Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Moller Rch GPA/EDSPA, PD Stg 1&2, DA, SEIRor 19 82 /ii � 111 DATE: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL December 18, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo City Manager""' " SUBJECT: Moller Ranch, General Plan and Eastern Planned Development rezone with related Plans, a Development Agreement, and a Report for a 226.3 -acre project area locato Road south of the City limits Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner CITY CLERK File #420 - 30/450 -30 Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Supplemental Environmental Impact :d along the east side of Tassajara EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider a request for land use amendments to both the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designation for Moller Ranch to: a) 79.6 acres - Single - Family Residential (.09 to 6 units per acre), b) 136.8 acres - Rural Residential /Agricultural (1 unit per 100 acres), c) 7.6 acres - Open Space /Stream Corridor, d) 1.2 acres - Semi - Public, and e) 1.1 acres - Neighborhood Park (no change). The project also includes a Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans and concurrent approval of a Development Agreement and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. FINANCIAL: None RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and adopt Resolution certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and adopting Mitigation Findings, Findings regarding alternatives, a statement of overriding considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Moller Ranch /Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project; adopt Resolution approving a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for Moller Ranch; waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans for the Moller Ranch project; and waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Braddock and Logan Services, Inc. for the Moller Ranch Project. Submitted By Director of Community Development Reviewed By Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 12 ITEM NO. 6.1 DESCRIPTION: Background: The Moller Ranch project lies to the east of Tassajara Road within the EDSP area (as shown on the Vicinity map below). The Project site is characterized by a small generally flat valley (known as Casamira Valley) formed by Moller Creek, a tributary of Tassajara Creek, that flows in the southwesterly direction with moderate to steep hillsides north and south of the creek. The Project site has slopes which range from less than 5 %, adjacent to the creek corridor, to more than 60% along the north facing slopes at the eastern end of the property. The course of the creek is lined with vegetated and unvegetated wetlands. The creek continues west beyond the property line where it empties into Tassajara Creek. Historical and existing uses within the project area include cattle grazing; two existing single - family residences and several agricultural outbuildings that are located near the creek that will be removed as part of the project. No grading has occurred on site except for dirt access roads, improvements to the Tassajara Road right -of -way, and related drainage improvements for Moller Creek at the westerly edge. The use of the surrounding properties is as follows- - To the north - the unincorporated rural, agricultural, and utility property (part of the greater Moller Ranch) in Contra Costa County, including a recently constructed PG &E substation. - To the east - unincorporated rural /agricultural property in Alameda County, also part of the greater Moller Ranch. - To the south - • Along the southwesterly boundary, the project known as Fallon Crossing which is a residential development of 106 single - family and duet units (under construction). • Along the southeasterly boundary, the project known as Redgewick, Dublin Ranch North, (PA 08 -045), which includes 4 custom residential lots and 127 acres of conserved open space. - To the west across Tassajara Road - vacant/agricultural. VICINITY MAP Page 2 of 12 On May 15, 2007, General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments were adopted (Resolution 58 -07), and Planned Development prezoning with a related Stage 1 Development Plan for 298 attached and detached units was adopted (Ordinance 09 -07, PA 06 -030) for Moller Ranch (formerly known as Casamira Valley). These land uses and zoning remain in effect today and are further discussed below. Moller Ranch was subsequently annexed to the City of Dublin May 1, 2007 (Resolution 59 -07). A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared to address potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed plan for Moller Ranch. The SEIR, State Clearinghouse (SCH) #2005052146, was certified by the City Council on May 1, 2007 (Resolution No. 56 -07). The SEIR, specifically evaluated as "The Project," for the construction of 209 units divided between 195 single - family detached residential lots and 14 duet or paired units developed with a loop road system for the 226.3 -acre Moller Ranch property. On January 17, 2012, the City Adopted Resolution 07 -12 approving a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Initiation Study based on the current proposal. Project Description /Current Proposal: The Applicant, Braddock and Logan, is requesting approval of General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use designations for the site, Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, a Development Agreement and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). ANALYSIS: The goal of this project is to create the ambiance of a new community built around the relics of historic agricultural use. The theme envisions a charming, tranquil community and premier residential haven nestled within the hills of the City of Dublin surrounded by hundreds of acres of regional parkland. The proposed access and circulation system links the project to Tassajara Road and the greater Dublin community via a meandering creekside collector road, divided in elevation in certain locations by 10 foot wide median. The character of the community is rooted in the history and natural features of the setting. As a reflection of California's agrarian and ranch heritage, the project will feature vineyards, olive groves, dry stack stone walls, and farmstead artifacts throughout the community to convey a historic farmstead legacy. The majority of the proposed development is located on the flatter portions of the site away from Tassajara Road and generally adjacent to the creek corridor. The grading proposed for the project will take into consideration the hilly terrain and is designed to avoid excessive grading. The proposed community will blend with the natural features unique to the site through the use of design and planning. The project includes three neighborhoods defined by one of three lot sizes and will allow a variety of housing product types and price ranges. The clustering of residential units will allow for continuity of the open space area and more effective utilization of the property. Page 3 of 12 General Plan & Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment The Applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designations. The proposed amendments would result in a project entirely of single - family homes (as opposed to the currently approved single - family and multi - family development). The requested amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are shown in Table 1, below. TABLE 1: Land Use - General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Existing Proposed Acres Units Acres Units Single - Family Residential (.09 to 6.0 units per 0 0 79.6 0- 478(') acre) Rural Residential /Agriculture (1 unit per 100 acres) 143.7 1 136.8 1 Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre) 48.9 298 -684 0 0 Open Space /Stream Corridor 32.6 7.6 Neighborhood Park 1.1 1.1 Semi - Public 0 1.2 Total(') 226.3 685 226.3 479 This table shows the maximum units under the General and Specific Plan ranges. The Stage 2 Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map 8102 propose a total of 370 single- family detached units. The Applicant has requested the Single - Family Residential land use in place of Medium Density Residential as a better design alternative to preserve and to take advantage of the natural features of the site. This will also allow a better option for providing each unit with usable private yard area. At a maximum, the density distributed over the Single - Family Residential and Rural Residential /Agriculture land uses would allow up to 479 units. However, the Applicant is proposing to develop only 370 homes (4.65 units per acre). Although the Rural Residential /Agricultural (RR /A) land use designation would allow the construction of one residential dwelling unit (1 unit/100 acres), the Applicant is not proposing to construct or retain any dwelling units in this area and a conservation easement will be enacted on a majority of the land designated RR /A to preserve the site's natural resources. The cap on the number of units within the proposed development envelope will ensure that the grading on the site is minimized and the hillsides are protected. Open space and preservation represents a significant theme of the Moller Ranch project. The Open Space land use designation includes the natural drainage corridor (Moller Creek) from the project site boundary (city limits) in the northeast to the culvert underpass at Tassajara Road on the west. Open space areas and portions of the open space within the RR /A area, including any detention basins, are proposed to be owned, managed, and maintained by the HOA or a conservation management organization GHAD or land trust. Page 4 of 12 The proposed 1.1 -acre Neighborhood Park would be located on the north side of the stream corridor. The neighborhood park will be owned and operated by the City of Dublin. The 1.2 acres shown as Semi - Public use is the total area of a pedestrian trail system running a distance of 2,920 feet from the trailhead at Tassajara Road to the northerly project boundary. It also includes a limited public parking area of approximately 25 spaces serving an adjacent regional trailhead staging area to the Regional Wilderness Park and PG &E facilities to the north within Contra Costa County. The project proposal includes related amendments to the various figures, texts, and tables in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the documents. A Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment and an Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Moller Ranch project is included as Attachment 1. Planned Development Zoning The application includes a Stage 1 Development Plan that would replace the existing Stage 1 Development Plan approved in 2007 (Ordinance 09 -07). The proposal includes requirements per Zoning Code Section 8.32.040.A. The Stage 1 Development Plan is revised to be consistent with the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use Amendments. The application also includes a Stage 2 Development Plan. The Stage 2 Development Plan meets the Zoning Ordinance requirements in 8.32.040.B. The Stage 2 Development Plan identifies the layout by proposed lots /parcels along with the Development Regulations and Architectural Design Guidelines /Standards for specific uses by the type of lot. The residential uses include 3 lot types with 9 architectural styles among them. A second dwelling unit would be permitted in neighborhoods having lots of 5,000 square feet or greater, only. No more than one (1) second dwelling unit is permitted per lot and requires one additional off - street parking space; 3rd car, tandem or uncovered space would be permitted to satisfy that requirement. Based on the proposed density for the proposed acreage by use, a maximum of 479 units could be developed. However, the SEIR analyzes a maximum of 382 units, and the proposed development plan allows a maximum of only 370 units on single - family detached lots at an overall density of 4.65 units per acre. Further and more specific development standards, including a Master Infrastructure and Phasing plan, are described in the Stage 2 Development Plan. Site Plan - The Project has extensive frontage along Tassajara Road, a City and County designated scenic highway, with standards for preserving views of scenic ridgelines and knolls from the corridor. In compliance with these standards, no development is proposed near Tassajara Road with the nearest residence located at least 1,400 feet from the primary entry road. Tassajara Road currently is a two -lane road extending northward from Dublin Ranch to the Contra Costa County line. However, the General Plan anticipates that it eventually will be expanded to its full width of six lanes. A precise alignment has been approved by the City of Dublin. However, on -going discussions have been held with Contra Costa County about the realignment and location of the connection at the county line. The project is accessed from a main entry road located along the east side of Tassajara Road north of Fallon Road. This road follows the natural drainage way with branching loop streets or Page 5 of 12 cul -de -sacs providing access to the neighborhood areas. Community Design elements and details are discussed below under "Landscaping, Streetscape, and Fence Plan." The neighborhood layout by lot type and phase are listed in Table 2 below: Table 2: Lots by Neighborhood and Phase Shown on Stage 2 Development Plan Neighborhood Lots Minimum Lot Area (sf) Minimum Dimensions Phase 1 97 4,500 45 ft x 100 ft 2 2a,b,c 211 5,000 50 ft x 100 ft 1,3,4 3 62 5,500 55 ft x 100 ft 5 Total 370 Note: Neighborhood 2 includes 211 units proposed to be built in 3 phases. SITE PLAN Development Regulations - Development regulations and site development standards would be adopted as part of the Stage 2 Development Plan. The Development Regulations proposed for Moller Ranch are similar to those established for other single - family detached units within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The Development Regulations and Site Development Standards include minimum lot area and dimensions, minimum lot frontage and depth, minimum setbacks (for front, rear, and sideyards), maximum building height, maximum lot coverage, minimum distance between buildings, common outdoor areas, minimum private outdoor areas, allowable setback encroachments, parking, driveways, signage, trash enclosures, and grading standards, accompanied by any necessary diagrams. See Exhibit A to Attachment 2 (Ordinance for Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan, Pages 7 and 8) for a comprehensive list of Development Regulations. Parking - In accordance with the development standards in much of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, each single - family home in Moller Ranch would be provided with a two -car garage at a minimum. In addition, all units are required to provide one guest space which may be located Page 6 of 12 curbside along public or private right -of -way except where marked for traffic safety and access by emergency vehicles or within a driveway with sufficient depth. Side -entry (swing -in) and three -car garages would be permitted only on lots having a minimum width of 55 feet with side - entry garages requiring a minimum of 28 feet of back -up area. Architectural Style Guidelines /Standards — The residential architecture for this Stage 2 Development Plan has been designed with themes to complement the natural environment and the area's agricultural heritage. The Architectural Design Guidelines /Standards are divided into three sections: Architectural Criteria (details), Plotting (and massing), and Architectural Styles which allow for nine (9) different styles. The proposed styles would be applied at a later date to the floor plans presented for approval with a subsequent Site Development Review approval. • Architectural Criteria - Floor plans are not included as part of the Architectural Design Guidelines. Standards require a minimum of 4 floor plans for projects of 76 units or more with an additional plan for each incremental of 30 above 131. Plans would be required to present a strong one -story element to the street and recessed second story. The Guidelines included for roof form and architectural massing forms are proposed for visual relief to reduce mass and enhance pedestrian scale. Such elements would include: o Articulation of wall planes • Projections and recesses to provide shadow and depth • Combinations of one and two story forms • Porches and courtyards As part of these standards, the second floor would be prohibited from completely covering the first floor without incorporating second floor recessed elements or first floor single -story elements along the front. • Plotting - Typically, for projects approved within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, a plotting matrix /fit list would be submitted with the Site Development Review. To create a distinctive look to the neighborhood and eliminate the repetition while allowing flexibility to enhance sales and marketing, placement of specific floor plans and architectural styles would be limited within specific parameters. • Architectural Styles - The styles are intended to enhance the diversity of the street scene with varied roof forms, pitches, and overhangs; window shapes and mullion variations; shutter configurations; trim profiles; gable end treatments; exterior materials; and style - specific details. Architectural elements will be required to be articulated on all elevations of each building, especially on corner lots, with fully wrapped or enhanced elevations on structures visible from public right -of -way as shown and plotted within the architectural guidelines. To provide wide diversity to the exterior elevations and architectural styles, the exteriors also would rely on color to differentiate among exterior planes. At least 60% of the plans will have a second story that recesses at least 5 feet for 20% of the front facade, and at rear elevations there shall be a minimum 5 -foot horizontal or vertical offset in the plan. For phases of over 130 units, the architectural guidelines are required to provide no less than 5 color schemes and 10 garage door types. A color and materials board is not included with the current architectural Guidelines, but will be incorporated and adopted as part of the Site Development Review. The nine architectural styles proposed for this project are described in Exhibit B to Attachment 2, Architectural Guidelines, Pages 15 -32. Page 7 of 12 Landscaping, Streetscape, and Fence Plan — The Application includes a Master Landscape and Streetscape plan which addresses typical lot layout, plant palette, hardscape improvements, street improvements, entry monuments, parks and trails, open space, and the stream corridor, including bank stabilization, drainage, and water quality improvements. The development concept for the area strives to preserve the natural environment and create a community that is compatible with the natural terrain. The landscape and streetscape design is centered on the natural drainage area or creek as a fundamental part and focal point of a 10 -foot wide meandering community trail that could integrate with the East Bay Regional Park District trail system. The trail within Moller Ranch is punctuated with meadows, vista points, public art, interpretive signage, selective seating, and other features designed to preserve and protect the natural environment which is included in Exhibit A to Attachment 2, Landscape Guidelines, pages 30 -36. At the creek crossing, a decorative head wall houses the culvert and an ornamental railing provides a pedestrian lookout down the riparian corridor. The trail meanders adjacent to the Neighborhood Park before linking with the regional trail system to the north. Sidewalks also are provided throughout the project. In compliance with water quality standards, a series of detention basins would be integrated into the open space. In addition to the pedestrian trail system, the main entry road at Tassajara Road is flanked by a hillside on the north and meanders along the creek to the south. This road is designed with two 20 -foot wide drive aisles on either side of a 10 -foot wide landscaped median. After the one creek crossing near the Neighborhood Park, the road becomes a 36 -foot wide neighborhood entry road eventually narrowing to a neighborhood spine road that bisects the main neighborhood area and serves as a collector for the neighborhood streets. The main entry road is located and marked with enhanced pavement north of Fallon Road near the point where the Moller Creek passes under Tassajara Road to connect with Tassajara Creek. In keeping with the historic agricultural theme, small flowering orchard -style trees would be planted in the median and windrow segments along the north side. Rambling roses, terraced olive groves, and vineyard plantings distinguish the project entry. A detention area serves as a seasonal pond and would be constructed as part of the culvert relocation. Other theme elements at the entry include a theme wall with ranch logo, stone monolith, boulder rubble, and project entry structure (enclosed pump house) clad with a synthetic rustic dry stacked stone. As the main road interfaces with the neighborhoods and approaches the creek crossing, the landscape features a shade tree canopy, riparian trees, vineyard plantings, and an evergreen tree buffer to screen the homes while retaining views beyond to the creek. Enhanced paving marks the pedestrian crossings to the Neighborhood Park and regional trail system. In all, there are seven neighborhood entries sited along the various segments of the primary road. The goal of these entries is to highlight each area with stone monoliths, low stone walls, decorative lighting, signage, and plantings. Vineyard plantings and trellis systems for the vines will be strategically located throughout the project. After crossing the creek the road becomes the entry point to the main neighborhood area. This location is surrounded by a series of detention basins capturing runoff from hillsides to the south. Additional vineyard plantings, low stone walls, and boulder rubble define this junction. As the neighborhood spine climbs up the grade and branches into the neighborhood streets, windrow and flowering trees flank this route leading to the topmost detention basin protected by a landscape buffer. Page 8 of 12 In order to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access to all portions of the site, emergency access roads are located along the residential interface with the open space (Rural Residential /Agriculture) area while numerous trail heads at cul -de -sacs and other locations would be located at points along the access roads eventually linking to the trail system. This road also serves as a fire buffer. The neighborhood street abutting the open area north of the creek and the neighborhood street serving the park and trailhead staging area would be designed and landscaped to enhance those amenities. These entry points would be highlighted by thematic low stone walls parallel to the sidewalk connected with an ornamental iron fence to separate the trailhead area from private yards. A removable bollard would be located for emergency vehicle access at these locations. A hierarchy of fence types, including theme walls and other functional fences are shown with the plans. The walls and fences for the Moller Ranch project are designed to minimize visual impact and obstruction of enjoyment of the surrounding open space. Therefore, where fences and walls are required, they are designed to be semi - transparent or screened by landscaping. Relative to the topography of the Project Site, the fence plan takes into consideration retaining walls and view fencing where appropriate. The plans also include a palette of plant materials, street furnishings, signage, landscape accessories, and utility screening. Such extensive open space within and surrounding the residential community also requires a management plan for those areas to be dedicated to the City, held in common by the homeowners association (HOA), or managed by a special district. In addition to the overall landscape plan for the Moller Ranch project area, the Landscape Plans and Development Regulations include a typical landscape plan and site layout for both interior and corner lots reflecting each of the three residential lot sizes proposed. The landscaping for the parkways and the individual lots will be required to conform to the City Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. All proposed uses are consistent with the permitted uses approved by the Stage 1 Development Plan, and proposed densities remain within the standards. A Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Moller Ranch project is included as Attachment 2. Affordable Housing / Inclusionary Zoning - The proposed project is subject to the City's Inclusionary Housing requirements. This provision requires new residential projects to provide 12.5% of the units within the new residential project as affordable. Based on the total number of units, 46 units would be required to meet the affordability standards. The affordable housing component will be addressed in a separate affordable housing agreement prior to recordation of the final subdivision map. Public Art Compliance — The proposed project is subject to compliance with the City's Public Art Ordinance. The Ordinance requires the Applicant's contribution to be .5% of the aggregate value of the home construction to be determined and calculated by the City's Building Official. This calculation would be made and compliance exhibits developed at a later time in conjunction with the Site Development Review. An exhibit showing potential locations for public art along the open space corridor is located in Exhibit A to Attachment 2, Landscape Guidelines, page 34. Page 9 of 12 Development Agreement Projects within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) require a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and the Developer. