Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachmt 7 - Appdx 8.4 to pg 30Appendix 8.4 Dublin City Council Resolution No. 53-93 Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR rage i 5~ City of Dublin November 2004 RESOLIITION NO. -93 A RESOLIITION OF THE CITY CODI~TCIL OF THE CITY OF DIIBLIN RESOLIITIOIQ ADOPTING THE EASTERN DIIBLIN GEI~TERAL PLAN AMElIDMEl1T AHD EASTERN DIIHLIN SPECIFIC PLAN; MAKING FINDINGS PIIRSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENQIROI~IIRENTAL QIIALITY ACT AND BDOPTING A STATEMEDTt' OF O?BRRIDING CONSIDERATIO~iS FOR THE EABTERH DIIBLIIT GENERAI+ PLAN At~iDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR TES EASTERN D~SLIN GENERAL PLAR AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN Recitals 1. In response to a proposal for residential development of the Dublin Ranch property, the City of Dublin undertook the Eastern Dublin Study to plan for the future development of the eastern Dublin area. 2. The City Council and Planning Commission conducted three joint public study sessions and three workshops relating to planning issues in eastern Dublin. a. The April 18, 1990, study session considered a land use concept report containing four land use scenarios and the consistency of'each land use concept with existing general plan policies. Alternative #4 was considered the preferred land use concept for environmental study by informal consensus. b. The August 22, 1990, study session considered Alternative #4 and a fifth concept (based on the 1986 annexation agreement with Alameda County). The "Town Center" concept, types of streets, location and types of parks were discussed. c. The November 15, 1994, workshop solicited comments from the public regarding the existing and desired life style qualities in Dublin and what the public wanted to see in a new community. d. The December 6, 1994, workshop continued with a similar discussion of desired types of commercial development and discussed circulation systems and parks and open Space. e. The DecPm}ier 18, 1990, workshop presented a preliminary conceptual land use plan. Input was received on the transit spin, location of civic center, types of,residential.uses, location of commercial uses, the concentration of high density residential uses, and jobs/housing balance. 1 f. The February 14, 1991, study session considered a land use plan that incorporated comments made at the three workshops and included a di.scussian of major issues, such as the location of a high school, connection to existing Dublin, size of streets and types of parks. 3. With the identification of a preferred alternative on February 14, 1991, the City prepared a Draft General Plan Amendment for approximately 6,920 acres to plan for future development of a mixed use community of single- and multiple-family residences, commercial uses (general commercial, neighborhood commercial, campus office and industrial park), public and semi-public facilities (including schools), parks and open space. Draft General_Plan Amendment 4. The Draft General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1992. designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of Eastern Dublin for residential, commercial, industrial, public, open space and parks, and other categories of public and private uses of land. b. The Draft General Plan Amendment includes a statement of standards of population density and standards of building intensity for Eastern Dublin. 6. Pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to review and recommend action on groposed amendments to the City's General Plan. 7. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment on October 1, 1992, which hearing was continued to October 6, 1992, October 12, 1992, and October 15, 1992. 8. Based on comments received during the public hearing, related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the Draft General Plan Amendment and were reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 21, 1992. 9. The Draft General Plan Amendment was reviewed by the Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act through the preparation and review of an Environmental Impact Report. On December 21, 1992, by Resolution No. 92-060, the Planning Commission recommended certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. 10. On December 21, 1992, the Planning Commission, after considering aII written and oral testimony submitted, at the public hearing, adopted of Resolution No. 92-061, recommending City 2 Council adoption of the Draft General Plan Amendment, as revised December 21, 1992. Draft Specific Plan 11. The Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 2992, implements an approximately 3,328-acre portion of the Eastern Dublin General plan Amendment by providing a detailed framework, including policies, standards and implementation programs, for evaluation of development projects proposed in the portion of eastern Dublin covered by the Draft Specific Plan. 12. pursuant to State Law, the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific Plan was prepared and reviewed in the same manner as a general plan amendment. 13. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific Pian on October 6, 1992, which hearing was continued to October 12, 1992, and October 15, 1992.. 14. Based on comments received during the public hearings, related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the Draft Specific Plan and were reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 21, 199.2. 15. The Draft Specific Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act through the preparation and review of a Final Environmental Impact Report. On December 21, 1992, by Resolution No. 92-060, the Planning. Commission recommended certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. 16. On December 21, 1992, the Planning Commission, after considering all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing, adopted Resolution PTo. 92-062, recommending City Council adoption of the Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, as revised December 21, 1992. Council Public Hearinct 17. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft Specific plan on January 14, 1993, which hearing was continued to January 21, 1993, February 23, 1993, March 30, 1993, and April 27, 1993. 18. On April 27, 1993, the City Council, by Resolution No. 45-93, voted to refer Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area ("Alternative 2") with modifications back to the Planning Commission for its recommendation, pursuant to Government Code section 65356. 3 19. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 3, 1993, to consider Alternative 2 with modifications and has reported back to the City Council by Planning Commission Resolution No. 93- 013. 20. The City Council considered all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing and all written testimony submitted prior to the public hearing and the recommendation of the Planning Coannission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 92-06I, 92-062 and 93-013. 21. On May 10, 1993 the Council held duly noticed a public hearing to hear testimony regarding the Planning Commission's recommendation as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-013. 22. On May 10, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying the Addendum to the Draft EIR and the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") as adequate and complete. The Final EIR identified significant adverse environmental impacts which can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through changes or alterations in the project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, findings adopting the changes or alterations are required and are contained in this. resolution. Some of the significant impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance and a statement of overriding considerations is therefore required pursuant to CEQA and is also contained in this resolution. 23. Upon consideration of the land use and environmental .effects of the project, as described in the Final EIR,. the Council has determined to adapt Alternative 2, as described in the Final EIR, with certain modif ications which are described in the Addendum to the Draft EIR ( °Alternative 2 .With Modifications" } . Alternative 2 With i+sodifications reduces land use impacts, does not disrupt the existing rural residential community in Doolan Canyon, potentially reduces growth-inducing impacts on agricultural lands, reduces certain traffic impacts to a level of insignificance, produces less demand for infrastructure, reduces the noise impacts for Doolan Road to a level of insignificance and will have a positive fiscal impact on the City. 24. Alternative.2 was considered by the Planning Commission at its hearings, in testimony at the public hearings, in staff reports presented to the Commission at its hearings, in the EIR reviewed by the Planning Commission at its hearings and in its deliberations. 25. Alternative 2 With Modifications includes several substantial modif ications to Alternative 2 , as Alternative 2 is described in the Draft EIR. Although several of these modifications were considered by the Planning Commission at its hearings, the Planning Commission has considered Alternative 2 With 4 Modifications and has reported back to the Council with its recommendation regarding Alternative 2 With Modifications. The Counci3 has determined to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation as set forth in its Resolution No. 93-013, except with respect to the width of the Transit Spine and with the addition of the phrase "or other appropriate agreements " on page 160 of the Draft Specific Plan (§ 11.3.1; first sentence). Findings/pverridincl Considerations/ Mitigation Monitoring Program 26. Public Resources Code section 21081 requires the City to make certain findings if the City approves a project for which an environmental impact report has been prepared that identifies significant environmental effects. 27. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires adoption by the City Council of a statement of overriding considerations if the Council approves a project which will result in unavoidable significant effects on the environment. 28. Public Resource Code section 21085 and section 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines require the City to make certain determinations if it approves a project which reduces the number of housing units considered in the environmental impact report. 