HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachmt 7-Appdx 8.4 Att 6 ContCity of Dublin
3Vtay 7, 1993
Verification:
Public Works Department.
Eaa. Dublin Specific Plan do GPA EIR
141itigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigalion_R~easure 3 6/7 0 • Design-Level Geotechnical Investigations
Why: To require all development projects in the Project area to perform design
level geotechnical investigations prior to issuing nay permits.
Who: Developers/Public Works Department.
What: Confirm receipt of geotechnical investigations (ie. stability analysis of
significant slopes and displacement analysis of critical slopes) in conjunction
with final design of improvements.
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Complefion: Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Verification: Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3 6 /8.0: Earthquake Preparedness Plans
Why: To provide for the development of earthquake preparedness plans and the
dissemination of appropriate emergency measures to all Project residents
and employees.
Who: City of Dublin Planning Department
What: Develop earthquake preparedness plan, and prepare public information
strategy.
When: Within two years of adoption of the Specific P1anjGPA.
Completion: Prior to substantial development in the Project Area.
Verification: Planning Department
Impact 3.6/D Substantial Alteration to Project Site Landforms
Mitigation Measure 3 6 /9 0 • Grading Plans ro Reduce Land form Alteration
Why: To reduce alteration to existing landforms through the preparation of
grading plans that adapt improvements to natural land forms and
implementation of such techniques as partial pads and retaining structures.
Who: Developers/Public Works Department.
What; Review grading plans to ensure that they do not result in unnecessary or
avoidable alterations•to existing Iandfarms.
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Verification: Public Works Department.
Mitigation Nfeasure 3.6/10.0: Siting of Improvements
Why: To reduce landform alteration by carefully siting individual improvements
to avoid adverse conditions and thus the need for remedial grading.
Who: Developers/Public Works Department.
What: Review proponents geotechnical investigation to determine if improvements
have been sited to reduce the need for grading.
When: Prior to submittal of tentative map.
41
City of DnbIin
May 7, 1993
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Verification: Public Works Department
Impact 3.6JF Groundwater Imparts
Impact 3.6/G Groundwater Impacts Associated with Irrigation
~.
Eas. . Dublin Specil'ie Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure 3 6/11 0• Geotechnical Investieations to Locate and Characterize
Grow~dwater Conditions
Why: To prepare detailed design level geotechnical investigations on development
sites within the Project area, to locate and characterize groundwater
conditions and formulate design criteria and measures to mitigate adverse
conditions.
Who; Developers/Public Works Department
What: Yerify the preparation of geotechnical investigations to locate and
characterize groundwater conditions.
When: One year prior to construction.
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Verification: Public Works Department
Mitigation hgeasure 3 6/12 0- Construction of Subdrain Svstem
Why: To reduce groundwater impacts, subdrain systems including drainage pipe
anal permeable materials can be constructed.
Who: Developers/Public Works Department
What: Construct subdrain systems to control groundwater impacts.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit
Yerificatioa: Public Works Department.
Miti~crtio_n Measure 3 6/13.0: Stock Ponds and Reservoirs
Why: To reduce groundwater impacts, stock pond embankments should be
removed and reservoirs drained in development areas.
Who: DevelopersJPublic Works Department.
What: Remove stock pond embankments and drain reservoirs within development
areas.
When: Condition of tentative snap approval.
Completion: Frior~to final improvement plan/grading pian.approvaL
Verification: Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/li Shrinking and Swelling of Expansive Soils and Bedrock
Nl2tigation Measure 3 6/14.0- Geoiechnical InvestiQatzon
Why: To 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.
42
.---. -
City of Dublin Eas. Dublin Specific Plan Sc GPA F,FR.
May 7, 1995 ~ ~ ASitigatioa Monitoring Plan
Who; ~ Developers/Public Works Department.
Whah Confirm the preparation of geotechnical investigations to characterize site-
specific soils and rock conditions, and the development of appropriate
design solutions.
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to final improvement play/grading Plan approval
Verification: Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3 6 /13 0 • Moisture Control Measures
Wh7= To reduce the potential for impact resulting from expansive soils and rock,
by implementing measures to control moisture in the ground.
Who; Developers/Public Works Department.
What: Verify the appropriate application of moisture conditioning; construction of
surface and subsurface drainage to control infiltration; lime treatment.
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to issuance of building permits.
Verification: Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3 6/Ib D • Foundation and Patiement Desi
Why, To reduce the potential effects of expansive soil and rock through
appropriate foundation and pavement design.
Who: Developers/Public Works Department.
What: Verify that structural foundations have been located below the zone of
seasonal moisture change; the use strncturaIly snpporteii~.floors; the use of
non-expansive fill beneath structure slabs and asphaltic concrete.
When,: Prior to submittal of tentative map.
Completion: Prior to final improvement planJgrading plan approval.
Verification: Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6 jI Nataral Slope Stability
Mitigation Measure 3 6/I7 0• Geotechnical Investigations
yyhy; To characterize site-specific slope stability conditions and to formulate
appropriate design criteria, development within the project azea should
prepare design level geotechnical investigations.
Who; DeveiopersJPublic Works Department.
What: Confirm the preparation of geotechnical investigations to characterize slope
stability conditions and identify appropriate design solutions.
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to final improvement plan grading plan approval.
Verification: Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3 6/78 Q. Siting of ImnrovemenLs
Why: To avoid impacts from unstable slopes by siting development away from
43
,-.,
~.
City of Dublin Fns Dublin Specific Plan do GPA EiR.
May T, 1993 lv~tigatioa Monitoring Plea
unstable laadforms and from slopes greater than 3096, and providing lower
density development in steep, unstable areas.
Who; Developers/Public Works Department.
What Confirm that plans avoid siting unprovements downslope or on unstable and
potentially unstable landforms or on 3096+ slopes.
yyhen; Condition of submittal of tentative map.
Completion: Prior to final map approval.
Verification: Public Works Department.
Miti~cttion Meo_sw•e 3 6/19 0• Desirrz Measures for Improvements on. below. or ad intent to
Unstable Slones
Wh~~ To implement measures such as removing, reconstructing, or repairing
unstable areas, or structural engineering, when unstable areas cannot be
avoided. .
Who: Developers/Public Works Department.
What Review for appropriateness and safety the measures suggested to resolve
areas with steep andjor unstable slopes.
When: Prior to approval of tentative map.
Completion: Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Verification: Public Works Department. '
Isepact 3.6/J Cut-and-Fill Slope Stability
Miii~ation Measure 3 6/20.0: Mirsimizin~ Gradin
WhY• To require grading plans far hillside areas, which plans minimize grading
and required cuts and fills by adapting roads to natural landforms and
stepping structures down steeper slopes.
W>zo: Developers/Public Works Department.
What; Review plans to determine if proposed development has attempted to
minimize grading.
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Verification: Public Works Department.
1lfitiQatiott Measure 3 6 /21 0 • Conformance of Gradin~2 Plans to UBC
Why:. To require compliance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform
Building Code and applicable County and City code requirements.
Who; Developers/Public Works Department.
What: Yerify that grading plans conform to chapters 70 and 22 of the Uniform
Building Code and to other applicable codes.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit. '
Verification: Public Works Department.
44
---.
' Ens Dublin Specific Plan do GPA F.>x,
City of Dublin Mitigation Monitoring Plaa
Mary T, 1993
Miti anon Measure 3_ 22.0: Avoidance o nret 'ned Cut Slo es Greater Than 33°.6
~,y_ To require that unretained cut scopes should not exceed 3:1 unless detailed,
site-specific geotechnical investigations indicate that steeper inclinations are
appropriate and safe.
moo; ~ Developers/Public Works Department.
What: Confirm that project avoids unretained cut slopes greater than 3:1; uses
retaining structures to reduce grading on slopes greater than 3:1; and
provides benches and subsurface drainage on cut slopes where applicable.
y~,en; Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Verification: Public Works Department
1lfiti~ation Measure 3 6 /23 0 • tl-feasures for Slopes Greater Than 206
~,y; To require that slopes steeper than 5:1 should be keyed and benched into
competent material and provided with subdrainage, prior to placement of
engineered fill.
moo; Developers/Public Works Department
~-~h Confirm that appropriate measures have been taken in areas where slopes
are greater than 2096 are to be disturbed.
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Verification: Public Works Department
Miti~atior~ Measure 3 6/24 0.1~feasures for Slopes Greater Than_SORb
may; To require that nnreinforced fill slopes should be no steeper than 21 and
provided with benches and surface drainage, as appropriate•
moo; Developers/Public Works Department
What: confirm that appropriate measures have been incorporated where
unreinforced fill slopes greater than 2:1 are involved.
~~; Condition of tentative reap approval.
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit
Verification: Public Works Department.
Jl~fiiiQaiion Meastue 3 6/25 0 ~ Compaction of Fill
~,y; To require that fill be engineered (compacted) to at least 90 percent relative
compaction.
moo; Developers/Public Works Department.
What: Ensure that fill vrr11 be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit
Verification: Public Works Department.
45
City of Dublin
May T, 1993
Ens :Dublin Spedfic Plan do GPA EIR.
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
mini anon Measure 3 6/26 0- Preaaration and Submittal of Srcbsurface Drainage Insaection
Plans
Why; To require that development projects prepare plans for the periodic
inspection and maintenance of subsurface drainage features, and the
removal and disposal of materials deposited in surface drains and catch
basins.
Who: Developers/Public Works Department.
What: Confirm that plans have been prepared and submitted for the periodic
inspection and maintenance of subsurface and surface drainage facilities.
When: Condition of tentative map approval. .
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Verificafion: Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/g Erosion and Sedimentation: Construction-Related
Mitigation Measure 3 6/27 0• Timing of Grading Activitie
Why: To require that grading activities be timed Lo avoid the rainy season as much
as possible, and that interim control measures be implemented to control
runoff and reduce erosion potential.
Who;
What; Developers/Public Works Department.
Review interim control measures to prevent runoff, control runoff velocity
and trap silt for effectiveness.
When: Prior to issuance of grading permit
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Verification: Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/L Erosion and Sedimentation: Long-Term
Mitigation Measure 3 6 /28 0 • Long-Term Control Measures
Wby; To reduce long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts through appropriate
design, construction, and continued maintenance of surface and subsurface
drainage.
Who Deveiopers/Public Works Department.
Whab Review adequacy of long-term control m82SUreS b2sed i1poIl
recommendations.of geotechnical consultants.
When: Condition of tentative map approval_
Completion: Frior to issuance of grading permit.
Verification: Public Works Department.
46
City of Dublin
May 7,1893
SECTION 3..7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Im>aacts Requiring Mitigation
Eas. Dublin Specific Plan di GPA 8IR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
IM 3.7/A Direct Habitat Loss
IM 3.7/B indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal
lM 3.7/C Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat
IM 3.7/D San Joaquin Kit Fox
IM 3.7/F Red-Legged Frog
1M 3.7JG California Tiger Salamander
IM 3.7/H Western Pond Turtle
IM 3.7/I Tri-Colored Blackbird
IlK 3.7JJ Golden Eagle: Destruction of Nesting Site
IM 3.7/K Golden Eagle: Elimination of Foraging Habitat
IM 3.7/L Golden Eagle and Other Raptor Electrocutions
IM 3.7 /M Borrowing Owl
IM 3.7/N American Badger
IM 3.7 JO Prairie Falcon, Northern Harrier, and Black-Shouldered Kite
IM 3.7/P Sharp-Shinned Aawk and Cooper's Hawk
IM 3.7/S Special Status Invertebrates
2 Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Program
Impact 3.7/A Direct Habitat Loss
Mitigation NJeasure 3 7/10 • (Policy 6-21) Avoiding Disturbance/Removal of Vegetation
Why: To ensure that direct disturbance or removal of trees or native vegetation
cover should. be minimized and be restricted to those areas actually
designated far the construction of improvements.
Who: Developers/Planning Department
What: Review plans to verify that disturbance/removal of vegetation has been kept
to a minimum.
When: Prior to approval of tentative map.
Completion: Prior to approval of final map.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation Nfensure 3 7 /2 0 • (Policy 6-23) Vegetation Management PI
Why: To pmvide for the preparation of vegetation enhancement/management
plans for all open space areas (whether held publicly or privately) with the
latent to enhance the biologic potential of the area as wildlife habitat.