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.56 ") authorize the City to enter into an agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to obtain certain commitments and establish certain development rights for the property. The Development Agreement must be approved prior to recordation of the final Tract Map and issuance of building permits for the development of the property. Development Agreements are approved by an Ordinance of the City Council upon recommendation by the Planning Commission. The proposed Development Agreement was drafted with input from City Staff, the project Applicant, property owner, and the City Attorney based on the standard Development Agreement prepared by the City Attorney and adopted by the City Council for projects located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The Development Agreement provides security to the developer that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project. The Development Agreement becomes effective for a term of five (5) years from the date of the signing of the agreement. This document is a contract that establishes obligations for meeting the goals of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and guarantees timing for construction of public infrastructure and facilities for the project area. Additionally, it ensures that dedications of property and easements are made, project phasing is followed, appropriate fees are paid for the development, and any additional terms of the agreement are carried out as development proceeds. The proposed Development Agreement also would be consistent with the previous development agreements. An Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Braddock & Logan Services for the Moller Ranch project is included as Attachment 4 with the Development Agreement attached as Exhibit A. Planning Commission Action At their meeting of November 27, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted the following Resolutions: a) Resolution recommending that the City Council certify a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Moller Ranch /Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project and make related findings; b) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for Moller Ranch; c) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans for the Moller Ranch project; d) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Braddock and Logan Services, Inc. for the Moller Ranch Project. e) Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Map 8102 for the project known as Moller Ranch subject to the City Council approving the above entitlement; and Page 10 of 12 The Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes are included as Attachment 5. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ORDINANCE The application includes a request for Planned Development rezoning with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan consistent with the proposed land use amendments under the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Planned Development zoning including Development Regulations would be applicable to Vesting Tentative Map 8102. The proposed project has been reviewed for conformance with the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan. The proposed project will further the goals of the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan by providing a high quality of life and preserving resources and opportunities for future generations. The Project will be required to adhere to the City of Dublin Green Building Ordinance which will be determined at the Site Development Review stage. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided Conditions of Approval where appropriate to ensure that the Project is established in compliance with all Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies were included in the Planning Commission Resolution 12 -45 the Vesting Tentative Map included as Attachment 3. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project. A Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Project Site is in Eastern Dublin for which the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning framework for future development of the area. In connection with this approval, the City certified a program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH: 91103064, Resolution 51 -93, and Addendum dated August 22, 1994, hereafter "Eastern Dublin EIR ") that is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference. In connection with a prior project on the Moller Ranch site, the City certified the Casamira Valley /Moller Ranch Project Supplemental EIR ( "Casamira EIR ") pursuant to CEQA section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 (SCH # 2005052146) and adopted supplemental mitigation measures, a Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations through Resolutions 56 -07 and 58 -07, dated May 1, 2007 and incorporated herein by reference. The City prepared and circulated a Draft Supplemental EIR dated September 2012 (SCH No. 2005052146) for the Project. The Draft Supplemental EIR confirmed that many of the Project impacts were addressed in the prior EIRs, whose mitigation measures continue to apply to the Project, as applicable. The Supplemental EIR review focused on traffic and biological Page 11 of 12 resources. A number of supplemental traffic impacts were identified, most of which can be mitigated to less than significant; however, some would remain significant and unavoidable as noted in the attached resolutions and findings. Upon further review, staff determined that one of the traffic mitigations identified in the Draft Supplemental EIR would be infeasible. That mitigation, SM- TRA -1 -12, calls for removal of a crosswalk at the Hacienda Drive /Dublin Boulevard intersection. Removing the crosswalk would be inconsistent with the City's adopted complete- streets policy. Also, the intersection is just over one -half mile from the Eastern Dublin BART station and adjoins the transit - oriented Dublin Transit Center, which is a Priority Development Area as designated by ABAG. The intersection is bordered by high- density residential, commercial, office and retail uses that are expected to generate significant pedestrian activity at buildout. Removing the crosswalk would also pose safety concerns in light of the expected heavy pedestrian traffic that would likely attempt to cross the street even without a marked crosswalk. No other feasible mitigations are identified for the intersection impacts; therefore, the impact will be significant and unavoidable. All of the supplemental biological resources impacts can be mitigated to less than significant. Following the required 45 day public review period, the City prepared a Final Supplemental EIR containing written responses to all comments received during the public review period, which responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the commenters. The prior EIRs together with the Project Draft and Final Supplemental EIR documents adequately identify and analyze the potential environmental impacts of the Project, are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review during normal business hours in the Planning Division at City Hall. A Resolution certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Moller Ranch /Moller Creek Culvert and Replacement Project and make related findings is included as Attachment 6, with the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report are attached as Exhibit A. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution approving a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for Moller Ranch. 2. Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for Moller Ranch. 3. Planning Commission Resolution 12 -45 approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8102. 4. Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. for the Moller Ranch project with the Development Agreement attached as Exhibit A. 5. Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes, November 27, 2012. 6. Resolution certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Moller Ranch /Moller Creek Culvert and Replacement Project and making related findings, with the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report attached as Exhibit A. Page 12 of 12 RESOLUTION NO. XX -12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR MOLLER RANCH (APNS 985 -0001- 001 -01 and 985- 0001 -001 -02) PLPA -2011 -00003 WHEREAS, Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. ( "Applicant ") submitted applications for a 226.3 -acre property known as Moller Ranch located along the east side of Tassajara Road, north of the Tassajara Road and Fallon Road intersection ( "Project Site "); and WHEREAS, the applications include: 1) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to change the land use from its current designation, 2) Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, 3) Vesting Tentative Tract 8102 to create 370 residential lots, and 4) Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Project Site and the applications are collectively known as the "Project;" and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would change the existing acreage of the 226.3 - acre Moller Ranch property from the existing land uses: a) Medium Density Residential - 48.9 acres; b) Rural Residential /Agricultural - 143.7 acres; c) Open Space/Stream Corridor — 32.6 acres; and d) Neighborhood Park 1.1 acres, to the amended land uses as follows: a) Single - Family Residential - 79.6 acres, b) Rural Residential /Agricultural - 136.8 acres, c) Open Space/Stream Corridor — 7.6 acres; d) Semi - Public — 1.2 acres, and no change to Neighborhood Park — 1.1 acres; and WHEREAS, the project is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the project site currently is vacant land except for two existing residences and several agricultural outbuildings; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2012, the Applicant's request to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study for Moller Ranch was approved by City Council Resolution 07 -12 which resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, consistent with California Government Code Section 65352.3, the City obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90 -day statutory consultation period and no further action is required under section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51 -93 ( "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR ", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (resolution incorporated herein by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, in 2007 a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2005052146), was certified by the City Council on May 1, 2007 by Resolution No. 56 -07 (incorporated herein by reference) which addressed potential environmental impacts resulting from a plan proposed for Moller Ranch and the adjacent 12.5 -acre Tipper property ( °Moller / Casamira Valley SEIR "); and WHEREAS, a second Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "Moller Ranch SEIR ") (SCH #2005052146) has been prepared for the Moller Ranch Project currently proposed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Casamira Valley SEIR identified significant unavoidable impacts, some of which would apply to the Project. Therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 12- XX (incorporated herein by reference) recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments for the Project; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted and is incorporated herein by reference, that described and analyzed the Project, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, and the Moller Ranch SEIR, and recommended that the City Council approve the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments; and WHEREAS, on , 2012 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the City Council approved Resolution XX -12 certifying the Moller Ranch Supplemental EIR, making all required CEQA findings, and adopting a statement of overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring and reporting program, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered the Moller Ranch SEIR, the prior EIRs, and all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth prior to taking any action on the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin approves the following Amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan based on findings that the amendments are in the public interest and that the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent, and that the Eastern Dublin 2 Specific Plan, as amended is consistent with the Geineral Plan, as, arnencled (strikeo!ut and bol'd text will not be shown in the General Plan or the Eastern Diubl'in Specific Plan). D U B L I N G E N E R A L P L A N L A N D U S E M A P —Al -1- 1 INN 2x fl (F I U Lire j as amended 18, 2C 12 r--qA .. LIA� IMM IIMMI -*3§"rawmrm RE IN I C. Table 2.1 in the General Plan will be amended as follows as follows: TABLE 2.14-' LAND USE SUMMARY: EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA (Amended; Resolutions 223 -05, 58 -07, 37 -08, 210 -08, 176 -09, 76 -10, 55 -12, 92 -12, XX -12) Classification Acres Intensity** Units Factor Yield RESIDENTIAL Du's /acre Du's Persons /du Population High Density 69.9 35 2,447 2.0 4,894 Medium -High Density 133.7 20 2,674 2.0 5,348 Medium - Density* ** -569(l) 520.1 10 3 -11699 5201 2.0 11,380 10,402 Single Family * * * * * * ** 859,85 939.45 4 3-439 3,820(3) 3.2 41,085 12,224 Estate Residential 30.4 0.13 4 3.2 13 Mixed Uses` * ** 115 2.0 230 Rural Residential 555.45 548.55 .01 5 3.2 16 TOTAL 2,218.g 2,242.1 14,375 14,266 32 33,127 COMMERCIAL Acres Floor Area Ratio (Gross) Square Feet (millions) Square Feet / Employee Jobs General Commercial 347.9 .35/.25 4.228 510 8,290 General Cornmercial/Campus Office * * * ** 72.7 .28 .887 385 2,303 Mixed Use 4.6 .3/1.0 .005 490 10 Mixed Use 2 /Campus Office 25.33 .45 .497 260 1,910 Neighborhood Commercial 57.5 .35/.30 .819 490 1,671 Campus Office 164.03 .75/35 2.644 260 10,168 Industrial Park * 114.7 .25/.28 1.329 590 2,253 TOTAL: 786.76 10.402 26,605 PARKS AND PUBLIC RECREATION City Park 56.3 1 park Community Park 97.0 2 parks Neighborhood Park 47.1 8 parks Neighborhood Square 16.6 6 parks Regional Park 11.7 1 park TOTAL: 228.7 18 parks OPEN SPACE #14 747.3 PUBLIC /SEMI - PUBLIC Public /Semi- Public 98 .25 1.07 590 1,809 Semi - Public* * * * * * * 12.3 .25 Schools Elementary School 63.2 5 schools Junior High School 25.2 1 school High School 0 0 school School Subtotal 88.4 6 schools TOTAL: 285 9 TABLE 2.1' LAND USE SUMMARY: EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA (Amended: Resolutions 223-05,58-07,37-08,210-08,176-099 76-10,55-12,92-12, XX -12) Classification Acres I Intensity" Units Factor Yield 287.1 TRANSIT CENTER (Total) 90.7 - Campus Office (including ancillary 38.3 retail) - High - Density Residential 31.5 - Park 12.2 - Public /Semi- Public (Transit - Related) 8.7 GRAND TOTAL 4382.66 Table Notes: *Table 2.1 appears as Table " 2A" in the Eastern Dublin GPA. It was relabeled herein for formatting purposes. "Numbers represent a mid -range considered reasonable given the permitted density range (except the MU land use). * * *50% of the units within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties shall have private, flat yards. ****For the purpose of this table, Mixed IJse acreage only will be considered Commercial, not residential, to avoid duplication in tabulation of overall total acres. * * ** *The Sq Ft/Employees figure utilized for General Commercial /Campus Office is the average of the figure used for General Commercial and Campus Office uses. * * * ** *The .28 FAR figure utilized for Industrial Park refers to Industrial Park areas within Fallon Village. * * * * ** *The location of Semi - Public sites on the Croak and Chen properties of Fallon Village will be determined at rite time of PD -Stage 2 Development Plan approval. The Semi - Public site on Croak will be 2,0 net acres; and the Senni- Public site on Chen will be 2.5 net acres. For the purposes of this table, 2.0 acres of Single Family Residential land on Croak was changed to Semi - Public and 2.5 acres of Medium High Density residential land on Chen was changed to Se€rni- Publie. These assumptions may change at the time of PD -Stage 2 Development Plan approval. * * * * * ** *The General Plait originally considered 68 units on Dublin Ranch North (Redgewick) property, The land use designation was amended to allow development of 4 units. This change results in 64 excess single family units than what was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report. Mixed Use 2 /Campus Office land use designation allows for either a mixed use project with residential land uses comprising up to 50 %ofthe project's development area (248,259 square feet) or an all Campus Office project (with no residential uses) with up to 496,519 square feet of development. Table 2.1 has been amended to reflect a Campus Office project. If the project is developed as a €nixed -use project with residential uses, the table shall be amended at that time to reflect that. (1) Public/Semi-Public approved as underlying land use on Subarea 2 of Jordan Ranch (PLPA 2010 -00068). Specific development to be determined at Stage 2 Development Plan. (2) Medium Density Residential approved as underlying land use on Subarea 1 of Jordan Ranch (PLPA 2010 - 00068). Up to 100 units possible as determined at Stage 2 Development Plan. (3) The 2012 Moller Property SEIR analyzed up to 381 single family units. Community Design Policies: Foothill Residential: Add the following statement under Building Siting and under Setbacks: Refer to the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans for the Moller Property project for modified criteria. D. Table 4.1 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will be amended as follows: TABLE 4.1 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY Amended Per Resolution No, 66.03, 47.04, 223.05, 58.0 7, 37 -08, 210.08,176.09, 55 -12, 92 -12, XX -12 Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL General Commercial 356,8 acres .25,35 FAR 4.122 MSF General Commercial /Campus Office 72.7 acres .28 FAR 887 MSF Industrial Park* 61.3 acres .25-,28 FAR .747 MSF Neighborhood Commercial 61.4 acres .30 -.35 FAR ,871 MSF Mixed Use 4.6 acres .30 -1.0 FAR .005 MSF Campus Office 192.66 acres .35 -.75 FAR 3.730 MSF Subtotal 749.5 acres 10.36 MSF RESIDENTIAL High Density 68.2 acres 35 du /ac 2,387 du Medium High Density 145.8 acres 20 du/ac 2,916 du Medium Density " 5224M-acres 473.2 acres 10 du/ac 6,221 du 4,732 du Single Family' " 856.75 4 du/ac 3,427 du 3,745 do cat acres 936.35 acres Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 dulac 4 du Rural Residential /Agric, 553.`'25 .01 du/ac 5 du ate; 546.35 acres Mixed Use 4.6 acres' 15 du/ac 115 du Subtotal 2,181.1 14,076 du 13,904 du acre 2,204.9 acres PUBLICISEMI- PUBLIC Public /Semi- Public 95.2 acres .24 FAR .995 MSF Semi - Public 7.3 aGms 8.5 acres .25 FAR Subtotal �""- v a r--. r es 103.7 acres .995 MSF SCHOOLS Elementary School 66.5 acres(') 5 schools Junior High School 21,3 acres 1 school Subtotal 87.8 acres PARKS AND OPEN SPACE City Park 56,3 acres 1 park Community Park 97.0 acres 3 parks Neighborhood Park 49.0 acres 7 parks Neighborhood Square 16,7 acres 6 parks Subtotal 219 acres 17 parks Open Space 73�', � 2 acres 705.2 acres TOTAL LAND AREA 4,070.1 acres 'The .28 FAR for Industrial Park refers to the Industrial Park areas in Fallon Village. x 50% of the units within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties shall have private, flat yards. 'rrhe 4.6 acres is the same acreage as listed in the Mixed Use cells. The 4.6 acres under Residential is not included in the sum of Residential uses in this table. 5,000 square feet of commercial and/or 115 units are anticipated on the mixed use site (total). The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan originally considered 68 units on the Dublin Ranch North (Redgewick) property. The land use designation was amended to allow development of 4 units. This change results in 64 excess single family units than what was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report. (1) Public/Semi- Public approved as underlying land use on Subarea 2 of Jordan Ranch (PLPA 2010. 00068). Specific development to be determined at Stage 2 Development Plan. (2) Medium Density Residential approved as underlying land use on Subarea I of Jordan Ranch (PLPA 2010. 00068). Up to 100 units possible as determined at Stage 2 Development Plan. (3) The Moller Property has 381 maximum allowable single family density units per the Environmental Document. E. Table 4.2 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will be amended as follows: Table 4.2 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary TABLE 4.2 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04,223-05,58-07, 37-08,176-09,55-12, 92 -12, XX -12) Land Use Designation Development Sq Ft /Employees Persons /du robs Coitintercial Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266 General Commercial /Campus Office* .887 MSF 385 2,303 General Commercial 4.122 MSF 510 8,082 Neighborhood Commercial .885 MSF 490 1,806 Mixed Use ** .005 MSF 490 10 Campus Office 3.730 MSF 260 14,346 Public /Semi Public .995 MSF 590 1,686 Semi - Public 590 TOTAL: 11.436 MSF 29,499 Residential Po idatiort High Density 2,387 2.0 4,774 Medium High Density 2,866 2.0 5,732 Medium Density 572-21 4,732 2.0 18;442 9,464 Single Family * ** (1) 3-,4N 3,808 3.2 10;966 12,186 Estate Residential 4 3.2 13 Mixed Use ** 115 2.0 230 Rural Residential/Agric. 5 3.2 16 TOTAL: 14,026 13,917 31 32,415 `The Sq FtlEmployees figure utilized for General CommerciallCampus Office is the average of the figures used for General Commercial and Campus Office uses. - Includes Mixed Use units (4,6 acres and 115 units) within Fallon Village Center. 5,000 square feet of commercial and 115 units are anticipated on the mixed use site(total). The FAR for ]Nixed Use is the maximum area for all development (i.e. total of residential and commercial on designated sites). 7 * ** The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan originally considered 68 units on the Dublin Ranch North (Redgewick) property. The land use designation was amended to allow development of 4 units. This change results in 64 excess single family units than what was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report. (1i The 2012 Moller Property S E I R analyzed up to 381 single family units. F. Table 4.3 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will be amended as follows: Table 4.3 City of Dublin Projected Jobs /Housing Balance TABLE 4.3 CITY OF DUBLIN PROJECTED JOBS /HOUSING BALANCE (Amended Per Resolution No. 223-05,58-07,37-08,55-12,92-12, XX -12) PLANNING Dwelling Jobs Employed Balance, Ratio3 AREA Units Medium Density Residential Residents' 2,619 du Existing City of 7,100 12,210 12,000 -210 1.02;1.0 Dublin4 3,475 du (1) Estate Residential 30.4 .13 du /ac 4 du Rural Residential Eastern Dublin 1470265 29,424 2q,7-22 -6,702 1�54. Specific Plan Area 1 13,917 22,545 -6,879 1.30:1.0 TOTAL: 2 16 41,634 34,2 - 6,912 1." 21,017 34,545 -7089 1.20:1,0 1 Projections assume a ratio of 1.62 employed residents per household based on ABAG's Projections '90. 