away From Sensitive generation of Toxic Air Receptors and Consult with the BAAQMD to Contaminants (TACs) or exposure identify Toxic Air Contaminant Sources and of sensitive land uses in excess of Determine the Need for Health Risk Assessment. applicable TAC standards. Prior to building permit issuance, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Dublin Community Development Director that the following measure is implemented to reduce the potential for new TAC sources to be sited within 1,000 feet of residential or other existing or planned
Page ES-11
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance sensitive receptors:
All new commercial development projects that have the potential to emit TACs shall be located 1,000 feet away from existing and proposed development used by sensitive receptors, unless a project-specific evaluation of human health risks is conducted and the results of the evaluation determine that no significant impact would occur. Sensitive receptors include residential, schools, day care facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term residency. The determination of development projects that have the potential for TAC emissions and adequate distances from sensitive receptors are identified in the California Air Resources Board’s ―Air Quality and Land Use Handbook—A Community Health Perspective (April 2005).
Page ES-12
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Impact 3.2-7: The proposed project Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant would allow some uses which generate airborne odors, which could be considered offensive. However, limited exposure and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements will ensure that any impact is less than significant.
Impact 3.2-8: The proposed project Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant is consistent with population growth assumptions in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, is anticipated to result in reduced Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) compared to population growth, and is consistent with several of the Clean Air Plan’s Control Measures.
Biological Resources
Impact 3.3-1: Based on a preliminary Potentially Significant MM 3.3-1: Prepare and Implement a Wetland Less than Significant wetland delineation of the project Mitigation Plan. Prior to commencing any activities area, the proposed project could that would impact wetlands or waters habitat, the result in the fill of wetlands. project applicant shall obtain all required public agency permits and shall prepare a wetland mitigation plan that ensures no-net-loss of wetland and waters habitat and is approved by the City and applicable resource agencies. The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization, and compensation for wetland
Page ES-13
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided, or project design measures, such as free-span bridges. Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetland or waters. The final mitigation ratios (the amount of wetlands and waters created or preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource agencies and the City. The wetland mitigation and monitoring plan shall include the following: . Descriptions of the wetland types, and their expected functions and values; . Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period to be determined by the resource agencies; . Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created or restored; . An implementation schedule showing that construction or preservation of mitigation areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction; and . A description of legal protection measures for the preserved wetlands (i.e., dedication of fee title, conservation easement, and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank).
Page ES-14
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Impact 3.3-2: A query of the CNPS Potentially Significant MM 3.3-2a: Conduct a Floristic Survey and Consult Less than Significant lists 34 plant species that occur with CDFG and USFWS if State or Federally Listed within the project vicinity. Based on Plants are Found and Comply with Incidental Take habitats within the project area Permits. The project applicant shall retain a qualified during the March 2012 survey by botanist to conduct rare plant surveys within the Cardno Entrix, the list was reduced construction zone for Congdon’s tarplant or other to four special status plant species species with potential habitat within the project area that have the potential to be located during the appropriate time of year in accordance within the project area including: with agency protocols. . These plant surveys shall be Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia conducted in accordance with the 2009 California parryi ssp. Congdonii), Palmate- Department of Fish and Game and United States bracted bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus Fish and Wildlife Service rare plant survey protocols. palmatus), Northern California Black The results of the survey shall be summarized in a Walnut (Juglans hindsii), and Hairless report and submitted to CDFW and USFWS, and popcorn-flower (Plagiobothrys would be valid for two years. If no special-status glaber). Out of these four special plants are located during the surveys, no further status plant species, the only special mitigation measures would be required. If any status plant species that has the federal or state plant species are found during the potential to be located within the rare plant surveys, the project applicant shall consult project area is the Congdon’s with the CDFW and USFWS to obtain incidental tarplant, which was documented as take permits under Section 2081 of the CESA and occurring within the project area either Section 7 or 10 of the FESA. Consultation based on floristic surveys conducted with USFWS under Section 7 of the FESA could between 1995 and 2000. occur as part of the CWA Section 404 permit process as part of the wetland mitigation, described under Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-1. MM 3.3-2b: Develop and Implement Mitigation in Consultation with CDFW if Other Special Status Plant Species Are Found. If special-status plant species (excluding federal or state listed plants) are found during the rare plant surveys, the project applicant shall notify the CDFW. A mitigation plan shall be developed in consultation with and
Page ES-15
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance approved by the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact any special status plants. The mitigation plan shall include measures such as transplanting plants, collecting seed or clippings and replanting species in an on-site location, if feasible or other location approved by Department of Fish and Game.
Impact 3.3-3: Several California Potentially Significant MM 3.3-3a: Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Less than Significant burrowing owl pairs have been Impact Assessment. The project applicant shall documented within the project area, retain a qualified biologist to conduct a California including during the winter and burrowing owls surveys and impact assessment breeding season. Due to the following the 2012 California Department of Fish security fencing that surrounds and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Camp Parks, low human use, and Mitigation (CDFW 2012) or as updated at the time maintenance activities, the project of the implementation of the proposed project. The area provides suitable breeding, report(s) shall be submitted to California foraging and wintering habitat for Department of Fish and Game as indicated in the the California burrowing owl. CDFW 2012 Staff Report. If it is determined that Implementation of the proposed project activities may result in impacts to nesting, project could result in the occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing displacement of burrowing owls owl habitat, the project applicant shall consult with during construction activities, and the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan once completed the proposed such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows, project could result in the removal and burrowing owl impacted are replaced. The of suitable burrowing owl (breeding mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements and wintering) habitat. Permanent set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff loss of occupied burrow(s) and Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. habitat. MM 3.3-3b: Implement Avoidance Measures. If California burrowing owl are located within the project area and direct impacts can be avoided, the project applicant shall implement the following
Page ES-16
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls. . Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from 1 February through 31 August. . Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. . Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development. . Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection. . Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that farm equipment and other machinery does not collapse burrows. . Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). . Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the months of January and February. MM 3.3-3c: Conduct Burrow Exclusion. In the event
Page ES-17
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance that California burrowing owls are located within the project area, the project applicant shall conduct a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, the project applicant in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff Report. Mitigation for permanent impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrow and/or burrowing owls shall be developed based on the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Impact 3.3-4: Habitat assessments or Potentially Significant MM 3.3-4a: Conduct Pre-Construction Surveys for Less than Significant surveys for special-status amphibians Western Pond Turtle (WPT) The project applicant and reptiles were performed within shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre- the project area by the U.S. Army in construction surveys for Western Pond Turtle no 2006, including California Red more than 30 days prior to work in or adjacent to Legged Frog and California Tiger any habitat suitable for WPT within the project area. Salamander. Although no surveys If no Western Pond Turtles are found, no further specific for Western Pond Turtle mitigation is required. If Western Pond Turtles are have been conducted, Western found, the consulting biologist shall consult with the Pond Turtle was observed within California Department of Fish and Game for the project area during surveys for authorization to relocate the species to suitable California Red Legged Frog. During habitat away from the construction zone. The turtle the field surveys conducted by in shall be relocated to either a pond within the March 2012, the project area was Training Area (if authorization from the US Army is not found to provide suitable granted) or downstream from the construction zone breeding habitat for these species. to similar or better habitat. However, the proposed project includes re-alignment of the MM 3.3-4b: Consult with United States Fish and ephemeral drainage, which could Wildlife Service and Reduce Impacts on California
Page ES-18
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance result in the potential “take” of Red-Legged Frog. The project applicant shall comply Western Pond Turtle and/or with the following requirements: California Red Legged Frog if found a. The project applicant shall retain a within the project area. qualified herpetologist to conduct habitat assessments for CRLF and based on the results of the habitat assessments, determine in consultation with the USFWS if protocol-level CRLF surveys will be required within the project area. The project area consists of multiple phase areas within which separate CRLF habitat assessments may be conducted. It shall then be determined on a phase-by-phase basis, if further surveys will be required. The project applicant can forgo the habitat assessments and conduct protocol-level surveys. If required, the focused surveys shall follow the Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2005). A CRLF survey report prepared to meet the protocol guidelines shall be submitted to the USFWS. If no CRLF are found then no further mitigation is required. b. If CRLF are found then the project applicant shall provide information to the USACE to support Section 7 consultation with the USFWS and the project applicant shall ensure no net loss of habitat that shall be achieved through avoidance, preservation, creation and/or purchase of credits. The final selected measures may be part of the Section 7 permitting process.
Page ES-19
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance c. The project applicant shall obtain a biological opinion from the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and comply with the conditions and mitigation requirements of those agencies to ensure that no net loss of habitat occurs. Mitigation may include, but would not be limited to, onsite and offsite preservation and creation of CRLF habitat, purchase of credits at mitigation banks, payment of in lieu fees approved by the agencies, or other agency approved and required mitigation measures. d. Avoidance measures may include the following or equivalent protective measures:
To minimize disturbance of breeding and dispersing CRLF, construction activity within CRLF upland habitat shall be conducted during the dry season between April15 and October 15 or before the onset of the rainy season, whichever occurs first. If construction activities are necessary in CRLF upland habitat between October 15 and April 15, the project applicant would contact the USFWS for approval to extend the work period.
To minimize disturbance and mortality of adult and juvenile CRLF in aquatic habitat and underground burrows, the project applicant could minimize the extent of ground-disturbing activities within these habitats by requiring the contractor to limit the work area to the minimum necessary
Page ES-20
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance for construction. In addition, the project applicant could ensure that the contractor would install temporary exclusion fence between the construction work area and potential aquatic habitat for all construction within grasslands near aquatic habitat.
The project applicant could ensure that a qualified wildlife biologist monitors all construction activities within CRLF upland habitat. This would ensure no take of individual CRLF occurs during project construction. If a CRLF is found, then the monitor would immediately stop construction in that area and contact USFWS for advice.
The project applicant shall preserve additional upland habitat within a USFWS approved conservation area. The Project proponent shall coordinate or consult Impact 3.3-5: Protocol level surveys Potentially Significant MM 3.3-5: Consult with the USFWS and Reduce Less than Significant for vernal pool invertebrates were Impacts on Vernal Pool Invertebrates and Their conducted throughout Camp Parks Habitat. The project applicant shall prepare a habitat in 2002 and 2003 by the U.S. Army, assessment for the vernal pool invertebrates. If as well as during the summer of vernal pool invertebrates are found within the 2012 (dry season) and 2013 wet project area during the habitat assessment, the season by Cardno Entrix. No vernal project applicant shall comply with the following pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool steps to ensure protection of vernal pool tadpole shrimp or longhorn fairy invertebrates and their habitat and that impacts are shrimp were found during these reduced to a less than significant level. surveys. California linderiella was a. The project applicant shall retain a found, but not within the project qualified biologist to conduct habitat area. New surveys are currently assessments for protected vernal pool
Page ES-21
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance being conducted. Since the new invertebrates and based on the results of surveys have not been completed at the habitat assessments, determine in this time, the presence of this consultation with the USFWS if protocol- species within the project area is level vernal pool invertebrate surveys will assumed in the analysis of project be required within the project area. impacts. b. If suitable habitat is present, the project Surveys for curve-footed Hygrotus applicant, in consultation with the USFWS beetle and San Francisco fork-tailed and CDFW, shall either (1) conduct a damselfly were also conducted protocol-level survey for federally listed within Camp Parks in 2002 and vernal pool crustaceans and other 2003 and neither of these species protected vernal pool invertebrates (curve- were observed. Site conditions footed Hygrotus beetle and San Francisco have not changed significantly and fork-tailed damselfly), or (2) assume these species are not expected to presence of federally-listed vernal pool occur. Potentially suitable habitat crustaceans and curve footed Hygrotus was observed within the survey area beetle and San Francisco fork-tailed for vernal pool invertebrates and damselfly in areas of suitable habitat. these areas would be removed Surveys shall be conducted by qualified during proposed construction biologists in accordance with the most activities. Removal of these recent USFWS guidelines or protocols to wetlands could result in the determine the time of year and survey potential take of protected vernal methodology (survey timing for these pool branchiopods and other species is dependent on yearly rainfall protected invertebrates, if they were patterns and seasonal occurrences, and is to occur, and their habitat. determined on a case-by-case basis). The surveys shall be conducted as part of the Section 404 permit process. If surveys reveal no occurrences of federally listed vernal pool crustaceans or other protected vernal pool invertebrates, no further mitigation would be required. c. If surveys determine that one or more special-status vernal pool invertebrate
Page ES-22
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance species occurs within the project area, or if the project applicant, in consultation with the USFWS and/or CDFW, assumes presence of federally-listed vernal pool invertebrates in all affected habitats, the project applicant shall provide information to the USACE to support Section 7 consultation with the USFWS and the project applicant shall ensure no net loss of habitat shall be achieved through avoidance, preservation, creation and/or purchase of credits as a part of the Section 7 Consultation process. The selected measures may be part of the permitting process. d. Where feasible, all vernal pool invertebrate habitat shall be avoided. If habitat that can be avoided during construction activities is identified at a distance determined in consultation with USFWS, a USFWS-approved biologist (monitor) shall inspect any construction- related activities to ensure that no unnecessary take of listed species or destruction of their habitat occurs. The Project proponent will establish monitoring and reporting protocols to reduce impacts to vernal pool invertebrate species and habitat. e. The project applicant shall ensure that an appropriate number of acres, as approved by USFWS during consultation, are preserved to mitigate for direct or indirect
Page ES-23
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance impacts on vernal pool crustacean habitat. f. Water quality in the avoided wetlands shall be protected using erosion control techniques, such as silt fencing or straw wattles during construction in the watershed. Impact 3.3-6: A variety of special- Potentially Significant MM 3.3-6: Protect Birds Covered by the Migratory Less than Significant status birds are expected to be Bird Treaty Act (Including, but not limited to White- located within the project area. Tailed Kite, golden eagle, Cooper’s hawk, Some of these species are resident Loggerhead Shrike, and Other Special-Status species and some are migratory Species). Between March 1 and September 15, the species that breed within the project project applicant shall have a qualified biologist area. The special-status birds known conduct nest surveys no more than 30 days prior to to nest in the Livermore Valley area any demolition/construction or ground-disturbing include the Golden eagle, white- activities that are within 300 feet of potential nest tailed kite, tricolored blackbird, trees for non-raptor species (i.e. trees, cattails, or northern harrier, California horned, grassland) and 500 feet of potential nest trees for prairie falcon, Cooper’s hawk and raptor species or suitable nesting habitat (i.e., trees, loggerhead shrike. Trees, fresh cattails, grassland). Where access to property emergent wetland vegetation and adjacent to the construction activities is prohibited grassland could provide potentially by the owner/operator, the survey shall be suitable nesting habitat for these conducted using binoculars or spotting scope. A species, which are protected under pre-construction survey report shall be submitted to the Migrant Bird Treaty Act and the the California Department of Fish and Game that Fish and Game Code. The proposed includes, at a minimum: (1) a description of the project would require grading and methodology including dates of field visits, the possible removal of existing trees names of survey personnel with resumes, and a list and vegetation. of references cited and persons contacted; and (2) a map showing the location(s) of any bird nests observed on the project area. If no active nests of Migratory Bird Treaty Act covered species are identified, then no further mitigation is required. If active nests of protected bird species are identified
Page ES-24
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance in the focused nest surveys, the project applicant will consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies to identify project-level mitigation requirements, based on the agencies’ standards and policies as then in effect. Performance measures may include the following, based on current agency standards and policies. a. The project applicant, in consultation with California Department of Fish and Game, would delay construction in the vicinity of active nest sites during the breeding season (February 1 through September 15) while the nest is occupied with adults and/or young. A qualified biologist would monitor any occupied nest to determine when the nest is no longer used. If the construction cannot be delayed, avoidance measures would include the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around the nest site. The size of the buffer zone would be determined in consultation with the CDFW and may vary depending on the species, but will be a minimum of 250 feet. The buffer zone would be delineated with highly visible temporary construction fencing. b. No intensive disturbance (e.g., heavy equipment operation associated with construction, or use of cranes) or other project-related activities that could cause nest abandonment or forced fledging would be initiated within the established buffer zone of an active nest between
Page ES-25
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance February 1 and September 15. c. If construction activities are unavoidable within the buffer zone, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the nest site to determine if construction activities are disturbing the adult or young birds. d. If fully protected species (white-tailed kites, golden eagles) are found to be nesting near the proposed construction area, their nests would be completely avoided until the birds fledge. Avoidance would include the establishment of a non- disturbance buffer zone of 500 feet, or as determined in consultation with the CDFW.
Impact 3.3-7: Removal of trees Potentially Significant MM 3.3-7a: Conduct Bat and Bat Roosting Site Less than Significant and/or buildings or structures from Surveys. Prior to construction activities, the project the project area could impact applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct roosting sites for pallid bat and a focused survey for bats and potential roosting sites Yuma myotis. within the project area. The surveys can be conducted by visual and acoustic identification and can assume presence of pallid bats or the bats can be identified to a species level with the use of an acoustic detector unit. If no roosting sites or bats are found within the project area, a letter report confirming absence shall be sent to the California Department of Fish and Game and no further mitigation would be required. MM 3.3-7b: Implement Avoidance Measures If Bat Roosts are Identified. If bats are detected during the
Page ES-26
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance focused surveys then the project applicant shall perform monitoring and implement exclusion measures in consultation with the regulatory agencies. If bats are found during focused surveys, the project applicant shall consult with the regulatory agencies and implement the following measures based on the agencies standards and policies: a. If bats are found roosting in the project area outside of nursery season (May 1through October 1), then they would be evicted using bat exclusion techniques developed by Bat Conservation International (BCI) and in consultation with CDFW, that allow the bats to exit the roosting site but prevent re-entry to the site. This would include but not be limited to the installation of one-way exclusion devices. The devices would remain in place for seven days and then the exclusion points and any other potential entrances shall be sealed. This work would be completed by a BCI recommended exclusion professional. b. If bats are found roosting during the nursery season, then they shall be monitored to determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. Monitoring by either visual inspection of the roost bat pups, if possible, or monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat pups. If the roost is determined to not be a maternal roost, then the bats would be
Page ES-27
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance evicted as described above. Because bat pups cannot leave the roost until they are mature enough, eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery season. A buffer zone as determined in consultation with CDFW would be established around the roosting site within which no construction shall occur.
Impact 3.3-8: Trees are located Potentially Significant MM 3.3-8: Conduct Tree Survey and Replace Trees Less than Significant within the project area and a at Suitable Ratios. The project applicant shall retain a detailed tree survey has not been certified arborist to survey all trees located within conducted for the proposed project. the project area in order to identify and evaluate Nevertheless, trees within the those trees that shall be removed with project area could fall under the implementation of the proposed project. An arborist definition of heritage trees per report shall be prepared consistent with the certified Section 5.60 of the City of Dublin arborist to survey trees within the project area and Municipal Code. identify and evaluate trees that shall be removed. The arborist report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Dublin to document the trees that are to be removed. If any of the trees fall under the jurisdiction Section 5.60 of the City’s Municipal Code, the project applicant shall then mitigate impacts to trees based on the following or equivalent protective measures depending on the size and health of trees to be removed. a. Prior to the start of construction, the project applicant shall install exclusion fencing at the dripline of any tree that will not be affected by the construction and prohibit any parking or storage of construction materials or other materials inside the fence.
Page ES-28
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance b. Mitigation, at an inch-by-inch ratio, shall be provided for native trees larger than 24inches in circumference measured at four (4) feet six (6) inches above natural grade. Cultural Resources Impact 3.4-1: The Camp Parks Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary Less than Significant entrance sign has been evaluated as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion C and by statute (Public Resources Code 5024.1). In addition, it is also eligible for inclusion in the CRHR under Criterion 3 and is considered a historical resource as defined by CEQA since it is one of the few remaining examples of Bruce Goff’s work for the Seabees and it has retained integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and association. The Camp Parks entrance sign is located outside of the project area and the proposed project would not physically alter the existing sign. The setting of the sign has already been affected by adjacent development (e.g. residential development located north of the entrance sign). Future development within the project area would contribute to changes in the setting of the area. However, it was not the setting that made the sign
Page ES-29
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance significant under the NRHP and CRHR criteria or under CEQA. Therefore, as the proposed project would not result in any changes to the sign and the setting of the project area has already been compromised by existing development, the proposed project would not affect the integrity of the sign.
Impact 3.4-2: The proposed project Potentially Significant MM 3.4–2: Halt Work/Archaeological Less than Significant has been previously disturbed from Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation. If any potential its use as the Camp Parks Reserve archaeological, pre-historic or cultural artifacts are Forces Training Area. Based on the encountered during site grading or other prior archaeological surveys construction activities, all ground disturbance within conducted within the project area, 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a the project area is not anticipated to qualified archaeologist can identify and evaluate the contain any archaeological, cultural resource(s) in accordance with State CEQA or pre-historic resources. However, Guidelines 15064.5(f). The archeological consultant site preparation and grading shall immediately notify the project sponsor and the activities could disrupt undiscovered City staff of the encountered archeological deposit. archaeological and cultural resources If the deposit does not qualify as an archaeological of importance under CEQA and/or resource, then no further protection or study is eligible for listing on the California necessary. If the deposit does qualify as an Register. archaeological resource then the impacts shall be avoided by project activities. If the deposit cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the deposit shall be addressed in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(b). Measures may include, but are not limited to archaeological data recovery, etc. Upon completion of the assessment by the archaeologist, a professional-quality report shall be
Page ES-30
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance submitted to the City, the project applicant, and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park. The project applicant shall fund and implement the mitigation in accordance with Section 15064.5(c) through (f) of the CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources Code 21083.2. Impact 3.4-3: No paleontological Potentially Significant MM 3.4-3: Halt Work/Paleontological Less than Significant resources are known to exist within Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation. If paleontological the project area. However, the resources are encountered during subsurface presence of unknown construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the paleontological resources could be discovery shall be redirected until a qualified discovered during site preparation paleontologist can evaluate the finds. If the and grading activities. paleontological resources are found to be significant, they shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a qualified paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring for paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include: I) the results of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project area; 2) specific details of the construction plans for the project area; 3) background research; and 4) limited subsurface investigation within the project area. If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring plan of further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this assessment. After project subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods, findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be prepared and submitted to the
Page ES-31
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Director of Community Development.
Impact 3.4-4: Due to the disturbed Potentially Significant MM 3.4-4: Halt Work/Coroner’s Evaluation/Native Less than Significant nature of the project area, there are American Heritage Consultant/Compliance with no known human remains interred Most Likely Descendent Recommendations. In the outside of formal cemeteries that event that human remains are encountered during are anticipated to be disturbed grading and site preparation activities, all ground- during short-term construction disturbing work within 50 feet of the remains shall activities. However, human remains cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall could be discovered during site notify the Office of the Alameda County Coroner preparation and grading activities. and advise that office as to whether the remains are likely to be Native American. If determined to be Native American, the Alameda County Coroner’s Office shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission of the find, which in turn will then appoint a “Most Likely Descendent. (MLD).” The MLD in consultation with the archaeological consultant and the project sponsor will advise and help formulate an appropriate plan for treatment of the remains, which might include recordation, removal, and scientific study of the remains and any associated artifacts. After completion of the analysis and preparation of the report of findings, the remains and associated grave goods shall be returned to the MLD for burial. Geology and Soils Impact 3.5-1: Due to the Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant relatively flat topography within the project area and the lack of steep slopes within or adjacent to the project site.
Page ES-32
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance
Impact 3.5-2: The proposed project Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant is currently located within the designated Alquist-Priolo fault zone for the Pleasanton fault. However, the Preliminary Geotechnical Analysis and Fault Ground Rupture Investigation prepared for the proposed project determined that there is no substantial evidence for the existence of the inferred Pleasanton Fault traces shown on the current Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map. Therefore, the potential for fault rupture within the project area is considered very low.
Impact 3.5-3: Ground shaking is Potentially Significant MM 3.5-3: Preparation of Design-Level Geotechnical Less than Significant likely to occur in the project area in Report. Future development within the project area the event of a major earthquake on shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer one of the nearby faults resulting in to prepare a design level geotechnical report that the exposure of people and/or incorporates the recommendations in the structures to potentially significant preliminary geotechnical investigation by Berlogar, adverse effects, including the risk of Stevens and Associates (March 2012). The design loss, injury or death. level geotechnical report shall address site preparation and grading (including measures to address potential liquefaction and expansive soils), building foundations, CBC seismic design parameters, and preliminary pavement sections. This report shall be submitted in conjunction with
Page ES-33
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Building Permit application(s) and reviewed and approved by the City. The Report’s recommendations shall be incorporated into the project design and construction documents. Impact 3.5-4: Future development Potentially Significant Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.5-3. Less than Significant associated with the proposed project could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects of liquefaction.
Impact 3.5-5: Implementation of the Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant proposed project may result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during short-term construction activities within the project area.
Impact 3.5-6: Implementation of the Potentially Significant Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.5-3. Less than Significant proposed project would include future development within the Specific Plan area in an area with expansive soils. With adherence to the City’s Building Code and CBC requirements.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis Impact 3.6-1: Greenhouse gas Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant emissions generated by the
Page ES-34
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment.
Impact 3.6-2: Implementation of the Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant proposed project would not conflict with an applicable greenhouse gas reduction plan, policy, or regulation.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 3.7-1: Future development Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant within the project area may involve the use of hazardous materials including cleaning solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other hazardous materials typical of future retail and residential uses within the project area.
Impact 3.7-2: During construction of Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant the proposed project, there is the potential for the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, which could create a hazard to the public or the environment.
Impact 3.7-3: The proposed project Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant would result in the demolition and removal of structures within the project area which may contain asbestos and/or lead based paint
Page ES-35
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance (LBPs).
Impact 3.7-4: The project area is not Potentially Significant MM 3.7-4: Remediation of Hazardous Materials. Less than Significant located on a hazardous material site Future development within the vicinity of Former pursuant to Government Code Building 109/PRFTA, Area 761/PRFTA 13, and the Section 65962.5. However, based Potential Construction Debris Dump Sites shall not on the Phase I ESA there are three proceed until a NFA status is granted and the sites currently being evaluated by project area has been cleaned to the appropriate the U.S. Army. Hazardous materials land use standard to the satisfaction of Department may be encountered during of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC). The NFA construction. status paperwork shall be submitted to the City in conjunction with the Building and Grading/Site work permit and shall be found acceptable by the City prior to ground disturbance. Impact 3.7-5: There are no schools Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant located within a quarter mile of the project area. However, the proposed project includes construction of an 11 acre school site that would be located adjacent to proposed residential uses. In addition, commercial businesses proposed within the project area would be required to comply with federal, state and local regulations regarding hazardous substances. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3.8-1: Portions of the Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant. proposed project and lower portion of the Base watershed are within the FEMA mapped floodplain. Future development would be
Page ES-36
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance required to comply with the existing floodplain regulations to ensure that structures do not impede or redirect flows.
Impact 3.8-2: Construction-related Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant. activities resulting from implementation of the proposed project may result in the degradation of surface water quality.
Impact 3.8-3: The proposed project Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant. would not result in adverse impacts to the amount of available groundwater available, degrade groundwater quality, or decrease groundwater recharge in the project area.
Impact 3.8-4: Implementation of the Potentially Significant MM 3.8-4a: Construction of a new Off-site Less than Significant proposed project would Detention Basin North of the Project Site. Prior to substantially increase the impervious the issuance of grading permits for Phase 2 of the surface area on the project site, proposed project, the project applicant shall work in thereby altering the existing drainage coordination with the U. S. Army (Camp Parks) to pattern and amount of surface design and construct a new off-site detention basin runoff resulting in a potential designed to ensure that flow rates to Line G-1 do increase in peak storm water flows not exceed the maximum Q100 discharge flow rate (i.e., 10- and 100-year storm of 950 cfs as required by Zone 7. The design plans events). for this new off-site detention basin will be reviewed by the City, in coordination with Zone 7, for verification of compliance with all applicable regulations and consistency with on-site drainage
Page ES-37
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance requirements, prior to construction. MM 3.8-4b: Re-align Stormwater Outflow from Proposed North Basin #2. Prior to issuance of the grading permit associated with the construction of the proposed community park, the project applicant shall submit to the City a revised stormwater drainage plan that realigns the stormwater outflow associated with the proposed North Basin #2 from the 1.7 acre Chabot Creek riparian channel (as is currently proposed) to a separate underground pipe that connects directly with the existing box culvert located at proposed Scarlett Court Extension and Dublin Boulevard, and thereby avoids stormwater discharge into the 1.7 acre Chabot Creek riparian channel.
Impact 3.8-5: The proposed project Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant. would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Structures and personnel would not be subject to greater risk with implementation of the proposed project as compared to existing conditions. Land Use and Planning Impact 3.9-1: The proposed project Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant would result in the construction of 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, which would contribute to the economic vitality of the City, as well
Page ES-38
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance as result in the creation of indirect or induced jobs. Based on the City’s existing vacancy rate, the amount of taxable sales, and the population growth in the City, the additional commercial space is not anticipated to result in the displacement of existing businesses and/or the potential for abandonment and/or non-maintenance of these businesses.
Impact 3.9-2: Implementation of the Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant proposed project would amend the City’s General Plan land uses within the project area and would involve new uses and structures that may result in intensification of development within the project area. However, the proposed project is not anticipated to create incompatibilities with adjacent land uses or physically divide an established community.
Impact 3.9-3: Implementation of the Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant proposed project would not conflict with goals and policy of the City of Dublin General Plan, nor the City of Dublin Zoning Code.
Page ES-39
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Noise Impact 3.10-1: The proposed Potentially Significant MM 3.10-1a: Prepare Construction Noise Less than Significant project could result in short-term Management Plan. The project applicant shall construction-related noise at nearby prepare a construction noise management plan that noise sensitive land uses. identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding sensitive receptors (e.g., residential uses and schools) and includes specific noise management measures to be included into project plans and specifications subject to review and approval by the City. These measures shall include, but not be limited to the following:
All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an un-muffled exhaust.
The contractor shall maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions.
Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors.
All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors.
The project applicant(s) shall provide, to the satisfaction of the City of Dublin Planning Department, a qualified “Noise Disturbance Coordinator.” The
Page ES-40
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, malfunctioning muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the compliant, as deemed acceptable by the Dublin Planning Department. If any notices are sent to residential units immediately surrounding the construction site by the City and all signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator.
Select demolition methods to minimize vibration, where possible (e.g., sawing masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers). MM 3.10-1b: Construction Routes Less Disruptive to Sensitive Receptors. Construction trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways (Interstate 580, Interstate 680, Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, and Arnold Road). Construction trucks should, to the extent practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m. peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.).
Page ES-41
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Impact 3.10-2: The proposed Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant project could result in short-term construction-related vibration that could result in vibration impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during grading and construction activities.
Impact 3.10-3: Compliance with Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant design guidelines and development standards contained within the Specific Plan will ensure that potential future development within the project does not exceed established noise standards.
Impact 3.10-4: Development Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant facilitated by the Specific Plan could permanently increase noise levels from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) at existing and future uses within the Specific Plan project area but not beyond threshold levels.
Public Services and Utilities Impact 3.11-1: The proposed Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant project would not significantly increase the need for fire protection services such that it would result in the need for or the construction of new or physically altered facilities to meet the City’s response times or
Page ES-42
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance other standards for fire protection services.
Impact 3.11-2: The proposed Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant project would not significantly increase the need for law enforcement services, which would result in the need for the construction of new or physically altered facilities in order to meet the City’s response times.
Impact 3.11-3: Implementation of Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant the proposed project would increase the number of students in the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) with the construction of a maximum of 1,995 residential units, which would increase the capacity of the schools, which are operating above optimum capacity. The proposed project includes an 11 acre school site and future development would be required to pay school impact fees as required under State law to the DUSD.
Impact 3.11-4: The proposed Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant project would increase the demand for park and recreational uses within the project area. However, development projects within the
Page ES-43
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance project area would be required to pay the City’s Public Facilities Fee prior to Building Permit issuance.
Impact 3.11-5: The proposed Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant project would result in an increase in demand for library services. The proposed project would provide adequate property tax revenue to the City, a portion of which is used to fund libraries and other public facilities. Existing library facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not physically impact other public facilities. Impact 3.11-6: Implementation of Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant the proposed project would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities nor the expansion of existing facilities. Additionally, the existing service provider has an adequate capacity to meet this demand.
Impact 3.11-7: Implementation of Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant the proposed project would generate an additional demand for water; however, the additional demand would be adequately served by anticipated water
Page ES-44
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance entitlements and resources.
Impact 3.11-8: Implementation of Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant the proposed project may result in increased off-site stormwater flows and future development within the project area would be required to install proposed drainage improvements and pay applicable impact fees at the time of issuance of the building permits. With the installation of drainage improvements and payment of the City’s impact fees would adequately fund stormwater infrastructure, this would be considered a less than significant impact. Impact 3.11-9: Implementation of Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant the proposed project would increase the generation of solid waste, but would be served by landfills with adequate capacity to accommodate the increase.
Impact 3.11-10: The proposed Less than Significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than Significant project may result in the expansion of electricity, gas, and telecommunications on-site; however, the project site is already served by these utilities and there is adequate infrastructure in place both on and adjacent to the project
Page ES-45
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance area to serve the proposed project.
Transportation and Circulation Impact 3.12-1: During the PM peak Potentially Significant MM 3.12-1: Addition of Northbound Left-Turn Lane Less than Significant hour, the study intersection of on Dougherty Road. The proposed project shall add Dougherty Road and Amador Valley an additional northbound left-turn lane on Boulevard would operate at an Dougherty Road at the Dougherty Road and unacceptable LOS E under both Amador Valley Boulevard intersection. Based on 2020 background no project the 2020 background plus project conditions, the conditions and 2020 background two northbound left turn lanes would need to be plus project conditions. 325 feet each. This improvement would require widening Dougherty Road by approximately 12 feet along the east side in advance of the intersection. It would also require realignment of travel lanes through the intersection and traffic signal modifications. This improvement has already been identified by the City of Dublin’s Traffic Impact Fee program as part of the widening of Dougherty Road between Sierra Court and City limits. Because the impact is caused by the proposed project, future land use growth, and is included in the Traffic Impact Fee program, the mitigation for this impact is for the project to make a fair share monetary contribution toward these improvements. The timing of these improvements will be determined in the project’s mitigation monitoring program.
Impact 3.12-2: During the PM peak Potentially Significant MM 3.12-2: Converting the Eastbound All- Less than Significant hour, the study intersection of Movement Lane to a Shared Through Right Lane Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive and Adding an Eastbound Left-Turn Lane at would degrade from LOS D under Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive. To mitigate the
Page ES-46
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance 2035 cumulative no project impact at the intersection of Dougherty Road and conditions to an unacceptable LOS Scarlett Drive would require converting the E under 2035 cumulative plus eastbound all-movement lane to a shared through- project conditions. The City of right lane and adding a new 60-foot eastbound left Dublin level of service standard for turn lane. In addition, the eastbound and this intersection is LOS D. westbound legs should be converted from split phasing to protected phasing. This improvement would require widening the west approach of the intersection by approximately 12 feet into the existing pork chop island. Further improvements at this intersection have already been identified by the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Program as part of the Scarlett Drive extension to Dublin Boulevard. Implementation of the identified mitigation at this location should be coordinated with the City’s planned TIF improvements. Because the impact is caused by both the proposed project and future land use growth, the mitigation for this impact is for the project to make a fair share monetary contribution toward these improvements. The timing of these improvements will be determined in the project’s mitigation monitoring program.
Impact 3.12-3: Scarlett Drive and Potentially Significant MM 3.12-3: Construction of a Grade Separated Less than Significant Dublin Boulevard. During the PM Crossing at the Intersection of Scarlett Drive and peak hour, the study intersection of Dublin Boulevard. To mitigate the impacts at the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard would operate at an unacceptable due to higher rate of pedestrians/bicyclists crossings LOS F under both 2035 cumulative at Dublin Boulevard, a grade separated crossing shall no project conditions and 2035 be utilized. The grade separated crossing would cumulative plus project conditions. eliminate the need for at-grade pedestrian The City of Dublin level of service actuations at the traffic signal, which would allow standard for this intersection is LOS more green time to be allocated to through traffic
Page ES-47
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance D. on Dublin Boulevard. Although this project has not been environmentally cleared, nor has engineering or right of way analysis been completed with regards to the feasibility of this improvement, the City is aggressively pursuing this project to improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility along the Iron Horse Trail. The City also plans to include a grade separated crossing at this location in its update to the TIF program to secure project funding. Because the impact is caused by future land use growth in the region as well as this proposed project, the mitigation for this impact is for the project to make a fair share monetary contribution toward these improvements. The timing of these improvements will be determined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and developer obligations will be outlined in the Developer Agreement. In the event that the grade separated crossing project cannot be constructed by year 2035, an alternative mitigation would be to eliminate the crosswalk on the east leg of the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection. This would require pedestrians and bikes from the Iron Horse Trail to cross three crosswalks rather than one. Because of the effects of the alternative mitigation on pedestrian and bike mobility, the grade separated crossing is the City’s preferred mitigation at this location.
Impact 3.12-4: During the PM peak Potentially Significant MM 3.12-4: Addition of a Northbound Left-turn Less than Significant hour, the study intersection of Iron lane on Iron Horse Parkway at the Intersection of Horse Parkway and Dublin Iron Horse Parkway and Dublin Boulevard. To Boulevard would degrade from LOS mitigate the impact at the intersection of Iron Horse
Page ES-48
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance C under 2035 cumulative no project Parkway and Dublin Boulevard would require an conditions to an unacceptable LOS additional northbound left turn lane on Iron Horse F under 2035 cumulative plus Parkway. Based on the 2035 cumulative plus project conditions. The City of project conditions, the two northbound left turn Dublin level of service standard for lanes would need to be 400 feet each. This this intersection is LOS D. improvement would require widening Iron Horse Parkway by approximately 12 feet along the east side in advance of the intersection. It may also require removal of parking, realignment of travel lanes through the intersection, relocation of sidewalks, and traffic signal modifications. Because the proposed project causes the change in operation from LOS C to LOS F, the proposed project is responsible for constructing these improvements. The timing of these improvements will be determined in the project’s mitigation monitoring program.
Impact 3.12-5: During the PM peak Potentially Significant MM 3.12-5: Convert one of the through lanes to a Less than Significant hour, the study intersection of second right turn lane at the Hacienda Drive and Hacienda Drive and Dublin Dublin Boulevard Intersection. As part of the City of Boulevard would operate at an Dublin’s Traffic Impact Fee program, the intersection unacceptable LOS E under both of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard has a 2035 cumulative no project planned northbound approach geometry of three conditions and 2035 cumulative plus left turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right project conditions. The City of turn lane. To mitigate the impact at the intersection Dublin level of service standard for of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard would this intersection is LOS D. require converting one of the through lanes to a second right turn lane, which is the existing northbound geometry at the intersection. Because no improvements relative to the existing geometry are necessary, the City of Dublin should modify its planned improvement at the northbound approach
Page ES-49
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance of the intersection back to the existing configuration. With this mitigation, the intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. Therefore, this improvement would mitigate the intersection to less than significant levels.
Impact 3.12-6: : During the PM peak Potentially Significant MM 3.12-6: Install a Fourth Eastbound Through Less than Significant hour, the study intersection of Lane on Dublin Boulevard. To mitigate the impact at Tassajara Road and Dublin the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard would degrade from LOS Boulevard would require a fourth eastbound D under 2035 cumulative no project through lane on Dublin Boulevard. The widening of conditions to an unacceptable LOS Dublin Boulevard to six through lanes is included in E under 2035 cumulative plus the City of Dublin’s Traffic Impact Fee program. The project conditions. The City of planned eastbound approach geometry supplied by Dublin level of service standard for the City includes two left turn lanes, two right turn this intersection is LOS D. lanes, and three through lanes. To return the intersection to an acceptable LOS would require converting one of the right turn lanes to a fourth through lane. A fourth eastbound through lane would require an additional receiving lane east of the Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection. It may also require realignment of travel lanes through the intersection and traffic signal modifications. Because the impact is caused by both the proposed project and future land use growth, the mitigation for this impact is for the project to make a fair share monetary contribution toward these improvements. The timing of these improvements will be determined in the project’s mitigation monitoring program.
Page ES-50
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Impact 3.12-7: The proposed Significant MM 3.12-7: Freeway Ramp Metering Rates. The Significant Unavoidable project would add project trips to project impacts to freeway ramps could be the following freeway on-ramps, mitigated by changing the ramp metering rates so which would not be consistent with that more vehicles could access the freeway. the Alameda County CMP criteria However, the freeway ramps are operated by for freeway ramps: Caltrans, which sets metering rates based on overall
Southbound Hacienda operations in the freeway corridor. In the future, Drive to I-580 Eastbound major improvements are planned for I-580 in the On-ramp. During the PM project vicinity, including the addition of High peak hour, the southbound Occupancy Vehicle and auxiliary lanes. In addition, as Hacienda Drive to I-580 the Cities surrounding the I-580 corridor continue eastbound on-ramp would to build out and additional parallel east/west degrade from a V/C ratio connectors such as the Stoneridge Drive and Dublin of 0.98 under existing Boulevard extensions are completed, it is likely that conditions to a V/C ratio of the ramp meter rates would change over time to 1.13 under existing plus accommodate the demand on both the freeway project conditions. ramps and freeway segments. According to the Alameda County CMP, the acceptable V/C ratio on all MTS segments is 0.99 or less.
Southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 Eastbound On-ramp. During the PM peak hour, the southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 eastbound on-ramp would degrade from a V/C ratio of 1.48 under 2035 cumulative no project conditions to a V/C ratio of 1.52 under 2035
Page ES-51
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance cumulative plus project conditions. According to the Alameda County CMP, for a segment that would operate with a V/C ratio above 0.99 under no project conditions, an increase in the V/C ratio of more than 0.02 would be considered a significant impact.
Southbound Tassajara Road to I-580 Westbound On- ramp. During the AM peak hour, the southbound Tassajara Road to I-580 westbound on-ramp would degrade from a V/C ratio of 0.97 under 2035 cumulative no project conditions to a V/C ratio of 1.05 under 2035 cumulative plus project conditions. According to the Alameda County CMP, the acceptable V/C ratio on all MTS segments is 0.99 or less. Impact 3.12-8: The proposed Potentially Significant MM 3.12-8: Roadway Layout and Driveway Less than Significant project does not include detailed Locations. As more detail for the roadway layout information such as intersection and driveway locations become available, the layouts and driveway locations. For following mitigation shall be implemented: this reason, impacts to roadway
Page ES-52
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance safety cannot be evaluated at this The precise roadway alignments at both time. the onsite and site access intersections have yet to be designed. City staff shall review the proposed intersection alignments to insure that opposing left turn lanes can operate simultaneously, sufficient radii is provided for truck turn movements, and through lanes line up reasonably well with their respective receiving lanes across the intersection.
To maintain adequate corner sight distance consistent with Caltrans Highway Design Manual requirements, parking shall not be permitted on major onsite roadways (Central Parkway East, G Street, and, B Street) within close proximity to intersections. At all onsite intersections, landscaping, signing, and parking shall be designed so that adequate corner sight distance is achieved.
A site circulation and access study shall be conducted for the proposed school to insure that loading areas are adequately designed and the adjacent streets are safe for school age children. Flashing beacon warning signs, high visibility crosswalks, raised crosswalks, and school zone speed limit signs shall be considered, where appropriate.
The traffic control and turn pocket lengths shall be reviewed by the City as site specific development plans move forward to insure
Page ES-53
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance that the orientation of the private roadways (which will feed into the major and minor collector streets onsite) do not result in level of service or safety issues.
Private street roadway segments with perpendicular parking shall be relatively short in length (approximately 400 feet or less) to discourage excessive vehicle speeds. This is necessary to allow a vehicle backing out of a perpendicular parking stall to react to through traffic on the private street. Impact 3.12-9: The proposed Potentially Significant MM 3.12-9: Coordination with LAVTA. As the plan Less than Significant project will increase transit demand, area develops, the project applicant shall coordinate generating an estimated 1,228 with the City of Dublin and LAVTA to determine if weekday daily transit trips (bus and route changes and/or increased service is required in BART combined). This will create the project area. In addition, the project shall the need for bus route adjustments provide additional bus duckouts and transit shelters and/or increased bus frequency. This to support project trips, where appropriate. is a significant impact on bus transit Impact 3.12-10: The proposed Potentially Significant MM 3.12-10: Review of Intersection Layouts and Less than Significant project does not include detailed Driveway Locations. As each individual site develops information such as intersection within the Specific Plan and more details are layouts, crosswalk locations, available, additional review by the City of Dublin will wheelchair ramp locations, and be necessary to insure that individual elements of driveway locations. the project do not conflict with the pedestrian/bike accessibility and are consistent with the policies and guidelines in the Dublin Bikeways Master Plan. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
Marked crosswalks shall be provided at all onsite intersections, where appropriate, based on the layout of the local streets.
Page ES-54
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Prior to final design of the streets and pathways, the intersection designs should be reviewed by City staff to insure that the pathway crossings are clearly marked and include Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant wheelchair ramps. Bollards may also be considered so that vehicles are restricted from driving on the 10-foot wide paths.
The layout of private and minor streets within the site shall minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the number of crossings with the proposed onsite 10-foot pedestrian paths. This includes potentially realigning the Iron Horse Trail onto the Central Park site so that the driveway access to the park at Scarlett Drive does not conflict with trail operations.
Bike parking, showers, and changing rooms shall be considered at the park, office and shopping center uses, where appropriate.
During construction along Scarlett Drive, Dublin Boulevard, and Arnold Road, temporary traffic control plans shall be prepared to minimize the disruption to bike and pedestrian activities through the construction zone.
Impact 3.12-11: Project construction Potentially Significant MM 3.12-11: Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s). Less than Significant would occur over a period of an Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or any estimated time period of eight to permit that authorizes construction activities on the ten years and has the potential to Specific Plan site or construction of off-site
Page ES-55
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance result in hundreds of construction improvements relating to the Specific Plan, the staff on-site at one time. However, project applicants shall provide Construction Traffic due to the nature of the project Mitigation Plan(s) for City Staff review and approval phasing over the course of time, it is as part of the permit application. The Mitigation difficult to estimate the amount of Plan(s) shall include measures to minimize the construction traffic that may take construction traffic entering the roadway system place during peak traffic volume during periods of peak traffic volumes (i.e. AM and periods. The construction phase PM Peak Hour). The Mitigation Plan(s) shall also also would increase the number of include measures to minimize the number of truck daily truck trips in the project vicinity trips on Scarlett Drive and should route heavy while the site is graded and vehicle traffic to driveways on Dublin Boulevard and materials are delivered. All truck Arnold Road to access the site during the movements to and from the site construction phase of the project. At a minimum, during construction would likely the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan should occur on the arterials and collector include the following implementation measures: streets around the project site. The Construction truck routes shall be prepared land uses to the east and south of to designate principal haul routes for trucks the project along Arnold Road and delivering materials to and from the Dublin Boulevard are primarily construction site. industrial and commercial uses, with Should a temporary road and/or lane some high density residential uses closure be necessary during construction, along the south side of Dublin the project applicant shall provide traffic Boulevard. To the west of the control activities and personnel, as project site, there are low density necessary, to minimize traffic impacts. This residential townhouses along may include detour signage, cones, Scarlett Drive. While heavy vehicle construction area signage, flagmen, and traffic is common on arterial streets other measures as required for safe traffic near industrial, commercial, and high handling in the construction zone. density residential land uses, truck traffic on streets directly adjacent to The project applicant shall be required to low density residential development keep a minimum of one lane in each should be minimized to the greatest direction free from encumbrances at all extent possible. times on perimeter streets accessing the project site. In the event a full road closure
Page ES-56
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance is required, the contractor shall coordinate with the Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin Police Department/ Alameda County Sherriff’s Department to designate proper detour routes and signage to appropriate proper access routes.
Impact 3.12-12: The proposed Potentially Significant MM 3.12-12: Restrict Lane Closures Along Dublin Less than Significant project may require the closure of Boulevard and Arnold Road to Off-Peak Hours. travel lanes on Dublin Boulevard, During project construction, the lane closures along Scarlett Drive, and Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road shall be while constructing frontage restricted to off-peak hours to the greatest extent improvements, intersection feasible. In addition, traffic handling plans shall be improvements for new proposed prepared for construction work in the public right- roadways (G Street, B Street, of-way in accordance with current California Manual Central Parkway East, E Street, D on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Street and A Street), and traffic standards and guidelines. signal modifications where new intersection legs are proposed. Closure of travel lanes during peak commute hours could result in restricted traffic flow on the public streets surrounding the project area.
Page ES-57
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary
Page ES-58
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Introduction
1. Introduction Purpose This project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (hereinafter the “Specific Plan” and/or the “proposed project”) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The level of detail about the project and the analysis may not always be project-level review. A full description of the proposed project is described in Chapter 2: Project Description.
This EIR focuses on evaluation of the following environmental issue areas: aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases and climate change; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services and utilities, and transportation and circulation.
This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is an "informational document" with the intended purpose to: “inform public agency decision- makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.” Although the EIR does not control the ultimate decision on the proposed project, the City must consider the information in the EIR and respond to each significant effect identified in the EIR through findings in conjunction with any project approval. As defined in Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines, a “significant effect on the environment” is:
“...a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether a physical change is significant.”
Environmental Review Process The review and certification process for the EIR will involve the following procedural steps:
Notice of Preparation In accordance with Section 15063(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Dublin determined that an EIR would be necessary for the proposed project; therefore an Initial Study was not prepared. In accordance with Section 15082(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Dublin Community Development Department circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), responsible and trustee agencies and to the Alameda County Clerk for a period of 30-days to solicit comments on
Page 1-1
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Introduction
the scope of the EIR regarding the proposed project (See Appendix A). The comment period of the NOP was from June 4, 2012 to July 6, 2012. Four comments letters were received on the NOP from the following agencies: Dublin San Ramon Services District, City of Pleasanton, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), and the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR and the comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.
Draft EIR The Draft EIR contains a description of the proposed project, description of the environmental setting, identification of project impacts and effects found not to be significant, mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, and an analysis of project alternatives.
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research, in accordance with Section 15085 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Public Notice/Public Review The Draft EIR will be circulated for review and comment by the public and other interested parties, agencies and organizations for a 45-day review period from Monday, June 24, 2013 through Thursday, August 8, 2013. Concurrent with the Notice of Completion (NOC), the City provided a public Notice of the Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR for public review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a), and invited comments from the general public, Responsible and Trustee Agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. Notice of the time and location of a City meeting to receive comments on the Draft EIR will be published prior to the meeting.
All comments or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to:
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Email: [email protected] Tel: (925) 556-4557
Response to Comments/Final EIR Following the public review and comment period for the Draft EIR, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR will respond to comments received during the public review and comment period. The City will review and consider the Final EIR prior to the decision to approve, revise, or reject the proposed project or an alternative to the proposed project.
Page 1-2
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Introduction
Certification of the Final EIR If the City of Dublin finds that the Final EIR is “adequate and complete,” the City of Dublin may certify the Final EIR upon findings in accordance with CEQA.
Project Consideration After review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City of Dublin may act upon the proposed project. A decision to approve the proposed project would be accompanied by written Findings in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and, if applicable, Section 15093 (Statement of Overriding Considerations).
Report Organization Sections 15122 through 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines identify the content requirements for Environmental Impact Reports. Among other things, an EIR must include: description of the project and environmental setting; an environmental impact analysis; mitigation measures; alternatives to the proposed project; identification of significant irreversible environmental changes; growth-inducing impacts; and cumulative impacts.
The environmental issues addressed in the Draft EIR were established through the preparation of environmental documentation and supporting technical reports developed for the proposed project, public agency responses to the NOP and comments received. Based upon documentation, technical reports, NOP responses, consultation with the City of Dublin, and review of the Specific Plan and related applications, the City of Dublin has determined the scope for this EIR. This Draft EIR is organized in the following manner:
Section S – Executive Summary This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project and provides a concise summary matrix of the project’s environmental impacts, associated mitigation measures.
Section 1.0 – Introduction This section provides an introduction and overview of the EIR review and certification process.
Section 2.0 – Project Description The project description provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including project location, site conditions, intended objectives, background information and physical and technical characteristics of the proposed project.
Section 3.0 – Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section contains an analysis of environmental topic areas to be addressed, as identified below. Each subsection contains a description of the existing setting of the planning area and surrounding area and identifies project-related impacts and recommends mitigation measures where necessary. The following major environmental topics shall be addressed within various subsections of the EIR:
Page 1-3
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Introduction
Subsection 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The potential change in character of the project area as measured against the existing setting and visual conditions and surrounding land uses is discussed within this subsection of the EIR. Project visibility, scale, additional light and glare, and visual character are considered relative to existing conditions within the project area. The analysis is based on a site reconnaissance, photo documentation of the project area and vicinity, visual simulations prepared by the project applicant, and existing policy documents (e.g. City of Dublin General Plan).
Subsection 3.2, Air Quality: This subsection addresses the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and analyzes local and regional air quality impacts associated with the proposed project including both short-term construction impacts and long-term operational impacts from mobile and stationary sources. It also addresses the potential for exposure to objectionable odors and toxic air contaminants from surrounding uses. This analysis is based on air quality modeling performed for the proposed project by RBF Consulting, which is included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR.
Subsection 3.3, Biological Resources: This subsection addresses project impacts to biological resources with implementation of the proposed project based on a biological assessment prepared by Cardno Entrix in June 2013. This subsection of the EIR addresses the potential degradation or elimination of potential species and potential impacts on listed, proposed, and candidate threatened and endangered species located within the project area. The biological technical report is included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR.
Subsection 3.4, Cultural Resources: This subsection analyzes the presence or absence of potentially significant archaeological and historic resources within the project area based on a cultural resource assessment by ECORP Consulting. Since the proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan, the City of Dublin completed the Senate Bill (SB 18) consultation process on December 27, 2012.
Subsection 3.5, Geology, Soils & Seismicity: This subsection examines potential geologic and seismic hazards, as well as any engineering constraints and general soil suitability for the proposed project. Information contained in this section is based on various planning documents including the Soil Survey of Alameda County, as well as a geotechnical report and a fault rupture investigation prepared by Berlogar, Stevens, and Associates on behalf of the project applicant, which was peer reviewed by Cal Engineering and Geology on behalf of the City. The geotechnical report, fault rupture investigation and peer review is included in Appendix D of the Draft EIR.
Subsection 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change: This subsection evaluates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the proposed project and analyzes project compliance with applicable regulations. Consideration of the project’s consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations, as well as the introduction of new sources of GHGs, is also included in this subsection of the
Page 1-4
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Introduction
Draft EIR. The analysis is based on GHG modeling performed for the proposed project by RBF Consulting, which is included as Appendix B of the Draft EIR.
Subsection 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials: This subsection evaluates the potential presence of hazardous materials and contaminated soil within the project area. The potential for onsite sources of contamination such as leaking hazardous waste containers; lead-based paints; and asbestos-containing building materials, among other items is also addressed within this subsection of the EIR. This subsection is based on a compilation by Innovative and Creative Environmental Solutions (ICES) of various hazardous materials investigations including the Environmental Condition of Property (ECP) report that was prepared on behalf of the U.S. Army and correspondence with the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC). The potential risk of these conditions in proximity to proposed development and human activities is evaluated within this subsection of the EIR. The hazardous materials summary prepared by ICES is included as Appendix E of the Draft EIR.
Subsection 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality: The impacts of the proposed project on hydrology, storm drainage, water resources and water quality are discussed within this subsection. The analysis also identifies existing drainage patterns, potential flood hazards, the proposed drainage plan, and stormwater retention requirements of the City of Dublin. This section is based upon a hydrology analysis prepared by Ruggeri Jensen Azar (RJA) on behalf of the project applicant, which was peer-reviewed by RBF Consulting. To comply with the requirements of CEQA, the potential effects of the proposed project on flooding is also evaluated within this subsection. The hydrology report is included as Appendix F of the Draft EIR.
Subsection 3.9, Land Use and Planning: The relationship of the proposed project to relevant regional and local plans, including the City of Dublin General Plan and other local planning documents, is discussed in this subsection. The analysis focuses on project consistency with adopted plans and policies, project relationship to the City of Dublin General Plan, compatibility of the proposed project with the surrounding land uses, and the potential for the proposed project to result in urban blight or decay.
Subsection 3.10, Noise: Compatibility between the existing noise environment and anticipated noise levels generated by the project-generated traffic, by on-site activities and noise from area roadways with buildout of the proposed project are examined within this subsection of the EIR. This section is based on noise modeling conducted for the proposed project by RBF Consulting, which is included as Appendix G of the Draft EIR.
Subsection 3.11, Public Services and Utilities: This subsection calculates demand generated by the proposed project for additional public services such as schools, parks/recreation facilities, police, and fire services. It also provides a general assessment of additional system requirements and physical improvements needed to serve the buildout demands of the proposed project. The provision of potable
Page 1-5
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Introduction
water service, wastewater treatment and disposal, natural gas and electric service, and solid waste impacts are also addressed in this subsection of the Draft EIR. Findings from a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) are incorporated within this subsection of the EIR, which is incorporated in Appendix I of the Draft EIR.
Subsection 3.12, Transportation and Circulation: This subsection examines potential impacts on the area roadway network, including roadway segments and intersections. The analysis focused on evaluating conditions at 29 intersections and eight new project planned intersections that may potentially be affected by the proposed project. This subsection also addresses alternatives transportation (e.g. public transit, pedestrian access, and bicycle routes). This subsection is based on a traffic impact analysis prepared by Hexagon which is incorporated herein with technical appendices included in Appendix H of the Draft EIR. Section 4.0 – CEQA Considerations This section of the EIR addresses the required discussions and analyses of various topical issues mandated by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2, including: significant and unavoidable environmental effects; growth inducing impacts; significant irreversible environmental changes and effects found not to be significant.
This section also addresses alternatives to the proposed project and cumulative impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and avoid and/or lessen the environmental effects of the project. The alternatives analysis compares the proposed project with three selected alternatives, which include the following:
Alternative #1 – No Project Alternative;
Alternative #2 – Reduced Development Alternative (Single Family Residential with 250,000 square feet of Commercial uses); and
Alternative #3 – Alternate Use Alternative (Residential and Regional Commercial) Section 5.0 – Report Preparers and References The purpose of this section is to provide a list of all authors and agencies that assisted in the preparation of the report by name, title, and company or agency affiliation. It also itemizes supporting and reference data used in the preparation of the Draft EIR and lists all governmental agencies, organizations, and other individuals consulted in preparing the EIR.
Appendices This section includes all notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the EIR as well as all technical reports prepared in support of the analysis.
Page 1-6
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Introduction
Impact Terminology This Draft EIR uses the following terminology to describe environmental effects of the proposed project:
Standards of Significance: A set of criteria used by the lead agency to determine at what level, or “threshold”, an impact would be considered significant. Significance criteria used in this EIR include the CEQA Guidelines and Statutes; factual or scientific information; regulatory performance standards of local, state, and federal agencies; and the goals, objectives, and policies of the City of Dublin General Plan.
Less Than Significant Impact: A less than significant impact would cause no substantial change in the environment and no mitigation is required.
Potentially Significant Impact: A potentially significant impact may cause a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions of the environment. Mitigation measures and/or project alternatives are identified to reduce project effects to the environment.
Significant Impact: Significant impacts are identified by the evaluation of project effects using specified standards of significance. Mitigation measures and/or project alternatives are identified to reduce project effects to the environment.
Significant Unavoidable Impact: A significant and unavoidable impact would result in a substantial change in the environment for which no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level, although mitigation may be available to lessen the degree of the impact.
Cumulative Impact: Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual affects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
Page 1-7
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Introduction
This page intentionally left blank
Page 1-8
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
2. Project Description The Dublin Crossings Specific Plan (hereinafter “Specific Plan” and/or “proposed project”) is a plan for the orderly development of approximately 189 acres in the City of Dublin. The project area is located on a portion of the 2,485-acre Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks) in the center of Dublin, north of Interstate 680 and Dublin Boulevard (hereinafter “project area”).
The Specific Plan addresses the future development of the project area, which is comprised of residential, commercial, parks and open space, and an elementary school. Specifically, the proposed project includes up to 1,995 residential units; up to 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, a 30-net acre community park; five acres of neighborhood park; and provisional space for a 12-acre elementary school site.
Background and Overview of the Proposed Project The Specific Plan is the result of a nearly eleven-year effort by the U.S. Army, City of Dublin, community members, and Dublin Crossing Ventures (“project applicant”) to create a plan for development of the 189-acre Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Area (“project area” or “Specific Plan Area”).
The Specific Plan process was conceived in 2001 by the Dublin City Council to initiate a comprehensive General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan program over a 172-acre portion of the 2,485-acre Camp Parks area, a 8.5-acre NASA parcel, and (at a later date) an 8.7-acre Alameda County Surplus Property Authority parcel. In 2002, the US Army formally requested an amendment to the General Plan to change the land use designation from “Public Lands” to a combination of commercial retail, office space, residential, and open space uses. On April 15, 2003, the Dublin City Council authorized the commencement of a General Plan Amendment study.
The General Plan Amendment study did not authorize a change in the land use designation on the property but permitted the City staff, in partnership with the U.S. Army, to engage the involvement of the community in several strategic visioning process meetings. These meetings were used to create a cohesive vision for future development of the site. Based on the information provided from several community meetings, five conceptual land use plans, each illustrating different land use scenarios, were formulated. The City Council held a series of meetings in 2005 to review the five conceptual land use alternatives. Input from these meetings served as the basis for selecting a preferred land use plan for future development of the proposed project.
In 2004, the US Army developed a master plan summary report describing the proposed future development and revitalization of the portion of the project area within Camp Parks. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on Master Planned Redevelopment at Camp Parks (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks 2009) was the federal environmental document prepared to analyze the environmental consequences of implementation of the
Page 2-1
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
master plan for redevelopment of Camp Parks. The FEIS included consideration of the proposed project.
In December 2007 the Army prepared a “Notice of Availability” to solicit a master developer for the Camp Parks Real Property Exchange Area. The Exchange Agreement provides the Army with an opportunity to modernize facilities through the provision of 180-acres of Army owned property (including the NASA parcel but excluding the 8.7-acre Alameda County Surplus Property Authority parcel), to a developer in exchange for Camp Parks facilities improvements. The Exchange Agreement is not a part of the Specific Plan but was necessary to facilitate acquisition of the property by the project developer.
In October 2008, the Army announced the selection of the master developer for the Project. In April 2011, the project applicant and the U.S. Army officially finalized the Exchange Agreement, authorizing the project applicant to commence the Specific Plan process.
2.2 Regional Location The project area is located in the City of Dublin in northern Alameda County, near the center of the Tri Valley region. Regional access to the City is from Interstate 580, Interstate 680, and the Dublin/Pleasanton line of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Cities that border Dublin include San Ramon to the north (in Contra Costa County), Pleasanton to the south and Livermore to the east. The regional location is shown in Figure 2-1: Regional Location.
2.3 Project Location The project area is centrally located in the City of Dublin, between the major urban areas of West and East Dublin. The project area is bound by a network of streets; 5th and 6th street to the north, Arnold Road to the east, Dublin Boulevard to the south and Scarlett Drive (with future extension) and the Iron Horse Regional Trail to the west. The project area would connect with the Iron Horse Regional Trail, which provides access to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, approximately one-third mile to the south. The project vicinity map is shown in Figure 2-2: Project Vicinity.
The project area is generally flat and a significant portion is undeveloped. Two seasonal drainages traverse the project area, one north to south generally through the middle of the project area and another along the eastern border, parallel to Arnold Road.
Existing Setting/Baseline Conditions The project area was historically used as grazing land prior to the installation of Camp Parks in the 1940s. The project area contains former and/or existing supply buildings and warehouses, infrastructure maintenance facilities, vehicle repair facilities, fueling points, hazardous waste accumulation sites, office and administration buildings, a buried construction debris deposition area, several railroad spurs, former lumber yards, and soil stockpiles. A majority of the existing buildings are located within the western portion of the project area on approximately 62 acres. Approximately 127 acres in the eastern
Page 2-2
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
portion of the project area are generally undeveloped. Photographs of the project area are shown in Figures 2-3-a and 2-3b: Photographs of the Project Area.
There are 18 existing buildings that are interspersed amongst fields of non-native grasslands where other buildings once stood. Most of the buildings were constructed as World War II temporary buildings and consist of rectangular structures that are primarily comprised of horizontal wood siding and a flat built-up roof. A description of each of the buildings/warehouses within the project area is provided below:
Building 121 (NASA warehouse building) – The NASA warehouse building was constructed in 1952 and is located on 3rd Street. It is a two story, 120,000 square foot structure.
Building 130 – Building 130 was constructed in 1944 and is located near 4th Street between Bryant and Cromwell Avenues. This building was formerly used as a warehouse.
Building 131 – Building 131 was constructed in 1944 and is located near 4th Street between Bryant and Cromwell Avenues. This building was formerly used as a warehouse.
Building 141 – Building 141 was constructed in 1953 and is located at the southwest corner of 5th Street and Adams Avenue. The building has been used as office space since its original construction.
Building 150 – Building 150 was constructed in 1944 and is located south of 5th Street between Adams and Bryant Avenues. The building was formerly used as a warehouse.
Building 162 – Building 162 was constructed in 1951 and is located north of 4th Street between Bryant and Cromwell Avenues. The building was formerly used as a warehouse.
Building 171 – Building 171 was constructed in 1951 and is located north of 4th Street between Bryant and Cromwell Avenues. The building was formerly used as a warehouse.
Building 180 – Building 180 was constructed in 1952 and is located on 5th Street between Davis and Evans Avenues. This building has been occupied by the U.S. Army as an office used for signal equipment operation since 1990.
Building 730 – Building 730 was constructed in 1951 and is located near the intersection of 3rd Street and Fernandez Avenue. The building has been used as a vehicle maintenance shop since 1951 and was occupied by the U.S. Army in the early 1980s.
Building 790 – Building 790 was constructed in 1952 and is located on the south side of 5th Street between Fernandez and Goodfellow Avenues. The building was used as the Installation Headquarters office prior to 1995.
Page 2-3
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
Building 791 and 792 (Fuel Storage Area) – The fuel storage area is located on the south side of 4th Street between Evans and Fernandez Avenues.
Building 791 – Building 791 was constructed in 1952 and is located on the south side of 4th Street between Evans and Fernandez Avenues. The building was originally used for maintenance shops (plumbing, metalwork, electrical, woodworking and painting).
Building 792 – Building 792 was constructed in 1953 and is located on the south side of 4th Street between Evans and Fernandez Avenues. The building was previously used by the U.S. Army for vehicle maintenance.
Building 793 – Building 793 is a covered storage area and is located on the south side of Building 791 near the intersection of 5th Street and Evans Avenue. Vehicle refueling was conducted at this building until 1994.
Buildings 793 and 794 (Yard Area) – Buildings 793 and 794 are located on the south of Building 791 near the intersection of 4th Street and Evans Avenue.
Building 860 – Building 860 was constructed in 1993 and is located near the intersection of 4th Street and Keppler Avenue. In addition to these existing buildings, there are large mounds of soil and debris located north of Dublin Boulevard and east of the installation entrance road. The mounds of soil and debris have been present within the project area since the early 1980s. There is a railroad spur north of Building 171 and two spurs to the south of Buildings 131 and 132. Use of the railroad spurs was discontinued in the early 1980s and some of the tracks have been removed, but the railroad bed is still visible.
The project area also contains two lumber yards, one is located east of 3rd Street and Adams Avenue and the other is located east of Evans Avenue. A nine acre vacant parcel comprised of non-native grassland is located at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road and is owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA).
The Camp Parks base provides services and training support to military units (active and reserve) and to other organizations and activities located north of the project area. Reserve units permanently stationed there conduct weekend inactive duty training throughout the year, and reserve units travel to the base for their two-week annual training. There are approximately is a combined daily population that is comprised of 934 residents and employees.
The Draft EIR assumes that the existing employees within the project area will be relocated to the base (north of the project area). The DEIR does not analyze the construction of any new facilities on the base, but rather it relies on the Base Master Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was previously certified for the buildout of Camp Parks.
Page 2-4
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
Surrounding Land Uses The project area is located adjacent to existing urban development. Camp Parks Housing and administrative buildings are located to the north. A complex of office buildings is located east of Arnold Road, along with a vacant parcel at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road. South of Dublin Boulevard is a broad mix of land uses including multi-family residential, retail, office, and industrial. The Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is located a quarter mile south of the project area, adjacent to Interstate 580. Medium-high density single-family residential, retail and industrial uses are located to the west. West of Interstate 680 is downtown Dublin. Figure 2-4: Surrounding Land Uses presents an aerial photograph that shows land uses shows existing and surrounding land uses.
2.4 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning General Plan Designations The City of Dublin General Plan (City of Dublin 2010) identifies the general locations, density and extent of land available for housing, business, industry, natural resources protection, recreation, and other uses. As shown in Figure 2-5: General Plan Land Use Designations, the majority of the project area is designated “Public Land” with the southeastern portion of the project area designated “Parks/Public Recreation.” The following land use designations surround the project area: Campus Office to the east and southeast; High Density Residential, Campus Office, and Retail Office to the south; Medium/High Density Residential and Retail Office, Business Park Industrial and Outdoor Storage, Medium High Density Residential and Retail Office and Automotive; and Business Park Industrial and Outdoor Storage to the southwest.
Zoning According to the City of Dublin Zoning Map, a majority of the project area is zoned “Agriculture” with the southeast corner of the project area at the intersection of Arnold Drive and Dublin Boulevard zoned as “Planned Development” as part of the Dublin Transit Center General Plan Amendment. The current zoning within the project area is shown in Figure 2-6: Current Zoning.
2.5 Purpose and Objectives Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), a clear statement of objectives and the underlying purpose of the proposed project shall be discussed in the Environmental Impact Report. The City of Dublin and the project applicant have provided the following project objectives for the proposed project:
Ensure a long-term financially viable infill project that provides for the creation of new jobs, recreational opportunities, and expanded housing opportunities.
Create a community that is compatible in scale and design with surrounding land uses.
Page 2-5
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
Create a project that has a fiscally-neutral impact on the City’s financial and services resources.
Create a community with a strong sense of place and a range of recreation and mobility amenities by designing a unique streetscape that will serve to tie the neighborhoods together with an integrated design theme.
Establish a cohesive community feel in the project area through the development and implementation of design guidelines that ensure consistency between individual neighborhoods while allowing unique architectural expression.
Provide sufficient land for the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) to construct an elementary school within the project site.
Provide a new community park that will be the centerpiece of Dublin Crossing and serve as the focus for major social, cultural, and recreational events for the project, residents of Dublin, and the Tri-Valley region.
If the City of Dublin, the Dublin Crossing project developer and the County of Alameda come to an agreement on the transfer of the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) property to either the City of Dublin or the Dublin Crossing project developer, include the 8.7-acre ACSPA parcel in the project area and plan for its full integration into the project design while maintaining the park acreage at some location within the project area.
Create a distinctive Dublin Boulevard with amenities and facilities that are consistent with the City of Dublin Streetscape Master Plan, Bikeways Master Plan, and the City of Dublin General Plan.
Provide a range of transportation choices; including walking, bicycling, and access to transit (BART and bus service), ridesharing, and vanpooling to reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
Provide enhanced transportation amenities that encourage non-vehicular access to and on the Iron Horse Regional Trail, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, and to both on-site and adjacent commercial services.
Provide an east-west roadway through the project site to enhance circulation between the points east and points west of the area.
Construct one or more neighborhood parks that are conveniently located and serve as a focal point of recreation and neighborhood events.
Provide flexibility in land use regulations to allow for site constraints, variations in housing styles, and changing market conditions.
Provide a mixture of residential unit types appropriate to the projected housing needs as identified in the City of Dublin General Plan Housing Element.
Mitigate the unusual phasing impacts of the proposed project by ensuring that each phase (or combination of phases) can stand alone as a well-designed neighborhood with an adequate circulation network and an alternative transition between the proposed project and the remaining Camp Parks base.
Page 2-6
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
Promote environmental stewardship through the inclusion of progressive energy programs and standards in construction and ongoing operation of residential and commercial buildings. 2.6 Proposed Land Uses and Development Plan The proposed project will redevelop the project area into a new, mixed-use community with residential, commercial, retail, and parks and open space land uses. Figure 2-9: Land Use Diagram shows the proposed land use designations at the project area. Development within the project area would be constructed according to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The Specific Plan is a planning document for the proposed project identifies the ultimate land use plan, circulation, infrastructure, and fiscal impacts on public services. The Specific Plan also includes a set of development regulations and design guidelines that will be referenced as part of all subsequent development reviews and approvals.
The proposed project includes up to 1,995 residential units; 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, a 30-net acre community park (exclusive of the creek corridor); five acres of neighborhood parks; and provisional space for a 12 acre elementary school site. The land use breakdown is included in Table 2-1: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Land Use Breakdown. The land use diagram for the proposed project is shown in Figure 2-7: Conceptual Land Use Plan. An illustrative site plan, which is a conceptual plan for the proposed project is shown in Figure 2-8: Illustrative Site Plan.
Table 2-1: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Land Use Breakdown Total Development Total 1 Permitted Density Potential Land Use Acreage
Dublin Crossing Lower Density 6.0 – 14.0 units/net 41.9 Residential (DC LDR) acre Up to 1,995 dwelling Dublin Crossing Medium Density 14.1 – 20 units/net units.5 46.5 Residential (DC MDR) acre Mixed Use (MU)2 20.1 – 60 units/net 13.2 acre 0.25 to 1.0 FAR General Commercial/DC Medium 14.1 - 20 units/net 75,000 to 200,000 gross Density Residential (GC/DC MDR)3 9.1 acre square feet 0.25 to 1.0 FAR General Commercial/DC High 20.1 - 60 units/net Density Residential (GC/DC HDR)3 9.9 acre 0.25 to 1.0 FAR Park (P)4 30 n/a n/a Open Space (OS) 2.6 n/a n/a School (S)5 12 n/a n/a Roadways, Utilities, and other n/a 23.8 n/a Infrastructure Total Project Area Acreage 189 Notes: (1) Acreages are rounded to the nearest whole number. Net acreage is defined as the gross acreage less backbone street, public street, and right-of-way area.
Page 2-7
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
(2) The Mixed Use land use district shall contain a minimum of 75,000 gross square feet of commercial uses (with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0) and a 5 acre neighborhood park. In conjunction with an application that meets the commercial and park requirements above, residential uses are permitted with a density of up to 60 units/net acre. FAR applies only to commercial uses. (3) Can have commercial only, mixed-use, or residential-only uses. FAR applies only to commercial uses. (4) Park acreage is net usable acres. In the case of the 30 net-acre Community Park, the park is exclusive of Chabot Creek, the north-south drainage in the western portion of the project area. (5) The school site can be developed at the Dublin Crossing Lower Density Residential (DC LDR) use and density if the site is not utilized by the Dublin Unified School District and if the Specific Plan maximum of 1,995 residential units is not exceeded.
The proposed project will be connected by a hierarchy of streets, trails, linked open spaces, and interconnected neighborhoods. Land uses will also visually and physically connected by circulation infrastructure, continuity of streetscapes, complementary design features, and by the nature of their compatibility.
Land uses in the project area reflect the optimal type and mix necessary to achieve the vision of a livable and sustainable, transit-oriented urban village. The types of uses and transportation network proposed support transit-oriented development (TOD) for the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, local transit service. It will also link to the Iron Horse Regional Trail and reinforce a stronger connection between West and East Dublin.
Residential Neighborhoods The proposed project will contain 88.4 acres of residential neighborhoods accommodating up to 1,995 residential units with densities ranging from 6 to 20 dwelling units per net acre.
Dublin Crossing Lower Density Residential (DC LDR) has a density of 6 to 14 units per net acre;
Dublin Crossing Medium Density Residential (DC MDR) has a density of 14.1 to 20 units per net acre; and Three other non-residential land use districts and the school site also allow the potential for residential uses, some up to a maximum of 60 units per acre depending on the district. However, the maximum number of residential units allowed within the project area is 1,995 units, which includes any units in these non-residential land use districts.
There will be a variety of housing types throughout the project area including single-family detached, single-family attached and multi-family units. They will be located to provide a logical transition from the existing high density residential development adjacent to the BART station and from the existing medium-density residential neighborhood east across Scarlett Drive.
Residential density ranges within each residential neighborhood are allowed to provide flexibility of subdivision design and to adapt to changing future housing market conditions.
Page 2-8
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
Commercial Mixed Use The Mixed Use (MU) land use district is proposed for 13.2 acres at the northwest corner of Arnold Road and Dublin Boulevard. The Mixed Use land use district will contain a minimum of 75,000 and a maximum of 200,000 gross square feet of commercial uses (with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0) and a 5 acre neighborhood park. In conjunction with an application that meets the commercial and park requirements above, residential uses are permitted with a density of up to 60 units/net acre that is not included in the commercial FAR calculations. Residential-only uses are not permitted.
Mixed-use can take the form of vertical mixed-use, horizontal mixed-use, or a combination of both. Vertical mixed-use is characterized by residential use above and adjacent to the base commercial. Horizontal mixed-use is characterized by residential use adjacent to the base commercial, as either attached or detached units, but the project is designed so that the residential and commercial uses are integrated and built simultaneously to function as a single project.
Typical permitted commercial uses include a variety of eating and drinking establishments, hotel, entertainment, retail stores, bank branches, bookstores, markets, personal and professional services, and office uses.
A five acre Neighborhood Park will be located north of the commercial uses and will be designed in concert with the surrounding development.
A gateway plaza located at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road will create a public focal point along Dublin Boulevard. This gateway plaza will include generous landscape and hardscape treatment around a water feature with trellises and seating areas to encourage activation of the space.
A second plaza is envisioned in an internal courtyard between the commercial and/or mixed-use buildings. This plaza will feature a smaller water feature, and possibly an outdoor eating area for restaurants. Accent planting in pots and planters will be located throughout the interior plaza to provide color. These plazas will be constructed concurrent with the commercial and/or mixed-use development.
General Commercial/Dublin High Density Residential (GC/DC HDR) General Commercial/Dublin Crossing High Density Residential (GC/DC HDR) is proposed for 9.9 acres on the periphery of the project area along Dublin Boulevard, as shown in Figure 2-7, Conceptual Land Use Plan. Uses allowed in this district are commercial, mixed use (as described in the MU land use district above), and residential. In combination with the Mixed Use land use district (which will contain a minimum of 75,000 square feet of commercial uses), the GC/DC HDR land use district can contain an additional 125,000 of commercial uses, up to a Specific Plan area total of 200,000 square feet. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of commercial uses in the district is 1.0 and the maximum density for
Page 2-9
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
residential development in the land use district is 60 units/net acre. Residential uses do not count toward the commercial FAR limits.
General Commercial/Dublin Medium Density Residential (GC/DC MDR) To provide flexibility to accommodate future market conditions and City housing needs, a combination land use district is proposed for areas along Arnold Road – north of the Mixed Use land use district.
General Commercial/Dublin Crossing Medium Density Residential (GC/DC MDR) is proposed for 9.1 acres on the periphery of the project area along Arnold Road, as shown in Figure 2-7, Conceptual Land Use Plan. Uses allowed in this district are commercial, mixed use (as described in the MU land use district above), and residential. In combination with the Mixed Use land use district (which will contain a minimum of 75,000 square feet of commercial uses), the GC/DC MDR land use district can contain an additional 125,000 of commercial uses, up to a Specific Plan area total of 200,000 square feet. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of commercial uses in the district is 1.0 and the maximum density for residential development in the land use district is 20 units/net acre. Residential uses do not count toward the commercial FAR limits.
Parks, Open Space, and Public Facilities The project area contains a total of 73.4 acres of land designed for public use which includes parks/open space (including the five acre neighborhood park within the Mixed Use land use district), an elementary school site, and public roadways.
Central Park and Iron Horse Regional Trail Realignment Located at the crossroads of Dublin Boulevard, Scarlett Drive and the Iron Horse Regional Trail is the proposed 30 net usable acre Dublin Crossing Central Park (Central Park). The Central Park is envisioned as an innovative and uniquely designed community gathering place for the residents of Dublin Crossing and the broader community of Dublin.
The Central Park will provide high-quality recreational amenities for both passive and active recreation and civic events (e.g., festivals, farmer’s market, art shows, etc.). Amenities could include an amphitheater, organized and informal sports fields, sport courts, restrooms, walking paths, parking, a community garden, demonstration vineyards, play areas, picnic grounds, a carousel, a rose garden, and possibly a museum.
Chabot Creek extends north to south along the eastern side of the proposed Central Park. This channel has intermittent seasonal flows and provides regional drainage from Camp Parks (to the north) and eventually flows under I-580 and into the Chabot channel. This channel will be relocated and grade contoured as a natural riparian corridor and could include a multi-use trail with staggered observation lookouts and interpretive signage and will be located adjacent to the eastern border of the Central Park. The daylit section of the riparian corridor is not included in the net usable park acreage total. Two underground onsite basins (sized at 1.5 and 3.0 acre-feet) will be constructed within the Central Park.
Page 2-10
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
A gateway plaza at the southeast corner of Central Park at the visually prominent corner of Dublin Boulevard and the future extended Scarlett Drive will serve as the primary entrance into the park. The Dublin Boulevard frontage will create an opportunity for a strong visual civic statement at a key central location within the City. The gateway plaza will include a large signage treatment and significant landscaping, seating and other street furniture and a sculptural element(s).
