HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-1992 Item 8.3 Eastern Dublin Draft Environmental Impact Report AQ fli I•_EMEN_
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 1992
SUBJECT: Eastern Dublin Draft Environmental Impact Report
PREPARED BY: Brenda A. Gillarde, Project Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Sent under separate cover: Draft Environmental Impact
Report (dated August 28, 1992), Draft General Plan
Amendment (dated May 27, 1992) and Draft Specific Plan
(dated May 27, 1992)
2. Tentative schedule for Planning Commission public
hearings/meetings for Eastern Dublin
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Hear Staff/Consultant presentation
2. Open public hearing
3. Receive public testimony on Draft EIR, chapters 1.0
through 3.6, or beyond if time permits
3. Continue public hearing to September 22, 1992
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
BACKGROUND
1. Overview of Study Process
The Eastern Dublin study began in 1987 in response to proposals for development of
the Dublin Ranch property within the City's eastern extended planning area. The
City Council determined that a comprehensive planning study should be undertaken
for eastern Dublin prior to acting on individual development applications. In 1988,
the City contracted with Wallace, Roberts & Todd, a multi-disciplinary team of
planners, designers, engineers, economists and environmental specialists to conduct
the necessary technical studies and prepare the required planning and environmental
documents.
The planning process for eastern Dublin can be divided into five stages. Stage I
involved a massive data collection effort which resulted in a background document
entitled: "Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Studies:
Environmental Setting", dated November 29, 1988. (A copy is available for review
at the City of Dublin Planning Department.) This background report summarizes
existing environmental conditions, related development opportunities and constraints
and recom mendations for minimizing potential environmental impacts through site
planning and design.
Using the information in the background report, five land use concepts were
formulated, which initiated Stage II of the planning process. (Refer to "Land Use
Concept Report," dated April 19, 1990; available from the City Planning
Department.) Each concept illustrated different densities and distribution of land
uses. During this stage of the planning process, a series of joint public study
COPIES TO: Applicants
Owners
ITEM NO. 8.3 Address File
PAGE/Of?A
sessions were conducted before the City Council/Planning Commission. Input from
these meetings resulted in the selection of a preferred land use concept for eastern
Dublin, for environmental analysis.
Stage III of the process involved preparation of the draft general plan amendment,
specific plan and environmental impact report for eastern Dublin. The general plan
amendment and specific plan were released for public review on May 27, 1992.
These documents would provide the planning framework for future development in
eastern Dublin. The Draft EIR was released August 28, 1992; the CEQA mandated
public review period will end October 13, 1992. All written comments on the
Draft EIR must be received on or before that date.
The current stage, tage IV, involves a series of public hearings and meetings
before the Planning Com mission and City Council to receive input from the
community, agencies and property owners on the General Plan Amendment (GPA),
Specific Plan (SP) and Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR). The decision-
makers will consider the public comments in formulating their decisions on the
three documents.
Once all public testimony is received, the public hearing phase of the process will
be closed and the decision-makers will deliberate on the three documents and
provide direction on how they should be changed or modified. This action initiates
Stage V which will lead to certification of the Final EIR and consideration of
adoption of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
2. proiect Description
The project, as defined by the Draft EIR, is a general plan amendment for 6,920
acres and a specific plan for 3,328 acres, which represents a portion of the GPA
area. The project is located on the eastern edge of the City of Dublin, near the
juncture of two major interstate freeways - I-580 and I-680. (Refer to Figure 2-B
in the DEIR for the project location.)
The GPA is a policy document which modifies the City's current general plan in
certain sections to accommodate the proposed specific plan. The major change is
to the land use map which currently shows a portion of the project area as
residential/open space and business park/industrial. The proposed GPA would expand
the eastern boundary of the City's Extended Planning Area; would change the
commercial uses from business park/industrial to a mix of office, retail and
residential; and delineate a wide mix of residential densities for the area now
shown as residential/open space. (Refer to Figure 2-E in the DEIR for proposed
general plan land uses.)
The result of these changes would be a community of 42,700 people, 18,000
dwelling units, 11.6 million square feet of commercial space and 29,540 jobs.
Future development is expected to occur over a long period of time - 30 to 40
years. Thus buildout would not be expected to occur until 2020, or beyond. Under
the current general plan land use designations, an excess of 21,460 jobs could be
created with almost no housing, since densities are not specified. The current
general plan's policy states that subsequent studies would need to be undertaken to
determine appropriate housing densities.
2
PAGE Z OF It'
•
In addition to the land use map changes proposed by the Eastern Dublin GPA,
modifications to certain text and policies are also included to ensure consistency
between the City's general plan and the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
The major changes include the addition of several land use categories (GPA, pp. 7-
9) and the addition of policies to: support development of a mixed-use community
in eastern Extended Planning Area (GPA pp. 14, 16, 17); to provide recreation,
interconnected open space and trails in eastern Dublin (GPA pp. 20-21); and to
create a multi-modal transportation system (GPA, pp. 23-25).
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is the second component of the project, as
defined for purposes of environmental evaluation. The specific plan provides a
policy and land use framework for how development should occur in that portion of
eastern Dublin covered by the Specific Plan. It does not specify or incorporate any
specific development proposals; rather it establishes guidelines and standards for
how development should proceed in this quadrant of the City. Individual
development applications will have to demonstrate compliance with the Specific
Plan guidelines and standards or request a specific plan amendment if the proposal
substantially deviates from the specific plan.
The Specific Plan covers approximately fifty percent of the GPA area (3,328 acres).
