Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 08-11 Downtown Dublin EIRRESOLUTION NO. 8-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ************* CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM UNDER CEQA FOR THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN PA 07-036 WHEREAS, the City initiated a Specific Plan study and related General Plan amendment to plan for powntown Dublin. The results of this effort includes the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Rezoning properties from various Planned Development Zoning Districts to a new Downtown Dublin Zoning District, and other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectivefy known as the "Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Project" or the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City and is approximatefy 284 acres in size. The project area is generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north. There are some partial boundary limits that extend beyond those roadways, most notably for a portion of San Ramon Road, a portion of Amador Valley Boulevard, and all of the Village Parkway within the Specific Plan area.; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared and it was determined that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared to analyze the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Project; and WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated January 29, 2010, to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR. The City also conducted a public scoping meeting on February 11, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated September 2010 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project, which is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for public review from September 20, 2010 to November 4, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City received comment letters from State, regional, and local agencies during the public review period. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments received during the public comment period. The City prepared a Final EIR (that includes the Responses to Comments), dated December 2010, for the proposed Project, which included an annotated copy of each comment letter ~ Page 1 of 3 identifying specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference. The complete DDSP EIR incorporates the Draft EIR and the Final EIR together, and is referred to hereafter as the Final EIR. The responses to comments provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and determined that the Final EIR, including the clarifications and minor corrections to the Draft EIR, do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR under the standards in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated December 14, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project for the Planning Commission and contained information on the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Report, the Final EIR, including comments and responses, at a noticed public hearing on December 14, 2010 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 10-57 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR for the project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated February 1, 2011 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project for the City Council and contained information on the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report, the Final EIR, including comments and responses, at a noticed public hearing on February 1, 2011 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR, including comments and responses, reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project would have significant effects on the environment, which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures, except for transportation and circulation impacts; therefore, approval of the Project must include mitigation findings as set forth in attached Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR identified the Project's effects due to transportation and circulation as significant and unavoidable that cannot be lessened to a level of less than significant; therefore, approval of the Project must include findings regarding alternatives as set forth in attached Exhibit D, and must include a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in attached Exhibit E; and Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as required by CEQA, is attached as Exhibit F; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR and all of the documents relating to the Project are available for review in the City Planning Division at the Dublin City Hall, file PA 07-036, during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the Final EIR and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PA 07-036. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Dublin City Council certifies the following. A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. B. The Final EIR, consisting of Exhibits A and B, has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. C. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, including the written comments received during the Draft EIR review period and the oral and written comments received at the public hearing, prior to making its recommendation on the proposed Project. D. The Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The Final EIR provides information to the decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the proposed Project. E. The Final EIR adequately describes the proposed Project, its significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council adopts the mitigation measures and mitigation findings set forth in Exhibit C, the Findings regarding Alternatives set forth in Exhibit D, the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit E, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit F. Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F are incorporated herein by reference, all in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1St day of February, 2011 by the following vote AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Swalwell, and Mayor Sbranti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~ ~~n~. J ~ ~~ Mayor ATTES : /~ ~ /t ( Lt ~ )~~~ City Clerk Reso No. 8-11, Adopted 2-1-11, Item 6.1 Page 3 of 3 i ~ t • • City of Dublin ~ ii i~ .~~, ~~~ x ,. ~, ~~""> <"'"' ~ ~ .~ SPECIFIC PLAN Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 20100022005 ~dop-~~rl by (?~so ~ - ~~ ``_y~~r_r~.,,;, ~ ~_i_r`~~~~~ rrr' ~ ``, ~ .~~~ ' ;ur~ ~i*e:• ^ . ^ ^ CONSULTIN~ ~x.h.J~ L-~-~4- t 1 1 1 .1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ , DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN Draft Environmental Impact Report September 2010 The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR has been financed in part by grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of the Draft EIR do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. ~5~~ 3 ~ SCH # 20100022005 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Table of Contents ~~ ~~ ~ ~ Table of Contents Executive Summary I 1. Introduction I - I I. I. Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................. I- I I.2. Environmental Review Process ........................................................................................................... I- I I .3. Report Organization .................................................................................................................................. I -3 I .4. Impact Terminology ................................................................................................................................... I -6 2. Project Description 2- I 2. I. Project Location ........................................................................................................................................... 2- I 2.2. Project Area ...................................................................................................................:............................ ... 2- I 2.3. Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations .............................................. ...2-2 2.4. Proposed Project Characteristics & Objectives ..................................................................... ...2-3 2.5. Proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning ................................................................ ...2-5 2.6. Proposed Land Uses and Development Plan ......................................................................... ... 2-6 2.7. Requested Actions, Entitlements, and Required Approvals ........................................... 2-12 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures 3- I 3. I. Aesthetics & Visual Resources ............................................................................................................. 3-3 3.2. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ............................................................................................ .. 3- I 3 3.3. Geology, Soils & Seismicity ...............................................................................:............................... .. 3-55 3.4. Hazards & Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................... .. 3-69 3.5. Hydrology & Water Quality ............................................................................................................ .. 3-8 I 3.6. Land Use & Planning ............................................................................................................................. .. 3-95 3.7. Noise ............................................................................................................................................................. 3- I 09 3.8. Public Services & Utilities ................................................................................................................... 3- I 25 3.9. Transportation & Circulation ........................................................................................................... 3- I 45 4. CEQA Considerations 4- I 4. I. 4. I Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects .........................................................4- I 4.2. Significant Irreversible Changes ........................................................................................................... 4- I 4.3. Growth Inducement ..................................................................................................................................4-2 4.4. Energy Conservation .................................................................................................................................4-4 ~ Page i i . ~5~~~~~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Table of Contents ~ ~ 4.5. Effects Found Not to be Significant .................................................................................................. 4-7 ' 4.6. Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................................................4-9 4.7. Project Altematives ................................................................................................................................. 4- I 8 , 5. References 5- i 5.1. References Cited ........................:................................................................................................................5-I ~ 5.2. List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................................... 5-4 ~ Appendices A Responses to the Notice of Preparation ~ B Air Quality C Noise , D Transportation & Circulation ~ List of Figures 2- I Regional Location ~ 2-2 Specific Plan Area 2-3 Existing Land Uses ~ 2-4 2 5 General Plan Land Use Designations C Z i - urrent on ng 2-6 DDSP Districts/Land Use Designations ' 2-7 Proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Zoning 3. I- I Existing Visual Character ~ 3.3- I General Soil Map 3.3-2 Fault Location Map , 3.3-3 3 5 I ~Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map H d l i F . - y ro og c eatures 3.6- I Existing Specific Plans ~ 3.7- I Sound Levels and Human Response 3.8- I Storm Drain System ~ 3.8-2 Potable Water System 3.8-3 Sanitary Sewer 3.9- I Transportation Study Area ~ 3.9-2 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 3.9-3 Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control ~ ~ Page iii ~ oo~.~~r..o Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Table of Contents 15~b ~~ ~ 3.9-4 Existing Bicycle Facilities 3.9-5 Existing Transit Routes 3.9-6 Approved Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 3.9-7 Near-term Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 3.9-8a Commercial Project Trip Distribution 3.9-8b Residential Project Trip Distribution 3.9-9 Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 3.9- I 0 Near-term Plus Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 3.9- I I Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 3.9- I 2 Near-term Plus Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 3.9- I 3 Cumulative No Project (Current Specific Plans) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 3.9- I 4 Cumulative Plus Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 3.9- I 5 Cumulative Plus Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes List of Tables S- I Executive Summary of Project Impacts 2- I Entitled Projects 2-2 DDSP Development Pool 2-3 DDSP Future Buildout Development Potential 3.2- I Local Ambient Air Quality Levels , 3.2-2 National and Califomia Ambient Air Quality Standards 3.2-3 San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status 3.2-4 San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District Control Measures 3.2-5 Operational Emissions 3.2-6 Clean Air Plan Consistency Analysis 3.2-7 Project Buildout Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 3.2-8 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.2-9 Project Consistency with the Attomey General's Recommendations 3.2- I 0 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Consistency with Recommended Actions in the CARB Scoping Plan 3.3- I Soil Map Units 3.3-2 Active and Conditionally Active Faults within 45 Miles of DDSP Area 3.6- I Summary of Previous Specific Plans Development Capacity 3.6-2 Non-Residential Development Since 2000 3.6-3 City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis 3.7- I Existing Traffic Noise Levels Page iv ~ ~e..~~.,,a ~ ~ ..~ ~ l5g ~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft IR Table of Contents ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ , 3.7-2 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix 3.7-3 City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments 3.7-4 Sound Levels and Human Response 3.7-5 Near Term Noise Scenarios 3.8- I Optimum Capacity of Schools Serving the DDSP Area 3.8-2 Projected DSRSD Water Demand (Potable and Reclaimed) 3.8-3 Capacity Versus Current Enrollment of Schools Serving the DDSP Area 3.8-4 Solid Waste Generation Rates from Proposed Buildout of the DDSP 3.9- I Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria 3.9-2 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria 3.9-3 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service 3.9-4 Projected BART Ridership - West Dublin/Pleasanton Station 3.9-5 LAVTA Service Summary 3.9-6 March 2010 LAVTA Route Ridership 3.9-7 Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area 3.9-8 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Trip Generation - Base FAR Project 3.9-9 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Trip Generation - Max FAR Project 3.9- I 0 Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service - Base FAR Project 3.9- I I Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service - Maximum FAR Project 3.9- I 2 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Base FAR Project 3.9-13 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Maximum FAR Project 3.9- I 4 Near-Term PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service 3.9- I 5. Cumulative PM Peak Hour MTS Artenal Level of Service 3.9- I 6 Near-Term AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service 3.9-17 Cumulative AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service 3.9- I 8 Project Transit Trip Summary 4.5- I Cumulative Noise Scenario 4.5-2 Comparison of Project Altematives to the Proposed Project ~ Page v ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Table of Contents ~5~~ ~~~ Page vi ~ ~o..~.,~~o ~ ,'~ ~ l~~-~ ~83 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary ' ~ Executive Summary ~ This summary provides a brief description of the proposed project, project altematives, and all potentially significant impacts identified during the course of the environmental analysis. ~ This summary is intended as an overview and should be used in conjunction with a thorough reading of the Draft EIR (EIR). The text of this report, including figures, tables and appendices, serves as the basis for this summary. ~ Summary of Qlternatives ' CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe and evaluate altematives to the project that could eliminate significant adverse project impacts or reduce them to a less-than-significant level. The following altematives are evaluated in this EIR in the Chapter 4- CEQA ~ Considerations. ^ Altemative # I- No Project Altemative I ^ Altemative #2 - Reduced Development Altemative ^ Altemative #3 - Altemate Use Altemative , Summary of Environmental Impacts All impacts identified in the subsequent environmental analysis are summarized in this section. The summary includes all impacts analyzed in this EIR by each technical area. ~ ~ , ' ~ !JI , ' ~ ~ Page ES I r ~o~.~~..~o Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR F~cecutive Summarv Table S-1: Executive Summary of Project Impacts ~ 4 ~ P~o ~ a~ ... ~~ _. E i "~ '~ ~ *" - '~ ~ „ . „z` , t af Si~iilfl ~~ oi~t ~lltigatian 3u ary~a :~11 ga s `...°" Res n Leire~ cf Si~g~-~cance~~:` ~, ~ " .` ' . ~ , .. . r _ , b z~..' Su: v '. , 3~ '~ . x. - .t. z. ..i . ... . !3ti~ E~~'+ ,._F ., a ~ '~_'.. . ~Ae`sthetlcs and~Visuai Gharacter : ~ ~~ < "w. ~..a ~~~,~. .. : .W .„~~~~ 3~. s ~~ ° ` ~ ~ ¢ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ' .ti~ x ~ ~' . q~X:. ~. ~ ' ~ ~ , "~ ~~,~~~~~~,~~~.~,~~~~.. ~,a~-~. ~~ ~ .~~~.~ . : ... ~~.. ~a:~~~~~,~ ~,~~~~~~~,~;,~,_~~m<m~~~~~~ ~,~~~~~~~ ,., ~ ~ .w.. ~~~.~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ e~ - ~~~~. .~ Impact 3.1-1: Portions of the project area are Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact visible from a designated State Scenic Highway proposed. and locally designated scenic routes. However, no scenic resources would be adversely affected as a result of Specific Plan implementation. Impact 3.1-2: Implementation of the Specific Plan Less than Significant Impact -No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact would alter the existing aesthetic character of the proposed. Downtown by intensifying commercial and mixed- use development within the area. However, the intensification of development is consistent with the guiding policies of the General Plan. In addition, the proposed DDSP includes design standards and guidelines that are designed to create a more visually appealing environment within the Downtown districts. Impact 3.1-3: The project area and its Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact surroundings are currently developed with proposed. buildings and site improvements that generate daytime and night-time light and glare: Additional sources of daytime glare and nighttime lighting would be introduced as the downtown is intensified with new commercial and mixed-use developments. The proposed Specific Plan includes design standards and design guidelines to reduce these impacts. .., ..~. ,,, ~, ~~~ °~a~ x~ ~i ~a ~~~ ~... ~ ~ ~ Air~Qualitp ani!'GreenFiause Gases- ~= ~ .~;z ~ ~. ~.~sx ~:- ~~ e~ = c p ~`~~' '~ ~~ ~ ~~' q ~~ ~ ~~= ~i~ ~ " ~' "~,+ "~~g '~' ~ n ~ , ~", , ~~ ~ ~~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~„ ~ rxm v~r a' ~~~_ : t,~ .~~u~~ ~ ~ ~ Impact 3.2-1: The proposed project would result in Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact short-term air quality impacts associated with proposed. 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 during construction activities. Page ES 2 ~ iy ~ '~1 .~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~^~r r ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ r ~ r ~ ~ - Downtown Dubiin Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summarv ,;ti ~ z x ~~? ~ ~ ~~ ~ t :z { " ~ ~ ~&. 1~flP ,. "y, ~ on~ ~ ~, ~M 4igatlortl~ s ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ *R u rig -`Si~~~ , , . _ . ~ . . . ~ ~.:. ~~ , ~.;g~ ~ . ~~..~. t ~ ~~ ~ Impact 3.2•2: The proposed project is consistent Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact with population growth assumptions in the Clean proposed. Air Pian, is anticipated to result in reduced VMT compared to population growth, and is consistent with the Plan's Transportation Control Measures. Impact 3.2-3: No major existing stationary or area Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) were proposed. identified in the vicinity of the project area. The DDSP would result in the development of mixed- use and commercial uses at the project site, which may generate sources of TACs from stationary sources. The proposed project would not result in increased exposure of sensitive land uses in excess of applicable standards. Impact 3.2-4: Carbon monoxide concentrations Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact are low in the project vicinity and the proposed 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. Impact 3.2•5: The DDSP would allow some uses Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact which generate odors, including restaurants and proposed. other uses, however limited exposure and ~ compliance with applicable regulatory requirements will ensure that any impact is less than significant. Impact 3.2•6: The DDSP would generate Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Cess than Significant Impact greenhouse gas emissions but would not conflict proposed. with or obstruct the implementation of greenhouse ~ gas reduction measures under AB 32. x~u~ ~(3e~]ogy ~, So~ie,~B~Sessmic~~r ~: .: ~ ~ -. _~ : ~: . ~ ~~"~ - ~ ~~~~~ .~ ~. - "'~ " ~' ~~~ ~~: ~ ~~~ ~n ~~ : ~ '' ~~ : ~.. ~. ~ : ~~ . ~ , . ~~ ~ r . . ~.~ . ~ _ ~~ u ~ , _. .. _ . ~~.: . .. ~ . °:~ .~ ~ ,: _ >: _ . ~~.! ~~ - ~ : ~ ~ Impact 3.3-1: Active or potentially active faults are Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact located within the project area and the Calaveras proposed. Fault traverses the westem portion of the project area. However, future development associated with the proposed project will be performed in accordance with the latest edition of the CBC, in addi6on to the oals and olicies of the Cit of ~ Page ES 3 ~ ~J ~ ~ 04 V_ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary e. ~ ~ , a~ ~ ~ .~ . ~ Q iti" ~ra > ~ . "` h ° tnma: Itl eas ~R~c~ vel #~+ca~ ~ ` , .,,.__ r a _ .€ ..,9;~ .v~:: ` _ .s'~. ,`"' .~ e.. ,x , „ . . . ,- . . +. 4 ,. ? ° `a ~3m . .,1.- . m~"^ '< Dublin General Plan. Impact 3.3•2: Ground shaking is likely to occur in Potentially Significant Impact MM 3.3-1: Project applicants shall consult with a registered Less than Significant fmpact the project area in the even of a major earthquake geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical report on one of the nearby faults resulting in the that addresses the affects of seismic ground shaking and includes a exposure of people and/or structures to potentially quantitative evaluation of liquefaction and liquefaction-induced significant adverse effects, including the risk of lateral spreading for future development in the DDSP project area. loss, injury or death. The design level geotechnical report shall specify foundations and structural elements that are designed to resist forces and potential ~ ground settlemen! for liquefaction and lateral spreading. This report shall be submitted in conjunction with a Building Permit appiication. Impact 3.3-3: Future development associated with Potentially Significant Impact Implement MM 3.3-1. Future development within the DDSP area Less than Significant Impact the proposed project is not anticipated to expose would be required to comply with the City's Building Code, people or structures to potential substantiai liquefaction regulations of the CBC, and the City's standard adverse effects of liquefaction. engineering practices and design criteria. In addition, mitigation measure MM 3.3•1 would require properties developing within this zone to prepare a design level geotechnical repoR. Impact 3.3•4: Implementation of the proposed Potentially Significant Impact Implement 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b. Future development within the Less than Significant Impact project may result in soil erosion or the loss of DDSP area would be required to comply with the City of Dublin topsoil during short-term construction activities Public Works Department policies, NPDES permit process, and the within the DDSP project area. City's Building Code requirements as described in MM 3.5-1a and 3.5-1 b. Impact 3.3-5: Implementation of the proposed Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is ~ Less than Significant Impact project would not lead to development on proposed. expansive soil. With adherence to the City's Building Code and CBC requirements, this is considered a less than significant impact. ~~~:„ ~ ~ °- ~ : ~ Hatards and tiazardous Matertats , ~rd ~ ~ ~ ~ _ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ; p ~ ,~'d '~~ ~ ~ = "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ : ` ~~r . ~~- ~ai~~ ~_ - ~u~~ ~~ , ~ ~ . ~ ~r . . ~a ~. . ~ ~.: ~ - , ~ t .~ .. G ~ ~: a fr ~:: , Impact 3.41: Future development within the Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact project area may involve the use of hazardous proposed. materials including cleaning solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other hazardous matenals typical of future retail and residentiai uses within the project area. Impact 3.42: During construction of the proposed Potentially Significant Impact Implement 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b. Prepare and implement a Less than Significant Impact project, there is the potential for the transport, use, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies how or disposal of hazardous materials, which could the discharger will protect water quality during construction activities create a hazard to the public or the environment. as required by Mitigation Measures MM 3.5•1a and 3.5-1 b. Compliance with the appropriate hazardous materials handling measures and a uisition of the NPDES Genera! Aermit for Page ES 4 ~ ` ~'1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r r^~ ~r ~ i ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- r ~r si ~^r ~ r~ ~ r^~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r rr w r a~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summarv ~~ ~ ect e ~ ~ ~ .," s ~ . ~. ~: _ . . .~., na ,~~: ~ ~ ~ ~~;~ ~ L~evet 3 n WIN~out: 3U ont~ , W N o g~ ., ~ ~ ~ - ~:~~ ~ ~ , S'~umma of ~fki on~`I~easures ~;~~ -~~,_u ;~` ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ w. ~ ~~A.~- ~° ~~~ 6~ Resui~n Level~aif~3t niflcance ~~ ~~ ; 9 ~ ~ « . . , , . ~~ , ~ _ . ~ ,~.~.~ . : ~ ,.~ , _. .,,~ ~~ ,~.~ _ f. ~ .~.., ~..,,, „ ;. ~~ ~~~,~~~. ~~~ ~..,a~~,~ ~,~~ ~.,,;rr~ construction activities would ensure that potential hazardous materials impacts during short-term construction activities associated with future development within the project area would be less than significant. Impact 3.43: The proposed project may result in Potentially Significant Impact MM 3.41: Prior to demolition of existing structures that were Less than Significant Impact the demolition and removal of structures within the constructed prior to 1980 within the project area, project applicants project area which may contain asbestos andlor shall have structures proposed for demolition inspected by a lead based paint (LBPs). qualified environmental specialist for the presence of LBPs and Asbestos (ACM) contaminating materials prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the City of Dublin. If found to be present, samples shall be collected and analyzed for ACM and lead using EPA testing methods. If actionable levels of lead and or ACM are within the structures, a remediaGon plan shall be prepared by a qualified consultant and implemented. Necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Worker safety plans shall be included in any remediaGon plans. Any hazardous materials that are removed from the sUuctures shall be disposed of at an approved landfill facility in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Impact 3.4-4: The project area is not located on a Potentially Significant Impact MM 3.42: Future development or substantial redevelopment within Less than Significant Impact hazardous material site pursuant to Govemment the project area shall prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Code Section 65962.5. Based on a search of the Assessment to determine whether or not a particular development State Water Resources Control Board's site contains any hazardous materials as a result of historic GeoTracker database, there are approximately contamination within the project area subject to review and approval seven sites within the project area that are by the City of Dublin. In the event that the Phase I recommends currently being investigated. subsequent testing, the potential health risks shall be evaluated and a work plan prepared to remediate the soil and/or groundwater in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. , This assessment shall be submitted to the City in conjunction with the Buiiding and GradinglSite work permit and shall be found acceptable by the City prior to ground disturbance. ~ ~ ~z - ~ ~~. .~ ~; ,y .,..:~ ~ _ Nytlrolagy and'Water Qualify ~ ~ g ~, ~~ ~. ~~ '" °:- ~ ~ " . ~; ~ ~, ; ~ , , .. . ~~ , . ~~ ~ ~~ _c - .~~.~ .~~ ,`~ ~~~~ ,.. . _ ~~ _ .~. . ~., : .~ Impact 3.5-1: Future construction associated with Potentially Significant Impact MM 3.5-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project Less than Significant Impact the proposed project may violate water quality proponent shall file a No6ce of Intent as required by Regional Water standards or waste discharge requirements. Quality Control Board regarding stortn water discharges associated with construction activities. Upon completion of construction activities, a Notice of Termination shall be filed. MM 3.5-1b: Prior to issuance of any building or greding permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared b the ro'ect contractors and submitted to the Re ional Water ~ Page ES 5 ~ '~ ~ ~ ~Q V Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summary , Innpa~cts ~HS. Proje ;: I.evet cf=Slgn~i nce.4Yithout MiU n. - Summa . of ~litigatian Measures ~~ ~„~ <~ ~ ~Rssul~ng Lavel M S~gniflcancs . : = ~, , , :. ~-0.. . ~ ~ . . .u..~. Quality Control Board for review and comment and to the City of .. . . Dublin in conjunction with lhe Building/Grading/Site work permit and shall be found to be acceptable by the City prior to ground disturbance. The SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program requirements, and shall identify erosion minimization and control provisions, pollution detection provisions, and pollution eliminationl minimization provisions appropriate to the development project and its site for construction and post-construction activities. The SWPPP shall include best available technology, engineering, and design solutions such as the use of silt screens, hay bales, modern trash screens, energy dissipaters, andlor absorbent devices. ~ Stormwater runoff water quality monitoring procedures shall be clearly detailed in the SWPPP. Impact 3.5-2: The proposed project would not Less than Significant Impaci No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact result in adverse impacts to the amount of proposed. available groundwater available, degrade groundwater quality, or decrease groundwater recharge in the project area. Impact 3.5-3: Construction and operation of the Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact DDSP would not substantially alter the existing proposed. drainage pattems of the area or result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite, nor would it increase the rate or amount of surface ~ runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site. Impact 3.5-4: The DDSP area is largely built-out Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact and stormwater flows with implementation of the proposed. proposed project are expected to be similar or slightly reduced due to improved management practices proposed within the proposed Specific Plan. In addition, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that impacts are minimized. Impact 3.5-5: The proposed project would not Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact expose people or structures to a significant risk of proposed. 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. Page ES 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ V- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r w rr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^ ~ r ~ r r ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summarv ProJect Irnpacts evei of Signiflcance VYithout MWgation Summary of Mitigation Measures esul~n~ i.ev ( ign ca ce ~w~ ; ... .. ~.. ~: Yx ,. > , . ~ h~~ _ ~ „ .t~' 'v~" a`a~' kt dt ts' ~,u^~ y ..: e~' re"- ' ' ` P " n- . ,. .. , ..y . , : « ,~, e- . ., . , ,.~ ~5.~~ ~ ,7's ~~ . ° ~ _. .., m.a . Land~_Qse~and~fann[rtg ~' ~ ~~ ,~ ~~~ ~-~ - „„~u _ ~~. .,;~~ Impact 3.6-1: Implementation of the proposed Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact project would amend the City's General Plan land proposed. uses within the DDSP project area and could involve new uses and sUuctures 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 3.6-2: Implementation of the proposed Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact project would not conflict with goals and policy of proposed. the City of Dublin General Plan, nor the City of Dublin Zaning Code. ~ NotSe ~ ; ~ :, a ~~~.. ~ 7 ~ ' . ai ~ ~ ¢~ ,. ~.. ~.`.: ~~. ~ r ~_' ~~..~~ ~ R. ~'. ~~ . a ;~~ .~ ~ ~° $ :~ :~= .~~ ~.:. r. ~ Impact 3.7-1: The proposed project could result in Potentially Signficant Impact MM 3.7•1a: Project applicants within the project area shall prepare a Less than Significant Impact short-term construction-related noise and vibration construction noise management plan that identifies measures to be that would exceed applicable noise standards at taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding sensitive nearby noise sensitive land uses. 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 I include, but not be limited to the following: Construction activities, including the maintenance and warming of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, beriveen the hours of 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. All consUuc6on 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 City shall require that the contractor 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 construction contractor shall provide an on-site name and telephone number of a contact person. In the event that construction noise is intrusive to an educational rocess, the construction liaison 6 ~ ~ ~ \C7'_~` V~' ~ . Page ES 7 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summarv , ~ 3 „ ~'roject ~ ~ ' ~~ ° ~ ~ _ el oP Si ~i n 'Wlt ~t Ml~i ~ io ~ ~ ~.~ Si~ihrnary=af ~t~g~io~t~Ul ~§ur~s ;~: ~ ~, ~ ~: ~ ~ ~~ ~ z Resui~ng~t:evel ~ ign~eance ~ ~ . _ t.: ~~. , will revise the construction schedule to preserve the leaming environment. Select demolition methods to minimize vibration, where possible (e.g., sawing masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers). MM 3.7•1b: Should potential future development facilitated by the proposed project require off-site import/export of fill material during construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways (Interstate 580, Interstate 680, San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Amador Valley Boulevard). 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.). Impact 3.7-2: Compliance with design guidelines Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact and development standards contained within the proposed. DDSP will ensure that potential future development within the project does not exceed established noise standards. Impact 3.7-3: Development in the project area Potentially Significant Impact MM 3.7-3: Future development within the DDSP project area that is Less than Significant Impact facilitated by the proposed project could located adjacent to Highway 580; Amador Plaza (behveen Dublin permanently increase noise fevels from mobile Boulevard and Saint Patrick Way); and Dublin Boulevard (between sources (vehicular traffic) at existing and future Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway; between Regional Street uses within the DDSP project area. and Golden Gate Drive and between San Ramon Road and Regional Street) shall prepare a site-specific acoustical analysis subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin. The acoustical analysis prepared for future development shall evaluate resultant noise impacts in comparison to the City's noise criteria for Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments. Feasible project specific mitigation measures shall be required as part of the project design to reduce noise impacts at future noise sensitive land uses, inciuding but not limited to the following: 1) site design, 2) operational restrictions; 3) barriers,4) setbacks, and 5) insulation, No development permits or approval of land use applications shall be issued until the acoustical analysis is received and approved by City staff and any project design features are incorporated into the future development project. ~tt , , ~~ . ~6 ~~ ~~ , ~~ ~~~ u w ~ ~ ~., ~?~~~~n „ ~ Public Service`s and U~liUes r " ~ . ~~~ x~ ~ ~ a. > ~. e ~~ ~.~~ ~. ~~„~~ Impact 3.8-1: The proposed project would not Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact significantly increase the need for fire protection proposed. Page ES 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ \~~ V _ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summarv ~. Pro~ect t~ acCs ~ Y~ ~ ~~~, ~~ ~ - _ . ..~, . , Cevel of ~~nrfScance 1A~thauE MiNgation ,. „ , . . Summ~ry of kAidgation i~easures - ~ , ~ , . .:. ~ , ; . ,, :.,.~~ . ~ Resaiti ieve! oi S niflcat~ce ,~ ~ . ~~b, . ~.. ~ ~ ~~ h ~~ ,.~,.~' ~.~ ~ services and result in the need for or the ~ construction of new or physically altered facilities in order to meet the City's response times far fire protection services. Impact 3.8-2: The proposed project would not Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mi6gation is Less than Significant Impact significanUy increase the need for law enforcement proposed. 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 3.8-3: Implementation of the DDSP would Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact increase the number of students in the Dublin . proposed. Unified School District (DUSD) with the construction of approximately 1,300 multifamily residential units, which would increase the capacity of the schools with serve the project area, which are operating above optimum capacity. - However, future development within the project , area would be required to pay school impact fees as required under State law to the DUSD. Payment of development impact fees would reduce the impact to DUSD to a less than significant level. Impact 3.8-4: The proposed project would Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact increase the demand for park and recreational proposed. uses within the DDSP area. However, development projects within the project area would be required to pay the City's Public Facilities Fee prior to Building Permit issuance. Impact 3.8-5: The proposed project would result in Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact an increase in demand for library services. proposed. However, exis6ng library facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not physically impact other public facilities. Impact 3.8-6: Implementation of the DDSP would Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact not require the construction of new wastewater proposed. treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities. Additionally, the existing service provider has an adequate capacity to meet this demand. Impact 3.&7: Implementation of the DDSP would Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact ~ Page ES 9 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summarv ] #ttnpa ,' k`~ ~ „, '~ :, ~, Le . el of Sig ifli~ncealAtltho~it~MiNgatinn ~' , Sunn ary u o ~e ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~;~ s Resu !i t.~ve1 af S nifi aace ~ ~~~ ~ . ~ , _: . generate an additional demand for water; however, proposed. the additional demand would be adequately served by anticipated water entitlements and resources. Impact 3.8-8: Implementation of the proposed Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact project may resuit in the increase in demand or proposed. expansion of stormwater services. Future development within the planning area would be required to pay applicable impact fees at the time of issuance of the building permits. Impact 3.8-9: Implementation of the proposed Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact project would increase the generation of solid proposed. waste, but would be served by landfills with adequate capacity to accommodate the increase. Impact 3.8-10: The proposed project may result in Less than Significant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact the expansion of electricity, gas, and proposed. telecommunications on-site; however, the majority of the DDSP area is already built-out. ~a , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~< r ~. ? ~ Transportadon~andGirculation~s ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~°~~ '~ ~ ~..~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ . :, , : . ~~,o~ x~~~ . ~~;~. .. ~ ~~~~~. ~~~ : _ . , ~.~ ~ ~... _ ~~~ ~~,~~~~..., ~.m~ ~ ~.~ u~, ~. ~ , ~. :. ~:. . ~~~~ ` Impact 3.9-1: In the Near-Term, the Base FAR Significant Impact MM 3.9-1: As required by the Alameda County Congestion Significant and Unavoidable Impact Project results in sub-standard LOS on one Management Agency, the City of Dublin will do the following to help Metropolitan Transportation System roadway reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system: segment, when compared to the Near-Term Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed Without Project scenario. at reducing traffic congestion. Encourage developers to voluntarily develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce trips associated with their project. Strategies that could be included in the program could include additional bicycle parking, shower facilities, HOV parking, direct building access for pedestrians, commute altemative incentives and convenient transit waiting areas. Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element related to bikeways. Support public transit improvements, including but not limited to rerouting, schedule adjustments, new vehicles, upgraded waiting areas, and transit information signs, to encourage use of altemative modes. Collect fees from developers in the Specific Plan Area for the Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee as well as the Downtown TIF programs prior to issuance of Building Permits, which fund local and regional transportation improvements. Page ES I0 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~--~ `~J~ V r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ r ~ +i^~ ~ r s ~ r~ r ~^ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s a~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Executive Summarv ~Projecf Impacts " _~ ,~ , , ~~,t,._; ~ ,> level ofi Signtficai~c~ WithouE (~iUgation . .,~,..m ~ ti. ~ .,~ r,~.~, ~ ~ Sammary of.Mkigatton I~easures ~: ~~: , ., x ~~,~f_ ,.u ~.~x~.:~ ~~~"~~~ ~~ _ ~. r~. ~ ~ ;~es~ng~i,svei af~,Signi~Canc~y~~ x~ K,, ~ r ~ . _ _ ~. ~ ~.~ ~., Impact 3.9-2: In the Near-Term, the Maximum Significant Impact Implement MM 3.9-1. As required under MM 3.9-1, the City of Significant and Unavoidable Impact FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on five Dublin will incorporate several measures to help reduce traffic Metropolitan Transportation System roadway congestion on the MTS system. Because the City is unable to segments, when compared to the Near- Term implement these mitigation measures at this time, and its ability to Without Project scenario. restore acceptable LOS on the identfied roadwayslfreeways cannot be assured, this impact remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Impact 3.9-3: In the Cumulative scenario, the Significant Impact Implement MM 3.9-1. As required under MM 3.9-1, the City of Significant and Unavoidable Impact Maximum FAR Project results in substandard LOS , Dublin will incorporate several measures to help reduce traffic on eight Metropolitan Transportation System congestion on the MTS system. Because the City is unable to roadway segments, when compared to the implement these strategies at this time, and its ability to restore ` Cumulative Without Project case. acceptable LOS on the identified roadways/freeways cannot be assured, this impact remains signficant and unavoidable after mitigation. Impact 3.9-4: The Base FAR Project will increase Significant Impact MM 3.9-4: The City will continue to support and work with LAVTA to Less than Significant Impact transit demand, generating an estimated 2,200 define route changes and increased service as needed as the Plan weekday daily transit trips (bus and BART area develops. combined). This will create the need for bus route adjustments and increased bus frequency. Impact 3.9-5: The Plan contains Guiding Less than Signficant Impact No significant impact has been identified; therefore no mitigation is Less than Significant Impact Principles to "create a pedestrian-fiendly proposed. downtown that minimizes potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists" and to "enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate altemaGve transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle and pedestrian transportation " ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ Page ES I I 1 ~ ' ' ~ ' , LJ ' ' ' ~ ' ' ' ~ , ' ~ 7 ~~ ~~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Introduction I . Introduction I.I. Purpose This programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (the proposed project) in accordance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. A full descnption 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 (including climate change); geology, soils and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise and vibration; public services, utilities and recreation, and transportation and traffic. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with 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 altematives 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 I 5382 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." 1.2. 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 I 5082(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Dublin Community Development Department circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to responsible and trustee agencies and to the Alameda County Clerk for a period of 30-days in order to solicit comments on the scope of the EIR regarding the proposed project (See Appendix A), The comment period of the NOP was from ~ Page I-I ' Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR Introduction i~a~ ~i~3 1 February I, 20 I 0 to March 3, 20 I 0. A total of four comments letters were received on the NOP from the following agencies: Alameda Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7); Alameda County Congestion Management Agency; Califomia Energy Commission; and Caltrans. Concems 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 altematives. 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 published and circulated for review and comment by the public and other interested parties, agencies and organizations for a 45-day review period from September 20, 2010 through November 4, 2010. Concurrent with the Notice of Completion (NOC), the City provided a public notice of the availability 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. The review period for the Draft EIR is 45 days. Notice of the time and location of a City meeting to receive comments on the Draft EIR will be published prior to the hearing. 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, Califomia 94568 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 altemative to the proposed project. 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. The rule of adequacy generally holds that the EIR can be certified Page I-2 ~ , ~~3~ ~8~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Introduction ~ ifi I) it shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information, and 2) ~ provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the project in contemplation of environmental considerations. ~ 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 I 5093 (Statement of Overriding Considerations). , 1.3. Report Organization Sections I 5 I 22 through I 5 I 32 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; altematives 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 proposed Specific Plan, 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 I.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 inforrnation 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 I-3 ~ oo~>~~r,wo Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Introduction ~ ~~ ~~~ 1 -~ ~ Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The potential change in character of the planning area as measured against the existing setting and visual conditions and surrounding land uses is discussed within subsection 3.1: Aesthetics and Visual Resources. Project visibility, scale, additional light and glare, and visual character are considered relative to the predominantly urban nature of the planning area. The analysis is based on a site reconnaissance, photo documentation of the planning area, and existing policy documents (e.g. City of Dublin General Plan). Air ualit : This subsection addresses the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and analyzes local and regional air quality and greenhouse gases impacts associated with project implementation 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 from surrounding uses. This analysis is based on air quality modeling performed for the proposed project by RBF Consulting based on the traffic impact analysis prepared by Fehr and Peers, which is included as Appendix D of the Draft EIR. Geology, Soils & Seismicity: This subsection examines potential geologic and seismic hazards, as well as any engineering constraints and general soil suitability for the land uses proposed as part of the proposed Specific Plan. Information contained in this section is based on various planning documents including the Soil Survey o f Alameda County. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: This subsection evaluates the potential presence of hazardous materials and contaminated soil within the planning 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. The potential risk of these conditions in proximity proposed development and human activities is evaluated. ~drology and Water Quality: The impacts of the proposed project on hydrology, storm drainage, water resources and water quality are discussed within this section. The analysis also identifies existing drainage pattems, potential flood hazards and stormwater retention requirements of the City of Dublin. Several properties are located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain, which would be subject to floodplain regulations. To comply with the requirements of CEQA, the potential effects of the proposed project on flooding is evaluated. Mitigation measures are included to address any significant surface water hydrology impacts. Land Use and Plannin~: 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 o f Dublin General Plan. Noise & Vibration: Compatibility between the existing noise environment and anticipated noise levels generated by the project-generated traffic, by on-site activities and cumulative noise from area roadways upon completion of the proposed project are examined within Page I-4 ~ ~ '~ I ~S ~ ~~3 , Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Introduction ~ ~ this subsection of the EIR. This section is based on noise modeling conducted for the ~ proposed project by RBF Consulting, which is included in the appendices of the Draft EIR. Construction and long-term operation impacts associated with vibration from Interstates 680 and 580 and the BART railway line are also addressed. ~ Public Services, Utilities, and Recreation: This subsection addresses the availability of existing public facilities and services, and calculates demand generated by the proposed ' project for additional facilities 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 water service, wastewater treatment and disposal, natural gas and electric service, and solid waste impacts are also addressed in this subsection of the EIR. ' Transportation and Traffic: This subsection examines potential impacts on the area roadway network, including roadway segments and intersections. Scenarios evaluated include: existing conditions, background conditions, background plus project conditions, and ~ cumulative conditions based on City o f Dublin General Plan buildout. This subsection also addresses altematives transportation (e.g. public transit, pedestrian access; and bicycle routes). This subsection is based on a traf~ic impact analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers, ' which is included in the appendices of this 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 altematives to the proposed project and cumulative impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable altematives 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 altematives analysis compares the proposed project with three selected altematives, which include the following: ' ^ Altemative # I- No Project Altemative; ^ Altemative #2 - Reduced Development Alternative; and ~ ^ Altemative #3 - Alterr~ate Use Plan ' Impacts associated with cumulative development were analyzed based on the project's effects in combination with a summary of projections in the adopted City of Dublin General , Plan. , ~ Page I-5 ~ oo~.~",.o Downtown Dublin Speafic Plan Draft EIR Introduction l7~ ~~g`~ ~ 1 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 govemmental 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. 1.4. 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 altematives 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 altematives 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 I-6 1 ~~~~ ~g3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Projed Descnption t 2. Project Description ' A Specific Plan is a planning tool that combines traditional zoning with general design and development standards tailored to the unique conditions of a particular site. It contains ' policies, development standards, and implementing regulations necessary for development within a particular designated area. ' The purpose of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (hereinafter "DDSP," "proposed Specific Plan," or proposed project) is to guide development and design within approximately 284 acres located in downtown Dublin. This will be accomplished by a set , of regulations, design principles, and related implementing actions designed to foster quality development. These regulations, guidelines, and standards build upon the goals, objectives, and policies of the City o f Dublin General Plan (hereinafter "General Plan") and the , objectives of the DDSP, recognizing the DDSP area's strategic location in the City and the region. , The DDSP is organized into the following chapters: ^ Introduction t ^ Site and Context ^ Land Use and Development Plan , ^ Development Standards and Design Guidelines ^ Mobility and Infrastructure ' ^ Implementation and Administration ' 2.1. Project Location The DDSP project area (hereinafter "project area") is located in the City of Dublin in ~, eastem Alameda County, just south of the border of Contra Costa County. Regional access to the City is from Interstate 580, Interstate 680, and the Dublin/Pleasanton line of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BAR~. Cities that border Dublin include San Ramon to the north ~ (in Contra Costa County), Pleasanton to the south, and Livermore to the south and east. The regional location is shown in Figure 2- I: Regional Location. ' 2.2. Project Area The project area is located in the southwestem portion of the City and is approximately ~ 284 acres in size. The DDSP Project area is generally bound by Village Parkway to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, San Ramon Road to the west, and Amador Valley Boulevard to the north. There are some areas that extend beyond those roadways, most notably a ' portion of San Ramon Road, a portion of Amador Valley Boulevard, and all of Village Parkway. The project vicinity is shown in Figure 2-2: Specific Plan Area. , ~ Page 2-I ' oo~.~~„~a ~?~~~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR Project Description The majority of the land uses include regional serving retail in the center of the project area. These include: Target, Toys R Us, Burlington Coat Factory, Ranch 99 Market, Orchard Supply Hardware, Ross, and Marshall's. Several large scale retailers have closed recently (2009) due to the current economic recession and/or other factors. There are two auto dealerships in the Specific Plan area. One dealership is located in the southeast comer of Dublin Boulevard and Golden State Drive, and the other is located at the southeast comer of Saint Patrick Way and Amador Plaza Road. Smaller specialty retail, convenience retail, and services are generally located west of Regional Street and along Amador Valley Boulevard, Amador Plaza Road, and Village Parkway. Office uses within the project area include the Corrie Center (located southeast of Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street), the Chase Bank Building (southwest of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive) and the Hites office complex (located at the south end of Amador Plaza Road). Other notable land uses include the 238-room Holiday Inn, Earl Anthony's Dublin Bowl, Dublin Post Office, Dublin Iceland, and a senior center with an associated 54-unit Wicklow Square apartment complex. ~ BART has begun construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and parking garage, which is located on the south side of the downtown area at the terminus of Golden Gate Drive. The new station platform will be located in the median of I-580. Construction of this station will be completed in 201 I. Land uses in and around the DDSP project area are shown in Figure 2-3: Existing Land Uses. ~ 2.3. Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations The Land Use Element and Land Use Map in the City of Dublin General Plan establish the policy for change and growth within the City. 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 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designations, land use designations in and around the project area include: Residential (Single-Family to High Density), Mixed-Use, Retail/Office and Automotive, Business Park/Industrial, Parks/Public Recreation, and Public/Semi-Public. There are five (S) existing Specific Plans that apply to the greater downtown area of the City of Dublin. They are: • Downtown Core Specific Plan ^ West Dublin BART Specific Plan ^ Village Parkway Specific Plan (VPSP) ^ San Ramon Road Specific Plan (SRRSP) Page 2-2 ~ ~o.e~~m~o ' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~q ~ `~~3 , Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Proiect Descri~tion 1 , ~ ~~ , ~ ' ' ~ ' i ' ~ , ' ' ^ Dublin Downtown Specific Plan (DDSP 87) A description of each of these Specific Plans and their boundaries are described in the DDSP (Appendix A). A majority of the DDSP project, area is zoned Planned Development (PD). Remaining parcels are zoned Retail Commercial (C- I) and General Commercial (C-2). Zoning within the DDSP and surrounding areas are shown in Figure 2-5: Current Zoning. 2.4. Proposed Project Characteristics & Objectives The DDSP consists of a comprehensive set of incentives, standards, and requirements that will implement the vision for the future development of downtown Dublin. The DDSP will define the physical envelope for downtown Dublin's future growth using height limits, setbacks, density, and design standards. The DDSP will act as the planning tool to guide and direct new development, economic development, transportation improvements (including pedestrian and transit-oriented development), parking, pedestrian amenities, and public open space (e.g. public plazas). The DDSP will be instrumental in promoting a more walkable, livable downtown Dublin, as well as providing incentives for development in keeping with the City's broader vision. The DDSP project area has been divided into three districts, based on the existing building pattems and land uses within each area and the intended development envisioned for each district. These three distncts, namely the Retail District, the Village Parkway District, and the Transit-Orient District, are shown in Figure 2-6: DDSP Districts/Land Use Designations A set of guiding principles were prepared as part of the DDSP and serve as the project objectives for this EIR. These guiding principles were drawn from a focused market study (Keyser Marston and Associates 2009), field observations, interviews with stakeholders, discussions with City Staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and professional urban design principles. The purpose of these guiding principles is to define a framework for future land uses, development standards and design guidelines for the project area and each district. These guiding principles are organized for the overall Specific Plan Area and each of the three districts and are described below. Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles The following guiding principles have been identified for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area. ^ Create or encourage opportunities for more nightlife activities (e.g. cinemas, restaurants, etc.). ^ Support short-term incentives to promote development in downtown Dublin such as expedited permitting, and sales tax reimbursement program (the later of which currently exists). ~ Page 2-3 ' oo..~~~,wa Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan EIR Project Descnption . ig~~ ~~ , ^ Consider the development of a community benefit payment in retum for increased density/FAR (i.e. density bonus/incentive program) that could be used to pay for. public improvements in the Planning Area. ^ Increase the amount of retail sales and related economic activity throughout downtown Dublin. ^ Enhance the visual quality of downtown Dublin, including public streetscape improvements (via the City's existing Streetscape Master Plan), entryways, on-site landscaping and the appearance of individual buildings. ^ Create a pedestrian-friendly downtown that minimizes potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. ^ Encourage a greater joint usage of parking areas through compatible mixes of uses and enhanced pedestrian connections. ^ Accept increased traffic congestion (i.e. reduced level of service) in the downtown as a result of concentrating development near BART and major transportation facilities, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and increasing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. ^ Consider more flexible and appropriate parking~standards that reflect verifiable demand and consider the transit-oriented land uses in the area. ^ Enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate altemative transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation. ^ Encourage businesses that support evening activities for adults and teenagers, such as restaurants, theaters, and bookstores. ^ Work with property owners and business to achieve the goals and objectives of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. ^ Seek other funding opportunities to help leverage city and development dollar5. ^ Work with local businesses and property owners to establish a business improvement district that would help to fund downtown improvements. ^ The cost of infrastructure should be paid for by development. ^ Encourage the use of local (Tri-Valley) labor when feasible and the support of local and regional businesses as part of any development project. ^ Encourage development that will create a vibrant and dynamic downtown that is considered an attractive and distinctive amenity to the Tri-Valley Region. Retail District Guiding Principles In addition to the Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles, the following guiding principles have been identified for the Retail District. ^ Encourage and support large-format regional retail as an important community and financial asset of the City. Page 2-4 ~ ~a.e~.n.o ' ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Descnption ' ^ Develop design standards and guidelines that support and enhance large-format ~ regional retail uses such as optimal building configuration and design, signage, more efficient parking, parking strategies, pedestrian amenities, landscaping, etc. ~ ^ Encourage a diverse mix of complementary land uses including civic uses, eating establishments, entertainment, and similar uses that complement existing retail land uses. ^ Identify ways to improve/enhance non-vehicular and vehicular circulation and ~ connections that are pedestrian friendly, particularly in areas that contain large, expansive parking lots. ~ ^ Support relocating the existing storm drain that extends east-west through the district to allow for greater flexibility in future development efforts. ' ^ Allow higher density housing and additional units. Transit-Oriented District Guiding Principles ~ In addition to the Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles, the following guiding principles have been identified for the Transit-Oriented District. ' ^ Promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and active district. ^ Retain existing auto dealerships while supporting their eventual relocation to other ~ easterly locations within the City of Dublin. ^ Identify opportunity sites for future development that incorporate mixed-use and provide public and/or private plazas and outdoor gathering areas at strategic ~ locations. ^ Encourage underground and/or above ground parking structures. ^ Encourage housing along Dublin Boulevard only as part of a mixed-use ' development with ground floor office or retail uses. ~ Village Parkway District Guiding Principles I n addition to the Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles, the following guidelines have been identified for the Village Parkway District. , ^ Continue to support a diverse mix of complementary land uses along Village Parkway. ' ^ Create opportunities for integrating live/work units into the Village Parkway area 1 2.5. Proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning ' The Dublin General Plan, including the General Plan Land Use Map, will be amended concurrent with the adoption of the DDSP to include a DDSP Land Use Designation to replace the existing General Plan land use designations for the area and to amend goals and 1 ~ Page 2-5 1 ~a..~~r,~o ~~~ L~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR ~ Project Description policies in the General Plan which relate to the Specific Plan Area. The proposed General Plan designations are shown in Figure 2-6: DDSP Districts/Land Use Designations. The Zoning Map for the DDSP Area will be amended concurrent with the adoption of the DDSP to rezone the DDSP project area to PD, Planned Development. Where land use regulations and/or development standards in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance are inconsistent with the DDSP, the PD zoning district overlay standards and regulations shall prevail. Any issue not specifically addressed in the DDSP 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 zoning is shown in Figure 2-7: Proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Zoning. 2.6. Proposed Land Uses and Development Plan As described in the DDSP, the vision for downtown Dublin is to become a vibrant and dynamic commercial and mixed-use center that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping, services, dining, working, living and entertainment in a pedestrian-friendly and aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts both local and regional residents. Each district will have a particular development focus, as described below. Retail District The Retail District is envisioned to continue to serve as the primary regional and community shopping destination in the City. Given their large building format and existing long-term leases, it is likely that many of the existing buildings will remain. New and remodeled buildings will complement the existing uses with designs that are compatible with adjacent structures and the district as a whole. Buildings shall utilize "green" matenals as well as matenals that are of high quality - durable, attractive, long- lasting, and in context with the building architecture. While compatibility is important, creativity and unique designs are encouraged that can establish a signature look for the district. Areas adjacent to buildings (including surface parking lots) will be designed to create more inviting pedestrian-friendly gathering spaces and amenities and will incorporate pathways and additional landscaping to encourage walking between businesses and improve the visual quality of the area.. A pedestrian-scale, walkable environment will be encouraged by incorporating amenities, where feasible, such as paseos (e.g. walkways, promenades), plazas, courtyards, benches, and informal gathering spaces. Connectivity within the District and to other areas outside the District will be strongly encouraged. Businesses in the Retail District are envisioned to include a mix of retail (ranging from small independent retailers to national regional-serving retailers), service, office, civic, and limited residential uses east of Amador Plaza Road. Areas adjacent to buildings (including surface parking lots) will be designed to create more inviting pedestrian-friendly gathering spaces and amenities and will incorporate pathways Page 2-6 ~ oo~.~~r.o ' ~ ' ' r ~g3 ~ `~~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ,Project Descnption and additional landscaping to encourage walking between businesses and improve the visual quality of the area. A pedestrian-scale, walkable environment will be encouraged by incorporating amenities, where appropnate, such as paseos (e.g. walkways, promenades), plazas, courtyards, benches, and informal gathering spaces. Connectivity within the District and to other areas outside the District will be strongly encouraged. Transit-Oriented District , The vision for the Transit-Oriented District is to encourage the development of the area with land uses that support and complement transit uses, particularly the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. These types of uses would include mixed-use that ~ include office or residential above ground floor retail, high-density multi-family residential, office uses and are generally more urban than the surrounding area. ' Land uses should provide the opportunity for a variety of activities such as offices, hotels, ~ restaurants, shopping, etc. to encourage activity both during the day and at night for both ~ youths and adults. " New and remodeled buildings will complement the existing uses with designs that are ~ compatible with adjacent structures and the distnct as a whole. Buildings shall utilize "green" materials as well as materials that are of high quality - durable, attractive, long- lasting, and in context with the building architecture. While compatibility is important, ~ creativity and unique designs are encouraged that can establish a signature look for the district. ~ A pedestrian-scale, walkable environment will be encouraged by incorporating amenities, where appropriate, such as paseos (e.g. walkways, promenades), plazas, courtyards, benches, and informal gathering spaces. Connectivity within the District and to other areas ~ outside the District will be strongly encouraged. Village Parkway District~ ~ Village Parkway will be a pedestrian-oriented district that also accommodates through traffic. Buildings will be sited at or near the sidewalk with parking provided at the rear to encourage walking and create a more consistent street edge. ~ Opportunities for live/work, mixed-use, and multi-family residential buildings will be encouraged throughout the district and compliment the predominantly commercial district, ' largely developed with retail, office, and certain automotive uses. Revitalizing and continuing to upgrade the appearance and functionality of the Village ~ Parkway District will be encouraged so that existing and new businesses, particularly those providing specialty commercial services, can continue prosper. New and remodeled buildings will complement the existing uses with designs that are compatible with adjacent ~ structures and the district as a whole. Buildings shall utilize "green" materials as well as materials that are of high quality - durable, attractive, long-lasting, and in context with the 1 ~ Page 2-7 1 0o~.~.t,~o ~~ ~~~ ~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR ~ Project Description building architecture. While compatibility is important, creativity and unique designs are encouraged that can establish a signature look for the district. A pedestrian-scale, walkable environment will be encouraged by incorporating amenities, where appropriate, such as paseos (e.g. walkways, promenades), plazas, courtyards, benches, and informal gathering spaces. Connectivity within the District and to other areas outside the District will be strongly encouraged. Existing EntitEed Projects In addition to new development envisioned as part of the DDSP, there are a number of development projects within the Transit-Oriented Distnct that are entitled but have not yet been constructed and are identified in Table 2- I: Entitled Projects. All of the project sites are located between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street. Table 2-1: Entitled Projects ~ eve~~pm ' ~ ~ i~t "" ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ i~ ~~~ ~~ taii" ~' ~ ~~~{s , ~; ~ ~ . ,~ el ~ ~~ ~~ ;: ~ D . to ~ ~~ D ~. ~ ~~: ~~, . arnr~erc 1' ~ ~ . ~ Essex Site Vacant 309 -- - -- AMB Site 208,829 sf 308 -- --150,000 -- warehouse building Hotel Future Vacant - 7,500 150 Custom 29, 270 Fireplace Total 617 36,770 150,000 150 Source: City of Dublin 2009 All of these entitled projects as well as the development potential identified in the in the DDSP are addressed on a programmatic level in this EIR. Development Plan The DDSP provides a development plan for the next I 5 to 20 years. Each Specific Plan district identifies a broad range of land uses that can be developed, either by right or through Use Permit. These land uses include regional retail, community retail, office, residential, mixed use and public uses. Given the uncertainty in market conditions and the fact that no particular development projects are proposed as part of the DDSP, this approach will allow greater flexibility in the ultimate development pattem, while still maintaining a common vision for function and urban character within the DDSP project area. Page 2-8 ~ ~a..