Who: Developers/Planning Department.
What Ensure that vegetation management plans have been prepared for designated
open space areas.
When: Prior to approval of tentative map.
Coffipletion: Prior to approval of final map.
Verificatioa: Planning Department.
47
qty of Dubiza Ens. Dub~xn Spec~ic Plan ~ GPA EIR
May ?. 1993 Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure 3.7/3.0 • (Action Progrmn 6O } Revegetation Plan
Why. To require a detailed revegetation/restoration plan to be developed for all
disturbed areas that are to remain undeveloped.
Who: Developers/Planning Department.
What: Ensure that revegetation/restoration plans have been prepared for distarbed
areas.
When: Frior to approval of final map.
Completion: Prior to approval of grading plans.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/4.0: Grazing Management Plan
Why: To require the City to develop and implement grazing management plans to
protect riparian and wetland areas, increase plant diversity, and encourage
the recovery of native plants.
Who: Planning Department.
What: Prepare a Grazing Management Plan and develop a strategy for
implementation.
When: Upon annexation.
Completion: As soon as possible after annexations.
Verification: Planning Department.
Impact 3.7/B Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal
Mitigation Meas~e 3.7/5.0: LPolicv 6-22) Revegetation
Why: To ensure that all areas of disturbance are revegetated as quickly as possible
to prevent erosion.
Who: Developers/Planning Department.
What: I) Planning Department will ensure that revegetation plans include schedule
for replanting.
2) Building Inspectors will ensure that revegetation occurs on schedule.
When: 1) Prior to approval of revegetation plans.
2) After site grading.
Completion: 1) Prior to approval of final grading plans.
2) Completion of revegetation.
Verification: Planning Department/Public Works.
Impact 3.7/C Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat
Mitigation_Measure 3.6.0: tPolicv b-9 }Preservation of HvdroloQic Features
Why: To require the preservation of natural stream corridors, ponds, springs,
seeps, and wetland azeas wherever possible.
Who: Applicants/Planning Depaztment.
What: Ensure that California. Department of Fish and Game and Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) have been consulted to determine jurisdictian and provide
recommendations.
When: During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
48
City of Dublin.
May 7, 1993
Completion: Prior to approval of final map.
Verification: Planning Department.
Ens. `Dublin specific Play Et GPA EIR.
Mttigatioa Monitoring Plan
Miti~atrox Measure 3 7/7 0 (Policv 6 10) Preservation of Riparian and Wetlmrds Areas
may; To require the incorporation of riparian and wetland areas into project open
space areas, and ensure that loss of riparian or wetland habitat will be
mitigated per Department of Fish and Game/Corps of Engineers.
moo: Developers/PUnning Department.
What: 1) Planning Department will ensure that riparian and wetland areas are
incorporated into open space azeas wherever feasible, and that revegetation
plans provide appropriate mitigation for loss of riparian/wetlands habitat.
2) planning Department in conjunction with appropriate agency will ensure
that mitigation occurs as planned.
When: 1) Prior to approval of revegetation plans.
2} After bite grading.
Completion: 1) Prior to approval of final grading puns.
2) Completion of revegetation.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3 7/8 D- (Policv 6 113 Ve~etQtiox of Stream Corridors
Why; To require that all stream corridors be revegetated with native plant species
to enhance their natural appearance and improve habitat values.
yyho;
What; Developers/Planning Department.
1) planning Department will ensure that revegetation plans provide for the
revegetation of stream corridors.
2) planning Department in conjunction with appropriate agency will ensure
that revegetation occars as planned.
W}ieII; l) Prior to approval of revegetation plans.
2) After site grading.
Completion: 1 }Prior to approval of final grading plans.
2} Completion of revegetation.
Verification: Punning Department.
Miti~ativx Measure 3 7/9 0 • (Policv 6-123 EnQineerinQ for Storm Reno
yyh~ To ensure that storm runoff is carried in natural stream channels wherever
possible, rather than replacing with underground drainage systems.
Who: APPli~ts/Public Works Department.
yyhah Ensure that storm runoff plans preserve/utilize natural stream channels as
effectively as possible.
S~'hen: Prior to tentative map approval.
Completion: Final map approval.
Verification: Public Works Department.
49
GSty of Dublin Eaa Dublin Spedfic Plan & GPA Egi
May 7, 1993 Mitigation Monitoring Play
Mitigation Measure 3 7/10 0 • (Polito 6-I3) Oaen Saace Corridor Svstem
Why: To establish a stream corridor system that provides multi-purpose open
space corridors capable of accommodating wildlife and pedestrian
circulation
Who: Developers/Planning Department.
What: Planning Department, with consuitatioa from CDFG, will ensure that plans
provide for the effective preservation/enhancement of stream corridors as
multi-purpose corridors.
When: Prior to approval of tentative map.
Completion: Prior to approval of final grading plans.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3 9/11 0 • (Prosrram 6E? Submittal of Wetlands Delineation
Why: To require all project applicants to submit amulti-parameter wetlands
delineation to the COE for verification and jurisdictional establishment, and
submit plans for proposed alteration to any watercourse to the DFG for their
review and approval.
Wha: Applicants/Plaaning Department.
What: Verify submittal of multi-parameter wetlands delineation to the Corps of
Engineers, and submittal of plans streamcourse alteration plans to the
department of Fish and Game.
When: Condition of approval for tentative map.
Complefion: Final map approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3 7/12 0 (Program 6F) C'omnrehensive Stream Corridor Restoration
Program
Why: To provide for the development of a comprehensive stream corridor.
restoration program that ideates a detailed set of criteria for grading,
stabilization and revegetation of planning azea stream channels.
Who; Planning Deparunent/Public Works/Zone 7JDepartment of Fish and Game
What: Develop a comprehensive stream corridor restoration program.
When: During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Completion: Prior to tentative map approval.
YeriDcation: Planning Department.
Mitigation Measur_e_3 7/13 0• (Program 6G) Dedication of Land and Imarovemenis
Why: To provide for the dedication of land and improvements (i.e.., trails,
revegetation, etc.) along both sides of stream comdors as a condition of
project approval
Who: Developers/Planning Department.
What: Require dedication of land and improvements along both sides of stream
corridors.
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to Final map approval.
~0
,~ -~.
~~ ~ Dublin Eas. Dnbl'm Specif5c Plan da GPA FIR
May 7. 1993 l~'itigation Monitoring Play
Verification:
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3 7/14 D • (Program 6H) Sedimentation Control Ordinance
Why: To provide far the enactment of an erosion and sedimentation control
ordinance establishing performance standards to ensure maintenance of
water quality and protection of stream channels.
Who: Public Works Department.
What: Enactment and enforcement of a sedimentation control ordinance.
When; During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Completion: Prior to tentative map approval of the Project site.
Verification: Public Works Department.
1Vlitigation Measure 3 7/IS 0• (Program 6K) Liaison with Resource Management Agencies
Why: To establish a liaison between the City and resource management agencies
for the purpose of monitoring compliance with Specific Plan policies.
Who: Planning Department.
What: Establish and maintain a liaison with resource management agencies. Setup
a meeting with agency representatives to review with them the adopted plan
and points at which their input will be important.
When: As soon as possible after adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
Completion: On-going.
Verification: Planning Department.
Miti;Pation Measure 3 7/16 0 • Rrotection of Existing Sensitive Habitats
Why. To require that sensitive habitat areas will be avoided and protected
wherever feasible.
Who: DevelopersfPlanaing Department.
What: Verify that land use proposals avoid and protect existing sensitive habitat
areas.
When: Upon submittal of tentative map.
Completion: Condition of final project approval
Verification: Planning Department
Mitigation l-feasrae 3 7/17 0• Construction Near Drainages Durin.2 the Dry Season
Why: To require construction near drainages to take place during the dry season.
Who: Deveiopers/Pnblic Works Department.
What; Require that construction near drainages take place only during the dry
season.
-When: Upon submittal of tentative map.
Completion: Condition of approval of building permit or grading permit.
Verification: Public Works Department.
51
City of Dublin
May 7, i993
Impact 3.7/D San Joaquin Kit Fox
Ens, Dublin Specific Plan Sc GPA EIIt
Mitigation Monitoring Play
Miti~taii_on Measure 3 7 /38 Q • USFWS Section ?Consultation /CDFG Section 20j3 Consultation
Why: To require all development in the Project area to comply with the Eastern
Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan_
Who; Developers/Planning Department
What: Verify that development plans are consistent with the provisions and
procedures set forth in the Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection
Plan.
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Final map approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitixation Measure 3 7/18.1: Kit Fox Habitat Management Pion
Why: To provide for cooperation between the City and other appropriate agencies
in the preparation of a Kit Fox Habitat Management Plan.
Who: Planning Department.
What: Contact Department of Fish and Game about the City's interest in
participating in the establishment of a habitat management plan with other
jurisdictions in the region.
When: Upon adoption of the, Specific Play/GPA.
Completion: Ongoing.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation 11~leasure 3 7/19 D- tPro~ram 6N) Restriction on use of RodenticideslHerbicides
Wby; To restrict the use of rodenticides and herbicides within the Project area in
order to reduce potential impacts to wildlife.
Who: Public Works/Atameda County Department of Agriculture.
What: Monitor use of rodeaticides/herbicides on Project site. Require any
poisoning programs to be done in cooperation with and Hader supervision
of the County Department of Agriculture.
When: Ongoing as a condition of project approval.
Completion: Dn-going.
Yerifiration: Public Works Department.
Impact 3.7JF Red-Legged Frog
Impact 3.7/G California Tiger Salamander
impact 3.7/H Western Pond Turtle
Impact 3.7/I Tri-Colored Blackbird
Mitigation_Me~n1re 37/20 0: tProgram 6L) Pre-Construction Surve
Why: To require developers to conduct apre-construction survey within 60 days
prior to habitat modification to verify the presence of sensitive species.
Who: Developers/Planning Department
What: Review results of pre-construction surveys.
52
City of Dublin
May ?, 1993
When: 60 days prior to habitat modification.
Completion: Prior to grading plan approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
~Lfiti~vtion Measure 3 ~/ZI.O: Habitat Protection
.-..
Easy .Dublin Speufic Plan dz GPA EIk
Mitigation Monitoring Piaa
Why: To ensure the protection and enhancement of sensitive species habitat areas.
Who: Developers/Pianaing Department.
What: Review plans to ensure compliance ~ with Mitigation Measures 3.7/2.0,
3.7/3.0, and 3.7/6.0-3.7/18/0 inclusive.
When: Prior to tentative map approval
Completion: Prior to grading plan approval.
Verification: Planning Department
Miti~at:on Measure 3.7/ZZ.O: Buffer Zones
Why: To require the maintenance of a buffer azound breeding sites of the red-
legged frog, California. tiger salamander, and the Western pond turtle.
Whoe Developers/Public Works.
What: Maintenance of minimum buffer around breeding sites identified during the
pre-construction surveys.
1Yhen: Condition of grading plan approval.
Completion: End of construction.
Verification: Public Works Department.
Impact 3.7/1 Golden Eagle: Destruction of Nesting Site
Mitigation- Measure 3 ~ /23 0 • fPelicv 6-ZO 1 Golden Eagle Protection Zone
Why: To ensure that a natural open space zone (Golden Eagle Protection Zone) is
maintained around the golden eagle nest located in the northeast corner of
the planning azea.
Who: Developers/Planning Department.
What Review development plans to ensure that a protection was is maintained
around the golden eagle nest.
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Final map approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3 7/Z4 0 • Golden Eagle Protection Zone • Additional Temooral Buffer
Why: To require that during the golden eagle reproductive period, an additional
temporal buffer wi'11 be established within 250 feet of the Golden Eagle
Protection Zone.
Who; Developers/Public Works Department.
What: Monitor construction activities to ensure that the temporal buffer azound
golden eagle protection zone is maintained during the period between July
and January.
53
.-1
-~.
City of Dublin ~ Ens. Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EII2.
May 7, 1993 Aditigation Monitoring Plan
When; During construction near the golden eagle protection Zone.
Completion: Following reproductive period or end of construction, whichever occurs
first.