The Iron Horse Regional Trail will be reconfigured with the new project frontage and Scarlett Drive, and a secondary trail pathway will be integrated along the southwestern edge of the Central Park. Associated uses adjacent to the secondary trail pathway through the park could include a café/concession, bicycle racks, wayfinding signage, lighting, restrooms, and landscaped gardens.
Neighborhood Parks The five acre Neighborhood Park will be located within the Mixed Use land use district. The amenities and facilities within the park will depend to a great deal on the land use adjacencies, so therefore design details in the Specific Plan have been limited. The intent is to create a Park Master Plan that is highly responsive to the surrounding uses, land use pattern, and neighborhood needs.
School The proposed project provides an opportunity for the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) to acquire 12 acres of land for a public elementary school site which is designated as School (S) on Figure 2-7: Conceptual Land Use Plan. This elementary school will be designed to accommodate up to 900 children and will include classrooms, a gymnasium, administrative offices, a multi-use sports field, sport courts, a playground, and parking. The school site will have an overlay designation of Dublin Crossing Lower Density Residential (DC LDR). In the event that DUSD does not acquire the site, residential uses will be allowed in accordance with the DC LDR land use district, development standards, and design guidelines contained in the Specific Plan. 2.7 Site Access and Circulation
Vehicular Circulation Regional and Local Circulation . Interstate Highways – Interstate Highway access to the Specific Plan area is provided by I-580 and I-680. I-580 runs south of the Specific Plan area and connects to I-680 and I-880 to the west and I-5 to the east. I-680 runs west of the Specific Plan area and connects to the northerly cities of San Ramon, Danville, Walnut Creek and Concord and the southerly cities of Fremont, Milpitas, San Jose, and Silicon Valley.
. Dublin Boulevard – Dublin Boulevard is the main east-west arterial that runs through the city and is the southern boundary of the Specific Plan area. Dublin Boulevard provides access to the Dublin/Pleasanton and West Dublin/Pleasanton
Page 2-11
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
BART stations and commercial, office, and residential areas in the downtown and West and East Dublin. Dublin Boulevard has an existing bikeway network consisting of Class I bike paths and Class II bike lanes. Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (Wheels) bus transit service and a bus rapid transit (BRT) line run along Dublin Boulevard.
. Arnold Road – Arnold Road is a local roadway extending north from Dublin Boulevard into Camp Parks. Existing office buildings are located on the east side of the roadway. The City of Dublin has future plans for a Class I bike path along one side of the road at the Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road intersection, which will connect to an existing Class II bike lane on both sides of the street.
. Scarlett Drive – Scarlett Drive is a local roadway located along the west side of the Specific Plan area. The current alignment terminates at Houston Place and picks up again at Dublin Boulevard. To implement the City’s existing approved Capital Improvement Plan street network it is anticipated that the Specific Plan development will provide for construction of the planned extension of Scarlett Drive from Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard, adjacent to the Iron Horse Regional Trail.
Internal Circulation A grid pattern of streets, each with different character and function, will serve the transportation needs of the proposed project. The internal “backbone” street system is designed to establish connections to the existing exterior roadway network as well as internally between residential neighborhoods, parks, open spaces, a potential elementary school site, and business/commercial areas. With sidewalks on all public streets, and bikeways on many, these backbone streets will become the framework for the pedestrian and bicycle network that connect to uses both internally and beyond the project area. Internal roadway classifications include Collector Streets, Local Streets, and Private Streets, each of which is described below. The proposed backbone street network is shown in Figure 2-9: Proposed Backbone Street Network.
Collector Streets Collector Streets will serve as the primary conduits for interior neighborhood traffic and provide access to and from neighborhood residential streets and perimeter streets outside of the project area. These streets are not intended to support regional traffic, but they may provide direct access to schools and parks. Collector Streets include B Street, Central Parkway, and G Street, as well as the future extension of Scarlett Drive.
Local Streets Local Streets will provide direct multi-modal access to neighborhoods by residents and visitors while discouraging through traffic and high speeds. Local Streets are intended to provide low-speed access between and within neighborhoods, promoting a multi-modal network with an emphasis on comfort, safety, and amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Page 2-12
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
Private Streets Private Streets will be privately owned and maintained streets that provide access to common interest subdivisions (future development subdivisions) and commercial and mixed-use developments. Private Streets will be designed for a low volume of traffic with limited vehicular access. Private Streets may be narrower than public residential streets and may or may not include sidewalks, on-street parking, or other street features.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation The project area is adjacent to and will be connected with the Iron Horse Trail which is the longest trail system in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The Iron Horse Trail provides a direct link with the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, located one-quarter of a mile south of the project area. The proposed project would also include a pedestrian trail adjacent to Dublin Boulevard that would connect to the existing trail corridor, as well as sidewalks and bicycle paths throughout the project area.
Public Transportation The proposed project would be served by the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and the Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (Wheels).
BART – BART is the regional rail service in the San Francisco Bay Area, with stations and stops throughout the greater Bay Area, including the Dublin/Pleasanton and West Dublin/Pleasanton stations. The Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is located approximately a quarter mile south of the Specific Plan area.
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (Wheels) – The Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority provides services in Dublin and the Tri-Valley area via Wheels, which provides local, regional, and paratransit bus service. Nearby stops are located along Dublin Boulevard and at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The project proposes to provide new bus shelters along Dublin Boulevard. 2.8 Infrastructure Improvements Storm Drain Infrastructure The Camp Park’s entire 1,800+ acre watershed drains through the project area. The majority of the runoff from this watershed is conveyed through Camp Parks in natural and man-made swales. These swales cross the project area and are intercepted along the north side of Dublin Boulevard and conveyed to various existing Zone 7 drainage facilities. The main drainage channel for runoff from Camp Parks crosses the project area and is currently a mapped FEMA 100-year floodplain as shown in Figure 2-10: FEMA Flood Zone.
To the northeast and east of Camp Parks, runoff is collected in an existing channel and conveyed south along Arnold Road. Near Arnold Road and Central Parkway, a flow “splitter” divides flow between two existing Zone 7 drainage facilities. A portion of this flow continues down Arnold Road, while the remainder is conveyed in an existing trapezoidal channel across the southeastern portion of the project are.
Page 2-13
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
Two underground onsite basins (sized at 1.5 and 3.0 acre-feet) will be constructed within the Central Park to accommodate a range of 10 percent of the 2 year storm flows to the 10 year storm flows. An offsite basin (sized at 76 acre-feet) to meet the 950 cfs maximum requirement is proposed north of the Specific Plan area along the existing drainage channel. Additionally, best management practices (BMPs) shall be implemented in new developments within the project area to ensure that runoff in storm drains does not lower water quality within or outside of the project area. Refer to Figure 2-11: Conceptual Stormwater Drainage and Detention System.
Wastewater The wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services provider for the project area will be provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). DSRSD provides wastewater collection and treatment at the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility located in the City of Pleasanton.
Several existing sanitary sewer mains currently convey wastewater through and around the project area. These sewer mains will be rerouted through the project area as required to accommodate phased development (see Figure 2-12: Conceptual Sanitary Sewer System). Wastewater generated from the proposed project would be collected and conveyed through a conventional gravity system of pipes located within the new street network. The onsite wastewater system will connect to the existing DSRSD sewer conveyance facilities surrounding the site.
Potable Water Supply Infrastructure The DSRSD owns and operates potable water system within the boundaries of Camp Parks including the project area. They also maintain potable water facilities in the streets adjacent to Camp Parks, including Dougherty Road, Scarlett Drive, Dublin Blvd. and Arnold Road.
Several existing water mains currently traverse the project area providing service to existing buildings through a looped water system. As shown in Figure 2-13: Conceptual Potable Water System, these water mains will be rerouted through the project area as required to accommodate phased development.
Recycled Water The DSRSD produces and distributes recycled water for landscape irrigation in Dublin as part of its Potable Water Conservation and Water Recycling Program. Except for certain isolated locations, all new irrigation systems serving parks, streetscapes, and common area landscaping for multi-family or commercial complexes within the potable water service area of DSRSD are required to use recycled water for irrigation.
DSRSD maintains several domestic recycled water facilities near the project area including recycled water mains in Dougherty Road and Dublin Blvd. All recycled water mains originate at DSRSD’s Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant located in Pleasanton. The plant includes a recycled water treatment facility and a pump station that conveys recycled
Page 2-14
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
water from the plant. Per DRSD Ordinance 301, the project area is required to connect to recycled water for landscaping, except for single family residential uses that do not have landscaping maintained in common. As such, the proposed project would be served by recycled water facilities within landscaped areas along public roadways, schools, parks, commercial, and multi-family residential. Figure 2-14: Conceptual Recycled Water System illustrates the anticipated recycled water system onsite layout and points of connection within the project area.
Joint Trench (Gas, Electricity, and Telecommunications) Gas and electric service for the project area will be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). There are existing gas distribution lines in the following streets; portions of Dublin Boulevard (6-inch line) and Arnold Road (6-inch line and 8-inch lines). All new transit stops will have new shelters and bicycle and pedestrian amenities for access to transit and will have electrical service for the provision of lighting and real time arrival and departure signs. All new signals will be interconnected with fiber optic cable.
Development in the project area will connect with electric and telecommunication services in the joint trench facilities along Dublin Boulevard. There are also existing petroleum gas and fiber optic lines traversing a portion of the Specific Plan Area.
2.9 Construction Activities
Demolition, Grading and Excavation The proposed project includes demolition of the existing buildings within the project area and associated improvements (e.g. pavement, etc.). Mass grading operations associated with future development within the project area will be phased to align as closely as practical to the overall development phasing of the proposed project.
Soil Remediation The U.S. Army and NASA are responsible for environmental remediation of existing hazardous materials on the project area and have agreed to remediate the project area to meet state and federal requirements. The project area contains three areas of potential concern:
Former Building 109/Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA) 2 - Former Building 109/PRFTA 2 located at the southwestern portion of the project area containing concentrations of dioxin and lead within the surficial soil above the acceptable risk-based screening levels for closure. The U.S. Army is awaiting confirmation from the regulatory agencies regarding the remediation of this site (Personal Communication with Mark Hall, Environmental Coordinator, U.S. Army, Camp Parks on May 21, 2013).
Area 761/PRFTA 13 - Area 761/PRFTA 13 is located at the central portion of the project area and requires land use controls by the CRWQCB to obtain an NFA status. The CRWQCB issued a Pre-NFA determination on May 28, 2008. This
Page 2-15
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
determination acknowledged that groundwater cleanup objectives have been met. However, a deed restriction (land use control) is required to achieve a full NFA designation due to the presence of soil which contains diesel concentrations greater than acceptable levels. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) concurred with these findings in January 20, 2012.
Potential Construction Debris Dump Sites (ECP 36, 37, 39) - The eastern portion of the potential construction debris dump sites consists of large mounds of soil and debris north of Dublin Boulevard and east of the installation entrance road. Construction and demolition debris, asbestos containing material (ACM), waste asphalt, drill cuttings, and grass clippings were observed in the mounds during site visits conducted from 1990 through 2002. DTSC stated that the area may need further investigation prior to receiving an NFA. Soil samples revealed that there were high hydrocarbons in the soil. The soil has been removed and re-sampled with negative results and have been subsequently submitted to DTSC for review (Personal Communication with Mark Hall, Environmental Coordinator, U.S. Army, Camp Parks on May 21, 2013). In addition, many of the existing structures located within the project area that would be demolished contain Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) and Lead Based Paints (LBPs).
Contamination that remains after the U.S. Army or NASA transfers the property to the project applicant will either be remediated by the project applicant or by the U.S. Army or NASA, prior to and during site grading and demolition activities with future development activities.
2.10 Project Phasing Phasing Plan
Development of the project area will include five development phases, with anticipated buildout occurring over a period of approximately eight to twelve years. Ultimate development timing will depend on market demands, U.S. Army contracts, and according to an orderly extension of roadways, infrastructure, public services, and utilities, and the provision of parks, recreational facilities, school, and other public amenities. Figure 2-15: Conceptual Phasing Plan and Table 2-2: Phasing Plan identifies the proposed phasing plan for development within the project area.
The development phases shall occur sequentially, although portions of phases may occur concurrently. Development of each phase shall include all infrastructure, services, facilities and amenities, both public and private, needed to serve the uses and structures within that phase in accordance with the Specific Plan. Development of each phase will result in a project that could “stand alone” if future phases were not constructed. It is anticipated that each phase may include sub-phases which may result in multiple Final Maps.
Page 2-16
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
Table 2-2: Phasing Plan Maximum Amount Maximum Number of Commercial Project Phase Gross Area 1 of Residential Units Square Footage 1 33 570 - 2 54 421 75,000 3 48 435 50,000 4 26 156 75,000 5 28 413 - Total 189 acres Up to 1,995 Up to 200,000 residential units Commercial SF
2.11 Requested Actions, Entitlements, and Required Approvals Initial entitlements required for future development in the Specific Plan area include the following actions to be taken by the Dublin City Council:
EIR Certification: Certification of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including findings that identify significant environmental impacts of the Project and mitigation measures that must be implemented as part of the Project, which will be reflected in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and imposed as conditions of approval on subsequent discretionary approvals. This action will be adopted by resolution.
General Plan Amendments: Amendment of the City of Dublin General Plan to: 1) Change the Land Use Map to show the land uses identified Figure 2-7: Conceptual Land Plan and 2) Make other specific conforming amendments to the General Plan to ensure consistency between the General Plan and the Specific Plan (collectively, General Plan Amendments). These actions will be adopted by resolution.
Specific Plan Approval: Approval of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. This action will be adopted by resolution.
Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendments: Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to: 1) Change the text to reflect the new zoning designation of “Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Planned Development (PD-DX); 2) Change the zoning map to show the Specific Plan area as zoned (PD-DX); and (3) Other specific conforming amendments to the Municipal Code, including the Zoning Ordinance, to ensure consistency between the Municipal Code and the Specific Plan. These actions will be adopted by ordinance.
Rezoning of the Specific Plan area: Approval of the Specific Plan as the applicable zoning for the project area. This action will be adopted by ordinance.
Development Agreement (DA): Approval of a DA between the City of Dublin and the project applicant. This action will be adopted by ordinance.
Large Lot Tentative Map (LLTM): This action will be adopted by resolution and may be concurrent with the adoption of the Specific Plan.
Page 2-17
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description
Small Lot Tentative Map: Approval of a Small Lot Tentative Map (SLTM). This action will be adopted by resolution and may be concurrent with the adoption of the Specific Plan.
Site Development Review: Approval of site and architectural review for the development of individual neighborhoods. This action will be adopted by resolution.
Grading and Improvement Plans: Approval of site-specific grading plans and improvements for individual neighborhoods. This action is ministerial and approved by the City Engineer or Public Works Director.
Landscape Master Plan, Infrastructure Master Plan: Approval of detailed master plans for the project area that define the project-wide landscape design for public rights of way and plans that define the project-wide infrastructure planned to serve future development. This action is ministerial and approved by the City Engineer or Public Works Director. Development of the proposed project shall be governed by the Municipal Code in effect at the time of approval of the Specific Plan in accordance with the DA, as modified and supplemented by the Specific Plan. Future development of the proposed project shall be in substantial conformance with the Specific Plan and the DA.
The EIR is also available for use by Responsible and Trustee Agencies or other agencies that may have jurisdiction or approval authority for the proposed project. These agencies may include:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Page 2-18
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Environmental Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Each environmental section in this chapter presents information in four parts:
Environmental Setting - The Environmental Setting section provides a general overview of the conditions on and adjacent to the planning area.
Regulatory Setting - The Regulatory Setting presents local, state and federal regulations which are relevant to the proposed project.
Relevant Project Characteristics - The Relevant Project Characteristics section provides a more detailed description of the elements of the proposed project that are relevant to the impact analysis for a particular topic. Relevant project information may relate to the size, characteristics and/or location of project elements. Any project elements that may cause impacts, as well as those that may serve to minimize impacts, are identified.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures - The Impacts and Mitigation Measures section provides a brief description of standards that were used to evaluate whether an impact is considered significant based on standards identified in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and agency policy or regulations. Impacts are identified and analyzed. Mitigation measures that would reduce potentially significant or significant impacts are identified, as well as the significance of the impact after implementation of mitigation measures. If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant unavoidable impact. Referenced graphics are presented at the end of each section.
Page 3-1
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Environmental Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3-2
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics and Visual Resources
3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources This section describes the aesthetic and visual resources of the project area and its surroundings, and discusses the potential aesthetic impacts that may result with implementation of the proposed project. The primary visual and aesthetic issues are related to the views along Dublin Boulevard and the Iron Horse Regional Trail. Visual impacts were evaluated using a combination of a site reconnaissance, visual simulations prepared by the project applicant, review of photo documentation and aerial photographs, and a review of existing policy documents.
Environmental Setting Visual Image Visual images dominate an observer’s impression of a district, city, or region. To understand how visual images influence an observer’s impression, the aesthetic value of an area must first be defined. Aesthetic value is a measure of visual character and scenic quality combined with a viewer’s response to the area. Viewer response is a combination of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. Viewer exposure to a viewshed varies with the number of viewers, the number of views seen, the distance of the views, and the viewing duration. Viewer sensitivity is related to the extent of the public’s concern for particular visual resources.
Both natural landscapes and the built environment contribute to perceived visual images and aesthetics value of a view. Aesthetic value is influenced by geologic, hydrologic, botanical, wildlife, recreational, and urban features. Visual images and their perceived visual quality can vary significantly seasonally and even hourly as weather, light, shadow, and the elements that compose the resource change.
Definition of Terms Numerous methods have been developed to characterize the scenic quality of a visual resource and the viewer response to that resource. However, no standard approach to visual analysis exists. Instead, several approaches that focus on different visual aspects or issues are used. One commonly used set of criteria includes vividness, intactness, and unity.
Vividness is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in striking or distinctive visual patterns.
Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements; this factor can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, as well as in natural settings.
Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole; it frequently attests to the careful design of individual components in the landscape.
Page 3-3
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Regional Visual Setting The City of Dublin is located in the Tri-Valley region of the East San Francisco Bay Area. The visual setting of the region is defined by several communities (Pleasanton, Livermore, Danville, Dublin, and San Ramon) that are surrounded by hillsides, vineyards, and natural open space.
Project Setting The project area was historically used as grazing land prior to the installation of Camp Parks in the 1940s. The project area contains former and/or existing supply buildings and warehouses, infrastructure maintenance facilities, vehicle repair facilities, fueling points, hazardous waste accumulation sites, office and administration buildings, a buried construction debris deposition area, several railroad spurs, former lumber yards, and soil stockpiles. The majority of the approximately 16 buildings/structures located within the project area are located on 62 acres within the western portion of the project area. Most of the buildings/warehouses were constructed as World War II temporary buildings and consist of rectangular structures that are primarily comprised of horizontal wood siding and a flat built-up roof. Approximately, 127 acres in the eastern portion of the project area is generally undeveloped and consists of non-native grasslands.
In addition to the existing buildings, there are large mounds of soil and debris located north of Dublin Boulevard and east of the installation entrance road to the PRFTA. The mounds of soil and debris have been present within the project area since the early 1980s. There are also railroad spurs to the north of Building 171 and two to the south of Buildings 131 and 132. Use of the railroad spurs was discontinued in the early 1980s and some of the tracks have been removed, but the railroad bed is still visible within the project area.
The project area also contains two lumber yards, one is located east of 3rd Street and Adams Avenue and the other is located east of Evans Avenue. A nine acre vacant acre parcel that is comprised of non-native grassland is located at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road and is owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA).
Surrounding Land Uses Housing and administrative buildings for Camp Parks are located to the north of the project area. A complex of office buildings is located east of Arnold Road, along with a vacant parcel at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road. South of Dublin Boulevard is a broad mix of land uses including multi-family residential, retail, office, and industrial. The Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is located approximately a quarter mile south of the Specific Plan Area, adjacent to Interstate 580. Medium-high density single- family residential, retail and industrial uses are located to the west. West of Interstate 680 is downtown Dublin. Figure 2-4: Surrounding Land Uses presents an aerial photograph that shows land uses shows existing and surrounding land uses. Figure 2-4: Surrounding Land Uses presents an aerial photograph that shows land uses that surround the project area.
Page 3-4
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Scenic Vistas A scenic vista is a view that possesses visual and aesthetic qualities of high value to the community. Scenic vistas can provide views of natural features or significant structures and buildings. The term “vista” generally implies an expansive view, usually from an elevated point or open area.
There are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project area; however, due to the generally flat topography that consists of non-native grasslands and scattered and low profile development consisting of approximately 16 existing buildings/warehouses within the project area, there are distant views from nearby public roadways and the adjacent Iron Horse Trail through the project area to the hills to the north and west. These hills are generally undeveloped, although suburban residential development exists along the base and along the tops of several hills. The hills to the north fall within Camp Parks and are and used for military purposes.
Scenic Resources and Roadways According to the City of Dublin General Plan, I-580, I-680, and Dougherty Road were designated scenic routes by Alameda County in 1966. These are primary routes from which people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the City. Therefore, it is important that the quality of views be protected.
I-680 is also designated as a State Scenic Highway. According to the State Scenic Highway website, “the scenic aspects of the corridor feature the rolling wooded hills of the Contra Costa range contrasted with the flat Sunol Valley ringed by distance hills to the north and east.” While not officially listed, I-580 is eligible for listing as a State Scenic Highway.
Section 5.6, Implementing Policy B in the City of Dublin General Plan requires that design review be conducted for all projects visible from a designated scenic route. A portion of the southeast portion of the project area may be visible from I-580 through the vacant land south of Dublin Boulevard; however, the project area is not visible from I-680.
The project area and its immediate surroundings do not have any natural resources, monuments, or unique buildings that would be classified as scenic resources.
The project area is outside of the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards (April 1996), which provides guidance for new development along scenic corridors within the Eastern Extended Planning Area Boundary.
Light and Glare Lighting nuisances can generally be categorized by the following:
Glare – Intense light that shines directly, or is reflected from a surface into a person’s eyes;
Page 3-5
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics and Visual Resources
“Skyglow”/Nighttime Illumination – Artificial lighting from urbanized sources that alters the rural landscape in sufficient quantity to cause lighting of the nighttime sky and reduction of visibility of stars and other astronomical features; and
“Spillover” Lighting – Artificial lighting that spills over onto adjacent properties, which could interrupt sleeping patterns or cause nuisances to neighboring residents. The project area is part of a city and region that contributes to nighttime lighting. Existing buildings within the project area that have reflective surfaces can also cause glare at certain times of the day based on the location and angle of the sun.
Regulatory Setting State Streets and Highway Code, Section 260 et seq. - State Scenic Highway Program The California Scenic Highway Program (CSHP) was created by the Legislature in 1963 with the purpose of preserving and protecting scenic highway corridors from change, which diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The stated intent (Streets and Highway Code Section 260) of the California Scenic Highway Program is to protect and enhance California's natural beauty and to protect the social and economic values provided by the State's scenic resources. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view. The CSHP includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been so designated. These highways are identified in Section 263.1 of the Streets and Highways Code.
State highways nominated for scenic designation must first be on the statutory list of highways eligible for scenic designation in the State Scenic Highway System. County highways nominated for scenic designation that are believed to have outstanding scenic values are considered eligible and do not require any legislative action. Both State and county highway nominations follow the same process and have the same requirements.
Scenic highway nominations are evaluated using the following criteria:
The State or county highway consists of a scenic corridor that is comprised of a memorable landscape that showcases the natural scenic beauty or agriculture of California (see definition for “vividness”, under Section III: Step 1, Visual Assessment).
Existing visual intrusions do not significantly impact the scenic corridor (see definitions for “intactness” and “unity” below, under Section III. Step 1: Visual Assessment).
Demonstration of strong local support for the proposed scenic highway designation.
Page 3-6
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The length of the proposed scenic highway is not less than a mile and is not segmented. The status of a state scenic highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California Department of Transportation for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Scenic Highway Program (CSHP), Interstate 680 is officially designated as a State Scenic Highway. While not officially listed Interstate 580 is eligible for listing as a State Scenic Highway.
Local City of Dublin General Plan The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to aesthetics and visual character within the project area.
5.6: Guiding Policy A. Incorporate County-designated scenic routes, and the proposed Fallon Road extension, in the General Plan as adopted City-designated scenic routes, and work to enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by through travelers.
5.6: Implementing Policy B. Exercise design review of all projects visible from a designated scenic route.
In addition to the above policies, the General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Element contains a number of policies related to urban design and visual character. Policies address a range of topics, including:
Site and Building Design,
Landscaping and Natural Features,
Gathering and Open Space Areas,
Signage, Lighting, and Art,
Parking and Circulation, and
Villages.
Relevant Project Characteristics Development Standards and Design Guidelines The Specific Plan includes both development standards and design guidelines to guide future development within the project area. These development standards and design guidelines will be used during the design review process for project Site Development Review applications within the Specific Plan area. The design guidelines apply to all new construction within the Specific Plan area. Development standards address the following topics:
Page 3-7
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Overall Building Design,
Building Articulation,
Building Massing,
Indoor-Outdoor Relationship,
Building Materials, Colors, and Finishes,
Base and Top Treatments,
Entry Design,
Windows and Doors,
Roofs,
Mechanical Equipment and Utilities,
Service, Storage, and Loading Areas,
Onsite Public Art, and
Exterior Lighting. The Specific Plan also includes specific design guidelines for residential and commercial uses. These include the following:
Relate to a regional context,
Build a walkable, mixed density community,
Provide a broad mix of neighborhood and housing types,
Create unique and interesting neighborhoods,
Promote social interaction,
Provide neighborhood focal points and gathering places,
Maximize connection to adjacent neighborhoods and commercial uses, and
Promote connectivity via a multi-modal circulation network including walking, and bicycling. Utilizing durable and sustainable building materials and construction practices that conserve resources and minimize waste.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, and agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
Substantially damage scenic resource, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a state scenic highway;
Page 3-8
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings, and/or
Create a new source of substantial light or glare, such that it poses a hazard or nuisance. Methodology The analysis of potential aesthetic impacts within this section is based on a site reconnaissance of the project area and surrounding area, the City of Dublin General Plan, review of the site plan; photographs of the project area and vicinity, the proposed development standards and design guidelines in the Specific Plan, and visual simulations of proposed project prepared on behalf of the project applicant. The site reconnaissance and photo documentation of the project area was performed by RBF Consulting in September and October 2012. Photos were taken to characterize the visual character of the project area and surrounding area.
Potential impacts were assessed by forecasting the anticipated appearance of future development within the project area based on the proposed land use development pattern proposed in the Specific Plan to evaluate the aesthetic value of the project area. RBF Consulting utilized visual simulations prepared by the project applicant to assess the visual character of buildout of the proposed project within the existing landscape and determine the viewer’s response to the development within the project area. Nighttime lighting and day and nighttime glare are assessed qualitatively through comparative analysis of existing and proposed conditions and evaluation of design guidelines and development standards included in the proposed Specific Plan. Existing sources of light and glare are identified and quantified where possible.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista According to the City of Dublin General Plan, there are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Damage to Scenic Resources along Scenic Highways
Impact 3.1-1: Portions of the project area may be partially visible from I-580, which is eligible as a State Scenic Highway and locally designated scenic routes. However, because the proposed project is an infill development, is visually consistent with the surrounding land uses, and would be required to comply with development standards and design guidelines as described in the Specific Plan, no scenic resources would be adversely affected as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.
The project area contains approximately 62 acres of developed land, which is primarily located in the western portion of the project area and includes approximately 16 buildings,
Page 3-9
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics and Visual Resources
which are currently used for installation operations, academic activities, administration, equipment storage and maintenance for Camp Parks. Buildings are interspersed with open areas, which consist of primarily non-native grasslands. The topography of the project area is very flat and does not create a vivid landscape. Due to scattered development within the project area, the visual integrity is generally not considered intact and does not have a visual cohesiveness.
The majority of the project area is obscured from view from I-580 due to existing development between the highway and the project area. However, portions of the southeastern portion of the project area may be partially visible from I-580, which is a highway eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway and locally designated scenic route. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would allow for redevelopment of the project area with residential, commercial, and mixed-use development.
In compliance with the General Plan, all projects that are visible from I-580 would be subject to design review per the policy of the General Plan and requirements of the Specific Plan. Furthermore, specific projects would be required to comply with the development standards and generally be consistent with the design guidelines as identified in the proposed Specific Plan, and thereby create a visually appealing environment. The Specific Plan establishes guidelines for site design, architecture, circulation, parking, lighting, etc. within the project area. The design guidelines will address overall building design (e.g. siting, architectural details), building articulation, building massing, indoor-outdoor relationship, building materials, colors, and finishes, base and top treatments, entry designs, windows and doors, roofs, mechanical equipment and utilities, service, storage and loading areas, perimeter walls and fences, onsite public art, and exterior lighting. With implementation of these design guidelines, the proposed project would create a visual cohesiveness, which would improve the visual character of the project area as viewed from I-580 and surrounding roadways. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Degradation of the Visual Character of the Project Area and Surrounding Area
Impact 3.1-2: Implementation of the proposed project would alter the existing aesthetic character of the project area by redeveloping the project area with residential, commercial and mixed-use development. However, the project area has been partially disturbed as part of its use as the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. In addition, the proposed Specific Plan includes development standards and design guidelines that are designed to create a more visually appealing environment within the project area. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to degrade the visual character of the project area and surrounding uses and is therefore considered a less than significant impact.
The project area contains approximately 62 acres of developed land, which is primarily located in the western portion of the project area and includes 18 buildings, which are currently used for installation operations, academic activities, administration, equipment
Page 3-10
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics and Visual Resources
storage and maintenance for Camp Parks. Buildings are interspersed with open areas, which consist of primarily non-native grasslands.
The proposed project would result in the conversion of the project area from partially developed land to urban uses, which would change the existing views to and from surrounding properties and roadways. As shown in the Figure 2-7: Conceptual Land Use Plan and Figure 2-8: Illustrative Site Plan, the proposed project includes development of up to 1,995 residential units; 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, a 30 net-acre community park, five acres of neighborhood park, and a 12 acre elementary school site, which would be developed within five phases over ten years. Figures 3.1-1a, 3.1-1b and 3.1-1c: Visual Simulations illustrate future development of the project area from Dublin Boulevard, Scarlett Drive and the Iron Horse Regional Trail, and Arnold Road including the construction of buildings and the installation of new landscaping (e.g. trees) within the project area1. As shown in the visual simulations, development of the proposed project would further urbanize the project area and would slightly detract the viewer from these distant views of the hills along these roadways. However, the project area is partially degraded and the views have already been compromised because portions of the project area were previously developed associated with the Camp Parks.
The proposed Specific Plan includes both development standards and design guidelines to guide site design, architecture, circulation, parking, lighting, and other distinguishing features. The design guidelines will address overall building design (e.g. siting, architectural details), building articulation, building massing, indoor-outdoor relationship, building materials, colors, and finishes, base and top treatments, entry designs, windows and doors, roofs, mechanical equipment and utilities, service, storage and loading areas, perimeter walls and fences, onsite public art, and exterior lighting. These development standards and design guidelines will also be used during the design review process to guide future development. Building heights associated with the proposed project would range from a maximum height of 40 feet and three stories for the DC Lower Density Residential (DC LDR) and DC Medium Density (DC MDR) land use districts to 75 feet and six stories for the General Commercial/DC Medium Density Residential (GC/DC MDR) and General Commercial/DC High Density Residential (GC/DC HDR) land use districts.
The overall change in the visual character of the project area from a partially developed area to more urban and suburban land uses would result in a permanent change in the character of the project area. However, the project area is surrounded by primarily by urban uses and would be of high quality design, which would complement the surrounding uses. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would help ensure that properties and buildings contribute to visually appealing neighborhoods, commercial areas, parks and environments and would not result in the degradation of the visual character of
1 The visual simulations are for illustrative purposes and building heights could be higher than what is shown in the simulations.
Page 3-11
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics and Visual Resources
the project area and surroundings. Therefore, the proposed project would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Light and Glare
Impact 3.1-3: The project area and its surroundings are currently developed with some buildings and site improvements that were part of the Camp Parks facility, which generate daytime and night-time light and glare. Additional sources of daytime glare and nighttime lighting would be introduced through buildout of the Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan includes development standards and design guidelines to reduce light and glare. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Implementation of the proposed project would introduce new development within the Specific Plan area, increasing the potential for daytime and nighttime light and glare. The main sources of daytime glare would be from sunlight reflecting from structures with reflective surfaces, such as windows. The main sources of nighttime light and glare would be from additional lighting, including, but not limited to, internal and external building lights, parking lot lights, street lighting, site lighting, lights associated with vehicular travel (i.e., vehicle headlights), and any new security lighting associated with future development.
The proposed Specific Plan includes design guidelines that address lighting in the project area, including, but not limited to the following:
Adequate lighting should be provided throughout the site to create a safe and non- threatening environment. The scale, materials, colors, and design detail of light posts and fixtures should reflect the desired character of Dublin Crossing and the architectural style of the surrounding buildings. Light posts should be appropriately scaled to pedestrians near sidewalks and other areas of pedestrian circulation. Extremely tall light posts and fixtures should be avoided.
Lighting fixtures should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the building. The color, size, placement, and number of fixtures should enhance the overall design and character of the building and site.
Energy efficient, low voltage lighting is encouraged.
Exterior lighting should be unobtrusive and not cause glare or spillover into neighboring properties, and lighting fixtures should direct illumination downward to minimize light pollution impacts. Up-lighting, spot-lighting, and decorative color lighting may be appropriate for prominent buildings and features, but illumination should not adversely impact neighboring properties with sensitive uses, such as residential.
If necessary, security lighting fixtures should be hooded, recessed, and/or located in such a manner to only illuminate the intended area.
Pedestrian scale fixtures are encouraged and should complement the building, shine downward, and emit a warm light along walkways and within common areas.
Page 3-12
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics and Visual Resources
All building entrances, including alleys, plazas, drive isles, paseos, walkways, common areas, and others should be well lit.
Lighting sources should be concealed from view to prevent glare and promote lighting uniformity.
Illuminated bollards or pathway lights should be integrated into the pedestrian circulation system when other lighting is not provided. Future development within the project area would be required to comply with the design guidelines by demonstrating the proposed exterior lighting is non-intrusive while still providing an adequate amount of light. Compliance with the design guidelines would therefore ensure that the proposed Specific Plan does not introduce substantial light and glare which would pose a hazard or nuisance. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Page 3-13
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics and Visual Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3-14
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
3.2 Air Quality This section analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project on air quality, including short-term construction emissions, long-term operational impacts, and potential impacts on sensitive receptors. The air quality modeling for the proposed project is included in Appendix B of the EIR.
Environmental Setting Regional Setting San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin The City of Dublin is located in eastern Alameda County, which is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (hereinafter “Basin”). The Basin includes San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, and Marin counties, and forms a climatological sub-region. This climatological sub-region stretches from Richmond to San Leandro, bounded to the west by the San Francisco Bay and to the east by the Oakland-Berkeley Hills. The Oakland-Berkeley Hills have a ridgeline height of approximately 1,500 feet, a significant barrier to air flow. The most densely populated area of the sub-region lies in a strip of land between the bay and the lower hills.
In this area, marine air traveling through the Golden Gate, as well as across San Francisco and through the San Bruno Gap, is a dominant weather factor. The Oakland-Berkeley Hills cause the westerly flow of air to split off to the north and south of Oakland, which causes diminished wind speeds. The prevailing winds for most of this sub-region are from the west. At the northern end, near Richmond, prevailing winds are from the south-southwest. Temperatures in this sub-region have a narrow range due to the proximity of the moderating marine air. Maximum temperatures in summer average in the mid-70s, with minimums in the mid-50s. Winter highs are in the mid- to high-50s, with lows in the low- to mid-40s. The air pollution potential is lowest for the parts of the sub-region that is closest to the bay, largely due to good ventilation and less influx of pollutants from upwind sources. The occurrence of light winds in the evenings and early mornings occasionally cause elevated pollutant levels.
Topography and Meteorology Ambient air quality is commonly characterized by climatological conditions, the meteorological influences on air quality, and the quantity and type of pollutants released. The Basin is subject to a combination of topographical and climatic factors that reduce the potential for high levels of regional and local air pollutants. The Basin is characterized by a complex terrain consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and the San Francisco Bay. It is generally bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the north by the Coast Ranges, and on the east and south by the Diablo Range.
Climate in the Basin is dominated by the strength and location of a semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, as well as the moderating effects of the adjacent oceanic heat reservoir. Mild summers and winters, moderate windfall, daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity characterize regional
Page 3-15
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
climatic conditions. In summer, when the high pressure cell is strongest and farthest north, fog forms in the morning and temperatures are mild. In winter, when the high pressure cell is weakest and farthest south, occasional rain storms occur.
In the City of Dublin, the climate is typically warm during summer, when temperatures tend to be in the 70s and 80s, and cool during winter, when temperatures tend to be in the 50s. The warmest month of the year is July with an average maximum temperature of 89 degrees Fahrenheit, while the coldest month of the year is December with an average minimum temperature of 39 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature variations between night and day tend to be moderate during summer with a difference that can reach 32 degrees Fahrenheit, and moderate during winter with a difference of approximately 19 degrees Fahrenheit. The annual average precipitation in Dublin is 15.33 inches. Rainfall is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year. The wettest month of the year is February, with an average rainfall of 2.98 inches.2
Sunlight The presence and intensity of sunlight is another important factor that affects air pollution. Typically, ozone is formed at higher temperatures. In the presence of ultraviolet sunlight and warm temperatures, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) react to form secondary photochemical pollutants, including ozone.
Temperature Inversions An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth (i.e., the vertical depth in the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground). The highest air pollutant concentrations in the Basin generally occur during inversions.
Under ideal meteorological conditions and irrespective of topography, pollutants emitted into the air would be mixed and dispersed into the upper atmosphere. However, the region experiences temperature inversions in which pollutants are trapped and accumulate close to the ground. The inversion, a layer of warm, dry air overlaying cool, moist marine air, is a normal condition in the Basin. The cool, damp, and hazy sea air capped by coastal clouds is heavier than the warm, clear air that acts as a lid through which the marine layer cannot rise.
Local Ambient Air Quality Criteria Air Pollutants Local ambient air quality is monitored by the BAAQMD and the California Air Resources Board (CARB); refer to Table 3.2-1: Local Ambient Air Quality Levels. CARB monitors
2 The Weather Channel, Average Weather for Dublin, CA, Accessed November 16, 2012. http://www.weather.com/outlook/events/weddings/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USCA0314
Page 3-16
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality ambient air quality at approximately 250 air-monitoring stations across the State. Air quality monitoring stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above-ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations.
Table 3.2-1 Local Ambient Air Quality Levels
Standards (Allowable Amount) Days (Samples) Maximum State/Federal Pollutant Federal Year California Concentration1 Standards was Primary Exceeded 2010 0.150 ppm 3/1 Ozone (O ) 3 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 2011 0.115 3/0 1 hour 2 2012 0.102 2/0 2010 0.098 ppm 6/3 Ozone (O ) 3 0.07 ppm 0.08 ppm 2011 0.085 9/2 8 hour 2 2012 0.090 4/3 Carbon 2010 1.49 ppm 0/0 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm Monoxide(CO) 2011 Not Available NA (8 hour) (8 hour) 8 hour 3 2012 Not Available NA Carbon 2010 0/0 35 ppm 20 ppm 2.40 ppm Monoxide(CO) 2011 0/0 for 1 hour for 1 hour 0.55 1 hour 3 2012 0/0 2010 0.058 ppm 0/NA Nitrogen 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm 2011 0.057 0/NA Dioxide(NO ) 2 (1 hour) (1 hour) 2 2012 0.043 0/NA 2010 42.8 µg/m3 0/0 Particulate 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 2011 Not Available NA Matter(PM ) 3,4,5 (24 hours) (24 hours) 10 2012 Not Available NA 12 µg/m3 2010 34.7 µg/m3 NA/0 Fine Particulate (annual 35 µg/m3 2011 45.4 NA/2 Matter(PM ) 2,5 arithmetic (24 hours) 2.5 2012 31.1 NA/0 mean) 2010 0.003 ppm 0/0 Sulfur Dioxide 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm 2011 Not Available NA (SO ) 3 (24 hours) (24 hours) 2 2012 Not Available NA Notes: 1. Maximum concentrations are measured over the same period as the California standard. 2. Livermore Monitoring Station is located at 793 Rincon Avenue, Livermore, California 94550. 3. Berkley Monitoring Station is the only station in the San Francisco Air Basin that monitors SO2 and is located at 1340 Sixth Street, Berkeley, California 94710. 4. PM10 exceedances are based on State thresholds established prior to amendments adopted on June 20, 2002. 5. PM10 and PM2.5 exceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded, not days. Source: Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System, Summaries from 2010 to 2012 as found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
The nearest monitoring station to the project area is located in the City of Livermore at 793 Rincon Avenue. This station monitors all of the criteria pollutants except for PM10 and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). The Berkeley Monitoring Station is the only station in the San Francisco Air Basin that monitors SO2 and is included in Table 3.2-1: Local Ambient Air Quality Levels. The following air quality information briefly describes the various types of pollutants monitored at the local stations.
Page 3-17
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
Ozone Ozone occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth's surface is the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately ten miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric (the "good" ozone) layer extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays (UV-B).
“Bad” ozone is a photochemical pollutant, and needs VOCs, NOX, and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOX are ozone precursors. VOCs and NOX are emitted from various sources throughout the area. To reduce ozone concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these ozone precursors. Significant ozone formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High ozone concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.
While ozone in the stratosphere protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level ozone can adversely affect the human respiratory system and other tissues. Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are aggravated by exposure to high ozone levels. Ozone also damages natural ecosystems (such as forests and foothill communities) and damages agricultural crops and some man- made materials (such as rubber, paint, and plastics). Societal costs from ozone damage include increased healthcare costs, the loss of human and animal life, accelerated replacement of industrial equipment, and reduced crop yields.
Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon- based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. At high concentrations, CO can reduce the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and cause headaches, dizziness, unconsciousness, and death.
Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level ozone, and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), often used interchangeably with NOX, is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at high levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g. motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations).
NOX can irritate and damage the lungs, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NOX concentrations that are much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and
Page 3-18
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10)
PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter (PM) which is smaller than 10 microns. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate the lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract.
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter, both Federal and State standards have been created for PM2.5. The impacts of fine particulate matter primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease.
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, pungent gas belonging to the family of sulfur oxide gases (SOx), formed primarily by combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels (primarily coal and oil), and during metal smelting and other industrial processes. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is often used interchangeably with sulfur oxides (SOx). The major health concerns associated with exposure to high concentrations of SOx are effects on breathing, respiratory illness, diminishment of pulmonary defenses, and aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease. Major subgroups of the population that are most sensitive to SOx are individuals with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease (such as bronchitis or emphysema), as well as children and the elderly. Emissions of SOx also can damage the foliage of trees and agricultural crops. Together, SOx and NOx are the major precursors to acid rain, which is associated with the acidification of lakes and streams, and the accelerated corrosion of buildings and public monuments. Sulfur oxides can react to form sulfates, which significantly reduce visibility.
Other Pollutants CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' (TACs) with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. Additionally, because ambient concentrations of lead have decreased in the Basin, these pollutants are not measured at the monitoring stations.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) According to Section 39655 of the California Health and Safety Code, a toxic air contaminant is "an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health". In addition, substances that have been listed as Federal hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) pursuant to Section 7412 of Title 42 of the United States Code are TACs under
Page 3-19
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
the State's air toxics program pursuant to Section 39657 (b) of the California Health and Safety Code.
TACs can cause various cancers, depending on the particular chemicals, their type, and duration of exposure. Additionally, some of the TACs may cause other health effects over the short or long term. TACs of particular concern for posing health risks in California are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1-3 butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para- dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchlorethylene, and diesel particulate matter.
Reactive Organic Gases and Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are organic chemical compounds with sufficiently high vapor pressure such that they will tend to vaporize and enter ambient air under standard conditions. A wide range of carbon-based molecules, such as aldehydes, ketones, and hydrocarbons are VOCs. Hydrocarbons are organic gases, liquids, or solids that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. A subset of VOCs are reactive in the context of ozone formation at urban (and possibly regional) scales. Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) are defined to be those VOCs that are regulated because they lead to ozone formation. Both ROGs and VOCs can be emitted from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. The major sources of VOCs are combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).
Reactive VOCs may result in the formation of ozone and its related health effects. Carcinogenic forms of VOCs are considered toxic air contaminants (“air toxics”). Some reactive VOCs are also toxic; an example is benzene, which is both a reactive VOC and a carcinogen.
Sensitive Receptors Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive populations (or sensitive receptors) that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long- term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Several single- and multi-family units are located near the western portion of the project area along 5th Street, North Avenue, and Scarlett Road. Residential uses are located to the south of the project area along Dublin Boulevard.
Odors Offensive odors rarely cause physical harm; however, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable stress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and agencies. Facilities commonly known to produce odors include wastewater treatment facilities, chemical manufacturing, painting/coating operations, feed lots/dairies, composting facilities, landfills, and transfer stations. Offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, and no requirements for their control are included in State and Federal air
Page 3-20
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality quality regulations. However, the BAAQMD has identified land use and operation types that are typically associated with producing odors. No facilities in the project area have been reported as releasing offensive odors. Additionally, the project does not propose uses identified by the BAAQMD as sources of odors.
Regulatory Setting Regulatory oversight for air quality in the Basin rests with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX office at the Federal level, CARB at the State level, and with the BAAQMD at the regional level.
Federal Environmental Protection Agency The principal air quality regulatory mechanism on the Federal level is the Clean Air Act (FCAA) and, in particular, the 1990 amendments to the FCAA and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that it establishes. These standards identify levels of air quality for “criteria” pollutants that are considered the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. The criteria pollutants are O3, CO, NO2 (a form of NOx), SO2 (a form of SOx), PM10, PM2.5, and lead (Pb); refer to Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The EPA also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over emission sources beyond State waters (outer continental shelf) and those that are under the exclusive authority of the Federal government, such as aircraft, locomotives, and interstate trucking.
Page 3-21
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards
California1 Federal2 Pollutant Averaging Time Standard3 Attainment Status Standards4 Attainment Status 0.09 ppm (180 1 Hour Nonattainment N/A5 N/A5 µg/m3) Ozone (O ) 3 0.07 ppm (137 0.075 ppm (147 8 Hours N/A Nonattainment µg/m3) µg/m3) 24 Hours 50 µg/m3 Nonattainment 150 µg/m3 Unclassified Particulate Annual Arithmetic 3 6 Matter (PM10) 20 µg/m Nonattainment N/A Unclassified Mean Fine 24 Hours No Separate State Standard 35 µg/m3 Nonattainment Particulate Annual Arithmetic Matter 12 µg/m3 Nonattainment 15.0 µg/m3 Nonattainment Mean (PM2. 5) 9.0 ppm (10 Unclassified/ Carbon 8 Hours Attainment 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) mg/m3) Attainment Monoxide 20 ppm (23 35 ppm (40 Unclassified/ (CO) 1 Hour Attainment mg/m3) mg/m3) Attainment Annual Arithmetic 0.030 ppm (57 53 ppb (100 Unclassified/ Nitrogen N/A Mean µg/m3) µg/m3) Attainment Dioxide 0.18 ppm (339 100 ppb (188 (NO )7 1 Hour Attainment N/A 2 µg/m3) µg/m3) 30 days average 1.5 µg/m3 Attainment N/A N/A Lead (Pb) Calendar Quarter N/A N/A 1.5 µg/m3 N/A 0.04 ppm (105 24 Hours Attainment 0.14 ppm Attainment µg/m3) 3 Hours N/A N/A N/A Attainment Sulfur Dioxide 0.25 ppm (655 75 ppb (196 (SO ) 1 Hour Attainment N/A 2 µg/m3) µg/m3) Annual N/A N/A 0.030 ppm Attainment Arithmetic Mean Visibility- Extinction 8 Hours (10 a.m. Reducing coefficient = 0.23 Unclassified to 6 p.m., PST) Particles km@<70% RH No Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Attainment Federal Hydrogen 0.03 ppm (42 Standards 1 Hour Unclassified Sulfide µg/m3) 0.01 ppm (26 Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour N/A µg/m3)
Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; km = kilometer(s); RH = relative humidity; PST = Pacific Standard Time; N/A = Not Applicable 1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter- PM10 and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. In 1990, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) identified vinyl chloride as a toxic air contaminant, but determined that there was not sufficient available scientific evidence to support the identification of a threshold exposure level. This action allows the implementation of health-protective control measures at levels below the 0.010 parts per million ambient concentration specified in the 1978 standard.
Page 3-22
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. EPA also may designate an area as attainment/unclassifiable, if: (1) it has monitored air quality data that show that the area has not violated the ozone standard over a three-year period; or (2) there is not enough information to determine the air quality in the area. For PM10, the 24- hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. 3. Concentration is expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar); ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. 5. The Federal 1-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15, 2005 in all areas except the 14 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action Compact (EAC) areas. 6. The Environmental Protection Agency revoked the annual PM10 standard in 2006 (effective December 16, 2006). 7. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). Note that EPA standards are in units of ppb and California standards are in units of ppm. Source: California Air Resources Board and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 7, 2012.
State California Air Resources Board CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. These standards, included with the NAAQS in Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.
Local Bay Area Air Quality Management District The BAAQMD is responsible for regulating stationary, indirect, and area sources of pollution within the Basin. The BAAQMD is one out of 35 air quality management districts that have prepared Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to accomplish the five percent annual reduction goal required by the CCAA. The following notes efforts by the BAAQMD to address ozone and ozone precursors through the implementation of the Ozone Strategy and Clean Air Plan.
2005 Ozone Strategy. The BAAQMD prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, which was adopted on January 4, 2006, and describes how the Basin will fulfill California Clean Air Act planning requirements for the State 1-hour ozone standard and transport mitigation requirements through the proposed control strategy. The 2005 Ozone Strategy explains how the BAAQMD plans to achieve these goals with regard to ozone, and also discusses related air quality issues of interest, including the public involvement process, climate change, fine particulate matter, the BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program, local benefits of ozone control measures, the environmental review process, national ozone standards, and photochemical modeling.
2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. In March 2010, the BAAQMD, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), published the draft 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which, supersedes the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan
Page 3-23
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
updates the 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the CCAA to achieve the following:
Implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in a single, integrated plan;
Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and
Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 to 2012 time frame. The control strategy includes stationary‐source control measures to be implemented through BAAQMD regulations; mobile‐source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with the MTC, local governments, transit agencies, and others. The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan also represents the Bay Area’s most recent triennial assessment of the region’s strategy to attain the State one‐hour ozone standard.
Thresholds. Under CEQA, the BAAQMD is a commenting responsible agency on air quality within its jurisdiction or impacting its jurisdiction. The BAAQMD reviews projects to ensure that they would: (1) support the primary goals of the latest Air Quality Plan; (2) include applicable control measures from the Air Quality Plan; and (3) not disrupt or hinder implementation of any Air Quality Plan control measures.
The BAAQMD adopted their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Basin. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide BAAQMD-recommended procedures for evaluating potential air quality and GHG impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements. In addition to providing new thresholds for GHG emissions, the 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide updated significance thresholds for criteria pollutants and supersede the BAAQMD’s previous CEQA guidance titled BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (1999).
On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of Significance) the City of Dublin will nonetheless exercise its own discretion to rely on the thresholds within the Options and Justification Report (dated October 2009) prepared by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD Options and Justification Report establishes thresholds based on substantial evidence and are consistent with the thresholds outlined within the 2010 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
Page 3-24
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
If the project is in excess of the established plan level thresholds, as illustrated in Table 3.2- 3: BAAQMD Plan Level Thresholds, a significant air quality impact may occur and additional analysis is warranted to fully assess the significance of impacts.
Table 3.2-3: BAAQMD Plan Level Thresholds
Pollutant/Precursor Construction Operations ROG N/A1 54 NOX N/A 54 PM10 BMPs 82 PM2.5 N/A 54 Notes: tpy = tons per year; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; lb./day = pounds per day; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases.
1. For Plan level impacts, BAAQMD includes Control Measures to address construction emissions. Significance is determined based on Project’s compliance with Control Measures. If Plans comply with the measures, the impact is less than significant. Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Options and Justification Report, October 2009 and Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2011.
State Air Toxics Program Toxic air contaminants are another group of pollutants of concern in California. There are hundreds of different types of toxic air contaminants, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of toxic air contaminants include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle engine exhaust. Public exposure to toxic air contaminants can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as accidental releases of hazardous materials during upset spill conditions. Health effects of toxic air contaminants include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.
California regulates toxic air contaminants through its air toxics program, mandated in Chapter 3.5 (Toxic Air Contaminants) of the Health and Safety Code (Health and Safety Code Section 39660 et seq.) and Part 6 (Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment) (Health and Safety Code Section 44300 et seq.). CARB, working in conjunction with the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, identifies toxic air contaminants. Air toxic control measures may then be adopted to reduce ambient concentrations of the identified toxic air contaminant to below a specific threshold, based on its effects on health, or to the lowest concentration achievable through use of best available control technology (BACT) for toxics. The program is administered by CARB. Air quality control agencies, including the BAAQMD, must incorporate air toxic control measures into their regulatory programs or adopt equally stringent control measures as rules within six months of adoption by CARB.
Attainment Status The Basin is considered in attainment or unclassified for most of the criteria pollutants for State and Federal considerations, except for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Under Federal
Page 3-25
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
regulations the Basin is designated an unclassified/attainment area for PM10 standards (see Table 3.2-4: San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status).
Table 3.2-4: San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status 1 Pollutant State Federal Carbon Monoxide (CO) – 8 hour Attainment Attainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) –1hour Attainment Attainment
Ozone (O3) – 8 hour Non-attainment Non-Attainment 2 Ozone (O3) – 1 hour Non-attainment -- Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2 ) – 1 hour Attainment Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide – Annual Arithmetic Mean -- Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – 24 hour Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – 1 hour Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO ) – Annual Arithmetic 2 -- Attainment Mean Particulate Matter (PM ) – Annual Arithmetic 10 Non-Attainment -- Mean Particulate Matter (PM10) – 24 hour Non-Attainment Unclassified Particulate Matter (PM ) – Annual Arithmetic 2.5 Non-attainment Attainment Mean
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – 24 hour -- Non-attainment Sulfates – 24 hour Attainment -- Lead – Calendar Quarter -- Attainment Lead – 30 Day Average -- Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide – 1 hour Unclassified -- Vinyl Chloride (chloroethene) – 24 hour -- -- Visibility Reducing Particulates3 Unclassified -- Notes: N/A – Not Applicable 1. In order for an area to meet a particular standard, all time tests of the applicable standard must be met. Separate designations are not made for each time component of the standard. For instance, an area might meet the annual criteria of the State PM10 standard but not the 24-hour requirement. In that case, the area fails to meet the standard and would be designated nonattainment for the State PM10 standard. Thus, a single designation is made for each State and Federal standard based on whether or not the area meets all the aspects of the standard. Designations for State standards are made by ARB while designations for Federal standards are made by EPA. 2. The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA on June 15, 2005. 3 3 3. The U.S. EPA lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 ug/m to 35 ug/m in 2006. EPA issued attainment status designations 3 for the 35 ug/m PM2.5 standard. The EPA designation will be effective 90-days after publication of the regulation in the Federal Register. President Obama has ordered a freeze on all pending Federal rules; therefore, the effective date of the designation is unknown at this time. Source: BAAQMD, Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status, 2012. (http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm) City of Dublin General Plan The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to air quality within the project area.
7.4: Implementing Policy A. Request the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to establish an air quality monitoring station in Dublin. Relevant Project Characteristics.
Page 3-26
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Short-Term Construction Emissions
Impact 3.2-1: The proposed project would result in future short-term air quality impacts associated with construction activities, including grading, operation of equipment, and demolition of existing structures within the project area. However, future development within the project area would be required to comply with the BAAQMD Control Measures for particulate matter and equipment emissions during construction activities. Therefore, this would be considered a significant impact.
New emissions would be generated from construction activities associated with development of the proposed project including demolition, excavation, grading, demolition, vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and vehicle and equipment exhaust. Construction activity would vary in size and have the potential to generate significant construction emissions.
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust (also known as PM10 and PM2.5) emissions that may have a substantial temporary impact on local air quality. BAAQMD emphasizes the implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of construction emissions. BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible particulate matter control measures for construction activities. These are outlined in Table 3.2-5: San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District Construction Control Measures.
Page 3-27
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
Table 3.2-5: San Francisco Bay Air Quality Management District Construction Control Measures
Basic Control Measures – The following controls should be implemented at all construction sites:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Additional Control Measures – The following measures should be implemented if the Basic Measures do not reduce emissions below thresholds:
All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.
All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.
All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
Page 3-28
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a
project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available.
Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings).
Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available
Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM. Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. Source: BAAQMD , BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines , May 2011.
“Basic Control Measures” should be implemented at all construction sites, regardless of size. “Additional Control Measures” should be implemented if more mitigation is necessary. If each of the applicable measures are implemented as appropriate, air pollutant emissions from construction activities under the proposed project would be considered a less than significant impact.
Under the proposed project, the potential exists for a number of construction projects to occur every year. It would be speculative to quantify the annualized emissions related to construction activities associated with projects within the Specific Plan area, as the scale and timing of each individual construction event is currently unknown, and such speculative quantification is not currently required or recommended by BAAQMD. In addition, future development within the project area would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings).
Due to the extent of the development allowed under the Specific Plan, and the amount of earthwork that would be involved, construction emissions have the potential to violate Federal and State ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD short-term thresholds are established for individual development projects, and it is assumed that some of the projects that would be implemented under the proposed project could individually exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a would reduce construction-related impacts by requiring the BAAQMD’s “Basic” construction mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions from construction activities. The BAAQMD requires the basic construction mitigation measures to be implemented at all construction sites, regardless of size. “Additional” measures may be implemented if further emission reductions are deemed necessary by the Lead Agency. Due to the size and intensity of future development projects within the Specific Plan, the additional BAAQMD construction mitigation measure would be required; refer to Mitigation Measure 3.2-1b. As the proposed project would facilitate future development and generate construction emissions
Page 3-29
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality that would potentially exceed BAAQMD thresholds, a significant unavoidable impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: MM 3.2-1a Implement Short-term Construction Best Management Practices. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the following basic construction mitigation measures shall be implemented for all construction projects:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM 3.2-1b Implement Additional Short-term Construction Best Management Practices. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the following additional construction mitigation measures shall be implemented for all construction projects:
All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph.
Page 3-30
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction.
Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
The applicant shall reduce exhaust emissions during construction and, in particular, emissions of NOX, when using construction equipment and vehicles by implementing the following measures:
o Require the use of diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) that meet EPA 2007 model year NOX emissions requirements
o The following note shall be included on all grading plans: During project construction, all internal combustion engines/construction, equipment operating on the project area shall meet EPA-Certified Tier 3 emissions standards, or higher according to the following:
o - January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014: Off-road diesel- powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards. Alternatively, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
o - Post-January 1, 2015: Off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. Alternatively, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
Page 3-31
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
o The contractor and applicant, if the applicant’s equipment is used, shall maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned and regularly serviced to minimize exhaust emissions.
o Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when available. This measure would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators.
o Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes.
Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings).
Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM. Structural Asbestos from the Demolition of Structures
Impact 3.2-2: The proposed project would result in the demolition and removal of structures within the project area which may contain asbestos and/or lead based paint (LBPs). This would be considered a less than significant impact.
The proposed project would result in the demolition of buildings that were constructed prior to approximately 1980, which may contain asbestos and/or lead, a hazardous contaminant. Any demolition of structures within the project area would be subject to the U.S. EPA regulations for lead based paint including 40 CFR Part 745 Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program and the BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, which regulates the demolition and renovation of buildings and structures which may contain asbestos. Specifically, District Regulation 11-2- 401.3 requires that for every renovation involving the removal of 100 square feet or greater of Regulated Asbestos Containing Material (ACM), and for every demolition (even when no asbestos is present), a notification must be made to the BAAQMD at least ten working days prior to commencement of demolition/renovation. With compliance of these regulations, the potential release of ACM and LBPs during demolition activities is considered a less than significant impact.
Long-Term Operational Emissions – Regional Emissions
Impact 3.2-3: Buildout of the proposed project would result in regional air emissions from operational sources in exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds. This is considered a significant impact.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in new long-term operational emissions generated by future development including new area, energy, and mobile source air emissions. Operational emissions from area, energy and mobile sources are depicted in Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational Emissions.
Page 3-32
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
Area Source Emissions Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for natural gas associated with the development of the proposed project. The primary use of natural gas would be from woodstoves (hearths), consumer products, architectural coating, and landscaping. As shown in Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational Emissions, unmitigated area source emissions from the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for NOX, but would exceed thresholds for ROG, PM10, and PM2.5. However, the proposed project includes design guidelines that would reduce potential area source emissions (i.e., using only natural gas hearths [BAAQMD Guidelines] and using low VOC paint [Design Guidelines Section 3.1.5, Building Materials, Colors, and Finishes]) which were applied in the CalEEMod air quality model.
Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational Emissions Estimated Annual Average Emissions (pounds/day) 1 Source ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 Unmitigated Area 1,110.57 22.91 247.16 247.15 Energy 1.63 13.96 1.13 1.13 Mobile 60.08 139.74 183.58 8.68 Total Proposed – Unmitigated 1,172.28 176.61 431.87 256.96 Mitigated Area2 93.61 1.91 2.42 2.41 Energy 1.63 13.96 1.13 1.13 Mobile 44.87 110.96 113.98 5.55 Total Proposed – Mitigated 140.11 126.83 117.53 9.09 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54 Threshold Exceeded ? Yes Yes Yes No Notes: 1. Emissions estimates calculated using CalEEMod. 2. Area source mitigation includes the use of low VOC paints and only natural gas hearths, which are proposed for the project. Refer to Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data, for detailed model input/output data.
Energy Source Emissions Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity and natural gas (non- hearth) usage including space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics.
Mobile Source Emissions Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon in 2012, the proposed project would generate 19,641 net new daily vehicle trips. Project-generated vehicle emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod model and are shown in Appendix B. This model was utilized to predict ROG, NOX, and PM10 emissions from motor vehicle traffic associated with the proposed project based on the trip generation in the iTraffic Impact Analysis. As shown in Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational
Page 3-33
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
Emissions, unmitigated mobile source emissions generated by vehicle traffic associated with the proposed project would not exceed established BAAQMD thresholds for PM2.5, but would exceed thresholds for ROG, NOX, and PM10.
The proposed project includes project design features that would reduce potential mobile source emissions. Section 3.0 (Design Guidelines) of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan provide the basis for development that includes increased density and diversity, improved walkability design, increased destination and transit accessibility, improved pedestrian network, limited parking supply, traffic calming measures, and trip reduction, ride sharing, and employee vanpool programs, which were applied in CalEEMod air quality model; refer to Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data for a description of model inputs and design features/mitigation measures.
Total Emissions As shown in Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational Emissions, the total unmitigated operational emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project would exceed BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Stationary source emissions would be reduced with compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 3 (Wood- Burning Devices), which restricts wood burning and places limits on excessive smoke. However, as indicated in Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational Emissions, mobile source emissions are the largest contributor to the estimated air pollutant levels. Due to the scale of the proposed project, which would generate 19,641 new trips per day, emissions would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. As described above, the proposed project is a mixed use project in proximity to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and associated transit facilities. These design features would reduce mobile source emissions to the extent feasible; however, emissions would remain above BAAQMD thresholds. It should be noted that thresholds of significance that have been recommended by the BAAQMD were established for individual development projects and not for large scale plan-level (Specific Plan) projects. Nonetheless, despite application of the measures/project design features regarding area and mobile sources within the Specific Plan, operational emissions would still exceed thresholds for ROG, NOX, and PM10 emissions, but would not exceed thresholds for PM2.5. Overall operational emissions would be considered significant and unavoidable. Long-Term Operational Emissions - Localized Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Impact 3.2-4: Carbon monoxide concentrations are low in the project vicinity and the proposed project would result in carbon monoxide concentrations that would be well below the State and Federal standards. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on localized carbon monoxide concentrations.
Local air quality is a major concern along roadways. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a primary pollutant, and unlike ozone, is directly emitted from a variety of sources. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of its impacts upon the local air quality. Areas of
Page 3-34
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
vehicle congestion have the potential to create “pockets” of CO called “hot spots.” These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) and/or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm.
The BAAQMD requires that projects be analyzed for the potential to cause localized CO hotspots. Per the BAAQMD CO screening guidelines, a project would have CO impacts if the following were to occur:
. Project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at level of service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F. . Project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10 percent or more. . Project would contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm for one hour. Because traffic congestion is highest at intersections where vehicles queue and are subject to reduced speeds, these hot spots are typically produced at intersections. To ensure the most conservative analysis, the BAAQMD requires that the CO modeling reflect only those roadway or intersection improvements that are approved and fully funded. The 11 intersections identified in Table 3.2-7: Project Buildout Carbon Monoxide Concentrations would operate at LOS D, E, or F in 2035 without planned improvements, and therefore require a CO hotspot analysis.
Table 3.2-7: Project Buildout Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
1-Hour CO1 8-Hour CO1 1-Hour Future + 8-Hour Future + Standard Project Standard Project Intersection (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) Amador Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard 20 3.00 9 2.10 Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard 20 3.10 9 2.17 Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard 20 3.00 9 2.10 Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive 20 3.00 9 2.10 Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard 20 3.20 9 2.24 Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard 20 3.10 9 2.17 Iron Horse Parkway and Dublin Boulevard 20 3.10 9 2.17 Arnold Road and Dublin Boulevard 20 3.10 9 2.17 Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard 20 3.10 9 2.17 Hacienda Drive and Hacienda Crossings 20 3.10 9 2.17 Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard 20 3.20 9 2.24 Notes: 1. As measured at a distance of 10 feet from the corner of the intersection predicting the highest value. Presented 1 hour CO concentrations include a background concentration of 2.80 ppm. Eight-hour concentrations are based on a persistence of 0.7 of the 1-hour concentration. Source: RBF Consulting 2012
As indicated in Table 3.2-7: Project Buildout Carbon Monoxide Concentrations, CO concentrations would be well below the State and Federal standards of 9 ppm on an 8- hour average and 20 ppm on a 1-hour average. Neither the 1-hour average nor the 8-
Page 3-35
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
hour average would be equaled or exceeded. Therefore the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on localized carbon monoxide.
Long-Term Operational Emissions – Existing Toxics Air Contaminants Impacts to Proposed Receptors
Impact 3.2-5: The proposed project could result in exposure of sensitive land uses in excess of applicable Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) standards. Therefore, this would be considered a significant impact.
Impacts from Existing TAC Sources to Proposed Receptors To address community risk from air toxics, the BAAQMD initiated the Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program in 2004 to identify locations with high levels of risk from TACs co-located with sensitive populations and use the information to help focus mitigation measures. According to the findings of the CARE Program, diesel particulate matter, mostly from on and off-road mobile sources, accounts for over 80 percent of the inhalation cancer risk from TACs in the Bay Area. As of November 2009, the impacted communities include the urban core areas of Concord, eastern San Francisco, western Alameda County, Redwood City/East Palo Alto, Richmond/San Pablo, and San Jose.
The CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (April 2005) offers advisory recommendations for locating sensitive receptors near uses associated with TACs, such as freeways and high-traffic roads, commercial distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome platters, dry cleaners, gasoline stations, and other industrial facilities, to reduce exposure of sensitive populations. The BAAQMD recommends that all TAC and particulate PM2.5 sources be identified within a 1,000 foot radius of the proposed project area to determine any risk and health hazards. There are no mobile TAC sources located within 1,000 feet of the project area as Interstates 580 and 680 are located 1,500 feet to the south and 5,000 feet to the west of the project area, respectively. However, there are several stationary TAC and PM2.5 sources located within 1,000 feet of the project area (BAAQMD 2013). Including several diesel generators associated with the commercial area approximately 300 feet east of the project area, and three diesel engines located within Camp Parks, adjacent to the northern site boundary. Based on the screening level data provided by the BAAQMD, these stationary TAC sources have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD cancer risk thresholds of 10 in one million (BAAQMD 2012). The BAAQMD has indicated that specific health risk assessments are being conducted for these stationary sources, and the process of collecting the applicable data is currently underway (Kirk, Allison, BAAQMD, Telephone Communication with Achilles Malisos, RBF Consulting on December 4, 2012).
Based on the land use plan for the proposed project, residential uses and other sensitive receptors would have the potential to be located within 1,000 feet of existing permitted TAC sources. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 3.2-5 will ensure that future sensitive receptors are located a sufficient distance from existing TAC sources. If future sensitive receptors cannot be located at a sufficient distance from existing TAC sources, on-site mitigation measures such as mechanical ventilation with enhanced filtration would be
Page 3-36
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality required. Although, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-5 would reduce exposure of TAC and PM2.5 emissions, based on the potential exposure rate impacts may not be reduced to below the BAAQMD’s criteria. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable impact with respect to TAC and PM2.5 emissions.
Mitigation Measures MM 3.2-5: Locate Sensitive Receptors Away from Existing Toxic Air Contaminants and Implement HVAC systems for Sensitive Receptors in the vicinity of BAAQMD permitted Toxic Air Contaminant sources. Prior to building permit issuance, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Dublin Community Development Director that the following mitigation measures will be implemented in order to reduce the potential impact from TAC exposure due to the potential siting of residential or other sensitive receptor development within 1,000 feet of a BAAQMD identified stationary TAC source:
All new development projects that include sensitive receptors shall be located 1,000 feet away from existing TAC sources, unless a project- specific evaluation of human health risks is conducted and the results of the evaluation determine that no significant impact would occur.. Sensitive receptors include residential, schools, day care facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term residency.
Mixed-use, residential, or school development within 1,000 feet of a BAAQMD permitted TAC source shall implement sealed HVAC systems for all multi-family development. The sealed air system shall be certified to achieve a performance effectiveness, for example, to remove at least 85 percent of ambient PM2.5 concentrations from indoor areas. Air intakes shall be located away from emission sources areas, such as major roadways and stationary sources. Long-Term Operational Emissions – New On-Site Toxics Air Contaminants
Impact 3.2-6: The proposed project would not result in increased generation of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) or exposure of sensitive land uses in excess of applicable TAC standards. Therefore, this would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Impacts from Potential New TAC Sources to Existing Receptors The development of any new stationary sources of TAC’s associated with development within the project area would be subject to BAAQMD rules and regulations and permitting requirements. In addition, all projects must implement any applicable air toxics control measures (ATCM). For example, projects that have the potential to disturb asbestos (from soil or building material) must comply with all the requirements of CARB’s ATCM for
Page 3-37
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. While the specific commercial uses within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area is unknown, incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to sensitive receptors from TAC exposure due to the development of TAC emitters (e.g., gas stations, dry cleaners, and diesel backup generators) from new commercial uses within the project area.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure and compliance with applicable regulatory standards that are part of the permitting process for development and operation of future development within the Specific Plan area would ensure a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM 3.2-6 Locate Commercial Development That Emits Toxic Air Contaminants Away From Sensitive Receptors and Consult with the BAAQMD to identify Toxic Air Contaminant Sources and Determine the Need for Health Risk Assessment. Prior to building permit issuance, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Dublin Community Development Director that the following measure is implemented to reduce the potential for new TAC sources to be sited within 1,000 feet of residential or other existing or planned sensitive receptors:
All new commercial development projects that have the potential to emit TACs shall be located 1,000 feet away from existing and proposed development used by sensitive receptors, unless a project-specific evaluation of human health risks is conducted and the results of the evaluation determine that no significant impact would occur. Sensitive receptors include residential, schools, day care facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term residency. The determination of development projects that have the potential for TAC emissions and adequate distances from sensitive receptors are identified in the California Air Resources Board’s ―Air Quality and Land Use Handbook—A Community Health Perspective (April 2005). Exposure to Odorous Emissions
Impact 3.2-7: The proposed project would allow some uses which generate airborne odors, which could be considered offensive,, however limited exposure and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements will ensure that any impact is less than significant.
Construction Odors Future construction activities under the proposed project could generate airborne odors associated with the operation of construction vehicles (i.e. diesel exhaust) and the application of architectural coatings. However, these odors are temporary in nature. Emissions would occur during daytime hours and would be isolated to the immediate
Page 3-38
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
vicinity. As such, these odors would be short-term and limited to people living and working near the source and therefore would be considered a less than significant impact.
Operational Odors Objectionable odors may be associated with a variety of pollutants. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, common sources of odors include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities, refineries, and chemical plants. However, these facility types are not present within the project area.
Potential operational airborne odors within the project area could be created by cooking activities associated with the residential and commercial (i.e., food service) uses. These odors would be similar to existing residential and food service uses throughout the project area and would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the new buildings. Additionally, restaurants are typically required to provide ventilation systems that reduce substantial adverse odor impacts. The other potential source of odors would be new waste receptacles within the community. The receptacles would be stored in areas and in containers, and be emptied on a regular basis, before potentially substantial odors have developed. Additionally, City regulations require protection from excessive odors (City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.24, Commercial Zoning Districts, Chapter 8.64, Home Occupations Regulations, and Chapter 8.20, Residential Zoning Districts). Further, BAAQMD Regulation No. 7, Odorous Substances, establishes general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds.
Therefore, with incorporation of ventilation systems, and adherence to the Municipal Code regulations and BAAQMD Regulation No. 7, implementation of the Specific Plan would not create operational-related objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City and would result in a less than significant impact.
Long-Term Operational Emissions – Clean Air Plan Consistency
Impact 3.2-8: The proposed project is consistent with population growth assumptions in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, is anticipated to result in reduced Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) compared to population growth, and is consistent with several of the Clean Air Plan’s Control Measures. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not disrupt or hinder implementation control measures in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan and would result in a less than significant impact.
In order to determine the proposed project’s consistency with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, it is necessary to determine whether the project supports the primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, whether the project includes applicable 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan control measures, and whether the project disrupts or hinders implementation of any 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan control measures. The following discussion analyzes these three criteria.
Page 3-39
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan Goals The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP), prepared by the BAAQMD to update the Bay Area ozone plan in compliance with the requirements of the Chapter 10 of the California Health and Safety Code. The 2010 CAP serves to update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement “all feasible measures” to reduce ozone; provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan; review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and establish emission control measures. The CAP has three primary goals: Protect air quality; protect public health, and protect the climate. These goals are further supported by performance objectives including ambient air quality standards (AAQS) attainment, reducing PM2.5 and diesel PM exposure, and reducing GHG emissions.
As discussed under Impact 3.2-2, buildout of the proposed project would result in regional air emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources in exceedance of the BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, and PM10 emissions even with application of project design features in the Specific Plan. However, it should be noted that the proposed project is a Specific Plan and not an individual development project. Project consistency with the applicable 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan is used to determine whether the proposed project would delay the attainment of applicable air quality standards.
Project-related PM2.5 emissions would be less than the BAAQMD thresholds with application of the project design features (refer to Impact Statement 3.2-2). Additionally, the land uses proposed within the project area would not be substantial diesel PM producers as no industrial uses are proposed (refer to Impact 3.2-4). Therefore, the proposed project would support the goal and performance objective to protect public health.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are discussed in Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which concludes that buildout of the proposed project would reduce its “business as usual” GHG emissions by 28.5 percent. The Specific Plan would also result in 4.32 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per service population per year (MTCO2eq/SP/year), which is below the BAAQMD’s 4.6 MTCO2eq/SP/year GHG threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would support the goal and performance objective to reduce GHG emissions.
2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan Control Measures The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan includes 55 control measures consisting of 18 stationary source measures (which regulate emissions from sources such as manufacturing facilities, refineries, etc.), 10 mobile source measures (which aim to reduce emissions by accelerating the replacement of older vehicles through several programs), 17 transportation control measures (which are strategies to reduce vehicle trips), six land use and local impact measures (which promote mixed-use, compact development), and four energy and climate measures (which are designed to reduce ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants, reduce GHG emissions, and protect the climate).
Page 3-40
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
The proposed project includes several applicable 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan control measures; however, it is noted that stationary source measures do not apply to any of the proposed uses within the project area, and mobile source and land use and local impact measures apply to General Plans and other regional planning documents. Table 3.2-8: Project Consistency With Applicable 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan Control Measures, discusses the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan control measures applicable to the proposed project, which concludes that the proposed project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan control measures. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Table 3.2-8: Project Consistency With Applicable 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan Control Measures
Control Measure Project Consistency
Transportation Control Measures TCM B-2: Improve Transit Efficiency and Use Consistent. The Specific Plan provides for direct access along the Iron Horse Regional Trail and B Street/Demarcus Boulevard to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and associated transit facilities. The project’s proximity to the BART station would result in increased transit use. TCM C-1: Support Voluntary Employer-Based Trip Consistent. The Specific Plan encourages future Reduction Program businesses to participate in trip reduction programs TCM C-3: Promote Rideshare Services and such as rideshare and carpool/vanpool programs to Incentives reduce employee vehicle trips. TCM D-1: Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities Consistent. The Specific Plan encourages bicycle racks and storage lockers on all properties in the project area. Additionally, the proposed project aims to enhance the existing Iron horse Trail and Dublin Boulevard Class I Bike Trail, and provide connections to the new project area network. TCM D-2: Improve Pedestrian Access and Facilities Consistent. The Specific Plan proposes to develop a pedestrian network that would connect to the surrounding sidewalk and trail network. TCM D-3: Support Local Land Use Strategies Consistent. The proposed project includes a variety of mixed land uses, located on a previously utilized site, in close proximity to transit consistent with the City’s General Plan and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) population projections.
TCM E-2: Parking Pricing and Management Consistent. The Specific Plan encourages the Strategies reduction in off-street parking, shared parking, and time limits on on-street parking to encourage the use of alternative transportation. Energy and Climate Control Measures ECM-1: Energy Efficiency Consistent. Future development projects under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with City’s Green Building section of the Municipal Code (Section 7.94) and the CALGreen building code. Additionally, efficient lighting and appliances are encouraged in all future developments.
Page 3-41
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
ECM-4: Tree-Planting Consistent. Shade trees would be planted throughout the Specific Plan area. The tree selections within the Specific Plan reflect recommendations in the Dublin Streetscape Master Plan. Large, broad canopy trees are specified for wider street sections and medians, while smaller canopy trees are identified for parkways to shade sidewalks for pedestrian comfort.
Population vs. Vehicle Miles Traveled The BAAQMD recommends using an analysis that determines the consistency between a project’s projected population growth and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to the projections in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD requires that specific plans include the latest air quality plan control measures and do not increase vehicle travel at a greater rate than population growth. If a project’s VMT does not exceed the project’s population increase, the project is considered to be consistent with population projections and the local air quality plan. This analysis relies on countywide population and VMT information, as citywide VMT is not available. Thus, for consistency, this analysis analyzes the project- related contribution to countywide population and VMT projections. As shown in Table 3.2-9: Population and Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary, the VMT increase as a result of the proposed project would not exceed the population increase that would occur as a result of the project. Based on these criteria, development of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in this regard.
Table 3.2-9: Population and Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary
VMT, Population, Criteria and % Increase Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled for Project Population1 115,399 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Countywide2 51,632,900 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled % Increase 0.22 % Project Related Population Increase3 5,470 Countywide Population Increase4 1,377,600 Population % Increase 0.40 % Significance Test (Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Ratio Greater Than Population No Ratio) VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
Notes: 1. Increase of VMT based on un-mitigated CalEEMod VMT outputs. 2. Data obtained from EMFAC 2007. 3. Refer to Section 4.8, Growth Inducement. 4. Population projections obtained from Association of Bay Area Governments regional projections, http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/currentfcst/regional.html. Source: VMT data based on CalEEMod and the CARB EMFAC2007 model. Also refer to Section 4.8, Growth Inducement, for population data.
Page 3-42
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
As described in Section 4.3, Growth Inducement, total buildout under the Specific Plan would result in a population increase of approximately 5,446 residents. The City of Dublin Housing Element estimates that the population of the City will be 62,700 residents in 2020. With a current population of approximately 46,934 residents and employees over the entire Camp Parks, this would result in the addition of 15,766 residents by 2020. At full buildout, the proposed project would represent approximately 35 percent of this growth. Although the proposed project proposes more housing than envisioned in the General Plan, the project would be within the estimate of population growth per the City of Dublin Housing Element and would represent an incremental increase in population at full buildout.
Analysis of population and housing in Section 4.8, Growth Inducement of this EIR found that the increase in population associated with the proposed Specific Plan would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in population projections that would exceed Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) projections.
Page 3-43
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3-44
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.3 Biological Resources Several sensitive biological resources are known to occur or have the potential to occur within and adjacent to the project area as identified during biological studies and surveys that were conducted as part of the Master Planned Development at the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area between 1995 and 2003. Several of these sensitive biological resources have the potential to be affected by the proposed project. Therefore, this section describes the existing biological resources within and adjacent to the project area; assesses the potential impacts to these biological resources associated with the proposed project; and recommends mitigation measures for impacts that are considered significant under Federal, State and Local policies and regulations, including, but not limited to, the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and City of Dublin Ordinances.
Cardno Entrix prepared a biological resource technical report on behalf of the project applicant in May 2013, which updates previous biological technical studies that were prepared by the U.S. Army for the Final Environmental Impact Statement on Master Planned Redevelopment at Camp Parks (U.S. Army 2009). This technical report was peer reviewed by RBF Consulting for technical accuracy and is included as Appendix C.
