Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttach 1 02-063 AdoptNegDeclar RESOLUTION NO. 04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE BANCOR PROPERTIES SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA PROJECT PA 02-063 WHEREAS, Bancor Properties (Applicant/Developer), on behalf of Morey Greenstein, Trustee and Manager for Oliver Properties, LLC (property owner) has requested a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to Mixed-use (retail office/medium density), a PD rezoning with Stage 1 Development Plan (DP) for the entire San Ramon Village Plaza site; a Stage 2 DP for development of 56 medium density dwelling units and redevelopment of 14,377 sq. ft. of retail office building space and related parking area, a Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review for the entire project, which applications are on file in the Planning Division. The applications are collectively known as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the San Ramon Village Plaza property consists of approximately 4.62 acres generally located east of San Ramon Boulevard between Bellina Street and Alcosta Boulevard,, APN#941-0164-001-04 & 941-0164-003-03 (A) (B), in the Dublin General Plan area; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study has been prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring Program have been prepared for the project with the finding that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures contained in the Initial Study, the potential impacts of the project would be reduced to a level of insignificance; and WHEREAS, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Initial Study, was circulated for public review as required by CEQA. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Initial Study, is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City received one comment letter on the project during the public review period, and prepared written responses to the comments. The comments and responses are attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Initial Study, and the comments and responses together are the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and WHEREAS, the City reviewed all the comments and responses and determined that recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was not required; and WHEREAS, a Staff report, dated April 13, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration at a noticed public hearing on April 13, 2004 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and ATTACHMENT / WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring Program, as required by CEQA, is contained in attached Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts and constitutes the environmental review for the Bancor San Ramon Village Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bancor San Ramon Village Plaza Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. C. On the basis of the whole record before the City, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration as described above, there is no substantial evidence that the Bancor San Ramon Village Plaza Project will have a significant effect on the environment. D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration as described above, was presented to the Planning Commission who reviewed and considered the information therein prior to recommending approval of the Project. E. The Mitigated Negative Declaration as described above reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental effects of the Bancor San Ramon Village Plaza Project. F. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Bancor San Ramon Village Plaza Project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, Attn: Jeri Ram, Planning Manager. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration consisting of Exhibits A and A-1, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program consisting of Exhibit A-2. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Planning Commissioner Chair Planning Manager MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA CITY OF DUBLIN PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The project site is located west of 1-680 on San Ramon Road between Bellina Street and Alcosta Boulevard. A Zone 7 channel and storm drain outfall abuts the southeasterly boundary of the site. Project development would not encroach into the Caltrans 1-680 right- of-way or the Zone 7 channel. The site contains an existing retail center and parking lot for a total of approximately 48,400 square feet. The project site comprises about 4.6 acres. Pear trees are located along the San Ramon Road frontage with Monterey pines and shrubs planted at the easterly perimeter of the property and several elm trees located at the southerly portion of the property. Additional trees are dispersed throughout the parking lot. Project Description The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment from Retail/Office to MLxed- Use (Retail/Office, Medium Density Residential); a Stage 1 Development Plan to establish zoning of the site; a State 2 Development Plan to establish standards for development of the site; a Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Permit for review of design and architectural features to provide for the revitalization of a portion of an existing retail center and the construction of residential townhouse units. Of the 48,400 square feet of existing retail space, approximately 34,000 square feet would be demolished to construct residential town homes. The remaining 14,400 square feet of retail space would be remodeled and designed to compliment the residential project and create a village type neighborhood. The remodeled retail development would include new roof lines and the building surface would be colored stucco. Metal roofing and awnings, new signage and hghting would provide architectural detail. Building heights would range from about 19 feet to 32 feet. Landscaping would include planters, new trees and shrubs in the parking lot and building perimeters and new pear street trees along Alcosta Boulevard. The parking lot would provide 93 parking spaces. The residential development would be constructed on the southern half of the property. Primary access to the town homes would be off of Bellina Street w/th secondary access through the retail component onto San Ramon Road and Alcosta Boulevard. The townhome-style condominiums would consist of 56 units distributed throughout eleven three-storey buildings with a garage on the frrst floor and two levels of residential space. The maximum building height would be approximately 41.5 feet. The town homes would be txvo and three bedroom units ranging in size between 1,218 square feet and 1,654 square feet. San Ramon Village Plaza Mingated Negative Declaration - Page 2 The project would include seven below market rate units. The building surface would be colored stucco xvith asphalt file roofs. Balconies and porch areas would have wrought iron railings. Parking for the residential development would include 112 spaces (two spaces for each townhouse garage) and 28 non-designated guest spaces located on site. Three landscaped open space areas are located in the residential development. There is a tot lot located at the central portion of the development; a sitting garden with public art is located at the corner of Bellina Street and San Ramon Road; and a sitting garden is located at the easterly project boundary-. General landscaping throughout the residential development would include trees and other plantings. A six-foot high ~vrought iron fence with hedge border would be located along the ~vesterly and southerly perimeters of the residential development. A xvrought iron fence with panels would be located at the northeasterly portion of the residential development. Trees and other plantings xvould be installed along pedestrian pathways. The pedestrian pathways connect the residential buildings and provide access to the open space areas, tot lot and retail development. The project will require a general plan amendment from Retail/Office to Medium-High DensiD' on 2.94 acres of the project site. The site is currently zoned C-N, C-1 and C-2 and will require a rezone to Planned Development to alloxv the proposed mixed use program. A Stage 2 Development Plan will be required to establish permitted, conditionally permitted and accessory uses, site area and maximum densities, maximum number of residential units by %'pe and non-residential square footage, development regulations, architectural standards, circulation system preliminary- landscape plan and any other information necessary for the reviexv of the proposed project. A Site Development Permit must be granted to ensure the proposed project is consistent with the development regulations and requirements of the PD/Stage 2 Development Plan. The project applicant is proposing to split the project site into two lots, which will require a Vesting Tentative Map for subdivision of the proper%- into two lots. It is anticipated project construction will take approximately one and one-half to two years. PROJECT LOCATION San Ramon Village on San Ramon Road between Bellina Street and Alcosta Boulevard in Dublin, California. PROJECT SPONSOR Michael Banducci Bancor Properties LLC 1459 First Street Livermore, California 94550 FINDING The project will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the Initial Study prepared according to CEQA Guidelines. Mitigations have been incorporated into the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. San Ramon Village Plaza Mitigated Negative Declaration - Page 3 POTENTLSLLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The attached Initial Study indicates that the project could adversely affect the environment. The following potentially significant impacts were identified: · Potentially significant air quality impacts during construction. · Potentially significant impacts to unknown cultural resources · Project improvements may be subject to strong seismic ground shaking. · Soil contaminated with Residential PRGs · On-site erosion during construction activities. · Temporary noise impacts during construction activities. · Permanent noise impacts due to traffic. MITIGATION MEASURES In the interest of reducing the potential impacts to the point where the net effect of the project is insignificant, mitigation measures are recommended. A discussion of the potential impacts of interest and the associated mitigation measures is provided below. Impact: Temporary construction activities may adversely affect air quality. Mitigation Measures: 3.1 Construction contractors shall be required to xvater all active earth construction areas at least twice daily. 3.2 Construction contractors shall be required to cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 3.3 Construction contractors shall be required to sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. 3.4 If visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets, require construction contractor to sweep streets daily. 3.5 Construction contractor shall be required to enclose, cover or apply (non-tomc) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). 3.6 Construction contractor shall be required to install sandbags or other erosion control measures identified in the project's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Residual Impact: Less than significant with mitigation measures. Impact: Unknown cultural resources may be impacted. Mitigation Measure: Should any cultural materials or human remains be exposed or discovered during earth moving activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 5.1 Operations shall stop within 100 feet of the find and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be contacted for further reviexv and recommendations. San Ramon Village Plaza Xfitigated Negative Declaration - Page 4 5.2 If human remains are discovered, the Alameda County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner would determine whether or not the remains were Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are not subject to his authority, the Native American Heritage Commission will be notified, xvho would attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. 5.3 If the Communi~, Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work would resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provision for reburial and ongoing monitoring accepted. Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial xvould folloxv the protocol set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program will be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval in conformance with the protocol set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. Residual Impact: Less than significant with the mitigation measure. Impact: There is a potential of ground shaking hazards to people, structures and property. Mitigation Measures: 6.1 Implement the recommendations identified in the geotechnical investigation prepared by Terrasearch, Inc. (2002). 6.2 Any changes in grading or building design that (vould be significantly affected by geologic hazards or softs conditions, or in turn would significantly- alter geologic or softs conditions, shall be accompanied by a re-analysis of those conditions. In addition, any conditions discovered during excavation or grading that significantly depart from the previously' described geologic and soils setting shall be evaluated. Residual Impact: Less than significant with mitigation measures. Impact: Softs have been contaminated with Residential PRGs. Mitigation Measures: 7.1 Affected soft exceeding the Residential PRGS shall be excavated and removed from the site as hazardous xvaste. Once cleaned up, a human Health Risk Assessment shall be prepared to demonstrate that soil gas emanating from the site will not pose a health threat to future site residents. 