Verification: Public Works Department.
Impact 3.7JS Golden Engle: Elimination of Foraging Habitat
Miii~ation Measure 37/25.0• Preservation of Foraein~Habitat
tiyhy: To provide suitable forage for the golden eagles, the Project maintains
substantial rust residential/agricultural acreage.
yVho: Planning Department
What: Ensure that future plans do not reduce habitat area.
1~Vhea: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Final map approval.
Verification:. Planning Department.
Impact 3.7/L Golden Eagle and Other Raptor Electrocutions
Mit2;~ation llfeasure 3 7/26 0• tProQram 6M) Undergrototdine ofTransmission Lines
Wby; To require the placement of all transmission Lines underground. whenever
feasible, to avoid the potential for raptor electrocutions.
Who; Public Works Departtneat.
What: Undergronading of transmission Lines.
Whew: Condition of approval for Public Improvements Plan.
Completion: Final Iinprovemeats Plan approval.
Verification: Public Works Department.
Impact 3.7/M Burrowing Owl
Impact 3.7JN American Badger
Mitiea~ion Measure 3.7/27.0 Buffer Zones
Why; To require a minims buffer be maintained around nesting sites of the
burrowing owl and breeding sites of the American badger during the
breeding season to avoid direct loss of individuals.
Who: Developers/Public Works Department.
What; _ Maintenance of a minimum buffer (at least 300 feet} around nesting sites
(either known or those identified in the pre-construction surveys)
When: During construction.
Completion: Following reproductive period or end of construction, whichever occurs
first.
Verification: Public Works Department.
Impact 3.7/O Prairie Falcon, Northern Hamer, and Black-Shouldered Site
Mitigation Measure 3.7/Z5:0 mitigates impacts to these species. Refer to monitoring of that
54
--~1 - ,
City otDubIia Eaa. Dvbiia SpeeiSc Plan ds GPA EIH
May ?, 1995 Mitigation Monitoring Plan
mitigation measure.
Impact 3.7/P Sharp-Shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawk
Mitigation Measures 3.7 J6.0-3.7/ 17.0 and 3.7/2I.0 are applicable. Refer to monitoring of
those mitigation measures.
Impact 3.T/S Special Status Invertebrates
Mitigati~t Measure 3 7/28 0 • Pre-construction Surve
Why: To require developers to conduct apre-construction survey within 68 days
prior to habitat modification to verify the presence of sensitive species.
Who: Deveiopers/Planning Department
What: Review results of pre-construction surveys.
When: 60 days prior to habitat modification.
Completion: Prior to grading plan approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
SECTIOl~T 3.8: VISUAL RESOURCES
1 Impacts Rewiring Mitination
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
lM 3.8/A Standardized '"Tract° Development
IM 3.8/B Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character
IM 3.8/C Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features
IM 3.8/D Alteration of visual Quality of Hillsides
IlVI 3.8/E Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges
IM 3.8/F Alteration of Visual Quality of Flatlands
IM 3.8/G Alteration of Visual Quality of Watercourses
IM 3.8/H Alteration of Dublin's Visual Identity as a Freestanding City
IM 3.8/I Scenic Vistas
IM 3.8/J Scenic Routes
2 Mitigation Imaleasentation and Monitoring Program
Impact 3.8/A Standardized "Tract" Development
Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0: VisualIv Distinctive Commrmit
Why: To establish a visually distinctive community which preserves the character
of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining
views from major travel corridors and public spaces:
Who; Planning Departinent/Developers.
What: Ensure development proposals comply with design guidelines set forth in
55
^.
City of Dnb}ia ~ Ens. )Dublin Spedfic Piaa di GPA EIR
I~ay 7, iggg Mtigatioa Monitoring Pico
Chapter 7: Community Design of the specific Place.
When: Prior to approval of prezoning.
Completion: Final map approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
Impact 3.8/B Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character
MitiQation_Measure 3.8/2.0: Implementation of Lmtd C1se Plan
Why: To ensure implementation of the Specific PlanjGPA land use plan, which
was developed to retain predominant natural features aced a sense of
openness.
Who: Applicants/Planning Department.
What; Ensure that development proposals emphasize retention of predominant
natural features and preservation of a sense of openness.
When: Prior to approval of prezoning.
Completion: Final map approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
Impact 3.8/C Obscuring Distinctive Nataral Features
Mitr~ation Measure 3,8L3.0: tPolicv 6-28) Preservation of natural feature
Why: To require the preservation of the natural open beauty of the hills and other
important visual resources.
Who: Applicants/Planning Departiment
What: Ensure that development proposals preserve the natural open beauty of the
hills and other important visual resources on the site.
When: Prior to approval of prezoning.
Completion: Final map approval
Verificatoon: Planning Department.
Impact 3.8/D Alteration of Visual Quality of Hillsides
Mitigation Measure 38/40- tPolicv b-32) Reduction of visual impacts due to extensive
radin
Why: To reduce the visual impact of extensive grading through sensitive
engineering design that uses gradual transitions from graded areas to_natural
slopes and revegetation.
Who: Developers/PL><nning Department.
What: Review plans to ensure implementation of sensitive engineering design and
revegetation.
When: Prior to approval of prezoning.
Completion: Prior to final grading plan approval.
Verification: Planning Department
56
City of Dublin Ffas. Dublin Spaifie Play do GPA EIR.
11Qay 7, 1993 Ivtitigation Monitosiag Plan
Mitigation Measure 3 8/4 1 • (Policv 6-341 Minimization of Contours Alteration
Why: To rntnirn;~e alterations to existing natural contours.
Who: Developers/Planning Department.
What: Review plans to see that they minimize alteration of natural contours.
When; Prior to approval of prezoning_
Completion: Before final grading plan approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitination_Measrire 3 8/4 2• (Policv 6-35) Avoidance of Flat Gradin
Why: To avoid extensive areas of flat development.
Who: Developers/Planning Department.
What: Review plans for success at employing alternatives to flat grading including
individual grading, stepped grading, and design in response m topographical
. and geotechnical conditions.
When: Prior to approval of prezoniag.
Completion: Before final grading plan approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation 1~feasure 3.8/4.3: (Policv 6-36) Br~ildin~ Desi
Why: To encourage building design to conform to natural land form as much as
possible.
Who: DevelopersjPlanning Department.
What: Review plans for success at using building design that conforms to the
natural~landforms of the Project site.
When: Prior to approval of prezoning.
Completion: Before building permit is approved.
Verification: Planning. Department.
14litiQation Measuve 3 8/4 4• tPolicv 6-37) ~tecontourfn~ of Graded Slopes
Why: To require graded slopes to be re-contoured to resemble existing laadforms
in the immediate area.
Who: Developers/Planning Department.
What: Review plans to ensure that graded slopes will be recontotued to blend into
existing landforms in the immediate area.
When: Prior to approval of prezoning.
Completion: Final grading plan approval.
Verification: Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 3 8/4 5 • (Policv 6-38) Minimization of the Height o! Cut and Fill Slopes
Why: To minimize the height of cut and ftll slopes as much as possible.
Wlio: Deveiopers/Public Works Department.
What: Require that the height of cut and fill slopes be minimized.
When: Prior to approval of prezoning.
57
amity of Dnblia
May T, 1993
Completion Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Verification: Public Works Department.
Impact 3.8/E Alteration of ~isnal Qaality of Ridges
Ens. Dublin Specific Plan E~ GPA EIR.
11Ttigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measr~re3 8 /5 0 • (Policy b-29) Prohibition Against Development on Main Ridgeline
Why: To minimi~p visual impacts by prohibiting development on the main
ridgeline, and ensuring that development on foreground hills meets certain
standards.
Who: Planning Department/Applicants.
What: Review plans to ensure that no development is located on main ridgeline of
Specific Plan area, and that development on foreground hills maintains a
backdrop of natural ridge].ines. _
Wben Prior to approval of prezoning.
Completion: Prior to final map approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation Measroe_3 8/5 I • (Policy 6-3a1 General MaintenQrzce of Scenic Views
Why: To control the location and design of structures so they generally maintain
scenic views or appear to extend above an identified scenic backdrop when
viewed from a designated scenic route.
Who: Planning Department/Applicants.
What: Ensure that proposed development in~nim+zes obstruction of scenic views.
When: Prior to approval of prezoning.
Completion: Prior to final map approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation pleasure 3 8/5.2• (Genera? Plan Amendment Guiding Folicy EJ Structures on
RidQelines
Why. To restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to project above major
ridgelines.
Who: Planning Department/Applicants.
What: Ensure that proposed development minimizes obstruction of scenic views.
When: Prior to approval of prezoning.
Completion: Prior to final map approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
Impact 3.8/G Alteration of the Visual Character of Watercourses
Mitigation Aleasure 3 3 /6 0 • (Policy 6-391 Protection of the Visual Character of Watercourses
Why:
Who:
what:
To protect the visual character of the stream corridors, unnecessary
alteration or disturbance should be avoided and visual access to the stream
corridors should be maintained from adjoining development.
Planning Depaztment/Applicants
Review plans to ensure that watercourses are protected from unnecessary
58
City of Dublin Fan. : Dublin Specific Plan & GPA Egi
May 7, 1993 1~2itigation Monitoring Plan
alteration or disturbance, and that visual access to the stream comdors is
maintained.
When: Prior to approval of prezoning. -
Completion: Prior to final map approval.
Verification: Planning Department
Impact 3.8/I Scenic Vistas
Mitigation Measure 3.8/7 0 tPolicv 6 S) Preserve Views of Desi~uated Onen Space Areas
Why: To preserve views of designated open space areas.
Who: Planning Department/Applicants.
Wb,at: Review plans to ensure that view corridors are maintained between
developed and open space areas.
When; Prior to approval of prezoning.
Completion: Prior to final map approval
Verification: Planning Department
Mitixation Measure 3 8/7 1- Visual Survev of tine Pro ieci Site
Why; To provide for the preparation of a visual survey of the Project area to
identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas. .
Who: "Planning Department.
What Identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas. -
When: During Processing of prezoning
Completion: Prior to any development east of Tassajara Road.
Verification: Planning Department
IM 3.8/J Scenic Routes
Mitigation Measure 3 8/8 0 • (Action Pro;~ram 60) Designation of Scenic Routes
Why; To provide for the designation of scenic corridors, and the adoption of
scenic corridor policies and review procedwes for projects within a scenic
corridor viewshed.
moo; Planning Department.
What: Designate Tassajara Road, I-580 and Fallon Road as scenic corridors; draft
and adopt scenic corridor policies and review procedures aIId St2ndards for
projects within the scenic corridor viewshed.
When: During processing of prezoning_
Completion: Prior to annexation of new areas into the City.
Yersfication: Planning Department.
Mitif?ation Measure 3 8/8 1- (Action Program 6R) Visual Aruzlvsis of Proiecis
Why: To require projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors to snbmit
detailed visual analysis with development project application.
Who: Developers/Planning Department.
Wban Review visual analysis of projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors
59
,..._ -
City of Dublin Ens •Dnblia Specific Play dt GPA BIA.
May 7, 1993 l~itigatioa Monitoring Plan
to ensure project conformance with visual quality objectives.
When: During processing of prezoning.
Complefion: Prior to final map approval
Verification: Planning Department"
~GTiON 3 9- CULTURAL RESOURCES
1_ Impacts ReanirinQ Mitigation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
IM 3.9/A Disruption or Destruction of Identified Prehistoric Resources
IM 3.9/B Disruption or• Destruction of Unident~ed Prehistoric Resources
IM 3.9/C Disruption or Destruction of Identified historic Resources
IM 3.9/D Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified historic Resources
2 Mitigation Implementation and Moni#oring Program
Impact 3.9/A Disruption of Identified Prehistoric Resources
Mitieaiion Measure 3.9/1.0: Subsurface Testin
yyby; To require mechanical and/or hand subsurface testing on all location of
prehistoric resources to determine the presence or absence of midden
deposits.
Who: Applicants/Planning Department.
What: Require submittal of findings of subsurface testing {mechanical or hand) to
determine the presence or absence of midden deposits.
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to final map approval
Verification: Plaaniag Department.