Environmental Setting In addition to approximately 77 acres of developed and semi-developed land within the project area, wetlands and non-native grasslands are also located within the project area. The acreage of these vegetation communities is shown below in Table 3.3-1: Habitats and Vegetation Communities within the Project Area and on Figure 3.3-1: Existing Biological Habitats.
Table 3.3-1. Habitats and Vegetation Communities within the Project Area
Habitat Vegetation Community Acreage Wetlands and Other Waters 2 Acres
Non-native grassland 105 Acres
Developed, or semi-developed 77 Acres1
Total 183 acres Notes: 1. Includes buildings, roadways, and landscaped areas. Approximately 62 acres are impervious. Source: Cardno Entrix 2013 Wetlands and Other Waters Drainage Ditches There are seven drainage ditches within the project area as shown in Figure 3.3-2: Preliminary Wetlands and Other Waters. All are manmade features created to channel
Page 3-45
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
runoff away from various parts of the project area. These drainage ditches were either dry or were saturated due to recent rains at the time of the survey conducted by Cardno Entrix in March 2012, but did not contain standing water and did not appear to be subject to high-velocity flows as there was no scour or distinct bed and bank.
Based on the vegetation present, these features function as intermittent drainages to channel runoff during rain events. Individual descriptions of the ditches are provided below.
Ditch 01 is a shallow roadside drainage ditch designed to carry flows from an asphalt pad and adjacent paved roads in a southern direction along Keppler Avenue, before entering a culvert under the road, and flowing north of 5th Street into a culvert east of Hutchins Avenue to Chabot Canal (Canal 01). The majority of the ditch is dominated by annual grassland vegetation including brome species, yellow star thistle, and stinkwort, and lacked evidence of hydrology or an ordinary high water mark. A portion of the drainage ditch has begun to fill in with sediment along Keppler Avenue near 5th Street; this portion is discussed as Wetland Drainage Ditch 01 in Wetland Drainage Ditches below.
Ditch 02 is a drainage ditch designed to flow in a southern direction from 6th Street, becoming progressively deeper before tying into Chabot Canal (Canal 01) at approximately the ordinary high water mark. The majority of the ditch is dominated by annual grassland vegetation and lacks an ordinary high water mark. An existing culvert allows for vehicle access over the ditch into an industrial yard approximately 155 feet south of 6th Street. This drainage appears to receive sheet flow from the adjacent roadway, and developed areas, as well as seasonal irrigation runoff from landscaping to the west and lacks an OHW, scour, or evidence of high flows.
Ditch 03 begins north of 4th Street near Hutchinson Avenue, and flows west towards Chabot Canal, becoming progressively deeper before tying into the Canal at approximately the ordinary high water mark. This drainage ditch is dominated by annual grassland vegetation and lacks an ordinary high water mark, scour, or evidence of high flows. The drainage is encased in existing culverts, each approximately 100-feet long, in two areas. This drainage appears to receive sheet flow from Hutchison Road, 4th Street, and the adjacent annual grasslands.
Ditch 04 consists of a very shallow, poorly drained portion south of 4th Street, a maintained ditch flowing north to south that intersects with an east to west flowing segment that eventually discharges into Ephemeral Drainage 01. This ditch exhibits variable vegetation and hydrology.
In three locations (Wetland Drainage Ditch 02, 03 and 04) the ditch is shallow and poorly drained and has developed wetland indicators that are discussed in more detail below. The north to south flowing portion near 4th Street is maintained through dredging of sediment, vegetation removal, and grading to maintain flows and prevent stormwater from ponding on 4th Street. Further south the ditch was used to direct water away from temporary facilities on an adjacent concrete pad, and existing drainage pipes from the pads to the ditch were observed. The southern portion of the ditch no longer appears to receive
Page 3-46
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
maintenance and does not have positive flow towards Chabot Canal during low flow events resulting in stormwater ponding in Wetland Drainage Ditch 04 (discussed below).
Ditch 05 is a shallow roadside ditch that may have originally overtopped into Canal 02, but does not appear to receive sufficient flows to exhibit wetland characteristics or evidence of an ordinary high water mark. No surface water connection to Canal 01 or Canal 02 was observed. Ditch 06 is an incised feature south of a industrial yard that flows to Chabot Canal that exhibits evidence of intermittent flow, and is dominated by non-native grassland species and canary grass (Phalaris minor). Ditch 07, is a section of open ditch that transfers water from storm drain pipe draining road runoff from Dublin Boulevard into Chabot Canal.
Wetlands and Drainage Ditches In four locations, the above described drainage ditches pond water for a sufficient period of time to develop hydric soils, a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, and exhibit primary or secondary hydrology indicators for wetlands. These areas are indicated as Wetland Drainage Ditch 01, 02, 03, and 04 as shown in Figure 3.3-2: Preliminary Wetlands and Other Waters.
Soil samples SP6 and SP8 that were conducted by Cardno Entrix exhibit typical wetland indicators observed within the wetland drainage ditches. These samples were taken in depressions and/or poorly drained locations within the manmade drainage ditches. These areas were dominated by a variety of facultative wetland or obligate wetland plants species, such as tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), western dock (Rumex occidentalis), and common spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya) and exhibited depleted or gleyed soils. Hydrology indicators included ponding water, saturation, or surface soil cracks. Wetland Drainage Ditch 01 appears to have formed due to a blocked culvert in roadside drainage ditch, while Wetland Drainage Ditch 02, 03, and 04 are the result of poor flow due to low initial grade or sediment buildup in manmade drainage ditches. All associated drainage ditches flow to Chabot Canal.
Ephemeral Drainage A portion of drainage ditch between Camp Parks Boulevard and Chabot Canal displays evidence of an ordinary high water mark with minor shelving and rilling and receives intermittent flows. The ditch is dominated by upland grasses, but was observed ponding at a higher frequency then adjacent drainage ditches. This drainage connects Drainage Ditch 04 to Chabot Canal and is approximately 905 feet (0.288 acres).
Canal Other waters of the U.S. include Chabot Canal (Canal 01), and an unnamed canal (Canal 02). Both canals are ephemeral features with water marks/staining and drift deposits indicating the ordinary high water mark. This ordinary high water mark was used to delineate the edge of the feature. Margins of Canal 01 were dominated by Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica) and canary grass. Canal 02 is a maintained concrete lined channel with
Page 3-47
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
evidence of flow, but dominated by ruderal vegetation and mowed/maintained annual grasses. These features appear to be improved flood control channels, designed to convey high flows during rain events and have steep sides that extend well past the ordinary high water mark.
Chabot Canal (Canal 01), exhibited minor scouring in areas that appear to be from frequent low flows, and shelving in the southern section due to higher flows. Indicators of hydrology range from ponding and saturation to water stained leaves and drainage patterns. Vegetation with Chabot Canal ranges from emergent vegetation such as cattails, rushes and sedge in the southern section, to a small area of riparian vegetation in the central portion, to mowed or cleared vegetation with a shallow low-flow channel and annual grassland margins in the northern section. Chabot Canal is primarily a vegetated canal, but is concrete lined at the southern perimeter of the project area and has rip-rap and/or concrete at culverts and where existing storm drain systems outfall into the Canal. The Canal receives nuisance flows from existing storm drain systems and manmade drainage ditches throughout the project area, and conveys off-site flows from north of the project area through the area into the City of Dublin storm drain system.
Canal 02 consists of a concrete and riprap-lined low-flow channel, and margins are dominated by immature annual grasslands and ruderal vegetation. Canal 02 appears to conveyed flows from a historic creek in the Tassajara Regional Park as well as stormwater flows from developed areas to the northeast of the project area. Through the project area a portion of this feature has been previously incased and consists of underground drainage facilities. The majority of flows appear to be diverted into an encased storm drain system at the southeastern edge of the project area.
Emergent Wetland Two emergent wetlands (Emergent Wetland 01, Emergent Wetland 02) located west of Chabot Canal, were dominated by cattails, stinkwort, curly dock, and canarygrass, and exhibited gleyed sandy clay soils. Both features exhibited primary hydrology indicators including saturation, surface water, water marks and/or water-stained leaves. These features are a direct result of a leaking potable water pipeline containing chlorinated and fluoridated water, and owned by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, and as such would not typically be considered jurisdiction wetlands by the USACE.
Seasonal Wetland A 0.092 acre marginal seasonal wetland feature is located north of 3rd Street and east of Fernandez Boulevard, which is dominated by non-native facilitative wetland plants consisting primarily of common plantain (Plantago lanceolata) and seaside barley (Hordium Marinum). This feature lacked hydrology and was dry during two of three wet season site visits.
Soils are fill material and lack strong hydric indicators. The feature is adjacent to intermittent Drainage Ditch 01.
Page 3-48
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
Potential Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetland and Other Waters Based on the area delineated, approximately 1.605 acres of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and Other Waters were identified within the project area, including 0.103 acres of wetland drainage ditch, 0.092 acres of seasonal wetland, and 1.409 acres of other waters of the U.S.
These features appear to be subject to the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) jurisdiction pursuant to the Clean Water Act for the following reasons:
1.409 Acres of Other Waters: Chabot Canal (Canal 01) and Canal 02 are ephemeral surface tributaries to Alamo Creek, which is a relatively permanent water. Ephemeral Drainage 01 is a tributary to Chabot Canal that displays and ordinary high water mark.
0.196 Acres of Wetlands: The seasonal wetland and wetland drainage ditches meet the USACE’s three-parameter wetland criteria (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology); and are hydrologically linked to Chabot Canal, thus, the wetlands has a significant nexus to a non-relatively permanent water that flows directly to a Traditional Navigable Water. Drainage ditches (Drainage Ditch 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, and 07) within the project area are man-made drainage features designed to drain adjacent upland areas toward Chabot Canal and did not exhibit a dominance of wetland vegetation, hydric soils, or hydrology. Additionally, they lacked indicators of an ordinary high water mark and appear to be only sporadically inundated.
Manmade ditches created in upland habitats to direct runoff from upland habitats are typically not classified as jurisdiction wetlands by the USACE. Emergent wetlands (0.022 acres) were found to be a direct result of a leaky potable water pipe and are not typically considered jurisdictional.
Waters of the State Using the USACE guidance, all wetlands and other waters of the U.S mapped within the project area using would likely be considered jurisdictional by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under the Porter-Cologne Act. Additionally, 0.494 acres of drainage ditch (Drainage Ditch 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06 and 07) that were created in uplands to drain uplands may be considered jurisdictional by the RWQCB
Non-native grasslands Non-native grassland is composed of annual grasses, with cover ranging from sparse to dense, and associated species of native and non-native flowering forbs. Most of the plants are dead in the summer and fall seasons. Non-native grassland usually occurs on fine- textured soils that are moist or very wet during the winter rainy season and very dry during the summer. It is distributed throughout the valleys and foothills of most of California, and generally ranges from sea level up to about 3,000 feet elevation.
Page 3-49
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
Non-native grasslands within the project area contain both native and non-native species. The plant composition within the project area has not changed since the previous surveys (2003 to 2004) were conducted. Dominant species include slender wild oat (Avena barbata), wild oat (Avena fatua), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), slender wild oat (Avena barbata), ryegrasses (Lolium spp.) and several barley species (Hordeum spp.) and canarygrass (Phalaris ssp.). Associated annual forbs include primarily non-native plants such as black mustard (Brassica nigra), short pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), alkali mallow (Malvella leprosa), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), annual fireweed (Epilobium brachycarpum), and yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). The ruderal grassland habitat covers approximately 104.69 acres and occurs in previously disturbed areas, evident by concrete footings, asphalt, rebar, and pipes from demolished buildings. Some of these ruderal grassland areas are mowed or disked for fuel control.
Developed Areas The project area includes approximately 77 acres of developed areas that include hardscape and landscape areas. Developed areas include buildings, parking areas, storage areas and roads. The developed areas within the project area are concentrated towards the west. However, the eastern portion also includes a few buildings, storage yards and associated parking lots.
Special Status Species According to the CNDDB, USFWS, and CNPS queries, a total of 68 special-status species and three rare natural communities and USFWS-designated critical habitat for California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) are known to occur in the project area. Information gathered during the site visits and data on range, habitat requirements, and known localities was used to refine the species list and determine which species were likely to occur based on the plant communities (i.e. habitat types) within the project area. Based on the database queries and biological surveys, nine wildlife species and one plant species have a moderate or higher likelihood of occurrence in the project area. No rare natural communities occur within the project area. Similarly, there is no-USFWS designated critical habitat within the project area.
Survey Methods Cardno Entrix performed queries of the California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPSEI) and the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Online Species List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species to identify known biological resources within the project area. Results of those queries are shown in the technical appendices in Appendix C.
A reconnaissance-level survey was conducted by Cardno Entrix biologist on March 6, 2012. The survey consisted of walking meandering transects through accessible representative vegetation or plant communities that occur within the project area to assess their suitability
Page 3-50
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
for native plant and animal species. Particular attention was given to areas that appeared to provide the most suitable habitat for special-status species expected to occur in the region.
Previous Biological Surveys A special-status plant species survey was completed at Camp Parks in 1995 by Jones & Stokes (as cited in US Army 2006), followed by a field reconnaissance in 1997 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Louisville District 2003 (as cited in US Army 2006). An extensive two-year floristic survey, which included three performance of surveys coinciding with the progression of flowering, was conducted between spring 2001 and spring 2003. In 2003, a sensitive plant survey was conducted in appropriate habitat within Camp Parks with special focus on the Cantonment Area, and southwest portion of the Training Area. No federal or state-listed or candidate plant species were detected during any survey, site conditions have not changed significantly since the surveys were conducted and none are believed to occur within the project area.
An installation-wide faunal survey focusing on rare species was completed in 1995 by Jones & Stokes (as cited in U.S. Army, 2006). In addition, surveys were performed in 2003 for vernal pool invertebrates, California red-legged frog, burrowing owls, San Joaquin kit foxes, and other sensitive species including raptors and loggerhead shrikes. Most of the latter surveys focused on the Cantonment Area and adjacent portions of the southwest Training Area. However, the vernal pool surveys were done in appropriate habitat throughout Camp Parks and the San Joaquin kit fox surveys addressed appropriate habitat in the Cantonment and southern training area. Site conditions have not changed significantly since these surveys were conducted as confirmed by Cardno Entrix in the March 2012 reconnaissance survey.
Species Accounts Life histories of special-status plant and animal species identified by the CNDDB, USFWS, and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) lists that have a moderate or higher likelihood of occurring in the project area are described below:
Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservation) The conservancy fairy shrimp is endemic to California’s Central Valley, with one outlying population in Ventura County, southwest of the Valley. Within the Central Valley, records for this species come from Tehama, Butte, Glenn, Solano and Yolo County. There are no known occurrences in Alameda County. Although not a target species, this species was not detected in focused surveys between 2002 and 2003 and during wet and dry surveys conducted by Cardno Entrix in 2012 and 2013. Suitable large playa pools that this species typically occurs in are not present in the project area. Therefore, the likelihood of Conservancy fairy shrimp occurring within the project area is considered low.
Longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna) Typical habitats for Longhorn fairy shrimp include vernal pools, seasonally ponded areas within vernal swales, and ephemeral freshwater habitats. There are only eight known
Page 3-51
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
populations of the longhorn fairy shrimp. The nearest occurrence of this species is within the Altamont Pass and these occurrences occur within clear depression pools in sandstone outcrops. Vernal pools in other parts of California that support these fairy shrimp consist of either loam and sandy loam or shallow, alkaline pools. The seasonal pool habitat is subject to seasonal variations, and longhorn fairy shrimp are dependent on the ecological characteristics of such variations. These characteristics include duration of inundation and presence or absence of water at specific times of the year. The longhorn fairy shrimp is capable of living in vernal pools of relatively short duration (pond 6 to 7 weeks in winter and 3 weeks in spring). This species was not found during USFWS protocol level surveys conducted from 2002 to 2003 of by the surveys conducted in 2012 and 2013 by Cardno Entrix. Therefore, the likelihood of Longhorn fairy shrimp occurring within the project area is considered low.
Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) Vernal pool fairy shrimp are federally listed as threatened. Vernal pool fairy shrimp occur in vernal pools and seasonal wetlands that fill during winter and spring rains and then dry up fall until rains return. Cysts lie in the soil through dry periods, hatching with the next season’s rains, or may even remain dormant for decades before hatching. There are known occurrences of this species within Springtown in northeast Livermore, approximately eight miles east of the project area. This species was not detected during focused biological surveys from 2002 to 2003 or the 2012 and 2013 surveys conducted by Cardno Entrix. Therefore, the likelihood of Vernal pool fairy shrimp occurring within the project area is considered low.
Curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle (Hygrotus curvipes) The curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle is not state or federally listed or a species of concern, but is included on the CDFG Special Animals list. This aquatic beetle occurs in small seasonal pools and wetlands and small pools left in dry creek beds, and is typically associated with alkaline tolerant vegetation. Occurrences of this species are known from the northeast portion of Livermore and Altamont Pass. Suitable habitat within the project area exists along the drainage canals. This species was not detected during focused biological surveys from 2002 to 2003 and site conditions have not changed significantly since that time. Therefore, the likelihood of Curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle occurring within the project area is considered low.
San Francisco forktail damselfly (Ischnura gemina) The San Francisco forktail damselfly is found from Tomales Bay in Marin County, south to the north side of Monterey Bay in Santa Cruz County. This species is known to occur in and around seeps, ponds, small creeks and canals. Males and females are extremely sexually dimorphic, showing a great range of color. Females deposits eggs in plant stems, generally without being guarded by a male. This species is believe to be restricted to the San Francisco Bay region and may have disappeared from locations in the southern part of its former range, perhaps from hybridization with black-fronted damselflies. Suitable habitat within the project area exists along the drainage canals. This species was not detected
Page 3-52
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
during focused biological surveys conducted from 2002 to 2003 and site conditions have not changed significantly since that time. Therefore, the likelihood of San Francisco forktail damselfly occurring within the project area is considered low.
California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis) California linderiella is not state or federally listed or a Species of Special Concern, but is included on the CDFW Special Animals list. This small fairy shrimp occurs in vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands. Their life history is very similar to that of the vernal pool fairy shrimp, but this species is more widespread. California linderiella commonly occur in Alameda County, the nearest CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.17 miles to the northeast just south of the Air Force Communication Annex. This species was not detected during focused biological surveys between 2002 and 2003 or during the surveys conducted by Cardno Entrix in 2012 and 2013. Therefore, the likelihood of California linderiella occurring within the project area is considered low. Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata)
The western pond turtle (WPT) is a California Species of Special Concern. This aquatic turtle ranges throughout much of the state, from the Sierra Nevada foothills to the coast, and in coastal drainages from the Oregon border to the Mexican border. They typically inhabit ponds, slow-moving streams and rivers, irrigation ditches, and reservoirs with abundant emergent and/or riparian vegetation. The turtle requires adjacent (i.e., within 200 to 400 meters of water) uplands for nesting and egg laying, typically in soils with high clay or silt component on unshaded, south-facing slopes. In colder climates, they may spend the winters hibernating in these upland habitats. There are known CNDDB occurrences for this species within one-half mile of the project area within ponds and perennial drainages that provide potential habitat for this species. This species was not detected during focused biological surveys from 2002 to 2003. Therefore, the likelihood of Western pond turtle occurring within the project area is considered low.
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) The California tiger salamander (CTS) is federally listed as threatened and a California threatened species. CTS is most commonly found in annual grassland habitat, but also occurs in grassy understory of open valley foothill hardwood habitats. The species occurs from near Petaluma, Sonoma County, east through the Central Valley to Yolo and Sacramento counties and south to Tulare County, and from the vicinity of San Francisco Bay south into Santa Barbara County. Adults spend most of the year in subterranean refugia, especially burrows of California ground squirrels, and occasionally man-made structures. The primary cause of decline of CTS populations is the loss and fragmentation of habitat from human activities and the encroachment of nonnative predators.
All of the estimated seven genetic populations of this species have been significantly reduced because of urban and agricultural development, land conversion, and other human-caused factors. There are known occurrences for this species within the Camp Parks Training Area. USFWS protocol requires that known CTS locations be evaluated within three miles of a project when there is a known occurrence. No suitable aquatic
Page 3-53
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
habitat was identified within the project area during the March 2012 surveys conducted by Cardno Entrix.
The seasonal wetlands in the project area do not remain inundated for long enough periods to support breeding and existing development likely inhibits dispersal. Absence of dispersing CTS is not presumed, however, the probability of occurrence declines with distance from known breeding habitat, potential breeding habitat, and suitability of habitat. The majority of the project area is more than 0.7 miles from potential breeding habitat located within Camp Parks Training Area.
Existing development, primarily between 8th and 11th-12th Streets, contains buildings, roads and parking areas that likely hinder dispersal and reduce the survival potential of dispersing CTS. The northeast corner of the project area is within 0.7 miles of breeding habitat. During the March 2012 site visit by Cardno Entrix, a large pond was observed northeast of the intersection between 6th Street and Monroe Avenue. Suitable upland habitat was observed south of this pond, however, it appears that this area might have been used as a borrow site and the inundation might be the result of recent rains. There is no direct connectivity between this area and the potential breeding habitat within the Camp Parks training area. The Federal Correctional Facility, the facility perimeter road, 7th and 8th Street, existing buildings, parking lots and existing storm water canals likely prohibit dispersal of CTS into the northeast corner of the project area. Therefore, the likelihood of California tiger salamander to occur within the project area is considered low.
California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) The California red-legged frog (CRLF) is federally listed as threatened and is a California Species of Special Concern. This large brown to reddish-brown frog historically occurred over much of the state from the Sierra Nevada foothills to the Coast and from Mendocino County to the Mexican border. CRLF typically inhabit ponds, slow-moving creeks, and streams with deep pools that are lined with dense emergent marsh or shrubby riparian vegetation. Submerged root masses and undercut banks are important habitat features for this species. However, this species is capable of inhabiting a wide variety of perennial aquatic habitats as long as there is sufficient cover and that bullfrogs or non-native predatory fish are not present. CRLF is known to survive in ephemeral streams, although only if deep pools with vegetative cover persist through the dry season. Factors that have contributed to the decline of CRLF include destruction of riparian habitat from development, agriculture, flood control practices, or the introduction of exotic predators such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and a variety of non-native fish.
There are several known CNDDB occurrences for this species within two miles of the project area. The nearest occurrences are 1.4 miles to the north and 1.2 miles to the northeast of the project area. USFWS protocol requires that occurrences be evaluated within one mile of a proposed project. The first occurrence is located within Camp Parks training area. The second during the March 2012 field survey. The ephemeral drainage/storm drainage canal in the center of the project area does not support deep pools where this species may breed. Similarly, the drainage canal along the eastern border
Page 3-54
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
of the project area is channelized and concrete lined. In both of these canals, cattails were present. Booz Allen Hamilton and GANDA surveyed the project area and additional sections of the Cantonment Area of Camp Parks in 2003. The survey concentrated on sixteen wetlands within or immediately north of the Cantonment Area. Of sixteen sites visited, two areas within the Cantonment Area contained standing water. The first wetland (ephemeral drainage/ storm drainage canal) is located just southwest of the intersection of 8th Street and Hutchins Avenue. The second wetland is grassy ditch located just west of the intersection between 8th Street and Davis Ave. The Booz Allen Hamilton (2004) report state that it was abnormal for this grassy ditch, to contain water during the summer months and it was believed that this water was due to runoff from landscaping; this ditch is nearly surrounded by developed areas with several landscaped areas. Although these areas did not contain sufficient water for breeding, additional surveys were conducted. CRLF were not observed during any of these surveys. No suitable aquatic habitat was observed within the project area during the March 2012 survey conducted by Cardno Entrix Therefore, the likelihood of California Tiger Salamander occurring within the project area is considered low.
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) This hawk is found throughout California, except in the high altitudes of the Sierra Nevada. The Cooper’s hawk is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Cooper’s hawks typically breed in forest, or in groves of trees along rivers, but also in low scrub of treeless areas. The wooded area is often near the edge of a field or a water-opening. The nesting season for this hawk begins late February, however, lost clutches are replaced. The Audubon eBird database contains observations of Cooper’s hawks in the Dublin and Livermore area. Based on the survey conducted in March 2012 by Cardno Entrix there is limited nesting habitat in the project area, Cooper’s hawk is a year round resident of the project vicinity. Therefore, the likelihood of Cooper’s hawk occurring within the project area is considered moderate. Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Golden eagle is a California fully protected species and is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. One of North America’s largest predatory birds, the golden eagle is more common in southern California than in northern California. Ranging from sea level up to 11,500 feet, the golden eagle’s habitat typically consists of rolling foothills, montane areas, sage-juniper flats, and desert; it avoids heavily forested areas.
The golden eagle eats mostly rabbits and rodents, but also other small mammals, birds, reptiles, and carrion. The diet is most varied in the non-breeding season. Open terrain is required for hunting such as grasslands, deserts, savannahs, and early successional stages of forest and shrub habitats. Breeding begins in late January with eggs laid from early February to late May. Golden eagle nests on cliffs of all heights and in large trees in open areas. Rugged, open habitats with canyons and escarpments are used most frequently for nesting. The species winters in areas between 1,500 feet and 8,200 feet.
Page 3-55
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
There is one historically documented golden eagle nest near Tassajara, 3.39 miles northeast of the project area. Although one egg was observed in 1992, the nesting attempt failed for unknown reasons. Golden eagles are regularly observed by birders in the region and Altamont Pass has the greatest concentration of Golden eagles in the state. The project area contains marginal suitable foraging habitat. Therefore, the likelihood of Golden Eagle occurring within the project area is considered moderate.
Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) The tricolored blackbird is a California Species of Special Concern and is endemic to the Central and coastal valleys of California. They are highly gregarious, forming large flocks in both breeding and non-breeding seasons. Nests are built near or over water and occasionally in agricultural fields. Recently, tricolored blackbirds have displayed increased tendencies toward nesting in patches of blackberry, willows, mustard, thistles, nettles, and even grasses. Based on the surveys conducted by Cardno Entrix, the cattails within the drainage canals are not extensive enough to support a colony of tricolored blackbirds, nevertheless, the cattails could provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. However, the likelihood of tricolored blackbird occurring within the project area is considered low.
Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) The western burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. Burrowing owls are year-long residents in generally flat, open dry grasslands, pastures, deserts, and shrub lands, and in grass, forbs and open shrub stages of pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine habitats. They use communal ground squirrel and other small mammal burrow colonies for nesting and cover, as well as artificial structures such as roadside embankments, levees, berms, and have been observed within railroad right-of-ways. They prefer open, dry, nearly level grassland or prairie habitat and can exhibit high site fidelity, often reusing burrows year after year.
Occupancy of suitable burrowing owl habitat can be verified at a site by observation of a pair of burrowing owls during their breeding season (March to August) or, alternatively, by the presence of molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains (rodents, small reptiles, and large insects), eggshell fragments, or excrement (guano or must), near or at a burrow. Several pairs and individual burrowing owls were observed within the project area by Cardno Entrix during their site surveys in March 2012 and the CNDDB contains several reports of nesting pairs within the project area. Therefore, the western burrowing owl is present within the project area.
Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) The ferruginous hawk is on the CDFW watch list. Ferruginous hawk does not breed in California, but is a winter resident and migrant in the lower elevations and open grasslands in the Modoc Plateau, Central Valley, Coast Ranges and southwestern California. The project area provides suitable foraging habitat, primarily in the ruderal grasslands, and potential roosting habitat in the scattered eucalyptus trees. Ferruginous hawk observations in the Dublin and Livermore area have been reported to the eBird database. This species
Page 3-56
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources has been observed foraging and may winter in the area. However, the species is not known to nest in California. Therefore, the likelihood of ferruginous hawk to occur within the project area is considered low.
Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) The Swainson’s hawk is state listed as threatened and is a resident of grasslands, open woodlands and agricultural areas adjacent to the Sacramento and San Joaquin River deltas. They are found during the breeding season throughout the Central Valley where suitable nesting and foraging habitat is available. Swainson’s hawks often nest within or peripheral to riparian areas, adjacent to suitable foraging habitat as well as in single or stands of trees in agricultural fields. They are open country birds that forage in large, open grasslands and agricultural fields, especially after the fields have been disced or harvested.
Swainson’s hawks can forage as much as ten miles from the nest. A nest has been recorded approximately 19 miles east of the Greenville Yard. Swainson’s hawks are not known to nest in the Dublin or Livermore area; however, they could potentially use the ruderal grassland as foraging habitat. However, the likelihood of Swainson’s hawk occurring within the project area is considered low.
Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) The northern harrier is a California Species of Special Concern, and it is also protected under the Migratory Birth Treaty Act (MBTA). Northern harriers breed and forage in a variety of open (treeless) habitats (freshwater marsh, brackish and saltwater marshes, wet meadows, weedy borders of lakes, rivers and streams, annual and perennial grasslands including those with vernal pools, weed fields, un-grazed or lightly grazed pastures) that provide adequate vegetative cover, an abundance of suitable prey, and scattered hunting, plucking, and lookout perches such as shrubs or fence posts. Harriers nest on the ground, mostly within patches of dense, often tall, vegetation in undisturbed areas. Harriers feed on a broad variety of small- to medium-size vertebrates, primarily rodents and passerines (small birds). The primary threats to northern breeding harriers are loss and degradation of nesting and foraging habitat. The ruderal grassland within the project area provides low quality ground nesting habitat, however, due to the maintenance and pedestrian traffic, it is likely that these activities preclude nesting activities. However, the likelihood of northern harrier occurring within the project area is considered moderate.
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) The white-tailed kite is a state “fully protected” raptor. It breeds between February and October and feeds on rodents, small reptiles, and large insects in fresh emergent wetlands, annual grasslands, pastures, and ruderal vegetation. Unlike other raptors, kites often roost and occasionally nest communally; therefore, disturbance of a relatively small roost or nesting area could affect a large number of birds. Suitable foraging habitat occurs within the project area. One nesting occurrence is located within Camp Parks training area, approximately 0.8 miles north of the Project area. The trees within the project area provide
Page 3-57
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
suitable nesting habitat for this bird species. Therefore, the likelihood of white-tailed kite occurring within the project area is considered moderate.
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) This species is on the CDFW watch list. California horned lark is a resident in a variety of open habitats in California: in the grasslands along the coast and deserts to open habitat above the treeline. California horned lark is present in the project area. The project area provides suitable foraging and breeding habitat for California horned lark, particularly the ruderal grassland. Therefore, the likelihood of California horned lark occurring within the project area is considered moderate.
Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) The Prairie falcon is on the CDFW watch list. Prairie falcon occurs primarily as a year-round resident in California from the southeastern deserts northwest throughout the Central Valley and along the inner Coast Ranges and Sierra Nevada. Prairie falcon tends to occur in open habitats such as grasslands, savannas, rangeland, desert scrub and some agricultural fields. Prairie falcon eats mostly small mammals, small birds and reptiles and breeds from mid-February through mid-September, with peak breeding occurring from April through early August. The CNDDB has recorded occurrences of nesting prairie falcons in the vicinity of Tassajara Creek Regional Park. The species was not observed by Cardno Entrix in March 2012. Therefore, the likelihood of praire falcons to occur within the project area is considered low.
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) The loggerhead shrike is a California Species of Special Concern and it is also protected under the MBTA. The loggerhead shrike prefers open country with short vegetation: pastures with fence rows, old orchards, mowed roadsides, cemeteries, golf courses, agricultural fields, riparian areas, and open woodlands. They feed primarily on insects or small rodents in grasslands adjacent to woodland areas. During the breeding season the loggerhead shrike might nest near isolated trees or large shrubs with thorns, when trees or shrubs are lacking, birds will also build in brush piles, tumbleweeds or “hardwood debris.” Loggerhead shrikes have been documented within the project area during previous biological surveys and during the field survey conducted by Cardno Entrix in March 2012 and various other biological surveys. Therefore, loggerhead shrike is considered present within the project area.
Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) The pallid bat is a California Species of Special Concern. The pallid bat is common in arid regions with rocky outcroppings, particularly near water. This gregarious species usually roosts in small colonies of 20 or more individuals in rock crevices and buildings, but occasionally roosts in caves, mines, rock piles, highway structures (i.e., box culverts, overpasses) and tree cavities. They chiefly feed on large prey that is taken on the ground or, perhaps less frequently, in flight within a few meters of the ground or from the surfaces of vegetation. Prey items include scorpions, crickets, centipedes, ground beetles,
Page 3-58
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources grasshoppers, cicadas, and katydids, as well as lizards and rodents. This species may forage over the project area and may roost in buildings or other structures within the project area and vicinity. The nearest CNDDB occurrence is located 2.06 miles southwest of the project area. This species could roost in existing buildings within the project area. Therefore, the likelihood of pallid bat to occur within the project area is considered moderate.
Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) The Yuma myotis is typically found in open forest and woodland with sources of water over which to feed. The distribution of this bat is closely tied vwith bodies of water. Maternity colonies have been found in crevices in caves, mines, buildings and under bridges. The nearest CNDDB occurrence is 2.06 miles to the southwest of the project area. This species could roost in existing buildings within the project area. Therefore, the likelihood of pallid bat to occur within the project area is considered moderate.
San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) The San Joaquin kit fox is Federally Endangered and listed as Threatened in California. San Joaquin kit foxes inhabit grasslands and scrublands, many of which have been extensively modified. Types of modified habitats include those withoil exploration and extraction equipment and wind turbines, and agricultural mosaics of row crops, irrigated pastures, orchards, vineyards, and grazed annual grasslands. Oak woodland, alkali sink scrubland, and vernal pool and alkali meadow communities also provide habitat for kit foxes. Dens are scarce in areas with shallow soils because of the proximity to bedrock, high water tables, or impenetrable hardpan layers. Kit foxes are active year-round and are primarily nocturnal. Dens are used for housing and protection. One fox may use several dens, particularly during the summer months. Females may change natal and pupping dens one or two times per month. Kit foxes construct their own dens, but they can also enlarge or modify burrows constructed by other animals, such as ground squirrels, badgers, and coyotes. They also den in human-made structures, such as culverts, abandoned pipes, and banks in roadbeds. Most dens, especially natal and pupping dens, have at least two entrances. Mating usually takes place between late December and March and the median gestation period is estimated to range from 48 to 52 days. Litters are born between February and late March and consist of two to six pups.
While the female is lactating, the male provides most of the food for her and the pups. The pups emerge from the den for the first time when they are slightly older than 1 month. After four to five months, usually in August or September, the young begin dispersing. Occasionally, a young female remains with the adult female for several more months, and sometimes offspring of both sexes will remain with their parents through the year to help raise the next litter. Similar to other predators, reproductive success of kit foxes is related to the abundance of their prey. Decreases in prey abundance caused by circumstances such as drought and too much rainfall result in decreases of reproductive success of kit foxes. There are geographical, seasonal, and annual variations in the diet of San Joaquin kit foxes based upon temporal and spatial variation in abundance of potential prey. In the southern
Page 3-59
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources portion of their range, at least one-third of their diet is comprised of kangaroo rats, pocket mice, white-footed mice (Peromyscus spp.), and other nocturnal rodents. Ground squirrels, black-tailed hares, San Joaquin antelope squirrels, cottontails, ground-nesting birds, insects, and vegetation, particularly grasses, also are eaten. In the central portion of their range, their prey consists of white-footed mice, insects, California ground squirrels, kangaroo rats, San Joaquin antelope squirrels, black-tailed hares, and chukar (an introduced bird species). In the northern part of their range, California ground squirrels are the most common prey species. Other prey eaten by kit foxes in this area includes cottontails, black-tailed hares, pocket mice, and kangaroo rats. Although kit foxes are considered to be primarily nocturnal, they are commonly seen during the day in the late spring and early summer.
Although there is a historical observation of San Joaquin kit fox near Tassajara Regional Park (CNDDB SJKF Occurrence #1031), no San Joaquin kit fox or sign have not been observed within the project area. Previous surveys within the project area conducted between May and June 1983 and protocol level surveys during September 2003 did not find evidence of use of the area by San Joaquin kit fox. The survey conducted in 2003 surveyed the developed lands within the Cantonment Area because the San Joaquin Kit Fox (within the southern portion of its rage) has been known to inhabit and adapt manmade features such as pipes, culverts, and raise buildings.
The 2003 San Joaquin Kit Fox survey identified potentially suitable habitat, but no kit foxes were observed. Site conditions have not changed significantly since the 2003 surveys. Therefore, the likelihood of San Joaquin kit fox to occur within the project area is considered low.
Plant Species A query of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) lists 34 plant species that occur within the project vicinity. Based on habitats within the project area during the March 2012 survey by Cardno Entrix, the list was reduced to four species including: Congdon’s tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), Palmate-bracted Bird’s-beak (Chloropyron palmatum), Northern California Black Walnut (Juglans hindsii), and Hairless popcorn-flower (Plagiobothrys glaber).
Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) The Congdon’s tarplant is listed as a Rare Plant Rank (RPR) 1B.2 by the CNPS. Congdon’s tarplant is a prostrate to erect, yellow flowered annual herb in the Sunflower Family (Asteraceae). It generally occurs in annual grasslands with poorly-drained, somewhat alkaline, clay or sandy-loam soils, at elevations between sea level and 230 meters (754 feet). It has historic occurrences in Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo and Solano Counties, but is thought to be extirpated from Santa Cruz and Solano Counties (Tibor 2001 as cited in Booz Allen Hamilton 2004). Congdon’s tarplant is described as severely threatened by development (Tibor 2001 as cited in Booz Allen Hamilton 2004), although it is evidently tolerant of mowing and some other physical disturbances within the ruderal grasslands within the project area.
Page 3-60
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. surveyed for nine of the potential special-status plant species at Camp Parks in 1995 and 1997. Congdon’s tarplant populations were first observed during the 1997 survey. Before its discovery at Camp Parks, this species had not been recorded in the Amador Valley, which includes Camp Parks, for more than 30 years. Subsequent surveys in August 1999 and July 2000 confirmed that known populations occur in 107 acres in the Training and Cantonment Areas. In addition, the potential habitat for this species covers more than 1,200 acres. According to the CNDDB, over 10,000 plants were estimated for this area in 1997.
Additionally, a small patch of approximately 26 plants was identified in 2000 just south of Camp Parks, across Dublin Boulevard in the vicinity of a BART facility. The majority of the populations are found in highly disturbed or mowed areas (i.e., along the edge of parking lots and abandoned roads) and along the edges of annual grasslands at PRFTA. The soil in these locations is heavy alkaline clay in the Clear Lake and Diablo series. As the CNDDB contains recorded occurrences of this species within the project area and it was observed during the plant surveys, the likelihood of Congdon’s tarplant to occur within the project area is considered moderate.
Palmate-bracted Bird’s-beak (Chloropyron palmatum). Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak is known to occur in seven meta-populations with the closest in the Springtown alkali sink in the Livermore Valley, approximately six miles east of Project area. It was federally designated as endangered in 1986 (FR 51:23767 as cited in US Army 2006) and state designated as endangered in 1984 due to agricultural conversion; it is threatened by agriculture, urbanization, vehicles, altered hydrology, grazing, and development.26 This species occurs on saline-alkaline soils and is a component of alkali sink scrub vegetation (CDFW 1998 as cited in Booz Allen Hamilton 2004). During floristic surveys, this species was not found within the project area. Therefore, the likelihood of Palmate-bracted Bird’s-beak to occur within the project area is considered low.
Northern California Black Walnut (Juglans hindsii) Northern California black walnut is designated RPR 1B.1, rare and endangered in California and elsewhere, in the CNPS inventory. It is a deciduous tree in the Walnut Family (Juglandaceae) that is approximately 50 to 80 feet tall with dark, narrowly furrowed bark. Its male flowers are arranged in greenish-yellow catkins and its small green female flowers are borne singly or in small clusters near the ends of the new twigs. Its habitat is riparian scrub and woodland. Northern California walnut grows in deep, alluvial soils associated with rivers and creeks, in riparian forest or riparian woodland (Hickman 1993, CNPS 2001 – as cited in Booz Allen Hamilton 2004). The original range of Northern California black walnut appears to have been limited to Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo Counties. This species was reported to occur along the Sacramento River prior to 1949, but is now extirpated in Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo Counties (Smith 1949 in CNDDB 2001 as cited in Booz Allen Hamilton 2004). Currently, only two native occurrences are known: one stand in Napa County and one stand in Contra Costa County (Tibor 2001; CNDDB 2002; CNPS 2001 as cited in Booz Allen Hamilton 2004). Native stands of
Page 3-61
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
Northern California black walnut are threatened by hybridization with orchard trees, conversion to agriculture and development. Although specimens have been observed within Camp Parks none have been observed within the project area. Therefore, the likelihood of Northern California Black Walnut to occur within the project area is considered low.
Hairless popcorn-flower (Plagiobothrys glaber) This species is believed to have been extirpated in California. CNNDB occurrence is from 2002, but identification is uncertain and has been disputed. All other occurrences are from pre-1954. This species is an annual herb ascending to erect with cauline leave that occurs in meadows and alkaline seeps, as well as coastal salt marshes and swamps. During floristic surveys, this species was not found within the project area.
Regulatory Framework Biological resources on the project area are regulated by a number of federal, state, and local laws and ordinances, as described below.
Federal Clean Water Act Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “waters of the U.S.” (jurisdictional waters) are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under provisions of Section 404 of the 1972 Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act). These waters may include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as “waters of the U.S.,” tributaries of waters otherwise defined as “waters of the U. S.,” the territorial seas, and wetlands (termed Special Aquatic Sites) adjacent to “waters of the U.S.” (33 CFR, Part 328, Section 328.3). Wetlands on non-agricultural lands are identified using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Areas typically not considered to be jurisdictional waters include non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land, artificially-irrigated areas, artificial lakes or ponds used for irrigation or stock watering, small artificial water bodies such as swimming pools, and water-filled depressions (33 CFR, Part 328).
Construction activities within jurisdictional waters are regulated by the USACE. The placement of fill into such waters must comply with permit requirements of the USACE. No USACE permit will be effective in the absence of state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the state agency (together with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards [RWQCBs]) charged with implementing water quality certification in California.
Page 3-62
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects listed wildlife species from harm or “take” which is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Take can also include habitat modification or degradation that directly results in death or injury of a listed wildlife species. An activity can be defined as “take” even if it is unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less protection than listed wildlife species. Listed plant species are legally protected from take under FESA only if they occur on federal lands or if the project requires a federal action, such as a Clean Water Act Section 404 fill permit from the USACE.
The USFWS has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife species under FESA, while the National Marine Fisheries Service has jurisdiction over federally listed marine and anadromous fish.
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C., Section 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The trustee agency that addresses issues related to the MBTA is the USFWS. Species of birds protected under the MBTA include all native birds and certain game birds (USFWS 2005). The MBTA protects whole birds, parts of birds, and bird eggs and nests; and prohibits the possession of all nests of protected bird species whether they are active or inactive. An active nest is defined as having eggs or young, as described by the Department of the Interior in its 16 April 2003 Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum. Nest starts (nests that are under construction and do not yet contain eggs) are not protected from destruction.
State Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The RWQCB is responsible for protecting surface, ground, and coastal waters within its boundaries, pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of the California Water Code. The RWQCB has jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for activities that could result in a discharge of dredged or fill material to a water body. Federal authority is exercised whenever a proposed project requires a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the USACE in the form of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. State authority is exercised when a proposed project is not subject to federal authority, in the form of a Notice of Coverage, Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements. Many wetlands fall into RWQCB jurisdiction, including some wetlands and waters that are not subject to USACE jurisdiction. RWQCB jurisdiction of other waters, such as streams and lakes, extends to all areas below the ordinary high water mark.
The RWQCB has no formal technical manual or expanded regulations to help in identifying their jurisdiction. The only guidance can be found in Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Page 3-63
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
Control Act, Chapter 2 (Definitions), which states, “‘waters of the State’ means any surface water or ground water, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.”
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the SWRCB and the nine regional boards also have the responsibility of granting Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits and waste discharge requirements for certain point- source and non-point discharges to waters. These regulations limit impacts on aquatic and riparian habitats from a variety of urban sources.
California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA, Fish and Game Code of California, Chapter 1.5, Sections 2050-2116) prohibits the take of any plant or animal listed or proposed for listing as rare (plants only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with CESA, the CDFG has jurisdiction over state-listed species. The CDFG regulates activities that may result in “take” of individuals listed under the Act (i.e., “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”). Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of “take” under the Fish and Game Code. The CDFG, however, has interpreted “take” to include the “killing of a member of a species which is the proximate result of habitat modification.”
California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state law that requires state and local agencies, such as the City, to document and consider the environmental implications of their actions and to refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. CEQA requires the full disclosure of the environmental effects of agency actions, such as approval of a general plan update or the projects covered by that plan, on resources such as air quality, water quality, cultural resources, and biological resources. The State Resources Agency promulgated guidelines for implementing CEQA known as the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 15380(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that a species not listed on the federal or state lists of protected species may be considered rare if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions in FESA and CESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals. This section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFG or species that are locally or regionally rare.
The CDFG has produced three lists (amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals) of “species of special concern” that serve as “watch lists.” Species on these lists are of limited distribution or the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that threat to their populations may be imminent. Thus, their populations should be monitored. They may receive special attention during environmental review as potential rare species, but do
Page 3-64
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources not have specific statutory protection. All potentially rare or sensitive species, or habitats capable of supporting rare species, are considered for environmental review per the CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b).
The CNPS, a non-governmental conservation organization, has ranked plant species of concern in California. Vascular plants included on these lists are ranked as follows:
Rank 1A Plants considered extinct. Rank 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. Rank 2 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. Rank 3 Plants about which more information is needed - review list. Rank 4 Plants of limited distribution-watch list. These CNPS listings are further described by the following threat code extensions:
1. Seriously endangered in California 2. Fairly endangered in California 3. Not very endangered in California. Although the CNPS is not a regulatory agency and plants in these ranks have no formal regulatory protection, plants appearing in Rank 1B or Rank 2 are, in general, considered to meet CEQA’s Section 15380 criteria, and adverse effects to these species may be considered significant. Impacts on plants that are listed by the CNPS as Rank 3 or 4 are also considered during CEQA review, although because these species are typically not as rare as those in Rank 1B or 2, impacts on them are less frequently considered significant.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Code The California Fish and Wildlife Code includes regulations governing the use of, or impacts on, many of the state’s fish, wildlife, and sensitive habitats. The CDFW exerts jurisdiction over the bed and banks of rivers, lakes, and streams according to provisions of Sections 1601–1603 of the Fish and Game Code. The Fish and Game Code requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for the fill or removal of material within the bed and banks of a watercourse or water body and for the removal of riparian vegetation.
Certain sections of the Fish and Game Code describe regulations pertaining to certain wildlife species. For example, Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 2513, and 3800 (and other sections and subsections) protect native birds, including their nests and eggs, from all forms of take. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by the CDFW. Raptors (i.e., eagles, falcons, hawks, and owls) and their nests are specifically protected in California under Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order of Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any
Page 3-65
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Non-game mammals are protected by Fish and Game Code Section 4150, and other sections of the Code protect other taxa.
Local City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 5.60 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code contains the Heritage Tree Ordinance, which establishes regulations controlling the removal of and the preservation of heritage trees within all properties within the city. Section 5.60.040 defines Heritage Trees as follows:
1. Any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore tree having a trunk or main stem of twenty-four (24) inches or more in diameter measured at four (4) feet six (6) inches above natural grade;
2. A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map;
3. A tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree. 5.14.2 Landscaping and Fencing Regulations
The City of Dublin Municipal Code also contains a section that regulates tree removal/replacement. Section 8.72.060 states that “where the majority of trees in a parking lot (or proposed parking lot) in a multi-family, commercial, office, or industrial development area are proposed to be removed for any reason or for the purpose of increasing visibility for signage, that removal or replacement shall be pursuant to Site Development Review. Removal of trees in phases shall not relieve the property owner of this obligation.”
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy The East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) is a collaborative effort to preserve endangered species by developing and adopting a shared vision to guide long- term habitat protection. The purpose of the EACCS is to provide guidance to local agencies and private developers about favorable mitigation strategies that can be used to offset the impacts of their projects.
The entire Camp Parks property is designated as “Type 4” open space in EACCS, which is defined as: “Developed portions of public lands that retain some ecological value.”
Conservation goals and objectives in the EACCS are described in Chapter 3 as follows:
Goal 1: Protect and enhance natural and semi-natural landscapes that are large enough to accommodate natural processes beneficial to populations of natural species.
Objective 1.1A: Protect a range of environmental gradients (such as slope, elevation, aspect) across a diversity of natural communities within the conservation zones.
Goal 4: Protect and enhance functional grassland communities (alkali meadows and scald, California annual grassland, non-serpentine native bunchgrass grassland, serpentine
Page 3-66
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources bunchgrass grassland, rock outcrop, valley sink scrub) that benefit focal species and promote native biodiversity.
Objective 4.1: Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of native grasslands and create a refined map that better accounts for mapped stands.
Objective 4.2: Avoid or minimize direct impacts on grassland communities during project construction and indirect impacts that result from post-project activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 of the EACCS.
Goal 8: Improve the overall quality of riparian communities and hydrologic and geomorphic processes that support them to increase the amount of riparian habitat for focal species and promote native biodiversity.
Objective 8.1: Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of riparian forest and scrub stands and create a refined map that reflects species composition, key riparian community attributes, and conservation opportunities at the stream reach level.
Objective 8.2: Avoid or minimize direct impacts on riparian forest and scrub communities during construction and indirect impacts that result from post-project activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3 of the EACCS.
Goal 9: Improve the overall quality of wetlands (perennial freshwater marsh, seasonal wetland, alkali wetland); ponds; and their upland watersheds to maintain functional acquatic communities that benefit focal species and promote native biodiversity.
Objective 9.1: Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of season and perennial wetlands and create a refined map that reflects habitat quality and restoration opportunities.
Objective 9.2: Avoid or minimize direct impacts on wetland or pond communities during project construction and indirect impacts that result from post-project activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3 of the EACCS.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance A proposed project would result in a significant impact to biological resources if it were to result in a:
Substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any candidate, sensitive, or special-status species;
Substantial effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community;
Substantial effect on protected wetlands;
Page 3-67
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
Substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; or
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Jurisdictional Wetlands, Other Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State
Impact 3.3-1: Based on a preliminary wetland delineation of the project area, the proposed project could result in the fill of wetlands, which would result in a potentially significant impact.
Based on the preliminary wetland delineation of the project area by Cardno Entrix, approximately 0.09 acres of seasonal wetlands; 0.1 acres of wetland drainage ditch; and 1.4 acres of other waters of the U.S. were mapped within the boundaries of the project area. Additionally, 0.5 acres of drainage ditch, created in uplands to drain uplands may be considered jurisdictional by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Based on the conceptual land use plan for the proposed project, the ephemeral drainage canals would be partially avoided and a small section (approximately 900 linear feet) will be re- routed due to construction. All other wetlands within the project area would be permanently filled due to construction activities. Since fill of wetlands and “other waters of the U.S.” are prohibited under state and federal regulations described above, without first obtaining permits and approvals from the federal and state agencies, fill of wetlands, waters of the U.S., and waters of the State would result in a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-1 Prepare and Implement a Wetland Mitigation Plan. Prior to commencing any activities that would impact wetlands or waters habitat, the project applicant shall obtain all required public agency permits and shall prepare a wetland mitigation plan that ensures no-net-loss of wetland and waters habitat and is approved by the City and applicable resource agencies. The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization, and compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided, or project design measures, such as free-span bridges. Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetland or waters. The final mitigation ratios (the amount of wetlands and waters created or preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource agencies and the City. The wetland mitigation and monitoring plan shall include the following:
. Descriptions of the wetland types, and their expected functions and values;
Page 3-68
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
. Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period to be determined by the resource agencies; . Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created or restored; . An implementation schedule showing that construction or preservation of mitigation areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction; and . A description of legal protection measures for the preserved wetlands (i.e., dedication of fee title, conservation easement, and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank). Special-Status Plant Species
Impact 3.3-2: A query of the CNPS lists 34 plant species that occur within the project vicinity. Based on habitats within the project area during the March 2012 survey by Cardno Entrix, the list was reduced to four special status plant species that have the potential to be located within the project area including: Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. Congdonii), Palmate- bracted bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus palmatus), Northern California Black Walnut (Juglans hindsii), and Hairless popcorn-flower (Plagiobothrys glaber). Out of these four special status plant species, the only special status plant species that has the potential to be located within the project area is the Congdon’s tarplant, which was documented as occurring within the project area based on floristic surveys conducted between 1995 and 2000. The potential loss of Congdon’s tarplant within the project area would be considered a potentially significant impact.
The majority of the Congdon’s tarplant populations within the project area are found in highly disturbed or mowed areas (i.e., along the edge of parking lots and abandoned roads) and along the edges of ruderal grasslands at Camp Parks. Disturbance or removal of grassland and wetland habitat could potentially result in the loss of this special status species, which would be considered a potentially significant impact.
The following mitigation measures would reduce this potentially significant impact to special status species to a less than significant level by identifying the presence or absence of this plant species through a floristic survey for special-status plant species and if any special- status plant species are found, avoiding, transplanting, and monitoring plants that would be affected by the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures MM 3.3-2a Conduct a Floristic Survey and Consult with CDFG and USFWS if State or Federally Listed Plants are Found and Comply with Incidental Take Permits.
Page 3-69
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
The project applicant shall retain a qualified botanist to conduct rare plant surveys within the construction zone for Congdon’s tarplant or other species with potential habitat within the project area during the appropriate time of year in accordance with agency protocols. . These plant surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the 2009 California Department of Fish and Game and United States Fish and Wildlife Service rare plant survey protocols. The results of the survey shall be summarized in a report and submitted to CDFW and USFWS, and would be valid for two years. If no special-status plants are located during the surveys, no further mitigation measures would be required. If any federal or state plant species are found during the rare plant surveys, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and USFWS to obtain incidental take permits under Section 2081 of the CESA and either Section 7 or 10 of the FESA. Consultation with USFWS under Section 7 of the FESA could occur as part of the CWA Section 404 permit process as part of the wetland mitigation, described under Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-1.
MM 3.3-2b Develop and Implement Mitigation in Consultation with CDFW if Other Special Status Plant Species Are Found. If special-status plant species (excluding federal or state listed plants) are found during the rare plant surveys, the project applicant shall notify the CDFW. A mitigation plan shall be developed in consultation with and approved by the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact any special status plants. The mitigation plan shall include measures such as transplanting plants, collecting seed or clippings and replanting species in an on-site location, if feasible or other location approved by Department of Fish and Game.
Special Status Wildlife Species - Mammals
Impact 3.3-3: Several California burrowing owl pairs have been documented within the project area, including during the winter and breeding season. Due to the security fencing that surrounds Camp Parks, low human use, and maintenance activities, the project area provides suitable breeding, foraging and wintering habitat for the California burrowing owl. Implementation of the proposed project could result in the displacement of burrowing owls during construction activities, and once completed the proposed project could result in the removal of suitable burrowing owl (breeding and wintering) habitat. Permanent loss of occupied burrow(s) and habitat would be considered a potentially significant impact.
The following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to the California burrowing owl to a less than significant level by documenting information on burrowing owls in the project area and by conducting a California burrowing owl survey and if any burrowing owls are found, avoiding, or excluding the owls outside the breeding season, and mitigating for the
Page 3-70
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
loss of habitat that would be affected by the proposed project. Because California burrowing owls have been observed within the project area, the following mitigation measures would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures MM 3.3-3a Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment. The project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a California burrowing owls surveys and impact assessment following the 2012 California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) or as updated at the time of the implementation of the proposed project. The report(s) shall be submitted to California Department of Fish and Game as indicated in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. If it is determined that project activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows, and burrowing owl impacted are replaced. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
MM 3.3-3b Implement Avoidance Measures. If California burrowing owl are located within the project area and direct impacts can be avoided, the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls.
. Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from 1 February through 31 August. . Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. . Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development. . Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection. . Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that farm equipment and other machinery does not collapse burrows. . Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas).
Page 3-71
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the months of January and February. MM 3.3-3c Conduct Burrow Exclusion. In the event that California burrowing owls are located within the project area, the project applicant shall conduct a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, the project applicant in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff Report. Mitigation for permanent impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrow and/or burrowing owls shall be developed based on the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
Special-Status Species - Amphibians and Reptiles
Impact 3.3-4: Habitat assessments or surveys for special-status amphibians and reptiles were performed within the project area by the U.S. Army in 2006, including California Red Legged Frog and California Tiger Salamander. Although no surveys specific for Western Pond Turtle have been conducted, Western Pond Turtle was observed within the project area during surveys for California Red Legged Frog. During the field surveys conducted by in March 2012, the project area was not found to provide suitable breeding habitat for these species. However, the proposed project includes re-alignment of the ephemeral drainage, which could result in the potential “take” of Western Pond Turtle and/or California Red Legged Frog if found within the project area. Therefore, this would be considered a potentially significant impact.
During the 2012 field surveys conducted by Cardno Entrix, the ephemeral drainage located within the project area did not contained deep pools that could provide suitable breeding habitat for California Red Legged Frog. In addition, none of the seasonal wetlands retain water long enough to provide suitable breeding habitat for the California Tiger Salamander. Similarly, the ephemeral drainage does not provide suitable habitat for the Western Pond Turtle since it dries during the summer months and does not appear to provide suitable nesting or refuge habitat for this species.
California Tiger Salamander During installation wide surveys conducted at Camp Parks in 2005, California Tiger Salamander breeding locations were identified within the Camp Parks Training Area, however no breeding habitat was identified within the project area. The project area is approximately 1.4 miles away from the nearest known breeding location and approximately 0.90 miles south of an upland observation during the 2005 surveys.
Page 3-72
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
Existing development (i.e. buildings, roads and parking areas) between the project area and the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area would likely hinder dispersal and reduce the survival potential of dispersing California Tiger Salamander (CTS). Potential of CTS occurring within the project area decreases with distance from known breeding habitat, potential breeding habitat, and suitability of habitat. Based on existing conditions and the lack of habitat, it is unlikely that CTS would occur within the project area. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to result in habitat modification or degradation because potential dispersal habitat within the project area lacks suitable aquatic components, thus breeding, sheltering, and feeding of CTS would not be significantly impaired. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on this species and no mitigation is required. Western Pond Turtle Although a survey specific for Western Pond Turtle has not been conducted within the project area or the Camp Parks Forces Training Area, WPT have been observed within the installation during surveys for CTS and CRLF by the U.S. Army in 2006. All of the observations have been made within man-made ponds in the Training Area. No observations of WPT have been made within the project area (US Army 2006). The habitat within the project area does not provide suitable breeding or aestivating habitat for the WPT. Implementation of the proposed project calls for the re-alignment of the ephemeral drainage. It is expected that this realignment would occur during the dry season and thus it would be unlikely that a Western Pond Turtle would be present. Nevertheless, re-alignment of the stream could result in the “take” of Western Pond Turtle. This would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to Western Pond Turtle to less than significant level by identifying the presence or absence of WPT by conducting a pre-construction survey for Western Pond Turtle and if any Western Pond Turtles are found, avoiding, excluding and/or relocating the Western Pond Turtle to a more suitable habitat within the immediate vicinity of the project area but away from the construction zone.
Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-4a Conduct Pre-Construction Surveys for Western Pond Turtle (WPT) Prior to Re-Alignment of the Ephemeral Drainage. The project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre-construction surveys for Western Pond Turtle no more than 30 days prior to work in or adjacent to any habitat suitable for WPT within the project area. If no Western Pond Turtles are found, no further mitigation is required. If Western Pond Turtles are found, the consulting biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Game for authorization to relocate the species to suitable habitat away from the construction zone. The turtle shall be relocated to either a pond within the Training Area (if authorization from the US Army is granted) or downstream from the construction zone to similar or better habitat.
Page 3-73
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
California Red-Legged Frog The Cantonment Area of - Camp Parks - was previously surveyed in August 2003. The survey followed the measures prescribed in the USFWS Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). None of the six potential wetlands within the project area were found to provide suitable habitat for the California Red Legged Frog based on a habitat assessment prepared in 2003. Based on the surveys conducted by Cardno Entrix in March 2012, conditions within the project area have not changed since 2003 and thus the habitat within these areas is primarily unchanged. However, since the surveys were conducted in 2003, new focused field surveys may be warranted.
The habitat within the project area does not provide breeding habitat for the CRLF, and the nearest known CRLF breeding site is 1.32 miles north of the project area within Camp Parks. Existing development (i.e. buildings, roads and parking areas) between the project area and the Camp Parks Training Area likely hinders dispersal and reduces the survival potential of dispersing CRLF. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that CRLF could disperse within the project area and therefore could be affected during construction of the proposed project if they were to occur during construction, which would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to California Red Legged Frog to a less than significant level by identifying the presence or absence of CRLF by conducting habitat assessments and/or protocol-level field surveys for CRLF, if no CRLF or its habitat are found then no further mitigation would be required. However, if any CRLF are found or if the project applicant assumes presence through consultation with the USFWS, then the project applicant shall ensure no net loss of habitat occurs through avoidance, preservation, creation and/or purchase of mitigation credits.
Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-4b Consult with United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Reduce Impacts on California Red-Legged Frog. The project applicant shall comply with the following requirements:
a. The project applicant shall retain a qualified herpetologist to conduct habitat assessments for CRLF and based on the results of the habitat assessments, determine in consultation with the USFWS if protocol- level CRLF surveys will be required within the project area. The project area consists of multiple phase areas within which separate CRLF habitat assessments may be conducted. It shall then be determined on a phase-by-phase basis, if further surveys will be required. The project applicant can forgo the habitat assessments and conduct protocol-level surveys. If required, the focused surveys shall follow the Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2005). A CRLF survey report prepared to meet the protocol guidelines shall be
Page 3-74
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
submitted to the USFWS. If no CRLF are found then no further mitigation is required. b. If CRLF are found then the project applicant shall provide information to the USACE to support Section 7 consultation with the USFWS and the project applicant shall ensure no net loss of habitat that shall be achieved through avoidance, preservation, creation and/or purchase of credits. The final selected measures may be part of the Section 7 permitting process. c. The project applicant shall obtain a biological opinion from the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and comply with the conditions and mitigation requirements of those agencies to ensure that no net loss of habitat occurs. Mitigation may include, but would not be limited to, onsite and offsite preservation and creation of CRLF habitat, purchase of credits at mitigation banks, payment of in lieu fees approved by the agencies, or other agency approved and required mitigation measures. d. Avoidance measures may include the following or equivalent protective measures:
. To minimize disturbance of breeding and dispersing CRLF, construction activity within CRLF upland habitat shall be conducted during the dry season between April15 and October 15 or before the onset of the rainy season, whichever occurs first. If construction activities are necessary in CRLF upland habitat between October 15 and April 15, the project applicant would contact the USFWS for approval to extend the work period.
. To minimize disturbance and mortality of adult and juvenile CRLF in aquatic habitat and underground burrows, the project applicant could minimize the extent of ground-disturbing activities within these habitats by requiring the contractor to limit the work area to the minimum necessary for construction. In addition, the project applicant could ensure that the contractor would install temporary exclusion fence between the construction work area and potential aquatic habitat for all construction within grasslands near aquatic habitat.
. The project applicant could ensure that a qualified wildlife biologist monitors all construction activities within CRLF upland habitat. This would ensure no take of individual CRLF occurs during project construction. If a CRLF is found, then the monitor
Page 3-75
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
would immediately stop construction in that area and contact USFWS for advice.
. The project applicant shall preserve additional upland habitat within a USFWS approved conservation area. The Project proponent shall coordinate or consult
Vernal Pool Invertebrates
Impact 3.3-5: Protocol level surveys for vernal pool invertebrates were conducted throughout Camp Parks in 2002 and 2003 by the U.S. Army, as well as during the summer of 2012 (dry season) and 2013 wet season by Cardno Entrix. No vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp or longhorn fairy shrimp were found during these surveys. California linderiella was found, but not within the project area. New surveys are currently being conducted. Since the new surveys have not been completed at this time, the presence of this species within the project area is assumed in the analysis of project impacts.
Surveys for curve-footed Hygrotus beetle and San Francisco fork-tailed damselfly were also conducted within Camp Parks in 2002 and 2003 and neither of these species were observed. Site conditions have not changed significantly and these species are not expected to occur. Potentially suitable habitat was observed within the survey area for vernal pool invertebrates and these areas would be removed during proposed construction activities. Removal of these wetlands could result in the potential take of protected vernal pool branchiopods and other protected invertebrates, if they were to occur, and their habitat. This would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to vernal pool invertebrates a less than significant level by preparing a habitat assessment for vernal pool invertebrates. If the habitat assessment concludes that vernal pool invertebrates could be located within the project area, the project applicant could either conduct protocol-level surveys or assume presence. If any federally-protected vernal pool invertebrates are found within the project area or if the project applicant assumes presence, then the project applicant shall ensure no net loss of habitat occurs and shall be achieve through avoidance, reservation, creation and/or purchase of mitigation credits. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-5 Consult with the USFWS and Reduce Impacts on Vernal Pool Invertebrates and Their Habitat. The project applicant shall prepare a habitat assessment for the vernal pool invertebrates. If vernal pool invertebrates are found
Page 3-76
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources within the project area during the habitat assessment, the project applicant shall comply with the following steps to ensure protection of vernal pool invertebrates and their habitat and that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. a. The project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct habitat assessments for protected vernal pool invertebrates and based on the results of the habitat assessments, determine in consultation with the USFWS if protocol-level vernal pool invertebrate surveys will be required within the project area. b. If suitable habitat is present, the project applicant, in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW, shall either (1) conduct a protocol- level survey for federally listed vernal pool crustaceans and other protected vernal pool invertebrates (curve-footed Hygrotus beetle and San Francisco fork-tailed damselfly), or (2) assume presence of federally-listed vernal pool crustaceans and curve footed Hygrotus beetle and San Francisco fork-tailed damselfly in areas of suitable habitat. Surveys shall be conducted by qualified biologists in accordance with the most recent USFWS guidelines or protocols to determine the time of year and survey methodology (survey timing for these species is dependent on yearly rainfall patterns and seasonal occurrences, and is determined on a case-by-case basis). The surveys shall be conducted as part of the Section 404 permit process. If surveys reveal no occurrences of federally listed vernal pool crustaceans or other protected vernal pool invertebrates, no further mitigation would be required. c. If surveys determine that one or more special-status vernal pool invertebrate species occurs within the project area, or if the project applicant, in consultation with the USFWS and/or CDFW, assumes presence of federally-listed vernal pool invertebrates in all affected habitats, the project applicant shall provide information to the USACE to support Section 7 consultation with the USFWS and the project applicant shall ensure no net loss of habitat shall be achieved through avoidance, preservation, creation and/or purchase of credits as a part of the Section 7 Consultation process. The selected measures may be part of the permitting process. d. Where feasible, all vernal pool invertebrate habitat shall be avoided. If habitat that can be avoided during construction activities is identified at a distance determined in consultation with USFWS, a USFWS-approved biologist (monitor) shall inspect any construction- related activities to ensure that no unnecessary take of listed species or destruction of their habitat occurs. The Project proponent will
Page 3-77
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
establish monitoring and reporting protocols to reduce impacts to vernal pool invertebrate species and habitat.
e. The project applicant shall ensure that an appropriate number of acres, as approved by USFWS during consultation, are preserved to mitigate for direct or indirect impacts on vernal pool crustacean habitat.
f. Water quality in the avoided wetlands shall be protected using erosion control techniques, such as silt fencing or straw wattles during construction in the watershed.
Migrant Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) – Nesting Birds
Impact 3.3-6: A variety of special-status birds are expected to be located within the project area. Some of these species are resident species and some are migratory species that breed within the project area. The special-status birds known to nest in the Livermore Valley area include the Golden eagle, white-tailed kite, tricolored blackbird, northern harrier, California horned, prairie falcon, Cooper’s hawk and loggerhead shrike. Trees, fresh emergent wetland vegetation and grassland could provide potentially suitable nesting habitat for these species, which are protected under the Migrant Bird Treaty Act and the Fish and Game Code. The proposed project would require grading and possible removal of existing trees and vegetation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could result in the loss of active nests, which would be considered a potentially significant impact on special- status bird species and birds protected under the MBTA.
The proposed project includes creation of an open space area along the ephemeral drainage canal, which would provide potentially suitable nesting habitat for some of these species following construction. However, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to nesting birds to less than significant level by requiring that pre-construction bird surveys are conducted and that the project applicant avoid any nests if found.
Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-6 Protect Birds Covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Including, but not limited to White-Tailed Kite, golden eagle, Cooper’s hawk, Loggerhead Shrike, and Other Special-Status Species). Between March 1 and September 15, the project applicant shall have a qualified biologist conduct nest surveys no more than 30 days prior to any demolition/construction or ground- disturbing activities that are within 300 feet of potential nest trees for non- raptor species (i.e. trees, cattails, or grassland) and 500 feet of potential nest trees for raptor species or suitable nesting habitat (i.e., trees, cattails, grassland). Where access to property adjacent to the construction activities
Page 3-78
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources is prohibited by the owner/operator, the survey shall be conducted using binoculars or spotting scope. A pre-construction survey report shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game that includes, at a minimum: (1) a description of the methodology including dates of field visits, the names of survey personnel with resumes, and a list of references cited and persons contacted; and (2) a map showing the location(s) of any bird nests observed on the project area. If no active nests of Migratory Bird Treaty Act covered species are identified, then no further mitigation is required.
If active nests of protected bird species are identified in the focused nest surveys, the project applicant will consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies to identify project-level mitigation requirements, based on the agencies’ standards and policies as then in effect. Performance measures may include the following, based on current agency standards and policies. a. The project applicant, in consultation with California Department of Fish and Game, would delay construction in the vicinity of active nest sites during the breeding season (February 1 through September 15) while the nest is occupied with adults and/or young. A qualified biologist would monitor any occupied nest to determine when the nest is no longer used. If the construction cannotbe delayed, avoidance measures would include the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around the nest site. The size of the buffer zone would be determined in consultation with the CDFW and may vary depending on the species, but will be a minimum of 250 feet. The buffer zone would be delineated with highly visible temporary construction fencing. b. No intensive disturbance (e.g., heavy equipment operation associated with construction, or use of cranes) or other project- related activities that could cause nest abandonment or forced fledging would be initiated within the established buffer zone of an active nest between February 1 and September 15. c. If construction activities are unavoidable within the buffer zone, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the nest site to determine if construction activities are disturbing the adult or young birds. d. If fully protected species (white-tailed kites, golden eagles) are found to be nesting near the proposed construction area, their nests would be completely avoided until the birds fledge. Avoidance would include the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone of 500 feet, or as determined in consultation with the CDFW.
Page 3-79
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
Special Status Bat Species
Impact 3.3-7: Removal of trees and/or buildings or structures from the project area could impact roosting sites for pallid bat and Yuma myotis. Disturbance of roosting sites during the maternity season (May 1st-Oct1st) could result in a potentially significant impact.
No bat surveys have been conducted within the project area. However, trees and existing old buildings or structures may represent potentially suitable roosting habitat for a variety of regionally occurring bat species. The two bat species with a likelihood of occurrence include the pallid bat and Yuma myotis. These species have been documented as roosting approximately 2.06 miles southwest of the project area. Removal of trees and/or buildings or structures from: the project area could impact roosting sites for these species. These roosting sites can also be used as maternity roosts. Disturbance of roosting sites during the maternity season (May 1st-Oct1st) could result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following measure would reduce the potentially significant impact on special-status bats and their roost sites to less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures MM 3.3-7a Conduct Bat and Bat Roosting Site Surveys. Prior to construction activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a focused survey for bats and potential roosting sites within the project area. The surveys can be conducted by visual and acoustic identification and can assume presence of pallid bats or the bats can be identified to a species level with the use of an acoustic detector unit. If no roosting sites or bats are found within the project area, a letter report confirming absence shall be sent to the California Department of Fish and Game and no further mitigation would be required.
MM 3.3-7b Implement Avoidance Measures if Bat Roosts are Identified. If bats are detected during the focused surveys then the project applicant shall perform monitoring and implement exclusion measures in consultation with the regulatory agencies. If bats are found during focused surveys, the project applicant shall consult with the regulatory agencies and implement the following measures based on the agencies standards and policies:
a. If bats are found roosting in the project area outside of nursery season (May 1through October 1), then they would be evicted using bat exclusion techniques developed by Bat Conservation International (BCI) and in consultation with CDFW, that allow the bats to exit the roosting site but prevent re-entry to the site. This would include but not be limited to the installation of one-way exclusion devices. The devices would remain in place for seven days and then the exclusion points and any other potential entrances
Page 3-80
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
shall be sealed. This work would be completed by a BCI recommended exclusion professional.
b. If bats are found roosting during the nursery season, then they shall be monitored to determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. Monitoring by either visual inspection of the roost bat pups, if possible, or monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat pups. If the roost is determined to not be a maternal roost, then the bats would be evicted as described above. Because bat pups cannot leave the roost until they are mature enough, eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery season. A buffer zone as determined in consultation with CDFW would be established around the roosting site within which no construction shall occur.
Preservation of Heritage Trees and Tree Preservation
Impact 3.3-8: Trees are located within the project area and a detailed tree survey has not been conducted for the proposed project. Nevertheless, trees within the project area could fall under the definition of heritage trees per Section 5.60 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code. Removal of protected trees, due to construction activities within the project area would be considered a potentially significant impact.
If the proposed project were to remove and/or damage trees that are considered heritage trees per Section 5.60 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, this would be considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level by requiring that the project applicant survey all the trees within the project area and identify those that shall be removed with implementation of the proposed project
Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-8 Conduct Tree Survey and Replace Trees at Suitable Ratios. The project applicant shall retain a certified arborist to survey all trees located within the project area in order to identify and evaluate those trees that shall be removed with implementation of the proposed project. An arborist report shall be prepared consistent with the certified arborist to survey trees within the project area and identify and evaluate trees that shall be removed. The arborist report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Dublin to document the trees that are to be removed. If any of the trees fall under the jurisdiction Section 5.60 of the City’s Municipal Code, the project applicant shall then mitigate impacts to trees based on the following or equivalent protective measures depending on the size and health of trees to be removed.
Page 3-81
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Biological Resources
a. Prior to the start of construction, the project applicant shall install exclusion fencing at the dripline of any tree that will not be affected by the construction and prohibit any parking or storage of construction materials or other materials inside the fence.
b. Mitigation, at an inch-by-inch ratio, shall be provided for native trees larger than 24inches in circumference measured at four (4) feet six (6) inches above natural grade.
Potential Conflicts with a Habitat Conservation Plan There is no habitat conservation plan within Alameda County or the City of Dublin that the proposed project would be able to participate in. The Eastern Alameda Conservation Strategy (EACS) is still in the developing process and has not been approved or adopted. Therefore the proposed project would not have a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.
Page 3-82
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Cultural Resources
3.4 Cultural Resources The purpose of this section is to analyze the potential impacts to archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources, which may be present within the project area. Background information and analysis within this section is based on a supplemental cultural resources report, which was prepared to supplement previous reports that were prepared to document cultural resources within the project area including the Final Environmental Impact Statement on Master Plan Redevelopment at Camp Parks (U.S. Army 2009). The Supplemental Cultural Resources Report was prepared for the proposed project by ECORP Consulting in April 2012
An updated records search and literature review at the California Historical Resources Information Systems Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University in was conducted in March 2012 by ECORP Consulting. In addition to the official records and maps for archaeological sites and surveys on file at the NWIC, the following historic references were reviewed:
Historic Property Data File for Alameda County (Office of Historic Preservation 2012a);
The National Register Information System Web Site (National Park Service 2012);
Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Landmarks Web Site (Office of Historic Preservation 2012b);
California Historical Landmarks Web Site (Office of Historic Preservation 1996);
1500 California Place Names (Bright 1998);
Caltrans Local Bridge Survey (Caltrans 2012a);
Caltrans State Bridge Survey (Caltrans 2012b); and
Historic Spots in California (Kyle 2002). In addition to the records search and review of historic references, several documents and reports that contain information about cultural resources within the project area were reviewed:
U.S. Army Reserve Command Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plans, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parsons 2001);
Final Environmental Impact Statement on Master Planned Redevelopment at Camp Parks (U.S. Army 2009);
Geoarchaeological Investigations in the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California (ASC 2004);
Master Plan Summary Report, Park Reserve Forces Training Area (U.S. Army 2004);
Cultural Resources Literature Search and Field Reconnaissance of Field Reconnaissance of Camp Parks, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties; California; and
Page 3-83
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Cultural Resources
National Register of Historic Places, Inventory and Evaluation of Previously Unevaluated World War II and Cold War Era Buildings, Park Reserve Forces Training Area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California.
Environmental Setting Approximately 20 cultural resource investigations were conducted within a half mile radius of the project area. Of these investigations, seven included either a portion of or the entire project area and 23 cultural resources were recorded. These resources consisted of one historic railroad alignment and structures and buildings and facilities associated with the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. Twelve of the 23 resources were located within the project area. All of the resources recorded within the project area were evaluated for significance using National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria since they were located at Camp Parks. The only resource determined to be eligible for the NRHP is the Camp Parks entrance sign designed by noted architect Bruce Goff. The sign is located offsite, north of the western end of the project area north of the intersection of Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive.
The sign was initially inventoried and evaluated by professional cultural resources staff at Jones and Stokes in 1998 during their inventory and evaluation of 34 historic structures located on Camp Parks. As part of their assessment, eight buildings at Camp Parks were determined to have been designed by noted architect Bruce Goff who was a partner in the architectural firm of Rush, Endacott and Goff in Tulsa, Oklahoma and whose designs were influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright. When the firm failed, he enlisted in the Navy in 1942 and was posted to the U.S. Naval Mobile Construction Battalion (Seabee’s) first in Alaska and then at Camp Parks in 1944. At Camp Parks he designed the commander’s house, officers club, enlisted men’s’ club, bandstand, chapel, and entrance sign. By 1998, only the commander’s house and the entrance sign still existed at the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. The chapel was moved to San Lorenzo in 1948 and the other buildings have since been demolished.
The Camp Parks entrance sign was evaluated as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C because it embodies the distinctive design characteristics of Bruce Goff’s architectural style including the modernism and angularity of his designs. In 1998, the sign was in good condition and retained integrity of location, design, setting, workmanship, feeling, and association. In a letter dated October 26, 1999, the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with the determination by the U.S. Department of the Army that the sign was one of the few remaining examples of Bruce Goff’s work for the U.S. Naval Mobile Construction Battalion. Because the Camp Parks entrance sign has been determined eligible for the NRHP, it is also eligible for the California Register for Historic Places (CRHR). All cultural resources eligible for the CRHR are Historical Resources for purposes of CEQA.
Paleontological Resources According to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Master Planned Redevelopment at Camp Parks, the most interesting fossils in the Camp Parks area are land
Page 3-84
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Cultural Resources
mammal species found in the Tassajara Formation, the Livermore gravels, and Pleistocene alluvium. Other fossils present in these units include a variety of broadleaf plants and fresh water invertebrates such as mollusks (USGS 1996). Fossil resources have not been identified on Camp Parks (U.S. Army 2009).
Native American Coordination A search of the Sacred Lands file by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within the project area. Coordination efforts were successful in gathering comments on the proposed project from the list of Native American contacts provided by the NAHC.
To aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (“cultural places”) through local land use planning, Senate Bill (SB) 18, effective September 2004, requires local government to notify and consult with California Native American tribes when the local government is considering adoption or amendment of a general or specific plan, which applies to the proposed project. The City of Dublin sent letters to the tribal contacts as formal invitations for consultation under SB 18 for a 90 day review period, which concluded on May 29, 2013. The City did not receive any requests for consultation during the review period.
Regulatory Setting Federal Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 Federal regulations for cultural resources are governed primarily by Section106 of the NHPA of 1966. Section 106 of NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The Council’s implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties,” are found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800. The goal of the Section106 review process is to offer a measure of protection to sites, which are determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The criteria for determining National Register of Historic Places eligibility are found in 36 CFR Part 60. Amendments to the Act (1986 and 1992) and subsequent revisions to the implementing regulations have, among other things, strengthened the provisions for Native American consultation and participation in the Section 106 review process. While federal agencies must follow federal regulations, most projects by private developers and landowners do not require this level of compliance. Federal regulations only come into play in the private sector if a project requires a federal permit or if it uses federal money.
National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places is “an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment.” However, the Federal regulations explicitly provide that a listing of private property on the National Register of Historic Places “does not prohibit
Page 3-85
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Cultural Resources
under federal law or regulation any actions which may otherwise be taken by the property owner with respect to the property.”
“Historic properties,” as defined by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, include any “prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior” (36 CFR 800.16(I)). The eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places is determined by applying the following criteria and evaluating integrity, developed by the National Park Service in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and:
a) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
b) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
c) That embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
d) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (36 CFR 60.4).
State State historic preservation regulations affecting the Project include the statutes and guidelines contained in CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 21084.1 and Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines). CEQA requires lead agencies to carefully consider the potential effects of a project on historical resources. An “historical resource” includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript, which is historically or archaeologically significant (Public Resources Code Section 5020.1). Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that a historical resource for CEQA purposes can be listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, and can include unlisted resources subject to determination by a local agency. California Register of Historical Resources In 1992, the Governor signed Assembly Bill (AB) 2881 into law, establishing the California Register of Historical Resources. The California Register of Historical Resources is an authoritative guide in California used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the State’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. The criteria for eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources are based upon National
Page 3-86
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Cultural Resources
Register of Historic Places criteria. Certain resources are determined by the statute to be included on the California Register of Historical Resources, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places, State Landmarks, and State Points of Interest.