The plan expands the policies contained in the proposed general plan amendment
which promote a fully balanced and integrated community consisting of residences,
offices, retail centers, parks and open space. While the community will be
connected to central Dublin via an extension of Dublin Boulevard, it will be
physically separated from that part of the City by Camp Parks. Therefore it is
important that it be a full-service community with its own amenities and
distinctive character.
One of the basic premises of the plan is that traffic congestion will continue to
worsen in the Tri-Valley as time goes on and that communities must be designed to
provide truly viable alternatives to the automobile as the primary mode of
transportation. While the plan provides a more than adequate roadway system to
accommodate the many residents who will continue to commute in single occupant
autos, it also offers alternatives that promote less dependence on the auto.
The plan seeks to achieve the following objectives:
- to provide for short and long term community needs for housing,
employment and leisure activities;
- to create a community which provides for traditional auto-oriented living
as well as other options such as living within walking/biking distance of
work, accessing open space areas from one's home without driving,
walking/biking from work or home to do daily errands and walking through
a downtown area from store to store, rather than driving to each one;
- to develop the area in a manner that protects and enhances the City's
natural beauty/resources including ridgelines and ridgetops, creeks and
streams, native vegetation especially along watercourses, and native
animals that currently inhabit the local hills and valleys; and
- to build a community that is economically viable and self supporting in
terms of service costs versus revenue generated.
3
PAGE 5 OF Zv
The Specific Plan, if fully implemented, would provide for a population of 27,800
housed in 12,500 dwelling units. Approximately 10.9 million square feet of
commercial space could be built, providing 28,300 jobs. Nine schools and seventeen
parks would also be provided. Residential uses would cover approximately 40
percent of the specific plan land area; non-residential uses - 30 percent; and parks,
open space and rural uses - 30 percent. The timeframe would be consistent with
that expected for the proposed General Plan Amendment - 30 to 40 years. Thus
buildout would not be anticipated until 2020, or beyond.
Higher density housing generally has been located on the flatter lands near transit
and major activity centers such as offices and retail commercial. The outer lying
hillier areas support more traditional single family, suburban living. However,
"village" commercial centers have been placed within these residential areas to
define neighborhoods and provide some close-in shopping opportunities accessible by
foot or bike, as well as the automobile.
The major retail commercial centers are located along Tassajara and I-580 to
optimize visibility from key thoroughfares. These locations will provide regional
shopping opportunities where access will be primarily via the automobile. A "Town
Center" has been designated for an area extending east from Tassajara that will
serve more of the local residents' shopping needs. The Center is situated along a
"transit spine," which will link eastern Dublin, the future east Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station and existing central Dublin. The Town Center is intended as a
community focal point, where people can shop, dine, and enjoy civic events and
other entertainment. Higher density housing is located on either side of the Town
Center to facilitate pedestrian access and usage. Civic buildings are also intended
for this area.
The circulation system for the Specific Plan area is based on a grid street pattern
which will disperse traffic over many roadways, rather than concentrating it on a
few. This type of system will not only facilitate auto traffic but also encourage
pedestrian access between residential and non-residential areas. The major
east/west corridors will be Dublin Boulevard extension, the "transit spine," and the
extension of Gleason Drive to Fallon Road. The primary north/south routes will be
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road.
Another component of the Specific Plan is the parkland and open space system.
Considerable emphasis has been placed on retention of open spaces for passive
recreation and habitat preservation. An open space framework has been delineated
consisting of visually-sensitive ridgelines, wildlife habitat areas and stream and
drainage corridors. Trails have been designated throughout the open space system
allowing residents close-in access to the "greenlands" without disturbing sensitive
habitat areas.
Provision of sufficient parklands to accommodate existing and future resident
recreation needs is accomplished through the designation of one 56 acre city park
and two community parks ranging from 45-80 acres each. These parks will include
facilities for organized sports activities. In addition, smaller (5-7 acre)
neighborhood parks are designated throughout the residential communities to provide
for closer-in recreational uses. They are centrally located to the surrounding
homes and in most instances, are situated adjacent to an open space corridor to
facilitate safe pedestrian movement.
4
PAGE `f Or
3. Environmental Review Process
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an
environmental impact report (EIR) for any project found to have a significant or
potentially significant impact on the environment. In order to determine whether a
project could have these types of impacts, an initial study is prepared. The Notice
of Preparation (NOP) and initial study for eastern Dublin was originally prepared in
September 1988. A subsequent NOP was distributed in October 1991 to clarify
certain procedural steps associated with project approval. Because potentially
significant impacts were identified in the initial study, preparation of an EIR was
required.
PI$CU$$IQN
The topic of this agenda statement is the Draft Environmental Impact Report for
Eastern Dublin. This document, dated August 28, 1992, identifies the impacts of
the proposed Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on the
existing and future environment, including on-site, vicinity and community-wide
impacts.
The Draft Eastern Dublin EIR is organized into five chapters and a summary, which
identifies all impacts and associated mitigations discussed in the Draft EIR. Given
the size of the document, this agenda statement only covers major issues; the
reader is encouraged to carefully review all the issues addressed in the Draft EIR.
For ease of referencing, the agenda statement discusses the issues by the
corresponding chapter in the Draft EIR. Since the purpose of the September 21st
meeting is to receive public testimony, persons wishing to speak on the Draft EIR
are requested to deliver their comments in the order of the Draft EIR chapters.