~~.,.o ' ~ ~~-t ~~~~- ~ I g5~ `~~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description ' For each district, the DDSP identifies a specific set of development standards that will apply to all new buildings and significantly remodeled buildings. These standards include lot size ~ and building placement, access, parking, building density or floor-area ratio (FAR), and building height and setbacks. ~ The actual density of development allowed on a particular parcel will be regulated by DDSP. The DDSP identifies both a base FAR that is allowed by right (for non-residential ~ square footage only) and a maximum FAR that can be constructed based on the use and District in which it is located. If a property owner would like to develop a project beyond the base FAR or construct residential dwellings,.they may obtain additional square footage ~ up to the maximum FAR by drawing on the Development Pool that has been established for residential and non-residential development in each District. Table 2-2: DDSP Development Pool, identifies the allocation of both non-residential and residential , development by distnct that is allocated as part of the development pool. Table 2-2: DDSP Development Pool Retail District 368,420 100 ~ Transit-Oriented 1,724,800 1,100 District Village Parkway 0 100 ~ District "~This number assumes residential development of 1,200 square feet per unit ~ When a project applicant proposes to develop using a portion of the density development pool allocation, they will be required to enter into an agreement with the City and provide a community benefit in accordance with the Community Benefit Program which will be ' used to construct improvements in the DDSP project area, or construct improvements as part of the project which provide a community benefit (e. g. outdoor plazas, parks, street improvements). The life of the agreement will be limited to a specific time period so that if ' a project is not constructed, the square footage can be retumed to the density development pool and available for use by another development project within the ~ respective district of the DDSP. Future Build-out Development Potential ,~ For the purposes of the DEIR, future buildout is based on existing development as of 2009 plus the Maximum FAR development potential identified in the DDSP. A breakdown of the DDSP future buildout development potential is shown in Table 2-3: DDSP Future ~ Buildout Development Potential below. ~ , ~ Page 2-9 1 ~o~.~~~,~o Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR Project Description /~~ ~$~ ~, Table 2-3: DDSP Future Buildout Development Potential * While this represents the theoretical buildout capacity of development in the DDSP project area, the ultimate amount of future development will likely be considerably less due to non-tangibles such as market demand, ownership pattems, tenant lease terms, etc., as well as the fact that the DDSP project area is already largely developed resulting in significant physical limitations such as parcel configurations, parking, and circulation. 2.6.7 Infrastrutture Improvements Site Access and Circulation The proposed Specific Plan does not propose any changes to the existing public roadway network; however, vehicular circulation improvements may be required on private property. Any improvements to public streets (including travel lanes, sidewalks, and landscaping), apart from those identified as mitigation measures in this EIR, will require separate environmental analysis. Saint Patrick Wav Extension As part of future development, Saint Patrick Way will be extended as a public roadway from Golden Gate Drive to Regional Street. The extension would be necessary to more efficiently move vehicular traffic east-west through the Transit-Oriented District and would be constructed as a two-lane roadway with parking and sidewalks. This extension was planned for as part of the WDBSP and environmental analysis has been completed. Pedestrian Easements The existing east-west pedestrian easement on the properties extending from Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road in the Retail District may be improved to provide a better connection for pedestrians. Access to this easement would be included from sidewalks and across the rear service alley behind the existing retail establishments. This easement would be improved as a private outdoor space (such as a paseo) and follow the guidelines as described in the DDSP. Landscaping, benches, building-mounted and string lighting, small product vendors, entrances to retail establishments, projecting shade elements, and other similar elements would be included to enhance the pedestrian realm. ' Page 2-10 ~ ~o.e~~r~o ' .~ t~ ~~7~ ~~3 ~ J Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Project Description ' Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation ~ The City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan identifies existing and proposed bikeways located throughout the City. The Bikeways Master Plan recommends exploring opportunities to expand the network throughout Downtown Dublin and creating improved connections to ' the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Bicycle facilities such as bike lockers, bike racks, and shower facilities are encouraged in or near the station. Direct access to bicycle parking should be provided throughout Downtown Dublin and tuming movements at intersections ~ and into/out of major developments should be explored. Specifically, the DDSP recommends improving Golden Gate Drive with bike lanes (Class II bikeway) between v. Dublin Boulevard and the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. T Public Transportation ~ The proposed Specific Plan does not propose any changes to the existing transit service ~ through Downtown Dublin. However, transit routes may be altered in the future to better connect passengers with the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Such improvements 1 should consider the timing of the BART trains, distance traveled from one transit mode to another, and facilities, such as benches, shelters, signage, and crossings. Improvements to existing and new bus stops would be improved in accordance with the City of Dublin ~ Streetscape Master Plan. Water ~ Water infrastructure within the DDSP project area is provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). New development would tie into the existing service lines 1 which have adequate capacity to serve the DDSP project area. Other than minor construction to improve/expand existing connections, no major upgrades to water infrastructure will be required. ~ Sanitary Sewer DSRSD also provides wastewater collection services in the DDSP project area. Sewer ~ improvements were recently made in the project area to accommodate existing and future demand. These included the Dublin Boulevard West Sever Relief project, completed in 2008 and the Orchard Supply Hardware Sewer Replacement is planned to be conducted in conjunction with Saint Patrick Way. Similar to water services, new development would tie into the existing infrastructure and no major upgrades to the sanitary sewer system are anticipated. '~ Stormwater Infrastructure Design guidelines in the DDSP encourage increased percolation through the use of ~ vegetated swales, curb extensions, reconfigured parking lots with increased landscaping, and the use of pervious materials (e.g. pervious pavers), particularly in parking lots. Implementation of these design guidelines would result in a net reduction of off-site ~ stormwater discharge rates and would improve water quality as compared to existing conditions. ~ ~ Page 2- I I ~ ~a..~~r,~o ~~~~ ~~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR Project Description Several properties within the planning area are located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. New construction will be subject to floodplain regulations. The Zone 7 Stream Management Plan contains plans to retrofit the culvert that carries water from Dublin Creek under ponlon Way. The retrofit will increase the culvert capacity and reduce the risk of flooding in the DDSP project area. 2.7. Requested Actions, Entitlements, and Required Approvals The City is the lead agency with the authority to carry out or approve the proposed project. The City's actions include certification of the EIR for the proposed project, as well as adoption of the DDSP, associated rezoning, and General Plan Amendment; and amendment to the San Ramon Road Specific Plan. The proposed project also includes a General Plan Amendment to exempt intersections within the Project Area, including Dublin Blvd/San Ramon Road and Village Parkway/Interstate 680 on-ramp, from Guiding Policy G in the General Plan, which strives to maintain .a LOS of D or better for intersections in the City: This EIR is intended as a Program EIR, and specific development proposed made in the DDSP project area would be subject to separate environmental review. In addition to the City, federal, regional, and state responsible agencies have discretionary authority over certain aspects of development project. Future approvals within the planning area may require additional site planning and related permits by the City of Dublin and may include, but are not limited to: ^ Development Agreement; ^ Demolition Permits; ^ Subdivision Maps; ^ Parcel Maps and boundary adjustments; ^ All Final Improvement Plans; ^ Utility Plans; ^ Construction Phasing and Duration; ^ Site Development Review; ^ Landscaping and Lighting Plans; and ^ Grading, paving, Engineering and Building Permits. Subsequent development may also require obtaining a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which would be a responsible agency under CEQA. Page 2- I 2 ~ ~o.e~~„~o -~ ~~~ ~~3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific P an Draft EIR Project Description ' ~J ~ ~ This page intentionally le ft blank, ~ ~' ' ' ~ Page 2-13 ~ oo~.~~.,~o ~ ~~~~, ~~3 . . "i 2 y...+ 1 "3 ~,,. m '~ ~'~ tA ~ ,.*x d ~ "~ "v~ if ~ ~ ,Pd ~ ~~ ~ ~ / ~, ,"z f ~ 'C. ~ ~~ ~~, ~~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ .s ~. ~ .S\ ,~, ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~.... } " e ~ ~,- ~ ~ .~ }~~'` ,. '~`,v ~`i ~ t ~, 4~, ~ ~~~~5 °~ 5~~~~,~° ~ ~ r ~i .~j(` ~v~€~, (< ~ ...,_ _~,l ~ y' r , ,r e ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~ ~~ ~~ ~{'. 4 4 ~~Sa t ROSB;~ ~ '? ~ j~~~ !~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~°~ -~ ~ ,~ v ,~~1 ~~~~' ~~ ~ ~i ~ ,~ ~ ~~' .. ~ g . ~"` °~ ~ w ~ ~ ~„~ L a „ ~ ~ ` .^5~ .~~'~ ~ ~ ~} ~ ~ r ! ' ~' "~~ ,,~ ~- ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~N ~ ~ ~ ~ "a ,~r ~ ~ ;+t ~ ~ ~ i~ r '° ~ . ~ ,.~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~3 ~' r~ i~ -y , ~s -~ # z c .~ ~ ~ r ~ s ~ ~ ~s q ~~ - f .s r .t t :~-,,.,.s 101 .~ ~ s ~~-~, \~~ ~~ ~' ~. ~~,. ~ ~~'t` ~: .~r~ f /f~` `, ~~~. , a .~~: ~, r ~ a~ ~ n ~ ,~ \ v ,~ € a : ~ a~~ ~f ,. ``~. .~.. \~ °~`b`^. `` ~. ~ ~ y~ ,,.,~ ` .,~~r9 µ. a ' ~".+'~s" f~~~~ .~rv ~ -: s~ ) ~ ~ ~. i`. ~ ~ ~,€,-~~~ ~'~t'~~ 'rr z~'`\ ~,~ '~°°~ ~~ ~~ "~E~,„,~ '.. ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ' ~.. ~ , ~ 1'~~' )~~'~~.' F` , ` ~..~~~ ~ ,.~€ ~' ~ ~ '~' ,~ ~ i~~'~ ~` {~l^~ ; ~ ~ ~ . ~,;_ ~ ~ .~y ~ ~ ~~ ' ~j~ " . ~,~ ~ ~ ~T ' s ~~~ ~ ~ `'` ~ i -~~ ~ s~, ~ ~i ~ ~ ~~~ S~ ~ ~ ~ l~~ °~~ ~ ~( 1' r < ~`' ~ y, r~ ~t~~, ~~', K r` P'~~~ ~ ~~"" ;~,. i '~ ~:~ ~ . ~'~ _ ~:: a~~ ~r ~€' _ ..te.= ~ :~"~~ `~ ' ~ ~ ~° ,~' ~ t} „ ~ ~ ~l ~ # ' ~~r'~~~ µ 6 ~ ~ ~~ % ~sa" > ' ~~ ~ ~,„ ~ ~ •~~ ~ ~ ~~"~ ~ '` Va I I ej ~ ~ ~ ~~>~ ~~ :~ ~/! 4 ~ ~' '~ ;~ ~ ~ , ~~ ~ ; ~ ;~~ ~;~ ~~ ~ ~ 4~~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ j ~ , ~ ~~ ~ s r +~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -c` ~ ~~ ~`~V,,~ ~~~ ~ „ ( ~ '~`~ ~ ~~-~ s ;. ~ , .~ ,~ a~ ~' `` ~d 3` ~ _ t~. } ' ,s ,a.~'', ~ ' ~ ~ ~"' . % . ~ir~ ~, ~ -` 9~v+. ~.~.,~~~`.^..'a ~ ,.,,~~ ~ 'lx ~m ~~ ;.. ~ '.^ ` ~ m„~ ~`\ F i 11Ci~' ~ ~e~~~ ~ .~~~~~~ '`~San Rafaelf`~, ,'~~~ ~ `` ~,~~~ ~ , ~ ~°;~~ .~.; ~ ~'~~g~ ~~ ' ~,, ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. s ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~: a ~~~ E ~ ~> ` -° i "~ ~° ~` ,~t ~~ ~~~~ -`~ ~ ~ ~~~ 1~ ~ ; ~~ Antioch ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~,`""`~,~~~ : '~,,.~~. s~ ~ ~~~ '~~ ~ ~1~~~``~~ ~ ' ''rf.~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ '` ~'~` E~ :~ "~:x§ ~zr.> ~ ~~¢ -:~~ ~~ , r~°~ s~~'~ ~" ~~~ „,p ~' t`~ a~ ~,e" *~}.~~ ~« ~ ~ ~ ~" ~,, '~ ~ -. ~. ,~ ' ~ ,3 i : ~,~ ~7 _ ~'~~ (/j~ '.r~ '~~t ' ~ ~ *~~-`~~ 4 ~ ~~~ ~, v~• ~ ~ ~, 11 ~ ,~ ~ v ~, ~C~oncord ~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ , 4 ~ ~ 1~: ~ ~ , ' ~ , ~ ,~r~~ ~ °~,' ~ ~" ~~~ ~~ ~ „~# ' ~~~~~~`~m; ~ ~ ~ ~`~~ ~ _ (' t # f~ i ~n ~ <:.~ ~ ~ -1i ,a}l: ~F~~: ~ i ~ `s-:* u,~~i~a ~~"'~.., . ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '`~ ~ <~'~~ Project S~te ~ ` °~~ ;~~ ~;~ ~`~ ' _~~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~- i ~ San Fran~ Co '~ ~ ~Oakland~ ` ;: ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~` --~ ~~ ~'~ . _~ - ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ' > ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ i}~} `'~~ ~r =~ ~_ :~~ c~ ~" ~ ~ • ~ `'~ ~ ~ ~ \ ,s~ ~ _ ~' i./~~'~~ r f i~., ..i p ~ ~ '~i_c ~'~~' ~~.:~ ' ;~ t ~ ~ ~° ` 4 ~ ~`~ ~~ e~"~ ~-, ` ~ , Du bhn ` I , ~ $ ; ~ 4n ~,,~ a ~ '.~...,q ~ ~ ~~ ~ `+ t ~,: } $r a~ y ; ,~i `~ . ~~ ,.yµ~+ x I~ S ~~ aa F1~ ~ `y ~ ~%. ~ ' ~ V,~- p ~.~ ~i~'/ w ~ d '~ . ~. ~~ , g',r.~ ~ ' . ~ , ~~ . ~'+ }1# 7"5 :^ .{ '~ . , ~ ~ . : 1 ~ ~s~a~^' Y~ ~ ~ ~p~ ^u;,, k J „j~~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ sr~X ~ ~'n r'~ ~ N , z s t' j~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~` } _~~~. ~ '~ ~ e r a ~ ~. ' ~.~ . C .i' ~ Y F k ~ ~ ~.. p ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ .'. ....A F . ,~ ., ~' ~ ~, ~ `T~.~ . .~ ~ ~ , . 101 ~ 1 ' ~,~ ',.:~ ~ ~ ~:~, ~ °~-,~ `~ ~ ~ '.~ ~ i^~ ~ ' ~~ ~-^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ~.° ~ ~ r ' ~ ~ ~ ~,~. ~_ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ "`.`~" . ~~ ~~ ~S~ s~~ -~.,: t,~ ~ _ ~_ ~ ~ `>%~ / ~ o i ~. w ~ ~ / ~. ; i,,r~ ~" ~ r . ~ ;~,~ t'`~y,.~` J '°~ ~~' ~;.`~'. ~ ,..,;~ 3~r , ~.,~ .~ ;.xr~..~. ~ ~ ~~ ""~ ~S 1re ~ ,, . -~-.r A" ~` ,„. i~s~'. ~ ~ ~` ~ s.~ *.} ~ s ~ ~ ~^ ~ .~ ~~r' 3 ;. ~ ",.- ~ a. ~ ~ r,v~'~;`~h'~ s:.t~' ~,~~ -~ v~, ~ ~~' ~f ~'~ ~ ~ x ~~ ° ~ 'Y Jc`gS~S '~^, j~ ~~~ ~,~,~~~~ ~s €~~ '"` s. '~' ~~ .~ ;, ~ ~~~~ P a c i f i c ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ , .~ ~~ ~ : a ~ ~ ~` . ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~~~ ~ .~ ~~ , -~ ti,~ .~ ~ ~~ "~* , + ~«~., ~, ~ ~ r :, w '~ .~ ~ ~',.~' ~ ; ~ ~ O c e a n '~ ~ ~ ~`~'F ~~ ~ `~ ~ San~Jose~~<~~~~ ~~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~~ ~ - ~ ~~ `^ w3 ~, ~ ~ a~ r °z ~~~ J T`j"s"~~-._-~. ~ I"'`'"' ° ~ t ~' j~ ~,.~ .~^~e ~ ~ ~ ,,,~` . i : ~~ `` ;.~- ~ ~' ~ ~ Si~ ~ a t~.», ~ ~ ~c ~ ~ sr ~~,~~'. ~ .~~~~. x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~_f~ ~~~-~'~ ~ ~ ) ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~,~~~s~ t ~~ ~ ~~~'''~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ y~ S.a ~...`~, ~ ,~ g .?~~ ~ ~, ~ ~~ i~ ~ ~~..~,~ S .+ ~ d {' !° 'l~ v ~ r~ 4 t"` t a 4 '~'iA.~ .ff ~ ~ r, ~ t ~ ~~ ~-~ d "` i' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ > 3 ~ . ~`/ b ~,_: ~~ ,~'~r~ ~+ '~.,~r~ '~~°~~~'`e ,~ ~a~~ ~`~ '',a~~a~'~ ~` ~ ~ l\ ~. ~ ~ : ~~ ~ ; ~,~.,.' 1s ~~'~ ~~~~ '~~ ~`~ y ' ~"~ 101 ~ '; ~ w ~~~ ~ ~ . .~'~,~d~~ '~r „~~~~~ {~1~ ,~".+-" ~~~,' ~d ~ ~~'+'~..~~ ~ ":r~ ` ~ f' ~~ . ~ ~- ~`~ , ~~1 ~ ~' .^"" . ,~~ ~a ~ ~¢ .,~ C~.a G : ~ t ~ ~ P '~ ! `r-~'. y . _ .. ~ ' -~.. .~ . ~~,~ r ~'~ n ~ 3`~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~~, ; ~ -~~~, '=~Morgari~ll,~° ,~~' ~ ~ ~ ".,.~ ~ ~~~~ j ~ ~r . ~~ ~ ; ~` ~~ ~~` 7 f ' i~" ~ . k~ ~F, $` ~i . . ~ ~' 'F ~ t ;< s ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~~t r ~ g ~' ~~ ~ ;,,+~ .~'~ ~~a r~' ~ ~~' ~ ~:-'~~~ ,~ k~ ~a~~ ? ~~~ „~ ~ ~~`~~ . ~ '' .sR'.~,t~~a'y~ , ~ ~~'"~'s~ ~-~ ~.t"' -. ~ ~~'~ `~°`=' •t`'~«3. .: ~a..- ~~ ~~. 'a,,-.~ ... „~~ Source: ESRI Data and Maps/StreetMap USA (2002) 1 ~ o s io Zo DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR . . . Miles Regional Location N CONSULTING 4/2010JN70-100239 Figure 2~~ ~ ~ r ~ rs ~r r r~ .~ ~s ~ ~. .~ ~ r ~ w~ ~ ~ r Source: City of Dublin (2009) ~ ~ 0 500 1,000 2,000 - ' N Feet ~ ~ DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR -~ Specific Plan Area W C O N 9 U LTI N[3 I 07Y27/10 JN 70-100239 Figure 2-2 ~ ~ r ~r r rr r~ r~~ r~ .~t ~r .~ ~. r~ ~- ~~ S~~~ fR~TE DR D~e~~N BCVD C~ <i,~ ~T ~~~ City of Pleasanton Source: City of Dublin (2008) ~ ~ ~ 0 500 1,000 2,000 N Feet DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Land Uses CONBULTIN6 ~ 07/27/10JN40-100310 Figure 2-3 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .r ~.. ~ r. r~ rr ~r ~~. .. ~ r r~. r.~ r.i- .• r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N 1 Z ~ ZI A O O ~`:::~:•: I~ :~': ::..: .;:•:~ ::.:::'::.::: •: a:.. . ~>: Source: City of Dublin (2009) I /~ 0 255 510 1,020 ~ N Feet ... C O N 9 LI LTI N[3 ~. Ot/25I70 JN 70-100239 LEGEND Q Specific Plan Boundary ~~ City Limit Line General Plan Land Use Designation ~ Parks/ Public Recreation Stream Corridor _ Public / Semi-Public _ Retail/Office _ Retail/Office and Automotive _ Business Park/Industrial _ Mixed Use Single Family Residential ~ Medium-Density Residential _ Medium/High-Density Residential _ High-Density Residential Clty Of Pleasanton ~NjERS~Pj~ 5ao `~ ~ DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ,~-1 General Plan Land Use Designations ~, Figure 2-4 ~ r ~ r~ r ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~r ~. ~ ~ ~ r^~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~ LEGEND Q Specific Plan Boundary 2~, ~ City Limit Line F ~ ~s~ j - Retail Commercial (C-1) ~9 ~.~ ~~ - General Commercial (G2) ~o ~; - Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) ~ Commercial Office (C-O) ~ ~ ~ Light Industrial (M-1) ~ ,. ~~E~PR~ ~ ~ _ _ ~~tr`~` Planned Development (PD) ~ ~~~ ` ~ ~~ ~ ~~ Single Family Residential (R-1) ~ ~ ~ 0 ,_ ~C ~ ~ ~-9~, ~ Two Family Residential (R-2) ~y~ ~ ~-": . ~~_~~ : ~~ ~ Multi -Family Residential (R-M) ~~/ ~ V`, P~ PjR~G~ NjERSjPj~ 580 ~~1 ,4~ Clty Of Pleasanton ~ ~~ ~ Source: City of Dublin (2009) ~~ DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR OQ ~ 0 255 510 ,,02o Current Zoning ~'`' Feet ^ ^ ^ CONSLILTIN~ OtrzS~tOJN7a~oo23s Figure 2-5 r r~ ~ r~^~ r ~ rr~ ~ r ~ r ~ ~r ~ r. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~2„ ~1y s~, ~~ ~ F ~'~o % ~9~ 9~ 9~ O,P ~ N D ~ " Z ~ ;' ~ Z ~ ~w o ~~~~~ ~_ o ~ \~~~~W~ o~`~~JPa~ c~ \ ove~~N ~ o my ~ Sp~N~ F v~, m o~ G / ~ ~ \ ~ ~_--~" \ \ \N~~RS.~P-~E58~ City of Pleasanton \ ~ Source: City of Dublin (2009) /~ o z~o sao i,oao N~ Feet ^ ^ ^ C O N S t1 LTI N(3 0727/10 JN 70.100239 DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Specific Plan Districts/Land Use Designations Figure 2-6 LEGEND r, Specific Plan Boundary ~ City Limit Line fic Plan Districts ~ Retail District Transit-Oriented District Village Parkway District ^~ V \ ~ ~ \JJ ~ r~ ~s ~ ~ ~ rr r r~ ~ r ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ -- cnG. ~ / ~ a'~`'j ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ 1 ,, t:~ ~NtERSjPt~ 5g0 LEGEND I 1 Specific Plan Boundary ~~ City Limit Line Proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Zoning i ~V ~. /~ cry of Pleasanton Source: City of Dublin (2009) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION ~° 2°5 4'0 820 proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Zoning Feet ^ ^ ^ CON9ULTIN~ Ot/25170JN70-100239 Figure - ~~<,y ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ F~ S~ ~ 9 ~ ~~ _ ~ \ . ~,. ., `.... .. `\ \. \,~~ _ ~- ~0 ~. / ~~..,., ~~,., ~ ~ , ... ~ . , ~ ~ n~~~~~ PRO ,~~\, ~ ~ p`v ~ ~~ W ~~~~ ~~ 3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Dr-aft EIR ~ 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures ~ Each environmental section in this chapter presents inforrnation 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 projecE 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-I ~CONBULTINB ,~ ~~~~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR This page intentionally le ft blank. Page 3-2 ~ ~aoHeu~r~Ne ~ ~~~~ ~~~ I Downtown Dublin Specific Plan DrafE EIR Aesthetics & Visual Resources ~ 3.1. Aesthetics & Visual Resources ~ This section describes the aesthetic and visual resources of the planning area and its surroundings, and discusses the potential aesthetic impacts that may result with ~ implementation of the proposed Specific Plan. The primary visual and aesthetic issues are related to the intensification of commercial and mixed-use development within a commeraal area that is currently dominated by automobile-oriented shopping centers. Visual impacts were evaluated using a combination of a site reconnaissance, review of ~ photo documentation and aerial photographs, and a review of existing policy documents. ~ Environmental Setting Visual Image Visual images dominate an observers impression of a district, city, or region. To ~ understand how visual images influence an observers 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 viewers 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 concem 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 pattems. ^ Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its i 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 harrnony of the landscape considered as a whole; it frequently attests to the careful design of individual components in the landscape. 1 ~ P - ~ age 3 3 ~ conau~rwo Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics & Visual Resources ~ `~'~ /~~ I 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 is characterized as a suburban commercial area that contains a variety of local and regional-serving businesses. The pattem of development is characterized by large blocks, auto-oriented streets, a variety of lot shapes and sizes, and a variety of buildings with diverse architectural styles. Most buildings are set back from the street and surrounded by surface parking lots and minimal landscaping. The pattem of development generally does not encourage pedestrian activity within the area. See Figure 3. I- I: Existing Visual Character. Most of the commercial buildings were constructed from the early I 960s to the late I 980s and tend to have generic, nondescript quality that contributes little to establishing a distinct identity or memory for the Specific Plan Area. Building surface materials tend to be wood, concrete, cinder block or stucco construction. Commercial buildings in the project area are predominantly one-story, ranging from 15 to 25 feet, depending on the type and function of the building. Some buildings along Village Parkway are two stories, but are generally not taller than 25 feet. Office buildings, including the Chase Bank building, the Corrie Center and the Hites property are three stories (approximately 35 feet in height). The tallest (and only) residential building in the downtown is the Wicklow Square senior housing project, which is three stories over one level of parking at an approximate height of 50 feet. The approved 309 residential unit Windstar project will have five floors over one level of parking at a height of approximately 65 feet. Surrounding Land Uses The project area is surrounded by I-580 to the south, single-family residential neighborhoods and commercial uses to the east, multi-family residential and single-family residential neighborhoods to the north, and commercial and multi-family residential and single-family residential neighborhoods to the west. 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 planning area. Page 3-4 ~ conau~nNa a~b~ ~ ~~3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics & Visual Resources ~ Scenic Resources and Roadways ~ According to the City of Dublin General Plan, I-580, I-680, San Ramon Road, 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 Coritra Costa range contrasted with the flat Sunol Valley ringed by distance hills to the north and east." While not officially listed, I-580 is eligible for listing as a State Scenic Highway. ~ " The General Plan has a policy requiring the City to exercise design review of all projects visible from a designated scenic route". Most, if not all, of the Specific Plan Area is visible ~ from I-580, I-680, and San Ramon Road. The project area and its immediate surroundings do not have any natural resources, ~ monuments, or unique buildings that would be classified as scenic resources. 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; ^"Skyglow"/Nighttime Illumination - Artificial lighting from urbanized sources that 1 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 pattems or cause nuisances to neighboring residents. The project area is part of a city and region that contributes to nighttime lighting. 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 Califomia 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 Califomia Scenic Highway Program is to protect and enhance Califomia'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. ~ ~ Page 3-5 ~ coneu~riNo Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics & Visual Resources a~~ ~~~ ! 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 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. A process for adding eligible highways to the statutory list is described in Section III: Obtaining Eligibility. 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 Califomia (see definition for "vividness", under Section III: Step I, Visual Assessment). ^ Existing visual intrusions do not significantly impact the scenic corridor (see definitions for "intactness" and "unity' below, under Section III. Step I: Visual Assessment). ^ Demonstration of strong local support for the proposed scenic highway designation. ^ 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 Califomia 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 Cali fomia Department o f 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 planning area. 2.1.5: Guiding Policy A. Intensify development and provide housing opportunities and transit-oriented uses near transit center and facilities. 2.2. I: Guiding Policy A. Intensify Downtown Dublin. 2.2.1: Implementing Policy B. Designate a Downtown Intensification Area on the General Plan Land Use Map, Figure I- I a. Page 3-6 ~ OONBULTINO , a°3~ ~f ~~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics & Visual Resources ~ , 2.2. I: Implementing Policy C. Provide a downtown BART station that will serve customers ~ and workers with and without cars. Add of~ices and apartments within walking distance and eventually over BART parking. I 2.2.1: Implementing Policy D. Encourage mid-rise office/apartment buildings and parking structures with ground floor retail spaces. Create store-lined pedestrian connections between existing shopping centers. ~ 2.2. I: Implementing Policy E. Make downtown more understandable to first-time visitors by installing standardized identification signs and directories. r 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 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 ~ ^ Villages Relevant Project Characteristics ~ Development Standards and Design Guidelines' The proposed Specific Plan includes both development standards and design guidelines to ~ guide future development within the area. These development standards and design guidelines will be used during the design review process for project applications within the Specific Plan Area. The design guidelines apply to all new construction within the Specific ' Plan area. Development standards apply to all new construction that results in the increase of building size of more than 25 percent. , The design standards and guidelines within the proposed Specific Plan provide more specific design direction for the downtown districts than the design policies in the General Plan Community Design Element. For each of the three Downtown Districts (Retail , District, Transit-Oriented District, and Village Parkway) development standards are provided to address the following topics: , ^ Lot Size and Building Placement ^ Building Height ~ ^ Setbacks ~ Page 3-7 ~ coHeu~rino ~.a Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics & Visual Resources aDy~~~~ ~ ^ Density ^ Access (vehicular and pedestrian) ^ Parking Locations and Requirements ^ Projections and Encroachments into Setbacks In addition, design guidelines are provided for all projects within the Specific Plan Area and address the following topics: ^ General Building Design ^ Building Articulation ^ Building Materials and Colors ^ Roofs ^ Frontages ^ Signage ^ Private Outdoor Spaces ^ Outdoor Dining ^ Lighting ^ Fences, Walls, Hedges, and Gates ^ Landscaping and Paving ^ Parking Areas ^ Loading and Refuse Areas ^ Screening Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQ~1 Guidelines, 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. ^ Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings, i.e., be incompatible with the scale or visual character of the surrounding area or substantially detract from the integrity, character and/or aesthetic character of the neighborhood; and/or ^ Create a new source of substantial light or glare, such that it poses a hazard or nuisance. Page 3-8 ~ coNau~rwo t :y a~~ ~~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics & Visual Resources , 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, and photographs of the project area and vicinity. The site reconnaissance and photo ~ documentation of the planning area was performed by RBF Consulting in November 2009. Photos were taken to characterize the visual character of the planning area and surrounding ~ area. Potential impacts were assessed by forecasting the anticipated appearance of future development at the planning area based on the maximum FAR identified in the proposed ~ Specific Plan. 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 ~ sburces of light and glare are identified and quantified where possible. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ~ Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista As previously noted, 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. Because there are no designated scenic vistas , in the vicinity of the planning area, no impacts would occur. Damage to Scenic Resources along Scenic Hi~hwa~ ~ Impact 3. I- I: Portions of the project area are visible from a designated State Scenic _ Highway and locally designated scenic routes. However, no scenic resources would be ~ adversely affected as a result of Specific Plan implementation. This is considered a less than significant impact. ~ The planning area is fully developed and there are no natural or built features that are considered scenic resources, However, portions of the project area are visible from Interstate-680 (an officially designated State Scenic Highway and a locally designated scenic ~ route), Interstate-580 (a highway eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway and locally designated scenic route), and San Ramon Road (a locally designated scenic route). Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would allow properties to develop with ~ more intense commercial and mixed-use developments similarly to what is currently permitted under the five existing Specific Plans that apply in the project area. ~ ' In compliance with the General Plan, all projects that are visible from Interstate-680 and Interstate-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 DDSP, and thereby create a more visually appealing ~ ~ Page 3-9 ' caHeu~ru+m ,a Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics & Visual Resources a~-~~~g~ 1 environment within the Downtown. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Degradation of the Visual Character of the Proiect Area and Surrounding Area Impact 3. I-2: Implementation of the Specific Plan would alter the existing aesthetic character of the Downtown by intensifying commercial and mixed-use development within the area. However, the intensification of development is consistent with the guiding policies of the General Plan. In addition, the proposed DDSP includes design standards and guidelines that are designed to create a more visually appealing environment within the Downtown districts. This is considered a less than significant impact. The implementation of the Specific Plan would allow for the intensification of commercial and mixed use development within the Downtown districts. Most of the intensification is anticipated to occur in the Transit-Oriented District, as the demand for mixed-use development in that District will likely increase due to the construction of the West Dublin BART station and parking structure. The intensification of commercial and mixed use development within the Downtown is consistent with the current General Plan policies and the amended policies for the Downtown and the desired character for the area: ^ 2.2. I: Guiding Policy A. Intensify Downtown Dublin. ^ 2.2. I: Implementing Policy B. Designate a Downtown Intensification Area on the General Plan Land Use Map, Figure I- I a. ^ 2.2. I: Implementing Policy C. Provide a downtown BART station that will serve customers and workers with and without cars. Add offices and apartments within walking distance and eventually over BART parking. ^ 2.2. I: Implementing Policy D. Encourage mid-rise office/apartment buildings and parking structures with ground floor retail spaces. Create store-lined pedestrian connections between existing shopping centers. ^ 2.2. I: Implementing Policy E. Make downtown.more understandable to first-time visitors by installing standardized identification signs and directories. As an already built-out area, the most visible feature of intensification is the often increased building heights. The existing development has a variety of building heights and the proposed Specific Plan would not increase allowed building heights beyond those already established by the five existing approved Specific Plans for the project area. Building heights for the Transit-Oriented District would be limited to 90 feet, a height that is currently allowed by the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Building heights for the Village Parkway District would be limited to 35 feet, a height that is currently allowed by the Village Parkway Specific Plan. Building heights for the Retail District would be limited to 75 feet, a height that is currently allowed by the Downtown Core Specific Plan. Page 3-10 ~ coHau~TiHO ~ J aa2~ ~3 ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics & Visual Resources 1 , The proposed Specific Plan includes both development standards and design guidelines to , guide the design of future development within the area. These development standards and design guidelines will also be used during the design review process. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed Specific Plan will help insure that properties and buildings ~ contribute to visually appealing Downtown districts and environments. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. , Light and Glare Impact 3. I-3: The project area and its surroundings are currently developed with buildings ~ and site improvements that generate daytime and night-time light and glare. Additional sources of daytime glare and nighttime lighting would be introduced as the downtown is intensified with new commercial and mixed-use developments. The proposed SpeGific Plan ' inciudes design standards and design guidelines to reduce these impacts. This is considered a less than significant impact. ~ Implementation of the proposed project would introduce new development to the Specific Plan Area, increasing the potential for daytime and nighttime 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, intemal and extemal building lights, parking lot lights, street lighting, site lighting, lights associated with vehicular travel (i.e., car headlights), and ' any new security lighting associated with future development in the planning area. The proposed Specific Plan includes design guidelines which address lighting in the planning ~ area, including, but not limited to the following: ^ Flood lighting is discouraged on the exterior of buildings; however, uplighting and ~ indirect lighting to highlight key building features (i.e. tower elements) or signature landscaping is encouraged, where appropriate. ~ ^ Site, building, and sign lighting should be located and directed to light the intended area of illumination and to prevent off-site glare impacts on adjacent buildings and properties. , ^ Energy-efficient fighting (lighting from renewable sources and energy-saving devices, such as light sensors) is encouraged, whenever feasible. ~ • Pedestrian-scaled lighting is required along walkways and within parking areas and private outdoor spaces. Such lighting should be I 0 to I 5 in height. Bollard lighting may also be used. "Cobra head" lighting is strongly discouraged, ~ a Lighting should be provided at regular intervals to prevent the creation of light and dark pockets, which are undesirable. ^ Over-lighting of buildings and sites should be prevented to avoid ruining desired ' nighttime ambience. ~ ~ Page 3-II ' CON6UlTINO Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Aesthetics & Visual Resources ~$ ~ ~3 ~ ^ Cutoff shields should be used to prevent light from emitting above the lighfi source, to the maximum extent feasible. • Where feasible, warm white, energy efficient lighting source types such as metal halide, induction lighting, compact fluorescent, and light-emitting diode (LED) should be used. Future development within the planning 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- I 2 ~ ~ ' CON6ULTINO ~t'~ ~{g~ Source: RBF Consulting (2007) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Existing Visual Character ... ~ CONBULTIN~ i 42010JN70-100239 Figure 3.1~~a alb~ ~~3 Source: RBF Consulting (2007) . . . ~ CONHULTINO '3 42010JN70-100239 DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Existing Visual Character Figure 3.1-1b ~ a~~~~g~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases , 3.2. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ' 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. Environmental Setting ~ Regional Setting San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin ~ The City of Dublin is located in eastem 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-r.egion are from the west. At the northem 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 momings occasionally cause elevated pollutant levels. ' Topography and MeteorologX ' 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 northeaster-n 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 3-13 ' CONAULTINO a~a~ ~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ~ Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases climatic conditions. In summer, when the high pressure cell is strongest and farthest north, fog forms in the moming 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 SOs. 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 37 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature variations between night and day tend to be moderate during summer with a difFerence that can reach 24 degrees Fahrenheit, and moderate during winter with a difference of approximately 20 degrees Fahrenheit. The annual average precipitation in Dublin is 16.3 inches. Rainfall is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year. The wettest month of the year is January, with an average rainfall of 2.99 inches.~ 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 Califomia Air Resources Board (CARB); refer to Table 3.2- I: Local Ambient Air Quality Levels. CARB monitors ' ~ The Weather Channel, Average Weather for San Bemardino, CA, Accessed April I 4, 2010. ~ http://www.weather. com/outlook/events/weddi ngs/wxcl i matology/mo nth ly/graph/USCA03 I 4 ' Page 3-14 ~ ~o~.~~.,~o ' ~~3~ ~g3 ' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases , 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. ~ ~ ' , ~ ' ' ' r 1 ' ~ i ~ , ~J Table 3.2-1 Local Ambient Air Quality Levels ~~~ . ~~~~~ ~;: ~~- ~ Sta~~ar~s AM1ou ~ _ ~; ` ~ ~-~b1e Amoun# ~~ ~ ~'= ~ ~~~. , , ~ ,~~ ~ ~~ ~~Raiximum~ ~~~ ~~Days`.~Samples)~ ~ Sta#elfeder~l~ R ollutant Federa[ ~ear ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~a ~ ~ , ~ ~ Califiamia e - ~, ~ - : P~~mary~~; ~ Concentrat~on~ a a ~_ ~ ~, S#andards was ~ F ~ ~ . ~ _ ~_ ~ . .~. r .~ ~_ ~ ~ , a ~ ~ ~~ E~c~eded,•~„ Ozone (Os) 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 2007 2008 0.120 ppm 2~~ 5~2 for 1 hour z 2009 0.141 010 0.113 Ozone (Os) 2007 312 for 8 hour z 0.07 ppm 0.08 ppm 2008 0.091 ppm 816 2009 0.110 8/6 0.086 Carbon 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 2007 1.83 010 Monoxide(CO) 2 (8 hour) (8 hour) 2008 1.43 0/0 2009 1.31 0/0 Nitrogen 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm 2007 0.052 O/NA Oioxide(N02) 2 (1 hour) (1 hour) 2008 0.058 0/NA 2009 0.052 0/NA Particulate 50 mg/m3 150 mg/m3 2007 74.8 2/0 Matter(PM~o) 2,4,5 (24 hours) (24 hours) 2008 46.8 0/0 2009 Not Available NA Fine Particulate 12 mg/m3 3 35mglm 2007 54.9 NAl3 Matter(PMz.e) 2~5 (annual (24 hours) 2008 52.7 NAl2 arithmetic mean) 2009 45.7 NAl4 Sulfur Dioxide 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm 2007 0.005 0/0 (SOz) 3 (24 hours) (24 hours) 2008 0.005 0/0 2009 0.004 0/0 Notes: 1. Maximum concentrations are measured over the same period as the Califomia standab. 2. Livermore Monitoring Station is located at 793 Rincon Avenue, Livermore, Califomia 94550. 3. Berkley Monitoring Station is the only station in the San Francisco Air Basin that monitors SOz and is located at 1340 Sixth Street, Berkeley, Califomia 94710. 4. PM,o exceedances are based on State thresholds established prior to amendments adopted on June 20, 2002. 5. PM,o and PM2.sexceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded, not days. ~uuice. „eiumeuic uaia hnaiysis ana ivieasuremen~ ays[em, aummaries rrom ~uu~ io ~uua as rouna at nnp:nwww.ar~.ca.gov~aaam~ 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 Sulfur Dioxide (S02). The Berkeley Monitoring Station is the only station in the San Francisco Air Basin that monitors S02 and as such is included in Table 3.2- I: Locai Ambient Air Quality ~ pCNBU~TINO Page 3-15 ~' a~`~~~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Levels. The following air quality information briefly describes the vanous types of pollutants monitored at the local stations. 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 (N02), often used interchangeably with NOX, is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at high levels. Peak readings of NOZ 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, Page 3- I 6 ~ ~o~o~~„~o ' ~ a~~ ~3 ~ ' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ~' Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ 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 increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NOZ may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction. ~ Coar~e Particulate Matter (PMio) PM io refers to suspended particulate matter (PM) which is smaller than I 0 microns. PM io ' arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PMio 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 concems 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. , , Sul fur 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 (primanly coal and oil), and ' during metal smelting and other industrial processes. Sulfur dioxide (S02) is often used interchangeably with sulfur oxides (SOx). The major health concems 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. ' ~ i , ' , 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 Califomia 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 ~ Page 3-17 aoNau~nNo Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~~~ ~ ~~3 health". In addition, substances that have been listed as Federal hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) pursuant to Section 7412 of Title 42 of the United States Code are TACs under the State's air toxics program pursuant to Section 39657 (b) of the Califomia 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 concem for posing health risks in Califomia are acetaldehyde, benzene, I-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 fhey 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. Greenhouse Gases The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere is called the "greenhouse effect."2 The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a three-fold process, summarized as follows: short wave ra.diation 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 greenhouse gases (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. 2 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth's surface to I 0 to I 2 kilometers. Page 3- I 8 - ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases , The most abundant GHGs are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Many other trace gases ha~e 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. The Global Warming Potential of a gas is deterrnined using carbon dioxide as the reference gas with a Global Warming Potential of one ( I). ~ GHGs include, but are not limited to, the following:3 ^ Water Vapor (H20). 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 I 0 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 ~ Intergovemmental Panel on Climate Change has not determined a Global Warrning Potential for water vapor. ~ ^ Corbon Dioxide (CO~. 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, fhe concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 35 percent.4 Carbon dioxide is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of I} for ~ determining Global Warrning Potentials for other GHGs. • Methone (CH~. 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 inethane are landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric ferrnentation. 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 inethane is 21. ~ • Nitrous Oxide (Nz~. 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 ~ I ' All Global Warming Potentials are given as 100-year Global Warrning Potential. Unless noted otherwise, all Global Warming Potentials were obtained from the Intergovemmental Panel on Climate Change. (Intergovemmental Panel on Ciimate Change, Climote Chonge, The Science of Climate Chonge - Contribution of Worldng Group 1 to the Second Assessment Report o f the IPCC, I 996). ~ 4 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004, April 2006, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. ' Pa e 3- I 9 ~ g ~ aaNau~nNo _~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quatity and Greenhouse Gases ~~~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. The Global Warming Potential of nitrous oxide is 3 I 0. • 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 I 40 for HFC- I 52a to 6,300 for HFC-236fa. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs~. Perfluorocarbons are compounds consisting of carbon and fluorine. They are primarily created as a by-product of aluminum production and semi-conductor manufacturing. PerFluorocarbons are potent GHGs with a Global Warming Potential several thousand times that of carbon dioxide, depending on the specific PFC. Another area of concem regarding PFCs is their long atmospheric lifetime (up to 50,000 years).5 The Global Warming Potential of PFCs range from 5,700 to I I ,900. • Sul fur hexafluoride (SF~. 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 Intergovemmental Panel on Climate Change with a Global Warming Potential of 23,900. However, its global warming contnbution is not as high as the Global Warming Potential would indicate due to its low mixing ratio compared to carbon dioxide (4 parts per trillion [ppt] in 1990 versus 365 parts per million [ppm]).6 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 substances were previously identified as stratospheric ozone (03) depletors; therefore, their gradual phase out is currently in effect. The following is a listing of these compounds: • Hydrochloro~luorocarbons (HCFCs~. HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refngerant 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 '. Energy Information Administration, Other Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocorbons, and Sul fur Hexafluoride, October 29, 2001, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg00rpt/other~ases.html. ~ 6 United States Environmental Protection Agency, High GWP Gases ond Climate Change, October 19, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific. htm I#sf6. Page 3-20 ~ ~o~.~~„~o ~ ~, ~J : a!~ ~ ~~~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Oualitv and Greenhouse Gases ' reduction to the cap by 2030. The Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range ~ from 93 for HCFC- I 23 to 2,000 for HCFC- I 42b.~ • I, I, I trichloroethane. I, I, I trichloroethane, or methyl chloroform, is a solvent and ' degreasing agent commonly used by manufacturers. The Global Warming Potential of inethyl chloroform is I I 0 times that of carbon dioxide.8 • Chloro{luorocarbons (CFCs~. CFCs are used as refrigerants, cleaning solvents, and ' aerosol spray propellants. CFCs were also part of the EPA's Final Rule (57 FR 3374) for the phase out of 03 depleting substances. Currently, CFCs have been replaced by HFCs in cooling systems and a variety of altematives 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 4,600 for CFC I I to I 4,000 for CFC I 3.9 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. The project area includes the 238-room Holiday Inn hotel and a senior center with an associated 54-unit Wicklow Square apartment complex. Residential uses are located adjacent to the project area to the north, east, and west. ~ 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 govemments and agencies. Facilities commonly known to produce odors include wastewater treatment facilities, chemical manufacturing, painting/coating operations, feed ' lots/dairies, composting facilities, landfilis, and transfer stations. Offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, and no requirements for their control are included in State and Federal air quality regulations. However, the BAAQMD has identified land use and operation types ' that are typically associated with producing odors. No facilities in the DDSP area have ~ ~ United States Environmental Protection Agency, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Global Warming Potential for Ozone Depleting Substonces, November 7, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA AIR/ I 996/January/Day I 9/pr 372.html. , 8 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Protection of Strotospheric Ozone: Listing of Global Warming Potentiol for Ozone Depleting Substances, November 7, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA AIR/1996/January/Day 19/pr 372.html. ' 9 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Class 1 Ozone Depleting Substonces, March 7, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ods. htm I. , ~ Page 3-21 ' aanau~nHn Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases aao~ y~~ ~ ~ been reported as releasing offensive odors. Additionally, the DDSP 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 AgencX 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 "cntena" 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 03, CO, N02 (a form of NOX), S02 (a form of SOX), PMio, PM2,5, and lead (Pb); refer to Table 3.2-2: National and Califomia Ambient Air Quality Standards. The EPA also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over emission sources beyond State waters (outer continental shel fl and those that are under the exclusive authonty of the Federal govemment, such as aircraft, locomotives, and interstate trucking. Page 3-22 ~ ~ , Table 3.2•2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ~ ' ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ' , ~ 1 , ~ ~ ~l~ ~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ ~ ~ ~... q ~ %~} a,n ~' i r Ca~ft~rrt~' ~~ ~" ~ ~ ~~; eder 1 ~ ~ ~ r~r ` ,~ ~' .: ta~lards~' ~~~ ollu~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ A~e g#n , ~ ~, ~ E f , 3 , S n ~ . .~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ .: econ~tlary ~ ~ t :'.~s ~. .`~M~ e~. e ...9 ~ . . r.. . ~~._ ~', !i~a~bk . ~ .5., 1 ..='~y.,% .t« . ~, a. . ~. ....., 'h. ~.. +3 :' ~~.. ~ '~. ~ . ... . .. ~ ~: ~ O 0 1 Hour 0.09 m 180 /m N/AS N/A5 zone ( 3) 3 3 3 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 ugm ) 0.075 m 147 /m 0.075 m 147 /m P 24 Hour 50 /m3 150 /m3 150 /m3 Particulate Matter ( M~o) 3 5 5 Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 /m N/A N/A Fine Particulate Matter 24 Hour No Separate State Standard 3 35 µg/m 3 35 µglm (PMz. s) Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 /m3 15.0 /m3 15.0 /m3 C 8 Hour 9.0 m 10 /m3 9 m 10 /m3 9 m 10 /m3 Carbon Monoxide ( O) 3 3 3 1 Hour 20 m 23 Im 35 m 40 Im 35 m 40 Im ~ Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 m 57 /m3 0.053 m 100 /m3 0.053 m 100 /m3 Nitrogen Dioxide (NOz) ~ 3 1 Hour 0.18 m 339 /m 0.100 ppm 0.100 ppm Pb 30 Days Average 1.5 Im3 NIA NIA Lead ( ) 3 3 Calendar Quarter N/A 1.5 /m 1.5 /m Annual Arithmetic Mean N/A 0.030 m 80 /m3 N/A O ~ 24 Hour 0.04 m 105 /m3 0.14 m 365 Im3 NIA Sulfur Dioxide (S z} 3 3 Hour N/A N/A 0.5 m 1300 /m 1 Hour 0.25 m 655 Im3 75 ppb N/A Visibility-Reducing Particles $ Hour (10 am to 6 pm, Extinction Coefficient = PST 0.23 km <70 /o RH Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 No Federal Standards Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µgim3) ppm = parts per million; µg/ m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/ m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; km = kilometers; RH = relative humidity; PST = Pacific Standard Time; N/A = not a licable; b= arts er billion No1es: 1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM,o), and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All other values are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. In 1990, the CARB identified vinyl chloride as a Toxic Air Contaminant and 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-ppm ambient concentration specified in the 1978 standard. 2. Federal standards (other than for ozone, for 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) monitored air quality data 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 PM,o, the 24-hour standard is attained when 99 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over the three years, are equal to or less than the standard. For PMz.a, 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 degrees centigrade (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 millimeters (mm) of inercury. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of inercury (1,013.2 millibar); parts per million (ppm) in this table refers to ppm by volume (micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas). 4. Federal 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 PM~o 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 m effective Janua 22, 2010 . Source: Califomia Air Resources Board, August 3, 2010 ' ~ ' OpN9UlTINO Page 3-23 Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases State Califomia Air Resources Board CARB administers the air quality policy in Califomia. The Califomia Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established in I 969 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. Califomia Global__Climate_Change_Regu_lato~_Programs Executive Order 5-3-05. In June 2005, Govemor Schwarzenegger established Califomia's GHG emissions reduction targets in Executive Order 5-3-05. The Executive Order established the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Secretary of the Califomia Environmental Protection Agency (the Secretary) is required to coordinate efforts of various agencies in order to collectively and efficiently reduce GHGs. Some of the agencies involved in the GHG reduction plan include Secretary of Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, Secretary of Department of Food and Agri~ulture, Secretary of Resources Agency, Chairperson of CARB, Chairperson of the Energy Commission, and the President of the Public Utilities Commission. The Secretary is required to submit a biannual progress report to the Govemor and State Legislature disclosing the progress made toward GHG emission reduction targets. In addition, another biannual report must be submitted illustrating the impacts of global warming on California's water supply, public health, agriculture, and the coastline and forestry, and reporting possible mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. Executive Order S- I-07. On January I 8, 2007, Califomia further solidified its dedication to reducing GHGs by setting a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard for transportation fuels sold within the State. Executive Order S- I-07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in carbon dioxide equivalent gram per unit of fuel energy sold in Califomia. The target of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is to reduce the carbon intensity of Califomia passenger vehicle fuels by at least ten percent by 2020. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard applies to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels, and would use market-based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose how they reduce emissions during the "fuel cycle" using the most economically feasible methods. The Executive Order requires the Secretary of the Califomia Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate with actions of the Califomia Energy Commission, CARB, the University of Califomia, and other agencies to develop a protocol to measure the "life cycle carbon intensity" of transportation fuels. Executive Order S- I 3-08. Issued on November I 4, 2008, Executive Order S- I 3-08 intends to enhance the State's management of climate impacts from sea level rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation, and extreme weather events. There are four ~~ ~ 1 ~ ' Page 3-24 ~ ~o»a~~.,„o ~ ~ a~`~ ~ ~O / Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ key actions in this Executive Order, including: ( I) initiate Califomia's first State-wide climate change adaptation strategy that assesses the State's expected climate change impacts, ' identifies where Califomia is most vulnerable, and recommends climate adaptation policies; (2) request the National Academy of Science establish an expert panel to report on sea , level rise impacts in Califomia to inform State planning and development efforts; (3) issue interim guidance to State agencies for how to plan for sea level rise in designated coastal and floodplain areas for new projects; and (4) initiate a report on critical existing and ~ planned infrastructure projects vulnerable to sea level rise. Executive Order S- I 3-08 aims to facilitate Califomia's first comprehensive climate , adaptation strategy. This effort improves coordination within State govemment and adapts the way State agencies work so that better planning can more effectively address clirpate impacts to human health, the environment, the State's water supply, and the economy. ~ Additionally, this effort provides consistency and clarity to State agencies on how to address sea level rise in current planning efforts, reducing time and resources unnecessarily spent on developing different policies using difFerent scientific information. In response to ~ Executive Order S- I 3-08, the Califomia Natural Resources Agency prepared the 2009 Cali fomia Adaptation Strategy in December 2009. ~ Assembly Bill I 493. In response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of Califomia's carbon dioxide (C02) emissions, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (AB 1493, Pavley) was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 required CARB to set GHG emission standards ' for passenger vehicles, light duty trucks, and other vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State. The bill required that CARB set the GHG emission standards for motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent r model years. In setting these standards, CARB must consider cost effectiveness, technological feasibility, economic impacts, and provide maximum flexibility to ~ manufacturers. CARB adopted the standards in September 2004. These standards are intended to reduce emissions of COZ and other GHGs (e.g., nitrous oxide [N20] and methane [CH4]). ~ Assembly Bill 32. The Legislature enacted AB 32 (AB 32, Nunez), the Califomia Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which Goverr~or Schwarzenegger signed on September ' ~ 27, 2006 to further the goals of Executive Order S-3-05. AB 32 represents the first enforceable State-wide program to limit GHG emissions from all major industries, with penalties for noncompliance and requires Califomia to reduce its GHG emissions by , approximately 28 to 33 percent below "business as usual" levels. . CARB has been assigned to carry out and develop the programs and requirements necessary to achieve the goals of AB 32. The foremost objective of CARB is to adopt regulations that require the ' reporting and verification of State-wide GHG emissions. This program would be used to monitor and enforce compliance with the established standards. The first GHG emissions limit is equivalent to the 1990 levels, which are to be achieved by 2020. CARB is also ~ required to adopt rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 allows CARB to adopt market-based compliance mechanisms to meet the specified requirements. Finally, CARB is ultimately 1 ~ Page 3-25 ' aaHeutT~No Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~~~ ~ ~3 ~ ~ responsible for monitoring compliance and enforcing any rule, regulation, order, emission limitation, emission reduction measure, or market-based compliance mechanism adopted. In order to advise CARB, it must convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee. In December 200$, CARB adopted a scoping plan to achieve reductions in GHG emissions in Califomia. The plan indicates how reductions in significant GHG sources would be achieved through regulations, market mechanisms, and other actions. Senate Bill 97. Senate Bill (SB) 97 of 2007 requires the Califomia Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA guidelines for analysis and, if necessary, the mitigation of effects of GHG emissions to the Resources Agency. These guidelines for analysis and mitigation must address, but are not limited to, GHG emissions effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. On December 30, 2009, 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 Califomia Code of Regulations. The CEQA Guidelines Amendments became effective on March I 8, 2010. These new guidelines require a survey of existing climate change analyses perFormed by various lead agencies under CEQA.10 In his signing statement, Govemor Amold Schwarzenegger noted: Current uncertainty as to what type o f analysis o f greenhouse gas emissions is required under the Cali fomia Environmental Quality Act has led to legal claims being asserted, which would stop these important in frastructure projects. Litigation under CEQf~ is not the best approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and maintain a sound and vibrant economy. To achieve these goals, we need a coordinated policy, not a piecemeal approach dictated by litigation. Senate Bill 375. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to include Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS) in their regional transportation plans. The purpose of SB 375 is to reduce GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks, require CARB to provide GHG emission reduction targets from the automobile and light truck sector for 2020 and 2035, and update the regional targets until 2050. SB 375 would require certain transportation planning and programming activities to be consistent with the sustainable communities strategies contained in the regional transportation plan. The bill also requires affected regional agencies to prepare an altemative planning strategy to the sustainable communities strategies if the sustainable communities strategy is unable to achieve the GHG emissions reduction targets. Govemor Schwarzenegger signed and approved SB 375 on September 30, 2008. ~o http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Adopted_Text_of SB97_CEQA_Guidelines_Amendments.pdf. I 5, 20 I 0. Page 3-26 Accessed January ~ , ~ ' a~ ~ y~ ~ ,! Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ Senator Steinberg, author of SB 375, is also making efforts to clean up the bill. Steinberg ' authored the new SB 575 as the clean-up bill for SB 375. The clean-up efforts include CEQA streamlining changes for projects that are consistent with the SCS. Currently, SB 375. applies those streamlining provisions to residential and mixed-use projects. The ~ Govemor and many interest groups are also lobbying to extend those provisions to Proposition I B Transportation projects, State highway projects, and infrastructure, retail, and commercial development. A timetable to eliminate schedule conflicts with the new ~ eight-year housing element and the four-year Regional Transportation Plan is also being considered. In addition to SB 575, there will continue to be ongoing discussions with CARB to coordinate AB 32 local land use implementation strategies with SB 375, including ' new proposed CARB CEQA thresholds of significance to determine which projects will be subject to AB 32 requirements. , Local Citv of Dublin Climate Action Plan The City of Dublin prepared a Draft Climate Action Plan and Initial Study/Mitigated '' Negative Decfaration in July 2010. City's Climate Action Plan 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; establish a GHG emissions reduction target; and present steps for implementation of the Plan and monitoring and verification of the Plan to achieve the designated emissions ~ reduction target. The City's Climate Action P1an 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 greenhouse gas 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 t contribution to significant cumulative impact) due to GHG emissions and climate change consistent with Public ,Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 I 83.5, I 5064, and I 5 I 30. ' Ba Area Air ualit _Mana ement District -Y ___-_~_-Y __..~_ ' 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 Strate~y. The BAAQMD prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, which was adopted on January 4, 2006, and describes how the Basin will fulfill Califomia Clean Air ~ ~ Pa e 3-27 i~':"' g , caNeu~nNo ~~~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ~~ Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Act planning requirements for the State I-hour ozone standard and transport mitigation requirements through the proposed control strategy. The 2005 Ozone Strategy explains how the BAAQMD plans to achie~e 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. 2000 Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD's 2000 Clean Air Plan aims to reduce emissions of certain air pollutants, including reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), that lead to ozone or "smog" formation in the lower atmosphere. The Clean Air Plan addresses several areas, including air pollution sources, ozone trends, particulate matter, control measures for ozone, control strategy, and future air quality planning. 2010 Cleon Air Plan. The BAAQMD is in the process of preparing the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The 2010 Bay Areo Cleon Air Plan will update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the Califomia Clean Air Act requirements to implement "all feasible measures" to reduce ozone. The 20 I 0 Plan will also consider the impacts of ozone control measures on particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse gases. Additionally, the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan will review progress in improving air quality in recent years, and will establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 through 20 I 2 timeframe. On March I I, 20 I 0, the BAAQMD released the Draft 20 I 0 Clean Air Plan for public review and comment with adoption anticipated in Fall 20 I 0. State Air Toxics ~rogram Toxic air contaminants are another group of pollutants of concem in Califomia. 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. Califomia regulates toxic air contaminants through its air toxics program, mandated in Chapter 3.5 (Toxic Air Contaminants) of the Health and So fety Code (Health and Sa fety 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 (BAC~ for toxics. The program is administered by CARB. Air quality control agencies, including the BAAQMD, must incorporate air toxic Page 3-28 ~ ~o~a~~„~o ~ ~~ 1 1 ' ~ i ~~ ' aa~~yg~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ' .. 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 03, PMio, and PM2,5. Under Federal regulations the Basin is designated an unclassified/attainment area for PMio standards (see Table 3.2-3: San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status). Table 3.2-3: San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status ~ ~Pollutant ~ ~~ ` ~' ,.A 4_ _ _. r:5tate ~ ~N : ~ r` ~ Federal ~ ~ , _ Carbon Monoxide CO Attainment Attainment Ozone 03 - 8 hour Non-attainment Non-Attainment Ozone 03 -1 hour Non-attainment --~ Nitro en Dioxide NOz -1 hour Attainment -- Nitro en Dioxide - Annual Arithmetic Mean -- Attainment Sulfur Dioxide SOz - 24 hour Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide S02 -1 hour Attainment -- Particulate Matter (PM~o) - Annual Arithmetic Non-Attainment -- Mean Particulate Matter PM~o - 24 hour Non-Attainment Unclassified Particulate Matter (PMz.s) - Annual Arithmetic Non-attainment -- Mean Particulate Matter PMz.s - 24 hour -- Non-attainment Sulfates - 24 hour Attainment -- Lead - Calendar Quarter -- Attainment Lead - 30 Da Avera e Attainment - H dro en Sulfide -1 hour Unclassified -- Vin I Chloride chloroethene - 24 hour -- -- Visibili Reducin Particulates3 Unclassified -- Notes: N/A - Not Applicable t. In order for an area to meet a particular standard, all time tests of the applicable standard must be met. Separate designa6ons are not made for each time component of the standard. For instance, an area might meet the annual criteria of the State PM,o 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 PM,o 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. The U.S: EPA lowered the 24-hour PMz.s standard from 65 uglm3 to 35 uglm3 in 2006. EPA issued attainment status designations for the 35 ug/m3 PMz.s 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 endin Federal rules; therefore, the effective date of the desi nation is unknown at this time. source: ~,~wumu,,vr uuaury stanaaras ana Anainment status, zuiu. (http://hank.baaqmd.govlpln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm) ~ ' City of Dublin General Plan ' The following policies in the City o f Dublin General Plan are applicable to air quality within the DDSP area. ' 7.4: Implementing Policy A. Request the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to establish an air quality monitoring station in Dublin. ~ Pa e 3-29 ~ g ' aoHau~T~Nn `,,, ~,~~~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Relevant Project Characteristics Development activities under the DDSP are assumed to occur over the next 15 to 20 years. During that time, it is assumed that only a portion of the existing land uses will be redeveloped and that many of the existing structures will essentially remain the same in size and configuration with the exception of remodeling of existing structures. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with CEQA, State CEQf1 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. For purposes of this EIR and based on the BAAQ/V1D CEQ~4 Guidelines, the proposed project must satisfy the following standards to be consistent with the BAAQMD's 2005 Ozone Strategy and,thus result in a less than significant impact: I) Consistency with the population and vehicle miles traveled assumptions in the Clean Air Plan; and 2) Consistency With Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures; ^ 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; ^ Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; ^ Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the enVironment. For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact will result if a Specific Plan conflicts with or obstructs the implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32; and/or conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Short-Term Construction Emissions Impact 3.2- I: The proposed project would result in 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 during construction activities. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact. New emissions would be generated from construction activities associated with development allowed under the proposed DDSP. Under the DDSP, varying amounts of Page 3-30 ~ 4 . ~ ~~ ~ a~~~ ~~3 \~ Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ construction would likely occur over time until buildout of the DDSP is ~ achieved. Construction-related emissions would result from excavation, grading, demolition, vehicle ~ travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and vehicle and equipment exhaust. Individual projects would vary in size and have the potential to generate significant construction ~ emissions. 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 3.2-4: San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District Control Measures. ' ,~ ~ ,~: ~ ~ ' ~ ~' "Basic Control Measures" should be implemented at all construction sites, regardless of size. Additional "Enhanced Control Measures" should be implemented at construction sites larger than four acres, from which particulate matter emissions would likely be higher. "Optional Control Measures" may be implemented if further emission reductions are deemed necessary by the Lead Agency. If each of the applicable measures are implemented as appropriate, air pollutant emissions from construction activities under the DDSP would be considered a less than significant impact. Q~ Page 3-3 I ~.