The State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) has broad authority under Federal and State law for the implementation of historic preservation programs in the State of California. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) makes determinations of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources.
The appropriate standard for evaluating “substantial adverse effect” is defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1 (q) and 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). Substantial adverse change means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired. Such impairment of significance would be an adverse impact on the environment.
Cultural resources consist of buildings, structures, objects, or archeological sites. Each of these entities may have historic, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. Under State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact would result if the significance of a cultural resource would be substantially adversely changed by proposed project activities. Activities that could potentially result in a significant impact consist of demolition, replacement, substantial alteration, and relocation of the resource. The significance of a resource is required to be determined prior to analysis of the level of significance of project activities. The steps required to be implemented to determine significance in order to comply with State CEQA Guidelines are:
Identify cultural resources;
Evaluate the significance of the cultural resources; ;
Evaluate the effects of a project on all cultural resources based on established thresholds of significance; and
Develop and implement measures to mitigate the substantial adverse effects of the project on significant cultural resources. Sections 6253, 6254, and 6254.10 of the California Government Code authorize state agencies to exclude archaeological site information from public disclosure under the Public Records Act. In addition, the California Public Records Act (CPRA; Government Code Section 6250 et. seq.) and California's open meeting laws (The Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 et. seq.) protect the confidentiality of Native American cultural place information. The CPRA (as amended, 2005) contains two exemptions that aid in the protection of records relating to Native American cultural places by permitting any state or local agency to deny a CPRA request and withhold from public disclosure:
"Records of Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of Native American places, features, and objects described in Section 5097.9 and
Page 3-87
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Cultural Resources
Section 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code maintained by, or in the possession of, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency" (GC Section 6254(r)); and
"Records that relate to archaeological site information and reports maintained by, or in the possession of, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Historical Resources Commission, the State Lands Commission, another state agency, or a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a California Native American tribe and a state or local agency" (GC Section 6254.10). Likewise, the Information Centers of the California Historical Resources Information System maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation prohibit public dissemination of records search and site location information. In compliance with these requirements, and those of the Code of Ethics of the Society for California Archaeology and the Register of Professional Archaeologists, the locations of cultural resources are considered restricted information with highly restricted distribution and are not publicly accessible.
Any project area located on non-Federal land in California is also required to comply with State laws pertaining to the inadvertent discovery of Native American human remains.
California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 These sections collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains, as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites. The law protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction, and establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, including the treatment of remains prior to, during, and after evaluation, and reburial procedures.
California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 5097.5 Paleontological resources include fossil remains, their respective fossil sites, and the fossil- bearing strata and associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data. In California, paleontological resources are addressed by State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, section V.c, which addresses impacts on fossil sites; California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 5097.5.
Local City of Dublin General Plan The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to cultural and historic resources:
7.6: Implementing Policy A. Preserve Dublin's historic structures. Seven sites in or near the Dublin Planning Area are listed in the California Archaeological Inventory, Northwest Information Center, at Sonoma State University including the church and school on the
Page 3-88
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Cultural Resources grounds of the heritage park. As many as a dozen potentially significant historic and prehistoric sites have been identified in the Eastern Extended Planning Area.
7.6: Implementing Policy B. Follow State regulations -- Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 regarding discovery of archaeological sites, and Historical Resources, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code. Relevant Project Characteristics
The proposed project would demolish the existing buildings at the project area in order to construct the Specific Plan. The Camp Parks sign would remain located north of the northwestern boundary of the project area.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance According to the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact on cultural resources if one or more of the following were to occur:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5;
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section15064.5;
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; and/or
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Methodology Impacts evaluated in this section were assessed based on the Supplemental Cultural Resources Assessment for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, Alameda County, California (ECORP 2012), City of Dublin General Plan and EIR, and a review of historical documents that describe the setting of the project area and surrounding area.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historical Resources
Impact 3.4-1: The Camp Parks entrance sign has been evaluated as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion C and by statute (Public Resources Code 5024.1). In addition, it is also eligible for inclusion in the CRHR under Criterion 3 and is considered a historical resource as defined by CEQA since it is one of the few remaining examples of Bruce Goff’s work for the Seabees and it has retained integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and association.
The Camp Parks entrance sign is located outside of the project area and the proposed project would not physically alter the existing sign. The setting of
Page 3-89
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Cultural Resources
the sign has already been affected by adjacent development (e.g. residential development located north of the entrance sign). Future development within the project area would contribute to changes in the setting of the area. However, it was not the setting that made the sign significant under the NRHP and CRHR criteria or under CEQA. Therefore, as the proposed project would not result in any changes to the sign and the setting of the project area has already been compromised by existing development, the proposed project would not affect the integrity of the sign. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact.
The Camp Parks entrance sign is located adjacent to the northwestern border of the project area, but outside of the project area. The Camp Parks entrance sign was evaluated as part of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Built Environment Inventory and Evaluation Study (Jones and Stokes 1998), which determined that the sign was eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion C with State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurrence and, by extension, the CRHR under Criterion 3. The sign is also a historical resource as defined by CEQA because it embodies the distinctive design characteristics of noted architect Bruce Goff. In a concurrence letter dated October 26, 1999 SHPO stated that the entrance sign was one of the few remaining examples of Bruce Goff’s work for the Seabees, and it retained integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Based on the research conducted by Jones & Stokes, the qualities that make the sign significant are those that relate to the architecture and design of the sign. Therefore, the integrity aspects of location, design, materials, workmanship, and feeling are of primary importance, and those of setting and association are secondary.
At the time the evaluation was completed in 1998, the Camp Parks facility was largely active with military operations. It wasn’t until after July of 2002 that residential development began to encroach on the setting of the sign when new housing was constructed adjacent to the project area. As a result of the surrounding land use changes, the setting of the sign has already been affected and despite the fact that future development would contribute to the change in the setting, the setting is not what made the sign significant under the NRHP and the CRHR criteria or under CEQA. Since the proposed project does not propose to make any changes to the Camp Parks sign, the proposed project would not affect the integrity of the sign itself. Therefore, future development within the project area would result in a less than significant impact to the Camp Parks entrance sign.
Archaeological Resources
Impact 3.4-2: The proposed project has been previously disturbed from its use as the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. Based on the prior archaeological surveys conducted within the project area, the project area is not anticipated to contain any archaeological, cultural or pre-historic resources. However, site preparation and grading activities could disrupt undiscovered archaeological and cultural resources of importance under
Page 3-90
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Cultural Resources
CEQA and/or eligible for listing on the California Register. Therefore, this is considered a potentially significant impact.
The project area has historically been used as the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and based on prior archaeological surveys is not anticipated to contain any recorded or anticipated resources of archaeological, cultural, and/or pre-historic significance. However, site preparation and grading could disrupt undiscovered archaeological, pre- historic or cultural resources of importance under CEQA and/or eligible for listing on the California Register. This is considered a potentially significant impact. The following mitigation measure would ensure that the proposed project does not result in the destruction or disturbance of undiscovered archaeological, cultural or pre-historic resources and would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure MM 3.4–2 Halt Work/Archaeological Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation. If any potential archaeological, pre-historic or cultural artifacts are encountered during site grading or other construction activities, all ground disturbance within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify and evaluate the resource(s) in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(f). The archeological consultant shall immediately notify the project sponsor and the City staff of the encountered archeological deposit. If the deposit does not qualify as an archaeological resource, then no further protection or study is necessary. If the deposit does qualify as an archaeological resource then the impacts shall be avoided by project activities. If the deposit cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the deposit shall be addressed in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(b). Measures may include, but are not limited to archaeological data recovery, etc. Upon completion of the assessment by the archaeologist, a professional-quality report shall be submitted to the City, the project applicant, and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park. The project applicant shall fund and implement the mitigation in accordance with Section 15064.5(c) through (f) of the CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources Code 21083.2.
Paleontological Resources
Impact 3.4-3: No paleontological resources are known to exist within the project area. However, the presence of unknown paleontological resources could be discovered during site preparation and grading activities, which would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Fossil resources are not anticipated to occur within the project area. However, ground and site preparation activities during project construction have the potential to disturb or destroy unknown paleontological resources that have not previously been identified or
Page 3-91
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Cultural Resources
recorded. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts on paleontological resources to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure MM 3.4-3 Halt Work/Paleontological Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation. If paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the finds. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, they shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a qualified paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring for paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include: I) the results of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project area; 2) specific details of the construction plans for the project area; 3) background research; and 4) limited subsurface investigation within the project area. If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring plan of further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this assessment. After project subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods, findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Community Development.
Disturb Human Remains Interred Outside of Formal Cemeteries
Impact 3.4-4: Due to the disturbed nature of the project area, there are no known human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries that are anticipated to be disturbed during short-term construction activities. However, human remains could be discovered during site preparation and grading activities, which would be considered a potentially significant impact.
The majority of the project area has been previously disturbed during activities at the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. There are no known human remains buried on within the project area. However, there is the potential to uncover human remains interred outside of a formal cemetery, which could be unearthed as a result of project excavation and grading. This is considered a potentially significant impact. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to the disruption of human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Mitigation Measure MM 3.4-4 Halt Work/Coroner’s Evaluation/Native American Heritage Consultant/Compliance with Most Likely Descendent Recommendations. In the event that human remains are encountered during grading and site preparation activities, all ground-disturbing work within 50 feet of the remains shall cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall notify the
Page 3-92
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Cultural Resources
Office of the Alameda County Coroner and advise that office as to whether the remains are likely to be Native American. If determined to be Native American, the Alameda County Coroner’s Office shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission of the find, which in turn will then appoint a “Most Likely Descendent. (MLD).” The MLD in consultation with the archaeological consultant and the project sponsor will advise and help formulate an appropriate plan for treatment of the remains, which might include recordation, removal, and scientific study of the remains and any associated artifacts. After completion of the analysis and preparation of the report of findings, the remains and associated grave goods shall be returned to the MLD for burial.
Page 3-93
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Cultural Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3-94
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.5 Geology and Soils This section of the EIR describes the existing geologic, seismic, and soil conditions present in the project area, and evaluates potential project impacts under these conditions associated with faults, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure such as liquefaction, landslides, and unstable geologic units and/or soils. A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was prepared by Berlogar, Stevens and Associates in March 2012 and a Fault Ground-Rupture Investigation was prepared by Berlogar, Stevens and Associates in March 2013. These reports were peer reviewed by Cal Engineering and Geology in April 2013 on behalf of the City. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Fault Ground-Rupture Investigation, and peer review is included as Appendix D.
Environmental Setting Geologic Structure The project area is located on a broad alluvial plain within the Amador-Livermore Valley. The Amador-Livermore Valley is a generally east-west trending structural depression within the Diablo Range of the California Coast Ranges Province filled with young (late Tertiary and Quaternary, less than 25 million years old) continental sedimentary deposits derived from the surrounding hills. The project area is underlain by Holocene alluvial fan deposits (Qhf) and Late Pleistocene to Holocene alluvial fan deposits (Qf).
Topography The project area is generally flat with a gradual slope to the southwest. On-site elevations range from approximately 357 feet at the northeast corner of the project area to a low of approximately 336 feet at the southwest corner of the project area near the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and the Iron Horse Regional Trail. A drainage channel, Chabot Channel with several tributary channels extends northeast from the southwest corner of the project area turning north near the intersection of Hutchins Avenue and 5th Street. This canal is less than five feet deep and generally less than three feet deep.
The majority of the western half of the project area is predominately covered in buildings, roadways, and parking lots. The eastern portion of the project area is comprised of predominately open fields with several buildings and parking lots.
Soils According to the Alameda County Soil Survey (NRCS 1996), the majority of the project area is comprised of Clear Lake Clay (0 to 3 percent slopes). A small portion in the northwestern portion of the project area is comprised of the Diablo Clay (7 to 15 percent slopes).
Clear Lake Clay (0 to 3 percent slopes). Clear Lake clay is a very deep, poorly drained soil. Permeability is slow to very slow, runoff is negligible to high. This soil is primarily used for growing row crops and dry farmed pasture; and it is also used for rangeland.
Page 3-95
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils
Diablo Clay (7 to 15 percent slopes). The Diablo clay soil is typically located on smooth rolling topography. Runoff is slow to medium and the erosion hazard is slight to moderate. These soils are generally used for dry farming grain, grain hay, pasture, and range. To determine the characteristics of the soils within the project area, Berlogar Stevens and Associates conducted field exploration between March 1 and 2, 2012, which consisted of drilling 12 borings and performing eight cone penetrometer tests throughout the project area. Borings were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 15 to 16 ½ feet from the existing ground surface. Cone penetrometer tests were performed to depths of approximately 50 feet. Laboratory testing was performed on selected samples.
Based on the geotechnical investigation, the project area is predominantly underlain by clayey soils with minor amounts of sand and gravel to the depths explored. The clayey soils encountered during the subsurface exploration were typically brown to dark brown, and generally stiff to hard. The results of the Atterberg limits tests indicate that the clayey soils near the existing ground surface are very highly expansive. An approximately 3 to 4 foot thick layer of medium stiff to stiff clay was encountered below a depth of approximately 5½ to 8½ feet located near the existing Chabot Canal.
The clayey soils encountered in the borings and CPTs were occasionally interbedded with layers of sandy soils consisting of sands, silty sands, clayey sands and sandy silts. These interbedded sandy soil layers were generally encountered at depths below 15 feet, with thickness ranging from approximately half of a foot to six feet. The majority of the interbedded sandy soil layers encountered were medium dense to dense. However in the CPT tests, approximately one to 1½ feet thick layers of loose to medium dense sandy soils were encountered at depths of approximately 22, 18 and 17½ feet, respectively.
Expansive Soils Expansive soils shrink or swell significantly with changes in moisture content. Clay content and porosity of the soil also influence the change in volume. The most common cause of changing soil moisture content is seasonal fluctuation due to rainfall; however, improper surface drainage or underground water pipe leaks may cause shrinking or swelling of soil. The shrinking and swelling caused by expansive clay rich soil often results in damage to overlying structures, including foundations, floor slabs, pavements, sidewalks, and other improvements that are sensitive to soil movements. Usually, damage from expansive soils can be minimized or eliminated by using site-specific engineering techniques. Based on the geotechnical investigation, soils within the project area have a very high expansion potential with Atterberg limits ranging from 28 to 43.
Erosion Potential Soil erosion is the process by which soil particles are removed from a land surface by wind, water, or gravity. Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil, usually the top six to eight inches, and has the highest concentration of organic matter and microorganisms. Topsoil erosion is of concern when the topsoil layer is blown or washed away. Most natural erosion occurs
Page 3-96
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils
at relatively slow rates; however, the rate of erosion increases where the ground surface is steep and when land is cleared and/or left in a disturbed condition, such as may occur during the preparation and excavation phases of construction activities.
The project area is predominately level and includes approximately 77 acres of impervious surfaces. According to the Natural Resources Conservation service (NRCS), the Clear Lake soil at the project area is characterized as having slow to very slow erosion potential and the Diablo Clay soils is characterized as having a moderate erosion potential. Therefore, the majority of the project area consists of soils with slow to moderate erosion potential.
Liquefaction, Landslide Risk, and Other Soil Hazards During earthquakes, ground shaking may cause a loss of strength in cohesionless saturated soils. This process is called liquefaction and occurs most commonly in loose sands associated with a high water table. In general, variable layers of potentially liquefiable material are expected in the upper 30 feet of the proposed project area. Below a depth of 30 feet, the sandy materials are expected to be dense and generally not liquefiable.
The project area is located within a California Geological Survey (CGS) Seismic Hazard Zone where liquefaction may occur during a strong earthquake. Based on the geotechnical investigation there is the potential for liquefaction to occur within the occasional interbedded layers of loose to medium dense sandy soils that exist below the groundwater table. These potentially liquefiable layers generally range from approximately half of a foot to two feet thick and are overlain by at least ten feet of non-liquefiable cover. As part of the settlement calculations performed for the liquefaction analysis by Berlogar, Stevens and Associates, the potential liquefaction-induced settlement would likely range from approximately half an inch to two inches. Differential settlement is estimated to be on the order of one inch. Surface manifestation of liquefaction (e.g. sand boils, ground fissures) is therefore not anticipated due to the presence of at least ten feet of non-liquefiable cover.
Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is the lateral movement of soil towards a free face (such as incised river channel or open body of water) during earthquakes. There are no such features in the project vicinity. Alamo Creek and Tassajara Creek are located more than 1,500 feet to the northwest and 4,000 feet to the east, respectively. Chabot Canal is less than five feet deep and is not anticipated to pose a risk for lateral spreading. Therefore, the risk of lateral spreading to occur within the project area is considered low. Seismic Compression Settlement of ground surface can also occur as a result of seismic compression. The unsaturated soils encountered in the borings and CPTs performed within the project area were predominantly stiff to very stiff clayey soils. Therefore, the potential for significant ground settlement due to seismic compression within the project area is considered low.
Page 3-97
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils
Landsliding The project area is generally flat and there are no major slopes within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore the potential for landsides is considered low. Faults / Seismic Hazards A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which land on one side has moved relative to land on the other side. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements over a long period of time. A fault trace is the line on the earth’s surface defining the fault. An active fault is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as a fault that has “had surface displacement within Holocene times (about the last 11,000 years).” This definition does not mean that faults lacking evidence of surface displacement within Holocene times are necessarily inactive. A fault may be presumed to be inactive based on satisfactory geologic evidence; however, the evidence necessary to prove inactivity is sometimes difficult to obtain and locally may not exist. A potentially active fault is a fault that shows evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time (about the last 1.6 million years).
The middle third of the project area is located within a currently designated Alquist Priolo (A-P) Earthquake Fault Zone for the Pleasanton Fault as shown in Figure 3.5-1: Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for the Pleasanton Fault. The Pleasanton fault is depicted by a short dashed line on the Earthquake Fault Zone map, which indicates that the California Geologic Survey considers this trace to be an inferred location. Several other active faults in the vicinity of the project area include the Calaveras, Hayward, and San Andreas faults located approximately two, 10 and 29 miles to the southwest, respectively. The Mount Diablo Thrust and Greenville faults are located approximately two and 8 ½ miles to the northeast, respectively and the Las Positas Fault is located approximately 10 ½ miles to the southeast and the Concord-Green Valley fault approximately 12 miles to the northwest of the project area.
Pleasanton Fault The first documentation of the Pleasanton Fault shows it extending from Alamo Creek, east of Dougherty Hills, southward through east Pleasanton. Bulletins produced by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) describe groundwater barriers on and south of Camp Parks. Within the project area, the DWR bulletins depict the groundwater contour extending from the east and terminating near the center of the northern boundary of the project area based on contours derived from elevation measurements taken in several nearby wells. The subsurface interruption of groundwater was inferred by the DWR to be the Pleasanton fault.
The California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) determined that the epicenters for several micro-earthquakes were plotted near the mapped surface location of the Pleasanton Fault, north of Camp Parks. However, according to CDMG it is believed that these earthquakes are associated with the active Calaveras fault, located approximately 1.3 miles west of the Pleasanton fault and there is no confirmed evidence to support historical seismicity on the Pleasanton Fault.
Page 3-98
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils
In 1974, the CDMG established special studies zones (SSZ) around the Pleasanton fault and its related branches. In its Fault Investigation Report (FER) in 1981, the CDMG addressed the history of the fault and questioned many of the observations about the fault and revised the SSZ for the fault. Based on evidence in the FER, the CDMG recommended that the 1974 SSZ established for the fault be revised. Subsequent to the FER and the publication for the revised 1982 SSZ Map, several l fault investigations were performed on parcels in the vicinity of the proposed project. These studies include work completed by the Bay Area Transit Consultants (BACT 1991) for the East Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station and the Dougherty Overhead Structure and by Kleinfelder (1999) for the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority. Both of these studies were performed between Highway 580 and Dublin Boulevard south of the project area. Fault exploration trenches were excavated across mapped traces of the Pleasanton fault. Both studies determined that the existence of the Pleasanton fault at within the project vicinity is unsubstantiated by the available evidence.
Fault / Surface Ruptures Surface rupture occurs when movement on a fault deep within the earth breaks through to the surface. Fault ruptures almost always follow pre-existing faults that are zones of weakness. Rupture may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep. Sudden displacements are more damaging to structures because they are accompanied by shaking. Fault creep is the slow rupture of the earth’s crust.
As discussed above, the middle third of the proposed project is located within a currently designated A-P Earthquake Fault Zone for the Pleasanton Fault. In the initial version of the A-P Earthquake Fault Zone Map, the Pleasanton fault was zoned from Amador Valley, through Camp Parks, and north to Dougherty Hills. The portions of the Pleasanton fault north and south of Camp Parks were removed from the A-P Earthquake Fault Zone Map in 1982 following investigations by the California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG), who found no evidence to support that historical seismicity has occurred on the Pleasanton fault. The portion of the Pleasanton fault from Highway 580 north to the northern limits of Camp Parks has not been removed from the current A-P Earthquake Fault Zone Map (last revised in 1982).
Berlogar, Stevens & Associates investigated the possible presence of active faulting within the SSZ around the Pleasanton Fault for the proposed project in March 2013. The initial investigation included a review of topographic maps and aerial photographs of the project area to determine if historical surface features that may related to fault locations and areas of past fault deformation were located within the project area. Minor cultural changes were noted in the years covered by the topographic maps and aerial photographs. Aerial photographs show a vegetative tonal lineation that lies approximately along the inferred east fault trace shown on the Alquist Priolo Fault Zone map. No other surface features indicative of active faulting were observed. A certified engineering geologist also performed a reconnaissance of the project area and surrounding uses to observe surface conditions that may relate to ground rupture. During their reconnaissance, no geomorphic features or evidence of distress suggestive of surface rupture faulting was observed.
Page 3-99
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils
Berlogar, Stevens and Associates conducted an evaluation of the soil profile by drilling two test pits and excavating to depths of up to about 18 feet to examine the soil profile. Six exploratory trenches were also dug totaling approximately 1,875 linear feet, which were excavated, shored, and examined to evaluate the shallow subsurface strata and soil structure across the project area and within the Pleasanton fault SSZ.
Soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis to describe the stratigraphic layers and estimate the age of the soil to the bottom of the test pits. The trenches exposed a soil profile that is a relatively uniform sequence of fine-grained aulluvial deposits and the test pits exposed a soil profile that extends from modern time through the Holocene/Pleistocene boundary and older. It was concluded that the Bkcb soil horizon contains distinctive calcium carbonate nodules and based on correlation with previous pedochronological analysis for the 1991 BATC investigation, demonstrate that the paleosol is greater than 11,000 years old. Berlogar, Stevens, and Associates determined that the risk of surface fault rupture is considered extremely low to nonexistent wherever the Bkcb horizon has not been offset, sheared, or warped due to tectonic activity. Therefore, features were not found within the project area associated with active faulting.
Ground Shaking Some ground shaking is likely at the proposed project area in the event of a major earthquake on one of the nearby faults. The Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity scale measures the intensity of an earthquake’s effects in a given locality, and is perhaps much more meaningful to the layman because it is based on actual observations of earthquake effects at specific places. On the MM intensity scale, values range from I to XII. The most commonly used adaptation covers the range of intensity from the conditions of “I: not felt except by very few favorably situated, to XII: damage total, lines of sight disturbed, objects thrown into the air.” An earthquake has one magnitude, but can have a range of intensities, which decrease with distance from the epicenter.
The project area is located within the San Francisco Bay area, which is a region of high seismicity. Similar to all sites located in the San Francisco Bay area, the project area is expected to experience at least one moderate to large earthquake during the lifespan of the proposed project.
Regulatory Setting State Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 (originally enacted as the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and renamed in 1994) and is intended to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The main purpose of the law is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The law only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. The Alquist- Priolo Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones known as “Earthquake
Page 3-100
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils
Fault Zones” around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning efforts. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the zones. Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy.
California Building Standards Code (CBC) The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the CBC. The CBC is based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which is used widely throughout the United States (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by district basis), and has been modified for conditions within California. The CBC requires extensive geotechnical analysis and engineering for grading, foundations, retaining walls, and other structures, including criteria for seismic design. The proposed project is located within Seismic Zone 4, which is expected to experience the greatest effects from earthquakes, and requires the most stringent requirements for seismic design.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The CGS provides guidance with regard to seismic hazards under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. Seismic hazard zones are identified and mapped by the CGS to assist local governments in land use planning. The intent of the Act is to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, or other hazards caused by earthquakes. In addition, CGS Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, provides guidance for the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for projects within designated zones of required investigations. The proposed project is located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where liquefaction may occur during a strong earthquake; however, the proposed project is not located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where landslides may occur during a strong earthquake. Local City of Dublin General Plan The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to geology, soils and seismicity.
Environmental Resources Management: Conservation Element 7.2: Guiding Policy I: Regulate grading and development on steep slopes, with special concern for potential problems of erosion and siltation. 7.2: Implementing Policy J: Require erosion control plans for proposed development. Erosion control plans shall include recommendations for preventing erosion and scour of drainage ways, consistent with biological and visual values.
Environmental Resources Management: Seismic Safety and Safety Element 8.1: Guiding Policy A. Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be located away from geologic hazards in order to preserve life, protect property, and reasonable limit
Page 3-101
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils the financial risks to the City of Dublin and other public agencies that would result from damage to poorly located public facilities.
8.1.1 Implementing Policy A. All structures shall be designed to the standards delineated in the Uniform Building Code and Dublin grading ordinance. A "design earthquake" shall be established by an engineering geologist for each structure for which ground shaking is a significant design factor.
8.1.1: Implementing Policy B. Structures intended for human occupancy shall be at least 50 feet from any active fault trace; freestanding garages and storage structures may be as close as 25 feet. These distances may be reduced based on adequate exploration to accurately locate the fault trace.
8.1.1: Implementing Policy C. Generally, facilities should not be built astride potential rupture zones, although certain low-risk facilities may be considered. Critical facilities that must cross a fault, such as oil, gas, and water lines, should be designed to accommodate the maximum expected offset from fault rupture. Site specific evaluations should determine the maximum credible offset.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy A. A preliminary geologic hazards report must be prepared for all subdivisions. Any other facility that could create a geologic hazard, such as a road or a building on hillside terrain, must also have such a study. Each of the hazards described in the Seismic Safety and Safety Element must be evaluated. This hazard analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineering geologist.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy B. Detailed geologic studies will be required at the tentative subdivision map stage for all projects within the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary on the Geologic Hazards and Constraints map, and for other proposed projects if the preliminary investigation indicates a potential geologic hazard. Proposals for mitigation should be included at this stage. The detailed analysis for projects in the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary must consider:
1. Cumulative effect of new development on a partially developed slide; 2. Effects of septic leach systems, garden watering, and altered drainage patterns; 3. Impact of a maximum credible earthquake; 4. Where applicable, passage of the Calaveras Fault through or under landslide deposits; 5. Debris flow and other downslope hazards (especially common east of Dublin). Care must be taken not to locate structures in the path of potential debris flows. 6. Where published maps identify or show "ancient" or Quaternary slides on sites of proposed development, their stability must be analyzed, and effects of the proposed development on the area's stability must be evaluated by a soils engineer.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy C. If the preliminary report indicates liquefaction potential, an engineering analysis and design, if necessary, to mitigate liquefaction hazards, shall be required for all structures planned for human occupancy.
Page 3-102
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils
8.1.2: Implementing Policy D. Evaluation for shrink-swell potential shall be included with all soils reports and design recommendations formulated where the potential is present. These analyses and recommendations shall include public streets and utilities, in order to reduce future public repair costs.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy E. A fault rupture evaluation, as outlined by the State of California for Special Studies Zones (Alquist-Priolo Act), shall be required for all development within the Revised Special Studies Zones as shown on the Geologic Hazards and Constraints map. The fault rupture evaluation should be conducted after building sites are specifically defined. Sites situated outside of this zone but within the Preliminary Zones (Slossen, 1973) shall be evaluated if proposed for multifamily dwellings or for public or recreational facilities.
8.1.2: Implementing Policy F. Any changes in grading or building design that would be significantly affected by geologic hazards or soils conditions, or in turn would significantly alter geologic or soils conditions, shall be accompanied by a re-analysis of those conditions. In addition, any conditions discovered during excavation or grading that significantly depart from the previously described geologic and soils setting shall be evaluated.
8.1.3: Implementing Policy A: Post-earthquake or damage reconstruction of existing structures shall be permitted only if mitigating factors are incorporated.
8.1.4: Implementing Policy A: A procedure to review all required reports and data shall be established with the Alameda County Geologist or a consulting engineering geologist shall be retained as reviewer. This individual shall participate in the review process from the earliest proposal stage to completion of the project.
8.1.4: Implementing Policy B: A file of all geologic and soils reports and grading plans shall be maintained as reference material for future planning and design on each site as well as on adjacent sites.
8.1.4: Implementing Policy C: City and developer shall endeavor to fully disclose hazards to present and future occupants and property owners.
8.1.5: Implementing Policy A: In 1978 Alameda County adopted an Earthquake Response Directive to be incorporated in the County Emergency Operations Plan (updated March 1980). The directive applies fully to the unincorporated area and to eight contract cities. Dublin will adopt its own multi-hazard response plan.
8.1.5: Implementing Policy B: The City will prepare a route plan for evacuation of Dublin in the event of a major seismic event.
Relevant Project Characteristics No site specific or additional project characteristics apply relative to geology and soils beyond those requirements per the CBC, City of Dublin General Plan, and City’s Building Code.
Page 3-103
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse geology, soils and seismicity impact if it would result in any of the following:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;
o Strong seismic ground shaking; o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or o Landslides.
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property; and/or
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. Methodology Impacts evaluated in this section were assessed based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Analysis and a Fault Ground-Rupture Investigation prepared by Berlogar, Stevens, and Associates in March 2012 and March 2013, respectively and a peer review by Cal Engineering and Geology in April 2013; the Alameda County Soil Survey (NRCS), and the City of Dublin General Plan.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Landslides
Impact 3.5-1: Due to the relatively flat topography within the project area and the lack of steep slopes within or adjacent to the project site, the potential for landslides is considered less than significant.
Due to the relatively flat topography and the lack of steep slopes within or adjacent to the project area, landslides are not considered to be a potential significant geologic hazard.
Page 3-104
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils
Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated due to the lack of landslides within the project area.
Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems Wastewater disposal in the project area is provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The proposed project would be required to connect to the existing wastewater system. The project area would not need to use septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Consequently, the threshold of significance for septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not apply to the proposed project and no further analysis is required. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Fault Rupture
Impact 3.5-2: The proposed project is currently located within the designated Alquist- Priolo fault zone for the Pleasanton fault. However, the Preliminary Geotechnical Analysis and Fault Ground Rupture Investigation prepared for the proposed project determined that there is no substantial evidence for the existence of the inferred Pleasanton Fault traces shown on the current Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map. Therefore, the potential for fault rupture within the project area is considered very low. This would be considered a less than significant impact.
The proposed project is located in a seismically active area. The middle third of the proposed project is located within a currently designated A-P Earthquake Fault Zone for the Pleasanton Fault. In the initial version of the A-P Earthquake Fault Zone Map, the Pleasanton fault was zoned from Amador Valley, through Camp Parks, and north to Dougherty Hills. The portions of the Pleasanton fault north and south of Camp Parks were removed from the A-P Earthquake Fault Zone Map in 1982 following investigations by the California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG), which found no evidence to support that historical seismicity has occurred on the Pleasanton fault. The portion of the Pleasanton fault from Highway 580 north to the northern limits of Camp Parks has not been removed from the current Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map (last revised in 1982).
A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and a Fault Ground-Rupture Investigation was prepared by Berlogar, Stevens and Associates in March 2012 and April 2013 respectively and was peer reviewed by Cal Engineering and Geology in April 2013 The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Fault Ground-Rupture Investigation, and peer review is included as Appendix D.
During the site reconnaissance and historical topographic map review, Berlogar, Stevens and Associates did not observe features that could be associated with active faulting within or projecting toward the project area. An evaluation of the soil profile was conducted by drilling two test pits and excavating to depths of up to about 18 feet to examine the soil profile. Six exploratory trenches were also dug totaling approximately 1,875 linear feet,
Page 3-105
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils
which were excavated, shored, and examined to evaluate the shallow subsurface strata and soil structure across the project area. The trenches exposed a soil profile that is a relatively uniform sequence of fine-grained alluvial deposits. The test pits exposed a soil profile that extends from modern time through the Holocene/Pleistocene boundary and older. It was concluded that the Bkcb soil horizon found within the test pits and trenching contains distinctive calcium carbonate nodules and based on correlation with previous pedochronological analysis for the 1991 BATC investigation, demonstrate that the paleosol is greater than 11,000 years old. Therefore, it was determined that the risk of surface fault rupture is considered extremely low to nonexistent wherever the Bkcb horizon has not been offset, sheared, or warped due to tectonic activity (Berlogar, Stevens and Associates 2013).
Therefore, due to the site reconnaissance, historical topographic review, and review of test pits and trenching within the project area, Berlogar, Stevens and Associates did not observe features that could be associated with active faulting within or projecting toward the project area. This was confirmed based on the peer review of their reports conducted by Cal Engineering and Geology on behalf of the City.
Future development within the project area would be performed in accordance with the latest edition of the CBC, the City Building Code, and policies of the City of Dublin General Plan. Compliance with the statutory and design requirements would ensure that no significant impacts related to fault zone rupture would occur. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Seismic Ground Shaking
Impact 3.5-3: Ground shaking is likely to occur in the project area in the event of a major earthquake on one of the nearby faults resulting in the exposure of people and/or structures to potentially significant adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
The proposed project is located in a seismically active region. Earthquakes on any of the potentially active faults within the surrounding region could produce moderate ground shaking within the project area depending on the magnitude, characteristics, and location of the seismic event. Structures within the project area would be required to be designed to the most stringent standards in accordance with applicable parameters described in the current CBC. Specific engineering design and construction measures required by the CBC for the construction of new or renovated buildings are required to reduce the potential for adverse effects to human life and property caused by seismically induced ground shaking. Additionally, the proposed project would be regulated under the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, the policies of the City of Dublin General Plan, and the City’s Building Code.
To provide the adequate level of information to properly design and engineer future development consistent with statutory requirements and the City’s Building code, the City’s Public Works Department requires an engineering geologist to perform design-level
Page 3-106
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils
geotechnical studies and submit them to the City for approval. In addition, future development within the project area would be required to comply with all applicable CBC requirements with regard to the design and construction or installation of structures and improvements with regard to resisting damaging forces of seismic ground shaking. Therefore, Implementation of the following mitigation measure would therefore ensure that the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking which would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure MM 3.5-3 Preparation of Design-Level Geotechnical Report. Future development within the project area shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical report that incorporates the recommendations in the preliminary geotechnical investigation by Berlogar, Stevens and Associates (March 2012). The design level geotechnical report shall address site preparation and grading (including measures to address potential liquefaction and expansive soils), building foundations, CBC seismic design parameters, and preliminary pavement sections. This report shall be submitted in conjunction with Building Permit application(s) and reviewed and approved by the City. The Report’s recommendations shall be incorporated into the project design and construction documents.
Liquefaction
Impact 3.5-4: Future development associated with the proposed project could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects of liquefaction. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Generally, when liquefaction occurs because of earthquakes, the conditions of cohesionless surface material accompanied with relatively shallow water tables underlying the area were the factor. In such cases, ground vibration increases the pore pressure resulting in water moving upward whereby turning the sand or silt into a quicksand like condition. The surface characteristics include the development of sand boils, surface cracks, ground settlement and differential compaction. Without proper soil engineering, foundation design, and construction, the project area could expose people and/or structures to hazards associated with seismic-related ground failure.
The project area is located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where liquefaction may occur during a strong earthquake. Based on the geotechnical investigation there is the potential for liquefaction to occur within the occasional interbedded layers of loose to medium dense sandy soils that exist below the groundwater table. These potentially liquefiable layers generally range from approximately half a foot to two feet thick and are overlain by at least ten feet of non-liquefiable cover. As part of the settlement calculations performed for the liquefaction analysis, the results indicate that the potential liquefaction- induced settlement would likely range from approximately half an inch to two inches.
Page 3-107
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils
Differential settlement is estimated to be on the order of one inch. Surface manifestation of liquefaction (e.g. sand boils, ground fissures) are not anticipated due to the presence of at least ten feet of non-liquefiable cover.
Future development within the project area would be required to comply with the City’s Building Code, liquefaction regulations of the CBC, and the City’s standard engineering practices and design criteria. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM 3.5-3 would require that the project applicant prepare a design-level geotechnical report, which would address liquefaction and reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Soil Erosion
Impact 3.3-5: Implementation of the proposed project may result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during short-term construction activities within the project area. This is considered a less than significant impact.
A portion of the project area is covered by roads, buildings, parking lots, and sidewalks from the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. However, earth-disturbing activities associated with future construction activities within the project area have the potential to increase erosion if proper sedimentation and erosion control methods are not in place. According to the Natural Resources Conservation (NRCS) service, the Clear Lake soil is characterized as having slow to very slow erosion potential and the Diablo Clay soils has a moderate erosion potential.
The City of Dublin Public Works Department Policy No. 95-11 requires that all plans specify both long-term and short-term erosion control measures that will be implemented during construction activities to control runoff, erosion, and sediment movement prior to issuance of a building permit. In addition, in order to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process for storm drainage and construction site discharge, projects involving construction that are greater than one acre in size within the project area is required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which would be submitted for review by the City of Dublin Public Works Department during the Grading/Site Work and Building Permit process, The SWPP describes the stormwater BMPs (structural and operational measures) that would control the quality (and quantity) of stormwater runoff. In addition, the NPDES permit requires implementation of non-point source control of runoff through the application of a number of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs are meant to reduce the amount of constituents, including eroded sediment, that enter streams and other water bodies. Examples of BMPs typically used in the City of Dublin include vegetated swales in parking areas.
Compliance with the City of Dublin Public Works Department Policy No. 95-11: the NPDES permit process; and the City’s Building Code requirements the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact from erosion during construction activities.
Page 3-108
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils
Expansive Soil
Impact 3.5-6: Implementation of the proposed project would include future development within the Specific Plan area in an area with expansive soils. With adherence to the City’s Building Code and CBC requirements, this is considered a potentially significant impact.
According to the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared for the proposed project, soils at the project area had very high expansion potential. A design level geotechnical analysis would be required for each specific development within the project area as required by Mitigation Measure MM 3.5-3. In addition, all future development would be required to adhere to the City’s Building Code and CBC requirements. Therefore, with compliance with regulatory requirements and measures in the design level geotechnical report which would address expansive soils, this potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Page 3-109
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology and Soils
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3-110
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change This section analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. The GHG emission modeling for the proposed project is in Appendix B.
Environmental Setting Greenhouse Gases The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere is called the “greenhouse effect.”3 The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a three-fold process, summarized as follows: short wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long wave radiation; and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long wave radiation and emit this long wave radiation into space and toward the Earth. This “trapping” of the long wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect.
The most abundant GHGs are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Many other trace gases have greater ability to absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation; however, these gases are not as plentiful. For this reason, and to gauge the potency of GHGs, scientists have established a Global Warming Potential for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation.
GHGs include, but are not limited to, the following:4
Water Vapor (H2O). Although water vapor has not received the scrutiny of other GHGs, it is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. Natural processes, such as evaporation from oceans and rivers, and transpiration from plants, contribute 90 percent and 10 percent of the water vapor in our atmosphere, respectively.
The primary human related source of water vapor comes from fuel combustion in motor vehicles; however, this is not believed to contribute a significant amount (less than one percent) to atmospheric concentrations of water vapor. The IPCC has not determined a Global Warming Potential for water vapor.
3 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to 10 to 12 kilometers. 4 All Global Warming Potentials are given as 100-year Global Warming Potential. Unless noted otherwise, all Global Warming Potentials were obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, The Science of Climate Change – Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, 1996).
Page 3-111
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is primarily generated by fossil fuel combustion in stationary and mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial facilities and mobile sources in the past 250 years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 36 percent (U.S. EPA 2011). Carbon dioxide is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for determining Global Warming Potentials for other GHGs.
Methane (CH4). Methane is emitted from biogenic sources, incomplete combustion in forest fires, landfills, manure management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. In the United States, the top three sources of methane are landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation. Methane is the primary component of natural gas, which is used for space and water heating, steam production, and power generation. The Global Warming Potential of CH4 is 21.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Nitrous oxide is produced by both natural and human related sources. Primary human related sources include agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. The Global Warming Potential of N2O is 310.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is growing, as the continued phase out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) gains momentum. The Global Warming Potential of HFCs range from 140 for HFC-152a to 11,700 for HFC-23 (U.S. EPA 2012).
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing are the largest known man-made sources of two perfluorocarbons (PFCs): tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and tetrafluoromethane (C2F6). Perfluorocarbons are potent GHGs with a Global Warming Potential several thousand times that of CO2, depending on the specific PFC. PFCs are also relatively minor substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. The estimated atmospheric lifetimes for CF4and C2F6 are 50,000 and 10,000 years respectively. The Global Warming Potentials of CF4 and C2F6 emissions are approximately 6,500 and 9,200, respectively (U.S. EPA 2012).
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Sulfur hexafluoride is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment that transmits and distributes electricity. Sulfur hexafluoride is the most potent GHG that has been evaluated by the IPCC with a Global Warming Potential of 23,900. However, its global warming contribution is not as high as the Global Warming Potential would indicate due to its low mixing ratio compared to CO2 (4 parts per trillion [ppt] in 1990 versus 365 parts per million [ppm], respectively) (U.S. EPA 2012). In addition to the six major GHGs discussed above (excluding water vapor), many other compounds have the potential to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Some of these
Page 3-112
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
substances were previously identified as stratospheric ozone (O3) depletors; therefore, their gradual phase out is currently in effect. The following is a listing of these compounds:
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, all developed countries that adhere to the Montreal Protocol are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out of HCFCs. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range from 93 for HCFC-123 to 2,000 for HCFC-142b (U.S. EPA 2012).
1,1,1 trichloroethane. 1,1,1 trichloroethane or methyl chloroform is a solvent and degreasing agent commonly used by manufacturers. The Global Warming Potential of methyl chloroform is 110 times that of CO2 (U.S. EPA 2012).
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs are used as refrigerants, cleaning solvents, and aerosols spray propellants. CFCs were also part of the EPA’s Final Rule (57 FR 3374) for the phase out of O3 depleting substances. Currently, CFCs have been replaced by HFCs in cooling systems and a variety of alternatives for cleaning solvents. Nevertheless, CFCs remain suspended in the atmosphere contributing to the greenhouse effect. CFCs are potent GHGs with Global Warming Potentials ranging from 4,000 for CFC 11 to 14,000 for CFC 13 (U.S. EPA 2012).
Regulatory Setting Federal The FCAA requires the EPA to define national ambient air quality standards (national standards) to protect public health and welfare in the United States. The FCAA does not specifically regulate GHG emissions; however, on April 2, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, determined that GHGs are pollutants that can be regulated under the FCAA. The EPA adopted an endangerment finding and cause or contribute finding for GHGs on December 7, 2009. Under the endangerment finding, the Administrator found that the current and projected atmospheric concentrations of the six, key, well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Under the cause of contribute finding, the Administrator found that the combined emissions of these well- mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare.
Based on these findings, on April 1, 2010, the EPA finalized the light-duty vehicle rule controlling GHG emissions. This rule confirmed that January 2, 2011, is the earliest date that a 2012 model year vehicle meeting these rule requirements may be sold in the United States. On May 13, 2010, the EPA issued the final GHG Tailoring Rule. This rule set thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing
Page 3-113
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
industrial facilities. Implementation of the Federal rules is expected to reduce the level of emissions from new motor vehicles and large stationary sources.
State California Global Climate Change Regulatory Programs Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of global climate change are not yet fully understood, global climate change is occurring, and that there is a real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and economic effects in the long term. Every nation emits GHGs and as a result makes an incremental cumulative contribution to global climate change; therefore, global cooperation will be required to reduce the rate of GHG emissions enough to slow or stop the human-caused increase in average global temperatures and associated changes in climatic conditions.
Executive Order S-1-07. Executive Order S-1-07 proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in California, generating more than 40 percent of statewide emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California by at least ten percent by 2020. This order also directs CARB to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete early-action measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32.
Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The Executive Order directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The secretary will also submit biannual reports to the governor and California Legislature describing the progress made toward the emissions targets, the impacts of global climate change on California’s resources, and mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with the executive order, the secretary of Cal/EPA created the California Climate Action Team (CAT), made up of members from various State agencies and commissions. The team released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of California businesses, local governments, and communities and through State incentive and regulatory programs.
Executive Order S-13-08. Executive Order S-13-08 seeks to enhance the State's management of climate impacts including sea level rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation, and extreme weather events by facilitating the development of State’s first climate adaptation strategy. This will result in consistent guidance from experts on how to address climate change impacts in the State of California.
Page 3-114
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Executive Order S-14-08. Executive Order S-14-08 expands the State's Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S-21-09 (signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the State come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the “Renewable Electricity Standard” on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly owned electricity retailers.
Executive Order S-20-04. Executive Order S-20-04, the California Green Building Initiative, (signed into law on December 14, 2004), establishes a goal of reducing energy use in State- owned buildings by 20 percent from a 2003 baseline by 2015. It also encourages the private commercial sector to set the same goal. The initiative places the California Energy Commission (CEC) in charge of developing a building efficiency benchmarking system, commissioning and retro-commissioning (commissioning for existing commercial buildings) guidelines, and developing and refining building energy efficiency standards under Title 24 to meet this goal.
Executive Order S-21-09. Executive Order S-21-09, 33 percent Renewable Energy for California, directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002) which established the California RPS program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006) which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II.
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.
Assembly Bill 1493. AB 1493 (also known as the Pavley Bill) requires that CARB develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of GHG emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State.”
To meet the requirements of AB 1493, CARB approved amendments to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) in 2004 by adding GHG emissions standards to California’s existing standards for motor vehicle emissions. Amendments to CCR Title 13, Sections 1900 and 1961 and adoption of 13 CCR Section 1961.1 require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet-average GHG emissions limits for all passenger cars, light-duty trucks within
Page 3-115
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
various weight criteria, and medium-duty weight classes for passenger vehicles (i.e., any medium-duty vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating less than 10,000 pounds that is designed primarily to transport people), beginning with the 2009 model year. Emissions limits are reduced further in each model year through 2016. When fully phased in, the near-term standards will result in a reduction of about 22 percent in GHG emissions compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the mid-term standards will result in a reduction of about 30 percent.
Assembly Bill 3018. AB 3018 established the Green Collar Jobs Council (GCJC) under the California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB). The GCJC will develop a comprehensive approach to address California’s emerging workforce needs associated with the emerging green economy. This bill will ignite the development of job training programs in the clean and green technology sectors.
Senate Bill 97. SB 97, signed in August 2007 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007; PRC Sections 21083.05 and 21097), acknowledges that climate change is a prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. This bill directs the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which is part of the State Natural Resources Agency, to prepare, develop, and transmit to CARB guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions (or the effects of GHG emissions), as required by CEQA.
OPR published a technical advisory recommending that CEQA lead agencies make a good- faith effort to estimate the quantity of GHG emissions that would be generated by a proposed project. Specifically, based on available information, CEQA lead agencies should estimate the emissions associated with project-related vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities to determine whether project-level or cumulative impacts could occur, and should mitigate the impacts where feasible. OPR requested CARB technical staff to recommend a method for setting CEQA thresholds of significance as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 that will encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the State.
The Natural Resources Agency adopted the CEQA Guidelines Amendments prepared by OPR, as directed by SB 97. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administration Law approved the CEQA Guidelines Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The CEQA Guidelines Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
Senate Bill 375. SB 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, will provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated every eight years but can be updated every four
Page 3-116
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not meet the GHG reduction targets, transportation projects may not be eligible for funding programmed after January 1, 2012.
Senate Bills 1078 and 107. SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006) changed the target date to 2010.
Senate Bill 1368. SB 1368 (Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006) is the companion bill of AB 32 and was signed into law in September 2006. SB 1368 required the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish a performance standard for base load generation of GHG emissions by investor-owned utilities by February 1, 2007. SB 1368 also required the CEC to establish a similar standard for local publicly owned utilities by June 30, 2007. These standards could not exceed the GHG emissions rate from a base load combined- cycle, natural gas–fired plant. Furthermore, the legislation states that all electricity provided to California, including imported electricity, must be generated by plants that meet the standards set by CPUC and CEC.
CARB Scoping Plan. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Scoping Plan, which functions as a roadmap to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. CARB’s Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to reduce CO2eq emissions by 174 million metric tons (MT), or approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emissions level of 596 5 6 million MT CO2eq under a “Business As Usual” (BAU) scenario. This is a reduction of 42 million MT CO2eq, or almost ten percent, from 2002 to 2004 average emissions, but requires the reductions in the face of population and economic growth through 2020.
CARB’s Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was derived by projecting emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors specific to each of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation, electrical power, commercial and residential, industrial, etc.). CARB used three-year average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to 2004 to forecast emissions to 2020. At the time CARB’s Scoping Plan process was initiated, 2004 was the most recent year for which actual
5 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2eq) - A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential. 6 “Business as Usual” refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reductions. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm. Note that there is significant controversy as to what BAU means. In determining the GHG 2020 limit, CARB used the above as the “definition.” It is broad enough to allow for design features to be counted as reductions.
Page 3-117
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
data was available. The measures described in CARB’s Scoping Plan are intended to reduce the projected 2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32.
In Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board, the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco (Superior Court) issued a "tentative statement of decision" (Tentative Decision) that prevents CARB from implementing a state-wide GHG regulatory program under AB 32 until the agency complies with the requirements of CEQA. The Tentative Decision partially grants a petition for a writ of mandate brought by a coalition of environmental justice organizations (Petitioners) that alleged that CARB's Scoping Plan violated both AB 32 and CEQA. Although the Superior Court denied all claims related to AB 32, the court found that CARB: 1) failed to adequately discuss and analyze the impacts of alternatives in its proposed Scoping Plan as required by its CEQA implementing regulations; and 2) improperly approved the Scoping Plan prior to completing the environmental review required by CEQA. In upholding the Petitioners' challenge on these two CEQA issues, the Superior Court issued a Peremptory Writ of Mandate and enjoined CARB from further implementation of the Scoping Plan until it complies with all CEQA requirements. Parties to the case had 15 days from the issuance of the Tentative Decision to file objections before the Superior Court issued a final decision in the case.
On March 18, 2011, the Superior Court issued its Final Statement of Decision, which is substantially similar to the Tentative Decision. The Superior Court ruled in favor of CARB concerning AB 32 mandates and how to best reach the GHG reduction goals set by AB 32. However, the Superior Court determined that CARB failed to conduct adequate CEQA review for the Scoping Plan. Specifically, the Superior Court concluded that CARB failed to consider adequate alternatives to the mix of measures adopted in the Scoping Plan, including especially alternatives to cap-and-trade measures, and that CARB improperly began implementing the Scoping Plan measures before its CEQA review process was complete. Therefore, the Superior Court has suspended any further implementation of the measures contained in the Scoping Plan until the State has complied with CEQA.
On June 19, 2012, the California First District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of CARB and upheld the Scoping Plan. The decision also found the Scoping Plan to be in compliance with AB 32. The Court determined the entirety of the Scoping Plan "reflects an exercise of sound judgment" and was not arbitrary or capricious.
Local Bay Area Air Quality Management District The BAAQMD is the public agency responsible for regulating stationary sources of air pollution in the nine counties that surround San Francisco Bay. The BAAQMD also provides guidance to Lead Agencies, consultants, and other parties regarding air quality analyses conducted pursuant to CEQA. The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide BAAQMD-recommended procedures for evaluating potential air quality and GHG impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements.
Page 3-118
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
The BAAQMD’s approach to developing a threshold of significance for GHG emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute considerably to a significant cumulative impact. Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change.
On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the Thresholds. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the Thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of Significance) the City of Dublin will nonetheless exercise its own discretion to rely on the thresholds within the Options and Justification Report (dated October 2009) prepared by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD Options and Justification Report establishes thresholds based on substantial evidence and are consistent with the thresholds outlined within the 2010 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Table 3.6-1: BAAQMD GHG Thresholds, presents the project-level thresholds for GHG emissions.
Table 3.6-1: BAAQMD GHG Thresholds Construction- Project Type Operational-Related Related Compliance with Qualified Climate Action Plan OR Projects other than Stationary Sources1 None 1,100 MTCO2eq/yr. OR 2 4.6 MTCO2eq/SP /yr. 1 Stationary Sources None 10,000 MTCO2eq/yr.
MTCO2eq/yr. = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Notes: 1: According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a stationary source project is one that includes land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require a BAAQMD permit to operate. Projects other than stationary sources are land use development projects including residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses that do not require a BAAQMD permit to operate. 2: SP = service population (residents + employees) Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Options and Justification Report, October 2009 and Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2011.
The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. However, the BAAQMD recommends quantification and disclosure of construction GHG emissions. The BAAQMD also recommends that the Lead Agency should make a determination on the significance of these construction generated GHG emission impacts in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals, as required by the
Page 3-119
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Public Resources Code, Section 21082.2. The Lead Agency is encouraged to incorporate best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction, as feasible and applicable.
City of Dublin City of Dublin Climate Action Plan The City of Dublin prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in October 2010. The City’s CAP provides background on actions taken to curb GHG emissions; presents Dublin’s baseline GHG emissions inventory in 2005 and forecast for GHG emissions in 2020 based on business-as-usual scenario; establishes a GHG emissions reduction target; and presents steps for implementation of the CAP and monitoring and verification of the CAP to achieve the designated emissions reduction target.
The City’s CAP serves as the City of Dublin’s qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering document for the purposes of CEQA for the analysis of impacts to GHG emissions and climate change. The City has determined that the reduction target under the CAP will reduce the impact from activities under the CAP to a less than significant level under CEQA. If a proposed project is consistent with the applicable emission reduction measures identified in the CAP, the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact (i.e. less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact) due to GHG emissions and climate change consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183.5, 15064, and 15130.
Relevant Project Characteristics The proposed project would facilitate the future development of several land uses. Future development projects would result in GHG emissions as a result of increased vehicle trips, energy and natural gas consumption, waste generation, and water supply.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.; and/or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (the City’s Climate Action Plan).
Page 3-120
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 3.6-1: Greenhouse gas emissions generated by the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Implementation of the proposed project would facilitate development in the project area which would subsequently result in GHG emissions. GHG emissions would be generated by construction activities, as well as from increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT), area sources, energy consumption, water supply, and solid waste generation. Increased GHG emissions could contribute to global climate change patterns and the adverse global environmental effects thereof. GHG emissions associated with development within the project area include CO2, N2O, and CH4. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to generate other forms of GHG emissions in quantities that would facilitate a meaningful analysis.
Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions The BAU GHG emissions that could occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project (additional 1,995 residential dwelling units, 50,000 square feet of office uses, 150,000 square feet of shopping center uses, a 900-student elementary school, and a 30 net-acre community park have been calculated. As previously stated, BAU refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reduction measures. Table 3.6-2: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the estimated CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions of the future buildout of the Specific Plan.
Direct Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Direct project-related GHG emissions include emissions from area and mobile sources. Table 3.6-2: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, estimates the CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions of the proposed project. The proposed project is not anticipated to generate other forms of GHG emissions in quantities that would facilitate a meaningful analysis. Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions. GHG emissions estimations are based on traffic data from the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis as well as land use data.
Mobile source emissions would represent the greatest amounts of GHGs generated from the proposed project. The proposed project would directly result in 16,941.49 metric tons of CO2eq per year MTCO2eq/year of mobile source GHG emissions. Area source emissions as a result of the proposed project would be 1,019.12 MTCO2eq/year. N2O and CH4 emissions were first calculated in metric tons/year, then converted to MTCO2eq/year utilizing the EPA’s GHG equivalencies calculator. Converting emissions to comparable units (MTCO2eq/year) allows for the summation of all GHG emissions.
Indirect Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Page 3-121
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Energy consumption emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and project-specific land use data. The potential development within the project area would indirectly result in 6,818.08 MTCO2eq/year due to energy usage; refer to Table 3.6-2: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Water demand for the proposed uses would be approximately 285 million gallons of water per year. Emissions from indirect energy impacts due to water supply would result in 512.42 MTCO2eq/year.
Table 3.6-2: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CO2 CH4 N2O Total Metric Metric Metric Source Metric Metric Metric 1 1 Tons of 1 Tons of Tons of Tons/yr Tons/yr 2 Tons/yr 2 CO2eq CO2eq CO2eq Proposed Business As Usual Emissions Area Source 984.82 0.92 19.32 0.05 15.50 1,019.12 Energy 6,776.15 0.23 4.83 0.12 37.20 6,818.08 Mobile 16,930.67 0.52 10.92 0.00 0.00 16,941.49 Waste 381.16 22.53 473.13 0.00 0.00 854.21 Water Demand 376.82 4.66 97.86 0.12 37.20 512.42 Total Proposed Business As 25,449.62 28.86 606.06 0.29 89.90 26,145.32 Usual Emissions3 Proposed Business As Usual 4.32 MTCO eq/SP4/yr. GHG Emissions Per SP 2 GHG Threshold 4.6 MTCO2eq/SP/yr. Notes: 1. Emissions calculated using CalEEMod computer model. 2. CO2 Equivalent values calculated using the U.S. EPA Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html, accessed November 2012. 3. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding. 4. SP = service population. The service population is defined by BAAQMD as the total residents + employees associated with a proposed project. At buildout of the proposed project, the service population would total 6,070 (5,470 residents + 600 employees). Refer to Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, for detailed model input/output data.
Total Business As Usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions As shown in Table 3.6-2: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the BAU GHG emissions at Specific Plan buildout would total 24,725.08 MTCO2eq/year. The service population associated with buildout of the Specific Plan would be 6,046 (5,446 residents plus 600 employees). Therefore, the Specific Plan would result in 4.32 MTCO2eq/SP/year, which is below the BAAQMD’s 4.6 MTCO2eq/SP/year GHG threshold. Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans, Policies, or Regulations
Impact 3.6-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable greenhouse gas reduction plan, policy, or regulation. This is considered a less than significant impact.
As previously noted, the City of Dublin prepared a CAP and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in October 2010. The City’s CAP serves as the City of Dublin’s
Page 3-122
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering document for the purposes of CEQA for the analysis of impacts to GHG emissions and climate change. The City has determined that the reduction target of 20 percent from BAU under the CAP would reduce the impact from activities under the CAP to a less than significant level under CEQA. If a proposed project is consistent with the applicable emission reduction measures identified in the CAP, the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact. Table 3.6-3: Project Consistency with the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan, discusses the project compliance with several of the CAP measures aimed at reducing community-wide GHG emissions.
Page 3-123
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Table 3.6-3: Project Consistency with the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Climate Action Plan Measure Project Applicability Transportation and Land Use Measures A.1.1: Transit-Oriented Development. Measure A.1.1 The Specific Plan area is located approximately 0.3 miles discusses the City’s plan for the Dublin Transit Center, from the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. Additionally, located near the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. the project would include transit (bus) stops within the The Dublin Transit Center allows for the construction of project area. The mixed-use development within close high-density residential uses, campus office uses, proximity to transit would encourage residents and commercial uses, and a park. employees within the Specific Plan area to utilize transit. Therefore, the project is compliant with CAP Measure A.1.1. A.1.2: High-Density Development. The City of Dublin has The Specific Plan proposes areas of medium-high density a high-density residential land use designation, which allows residential uses, of 20 to 30 dwelling units per acre. As 25.1+ dwelling units per acre. These high-density CAP Measure A.1.2 specifies high-density development as developments are located near the existing 25.1 or more dwelling units per acre, the Specific Plan’s Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and along Dublin medium-high density districts would comply with this Boulevard. measure. A.1.3: Mixed-Use Development. Several areas in the City The Specific Plan proposes several land use districts allow mixed-use development. The mixed-use land use including residential, commercial, park/open space, school, designation encourages the combination of medium- to and mixed-use overlay. Therefore, the project is medium-high-density residential housing and at least one consistent with CAP Measure A.1.3. nonresidential use, such as office or retail. A.1.4: Bicycle Parking Requirements. Bicycle parking As previously noted, the Specific Plan encourages bicycle requirements are implemented during the development racks and storage lockers on all properties in the project review process. Under the City’s Off-Street Parking and area. Therefore, the project is consistent with CAP Loading Regulations, parking lots with 20 or more spaces Measure A.1.4. in nonresidential zoning districts are required to provide one bicycle parking space in a bicycle rack for each 40 vehicular parking spaces. Additionally, requirements exist for bicycle parking in multi-family residential complexes. The availability of bike racks throughout the City supports the use of the City’s bike lanes, and is an essential part of encouraging individuals to choose biking over driving. A.1.5: Streetscape Master Plan. City Council adopted a The Specific Plan streetscape guidelines are consistent with resolution approving a streetscape master plan. The goals the City’s Streetscape Master Plan. Thus, the project is of the streetscape plan are to better coordinate compliant with CAP Measure A.1.5. streetscape design throughout the community, clearly delineate public and private responsibilities for improving aesthetics, and provide a mechanism for promoting capital improvement projects with built-in streetscape improvements. A.1.8: General Plan Community Design and Sustainability The Specific Plan incorporates the General Plan Element. The Community Design and Sustainability Community Design and Sustainability Element vision for a Element establishes design principles, policies, and diverse, functional and aesthetically appealing community implementation measures to enhance the livability of that guides compatible land uses, community design, and Dublin and encourages a high level of quality design that sustainable development to preserve a healthy quality of supports sustainability. life for the present and future generations. The Specific Plan provides goals, policies, standards, and guidelines for design of sustainable improvements. Therefore, the project is consistent with CAP Measure A.1.8.
Page 3-124
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Climate Action Plan Measure Project Applicability A.1.10: Bikeways Master Plan. Policies in the City’s The City’s Bikeways Master Plan, provides goals, policies Bikeways Master Plan include the continued development and standards for developing and implementing a bikeway of successful bicycle and pedestrian trail corridors, system. The Specific Plan promotes viable transportation improved bicycle access to parks and open space areas, alternatives to the automobile and supports walking and improved bicycle lanes and/or routes on several key cross- bicycling throughout the Specific Plan area, with safe and city corridors, bikeways on key freeway crossings, the convenient access to transit, open space, trails, parks, and development of education and enforcement programs, other recreational amenities. Thus, as the project would and improvements to the City’s Bicycle Parking Ordinance. be consistent with the City’s Bikeways Master Plan, the project would be compliant with CAP Measure A.1.10. Energy Measures A.2.1: Green Building Ordinance. In 2009, the City passed The Green Building Ordinance provides policies and a Green Building Ordinance requiring residential projects standards that address the City’s requirements for over 20 units to reach 50 points on the GreenPoint Rating encouraging sustainable design and construction practices system. Alternatively, LEED for Homes is approved in the of buildings. The Specific Plan is intended to promote ordinance. Other types of rating systems may be approved green building concepts to improve the health, welfare, by the City’s Green Building Official on a case-by-case and public safety by encouraging innovative and sustainable basis. The majority of residential projects within the City design and construction techniques through the use of are subject to the Green Building Ordinance. green building practices. As the Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s Green Building Ordinance, the project would be compliant with CAP Measure A.2.1. Solid Waste and Recycling Measures A.3.1: Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance. The City requires all construction and demolition projects Since 2005, the City has implemented a Construction and to recycle at least 50 percent of waste generated on a job Demolition Debris Ordinance with a required 100% of site. As future projects under the Specific Plan would be asphalt and concrete recycled, and a minimum of 50% of required to comply with the City’s Construction and all other materials recycled. The City’s diversion rate has Demolition Debris Ordinance, the project would be consistently been between 80% and 90% since 2005, well compliant with CAP Measure A.3.1. above the 50% requirement. A.3.4: Commercial Recycling Program. In 2005, the City Free recycling service is available to all commercial began offering a free commercial recycling program that customers that subscribe to garbage service. The Specific also includes free indoor recycling containers for schools Plan encourages solid waste reduction measures, including and businesses. Indoor recycling containers encourage promoting waste reduction awareness and recycling. employees and students to recycle by conveniently Convenient and readily accessible recycling facilities would locating recycling containers near their work areas. be provided within new residential, commercial, mixed- A.3.6: Promote Commercial Recycling. In 2005, the City use, and public facilities developments. Thus, the project began promoting commercial recycling in the City. The would be compliant with CAP Measures A.3.4 and A.3.6. City has developed commercial recycling guides for businesses and the City’s franchise waste hauler conducts two business audits per business day to increase diversion efforts in the commercial sector. Programs for recycling contribute to reducing the energy and transportation needed to manufacture and ship virgin products and therefore play an important role in the City’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions associated with the waste sector.
Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed project includes several measures (consistent with the Attorney General’s recommended measures and the City’s CAP measures) that would reduce project-related GHG emissions. The Specific Plan measures and associated GHG reductions were applied using the CalEEMod model. Table 3.6-4: Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Page 3-125
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Reduction Measures shows the reduced GHG emissions associated with the reduction measures regarding transportation, energy, area source, solid waste, and water efficiency measures. The City’s CAP requires a 20 percent reduction in GHG emission from BAU levels in order to meet the CAP’s established reduction target.
Table 3.6-4: Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measures Business As Usual Reduced GHG GHG Emissions Emissions GHG Specific Plan Measure Applied in (Metric Tons of (Metric Source 1 CalEEMod CO2eq/yr.) Tons of 1 CO2eq/yr.) Increase Density Increase Diversity Improve Walkability Design Improve Destination Accessibility Increase Transit Accessibility Integrate Below Market Rate Housing Mobile 16,941.49 10,813.32 Improve Pedestrian Network Provide Traffic Calming Measures Limit Parking Supply Implement Trip Reduction Program Implement Employee Vanpool/Shuttle Provide Ride Sharing Program Install High Efficiency Lighting Energy 6,818.08 6,198.80 Install Energy Efficient Appliances Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucets Install Low Flow Toilets Water 512.42 Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucets 428.90 Install Low Flow Showers Use Water Efficient Irrigation Systems Use Only Natural Gas Hearths Area 1,019.12 818.47 Use Low VOC Paint Waste 854.21 Institute Recycling Services 427.11 TOTAL 26,145.32 N/A 18,686.60 Reduction from BAU 28.5% RBF Consulting 2013 Notes: 1. Emissions calculated using CalEEMod computer model. Refer to Appendix B, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, for detailed model input/output data.
Conclusion The proposed project includes several measures that would be consistent with the CAP measures and would result in a 28.5 percent reduction of GHG emissions from BAU. The 28.5 percent reduction from BAU levels is consistent with the goals of the CAP to reduce GHG emissions by 20 percent from BAU. Therefore, as the project is consistent with the CAP, and the CAP is consistent with AB 32, the proposed project would not hinder the State's GHG reduction strategies for meeting the goals established by AB 32, and the project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s 4.6 MTCO2eq/SP/year threshold, a less than significant impact would occur with regards to project-related GHG emissions.
Page 3-126
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials This section of the EIR discusses the potential presence of hazards and hazardous materials at or within the vicinity of the project area and analyzes the potential risk of these conditions in the context of existing and proposed development and future human activities within the project area. This section is based on a review of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by Innovative and Creative Environmental Solutions (ICES) in August 2012, as well as emergency evacuation routes in the vicinity of the project area. The Phase I ESA was prepared to assess the potential sources of hazardous substances that may have affected the soil and groundwater quality within the project area and to evaluate the presence of chemically-affected soil based on visual observations, personal interviews, and regulatory records. The Phase I ESA is included as Appendix E in the Draft EIR.
Environmental Setting Regional Setting The proposed project is located in the Amador Valley region of eastern Alameda County, within the California Coast Ranges Physiographic Province. The project area consists of a broad alluvial plane within the Amador-Livermore Valley that contains sedimentary deposits derived from the surrounding hills.
Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials include substances that are corrosive, poisonous, radioactive, flammable, or explosive. The City of Dublin, similar to most cities, has industrial and commercial activities within and in the vicinity of the City that store, use, and must dispose of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials can be released into the environment accidentally during normal business operations or through transportation accidents.
Hazardous materials are transported through the City of Dublin regularly along major transportation corridors, including Highways 580 and 680, and several arterial streets including San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, and Dublin Boulevard, and local streets within the City provide access to commercial and industrial businesses.
Airport Hazards The closest airport to the project area is the Livermore Municipal Airport (hereinafter “Airport”), which is located approximately five miles east of the project area. The airport is a general aviation airport which serves private, business, and corporate tenants and customers. The facility has two parallel runways: a 5,255 foot lighted main runway, and 2,700 foot unlighted training runway. The Livermore Municipal Airport has approximately 600 based aircraft, over 150,000 annual aircraft operations. The airfield is accessible 24 hours a day. According to the Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan, the project area is not located within the airport influence area and is not located within an unacceptable noise contour.
Page 3-127
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
North of the project area, is a heliport, which is used infrequently at approximately18 days a year.
Wildland Fire Hazards Due to the urban nature of the project area, the proposed project is not located within an area that would be subject to the requirements of the City’s Wildfire Management Plan (City of Dublin 2002).
Project Setting The project area was historically used as grazing land prior to the installation of Camp Parks in the 1940s. The project area contains former and/or existing supply buildings and warehouses, infrastructure maintenance facilities, vehicle repair facilities, fueling points, hazardous waste accumulation sites, office and administration buildings, a buried construction debris deposition area, several railroad spurs, former lumber yards, and soil stockpiles. The majority of the existing buildings are located within the western portion of the project area on approximately 77 acres. Approximately 112 acres in the eastern portion of the project area is generally undeveloped.
There are approximately 16 existing buildings/structures warehouses that are interspersed amongst fields of non-native grasslands where other buildings once stood. Most of the buildings/warehouses were constructed as World War II temporary buildings and consist of rectangular structures that are primarily comprised of horizontal wood siding and a flat built-up roof.
Hazardous Materials A total of 41areas with environmental conditions of concern were identified at the project area. Environmental remediation activities been conducted at the 38 of the 41 areas and have received or are in the process of receiving a no further action (NFA)/case closure from the regulatory agencies. The following sites, which may require additional remedial action in order to obtain a NFA status include:
Former Building 109/ Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA) 2 - Former Building 109/PRFTA 2 located at the southwestern portion of the project area containing concentrations of dioxin and lead within the surficial soil above the acceptable risk-based screening levels for closure. The U.S. Army is awaiting confirmation from the regulatory agencies regarding the remediation of this site (Personal Communication with Mark Hall, Environmental Coordinator, U.S. Army, Camp Parks on May 21, 2013).
Area 761/PRFTA 13 - Area 761/PRFTA 13 is located at the central portion of the project area and requires land use controls by the CRWQCB to obtain an NFA status. The CRWQCB issued a Pre-NFA determination on May 28, 2008. This determination acknowledged that groundwater cleanup objectives have been met. However, a deed restriction (land use control) is required to achieve a full NFA designation due to the presence of soil which contains diesel concentrations greater
Page 3-128
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
than acceptable levels. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) concurred with these findings in January 20, 2012.
Potential Construction Debris Dump Sites (ECP 36, 37, 39) - The eastern portion of the potential construction debris dump sites consists of large mounds of soil and debris north of Dublin Boulevard and east of the installation entrance road. Construction and demolition debris, asbestos containing material (ACM), waste asphalt, drill cuttings, and grass clippings were observed in the mounds during site visits conducted from 1990 through 2002. DTSC stated that the area may need further investigation prior to receiving an NFA. Soil samples revealed that there were high hydrocarbons in the soil. The soil has been removed and re-sampled with negative results and have been subsequently submitted to DTSC for review (Personal Communication with Mark Hall, Environmental Coordinator, U.S. Army, Camp Parks on May 21, 2013).
Asbestos containing materials (ACM) and Lead Based Paints (LBPs) in existing structures - Asbestos is a strong, incombustible, and corrosion resistant material, which was used in many commercial products between the 1940s and the early 1970s. If inhaled, asbestos fibers can result in serious health problems. Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) are building materials containing more than one percent asbestos (some state and regional regulators impose a one-tenth of one percent (0.1 percent) threshold). Until 1978, when the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) phased out the sale and distribution of residential paint containing lead, many homes were treated with paint containing some amount of lead. It is estimated that over 80 percent of all housing built prior to 1978 contains some Lead-Based Paints (LBP). The mere presence of lead in paint may not constitute a material to be considered hazardous. In fact, if in good condition (no flaking or peeling), most intact LBP is not considered to be a hazardous material. LBPs can create a potential health hazard for building occupants, especially children when in poor condition. ACMs and LBPs are associated the structures located within the project area that were constructed more than 40 years ago. In addition to the sites of environmental concern within the project area, a property located up-gradient of the project area has impacted the underlying groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons. However, based on the distance of this site from the project area, it is unlikely that this site could have adversely affected the project area.
Regulatory Setting A material is considered hazardous if it has been designated as such by a federal, state, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. The California Code of Regulations defines a hazardous material as a substance that, because of physical or chemical properties, its quantity, concentration, or other characteristics, may either (1) cause an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of, or
Page 3-129
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
otherwise managed (22 CCR Section 66260.10 and California Health and Safety Code [HSC] Section 25501). Based on this definition, “hazardous materials” include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment (22 CCR Section 66260.10).
Chemical residuals in soil that are the result of the normal application of fertilizer, plant pesticides for agricultural purposes do not constitute a release of hazardous substances under the California Hazardous Substances Account Act (HSC Section 25321 (d)). Similarly, the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) exempts parties from liability for the application of federally-registered pesticides [42 USC Section 9607(i)].
Regulation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes occurs at the federal, state, and local levels of government. On the federal level, many hazardous materials-related regulations are promulgated by the EPA. Additional regulations pertaining to work place standards and for transportation of hazardous materials are enforced by the United States Department of Labor Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the United States Department of Transportation (DOT).
In 1993, Senate Bill 1082 gave the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) the authority and responsibility to establish a unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management and regulatory program (Unified Program). The purpose of the Unified Program is to consolidate and coordinate six different hazardous materials and hazardous waste programs, and to insure that they are consistently implemented throughout the state. The unified program is overseen by CalEPA with support from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Office of Emergency Services, and the State Fire Marshal.
State law requires county and local agencies to implement the Unified Program. The county and local agencies in charge of implementing the program are called “Certified Unified Program Agency” (CUPA). The City of Fremont Fire Department is the designated CUPA for the City and is the administrative agency that coordinates and enforces numerous local, state, and federal hazardous materials management and environmental protection programs in the City. The CUPA administers the following programs:
Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program – Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code establishes minimum statewide standards for Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBP's). HMBP's contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials and/or waste. Each business shall prepare a HMBP if that business uses, handles, or stores a hazardous material and/or waste or an extremely hazardous material in quantities greater than or equal to the following:
55 gallons for a liquid
Page 3-130
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
500 pounds of a solid
200 cubic feet for any compressed gas Hazardous Waste Generator Program -The Hazardous Waste Generator Program regulates businesses that generate any amount of a hazardous waste. Proper handling, recycling, treating, storing and disposing of hazardous waste are key elements to this program.
Underground Storage Tank Program - The UST program regulates the construction, operation, repair and removals of UST systems used to store hazardous materials and/or waste.
California Accidental Release Program - The California Accidental Release Program (Cal ARP) requires any business that handles more than threshold quantities of an extremely hazardous substance to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP). The RMP is implemented by the business to prevent or mitigate releases of regulated substances that could have off- site consequences through hazard identification, planning, source reduction, maintenance, training, and engineering controls.
Tiered Permitting Program - The Tiered Permitting Program regulates the onsite treatment of hazardous waste.
Aboveground Storage Tank Program - Facilities with a single tank or cumulative aboveground storage capacities of 1,320 gallons or greater of petroleum-based liquid product (gasoline, diesel, lubricants, etc.) must develop a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure plan (SPCC).
An SPCC plan must be prepared in accordance with the oil pollution prevention guidelines in the Federal Code of Regulations (40 CFR, 112). This plan must include procedures, methods, and equipment at the facility to prevent discharges of petroleum from reaching navigable waters. A Registered Professional Engineer must certify an SPCC plan and a complete copy of the plan must be maintained on site.
Local City of Dublin General Plan The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to hazards and hazardous materials within the project area:
8.2.1: Guiding Policy A. Develop an emergency preparedness plan in coordination with other public agencies.
8.2.2: Implementing Policy C. Enact a high hazard ordinance specifying sprinklers for all habitable structures beyond five minutes response time from a station.
Page 3-131
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
8.2.4: Guiding Policy A. The City of Dublin shall encourage the reduction or elimination of hazardous wastes at the source site as the highest priority in the management of hazardous wastes.
8.2.4: Guiding Policy B. The City of Dublin shall make provisions for the location of offsite hazardous waste facilities in its community which meet the fair share needs of the City of Dublin and of Alameda County.
City of Dublin Zoning Code Chapter 8.60, Hazardous Waste Facilities regulates off-site hazardous waste facilities in the City of Dublin. The purpose of Chapter 8.60 is to establish uniform standards, land use regulations and a permit process for controlling the location, design, maintenance and safety of off-site hazardous waste facilities. These standards, regulations and process are intended to be consistent with Article 8.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, applicable portions of the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and the City of Dublin General Plan.
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan The purpose of the City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan is to reduce the risk of open land wildfire to the lowest practical level consistent with the reasonable protection of wildlife habitat and other open space values. The Wildfire Management Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1996 and amended in 2001 and revised in 2002. The Wildfire Management Plan provides for development of a Fire Buffer Zone between open space/undeveloped lands and developed properties.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Methodology This section is based on a review of potential hazardous materials sources within the project area from the Phase I ESA (ICES 2012), as well as review of the Livermore Airport Master Plan (County of Alameda 2011) and personal communication with the U.S. Army to address remaining potential hazardous materials sites any hazards from the heliport at Camp Parks.
Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
Page 3-132
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school;
Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; and/or
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Interfere with an Emergency Response Plan/Emergency Evacuation Plan The project area fronts Dublin Boulevard, which is primarily a six lane east/west arterial that is considered a route of regional significance and would provide an emergency evacuation route within the City. The proposed project would not obstruct or impair operation of Dublin Boulevard and therefore would not physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan through the City. In addition, future development would be required to comply with the City of Dublin emergency evacuation routes. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on emergency response plans and evacuation plans.
Potential for Wildfire Hazards Wildfire impacts may be considered significant if the proposed project would expose people or structures to a significant risk, loss, injury or death involving wildfires, including where wildlands are located adjacent to urban areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. As the project area is located in an urban area and is surrounded by existing development. Therefore it would not be subject to potential wildfire hazards and the proposed project would therefore have no impact.
Potential for Airport Hazards The closest airport to the project area is the Livermore Municipal Airport which is located approximately five miles east of the project area. According to the Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan, the project area is not located within the approach zones and is not located within an unacceptable noise contour. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for any people residing or working in the area, which would be considered no impact.
Transport, Use, Disposal, and Release of Hazardous Materials During Operation
Impact 3.7-1: Future development within the project area may involve the use of hazardous materials including cleaning solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and
Page 3-133
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
other hazardous materials typical of future retail and residential uses within the project area. However, this would be considered a less than significant impact.
The proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant hazards to the public or the environment due to the range of uses proposed within the project area. If future users within the project area propose to use, handle, or store hazardous materials or waste in quantities that are regulated by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, businesses would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan documenting basic information on the location, type, quality, and health risks of hazardous materials and/or waste.
With proper use and disposal in accordance with the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, chemicals associated with future users within the project area are not expected to result in hazardous or unhealthful conditions for employees and patrons of the proposed project. Therefore, operational impacts from the transport, use, disposal, and release of hazardous materials associated with operations within the project area would be considered less than significant.
Transport, Use, Disposal, and Release of Hazardous Materials During Construction
Impact 3.7-2: During construction of the proposed project, there is the potential for the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, which could create a hazard to the public or the environment. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Future development within the project area may result in the routine transport of hazardous materials during construction. Handling procedures of the Alameda County Environmental Health Department and the Alameda County Fire Department would be required during all phases of future development within the project area. These measures include standards and regulations regarding the storage, handling, and use of these materials.
In addition, in order to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for construction of site storm water discharges, projects involving construction on sites one acre or more are required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies how the discharger will protect water quality during construction activities. Compliance with the appropriate hazardous materials handling measures and acquisition of the NPDES General Permit for construction activities would ensure that potential hazardous materials associated with short-term construction activities within the project area would be less than significant.
Page 3-134
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Result in the Release of Hazardous Materials from the Demolition of Structures
Impact 3.7-3: The proposed project would result in the demolition and removal of structures within the project area which may contain asbestos and/or lead based paint (LBPs). This would be considered a less than significant impact.
The proposed project would result in the demolition of buildings that were constructed prior to approximately 1980, which may contain asbestos and/or lead, a hazardous contaminant. Any demolition of structures within the project area would be subject to the U.S. EPA regulations for lead based paint including 40 CFR Part 745 Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 11, Rule 2, which regulates the demolition and renovation of buildings and structures which may contain asbestos. Specifically, District Regulation 11-2-401.3 requires that for every renovation involving the removal of 100 square feet or greater of Regulated Asbestos Containing Material (ACM), and for every demolition (even when no asbestos is present), a notification must be made to the BAAQMD at least ten working days prior to commencement of demolition/renovation. With compliance of these regulations, the potential release of ACM and LBPs during demolition activities is considered a less than significant impact.