Sum mary
This section briefly describes each impact identified in the Draft EIR along with
the corresponding mitigation measure(s). It is a useful reference section for the
reader to quickly review impacts and mitigations.
chaoter 1: Introduction
The legal basis and content requirements for EIRs are discussed in this first
chapter. The Eastern Dublin Draft EIR is a program EIR; i.e., it assesses a series
of actions that are characterized as one large project. While preparation of a
program EIR does not necessarily preclude environmental analysis of all subsequent
actions, it is intended to cover most of the development activity that will occur
after approval of the Specific Plan. Some general criteria for evaluating when
future additional environmental analysis may be necessary is provided on page 1-6
of the Draft EIR.
Chapter 2: Proiect Description
This chapter describes the project location, site characteristics, project concept and
policies. Tables on pp. 2-7 through 2-9 detail the amount of land designated for
each use and the amount of resulting development (units and square footage).
5
PAGE 5 Oi
Buildout of the entire GPA Planning Area is estimated to support 42,700 persons in
18,000 dwelling units. Approximately 11 million square feet of commercial space
would be created, providing some 29,540 jobs.
Buildout of the Specific Plan area could generate a population of 27,800 persons in
12,500 dwelling units, more than half of all residential development anticipated in
the entire GPA area. The Specific Plan could also accommodate about 10.9 million
square feet of commercial space, almost all of the commercial development
estimated for the GPA area. Thus future residential and commercial development
in eastern Dublin is concentrated within the Specific Plan area, with the remainder
of the Project area predominately residential. The anticipated timeframe for
buildout is 30-40 years; thus buildout is not expected to occur until 2020 or beyond.
Chapter 3: Impacts and Mitigations
Chapter 3 contains the full discussion of all project impacts and mitigations. It
comprises the principal portion of the Draft EIR and is important in terms of
defining the environmental consequences of the anticipated development. The
chapter is divided into twelve sections. The major impacts in each section are
discussed in the following paragraphs. Impacts that remain significant even after
mitigation are noted. Any such impact will require a Statement of Overriding
Considerations if the project is approved as proposed. This requirement is denoted
in the staff report by bold typeface.
Section 3.1: Land Use
This section evaluates the potential for the Project (both the GPA and SP)
to create land use and planning impacts. These impacts are not. by CEO4
definition, environmental impacts and therefore do not require mitieation.
They are raised in the Draft EIR as planning concerns that the decision-
makers should be aware of and consider in their deliberations on the
proposed Project.
Potential land use concerns are:
a. Irreversible alteration of the land from agricultural/rural uses to a
highly urban uses (DEIR, p. 3.1-6)
b. Possible conflicts with activities at the Santa Rita Rehabilitation
Center and Camp Parks (DEIR, p. 3.1-13,14)
Potential policy issues are:
a. Consistency between the Project and the revised East County Area
Plan and Open Space Element of the Alameda County General Plan
(currently underway) (DEIR, p. 3.1-19)
Section 3.2 - Population. Housine and Employment
This chapter provides background information about expected growth in the
Bay Area and Tri-Valley region including statistics on population, housing,
6
PAGE OF>'o
employment and jobs/housing balance. It is for information purposes only and
does not identify impacts or mitigations.
In response to growing concern about the jobs/housing balance in the Tri-
Valley, the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan contain numerous policies
to promote coincident development of housing units and commercial square
footage (DEIR, p. 3.2-6 thru 11). Substantial emphasis is placed on providing
a full range of housing opportunities for all income levels. This is another
way to facilitate workers living and working within the same community.
Section 3.3 - Traffic and Circulation
This section contains one of the more critical topics associated with the
Project. Impact analyses for freeways and selected intersections were
conducted for four scenarios: 1) existing 1992 conditions; 2) Year 2010
without the Project; 3) Year 2010 with the Project; and 4) cumulative
buildout based on full development of all proposed projects in the Tri-Valley.
(Refer to DEIR, p. 3.3-8 thru 12 for further discussion of these scenarios.)
Various assumptions were made about traffic distribution on the network and
what roadway improvements would be in place under certain scenarios.
(DEIR, p. 3.3-16 thru 18.) Based on these assumptions and assumed buildout
figures, the impact analysis was conducted for selected freeway sections and
intersections. Pages 3.3-20 and 24 of the Draft EIR contain tables which
summarize the Level of Service (LOS) changes due to project implementation,
before mitigation.
The level of impact before and after mitigation is summarized below.
Recom mended mitigation for freeway segments includes construction of one
additional auxiliary lane in each direction between interchanges.
Recom mended mitigation measures for intersections include widening to
provide additional approach lanes, and modifications to traffic signals.
With mitigation, many of the significant impacts can be reduced to a level
of insignificance. However, some significant impacts remain even with
mitigation. These are identified as unavoidable adverse impacts and will
require a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the project is to be
approved as proposed. The following code is used: S = significant; C =
cumulative; I = insignificant; UA = unavoidable adverse.