'The "balance" refers to the number of employed residents in relation to the number of jobs (i.e„ a positive number means there are more employed residents than jobs). a Ratio of jobs to employed residents 'Taken from ABAG's Projections 90. s Underlying Medium Density Residential on Jordan school site, not shown (PLPA 2010.00068). Up to 100 units possible and determined at PD Stage 2 Development Pian. G. Table 4.10 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will be amended as follows: Table 4.10 Foothill Residential Subarea Development Potential TABLE 4.10 FOOTHILL RESIDENTIAL SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Designation Acres Density Development Potential Medium -High Desnity Residential 27.1 20 du /ac 542 du Medium Density Residential 26-14 10 du /ac 2,619 du 213 2,130 du Single Family Residential* 78 -9-1- 4 du /ac 3,1-56 du 868.7 3,475 du (1) Estate Residential 30.4 .13 du /ac 4 du Rural Residential 551.2 .01 du /ac 5 du 547.3 Residential Subtotal 6,327 du 1686.5 6,156 du * The Eastern Dublin SpecirTc Plan originally considered 68 units on the Dubfln Ranch North (Redgewick) property, The land use designation was amended to aftow development of 4 units, TWs change results in 64 excess single family units than what was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Environmental 4-npact Report. V) The Moller Property has 381 maximum} allowable single family densAy units per the Environmental Document, Figure 1.2 Extended Planning Area Land Use Men Dublin General Plan vo I I-A d it Extended PlannIng Area %&I.I Lwd, M= 01 Figure 6.1 Open Space Framework Figure 6.3 Environmental Constraints R-.�.,.: Add-d V M� 111 WY 1,:J F11- 11 1� d-,1 0,0edW-M 1,p-A-, G,aig rt,y-to d accurate ti. sp—N — J, Mdr C—k. 9rzd9 - & Uq- -1 L�A,F,zd V.Ynn Rd ek,q J, d- r,eN'ly Da— ig. »I2 -R1, 1 fv U v R—h T K F'wc, 6.1 Open Space Framework Leccntl rfrss Ul EASTERN DUBLIN Specific Plan Figure 6,3 Environmental Constraints 10 kJ EASTERN DUBLIN Specific Plan VV7 t'L-j F—e F!,:. rl.d 1-4; 10 kJ EASTERN DUBLIN Specific Plan VV7 Figure 9.1 Conceptual Backbone Water Distribution System `�1 1 � ze _ r 1 /. .. yam_; y \ �� r h / \ t 1rr Z ;y ] Tv-+ri xk kew n mC3c dneus +E�i Ia �oa1 u., or Truayrs Arser�b Figure 9.2 Conceptual Backbone Wastewater Collection System tj a, k IB' :<,s Sa..uFa, I roN W ✓teed 1 Is' W 3b' Ptsmatl 'J Ea- 1 / Iz• I- s 3a" 21• 22' IB' -- 11 r � Conceptual Backbone Water Distribution System FIgIPra 9.1 cf-3: 16' v+xM'Te sr?.F S)zmerm ®lA Rasx+ar Mitt' lLSPS<r w�S— •:.��. :e AalirJ�s Zw <JEarLac aa.® so�cr �eov�a3Ey Ttai aG�ceyG-al ka.'a Casvt�tr+a 'Ya�aEbkeaeJµrn s+> IP5A5] prc E ier SY.+�acsrrYen, r�� • i6 at'ad varvd W.- rrean yawn ticeerw sasJ„elra lae arey:�d xa, r. aeay�sa w.:w e�tem b bpl0.a'a :ad sxad 6w pis ry ba Frysr lFa�ra�adg; h P.�vdd>x eTP`aslse Ihal Ca P.w� e s eN�, nom, W osasn'. r-a aaa wra.d:v,a�.x.�E �- J�4—v.aeLuern L°" T�v swal. b a iw•nrrcWe3 [.� B ca!y.L=r modals yms Oa GC'-.- edpiaW �.raccr.�au.� amcgx.at s� -s:az EASTERN DUBLIN We¢laco Rabarts 4Tad4 Conceptual Backbone Wastewater Collection System Fig re 9.2 Leava: Sewer Llra x'fi ffa -,eSer l0' �a.� SP C CF`r -m EarC:ry TPh mr.^aR� +a1 s4+°'•f CahcYM sy=:emaw dwow.rz<E.+osaso p�ud wa,Ra„ry oo.s�aa yas. , x3h r'c`ittas9+sf 1e l�,aq cwanl p9poca3 Eas}en4�n s�a;FS plaa �.M sxs. h slnn:A is e�pheszed ltinf H rmQeYZ40ni nY1. ha.�h to DSii^-0s rttsM prorc+sod was:rnak+ Re bon ryseam Ya.a iaan ma'.9 tuq ars�dedd yz .ZSCCm mi hkf.�++ sAad Ajdaw-3lx mold srWyi CaG�amed Dix la �r+�1 LM Cat MUi ItB x�,ral alate�a >imadv!le�4 r_nslas -ls EASTERN DUBLIN Wallace nabaTts s Todd w sip ., ParaWS*3M ' q { r; 1 � J- 114 � 3 1',cycsee i F , 16• .. 12• ixl Psr�a Pr.,.z,. Zv+111 rc• ay. `�1 1 � ze _ r 1 /. .. yam_; y \ �� r h / \ t 1rr Z ;y ] Tv-+ri xk kew n mC3c dneus +E�i Ia �oa1 u., or Truayrs Arser�b Figure 9.2 Conceptual Backbone Wastewater Collection System tj a, k IB' :<,s Sa..uFa, I roN W ✓teed 1 Is' W 3b' Ptsmatl 'J Ea- 1 / Iz• I- s 3a" 21• 22' IB' -- 11 r � Conceptual Backbone Water Distribution System FIgIPra 9.1 cf-3: 16' v+xM'Te sr?.F S)zmerm ®lA Rasx+ar Mitt' lLSPS<r w�S— •:.��. :e AalirJ�s Zw <JEarLac aa.® so�cr �eov�a3Ey Ttai aG�ceyG-al ka.'a Casvt�tr+a 'Ya�aEbkeaeJµrn s+> IP5A5] prc E ier SY.+�acsrrYen, r�� • i6 at'ad varvd W.- rrean yawn ticeerw sasJ„elra lae arey:�d xa, r. aeay�sa w.:w e�tem b bpl0.a'a :ad sxad 6w pis ry ba Frysr lFa�ra�adg; h P.�vdd>x eTP`aslse Ihal Ca P.w� e s eN�, nom, W osasn'. r-a aaa wra.d:v,a�.x.�E �- J�4—v.aeLuern L°" T�v swal. b a iw•nrrcWe3 [.� B ca!y.L=r modals yms Oa GC'-.- edpiaW �.raccr.�au.� amcgx.at s� -s:az EASTERN DUBLIN We¢laco Rabarts 4Tad4 Conceptual Backbone Wastewater Collection System Fig re 9.2 Leava: Sewer Llra x'fi ffa -,eSer l0' �a.� SP C CF`r -m EarC:ry TPh mr.^aR� +a1 s4+°'•f CahcYM sy=:emaw dwow.rz<E.+osaso p�ud wa,Ra„ry oo.s�aa yas. , x3h r'c`ittas9+sf 1e l�,aq cwanl p9poca3 Eas}en4�n s�a;FS plaa �.M sxs. h slnn:A is e�pheszed ltinf H rmQeYZ40ni nY1. ha.�h to DSii^-0s rttsM prorc+sod was:rnak+ Re bon ryseam Ya.a iaan ma'.9 tuq ars�dedd yz .ZSCCm mi hkf.�++ sAad Ajdaw-3lx mold srWyi CaG�amed Dix la �r+�1 LM Cat MUi ItB x�,ral alate�a >imadv!le�4 r_nslas -ls EASTERN DUBLIN Wallace nabaTts s Todd w sip Figure 9.3 Conceptual Backbone Recycled Water Distribution System /� i, .f I ly t �f �� l�nJt ✓� � L"� 4 rJ ; tifl`s-�� 1'��� (('� ✓ r'� � 1�41 L �rnr`�-!�/ /`� Units #31 Richey /Moller Low Density Residential 79.6 4.8 du /ac 381 Rural Residential /Agriculture 136.8 .01 1 Neighborhood Park 1.1 Semi - Public 1.2 Open Space 7.5 Total 225.3 382 � ` r: IS• I6• e \ 26 asnsa 1 ��. vrsee.x «r�z.�ar � Conceptuat Backbone Recyoled Water Oistrlbul €on System su�a 9,3 12' F.acyde6Vis�sEma �9a.T.eu erna:ry- �row� [a-y�asdxs;cC.n�tui .�j�sa} Ole, Wn hm 0 0-M ba sue'asx, tl�al da cadd'saYss madY Fcz'ab OSR.'A'i recent F".q;txGt y kd ramd'u'buUm sires Fav Fcsn rrx4 LzH -ar�ed c�s'.nJiSfi •.e-M to i'� wlatram otv m'xetFal Sist°m Keu,eCyU3 k, Poo4lt EASTERN DUBLIN WaHaoe Roberts L Todd �YaHk p4 Appendix 4. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary by Land Owners Reolace Existing Section of table with below- Owner /Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units #31 Richey /Moller Low Density Residential 79.6 4.8 du /ac 381 Rural Residential /Agriculture 136.8 .01 1 Neighborhood Park 1.1 Semi - Public 1.2 Open Space 7.5 Total 225.3 382 12 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect thirty days after the date of adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2012 by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G :1PA #120111PLPA- 2011 -00003 Molter Ranch 8 &LTC Mtg 11.27,121CC Reso Moller GPA SPA 11.27.12.doc 13 Z � � �E \ \ \\ E -L 0 og 1�2 O C6 r I lu LL qJ ti z < < 2 z m LD ry) D Fz M 7i D. IF all' IMF Cy 1 1 1100 1 CC 7i D. ti d. O all' IMF ti d. all' IMF L 1 .S 3 a � •a 5 ° o a � 09y 9 T ao a n SAM SA'�9 'S�9a Alas N 5 -y SVKtr e All cv � a . c � c co b N � J U a a' E tT Of t °o �m _ 8 p�•�a a $� A 2.8 Y�yyyq m � 0 oQ �a Qa a L CO ti I N� 2 - L 1 11 O lilt- it" 1 1 M W its P I I :—.- �, i i n s yfl ga 5i g LY 7 t� l y W." EK HA! 1 1 ENNEMMY f. "I Ale lV tU z 2 CL 8 z LF 2 - L 1 11 O lilt- it" 1 1 M W its P I I :—.- �, i i n s yfl ga 5i g LY 7 t� l y W." EK HA! 1 1 ENNEMMY f. "I Ale lV tU z 2 ORDINANCE NO. XX - 12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MOLLER RANCH PROJECT (APNS 985 - 0001 - 001 -01 and 985 - 0001 - 001 -02) PLPA- 2011 -00003 The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS A. The current Planned Development zoning with a related Stage 1 Development Plan was adopted by Ordinance 09 -07. Ordinance 09 -07 is superseded by this Ordinance, which replaces the previously approved Stage 1 Development Plan and adopts a new Stage 2 Development Plan. SECTION 2: FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.120.050 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The proposed Planned Development rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for Moller Ranch (the "Property') will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in surrounding areas because: the proposed zoning amendments would allow residential development of the Property consistent with open space and hillside preservation intended for the Eastern Dublin Extended Planning Area and Foothill Residential area of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. 2. The Property is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the Planned Development Zoning District proposed because: 1) development will occur in the flatter areas of the site, leaving the surrounding hillsides in open space; 2) The Project will implement all applicable mitigations from the prior Environmental Impact Reports and the Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; and 3) the Development Plan will allow the construction of residential communities consistent with the density and character of nearby neighborhoods in the surrounding and adjacent area. 3. The proposed Planned Development rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Property will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because: 1) structures will be constructed and neighborhoods laid out in compliance with building and fire department safety regulations and codes; 2) development resulting from the proposed rezoning of the Property would be subject to development standards approved for Moller Ranch; and 3) development resulting from the proposed zoning amendments to the Property would be subject to ordinance requirements and conditions of approval designed to preserve public health, safety, and welfare. 4. The proposed Planned Development rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Property are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because: 1) the Property has been designated for the requested land uses under the companion General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments approved by Resolution on 2012; and 2) the requested zoning is consistent with this land use. B. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The proposed Planned Development rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Property meet the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 Planned Development Zoning District of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance because: 1) the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the companion General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments for residential development surrounded by open space areas; 2) the proposed project complies with Section 8.32.010 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance by coordinating future development of the Project site with similar existing residential development in neighboring areas. 2. Development under the Planned Development Plan will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area because: 1) the proposed zoning amendments to the Property are consistent with development of nearby residential communities along Tassajara Road; and 2) adequate hillside slope preservation, drainage, and bio- retention measures will be incorporated to prevent run -off onto adjacent and surrounding developments. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Project, including the PD- Planned Development rezoning, by Resolution on , 2012, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, the City of Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the Moller Ranch Property, as shown below, to the PD- Planned Development zoning district. A map of the rezoning area is shown below: 2 SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN. The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Project area which is hereby approved. This approval supersedes the Stage 1 Development Plan previously approved in Ord. 09 -07. Any amendments to the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. This Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan meets all the requirements for Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans set forth in Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. A separately bound document titled "Moller Ranch — General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development Rezone, Vesting Tentative Map" dated August, 2012, is incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A and is on file in the Dublin Community Development Department. 1. Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Accessory/Ancillary, and Temporary Uses: Permitted, conditional, accessory /ancillary, and temporary uses applicable to this property are shown below: 3 Proposed Uses: Permitted, Conditional and Accessory Uses PD-Single Family Residential Permitted Uses: Accessory structures and uses in accordance with Section 8.40.030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Animal keeping- residential Community care facility/striall (permitted if required by law, otherwise as conditional use) Garage/Yard sale Horne occupation in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Private recreation facility for homeowner's association Secondary Unit Single Family Dwelling Small family day care home Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Conditional Permitted Uses Ambulance Set-vice Bed and breakfast inn Boarding house Community Clubhouse Community facility Day care center Large family day care home Mobile horne/manUfactured horne park Parking lot — residential Plant nursery Serni-Public facilities Similar and related uses as detertnined by the CornuILInity Development Director Temporary Uses Please refer to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.108 for a list of permitted temporary uses and permit procedures. PD-Park Permitted Uses Community Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Square Recreational and educational facility Trail Soging area Similar and related uses as detertnined by the CornuILInity Development Director PD-Semi-Public Permitted Uses, including, but riot limited to: Community center/Clubhouse Community Theater 9 Cultural center Day care center Educatona|FadKities |ndwsimn^ry Housing Private School Recreational Facilities —public Religious institutions Senior Center Special needs prmgramfacilities Trail Staging area Trails and maintenance roads Youth Center Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Ancillary Use. Parking lot supporting a primary use PD-Open Space Permttted Uses: Conservation areas Drainage and Water Quality Ponds and Other Related Facilities Incidental and Accessory Structures and Uses Private or Public VmfrastrwCture Private recreation facility — passive andactive Resource Management Storm Water Detention Ponds and Other Related Facilities Trails and maintenance roads Trail Staging Area Wildlife habitat preservation area Similar and related uses as determined by the COMMUnIty Development Director. Ancillary Parking lot supporting a primary use PD-Rural Residential/Agriculture PemmhttedLsea: Agr|cmicura|AcceosoryUse — Offime Animal Keeping — Residential Drainage and Water QuaNty Ponds and Other, Related Facilities Mobile Home Private ur Public VmfrannrmCture Single Family Residence Small Family Day Care Storm Water Detention Ponds and Other Related Facilities Trails and Maintenance Roads 5 Trail Staging Area Ancillary Use: Parking lot supporting a primary use Conditionally Permitted Use: Agricultural HOLIShIg Agricultural Processing Animal Keeping —Agricultural Animal Keeping — Commercial Animal Sales and Set-vices gird Keeping — Commercial Caretaker Residence Crop Production Farm Mobile Home Horse Keeping Horse Stable/Riding Academy Plant Nursery Recreational Facility — Outdoor Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Temporary Uses Please refer to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.108 for a list of permitted temporary uses and permit procedures. 2. Site Plan, Site area and proposed densities- See diagram RR/A P sp RR/A RR/A RR/A MOLLER RANCH STAGE 11 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN N. 3. General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan consistency: The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan is consistent with the companion General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments approved by Resolution -12 , 2012 4. Development Regulations /Architectural Standards: Development Regulations shall be applied as follows: Minimum Lot Area 4,500 sf 5,000 sf 5,500 sf Minimum Lot Width 45 feet 50 feet 55 feet Minimum Street Frontage @cu l -de -sac /knuckles 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Street Frontage (flag lots) 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet Maximum Lot Coverage 55% 45% 45% Maximum Building Heightl5l 38 feet 38 feet 38 feet Maximum Stories 3 stories 3 stories 3 stories Minimum Building Separation Minimum Setbacks (2) - to living area - to porch - to courtvard - to front - Lacing garage, - to side -entry (swing -in Side - to living area - to porch - to courtyard Encroachments - to living area one -story elemenl two -story element - to one -story garage Usable Rear Yards 12 feet 10 feet 8 feet 18 feet n/a 0 or 4 feet 5 feet 0 15 feet 18 feet 3 feet 500 sf total flat area. Minimum dimension = 10 feet. Yard area of no less than 80 sf may be provided in multiple locations within a single lot, including courtvard areas. 12 feet 10 feet 8 feet 18 feet n/a 5 feet 5 feet 0 15 feet 20 feet 3 feet 750 sf total flat area. Minimum dimension = 10 feet. Yard area of no less than 150 sf may be provided in multiple locations within a single lot, including courtvard areas. 12 feet 10 feet 8 feet 18 feet 12 feet 5 feet 5 feet 0 15 feet 20 feet 5 feet 800 sf total flat area. Minimum dimension = 10 feet. Yard area of no less than 150 sf may be provided in multiple locations within a single lot, including courtvard areas. - to living area from side 9 feet 10 feet 10 feet - to living area from front 9 feet 10 feet 10 feet - to porch from front 8 feet 8 feet 8 feet - to porch from corner 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet - distance from living area perpendicular to site line 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet - distance from porch to site lineT 0 0 0 Accessory Structures (19) Parking - Per unit 2 spaces covered 2 spaces covered 2 spaces covered 7 - Guest space per unit 1 1 NOTES: [No less than] 90% of lots shall meet the 100' lot depth. It is understood that slight deviations of lot depth could occur at the time of the final map. See Neighborhood Key for Neighborhood Delineations. (2) Setbacks measured from property line. (3) See following pages for graphic depiction for typical front and sideyard setbacks of above standards. (4) Items such as, but not limited to air conditioning condensers, porches, chimneys, bay windows, retaining walls less than 4' in height, media centers, etc. may encroach 2' into the required setback of one side yard, provided a minimum of a 3' flat and level area is maintained for access around the house. Items such as, but not limited to air conditioning, condensers, porches, chimneys, bay windows, retaining walls less than 4 feet in height, media centers, etc. may encroach 2 feet into the required setback of one side yard provided that a minimum of 36 inches of flat and level area is maintained for access around the house. (5) Subject to Building Code requirements for access. (6) Building setback shall be subject to review and approval of the Building Official for building code and fire code compliance. Setback to building overhang may be a 3 -foot minimum or as required by current City building code standards. (7) Maximum height of a front yard courtyard wall shall be 30" maximum (solid wall) or 42" maximum (transparent/fence) (8) The third floor must be stepped back from front and rear elevation to reduce building mass. (9) Three car garages and swing in garages are prohibited on lots less than 55' wide. (10) Retaining walls up to 4 feet high may be used to create a usable level area. Retaining walls in excess of 4 feet to create usable area are subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director. Retaining walls over 30 inches in height are subject to safety criteria as determined by the Building Official. Where a minimum S' HOA parcel lies between a lot and an adjacent street, the lot is not considered a corner lot and interior lot setback standards shall apply. (12) At cul -de -sac bulbs, knuckles and similar conditions where lot depths are less than the standard depth, minimum rear yard setback requirements may be reduced by an amount equal to the min. lot depth minus the actual depth of the lot (i.e.: 100'- 90' =10'). In no case will the rear yard setback be reduced to less than 10'. (13) Curbside parking may be counted toward required number of guest spaces. 2 covered side -by -side spots shall be provided. 3rd car tandem spaces may not be utilized to meet the parking requirement, except for second unit parking requirement. (14) A Second Dwelling Unit is permitted in neighborhoods of lots 5,000 square feet or greater only. No more than one (1) second dwelling unit is permitted per lot and requires one additional off- street parking space; tandem or uncovered space would be permitted. (15) Second Dwelling Unit Coverage: The principal residence and a second dwelling unit combined shall not exceed the maximum lot coverage. (16) Driveway apron shall be centered on the garage door. In instances where 3 -car front on garages are utilized the driveway apron shall be centered on the entire front on garage plane. (17) Homes on corner lots to include enhanced side and rear elevations facing the street. Refer to Enhanced Lots Key for Locations. (18) Lots with visible side and rear elevations that can be seen from off -site shall incorporation enhancement. Refer to Enhanced Lots Key for Locations. (19) Accessory Structure Setbacks will follow the City Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 8.40: Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations. (20) A low wall (30" or less) may encroach into the site line area. No solid structure above 30" shall be allowed; porch columns excluded. (21) One story elements to include covered porches, loggia, etc. Second story decks on patios will be considered a 2 story element. (22) Courtyard wall to return to side yard fence or front plane of main residential structure. (23) At least 60% of the originally constructed plans will have a second story that recesses at least five feet for 20% of the front facade. (24) Single story architectural projections may meet the 10' front setback. (25) At rear elevations, there shall be a minimum 5 -foot horizontal or vertical offset in the plan. M. 6. Phasing Plan. Three neighborhoods shall be constructed in five phases as shown: 7. Master /Preliminary Landscape Plan. [See Exhibit A, Landscape Guidelines, Sheets 1- 60] m 8. Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Development of the Project Site is subject to the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. All subdivision maps and Site Development Reviews are subject to compliance with applicable inclusionary requirements as a condition of approval. 9. Development Concept and Architectural Guidelines. [See Exhibit B, Architectural Guidelines, Sheets 1 -33] The neighborhood layout is shown below: 10. Access & Circulation. Primary access to the project will be taken from a T- intersection at Tassajara Road where a main access road follows the terrain of the natural drainage area. The residential neighborhoods will be accessed via internal loop roads connecting to the main road. 11. PD Zoning /Land Use Summary. The following table provides the acreage per land use designation and unit count by residential product type. PD ZONING /LAND USE SUMMARY TABLE FOR Moller Ranch PLPA- 2011 -00003 Zoning /Land Use Acres Units Single - Family Residential (.09 to 6.0 units per 79.6 0 -478* acre) Rural Residential /Agriculture 136.8 1 (1 unit per 100 acres) Medium Density Residential 0 0 10 (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre) Open Space /Stream Corridor 7.6 Neighborhood Park 1.1 Semi - Public 1.2 Total(') 226.3 479 "5LIK studied only 382 units. Vesting 1 entative Map includes only 3/U units 12. Public Facilities. Public Facilities shall be provided in accordance with any subsequent Site Development Review specific to this Project Site. SECTION 5. Other Zoning Regulations. Pursuant to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, section 8.32.060.C, the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Project area shall be governed by the provisions of the closest comparable zoning district as determined by the Community Development Director and of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance except as provided in the Stage 1 /Stage 2 Development Plan. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 18th day of December 2012, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:1PAM20MPLPA- 2011 -00003 Moller Ranch B&LtPC Mtg 11.27.12CC Ord Moller PD Stage 1 and 2.doc 11 6 STAGE I & II SEPTEMBER 2012 A BRADDOf K n LOGAN HOMES L GATES +ASSOCIATES I Community Developers Braddock and Logan Properties Architecture William Hezmalhalch Architects Landscape Architects Gates + Associates Civil Engineers MacKay & Somps TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ILLUSTRATIVE DESIGN 7 STREETSCAPE m ENTRIES AND THEMATIC ELEMENTS 24 TRAILS & OPEN SPACE 30 WALL & FENCING 38 LANDSCAPE SYSTEM 44 SITE ELEMENTS 53 APPENDIX 59 TABLE OF CONTENTS MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES 2 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES INTRODUCTION VISION The Braddock & Logan Properties at Moller Ranch envisions a premier residential haven nestled within the hills of the City of Dublin. This charming, tranquil community, surrounded by hundreds of acres of Regional Parkland is linked to Tassajara Road and the greater Dublin community via a meandering creekside road. The character of the entry road has been carefully conceived as an experiential transition, "deep breath" as residents come home to Moller Ranch. The character of the community is rooted in the history and natural features of the setting. As a reflection of California's agrarian and ranch heritage, remnant vineyards, olive groves, dry stack stone walls and farmstead artifacts will be used throughout the community to provide a historic farmstead legacy. The goal is to create the ambiance of new communities built around the relics of historic use. The guidelines in this document are conceptual, and are intended to guide the fulfillment of the vision. KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS • Gateway entry signage will be understated, relying on thematic features and landscape elements to define the project entry. The entry will feature an old stone pumphouse adjacent to a seasonal pond, terraced vineyards and "dry stack" stone walls. • The streetscape system shall unite the community through a legible hierarchy, while respecting the natural setting. • The creekside trail open space system will be developed as a series of meadows and vista points ultimately linking with the park and East Bay Regional Park District staging area. • Integrated into the trail and open space system shall be a sequence of interpretive art elements which provide opportunities to learn about the surrounding environment. • The fencing and wall system maximizes views, defines neighborhoods, and reinforces the farmstead legacy character. • Management of open space and maintenance of common areas will be an integral component of the landscape system. INTRODUCTION 3 4 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN �dl�oan�ua� �F 0o V v o Z m m v F �s i IVA 0 z m J IL LU 0 in o J H J 0 °2 �o a oN z 3 a J J 9 0 z 0 V z w J 0 F rt 0 s c� z c� w 0 V Qz d w J J 0 F STREETSCAPE PLAN DESIGN CONCEPT MAIN ENTRY ROAD AT ENTRY GATEWAY MAIN ENTRY ROAD AT CREEK CROSSING NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS STREETSCAPE PLAN 1 LEGEND Main Entry Road • Median • Parkway / Sidewalk on north side • Pedestrian trail on south side Neighborhood Entry Road • Parkway / Sidewalks both sides Neighborhood Spine Road • Parkway / Sidewalks both sides 10 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES Neighborhood Street • Monolithic sidewalk both sides Neighborhood Street at Open Space • Monolithic sidewalk south side • No sidewalk north side adjacent to open space Neighborhood Street at Park • Monolithic sidewalk north side • Sidewalk location on south side to be determined by Parks Department DESIGN CONCEPT The road hierarchy is designed to legibilize the structure of the community while simultaneously supporting the rural, farmstead character. MAIN ENTRY ROAD A gently curving road flanked by hillside on the north and creek corridor to the south leads into the community. This road connects to the three smaller neighborhoods, a public park and EBRPD staging area. NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY ROAD As the road continues into the development toward the heart of the residential community it maintains a rural ambiance with open space, hillsides, bio- cells, and agrarian artifacts on either side. NEIGHBORHOOD SPINE ROAD The neighborhood spine road dissects the main neighborhood and serves as the collector for the neighborhood streets. NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS There are three neighborhood street conditions in the development • residences on both sides of sthe street • residences on one side, open space on the other • residences on one side, park on the other STREETSCAPE PLAN STREETSCAPE II MAIN ENTRY ROAD AT ENTRY GATEWAY "Dry Stack" Stone Walls & Boulder Rubble Roses and Bold Foliage Enhanced Paving Evergreen Accent Trees Project Entry Structure 11-1 ; Evergreen Accent Trees Columnar Trees / Windrow Grapes Flowering 5' Parkway Separated Trees -�Aa1k ' �A4 "Dry Stack" Stone Wall & Boulder Rubble Grapes Trailhead w/ Interpretive Element 0 45 90 180ft F"-. s �V Bioswale A � .. CREEK Tall Grasses in Bio -Cell Basin Riparian / Open Space Trees 10' Pedestrian Trail Hydro Modification Basin/ Seasonal Pond The Main Entry Road establishes the agrarian character of Moller Ranch with an iconic stone building, informal drifts of Olive trees, roses tumbling over "dry stack" walls, boulder rubble, rows of grapes, and a windrow of columnar trees. To maintain the rural ambiance, much of the road has been divided into two grade- separated travel lanes with a tilted median containing small flowering trees. The sidewalk on the north is separated by a landscaped parkway while to the south a pedestrian trail meanders between a seasonal pond, bio -cell basin, and creek corridor bringing a riparian character to the street edge. The design of this area is meant to reflect the relationship between the farmer and the land. For more detail on the entry gateway design see the Entries and Thematic Elements Chapter. 12 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES Entry Gateway Elevation • 2 - 20' travel lanes • 10' median with flowering trees • 5' parkway with windrow trees & 5' sidewalk, north side • 10' pedestrian trail with open space trees, south side a 1. LOCATION MAP 1 MAIN ENTRY ROAD AT ENTRY GATEWAY Grapes Evergreen Windrow Flowering Tree Open Space Riparian Trees Accent Tree Tree Bioswale Planting Tall Grasses 3:1 Slope L5'L5'L 20' � 10' � 20' Sidewalk Travel Median Lane Lane Parkway (dro Modification Basin / Seasonal Pond SECTION A -A 10' � Creek Corridor iestrian Trail 0 10 20 40ft Entry Gateway Elevation Enlargement: North Side STREETSCAPE 13 MAIN ENTRY ROAD AT CREEK CROSSING Evergreen Accent Trees Open Space /Riparian Trees Evergreen Screen Trees Grapes Large Canopy Street Trees _ -% ro r Stone Wall / Boulder Rubble Evergreen Accent Trees Flowering Trees . , • Enhanced Paving Open Space / t PUBLIC NEIGHBORHOOD. Riparian Trees PARK% -' 5' Parkway B , E� Separated Sidewalk A TrailPdestrian A R Ali" 0 45 90 180ft 1 As the entry road nears the interface with homes, grade separated lanes and flowering trees in the median continue. In the north parkway large canopy street trees are used to shade and enclose the street while evergreen screen trees on an upslope buffer homes yet retain views beyond to the creek. On the south side the pedestrian trail continues along the creek corridor and is separated from the road by clusters of open space trees and grassy meadows. At the bend in the road the creek disappears into a culvert under the street and daylights at the public neighborhood park. At this creek crossing a decorative head wall houses the culvert and an ornamental railing provides a pedestrian lookout down the riparian corridor. 14 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES /Culvert Culvert & Decorative Headwall / 5' Monolithic Sidewalk — Stone Wall / Boulder Rubble Open Space /Riparian Trees Open space /riparian trees, grapes, low stone walls, and boulder rubble accent intersections and special open space areas. • Two 20' travel lanes • 10' median with flowering trees • 5' parkway with large canopy street trees and 5' sidewalk, north side • 10' pedestrian trail with open space trees transitioning to 5' monolithic sidewalk, south ,;A- Theme Wall 0 10 20 40ft Evergreen Screen Tree Open Space Riparian Decorative Railing— Decorative Headwall Culvert Crossing 0 10 20 40ft MAIN ENTRY ROAD AT CREEK CROSSING Large Canopy Shade Tree Flowering Tree SECTION B -B SECTION A -A Open Space Riparian Trees t, L,reeK k- OF-HUOV STREETSCAPE 15 NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY ROAD Open Space /Riparian Trees Bio -Cell Basin—, 5' Parkway Separated Sideway � + Large Canopy Street Trees Open Space /Riparian Trees p 1 Stone Wall / Boulder Rubble Grapes I —L 0 45 90 180ft 1 Evergreen Accent Trees After the road crosses the creek it continues through open space deeper into the community and is enclosed by large canopy trees with pedestrian circulation accommodated by separated sidewalks on both sides of the street. Gaps in the street tree pattern provide views of vines climbing up the hillside, willow lined bio- cell basins, and farmstead artifacts. The theme of stone walls, boulder rubble, and accent trees repeats as neighborhood entries are approached. 16 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES 5' Parkway Separated Sidewalk Bio -Cell Basin Stone Wall Windmill Enhanced Paving Theme Wall with Monoliths Evergreen Accent Trees T FNeighborhood Entry • Two 18' travel lanes • 5' parkway with large canopy street trees & 5' sidewalk, both sides NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY ROAD Evergreen Large Canopy Shade Tree Open Space Trees Accent Tree Stone Theme Wall Wall Stone Wall Grapes Residence Landscape L5151 36' L5151 Landscape Buffer Bio -Cell Basin Buffer 2 Travel Lanes Sidewalk 3:1 Slope 0 10 20 40ft Sidewalk Parkway Parkway SECTION A -A STREETSCAPE 17 NEIGHBORHOOD SPINE ROAD f: Flowering Trees �. A Columnar Trees /Windrow Connection to Open Sp 0 45 90 180ft It Stucco Wall with Stone Monument Low Stone Wall / Boulder Rubble The neighborhood spine road climbs up the grade dissecting the heart of the primary neighborhood and terminates at a bio -cell basin and trail connection. Flowering trees in the parkway strip create an inviting pedestrian ambiance for the neighborhoods while columnar windrow trees behind the sidewalk buffer the views of the adjacent homes from the road. • Two 18' travel lanes • 5' parkway with flowering trees & 5' sidewalk, both sides • Columnar windrow trees at back of walk, both sides 18 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES Open Space Trees Detention Basin Open Space Trail Evergreen Screen Tree Theme Wall —\ NEIGHBORHOOD SPINE ROAD SECTION A -A Open Space Trees —\ LLandscape Buffer Sidewalk 12' AccessTrai I Street 5' 5' P Varies P 30' P Open Space. Bio -Cell Basin EVAE / 3:1 Slope Sidewalk Planting Area Maintenance Access SECTION B -B 0 7.5 15 30ft l .w'dd STREETSCAPE 19 NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS i r Within the neighborhoods the streets are reduced to a residential scale with monolithic sidewalks and deciduous trees within a landscape easement. The following are the three neighborhood street conditions: Neighborhood Streets: • 2 - 18' travel lanes • 5' monolithic sidewalks, both sides • Deciduous trees in 8' landscape easement (6' from back of walk), both sides 20 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES LEGEND Neighborhood Street � Neighborhood Street at Park Neighborhood Street at Open Space Neighborhood Streets at Park: • 2 - 18' travel lanes • 5' monolithic sidewalks, both sides • Deciduous trees in 8' landscape easement (6' from back of walk), one side Neighborhood Streets at Open Space: • 2 - 14' travel lanes • 5' monolithic sidewalks, south side • No sidewalk, north side • Deciduous trees in 8' landscape easement (6' from back of walk), one side Frontyards Deciduous Tr NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS '. . T .. ��" � . 6' L L5'L 5' 6' Bulbout Bulbout 8' 5' 36' 5' 8' PUE 2 Travel Lanes alk) L Sidewalk Neighborhood Street Location to be det��m ��a by Parks Department Frontyards Deciduous Tree I SFr= 6' 8' 5' 36' 5' Park by others 11 11 PUE 2 Travel Lanes Sidewalk Sidewalk Neighborhood Street @ Park � Open Space Tree Deciduous Tree Frontyard Earth Swale Planting r 6' Open Space 28' 51 8' 3:1 Slope 2 Travel Lanes PUE Sidewalk Neighborhood Street @ Open Space 0 7.5 15 30ft STREETSCAPE 21 22 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES 1041 =[el:I: ; I ollgi I:[ OX4 lillOnsimkiazwo VINEYARD TREATMENT ENTRY LOCATION PLAN I 1 The entry gateway establishes the tranquil essence of Moller Ranch. A series of neighborhood entries along the primary road distinguish the separate sub - neighborhoods within the overall community.The farmstead legacy is interwoven into the community fabric with the unique treatment of each entry. The entry to the public park will also be highlighted with an entry feature. 24 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES The entry gateway introduces the farmstead legacy of Moller Ranch. On the south side of the entrance, an iconic stone building has been designed to reference a pump house or any one of the numerous old stone buildings that might have been a part of an old farmstead. The building is framed by a low stone wall crumbling into rubble as it has aged and been overtaken by rambling roses. It is nestled into a grove of mature olive trees with rows of grapes along one side. An ornamental iron blade sign bearing the Moller Ranch logo is attached to the building at a height which prevents vandalism. The north side of the entrance is highlighted with a series of tiered stone walls with boulder outcrops, spilling roses, and ornamental planting. The terraced planting areas are home to mature olive trees and rows of grapes. The ranch logo or name shall be etched in concrete and embedded r +4 ENTRY GATEWAY into the wall. The design intent is to communicate an understated elegance and sense of retreat. The entrance should invoke a special sense of place that stands apart from other subdivisions. J* 1`2-116 Entry Gateway - South Side Entry Gateway - North Side ENTRIES & THEMATIC ELEMENTS 25 LOW STONEWALL & BOULDER RUBBLE LEGEND - Thematic Stone Wall / Boulder Rubble Q Monumentation The thematic low stone walls will be designed to look as if built b the farmer as he cleared his land. The will have a dry stacked . Y Y Y appearance occasionally crumbling into rubble. r t, .• 1k i-.7 W An .. • a'15i� 26 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY Stucco Q. (Z+- -- \A/,11 ...; *k Stone Mor Low Stone Wall Stone Monolith Stucco Wall Boulder Rubble !\ ., J 5 30 60ft' 1 There are seven neighborhood entries sited along the various segments of the primary road. Each entry is unique incorporating elements of the farmstead Iegacy.The goal at these entries is to highlight each sub- neighborhood.A design vocabulary of low stone walls, stone monolith, decorative lighting, and street signage will be adapted to integrate with the garden and side yard dark- painted stucco wall at each location. Bold foliage such as carpet rose shall further complement the entries. ENTRIES & THEMATIC ELEMENTS 27 1 VINEYARD TREATMENT The vineyards are strategically located throughout the development as remnants of a previous farmstead. A trellis system for the vines will be designed to mimic historic character. 28 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES & OPEN SPACE PLAN AI LH EAD AT PARK TRAILS PUBLIC ART & INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE TRAILS & OPEN SPACE PLAN 1 The open space system at Moller Ranch is comprised of a riparian corridor, rolling hillside with native grass, and special landscape areas designed to reflect the farmstead theme.The continuous interface between the primary road and the open space system is a fundamental part of the rural character of Moller Ranch.The trail system is designed to enhance the interaction and appreciation of the natural open space system. 30 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES Regional Trailhead / Staging Area Park by Others 10' Pedestrian Trail 12' Access Trail Common Area Landscapes Trailhead ff MIMI 10' Pedestrian Trail: A public pedestrian and bicycle trail will be located along the northern edge of the creek IinkingTassajara Road to the city park and ultimately the EBRPD staging area and regional open space system. A sequence of interpretive art elements will be coordinated with the trail design creating seating nodes at key vista points. The trail will have an all weather surface. 12' Access Trail The EVA /maintance access bench created at the interface between the homes and the upslope hillsides will also be used to provide a pedestrian trail for the homeowners.The trail surface will be compacted gravel which can support maintance and EVA vehicles.The native grasses along this corridor will be abated to create a 50' wide fire buffer. A hardened timber view fence will separate the trail from the adjacent backyards. TRAILS Open Space Riparian Trees 10' Pedestrian Trail 10' PEDESTRIAN TRAIL PL Hardened Timber Fence 3:1 Slope 4' 12' Gravel L 6' L 6' Access Trail I Earthol Swale 30' EVAE / Maintenance Easement 50' Fire Buffer Zone 0 5 10 20ft 12' ACCESS TRAIL TRAILS & OPEN SPACE SYSTEM 31 REGIONALTRAILHEAD/ STAGING AREA 0 10 20 40ft REGIONAL TRAI LH EAD /STAGING AREA A public staging area and trail head will be created as a part of the Moller Ranch community to provide access to the extensive regional open space system.The staging area will be designed to East Bay Regional Park standards and ultimately be maintained by the Park District.The staging area will include a restroom, information kiosk and picnic area.The staging area is adjacent to the area which will be dedicated to the city for a park. The thematic low stone wall and an interpretive public art element will also be part of the staging area designed to integrate with the Moller Ranch community.The landscape in the staging area will be designed to provide shade for the parking area and users.The plant palette will emphasize the use of native, low maintenance water conserving plant materials. 32 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES PG &E Access Restroom Interpretive Art Element Park Access Picnic Area Low WalI _� I LOCATION MAP Street Trees Open Space Trees 0 15 30 60ft h 5 _ Trailhead at Cul -de -Sac TRAILHEAD AT CUL DE SACS TRAILHEADAT CUL DE SACS Pedestrian entries to the I Twide access trail are found at the end of cul- de- sacs.These entry points are highlighted by the use of the thematic low stone wall parallel to the sidewalk. A low ornamental iron fence connects the stone wall to the lot fences to clearly separate the trail area from the individual front yards. A removable bollard will allow EVA and maintance access at these locations. — Low Wall at Cu de Sacs — Ornamental Iron View Fence View Fencing at Open Space Access Trai I Bollard r*:1C * 4 Low Wall at Cut de Sacs Ornamental Iron View Fence View Fence at Open Space TRAILS & OPEN SPACE SYSTEM 33 PUBLIC ART AND INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE OPPORTUNITIES r —�J The linear trail along the creek and the East Bay Regional Park District staging area, would be developed with a sequence of six to eight public art elements. This approach provides an opportunity to integrate public art, educational displays, and the natural setting. The public art pieces shall each be a part of a total story specific to the setting. The pieces should be designed to heighten an understanding of the setting. Themes for the "story" might include an explanation of: • Native riparian vegetation • Indigenous wild life • Ranch history These themes could be explored abstractly; such as the 8' tall skeletal structure of a Native Maple, leafs scattered across a meadow; human scale enlarged sculptures of bird beaks timely shaped 34 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES I N LEGEND Public Art and Interpretive Signage into food sources; or an abstract explanation of the forms of barb -wire and fence posts essential to ranching. Interpretive signage would be provided with each art piece. Each art element or piece of the "story" would be integrated into the design of the landscape and the trail system. The art element adjacent to Tassajara Road should be designed to intrigue the passing motorists. The art element at the staging area should inspire viewers to explore further into the open space. The art elements located at the intermediate vista points along the creek corridor should be situated to allow viewers to linger and enjoy the setting. PUBLIC ART AND INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE CHARACTER IMAGES _ Y ' r .,s od TRAILS & OPEN SPACE SYSTEM 35 36 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES �bmlm E IQ4ClNC, .I — - & FENCING PLAN STONE WALLS WOOD FENCING FENCING AT CUL -DE -SAC VIEW FENCING AT OPEN SPACE WALL & FENCING PLAN The wall and fencing system for Moller ranch was designed to minimize the visual impact of the fences and walls.To this end where the fences and walls are required they are designed to be semi transparent, as well as screened by landscaping or designed to be part of the Farmstead theme. 38 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES LEGEND Low Stone Wal l Theme Wall View Fence View Fencing @ Open Space i Low Wall / Fencing @ Cul -de -Sac 40 Wildfire Management Lots Subject to 2010 C.B.C. Chap. 7A Notes: 1.) All other fences will be 6'h wood privacy fences. 2.) Lots with a shall have fencing material adhering to the Fire Marshal's requirement for "Fire Hardened /Heavy Timber." LOW STONEWALLS These elements are used in key visual locations to continue the Farmstead theme from the entry gateway to terminus at the upper bio- cell.The wall system is integrated into the design of the storm water treatment to transform the character of these facilities to resemble abandoned springs and cattle ponds as features of the farmstead. THEMEWALL Where the side yards of the individual homes along the primary road system, a tall stucco wall will be provided. The wall will be painted a dark beige and buffered by landscaping to obscure views of the wall from the road. At the intersections this wall will transition into ornamental stone wall with monuments to define the sub neighborhood entries VIEW FENCE Where the open space abuts the individual yards a view fence will be provided. In the areas where this fence is visible from the primary road it shall be a 6' tall black ornamental iron fence. An optional art fence may be incorporated at high visibility areas if determined to be in compliance with a public art requirement. WALL & FENCING Low Stone Wall View Fence Option Optional Art Fence - to be determined as part of public art compliance Theme Wall WALL & FENCING 39 WALL & FENCING Fence at Open Space 1 . k rya•' Low Stone Wall at Cul de Sac Ornamental Fence of Cul de Sac � FENCEAT OPEN SPACE Where the view fence is not visible from the primary road, a 6' tall wire mesh fence framed with hardened timber, per the fire department requirements, will be used WALL/ FENCE AT CUL DE SACS The low theme wall will be used at the end of cul -de -sac when it interfaces with the 12'wide access trail. An ornamental iron fence will extend from the low wall to the side yard fence to separate the private front yard from the trail area. 40 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES Low Stone Wall at Cul de Sacs Ornamental Iron - View Fence Open Space L' Fence A C L L 0 15 30 60ft Fencing at Cut -de -Sac GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE The good neighbor fence occurs between lots. The design will be a 6' tall vertical board wood fence with cap and fascia board. Wood posts shall be a minimum of 8' o.c. Fence will be setback a minimum of 5' from front facade. Where fence is adjacent to street a minimum of 3' landscape buffer will be provided between walkway and fence. LATTICE FENCE The lattice fence will be used parallel to the front of the home and where sideyards abut a residential street. Similar to the good neighbor fence, 18" of top panel vertical lattice will be integrated into the overall height of 6'. CORNER LOT FENCING On corner lots a combination of 6' and 4.5' lattice top fence will be used with the 6' fence running 25% of the length of the home starting at the back corner of the house. The 4.5' lattice top fence will be used along the remaining length of the fence run. 6' lattice top fence to cover 1/4 of side house length — Optional 4.5' lat- tice top fence to provide additional coverage; distance varies according to = specific house plan Sideyard Fencing at Corners Elevation x WOOD FENCING r-2 x 6 cap I x 8 fence DoaroS 4 x 4 fence posts Good Neighbor Fence 1 ' - 6' 1.5" x 1.5" railer 6' yards � n � 1c11� I.,JStS Lattice Top Fence 6' Lattice top fence C X � f I i i 4.5' Lattice top fence 6' Lattice top fence i Sideyard Fencing at Corners Diagram WALL & FENCING 41 42 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES PLANT PALETTE STREET TREE PLAN r� I 1 DESIGN CONCEPT In addition to supporting the agrarian theme of Moller Ranch street trees are used to accent entries, form strong street edges, provide privacy screening, and emphasize open space. 