7.2 A site Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared that documents the appropriate protocol for construction personnel that may come in contact with contaminated softs. 7.3 Prior to demolition, the three roof sections of the building shall be sampled to determine if they contain asbestos. If it is determined asbestos is present, it shall be disposed of as a hazardous material. 7.4 Site clean up and remediation shall be required to meet all federal, state and local regulations. Residual Impact: Less than significant with mitigation measures. San Ramon Village Plaza ~fitigated Negative Declaration - Page 5 Impact: There is a potential for erosion during construction activities. Construction activities would generate additional pollutants such as oil, grease and heavy metals. Mitigation Measures: 8.1 A Storm \Vater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared in compliance with the NPDES permit included in the erosion control measures appropriate for the project. Design of these measures shall be updated each year prior to September 30 and approved by the CiD- Engineer. Residual Impact: Less than significant with mitigation measures. Impact: Construction-related noise could adversely affect nearby residential development. Mitigation Measures: 11.1 Applicant shall prepare a construction noise mitigation plan. The plan shall include but not be limited to the following: · Construction phasing plan showing the duration of each phase and equipment to be used. · Location ofstationaD- equipment. · Calculation of noise levels at nearest residences and noise sensitive retail spaces. · Name of construction noise coordinator that can be posted at the entry to the site. Person responsible for responding to complaints and enacting solutions. Residual Impact: Less than significant with mitigation measures. Impact: Traffic noise could adversely affect the proposed residential development. 11.2 Sound-rated building construction shall be used to achieve acceptable indoor noise levels as per the State Building Code and CitT's Noise Element. The specification of these treatments should be developed during the architectural design of the buildings. In general, rooms along the perimeter of the site will require sound rated windows. Units in Buildings 1 (the four east end units), 2 (the four east end units), 3 (the four east end units) and 4 (all units) along 1-680 ~vould be exposed to levels over CNEL 65 dBA and will require sound rated building constructions (xvindows and/or exterior walls) to meet the State Building Code requirement. All residential units in the project will require mechanical ventilation to alloxv the ~vindows to be closed for noise control. An acoustical consultant should review the architectural design to be sure that the required treatments are incorporated into the construction documents. 11.3 Porches and decks exposed to a CNEL of 65 to 70 dBA ( Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10) shall be partially enclosed or eliminated. A partial enclosure would consist of a solid six- foot tall balcony railing that would act as a local noise barrier. Porches or decks exposed to levels greater than 70 dBA (Buildings 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10) shall be fully enclosed. A full enclosure would create a deck or porch that is similar to a sun room. It xvould be constructed out of standard building materials but need to provide adequate noise reduction. The enclosure could include operable windows or sliding glass doors so that the area can be open if the occupant desires. An acoustical consultant shall review the design of the porch/deck treatments to confn'm that noise levels xvill achieve the City's goal. San Ramon Village Plaza Nfifigated Negative Declaration - Page 6 The sitting garden along 1-680 xvould be exposed to a future CNEL in excess of 75 dBA which is considered "clearly unacceptable" for residential development. To reduce noise at the outdoor use area and at Buildings 2, 3 and 4, the existing sound ~vall could be extended an additional 275 feet. A ten-foot sound wall would reduce the CNEL to less than 70 dBA xvhich is considered to be "conditionally acceptable". It xvould be difficult to achieve the Ci~,'s goal of CNEL 65 dBA at the sitting garden. Prelimina~ calculations indicate that the wall will need to be about 18 feet tall to meet the Cit)es outdoor noise goal. Alternatively, a wall could be located immediately adjacent to the sitting garden to block freexvay noise. The wall could be one to two feet shorter and achieve the same noise reduction. The exact height and composition can be determined during the detailed design phase. If there is a concern that the barrier would block views, a clear barrier made of acrThc or glass could be used. An acoustical consultant shall review the design of the barrier to confirm that noise levels will achieve the City's goals. 11.4 The City does not have a quantitative noise standard for mechanical equipment such as refrigeration units or ak-conditioning systems. Noise generated by stationat3' sources (residential and retail) will need to meet, at a minimum, the performance standards contained in the Noise Element (CNEL of 60 dBA for residential uses). The mechanical design shall be reviewed by an acoustical consultant to verify that the City's standards will be met and that the equipment will not significantly increase existing no!se levels at residences and the common outdoor use area adjacent to the retail building. The mechanical and architectural plans should show all required sound attenuating features such as silencers and barriers. Residual Impact: Less than significant with mitigation measures. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - INITIAL STUDY Project Title: San Ramon Village Plaza Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 CMc Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Contact Person and Phone Number: Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Contract Planner 925.833.6610 Project Location: San Ramon Village 8909, 8913-8925 San Ramon Road Dublin, California APN#941-0164-001-04 & 941-0164-003-03 Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Nfichael Banducci Bancor Properties EEC 1459 First Street Livermore, California 94550 Existing General Plan Designation: Retail/Office Existing Zoning Designation: C-N, Retail/Office Description of Project: Site Description The project site is located west of 1-680 on San Ramon Road between Bellina Street and Alcosta Boulevard. A Zone 7 channel and storm drain outfall abuts the southeasterly boundary of the site. Project development xvould not encroach into the Caltrans 1-680 right-of-way or the Zone 7 channel. Figure 1 shows the project location. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 2 The site contains an existing retail center and parking lot for a total of approXmaately 48,400 square feet. The project site comprises about 4.6 acres. Pear trees are located along the San Ramon Road frontage with Monterey pines and shrubs planted at the easterly pen-meter of the property and several Figure 1 Project Vicinity San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 3 elm trees located at the southerly portion of the property. Additional trees are dispersed throughout the parking lot. Project Desmption The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment from Retail/Office to N~xed-Use (Retail/Office, Medium Density Residential); a Stage 1 Development Plan to establish zoning of the site; a State 2 Development Plan to establish standards for development of the site; a Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Permit for review of design and architectural features to provide for the revitalization of a portion of an existing retail center and the construction of residential townhouse units. Of the 48,400 square feet of existing retail space, approximately 34,000 square feet would be demolished to construct residential town homes. The remaining 14,400 square feet of retail space would be remodeled and designed to compliment the residential project and create a village type neighborhood. Figure 2 shows the project site plan. The remodeled retail development xvould include new roof lines and the building surface would be colored stucco. Metal roofing and axvnings, new signage and hghting would provide architectural detail. Building heights would range from about 19 feet to 32 feet. Landscaping would include planters, new trees and shrubs in the parking lot and building perimeters and new pear street trees along Alcosta Boulevard. The parking lot would provide 93 parking spaces. Figure 3 shows the retail building elevations. The residential development would be constructed on the southern half of the propert7. Figure 4 shows the residential building elevations. Primary access to the town homes would be off of Belhna Street with secondary access through the retail component onto San Ramon Road and Alcosta Boulevard. The townhome-sDqe condominiums would consist of 56 units distributed throughout eleven three-storey buildings ,~4th a garage on the first floor and t~vo levels of residential space. The maximum building height would be appro.,dmately 41.5 feet. The town homes would be two and three bedroom units ranging in size between 1,218 square feet and 1,654 square feet. The project would include seven below market rate units. The building surface would be colored stucco ~vith asphalt tile roofs. Balconies and porch areas would have wrought iron railings. Parking for the residential development would include 112 spaces (two spaces for each toxvnhouse garage) and 28 non-designated guest spaces located on site. Table 1 summarizes the proposed land use components. Table 1: Project Land Use Number of Nmnber of Parking Use Sq. Feet Housing Units Spaces Retail Space 14,400 - 93 Residential - Market Rate - 49 138* Residential- Below Market Rate - 7 Total 14~400 56 231 *Indudes Below Market Rate housing Three landscaped open space areas are located in the residential development. There is a tot lot located at the central portion of the development; a sitting garden with public art is located at the corner of Belhna Street and San Ramon Road; and a sitting garden is located at the easterly project San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 4 10. boundau'. General landscaping throughout the residential development xvould include trees and other plantings. A six-foot high wrought iron fence xvith hedge border would be located along the westerly and southerly perimeters of the residential development. A wrought iron fence with panels would be located at the northeasterly portion of the residential development. Trees and other plantings would be installed along pedestrian pathxvays. The pedestrian pathways connect the residential buildings and provide access to the open space areas, tot lot and retail development. The project will require a general plan amendment from Retail/Office to bledium-High Density on 2.94 acres of the project site. The site is currently zoned C-N, C-1 and C-2 and will require a rezone to Planned Development to allow the proposed mixed use program. A Stage 2 Development Plan will be required to establish permitted, conditionally permitted and accessory uses, site area and maximum densities, maximum number of residential units by tTpe and non-residential square footage, development regulations, architectural standards, circulation system preliminary landscape plan and any other information necessary for the reviexv of the proposed project. A Site Development Permit must be granted to ensure the proposed project is consistent with the development regulations and requirements of the PD/Stage 2 Development Plan. The project applicant is proposing to split the project site into two lots, which will require a Vesting Tentative Map for subdivision of the property into two lots. It is anticipated project construction will take approximately one and one-half to two years. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Land uses in the immediate project vicinity include single family residential development to the south and west, a gas station adjacent at the northwest comer of the property and commercial/retail development across Alcosta Boulevard to the north. Interstate 680 is located to the east of the project site. Other public agencies whose approval is required: · Building Permits (CiD, of Dublin, Building Department) · Grading Permits (Ci~ of DubLin, Public Works Department · ¥¢~ater and Sanitau' Sexver, Dublin San Ramon Service District (DSRSD) Project Boundary N Figure 2 Project Site Plan Figure 3 Retail Building Elevations Figure 4 Residential Building Elevations San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 8 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTLAIJ,Y AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one impact that is a potentially significant impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [] Aesthetics [] Agricultural Resources [] Air Quality [] Biological Resources [] Cultural Resources [] Geology/Soils [] Hazards/Hazardous Materials [] Hydrology/Water Quality [] Land Use/Planning [] Mineral Resources [] Noise [] Population/Housing [] Public Services [] Recreation [] Transportation/Traffic [] Utilities/Service Systems [] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETER2XLLNATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fred that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fred that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. SignatuNe Date N-~xa.f,' Printed Name For San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 9 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources identified in the References section of this document. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially S~gnificant Potentially Unless Less Than stgnificant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing x4sual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [] [] [] [] d) Create a nexv source of substantial hght or [] [] [] [] glare, ~vhich would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to visual resources. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 1 is presented below. a) The project site is not within a designated scenic vista or scenic highway. Project development xvould not obstruct any scenic views. The project site is developed with retail buildings and parking lots. Street trees are located along the entire San Ramon Road frontage, along the Bellina Street frontage; and groups of trees are located along the easterly' boundary of the site and dispersed throughout the existing parking lot on the westerly portion of the site. Project development would remove 28, or about 60 percent, of the existing trees. None of the trees planned for removal are "Heritage Trees" as defined in the City's Tree Ordinance. Of these, ten are located in the parking lot and the remaining 18 trees are located along San Ramon Road, Bellina Street and 1-680. Eight of the 11 street trees along San Ramon Road would be retained. Of the six trees along Bellina Street, five would be removed. Ten of the 18 trees along 1-680 xvould be removed. Plantings of new street trees along the southerly and westerly project boundaries, combined with a proposed hedge would provide adequate screening. The project would include new trees throughout the retail parking areas and the residential development. The proposed planting of trees along the easterly boundary xvould screen views of 1-680 from the project site. Project development would not degrade scenic resources at the project site. c) Generally, project development would improve the visual appearance of the project site. Currently the project site contains two single story buildings that house small retail shops and restaurants and a large retail store. The buildings are in need of painting and repair. Landscaping is limited to trees located along the westerly, southerly and easterly site boundaries and trees scattered in the parking San Ramon \Tillage Plaza Initial Study - 10 lot. The proposed pr.oject would renovate one of the buildings containing small retail shops and restaurants. The nexv building rooflme would increase the height of portions of the building. New signage, fagade treatments, lighting and plantings xvould improve the visual appearance of the building. The other building containing retail shops and the larger structure would be demolished and replaced ~vith the proposed residential development. Extensive landscaping including trees, hedges, plantings and open space areas would increase the amount of green space at the project site. Outdoor night lighting currently exists at the project site including light fixtures in the parking lot and building signage. The amount of outdoor lighting ~vould increase over what is currently in use because of the increase in development at the site. Hoxvever, the project landscaping would screen most of the night lights from vie~v, especially along San Ramon Road and Bellina Street (where residential development is located). Night lighting and glare would not significantly increase as a result of the project. Mitigation Measures. None required. Finding: Project development would not have an adverse affect on the visual character and quali~ of the site and surrounding area. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining xvhether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Potentially Slgmficant Potentially Unless 1.ess Than Si~nficant Mitiganon Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Impact [] [] [] [] b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [] [] [] [] c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature could restflt in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [] [] [] [] Discussion: The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to agricultural resources. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 2 is presented below. a) The project site is a developed retail strip mall in an urban area. San Ramon \Tillage Plaza Initial Study - 11 b) The project site is currently zoned C-N Retail/Office. The project site is not subject to the Williamson Act. c) Surrounding lands consist of urban development including residential, commercial and retail. Development of the project site xvould not result in the conversion of any farmland in the project vicinit3,. blidgadon Measures: None required. Finding: Project development would not result in a significant impact to agricultural resources. S~ga~ificant P~tcntially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the folloxving determU~afions. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quah~, standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cmnulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? [] [] [] [] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? [] [] [] [] Discussion: The proposed project would result in less than significant operational air quality impacts. Potentially significant impacts due to construction activities could occur. The recommended mitigation measttres would reduce potentially significant construction air quali~, impacts to a less than significant level. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 3 is presented beloxv. a) The project would not conflict with the Bay Area Air 2000 Clean Air Plan 03AAQMD 2000). San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 12 b) Local Climate The project is within the Livermore Valley. The Livermore Valley forms a small sub-regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore Valley air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. The terrain of the Livermore Valley influences both the climate and air pollution potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared to the greater Bay Area. The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically. Inversions can be found during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are particularly prevalent in the'summer months when they are present about 90 percent of the time in both morning and afternoon. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, air pollution potential is high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall. High temperatures increase the potential for ozone. The valley traps locally generated pollutants and is often the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs betxveen the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east. During the xvinter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland locadon results in frequent surface based inversions. Under these conditions, pollutants such as carbon monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and agricultural burning can become concentrated. Ambient Air Quality Standards Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both federal and state standards are intended to avoid health related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and PM~}. Federal Air Quality Standards The 1977 Federal Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards 0NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare. NAAQS have been estabhshed for the six "criteria" air pollutants. These criteria pollutants include ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), suspended particulate matter (PMw), and lead (Pb). EPA publishes criteria documents to jushfy the choice of standards. Standards for these pollutants are listed in Table 2. These standards represent the levels of air quality necessaD', ~vith an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. In June 1997, the EPA adopted nexv national air quality standards for ground level ozone and for fine particulate matter. The EPA intends to phase out the 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (PPM) and replace it with an 8-hour standard of 0.08 PPM. The EPA also adopted an additional standard for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Although currently in effect, the planning process to determine compliance with these new standards and the development of control programs to meet these standards, if needed, are several years away since a monitoring network has to be established and a minhnum 3-year monitoring period is required to determine designations. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 13 Implementation of the nexv standards has been further complicated by a recent court decision. On May 14, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the application of the Clean Air Act, in setting the new public health standards for ozone and particulate matter, v-as an improper delegation of legislative authority to the EPA, and thus unconstitutional. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court and on February 27, 2001 the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the EPA, clearing the way for implementation of the new standards. State Air Quality Standards The 1988 California Clean Air Act established state standards for criteria pollutants, which are also identified in Table 2. These standards are referred to as State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS), and are equal to, or more stringent than, their N_&AQS counterparts. SAAQS have also been established for certain pollutants not covered by the NAAQS, such as hydrogen sulfide and vinyl chloride. Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status The project is within the nine county Bay Area Air Basin. Pursuant to 1990 amendments to the federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988, the EPA and CARB have designated air basins within the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as "nonattainment areas", based on compliance with NAAQS and SAAQS standards. Because of the differences bet~veen the federal and state standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different under the federal and state legislation. Air basins may be either attainment or non-attainment for each criteria air pollutant. Under the federal Clean Air Act, the Bay Area is currently considered a nonattainment area for the federal 1- hour ozone standard and a nonattainment area for ozone and PM~ under the California Clean Air Act. CARB has developed recommended designations for California air basins, proposing that the Bay Area be designated as nonattainment for the new EPA 8-hour ozone standards. Levels of PMt, at the Livermore monitoring site (the monitoring site nearest Dublin) meet the federal ambient standards but exceed the more stringent state standard. \Vhen it passed the California Clean Air Act in 1988, the California Legislature recognized the relative intractability of the PM~0 problem with respect to the state ambient standard and excluded it from the basic planning requirements of the Act. The Act did require the CARB to prepare a report to the Legislature regarding the prospect of achieving the State ambient air quality' standard for PM~0. This report recommended a menu of actions, but did not recommend imposing a planning process similar to that for ozone or other pollutants for achievement of the standard within a certain period Of time. In addition, a region can be designated non-attainment, transitional or unclassified. The transitional designation recognizes a region's improving air quality-, but still maintains some regulatory restrictions and obligations. The unclassified designation is given for a region where data is absent or too limited for designation. California Clean Air Act requirements include annual emission reductions, increased development and use of loxv emission vehicles, and the submittal of air quality' attainment plans by air districts. Bay Area Air Quality Management District The Bay' Area Air Quahty~ Management District (B~AQMD) operates a netxvork of air quahty monitoring sites in the region, including one in central Livermore on Old First Street. Table 3 shows a three year summary of air quality- data for the Livermore monitoring site for the period 2000-2002. Data are shown for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and PM~,~. The number of days exceeding each standard is shown for each year. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 14 Table 2: Ambient Air Quali~' Standards & Bay Area Attainment Status Averaging California Attainment Federal Attainment Pollutant Time Standards Status Standards Status Ozone 1-Hour 0.09 PPM N 0.12 PPM N 8-Hour - 0.08 PPM U C a_rb OWl Monoxide 1 - Hour 20 PPM A 35.0 PPM A 8-Hour 9.0 PPM A 9.00 PPM A Nitrogen Annual Dioxide Average - 0.05 PPM A 1-Hour 0.25 PPM A Sulfur Annual Dioxide Average 0.03 PPM A 1-Hour 0.25 PPM A 24-Hour 0.04 PPM A 0.14 PPM A PMm Annual 20 klg/m3 N 50 lag/m3 A 24-Hour 50 klg/m3 N 150 }-Ig/m3 U PI~12.5 Annual 12 }-Ig/m3 N 15 [.Ig/m3 U 24-Hour - - 65 ~g/m3 U 30-day Lead Average 1.5 }-Ig/m3 A M o nth Average - 1.5 lag/m'~ A PPM = Parts Per Million ~lg/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter A = Attainment N = Nonanainmcnt U = Unclassified Source: _Mnbient Air Quality. Standards & Bay Area Attainment Status, .Jan. 2003, BAAQ To meet federal Clean Air Act requirements, the B~QNID has adopted an Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan. In addition, to meet CaLifornia Clean Air Act requirements, the BAAQNID has also adopted and updated a Clean Air Plan addressing the California ozone standard. The control strategT contained in these plans include new limits on emissions from industry, prohibitions on sources of hydrocarbons, regional transit and HOV programs, buy back programs for older vehicles and educational programs. Table 3 shows that concentrations of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide at the Livermore monitoring site meet state/federal standards. Ozone concentrations exceed both the state and federal standards, and exhibit wide variations from year to year related to meteorological conditions. Years where the summer months tend to be warmer than average tend to have higher average ozone concentrations while years with cooler than average temperatures tend to have lower average ozone concentrations. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 established national ambient air quality standards (AAQS), and individual states retained the option to adopt standards that are more stringent and to include other pollution sources. California had already established its own air quality standards when federal standards were established. Because of the unique meteorological problems in the San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 15 state, there is considerable diversity between state (SAAQS) and federal (NAAQS) standards currently in effect in California, as shown in Table 2. The ambient air quality standards are intended to protect the public health and welfare, and they incorporate an adequate margin of safety. They are designed to protect those segments of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, known as "sensitive receptors", including asthmatics, the very young, the elderly, people weak from other illness or disease, or persons engaged in strenuous ~vork or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollution levels somewhat above the ambient air quality standards before adverse health effects are observed. The Bay Area ,AAr Quality Management District (B~MhQMD) operates a regional monitoring network xvhich measures the ambient concentrations of six criteria air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, small diameter particulate matter (PM-10), lead, nitrogen dio~de, and sulfur dioxide. Monitoring for ultra-small diameter particulate matter (PM-2.5) began in 1999 using the federal reference method monitoring procedures. Sensitive Receptors BAAQMD de£mes sensitive receptors as facilities xvhere sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes and hospitals. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are homes located to the south of the project site and to the east across San Ramon Road. Table 3: ,Mr Quality At Livermore Monitoring Site Pollutant Standard Days Standard Exceeded: 2000 2001 2002 Ozone Federal 1-Hour 2 0 2 Ozone State 1-Hour 7 9 10 Ozone Federal 8-Hour 2 2 6 Carbon State/Federal Monoxide 8-Hour 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour 0 0 0 P~10 Federal 24-Hour 0 0 0 PMm State 24-Hour 2 3 2 Source: Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries 2000- 2002, BAAQMD Operational Impacts The B,~QMD has established thresholds for determining xvhether a given project has the potential for significant air quality impacts. If a project exceeds the thresholds, detailed air quality analyses are usually required. If the project does not exceed the thresholds, it is ~typically assumed to have a less than significant impact on air quality. B~LAQIYD generally does not recommend a detailed air quality analysis for projects generating less than 2,000 vehicle trips per day. The proposed project xvould generate 970 vehicle trips per day, thus, a detailed air quality analysis is not warranted. The project would not expose the public to sources of toxic air contaminants or odors. Thus, the project would fall beloxv the BAAQMD thresholds for significant air quality impacts and is not considered a project that could cause an adverse air quality impact. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 16 Construction Impacts TemporaD, construction activities may impact air quarry, but such impacts are highly variable from day-to-day depending on the ~Tpe of construction activit% The BAAQMT) has therefore developed a menu of mitigation measures, which if fully implemented, are prestLmed to achieve a less than significant air quality impact. The range of mitigation measures includes a set of "Basic Control Measures" and "Enhanced Control Measures" if the project construction area exceeds four acres. Because the project site is larger than four acres in size, enhanced dust control measures will be required during construction. \Vith implementation of these measures, dust emission impacts during construction ~vould be less than significant. The project xvould not result in significant cumulative net increases in criteria pollutants. The project would generate less than 2,000 daffy vehicle trips and, thus, is below the significance threshold. The project would not generate odors, toxics or have the potential for accidental releases of toxics. The project xvould require a general plan amendment on 3.15 acres of the project site changing the land use from Retail/Office to Medium-High Density residential. The proposed project would not result in significant land use changes that would affect the growth assumed for the city in the Clean Air Plan (CAP) nor would it adversely affect the passenger vehicle trips and miles traveled (VMT). Sensitive receptors in the project area include residential area. Residential uses are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions than commercial and retail areas because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, resulting in greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Project operations xvould not expose the nearby sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations. However, during construction activities, sensitive receptors could be exposed to high levels of dust emissions. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, dust emission impacts would be less than significant. e) The project xvould not create any objectionable odors. ~vfitigation Measures: 3.1 Construction contractors shall be required to xvater all active earth construction areas at least twice daily. 3.2 Construction contractors shall be required to cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 3.3 Construction contractors shall be required to sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. 3.4 If visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets, require construction contractor to sweep streets daily. 3.5 Construction contractor shall be required to enclose, cover or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). 3.6 Construction contractor shall be required to install sandbags or other erosion control measures identified in the project's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. San Ramon Vill%e Plaza Initial Study - 17 Finding: According to the current BAAQMD CEQA guidelines, the recommended mitigation measures would reduce construction period air quality impacts to a less than significant level. Potentially S~gnificant Potennally Unless Less Than Sig3n f~cant ,Mittgauon Significant No lmpact Incorporated Impact Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se~4ce? [] [] [] [] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [] [] [] [] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [] [] [] [] d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migrator3,,' fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratoD' x, ildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [] [] [] [] e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [] [] [] [] Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conserv-ation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [] [] [] [] Discussion: The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to biological resources. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 4 is presented below. a) b) The project site is currently developed with buildings and a parking lot. Existing trees xvere planted xvhen the site was developed. Project development would not adversely affect candidate, sensitive or special status species. There is no riparian habitat located on the project site. A Zone 7 concrete lined canal is located off site adjacent to the southerly project boundary. Project development would not affect the canal. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 18 c) There are no wetland areas on the project site. d) Project development would not substantially interfere with the movement of migratory fish and wildlife. e) Project development xvould result in the removal of approximately 27 trees. None of the trees planned for removal are "Heritage Trees" as defined in the City's Tree Ordinance. The project landscape plan proposes extensive tree planting including redwoods and oaks. The proposed landscape plan shows the number of replacement trees to be greater than the 27 trees to be removed. The project would not interfere with any adopted habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans or other conservation plans. Mitigation bleasures: None required. Finding: The project ~vould not adversely affect biological resources. Potentially Significant potennally Unless ].ess Than S~gmificant Mitiganon SigalificantNo Impact Inco~ovated Impact Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 815064.5? [] [] [] [] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ~15064.57 [] [] [] [] c) d) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Discussion: The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to known cultural resources. In the event unknown cultural resources are discovered on site during earth moving activities, the recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to unknown cultural resources to a less than significant level. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 5 is presented below. a) The project site contains a 1970's era shopping center. There are no buildings on site that are considered historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5. b) There are no known archaeological resources present on the project site. c) There are no known palentological resources present on site. d) Project development would not disturb any known human remains. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 19 Mitigation Measures: Should any cultural materials or human remains be exposed or discovered during earth moving activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 5.1 Operations shall stop xvithin 100 feet of the find and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be contacted for further review and recommendations. 5.2 If human remains are discovered, the Alameda County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner would determine whether or not the remains ~vere Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are not subject to his authority, the Native American Heritage Commission will be notified, who would attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. 5.3 If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work xvould resume only after the submittal of a preliminaD' archaeological report and after provision for reburial and ongoing monitoring accepted. Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial would follow the protocol set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program will be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval in conformance with the protocol set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. Finding: Project development would not adversely affect and ~known cultural resources. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) b) c) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, 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 know fault? Refer to Division of Sfines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iff) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ix') Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit of soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Pottmtially S~gnificant Potentially Unless I,ess Than s~gnificant Miugation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 20 project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as de£med in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or properS,? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sexvers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion: The Geotechnica/ Investiegation on Oliver Propertjy prepared by Terrasearch, Inc. (2002) and Report on Preliminary Geoph3'sica/Investigation prepared by National Environmental, Inc. xvere used in analyzing potential impacts. Based on the geotechnical investigation, the project site is subject to strong seismic ground sha -king. The recommended mitigation measures would reduce potentially' significant impacts. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 6 is presented below. The project site within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, a belt of sedimentary, volcanic and metamorphic rocks, which extend from southern California to Oregon. The structural geology of the Coast Ranges is complex and dominated by transpressive stress concentrated along faults within the San Andreas Fault system. On the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay, bedrock geology consists of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks ranging from Cretaceous through Quaternary periods (up to 144 million years to present). The materials underlying the project site are mapped as Late Pleistocene alluvium, xvhich consists ofwea 'kly consolidated, slightly weathered, poorly sorted clay, silt, sand and gravel. The Calaveras Fault lies approximately 500 feet xvest of the western property line and the eastern portion of the Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone encroaches about ten feet onto the southwestern corner of the project site. A geophysical survey xvas conducted at the site to determine if any traces or splays of the Calaveras Fault were present in the subsurface of the site. The findings of the geophysical survey concluded that no identifiable traces of the Calaveras Fault, or any tectonic offset from splay or conjugate faults e~st at the project site. The potential for liquefaction and differential compaction is negligible. Because of the relatively flat site and the nature of the subsurface materials, the potential for landslide is remote. b) Although the project site is relatively fiat, there is a potential for erosion during construction activities due to the nature of the subsurface materials. c) See Item a above. d) The near surface clay was found to be moderately expansive. e) Project development would be hooked up to the municipal sewer system. Mitigation Measure: 6.1 Implement the recommendations identified in the geotechnical investigation prepared by Terrasearch, Inc. (2002). San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 21 6.2 Any changes in grading or building design that would be significantly affected by geologic hazards or soils conditions, or in turn would significantly alter geologic or soils conditions, shall be accompanied by a re-analysis of those conditions. In addition, any conditions discovered during excavation or grading that significantly depart from the previously described geologic and soils setting shall be evaluated. Finding: With the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures into the project, the project xvould not expose persons or property to significant impacts associated with soil or geologic conditions on the project site. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project involve: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ~vhere such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Potenually Significant P~tentmlly Unless Less Than s~g~ifican t Mingation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 22 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermLxed with x~41dlands? Discussion: This discussion is based on the Phase I Environmental Site/tssessment San Ramon Vi#age P/aga Dublin Ca/ijbrnia prepared by Rosewood Environmental Engineering (2002). Volatile organic compounds related to ch3.' cleaning operations are present in the soil and asbestos-containing materials may be present in the building. Recommended mitgafion measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 7 is presented below. a) Site clean up activities would result in the transport of hazardous materials. See also Item b. A soil sampling and analysis program xvas conducted in 1998 to investigate the subsurface beneath and adjacent to a former dry cleaning operation at the project site. Sampling results indicated that volatile organic compounds related to dry cleaning operations were detected in soil samples at a two foot depth beneath the floor slab of the dry cleaners. With the exception of Vinyl Chloride, the concentrations were below the Commercial/Industrial Preliminary- Remediation Goals (PRGs) established by EPA Region IX as action level guidance at that time (1998). Vinyl Chloride concentrations exceeded the Commercial/Industrial PRGs. A conditional "No Further Action" letter was issued by the Bay Area Regional Water Qualit3- Control Board (R~,VQCB) based on the results of the soil sampling and analysis program conducted in 1998. The conditions required that the floor of the dry cleaners be sealed to prevent off-gassing of the vinyl chloride into the building and that the floor seal condition be inspected annually. This action permitted the dr3.' cleaner space to remain in operation as a commercial/office space xvithout cleaning up the soil beneath the space. This work was reportedly performed, the vinyl floor tile removed and disposed as an asbestos-containing material. In 2002 the RWQCB was contacted regarding the conditions placed on the "No Further Action" letter and the implications if a residential use was developed on the site. The RWQCB stated that if a residential use is developed on the site, affected soil exceeding the Residential PRGs will have to be excavated from the site as a hazardous waste. c) There are no existing schools or planned school located with 0.25 mile of the project site. d) The project site is not included on the Department of Toxic Substance Control's site clean up list. ~DTSC 2004). e) The project site is not located xvithin the Alameda Count3' Airport Land Use Commission jurisdiction The project site is not located within two miles of any private airstrip. g) The project site is not located along any of the Ci~7's designated evacuation routes. The project would not interfere with adopted emergency response and evacuation plans. h) The project site is xvithin the cit3' limits and surrounded by urban development. There are no wildland areas within the project vicinit3-. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 23 blifigation Measures: 7.1 Affected soil exceeding the Residential PRGS shah be excavated and removed from the site as hazardous waste. Once cleaned up, a human Health Risk Assessment shah be prepared to demonstrate that soil gas emanating from the site will not pose a health threat to future site residents. 7.2 A site Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared that documents the appropriate protocol for construction personnel that may come in contact with contaminated soils. 7.3 Prior to demolition, the three roof sections of the building shall be sampled to determine if they contain asbestos. If it is determined asbestos is present, it shall be disposed of as a hazardous material. 7.4 Site clean up and remediation shall be required to meet all federal, state and local regulations. Finding: With incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures into the project, the project would not expose construction workers, occupants and visitors to significant harmful levels of hazardous materials. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or xvaste discharge requirements? b) c) Substantially deplete groun&vater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (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 pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface mnoffin a manner, xvhich would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which xvould exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. P,~tentmlly Unless 1.ess Than Si~mlficant .\litiganon S~gmificant [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] San Ramon \Tillage Plaza Initial Study - 24 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [] [] [] [] Place housing witt~in a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [] [] [] [] h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [] [] [] [] Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death invoMng flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [] [] [] [] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [] [] [] [] Discussion: Project construction activities could result in site erosion. The recommended mitigation measures xvould reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. A brief discussion of each environmental topic is presented below. The project could temporarily violate water qua[ity standards or waste discharge requirements if adequate erosion control measures are not in place during construction. See Section 6 Geology and Soils for a discussion of recommended mitigation measures to reduce the potential for increased erosion at the project site. The project ~vould not affect the qua[ity or quantity of the local groundwater table. Grading during project construction could compound and increase erosion on site. Increased erosion could result in the sedimentation of receiving waters leading to a reduction in water qua[ity. Project development could improve drainage conditions at the project site. Currently, the site is covered with about 95 percent impermeable surface. The proposed project would cover about 62 percent of the site in impermeable surface. This could result in less surface runoff than with the e:dsfing development at the site. The project storm drain system would include a 12-inch storm drain along the easterly perimeter of the property that would connect xvith the e~sting 12-inch storm drain and Zone 7 storm drain outfall and channel. A 18-inch storm drain located along Bellina Commons would connect with an existing 12- inch storm drain located along the southxvester perimeter of the project site. The proposed storm drain improvements would be adequate. Project runoff is not expected to adversely affect the capacity of the current storm dram system. Other than potential pollutants caused by project construction (see Item 8d above) there is no project operation that ~vould substantially degrade water quality. The project site is not xvithin a 100-year flood hazard area. See Item g above. The project site is not within the path of a levee or dam. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 25 j) The project site is not subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The site is about 15 miles from the nearest major water body - San Francisco Bay. Mitigation Measures: 8.1 A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared in compliance with the NPDES permit included in the erosion control measures appropriate for the project. Design of these measures shall be updated each year prior to September 30 and approved by the City Engineer. Finding: With incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the project would not violate any water quahty standards or waste discharge requirements. LAND USE PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Potentially Sig~ificant Potentially Unless Less Than Stg~uficant Mitzgation s~gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact hnpact b) 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, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural commtmity conservation plan? [] [] [] [] Discussion: a) Project development would not divide the established residential community in the project areas. The project would replace existing retail development with residential development at its southerly end providing a land use transition between the new retail development and nearby single-family development, x,¥qfile the proposed residential development is a higher density than nearby low density single-family development, it would be separated by a Zone 7 canal and Bellina Street. Project landscaping would screen the new town homes from residences along Bellina Street. Residential development to the xvest is separated from the project site by San Ramon Road. b) The project would not conflict with applicable policies of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. A summa~' of project consistency is presented as Exhibit A. c) The project would not conflict with habitat conservation on natural community conservation plans. N'litigation Measures: None required. Finding: The project would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and would be compatible ~vith nearby land uses. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 26 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Result in the loss of availabilit3, of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recoveo- site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion: Potennally s~gnificant Potentmlly Unless Less Than S~gmficant Mitigation Significant Impact lncorp~rated hnpact [] [] [] [] [] [] The proposed project would not result in impacts to mineral resources. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 10 is presented below a) The project site does not contain any known mineral resources. b) The project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resources recovery site. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: Project development would not result in any impacts to 'kno~vn or designated mineral resources. Impact 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, specific plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? Potcnnally S~gnificant Potenmlly Unless ].ess Than Si~,mificant X litigation S~gntficant Impact lnco~*~ratcd Impact [] [] [] hnpact [] [] [] [] c) e) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicmit5, above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project xqciniD' above levels existing xvithout the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 27 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or xvorking in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinit7 of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or xvorking in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion: This discussion is based on the ~nvironmenta/ Noise Impact~/lna/)'sis for the San Ramon [~'il/age P/a~a Project Dub/in, C4 (2004) prepared by Rosen Goldberg & Der. The proposed project would result in temporao' noise impacts due to construction activities and residents would be exposed to noise levels in excess of CiD, standards. The recommended mitigation measures would reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 11 is presented below. a) The major noise source that affects the project site is vehicular traffic on 1-680 and San Ramon Road. Project development would result in temporao' noise increases during construction and the introduction of a sensitive receptor (housing) adjacent to the 1-680 on-ramp and San Ramon Road. The future noise environment xvould include noise generated by construction activities, traffic, the project's mechanical equipment and the car wash at the nearby gas station. City of Dublin Noise Standards The Dublin Noise Element of the General Plan contains a guiding policy to mitigate traffic noise levels to those identified by Table 9.1 of the Noise Element. For residential development, a CNEL of 60 dBA or less is considered "normally acceptable"; a CNEL of 60 to 70 dBA is considered "conditionally acceptable" and requires that noise insulation features be included in the project design; a CNEL of 70 to 75 dBA is considered "normally unacceptable"; and a CNEL of 75 to 85 dBA is considered "clearly unacceptable". The City of Dublin does not have a quantitative goal for noise levels in residential outdoor use areas. The General Plan does, however, identify a CNEL of 60 to 65 dBA as being "conditionally acceptable" for neighborhood parks. Based on this City standard and discussions xvith City staff, for purposes of this noise analysis, it xvas assumed a CNEL of 65 dBA is the maximum goal for noise in outdoor use areas. The Noise Element has implementing policies to help achieve the goal of mitigating traffic noise inqpacts. Pohcy H (of the Noise Element) applies to the proposed project and states: "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." The Noise Element allows project designers to use one or more of four available categories of mitigation measures: site planning, architectural layout, noise barriers or construction modifications to reduce noise impacts. Existing Noise Environment Vehicular traffic on 1-680 and San Ramon Road represent the major noise source affecting the project site. An existing sound xvall along the 1-680 southbound on ramp (presumably built to reduce noise at the single-family subdivision to the south of the project site) extends onto the project site at its southeast comer. Noise measurements were made on the project site to quanfi~, the existing noise environment and included t~vo 84-hour noise measurements and five short term(15 minutes) measurements. The long term noise measurements recorded a CNEL 83dBA along 1-680 and CNEL 66ctBA along San Ramon Road. The short-term noise measurements ranged from CNEL 61 dBA to 79 dBA. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 28 Future Noise Environment Construction Noise from construction could generate short term noise levels that are significandy in excess of existing noise levels on the site. Construction sounds include those from diesel powered vehicles, stationary- compressors and regular hand tools. Construction equipment typically emits maximum sound levels of 80 to 90 dBA at 50 feet. This is the separation between the closest residential structures and the proposed buildings. Therefore, these noise levels would occur when the noisiest construction activities are occurring at the south end of the site. This noise could interfere with speech communications or, if occurring in the early morning or weekends, with sleep. Construction noise could impact nearby residences. The Cid- does not have any quantitative standards for construction but it is likely that construction noise would be loud enough to cause activib- interference at the existing residential area to the south. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Trqffic The project ~vould result in a small decrease in the trips generated by the San Ramon Village Plaza site (see Section 15 Transportation/Circulation). During the PM peak hour a total of 68 vehicular trips are generated by existing retail businesses. With the project, there would be 63 vehicular trips during the PM peak hour, a reduction of 5 vehicular trips. Project-generated traffic would not result in a significant noise increase in the project area. The Ci~' of Dublin does not have projections for future traffic volumes along San Ramon Road or 1-680. Based on data from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, traffic volumes along 1- 680 will approximately double by the year 2025. This corresponds to a three dBA increase in CNEL. This increase has been applied to the measured noise levels from the freeway and San Ramon Road. The future CNEL at the setback of proposed residential buildings along San Ramon Road will be 71 dBA at ground level of the xvest end units of Buildings 9 and 10. Along 1-680, the upper floors of the east end units of Buildings 2 and 3 would be exposed to a CNEL of 82 dBA. Future noise from 1-680 and San Ramon Road will exceed the City's "normally acceptable" noise level goal ofa CNEL of 60 dBA at Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10. Noise levels at the site could reach up to a CNEL of 76 dBA along 1-680 and a CNEL ofT1 dBA along San Ramon Road at ground level. Exposure of residential units along 1-680 and San Ramon Road to levels over the City's "normally acceptable" goal is considered a significant impact. There are two ~pes of outdoor use areas proposed: common spaces at ground level (tot lot and two sitting gardens) and those associated with a specific residential unit (porch or balcony). Two of the common spaces, the sitting garden along Bellma Street (between Buildings 8 and 9) and the tot lot next to Building 2 would be exposed to noise levels within the City's goal. The third common space is a sitting garden adjacent to 1-680 that would be exposed to noise levels over the 65 dBA goal. Porches and/or decks in Buildings 1 (the four east end units), 2 (the four east end units), 3 (the four east end units), 4 (all units), 9 (the three west end units) and 10 (all units) would also be exposed to noise levels greater than a CNEL of 65 dBA. Exposure of outdoor use areas to noise levels over a CNEL of 65 dBA is considered a significant impact. Mechanical Equipment Other potential noise sources associated xvith this D-pe of project include air-conditioning equipment. Common residential air-conditioners generate a noise level of about 65 to 70 dBA at five feet. Since two of the buildings (Building 1 and Building 6) are approximately 40 feet from the San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 29 backyard fence of the nearest existing residences, the noise levels would be up to 52 dBA. Other mechanical equipment such as pumps and heating, ventilation and ak-conditioning (HVAC) ~vould be associated with the retail uses. These have varying noise levels that are D-pically louder than residential equipment and xvould need to be evaluated as information is made available during the design process. Car Wash The two northernmost residential buildings (Building 10 and Building 11) would have a clear view of the carxvash and have the most exposure to carwash noise. Based on noise measurements of another car xvash in Dublin, noise levels inside these residences would reach a maximum of 41 dBA with windows open during the blower cycle, the noisiest part of the wash cycle. Though the carwash might be audible indoors, it would not be expected to interfere with indoor activities such as speech communication. This is considered a less than significant impact. b) There are no known sources ofgroundborne vibration associated xvith the project. c) Since the project-generated increases in traffic noise are less than the threshold for a noticeable increase of three dBA, the increase in traffic noise would be less than significant. Construction noise could impact nearby existing and proposed uses. The Cid- does not have any quantitative standards for construction but it is likely that construction noise would be loud enough to cause activity interference at the existing residential area to the south. This is a potentially significant impact. e) The project is not xvithin two miles of a public airport or public use airport. f) The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Mitigation Measures: 11.1 Applicant shall prepare a construction noise mitigation plan. The plan shall include but not be limited to the following: Construction phasing plan showing the duration of each phase and equipment to be used. Location of stafiona~ equipment. · Calculation of noise levels at nearest residences and noise sensitive retail spaces. · Name of construction noise coordinator that can be posted at the entry to the site. Person responsible for responding to complaints and enacting solutions. 11.2 Sound-rated building construction shall be used to achieve acceptable indoor noise levels as per the State Building Code and City's Noise Element. The specification of these treatments should be developed during the architectural design of the buildings. In general, rooms along the perimeter of the site xvill require sound rated windoxvs. Units in Buildings 1 (the four east end units), 2 (the four east end units), 3 (the four east end units) and 4 (all units) along 1-680 would be exposed to levels over CNEL 65 dBA and will require sound rated building constructions (windows and/or exterior walls) to meet the State Building Code requirement. All residential units in the project w/il require mechanical ventilation to alloxv the windoxvs to be closed for noise control. An acoustical consultant should review the architectural design to be sure that the required treatments are incorporated into the construction documents. 11.3 Porches and decks exposed to a CNEL of 65 to 70 dBA ( Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10) shall be San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 30 partially enclosed or eliminated. A partial enclosure would consist of a solid six-foot tall balcony railing that would act as a local noise barrier. Porches or decks exposed to levels greater than 70 dbA (Buildings 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10) shall be fully enclosed. A full enclosure xvould create a deck or porch that is similar to a sun room. It would be constructed out of standard building materials but need to provide adequate noise reduction. The enclosure could include operable windows or sliding glass doors so that the area can be open if the occupant desires. An acoustical consultant shall review the design of the porch/deck treatments to confirm that noise levels will achieve the City's goal. The sitting garden along 1-680 would be exposed to a future CNEL in excess of 75 dBA xvhich is considered "clearly unacceptable" for residential development. To reduce noise at the outdoor use area and at Buildings 2, 3 and 4, the existing sound xvall could be extended an additional 275 feet. A ten-foot sound wall xvould reduce the CNEL to less than 70 dbA which is considered to be "conditionally acceptable". It would be difficult to achieve the City's goal of CNEL 65 dBA at the sitting garden. Preliminary calculations indicate that the xvall will need to be about 18 feet tall to meet the Ciw's outdoor noise goal. Alternatively, a xvall could be located immediately adjacent to the sitting garden to block freeway noise. The wall could be one to two feet shorter and achieve the same noise reduction. The exact height and composition can be determined during the detailed design phase. If there is a concern that the barrier would block views, a clear barrier made of aco'lic or glass could be used. An acoustical consultant shah review the design of the barrier to confirm that noise levels will achieve the Cits,'s goals. 11.4 The City does not have a quantitative noise standard for mechanical equipment such as refrigeration units or air-conditioning systems. Noise generated by stationary sources (residential and retail) xvill need to meet, at a minimum, the performance standards contained in the Noise Element (CNEL of 60 dBA for residential uses). The mechanical design shall be reviewed by an acoustical consultant to verify that the CitT's standards will be met and that the equipment ~vill not significantly increase existing noise levels at residences and the common outdoor use area adjacent to the retail building. The mechanical and architectural plans should show all required sound attenuating features such as silencers and barriers. Finding: With incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures into the project, the project would not expose residential neighbors and project residents to significant unacceptable noise levels. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 31 Potentmlly Significant Potenmflly Unless Less Than Stgnificant Mingation s~gnificant Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [] [] [] [] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [] [] [] [] Discussion: The project would result in an increase of 56 housing units in the project vicinity. This would contribute to the City's need for new housing. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 12 is presented below. Using the Cit3"s current estimate of the average household size of 2.65 persons per housing unit, a population increase of approximately 148 persons could result. The project site is an inffll site and is currently served by e~sting cid, road~vays and utilities. The project xvould create 56 new housing units, making a contribution the housing needs of Dublin. The project proposes seven below market rate housing units: two units would be available to qualified individuals with very lo~v incomes; one unit would be available to a qualified individual xvith a low income; and four units would be available to persons with moderate incomes. The project would be in compliance with the Ci~"s Inclusionary Ordinance. c) The project would replace existing retail space with new housing. This would result in an increase in the housing stock in Dublin. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The project would not generate a significant increase in population. The project xvould increase the amount of housing in Dublin including seven below market rate housing units. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 32 Potentiall) Sigmificant hnpact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact N o Impact 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. \Vould the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable sen4ce ratios, response ttmes or other performance objectives for any of the public setwices: a) Fire protection? [] [] [] b) Police protection? [] [] [] c) Schools? [] [] [] d) Parks? [] [] [] e) Other public facilities? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Discussion: Project development would not result in significant impacts to existing public sen-ices. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 13 is presented below. a) Fire services are provided by the Alameda Count)- Fire Department under contract to the City of Dublin. Thirty six line personnel are assigned over three shifts to the City on three engine companies and one truck company. There are three fire stations in Dublin: Stations 16, 17, and 18 (City of Dubhn web site: ~vww. ci.dublin.ca.uo. First response to the project site ~vould come from Station 16 with second response from Station 17; the response time is approximately six to eight minutes (Mcl~fillan 2004). All project buildings would be required to include sprinklers in compliance with the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Dublin. While project development would replace a portion of the existing retail development with new residential development, the project is not anticipated to adversely affect the Department's ability to respond to emergencies within the four to eight minute response time. b) Police services are provided by the Alameda Count3- Sheriff's Office under contract to the City of Dublin. Patrol, criminal investigation, crime prevention and business office functions are performed at the Department's business office located at 100 Civic Plaza (City of Dublin ~veb site: wxvw. ci.dubl/n.ca.us). c) Dubhn Unified School District serves residents in Dublin. Children living in the new residential development at the project site would attend Dubhn ElementaD' School, Wells Middle School and Dubhn High School. Based on the District's student generation rates, approximately 35 school-age children could result from the project (Dublin Unified School District, 2004). d) The project proposes four primary open space/green space areas xvithin the residential development including a resident's sitting garden xvith public art at the comer of Bellina Street and San Ramon San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 33 Road, a lawn area at the southeasterly property boundaD-, a resident's sitting garden at the easterly property boundary and a tot lot and lawn area at the northeasterly portion of the residential development. These total approximately 7, 500 square feet. Access to the open space areas would be restricted to residents and their guests. A deck would be provided in each housing unit. As with other Dublin residents, project residents would be expected to use Ciu, and regional parks. The nearest City park is Shannon Park located south of the project site on San Ramon Road. The residential development is estimated to generate about 148 persons based on average household size in Dublin. ¥~hile some or all of these residents may use City parks, this potential increase is considered less than significant. e) The project would not adversely affect other public facilities. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: Project development would not adversely' affect public services. S~gnificant Potentially Unless l/ess Than Si,,~U titan t Mitigation S~gnificant No 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project 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? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the en,sronment? Discussion: Project development would result in a potential increase in park and other recreational facilities. However, potential increases are expected to be less than significant. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 14 is presented below. The residential development portion of the project would increase the number of residents in Dublin, and it can be expected that these residents xvill use local and regional parks and other recreational facilities. The estimated population increase would not impose a significant increase in use of these facilities. See also Item d under Section 13 Public Services above. The project does not include active recreational facilities. A tot lot and txvo sitting gardens provide open space areas for passive recreation. A pedestrian pathway system provides safe and convenient access to ~valk to the retail area of the project and throughout the residential areas. See also Item d under Section 13 Public Services above. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 34 Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: Project development xvould not adversely affect local and regional recreational facilities. Potcm tially Significant Pt~tenmlly Unless I.ess Than Sigpnficant Mmganon stgnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 15. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle traps, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed, either indMdually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion: The Focused Traffic Analysis for the Proposed San Ramon Village Plaza Development prepared by Omni Means (February 2004) was used in analyzing potential traffic impacts. Based on this analysis, the project would result in a decrease in PM peak hour vehicular trips. The project site plan would create potential circulation conflicts. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 15 is presented below. The proposed project would result in a reduction in retail use and the introduction of residential use at the project site. To establish exisdng site trip generation, traffic counts were undertaken at the project site during the AM (7:00 - 9:00 am) and PM (4:00 - 6:00 pm) on May 1, 2003. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 35 Table 2: Existing and Proposed Project Net New Trip Generation - AM and PM Peak Hotnc Net Total Project Peak Proposed Proposed Proposed Increase/ Hour Existing Retail Townhomes Project Decrease AM 27 8 37 45 18 PM 68 20 43 63 -5 The proposed project ~vould not significantly affect traffic flows in the project area. As shown in Table 2, the net change in AM and PM peak hour trips betxveen the existing retail center and the proposed project would have a minimal effect on traffic flows and current levels of service at adjacent intersections. Thus, a comprehensive traffic analysis is not required for the project. b) Project generated traffic xvould not result in an increase in the level of service at nearby intersections. c) e) Project development would not affect existing or future air traffic patterns. The project site plan would create vehicle conflicts. San Ramon Road. The current driveway configuration at San Ramon Road may create vehicle conflicts between inbound patrons accessing internal parking aisles and those patrons wishing to access the north-south Shell Gas Station easement. Conflicts also may result from patrons traveling through the westbound retail drive aisle and looping around to the eastbound drive aisle in search of a parking space could conflict with inbound vehicles from San Ramon Road traveling directly to the Shell Gas Station. Main North-South Internal Drive (Bellina Commons) between Alcosta Boulevard and Bellina Street. The wide travel width of 24 feet could encourage ("cut") through-traffic between the two public streets within the retail center as well as high vehicle speeds within the center. Truck Turning Radius. At the main intemal intersections in the retail and residential areas, truck naming radii are not adequate for fire and/or garbage truck access. Parking Conflicts. There is a potential for vehicles to parallel park along the curb at the south end of the drive aisle between Buildings 7 and 8, xvhich xvould block residential access. The project site plan provides adequate emergency access in compliance with Police and Fire Department standards. The project proposes 93 parking spaces for retail use and 140 parking spaces for residential use for a total of total of 233 parking spaces. The project would be in conformance with the parking requirements for retail and residential use. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 36 The project site is currendy served by ¥¥heels Route 201(with limited services) and Count), Connection Route 121. The project would include a bus stop on San Ramon Road to the south of the project entrance. This would improve bus service for the project. Mitigation Measures: 15.1 All outbound traffic at proposed project driveways on Bellina Street, Alcosta Boulevard and San Ramon Road shall be stop-sign controlled to avoid vehicle conflicts at these major ingress/egress points. 15.2 The majorit), of parking spaces located in the eastern (rear) portion of the site should be designated (18 total) for employee parking. This would maximize access for retail patrons to the majority of parking spaces in the main retail parking lot. It is recommended that the proposed handicapped par'king space in the rear retail parking field be relocated adjacent to the handicapped parking space proposed in front of the retail building on Bellina Commons (i.e. the southwest comer of the building). 15.3 The San Ramon Road hmited access driveway shall have additional traffic controls to prevent potential vehicle conflicts for both inbound and internal motorists. Two additional stop-signs shall be installed in conjunction with this driveway to allow for safe access to the north-south Shell Gas Station easement. It is recommended that a stop-sign be installed for westbound traffic at the internal drive aisles' intersection ~vith the north-south easement. Another stop- sign shall be installed for southbound traffic on the north-south Shell Gas Station easement just phor to the outbound traffic floxv lane to San Ramon Road. This will prevent internally circulating vehicles from interfering xvith inbound traffic. 15.4 Remove three diagonal retail parking spaces to prevent conflicts with through-traffic within the retail center. On the one-xvay eastbound retail parking drive aisle, the first diagonal parking on the south entering from San Ramon Drive shall be removed. On the one-~vay westbound retail parking drive aisle, the first diagonal on the south shall be removed. Similarly, the first par'king space on the east side entering from Bellina Street should be removed for traffic purposes. Removal of these spaces will not change the project parking demand conclusions. 15.5 The parallel curb at the south end of Building 8 shall be painted red to prevent parked vehicles from blocking garage access to the last units in Building 7. 15.6 The main internal intersections in the retail and residential areas shall provide adequate truck turning radii for fire and garbage trucks. 15.7 Traffic calming measures as required by the Ci~, Engineer shall be installed on the main north-south internal drive (Belhna Commons) between Bellina Street and Alcosta Boulevard. Such measures could include, but are not limited to, speed tables. Finding: The project would not result in a significant increase in traffic. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 37 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Qualit7 Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or xvastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of ~vhich could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a detern'nnation by the wastexvater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project's projected demand in addition to the prox4der's existing commitments? ~) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Potcntmlly Unless Less Than s~g~ificant Mitigam m s~gnifica~t No hnpact Incorporated Impact Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Discussion: Project development xvould not result in adverse impacts to public utilities and service providers. A brief discussion of each environmental topic included under Section 15 is presented below. a) Project development would not result in exceedence of any Regional Water Quality Control Board ~vastewater treatment requirements. b) The project would not result in the need to expand treatment capaciu, at the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency's wastewater treatment facility or Zone 7's water treatment facility. c) Nexv storm drains would be constructed on site to serve proposed development. Project storm drains would connect with City storm drains along Bellina Street and San Ramon Road. Project development xvould not require the construction of new or expansion of existing City storm drain facilities. San Ramon Village Plaza Initial Study - 38 The Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) provides water service to Dublin residents. \Vater is purchased under contract from Zone 7. There is adequate water supply to serve the project. Solid waste collection is provided by Livermore-Dublin Disposal. The City has a comprehensive recycling program that allows residents and businesses to recycle glass, tin, most plastics, newspaper, mixed paper. Aluminum cans and green waste (City web page: xvwxv, ci.dublin.ca.us). Project generated solid xvaste would not adversely affect landfill capacity. g) Project generated solid waste xvould be in compliance with federal, state and local statutes and regulations. Mitigation Measures: None required. Finding: The project ~vould not result in significant impacts to public uflides and service systems. S~$anficant Potentmlly Unless Significant Mitiganon Impact lncoq~orated l~ssThan Significant Impact hnpact 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the qua[ity of the em4ronment, substantially reduce the habitat ora fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ammal conununitT, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Cahfornia histo~, or prehistory? b) c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when x4ewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Does the project have enmronmental effects, wkich will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [] [] [] REFERENCES City of Dublin bfefftage Tree Ordinance (No. 5-02). Cit3~ of Dublin. Ci(y of Dublin Genera/P/an. Adopted Febma~' 11, 1985. Updated to November 5, 2002. City of Dublin. Zoning Ordinance. Adopted October 1999. Updated to November 2002. Dubhn Unified School District. Personal communication, February 10, 2004. The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc. San Ramon ltl#age Pla~a Tree Disposition Plan. Dated January 30, 2003. The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc. San Ramon l/il/age P/a~a Landscape P/an. Dated November 4, 2003. The Guzzardo Partnership, Inc. Pre/iminasy Landscape Plan. Dated JanuaD' 30, 2003. National Environmental, Inc. Report on PreIiminasv Geoph)'sica/lnvestigation. September 25, 2002. Omni Means Engineers and Planners. Focused Traj~icl4naD'sis for the Proposed San Ramon Village P/a~a Development. February 2, 2004 (updated). Rosen Goldberg & Der. ~4dministrative Draft Environmental Noise Impact ~4na/o,sis for the San Ramon l/il/age Plaga Project, Dublin Ca4Tbrnia. December 9, 2003. Rosewood Environmental Engineering. Phase I Environmental Site ~issessment San Ramon l/#/age Pla~a, Dub/in C'a/~i/brnia. May 25, 2002. Terrasearch, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation on Oliver Proper/),, Proposed Residential Development, Northeast Comer of San Ramon Road and Be/bna Street, Dublin Ca/i_/brnia for Bancor Properties I_LC. August 21, 2002. n 0 Nil 0 n o > n 0 Z 0 0 Z Z © Z ~-. 