Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachmt 7- Appdx 8.4 Pgs 31-74 ,-.... , ..--... landslide and earthquake designed to JIleet current adequate site drainage. impacts. Reservoirs shall be seismic codes and to provide DEIR page 3.5-11. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in I or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Soils and geotechnical studies will ensure that reservoirs will be designed and constructed to comply with current seiS1l1ic, DSRSD I and other applicable heal th standards, the purpose of which is ·to avoid structural failure. IHPACT 3.5/5. Loss of Recycled Water system Pressure. Loss of pressure in ',;the proposed recycled water distribution systems ,could result in the system being unable to meet peak irrigation demand, which could result in loss of vegetation through lack of irrigation water. DEIR page 3.S-12; RC #32-30. Mitiaation Measure 3.5/22.0. The recycled water pump stations shall meet all applicable DSRSD standards. DEIR page 3..5-12; RC #32-31. FindinQ. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the si9Dificant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. compliance with DSRSD standards will miniJnize the risk of pressure being lost. DlPAC':r 3.5/0. Seconaaryxmpacts from Recycled Watersystem Operation. Failure to identify and implement treatment plant improvements related to recycled water use may increase salinity in the groundwater basin. DEIR page 3.5-12. M.itic:ration Measures 3.5/20.0. Recycled water projects shall incorporate sal t mitigation required by Zone 7. DEIR paqe 3.S-12t" Findin~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorp~rated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final ErR. Rationale for Findinq. Compliance with salt mitigation requirements will reduce the salinity of the recycled water, thereby avoiding the risk of increased sa~inity in the groundwater basin. ::IKPACT 3. SIP. OVerdraft of Local Groundwa'ter Resources. If the Project area is not annexed to DSRSD and development projects are 114\eastdub\£ihd(4) 31 - ..-... not required to connect 'to DSRSD1s water distribution system, development projects may attempt to drill their own wells, causing overdraft of existing limited groundwater supplies. DEIR page 3.5-17. Hi tiaation Measures 3.5/24. 0 to 25. o. Pursuant to Specif ic Plan Policy 9-2* and other EIR mitiç;ations" the City shall coordinate with DSRSD to expand its service boundaries to include the Project area and to develop annexation conditions encouraging water conservation and recycling. The City shall encourage all developments in the RPA to conne~ to DSRSD's system and discourage the use of groundwater wells. C*Specific Plan provisions adopted througho~t RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-17; RC #14-4. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Projeot that avoid or substantially lessen the signifioant effect identified in the Final EIR. Actions to expand DSRSD's service boundaries are within the 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 Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Annexation to DSRSD and connection to its ';'water distribution system will eliJninate-: the need for development projects to drill their own wells 'and will therefore av?id· the risk of groundwater overdrafting. , " DlPACT 3.S/Q. :Increase in Demand for Water. EstiDlated average daily water '"demand for the RPA is 6.4 MGD, which demand could exceed available supply. This is also a potentially significant cumulative impact in that ongoing urban development in the Tri- valley is resulting in a cumulative increase in water demand at a time when water supplies and delivery are uncertain. DEIR page 3.5-18, 5.0-7 to -8. Mitiaation Measures 3.5/26.0 to 31.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Programs 9A* and 9B/* the city shall require development projects in the RPA to include water conserva- tion measures within structures as well as in public and other improvements. Require developD1ents to comply with DSRSD and Zone 7 recommendations for developing and using recycled water. Pursuant to other EIR mitigations, implemént Zone 7 and DSRSD water supply and water quality imprOVéJllents and interconnect Project area water systems with eXisting surrounding water systems for increased reliability. C*specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) ':;cEIR paqes 3.5-18 to -19; 5.0-9; RC #13-9, 32-43. 114\eastdub\fiDd(4) 32 '-, .--- FindinQ. 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 aë.tions to improve water supply and quality are within the re~ponsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not. the City of Dublin. Such actions should be taken by such other agencies. if taken, such actions can and would avoid Qr substantially lessen the significant effect i.dentifi.ed in the Final Em. Rationale for Findinq. Through required water conservation and water recycling mitigations, the project reduces the magnitude of the impact by reducing the demand for water using recycled water for irrigation reduces the estimated average daily water demand in the RPA to 5.5 MGD. (RC #32.52. ) The remaining water quality and water supply mitigations will result in an increased water availability from Zone 7 and DSRSD to meet Project generated demand. DlPAC~ 3.S/R. Addit:ional Treatment Plant Capacity. The increase in water demand through development of the Project will require an expansion of existing water treatment facilities in order to deliver safé and potable water. DEIR page '3.5-19. .oj Mitiqa~ion Measures 3.5/32.0 to 33.0. Implement Zone 71s planneà. water treatment system. improvements. DSRSD shouId constrüct two new chlorination/fluoridation stations at the two prøposed Zone 7 turnouts to eastern Dublin ~ ' with the constrüction phased west to east as anticipated in the General Plan AJIlend1El.ento. DEIR page 3.5-19. Findinq. Such actions are wi thin 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 Findina. Proposed water treatment system improvements wi~~ insure that project water supp~y meets all appli~le water quality requirements. XXPACT 3.5/8. Lack of a Water Distribution system. ,There currently i$ no water distribution system to provide water service fort,the RPA. DEIR page 3,.5-20. ~ Mitiqation Measures 3.5/34.0 to 38.0. Pursuant to specific Plan Policy 9-l* and Action Programs 9C,* 9D,* 9E,* and 9G,* the city shal.l provide an adequate water supply system with related improvements and storage facilities for all develop- ment, in compliance with applicable DSRSD standards. The 114\eastdub\f~(4) 33 .. :-, , ...--.., :~ " city sball request that DSRSD update its water system MasterPlan to reflect the proposed land uses, and require a "wilJ.-$.erve" letter from DSRSD prior to grading permits for any Prçject area deveJ.opment. The ci ty sha~J. encourage the propos~d water system to coordinate and combine with existing neighboring- water systems. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEm page 3.5-20. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding.' These J1lÍtigations will provide a water distribution systeJn adequate to meet Project-generated demand, and will insure the system meets design and construction standards of DSRSD. :.: DlPAc-;r 3. 5/'t. J:nducemen't of' SUJ:ts~antial Growtb and concentration of populati~n. The proposed water distribution system will induce growt;ih in the Project area and has been sized to poten- tially accœinnodate the Dougherty valley Development to the north. However, if ~;DSRSD does not provide water to the Dougherty Valley Developmentj' the pipes will be sized to only accommodate the RPA. The impact is also. a potentially significant growth-inducing impact. DEÏR page 3.5-20, 5.0-15, RC #32-41, 32-55. Findina. No feasible mitigation measures are identified to reduce this impact. Therefore I a statement of overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. DlPACT 3.S/U. Increase in Energy Usage Through operation of ~be Water Distribution System. Development of the Project will result in increased water demand and will require increased energy use to operate a water distribution system, especially for pumping 'wat~ to the system and to storage. DEIR page 3.5-21. Mitiaa-t:ion Measure 3.5/40. Plan, design, and construct the water distribution system for energy efficient operation. Designrpump stations to take advantage of off-peak energy. DEIR p4qe 3.5-21. Findind. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorp6rated into the proj eat. However, even with these ,change$, the impact will not be avoided or sUbstantial,ly lessened. Therefore, a statement of overriding Considera- tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding. Use of energy efficient water distribution systems and operations will reduce the amount of energy used, but these actions cannot fully mitigate the impact. 114\eas~\fiDd(4) 34 :~. .....-.... ", DlPAC'1' 3. S/V. poten:tial water storage Reservoir pailure. Loss of storage in proposed water distribution reservoirs from landslides, earthquakes, and/or undermining of the reservoir through inadequate drainage would adversely affect the , ability of the water s'Q.pply system to maintain water pressures and to meet fire flows. DEIR page 3~5-21. Hi tiaation Measure 3. S/41. O. Require water reservoir construction to meet all applicable DSRSD standards. Prepare soils and geotechnical investigations to determine potential landslide and earthquake impacts. Design the reservó.irs to meet current seismic codes, and to provide adequate site drainage. DEIR page 3.S-2L " Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially 2essen the ,significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Soils and geotechnical studies will insure that reservoirs wil.l be designed and constructed to comply, with current seismic, DSRSD I and site drainage standards, thereby avoiding the risk of structural damage or failure. DlPACT 3.5/.. potent.ial Loss of system Pressure. Loss of pressure in'the proposed water distribution systems could result in contamin~tion of the distribution system and would not allow adequate fl~ws and pressures essential for fire flow. DEIR page 3.5-22 . ~. Mitiaation Measure 3.S/42.0. The proposed water pump statioDs shall meet all applicable standards of DSRSD and shall include emergency power generation back-up. DEIR page 3.5-22. 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 Findinq. compliance with DSRSD standards will miniJllize the risk of pressure being lost. Providing emergency power generators will insure the P1.D11.ps. will continue operating, thereby avoiding the risk of contamina- tion in. the distributipn system and insuring that adequate water :flows are available for fire protection. DŒACT 3. SIX. potent.ial Pump station Noise. Proposed system pump :'stations wou.J.d generate noise during their that could adversely affect the surrounding community. 3.5-22. ' .: ~ water operation DEIR page 114\eastdub\f~(4) 35 ': ....--.. ."'--" ~ " ;1 Mitiaation Measure 3.5/43.0. Design pump stations to reduce sound level.s from operating pump motors and emergency generators. DEIR page 3.5-22. FindinQ'. 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. Reducing sound levels of the mechanical. equipment will reduce the amount of noise perceivable by surrounding residents, thereby avoiding the impact . DœAC'1' 3.5/~. potential PlOoc!inq. Development of the Project and develop~ent of former agricultural, rural, and open space lands,throuqhout the Tri-Valley will result in an increase in runoff to creeks and will result in an increased potential for flooding. This is also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.5-25, 5.0-9. Mitic:ration Measure 3.5/44.0 to 48.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan policies 9-7* and 9-8,* Action Programs 9R* and 95,* and other EIR mitigations, require a master drainage plan for each development project in the RPA to provide drainage facilities adequate to prevent increased erosion or flood- ing, including channel improvements with natur.al, creek' bottoms, and side slopes with natural vegetation.. This design level plan shall include studies of the 'develop~ent project area hydrology, potential impacts of the deve10pment project, and proposed design features to minimize runoff .flows and their effects on erosion and riparian vegetation. Development projects shall also address potential downstream flooding, and shall include retention/detention facilities and/or0energy dissipators to miniJllize and control runoff, dischatge, and to minimize adverse biological and visual effects. Construct storm drainage :facilities in accordance with approved storm drainaqe master plan. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR 3.5-25 to -26, 5. 0-9. o~ '.~ Findinå. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Fina~ EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Through planning and implementation of storm drainage master plans, developMent projects will minimize the amount of runoff to creekS and will provide drainage facilities to control the rate and location of runoff that does discharge into creeks. These measures will minimize the increase in runoff, thereby avoiding increased floOd~9 potential. 114\eas~uh\find(4) 36 ", ,-'. ......--... :tKPACT 3.5/Z. RedUCed Groundwater Recharqe. Increasing the amount of impervious surfaces in the project area could reduce the area I s already JIlinimal groundwater recharge capabilities. This is a1so a potentially significant cumulative impact, as impervious surfaces increase throughout the Tri-Va1ley. DEIR page 3.5-26i, 5.0-9 to -10. Mitiaation Measure ·3.5/49.0 to 50.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan pOlicy 9-9* and other EIR mitigations, plan facilities and operations that protect and enhance water quality; support Zone 7' s ongoing qroundwater recharge program for the nearby Central Basin, which contains the majority of the Tri-Valley's groundwater resources. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 2.5-26, 5.0-9. Findinq. 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 FindinQ. These mitigation measures protect and enhance what minimal qroundwater recharge capability exists'dn the project area. IXPAC'r 3.5/AA. Non-Point Sources of PolJ.ution. Development of the Project 'could result in a deterioration of the ~a'lity of stormwater. due to an increase in non-point sources of pollution including (1) ·urban runoff; (2) non-stormwater discharges to storm drains; (3) subsurface drainage; and (4) construction site runoff (erosion and sedimentation). This is also a"potentially significant'cumulative impact as other projects in the subregion . ' are developed. DEIR page 3.5-26. Mitiaation Measure 3.5/52.0 to 55.0. The city shall develop a community based education program on non-point sources of pollution, coordinating such programs with current A1ameda County programs. The city shall require all development to meet the requirements of the city' s "Best Management Practices ", the city's NPDES permit, and the County I s Urban Runoff, Clean Water Program to mitigate stormwater pollution. DEIR 3f:S-27t 5.0-10, Addendum. Findinq. 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. Rationà.1e for Findinq. Education prograJnS will acquaint all Project area residents with the issue of non-point pollution, and will suggest ways residents can avoid such pollution. Existing City, county, and state regulatory programs will insure that potential ~pacts of non-point 114 \eastdub\ find (4) 37 - ....-....... sources of pollution or stormwater quality will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. section 3.6 -- soils. Geoloqy. and Seismicitv DœAC!I!3.6/8. Bartbquake Ground SbakÍDq: Primary Effects. Earthquake ground shaking resulting from large earthquakes on active fault zones in the region, could be strong to violent, and could result in damage to structures and infrastructure and, in extreme cases, loss of life. DEIR page 3.6-7. Hi tiqation Measure 3.6/1.0. Use modern seismic design for resistance to lateral force in construction of development projects, and build in accordance with Uniform Building Code and applicable county and city code requirements. DEIR page 3.6-7. Findinq. Change~ or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Proj ect. 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 Findinq. Modern seismic design and compliance with applicable building codes will reduce the risk of structural failure, major structural damage, and- loss of life from the effects of ground-shaking. These- actions will not, however, ccnnpletely avoid the impact. DlPAC'l' 3.6/C. Barthquake Ground Shaking: Secondary- 'Effects. The secondary effects of ground shaking include seismically-induced landsliding, differential compaction andJ or settlement. This is also a signi.ficant cumulative impact in that further development in the area 'could expose residents to significant sa£ety hazards and could strain emergency response systems. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10. -. Mîtiaation Measure 3.6/2.0. In relatively flat areas, development should be set back from unstable anà potentially unstable land or these landforms should be removed, stabilized, or reconstructed. Where improvements are located on unstable land forms, use modern design, appropriate foundation design, and comply with app1.icable codes and_policies. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10. Mitiaation Measure 3.6/3.0. In hillside areas, where development may require substantial grading, require appropriate grading and design to completely remove unstable and potentially unstable materials. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5. 0-l,O~" 114\eastdUb\f1Dd(4) 38 ,........., '-. Mitiqation Measures 3.6/4.0 to 5.0. Use engineering techniques and improvements I such as retention structures I surfac~ and subsurface drainage improvements, properly designed keyways, and adequate cœnpaction to improve the stability of fill areas and reduce seismically induced fill settlement. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10. Mitiaation Measure 3.6/6.0. Design roads, structural foundations, and underground utilities to accommodate estimated settlement without failure, especially across transitions between fills and cuts. Remove or reconstruct potentially unstable stock pond embankments in development areas. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10. . Mitiaation Measure 3.6/7.0. Require all development projects in the Project area to perform design level geotechnical investigations prior to issuing any permits. The investigations should include stability analysis of natural and planned engineered slopesl and a displacement analys~s to confirm the effectiveness of mitigation measures proPOs~d in the investigation. DEIR page 3.6-91 5.0-10. Mitiaation Measure 3.6/8.0. Earthquake preparedness plans should)be developed by the city and all ~oject site residents and employees should be informed of appropriate measures to take in the event of an earthquake./ DEIR page :3 .,6-9, : 5.0-10. 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. Mitigations 3.6/2.0 to 6.0 provide specific engineering techniques for reducing the effects of ground shaking throughout development in the Proj ect area. Mitigation 3.6/7.0 requires development projects to apply these and other available engineering techniques at a design level, to identify specifically the effects that can occur on a'p~icular sitel to propose mitigations specific to those èffects and the site, and to provide a means for evaluati-nc¡ the likely success of those measures. Through these engineering, planning, and desiqn JIlitigations, development projects will be able to anticipate and avoid or reduce:lground shaking effects before the development is built. " DŒACT 3.6/D. substan1:.ia1 Alterat;ioD. to Project sit;e Landforms. Development of the Project area could result in permanent change to the Project site's existing topography, particularly in hillside areas. This is also a significant cumulative impact as the hillsides and ridgelands of surrounding Tri-Valley cities are 114\eastdUb\£iDd(4) 39 ,-- -... graded and ~xcavated for development projects. DEn page 3.6-9, 5.0-10. Mi ti9'a~ion Measures 3.6/9.0 to ~O. o. Adapt improvements to natural landforms in order to minimize required cuts and fills ~ou9h such techniques as construction of partial pads and use of retaining structures and steeper cut and fill slopes where appropriate and properly designed. Further reduce landform alteration by carefully siting individual improvements on specific lots after identifying geotechnically feasible building areas and aligmnents. site improvements to avoid adverse geotechnical conditions and the need for reJDeC1ial grading and use" techniques such as clustering where appropriate to minimize qrading and/or avoid adverse geotechnical conditions'. DEIR page 3.6-9. 5.0-J.O. 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 FindinQ. These mitigation measures provide design,~and engineering techniques which maintain natural landfotms to the greatest degree pos~ible, and thereby minimize alteration of those landforms. The mitigations also require that geotechnical conditions be identified for development projects, allowing individual proj~cts to identify and reduce 1 or in some cases completely-avoid, the condition which might otherwise require alteration. IHPACT 3.6/F, G. Groundwater Impacts. Groundwater zm.pa.cts Associated with Irrigation. Shallow groundwater conditions occur in places throughout the RPA and could be caused by irrigation associated with development of the RPA. These conditions can adversely affect the performance of foundation and pavements, particularly in areas with expansive soils and bedrock. In addition, shallow groundwater can cause slope instability, i~cluding làndsliding and fill settlement, and can lead to liquefaction of RPA soils. DEIR page 3.6-~O. Hi t igat ion Measures 3.6/11.. 0 to 1.3. o. Prepare detailed, design ~'level qeotechnical investiqations on development proje~s within the, RPA, to locate and characterize ground~ater conditions and +ormulate design criteria and measures to mitigate adverse conditions. Control groundwater by construction of subdrain systems, remove stock pond embankments and drain reservoirs in development areas. (See MM 3.6/4, 6, 15, 18, 23, and 27 for additional techniques to control soil moisture and maintain slope stabil-ity. DEIR paqe 3.6-8, -1.1. through -~4.) DEIR page 3. 6-l0 ',through -11¡ RC #15-43. 114\eas~ub\find(4) 40 '- ., --. '~" 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 Findinq. The geotechnical investigation will identify areas which have groundwater, and development will proceeq. in accordance with measures to protect structures and iJIlprovements from slope and soil instability due to sha~low groundwater. DlPACT 3.6/11. Shrinking and SWelling of Expansive Soils and Bedrock. ~e Project site contains expansive soils and bedrock, which tend 1;:0 shrink upon drying and swell upon wetting. This process can;cause distress to overlying structures and infra- structure, causing damage to foundations, slabS, and pavements. DEIR page 3.6-11. Kitiaation Measures' 3.6/14.0 to 16.0. Prepare design level geotechnical investigations for development projects in the Project area to Characterize site-specific soils and bedrock conditions, and to formulate appropriate design criteria and mitigation measures for those conditions. Such responsive measures include, but are not limited to, controlling moisture in the soils and bedrock, and designing foundations and pavements to be built either below the zone of seasonal moist~e change, or upon structurally supportiv.e floors and after 2iemoval of the expansive materials. D~' page 3.6-11 to -12¡ Findinct. Changes or alterations have been reqUired in, or incorporated into 1 the Project that avoid or substantially lessen~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. '::" Rationåle for Findinq. The design level geotechnical evaluation will identify expansive soils and bedrock and insure that special techniques are used in these areas to reduce the risk of structure and infr,astructure damage. DlPAC'l' 3.6/I.. Batural Slope Stability. The Project area contains active and dormant landslides, as well as steep slopes and colluvium-filled swales, which are subject to potential slope instability; and could cause damage to structures and infra- structure located in these areas. DEIR page 3.6-12. Mitiaation Measures 3.6/17.0 to 19.0. Development projects within::the Project area should prepare design level geotechnical investigations to characterize site-specific slope stability conditions and to formulate appropriate designicriteria and mitigation measures in response to those condit~ons. Such design measures and mitigations include sitingîàevelopment away from unstable landforms and from 114\eastdUb\fiad(4) 41 ,--.. - slopes >greater than about 30%, and providinq lower density development in steep T unstable areas. Where unstable areas cannot'be avoided, design measures and mitigations include removirtg the unstable material, reconstructing or repairing the unstable area, or enginèering structural responses,' including suDsurface drainage improvements. (see also MM 3.6/26.0, recommenãing maintenance and inspection plans for drainage systems. DEIR page 3. 