29. The' Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects. 30. Certain of the significant adverse environmental effects can be reduced to a level of insignificance by changes or alterations in the project. 31. Certain of the significant adverse environmental effects cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 32 . The Council has selected Alternative 2 identif led in the Final EIR with modifications described in the Addendum to the Draft EIR, reducing the number of housing units for such property from the project as reviewed by the Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. 33. Public Resources Cade section 21081.6 requires the City to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for changes in a project or conditions imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects in order to ensure compliance during project implementation. 34. Government Code section 65300 authorizes a city council to adopt a general plan for land outside its boundaries which in the Planning commission's judgment bears relation to its planning. 5 35. The Planning Commission has considered whether land outside the City's boundaries bears relation to the City's planning. 36. The City has referred Alternative 2 With Modifications to the Alameda County Airport Land IIse Commission ("ALIIC") pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21676 (b). The City has not received a determination from the ALVC. The 60-day time period for the ALVC to make a determination has not yet run. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED TBST A. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve "Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area" as the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, with the Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and with the Modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR, dated May 4, 1993. B. The Dublin City Council finds the Eastern Dublin Specific plan, as described in the Final EIR as "Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area," with Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and with the modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR dated May 4, 1993, to be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as revised by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment. C. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, with the Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and with the Modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR, dated May 4, 2993 and with the revision to page 160 referred to in paragraph 25 above. D. The Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staff to edit, format, and print the up-to-date Dublin General Plan with all City Council approved revisions and without any other substantive changes. E. The Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staff to edit, format, and print the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan with all City Council approved revisions and witlsout any other substantive changes. 8E IT FIIRTSER RESOLVED THAT the. Dublin City Council does hereby make-the findings set forth in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Pian. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TBAT the Dublin City Council finds and declares that the rationale for each of the findings set forth in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 anti 5 of its findings (Exhibit A) is contained in the paragraph entitled "Rationale for Finding" in Exhibit A. 6 ~. '~~ The Council further finds that the atitigation measures for each identified impact in Exhibit A make changes to, or alterations to, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, or are measures incorporated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that, once implemented as described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit B hereto), will avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on the environment. 88 IT FORTHER RESOLVED TEAT the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section 6 of Exhibit A, attached hereto, which statement shall be~included in the record of the project approval. Bg IT FDRTHER RESOLVED TEAT the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the "Mitigation Monitoring Programs Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, as the reporting and monitoring program required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. HS IT FIIRTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct that the Applicants for land use approvals in the Specific Plan area shall pay their pro rata share of all costs associated with the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program. BS IT FIIRTHffit .RESOLVED TEAT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct that all fees established pursuant to Government Code Section 65456, to recover costs of preparation of the Specific Plan, shall include the cost of preparation, adoption and admixistration of the Specific Plan plus interest on such costs based upon the City of Dublin's average monthly weighted investment yield calculated for each year or fraction thereof that such costs are unpaid. BE IT FIIRTHER R880LV8D THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project with the Alameda County Cler]c and the State office of Planning and Research. BE IT FIIRTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct the City Clerk to make available to the public, within one working day of the date of adoption of this resolution, copies of this resolution (including all Exhibits) and the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1992, with the Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and the modifications described i.n the Addendum to Draft EIR dated May 4, 1993, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, with the Revisions to Draft Specific Plan, dated December 21, 1992, and the modifications 7 described in the Addendum to Draft ~EIR, ali as modified by this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this resolution shall become effective thirty (30) days from the date of passage. 8E IT FURTHER RgBOLVED THAT if, on the effective date of this resolution or within the remaining 60-day period for ALUC action, the ALUC has found that Alternative Z With Modifications is not consistent with the ALUC•s Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan, the City shall submit all regulations, permits or other actions implementing the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to the ALIIC for review until such time that the City Council revises the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to be consistent' with the ALUC's Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan or adopts specific findings by a two- thirds vote that the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code as stated in section 21670 of such Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: s Burton; Houston, Howard, Nbffatt & Mayon' S7iyder NOES: None ABSENT: DTone ABSTAIN : Naze r Mayor ATTEST: G it clerk 114\RESOL\29\885dL~TIOH 8 ~~ ~; Sectioa 1 FINDINGS CONCERNING 8IGI~TIFICANT IMPACTS A~ MITIGATION MBASIIREB Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, the City Council h~xeby makes the following findings with respect to the Project's potential significant environmental impacts and means for mitigating those impacts. Findings pursuant to section 21081, subdivision (c), as they relate~to "project alternatives,° are made in Section 3. Bection 3.2'.-- Land Ose IMPACT 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and~Open Space rands. Agricultural grazing land and open space in Alameda and Contra Costa counties will be converted to urban uses by proposed grojects such as Dougherty Valley, Tassajara Valley, North Livermore, and Eastern Dublin. Because it would result in the urbanization of a large area of open space, the proposed Project would contribute to this ctuaulative loss of agricultural land and open space in the Tri-Valley area. This is considered a signifi- cant unavoidable cumulative impact. Response to Comments ("RC") ~ 34-9. Finding. No mitigation measures are proposed to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding. The total amount of open space within .the RPA that will be urbanized will be cumulatively significant, in light of numerous other open space areas within the region that is also anticipated for urbanization. IMPACT 3.i/G: Potential Conflicts with Land IIses to the West. The Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (nCamp Parks") is located due west of :the Specific Plan area. Existing and future Army training activities, such as the use of high velocity weapons and helicopters, could result in noise and safety conflicts with adjacent open space. and single-family residential areas of the Specific Plan. The extent of future army activity is unknown and =The °Project" is Alternative 2 described in the DEIR at pages 4-9 through 4-14 with the modifications described in the May 4, 1993 Addendum to the EIR. Alternative 2 calls for development in the Reduced Planning Area (the portion of eastern Dublin within its sphere-of-influence) (hereafter "RPA"). ;, ii4~ea~tduv~faaca, ~ ~~~~l~I' ~ 6 _ E~z83~=.. ~-. -~, the Army has not yet completed its Camp Parks Master Plan. DEIR page 3.1-13. Mitiuatian Measure 3.1/1.0. The City of Dublin should coordinate its planning activities with the Army to achieve compatibility with adjacent Camp Parks land uses, to solve potent:~:al future conflicts, and to reconcile land use incom- patibilities. The City should consult with the Army for any specific development groposals within the RPA. DEIR pages 3.1-13, -2Z. Findinct: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen ;the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Coordinated planning activities will allow the City and Army to identify potential noise and safety impacts before they occur and will allow specific mitigation measures, including redesign, to be incorporated into development in the Project Area. section 3.3 -- Traffic and Circulation When a mitigation measure referenced in this section requires development projects within the RPA to pay for a proportionate cost of regional transportation programs and/or traffic and circulationiimprovements, the proportion shall be as determined by regionai~transportation studies, such as the current study by the Tri Valley Transportation Council. IMPACT 3.3/g. Z-580 Fr8elray, Tassajara-Fallon. Year 2.010 growth without the''Project would cause cumulative freeway volumes to exceed Level of Service E on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. DEIR pages 3_3-21 (as revised), 5.0-3. ~3itigation Measure 3.3!1.0. Caltrans, in cooperation with local jurisdictions, could construct auxiliary lanes on I- 580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to create a total of ten lanes, which would provide I~eve1 of Service D opera- tions, consistent with the Caltrans Route Concept Report for I-580. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-3. Finding. Approval of the construction of the auxiliary lanes,~_and cooperation by jurisdictions other than the City of Dublin, are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other agencies. If taken, '..such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. I1~\eastdnb\fiad(4) 2 f' Rationale for Finding. This mitigation measure provides acceptable Level of Service D operations during peak hours on the ..freeway . IMPACT 3.3/8. I-380 Freeway, I-680 to Hacienda. Year 2010 growth with the Project would cause I-580 between I-680 and Dougherty Road to exceed Level of Service E. This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 4-11, 5.0-3. Mitigation Measure 3.3/2.0. Consistent with Specif i~ Plan Policy 5-21 , all non-residential projects with 50 or more employees in the RPA shall participate in a Transportation Systems. Management (TSMj program to reduce the use of single occupant vehicles through strategies including but not limited to encouraging public transit use, carpooling, and flexible work hours. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0- 3. Mitigation Measure 3.3/2.1. All projects within the RPA area shall contribute a proportionate share of the costs of regional transportation mitigation programs, as determined by regional transportation studies. Such regional miti- gation=programs may include enhanced public transit service andjor upgrading alternate road corridors to relieve demand on I-580 or I-680. DEIR page 3.3-21~(as revised). Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact might not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale far Finding. Approval of Alternative 2 reduces to a level of insignificance the impact on I-580 between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive. DEIR page 4-11. The TSi~i prograza strategies will reduce single car occupancy, thereby reducing the number of cars expected to use the subject stretcfi of I-580. Regional actions may focus not only on reducing auto use by reducing single occupant vehicles, but also on increasing Project area road capacities through ~ This policy appears in the Eastern Dublin specific Plan, which plan apglies only to the identified Specific Plan area. The provisions of this policy provide useful mitigation outside the Specific Plan area as well. Therefore, the EIR and these findings adopt these provisions for the entire RPA. Hereinafter, those Specific Plan goals, policies, and action programs whose provisions are similarly adopted for the RPA throughout these findings will be indicated by an asterisk. ;~ 114\eastdnb\f%~ad(4) 3 ~ ~'~~. construction of routes providing convenient alternatives to I-580 and I-680. Given the overall expected increase in traffic, however, these measures are not sufficient to reduce ;the cumulative impacts on I-580 between I-680 and Dougherty Road to insignificance. IMPACT 3.3JC. I-580 Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon-Airway. Year 2010 growth with:the Project would cause freeway volumes to exceed Level of Service E on I-584 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard. '--This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.3-21j(as revised), 5.0-3. Mitigation Measure 3.3/3.0. The City shall coordinate with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to construct auxiliary lanes on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard. All projects within the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share of the costs of these improvements. DEIR pages 3.3- 22 (as revised}, 5.0-3; RC ~7-6 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. Freeway construction actions are within the ultimate res- ponsib~lity and jurisdiction of Caltrans,"who can and should take such actions. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. . Rationale for Finding. The auxiliary lanes will provide sufficient additional capacity on I-580 to provide Level of Service D between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard, and Level of Service E between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Both Level of Service D and E are acceptable during peak freeway hours. DEIR pages 3.3-2, -18. Development in the RPA will be required to contribute its fair share to the auxiliary lane improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. State law authorizes the City to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the freeway improvements (see, e.a., Streets & xighways code §§ 113 ..5, 114) . IMPACT 3.3J?3. I-680 Freeway, North of i-580. Year 2010 growth with the Prc3ject would cause freeway volumes to exceed Level of Service E oY I-680 north of the I-580 interchange. This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.3-22, 5.0-4. Miti ation Measure 3.3/4.0_. All projects in the RPA shall contri~iute a proportionate share of the costs of Caltrans' planned improvements at the I-580/I-680 interchange, in- cluding a new two-lane freeway-to-freeway flyover with 114\eastdnb\fiad(4) 4 ~~ related hook ramps to the City of Dublin. DEIR page 3.3-22. (as revised) (see also page 3.3-17 (as revised)}. ~: Findin~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen~;the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. Freeway interchange improvement actions are within the responsibility and-jurisdiction of Caltrans, who can and should~~take such actions. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. The expected interchanges and related improvements will provide sufficient additional capacity on I-680 to provide Level of Service 'D north of the I-580 interchange. Development in the RPA will be required to contribute its fail share to the interchange and related improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. IMPACT 3.3j~. Cumulative FreeKay Impacts. Cumulative buildout with the Project would cause additional freeway sections, in- cluding I-5$0 east of Airway Boulevard, and the segment of I-580 between Doucj'herty and Hacienda to exceed level of service E. DEIR pages 3.3-22 (as revised), 5.0-4. Mitigation Measure 3.3/5.0. The Project shall contribute a proportionate share to the coastruction~of auxiliary lanes. (for a total of 10) on I-580 east of Airway Boulevard, for implementation by Caltrans. The City shall coordinate with other local jurisdictions to require that all future de- velopment projects participate in regional transportation mitigation programs as determined by the current Tri-Valley Transportation Council study. DEIR pages 3.3-22 {as re- vised) , 5.0-4 . Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project. Actions by other agencies and Catrans to implement this mitigation measure are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of those other agencies and not the City of Dublin. Stich actions can and should be taken by the other agencies. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted. Rationale for Findina. The auxiliary lanes will provide sufficient additional capacity to provide acceptable level of service on part of I-580 widening to ten lanes is consistent with the Route Concept Report. DEIR page 3.3-22 (as revised). Regional transportation mitigations can 114\eastdttb\fiad(4) b f, .~ ~ ~~ s ^~ reduce cumulative impacts through measures to decrease single occupant vehicle use and increase public transit use to further decrease traffic impacts. However, even with these improvements, part of I-580 (between I-68.0 and Hacienda Drive) will still be beyond acceptable LOS E. DEIR pages 3.3-20, 3.3-21 (as revised), 4-11. IMPACT 3.3/F. Dougherty Road-and Dabiia Sonlevard. Year 20L0 development .with the Project would cause Level of Service F operations at the intersection of Dougherty Road with Dublin Boulevard. ~~DEIR page~3.3-25. ' _Mitigation Measure 3.3/6.0. The City of Dublin shall monitor the intersection and implement construction of additional lanes when required to maintain LOS D operations. All projects within the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share cf the improvement costs. DEIR page. 3.3-25 (as revised}. Finding. -Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projectthat avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findin4. The additional lanes at the Dougherty RoadjDublin Boulevard intersection will provide sufficient capacity for Level of Service D operations, which is acceptable at street intersections in Dublin (DEIR pages 3.3-2, -18 (as revised)). Development in the RPA will be required to contribute its fair share of the intersection. improvements so that, when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. '~ _ IMPACT 3.3/'G. Hacienda Drive and I-58O Eastbound Ramps. Year 2010 development with the Project would cause Level-of Service F operations at the intersection of Hacienda Drive .with the I-580 eastbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised). Mitigation Measure 3.3/7.0. The City of Dublin shall implement improvements in coordination with the city of Pleasanton and~Caltrans to widen the eastbound 'off-ramp to provide a second-left turn-lane. All projects .in the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share of .the-improvement costs. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised); RC # 7-9. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially lessen~~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Off-ra~ip widening actions are within the ultimate respon- sibili~y and jurisdiction of Caltrans. Such actions can and should`be taken by Caltrans. If taken, such actions would 114\eastdnb~fad(4) 6 :i ..~ avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identi- f led iii the Final EIR . Rationale far Finding. The additional lanes at the east- bound off-ramp will provide acceptable Level of Service C operations. Development in the Project area will be required to contribute its fair share of the intersection improvements, so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. State law autharizes the City to erter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the off-ramp improvements (see „ e.a., Streets & Highways Code §§ 113.5, 114). IMP~iCT 3.3/H. Tassajara road and I-580 Westbound Ramps. Year 2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F operations at the intersectian of Tassajara Road with the I-580 westbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised). Mitigation Measure 3.3!8.0. The City of Dublin shall implement improvements in coordination with Caltrans to widen the I-580 westbound off-ramp and to modify the northbound approach to provide additional turn and through lanes,"~.A11 projects in the RPA shall contribute a pro- portionate share of the improvement costs. DEIR page 3.3- 26 (as~:revised). Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR'. Coordinating and ramp widening actions are within the ulti- mate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can and should take such actions. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identi- fied in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. The reconf figured lanes at the east- bound off-ramp will provide acceptable Level of Service B operations. Development in the Project area will be required to contribute its fair share of the intersection improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. State law authorizes the city to enter into a.cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the off-ramp improvements (see, e_a., Streets & Highways Code §§ 113.5, 114). I2SPACT 3.3/I. Santa Rita Road and I-580 $astbound Ramps. Year 2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F operations at the intersection of Santa Rita Road with the I-580 eastbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-26. il+~\esstdubMind (4 ) 7 Mitiaation Measure 3.3/9.0. The City of Dublin shall implement improvements in coordination with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen the I-580 eastbound off- ramp tc provide two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane to provide Level of Service E at this intersection. All projects in the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs. The City of Dublin shall continue to work with the City of Pleasanton to monitor level of service at this intersection and partici- pate i.n implementing improvements which may be identified in the future to improve traffic operations. DEIR page 3.3-26 (as.revised); RC # 7-11. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. Ramp widening actions are within~:the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrat3s, which can and should take such actions. However, even with these changes and actions., the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of theProject. ~~ Rationale for Finding. The off-ramp widening will provide LOSE operations, which is still significant. Development in the~Project area will be required to contribute its fair share of the intersection improvements, so that: when such . improvements are needed, they will be provided~~by~new development. generating the need. IMPACT 3.3 JK. Ais~ray Boulevard gad I-580 yrestbottad Ramps . -Fear 2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F operations at the intersection of Airway Boulevard with the I- 580 westbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised). Mitiaation Measure 3.3/11.0. The City of Dublin shall implement improvements in coordination with the City of Livermore and Caltrans to replace or widen the Airway Boulevard overcrossing.of I-580 and to widen the offramp for additional turn lanes- All projects within the RPA_sha13 contriY~ute a proportionate share of the imprOVeID2Tlt COStS. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised}; RC #17-2 Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Road and ramp widening actions are within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can and should take such actions. If taken such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. _ 114 \eastdub \ f izsd (4) 8 ^~ Rationale for Finding. The Airway Boulevard and I-580 improvements will provide an acceptable Level of Service D. Development in the Project area will-be required to contri- bute its fair share of the improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. State'iaw authorizes the City to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the road and ramp improvements (see, e.a., Streets & Highways Code §§ 113.5, 114). IMPACT 3.3/I~. El Charm itoad. Project traffic could introduce stops and delays for loaded trucks from the quarries on El Charm Road south of I-580. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised.). Mitigation Measure 3.3112.0. The City of Dublin shall implement improvements 1n coordination with Caltrans, the City of Pleasanton, and Alameda County to ensure that modifications to the I-580 interchange at Fallon Road/E1 Charm Road include provisions for unimpeded truck movements to and from E1 Charm Road. All projects in the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share of improvement costs. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised). Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the 'Final EIR. Freeway interchange modification actions are within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of Cal`trans, which can and should take such actions. If taken, such actions ~. would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinct. Providing unimpeded access for the quarry trucks will prevent other traffic from backing up behind the heavily laden trucks with their slow starts and stops. Development in the Project area will be required to Contribute its fair share of the improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will Yee provided by new development generating the need. State law authorizes the city to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the off-ramp improvements (see, e.g., Streets & Highways Code §§ 113.5, 114). IMPACT 3.3/x. Cwaulative =mpacts oa Dubli.n Boulevard. Cumulative buildout wifh the Project would cause Level of Service F opera- tions at the intersection of Hacienda Drive with Dublin Boulevard and Level of Service E operations at the intersection of Tassa- jara Road with Dublin Boulevard. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised), 5.0-4. '' ;~ 114 \eastrlssbMind (4) 9 ~ : --~, Mitigation Measure 3.3/13.0. The City shall continue to participate in regional studies of future transportation requirements, improvement alternatives, and funding pro- grams. Buildout of proposed projects outside Eastern Dublin would require the City to build grade-separated interchanges on Dublin Boulevard and/or establish alternate routes to redistribute traffic flow. All projects in the RPA shall contribute a proportionate share of improvement costs. DEIR pages 3.3-27 {as revised), 5.0-4. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. however, even with these changes, the impact might not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding. Regional transportation programs will atte~onpt to reduce the amount of future traffic and associated impacts. Even with these efforts, however, the cumulative traffic impacts on Dublin Boulevard might not be reduced to insignificance_ IMPACT 3.3/N. Cumulative Impacts on Tassajara Road. Cumulative buildout with the Project would cause Level of Service F opera- tions at the intersections of Tassajara Road with Fallon Road, Gleason Road, and the Transit Spine. These impacts.~would be caused primarily by traffic from the Tassajara connection to Dougherty Valley, and full buildout of the Tassajara Valley. DEIR page 3.3-28 (as revised) , 5.4-4'. Mitigation Measure 3.3j14.0. The City shall reserve suffi- cient right-of-way to widen Tassajara Road to six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and the Contra Costa County line and monitor traffic conditions and implement widening pro- jects as required to maintain LOS D operations on Tassajara Road. zAl1 projects in the RPA shall contribute a propor- tionate share of the improvement costs. DEIR pages 3.3-28 (as revised), 5.0-4 and -5; RC ~5-2, 7-13, 8-2 Findinci. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findin4. Allowing for the widening of Tassajara Road to six lanes, if needed, will allow the City to maintain an acceptable LOS D. Development in the Project area will be required to contribute its fair share of the improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the need. .~ 114\eastdub~fad(4) 10 7 IMPACT 3.3/O. Transit Service gxteasions. The Project would introduce significant development in an area not currently served by public transit, creating the need for substantial expansion of existing transit systems. DEIR page 3.3-28. Mitigation Measure 3.3J15.0. Specific Plan Policy 5-10* requires the City of Dublin to coordinate with LAVTA to provide transit service within one quarter stile of 950 of the population, in accordance with LAVTA service standards. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.}~ DEIR page 3.3-28. Mitigation Measure 3.3!15.1. Specific Plan Policy 5-11* requires the City of Dubl~.n to coordinate with LAVTA to provide at least one bus every 30 minutes during peak hours, to 9O~~~of employment centers with 100 or more employees, in accordance with LAVTA service standards. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR gage 3.3-28. Mitigation Measure 3.3/15.2. All projects in the RPA shall contribute a praportianate share to the capital and operation costs of transit service extensions. DEIR page 3.3-28. Mitigation Measure 3.3/15.3. The City shall coordinate with. BART and LAVTA to provide feeder service to the planned BART' stations. IIntil the BART extension is completed (projected for 1995), the City shall coordinate with BART. to ensure that BART express bus service is available to eastern Dublin residents. DEIR page 3.3-28. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. Some of the transit service coordination actions are within the respansibility and jurisdiction of Bart and.LAVTA agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by those agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final E=R. Rationa~.e for Findinct. The mitigations provide for expansion of existing transit systems to meet Project demand, not only on the local level through LAVTA but also on a local and regional level through BART. IMPACT 3.3jP. Street Crossings for Pedestrians gad Bicycles. Pedestrians :'and bicycles would cross major streets with high projected traffic volumes, such as Dublin Boulevard,~Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, introducing potential safety hazards for pedestrians and bicyclists. DEIR page 3.3-29. :~ lI4\eastdnb\fnd(4) 11 Mitigation Measure 3.3/16.0. Specific Plan Policy 5-15* and Specific Plan Figure 5.3* require a Class I paved bicycleJpedestrian path along Tassajara Creek and trails along other stream corridors in the Project area. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) 'DEIR page 33-29. Mitigation Measure 3.3j16.i. The City shall locate pedestrian and bicycle paths to cross major arterial streets at signalized intersections. DEIR page 3.3-29. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Placing a major bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara Creek and using trails along other stream corridors allows bicycles and pedestrians to avoid traveling on major streets with their high traffic volumes. Where the paths must cross a major arterial street, re- quiring the crossing at a signalized intersection minimizes path slid traffic conflicts by stopping traffic on a regular basis to let path travelers cross the street safely. 8ectioa-3.4~-- Community Services gad Facilities { IMPACT 3.4/A gad B. Demand for Increased Police Services gad Police Services Accessibility. The Project will increase demand for police services from the Dublin Palice Department.'s admini- strative and sworn staff, and will require reorganization of the police operations to provide new patrol beats in the Project - area. The hilly topography of most of the Project site may present some accessibility and crime-prevention problems. DEIR page 3.4-2. Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 8-4,* the City shall provide additional personnel and facilities and revise beats as needed in order to establish and maintain City standards for police protection service in EasterFi Dublin. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-2. Mitigation Measure 3.4/2.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action":'Program 8D,* the City shall coordinate with the City Police ;Department regarding the timing of annexation and: proposed development, so that the Department can adequately plan for the necessary expansion of services in the RPA. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-2 114 ~eastdub~fiad { g ) 12 Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8E,* the City shall incorporate into the requirements of project approval Police Department recommen- dations on project design that affect traffic safety and crime prevention. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-2. Mitigation Measure 3.4/4.0. IIpon annexation of the RPA, the City of Dublin Police Department will be responsible for police:=services. The City will prepare a budget strategy to hire the required additional personnel and implement a beat system.. DEIR page 3.4-2. Mitigation Measure 3.415.0. As part of the development review process for residential and non-residential projects, the Police Department shall review development projects' design and circulation for visibility, security, safety, access; and emergency response times and any other police issues. DEIR pages 3.4-2 to -3. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIB. Rationale for Finding. The five mitigations identified will ensure that additional police will be hired and that other: administrative measures will be employed to provide adequate protection for Project area residents. Police .Department input into design of Project development will insure that police'services are efficiently provided. IMPACT 3.4/C. Demand for Increased Fire Services. Buildout of the Project will substantially expand the DRFA service area and increase demand for new fire stations and firefighting personnel. This will significantly increase response times and reduce service standards unless new facilities and personnel are added. DEIR page 3.4-5. Mitigation Measure 3.416.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 8-5,* the City shall time the construction of new facilities to coincide with new service demand in order to avoid periods of reduced service efficiency. The first station will be sited and will begin construction concurrent with initial development in the planning area. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5. Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action'Program 8F,* the City shall establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of capital improvements. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) :`DEIR page 3.4-5. 114\eastdub\fnd(4) 13 Mitigation Measure 3.4!8.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action;~Program 8G,* the~City shall coordinate with DRFA to identify and acquire specific sites for new fire stations; with the westernmost site in the Specific Plan area assured prior to approval of any development plans. {*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5; RC # 15-26. Mitigation Measure 3.419.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8H,* the~City shall incorporate DRFA recom~aendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into development approvals. Requi.Y`e compliance with DRFA design standards such as non-combustible roof materials, minimum fire hydrant flow requirements,' buffer zones along open space areas, fire alarm and sprinkler systems, road access, and parking requirements. {*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) "DEIR pages•3.4-5 to -6. Mitigation Measure 3.4/10.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action•Program 8I,* the City shall ensure, as a requirement of Project approval, that an assessment district, homeowners association, or some other mechanism is in place that will provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban open space interface. ~ (*Specific Plan provisions adopted. throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-6. Mitigation Measure 3.4/11.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8J,* the City shall ensure that fire trails. and fire breaks are integrated into the open space trail system. And that fire district standards for access roads in these areas are met while environmental impacts are minimized. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-6. Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0. The City of Dublin, in consultation with DRFA and a cfualified wildlife biologist, shall prepare a wildfire management plan for the RPA to reduce ?:open land wildfire risks consistent with habitat protection and other open space values. The plan shall specify ownership, maintenance, use, brush control, and fire-resistant landscaping measures, as well as periodic review~~of these measures, for RPA open lands. Any park districts or other open space agencies with jurisdiction over lands within the RPA shall~be encouraged to participate in the preparation of the plan. DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -7. Mitigation Measure 3.4!13.0. The City shall consult with DRFA to determine the number, location and timing of additional fire stations for areas within the RPA outside 114\eastdnb\fiad(4) 1~4 the specific plan when such areas are proposed far annexation to the City. DEIR page 3.4-7. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified i.n the Final EIR. . Actions to determine the number and location of fire stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of DRFA and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final F:TR. Rationale for Finding. New fire facilities will be constructed to meet the needs of Project residents; DRFA input into Project design features will enable additional and efficient provision of fire services. The wildfire management plan should further limit the Project fire protection impacts by reducing the risk of wildfires. IMPACT 3.4/D. Fire Response to outlying Areas. Based on DRFA's preliminary locations for new fire stations, the northern-most portions of the RPA would be outside the District's standard response area. Development in these areas (especially the north end of Tassajara Road) could experience adverse f ee hazard exposure and emergency response impacts. DEIR pag Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures 3.4J6•.•0 to 13.0 as described above. DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -7. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to determine the number and location of fire stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of DRFA and not the City of Dublin. Such actions should be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. New fire facilities will be constructed to meet the needs of all Project residents, including those in the outerlying areas; DRFA input into project design features will enable additional and efficient provision of fire services. The wildfire management plan should further limit the Project fire protection impacts by reducing the risk of wildfires. IMPACT 3.4/E. Lsposure to Wildfsre Hazards. Settlement of population and construction of new communities in proximity to high fire hazard open space areas with difficult access poses an 114~eastdub~fiad(4) 15 increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if open space areas are not maintained for fire safety. This is also a significant cumulative impact in that increased development in steep grass :and woodlands around the edges of the Tri-Valley's core communities may reduce response times and strain fire- fighting resources for regional firefighting services, many of whom participate in mutual aid systems. DEIR pages 3.4-5, 5.0= 5. Mitigation Measures 3.416.0 to 13.0.. Mitigation measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0, as described above. DEIR pages 3.4-5 to Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to determine the number and location of fire stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of DRFA agencies and the City of Dublin. Such actions should be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. DEIR pages 3.4-4 to -7. Rationale for Finding. New fire facilities will be constructed to meet the needs of all Project residents, including those near open space areas; DRFA input into project design features will enable additional and efficient provision of fire services. The wildfire management plan ~~ should .:further limit the Project wildfire exposure impacts . through fire safety planning and-open space management. IMPACT 3.4/F, G. Demand for New Classroom Space; Demand for Junior High Schools. Buildout of the Project will increase the demand for new classroom space and school facilities beyond current available capacity. At the junior high school level, classroom demand-may exceed both current and planned capacity levels. DEIR page 3.4-i1 to -12. Mitigation Measure 3.4113.