Mitigation_ A~easure 3 9/2 0- Recording of Archaeological tllaterials
yyhy; To require all locations containing either midden components or
concentrations of cultural materials located oa the surface t0 be recorded On
State of California site survey forms.
Who: Applicants/Planning Department.
Wha>~ Record midden components or concentrations of cultural materials on State
of California site survey forms.
When: C~adition of tentative map approval
Completion: Prior to grading plan approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
60
GSty of Dublin
Maq 7, 1993
1lfiti~zation Measure 3 9/3 0: Evaluative Testrn
Ens. ,Dublin Speei£:e Plan & GPA EIR
• Iviitigation Monitoring Plan
Why: To require evaluative testing if proposed development would directly or
indirectly impact recorded and mapped locations of resources.
Who: Applicants/Planaing Department.
What+ Review the findings of evaluative testing required far recorded and mapped
locations that may be impacted by future construction or access_
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to grading plan apP~v~-
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3 9/4 0• Protection Program for Prehistoric Site
Why, To require a qualified azchaeologist to develop a protection program for
"significant" resources whose condition will be altered by proposed
development.
Who; ApplicantsJPlaaniag Department.
What: Review protection program prepared for prehistoric sites which contain
either a surface or subsurface deposit of cultural materials, and incorporate
recommended mitigation into the conditions of approval for the project.
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior~to grading plan approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
Impact 3.9/B Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Prehistoric Eesources
Mitigation. Measure 3 9/3 0 • (Policy 6-23) Discovery of Historic/Prehistoric Remains
Why: To require grading and construction to cease in the event that historic or
prehistoric remains aze discovered during such activities.
Who: Developers/Pianning Department.
What: Cease grading/construction activities whey historic or prehistoric resources
are discovered_ Retain a certified archaeologist to ascertain the significance
of the remains.
When: Daring grading/construction.
Completion: Before grading/construction resume.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3 9/6 Q • tAction Program bP) Additional Actions Related to Prehistoric
Resources
Why. To require as part of the development application process that steps be taken
to ensure that cultural resources are not impacted.
Who: Applicants/Planning Department_
What: Prepare site sensitivity determination. If determined to be sensitive, require
detailed research and field reconnaissance, and development of a mitigation
plan as necessary.
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit.
61
G~ty of Dublin Fras_ ;Dublin Specific Plan do GPA Ella
May T, 1993 Mitigation Monitoring Play
Verification: Planning Department.
Impact 3.9/C Disruption or Destruction of Identified I~lctoric Resources
Mitigation Measure 3 9/7 0- tPolicv 6-26) Archival Research
Why: To require all properties with historic resources which may be impacted by
development to be subjected to in-depth archival research.
Who: Applicants/Planniag Department.
Wbat: Review findings of in-depth archival research on any historic resources
potentially impacted by future development.
When: Prior to tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit
Verification: Planning Department
Miti~cztion Measure 3 9 /8 0 • /Policy 6-27) Adaative Reuse or Restoration o f Historic
Resources
Why: To encourage the adaptive re-use or restoration of historic structures
whenever feasible.
Who; • Developers/Planning Department.
What: "Review development proposais to determine if reasonable consideration has
been given to the potential to reuse or restore historic structures.
When: Prior to tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to final map approval
Verification: Planning Department.
Miti.earion Measure 3 9/9 0- Evaluation of Structural Re»rains
Why: To require as architectural historian to assess the significance of all standing
structures and other indicators of historic occupation and/or use of the area.
Who: Applicants/Planniag Department.
What: Review professional evaluation of structural remains to determine
significance pursuant to CEQA, and incorporate mitigation
recommendations, as needed, as conditions of project approval.
When: Prior to tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to final map approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3 9/10 0 - Research of Standing Structure Locations and Other Indicators
of Historic Occupation
Why: To require archival research and oral interviews to determine the local or
regional significance of structures or locations {identified in the 1988 report)
by their association with important persons or events.
Wlzw. Applicants/Planning Department.
What: Review professional evaluation o£ structural remains to determne
significance pursuant to CEQA, and incorporate mitigation
62
GSty of Dublin Ens. . Dublin Speafcc Plan & GPA EIR.
May 7, 1993 Mitigation Monitoring Plan
recommendations, as needed, as conditions of project approval.
When: Prior to tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to final map approval.
Verificaflon: Planning Department
Mitigaiion_ Measure 3 9/110• Record of All Historic Locations in 1988 ReDOrt
Why; To require that all previously noted locations (in 1988 report) be retarded
on official State of California I3istorical Site Inventory forms.
Wbo; Applicants/Pianning Department.
Wflat: Verify that all locations noted in 1988 report have been recorded on State
of California Historical Site Inventory forms.
When: Prior to tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to final map approval
Verification: Planning Department.
1V~iti~ation Measure 3 9/12 0• Preservation Program for Historic Sites
Why:
Who
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
SECTION 3.10 NOLSE
To require the preparation of a preservation program for historic sites which
qualify under CEQA Guidelines as historically significant.
AppiicantsjPlaaning Department.
Review the preservation program Prepared for any historic sites, and
incorporate nay recommended mitigations as a condition of project
approval.
Prior to tentative map approval,
Prior to final map approval
Planning Department.
1 Impacts Requiring Mitisation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
IM 3.10/A Exposure of Proposed Horsing to Future Roadway Noise
IM 3.10/B"Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise ~ .
I1vI 3.10/D Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future
Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Came Parks RFTA) and
the County Jail
IM 3.10/E Eaposnre of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise
IM 3.I0/F Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by
Plan Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development
63
~--,
Gtitq of Dnbtin ~' F.as ..~ublia Specific Plaa tit GPA E>8
Ivtay 7, 1993 lvtitigation Monitoring Play
2 Mitigation Imnlemeatation and Monitoring Proeram
Impact 3.10/A Exposure of Proposed Iiousiag to Future Roadway Noise
NfitiQation Measure 3.10/10• Acoustical Studv LYitkin Future CNEL 60 Contour
Why: To 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.
Who: ApplicantsfPlanning Department.
What: Verify the preparation of an acoustical study for all residential projects
located within the future CNEL 60 noise contour, and confirm the
incorporation of mitigation measures into the proposed plan.
When: Prior to tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to final map approval
Verificafioa: Punning Department.
Impact 3.10/B Exposure of Existing Residences. to Future Roadway Noise
Mititation Measrv~e 3 10/20• Provision of Noise Co~ttrol Measures
Why: To require that all development projects in the Project area provide noise
barriers or berms near existing residences to control noise in outdoor use .
~~- . .
Who: Applicants/Planning Department.
What: Verify that proposed plans provide noise abatement for.existing residences
or that such mitigation is not necessary.
When: Prior to tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to Final map approval. .
Verification: Planning Department
Miti~ation_Measure 3.10/7.0: Noise Mitigation Fee
Why. To provide for the establishment of a noise mitigation fee to pay for on-
and off-site noise mitigations, including but not limited to, noise barriers,
earthen berms, or retrofitting structures with sound-rated windows.
Who: Applicants/PUnning Department.
What: Prepare an ordinance permitting the levying of a noise mitigation fee.
When: During processing of prezoaing and annexation applications.
Completion: Prior to tentative map approval for projects along Tassajara Road, Hacienda
Road, or Fallon Road.
Verification: Planning Department.
Impact 3.10/D Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future IlTilitary
Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area {Camp Parks RFTA) and the County Sail
Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0: Perform Acoustical Studies
Why: To require acoustical studies prior to future development in the Foothill
64
--~
City of DubTia Ens. ,.Dublin Specfic Play de GPA EIIt
May 7, 1993 Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Residential, Tassajara Village Center, County Center, and Hacienda
Gateway subareas to determine whether future noise impacts from Camp
Parks and the county jail will be within acceptable limits.
Who: ApplicaatsJPlanning Department.
What: Verify~that acoustical studies have been prepared for pmjecis proposed in
identified subareas, and incorporate recommended mitigations as conditions
of project approval
When: Prior to tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to final map approval.
Verification: Planning Department.
Impact 3.i0/E Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Constriction Noise
Mitigation Measure 3.10 /4.0: Construction Noise Management Program
Why: To require development projects in the Project azea to submit a
Construction Noise Management Program that identifies measures proposed
to mini*n?~e construction noise impacts on existing residents.
Wlso: Applicants/Planning Department.
What: Review Construction Noise Management Program to ensure that adequate
measures have been taken to pmtect existing residents.
When: Prior to tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to Emit map approval. -
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitisatzon Measure 3.105.0: Comalimtce with Local Noise Standards
Why: To minimize construction noise impacts, all operations should comply with
local noise standards and be limited to normal daytime hours, and stationary
equipment should be adequately muffled and located away from sensitive
receptors.
Who: Applicants/Planning Department.
What: Ensure that noise mitigation measures have been included as conditions of
project approval
When: During constriction. - -
Completion: Following construction.
Verification: Planning Department.
Impact 3.10/F Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land uses Permitted by Plan Policies
Supporting Mixed-Use Deveiopmeat
Mitigation Measure 3.i0/6ANoise Management Plans
Why: To require the prepazation of noise management plans for all mixed-use
projects is winch residential units would be combined with commercial,
office, or other urban non-residential uses.
Who: Applicaats/Planning Department.
What: Verify the preparation of a noise management plan formixed-used projects,
and review plans for mitigation that should be incorporated as a condition
65
City of Dublin
May 7, 1995
of approval.
When: Prior to tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to final map approval
Verification: Planning Department.
SECTION 3.11 AIR OUALTTY
1. Imsacts Requiring Mitigation
Eas. :Dublin Specific Play 3c GPA EIR.
Mitigation Monitoring Play
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
Il1Z 3.2 l /A Dust Deposition Soiling Nuisance From Construction Activity
IM 3.11/B Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions
IM 3.I1/C Mobile Source Emissions: ROG or NOx
iM 3.11 /D Mobile Source Emissions: CO
IM 3.11/E Stationary Source Emissions
2 Mitigation Implementation and Moni#orinQ Program
Impact 3.11/A Dust Deposition Soiling Nuisance From Construction Activty
Mitigation Measure 3.11 /I.O:.Construction-Related Dust Abatement Measures
Why: To require development projects. io implement dust control measures to
reduce project dust deposition to acceptable levels.
~Vho: DevelopersJPublic Works Department.
What: 1 } Require dust abatement measures to be outlined as conditions in the
grading plan.
2) Monitor implementation of measures during construction.
When: 1) Ensure inclusion of abasement measures in grading plan.
2) Monitor implementation of measures during grading and early phases of
construction.
Completion: Following construction.
Verbcation: Planning Department/Public Works Department.
Impact 3.11/B Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions
Mitigation Measure 3 11 /2 0 • Minimization of Inter Terence o f Construction Traffic with
Rp¢ional Non-Pro sect Traffic Movement
Wh~e To minimize construction interference with regional non-project traffic
movement.
Who: Developers/Public Works Department.
What: Routing and scheduling of construction-related traffic to avoid interference
with non-project traffic movement.
When: Prior to approval of building and/or grading permits.
Completion: Following completion of construction.
66
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Verification: Public Works.
Mitigation 1Vleasure 3 11 /3.0: Emissions Control
Eas, Dublin Specific Play dt GPA EIR
Instigation Monitoring Play
Why. To require emissions control from on-site equipment through a Tontine
mandatory program of low-emissions tune-nps_
Who: DevelopersjPlanning Department/Public Works Department.
y~at: 1) Verify the incorporation of this emissions control measure in the
conditions of approval.
2) Monitor construction to verify implementation of control measure.
When: 1) Prior to final map approval.
2) During construction.
Completion: Following completion of construction.
Verification: Planning Department/Public Works Department.
Mitigation 1~feasure 311 /4A• Constrtcction Impact Reduction Plan
Why: To require preparation of a construction impact redaction plan that
incorporates all proposed air quality mitigation strategies.
Wha: Planning Department/Public Works Department/Applicants.
What: Ensure that the construction impact redaction plan incorporate all proposed
air quality mitigation strategies, and clearly defines responsibilities for
implementation and supervision.
Whew: 1) Preparation of plan prior to development review approval.
2) Monitoring of implementation during construction.
Completion: Following completion of construction.
Verification: Planning Department/Public Works Department.