6-l4 . ) DEIR page 3. 6-l2 to -1.3. Findinå. Chanqes 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 Findinq. The design level geotechnical investigation will disclose areas which may be susceptible to slope instability. Special techniques I such as siting of· structUre and improvements, removing the unstable materials, and providing structural remediation, will improve slope stability.' XHPAC~ 3.6/J. cut and fi11 'Slope stabi1ity. Potentially unstable cut and f ill slopes may fail or settle I causing daJllaqe to structures and infrastructure. DEIR page 3.6-1.3. Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0 to 21. 0 . Require:':-grading plans for hillside areas, which plans minimize gracìi*-g ,and required cuts and fills by adapting roads to natural landforms, stepping structures down steeper slÇ)pes, and demonstrating compliance with applicable build£ng cede and other applicable City and County requirements. DEm page 3.6-13. . Mitiaation Measures 3.~./22.0 to 25.0. Detailed design level geotechnical investigations such as that required by JnÍtiqat.ion measure 3.6/17.0 should describe and evaluate cut and fiïl slopes proposed for development projects in the RPA. ~etaining struct~es, reinforcement and drainage measures should be provided on cut slopes as determined by code rèquirements and the specific conditions identified in the gegtechnical investigation. Unretained cut slopes should,generally not exceed 3:~. Filled slopes steeper than 5: ~ should be keyed and benched into competent material and provided with sub'drainaqe prior to placing engineered fill. DEIR pages 3.16-13 to -~4. Mitiaation Measure 3.6/26.0. Development projects in the project area should prepare plans for the periodic in- spection and maintenance of subsurface drainage features, and the removal and disposal of materials deposited in surface drains and catch basins. (See also measures 114\eastdUb\f~(4) 42 " ,--., ,...-, described in MM 3.6/28.0.) The plans should include inspection and disposal procedures, schedule and reporting requirements 1 and a responsible party, and should emphasize overall long-term project monitoring 'and maintenance. DEIR page 3.,6-14. Findinq. ' Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorpo.rated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen:the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. The detailed design level geotechni- cal investigation will identify areas where cut and fill slopes are proposed. specific grading plans affecting these conditions would be required to show how each development, project will minimize cut and fill slopes, and how the remaining slopes will be stabilized through siting or engi- neering features. Long-term monitoring and maintenance plans will ensure that the design facilities and engineered features effectively protect the cut and fill slopes over the long term. :IKPACT 3.6/K, L. Erosion and Sedimentation: construction-Related and Lonq-'.rerm.. construction of development projects in the RPA will modify:the ground surface and its protective vegetative cover and will alter surface runoff and infiltration patterns, causing short-term erosion and sedimentation durin~2øonstruction, and long-term erosion and sedimentation once permanent structures and improvements .are' in place. The long-term impact, is also a significant,cumulative impact as similar sites are developed throughout the Tri-Valley. DEIR page. 3.6-14, 5.0-.11. Mitiaation Measure 3.6/27.0. Time grading activities to avoid the rainy season as much as possible, and implement interim control measures, including but not limited to, providing water bars, mulch and net blankets on exposed slopes., straw bale dikes, temporary culverts and swales, sediment traps, and/or silt fences. DEIR page 3.6-14. Miti9ation Measure 3.6/28.0. Reduce long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts through appropriate design, construc- tion, and continued maintenance of surface and subsurface drainàge. Appropriate measures include, but are not limited to, constructing sediment catch basins, adequate storm sewer systemS, stabilizing creek banks, revegetating and main~ taining wooded slopes, constructing facilities to control drainage and runoff, and emphasizing periodic homeowner/ landowner maintenance. (See also MM 3.6/26.) DEIR page 3.6-15; 5.0-1~. 114\eastdub\find(4) 43 -, ,- Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen',the significant effect identified in the Final ErR. Rationåle for Findinq. These mitigations include measures to prevent concentration of runoff, control runoff velocity, and trap silts on both a short-term and long-term basis, thereby minimizing the identified impact. section 3.7~-- Bioloaical Resources DlPACT 3.1/A. Direct Jla]:)itat Loss. Under Alternative 2, the project will result in the lossl degradation, or disturbance of 1900 acres of existing vegetation. No unique or rare plant species occur in the Project area; however, urbanization will substantially reduce the habitat and range for botanical and wildlife s~cies which are resident or migratory users of the RPA. The P1;'oject contributes to the cumulative" ongoing toss of natural habitat in the Tri-Valley region, and is also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.7-9, 5.0- ~~ , Addendum.. ;~ Mitiqation'Heasures 3.7/~.O to 3.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan policies 6-2l* and 6-23,* and Action Program 60,* direct?disturbance of trees or vegetation should be minimiied and restricted to those areas actually designated for construction of improvements. nevelopm$nt':::projeots Should, include vegetation enhancement/management,plans for all opèn space areas identifying ways to enhance the biological potential of the area as wildlife habitat and focusing on such measures as reintroduclng native species to increase vegetative cover and plant di versi ty . Development projects shall also be required to prepare a detailed revegeta-tion/restoration plan, developed ,by a qualified revegetation specialist, for all disturbed areas that are to remain undeveloped. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-9, 5. O-~~. Mitiaatioh Measure 3.7/4.0. The city shall develop and im.plem~nt graz inq management plans to protect riparian and wetlanq ar,eas, increase plant di versi ty I and encourage the recovery of native plants, especially perennial grasses. DEIR pàge 3.7-9, 5.0-11. Findinèr. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proj ect that avoid or substantially lessen"the significant effect identified in the Final Em. Rationàle for Findina. Restricting direct disturbance to actual' construction areas will reduce the am.ount of babitat lost. The vegetation and grazing plans will protect and restore disturbed areas to minimize the amount of habitat ,- 114\eas~dub\£iDd(4) 44 :' . ,....---.. -'. loss and to enhance the value of the habitat area remaining. :IKPACT 3.7/8. :Indirect: Dapacts of vegetation RemovaJ.. constructio~ activities on the Project site may cause dust deposition, increased soil erosion and sedimentation, increased potential for slope failures, and alteration of sur£ace and subsurface drainage patterns. DEIR page 3.7-9 to -10. Mitiaation Measure 3.7/5.0. Pursuant to specific Plan Policy::6-22 , * all disturbed areas should be reveqetated as quicklY as possible with native trees, shrubs, herbs, and grasse~, to prevent erosion. The City shall ,determine speci'fic physical characteristics of proposed revegetation areas t.o evaluate the long-term feasibility of the proposed mitiqai:ion and to identify potential conflicts at the site. plaptsuseà for revegetation will be native to the Tri- Valley Area'. (*specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) :DEIR page 3.7-10; RC # 13-18. Mitiaation Measures 3.6/18.0. 22.0. 23.0. and 3.11/1.0. Development should avoid siting on steep slopes and should. observe special design and engineering JIlitigation features where construction occurs on :3::L or steeper slopes. The City of DUblin shall require dust deposition mitigations during construction, including but not limited to, watering the construction site, daily clean-u.p of mud aIiddust, replanting and repaving and other JBeasures to r,educe wind erosio~. ,DEIR pages 3.6-12 to -13, 3. 7-:LO, :3 .1:1-3 to -4. Findinà. Changes or alterations have been reqUired in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen.rthe significant effect identified in the Final EIR. ~. Rationå.le for Finding. Requiring construction to avoid siting;on steep slopes will protect hillside vegetation and reduce.' erosion impacts. Where disturbance is necessary, engineering and other , techniques to reduce erosion and 'sedimentation and pro1D.ote slope stability will also ensure that revegetation efforts to control erosion will be more efficient and successful. IMPACT 3.7/C. LOSS or Deq:a4ation of Botanical17 SeDsitive 'JlaDitat. Direct loss and degradation from grading, road construction, and culvert crossings could adversely affect the Proj ect area I s unique and sensitive Northern Riparian Forest, Arroyo willow Riparian Woodland, and Freshwater Marsh habitats. Indirect impacts could result from increased sedXmentation or spoil deposition affecting stream flow patterns and damaging young seedlings and the roots of woody plants. This impact is also a poteIitially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.7- :LO, 5.0-1.1. ::: 114\eastdub\f~d(4) 45 ,-. -. Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0. 7.0. and 11.0. RiDarian and Wetland Areas. Pursuant to Specific Plan policies 6-9,* 6-10, * and Action Progrëml 6E, * natural riparian and wetland areas shall be preserved wherever possible. All deve10pment projects, in the RPA shall consult with the Army Corps of Engine,ers (COE) and the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to determine these agencies' jurisdiction over the riparian or wetland area. These areas shall be incorporated into project open space areas. Any lost riparicþ1 habitat shall be replaced as required by DFG. Any lost we.tlands shall be mitigated per COE's "no net loss" policy.~ (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throuqhout RPA.) DEIR pgge 3.7-10, and -111 5.0-12. Mitiaation Measures 3.7/8.0 to 10.0. 12.0 to 14.0. ' Pursuant to Specific Plan policies 6-11 to 6-13/* and Action Programs 6F to 611,* the City'shall require revegetation of natural stream corridors with native plant species and preservation and maintenance of natural stream corridors in the .Project area, through measures including, but not limited to, avoiding underground drainage systems in favor of natural open-stream channels and retention basins. The City shall establish a stream corridor system (see Specific Plan Figure 6.1) to provide multi-purpose open space corridors for pedestrian and wildlife circulation. The City should also work with Zone 7 and DFG to develop a stream corridor restor~tion program, with standards for grading, stabiliza- tion, ànd revegetation, and long-term managemen~ of RPA stream~icbannels. Development projects in the RPA are to be reviewed against, and any approval shall be cons:istent with, the program standards. (*Specif ic Plan provisions adopted. throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-10 to -12, 5.0-12; RC #14- 7, 35-25. Mitiaation Measure 3.7/15.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 6K,* the City of Dublin shall establish and maintain a liaison with state and federal resource manage- ment agencies throughout the planning and development process of individual development projects, in order to avoid violations of state and federal regulations and insure that specific issues and concerns are recognized and addressed. (*Specific Plan provisions adop~ed throuqhout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-1.2, 5.0-12. Mitiaa~ion Measures 3.7/16.0 to 17.0. Existing sensitive habitats shall be avoided and protected where feasible. constr1;ction near drainages shall take place during the dry seaso~~ DEIR page 3.7-12, 5.0-12. Findinèr. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorpórated into the Project. These changes will avoid or " 114\eas~ub\£ind(4) 46 · .... !~ r ~ ,.-... --, subst~tially lessen the Pro~ect-related significant effects identi~ieà in the final EIR. However, these chanqes will not avoid the cumulative effects of lost or degraded biolog~cally sensitive habitat. Therefore, a statement of overriding considerations JIlust be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findina. Requirinq compliance with "no net loss" policies will ensure that the amount of habitat shall remain' constant. By incorporating wildlife corridors into Project plans, wildlife habitats will be enhanced and will not become isolate4 because wildlife will be able to migrate through these corridors as necessary. Disturbance of natural stream corridors can reduce the habitat value of these a.reas, but will be minimized by requirements to preserVe and maintain these corridors in a natural, open condit~on, and by requiring construction to take place in the drY season. . Any disturbed streams shall be rebuilt, reconstructed andreveqetated according to the stream corridor plan, which will further enhance and protect habitat values in the RPA. Even with these protections for the RPÄ's biologically sensitive resource, the cumulative impactrcannot be fully mitigated. XHPAc-l' 3.7/D. .san Joaquin Kit Fox. Construction of new roads and facilities could adversely impact kit 'fox by de~ying potential dens or buryinq foxes occupying dens at the time of construction. Modification of natural habitat could· reduce available prey and den sites. Increased vehicle traffic, the presence of humans and domestic dogs, and residentus~ of poison for rodent control could kill or disturb foxes or reduce their prey populations. DEIR page 3.7-12 to -~3. Mitiaation Measure 3.7/18.0. The city shall require all develoPment in the RPA to comply with the East Dubl.in San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan outlined in Appendix E, DEIR Part If. Extensive mitigation measures stress siting urban develoPment to avoid kit fox habitat where possible, and protectiing and enhancing the habitat which remains primarily in the~:Open Space and Rural Residential areas. Mitigations includ~'measures for pre-construction and constrUction conditions, and address steps to be taken if potential or known dens are identified. DEIR page 3.7-131 DEIR Appendix E (as revised following RC #20-7.) Mitiaation Measure 3.7/18.1. The city of Dublin shall work with other agencies to develop a management plan that identifies measures to protect viable habitat for the kit fox in the Tri-Valley area. RC #20-5. 114\easbãuh\f±Dd(4) 47 ~' " ", ,.. .,;---, -', Mitiaation Measure 3.7/19.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action,Program 6N1* the city shall restrict rodenticide and herbicide use. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-~3. FindinQ. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorpQrated into, the Project that avoid or sUbstantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Pinal EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Appendix E provides a comprehensive protection plan addressing several phases of kit fox protec~ion, from avoidance of potential dens to maintenance of habitat. Through this plan, the Project will. avoid most direct~'iand indirect adverse effects on any kit fox that might be present in the Project area. :r IHPACTS 3.71F to X. Red-legged Frog, California Tiger salaa&D4.er,'1festm=n Pond 'tUrtle, Tri-coloreèl. Black))ird. The destruction:':and alteration of water impoundments and stream courses in the RPA threatens to eliminate habitat for these species. Increa~ed sedimentation int;.o the riparian areas could reduce water quality and threaten breeding and larval habitat. Disturbance of the already minimal vegetation in the stream courses could reduce habitat opportunity for adult species. Increased vehicle traffic and new road construction could increase direct mortality. Harassment and predation~by feral dogs and cats already occurs, and would increase with increased residential development. DEIR page 3.7-13 to -14. Mitiaation Measures 3.7/20.0 to 22.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Aç:'tion PrQ9ram 6L* and other EIR mitigations, develop- ment P:i::oj ects in the RPA shall prepare open space plans to enhanc~ and preserve existing habitat and revegetation plans for any disturbed open space or habitat areas and shal.l preserve and protect riparian, wetland, and stream corridor areas whenever possible. (See MMs 3.7/2.0 to 3.0.) Maintain a minimum buffer of at least ~oo feet around breedi~g sites of the red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, and Western pond turt~e. Deve~opment proj ects in the:RPA shall conduct a pre-construction survey within sixty days prior to habitat ~odification to verify the presence of sensitive species. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEn page 3. 7 -~4 . Findinq. 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 Findinq. Open space protection, revegetation, and restoration planning, as well as plann~ng to protect andrenhancé wetland and riparian areas will also protect and " 114\eas~\f±Dd(4) 48 " ,,-.- ..-. minimize impacts to the r'iparian habitat necessary for the specie~ identified in this impact. J:KPAC'.1!S 3.7/K. GoJ.ðen Bagle: The conversion of grasslands and the consequent reduction of potential prey could reduce the amount and quality of foraging habitat for golden eaq~es. Noise and human activity associated with development could also disrupt foraging- activities. Elimination of golden eagle foraging habi- tat is also'a potentially significant cumulative impact which contributes ,to the overall regional loss of foraging habitat for this species. DEr.R page 3.7-15, 5.0-12. Mitiaation Measure 3.7/25.0. Designate substantial areas of land in the Proj ect area as Open Space or Rural Residential (including future study areas), providing open space protection and low intensity development that will also provide a suitable foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7-15, 5.0-1.2. Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proj ect that avoid or substantially lessen':the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. , ' Rationale for Finding. Providing a natural open space zone around;the existing golden eagle nest avoids destruction of, the nesting site; providing an additional buff.er:, during the golden:eagle reproductive period further proteC;:s the integrity of the existing nesting site. The natural open space zone, together with the over acres of open, space and low intensity development across th~.·,project site provides ample opportunity to maintain effective foraging habitat for golden eagles. XHPACT 3.7/L. Go1den Eagle and Other Baptor Electrocutions. Golden eagles and other raptors which perch or fly into high- voltage transmission lines may be electrocuted. DEIR page 3.7-:1.5. Mitigation Measures 3.7{26.0 and 3.4/42.0. Requ~e a11 utili t.i;es to be located :below grade where feasible. Pursuant to specific Plan Action Program 6MI * require all trans1nission lines to be undergrounded where feasible. Where not feasible, design specifications to protect raptors from electrodution shall be implemented. These specifica- tions include, but are not limited to, spacinq dangerous components; insulating conductors,. using non-conductive materials I or providing perch guards on cross arms; and avoiding grounded steel cross arm braces. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-24, 3.7- 1.5 to -16. 114\eastdub\fiDd(4) 49 '.. ~. ~. ..-, Findincr. 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 Findincr. Undergrounding utilities, including all transmissio'n lines, avoids the electrocution hazard. Where the hazard cannot be avoided through undergrounding, the design specifications identified in the mitigations reduce~the electrocution hazards by neutralizing and/or coveri*9' the features that provide opportunities for electrocution. XHPACT 3.7/.. B. Burrowine¡ OWl and American Ba4ger. Annual ,grasslands in the, RPA provide suitable habitat for bUrrowing owls. Development and related construction activity could destroy both burrowing owl and American badger burrows. Harass- JIlent by feral dogs and cats, as well as use of poisons for rodent control, could harm these species and/or reduce their prey populations. DEIR page 3.7-16 to -17. Mitiqation Measures 3.7/20.0 and 27.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 6L* and other EIR mitigations, develop- ment projects in the RPA shall conduct a pre-construction survey within sixty days prior to habitat modification to verify tAe presence of sensitive species. The projects shall JIlaintain a minimum buffer of at least 30G'-' feet around the breeding sites of the American badger durinq the breediIlg season (March to september) to avoid ÇI:irect loss of individuals. Also, projects shall maintain a'minbnum buffer of at least 300 feet around known or identifi~;' nesting sites of the burrowing owl I or implement other mitigation actionfji. pur.suant to standardized protocol now under developm.ent" including relocation of nesting sites in coordiñation with the USFWS and the CDFG. (*Spec::ific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3.7-14, and -17; RC #15-60. ' Findina. Chanqes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantial~y lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. The pre-construction survey and required buffer zone around known nesting and breeding sites preserves these species I burrows by allowing 'them to be avoided during the construction and development process. Dœ-ACT 3.7/0. pra.irie Palcon, Northern Harrier, and Ðlack- Sho~dered tite. Development in the RPA could cause ~oss of foraging habitat. DEIRpage 3.7-17. f ~i .. 114\eas~ub\f~d(4) 50 ,---, ,-, Mitiaation Measure 3.7/25.0. Substantial areas of land in the prôject area are designated for open Space and low intens:Ï¡. ty Rural Residential land uses (including future study ~eas). DEm pages 3.7-15 and -17. .. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proj ect that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. The designated open space and low intensity rural residential uses provide adequate foraging habitat for these species. DlPACT :3. 7/p. Sharp-Shinned Hawk and Cooper' 8 Hawk. Development in the RPA could cause loss of foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7- 17. Mitiaation Measures 3.7/6.0 through 17.0 and 21.0. Establish protective buffer zones for riparian and fresh- water Jí¡.arsh habitats to protect and enhance sensi ti ve habitats. Preserve riparian, wetland, and stream corridor areas; ~where avoidance of these areas is not feasible prepare and impleJl.1ent habitat restoration, enhance:ment and maintenance plans. DEIR pages 3.7-10 to -12, -14, -17. ,J Findinq. Changes or alterations have been req\i1'ired in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or, s\11::)stantially lessen the siqnificant effect identified in the:: Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. The mitigations provide;" preservation, enhancement and maintenance featUres for riparian and freshwater marsh habitats upon which these specieS rely for forage. Protecting and enhancing this habitat avoids the impact of lost habitat. D!PACT 3. 7/S. specia1 status xnvertebrates. Impacts to special status invertebrates cannot be estimated at this time. DEIR page 3.7-J..8. ~ :¡ t! Mitiga€ion Measure 3.7/28.0. species-specific surveys shall be conc;1ucted, in appropriate riparian/wetland habitats prior to approval of specific projects in the RPA. DEm page 3.7- 18, Add,endum. FindinQ. changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identif~ed in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding. Any potential iJllpacts to Special status Invertebrates will be addressed during C'EQA review of specific development projects in the RPA. 114\eas~ub\find(4) 51 ·.j: ,-, I .--, section 3.8 -- visual Resources DŒACT 3.8/A. stanlSar4ize4 "Tract.. Development. Generic "cookie-cutter" development could obscure the specific natural features of the RPA, such as its landforms, vegetation, and watercourses, that make it a unique place with its own identity. DEIR page 3 ~'8-4. Mitigation Measure 3. S/1. o. Pursuant to the goal statement in Spe¢ific Plan Section 6.3.4,* establish'a visually distinCtive community which preserves the character of the naturài landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from JIlajor travel corridors and public spaces~, Implement the extensive design guidelines for develoþ1l1ent as described in Chapter 7* of the Specific Plan. These guidelines provide a flexible design framework, but do not compromise the community character as a whole. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-5. 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 protecting key natural and visual elements, the Project maintains the natural feêi-t:ures of the RPA, wliich make it unique. The general design guidelines for th~ Project, including a village center, town center, mixed úse orientation, and varying lot sizes, ,:provide a varied "develop1[1ent pattern, which avoids the look of standard cookie-cutter tract developJllents. . ~. t :IKPAC'l 3.8/B. A1teration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character. Urban development of the RPA will substantially alter the existing rural and open space qualities that characterize eastern Dublin. This is also a significant cumulative impact as the natural rural character of the Tri-Valley subregion is replaced by urban deve:Lopment. DEIR page 3.S-5, 5.10-~2. Mitiaation Measure 3.8/2.0. Implement the land use plan for the RPA, which plan emphasizes retaining the predominant natural features, such as ridgelines and watercourses, and preserves the sense of openness that characterizes Eastern Dublin.: DEIR page 3.8-5, 5.0-1.2. Findinci. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Proj ect. However, even with these change!?, the impact wiil not be avoided or substantially lessen~d. Therefore, a statement of overriding considt.rations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. ;,. 114\eastdUÞ\£iDd(4) 52 ,- ,.-.. Rationàle for Findina. Maintaining predominant natural featur~s minimizes the alteration of the RPA's current rural open sPace character; however, it does not fully mitigate this impact. DŒACT 3.8/C. Obscurinq Distinctive øatura1. Feat~es. The characteristic unvegetated landscape of the RPA heightens the visual importance of existing trees, watercourses, and other salient natural and cultural features. The Project has the potential to obscure or alter these existing features and thereby reduce the visual uniqueness of the site. DEIR page 3.8-5. Mitiaation Measure 3.8/3.0. Pursuant to ~ecific Plan Policy 6-28, * preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources I such as creeks and major stands of veqetation. (*speèific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-5. ; Findinci. Changes or alterations, have been required in, or incorpQrated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessenrthe significant effect identified in the Final EiR. Rationále for Findina. This mitigation ~easure calls for preservation of the RPA's important visual resources, thereby avoiding the impact of obscured or altered visually importànt features. DlPAC'J! 3.8/D. A1.teration of visual QUality of Hillsides. Grading and excavation of building sites in hillside areas will severely compromise the visual quality of the RPA.\'DEIR page 3.8-6. Hitiaation Measures 3.8/4.0 to 4.5. Pursuant to Specific Plan policies 6-32,* and 6-34 to -38,* grading and excavation throughout the RPA should be minimized, by using such grading features as gradual transitions from graded ares to natural slopes, by revegetation of graded areas, by JIlaintai,ning natural contours as much as possible and grading only t~e actual development areas. Building pads in hillside areas should be graded individually or stepped, wherever possible. structures and roadways should be designed in response to the topographical and geotechnical conditions. structures should be designed to blend in with surrounding slopes and topography and the height and (jrade of cut and fill slopes should be minimized wherever feasible. (*specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-6. FindinQ. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially 1essen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. 114\eastdub\£~d(4) 53 " ~.' ¡-" .'-, Rationale for Findinq. The various grading techniques identified, together with revegetation and sensitive building design will avoid the impact by Einimizing physical alteration throuqhout the RPA. IHPACi' 3.8/B. Alteration of Visual guality of Ridqes. structures bui1t in proximity to ridges may obscure or fragJIlent the profile-of visually-sensitive ridgelines. DEIR page 3.8-6. Hi tiaation Measures 3.8/5.0 to 5.2. Pursuant to specific Plan Policy 6-29,* development is not permitted on the main ridge1ine that borders the specific P1an area to the north' and eaSt, but may be permitted on the foreground hills and ridgelands. Minor interruptions of views of the main ' ridgeline by individual building 111asses may be perJnitted only where all other remedies have been exhausted. Pursuant to specific Plan policy 6-30* and General Plan Amendment Guiding policy E, structures shall not obstruct scenic views and shall not appear to extend above an identified scenic ridgetop when viewed from scenic routes. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7. Findinâ. Chanqes 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 Findinq. Prohibiting development along the , main ridgeline in the RPA preserVes the visual', qua1i ty of this resource. Li:mitinq development so that structures are not silhouetted against other scenic ridqetops',-_ as well as requiring that a backdrop of natural ridgeline remain visible, minimizes the obstruction or fragmentation of visually sensitive ridgelines. XHPACT 3.8/F. ~teration of visual Character of Flatlands. commercial and residential development of the RPA' s flatlands will completely alter the existing visual character resulting from valley grasses and agricultural fields. DEIR paqe 3.8-7. Mitieration Measures. None identified. DEIR paqe 3.8-7. Finding. No changes or alterations are available 'to suDstantially lessen this impact. Therefore, a statement of Overriginq Considerations must be adopted upon approval of, the pròject. Rationale for Findinq. Development of the project site's flatter areas is regarded as a ·'trade-off" measure designed to preServe slopes, hillsides, and ridgelines. 1~4\eastdub\f1nd{4) 54 /.....-..... ,..--.., XHPACT 3.8/G. A1teration of the visua1 Character of Water- courses. Urban development of the Proj ect site in proximity to watercourse~ may diminish or eliminate their visibility and function as ;~distinct landscape elements. DEIR page 3.8-7. Mitiaation Measure 3.8/6.0. Pursuant to Specific P1an Policy 6-39, * protect the visua1 character of Tassajara Creek and other stream corridors froa unnecessary a~teration or disturbance. Adjoining development should be sited to m.ainta~n visual access to the stream corridors. Implement earli~ identified mitigation measures 3.7/8.0, 12.0, and 13.0, to revegetate stream corridors to enhance their natural appearance, to prepare a comprehensive stream corridor restoration program, and to establish dedication of land along both sides of stream corridors. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7 to -8, 3.7-10 to -11. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Fina1 EIR. Rationale for FindinQ. Preserving the RPA watercourses will retain both their visibility and function as distinct landscape elements. Special attention to stream corridors through revegetation, restoration, and dedicati:on' of land along both sides, will further enhance this distinct landscape element. DlPACT 3.8/X. Scenic Vistas. Development on the RPA will alter the character of existing scenic vistas and may obscure bnportant sightlines.' DEIR page 3.8-8. Mitiaation Measure 3.8/7.0 to 7.1. Pursuant to Specific Plan policy 6-5* and other EIR mitigations, preserve views of designated open space areas. The City will conduct a visual survey of the RPA to identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into I the Projeci: that avoid or substantially J.essen ::the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationàle for Findinq. Identifying and mapping critical viewsheds allows the city to consider specific ways of preserving those views when reviewing development projects within : the RPA. :IHAGB 3.8/J. scenic Routes. Urban development of the RPA will significantly alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic 114\eastdUb\£iDd(4) 55 ,- ...-.~\ routes in eåstern Dublin. As quiet rural roads become major suburban thoroughfares, foreground and distant vi~ws may be obstructed. DEIR page 3.8-8 to -9. Mitiaation Measure 3.8/S.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 6Q,* the City should of.ficially adopt Tàssajara Road, I-SSO, and Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors, should adopt scenic corridor policies, and should establish developm,ent review procedures and standards to preserve scenic vistas. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-9. Mi tiaation Measure 3. 8/S . 1.. Pursuant: to specific Plan Action Program 6R,* the city should require that projects with pOtential impacts on scenic corridors submit detailed visual: analysis with development project applications. The analysis shall include graphic simulations and/or sections drawn from affected travel corridors and representing typical views from scenic routes. (*Specific Plan provistons adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.S-9,. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporateà. into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen'the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for FindinQ. Establishing scenic co~idor policies will insure that the visual experience, of travelers along scenic routes be maintained as much as possible. Requiring visual analyses will allow the city to specifi- cally review development projects for their visual impacts and to review how locations of structures and associated l.andscaping can be used to adjust the proj ect design to minimize its visual impacts from scenic routes. section 3.9 -- CUltural Resources XHPACT 3.9/~. Disruption or Destruction of ~4entified Prehistoric ¡'Resources. Due to the level of development proposed in the RPA,iit is assumed that a1.l prehistoric sites identified in the 1.988;:inventory will be disturbed or altered in some manner . D~ page 3. 9~6. Mitiaation Measures 3.9/1..0 to 4.0. Develop a testing program to determine the presence or absence of hidden deposits in all locations of prehistoric resources. All locations containing these components shall be recorded with the state of California and their borders will be staked so that professional survey teams may develop accurate location maps. If any of these recorded and mapped locations are affected by future construction or increased access to the areas I evaluative testing, consisting of collecting and 114\eas~\fiDd(4) 56 '., /""""-' ....-~.... analyzing any surface concentration of materials, shall be undertaken in order to prepare responsive mitigation measures. The city shall hire a qualified archaeologist to develop a protection program for prehistoric sites con- taining significant surface or subsurface deposits of cultural materials in areas where development will alter the current condition of the resource. DEIR page 3.9-6 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. Rationale for Findinq. Through these mitigations, prehistoric resources can be identified and mapped, and specific mitigation plans prepared as part of review of development projects that will affect the resources. XHPA~ 3.9/B. Disruption or Destruction of unidentified Pre- Historic Resources. ,Previously ~nidentified pre-historic resources may exist in the RPA and would be subject to potential disruption or destruction by construction and development activities associated with the Project. DEIR page 3.9-7. Mitiaation Measures 3.915.0 to 6.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 6-25* and Action Program 6P,* cease any grading or conStruction activity if historic or prehistoric remains are discovered until the significance and extént of those remain$ can be ascertained by a certified archåeologist. Development proj ects in the RPA shall prepare an archaeolo- gical site sensitivity' determination and detai~éd research and field reconnaissance by a certified arChaeologist, and develop a mitigation plan. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-7. 