44 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES 00�P Open Space / Riparian Trees Windrow Trees — — Evergreen Screen Trees C- -00 Evergreen Accent Trees Large canopy street trees frame the edges of the main entry road and the neighborhood entry road. As the main entry road transitions from the entry experience to the neighborhood and creek interface, large canopy street trees line the north edge of the road forming a strong row, which complements the informal nature of the open space trees along the riparian corridor on the opposite side of the street. As the road passes the smaller neighborhoods near the front of the development and enters the stretch toward the large neighborhood the large street trees march down both sides of the street forming a solid shade canopy. The following are large canopy street tree options: • Celtis sinensis • Quercus shumardii • Quercus virginiana • Ulmus parvifolia Large Canopy Street Tree Rower LARGE CANOPYTREES Celtis sinensis Chinese Hackberry x Quercus shumardii Pin Oak Southern Live Oak Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm LANDSCAPE SYSTEM 45 FLOWERING TREES Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud Chitalpa tashkentensis ncn Small flowering trees will add a sweet charm to the ambience of the community starting in the median at the project entry and continuing to the creek crossing. After the creek crossing the median disappears. Inside the heart of the primary neighborhood the flowering trees re- emerge along the edges of the neighborhood spine road in the parkway strips. The following are flowering tree options: • Cercis canadensis • Chitalpa tashkentensis • Crataegus phaenophyrum Crataegus phoenophyrum Hawthorn Flowering Trees in Project Entry Median 46 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES OPEN SPACE / RIPARIAN TREES Open space and riparian trees are interlaced throughout the site reinforcing a balance between nature and development. A palette of Oaks, Sycamores,Willows, Alders, and Maples will be used at the seasonal pond, bio -cell basins, trailheads, and open space areas. The following are open space /riparian tree options: • Acer macrophyllum • Alnus rhombifolia • Cercis occidentalis • Quercus agrifolia • Quercus lobata • Platanus racemosa • Salix laevigata • Salix lasiolepis Cercis occidentalis OOCP Western Redbud Salix lasiolepis 0" Arroyo Willow Acer macrophyllum 10,000 Big Leaf Maple Alnus rhombifolia 00CP White Alder Quercus agrifolia 00�p Coast Live Oak Quercus lobata 00UD Valley Oak Platanus racemoso 00CP California Sycamore LANDSCAPE SYSTEM 47 WINDROWTREES Carpinus betula `Fastigiata' European Hackberry Quercus robur `Fastigiata' ncn Zelkova serrato 'Musashino' Columnar Zelkova Windrows, a historically important agrarian component, serve accent and screening functions at Moller. They march down the parkway on the north side of the entry road accenting the edge between the hillside and the street. They also provide screening along the neighborhood spine road to mitigate grade differences between lots. The following are windrow tree options: • Carpinus betula `Fastigiata' • Quercus robur `Fastigiata' • Zelkova serrato `Musashino' 48 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES EVERGREEN SCREEN TREES Evergreen screen trees shall be small to medium trees which soften the interface between residences and the main entry road. Located at the top of the slope on the north side they will screen homes and simulaneously maintain views to the riparian creek corridor on the south side. The following are evergreen screen tree options: • Arbutus marina • Geijera parvifolia • Laurus nobilis `Saratoga' Arbutus marina — — ncn Geijera parvifolia — — Australian Willow Laurus nobilis `Saratoga' — — Grecian Laurel LANDSCAPE SYSTEM 49 EVERGREEN ACCENT TREES k Evergreen trees will be used to accent entries and special feature locations. The preferred evergreen accent species is fruitless Olive Trees which will be prominently featured at the project entry amonst the tiered stone walls and the stone pump house. They will also be used to accent neighborhood entries in combination with stone walls, a .. monuments, and boulder outcrops. Olea europeae 00� 0 Olive Evergreen Trees Accent Entries OD' U and Special Features 50 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES LANDSCAPE SYSTEM 51 PAVING LIGHTING SIGNAGE LANDSCAPE ACCESSORIES ENHANCED PAVING i - =i1 To enhance the roadway vehicular pavers will be added at key locations throughout the site including the entry gateway, the creek crossing, and at the approach to the heart of the residential community. Concrete pavers made to look like stone in mottled gray and beige tones will tie into the stonework, which is the backbone of the agraian theme. Pavers shall be designed to meet ICPI guidelines for vehicular strength and the recommended manufacturer is Calstone, or similar. =s _rtr • tJE' i Calstone Pavers SITE ELEMENTS 53 Lighting, an important safety component of the site also presents design opportunities which contribute to the rural community character. The following categories of lighting will be woven throughout the site: STREET LIGHTING Along the Main Entry Road, the Neighborhood Entry Road, and the Neighborhood Spine Road decorative single head lights will march up the street with double head lights puncuating intersections and/ or special locations. The Lumec Hexagonal series, or similar to, is recommended with hardware included for banners. TRAIL LIGHTING The pedestrian trail which stretches from the entry gateway to the public neighborhood park, and ultimately the East Bay Regional Trailhead should include lighting for safety and aesthetic reasons. The lighting style at the trail shall match the style of the street lighting but at a smaller pedestrian scale. FEATURE LIGHTING Lighting can add a dramatic impact to the elegant architectural features throughout the site including signage, the iconic stone building, walls & monoliths, and art elements. Such lighting shall be coordinated in the detailed design phase of each element. 54 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES LIGHTING Single Head Lumec Light from Hexagonal Series Double Head Lumec Light from Hexagonal Series with Banners SIGNAGE Concrete Panel Embedded in Stone Wall Sign Envelope Concrete Panel Embedded in Stone Monolith Lettering Etched in Concrete 6' min. Landscape Easement H f -. r Q Potential Neighborhood Entry - Monolith Signage Integrated signage is a key component of Moller Ranch project identification. At this preliminary project phase sign envelopes are provided within which final logos and names will be placed later in the design process. At the north side of the entry gateway a concrete panel sign will be embedded into the tiered stone wall with etched lettering to prevent removal. It is intended to be bold enough to be seen from Tassajara Road and yet understated and elegant. Project signage will be more subtle on the south side of the entry gateway with a wrought iron blade sign attached to the iconic stone building. The sign will be the project logo and be attached high enough to avoid removal. 8' min. : {. Entry Gateway, North Side - Wall Signage Q Entry Gateway, South Side - Iconic Building There is also opportunity to establish unique sub - neighborhood identity by etching neighborhood names into concrete signs embedded in stone monoliths at neighborhood entries. O — . I LOCATION MAP SITE ELEMENTS 55 LANDSCAPE ACCESSORIES Landscape accessories will be woven throughout the site referencing historic agrarian uses. Furnishings could be made to look as if they are artifacts that the farmer left behind and could include decorative iron work incorporated into site architecture, a windmill at one of the "seasonal ponds," or an old stone sun dial. In addition to these decorative elements seating and bollards will be provided along the pedestrian trail. Benches and bollard style shall be classic similar to those shown below to fit in with the simple elegance of Moller Ranch. Informal seating such as cut stone can also be sprinkled along the trail to provide rest opportunities. i I; 56 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES SITE ELEMENTS 57 UTILITY BOX SCREENING P.G. &E. Pad Mounted PMH -4 Pad Size: 60.5" x 49" Cabinet Size: 43 "w x 57 "d x 63 "h P.G. &E Pad Mounted PMH -9 Pad Size: 80.5" x 88" Cabinet Size: 82 "w x 77 "d x 67 "h Utility Box Screening Plan • Adapt grading to minimize the use of retaining walls. If retaining walls are required limit height to 30" and construct with tan mansonry block walls. • Blend visually into setting with the use of landscaping while maintaining required clearances. Existing Screened Utility Box Salerno Drive, Positano Development r Existing Screened Utility Positano Parkway, Positano Development APPENDIX 59 60 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES MOLLER RANCH DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Stage II August 17, 2012 2 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES TABLE OF CONTENTS ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA... S PURPOSE & INTENT ....................... S ARCHITECTURAL MASSING ............. 6 Building Form and Massing ................6 CornerLot Homes ..............................6 RoofForms ............ ..............................7 Rear and Side Enhanced Lots ............ 7 Simple Building Concept ...................8 Porches................... ..............................8 Entries................... ..............................8 Balconies and Decks ...........................9 FrontCourtyards . ..............................9 PLOTTING ...... ..............................9 Garage Placement & Treatments... 10 Vary Garage Placement ............................ 10 Swing -In Garage Requirements .............. 10 Three -Car Garage Requirements........... 10 Garage DoorAppearance ........................ I I Driveways............ ............................... ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS ............ 12 Four -Sided Architectural Treatments 12 Colors and Materials ......................... 12 Colors: ............................................................ 12 Materials: ..................................................... 12 Doors and Windows ......................... 13 Mechanical Equipment .................... 13 Exterior Architectural Lighting ...... 14 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES .... IS MOLLER RANCH STYLE SELECTION IS CRAFTSMAN . ............................... 16 EUROPEAN COTTAGE ................... 18 FARMHOUSE . ............................... 20 MEDITERRANEAN ......................... 22 MONTEREY ... ............................... 24 RANCH........ ............................... 26 SPANISH ECLECTIC ...................... 28 TRADITIONAL ............................... 30 TUSCAN ....... ............................... 32 ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA 3 4 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA PURPOSE & INTENT These architectural Guidelines provide design direction to future home builders to create high quality living environments. These Guidelines are intended to be flexible and are, therefore, illustrative in nature. As a flexible document, the Guidelines can, over time accommodate changes in lifestyles, consumer preferences, economic conditions, community desires, and the market place. Guidelines that utilize the term "shall" are required and are to be applied as the preferred implementation mechanism. Guidelines that use the word "should" are discretionary and alternative measures may be considered if those measures meet or exceed the intent of the Guidelines. These Guidelines not intended to be overly restrictive or limiting, but to help achieve neighborhoods with a higher level of living quality. The following architectural criteria have been created to develop architecture that reflects quality in design, simplicity in form, and contributes to the charm and appeal of Moller Ranch neighborhoods. ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA 5 ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA ARCHITECTURAL MASSING Variations in appearance and a sense of individuality for each home are important. Neighborhoods that have nearly identical homes and streets without variation in product placement and form will not be approved in the City's Site Development Review. Building Form and Massing Building form and massing variety are encouraged to provide diversity and visual interest to the neighborhood street scene. In no case shall the second floor be allowed to completely cover the first floor without providing a single story element or massing relief detailed elsewhere in these Guidelines. The following techniques are required when designing front, sides and rear elevations of residential structures: • Articulation of wall planes • Projections and recesses to provide shadow and depth • Combinations of one- and two -story forms • Porches and courtyards I 1 ® One -Story Elements /Massing Example of Varied Building Mass Along o Streetscene To be historically accurate, certain styles dictate a more boxlike solution. Styles such as European Cottage, Mediterranean, Monterey and Tuscan will permit a more boxlike exterior massing. Even though, in these instances, the box -like form is permitted, it is not the desired dominant form to be built at Moller Ranch. • At least 60% of the plans will have a second story that recesses at least five feet for 20% of the front facade. • At rear elevations, there shall be a minimum 5 -foot horizontal or vertical offset in the plan. Corner Lot Homes Articulation of single - family corner lot homes is important for creating attractive neighborhoods and street scenes. On the visible side elevation facing a street, provide a significant single -story element and enhanced architectural features including materials, trim, grids on windows, or shutters reflecting the front elevation. The single story element could be an entry porch or window 6 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES Corner Lot Home Example ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA bays with distinctive roofs. (Other architectural articulation including bump outs of second floor space, change of roof plane, or change in building plane to create visual interest and shade and shadow elements could be substituted for the single -story element.) Additional enhanced articulation or materials is required including: • Entry door oriented to the side street • Wrap around porch • Decorative elements such as window treatment • Pot shelves Roof Forms Rows of homes seen from a distance or along major roads are perceived by their contrast against the ridgeline or background. The dominant impact is the shape of the building and roof line. • Vary building mass to minimize the visual impact of similar building silhouettes and similar ridge heights by using a variety of front -to- rear, side -to -side, gables and hipped roofs, and /or by the introduction of a one -story element as well as side and rear enhancements where homes can be seen from off -site and adjacent roadways. Corner Lot Home Example Varied Roof Form Example Tw $1WY WM Ow $'my Ewraw Twa Stm other Co00 Two 9;Im Fkpn GaM iwo SWY lurch Gom Two Stwv FfW W Back r� 31rpY MSG hm Sim NIA Go** Varied Roof Examples • Avoid "saw- toothed" silhouettes by separating gable ends so they are not located adjacent to each other. • Additional architectural features at the second story such as trim, grids on windows, or shutters are encouraged. These features shall reflect the front elevation. • Additional articulation, where visible, is encouraged including "eyebrow roofs," pot shelves, patio covers, bay windows, etc. Rear and Side Enhanced Lots Please see the Enhanced Lots Key in the Site Development Standards section for specific lots that require enhanced architectural features including materials, trim, grid on windows, gable detail, or shutters reflecting elements found on the front elevation. Roof Line Variation ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA 7 ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA Simple Building Concept The "Simple Building" concept suggests that simple forms and building masses combined with appropriate roof forms and pitches, create a more authentic expression of an architectural style. Enhanced style- appropriate detail elements on simply- massed buildings engender more pure statements of distinctive style character. This design approach allows for a more compositional approach to the street scene as a set of clean forms with expressive style details. Secondarily, thoughtful application of the simple building concept can reduce construction waste and conserve construction materials by allowing the implementation of site appropriate advanced framing techniques. • Use simple forms that are appropriate to the intended style when designing floor plans. • Add secondary forms to break up massing, add visual interest, and convey style. • Consider using the 24 -inch module to maximize the efficient use of framing materials. • Use detail elements to provide articulation and convey style. • Refer to development standards for massing requirements. Porches Porches are encouraged to add architectural interest and functionality to the front of a residential structure. They help add depth to a buildingfa�ade, break- up large wall masses and provide a pedestrian - friendly scale and opportunity for social interaction. The design of the porch shall be consistent with the architectural style. • Front porches should be designed to be usable with a minimum depth of six feet. Entries The entry of single - family dwellings shall be articulated as a focal point of the building's front elevation. Entries are encouraged to be covered or recessed in order to create a welcoming appearance, promote individuality, and increase privacy. Residences with front doors that are not visible from the street are encouraged to provide a trellis, portal element, or similar architectural feature to provide articulation and sense of arrival. 8 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES d............ .......N Simple Massing Example Porch Example Entry Example ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA Balconies and Decks Balconies, decks, and exterior stairs should be designed as integral components of the structure and should reflect the style of the home. Front Courtyards The Mediterranean, Tuscan and Spanish Eclectic styles lend themselves to the use of front courtyards to promote social interaction but maintain defensible space. A 30 -inch high maximum solid courtyard wall and 42 -inch high maximum transparent fence are permitted provided there is eight -foot minimum setback from the front property line and a seven -foot minimum setback from the corner street side property line to allow for landscape and public utilities. A 30 -inch high maximum transparent fence is permitted to encroach in the front setback provided there is a minimum landscape area of two feet adjacent to the sidewalk The courtyard wall shall be of masonry construction with a finish material to match the architectural style, i.e. stucco, stone, etc. PLOTTING A range of dwelling unit sizes, floor plans, elevations, and unit sizes, shall be provided within Moller Ranch neighborhoods. It is encouraged to plot garages to garages and living space to living space to undulate the street pattern and improve opportunities for on- street parking where grades permit. The following table identifies the minimum plotting requirements: PLOTTING REQUIREMENTS 0 -75 3 4 3 6 76 -130 4 5 4 8 131+ 5 6 5 10 1. A floor plan shall not be used consecutively more than two times in a row whether reversed or not. 2. Each plan is required to have 3 styles. Neighborhoods shall have the minimum styles shown. 3. No two adjacent homes using the same elevation style shall have the same exterior color scheme. See Color and Materials section for color scheme requirements. 4. See Garage Placements & Treatments for garage door type requirements. Courtyard Wall Examples 30 -Inch High Transparent Fence Example ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA 9 ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA Garage Placement & Treatments The home and front yard, rather than the garage, should be the primary emphasis of the front elevation. Architectural elements such as front porches, living space and front courtyards provide interest to the street scene. Garages should be offset from the living area facade a minimum of 5' feet. In instances where the living area and garage plane are at similar front setbacks, a front porch or garden wall /courtyard that extend beyond the garage plane by 5' minimum shall be provided. Vary Garage Placement At leasttwo types ofgarage placements shall be provided for each neighborhood plan type: • Shallow Recessed • Swing -in Garage • Garage Forward Garage forward placement shall be used primarily on corners and no more than 25% of the remaining interior plans. Swing -In Garage Requirements Swing -in garages are only permitted on lots 55 feet wide or greater. A swing - in garage shall have a minimum back -up area of 28 feet. Three -Car Garage Requirements Three -car garages are only permitted on lots 55 feet wide or greater. When a 3 -car front - facing garage is used, the following is required: • Provide a minimum offset of 2.5' feet between double garage and single garage doors. • Driveways within a minimum of 18' feet of the front property line shall include score lines, texturing, or landscape areas separating driveways. • Driveway curb cut shall be limited to maximum 19' feet wide (city standard). • One on- street parking space shall be provided except on corner lots and in cul -de -sacs. • No more than 35% of the plans shall have a three -car front facing garage. 10 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES L Swing -in Garage Minimum Back -up Area Single and Double Door Offset and Driveway Landscape Example ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA Garage DoorAppearance The garage door pattern, windows and /or color should vary as appropriate to individual architectural styles. At least six different garage door styles shall be provided in each neighborhood (see Plotting Matrix). The same garage door style with a window is considered a separate style from a garage door without a window. No fake windows permitted. • Garage doors shall be multi - paneled to provide shadowed relief. The design shall be kept simple and consistent with the architectural style. • All garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of six inches behind the garage wall plane. • It is encouraged that no more than two adjacent homes use the same pattern. Driveways Driveway curb cuts shall be limited to 16 feet in width (exclusive of taper) except as provided under three -car requirements above. Where grades permit, the driveway shall be centered on the garage door. Garage Door Examples With and Without Windows ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA I I ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS Four -Sided Architectural Treatments Four -sided architectural treatments shall be applied to all homes visible from public streets. Four -sided architecture is defined as using elements from the front elevation on the visible side or rear elevation. These elements can include: • Window treatments • Materials • Colors • Bay Windows • Decks /porches Particular consideration should be given to the treatment of second stories and roof elements, as these are the elements most visible to public view. Colors and Materials Colors and building materials play an important role enhancing each neighborhood and the community in general. To further the goal of diversity, the following criteria shall be met: Colors: • Provide minimum number of color schemes per style as described in the Plotting Matrix. • Individual color schemes shall be appropriate to the architectural style. The use of additional colors for accents is encouraged. • All sides (front, top, bottom and sides) of any accent foam detail shall be painted the same color. Materials: • The materials and finishes shall be authentic to the architectural style. Careful detail shall be taken at the intersections of different materials to avoid awkward transitions. • Roof colors and materials shall be appropriate to style. The use of different roof colors and materials for each style is encouraged. • Front elevation design and materials shall wrap around the side elevations and inside corners to an appropriate transition point. • Certain materials such as stone and brick have distinct coloring in their natural state and shall be thought of as an element of the color palette to be incorporated into the overall design. 