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy .g-i,~ the City shall reserve school sites within the RPA designated on the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment Land Use Maps. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-12. Mitigation Measure 3.4/14.0. The City shall ensure that the two proposed junior high schools are designed to~accommodate the projected number of junior high school students. DEIR page 34-12. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially 114~eas}dub~fiad(4) 16 lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EAR. Some actions to determine junior high school siting and design are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinct. Providing elementary, junior high, and high school sites will accommodate classroom demand generated by Project residents. Mitigation Measures 3.4/17::0 through 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient funding for such development. IMPACT 3.4/H. Overcrowding of Schools. Existing schools may be overcrowded:if insufficient new classroom space is provided far new residential development. DEIR page 3.4-12. Mitigation Measures 3 4113.0 to 14.0. Mitigation Measures 3.4/13:0 to 14.Q, as described above. Mitigation Measure 3.4/15.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 8-2,* the City shall promote a consolidated develop- ment,pattern that supports the logical development of planning area schools, and in consultation with the appro- priate school district(s), ensure that adequate. classroom space is available prior to the development'of new homes. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted thrvughout.RPA.) DEIR . page 3~4-12. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen :.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Some actions to site and design schools are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and .not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified i.n the Final EIR. Rationale for Findin Providing elementary, junior high, and high school sites will accommodate classroom demand generated by Project residents, while a consolidated development pattern ensures that the classroom space will be available when it is needed. Mitigation Measures 3.4/17.0 through 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient funding for such development. I2~ACT 3.4/Z. Impact on School Financing District Jurisdiction. Development;of the RPA under existing jurisdictional boundaries would result in the area being served by two different school 114\eastdnb\fad(4) 17 districts and would adversely affect financing of schools and provision of educational services. DEIR page 3.4-12. Mitigation Measures 3.4/16.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action.Program SA,* the City shall work with the school districts to resolve the jurisdictional issue to best serve student needs and minimize the fiscal burden of the service providers. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.} DEIR pages 3.4-12 to -13. ~: Findinct. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen~:the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Some actions to resolve the jurisdictional issue are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Resolving the school district jurisdiction issue will limit conflicts and ensure that school services are efficiently provided. IMPACT 3.4JJ. Financial Eurden oa School Districts. The cost of providing new school facilities could adversely impact local school districts by creating an unwieldy financial burden unless some form of financing is identified. DEIR page 3.4-13. Mitiga~ion Measures 3.4117.0 to 19.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 8-3* and Action Program 8B, ensure that adequate school 'facilities are available prior to development in the RPA tothe extent permitted by law, for example, by requiring dedication of school sites and/or payment of developer fees by new development. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8C,* the City shall work with school districts to establish- appropriate funding mechanisms to fund new school development and encourage school districts to use best efforts to obtain state funding for new con- struction. {*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) -DEIR p• 3.4-13; RC X15-31. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen.. the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Some actions to fund new school development are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. 214~eastdub\fad(4) 18 Rationale for Finding. Through these mitigations, develop- ment creating school facilities demand will have primary responsibility for accoannodating that demand, with the school~?districts being provided with back-up financial support from other sources. IMPACT 3.4/R. Demand for Park Facilities. Without the addition of new parrs and facilities, the increased demand for new park and recreation facilities resulting from buildout of the Project would not be met, resulting in deterioration of the City's park provision standard and of the City's ability to maintain existing services .and facilities. This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.4-16, 5.0-5. Mitigation Measures 3 4/20.0 to 24.0. General Plan Amendment Guiding Policies A, B, and G and Implementing Policy D require the City of Dublin to provide and maintain parks and related facilities adequate to meet Project and citywide needs and in conformance with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992. Implementing Policy R specifically requires dedication and improvements for the 20 parks designated in the RPA with collection of in-lieu fees as required by City standards. DEIR pages 3.4-16 to -17, 5.0-5. Mitigation Measures 3 4125.0 to 27._0. Sufficient parkland shall Fie designated and set aside in the RPA to•satisfy the Citg's'.Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992 and: its park. provision and phasing standards. DEIR pages 3.4-17, 5.0-5. Mitigation ~+Ieasure 3.4/28. The City shall implement Specific Plan Policies 6-1 to -6~ to establish large, continuous natural open space areas with convenient access for users, and adequate access for maintenance and manage- ment; to preserve views of designated open space areas; and to establish a mechanism for open space ownership, manage- ment, and maintenance. (Specific Plan provisions adogted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-18 to -19. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or lIICOY'pOratEd 3.Ato, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen:athe significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. These mitigations provide added new parks and facilities to meet increased demand from Project residents, and res,;re compliance with phasing plans in the Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992, to ensure that new parks and facilities construction will keep pace with new residential construction. 114\eastdnb\fiad(4) 19 IMPACT 3.4/I,. Park Facilities Fiscal Impact. Acquisition and improvement of new park and recreation facilities may place a financial strain on existing City of Dublin revenue sources unless adequate financing and implementation mechanisms are designed. DEIR page 3.4-18. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0 to 31.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 4-29* and Action Program 4N,* the City shall ensure that development provides its fair share of planned .open space; for example, through in-lieu fees under the City's:,parkland dedication ordinance. Pursuant to Specific plan Program 4M,* the City shall develop a Parks Imple- mentation Plan identifying phasing, facilities priorities and location, and design and construction responsibilities. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3 i:4-18 . Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. These mitigations ensure that needed park facilities will be provided by developers at the time of development, thereby avoiding the use of existing revenue sources to build new parks for Project area residents. IMPACT 3.4/M, N. Impact oa Regional Trail System and: Impact:aa open Space Connections. Without adequate provisions for trail easements and without adequate design and implementation, urban development along stream corridors and ridgelands woald obstruct formation of a regional trail system and an interconnected open space system. DEIR page 3.4-18 to -19. Mitigation Measure 3.4!32.0. Pursuant to General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy~H,* establish a trail system with regional and subregional connections, including a trail along the Tassajara Creek corridor. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout.RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-19. Mitigation Measures 3 4123 0 and 33.0 to 36.0. Pursuant to General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy I, Implementation Policy D, Specific Plan Policies 6-1,* 6-3,* Action Program 40,* and consistent with the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan 1992, use natural stream corridors and major ridgelines as the basis for a trail system with a conti- nuous, integrated open space network, emphasizing convenient user access, pedestrian and bicycle connections between developed and open space areas, and developer dedication of ridgetop and stream corridor public access easements. (*Speci:fic Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3_.4-17, -19. 314 \eastdula\fSdad (4 ) 2 0 ~~. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Establishing a Project area trail system incorporating planned regional connections contri- butes to development of a regional trail system and allows the trail planning to be considered and incorporated into individual Project area developments in the RPA. By _ requiring that open space and trail planning be based on continuous physical features such as strewn corridors and ridgelines, and that public access be provided along these features, these mitigations avoid a disconnected open space system IMPACT 3.40, P. Increased Bolid Waste Production gad Impact on Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. Increased population and commercial land use will cause a proportional increase in the total projected amount of solid waste and household hazardous waste generated by the City of Dublin. This increase creates the need for additional capacity, personnel, and vehicles to dispose of the wastes. It can create public health risks from improper handling. The increased solid waste and household hazardous waste generated by the Project may accelerate the closing schedule for Altamont landfill unless additional capacity is developed or alternate disposal sites are identified:. This impact on the pltamont landfill is also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.4-21 to -22, 5.0-6.. Mitigation Measures 3.4137.0 to 40_.0. Pursuant. to Specific plan Action Program 8K* and other EIR mitigations, adopt a Solid Waste Management Plan for the RPA, including waste reduction programs such as composting and curbside and other collection of recyciables. Include goals, objectives, and programs necessary to .integrate with the diversion targets of the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element. New development in the RPA shall demonstrate adequate available landfill capacity for anticipated wastes. a~esP3c4~22 toan23ro5is~i6ns adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR p g Finding. changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. These mitigations minimize the amount'.of solid waste production and related needs and risks through compliance with AB 939 solid waste planning. Reducirsg the amount of Project-generated waste will also avoid an accelerated closing schedule for the Altamont landfill. In addition, these mitigations require that new 114 ~eastdab~f iad (4) 21 ..._ ~-_ development anticipate and provide disposal before the development is for adequate waste approved. IMPACT 3.4jQ. Demand far IItility Estenaions. Development of the Project site will significantly increase demand for gas, electric and telephone services. Meeting this demand will require construction of a new Project-wide distribution system. This is a significant growth-inducing impact. DEIR pages 3.4-24, 5.0-14 to -15. Mitigation Measures. None proposed. DEIR page 3.4-2.4. Finding. No changes or alterations are available to avoid or substantially lessen this impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the ::Project . IMPACT 3.4jR. IItility 8xtension Visual and Biological Impacts. Expansion of electrical, gas, and telephone lines could adversely affect visual and biological resources if not appropriately sited. DEIR page 3.4-24. Mitigation Measures 3.4/41.0 to 44.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8L* and other identified mitigation measures, development within the RPA must document the availability of electric, gas, and telephone service and must place utilities below grade or, preferably., underground and routed away from sensitive habitat and open space lands. A development project service report shall beyreviewed by the City prior to improvement plan approval. ~ [*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-24 to -25. Findinci. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen~~'the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. IIndergrounding utilities will avoid visual effects by placing the utility extensions where they cannot'%be seen. Routing the utility extensions away from sensitive habitat and open space areas will avoid impacts on biological resources by avoiding the resources themselves. IMPACT 3.4j8. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources. Natural gas and electrical service would increase consumption of non-renewable natural resources. DEIR page 3.4-25. Mitigation Measures 3.4/45.0 to 46.0. Major developers in the Project area shall provide demonstration projects on cost-effective energy conservation techniques including but not limited to solar water and space heating, landscaping 124~eastdab~fnd(4) 22 for water 'conservation', and shading. All development projects in the RPA shall prepare an energy conservation plan as part of their proposals. The plan shall demonstrate how site planning, building design, and landscaping will conserve use of energy during construction and long term operation. DEIR page 3.4-25. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding. Through the demonstration projects, developers can educate themselves and Project residents about available and feasible techniques to reduce consumption of energy resources. Requiring energy conservation plans forces both developers and the City to actively consider various techniques to reduce energy consumption and to build those techniques directly into the Project. These actions cannot, however, fully mitigate the impact-` IMPACT 3.4jT. Demand for Increased Postal Service. The Project will increase the demand for postal service. DEIR page 3.4-26. Mitigation ~+Ieasures 3.4!47.0 to 48.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Pglicy 8-10 and Action Program 8M, the City shall encourage the U.S.P.S. to locate a new post office in the Eastern Dublin town center. DEIR page 3.4-26;.RC # 15-37. Finding. Changes ar alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the signif icant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to site a new post office within the town center are within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the USPS~and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by the USPS. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. A post office conveniently located In the tort center area will provide postal service to meet the Project generated demand. IMPACT 3.4/p. Demand for Increased Library Service. Without additional Yibrary facilities and staff, the increase in population resulting from the Project would adversely affect existing library services and facilities DEIR page 3.4-27. 114\eastdubMind{4) 23 is Mitigation Measures 3.4j49.0 to 51.0. Pursuant to.Specific Plan Policy 8-il* and Action Program 8N* and other identi- fied mitigation measures, the City shall encourage and assist the Alameda County Library System to provide adequate library service in eastern Dublin, considering such factors as location, phasing, and funding of needed library services. (*Specific Plan provisions-adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-27 to -28; RC #15-38. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to provide library facilities are within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the Alameda County~:Library system and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by the Alameda County Library System. If taken, such actions would avoid~or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Providing library services to the RPA will. meet Project generated demand. Planning how and when to provide those services will ensure that they are efficient and convenient to the maximum number of users. i Section 3.5 -- Sewer. Water. and Storm Drainage IMPACT 3.5/A. Iadi.rect Impacts resulting from the Lacl[ of a Wastewater Service Provider. Although Specific Plan: Policy 9-4 (page 127) calls for the expansion of DSRSD's service boundaries to include the Specific Plan area, the Project does not provide far wastewater service to areas in the RPA outside the specific plan area. ..This could result in uncoordinated efforts by future developers in this area to secure wastewater services. DEIR page 3.5-5, RC ,~ -:32-18 . ~+~tigation Measure 3.5/1.Oa. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy'::9-4,* the City shall coordinate with DSRSD to expand its service boundaries to encompass the entire RPA. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) RC # 32-18. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to expand DSRSD's service boundaries are within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the DSRSD and not the City of Dublin. such actions can and should be taken by the DSRSD. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Finial EIR. 114\eastdnb\fiad(4) 24 Rational for Findina. Expanding DSRSD's service boundaries to include the entire RPA will ensure that securing wastewater ser~rices will be coordinated through one agency. IMPACT 3.5/8. Lack of a Aastewater Collection System. Estimated wastewater flow for the RPA is 4.6 MGD; however, there currently is no wastewater collection system adequate to serve the Project area. DEIR page 3.5-5. Mitigation Measures 3.511.0 to 5.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Programs 9P,* 9I,* 90,* 3M,* and 9N,~ all development in the RPA shall be connected to public sewers and shall obtain a "will-serve" letter prior to grading permits; on-site package plants and septic systems shall be discouraged. The City shall request that DSRSD update its collection system master plan to reflect Project area proposed land uses, with the cost of the plan to be borne by future development in the RPA. All wastewater systems shall be designed and built in accordance with DSRSD standards. (~Speci:fic Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3~5-6; RC # 32-19, 32-20. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substanntially lessen ;the significant effect identified in the.. ~?inal EIR. Rationale for Findina. These mitigations will provide a wastewater collection system adequate to meet Project generated demand, and will ensure the system meets design and construction standards of DSRSD. I1+SpACT~3.5/C. ggtension of a Sewer Trunk Line with Capacity to Serve New Developments. Construction of a wastewater collection system could result in development outside the RPA that would connect to the Project's collection system. This is also a potentially significant growth-inducing impact. DEIR pages 3.5- 6, 5.0-15. Mitigation Measure 3.5/6.0. The proposed wastewater system shall be sized only for the RPA area. DEIR pages 3.5-6, 4- 11, 5.0-15. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. By sizing the planned wastewater collection system only to serve the RPA, growth inducing impacts on lands outside that area are avoided. 214 \esstdnb Mind { 4 ) 2 5 IMPACT 3.5/D. Ailocatioa of DSRSD Treatment and Disposal Capacity. There is limited available capacity at the DSRSD Treatment Plant, limiting the number of sewer permits available for new developments. It is very unlikely that any of the presently remaining DIIE's will be available for the Eastern Dublin Area. DEIR page 3.5-7; RC #32-21. Mitigation Measure 3.5/7.0: Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 9L,* development project applicants in the RPA shall prepare.a design level water capacity investi- gation, including means to minimize anticipated wastewater flows and reflecting development phased according to sewer permit allocation.. {*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-7. Mitigation Measure 3.5/7.1. Development project applicants in the::RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve" letter fram DSRSD before .receiving a grading permit. RC #32-22. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessenj~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. The required investigation will allow development to be phased to ensure there are adequate wastewater facilities available to meet Project:~generated demand. The requirement of a °will-server letter will insure that adequate wastewater facilities will.-exist for all new development. If capacity is not available, DSRSD will not issue a will-serve letter. RC #32-22.~~ II~gCT 3.5/E. Future Lack of Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity. Development of the Project require an increase in wastewater treatment plant capacity within DSRSD to adequately treat the additional wastewater flows to meet discharge standards. .This is also a potentially significant cumulative impact in that increased demand on area wastewater treatment facilities exceeds current remaining capacity. DEIR page 3.5-7 to -8, 5.0-6. Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.1. 8.0. 9.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 9-6* and mitigations identified in the EIR, . ensure :that wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are available for future development in the RPA through compliance with~DSRSD's master plan to fund, design, and construct wastewater treatment plant expansion once export capacity is available (unless TWA approves export of raw wastewater, in which case DSRSD's wastewater treatment plant expansion will not be necessary). Also, development project applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve" letter from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit. I14\eastdub\fiad(4) 26 (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3.5-7 to -8, 5.0-6; RC ,$32-23. Fi_. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. Compliance with DSRSD's master plan will ensure that adequate wastewater treatment plant capacity will be .available in the future to serve Project generated demand once export capacity of treated wastewater is provided (see Mitigation Measure 3.5/11',0). Alternative- ly, expanded treatment capacity will not be necessary if export..of raw wastewater is approved. The requirement of a "will-serve" letter will insure that adequate wastewater facilities will exist for all new development. If capacity is not available, DSRSD will not issue a will-serve letter. RC #32-22. IMPACT 3.5/F. Increase is Snergy Usage Through Increased AastetPatter Treatment. Development of the Project will result in increased wastewater flows and will require increased energy use for treatment of wastewater. DEIR page 3.5-8; RC X32-24. Mitigation Measure 3.5/10.0. Include energy efficient treatment systems in any wastewater treatment plant expansion and operate the plant to take advantage of off- pp~g energy. DEIR page 3.5-8; RC X32-24. . Findina. Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin Such actions can and should be taken by other agencies. However, even if such actions are taken, this impact~::~will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findina. IIse of energy efficient treatment systems and plant operations will reduce the amount of p~ergy=use but these actions cannat fully mitigate the impact. cit The IMPACT 3.5/G. Lack of Aasteotatter Current Disposal Capa q. increase in wastewater flows from the Project and other sub- regional development will exceed available wastewater disposal capacity until additional export capacity is developed. This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.5-8, 5.0-6. Mitigation Measures 3 5/7.1. 11_to 14.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Pol2cy 9-5* and Action Programs 9H,* 9J+* and 9K,* the City shall support current efforts to develop li4\eastdnb\fnd(4) 27 additional export capacity. The City shall require use of recycled water for landscape irrigation in accordance with DSRSD's Recycled Water Policy and require development within the RPA to fund a recycled water distribution system model to reflect proposed land uses. Also, development project applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve" letter from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit. (*Specific Plan provisions. adopted throughout RPA.} DEIR page 3.5-9, 5.0-6 to -7, RC x`32-22, 32-25, 32-26, 32-27. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the- significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to develop additional export capacity are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies, and .not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should take by such agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. These mitigations will grovide the additional wastewater disposal capacity necessary to meet Project generated demand. The requirement of a "will-serve" letter will insure that adequate wastewater facilities will exist for all new development. If capacity is not avail- able, DSRSD will not issue a will-serve Ietter.~::RC X32-22 .. IMPACT 3.5/H. Increase in Energy Dsage Through Increased Wastewater Disposal. Development of the Project will result in increased wastewater flows and viii require increased energy use for disposal of wastewater; mare specifically, for (1) pumping raw wastewater to CCCSD for treatment under the TWA proposed project; and/or (2} operation of an advanced treatment and distribution system for recycled water. DEIR page 3-5.9. Mitigation Measures 3.5/15.0 to 16.0. The City shall encourage off peak pumping to the proposed TWA export system. The City shall plan, design, and construct the Project recycled water treatment system for energy efficient operation including use of energy efficient treatment systems, optimal use of storage facilities, and pumping at vff peak hours. DEIR pages 3.5-1o to -i1. Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin: Such actions can and should be taken by other agencies. However, even if such actions are taken, this impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. 114 ~eastdub~f3~nd (4) 2 8 ^. Y= Rationale for Finding. The proposed mitigations will reduce the amount of energy used for wastewater disposal but these actions cannot fully mitigate the impact. IMPACT 3.5/I. Potential Failure of Egpvrt Disposal System. A failure in the operation of the proposed TWA wastewater pump stations would adversely affect the overall operation of the wastewater collection system for the Tri-Valley subregion, as well as the Eastern Dublin Project. DEIR page 3.5-10. Mitigation Measure 3.5/17.0. Engineering redundancy will be built into the TWA pump stations, which will also have provisions for emergency power generators. DEIR page 3.5-10. Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin Such actions can and should be taken by other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub- stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final FIR. Rationale for Finding. Engineering redundancy will minimize the risk of pump station system failure; providing emergency power generators will ensure that any system failure which does occur will- be short lived, thereby avoiding the effects of such failure. RC #32-28. IMPACT 3.5JJ. Pump station Noise and Odors. The proposed TWA wastewater pump stations could generate noise during their operation and could potentially produce odors. DEIR page 3.5-10. Mitigation Measure 3.5!18.0. TWA's pumps and motors will be designed to comply with local noise standards and will be~ provided with odor control equipment. DEIR page. 3.5-10. ;- Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility .and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin; Such actions can and should be taken by other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub- stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Requiring compliance with local noise standards will ensure that any noise produced not exceed acceptable levels. odor control equipment will ensure that odor production effects are avoided. RC #32-28. ~pA~ g.5/g. Storage Basin Odors and Potential Failure. The proposed TWA Emergency Wastewater Storage Basins could poten- tially emit odors and/or the basins could have structural failure ilk\eastdub\fi~ad(4) 29 T.. due to landslides, earthquakes, or undermining of the reservoir from inadequate drainage. DEIR page 3.5-10. Mitigation Measure 3.5/19.0. TWA's basins will be covered, buried tanks with odor control equipment and will be designed to meet current seismic codes. DEIR page 3.5-11. Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin:: Such actions can and should be taken by other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale far Finding. These mitigations ensure that any odors related to the TWA basins are contained and. controlled within the basins so as not to be detectable beyond the basins. Compliance with seismic codes will ensure that the basins are properly constructed to withstand landslides and earthquakes and are provided with adequate drainage to avoid structural failure. RC X32-28. IMPACT 3.5jL. Recycled Water System operation. The proposed recycled water system must be constructed and operated properly in order to"prevent any potential contamination or cross- connection with potable water supply systems. DEIR:::page 3:.5-I1. Mitigation Measure 3.5/20.0. Construction of the recycled water distribution system will meet all applicable standards of theDepartment of Health Services (DHS) and:~San-Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). DEIR page 3.5-11 .' Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Applicable regulations of the DHS and RWQCB are designed to prevent crass-connection contamina- tion; compliance with these regulations will therefore avoid the contamination impact. IMPACT 3.5/l~i. Recycled Water Storage Failure. Loss of recycled water storage through structural damage from landslide, earth- quake, and undermining of the reservoir through inadequate drainage. DEII2 page 3.5-i1. Mitigation Measure 3.5!21.0.. The City shall require reservoir construction to meet all applicable DSRSD and other Health standards and shall require preparation of soils and geotechnical investigations to determine potential 114\eastdub\fiad{4~ 30