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. Rationàle for Findina. These mitigations will insure that any significant prehistoric resources which are discovered during"idevelopment activities are not disrupted or destr07:'ed. IMPACT 3.9/C. Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic Resources. 7Due to the level of development proposed in the RPA, it is assumed that all historic sites identified in the 1988 inventory will be disturbed or altered in some manner. Even cultural resources in the proposed Open Space and Rural Residen- tial areas will potentially be disturbed or altered due to the presence of new residential population in the area. DEIR page 3.9-8. 114\eas~ub\£~d(4) 57 ,- -. Mitiaation Measures 3.9/7.0 to 12.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policies 6-26* and 6-27* and other mitigations identified in the EIR, all properties with historic resour~es and all standing structural remains shall be evaluated by an architectural historian, as part of in-depth archival research to determine the significance of the resourçe prior to any alteration. All historic locations in the 1988 inventory shall be recorded on official State of california historical site inventory forms. These records should:~:be used to make sure that historical locations are record~'onto development maps by professional surveyors. Whére the disruption of historical resources is unavoidable, encourage the adaptive reuse or restoration of the struc- tures whenever feasible. A qualified architectural historian shall be hired to develop a preservation program for historic sites found to be significant under Appendix K of the CEQA guidelines. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throuqhout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-8. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen::;the significant effect identifi~ in the Final EIR. oj Rationale for. Findinq. Archival research and , recordation of historical sites on state inventory forms will insure that histor~cal resources are identified throughout',::the Project area. '~Encouraging adaptive reuse or restoration of historic structUres ëµ1d 'development of a preservation program for historic sites will insure that identified resoUrces are not disturbed or destroyed. -, ZKPACT 3.9/D. Disruption or Destruction of Uniden~ified Historic Resources. Previously unidentified historic resources may exist in the RPAand would be subject to potential disruption or destruction by construction and development activities associated with the Project. DEIR page 3.9-8. Mitiaation Measures 3.9/5.0 to 7.0F g.OF 10.0F and 12.0. These previously identified mitigation measures will be used to ascertain the presence of unidentified historic resources on a development project site in the RPA. If a historic rescurçe is identified, archival research shall be performed to determine the significance of the resource or structure. The City shall hire a qualified architectural historian to develop a preservation program for significant historic sites.t'DEIR page 3.9-7 to -9. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorpòrated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen:the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. 114\eastdDb\find(4) 58 ~,'. .~~ ,-. ,----" r Rationåle for Findinq. Mitigations will ensure that any signif~cant historic resources which are discovered during development activities are not disrupted or destroyed. Section 3.10 -- Boise DlPACT 3.10/A. ExpOsure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise. Proposed residentia1 housing a10ng Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Fallon Road, and Hacienda Drive will be exposed to future noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. DEIR page 3. :1.0- 2. Mitiaation Measure 3.10/1.0. Require acoustical studies for all residential development projects within the future CNEL 60 contour to show how interior noise levels will be reduced to 45 dB. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen¡vthe significant effect identified in the Final EIR. L Rationcitle for Findìnq. The required acoustical studies must show how interior noise exposures are reduced to 45 dB CNEL" the min~um acceptable noise level. IMPACT 3.10/8. Exposure of Existing Resiðences to ~ture Roadway Hoise. Increased traffic noise on local roads woul~result in significant ,cumulative noise level increases along Tassajara .(4 dB), Fallon (6dB), and Hacienda Roads of 6 dB. This is a potentiallY significant cumulative ~pact in that small indivi- dual Project noise increases considered together and over the long term, will substantially increase overall noise levels. DEIR page 3;'10-3, 5.0-13.- .~~ Hi tiaa1don Measures 3.10/2.0. All deve10pJllent projects in the RPA shall provide noise barriers or berms near existing residences to control noise in outdoor use spaces. DEIR page 3 ;;10-3. 4:.. Mitiaafion Measure 3.10/7.0. To mitigate cumulative noise impacts, the city shall develop a noise mitigation fee to pay for on- and off-site noise mitiqations, including but not liJnited to, noise barriers, aarthen berms, or retrofitting structures with sound-rated windows. DEJ:R page 5..0-13. Findina. 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 ]]lust be adopted upon approval of the Project. 114\eas~dUb\f~d(4) 59 -, ~ - ,-----. Rationale for Findincr. providing noise barriers or berms wi~l reduce noise exposure for existing residences j however, mitigation may not be feasible at all locations because of site constraints such as driveways and proxiJnity to road- ways. Furthermore, while developers will provide funding for noise ~itiqations to reduce overall noise levels, funds derived from the experimental program may not adequately mitigate the cu:m.u1.ati ve impact. Therefore, this noise impact'cannot be fully mitigated. XHPACT 3.10/D. Bzposure of Proposed Residential Deve~opment to Boise f:om FUture øilita:y ~rainiDq Activities at ~ks Rese:ve Forces Traitdl'q Area (camp Parks lU"TA) and the county Jai:L. Residential development on the Project site within 6000 feet of camp Parks RFTA and the County Jail could be 'exposed to noise impacts from gunshots and helicopter overflights;, DEJ:R page 3.10-4. Mitiaation Measure 3.10/3.0. The city shall require an acoustical study prior to future development in the Foothill Residential, 'I'assajara Village Center, County center I and Hacienda Gateway subareas (as defined in Figure 4.2 of the Specific Plan) to determine whether future noise impacts from cåJnp Parks and -the county jail will be within accept- able limits. This study should identify and evaluate all potential noise generating operations. DEIR page, 3.~O-4. Findiná. 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 Findina. The required acoustical study will identify noise sensitive areas in the Project site and noise generating operations at camp Parks and the jail and will propose mitigation to reduce noise impacts to acceptable liJnits. However, mitigation may not be possible at all critical locations, so the impact may not be fully mitigated. XHPACT 3.1oIE. Exposure of Existing and proposed Residences to Construct.ion Boise. construction would occur over years on the Project sitè and will be accompanied by noise from truck activity on local roads, heavy equipment used in grading and paving, impact noises durLng structural framing, and pile driving. Construction impacts will be most severe near existing residen- tial uses along Tassajara Road and near existing uses in the southern portion of the Project area. DEIR page 3.10-4. 114\eastdub\£~d(4) 60 .. ,'--. '--. t , Mitiaat.ion Measures 3.10/4.0 to 5.0. Development proj'ects in the RPA shall submit a construction Noise Management Program that identifies measures proposed to minimize construction noise impacts on existing residents. The Program shall include a schedule for grading and other major noise-qeneratinqactivities, limiting these activities to the shortest possible number of days. Other noise mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, restricting hours of construction activity, developing construction vehicle access routes which minimize truck traffic through residential areas I and developing a mitiga1;don plan' for construction traffic that cannot be avoid~ in residential areas. In addition, all development- related operations should comply with local noise standards, including limi t,ing activity to daytime hours, muffling stationary equipment, and locating that equipment as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. DEIR page 3.10- 4 to -5. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into I the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinq. Through these mitigation measures, developers will limit the intensity and duration of noise exposure experienced by existing residences in,¡,construction areas. Other mitigations will limit noise exposure by moving the noise-generating equipment as far away from residential uses as possible. XHP~C!.' 3.10 IF. lIoise Conflic:1;s due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses pèr.mitted.by Plan Policies supporting Hîzed-Use Developaent.~ The presence of different land use types within the same deve10pment creates the poss:lbi1ity of noise impacts between adjoining uses, particularly when commercial and residential land uses a]:)ut. ~:;DEIR page 3.10-5. Mitiaation Measure 3.1016.0. Development proj'ects in the RPA shall prePare noise management p~ans to be reviewed as part of the development application for all mixed use projects invo~ving residential uses and non-residentia~ uses. To be prepared by a qualified acousticalconsu1tant, the plan should aim to provide a high quality acoustic environment for residential and non-residential users and should propose steps to minimize or avoid potential noise problems. The plan should address the concerns of resi- dents, non-residential users, and maintenance personnel, and should 'make maximum use.of site planning to avoid noise conflicts.' DEIR page 3.10-5 to -6. ~;, " 114\eastdub\f~d(4) 61 ..-. ,-. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proj ect that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findina. The required noise management plans a~low both the developer and the City to anticipate possible noise conflicts in JIlixed-use developments and to propose specific measures to address the specific conflicts identi- fied. ~occurring at an early stage in the process and reviewèd with the development 'application, projects can make use of-:the greatest array of conflict reducing techniques, including building design and site planning. compliance with,these 1I!Ìtigations will lessen or avoid potential noise conflicts fr0111 adj acent mixed uses. XHPA~ 3.11/A. Dust DeposiüOD soi1inq Nuisance from construction Activity. Clearing, grading, excavation, and unpaved roadway travel related to project construction will generate particulate JIlatter which may settle out near the construction sites, creating a soiling nuisance. Any additional dust pOllution will worsen the air basin's non-attainment status for particulates. Dust emissions is therefore also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.:1.1-3, 5.0-13. Mitiaation Measure 3.11/~.O. Require development projects in the 'Project area to implement dust control:':~easures, including but not limited to, watering constrùcition sites, cleaning up mud and dust carried by constructiOn vehicles, effective covers on haul trucks, planting, repåving', and other revegetation measures on exposed soil surfaces, avoiding unnecessary idling of construction equipment, limiting on-site vehicle speeds, and monitoring particulate matter <:levels. These measures will reduce project dust deposition to acceptable levels, but will not avoid cumulative impacts of dust generation. DEIR page 3.11-3 to -4, 5..0-13. Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or inèorporated into the Project. However, even with these changes, cumulative dust generation ~cts will not be substantially avoided. Therefore, a statement of overriding considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Findina. The mitigation measures identify various feasible and reasonable dust control measures that . developers can take during construction activity. These measur~s e1iminate and/or minimize the amount and effect of dust deposition in construction areas. Even with these measures I however I some mnall aJIlount of additional pollution will oçcur. Therefore, the cwnulati ve impacts of dust emissiøns cannot be fully mitigated. 