7
PAGE 7 OF..
pumMMtY4F TIiA,FFIG_IMFAcTiS PUS:114 AFTE ITIQ&T14N
Before After DEIR
Year 2010 Without Project Mitigation Mitigation pace
I-580 Freeway: Tassajara-Fallon SC (LOS F) I (LOS D) 3.3-21
year 2010 With Project
I-580 Freeway: I-680-Hacienda SC (LOS F) UA (LOS F) 3.3-21
I-580 Freeway: Tassajara-Fallon SC (LOS F) I (LOS E) 3.3-22
I-580 Freeway: Fallon-Airway SC (LOS F) I (LOS D) 3.3-22
I-680 Freeway: North of I-580 SC (LOS F) I (LOS D) 3.3-22
Dougherty Road/Dublin Blvd. S (LOS F) I (LOS D) 3.3-25
Hacienda/I-580 Eastbound Ramps S (LOS F) I (LOS C) 3.3-25
Tassajara/I-580 Westbound Ramps S (LOS F) I (LOS B) 3.3-25
Santa Rita/I-580 Eastbound Ramps S (LOS F) I (LOS D) 3.3-26
Secondary effects of mitigation to S (LOS F) UA 3.3-26
Santa Rita/I-580 eastbound ramps
Airway/Dublin Boulevard S (LOS E) I (LOS C) 3.3-26
Airway/I-580 Westbound Ramps S (LOS F) I (LOS D) 3.3-27
El Charro Road truck movements S I 3.3-27
Cumulative Buildout with the Project
I-580 west of I-680 SC (LOS F) UA (LOS F) 3.3-22
I-580 east of Airway SC (LOS F) UA (LOS F) 3.3-22
Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive SC (LOS F) UA (LOS F) 3.3-27
Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road SC (LOS E) UA (LOS F) 3.3-27
Tassajara Road/Fallon Road SC (LOS F) UA (LOS F) 3.3-28
Tassajara Road/Gleason SC (LOS F) UA (LOS F) 3.3-28
Tassajara Road/Transit Spine SC (LOS F) UA (LOS F) 3.3-28
8
FACE 8 OF 20
The previous table identifies nine impacts which cannot be mitigated to a
level of insignificance using conventional traffic or engineering techniques.
It should be noted that the significant cumulative unavoidable impacts on
Tassajara are primarily due to the assumed Tassajara connection to
Dougherty Valley and full buildout of Tassajara Valley. If these two
scenarios do not occur, traffic impacts on Tassajara Road could be mitigated
to insignificance by widening it to four lanes.
However, assuming the above future connections and development do occur,
there are project alternatives (discussed in Chapter 4) which could reduce the
following unavoidable impacts to a level of insignificance, after mitigation:
Project Impacts Alternatives
I-580 Freeway: I-680-Hacienda Drive No Project (DEIR p. 4-5)
Reduced Planning Area (DEIR, p. 4-11)
Reduced Intensities (DEIR, p. 4-19)
No Development (DEIR, p. 4-19)
Project Impacts Alternatives
Secondary effects of mitigation to No Project
Santa Rita/I-580 eastbound ramps No Development
Cumulative Impacts Alternatives
I-580 west of I-680 No Project
No Development
I-580 east of Airway No Project
No Development
Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive No Project
Reduced Land Use Intensities
No Development
Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road No Project
Reduced Land Use Intensities
No Development
Tassajara Road/Fallon Road No Project
No Development
Tassajara Road/Gleason No Project
No Development
Tassajara Road/Transit Spine No Project
No Development
There is also another option to mitigate cumulative impacts on Tassajara
Road. As noted in the DEIR (p. 3.3-28) full mitigation could be achieved by
9
PAGE OF 21�
widening Tassajara to six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and the Contra
Costa County line. The Specific Plan currently designates a maximum of
four lanes. Widening to six lanes would not be compatible with the planned
land uses in this quadrant of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because it
would deter pedestrians crossing Tassajara. Land uses have been arranged to
allow for the possibility of residents on the west side of Tassajara to walk
to offices and shopping on the east side of the road. Also, with six-lane
streets, the amount of direct vehicle access to adjacent commercial areas
must be limited due to heavy traffic volumes.
The Planning Commission will have to weigh these alternatives and options
during its discussion of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan. If none of the alternatives or options is selected, the impacts will
remain unavoidable, thereby requiring a Statement of Overriding
Considerations by the City Council.
Section 3.4 - Community Services and Facilities
This section covers all of the services that a full scale community would
need including police, fire protection, schools, parks, solid waste disposal,
utilities and libraries. Although all services will need to be expanded to
accommodate the Project, impacts resulting from this expansion are
insignificant except for utilities.
The key issue with expansion of utilities (gas and electric) is the consumption
of non-renewable resources. The Specific Plan minimizes energy consumption
by locating many residential areas within walking distance of offices,
shopping and mass transit; however, this only partially mitigates the impact.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required for this impact if
the Project is approved as proposed. The No Development alternative would
mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance.
section 3.5 - Sewer. Water and Storm Drainage
ewe
Development of the Project will require expansion of existing facilities
including the collection system, the wastewater treatment plant, and the
wastewater disposal system. It will also require expansion of the Dublin San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD) wastewater service boundary. Generally
the District expands its boundary coincident with city expansions.
The key impacts related to the collection, treatment and disposal of
wastewater are summarized in the following paragraphs. All of the impacts
discussed in the Draft EIR can be mitigated to a level of insignificance,
except for energy consumed by wastewater treatment and disposal.
A conceptual wastewater collection system has been designed and sized to
only accommodate the Project site (DEIR, Figure 3.5-B shows the system for
the Specific Plan area). This system will be phased according to where and
when development occurs in eastern Dublin. The potential significant
growth-inducing effect of expanding the collection system is mitigated to a
level of insignificance by the sizing and phasing (DEIR p.3.5-6).
10
PACE i0 OF Z-c
The existing DSRSD treatment facility cannot treat all of the expected
effluent generated by the Project and other planned development unless it
expands its facilities. The District has a master plan for plant expansion
and has been collecting monies for this project. The limiting factor in the
plant expansion schedule is availability of export disposal capacity. This lack
will be rectified by construction of the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority
(TWA) project. Implementation of expansion plans by DSRSD and TWA
reduces the significant impact associated with treatment plant capacity to a
level of insignificance (DEIR, p.3.5-7).