~~^ aaNau~4~NO ~ Table 3.2-4: San F~ancisco Bay Air Quality Management District Control Measures ,' t Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~~~~ 0 ~ ~ ~' ~ Under the DDSP, 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 future projects under the DDSP, as the scale and timing of each construction event is currently unknown, and such speculative quantification is not currently required or recommended by BAAQMD. However, future individual projects under the DDSP would be subject to new project-level emission thresholds in the BAAQJVID Draft CEQ,q Guidelines, if adopted. Through the environmental review .process for individual projects, additional mitigation may also be required to further reduce emissions and potential impacts on a project-by-project basis. In addition, future development within the project area would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings). Adherence to these BAAQMD Control Measures and Regulation 8, Rule 3 would ensure that the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact during short-term construction activities. Long-Term Ope~-ational Emissions Impact 3.2-2: The proposed project is consistent with population growth assumptions in the Clean Air Plan, is anticipated to result in reduced VMT compared to population ~ growth, and is consistent with the Plan's Transportation Control Measures. This is considered a less than significant impact. Implementation of the DDSP would result in new emissions generated by future development within the Downtown Dublin area. Future development would introduce new stationary and mobile source air emissions into the project area, Area Source Emissions Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for electrical energy and natural gas associated with the develoPment of the proposed improvement. This is based on the assumption that those power plants supplying electricity to the project area are utilizing fossil fuels. Electric power generating plants are distributed throughout the Basin and westem United States, and their emissions contribute to the total regional pollutant burden. The primary use of natural gas by the future development in the project area would be for combustion to produce space heating, water heating, other miscellaneous heating, or air conditioning, consumer produrts, and landscaping. As shown on Table 3.2-5: Operational Emissions, area source emissions from the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, and PMio. Thus, area source emissions would be less than significant. Page 3-32 ~ ~o~.~~r~o ~ ~ ' ' ~ a31 ~ `~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Table 3.2-5: Operational Emissions "'' ~~#E` ~ ~._ . S ~ Estimated~Annuol Av'err~ge Em~s ~ , s nns (pounds/day)~3~` `~ . ° ~~ ~ -,~ .~ ~ ource , ~'~~,. µ ~ ~~~:, _. .~,. ~ ROG ~. ~ ~ , ~ .~. ~~ ~ NOX `~ u~~ sy PM~~ ~~ ~~. Area 64.13 34.05 0.15 Mobile 1,352.39 1,784.18 3,262.64 Total 1,416.52 1,818.23 3,262.79 BAAQMD Threshold 80 80 80 Threshold ExceededZ Yes Yes Yes Notes: 1. Emissions estimates calculated using URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4). 2. Emissions estimates calculated usin the land use cat ories/intensities de icted in Section 2, Pro'ect Descri tion. Refer to Appendix D, Air Quality Data, for detailed model inputloutput data. - Mobile Source Emissions Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative ,~~ emissions. Project-generated vehicle emissions have been estimated using the URBEMIS 2007 model. This model was utilized to predict ROG, NOX, and PMio emissions from motor vehicle traffic associated with the proposed project. As shown in Table 3.2-5; Operational Emissions are emissions generated by vehicle traffic ~ associated with the proposed project would exceed established BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, and PMio. As the sum of mobile source and area source emissions would exceed BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, and PM io• ,~ The DDSP includes a number of policies to address potential air quality impacts that could result from future development. The following guiding principles of the DDSP would help ~ reduce potential regional and local air quality emissions by encouraging the use of transit, altemative transportation modes, and sustainable development: ~ Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles ~ ' ^ Create a edestrian-friendl downtown that minimizes otential conflicts between P Y P vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. r ^ Encourage a greater joint use of parking areas through compatible mixes of uses and enhanced pedestrian connections. ~ ^ Consider more flexible and appropriate parking standards that reflect verifiable demand and consider the transit-oriented land uses in the area. ~ ^ Enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate alternative transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation. Transit-Oriented District Guiding Principles ^ Promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and active district. ~ ~ Page 3-33 OONBULTINO ~ Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~I ^ Identify opportunity sites for future development that incorporate mixed-use and provide public and/or private plazas and outdoor gathering areas at strategic locations. ^ Encourage underground and/or above ground parking structures. ^ Discourage housing along Dublin Boulevard unless part of a mixed-use development with ground floor office or retail uses. Village Parkway District Guiding Principles ^ Create opportunities for integrating live/work units into the Village Parkway area. ^ Consider an appropriate site(s) for high density housing. Consistency with Ozone Strategy Transportation Control Measures The 2005 Ozone Strategy includes 20 Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), of which seven require participation at the local level. Table 3.2-6: Clean Air Plan Consistency Analysis, lists DDSP policies that are supportive of the 2005 Ozone Strategy TCMs. A description of each TCM is provided along with a listing of relevant policies that would implement each measure. The proposed policies support and reasonably implement the applicable Clean Air Plan TCMs. Page 3-34 ~ ~o».~~„~o ~ ,~. ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~;. ,: ' Table 3.2-6: Clean Air Plan Consistency Analysis ~3~~ ~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ Transpo~tion=Gar~troi ~ ~ 13elevaef Downtotv~~DubNn Spect~c Plan Ptinciples ar~d Policies ~ ~~ ~, ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Measures „ ~ ~~ ~ ; ~~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~` ~ ~~ " ~~ ~~, ~ ~~~~ ~ v.,~ ~ s~~ TCM 1: Support voluntary Village Parkway District Guiding Principles employer-based trip reduction Create opportunities for integrating livelwork units into the Village Parkway area. programs TCM 3: Improve Locai and Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles Areawide Bus Seroice Enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate altemative transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation. Create opportunities for integrating livelwork units into the Village Parkway area: Retail District Guiding Principles Identify ways to improvelenhance non-vehicular and vehicular circulation and connections that are pedestrian friendly, particularly in areas that contain large, expansive parking lots. Transit-Oriented District Guiding Principles Promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and active district. TCM 9: Improve bicycle access Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles and facilities Enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate altemative transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation. TCM 15: Local clean air plans Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles policies and programs should incorporate measures to reduce Encourage a greater joint use of parking areas through compatible mixes of uses and enhanced pedestrian the number and length of ~nnections. singfe-vehicle occupant trips Transit-Oriented District Guiding Principles Promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and active district. Identify opportunity sites for future development that incorporate mixed-use and provide public andlor private plazas and outdoor gathering areas at strategic locations. , Village Parkway District Guiding Principles Create opportunities for integrating live/work units into the Village Parkway area. TCM 17: Conduct Downtown Du61in Guiding Principles demonstration projects which will reduce vehicle emissions promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and active district. Transit-Oriented District Guiding Principles: Identify opportunity sites for future development that incorporate mixed-use and provide public and/or private plazas and outdoor gathering areas at strategic locations. TCM 19: Promote pedestrian Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles travel Encourage a greater joint use of parking areas through compatible mixes of uses and enhanced pedestrian connections. TCM 20: Promote traffic Downtown Dublin Guiding Principles calming Create a pedestrian-friendly downtown that minimizes potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Source: RBF Consulting, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, March 2010. All projects within the Specific Rlan area would be required to be consistent with these policies intended to reduce air quality impacts by increasing altematives to individual automobile use supporting a mix of complimentary land uses to reduce trips and facilitating. sustainable infill development. Through the environmental review process for individual projects, additional mitigation may also be required to further reduce emissions and potential impacts on a project-by-project basis. Individual projects planned under the DDSP would be subject to BAAQMD's operational emissions thresholds. Many of the ~ OONHULTINO Page 3-35 ~_~ ~ .,: ~3`~~ ~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases individual projects would be small, and their mobile and area operational emissions would not b~ expected to exceed BAAQMD's operational emissions thresholds. For plan-level air quality analyses (i.e., general plans, specific plans), the BAAQMD recommends a consistency analysis with the adopted 2005 Ozone Strategy. Therefore, in addition to assessing the DDSP operational impacts against BAAQMD thresholds (refer to Table 3.2- 4), a consistency analysis has also be prepared, comparing the DDSP to the 2005 Ozone Strotegy TCMs (refer to Table 3.2-6). The goals and policies of the DDSP would encourage: local and regional transit services, bicycle and pedestrian networks, altematives to automotive transportation, and land use decisions which would help to reduce the increased rate of VMT as compared to that associated with automotive transportation only. For example, the. West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is currently being constructed and would serve the DDSP area. The station is located along BART tracks with pedestrian bridges over Interstate 580 that connect to Golden Gate Drive in Dublin and to Stoneridge Mall Road in Pleasanton. Parking structures have been constructed on both sides of Interstate 580 to accommodate BART passengers. Station access is a key element in the planning of BART stations and facilitates the location of transit-oriented developments in Downtown Dublin. Consistency with Ozone Strategy Population Projections The 2005 Ozone Strategy was developed utilizing the most recent ABAG population projections available and vehicle activity projections. These projections are based on land use designations developed by cities and counties through local and regional planning processes. This existing number of dwelling units and commercial square footage used in this EIR is a more accurate number than that used in the 2005 Ozone Strategy because it is based on more recent data from the County Assessor, the Califomia Department of Finance, and private data vendors. Future development under the DDSP would affect emissions of ozone precursor pollutants and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PMio), both of which affect regional air quality. The purpose of the DDSP is to consolidate the five Specific Pians that apply to the Downtown Dublin Area. The DDSP would replace four of the current Specific Plans and the fifth for the portion that is within the DDSP Area. It focuses on strengthening the development standards and design guidelines and providing greater direction as to future land uses, particularly in the transit-oriented area south of Dublin Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in future changes in development pattems that affect regional air quality that are accounted for in the 2005 Ozone Strategy. The strengthening of development standards would facilitate mixed-use, live/work, and transit-oriented development, and would encourage altemative modes of transportation which would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, the proposed project would result in less vehicle use than what is assumed in the 2005 Ozone Strategy. Traffic modeling conducted for the DDSP reflects a lower rate of VMT growth than population growth. The projected population growth would be 3 I.7 percent from 2009 through 2015 based on the project market demand analysis within the DDSP. The projected growth rate of Page 3-36 ~ ~ a3~~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ VMT would be 23.4 percent in the same time frame. The VMT estimate is based on the scenario where not all development is built out in order to be consistent with the 2009- ~ 2015 time frame. Additionally, the DDSP proposes downtown development near transit and includes extensive policies intended to reduce VMT. The DDSP policies would reduce ~ VMT by creating a pedestrian-friendly downtown, accommodate altemative transportation ' modes (i.e., BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian), promote transit-oriented development, and incorporate mixed-use development into the Specific Plan area. As a result, the growth rate of VMT under the DDSP would not exceed the growth rate of the population. According to the current BAAQMD CEQf~ Guidelines, the VMT growth rate compared to the City's population growth rate over the same time frame would not hinder progress ~ towards achieving the goals of the 2005 Ozone Strategy. Therefore, the DDSP is consistent ` ~ with the applicable air quality plan, and a less than significant impact would result. Lon~=Term Operationai Emissions - Toxics Air Contaminants Impact 3.2-3: No major existing stationary or area sources of toxic air contaminants ~ (TACs) were identified in the vicinity of the project area. The DDSP would result in the development of mixed-use and commercial uses at the project site, which may generate sources of TACs from stationary sources. The proposed project would not result in ~ increased exposure of sensitive land uses in excess of applicable standards. This is ~ considered a less than significant impact. '~ 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. Through the CARE program, the Air District developed an inventory of TAC emissions for 2005 and compiled demographic and heath indicator data. 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, eastem San Francisco, westerr~ Alameda County, Redwood City/East Palo Alto, Richmond/San Pablo, and San Jose. ~ The CARB Air Quality ond 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. No major existing stationary or area sources of TACs were identified in the project vicinity. The DDSP would result in development within Downtown Dublin, which may generate sources of TACs from stationary sources. The ,~ development of any new stationary sources of TAC's associated with the DDSP project area would be subject to BAAQMD rules and regulations and perrnitting requirements. Living close to high traffic and associated emissions may lead to adverse health effects. A number of studies conducted have identified an association between health effects and ~ ~ Page 3-37 ~ aaHeu~TiNO - .. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases a3~~ ~ ~~ ~ living or attending school near heavily traveled roadways. One study conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area found that most related health effects associated with traffic were experienced within 300 feet of the traveled roadway. ~~ The nearest residential area of the DDSP area is located approximately 650 feet north of Interstate 580 (I-580). Therefore, as the DDSP area with proposed residential uses is greater than 300 feet from I-580, exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs would be less than significant. 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 Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. Compliance with applicable regulatory standards is required as part of the permitting process for development and operation of future development within the DDSP, and would ensure a less than significant impact. Lon~-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 pnmary 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 vehicle congestion have the potential to create "pockets" of CO called "hot spots." These pockets have the potential to exceed the State I-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) and/or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm. The BAAQMD requires that proposed projects are 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 I 0 percent or more. ~~ Califomia Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Lond Use Handbook~ A Community Heath Perspedive, April 2005. ~~ ~ Page 3-38 ~ ~o~s~~„~o ~ ,~ ~ , ~3~~ ~63 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ~ Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ Project would contnbute 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. ~~ .~ '~~ r~ ,~ ~ ,~ ~! ~-~ ~ Because traf~ic congestion is highest at intersections where vehicles queue and are subject to reduced speeds, these hot spots are typically produced at intersections. Based on the Tra~c Impact Analysis, the intersections listed in Table 3.2-7: Project Buildout Carbon Monoxide Concentrations, would require a CO hotspot analysis. The BAAQMD thresholds for CO emissions require projects to perForm localized CO modeling. In order to conduct 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 14 intersections identified in Table 3.2-7: Project Buildout Carbon Monoxide Concentrations would operate at LOS D, E, or F in 2030 without planned improvements, and therefore require a CO hotspot analysis. ~ OON9ULTIN6 Page 3-39 a~ ~ ~$ ~ ~. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ Table 3.2-7: Project Buildout Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~;~ ~.~ ~~~. ~~ . ~~~ .. E. F Y , ~~ ~ ~ `' ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~~ g ~' ~ Intersect~on~ ~ ~~' "~'~ ~`~~ -~~ ~:. ~ 1 Ho o 1-Hour ~~ Statitlard ~ ~ Cppm) ~~ u~ CO'~ ~ r~ ' ~ ~'~. , Future + ~ ; ~~ Prc~ect ~ ,~ x{ppml ~~ ~~~ 8 Hou '~ ~,:s~ 8 Fiour ~ St~an~ ard ~ ~` ~Ppm) ~ CO?~ ~ ,. ~ Future + ~ ~ P%~J,ect `IPP~) Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road 20 1.7 9 1.19 Amador Valley Boulevard and Regional Street 20 1.6 9 1.12 Amador Valley Boulevard and Starward DrivelSr. Center Drive 20 1.6 9 1.12 Amador Valley Boulevard and Donohue Drive 20 1.6 9 1.12 Amador Valley Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road 20 1.6 9 1.12 Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway 20 1.6 9 1.12 Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road 20 1.9 9 1.33 Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street 20 1.8 9 1.26 Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive 20 1.8 9 1.26 Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road 20 1.8 9 1.26 Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway 20 1.8 9 1.26 St. Patrick Way and Golden Gate Drive 20 1.8 9 1.26 St. Patrick Way/I-680 Southbound Ramp and Amador Plaza Rd. 20 1.8 9 1.26 I-680 Northbound On Ramp and Village Parkway Road 20 1.5 9 1.05 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 1.43 ppm. Eight-hour concentrations are based on a persistence of 0.7 of the 1-hour concentration. Source: RBF Consulting 2010 ~ A receptor height of I.8 meters was used in accordance with the EPA's recommendations. The calculations assume a meteorological condition of almost no wind (0.5 meters per ~ second), a flat topological condition between the source and the receptor, and a mixing height of I,000 meters. A standard deviation of five degrees was used for the wind direction. The suburban land classification was used for the aerodynamic roughness coefficient. This follows the CALINE-4 users manual definition of suburban as, "regular '~' coverage with large obstacles, open spaces roughly equal to obstacle heights, villages, mature forests.'' For the purposes of this analysis, the ambient concentration used in the ~ modeling was the highest one-hour measurement from the past five years of monitoring data at the Livermore Monitoring Station, , Actual future ambient CO levels may be lower due to emissions control strategies that ~ would be implemented between now and buildout of the proposed Specific Plan. As ~ Page 3-40 ~ ~o~.~~..a ~ ., ~~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ 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 I-hour average. Neither the I-hour average nor the 8- hour average would be equaled or exceeded. Therefore the proposed project would have ~ a less than significant impact on localized carbon monoxide. Exposure to Odorous Emissions ~ Impact 3.2-5: The DDSP would allow some uses which generate odors, including restaurants and other uses, however limited exposure and compliance with applicable r regulatory requirements will ensure that any impact is less than significant. Construction Odors '~ Future construction activities under the DDSP could generate airi~ome odors associated with the operation of constn.iction vehicles (i.e. diesel exhaust) and the application of architectural coatings. However, these odors are temporary in nature and are not ~ generally considered offensive. Emissions would occur during daytime hours only and would be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity. As such, these odors would not affect a substantial number of people, and these short-term impacts ~ would be limited to people living and working near the source. - Due to the types of odors that would occur in Downtown Dublin and limited exposure, ~ implementation of the DDSP would not create construction-related objectionable odors _ affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant. ~ Operational Odors Objectionable odors may be associated with a variety of pollutants. According to the ~ BAAQMD CEQf1 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 DDSP area. Potential operational airbome odors within Downtown Dublin 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 Specific Plan 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, Commerciol 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. ~ Page 3-41 aor~eu~TiHo .l+Z 6 • 1 ~ ~~ ~ •~ ~7 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Therefore, with incorporation of ventilation systems, and adherence to the Municipal Code regulations and BAAQMD Regulation No. 7, implementation of the DDSP 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. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 3.2-6: The DDSP would generate greenhouse gas emissions but would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32. This is considered a less than significant impact. Cumulative GHG emissions could occur as a result of future development under the DDSP. Future projects within the City, including within the project area, would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis to ensure their compliance with the City's policies and to determine if any impacts would occur beyond those already identified in this EIR. Califomia is a substantial contributor of global GHGs, emitting over 400 million tons of carbon dioxide (C02) a year.12 Climate studies indicate that Califomia is likely to see an increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) are also important GHGs that potentially contribute to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is increasing the earth's ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from: ^ Natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun; ^ Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation, reduction in sunlight from the addition of GHGs and other gases to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions); and, ^ Human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., through buming fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification). The impact of anthropogenic activities on global climate change is readily apparent in the observational record. For example, surFace temperature data shows that I I of the 12 years from 1995 to 2006 rank among the 12 warmest since 1850, the beginning of the instrumental record for global surface temperature.13 In addition, the atmospheric water 12 Califomia Energy Commission, Inventory of Califomia Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, 2006. 13 Intergovemmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymokers, February 2007. Page 3-42 ~ , a~~ ~ ~~3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ vapor content has increased since at least the 1980s over land, sea, and in the upper ~ atmosphere, consistent with the capacity of warmer air to hold more water vapor, ocean temperatures are warmer to depths of 3,000 feet; and a marked decline has occurred in mountain glaciers and snow pack in both hemispheres, along with a decline in polar ice and , ice sheets in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to ,~ determine the global atmospheric variation of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide from before the start of the industrialization period (around 1750) to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that carbon dioxide concentrations ranged from I 80 ppm to 300 ppm. For the period from around 1750 to the present, global carbon dioxide concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization period concentration of 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre-industrial ~ period range. The proposed project would contribute to global climate change by producing direct and ' indirect GHG emissions. GHGs resulting from construction activities, area sources, mobile ~_. sources, electricity consumption, and water conveyance could result in a significant impact on the environment. 1 Greenhouse Gas Si ni icance Cntena gf At this time, there is no absolute consensus in the State of Califomia among CEQA lead ~ agencies regarding the analysis of global climate change and the selection of significance -~ criteria. In fact, numerous organizations, both public and private, have released advisories and guidance with recommendations designed to assist decision-makers in the evaluation of ~, GHG emissions given the current uncertainty regarding when emissions reach the point of significance. That being said, several options are available to lead agencies. , First, lead agencies may elect to rely on thresholds of significance recommended or adopted by state or regional agencies with expertise in the field of global climate change. ~ (See CEQA Guidelines, § I 5064.7(c).) However, at the time of the release of the NOP for this EIR, neither CARB nor BAAQMD have adopted significance thresholds for GHG emissions for residential or commercial development under CEQA. CARB has suspended all efforts to develop a threshold, and BAAQMD's threshold remains in draft form. ~ Accordingly, this option (i.e., reliance on an adopted threshold) is not viable for the City. Second, lead agencies may elect to conclude that the significance of GHG emissions under ,t, CEQA is too speculative. However, the City has determined that this option is not viable due to the important focus on global climate change created by the various regulatory ~ schemes and scientific determinations cited_ in this section. Third, lead agencies may elect to use a zero-based threshold, such that any emission of GHGs is significant and unavoidable. Tlie City does not endorse this type of threshold ~ because it may indirectly truncate the analysis provided in CEQA documents and the mitigation commitments secured from new development. Moreover, no state or regional ~. ~ Page 3-43 CONBUlTINO ~ ' + `~ Lr" _ ~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Speafic Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ agency with expertise in global climate change has endorsed a zero-based threshold, which would likely result in the preparation of extensive environmental documentation for even ~ the smallest of projects, thereby inundating lead agencies and creating an administrative burden. Fourth, lead agencies may elect to utilize their own significance criteria, so long as such ,~ criteria are informed and supported by substantial evidence. Here, the City has elected to identify its own significance criterion until such time as a state or regional threshold is adopted by a competent authority. Based on the updated Appendix G of the State CEQA '. Guidelines, the City has determined that significant GHG emissions would result if a project would: (i) generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or (ii) conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation ~~" adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Based on AB 32 as a benchmark for purposes of this EIR, the following significance criterion is used to assess the first standard above: ~ Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a signi ficant impact on the environment~ For the purposes o f this EIR, a ` signi ficant impact will result i f a Speci fic Plan con flicts with or obstructs the implementation o f greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32; and/or con flicts \' with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose o f reducing the . emissions o f greenhouse gases. The GHG emission levels will be analyzed to determine whether project approval would ~ impede compliance with GHG emissions reduction strategies established to achieve compliance with AB 32, which requires that Califomia's GHG emissions be reduced to ,~ 1990 levels by 2020. As noted in the Scoping PIan14, a reduction of 28.5 percent below the "business as usual" scenario is required to meet the goals of AB 32. If the project complies with the reduction goals of AB 32, then a less than significant impact would occur '~ with regards to project-related GHG emissions. F~cposure to Climate Change Hazards This section evaluates the potential impacts of climate change on the DDSP area. Although the following climate change effects could affect the DDSP area, the type and degree of the impacts that climate change would have on humans and the environment is difficult to predict at the local scale. • Sea Level Rise. According to the IPCC, climate change is expected to raise sea levels by up to 4 feet. The City is located more than 14 miles from the Pacific Ocean coastline, and is separated from the coast by the Diablo Mountain Range. 14 Califomia Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Fromework for Change, adopted December ,~ 2008. ~. Page 3-44 ~ oo,.s~~.,..o ~. ~ a ~3 ~ ~~3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ • Therefore, the potential of inundation from sea level rise is low. Additionally, the ~ effects related to sea level nse are speculative at this time. If sea level rise is determined to• be a significant threat, protective measures would likely be installed by regional and local govemments to protect urbanized areas. ~ • Natural Disasters. Climate change could result in increased flooding and weather- related disasters. As the City is located more than 14 miles from the Pacific Ocean, ~ it is not likely that the City would be exposed to intense coastal storms., The frequency of large floods on rivers, streams, and other water bodies could also increase. This could adversely affect any reservoirs in the area. The City is located ' within portions of either the 100- or 500-year flood zones, making it susceptible to increased frequency of flooding from large storms. However, Downtown Dublin is developed and any new construction in flood prone areas is required to construct '~ the floor above the floodplain level, per the requirements of the City Public Works _ Department. • Wildfires. Climate change could result in increased occurrences and duration of . wildfire events. Downtown Dublin is located within an urbanized area which is not susceptible to wildfire hazards. Climate change could cause these areas of the City ~ to experience more frequent wildfires of great. intensity. However, these areas would not likely impact the downtown area of Dublin ~ ^ Air quality. Climate change would compound negative air c~uality impacts in the San , Francisco Air Basin, resulting in respiratory health impacts. 5 However, this would be a regional, not a project-specific effect. Moreover, as discussed above, the ~ Specific Plan's impacts on air quality were found to be less than significant. , Other predicted physical and environmental impacts associated with climate change include ~ heat waves, alteration of disease vectors, biome shifts, impacts on agriculture and the food supply, reduced reliability in the water supply, and strain on the existing capacity of ~ sanitation and water-treatment facilities. While these issues are a concem for society at large, none of these impacts would have a disproportionate effect on the implementation of the DDSP. ~ Direct Project-Related Sources o f Greenhouse Gases Direct project-related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area ~ sources, and mobile sources. Table 3.2-8: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, estimates the COZ, N20, and CH4 emissions of the proposed project. The 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 ~ 15 Califomia Environmental Protection Agency, AB 1493 Bnefng Package, 2008. ~ ~ Page 3-45 ~ OONOUITINB , . a~ ~~~ Downtown Dublin Speufic Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases emissions estimations are based on traffic data from Fehr and Peers as well as energy emissions from natural gas and electricity usage, as well as water consumption. Table 3.2-8: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ~ ~ =E E : ,. ~ ~~ _ C0~ , ~~ ~ ~; ~ ~ Nz0"~ , Met c T s ~` ~`- `` CHa < ~ ~ . . , T t l~ h ~ a~ ~: ~ ~ - ~ '~ Metnc ~ < ir Metric ~ ~ : of Metric ~ ~ ~ ' Metdc Tons ~ ~ f m o a ~ Nle c_Tons .. ~ ~ ~S ' ~ = • -~ styea~d to~sfyear C ie ~ "~' tonsfyear ~.o COseq/~; • ~ f CO t i~ ~ , 3 ourceE.. ~ ....- ~ ~ : ~ y ' seq 0 erationai Emissions Direct Emissions ^ Area Source' 9,316.74 0.17 52.95 0.18 3.75 9,373.44 ^ Mobile Source~~z 138,205.66 ' 8.32 2,580.68 8.00 167.95 140,945.28 Total Direct Emissions6 147,522.40 8.49 2,633.63 8.18 171.70 150,318.72 Indirect Emissions ^ Electrici Consum tion3 16,495.07 0.14 43.65 0.86 18.11 16,556.84 ^ Water Su I 15.96 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 16.02 Total Indirect Emissionss 16,511.03 0.14 43.70 0.86 18.13 16,572.86 Total Project-Related Operational 166,891.58 MTCOzeqtyear~ Emissions Notes: 1. Emissions calculated using the U.S. Energy Information Administration Independent Statistics and Analysis Website (http:llwww.eia.doe.govloil~aslnatural~aslinfo~lancelnatural~as. html). 2. Emissions calculated using EMFAC 2007, Highest (Most Conservative) Emission Factors for On-Road Passenger Vehicles and Delivery Trucks. 3. Electricity Consumption emissions calculated using the California Energy Commission, Reference Appendices for the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Revised June 2009 and SCAQMD's CEQA Hand6ook (note that SCAQMD has the most comprehensive demand factors available). 4. Water usage based on typical end usage rates for residential and non-residential uses. Emissions are based on energy usage factors for water conveyance from the Califomia Energy Commission, Water Energy Use in Califomia, Accessed March 2010. http:l/www.energy.ca.govlresearchliawlindustrylwater.htmi 5. COz Equivalent values calculated using the U.S. Environmental ProtecGon Agency Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, http:l/www.epa.govlcleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html, accessed March 2010. 6. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding. Refer to A endix B, Air ualit Data, for detailed model in uUout ut data. Mobile source emissions would represent the greatest amounts of GHGs generated from the proposed project. The proposed project would directly result in 140,945.28 metric tons of C02 equivalents per year MTCOZeq/year of mobile source GHG emissions. Area source emissions as a result of the proposed project would be 9,373.44 MTCO~eq/year. N20 and CH4 emissions were first calculated in metric tons/year, then converted to MTC02eq/year utilizing the EPA's GHG equivalencies calculator. Converting emissions to comparable units (MTCOZeq/year) allows for the summation of all GHG emissions. As shown in Table 3.2-8: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the development allowed under the DDSP would generate I 66,89 I.58 MTC02eq/year. Indirect Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases Electricit~ Consumption. Energy consumption emissions were calculated usin~ the Califomia Energy Commission and the U.S. Energy Information Administration factors 6 and 16 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Domestic Electncity Emissions Factors I 999-2002. Page 3-46 ~ ~o~o~~„~o ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ a `~~~ ~~3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ project-specific land use data; refer to Appendix D, Air Quolity Data. The emission factors ~ for electricity use (771.62 pounds of COZ per megawatt hour [MWh], 0.00659 pounds of N20 per MWh, and 0.4037 pounds of CH4 per MWh) were obtained from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. As a result, the potential development within the ~ project area would indirectly result in 16,556.84 MTCOZeq/year due to electricity usage; refer to Table 3.2-8: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions. -~ Water Supply. Water demand for the proposed uses would be approximately 135.63 acre-feet per year. Based on energy usage factors for water conveyance from the Califomia Energy Commission, water transport consumes approximately 366 kilowatt hours ~ [kWh] per acre-foot.~~ Emissions from indirect energy impacts due to water supply would result in I 6.02 MTCOZeq/year. Consistency with the Cali fomia Attorney General's Mitigation Measures The DDSP includes several measures that are consistent with the Califomia Office of the Attomey General's recommended measures to reduce GHG emissions. A list of the Attomey General's recommended measures and the project's compliance with each applicable measure is presented in Table 3.2-9: Project Consistency with the Attomey Generai's Recommendations. The proposed project would incorporate sustainable practices which include water, energy, solid waste, land use, and transportation efficiency measures. ~' Table 3.2-9: Project Consistency with the Attorney General's Recommendations ~ Proja -~ ~ es~gn Fa~iture ~~ , ~ ~ PiYj~ct~' 1' ~ 11ity' ~ ~ ~ Energy Efficiency Incorporate green buildin ractices and desi n elements. 9 P 9 The DDSP encoura es ener efficient buildin m g gy g easures. Meet recognized green building and energy efficiency Development Standards and Design Guidelines for new development in the DDSP area include several energy-saving benchmarks. measures. These include green roofs, Energy Star roof Insiall energy efficient lighting (e.g., light emitting diodes materials, and energy-efficient lighting (i.e., light sensors, (LEDs)), heating and cooling systems, appliances, equipment, induction lighting, compact fluorescent, and light-emitting and control systems. diode [LED]). In addition to Title 24 requirements, the DDSP ~ promotes and requires the conservation of energy and the use Use passive solar design, e.g., orient buildings and incorporate of renewable energy sources on new buildings where solar landscaping to maximize passive solar heating during cool access is available. The DDSP also encourages shading seasons, minimize solar heat gain during hot seasons; and mechanisms, such as incorporation of awnings, window , enhance natural ventilation. Design buildings to take shades, and strategically placed shade trees into future projeds advantage of sunlight. within the Specific Plan area. Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements. ~ Install efficient lighting, (including LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting. Renewable Energy ond Energy Storage ~ ~' California Energy Commission, Water Energy Use in Califomia, Accessed October 2009. http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/iaw/industry/water.html ,1 ~ ~ GONBUITINB Page 3-47 ~~'~ ~~~ Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases "Pro~e~t~'Design~ecitu~s =.~,; ~ ° ~~ ~ ro~e'T pi,c.ub3lity «. ~ ' ~~ ' "' ' ~~. .h•= ~ ° ~°:~ Install solar, wind, and geothermal power systems and solar The DDSP Development Standards and Design Guidelines hot water heaters. encourage solar energy systems, wind turbine systems, and have requirements to meet or exceed Energy $tar requiremenis. Future projecis within the Specific Plan area would adhere to the DDSP Goals, Development Standards, and Design Guidelines. Water Conservation ond Efficiency Incorporate water-reducing features into building and The DDSP addresses water conservation by encouraging landscape design. efficient design and green building measures. The DDSP encourages the use of low-volume drip irrigation systems to be Create water-efficient landscapes. used to water landscaping, and encourages the planting of Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as drought-resistant plants. Additionally, the DDSP promotes soil moisture-based irrigation controls and use water-efficient landscaping features that retain water and filter stormwater irrigation methods. runoff such as bio-swales, rain gardens, underground cisterns, flow-throu h lanters and roof ardens g p , g . Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy The Dublin San Ramon $ervices District (DSRSD) provides appropriate for the project and location. recycled water for irrigation and other non-potable uses. Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient DSRSD Ordinance No. 301 requires recycled water use for fixtures and appliances. 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 Municipol Code). Solid Waste Measures Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste The City requires all construction and demolition projects to (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, recycle at least 50 percent of waste generated on a job site lumber, metal, and cardboard). through Municipal Code Chapter 7.30. Additionally, the Specific Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines 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). Integrate reuse and recycling into residential industrial, The City of Dublin also has an aggressive and comprehensive institutional and commercial projects. recycling program. All single-family residences are provided Provide easy and convenient recycling opportunities for with recycling containers. In addition, free recycling service is available to all commercial customers that subscribe to solid residents, the public, and tenant businesses. waste collection. Land Use Measures Ensure consistency with "smart growth" principles -mixed-use, Implementation of the DDSP would transform Downtown infill, and higher density projects that provide alternatives to Dublin into a vibrant and dynamic commercial and mixed-use individual vehicle travel and promote the efficient delivery of center that would provide a wide range of opporfunities for services and goods. shopping, service, working, living, and entertainment. Residential mixed-use and non-residential mixed-use land use designations are proposed by the DDSP. Incorporate public transit into the project's design. The DDSP encourages transit-oriented development, as well as enhancement of a multi-modal circulation network for alternate transportation. The DDSP plans to improve connections to the BART station. Although no changes are proposed to existing transit service, transit routes may be altered to improve connections to the BART station. Promote "least polluting" ways to connect people and goods The DDSP Development $tandards and Design Guidelines to their desiinations. encourage visible pedestrian connections through surface Page 3-48 ~ =o.e~~.,~o ~. ~ a~f~~~f~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ ~ ~ ~~Project~=esign ~eature ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ f; ~~ ~ roj '~~~'bi1 ~ ~~~~ , Include pedestrian and bicycle facilities within projects and parking lots, connecting the parking lot to the destination. The ~ ensure that existing non-motorized routes are maintained and DDSP also encourages the expansion and improvement of enhanced. downtown pedestrian pathways and bikeways to improve connections for non-motorized travel. ~ Incorporate bicycle lanes, routes and facilities into street The DDSP recommends exploring opportunities to expand the systems, new subdivisions, and large developments. bikeway nelwork within the downtown area and creating Require amenities for non-motorized transportation, such as improved connections to the BART station. Bicycle facilities, such as bike lockers, bike racks, and shower facilities are secure and convenient bicycle parking. encouraged at or near the station. The DDSP also states that , bike racks should be provided fhroughout the downtown area. Ensure that the project enhances, and does not disrupt or The DDSP includes provisions for improved pedestrian create barriers to, non-motorized transportation. pathways and bicycle circulation within the downtown area. ~ Protect existing trees and encourage the planting of new trees. The DDSP includes provisions for the incorporation of street - Adopt a tree protection and replacement ordinance. trees within future projects in the Specific Plan area, including Preserve and create open space and parks. Preserve existing along streets and within parking lots. Street trees should odhere to the recommendations in the City's Streetscape ~ trees, and plant replacement trees at a set ratio. Master Plan as well as with standards within the DDSP. ~• Source: State of Califomia Department of Justice, Attorney General's Offic e, Addressing Climate Change at the Project Level, updated January 6, 2010. ~. Consistency with CARB's AB 32 Scoping Plan ~ The following is an analysis of the DDSP's co nsistency with actions identified in the CARB Scoping Plan. As noted above, AB 32 requires Califomia to reduce its GHG emissions by ' 28.5percent below "business as usual" level achieve this goal in its AB 32 Scoping Plan. s. CARB identified reduction measures .to Projects that are consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan are also consistent with the reduction re~quirements set forth in AB 32. Compliance with the CARB Scoping Plan wo uld ensure that the DDSP would not conflict ~, with the State's goals of reducing GHG emissions to I 990 levels. ~ The primary purpose of the Scoping Plan is to develop a set of ineasures that provide the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. The Scoping Plan includes, among other items, energy conservation measures, use of new ~ energy efficient technologies, a cap and trade emissions program, as well as transportation and land use standards and policies. Full implementation of the Scoping Plan depends upon actions taken by CARB and other State and Federal regulatory agencies. , The analysis below provides a consistency analysis with the CARB Scoping Plan and the DDSP. The DDSP Guiding Principles are consistent with applicable recommended actions and are noted below in Table 3.2- I 0: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Consistency with .' Recommended Actions in the CARB Scoping Plan. ~ ~ ~ Page 3-49 ~. ' aaNeu~rwo , a~ ~~~ Downtown Dublin S ecific Plan Draft EIR ~ P Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Table 3,2•10: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Consistency with Recommended Actions in the CARB Scoping Plan ~° ` ' .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~=~ F~~ , ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ x~ ` ~ ;~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ , ~ Conflict W~th,~ lmplementati ~ ~ ~ , . a; ' ~`~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ~~' ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ `~ ~ ' ~ ' : ~ ab '~ ~APPIic ~ le~~o p on o ~ f~the ~ ~~ o ~J ~ ' ~ ~. ~ ~s ,~ ~ roposed c ~rop sed ID.# Sector ~~A ~ ~Str~tegy~Name - ~~.: ~ Spe fc Plan Spec fc P~lan?~~ T- I Transportation Pavley I/II - Light-Duty Vehicle GHG No No Standards T-2 Transportation Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Discrete No No Early Ac~ion) T-3 Transportation Regional Transportation-Related GHG No No Targets T-4 Transportation Vehicle Efficiency Measures No No T-5 Transportation Ship Eledrification at Ports (Discrete No No Early Action) T-6 Transportation Goods-movement Efficiency Measures No No Heavy Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas T-7 Transportation Emission Reduction Measure - No No Aerodynamic Efficiency (Discrete Early Action) T-8 Transportation Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicle No No Hybridization T-9 Transportation High Speed Rail Yes No Electricity and Natural Increased Utility Energy efficiency E- I Gas programs. More stringent Building and Yes No Appliance Standards Electricity and Natural b crease Combined Heat and Power Use E 2 Gas y No No 30,000 GWh E-3 Ga~~city and Natural Renewable PortFolio Standard No No E-4 ricity and Naturai Million Solar Roofs Yes No Gas CR- I Ga~~city and Natural Energy Efficiency No No CR-2 Ga~ricity and Natural Solar Water Heating Yes No GB- I Green Buildings Green Buildings Yes No W- I Water Water Use Efficiency Yes No W-2 Water Water Recycling Yes No W-3 Water Water System Energy Efficiency Yes No Page 3-50 ~ ~ ~- r~ ~' i ~ ~ ~ a~~~~g~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~, ~- ~ ; ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~. _ ~ ~ , ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~° ~ •.. ~~ "~~ ~' ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~. ~ ~. . Co ~ ~ ° nflict With li~i~plementati, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ €p ~ °'~ ~ ~ E; ; -~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ _; ~ ~ -Appl~cable to ~~~ ~Proposed ~ ~ on of the ~ ;Proposed ~... ID # . Sector_ d~ x ,..~. 5trategynName ~ ~~ s:Specific Plan Specific Plan? ~ W-4 Water Reuse Urban Runoff No No W-5 Water Increase Renewable Energy Production No No W-6 Water Public Goods Charge (Water) No No I- I Industry Energy Efficiency and Co-benefits Audits No No for Large Industrial Sources I-2 Industry Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission No No Reduction I-3 Industry GHG Leak Reduction from Oil/Gas No No Transmission I-4 Industry Refinery Flare Recovery Process No No Improvements I-5 Industry Removal of Methane Exemption from No No Existing Refinery Regulations RW- Recycling and Waste Landfill Methane Control (Discrete Early No No I Management Action) RW- Recycling and Waste Additional Reductions in Landfill No No 2 Management Methane - Capture Improvements RW- Recycling and Waste High Recycling2ero Waste Yes No 3 Management F- I Forestry Sustainable Forest Target No No H- I High Global Warming Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems No No Potential Gases (Discrete Early Action) High Global Warming SF6 Limits in Non-Utility and Non- H-2 Potential Gases Semiconductor Applications (Discrete No No Early Action) High Global Warming Reduction in Perflourocarbons in H-3 Potential Gases Semiconductor Manufacturing (Discrete No No Early Action) High Global Warrning Limit High GWP Use in Consumer H-4 Potential Gases Produds (Discrete Early Action, No No Adopted June 2008) H-5 High Global Warming High GWP Reductions from Mobile No No Potential Gases Sources H 6 High Global Warming High GWP Reductions from Stationary No No Potential Gases Sources H ~ High Global Warming Potential Gases Mitigation Fee on High GWP Gases No No ~ aatiautT~Ho Page 3-51 Downtown Dublin 5 ecific Plan Draft EIR ~~ ~~V~ P Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Table 3.2- I 0 identifies which CARB Recommended Actions apply to the DDSP, and of those, whether the DDSP is consistent. Of the 39 measures identified, those that would be considered to be applicable to the DDSP would primarily be those actions related to transportation, electricity and natural gas use, water conservation, green building design, and industrial uses. Consistency of the DDSP with these measures is evaluated by each source- type measure. A detailed discussion of each CARB recommended action (as listed above) and whether the DDSP conflicts with its implementation is provided below. Transportation Scoping Plan Action T-9 supports high speed rail, which is part of the Statewide strategy to provide more mobility choice and reduce GHGs. The DDSP encourages transit-oriented development, as well as enhancement of a multi-modal circulation network for altemate transportation. As a result, the DDSP would help promote and would not conflict with Action T-9. Electricity and Natural Gas Scoping Plan Action E- I aims to reduce electricity demand by increased efficiency of Utility Energy Programs and adoption of more stringent building and appliance standards. The Development Standards and Design Guidelines in the DDSP specify that warrn white, energy efficient lighting source types such as metal halide, induction lighting, compact fluorescent, and light-emitting diode (LED) should be used where feasible. Energy-efficient lighting (lighting from renewable sources and energy-saving devices, such as light sensors) are encouraged. Additionally the DDSP has standards for the use of Energy Star requirements. Therefore, the DDSP would help implement and not conflict with Action E- I . Scoping Plan Action E-4 strives to promote solar generated electricity. The DDSP Development Standards and Design Guidelines encourage solar energy systems, wind turbine systems, and have requirements to meet or exceed Energy Star requirements. Future projects within the Specific Plan area would adhere to the DDSP Goals, Development Standards, and Design Guidelines. Therefore, the DDSP is consistent with and promotes the goal of Action E-4. Energy Efficiency Scoping Plan Action CR-2 aims to establish solar water heating systems in commercial and residential buildings. A solar water heating system offsets the use of natural gas by using Page 3-52 ~ ~o».~~„~a ~ ~ ~si ~~ ~~3 I ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~ the sun to heat water, typically reducing the need for conventional water heating by about ,~ two-thirds. In addition to Title 24 requirements, the Specific Plan promotes and requires the conservation of energy and the use of renewable energy sources on new buildings where solar access is available. Therefore, the DDSP would help implement and not ~ conflict with Action CR-2. Green Building ~ Scoping Plan Action GB- I aims to reduce electricity demand by increased efficiency and adoption of more stringent building standards. Elements of this action include encouraging construction of zero net energy (ZNE) buildings and implementation of passive solar ~ design. In addition to employing on-site electricity generation, a ZNE building must either replace natural gas with renewable energy for space and water heating, or compensate for natural gas use by generating surplus electricity for sale on the State's electricity grid. The ,~ DDSP encourages efficient building measures. Development Standards and Design Guidelines for new development in the DDSP area include the following energy-saving ~ measures: ^ Green roofs and rooftop gardens are encouraged to add landscaping, decrease the ~ heat island efFect of large expanses of flat roofs, and to reduce heating and cooling energy demands; ~ Roof materials should meet or exceed the Energy Star requirements for solar reflectance; ~ ^ Ener -efficient li htin li htin from renewable sources and n r - gy g g( g g e e gy saving devices, such as light sensors) is encouraged, whenever feasible; and ~~ ^ Where feasible, warrn white, energy effcient lighting source types such as metal halide, induction lighting, compact fluorescent, and light-emitting diode (LED) should ~~ be used. Water Use ~ Scoping Plan Action W- I pertains to implementation of water use efficiency measures, and Scoping Plan Action W-2 addresses water recycling and is part of the water use efficiency measures intended to reduce water usage and energy consumption. Additionally, Scoping ~ Plan Action W-3 targets increasing energy ef~iciency within the water system. The DDSP encourages water conservation through efficient design and green building measures. In ~ addition to potable water, the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) 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-Ef~icient ` Landscaping Regulations that reduce water use for irrigation (refer to the Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.88). The DDSP is consistent with and would not obstruct Scoping Plan ~ Action W- I, W-2, or W-3. ~ ~ Page 3-53 ~ aeHeu TiHo Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ~~~ ~3 ; `~ i ~ Recycling and Waste Management Scoping Plan Action RW-3 relates to high recycling/zero waste. 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 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. Additionally, the Specific Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines 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. Therefore, the project would not obstruct Scoping Plan Action RW-3. Consistency with the Attomey General's Recommendations and Climate Action Team GHG Emission Reduction Strategies In addition to being compliant with applicable CARB Scoping Plan Actions, the Development Standards and Design Guidelines are consistent with the Attomey General's recommended design features and the Califomia Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team's proposed early action measures to mitigate climate change. These measures are designed to ensure that projects meet the Govemor's climate reduction targets, and are documented in the Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger at the Legislature, March 2006. Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans, Policies, or Regulations The City does not currently have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. At this time, the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan is in draft form, and has not been formally adopted with a completed environmental document. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or program. As previously noted, the DDSP includes several measures that would result in a reduction of GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not hinder the State's GHG reduction strategies for meeting the goals established by AB 32, and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Page 3-54 p~ ~o .u..NO ~ ~ ~~~~g3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology, Soils & Seismicity ~ ~ 3.3. Geology, Soils & Seismicity ~, 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. ~ Environmental Setting ~ Geologic Structure The proposed project is located within the Califomia Coast Ranges Physiographic Province. ~ The project area consists of deep, geologically recent alluvial deposits containing gravel, sand, silt, and clay. On the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay, bedrock geology ~ consists of sedimentary and metaporphic rocks ranging from Cretaceous through Quatemary periods (up to 144 million years to present). ~ Topography The project area is generally flat with a gradual slope to the south. On-site elevations range from approximately 328 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 371 feet above msl. There are no unique or unusual geographic or topographic conditions present within the project area, since the majority of properties are developed and the project area lies in an urbanized portion of Dublin. Soils Each of the soils within the proposed project are listed below in Table 3,3- i: 5oil Map Units and shown in Figure 3.3- I: General Soil Map. Table 3.3-1: Soil Map Units ~ ,..~,d .~, s; . ~, ~ ~.~~' , ~ x ; ,< `~.. ,~ , »~: ~ ,~~ Cc Clear Lake clay, 0 to 3% slopes Clear Lake . ~ DaA Danville silty clay loam, 0 to 3% slopes Danville Pd Pescadero clay Pescadero "~ Sm Sunnyvale clay loam over clay Sunnyvale YmA Yolo loam, 0 to 3% slopes Yolo ~ Source: NRCS 2010 The following soils are located in the vicinity of the proposed project (and are identified on ~ Figure 3.3- I), but do not occur within the DDSP boundary: Danville silty clay loam, 0 to 3% _ slopes (DaB); Diablo Clay, I 5 to 30% slopes (DbD); and Sycamore silt loam over clay (Sy). ~ The following is a description of the individual soil characteristics within the project area. This soil information is derived from the Alameda Area, Califomia (CA609) Web Soil Survey. ~ Page 3-55 ~ . ~ coHSU~iwm ~~~ g~ D wn o n ~ S PI ~ o t w Dublin peafic an Draft EIR Geology, Soils & Seismicity ^ 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. The native vegetation consists of grasses and forbs. ^ Danville silty clay loam (0 to 3 percent slopes). Danville silty clay loam is a very deep, well drained soil. Permeability is slow, runofF is slow to medium. This soil is used for growing row, truck, and field crops; minor areas of this soil are used for growing small grain. Uncultivated areas have annual grasses, forbs, and scattered trees. e Pescadero day. Pescadero clay is a very deep soil. Permeability is very slow, runoff is very slow, and is poorly drained or ponded in areas with concave slopes. This soil is mainly used for livestock grazing, some reclaimed areas are used for irrigated field, row crops and irrigated pasture. Commonly cultivated crops include sugarbeets, barley, alfalfa, com and tomatoes. The native vegetation consists mainly of salt grass, pickle weed, annual grasses and forbs. ^ Sunnyvale clay loom over clay. Sunnyvale clay loam over clay is a poorly drained soil with slow permeability and slow runoff: Because the water table has been lowered due to pumping in most areas where this soil occurs, the water tables and soil management are similar to somewhat poorly or moderately well drained soils. This soil is mostly used for row crops, orchards, irrigated pasture and field crops. The native vegetation consists of grasses, tules, sedges, and forbs. ^ Yolo loam (0 to 3 percent slopes). Yolo loam is a well drained soil with slow to medium runoff. Permeability is moderate, although tillage pans have developed over broad areas and tend to restrict permeability. This soil is used for intensive row, field and orchard crops. The native vegetation consists of annual grasses, forbs, and some scattered oak. E~ansive 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. The soils located within the project area do not generally exhibit characteristics of expansive soils. 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 concem when the topsoil layer is blown or washed away. Most natural erosion occurs at relatively slow rates; however, the rate of erosion increases where the ground surface is Page 3-56 ~ CONBUlTiN6 ~ a55~~$~j ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology, Soils & Seismicity ~ steep and when land is cleared and/or left in a disturbed condition, such as may occur ~ during the preparation and excavation phases of site development. The proposed project site is nearly flat-lying and at least 85 percent of the soils within the project area are covered by roads, buildings, parking lots, and sidewalks. Therefore, the majority of the soils ~ within the project area are not exposed to erosive forces. 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 site. 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 Califomia Geological Survey (CGS) Seismic Hazard Zone , where liquefaction may occur during a strong earthquake. ~ Due to the relatively flat topography of the project area, landslides are not considered to be a potential significant geologic hazard. The proposed project is not located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where landslides may occur during a strong earthquake. In ~ addition, the proposed project is not located near an ocean or lakefront; therefore, the risk of tsunamis or seiches 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 I I,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 Quatemary time (about the last I.6 million years). Faults surrounding the project area are shown in Figure 3.3-2: Fault Location Map and the active and conditionally active faults that are located within 45 miles of the project area are listed below in Table 3.3-2: Active and Conditionally Active Faults within 45 Miles of the Project Area. ~ Page 3-57 ooHau~r~Ho as~~b'~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology, Soils & Seismicity Table 3.3-2: Active and Conditionally Active Faults within 45 Miles of the Project Area Fa , ame : ~stan~ i tes ~t.~ ~ :... i m C i~' E q e Hayward 6 Historic Active 7.5 Calaveras Traverses Project Holocene Active 7 5 Site . Monte Vista 26 Late Quaternary Conditionally Active 6.5 Las Positas 10 Historic Active 6.3 San Andreas 26 Historic Active 8.0 Pleasanton 1.5 Historic Active 6.2 Greenville 10.5 Historic Active 7.25 San Gregorio 33 Holocene Active 7.5 Concord 14 Historic Active 6.5 Green Valley 28 Holocene Active 6.75 Napa 37 Holocene Active 6.5 Rodgers Creek 43 Late Quaternary Active 7.1 Source: USGS 2006 and Caltrans 1996 Three active faults are located within six miles of the proposed project: the Pleasanton Fault, which is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast, the Hayward Fault, which is located approximately six miles west, and the Calaveras Fault, which traverses the westem portion of the project area. The Calaveras Fault is the major active fault in the project area with rupture potential, and runs parallel to and just west of San Ramon Road. As shown in Figure 3.3-3: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map, the westem portion of the project area is located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, due to the Calaveras Fault. Established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones require detailed studies of rupture hazards prior to construction. Because of the presence of active faults in the region, the project area is considered seismically active. Numerous small earthquakes occur every year in the region, and large (greater than Magnitude 7.0) earthquakes have been recorded and can be expected to occur in the future. All development within the project area is therefore subject to seismic hazards. Development standards require the proposed project to comply with appropriate seismic design criteria in the Califomia Building Code (CBC), adequate drainage facility design, and preconstruction soils and grading studies. 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 Page 3-58 ~ coHau~ ino ~ ~ as~~ `~$~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology, Soils & Seismicity ~ ' . 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. Ground Shal<in~ ~. Some ground shaking is likely at the proposed project site 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. Regulatory Setting ~ State Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act 1 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- .~ Pnolo Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones known as "Earthquake Fault Zones" around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropnate 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. ~ Califomia Building Standards Code (CBC) The State of Califomia 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 Untied States (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by district basis), and has been modified for conditions within Califomia. 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 ~ ~ Page 3-59 1 coHau~nNm ~ ~- ~~~ a~~ ~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology, Soils & Seismicity govemments in land use planning. The intent of the Act is to protect the public from the effects of strong groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, or other hazards caused by earthquakes. In addition, CGS Special Publication I 17, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in Cali fomia, 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 o f 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 concerri 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 drainageways, consistent with biological and visual values. Environmental Resources Management Seismic Sa fety and Sa fety Element 8. I: 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 the financial risks to the City of Dublin and other public agencies that would result from damage to poorly located public facilities. 8. I. I 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. I. I: 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. Page 3-60 ~ coneut~~No ~ -. ~ ~~~ ~g3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology, Soils & Seismicity I 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. ~ I. Cumulative effect of new development on a partially developed slide; 2. Effects of septic leach systems, garden watenng, and altered drainage pattems; 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 Quatemary 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. 8. I.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 , Califomia 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 turr~ would significantly alter geologic or soils conditions, shall be accompanied by a re-analysis of those conditions. ~ ~ Page 3-61 ~ CONBULT~NO , ,: ~ 'Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology, Soils & Seismicity ~~°~ `~ ~~ ~ ~ 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. I.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. I.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. I.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, Soils & Seismicity beyond those requirements per the CBC, City o f Dublin General Plan, and City's Building Code. 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 Page 3-62 ~ cor~au~nrao . a~~~ ~3 l ` Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology, Soils & Seismicity ~ 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 I 8- I-B of the Uniform Building Code ( I 994), 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 previously published reports and GIS data from the CGS, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources ~ Conservation Service, the Califomia Department of Conservation, and the City o f Dublin - General Plan. ~ Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures I an~icliriPc ~ 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. In addition, the proposed project is not located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where ~ landslides may occur during a strong earthquake. No impacts would occur. Septic Tanks or Altemative Wastewater Disposal Systems ~~ Wastewater disposal in the project area is provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Future development within the project area would be required to connect to the ~ existing wastewater system. The project area would not need to use. septic tanks or other altemative wastewater disposal systems. Consequently, the threshold of significance for septic tanks or altemative wastewater disposal systems would not apply to the proposed ~ project and no further analysis is required. No impacts would occur. Fault Rupture ~ Impact 3.3- I:~ Active or potentially active faults are located within the project area and the Calaveras Fault traverses the westem portion of the project area. However, future ~ development associated with the proposed project will be performed in accordance with the ~atest edition of the CBC, in addition to the goals and policies of the City o f Dublin Generol Plan. This is considered a less than significant impact. ~ The proposed project is located in a seismically active area. The nearest potentially active fault is the Calaveras Fault, which traverses the westem portion of the proposed project ~ Page 3-63 ~o,.o„~r,„m t ~W~' Downtown Dublin 5 ecific Plan Draft EIR ~~~~ P Geology, Soils & Seismicity site. The Calaveras Fault is also located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (a regulatory zone around an active fault). Per the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, before a project can be permitted, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings will not be constructed across active faults. An evaluation and written report of a specific site must be prepared by a licensed geologist. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (generally 50 feet). The westem portion of the project area that is located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone is already built-out. Design of any redevelopment within this 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 local technical reports 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 3.3-2: 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 in the DDSP area depending on the magnitude, characteristics, and location of the seismic event. According to the CBC, the proposed project is located within Seismic Zone 4. Because the DDSP area is in Seismic Zone 4, structures are 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 be implemented to reduce the potential for adverse effects to human life and property caused by seismically induced groundshaking. 