Result in the Disturbance of Contaminated Soil or Groundwater
Impact 3.7-4: The project area is not located on a hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. However, based on the Phase I ESA there are three sites currently being evaluated by the U.S. Army. Hazardous materials may be encountered during construction. This would be considered a potentially significant impact.
There are approximately three sites where remedial action activities are still required to attain a commercial/industrial NFA status, which is the standard used by the U.S. Army. These sites include: Building 109/PRFTA 2; Area 761/PRFTA 13; and the eastern portion of the potential construction debris dump sites (ECP 36, 37, and 39) as described below.
Former Building 109/PRFTA - Former Building 109/PRFTA 2 located at the southwestern portion of the project area containing concentrations of dioxin and lead within the surficial soil above the acceptable risk-based screening levels for closure. The U.S. Army is awaiting confirmation from the regulatory agencies regarding the remediation of this site (Personal Communication with Mark Hall, Environmental Coordinator, U.S. Army, Camp Parks on May 21, 2013).
Area 761/PRFTA 13 - Area 761/PRFTA 13 is located at the central portion of the project area and requires land use controls by the CRWQCB to obtain an NFA status. The CRWQCB issued a Pre-NFA determination on May 28, 2008. This determination acknowledged that groundwater cleanup objectives have been met. However, a deed restriction (land use control) is required to achieve a full NFA
Page 3-135
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
designation due to the presence of soil which contains diesel concentrations greater than acceptable levels. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) concurred with these findings in January 20, 2012.
Potential Construction Debris Dump Sites (ECP 36, 37, 39) - The eastern portion of the potential construction debris dump sites consists of large mounds of soil and debris north of Dublin Boulevard and east of the installation entrance road. Construction and demolition debris, asbestos containing material (ACM), waste asphalt, drill cuttings, and grass clippings were observed in the mounds during site visits conducted from 1990 through 2002. DTSC stated that the area may need further investigation prior to receiving an NFA. Soil samples revealed that there were high hydrocarbons in the soil. The soil has been removed and re-sampled with negative results and have been subsequently submitted to DTSC for review (Personal Communication with Mark Hall, Environmental Coordinator, U.S. Army, Camp Parks on May 21, 2013). In addition, a property located up-gradient of the project area has affected the underlying groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons. However, based on the distance of this site from the project area, it is unlikely that the property could have affected the project area.
The U.S. Army and NASA are responsible for environmental remediation of existing hazardous materials within the project area and have agreed to remediate the project area to state and federal requirements (Personal Communication with Mark Hall, Environmental Coordinator, U.S. Army Camp Parks on June 17, 2013). Contamination that remains after the U.S. Army or NASA transfers the property to the project applicant and/or that needs to be remediated to a higher standard (e.g. residential) will either be remediated by the project applicant or by the U.S. Army or NASA, prior to and during site grading and demolition activities with future development activities.
Construction activities would be restricted within these portions of the project area until an NFA status has been achieved. If contamination is discovered during construction activities in the vicinity of these sites, this would be considered a potentially significant impact. The following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure MM 3.7-4 Remediation of Hazardous Materials. Future development within the vicinity of Former Building 109/PRFTA, Area 761/PRFTA 13, and the Potential Construction Debris Dump Sites shall not proceed until a NFA status is granted and the project area has been cleaned to the appropriate land use standard to the satisfaction of Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC). The NFA status paperwork shall be submitted to the City in conjunction with the Building and Grading/Site work permit and shall be found acceptable by the City prior to ground disturbance.
Implementation of mitigation measure MM 3.7-4 would reduce potential impacts associated with contaminated soils within the project area to a less than significant level.
Page 3-136
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Emit Hazardous Materials in the Vicinity of a School
Impact 3.7-5: There are no schools located within a quarter mile of the project area. However, the proposed project includes construction of an 11 acre school site that would be located adjacent to proposed residential uses. In addition, commercial businesses proposed within the project area would be required to comply with federal, state and local regulations regarding hazardous substances. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to the school proposed within the project area.
There are no schools located within a quarter mile of the project area. However, the proposed project includes a 12 acre school site and the project area is located within two miles of several existing schools: Dublin High School (8151 Village Parkway, Dublin), Valley High School and Wells Middle School (6800 Penn Drive, Dublin), Fallon Middle School (3601 Kohnen Way, Dublin), Murray Elementary School (8435 Davona Drive, Dublin), Green Elementary School (3300 Antone Way, Dublin) Dougherty Elementary School (5301 Hibernia Drive, Dublin) and Frederikson Elementary School (7243 Tamarack Drive, Dublin).
New businesses that locate near residential areas or within a quarter mile from a school may expose these sensitive land uses to greater risk of exposure to hazardous materials, wastes, or emissions. While the risk of exposure to hazardous materials cannot be eliminated, measures can be implemented to maintain risk to acceptable levels. As noted in the project description, future new development will include residential, commercial, office and retail uses, as well as a community park. Hazardous materials would be typical for these types of uses with no high-risk materials such as those that are expected with industrial uses. Under these circumstances, required compliance with regulations established by federal, State and local regulatory agencies is considered adequate to avoid the negative effects related to the use, storage, emission and the transport of hazardous materials at future development/redevelopment sites within the project area. In addition, the proposed school site would be surrounded by proposed residential uses and therefore would not be in the vicinity of future commercial uses proposed within the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the proposed elementary school and schools in the vicinity of the project area with compliance of applicable federal, State, and local regulations.
Page 3-137
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3-139
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality This section of the EIR discusses the hydrologic and water quality setting of the proposed project and surrounding area. This section also evaluates the potential impacts that the proposed project will have on water resources. The discussion of hydrology and water quality issues within the proposed project area was based on a peer review of the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis for the Dublin Crossing Project prepared by Ruggeri- Jenson-Azar (RJA 2013), by RBF Consulting, and a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the proposed project on behalf of Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) by West Yost Associates (2013).
Additional supporting documentation referenced in this section include the Santa Rita Drainage Mater Plan (Brian-Kangas-Foulk 1995), Hydrologic Procedures and Design Discharges for the Zone 7 (prepared for the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by Schaff and Wheeler, 1997), and the Alameda County Hydrology and Hydraulics Manual (2003).
The hydrology report prepared by RJA for the proposed project is included as Appendix F.
Environmental Setting Regional Setting The climate of the Livermore-Amador Valley is characterized as Mediterranean, with cool wet winters and warm dry summers. The average annual temperature of the area ranges from a low of 42 degrees (Fahrenheit) to a high of 73 degrees. The mean annual rainfall in the vicinity of the proposed project area is approximately 17 inches (the majority of which falls between October and April). Analysis of long-term precipitation records indicates that wetter and drier cycles lasting several years are common in the region. Severe, damaging rainstorms occur at a frequency of about once every three years.
Surface Water The proposed project is located in the City of Dublin, within the western portion of the Livermore-Amador Valley hydrologic region. The project area is relatively flat, with on-site elevations ranging from approximately 328 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 371 feet above msl. Surface water generally flows from north to south across the site.
In an undeveloped setting, when rainfall intensities exceed the infiltration capacity of surface soils, run-off flows over the ground surfaces toward established natural drainage channels. Stormwater runoff is then conveyed away from the area in creeks and streams. In a developed setting, an increased portion of the natural soils would be covered with impervious surfaces (i.e. roads, driveways, and roofs), increasing amounts and altering flow patterns of runoff.
In developed portions of the City of Dublin, storm drainage is conveyed in underground pipes, channels, and to a lesser extent, swales. New development is required to install adequately-sized storm drains, connected to the City’s system, to accommodate increased
Page 3-140
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality runoff volumes. Stormwater drainage is managed by the City of Dublin Public Works Department and all runoff in the vicinity is directed to regional storm drain facilities owned and maintained by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7).
Flooding As shown in Figure 3.8-1: Hydrologic Features, a portion of the project site is located within Zone X and Zone AE floodplains as mapped on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by FEMA (Panel 309). Zone X is defined as “areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood; areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or within drainage areas less than one square mile; and areas protected by levees from one percent annual flood.” The areas adjacent to the Chabot Channel are mapped by FEMA as Zone AE, which are designated as special flood hazard areas subject to inundation by the one percent annual flood with Base Flood Elevations determined as shown in the Flood Insurance Rate Map, Plate 5.
Reservoirs/Dams There are 29 reservoirs/dams in Alameda County. The following reservoirs are located within 12 miles of the proposed project:
Don Castro Reservoir is located approximately 9 miles to the east of the proposed project in Hayward. It is maintained by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for flood control, and by the East Bay Regional Park District as a recreational facility.
Lake Chabot Reservoir is located approximately nine miles west of the project area. It was completed in 1875 by damming San Lorenzo creek and served as the primary water source for the East Bay Area.
The Upper San Leandro Reservoir is located approximately 13 miles northwest of the project area. It was built by the East Bay Water Company in 1926 and is maintained by the East Bay Municipal Utility District.
The San Antonio Reservoir is located approximately 13 miles south-southeast of the project area. Built in 1964 by the City and County of San Francisco, it is managed by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The reservoir captures local rain and runoff from the Alameda Watershed and contributes surface water supplies to the SFPUC Water System.
Lake de Valle is located approximately 14 miles southeast of the project area. De Valle Dam and Lake de Valle were built in 1968 as part of the State Water Project. It provides storage for the South Bay Aqueduct and flood control for Alameda Creek. The East Bay Regional Park District manages the Lake de Valle Regional Park, which is also a designated State Recreation Area.
Page 3-141
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Groundwater Basin The proposed project is located within the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, which contains a surface area of approximately 109 square miles. The Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin lies approximately 40 miles east of San Francisco and 30 miles southwest of Stockton, within a structural trough of the Diablo Range. The Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin extends from the Pleasanton Ridge east to the Altamont Hills (about 14 miles) and from the Livermore Upland north to the Orinda Upland (about three miles). Surface drainage features include Arroyo Valley, Arroyo Mocho, and Arroyo las Positas as principal streams, with Alamo Creek, South San Ramon Creek, and Tassajara Creek as minor streams. All streams converge on the west side of the basin to form Arroyo de la Laguna, which flows south and joins Alameda Creek in Sunol Valley, and ultimately draining to the San Francisco Bay. Some geologic structures restrict the lateral movement of groundwater, but the general groundwater gradient is from east to west, towards Arroyo de la Laguna and from north to south along South San Ramon Creek and Arroyo de la Laguna. Elevations within the basin range from about 600 feet in the east, near the Altamont Hills, to about 280 feet in the southwest, where Arroyo de la Laguna flows into Sunol Groundwater Basin.
The entire floor of the Livermore Valley and portions of the upland areas on all sides of the valley overlie groundwater bearing materials. The materials are mostly continental deposits from alluvial fans, outwash plains, and lakes. They include valley-fill materials, the Livermore Formation and the Tassajara Formation. Under most conditions, the valley fill and Livermore Formation yield adequate to large quantities of groundwater to all types of wells, with the larger supply wells being located in the Main Basin. The Main Basin is composed of Castle, Bernal, Amador, and Mocho sub-basins.
Groundwater Quantity The groundwater resources in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin are managed by Zone 7, under authority from California Water Code Section 30000 (County Water District). Zone 7 routinely monitors groundwater within the Main Basin. Two independent methods are used to estimate groundwater storage: 1) Hydrologic Inventory; and 2) Nodal Groundwater Elevation. The Main Basin is estimated to have a total storage capacity of which approximately 126,000 acre feet are available for Zone 7 operational storage. Zone 7’s goal is to maintain 128,000 acre feet of groundwater in storage at all times. The natural sustainable yield of the Main Basin has been determined to be approximately 13,400 acre feet per year, which is ten to 11 percent of the total estimated useable groundwater storage. Based on the sustainable yield value, the retailers within Zone 7 including DSRSD are permitted to pump 7,245 acre feet of water per year. Each retailer has an established “Groundwater Pumping Quota” (GPQ). Zone 7 pumps DSRSD’s GPQ.
Zone 7 pumps only water that has been previously recharged as part of its artificial recharge program using its surface water supplies. During high demands, groundwater is used to supplement surface water delivered via the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) and treated at one of the Zone 7’s two surface water treatment facilities. Groundwater is also used
Page 3-142
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
when the SBA is out of service due to maintenance and improvements or when Zone 7’s surface water treatment plants are operating under reduced capacity due to construction repairs, etc. Finally Zone 7 uses its stored groundwater (both local and non-local) under emergency or drought conditions when there may be insufficient water supply available. Zone 7 also pumps groundwater out of the Main Basin during normal water years to help reduce salt loading in the Main Basin. To achieve additional salt removal, a demineralization facility has been in operation since 2009. Zone 7 plans to recharge 9,200 acre feet per year on average, which means that Zone 7 can pump an equivalent of 9,200 acre feet per year on average from the Main Basin.
Groundwater Quality The Main Basin is characterized by relatively good quality groundwater that meets all state and federal drinking water standards. However, there has been a slow degradation of groundwater quality as evidenced by rising Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and hardness levels over the last few decades. To address this problem, Zone 7 developed a Salt Management Plan (SMP), which was approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board as a condition of the Master Waste Reuse Permit and incorporated into Zone 7’s Groundwater Management Plan in 2005.
Zone 7 implements a wastewater and recycled water monitoring program as part of the Groundwater Management Plan. In 2009, 20 percent of the recycled water produced in the service area was applied over the Main Basin. Nitrates and salinity have historically been the primary water quality parameters of concern in recycled water, but nitrates have become less of a concern since 1995 when the City of Livermore, which along with DSRSD stopped nitrifying is effluent. In addition to recycled water application over the Main Basin, there are also approximately eighty septic tanks over the Main Basin that discharge their settled effluent but their use is not monitored.
To further manage the quality of water in the Main Basin, Zone 7 also runs a Toxic Site Surveillance Program documenting and tracking sites across the groundwater basin that pose a potential threat to drinking water supplies.
As part of its efforts to address salinity in the Main Basin, Zone 7 completed construction of a wellhead demineralization facility in 2009. Employing a reverse osmosis membrane- based treatment system, this facility allows for the removal and export of concentrated minerals or salts from the Main Basin and the delivery of treated water with reduced TDS and hardness levels to Zone 7’s customers.
Water Quality The quality of surface and groundwater at the proposed project area is affected by land uses within the entire watershed. Drainage from the project area affects the quality of water in larger creeks and drainages downstream, including Arroyo de la Laguna, Alameda Creek, and San Francisco Bay. Water quality in surface and groundwater bodies is regulated primarily by the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (discussed below).
Page 3-143
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Project Site Setting Watershed Characteristics As shown in Figure 3.8-2: Existing Drainage, the Camp Park’s entire 1,800+ acre watershed drains through the project area. The majority of the runoff from this watershed is conveyed through natural and man-made swales. These swales cross the project area and are intercepted along the north side of Dublin Boulevard and conveyed to various existing Zone 7 drainage facilities. The largest portion of the watershed is located north of Camp Parks and drains south within the main channel, concentrating near the intersection of the proposed Scarlett Drive extension and Dublin Boulevard in Line G-1, which is currently a mapped FEMA 100-year floodplain.
The smaller portion of the upstream watershed to the northeast of Camp Parks collects runoff in an existing concrete trapezoidal channel (G-5) and conveys it to the intersection of Arnold Road and Broder Boulevard. Just north of this intersection, there is a headwall with two to 48-inch pipes. These pipes currently “split” the channel flow, diverting a portion towards Camp Parks and Line G-1. The remaining flow is conveyed south under the Arnold Drive/Broder Boulevard intersection, through a small basin between Gleeson Drive and Broader Boulevard and into an open channel along the west side of Arnold Drive. Per Zone 7, the maximum flow of 950 cubic feet per second (cfs) at Line G-1 assumes that this splitter has been removed. Based on the offsite detention basin proposed in the “Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis for the Proposed Camp Parks Detention Basin Study” (RJA 2013), the splitter will remain in place.
A second flow splitter was installed at the Arnold Road open channel, near Central Parkway dividing flow between Drainages G-5 and G-2. A seven foot and four foot box culvert down Arnold Road to Line G-2, while a trapezoidal channel conveys runoff into the project area to Line G-5. Per the Santa Rita Drainage Master Plan, a maximum of 350 cfs can be “split” and directed to Line G-5. Underground Drainage Facilities Underground drainage facilities include the Line G-1 channel that runs along the west side of Hutchins Avenue and across the project area towards the future Scarlett Avenue extension at Dublin Boulevard. A 48-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) intercepting an existing open channel is located just north of the 8th Street and west of Davis Avenue. The pipe assumed to flow south to 5th Street (RJA 2013). An approximately 30-inch re-enforced concrete pipe (RCP) exiting a curb inlet at the northwest corner of 5th Street and Davis Avenue connects to another inlet just to the west on 5th Street. This inlet is assumed to intercept the northerly 48-inch CMP. The outlet pipe from this inlet flow flows in a southeasterly direction. A box culvert discharging to Line G-1 is located in the middle of the project site. A surface investigation of the project by RJA engineers found that the size of the box culvert was indeterminable due to the amount of silt and vegetation at the outfall to the channel. It was assumed that this is the discharge point for the above mentioned drainage facilities (RJA 2013).
Page 3-144
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Regulatory Setting Federal Clean Water Act The principal law governing pollution of the nation’s surface waters is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act [CWA]). Originally enacted in 1948, it was amended in 1972 and has remained substantially the same since. The CWA consists of two major parts: provisions that authorize federal financial assistance for municipal sewage treatment plant construction and regulatory requirements that apply to industrial and municipal dischargers. The CWA authorizes the establishment of effluent standards on an industry basis. The CWA also requires states to adopt water quality standards that “consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses”.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System To achieve its objectives, the CWA is based on the concept that all discharges into the nation’s waters are unlawful, unless specifically authorized by a permit. The NPDES is the permitting program for discharge of pollutants into surface waters of the United States under Section 402 of the CWA. Thus, industrial and municipal dischargers (point source discharges) must obtain NPDES permits from the appropriate RWQCB (i.e., the Central Valley region). The existing NPDES (Phase I) stormwater program requires municipalities serving more than 1,000,000 persons to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit for any construction project larger than five acres. Proposed NPDES stormwater regulations (Phase II) expand this existing national program to smaller municipalities with populations of 10,000 persons or more and construction sites that disturb more than one acre. For other dischargers, such as those affecting groundwater or from non-point sources, a Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the RWQCB. For specified situations, some permits may be waived and some discharge activities may be handled through being included in an existing General Permit.
Construction activity subject to a General Permit includes any clearing, grading, stockpiling, or excavation that results in soil disturbances of one acre of total land area or more. Construction activities disturbing less than one acre are still subject to this permit if the activity is part of a large common plan of development or if significant water quality impairment will result from the activity. The General Permit requires all dischargers whose construction activity disturbs one acre or more to:
Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters; and,
Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharge to storm sewer systems and other waters of the United States; and inspect all BMPs.
Page 3-145
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Impaired Waterbodies CWA Section 303(d) and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (described below) require the State to establish the beneficial uses of its State waters and to adopt water quality standards to protect those beneficial uses. Section 303(d) establishes a total maximum daily load (TMDL), which is the maximum quantity of a particular contaminant that a water body can maintain without experiencing adverse effects, to guide the application of State water quality standards. Section 303(d) also requires the State to identify “impaired” streams (water bodies affected by the presence of pollutants or contaminants) and to establish the TMDL for each stream.
Federal Flood Insurance Program Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The intent of these acts is to reduce the need for large publicly funded flood control structures and disaster relief by restricting development on floodplains. FEMA administers the NFIP to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development on floodplains. FEMA issues FIRMs for communities participating in the NFIP. FIRMs delineate flood hazard zones in the community.
A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is an area within a floodplain having a one percent or greater chance of flood occurrence within any given year (commonly referred to as the 100 year flood zone). SFHAs are delineated on flood hazard boundary maps issued by FEMA. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 make flood insurance mandatory for most properties in SFHAs.
State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act acts in cooperation with the CWA to establish the SWRCB. The SWRCB is divided into nine regions, each overseen by a RWQCB. The SWRCB, and thus each RWQCB, is responsible for protecting California’s surface waters and groundwater supplies. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act develops Basin Plans that designate the beneficial uses of California’s rivers and groundwater basins. The Basin Plans also establish narrative and numerical water quality objectives for those waters. Basin Plans are updated every three years and provide the basis of determining waste discharge requirements, taking enforcement actions, and evaluating clean water grant proposals. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is also responsible for implementing CWA Sections 401-402 and 303(d) to SWRCB and RWQCBs.
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates surface water and groundwater quality in San Francisco Bay, including the City of Dublin. The area under the RWQCB’s jurisdiction comprises all of the San Francisco Bay segments extending to the mouth of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Winter Island near Pittsburg). In its
Page 3-146
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
efforts to protect surface waters and groundwaters of the San Francisco region, the RWQCB addresses region wide water quality concerns through the creation and triennial update of a Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan, 2011) and adopts, monitors compliance with, and enforces waste discharge requirements and NPDES permits.
The RWQCB’s overall mission is to protect surface waters and groundwater in the Region. The Water Board carries out its mission by:
Addressing Region‐wide water quality concerns through the creation and triennial
Update of a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan);
Preparing new or revised policies addressing Region‐wide water quality concerns;
Adopting, monitoring compliance with, and enforcing waste discharge requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits;
Providing recommendations to the State Water Board on financial assistance programs, proposals for water diversion, budget development, and other statewide programs and policies;
Coordinating with other public agencies that are concerned with water quality control; and
Informing and involving the public on water quality issues. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) The SWPPP has two major objectives: 1) to help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that affect the quality of storm water discharges, and 2) to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in both stormwater and in non-stormwater discharges.
BMPs include activities, practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices that reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non- stormwater discharges. BMPs include treatment requirements, operation procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage, leaks, waste disposal, and drainage from raw materials storage. BMP implementation must take into account changing weather conditions and construction activities, and various combinations of BMPs may be used over the life of the project to maintain compliance with the CWA. The General NPDES Permit gives the owner the discretion to determine the most economical, effective, and innovative BMPs to achieve the performance-based goals of the General NPDES Permit.
There are two categories of BMPs: structural and non-structural. Structural BMPs are the specific construction, modification, operation, maintenance, or monitoring of facilities that would minimize the introduction of pollutants into the drainage system, or would remove pollutants from the drainage system. Non-structural BMPs are activities, programs, and other nonphysical measures that help reduce pollutants from non-point sources to the drainage system. In general, nonstructural BMPs are source control measures.
Page 3-147
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
The issue of pollution in stormwater and urban runoff has been recognized by both federal and state agencies, and there has been a growing concern regarding activities that discharge water affecting California’s surface water, coastal waters, and groundwater. Discharges of water are classified as either point source or non-point source discharges. A point source discharge usually refers to waste emanating from a single, identifiable point. Regulated point sources include municipal wastewater, oil field wastewater, winery discharges, solid waste sites, and other industrial discharges. Point source discharge must be actively managed to protect the state’s waters. A non-point source discharge usually is a waste emanating from diffused locations. As a result, specific sources of non-point source pollution may be difficult to identify, treat, or regulate. The goal is to reduce the adverse impact of non-point source discharges on water resources through better management of these activities. Non-point sources include drainage and percolation from a variety of activities such as agriculture, forestry, recreation, and storm runoff with the latter being the most common in the Dublin area.
Local City of Dublin General Plan The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to hydrology and water quality.
Environmental Resources Management: Conservation Element 7.2: Guiding Policy A: Maintain natural hydrologic systems. 7.2: Guiding Policy B: Regulate grading and development on steep slopes. 7.2: Implementing Policy C: Enact and enforce erosion and sedimentation ordinance establishing performance standards in relation to maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses. 7.2: Implementing Policy D: Enact ordinance requiring on-site runoff control. 7.2: Implementing Policy E: Review development proposals to insure site design that minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff. 7.2: Implementing Policy F: Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent. 7.2: Implementing Policy G: Development projects shall comply with the requirements of the Urban Runoff Program.
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, Water Agency Stream Management Master Plan For the past 40 years, stormwater has been conveyed primarily on channelized arroyos, many of them concrete, to convey stormwater through the area as quickly as possible. In 2006, Zone 7 released the Final Stream Management Master Plan (Zone 7, 2006), which articulates a vision over the next three decades to create a flood-protection program that relies largely on using a future “chain of lakes,” a series of mined-out gravel pits between Livermore and Pleasanton, to detain stormwater in the Valley. The stored water would be
Page 3-148
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
released downstream only after storms pass through the area – meaning arroyos can be kept in a more natural state than under the channelization method.
Not only significantly less expensive when it comes to flood control, this technical approach also affords opportunities to: improve the water supply through groundwater recharge, enhance arroyo water quality and habitat, increase the connectivity of trails and recreational opportunities in the Valley, and promote public understanding of watersheds of through educational programs.
Of the 45 conceptual projects identified in the Stream Management Master Plan, ten would remove or modify fish-passage barriers in Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo del Valle and Arroyo de la Laguna. Others would restore natural stream flows, replace plants with native types, stabilize stream banks, create wetlands and other habitat for sensitive species, and install trails and educational kiosks near Valley arroyos.
Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program which was started in 1991. This local government and community Program educates the public on how to keep businesses and homes from contributing to stormwater pollution, and also coordinates its activities with other pollution prevention programs, such as wastewater treatment plants, hazardous waste disposal, and water recycling.
3.8.3 Relevant Project Characteristics Water Demand According to the Water Supply Assessment prepared by DSRSD, the proposed project would require additional water demand for residential and commercial uses. Water demand for the proposed uses would be approximately 371 acre feet per year for the proposed project with the proposed elementary school and 365 acre feet per year without the elementary school. Recycled water demand for the proposed project would be 144 acre feet per year for the proposed project with the elementary school and 131 acre feet per year without the elementary school (West Yost Associates 2013).
Surface Water Management Surface water management consists of both on-site runoff and the management of off-site runoff extending through or around the site.
On-site Surface Water Runoff As shown in Figure 3.8-3: Proposed Drainage, surface waters within the project area would be divided into four drainage sheds. Drainage sheds A9-A (63.3 acres) and A9-B (81.7 acres) would ultimately flow into the Line G-1 drainage channel. Two underground detention basins, located within the proposed community park, would be constructed. Preliminary estimates by Ruggeri Jensen Azar (RJA) call for the construction of two underground basins (RJA 2013). Park Basin #1, which captures drainage from A9-B, would have a storage capacity of 3.3 acre feet and an outflow rate of 80 cfs. Park Basin #2, which
Page 3-149
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality captures drainage from A9-A, would have a storage capacity of 1.6 acre feet and an outflow of 71 cfs.7
Based on project plans, drainage from both of these underground basins would be conveyed via an underground pipe to the proposed Chabot Creek riparian channel that would be realigned through the proposed community park.
Drainage sheds XX-1 (23.1 acres) and XX-2 (20.9 acres), which are located in the southeast corner of the site, would ultimately flow into the Line G-5 drainage channel. Two underground detention basins consisting of 96 inch diameter storm drain pipes would be constructed along the proposed Central Parkway, or other suitable public roadway. Basin 3-1 would be capable of storing 1.6 acre feet and Basin 3-2 would be capable of storing 1.7 acre feet.
Off-site Surface Water Runoff Management There are two main sources of existing offsite runoff that would have to be conveyed around or through the proposed project to accommodate development.
The first off-site flow is a portion of the main 1,800 acre watershed located north of the project area. The majority of this flow currently drains from the north to via the existing Line G-1 channel, discharging at the intersection of proposed Scarlett Drive extension and Dublin Boulevard. Based on discussions with the City and the project applicant, a new offsite detention basin will be constructed on currently Army-owned property, north of the project site. This new off-site basin will be designed to reduce Q100 (storm event that occurs every 100 years) runoff flows from currently 924 cfs to 604 cfs.
Water flowing out from this new off-site basin would then flow into the 1.7 acre Chabot Creek riparian channel through the proposed community park. Preliminary plans call for this drainage channel to be constructed with a four and a half foot wide channel base, 3:1 side slopes and an “n” value (water flow velocity rate) of 0.50.
The second offsite flow is from the area east and north of Arnold Road. This includes the watershed north of Broder Boulevard, and the separate developed area east of Arnold Drive. Improvements would include undergrounding the existing open channel along Arnold Drive via a new double 4 foot by 8 foot re-enforced concrete box culvert. The existing second flow “splitter” near the proposed Central Parkway would be removed and a new “splitter” structure would be new underground flows south on Arnold Road and the required flow split between Lines G-2 and G-5. A new dual 60 inch re-enforced concrete
7 This analysis assumed two open-air basins and that the bottom 2 ½ feet of each basin was inundated with runoff from the previous storm event. Given the fact that these two basins are now proposed to be underground, the ultimate storage capacities would be determined as part of detailed engineering design. However, the basins would be designed so that there is sufficient capacity to ensure that runoff capacities to not exceed pre-condition flow conditions.
Page 3-150
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
pipe would be constructed along Central Parkway, or other suitable public roadway, intercepting Basin’s 3-1 and 3-2, and ultimately flowing into Line G-5 south of Dublin Boulevard.
Hydromodification and Water Quality Management Hydromodification (stormwater management) for the proposed project as a whole would be addressed the construction of the four basins, described above. These facilities would be constructed prior to, or in concert with any “upstream” site development.
Backbone roadway infrastructure would be constructed in phases consistent with the development of adjacent parcels. Each portion of the roadway will incorporate roadside bioretention area to treat stormwater runoff from the roadways (see Figure 2-11: Conceptual Stormwater Drainage and Detention System, above, and roadway cross- sections in the Draft Dublin Crossing Specific Plan). These bioretention areas will be connected to the roadway stormwater systems which would then discharge into one of the four basins.
In accordance with the Alameda County Clear Water Program, low impact design (LID) site design measures for water quality protection will be implemented as individual parcels are developed, to adequately address the impacts of their proposed development and to show compliance with the post-construction, long-term requirements of Provision C.3. Water quality features include bioretention areas, flow-through planters, tree well filters, median filters and “treatment trains.” Trash capture facilities would also be incorporated into the system. These on-site facilities would be connected to the stormwater drain system in the backbone roadways.
Stormwater Pollution Previsions Plans (SWPPPs) would also be prepared, as a separate document, to control short-term construction-related discharge pollutants as required by the CA State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 99-08-DWQ.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted;
Page 3-151
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality;
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map;
Place within a 100-year flood-hazards area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows;
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; and/or
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Methodology Impacts evaluated in this section were assessed based on previously published reports by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Water Resources, and information from the City of Dublin General Plan, as well as a hydrology report prepared by RJA (2013) and a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared by West Yost Associates on behalf of DSRSD (2013).
Impacts to surface and groundwater quality were analyzed by reviewing existing groundwater and surface water quality reports that pertain to the project area; identifying existing on-site ground and surface waters, and evaluating existing and potential sources of water quality pollutants based on the types of land uses and operational activities that occur or could occur within the project area. Additionally, the applicability of federal and state regulations, ordinances, and/or standards to surface and groundwater quality of the project area and subsequent receiving waters was assessed.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow The proposed project is located more than 14 miles from the shore of the San Francisco Bay and approximately 32 miles from the Pacific Ocean. In addition, there are no large water bodies in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. The project area and surrounding properties are also relatively flat and would not be subject to mudflows. Therefore, no impacts from seiche, tsunami or mudflow are anticipated to occur.
Page 3-152
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Place Housing or Structures Within a 100-Year Flood-Hazards Area Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows
Impact 3.8-1 Portions of the proposed project and lower portion of the Base watershed are within the FEMA mapped floodplain. Future development would be required to comply with the existing floodplain regulations to ensure that structures do not impede or redirect flows. This is considered a less than significant impact.
According to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by FEMA (Panel 309), the portion of the project area within the boundaries of either Zone AE or Zone X (see Figure 3.8-1: Hydrologic Features. As required, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will be processed with FEMA showing the proposed facilities, and associated hydrology and hydraulic calculations, to demonstrate that they will adequately convey the 100 year storm event through the project area to Line G-1. Following construction of these facilities, a formal Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be obtained from FEMA.
With compliance of these FEMA floodplain regulations, the proposed project would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area and/or redirect or impede flood flows, which would be considered a less than significant impact.
Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
Impact 3.8-2 Construction-related activities resulting from implementation of the proposed project may result in the degradation of surface water quality, which is considered a less than significant impact.
Project implementation will require extensive construction and grading. During these activities, there will be the potential for surface water to carry sediment from onsite erosion and small quantities of pollutants into the storm water system and local waterways. Soil erosion may occur along project boundaries during construction in areas where temporary soil storage is required. Small quantities of pollutants have the potential for entering the storm drainage system, thereby potentially degrading water quality.
Construction of the proposed project will also require the use of gasoline and diesel powered heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, water pumps, and air compressors. Chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, lubricating grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, glues, and other substances will be utilized during construction. An accidental release of any of these substances could degrade the water quality of the surface water runoff and add additional sources of pollution into the drainage system.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an area of disturbance of more than 1 acre. To assure implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect short-term water quality, the proposed project would be required to comply with NPDES permit requirements. This would require the project to prepare a Storm Water Pollution
Page 3-153
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion, siltation, and contaminated runoff from construction sites.
BMPs for storm water quality treatment are classified as structural and nonstructural. Structural measures may include bio-filters, wetlands, infiltration basins, or mechanical structures designed to remove pollutants from storm water. Non-structural measures such as street sweeping, public education, or hazardous substance recycling centers are preventive measures intended to control the source of pollutants. Typical BMPs that are included within NPDES permit requirements include:
Use of sand bags and temporary desiltation basins during project grading and construction during the rainy season (November through April) to prevent discharge of sediment-laden runoff into storm water facilities;
Installation of landscaping as soon as possible after completion of grading to reduce sediment transport during storms;
Hydroseeding of graded building pads if they are not built upon before the onset of the rainy season;
Incorporation of structural BMPs (e.g., grease traps, debris, screens, continuous deflection separators, oil/water separators, drain inlet inserts) into the project design to provide detention and filtering of contaminants in urban runoff from the developed site prior to discharge to storm water facilities; and
Stenciling of catch basins and other publicly visible flood control facilities with the phrase, “Don’t Dump - Pollutes Our Creeks.” Additionally, prior to construction grading, the project applicant must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit and prepare the SWPPP, which addresses the measures that will be included in the project to minimize and control construction and post-construction runoff to the “maximum extent practicable.” Moreover, project grading plans would conform to the drainage and erosion standards adopted by the City of Dublin and are subject to approval of the City of Dublin. The SWPPP will also be reviewed by the Zone 7 Water Agency to ensure adequacy and appropriateness of BMPs.
Typical measures, or their equivalent, will be included in the SWPPP, which will be implemented to prevent storm water pollution and minimize potential sedimentation during construction.
Restrict grading to dry season (April through October) or use BMPs for wet season erosion control;
Preclude non-storm water discharges to the storm water system;
Perform monitoring of discharges to the storm water system;
Construction practices will include the use of stabilized construction entrances and/or wash racks, street sweeping, use of erosion control devices, including damp
Page 3-154
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
sweeping, straw bales and/or silt fences, and storm drain inlet protection to minimize contamination from storm water runoff;
Provide temporary cover of disturbed surfaces to help erosion control during construction; and
Provide permanent cover to stabilize the disturbed surfaces after construction has been completed. Compliance with NPDES permit requirements, as well as the City of Dublin’s drainage and erosion standards would reduce impact to less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Deplete Groundwater Supplies and Groundwater Recharge
Impact 3.8-3 The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to the amount of available groundwater available, degrade groundwater quality, or decrease groundwater recharge in the project area. This is considered a less than significant impact.
The proposed water source for the project would rely on surface water supplies from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), the purveyor of potable water in the City of Dublin. DSRSD purchases wholesale water from Zone 7, who in turn purchases 70 percent of its water from the State Water Project (SWP). The remainder of the Zone 7 water is from groundwater aquifers through the Livermore-Amador Valley.
A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the proposed project by West Yost Associates on behalf of DSRSD in accordance with Water Code sections 10910 through 10915. The WSA was adopted by the DSRSD Board of Directors on April 16, 2013. The findings from the WSA are summarized herein, but described in more detail in Section 3.11: Public Services and Utilities.
The projected potable and recycled water demands for buildout of the proposed project were calculated for two land use alternatives (with and without the proposed elementary school). The potable water demand would be approximately 371 acre feet per year and 144 acre feet per year for the recycled water demand for the proposed project with an elementary school. The potable water demand would be approximately 365 acre feet per year and 131 acre feet per year for recycled water for the proposed project without an elementary school (West Yost Associates 2013).
Pursuant to Water Code Section 10910(c) (4) and based on the WSA and the DSRSD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), DSRSD finds that the proposed potable water demands for the proposed project can be met by the DSRSD during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry water years for a 20-year projection with no water supply shortage if Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are implemented. If Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are not implemented, the proposed project would be subject to the same water conservation measures and water use restrictions as DSRSD’s other existing and
Page 3-155
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
future potable water customers as included in DRSD’s Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan.
Although more than what was included in the DSRSD 2010 UWMP, it was determined that the projected recycled water demands for the proposed project can be met as wastewater collected in the DSRSD’s service area exceeds projected recycled water demands. DSRSD anticipates resolving the current recycled water production limitations and actual unit recycled water use would be less than projected unit recycled water use (36 inches per year versus 48 inches per year). Furthermore, DSRSD does not anticipate significant issues in its ability to provide recycled water to its customers. DSRSD’s recycled water supply is reliable under Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry water years.
Therefore, pursuant to Water Code Section 10910(c)(4), and based on the technical analyses described in this WSA and the DSRSD 2010 UWMP, DSRSD determined that the proposed recycled water demands for the proposed project can be met during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years for a 20-year projection. Therefore, there is adequate capacity to service build out of project area and the proposed project would be able to meet the sustainable groundwater yield within Zone 7.
The proposed project addresses water conservation by encouraging efficient design and green building measures and encourages the use of low-volume drip irrigation systems to be used to water landscaping, and encourages the planting of drought-resistant plants. Additionally, the proposed project promotes landscaping features that retain water and filter stormwater runoff such as bio-swales, rain gardens, underground cisterns, flow- through planters, and roof gardens, which would increase groundwater recharge within the project area. In addition, the DSRSD provides recycled water for irrigation and other non- potable uses. DSRSD Ordinance No. 301 requires recycled water use for approved customer categories for all new land uses, including commercial, multi-family residential and institutional irrigation uses. The City also has Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations that reduce water use for irrigation (Chapter 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code).
Based on the findings in the WSA, as well as the project design features in the Specific Plan, the proposed project is not anticipated to deplete groundwater supplies and/or affect groundwater recharge over existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the groundwater basin, and no mitigation is required.
Substantially Alter Existing Drainage Patterns
Impact 3.8-4 Implementation of the proposed project would substantially increase the impervious surface area on the project site, thereby altering the existing drainage pattern and amount of surface runoff resulting in a potential increase in peak storm water flows (i.e., 10- and 100-year storm events). This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Stormwater runoff generated by the proposed project is subject to Provision C.3 of the NPDES permit as administered by the RWCQB for the San Francisco Bay Region. These
Page 3-156
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
regulations require treatment of the post construction runoff from new developments before the runoff is discharged to the municipal storm drains to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). RWQCB staff monitors each municipality’s implementation of permit requirements. Each municipality must report on its development review process, number and type of projects reviewed and what Integrated Management Practices (IMP) were utilized in the respective project.
The Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis for the Dublin Crossing Project (RJA, 2013) analyzed potential drainage impacts for the proposed project and developed a master drainage plan to ensure that new development meets the appropriate drainage requirements with no downstream impacts. Based on findings from the Santa Rita Drainage Master Plan (1995) and discussions by RJA with Zone 7, the maximum 100-year storm flow allowed at the Line G-1 drainage line near the intersection of the proposed Scarlett Drive extension and Dublin Boulevard is 950 cfs. The maximum 100-year storm flow allowed for the Line G-5 drainage line is 350 cfs.
The proposed drainage plan would construct four underground basins. Two underground basins would be constructed with the proposed community park. Outflow at the Line G-1 drainage line would be reduced to 645 cfs, 305 cfs less than the maximum allowed. A new “splitter” structure would be designed to accommodate the new Arnold Road double box culverts and two underground basins would be constructed along Central Parkway, or other suitable public roadway. Flows would be split between Lines G-2 and G-5 and would be equal to or less than the 350 cfs. allowed.
However, the master drainage system proposed by RJA assumes the construction of an off- site detention basin on Camp Parks property north of the project area. This proposed off- site detention basin would intercept the offsite flows along the proposed northern boundary and discharge a Q100 storm flow at the rate of 604 cfs to Line G-1 east of the intersection of 5th Street and Goodfellow Avenue.
Additionally, drainage from the proposed Park Basin #2 (the northerly basin) is shown by RJA to discharge directly into the proposed 1.7 acre Chabot Creek riparian channel, which would be realigned and extend through the proposed community park. At this point, it is unclear what entity will own the Chabot Creek riparian channel, and what measures will be put in place to ensure it is adequately managed and maintained. This could result in a potential significant environmental impact with the long-term viability of the stormwater management system as is currently proposed.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce these impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM 3.8-4a Construction of a new Off-site Detention Basin North of the Project Site. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for Phase 2 of the proposed project, the project applicant shall work in coordination with the U. S. Army
Page 3-157
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
(Camp Parks) to design and construct a new off-site detention basin designed to ensure that flow rates to Line G-1 do not exceed the maximum Q100 discharge flow rate of 950 cfs as required by Zone 7. The design plans for this new off-site detention basin will be reviewed by the City, in coordination with Zone 7, for verification of compliance with all applicable regulations and consistency with on-site drainage requirements, prior to construction.
MM 3.8-4b Re-align Stormwater Outflow from Proposed North Basin #2. Prior to issuance of the grading permit associated with the construction of the proposed community park, the project applicant shall submit to the City a revised stormwater drainage plan that realigns the stormwater outflow associated with the proposed North Basin #2 from the 1.7 acre Chabot Creek riparian channel (as is currently proposed) to a separate underground pipe that connects directly with the existing box culvert located at proposed Scarlett Court Extension and Dublin Boulevard, and thereby avoids stormwater discharge into the 1.7 acre Chabot Creek riparian channel.
Flooding Exposure / Risk, Including the Failure of a Levee or Dam
Impact 3.8-5: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Structures and personnel would not be subject to greater risk with implementation of the proposed project as compared to existing conditions. This is considered a less than significant impact.
According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Dam Failure Inundation Maps, a very small portion of the southwestern portion of the project area is located within the limits of potential inundation zone from a catastrophic failure of the dam at Lake del Valle, which is located approximately 10.5 miles southeast of the project area (ABAG 2013). However, the State Division of Safety of Dams under the authority of the Department of Water Resources inspects this and other dams under its jurisdiction on an annual basis to confirm if each dam is safe, performing as intended and is not developing problems. Roughly a third of these inspections each year include in-depth instrumentation reviews of the dam surveillance network data.
The Division also periodically reviews the stability of dams and their major appurtenances in light of improved design approaches and requirements, as well as new findings regarding earthquake hazards and hydrologic estimates in California. Based on the continued dam- safety compliance inspection conducted by the Division of Safety of Dams, the risk of flooding from catastrophic dam failure is considered low.
Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Page 3-158
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality
Page 3-159
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
3.9 Land Use and Planning This section of the EIR examines the land use and planning impacts associated with proposed project. Specifically, this section analyzes the change in land use characteristics; analyzes potential conflicts between proposed land uses on site and existing and/or proposed land uses in the vicinity of the project area (e.g. continuing military uses north of the project area at Camp Parks) as well as the relationship of the proposed land use changes to relevant planning policies that guide land use decisions.
Preparation of this analysis used data from various sources. These sources include the proposed Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (2013), the City of Dublin General Plan (various resource Elements, including the Land Use Element), and the Dublin Municipal Code.
Existing Conditions Existing Land Uses The project area was historically used as grazing land prior to the installation of Camp Parks in the 1940s. The project area contains former and/or existing supply buildings and warehouses, infrastructure maintenance facilities, vehicle repair facilities, fueling points, hazardous waste accumulation sites, office and administration buildings, a buried construction debris deposition area, several railroad spurs, former lumber yards, and soil stockpiles. The majority of the approximately 16 buildings/structures located within the project area are located on 62 acres within the western portion of the project area. Most of the buildings/warehouses were constructed as World War II temporary buildings and consist of rectangular structures that are primarily comprised of horizontal wood siding and a flat built-up roof. Approximately, 127 acres in the eastern portion of the project area is generally undeveloped and consists of non-native grasslands.
In addition to the existing buildings, there are large mounds of soil and debris located north of Dublin Boulevard and east of the installation entrance road to the PRFTA. The mounds of soil and debris have been present within the project area since the early 1980s. There are also railroad spurs to the north of Building 171 and two to the south of Buildings 131 and 132. Use of the railroad spurs was discontinued in the early 1980s and some of the tracks have been removed, but the railroad bed is still visible within the project area.
The project area also contains two lumber yards, one is located east of 3rd Street and Adams Avenue and the other is located east of Evans Avenue. A nine acre vacant acre parcel that is comprised of non-native grassland is located at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road and is owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA).
Surrounding Land Uses The project area is located adjacent to existing urban development. Housing and administrative buildings for Camp Parks are located to the north of the project area. A complex of office buildings is located east of Arnold Road, along with a vacant parcel at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road. South of Dublin Boulevard is a broad
Page 3-160
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
mix of land uses including multi-family residential, retail, office, and industrial. The Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is located approximately a quarter mile south of the Specific Plan Area, adjacent to Interstate 580. Medium-high density single-family residential, retail and industrial uses are located to the west. West of Interstate 680 is downtown Dublin. Figure 2-4: Surrounding Land Uses presents an aerial photograph that shows land uses shows existing and surrounding land uses.
General Plan Designations The General Plan identifies the general locations, density and extent of land available for housing, business, industry, natural resources protection, recreation, and other uses. As shown in Figure 2-5: General Plan Land Use Designations, the majority of the project area is designated “Public Land” with the southeastern portion of the project area designated as “Parks/Public Recreation.” The following land use designations surround the project area: Campus Office to the east and southeast; High Density Residential, Campus Office, and Retail Office to the south; Medium/High Density Residential and Retail Office, Business Park Industrial and Outdoor Storage, Medium High Density Residential and Retail Office and Automotive; and Business Park Industrial and Outdoor Storage to the southwest of the project area.
Zoning According to the City of Dublin Zoning Map, the majority of the project area is zoned “Agriculture” with the southeast corner of the project area at the intersection of Arnold Drive and Dublin Boulevard zoned as “Planned Development” as part of the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan. The current zoning within the project area is shown in Figure 2-6: Current Zoning.
Environmental Impacts Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, with the exception of thresholds added to consider compatibility with adjacent uses, and physical impacts on the environment from potential urban decay or blight (often characterized by property abandonment and/or desolate urban landscapes). For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse land use and planning impact if it would result in any of the following:
Intensify development within the project area that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses
Physical division of an established community
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect
Page 3-161
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan
Result in urban decay or urban blight (i.e., significant physical changes in the environment) Conflict with Applicable Conservation Plans There are no habitat or natural community conservation plans in the project area and therefore, no impacts would occur.
Urban Blight or Decay
Impact 3.9-1: The proposed project would result in the construction of 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, which would contribute to the economic vitality of the City, as well as result in the creation of indirect or induced jobs. Based on the City’s existing vacancy rate, the amount of taxable sales, and the population growth in the City, the additional commercial space is not anticipated to result in the displacement of existing businesses and/or the potential for abandonment and/or non-maintenance of these businesses. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Economic and social changes are not in themselves significant impacts on the environment; however, a physical change in the environment caused by economic and social factors attributable to a development could sometimes result in a reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impact, such as urban decay or deterioration.
The proposed Specific Plan would guide future development within the project area and would increase residential and commercial uses in the City. The creation of approximately 200,000 square feet of commercial uses would contribute to the economic vitality of the City.
The proposed project would result in increased economic activity and revenues may result in the creation of indirect and induced jobs. Indirect jobs are those that would be created when the future owners and/or managers of the retail-commercial uses purchase goods and services from businesses in the City and the region, and induced jobs are those that are created when wage incomes of those employed in direct and indirect jobs are spent on the purchase of goods and services in the City and the region. The beneficial results are primarily from the purchases of goods and services as well as payment of taxes and salaries, which affects the regional economy of the City and County, and on a more indirect basis, California.
According to the City of Dublin Economic Development Strategy, the City currently supports a diversity of retail offerings including convenience and comparison goods with approximately 3.8 million square feet of retail space (EPS 2012). Current retail establishments are found throughout the City particularly along the Dublin Boulevard corridor. The City has a retail vacancy rate of approximately 8.4 percent, which includes
Page 3-162
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
some outdated space. However, most centers remain well occupied and financially viable. The City of Dublin’s retail sector provides greater taxable sales per capita than any other city within the Tri-Valley area, which demonstrates its importance as a shopping destination that draws consumers from throughout the surrounding region (EPS 2012). The City is also the fastest growing City in the Tri Valley area with population growth of approximately 44 percent between 2001 and 2011.
Based on the City’s existing vacancy rate, the amount of taxable sales, and the population growth in the City, it is anticipated that the 200,000 square feet of additional commercial space located associated with the proposed project is not anticipated to result in the displacement of existing businesses and the potential for abandonment and/or non- maintenance of these premises as a result. Therefore the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to urban blight and decay.
Create Land Use Incompatibilities or Physically Divide a Community
Impact 3.9-2: Implementation of the proposed project would amend the City’s General Plan land uses within the project area and would involve new uses and structures that may result in intensification of development within the project area. However, the proposed project is not anticipated to create incompatibilities with adjacent land uses or physically divide an established community. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Land use incompatibility can occur where differences exist among uses that are near each other. These incompatibilities may result from differences in the physical scale of development, noise levels, traffic levels, hours of operation, and other factors. The focus of this analysis will address land use compatibility between surrounding land uses (e.g. Camp Parks Training Area and surrounding residential uses), as well as address land use compatibility among different uses within the proposed project.
Compatibility with Surrounding Uses The project area is located adjacent to existing urban development. Camp Parks, which provides services and training support to military units (active and reserve) and to other organizations and activities is located north of the project area. Reserve units permanently stationed there conduct weekend inactive duty training throughout the year, and reserve units travel there for their two-week annual training.
A number of training activities occur at Camp Parks, however uses at the base are not anticipated to conflict with the proposed project as existing residential housing and administrative uses buffer the project area from the existing training areas within the base. Camp Parks also includes a heliport, which operates 18 days out of the year. However, use of the heliport is infrequent and would not interfere with the uses within the project area.
A complex of office buildings is located east of Arnold Road, along with a vacant parcel at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road. South of Dublin Boulevard is a
Page 3-163
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
broad mix of land uses including multi-family residential, retail, office, and industrial. The Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is located approximately a quarter mile south of the project area, adjacent to Interstate 580. Medium-high density single-family residential, retail and industrial uses are located to the west. West of Interstate 680 is downtown Dublin. Figure 2-4: Surrounding Land Uses presents an aerial photograph that shows existing and surrounding land uses.
The proposed project would include a minimum of 92 acres of residential uses accommodating up to 1,995 residential units with densities ranging from 6 to 60 dwelling units per acre and would include a variety of housing types including single family attached and multi-family units which would provide a logical transition from the existing high density residential development across Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the BART station and from the existing Medium-Density Residential neighborhood across Scarlett Drive. The proposed project also includes 32.2 acres of General Commercial and Mixed Use development. Uses allowed within this area are commercial and mixed use for up to 200,000 square feet of commercial use that would include a variety of eating and drinking establishments, hotel, entertainment, book stores, personal and professional services and office uses. These uses would be compatible with surrounding uses and provide services for the residential and office uses within and adjacent to the project area.
Compatibility with Uses in the Specific Plan Implementation of the proposed project would allow for redevelopment of the project area from Camp Parks to a dynamic planned development. Future development within the project area would be required to comply with the design guidelines in the proposed project for all new construction. Development standards are provided to address the following topics:
Overall Building Design
Building Articulation
Building Massing
Indoor-Outdoor Relationship
Building Materials, Colors, and Finishes
Base and Top Treatments
Entry Design
Windows and Doors
Roofs
Mechanical Equipment and Utilities
Service, Storage, and Loading Areas
Onsite Public Art
Exterior Lighting
Page 3-164
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
The Specific Plan also includes specific design guidelines for residential and commercial uses. The guiding principles for residential development include the following:
Relate to a regional context
Build a walkable, mixed density community
Provide a broad mix of neighborhood and housing types
Create unique and interesting neighborhoods
Promote social interaction
Provide neighborhood focal points and gathering places
Maximize connection to adjacent neighborhoods and commercial uses
Promote connectivity via a multi-modal circulation network including walking, and bicycling. Utilizing durable and sustainable building materials and construction practices that conserve resources and minimize waste. Furthermore, the policies in the Specific Plan include concepts aimed at achieving land use compatibility. Future development would be subject to the design review process through required Site Development Review which would ensure compatibility with both the development standards and design guidelines identified in the proposed project.
With implementation of the development standards and design guidelines, the proposed project would be compatible with existing and potential adjacent land uses and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations
Impact 3.9-3: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with goals and policy of the City of Dublin General Plan, nor the City of Dublin Zoning Code. This is considered a less-than-significant impact.
As described in the project description, residential, commercial, mixed-use and public uses could be developed within the project area under the proposed Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. The Specific Plan includes a maximum of 1,995 residential units; 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, a 30 net-acre community park; five acres of neighborhood park and an 11 acre elementary school site. The proposed residential uses would be consistent with the existing surrounding residential uses, which are of similar density and design. Currently the majority of the project area is designated Public Facilities in the City of Dublin General Plan and is zoned Agriculture.
The City of Dublin General Plan, including the General Plan Land Use Map, will be amended concurrent with the adoption of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan to include the proposed land use designations to replace the existing General Plan land use designations for the area as shown in Figure 2-7: Conceptual Land Use Plan.
Page 3-165
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
The Zoning Map for the project area would be amended concurrent with the adoption of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan to rezone the project area to Specific Plan Planned Development (PD-DX). Where land use regulations and/or development standards in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance are inconsistent with the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, the standards and regulations of the Specific Plan prevail. Any issue not specifically addressed in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan shall be subject to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and/or Municipal Code. Interpretations may be made by the Community Development Director if not specifically covered in the City’s existing regulations. Proposed land use designations would include Dublin Crossing Lower Density Residential (DC LDR) with a density of 6 to 14 units per net acre; Dublin Crossing Medium Density Residential (DC MDR) with a density of 14.1 to 20 units per acre; Mixed Use with a density of 20.1 to 60 units per net acre; General Commercial/DC Medium Density Residential (GC/DC MDR) with a maximum floor to area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 and a maximum density for residential development within this district of 20 units per acre; General Commercial/DC High Density Residential (GC/DC HDR) with a maximum floor to area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 and a maximum density for residential development within this district of 55 units per acre; Parks/Open Space (P); Open Space (OS), and School (S). With the adoption of the General Plan amendments, the proposed uses would be allowed within the project area.
The proposed project’s consistency with the City of Dublin General Plan discussed in Table 3.9-1: City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis. Consistency with policies related to environmental effects are addressed in each technical section of the EIR. As demonstrated, the proposed project would not be in conflict with the applicable land use policies of the General Plan. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Table 3.9-1: City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis Land Use Element 2.1.1 Housing Availability Implementing Policy B – Designate site available for Consistent. The Specific Plan includes a maximum of residential development in the primary planning area 1,995 residential units; 200,000 square feet of for medium to medium high density where site commercial uses, a 30 net-acre community park; five capability and access are suitable and where the acres of neighborhood park and an 11 acre higher density would be compatible with existing elementary school site. The proposed residential residential development nearby. uses would be consistent with the surrounding residential uses to the south and west of the project
area. Parks and Open Space Element 3.1 Open Space for Preservation of Natural Resources and For Public Health and Safety
Implementing Policy C - Acquire and improve Consistent. The proposed project includes a 30 net- parklands in conformance with the standards and acre community park and five acres of neighborhood policies recommended in the City’s General Plan. park within the project area.
Page 3-166
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use and Planning
City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis Implementing Policy D – Encourage an efficient and Consistent. The project area is generally flat and high intensity of use of the flat and gently sloping higher-density urban development with residential portions of the planning area as a means of and commercial uses would be facilitated by the minimizing grading requirements and potential proposed project. impacts to environmental and aesthetic resources. Implementing Policy I - Require land dedication and Consistent. Based on a population estimate of 2.73 improvements for the parks designated in the persons per household and a maximum of 1,995 General Plan for the Eastern Extended Planning residential units, the proposed project would Area and based on a standard of 5 net acres per increase the population by approximately 5,446 1,000 residents. Collect in-lieu park fees as required persons. Based on 30 net acres of park space within by City policies the project area, the proposed project exceeds the City standards, which would require approximately 27 acres of parks space. Schools, Public Lands and Utilities Element 4.1 Public Schools Implementing Policy C. Initiate preparation of site Consistent. The proposed project includes an 12 plans or specific plans jointly with the Dublin Unified acre site for development of a future elementary School District prior to sale. school. The project applicant has been working with the Dublin Unified School District to coordinate
future dedication of this school site to the District.
Circulation and Scenic Highways Element 5.1.1 Roadway Standards Guiding Policy A – Design non-residential streets to Consistent. The Specific Plan includes a circulation (1) accommodate forecasted average daily traffic network to accommodate additional traffic demand on segments between intersections, and (2) associated with future development. The minimize congested conditions during peak hours of Transportation section of this Draft EIR analyzed the operation at intersections and serve a balance of transportation circulation impacts associated with vehicles, bicycles, pedestrian, and transit. the proposed project and includes mitigation measures to help reduce traffic congestion at affected intersections.
Page 3-167
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
3.10 Noise This section addresses potential noise impacts from the construction (including demolition), traffic, and operations that could occur with the proposed project. Data used to prepare this analysis were drawn from the City of Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin Municipal Code, and the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. This section is based on noise modeling conducted for the proposed project by RBF Consulting, which is included as Appendix G of the Draft EIR.
Environmental Setting Noise Scales and Definitions Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In general, a 1 dB change in the sound pressure levels of a given sound is detectable only under laboratory conditions. A 3 dB change in sound pressure level is considered a “just detectable” difference in most situations. A 5 dB change is readily noticeable and a 10 dB change is considered a doubling (or halving) of the subjective loudness. It should be noted that, generally speaking, a 3 dBA increase or decrease in the average traffic noise level is realized by a doubling or halving of the traffic volume; or by about a 7 mile per hour (mph) increase or decrease in speed.
For each doubling of distance from a point noise source (a stationary source, such as a loudspeaker or loading dock), the sound level will decrease by 6 dBA. In other words, if a person is 100 feet from a machine, and moves to 200 feet from that source, sound levels will drop approximately 6 dBA. For each doubling of distance from a line source, like a roadway, noise levels are reduced by 3 to 4.5 dBA, depending on the ground cover between the source and the receiver. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; 20 dBA higher four times as loud; and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Examples of various sound levels in different environments are shown in Figure 3.10-1: Sound Levels and Human Response. Numerous methods have been developed to measure sound over a period of time; refer to Table 3.10-1: Noise Descriptors.
Page 3-168
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
Table 3.10-1: Noise Descriptors Term Definition Decibel (dB) The unit for measuring the volume of sound equal to 10 times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the pressure of a measured sound to a reference pressure (20 micropascals). A-Weighted Decibel (dBA) A sound measurement scale that adjusts the pressure of individual frequencies according to human sensitivities. The scale accounts for the fact that the region of highest sensitivity for the human ear is between 2,000 and 4,000 cycles per second (hertz).
Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period. The Leq is the value that expresses the time averaged total energy of a fluctuating sound level.
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) The highest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given time period.
Minimum Sound Level (Lmin) The lowest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given time period. Community Noise Equivalent Level A rating of community noise exposure to all sources of sound that (CNEL) differentiates between daytime, evening, and nighttime noise exposure. These adjustments are +5 dBA for the evening, 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and +10 dBA for the night, 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
Day/Night Average (Ldn) The Ldn is a measure of the 24-hour average noise level at a given location. It was adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for developing criteria for the evaluation of community noise exposure. It is based on a measure of the average noise level over a given time period called the Leq. The Ldn is calculated by averaging the Leq’s for each hour of the day at a given location after penalizing the “sleeping hours” (defined as 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM), by 10 dBA to account for the increased sensitivity of people to noises that occur at night.
Exceedance Level (Ln) The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% (L01, L10, L50, L90, respectively) of the time during the measurement period. Source: Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Noise Control 1979. Mobile and Stationary Noise Sources The primary noise sources in the vicinity of the project area include regional serving retail uses, car and truck traffic with high volumes of traffic along Interstate 580 (I-580), Interstate 680 (I-680), and noise from adjacent local roadways. Traffic along these roadways generates substantial noise levels at roadside receptors. A Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is located approximately 1,500 feet south of the project boundary. The station is located within the median of I-580 and any associated noise is generally masked by freeway traffic noise which is just audible from the southern boundary of the project site. Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area is located to the north of the project area and includes a heliport, which is used 18 days out of the year. Both mobile and stationary noise sources contribute to the existing noise levels within the project area.
In order to assess the potential for mobile source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the project area. The existing roadway noise levels in the vicinity of the project area were modeled. Noise models were run using the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Noise Prediction
Page 3-169
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) together with several roadway and site parameters; please refer to Appendix C, Noise. These parameters determine the projected impact of vehicular traffic noise and include the roadway cross-section (e.g., number of lanes), roadway width, average daily traffic (ADT), vehicle travel speed, percentages of auto and truck traffic, roadway grade, angle-of-view, and site conditions (“hard” or “soft”). The model does not account for ambient noise levels (i.e., noise from adjacent land uses) or topographical differences between the roadway and adjacent land uses. Noise projections are based on modeled vehicular traffic from the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis. The posted speed limits vary throughout the project area. Existing modeled traffic noise levels can be found in Table 3.10-2: Existing Traffic Noise Levels.
Table 3.10-2: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Existing Conditions Distance from Roadway Centerline to: dBA @ 100 (Feet) Roadway Segment Feet from ADT Roadway 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Centerline Noise Noise Noise Contour Contour Contour San Ramon Road North of Dublin Boulevard 18,600 65.3 436 138 44 Village Parkway North of Dublin Boulevard 12,800 61.0 158 50 16 Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road South of Stoneridge Road 26,300 66.8 616 195 62 Stoneridge Road to Owens Road 23,400 66.3 548 173 55 Owens Drive to I-580 EB Ramps 42,900 70.2 1,333 421 133 I-580 EB Ramps to I-580 WB Ramps 46,000 70.5 1,431 453 143 I-580 WB Ramps to Dublin Boulevard 33,100 69.0 1,030 326 103 Dublin Boulevard to Amador Valley Boulevard 31,100 68.8 968 306 97 Campus Parks Boulevard North of I-580 3,000 56.3 52 16 5 Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway 5,200 58.8 90 28 9 Central Parkway to Gleason Drive 4,100 57.7 71 22 7 Hacienda Drive Owens Drive to I-580 EB Ramps 37,000 68.4 867 274 87 I-580 EB Ramps to I-580 WB Ramps 28,700 67.3 673 213 67 I-580 WB Ramps to Dublin Boulevard 26,100 66.8 611 193 61 Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway 11,900 63.4 279 88 28 North of Central Parkway 8,700 62.1 204 646 20 Santa Rita Road South of I-580 EB Ramps 36,900 69.5 1,148 363 115 I-580 EB Ramps to I-580 WB Ramps 39,300 69.8 1,221 386 122 I-580 WB Ramps to Dublin Boulevard 39,000 69.8 1,213 384 121 Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway 25,000 67.8 778 246 78 Central Parkway to Gleason Drive 17,300 66.2 538 170 54 Amador Valley Boulevard West of Dougherty Road 10,100 60.3 125 39 12 Dublin Boulevard East of Amador Plaza Road 17,200 66.2 534 169 53 Amador Plaza Road to Village Parkway 19,000 66.6 591 187 59 Village Parkway to Dougherty Road 28,500 68.4 887 280 89
Page 3-170
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
Existing Conditions Distance from Roadway Centerline to: dBA @ 100 (Feet) Roadway Segment Feet from ADT Roadway 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Centerline Noise Noise Noise Contour Contour Contour Dougherty Road to Campus Parks Boulevard 18,000 66.4 559 177 56 Campus Parks Boulevard to Arnold Road 13,400 65.1 417 132 42 Arnold Road to Hacienda Drive 11,900 64.6 370 117 37 Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 15,500 65.7 482 152 48 5th Street Adams Avenue to Arnold Road ------Central Parkway Arnold Road to Hacienda Drive 1,900 54.1 33 10 3 Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 2,000 54.3 34 11 3 Owens Drive West of Hopyard Road 4,900 59.5 115 36 11 Hopyard Road to Hacienda Drive 20,700 65.8 485 153 48 East of Hacienda Drive 39,000 68.5 914 289 91 Stoneridge Drive I-680 NB Ramps to Hopyard Road 41,100 68.7 962 304 96 East of Hopyard Road 18,600 65.2 436 138 44 ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; N/A = not applicable Source: Traffic noise modeling is based on traffic data provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., November 19, 2012.
Stationary noise sources include the existing on-site activities as well as surrounding commercial and industrial uses, as well as the Camp Parks located to the north. Although a portion of the project area is occupied, little activity occurs within the site. Existing on-site stationary source noise is limited compared to the surrounding areas. The primary stationary noise sources occur from the adjacent commercial and industrial parks and include parking lot noise, as well as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. As described above, Camp Parks is located north of the project area, which includes training activities and use of a heliport, which is used 18 days out of the year. Stationary noise from use of the heliport is limited to infrequent events.
Sensitive Receptors Land uses that are considered sensitive receptors to noise include residential areas, schools, hospitals, churches, recreational areas, and transient lodging. Residential areas are also considered particularly sensitive to noise during the nighttime hours. Several single- and multi-family units are located near the western portion of the project area along 5th Street, North Avenue, and Scarlett Road. Residential uses are located to the south of the project area along Dublin Boulevard.
Existing Regulatory Setting State of California Guidelines The State of California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Noise Element Guidelines include recommended interior and exterior level standards for local jurisdictions to identify
Page 3-171
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The OPR Guidelines describe the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of dBA CNEL.
According to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines, single-family homes are considered to be “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. The State indicates that locating residential units, parks, and institutions (such as churches, schools, libraries, and hospitals) in areas where exterior ambient noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL is undesirable. The OPR recommendations also note that, under certain conditions, more restrictive standards than the maximum levels cited may be appropriate. As an example, the standards for quiet suburban and rural communities may be reduced by 5 to 10 dB to reflect their lower existing outdoor noise levels in comparison with urban environments.
In addition, Title 25, Section 1092 of the California Code of Regulations, sets forth requirements for the insulation of multiple-family residential dwelling units from excessive and potentially harmful noise. Whenever multiple-family residential dwelling units are proposed in areas with excessive noise exposure, the developer must incorporate construction features into the building’s design that reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL.
Local City of Dublin General Plan The Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan establishes residential, commercial, and industrial land use compatibility standards for noise measured at the property line of the receiving land use. The land use compatibility noise criteria provide the basis for decisions on location of land uses in relation to noise sources and for determining noise mitigation requirements. Table 3.10-3: City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments shows the noise standards for the City. As indicated, the normally acceptable exterior noise level for the City of Dublin is 60 CNEL or less for noise- sensitive residential land uses and parks, and 70 dBA or less for retail, commercial, office, and industrial land uses. Noise levels up to 70 dBA are considered conditionally acceptable for most noise sensitive land uses.
Page 3-172
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
Table 3.10-3: City of Dublin – Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments
Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential 60 or less 61-70 71-75 Over 75 Motels, Hotels 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80 Schools, Churches, Nursing Homes 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80 Neighborhood Parks 60 or less 61-65 66-70 Over 70 Office, Retail, Commercial 70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75 -- Ldn = Day night average; NA = not applicable. Notes: Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features have been included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable: New Construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise-insulation features must be included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: City of Dublin, City of Dublin General Plan, adopted February 11, 1985, updated January 19, 2010.
The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to noise in the project area:
Guiding Policy A. Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated by Table 3.10-2: City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments.
o Implementing Policy B. Request Caltrans to provide noise walls at least seven feet high along both sides of I-680 between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Alcosta interchange when additional freeway lanes are constructed.
o Implementing Policy E. Design Dougherty Road improvements and adjoining residential development for compliance with noise standards.
o Implementing Policy F. Noise impacts related to all new development shall be analyzed by a certified acoustic consultant.
o Implementing Policy G. Request demonstration of ability to mitigate noise prior to approval of light rail or bus service in the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way Transportation Corridor.
o Implementing Policy H. Review all multi-family development proposals within the projected 60 CNEL contour for compliance with noise standards (45 CNEL in any habitable room) as required by State law. Consistent with the Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan, the normally acceptable outdoor noise exposure standard for residential sites is 60 dBA or less. Project designers may use one or more of four available categories of mitigation measures: site
Page 3-173
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise planning, architectural layout (bedrooms away from noise source, for example), noise barriers, or construction modifications.
City of Dublin Municipal Code The City’s Municipal Code includes standards pertaining to noise control within the City. Municipal Code Section 2.28.020 prohibits any person within the City to make any loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area. Section 8.36.060(C)(3) state that for lots less than 5,000 square feet, mechanical equipment that generates noise (i.e., swimming pool, spa, and air conditioning equipment) on the property shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time. For lots 5,000 square feet or larger, mechanical equipment that generates noise when located within a required setback as allowed by this subsection, and within 10 feet of an existing or potential residence, or an existing paved patio area on adjoining property, shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time.
Relevant Project Characteristics The proposed project would facilitate the future development of several land uses. Future development projects would result in short-term noise impacts from construction activities, including demolition. Additionally, development within the project area would result in new noise sources from increased vehicle trips on local roadways, as well as from stationary sources such as mechanical equipment. No major noise-generating uses such as industrial development are proposed.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
. Expose persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; . Expose persons to, or generate, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels; . Substantially permanently increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; . Substantially temporarily or periodically increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; . For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; and
Page 3-174
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Significance of Changes in Traffic Noise Levels A traffic noise impact typically occurs when there is a discernible increase in traffic and the resulting noise level exceeds an established noise standard. In community noise considerations, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dB are often identified as substantial, while changes less than 1 dB will not be discernible to local residents. A 5 dB change is generally recognized as a clearly discernible difference.
As traffic noise levels at sensitive uses approach or exceed the 60 CNEL standard, a 3 dB increase as a result of the proposed project is used in this EIR as the increase threshold for the project. Thus, the proposed project would result in a significant noise impact when a permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dB occurs upon project implementation and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a noise sensitive use.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Exposure to Short-term Construction-Related Noise and Vibration
Impact 3.10-1: The proposed project could result in short-term construction-related noise at nearby noise sensitive land uses. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Construction activities have a short and temporary duration, lasting from a few days to a period of several months. Groundborne noise as well as other types of construction- related noise impacts may occur during the initial site preparation, which can create the highest levels of noise. Generally, site preparation has the shortest duration of all construction phases. Activities that occur during this phase include earthmoving and soils compaction, and demolition of existing buildings and facilities. High groundborne noise levels and other miscellaneous noise levels can occur during this phase by the operation of heavy-duty trucks, backhoes, and other heavy-duty construction equipment.
Noise from construction activities is generated by the following primary sources: (1) the transport of workers and equipment to and from construction sites, (2) truck trips transporting cut/fill; and (3) the noise related to active construction equipment. These noise sources can be a nuisance to local residents and businesses or unbearable to sensitive receptors (i.e., residences, hospitals, nursing homes schools, day care facilities, etc.). The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has compiled data regarding noise generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment and typical construction activities. These noise levels would decrease rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance.
Potential future development facilitated by the proposed project could generate significant amounts of noise during grading and construction operations. During future project implementation, adjacent sensitive receptors would be exposed to sporadic high noise
Page 3-175
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
levels associated with construction activities (as a result of power tools, jack-hammers, truck noise, etc.). It is anticipated that construction traffic would access the potential construction sites within the project area from several major roadways, including Dougherty Road, Scarlett Drive, Dublin Boulevard, and Arnold Road. As stated above, various sensitive receptors exist in close proximity to the project area. Also, as the project builds out, sensitive receptors in earlier stages of project implementation could be near later stages of construction.
The City’s noise standards established in the City of Dublin Municipal Code (Table 3.10-2) pertain to stationary sources and do not include thresholds for construction activities. All future development within the project area would be subject to compliance with the implementing policies of the Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan, especially Policy F requiring acoustical studies for all new development and Policy H requiring compliance with multi-family residence noise standards. Additionally, implementation of the following mitigation measures would further reduce construction noise associated with future development within the project area to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures: MM 3.10-1a Prepare Construction Noise Management Plan. The project applicant shall prepare a construction noise management plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding sensitive receptors (e.g., residential uses and schools) and includes specific noise management measures to be included into project plans and specifications subject to review and approval by the City. These measures shall include, but not be limited to the following:
. All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an un-muffled exhaust. . The contractor shall maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. . Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors. . All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors. . The project applicant(s) shall provide, to the satisfaction of the City of Dublin Planning Department, a qualified “Noise Disturbance Coordinator.” The Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too
Page 3-176
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
early, malfunctioning muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the compliant, as deemed acceptable by the Dublin Planning Department. If any notices are sent to residential units immediately surrounding the construction site by the City and all signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator. . Select demolition methods to minimize vibration, where possible (e.g., sawing masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers). MM 3.10-1b Construction Rates Less Disruptive to Sensitive Receptors. Construction trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways (Interstate 580, Interstate 680, Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, and Arnold Road). Construction trucks should, to the extent practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m. peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.).
Exposure to Short-term Construction-Related Vibration
Impact 3.10-2: The proposed project could result in short-term construction-related vibration that could result in vibration impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during grading and construction activities. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction activities often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground- borne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 inch/second) appears to be conservative.
The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings
Page 3-177
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. The vibration produced by construction equipment, is illustrated in Table 3.10-4: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment.
Table 3.10-4: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Approximate peak particle Approximate peak particle Equipment velocity at 25 feet velocity at 50 feet (inches/second) (inches/second)
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.031
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.027
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001
Auger/drill rigs 0.089 0.031
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012
Vibratory hammer 0.035 0.012
Vibratory compactor/roller 0.003 0.001
Notes: 1. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006. Table 12-2. 2. Calculated using the following formula:
1.5 PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D) where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 12-2 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.
Ground-borne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. As indicated in Table 3.10-4: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment, based on the FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch-per-second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the source of activity. The closest structures to the project area are the nearby residences which are an average of approximately 50 feet to the nearest construction activity areas. With regard to the proposed project, ground-borne vibration would be generated primarily during site clearing and grading activities on-site and by off- site haul-truck travel. At 50 feet from the source of activity, vibration velocities range from 0.001 to 0.031 inch-per-second PPV. Therefore, as each of these values is below the 0.2 inch-per-second PPV significance threshold, vibration impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.
Page 3-178
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
Exposure to Long-Term Stationary Noise
Impact 3.10-3: Compliance with design guidelines and development standards contained within the Specific Plan will ensure that potential future development within the project does not exceed established noise standards. This is considered a less than significant impact.
The proposed project could result in long-term stationary noise impacts on sensitive receptors in the project vicinity, which consist of residential uses adjacent to and within the project area. Examples of stationary noise sources that could be located within the project area include commercial operations, generators, air conditioning facilities, and stationary noise sources at the proposed community park including an amphitheater, carousel, etc. As shown in Figure 2-7: Conceptual Land Use Plan, the proposed commercial uses would be located in the eastern portion of the project area along Arnold Road and Dublin Boulevard. The proposed 11 acre school site would be located within the center of the project area and the proposed community park would be located at the corner of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard. Conceptual plans for the community park show the amphitheater and carousel located within the central portion of the park and would not be immediately adjacent to residential uses. Uses at parks and schools are generally compatible with residential uses as the generation of stationary noise sources typically occur during the daytime hours.
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to guide development and design within the project area. This will be accomplished by a set of regulations, design principles, and related implementing actions designed to foster quality development and prevent excessive noise. For example, to reduce noise from service, storage, and loading areas, the Specific Plan recommends that the location and hours of loading and unloading areas should be designed to minimize noise impacts on the surrounding residential neighborhood (Specific Plan Design Guidelines Section 3.1.11). For drive-through and drive-up uses, the Design Guidelines specify that outdoor ordering systems are to be located to direct sound away from residential uses and common areas, or otherwise minimize noise impacts to these uses. Entertainment uses should be separated from residential and other uses that may conflict with the higher levels of light, noise, and pedestrian traffic.
The Specific Plan proposes development that is consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity of the project area and is anticipated to generate similar noise levels. Where new development would abut noise sensitive uses (within the project area, as well as between the project area and existing offsite uses), the Specific Plan includes design guidelines and development standards that are aimed at reducing noise levels, including building orientation, setbacks, and buffers. By providing the necessary regulatory and design guidance, the proposed project ensures that future development within project area implements the policies of the Noise Element in the City of Dublin General Plan as well as the Municipal Code noise regulations. Compliance with the City’s standards would ensure that any new stationary noise source (i.e., generators, air compressors, loading bays, pumps,
Page 3-179
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
etc.) within the project area would result in a less than significant impact to existing and future sensitive receptors.
Exposure to Long-Term Mobile Noise
Impact 3.10-4: Development facilitated by the Specific Plan could permanently increase noise levels from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) at existing and future uses within the Specific Plan project area but not beyond threshold levels. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Potential future development within the project area could cause permanent increases in ambient noise levels, both within and outside the project area, from mobile sources (i.e., vehicular traffic to/from the area) at sensitive receptors.
Existing Term Noise Scenarios
The “Existing Term Without Project” and “Existing Term With Project” scenarios were compared for existing traffic noise conditions. As previously discussed, a significant noise impact would occur if the project increases noise levels by 3 dBA or more, and the resultant noise levels also exceed the City’s noise standards in Table 3.10-2: City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments.
In Table 3.10-5: Existing and Proposed Noise Scenarios, the noise level (dBA at 100 feet from centerline) depicts what would typically be heard 100 feet from the roadway centerline. As indicated in Table 3.10-5: Existing and Proposed Noise Scenarios under the “Existing Without Project” scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would range from approximately 54.1 dBA to 70.5 dBA. The highest noise levels under the “Existing Without Project” conditions occur along Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road (between I-580 eastbound ramps and I-580 westbound ramps). Under the “Existing With Project” scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would range from approximately 52.3 dBA to 71.1 dBA. The highest noise levels under future with project conditions would occur along Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road (between I-580 westbound ramps and Dublin Boulevard).
Page 3-180
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
Table 3.10-5: Existing and Proposed Noise Scenarios
Existing Without Project Existing With Project Distance from Roadway Distance from Roadway Difference In dBA @ 100 dBA @ 100 Feet Centerline to: (Feet) Centerline to: (Feet) dBA @ 100 Roadway Segment Ft. from ADT from Roadway ADT Feet from 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Roadway 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Centerline Roadway Noise Noise Noise Centerline Noise Noise Noise Contour Contour Contour Contour Contour Contour San Ramon Road North of Dublin 18,600 65.3 436 138 44 19,000 65.4 445 141 45 0.1 Boulevard Village Parkway North of Dublin 12,800 61.0 158 50 16 12,800 61.0 158 50 16 0 Boulevard Dougherty
Road/Hopyard Road South of Stoneridge 26,300 66.8 616 195 62 25,100 66.6 589 186 59 -0.2 Road Stoneridge Road to 23,400 66.3 548 173 55 25,700 66.7 602 190 60 0.4 Owens Road Owens Drive to I-580 42,900 70.2 1,333 421 133 44,200 70.3 1,373 434 137 0.1 EB Ramps I-580 EB Ramps to I- 46,000 70.5 1,431 453 143 47,700 70.6 1,482 469 148 0.1 580 WB Ramps I-580 WB Ramps to 33,100 69.0 1,030 326 103 53,300 71.1 1,659 525 166 2.1 Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard to Amador Valley 31,100 68.8 968 306 97 31,200 68.8 970 307 97 0 Boulevard Campus Parks
Boulevard North of I-580 3,000 56.3 52 16 5 3,200 56.6 55 17 6 0.3 Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard to 5,200 58.8 90 28 9 7,800 60.5 135 43 13 2.7 Central Parkway Central Parkway to 4,100 57.7 71 22 7 5,000 58.6 86 27 9 0.9 Gleason Drive Hacienda Drive Owens Drive to I-580 37,000 68.4 867 274 87 39,400 68.6 923 292 92 0.2 EB Ramps I-580 EB Ramps to I- 28,700 67.3 673 213 67 31,700 67.7 743 235 74 0.4 580 WB Ramps I-580 WB Ramps to 26,100 66.8 611 193 61 29,900 67.4 700 221 70 0.6
Page 3-181
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
Existing Without Project Existing With Project Distance from Roadway Distance from Roadway Difference In dBA @ 100 dBA @ 100 Feet Centerline to: (Feet) Centerline to: (Feet) dBA @ 100 Roadway Segment Ft. from ADT from Roadway ADT Feet from 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Roadway 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Centerline Roadway Noise Noise Noise Centerline Noise Noise Noise Contour Contour Contour Contour Contour Contour Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard to 11,900 63.4 279 88 28 12,100 63.5 284 90 28 0.1 Central Parkway North of Central 8,700 62.1 204 646 20 9,200 62.3 216 68 22 0.2 Parkway Santa Rita Road South of I-580 EB 36,900 69.5 1,148 363 115 36,900 69.5 1,148 363 115 0 Ramps I-580 EB Ramps to I- 39,300 69.8 1,221 386 122 39,200 69.8 1,218 385 122 0 580 WB Ramps I-580 WB Ramps to 39,000 69.8 1,213 384 121 38,700 69.7 1,204 381 120 -0.1 Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard to 25,000 67.8 778 246 78 24,600 67.8 765 242 77 0 Central Parkway Central Parkway to 17,300 66.2 538 170 54 17,100 66.2 532 168 53 0 Gleason Drive Amador Valley
Boulevard West of Dougherty 10,100 60.3 125 39 12 10,600 60.5 131 41 13 0.2 Road Dublin Boulevard East of Amador Plaza 17,200 66.2 534 169 53 20,300 66.9 631 199 63 0.7 Road Amador Plaza Road to 19,000 66.6 591 187 59 20,300 66.9 631 199 63 0.3 Village Parkway Village Parkway to 28,500 68.4 887 280 89 30,300 68.7 941 298 94 0.3 Dougherty Road Dougherty Road to Campus Parks 18,000 66.4 559 177 56 22,100 67.3 687 217 69 0.9 Boulevard Campus Parks Boulevard to Arnold 13,400 65.1 417 132 42 17,500 66.3 544 172 54 1.2 Road Arnold Road to 11,900 64.6 370 117 37 17,700 66.3 551 174 55 1.7 Hacienda Drive Hacienda Drive to 15,500 65.7 482 152 48 17,000 66.1 528 467 53 0.4 Tassajara Road 5th Street
Page 3-182
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
Existing Without Project Existing With Project Distance from Roadway Distance from Roadway Difference In dBA @ 100 dBA @ 100 Feet Centerline to: (Feet) Centerline to: (Feet) dBA @ 100 Roadway Segment Ft. from ADT from Roadway ADT Feet from 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Roadway 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Centerline Roadway Noise Noise Noise Centerline Noise Noise Noise Contour Contour Contour Contour Contour Contour Adams Avenue to ------2,200 52.3 19 6 2 N/A Arnold Road Central Parkway Arnold Road to 1,900 54.1 33 10 3 2,300 54.9 40 13 4 0.8 Hacienda Drive Hacienda Drive to 2,000 54.3 34 11 3 2,600 55.4 45 14 4 0.1 Tassajara Road Owens Drive West of Hopyard 4,900 59.5 115 36 11 5,000 59.6 117 37 12 0.1 Road Hopyard Road to 20,700 65.8 485 153 48 20,600 65.8 483 153 48 0 Hacienda Drive East of Hacienda Drive 39,000 68.5 914 289 91 40,600 68.7 952 301 95 0.2 Stoneridge Drive I-680 NB Ramps to 41,100 68.7 962 304 96 41,400 68.7 971 307 97 0 Hopyard Road East of Hopyard Road 18,600 65.2 436 138 44 18,100 65.1 424 134 42 -0.1 ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level Source: Traffic noise modeling is based on traffic data provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., November 19, 2012.