The existing wastewater disposal system for the Tri-Valley is expected to
reach capacity in the early 1990's. Plans are underway by TWA to expand
export capacity via a system that would transport untreated wastewater to
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The effluent would be treated at
the Martinez treatment plant and disposed of through the District's Suisun
Bay outfall. Implementation of this plan and a plan for recycled water
reduces the significant effect associated with disposal capacity to a level of
insignificance (DEIR, p. 3.5-9).
The DEIR identifies two potentially significant irreversible changes associated
with increased energy usage to treat and export wastewater (DEIR, p. 3.5-8,
9). These impacts will remain significant if the Project is approved as
proposed. In this case, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be
required. The alternative which would mitigate these impacts to a level of
insignificance is the No Development alternative.
Water
Water service would be provided by DSRSD who obtains water by contract
from Zone 7 exclusively. Zone 7, in turn, obtains water from three sources:
collection of local surface water at Lake Del Valle; two local wells; and the
Department of Water Resources.
Based on current consumption rates (210 gallons per person/per day), an
annual growth rate of 2-3 percent, and available supplies, Zone 7 estimates
it has sufficient supply to meet demand for the next 9 to 14 years. Actual
availability may vary depending on changes in land use and water
conservation efforts.
Development in eastern Dublin will increase water demands. It will also
contribute to the need for expansion of the water distribution and treatment
systems. The DEIR states that all impacts will be reduced to a level of
insignificance based on implementation of various plans and programs by
DSRSD and Zone 7 to ensure reliable future water supplies and treatment
(DEIR, p.3.5-18 thru 22). The Specific Plan also contains a requirement for
a "will-serve" letter which ensures the availability of water prior to any
actual construction.
The DEIR identifies one potentially significant irreversible impact associated
with increased energy consumption for operation of the water distribution
system. It also identifies a potentially significant growth-inducing impact
associated with the sizing of the water distribution system to accommodate
future demand generated by development in Dougherty Valley (DEIR, p. 3.5-
11
PACE�1 OF 20
21). If the Project is approved as proposed, these two impacts will remain
significant and a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required.
The alternative which would reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance
is No Development.
Storm Drainage
All impacts associated with accommodating additional runoff (potential
flooding, groundwater recharge and non-point sources of pollution) can be
mitigated to a level of insignificance (DEIR, p. 3.5-25 thru 27).
Section 3.6 - Soils. Geoloey and Seismicity
All potential impacts associated with soils, geology and seismicity can be
mitigated to insignificant with the exception of exposure to the primary
effects of an earthquake, i.e. ground shaking. According to the DEIR this
impact remains potentially significant (DEIR, p. 3.6-8). If the project is
approved as proposed, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be
required. The alternative which reduces this impact to insignificance is No
Development.
Section 3.7 - Biological Resources
To most passersby, the site probably appears relatively devoid of biological
resources. However, its sparse appearance is misleading for the site actually
supports quite a diversity of species, including some that have special status
with the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California State
Fish and Game Department (CDFG). The following discussion of biological
resources focuses on the most significant issues and is divided into two
categories: 1) plants; and 2) wildlife.
plants
No rare or endangered plant species were found. However, there are three
botanically sensitive plant habitats: 1) riparian forest (along Tassajara
Creek); 2) willow/riparian woodland (along a drainage course which crosses
lower Fallon Road; and 3) freshwater marshes (near drainages in Tassajara
Creek, Fallon Road and Doolan Canyon). These habitats have great biotic
significance because they are declining and they provide habitat for special
status wildlife species.
Because of their sensitivity, the potential to damage these plant
environments during pre- and post-construction is high. The Draft EIR
identifies this as a potentially significant impact. However, the Specific
Plan contains nine measures, which if fully implemented, will reduce the
impact level to insignificant (DEIR, p. 3.7-10 thru 12).
Wildlife
Three categories/classifications of animals that warrant special attention are:
1) threatened and endangered species; 2) federal candidates for listing; and 3)
California species of special concern. Habitat was found for an animal in
12
PAGE /2-Oi_M.
the first category; animals in the latter two categories were found on the
site.
Threatened and Endangered
The San Joaquin Rit Fox falls into this first category. Kit fox
populations have been steadily declining due to loss of habitat.
Generally, kit fox inhabit grasslands and sparsely vegetated, shrubby
habitats that permit easy mobility and good visibility of ground
dwelling species which comprise the bulk of their diet. The gently
sloping areas in the north and east quarters of the Eastern Dublin
Study Area contain the highest quality potential kit fox habitat (DEIR
Appendix, p. APP-E/2).
Kit fox habitat is also characterized by the presence of suitable dens
which are often made by other animals such as red fox, ground
squirrel and badger. Because kit fox are poor diggers they often use
vacant dens of other animals, enlarging them as necessary. Forty one
such potential dens were found on the eastern Dublin site (DEIR,
Figure 3.7-C). A potential den is defined as having the physical
characteristics required by the kit fox but no actual evidence that it
has been occupied by a kit fox (DEIR, Appendix, p. App-E/2).
Because the portions of the Eastern Dublin Study Area contain
potentially suitable kit fox habitat, the loss or disruption of this
habitat by development is considered a potentially significant impact.