Impact 3_11/C Mobile Soarce Emissions:ROG or NOx
1UlitigQtion Measure 3 II /S 0• Regional Interagencv Cooperation
Why: To encourage cooperation to integrate air quality planning efforts on a
regional basis.
Who; planning DepartmentjTri-Valley and Regional Agencies.
What: Coordinate interagency cooperation to integrate air quality planning with
transportation, transit and other infrastructure plans.
When: Establish liaisons and begin coordination concurrent with plan adoption.
Completion: On-going.
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitieation_Measure 3 11 /5.0: Plarming Consisten
Why. 3'o maintain consistency among specific development plans and regional
transportation and growth management plans.
Who: planning Department/Tri-Valley and Regional Agencies.
What: Review plans to ensure consistency between specific development plans for
the Project site and regional transportation and growth management plans.
b7
GSty of Dublin
May 7, 1995
When: Prior to approval of tentative map .
Completion: Prior to final map approval.
verification: Planning Department.
Easy Dublin Specific Play & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Play
Mitigation Measure 311 /7 0 • Tr~saortation Demand Mmtagement (TDM
Why: To implement transportation demand management techniques to reduce
mobile source emissions.
Wha: Public Works Department.
What: ~ Review plans for inclusion of TDM techniques to reduce mobile source
emissions.
When: Prior to tentative map approval.
Completion: Prior to final map approval.
Verification: Public Works.
Miti.ation_Measure 3 11 /8 0. Dati»iization of Existing Transaortation Svstem
Why: To optimiie the existing transportation system to reduce congestion and
shift travel to non-peak travel periods.
Who: Planning Department/Public Works Department.
What: Work with LAVTA to development public information programs to
encourage use of public transit, and encourage large employers to implement
measures to shift travel ninon-peak travel periods.
When: Ongoing.
Completion: On-going.
Verification: Planning'Department/Public Works Department.
Mitination_Measure 3 II /9 0• Coordination of Development with Roadwav Imarovements
Why: To coordinate levels of growth with roada-ay transportation facilities
improvements to accommodate travel demand without inducing demand by
providing excess system capacity.
Who: Public Works Department.
What: Phase roadway improvements so that they accommodate growth, but avoid
"over-building" facility improvements.
When: Review schedule of roadway improvements concurrent with submittal of
tentative map.
Completion: Prior to final map approval.
Verification: Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 311 /10.0: Mixed-Use Develonmeru
Why: To encourage mixed-use development that provides housing, jobs, goods
and services in close proximity.
Who: Planning Department.
What: Encourage developers to consider mixed-use development in their projects
as a means to reduce discretionary vehicle trips.
When: During pre-application discussions and application process.
68
City of Dublin
May ?, 1993
Completion:
Verification:
Tentative map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure_3.II/11.0: Jobs/Housing Lixkage
Ens. Dublin Specific Plan Es GPA ~.
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Why: To require linkage between growth of housing and job opportunities
• consistent with a positive sub-regional contribution to jobs/housing ratio
balances.
Who: Planning Department.
What: Keep Planning Commission and City Council aware of sub-regional
jobs/housing statas and the implications of project approvals on that
balance.
When: Ongoing as part of individual development review process.
Completion: Ongoing.
Verification: Planning Department.
Impact 3.11/E Stationary Source Emissions
Mitigation_ M~usive 3 II /12 0 • Conservation Target Level for Stationcav Source Emissions
Why: To minimize stationary source emissions associated with Project
development wherever feasible.
Who: Planning Department.
What: 1) Establish and implement a conservation target level for stationary source
emissions at 10 percent above the Title 24 standards.
2}Review individual pro jects to verify attempts to meet conservation tazget.
When: I) Prior to rezoning and annexation approval
2) Prior to final map approval.
Completion: Final project approval
Verification: Planning Department.
Mitigation_Measure 3.I1 /13.4: Solid Waste Recvclin
Why: To incorporate solid waste re-cycling in all development planning.
Who: Planning Department.
What: Develop a strategy for integrating solid waste recycling into planning for all
new development, and work with developers to implement this strategy.
When: Prior to rezoning and annexation approval.
Completion: Ongoing.
Verification: Planning Department.
69
Citq of Dnblia
May T, 1993
SECTION 3.12: FLSCAI. CONSIDERATIONS
1 Imaarts ReQUirin¢ Mitigation
This section identifies the following impact requiring mitigation:
Eas. Dublin Specific Plan dt GPA EIS
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
IIvi 3.12/B Fiscal Impacts Related to the Cost and Provision of Project-Related Infrastructure
Improvements
2 Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Program
Impacts 3.12fB Impacts Related to the Cost and Provision of Project-Related Infrastructure
Improvements
Mitigation Measure 3.12/1.0: Development Agreements
Why: To provide for the preparation and. adoption of a development agreement
for each project that spells opt the precise financial responsibilities of the
developer.
Who: City Manager's OfficeJDevelopers.
What: Prepare and adopt a development agreement or the appropriate agreements
for each development project that sets forth the precise financial
responsibilities of the applicants.
When: Prior. to prezoning and annexation appmvai.
Completion: Condition of final project approval.
verificaSon: City Manager.
Mitigation Measure 3.~2L2.0: Area of Benefit Ordinance
WBy: To adopt an Area of Benefit Ordinance and form an Area of Benefit for
those properties benefiting from construction of public improvements
described in the Specific Plan.
Who: City Manager's Office.
What: Prepare and adopt an Area of Benefit Ordinance, and define the Area(s) of
Benefit.
When: Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Completion: Prior to final approval of any development in the Project area.
Verification: City Manager.
Mitigation Measure 3.12/3 0 • Snecial Assessment District or Mello-Roos CFD
Why: To create one or more Mello-Roos CFD or Special Assessment Districts to
finance construction of the infrastructure to serve the Area of Benefit.
Who: City Manager's Office.
What.• Prepare and adopt one or more Mello-Roos CFD or Special Assessment
Districts to finance infrastructure for Areas of Benefit.
When: Prior to prewning and annexation approval_
Completion: Prior to any final project approval.
70
City of Dublin
May ?, 1993
Verification: City Manager.
Mitigation Measure 312/4.0: Marks-Roos Bond Poolin
East Dublin Specific Plan do GPA EIS
Mitigation Monitoring Play
Why. To have bond counsel evaluate the benefit to the City, in terms of savings
of money and avoidance of undue risk, of pooling bonds under the Marks-
Roos Bond Pooling Act.
yyhm City Manager's Office.
What: Evaluate options related to bond pooling for Eastern Dublin pursuant to the
provisions of the Marks-Roos Bond Pooling Act
When: Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Completion: Prior to any final project approval
Verification: City Manager.
Miti~ariox Measure 3 12/5 D•City-Wide Develoaer and Builder Impact Fee Svstems
W>iy. To analyze city-wide infrastructure needs to assess the usefulness of
implementing an impact fee program, in compliance with AB 1604, that
could draw some funding from new development when final map or
building permits are issued.
Who: City Manager's Office.
What: Evaluate efficacy of implementing of an impact fee system, as provided by
AB 1644. If found to be useful, draft and adopt an ordinance to implement.
When: Prior to prezoning and annexation approval
Completion: Prior to any final project approval.
Verification: City Manager.
itigatiox Measure 3.12/6.0: School Imaact F
Wiry; To coordinate City and School District efforts to fund necessary school
facilities and collect payable fees.
Who; City Manager/DUSD/LVNSD.
What: Meet with school district(s) to coordinate efforts to fund school facilities.
When: Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Completion: Prior to any final project approval.
Verification: City Manager.
Mitigation Measure 312/7 D' HiQhwav IxterchanPe Fuxdix
Why; To coordinate City and Caltrans efforts to fund necessary freeway
improvements and collect developers' share of costs.
Who: City Manager's Office/Public Works/Caltrans.
What: Meet with Caltrans to coordinate efforts to fund freeway improvements and
collect proportionate share of costs from developers.
When: Prior to prezoning and annexation approval
Completion: Prior to any final project approval.
Verification: City Manager.
7l
City of Dublin
May 7, 1995
Mitigation Nfeasure 3.12/8.0: Utilities Impact Fees
East Jublia Specific Plaa do GPA Ent
Miligation Monitoring Play
Why. To coordinate City and DSRSD efforts to fund utilities services and collect
.developers' share of costs.
Who: City Manager's Office/Public Works/DSRSD.
What: Meet with DSRSD to coordinate efforts to fund utilities services and collect
proportionate share of costs from developers.
When: Prior to prewning and annexation approval.
Completion: Prior to any final project approval.
verification: City Manager.
72
33 Trafrc and Circulation
Eastern Dublin SP/GPA EIR
REVISIONS TO DEIR TEXT ON PAGES 33-19 TO 33-28
MITIGATION MEASURES= D~-1' TRAFFIC VOLUMES (YEAR 2010
IMPACTS AND
y~~OUT PROJEG'1~
Da~7y traffic volumes on various freeway and street segments were Protected for Year 2010
conditions without and with the Project, and ~or~~umul ~ t~dd~y spa tz~ of each type of
(Figure.33-E). These volumes were comp
roadway, as descnbed in Table 33-1. The resultant levels of service were estimated based on
the daily traffic volumes (Table 33-9).
IM 33lA I-580 .Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon
Year 2010 growth without the Project would cause ~ee~ isla s~ ifican~t coma ati~'e impact-
. Eon I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Roa ~
Mitigation Measure of the EIR -
MM 33/1.0' Caltrans, in cooperation with local jurisdictions, could construct
auxiliary lanes on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to
provide a total of I0 lanes in that section, consisteut with the Caltrans
Route Concept Report for I-580.
Implementation of MM 3311.0 would provide LOS D operations and reduce the impact to a
level of insignificance.
} - 4 Revised Tezr 13/1 SJ93
$9 ~ .
Eastern Dublin SP/GPA EIR
33 Traffic and Circulation
~pACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (YEAR 2010
WITH PROJEG'1~
IM 33B I-580 Freeway, I-b80-Hacienda
Year 2010 growth with the Project would cause I-580 between I-680 and Hacienda DrivE to
exceed level of service E. This freeway section has been widened to its maximum practical
capacity within Caltrans' right-of--way. This is a significant impact.
This ,impact is also a significant cumulative impact and an unavoidable adverse impact as
discussed in Chapter 5.
Mitigation Measure of the Specific Plan
MM 33!2.0 (Policy 5-21) Require all non-residential projects with 50 or more
employees within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan area to participate _in a Transportation Systems
Management ('I'SM) program. A TSM program would ~ include
strategies to reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles such as on-
site distribution of transit information and passes; provision of shuttle
services to and from BART stations, participation in regional
ridesharing services, preferential parking for vanpools and carpools,
and flexible or staggered work hours.
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 33!21 The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to regional
transportation mitigation programs as determined by regional
transportation studies sucJ: as the current study by the Tri•Valley
Transportation Council. Regional mitigation measures may include
implementation of enhanced rail and feeder bus transit services,
construction or upgrading of alternative road corridors to relieve
demand on the I-58Q and I-680 freeways.
ArIlVI's 332.0-3321 are applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of these mitigation
measures would reduce the impact, but the impact would remain significant..
g Revised ?err 13!15193
~~ t
Eastern Dublin SP/GPA EIR
33 Traffic and Circulation
IM 33fC I-580~Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon-Airway
Year 2010 growth with the Project would cause freeway. volumes to exceed Ievel of service E
on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard: This is a significant impact.
This impact is .also a ,significant cumulative impact as discussed in Chapter 5.
Mitigation Measure of the EIIt
MM 3303.0 The Clry of Dublin steal! coordinate with Caltrans and the City of
Pleasanton to co~rstrud
e€ auxiliary lanes on I-580 betweea Tassajara Road and Airway
Boulevard. Tl:e auxiliary lanes would Provide a total of 10 lanes on
this section (8 t)rrouglt lanes and Z auxiliary lanes), consistent with the
Caltrans Route Concept Report .for I-S80. ~ The Project shall conlrtbute
a proportionate amount to the cost of improvements, as determined by a
regional transportation study such as the current study by t1:e Tri-Yalley
Taansportatioa Council. 'The auxiliary lanes would provide LOS E
operations between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, and LOS D
operations between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard.