114\eastãub\£iDd(4) 62 11 ....-... '. ....-..... " IKPAC'f 3.11lB. construction BqUipment/vehicle Emissions. Construction equipment operation generates dai~y exhaust emissions. Normal~y considered a temporary impact, buildoutof the Project'area over the ~onq term wil~ be a chronic source of equipment/vehic~e emissionS. This is a~so a potentially signifi- cant cumulative impact due to the non-attainment status of the air basin. DEIR page 3.1.1-4, 5.0-13. Mitiaation Measures 3.~1/2.0 to 4.0. Minimize construction interference with regional non-Project traffic movement by scheduling and routing construction traffic to non-peak times and locations. Provide ride-sharing incentives for construction personnel. Require routine low-emission tune- ups for on-site equipment. Require development projects in the proj ect area to prepare a construction Impact Reduction Plan iÐcorporating all proposed air quality JIlitigation strategies with clearly defined responsibi~ities for plan implementation and supervision. DEIR page 3.11-4, 5.0-13. Findinå-. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Proj ect. 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 Proj ect. Rationale for Findinq. The mitigations includ~,construction timing and siting measures that wi~l reduce ~ipment and vehicle emissions over the long-term buildóut of the Project. EVen with these mitigations, however,~ neithèr Project nor cumulative air quality impacts can:,be fu"lly mitigated. IHPACT 3.11/C. Kobile Source Emissions: lU)G or HOX. Project implementation at full buildout will generate 500,000 da~ly automobi~e trips within the air basin. Mobile source em~ssions for ROG and ':NOx associated with these vehicle trips are precursors to ozone formation. The emissions associated with this :level qf vehicle use wi II far exceed BAAOMD thresholds for significantfeffect. This is a~so a potentia~1Y significant cumulative ~mpact. DEIR page 3.~~-5, 5.0-14. Mitiaation Measures 3.11/5.0 to 11'.0. Exercise interagency cooperation on a subregional and regional basis to integrate ~ocal air quality planning efforts with transportation, transit and other infrastructure plans. IIllplement techni- ques, such as transportation demand management (TDM), shifting travel to non-peak periods, and encouraging mixed- use development which provides housing, jobs, goods and services in close proximity as a means of reducing vehicle trips and related emissions and congestion. At the development Project level, maintain consistency between 114\eastdUb\f~d(4) 63 :,:; ,#~.. --.. specific development plans and regional transportation and growth management p~ans, coordinate ~evels of growth with roadway transportation ,facilities and improveJl1entsl and require l~age between housing growth and job opportunities to achieve a positive subregional,.jobs/housing balance. DErR p~ge 3.11-5, 5.0-14. j Findinå. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorpClrated 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 Findina. The various techniques described in the mitigation measures provide opportunities to reduce vehicle trips, and therefore reduce vehicle emissions. However, because of the size of this Project, neither Project nor cUJllulative impacts can be fully mitigated. IKPACT 3.11/E. sta~ionary Source Emissions. Specific Plan Duildout will create emissions from a variety of sources, including but not liJnited to, fuel co1Dbustion in power plants, evaporative:emissions from paints, and subsurface decay of organic mat~ials associated with solid waste disposal. This is also a pot~tiallY significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.11.-6, 5.0~14. Mit iåati ion' Measures 3.11/12.0 to 13.0. Minimi.ie stationary source{emissions associated with Project develópment where feasib+e, with the qoal of achieving ,10 percent above the minimum conservation target levels established 'in Title 24 .of the ',california Code of Regulations. Include solid waste ,recycling in all developlll.ent planning. DEIR page 3.11-6, 5.0-14. r~ Findina. 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 OVerridinq Considera- tions must be adop~ed upon approval of the Project.' Rationa1e for Findina. Focusing on reducing emissions frOE various sources will allow an incremental reduction in , statio~ary source emissions. These reductions will not, however, be sufficient to avoid either project-related or cumula1:;i ve impacts. ", .' !- " 114\eas~ûb\fiDd(4) 64 L. r-. , .-....., .'. " f section 2 .l51li V J.KOHllD'l'ALLY mSJ:GJaFXCAlfT XHPACTS The city Council, finds that all other impacts of the proposed Project are not environmental~y significant as documented in the FEIR and supported by evidence elsewhere in the record. No mitigation is required for these insignificant impacts. .. 114\eastdub\fiDd(4) 65 ..-, ,,--... section 3 P:D1DXBGS COBCBRH:IBG ALTBRHAT:tVES The city COUncil is adopting Alternative 2 (with minor changes) described inòtheFina,l Em in ,place of the originally proposed Project.TJ,1e City hereby finds the, remaining three alternatives identifiéä.and described in the FinalEIRwere considered and are fOUQd to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other consic;1erations set forth below pursuant to CEQA Section 2108~, subdivision (c). The City also declines to adopt the Project as originally 'proposed for the reas.;ons~s.;et for'th,-below. '1'RB ORXG:IDLLY PROPOSED PRojECT. i: I section2'J.OSJ.:" subdivision'(c)'does not require the City Council to "make findings as to why the or:iginally,proposed Proj,ect was not adopted. Such findings, need only,be made as to'project alternatives which would mitigate'signifioant environmental effects. Alternative 2 has no significant, environmental effects which could be avoided by adopting the originally proposed project ilf'its :s±ead.' Rather¡ the city council finds:' that. ' Alternative 2 wi1.1 ,pose no significantenvironmental:-effects that wouJ:dnot bè posed at . least to the same extent (and' 'o£ten to a greater eXt~nt)bY the Project as originally,pr9posed. PUblic';Resources Code section 21085 prohibits, public aqenciesfromreducinq ,the proposed number of housing U1)its ~s a projéct alternative pursuant to CEQA for a particular significant ,affect on the environment if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure. ,or project alternative ,.that would provide à comparable levét ofinitigation.Thtá ~pject as adopted does indeed involve a reduction of the number of housing units,thaJi wereoriqina1.ly proposed, bÇ)thbecau.se the Project as adopted does notprovide~_, for resident,;i.al development liithé Livermore Municipal Airport Protection Zo~e an~ because the Projectasadopted'onlY.involves residential developmènt, ' .. approximately two-thirds 'of the area, originally - proposed, for development. Moreover, these reductions do result in mitigation of some significant environmental impacts, especially mpacts on Doolan' Canyon. ~ -. , ' The prQhiÞition of residential development within the Livermore Municipal Airport Pròtection Zone is adopted in order to comply ,with Public utilities Code section 2~676 and the decision of 'the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission pursuant to ,that action to prohibit:~esidential development in 114\ea~dub\fïnd(4) 66 í 1 \~- :-- ,'-. the Zone. t.his prohibition is, thus, not adopted merely as a mitigation measure pursuant to CEQA. The City also finds that no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures will provide the level of mitigation of significant environmental effects as are provided by the adoption of Alternative 2 rather than the project as originally proposed. Alternative 2 will leave Doolan canyon in its current largely undeveloped state, thereby mitigating significant impacts involving loss of open space, and biologically sensitive habitat in a way that could not be accomplished by any mitigation measure or alternative were Doolan Canyon in fact developed as originally pr9posed. AL'l'BRBATIVE 1: NO PROJBCT. DEIR pages 4-1 to 4-8, 4-20 Findinq: Infeasible. This option assumes the Project as proposed would not be built on the site; instead any development would be pursuant to, the existing general plan. Under that plan, a liEited amoUnt of business park/industrial development could occur on the 600 acre county property and on the 200 acre portion of the Proj ect area south of the proposed Dublin Boulevard extension. ' The No Project Alternative is foUnd to be ,infeasible because the City's General Plan has designated the Eastern Dublin area f~r planned development, subject to the preparation of a: Specific Plan. In addition, the No Project Alternative fails to provide needed housing. The need for housing is documented in the Housing Element of the city's General Plan, and in other plan documents of the city and other jurisdictions in the area. AL'1'BRHA!'~ 3: REDUCED LAND USB :œTBNSITIBS. DEIR pages 4-14 to 4-19 Pindina: Infeasible. This option assumes developJIlent of both the Specific Pl~ and the General Plan Amendment except that 285 acres of higher traffic generating commercial uses will be replaced with lower traffic generating residential uses. The Reduced Land Use Intensities alternative is found to be infeasible for the following reasons: (1) Airport Safety. This alternative will increase the number of housing units within the Livermore Municipal Airport Protection Zone. (p. 4-15). (2) Unavoidable imnacts. Even with the reduced intensities of this alternative, all the unavoidable impacts identified for the Project would remain except traffic impacts at I-S8D, I- 680¡Hacienda, at I-580, Tassajara¡Airway, at Airway 114 \eastdUb \£iDd (4) 67 ,,..-.., ,.-.. " Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard and cumulative traffic impacts on Dublin Boulevard (Impacts 3.3/B, C, J, and M). DEIR Page 4- 15. (3) Fiscal im~acts.This alternative may have potentially significant fiscal impacts on the City budget's cost/revenue balance by reducing commercial development which generally generates l.ess service costs and more property tax revenues than housing. These potential i1npacts can be mi tiqated. However, any mitigating revenues raised would have to be shared "mitigation for capital facilities, possibly reducing the amöunt of revenue availabl.e for both the budget and capital facility programs. (page 4-19, 3.12-2 to -4). AL'l'EIUmTYVE,'&: 1lO DBVELQPME!I!r. DEIR page 4-19 Findina: Infeasible. This alternative assumes no development of the Project,site beyond existing conditions, assumes no annexa- tion and therefore no application of even the current General Plan. The No Development alternative is found to be infeasible because the city's General Plan has designated the Eastern Dublin area for planned development, subject to the preparation of a specific Plan. In addition, the No Development Alternative fails to provide needed housing. The need for housing is documented in the Housirig Element of the City's General Plan, and in other pl.an documents of the City and other jurisdictions in the: area. (page 4-19 to -20). r 114\eastdUb\~iDd(4) 68 ,"-' , .. ..-... '. section 4 STA'l!~ OF OVBRRXDDlG COHSIDERAT:IOHS 1. Genera1. Pursuant toCEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City council of the City of "Dublin makes the following statement of Overriding Consideratiòns. The City council has balanced the benefits of the eastern Dub~in project to the city of Dublin against the adverse impacts identified in the E:IR as significant and potentially significant which have not been eliminated or mi tiqated to a level of insignificance. The city council, acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, hereby determines that the benefits, of the Project outweigh th~ unmitigated adverse impacts and the Project should be approved.' The city council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to adopt the Project and to allow urbanization of the eastern:¡Dublin Project area. Although the City,>council believes thåt many of the unavoidable environmenta~,',';effects identifièd in the EIR will be substantially lesseneå by mitiga- tion measures incorporated into the General Plan AJIlendment, specific Plan, and future development plans as well as future mitigation measures implemented with future approva:Ls, it recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The city Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, soci.al, enviromnentai, land use, and other considerations which support. approval of the project. The city council further finds that anyone of the overridinq considerations identified herein- after in subsection 3 is sufficient basis to approve the Project as mitigated. " .. 