However, full implementation of the Kit Fox Protection Plan and
consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) will mitigate this impact to
insignificant (DEIR, p. 3.7-13).
Federal Candidates for Listing
These are species which are under review by USFWS and are, or may
be, approaching threatened and endangered classification. In some
cases, sufficient data exists to list them as threatened or endangered
(Category 1); in others, additional data is needed (Category 2).
Two such species were found on the site in Category 2: Red-legged
frogs and Western pond turtles (DEIR, pp. 3.7-5 and 6 and Figure 3.7-
C). Full implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will
reduce the impact to insignificant (DEIR, p. 3.7-14).
California Species of Special Concern
This listing is used by CDFG to denote species that are, or may face,
extinction if current trends continue. There are four categories
denoting various degrees of concern (DEIR p. 3.7-21).
CDFG is concerned not only with preservation of the actual species
but also with conservation of foraging and nesting habitat. The
following table lists those species of concern actually observed on the
13
PAGE or to
site and as well as those who were not physically observed but for
which suitable habitat is present.
Species of Special Concern
Animals or Habitat Present on the Eastern Dublin Site
Golden eagle Observed; nest found, high quality foraging
habitat
Burrowing owl Observed; good nesting and foraging habitat
Prairie falcon High quality foraging habitat
Northern harrier Observed; potential foraging habitat
Short-eared owl Potential foraging habitat
American badger Observed; suitable foraging and denning
habitat
With the exception of two species (the owls), the remainder of species
are listed as third priority species of special concern (not in any
present danger but due to small populations, are vulnerable to
destruction (DEIR, footnote, p. 3.7-21). The two owls are listed as
second priority (on the decline but danger is not immediate). With
full implementation of all recommended mitigations, all potential
impact will be reduced to insignificance (DEIR, p. 3.7-14 thru 18).
Although the golden eagle is listed as third priority by CDFG, it is
protected by the Federal Bald Eagle Protection Act. Certain
precautionary measures must be taken as long as the nest is active
(DEIR, p. 3.7-14 and 15). If the DEIR measures are fully
implemented, the potential impact to this species will be mitigated.
In the event the nest has been abandoned, consultation with Fish and
Wildlife would be necessary and appropriate measures taken.
Section 3.8 - Visual Resources
There are two major issues associated with impacts to visual
resources: 1) protection of visually sensitive ridgelines/hillsides; and 2)
alteration of visual character.
1. Sensitive Ridgelines/Hillsides
Figure 3.8-H denotes two types of visually sensitive ridges. The
higher ridges (approximate average elevation is about 900 feet)
are denoted by the darker shading and are precluded from
development. This ridge forms the horizon line from most
viewpoints to the south, providing a visually significant
backdrop.
A second set of visually sensitive ridgelines has been given some
development potential (indicated by the light gray shading).
With average elevations between 600-800 feet, these ridges are
extremely visible from major travel corridors - specifically I-
580, a designated scenic corridor. The Specific Plan contains
14
PAGE /4 NIA
extensive language to guide grading in these and other sensitive
hillside areas. Full implementation of these guidelines is
critical to reducing potentially significant impacts to a level of
insignificance.
2. Alteration of Visual Character
There are four components that make up the site's visual
character: flatlands along I-580, rolling grass-covered hills,
foreground ridgelines and background ridgelands. Together these
components create the rural/open space visual character of the
site.
Although the Specific Plan contains numerous measures to
conserve a sense of openness on the site and retain the rural
character to the degree possible, development will irreversibly
alter the area's visual character (DEIR, p. 3.8-5 and 7). If the
Project is approved as proposed, this impact will remain
potentially significant and will require a Statement of Overriding
Considerations. The alternative which mitigates this impact to
a level of insignificance is No Development; the No Project
alternative may mitigate to a level of insignificance.
Section 3.9 - Cultural Resources
Based on field reconnaissance, six prehistoric locations were discovered
and twelve historic sites. There may be additional sites within the
Study Area. All potentially significant impacts due to development
can be mitigated to a level of insignificance (DEIR, p. 3.9-6 thru 9).
Section 3.10 - Noise
Potential noise impacts fall into four categories: 1) exposure of
proposed homes to future roadway noise; 2) exposure of existing homes
to future roadway noise; 3) exposure of proposed homes to noise from
Camp Parks and the County Rehabilitation Center; and 4) noise
conflicts due to dissimilar adjacent land uses.
Categories 2 and 3 may have potentially significant effects after
mitigation since it may not be feasible at all locations to mitigate all
homes from potential adverse noise intrusions (DEIR, p. 3.10-4). If the
Project is approved as proposed, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations will be required. The alternative which mitigates this
impact to a level of insignificance is No Development; the No Project
alternative may mitigate to a level of insignificance.
Section 3.11 - Air Quality
Based on information from the Livermore monitoring station, the
following air quality conditions exist within the Project area:
15
PAGE L OF/X..
Ozone levels substantially exceed federal standards (3 violations
per year versus the allowed once per year) and state
standards (by 30 to 50 percent);
Carbon monoxide levels are within allowable state standards;
and
Dust levels are within allowable federal standards.
Recent air quality planning by subregional and regional agencies stress
source reduction with continuing emphasis on reduction of automobile
use, improved public transit and more "pedestrian friendly"
development patterns.
The project at full buildout will create four potentially significant
cumulative air quality impacts which cannot be reduced to a level of
insignificance (DEIR, p. 3.11-3, 5,6):
Increases in respirable particulate matter (breathable dust)
Ozone precursor emissions will exceed acceptable threshold
Nitrogen oxide emissions will exceed acceptable threshold
Stationery source emissions will exceed acceptable threshold
If the Project is approved as proposed, these impacts will require a
Statement of Overriding Considerations. The alternative which would
reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance is No Development.