MM 3313.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitiganon me ~u~re
11 A ' '~
would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance a
jNOTE: MM 33!3.0 would provide LOS E operations between Tassajara and Fallon,
which is considered acceptable according to the Alameda Count}' Congestion Management
program. The mitigation measure would reduce IM 33/C to a level of insignificance-]
6 Revised Tent 13!15!92
992
Eastern Dublin SPlGPA EIR
33 TratTic and Circulation
IM 33/D /-680 Freeway, North of I-580
Year 2010 growth with the Project would cause freeway volumes to exceed level of service E "
on I-680 north of the I-580 interchange. This is a significant impact.
This impact is also a significant cumulative impact as discussed in Chapter 5.
Iviitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 33/4.0 The Project sl~ld shall contribute a proportionate share to planaed
ultimate improvements at the I-580//-680 interchange as implemented
by Caltrans. The assessed costs of freeway interhchange improvements
shall indude the costs of revised freeway ramp cannedions to Dublin
(such as hook ramps) and the associated mitigation on local streets.
The proportionate. share of ros7s attributable to .the Project shall be
determined thrnugh a regional transportation study such as the current
study by the Tri-Valley Transportatton Council. The improvements
would provide additional capacity on I-680 north of I-580 and would
provide LOS D operations.
MM 3314.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation, of this mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
~ Revised Text 13/IS19?
993
Eastern Dublin SPlGPA EIR
33 Traffic and Circulation
IMpp,~'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES: DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(CUMULATIVE BUILDOUT WTIT3 PR03EC1~
IM 331E Cumulative Freeway Impacts
Cumulative Buildout with the Project wauld cause additional freeway sections to exceed level
of service E compared to Year 2010 With Project, including
a~ I-580 east of Airway Boulevard (from E to F). This is a significant cumulative impact ~
as discussed in Chapter 5.
[NOTE: Caltrans has indicated in [heir comments on the DEIR that I-580 west of I-680
~n ~ sevallua~ed c the eight t hraugh lanes. t Therefore,a thel LOS on t I-SSO~wouldanot
wht pp
exceed the LOS E standard.]
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 3315.0 Tlie Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to the constructs°a
of auxiliary lanes on I-580 east of Airway Boulevard, as ~P
by Caltrans. Tlse improvement would provide ten lanes on I-580,
i consistent will: the Caltrans Bottle Concept Report for I-580. The City
' of Dublin shall coordinate with other ~,iocal jurisdictions sly to require
that all future developments participate in regional transportation
mitigation programs as detetrnined by regional transportatson studses
suds as the current study by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
Implementation of MM 3315.0 would reduce the impact to a level of insigni, f icanre•~~~
[NOTE: Widening of I-580 east of Airway Boulevard, within the Ciry of Livermore, is
not currently programmed for construction by Caltrans. Widening to ten lanes is
consistent with the Route Concept Report.]
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATION
Detailed P.M. peak hour turn movement traffic volumes were projected~t~~ toff e~~~ ~ e
would be significantly impacted by Project traffic (Figure 33-F).
evaluated at these. intersections (Table 33-10) and mitigation measur ~ ee~ad~~e~~~on turn
intersection which is projected to exceed the LOS D standard. (P j
volumes and capacity calculations are on file at the City of Dublin Department of Public
Works.}
8 Revised rPxr 12115/92
~~~
Eastersz Dublin SPIGPA EIR
33 Traffic and Circulation
~p,CTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATION
(YEAR 2010 WITH PROJECT)
IM 3.31E Dougherty Road & Dublin Boulevard
year 2010 development with the Project would cause Ievel of service F operations at the
intersection of Dougherty Road with Dublin Boulevard. This is a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 33/6.0 The City of Dublin shall ~e monitor tra~u conditions at this
intersedion arul implement construction of additional lanes on all
approaches at the intersection when .required to maintain LOS D
operationu. The required lanes on the northbound approach on
Dougherty Road include two left-turn Ianes, three through lanes {one
more than existing) and one right-turn lane (one more than existing).
The required lanes on the southbound approach on Dougherty Road
_ include two left-tum lanes (one more than existing), three through
' lanes {one more than existing) and one right-turn lane. The required
lanes on the eastbound approach on Dublin Boulevard include one
left-tum }ane, three through lanes (one more than existing) aad one
right-turn lane. The required lanes on the westbound approach on
Dublin Boulevard include two left-turn lanes, three through lanes aad
one right-turn lane. TheProject shall contribute a proportionate
share of the improvement costs as determined by a regional
transportation study such as the current study by the Tri-Palley
Trarzsponatioa CounciF. These improvements would provide-LOS D
operations.
MM 33/6.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
y Devised Tent 13/15/92
~s~
Eastern Dublin SPlGPA EIR
33 Tratiic and Circulation
IM 331G Hacienda Drive & I-580 Eastbound Ramps
Year 2010 development with the Project would caused I~mel s f sThis ~ a ign~cant apache
intersection of Hacienda Drive with the 1580 eastboun p
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
NIIVI 33(1.0 The City of Dublin shall implement improvements ~ COOrduzatj°R
~~e with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen
the I-580 eastbound off-ramp tb provide two left-turn lanes and e$e
two right-turn ~ lanes (existing lanes are one left-turn Lane and two
right-turn lanes). The Project shall contribute a proportionate share
of the improvement costs ns determined y3' a regtonal transP°rtatton
study such as the curre~et study by the Tri-Valley ?'ransportatiorc C°unril•
The improvements would provide LOS C operations.
MM 33!'1.0 ~ applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
~ IM 331H Tassajara Road 8 I:580 Westbound Ramps
OlU develo merit with the Project would cause Ievel of service F operations at the
Year 2 F
intersection of Tassajara Road with the I-580 westbound ramps. 'This is a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure ~ of the EIR
MM 3318.0 The City of Dublin shall implement irrcproverrcents m coocduiat~on
~e with Caitrans to widen the I-580 westbound off ramp to
provide two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes, and to modify
the northbound approach to provide three through lanes' The
project shall contribute a proportionate share of the improvement
costs as determined by a r~ional transportation study such as rrse atrrent
study by the Tri-Yatley Tra~sp°rtation Council• _The improvements
would provide LOS B operations.
MM 33/x.0 is applicable to the total. Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a Ievel of insignificance.
,j 10 Revised Tezr 13/15193
936
Eastern Dublin SP/GPA EiR
3.3 Traffic and Circulation
IM 33/I Santa Rita Road & I-580 Eastbound Ramps
Year 2010 development with the Project would cause level of service F operations at the
intersection of Santa Rita Road with the I-580 eastbound ramps. 'This is a significant impact.
This impact is also an unavoidable adverse impact as discussed in Chapter 5.
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 3319.0 The .City of Dublin shall implement improvements in coordination
E~~ with the City of Pleasanton and Caitrans to widen the I-
580 eastbound off-ramp to provide two left-turn lanes, one through
lane anct one ~w~e right-turn lanes. These improvements would .provide
LOS E operations.
_ The Project shall be required to contribute a
} proportionate share of the improvement costs as determined by a
regional transportation study such as the current study by the Tri-valley
Transportation Council. The City of Dublin shall continue to work with
the City of Pleasanton to monitor Ievel of service at this intersectiarr acrd
pdrticipate in implementing improvements which may be identified in the
future to improve tra,$tc operations-
[NOTE: Further improvement to the level of service could be provided by prohibiting
left rotas froth southbound Santa Rita Road to eastbound Pimlico Drive during the P.M.
peak period (4:00 to 6:00 P.1VI.). This left-turn prohibition would require out-of-direction
travel for drivers wishing to access Pimlico Drive during the P.M. p~~ Period, but would
provide level of service D operations. The City of Pleasanton has indicated that such a
lefttttrn prohibition would. not be acxeptabiej
letnentation of this mitigatlan measure
MM 3319.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Imp
act but '
will reduce the imp
the impact will remain sigra'ficant.
lI Revised T'ezi 13/l5/93
~9~
33 Traffic and Circulation
Easterzs I3ublin SPlGPA EIR
IM 33lJ Airway Boulevard & Dublin Boulevard
year 2010 development with the `Pr~oj DnbIlauBou~ievardlNorthf Canyons Park`+'aylo This ~ a
intersection of Airway Boulevard
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 33!10.0 The City of Dublin shaII implement improvements in coordiaanon
ate wish the City of Livermore to modify the intersection to
provide three through lanes and aright-turn lane eastbound, and two
left-turn Ianes and two through Ianes westbound. The Project shall
contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs as
determined by a regional transportation study such as the current study
by the Tri-Valley Traacportatiarl Cor~rlcil. These improvements would
provide LOS C operations.
MM 33/10.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
}-
IM 33/K Airway Boulevard & I-580 Westbound Ramps
Year 2410 development with the P%et1-5801westbound ramps.~This >s as s $nifican impact
Intersection of Airway Boulevard with
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 33111.0 The City of Dublin shall implement improvements m coordcaatloR
~e with the City of Livermore .and Coltrane to replace or
widen the Airway Boulevard overcrossing of I-580 by 12 feet to
provide adequate storage f e~ and ones eftf righ~ane d Th P ° ~t
off-ramp to provide one 1
shall contribute a proportionate share toward the cost of these
• improvements as determined by a regional transP°rtat1On study ~~ as
the curreist study by the Tri•Yalley Trmrsportation~ Council. The
improvements would provide LOS D operations.
MM 33/11.0 is applicable to the total Project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure
would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
12 Revised Tent 13!15192
$~~
Eastern Dublin SPlGPA EiR
IM 331E El Charro Road
33 Traffic and Circulation
Project traffic coutd introduce stops and delays for loaded trucks from the .quarries on El
,~ :,.,.,t..,,, ..a..
Charm Road south of I-580. This is a potentially significant impact
(NOTE: This impact ran be mitigated to a level of insignificance 'through proper design
of the interchange improvemenu. AIternative interchange designs prepared by Bissell and
Barn Engineers are .currently under Teview.~
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 33112.0 The City of Dublin shall implement improvements in coordinatron
ceere with Caitrans, die City of Pleasanton acrd Alameda County
to ensure that modifications to the I-580 interchange at Fallon
Road/El Charro Road include provisions for unimpeded truck
movements to and from El Charm Road. The Project shall
contribute a proportionate share of improvement costs as determined
. by a regional transportation study such as the current study by the Tri-
Valley Transportation ~ Council and additional .studies of relative costs
and benefrts associated whir the special desig~r of this interchange.
Implementation of MM 33/120 would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
;g Revised ?'err 12/I5/92
$9~
F.zstern Dublin SP/GPA EIR
33 Tratlic and Cireulaiion
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION
OPERATIONS (CUMULATIVE BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT)
IM 33lM Cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard
Cumulative buildout with the Project would. cause level of service F operations at the
intersection of Hacienda Drive with Dublin Boulevard and level of service E operations at the
intersection of Tassajara Road with Dublin Boulevard. No further widening of these intersectionr
would be feasible. This is a significant cumulative impact.
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 33113.0. The City of Dublin shall continue to participate in regions! studies of
future trsnsportatian requirements, improvement alternatives and funding
p~~r~~ograms, such as the current .study by the Tri-Palley Transportation
W/[nCil. wt C .L ',d~~ ~....F •Le.. -,t ...: .ta L.. C., ....:t,l.,
a z`°~'°
Buildout of proposed non-Project. related development (i.e. outside
Eastern Dublin) beyond Year 2010 levels would require the
construction of grade-separated interchanges on Dublin Boulevard
andlor establishment. of alternative routes to redistribute traffic flow.
The Project shall participate in the implementation and funding of;
. regional transportation improvement programs -.
as determined by *'~ ~ ~ 'r-- v""~" 2_ _•"•: ''" :, these
regions! studies.
Implementation of MM 33li3.0 would reduce the impact, but the impact would remain
significant.
14 Revised Terr 12/1 S/93
'~ooo
Eastern Dubin SPlGPA EIR 33 Traffic and Circulation
Ilvi 33/N Cumulative Impacts on Tassajara Raad
Cumulative buddout with the Project would cause level of service F operations at the
intersections of Tassajara Road with Fallon Road, Gleason Road and the Transit Spine. These
impacts would be caused primarily by traffic from the Tassajara connection to Dougherty Valley,
and full buildout of the Tassajara Valley. This is a significant cumulative impact a~--a~
as discussed in Chapter 5.