0 April 7, 2004 Jim Horen, Principal Engineer Advance Planning Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 5997 Parkside Drive Pleasanton, California 94588-5127 Dear Mr. Horen: Thank you for your comments regarding the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Ramon Village Plaza, San Ramon Road, Dublin. Please find enclosed the Draft Responses to Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. We are sending these responses as a courtesy to those who commented on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. There will be a public hearing on this project before the Planning Commission on April 13, 2004. The hearing will be held at 7:00 .m. in the City Council Chambers at 1 O0 Civic Center Plaza, Dublin, California. If you have any questions, please contact me at (408) 297-8763. Sincerely, Deborah Ungo-McCormick Contract Planner Cc: Jeri Ram, Planning Manager Planning Commission Art~a(]~;d~,(92:~ · Cily Manager 833-6650 · O~tyCouncd833-6650 · Personnel833-6605 · Economic Development 833-6650 '~',nar~ce833 6640 · Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 · Parks& Community Services 833-6645 · Police 833-6670 Ptarm,ng/CodeEnforcernent83366tO.Bu,icmgh,speutlor, 833 6620 . Fire Prevention Bureau. 833-6 ' [R;z"._. - Response to Letter 1: Jim Horren - Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District: 1.1 Comment: In reference to page 5 of the Initial Study, Item 10: "Other public agencies whose approval is required", the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) should be listed as an agency whose approval is required for this project. The SRWCB requires that a General Construction Activities Stormwater NPDES Permit be obtained for construction activity that results in the disturbance of an acre or more of land, and a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must be developed and implemented for the sited covered by the General Permit. Response to Comment 1.1. Comment noted. Standard Public Work Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measure 8.1 (See Initial Study Page 25) for the project require that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared in compliance with the NPDES permit included in the erosion control measures appropriate for the project. Design of these measures shall be updated each year prior to September 30 and approved by the City Engineer. 1.2 Comment: In reference to page 25 of the Initial Study, Paragraph 9, Land Use Planning, the discussion mentioned utilizing a Zone 7 flood control facility and Bellina Street to separate the existing low density residential uses from the project's proposed high density-residential uses. We reiterate our request from the January 23 letter for an access easement along the north side of the channel, or a 20-foot wide access easement through a private street near the southeast comer of the parcel. As also mentioned in the January 23 letter, the proposed plan does not provide any vehicle access from the north or south banks of the channel to allow routine inspection or maintenance. An existing access gate in the southeast comer of the development is presently used to access the channel for maintenance purposes. Continued access to this gate is necessary for Zone 7 to maintain its facility. Response to Comment 1.2: Conditions of approval of the Vesting Tentative Map require that the Developer shall provide a 3-foot wide gate with pedestrian access at the east end of the proposed wrought iron fence along the Alameda County drainage channel. Either through an easement or agreement with Zone 7 the Developer shall be required to provide pedestrian access to the gate to allow continued access by Zone 7 maintenance of the channel. The new wrought iron fence shall be installed by the applicant and its maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 5997 PARKSIDE DRIVE PLEASAtqTON. CALIFORNIA 94588-5127 March 26, 2004 PHONE f925) 484-2600 FAX (925) 462 3914 Ms. Jeff Ram, Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study for San Ramon Village Plaza, Dear Ms. Ram: Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA documents in the context of our mission to provide drinking water, non-potable water for agriculture and irrigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater and stream management in the Livermore-Amador Valley. Enclosed for your reference is Zone 7's letter dated January 23, 2004, to Ms. Deborah Ungo-McCormick regarding a previous Zone 7 review of this development. Our conm~ents include the following: In reference to page 5 of the Initial Study, Item 10, "Other public agencies whose approval is required," the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) should be listed as an agency whose approval is required for this project. The SWRCB requires that a General Construction Activities Stormwater NPDES Permit be obtained for construction activity that results in the disturbance of an acre or more of land, and a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must be developed and implemented for the site covered by the General Permit. In reference to page 25 of thc Initial Study, Paragraph 9, Land Use Planning, the discussion mentioned utilizing a Zone 7 flood control facility and Bellina Street to separate the existing low density residential uses from the project's proposed high-density residential uses. We reiterate our request from the January 23 letter for an access easement along the north side of the channel, or a 20-foot wide access easement through a private street near the southeast comer of the parcel. As also mentioned in the January 23 letter, the proposed plan does not provide any vehicle access fi.om the north or south banks of the channel to allow routine inspection or maintenance. An existing access gate in the southeast comer of the development is presently used to access the channel for maintenance purposes. Continued access to this gate is necessary for Zone 7 to maintain its facility. ~AR g 9 2004 ;3UBUN PLANNING Ms. Jeri Ram March 26, 2004 Page 2 We appreciate the oppommity to comment on this document. Please feel flee to contact me at (925) 484-2600, ext. 400, jhoren@zone7water.com, or Jack Fong at ext. 245, j fong~zone7water.com, if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Jim Horen Principal Engineer Advance Planning JPH:JF:arr/jr CC: Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Contract Planner (w/enc.) Ed Cummings, Zone 7 (w/o enc.) John Mahoney, Zone 7 (w/o eric.) Joe Seto, Zone 7 (w/o enc.) John Koltz, Zone 7 (w/o enc.) Mona Olmsted, Zone 7 (w/o enc.) Jack Fong, Zone 7 (w/o enc.) P:Advpln/CEQAReferrals-SanRamonVillagePlazaCenter ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION D STRICT PLEASAN'r©N. CALIFORNIA 94588-5127 5997 PARKSIDE DRfVE ~ January' 23, 2004 PHONE {925} 484-2600 FAX (925} Ms. Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Contract Plam~er Planning Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 SUBJECT'. San Ramon Village Plaza - Tract 743 7, (PA#02-063), Alcosta Blvd. and San Ramon Road, Dublin Zone 7 Referral No. 04-001 Dear Ms. Ungo-McCom~ick: This letter is in response to your referral dated January 9, 2004, regarding the aforementioned project. We offer cmrunents in the followmg specific areas of interest: Water Supply: There are no existing or proposed future Zone 7 water supply facilities at the project site. Please contact Jaime Rios at extension 407 if you have any questions regarding water supply issues. Groundwater Management: Om' records indicate there are no water wells or monitoring wells located within the project boundaries. If any wells are found wittfin the project limits, they should be reported to Zone 7. All unused or "abandoned" wells must be properly destroyed, or a signed "Statement of Future Well Use" must be filed at Zone 7 if there are plans to use the well in the future. A3~y planned new well, soil boring or well destruction must be pemaitted by Zone 7 before starting the work. There are no fees for the Zone 7 drilling per,nits. Well pem2it applications can be obtained by contacting Wynan Hong at extension 235 or can be downloaded from our web site at wx,xa~-, zone 7water. com. Flood Control: Zone 7 has a Flood Control facility, Line J-1, which runs along the southeast section of the parcel from Bellina Street to Interstate 680. The improvement plans should show the chmmeI location, as well as a cross-sect/on of the channel butted up against the property. Under the current proposed plan, there is no vehicle access from the north or south banks of the channel, ha the past, the existing parking lot was utilized to access the north bank of the cham~el for nomxal and emergency maintenance work. Access was through an existing three-foot wide pedestriar~ gate located in the southeast comer of the parcel. Zone 7 requests that an access easement be provided at one of two locations: 1) a 20-foot wide access easement along the north side of the Ms. Deborah Ungo-McConnick, Contract Plamaer Community Development Depm-tment City of Dublin Januau, 23, 2004 Page 2 channel be provided (southeast border), or 2) a 20-foot wide access easement through the private street toward the southeast comer of the parcel. The access easement would typically be utilized for routine maintenance and inspections. Maintenance of the chmmel is performed by manual labor, as heavy equipment carmot be utilized. Failure to provide an access easement will prohibit Zone 7 from adequately maintaining the facility. Please note on Sheet L-l, that an existing Zone 7 chain-lirdc fence should be shown. The property lines and distances should be depicted in a cross-section view. The wading should be at least a three percent (3%) slope away fi'om the channel. Please also note that the proposed wrought iron fence does not meet Zone 7 standards. If the fencing varies from Zone 7's standard fence of 6-feet high, black, vinyl coated fencing, then Zone 7 will not be responsible for the maintenm~ce of the fence. Mitigation for the creation of new impervious areas within the Livem~ore-Amador Valley is addressed tl~rough the collection of Special Drainage Ad'ea 7-1 (SDA) drainage fees. Drainage fees are collected by the governing agency for new roads (upon application for approval of vesting tentative or final map) and buildings, driveways, etc. (upon application for building permit). Fees may be due, dependent on pre-project conditions, and whether or not the new project proposes to add more impervious area than what was already there. Please contact Craig Mayfield at extension 240 if you have any questions regarding Flood Control comments. For future submittals at this location, please refer to Zone 7 Referral No. 04-001. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the person identified per section comments or me at extension 249. Ve~!~ truiy yours, J~tm ~. roltz S er~Or Engineer Advance Plmming JKK:jr cc: Clayton Borchers, Zone 7, Flood Control Craig Mayfietd, Zone 7, Flood Control P: ~Flood'iReferralsl04-OOJ San Ramon I,'Tllage Plaza, Bancor Alcosra Site. doc SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST Prepared for CitT of Dublin Prepared by PEACEMAKERS 1500 Park Avenue - Loft #310 Emer)wille, Cahfornia 94608 March 1, 2004 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Pubhc Resources Code section 21081.6(a) requires all pubhc agencies to adopt monitoring or reporting programs xvhen they approve projects subject to Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), Mitigated Negative Declarations or Negative Declarations that identify significant impacts. The reporting or monitoring program must be adopted when a public agency makes its findings for EIRs, Mitigated Negative Declarations or Negative Declarations so that the program can be made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate significant effects on the environment. The program must be designed to ensure comphance during project implementation to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. 1.2 Purpose This Nfitigation Monitoring Program Checklist is designed to serve as a tool for the evaluation of project compliance with mitigation measures identified in the Nfitigated Negative Declaration for the San Ramon Village Plaza project. This document will be used by the CiD7 of Dublin (CitT) to verify inclusion of required project design features and implementation of mitigation measures. The Checklist serves as a summary so the City, other public agencies and the community can easily determine which measures have been complied xvith. 2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST Thc Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist is proposed for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the bfitigated Negative Declaration and hsted in the attached checklist. The CiD- should implement the monitoring program as folloxvs: The Planning Manager, Department of CommuniD' Development, is responsible for coordination of the monitoring program including the monitoring checklist. Each responsible individual or agency xvill be responsible for determining whether the applicable mitigation measures contained within the checklist have been complied with. Once all mitigation measures have been complied with, the responsible individual or agency should submit a completed chec 'klist to the Planning Manager. .~an Ramon ~'?llage Pla~Ta Mitigation Monitonng Program Checklist Page !