12 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES All Sides of an Accent Foam Detail Painted the Same Color Materials Shall Wrap to an Appropriate Transition Point Materials Shall Wrap to an Appropriate Transition Point ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA • Materials such as stone, brick, wood, etc. shall not be applied as a veneer but shall finish at a logical stopping point such as an inside corner or side yard fence. If an architectural feature is used (see example) the material shall wrap the architectural element an not terminate mid - feature. • Detail elements such as shutters, exposed rafter ends, cross beams, decorative grille work, decorative stucco, clay pipe vents, decorative ceramic tile, and /or other similar features shall be used to provide visual interest to the residence, consistent with its architectural style. • Building details such as flashing, pipes, and metal vents shall either be detailed as an enhancement or painted to match the adjacent building or roof surface so as to virtually disappear. When gutters and downspouts are used as an architectural enhancement, they may contrast in an appropriate, historically referenced color or finish. • No lace stucco applications are permitted. • Screed lines shall follow the adjacent earth in accordance with the California Building Code. Front porch columns shall not "float" above a porch but shall be built to the minimum allowable distance by the Building Code. Faces of front porches shall be finished to match the structure. Doors and Windows Window details differentiate architectural styles and can provide a high level of architectural enrichment. The selection and proportion of the windows to the facade shall be responsive to the architectural style of the building. Size and shape shall be considered to assure a balanced relationship with the surrounding roof and walls. Accent shutters are a way to further enhance the architecture and shall be proportionate to the window opening. In general, windows shall enhance rather than dominate the overall architectural character. • Windows with simulated divided lights and clear glazing are most desirable. • All second -story windows on visible elevations shall be architecturally enhanced with window trims and grids that match the front elevations of the structure. • No aluminum windows shall be used unless they provide a banding a minimum of four inches. Materials Wrap Architectural Elements Entirely Stucco Lace Finish Application Not Permitted Stucco Sand Finish Application Permitted Mop=" 0 no no a Visible Second Story Window Example ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA 13 ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA Mechanical Equipment Mechanical equipment such as air conditioners, heaters, evaporative coolers, and other such devices shall not be mounted on any roof and must be located behind privacy walls or landscape and shall allow a minimum 36 -inch clear dimension between equipment and property line /retaining wall (see development standards). Exterior Architectural Lighting Light fixture selection shall be compatible with the architectural character of the building. • All exterior lighting shall be unobtrusive and designed to avoid glare or spillover onto neighboring homes. • All fixtures shall direct illumination downward. • Security lighting, where necessary, shall be hooded, recessed, or located in such a manner it only illuminates the intended area. • House numbers shall be lighted. 14 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES Exterior Lighting Matches Architectural Style ARCHITECTURAL STYLES On the following pages, each architectural style is defined by elements as suggested Minimum Standards that are typical characteristics of that style. Suggested Elements are those elements that help to further define the character of each style. At least two of the Suggested Elements are required. These style elements apply only to front and publicly visible side and rear elevations. The photographs are intended to illustrate some of the typical characteristics of each style and are not intended as inflexible requirement or standards. MOLLER RANCH STYLE SELECTION The design character of the neighborhoods will be one of continuity, individuality and compatibility. These concepts bring about neighborhood designs that "feel right" and are embraced by those who live and work in the community. Residential architecture within Moller Ranch is intended to include a variety of complementary architectural styles selected from the following palette. Please refer to the Plotting Matrix for the required number of styles. • Craftsman • European Cottage • Farmhouse • Mediterranean • Monterey • Ranch • Spanish Eclectic • Traditional • Tuscan ARCHITECTURAL STYLES 15 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES CRAFTSMAN Influenced by the English Arts and Crafts movement of the late 19th century and stylized by California architects such as Bernard Maybeck in Berkeley and the Greene brothers in Pasadena, the Craftsman style stresses the importance of insuring that all exterior and interior elements receive both tasteful and artful attention. Originating in California, Craftsman architecture relies on the simple house tradition, combining shallower, gently sloping hip and gable roof forms with wide, livable porches and broad overhanging eaves. Extensive built -in elements define this style, treating details such as windows and porches as if they were furniture. The horizontal nature is emphasized by exposed rafter tails and knee braces below broad overhanging eaves and rustic - textured building materials. The overall effect was the creation of a natural, warm and livable home of artful and expressive character. Divergences in expression of Craftsman designs were obvious between Northern and Southern California and slight changes in elements can still lend homes completely different characters. Substantial, tapered porch columns with stone piers lend a Greene character while simpler double posts on square brick piers and larger knee braces make a Craftsman distinctly more Maybeck. 16 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES Example of the Craftsman Style CRAFTSMAN STYLE CRITERIA MATRIX • Main gable roof • 3'/2:12 to 4:12 roof pitch • 18" minimum overhang at eaves • 12" to 18" overhangs at rakes • Flat concrete tile or high definition asphalt shingles with a minimum warranty of 40 years • Shaped outlookers • Stucco: 16/20 finish • Gable end treatment to include lap siding, shingles OR board and batt • Grid patterned upper half • Trim around front and visible windows • No shutters ARCHITECTURAL STYLES • Exposed rafter tails • Intersecting gable element • Broader overhangs • Lap or shingle siding • Stone • Windows ganged in combinations of 3 or more • Entry porches with heavy, square OR tapered columns OR Stone accents, particularly at porch piers posts on piers Knee braces at outlookers • Garage door with Craftsman style windows F p� Craftsman Style Details ARCHITECTURAL STYLES 17 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES EUROPEAN COTTAGE The European Cottage style is a picturesque style derived from medieval Norman and Tudor domestic architecture. The resulting English and French inspired "cottage" became extremely popular nationwide after the adoption of stone and brick veneer techniques in the 1920s & 1930s. The overall shapes and forms contain endless variations of one- and two -story asymmetrical facades. Some of the most recognizable features of this style are the stucco, wood or half timber accents in the gable end and the sculptured swooping walls at the front elevation. 'Iwo 18 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES Example of the European Cottage Style EUROPEAN COTTAGE STYLE CRITERIA MATRIX • Main hip or gable roof with at least one intersecting forward gable or hip roof • 5.12 to 12:12 roof pitch except min. T/2:12 at I -story roofs- Tight to 6" overhangs at rakes- • 6" to 12" overhangs at eaves • Flat concrete tile • Stucco: 16/20 finish ARCHITECTURAL STYLES • Swoop roof over entry- Gable treatment including siding, attic vent, or half timber etc. • Stone accents on front elevation • Grid patterned at front and visible windows Bay windows- Trim around front and visible windows- Recessed windows- Plank shutters at accent windows- Wood shelves at window sills • Front porch with wood -like or stucco columns Covered entry • Braces at wood -like columns- • Round top arch at entry- Wood or wrought iron balconies j4popop"_ European Cottage Style Details ARCHITECTURAL STYLES 19 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES FARMHOUSE Farmhouse architecture has been a part of our cultural fabric for centuries, and examples of this style have dotted our landscape since settlers began expanding West. Variable adaptations of this style are plentiful, and the variety of architectural expressions of Farmhouse vocabulary has expanded exponentially. Predominant features of this style include porches with wood columns and railings. Two -story asymmetrical massing is typical of the Midwest farmhouse. The amount of detail on the Farmhouse varies widely, with some structures exhibiting Victorian details in the gables, porches, window and door trims, steeper pitched roofs, and exterior siding. Conversely, the "Folk" adaptation tends to be less concerned with elaborate detail but rather, focusses on simple, honest and unadorned design, expressing simple massing, well- proportioned windows and doors, steeper roofs, and exteriors of stucco, siding or both. Although still expressed as a wood framed structure, its beauty is in its simplicity and the artful architectural balance it provides. Example of the Farmhouse Style 20 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES FARMHOUSE STYLE CRITERIA MATRIX u� ARCHITECTURAL STYLES Standing seam metal roof • Wood siding • Soffit materials to match columns /post • Spindlework trim at porch headers • Divided lites in top half of window • Vertically proportioned Bay window • Built up header trim at front windows • Single hung windows at front Full width front porch Filigree details per style choice Shutters Rectilinear gable vents Knee braces Cupolas Dormers Farmhouse Style Details ARCHITECTURAL STYLES 21 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES MEDITERRANEAN In the 1860s, Mediterranean, or the Italian Villa, was one of the fashionable architectural styles in the United States based on the formal and symmetrical palaces of the Italian Renaissance. Mediterranean homes are straightforward and boxy, with only window crowns and cornice moldings as ornamentation. This old world prototype was refined, adapted and embellished into a truly eclectic classic style. The shallow pitched hipped roof often with decorative brackets identifies this style. As it became a popular building material, cast iron expanded the Italian style vocabulary to include a variety of embellished designs for porches, balconies, railings, and fences. } Example of the Italian Villa Style 22 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES MEDITERRANEAN STYLE CRITERIA MATRIX • Main hip roof with hip ancillary roofs • 3'/2:12 to 5:12 roof pitch • 12" to 18" overhangs at eaves, • "S" concrete tile • Stucco: 16/20 finish • Grid patterned at front and visible windows • Trim around front and visible windows • Paneled or louvered shutters on accent window • Formal entry with surrounds ARCHITECTURAL STYLES • I -story shed • Closed /shaped eave with corbels • Clay tile • Stucco: 30/30 • Round arch top accent windows • Symmetrically ordered and stacked windows and openings • Recessed windows • Decorative shutter hardware • Belt course • Tile accents • Decorative metal elements • Arched doors • Arched windows • Simulated precast window surrounds • Simulated precast columns at entry or between windows • Plank or carriage style garage door L- Italian Villa Style Details ARCHITECTURAL STYLES 23 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES MONTEREY Influenced by both the Spanish Colonial and New England Colonial homes, historical Monterey features Spanish detailing while maintaining the Colonial style form. With its stucco or masonry walls, "S" or flat concrete shake roofs, this style exhibits many of the same elements as an historical Spanish home: simple building form and mass, rusticated corbels, head trim, posts or balconies (if used), and gable roof forms. Interpretations of this style maintain a simple elegance. Later prototypes added many refinements and colonial details that are familiar in the Spanish styles. Though usually thought to be fully adorned with porches, second floor balconies and verandas, many successful, historical adaptations of this style avoided these details and focused simply on careful massing, detail, and the natural beauty inspired through its blend of rich Spanish and Colonial heritage. F Example of the Monterey Style 24 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES MONTEREY STYLE CRITERIA MATRIX • 3'/2:12 to 4:12 roof pitches • 18" to 24" overhangs at eaves • Tight to 12" overhangs at rakes • Flat or "S" concrete tile ARCHITECTURAL STYLES • Exposed rafter tails • Rusticated brick on first floor • Slump block on first floor • Stucco: 16/20 finish or heavier Sack finishes • Board and batt at upper level • Horizontal siding at upper level • Recessed windows and shutters • Shutters on feature windows • Windows with divided lites • Vertically proportioned window configurations • Decorative shutter hardware • Simple columns with base trim • Shaped wood corbels • Head and sill trim with I of the following materials: • Proportional stucco - wrapped, high density foam trim, 20/30 stucco finish OR • Re -sawn wood trim OR • Simulated wood trim with re -sawn wood texture • Spanish- inspired lighting • Appropriately styled door and hardware • Cantilevered or supported balcony • Metal balcony railing • Complementary hardware trim • Arched doors • Plank or carriage style garage door 7 Monterey Style Details ARCHITECTURAL STYLES 25 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES RANCH Single- and two -story ranch houses are indigenous to California. Many of them are direct descendents from Spanish types with additional inspiration from Yankee influences introducing New England elements into the designs. The one -story ranch house predominated in southern California in the early 19th century and has continued to evolve since then. Within the social and physical structure of the old Ranchos, the ranch house component was exemplified historically as living quarters for the workers. Later, as life within the Ranchos changed, the ranch house became the "primary" living quarters, and thus evolved based on its owners needs and wealth. The Ranch style can be identified with an open design, the appearance of "post and beam" construction, balanced with the strength and permanence of solid plaster wall elements that anchor such things as porches with open framing and wood posts, verandas, arbors, and trellises — a rich mix of materials and textures. This is a style that can truly take on the label of "built over time," and really mean it. Example of the Ranch Style 26 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES RANCH STYLE CRITERIA MATRIX `Minimum Standards • Main gable roofs with exposed rafter tails • 18" to 24" overhang at eaves and rakes • 3'/2:12 to 5:12 roof pitches • Exposed rafter tails • Flat concrete tile or high definition asphalt shingles with a minimum warranty of 40 years • Stucco: 16/20 finish or heavier • Re -sawn wood -like siding accents • Horizontal or vertical proportion • Shaped wood corbels • Head and sill trim shall consist of one of the following materials and be of proper proportion: • Proportional stucco - wrapped, high density foam trim, 20/30 stucco finish OR • Re -sawn wood trim OR • Simulated wood trim with re -sawn wood texture • Front porches with no rails OR ow- walled entry courtyards with hardscape paving • Simple columns with base trim ARCHITECTURAL STYLES • Standing seam metal roof accents • Fiberboard siding • Board and batt or groove joint - no lap siding • Brick, refined or rusticated • Slump block, sack finish optional • Window mullions • Rustic light fixtures • Balconies - cantilevered or supported with posts • Decorative metal at post to beam connection • Plank style garage door r. tk . f" r,, Ranch Style Details ARCHITECTURAL STYLES 27 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES SPANISH ECLECTIC Spanish Eclectic is an adaptation of Mission Revival enriched with additional Latin American details and elements. The style attained widespread popularity throughout the country after its use in the Panama - California Exposition of 1915. Architectural distinction is established through the use of tile roofs, smooth stucco walls, heavily textured wooden doors and highly articulated ornamental ironwork. The plans can be informally organized around a courtyard with the front elevation very simply articulated and detailed. The charm of this style lies in the directness, adaptability and contrast of materials and textures. Example of the Spanish Eclectic Style 28 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES SPANISH ECLECTIC STYLE CRITERIA MATRIX ARCHITECTURAL STYLES • Main gable roof (front to back)- • T/2:12 to 5:12 roof pitch • Tight to 12" overhangs at rake s Cross gable at front • 8" to 12" overhangs at eaves, • Shaped, stucco eaves or rafter tails • Low profile "S" concrete or clay tile • Stucco: 16/20 finish or heavier • Grid patterned- Trim at non - recessed windows front and visible windows Arched windows at front elevation- Plank shutters on accent windows- Recessed windows Decorative gable treatment • Front porch with wood -like or stucco columns- • Decorative metal grille work OR Corbels at wood -like columns • Half or full round vents Decorative metal pot shelf, balcony railing, etc • Round top arched openings- Spanish Eclectic Style Details ARCHITECTURAL STYLES 29 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES TRADITIONAL The Traditional style evolved in the early twentieth century influenced by American Colonial styles as formal as Georgian Revival and those as simple and functional as Cape Cod, New England Colonial, and Farmhouse. The Traditional vocabulary of white - painted columns, clapboards and shuttered windows were combined with the symmetrical, unpretentious massing and functional forms of the Cape Cod and Farmhouse. Combined one- and two - story massing with single story wings, gabled roofs with dormered windows, or occasional saltbox roof forms became classic forms of this traditional style. When introduced to Southern California, the wood siding was replaced with stucco for exterior cladding and instead used as an accent. Example of the Traditional Style 30 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES ARCHITECTURAL STYLES TRADITIONAL STYLE CRITERIA MATRIX • 5:12 to 10:12 roof pitch Cornice at gables except min. T/2:12 at I -story roofs • Gable treatment to include lap siding or • 12" to 18" overhangs at eaves board and b • 6" to 18" overhang at rakes • Cross gables s at front • Flat concrete tile or high definition asphalt shingles with • Roof dormers a minimum warranty of 40 years • Stucco: 16/20 finish • Grid patterned at front and visible windows • Trim around front and visible windows • Shutter at accent windows • Covered or recessed entry • Lap siding or board and batt • Brick accents at front elevation especially as a wainscot • Paneled or louvered shutters at accent windows • Bay windows • Decorative shutter hardware • Porches with square built -up wood -like columns and railing Traditional Style Details ARCHITECTURAL STYLES 31 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES TUSCAN The Tuscan style draws its inspiration from the informality of the rural farmhouse and settlement building types of traditional villages in Tuscany, including their traditional square towers. Built by their owners with the indigenous materials and colors of the surroundings, these buildings blend into the natural environment. With landscape seen as an extension of the indoor living space, courtyards and gardens were common features of these country villas. The style is characterized by a low- pitched irregular roof line, which may be punctuated by a tower or campanile. Shutters tend to be painted deep colors. The exterior walls tend to be stucco with warm and sometimes colorful earth tones with stone or adobe accents Example of the Tuscan Style 32 MOLLER RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES TUSCAN STYLE CRITERIA MATRIX P• Main hip roof with gable ancillary roofs • T/2:12 to 5:12 roof pitch Tight to 18" overhangs at eaves • Tight to 12" overhangs at rakes • "S" concrete tile • Stucco: 16/20 finish • Stone or brick accent at front elevation ARCHITECTURAL STYLES • Secondary shed or gable roofs over I -story elements • Shaped rafter tails • Clay tile • Large expanses of stone or brick veneer from base of wall to roof overhang • Grid patterned at front and visible windows Pre -cast or simulated pre -cast window trim • Trim around front and visible windows Recessed windows • Paneled shutters at accent windows Decorative shutter hardware • Decorative metal elements • Arch or flat soffit above entry • Tower element • Covered entry • Plank or carriage style garage door Tuscan Style Details ARCHITECTURAL STYLES 33 RESOLUTION NO. 12- 45 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8102 FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS MOLLER RANCH (APNs 985 - 0001 -001, 985 - 0001 - 001 -02) PLPA- 2011 -00003 WHEREAS, the Applicant Braddock and Logan Services ( "Applicant ") submitted applications for Moller Ranch, ( "Project Site "); and WHEREAS, the applications include: 1) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to change land use designations; 2) Planned Development Zoning Amendment with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; 3) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8102; and 4) Development Agreement for a residential development of 370 single family units; and WHEREAS, the Project Site and applications collectively define this "Project" and are available for review in the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, Moller Ranch is located north of the intersection of Fallon Road and Tassajara Road, east of Tassajara Road, and adjacent to the Alameda County /Contra Costa County line; and WHEREAS, the Project site generally is vacant land except for two residences and some existing farm buildings and most recently has been used for cattle grazing; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended that the City Council certify a Supplemental EIR, adopt General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for the project as stated above, adopt Planned Development (PD) Zoning Amendment with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, and approve a Development Agreement (Resolutions 12 -47, 12 -43, 12 -44 and 12 -46, respectively, which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8102; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on November 27, 2012, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use independent judgment and considered the Supplemental EIR and prior EIRs, all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth prior to taking any action on the Project; and WHEREAS, in 2007 a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2005052146), was certified by the City Council on May 1, 2007 by Resolution No. 56 -07 (incorporated herein by reference) which addressed potential environmental impacts resulting from a plan proposed for Moller Ranch and the adjacent 12.5 -acre Tipper property ( "Moller /Casamira Valley SEIR "); and WHEREAS, a second Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "Moller Ranch SEIR ") (SCH #2005052146) has been prepared for the Moller Ranch Project currently proposed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Casamira Valley SEIR identified significant unavoidable impacts, some of which would apply to the Project. Therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2012, the Planning Commission approved a Resolution recommending that the city council certify the Moller Ranch SEIR. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8102: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8102 A. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8102 is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances addressing the Project Site in that the subdivision meets or is conditioned to meet all applicable development regulations. B. The design and improvements of the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8102 is consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, to allow Single - Family Residential, Semi - Public, Open Space /Stream Corridor, Neighborhood Park and Rural Residential /Agriculture uses, and is consistent with nearby residential neighborhoods designated for this type of development. C. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8102 is consistent with the Planned Development zoning approved for the Project through Ordinance -12, and therefore consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. D. The lots created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8102 will have adequate access to major constructed or planned improvements as part of the Moller Ranch project - related improvements and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. E. Project design, architecture, landscape and concept design have been integrated with topography of the project site created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8102 to minimize overgrading and extensive use of retaining walls. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed. F. The Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring programs adopted with the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Casamira Valley SEIR and the Project Supplemental EIR are applicable as appropriate for addressing or mitigating any potential environmental impacts of developing the Project and Project Site, as documented in the Supplemental EIR. 2 G. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8102 will not result in environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause public health concerns. H. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The City Engineer has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting easements of this nature. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8102 for Moller Ranch for 370 residential lots prepared by MacKay & Somps Engineers, Planners & Surveyors dated August 2012 and included as Exhibit A to this Resolution and located in the project binder in the Section titled: Vesting Tentative Tract Map, subject to the Conditions included below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments /agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. FPL.1 Planning, FB1 Building, FP01 Police, FPWI Public Works FP &CS1 Parks & Community Services, FADMI Administration /City Attorney, FFIN1 Finance, FF1 Alameda County Fire Department, FDSRI Dublin San Ramon Services District, FCO1 Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, FZ71 Zone 7. NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: PLANNING DIVISION 1. Approval. This Vesting Tentative Tract Map approval PL Ongoing Standard is for the subdivision of 370 residential lots, plus other lots generally as shown on the map prepared by MacKay & Somps dated received August 31, 2012 on file in the Community Development Department, and as specified by the following Conditions of Approval for this project. This approval is further subject to City Council certification of the project Supplemental EIR, and approval of the companion General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, and Planned Development Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan becoming effective. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map is further subject to compliance with all applicable Mitigation Measures of the Moller Ranch Supplemental EIR and the prior EIRs referenced therein. 2. Time Extension. The tentative map approval shall be PL Two years Standard valid for an initial period consistent with the following Subdivision Map Act and Dublin Municipal Code. The approval date subdivider may request an extension of approval prior I I (per Subdv. 3 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: to expiration, as further provided in Municipal Code Map Act) section 9.08.120. All time extension requests shall be considered at a noticed public hearing . 3. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Issuance of Standard Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable Building Permit Alameda County Fire, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Department of Health Services requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. 4. Modifications: The Community Develo9pment Director and /or the Public Works Director may consider modifications or changes to these Conditions of Approval if the modifications or changes proposed comly with the applicable Sections of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 5. Clean up. The Applicant/Developer shall be PL Ongoing Standard responsible for clean -up and disposal of project related trash and for maintaining a clean, litter -free site. 6. Controlling Activities. The Applicant /Developer PO, PL Ongoing Standard shall control all activities on the project site so as not to create a nuisance to the surrounding residences. 7. Noise /Nuisances. No loudspeakers or amplified PO, PL Ongoing Standard music shall be permitted to project or be placed outside of the residential buildings during construction. 8. Accessory Structures. The use of any accessory PL, B, F Ongoing Standard structures, such as storage sheds or trailer /container units used for storage or for any other purpose during construction, shall not be allowed on the site at any time unless a Temporary Use Permit is applied for and approved. 9. Site Development Review: This project is subject to PL Issuance of Project Chapter 8.104 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code, Site building permit Specific Development Review for any structures to be constructed on site. NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency When Required, Prior to: Source 10. Fees. The Applicant/Developer shall pay all PW Zone 7 and Standard applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit Parkland In- issuance including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Lieu Fees Due Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District Prior to Filing fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School Each Final District School Impact fees, Public Works Traffic Map; Other Impact fees, City of Dublin Fire Services fees, Noise Fees Required Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In -Lieu fees, with Issuance Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation of Building District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees, Permits and any other fees either in effect at the time and /or as noted in the Development Agreement. 11. Final landscape plans, irrigation system plans for PL Issuance of Standard backbone infrastructure and any common area permits for site landscape including bioswales, tree preservation improvements techniques, and guarantees, shall be reviewed and approved by the Dublin Planning Division prior to the issuance of the permit for site improvements. All such submittals shall insure: a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of healthy growth within the given range of soil and climate. b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and density so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years from the time of planting. c. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, at least 75% of the proposed trees on the site are a minimum of 15 gallons in size, and at least 50% of the proposed shrubs on the Homeowners Association parcels are a minimum of 5 gallons in size. d. That a plan for an automatic irrigation system be provided which assures that all plants get adequate water. In unusual circumstances, and if approved by Staff, a manual or quick coupler system may be used. e. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all planters and paving surfaces where applicable. f. That all cut and fill slopes conform to the vesting tentative map and Stage 2 Development Plan. g. That all cut and fill slopes graded and not constructed by September 1, of any given year, NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: are hydroseeded with perennial or native grasses and flowers, and that stock piles of loose soil existing on that date are hydroseeded in a similar manner. h. That the area under the drip line of all existing oaks, walnuts, etc., which are to be saved are fenced during construction and grading operations and no activity is permitted under them that will cause soil compaction or damage to the tree, if applicable. i. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors shall be required guaranteeing all shrubs and ground cover, all trees, and the irrigation system for one year. j. That a permanent maintenance agreement on all landscaping will be required from the owner insuring regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement, if applicable. 12. Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations: The PL On going Standard Applicant shall meet all requirements of the City of Dublin's Water- Efficient Landscaping Regulations, Section 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code. 13. Landscape Plans. Civil Improvement Plans, Joint PL On going Standard Trench Plans, Street Lighting Plans and Landscape Improvement Plans shall be submitted on the same size sheet and plotted at the same drawing scale for consistency, improved legibility and interdisciplinary coordination. 14. Utilities. Utilities shall be coordinated with proposed PL On going Standard tree placements to eliminate conflicts between trees and utilities. Utilities may have to be relocated in order to provide the required separation between the trees and utilities. 15. Chapter 8.72. The applicant shall work with staff PL On going Standard during the preparation of construction documents to refine the landscape design so that it meets the intent of Chapter 8.72 of the Dublin Municipal Code and so that trees can be incorporated into the design as shown on the Preliminary Landscape Plan. 16. Open Space Areas. The open space area that is PL On going Standard designated for development shall be planted and irrigated to create landscape that is attractive, conserves water, and requires minimal maintenance. NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: 17. Plant Clearances. All trees planted shall meet the PL On going Standard following clearances: a. 6' from the face of house walls or roof eaves. b. 7' from fire hydrants, storm drains, sanitary sewers and /or gas lines. c. 5' from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes, water, telephone and /or electrical mains d. 15' from stop signs, street or curb sign returns. e. 15' from either side of street lights. 18. Irrigation System Warranty. The applicant shall PL On going Standard warranty the irrigation system and planting for a period of one year from the date of installation. The applicant shall submit for the Dublin Community Development Department approval a landscape maintenance plan for the Homeowners Association Common Area landscape including a reasonable estimate of expenses for the first five years. 19. Final Walls and Fences. Applicant shall work with PL On going Standard Staff to prepare a final fencing and wall plan consistent with the Stage 2 Development Plan that is consistent with Dublin Municipal Code and adjacent subdivisions. 20. Sustainable Landscape Practices: The landscape PL On going Standard design shall demonstrate compliance with sustainable landscape practices as detailed in the Bay- Friendly Landscape Guidelines by earning a minimum of 60 points or more on the Bay - Friendly scorecard and specifying that 75% of the non -turf planting only requires occasional, little or no shearing or summer water once established. 21. Public Art: This project is subject to Chapter 8.58 of P &CS In conjunction Project the City of Dublin Zoning Code, Public Art Program. In with the first Specific conjunction with Site Development Review, the Site Zoning applicant shall submit a Public Art Compliance Report. Development Ord Chp The developer intends to place public art on the Review 8.58 project site and, as a part of the Stage 2 Development application Plan, has indicated potential locations in The Landscape Guidelines. 22. Public Art Easement and Access Easement. The P &CS And in Project Applicant/Developer shall reserve a site and provide a conjunction Specific public art easement and an access easement to the with Zoning City within the development project for a future public recordation of Ord Chp art project in accordance with Dublin Municipal Code final map for 8.58 Section 8.58.050 prior to recordation of the map for the area where the staging area, neighborhood park and /or linear the art is to be trail. provided NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: 23. Inclusionary Housing: This project is subject to PL Recordation of Project Chapter 8.68 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the first final specific Inclusionary Regulations. This project shall construct map 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units as affordable units except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. An Affordable Housing Agreement specifying the method of compliance shall be executed. 24. General Public Works Conditions of Approval: PW Ongoing Standard Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin General Public Works Conditions of Approval contained below ( "Standard ") unless specifically modified by Project Specific Conditions of Approval. 25. Development Agreement: A Development PW Issuance of Standard Agreement shall be executed for this Project. grading permit 26. Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District: PW First Final Map Standard The Developer shall request either the area to be annexed into a subzone of the Dublin Ranch Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District or within the City wide LMD and shall provide any exhibits required for the annexation. In addition Developer shall pay all administrative costs associated with processing the annexation. 27. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements: PW Final Map and Project Ownership, dedications on final map, and Ongoing Specific maintenance of street right -of -ways, common area parcels, and open space areas shall be by the City of Dublin, the Homeowner's Association, and a Geologic Hazard Abatement District, as shown on the Ownership and Maintenance Responsibility Exhibit, Stage II submittal, Tract Map 8102, prepared by MacKay & Somps, dated August 2012. 28. Landscape Features within Public Right of Way. PW First Final Map; Standard The Developer shall enter into an "Agreement for Long Modify with Term Encroachments" with the City to allow the HOA Successive to maintain the landscape and decorative features Final Maps within public Right of Way including frontage & median landscaping, decorative pavements and special features (i.e., walls, portals, benches, etc.) as generally shown on Stage 2 Development Plan exhibits. The Agreement shall identify the ownership of the special features and maintenance responsibilities. The Homeowner's Association will be responsible for maintaining the surface of all decorative pavements including restoration required as the result of utility repairs. NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: 29. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs). PW First Final Map; Standard A Homeowners Association shall be formed by Modify with recordation of a declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Successive and Restrictions to govern use and maintenance of Final Maps the landscape features within the public right of way contained in the Agreement for Long Term Encroachments and the frontage landscaping along Tassajara Road and interior streets. Said declaration shall set forth the Association name, bylaws, rules and regulations. The CC &Rs shall ensure that there is adequate provision for the maintenance, in good repair and on a regular basis, of the landscaping & irrigation, decorative pavements, median islands, fences, walls, drainage, lighting, signs and other related improvements. The CC &Rs shall also contain all other items required by these conditions. The Developer shall submit a copy of the CC &R document to the City for review and approval. 30. Public Streets: Developer shall construct street PW First Final Map Standard improvements and offer for dedication to the City of Dublin the rights of way for Tassajara Road, and interior streets as shown on the Tentative Map, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The right -of -way for Tassajara Road shall be dedicated along the entire length of the project with the first final map to be filed. The right -of -way dedication shall be in general conformance with the alignment shown on Exhibit "B" to the Vesting Tentative Map, and as may be modified by the City prior to the map recordation. 31. Tassajara Road Grading / Slope Easements: The PW First Final Map Standard developer shall dedicate grading and slope easements along Tassajara Road as determined necessary by the City Engineer to allow road grading and construction. 32. Moller Creek Culvert: The Tassajara Road culvert PW Culvert plans Standard crossing of Moller Creek shall be replaced and approved, improved in general conformance with the preliminary bonded, and culvert design shown in Exhibit "A" to the vesting permits issued tentative map. The developer shall be responsible for by Resource obtaining all resource agency permits required for the Agencies prior work. The developer shall be responsible for acquiring to 1St final map. right -of -way needed for the culvert and associated Culvert to be creek stabilization work from the property on the west under side of Tassajara Road, unless the property has been construction previously dedicated by the property owner or prior to otherwise acquired by the City. Acquisition of offsite construction of NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: right -of -way covered by this condition shall be subject first unit. to Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act. The Culvert to be developer shall be eligible for Eastern Dublin Traffic completed prior Impact Fee ( EDTIF) credits for the cost of the to occupancy improvements, design, permitting, and land, in an of 61St unit. amount not to exceed the cost for the culvert shown in the 2010 EDTIF Update. 33. Tassajara Road Improvements, Fallon Road to PW Culvert plans Project Street "A ": Tassajara Road shall be improved from approved, Specific Fallon Road to Street "A" in general conformance with bonded, and the design shown on Vesting Tentative Map, Sheet 9, permits issued Offsite Tassajara Road Improvements. The final layout by Resource and striping plan shall be subject to approval of the Agencies prior City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer. to 1St final map. Culvert to be under construction prior to construction of first unit. Culvert to be completed prior to occupancy of 61St unit. 34. Tassajara Road Improvements, Street "A" to PW Culvert plans Project Contra Costa County Line: The developer is approved, Specific obligated for the grading and construction of the bonded, and frontage improvements on Tassajara Road (grading, permits issued curb and gutter, sidewalk, and 20' of pavement) along by Resource the Tassajara Road frontage from Street "A" north to Agencies prior the Contra Costa County line, consistent with the City to 1St final map. adopted 2004 alignment for Tassajara Road. These Culvert to be improvements may be deferred, pending completion of under a final plan line for this portion the road by the City of construction Dublin and the County of Contra Costa. The developer prior to may elect to be absolved of the responsibility for construction of installing the frontage improvements by deducting the first unit. cost of the frontage improvements from the EDTIF fee Culvert to be credits due to the developer for the reconstruction of completed prior the Moller Creek culvert and associated work on to occupancy Tassajara Road. of 61St unit. 35. Traffic Signal, Tassajara Road/ Street "A ": A traffic PW Occupancy of Project signal shall be installed at the intersection of 25th House Specific Tassajara Road and Street "A ". The developer shall be responsible for the initial cost of the 3 -way signal, and Developer may enter into a reimbursement 10 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: agreement for any cost over 50% of the total signal cost. The developer shall provide an interim 3 -way stop sign at the intersection if determined appropriate by the City Engineer. 36. Tassajara Road Overhead Utility Line: The PW Final Map Project developer shall be responsible for undergrounding the creating the Specific existing overhead utility line on Tassajara Road from 60th unit Fallon Road to the northerly side of the Street "A" intersection. 37. Tassajara Road/ Street "A" Traffic Control: The PW Issuance of Project developer shall provide traffic control measures, Grading Specific including flaggers, to allow for the safe entry/ exit of Permits construction traffic to/ from Tassajara Road at Street "A ". A traffic control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer prior to the start of any construction activity. The traffic control measures shall be in place at the commencement of construction and shall remain in place until the traffic signal is operational. 38. Storm Drain Treatment Measures: The developer Applicable Project shall install storm drain treatment measures as shown Final Map Specific on the Vesting Tentative Map, Sheets 11 -13. The stormwater ponds shall include a screen or filter at each storm drain pipe outfall into the pond that comply with Section C.10 of the Municipal Regional Permit for Stormwater with regards to trash capture. Water quality measures located within the GHAD parcels shall be maintained by the Fallon Crossing CHAD. New impervious surface area on Tassajara Road shall also be provided with treatment measures; water quality measures serving the road will be maintained by the City unless directed into the GHAD treatment ponds. 39. Street "A ": Street "A" shall include a striped bicycle PW Applicable Project lane on both sides of the street. The bicycle lane shall Final Map Specific be 8' wide from Tassajara Road to Court "D" and 6' wide from Court "D" to the terminus. 40. Traffic Calming Measures: Traffic calming measures PW Applicable Project (bulbouts, speed tables etc.) shall be provided on Final Map Specific Streets "C ", "H ", "L ", "K" and "I" as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. Final placement and location shall be subject to approval of the Public Works Department and the Alameda County Fire Department 41. Tassajara Road/ Fallon Road Intersection: The PW First Final Map Project Tassajara Road/ Fallon Road intersection shall be Specific modified by restriping and modifying the signal to 11 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: provide a second left turn /through lane, eastbound from Tassajara Road northbound onto Fallon Road (Mitigation Measures 10 -12 from the Project SEIR #1). Final design will be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer [Or as revised with final M.M. after City /Developer/TJKM response to EIR comments 42. Tassajara Road, 1 -580 to Fallon Road: The PW First Final Map Project developer shall pay the proportionate cost of a 5t" Specific northbound lane on Tassajara Road from I -580 to Dublin Blvd 43. Traffic Impact Fees: The developer shall be PW Issuance of Standard responsible for payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Building Impact Fee (Sections 1 and 2), the Eastern Dublin I- Permits 580 Interchange Fee, and the Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee. Fees will be payable at issuance of building permits. 44. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Minimum PW Issuance of Standard Payment: The developer shall be responsible for Building payment of a minimum portion of the Eastern Dublin Permits Traffic Impact Fee in cash (11 % Category 1 and 25% of Category 2), as specified in the resolution establishing the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. These minimum cash payment shall be in addition to any other payment noted in these conditions and may not be offset by fee credits. 