Mitigation Measure of the EIR
MM 33/14.0 Buildout of proposed non-Project related development (i.e. outside
Eastern Dublin) beyond Year 2010 levels would require the widening
of Tassajara Road to six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and the
Contra Costa County line. The City of Dublin shall reserve rigkt-of-
way for up to sis lanes on Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard
and the Contra Costa County line. Tl:e City of Dublin shall monitor
• tra,,gu conditions at key intersections and segments on Tassajara Road,
and implement wideairtg projects as required to maintain the LOS D
standard. The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to the
j ~ costs of improvements oa Tassajara Road, as determined by a regional
. transportation study such as the current study by the Tri-Palley
Transportation Council.
[NOTE: The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will be modified to ensure that right-of--way
is reserved for six lanes on Tassajara Road .between Dublin Boulevard ana the Contra
Costa County line. The Specific Plan will also ensure that pedestrian and vehicle access
can be provided to proposed commercial development on Tassajara Road in the Town
Center area between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Road in the event Thai this section
is widened to six lanes.]
[NOTE: The Specific Plan provides -for Project implementation of road improvemenu
including four lanes on Tassajara Road. Regional calculations of funding shares for the
potential widening of Tassajara Road to six lanes should consider any prior contributions
of Eastern Dublin developments towards the costs of the four lane roadway.]
Implementation of MM 33/!4.0 would reduce the impact, .
to a level of insignifecance.
IS Revised Text 12!15!93
M
pool
C Q u. Lz. fs7 ~1 Ltl tzl [i7 ~
~ ~ ~ Gi. ~
a~
n~
=`
U
~' Q ~ Lz. iL C] Ca ~ (~ ~ ~
O
er ~ u ~5 ~ ~5 ~ ~5
Z
~ 3 ~
~ ~ r5
~ a ~ ~o ~o h ~o -»
U
r
(ir
w
y
C
D
C3
O
O
~
W
D
C]
D
~ ~ (7r
F e z,
N G
z Z F =
3 ~
~ O
~ O
n O
~
. C
~
.. . G
~o
.. C
v,
~. v
.. ~n
-- ~
z~ o a ~ _. ~., .
Q~~Q
~Vm~
e O
~ C C G U D D A G U
L~~~
U
j
~2 °' ~
W ~"
~ ~
~
Z5
~5
~ r
S
~5
~5
~
~5
$ .
Z
~
>
~
~
~
.
Q
, ..
ch
.. ao
N
., t~
~
r, ...
~
r.
o
... r. . .
Z
Ci
~
Z y
C ~
O ~
O
O C
,~, O O O O
`D
~ ~. ~ o0 00 00 00
F
~
~
e°o
°
z
= ~
F ~
~
~ ~
~
~
h
h
~
p,,,
r-
A -
y ~
~ ~
''
'.
~.. ~. o 0
~
~ C 7 O
~ O R h
= _
~ N
~ ~ Q
z O
~
3 .^ _ ~ c F
F
Z
.. Z
.,
a
e
0
c
u
i! m
~~
~u
m.
~ Q
m ~
d
~~
~W
a~
C N
m
w ,
O p
ae z
N ~
n
n ~
a
eE
=8
~~ .
=_
_ _.
~3
°=
~~
~o
sm.
a 8
o~
,_
~~
m9
a~
C °°
9 c
cm
a.
c Mu
e o ~
~o
wC
u
~ Y
O "' ~
~"~ 0 0
V
8~ 8^
~~ ~a
o~ o=
u'~ u9
~ o ~3
d
a
~ m H 0 II
o 0.~. • .
Z ~... •
.;.
4
o»
~Q 0~ '
Response to Letter I2• Gary F Adams. Caltrsas District 4
12-1 Comment: Methodalogv for Analysis of Traffic IIDD8Cts. This report does not analyze the
proposed project's impact to traffic on freeway corndors and ramp intersections in an
acceptable manner. AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volumes should be used as a
basis in analysis rather than daily traffic volumes.
Response to Comment 12-1: Peak hour traffic volumes (P.M.) were used in the analysis of
all freeway ramp intersections (see Table 3.3-10, page 3.3-24).
As shown in Table 3.3-7 on page 3.3-14, 47 percent of the Project's trip generation would be
attributable to retail land uses. Retail land uses generate little of their traffic during the A.M.
peak hour, about 25 percent of the traffic they generate during the P.M. peak hour.
Therefore, the overall Project trip generation would be about 30 percent lower during the
A.M. peak hour compared to the P:M. peak hour. IL was determined that the P.M. peak hour
would be the most critical period for traffic analysis.
Freeway volumes were evaluated on a daily basis, consistent with the daily traffic volume data
published by Caltrans. Directional peak hour traffic volumes have not been published by
Caltrans for the freeway segments adjacent to the Eastern Dublin Project.
12-2 comment: I-580 Imarorements. The fifth auxiliary lane between Dongherty/Hopyard Road
in each direction of I-580 has not been added as of today. These, auxiliary lanes will be
included is BARTs roadway reconstruction which is scheduled to begin in mid-1993.
Response to Comment 12-2: The fifth auxiliary lane will be added prior to the 2010 analysis
year. The analysis of project impacts in Table 3.3-4 assumed the correct number of lanes.
The analysis of existing conditions for the segment of I-580 between Dougherty
Road/Hopyard Road and Hacienda Drive is incorrect. The existing level of service on this
freeway segment would be "D" rather than "C". Corresponding revisions to text and tables are
included as an attachment to this F'rnai EIR.
12-3 Comment: Road Segments. In Table 33-2: 1992 Existing Freeway Operations, the number
of lanes .west of Hacienda Drive should be eight, not ten.
8esponse to Comment 12-3: See response to Comment 22-2.
12-4 ['omment: Freevvav Operations. In Table 3.3-9: Freeway Operations, the number of lanes just
west of I-680 (between San Ramon/Foothill Road) should be ten. West of hacienda, the
number of lases should be eight.
Response to Comment 12-4: As noted in the comment, a fifth auxiliary lane for merging and
weaving is now provided in each direction on I-580 west of I-680 between Foothill/San
Ramon sad I-b80, for a total of ten lanes (eight through lanes, two auxiliary lanes).
Corresponding revisions to Table 3.3-9 are included as an attachment to this Final EIR. The
revised numbez of lanes on I-580 west of I-680 would not cause a change in Project impacts
or mitigations.
As noted in the comment, there are currently eight lanes on ~I-580 west of Hacienda between
Dougherty~fiopyard and Hacienda Drive. Correspaadiag revisions to Table 3:3-9' for the'
existing conditions are included as as attachment to this Final EIR. This section of I-580 has
been programmed for construction to provide a total of ten lanes (eight through lanes, two
st8 s-ssa.~ n u/T/m
56~
auxiliary lanes) as part of the current BART extension construction project. These lanes will
be campleted prior to 2010. The analysis of Project and Cumulative impacts on this section
of I-580 assumed the correct number of lanes which will exist at that time.
12-5 r'^^*+ment: Proportionate Share. The EIR recommends (MM 3.3/4.0) "the project should
contribute a proportionate share to planned improvements at the I-580/I-680 interchange.. ".
Please explain what the proportionate share would be based on, and also describe the
procedure which would ensure .that the Project will contribute its share.
Response to Comment I2-5: The proportions of improvement costs to be paid by various
jurisdictions and developments should be based on a regional study of improvement needs,
such as the current study by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. The shares of
improvement costs should also consider prior contn'bntions to regional road improvements.
The City of Dahlia is participating in regional studies of future transportation requirements .
(Tri-Valley, Alameda County) and would establish a fee. structure to ensure future
development pays for the appropriate share of regional road improvements based on those
regional studies.
12-6 ~mment: Impact of the Protect on Existing Intersections. The level of service and average
vehicle delay of PM peak hour intersection operatzons are listed without mitigation. Because
this proposed development is mainly residential, the impact of projected traffic on existing
intersections caused by the morning commute (AM peak) should also be considered. Any
intersection in which the LOS will become unacceptable during the AM peak will need
mitigation. .
Rest,onse to Comment 12-6: See the response to Comment 12-1. As noted, nearly half of the
Project's daily trip generation would be attributable to retail land uses, which generate about
- 75 percent fewer trips. during the A.M. peak hour compared to the P.M. peak hour.
Therefore, the overall Project traffic generation would be about 30 percent lower during the
A.M. peak hour compared to the P.M. peak hoar. It was determined that the P.M. peak hour
would be more critical for traffic analysis than the A.Nf. peak hour. However, recommended
road improvements propose balanced lanes in each dzrectiaa to ensure that reverse direction
traffic flows can be accommodated during other time periods.
12-7 comment: Rama Metering. The operation of at least five interchanges on I-580 and two
interchanges on I-680 will be affected by the Project. It is recommended that ramp metering
be considered for all the on-ramps within the Project limits. The proposed on-ramp
improvements should provide adegaate storage to accommodate the ramp metering operation.
The improvement of local streets seeds to be considered to accommodate the ramp metering.
Resttoese to Comment 12-7: Ramp metering would control vehicles entering the freeway oa
on-ramps, to ensure that traffic oa the mainline freeway operates smoothly during peals
periods. Ramp metering reduces delay on the mainline freeway, but increases delay for
drivers on coral streets wishing to access the freeway. If designed properly, ramp metering
can reduce the total overall delay for all drivers. The City of Dublin a-ill coordinate with
Caltrans on all interchange improvements to ensure that ramp metering. can be acxommodated.
12-8 Comment: Coordiaation~ of Signalization of Ramps snd Intersections. There are several
signalized ramp intersections sad local street intersections-Rnihin the project limits. Usually,
the signals on local streets are designed sad operated independently by local authorisation.
However, in order io operate the interchanges which will be affected by this project more
efficiently, the signal intezcoanection between ramp intersections and local street intersections
~ is essential. The coordination between the State. and local authorization to design sad .operate
m~ t-ss~esP ~ uI ~1 m
5~'~
State of Caitfornta
IVlemorandurn
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
To: MR. MiKF CNIRIATTI
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street, Room 12
Sacramento, Ca 95.814
V a
Date: October ,,, 1992
Ftie: ALA000079
1 ~ scH: 91103064
F.M.. 0.0
,-~; • ~ ._
:~
FROM: DEPARTMENT. OF TRANSPORTATION ' `~'~ •'
,._ „ .
Transportation Planning Branch-District 4 ~_.{' `~•~
Si113JECT: ~ASTE33N DUHt1N GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTISFEC~Ft ~ LAN'•;;;~';~ J •
~>
.-
%.:~ ",. '
.: i~ .:
~~..`t ~ I '__~
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has reviewed
the above-referenced document and forwards the following comments:
This report does not analyze the proposed project's impact to trafific
on freeway corridors and ramp intersections in an acceptable manner. AM IZ-I
peak hour and PM peak hour traffc volumes should be used as a basis in
analysis rather than daily traffic volumes.
3.3 TRAFFIC AND CiRCULATlOi~
EX1ST1tVG ROADS
Freeways
The fifith . auxiliary cane between DoughertytHopyard Raad in each
direction of t-580 has not been added as ofi today. Ti~ese auxiliary lanes
wi11 be included in BART's roadway reconstruction which is scheduled to
begin in mid 1.993. .
EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Road -Segments •
Table 3.3-2 - 1992 EXISTING- FREEWAY OPERATIONS -The number of
Lanes West of Hacienda Drive should be 8 not 10. -
1
IZ-2
I2-3
565
Chiriatti/ALA000079
Octobert 9, 1992
Pare 3
Table 3 3-9 -FREEWAY OPERATIONS
The number of Panes just west ofi I-680 (between San tZ...,¢
Ramon/Foothill Road} should be 10, and west of Hacienda should be 8.
IMPACTS AIVD MITlGATIOIV
~,IIM3 3/4.0
The EIR recommends "the project should contribute a proportionate
share to planned improvements at the .1-58011-680 interchange and .... 12_s
Please explain what the proportion would be based on, and also describe
the procedure which would ensure that the project wild contribute its
share.