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 Generol 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 geotechnical studies and submit them to the City for approval. In addition, the project applicant 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 Page 3-64 ~ codeu~rrtao . ~ c~~ ~3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology, Soils & Seismicity ~ 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 3.3- I Project applicants shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical report that addresses the affects of ~ seismic ground shaking and includes a quantitative evaluation of liquefaction and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading for future development in the DDSP project area. The design level geotechnical report shall specify ~ foundations and structural elements that are designed to resist forces and potential ground settlement for liquefaction and lateral spreading. This report shall be submitted in conjunction with a Building Permit application. Liquefaction ~ Impact 3.3-3: 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 tuming 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 site could expose people and/or structures to hazards associated with seismic-related ground failure. ~ The proposed project is located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where liquefaction may occur during a strong earthquake. This Zone is defined as an area where historic ~ occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and ground water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. Future development within the DDSP 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 3.3- I would require ~ properties developing within this zone to prepare a design level geotechnical report, which _ would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure MM 3.3- I Project applicants shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical report that addresses the affects of seismic ground shaking and includes a quantitative evaluation of liquefaction and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading for future development in the ~ Page 3-65 cor+eu~rwu . • ~~~ ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR ~ Geology, Soils & Seismicity DDSP project area. The design level geotechnical report shall specify foundations and structural elements that are designed to resist forces and potential ground settlement for liquefaction and lateral spreading. This report shall be submitted in conjunction with a Building Permit application. Soil Erosion Impact 3.3-4: Implementation of the proposed project may result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during short-term construction activities within the DDSP project area. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Because the majority of the soils in the project area are covered by roads, buildings, parking lots, and sidewalks, and the remainder have been landscaped, the erosion potential in the DDSP area is very low. Nonetheless, earth-disturbing activities associated with any future construction in the project area has the potential to increase erosion if proper sedimentation and erosion control methods are not in place at the construction project sites. The City of Dublin Public Works Department Policy No. 95- I I 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 DDSP area are 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. A Erosion and sedimentation issues are addressed more fully in Section 3.5 (Hydrology & Water Quality) of this EIR. Compliance with the City of Dublin Public Works Department Policy No. 95- I I; NPDES permit process; and the City's Building Code requirements, as described in Mitigation Measures 3.5- I a and 3.5- I b, would minimize the effects from erosion and reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Miti~ation Measures MM 3.5- I a: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project proponent shall file a Notice of Intent as required by Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding Page 3-66 ~ caHeu~ ~Ha a~5~~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology, Soils & Seismicity ~ stormwater discharges associated with construction activities. Upon ~ completion of construction activities, a Notice of Termination shall be filed. . MM 3.5- I b: 'Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, a Storm Water , Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by the project contractors and submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and comment and to the City of Dublin in conjunction with the ~ Building/Grading/Site work permit and shall be found to be acceptable by the City prior to ground disturbance. The SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and Alameda Countywide ~ Clean Water Program requirements, and shall identify erosion minimization and control provisions, pollution detection provisions, and pollution elimination/ minimization provisions appropriate to the development project , and its site for construction and post-construction activities. The SWPPP shall include best available technology, engineering, and design solutions ~ such as the use of silt screens, hay bales, modem trash screens, energy dissipaters, and/or absorbent devices. Stormwater runofF water quality monitoring procedures shall be clearly detailed in the SWPPP. Expansiye _Soil ' Impact 3.3-5: Implementation of the proposed project would not lead to development on expansive soil. With adherence to the City's Building Code and CBC requirements, this is considered a less than significant impact. ~' Based on the soil descriptions described above, the soils located within the project area are: Clear Lake clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes; Danville silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes; ~ Pescadero clay; Sunnyvale clay loam over clay; and Yolo loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes. These do not generally exhibit characteristics of expansive soils; however, a site-specific evaluation of soil conditions would be required by the City for each specific development ~ project within the project area. In addition, all future projects would be required to adhere to the City's Building Code and CBC requirements. Therefore, impacts as a result of expansive soils would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is ~ required. ~ ~ Page 3-67 ' cowau~r~Na a~b ~ ~~~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Geology, Soils & Seismicity , ~ , ~ ~ Page 3-68 ~ conau~t~NO , r rr ~ a~ r~r rr r~ a~ ~ rr~ ~~r ~ r~ +~ ~~ r ~ s ~ ~ ~.i~ Source: City of Dublin (2009), NRCS Web Soil Survey (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ~ 0 550 1,100 2,200 ^ ... N Feet General So~l Map CON9ULTIN6 o7mnOJN70-iao23s Figure . - r r~r ~ ar ir ~~r ~a~ ~~~ ~r r~ ~s ~i +~ rw r e ~ ~~ . ~1 ~ ~~ `°~ ~ ~ ~ '•~ \ o~~ . ; ~o A _;~;~n : ; ~ ~. ~ ~ `~o~~ t ~ .~:.~~t~- ( ~i~ , . ti 7s i. ~. ~,? ;~x..+.~ ~~~~ 13Y~1 ~$S ~ (~1 ~\ ~ .. i~ •.wx ~t ,v ~ ~ ` a~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' \lf .~n~ ' ~ ~ .oG~ ~ L ' x ,. ~ - - ' -..be, ... r N~ ; :~ ~:~ :~ ~ ~ - , ~~ J', . ~ . T \ 1 ~~ ~ LEGEND Faults `~::~``~"'Qt~~° ~<150years;Historic - <15,000; Latest Quaternary - <130,000; Late Quaternary ---° <1;600,000; Quaternary Specific Plan Boundary City Limit Line County Lines <;;.:r~ .)<3_-<.;:.atr: ~ ~ \,1 , [~~~~1Y1!'£: P'~'t;~.c. ::u~'~1=; t;;ir ~ d dL ~ ~A NN T , °~G r ~~, ~,.~~,:to °+.. - ~ 34-itli's!" .. ~ ~ \ ~ Pvi~tGe~;: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ .,... ~ ~\1 i re;,~ :, ~ DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ~ 0'~ Fault Location Map ~' Source: City of Dublin (2009), USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the US (2006) /~ 0 5 10 20 ~N Miles ^ ^ ^ CONSULTING ' 04/06/tOJN74100239 Figure 3.3~2 ~ ~ ~ +r a~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ r +~ rs ~ ~r ~ ~ Source: City of Dublin (2009), USGS (2010), Califomia Geological Survey (2002) ~ 0 500 1,000 2,000 N Feet ^ ^ ^ C O N S U LTI N G 0727/10 JN 70-100239 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~7a ~~~ 1~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards & Hazardous Materials 3.4. Hazards & 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 existing environmental records to identify agency listings of sources of hazardous materials which might affect the project area; a review of potential airport hazards; and a review of emergency evacuation routes in the vicinity of the project area This section evaluates the potential for hazardous materials within the project area based on readily discemable and/or documented present and historic uses within the project area and generally charactenzes the expected nature of hazardous materials that may be present. ' Environmental Setting Regional Setting ~ The proposed project is located in the Amador Valley region of eastem Alameda County, within the Califomia Coast Ranges Physiographic Province. The project area consists of deep, geologically recent alluvial deposits containing gravel, sand, silt, and clay. ~ 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 norrnal 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. ~ Air ort Hazards ~ The closest airport to the project area is the Livermore Municipal Airport (hereinafter "Airport"), which is located approximately 6.5 miles east of the downtown. 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 I 50,000 annual aircraft operations. The airfield is accessible 24 ~ , hours a day. According to the Liverrnore Municipal Airport Master Plan, the downtown is not lacated within the approach zones and is not located within an unacceptable noise contour. r~ ~ ~ ~ Page 3-69 Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR Hazards & Hazardous Materials a~ ~~ `~~3 1 Wildland Fire Hazards Due to the urban nature of the project area, the proposed Specific Plan is not located within an area that would be subject to the requirements of the City's Wild fire Management Plan (City of Dublin 2002). Project Setting The majority of the project'area is developed with urban uses consisting of commercial retail, auto dealerships, hotel, and office uses as shown in Figure 2-3: Existing Land Uses. The majority of the land uses include regional serving retail in the center of the project area. These include: Target, Toys R Us, Burlington Coat Factory, 99 Ranch Market, Orchard Supply Hardware, Ross, Marshall's, and Safeway. Several large scale retailers have recently closed in 2009 due to the current economic recession and/or other factors. There are two auto dealership sites in.the Specific Plan area including one located in the southeast comer of Dublin Boulevard and Golden State Drive and one located at the southeast corrier of Saint Patrick Way and Amador Plaza Road. Smaller specialty retail, convenience retail, and services are generally located west of Regional Street and along Amador Valley Boulevard, Amador Plaza Road, and Village Parkway. Office uses within the Specific Plan Area include the Corrie Center (located southeast of Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street), the Chase Bank Building (southwest of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive) and an office building located at the south end of Amador Plaza Road. Other notable land uses include the 238-room Holiday Inn, Earl Anthony Dublin Bowl, Dublin Bowl, Dublin Post Office, Dublin Iceland, and a senior center with an associated 54- unit Wicklow Square apartment complex. Hazardous Materials RBF Consulting observed the physical characteristics of the project area, which included: I) a preliminary visual examination of the project area; 2) review of aerial photographs and topographic maps; 3) a review of the Geotracker database maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board regarding public agency records within the project area; and 4) a review of the Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan (City of Livermore I 975). Asbestos and Lead Based Paints 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. I percent) threshold). Page 3-70 ~ ~o~s~~ ~«o a~a~ ~g3 ~ Downtown Dublin S ecific Plan Draft EIR P Hazards & Hazardous Materials ~ 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 I 978 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. It is likely that ACMs and LBPs may be associated with any structures located within the ~ project area that were constructed more than 40 years ago. Historical and Re~ulat~ Searches ~ Based on a search on the State Water Resources Control Board's GeoTracker database, the following leaking underground storage tank (LUS~ sites are located are within the ~ project area and are fuel sites where petroleum-based products were leaked into the soil and/or groundwater. ~ ^ Former Quest Laboratory (65 I I Golden Gate Drive). One 2,000-gallon gasoline underground storage tank was removed from the site in I 989. A Phase II Site Investigation was conducted at the site in December 2003 through January 2004. , Groundwater impact was detected from previous release of diesel fuel. Four groundwater monitoring wells were installed in January 2009. Groundwater monitoring is currently being conducted at the site. ~ ^ Arco Gas Station (7249 Villoge Porkway). The Arco Gas Station site is a LUST clean- up site. Since I 990, four underground storage tanks USTs have been removed , from the site. In addition, a total of 4, I 50 tons of soil and approximately 25,600 gallon of impacted groundwater was removed from the site. However, significantly elevated residual concentrations of TPH-g and benzene remain at the site in the ~ vicinity of the former USTs. The cleanup status is open and is currently undergoing verification monitoring. ^ Unocal Gos Station (7850 Amador Valley Boulevard). This site is a LUST clean-up site ~ that is currently undergoing verification monitoring. In November I 994, one 280- gallon steel waste oil UST and four I 0,000-gallon steel USTs, consisting of one regular, one mid-grade, one super-unleaded gasoline, and one diesel UST were ~ replaced with two I 2,000-gallon steel USTs. Following UST removal activities, soil sample analytical results detected elevated concentrations of total petroleum , hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel, gasoline, and benzene at concentrations of 9, I 00 mg/kg, I,600 mg/kg, and I.6 mg/kg, respectively. Groundwater monitoring wells installed at the site verified hydrocarbon contamination in groundwater. In 2007, a ~ sensitive receptor survey was perForrned. Source area characterization is currently underway. ' ~' Page 3-71 ~o~.~~n~o ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards & Hazardous Materials a~3 ~~3 1 ^ Comwood Carwash (6973 Village Parkway). Two I 0,000 gallon USTs were removed from the site in January 2000. Significantly elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in soil and groundwater samples. Between 2000 and 2006, subsurFace investigations consisting of soil borings and groundwater monitoring well installations were conducted at the site. ^ Former Crown Chevrolet (7544 Dublin Boulevard). A subsurface investigation was conducted in February 2009. Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was detected in soil and groundwater. A site assessment for the contamination is currently underway. ^ The following two cases are chlorinated solvent sites where tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and/or tetrachloroethylene (TCE) have been detected: ^ Crow Canyon Cleaners (7272 San Ramon Boulevard). The Crow Canyon Cleaners is an open case with potential contaminants of concem including Tetrachloroethylene (PCE). ^ Village Squore Shopping Center (7054-7150 Villoge Parkwoy). The Village Parkway Shopping Center is an open case with potential contaminants of concem of chlorinated solvents (PCE), chlorinated solvents (TCE) and volatile organic compounds. 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 Califomia 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 ( I) 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 otherwise managed (22 CCR §66260.10 and Califomia Health and Safety Code [HSC] §2550 I). 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 fhe workplace or the environment (22 CCR §66260. I 0). 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 Califomia Hazardous Substances Account Act (HSC §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 §9607(i)). Regulation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes occurs at the federal, state, and local levels of govemment. On the federal level, many hazardous materials-related Page 3-72 ~ CONBULTINO ~ 1 , ~ LJ ' , ' ~ , ~ ~ ' , ' ~ , ' ' .~: - ~~~~ ~g3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards & Hazardous Materials 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 (DO~. In 1993, Senate Bill 1082 gave the Califomia Environmental .Protection Agency (CaIEPA) 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 CaIEPA 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 Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) is the designated CUPA within the geographic boundaries of the County and has jurisdiction in the following cities: Alameda, Albany, Castro Valley, Dublin, Emeryville, Piedmont, Newark, San Lorenzo, Sunol, and the unincorporated areas of Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Leandro and parts of Byron, Mountain House and Tracy. The ACDEH is therefore the administrative agency that coordinates and enforces numerous local, state, and federal hazardous materials management and environmental protection programs in the county. 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 ^ 500 pounds of a solid ^ 200 cubic feet for any compressed gas ^ Threshold planning quantities of an extremely hazardous substance ^ 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. ~ Page 3-73 Downtown Dubhn Speafic Plan Draft EIR Hazards & Hazardous Matenals a~~ ~~ ~ i ^ 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. ^ Cali fomia Accidental Release Program - The Califomia 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 Progrom - Facilities with a single tank or cumulative aboveground storage capacities of I,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, I 12). 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. In addition to the CUPA, other local agencies help to implement the Unified Program. These agencies are called Participatory Agencies (PA). The Alameda County Fire Department is the PA for the City of Dublin. The Department provides hazardous materials code enforcement, public education, and emergency response services. It also oversees enforcement of hazardous waste regulations, underground tank requirements, risk management requirements, and clean up of hazardous materials spills that occur within the City. In addition, the Department manages the City's hazardous materials management plans. Local of Dublin General Plan The following policies in the City o f 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 3-74 ~ GONBUlTINO , 1 ~~~~ ~;~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards & 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 Califomia Health and Safety Code, applicable portions of the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and the City o f Dublin ~ General Plan. City of Dublin Wildfire Mana~ement Plan ~ The purpose of the City o f Dublin Wild fire 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 City from the State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker database, as well as review of ' the Livermore Airport Master Plan (City of Livermore I 975) to address any potential airport- related hazards. ~ 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 3-75 ~o~.~~n~o , Downtown Dublin Speafic Plan Draft EIR Hazards & Hazardous Materials ~~,~ `~~~ 1 ^ 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 Govemment 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. Transport, Use, Disposal, and Release of Hazardous Materials During Operation Impact 3.4- I: Future development 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. However, this would be considered a less than significant impact. The proposed Specific Plan 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 inforrnation 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 3.4-2: 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 potentially 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 Page 3-76 ~ ~o~s~ t,~o a~~~~3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards & Hazardous Materials ~ 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 as required by Mitigation Measures MM 3.5- I a and 3.5- I b. Compliance with the appropriate hazardous materials handling , measures and acquisition of the NPDES General Permit for construction activities would ensure that potential hazardous materials impacts during short-term construction activities associated with future development within the project area would be less than ' significant. Mitigation Measures ~ MM 3.5- I a: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project proponent shall file a Notice of Intent as required by Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding ~ stormwater discharges associated with construction activities. Upon completion of construction activities, a Notice of Termination shall be filed. MM 3.5- I b: Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, a Storm Water ' Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by the project contractors and submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for ~ review and comment and to the City of Dublin in conjunction with the Building/Grading/Site work permit and shall be found to be acceptable by the City prior to ground disturbance. The SWPPP shall be prepared to ' Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program requirements, and shall identify erosion minimization and control provisions, pollution detection provisions, and pollution ' elimination/ minimization provisions appropriate to the development project and its site for construction and post-construction activities. The SWPPP ~ shall include best available technology, engineering, and design solutions such as the use of silt screens, hay bales, modem trash screens, energy dissipaters, and/or absorbent devices. Stormwater runoff water quality ~ monitoring procedures shall be clearly detailed in the SWPPP. Result in the Release of Hazardous Materials from the Demolition of Structures ' Impact 3.4-3: The proposed project may 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 potentially significant impact, ' Future develo ment within the ro'ect area ma .result in the demolition of buildin s that P P J Y g were constructed prior to approximately I 980, which may contain asbestos and/or lead, a ~ Page 3-77 ~ ' oo~.~~r,~m Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards & Hazardous Materials 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 I I, Rule 2, which regulates the demolition and renovation of buildings and structures which may contain asbestos. Specifically, District Regulation I I-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. The potential release of ACM and LBPs during demolition activities is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that this impact is reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure MM 3.4- I Prior to demolition of existing structures that were constructed prior to 1980 within the project area, project applicants shall have structures proposed for demolition inspected by a qualified environmental specialist for the presence of LBPs and Asbestos (ACM) contaminating materials prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the City of Dublin. If found to be present, samples shall be collected and analyzed for ACM and lead using EPA testing methods. If actionable levels of lead and or ACM are within the structures, a remediation plan shall be prepared by a qualified consultant and implemented. Necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Worker safety plans shall be included in any ' remediation plans. Any hazardous materials that are removed from the structures shall be disposed of at an approved landfill facility in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. With implementation of this mitigation measure and applicable rules and regulations by the U.S. EPA and the BAAQMD, impacts from any demolition of existing structures within the project area would be considered a less than significant impact. Result in the Disturbance of Contaminated Soil or Groundwater Impact 3.4-4: -I he project area is not located on a hazardous material site pursuant to ~ Govemment Code Section 65962.5. Based on a search of the State Water Resources Control Board's GeoTracker database, there are approximately seven sites within the ' project area that are currently being investigated. If hazardous materials are discovered during construction activities at sites located in the vicinity of these open cases, this would be considered a potentially significant impact. , The project area contains approximately seven sites that are currently being monitored by the Regional Water Quality Control Board: ~ Page 3-78 ~ consu~nno 1 `. ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ , , ~ , a~o ~ ~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hazards & Hazardous Materials ^ Former Quest Laboratory (65 I I Golden Gate Drive). ^ Arco Gas Station (7249 Village Parkway). ^ Unocal Gas Station (7850 Amador Valley Boulevard). • Comwood Carwash (6973 Village Parkway). ^ Crown Chevrolet Cadillac Isuzu (7544 Dublin Boulevard). ^ Crow Canyon Cleaners (7272 San Ramon Boulevard). ^ Village Parkway Shopping Center (7054-7150 Village Parkway). ^ 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 by ensuring that future development evaluates the potential for hazardous materials within a specific project site prior to construction activities: Mitigation Measure MM 3.4-2 Future development or substantial redevelopment within the project area shall prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to determine whether or not a particular development site contains any hazardous materials as a result of historic contamination within the project area subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin. In the event that the Phase I recommends subsequent testing, the potential health risks shall be evaluated and a work plan prepared to remediate the soil and/or groundwater in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. This assessment 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 3.4-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with contaminated soils within the project area to a less than significant level. Emit Hazardous Materials in the Vicinitv of a School Nielsen Elementary School (7500 Amarillo Drive, Dublin) is located within a quarter mile of the project site. 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 be commercial, office and retail uses with some residential and public uses. Related hazardous materials would also be typical 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 ~ Page 3-79 ,~1 ~.~i ~ ~ ~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ' Hazards & Hazardous Materials ' materials at future development/redevelopment sites within the project area. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact to Nielsen ~ Elementary School after compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. Interfere with an Emer~ency Response Plan/Emergency Evacuation Plan ~ The proposed Specific Plan would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and no impact is anticipated. 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, it would not be subject to ~ potential wildfire hazards. Potential for Airport Hazards ~ The closest airport to the project area is the Livermore Municipal Airport which is located approximately 6.5 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 result in a safety hazard for any people residing or working in the area. , , ' ~ , ~ Page 3-80 ~ CONBULTINp ' a ~ ~ ~¢~3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology & Water Quality ~ ~ . 3.5. Hydrology & 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 developed through review of existing literature pertinent to hydrology in the local area, as well as a review of the City o f Dublin 1 General Plan, Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project EIR; and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District's West Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village EIR. , Environmental Setting Climate ' 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 site 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 westem 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. Stormwater generally flows east into the existing storm drains within the project area. ~ Dublin Creek is an open channel that follows the southem boundary of proposed project. An unnamed drainage feature traverses the project site parallel to Interstate 680, which ~ then cuts under Interstate 680, and continues outside of the project boundary. In addition, the South San Ramon Creek is located approximately 025 miles southeast of the proposed pro~ect. Hydrologic features of the pro~ect area (including creeks and nearby flood-prone ' locations), are identified in Figure 3.5- I: Hydrologic Features. 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 pattems 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 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 ~ Page 3-81 f~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hy,drology & Water Quality a~~ ~~~ 1 ~ ~ drain facilities owned and maintained by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Flooding Based on Panel Numbers 0600 I C0308G and 0600 I C0304G of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), portions of the proposed project are located within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Zone, a 500-Year Flood Hazard Zone (0.2-percent annual chance), and within Zone X or outside of a special flood hazard zone (refer to Figure 3.5- I: Hydrologic Features). The eastem portion of the proposed project (specifically, an area of land located to the east and west of Interstate 680) is located within a FEMA 100-Year Flood Zone, in addition to a small portion of land to the west of San Ramon Road. Land within a FEMA I 00-Year Flood Zone means that the flood elevation has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. Thus, the 100-Year Flood could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time. The I 00-Year Flood, which is the standard used by most federal and state agencies, is used by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as the standard for floodplain management and to determine the need for flood insurance. The majority of the central portion of the project area is located within a 500-Year Flood Zone (0.2- percent annual chance), meaning this area would be afFected by the 0.2-percent annual chance flood. Portions of the proposed project are also located with Zone X, which is considered an area of minimal flood hazard and outside the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Reservoirs/Dams There are 29 reservoirs/dams in Alameda County. The following discusses reservoirs located within I 2 miles of the proposed project: Don Castro Reservoir is located approximately six miles to the west of the proposed project. ~ Don Castro Reservoir 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 DDSP area. Lake Chabot Reservoir was completed in I 875 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 10 miles northwest of the DDSP area. The Upper San Leandro Reservoir 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 10 miles south-southeast of the DDSP area. The San Antonio Reservoir, built in 1964 by the City and County of San Francisco, 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 12 miles southeast of the DDSP area. De Valle Dam and Lake de Valle were built in I 968 as part of the State Water Project. It provides storage for the South Bay Aqueduct and flood control for Alameda Creek. The East Bay Page 3-82 ~ ' y ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~V~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology & Water Quality ~ Regional Park District manages the Lake de Valle Regional Park, which is also a State ~ Recreation Area. 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 lies approximately 40 miles east of San Francisco and 30 miles southwest of Stockton, within a ~ structural trough of the Diablo Range. The Liverrnore 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. 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 groundwater resources in the Livermore Valley. Groundwater Basin are managed by ' Zone 7, under authority from Califomia Water Code Section 30000 (County Water District). ' Water Quality . The quality of surface and groundwater at the proposed project site 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. The surface and groundwater quality in the proposed project area is under the jurisdiction ~ of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which is responsible for implementation of state and federal water quality protection guidelines in the vicinity of the proposed project site. The RWQCB's master water quality control ' planning document is the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Froncisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). It designates beneficial uses and water quality objectives for waters of the State, including surface waters and groundwater. It also includes programs of implementation to ~ achieve water quality objectives. The Basin Plan is currently being updated to reflect the Basin Plan amendments adopted since 2006. ' Regulatory Setting Federal Clean Water Act ' The principal law goveming pollution of the nation's surface waters is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act [CWA]). Originally enacted in 1948, it was ~ Page 3-83 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology & Water Quality ~~~ ~~ ~ ' ~ 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 appropnate RWQCB (i.e., the Central Valley region). The existing NPDES (Phase I) stormwater program requires municipalities serving more than I,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 I 0,000 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; ^ Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharge to storrn sewer systems and other waters of the United States; and ^ Inspect all BMPs. Impaired Waterbodies CWA Section 303(d) and Califomia'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 Page 3-84 ~ D'~o~' ~ I~~j/ , Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology & Water Quality 1 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. A portion of the proposed project site is located within a designated special flood hazard area. See Figure 3.5- I:Hydrologic Features. ~ St t a e Porter-Cologne Water Quality Controi 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 Califomia's surface waters and groundwater supplies. The Porter-Cologne V~/ater Quality Control Act ~ develops Basin Plans that designate the beneficial uses of Califomia'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. , R i l eg ona Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Re~ion 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 ~ efforts to protect surface waters and groundwaters of the San Francisco region, the RWQCB addresses region wide water quality concems through the creation and triennial ~ Page 3-85 ~r t~l~` ~ % f Downtown Dublin S ecific Plan Draft EIR ~ ~~ ~ P ~ Hydrology & Water Quality update of a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) and adopts, monitors compliance with, and enforces waste discharge requirements and NPDES permits. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan~ In addition to the NPDES permitting program, the RWQCB regulates water quality in the Bay Area in accordance with the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan presents the beneficial uses that the RWQCB has designated for significant surface waters, aquifers, and wetlands, as well as the water quality objectives and criteria that must be met to protect these uses. The Basin Plan ~designates specific existing beneficial uses for the Central San Francisco Bay, including: (a) ocean, commercial, and sport fishing, (b) estuarine habitat, (c) industrial service supply, (d) fish migration, (e) navigation, (~ preservation of rare and endangered species, (g) non-contact water recreation, (h) shellfish harvesting, (i) fish spawning, and (j) wildlife habitat. Project storm runoff will be discharged to the existing stormwater drainage system and subsequently the San Francisco Bay. Wildlife habitat, particularly fish and waterfowl habitat, is the beneficial use most sensitive to water quality impacts from the proposed project. Pollution from pesticides, fertilizers, metals, and hydrocarbons in urban runoff can directly and indirectly affect sensitive fish and bird species and their offspring. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) The SWPPP has two major objectives: I) 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 categones of BMPs: structural and non-structural. Structural BMPs are the specific construction, modification, operation, maintenance, or monitoring of facilities that would minimize the introduction of pollutants into the drainage system, or would remove pollutants from the drainage system. Non-structural BMPs are activities, programs, and other nonphysical measures that help reduce pollutants from non-point sources to the drainage system. In general, nonstructural BMPs are source control measures. The issue of pollution in stormwater and urban runoff has been recognized by both federal and state agencies, and there has been a growing concem regarding activities that discharge water affecting Califomia's surface water, coastal waters, and groundwater. Discharges of Page 3-86 ~ . ^ ; ~ ~ ~~ ~ y~ ~ ' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology & Water Quality ' 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 later being the most common in ~ the Dublin area. Local ' City of Dublin General Plan The following policies in the Ciry o f 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. 1 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 stormwaters through the area as quickly as possible. But the new, mor.e environmentally friendly Stream Management Master Plan's vision over ~ the next three decades is to create a flood-protection program that relies largely on using the 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 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 1 expensive when it comes to flood control, this technical approach also affords ' ~ Page 3-87 ~a~.~~,,.a Downtown Dublin Speafic Plan Draft EIR Hydrology & Water Quality ~~ ' , 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 Moster 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 govemment 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 The proposed Specific Plan includes both development standards and design guidelines to guide future development within the area. These development standards and design guidelines will be used during the design review process for project applications within the DDSP area. The development standards apply to all new construction within the project area. Development standards also apply to all redevelopment that result in an increase of building size of more than 25 percent. Design guidelines identified in the proposed Specific Plan encourage increased percolation through the use of vegetated swales, curb extensions, reconfigured parking lots with increased landscaping, and the use of pervious materials (e.g. pervious pavers) in parking lots. Implementation of these guidelines would result in a reduction of existing stormwater discharge rates and improve water quality. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQf~ 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 thaf 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; ~ Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem 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; Page 3-88 ~ 1 , ~ • ~ ~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology & Water Quality 1 ^ Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem 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 I 00-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 I 00-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 Califomia Department of Water Resources, ~ and inforrnation from the City o f Dublin Generol Plan. Impacts to surface and groundwater quality were analyzed by reviewing existing groundwater and surface water quality literature 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 in the DDSP 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. The impacts of the proposed project on water resources and water quality ~ are evaluated qualitatively. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Place Housin~ or_Structures Within a 100-Year Flood-Hazards Area Which Would Impede -- ----- _....------ ---.._........_...__._._...._....... --....._._-._.....---...._ ............... ' or Redirect Flood Flows ~ Several properties within the DDSP area are located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. As previously discussed, new construction will be subject to floodplain regulations. In addition, the Zone 7 Stream ' Management Plan contains plans to retrofit the culvert that carries water from Dublin Creek under ponlon Way. This retrofit will increase the culvert capacity and reduce the risk of flooding in the DDSP area. Future construction would be required to comply with the existing floodplain regulations to ensure that the structures do not impede or redirect ~ flows. No impacts would occur. ~ ~ Page 3-89 ' ~o~.~.,,»o ~Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology & Water Quality Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow The proposed project is located well inland from the San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. The site and surrounding properties are also relatively flat and would not be subject to mudflows, No impacts would occur. Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Impact 3.5- I Future construction associated with the proposed project may violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. This is considered a potentially significant impact. The project area is a primarily urbanized, developed area, which likely already contributes non-point source pollution such as motor oil, fertilizers and pesticides, human littering, animal waste and other pollutants typical of developed commercialized areas. These pollutants are typically washed from streets, parking lots, and garages during rainfall events that create sufficient runoff to carry the waste materials. These pollutants have the potential to degrade water quality and may result in potentially significant impacts to the extent that they are generated by new development. Although the majority of the project area is built-out, the construction of individual projects would include grading and other earth moving activities which would expose on-site soils to erosion processes. Additionally, construction activities could lead to exposure of contaminated materials/soils which if present within the project area that could impact surface water quality during storm events. Individual development projects within the project area greater than one acre would be required to mitigate short-term construction impacts pursuant to the NPDES criteria and standards on a project-by-project basis. The purpose of the ~NPDES permit is to ensure that the proposed project would eliminate or reduce construction-related sediments and pollutants during stormwater runoff. Construction sediment erosion can be adequately controlled through the application of standard construction BMPs. The goal of BMPs is to capture and treat "first flush" stormwater run-off generated by surrounding and on-site watersheds. Water quality management BMPs for grading and construction scenarios may include the use of sand bags and straw bales for run-off diversion and velocity reduction, mulch topping, hydro-seeding and siltation fencing to prevent soil loss and measures to minimize vehicular leaking and spilling. Design guidelines identified in the DDSP encourage increased percolation through the use of vegetated swales, curb extension, reconfigured parking lots with increased landscaping, and the use of pervious materials (e.g. pervious pavers) in parking lots. Implementation of these guidelines would result in improved water quality. Future proposed uses would be served by City's sanitary sewer service; therefore, the proposed project would not involve any permitted discharges of waste material directly into ground or surface waters. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure construction and post- construction water quality impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Page 3-90 ~ ~~r ~ ~g~ ~ ' ~ ~-~a~ `~g3 ' ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology & Water Quality ' Mitigation Measures ~ MM 3.5- I a: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project proponent shall file a Notice of Intent as required by Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding ~ stormwater discharges associated with construction activities. Upon completion of construction activities, a Notice of Termination shall be filed. ' MM 3.5- I b: Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, a Storrn Water P ll i P i Pl SWPPP on revent o ut on an ( ) shall be prepared by the project contractors and submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and comment and to the City of Dublin in conjunction with the ~ Building/Grading/Site work permit and shall be found to be acceptable by the City prior to ground disturbance. The SWPPP shall be prepared to ' Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program requirements, and shall identify erosion minimization ~ and control provisions, pollution detection provisions, and pollution ' elimination/ minimization provisions appropriate to the development project and its site for construction and post-construction activities. The SWPPP shall include best available technology, engineenng, and design solutions ' such as the use of silt screens, hay bales, modem trash screens, energy dissipaters, and/or absorbent devices. Stormwater runoff water quality _ monitoring procedures shall be clearly detailed in the SWPPP. ~ Compliance with existing regulations, implementation of mitigation measures, and the use of BMP's would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. , Deplete Groundwater Supplies and Groundwater Recharge ~ Impact 3.5-2 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. ~ T he 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 tum 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. ~ According to the Water Master Plan Update prepared by West Yost & Associates in 2005, future water demands were calculated using two methodologies, one based on future ' population projections and per capita consumption and one based on future land use and unit water use factors. Both are consistent with future population projections and land use buildout under the City of Dublin General Plan. The DSRSD estimated that there is t sufficient water supply to service future water demand in the project area over the next 20 or more years, based on a buildout of an additional 3.2 million square feet of non- _ residential development and I,300 residential units, which is within the demand ~ ~ Page 3-9 I ' ~a~.~.,,.,o Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology & Water Quality requirements for the Specific Plan. New development projects within the project area would connect to the DSRSD's existing water lines. In addition, individual projects constructed within the DDSP project area would include project design features, which would encourage increased percolation through the use of vegetated swales, curb extension, reconfigured parking lots with increased landscaping, and the use of pervious materials (e.g. pervious pavers) in parking lots with future development in the project area, which would slightly increase 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 Draina~e Pattems Impact 3.5-3 Construction and operation of the DDSP would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattems of the area or result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site, nor would it increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site. This is considered a(ess than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would allow for development of currently vacant lands within the project area; however, the majority of the project area is already built-out and consists of impervious surfaces. As the majority of the DDSP area is developed, it is served by existing storm water collection and conveyance systems. Individual projects constructed within the DDSP area would include project design features that would aid in the conveyance of storm water to existing facilities and would encourage increased percolation through the use of vegetated swales, curb extension, reconfigured parking lots with increased landscaping, and the use of pervious materials (e.g. pervious pavers) in parking lots with future development in the project area, which would result in similar or slightly reduced stormwater flows within the project area. All runoff would continue to be conveyed via streets and gutters to storm drain locations within the project area. Consequently, this would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Exceed Caeacity of Existing_or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems Impact 3.5-4 The DDSP area is largely built-out and stormwater flows with implementation of the proposed project are expected to be similar or slightly reduced due to improved management practices proposed within the proposed Specific Plan. In addition, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that impacts are minimized. This is considered a less than significant impact. The City of Dublin Public Works Department maintains the City's storm drain pipelines that are located within the public streets. Zone 7 owns and operates regional storm drain facilities that collect runofF from the City. Because the DDSP area is largely built-out, stormwater flows to collection distribution systems are expected to be similar or slightly reduced due to design guidelines in the proposed Specific Plan, which would encourage Page 3-92 ~ a~3~ _ ~-E~~ ~ ' ' ^ ~~~ ~~~ ' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Hydrology & Water Quality , increased percolation through the use of vegetated swales, curb extension, reconfigured -~ parking lots with increased landscaping, and the use of pervious matenals (e.g. pervious pavers) in parking lots with future development in the project area. In addition, since the proposed project area is nearly completely covered with existing buildings, parking lots, ~ sidewalks, and roadways, stormwater discharge rates are not able to exceed current conditions. The existing stormwater conveyance system (storrn drains, catch basins and other infrastructure) within the project area is therefore considered adequate. This would , be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Flooding Exposure_/ Risk, Including the Failure of a Levee or Dam Impact 3.5-5 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. , Based on the Assoeiation of Bay Area Governments "Dam Failure Inundation Areas" map, ~ the project area would not be inundated by dam failure. In addition, structures and personnel would not be subject to greater risk with implementation of the proposed project as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, a seismic-related or sudden, ~ accidental breach of dam structures is considered remote and speculative. Therefore, this would be considered a less than signifieant impaet, and no mitigation is required. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Page 3-93 ' ~aws~~„~o 0~5 ~ ~ ~~ ~ Downtown Dublin Speofic Plan Draft EIR Hydrology & Water Quality ' This page intentionally le ft blank. i~ ~ 1 ~ .~ ~ ~ 1 1 Page 3-94 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ aa ~ Source: City of Dublin (2008) DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Q° 500 ,,°°° 2,°°° Hydrologic Features Feet ^ ^ ^ CON9ULTINO 4/2010JN70.100239 Figure 3.5-1 - ~~~ ~g~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use & Planning ~ 3.6. Land Use & 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 from a primarily commercial business district to mixed use, and analyzes potential conflicts ~ between proposed land uses on site and existing and/or proposed land uses in the vicinity of the project area, as well as the relationship of the proposed land use changes to relevant -t planning policies that guide land use decisions. Preparation of this analysis used data from various sources. These sources include the ~ proposed Dublin Downtown Speci fic Plan (20 I 0), the City o f Dublin General Plan (various resource Elements, including the Land Use Element), and the Dublin Municipal Code. Existing Conditions ~' On-site and Surrounding Land Uses ~ A majority of the land uses include regional serving retail in the center of the Specific Plan project area. These include: Target, Toys R Us, Burlington Coat Factory, 99 Ranch Market, Orchard Supply Hardware, Ross, and Marshall's. There are two auto dealerships in the Specific Plan Area. A used car lot is located at the southeast comer of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive (the former site of Crown Chevrolet which relocated to John Monego Court). Stoneridge Chrysler is located at the southeast comer of Saint Patrick Way and Amador Plaza Road. Smaller specialty retail, convenience retail, and services are generally located west of ~ Regional Street, and along Amador Valley Boulevard, Amador Plaza Road, and Village Parkway. ~ Office uses within the Specific Plan Area include the Corrie Center (located southeast of Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street), the Chase Bank Building (southwest of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive) and Amador Plaza (located at the south end of ,~ Amador Plaza Road). ~ Other notable land uses include the 238-room Holiday Inn Hotel, Dublin Bowl, Dublin Post Office, Dublin Iceland, and senior center with an associated senior apartment complex (Wicklow Square). Existing land uses are shown in Figure 2-3: Existing Land Uses. , ~ Page 3-95 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use & Planning a~~~~~~ ~ ~ Proposed Development Projects Several new projects are either under construction or have been proposed within the project area. The most significant development is the construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. The station is being constructed within the median of Interstate 580 with pedestrian access north and south over both sections of the freeway. By the year 20 I 3, the project is projected to accommodate 8,600 users per day. ~$ Within the City of Dublin, a 713-space parking garage has been constructed at the southem terminus of Golden Gate Drive for BART commuters. As part of the BART project, a I 50-room hotel and 7,500 sf of retail space is proposed to be constructed; a 309 residential units (Essex) is approved west of Golden Gate Drive. Adjacent to and west of the BART station project is an existing 225,500 sf one-story warehouse facility (the AMB site). This building is proposed to be demolished and replaced with 308 multi-family residential dwelling units and a 150,000 square foot office building. Associated with these developments, Saint Patrick Way would be extended, providing a vehicular and pedestrian connection between Golden Gate Dnve and Regional Street. A graphic of the proposed site plan is shown below. Dublin General Plan The Land Use Element and Land Use Map in the General Plan establish the policy for change and growth within the City. The General Plan identifies the general locations, density and extent of land available for housing, business, industry, natural resource protection, recreation, and other uses. Existing land use designations for the project area include: High-Density Residential, Mixed-use, Retail/Office, Retail/Office and Automotive, 1e http:/Iwww.bart.gov/abouUprojectslwdplindex.aspx Page 3-96 ~ ~o~.~.,,~a ~ ~-~~~~g~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use & Planning ~ Parks/Public Recreation, and Public/Semi-Public (see Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designations). ~ Below are the definitions of these land use designations from the General Plan. ~I High-Density Residential: (25.1 units and above per gross residential acre). Residential units in this density range are attached. Housing~types include condominiums, townhouses, apartments, and flats, and can either be for-sale or rent. These projects typically ~ incorporate tuck-under or under-structure parking and may have three or more living _ levels. Assumed household size is two persons per unit. Mixed-use: (FAR .30 to I.00; employee density 200 - 400 square feet per employee) Mixed-use encourages the combination of inedium- to medium-high density residential housing and at least one non-residential use, such as office or retail. Office or retail uses recommended include shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, and entertainment facilities. A FAR of less than .30 is acceptable when existing tenancy conditions of the site do not permit immediate conversion of the entire site but it is determined that the site is in the process of becoming a mixed-use site. ,~ Retail/Office: (FAR: .25 to .60; employee density 200-450 square feet per employee). Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, motels, service stations, and auto part sales are included in this classification. Residential use is excluded ~ except in the Downtown Intensification Area. . Retail/Office and Automotive: (FAR: .25 to .50; employee density 220 to 490 square feet ~ per employee). This classification includes all retailloffice uses as well as auto dealerships, auto body shops, and similar uses. Residential uses are not permitted. ~ Parks/Public Recreation: Publicly owned parks and recreation areas. Public/Semi-Public: (Maximum of .50 FAR; employee density 590 square feet per ~ employee) A combination land use category of public facilities land uses and semi-public facilities land uses. Public facilities, which are uses other than parks owned by a public ~ agency or non-profit entity, are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from adjoining uses. As part of the project, the General Plan will remove the above land use designations and ~ the DDSP area will be designated by the District (Transit-Oriented, Retail and ~Village Parkway as shown in Figure 2.6: DDSP Districts/Land Use Designations). ' Existing Specific Plans ~ At present, there are five Specific Plans that apply to the project area. Brief summaries of ~ each of these Specific Plans are described below. A map showing the boundaries of these specific plans and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan is illustrated in Figure 3.6- I: Existing ,l~ - ~ ~ Page 3-97 1 co~.~~r,»o ; .~ 3~~~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use & Planning Specific Plans. The Downtown Core and West Dublin BART Specific Plans were intended to be for short-term time frame (5-7 years). Downtown Core Specific Plan The S I-acre Downtown Core Specific Plan (DCSP) area contains most of the City of Dublin's large-scale format (60,000+ square feet) retailers. The DCSP envisions integrating these large users with newer, smaller scale development as well a series of public spaces including a central landscaped plaza to accommodate public gatherings. The DCSP envisioned that existing major retailers would remain in their present locations along the westerly edge of the core, although building facades would be modemized. To the east, a variety of smaller buildings would be constructed accommodating new restaurants and specialty retail entertainment. A new vehicular accessway, possibly through a joint private/public endeavor, would be constructed through the center of the Core area from Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive, north to Amador Valley Boulevard at Donahue D nve. The DCSP calls for a maximum development potential of 1.2 million square feet of commercial, retail office and mixed-use development and up to 154 dwelling units. This represents an increase of 737,072 square feet and 154 dwelling units, as compared to existing conditions when the DCSP was first adopted (December 2000). Because the DCSP area is largely built-out, a majority of the increase in density would be achieved through an increased floor-area-ratio (FAR) of up to .79 (on average) with buildings up to six stories or 75 feet. A mix of surFace parking and garages would help increase site densities. West Dublin BART Specific Plan With the adoption of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan (WDBSP) by the Dublin City Council in December 2000, a General Plan Amendment was adopted to change land uses and land use intensification and to modify the FAR for certain properties. The WDBSP area is generally located befween I-580 to the south, I-680 to the east, Dublin Boulevard to the north, and San Ramon Road to the west. The area consists of approximately 92 acres of commercial, office and light industrial land uses. Central to the WDBSP area and providing a catalyst for the direction of future development is the new West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station planned to be open in 201 I and the associated parking structure. The WDBSP called for further intensification of development through an increased FAR of up to I for some properties. The WDBSP envisioned a transit-oriented, mixed-use area, capitalizing on regional transit linkages provided by both the BART line and supported by nearby freeways, I-580 and I- 680. Within the West Dublin BART area, a mixture of low-rise and mid-rise buildings for residences, offices, specialty retail, lodging, restaurant, and similar uses are planned that are consistent with a transit-oriented development area. As amended since adoption, the City Council has adopted a Stage I Development Plan allowing for the construction of up to I 50 hotel rooms and 7,500 square feet of commercial uses adjacent to the BART station. Page 3-98 ~ ~o~.~.r,~a ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use & Planning ~ The City Council and Planning Commission has also approved a 309 unit residential ~ development (Essex, formerly known as Windstar) and a mixed-use development with 150,000 square feet of office and 308 residential dwelling units (AMB), which have not been constructed. The maximum amount of development for the WDBSP was anticipated ~ to be 3,247,956 square feet of non-residentiaf space and 640 residential dwellings (per Exhibit A- Table 5: Maximum Economic Development Potential '~ Village_Parkway_Specific Plan The Village Parkway Specific Plan (VPSP) consists of approximately 3 I acres of commercial services, retail, restaurant, office, and automotive service land uses. Under the VPSP ~ Concept Plan, these existing uses would not change, but would be stabilized and enhanced. The FAR within the VPSP area was increased from 0.24, equivalent to 308,474 square feet, to 0.35, equivalent to 408, I 08 square feet, or an increase of nearly I 00,000 square feet. ~~ The land use plan designated properties west of Village Parkway as Retail/Office and Auto Service (R/O&A) and the east side as Retail/Office (R/O). S~ The VPSP encouraged higher density residential dwellings in the form of multi-family complexes and live/work units. It also encouraged property and streetscape improvements ;~ to enhance the pedestrian character. While there was considerable discussion and analysis regarding the reconfiguration of the Village Parkway roadway, it was determined that it should remain four lanes, due in part to the fact that it serves as an important north-south ~ emergency access roadway. San_ Ramon Road Specifc _Plan __ _ __... ----._.... ! Adopted in June of I 983, the San Ramon Road Specific Plan (SRRSP) is the oldest of the downtown specific plans and is located west of San Ramon Road between Silvergate (to ~ the north) and Dublin Boulevard to the south. The SRRSP planning area included both residential and commercial land uses. This Specific Plan includes only those commercial areas that are located north and south of Amador Valley Court (identified as Area 3 in the ~ SRRSP). The primary intent of the SRRSP was to provide guidance for development of ' approximately 30 acres of Yacant land for retail commercial, office and multifamily uses. Area 3( I 3 acres), which included both occupied and vacant commercial land uses, has now been completely built-out with primarily region serving retail and commercial uses. ~ Dublin Downtown Plan The Dublin Downtown Plan (DDP) was adopted by. the City Council in 1987 and is ~ generally bounded by San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway (including land uses to the east) and Interstate 580. The DDP included a area encompassed and superseded by the WDSP, the DCSP, and VPSP, described above. The ~ only remaining properties that are still applicable as a regulating document are Development Zones 5 and 6: ~' Page 3-99 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use & PlanninQ ~~~4 l~/ l ~ ~ ^ Zone 5: San Ramon Road Retail - Currently oriented almost exclusively to Regional Street, uses in this area encouraged an increased presence on San Ramon Road to improve visual appearances along that frontage. Proposals which provide new access to San Ramon Road and pedestrian linkages to Zone 5 were encouraged. Uses will continue as a mix of retail and commercial services under the proposed DDSP. ^ Zone 6: Central Block West Retail - A continuation of current retailing and service commercial uses with improvements to zone entries, intemal circulation and parking lot landscaping were encouraged. Collectively, the DCSP, the WDBSP and the VPSP allows for the additional development of ~~ approximately 3.1 million square feet of non-residential development, 717 dwelling units, ~ and I 50 hotel rooms (see Table 3.6- I: Summary of Previous Specific Plans Development Capacity). Because the SRRSP has been built-out to allowed densities, no additional ~ development potential exists Table 3.6-1: Summary of Previous Specific Plans Development Capacity ~~~ 2. ~..., • _. a k ~ .u "`~ 'r , s ~ ., .... ~ ~~ `~ ''s'~, ~'a ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ . a ~S ~. "f ~ s ELd~ ~~ ~'' ~~ x u r.~' ~~~~ ~'~~ P'.... f'M __ ~'.~', ` ~~ ~~ .4a" u , ;r:. ~c:", ~.r°^ '~' ~ +a ,~:'. u~~ ~~.. , . . '~j '~a . : ~. ~,~ t~' .' ,.3. . ~. Commercial (A & B) 959,446 sf 132,294 sf 1,091,740 sf RetaillOffice (R/O) 763,175 sf 332,186 sf 1,195,361 sf 100,000 sf ~ Retail/Auto (R/A) 74,264 sf 74,264 sf Office 61,665 sf 16,720 sf 78,385 sf 493,430 sf + 181,630 sf + 675,060 sf ~ Mixed-use (MU) -- ~ 308 DU 100 du 408 du Lodging 150 rooms -- -- 150 rooms ~ Residential 309 du -- -- 309 tlu 737,094 sf 3,114,810 sf ~ 2,277,716150 rooms Total 100,000 sf 150 rooms 617 du 100 du 717 du Note: (1) Approved per Specific Plans but not yet constructed. ' Source: Ci of Dublin 2009. Based on City estimates, approximately 258,734 square feet of non-residential development has occurred since adoption of these Specific Plans (December 2000). These include the Expo Design Center site, Target, Safeway, as well as additional sites (see Table 3.6-2: Non-Residential Development Since 2000). During this same period, no residential development occurred with the exception of the 54 unit Wicklow Square senior housing project located north and adjacent to Target. .~ Page 3-100 ~ ~.,,~a ~ ~~ ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft IR Land Use & Planning ~ ~ Table 3.6•2: Non-Residential De ~ Target (expansion) velopment Since 2000 ~" ~ 14,587 ~ Expo Design Center 93,935 Dublin Place 17,500 '~ Senior Center 15,300 Safeway 65,883 ~ Shamrock Village 2,999 ~ Enea Village 19,018 ~ Valley Center 1,472 Arco 28,040 ~ TOTAL 258,734 , Source: Ci of Dublin, 2009 , All four Specific Plans call for the intensification of land uses, possible reduction in parking standards, and improvements to the public realm to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment that supports a transit-oriented set of land uses in support of the West ,~, Dublin BART station. Existing Zoning Designations ~ The City's Zoning Code is the principal means through which the land use policy recommendations of the General Plan are implemented. For each defined zoning ~ designation, the Zoning Code identifies the permitted uses and applicable development standards (i.e., density, height, parking, landscaping requirements, etc.). ~ A large portion of the project area is zoned Planned Development (PD), whereby one or more properties are planned as a unit with development standards tailored to the site. The intent of this zone is to create a more desirable use of the land, a more coherent and ,~ coordinated development, and a better physical environment than would ~otherwise be possible under a single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. 1 The only other zoning designation in the project area is Retail Commercial (C- I). The Retail Commercial zone is intended to provide for the continued use, expansion, and new development of retail commercial use types along major transportation corridors and ~ intersections, and to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses. ' A map of the zoning designations in and around the project area is shown in Figure 2-5: ~ Current Zoning. , ~ ~F Page 3- I 0 I r ~o~o~~r,~o 4 ~ ~~ ~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use & Planning Environmental I mpacts Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, with the exception of a threshold added to consider 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 ^ 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) Create Land Use Incompatibilities or Physically Divide a Communitx Impact 3.6- I: Implementation of the proposed project would amend the City's Generai Plan land uses within the DDSP project area and could involve new uses and~ structures that may result in intensification of development within the project area. However, the proposed pr-oject 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 implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would allow for the intensification of commercial and mixed use development within the Downtown districts. Most of the intensification is anticipated to occur in the Transit-Oriented District, as the demand for mixed-use development in that District will likely increase due to the construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and parking structure. Existing development and construction of approved projects would have varying heights. In addition, The proposed Specific Plan would not increase allowed building heights beyond those already established by the five existing approved Specific Plans for the project area. Building heights for the Transit-Oriented District would be lower than the existing Specific Plan. Building heights for the Village Parkway Distnct would be limited to 35 feet, a height Page 3- I 02 ~ i ; .-- ~~s~~~3 ' Downtown Dubiin Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use & Planning ~ that is currently allowed by the Village Parkway Specific Plan: Building heights for the Retail , District would be limited to 75 feet, a height that is currently allowed by the Downtown Core Specific Plan. Furthermore, the proposed Specific Plan policies include concepts aimed at achieving land use compatibility. All significant new development would be subject to the design review process and/or other discretionary perrnits which would ensure compatibility with both the ~ development standards and design guidelines identified in the DDSP. This includes all new construction, substantial rehabilitation, or exterior remodel or change to a building. ~I Allowed land uses would ensure compatibility between vanous types of uses, particularly ~ for residential development. Standards and guidelines are established in the DDSP provide for buffers of landscaping and decorative masonry between proposed commercial ~ development and residential zones. Height limits and setback requirements would also assist in ensuring compatibility of new structures with existing structures. Parking structures ~ would be oriented so that a decorative fa~ade integrated with the surrounding development avoids intrusion of vehicle headlights and parking lot lighting. Projects would also be subject to the City's environmental review process. Each project ~ will require project site specific environmental review under CEQA. With implementation of the DDSP development standards and design guidelines, and ~ project-specific environmental review requirements, proposed development 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, and ~ no mitigation is required. Conflict with A~plicable\Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations , Impact 3.6-2: 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 descnbed in the project description, residential, commercial, mixed-use and public uses ~ could be developed within the project area under the existing City o f Dublin General Plan and City of Dublin Zoning Code. Currently, the majority of the project area features the ~ General Plan Land Use Designation of Retail/Of~ice and is zoned PD ancl C- I. Collectively, the existing five Specific Plans that encompass the proposed project area allow for the additional development of nearly approximately 3.1 million square feet of non- ~ residential development, 717 residential units, and 150 hotel rooms. The proposed DDSP will allow a future buildout development potential of 3.0 million square feet of non- , residential development, I,300 residential units, and I 50 hotel rooms. Assuming an average of I,200 square feet per residential unit and an average of 500 square feet per hotel room, the existing specific plans represent a gross future buildout ~ Page 3-I03 ~ ~ ~o,.~~r,~a Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use & Planning ~ ~~ '~ 1 ~ development potential of 3.9 million square feet as compared to 4.59 million square feet under the proposed DDSP, for a net addition of 460,000 square feet. While this represents the theoretical buildout capacity of development in the project area, the ultimate amount of future development will likely be less due non-tangibles such as market demand, ownership pattems, tenant lease terms, etc., as well as the fact that the DDSP project area is already largely developed resulting in significant physical limitations such as parcel configurations, parking, and circulation. The City of Dublin General Plan, including the General Plan Land Use Map, will be amended concurrent with the adoption of the DDSP to include DDSP Land Use Designations to replace the existing General Plan land use designations for the area. The proposed General Plan designations are shown in Figure 2-6: DDSP Districts/Land Use Designations. The Zoning Map for the project area will be amended concurrent with the adoption of the DDSP to rezone the project area to ensure consistency with the new land use categories. Where land use regulations and/or development standards in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance are inconsistent with the DDSP, the standards and regulations of the DDSP shall prevail. Any issue not specifically addressed in the DDSP 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 zoning is shown in Figure 2-7: Proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Zoning. With the adoption of the General Plan amendments and rezoning, the proposed uses would be allowed within the DDSP districts. The proposes project's consistency with the City of Dublin General Plan is discussed in Table 3.6-3: City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis. As demonstrated, the proposed project would not be in conflict with the applicable policies of the General Plan. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Page 3- I 04 ~ ~o...,,.,,..a ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , 4a ,~ ' ~, ~~ ~ 1, V~ Downtown Dublin Specific.Plan Draft EIR Land Use & Planning Table 3.6-3: City of Dubiin General Plan Consistency Analysis Land Use Element 2.1.1 Housing Availability Implementing Policy B- Designate site available for residential development in the primary planning area for medium to medium high density where site capability and access are suitable and where the higher density would be compatible with existing residential development nearby. 2.1.5 West Dublin BART and Downtown Core Sneci~c Plan Areas Guiding Policy A- Intensify development and provide housing opportunities and transit-oriented uses near transit center and facilities. Implementing Policy B- Development within the Mixed- Use land use designation areas may include a combination of inedium-to-high density residential housing and at least one non-residential use, such as office or retaii. 2.2.1 Downtown Dublin Guiding Policy A- Intensify Downtown Dublin Implementing Policy B- Designate a Downtown Intensification Area on the General Plan Land Use Map, Figure 1-1a. Implementing Policy C- Provide a downtown BART station that will serve customers and workers with and without cars. Add offices and apartments within watking distance and eventually over BART parking. Implementing Policy D- Encourage mid-rise office/apartment buildings and parking structures with ground floor retail space. Create store-lined pedestrian connections between existing shopping centers. Implementing Policy E- Make downtown more understandabte to the first-time visitor by installing standardized identification signs and directories. 2.2.5 Application to the Same Property Within the City of Dublin of Both the Retail/Office and Medium-High Density Residential Designations as Defined in the Dublin General Plan Guiding Policy A- The City Council may apply to the same property within the City of Dublin both the RetaiVOffice and Medium High Density Residential designations as defined in the Dublin General Plan. Implementing Policy B- The location, extent, density Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows and encourages up to 1,300 residential units throughout the project site. Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows and encourages up to 1,300 residential units throughout the project area. Of this,1,100 units are allowed in the Transit District. Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan includes a mixed-use land use designation that allows a combination of inedium-to-high density residential housing and at least one non-residential use, such as office or retail. Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows for a future buildout development potential of more than 3 million square feet of non-residential development and 1,300 residential units. Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan fulfills the intent of this designation by allowing for urban levels of development density in the downtown. Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows a future building development potential in the Transit District of 2.2 million square feet of non-residential (mixed-use) development and 1,100 residential units. Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows mixed-use development and included development standards and design guidelines that encourages mid- rise office/apartment buildings and parking structures with ground floor retail space. Design guidelines are included in the DDSP to create store-lined pedestrian connections between existing shopping centers Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan includes design guidelines that address signage and other Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows and encourages mixetl-use development throughout the downtown project area. Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan allows ~ Page 3-105 ~~ ~~ ~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use & Planning and intensity of mixed-use Retail/O~ce and Medium- High Density residential development will be determined when studies indicate that: Serves are available for that use. The site is suitable for a mixed-use development. The use supports itself and does not draw upon and dilute the fiscal base of the remainder of the City. Proper roadways and roadway capacity are available. Mixed-use development would be compatible with adjacent land uses. Parks and Open Space Element 3.1 Open Space for Preservation of Natural Resources and For Public Health and Safety Implementing Policy D- Encourage an efficient and high intensity of use of the flat and gently sloping portions of the planning area as a means of minimizing grading requirements and potential impacts to environmental and aesthetic resources. Circulation and Scenic Highways Element 5.1.1 Roadway Standards Guiding Policy A- Design non-residential streets to (1) accommodate forecasted average daily traffic demand on segments between intersections, and (2) minimize congested conditions during peak hours of operation at intersections and serve a balance of vehicles, bicycles, pedestrian, and transit. Implementing Policy G- Connect existing north-south cul-de-sac streets near proposed West Dublin BART station south of Dublin Boulevard (Amador Plaza Road, Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street) via the creation of Bray (now Stain Patrick's) Way. 5.2 Transit Implementing Policy C- Urge BART cooperation in maintaining standards for review of public and private improvements in the vicinity of BART stations that take account of both future traffic needs and development opportunities and encourages mixed-use development throughout the downtown project area. This Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts the project may have on land use, transportation, public services, utilities, etc. and has identified mitigation measures where necessary and consistent with CEQA requirements. Consistent. The project area is nearly flat and higher- density urban development is allowed as part of the proposed project. Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan proposes an extension of St. Patrick's Way between Golden Gate Avenue and Regional Street to accommodate additional traffic associated with future development. The Transportation section of this Draft EIR has analyzed the transportation circulation with this proposed extension and includes mitigation measures to help reduce traffic congestion. Consistent. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan proposes an extension of St. Patrick's Way between Golden Gate Avenue and Regional Street to accommodate additional traffic associated with future Consistent. Staff from BART have been closely involved with city staff in the preparation of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and this Draft EIR. Conflict with A~plicable Conservation Plans The project area is located in an urban area that is completely developed. There are no habitat or natural community conservation plans in the project area and therefore, no impacts would occur. Urban Blight or DecaX 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 Page 3- I 06 ~ ' ~ ' ~ ' ~ L~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ vtJ 1 ~ ~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use & Plannine attributable to a development could sometimes result in a reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impact, such as urban decay or deterioration. The proposed project seeks to guide future development and intensification in downtown Dublin in an orderly and cohesive fashion through the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The combination of land uses would function to increase retail and commercial sales and activities within the City, as well as enhance the economic viability of the area. The creation of new commercial activities and enhancement of existing commercial facilities would contribute to the economic vitality of the City, which would enable the continued provision of high quality services and programs for residents. Increased economic activity and revenues that 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 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 region. The beneficial results are primarily the result of purchases of goods and services as well as payment of taxes and salanes, which afFects the regional economy of the City and County, and on a more indirect basis, Califomia. Therefore, the positive revenue stream and the resulting increased economic viability of the proposed project would be a benefit to the City and not result in urban blight or decay and therefore, no impacts would occur. ~ Page 3- I 07 ~~~~ ~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Land Use & PlanninQ This page intentionally le ft blank. Page 3-108 ~ r~ r~ ~r ~ r~r ~ r ~r r~ ~~~ r s~ ~~~ r ~L~- ~ . - - - _ , .~ ~ ~~ ~ . } ( 1` ~ l~ ~ - ~~~ ~ __ __~ , ~~ ;- - ~,.-~~ ~~ `~ ~ ~- ~~~-~'~ ~. t- ~ 1 ~i ~~ ~ ~ - ~~. ~~~z~ - ~ ~ ~" ~~ ~,- y~ ~~ =~ \~ ~'~-} ~~~-~~_ ~ F L ~. ~. , ~ , ,~ , ~ 1_1~ , , \, ` ~ \ ~ _ . . ~~ ~ ~' ` ~ ~~-- . ~~11, \ `,'t-:_~~;~; -~11 I ~ \ ',. , \ ' `'~`1 _ ~'. ?~i ~ > ~ ~~ ~ ZI1 [ LLZ Z_1 `~-I1~ ~ ~ ~~ " T ~ . . " ,;~ , _ ~, -- ~ ~ ` . .r 1 l ' ~ , ~_ _- ~ ` - , ~, _ ~ . ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ _1 ; ~- , f` 1 '_~r I ~' ~ ` \ \ (I ,l_- f~ ~ , ~l= ~ ~ ; ~ ~ )} ~ - , ~_ \` ~ ~\ ~' ~ ~-~ ~~ ~~1~ ~~ ~1~ ~ E ~ i r ,.~.~,.,..A~. \~i ~ ,,~ ~~, ~ ! r _ i ~~~ _ ~ , ,,~: ; , - , ~ ,, I ~ ~ , a ' ~, ; , ~,'' , _ ~~~~~ ,~ - ~ , , ~~ ,_ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~- , ~ ,~ ~ ~ , ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ . ,: O 3 ~ ~ Y ~ a ,~~~,~`~' ~~ ~~ ~ ~' ~~ ~\ , ,, ~ ~. , ,~;, ~~ ,\~ ~;~ ~~_ ~ \\ \' . '~~~~ ~ ~~~~V~~~ ;, ~ \ ~,. ,< ~~; ~ -~.~ ~ ~~~~`~:-~ ~ . -~' '~ `, ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~, ~~, ~, ~\i ~~~;. ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 0~ ~ ~0~ O0 O~~ 0 , :~>, ~, ~,0~ ~ ~ ~a ~~OQ ~ ~ o ~ oo a ~~?~~~ ~`'~ ~ ° ~G~ ~ ~ C b ° ` ~ ` ~~, a~ , oQ ~ ~ o ~ ~~ Legend ~ Specific Plan Boundary Existing Specific Plan Boundaries ' ~ Downtown Core Specific Plan ~J Dublin Downtown Plan Specific Plan _ San Ramon Road Specific Plan ~ Village Parkway Specific Plan ~ West Dublin BART Specific Plan ,~~ ~ T r . ,~~~ ~. ~ '~ , .-- , , , ~ ~,_ ~ r~~~%~~~; ~ ~ ~~ ~ , ~~1F_ - ~~~1,T1_~rn 1~ 1 , ~<<r~ o ~ ~~=c~~`~Ifh'~ ~-' ~1>~ ; ~/ . Q l ~~ rl~lrl~'l i ~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~_> d `°~' ~, 0 Q~ °' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'~ '~% ~ ~- d ;-~ ~, ' ~ ~~~~ ~~\ ~ ~ ~~~\ ~- , \~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~, ~~,, ~,,,, ~ ~,,- ,~ ~ , t~~~~_~~ ~ ~ ~« ~\ ~ ~ _-~ a ~ ~j ~~ o ~~ ~ ~ b _ ~ ~~ ~ o~ 0 ,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O, ~ ~~~ °o a ~ ~ , - ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 ~ , ~,,~ - , ~,,~ ~,~ ,T _r City of Pleasanton Source: City of Dublin (2008) DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ~ I/~ o soo i,ooo z~ooo • N Feet Previous Specific Plans W 1 ~~ V~ ~ O~~ w CON9ULTIN[3 ~ 07/27rzoio.lN7o-~oo23s Figure 3.6' 1 31~~b~~3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise ~ 3.a. No~se ~ This section addresses potential noise impacts from the construction, traffic, and operations that could occur within proposed project. Data used to prepare this analysis were drawn ~ from the City o f Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin Municipal Code, and the DDSP. Environmental Setting ~ 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, Interstate 680, and noise from adjacent local roadways. Traffic along these arterial roadways generates substantial noise levels at roadside receptors. 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 DDSP 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 Model (FHWA-RD-77- I 08) together with several roadway and site parameters; please refer to Appendix C, Noise Dato. 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 as derived from intersection tuming movements by Fehr and Peers and ADT calculations by RBF Consulting. The posted speed limits vary ~ throughout the DDSP project area. Existing modeled traffic noise levels can be found in Table 3.7- I: Existing Traffic Noise Levels. ~ ~ ~ Page 3-109 ~ Qo».~~.,~a Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise ~~~~ ~~ Table 3.7•1: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ` , , ~,'~~' ~ ., ~ ' ~ ;;, ffis#ance~frt~ti~Roa ~C~n#erlinc to ~~ et~ . ~ „ tlB ~ 140 F~ m `r ~ ~ ~ oadway Sagmer~ , ~: , ; , ~ '~ - away ~e ne ~ sa ° A1E1. ois~ ~ ~ ' 6S~ ~t. F1Ws~ ~ : 7 ~~EC~i~~c seoise~~ ,;, is~ ~CN ~~,~~ . ~ ~-.! ., ~ ~.., r,~ ~~_. ~ ~,~ ~ "~~C9~taur € R.~our.: 'Cri~taur .~~ _ . ~~~~ ~ , .~ ~... ~ ~- ~ AmadorPlaza Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard 7,610 57.6 65 21 7 Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way 10,770 59.1 92 29 9 Amador Plaza Road and Viltage Parkway 16,930 62.4 209 66 21 Donahue Drive and Amador Plaza Road 14,610 61.8 180 57 18 East of Viliage Parkway 12,790 61.2 158 50 16 Regional Street and Starward Drive 14,330 61.7 177 56 18 San Ramon Road and Regional Street 15,060 62.0 186 59 19 Starward Drive and Donahue Drive 13,310 61.4 165 52 16 West of San Ramon Road 2,960 54.9 37 12 4 Dublin Boulevard Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway 20,300 64.7 350 111 35 East of Village Parkway 21,350 64.9 368 116 37 Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road. 16,720 63.9 288 91 29 Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive 17,120 64.0 295 93 30 San Ramon Road and Regional Street 20,220 64.6 349 110 35 West of San Ramon Road 16,230 63.6 280 88 28 Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way 3,110 53.8 27 8 3 South of St. Patrick Way 1,050 49.1 9 3 1 Regional Street Amador Vailey Boulevard and Dublin Road 5,450 57.8 67 21 7 South of Dublin Boulevard 5,570 57.9 69 22 7 San Ramon Road Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard 24,070 66.4 565 179 56 North of Amador Valley Boulevard 19,030 65.5 446 141 45 South of Dublin Boulevard 37,040 68.3 869 275 87 St. Patrick Way East of Amador Plaza Road 10,500 59.2 90 28 9 Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road 2,340 52.6 20 6 2 West of Golden Gate Drive 310 43.9 3 1 0 Village Parkway Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard 12,350 61.0 153 48 15 Dublin Boulevard and I-680 NB on ramp 4,840 57.3 60 19 6 North of Amador Valley Boulevard 13,690 61.5 169 53 17 South of I-680 NB on ramp 990 50.4 12 4 1 ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level Source: Intersection turning movements, prepared by Fehr and Peers, dated January 2010 and ADT calculations by RBF Consulting, dated April 2010. Stationary noise sources include regional serving retail in the center of the project area. These include: Target, Toys R Us, Burlington Coat Factory, Ranch 99 Market, Orchard Supply Hardware, Ross and Marshall's. Two auto dealerships within the project area include a car sales lots, including one located in the southeast corrier of Dublin Boulevard and Golden State Drive, and one located at the southeast comer of Saint Patrick Way and Amador Plaza Road. Smaller specialty retail, convenience retail, and services are generally located west of Regional Street and along Amador Valley Boulevard, Amador Plaza Road, Page 3- I I 0 ~ ~ ~; ~ 3~~~1~~1 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise and Village Parkway. Office uses within the project area include Corrie Center (located ~ southeast of Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street), the Chase Bank Building (southwest of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive), and Amador Plaza (located at the south end of Amador Plaza Road). Other notable stationary noise sources consist of the 238-room ~ Holiday Inn, Dublin Bowl, Dublin Post Office, Dublin Iceland, and a senior center with an associated 54-unit Wicklow Square apartment complex. ~ 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. The project area includes the 238-room Holiday Inn Hotel and a senior center with an associated 54-unit ~ Wicklow Square apartment complex. Residential uses are located adjacent to the DDSP project area to the north, east, and west. ~ Existing Regulatory Setting State of California Guidelines ~ The State of Califomia Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Noise Element Guidelines include recommended interior and extenor level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The OPR Guidelines ~ describe the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of dBA CNEL. ~ A noise environment of 50 dBA CNEL to 60 dBA CNEL is considered to be "normally acceptable" for residential uses. 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. 1 In addition, Title 25, Section I 092 of the Coli fornia Code o f~ Regulotions, 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. ~ Table 3.7-2: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix; illustrates the State standards established by the State Department of Health Services for acceptable noise levels. These 1 standards are incorporated into the land use planning process to reduce future noise and land use incompatibilities. , ~ Page 3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise ~ rs ~ .~ ~~ Table 3.7-2: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix ~ '~' ~~~ ~ ~omnnt~r~[fy i~oise ~pnsure, (t.~, arr ~ NEI.,~~~A~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ ,.. ~, ,.. ~ ;. ¢ ,~ . ~. ~ ~ .:",c '~.8~tt~ ~~~G~~Ot~1 E ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ QTlT11~~J%'~ {'iC11{II~tOt1i1~~ QIYY1~~f , t'r~~.'1 ~ ~ ~~,a~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~+ y s ~ , ~; ` ~~ ° ' ` ~ ce~ttab~ & AsCepta~le ~ a`cce~~aible ~ ~ n pta~ .. ~b'~'~ n `. ~ : ,. ~ i~~+$ ~ . .......€M .. . ., v .~ . ~ ' .. ~'~Z:.~ ...„ . ,.a~uy. ..d.~k .a . ..."~ ' ~ .. . ~.P ~m~.~ ~..^ ' .~ ~. .. Residential - Low Density, Single-Family, Duplex, 50 - 60 55 - 70 70-75 75-85 Mobile Homes Residential - Multiple Family 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 75 70 - 85 Transient Lodging - Motel, Hotels 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 - 70 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50 - 70 NA 65 - 85 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50 - 75 NA 70 - 85 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 - 70 NA 67.5 - 75 72.5 - 85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, 50 - 70 NA 70 - 80 80 - 85 Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 50 - 70 67.5 - 77.5 75 - 85 NA Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 - 75 70 - 80 75 - 85 NA NA: Not Applicable Normallv Acceqtable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionallv Acceqtable: 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. Normallv 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. Clearlv Unacceptab-e: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: OPR 2003 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 provides the basis for decisions on location of land uses in relation to noise sources and for determining noise mitigation requirements. Table 3.7-3: 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 land uses (e.g., residential, hotels, motels, schools, and churches), and 70 dBA or Page 3-112 ~ ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3i~~~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise less for parks, commercial, office, and industrial land uses. Noise levels up to 60 dBA are considered conditionally acceptable for most noise sensitive land uses. ' Table 3.7 3. City of Dublin - Land Use Compatibil~ty for Community Noise Environments ~. ~~~~.. ~ ~ ~~ ~ , ~ `~ ~~ ~~ ~~ s ~rv s ~ z: ~ _ - ~` ~~ =,.Cor~munity Nais e Exposure (Ldn) ~ ~~ ~ ~an;d Use Category`~ ~ k ~ Normally~ ~ ~~, Conditioi~ally Normally :~ : ° C~earty~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ : , Acceptable Accepiable = Unacceptable Unaccepta61e ~ ~ g Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75 or greater Motels, Hotels 60 or less 60-70 70-80 80 or greater Schools, Churches, Nursing Homes 60 or less 60-70 70-80 -- Neighborhood Parks 50 - 70 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85 Office, Retail, Commercial 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80 or greater Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75 or greater -- Ldn = Day night average; NA = not applicable. Notes: Normallv 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. Conditionallv 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. Normallv 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. Clearlv Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: Ci of Dublin General Plan, Ci of Dublin, ado ted Februa 11, 1985, u dated Janua 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 9. I: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments; refer above to Table 3.7-3: Land ~ Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments. 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. ~ Future noise, if not mitigated, will subject about 2,700 residents to levels exceeding 65 CNEL. The noise wall would reduce noise by 10 dB, making this the most cost-effective noise reduction project in Dublin. Actual wall height would be determined during project ~ design. ~ Page 3- I I 3 , ao~.~".~o ; ;e, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise 3~~~~fg~ ~ Implementing Policy C. Encourage homeowners west of San Ramon Road who are affected by I-580 noise to construct noise barriers on their properties where these would be effective and require such barriers for new development. This policy also applies to sites adjoining the west side of San Ramon Road at higher elevations. Where the noise source is below the receptors, only barriers near the receptor will be effective. About 5 dB noise reduction could be achieved. Implementing Policy D. Support unified action by residential owners on the east side of San Ramon Road and along Village Parkway to install, repair, or extend noise barriers. Much of this frontage was developed before effective noise barriers were required as a condition of subdivision approval. Because construction for a single lot is costly, relatively ineffective, and potentially unattractive, the City should assist in the formation of assessment districts or otherwise promote group action where there is consensus that a problem exists. Implementing Policy E. Design Dougherty Road improvements and adjoining residential development for compliance with noise standards. This corridor offers the opportunity to do it right the first time without continuous walls. Berms, open space, garages near the road, and noise-conscious site planning can be used. Implementing Policy F. Noise impacts related to all new development shall be analyzed by '~ a certified acoustic consultant. Implementing Policy G. Request demonstration of ability to mitigate noise prior to ~ approval of light rail or bus service in the Southem Pacific Right-of-Way Transportation Corridor. , A depressed rail line or noise walls close to the tracks could make light rail a good neighbor. , 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. Because the City of Dublin General Plan designates almost all residential sites subject to 60 ~ or greater CNEL for multifamily development, this standard will be efFective in Dublin. Project designers may use one or more of four available categories of mitigation measures: site planning, architectural layout (bedrooms away from noise source, for example), noise ~ barriers, or construction modifications. Noise Scales and Definitions ~ Sound is technically described in terrns of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of ineasurement of the loudness of ~ Page 3- I I 4 ~ ~ 3~~~~~3 1 ~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise ~ 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 I 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 3.7- I: Sound Levels and Human Response. ~ There are three methods used to measure sound over a period of time: the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), the equivalent energy level (Leq) and the Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ld~).. The predominant community noise rating scale used in ~ ~ Califomia for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL reading represents the average of 24 hourly readings of equivalent levels, known as Leq's, based on an A-weighted decibel with upward adjustments added to ~ account for increased noise sensitivity in the evening and night periods. These adjustments are +5 dBA for the evening (7:00 p.m. to I 0:00 p.m.), and + I 0 dBA for the night ( I 0:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). CNEL may be indicated by "dBA CNEL" or just "CNEL". ~ The L~q is the sound level containing the same total energy over a given sample time period. The Leq can be thought of as the steady (average) sound level which, in a stated ~ period of time, would contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level during the same period. Leq is typically computed over I, 8 and 24-hour sample periods. ~ Another commonly used method is the day/night average level or L.~~. The L~~ 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 ~ ~ Page 3-115 i oo~.~~.,~o Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise ~~~~ ~g3 community noise exposure. It is based on a measure of the average noise level over a given time period called the L~q. The Ld~ is calculated by averaging the Leq's for each hour of the day at a given location after penalizing the "sleeping hours" (defined as I 0:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), by a 10 dBA to account for the increased sensitivity of people to noises that occur at night. The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event is typically expressed as LmaX• The sound level exceeded over a specified time frame can be expressed as Ln (i.e., L90, L50, L I 0, etc.). L50 equals the level exceeded 50 percent of the time. Relevant Project Characteristics Development activities under the DDSP are assumed to occur over the next 15 to 20 years. During that time, it is assumed that only a portion of the existing land uses will be intensified and that many of the existing structures will essentially remain the same in size and configuration with the exception of remodeling of existing structures. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with the CEQA, Stote CEQt1 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 bome vibration or ground bome 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 ^ 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 If the ambient noise environment is quiet and the new noise source greatly increases the noise exposure, an impact may occur even though a criterion level might not be exceeded. The project would create a significant impact for traffic noise levels when the following occurs: ^ An increase of the existing ambient noise levels by 5 dBA or more, where the existing ambient level is less than 60 dBA CNEL; Page 3- I I 6 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~g3 , ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise , ^ An increase of the existing ambient noise level by 3 dBA or more, where the ~ existing ambient level is 60 to 65 dBA CNEL; or ^ An increase of the existing ambient noise level by I.5 dBA or more, where the ~ existing ambient level is greaterthan 65 dBA CNEL. Significance_of Changes_in Cumulative Traffc_Noise Levels _. . , The project's contribution to a cumulative traf~ic noise increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The combined effect compares the "cumulative with project" condition to , "existing" conditions. This comparison accounts for the traffic noise increase from the project generated in combination with traffic generated by projects in the cumulative projects. The following criteria have been utilized to evaluate the combined effect of the ' cumulative noise increase. Combined Ef~ects: The cumulative with project noise level ("Cumulative With Project") ~ causes the following: ^ An increase of the existing noise level by 5 dBA or more, where the existing level is ~ less than 60 dBA CNEL; ^ An increase of the existing noise level by 3 dBA or more, where the existing level is 60 to 65 CNEL; or ~ ^ An increase of the existing noise level by I.5 dBA or more, where the existing level is greater than 65 dBA CNEL. ~ 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 have been utilized to evaluate the incremental effect of the cumulative noise increase. ~ Incremental Ef~ects: The "Cumulative With Project" causes a I dBA increase in noise over the "Cumulative Without Project" noise level. ~ A signifcant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded. , Exposure to Short-term Construction-Related Noise and Vibration Impact 3.7- I: The proposed project could result in short-term construction-related noise ~ and vibration that would exceed applicable noise standards at nearby noise sensitive land uses. This is considered a potentially significant impact. 1 Construction activities have a short and temporary duration, lasting from a few days to a period of several months. Groundbome noise and vibration, as well as other types of construction-related noise impacts may occur during the initial site preparation, which can ~ ~ Page 3- I I 7 ~ ~o~.~~.~~o Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise ~~~~~~3 create the highest levels of noise and vibration. Generally, site preparation has the shortest duration of all construction phases. Activities that occur during this phase include earthmoving and soils compaction. High groundbome noise and other vibration 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 two primary sources: ( I) the transport of workers and equipment to construction sites, and (2) 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, senior center.s, 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 and vibration during grading and construction operations. During future project implementation, adjacent sensitive receptors would be exposed to sporadic high noise and vibration 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 San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Amador Valley Boulevard. As stated above, various sensitive receptors exist both within and in close proximity to the project area. All future development within the DDSP would be subject to compliance with the implementing policies of the Noise Element of the City o f Dublin General Plan Additionally, implementation of the following mitigation measures would further reduce construction noise associated with future development within the DDSP to a less than significant level by requiring preparation of a construction noise management plan which would include limiting construction to the less noise sensitive periods of the day and ensuring that proper operating procedures are followed during construction so that nearby sensitive receptors are not adversely affected by noise and vibration. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.7- I a Project applicants within the project area 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: ^ Construction activities, including the maintenance and warming of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City Page 3- I I 8 ~ ~ ' ~~a~c~;~ Downtown Dublin Specific Pian Draft EIR Noise ~ holidays, between the hours of 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM except as , otherwise approved by the City Engineer. ^ All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufl1ers 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 City shall require that the contractor 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 construction contractor shall provide an on-site name and telephone number of a contact person. In the event that construction noise is ~ intrusive to an educational process, the construction liaison will revise the construction schedule to preserve the leaming environment. ~ ^ Select demolition methods to minimize vibration, where possible (e.g., sawing masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement ~ breakers). 7 I l f ili h - opment e proposed project MM 3. b Should potential future deve ac tated by t require off-site import/export of fill material during construction, trucks shall ~ utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways (Interstate 580, Interstate 680, San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Amador Valley Boulevard). 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.). ~ Exposu_re_to Long=Term_Stationary _Noise Impact 3.7-2: Compliance with design guidelines and development standards contained ' within the DDSP will ensure that potential future development within the project does not exceed established noise standards. This is considered a less than significant impact. ~ Potential future development within the project area could result in long-term stationary noise impacts on sensitive receptors within the project area, which consist of a 238-room Holiday Inn Hotel and a senior center with an associated 54-unit Wicklow Square ~ apartment complex. Residential uses are located adjacent to the project area to the north, east, and west. Examples of stationary noise sources are generators, air conditioning facilities, etc. ~ The purpose of the DDSP is to guide development and design within the approximately 284 acres located in downtown Dublin. This will be accomplished by a set of regulations, i ~ Page 3- I I 9 , oo~.~~„~o Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise "/~~ ~ ~ ~ , design principles, and related implementing actions designed to foster quality development and prevent excessive noise. The DDSP project area has been divided into three districts (Retail District, Transit-Oriented District, and Village Parkway District), based on the existing building pattems and land uses within each area and the intended development envisioned for each district. The DDSP proposes development that is consistent with existing land uses and is anticipated to generate similar noise levels. Where new development would abut noise sensitive uses, the DDSP includes design guidelines and development standards that are aimed at reducing noise levels, including building orientation, wall placement, lot dimensions, maximum intensity, outdoor storage, setbacks, bufFers, edge conditions, and landscaping. By providing the necessary regulatory and design guidance, the proposed project ensures that future development of parcels within the DDSP project areas implements the policies of the Noise Element in the City o f Dublin General Plan. Compliance with the City's standards would ensure that any new stationary noise source (i.e., generators, air compressors, loading bays, pumps, etc.) within the project area would result in a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors. Exposure to Long-Term Mobile Noise Impact 3.7-3: Development in the project area facilitated by the proposed project could permanently increase noise levels from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) at existing and future uses within the DDSP project area. This is considered a potentially 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. The "Near Term Without Project" and "Near Term With Project" scenarios were compared for near terrn traffic noise conditions. As previously discussed, an increase of five dBA or greater in noise levels occurring from project-related activities would be significant when the "Without Project" noise level is below 60 dBA CNEL. An increase of three dBA or greater in noise levels occurring from project-related activities would be significant when the "Without Project" noise level is between 60 to 65 dBA CNEL. Finally, an increase of 1.5 dBA or greater would be significant if the "Without Project" noise level is above 65 dBA CNEL. In Table 3.7-5: Near Term Noise Scenarios, the noise level (dBA at 100 feet from centerline) depicts what would typically be heard I 00 feet perpendicular to the roadway centerline. As indicated in Table 3.7-5: Near Term Noise Scenarios under the "Near Term Without Project" scenario, noise levels at a distance of I 00 feet from the centerline would range from approximately 50.4 dBA to 69.5 dBA. The highest noise levels under the "Near Term Without Project" conditions occur along San Ramon Road (south of Dublin Boulevard). Under the "Near Term With Project" scenario, noise levels at a distance of I 00 feet from the centerline would range from approximately 50.4 dBA to 70.7 dBA. The Page 3- I 20 ~ i , r ~ ~ , ' ~ , ~ ' , ' ' ~ ~ i ~ 1 3~:~~,~g3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific P~an Draft EIR Noise highest noise levels under future with project conditions would also occur along ~San Ramon Road (south of Dublin Boulevard). Table 3.7•5: Near Term Noise Scenarios d ~~ ~ ~ ~: , ~ ~ ~ ~ Roadi~ray S~9ment:'~ ~ -`~` ' ` ~` ~~~ ,°. ` .. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a~ ~. ~~ v ~~ Near~Term W ~~~~ ~ _ ~ ~T ~~ ~ ~ -: )thout ~o ect~ ~ydBA~CNEL ~ @ 1Q0 Feet ~ , ~ , vR adwa Y ~ ~ ~Cen#er~ine ..~ . Near~Te ' ~ ~" A~T ~ ~ ~ ~ rtn~lMth Pro ect dBA CNEL ~ 1~0 Feet from s.. f~oadway : -enter`I~ne ~~~ . ~~~{er~ice - ~ in dB~A~ ~ ~ 100 Feet ~: iromr ~~~Roadway ~ :~: ~ . ~ Potent9al ' g ~ , 3i n~icant ~,°Impac4?' , ~. ~ ~.n, Amador Plaza Amador Valle Blvd. / Dublin Blvd. 8,380 58.0 12,690 59.8 1.8 No Dublin Blvd. / St. Patrick Wa 13,130 60.0 30,670 63.7 3.7 Yes Amador Plaza Rd. / Villa e Parkwa 17,840 62.7 20,550 63.3 0.6 No Donahue Dr. / Amador Plaza Rd. 15,040 61.9 17,110 62.5 0.6 No E. of Villa e Parkwa 13,360 61.4 14,770 61.9 0.5 No Re ional Street / Starward Dr. 14,770 61.9 16,790 62.4 0.5 No San Ramon Rd. / Re ional Street 16,110 62.2 18,260 62.8 0.6 No Starward Dr. / Donahue Dr. 13,740 61.5 . 15,800 62.1 0.6 No W. of San Ramon Rd. 3,010 55.0 3,370 55.5 0.5 No Dublin Blvd. Amador Plaza Rd. I Villa e Parkwa 24,270 65.5 38,260 67.5 2.0 Yes E. of Villa e Parkwa 24,400 65.5 33,050 66.8 1.3 No Golden Gate Dr. / Amador Plaza Rd. 21,440 65.0 38,060 67.4 2.4 No Re ional Street / Golden Gate Dr. 22,650 65.2 43,330 68.0 2.8 Yes San Ramon Rd. / Re ional Street 28,090 66.0 49,860 68.5 2.5 Yes W. of San Ramon Rd. 21,220 64.7 23,020 65.1 0.4 No Golden Gate Dr. Dublin Bivd. / St. Patrick Wa 7,900 57.9 15,850 60.9 3.0 No S. of St. Patrick Wa 5,830 56.5 7,810 57.8 1.3 ~ No Re ional Street Amador Valle Blvd. / Dublin Rd. 6,220 58.4 9,670 60.3 1.9 No S. of Dublin Blvd. 7,820 59.4 11,590 61.1 1.7 No San Ramon Rd. Amador Valle Blvd. / Dublin Blvd. 27,090 66.9 32,620 67.8 0.9 No N. of Amador Valle Blvd. 22,520 66.2 29,190 67.3 1.1 No S. of Dublin Blvd. 48,540 69.5 64,120 70.7 1.2 No St. Patrick Wa E. of Amador Plaza Rd. 12,050 59.8 16,730 61.2 1.4 No Golden Gate Dr. / Amador Plaza Rd. 3,840 54.8 6,800 57.3 2.5 No W. of Golden Gate Dr. (Proposed Saint Patrick Way Extension ~ 1,670 51.2 3,630 54.5 3.3 No Villa e Parkwa Amador Valle Blvd. / Dublin Blvd. 12,990 61.2 17,300 62.4 1.2 No Dublin Blvd. / I-680 NB on ram 5,400 57.8 7,300 59.1 1.3 No N. of Amador Valle Blvd. 14,670 61.8 19,100 63.0 1.2 No S. of I-680 NB on ram 990 50.4 990 50.4 0 No ADT = avera e dail tri s; dBA = A-wei hted decibels; CNEL = communi noise e uivalent level Source: Intersection tuming movements, prepared by Fehr and Peers, dated January 2010 and ADT calculations by RBF Consulting, dated April 2010. Table 3.7-5 also compares the "Near Term Without Project" scenario to the "Near Term With Project" scenario. The proposed project would increase noise levels on the surrounding roadways by a maximum of 3.7 dBA along Amador Plaza (between Dublin ~ Page 3- I 2 I Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise ~ ~~ ~f ~~ 1 , Boulevard and St. Patrick Way) with noise levels between 60 dBA and 65 dBA. As indicated in Table 3.7-5 and stated under the Signi ficance Criteria, four of the roadway noise levels resulting from the proposed project would result in a potentially significant increase in noise located along Amador Plaza (between Dublin Boulevard and Saint Patrick Way) and Dublin Boulevard (between Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway, between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive; and between San Ramon Road and Regional Street). Land uses along these roadway segments are currently comprised of commercial uses with no existing sensitive receptors that would be affected by the proposed project. However, future development within the project area may include the construction of sensitive receptors along these roadway segments, which would be considered a potentially significant impact. Siting of new development within the DDSP project area would be required to consider proximity to noise sources such as freeway and roadway traffic including proximity to Highway 580. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact by establishing regulatory and design guidance for future development within the DDSP, as well as implementing the policies of the Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan to limit exterior noise levels to 60 dBA CNEL or less at noise sensitive land uses within the project area. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will result a less than significant impact. M itigation_Measures: MM 3.7-3 Future development within the DDSP project area that is located adjacent to Highway 580; Amador Plaza (between Dublin Boulevard and Saint Patrick Way); and Dublin Boulevard (between Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway; between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive and between San Ramon Road and Regional Street) shall prepare a site-specific acoustical analysis subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin. The acoustical analysis prepared for future development shall evaluate resultant noise impacts in comparison to the City's noise criteria for Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments. Feasible project . specific mitigation measures shall be required as part of the project design to reduce noise impacts at future noise sensitive land uses, including but not limited to the following: I) site design, 2) operational restrictions; 3) barriers, 4) setbacks, and 5) insulation, No development perrnits or approval of land use applications shall be issued until the acoustical analysis is received and approved by City staff and any project design features are incorporated into the future development project. Airrraft Nnica The closest airport to the project area is the Livermore Municipal Airport which is located approximately 6.5 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 Page 3- I 22 ~ 1 ' ' , ~ , ' ~ ' , ' ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' , ~ ~~~ ~g3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise 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. ~ Page 3-123 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Noise ~~-~~~~~ This page intentionally le ft blank Page 3-124 ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 ~ 1 i ! 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ Source: Mefviile C. Branch and R; Dale Beland, Outdc»or Naise in the Metropolitan Environment, 1970. Enviranmental Protectian Agency, l~farmatiorr on Levels of Envirqnmenta! Noise Requisite to Protect PubJic Heaith and Wetfare with an Adequate Mar~in of Safety (EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004), March 1974. 5ource: (5ee Above) ^ . . . C O N S LI LTI N G 412010 JN 70-700239 DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ' Sound Levels and Human Response Figure 3.7-1 3~~ ~~~ , Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities , 3.8. Public Services & 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 Specific Plan, as well as ~ personal communication with service providers. 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. I 6 is located at 7494 Donohue Drive; Station No. 17 is located at 6200 Madigan Avenue; and Station No. I 8 is located at 4800 Fallon Road. ~ ^ Station No. I 6 houses one engine company, a patrol and a water tender, and a patrol. This station provides initial response to west and downtown Dublin and ' would be the first responder to any fire or emergency occurring in the DDSP area. ^ Station No. 17 provides service to the west, and central core sections of Dublin. This station houses one engine and one truck company. ~ ^ Station No. I 8 provides the primary response for the eastem 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 2010, the City of Dublin has 5 I swom personnel. ~ Police Services are provided by 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 of~icers 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- I 25 ' ao.e~~n~o 1~ , Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities Schools ~3~~`~~3 The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) provides public education in the City of Dublin and the surrounding area (including the proposed project site). 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, 2008- 2009 student enrollment, and the school's optimum capacity are identified in Tabie 3.8- I: Optimum Capacity of Schools Serving the DDSP Area. The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of Dublin, Frederiksen, and Murray Elementary Schools, 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, 2007-09, each new single-family home generates an average of 0.68 K- I 2 students; single-family attached housing (otherwise known as "townhomes") generate an average 0.24 K- I 2 students per home; and a new multifamily housing development generates an average of 0. I 25 K- I 2 students per unit. Page 3- I 26 ~ Table 3.8-1: Optimum Capacity of Schools Serving the DDSP Area ~.-~ 33~~ `~~~j ~ Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & 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 $ I.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 park to the project area is the Mape Memorial Park, located at I 171 I Mape Way (less, than a quarter-mile northwest of the proposed project between San Sabana & Calle Verde). This 2.6-acre park includes walkways, play equipment, a small group picnic ' area, picnic tables, barbecues, a sand volleyball court, restrooms, and drinking fountains. 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 (see Figure 3.8- I: Storm Drain System). The Alameda County Water Conservation District Zone 7(Zone 7) owns and operates , regional storm drain facilities that collects runoff from the City. Because the project area is largely built-out, stormwater flows to collection distribution systems are expected to be similar to or possibly slightly reduced with incorporation of low impact development (LID) ' within the project area as part of future development. 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. The existing potable water ' distribution system for the DDSP area is shown in Figure 3.8-2: Potable Water System. 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 ~ Page 3- I 27 ' oo~e~~n~o ;x :. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities approved customer categones 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 (May 2005) (hereinafter "DSRSD UWMP") includes a projection of future potable and reclaimed water use through the year 2030. This projection is shown in Table 3.8-2: Projected DSRSD Water Demand (Potable and Reclaimed). Table 3.8-2: Projected DSRSD Water Demand (Potable and Reclaimed) ~nar~ a . Dublin ~ ;. ~o~~ , 9,300 - :a 10,600 ~ ~~ .: 11,900 ~ . ~o ~ ,~ 13,700 ~ z5 : 13,700 za e 13,700 Dougherty Vailey 1,250 2,800 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 Subtotal 10,550 13,400 15,300 17,100 17,100 17,100 Recycled Water 2,000 2,700 3,250 3,700 3,700 3,700 Total 12,550 16,100 18,550 20,800 20,800 20,800 Note: All Amounts in Acre-Feet/Year Source: Dublin San Ramon Services District Urban Water Management Plan, May 2005 Update. 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 May 2009. 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 I 00 percent of its treated water 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 Page 3- I 28 ~ ~3a~~~~ 1 ~ , ~t . ~ ~ ~,~,3 ~ ~~~ , Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities 1 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 staff compared projected water demands to the long-terrn average yield of existing ' water supplies in the current year (2009), over the next five years (2009 to 2013), and at buildout, to identify potential deficiencies in the existing water supply system. This comparison indicated that the existing water supply system could reliably meet projected , water demands of 62,500 acre-feet (A~ which is 9,000 AF more than 2013 demands, but that projected water demands at buildout exceed long-term average yields expected from existing water supplies. Therefore, the existing system could become unsustainable in about ' a decade, sometime between 2015 and 2020. The exact year that the existing system becomes unsustainable cannot be determined ~ because of a number of current uncertainties (e.g., rate of urban growth, rate of growth in untreated demands, changes in water efficiency, timing of potential solutions, or future ' adjustments to projected demands by Zone 7 customers) that would significantly influence timing. However, Zone 7 has developed a risk model to help incorporate these uncertainties, along with other key issues, into future evaluations of Zone 7's existing water , supply system. Overall, Zone 7 staff feels that it is reasonably likely that Zone 7 will be able to meet contracted water demands through projected buildout of the Livermore-Amador Valley. , 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 of the City of San Ramon. DSRSD wastewater collection system includes over I 70 ' miles of sanitary sewers ranging from six to 42 inches in diameter that are from five to over 40 years old. As shown in Figure 3.8-3: Sanitary Sewer System, the project area includes a variety of collection mains located within the existing public streets and on some private ~ properties. Most of the mains range from eight to I 2 inches. All of the sewer mains drain into a 36-inch main, which runs north to south along Village Parkway. ' 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 comer of Interstate 580 and Interstate 680 in the City of Pleasanton. The plant has a rated dry-weather capacity of 17.0 million gallons per day (mgd). , ~ Page 3- I 29 ' oo r~o ~ ~ ~ ~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities 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. 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 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 Califomia, and provides natural gas to all or part of 39 counties in Califomia, constituting most of the northem 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 DDSP area. Title 24, Part 6, of the Califomia 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 perrnit process. Projects that apply for a building permit on or after January I, 20 I 0, must comply with the 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards. In addition, the Califomia Energy Commissions' Energy Aware Planning Guide is available as a reference tool to assist in project planning. Development Standards and Design Guidelines Page 3- I 30 ~ ~ 33~~~~~~ Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR ' Public Services & Utilities i for new development in the proposed DDSP area include the following energy-saving , measures: ^ Green roofs and rooftop gardens are encouraged to add landscaping, decrease the heat island effect of large expanses of flat roofs, and to reduce heating and cooling ' energy demands; ^ Roof materials should meet or exceed the Energy Star requirements for solar t reflectance; ^ Energy-efficient lighting (lighting from renewable sources and energy-saving devices, such as light sensors) are encouraged, whenever feasible; and ' ^ Where feasible, warm white, energy efficient lighting source types such as metal halide, induction lighting, compact fluorescent, and light-emitting diode (LED) should ' be used. ~ Regulatory Setting ' State Schools , School Facilities Act o f I 998 ' The School Facilities Act of 1998 (also know 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. Parl<s and Recreation ~ , _.._.._._ ........................__............... ................................-- Quimby Act ' Since the passage of the 1975 Quimby Act (Califomia Govemment Code §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 I,000 residents. , , ~ Page 3- I 3 I ' ao~.~,,,~o 33~~~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities Water Supply and_Distribution Title 22 Cali fomia Code o f Regulations The Califomia 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 Califomia 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 I983, the Califomia Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code Sections I 0610 - I 0656). The Califomia 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 3 I, in years ending in five and zero. Wastewater Treatment Clean Water Act The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of I 972 (CWA (33 U.S.C. I 25 I 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 govemment has delegated responsibilities for implementing the CWA NPDES program in Califomia 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)( I)(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)( I) Guidelines (40 CFR 230) regulate dredge and fill activities that affect jurisdictional wetlands and waters, including water quality aspects of such activities. Page 3- I 32 ~ ~3~~ ~ ~~ ~ Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities , Cali fomia Porter-Cologne Act ~' The Califomia Porter-Cologne Act created an administrative structure and procedures for management of water quality in the state. Califomia'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 1 RWQCB implements the Basin Plan developed for its region by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements to individual"s, 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. ' Local . C~ 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 o f 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. ~ ' ~ Page 3- I 33 ' oo~.~~r~o • ~i' y l , ~ ., a r~ t ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities 3~~~~~~ '' 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. 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 Praject Characteristics Development activities under the proposed Specific Plan are assumed to occur over the next I 5 to 20 years. During that time, it is assumed that only a portion of the existing land uses will be intensified and that many of the existing structures will essentially remain the same in size and configuration with the exception of remodeling of existing structures. Based on this information, future development assumptions for each district were identified which is used for the basis for infrastructure improvements. Downtown Dublin is largely built-out, but there are a few vacant parcels on which new development could occur. Future development would therefore occur as properties are intensified and in some cases at a higher density. Due to the existing Floor to Area (FAR) Page 3- I 34 ~ ~ 1 ~~~ ! ~ L/ $/ , Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities ratio and parking requirements, limited new additional density opportunities within the ~ planning area exist, particularly in the Retail and Village Parkway Districts. Impacts and Mitigation Measures ~, Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQ~4 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 govemmental 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; ^ Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of ~ recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment; ^ 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; ^ Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment t facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental efFects; ~ ^ Have insuffiicient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and reso c d d ti l d d ur es, or are new or expan e en ements nee t e ; ^ 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 roject's solid t di l d d/ p was e sposa nee s; an or ^ Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. r ' ~ Page 3-135 oa~.~~r~o Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities 3`~~ ~ ~~b~ ~ ' Methodology Information in this section is derived primarily from the City of Dublin General Plan, the DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, as well as personal communication with service providers. Impacts and Mitigation Measure Increased Demand for Fire Protection Service Impact 3.8- I: The proposed project would not significantly increase the need for fire proteetion services and result in the need for or the construction of new or physically altered facilities in order to meet the City's response times for fire protection services. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on fire protection services. 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 I 6, 17 and I 8) that serve the community. Station No, I 6 is located at 7494 Donohue Drive and houses one engine company, one truck company, and a patrol. This station provides initial response to west and downtown Dublin and would be the first responder to any fire or emergency occurring in the project area. Although the number of calls for service from the DDSP area would likely increase, all proposed development must meet certain State building and fire codes. 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 Califorriia Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Dublin's Fire Department, and Califomia Building Code standards. Site access, road widths and tuming 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. Each proposed development project within the DDSP will be required to fund its own project-specific on-site and off-sife 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 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 majority of the DDSP area is already built-out and future projects will be required to comply with the Fire Code and other applicable fire protection regulations, the proposed project is not expected to create any adverse impacts on fire protection. Page 3- I 36 ~ 3N1.~ ~~3 ~ Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities ' Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is ~ required. Increased Demand for Law Enforcement Service ~ Im act 3.8-2: The ro osed ro'ect would not si nificantl increase the need for law P P P P 1 g Y 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 of~icer that functions ancl 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 swom personnel with a ~, population of 43,630, for a ratio of I. I 7 sworri personnel per I,000 population. Although the addition of new residents and businesses to the DDSP area would slightly ~~ increase the demand for police services, implementation of the proposed project would have a minimal effect on response times for police services and would not affect the ~ Department's ability to meet the response time goal Future development 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 development prior to issuance of a Building Permit to ensure that the proposed project will not impact law enforcement services. 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 3.8-3: Implementation of the DDSP would increase the number of students in the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) with the construction of approximately I,300 multi- ~ family residential units, which would increase the capacity of the schools with serve the project area, which are operating above optimum capacity. However, future development within the project area would be required to pay school impact fees as required under ~ State law to the DUSD. This impact is cohsidered less than significant. The proposed project would allow for a future net new development potential with approximately 3.0 million square feet of non-residential development and I,300 multi-family residential dwelling units. Children from the proposed dwelling units would likely attend DUSD schools. Therefore, the DDSP could have a direct impact on schools within the ~ ~ Page 3-137 ~ oo~.~~r~o ;; Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities 3`~a ~ ~1 ~3 1 ~ DUSD boundary. The DUSD has established student generation rates for the purposes of estimating and planning for enrollment increases as a result of new residential development or redevelopment. No generation rates have been established for commercial development, as commercial development is not anticipated to result in direct population growth and a corresponding demand for classroom space. According to the DUSD's Demographic Study and Facilities Plan, 2007-09, multifamily housing development generates an average of 0. I 25 K- I 2 students per unit the proposed project would result in approximately I 63 students (K- I 2 grades). The DDSP area would be served by the following schools: elementary - Dublin, Frederiksen, and Murray Elementary Schools; middle - Wells Middle School, and high school - Dublin High School. The DUSD middle school has a sufficient existing capacity to meet the needs of school children generated by the proposed project. However, the elementary schools and high school which would be serving the DDSP area currently exceed capacity, as shown in Table 3.8-3: Capacity Versus Current Enrollment of Schools Serving the DDSP Area, below. Table 3.8-3: Capacity Versus Current Enroliment of Schools Serving the DDSP Area ~G~ade Level~and School`€ ~ ~Student Enroliment ~ri ~ ~ - ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ptunum Capa ity ~ ~ € ~ ~ ~ ~~Excess~Capacity ~ ~ , ~ Name ,., _ : ~ 2008 2QQ9 = ; 3 , ~ F~ , .~ ~ , ~kSa.. ~ db ~.€~~. ~ E .a~~. ~Elementary ~ ~' ~ g~ ~- ~. ~ ~' ~ ~ ~- ~~ ~ ~;- ~ ~~ ~~ , ~ ~~ ~.ti Dublin 533 344 189 Frederiksen 506 502 4 Murray 370 264 106 ~ Mitldie School ~ ~ °~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ '~ ~ `~ ,~ ~~ ~ ,~,., ~ Wells 718 1,000 (282) _ __ m ,.. ~ ~ ~ Higli School ° ~ ~~ ~- a :, ~ .'~, ~.~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~. ~ ~ .~. k ~ Dublin HS 1,474 1,259 215 Source: Dublin Unified School District, 2010; Ed-Dat,a, 2010 Future development within the DDSP 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 industrial uses. These fees are used by the DUSD to mitigate impacts associated with long-term operation and maintenance of school facilities. A development project applicant's fees would be determined at the time of the building permit issuance and woulcl 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 ~ Page 3-138 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ '~ Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities ~ DUSD is considered a less than significant impact on school services, and no ~ mitigation is required. Increased Demand for Parks and Recreation Facilities ^ Impact 3.8-4: The proposed project would increase the demand for park and recreational uses within the DDSP area. However, development projects within the project area would ' be required to pay the City's Public Facilities Fee prior to Building Permit issuance, Therefore, this would be 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 DDSP project area. Parks and gathering spaces are to be ,~ provided as a community benefit under the DDSP, which would off-set the increased demand. The City of Dublin General Plan establishes park standards that call for five net ~ acres per I,000 residents. The Parks and Community Services Department Public Facilities ~ Fee would be applied to future development within the project area. Public Facilities Fees vary according to the size of residential units, the location of the development, and whether or not there is credit of the dedication of land. With 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 3.8-5: The proposed project would result in an increase in demand for library services. However, existing library facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not physically impact other public facilities. ~ Therefore, this would be 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, the demand for these services would be met by existing library facilities. The City funds 3 I additional hours of library service and supports the collection with additional money. ~~ Implementation of the proposed project would not require the construction of new library facilities and would not cause or accelerate the physical deterioration of existing library ~ facilities. Additionally, the proposed project 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 3.8-6: Implementation of the DDSP 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. ~ Page 3- I 39 ~ OONBYLTIwO l 3~3~b `~g3 ;. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities ~ ~~l ~ c~~ ~ ,~ ,~ DSRSD provides wastewater collection services in the DDSP area. The DDSP area includes a variety of collection mains located within the existing public streets and on some private properties. Most of the mains range from eight to 12 inches. All of the sewer mains drain into a 36-inch main, which runs north to south along Village Parkway. New development projects within the DDSP area would connect to existing sewer lines. DSRSD, in collaboration with MWH, Inc. completed a Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update in June of 2005. Land use data form the basis for estimating wastewater flows in the collection system. In order to accommodate existing and future demand, sewer improvements were recently completed in the DDSP area. These improvements included the Dublin Boulevard West Sewer Relief project, and the Orchard Supply Hardware Sewer Replacement. 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. Individual development projects would be responsible for the cost and construction of new infrastructure required to serve new development. Public facility improvements for sanitary sewer drainage are managed and maintained by the DSRSD. In the Distnct's Capital Improvement Plan, the costs of capital improvement projects are assigned to Local Sewer Replacement (Fund 210) and/or Local Sewer 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 new development. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would comply with wastewater treatment requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Based on the Wastewater Master Plan (2005), the existing sewer infrastructure system that provides service to the DDSP area is sized to accommodate existing and planned development based on the City's General Plan and the respective Specific Plan growth projections. Based on a review of these projections and discussions, there is adequate capacity to service buildout of the downtown area. The wastewater treatment plant has an adequate capacity to serve the proposed project, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the existing wastewater treatment plant. Future development within the DDSP 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 3.8-7: Implementation of the DDSP would generate an additional demand for ~ water, however, the additional demand would be adequately served by anticipated water entitlements and resources. Impacts are considered less than significant. ~ Page 3- I 40 ~ ~ / ' ~~5~ ~$3 ~ Dublin Downtown SPecific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities ~ DSRSD is the purveyor of potable water in the City of Dublin. DSRSD purchases ' wholesale water from Zone 7, who in turris 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's 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. No additional pumping capacity is required for Pressure Zone I, which includes the DDSP area. Within Central Dublin, the Water Master Plan Update recommends the construction of a 2.74 million gallon reservoir (Tank I C) 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 I C to fill the ~ tank and distribute water from the tank to the Central Dublin service area. These improvements have been incorporated into DSRSD's capital improvement program. ~: Future water clemands for the DDSP area were calculated using two methodologies: one based on future population projections and per capita consumption, and one based on future land use and unit water use factors. Based on the buildout of the existing Specific , Plans within the project area, it is reasonable to assume that there is sufficient water supply to service future water demand in the DDSP area. over the next 20+ years as the projections in the Water Master Plan Update included land use and unit water use factors ~+ consistent with the development densities proposed in the DDSP. In addition, new and/or redeveloped uses resulting from implementation of the proposed project are not anticipated to exceed the capacity of the water treatment plant. ~ The DDSP addresses water conservation by encouraging efficient design and green building measures. The DDSP 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 DDSP promotes landscaping features that retain water and filter stormwater runoff such as bio-swales, rain gardens, underground cistems, flow-through planters, and roof ~} gardens, which would increase groundwater recharge within the project area. In addition, the Dublin San Ramon Services District (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 1 Regulations that reduce water use for irrigation (Chapter 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code). ~~ Based on a review of these projections, as well as the project design features in the proposed DDSP, there is adequate capacity to service buildout of the DDSP area. In addition, new development would tie into the existing service lines. Other than minor ~ ~ Page 3- I 4 I ~' ao~.~~r~~o f A ., Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities ~`~~~ ~3 ~ ~~~ ,~ construction to improve and/or expand existing connections, no major upgrades to water infrastructure will be required. Developers of individual development projects would be responsible for the cost and construction of new infrastructure required to serve new development. Implementation of these actions would ensure that adequate water infrastructure would be available to serve new development. This would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Stormwater Runoff Impact 3,8-8: Implementation of the proposed project may result in reduced off-site stormwater flows and future development within the planning area would be required to pay applicable impact fees at the time of issuance of the building permits. As City impact fees wouid adequately fund stormwater infrastructure, this would be 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. Given the fact that the DDSP area is nearly completely covered with buildings, parking lots, sidewalks, and roadways, stormwater discharge rates are not anticipated to exceed current conditions. The DDSP area is adjacent to and drains into Lines F-4 and J- I of Zone 7's flood protection and stormwater drainage system. Portions of these drainages may benefit from the implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) technologies, such as pervious pavement, rain gardens, and green roofs. Any new development could potentially improve stormwater conditions through the application of LID and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to groundwater infiltration, and thus, reduce off-site stormwater flows. Design guidelines in the DDSP encourage increased percolation through the use of vegetated swales, curb extensions, reconfigured parking lots with increased landscaping, and the use of pervious materials (e.g. pervious pavers), particularly in parking lots. Implementation of these design guidelines would result in a net reduction of off-site stormwater discharge rates beyond what currently exists in the project area and would improve water quality as compared to existing conditions. Such features would passively improve the quality of runoff and would enhance environmental quality. Implementation of these actions would reduce the impacts of new development on the storm drainage system compared to existing conditions Several properties within the DDSP area are located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. As previously discussed, new construction will be subject to floodplain regulations. In addition, the Zone 7 Stream Management Plan contains plans to retrofit the culvert that carries water from Dublin Creek under ponlon Way. This retrofit will increase the culvert capacity and reduce the risk of flooding in the DDSP area. 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 Page 3-142 ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Dr-aft EIR Public Services & Utilities ~ 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 3.8-9: Implementation of the proposed project would increase the generation of solid waste, but would be served by landfills with adequate capacity to accommodate the r increase. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact. ~ ~~ Development within the DDSP 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 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 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 DDSP 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 I 6,280,000 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 DDSP 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 DDSP. The proposed DDSP calls for the construction of approximately 3.0 million square feet of non-residential development and I,300 residential units. While this represents the ~~'. theoretical buildout capacity of development in the DDSP project area, the ultimate amount of future development will likely be considerably less due non-tangibles such as 1 market demand, ownership pattems, tenant lease terms, etc., as well as the fact that the DDSP project area is already largely developed resulting in significant physical limitations such as parcel configurations, parking, and circulation. Table 3.8-4: Solid Waste Generation Rates from Proposed Buildout of the DDSP, provides the projected amount of solid waste that would be generated at DDSP buildout. ~~~ ~ ~ Page 3-143 oo~.~,~~o Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Public Services & Utilities ~~~~~~3 ~~ The proposed project would create approximately I 1.7 tons of waste per day (or 4,270 tons/year). The Altamont Landfill's perrnitted maximum disposal rate is I I,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 DDSP 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, Electricitv, Gas, and Telecommunications Impact 3.8- I 0; The proposed project may resuit in the expansion of electricity, gas, and telecommunications on-site; however, the majority of the DDSP area is already built-out. This is considered a less than significant impact. The majority of the DDSP area is already built out; therefore, the DDSP area is currently serviced by electricity, natural gas, and telephone infrastructure located along local streets. As such, new and intensification of uses that would occur with implementation of the proposed are anticipated. PG&E would provide electrical and natural gas services to the proposed project. AT&T would be the local telecommunications provider. Because the DDSP area is located contiguous to existing services provided by the City of Dublin, provision of new service would result in a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Page 3- I 44 ~ ~ Table 3.8-4: Solid Waste Generation Rates from Proposed Buildout of the DDSP ~r ~ +~ r tr~ ~ ~ air ~ rr ss r~ ~ ~ .