Section 3.12 - Fiscal Considerations
Examination of the fiscal aspects of a project is not a CEQA required
topic but it is often included in EIRs for completeness. Fiscal
considerations fall into two categories: 1) costs and revenues; and 2)
costs for capital facilities.
The fiscal analysis prepared for the project indicates that project-
generated revenues will more than cover project-generated costs, after
an initial short fall in the early years. This analysis assumes a 25
percent share of property taxes.
The analysis also indicates that with implementation of various funding
mechanisms, costs for capital facilities can be adequately handled and
no significant impact will result.
chapter 4: Alternatives
Alternatives to the Project were developed per CEQA requirements and analyzed
for their relative environmental impacts in Chapter 4. The comparative benefits
and impacts of the alternatives are outlined in the following table. This
comparative analysis only covers key environmental impacts; the reader is
encouraged to read Chapter 4 of the DEIR for a full discussion of benefits and
impacts associated with the alternatives.
16
PACE/, OF 20
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
(Key Environmental Impacts Only)
Alternative Benefits jmpacts
j: No Proiect * reduces project traffic * no housing
0 units; ± 160 population by 90% * very unfavorable
(existing); 9.2 msf * requires minimal road jobs/housing ratio
commercial; 9,000-21,500 improvements * no coordinated planning
jobs; * eliminates all identified for infrastructure
significant and * no coordinated
No specific plan or unavoidable adverse community design or
general plan amendment, traffic impacts character
Buildout of incorporated * reduces demand for * similar air quality
area and remaining eastern sewer by 80% and water impacts
extended planning area per by 90% * growth-inducing (force
existing City general plan. * minimal impact to biotic housing elsewhere)
resources
* minimal visual impact to
hills/ridges
* may retain rural
character east of city
2: Reduced Planning Area * reduces Project traffic * similar traffic impacts
12,400 units; 32,500 by 10% as Project
population; 10.9 msf * reduces 2 significant * requires same
commercial; 26,400 jobs project traffic impacts intersection mitigations
to insignificant w/o as Project
Buildout of City's current mitigation (A) * similar visual impacts as
Sphere of Influence (SOI) * reduces demand for Specific Plan
per the proposed Specific sewer and water by * similar air quality
Plan (SP) and General Plan 17% impacts as Project
Amendment (GPA). No * reduces impact to * unfavorable
development outside SOI potential habitat of kit jobs/housing ratio
and no expansion of SOI. fox and two species of
concern (B)
* retains rural character
of Doolan Canyon
17
PACE /7 OF zD
Alternative Benefits Impacts
3: Reduced Land Use * reduces Project traffic * similar impacts on
Intensities by 30% biological resources
12,840 units; 36,900 * reduces 3 significant * similar visual impacts
population; 7.7 msf project traffic impacts * similar air quality
corn mercial; 16,700 jobs to insignificant w/o impacts
mitigation (C)
Same general layout as * eliminates 3 cumulative
Project but reduced unavoidable adverse
commercial and increased traffic impacts with
residential, mitigation (D)
reduces demand for
sewer and water by 16%
* favorable jobs/housing
ratio
4: No Development * eliminates all * eliminates or postpones
no additional residential environmental impacts all future planning for
units, commercial square eastern Dublin, likely
footage or jobs resulting in near-term
development going
elsewhere in the Tri-
Valley
A I-580 Freeway between Dougherty Road and Hacienda (DEIR, p. 4-11; 3.3-21)
Intersection of Airway and Dublin (DEIR, p. 4-11; 3.3-26)
B Red-legged frogs, western pond turtles (DEIR, p. 4-13)
C I-580 Freeway between Dougherty Road and Hacienda (DEIR, p. 4-15; p. 3.3-21)
I-580 Freeway between Fallon and Airway (DEIR, p. 4-16; p. 3.3-21)
Intersection of Airway and Dublin Boulevard (DEIR, p. 4-16; p. 3.3-26)
D Intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda (DEIR, p. 4-16; p. 3.3-27)
Intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara (DEIR, p. 4-16; p. 3.3-27)
I-580 Freeway between Tassajara and Fallon (DEIR, p. 4-16; p. 3.3-22)
CEQA requires an EIR to rank the alternatives according to the degree to which
they reduce identified Project impacts. From most to least environmentally
superior, the alternatives are ranked as follows:
Alternative 4 - No Development
Alternative 1 - No Project
Alternative 2 - Reduced Planning Area
Alternative 3 - Reduced Land Use Intensities
Other than the No Development Alternative, all of the remaining options have some
impacts. During deliberations by the Planning Commission and City Council on the
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the alternatives can be considered as a
way to reduce selected impacts. The decision-makers will need to weigh the
respective merits of the alternatives against the Project and determine the most
appropriate land use scenario.
18
PAGE le OF 20
Chapter 5: CEQA Mandated Considerations
This chapter covers six CEQA required topics: 1) cumulative impacts; 2) growth-
inducing impacts; 3) unavoidable adverse impacts; 4) short-term versus long-term
productivity; 5) significant irreversible changes; and 6) impacts found not to be
significant. Of primary concern to the City decision-makers are those impacts
which remain significant after mitigation. These impacts are listed below and will
require a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the Project is approved as
proposed.