Page 3-183
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
Table 3.10-5: Existing and Proposed Noise Scenarios also shows that most of the Existing changes in noise levels would be well below the significance threshold. The maximum increase at any one segment would be 2.7 dBA on Arnold Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway, which is less than the 3 dBA increase threshold. Therefore, existing noise impacts would be less than significant.
Aircraft Noise The closest airport to the project area is the Livermore Municipal Airport which is located approximately 3.5 miles east of the project area. According to the Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan, the City of Dublin is not located within the approach zones and is not located within an unacceptable noise contour. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose residents or workers in the project area to excess airport-related noise. There are no private airstrips in the project (or Dublin) area. Camp Parks is located to the north of the project area and includes a heliport. The heliport is approximately 880 feet north of the northern project boundary and is used 18 days out of the year. Stationary noise from use of the heliport would be limited to infrequent events and impacts would be considered less than significant. It should also be noted that existing residential uses are located in the vicinity of the heliport. Aircraft are currently required to approach and depart from the north and the east and to maintain the highest practical altitude for noise abatement.8 Avoidance of Dublin and San Ramon is also required. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in with respect to aircraft noise.
8 Airport Data.com, Camp Parks Heliport (4CA3) Information. http://www.airport-data.com/airport/4CA3/
Page 3-184
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise
Page 3-185
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
3.11 Public Services and Utilities This section of the Draft EIR analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project on public services and facilities and services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, libraries, parks/recreation facilities, stormwater drainage, potable water, wastewater treatment, solid waste management, and other public utilities. Information in this section is derived primarily from the proposed project, as well as personal communication with service providers. A water supply assessment (WSA) was prepared for the proposed project by DSRSD that is incorporated as Appendix H.
Environmental Setting Fire Protection The proposed project would be served by the Alameda County Fire Department (hereinafter “ACFD”), which provides fire protection and suppression services under contract to the City of Dublin. ACDF currently consists of 36 line personnel.
ACDF has 28 fire stations, three of which are located in the City of Dublin. Station No. 16 is located at 7494 Donohue Drive; Station No. 17 is located at 6200 Madigan Avenue; and Station No. 18 is located at 4800 Fallon Road.
. Station No. 16 houses one engine company, a patrol and a water tender, and a patrol. This station provides initial response to west and downtown Dublin. . Station No. 17 provides service to the west, and central core sections of Dublin and would provide initial response to the project area. This station houses one engine and one truck company. . Station No. 18 provides the primary response for the eastern most portions of Dublin. This station includes one engine company and one bulldozer. Law Enforcement The proposed project would be served by the City of Dublin Police Department. Police services for the City of Dublin are performed under contract to the Alameda County Sheriff's Office. As of June 2013, the City of Dublin has 51 sworn personnel (Personal Communication with Lieutenant Nate Schmidt, Alameda County Sherriff; Department/City of Dublin Police Department, June 5, 2013).
Police Services are provided by the Alameda County Sheriff personnel located at the Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Center Plaza. Services provided include uniformed police officers patrolling the City in marked vehicles, criminal investigations, crime prevention, drug enforcement prevention education programs, and special investigation officers responsible for narcotic and vice suppression. Response times to various places in the City can vary depending on the time of day and the available units. The average response time to a life- or-death emergency averages approximately 3.5 to five minutes. For non-emergencies. the response time is typically 15 minutes. Dispatch and some data processing functions are handled at the Sheriff's Office facilities located in Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward. Dublin police also enforce city ordinances and state laws within the limits of the City of Dublin.
Page 3-186
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
Schools The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) provides public education in the City of Dublin and the surrounding area (including the proposed project area). The DUSD includes five elementary schools, one K-8 school, one middle school, a comprehensive high school, a continuation high school, and a K-3 parent participation program. The elementary schools all feature before and after school child care. Primary and secondary school facilities, 2011- 2012 student enrollment, and the school’s optimum capacity are identified in Table 3.11-1: Optimum Capacity of Schools Serving the Project Area
Table 3.11-1: Optimum Capacity of Schools Serving the Project Area
Grade Level and School Student Enrollment in Optimum Capacity Name 2011-2012 Elementary Dougherty 758 749 Dublin 621 755 Green 781 749 Frederiksen 641 705 Murray 393 457 Kolb 760 820 Fallon (based on 6-8 grade only) 824 1,212 Middle School Wells 718 1,063 High School Dublin HS 1,747 2,500 Valley Continuation HS 80 160 Source: Dublin Unified School District, 2012.
The proposed project is located within the service area of Frederiksen Elementary School, Wells Middle School, and Dublin High School.
For planning purposes, a school district’s projected student generation rates are based on dwelling units. Student generation rates are the average number of students residing in a home. It is also an indicator of the number of students that will come from new housing developments. According to the Dublin Unified School District’s Demographic Study and Facilities Plan, 2011-2012, each new single-family home (large and medium lot single family home) generates an average of 0.75 K-12 students per home; medium density housing including single family residential with lots less than 4,000 square feet generates an average of 0.525 K-12 students per home; medium-high density attached housing (otherwise known as “townhomes”) generate an average 0.295 K-12 students per home; and a new high density residential (multifamily housing development) generates an average of 0.125 K-12 students per unit (DUSD 2012).
Page 3-187
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
Libraries The Dublin Public Library is located at 200 Civic Plaza, and is a partnership between the City of Dublin and the Alameda County Library. The City of Dublin owns the library building and contracts with Alameda County for library services. The Dublin Public Library contains a collection of 145,700 materials including books, DVDs, and audio books, newspapers, and magazines funded with $1.3 million dollars given to the Library by the City of Dublin.
The Alameda County Library provides library services from ten branch libraries in the cities of Albany, Dublin, Fremont, Newark, and Union City, and the unincorporated communities of Castro Valley and San Lorenzo. The Alameda County Library is funded primarily by local property taxes, with additional revenue from State grants and contracts with cities for additional open hours and services.
Parks/Recreation Facilities The City of Dublin’s current park system includes thirteen parks and two open space areas. The City’s Parks and Community Services Department manages park planning and development, and the Public Works Department coordinates park maintenance. The nearest City parks to the project area include:
Dougherty Hills Dog Park - Dougherty Hills Dog Park is located at Amador Valley Boulevard and Stagecoach Road. This park includes separate turf dog runs for large and small canines; a doggie drinking fountain; bench seating; and public art works.
Emerald Glen Park - Emerald Glen Park is located at Tassajara Road and Central Parkway on 40 acres of pristine community park land. The park has plans to expand up to 48.2 acres. Future phases of the park will include a recreation and aquatic center, and a community center. The City's existing trail network consists of bikeways located along Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway, San Ramon Road, Alamo Creek, Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Creek and Dougherty Road, a public local trail along Martin Canyon Creek, and a regional trail link along the Iron Horse Trail.
Stormwater Drainage The City of Dublin Public Works Department maintains the City’s storm drain pipelines that are located within the public streets. The Alameda County Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7) owns and operates regional storm drain facilities that collects runoff from the City.
The project area is generally flat with elevations ranging from 357 feet at the northeast corner of the project area to a low of approximately 336 feet at the southwest corner of the project area near the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and the Iron Horse Regional Trail. The entire 1,800 acre watershed within Camp Parks drains through the project area. The majority of the runoff from this watershed is conveyed through Camp Parks in natural and engineered swales which cross the project area and are intercepted along the north side of Dublin Boulevard and the project area and are intercepted along the north side of Dublin Boulevard and conveyed to various existing Zone 7 drainage facilities.
Page 3-188
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
The main drainage channel for runoff from Camp Parks crosses the project area and is currently mapped as a FEMA 100-year floodplain. Zone 7 has indicated that the peak 100- year storm runoff within this main channel concentrated at Dublin Boulevard shall not exceed 950 cubic feet per second (cfs). To the northeast and east of Camp Parks, runoff is collected in an existing channel and conveyed south along Arnold Road to a flow “splitter” near Central Parkways, which divides flow between two existing Zone 7 drainage facilities. A portion of this flow continues down Arnold Road, while the remainder is conveyed in an existing trapezoidal channel across the southeastern portion of the project area.
Water The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is the purveyor of potable water in the City of Dublin. DSRSD has provided drinking water to more than 60,000 people in Dublin since March 1961 and in Dougherty Valley since May 2000. In addition to potable water, DSRSD also provides recycled (reclaimed) water for irrigation and other non-potable uses. DSRSD Ordinance No. 301 requires recycled water use for approved customer categories for all new land uses, including commercial, multi-family residential, and institutional irrigation uses with the DSRSD potable water service area. The City of Dublin also has Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations that reduce water use for irrigation (refer to the Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.88).
DSRSD’s Urban Water Management Plan (June 2011) (hereinafter “DSRSD UWMP”) includes a projection of future potable and reclaimed water use through the year 2030. This projection is shown in Table 3.11-2: DSRSD Current and Projected Water Meter Connections by Customer Type (Potable and Reclaimed).
Page 3-189
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
Table 3.11-2: DSRSD Current and Projected Water Meter Connections by Customer Type (Potable and Reclaimed)
Demand Source 20101 20152 2020 2025 2030 2035 Potable Water Residential (Total DRSD 15,661 18,397 23,598 25,451 26,553 26,970 Service Area)3 Commercial 1,218 1,982 2,166 2,415 2,527 2,569 Landscape Irrigation4 686 1,120 1,338 1,504 1,587 1,613 Institutional/Governmental 106 232 274 304 307 311 5 Potable Water Subtotal 17,671 21,731 27,375 29,674 30,973 31,463 Recycled Water 283 452 732 860 885 910 Total 17,954 22,183 28,108 30,534 31,858 32,373
Notes: 1. DSRSD water accounts as of December 31, 2010. 2. DSRSD land use projections as of March 2011. 3. Future residential dwelling units based on the sum of the residential units anticipated for individual projects and subdivisions per the land use projections and anticipated development scheduled as provided by the city of Dublin and individual developers. 4. Future projections for number of commercial, school, and irrigation connections based on current density of those connections applied to future projected acreage for those land uses. 5. Future jail connections assumed to remain the same as existing jail connections
Source: Dublin San Ramon Services District 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2011
DSRSD is responsible for planning to supply sufficient water to meet the anticipated growth in demand, in which it is planned to use a combination of potable and recycled water supplies as well as conservation of water resources to meet demand.
The wholesale supplier of water to DSRSD is Zone 7. DSRSD has a contract with Zone 7 which establishes the obligations between the parties to meet demand in the DSRSD service area. Under the contract, DSRSD is obligated to purchase all of the treated water it requires from Zone 7, unless Zone 7 is unable to deliver sufficient water. If Zone 7 is unable for a period of time to deliver sufficient water to satisfy DSRSD’s needs, DSRSD is permitted to acquire water from other sources during the period that Zone 7 has insufficient water. Zone 7 relies on a combination of supplies to meet treated and untreated (i.e. raw surface water) demands. Zone 7’s water supplies consist of imported surface water and local runoff.
Zone 7 conducts an annual review of its water supply reliability. The most recent review was completed in July 2011. The sustainability and reliability of Zone 7’s existing water supply system is achieved first by having sufficient long term supplies to meet demands and then by storing surplus water in wet years for use in dry years; it is heavily dependent on having enough wet years to balance the dry years. This balance between wet and dry years is evaluated by comparing projected yields from existing water supplies over a wide range of historic hydrology to make sure that Zone 7 can meet 100 percent of its treated water
Page 3-190
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
customer water supply needs during: an average water year; the worst single dry year from the historic record that represents the lowest yield from all available supplies; and multiple dry water ears from the historic record. Traditionally, if the projected yields over a long range of hydrology can be shown to meet a future demand every year, then the system is called sustainable for that level of demand. In general, if long-term average yields from existing water supplies are less than projected water demands, then over time, the storage reserves needed to meet reliability goals will erode and the system is not sustainable.
Zone 7 and DSRSD currently charge connection and other fees on new development within their service area. Fees are used for construction of planned water system capital improvements including storage, pumping, transmission, and on-going system water maintenance and improvements. Sewer/Wastewater DSRSD is also the purveyor of wastewater collection services in the City of Dublin and a portion south San Ramon and Pleasanton. DSRSD wastewater collection system includes over 170 miles of sanitary sewers ranging from six to 42 inches in diameter that are from five to over 40 years old.
Disposal of treated wastewater is under the jurisdiction of the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Authority (LAVWMA). Wastewater collected from the DSRSD service area travels by gravity to the DSRSD wastewater treatment plant, which is located near the southeast corner of Interstate 580 and Interstate 680 in the City of Pleasanton. The plant has an average dry-weather flow (ADWF) capacity of 17.0 million gallons per day (mgd). At projected buildout, the secondary facilities will have an ADWF capacity of 20.7 mgd; 10.4 mgd of this influent is projected to originate from the DSRSD service area. The remaining 10.3 mgd of influent is projected to originate from Pleasanton, which is treated by DRSD by contract.
Disposal of treated effluent from DSRSD’s wastewater treatment plant in Pleasanton is the responsibility of the LAVWMA. LAVWMA exports secondary treated wastewater to the East Bay Discharges Authority interceptor pipeline for ultimate discharge to San Francisco Bay via a deepwater outfall. LAVWMA facilities are designed to export a maximum flow of 41.2 mgd during wet weather events.
DSRSD currently charges wastewater connection and other fees on all new development within the District’s service area and would require the developer to enter into a planning agreement with the District to cover wastewater collection and wastewater treatment. Fees are used for construction of planned wastewater treatment and collection system capital improvements, as well as on-going wastewater system maintenance.
Solid Waste Management Coordination of the solid waste management activities in Alameda County is the joint responsibility of the County’s Waste Management Authority and local jurisdictions. The City of Dublin currently contracts with Amador Valley Industries (AVI), a private company for residential and commercial garbage collection within the City limits. The City of Dublin also has an aggressive and comprehensive recycling program and collects both recycling and
Page 3-191
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
organics. All single-family residences are provided with recycling containers. In addition, free recycling service is available to all commercial customers that subscribe to garbage service. In regards to construction and demolition debris, the City requires all construction and demolition projects to recycle at least 50-percent of waste generated on a job site.
Solid waste generated within the project area would be deposited at the Altamont Landfill. The Altamont Landfill has a total estimated permitted capacity of 62,000,000 cubic yards. The total estimated capacity used is 16,280,000 cubic yards (or 26.3 percent), and the remaining estimated capacity is at 45,720,000 cubic yards (or 73.7 percent). The estimated closure date of this landfill is January 2029.
Electricity and Natural Gas Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity to all or part of 47 counties in California, and provides natural gas to all or part of 39 counties in California, constituting most of the northern and central portions of the state. PG&E provides electricity and natural gas service to the City of Dublin. PG&E charges connection and user fees for all new development, in addition to sliding rates for electrical and natural gas service based on use. Electricity and gas services are currently offered in the project vicinity.
Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, entitled “Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings,” specifies requirements to achieve the State’s minimum energy efficiency standards. The standards apply to new construction of both residential and nonresidential buildings, and regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating and lighting. Compliance with these standards is verified and enforced through the local building permit process. Projects that apply for a building permit on or after January 1, 2010, must comply with the 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards. In addition, the California Energy Commissions’ Energy Aware Planning Guide is available as a reference tool to assist in project planning.
Regulatory Setting State Schools
School Facilities Act of 1998 The School Facilities Act of 1998 (also known as Senate Bill [SB] 50), provides state funding for new school construction projects that can satisfy certain criteria for such funding, including eligibility due to growth, Division of State Architect plan approval. However, the Act also dramatically limits the maximum amount of impact fees, which can be charged by school districts as mitigation for new residential, commercial, and industrial construction. The Act also prohibits local agencies from denying a development application on the basis of a person’s refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the fee amount and refusing to approve any legislative or adjudicative act on the basis that school facilities are inadequate.
Page 3-192
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
Parks and Recreation
Quimby Act Since the passage of the 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477), cities and counties have been authorized to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The goal of the Quimby Act was to require subdividors to provide park and recreational lands to meet the increased demand from new subdivisions. Originally, the Act was designed to ensure “adequate” open space acreage in jurisdictions adopting Quimby Act standards, which ranged from three to five acres per 1,000 residents.
Water Supply and Distribution
Title 22 California Code of Regulations The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) promulgates and enforces state regulations for drinking water treatment facilities and distribution systems. These state regulations are at least as strict as federal drinking water regulations, although not all federal regulations are currently incorporated into corresponding state regulations. These state drinking water regulations are contained in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22. The CDPH also regulates the distribution and use of recycled water through CCR Title 22.
Urban Water Management Plan In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code Sections 10610 - 10656). The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires that each urban water supplier, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, shall prepare, update and adopt its urban water management plan at least once every five years on or before December 31, in years ending in five and zero.
Senate Bills 610 and 221 Senate Bill 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) and Senate Bill 221 (Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001) amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, in order to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 Water Supply Assessments and SB 221 Written Verifications of Water Supply are companion measures, which seek to promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. Both statutes require detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to the city and county decision-makers prior to approval of specified large development projects and that the information is included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects.
A complete Urban Water Management Plan can be a foundational document and source of information for SB 610 Water Supply Assessments and SB 221 Written Verifications of Water Supply.
Page 3-193
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
Wastewater Treatment
Clean Water Act The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)) have as their goal the restoration of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The primary regulatory mechanism to achieve the goal is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The CWA requires that parties seeking to discharge pollutants to the water of the United States obtain a permit under the NPDES. The federal government has delegated responsibilities for implementing the CWA NPDES program in California to the State. A discharge of pollutants from a source with a single readily identifiable point of discharge, such as a municipal wastewater outfall, is only permitted if it meets certain quality standards, known as effluent limits. Effluent limits are based on available wastewater treatment technology. For surface water discharges of stormwater runoff, additional regulations may apply, as discussed further below.
CWA Section 303(d)(1)(A) requires states to identify surface waters within their boundaries where numeric or narrative water quality objectives are not being achieved or maintained and/or where beneficial uses are not fully protected after application of technology-based controls. Section 401 of the CWA requires applicants for federal licenses or permits to obtain safe certification that any discharge of pollutants to surface waters from a proposed activity will comply with the CWA, including applicable water quality standards. CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230) regulate dredge and fill activities that affect jurisdictional wetlands and waters, including water quality aspects of such activities.
California Porter-Cologne Act The California Porter-Cologne Act created an administrative structure and procedures for management of water quality in the state. California’s water quality program is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and by nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Each RWQCB is responsible for regulating water quality within their watershed. In accordance with the Porter-Cologne Act, each RWQCB implements the Basin Plan developed for its region by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements to individuals, communities, or businesses whose waste discharges can affect water quality. These requirements can be either waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for discharges to land (which may impact groundwater), or federally delegated NPDES permits for discharges to surface water.
Solid Waste
Integrated Waste Management Act The Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) mandates that communities reduce their solid waste. The Act requires local jurisdictions to divert 25 percent of their solid waste by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000, compared to a baseline of 1990. AB 939 also establishes an integrated framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and landfill compliance.
Page 3-194
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
Local City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Chapter 7.78, Public Facilities Fee of the City of Dublin Municipal Code establishes a public facilities fee in order to finance public facilities and to pay for each development’s fair share of construction and acquisition costs of improvements to public facilities that are caused by future development.
City of Dublin General Plan The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to public services and utilities within the project area:
Parks / Recreational Facilities Guiding Policy A. Expand park areas throughout the primary and extended planning areas to serve new development.
Guiding Policy B. Maintain and improve outdoor facilities in conformance with the recommendations of the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Implementing Policy C. Acquire and improve parklands in conformance with the standards and policies recommended in the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Solid Waste Guiding Policy A. Ensure that adequate solid waste disposal capacity is available to avoid constraining development consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
Implementing Policy B. Continue to enforce City Source Reduction and Recycling/Household Hazardous Waste Elements.
Implementing Policy C. Cooperate with Alameda County, as necessary, for adoption and implementation of the County Integrated Waste Management Plan.
Implementing Policy D. Prior to project approval, the applicant shall demonstrate that capacity will exist in solid waste disposal facilities for their projects prior to issuance of building permits.
Implementing Policy E. Large scale projects should be required to submit a plan that demonstrates how they will contribute towards the City’s State mandated diversion requirement.
Sewage Treatment and Disposal Guiding Policy A. Expand sewage treatment and disposal capacity to avoid constraining development consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
Implementing Policy B. Prior to project approval, developers shall demonstrate that adequate capacity will exist in sewage treatment and disposal facilities for their projects prior to the issuance of building permits.
Page 3-195
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
Water Supply Guiding Policy A. Base General Plan proposals on the assumption that water supplies will be sufficient and that local wells could be used to supplement imported water if necessary.
Implementing Policy B. Consider obtaining water from the East Bay Municipal Utility District and other sources.
Relevant Project Characteristics The proposed project would redevelop the project area into 1,995 residential units. Based on a population estimate of 2.73 persons per household, the proposed project would increase the population in the City of Dublin by 5,446 residents. In addition, the proposed project is expected to result in 600 employees at the proposed commercial uses within the project area for a total service population of 6,070 persons. Future residents and employees within the project area are anticipated to increase the demand for public services (e.g. fire, police, schools). The proposed project is also anticipated to increase the demand for water, increase the amount of stormwater runoff, as well as increase the generation of wastewater and solid waste.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
o Fire protection, o Police protection, o Schools, o Parks, or o Other public facilities;
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board;
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated;
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
Page 3-196
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;
Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed;
Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;
Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs; and/or
Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Methodology Information in this section is derived primarily from the City of Dublin General Plan, the DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Dublin Unified School District Demographics Update, as well as personal communication with service providers.
Impacts and Mitigation Measure Increased Demand for Fire Protection Service
Impact 3.11-1: The proposed project would not significantly increase the need for fire protection services such that it would result in the need for or the construction of new or physically altered facilities to meet the City’s response times or other standards for fire protection services. This is considered a less than significant impact.
The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County Fire Department to provide fire and rescue services. The County of Alameda currently provides the City with 36 line personnel that are assigned to the City at three fire stations (Stations 16, 17 and 18). Station No. 17 located at 6200 Madigan Avenue would be the first responder to any fire or emergency occurring in the project area. This station has one engine and one truck company.
Although the number of calls for service from the project area would likely increase, all proposed development must meet certain State building and fire codes and the Alameda County Fire Department has indicated they have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project (Darrell Jones, Deputy Fire Marshall, Alameda County Fire Department. Personal Communication with Erika Spencer with RBF Consulting on June 18, 2013). Typically, these codes require a development plan that provides for fire protection systems, ingress and egress, maximum occupancy limitations, and construction techniques and materials dictated by the proposed use of the structure (refer to the City of Dublin’s Municipal Code, Chapter 5.08, Fire Code). Specifically, the Fire Department would review individual development proposals for conformance with locally-defined performance standards, including the California Fire Code, as adopted by the Fire Department, and California Building Code standards. Site access, capacity of the water mains, road widths and turning
Page 3-197
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
radii, road grades, surfacing, load bearing capability, sprinkler systems, stand pipes, smoke detectors, and fire alarms would also be reviewed for consistency with Fire Department standards.
The proposed project will be required to fund its own project-specific on-site and off-site improvements consistent with existing City regulations and requirements. The City would collect public facilities fees (Chapter 7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code) from future development within the Specific Plan area to help off-set fire protection-related capital improvements and on-going maintenance expenses incurred by new development prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
As the proposed project would be required to comply with the Fire Code and other applicable fire protection regulations and to pay the City’s public facilities fee, the proposed project is not expected to create any adverse impacts on fire protection services that would result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Increased Demand for Law Enforcement Service
Impact 3.11-2: The proposed project would not significantly increase the need for law enforcement services, which would result in the need for the construction of new or physically altered facilities in order to meet the City’s response times. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on law enforcement services.
The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County Sheriff's Department for police services. The County Sheriff, under consultation with the City, designates a commanding officer that functions and is empowered to act as the City's Police Chief. Patrol, criminal investigation, crime prevention, and business office functions are handled at the Dublin Civic Center location. Dublin Police Services is staffed so that there is a five-minute response time to all emergency calls. The City of Dublin has 51 sworn personnel with a population of 46,572, for a ratio of 1.09 sworn personnel per 1,000 residents (Personal Communication with Lieutenant Nate Schmidt, Alameda County Sherriff; Department/City of Dublin Police Department, June 5, 2013).
Although the addition of new residents to the project area would slightly increase the demand for police services, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on response times for police services and would not affect the Department’s ability to serve the proposed project (Personal Communication with Lieutenant Nate Schmidt, Alameda County Sherriff; Department/City of Dublin Police Department, June 5, 2013).
Future development within the project area would be required to comply with Chapter 7.32.300 (Building Security) and Chapter 7.32.310 (Nonresidential building security) of the City’s Building Code, which includes building standards aimed at reducing law enforcement calls within the City. In addition, the City would collect public facilities fees (Chapter 7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code) from future development to help off-set police service capital improvements and on-going maintenance expenses incurred by the new
Page 3-198
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities development prior to issuance of a Building Permit to ensure that the proposed project will not cause impacts on law enforcement services that would result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on law enforcement services, and no mitigation is required.
Increased Demand for Educational Facilities
Impact 3.11-3: Implementation of the proposed project would increase the number of students in the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) with the construction of a maximum of 1,995 residential units, which would increase the capacity of the schools, which are operating above optimum capacity. The proposed project includes an 11 acre school site and future development would be required to pay school impact fees as required under State law to the DUSD. This is considered a less than significant impact.
The proposed project would allow for a future net new development potential with a maximum of 1,995 residential units within the project area. Children from the proposed residential dwelling units would likely attend DUSD schools including: Frederiksen Elementary School; Wells Middle School; and Dublin High School. Based on the DUSD’s student generation rate for medium density housing (single family residential with lots less than 4,000 square feet) of 0.525 K-12 students per home and a maximum of 1,995 homes within the project area the proposed project would generate approximately 1,047 students. As shown in Table 3.11-3: Enrollment Capacity of Schools Serving the Project Area, the DUSD has an excess of capacity of 990 students.
Table 3.11-3: Enrollment Capacity of Schools Serving the Project Area
Grade Level and School Student Enrollment in Optimum Capacity Excess Capacity Name 2011-2012 Elementary Frederiksen 641 705 64 Middle School Wells 718 1,063 345 High School Dublin HS 1,474 2,500 581 Source: Dublin Unified School District, 2012.
The proposed project includes a 12 acre site for a future elementary school, which would be dedicated to the DUSD for a proposed school that would serve the proposed project and surrounding uses. This elementary school will be designed to accommodate up to 900 children and will include classrooms, a gymnasium, administrative offices, a multi-use sports field, sport courts, a playground, and parking. In addition, future development within the project area would be required by law to pay school impact fees at the time of the building permit issuance. The DUSD currently charges development fees in the amount of $2.97 per square foot of residential development and $0.47 per square foot for commercial and
Page 3-199
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
industrial uses. These fees are used by the DUSD to mitigate impacts associated with long- term operation and maintenance of school facilities.
A project applicant’s fees would be determined at the time of the building permit issuance and would reflect the most current fee amount established by the DUSD. School fees exacted from residential and commercial uses would help fund necessary school service and facilities improvements to accommodate anticipated population and school enrollment growth within the DUSD service area, and would allow for the DUSD to allocate these funds as deemed necessary. Therefore, the increased demand on the DUSD is considered a less than significant impact on school services, and no mitigation is required.
Increased Demand for Parks and Recreation Facilities
Impact 3.11-4: The proposed project would increase the demand for park and recreational uses within the project area. However, development projects within the project area would be required to pay the City’s Public Facilities Fee prior to Building Permit issuance. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Implementation of the proposed project would increase the demand for neighborhood and community parks due to the projected increase in the residential population generated by future development within the project area. The proposed project includes 35 acres of parks within the Specific Plan, including a 30 net acre community park and five acres of neighborhood parks. The City proposes to engage the community in preparing park master plans for the parks within the project area and subsequent construction documents. The project applicant would build both the community park and neighborhood parks, as well as provide a $2.5 million dollar park maintenance endowment to the City.
The City of Dublin General Plan establishes park standards that call for five net acres per 1,000 residents. Based on a population estimate of 2.73 persons per household and a maximum of 1,995 residential units, the proposed project would increase the population by approximately 5,446 persons. Based on a total of 36.7 acres of park space within the project area, the proposed project exceeds the City standards, which would require approximately 27 acres of parks space.
The Parks and Community Services Department Public Facilities Fee would be applied to future development within the project area. The Public Facilities Fees would vary according to the size of residential units, the location of the development, and a credit for the dedication of land and funding for construction of the parks. With the dedication of land for construction of the community park and neighborhood parks, funding of the proposed improvements by the project applicant, and the payment of City’s public facilities fees (Chapter 7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code), the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on park and recreation facilities in the City, and no mitigation is required.
Increased Demand for Library Services or Other Public Facilities
Impact 3.11-5: The proposed project would result in an increase in demand for library services. The proposed project would provide adequate property tax
Page 3-200
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
revenue to the City, a portion of which is used to fund libraries and other public facilities. Existing library facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not physically impact other public facilities. This is considered a less than significant impact.
The Dublin Library is a partnership between the City of Dublin and Alameda County Library. Although the proposed project would increase the demand for library services, funding for additional library facilities and other public facilities would be provided with an increase in property taxes and therefore additional demand for these services could be met concurrent with buildout of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to require the construction of new library facilities; would not cause or accelerate the physical deterioration of existing library facilities; and would not physically impact other public facilities. This would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Increased Wastewater Demand
Impact 3.11-6: Implementation of the proposed project would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities. Additionally, the existing service provider has an adequate capacity to meet this demand. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact.
DSRSD provides wastewater collection services in the project vicinity. The project area includes a variety of collection mains located within the existing public streets, including Scarlett Drive, Dublin Boulevard, and Arnold Road. These sewer collection mains would be rerouted through the project area as required to accommodate the phased development of the proposed project. DSRSD, in collaboration with MWH, Inc. completed a Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update in June of 2005.
The proposed project would result in a dry weather flow of 452,352 gallons per day of wastewater with a peaking factor of 2.01 and infiltration of 113, 400 gallons per day for a total peak flow of 1.02 million gallons per day. Although implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in the demand for wastewater treatment and disposal, this demand is not anticipated to result in dry weather wastewater flows that exceed existing or planned capacity of the wastewater treatment plant, which has an excess capacity of 5.52 million gallons per day.
The proposed project would be responsible for the cost and construction of new backbone infrastructure, including collection lines required to serve new development. As part of the Small Lot Tentative Map process for each planning area, land use district, and other portions of the Specific Plan area, the project applicant shall be responsible for constructing the in-tract wastewater collection and treatment system infrastructure needed to serve the development being proposed under the requested Small Lot Tentative Map.
Public facility improvements for sanitary sewer drainage are managed and maintained by the DSRSD. In the District’s Capital Improvement Plan, the costs of capital improvement projects are assigned to Local Sewer Replacement (Fund 210) and/or Local Sewer
Page 3-201
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
Expansion (Fund 220). The Replacement fund represents costs that are allocated to existing users (generally through sewer rates), and the Expansion fund represents the costs allocated to future users (generally through connection fees). Implementation of these actions would ensure that adequate wastewater infrastructure exists to serve the proposed project. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would comply with wastewater treatment requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
As part of the application for the Large Lot Tentative Map, the project applicant would be required to prepare a wastewater master plan to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The master plan shall identify the size, location and timing of all major sewage facilities proposed, and shall be accompanied by all supporting technical information and calculations to demonstrate that implementation of the plan shall satisfy all applicable regulations, standards and guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan. Development of the proposed project would be required to be in substantial compliance with the Infrastructure Master Plan, wastewater master plan and Master Phasing Plan as may be amended from time to time with approval from the City, DSRSD, and the project applicant.
The wastewater treatment plant has an excess capacity of 5.52 million gallons per day and could adequately serve the proposed project and therefore would have a less than significant impact on the existing wastewater treatment plant. Future development within the project area would be required to pay the sanitary sewer connection fee to the DSRSD in order for the District to serve the proposed project. This is considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Increased Water Demand and Extension of Water Infrastructure
Impact 3.11-7: Implementation of the proposed project would generate an additional demand for water; however, the additional demand would be adequately served by anticipated water entitlements and resources. This would be considered a less than significant impact.
DSRSD is the purveyor of potable water in the City of Dublin. DSRSD purchases wholesale water from Zone 7, who in turns purchases 70 percent of its water from the State Water Project. The remainder of the Zone 7 water is from groundwater aquifers through the Livermore-Amador Valley.
DSRSD, in collaboration with West Yost Associates, completed a Water Supply Master Plan Update in 2005. The Water Master Plan Update based future demand (in part) on the City of Dublin General Plan and respective Specific Plan growth projections. The update recommends additional storage for the central Dublin area and potable water system facility improvements to support existing and future conditions. Within Central Dublin, the Water Master Plan Update recommends the construction of a 2.74 million gallon reservoir (Tank 1C) in Central Dublin (North of Dougherty Reservoir and north of Amador Valley Road) to meet a storage deficiency at buildout, and to help alleviate low pressure during peak hour demand conditions. In addition, new 12-inch and 20-inch diameter service mains are recommended in the vicinity of new Tank 1C to fill the tank and
Page 3-202
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
distribute water from the tank to the Central Dublin service area. These improvements have been incorporated into DSRSD’s capital improvement program.
Water Supply Assessment A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the proposed project by West Yost Associates on behalf of DSRSD in accordance with Water Code sections 10910 through 10915. The WSA was adopted by the DSRSD Board of Directors on April 16, 2013. The WSA is included as Appendix H to the EIR. The projected potable and recycled water demands for buildout of the proposed project were calculated for the proposed project’s two land use alternatives (with and without the proposed elementary school). The calculated demands for buildout of the proposed project are summarized as follows:
Land Use Alternative #1 (with Elementary School)
Potable Water Demand = 371 acre feet per year
Recycled Water Demand = 144 acre feet per year Land Use Alternative #2 (without Elementary School)
Potable Water Demand = 365 acre feet per year
Recycled Water Demand = 131 acre feet per year The potable water demand that was calculated based on the current land use is lower that the potable water demand included in the DSRSD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the project area, which was approximately 467 acre feet per year. However, the recycled water demand calculated for the proposed project is higher than the recycled water demand included in the DSRSD 2010 UWMP for the proposed project, which was 61 acre-feet per year.
Potable Water Supply Availability and Reliability - Zone 7 is DSRSD’s sole potable water supplier and Zone 7 is aggressively planning for water supply programs and projects to meet the water demands of its customers through buildout of the adopted general plans. With Zone 7’s planned programs and projects implemented, DSRSD anticipates no water supply shortage. However, if Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are not implemented, DSRSD anticipates:
Approximately three percent water shortage starting 2030 during Normal years;
Approximately one percent water supply shortage starting 2030 during a Single Dry Year;
For a multiple year event that starts in 2025, DSRSD will receive 100 percent of its total potable water demand in the first year, 100 percent of its total water demand in the second year, and 72 percent of its total potable water demand (28 percent water shortage) in the third year;
For a multiple year event that starts in 2030, DSRSD will receive 98 percent of its total potable water demand (2 percent water shortage) in the first year, 100 percent of its total potable water demand in the second year, and 69 percent of its total potable water demand (31 percent water shortage) in the third year;
Page 3-203
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
For a multiple dry year event that starts in 2035, DSRSD will receive 98 percent of its total potable water demand (2 percent water shortage) in the first year, 100 percent of its total potable water demand in the second year, and 69 percent of its total potable water demand (31 percent water shortage) in the third year. The Zone 7 Board of Directors adopted a revised water supply policy on October 17, 2012, which includes the following level of service goals:
Meet 85 percent of Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water demands 99 percent of the time;
Meet 100 percent of M&I water demands 90 percent of the time;
Meet at least 80 percent of the maximum month demand during an extended unplanned outage. The revised reliability policy does not change the amount of water supply available to the retailers under Normal, Single Dry, or Multiple Dry years. Rather, it provides Zone 7 with the additional flexibility and time necessary to evaluate, develop, and implement cost- effective solutions necessary to allow Zone 7 to continue to provide a reliable, high-quality water supply to its customers in the face of an uncertain water supply future. Changing the third goal to reflect a prolonged outage on the maximum month instead of the maximum day should allow Zone 7 to develop more cost-effective solutions to major, prolonged shortages, while also providing the time necessary to communicate with and obtain a response from its customers (the water retailers). DSRSD proposed to manage and further reduce its potable water demands through additional conservation efforts and its recycled water program. However, if supply shortages do occur, DSRSD may have to invoke its Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan as described in the 2010 UWMP. Pursuant to Water Code Section 10910(c)(4) and based on the WSA and the DSRSD 2010 UWMP, DSRSD finds that the proposed potable water demands for the proposed project can be met by the DSRSD during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry water years for a 20-year projection with no water supply shortage if Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are implemented. If Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are not implemented, the proposed project would be subject to the same water conservation measures and water use restrictions as DSRSD’s other existing and future potable water customers as included in DSRSD’s Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan. Recycled Water Availability and Reliability - Although more than what was included in the DSRSD 2010 UWMP, it was determined that the projected recycled water demands for the proposed project can be met as wastewater collected in the DSRSD’s service area exceeds projected recycled water demands. DSRSD anticipates resolving the current recycled water production limitations and actual unit recycled water use would be less than projected unit recycled water use (36 inches per year versus 48 inches per year). Furthermore, DSRSD does not anticipate significant issues in its ability to provide recycled water to its customers. DSRSD’s recycled water supply is reliable under Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry water years. Therefore, pursuant to Water Code Section 10910(c)(4), and based on the technical analyses described in this WSA and the DSRSD 2010 UWMP, DSRSD determined that the
Page 3-204
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities potable and recycled water demands for the proposed project can be met during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years for a 20-year projection. Therefore, there is adequate capacity to serve buildout of the proposed project.
Backbone Water Infrastructure The project applicant would be required to construct the backbone infrastructure needed for the proposed project’s potable water delivery system with private financing and/or public financing subject to terms of the Development Agreement or agreements with other agencies. As part of the Small Lot Tentative Map process for each planning area, land use district, and other portions of the project area, the project applicant would be responsible for constructing the in-tract water delivery system infrastructure needed to deliver potable water to the development being proposed under the requested Tentative Map. Portions of the potable water system may be subject to reimbursement by other benefiting property owners. The potable water delivery system shall be offered for dedication to DSRSD. Once this offer of dedication is accepted, DSRSD would operate and maintain the water system. All water system infrastructure improvements shall be reviewed by DSRSD during the Large Lot Tentative Map and Infrastructure Master Plan review process to ensure consistency with this Specific Plan and to ensure that the design and construction meet DSRSD and city standards.
Potable Water Master Plan As part of the application of the Large Lot Tentative Map, the project applicant would be required to prepare a potable water master plan to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and DSRSD. This master plan shall identify the size, location and timing of all major water lines and any pumps proposed, and shall be accompanied by all supporting technical information and calculations to demonstrate that implementation of the plan shall satisfy all applicable regulations, standards and guidelines set forth in this Specific Plan. Development of the proposed project would be required to be in substantial compliance with the Infrastructure Master Plan, the Project Master Phasing Plan and potable water master plan as may be amended from time to time with approval from the City, DSRSD, and the Master Developer.
Water Storage and Off-Site Delivery System Prior to the recordation of the first Small Lot Final Subdivision Map (with “buildable” lots), the project applicant shall enter into an agreement with DSRSD to fund the proposed project’s fair, pro rata share to support DSRSD infrastructure (including off-site storage, wells, and backbone pipelines), which will be used to deliver sufficient water to serve the Specific Plan area. The construction of necessary improvements may occur over time as required to serve the proposed project. As a condition of approval of each Small Lot Final Tentative Subdivision Map (with “buildable” lots), the developer(s) shall demonstrate availability of an adequate water supply in accordance with state law. Future phases of the proposed project may trigger requirement for service from a planned DSRSD potable water tank. The future tank will be planned for in the project Infrastructure Master Plan, which the City will be reviewing and approving in accordance
Page 3-205
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities with the requirement of the Specific Plan. The Infrastructure Master Plan should identify the development trigger for the future tank. The future tank should be installed prior to approval of the Final Map for the trigger point.
With implementation of these measures, this would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Stormwater Runoff
Impact 3.11-8: Implementation of the proposed project may result in increased off-site stormwater flows and future development within the project area would be required to install proposed drainage improvements and pay applicable impact fees at the time of issuance of the building permits. This is considered a less than significant impact.
As previously mentioned, the City of Dublin Public Works Department maintains the City’s storm drain pipelines that are located within public streets. Zone 7 owns and operates regional storm drain facilities that collect runoff from the City.
Surface water management consists of both on-site runoff and the management of off-site runoff extending through or around the site.
On-site Surface Water Runoff As shown in Figure 3.8-3: Proposed Drainage, surface waters within the project area would be divided into four drainage sheds. Drainage sheds A9-A (63.3 acres) and A9-B (81.7 acres) would ultimately flow into the Line G-1 drainage channel. Two underground detention basins, located within the proposed community park, would be constructed. Preliminary estimates by Ruggeri Jensen Azar (RJA) call for the construction of two underground basins (RJA 2013). Park Basin #1, which captures drainage from A9-B, would have a storage capacity of 3.3 acre feet and an outflow rate of 80 cfs. Park Basin #2, which captures drainage from A9-A, would have a storage capacity of 1.6 acre feet and an outflow of 71 cfs.9
Based on project plans, drainage from both of these underground basins would be conveyed via an underground pipe to the proposed Chabot Creek riparian channel that would be realigned through the proposed community park.
Drainage sheds XX-1 (23.1 acres) and XX-2 (20.9 acres), which are located in the southeast corner of the site, would ultimately flow into the Line G-5 drainage channel. Two underground detention basins consisting of 96” diameter storm drain pipes would be constructed along the proposed Central Parkway, or other suitable public roadway. Basin
9 This analysis assumed two open-air basins and that the bottom 2 ½ feet of each basin was inundated with runoff from the previous storm event. Given the fact that these two basins are now proposed to be underground, the ultimate storage capacities would be determined as part of detailed engineering design. However, the basins would be designed so that there is sufficient capacity to ensure that runoff capacities to not exceed pre-condition flow conditions.
Page 3-206
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
3-1 would be capable of storing 1.6 acre feet and Basin 3-2 would be capable of storing 1.7 acre feet.
Off-site Surface Water Runoff Management There are two main sources of existing offsite runoff that would have to be conveyed around or through the proposed project to accommodate development.
The first off-site flow is a portion of the main 1,800 acre watershed located north of the project area. The majority of this flow currently drains from the north to via the existing Line G-1 channel, discharging at the intersection of proposed Scarlett Drive extension and Dublin Boulevard. Based on discussions with the City and the project applicant, a new offsite detention basin will be constructed on currently Army-owned property, north of the project site. This new off-site basin will be designed to reduce Q100 runoff flows from currently 924 cfs to 604 cfs.
Water flowing out from this new off-site basin would then flow into the 1.7 acre Chabot Creek riparian channel through the proposed community park. Preliminary plans call for this drainage channel to be constructed with a four and a half foot wide channel base, 3:1 side slopes and an “n” value (water flow velocity rate) of 0.50.
The second offsite flow is from the area east and north of Arnold Road. This includes the watershed north of Broder Boulevard, and the separate developed area east of Arnold Drive. Improvements would include undergrounding the existing open channel along Arnold Drive via a new double 4’ x 8’ re-enforced concrete box culvert. The existing second flow “splitter” near the proposed Central Parkway would be removed and a new “splitter” structure would be new underground flows south on Arnold Road and the required flow split between Lines G-2 and G-5. A new dual 60” re-enforced concrete pipe would be constructed along Central Parkway, or other suitable public roadway, intercepting Basin’s 3-1 and 3-2, and ultimately flowing into Line G-5 south of Dublin Boulevard.
Hydromodification and Water Quality Management Hydromodification (stormwater management) for the proposed project as a whole would be addressed the construction of the four basins, described above. These facilities would be constructed prior to, or in concert with any “upstream” site development.
Backbone roadway infrastructure would be constructed in phases consistent with the development of adjacent parcels. Each portion of the roadway will incorporate roadside bioretention area to treat stormwater runoff from the roadways (see Figure 2-11: Conceptual Stormwater Drainage and Detention System, above, and roadway cross- sections in the Draft Dublin Crossing Specific Plan). These bioretention areas will be connected to the roadway stormwater systems which would then discharge into one of the four basins.
In accordance with the Alameda County Clear Water Program, low impact design (LID) site design measures for water quality protection will be implemented as individual parcels are developed, to adequately address the impacts of their proposed development and to show compliance with the post-construction, long-term requirements of Provision C.3.
Page 3-207
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
Water quality features include bioretention areas, flow-through planters, tree well filters, median filters and “treatment trains.” Trash capture facilities would also be incorporated into the system. These on-site facilities would be connected to the stormwater drain system in the backbone roadways.
Stormwater Pollution Previsions Plans (SWPPPs) would also be prepared, as a separate document, to control short-term construction-related discharge pollutants as required by the CA State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 99-08-DWQ.
In addition to installing the proposed drainage improvements, future development would be required to pay applicable impact drainage fees at the time of development, which includes development impact fees to Zone 7 based on total increases in impervious surfaces associated with future development. Payment of these development impact fees to Zone 7 would ensure that the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on stormwater infrastructure and services, and no mitigation is required
Increased Generation of Solid Waste
Impact 3.11-9: Implementation of the proposed project would increase the generation of solid waste, but would be served by landfills with adequate capacity to accommodate the increase. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Development within the project area would result in an increase in both residential and commercial development within the City. Solid waste services are currently provided by Amador Valley Industries (AVI) and include the collection of waste, recycling, and organics.
The proposed project would also generate construction debris during construction activities from the demolition of buildings and removal of other improvements (e.g. asphalt, etc.). The City requires all construction and demolition projects to recycle at least 50 percent of waste generated on a job site (Chapter 7.30 of the Municipal Code). Additionally, the Specific Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines in the proposed Specific Plan encourage the use of green building materials, including materials with recycled content, materials from resource-efficient manufacturing process, locally- produced materials, salvaged or refurbished materials, and reusable materials, consistent with the City’s Green Building Ordinance (Chapter 7.94). The City of Dublin also has an aggressive and comprehensive recycling program. All single-family residences are provided with recycling containers. In addition, free recycling service is available to all commercial customers that subscribe to solid waste collection.
All solid waste generated by development under the proposed project would be deposited at the Altamont Landfill. The Altamont Landfill has a total estimated permitted capacity of 62,000,000 cubic yards. The total estimated capacity used is 16,280,000 cubic yards (or 26.3 percent), and the remaining estimated capacity is at 45,720,000 cubic yards (or 73.7 percent). The estimated closure date of this landfill is January 2029. Development under the proposed project would occur over an extended period of time, meaning the Altamont Landfill would see an incremental increase in additional project solid waste until ultimate buildout of the proposed project.
Page 3-208
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities
The proposed project calls for the construction of a maximum of 200,000 square feet of non-residential development and a maximum of 1,995 residential units. Table 3.11-4: Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation Rates provides the projected amount of solid waste that would be generated at buildout of the proposed project.
Table 3.11-4: Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation Rates Potential New Solid Waste Generation Solid Waste Proposed Land Use Development Rate* Generation Non-Residential 2.5 lb./1000 sq. ft./day (Commercial 200,000 sq. ft. 0.28 tons/day
Retail/Office) Residential 12.23 lb./unit/day 1,995 residential units 12.2 tons/day
Projected Total 12.48 tons/day *Rates from CalRecycle Website: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/, April 2010
The proposed project would create approximately 12.48 tons of waste per day. The Altamont Landfill’s permitted maximum disposal rate is 11,500 tons/day. The proposed project’s solid waste generation amount represents approximately 0.1 percent of the landfill’s maximum daily disposal rate. In addition, future development within the project area would be required to reduce 75 percent of trash through recycling and the composting of organics, which would also reduce the overall waste generation of the proposed project. Therefore, the Altamont Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the waste disposal needs of the proposed project. This would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Electricity, Gas, and Telecommunications
Impact 3.11-10: The proposed project may result in the expansion of electricity, gas, and telecommunications on-site; however, the project site is already served by these utilities and there is adequate infrastructure in place both on and adjacent to the project area to serve the proposed project. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Comcast currently provides cable television and internet service; AT&T and numerous long-distance telecommunication companies provide telephone and cellular phone service; and PG&E provides electrical and natural gas services to the City. The project site is already served by these utilities and there is adequate infrastructure in place both on and adjacent to the project area to serve the proposed project. As such, new and intensification of uses that would occur with implementation of the proposed project are not anticipated to result in the need for construction of new electricity, gas or telecommunications infrastructure. Therefore, provision of new service would result in a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
Page 3-209
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
3.12 Transportation & Circulation This section presents the results of the transportation impact study for the proposed project that was prepared by Hexagon in March 2013. The purpose of the transportation impact analysis for the proposed project is to evaluate transportation impacts, identify short-term and long-term roadway and circulation needs, determine potential mitigation measures, and identify any critical transportation issues that should be addressed in the on- going planning process. The study primarily focused on evaluating conditions at twenty nine existing intersections and eight new project planned intersections that may potentially be affected by the proposed project. A complete copy of the traffic level of service calculations, prepared by Hexagon, is included in Appendix I of this Draft EIR and is available for review at the City of Dublin.
Environmental Setting This chapter includes a description of existing traffic and circulation conditions, as well as the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in and around the project area.
Existing Roadway Network Operations at the intersections were analyzed during the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic (referred to as the commute hours), which occur from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM. These periods represent the most congested traffic conditions of an average weekday. The study intersections were selected based on discussions with City of Dublin and City of Pleasanton staff. The project area and off-site study intersections are shown on Figure 3.12-1: Site Location and Off-Site Study Intersections. The future project study intersections are shown on Figure 3.12-2: Future Project Study Intersections. The study intersections are listed below followed by a narrative description of key roadways.
1. Amador Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard1 2. Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard1 3. Dougherty Road and Old Ranch Road2 4. Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard1 5. Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive1 6. Dougherty Road and Sierra Lane1 7. Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard1 8. Dougherty Road and I-580 WB Ramps3 9. Hopyard Road and I-580 EB Ramps3 10. Hopyard Road and Owens Drive3 11. Hopyard Road and Stoneridge Drive3 12. I-680 NB Ramps and Stoneridge Drive3 13. Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard1
Page 3-210
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
14. Demarcus Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard1 15. Iron Horse Parkway and Dublin Boulevard1 16. Arnold Road and Dublin Boulevard1 17. Arnold Road and Central Parkway1 18. Arnold Road and Gleason Drive1 (Unsignalized) 19. Hacienda Drive and Central Parkway1 20. Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard1 21. Hacienda Drive and Hacienda Crossings1 22. Hacienda Drive and I-580 WB Ramps3 23. Hacienda Drive and I-580 EB Ramps3 24. Hacienda Drive and Owens Drive3 25. Santa Rita Road and I-580 EB Ramps3 26. Tassajara Road and I-580 WB Ramps3 27. Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard1 28. Tassajara Road and Central Parkway1 29. Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive1 30. Scarlett Drive and G Street1,4 ,5 31. B Street and G Street1,5 (Unsignalized) 32. B Street and Central Parkway1,5 (Unsignalized) 33. D Street and G Street1,5 (Unsignalized) 34. D Street and Central Parkway1,5 (Unsignalized) 35. F Street and G Street1,5 (Unsignalized) 36. F Street and Central Parkway1,5 (Unsignalized) 37. Arnold Road and G Street1,5 1 Denotes City of Dublin Intersection 2 Denotes City of San Ramon Intersection 3 Denotes City of Pleasanton Intersection 4 Scarlett Dr/G St is unsignalized in existing & 2020 conditions and signalized in 2035 conditions 5 Future intersection with proposed project Interstate 580 (I-580) I-580 is an eight to nine lane east/west freeway with four mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in the eastbound direction and four mixed-flow lanes in the westbound direction, within the project vicinity. I-580 provides regional access from Marin County and the East Bay cities to San Joaquin County, where it merges with I-5. Access to the project study area is provided via its interchanges with Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road and Hacienda Drive.
Page 3-211
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Interstate 680 (I-680) I-680 is a six to eight lane north/south freeway with three mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction north of I-580 and three mixed-flow lanes in each direction south of I-580. I-680 extends north through Contra Costa County and south to Santa Clara County. The HOV lanes run north and south from central Contra Costa County to near the Dublin/San Ramon border. Access to the project area is provided via its interchange with I-580.
Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard is primarily a six lane east/west arterial south of the project area and provides access to residential and commercial/retail areas. According to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan (TVTP), Dublin Boulevard is a route of regional significance. Dublin Boulevard extends from the City limit in the west to Fallon Road in the east. Dublin Boulevard will form the southern boundary of the project area and provide direct access to the project area.
Dougherty Road Dougherty Road is a four to six lane north/south arterial west of the project area and provides access to residential and commercial/retail areas. According to the TVTP, Dougherty Road is a route of regional significance. Dougherty Road begins at Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon and continues south through Dublin to I-580, where it becomes Hopyard Road in Pleasanton.
Scarlett Drive Scarlett Drive is a two lane north/south collector along the southwest border of the project site. Scarlett Drive begins at Dougherty Road and continues southeast to Houston Place where it dead ends near commercial uses approximately 1,100 feet north of Dublin Boulevard. Scarlett Drive continues south of Dublin Boulevard to Scarlett Court. Scarlett Drive will provide direct access to the project site. The City of Dublin has future plans to extend Scarlett Drive from Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard.
Demarcus Boulevard/Camp Parks Boulevard Demarcus Boulevard is primarily a four lane north/south roadway south of the project area and provides access to residential uses and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Demarcus Boulevard begins at Dublin Boulevard and continues south to the BART station. North of its intersection with Dublin Boulevard it becomes Camp Parks Boulevard, which is a four lane roadway. Camp Parks Boulevard will provide direct access to the project area via its intersection with Dublin Boulevard.
Iron Horse Parkway Iron Horse Parkway is primarily a three lane north/south roadway south of the project site, with two northbound lanes and one southbound lane. Iron Horse Parkway provides access to residential uses and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Iron Horse Parkway begins at Dublin Boulevard and continues south to the BART station. Iron Horse Parkway will provide direct access to the project area via its intersection with Dublin Boulevard.
Page 3-212
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Arnold Road Arnold Road is primarily a two lane north/south roadway east of the project area and provides access to residential uses, commercial/retail areas, and the BART parking garage. Arnold Road extends from the Santa Rita Jail in the north to I-580 in the south, where it makes a 90 degree turn to the Dublin BART parking garage access road. Arnold Road will form the eastern boundary of the project area and provide direct access to the project area.
Gleason Drive Gleason Drive is primarily a four lane east/west collector northeast of the project area and provides access to residential and industrial areas. Gleason Drive extends from Arnold Road in the west to Fallon Road in the east.
Central Parkway Central Parkway is primarily a two lane east/west collector east of the project area and provides access to residential, industrial, and retail areas. Central Parkway extends from Arnold Road in the west to Fallon Road in the east.
Hacienda Drive Hacienda Drive is a three to six lane north/south arterial east of the project area and provides access to residential and retail areas. According to the TVTP, Hacienda Drive is a potential future route of regional significance. Hacienda Drive begins at Gleason Drive in the north and continues south to I-580, where it crosses the freeway and continues into Pleasanton.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Bicycle facilities are divided into three classes. Class I bikeways are separate bike paths that are physically separated from motor vehicles and offer two-way bicycle travel on a separate path. Class II bikeways are striped bike lanes on roadways that are marked by signage and pavement markings. Class III bikeways are bike routes and only have signs to help guide bicyclists on recommended routes to certain locations.
The Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, from 2007, describes the existing bicycle network in the City of Dublin. The existing bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project area are described below and shown on Figure 3.12-3: Existing Bicycle Facilities.
Dougherty Road – existing Class I bicycle path from Scarlett Drive to the City of San Ramon.
Dublin Boulevard – existing Class I bicycle path from Scarlett Drive to Tassajara Creek Trail and existing Class II bicycle lanes from Dougherty Road to Lockhart Street.
Arnold Road – existing Class II bicycle lanes from Gleason Drive to Dublin Boulevard.
Page 3-213
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Arnold Road – existing Class II bicycle lane on the west side from Martinelli Way to Gleason Drive.
Central Parkway – existing Class II bicycle lanes from Arnold Road to Fallon Road.
Gleason Drive – existing Class II bicycle lanes from Arnold Road to Fallon Road.
Hacienda Drive – existing Class II bicycle lanes from Gleason Drive to I-580 EB Ramps. The Iron Horse Trail is an East Bay Regional Park District Regional Trail that consists of a 12 foot wide asphalt surface and extends from Pleasanton to Concord. Within the City of Dublin the trail extends from the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to the San Ramon Border. Within the project vicinity, the trail would run along the southwest border of the proposed project site. The Iron Horse Trail intersects with the Alamo Creek Trail, Alamo Canal Trail, and the Dougherty Road bike path.
The Alamo Creek Trail is a City trail that extends from the Iron Horse Trail north through Alamo Creek Park to the northern city limit near Crossbridge Road. With the exception of a short gravel-paved segment through Alamo Creek Park, the trail is 12 to 14 feet wide and paved with asphalt.
The Alamo Canal Trail is an East Bay Regional Park District Regional Trail that extends from the southern city limit near the Dublin Library and Civic Center and extends north up to the Iron Horse Trail. An extension of the Alamo Canal Trail between Dublin and Pleasanton has recently been completed.
According to the Bikeways Master Plan, there are Class II bike lanes proposed along Demarcus Boulevard, Iron Horse Parkway, Martinelli Way east of Arnold Drive, and Arnold Drive south of Martinelli Way in the vicinity of the project site.
Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist primarily of sidewalks or paths along the streets near the project site. Sidewalks and crosswalks are found along virtually all previously-described local roadways in the study area. However, there are no sidewalks along the west side of Arnold Road.
Transit Service Existing transit service in the project vicinity is provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE). Figure 3.12-4: Existing Transit Routes shows the existing transit service in the study area. Each service is described below.
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) LAVTA provides transit service for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton via Wheels, which provides local, regional, and paratransit bus service. In addition, Wheels provides connections to BART, ACE, and the Central Contra Costa
Page 3-214
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
County Transportation Authority (County Connection) services. Table 3.12-1: LAVTA Service Summary summarizes the service frequencies for the bus routes in the study area.
Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Commuter rail service to Dublin is provided by BART. The closest access to the BART system is located about 1/3 mile south of the project area at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. BART provides service to San Francisco and many locations in the East Bay. BART is accessible by foot via sidewalks on Dublin Boulevard, Demarcus Boulevard, and Iron Horse Parkway. BART trains operate on 15 minute headways during the commute periods.
Page 3-215
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Table 3.12-1: LAVTA Service Summary
Route Route Description Weekday Hours of Operation Headway 1
East/Vasco LLNL to Stoneridge R Mall/Dublin/Pleasanton BART 6:15AM to 9:00PM 10 to 15 Dublin/Pleasanton BART to Santa Rita Jail 1A,1B & Waterford Plaza 6:00AM to 8:50PM 25 to 30 Dublin/Pleasanton BART to Emerald Glen 2 Park & Fallon Middle School 6:30AM to 7:10PM 25 to 30 Dublin/Pleasanton BART to Johnson Drive 3,3V & Alcosta Boulevard 6:00AM to 8:50PM 60 Dublin/Pleasanton BART to Downtown 8 Pleasanton 6:00AM to 8:50PM 30 Dublin/Pleasanton BART to Hacienda 9 Business Center 6:45AM to 6:00PM 15 East/Vasco LLNL to Stoneridge 10 Mall/Dublin/Pleasanton BART 5:30AM to 1:45AM 15 to 20 Dublin/Pleasanton BART to Livermore 12 Transit Center 6:00AM to 10:50PM 20 to 40 Dublin/Pleasanton BART to Livermore 20X Transit Center 6:15AM to 6:30PM 45 Dublin/Pleasanton BART to Pleasanton 54 ACE Train Station 5:30AM to 6:30PM 60 Dublin/Pleasanton BART to Pleasant Hill 70X BART/Walnut Creek BART 6:00AM to 7:10PM 20 to 30 201 Dublin High School to Fallon/Bent Tree 7:14AM NA 202 Dublin High School to Fallon/Bent Tree 7:18AM NA
1 Approximate headways during commute periods, in minutes NA - Route has only one trip
Source: Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, November 2012
Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) The ACE provides commuter passenger train service between Stockton and San Jose during the weekdays. ACE stops at the Pleasanton Station three times during the morning commute hours in the westbound direction and three times during the evening commute hours in the eastbound direction. The closest access to the ACE train is at the Pleasanton Station, 3.5 miles south of the project site.
Traffic Analysis Methodology Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or congested conditions with excessive delays. The various analysis methods are described below.
Page 3-216
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
The signalized study intersections analyzed in this report are located in the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and San Ramon. Therefore, each signalized study intersection is subject to its city’s Level of Service standards. The level of service methodology used by the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 method for signalized intersections. The City of San Ramon methodology for level of service is based on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) method for signalized intersections. TRAFFIX software was used for the cities of Dublin and San Ramon and Synchro software was used for the City of Pleasanton. The 2000 HCM method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Control delay is the amount of delay that is attributed to the particular traffic control device at the intersection, and includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The CCTA method evaluates signalized intersection operations based on an intersection’s volume-to-capacity ratio. The Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS D or better. The City of San Ramon level of service standard for signalized intersections is LOS C or better. Per the San Ramon General Plan, LOS D is acceptable under special circumstances. Table 3.12-2: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria summarizes the relationship between the control delay and LOS for signalized intersections.
Level of service at unsignalized intersections is based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM) method. Since all of the unsignalized intersections are located in the City of Dublin, TRAFFIX software was used. This method is applicable for both two-way and all-way stop-controlled intersections. For two-way stop-controlled intersections, delay is calculated for each stop-controlled movement and for the uncontrolled left turns, if any, from the main street. For two-way stop controlled intersections, the overall average delay and LOS were reported as well as the delay and LOS for the worst intersection movement. For all-way stop controlled intersections, the overall intersection average delay and LOS was reported. Table 3.12-3: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections.
Page 3-217
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Table 3.12-2: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of Description Average Control Service Delay (Seconds per Vehicle) Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable traffic signal A < 10.0 progression and/or short cycle lengths. Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short B > 10.0 to 20.0 cycle lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or C > 20.0 to 35.0 longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable D progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. > 35.0 to 55.0 Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle E lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent > 55.0 to 80.0 occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to F > 80.0 over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000
Table 3.12-3: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of Description Average Control Delay Service (Seconds Per Vehicle) A Little or no delays < 10.0 B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity > 50.0 exceeded Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000
Per the 2011 Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP), the level of service for freeway segments was estimated based on volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. The V/C on a segment is correlated to level of service as shown in Table 3.12-4: Freeway LOS Criteria.
Page 3-218
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Table 3.12-4: Freeway LOS Criteria
Level of Description V/C Ratio Service Average operating speeds at the free-flow speed generally prevail. A Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver 0.35 within the traffic stream. Speeds at the free-flow speed are generally maintained. The ability to B maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and the 0.58 general level of physical and psychological comfort provided to drivers is still high. Speeds at or near the free-flow speed of the freeway prevail. Freedom C to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted, and lane 0.75 changes require more vigilance on the part of the driver. Speeds begin to decline slightly with increased flows at this level. D Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is more noticeably 0.90 limited, and the driver experiences reduced physical and psychological comfort levels. At this level, the freeway operates at or near capacity. Operations in this E level are volatile, because there are virtually no usable gaps in the traffic 1.00 stream, leaving little room to maneuver within the traffic stream. F Vehicular flow breakdown occurs. Large queues form behind breakdown <1.00 points. Source: 2011 Congestion Management Program, Alameda County Transportation Commission
Existing Traffic Operations and Levels of Service The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were determined by observations in the field and reviewed by City staff. The existing intersection lane configurations are shown on Figure 3.12-5: Existing Lane Configurations. Existing peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from recent manual turning-movement counts at the study intersections. The existing peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Figure 3.12-6: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. Traffic count data are included in Appendix H. The twenty nine off-site study intersections were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours according to the procedures previously described. The results of the level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 3.12-5: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service. The results show that, measured against the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and San Ramon level of service standards, all of the study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix H of the Draft EIR.
Page 3-219
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Table 3.12-5: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Existing Traffic Peak Count Delay (in Intersection Control Hour Date seconds)12 LOS12 Dublin Intersections:
1. Amador Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 05/15/12 32.0 C PM 05/12/12 36.6 D 2. Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 05/15/12 28.5 C PM 05/15/12 30.3 C 4. Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Signal AM 05/15/12 22.8 C PM 05/15/12 27.7 C 5. Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive Signal AM 05/15/12 19.7 B PM 05/17/12 25.6 C 6. Dougherty Road and Sierra Lane Signal AM 05/15/12 11.5 B PM 05/15/12 10.8 B 7. Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 05/17/12 33.8 C PM 05/03/12 36.9 D 13. Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 05/15/12 9.1 A PM 05/10/12 11.3 B 14. Demarcus Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 05/16/12 23.8 C PM 05/15/12 16.2 B 15. Iron Horse Parkway and Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 05/16/12 15.3 B PM 05/16/12 15.7 B 16. Arnold Road and Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 05/16/12 39.0 D PM 05/08/12 29.8 C 17. Arnold Road and Central Parkway Signal AM 05/03/12 4.3 A PM 05/09/12 5.3 A 18. Arnold Road and Gleason Drive AWSC AM 05/02/12 12.8 B PM 05/10/12 8.4 A 19. Hacienda Drive and Central Parkway Signal AM 05/16/12 17.5 B PM 05/16/12 16.6 B 20. Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 05/17/12 21.3 C PM 05/08/12 33.0 C 21. Hacienda Drive and Hacienda Crossings Signal AM 05/16/12 17.1 B PM 05/16/12 18.2 B 27. Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 05/17/12 23.5 C PM 05/17/12 29.7 C 28. Tassajara Road and Central Parkway Signal AM 05/17/12 19.6 B PM 05/17/12 19.9 B 29. Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive Signal AM 05/17/12 24.5 C PM 05/17/12 25.8 C 30. Scarlett Drive and G Street SSSC AM ------PM ------31. B Street and G Street AWSC AM ------PM ------32. B Street and Central Parkway East SSSC AM ------PM ------33. D Street and G Street SSSC AM ------
Page 3-220
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Existing Traffic Peak Count Delay (in Intersection Control Hour Date seconds)12 LOS12 PM ------34. D Street and Central Parkway East SSSC AM ------PM ------35. F Street and G Street SSSC AM ------PM ------36. F Street and Central Parkway East SSSC AM ------PM ------37. Arnold Road and G Street Signal AM ------PM ------San Ramon Intersections:
3. Dougherty Road and Old Ranch Road Signal AM 05/15/12 .400* A* PM 05/15/12 .459* A* Pleasanton Intersections:
8. Dougherty Road and I-580 WB Ramps Signal AM 02/16/12 9.9 A PM 02/16/12 10.7 B 9. Hopyard Road and I-580 EB Ramps Signal AM 02/16/12 34.6 D PM 02/16/12 16.0 B 10. Hopyard Road and Owens Drive Signal AM 02/14/12 28.7 C PM 02/14/12 39.6 D 11. Hopyard Road and Stoneridge Drive Signal AM 02/14/12 25.9 C PM 02/14/12 33.0 C 12. I-680 NB Ramps and Stoneridge Drive Signal AM 02/14/12 11.9 B PM 02/14/12 10.3 B 22. Hacienda Drive and I-580 WB Ramps Signal AM 02/16/12 6.6 A PM 02/16/12 5.4 A 23. Hacienda Drive and I-580 EB Ramps Signal AM 02/16/12 12.3 B PM 02/16/12 9.3 A 24. Hacienda Drive and Owens Drive Signal AM 02/16/12 13.8 B PM 02/16/12 25.8 C 25. Tassajara Road and I-580 WB Ramps Signal AM 02/21/12 9.1 A PM 02/21/12 12.0 B 26. Santa Rita Road and I-580 EB Ramps Signal AM 02/21/12 23.3 C PM 02/21/12 29.8 C
1 Signalized and all-way stop controlled intersection levels of service and delays reported are for overall average delay. 2 Side-street stop controlled intersection levels of service and delays reported are for overall average delay and (worst approach movement delay). *V/C ratio and LOS reported based on CCTA LOS method instead of average delay. Note: “--“ Intersection does not currently exist. AWSC = All-way stop control SSSC = Side street stop control
Source: Hexagon 2012
Page 3-221
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Existing Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis This analysis consisted of a volume-to-capacity ratio evaluation of selected freeway ramps at Dougherty/Hopyard Road’s interchange with I-580, Hacienda Drive’s interchange with I- 580, and Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road’s interchange with I-580. The ramp capacities were obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (Chapter 25), which considers both the free-flow speed and the number of lanes of each study ramp. Where appropriate, the capacities of the ramps were reduced based on current ramp meter rates measured in the field. The existing freeway ramp volumes were obtained from Caltrans and spot checked in the field.
The ramp analysis shows that each of the ramps analyzed currently has sufficient capacity to serve the existing traffic volumes. All of the study ramps have volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios less than 1.0, which means that the existing traffic demand does not exceed the existing ramp capacity. The results are shown in Table 3.12-6: Existing Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis.
Table 3.12-6: Existing Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis Peak Ramp Meter Capacity V/C Freeway Ramps Hour On? (Y/N) (vph)1 Volume2 Ratio3 I-580 at Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road SB Hopyard to WB I-580 On Ramp AM Y 900 591 0.66 PM N 1800 326 0.18 SB Hopyard to EB I-580 On Ramp AM N 1800 388 0.22 PM Y 360 213 0.59 I-580 at Hacienda Drive SB Hacienda to WB I-580 On Ramp AM Y 720 301 0.42 PM N 1800 522 0.29 SB Hacienda to EB I-580 On Ramp AM N 1800 190 0.11 PM Y 300 294 0.98 I-580 at Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road SB Tassajara to WB I-580 On Ramp AM Y 720 617 0.86 PM N 1800 341 0.19 SB Tassajara to EB I-580 On Ramp AM N 1800 324 0.18 PM Y 300 291 0.97 1 Capacities obtained from observations at existing ramp meters. 2 Volumes obtained from Caltrans and new counts by Hexagon. 3 Volume-to-capacity ratio.
Source: Hexagon 2012
Traffic Impact Fee Program The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) was updated in 2010 and includes projections for development based on the various Specific Plans within the City of Dublin. The purpose of the TIF program is to (1) identify the transportation improvements necessary to build out the Dublin General Plan, (2) determine the cost of those improvements, and (3) provide a per average daily trip fee for new development. The per trip fee was calculated
Page 3-222
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation by dividing the cost of the necessary transportation improvements by the number of new trips added to the roadway network by future development in the City. The most recent update also allows for a reduction in fees for development located within the City’s Transit Center. The fees identified in the 2010 TIF update are $735 per trip for non-residential development, $762 per trip for residential development in the City’s Transit Center, and $841 per trip for residential development outside of the City’s Transit Center. The TIF program also includes annual fee increases to reflect future escalations in construction costs. The major improvements identified in the TIF that are part of the study area are:
Widening of the westbound segment of Dublin Boulevard between Sierra Court and Dublin Court to three lanes
Widening of Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road to six lanes
Widening of Dublin Boulevard from Brannigan Street to Fallon Road to six lanes
Extending Dublin Boulevard from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
Widening Arnold Road from two to four lanes from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive
Widening Hacienda Drive from Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway to six lanes and from Central Parkway to Gleason Drive to four lanes
Extending and widening Scarlett Drive to four lanes from Dublin Boulevard to Dougherty Road
Widening Dougherty Road to six lanes from Sierra Court to the City limits Presently, the proposed Dublin Crossing project is not part of the most recent update of the TIF program.
Relevant Project Characteristics This section presents the relevant project details pertaining to the transportation impact analysis, and describes the analysis scenarios and forecasting methods.
Study Scenarios The project impacts were evaluated for the following scenarios:
Existing Conditions. Existing conditions were represented by existing peak-hour traffic volumes on the existing roadway network. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from current AM and PM peak hour traffic counts.
Existing + Project Conditions. Projected peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. In the Cities of Dublin and San Ramon, project trips were estimated by adding the project uses into the City of Dublin’s TDF model. In the City of Pleasanton, existing plus project conditions were estimated by adding the new project trips to the existing traffic counts. Existing + Project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine potential project impacts.
Page 3-223
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
2020 Background Conditions. Background conditions were represented by year 2020 traffic volumes on the roadway network. Traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Dublin Travel Demand Forecast (TDF) model and the City of Pleasanton Synchro database. The TDF model for the City of Dublin and the City of Pleasanton Synchro database reflect all approved development in each respective city. The 2020 background + project buildout conditions were estimated by adding to 2020 background traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. In the Cities of Dublin and San Ramon, project trips were estimated by adding the project uses into the City of Dublin’s TDF model. In the City of Pleasanton, background plus project conditions were estimated by adding the new trips generated by the project to the City of Pleasanton’s base year 2020 forecasts. The 2020 background + project buildout conditions were evaluated relative to 2020 background conditions in order to determine potential project impacts.
Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative conditions were represented by year 2035 traffic volumes on the roadway network. Traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Dublin TDF model and the City of Pleasanton Synchro database. The 2035 cumulative + project buildout conditions were estimated by adding to 2035 cumulative traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. In the Cities of Dublin and San Ramon, project trips were estimated by adding the project uses into the City of Dublin’s TDF model. In the City of Pleasanton, cumulative plus project conditions were estimated by adding the new trips generated by the project to the City of Pleasanton’s base year 2035 forecasts. The 2035 cumulative + project buildout conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. Project Trip Generation In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. Through empirical research, data have been collected that correlate common land uses to their propensity for producing traffic. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied to help predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. Project trip generation was estimated by applying to the size and uses of the development the appropriate trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation, Eighth Edition. Where ITE trip generation rates were not available, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) trip generation rates were used. Based on ITE and SANDAG trip generation rates for single family residential units (ITE code 210), condominium/townhomes units (ITE code 230), apartments units (ITE code 220), elementary school use (ITE code 520), office use (ITE code 710), shopping centers (ITE code 820), and City Park (SANDAG), the project would generate 24,563 gross daily vehicle trips, with 1,924 gross trips occurring during the AM peak hour (7:00 to 9:00) and 2,695 gross trips occurring during the PM peak hour (4:00 to 6:00).
Since the proposed development would relocate the existing Camp Parks entrance on Dublin Boulevard, the trips generated by the existing use were redistributed from the current base entrance to the proposed new entrance at Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard.
Page 3-224
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
A retail pass-by trip reduction of 20 percent (based on prior analysis in the City of Dublin) was applied to the PM peak hour trip generation. Pass-by-trips are trips that would already be on the adjacent roadways (and are therefore already counted in the existing traffic) but would turn into the site while passing by. Justification for applying the pass-by-trip reduction is founded on the observation that such retail traffic is not actually generated by the retail development, but is already part of the ambient traffic levels. Pass-by-trips are therefore excluded from the PM peak hour traffic projections at most offsite intersections, but were assigned to the site’s planned driveways and the intersection of Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard.
Since the project area is located near the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, a transit reduction of five percent was applied to the overall project trip generation based on results from the City of Dublin travel demand forecasting model.
After applying the appropriate trip reductions, the project would generate 22,047 net new daily trips, with 1,828 net new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 2,393 net new trips occurring during the PM peak hour. The project trip generation estimates are presented below in Table 3.12-7: Dublin Crossing Trip Generation. It should be noted that some of the trips generated by the project would be internal to the site. For example, some of the project’s residential trips would occur to and from the proposed school. While these internal trips would represent new trips on the on-site roadway network, they would not result in new trips to the off-site roadway network. The internal capture of these trips is accounted for in the Travel Demand Forecast Model assignment process.
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. The directional distribution of site-generated traffic to and from the project area was developed based on a select zone analysis from the City of Dublin Travel Demand Forecast model and shown in Figure 3.12-7: Proposed Project Trip Generation Rates. The peak hour trips generated by the proposed uses were assigned to the roadway system by the model at each study location. Project Roadway Improvements With the addition of the proposed development, improvements are planned at existing intersections and new on-site roadways are planned throughout the project site. These include the following:
G Street G Street would be a new two lane east/west collector street with a two-way-center-left- turn lane. G Street runs through the northern portion of the project area and extends from Scarlett Drive to Arnold Road. G Street would connect to the existing roadway network via planned signals at Scarlett Drive and Arnold Road.
Page 3-225
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Table 3.12-7: Proposed Project Trip Generation Rates
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Rate1 Trips Rate1 In Out Total Rate1 In Out Total
Proposed Uses:
Single Family 795 units 9.57 7,608 0.75 149 447 596 1.01 506 297 803 Condo/Townhomes 688 units 5.81 3,997 0.44 52 251 303 0.52 240 118 358 Apartments 512 units 6.65 3,405 0.51 52 209 261 0.62 206 111 317 Elementary School 900 students 1.29 1,161 0.45 223 182 405 0.15 66 69 135 Office 50 k.s.f. 11.01 551 2.15 95 13 108 2.70 23 112 135 Shopping Center 150 k.s.f. 42.94 6,441 1.30 119 76 195 5.56 409 426 835 City Park 28 acres 50.00 1,400 2.00 28 28 56 4.00 56 56 112 Gross Phase 1 Total 24,563 718 1,206 1,924 1,506 1,189 2,695
Transit Reduction2 5% (1,228) (36) (60) (96) (75) (60) (135) Pass-By Reduction3 20% (1,288) (82) (85) (167)
Net Project Trip Totals 22,047 682 1,146 1,828 1,349 1,044 2,393
Note: Rates based on ITE Trip Generation, Eighth Edition, 2008: average rates for Residential & Elementary School, regression rates for Office & Shopping Center. Rate for City Park based on San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, 2002. Numbers may not add due to rounding. 1 Source: Single-Family Detached Housing (210), Condo/Townhomes (230), Apartments (220), elementary school (520), General Office (710), and Shopping Center (820). 2 A transit trip reduction of 5% was applied based on results from the City of Dublin travel demand forecasting model. 3 ITE Trip Generation Handbook calculates an average retail pass-by trip percentage of 34%, based on 100 shopping center studies, However, a more conservative pass-by trip deduction of 20% was used for the purpose of this study. No pass-by trips were applied to AM retail because these trips are typically associated with employee trips. Source: Hexagon 2012 B Street B Street would be a new two to four lane north/south collector street centrally located within the project area. B Street extends from G Street in the north to Dublin Boulevard in the south, where it will form the northern leg of the existing signalized intersection at Demarcus Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard.
Central Parkway East Central Parkway East would be a new two lane east/west collector street with a two-way- center-left-turn lane. Central Parkway East extends west from the existing signalized intersection at Arnold Road/Central Parkway to B Street.