~. ~- ~ rr ~r q ~o ~ = c ~~~jy$ y~'S'G~o Fo FPBG cb ~~gP~Py Legend 'P/- ~ ~ FA ° °P PZF ~~, N r~~~. ~'°~ Q Specific Plan Boundary 0 ~i m ^` o ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ Drainage Culvert 5~~,~~,RT o $ ~ '" z~ `. Drainage Channel oe m ~ r ~ ~ o ~ ~, y 2 '` oG m ° a ~~ • ` `~+o~ Storm Drain Pipe A o . 3$ ~Nf,~ ~pU4~ ~ ~ ~ JO g~= ~ ~ ~`P~ SICVpRGqTfOR~ ~xOO~~PN~ I ~ ~ ` ``` ~ ~~ y~y0 • ~ ~~ ' (~~'' 9 4~ Pao • c ~ ~ 9~~~"~ F CASA IN E~ ' ~A ~ h l DA C R7 g ~Y P ` ac ~ , ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ GORTOCW su a , 9~ ,' S N ~fDq ~Nf IpDEM~0.NE ~ n ~~' • ~ ', ~ ` fBENSB~~G~Nf ~ `~ 'k9P P ~l ~9s '~'~~P+ ~ '~ ~~ • ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ S'. Lf ORryp ~ O ~ ~ , ~ '~' oP ~ j ,, , ~~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ O . F ~ z o ~ ~ . n.:i~ ~ ` ~, Due N 9 _ - `r ~ J ~ 4 ep~<fVqR A ~ t~'~' ;~ ~ "P~ ~ NP~~~ 1 ~ ~ 9 d 5 ~ - ~ ~ a ' S ~9j.~~ GPS~~r~G~V~ N~ ~~ jN ~ ..~ U y ~• ~ N ,.. a'IA o'P2~ ~t4~~O~NE p ~ ~ ~ ~°~~Z •I ~ Pv `"P g f ~ .. a ~r- ~ >_ _ ~~,y --. .. • ~ ~ ~~~,,, _ _r ~E~~o • ~ - - n ~ ~~0~'W 0oJ . ~ • ~ m ' $ ~ ~ ` ~_gB0 oy , ` ~ ~ Clly ot ~ Pleasantun ~ ~ Source: City of Dublin (2008) ~ ~ ~ 0 500 1,000 2,000 N Feet DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Vv Storm Drain System ~ CON9ULTINO I 07/27/2010JN7 0-1 002 39 Figure 3.8'~ vv I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ` ~~ .~` C ^~. ~~ ~ _ ~ ~'~ ~o ~ Legend Q Specific Plan Boundary Potable Water Line Diameter Less than 8" ~ 8" - 12" ~~ 14" - 24" ~ / ~~ ~ ~~~ *~ ~,, \ , ~ ~- - ~ , n j ~~ • _4 • ~ ~ ,-' ~~ ~ ~~ p • ~ ~-~- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ^ ~~ _ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ '. ,N CP~~~~ l,~~~- . .~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~`~ ~a~~~ , o _ _o Y ~`` ~ ~~~ ~ 0 /' ~ ~~ ~ - ~ ..,t' ~ ~ s, a~, _ ~~ , ~ .~ ' • ~ m ~ / ' A ~ 1 , \ /l / \ i ~-~ \ ~9~, J ~ ~ ~ ~ / \ , / ~ ~~ ~ ~•. 1 ~~ ~ ,\ • 1! ,~ ~~~ . ~ ~ ~ / M~ Clty Of Pleasanton Source: City of Dublin (2008) ~ DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ~ o soo ~,oo0 2,000 _S Feet Potable Water System ~, ... CON9ULTING o~,2~,zo,o~N~a,~239 Figure 3.8-2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W VI Source: City of Dublin (2008) ~ DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ~ ~ j\ 0 5~0 ,.~~~ 2,000 ~N Feet Sanitary Sewer ~-~ ^ ^ • Q4~ CONQULTINO 07/27/2010JN70-100239 Figure 3.8-3 ~~ ~ ~' ~ . ~ _ ~ ~, ~ ~ - -._ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~~ ~ ~ vV ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ource: renr t~ reers ~LUiu) aa o4 ~ DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 0 0 o N ~~~~~~~o~~f~a~u~ ~~a.fl~~ Qu°~~ CONSULTING 9,ZO,o~N,o-,ooz39 ~ Figure 3.J~1 ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , '~ ~ > > ~ ~ ~m " ~ ~ <~~ ~ ~* a N '° R- 200 342 ~---- N R- 4 25 ~ ~ ~~ co rn ~~. ~ v---- : E ~ ) N ~ ~ ~ ( ) v~~ ~0 33 (49j v~~ m 108 (83) a ~ 0 (2) N ~" ~ ~ 24 (26) N N : ~ ~ 41 (46) <`+ ~ c ~ 712 (496) o'-' m r 575 (619) ~ m co. z ~ 548 (570) ~~ ? ~- 747 (479) ~ ~ v ~ ~ 517 (311) rn ~n o !~ ~ ........ o ~o ~-n ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~asz(zsi) ~~ ~ ~53(174) ~o ~ ~ ~~.' g ~-ii~i~) ~,~o ° ~zsi(zos) ~°~~ ~r--2ss(iaz~ ~~ Amador Valle Blvd ~ ~ Amador Valle Blvd ~ ~ Amador Valle Blvd ~ ~• ~~ mador Valle Blvd ~~~ a'Amador Valle Blvdl ~•~ ~ mador Valle Blvd '~1~' `~t~' ° '~t~' ~, `~1~' `~tP `~t~' 28 (44)-~ ,n a~ 29 (110)-~ ~~ N 29 (73)1 d vo v 20 (48) o n,n 2(8) ~ ~~ N 258 (392) ~ ~ ~ o 29 (49)-- ~ N v 599 (706)~ 'n ~~ 499 (800)~ ~ N O N 512 (733)~ '~"~ 586 (691)-- ~ o v 322 (580)-+ a vv 42(32)~ . ~~~ 31(96)~ ~mN 10(18)~ U 32(46)~ mc~N 62(123)~ N~ 23(78)~ M~o T N ~ f0 C] (7 V C ~ ~ N N ~ i~ ~ ~ N ~ d' N O N ...,~n m c ;i~ ... ~ ~ u~ ^' i~ ~i~ 3 d ,n~..,~ ~ ~ ~ 193 (163) ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ 35 (92) ~ ~ N ~ ~ 15 (40) v~~ a ~ 69 (173) ~~ N a ~ 272 (325) N ~ ~j ~ 25 (35) o'~ M v ~-- 171 (243) i o F 371 (815) ~~~n ~ r 435 (844) ~ r~ o r 436 (747) ~ o N ~~-- 501 (923) ~ o N ~ a- 6(12) `r ~ ~ ~~ 316 (803) rn c~.i e;~ ~ 60 (115) n<v -o r 56 (53) r~ ~~ a~ 238 (310) ~ o r 107 (201) ~n a ~ 21 (9) d~~. ~ ----- d~~;~ ---- d1~ ~ --- .~~~, Q .~~~.> --- Jl~. ~ ~ Dublin Boulevardl •- rDublin Boulevard~ Dublin Boulevard ~DUbI'in Boulevard; L Dublin Boulevard rSt. Patnck W~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 1 133(115)~ ,~oN 90(237)~ Nmm 46(120)-~ ~~~ 114(174)~ ~~^ 194(336)~ ~~~ 4(11)~ -- 212 (253) ~ vo ~ 709 (879) ~ "~'~ ~ 561 988 y ~~~ 434 857 ~ ~~~ 429 776 ~ ~~." 4 12 y `~~T N 480(342)~ °o~ 79(151)-~ ~N~ 144(56)~ NNm 81(144)~ ^o~ 134(215)-~ cm°~ 1((1)~ °N~n ~ N ~ ~ N I i ~ . ., .. , . ~ ~ ~ ~ ".ti„'~i >^ .F ~ a" '~.. d,- G~ , ~~`d a` ~ ~' ''~ u~ N ~~; ~ v ^ y r~ ~ "^:"' ~~ t~'-~ `~9~ ~"i f w" ~ ~ g 9 m:~ ~ `° .`~ 9°,~'a~r ~j ~ ~.:.:y~, ~7 ta- ~ ~ .~ 1 ~`~ ~-.~si e," ~ ~ v ~ ~ 80~84~~~ ~o ~ a ~ ~~~ a "' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J~~s~ '^ " ~``~ '~° ~ rt ' a-"~"~~ ~ ( ) ~ ~ a~ ~~' ~ '~ -ril v ~k~.` q ~ ' ~`~ ~ ~ ~S '~ ~ P~ ~~~ ~ ~. ~~ ~ _ ~ a a~," ~ P ~ ~ a i ~ ~ 34 (43) w ~ ~ ~ ,} z . ~~' , _ r~" ' ~,'~, , S ~ ~° ~ :+p ° "t _ ~ ~ ~ i¢ ~ ~ > t~7 - .~ 3 '~ ~'., ~, ~ ~ y ' ' ~ , ~ .. ,~"~a. a`~* = ~ ~ e' ,~ ~ I-680 SB Ram 5 ~~ t' ~ ~ ~ .&~a~ ~ ~ , ~ a. ~ t ~ ,~~' ~ ~' `~~ "```~E x"e °~ d ~ ~~'~ ~ ~' ~ ~ 1 , ~ 5[. Patrick Way I ,I ~I-680 NB On-rampl n ~~ 4 R ~; ~ c.~' ~° ~. ~ ~ ~. } '` ~ :~~, k C" s ~ . } 14 (42) ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ,~Q,~ ~' ^'~'~, ~~~dK~ ~ ~ ~.. ~3~ ~ ~. '~~ ~ai ~ '"~ ~ ~' ~ ,",F t ~ "~ t a'^a € ~' ,~ -re,. .~„ k. + 52 (66)~ ~° ~- ~.10 f~~ . c ~'~4;2~' ,. ~' .. ~ y~ s ~ ~g ~ ~ ,~ r ~ ~ 28 (24) u~ --v m c~ • . A x •. ~s" r , v0~.fs "+a :A '3 .' '~.~ °Y~} s .~"A~ero+, i~ u~'; (r ao a ~ ~ ° v~ ~ ~„ ~ :. '1~ar.~., ~~ ` ~. ~~.~" ~ ~ ~t~" r v t~~,'; ' a~ ~ :q ~ ~ ~ r. +~,.} '~~~,~'j3 €~ c"~,.. `~~ m.: : tj ~ ~ ~ 1~ i 1;~ s`~,p g2 ~s. ~r~'`~„~~„ FL ~* ." ~a ~ ~'`,~ ~" ouei si"a ~°~~~ _ ~"~S ffi..~,~~ ~ .~„ s'~ ~ir ~~ a 7 . ,y ~ ;, , ~~~ `~ t -.,~ ~~~. ~~ ~ .n ~, ."'` &,x ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' a '_»~ i -y ~~ ~• '~i VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY ~~ "~`' ~'`"" ~'~` ~ , ~ ' ~ ~` ~„~(~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~r'„:1,~ 3~~~ E~ii':' ~ cx~ ~ ~. ~~~ ~ ~"~' ~., ~'`~4~''..,.1,g~~~ ~ ~<~~~~ : ~ ~ XX YY AM PM Peak Hour ~ ~~ _ `~ +~~°~-""~~ `^ ~'`~ ~ = ``- ~ ~ ` "~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Stud Intersection ~`~ 4 A ~e ~-~~ . ,~:,~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~~~~~ ~~.~~ Traffic Volumes Y ~ ~~ ; ~ e~„e~~a ~~ ~ r~~~ e~ ~~c,~ ~ ~ „~ ~ r .....,~-..- ; "~ ~. .~ ,~ : ~ ~ ~~ ~^^ ~ ~~',*15 s~ " ~~~~ "~ ~xe~~ ~~ ~'~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~` ~ Future Stud Intersection ,~ ~. `~ SOURCE Counts conducted in June 2007 ~~ Y ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~'~~ . ~ `~ ;~ ~~t -~ ~ ' ~~ "~~`~~~ ~ (intersections S 71 and 13) and ~ ~, '" ~ 's ~# "~ v" " ~ A ~ ~ A I Future Roadway Extension ~~ ~ ,, ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~,-~ -~ ~ ~~~z ~ ~ ~ June 2009 (intersections 1-4, 12 and 14). ~`"" ~ ,~ ~ ~'" q~~ ~ § ~, ~~'~.f „~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ xs ~ *~ ~ ,,y~ ,.~~ ,~ ~ ~~~ r~ ~~'"~~~~p+~ ~~~ '~ ". ~, r ~,f ~Z,~ ,~. .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,. E. ~ ~ -sJ( '',~. _.r' ,`:,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ , 4 w ~: ~ ~-~-., ~ ,~' j;: ~ ~ ,; ~ ~~w,,;~~C ~~~.1~+~~=: .: 5~ ~„~ ~ o~c'*ac" "" . ~*~ " ~ f y""~ "~~ y` ~., ~"`'~ _ ~;. N ~ ~ ,~ Sto`ner~dge ~ ~, ~ ~, ~ ~ (- '. ~~ ~ n~tan ~„ "~ ~« , ~~ „^~ ~~~ `~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~;~ "~ :~r~ ;~ ~~A~ ~ ~ Fm .~_ ~~ _ ~~ ~~ ~~ .,. . , .o . ~ . _ , ~ ~ource: renr a~ reers ~[v i~) ^ . ^ . CON5ULTING gJ2010JN70-100239 (~+- 1~ W ~ DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ~ Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volurx~es ~ Figure 3.9-2 ~r rr ~ r ~ ssi~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~s r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r yin ~ o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~111~~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~11~ a iAm~Valfe Blw rAm~a or Valle Blvd) jAmador Valle B v Amador~alle Blwd' ~Amador Valle Blvdi iAmador Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~111~~ ~ ~ ~l~ ~ ~ .1~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~~ ~ ~ i~ Q ~ ~ I~ Dublin Blvd Dublin Blvd Dublin Blvd Dublin Blvd I Dublin Blvd t. Patrick Wa ~~ttt~~ sir ~1~ ~1~ ~ ~tt~ ~ ~ - Y I f r::,~ ~ a ~ ~ ~y o ~ i. '.I-680 SB Ram \ ~ - I St. Patrick Ways 1-880 NB On-ramp ~\.~1 j \ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~:a _ -.v ti, ~t VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY - ~ - ~ f'~ - A Signalized Intersection O Stud Intersection _ ~ r ' " ~ - - ~ ' ~ - _ ~~-~~=~1 Z Stop Sign = ' ~5 Future Study Intersection ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~1 1 ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I Future Roadway Extension ~ y / ~ ~ sro, a,: ~ , , , ~ - Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control CONSULTING 9!2010 JN 70-100239 Figure 3.9-3 r~ . r ~ ~ ~ ~r ~r it r~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Legend Q Specific Plan Boundary 6~,a 4' City Limit Line ~ ~a~~e~l I~ Class I Bike Path a~` 3, Pia D Class II Bike Lanes ~ II® Class III Bike Route 3 0 v G4~ ~ c tL Cs A H / ~d~0 ~1 A, drd Dublin Blvd gyp. o~ ckwaV Orb\~r Q / Owens Dr :1 N Stoneridge ~ ~ c Mall a v z a T o 0 C ~a e~`d9eo S~O~ Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR pct Existing Bicycle Facilities ¦ ¦ ¦ N CONBU LTINO ~ g/y0~0 JN 70-100239 F~gUrQi 3.9-4 ~ ~ - ~ ~ ( ~ 3V ®Specific Plan Boundary - , 3V - _ 202 ~ r _ ' ~ ~ 3 C' imit Line ity L - ~ ) _ ~~,,a. r, i ~ o a D,-~~ ~p ~ ; 1 fey ~ ©Bus Route , I ~ ~ ~ ~ 10 Route No. JOX, -r r ~ ~ - - ~ _ 1 ~~II ;y ~ o I, e ~ ~ - ~ _ i ~ ~ ~f - ~ ~ - ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ;;o 201`,~~ 3V~~ I - _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v + 202' DublinrBrvd, ~ ~ I F~ - ~ , z_ - ` - i ~ - - - ~ 10 ~ ~d- ~10 " ~ 70 ~ I`.r- - ~ 70 ~ eat" ~ ~ ~ _ ~ v, ~ ~ ,~,e , - 3 _ i- - - ~ l , - i 3V 3V ~ 1 s Gr ,uwen , ~ i; Y ~ ~ a 7 ~ ~ ~ - u~~ --~~a, ,i _ _ 0 - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4~ ~ ~ ~ z~ t _ ~ ~ . / ~ s ~ ~ 70X ___-c ~ '1'-- ~ "u - , / _ a - - - - - ~ i s s _ u 1 I _ - _ NOTES: Route 3 Hourl Directional Mon -Sat Yl ( ) Route 3V-Extra Peak Hour Bus/Directional (Mon-Fri) ~ Sto~7eridg~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ iT Routel0-Livermore-Pleasanton-Dublin (Mon-Sun) ' Mall t ~ - - ~ 15 min. peak hour; 30 min. off-peak 1 s ° - _ _ - Route 70X Pleasant Hill BART t ublin PI _ 0 0 easanton BART M n ri 10 o F } _ . 30 min. in peak hours only i : ~ ' ~ .t1--- _ Route 201- East Dublin to Dublin High School \\a ~i,1` _ 3 3~ ~ 1 IL-'~ - AM School Bus =1 Route; PM-1 Route ~ ~ ~~d9e~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ Route 202 -Dublin Ranch Village /Dublin High School ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~y- AMSchool Bus =1 Route; PM =1 Route ~ ~ . . , \ Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLA N EIR Da pa ~ C~C~~~BPII~ ~I~~Inl~9~ G~®QA~~~ v,' 0 o v N CONSULTING 9l2010JN70-100239 Figure 3.9-5 s r ar r ~ ~r ,err ~ ~ ~ rr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r r~r ~ ~ x O N ~ ~ ~ (2) B) ~ N ~ C 104 (22) .N.. D22 15 (29) ~ I~ F 15 (26) a ~ 15 (25) N ....N N 19 (19) ON1V i~ ~-6(17) 00 'a ~3(7) N C O N O ~ ~-26(21) NINOI ~ j8(B) ? ~ L iAmaRdor*Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ ~ AmaRdor Valle Blvd: ~ ~ Amador Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ 'Amador Valle Blvd ¢ ;AmaRdor Valle Blvd r ~ y ~ AmaRdor*Valle Blvd I I~ I~~ ~ 1 ~ I I vmco 1(3)1 ~~0 1(1)1 ~ 1(1)1 ~ ~ 16(38)1 c~nci 1(1)-a 10 (24)~ 14(28)--? ~ 13 (28)~ 12 (25)~ ~ 9(28)-? 1(1)~ ~nco 46(18) noon U 3(4)~ a 2(1)~ ~NLL] ~ ~ o ~ C N ~ ~ O ~ I~ m p` C N iN Y y '~~M ° X60 87 ~ X11 48 t0 'm ~ m ° ~ mrn m ~ V C ~ ( ) m ( ) C7 is 1 (4) ~ a 5 (10) v.....-. C7 ~ 4 (10) F 36 (102) a,v" c 108 (326) c 69 (185) 121 (112) 140 128 ~n o F 17 (55) ~ j 166 (261) m v ~ ~ j 101 (43) la j 44 (31) N c~ ° ~ io ~ ~ 45 (11) N DubRlin Boulevard: ~ ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard ~ DubRlin Boulevard ~ • ~ is DubRlin*Boulevard ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevards ~ ~ ~ ~ St. Pa*trick Wa I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I I ~ I 56(41)1 mov 2(2)1 ocon rn N 9(36)1 Nmm 13(41)1 38(26)1 70 (53) -y ~ ? N 354 (192) ~ ~ 174 116 ~ 143 237 ~ o 111 203 ~ 56 31 -i M ~ 198 (116) ~ 87 (155) ~ 226 (94) " " 93 (28) ~ ( ) ( ) ~ Imo ~ vNi ~1 h n otON 48(65)-~ c~ _ _ P"'S - I - m 3 - a~ ~ ~ - I ~ I - i I~ s ~ L, X10 2a ~ ~ n~ih X58(43) ~ ° - m~~ ~m X19(3) ° m (}C"~~~ ~ E I I-680 SB Rams ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ' ~ St. Patrick WaY I ~ ~ I-680 NB On-ra~J {(_Qi / _ 1 i 22 18 1 `_1 ~ ~ - ~ _ ~~P ~ _ V~ - i VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY ~ ~ ~ XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour _ Study Intersection - ~ ~ _ Traffic Volumes 0 ~,9' ~(~~n~~p=~ 15 Future Study Intersection ' ~ 1s NOTE: Volumes were not developed for this O 7 s ~f-"~ ~ ~''-~y intersection in the near-term case. ~ ~ ~ ~ I Future Roadway Extension - , ~ 1 " _ ri ~ ~ ~ See text for additional information. _ - ~ ~ 1. ~ . - rr I N ctor e dge ~j / - i i Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR o Approved Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes CONSII LTING 9/2010 JN 70-'100239 FIgUI'@ 3.9-6 r rr r~ rr rs r i~r rr ~ rir r rir ~ r r ~ r ~ ~ r v aND N O ~ ep ~ ~ • ~ ~ ¦ ~ ~ ~ N N n N B 224 (400) Cm o ~ 4 (26) v,,,,~ a 33 (49) v~.-. m 109 (83) a 0 (2) o_ ~ 25 (27) < o m ~ 41 (48) N ~ f 726 (518) o'-' ~ ~ 590 648 m N ' ~ 563 598 ^ r 762 (504) m m v y F 536 (330) mvtn o: m---- co_ ao"n ( ) mom ( )o v~v N m m c ~ 498 (308) tlo m ~ ~ 56 (121) mom ~ m nl ~l °c ~ 11 (17) to v o ~ ~ 257 (230) m e ~ 273 (150) ~ .AmaRdor*Valle Blvd ~ • ~ ~ IAmaRdor*Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ ~ Amador Valle Blvd! ~ • y ~ maRdor Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ a AmaRdor*Valle Blvdl ~ ~ ~ ~ maRdor Valle Blvd I I~ 1 I~ C~~~ I~~ I I~ I 26 (44) ~ ~ N 30 (113) ~ ~ 30 (74) ~ v o N 21 (49) ~ o ~ N 2 (8) -r o ui ui 274 (430) ~ o ~ ~ 30 (50)~ ~ vv 609 (730)-? N M,fA 513 (828)-i d NON 525 (761) 598 (716)-i `n o ~ 331 (608)-? L'.V 43 (33) N ~ m 77 (114) ~ ~ rn N 10 (18) ~ U 32 (46) m m N 65 (127) ~ m 25 (79) e n o corns tno co N mvv ON ~ ~ ~N N i~ IY d ? ' i d' N 1. ~ NmN CO ml.V (n ~ rn~0 CNO 1Y N.-. ~ E ~ 253 (250) ~ Cr. ~ ~ 46 (140) ~ ~N ~ ~ 15 (40) O ~rn d ~ 70 (177) ~ ti ~ 277 (335) a r-a ~ ~ 29 (45) n+ ~ m m t- 207 (345) c ~ 479 (1141) to m c ~ 504 (1029) "m ` ~ ~ 557 (859) to a rn ~ r 641 (1051) m " c ~ 23 (67) mrn CO Q' mNl~ O tD aDNI~ i0 OON ~com m ~ c~ 482 (1064) m N m ~ ~ 60(115) ~ n N v~ 157(96) m N m :o j 282(341) N o v 107(201) m y 66(20) ~ Dublin Boulevard) ~ ~ ~ (Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ I Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ ~ ~St. Patrick Wa ~ o ~ 92(239) N ~ ~ 46(120) o ~ ~ 123(210) ~ ~ m 207(377) ~ ~ ~ 42(37) ~ o ~ 282(306)-? von 1063(1071)--? ~~m 735(1106) m~N 577(1094)-? vNv 540(979) 'DN.v 60(43) o~~ 678 (458) 166 (306) ~ m ~ ~ 370 (150) n N ~ 174 (172) ~ ~ m N 182 (260) ~ m 1 (1) ~ m N i~~o ~ e n o ooco ~ o lnmm N ~ rrN r Nm K 3 r ~c~ _ c. a ~ a m ~ 425 428 to ~ m ~ ~ r i ~ _ - "'u~u~ ~ X138 (127) v~ m ~ ~ ~l - _ _ Nye ~ j53 (46) ~vni ~ 1' - ~ _ _ 4 ~650~8 am s ~ ~ ~ i ~ I - a ~ t c of r I SL Patrick WayJ ! ~ ~ II-680 NB On-ramPl R ~ ~C~e' J l I ~ ~ - N (D m N ~ ` ~ C` 101 (136)-+ ~ ~ 28(24)-~ tn~m rn~ ~ t i \ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ _ A S° \ ~ \ - I Duhlnelvd ,~r 7 1~. VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY I ~ ~ , XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour + ^ ~ lO Study Intersection ~ ~ ~ _ Traffic Volumes " _ _ ~ 1$ Future Study Intersection I , ~ isj ~~s, NOTE: Volumes were not developed for this ~ s _ intersection in the near-term case. I ~ ~ ~ ~ I Future Roadway Extension See text for additional information. - ~i~ t~ _ I _I ~ \ ~Stone~idge ~ ~ I Mall ~ ~ ' ~ j iyl . Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) r'~ DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR d~ Near-Term Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ~ CONStJ LTING 9/2010 JN 70-100239 FIgUfP. 3.9-7 ~ _ ~°~p ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - p%[Y961 AM (PM) Commercial - ~ ~ _ % ~ - P ct T istn i 1 _ „ ( roje rip D' bufon _ ~`.7-~ ~ .;a ! - ~ , 0 0 0 o ~ p p p o i Future Roadwa Extension ~ ~ ~ o~~i~~ ~ ' ,f - i ,o ~ ~ i P, ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ _ Q~moD , _ ~ - _ > ~ - - - r ~ to _ ~ ~ j~ ~ _ - ~ ,S , _ ~ ~ ~ ~ u _ - ~ ~ - d '~oi - - O' 4y I I \ _ - \9 O A ~ - I - - ~ V ~ d~ ~ - ~,o~ - _ - - _ ~ J - ~ ~ d ~ ~~j 1: /Q ((~0~ 'Dublin tiivd , _ _ . r° ~ ? \ 1 _ , 's .G`~ , ~ _ ~ I ~ ` ~ t iP~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~`b.~P ~ O ~ S~~ . - _ - -.z--, G ~ i., ~~t - " _ ~ - - - ~ ,l _ - ~ -s,~,®~, \1 o . - ~ 11 i , > ~ i _ _ ~ _ _ _ ~ _ ~ - I; - ~ - - ~ ~ , ~ z ~ - _ ~ St~nPridye ~ A I • ~ ~ ib1~N ~ i . , ~ - 1 c ~ ~ ~ - ~r ~ - , i~ ~ - i q ~ _ v %~Q ll~®~0~! w ~ y - _ ~ S ~k~~\C~9t 1. ~..5-'"~ ~y i _ may.., 1, t. NOTE: Distributions derived from ~ T' Travel Demand Model Select-Zone Analysis ' ` ~ ~ { ~ ~ I ~ ` ~ ~ _ -,rte ~ _ _ _ ~ , ~ - ` ~ 7 - Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) p DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR o v o A CONSII LTING 9!2010 JN 70-100239 FIgUCP. 3.A~8a ~ ~ ' ~ ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1, p%[Y%1 AM (PM Residential _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , < < , Project Trip Distribution l~~ ~ , ~ ' ~ ~ ~I~I~'e~C ~ ~%`'Q~~%~~ ~e`~~~ 0 0 0 o i Future Roadway Extension I , ~ ~ ~ ~~a~~ ° ~ F ~ ~ - i _ I 11 , - w. ~ 0/ ` ~ < ~ ~ ado p~~ ~ - - - - ~ p ~ - y( w . ~ _ ~ \ ~ \o ` ~ _ k• _ ~ i ~ _ (S - `C~/ - - ~'ti 1. ~ I Y3 ~ - t r ~ 1 _ ~ ~ Q'' - ~ L' - 0 _ f+ + - ~ ` ,'r I p " - .~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ I ~ - ~ r \ - 1 ~ ~ ~ - _ _ ~ - ~ ~ ~ i - s m,..=- _ , . ~ o~,~~ - - - . - _ , - L, ~ i , . _ - I_ Stuneridge ~ t , 'y 'I ~l i. Mall: = ~ ' ~ , o _ _ . _ _ i ~ - ~ - _ r ~ i ~ - _ a: dge~`~ ~ ~ - . - ~ NOTE: Distributions denved from.CCTA Travel Demand Model Select-Zone Analysis ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L`` G---' , ~ -j-_"l_ n, - ' - ~ - Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR °a o° ~ G~~~u~~u~~u~0 po°®~c~~f~ ~o°u~ ®u~~~uf~a~i~o®u~ 0 0 o N CaNSULTING g/2010JN70-100239 Figure 3.9-8b ~ o o ~ x E 20 (57) m v~ 1 (0) d~ 1 (O) a a .n ~ ~ r 0 (4) o r 21 (40) 0 2m2 r 29 (68) o L x 29 (68) o x 16 (38) - y r 5 (17) N N ~ r 6 (7) ~ 6 (26) ~ C ~ O N ~ 9 (36) ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 (12) AmaRdor Valle Blvdi AmaRdor Valle Blvd Amador Valle Blvd (Amador Valle Blvd G maRod>r Dal~Blvd AmaRdor*Valle Blvd I~~ I ~ ~ I ~ I I VNCh N ~ ~ O N B(45)~ vrN 1 (4)--? 17 (55)~ ~ 23 (83)~ u°i 22 (83)~ 14 (59)-? m 4 (18)-? 1(3)~ ~N~ 12(32) r ~ U g(24)~ r~ co 7(13) NrnN `o c m ~ ~ O ~ ~ m D C d N ~ d ~~v ~ X21 (79) ~ R-13(40) ~ `0 X22 64 mrnm m X10 30 ~ ~ ~4 12 m ~ _ ~ ~ x7(41) ~~o o x88(307) n rn c x74(214) a x41(132) o_ ( ) u"°„ CO 1(7) _ d VC)N `o a,._..., d x55(165) ~~W ~ x3(8) o mlN ~ x85(268) NN X3(9) ~II ~ ~ ~-7(24) N~~ ~ x23(78). vl n~ ~ vrnm ~ ~ u lin Boulevard i ~ ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard f ~ U Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ a Dublin Boulevard' ~ • ~ ~ I Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ U St. Patrick Wad 8 (36)~ ~N 12 (35)-~ V~ ^ 31 (87)~ ~ 0 23 (78)~ ~ 15 (76)-} 4 (15)~ ~ 0 0 ~ 127(369)-~ m- 82(271) 42(177) ~"?0 38(173)-? 3(11)-~ oN~, 9(30) o u~ 27(77) ~ ~ 41(138)-~ m°'u~ 25(68) 0(1)~ ~ C7 N ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I " ~ 2a a7 ~ x8(15)) ~ a Qi ~ ~ E I = - - - I a I-6$0 SB Rams r ~ I - - \ I St. Patrick Way f 1 ~ I-680 NB On-ramp) ~ _ _ i - ~ ~ 4(20)~ _ - - N / ~ 1I' \ i ~ A°_ - _ ~ _ _ V f VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY i ~ : ~ ~ XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour ~ Study Intersection i Traffic Volumes ,.o ~r'.h~ ' - ~ F..-~ _ - I i 15 Future Study Intersection ~-7, ~ ~ ~ \ J NOTE: Volumes werenotdevelopedforthis - intersection in the near-term case. ~ ~ ~ ~ I Future Roadway Extension L~ - _ ~ ' ~ See text for additional information. _ b _ ~ tStoner dge` ~~`?y~ ~ ` ~I Mall° ~ _ ~I\ \ - \ i _ A I _ __i v>=T,w Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 1 Project (Baseline FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes CONSULTING 9/20'10JN70-700239 Figure 3.9-9 I~ _ v'rw °an ~ v<oM i° X244 457 w.-.~ ~ ~4 26 ~ ~ o ~ ~ rn o ~ !m ~ ~~''.`?C m ( ) ~'vv E 41 62 ) `O ° ~ ( ) ? --o a 34 (49) ~ d 110 (83) 0 (2) R- 25 27 m M ~ F N ~ r 747 558 0 " ~ 619 716 m n r s- 592 o_ o_ m m r I ~ ( ) ~ ° ( ) ° ( ) ° ~-,M (666) r 6v I ~ ~ 778 (542) v o v ° F 541 (347) N co co c 506 (315) .n m ~ 64 (149) ~n o c~ m n ~ ~ 11 17 ur a o !a 266 266 ~ v ~ j ~ ~ ( ) ~ ( ) ~-277(162) Amador*Valple Blvd'.. AmaRdorValle Blvd t- AmaRdor*ValAle Blvd AmaRdorVatle Blvd AmaRdorpValle Blvd ~ AmaRdor*Valle Blvd I I I~~~ C I I I I~~ I I~ I I 28 (44)1 N ~ ~ 30 (113) N ~ ~ 30 (74) a? y o N 21 (49) ~ o ~ 2 (8) ~ o ~ 282 (475) ~ ~ ~ 31(54) ~Vm 626(785)-? N''?~ 536(911) d NON 547(844) 612(775)-~ °oM 335(626) i°Vv 44 (36)~ MGM 89 (146) ~m~ 10 (18)~ U 32(46)-~ mMN 74 (151) m ~ 32 (92)~ mmn (°~N u7 (h O r ~ N? ~ ~ N (n ~ IN ~ ' ~ ~ ~ C N ~ r d O).-. ''N (D .gym Y n N E X274(329) !N X59(180) ~ ~ `0 X37 104 '``-0 ~ `m ~ rn~co m L N m N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( ) N !o_ 80 (207) a 281 (347) v_,,n ~ 30 (52) 214 (386) o'-'n 567 (1448) c 578 (1243) ~ 598 (991) o co N y ~ 696 (1216) a c F 26 (75) gym-- 0' _oro o ~n `~rn Nmrn iD`o Nom _°rm I m N c ~ 567 (1332) I N ~ ~ 63 (124) m n ~ -o 164 (120) ro N n ~ 305 (419) N ~ v ° ~ 107 (201) mI v ~ ~ 66 (20) Ir 1 L v~ - r i~ I~ - ~i~ c7 ~i~ is > c~ DubRlin *Boulevard) ~DubRlin Boulevard) Dublin 4Boulevard DubRlin Bouplevard? DubRlin *BOUlevard SLRPa4trick Wa I I I~ 1~ I ~ I~ I~ I I I~ I I 190(160)1 ~ N ~ 104(274)1 ~ m rn 77(207)1 ~ ~ N 146(288)1 rn ~ d. 222(453)1 ~ w ~ 46(52)1 290 (342) A ~ ~ 1190 (1440)-+ ^ n rn 817 (1377)-? ^ ~ ~ 619 (1271) M'~ 578 1152 ~ m 63 54 ~ `o ~ 678 (458) n ~ ~ 175 (336) N ~ ~ 397 (227)-~ ~ N o 215 (310)-~ v ` 0 207 (348) ~ ro 1 (2)~ n N ~Nm N r ~~M ~ ~ A r(O N 3 ~ ~ I vC !a ~ 449 (476) N In N ~ f N~ f-146(142) VN d I ~r°aa X57(55) r~ivri ~ i .g (-1=68D-SBRamps ~ ~ I o St. Patrick Wa I ! * ~ n-ramp ` ? `Le \ - /F ~ l I _ l I T ~J1 40 78 1 , . _ - 106 (159) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - . ~ 1 \ - i i _ VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY ~ ~ - ~ - = ~ ' i ' XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour I Studylntersection ~-r ~e~y~ - _ _ Traffic Volumes ~ I ~n~e• ~~,'n - ~ 15 Future Study Intersection , - ~ , ~ ~ NOTE: Volumes were not developed for this ~ ~ ~ 5 _ ~ _ intersection in the near-term case ~ % ~;A\ ®®®®I Future Roadway Extension - - ~•r See text for additional information. - - - ~ - ~ ~ -N~ - Stone dge ~ ~ Moll s _ ~ _ ~v`~i ~ ~ _ ai Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR . Near-Terre Plus Project (baseline F'`4F~) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ~1'' CONSIl LTING 9/2010 JN 70-100239 Figure 3.9-10 ~ la v ? > ~ m E X45(127) N a X2(0). m x-2(0) m nN m ~ ~ ~ F 1 (13) o F 33 (71) o o m ~ 54 (165) o o ~ o 55 (165) a`o 35 (87) ~ ~ ~ F 15 (50) c j 8 (7) ~ ~ 22 (73) ~ tm ~ ~I rr ~(pc o ~ 31 (114) rI> rn ~ j 18 (58) ~ AmaRdor Valle Blvd ~ AmaRdorr- Valle Blvdl ~ y N Amador Valle Blvd r ~ Amador Valle Blvd ~Q. AmaRdor Valle Blvd r ~ ~ maRdor Valle Blvd 2(13)-? 28 92 ~ ^ ~ 42 144) ~ 1(0)~ v ~ 24(139) °M~ o ( ) N ( ) 0 44(144) 223(Sgj~ N N 19«4~~ 3(16) NCO 26(B1)~ N ~ V C d ~ ~ ~ m ~ n ~ "mom' ~ ~ 101 (391) ~ v~ ~ ~ 27 (84) ~ m ~ ~ 43 (125) ~ ~ ~ a ~ 19 (57) N !a ~ 8 (28) ~'v~ tj ~ 9 (43) " !~.m 26 (154) c F 346 (1251) c F 264 (839) 137 (397) ~ " F 210 (633) ~ 18 (50) m ~ rn ~nN o c~ cn comma o m~~ c o m ~ j 309 (963) N ~ V ~ 18 (59) ch ~ a x 46 (149) C) C) N ~ ~ 151 (476) rn rn ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ r p (1) ~DUblln Bo~u/levard ~DubRlin Bo~u/levard DubRlin Bo~u/levard < DubRlin Bo~ullevard .Dublin Boulevard ~ St.RPatric~klWa 11 1~1 I I I~I I~I 2(7)~ 26(74)-~ 61(172) m ~ 46(153)-~ 58(324) 20(91) mom 32 (140)-? ~ N 537 (1529)-i ~ v ~ 349 (1063) M m 132 (543) vv~ 147 (672) 21 (67)~ OWN N ~ 58 (188) ~ ~ ~ N 174 (487) ~ ~ ~ 247 (741) ~ m o 98 (265) ~ 1 (3) ~ m y ~ m O R N ~ ~ V f7 ~ N N Y ` I r _ i `:'fir _ I I - / T~ I r I m m t 57 (112) m -'r-i ~ ~rl - - o x-47 (93) o ~ ~1 ~ 1 ~ rj I° ~ ~ (-I-6~0 SB amps ~ ~ ~ 'I ~r _ _ . i I St. Patrick WayJ ~ ~ I-680 NB On-ramps O - _ i 26 (126) ~ ~ - s" ~ - ~ I 33 (144) ~ o ~ co ~N ~ti1. ~ ~ D bl n Blvd VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY ~ ~ ~ ~ XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour I ~ ' Study Intersection I - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ Traffic Volumes r ~ s~~.~ ~ ~ - _ 15 Future Study Intersection ~ - ~ ry NOTE: Volumes were not developed for this i' ~ _ ~ / ~ intersection in the near-term case ' /r ~ ~~f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I Future Roadway Extension ~ ~ ' .,t See textfor additional information. ~e ~ L~f w I ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ 6ronerrd e- r 9. ~N r 1\_ 'g O~\ Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 1 Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes CONSULTING 9I2U,OJN7U-,pp239 Figure 3.9-11 ¦r ~r ~r r ~r r sr ~r +r ~r r !r rr r rr ¦r ~r ~r r~ ~ m~~ ~ ~ v ° R- 269 527 m N ~ 4 26 N ~ o ~ ~ m o ~ I m com ~ ~ ( ) v i E ( ) N m o ~ ( ) v^,a a 35 (49) ~ m 111 (83) ~ 0 2 25 27 ~ , ° ~ 42 (61) N v c f-- 759 (589) O " ° ~ 644 813 m ~ ' ~ 618 763 ~ a rn n o tr m q rn "o ( ) rn ~M ( ) 797 (591) n v v y F 551 (380) Nnv 506(315) ~mm ~ 78(194) u>ov ~ mn~ ° 11 17 invo o° 288 344 cnie~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ l ( ) ,r 29, (206) h IAmaRdor*Valle Blvd ~ ~ AmaRdor Valle Blvd ` N Amador Valle Blvdi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~dor Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ Amador Valle Blvd ~ • ~ ~ mador Valle Blvd I I ~ I ~ ~ C 28 (44)-~ ~ N N 30 (113) mo M ~ 31 (74)-~ ~ ~ r ~ 22 (49)~ ~ ~ ~ 2 (8)1 ~ 1 ~ 298 (569) 32 (63)-? m 637 (822) N 555 (972)r N NON 569 (905)-? 'o 623 (830)-? N o ~ 342 (661) ~ ~ m 46 (49) 105 (195) rn " 10 18 U m m N ~ ~ ~ mm ~ n ~ ( ) ~ 0 32 (46) 88 (178) m m 34 (103) m m °1N m R ~ mN C ~ ~ N d N A M C m r i N r H O n Y O _N ~'O E X354(641) N R-73(224) Mo ~ 'm X58 165 NNE m ~ m ~ Mvn ~ ~ w rn rn m V.-.N:c7 ( ) ~,--N a 89 (234) a 285 (363) ~ rn I~ 38 (88) f- 233 (499) m "m c 825 (2392) c 768 (1868) m " ~ 694 (1256) co coo ~ F 851 (1684) '-o c 41 (117) ~mio ~ 791 2027 ~rmi~ ° 78 174 u~nM °"'m o o~v NNO ~ c r ( ) ~ ( ) ~ 203 (245) rn N m o ~ 433 (817) ~co ~ v j 107 (201) v a m I.o 66 (21) ~ Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ (Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ a - ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ' R * R * R ) (Dublin*BOUlevardl (DubRlin Boulevard: ~ [-StRPat*rick Wa I I~ 1 I~ I~~ ~ I~ I~~ I I 191(163)-~ cnrnrn 118{313)-~ oorn 107(292) 169(363) ~vo 265(701) mm~ 62(128)1 v,ov 314(446)-~ v~~ 1600(2600) ~v~ 1084(2169) ~~nv 709(1637) 687(1651) 81(110) ovm 678(458) ~ 224(494)-~ m m 544(637) N 421(913) 280(545) ~ m 2 4~ N O uv'i~nm°' ~vm ~ ^ ~ Nmv ~N NM _ I ^Mm ~ ~ 1,11 ,.y ~ t _ I C c° m R- 482 (541) ~ ui `m J _ ~1 _ ~ A/ ~ ~ r' ~ ~ 185 (220) ~ d 1 l~ ~ - u~MU> ~m X82 (104) vvni ~ O~ ~1- - - - ~ 7~. _ _ ~Q ~ ~ l rr-~6~-s8-~ ~ rye ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ St. Patrick Way^j ! ~ ~ I-68 B n-ramp ! ~ 1 - - ' 62 (184) 1 -1 ^ { \ - ~ ~ o~ _ 134 (280) ~mc min - ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 28 24 ~ _ rn cn ~ - ( ) In N r ~ - ~ u n_i ~ eita I i ~ VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY ~ - ~ , , ~ ~ ,?4 1~ XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour ~ ~ ~ ~v Study Intersection I ' o ~ Traffic Volumes ~ ® - l~ ~ - _ - _ - NOTE: Volumes were not developed for this ~ S Future Study Intersection ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s? ~ _ - p/ ~ - intersection in the near-term case. ( ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I Future Roadway Extension ~ See text for additional information. e - ~ r i I ~~i:`` e 1,~ ` c iW .A Smnendge ~ ' 1N .Mall, SJ ~ VVV~~~"' ~ _ ~o ~ . ~ ti ~ _ a _ . _ Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) y DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 1 Near-Term Plus Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes CONSULTING 9l2010JN70-7 00239 Figure 3.9-12 ~m~ ~ v...,.,.. i ~ ~ 307 (572) N ~ o ~ ~ 4 (26) v~~ a ~ 60 (99) ~ ~ ~ 136 (133) a ~ 0 (2) ac ~ 25 (27) o m ~ 43 62 < c ~ 796 637 O ~ F 706 887 m ~ r 680 C ~ ~ a- 890 717 o n a F 703 484 rn m ~ i~ ( ) ~ o ( ) ~ ~o ~ ( ) o (877) ( ) ( ) N m a i~ ~ 549 (364) u~ ~ ~ j 128 (242) moo ~ ~ n ~1 0 11 (17) ~n a o E ~ 343 (458) ~ ~ ~ ~ r 341 209 y iAmaRdor*Valle 81vd1 ~ ~ ~ - AmaRdor~*VallAe B r ~ ~ AmaRdor Valle Blvd ~ ~ y - Amador*Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ 4 AmaRdor*Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ ~ maRdor*Valle Blvd 1 I~ I I I ~ I~~ ~ I~ I I~ I I 28 (44)1 ~ ~ ^ 30 (113)-~ ^ N N 56 (124) ~ ~ v o v 47 (99) ~ o n 2 (8) ~ ~ ~ ~ 298 (583) ~ ( ) 625 1167 ~ ~ m -'v ~ m 33 (64)~ ~ N ~ 684 1003 ~ ``rN ( ) O NON 640 (1060) 668 (834)-? vo v 442 (836) N vv 46 (50) 158 248 rn v ~ ~ ~ ~ ( n N 10 (18) ~ 32 (46)~ ~ M N 139 (227) ~ rn o 30 (98) ~ N n n M mo n o v w ~n ~ ~ N M d' d ~ , ~ N IO O M r _ _ _ X00 ~ W (n ~ ~ V mN ~ ~ V N ~ ~t0p ~ n n ~ ~ 371 (766) ~ ~ ~ 122 (277) N ~ ~ ~ 63 (181) N M M m R- 140 236 ~ ~ 384 459 M o 10 ~ ~ 255 (558) m `-o c r- 848 (2613) ~ " c ~ 855 (2165) n m F 798 (1469) mom a 965 (1971) '-'v " ~ ~ 40 (113) N W M ~ 7B9 21 OS ~ M~ O ~ "47 O N O th O N M N N ~ i0 ' C ~ ( ) ~ ~ 81 (183) u~ n c~ ~ 199 (233) m mI ~ ~ 446 (902) co N ~n ~ 157 (251) v v ~n 66 (20) ~ Dublin Boulevard ° ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard ~ ? a a l ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ o ~ rDutilin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard: SL Patri k LVa 191 (162) ~ ~ ~ 166 (357) ~ N 115 (314)-~ ~ ~ 168 (357)1 ~ ~ ~ 266 (765)1 ~ m ro 61 (125)1 v~ ~ 366(551) ~~N 1778(2913) ~v~ 1311(2569) 847(1904) memo 933(1952)-? m~~ 71(114)-e rnm 726 (456) ~ 22O (466) ~ N m 529 (595)1. N N ~ SO6 (1OS9) ~ O O ~ 26B (606) ~ ~ ~ 2 (3) ~ O N N ~ m N N V N ` ~ r N r r r O N i," I - i - 111II a0 O ~ tG th 3 N ~ ~ 1y _ 14 _ I, ~ \ I m ~ 535 (695) ~ N a o N r°a ~ t 43 (82) ~ ~l ~~o a181 (210) o" ~ `-a f-10(10) - vvco ~OO X88(114) Muni ~ °~u`S ~O 31(50) \ f0 _ ,J I d ( I IQ '-1-680 S8 amps ` ? > ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ , ~ ~ ~ I St. Patrick Way f ~ ~ ~ II-680 n-ramp) ~ ~ St. Patrick WayJ 1 121(273)-'+ .NN...o^ 10(10) °rn~ _,~.1\ i 2B(24)~ ~.r.,.^ 10(10)1. Ol()N ' ` ~ J P ; VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY ' ~ - ~ ® - e~ i~~i XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour ~ ~ Studylntersection e - 1~~ \ ) ~ - q0 ~ ~ - ' ~ ~ i1~ - r ~ l Traffic Volumes Future Stud Intersection o ` a - i , A ®®®I Future Roadway Extension ~ ~ Y - - <r ~ > ~ ~ s _ _ A ~~f - - ti N sro, e M 1!, ~ 1 I ~i(i Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Cumulative IVo Project (Current Specific Plans) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ~ CONSULTING 9!2010 JN 70-100239 FIgUCP. 3.913 m m m a ~ d c ~ io! m t` ?.o E ~ 294 (507) N ~ o c ~ 4 (26) V , ~ ~ ~ 59 (99) ~ ~ m ~ 135 133 ' `0 ~ 0 2 ~ n m ~ rn ~ 41 52 N o F 797 608 0 m ~ ? ° ( ) ja a 25 (27) ( ) ( ) 694 806 m m L ~-667 7 r m m N D; m o M ( ) ~ (96) s ~ a 878 (672) v o e ~ F 691 (447) rv r v c 556(365) ~ ~n m ~ 114(199) mom m r ~ ~ 11 17 m v o !a° 316 366 m m~ 1 Ir ~ l ( ) ( ) ~ 327 (162) ~ AmaRdor*Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ ~ AmaRdor*VallAe Blvd ~ • ~ ~ AmaRdor Valle Blvd: ~ ~ ~ ~ AmaRdor*Valle Blvd ~ ~ ~ LE i~Ror Valle Blvd ~ ` y ~ Amador Valle Blvd I I~ I I I C 1~~ 1 I~ I 28(44) uN^iN~ 30(113) N,n~ 55(124) vov 46(99) or;N 2(8)~ o~~ 282(475)-~ n~~ 31 (54)-? ~ rn ~ 676 (985) ~ CO m m c ~ vN ~ ~-v v 611 (1111)-y N NON 622 (1004)-~ 662 (895) v0 ~ 435 (796)-+ N v~ 44 (36) ~ o m 139 (196) ~ m rn ~ 10 (18) ~ U 32 (46) m ch N 124 (201) m ~ 32 (92) ~ m m r m~M ~O m O r m ENO ~ m m ~ N ~ , ~ m ~ ~n o rn tD rn r N m'~°J ° 8-429 429 ~mN m ~ M ~ m m`°'°°r' ~ x E ( ) r 109(230) ~ 37 104 m ~ ~ ~ ~ `m n rn r m f- m C7 ( ) a 130 (207) o_ ~ 381 (447) N ~ ~ 30 (52) 239 (436) m ~-r c ~ 617 (1598) a 678 (1443) "m m a 698 (1191) v m N 796 1466 a'~ ~ 26 75 ornm 0_ ~nnm o ~n ~rn ~ NmN `o rom a~ ( ) c ( ) ( 63(124) n r ~ 164 120 m N ~ m N O~ N ~ ~ 617 1382 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ( ) ~ r 305 (469) N N N ~ ~ 157 (251) ~ to K ~ ~ 66 (20) j o _ N DubRlm*Bouplevards, ~ • ~ ~ DubRlin Boulevard ~ ~ ~ ~ (DubRlin BouAlevard ~ ~ ~ t '~;"DubRlin*Boulevard: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~DubRlin BouAlevard ~ ~ ~ C ~St.RPatrickAWa ~ 11 I ~ I~~ 1~ I I I~ I~ I 1~ I 190 (160) ~ ~ N ~ 154 (324) ~ ~ ~ ~ 77 (207) ~ ~ ~ N 146 (288) ~ ~ n ~ 222 (503) ~ ~ ~ ~ 46 (52) ~ N o c~ 340 (442) ~ o" m 1340 1690 r r rn r ~ ~ in r~ o m v~- cuc~m ( ) v..-~ 1017(1677)--? 769 (1521) vvV 828 (1402) 63(54; om 728 (458) ~ 175 (336) m ~ e 397 (227) ~ ~ N ~ 265 (360) N r r 207 (398) v m `r 1 4 ° ~v vmiNO N m o ~ v~~ ~ mN I~ ° ~ ~ i rri m = ~ 499 626 rn x I (;';?;t ~ _ ~i i"/ _ _ ~ a`~--m o_ ( ) m N o_ o N o ~ ~ 41 (64) ~ ~N~ X146142 0^ ° ~ X10(10) ~ 57 (55) u~ ~n m ° v u> ° 22 (34) ~ ~ ~ ~ i I-680 SB Rams ~ 1 > ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ' ~ ~.4 ~ ,v ~ ~ _ " ~ ~ St. Patrick WayJ ` ~ S I-680 NB On-ram ~ I ~ - 1 - ~ 1 ( ^ I St. Patrick Ways ~ ~ ~ \v 106 (159)-? 10 (10) ~ o w m ~ v, 1 ~ o. 1 \ t - _ I~ ~ D bl n Blvd t~ VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~V ~ ~ XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Study Intersection ~ ~ o ~ ~ V- n ~ TrefhcVolumes ~ % ~eoo ~ //~-vs _ - 15 Future Study Intersection ~ ~~~~i ~ _ ~ ~_y~'`~ ;a,( ®®®®I Future Roadway Extension _ , , ~1 ~ ~ 1. I r P A !Stone dge ~ ~ ~o. ) ~ ~t: - \ Mall \ ~ a~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ max. - ~ ~ ~ aj - 1 Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR v ® Curnulateve Plus Project (base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection V®lurnes nA ~ CCNSLI LTING 9/2010 JN 70-100239 Figure 3.9-14 ~ e > ~ x v~"~ E X319 (577) N~o ~ 4(26) N, N a ~60 (99) v^~ m 136 (133) a ~0(2) am~ ~ ~25 (27) rn n N ~ r 42 (61) ~ ~ ? o F 809 (639) o N `m f 719 (903) o ~ z f= 693 (893) C ? S ~ 897 (727) ~ ~ ap ~ f 701 (480) N m v ~ ~ 556 (365) ~n m ~ 128 (244) ~ o co ~ --i m rl ~ o ~ 11 (17) ~n a o -a ~ 338 (444) o ~ ~ ~ 341 (208) m AmaRdor+Va~ll/e BNd. ~ :AmaRdor Va~ll/e Blvd! N Amador*Va~ll/e Bivd':. ~ AmaRdor Valle Blvd ~'~I-~ E iAmaRdor Vall}e Blvd! ~ iAmaRdor.Val~lle Blvd'':, I~I~,.I I.'~ I m ~_I_I 1 ~ 1_~_I I_~LI 28 (44)x. r` n ~ 30 (113) o ~ ~ 56 74 1 v 47 49 ~ 2 8 ( ) aov ( ) o~u~ ~v~ 298(569)1 32 (63)~ ENV 687(1022) vm oN 630 (1172) N NON 644 (1065) 673 (950) Nov 442 (831) vv~ 46(49)-~ "~0 155(245) m 10 68 U 32 96 ~ ~ N 138 228 34 103 d .1 v .1 ~ M :1 o N v E ~ 379 (741) v~ M ~ ~ 123 (274) N N ~ ~ 58 (165) H vN~.,, a ~ 139 (234) ~ vv a ~ 385 (463) ~ vor^, ~ ~ 38 (88) c m c ~ F 258 (549) ~ m m F 875 (2542) ~ f 868 (2068) rn m F 794 (1456) ~ ~ o ~ ~ 951 (1934) ~o f 41 (117) Nmm 841 2077 m~ ° L-78 774 ~nrm ~ - voM `o i ~n~v NNO d ~ ( ) ( ) ~ 203 (245) m mI ~ ~ 433 (867) cn N u~ ~ j 157 (251) v v co .o ~ 66 (21) N ~Dubiin Boulevard ~ Dublin Boulevard) ~-~1 ~ ~ Dublin Boulevard) ~Lt.~ ¢ ~ Dublm Boulevard: ~ ~ ~u~ ~ ~I R R ~I R * ~I DubRlin Bo~u/levard t.RPat*ric~klWa ~i_~.I I I-~ I I I_I 1. ~_f I I_.1 191(163)1 168(363)1 oom 107 (292)x, 169 (363) N<o 265 (751)r~ 62 (728) vo y^ 364(546)=? ~ m M ~ 1750 2850 m ~ m 1284 2469 ~ o ~ r 859 1887 ~ ~ v 937 1901 y 'v 81 110 ~ ~ 728(458) 224 494 544 637 N 471 963 ~ 280 595 ~ m ~ icmi <n~ ( ~<<o ( m ° ( N`o'm ( 2(4)~ ~N u~ ro ~ ^ 3 rn -o~ _ N a l,rn~ is L_44 e,, 1 it 'r C00 a 532 (691) vv, ~ o~~ ~ ~ ~ - ~i - - I'~.~ - a~inm ~825104) ua'i uri ~ o~N g !~10 10 \ a : I-680 SB Ram sl ~ ~ i~ _ \ ~ - ~ St. Patrick WayJ R * ~I I I-660 NB On ramp' p SL Patrck Wa _ 62 184 I I~_I ~ 134 280 y ~ \ ( ) m~ 10 10 ~ ~mr ~\AA ~ ~ ~ ~ - VOLUMES KEY MAP KEY Ii ~r ~ v _ _ JOC (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour ~ Study Intersection ~ v 'S' ~ _ ~ ~ _ Traffic Volumes °o ~ Future Study Intersection ~ 7s ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ I Future Roadway Extension I i :~r~~ _ _-A~ - _ Mall ~ ~ . - \ ~ ~ j vv Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) - DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 1 Cumulative Plus Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersecton Volumes CONSULTING O4(19Y2010 JN 70.100239 Figure 3.915 ° r r~ r ~ r r . rr ¦r r~ r r ~r r rr r r rr r¦~ rr EXISTING/NEAR-TERM NEAR-TERM + BASE FAR PROJECT NEAR-TERM + MAX FAR PROJECT CUMULATIVE + BASE FAR PROJECT CUMULATIVE + MAX FAR PROJECT L ~ ~ '6ubltn Bou evar ~ 'Dublin Boulevard) 'Dutilin Boulevard) 'Du61in Bourevardl ~Dublln Boulevard; ~~ittr~r ~ ~~tiirr~ ~ ~~tttr~r~ ~ ~~itirr ~ ~~itirr~ ~~~tti~~ ~ ~~~111~~ ~ ~~~111rr ' ~ : ~ ' ddb a ~ ~ ' ~l~b W ~ ~ ' ~b~~ 'F ~ ~ a E 'Dublin Boble and ~ 'ISu~~6ou B del ~ E Du61in Boulevard) E rDublin Boulevard) ~ E rD~olGBooie~ardl sir' ~ sir' ~ = sir ~ = ~i~ ~ ~ sir m a ~1~~ ~ ~1~~ ~ ~1~~ v ~ rl~~ m r ~1~~ ''6'ublin 9ouTev~l '6u6~Boulevar ~ DubTn Boulevard L> u ~g~a a ~ r6ublin Bou evf~rar 1 ~iir ~ ~iir ~ ~ttr ~ 1 ~ii~ ~ 1 ~itr ~ s ~ ~ l9 'ice 'ice I~ t. atoc a t. atnc ~ (Bt-~~v~l ~ Bt-Patrick Wa 1 l~ t. ~t}ri~ KEY NOTE: All improvements shown in the current Downtown iIF Program Existing Lane Geometry ~ Traffic Signal Mitigated Lane Geometry Stop Sign Source: Fehr & Peers (2010) V DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Mitigation Summgary C~NSLI LTING 04/19/2010 JN 70-700239 FIgUCE! J.9~16 3~:~ ~C~ ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft"EIR Transportation & Circulation 3.9. Transportation & Circulation This section presents the results of the transportation impact study for the proposed project that was prepared by Fehr & Peers in April 2010. 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 fourteen existing intersections that may potentially be affected by the proposed project. The intersection operating conditions were evaluated under seven ' scenarios. A complete copy of the traffic level of service worksheets, prepared by Fehr & Peers, is included in Appendix D of this DEIR and is available for review at the City of Dublin. Environmental Setting This chapter includes a description of existing traffic and circulation conditions, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in and around the project area. Existing Roadway Network Operations of key intersections in the vicinity of the project area during the weekday morning and evening peak commute periods were evaluated, when traffic volumes on the ' surrounding roadways are highest. Intersections with potential impacts were selected in consultation with City staff, based on the amount of traffic projected to be added by the proposed project. The locations of these intersections are shown on Figure 3.9- I Transportation Study Area and represent the locations most likely to experience traffic impacts associated with the project. These intersections are listed below followed by a narrative description of key roadways. ¦ Amador Valley Boulevard/San Ramon Dublin Boulevard/Regional Street Rd. Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive ' Amador Valley Boulevard/Regional Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road Street Dublin Boulevard/Village Parkway ¦ Amador Valley Boulevard/Starward Saint Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive Drive Amador Valley Boulevard/Donohue Saint Patrick Way/Amador Plaza ¦ Road/Interstate 680 (I-680) Southbound Drive Ramps ¦ Amador• Valley Boulevard/Amador Plaza 1.680 Northbound On-Ramp/Village Road Parkway ' Amador Valley Boulevard/Village Parkway ' Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road Page 3- 145 ~~6~~~3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Interstate 580 (I-580) I-580 is an eight-lane, east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local Tr-i-Valley cities ' _ such as Livermore and Pleasanton as well as regional cities such as Oakland, Hayward and - Tracy. According to Tragic Volumes of Califomia State Highways (Caltrans 2008), I-580 ' carries between 178,000 and 209,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in the project vicinity. I-580 interchanges are located at San Ramon Road/Foothill Road, I-680, Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road, and Fallon Road/EI Charro Road. Interstate 680 (I-680) I-680 is a six-to-eight lane north-south freeway that provides access to the south to Fremont, Milpitas and San Jose, and north to San Ramon, Danville, Walnut Creek and beyond. According to Tro~c Volumes on Califomia State Highways, I-680 carries between 148,000 and 163,000 vpd in the vicinity of the project area (Caltrans 2008). I-680 interchanges are located at Alcosta Boulevard, Dublin Boulevard via Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway, and I-580. Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial in the City of Dublin. Dublin Boulevard, west , of Dougherty Road is a four- to six-lane divided road fronted largely by retail and commercial land uses. Between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard is , a six-lane divided arterial fronted primarily by residential uses, commercial uses, and vacant land. Dublin Boulevard extends east of Tassajara Road to Fallon Road as a four- to five- lane roadway fronted by multi-family residential, commercial uses and vacant land. Amador Val~_ Boulevard Amador Valley Boulevard is an east-west collector that spans from San Ramon Road in the ' west to Dougherty Road in the east. East of Village Parkway, it is a two-lane divided road fronted largely by residences. West of Village Parkway, it is four-lane divided road that , traverses through the Retail District. It is located north of Dublin Boulevard. San Ramon Road San Ramon Road is a north-south arterial that forms the western border of the Plan study area. San Ramon Road has six travel lanes (with a median) north of I-580 and an interchange at I-580. North of Amador Valley Boulevard, Sam Ramon Road narrows to ' four travel lanes (with a median). This arterial runs parallel to I-680 north through San Ramon, Danville, Walnut Creek, and Concord; south of I-680 it becomes Foothill Road and continues through Pleasanton. Because of the I-580 interchange, this roadway will be a major access point to uses in the Specific Plan Area. Village Parkway , Village Parkway is a north-south Class I collector that extends from just south of Dublin Boulevard north to Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon. Village Parkway has four travel lanes Page 3- 146 ' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation with a raised median. Within the Plan area between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley ' Boulevard, Village Parkway provides access to commercial uses; north of Amador Valley Boulevard, access is provided to residential developments and to Dublin High School. South of Dublin Boulevard, an on-ramp is provided to I-680 northbound. Regional Street Regional Street is a north-south Class II collector that begins at' Amador Valley Boulevard and terminates south of Dublin Boulevard; it is a two-lane roadway providing access to local commercial land uses. Amador Plaza Road Amador Plaza Road is a north-south Class II collector that begins at Amador Valley ' Boulevard and terminates south of Saint Patrick Way; at the intersection with Saint Patrick Way it provides access to and from I-680 southbound. It serves as an access point to commercial uses. Saint Patrick Way Saint Patrick Way is an east-west Class.ll collector connecting the I-680 ramps to Golden Gate Drive. It currently provides two travel lanes and provides access for the uses between Amador Plaza Road and Golden Gate Drive, as well as to and from I-680 southbound. In the future this roadway will extend further west to Regional Street. Starward Drive and Donohue Drive Starward Drive and Donohue Drive provide access to residential dwellings located north of Amador Valley Boulevard between San Ramon Road and I-680. They are both two-lane residential collectors which tum into Landale Avenue. Traffic Analysis Methodology ' Operational traffic analyses focus on intersections rather than roadway segments, due to the capacity constraints typically occurring at the intersections. The operational perforrnance of a roadway network is commonly described with the term level of service or LOS. LOS is a qualitative description of operating conditions, ranging from LOS A (free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (oversaturated conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and. delays). The LOS analysis methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board, 2000) were used in this study. The HCM methods for calculating LOS for signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections are described below. Traffic operations at signalized intersections were evaluated using the LOS method described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 HCM. The Synchro 7.0 software was used to analyze ' traffic conditions throughout the Plan Area. A signalized intersection's LOS is based on the weighted average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration. Table Page 3- 147 coweu~riwa . 3~~ Q Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ~ ~ v~ Transportation & Circulation a 3.9- I : 'Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria summarizes the relationship between the control delay and LOS for signalized intersections. ' Table 3.9-1: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria Level of Description Average Control Service Delay (Seconds per Veh{c{e) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable traffic signal < 10.0 progression and/or short cycle lengths. B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle > 10.0 to 20.0 lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer C cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20.0 to 35.0 Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression; D long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop > 35.0 to 55.0 and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle E lengths, and high VIC ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. > 55.0 to 80.0 This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. ' Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over- F saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000 In Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), the LOS for unsignalized intersections (side-street or all-way stop controlled intersections) is also defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds). The control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay is calculated for each stop-controlled ' movement and for the uncontrolled left turns, if any, from the main street. The delay and LOS for the intersection as a whole and for the worst movement are reported for side- street stop intersections. The intersection average delay is reported for all-way stop , intersections. Table 3.9-2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. The delay ranges for unsignalized intersections are lower than for signalized intersections as drivers expect less ' delay at unsignalized intersections. Table 3.9-2: 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 Page 3- 148 373 ~(~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000 Existing Traffic Operations and Levels of Service The existing peak hour turning movement volumes can be seen in Figure 3,9-2: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, and the lane configuration and control for each intersection is shown in Figure 3.9-3: Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control. The fourteen study intersections were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours according to the procedures described and reflect the worst 15 minute scenario during each of these peak periods Table 3.9-3: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ' provides a summary of the level of service results. Currently, all fourteen intersections operate acceptably during both peak hours. Table 3.9-3: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Peak Detay`(in Intersection Control Hour seconds)~~2 LOS~~~ 1 Amador Valley Boulevard /San Ramon Road Signal AM 32 C PM 26 C 2 Amador Valley Boulevard /Regional Street Signal AM 8 A PM 15 B 3 Amador Valley Boulevard / Starward Drive Signal AM 6 A PM 7 A ' 4 Amador Valley Boulevard / Donohue Drive Signal AM 13 B PM 14 B 5 Amador Valley Boulevard /Amador Plaza Road Signal AM 12 B PM 18 B ' 6 Amador Valley Boulevard /Village Parkway Signal AM 50 D PM 43 D 7 Dublin Boulevard /San Ramon Road Signal AM 39 D PM 36 D 8 Dublin Boulevard /Regional Street Signal AM 21 C PM 43 D 9 Dublin Boulevard /Golden Gate Drive Signal AM 10 B PM 27 C 10 Dublin Boulevard /Amador Plaza Road Signal AM 35 D PM 41 D ' 11 Dublin Boulevard /Village Parkway Signal AM 37 D PM 34 C 12 Saint Patrick Way /Golden Gate Drive AWSC AM 8 A PM 7 A 13 Saint Patrick Way /Amador Plaza Road / I-680 Si nal AM 19 B SB Ramps g PM 24 C ' 14 I-680 NB On-Ramp /Village Parkway SSSC AM 1 5 A A PM 1 4 A A Notes: 1. Signalized intersection and all-way stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. 2. Side-street stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle and worst approach control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual in the notation: average worst a roach . Page 3- 149 COMOULTMO 3~~~ ~g ~ Downtown Dublin Speafic Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Source: Fehr & Peers 2010 Traffic Impact Fee Program ' The Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) was established in 2004 after completion of three Specific Plans (Village Parkway, Downtown Dublin Core, and West Dublin BART Specific Plans) in the Downtown area. It encompasses the entire study area for this project. The TIF evaluated traffic impacts associated with potential future development based on the City's General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plans. As a result, roadway improvement projects were identified throughout downtown Dublin to mitigate traffic impacts. To fund these improvements, a TIF rate was calculated by dividing the estimated number of ' trips associated with the potential development in the study area into the unfunded cost of the proposed improvements. The 2004 adopted cost per daily trip for non-residential development added was $ 136; for residential development, the cost per unit added varied from $8 16 to $ I ,360 per unit based on the density of the development. Automatic annual adjustments are applied each year and the current fees are somewhat higher. The improvements identified that are part of the study area include: ® Extension of Saint Patrick Way to Regional Street ' ¦ Widening of Golden Gate Drive ¦ Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive intersection improvements , ¦ Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road intersection improvements ¦ Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection improvements ¦ Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection improvements The above improvements are identified and funded by the TIF program; however the City ' anticipates updating the TIF program in the near future to ensure that the program is consistent with the goals of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and previously-adopted mitigation measures for other projects. Therefore, the improvements are not identified as planned improvements pending this revision. The revision is anticipated to commence once the Specific Plan has been adopted. ' Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Sidewalks are provided on all of .the existing roadways in the study area. All study intersections provide some striped crosswalks, although crossings are not provided at a few locations for safety reasons. There are no marked crossings across Village Parkway at the unsignalized I-680 , northbound on-ramp; however, there should be no need to cross here. Pedestrian signal heads are provided at the signalized intersections where crosswalks are provided. A shared pedestrian and bicycle pathway is also provided in the study area. The pathway is , a pedestrian/bicycle path that provides off-street thoroughfare through the area. The path Page 3-150 ~ ' x . 1 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation is located to the west of San Ramon Road and runs from Westside Drive/Alcosta Boulevard to Dublin Boulevard in the south. Bicycle facilities include the following: ¦ Class (Paths -These facilities are located off-street and can serve both bicyclists and pedestrians. Recreational trails can be considered Class I facilities. Class I paths are completely separate from the roadway and are typically 8 to I 0 feet wide excluding shoulders and are generally paved. ¦ Class II Bicycle Lanes -These facilities provide a dedicated area for bicyclists within the paved street width through the use of striping and appropriate signage. These facilities are typically four to six feet wide. ¦ Class III Bicycle Routes -These facilities are found along streets that do not provide sufficient width for dedicated bicycle lanes. The street is then designated as a bicycle route through the use of signage informing drivers to share the roadway with bicyclists. Class III facilities may also provide the shared lane marking (sharrow) to identify the bicycling path for bicyclists and to inform motorists to share the roadway. Within the project area, a Class (bicycle/pedestrian path is provided on the west side of San Ramon Road, as described above. A Class II bicycle lane is provided in both directions on Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road. Class III bike routes are provided along Village Parkway. Amore complete map of the existing bicycle facilities near the study area is illustrated on Figure 3.9-4: Existing Bicycle Facilities. Transit Service Transit service providers in the project vicinity include Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), which provides regional rail service, and the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) which provides local and regional bus service. Figure 3.9-5: Existing Transit Routes shows the existing transit services provided near the project site. Each service is described below. Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART BART provides regional transit service to Alameda, San Francisco, Contra Costa, and San Mateo Counties. Weekday service is provided from 4:00 a.m, to I:00 a.m., while Saturday and Sunday service is provided from 6:00 a.m. to I:00 a.m., and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., respectively. Trains have a typical headway of 15 minutes on weekdays and Sundays, and 20 minutes on Saturdays. The East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is located approximately one and one half miles east of the Project site. Another BART Station, the West Dublin/Pleasanton station and a 7 I I -space parking garage for BART patrons, is located in the Specific Plan Area and is currently under construction and projected to open ' sometime in 20I I. The BART project also includes approval of a Stage I Development Plan which will allow for up to 150 hotel rooms and 7,500 square feet of commercial development adjacent to the BART station (see Table 2- I Additionally, a total of 617 Page 3- 15 I eo..au~nHo Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation residential dwellings and a 150,000 square foot office building have been approved in close proximity to the new station. Table 3.9-4: Projected BART Ridership - West , Dublin/Pleasanton Station shows the projected ridership for the new West Dublin/Pleasanton station, based on system-wide forecasting perFormed by Fehr & Peers for BART. The Station is projected to serve approximately 700 boardings and 700 alightings in each of the peak hours, and about 6,000 boardings/6,000 alightings on a daily basis. Table 3.9-4: Projected BART Ridership -West DublinlPleasanton Station Access Mode AH9 Feak Hour F~ {°ea4c Hour Daily Eoard Afght Baard Alight Board ar~rt Walk/Bike 40 625 509 156 3175 3262 Transit 158 65 87 148 1043 1068 Drive/Park 395 15 32 326 1324 1057 Drive/Drop off 100 8 20 103 530 515 Total 693 713 648 733 6072 5902 Source: BART Direct Ridership Model and Fehr & Peers 2009 Livermore_Amador_Valley Transit__Authority_ (LAVTA~ LAVTA provides transit service for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton via Wheels, which provides both local and regional bus service. Wheels provides Transbay service to destinations in San Francisco via connections to BART. Three Wheels' bus routes operate near the project site. The characteristics of the routes operating in the project area are summarized in Table 3.9-5: LAVTA Service Summary. Local adult fares, as of March 2009, are $2.00, and youth and senior fares are $1.00. A transfer to and from other Wheels routes is free, as are transfers from the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) and Contra Costa County's County Connection service. Transfers from BART are $1.00. Ten-ride and monthly passes are also available for Wheels. Fares are paid on the bus, and passengers must have exact change. Ridership estimates from March 2010 for routes operating in the project area are summarized in Table 3.9-6: March 2010 LAVTA Route Ridership. Page 3-152 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation 1 Table 3.9-5: LAVTA Service Summary Line " Route Nearest Stop Weskday .Weekend Hours Head- `Hours Head- way way BART / Dougherty / Several on 5:00 AM - 9:00 30 7:45 AM -11:15 3 Johnson Drive /West Amador Valley AM; 3:00 PM - minutes - AM; 2:30 PM - 8:00 1 hour Dublin /Stoneridge Mall Boulevard and g;30 PM 1 hour PM (Saturday only) ' Regional Street BART / Dougherty / Village Parkway / 3V Johnson Drive /West Amador Valley Once in morning, once in n/a n/a Dublin /Stoneridge Mall - Boulevard afternoon, once in evening Limited Service Dublin / Pleasanton / Several on Dublin 5:00 AM - 2:00 15 - 40 20 10 Livermore Boulevard AM minutes 6:00 AM -1:00 AM minutes - ' 1 hour Dublin Boulevard Pleasant Hill BART to 5:30 -10:00 AM; 30 70X Dublin/Pleasanton BART east of Village 3:30 - 7:00 PM minutes nla n/a ' Parkway Village Parkway / 201 East Dublin to Dublin High Amador Valley Once in morning, once in nla n/a School Boulevard afternoon Village Parkway / 202 Dublin Ranch Village / Amador Valley Once in morning, once in n/a n/a Dublin High School Boulevard afternoon ' Source: Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, March 2010 Table 3.9-6: March 2010 LAVTA Route Ridership Route YVeekday Average 5afurday Average Ridership Ridership 3 130 37 ' 10 2726 1956 70 155 - 201 76 - 202 30 - Source: LAVTA, April 2010 Relevant Project Characteristics This section presents the relevant project details pertaining to the transportation impact analysis, and describes the analysis scenarios and analysis methods. The traffic analysis includes the following scenarios ¦ Existing Conditions ¦ Near-Term Conditions Without the Project, which assumes all entitled development, including that which is in the Plan area, in addition to existing traffic volumes. Page 3-153 co«au~nwa ~7~~ ~ Downtown Dublin Speafic Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation ¦ Near-Tenn Plus Base FAR19 Project, which assumes all entitled development in addition to existing traffic volumes, plus a level of Plan development that would , result in minor roadway and infrastructure improvements, such as signal timing adjustments or re-striping of lanes. ¦ Near-Term Conditions Plus Maximum FAR Project, which assumes all entitled development in addition to existing traffic volumes, along with the entire allotment of development allowed by the plan, including the "development density pool," , which is the proposed project. ¦ Cumulative Conditions Without the Project, which starts with the Near-Term Without Project case, adds regional background growth as determined from the Contra ' Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Countywide Travel Demand model, and also adds the additional net new development (after accounting for the entitled projects) that is allowed by the five current specific plans that make up the Project , area. ¦ Cumulative Conditions Plus Base FAR Project, which starts with the Near-Term , Without Project case, adds regional background growth as determined from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Countywide Travel Demand model, and also adds the additional net new development (after accounting for the entitled projects) that is allowed by the Base FAR Project. ¦ Cumulative Conditions Plus Max FAR Project, which starts with the Near-Term , Without Project case, adds regional background growth as determined from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Countywide Travel Demand model, and also adds the additional net new development (after accounting for the , entitled projects) that is allowed by the Max FAR Project. The process for developing each of these scenarios is further explained below. The LOS results for each scenario are provided another section. , Because there are several entitled but not yet constructed projects in and around Dublin, projected traffic volumes from these projects were added to the existing volumes to form ' a Near-Term scenario for the Plan analysis. Entitled projects within Dublin, San Ramon, and Pleasanton were included if they were expected to add traffic through the Plan area. Entitled projects within and outside of the Plan area are shown in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area. Bold-face projects are located within the Plan area. i9 FAR =Floor Area Ratio. Base FAR for the purposes of the traffic analysis is the difference between the proposed project Base FAR and already entitled projects. Page 3-154 ~ , i 3'q ~ ~g~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area ' City Project Location Development Schaefer Ranch Western terminus of Dublin 582 dwelling units ' Boulevard Windstar Condos South of Dublin Boulevard; 309 dwelling units west of Golden Gate Drive ' AMB Site South of Dublin Boulevard; 308 dwelling units;150,000square east of Regional Street feet office space ' Tralee Development Eastern Dublin along Dublin 233 dwelling units; 33,500 square Boulevard feet retail space Arroyo Vista Eastern Dublin along Dublin Residential; traffic volume information ' Dublin Boulevard provided Hotel Site (adjacent to the Southern terminus of Golden 150 hotel rooms; 7,500 square feet West DublinlPleasanton Gate Drive retail space ' BART Station) BART Station Parking Southern terminus of Golden 711-space parking garage Garage Gate Drive Custom Fireplace, Patio, Amador Plaza Road north of Additional 10,900 square feet retail 8 BBQ Dublin Boulevard space ' Northwest comer of Amador Additional 4,185 square feet retail Big Lots Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road space ' Senior Citizen Housing Along Foothill Boulevard 132 dwelling units Pleasanton Multi-family Homes ~ Along Foothill Boulevard 350 dwelling units ' San Senior Citizen Housing Along San Ramon Road 105 dwelling units Ramon Notes: Bold projects are part of the proposed Plan area. Source: City of Dublin, January 2010. Trip generation estimates for the entitled projects during both AM and PM peak hours ' were estimated using the trip generation equations and rates presented in Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Project trip generation was adjusted to account for pass-by trips and transit use, to more accurately reflect the number of new vehicle trips expected to be added to the roadway network. Pass-by trips are those that occur when a driver on an adjacent roadway to a particular use decides to stop on their way to their final destination (e.g., to purchase an item on their way home from work). These trips are not considered as new trips on the roadway network. Transit trip reductions are taken to reflect the higher-than-average transit mode share that is expected for development with good access to transit. The following pass-by trip and transit trip reductions were taken: Page 3- 155 ~a..e~~„moo 3g®~ ~t ~ Downtown Dublin S ecific Plan Draft EIR P Transportation & Circulation Residential uses: 25% transit trip reduction Retail Uses: 25% pass-by reduction ' Office: 15% transit trip reduction , The approved project trips were distributed to the study area intersections using a TRAFFIX traffic assignment model with distribution percentages derived from the Contra. , Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Travel Demand Model. The trip generation calculations for the entitled projects are included in the technical appendix. The resulting peak hour turning movements generated by these projects are shown in Figure 3.9-6: ' Approved Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, and Figure 3.9-7: Near-Term Peak Hour Intersection Volumes shows the total near-term peak hour intersection volumes. Base FAR Project and Maximum FAR Project ' Trip generation estimates for the proposed project during both AM and PM peak hours were estimated using the trip generation equations and rates presented in Institute of , Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Project trip generation was adjusted to account for pass-by trips and transit use, to more accurately reflect the number ' of new vehicle trips expected to be added to the roadway network. Pass-by trips are those that occur when a driver on an adjacent roadway to a particular use ' decides to stop on their way to their final destination (e.g., to purchase an item on their way home from work). These trips are not considered as new trips on the roadway network. , Because the project site is adjacent to the under-construction West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, which also will also serve as a hub for several bus routes, it is reasonable to ' expect transit use by employees and patrons that is somewhat higher than the average ITE rate for these types of development. Given the proximity to BART and bus route coverage available to the Downtown Dublin ' Specific Plan area, the proposed mix of uses, and the proximity to freeways and arterials from which pass-by trips can be drawn, the following pass-by trip and transit trip reductions ' were taken: ¦ Residential uses: 25% transit trip reduction ' ¦ Retail Uses: 15% transit trip reduction and 25% pass-by reduction i hi h r ' Because the total development potential in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plans g e than can be reasonably expected within the Near-Term and Cumulative horizons, an assessment was conducted to determine how much development would likely be constructed in the near term. The analysis determined that 867,320 square feet of non- residential development, 799 dwelling units, and 150 hotel rooms could be added and the ' Page 3-156 ~ , Downtown Dublin Speafic Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation existing roadway network would operate acceptably without major infrastructure improvements. This amount of development defines the Base FAR Project for the purposes of this traffic analysis. It is important to note that the Base FAR Project described above includes the entitled project development within the Specific Plan boundary. Thus, the net new development after accounting for the entitled projects, (see Table 3.9-7, bold projects) is 182 new ' residential units and 709,500 square feet of commercial space. Table 3.9-8: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Trip Generation -Base FAR Project provides the trip generation estimates for each of the three districts for the Base FAR Project. Table 3.9-9: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Trip Generation -Maximum FAR Project gives the trip generation for the full Downtown Dublin Specific Plan development potential (the ' Maximum FAR Project). Detailed trip generation calculations for both cases are provided in Appendix D. As these tables show, the Base FAR Project generates about 580 net new AM peak hour trips and I ,900 net new PM peak hour trips. The Maximum FAR Project generates much higher trips, at 2, 100 and 7, 100 net new in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The ' difference is much greater in the PM peak hour because much of the additional development in the Maximum FAR project is commercial development, which has higher ' trip generation in the PM peak hour, relative to the AM peak hour. Need to insert new information in a text or table format that provides a description of Base FAR and Maximum FAR that shows consistency with Chapter 2 definitions. Table 3.7-8: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Trip Generation -Base FAR Project t District Development AM Peak Hour Trips (Net) PM Peak Hour Trips{Net) InSound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total ; 368,680 square feet of commercial Retail (retail) space; 100 dwelling units 183 154 337 537 562 1,099 (total and net) 477,910 square feet of commercial Transit- (office) space (320,410 net after Oriented entitled projects subtracted); 150 125 103 228 372 387 759 hotel rooms (0 net); 699 dwelling units (82 net) Village 20,730 square feet of commercial 10 6 16 28 31 59 Parkway (retail) space (total and net) ' 867,320 square feet of commercial Total space (709,820 net); 799 dwelling 318 263 581 937 980 1,917 units (182 net); 150 hotel rooms (0 ' net) Note: The total development numbers include already-entitled projects within the Plan area; the net numbers represent the net additional development allowed under the Base FAR case. The trip generation shown is for the net new development. ' Source: Fehr & Peers, April 2070 Page 3- 157 1 oo..eu~nwa ~~3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Table 3.7-9: Downtown Dublin S ecific Plan Tri Generation -Maximum FAR Pro'ect ' P P 1 - - - _ District Development AM Peak Hour Trips (Net) PM Peak Hour Trips (Net) ' Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total 737,100 square feet of commercial ' Retail (retail) space; 100 dwelling units 358 263 621 1,035 1,102 2,137 (total and net) 2,202,710 square feet of ' Transit- commercial (office) space g06 637 1,443 2,352 2,468 4,820 Oriented (2,045,210 net);150 hotel rooms (0 net); 1,100 dwelling units (483 net) Village 20,730 square feet of commercial , Parkway (retail) space; 100 dwelling units 20 47 67 68 53 121 (total and net) 2,960,540 square feet of Total commercial space (2,803,040 net); 1,184 947 2,131 3,455 3,623 7,078 1,300 dwelling units (683 net); 150 hotel rooms (0 net) , Note: The total development numbers include already-entitled projects within the Plan area; the net numbers represent the net additional development allowed under the Maximum FAR case. The trip generation shown is for the net new development. Source: Fehr 8 Peers, April 2010. ' .Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution is defined as the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would use to arrive at and depart from the site. Project trip distribution was primarily based on the results of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)'s Countywide Travel ' Demand model. Since the model is a regional model and does not accurately forecast local traffic patterns, the trip distribution was further refined based on existing traffic patterns in the area, local roadway characteristics, and location of complementary land uses. Project- ' generated trips were assigned to the surrounding transportation network based on the percentages shown in Figures 3.9-8a: Commercial Project Trip Distribution and Figure 3.9- 8b: Residential Trip Distribution. ' Near-Term Plus Project (Base FAR) Figure 3.9-9: Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes shows the turning movement volumes at each of the study intersections for net new project-generated trips beyond already entitled projects for this scenario. The Near-Term plus Base FAR Project ' scenario adds the existing traffic volumes, projected trips from the entitled projects listed in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area, and net new Plan-specific trips beyond already entitled projects as shown in Figure 3.9-9: Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour ' Intersection Volumes. The sum of these elements is shown in Figure 3.9- 10: Near-term Plus Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. The results from this analysis Page 3- 158 ~ ' ~3 ~ `f~~ ' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation were used to determine impacts to the roadway network and develop mitigation measures. Near-Term Plus Project (Maximum FAR) 1 The Near-Term Plus Maximum FAR Project scenario adds the existing traffic volumes, projected trips from the entitled projects listed in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area, and net new Plan-specific trips beyond already entitled projects as shown in Figure 3.9- I I : Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. The sum of these elements is shown in Figure 3.9- 12: Near-term Plus Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. The results from this analysis were used to determine impacts to the roadway network and develop mitigation measures. ' Cumulative No Project Conditions The Cumulative Conditions without Project scenario adds the existing traffic volumes, projected trips from the entitled projects listed in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area, development permitted under the existing Specific Plans and background growth from the CCTA Countywide Travel Demand model, to form a baseline for the analysis. Development allowed by the five existing specific plans that apply ' to the greater downtown area was included, as these specific plans would still be in place if this proposed Specific Plan is not adopted. These specific plans allow for additional development of nearly 3.2 million square feet of retail and office development, 717 dwelling units, and 150 hotel rooms beyond existing development and already entitled projects. The sum of these elements is shown in Figure 3.9- 13: Cumulative No Project (Current Specific Plans) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. The Cumulative analysis scenario also includes a new study intersection, Regional Street and Saint Patrick Way. This intersection is introduced as a result of the extension of Saint Patrick Way past Golden Gate Drive; the extension is necessary to move vehicular traffic through the Transit-Oriented District when the new West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and entitled projects are completed. It was analyzed as an all-way stop intersection, with improvements as required by the City for the ' Windstar development. Cumulative Plus Project (Base FAR) This scenario adds the existing traffic volumes, projected trips from the entitled projects listed in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area, background growth from the CCTA Countywide Travel Demand model, and net new traffic generated by the ' Base FAR Project beyond already entitled projects. The projected tuming movements for this case are shown in Figure 3.9- 14: Cumulative Plus Project (Base FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. Cumulative Plus Project (Maximum FAR) This scenario adds the existing traffic volumes, projected trips from the entitled projects listed in Table 3.9-7: Entitled Projects Near the Specific Plan Area, background growth from the CCTA Countywide Travel Demand model, and net new traffic generated by the Maximum FAR Project beyond already entitled projects. The projected tuming Page 3-159 EEN9~l LTIND 3g~~ 1 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR 3 Transportation & Circulation movements for this case are shown in Figure 3.9- 15: Cumulative Plus Project (Max FAR) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. Project Circulation Elements The project will also necessitate some improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. In order to induce more pedestrian travel along the Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin ` Boulevard corridors and meet the intent of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, the Specific Plan will require project developers to improve pedestrian connectivity in the Specific Plan Area by requiring landscaping, streetscape enhancements and pedestrian connections to establishments. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance , In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQf~ Guidelines, agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would: ¦ Result in a traffic increase that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and . capacity of the street system, which is defined as causing an existing .acceptable intersection or roadway level of service to drop to unacceptable levels (as defined by a City's General Plan). ¦ Cause a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) or Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) network segment to fall from acceptable (LOS E, roadway segment volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.99 or less) in the No Project case to unacceptable (LOS F, v/c of I.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 altemative transportation (for example, bus turnouts, bicycle racks). ¦ Increase the demand for public transit service above that which local transit operators or agencies could accommodate. ¦ Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting altemative transportation. ¦ Disrupts existing transit service or does not provide amenities necessary to accommodate transit demand. The proposed Project includes an amendment to the City's General Plan related to acceptable Levels of Service within the City. As proposed, this General Plan amendment will require a Level of Service of D or better for all intersections except for intersections within the Downtown Specific Plan Area, including the intersections of Dublin Blvd./San Ramon Road and Village Parkway/Interstate 680 on-ramp, which are exempted from the standard in the Draft General Plan Amendment: Page 3-1.60. , O / Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation As shown in the following Traffic Analysis Results section, no intersections will operate unacceptably, in accordance with the amended General Plan, as a result of the Project. Intersection Traffic Analysis Results Table 3.9- 10: Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service -Base FAR Project provides the LOS results for the Near-Term No Project and Near-Term Plus Base FAR Project scenarios. Table 3.9- I I : Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service -Maximum FAR Project provides LOS results for the summary for the Near-Term No Project and Near-Term Plus . Maximum FAR Project scenarios. Table 3.9- 12: Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service -Base FAR Project provides the LOS results for the Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Base FAR Project scenarios. Table 3.9- 13: Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service -Maximum FAR Project provides the LOS results for the Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus ' Maximum FAR Project scenarios. Page 3-161 t ~a~a~~r~e 3~b ~ Downtown Dublin 5 ecific Plan Draft EIR P Transportation & Circulation L Table 3.9-10: Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service -Base FAR Project Intersection T Control LOS I Peak Hour Existing Conditions P'ear•Term P!o Project Near-Term With Base FAR Standard Prejert ~ ~ Delay (in LOS' ~ Delay (in LOS' ~ Delay (in LOS' seconds)' secondsj'~~ seconds)' Amador Valley AM 32 C 36 D 38 D 1 Boulevard I San Signal Exempt Ramon Road PM 26 C 28 C 30 C Amador Valley Exempt AM 8 A 8 A 9 A 2 Boulevard I Regional Signal Street PM 15 B 17 B 18 B Amador Valley Exempt AM 6 A 6 A 6 A 3 Boulevard I Starward Signal Drive PM 7 A 7 A 7 A Amador Valley Exempt AM 13 B 13 B 13 B 4 Boulevard I Donohue Signal Drive PM 14 B 14 B 14 B Amador Valley Exempt AM 12 B 13 B 14 B 5 Boulevard I Amador Signal Plaza Road PM 18 B 19 B 22 C Amador Valley AM 50 D 53 D 54 D ' 6 Boulevard I Village Signal Exempt Parkway PM 43 D 48 D 54 D Dublin Boulevard / AM 39 D 43 D 47 D 7 San Ramon Road Signal Exempt PM 36 D 57 E 91 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 21 C 47 D 48 D 8 Re Tonal Street Signal Exempt 9 PM 43 D 61 E 71 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 10 B 22 C 25 C 9 Golden Gate Drive Signal Exempt PM 27 C 43 D 65 E Dublin Boulevard I AM 35 D 38 D 45 D 10 Amador Plaza Road Signal Exempt PM 41 D 50 D 98 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 37 D 36 D 36 D 11 Villa a Parkwa Signal Exempt 9 Y PM 34 C 36 D 43 D Saint Patrick Way / AM 8 A 18 C 20 C 12 Golden Gate Drive AWSC Exempt PM 7 A 18 C 24 C Saint Patrick Way / AM 19 B 27 C 30 C 13 Amador Plaza Road I Signal Exempt I-680 SB Ramps PM 24 C 37 D 65 E I-680 NB Ramps / AM 1 (5) A (A) 1 (5) A (A) 1 (5) A (A) 14 Village Parkway SSSC Exempt PM 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) 1. 2. Notes: Signalized intersection and all-way stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.- 3. Side-street stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle and worst approach control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual in the notation: average (worst approach). Source: Fehr & Peers 2010 '1 Page 3-162 ' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-11: Near-Term Intersection Levels of Service~M~aximum FAR Project r Intersectio? ~ontrol I~ LOS P k I Existing Conditions Near-Tenn P!o °roject I P!ear•Term Witt? P~aximum Standard Hour fAH Project Delay (in L05~~ rJelay (in LrJS~~ Delay (in LOS'' secondsh~ secords)'~ ~ ~ seconds)' I Amador Valley Exempt AM 32 C 36 D 46 D 1 Boulevard /San Signal Ramon Road PM 26 C 28 C 37 D Amador Valley AM 8 A 8 A 10 A 2 Boulevard /Regional Signal D • Street PM 15 B 17 B 25 C Amador Valley AM 6 A 6 A 6 A 3 Boulevard / Stanvard Signal D Drive PM 7 A 7 A 6 A Amador Valley AM 13 B 13 B 13 B 4 Boulevard / Donohue Signal D Drive PM 14 B 14 B 15 B Amador Valley AM 12 B 13 B 16 B 5 Boulevard/Amador Signal D Plaza Road PM 18 B 19 B 29 C Amador Valley AM 50 p 53 D 60 E 6 Boulevard /Village Signal Exempt Parkway PM 43 p 48 D 87 F Dublin Boulevard / AM 39 D 43 D 73 E 7 San Ramon Road Signal Exempt PM 36 D 57 E >120 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 21 C 47 D 62 E 8 Regional Street Signal Exempt PM, 43 D 61 E >120 F Dublin Boulevard 1 AM 10 B 22 C 35 C~ 9 Golden Gate Drive Signal Exempt PM 27 C 43 D >120 F ` Dublin Boulevard I AM 35 D 38 D 94 F 10 gmador Plaza Road Signal Exempt PM 41 D 50 D >120 F Dublin Boulevard / AM 37 D 36 D 39 D 11 Village Parkway Signal Exempt PM 34 C 36 D 119 F Saint Patrick Way / p AM 8 A 18 C 48 E 12 Golden Gate Drive AWSC Exem t PM 7 A 18 C >120 F Saint Patrick Way / AM 19 B 27 C 73 E 13 Amador Plaza Road I Signal Exempt 1-680 SB Ramps PM 24 C 37 D >120 F I-680 NB Ramps / AM 1 (5) A (A) 1 (5) A (A) 1 (5) A (A) 14 Village Parkway SSSC D PM 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) ' 1. 2. Notes: Signalized intersection and all-way stop intersection level of service based on weighted average wntrol delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. 3. Side-street stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle and worst approach control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual in the notation: average (worst approach). ' Source: Fehr & Peers 2010 Page 3-I63 CCNlU~TNO ~ ~g~ Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-12: Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service -Base FAR Project - _ _ Intersection Contr LOS Peak _ _ _ _ - s Existing Conditions I Cumulative No Project Cumulative lNitn Protect ol Standard Hour Delay (in ~ LOS' = Delay (in LOS' ~ Delay (in LOS' seconds)'' I seconds)' secondsj'= Amador Valley AM ~ 32 C 76 E 65 E I Boulevard I San Signal Exempt Ramon Road PM 26 C 55 E 37 D Amador Valley AM 8 A 13 B 12 B 2 Boulevard I Regional Signal D Street PM 15 B 34 C 27 C Amador Valley AM 6 A 8 A 8 A 3 Boulevard I Starward Signal D Drive PM 7 A 7 A 8 A Amador Valley AM 13 B 17 B 17 B - 4 Boulevard I Donohue Signal D Drive PM 14 B 20 B 18 B Amador Valley AM 12 B 18 B 16 B 5 Boulevard I Amador Signal D Plaza Road PM 18 B 49 D 32 C Amador Valley AM 50 D 82 F 72 E 6 Boulevard I Village Signal Exempt Parkway PM 43 D >120 F 85 F Dublin Boulevard / AM 39 D 81 F 54 D 7 San Ramon Road Signal Exempt PM 36 D >120 F >120 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 21 C 55 D 51 D 8 Re Tonal Street Signal Exempt . g PM 43 D >120 F 82 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 10 B 35 C 23 C 9 Golden Gate Drive Signal Exempt PM 27 C >120 F 57 E Dublin Boulevard I AM 35 D 92 F 46 D 10 Amador Plaza Road Signal Exempt PM 41 D >120 F >120 F , Dublin Boulevard I AM 37 D 51 D 50 D 11 Signal Exempt Village Parkway PM 34 C >120 F 72 E Saint Patrick Way! p AM 8 A 22 C 15 B 12 Golden Gate Drive AWSC Exem t PM 7 A 60 F 15 B Saint Patrick Way I AM 19 B 99 F 34 C 13 Amador Plaza Road I Signal Exempt I-680 SB Ramps PM 24 C >120 F 109 F 14 1-680 NB Ramps I SSSC D AM 1 (5) A (A) 1 (6) A (A) 1 (5) A (A) Village Parkway PM 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) 15 Saint Patrick Way I AWSC D AM nla nla 8 A 8 A Regional Street PM nla nla 8 A 9 A ' 1. 2. Notes: Signalized intersection and all-way stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. 3. Side-street stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle and worst approach control delay per vehicle, , according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual in the notation: average (worst approach). Source: Fehr & Peers 2010 Page 3-164 IW,F' Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-13: Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service -Maximum FAR Project htersection ' Control ~ Peak Existing Condi!ions Cumulative No Project ~ Cuinulatie~e ~Nifh Project LOS Hour ~ Standard Uelay (in ! OS'? , Delay (in LOS' ~ ' Delay (in LGS' seconds)'' seconds)'- secondsl'~ Amador Valley AM 32 C 76 E 77 E 1 Boulevard I San Signal Exempt Ramon Road PM 26 C 55 E 54 D Amador Valley AM 8 A 13 B 13 B 2 Boulevard I Regional Signal D Street PM 15 B 34 C 35 C Amador Valley AM 6 A 8 A 8 A 3 Boulevard I Starward Signal D Drive PM 7 A 7 A 8 A Amador Valley AM 13 B 17 B 17 B 4 Boulevard I Donohue Signal D Drive PM 14 B 20 B 19 B Amador Valley AM 12 B 18 B 18 B 5 Boulevard /Amador Signal D _ Plaza Road PM 18 B 49 D 49 D Amador Valley AM 50 D 82 F 81 F 6 Boulevard /Village Signal Exempt Parkway PM 43 D >120 F >120 F Dublin Boulevard / AM 39 D 81 F 85 F 7 San Ramon Road Signal Exempt PM 36 D >120 F >120 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 21 C 55 D 65 E 8 Re Tonal Street Signal Exempt. g PM 43 D >120 F >120 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 10 B 35 C 36 D 9 Golden Gate Drive Signal Exempt PM 27 C >120 F >120 F Dublin Boulevard I AM 35 D 92 F 91 F 10 Amador Plaza Road Signal Exempt PM 41 D >120 F >120 F Dublin Boulevard / AM 37 D 51 D 52 D 11 Signal Exempt Village Parkway PM 34 C >120 F >120 F Saint Patrick Way / p AM 8 A 22 C 25 C 12 Golden Gate Drive AWSC Exem t PM 7 A 60 F 75 F Saint Patrick Way I AM 19 B 99 F 95 F 13 Amador Plaza Road / Signal Exempt 1-680 SB Ramps PM 24 C >120 F >120 F 14 1-680 NB Ramps I SSSC D AM 1 (5) A (A) 1 (6) A (A) 1 (6) A (A) Village Parkway PM 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) 1 (4) A (A) 15 Saint Patrick Way / AWSC D AM n/a nla 8 A 9 A Regional Street PM nla nla 8 A 15 B - Notes: 1. Signalized intersection and all-way stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. 2. Side-street stop intersection level of service based on weighted average control delay per vehicle and worst approach control delay per vehicle, according to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual in the notation: average (worst approach). Source: Fehr & Peers 2010 ,1~ Page 3-165 eoweu~r,HO 39~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ~ 3 Transportation & Circulation CMA/MTS System Analysis Results The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) requires analysis of project impacts to Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways for development projects that would generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips. The ACCMA requires that the baseline forecasts be represented by the model run completed by the ACCMA for 2015 and 2035 conditions. To complete this analysis, the project traffic, generated and distributed outside of the model as described in the preceding section, was added directly to the ACCMA 2015 and 2035 peak hour model runs. It is noted that a review of the 2015 and 2035 ACCMA model land use files showed very little growth in the Plan area; thus, this approach gives a reasonably accurate assessment of the net new traffic added by the Plan on the MTS roadways. The MTS system analysis differs from the intersection analysis in the following aspects: ¦ The regional and local land use data sets used for the intersection forecasts and the ` MTS forecasts are different, since the CCTA Countywide Model was used to develop intersection volumes and the ACCMA Countywide Model was used to ' develop the MTS system forecasts ¦ The MTS roadway analysis reports the outputs of the ACCMA model on a roadway segment level, as compared to the more detailed intersection turning movement level forecasts developed for the intersection analysis. The MTS roadway system in the vicinity of the Project includes I-580, I-680, Dublin Boulevard, and San Ramon Road. The ACCMA Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requires this analysis only be done for the PM peak hour, however, Caltrans requires that it be done for the AM peak hour as well for all Caltrans' facilities. Tables 3.9- 14: Near-Term PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service and 3.9- 15: Cumulative PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service summarize the results of the analysis on various segments of the four MTS roadways for the Near-Term and Cumulative Conditions scenarios, respectively, during the PM peak hour. Tables 3.9- 16: Near-Term AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service and 3.9-17: Cumulative AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service summarize the results of the analysis on Caltrans' facilities only for the Near-Term and Cumulative Conditions scenarios, respectively, during the AM peak hour. Page 3-166 r ~~l V Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-14: Near-Term PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service Location Capacity fear 20 i5 No ?roject PM Peak Hour Year 2015 Plus Project (Base FAR; PM I Year 2015 Plus Project (Maximum FAR) Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume VIC I LOS Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC T LOS I-580 West of San Ramon Road Eastbound 8,000 8,955 1.12 F 9,144 1.14 F 9,652 1.21 ~ F 1 Westbound 10,000 5,667 0.57 A 5,866 0.59 A 6,402 0.64 B Between San Ramon Road and I-680 Eastbound 9,000 5,682 0.63 B 5,714 0.63 B 5,753 0.64 B Westbound 9,000 8,334 0.93 E 8,469 0.94 E 8,821 0.98 E East of I-680 . Eastbound 12,000 10,030 0.84 D 10,042 0.84 D 10,062 0.84 D Westbound 9,000 5,403 0.60 B 5,416 0.60 B 5,435 0.60 B I-680 South of I-580 Northbound 7,000 6,071 0.87 D 6,196 0.89 D 6,534 0.93 E Southbound 7,000 5,329 0.76 C 5,461 0.78 C 5,818 0.83 D North of I-580 Northbound 8,000 7,031 0.88 D 7,105 0.89 D 7,305 0.91 E Southbound 8,000 7,336 0.92 E 7,408 0.93 E 7,599 0.95 E Dublin Boulevard West of San Ramon Road Eastbound 1,600 344 0.22 A 384 0.24 A 490 0.31 A Westbound 1,600 627 0.39 A 669 0.42 A 782 0.49 A Between San Ramon Road and Regional Street Eastbound 2,940 449 0.15 A 882 0.30 A 2,240 0.76 C Westbound 2,940 403 0.14 A 791 0.27 A 1,911 0.65 B Between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive Eastbound 2,940 695 0.24 A 1,163 0.40 A 2,484 0.84 D Westbound 2,940 514 0.17 A 870 0.30 A 1,908 0.65 B Between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road Eastbound 2,940 759 0.26 A 1,151 0.39 A 2,195 0.75 C Westbound 2,940 439 0.15 A 740 0.25 A 1,552 0.53 A Between Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway Eastbound 2,940 889 0.30 A 1,206 0.41 A 2,150 0.73 C Westbound 2,940 613 0.21 A 852 0.29 A 1,544 0.53 A ~i Page 3- 167 39a~ Downtown Dublin S eafc Plan Draft EIR P Transportation & Circulation ~aGon ~ Capacity Year 2015 No Project PM Peak Hour ii Year 2015 Plus Project (Base FAR) PM Year 2015 Plus Project (Maximum FAR) ~ Peak Hour PM Peah Hour - r ..Volume VIC LOS + - - - ~ Volume ~ V1C ~ LOS Volume V,'C LOS East of Village Parkway Eastbound 2,940 1,156 0.39 A 1,341 0.46 A 1,848 0.63 8 Westbound 2,940 2,500 0.85 D 2,677 0.91 E 3,161 1.OB F San Ramon Road Between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard Northbound 3,920 3,011 0.77 C 3,380 0.86 D 4,363 1.11 F Southbound 3,920 1,639 0.42 A 1,914 0.49 A 2,609 0.67. B Between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard Northbound 2,940 2,441 0.83 D 2,568 0.87 D 2,907 0.99 E Southbound 2,940 1,397 0.48 A 1,477 0.50 A 1,772 0.60 B North of Amador Valley Boulevard Northbound 1,960 1,912 0.98 E 2,051 1.05 F 2,425 1.24 F Southbound 1,960 1,342 0.68 B 1,476 0.75 C 1,836 0.94 E Note: Shaded cells indicate a significant impact (increase of more than 0.02 in the v/c ratio, relative to the No Project case). Source: Fehr & Peers 2010 Table 3.9-15: Cumulative PM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service Location I Capacity ~ Year 2035 No Project PM Peak Hour ~ Year 2035 Plus Project (Base FAR) Pitt Year2035 Plus Projecf(hlaximutn FAR) Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume V(C LO5 ~ Volume V!C LOS Volume VIC_ LO5 1.580 West of San Ramon Road Eastbound 8,000 10,932 1.37 F 10,595 1.32 F 11,103 1.39 F Westbound 10,000 7,715 0.77 C 7,424 0.74 C 7,960 0.80 C Between San Ramon Road and I-680 • Eastbound 9,000 6,862 0.76 C 6,856 0.76 C 6,895 0.77 C i Westbound 9,000 10,274 1.14 F 10,079 1.12 F 10,431 1.16 F East of I-680 Eastbound 12,000 11,472 0.96 E 11,466 0.96 E 11,486 0.98 E Westbound 9,000 6,849 0.76 C 6,850 0.76 C 6,869 0.76 C I-680 South of I-580 Northbound 7,000 7,992 1.14 F 7,791 1.11 F 8,129 1.16 F Southbound 7,000 6,280 0.90 D 6,062 0.87 D 6,419 0.92 E North of I-580 Northbound 8,000 7,412 0.93 E 7,292 0.91 E 7,492 0.94 E Southbound 8,000 8,071 1.01 F 7,961 1.00 E 8,152 1.02 F ~r Page 3- 168 ` t ~ r~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Location Capacity Year2035 Ho ProjectPM Peak Hour Year 2035 Plus Project(Base FAR) PM Year2035 Pfus Project (MaxPmum FAR) ` `Peak Hour PMPeak Hour Volume V/C LOS Volume VIC LQS Volume VIC LOS Dublin Boulevard West of San Ramon Road Eastbound 1,600 514 0.32 A 451 0.28 A 557 0.35 A Westbound 1,600 978 0.61 B 909 0.57 A 1,022 0.64 B Between San Ramon Road and Regional Street Eastbound 2,940 2,252 0.77 C 1,441 0.49 A 2,799 0.95 E Westbound 2,940 1,607 0.55 A 928 0.32 A 2,048 0.70 B Between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive Eastbound 2,940 2,794 0.95 E 1,996 0.68 B 3,317 ~ 1.13 F Westbound 2,940 1,637 0.56 A 989 0.34 A 2,027 0.69 B Between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road Eastbound 2,940 2,648 0.90 E 1,995 0.68 B 3,039 _1.03 F Westbound 2,940 1,374 0.47 A 851 0.29 A 1,663 0.57 A Beiween Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway Eastbound 2,940 2,936 1.00 E 2,343 0.80 C 3,287 1.12 F Westbound 2,940 1,492 0.51 A 1,064 0.36 A 1,756 0.60 A East of Village Parkway _ Eastbound 2,940 3,212 1.09 F 2,898 0.99 E 3,405 .1.16 F Westbound 2,940 3,394 1.15 F 3,098 1.05 F 3,582 "1.22 F San Ramon Road Between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard Northbound 3,920 4,863 1.24 F 4,303 1.10 F 5,286 1.35 F Southbound 3,920 2,540 0.65 B 2,139 0.55 A 2,834 0.72 C Between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard Northbound 2,940 3,065 1.04 F 2,858 0.97 E 3,197 1.09 F Southbound 2,940 1,851 0.63 B 1,666 0.57 A 1,961 0.67 B North of Amador Valley Boulevard Northbound 1,960 2,328 1.19 F 2,104 1.07 F 2,478 ,,1.26 F n Southbound 1,960 2,151 1.10 F 1,944 0.99 E 2,304 1.18 F Note: Shaded cells indicate a significant impact (increase of more than 0.02 in the v/c ratio, relative to the No Project case). Source: Fehr & Peers 2010 Page 3-169 i~ ~o~.~~.,~o ,g Downtown Dublin 5 ecific Plan Draft EIR P Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-16: Near-Term AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service Location" Capacity Year 2015No Project AM Peak Hour Year 2015 Plus ProJecf (Base FAR) AM Year 2015 Plus Protect (Maximum FAR) Peak Hour AMPeak Hour r Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC L05 - I-580 West of San Raman Road Eastbound 8,000 5,813 0.73 C 5,903 0.74 C 6,149 0.77 C Westbound ' 10,000 9,952 1.00 E 10,025 1.00 EIF~ 10,215 ~ 02 F Between San Ramon Road and I-680 ,~1 Eastbound 9,000 8,095 0.90 D 8,106 0.90 E 8,118 0.90 E - Westbound 9,000 4,927 0.55 A 4,959 0.55 A 5,046 0.56 A East of I-680 Eastbound 12,000 5,756 0.48 A 5,764 0.48 A 5,775 0.48 A Westbound 9,000 8,625 0.96 E 8,627 0.96 E 8,630 0.96 E I-680 South of I-580 Northbound 7,000 6,012 0.86 D 6,043 0.86 D 6,128 0.88 D Southbound 7,000 6,175 0.88 D 6,204 0.89 D 6,278 0.90 D North of I-580 Northbound 8,000 7,106 0.89 D 7,136 0.89 D 7,213 0.90 E Southbound 8,000 7,050 0.88 D 7,086 0.89 D 7,183 0.90 D 1. LOS EIF due to rounded vlc ratio. Note: Shaded cells indicate a significant impact (increase of more than 0.02 in the vlc ratio, relative to the No Project case). Source: Fehr 8 Peers 2010 Page 3-170 `~~3 Downtown Dublin Speafic Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-17: Cumulative AM Peak Hour MTS Arterial Level of Service L tact ion Capacity ~ Year 2D35 No Project AM Peak Hour Year 2035 Plus Project (Base FAR) AM Year 2035 Plus Project{~laximun. FAR) Peak Flour AM Peak Hour - - T- Volume VIC LOS Volume V(C LOS Volume VIC ~ LOS 1 1.580 West of San Ramon Road Eastbound 8,000 7,765 0.97 E 7,617 0.95 E 7,863 0.98 E Westbound 10,000 11,866 1.19 F 11,773 1.18 F 11,963 1.20 F Between San Ramon Road and I-680 Eastbound 9,000 9,362 1.04 F 9,365 1.04 F 9,377 1.04 F Westbound 9,000 7,254 0.81 D 7,206 0.80 D 7,293 0.81 D East of I-680 Eastbound 12,000 7,674 0.64 B 7,676 0.64 B 7,687 0.64 B Westbound 9,000 12,007 1.33 F 12,007 1.33 F 12,010 1.33 F 1.680 South of I-580 Northbound 7,000 6,299 0.90 D 6,250 0.89 D 6 335 0.91 E Southbound 7,000 9,278 1.33 F 9,247 1.32 F 9,321 1.33 F North of I-580 Northbound 8,000 7,511 0.94 E 7,475 0.93 E 7,552 0.94 E Southbound 8,000 7,347 0.92 E 7,289 0.91 E 7,386 0.92 E Note: Shaded cells indicate a significant impact (increase of more than 0.02 in the v/c ratio, relative to the No Project case). Source: Fehr 8 Peers 2010 Transit Demand Generated by the Downtown Specific Plan Table 3.9- 18: Project Transit Trip Summary provides a summary of the transit trips generated by the Plan; the results are taken from the trip generation calculations that can be seen in the Appendix. Transit trips generated by the different projects were estimated by calculating the number of trips expected with the ITE rates, then assuming 25% of trips for residential uses and 15% of trips for retail uses were made on some form of transit. Page 3-17 I =o-,-~„-o Downtown Dublin 5 ecific Plan Draft EIR P Transportation & Circulation Table 3.9-18: Project Transit Trip Summary All Transit Trip (3us + BARS) Case ~ Daily AM Peak Hour Ptd1 Peak Hour Entitled Projects in Plan Area 2,160 180 220 No Project 14,450 350 1,250 (Existing Specific Plans) Base FAR Project 2,200 50 200 Max FAR Project 13,800 350 1,200 Source: Transit trip generation calculations by Fehr 8 Peers, assuming 25% transit use for residential uses and 15% transit use by retail uses. See technical appendix for detailed trip generation calculations. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Intersection Impacts As shown in Tables 3.9- I 0 to 3.9- 13, with the proposed amendment to the General Plan, the Project would result in no significant impacts to intersections. Metropolitan Transportation System Impact 3.9- I : In the Near-Term, the Base FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on one Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segment, when compared to the Near-Term Without Project scenario. This is a significant impact: ¦ San Ramon Road northbound, north of Amador Valley Boulevard (PM peak hour). As shown on Table 3.9- 14, the intersection would drop from LOS E under the No Project scenario to LOS F with the Project under the Base FAR and Maximum FAR scenarios. It should be noted that the intersection of San Ramon Road/Amador Valley Boulevard is projected to operate acceptably with the Base FAR Project in the Near-Term scenario. This result, which appears inconsistent with the above impact finding for San Ramon Road, is due to the different analysis methods and models used to conduct the intersection and MTS system analyses. Mitigation Measure: MM 3.9- I : As required by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the City of Dublin shall do the following to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system: ¦ Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed at reducing traff c congestion. ® Encourage developers to voluntarily develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce trips associated with their project. Strategies that could be included in the program could include additional bicycle Page 3-172 3~7~b ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation parking, shower facilities, HOV parking, direct building access for pedestrians, commute altemative incentives and convenient transit waiting areas. ¦ Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element related to bikeways. Support public transit improvements, including but not limited to re-routing, schedule adjustments, new vehicles, upgraded waiting areas, and transit information signs, to encourage use of altemative modes. Collect fees from develo ers in the S ecific Plan Area for the Tri-Valle P P Y Transportation Development Fee as well as the Downtown TIF programs prior to issuance of Building Permits, which fund local and regional transportation improvements. Even with mitigation, the City's ability to restore acceptable LOS on the identified roadways/freeways cannot be assured because some projects are the County's, and some the City can encourage but not require (e.g. employer TDM programs). Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Impact 3.9-2: In the Near-Term, the Maximum FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on five Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when compared to the Near- Term Without Project scenario. This is a significant impact: ¦ San Ramon Road northbound, north of Amador Valley Boulevard (PM peak hour) ¦ San Ramon Road northbound, between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 (PM peak hour) Dublin Boulevard westbound, east of Village Parkway (PM peak hour) ¦ I-580 eastbound, west of San Ramon Road (PM peak hour) • I-580 westbound, west of San Ramon Road (AM peak hour), It should be noted that the San Ramon Road/Amador Valle Boulevard and Dublin Y Boulevard/Village Parkway intersections are projected to operate acceptably with the ' Maximum FAR Project in the Near-Term scenario. These results, which appear inconsistent with the above impact findings for San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard, are due to the different analysis methods and models used to conduct the intersection and Metropolitan Transportation System analyses. Mitigation Measure: MM 3.9- I : As required by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the City of Dublin shall do the following to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system: ¦ Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed at reducing traffic congestion. Page 3-173 w.~~,,,.a ~g~ g3 Downtown Dublin S ecific Plan Draft EIR P Transportation & Circulation ¦ Encourage developers to voluntarily develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce trips associated with their project. Strategies that could be included in the program could include additional bicycle parking, shower facilities, HOV parking, direct building access for pedestrians, commute altemative incentives and convenient transit waiting areas. ¦ Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element related to bikeways. Support public transit improvements, including but not limited to re-routing, schedule adjustments, new vehicles, upgraded waiting areas, and transit information signs, to encourage use of altemative modes. ¦ Collect fees from developers in the Specific Plan Area for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee as well as the Downtown TIF programs prior to issuance of Building Permits, which fund local and regional transportation improvements. For the same reasons as above, the City's ability to restore acceptable LOS on the identified roadways/freeways cannot be assured. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Impact 3.9-3: In the Cumulative scenario, the Maximum FAR Project results in sub- standard LOS on eight Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when compared to the Cumulative Without Project case. This is a significant impact: 20 ¦ San Ramon Road northbound and southbound, north of Amador Valley Boulevard (PM peak hour) ¦ San Ramon Road northbound, between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard (PM peak hour) ¦ San Ramon Road northbound, between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 (PM peak hour) . ¦ Dublin Boulevard eastbound and westbound, east of Village Parkway (PM peak hour) ¦ Dublin Boulevard eastbound, between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive (PM peak hour) ¦ Dublin Boulevard eastbound, between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road (PM peak hour) 20 Note that there is no significant impact on the MTS system for the Cumulative Plus Base FAR Project case, because the Cumulative Without Project case contains higher trip generation than the Cumulative Plus Base FAR project case. This is due to the slightly higher land use and trip generation in the five current specif c plans that make up the Cumulative Without Project case. Page 3- 174 ~ ~ ~b~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR Transportation & Circulation Mitigation .Measure:. MM 3.9- I : As required by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the City of Dublin shall do the following to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system: Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed at reducing traffic congestion. ¦ Encourage developers to voluntarily develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce trips associated with their project. Strategies that could be included in the program could include additional bicycle parking, shower facilities, HOV parking, direct building access for pedestrians, commute altemative incentives and convenient transit waiting areas. ¦ Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element related to bikeways. Support public transit improvements, including but not limited to re-routing, schedule adjustments, new vehicles, upgraded waiting areas, and transit information signs, to encourage use of altemative modes. ¦ Collect fees from developers in the Specific Plan Area for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee as well as the Downtown TIF programs prior to issuance of Building Permits, which fund local and regional transportation improvements. For the same reasons as noted above, the City's ability to restore acceptable LOS on the identified roadways/freeways cannot be assured. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Transit Impact 3.9-4: The Base FAR Project will increase transit. demand, generating an estimated 2,200 weekday daily transit trips (bus and BART combined). This will create the need for bus route adjustments and increased bus frequency. This is a significant impact on bus transit. A portion of the projected demand would be served by the new West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. BART projects ridership of approximately 6,000 weekday hoardings/6,000 alightings at this station, based on expectations of current and future ridership generated by transit-oriented and transit-proximate development like that proposed by the project. ' Therefore, the demand generated by the Maximum FAR project falls within the BART ridership projection and does not constitute a significant impact on BART. The Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority is planning increased bus service via a Bus Rapid Transit service, scheduled to begin operation in January 201 I. The service will run eight buses in each direction along Dublin Boulevard during the peak hours, with BART transfers occurring at the East Dublin/Pleasanton Station. It is reasonable to assume that the service would connect to the West Dublin/Pleasanton Station when it is built. This Page 3- 175 Q ~v Downtown Dublin S ecific Plan Draft EIR P Transportation & Circulation service is expected to be adequate to serve the additional peak hour bus trips generated by the project. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the impact will be less than significant. Mlitigation Pleasure MM 3.9-4 The City will continue to support and work with LAVTA to define route changes and increased service as needed as the Plan area develops. Pedestrian/Bicycle Mobility Impact 3.9-5: The Plan contains Guiding Principles to "create apedestrian-friendly downtown that minimizes potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists" and to "enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate alternative transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle and pedestrian transportation." These proposals are consistent with the goals and policies of the Dublin General Plan Circulation Element and the Bikeways Master Plan. This is a beneficial impact; no mitigation is required. Page 3-176 t~. 5~, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations 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, and effects found not to be significant. Cumulative impacts and alternatives to the proposed project are also discussed herein. 4. I. 4.1 Si nificant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects g Unavoidable adverse impacts are those effects of the proposed project that would significantly affect either natural systems or other community resources, and cannot be mitigated to aless-than-significant level as identified in the previous analyses. The proposed project, if implemented, would result in the following significant and unavoidable project impacts: ¦ Transportation & Circulation: As described in Impacts 3.9- I through 3.9-3, although mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts, the proposed project would generate result in sub-standard LOS on eight Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments would be considered significant and unavoidable. 4.2. Significant Irreversible Changes ' Section 15 126.2(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 r, 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 This proposed project replaces four of the current Specific Plans and the fifth for the portion that is within the DDSP area. It does increase densities, but instead focuses on strengthening the development standards and design guidelines, and providing greater direction as to future land uses. The proposed project would allow for approximately I ,300 dwelling units and 3.0 million square feet of non-residential development, and 150 additional hotel rooms . 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. Page 4-I CONHUlTiNO ~~a ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations 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 planning 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 the majority of the DDSP area is already built-out and urbanized, increased development within the DDSP area to support urban uses may be regarded as a permanent and irreversible change. The proposed project would generally commit future generations to similar urban uses within the DDSP area. 4.3. Gr®wth Inducement CEQA requires that any growth-inducing aspect 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: ¦ 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 15 126.2(d)]. ' 4.3.1 Economic Effects The combination of land uses within the DDSP area would function to increase nighttime population through increased residential units and an increase in retail and commercial sales Page 4-2 ~ ~ 3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations and activities within the City, as well as enhance the economic viability of the regional area. Future new development within the DDSP would include approximately I ,300 dwelling units and 3.0 million square feet of non-residential development, and 150 additional hotel rooms The creation of new commercial activities and enhancement of existin commercial facilities g 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 :1 and services from businesses in 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 region. The City's economic impacts are primarily 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. 4.3.2 Remove Obstacles to and/or Foster Population Growth Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including the direct constructiori 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 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. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2008 population estimate for the City of Dublin was 44,297 persons. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments, the City of Dublin's population will be approximately 50,000 persons in the year 2010, representing an annual average growth rate of approximately 2,852 residents per year. The proposed project provides for development through intensification through existing sites and projects that will make efficient use of the existing infrastructure. Although the proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change (via the proposed Specific Plan), the proposed designations would be generally consistent with the nature of on-site and r Page 4-3 ~ /D~~ Downtown Dublin 5 ecific Plan Draft EIR P CEQA Considerations surrounding development. The implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would allow for the intensification of commercial and mixed-use development within the Downtown districts. Most of the intensification is anticipated to occur in the Transit-Oriented District, as the demand for mixed-use development in that District will likely increase due to the .construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and parking structure. Like the other districts, the TOD is fully served by utilities and public services. Therefore, the proposed project would not be growth inducing as a result of removing an obstacle to growth. 4.3.3 Tax Existing Community Services or Facilities The proposed project would not require significant regional public infrastructure upgrades ,~l for any utility or service. Any new development would be required to include provisions to make the necessary improvements in order to facilitate implementation of the DDSP. Project developers would be required to fund their fair share allocation of any necessary public infrastructure associated with development under the DDSP. Therefore, the proposed project would not tax existing community services or facilities. 4.4. Energy Conservation Public Resources Code Section 21 100(b)(3) and Appendix F of the CEQf~ Guidelines requires a description (where relevant) of the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by, a project. In 1975, the Califomia State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1575 (AB 1575) in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s. This bill created the Califomia 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. Energy Consumption Short-Term Construction In 1994, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted the first set of emission standards (Tier I) for all new off-road diesel engines greater than 37 kilowatts (kW). The Tier I 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 I 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 DDSP. Development under the DDSP includes mixed-use, commercial, and transit-oriented development. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable s Page 4-4 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ' CEQA Considerations construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the DDSP would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects. Also, diesel powered construction equipment in general will continue to become more efficient as the EPA standards phase in. 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 DDSP would create a edestrian-friend) downtown that includes transit-oriented P Y development and mixed use and is intended to reduce daily vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The DDSP is not anticipated to result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption. The DDSP involves typical downtown 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 DDSP 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, California. Additionally, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) is constructing a new station on existing track way between the Castro Valley and Dublin/Pleasanton stations. This station will provide LAVTA with easy connections to San Francisco via BART. Additionally LAVTA operates the Wheels bus system, which is in the process of constructing new bus stops in preparation for its new bus rapid transit service. The availability of the public transit for the residents and visitors to the DDSP area would ensure that the DDSP would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy. Building Energy Demand The DDSP would not result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long-term operational building energy demand. The Development Standards and Design Page 4-5 Downtown Dublin S ecific Plan Draft EIR P CEQA Considerations Guidelines in the DDSP specify that warm white, energy efficient lighting source types such as metal halide, induction lighting, compact fluorescent, and light-emitting diode (LED) should be used where feasible. Energy-efficient lighting (lighting from renewable sources and energy-saving devices, such as light sensors) are encouraged. Additionally the DDSP has standards for the use of Energy Star requirements. Therefore, the DDSP would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Energy Efficiency Measures Califomia 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. Additional savings result from the application of the Standards on building alterations. These savings are cumulative, .increasing as years go by. Future development under the DDSP 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 following energy efficiency measures are incorporated into the DDSP: ¦ Energy efficient lighting sources; ¦ Solar energy systems; ¦ Green roofs• ® , Use of energy star roof materials; ¦ Water efficient landscaping; ¦ Water efficient fixtures and appliances; ¦ Mixed-use development; and ¦ Promotes pedestrian travel and alternative transportation mode use. As discussed above, future development under the DDSP would result in less than significant impacts on energy resources. There would not be any inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy usage in comparison to similar development projects of this nature regarding construction-related fuel consumption. Additionally, the availability of public transit services would ensure that the DDSP would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy. The DDSP would adhere to, and exceed, all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 of the Califomia Code of Regulations regarding building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the DDSP would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. Therefore, the DDSP would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Page 4-6 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations 4.5. Effects Found Not to be Significant A significant effect on the environment is generally defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15328). 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 si nificant are g provided within Section 3.0 of this EIR. Section 3.0 also identifies impacts that are found to be less than significant. The project site is an urban infill area and the below resources do not exist on the project site 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 Resources 'I~ Biological Resources ¦ Mineral Resources ¦ Population & Housing Other environmental issues listed below were found to have no impact as a result of the proposed project. This determination is based on the standards of significance contained within the CEQA Guidelines and the Notice of Preparation process for the proposed project. Aesthetics & Visual Resources Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista 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. Because there are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the planning area, no impacts would occur. Cultural Resources The DDSP project area is primarily developed and has been disturbed through prior development. Although no significant historical, archaeological or Native American artifacts are anticipated within the DDSP project area, construction of the proposed project could disturb unidentified and unrecorded artifacts, including prehistoric archaeological and/or native American remains. The proposed project would be required to comply with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code in the event of the discovery or P - age 4 7 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery during future development activities, which would require that there be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24-hours of identification. Geology, Soils, ~ Seismicity Landslides Due to the relatively flat topography and the lack of steep slopes within or adjacent to the proposed project, landslides are not considered to be a potential significant geologic hazard. In addition, the proposed project is not located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where ~ ~ landslides may occur during a strong earthquake, although other seismic hazards (e.g. liquefaction) were identified in Chapter 3.0. No impacts would occur. Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems Wastewater disposal in the DDSP area is provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Proposed projects in the DDSP area would connect to the existing wastewater system. The DDSP area would not need to use septic tanks or other altemative wastewater disposal systems. Consequently, the threshold of significance for septic tanks I or altemative wastewater disposal systems would not apply to the proposed project and no further analysis is required. No impacts would occur. Flydro6ogy ~ mater Quality Place Housing or Structures Within a 100-Year Flood-Hazards Area Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows Several properties within the DDSP area are located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. As previously discussed, new construction will be subject to floodplain regulations. In addition, the Zone 7 Stream Management Plan contains plans to retrofit the culvert that carries water from Dublin Creek under Donlon Way. This retrofit will increase the culvert capacity and reduce the risk of flooding in the DDSP area. Future construction would be required to comply with the existing floodplain regulations to ensure that the structures do not impede or redirect flows. No impacts would occur. Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Pludflow The proposed project is located well inland from the San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. The site and surrounding properties are also relatively flat and would not be subject to mudflows. No impacts would occur. Page 4-8 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Land Use & Planning Conflict with Applicable Conservation Plans , The project site is located in an urban area that is completely developed. There are no naturally occurring habitat areas in the project area and therefore, no impacts would occur. Urban Blight or Decay The proposed project .seeks to guide future development and redevelopment in downtown Dublin in an orderly and cohesive fashion through the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The combination of land uses would function to increase .retail and commercial sales and activities within the City, as well as enhance the economic viability of the area. The creation of new commercial activities and enhancement of existing commercial facilities 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 a large municipal revenue stream. Therefore, the positive revenue stream and the resulting increased economic viability of the project would be a benefit to the City and not result in urban blight or decay and therefore, no impacts would occur. 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 with all approved, pending, and known planned development in place. 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 the section, where other 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 15 130 (a)(I 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: Page 4-9 cnr.auanwa ~~a~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ~ "v CEQA Considerations 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 Assum tions P 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 I I , 1985, Updated January 19, 20 10). Aesthetics 8~ Visual Resources The proposed project is located within an already urbanized area of the City. Portions of the proposed project are visible from Interstate-680 (an officially designated State Scenic Highway and a locally designated scenic route), Interstate-580 (a highway eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway and locally designated scenic route), and San Ramon Road (a locally designated scenic route). However, all projects that are visible from these corridors would be subject to design review per the policy of the City's General Plan and requirements of the proposed Specific Plan. Although implementation of the proposed project would allow for the intensification of commercial and mixed use development within the Downtown districts, the proposed Specific Plan includes both development standards and design guidelines to guide the design of future development-. within the area. In addition, compliance with the design guidelines would ensure that the proposed project does not introduce substantial light and - glare, which would pose a hazard or nuisance. Future development would be required to undergo design review, thereby ensuring 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 proposed Specific Plan, 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 proposed Specific Plan would minimize the project's cumulative contribution to aesthetics and visual quality, resulting in a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to aesthetics and visual resources. Air Quality Cumulative Construction Impacts Th BAA MD recommends that for an ro'ect that does not individual) have si nificant e Q YP J Y g 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. Individual development projects that - generate construction-related or operational emissions that exceed the BAAQMD Page 4-10 ~s~~ ~~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would also cause a cumulative considerable increase in emissions. Conclusion: As stated in the short-term construction impacts discussion, with implementation of BAAQMD control measures, construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Cumulative Operational Impacts 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. Consistency was analyzed above in the long-term operational emissions discussion. As discussed above, traffic modeling conducted for the DDSP reflects a lower rate of VMT growth than population growth. The projected growth rate of VMT would be 23.4 percent from 2009 through 2015, while projected population growth would be 31.7 percent in the same time frame. With the extensive policies intended to reduce VMT, the growth rate of VMT under the DDSP would not exceed the growth rate of the population. Therefore, according to the current BAAQMD CEQ~4 Guidelines, the VMT growth rate would not exceed the City's population growth rate and therefore would be consistent with the 2005 Ozone Strategy. Conclusions: DDSP includes guiding principles that reasonably implement TCMs, and includes guiding principles that would reduce air pollution from VMT. Therefore, the DDSP is consistent with the applicable air quality plan, and a less than significant cumulative impact would result. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed DDSP would facilitate the construction of new mixed-use, transit-oriented, commercial, and residential uses. As shown in Table 3.2-8, the proposed project would result in 166,891.58 MTCO2eq/year of operational-related emissions. The DDSP includes numerous guiding principles that encourage the transit-oriented development, alternative - transportation modes, and sustainable development. As noted above, the project is anticipated to reduce VMT Below related population growth. The City's process for the future evaluation of discretionary projects within the DDSP would include an environmental review pursuant to CEQA, as well as a consistency analysis with the principles and objectives of the DDSP and the City's General Plan goals and policies. In general, implementation of these DDSP goals and principles, DDSP Development Standards and Design Guidelines, as well as ~i compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations, would reduce their incremental contribution to the significant worldwide increase in GHG emissions. Page.4-II coe.au~r~Ha ~~a Downtown Dublip Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Conclusion: In general, with implementation of project-specific reduction measures, future projects would have a less than significant impact with regards to GHG emissions. As seen in Table 3.2-9 and Table 3.2- 10, the DDSP includes several measures that are consistent with the Attorney General's recommendations and the CARE Scoping Plan measures which would reduce GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project in combination with cumulative projects would be consistent with, and not hinder, the reduction strategies for meeting the goals of AB 32, Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Geology, Soils, & Seismicity The geographic context for the analysis of impacts resulting from geologic hazards generally is site-specific, rather than cumulative in nature, because each construction project 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 occur at individual building sites. These effects are site-specific, and impacts would not be _ compounded by additional development, especially in relatively level areas like the project site. 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 3.3-I. Development of cumulative projects in the vicinity of the proposed project 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 DDSP area (and cumulative projects throughout 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 projects within the DDSP area that are more than one acre in size and would be required to comply with the provisions of the NPDES permitting process and local implementation strategies, which 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- I I 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 be less than significant. Conclusion: 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. Adherence by each proposed development project to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations would ensure the proposed Page 4-12 ~ p~ _ I v Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts regarding soil erosion. As potential geologic impacts are evaluated on a site-specific basis during the environmental review process, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to geology, soils, and seismicity. Hazards & Hazardous Materials Development within the project area would increase the total transport of hazardous materials within the City, but would not include the transport of significant amounts or types of hazardous materials. In addition, future development of the proposed project would not generate significant amounts of hazardous waste and the City as a whole would generate reasonably manageable quantities of waste, all of which would be regulated by federal, state and local statues. The construction related hazardous waste disposal resulting from all development within the City could result in large amounts of lead, asbestos, and other hazardous materials. However, these hazardous materials would be disposed of in compliance with all pertinent regulations for the handling of such waste. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion: Hazardous materials and substances highly regulated at the federal, state, and local levels. Impacts related to hazardous materials and hazardous substances are considered site-specific and are generally mitigated to less than significant levels on aproject-by-project basis. 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 development in the region, which includes the project area, does not result in significant impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to hazards and hazardous materials. Hydrology & Water Quality Buildout within the project area would contribute to cumulative drainage flows and surface water quality impacts when combined with other growth and development in the area. However, the potential cumulative impact is mitigated through required drainage studies, the relationship to City and County drainage master plans, and implementation of appropriate on-site and off-site drainage improvements. Proposed project conveyance and detention structures will be planned and designed to maintain existing condition drainage patterns and storm flow rates. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts on flooding and drainage system capacities that might arise because of continued development within the region. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion: The proposed project would be required to implement NPDES and BMP measures on aproject-by-project basis to reduce potential water quality impacts (as required by mitigation measures MM 3.5- I and MM 3.5-2). In addition, Page 4-13 ~a~.~~,,,.m ~i~ Downtown Dublin Speafic Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations projects may require drainage improvements to be in compliance with the City of Dublin General Plan, Dublin Zoning Ordinance and/or Municipal Code standards. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to stormwater runoff and contamination impacts, with mitigation measures incorporated herein. Land tJse & 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. The City's General Plan, including the General Plan Land Use Map, would be amended concurrent with the adoption of the proposed DDSP, to include a DDSP Land Use Designation to replace the existing General Plan land use designations for the area. fn addition, projects that require zone changes must be found to be consistent with such planning programs in order to be approved. The Zoning Map for the project area will be amended concurrent with the adoption of the proposed DDSP to rezone the DDSP project area to PD, Planned Development. Land use regulations and/or development standards in the PD will include the standards and regulations of the DDSP. Any issue not specifically addressed in the DDSP 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. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to land use and planning. Conclusion: Development of the proposed project would be compatible with surrounding land uses and would not conflict with applicable plans or policies. Projects would also be subject to the City's environmental review process. 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 cumulative mobile noise analysis is conducted in a two step process. First, the combined effects from both the proposed project and other projects are compared. Second, for combined effects that are determined to be cumulatively significant, the project's incremental effects then are analyzed. The combined effect compares the "cumulative with project" condition to "existing" conditions. This comparison accounts for the traffic noise increase from the project generated in combination with traffic generated by projects in the cumulative projects list. The following criteria have been utilized to evaluate the combined effect of the cumulative noise increase. Combined Effects: The cumulative with project noise level ("Cumulative With Project") causes the following: ® An increase of the existing noise level by 5 dBA or more, where the existing level is less than 60 dBA CNEL; Page 4- 14 SRC ~~5~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations ¦ An increase of the existing noise level by 3 dBA or more, where the existing level is 60 to 65 dBA CNEL; or ¦ An increase of the existing noise level by 1.5 dBA or more, where the existing level is greater than 65 dBA CNEL. 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 have been utilized to ,evaluate the incremental effect of the cumulative noise increase. Incremental Effects: The "Cumulative With Project" causes a I dBA increase in noise over the "Cumulative Without Project" noise level. A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only proposed projects and growth due to occur in the general vicinity of the project site would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Table 4.5- I , Cumulative Noise Scenario, lists the traffic noise effects along roadway segments in the project vicinity for ;;Existing Without Project", Cumulative Without Project ,and Cumulative With Project ,including incremental and net cumulative impacts. First, it must be determined whether the Cumulative With Project Increase Above Existing Conditions (Combined Effects) is exceeded. Per Table 4.5- I ,this criteria is exceeded along ten of the project area roadways. Under the Incremental Effects criteria, cumulative noise impacts are defined by determining if the ambient (Cumulative Without Project) noise level is increased by I dBA or more. Per Table 4.5- I ,this criteria is not exceeded along DDSP roadways. Table 4.5-1: Cumulative Noise Scenarios ' I E g ~ Cumulative ~ Without Without Gumulative Combined ~ Incremental r _ Project_ Pro'ect ~ U~~th f~roject Effects i Effects I ~ Gifferance In Ciffeter~ce !n Cu~rulativaly Raaaeva Se n~ent ~ ddA C~.EL dBA CNEL dEA C~JEL d13A 3etween I c~BA oetvveen y g' I @ 100 Feet @ 10U Feet ~ 100 Feet "E~isting ~ "Cumulative Significant from from ~ from i V'~ithcui Without ImFact? Roadv~ay Roadway i~oad~.vay ~ Projec4" and ~ Project" and Genteriine Certerlin2 Centerline `Cumulatwe `Cumulative With Pro'ect" With ~ro'ec~i" Amador Plaza Amador Valley Blvd. / 57.6 60.0 60.3 2.7 0.3 No Dublin Blvd. Dublin Blvd. / St. 59.1 63.5 64.0 J 4.9 0.5 No Patrick Wa Amador Plaza Rd. / 62.4 63.8 63.9 1.5 0.1 No Villa a Parkwa Page 4-15 ~a,.e~~,.~e y g~ Downtown Dublrn Speafic Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Existing Cumulative I Without y~ithout Cumulative i Combined Incremental ~ With Project ~ Effects Effects Pr~ct Project Difference I~ Difference !n i ' - Cumulatively d~:A CNEL dBA CNEL dBA CNEL ~ dt1A Between dBA betv~~een f;oad~~~ay Segment ! Significant @ 100 Feet @ 100 Feet @ 100 Feet "Existing I "Cumulative Impact? from from from Without i Without Roadway Roadway I Roadway Project" and Project" and Centerline Centerline ~ Centerline I `Cumulative `Cumulative U11;th Project" With Project" Donahue Dr. /Amador 61.8 62.9 63.1 1.3 0.2 No Plaza Rd. E. of Villa a Parkwa 61.2 62.5 62.6 1.4 0.1 No Regional Street I 61.7 62.9 63.1 1.4 0.2 No Starward Dr. • San Ramori Rd. I 62.0 63.2 63.4 1.4 0.2 No Re Tonal Street ~t Starward Dr. I 61.4 62.7 62.8 1.4 0.1 No Donahue Dr. W. of San Ramon Rd. 54.9 55.4 55.5 0.6 0.1 No Dublin Blvd. Amador Plaza Rd. / 64.7 67,6 68.0 3.3 0.4 No Villa a Parkwa E. of Villa a Parkwa 64.9 67.4 67.5 2.6 0.1 No Golden Gate Dr. / 63.9 67.4 67.9 4.0 0.5 No Amador Plaza Rd. Regional Street / 64.0 67.8 68.4 4.4 0.6 No Golden Gate Dr. San Ramon Rd. / 64.6 68.3 68.9 4.3 0.6 No Re Tonal Street W. of San Ramon Rd. 63.6 65.4 65.5 1.9 0.1 No Golden Gate Dr. Dublin Blvd. / St. 53.8 60.0 60.9 7.1 0.9 No Patrick Wa S. of St. Patrick Wa 49.1 57.3 57.8 8.7 0.5 No " Re Tonal Street Amador Valley Blvd. I 57.8 60.6 61.1 3.3 0.5 No Dublin Rd. S. of Dublin Blvd. 57.9 60.5 61.1 3.2 0.6 No San Ramon Rd. Amador Valley Blvd. I 66.4 68.1 68.3 1.9 0.2 No Dublin Blvd. N. of Amador Valley 65.5 67.5 67.8 2.3 0.3 No Blvd. S. of Dublin Blvd. 68.3 70.8 71.1 2.8 0.3 No St. Patrick Wa E. of Amador Plaza 59.2 61.5 61.8 2.6 0.3 No Rd. Golden Gate Dr. / 52.6 56.5 57.3 4.7 0.8 No Amador Plaza Rd. W. of Golden Gate Dr. (Proposed Saint 43.9 53.7 54.5 10.6 0.8 No Patrick Wa Page 4-I6 ~ g3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations TExisting Cum:~lative Cumulative Combined Incremental Without I Without ~ With Project Effe~.,ts Effects Project Pro'eci ~ ~ - II Difference In Difference In Cumulatively daA CNEL dBA CNEL. d6l, CNEI. dBA 3erNeAn dBA between ~Zoadway Segment ~ 5ignificart @ .00 Feet @ 100 Feet @ 100 Feet "Ex;sting Cumulative Impac?? ~ from from from Without Witi~out Roadway ECOedway I Roadway ; Froject" and Project" and I Centerline Centerline Centerline ~ `Cumulative `Cumulative With Project" With Pro'ec'c" Extension Villa a Parkwa Amador Valley Blvd. / 61.0 63.0 62.9 1.9 -0.1 No Dublin Blvd. Dublin Blvd. / I-680 NB 57.3 59.4 59.8 2.5 0.4 No on ram N. of Amador Valley 61.5 63.4 63.7 2.2 0.3 No Blvd. S. of I-680 NB on ram 50.4 50.4 50.4 0 0 No ADT =avers a dail tri s; dBA = A-wei hted decibels; CNEL = communi noise a uivalent level Source: Intersection Cumin movements, re ared b Fehr and Peers, dated Janus 2010 and ADT calculations b RBF Consultin , dated A ril 2010. Activities associated with future develo ment could cause local noise level increases P resulting in higher noise levels. However, the expected combined cumulative effect within the proposed project would be reduced by implementing Mitigation Measures 3.7- I through 3.7-3. Furthermore, the DDSP proposes development that is consistent with existing land uses. As such, the increase in ambient noise levels is anticipated to generate noise levels similar to the surrounding developments. For areas where new development would abut sensitive uses such as residences, the DDSP includes design guidelines and development standards that are aimed at reducing impacts, including building orientation, wall placement, lot dimensions, maximum intensity, outdoor storage, setbacks, buffers, edge conditions, and landscaping. Based on the results of Table 4.5- I ,the maximum noise increase for the "Cumulative With Project" scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would range from approximately 50.4 dBA to 71. I dBA. The maximum noise increase for incremental effects criteria would be 0.9 dBA along Golden Gate Drive (Dublin Blvd./Saint Patrick Way). 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 noise. Public Services & Utilities Significant cumulative impacts to public services would occur if the cumulative projects would overburden the public service agencies, and if utility providers were unable to provide adequate services. Implementation of the proposed project in combination with reasonably foreseeable development would result in the increased demand for public services, which would result in the need for the provision of fire and police protection Page 4- 17 ~i~ ~ ~g3 ~ Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations services, educational services, and parks and recreation facilities. However, development fees and/or construction of infrastructure by developers within the DDSP project area would meet the increased demand on public services and utilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion: The increased need for funding of public services would be covered in whole or in part 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 aproject-by-project basis to fund improvements to meet the increased demand on public services and utilities. As a result, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to public services and utilities. ~'ransportation ~ Circulation A discussion of the cumulative impacts associated with Transportation & Circulation are addressed in Section 3.9. 4.7. Project ~?Iternatives The altematives discussion briefly identifies and describes a range of altematives 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: ¦ Altemative # I - No Project Altemative; ¦ Altemative #2 -Reduced Development Altemative; and ¦ Altemative #3 - Alternate Use Altemative This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with each of these three altematives as compared with the impacts resulting from the proposed project. The impact level of each of the altematives (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' altemative. 4.10. I 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 altematives. Each altemative would be evaluated as to how well it meets the objectives of the project, as currently proposed. The DDSP consists of a comprehensive set of incentives, standards, and requirements that will implement the vision for the future development in downtown Dublin. The DDSP will define the physical envelope for downtown Dublin's future growth using height limits, setbacks, density, and design standards. The DDSP will act as the planning tool to guide Page 4- 18 , ~ 1 ` Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations and direct new development, economic development, transportation improvements (including pedestrian and transit-oriented development), parking, pedestrian amenities, and public open space (e.g. public plazas) through the DDSP Guiding Principles. The DDSP will be instrumental in promoting a more walkable, livable downtown Dublin, as well as providing incentives for development in keeping with the City's broader vision. ¦ As discussed in the project description, the DDSP project area has been divided into three districts, based on the existing building patterns and land uses within each area and the intended development envisioned for each district. A set of guiding principles were prepared as part of the DDSP and serve as the project objectives ~I~ for this EIR and are described in Section 2.4: Proposed Project Characteristics and Objectives. 4.10.2 Alternatives Considered But Rejected The followin alternatives were considered b the Cit but were rejected: g Y Y~ J Altemative Sites ~r Altemative Development Plan -Shifting Uses ¦ Altemative Development Plan -Incorporation of Large Format Retail Alternative Sites ¦ The project is specific to the downtown area. Altemative site locations were not considered as they would not be consistent with the City's objectives for the proposed project area of creating a vibrant and dynamic commercial and mixed-use center that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping, services, dining, working, living, and entertainment that attracts both local and regional residents. Alternate Development Plan -Shifting Uses To potentially reduce the significant traffic impacts of the proposed project, the City considered shifting the distribution of land uses from areas with the greatest traffic impacts (e.g. along Dublin Boulevard and Saint Patrick Way) to the north along Amador Valley Boulevard where the roadways are generally less congested particularly during the AM and PM peak hours. Although this altemative would concentrate more development along Amador Valley Boulevard, it would not decrease the amount of traffic generated overall by the DDSP. Therefore, this altemative was rejected since it would just shift the same amount of traffic generated to another portion of the project area, which would potentially .degrade the intersections along Amador Valley Boulevard. Also this altemative would concentrate uses away from the transit opportunity on Dublin Boulevard and the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. This would be contrary to many of the objectives in the DDSP. More Large Format Retail The City considered incorporation of more large-scale big box retail uses in the Transit Oriented District. However, this altemative was rejected as it was not consistent with the Page 4-19 CON•ULT~NO t l~ D Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations City's Housing Element, which accounted for the proposed residential uses within this district as part of the total residential dwelling unit projections. In addition, this altemative would not reduce significant traffic and air quality impacts and was generally not consistent with the project objectives of creating atransit-oriented district that would compliment and support transit uses, particularly the West Dublin BART station. 