1. cumulative Impacts That Remain Significant After Mitigation (Require
a Statement of Overriding Considerations)
* I-580 between I-680 and Hacienda: will exceed LOS E
* I-580 west of I-680: will exceed LOS E
* I-580 east of Airway: will exceed LOS E
* Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive: will exceed LOS D
* Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road: will exceed LOS D
* Tassajara Road/Fallon Road: will exceed LOS D (assumes widening to
4 lanes only)
* Tassajara Road/Gleason: will exceed LOS D
* Tassajara Road/Transit Spine: will exceed LOS D
* Loss of botanically sensitive habitat (riparian, aquatic)
* Alteration of rural/open space visual character of site
* Exposure of existing residences to future roadway noise
* Increase in respirable particulate matter (PM-10) (breathable dust)
* Ozone precursors and nitrogen oxide emissions exceed acceptable
thresholds
* Stationary source emissions exceed acceptable threshold
2. Growth Inducing Impacts (Require a Statement of Overridinc
Considerations
* Utility extensions (gas and electric)
* Extension of water service to the Project
3. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts (Require a Statement of Overridinc
Considerations)
* All cumulative impacts described above
* Secondary impacts on local roads due to mitigation of the Santa Rita
Road/I-580 eastbound ramps intersection
* Exposure of existing residences to future roadway noise
4. Significant Irreversible Chances Which Require a Statement of
Overriding Considerations
* Consumption of non-renewable natural resources
* Increase in energy usage for wastewater treatment, disposal, water
distribution
* Landform alteration
* Loss of native habitat
19
PACE I9 or��.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission thoroughly review the Draft
EIR document, keeping in mind the ultimate decision that must be made
relative to the EIR is whether or not it is adequate. Adequacy is not
affected by the presence of significant impacts which cannot be mitigated
and require a statement of overriding considerations. Also, disagreement
among professionals about the severity of an impact does not affect
adequacy. Adequacy is based on whether the information has been presented
in accordance with State requirements and whether there has been sufficient
analysis to inform decision-makers of the environmental consequences of a
project.
2. Staff recom mends that the Planning Commission hear Staff's presentation and
then open the public hearing to receive public comments on the Draft EIR,
Chapters 1.0 through 3.6, or beyond if time permits.
3. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission confirm the tentative public
hearing/meeting schedule (Attachment 2) and continue the public hearing to
Tuesday, September 22, 1992.
s/edeir21
20
PAGE 2.2.or.Z°,
Proposed Planning Commission
Public Hearing/Meeting Schedule for Eastern Dublin
September 21 Public Hearing #1
Monday Staff presentation - project overview
Staff presentation - EIR overview and Chapters:
1.0 - Introduction
2.0 - Project Description
3.1 - Land Use
3.2 - Population, Employment and Housing
3.3 - Traffic and Circulation
3.4 - Community Services
3.5 - Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage
3.6 - Soils, Geology and Seismicity
Public gives testimony on the above chapters
September 22 Public Hearing #2
Tuesday Staff presentation - EIR Chapters:
3.7 - Biological Resources
3.8 - Visual Resources
3.9 - Cultural Resources
3.10 - Noise
3.11 - Air Quality
3.12 - Fiscal Considerations
4.0 - Alternatives
5.0 - CEQA Mandated Considerations
Public gives testimony on the above chapters
September 23 Public Hearinv #3
Wednesday Public gives additional testimony on the DEIR, if any
Staff presentation - General Plan Amendment (GPA)
Public gives testimony on the GPA
September 29 Public Hearing #4
Tuesday Public gives additional testimony on the GPA, if any
Staff presentation - Specific Plan (SP) overview and Chapters:
1.0 - Introduction
2.0 - Project Area Description
3.0 - Summary
4.0 - Land Use
5.0 - Traffic and Circulation
Public gives testimony on the above chapters
September 30 Public Hearing #5
Wednesday Staff presentation - Specific Plan Chapters:
6.0 - Resources Management
7.0 - Community Design
8.0 - Community Services and Facilities
9.0 - Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage
10.0 - Financing
11.0 - Implementation
Public gives testimony on the above chapters
ATTACHMENT a
•
October 5 Public Hearing #6/Public Meeting #1
Monday Public gives additional testimony, if any, on GPA, SP, EIR
Planning Commission closes public hearing on the GPA, SP, EIR
Planning Commission begins discussion of DEIR, chapter by
chapter.
October 6 public Meeting #2
Tuesday Planning Commission completes discussion of DEIR and indicates
to Staff, via straw vote, any desired modifications
Planning Commission discusses GPA and indicates to Staff, via
straw vote, any desired modifications
October 7 Public Meeting #3
Wednesday Planning Commission begins discussion of SP, chapters 1.0
through 5.0 and indicates to Staff, via straw vote, any
desired modifications
October 13 Public Meeting #4
Tuesday 45 day public review period on DEIR ends (5:00 p.m.)
Planning Commission completes discussion of SP, chapters 6.0
through 11.0 and indicates to Staff, via straw vote, any
desired modifications
October 14 Public Meeting #5
Wednesday Planning Com mission completes any remaining discussion of
DEIR, GPA and SP and indicates to Staff, via straw vote,
any desired modifications
October 22 Public Meeting #6
Thursday Planning Commission approves resolutions recommending City
Council certification of the DEIR, approval of the GPA
and SP with desired modifications
Note: These dates are tentative and subject to change. Contact the
Planning Department at (510) 833-6610 during regular business hours to
confirm meeting dates.
e/pcsched
9/4/92