Minor Internal Streets New minor collector streets would include A Street, C Street, D Street, E Street, F Street, H Street, and I Street. These roadways would be used primarily for internal circulation and
Page 3-226
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation would be stop controlled at their intersections with major streets. E Street and A Street would connect directly to Dublin Boulevard, but would be restricted to right turn only access. D Street would become the fourth (northern) leg of the existing signalized intersection at Dublin Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway.
Scarlett Drive Under all study scenarios (existing, 2020 background, and 2035 cumulative), it was assumed that the proposed project would construct separate right and left turn lanes on G Street at Scarlett Drive. In addition, under 2035 cumulative conditions, it was assumed that the proposed project would construct a southbound left turn lane from Scarlett Drive to eastbound G Street in conjunction with the extension of Scarlett Drive to Dublin Boulevard. It was also assumed the proposed project would construct a new signal at this location.
Arnold Road Under all study scenarios (existing, 2020 background, and 2035 cumulative), it was assumed that the proposed project would construct the following improvements:
On G Street at its intersection with Arnold Road, the proposed project would construct separate right and left turn lanes. In addition, it was assumed that the project would construct a northbound left turn lane and a southbound right turn lane from Arnold Road to westbound G Street. The proposed project would also construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Arnold Road and G Street to improve both vehicular access to the site and pedestrian/bicycle accessibility in the project area.
On Central Parkway East at its intersection with Arnold Road, the proposed project would construct a separate left turn lane and a shared through-right lane. In addition, it was assumed that the project would construct a northbound left turn lane from Arnold Road to westbound Central Parkway East. The project would also make the necessary signal modifications to accommodate the proposed west leg of the intersection. Dublin Boulevard Under all study scenarios (existing, 2020 background, and 2035 cumulative), it was assumed that the proposed project would construct the following improvements:
On D Street at its intersection with Dublin Boulevard, the proposed project would construct a separate left turn lane and a shared through-right lane. In addition, it was assumed that the proposed project would construct a westbound right turn lane and an eastbound left turn lane (within the existing median) from Dublin Boulevard to northbound D Street. The proposed project would also make the necessary signal modifications to accommodate the proposed north leg of the intersection.
On B Street at its intersection with Dublin Boulevard, the proposed project would re-construct the existing separate left, right, and through lanes. In addition, it was assumed that the proposed project would construct a westbound right turn lane
Page 3-227
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
from Dublin Boulevard to northbound B Street. The proposed project would also make the necessary signal modifications to accommodate the proposed changes to the north leg of the intersection. Modeling the Project Except for existing conditions, all future (no project and project) traffic volumes were generated using the City of Dublin Travel Demand Forecast (TDF) model, which is a sub- area model of the Alameda County Congestion Management Program TDF Model. The City of Dublin TDF Model has recently been updated and includes a more detailed zone and network structure within the City of Dublin than the Alameda County TDF model. The Dublin TDF model reflects projected traffic growth both in the City of Dublin and throughout the region. The Dublin TDF model also includes many local and regional planned roadway improvements that will alter travel patterns in the future. The improvements in the vicinity of the project area are described in the following sections of this report for 2020 background and 2035 cumulative conditions. A list of regional planned improvements (outside the study area) are on file with the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. The Dublin TDF model includes three base years: 2012, 2020, and 2035. The Dublin TDF model was selected as the appropriate tool to estimate future traffic volumes with and without the proposed project because (1) it includes planned future development and roadway improvements and (2) the model accounts for the fact that trips generated by the proposed project would displace traffic on nearby roadway facilities. Prior to modeling the project, the Dublin TDF model was validated by comparing base year 2012 forecasts to the existing traffic counts at study locations in the project area.
To estimate the traffic volumes that would occur with the proposed project, the project land uses and new roadway links were coded in the City of Dublin TDF model. The existing Camp Parks base entrance and associated traffic were relocated to the intersection of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. The traffic from the relocated base entrance was also reassigned to all study intersections. At some study locations, the model traffic volumes with the proposed project are not as high as what might be expected given the size of the proposed project. This typically occurs when project traffic displaces other traffic on the roadway network. For example, the proposed project would add a large number of trips to Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, and I-580. Under existing and future conditions, certain movements on these roadways experience high levels of congestion. In such cases, the model will assign project traffic to the roadway network in accordance with the quickest route to and from the intended destination. The quickest route for project traffic may be to use Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, and I-580, but because the presence of project traffic would affect the travel time of other street users, ambient traffic would re-route to other roadways to minimize their overall travel times. This “re-routed” traffic affects ambient traffic at other nearby roadways and freeway segments, which then also re-routes to find the quickest route to their final destination. This process in the TDF model repeats itself until the shortest possible travel time is achieved for all trips (origin- destination pairs) in the region. In essence, the model spreads the increases in traffic volumes across all roadways in the region, with the largest traffic increases generally occurring nearest to the project area.
Page 3-228
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
All future forecasts at intersections in Dublin and San Ramon, freeway segments, and freeway ramps were developed with the Dublin TDF model. For intersections in Dublin and San Ramon, and at freeway ramps, the traffic movements from the Dublin TDF model were adjusted using the following process: (1) the raw base year model forecasts (year 2012) from the Dublin TDF model were subtracted from the future forecasts, (2) this traffic increment was added to the existing traffic counts for each intersection and ramp movement. This method captures both the amount of future traffic added to intersections and ramps as well as any diversion of ambient traffic caused by future land use changes or roadway improvements.
The City of Pleasanton maintains its own TDF model and regularly updates its base year forecasts when land use changes are proposed. The Pleasanton TDF model includes a more detailed zone and network structure in the City of Pleasanton, which more accurately predicts vehicle turning movements at intersections in Pleasanton. At the request of the City of Pleasanton, all no project forecasts for intersections in the City of Pleasanton for the years 2020 and 2035 were obtained from the Pleasanton TDF model forecasts (these were provided by the City of Pleasanton in their Synchro database). To determine traffic volumes with the proposed project at City of Pleasanton intersections for the existing plus project, 2020 background plus project, and 2035 cumulative plus project scenarios, the following process was used: (1) the project trips were estimated at each study intersection in Pleasanton using a select zone analysis from the Dublin TDF model, and (2) the project trips from the select zone analysis were added to the no project base year traffic volumes supplied by the City of Pleasanton.
Existing Plus Project Figure 3.12-8: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes shows the turning movement volumes at each of the study intersections for the existing plus project scenario. The existing plus project scenario adds the existing traffic volumes and net new project trips. The existing plus project scenario LOS results were then compared to the existing scenario LOS results to determine if the proposed project would result in impacts to the study intersections. The existing plus project analysis scenario also includes eight new study intersections. The intersections are introduced as a result of the new internal roadways that are planned to run throughout the project area and do not exist on the current roadway network.
2020 Background No Project Figure 3.12-9: 2020 Background No Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes shows the turning movement volumes at each of the study intersections for the 2020 background no project scenario. The 2020 background no project scenario was estimated using base year forecasts from the City of Dublin TDF model for intersections in Dublin and San Ramon and from the base year forecasts from the City of Pleasanton TDF model for intersections in Pleasanton. Based on information provided by the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, there are year 2020 improvements planned for the following intersections and roadway segments. Except where noted, all of the following intersection and roadway improvements located in the City of Dublin are included in the City’s Traffic Impact Fee program:
Page 3-229
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Intersection Improvements Hacienda Drive and Hacienda Crossings: An additional northbound left turn lane on Hacienda Drive will be added to the intersection. The additional northbound left turn currently exists at the intersection but is closed off by raised delineators. These raised delineators would be removed providing three northbound left turn lanes. With the addition of the left turn lane, the northbound segment of the intersection will consist of three left turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right turn lane.
Roadway Improvements
Completion of Dougherty Road as a six lane arterial between Bollinger Canyon Road (North) and Bollinger Canyon Road (South).
Widening of the westbound segment of Dublin Boulevard between Sierra Court and Dublin Court from two lanes to three lanes.
Widening of Tassajara Road, from Fallon Road to North Dublin Ranch Drive, from two lanes to four lanes.
Addition of a westbound auxiliary lane along I-580 between Fallon Road and Tassajara Road.
Addition of a westbound HOV/Express lane along I-580 between Greenville Road and San Ramon Road.
Stoneridge Drive four lane extension to El Charro Road, where it will become the western approach leg of the El Charro Road and Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard intersection. Except where previously noted, it is assumed in this analysis that the remaining transportation network under 2020 background conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network in the study area. The 2020 background intersection lane configurations are shown on Figure 3.12-10: 2020 Background No Project Lane Configurations. The 2020 background roadway improvements are shown on Figure 3.12- 11: 2020 Background No Project Roadway Configurations.
2020 Background Plus Project Figure 3.12-12: 2020 Background Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes shows the turning movement volumes at each of the study intersections for the 2020 background plus project scenario. The background plus project scenario adds to the 2020 background no project traffic volumes the net new project trips. The 2020 background plus project scenario LOS results were then compared to the 2020 background no project scenario LOS results to determine if the proposed project would result in impacts to the study intersections. The eight additional intersections introduced in the existing plus project scenario are analyzed in 2020 background plus project conditions. The eight additional study intersections are not part of the 2020 background no project roadway network.
2035 Cumulative No Project Figure 3.12-13: 2035 Cumulative No Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes shows the turning movement volumes at each of the study intersections for the 2035 cumulative no
Page 3-230
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
project scenario. The 2035 cumulative no project scenario was estimated using base year forecasts from the City of Dublin TDF model for intersections in Dublin and San Ramon and from the base year forecasts from the City of Pleasanton TDF model for intersections in Pleasanton. In addition to the planned improvements assumed completed in year 2020, the following planned improvements to intersections and roadway segments were assumed for 2035. Except where noted, all of the following intersection and roadway improvements located in the City of Dublin are included in the City’s Traffic Impact Fee program:
Intersection Improvements: Amador Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard: For the southbound segment of the intersection, a right turn lane will be added and the shared through right turn lane will be converted to a through lane. For the eastbound segment of the intersection, a right turn lane will be added and the shared through right turn lane will be converted to a through lane. For the westbound segment of the intersection, a second left turn lane will be added, one through lane will be eliminated, and the right turn lane will be converted to a shared through right turn lane.
Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard: For the southbound segment of the intersection, an additional through lane will be added. For the northbound segment of the intersection, an additional left turn lane and through lane will be added.
Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive: For the southbound segment of the intersection, a through lane will be added. For the northbound segment of the intersection, the right turn lane will converted to a shared through right turn lane. For the westbound segment of the intersection, two right turn lanes will be added and the shared through right turn lane will be converted to a through lane only.
Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard: For the southbound segment of the intersection, Scarlett Drive will be extended from the north and the geometry will consist of two left turn lanes and one shared through right turn lane. For the northbound segment of the intersection, the right turn lane will be converted to a shared through right turn lane. For the westbound segment, a separate right turn lane will be added.
Arnold Road and Dublin Boulevard: For the southbound segment of the intersection, a right turn lane will be added and the shared through right turn lane will be converted to a through lane. For the eastbound segment, a second left turn lane will be added as well as a second northbound receiving lane.
Arnold Road and Gleason Drive: For the northbound segment of the intersection, a right turn lane will be added and the shared through right turn lane will be converted to a through lane. In addition, the Arnold Road and Gleason Drive intersection is proposed to be converted from an all-way stop to a signalized intersection by the year 2035.
Hacienda Drive and Central Parkway: For the southbound segment of the intersection, an additional through lane will be added. For the northbound segment of the intersection, a third northbound lane will be added between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway,
Page 3-231
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
which will become a right turn trap lane at the intersection. The existing shared through right turn lane will be converted to a through lane.
Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard: For the northbound segment of the intersection, a right turn lane will be converted to a through lane. For the westbound segment of the intersection, a right turn lane will be added and the shared through right turn lane will be converted to a through lane.
Hacienda Drive and I-580 EB Ramps: For the northbound segment of the intersection, a through lane will be added. For the eastbound segment of the intersection, a left turn lane will be added.
Santa Rita Road and I-580 EB Ramps: For the southbound segment of the intersection, a left turn lane will be added (City of Pleasanton improvement).
Tassajara Road and I-580 WB Ramps: For the northbound segment of the intersection, a through lane will be added.
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard: For the northbound segment of the intersection, two through lanes will be added. For the eastbound segment of the intersection, a through lane will be added. For the westbound segment of the intersection, a right turn lane and through lane will be added and the shared through right turn lane will be converted to a through lane.
Tassajara Road and Central Parkway: For the southbound and northbound segments of the intersection, a through lane will be added.
Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive: For the southbound segment of the intersection, a through lane will be added. For the northbound segment of the intersection, a through lane and right turn lane will be added.
Roadway Improvements:
Widening of Fallon Road to six lanes from Positano Parkway to Dublin Boulevard.
Widening of Tassajara Road to six lanes between Fallon Road to Dublin Boulevard.
Widening of Tassajara Road to eight lanes between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 westbound ramps.
Widening of Dublin Boulevard to six lanes from Brannigan Street to Fallon Road.
Dublin Boulevard six lane extension, from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard.
Widening Arnold Road to four lanes from Dublin Blvd to Central Parkway.
Widening Hacienda Drive to six lanes from Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway.
Widening Hacienda Drive to four lanes from Central Parkway to Gleason Road.
Extend / Widen Scarlett Drive to four lanes from Dublin Boulevard to Dougherty Road.
Page 3-232
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Completion of Grafton Street between Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard
Widening of Fallon Road to four lanes from Tassajara Road to Silvera Ranch Drive.
Central Parkway two lane extension, from Fallon Road to Croak Road.
Widening Dougherty Road to six lanes from Sierra Court to City limits. Except where previously noted, it is assumed in this analysis that the remaining transportation network under 2035 cumulative conditions would be the same as the 2020 background transportation network in the project vicinity. The 2035 cumulative intersection lane configurations are shown on Figure 3.12-14: 2035 Cumulative No Project Lane Configurations. The 2035 cumulative roadway improvements are shown on Figure 3.12-15: 2035 Cumulative No Project Roadway Improvements.
2035 Cumulative Plus Project Figure 3.12-16: 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes shows the turning movement volumes at each of the study intersections for the 2035 cumulative plus project scenario. The cumulative plus project scenario adds the 2035 cumulative traffic volumes and net new project trips. The 2035 cumulative plus project scenario LOS results were then compared to the 2035 cumulative no project scenario LOS results to determine if the project would result in impacts to the study intersections. The same eight additional intersections analyzed in the existing plus project and 2020 background plus project scenarios are analyzed in 2035 cumulative plus project conditions. The eight additional study intersections are not part of the 2035 cumulative no project roadway network.
Project Vehicle Circulation Element The City of Dublin has an existing long term plan to widen Scarlett Drive to four lanes and extend it to Dublin Boulevard. An analysis was conducted to evaluate the desirability of connecting G Street directly to Dougherty Road at its current intersection with Scarlett Drive, with Scarlett Drive being realigned to connect to G Street. The analysis found that traffic operations would improve more with Scarlett Drive being directly connected between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road rather than extending G Street directly to Dougherty Road. In 2035, the projected average daily traffic (ADT) on G Street is approximately 6,190 trips and the projected ADT on Scarlett Drive is approximately 15,800 trips. The plan to extend Scarlett Drive to Dublin Boulevard would provide a quicker route for vehicles on Dougherty Road to access the retail areas to the east of the project area as well as the Dublin BART station, thereby reducing traffic at the busy intersection of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard.
G Street would provide an east/west connection between Arnold Road and Scarlett Drive. As proposed, G Street would have one lane in each direction and a two way center left turn lane. On some segments of G Street, parallel parking would be provided on one side of the roadway. G Street is the longest of the onsite roadways, which increases the probability of excessive vehicle speeds. To help reduce speeding, G Street has been designed to include several horizontal curves. Allowing parking on G Street will also serve to reduce overall travel speeds on the roadway.
Page 3-233
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
B Street would provide a north/south connection between Dublin Boulevard and G Street. As proposed, B Street would have one travel lane in each direction and a raised median. B Street also would have additional lanes available at its intersection with Dublin Boulevard. Parking would not be permitted on B Street. In 2035, the projected average daily traffic (ADT) on B Street would be approximately 2,400 trips.
Central Parkway East would provide an east/west connection between the existing intersection of Central Parkway/Arnold Road and B Street. As proposed, Central Parkway East would have one travel lane in each direction and either a median or two way center left turn lane. On one segment of Central Parkway East, parallel parking would be provided on one side of the roadway. In 2035, the projected average daily traffic (ADT) on Central Parkway East would be approximately 3,150 trips.
The remaining collector streets (A, C, D, E, F, H and I) would connect the various uses onsite to the major onsite collectors. These intersections would be stop controlled on the minor street approaches. The ADTs on these streets would range from approximately 500 to 4,200. They would all have one travel lane in each direction and provide parallel parking on both sides of the street. The presence of parking on both sides of the street and the relatively short segment lengths should help reduce vehicle speeds on these local roadways.
The private street roadways would have two travel lanes (one lane in each direction). The location and alignment of these streets will be determined as individual development projects move forward. Perpendicular and parallel parking is shown on some streets.
The 2035 cumulative plus project on-site lane configurations, traffic control, and turn pocket lengths at each intersection are shown on Figure 3.12-17: 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Lane Configurations. The turn pocket lengths were calculated based on the 95th percentile vehicle queue using the Poisson Probability Distribution Methodology. The intersection of I Street and B Street would be restricted to right turn only (via a median) for traffic on I Street. This is necessary to prevent southbound traffic at the intersection of B Street and Dublin Boulevard from spilling back and blocking the sight distance for side street traffic during peak hours.
Project Bicycle/Pedestrian Circulation Elements The proposed Dublin Crossing Specific Plan contains several additional pathways for bikes and pedestrians that would connect to the existing bike lane and trail network. Currently, there are bike lanes, trails, and sidewalks on portions of Dublin Boulevard, Arnold Road, Gleason Drive, Central Parkway and Scarlett Drive. Along the western project limits, the Iron Horse Regional Trail runs along the north side of Scarlet Drive and connects the City of Dublin with Pleasanton, San Ramon, Danville, and Walnut Creek. In addition, the Dougherty Road Trail runs along Dougherty Road between the Iron Horse Trail at Scarlett Drive and terminates in the north at the City limits. At the southern project limits, the Iron Horse Trail/Tassajara Creek Trail connector provides an east/west connection between Dougherty Road and the Tassajara Creek Trail.
The City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan includes a detailed description of existing and proposed bikeways in the City of Dublin. The plan states general policies to support
Page 3-234
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation bikeway development as well as specific design criteria for new bikeways. Some policies and discussion in the Bikeway Master Plan that pertain to the proposed Dublin Crossing Specific Plan include:
Consider an east/west bikeways connection through the Camp Parks site with access points near Gleason Drive, Dougherty Road, and Central Parkway if Camp Parks is developed by the private sector.
A rest area is planned to serve Iron Horse Trail users at the northeast corner of the Dublin Boulevard/Scarlett Drive intersection.
Develop a bicycle commuter route system that connects residential neighborhoods to employment areas, multi-modal terminals, and schools.
Develop a recreational route system that uses low-volume streets and off-street multi-use trails to serve recreational destinations such as parks and open space.
Encourage employers to provide secure bicycle parking, showers and changing rooms for bicycle commuters.
As a condition of project approval, require major development projects with major transportation impacts to construct adjacent bicycle facilities included in the proposed bicycle system.
Consult the Recommended Bikeways map prior to implementation of street improvement projects.
Install bicycle stencils and bicycle-sensitive loop detectors (or other detector type) on bikeways as part of new signals, signal upgrades, and resurfacing/restriping projects.
Provide appropriately-signed detours for bicyclists during construction projects. In addition, the policy includes detailed guidelines for the design of bike paths, lanes and routes. Specific design criteria applicable to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan include: (1) the minimum paved width of a bike path should be 10 feet, and (2) bollards should be used to separate bike paths from motor vehicles and warn cyclists to slow as they approach street crossings.
The proposed Specific Plan includes the following 10-foot wide trails along:
One side of G Street (which runs east/west) between the Iron Horse Trail and Arnold Road,
Both sides of B Street (which runs north/south) between Dublin Boulevard and G Street,
One side of Central Parkway East (which runs east/west) between Arnold Road and B Street, and
One side of D Street North (which runs north/south) between G Street and Central Parkway East.
Page 3-235
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
In addition, the proposed project would include bike lanes on both sides of B Street. These planned bike facilities generally meet the proposed network of the Bikeways Master Plan, which is to provide an east/west connector through the Camp Parks site. The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan also shows a shaded plaza and gathering area near the Dublin Boulevard/Scarlett Drive intersection to serve Iron Horse Trail users. The proposed trail along B Street would further enhance bike accessibility by providing a north/south connection through the site. This path would serve as a primary route for future residents to access the Dublin BART station. The plan would also provide pedestrian and bike paths between the proposed residential land uses, the elementary school, retail uses, office uses, and parks.
In addition to the new trails along the aforementioned planned roadways, a pedestrian “Paseo” would be provided south of Central Parkway East beginning at B Street and terminating just east of E Street South. The proposed project also plans to construct a new sidewalk along the west side of Arnold Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. New, at the minimum, 5-foot wide sidewalks would also be provided at all onsite streets and additional pedestrian paths are shown to and from the various uses in the Central Park. Pedestrian links to the Central Park are currently shown from H Street, A Street, G Street, Dublin Boulevard, and the future Scarlett Drive extension. On minor roadways where no bike paths are proposed, the volume and speed of traffic would generally support shared use between motor vehicles and bikes.
According to the Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, impacts to bike and pedestrian facilities occur when a project: (1) disrupts existing bike facilities, (2) interferes with planned bike facilities, (3) fails to design pedestrian and bike facilities to current design standards, or (4) fails to provide adequate parking facilities. Generally, the site contains adequate planning level pedestrian and bike connections to existing facilities in the project vicinity and it accomplishes the specific goal in the Bikeways Master Plan of providing an east/west bike route through the Camp Parks site.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance The impacts of the development were evaluated relative to the level of service policies and methodologies applicable in the Cities of Dublin, San Ramon, and Pleasanton. Because the proposed project is expected to generate more than 100 peak hour trips, the analysis also was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), the administering agency for the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of Alameda County.
Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For this analysis, the criteria used to determine significant impacts on signalized intersections are based on the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and San Ramon intersection Level of Service standards.
According to the City of Dublin level of service guidelines, a development is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection if for either peak hour:
Page 3-236
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or worse under project conditions; or, the level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F under no project conditions and the project adds one or more trips to the intersection. According to the City of Pleasanton level of service guidelines, a development is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection if for either peak hour:
The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project conditions; or, the level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F under no project conditions and the project adds ten or more trips to the intersection. There are a few exceptions to the LOS standard within the Downtown Area and the City of Pleasanton gateway intersections. These intersections may have a level of service below the LOS D standard if no reasonable mitigation exists or if the necessary mitigation is contrary to other goals and policies of the City.
According to the City of San Ramon level of service guidelines, a development is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection if for either peak hour the level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS C or better under no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS D or worse under project conditions.
A significant impact at a signalized intersection is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection operations back to no project conditions or better.
A project impact would be considered significant at other locations if the project would:
Cause a Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) network segment to fall from an acceptable LOS E (roadway segment, freeway segment, or freeway ramp v/c ratio of 0.99 or less) in the No Project case to an unacceptable LOS F (v/c of 1.00 or more); or, if a segment is already operating at LOS F in the No Project case, the v/c ratio increases by more than 0.02 (for example, from 1.03 to 1.06).
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, programs that support supporting alternative transportation (for example, bus turnouts, bicycle racks).
Increase the demand for public transit service above that which local transit operators or agencies could accommodate.
Disrupts existing transit service or does not provide amenities necessary to accommodate transit demand.
Page 3-237
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Intersection Traffic Analysis Results The results of the intersection level of service analysis under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table 3.12-8: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service. Note that at some study intersections, the LOS and average delay improves where project traffic is added. This occurs when project traffic is added to movements (such as right turns or off-peak direction through movements) where the movement delay is lower than the overall average delay of the intersection. The results show that all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service, relative to each City’s LOS thresholds, during both the AM and PM peak hours under existing plus project conditions.
The results of the intersection level of service analysis under 2020 background plus project conditions are summarized in Table 3.12-9: 2020 Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service. The results show that one study intersection would experience a significant impact with the addition of project traffic. All other study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under 2020 background conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours.
The results of the intersection level of service analysis under 2035 cumulative plus project conditions are summarized in Table 3.12-10: 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service. The results show that five study intersections would experience a significant impact with the addition of project traffic. All other study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under 2035 cumulative conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours.
Page 3-238
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Table 3.12-8: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
Existing Existing + Project
Study Traffic Peak Delay (in Delay (in Number Intersection Control Hour seconds)12 LOS12 seconds)12 LOS12 Dublin Intersections:
Amador Plaza Road and 1 Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 32.0 C 31.5 C PM 36.6 D 36.4 D Village Parkway and 2 Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 28.5 C 28.1 C PM 30.3 C 30.4 C Dougherty Road and Amador Valley 4 Boulevard Signal AM 22.8 C 36.6 D PM 27.7 C 39.0 D Dougherty Road and 5 Scarlett Drive Signal AM 19.7 B 26.3 C PM 25.6 C 28.0 C Dougherty Road and 6 Sierra Lane Signal AM 11.5 B 11.8 B PM 10.8 B 11.1 B Dougherty Road and 7 Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 33.8 C 35.3 D PM 36.9 D 37.8 D Scarlett Drive and Dublin 13 Boulevard Signal AM 9.1 A 7.8 A PM 11.3 B 10.0 B Demarcus Boulevard and 14 Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 23.8 C 22.2 C PM 16.2 B 18.2 B Iron Horse Parkway and 15 Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 15.3 B 30.5 C PM 15.7 B 29.0 C Arnold Road and Dublin 16 Boulevard Signal AM 39.0 D 38.9 D PM 29.8 C 32.7 C Arnold Road and Central 17 Parkway Signal AM 4.3 A 21.4 C PM 5.3 A 20.4 C Arnold Road and 18 Gleason Drive AWSC AM 12.8 B 12.9 B PM 8.4 A 9.1 A Hacienda Drive and 19 Central Parkway Signal AM 17.5 B 17.3 B PM 16.6 B 16.6 B Hacienda Drive and 20 Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 21.3 C 21.4 C PM 33.0 C 33.2 C
Page 3-239
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Existing Existing + Project
Study Traffic Peak Delay (in Delay (in Number Intersection Control Hour seconds)12 LOS12 seconds)12 LOS12 Hacienda Drive and 21 Hacienda Crossings Signal AM 17.1 B 16.4 B PM 18.2 B 18.0 B Tassajara Road and 27 Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 23.5 C 23.8 C PM 29.7 C 29.8 C Tassajara Road and 28 Central Parkway Signal AM 19.6 B 19.7 B PM 19.9 B 20.0 B Tassajara Road and 29 Gleason Drive Signal AM 24.5 C 24.6 C PM 25.8 C 26.0 C Scarlett Drive and G 30 Street/Kerry Ct SSSC AM -- -- 5.4(10.3) A(B) PM -- -- 4.8(9.6) A(A) 31 B Street and G Street AWSC AM -- -- 7.9 A PM -- -- 8.2 A B Street and Central 32 Parkway East SSSC AM -- -- 1.7(8.8) A(A) PM -- -- 1.4(9.1) A(A) 33 D Street and G Street SSSC AM -- -- 3.1(9.0) A(A) PM -- -- 2(8.9) A(A) D Street and Central 34 Parkway East SSSC AM -- -- 7.2(10.8) A(B) PM -- -- 7.6(10.0) A(A) 35 F Street and G Street SSSC AM -- -- 1.9(9.0) A(A) PM -- -- 1.3(9.1) A(A) F Street and Central 36 Parkway East SSSC AM -- -- 4(9.9) A(A) PM -- -- 4.1(10.0) A(A) Arnold Road and G 37 Street Signal AM -- -- 10.2 B PM -- -- 10.0 A San Ramon Intersection:
Dougherty Road and 3 Old Ranch Road Signal AM 0.400* A* 0.408* A* PM 0.459* A* 0.460* A* Pleasanton Intersections:
Dougherty Road and I- 8 580 WB Ramps Signal AM 9.9 A 10.4 B PM 10.7 B 12.8 B Hopyard Road and I-580 9 EB Ramps Signal AM 34.6 D 34.3 C
Page 3-240
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Existing Existing + Project
Study Traffic Peak Delay (in Delay (in Number Intersection Control Hour seconds)12 LOS12 seconds)12 LOS12 PM 16.0 B 19.2 B Hopyard Road and 10 Owens Drive Signal AM 28.7 C 29.3 C PM 39.6 D 41.3 D Hopyard Road and 11 Stoneridge Drive Signal AM 25.9 C 25.7 C PM 33.0 C 33.4 C I-680 NB Ramps and 12 Stoneridge Drive Signal AM 11.9 B 11.9 B PM 10.3 B 10.4 B Hacienda Drive and I- 22 580 WB Ramps Signal AM 6.6 A 6.7 A PM 5.4 A 5.4 A Hacienda Drive and I- 23 580 EB Ramps Signal AM 12.3 B 12.5 B PM 9.3 A 9.9 A Hacienda Drive and 24 Owens Drive Signal AM 13.8 B 14.3 B PM 25.8 C 30.4 C Tassajara Road and I-580 25 WB Ramps Signal AM 9.1 A 9.2 A PM 12.0 B 12.0 B Santa Rita Road and I- 26 580 EB Ramps Signal AM 23.3 C 23.4 C PM 29.8 C 30.1 C
Denotes Significant Impact 1 Signalized and all-way stop controlled intersection levels of service and delays reported are for overall average delay. 2 Side-street stop controlled intersection levels of service and delays reported are for overall average delay and (worst approach movement delay). *V/C ratio and LOS reported based on CCTA LOS method instead of average delay. Note: “--“ Intersection does not currently exist. AWSC = All-way stop control SSSC = Side street stop control Source: Hexagon 2012
Page 3-241
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Table 3.12-9: 2020 Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
2020 Background With Existing No Project Project Stud Traf Pe Delay Delay Delay y fic ak (in (in (in Nu mbe Con Ho secon LO secon LO secon LO r Intersection trol ur ds)12 S12 ds)12 S12 ds)12 S12 Dublin Intersections:
Amador Plaza Road and 1 Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 32.0 C 49.1 D 52.2 D PM 36.6 D 38.8 D 38.9 D Village Parkway and Dublin 2 Boulevard Signal AM 28.5 C 28.1 C 28.0 C PM 30.3 C 29.4 C 30.3 C Dougherty Road and 4 Amador Valley Boulevard Signal AM 22.8 C 31.3 C 45.7 D PM 27.7 C 65.4 E 68.1 E with Mitigation 44.4 D Dougherty Road and Scarlett 5 Drive Signal AM 19.7 B 29.0 C 33.1 C PM 25.6 C 28.8 C 36.7 D Dougherty Road and Sierra 6 Lane Signal AM 11.5 B 12.0 B 12.1 B PM 10.8 B 11.1 B 11.2 B Dougherty Road and Dublin 7 Boulevard Signal AM 33.8 C 37.9 D 39.0 D PM 36.9 D 39.4 D 41.0 D Scarlett Drive and Dublin 13 Boulevard Signal AM 9.1 A 7.2 A 7.5 A PM 11.3 B 9.4 A 9.3 A Demarcus Boulevard and 14 Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 23.8 C 25.6 C 26.2 C PM 16.2 B 19.1 B 21.8 C Iron Horse Parkway and 15 Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 15.3 B 11.5 B 24.3 C PM 15.7 B 14.5 B 25.4 C Arnold Road and Dublin 16 Boulevard Signal AM 39.0 D 47.8 D 47.8 D PM 29.8 C 36.5 D 37.6 D Arnold Road and Central 17 Parkway Signal AM 4.3 A 4.1 A 11.3 B PM 5.3 A 6.4 A 11.3 B Arnold Road and Gleason AWS 18 Drive C AM 12.8 B 25.9 D 26.3 D PM 8.4 A 10.4 B 11.4 B Hacienda Drive and Central 19 Parkway Signal AM 17.5 B 17.6 B 17.4 B
Page 3-242
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
2020 Background With Existing No Project Project Stud Traf Pe Delay Delay Delay y fic ak (in (in (in Nu mbe Con Ho secon LO secon LO secon LO r Intersection trol ur ds)12 S12 ds)12 S12 ds)12 S12 PM 16.6 B 15.6 B 15.8 B Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard 20 Signal AM 21.3 C 19.5 B 19.3 B PM 33.0 C 34.1 C 34.8 C Hacienda Drive and 21 Hacienda Crossings Signal AM 17.1 B 16.4 B 15.9 B PM 18.2 B 18.7 B 20.8 C Tassajara Road and Dublin 27 Boulevard Signal AM 23.5 C 29.7 C 29.8 C PM 29.7 C 31.4 C 32.1 C Tassajara Road and Central 28 Parkway Signal AM 19.6 B 22.6 C 22.7 C PM 19.9 B 24.3 C 24.5 C Tassajara Road and Gleason 29 Drive Signal AM 24.5 C 25.9 C 26.0 C PM 25.8 C 28.5 C 29.4 C Scarlett Drive and G 5.9(11. A(B 30 Street/Kerry Ct SSSC AM ------6) ) 6.2(10. A(B PM ------2) ) AWS 31 B Street and G Street C AM ------8.4 A PM ------9.3 A B Street and Central 3.8(10. A(B 32 Parkway East SSSC AM ------5) ) A(B PM ------3(10.9) ) A(A 33 D Street and G Street SSSC AM ------2.4(9.2) ) A(A PM ------1.3(9.2) ) D Street and Central 6.9(11. A(B 34 Parkway East SSSC AM ------0) ) 7.2(10. A(A PM ------0) ) A(A 35 F Street and G Street SSSC AM ------1.5(9.1) ) A(A PM ------0.9(9.5) ) F Street and Central Parkway A(A 36 East SSSC AM ------4(9.9) ) 3.8(10. A(B PM ------1) ) 37 Arnold Road and G Street Signal AM ------10.3 B
Page 3-243
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
2020 Background With Existing No Project Project Stud Traf Pe Delay Delay Delay y fic ak (in (in (in Nu mbe Con Ho secon LO secon LO secon LO r Intersection trol ur ds)12 S12 ds)12 S12 ds)12 S12 PM ------10.4 B San Ramon Intersection: Dougherty Road and Old 3 Ranch Road Signal AM 0.400* A* 0.585* A* 0.586* A* PM 0.459* A* 0.660* B* 0.670* B* Pleasanton Intersections: Dougherty Road and I-580 8 WB Ramps Signal AM 9.9 A 11.2 B 12.1 B PM 10.7 B 10.0 A 11.3 B Hopyard Road and I-580 EB 9 Ramps Signal AM 34.6 D 22.5 C 22.5 C PM 16.0 B 26.2 C 34.9 C Hopyard Road and Owens Drive
10 Signal AM 28.7 C 31.0 C 31.7 C PM 39.6 D 44.0 D 45.9 D Hopyard Road and 11 Stoneridge Drive Signal AM 25.9 C 28.3 C 28.3 C PM 33.0 C 32.8 C 33.1 C I-680 NB Ramps and 12 Stoneridge Drive Signal AM 11.9 B 13.9 B 13.9 B PM 10.3 B 11.1 B 11.1 B Hacienda Drive and I-580 22 WB Ramps Signal AM 6.6 A 6.8 A 7.0 A PM 5.4 A 5.7 A 6.1 A Hacienda Drive and I-580 EB 23 Ramps Signal AM 12.3 B 12.5 B 12.9 B PM 9.3 A 11.9 B 12.4 B Hacienda Drive and Owens 24 Drive Signal AM 13.8 B 14.9 B 15.3 B PM 25.8 C 28.5 C 34.9 D Tassajara Road and I-580 25 WB Ramps Signal AM 9.1 A 8.8 A 9.1 A PM 12.0 B 16.0 B 16.5 B Santa Rita Road and I-580 26 EB Ramps Signal AM 23.3 C 24.5 C 24.6 C PM 29.8 C 25.7 C 26.3 C
Denotes Significant Impact 1 Signalized and all-way stop controlled intersection levels of service and delays reported are for overall average delay. 2 Side-street stop controlled intersection levels of service and delays reported are for overall average delay and (worst approach movement delay).
Page 3-244
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
2020 Background With Existing No Project Project Stud Traf Pe Delay Delay Delay y fic ak (in (in (in Nu mbe Con Ho secon LO secon LO secon LO r Intersection trol ur ds)12 S12 ds)12 S12 ds)12 S12 *V/C ratio and LOS reported based on CCTA LOS method instead of average delay. Note: “--“ Intersection does not currently exist. AWSC = All-way stop control SSSC = Side street stop control Source: Hexagon 2012
Page 3-245
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Table 3.12-10: 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
2035 Cumulative No Project With Project Study Traffic Peak Delay (in Delay (in Number Intersection Control Hour seconds)12 LOS12 seconds)12 LOS12
Dublin Intersections:
Amador Plaza Road and Dublin 1 Boulevard Signal AM 27.4 C 27.4 C PM 40.4 D 42.2 D Village Parkway and Dublin 2 Boulevard Signal AM 33.0 C 33.2 C PM 38.6 D 43.0 D Dougherty Road and Amador 4 Valley Boulevard Signal AM 26.9 C 34.1 C PM 38.7 C 37.2 D Dougherty Road and Scarlett 5 Drive Signal AM 25.5 C 30.4 C PM 46.1 D 59.5 E with Mitigation 53.6 D Dougherty Road and Sierra 6 Lane Signal AM 11.9 B 11.9 B PM 11.1 B 11.4 B Dougherty Road and Dublin 7 Boulevard Signal AM 40.4 D 41.8 D PM 41.1 D 43.3 D Scarlett Drive and Dublin 13 Boulevard Signal AM 34.9 C 40.3 D PM 82.6 F 110.1 F with Mitigation 29.0 C Demarcus Boulevard and 14 Dublin Boulevard Signal AM 18.8 B 19.3 B PM 27.3 C 33.5 C Iron Horse Parkway and Dublin 15 Boulevard Signal AM 11.9 B 26.0 C PM 33.9 C 107.5 F with Mitigation 47.5 D Arnold Road and Dublin 16 Boulevard Signal AM 36.1 D 36.8 D PM 30.7 C 50.2 D Arnold Road and Central 17 Parkway Signal AM 4.3 A 16.3 B PM 8.5 A 19.7 B Arnold Road and Gleason 18 Drive Signal AM 6.8 A 6.6 A PM 13.8 B 8.3 A Hacienda Drive and Central 19 Parkway Signal AM 33.7 C 32.4 C PM 14.0 B 16.0 B 20 Hacienda Drive and Dublin Signal AM 27.7 C 26.8 C
Page 3-246
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
2035 Cumulative No Project With Project Study Traffic Peak Delay (in Delay (in Number Intersection Control Hour seconds)12 LOS12 seconds)12 LOS12 Boulevard PM 62.0 E 64.7 E with Mitigation 40.7 D Hacienda Drive and Hacienda 21 Crossings Signal AM 28.3 C 27.2 C PM 34.6 C 40.4 D Tassajara Road and Dublin 27 Boulevard Signal AM 30.9 C 30.9 C PM 52.4 D 61.1 E with Mitigation 45.7 D Tassajara Road and Central 28 Parkway Signal AM 29.5 C 29.7 C PM 29.0 C 29.6 C Tassajara Road and Gleason 29 Drive Signal AM 30.5 C 30.6 C PM 32.2 C 32.6 C Scarlett Drive and G 30 Street/Kerry Ct Signal AM -- -- 10.6 B PM -- -- 11.6 B 31 B Street and G Street AWSC AM -- -- 8.5 A PM -- -- 11.6 B B Street and Central Parkway 32 East SSSC AM -- -- 4.8(9.7) A(A) PM -- -- 8(11.0) A(B) 33 D Street and G Street SSSC AM -- -- 1.4(9.5) A(A) PM -- -- 0.8(9.7) A(A) D Street and Central Parkway 34 East SSSC AM -- -- 6.7(10.6) A(B) PM -- -- 6.5(11.9) A(B) 35 F Street and G Street SSSC AM -- -- 1(9.5) A(A) PM -- -- 0.6(10.1) A(B) F Street and Central Parkway 36 East SSSC AM -- -- 3.9(10.1) A(B) PM -- -- 2.7(11.3) A(B) 37 Arnold Road and G Street Signal AM -- -- 9.4 A PM -- -- 11.3 B San Ramon Intersection:
Dougherty Road and Old 3 Ranch Road Signal AM 0.648* B* 0.672* B* PM 0.742* C* 0.759* C* Pleasanton Intersections:
Dougherty Road and I-580 WB 8 Ramps Signal AM 10.2 B 11.0 B PM 11.8 B 13.6 B 9 Hopyard Road and I-580 EB Signal AM 30.8 C 34.7 C
Page 3-247
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
2035 Cumulative No Project With Project Study Traffic Peak Delay (in Delay (in Number Intersection Control Hour seconds)12 LOS12 seconds)12 LOS12 Ramps PM 20.5 C 22.0 C Hopyard Road and Owens 10 Drive Signal AM 23.2 C 23.3 C PM 27.0 C 27.4 C Hopyard Road and Stoneridge 11 Drive Signal AM 30.9 C 31.1 C PM 30.2 C 30.7 C I-680 NB Ramps and 12 Stoneridge Drive Signal AM 11.2 B 11.2 B PM 10.0 B 10.0 B Hacienda Drive and I-580 WB 22 Ramps Signal AM 7.6 A 7.9 A PM 15.8 B 20.6 C Hacienda Drive and I-580 EB 23 Ramps Signal AM 12.5 B 13.0 B PM 11.2 B 15.9 B Hacienda Drive and Owens 24 Drive Signal AM 16.1 B 16.5 B PM 24.7 C 29.9 C Tassajara Road and I-580 WB 25 Ramps Signal AM 8.9 A 9.1 A PM 9.9 A 10.6 B Santa Rita Road and I-580 EB 26 Ramps Signal AM 22.9 C 23.0 C PM 23.5 C 23.9 C
Denotes Significant Impact 1 Signalized and all-way stop controlled intersection levels of service and delays reported are for overall average delay. 2 Side-street stop controlled intersection levels of service and delays reported are for overall average delay and (worst approach movement delay). *V/C ratio and LOS reported based on CCTA LOS method instead of average delay. Note: “--“ Intersection does not currently exist. AWSC = All-way stop control SSSC = Side street stop control Source: Hexagon 2012
Page 3-248
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis Results This analysis consisted of a volume-to-capacity ratio evaluation of selected freeway ramps at Dougherty/Hopyard Road’s interchange with I-580, Hacienda Drive’s interchange with I- 580, and Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road’s interchange with I-580.
The results of the ramp capacity analysis under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table 3.12-11: Existing Plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis. The results show that the southbound Hacienda Drive to eastbound I-580 on-ramp would experience a significant impact with the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour. All of the remaining study ramps have volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios less than 1.0, which means that the existing plus project traffic demand does not exceed the existing ramp capacity.
Table 3.12-11: Existing Plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis
Existing Existing + Project Peak Capacity V/C V/C Freeway Ramps Hour (vph)1 Volumes2 Ratio3 Volumes4 Ratio3 I-580 at Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road SB Hopyard to WB I-580 On Ramp AM 900 591 0.66 681 0.76 PM 1800 326 0.18 447 0.25 SB Hopyard to EB I-580 On Ramp AM 1800 388 0.22 396 0.22 PM 360 213 0.59 218 0.61 I-580 at Hacienda Drive SB Hacienda to WB I-580 On Ramp AM 720 301 0.42 356 0.49 PM 1800 522 0.29 522 0.29 SB Hacienda to EB I-580 On Ramp AM 1800 190 0.11 243 0.14 PM 300 294 0.98 339 1.13 I-580 at Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road SB Tassajara to WB I-580 On Ramp AM 720 617 0.86 617 0.86 PM 1800 341 0.19 341 0.19 SB Tassajara to EB I-580 On Ramp AM 1800 324 0.18 325 0.18 PM 300 291 0.97 291 0.97 Denotes Significant Impact Note: Bold and shaded V/C ratio indicates a significant impact. 1 Capacities obtained from observations at existing ramp meters. 2 Volumes obtained from Caltrans and new counts by Hexagon 3 Volume-to-capacity ratio. 4 Volumes from City of Dublin TDF Model Source: Hexagon 2012
The results of the ramp capacity analysis under background plus project conditions are summarized in Table 3.12-12: Background Plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis. The results show that the southbound Tassajara Road to eastbound I-580 on-ramp would have a V/C ratio of greater than 1.0 during the PM peak hour, however, the traffic volumes added from the proposed project are not expected to increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.02. All of the remaining study ramps have volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios less than 1.0,
Page 3-249
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation which means that the 2020 background plus project traffic demand does not exceed the existing ramp capacity.
Table 3.12-12: 2020 Background Plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis 2020 No Project 2020 Plus Project Peak Capacity V/C V/C Freeway Ramps Hour (vph)1 Volumes2 Ratio3 Volumes2 Ratio3 I-580 at Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road SB Hopyard to WB I-580 On Ramp AM 900 660 0.73 712 0.79 PM 1800 369 0.21 477 0.27 SB Hopyard to EB I-580 On Ramp AM 1800 544 0.30 552 0.31 PM 360 283 0.79 287 0.80 I-580 at Hacienda Drive SB Hacienda to WB I-580 On Ramp AM 720 426 0.59 447 0.62 PM 1800 522 0.29 522 0.29 SB Hacienda to EB I-580 On Ramp AM 1800 193 0.11 251 0.14 PM 300 294 0.98 298 0.99 I-580 at Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road SB Tassajara to WB I-580 On Ramp AM 720 617 0.86 617 0.86 PM 1800 364 0.20 364 0.20 SB Tassajara to EB I-580 On Ramp AM 1800 324 0.18 324 0.18 PM 300 325 1.08 330 1.10 1 Capacities obtained from observations at existing ramp meters. 2 Volumes obtained from Dublin TDF Model. 3 Volume-to-capacity ratio. Source: Hexagon 2012
The results of the ramp capacity analysis under cumulative plus project conditions are summarized in Table 3.12-13: Cumulative Plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis. The results show that the southbound Hacienda Drive to eastbound I-580 on-ramp during the PM peak hour and the southbound Tassajara Road to westbound I-580 on-ramp during the AM peak hour would experience a significant impact with the addition of project traffic. All of the remaining study ramps, except one, have volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios less than 1.0, which means that the 2035 cumulative plus project traffic demand does not exceed the existing ramp capacity. The southbound Tassajara Road to eastbound I-580 on-ramp would have a V/C ratio of greater than 1.0 during the PM peak hour, however, the traffic volumes added from the proposed project are not expected to increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.02.
Page 3-250
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Table 3.12-13: 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis
2035 No Project 2035 Plus Project Peak Capacity V/C V/C Freeway Ramps Hour (vph)1 Volumes2 Ratio3 Volumes2 Ratio3 I-580 at Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road
SB Hopyard to WB I-580 On Ramp AM 900 627 0.70 672 0.75 PM 1800 326 0.18 399 0.22 SB Hopyard to EB I-580 On Ramp AM 1800 777 0.43 777 0.43 PM 360 213 0.59 213 0.59 I-580 at Hacienda Drive SB Hacienda to WB I-580 On Ramp AM 720 513 0.71 564 0.78 PM 1800 588 0.33 588 0.33 SB Hacienda to EB I-580 On Ramp AM 1800 337 0.19 410 0.23 PM 300 443 1.48 457 1.52 I-580 at Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road SB Tassajara to WB I-580 On Ramp AM 720 698 0.97 755 1.05 PM 1800 676 0.38 676 0.38 SB Tassajara to EB I-580 On Ramp AM 1800 324 0.18 324 0.18 PM 300 342 1.14 343 1.14 Note: Bold and shaded V/C ratio indicates a significant impact. 1 Capacities obtained from observations at existing ramp meters. 2 Volumes obtained from Dublin TDF Model. 3 Volume-to-capacity ratio. Source: Hexagon 2012
CMA/MTS System Analysis Results The 2011 Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP) includes a Land Use Analysis component to determine the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on the regional transportation system. The intent of this program is to:
better tie together local land use and regional transportation facilities decisions;
better assess the impacts of developments in one community on another community;
promote information sharing between local governments when decisions made by one jurisdiction will have an impact on another. Local jurisdictions have responsibilities regarding the analysis of transportation impacts of land use decisions. Among those is an analysis of project impacts on the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) for the 2020 and 2035 horizon years. For projects that generate more than 100 peak-hour vehicle trips, a CMP traffic analysis is required using the Alameda Countywide Transportation Demand Model (ACTDM). In accordance with the Technical and Policy Guidelines of the Congestion Management Program, the CMP analysis requires evaluation of the traffic impacts of the project on the MTS.
Page 3-251
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
The Consulting firm Fehr & Peers developed a travel demand model for the City of Dublin based on the August 2011 ACTDM. Refinements were made to the Countywide model within the City of Dublin and surrounding areas to provide more detail in terms of local land uses, and the roadway and transit transportation systems. The City of Dublin Travel Demand Model (CDTDM) was developed (a) to provide daily and peak-hour traffic flow projections on freeways, arterial and collector roadways for the General Plan update, and (b) to provide a tool to analyze future land use development proposals and transportation network changes within the City. Documentation of the Dublin Citywide model, including model validation is provided in the City of Dublin Final Model Development Report, dated April 2012.
Traffic impact analyses for relatively small projects typically add project traffic on top of the existing (or future no-project) volumes. This "layering" method is reasonable when the addition of project traffic is unlikely to change the travel patterns of existing traffic on the roadway system. As a result, the traffic volumes on roadway segments are by definition always higher than without the project. With large scale developments, such as the Dublin Crossing project, layering project traffic on top of existing traffic is not realistic, especially when the project is located in an area where roadways are already projected to be congested and new roadways are proposed as part of the project. There are two main reasons for this: (1) drivers may alter their route to avoid the areas where the additional project traffic is added to the roadway system because an alternate route would be faster and (2) the project would result in a change of travel patterns in the area. Two examples of this include:
Some residents of Dublin that now shop at retail uses in Pleasanton would shop at the retail center of the Dublin Crossing instead. Thus, their shopping trip would have a different destination and they would use different roads to get there. This would result in an increase in traffic on some facilities and a decrease of traffic on other facilities.
Without the project, I-580 operates at congested conditions during commute hours. Because some project traffic from the Dublin Crossing development would add to the traffic congestion on this freeway, ambient traffic would start using other facilities instead. Thus, some traffic that uses the I-580/I-680 interchange would shift to alternate routes such as Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Bollinger Canyon Road. Because I-580 and I-680 already operate at or near capacity, there is not much room left to add more vehicles to these facilities. Travel demand models, such as the CDTDM and the ACTDM, account for these changes in traffic patterns resulting from large development projects. For that reason, these models were used to forecast the impacts on the freeways and MTS system in the vicinity of the project. The CMA requires project’s to conduct the roadway segment and freeway analysis for the years 2020 and 2035 using the ACTDM. The most recent version of the ACTDM was obtained from the ACCMA and future peak-hour forecasts were developed, with and without the project. Since the ACTDM set does not include a 2012 forecast year, the freeway analysis for existing and existing plus project conditions were based on forecasts developed with the CDTDM.
Page 3-252
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
It should be noted that, although the project would add a substantial amount of peak-hour trips to the adjacent segment of Dublin Boulevard, this does not necessarily result in the same substantial increase of vehicles on that roadway segment. Some of the ambient traffic on Dublin Boulevard would change their route and use other facilities to get to their destination (including diversion to the new proposed parallel route on G Street). Thus, the increase in traffic volumes on the freeway segments and the MTS system forecasted by the model would result in a smaller increase in traffic when compared to the layering of project trips method.
The level of service standard for the CMP analysis is LOS E. The Alameda County CMA does not have a policy for determining a threshold of significance for CMP requirements and expects that professional judgment will be used to determine project impacts. Therefore, for the purpose of this traffic analysis, if a segment operates at an unacceptable LOS without the project, the impact of the project is considered significant if the contribution of project traffic results in an increase in the volume-to-capacity ratio of at least 0.02. This threshold is consistent with prior traffic impact analyses for development in the City of Dublin.
In order to determine the impact of the project, peak-hour traffic volumes on the 16 directional MTS roadway segments (for 2020 and 2035) and 16 directional freeway segments (for 2012, 2020, and 2035) in the vicinity of the project were analyzed. During the AM peak hour, the 2012 existing no project and plus project data at the freeway segments is shown on Table 3.12-14: 2012 No Project and Plus Project AM Peak Hour Freeway Level of Service. During the PM peak hour, the 2012 existing no project and plus project data at the freeways is shown on Table 3.12-15: 2012 No Project and Plus Project PM Peak Hour Freeway Level of Service. During the AM peak hour, the 2020 background no project and plus project data at the freeways and roadway segments is shown on Table 3.12-16: 2020 No Project and Plus Project AM Peak Hour Freeway and Roadway Segment Level of Service. During the PM peak hour, the 2020 background no project and plus project data at these facilities is shown on Table 3.12-17: 2020 No Project and Plus Project PM Peak Hour Freeway and Roadway Segment Level of Service. During the AM peak hour, the 2035 cumulative no project and plus project data at these segments is shown on Table 3.12-18: 2035 No Project and Plus Project AM Peak Hour Freeway and Roadway Segment Level of Service. During the PM peak hour, the 2035 cumulative no project and plus project data at these facilities is shown on Table 3.12-19: 2035 No Project and Plus Project PM Peak Hour Freeway and Roadway Segment Level of Service.
Note that all freeway volumes are forecasted by the model and, consistent with Alameda County CMP requirements, a capacity of 2,200 vehicles per lane is used to calculate the volume-to-capacity ratios.
Tables 3.12-14 and 3.12-15 (year 2012) show the following:
Currently, the I-580 and I-680 freeway segments generally operate at or near congested conditions in the peak direction of travel (westbound I-580 and southbound I-680 during the AM peak, and eastbound I-580 and northbound I-680 during the PM peak).
Page 3-253
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Although the proposed project would cause the freeway volumes to increase on most segments, the increase in traffic with the addition of the project would not create significant impacts on the roadway segments or freeway system because the increase in v/c ratio for those facilities that would operate at LOS F is less than 0.02. Tables 3.12-16 and 3.12-17 (year 2020) show the following:
During the AM and PM peak-hours, the MTS arterial roadway segments would generally operate at LOS D or better, except for the westbound segment of Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and I-680 during the AM and PM peak hours. This segment would operate at LOS E under no project and project conditions. In addition, the northbound segment of Dougherty Road, between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 would operate at LOS F during the PM peak-hour under no project and project conditions.
Many of the freeway segments would operate at LOS E or F by the year 2020, with and without the project.
The increase in traffic with the addition of the proposed project would not create significant impacts on the roadway segments or freeway system because the increase in v/c ratio for those facilities that would operate at LOS F is less than 0.02. Tables 3.12-18 and 3.12-19 (2035) show the following:
During the AM and PM peak-hours, the MTS arterial roadway segments would generally operate at LOS E or better, except for the westbound segment of Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and I-680 during the AM and PM peak hours. This segment would operate at LOS F under no project and project conditions. In addition, the northbound segment of Dougherty Road, between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 would operate at LOS F during the PM peak-hour under no project and project conditions.
Many of the freeway segments would continue to operate at LOS E or F by the year 2035, with and without the project.
The increase in traffic with the addition of the project would not create significant impacts on the roadway segments or freeway system because the increase in v/c ratio for those facilities that would operate at LOS F is less than 0.02. In summary, although the proposed project would cause an increase in traffic on most freeway and MTS segments in the Dublin area, the additional project traffic would not cause a significant impact on the major roadway system.
Page 3-254
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Table 3.12-14: 2012 No Project and Plus Project AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service
No-Project Project Increase in Lane A - B - # of Seg LO Vol. V/C Vol. V/C LOS Vol. V/C Segment Endpoint 1 Endpoint 2 Direction Capacity node node Lanes Numb S Tassajara I-580 Fallon Rd Rd EB 2200 29040 27759 4.5 17 5,516 0.557 C 5,558 0.561 C 42 0.004 Tassajara I-580 Fallon Rd Rd WB 2200 27757 29039 4 18 9,736 1.106 F 9,736 1.106 F 0 0.000 Tassajara Hacienda I-580 Rd Dr EB 2200 29045 28995 5.5 19 4,905 0.405 B 4,949 0.409 B 44 0.004 Tassajara Hacienda I-580 Rd Dr WB 2200 28986 29046 4.5 20 8,962 0.905 E 8,983 0.907 E 21 0.002 Hacienda Hopyard I-580 Dr Rd EB 2200 28992 29047 6.5 21 6,714 0.470 B 6,721 0.470 B 7 0.000 Hacienda Hopyard I-580 Dr Rd WB 2200 29048 28974 4.5 22 8,945 0.904 E 9,003 0.909 E 58 0.006 Hopyard I-580 Rd I-680 EB 2200 31885 28994 3 23 3,653 0.553 C 3,657 0.554 C 4 0.001 Hopyard I-580 Rd I-680 WB 2200 28976 28982 4.5 24 9,906 1.001 F 9,957 1.006 F 51 0.005 I-580 I-680 Foothill Rd EB 2200 29015 29030 4.5 25 4,784 0.483 B 4,784 0.483 B 0 0.000 I-580 I-680 Foothill Rd WB 2200 28970 28961 4.5 26 8,847 0.894 E 8,873 0.896 E 26 0.003 Alcosta I-680 Blvd I-580 NB 2200 29019 28972 4 27 6,533 0.742 D 6,551 0.744 D 18 0.002 Alcosta I-680 Blvd I-580 SB 2200 28973 29011 4.5 28 7,507 0.758 D 7,507 0.758 D 0 0.000 Stoneridge I-680 I-580 Dr NB 2200 29135 29003 3.5 29 5,691 0.739 D 5,691 0.739 D 0 0.000 Stoneridge I-680 I-580 Dr SB 2200 29029 29134 3.5 30 6,449 0.838 D 6,496 0.844 D 47 0.006 Stoneridge I-680 Dr Bernal Av NB 2200 31926 31927 3 31 5,008 0.759 D 5,008 0.759 D 0 0.000 Stoneridge I-680 Dr Bernal Av SB 2200 31924 31925 3 32 6,052 0.917 E 6,113 0.926 E 61 0.009 Source: Hexagon 2012
Page 3-255
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Table 3.12-15: 2012 No Project and Plus Project PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service
No-Project Project Increase in
Lane A - B - # of Seg Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C Segment Endpoint 1 Endpoint 2 Direction Capacity node node Lanes Numb Tassajara I-580 Fallon Rd Rd EB 2200 29040 27759 4.5 17 9,104 0.920 E 9,133 0.923 E 29 0.003 Tassajara I-580 Fallon Rd Rd WB 2200 27757 29039 4 18 7,596 0.863 D 7,662 0.871 D 66 0.008 Tassajara Hacienda I-580 Rd Dr EB 2200 29045 28995 5.5 19 9,265 0.766 D 9,295 0.768 D 30 0.002 Tassajara Hacienda I-580 Rd Dr WB 2200 28986 29046 4.5 20 7,174 0.725 D 7,176 0.725 D 2 0.000 Hacienda Hopyard I-580 Dr Rd EB 2200 28992 29047 6.5 21 11,049 0.773 D 11,049 0.773 D 0 0.000 Hacienda Hopyard I-580 Dr Rd WB 2200 29048 28974 4.5 22 8,132 0.821 D 8,132 0.821 D 0 0.000 Hopyard I-580 Rd I-680 EB 2200 31885 28994 3 23 6,547 0.992 E 6,547 0.992 E 0 0.000 Hopyard 1 I-580 Rd I-680 WB 2200 28976 28982 4.5 24 8,459 0.854 D 8,578 0.866 D 19 0.012 I-580 I-680 Foothill Rd EB 2200 29015 29030 4.5 25 8,356 0.844 D 8,476 0.856 D 120 0.012 I-580 I-680 Foothill Rd WB 2200 28970 28961 4.5 26 6,900 0.697 C 7,021 0.709 C 121 0.012 Alcosta I-680 Blvd I-580 NB 2200 29019 28972 4 27 7,829 0.890 D 7,851 0.892 E 22 0.003 Alcosta I-680 Blvd I-580 SB 2200 28973 29011 4.5 28 7,310 0.738 D 7,379 0.745 D 69 0.007 Stoneridge I-680 I-580 Dr NB 2200 29135 29003 3.5 29 6,806 0.884 D 6,825 0.886 D 19 0.002 Stoneridge I-680 I-580 Dr SB 2200 29029 29134 3.5 30 6,094 0.791 D 6,129 0.796 D 35 0.005 Stoneridge I-680 Dr Bernal Av NB 2200 31926 31927 3 31 5,847 0.886 D 5,859 0.888 D 12 0.002 Stoneridge I-680 Dr Bernal Av SB 2200 31924 31925 3 32 5,279 0.800 D 5,279 0.800 D 0 0.000
Page 3-256
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Table 3.12-16: 2020 No Project and Plus Project AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service
No-Project Project Increase in
Lane A - B - # of Seg Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C Segment Endpoint 1 Endpoint 2 Direction Capacity node node Lanes Numb Dublin Dougherty Blvd Road I-680 EB 1100 31817 31818 3 1 1,814 0.550 C 1,917 0.581 C 103 0.031 Dublin Dougherty Blvd Road I-680 WB 1100 31818 31817 3 2 3,264 0.989 E 3,280 0.994 E 16 0.005 Dublin San Ramon Blvd I-680 Blvd EB 1100 28944 31831 3 3 754 0.228 A 918 0.278 A 164 0.050 Dublin San Ramon Blvd I-680 Blvd WB 1100 31831 28944 3 4 871 0.264 A 927 0.281 A 56 0.017 Dougherty Rd Dublin Blvd I-580 NB 1100 28975 28977 3 5 2,447 0.742 D 2,607 0.790 D 160 0.048 Dougherty Rd Dublin Blvd I-580 SB 1100 28977 28975 4 6 3,491 0.793 D 3,691 0.839 D 200 0.045 Hopyard Stoneridge Rd I-580 Dr NB 1100 31809 28981 3 7 967 0.293 A 967 0.293 A 0 0.000 Hopyard Stoneridge Rd I-580 Dr SB 1100 28981 31809 3 8 1,707 0.517 C 1,790 0.542 C 83 0.025 Hopyard Stoneridge Las Positas Rd Dr Rd NB 1100 33855 12169 3 9 1,372 0.416 B 1,372 0.416 B 0 0.000 Hopyard Stoneridge Las Positas Rd Dr Rd SB 1100 12169 33855 3 10 1,144 0.347 B 1,155 0.350 B 11 0.003 Stoneridge Hopyard Dr I-680 Rd EB 1100 27981 33849 3 11 961 0.291 A 961 0.291 A 0 0.000 Stoneridge Hopyard Dr I-680 Rd WB 1100 33849 27981 3 12 2,157 0.654 C 2,157 0.654 C 0 0.000 Stoneridge Hopyard Las Positas Dr Rd Rd EB 1100 29071 33869 2 13 196 0.089 A 196 0.089 A 0 0.000 Stoneridge Hopyard Las Positas Dr Rd Rd WB 1100 33869 29071 3 14 625 0.189 A 638 0.193 A 13 0.004 Tassajara Rd I-580 Dublin Blvd NB 1050 32620 28987 4 15 625 0.149 A 643 0.153 A 18 0.004
Page 3-257
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
No-Project Project Increase in
Lane A - B - # of Seg Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C Segment Endpoint 1 Endpoint 2 Direction Capacity node node Lanes Numb Tassajara Rd I-580 Dublin Blvd SB 1050 28987 32620 4 16 1,653 0.394 B 1,653 0.394 B 0 0.000 Tassajara I-580 Fallon Rd Rd EB 2200 29040 27759 4.5 17 7,137 0.721 D 7,169 0.724 D 32 0.003 Tassajara I-580 Fallon Rd Rd WB 2200 27757 29039 4.5 18 9,373 0.947 E 9,446 0.954 E 73 0.007 Tassajara Hacienda I-580 Rd Dr EB 2200 29045 28995 5.5 19 7,218 0.597 C 7,270 0.601 C 52 0.004 Tassajara Hacienda I-580 Rd Dr WB 2200 28986 29046 4.5 20 9,232 0.933 E 9,232 0.933 E 0 0.000 Hacienda Hopyard I-580 Dr Rd EB 2200 28992 29047 6.5 21 8,898 0.622 C 8,928 0.624 C 30 0.002 Hacienda Hopyard I-580 Dr Rd WB 2200 29048 28974 4.5 22 9,071 0.916 E 9,157 0.925 E 86 0.009 Hopyard I-580 Rd I-680 EB 2200 31885 28994 3 23 4,485 0.680 C 4,485 0.680 C 0 0.000 Hopyard I-580 Rd I-680 WB 2200 28976 28982 4.5 24 9,676 0.977 E 9,809 0.991 E 133 0.013 I-580 I-680 Foothill Rd EB 2200 29015 29030 4.5 25 5,659 0.572 C 5,665 0.572 C 6 0.001 I-580 I-680 Foothill Rd WB 2200 28970 28961 4.5 26 8,435 0.852 D 8,524 0.861 D 89 0.009 Alcosta I-680 Blvd I-580 NB 2200 29019 28972 4 27 7,710 0.876 D 7,737 0.879 D 27 0.003 Alcosta I-680 Blvd I-580 SB 2200 28973 29011 4.5 28 8,046 0.813 D 8,069 0.815 D 23 0.002 Stoneridge I-680 I-580 Dr NB 2200 29135 29003 3.5 29 6,319 0.821 D 6,328 0.822 D 9 0.001 Stoneridge I-680 I-580 Dr SB 2200 29029 29134 3.5 30 6,816 0.885 D 6,816 0.885 D 0 0.000 Stoneridge I-680 Dr Bernal Av NB 2200 31926 31927 3 31 4,936 0.748 D 4,936 0.748 D 0 0.000 Stoneridge I-680 Dr Bernal Av SB 2200 31924 31925 3 32 7,188 1.089 F 7,220 1.094 F 32 0.005 Source: Hexagon 2012
Page 3-258
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Table 3.12-17: 2020 No Project and Plus Project PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service
No-Project Project Increase in
Lane A - B - # of Seg Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C Segment Endpoint 1 Endpoint 2 Direction Capacity node node Lanes Numb Dublin Dougherty Blvd Road I-680 EB 1100 31817 31818 3 1 1,863 0.565 C 2,051 0.622 C 188 0.057 Dublin Dougherty Blvd Road I-680 WB 1100 31818 31817 3 2 3,232 0.979 E 3,269 0.991 E 37 0.011 Dublin San Ramon Blvd I-680 Blvd EB 1100 28944 31831 3 3 1,153 0.349 B 1,180 0.358 B 27 0.008 Dublin San Ramon Blvd I-680 Blvd WB 1100 31831 28944 3 4 966 0.293 A 966 0.293 A 0 0.000 Dougherty Rd Dublin Blvd I-580 NB 1100 28975 28977 3 5 3,352 1.016 F 3,386 1.026 F 34 0.010 Dougherty Rd Dublin Blvd I-580 SB 1100 28977 28975 4 6 2,355 0.535 C 2,466 0.560 C 111 0.025 Hopyard Stoneridge Rd I-580 Dr NB 1100 31809 28981 3 7 2,332 0.707 C 2,332 0.707 C 0 0.000 Hopyard Stoneridge Rd I-580 Dr SB 1100 28981 31809 3 8 1,192 0.361 B 1,221 0.370 B 29 0.009 Hopyard Stoneridge Las Positas Rd Dr Rd NB 1100 33855 12169 3 9 1,662 0.504 C 1,662 0.504 C 0 0.000 Hopyard Stoneridge Las Positas Rd Dr Rd SB 1100 12169 33855 3 10 1,509 0.457 B 1,532 0.464 B 23 0.007 Stoneridge Hopyard Dr I-680 Rd EB 1100 27981 33849 3 11 2,432 0.737 D 2,461 0.746 D 29 0.009 Stoneridge Hopyard Dr I-680 Rd WB 1100 33849 27981 3 12 1,585 0.480 B 1,606 0.487 B 21 0.006 Stoneridge Hopyard Las Positas Dr Rd Rd EB 1100 29071 33869 2 13 612 0.278 A 625 0.284 A 13 0.006 Stoneridge Hopyard Las Positas Dr Rd Rd WB 1100 33869 29071 3 14 451 0.137 A 464 0.141 A 13 0.004 Tassajara Rd I-580 Dublin Blvd NB 1050 32620 28987 4 15 2,845 0.677 C 2,900 0.690 C 55 0.013
Page 3-259
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
No-Project Project Increase in
Lane A - B - # of Seg Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C Segment Endpoint 1 Endpoint 2 Direction Capacity node node Lanes Numb Tassajara Rd I-580 Dublin Blvd SB 1050 28987 32620 4 16 934 0.222 A 934 0.222 A 0 0.000 Tassajara I-580 Fallon Rd Rd EB 2200 29040 27759 4.5 17 9,495 0.959 E 9,495 0.959 E 0 0.000 Tassajara I-580 Fallon Rd Rd WB 2200 27757 29039 4.5 18 8,337 0.842 D 8,337 0.842 D 0 0.000 Tassajara Hacienda I-580 Rd Dr EB 2200 29045 28995 5.5 19 10,187 0.842 D 10,187 0.842 D 0 0.000 Tassajara Hacienda I-580 Rd Dr WB 2200 28986 29046 4.5 20 8,033 0.811 D 8,033 0.811 D 0 0.000 Hacienda Hopyard I-580 Dr Rd EB 2200 28992 29047 6.5 21 12,113 0.847 D 12,113 0.847 D 0 0.000 Hacienda Hopyard I-580 Dr Rd WB 2200 29048 28974 4.5 22 7,699 0.778 D 7,699 0.778 D 0 0.000 Hopyard I-580 Rd I-680 EB 2200 31885 28994 3 23 7,123 1.079 F 7,163 1.085 F 40 0.006 Hopyard I-580 Rd I-680 WB 2200 28976 28982 4.5 24 8,175 0.826 D 8,175 0.826 D 0 0.000 I-580 I-680 Foothill Rd EB 2200 29015 29030 4.5 25 9,930 1.003 F 9,930 1.003 F 0 0.000 I-580 I-680 Foothill Rd WB 2200 28970 28961 4.5 26 8,023 0.810 D 8,032 0.811 D 9 0.001 Alcosta I-680 Blvd I-580 NB 2200 29019 28972 4 27 8,100 0.920 E 8,179 0.929 E 79 0.009 Alcosta I-680 Blvd I-580 SB 2200 28973 29011 4.5 28 7,808 0.789 D 7,873 0.795 D 65 0.007 Stoneridge I-680 I-580 Dr NB 2200 29135 29003 3.5 29 7,354 0.955 E 7,361 0.956 E 7 0.001 Stoneridge I-680 I-580 Dr SB 2200 29029 29134 3.5 30 6,288 0.817 D 6,288 0.817 D 0 0.000 Stoneridge I-680 Dr Bernal Av NB 2200 31926 31927 3 31 5,798 0.878 D 5,798 0.878 D 0 0.000 Stoneridge I-680 Dr Bernal Av SB 2200 31924 31925 3 32 5,750 0.871 D 5,750 0.871 D 0 0.000 Source: Hexagon 2012
Page 3-260
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Table 3.12-18: 2035 No Project and Plus Project AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service
No-Project Project Increase in
Lane A - B - # of Seg Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C Segment Endpoint 1 Endpoint 2 Direction Capacity node node Lanes Numb Dublin Dougherty Blvd Road I-680 EB 1100 31817 31818 3 1 2,580 0.782 D 2,679 0.812 D 99 0.030 Dublin Dougherty Blvd Road I-680 WB 1100 31818 31817 3 2 3,372 1.022 F 3,378 1.024 F 6 0.002 Dublin San Ramon Blvd I-680 Blvd EB 1100 28944 31831 3 3 1,365 0.414 B 1,602 0.485 B 237 0.072 Dublin San Ramon Blvd I-680 Blvd WB 1100 31831 28944 3 4 899 0.272 A 899 0.272 A 0 0.000 Dougherty Rd Dublin Blvd I-580 NB 1100 28975 28977 3 5 2,714 0.822 D 2,853 0.865 D 139 0.042 Dougherty Rd Dublin Blvd I-580 SB 1100 28977 28975 4 6 4,266 0.970 E 4,266 0.970 E 0 0.000 Hopyard Stoneridge Rd I-580 Dr NB 1100 31809 28981 3 7 1,212 0.367 B 1,253 0.380 B 41 0.012 Hopyard Stoneridge Rd I-580 Dr SB 1100 28981 31809 3 8 1,765 0.535 C 1,799 0.545 C 34 0.010 Hopyard Stoneridge Las Positas Rd Dr Rd NB 1100 33855 12169 3 9 1,563 0.474 B 1,563 0.474 B 0 0.000 Hopyard Stoneridge Las Positas Rd Dr Rd SB 1100 12169 33855 3 10 1,123 0.340 B 1,141 0.346 B 18 0.005 Stoneridge Hopyard Dr I-680 Rd EB 1100 27981 33849 3 11 1,014 0.307 B 1,026 0.311 B 12 0.004 Stoneridge Hopyard Dr I-680 Rd WB 1100 33849 27981 3 12 2,311 0.700 C 2,311 0.700 C 0 0.000 Stoneridge Hopyard Las Positas Dr Rd Rd EB 1100 29071 33869 2 13 219 0.100 A 219 0.100 A 0 0.000 Stoneridge Hopyard Las Positas Dr Rd Rd WB 1100 33869 29071 3 14 1,145 0.347 B 1,171 0.355 B 26 0.008 Tassajara Rd I-580 Dublin Blvd NB 1050 32620 28987 4 15 1,054 0.251 A 1,054 0.251 A 0 0.000
Page 3-261
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
No-Project Project Increase in
Lane A - B - # of Seg Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C Segment Endpoint 1 Endpoint 2 Direction Capacity node node Lanes Numb Tassajara Rd I-580 Dublin Blvd SB 1050 28987 32620 4 16 2,447 0.583 C 2,447 0.583 C 0 0.000 Tassajara I-580 Fallon Rd Rd EB 2200 29040 27759 4.5 17 8,438 0.852 D 8,438 0.852 D 0 0.000 Tassajara I-580 Fallon Rd Rd WB 2200 27757 29039 4.5 18 10,040 1.014 F 10,040 1.014 F 0 0.000 Tassajara Hacienda I-580 Rd Dr EB 2200 29045 28995 5.5 19 8,749 0.723 D 8,779 0.726 D 30 0.002 Tassajara Hacienda I-580 Rd Dr WB 2200 28986 29046 4.5 20 9,958 1.006 F 9,958 1.006 F 0 0.000 Hacienda Hopyard I-580 Dr Rd EB 2200 28992 29047 6.5 21 10,758 0.752 D 10,758 0.752 D 0 0.000 Hacienda Hopyard I-580 Dr Rd WB 2200 29048 28974 4.5 22 9,933 1.003 F 10,023 1.012 F 90 0.009 Hopyard I-580 Rd I-680 EB 2200 31885 28994 3 23 5,363 0.813 D 5,363 0.813 D 0 0.000 Hopyard I-580 Rd I-680 WB 2200 28976 28982 4.5 24 11,153 1.127 F 11,153 1.127 F 0 0.000 I-580 I-680 Foothill Rd EB 2200 29015 29030 4.5 25 6,727 0.679 C 6,727 0.679 C 0 0.000 I-580 I-680 Foothill Rd WB 2200 28970 28961 4.5 26 9,775 0.987 E 9,848 0.995 E 73 0.007 Alcosta I-680 Blvd I-580 NB 2200 29019 28972 4 27 8,179 0.929 E 8,252 0.938 E 73 0.008 Alcosta I-680 Blvd I-580 SB 2200 28973 29011 4.5 28 9,542 0.964 E 9,565 0.966 E 23 0.002 Stoneridge I-680 I-580 Dr NB 2200 29135 29003 3.5 29 6,012 0.781 D 6,012 0.781 D 0 0.000 Stoneridge I-680 I-580 Dr SB 2200 29029 29134 3.5 30 7,656 0.994 E 7,656 0.994 E 0 0.000 Stoneridge I-680 Dr Bernal Av NB 2200 31926 31927 3 31 4,950 0.750 D 4,950 0.750 D 0 0.000 Stoneridge I-680 Dr Bernal Av SB 2200 31924 31925 3 32 6,174 0.935 E 6,175 0.936 E 1 0.000 Source: Hexagon 2012
Page 3-262
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Table 3.12-19: 2035 No Project and Plus Project PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service
No-Project Project Increase in
Lane A - B - # of Seg Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C Segment Endpoint 1 Endpoint 2 Direction Capacity node node Lanes Numb Dublin Dougherty Blvd Road I-680 EB 1100 31817 31818 3 1 2,822 0.855 D 2,891 0.876 D 69 0.021 Dublin Dougherty Blvd Road I-680 WB 1100 31818 31817 3 2 3,479 1.054 F 3,479 1.054 F 0 0.000 Dublin San Ramon Blvd I-680 Blvd EB 1100 28944 31831 3 3 1,560 0.473 B 1,600 0.485 B 40 0.012 Dublin San Ramon Blvd I-680 Blvd WB 1100 31831 28944 3 4 1,217 0.369 B 1,327 0.402 B 110 0.033 Dougherty Rd Dublin Blvd I-580 NB 1100 28975 28977 3 5 3,491 1.058 F 3,513 1.065 F 22 0.007 Dougherty Rd Dublin Blvd I-580 SB 1100 28977 28975 4 6 2,368 0.538 C 2,685 0.610 C 317 0.072 Hopyard Stoneridge Rd I-580 Dr NB 1100 31809 28981 3 7 2,047 0.620 C 2,142 0.649 C 95 0.029 Hopyard Stoneridge Rd I-580 Dr SB 1100 28981 31809 3 8 1,296 0.393 B 1,385 0.420 B 89 0.027 Hopyard Stoneridge Las Positas Rd Dr Rd NB 1100 33855 12169 3 9 1,926 0.584 C 1,953 0.592 C 27 0.008 Hopyard Stoneridge Las Positas Rd Dr Rd SB 1100 12169 33855 3 10 1,936 0.587 C 2,001 0.606 C 65 0.020 Stoneridge Hopyard Dr I-680 Rd EB 1100 27981 33849 3 11 3,031 0.918 E 3,043 0.922 E 12 0.004 Stoneridge Hopyard Dr I-680 Rd WB 1100 33849 27981 3 12 1,944 0.589 C 1,974 0.598 C 30 0.009 Stoneridge Hopyard Las Positas Dr Rd Rd EB 1100 29071 33869 2 13 971 0.441 B 1,024 0.465 B 53 0.024 Stoneridge Hopyard Las Positas Dr Rd Rd WB 1100 33869 29071 3 14 556 0.168 A 582 0.176 A 26 0.008 Tassajara Rd I-580 Dublin Blvd NB 1050 32620 28987 4 15 3,563 0.848 D 3,662 0.872 D 99 0.024
Page 3-263
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
No-Project Project Increase in
Lane A - B - # of Seg Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C Segment Endpoint 1 Endpoint 2 Direction Capacity node node Lanes Numb Tassajara Rd I-580 Dublin Blvd SB 1050 28987 32620 4 16 1,585 0.377 B 1,585 0.377 B 0 0.000 Tassajara I-580 Fallon Rd Rd EB 2200 29040 27759 4.5 17 10,219 1.032 F 10,268 1.037 F 49 0.005 Tassajara I-580 Fallon Rd Rd WB 2200 27757 29039 4.5 18 9,082 0.917 E 9,084 0.918 E 2 0.000 Tassajara Hacienda I-580 Rd Dr EB 2200 29045 28995 5.5 19 11,072 0.915 E 11,072 0.915 E 0 0.000 Tassajara Hacienda I-580 Rd Dr WB 2200 28986 29046 4.5 20 8,783 0.887 D 8,836 0.893 E 53 0.005 Hacienda Hopyard I-580 Dr Rd EB 2200 28992 29047 6.5 21 12,524 0.876 D 12,570 0.879 D 46 0.003 Hacienda Hopyard I-580 Dr Rd WB 2200 29048 28974 4.5 22 8,780 0.887 D 8,780 0.887 D 0 0.000 Hopyard I-580 Rd I-680 EB 2200 31885 28994 3 23 7,579 1.148 F 7,648 1.159 F 69 0.010 Hopyard I-580 Rd I-680 WB 2200 28976 28982 4.5 24 9,410 0.951 E 9,505 0.960 E 95 0.010 I-580 I-680 Foothill Rd EB 2200 29015 29030 4.5 25 11,218 1.133 F 11,302 1.142 F 84 0.008 I-580 I-680 Foothill Rd WB 2200 28970 28961 4.5 26 8,536 0.862 D 8,580 0.867 D 44 0.004 Alcosta I-680 Blvd I-580 NB 2200 29019 28972 4 27 9,437 1.072 F 9,444 1.073 F 7 0.001 Alcosta I-680 Blvd I-580 SB 2200 28973 29011 4.5 28 8,709 0.880 D 8,727 0.882 D 18 0.002 Stoneridge I-680 I-580 Dr NB 2200 29135 29003 3.5 29 7,810 1.014 F 7,859 1.021 F 49 0.006 Stoneridge I-680 I-580 Dr SB 2200 29029 29134 3.5 30 6,851 0.890 D 6,924 0.899 E 73 0.009 Stoneridge I-680 Dr Bernal Av NB 2200 31926 31927 3 31 6,139 0.930 E 6,161 0.933 E 22 0.003 Stoneridge I-680 Dr Bernal Av SB 2200 31924 31925 3 32 5,104 0.773 D 5,116 0.775 D 12 0.002 Source: Hexagon 2012
Page 3-264
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation
Intersection Impacts Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection
Impact 3.12-1: During the PM peak hour, the study intersection of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard would operate at an unacceptable LOS E under both 2020 background no project conditions and 2020 background plus project conditions. The City of Dublin level of service standard for this intersection is LOS D. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
An additional northbound left turn lane on Dougherty Road would be necessary to mitigate the impact at the intersection of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. Therefore, this improvement would mitigate the intersection to less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure: MM 3.12-1: Addition of Northbound Left-Turn Lane on Dougherty Road. The proposed project shall add an additional northbound left-turn lane on Dougherty Road at the Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard intersection. Based on the 2020 background plus project conditions, the two northbound left turn lanes would need to be 325 feet each. This improvement would require widening Dougherty Road by approximately 12 feet along the east side in advance of the intersection. It would also require realignment of travel lanes through the intersection and traffic signal modifications.