4.10.3 Alternative # I - No Project Alternative Characteristics CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3) requires that a "no-project" altemative be evaluated as part of an EIR, proceeding under one of two scenarios: the project area remaining in its current state or, for planning level projects such as the DDSP, development of the project area under its current zoning designation, Altemative # I - No Project Altemative considers the environmental effects of not . approving the proposed project with the continuation of the existing permitted land uses and zoning into the future. Under this altemative, the existing zoning and entitlements from the existing five Specific Plans that encompass the proposed DDSP project area would continue to allow for additional development within the project area. However, Altemative # I - No Project Altemative would not result in a net increase of an additional 460,000 square feet of additional non-residential development and additional residential units as proposed under the DDSP. Comparative Analysis Aesthetics and Visual Quality rte). There would be a slight change to the visual character of the planning area with a reduction of the amount of development within the project area. However, the No Project Altemative would not require compliance with development standards and design guidelines proposed in the DDSP. Therefore, although No Project Altemative would result in a reduction in the amount of development within the project area in comparison to the proposed project, development would proceed under each of the five Specific Plans, which do not include a comprehensive set of development standards and design guidelines as proposed in the DDSP. Furthermore, the lack of comprehensive development standards and design guidelines are contrary to the project objective to enhance the visual quality of the downtown and to create a more mixed-use pedestrian friendly downtown. Therefore, the No Project Altemative would result in greater impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Air Quality (slightly less). Due to a slight reduction in the amount of development that would be allowed under the No Project Altemative, this altemative would result in slightly less impacts to short-term and long-term air quality impacts as compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Altemative would also result in a less than significant impact with respect to Greenhouse gas emissions. Geology and Soils (similar). Impacts under the No Project Altemative 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 with development under the five Page 4-20 ~~s~~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations existing Specific Plans within the project area. Compliance with the City's Building Code and the California Building Code would ensure that the No Project Altemative would also result in a less than significant impact as compared to the proposed project. Hazards and .Hazardous Materials slightly less. The No Project Altemative would have slightly less impacts in comparison to the proposed project with respect to hazards and hazardous materials with a decrease in the potential for storage and use of hazardous materials within the project area. However, similar to the proposed project, The No Project Altemative would result in a less than significant impact to hazards and hazardous materials ~drology and Water ualit _ similar . Because the ro'ect area is alread lar el built- P 1 Y g Y out, there is little remaining pervious surfaces. Surface water runoff under this altemative would be similar to the proposed project in that either would occur in an area that is mostly developed with buildings, paving and other impervious surfaces. Furthermore, mitigation measures MM 3.5- I a and 3.5- I b would also be required under this altemative to reduce potentially significant impacts to short and long-term surface water hydrology. Therefore, the No Project Altemative would result in similar impacts in comparson to the proposed project. Land Use and Planning (reg. ater), The No Project Altemative would reduce the total residential dwelling unit projections and therefore would not comply with the provisions of the Housing Element. Therefore, the No Project Altemative would result in greater impacts as compared to the proposed project. Noise slightly less The No Project Altemative 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 slight reduction in the amount of traffic to the project area under this altemative. Therefore, the No Project Altemative would result in slightly less impacts from noise. Public Services/Utilities ~sli~htly less The No Project Altemative would result in a slight reduction in the impacts to public services, utilities, and recreation in comparison to the proposed project with a reduction in the total amount of residential development in the project area as compared to the proposed project. Tra~ortation/Circulatio>n less)., The No Project Altemative would result in less impacts to transportation and circulation with a reduction in the number of trips in comparison to the proposed project. Under the No Project Altemative, the only intersections operating that would operate below LOS D would be the Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road and the Dublin Boulevard/Regional Street intersections, which would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. However, similar to the proposed project, the No Project Altemative would include a General Plan Amendment to exempt these intersections from Guiding Policy G in the General Plan, which strives to maintain a LOS of D or better. In comparison to the proposed project, there is however a significant reduction of trips during P age 4-21 DDU8114 AND y~~~~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR ~ ~ CEQA Considerations the PM peak hour in comparison to the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project Altemative would result in a less traffic and circulation impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Ability to Meet Project Objectives This altemative would generally not be consistent with the project's objectives. For example, this altemative would not be consistent with the DDSP's objective of increasing the amount of retail sales and related economic activity throughout downtown Dublin by not increasing the amount of commercial/retail uses within the project area. In addition, the No Project Altemative would not enhance the visual quality of downtown Dublin without the proposed design standards and guidelines included in the DDSP. Therefore, the No Project Altemative would be less consistent with the project objectives. 4.10.4 Alternative #2 -Reduced ®evelapment Alternative Characteristics Altemative #2 -Reduced Development Altemative assumes construction of existing entitled development of approximately 617 residential dwelling units; 157,500 square feet of commercial development; and 150 hotel units, plus a minor amount of additional plan development . As described in Chapter 2: Project Description Under the Base Floor to Area Ratio Altemative, an additional 709,820 square feet of non-residential uses would be constructed for a total of 867,320 square feet of commercial space; 617residential dwelling units; and 150 hotel rooms. Comparative Analysis Aesthetics and Visual Quality (similar). While this altemative would result in less total density as compared to the proposed project, both the proposed project and the Reduced Development Altemative would result in intensification of development within an existing developed urban setting. Furthermore, this altemative would also include development standards and design guidelines that seek to improve the visual quality and character of the project area. Therefore, aesthetic impacts are considered similar to the proposed project. Air Quality (less). Due to a reduction in the amount of development that would be allowed under the Reduced Density Altemative, this altemative would result in slightly less impacts to short-term and long-term operational air quality. Therefore, this altemative would result in slightly less impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Density Altemative would also result in a less than significant impact with respect to Greenhouse gas emissions. Geology and Soils (similar). Impacts under the Reduced Density Altemative 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. Compliance with the City's Building Code, and the California Building Code, the No Project Altemative would result in similar impacts to the proposed project. Page 4-22 Gv HB~~lvwp r ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Hazards and Hazardous Materials .(slightly less. The Reduced Density Altemative would have slightly less impacts in comparison to the proposed project with a decrease in the square footage within the project area, which would subsequently decrease the potential for storage of hazardous materials within the project area. H drolo and Water ualit similar Because the ro ect area is alread lar el built- y.._............~)_......._ ................................_..Q ..._~...Y_.._(....j.........j............)_~ P J Y g Y out, there is little remaining pervious surfaces. Surface water runoff under this altemative would be similar to the proposed project in that either would occur in an area that is mostly developed with buildings, paving and other impervious surfaces. .Furthermore, mitigation measures MM 3.5- I a and 3.5- I b would also be required under this altemative in order to reduce potentially significant impacts to short and long-term surface water hydrology. Therefore, the Reduced Density Altemative would result in similar impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Land Use and Plannin reater .The Reduced Develo ment Altemative woul r th _ .......................g...(g.......__ P deduce e total residential dwelling unit projections and therefore would. not comply with the provisions of the Housing Element. Therefore, the Reduced Development Altemative - would result in greater impacts as compared to the proposed project. Noise (slightly less The Reduced Development Altemative 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 altemative, which would reduce short-term and long-term operational noise impacts. Public Services/Utilities (slightly less Due to a reduction in the amount of development under the Reduced Development Altemative, this altemative would result in a reduction in the impacts to public services, utilities, and recreation in comparison to the proposed project. Transportation/Circulation (less. The Reduced Development Altemative would result in a total of 58 I trips during the AM peak hour and I ,917 trips during the PM peak hour, which is a reduction of approximately I ,550 trips during the AM peak hour and 5, 16 I during the PM peak hour under the Maximum FAR. Under the Reduced Development Altemative, five intersections would operate at below LOS D during the PM peak hour, including the Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road; Dublin Boulevard/Regional Street; Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road; and Saint Patrick Way/Amador Plaza Road/I-680 SB Ramps intersection, which would operate at an unacceptable LOS F; and the Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive intersection, which would operate at an unacceptable LOS E. However, similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Development Altemative would include a General Plan Amendment to exempt these intersections from Guiding Policy G in the, General Plan, which strives to maintain a LOS of D or better. In comparison to the proposed project, there is however a significant reduction of trips during the PM peak hour in comparison to the proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced Development Altemative would result in a less traffic and circulation impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Page 4-23 ~o~a~~ ,moo 1 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Consistency with Project Objectives While generally consistent with the proposed project's objectives, some objectives would not be consistent or would be diminished under this altemative. For example, ~ this altemative would preclude the opportunity to implement a community benefit program that would help fund public improvements within the project area. The ability to encourage and support large-format regional retail as an important community and financial asset of the City could be diminished. The ability to create multiple high density- housing sites could also be diminished. And finally, the ability to create mixed-use projects that provide public and/or private plazas and outdoor gathering areas could be diminished. Therefore, this altemative would be slightly less consistent with the project objectives. 4.10.5 Alternative #3 -Alternate Use Alternative Characteristics Altemative #3 -Altemate Development Plan would alter the mix of land uses within the Transit-Oriented District with more office and commercial and fewer residential dwelling units. This altemative would result in a reduction of approximately 683 residential dwelling units with the construction of approximately 696,000 square feet of non-residential uses _ (e.g. office space and commercial uses) for a total of 3,73 I ,540 square feet of non- residential uses and 617 residential units Comparative Analysis Aesthetics and Visual Quality similar. While the type of land uses in the Transit Oriented District would be different, the overall density and visual character would be similar to the proposed project. Furthermore, this altemative would require compliance with development standards and guidelines identified in the DDSP and therefore would result in similar impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Air Quality {greater). The Altemate Use Altemative would result in slightly greater impacts to short-term and long-term air quality due to an increase in traffic generated to the project area under this altemative. Both the proposed project and the Altemate Use Altemative would be required to implement basic control measures during short-term construction. However, due to an increase in the number of vehicle trips to the Transit Oriented District, this altemative would result in a greater range of impacts as compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Density Altemative would also result in a less than significant impact with respect to Greenhouse gas emissions. Geolo~Y and Soils (similar). Impacts under the Altemate Use Altemative 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. However, with compliance with the City's Building Code, the Califomia Building Code, similar to the proposed project would result in similar impacts under this altemative. Compliance with the City's Building Code and the Califomia Building Code would ensure that the No Project Altemative would also result in a less than significant impact as compared to the proposed project. Page 4-24 2~~ ~f g3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Hazards and_Hazardous _Materials _(simila~. The Altemate Use Altemative would have similar impacts as compared to the proposed project with a change in the mix of development within the Transit Oriented District. Office and residential uses would not result in a substantial increase in the storage and/or use of hazardous materials within the project area over existing conditions. Therefore, this altemative would result in similar impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Hydrology and_Water Quality (similar). Because the project area is already largely built-out and there is little remaining pervious surfaces within the project area, surface water runoff under this altemative would be similar in that the Altemate Design Altemative and the proposed project would require redevelopment of existing uses. Furthermore, mitigation measures incorporated herein (mitigation measures MM 3.5- I a and 3.5- I b) would also be required under this altemative in order to reduce potentially significant impacts to short and long-term surface water hydrology. Therefore, this altemative would result in similar impacts in comparison to the proposed project with respect to hydrology and water quality. Land _Use and _Planning (greater). The Altemate Use Altemative would not have the potential for compatibility impacts, which in any case are less than significant for the proposed project. However, the City's recently adopted Housing Element identifies housing opportunity sites in the project area and these sites helped the City meet the City's Regional. Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers as required by State law. Noise similar The Altemate Use Altemative would result in similar impacts from noise during short-term construction and long-term operations as compared to the proposed project due to a similar type of development. Public Services/Utilities (similarZ Given the fact that the overall buildout density would be similar to the proposed project, the Altemate Use Altemative would result in similar impacts to public services, utilities, and recreation in comparison to the proposed project. Transportation/Circulation (greater). The Altemate Use Altemative 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 non-residential uses (e.g. office space) within the Transit Oriented District. Construction of additional non-residential uses in the Transit Oriented District would likely increase the amount of daily traffic by approximately 26, 3 I I average trips per day. Trips to the study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours as compared to the proposed project would therefore increase. Therefore, impacts to intersections and roadway segments during the AM and PM peak hours would be greater under this altemative. Consistency with the Project Objectives While generally consistent with the project objectives, this altemative would not be consistent with some of the transit-oriented district guiding principles. For example, this altemative would not promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and Page 4-25 ca~+mu~i~Hm ~~,3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations active distract. It could also limit some future development that incorporates mixed-use within the district. Therefore, this altemative would be slightly less consistent with the project objectives. 4.10.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires that the environmentally superior altemative be identified. If the environmentally superior altemative is the No Project Altemative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior altemative among the other altematives. Altemative #2-Reduced Development Altemative would. be the environmentally superior altemative as it would reduce impacts to air quality, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services/utilities, and traffic and circulation associated with development compared to the project. Among the other altematives, Altemative # I -No Project Altemative would be considered the environmentally superior altemative, as it would reduce impacts related to air quality, hazardous materials, noise, public services/utilities, and traffic and circulation. Table 4-5.2: Comparison of Project Altematives to the Proposed Project rates the impacts of the above altematives compared to the ~i impacts of the proposed project, Table 4.5-2: Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project _ _ EnYironmental C:ategtoryTAiterr~ative # I - EVo Algernative #2 - 8$educed ~ ,alternative - ~~~oj2ct i~Lltern~.tive ~evelopnierzt laltee•r~ative ~ Alternate fJsc ~,iternative Aesthetics and Visual Greater Similar Similar ` Character Air Qualit Sli htl Less Less Greater Geolo and Soils Similar Similar Similar Hazards and Hazardous Materials Slightly Less Slightly Less Similar Hydrology and Water Similar Slightly Less Similar Qualit Land Use and Plannin Greater Greater Greater Noise Sli htl Less Sli htl Less Similar Public Services, Utilities, and Recreation Slightly Less Slightly Less Similar Transportation and Less Less Greater Circulation Ability to Meet Project Less Slightly Less Slightly Less Ob'ectives None of the altematives identified would avoid the significant unavoidable impacts identified in transportation Impacts 3.9- I through 3,9-3 on eight Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments. This is due to the fact that ail three of the altematives would allow for new development either under the previous five downtown area specific plans (Altemative # I) or under a variation of the proposed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Altematives #2 and #3). Page 4-26 ~o r,»a ~ ~ g~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Page 4-27 ~e~a„~,,,.o ~ Downtown Dublin Specifc Plan Draft EIR References 5. References 5.1. References Cited Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Congestion Management Program, 2009. Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Countywide Travel Demand Model, 2008. Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Level of Service Monitoring on the Congestion Management Program Roadway Network, 2008. Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District, Flood Control Zone 2. Available at: http://www.acgov.org/pwa/ACFCD%20Website%20Upgrade%20Feb2008/ acfcd/zone2.html. Accessed: April 8, 2010. Alameda County Library. Available at; http://www.aclibrary.org/. Accessed: April 14, 2010. Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. Available at: http://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/aboutus_home.htm. Accessed: April 8, 2010. Amador Valley Industries. Available at: http://www.amadorvalleyindustries.com/fags.html. Accessed: April 14, 2010. Association of Bay Area Governments. Bay Area Dam Failure Inundation Hazards Map, 1995. Available at: http://www.abag.ca.gov/index.html. Accessed: April 8, 2010. ~1 Available at: http://www.dsrsd.com/news_and_event/05 1005 I rptFinal%20UWMP.pdf. Accessed: April 15, 2010. Available at: http://www.ed-data.kl2.ca.us/. Accessed: April 9, 2010. Califomia Department of Conservation, Califomia Geological Survey. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Available at: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/affected.aspx. Accessed: April 5, 2010. Califomia Department of Transportation: Califomia Seismic Hazards Map, July 1996. Available at: Califomia Department of Water Resources, San Francisco Hydrologic Region, Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. California's Groundwater Bulletin 118. Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_ 118/basindescriptions/2- i O.pdf. Accessed: April 6, 2010. Califomia Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Available at: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb2/basin_planning.shtml. Accessed: April 6, 2010. Califomia State Parks, Lake de Valle SRA. Available at: http://www.par~ks.ca.gov/?page_id=537, Accessed: April 8, 2010. CalRecycle. Active Landfills Profile for Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery. Available at: Page 5-I Sala , ~T~ ~ ~ Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR References http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Profiles/Facility/Landfill/LFProfile I .asp?COID=3&FACID =0 I -AA-0009. Accessed: April 14, 20 10. City of Dublin, City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, 2007. City of Dublin. City of Dublin General Plan, adopted February 1985, City of Dublin, City of Dublin General Plan, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, updated 2010. City of Dublin, Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, 2004. City of Dublin, Dublin Downtown Specific Plan, 1987. City of Dublin, Final Downtown Core Specific Plan, 2000. City of Dublin, Final Village Parkway Specific Plan, 2000. City of Dublin, Final West Dublin BART Specific Plan, 2000. City of Dublin, Mape Memorial Park. Available at: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/DepartmentSubLevel2.cfm?PL=Rec&SL=pri<fac&dsplyl D= 434. Accessed: April 14, 2010. City of Dublin, San Ramon Road Specific Plan, 1983. ~I Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Countywide Travel Demand Model, 2003. Dublin San Ramon Services District. Available at: http://www.dsrsd.com/home/home.html. Accessed: April 6, 2010. Dublin Unified School District: School Boundaries. Available at: http://www.dublin.kl2.ca.us/. Accessed: April 14, 2010. East Bay Regional Park District, Don Castro Regional Recreation Area, Available at: http://www.ebparks.org/parks/don_castro. Accessed: April 8, 2010. EDAW. 2000. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village EIR. Ed-Data. Education Data Partnership. 'r~ Fehr & Peers, BART Direct Ridership Model, 2009. Glendale, City of Downtown Specific Pian Final EIR. Available at: http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/downtown_specific_plan_EIR final.asp. Accessed: April 7, 2010. Google Earth, Accessed: April 5-6, 2010. i~ http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/earthquake-engineering/Seismology/MapReport.PDF. Accessed on April 7, 2010. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008. Keyser Marston & Associates, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan -Focused Market Study, May 2009. Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, WHEELS, March 2010. Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency, Facilities. Available at: http://lavwma.com/facilities_IavwmaSystem.php. Accessed: April 15, 2010. Page 5-2 Downtown Dublin S ecific Plan Draft EIR P References MWH. Dublin San Ramon Services District, Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update, Final Report, June 2005. Northern Califomia SHZP Data. Official Map of Seismic Hazard Zones NAD83, Dublin Quadrangle. Available at: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/MapProcessor.asp?Action=SHM P&Location= All&Version=5&Browser=Netscape&Platform=Win. Accessed: April 6, 2010. Pers. Comm. Ms. Diane Lowart. City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Director. April 15, 2010. Pers. Comm. Ms. Joanne Sharkey, Dublin Unified School District. April 14, 2010. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Water Sources & Water Supply Planning, http://sfwater.org/msc_main.cfm/MC_ID/ 13/MSC_ID/ 165, viewed April 7, 20 10. SCI Consulting Group. Dublin Unified School District, Demographic Study and Facilities Plan. 2007-2008. State of Califomia Department of Transportation, 2008 Traffic Volumes on the Califomia State Highway System, 2009. Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Web Soil Survey, Alameda Area, Califomia (CA609). Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed: April 6, 2010. United States Geological Survey; 2006. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. Available at: http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/gfaults/. Accessed: April 7, 20 10. West Yost & Associates. Dublin San Ramon Services District Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update Final. Available at: http://www.dsrsd.com/news_and_event/05 1005 I rptFinal%20UWMP.pdf. Accessed: April 7, 2010. West Yost & Associates. Dublin San Ramon Services District Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update Final. Zone 7 Water Agency. Available at: http://www.zone7water.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96&Itemi d=408. Accessed: April 16, 2010. Zone 7, Annual Review of the Sustainable Water Supply Report, May 2009. Available at: http://www.zone7water.com/images/pdf dots/water supply/sustainable_09.pdf. Accessed: April 15, 2010. Zone 7. 2008 Annual Report. Available at: http://www.zone7water.com/images/pdf dots/biennial/%5C%2708-annualreport- web.pdf. Accessed: April 15, 2010. I~ Page 5-3 ~3I~ ~~3 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft EIR References 5.2. List of Preparers City of Dublin Erica Fraser, Project Manager Jeri Ram Jeff Baker Jaimee Bourgeois RBF Consulting Bill Wiseman, Project Manager Erika Spencer Jennifer Stewart Jonathan Schuppert Eddie Torres Achilles Malisos Brian Allee Fehr & Peers Kathrin Tellez, Project Manager Ellen Polling Dan Hennessey Page 5-4 EXHIBIT C FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City Council hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts from adoption and implementation of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP, or Project), PA 07-036; and means for mitigating those impacts. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized rather than set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final EIRs (EIRs) should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations. Impact 3.3-2: Ground shaking is likely to occur in the project area in the even 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. MM 3.3-1: . Project applicants shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical report that addresses the effects of seismic ground shaking and includes a quantitative evaluation of.liquefaction and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading for future development in the DDSP project area. The design level geotechnical report shall specify foundations and structural elements that are designed to resist forces and potential ground settlement for liquefaction and lateral spreading. This report shall be submitted in conjunction with a Building Permit application. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which .. avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: The mitigation measure ensures that groundshaking shall be examined specific to the Project's proposed structures and improvements and that appropriate engineering and design elements pursuant to the stringent CBC standards for Seismic Zone 4 sites are incorporated into the design level plans before building permits are issued. Impact 3.3-3: Future development associated with the proposed project is not anticipated to expose peopte or structures to potential substantial adverse effects of {iquefaction. Implement MM 3.3-1. Project applicants shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical report that addresses the.effects of seismic ground shaking and includes a quantitative evaluation of liquefaction and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading for future development in the DDSP project area. The design level geotechnicaf report shall specify foundations and structural elements that are,designed to resist forces and ~ potential ground settlement for liquefaction and lateral spreading. This report shall be submitted in conjunction with a Building Permit application. - Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: Future development in the DDSP area would be required to comply with the City's Building Code, liquefaction regulations of the CBC, and tfie City's standard engineering practices and design criteria. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 ensures that appropriate soil EXHIBIT C~ - _-.~ engineering, foundation design and construction techniques for potential liquefaction conditions are incorporated into design level Project plans. lmpact 3.3-4: Implementation of the proposed project may result in soi! erosion or the loss of topsoil during short-term construction activifies within the DDSP project area. Implement MMs 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b. Future development within the DDSP area would be required to comply with the City of Dublin Public Works Department policies, NPDES permit process, and the Gity's Building Code requirements as described in MM 3.5-1 a and 3.5-1 b below. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: The mitigation measures ensure that sedimentation and erosion controls will be identified in applicable permitting processes and implemented during any Project ground disturbing activities. The measures further ensure that Project SWPPPs will describe how stormwater runoff will be controlled to reduce runoff sediments from moving off of construction sites. Impact 3.4-2: 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. Implement 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b. Prepare and implement a Storrriwater Polfution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies how the discharger will protect water quality during construction activities as required by MM 3.5-1a and 3.5-1b, further described below. . Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: Compliance with the appropriate hazardous materials handling measures and acquisition of the NPDES General Permit for construction activities woulci ensure that potential hazardous materials transport, use or disposal during short-term construction activities are consistent with applicable regulatory standards. Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP ensures that measures specific to a particular development will be identified to control construction and erosion pollutants from moving offsite. Impact 3.4-3: The proposed project may result in the demolition and removal of structures within the project area which may contain asbestos and/or lead based paint (LBPs). MM 3.4-1: Prio.r to demolition of existing structures that were constructed prior to 1980 within the project area, project applicants shall have structures proposed for demolition inspected by a qualified environmental specialist for the presence of LBPs and Asbestos (ACM) contaminating rtiaterials prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the City of Dublin. If found to be present, samples shall be collected and analyzed for ACM and lead using EPA testing methods. If actionable levels of iead and or ACM are within the structures, a remediation plan shall be prepared by a qualified consultant and implemented. Necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Worker safety plans shall be included in any remediation plans. Any hazardous 2 materials that are removed from the structures shail be disposed of at an. approved landfill facility in accordance with federal, state,~and local laws and regulations. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final E1R. Rationale: Tfie mitigation measure ensures that any ACM or LBPs will be identified prior to . demolition, thereby avoiding any inadverten# release of asbestos or lead-based paint. The measure also ensures that any development involving demolition of ACM or LBPs will comply with all regulatory standards and procedures for handling and disposal of these materials. Impact 3.4-4: The project area is not located on a.hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Based, on a search of the State Water Resources Control Board's GeoTracker database,.there are approximately seven sites within the project area that are currently being investigated. MM 3.4-2: Future development or substantial redevelopment within the project area shall prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to determine whether or not a particular development site contains any hazardous materials as a result of historic contamination within the project area subject to review and approval by the City. of Dublin. In the event that the Phase I recommends subsequent testing, the potenfial health risks shall be evaluated and a. work plan prepared to remediate the soil and/or groundwater in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations: This assessment 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.~ Finding: Changes or alterations fiave been required in,~or incorporated into, the project.which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: The mitigation measures ensure that future development will evaluate the potential for hazardous materials within a specific project site prior to construction acti~ities. If such materials are identified, the measure ensures that an appropriate work plan for remediation will • be prepared and implemented in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations. Impact 3.5-1: Future construction associated with the proposed project may violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. MM 3.5-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project proponent shall file a Notice of Intent as required by Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding storm water discharges . associated with construction activities. Upon completion of construction activities, a Notice of Termination shall be filed. ~ ~ . . MM 3.5-1 b: Prior to~issuance of any building or grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by the project contractors and submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and comment and to the City of Dublin .in conjunction with the Building/Grading/Site work permit and shall be found to be acceptabie by the City prior to ground disturbance. The SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and Alameda .Countywide Clean Water Program requirements, and shall identify erosion minimization and control provisions, pollution detection provisions, and pollution elimination/ minimization provisions appropriate to the development project and its site ~for construction and post-construction activities. The SWPPP shall include best available technology, engineering, and design solutions such as the use of silt screens, hay bales, modern trash screens, energy dissipaters, andlor absorbent devices. Stormwater runoff water quality monitoring procedures shall be clearly detailed in the SWPPP. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: The measures minimize the exposure of onsite soils to erosion processes and eliminate or reduce construction-related sediments and pollufants from entering stormwater runoff. This is achieved through application of standard construction Best Management Practices to reduce Che amount and velocity of runoff from the site, to increase percolation onsite and related measures to keep construction activities from polluting surface waters affected by development site runoff. Impact 3.7-1: The proposed project could result in short-term construc#ion-related noise and vibration thaYwould exceed applicable noise standar.ds at nearby noise sensitive land uses. . MM 3.7-1a: Project applicants within the project area shall prepare a construction noise ._ management plan .that identifies measures to be taken fo 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: o Construction activities, including the maintenance and warming of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30.~AM and 5:30 PM except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. • 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 shafl have an un-muffled exhaust. o The City shall require that the contractor maintain and.tune-up aU construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. a Stationary equipment.shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance #o the sensitive receptors. ~ 0 All equipment servicing shall be perFormed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors. o The construction contractor shall provide an on-site name and telephone number of a contact person. In the even# that construction noise is intrusive to an educational process, the construction liaison will revise fhe construction schedule to preserve the learning environment. o Select demolition methods to minimize vibration, where possible (e.g., sawing masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers). 4 MM 3.7-1 b: Should potential future developmerit facilitated by the proposed project require off- site importlexport of fill material during construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is ieast disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways (Interstate 580, Iriterstate 680, San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Amador Valley Boulevard). Construction trucks should, to the extent practical, avoici 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.). - . Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into; the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. ~ Rationale: The required construction. noise management plan will identify measures to minimize construction noise on surrounding sensitive receptors (e.g., residential uses and scfiools) and include specific noise management measures to be incorporated in project plans and specifications subject to review and approval by the City.~ The measure ensures that construction wilf be limited to less noise sensitive periods of the day and ensures that proper operating procedures are followed during construction to minimize noise exposure for nearby. sensitive receptors. Impact 3.7-3: Development in the project area facilitated by the proposed project could permanently increase noise levels from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) at existing~and future uses within the DDSP project area: .. , ~. MM 3.7-3: Future devefopment within the DDSP project area that is located adjacent to Highway 580; Amador Plaza (between Dublin Boulevard and Saint.Patrick Way); and Dublin Boule~ard . (between Amador Plaza Road and Viilage Parkway; between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive and between San Ramon Road and Regional Street) shall prepare.a site-specific ~~ acoustical analysis subject to review and approval by the City of .Dublin. The- acoustical analysis prepared for future development shall evaluate resultant noise.impacts in.comparison to the ~ City's noise criteria for Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments. Feasible . project specific mitigation measures shall be required as part of the project design to reduce noise impacts at future noise sensitive land uses, including but not limited to the. following: 1) site design, 2) operational restrictions; 3)` barriers; 4) setbacks,~ and 5) insulation, No . ~ . development permits or approval of land use applications shall be issued until the acoustical analysis is received and approved by City staff and any project design features are incorporated into the future development project. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: The measure ensures that noise exposure will be identified for specific project sites near major traffic sources and that noise reducing features will be included in development design to meet City noise standards. , Impact 3.9-1: In the Near-Term, the Base FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on one Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segment on San Ramon Road when compared to the Near-Term Without Project scenario. . _ MM 3.9-1: The City of Dublin will do the following to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system: (revised in Final EIR p. 3-173). m Support Alameda County's projects and programs which are aimed at reducing traffic congestion. o Encourage developers to voluntarily develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce trips associated with their project. Strategies that could be included in the program could include additional bicycle parking, shower facilities, HOV parking, direct building access for pedestrians, commute alternative incentives and convenient transit waiting areas. o Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element related to bikeways. Suppo~t public transit improvements, including but not limited to rerouting, schedule adjustments, new vehicles, upgraded waiting areas, and transit information signs, to encourage use of alternative modes. o Collect fees from developers in the Specific Plan Area for the Tri-Valley Transportation Developmen# Fee as well as the Downtown TIF programs prior to issuance of Building Permits, which fund local and regional transportation improvements. Finding: Changes or alterations have beeri required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid.this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit D, Findings Coricerning Alternatives. Rationale: The P~oject itself is designed to encourage non-vehicular traffic,°and together wifh ~ efforts set forth in the mitigation measure, should have the effect of reducing traffic congestiori ~ on San Ramon Road, as well as other MTC facilities. As explained in the Draft.EtR, acceptable ~`~ LOS cannot be assured after mitigation since some improvement projects and programs are the County's and some the City can encourage but not require, such as employer TDM programs (see p. 3-173). The impact is significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in conjunction with approval of the Project. - lmpact 3.9-2: In the Near-Term, the Maximum FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on five Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when compared to the Near- Term Without Project scenario. ~ lmplement MM 3.9-1. As required under M9Vi 3.9-1 (revised in the Final EIR on p. 3-174), the City of Dublin will incorporate several measures to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system. - Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit D, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale: The Project itself is designed to encourage non-vehicular traffic, and together with~ efforts set forth in the mitigation measure, should have the effect of reducing traffic congestion on MTC facilities. As explained in the Draft EIR, acceptable LOS cannot be assured after mitigation since sorrie improvement.projects and programs are the County's and some the City can encourage but not require, such as employer TDM programs (see p. 3-173). The impact is significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in conjunction with approval of the Project. Impact 3.9-3: In the Cumuiative scenario, the Maximum FAR Project results in substandard LOS on eight Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when compared to the Cumulative Without Project case. Implement MM 3.9-1. As required under MM 3.9-1 (revised in the Final EfR on p. 3-176), the City of Dub(in will incorporate several measures to help reduce traffic congestion on the MTS system. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit D, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale: The Project itself is designed to encourage non-vehicular traffic, and together with " efforts set forth in the mitigation measure, should have the effect of reducing traffic congestion on MTC facilities. As explained in the Draft EIR, acceptable LOS cannot be assured after ~. mitigation since some improvement projects and programs are the Goun"ty's and some the. City can~. encou.rage but not ~equire, such as employer TDM programs .(see p. 3-173). The: impact is s.ignificant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in ~ conjunction with approval of the Project. Impact.3.9-4: The Base FAR Project will.increase transit demand, generating an estimated 2,200 weekday daily transit trips (bus and BART combined)..This will create the need for bus-route.adjustments and increased bus frequency. :' . MM 3.9-4: The City will continue to support and work with LAVTA to define route changes and increased service as needed as the Plan area develops. Finding: Changes or alterations have been. required in, or incorporated into, the project. which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale: As reflected in the Draft EIR, LAVTA is actively planning for increased bus service; including BART transfers. Through this planning and the City's support, bus and transit service can continue to evolve as demand increases. . 7 EXHIBIT D FINDtNGS CONCERNfNG ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires that an EIR "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the~ project..." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). If a project alternative will substantia{ly lessen the significant environmenta! effects of a proposed project, the decisionmaker should not approve the proposed project unless .it determines that specific economic., legal, social, technological, or other considerations,... make the project alternative infeasible" (CEQA Sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 1509~ {a)(3)). The City Council here~y makes these findings with respect to alternatives. The Project objectives are set forth in a series of Guiding Principles for the entire DDSP area and for each of the 3 Specific Plan districts (see pp. 2-3 to 2-5 in the DEIR). Altematives are analyzed in Section 4.7 of the DEIR and include the required No Project Aftemative, a Reduced Development Altemative and an Altemate Use Altemative. Each of the altematives was assessed for each resource topic and compared to potential Projeet impacts. As further set forth below, the City Council considered the alternatives identified and analyzed in Section 4.7 of the DEIR and finds them to be infeasible for specific economic, social, or other considerations pursuant to CEQA Sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 {a)(3). For CEQA purposes, "feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. (CEQA Section 21061.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 95364.) Alternative #1: iVo Project Alternative The No Project Alternative considers the environmental effects ~f not approving and implementing the DDSP. Under this alternative, existing land uses and zoning would continue into the future. Existing entitlements from the existing five Specific Plans that encompass the proposed DDSP project area would continue to allow for additional development within the project area. However, the No Project Afternative would eliminate the additional 460,000 square feet of non-residentia! development proposed under the DDSP. ~ As explained in the Draft EIR, the potential impacts of the No Project Altemative would be greater than the Project as to Aesthetics because there would not be a set of comprehensive development standards and design guidelines as proposed by the Project to enhance the downtown's visual quality and pedestrian experience. Land use and planning impacts would also be greater compared to the Project because the same ieve- of housing cou~d not be developed under this altemative, and the City could not provide as many units to meet local and regional demand. Most of the other potential impacts of the No Project Alternative are similar to or less than the Project, primarily due to the lesser amount of potential development. By eliminating Project traffic, the No Project Altemative eliminates the Project's unavoidable significant traffic impacts. However, the City finds this altemative infeasible because it would increase aesthetics and land use impacts compared to the Project and would not accomplish the basic Project objectives identified in the DEIR of facilitating a visually appealing, compact development pattem that encourages non-vehicular modes of transportation and a diverse mix of uses_ The Project would not implement the Project objectives for the BART area of creating a distinctive and active district. This altemative would not recognize the Project's focus on the interaction between visual design quality, diverse uses, focused increased density, and pedestrian and bike. travel as means of energizing the downtown area. In particular, the Project's development standards and design guidelines would not be i.11i11Di1 L i adopted to facilitate upgraded development that is not only attractive, but also a distinctive amenity to the area and region. Alternative #2: Reduced Development Alternative The Reduced Deveiopment Alternative assumes construction of existing entitled development of approximately 617 residential dwelling units, 157,500 square feet of commercial development; and 150 hotel units, pfus a minor amount of additionai pian development. It is generaHy comparable to the Base FAR conditions described in DEIR Chapter 2 and Table 3.7-8 and would result in potential new development of $67,320 square feet of commercial space, 799 residential dwefling units, and 150 hotel rooms. The Reduced Development Altemative would increase the potential for new development; but fo a lesser degree than the Project, because it does not include the Project's Development Pool. Land use and planning impacts would also be greater compared to the Project because the same level of housing could not be developed under this aitemative, and the City could not provide as many units to meet local and regional demand. Most of the other potential impacts of the No Project Altemative are similar to or less than the Project, primarily due to the lesser amount of potential development. The City Council finds the Reduced Development Altemative infeasible because it would not be consistent with some Project objectives and other objectives would be diminished under this alternative. For example, this alternative would preclude the opportunity to impfement a community benefit program that would help fund public improvements within the project area. The ability to encourage and support large-format regional retail as an important community and financial asset of the City could be diminished. The abili#y to create multiple high density housing sites could .also be diminished. And finally, the ability to create mixed-use projects that provide public and/or private plazas and outdoor gathering areas could be diminished. Aiternative #3: Alternate Use Aftemative The Alternate Use Alternative would alter the mix of land uses in the within Transit Oriented District with more office and commercial and fewer residential dwelling units. This alternative would result in a reduction of approximately 683 residential dwelling units with the construction of approximately 696,000 square feet of non-residential uses (e.g. office space and commercial uses) for a total of 3,731,540 square feet of non-resident'sal uses and 617 residential units. Like the other alteinatives, Altemative # 3 would have greater land use and planning impacts than the Project because tt~e same leve! of housing could not be developed under this altemative, and the City could not provide as many units to meet local and regional demand. Mast of the other potential impacts of this altemative are similar to or less than the Project; however, air quality and transportation impacts would be greater because of the higher frip generation from office and commercial uses. The Project's only significant unavoidable impacts are related to increased traffic, which would be worsened under this altemative. 1Nhile consistent with some of the project abjectives, this alternative would not be consistent with some of the transit-oriented district guiding principles. For example, this alternative would not promote transit-oriented development to create a distinctive and active district: It could also limit some fiuiure development that incorporates. mixed-use within the district. The City Council finds this alternative infeasible because it does not avoid the Project significant traffic impacts and is not consistent with Project objectives to promote transit-oriented development and mixed use pedestrian oriented development. 9 EXHIBIT E STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093; the City Council of the City of Dublin makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Downtown Dutilin Specific Plan project (DDSP, or Froject) to the City of Dublin againsf the significant adverse impacts id.entified in the Environmental Impact Report (EfR) that . cannot be reduced to less than significant through . feasible mitigations or alternatives. Pursuant to Section 15093, the City Council hereby determines that the benefits of the Project outweigh the adverse impacts and the Project should ... be. approved. The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve :the Projec#. Even, with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that implementation of th.e Project . carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects_ as identified in the EIR: The ~City . ~Council specificafly fi'nds th~at fo fhe exfent the identified significant adverse irrmpacts for~:the .. Project heve not`been reduced to acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, , there are specific~ economic, social, land use and other considerations that support approva.l of ~ the project. " 2. Unavoidable Siqnificanf Adverse Impacts. The following unavoidable significant traffic impacts are associated with the Project as'identified in the Draft EIR Impact 3.9-1: In the Near-Term, tfie Base FAR Project resufts in sub-standard LOS on one Metropolitan Transpoitation System roadway segment on San Ramon Road when compa~ed ta ttie Near-Term Without Project scenario. Impact 3.9-2: In~the Near-Term, the Maximum FAR Project results in sub-standard LOS on five IVletropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when compared to the Near= Term Without Project scenario. lmpacf 3.9-3: fn the Cumulative scenario, the Maximum FAR Project results:in , substandard LOS on eight Metropolitan Transportation System roadway segments, when compared to the Cumulative W+thout Project case. 3. Overridinq Considerations. The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan project. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts, against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as further set forth below. -The Praject will facilitate development of vacant sites and intensification or redevelopment of underutilized sites in the Downtown area. This area is a primary focus for the City because it is an infill area,,fully served by public utilities,.and convenient to major arterials, services, BART and public transit. The Project increases both residential and non-residential density to make more efficient use of its infifl location. ~ 10 -'EX1~1B1T E` -` The Project provides an array of incentives, standards and requirements to implement the City's vision of a more walkable, livable Downtown, that is attractive and vibrant, and that draws workers, visitors and residents alike. The Project emphasizes higher density, compact development patterns in the TOD district where a diverse mix of uses would be readily accessible through alternative transport modes. It also emphasizes pedestrian level development where walking and bicycling would. be safe, feasible alternatives to automobile trips within the Project area and to or from nearby neighborhoods. Development standards and design guidelines provide measures for ensuring attractive, visually appealing. development of private projects and public spaces. The Project also recognizes and incorporates important elements of existing downtown uses, such as large-format retail opportunities and existing auto dealerships. ~- The Project includes a significant .residential component that will assist the City in meeting its Housing Element RHNA goals. The potential housing will be af densities complementary to the mix of residential and non-residential uses, and. the Project's co-location of housing, work, recreation and entertainment Future development 'of . the site will also provide, construction employment and permanent . employment opportunities for Dublin residents. The Project also provides a unique opportunity .:.. .. -. to facilitate live/work units in.the Village Parkway district: ~. ,. . The Project provides a comprehensive approach to meeting the City's objectives for the area, as .. . described in the Specific:Plan and Draft EIR. For all of the above reasons, the benefits of ttie DDSP project outweigh its significant unavoidable traffic impacts. . 11 Downto~vn Dublin Specific Plan EI.R Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program L .~ k ~~ G7 Project'Impacts~ `~ ~'_ 'i~ ~ , ~; ~~~ ~.; , ~ ~ ~~~~~ " ~'~' a~~:m..r...csa:..`~~~~~~',. ...0.~~~3a~`. ~. Mifi adon Measure s~`' ~~~`"~ °"` "$:a r ;~ ~ ~ y 3 ~ a .~, 9R..~., ~ ~~ ~ i , ~ wra~a~ ~ _~ Implementa4on .y,and~;,Monitonngm ~,~, ~* ~ ~" ~ '~ °• ~"" °"'~ ~ ~~•. ~r~ ~ . ~Schedule ~% r; r~.~v;E~.:w4Y:~.a.,~~ ~.s.?i~[tr..~~ .~` r-..:i'~~'~.,:~ ~'..~'~rl~!~~ e~. : ~..~. , t~ T + ~ - ,,.Mon~itor~g~RespoosRliryl~,~.~~~_ Re ortm ~D`atelMondorsindlals' ~ ~ P 9 xe.s~~.~c.. sr t ~:.v.nm..-~ . .: Geology~:Soils,;8 Seismicity . • , Impact 3.3-2: Ground shaking is likety to oaur in Me MM 3.3•1: Prqect applicanis shall consult with a regis!ered geotechnical engineer lo prepare a design Geotech report shall he submitted in City of Dublin Building and Planning project area in the even of a major earthquake on one of level geotechnipl repoA that addresses the aHecu of seismic ground ~ shaking and includes a conjunclion with a Building Permit Divisions -' the nearby fautts 2sui6ng in the exposure ot peop~e quanGta6ve evaluation o( liquefaction and lique(action-induced late2l spreading for fuhire deve~bpment application. ~ ~ and/or strudures to potentialty significant adverse eflects, in the ~DSP project area. The design level geotechnical 2port shall specify foundations and struaural ~ Induding the risk o( loss, injury or death. elements Nat are designed ro resist forces and pctential ground settlement for IiqueFaction and late2l ~ . - - spreading. ' ~ ~ , ' Impact 3.3-3: Future development associated with fhe Implement MM 3.3•1. Future development within the DDSP area would be required to comply with the Geotech repoA shall be submitted in City o( Du61in Bulding and Planning proposed pmject is not anticipafed to expose people or City's Building Code, liquefaction regulations of (he CBC, and ihe City's standard engineering p2ctices coniunc6on with a Building PertniP Divisions strudures to potenGal substantial adverse eBecLs of and desgn critena. In addition, mitigation measure MM 3.3-t would require properties developing within appliration. ~ IiquelacUOn. ~ . this zone to prepare a design Ievel geotechnical report. ~ ~ ~ ~ Impact 3.3d: ImplemenlaUOn of the proposed project Implement 3.S1a and 3.Stb. FuWre development wilhin the DDSP area would be required to comply CompGance wiih Ciy NPDES pertnit City of Dublin Public Works may result in soil erosion or the loss ot topsoil dunrg with the City ot Dublin Public Works Departmert policies, NPDES permit process, and the Ciry's process shall be reviewed at the Department; 8uilding and Planning shod-term consW clion activiGes within the DDSP pmject Building Code requirements as descnbed in MM 3.5-ta and 3.Sib. ~. ~ , 6me of Grading and Imp`ovement Divisions ~ area. . ~ . ~ ~ ~ , ' Plan suhmittal. Hazardsand Hazardous Materials • • Impact 3A~2: ~ Dunng mnstniction ~ of the proposed Implement 3.Sta and 3.516. Prepare and implement a Slormwater Pollution Prevenlion Plan Campliance with City NPDES pertnit . Ciry of Dublin Public Wo~rcs projed, Ihere is the pofenfial for the transport, use, or (SWPPP) lhal specifies how the discharger will protect water quality dunrg construction activities as process shall be reviewed at Ihe Department, Building and Planning disposal of hazardous materials, which could create a required by Mitigation Measures MM 3.51 a and 3.5-1b. Compliance wiN the appropriafe hazardous fime of Grading and linprovemeni Oivisions hazard to the public or the.environment matenals handling measures and acquisition of the NPDES General Permif lor construc6on activities .Plan submittal. ~ ~ would~ensure that poten6al hazardous matenals impacts during short-lerm consUuction activi6es associated with future development within the projecf area would be less~than significant Impact 3.43: The proposed projeq may resull in the MM 3.44: Pnor to demoli6on o( existing sWcNres that were construded prior to 1980 within the project Documentation relating to LBP and City of Oublin Building and Planning demolition and removal of sWMures within the project area, pmject applicants shall have sWctures proposed for demoli6on inspected by a qualifed ACM shall be required at ihe time of Divisions area which may contain asbestos and/or lead based paint environmen~al specialist for ihe presence of IBPs and Asbestos (ACM) contaminating~matenals poor to a Building Permit application to ~ (LBPs). ~ obtaining a demolition permit from the City of ~ublin. If found to be present, samples shall be collected demolish the structure. ~ and analyzed (or ACM and lead using EPA testing methods. It aclionable levels of lead and or ACM are ' ~ within the sWctures, a remediaUomplan shall be prepared by a qualified consultant and implemented. Necessary pertnils and approvals shall 6e obtained from appropnate regulatory agendzs including the . Bay Area Air Ouality Management District. Worker safety plans shall be inclutled in any remediatlon - plans. Any hazaNOUS materials Nat are removeo fmm the strudures shall be disposed ol at an approved landfill faciliry in accordance with federal, state, and local laws antl regula6ons. Impact 3.4A: The projed area is not located on a MM 3.4•2: Future developmenl or substantial redevelopment within the project area shall prepare a Phase ~1 report shall be submitled to City of Dublin Public Works '~ hazaNous matenal site pursuant to Grnemment Code Phase I Envimnmental Site Assessment to determine whether or not a particular development site the Ciry in wnjundion wiN the Department,~Buildirg and Planning Section 65962.5. Based on a search of ihe Siate Water contains any haza~dous malenals as a resuN of historic conlaminalion within the project area su6ject to Building and GradinglSitevrork Divisions Resources Control Board's GeoTracker dahabase, the2 review and approval by the City ot Dublin. In ihe event ihat the Phase I recommends subsequent permifs and shall be found are approwmately seven sites within the projed area that lesting, the potential health osks shall be evaluated and a work plan prepared to remediate fhe soil acceptable by lhe Ciry prior to ~~. are currenUy being investigaled. . andlor groundwater in accordance with all applicable federal, siate, and local regulations. ground disturbance. , Hydrology and. Water:Qual~ryy ~- '9":. ~ °v~ ._`e ' ~ X ~; ~ ,...,~ ~~F ~~ , ~:;'~5~ '~ -~ s.+°~.. ~.e ~ ~ ~ v : ~ ~ E '. {, .. , - . . ~ . . . ...r Impact 3.5•i: Future construction assaialed with Ihe MM 3.5~1a: Prior to issuance of grading pertni~, the project proponent shall file a No~ice of Intent as SWPPP shall be submitted to the City of Oublin Public Works proposed projed may violate water quality standards or required by Regional Water Qualiry Control Board reg2rding storm water discha~ges associated with RWOCB and to the City at Ihe time . Department, 8uilding and Planning waste discharge requiremenls. rnnsWCtion activities. Upon completion of constructlon activiGes, a Notice of Tertnination shall be filed. of Building and GradinqlSitework Divisions ~ Pagc V1~IRP-1 Downto~m llublin Specific Plan EIR - Mirigation Monitoring and RepoRing Program °~Pro~ect!Impac~$'A;~`' _ ;'~ ~~ ~ ~ ~S i , ~ ~ ~- ^l ~ ~ ,,Mitiga4on'Measuie i~%''~ WS~ „ ~"y t~}'ry-'~,~' ~ ,e c ~,~ ~~~`' ~ ~ a . .u e ~. ti ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Plemeniabon~and~'Monrtonng~ ,~~ e-. mr ° " ~ ~ ~M~n~toriBg~Respo~nspbRlttyl ~' . ?~ ~{'t 4 ~ , , a[ ~~iti~.~.~=~~LU~ ~. .. : ..~ ";.~r"~ ~._, ~~ d~ x :,+ ' ri ~ . ~~:~z.5t '~~ 1~. ~'.N.', 4.3. !~~...`.~..F:. . ~~r._~._. ~~~. e.. . .-] :~v . . ~ _ ~ zE.;~y;'r: .~iE~ Schydule ` ~ °.s.. ~,~ ~ ' 4.: , lals ~Re ortin Datel Mondors Im t P .91. MM 3.S1b: Poor to issuance o( any building or grading permils, a Storm Water PolluGon Prevention permits and shall 6e found - PWn (SWPPP) shall be prepared by U~e project conlractors and submitted to the Regional Water accepta6le by ihe Ciiy prior to . Qualiry Control Board for review and comment and to the City of Dublin In conjunction With lhe ground disturbance. ~ BuildinglGrodinglSite work permit and shall be found lo be acceptable by the City pnor to ground disturhance. The SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Oualily ConVol BoaM standards and ~ Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program requiremenLs, and shall identify erosion minimization and _ control provisions, pollu6on detection provisions, and pollution elimina6onl minimiza6on provisions appropnate ro the development pmjed and its siie fa consWCfion and postconsWction activi6es. The SWPPP shall include best araiiable technology, engineering, and design solutions such as the use ot silt screens, hay bales, modem trash screens, ene~gy dissipaters, aiM/or absorbent devices. . Stormwater runoH water quality monitodng procedures shall be cleaAy detailed in Ihe SWPPP. ~ # -.~~ ~' "~ ~ ;~.+ » ~. ~.. , ~ ~ .~ k'r ~~~ ~+,n::~a r. F"~ rn ~ s Noise~ ~ ;}~~ 't ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ .~ ~~ ..~~v. s£ r.. ..at+. S~-'. ~. . Impact 3.7•1: The proposed pmject could result in short- MM 3.7-1a: Prqecl applicanis within the projed area shall prepare a corisWCtion noise management A conshudion no'se management Ciry of Dublin Wblic Works term consWction-relaled noise and vibrafion that would plan ihat identifies measures ro be faken to minimize consWdion noise on sunounding sensitive plan shall be reviewed and Department, Building and Planning exceed applicable noise standards at nearby noise receprors (e.g. residen6al uses and schools) and includes specifc noise management measures to be approved prior to issuance of Divisions . sensitive land uses. . induded. into projed plans and specifications subject to review and ~appmval by ihe Ciry. These Building. or Grading/Sitework . measures shall indude, but nol be limited to, lhe followirg: ~ ~ ~ permits. ~ ~ ConsWclion acfivi6es, including Ne maintenance antl warrning~ot equipmeni, shall be limited to , ~ . Monday through Fnday, and non-City holidays, behveen the hours of 730 AM and 530 PM except as , ~ othenvise approved by the Ciry Engineer. All consWcfion equipment shall be equipped with momers and sound conUol devices (e.g., intake . , ~ silencers and noise'shrouds) no less effective than those provided on me onginal equipment and no ~ equipment shall have an un-mumed exhaust . ' ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ , - The City shall require ihal ihe conUactor maintain and tune-up all consWc6on equipment to minimize noise emissions. ~ ~ ~ . ~ ' ~ ~ ~ . ~ ' Stationary equipment shall be placed so as lo maintain the greatest possibte distance to ihe sensitive receptors. , ~ . ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ All equipment servicing shall be peAortned so as to mainfain the greatest possible distance to Ihe ~ ~ ~ sensitlve receptors. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ The consWCtion contrador shall pmvide an on-site name and telephone number ol a contact person. In . ~ ihe event that construdion noise is inWSive lo an educa6onal process, the wnstruction liaison will revise Ihe consWdion schedule to preserve the learning environmenl. ~ - . Seled demolition methods lo minimize vibraGon, where possihle (e.g., sawing masonry into sec6ons , rather ihan dertrolishin9 it by pavement breakers~. MM 3746: Should poten6al future development facilitated hy the proposed pmject require ol(-site ~ impoNexport of fiil material during consWCtion, Wcks shail utilize a route that is least disruptive to ~ sensitive receplors, preferabty major roadways (Interstate 580, Interstate 680, San Ramon Road, ' Dublin Boulevard, and Amador Valley Boulevard). Construction Wcks should, to the e#ent pracfical, ~ ~ avoid the weekday and Saturtiay 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.). - Impact 3.7•3: Develepment in ihe pmjed area tadlitated MM 37-3: Future development within the DOSP projecl area that is bcated adjacent lo Hghway 580; A site-specifc acoustical anatysis City ol Dublin Building and Planning by the proposed project crould pertnanenlly increase noise Amador Plaza (behveen Dublin Boulevard and Saint PaUick Way); and Dublin Boulevard (behveen shall be completed lor ihose Divisions Page MiVIRP-2 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program aPro7'e~lmpacfs~- ~;:~"G-~~~ .'~~~ ~'s .~ ~ „ g,~ 4 ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ` ~` ~ ~M~tigation.M"easu2 ~'~~`~ ~-`'.`,a` +-' 'z ~`" . ~^"~~~ i.~,_ ~ ~ ~. ~ , ~~~ ~~~_M~~' ~:~a ~ ~ A „• : _ . ~ ~ ~" ~ - ~' '~ ~" ~ ~ Im lementahon'~'and~;Monitonn P~, ., ~ . - g~ d l S li `~ ~~' ~'~~ ~ ~ ~ " ~'"~'~ ` Monttonng~ResponsibilRy(c~ ~ , nrt ~' l rt l ''R rt ~D'al lM ~ ...~:.'~.ea. .:~t _,~ _<:.~. ~ ...,. . 's` ~ ~ ~rccr;u. @ ?~ ,,~ , .~ r tx k .^:~_~.i~~' _...,~ a~ . ~.. - ..._..~... ,.~is~i .: ~. "' ca...t..e...:a,.~:,~..r~, ~.~zz~~a~ ~p c e e ~: . `.:~'O.::n.'~,.h~~~S.'t o n ia e o i e o s s 5m. ? T.*~mx~,Ma~e. ' ,. . . ._ ^aa..y:;..;3e,: levels from mobile sources (vehicular UaMc) at e~tisting Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway; behveen Regional Street and Golden Gate Dnve and. propeNes located @djacenl to . ~ and future uses within the DDSP project area. ~ between San Ramon Road and Regional SUeet) shall prepare a site~specific acoustical anatysis subject Interstate 580 and noise-mitigaling ~ to 2view and approval. by ihe City of ~ublin. The acouslical analysis p2pared for future developmen! measures faken as needed. No . shall evaluate resultant noise impac4s in comparison to Ihe City's noise criteria for Land Use development permits or approval of _ Compatibility for Communiry Noise Environments. Feasible projed spedfc miligalion measures shall he land use applicatans shall be . . ~ . required as part ot Ihe projed design b reduce noise impacLs at (uture noise sensilive land uses, issued un61 the acous6cal analysis ~ induding bul not limited to ihe following: 1) site design, 2) operaticnal restrictions; 3) barriers,4) is r=ceived and approved by City ~ setbacks, and 5) insuiatioa ~ staff and any pmjed design fealures ~ are incorporated inlo the future ~ developmenl projecl . .. . . ;. ~..-.._ ,. .,_. ...,. :.,.. . . ... . .. . . _ . . Tran"spo~tation~and~Girculatiam , - ` '" ' • Impact 3.9•1: In the Near-Tertn, lhe Base FAR Projed ~ MM 3.9-1:The City of Du61in wili do the following ~o help reduce tra~c congeslion on the MTS system: ~ Ongoinq City of Dublin Public Works resuits in sub-siandard LOS on one MeVOpolitan Transporfation System roadway segment, when Support Alameda County's projecLS and programs which are aimed at 2ducing traffc congestion. DepaAmeni and Plannirg Division compared to ihe Near-Tertn Without Projecl scenano. Encourage developers to volunhanty develop a T2nsportation Demand Management (TDM) Prog2m to reduce Uips associated with iheir pmjed. Strategies Ihat could be included in the pmgram could indude additional bicycle parking, shower fadlities, HOV parking, direct build'mg aaess for pedestrians, commute altemative incentives and convenient Vansit waiting areas. , Implement the policies outlined in the City's Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan Land Use and Circulation ElemeN related to bJceways. Supporl public transil impmvements, including but not limited . to rerouting, schedule adjustmenfs, new vehicles, u,ograded waifing areas, and Uansit information signs, to enaurage use of altema0ve modes. Collect fees from developers in the Specific Plan Area for the Tn-Valley Transportation Devetopment . Fee as well at the Downlown Tlf programs prior to issuance of Building Permits, which furd local and ~ . regional transportafion improvemenis. ~ ~ . ~ Impact 3.9~4: The Base FAR Project will increase transit MM 3.9-0: The City will con6nue lo suppod and work with LAVTA to define roule changes and Ongoing ~ ~ Ciry of Dublin Puoiic Works demand, gene2ting an es6mated 2,200 weekday daily increased service as needed as the Plan area develops. ~ Depariment and Planring Division t2nsd irips (bus and BART com6ined). This will aeate the need for 6us route adjusVnents and inaeased bus frequency. C Page MMRP-3