2. Unavoidable Sianificant Adverse XmDacts ." The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts are associated with the proposed Project as identified in the Final Environmental IJIlpact Report for the Project, which consists of a Draft Environmental Impact Report, Parts I and II (Appendix), dated August 28,1992; Comments and Response to comments, dated 114\eas~ub\fiDd(4) 69 ,-., ..~' December 7 and December 21, 1992; letter of December 15, 1992 from DKS Associates to Laurence Tong; and the Addendum to draft EIR dated May 4, 1993. These impacts cannot be fully mitigated by changes or alterations to the Project. Land Use Impact 3.1/F. cumulative Loss of Aqricultural and open S'Dace Lands~' Even with mitiqation, the Project would still result in the loss of a large area of open space. This l.oss is cumulatively significant, given the loss of numerous other' areas of open spaóe in the area. No feasible mitigation measures are avail.able to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. The only Pr<?ject alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No Development Alternative, both of which have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). RC #34-9. Traffic and circulation IJIl~act 3.3/B: I-5S0 Freewav, I-6S0- Hacienda. Even with mitigation I the Level of service on I-SSO between I-680 and Dougherty Road could exceed Level. of Service E, the JIlinimum acceptable level of service. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance, since the freeway has already been widened to its maxÍJllum practical capacity. Project alternatives which could reduce this iJllpact to a level of insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These alternative~ have been found to be infeasible (see,-Section 3 ~ve). (DEIR pages 3.3-21,5.0-16). ' Traffic and':circulation ImDact 3.3/E: cumulative Freewav Im~acts. Even with mitigation, portions of I-5S0 will operata' at Level of service F' uiider the cumulative Buildout with Project scenario. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this mpact to a level of insignificance. The only Project alternative which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance is the No Development Alternative. This alternative has been found to be infeasible (see section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.3-22, 5.0-16) Traffic and circulation Im'Dact 3.3/I: Santa Rita Road and I-580 Eastbound Ramps. Year 2010 development with the Project will cause Level 'of service F operations at this intersection. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. project alternatives which could reduce this ,.impact to a level of insignificance are the No Project A1t~nativ:e and the No Development Alternative. These alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see section 3 above). (DEIR p~ges 3.3-26, 5.0-16) Traffic andrcirculation ImDact 3.3/M: cumulative ImDacts on Dublin Boulevard. ' CUmulative Buildout with the Project will cause Level :¡of service F operations at the Hacienda Drive intersection and Level of service E operations at the Tassajara 114\ea~ub\fiDd(4) 70 ..-- - , , Road intersection. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. Proj ect alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are the Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative and the No DevelopJnent. Al ternati ve. These al ternati ves have been found to be-infeasible (see section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.3- 27, 5.0-1.6)~ .' community services and Facilities ImDàct 3.4/0: Demand for utili tv Extensions. The extension of gas, electric and telephone service lines onto the ProjeCt site is necessary for development and will require new distribution systems or substantial exten- sions of existing systeES onto undeveloped lands currently in agricultural and open space uses. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this growth inducing impact to a level of insignificance. Project alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEXR pages 3.4-24,5.0-16). communitv services and Facilities Imnact 3.4/S: cons~tion of Non-Renewable Natural Resources. Natural Gas and electrical service wou!d increase consumption of non-renewable natural resources. -Requiring energy conservation plans provides partial mitigation.' However, because energy use will still.- increase, the impact cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. Project alternativeS which could reduce this impact to a le~el of insignificance are the No project Alternative and the No Development' Alternative. These alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). DEm page 3.4-25. Sewer. Water. and stor:in Drainaqe ImDact 3. 5/F . H. U: Increases in Enerav Usacre Throuah Increased Water Treatment and DisDosal and Thorouqh operation of the Water Distribution svstem. Increased Wastewat'er Flows to and from the Proj ect will require increased energy. Using energy efficient water distribution treatment, and disposal systems provides partial mitigation. However, because energy use will' still increase I the impact cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. Project alternatives which could reduce this impact~to a level of insignificance are the No Project Alternative~~and the No Development Alternative. ,These alterna- tives have ieen found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). DEIR pages 3.5-8 to -10. Sewer. Water and storm Drainaqe ImDact 3.5fT: Inducement of Substantial ;;Growth and Concentration of PODuiation. The proposed water distribution system will induce significant growth in the Project area. No feas'iblemitigations are available to reduce this impact to a ~evel of insignificance. The only Project. alternatives which could reduce this impact to a leve~ of 114\eastãub\fiDd(4) 71 ,- ,-.." insignificance are the No Project alternative and the No Deve~opmenttalternative. These alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEIR, pages 3.5-20, 5.0- 15). Soils, GeolOavr and seismicity IMPact 3.6/B: Earthauake Ground Shakina. Primarv Effects. Development of the RPA will expose more residents to the risk of potentially large earthquakes on active fault zones in the region, which could result in damage to structures and infrastructure and, in extreme cases, loss of life. Using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral force in construction of deve~opment projects, and building in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and applicable local code requirements will partially mitigate this i11lpact. However , the impact cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. The only Project alternative which could reduce this impact to a level of insiqnificance is the No Development alternative. This alternative'has been found to be infeasible (see section 3 above). (DEIR page 3.6-7.) . '" Bioloaical Resources Impact 3.7/C: Loss or Deqradation of Botanicallv~Sensitive Habitat. Development of the RPA will result in a;significant loss and degradation of biologically sensitive båbitat. As described in section 1, mitigation measures will partially reduce this impact. However I because biologically sensitive habitat will still be lost"',~the impact cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. The only Project alternative which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance is the No Development alternative. ,~is alternative has been found 'to be infeasible (see section 3, above). (DEIR paqes 3.7-10,5.0-11). visual. Im'Cacts 3.8/B: Alteration of Rural/Onen S'Dace Visual Character and 3.8/F: Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands. project development will per:manently alter the existing rural., agricultural character of the project area. Although the highest ridqelines will be preserved as open space, the visual character of the rounded lower foothills along I-SSO will be a2tered by construction of homes and roads. No feasible mitiqations are available t~ reduce these visual impacts to a level of insiqnifi- cance. The:on1y Project alternative which could reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance is the No Development alternative~ This alternative has been found to be infeasible (see section 3 above). (pages 3.8-5, -7, 5.0-17). Noise ImDact 3.10fB: Exoosure of Existina Residences to Future Roadwav Noise. Increased traffic on area roadways will significantly increase noise levels, thus adversely affecting existing residences and population. Mitigation can be achieved to buffer'residents from levels that exceed acceptable standards, by providing berms or walls adjacent to outdoor use spaces of 114\eastduh\fiDd(4) 72 " :- . --...... - , " existing residences. However, the magni t.ude of change in the noise envirònment, from quiet rural roads with little traffic to busy suburb~ thoroughfares, cannot be avoided. Project alternative~ which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.10-3 to 4, 5.0-16). Noise ImDact 3.10/D: ExDosure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future Military Trainina Activities at Camp Parks and from the County Jail. Residential development in the specific Plan area would be within 6000 feet of Camp Parks and the county Jail and could be exposed to noise fram gunshots and helicopter overflight. Mitigations calling for noise studies may not be feasible at all locations; therefore this impact might not be reduced t.o a level of insignificance. Project alternatives which could'reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see section 3 above). c,paqe 3.10-4, 5.0-16). Air OUali tv ¡; Impacts 3 '.111 A. B. C. E. Proj ect development will h'ave a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality as a result of dúst deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile source emissions of ROf and NOx, and stationary source emissions. 'While some measures have been adopted to partially mi tiqate these i.Jnpacts, the impacts remain potentia11.y signif i- cant, especially given the reqiQn's existing non-c~pliance with air quality standards. The on1y Project alternative which could reduce these impacts to a level of insignif icance is the No Development al ternati ve. This al ternati ve has been found to be infeasible (see section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3 .11-3 through - 6, 5.0-~3 ~ough -16.) 3. overridina considerations The City CoVncil has considered the public record of proceedings on the propØsed Project and does determine that approval and implementation of the Project would result in the following substantial~;public benefits. Economic Considerations. Substantial evidence is included in the record demonstrating the economic benefits which the City would derive from implementation of the Project. Specifically, the Project will resu~t in: a. The creation of about 28,200 new jobs in the Specific Plan area alone, and a substantial number of construction jobs. b. Increases in sales revenues for the city. 114 \eastdUb \ find (4) 7.' 73 .... ~. '''''-'''. ,-- c. Substantial increases in property tax revenues. social Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating the social benefits which the City would derive from the implementation of the project. Specifically, the Project wilJ. resuJ.t in: a. Increases in housing opportunities in the city and in a region 'where housing is costly and in short supply. b. Increaèes in the amount of affordable housing in the community. c. An arrangement for the city to contribute its fair share of regional housing opportunities. d. Provision of upper-end executive housing in the City. other Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating other public benefits which the city would derive from implementation of the Project. They include: a . comprehensive planning incorporating innovative and extens*ve environmental premitigation Eeasures not usually found :þ1 p+,ojects of this type. b. Designat.ing substantial areas of land for openi:Space and low intens~ty Rural Residential uses. This incll1des a potential regional trail system link through the open space of the Project site. This open space will conserve '~e ecological values:;'of the site and surroundinq areas and provide recreational and, open space amenity opportunities for residents of the Project, the city, and the region. 3.4- 15, 3.7-15. .. , , 114\eastdUb\find(4) 74