This improvement has already been identified by the City of Dublin’s Traffic Impact Fee program as part of the widening of Dougherty Road between Sierra Court and City limits. Because the impact is caused by the proposed project, future land use growth, and is included in the Traffic Impact Fee program, the mitigation for this impact is for the project to make a fair share monetary contribution toward these improvements. The timing of these improvements will be determined in the project’s mitigation monitoring program.
Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive Intersection
Impact 3.12-2: During the PM peak hour, the study intersection of Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive would degrade from LOS D under 2035 cumulative no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E under 2035 cumulative plus project conditions. The City of Dublin level of service standard for this intersection is LOS D. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
To improve the level of service at the intersection of Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive, the proposed project would require converting the eastbound all-movement lane to a shared through- right lane and adding a new 60-foot eastbound left turn lane. In addition, the eastbound and westbound legs should be converted from split phasing to protected phasing. With
Page 3-265
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation implementation of the following mitigation measure, the intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour, which would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure: MM 3.12-2: Converting the Eastbound All-Movement Lane to a Shared Through Right-Lane and Adding an Eastbound Left-Turn Lane at Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive. To mitigate the impact at the intersection of Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive would require converting the eastbound all-movement lane to a shared through-right lane and adding a new 60-foot eastbound left turn lane. In addition, the eastbound and westbound legs should be converted from split phasing to protected phasing. This improvement would require widening the west approach of the intersection by approximately 12 feet into the existing pork chop island. Further improvements at this intersection have already been identified by the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Program as part of the Scarlett Drive extension to Dublin Boulevard. Implementation of the identified mitigation at this location should be coordinated with the City’s planned TIF improvements. Because the impact is caused by both the proposed project and future land use growth, the mitigation for this impact is for the project to make a fair share monetary contribution toward these improvements. The timing of these improvements will be determined in the project’s mitigation monitoring program.
Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard Intersection
Impact 3.12-3: Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard. During the PM peak hour, the study intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard would operate at an unacceptable LOS F under both 2035 cumulative no project conditions and 2035 cumulative plus project conditions. The City of Dublin level of service standard for this intersection is LOS D. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Due to the higher rate of pedestrian/bicyclist crossings at Dublin Boulevard, a grade separated crossing could be utilized at this intersection to allow more green time to be allotted to through traffic on Dublin Boulevard. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS C during the PM peak hour. Therefore, this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure: MM 3.12-3: Construction of a Grade Separated Crossing at the Intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard. To mitigate the impacts at the intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard due to higher rate of pedestrians/bicyclists crossings at Dublin Boulevard, a grade separated crossing should be utilized. The grade separated crossing would eliminate the need for at-grade pedestrian actuations at the traffic signal, which would allow more green time to be allocated to through traffic on Dublin Boulevard. Although this project has not been environmentally cleared, nor has engineering or right of way analysis been completed with regards to the feasibility of this improvement, the City is aggressively pursuing this project to improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility along the Iron Horse Trail. The City also
Page 3-266
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation
plans to include a grade separated crossing at this location in its update to the TIF program to secure project funding.
Because the impact is caused by future land use growth in the region as well as this proposed project, the mitigation for this impact is for the project to make a fair share monetary contribution toward these improvements. The timing of these improvements will be determined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and developer obligations will be outlined in the Developer Agreement. In the event that the grade separated crossing project cannot be constructed by year 2035, an alternative mitigation would be to eliminate the crosswalk on the east leg of the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection. This would require pedestrians and bikes from the Iron Horse Trail to cross three crosswalks rather than one. Because of the effects of the alternative mitigation on pedestrian and bike mobility, the grade separated crossing is the City’s preferred mitigation at this location.
Iron Horse Parkway and Dublin Boulevard Intersection
Impact 3.12-4: During the PM peak hour, the study intersection of Iron Horse Parkway and Dublin Boulevard would degrade from LOS C under 2035 cumulative no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS F under 2035 cumulative plus project conditions. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
To mitigate this impact, the project applicant would be required to construct an additional northbound left turn lane on Iron Horse Parkway. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. Therefore, this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure: MM 3.12-4: Addition of a Northbound Left-Turn Lane on Iron Horse Parkway at the Intersection of Iron Horse Parkway and Dublin Boulevard. To mitigate the impact at the intersection of Iron Horse Parkway and Dublin Boulevard would require an additional northbound left turn lane on Iron Horse Parkway. Based on the 2035 cumulative plus project conditions, the two northbound left turn lanes would need to be 400 feet each. This improvement would require widening Iron Horse Parkway by approximately 12 feet along the east side in advance of the intersection. It may also require removal of parking, realignment of travel lanes through the intersection, relocation of sidewalks, and traffic signal modifications.
Because the proposed project causes the change in operation from LOS C to LOS F, the proposed project is responsible for constructing these improvements. The timing of these improvements will be determined in the project’s mitigation monitoring program.
Page 3-267
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard
Impact 3.12-5: During the PM peak hour, the study intersection of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard would operate at an unacceptable LOS E under both 2035 cumulative no project conditions and 2035 cumulative plus project conditions. The City of Dublin level of service standard for this intersection is LOS D. Because the intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of service under no project conditions, the addition of project trips would result in a potentially significant impact to the intersection based on the City of Dublin impact criteria.
With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. Therefore, this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure: MM 3.12-5: Convert One of the Through Lanes to a Second Right-Turn Lane at the Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard Intersection. As part of the City of Dublin’s Traffic Impact Fee program, the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard has a planned northbound approach geometry of three left turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right turn lane. To mitigate the impact at the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard would require converting one of the through lanes to a second right turn lane, which is the existing northbound geometry at the intersection. Because no improvements relative to the existing geometry are necessary, the City of Dublin should modify its planned improvement at the northbound approach of the intersection back to the existing configuration. With this mitigation, the intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. Therefore, this improvement would mitigate the intersection to less than significant levels.
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard Intersection
Impact 3.12-6: During the PM peak hour, the study intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard would degrade from LOS D under 2035 cumulative no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E under 2035 cumulative plus project conditions. The City of Dublin level of service standard for this intersection is LOS D. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure, the intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. Therefore, this improvement would reduce the impact at this intersection to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure: MM 3.12-6: Install a Fourth Eastbound Through Lane on Dublin Boulevard. To mitigate the impact at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard would require a fourth eastbound through lane on Dublin Boulevard. The widening of Dublin Boulevard to six through lanes is included in the City of Dublin’s Traffic Impact Fee
Page 3-268
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation
program. The planned eastbound approach geometry supplied by the City includes two left turn lanes, two right turn lanes, and three through lanes. To return the intersection to an acceptable LOS would require converting one of the right turn lanes to a fourth through lane. A fourth eastbound through lane would require an additional receiving lane east of the Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection. It may also require realignment of travel lanes through the intersection and traffic signal modifications.
Because the impact is caused by both the proposed project and future land use growth, the mitigation for this impact is for the project to make a fair share monetary contribution toward these improvements. The timing of these improvements will be determined in the project’s mitigation monitoring program.
Freeway Ramp Impacts
Impact 3.12-7: The proposed project would add project trips to the following freeway on-ramps, which would not be consistent with the Alameda County CMP criteria for freeway ramps:
Southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 Eastbound On-ramp. During the PM peak hour, the southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 eastbound on-ramp would degrade from a V/C ratio of 0.98 under existing conditions to a V/C ratio of 1.13 under existing plus project conditions. According to the Alameda County CMP, the acceptable V/C ratio on all MTS segments is 0.99 or less.
Southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 Eastbound On-ramp. During the PM peak hour, the southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 eastbound on-ramp would degrade from a V/C ratio of 1.48 under 2035 cumulative no project conditions to a V/C ratio of 1.52 under 2035 cumulative plus project conditions. According to the Alameda County CMP, for a segment that would operate with a V/C ratio above 0.99 under no project conditions, an increase in the V/C ratio of more than 0.02 would be considered a significant impact.
Southbound Tassajara Road to I-580 Westbound On-ramp. During the AM peak hour, the southbound Tassajara Road to I-580 westbound on-ramp would degrade from a V/C ratio of 0.97 under 2035 cumulative no project conditions to a V/C ratio of 1.05 under 2035 cumulative plus project conditions. According to the Alameda County CMP, the acceptable V/C ratio on all MTS segments is 0.99 or less.
This is considered a potentially significant impact.
The following mitigation measure would require changing the ramp metering rates so that more vehicles could access the freeway. However, because the future metering rates cannot be predicted with certainty, the project impacts to freeway ramps should be considered a significant unavoidable impact. However, as partial mitigation for project ramp impacts, the proposed project
Page 3-269
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation should consider implementing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs to reduce the project’s impacts on these facilities.
Mitigation Measure: MM 3.12-7: Freeway Ramp Metering Rates. The project impacts to freeway ramps could be mitigated by changing the ramp metering rates so that more vehicles could access the freeway. However, the freeway ramps are operated by Caltrans, which sets metering rates based on overall operations in the freeway corridor. In the future, major improvements are planned for I-580 in the project vicinity, including the addition of High Occupancy Vehicle and auxiliary lanes. In addition, as the Cities surrounding the I-580 corridor continue to build out and additional parallel east/west connectors such as the Stoneridge Drive and Dublin Boulevard extensions are completed, it is likely that the ramp meter rates would change over time to accommodate the demand on both the freeway ramps and freeway segments.
Metropolitan Transportation System Impacts As shown in Tables 3.12-14 to 3.12-19, the proposed project would result in no significant impacts to MTS roadway segments.
Vehicle On-site Circulation Impacts
Impact 3.12-8: The proposed project does not include detailed information such as intersection layouts and driveway locations. For this reason, impacts to roadway safety cannot be evaluated at this time. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
As more detail for the roadway layout becomes available, a detailed analysis of on-site circulation shall be completed. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, this potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure: MM 3.12-8: Roadway Layout and Driveway Locations. As more detail for the roadway layout and driveway locations become available, the following mitigation shall be implemented:
The precise roadway alignments at both the onsite and site access intersections . have yet to be designed. City staff shall review the proposed intersection alignments to insure that opposing left turn lanes can operate simultaneously, sufficient radii is provided for truck turn movements, and through lanes line up reasonably well with their respective receiving lanes across the intersection. To maintain adequate corner sight distance consistent with Caltrans Highway . Design Manual requirements, parking shall not be permitted on major onsite roadways (Central Parkway East, G Street, and, B Street) within close proximity to intersections. At all onsite intersections, landscaping, signing, and parking shall be designed so that adequate corner sight distance is achieved.
Page 3-270
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation
A site circulation and access study shall be conducted for the proposed school . to insure that loading areas are adequately designed and the adjacent streets are safe for school age children. Flashing beacon warning signs, high visibility crosswalks, raised crosswalks, and school zone speed limit signs shall be considered, where appropriate. The traffic control and turn pocket lengths shall be reviewed by the City as site . specific development plans move forward to insure that the orientation of the private roadways (which will feed into the major and minor collector streets onsite) do not result in level of service or safety issues. Private street roadway segments with perpendicular parking shall be relatively . short in length (approximately 400 feet or less) to discourage excessive vehicle speeds. This is necessary to allow a vehicle backing out of a perpendicular parking stall to react to through traffic on the private street. Transit Impacts
Impact 3.12-9: The proposed project will increase transit demand, generating an estimated 1,228 weekday daily transit trips (bus and BART combined). This will create the need for bus route adjustments and/or increased bus frequency. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Project transit demand would be partly served by the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The methodology and data used to determine project impacts on BART were obtained from BART.gov and the January 7, 2009 Traffic Study for the Arroyo Vista Housing Development by TJKM Transportation Consultants. According to the BART monthly ridership report for September 2012, there are approximately 14,600 total weekday entries and exits at the Dublin/Pleasanton station. There are four trains that run to and from the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station during a typical weekday peak commute hour. Each BART train consists of eight cars, with a capacity of 560 seats per train. This equates to 2,240 seats (4 trains at 560 seats each) during the peak hour. Currently, approximately 1,203 riders enter the station and 359 riders exit the station during the AM peak hour, equaling a total of 1,562 riders in the AM peak hour. The corresponding numbers in the PM peak hour are lower than the AM peak hour, with approximately 326 riders entering the station and 1,090 riders exiting the station, for a total of 1,416 riders in the PM peak hour. To account for both sitting and standing passengers, BART assumes a maximum load capacity of 1.35 persons per seat during peak commute periods. If a worst case scenario is assumed, in which all transit trips generated by the project chose to ride BART, there would be 60 additional riders in the peak direction entering the station during the AM peak hour. This would result in a total of 1,263 riders entering the station for the 2,240 seats provided. The resulting load capacity would be 0.56 persons per seat. This is below BART’s maximum load capacity of 1.35 persons per seat. Similarly, the 75 additional exiting riders in the peak direction produced by the project at the station during the PM peak hour would yield 1,165 riders for the available 2,240 seats. This would result in a load capacity of 0.52 persons per seat. The analysis therefore shows that the demand generated by the proposed project could be accommodated by the existing BART service provided.
The Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) currently provides several bus routes in the project vicinity, including lines 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 54, 70X, and a Bus Rapid Transit service. These
Page 3-271
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation routes all provide service along Dublin Boulevard near the project area and have bus stops on Dublin Boulevard and/or at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. According to the LAVTA Short Range Transit Plan (FY 2012 to 2021), most vehicles in the fleet have a seating capacity of 39 riders with an additional capacity of 21 standees. The bus routes that serve the project area average between 7.3 and 24.7 passengers per hour. It is anticipated that the proposed project would add no more than 3 or 4 passengers per bus during peak commute hours. Therefore, the existing bus service is expected to be adequate to serve the additional peak hour bus trips generated by the project. Although there is adequate capacity on the existing bus system to accommodate the additional riders from the proposed project, changes in the existing bus routes should be considered to enhance transit accessibility for future project residents. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the impact will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: MM 3.12-9: Coordination with LAVTA. As the plan area develops, the project applicant shall coordinate with the City of Dublin and LAVTA to determine if route changes and/or increased service is required in the project area. In addition, the project shall provide additional bus duckouts and transit shelters to support project trips, where appropriate.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Mobility Impacts
Impact 3.12-10: The proposed project does not include detailed information such as intersection layouts, crosswalk locations, wheelchair ramp locations, and driveway locations. For this reason, impacts to bicycle and pedestrian safety cannot be evaluated at this time, which is considered a potentially significant impact.
As more detail becomes available, a detailed analysis of pedestrian and bicycle mobility should be completed. With implementation of the following mitigation measures, the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure: MM 3.12-10: Review of Intersection Layouts and Driveway Locations. As each individual site develops within the Specific Plan and more details are available, additional review by the City of Dublin will be necessary to insure that individual elements of the project do not conflict with the pedestrian/bike accessibility and are consistent with the policies and guidelines in the Dublin Bikeways Master Plan. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
Marked crosswalks shall be provided at all onsite intersections, where appropriate, based on the layout of the local streets. Prior to final design of the streets and pathways, the intersection designs should be reviewed by City staff to insure that the pathway crossings are clearly marked and include Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant wheelchair ramps. Bollards may also be considered so that vehicles are restricted from driving on the 10-foot wide paths.
Page 3-272
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation
The layout of private and minor streets within the site shall minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the number of crossings with the proposed onsite 10- foot pedestrian paths. This includes potentially realigning the Iron Horse Trail onto the Central Park site so that the driveway access to the park at Scarlett Drive does not conflict with trail operations.
Bike parking, showers, and changing rooms shall be considered at the park, office and shopping center uses, where appropriate.
During construction along Scarlett Drive, Dublin Boulevard, and Arnold Road, temporary traffic control plans shall be prepared to minimize the disruption to bike and pedestrian activities through the construction zone. Construction Impacts
Impact 3.12-11: Project construction would occur over an estimated time period of eight to twelve years and has the potential to result in hundreds of construction staff on-site at one time. However, due to the nature of the project phasing over the course of time, it is difficult to estimate the amount of construction traffic that may take place during peak traffic volume periods. The construction phase also would increase the number of daily truck trips in the project vicinity while the site is graded and materials are delivered. All truck movements to and from the site during construction would likely occur on the arterials and collector streets around the project site. The land uses to the east and south of the project along Arnold Road and Dublin Boulevard are primarily industrial and commercial uses, with some high density residential uses along the south side of Dublin Boulevard. To the west of the project site, there are low density residential townhouses along Scarlett Drive. While heavy vehicle traffic is common on arterial streets near industrial, commercial, and high density residential land uses, truck traffic on streets directly adjacent to low density residential development should be minimized to the greatest extent possible. Large numbers of heavy vehicle trips on Scarlett Drive during the construction phase may result in a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure: MM 3.12-11: Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s). Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or any permit that authorizes construction activities on the Specific Plan site or construction of off-site improvements relating to the Specific Plan, the project applicants shall provide Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) for City Staff review and approval as part of the permit application. The Mitigation Plan(s) shall include measures to minimize the construction traffic entering the roadway system during periods of peak traffic volumes (i.e. AM and PM Peak Hour). The Mitigation Plan(s) shall also include measures to minimize the number of truck trips on Scarlett Drive and should route heavy vehicle traffic to driveways on Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road to access the site during the construction phase of the project. At a
Page 3-273
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation and Circulation
minimum, the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan should include the following implementation measures:
Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate principal haul routes for trucks delivering materials to and from the construction site.
Should a temporary road and/or lane closure be necessary during construction, the project applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary, to minimize traffic impacts. This may include detour signage, cones, construction area signage, flagmen, and other measures as required for safe traffic handling in the construction zone.
The project applicant shall be required to keep a minimum of one lane in each direction free from encumbrances at all times on perimeter streets accessing the project site. In the event a full road closure is required, the contractor shall coordinate with the City to designate proper detour routes and signage to appropriate proper access routes.
Impact 3.12-12: The proposed project may require the closure of travel lanes on Dublin Boulevard, Scarlett Drive, and Arnold Road while constructing frontage improvements, intersection improvements for new proposed roadways (G Street, B Street, Central Parkway East, E Street, D Street and A Street), and traffic signal modifications where new intersection legs are proposed. Closure of travel lanes during peak commute hours could result in restricted traffic flow on the public streets surrounding the project area. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure: MM 3.12-12: Restrict Land Closures Along Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road to Off-Peak Hours. During project construction, the lane closures along Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road shall be restricted to off-peak hours to the greatest extent feasible. In addition, traffic handling plans shall be prepared for construction work in the public right-of-way in accordance with current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards and guidelines.
Page 3-274
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation
This page intentionally left blank
Page 3-275
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Consideration
4. CEQA Considerations This section of the EIR discusses long-term implications of the proposed project as required by CEQA. The topics discussed include significant irreversible commitment of resources, growth-inducing impacts, significant and unavoidable environmental effects, energy conservation and effects found not to be significant. Cumulative impacts and alternatives to the proposed project are also discussed herein.
4.1 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects Unavoidable adverse impacts are those effects of the proposed project that would significantly affect the environment, and cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level as identified in the previous analyses. The proposed project, if implemented, would result in the following significant and unavoidable project impacts:
Short-term Construction Air Quality – The proposed project would result in future short-term air quality impacts associated with construction activities, including grading, operation of equipment, and demolition of existing structures within the project area. The BAAQMD requires the construction mitigation measures to be implemented at all construction sites, regardless of size. However, as the proposed project would facilitate future development and generate construction emissions that could potentially exceed BAAQMD thresholds, a significant unavoidable impact would occur.
Long-term Operational Air Quality – The total unmitigated operational emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. With application of the measures/design features regarding area and mobile source emissions within the Specific Plan, operational emissions would still exceed the thresholds for ROG, NOx, and PM10. Therefore, this would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
Long-term Operational Impacts to Freeway Ramps – The proposed project would result in a significant impact to the following freeway ramps: Southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 Eastbound On-ramp under project and cumulative conditions and Southbound Tassajara Road to I-580 Westbound On-ramp under cumulative conditions. Mitigation measures 3.12-7 would require modification of the ramp metering rates so that more vehicles could access the freeway. However, the freeway ramps are operated by Caltrans, which sets metering rates based on overall operations in the freeway corridor. As the cities surrounding the I-580 corridor continue to build out and additional parallel east/west connectors such as the Stoneridge Drive and Dublin Boulevard extensions are completed, it is likely that the ramp meter rates would change over time to accommodate the demand on both the freeway ramps and freeway segments. Because the future metering rates cannot be predicted with certainty, the project impacts to freeway ramps would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
Page 4-1
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations
4.2 Significant Irreversible Changes Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved if the proposed project would be implemented. Examples include the following: uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely; primary and secondary impacts of a project that would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., highway improvements that provide access to a previously inaccessible area); and/or irreversible damage that could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the proposed project.
Analysis The proposed project would allow for the future development of residential, commercial, parks and open space, and an elementary school. Specifically, the proposed project includes a maximum of up to 1,995 residential units; 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, 35 acres of parks; and a 12 acre elementary school site.
A variety of nonrenewable and limited resources would be irretrievably committed for construction and operation, including but not limited to: oil, natural gas, gasoline, lumber, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, water, land, energy, and construction materials. With respect to operational activities, compliance with all applicable building codes, as well as project mitigation measures or project requirements, would ensure that all natural resources are conserved or recycled to the maximum extent feasible.
The proposed project would result in an increase in demand on public services and utilities. For example, an increase in the intensity of land uses within the project area would result in an increase in regional electric energy consumption to satisfy additional electricity demands from the proposed project. These energy resource demands relate to initial project construction, transport of goods and people, and lighting, heating, and cooling of buildings. However, the proposed project would not involve a wasteful or unjustifiable use of energy or other resources, and energy conservation efforts would occur with new construction. In addition, new development associated with the proposed project would be constructed and operated in accordance with specifications contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Therefore, the use of energy on-site would occur in an efficient manner.
Although portions of the Camp Parks property have already been developed, increased development within the project area to support urban uses may be regarded as a permanent and irreversible change. The proposed project would therefore generally commit future generations to similar urban uses within the project area.
4.3 Growth Inducement CEQA requires that growth-inducing aspects of a project be discussed in an EIR. According to CEQA, it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental or of little significance to the environment. A project would have growth-inducing effects if it would:
Page 4-2
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Consideration
Foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing (either directly or indirectly) in the surrounding environment;
Remove obstacles to population growth;
Tax existing community services or facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. If a project meets any one of these criteria, it may be considered growth inducing. Generally, growth inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, or underdeveloped areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure such as sewer and water facilities or roadways, or encourage premature or unplanned growth.
To comply with CEQA, an EIR must discuss the ways in which the proposed project could promote economic or population growth in the vicinity of the project and how that growth will, in turn, affect the surrounding environment [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)].
Foster Economic Growth The combination of land uses within the Specific Plan area would function to increase population through increased residential units and an increase in commercial sales and activities within the City, as well as enhance the economic viability of the regional area. Future new development within the project area would include a maximum of 1,995 residential dwelling units and 200,000 square feet of commercial uses. The construction of new commercial activities would contribute to the economic vitality of the City, which would enable the continued provision of high quality services and programs for residents and businesses, and would contribute to the municipal revenue streams.
The positive revenue stream may result in the creation of indirect and induced jobs. Indirect jobs are those that would be created when the future owners and/or managers of the retail-commercial uses purchase goods and services from businesses in the City and the region, and induced jobs are those that are created when wage incomes of those employed in direct and indirect jobs are spent on the purchase of goods and services in City and the region.
The project fosters economic growth primarily as the result of purchases of goods and services as well as payment of taxes and salaries, which affects the regional economy of the City and County, and on a more indirect basis, California. Therefore, the positive revenue stream and the resulting increased economic viability of the proposed project could result in indirect growth-inducing impacts.
Remove Obstacles to and/or Foster Population Growth Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including the direct construction of new homes and businesses, the elimination of obstacles to growth, or through the stimulation of economic activity within the region. The discussion of the removal of obstacles to growth
Page 4-3
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations
relates directly to the removal of infrastructure limitations (typically through the provision of additional capacity or supply), or the reduction or elimination of regulatory constraints on growth that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval.
The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to growth is considered to be a growth-inducing effect. A physical obstacle to growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways, water mains, and sewer lines, into areas that are not currently provided with these services would be expected to support new development. Similarly, the elimination or change to a regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, could result in new growth.
The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area beyond that already forecasted for the City of Dublin. The City of Dublin Housing Element estimates that the population of the City will be 62,700 residents in 2020.
The proposed project provides for the future development of a maximum of 1,995 residential dwelling units. Based on population estimates of 2.73 persons per household and a maximum of 1,995 residential units, the proposed project would increase the population by approximately 5,446 persons. With a current population of approximately 46,934 residents in the City, this would result in the addition of 15,766 residents by 2020. At full buildout, the proposed project would represent approximately 35 percent of this growth.
Although the proposed project would increase the population in the City and includes a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change (via the Specific Plan), the proposed designations would be generally consistent with the nature of surrounding development; would be within the estimate of population growth per the City of Dublin Housing Element; and would represent an incremental increase in population at project buildout.. Therefore, the proposed project would not be growth inducing as a result of removing an obstacle to growth.
Tax Existing Community Services or Facilities or Encourage Other Activities that Could Affect the Environment The proposed project would not require significant regional public infrastructure upgrades for any utility or service. New infrastructure onsite and in the project area, including roadways, water, sewer, and storm drains could be financed in part by the project applicant and in part by the formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) (for a total of $46.8 million or approximately 39 percent of the total infrastructure costs). The creation of the CFD would require the issuance the issuance of bonds which would be funded by a special tax on each residential unit that would range from $2,200 to $3,700 per unit. The proposed project is generally required to fund the costs of new infrastructure required to serve the proposed project. There would be no additional tax on existing community services or facilities. Also, future development on Camp Parks has long been anticipated and is assumed in infrastructure planning, e.g. the DSRSD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Under these circumstances, the proposed project would not be growth inducing as a
Page 4-4
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Consideration
result of taxing existing communities or facilities such that construction of new facilities would be required or would not encourage other activities that could affect the environment.
4.4 Energy Conservation Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) and Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines requires a description (where relevant) of the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a project. In 1975, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1575 (AB 1575) in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s. This bill created the California Energy Commission (CEC). The purpose of the CEC is to forecast future energy needs; license thermal power plants of 50 megawatts or larger; develop energy technologies and renewable energy resources; plan for and direct State responses to energy emergencies; and to promote energy efficiency through the adoption and enforcement of appliance and building energy efficiency standards. The proposed project will result in standard residential, commercial and supporting development, similar to other new development in Dublin. No industrial or other energy intensive uses would be developed. The proposed project is an infill site within walking distance of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and located along Dublin Boulevard, which is served by local public transit.
Energy Consumption Short-Term Construction In 1994, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted the first set of emission standards (Tier 1) for all new off-road diesel engines greater than 37 kilowatts (kW). The Tier 1 standards were phased in for different engine sizes between 1996 and 2000, reducing NOX emissions from these engines by 30 percent. The EPA Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for off-road diesel engines are projected to further reduce emissions by 60 percent for NOX and 40 percent for particulate matter from Tier 1 emission levels. In 2004, the EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule. This rule will cut emissions from off-road diesel engines by more than 90 percent, and will be fully phased in by 2014. A number of construction projects using diesel powered equipment have the potential to occur every year under the proposed project.
Development under the proposed project includes primarily residential, commercial and mixed use development. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the proposed project would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Also, diesel powered construction equipment in general will continue to become more efficient as the U.S. EPA standards phase in.
Page 4-5
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations
Long-Term Operations Transportation Energy Demand Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 miles per gallon. Since 1996, the fuel economy standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been 20.7 miles per gallon. Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with Federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States.
The proposed project would be infill, transit-oriented, and bicycle and pedestrian-friendly. The Specific Plan includes design guidelines for neighborhood circulation to insure direct pedestrian and bicycle connections to minimize walking distances to key locations including parks, the elementary school, the Iron Horse regional trail, commercial, and mixed-use areas, including the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and transit stops. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption. The proposed project involves typical residential, commercial and mixed-use use type trips which would include internal trip capture rates. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by future development within the Specific Plan area would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.
Public Transportation Options The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) provides public transportation for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton. Additionally, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station provides LAVTA with easy connections to San Francisco and the East Bay via BART. Additionally LAVTA operates the Wheels local bus system, which provides regular bus service in Dublin as well as bus rapid transit service along Dublin Boulevard. The availability of the public transit for the residents and visitors to the Specific Plan area would ensure that the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy.
Building Energy Demand The proposed project would not result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long-term operational building energy demand. The design guidelines in the proposed Specific Plan encourage sustainable design solutions that reduce energy consumption and create simple building designs that result in efficient use of space, materials, and resources while maintaining a level of design integrity and authentic architectural style. Design Guidelines include the following:
3.1.1: Overall Building Design
Page 4-6
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Consideration
Building design and siting should take advantage of natural ventilation, heating and cooling, sun, and wind exposure, and solar energy opportunities. Passive solar orientation and design is encouraged to capture natural daylight and to use natural cooling techniques in place of air conditioning. Building siting should also consider solar access for adjacent buildings. 3.1.5: Building Materials, Colors and Finishes
Materials with relatively low levels of embodied and energy and materials that will withstand local environmental conditions should be selected. Green materials are encouraged, including recycled-content carpet, cellulose insulation, engineered lumber, certified wood, natural floor coverings, and recycled-content interior finishes.
Low and no volatile organic compound (VOC) paint and finishes are encouraged.
Construction waste recycling is required in compliance with the City’s waste reduction ordinances. 3.1.9: Roofs
Roof colors and materials should be used to reduce the heat island effect. Roof materials should meet or exceed Energy Star requirements for solar reflectance. Green roofs and rooftop gardens may be used to reduce heat impacts and reduce energy demands.
Rooftop solar panels, solar films, small scale wind turbines, and other similar features may be used to generate energy. 3.1.10: Mechanical Equipment and Utilities
Small scale wind turbines and solar heating and energy production panels and films are encouraged. The design and location of roof mounted solar panels and small- scale wind turbines should reflect the architectural style and character of the building.
Energy and water efficient appliances, fixtures, lighting and windows shall meet or exceed state energy performance standards. Energy Star qualified (or equivalent rating system) models of mechanical equipment are strongly encouraged. All street and pedestrian lights shall be LED type of as approved by the City Engineer.
Equipment shall be located to maximize energy efficiency, such as by locating cooling equipment in shaded areas that are protected from the hot sun, thus reducing the energy needed to cool the air. 3.1.14: Exterior Lighting
Energy efficient, low voltage lighting is encouraged. All street and pedestrian lights will be LED type or as approved by the City Engineer. With implementation of these design guidelines, the proposed project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.
Page 4-7
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations
Energy Efficiency Measures California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, is California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings. Title 24 was established by the CEC in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption, and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and non- residential buildings. In 2010, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements. The 2010 Standards are expected to substantially reduce the growth in electricity and natural gas use. These savings are cumulative, increasing as years go by.
Future development within the project area would adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the CEC’s Title 24 standards. The proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. The Specific Plan is intended to promote green building concepts to improve the health, welfare and public safety by encouraging innovative and sustainable design and construction techniques through the use of green building practices, which reduce negative environmental impacts and promote positive environmental impacts. The design guidelines addressed under above under Building Energy Demand include but are not limited to: building design and siting in order to take advantage of natural ventilation, heating and cooling, sun, and wind exposure, and solar energy opportunities; energy star appliances and lighting, small scale wind turbines, and solar water heating and photovoltaic systems.
As discussed above, future development within the project area would result in less than significant impacts on energy resources. There would not be any inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy usage regarding construction-related fuel consumption. Additionally, the availability of public transit services would ensure that the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy. The proposed project would adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations regarding building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy.
4.5 Effects Found Not to be Significant A significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). The term “environment,” as used in this definition, means the physical conditions that exist within the area that will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. The area involved shall be the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the proposed project. The “environment” includes both natural and man-made conditions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360).
Detailed analyses and discussion of environmental topics found to be significant are provided within Section 3.0 of this EIR. Section 3.0 also identifies impacts that are found to be less than significant. The project area is an urban infill area and the following
Page 4-8
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Consideration environmental resources do not exist on the project area and/or are not considered to have the potential to cause a significant environmental impact. As such, detailed analyses of the following environmental resources were not included in the EIR:
Agricultural and Forest Resources - Although the project area is primarily zoned “Agriculture,” on the City of Dublin Zoning Map, the project area is not being utilized for agricultural uses and is designated as “Other Land” on the Alameda County Important Farmland Map that is published by the California Department of Conservation (DOC). In addition, the project area does not contain any forest resources as defined by the CEQA Guidelines.
Mineral Resources – According to the California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey, the project area is not identified as an area with significant mineral deposits (DOC 2013).
Population and Housing - The proposed project provides for the future development of a maximum of 1,995 residential dwelling units. Based on population estimates of 2.73 persons per household and a maximum of 1,995 residential units, the proposed project would increase the population by approximately 5,446 persons upon buildout of the proposed project. With a current population of approximately 46,934 residents in the City, this would result in the addition of 15,766 residents by 2020. At full buildout, the proposed project would represent approximately 35 percent of this growth. Although the proposed project would increase the population in the City and includes a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change (via the Specific Plan), the proposed designations would be consistent with the nature of surrounding development; would be within the estimate of population growth per the City of Dublin Housing Element. See also, Section 4.3 above regarding growth inducement. Housing for Camp Parks is located north of the project area and therefore, the proposed project would not displace any existing housing within the project area. 4.6 Cumulative Impacts CEQA Requirements CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are substantial or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. An evaluation of cumulative impacts is required by CEQA when they are significant, but need not be as detailed as the discussion of project impacts. Cumulative conditions are defined as conditions in the foreseeable future. The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR discuss the cumulative impacts of a project where the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
The criteria for determining significance of cumulative impacts are the same as those that apply to the project-level analysis unless otherwise noted in this section, where other
Page 4-9
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations agency standards regarding cumulative analyses may apply. Where the combined cumulative impact associated with the project’s incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, the EIR indicates why the cumulative impact is not significant and is not discussed in further detail in the EIR. Where the EIR identifies a significant cumulative impact, but finds that the project’s contribution to that impact would be less than considerable, an explanation for that conclusion is provided.
According to the California State CEQA Guidelines section 15130 (a)(1), there is no need to evaluate cumulative impacts to which the project does not contribute. Relevant potential cumulative impacts to which the proposed project could contribute include: aesthetics and visual resources; air quality; geology, soils and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; public services and utilities; and transportation and circulation. Each of these topics is addressed herein.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Assumptions Impacts associated with cumulative development were analyzed based on the proposed project’s effects in combination with a summary of projections in the adopted City of Dublin General Plan (February 11, 1985, Updated May 2013), the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP); and implementation of the Camp Parks Master Plan.
Implementation of the Camp Parks Master Plan would involve redevelopment of the Cantonment Area to provide more modern and better-organized facilities. Beneficial features of the Master Plan include: peripherally located family housing, minimal impact on range training, aggregation of similar land uses, a campus-style training center, and controlled access at a main entry gate. The Camp Parks Master Plan anticipates a population increase at buildout of 11 percent for daily personnel (from 920 to 1,020 people) , the average daily use of the installation from Army stationing and full-time units/staff, and 85 percent for total of assigned personnel (from 2,297 to 4,242 people). The total of assigned personnel is projected to increase by 1,945 people between 2002 and 2012, due to increases in enlisted personnel and warrant officers.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources The proposed project is located within an already urbanized area of the City; neither the project area nor surrounding area has any scenic resources. Although implementation of the proposed project would allow redevelopment of the project area from its former use as the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, the proposed project includes both development standards and design guidelines to guide the design of future development within the area. The design guidelines would also ensure that the proposed project does not introduce substantial light and glare which would pose a hazard or nuisance. The proposed project would also be required to comply with a number of other City policy documents that address urban design and aesthetics. These include: Streetscape Master Plan, Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan and the Bikeways Master Plan. In addition, future development would be required to undergo Site
Page 4-10
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Consideration
Development Review to ensure that the Specific Plan guidelines are implemented. The above considerations ensure that cumulative development would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.
Conclusion: The proposed project would be required to comply with the design guidelines in the Specific Plan as well as other City policy documents, which would ensure that the proposed project does not contribute to cumulative light and glare in the City and surrounding areas, and would ensure that the proposed project is of quality design. The existing setting together with the design features of the Specific Plan would ensure the project’s cumulative contribution to aesthetics and visual quality, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to aesthetics and visual resources.
Air Quality Cumulative Construction Impacts The BAAQMD recommends that for any project that does not individually have significant operational air quality impacts, the determination of significant cumulative impact should be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quality plan (BAAQMD 2011). Individual development projects that generate construction-related or operational emissions that exceed the BAAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would also cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions.
Conclusion: As stated in the short-term construction impacts discussion for Impact 3.2-1, with implementation of BAAQMD control measures, construction-related air quality impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would result in a significant cumulative impact from short-term construction emissions.
Cumulative Operational Impacts Buildout of the proposed project would result in regional air emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources in exceedance of the BAAQMD thresholds (for ROG, NOX, and PM10 emissions with application of Specific Plan measures/project design features) which have been established in order to achieve AAQS attainment.
As previously stated, the BAAQMD recommends that for any project that does not individually have significant operational air quality impacts, the determination of significant cumulative impact should be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quality plan. However, individual development projects that generate operational emissions that exceed the BAAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would also cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions.
Conclusion: As discussed previously in Section 3.2: Air Quality, in order to determine the proposed project’s consistency with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air
Page 4-11
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations
Plan (Clean Air Plan), it is necessary to determine whether the project supports the primary goals of the Clean Air Plan includes applicable control measures and whether the project disrupts or hinders implementation of the Clean Air Plan control measures. Analyzing these three criteria, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to Clean Air Plan consistency. The same analysis and conclusion apply on a cumulative level and the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact as to consistency with the Clean Air Plan. However as the proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable impact from long-term operational emissions, the proposed project would also result in a significant unavoidable cumulative impact from long-term operational emissions.
Cumulative Odor Impacts Cumulative development may result in airborne odors associated with construction equipment, as well as from commercial uses (e.g. restaurants) and other uses in the City. City regulations require protection from excessive odors (City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.24, Commercial Zoning Districts, Chapter 8.64, Home Occupation Regulations, and Chapter 8.20, Residential Zoning Districts). Further, BAAQMD, Regulation No. 7 Odorous Substances establishes general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds.
Conclusion: Therefore, with the incorporation of ventilation systems and adherence to the City’s Municipal Code regulations, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.
Biological Resources Cumulative development has the potential to impact species and habitats that would also be impacted by the proposed project, and thus there is some potential for cumulative impacts on these resources to occur. However, it is expected that current and future projects will have to mitigate any significant impacts through the CEQA, Fish and Game Code 1602, or Clean Water Act Section 404/401 permitting process, as well as through the FESA and CESA consultation processes. In addition, regional conservation plans protect a number of sensitive resources in the City and provide for the long-term conservation of these resources. Examples of such conservation plans in the Bay Area include the Eastern Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) and the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Plan, which are both being implemented. As a result, most projects in the region will mitigate their impacts on biological resources ensuring that impacts to biological resources are less than significant. The proposed project includes mitigation measures as described in Section 3.3: Biological Resources that mitigates impacts to jurisdictional wetlands (MM 3.3-1), special status plant species (MM 3.3-2a and 2b), special status wildlife species (MM 3.3-a, MM 3.3-3b, MM 3.3-3c, MM 3.3-4a and MM 3.3-4b), vernal pool invertebrates (MM 3.3-6), special status bat species (MM 3.3-7a and b) and tree preservation (MM 3.3-8).
Page 4-12
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Consideration
Conclusion: With mitigation measures incorporated herein, the proposed project would not result in a cumulative considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on biological resources and a less than significant cumulative impact would result.
Cultural Resources The project area does not contain any known archaeological or paleontological resources. The project area is located adjacent to the Camp Parks entrance sign, which is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion C and by statute (Public Resources Code 5024.1). It is also eligible for inclusion in the CRHR under Criterion 3 and is considered a historical resource under CEQA. The proposed project would not change the integrity of the sign as it is located outside of the project area. However, the proposed project would contribute to a change in the setting of the sign with future development within the project area. However, the setting of the entrance sign has already been affected by adjacent development and the setting of the sign is not what made the sign significant under the NRHP and CRHR criteria or under CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project would not combine with any other factors or projects and thus is not considered a significant cumulative impact to cultural resources due to the localized site specific nature of cultural resource impacts.
Conclusion: No significant cumulative impacts are predicted relative to cultural resources. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact to cultural resources.
Geology and Soils The geographic context for the analysis of impacts resulting from geologic hazards generally is site-specific, rather than cumulative in nature, because each construction site has unique geologic considerations that would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards. As such, the potential for cumulative impacts to occur is limited. Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to soil or other conditions (liquefaction, expansive soils, surface fault rupture, etc.) occur at individual building sites. Buildings and facilities in the City of Dublin would be sited and designed in accordance with the City’s Building Code. General Plan, Specific Plan and findings from a design-level geotechnical study prepared for future development in accordance with Mitigation Measure MM 3.5-3.
Cumulative development could expose soil surfaces and further alter soil conditions, subjecting soils to erosional processes during construction. To minimize the potential for cumulative impacts that could cause erosion, all proposed construction projects in the City are required to be developed in conformance with the provisions of applicable federal, state, county, and City laws and ordinances. Adequate control of sedimentation and erosion must be incorporated into individual projects to address current legal requirements for control of erosion caused by stormwater discharges. Future development within the project area that disturbs more than one acre in size would be required to comply with the provisions of the NPDES permitting process and local implementation strategies, which
Page 4-13
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations would minimize the potential for erosion during construction and operation of the facilities. In addition, future development would be required to comply with the City of Dublin Public Works Department Policy No. 95-11 to control erosion during construction activities. Compliance with this permit process, in addition to the City’s Building Code and other legal requirements related to erosion control practices, would minimize cumulative effects from erosion. Therefore, cumulative impacts would considered be less than significant.
Conclusion: Extensive federal, state and local regulations address erosion and sedimentation control. Adherence to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations with respect to project design and construction would provide adequate levels of safety regarding geologic and seismic hazards and would prevent soil erosion. The proposed project is required to be sited and designed in accordance with the City’s Building Code. General Plan, Specific Plan and findings from a design-level geotechnical study prepared for future development in accordance with Mitigation Measure MM 3.5-3. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to geology and soils.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Cumulative development has the potential to result in an increase of greenhouse gas emissions in the region. As disclosed in Section 3.6 above, the proposed project would result in greenhouse gas emissions of 26,145.32 MTCO2eq/year. The service population associated with buildout of the Specific Plan would be 6,046 (5,446 residents plus 600 employees). Therefore, the Specific Plan would result in 4.32 MTCO2eq/SP/year, which is below the BAAQMD’s 4.6 MTCO2eq/SP/year GHG threshold.
Implementation of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) measures would result in a 28.5 percent reduction of GHG emissions from business as usual (BAU). The 28.5 percent reduction from BAU levels is consistent with the goals of the CAP to reduce GHG emissions by 20 percent from BAU. Therefore, as the project is consistent with the CAP, and the CAP is consistent with AB 32, the proposed project would not hinder the State's GHG reduction strategies for meeting the goals established by AB 32. Since the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s 4.6 MTCO2eq/SP/year threshold, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact to global climate change and a less than significant cumulative contribution with regards to project-related GHG emissions.
Conclusion: The proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Development within the project area would increase the total use and transport of hazardous materials within the City, including the demolition of existing structures that may contain asbestos and lead, as well as the clean-up of several hazardous materials sites within the project area. In addition, future development within the project area would include hazardous waste typical of proposed residential and commercial uses. Cumulative
Page 4-14
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Consideration
development would likely generate similar types of waste from operational and construction impacts, all of which would be regulated by federal, state and local statutes.
Conclusion: Hazardous materials and substances are highly regulated at the federal, state, and local levels. Compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws that regulate, control, or respond to hazardous waste, transport, disposal, or clean- up would ensure that cumulative development, which includes the project area as well as implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.7-4 would ensure that the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to hazards and hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality Buildout within the project area would contribute to cumulative drainage flows and surface water quality impacts when combined cumulative development. The proposed project would be required to implement NPDES and BMP measures to reduce potential water quality impacts. In addition, the proposed project would implement a master drainage plan, which includes the construction of four underground basins, to ensure that the proposed project meets the appropriate drainage requirements with no downstream drainage impacts. The master drainage system assumes the construction of an off-site detention basin on the Camp Parks property north of the project area. Additionally, drainage from the proposed Park Basin #2 (the northerly basin) is shown to discharge directly into Chabot Creek riparian channel, which would be realigned and extend through the proposed community park. Therefore, Mitigation Measures MM 3.8-4a and MM 3.8-4b would ensure that a detailed drainage plan is prepared demonstrating that flow rates are within required limits prior to issuance of grading permits and that the project applicant prepares a revised stormwater drainage plan that realigns the stormwater outflow associated with Park Basin #2 from the Chabot Creek riparian channel to an underground pipe that connects with the existing box culvert located at the proposed Scarlett Court Extension and Dublin Boulevard.
Conclusion: Compliance with NPDES and implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 3.8-4a and MM 3.8-4b would ensure that the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to stormwater runoff and water quality.
Land Use & Planning The City of Dublin has planning programs such as the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Municipal Code, that have established plans and guidelines for growth and development within the City under buildout of the City’s General Plan. In addition, the Camp Parks Master Plan includes guidelines for future development within the base. The proposed project would not conflict with habitat conservation plan, create land use incompatibilities or physically divide a community, conflict with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations, or result in urban decay or blight.
Page 4-15
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations
Conclusion: Development of the proposed project would be compatible with surrounding land uses and would not conflict with applicable plans or policies. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed project with respect to future development would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to land use and planning.
Noise The project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds the perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The combined effect compares the “cumulative with project” condition to the “existing” conditions. This comparison accounts for the traffic noise increase from the project generated in combination with traffic generated under 2035 cumulative conditions. The following criteria are utilized in this EIR to evaluate the combined effect of the cumulative noise increase.
. Combined Effects: The cumulative with project noise level (“2035 With Project”) would cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3 dB increase over existing conditions occurs and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use.
Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed project. The following criteria are utilized in this EIR to evaluate the incremental effect of the project related to the cumulative noise increase.
. Incremental Effects: The “2035 With Project” causes a 1 dBA increase in noise over the “2035 Without Project” noise level.
A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a noise sensitive use.
The “2035 Without Project” and “2035 With Project” scenarios were also compared for future cumulative traffic noise conditions. In Table 4-1: Cumulative Noise Scenarios, the noise level (dBA at 100 feet from centerline) depicts what would typically be heard 100 feet from the roadway centerline. As indicated in Table 4-1: Cumulative Noise Scenarios under the “2035 Without Project” scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would range from approximately 54.3 dBA to 71.7 dBA. The highest noise levels under the “Existing Without Project” conditions occur along Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road (between I-580 eastbound ramps and I-580 westbound ramps and between I-580 westbound ramps and Dublin Boulevard) and along Santa Rita Road (between I-580 westbound ramps and Dublin Boulevard). Under the “2035 With Project” scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would range from
Page 4-16
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Consideration
approximately 57.4 dBA to 71.8 dBA. The highest noise levels under future with project conditions would occur along Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road (between I-580 eastbound ramps and Dublin Boulevard). Noise levels along one roadway segment (Central Parkway, between Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive) would increase by more than 3 dBA, from 54.3 to 57.4 dBA. Resultant noise level would not exceed the noise levels within Table 4- 1: City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments.
Table 4-1: Cumulative Noise Scenarios
2035 Without Project 2035 With Project Difference Distance from Roadway Distance from Roadway In dBA @ dBA @ 100 Centerline to: (Feet) dBA @ 100 Centerline to: (Feet) Roadway Segment Feet from Feet from 100 Feet ADT ADT Roadway 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Roadway 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL from Centerline Noise Noise Noise Centerline Noise Noise Noise Roadway Contour Contour Contour Contour Contour Contour San Ramon Road North of Dublin 34,200 68.0 801 253 80 34,300 68.0 803 254 80 0 Boulevard Village Parkway North of Dublin 23,100 63.6 285 90 29 23,100 63.6 285 90 29 0 Boulevard Dougherty
Road/Hopyard Road South of Stoneridge 34,600 68.0 811 256 81 33,300 67.8 781 247 78 -0.2 Road Stoneridge Road to 30,300 67.4 711 225 71 30,800 67.5 722 228 72 0.1 Owens Road Owens Drive to I- 57,600 71.4 1,790 566 179 58,000 71.5 1,802 570 180 0.1 580 EB Ramps I-580 EB Ramps to I- 60,800 71.7 1,891 598 189 61,800 71.8 1,922 608 192 0.1 580 WB Ramps I-580 WB Ramps to 61,200 71.7 1,904 602 190 61,700 71.7 1,918 606 192 0 Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard to Amador Valley 42,400 70.1 1,318 417 132 43,300 70.2 1,645 425 135 0.1 Boulevard Campus Parks
Boulevard North of I-580 3,700 57.2 64 20 6 3,800 57.4 66 21 7 0.2 Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard to 7,600 60.4 131 41 13 9,500 61.4 164 52 16 1.0 Central Parkway Central Parkway to 5,000 58.6 86 27 9 7,600 60.4 131 41 13 1.8 Gleason Drive Hacienda Drive Owens Drive to I- 53,000 69.9 1,242 393 124 54,600 70.1 1,280 405 128 0.2 580 EB Ramps I-580 EB Ramps to I- 50,700 69.7 1,189 376 119 58,000 70.3 1,359 430 136 0.6 580 WB Ramps I-580 WB Ramps to 50,900 69.8 1,194 378 119 53,200 69.9 1,248 395 125 0.1 Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard to 19,100 65.5 448 142 45 19,000 65.5 446 141 45 0 Central Parkway North of Central 12,200 63.5 286 90 29 11,800 63.4 277 88 28 -0.1 Parkway Santa Rita Road South of I-580 EB 42,400 70.1 1,318 417 132 42,600 70.1 1,324 419 132 0 Ramps I-580 EB Ramps to I- 47,100 70.6 1,465 463 146 47,200 70.6 1,468 464 147 0 580 WB Ramps I-580 WB Ramps to 61,500 71.7 1,913 605 191 62,100 71.7 1m913 605 191 0 Dublin Boulevard
Page 4-17
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations
2035 Without Project 2035 With Project Difference Distance from Roadway Distance from Roadway In dBA @ dBA @ 100 Centerline to: (Feet) dBA @ 100 Centerline to: (Feet) Roadway Segment Feet from Feet from 100 Feet ADT ADT Roadway 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Roadway 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL from Centerline Noise Noise Noise Centerline Noise Noise Noise Roadway Contour Contour Contour Contour Contour Contour Dublin Boulevard to 34,900 69.3 1,086 343 109 34,300 69.2 1,066 337 107 -0.1 Central Parkway Central Parkway to 23,800 67.6 739 234 74 23,800 67.6 739 234 74 0 Gleason Drive Amador Valley
Boulevard West of Dougherty 15,200 62.1 188 59 19 15,800 62.2 195 62 19 0.1 Road Dublin Boulevard East of Amador 23,900 67.6 743 235 74 24,700 67.8 769 243 77 0.2 Plaza Road Amador Plaza Road 39,600 69.8 1,232 390 123 40,700 69.9 1,264 400 126 0.1 to Village Parkway Village Parkway to 57,700 71.5 1,794 567 179 58,900 71.5 1,831 597 183 0 Dougherty Road Dougherty Road to Campus Parks 57,100 71.4 1,773 561 177 58,800 71.5 1,827 578 183 0.1 Boulevard Campus Parks Boulevard to Arnold 52,200 71.0 1,625 514 162 53,700 71.1 1,670 528 167 0.1 Road Arnold Road to 47,300 70.6 1,472 465 147 23,500 67.6 731 231 73 -3.0 Hacienda Drive Hacienda Drive to 46,700 70.5 1,451 459 145 47,800 70.6 1,485 470 148 0.1 Tassajara Road 5th Street Adams Avenue to ------6,200 56.8 53 17 5 N/A Arnold Road Central Parkway Arnold Road to 2,000 54.3 34 11 3 4,100 57.4 71 22 7 3.1 Hacienda Drive Hacienda Drive to 6,400 59.3 110 35 11 7,300 59.9 126 40 13 0.6 Tassajara Road Owens Drive West of Hopyard 5,600 60.1 131 41 13 5,700 60.2 134 42 13 0.1 Road Hopyard Road to 32,100 67.7 753 238 75 31,700 67.6 743 235 74 -0.1 Hacienda Drive East of Hacienda 51,500 69.7 1,207 382 121 52,500 69.8 1,230 389 123 0.1 Drive Stoneridge Drive I-680 NB Ramps to 52,100 69.7 1,220 386 122 52,200 69.7 1,223 387 122 0 Hopyard Road East of Hopyard 27,200 66.9 637 201 64 26,600 66.8 624 197 62 -0.1 Road ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; N/A = not applicable Source: Traffic noise modeling is based on traffic data provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., November 19, 2012.
Conclusion: Siting of new development within the project area would be required to consider proximity to noise sources such as freeway and roadway traffic including proximity to Interstate 580. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact by establishing regulatory and design guidance for future development within the Specific Plan, as well as implementing the policies of the Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan to limit exterior noise levels to
Page 4-18
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Consideration
60 dBA CNEL or less at noise sensitive land uses within the project area. Therefore, as the resultant noise level would not exceed the noise levels within Table 3.10-3: City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.
Public Services and Utilities Significant cumulative impacts to public services would occur if cumulative development would overburden the public service agencies, and if utility providers were unable to provide adequate services. Implementation of the proposed project in combination cumulative development would result in the increased demand for public services, which would result in the need for the provision of fire and police protection services, educational services, and parks and recreation facilities. However, development fees and/or construction of infrastructure by future development within the project area would provide funding in order to help off-set capital improvements and maintenance to these services. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact on public services.
The proposed project would increase demand for water and would generate additional wastewater with buildout of the Specific Plan. The proposed project would require 371 acre feet per year of potable water and 144 acre feet per year of recycled water with the elementary school and 365 acre feet per year of potable water and 131 acre feet per year of recycled water without the elementary school. Based on the WSA for the proposed project, the recycled and potable water demands can be met for the proposed project.
The proposed project would result in a dry weather flow of 452,352 gallons per day of wastewater with a peaking factor of 2.01 and infiltration of 113,400 gallons per day for a total peak flow of 1.02 million gallons per day. The wastewater treatment plant currently has capacity for 17.0 million gallons per day of dry weather flow with an average flow per day of 11.48 million gallons per day and excess capacity of 5.52 million gallons per day. Therefore, the wastewater treatment plant has capacity to serve the proposed project and the water demands can be provided by DSRSD.
Conclusion: The increased need for funding of public services would be covered by the City’s public facilities fee (Chapter 7.78, of the City of Dublin Municipal Code), which is assessed on all new construction within the project area. Development fees are assessed on a project-by-project basis to fund improvements to meet the increased demand on public services. As a result, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to public services. The generation of wastewater and demand for water can be accommodated by the DSRSD and therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to result in a less than significant cumulative impact to utilities.
Page 4-19
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations
Transportation and Circulation A discussion of the cumulative impacts associated with Transportation & Circulation are addressed in Section 3.12: Transportation and Circulation.
4.7 Project Alternatives The alternatives discussion briefly identifies and describes a range of alternatives as developed by City staff that would feasibly attain most of the project objectives and would avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts of the proposed project including the following:
Alternative #1 – No Project Alternative;
Alternative #2 – Reduced Development Alternative (Single Family Residential with 250,000 square feet of Commercial uses), and
Alternative #3 – Alternate Use Alternative (Residential and Regional Commercial) This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with each of these three alternatives as compared with the impacts resulting from the proposed project. The impact level of each of the alternatives (less, similar, greater) is noted in parentheses at the beginning of each comparison. Table 4.5-2: Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project at the conclusion of this section provides a summary. This section also identifies the “environmentally superior” alternative.
4.10.1 Relationship to Project Objectives Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), a clear statement of objectives and the underlying purpose of the proposed project can help the City develop a reasonable range of alternatives. Each alternative would be evaluated as to how well it meets the objectives of the project, as currently proposed. The City of Dublin and the project applicant have provided the following project objectives for the proposed project:
Ensure a long-term financially viable infill project that provides for the creation of new jobs, recreational opportunities, and expanded housing opportunities.
Create a community that is compatible in scale and design with surrounding land uses.
Create a project that has a fiscally-neutral impact on the City’s financial and services resources.
Create a community with a strong sense of place and a range of recreation and mobility amenities by designing a unique streetscape that will serve to tie the neighborhoods together with an integrated design theme.
Establish a cohesive community feel in the project area through the development and implementation of design guidelines that ensure consistency between individual neighborhoods while allowing unique architectural expression.
Page 4-20
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Consideration
Provide sufficient land for the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) to construct an elementary school within the project site.
Provide a new community park that will be the centerpiece of Dublin Crossing and serve as the focus for major social, cultural, and recreational events for the project, residents of Dublin, and the Tri-Valley region.
If the City of Dublin, the Dublin Crossing project developer and the County of Alameda come to an agreement on the transfer of the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) property to either the City of Dublin or the Dublin Crossing project developer, include the 8.7-acre ACSPA parcel in the project area and plan for its full integration into the project design while maintaining the park acreage at some location within the project area.
Create a distinctive Dublin Boulevard with amenities and facilities that are consistent with the City of Dublin Streetscape Master Plan, Bikeways Master Plan, and the City of Dublin General Plan.
Provide a range of transportation choices; including walking, bicycling, and access to transit (BART and bus service), ridesharing, and vanpooling to reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
Provide enhanced transportation amenities that encourage non-vehicular access to and on the Iron Horse Regional Trail, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, and to both on-site and adjacent commercial services.
Provide an east-west roadway through the project area to enhance circulation between the points east and points west of the area.
Construct one or more neighborhood parks that are conveniently located and serve as a focal point of recreation and neighborhood events.
Provide flexibility in land use regulations to allow for site constraints, variations in housing styles, and changing market conditions.
Provide a mixture of residential unit types appropriate to the projected housing needs as identified in the City of Dublin General Plan Housing Element.
Mitigate the unusual phasing impacts of the proposed project by ensuring that each phase (or combination of phases) can stand alone as a well-designed neighborhood with an adequate circulation network and an alternative transition between the proposed project and the remaining Camp Parks base.
Promote environmental stewardship through the inclusion of progressive energy programs and standards in construction and ongoing operation of residential and commercial buildings.
4.10.3 Alternative #1 - No Project Alternative Characteristics CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3) requires that a “No-Project” alternative be evaluated as part of an EIR, proceeding under one of two scenarios: the project area
Page 4-21
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations
remaining in its current state or development of the project area under its current General Plan land use and zoning designations. Because the project proposes General Plan land use changes, Alternative #1 – No Project Alternative considers the environmental effects of not approving the proposed project with the continuation of the existing permitted land uses and the “public” land use designation associated with the Camp Parks into the future.
The No Project Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact from short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions. The No Project Alternative would also eliminate 22,047 trips to the project area, which would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact to the freeway ramps at Southbound Hacienda Drive and I-580 Eastbound On-Ramp under project conditions and the significant and unavoidable impact to the Southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 Eastbound On-ramp and Southbound Tassajara Road to I-580 Westbound On-Ramp during cumulative conditions in comparison to the proposed project.
Comparative Analysis Aesthetics and Visual Quality (slightly greater). There would no change in the visual character of the project area under the No Project Alternative. Therefore, the existing structures would remain and would not generally be considered consistent with the surrounding urban landscape. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in slightly greater impacts in comparison to the proposed project.
Air Quality (less). Due to the elimination of development under the No Project Alternative, this alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable short-term and long-term operational air quality impacts as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in less impacts in comparison to the proposed project.
Biological Resources (less). The No Project Alternative would eliminate potentially significant impacts to several special status and animal species. The No Project Alternative would also eliminate potential impacts to protected trees that could also be removed as a result of development activities within the project site. Although the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to biological resources with mitigation measures incorporated herein, the No Project Alternative would result in a decrease in impacts to biological resources in comparison to the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required.
Cultural Resources (less). The No Project Alternative would eliminate potential damage to any unknown cultural resources, including historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources, and/or human remains that could result with construction of the proposed project. Although, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to cultural resources with mitigation measures incorporated herein, the No Project Alternative would eliminate potential impacts to cultural resources in comparison to the proposed project.
Page 4-22
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Consideration
Geology and Soils (less). Impacts under the No Project Alternative would be similar to the proposed project in that the project area could still be exposed to seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, soil erosion, and expansive soils within the project site. Although the No Project Alternative would not expose up to 1,995 residential units to seismic ground shaking, development associated with the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Building Code and the California Building Code. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in less impacts in comparison to the proposed project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (less). An increase in direct and indirect sources of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed project would not occur under the No Project Alternative. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in less greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (slightly greater). The No Project Alternative would have slightly greater impacts in comparison to the proposed project with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. With a continuation of military uses within the project area, the storage of potentially hazardous materials in the vicinity of surrounding residential uses would be considered a greater impact in comparison to the proposed project.
Hydrology and Water Quality (less). Surface water runoff under this alternative would be less in comparison to the proposed project since additional development would not occur under the Specific Plan and the project are is anticipated to remain in its current condition. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in less impacts in comparison to the proposed project.
Land Use and Planning (greater). The No Project Alternative would result in no change to existing conditions and therefore would not physically divide an established community and/or conflict with applicable land use plan, policies or regulations. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts as compared to the proposed project.
Noise (less). The No Project Alternative would result in reduction in the generation of noise during short-term construction and long-term operations in comparison to the proposed project due to elimination of project development under this alternative. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in a reduction of impacts from short- term construction and long-term operational noise.
Public Services and Utilities (less). The No Project Alternative would result a reduction in the impacts to public services and utilities in comparison to the proposed project due to a reduction in demand.
Transportation/Circulation (less). The No Project Alternative would reduce impacts to transportation and circulation with the elimination of additional trips in comparison to the proposed project. However, under the No Project Alternative, the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection and the Arnold Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection would also operate at LOS D. In comparison to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would eliminate 22,047 trips to the project area, which would eliminate the
Page 4-23
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations
significant and unavoidable impact to the freeway ramps at Southbound Hacienda Drive and I-580 Eastbound On-Ramp under project conditions and the significant and unavoidable impact to the Southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 Eastbound On-ramp and Southbound Tassajara Road to I-580 Westbound On-Ramp during cumulative conditions in comparison to the proposed project.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives This alternative would generally not be consistent with any of the project’s objectives, including ensuring a long-term financially viable infill project on a portion of the Camp Parks providing housing capacity to meet the city’s projected housing needs in City’s Housing Element; and creating a desirable livable community with a strong sense of place and a range of amenities and housing options for the residents of the City of Dublin.
4.10.4 Alternative #2 – Reduced Development Alternative (Single Family Residential and Commercial Uses) Characteristics Alternative #2 – Reduced Development Alternative assumes construction of all single family development at much lower density in comparison to the proposed project for a maximum of 1,121 units at an average of 10 dwelling units per acre for a total population within the project area of 3,060 residents. This alternative also includes 200,000 square feet of general commercial uses similar to the proposed project. This alternative assumes that the development standards and design guidelines in the Specific Plan would also apply.
The Reduced Density Alternative would decrease the amount of long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project. However, the significant and unavoidable impact would remain as short-term construction and long-term operational air quality emissions are still anticipated to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the number of daily trips by approximately 1,070 trips, which would subsequently reduce the number of trips to the Southbound Hacienda Drive to I- 580 Eastbound On-Ramp during both project and cumulative conditions, as well as the impacts to the Southbound Tassajara Road to I-580 Westbound On-Ramp under cumulative conditions. However, it is anticipated that the significant and unavoidable impact to the ramps would remain.
Comparative Analysis Aesthetics and Visual Quality (similar). While this alternative would result in reduction in the density as compared to the proposed project, both the proposed project and the Reduced Development Alternative would result in development of the entire project area. However, the overall visual character would be similar to the proposed project, but at a lower density. Furthermore, this alternative would include development standards and design guidelines that would improve the visual quality and character of the project area. Therefore, aesthetic impacts are considered similar to the proposed project.
Page 4-24
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Consideration
Air Quality (less). Due to a reduction in density and number of residential units, this alternative would result in slightly less impacts to short-term and long-term operational air quality. This alternative would reduce the number of residential units within the project area by approximately 874 units or 43 percent of the residential development within the project site. However, under this alternative, the significant and unavoidable impact from short-term construction emissions is anticipated to remain as the entire project area would continue to be disturbed during construction activities. The Reduced Density Alternative is not anticipated to reduce operational emissions to a less than significant level as emissions are anticipated to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts from short-term and long-term operational air quality emissions would continue to significant and unavoidable under this alternative. However, given the reduction in units, this alternative would result in less air quality impacts in comparison to the proposed project.
Biological Resources (similar). Because the entire project area would still be built-out, the Reduced Density Alternative would not eliminate potentially significant impacts to several special status and animal species and there would be similar impacts to protected trees. Assuming the same biological mitigation measures under this alternative, impacts would be similar in comparison to the proposed project.
Cultural Resources (similar). The Reduced Density Alternative would not eliminate potential damage to any unknown cultural resources, including historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources, and/or human remains that could result with construction of the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in a less than significant impact to cultural resources with mitigation measures incorporated herein and therefore, would have similar impacts in comparison to the proposed project.
Geology and Soils (similar). Impacts under the Reduced Density Alternative would be similar to the proposed project in that the project area would still be exposed to seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, soil erosion, and expansive soils with development within the project area. Because this alternative would be required to comply with the City’s Building Code, and the California Building Code, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in similar impacts to the proposed project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (greater). An increase in direct and indirect sources of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed project would also occur under the Reduced Density Alternative. The reduction in development and density is anticipated to increase the per capita GHG emissions since the service population would decrease. The Reduced Density Alternative would locate fewer people near transit and other commercial uses and therefore vehicle trips are not anticipated to decrease proportionally. Therefore, the Reduced Development Alternative is anticipated to result in greater greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (slightly less). The Reduced Density Alternative would result in similar impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials due to the types
Page 4-25
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations
of uses proposed under this alternative (e.g. residential and commercial uses). Therefore, the Reduced Development Alternative would also result in a less than significant impact.
Hydrology and Water Quality (similar). Surface water runoff under this alternative would be slightly less in comparison to the proposed project due to development at lower densities, which would result in a reduction of impervious surfaces. Mitigation measures would also be required under this alternative to reduce potentially significant impacts to short and long-term surface water hydrology. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in similar impacts in comparison to the proposed project.
Land Use and Planning (greater). Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Development Alternative would not physically divide an established community and/or conflict with applicable land use plan, policies or regulations. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts as compared to the proposed project.
Noise (slightly less). The Reduced Development Alternative would result in a slight reduction in the generation of noise during short-term construction and long-term operations in comparison to the proposed project due to a reduction in the amount of development under this alternative. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be slightly less in comparison to the proposed project under this alternative.
Public Services and Utilities (slightly less). Due to a reduction in the amount of development, this alternative would result in a slight reduction in the impacts to public services and utilities in comparison to the proposed project due to a reduction in the population by 2,386 residents. A reduction in the number of residents would reduce the demands placed on public services and utilities within the City.
Transportation/Circulation (similar). With a reduction of 874 units in comparison to the proposed project, the Reduced Development Alternative would reduce the number of daily trip by approximately 1,070 trips. This would subsequently reduce the number of trips to the Southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 Eastbound On-Ramp during both project and cumulative conditions, as well as the impacts to the Southbound Tassajara Road to I- 580 Westbound On-Ramp. However, it is anticipated that the significant and unavoidable impact to the ramps would remain.
Consistency with Project Objectives While generally consistent with the proposed project’s objectives, some objectives would not be consistent or would be less consistent under this alternative. Examples include: 1) The ability to create a strong desirable living environment with a range of housing alternatives for the residents of the City of Dublin; 2) The ability to create a community with a compatible scale and design that integrates with the surrounding uses; and 3) The ability to provide additional new housing supply to help address the City's projected housing needs as described in the City’s General Plan and Housing Element.
Page 4-26
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Consideration
4.10.5 Alternative #3 - Alternate Use Alternative (Residential and a Regional Serving Commercial Complex) Characteristics Alternative #3 - Alternate Development Plan would alter the mix of land uses with a reduction in the amount of residential development and construction of a 20 to 30 acre regional-serving commercial complex. This alternative would result in a reduction of 735 residential dwelling units for a total of 1,260 residential dwelling units and an increase of 126,700 square feet of commercial uses for a total of 326,700 square feet. The proposed commercial uses would be mostly comprised of big-box retail. This alternative assumes that the development standards and design guidelines in the Specific Plan would also apply to future development under Alternative #3 – Alternate Use Alternative.
The Alternate Use Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact from short-term construction emissions and long-term operational air quality emissions. In addition, the Alternate Use Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts to the Southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 Eastbound On-Ramp under project and cumulative conditions, as well as the impact to the Southbound Tassajara Road to I- 580 Westbound On-Ramp under cumulative conditions.
Comparative Analysis Aesthetics and Visual Quality (slightly greater). The type of uses under this alternative would be substantially different in comparison to the proposed project. The construction of a 20 to 30 acre regional serving complex would include up to 326,700 square feet of commercial uses comprised of very large (80,000 square feet+) retail buildings that would be surrounded by large expansive parking lots. This scale and character of development would be very different from the existing residential, commercial, and mixed-use character that surrounds a majority of the project area resulting in slightly greater impacts in comparison to the proposed project in comparison to the proposed project. However, due to the partially disturbed character of the project area that is surrounded by existing development, the Alternate Use Alternative would not result in a new significant impact in comparison to the proposed project.
Air Quality (slightly greater). This alternative would result in slightly greater impacts from short-term and long-term air quality due to an increase in traffic generation from an increase in commercial uses under this alternative. Similar to the proposed project, the Alternate Use Alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to short-term construction and long-term operational air quality emissions, as well as exposure from toxic air contaminants and PM2.5 due to the distance of the proposed project from stationary source emissions located within 1,000 feet of the project area. Given in vehicle trips to the project area, this alternative would result in slightly greater impacts to long-term operational emissions in comparison to the proposed project.
Biological Resources (similar). Because the entire project area would still be built-out, the Alternate Use Alternative would not eliminate potentially significant impacts to several
Page 4-27
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations special status and animal species and there would be similar impacts to protected trees. Assuming the same biological mitigation measures, this alternative would have similar impacts in comparison to the proposed project.
Cultural Resources (similar). The Alternate Use Alternative would not eliminate potential damage to any unknown cultural resources, including historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources, and/or human remains that could result with construction of the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the Alternative Use Alternative would result in a less than significant impact to cultural resources with mitigation measures incorporated herein and therefore, would have similar impacts in comparison to the proposed project.
Geology and Soils (similar). Impacts under the Alternate Use Alternative would be similar to the proposed project in that the project area would still be exposed to seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, soil erosion, and expansive soils with development within the project area. Because this alternative would be required to comply with the City’s Building Code, and the California Building Code, the Alternate Use Alternative would result in similar impacts to the proposed project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (similar). An increase in direct and indirect sources of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed project would also occur under the Alternate Use Alternative. Greenhouse gas emissions are analyzed on a per capita (service population) basis. Therefore, development of this alternative with similar intensity would probably have similar per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in a less than significant impact from greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (slightly greater). The Alternate Use Alternative would have greater impacts as compared to the proposed project with incorporation of a 20 to 30 acre regional serving commercial complex. A regional serving commercial center is anticipated to result in an increase in the storage and/or use of hazardous materials within the project area in comparison to the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would result in slightly greater impacts in comparison to the proposed project.
Hydrology and Water Quality (slightly greater). Surface water runoff under this alternative would be slightly greater in that a 20 to 30 acre regional commercial center would require a large amount of surface parking to accommodate a regional retail center of this size. Similar to the proposed project, mitigation measures would be required under this alternative in order to reduce potentially significant impacts to short and long-term surface water hydrology. However, overall the Alternate Use Alternative would result in slightly greater impacts in comparison to the proposed project with respect to hydrology and water quality.
Land Use and Planning (slightly greater). The Alternate Use Alternative would have the potential for land use compatibility impacts with the construction of a regional retail center adjacent to transit oriented development adjacent to the project area. Therefore, the
Page 4-28
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Consideration
Alternate Use Alternative would result in slightly greater impacts in comparison to the proposed project.
Noise (slightly greater). The Alternate Use Alternative would result in a slight increase in noise during short-term construction and long-term operations as compared to the proposed project with a reduction in the amount of residential development and incorporation of a 20 to 30 acre regional commercial site within the project area. Therefore, the Alternate Use Alternative would have slightly greater impacts to noise in comparison to the proposed project.
Public Services and Utilities (slightly less). The Alternate Use Alternative would result in slight reduction in impacts to public services, and utilities in comparison to the proposed project with a reduction in the amount of residential uses under this alternative. This would result in a subsequent decrease in the demand for public services and utilities.
Transportation/Circulation (greater). The Alternate Use Alternative would result greater impacts to transportation and circulation with a decrease in the amount of residential dwelling units and an increase in the amount of regional commercial uses, which would result in a higher daily trip rate in comparison to the proposed project. Due to the increase in trips associated with an increase of 126,700 square feet of commercial uses, this alternative would increase and exacerbate the significant and unavoidable impact associated with the freeway ramp impacts at the Southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 Eastbound On- Ramp and the Southbound Tassajara Road to I-580 Westbound On-Ramp. Therefore, impacts traffic and circulation would be greater under this alternative.
Consistency with the Project Objectives While generally consistent with some of the project objectives, this alternative would not be consistent with some project objectives. This alternative would be very different from the existing residential, commercial, and mixed-use character that surrounds a majority of the project area In addition, the Alternate Use Alternative would not provide expanded housing opportunities in the City. Therefore, this alternative would be less consistent with the project objectives in comparison to the proposed project.
4.10.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires that the environmentally superior alternative be identified. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
Alternative #1-No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative as it would reduce impacts to air quality; biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas and climate change, geology and soils; hydrology and water quality; noise; public services and utilities, and transportation and circulation associated in comparison to the proposed project.
Page 4-29
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations
Among the other alternatives, Alternative #2-Reduced Development Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative, as it would reduce impacts related to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and public services and utilities.
Table 4-2: Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project rates the impacts of the above alternatives compared to the impacts of the proposed project. However, none of the alternatives with the exception of Alternative #1-No Project Alternative would avoid the significant unavoidable transportation impact to the Southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 Eastbound On-ramp and the Southbound Tassajara Road to I-580 Westbound On-ramp, as well as the significant and unavoidable short-term construction and long-term operational air quality impacts.
Table 4 -2: Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Environmental Category Alternative #1 - No Alternative #2 – Reduced Alternative #3 – Alternate Project Alternative Development Alternative Use Alternative Aesthetics and Visual Slightly Greater Similar Slightly Greater Character Air Quality Less Less Slightly Greater Biological Resources Less Similar Similar Cultural Resources Less Similar Similar Geology and Soils Less Similar Similar Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Less Greater Similar Change Hazards and Hazardous Slightly Greater Slightly Less Slightly Greater Materials Hydrology and Water Less Similar Slightly Greater Quality Land Use and Planning Greater Greater Slightly Greater Noise Less Slightly Less Slightly Greater Public Services and Less Slightly Less Slightly Less Utilities Transportation and Less Similar Greater Circulation Ability to Meet Project Less Slightly Less Less Objectives
Page 4-30
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR References
5. References References Cited Alameda County. Livermore Airport Master Plan. 2011. Airport Data.com, Camp Parks Heliport (4CA3) Information, Accessed May 20, 2013. http://www.airport- data.com/airport/4CA3/. Alameda County. Alameda County Hydrology and Hydraulics Manual. 2003. Alameda County. Livermore Municipal Airport Draft Land Use Compatibility Plan. 2011. Alameda County Flood Control and Conservation District. Hydrologic Procedures and Design Discharges for the Zone 7. 1997. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Dam Failure Inundation Map http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/DamInundation/. Accessed June 18, 2013. ABAG. 2000 Census Data. http://www.abag.ca.gov/abag/overview/datacenter/popdemo/. Accessed June 18, 2013. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Options and Justification Report, October 2009. BAAQMD. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2011. BAAQMD. Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool, Alameda Permitted Sources, May 30, 2012. BAAQMD. 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, September 2010. Berlogar, Stevens, and Associates. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Dublin Crossing Project at Camp Parks, Dublin California. March 2012. Berlogar Stevens & Associates. Fault Ground-Rupture Investigation Proposed Dublin Crossing Mixed Use Development, Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin CA. March 27, 2013. Brian-Kangas-Foulk. Santa Rita Drainage Master Plan. 1995. U.S. Army. Final Environmental Impact Statement on Master Planned Redevelopment at Camp Parks. 2009. California Department of Conservation (DOC), California Geological Survey. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mlc/Pages/Index.aspx. Accessed April 10, 2013. California Department of Conservation. Alameda County Important Farmland Map. 2010. California Air Resources Board. Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System, Summaries from 2010 to 2012. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ Cardno Entrix. Biological Technical Report for Dublin Crossing. June 2013.
Page 5-1
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR References
Cal Engineering and Geology. Second Geotechnical and Geologic Review, Preliminary Geotechnical Report and Fault Ground Rupture Investigation, Dublin Crossing Project at Camp Parks, Dublin, California. April 2013. City of Dublin. Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. June 2013. City of Dublin. City of Dublin General Plan, adopted February 11, 1985, updated January 19, 2010. City of Dublin. City of Dublin Municipal Code. City of Dublin. City of Dublin Final Model Development Report. April 2012. City of Dublin. Wildfire Management Plan. Adopted July1996. Revised November 2010. City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center General Plan Amendment. 2002. City of Dublin. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan. 2010. Cyril M. Harris. Handbook of Noise Control. 1979. Dublin San Ramon Community Services District (DSRSD). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011. Dublin Unified School District. CalPADS Enrollment. October 2012. Dublin Unified School District. Demographics Update, Board of Trustees Meeting. March 2012. Economic and Planning Systems (EPS). City of Dublin Economic Development Strategy. November 2012. ECORP Consulting, Inc. Supplemental Cultural Resources Assessment for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Alameda County, California. April 2012. Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006. Hall, Mark, Environmental Coordinator, U.S. Army, Camp Parks. Personal Communication with Erika Spencer, RBF Consulting on May 21, 2013. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change, The Science of Climate Change – Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. 1996. Innovative & Creative Environmental Solutions (ICES). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. August 7, 2012. Jones and Stokes. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Built Environment Inventory and Evaluation. 1998. Jones, Darrell, Deputy Fire Chief. Personal Communication with Erika Spencer, RBF Consulting on June 18, 2013.
Page 5-2
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR References
Kirk, Allison, BAAQMD. Telephone Communication with Achilles Malisos, RBF Consulting on December 4, 2012. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Alameda County Soil Survey. 1996. RBF Consulting. CalEEMod Modeling for Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. May 22, 2013. RBF Consulting. CALINE4, CO Modeling for Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. November 27, 2012. Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar (RJA). Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis for the Dublin Crossing Project. March 2013. RJA. Sewage Flow Calculations for Dublin Crossing. December 2012. Schmidt, Nate, Lieutenant. County of Alameda Sherriff/Dublin Police Department. Personal Communication with Erika Spencer on June 5, 2013. West Yost and Associates. Water Supply Assessment for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. DSRSD. April 2013. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of United States Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2009. April 2011. United States Environmental Protection Agency. High GWP Gases and Climate Change. June 14, 2012. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Global Warming Potential for Ozone Depleting Substances, October 29, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1996/January/Day-19/pr-372.html, accessed on November 29, 2012. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Class I Ozone Depleting Substances, August 19, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ods.html, accessed on November 29, 2012. The Weather Channel, Average Weather for Dublin, CA, Accessed November 16, 2012. http://www.weather.com/outlook/events/weddings/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USCA031 4.
Page 5-3
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR References
List of Preparers City of Dublin Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
Luke Sims, Community Development Director
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director
Andrew Russell, City Engineer
Obaid Khan, Senior Civil Engineer
Jayson Imai, Senior Civil Engineer
RBF Consulting Bill Wiseman, Vice President
Erika Spencer, Senior Environmental Planner
Jonathan Schuppert, Environmental Planner
Harvey Oslick, Senior Hydrologist
Eddie Torres, Air Quality and Noise Specialist
Achilles Malisos, Air Quality and Noise Specialist
Kelly Chiene, Air Quality and Noise Specialist
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Brett Walinski, T.E., Vice President and Principal Associate
Matt Nelson, Senior Associate
Page 5-4