Table 3.3-1 Q
The level of service and average vehicle -delay of PM peak hour
intersection operations are listed without mitigation. Because this
proposed development is mainly residential, the impact of projected 12-b
traffic on existing intersections caused by morning. commute dam peak}
from this new development should also be considered. Any intersection, in
which the level of service will become unacceptable during the am peak,
wilt -need mitigation.. -
The operation of at (east five interchanges on Route 580 and two
interchanges on Route 6.80 will be affected by' this proposed project. It iS
recommended that ramp metering be considered for al! the on-ramps
within the project limits. The proposed on-ramp improvements should
provide adequate .storage to accommodate the ramp metering operation.
The improvement of focal streets need to be considered to accommodate
the ramp metering.
There are several signalized ramp intersections and local street
intersections within the project limits. Usually, the. signals on local
streets are designed and operated independently by focal authorization .
However, in order to operate the interchanges ta~ich will be affected by
. this project more efficiently, the signal interconnection between ramp
" }
12-7
12-8
sss
Chiriaiti/ALA000079
October 9, t g92
Page Q
i
intersections and local street intersections is essential. The coordination 12-5
between the State and local authorization to design and operate these ~ ta.
signals should be arranged.
MAPS AND FIGURES
lm r v m n
R
aa
re -8 Fu ur
F~Su 3
.
Bxisting number of lanes between DoughertylHopyard Road and 12-9
Hacienda Drive should show 8 not 10. ~ ~ .
Figure 3 3 F Proposed Intersection Lanea
As a mitigation for the project, it is proposed to restripe the
existing two right tum lanes and one lefilane
nd onehrght turnulane.
l 12-IO
a
s
Hacienda Drive off-ramp to two .left tum
2010 with the project can be
Justify how the estimated traffic at year
accommodated by only one right tum lane {reduced firom two lanes to one).
The proposed lmpravement ~ at eastbound Route 580 at Airway
timated peak h
our
Boulevard should be included on the Figure 3.3-F. Us.e es
e aff-ramps to check ifi the warrant
interchan
h for 12-ii
g
ese
traffic volume at t
instaiiation of signals is satisfied. Sornea et
n
r
s
~
existing
the
s on
numbe
figure 3.3-F is not accurate. Revrse the
intersection to reflect the actual situation.
hi f
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on t
iQio~ ee• tolfc~nt act~
e
e
have any questions regarding these comments, pleas
Alice Jackson of my staff at (510} 286-5587.
~~ : RY F. ADAMS
District CEQA Coordinator
cc: Salty Get-main~, AHAG
~ Susan Puitz, MTC
5S~'
Res onse to Leiter 13: Nolan s President Tassa'sra Vailev Pro rtv Owners Association.
13-1 Comment: InterinrisdictionaI Cooperation. East Dublin, Dougherty Valley and Tassajara
valley share a common location, a common seed for expansion of infrastructure, and a
common time frame for development. Because of these common traits, the planning agencies
should work together to coordinate expansion of public services and facilities, and to find
solutions to common problems.
R~onse to Comment 13-1: Comment acknowledged.
13-2 ~Qmment: Coordinated SabreQional Transit Plan. 'IVPOA suggests that eastern Dublin
developers be required to cooperate with adjacent property owners ('TYPOA and Dougherty
galley) as well as adjacent business parks (Hacienda and Bishop Ranch) and the nearby
regional shopping mall (Stoaeridge) to explore the feasibility of a sub-regional transit system
to serve the area. This effort should be done in cooperation with the Central Contra Costa
Transit Authority, Livermore-Amador Transit Authority, and BART. It may be that such an
effort can be accomplished in conjunction with the TVTC planning study.
Resaoase to Comment 13-2: Comment-acknowledged. Mitigation measures MM 33/I5.0
through MM 33/15.3, page 3.3-28 ~of the DEIR, recommend that the City of Dublin
coordinate with transit service agencies and that the Project contribute a proportionate share
to the cost of transit service extensions. The City of Dublin is also participating in the Tri
Valley Transportation Council study, which will recommend transportation improvements on
a regional basis.
13-3 comment: Land Use Assamntions for Tassaiara Valle. The Final EIR should reflect current
projections for total buildout and timing of development iti Tassajara Valley. Current plans
call for 6,100 dwelling units and 350,000 square feet of commercial/office space which would
yield 700 employees. This update may require modifications to the cumulative traffic analysis
in those areas most impacted by trips generated by Tassajara Valley development, i.e.,
Tassajara Road.
Resaonse !o Comment 13-3: The analysis of Project traffic impacts in the DEIR was based
on ABAG Projections of land use for the Bay Area. These2010 projections of overall land
use in each census tract are based on an assessment of regional growth and absorption
potential of new land uses, and would not chaII$B S!$II1f1CdIItly aS 31'CSUIt Of Ch3IIgCS in t$e
ultimate projected buildont of each individual development project such as Tassajara Valley.
The Cumulative Buildout analysis in the DEIIt assumed development levels in Tassajara
Valley consistent with the application for a General Plan Amendment submitted to Contra
Costa County, the most current publicly available document at the time of the analysis for the
DE1R Future traffic studies conducted for the Tassajara Valley development should address
the traffic impacts of changes in potential development levels in Tassajara Valley compared
to the initial GPA application.
13-4 ~gmment: Camnlati~e Traffic Imaact on Tassaiara Road_ The Draft EIR concludes that
development outside Eastern Dublin, pnmanly in Dougherty and Tassajara Valleys, will cause
level of service F operations at three Tassajara Road intersections in the Eastern Dublin
planaing~area. The Draft EIR determines that this impact can be mitigated by widening
Tassajara Road (MM 3.3/14.0, page 3.3-28). Yet, the Draft E]R falls short of recommending
this mitigation measure. Instead, the Draft EIR leaves open the`possibihty that Tassajara rand'
will remain four lanes despite concluding that to do so would result in a significant impact.
Attempting to maintain Tassajara Road as a four lane road would seem to be inconsistent with
~ i-ssssp Tr u/T/as
56
a regional vision of the problem.
Resaonse to Comment 13-d: See Response to Comment 5-2. The City of Dublin is
considering recommending a revision to the Specific Plan to reserve right-of-way for six lases
on Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Road.
13-5 Comment: Extension of Iiaciesda Drive to Dounhertv Vsllev. One solution to the traffic
congestion problems projected for Tassajara Road ~s the extension of Hacienda Drive worth
into the Dougherty Valley.
Dougherty Road is incapable of handling the entire vehicle traffic volume from new
development in Dougherty Valley. To help solve this problem, Wiademere Parkway is
extended from the east side of Dougherty Valley east to Camino Tassajara in Tassajara Valley.
This route will provide a primary, yet indirect, access m I-580 via Tassajara~Road, but wiU
also increase the volume of traffic on Tassajara Road and at~the I-580 interchange almost to
a breaking point assuming development is Tassajara Valley and East Dublin.
An extension of Hacienda Drive north into Dougherty Palley would provide direct access
routes to I-584 for the west and east sides of Dougherty Valley and Tassajara valley, and than
would balance the traffic loads at the I-580 interchanges and through Dublin and East Dublin.
Also, a Hacienda Drive extension provides a direct link for the entire Dougherty Valley to the
following: 1) the new BART station planned near Hacienda Drive and I-S80; 2) the heart of
Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton, and 3) the new commercial and office uses planned for
the County property in the East Dublin Specific Plan.
Extending Hacienda Drive into Dougherty Valley is a positive step that will alleviate problems
}} on Tassajara Road. This alternative should be reviewed further in the EIR.
l Resaonse to Comment 13-5: Comment acknowledged. The circulation plan for the Eastern
' Dublin Specific Plan does not preclude the potential extension of Hacienda Drive north to
Dougherty Palley. An extension of Hacienda Drive north is a possibility that has bees
explored by both the Dougherty Valley proponents and by the Eastern Dublin planaiag
consultants. The U.S. Army has indicated that such an extension through Camp Parks would
be inconsistent with the Army's plan for the base, and therefore world not be permitted.
13-6 fQmment: Coordination with the 680/580 Association. The Eastern Dublin Speck Plan
,should include provisions to require property owners and developers to coordinate with the
680/580 Corridor Transportation Association sad, if appropriate; to develop remote
telecommute centers within the Project area. Also, consideration might be gives to the
development of so-called "smart houses" in the study area to facilitate at-home and/or
neighborhood telecommuting. These concepts could be evaluated to determine the potential
to reduce peak hour and/or total Daily Yehicie Trips.
Resaonse to Comment 13-6: Telecommutsng could help to reduce future traffic volumes, and
should be included as one of the potential components of the Traasportatioa Systems
Management programs included as Mitigation Measure MM 33/2.0. Since there is inadequate
existing data available to quantify the potential traffic reductions due to increased
telecommutiag, the DEIR conservatively assumed no reduction in traffic. .
13-7 ~'omment: Consistency of EIR with Regional Traffic Models. The Final EIR should point out
the simBarit:ies and differences of the Draft E1R land use assumptions sad trip distribution
model with regional traffic models developed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority,
the Tri-Valley Transportation Council, sad the Alameda County Congestion Management
1~ i-:tsssP ~s sz/r/as
56f
Agency, if available.
Resaonse to Comment 13-7: The traffic model used in the Draft EIIt uses the standard
. methodology for traffic forecasting, as do the other travel demand models currently being
used far Tri-Valley studies.
The Eastern Dublin analysis uses essentially the same ABAG Projections '90 2010 land use
forecasts foi the Tri-Valley area as the current studies by the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority and the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. The Alameda Couary model also uses
ABAG Projections '90, but currently uses an earlier disaggregation of land use data to
individual traffic analysis zaaes. The earlier diraggregation did not consider the most recent
development proposals. The Eastern Dublin analysis quantifies non-residential land uses is
terms of square footage, while the other models use employment, so there may be some
differences in the reported employment numbers by jurisdiction because of assumptions used
in the conversion between employment and square footage.
The Eastern Dublin analysis determines traffic generation by relating vehicle trips directly
to land uses. The other models use a standard procedure to estimate the number of person
trips (people coming in and out of each building rather than cars), and then the persons are
allocated to travel modes such as auto driver, auto passenger, or transit passenger. The
resulting number of vehicle trips should be the same using either process.
All of the models use a standard trip distribution process based on data from the Metropolitan
'transportation Commission (MTC). The Eastern Dublin analysis assumes trip distribution
based oa unconstrained travel conditions. The other models assume that future trip
distribution will be balanced based on congestion; in other words, in the future, people may
choose to work and shop closer to home because congestion has increased. This procedure
may result in a more realistic analysis of future travel patterns,, but is somewhat less
conservative since it will tend to indicate more future trips remaining internal to each
development. The Eastern Dublin analysis also assumes unconstrained growth of traffic
demand over the Altamont Pass to San Joaquin County, while the other models assume some
type of constraint an traffic demand over the Altamont Pass. Again, the procedures for trip
distribution used in the Eastern Dublin DEIR will tend to provide a more conservative
analysis of future traffic impacts.
13-8 ~ ~ammeat: IM 3 7 B• Indirect Imascts of Vegetation Removal. The Draft EIR mitigates for
vegetation removal and possible erosion by calling for revegetation with native vegetation
(MM 3.7/5.0). TVPUA suggests expansion of this mitigation in the Final EFR by requiring
verification of physical and biological feasibility of planting locations, including topography,
aspect, soils, hydrologic condition, and potential competition. Also, the native shrubs, herbs,
and grasses should also be local to the Tri-VaIIey and the plant communities of eastern
Dublin.
Re-tense to Comment 13-$: Comment acknowledged. The following text has been added
to NIIvi 3.7/5.0, on page 3.7-10:
All areas of disturbance should be revegetated as quickly as possible to prevent erosion.
Native trees (preferably those species already on site), shrubs, herbs and grasses should
be used for revegetation of areas to remain as natural open space. The introduction of
non-native plant species should be avoided. Specific physical charactertstzcs of
proposed revegetation areas w~ be determined to evaluate the long term feasi'b~7ity .
of the proposed mitigation and tD identify potential conflicts at the site.
Characteristics vvouid include but not be limited to ground and flow byd~loSy.