45. Neighborhood Park: The Neighborhood Park in PW First Final Map Project Parcel F, shall contain a minimum of 1.1 acres and be Specific shown on the Final Map as future parkland to be dedicated to the City of Dublin on the map or by separate document. The parcel line shall be at the back of curb on Court C. The City will not accept this Parcel until the site is rough graded, including erosion control measures, as generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, Sheet 6. Neighborhood parkland credits will be provided once the following occurs: site is rough graded, utilities connections have been stubbed to the park, and the park site is offered to the City via dedication on the final map. 46. Open Space Staging Area: The Open Space PW, CD, Final Map that Project Staging Area shall be dedicated and improved as FD, creates Parcel Specific generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, Sheets EBRPD or 61s lot. 3 and 6, and the Landscape Design Guidelines. The staging area parcel shall include a public access and emergency vehicle access easement over the turnaround area. The turnaround area shall be paved. If the staging area and linear trail is to be gated after 12 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: hours, the gates shall be set back at the far end of the turnaround so that the turnaround remains open after hours. The staging area shall include an educational component, restroom, drinking fountain, trash receptacles. The final design of the staging area shall be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works, Community Development, and Fire Departments. Access to the PG &E substation shall be provided. 47. Neighborhood Park & Staging Area: Utilities shall PW Final Map that Standard be stubbed to the adjacent Neighborhood Park, and creates parcel Staging Area at locations approved by the City's Parks or 61St lot. Department. 48. Geologic Hazard Abatement District: Prior to filing PW First Final Map Project the first final map, the annexation of the entire project Specific into the Fallon Crossing Geologic Hazard Abatement District (CHAD) covering the entire project shall be completed. The board of directors for the GHAD shall be the City Council of the City of Dublin. The GHAD shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the open space areas (including benches and brow ditches, maintenance roads or trails, and fencing) and the water quality control ponds, and shall include a reserve for unforeseen repair of future slope instability. Developer shall be responsible for submitting all documents necessary for annexation into the CHAD, including a plan of control, which shall include an annual operating budget for buildout of the project, and the petition. Developer shall also be responsible for all administrative costs associated with processing the annexation. An engineer' report shall be prepared and adopted by the GHAD Board, setting the amount of the annual assessment. The GHAD Board shall approve the assessment levy prior to or concurrently with the approval of the first final map by the City Council,. Initial assessments against property owners shall not be lower than ultimate assessments at buildout. The CC &Rs for the project shall contain financial mechanisms, such as deed assessments, enforceable by the City to ensure that the property owners are obligated to pay the costs of maintenance in the event that the GHAD is dissolved or does not have sufficient resources to perform its obligations. The CC &Rs shall also include provisions that require the property owners' association to pay the GHAD or City's attorneys' fees in the event that either enforces the Homeowner's Association's obligation to fund 13 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: maintenance of the open space areas and the water quality control ponds. The CC &Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney to ensure compliance with this condition of approval. Ownership of CHAD- maintained parcels shall be by the GHAD in fee as shown in the Vesting Tentative Map. 49. Remedial Grading Plan: The grading plan shall PW First Final Map Standard include a remedial grading plan prepared by the or Issuance of project geotechnical consultant, outlining area of slide Grading repair, benches, keyways, over - excavation at cut -fill Permits transitions, subdrains, and other recommendations of the consultant. The remedial grading plan will be subject to review and approval by the City's own geotechnical consultant. 50. Resource Agency Permits: Prior to the start of any PW Issuance of Standard grading of the site as necessary, permits shall be Grading Permit obtained from the US Army Corps of Engineers, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State of California Department of Fish and Game, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service for the grading or alteration of wetland areas within the site. The project shall be modified as needed to respond to the conditions of the permits. PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRACT MAP 8102 51. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map PW Ongoing Standard Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision, and Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current requirements of the State Code Title 24 and the Americans with Disabilities Act with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All public improvements constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as "public works" under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following). 52. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold PW Ongoing Standard harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, 14 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City related to this project (Tract Map 8102) to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. AGREEMENTS AND BONDS 53. The Developer shall enter into a Tract Improvement PW First Final Map Standard Agreement with the City for all public improvements and including any required offsite storm drainage or Successive roadway improvements that are needed to serve the Maps Tract that have not been bonded with another Tract Improvement Agreement. 54. The Developer shall provide performance (100 %), and PW First Final Map Standard labor & material (100 %) securities to guarantee the and tract improvements, approved by the City Engineer, Successive prior to execution of the Tract Improvement Maps Agreement and approval of the Final Map. (Note: Upon acceptance of the improvements, the performance security may be replaced with a maintenance bond that is 25% of the value of the performance security.) FEES 55. Developer's share of advanced construction of Fire PW First Final Map Project Stations is determined to be 7.38 %. Developer shall Specific pay at the time of the first Final Map an amount as calculated per the Development Agreement between City and Developer. Developer will receive Fire Impact Fee Credits for the amount paid which can be used in accordance with City policies. 56. Tassajara Road Interchange: Developer's share of PW First Final Map Project advanced construction of Tassajara Interchange is Specific determined to be 1.2907 %. Developer shall pay at the time of the first Final Map an amount as calculated per the Development Agreement between City and Developer. Developer will receive Traffic Impact Fee Category 1 Credits for the amount paid which can be used in accordance with City policies. 57. Fallon Road Interchange: Developer's share of PW First Final Map Project advanced construction of Tassajara Interchange is Specific determined to be 1.5547 %. Developer shall pay at the 15 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: time of the first Final Map an amount as calculated per the Development Agreement between City and Developer. Developer will receive Traffic Impact Fee Category 2 Credits for the amount paid which can be used in accordance with City policies. 58. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay in -lieu PW Each Final Map Standard fees in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 214 -02, or in any resolution revising these amounts and as implemented by the Administrative Guidelines adopted by Resolution 195- 99. PERMITS 59. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from PW Start of Work Standard the Public Works Department for all construction activity within the public right -of -way of any street where the City has accepted the improvements. The encroachment permit may require surety for slurry seal and restriping. At the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement may not be required. 60. Developer shall obtain a Grading / Sitework Permit PW Start of Work Standard from the Public Works Department for all grading and private site improvements that serves more than one lot or residential condominium unit, if applicable. 61. Developer shall obtain all permits required by other PW Start of Work Standard agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. SUBMITTALS 62. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply PW Approval of Standard with the requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Improvement Works Department Improvement Plan Submittal Plans or Final Requirements ", and the "City of Dublin Improvement Map Plan Review Check List ". 63. The Developer will be responsible for submittals and PW Approval of Standard reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non- Improvement City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department Plans or Final and the Dublin San Ramon Services District shall Map approve and sign the Improvement Plans. 64. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, which PW Approval of Standard includes street pavement sections and grading Improvement recommendations. Plans, Grading 16 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Plans, or Final Map 65. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department PW Acceptance of Standard a digital vectorized file of the "master" files for the Improvements project when the Final Map has been approved. and Release of Digital raster copies are not acceptable. The digital Bonds vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of the Final Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. FINAL MAP 66. The Final Map shall be substantially in accordance PW Approval of Standard with the Tentative Map approved with this application, Final Map unless otherwise modified by these conditions. Multiple final maps may be filed in phases, provided that each phase is consistent with the tentative map, that phasing progresses in an orderly and logical manner and adequate infrastructure is installed with each phase to serve that phase as a stand -alone project that is not dependent upon future phasing for infrastructure. 67. All rights -of -way and easement dedications required PW Approval of Standard by the Tentative Map including the Public Service Final Map Easement shall be shown on the Final Map. 68. Street names shall be assigned to each public /private PW Approval of Standard street pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.08. The Final Map approved street names shall be indicated on the Final Map. 69. The Final Map shall include the street monuments to PW Monuments to Standard be set in all public streets. be Shown on Final Map and Installed Prior to Acceptance of Improvements EASEMENTS 70. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all PW Approval of Standard applicable public agencies of existing easements and Improvement right of ways within the development that will no longer Plans or be used. Appropriate Final Map 71. The Developer shall acquire easements, and /or obtain PW Approval of Standard rights -of -entry from the adjacent property owners for Improvement 17 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: any improvements on their property. The easements Plans or and /or rights -of -entry shall be in writing and copies Appropriate furnished to the City Engineer. Final Map GRADING 72. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the PW Approval of Standard recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, the Grading Plans approved Tentative Map and /or Site Development or Issuance of Review, and the City design standards & ordinances. Grading In case of conflict between the soil engineer's Permits, and recommendations and City ordinances, the City Ongoing Engineer shall determine which shall apply. 73. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included with PW Approval of Standard the Grading Plan approval. The plan shall include Grading Plans detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria of or Issuance of all erosion and sedimentation control measures. Grading Permits, and Ongoing 74. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls shall PW Approval of Standard not cross property lines, or shall be located a minimum Grading Plans of 2' below the finished grade of the upper lot. or Issuance of Grading Permits, and Ongoing 75. Slope bank along public streets shall be no steeper PW Approval of Standard than 3:1 unless shown otherwise on the Tentative Map Grading Plans Grading Plan exhibits. The toe of any slope along or Issuance of public streets shall be one foot back of walkway. The Grading top of any slope along public streets shall be three feet Permits, and back of walkway. Minor exception may be made in the Ongoing above slope design criteria to meet unforeseen design constraints subject to the approval of the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENTS 76. The public improvements shall be constructed PW Approval of Standard generally as shown on the Tentative Map and /or Site Improvement Development Review. However, the approval of the Plans or Start Tentative Map and /or Site Development Review is not of an approval of the specific design of the drainage, Construction, sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements. and Ongoing 77. All public improvements shall conform to the City of PW Approval of Standard Dublin Standard Plans and design requirements and Improvement as approved by the City Engineer. Plans or Start of 18 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Construction, and Ongoing 78. Public streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope with PW Approval of Standard minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around bumpouts. Improvement Private streets and alleys shall be at minimum 0.5% Plans or Start slope. of Construction, and Ongoing 79. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets shall be PW Approval of Standard 40 -foot radius, all internal public streets curb returns Improvement shall be minimum 30 -foot radius (36 -foot with bump Plans or Start outs) and private streets /alleys shall be a minimum 20- of foot radius, or as approved by the City Engineer. Curb Construction, ramp locations and design shall conform to the most and Ongoing current Title 24 and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 80. Any decorative pavers installed within City right -of -way PW Approval of Standard shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Improvement Where decorative paving is installed at signalized Plans or Start intersections, pre- formed traffic signal loops shall be of put under the decorative pavement. Decorative Construction, pavements shall not interfere with the placement of and Ongoing traffic control devices, including pavement markings. All turn lane stripes, stop bars and crosswalks shall be delineated with concrete bands or color pavers to the satisfaction of the City Engineer Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association 81. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and PW Occupancy of Standard pavement marking as required by the City Engineer. Units or Acceptance of Improvements 82. Street light standards and luminaries shall be PW Occupancy of Standard designed and installed per approval of the City Units or Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for streetlights Acceptance of is 5 %. Improvements 83. All new traffic signals shall be interconnected with PW Occupancy of Standard other new signals within the development and to the 60th Unit or existing City traffic signal system by hard wire. Acceptance of Improvements 84. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled PW Occupancy of Standard water and sanitary sewer facilities required to serve Units or the project in accordance with DSRSD master plans, Acceptance of standards, specifications and requirements. Improvements 19 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: 85. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the PW Occupancy of Standard Alameda County Fire Department. A raised reflector Units or blue traffic marker shall be installed in the street Acceptance of opposite each hydrant. Improvements 86. The Developer shall furnish and install street name PW Occupancy of Standard signs for the project to the satisfaction of the City Units or Engineer. Acceptance of Improvements 87. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV and PW Occupancy of Standard communication improvements within the fronting Units or streets and as necessary to serve the project and the Acceptance of future adjacent parcels as approved by the City Improvements Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. 88. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV utilities, PW Occupancy of Standard shall be underground in accordance with the City Units or policies and ordinances. All utilities shall be located Acceptance of and provided within public utility easements and sized Improvements to meet utility company standards. 89. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless PW Occupancy of Standard specifically approved otherwise by the City Engineer, Units or shall be underground and placed in landscape areas Acceptance of and screened from public view. Prior to Joint Trench Improvements Plan approval, landscape drawings shall be submitted to the City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes and structures and adjacent landscape features and plantings. The Joint Trench Plans shall be signed by the City Engineer prior to construction of the joint trench improvements. CONSTRUCTION 90. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented PW Ongoing as Standard between October 15th and April 15th unless otherwise Needed allowed in writing by the City Engineer. The Developer will be responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures for one year following the City's acceptance of the subdivision improvements. 91. If archaeological materials are encountered during PW Ongoing as 1993 construction, construction within 30 feet of these Needed EDEIR materials shall be halted until a professional MM Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. 92. Construction activities, including the maintenance and PW Ongoing as Standard warming of equipment, shall be limited to Monday Needed through Friday, and non -City holidays, between the 20 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday work will be considered by the City Engineer on a case -by -case basis. 93. Developer shall prepare a construction noise PW Start of Standard management plan that identifies measures to be taken Construction to minimize construction noise on surrounding Implementation developed properties. The plan shall include hours of Ongoing as construction operation, use of mufflers on construction Needed equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided prior to project construction. 94. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic PW Start of Standard interface with public traffic on any existing public Construction; street. Construction traffic and parking may be subject Implementation to specific requirements by the City Engineer. Ongoing as Needed 95. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling any PW Ongoing Standard rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities. 96. The Developer shall be responsible for watering or PW Start of Standard other dust - palliative measures to control dust as Construction; conditions warrant or as directed by the City Engineer. Implementation Ongoing as Needed 97. The Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Issuance of Standard Department with a letter from a registered civil Building engineer or surveyor stating that the building pads Permits or have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades Acceptance of shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the Improvements top & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the approved Grading Plans. NPDES 98. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall PW Start of Any Standard provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) Construction has been sent to the California State Water Resources Activities Control Board per the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. 99. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) PW SWPPP to be Standard shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) Prepared Prior appropriate to the project construction activities. The to Approval of SWPPP shall include the erosion control measures in Improvement accordance with the regulations outlined in the most Plans: 21 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Implementation Control Handbook or State Construction Best Prior to Start of Management Practices Handbook. The Developer is Construction responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement and Ongoing all storm water pollution prevention measures in the as Needed SWPPP. 100. Retaining Walls: All retaining walls over 30 inches in B Through Standard height and in a walkway area shall be provided with completion guardrails. All retaining walls located on private property, over 24 inches, with a surcharge, or 36 inches without a surcharge, shall obtain permits and inspections from the Building Division. 101. Complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD Issuance of Standard DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the Dublin any building San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD permit "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities," all applicable SDRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. 102. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity DSRSD Issuance of Standard to accommodate future flow demands in addition to any building each development project's demand. Layout and permit sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility master planning. 103. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD Issuance of Standard DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of any building sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed permit under extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. 104. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for DSRSD Issuance of Standard Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be any building designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead permit end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. 105. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to DSRSD Issuance of Standard be located in public streets rather than in off - street any building 22 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, permit then public sewer or water easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off - street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and /or replacement. 106. The locations and widths of all proposed easement DSRSD Approval by the Standard dedications for water and sewer lines shall be City of a submitted to and approved by DSRSD. grading permit 107. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be DSRSD Recordation of Standard by separate instrument irrevocably offer to DSRSD or Final Map by offer of dedication on the final map. 108. The final map shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD Issuance of Standard DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and any building restrictions. permit 109. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or DSRSD Issuance of Standard by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever any building comes first, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities permit shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one -year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. 110. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be DSRSD Issuance of Standard permitted unless the proper utility construction permit any building has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit permit will only be issued after all of the items in above have been satisfied. 111. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of DSRSD Issuance of Standard Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of any building DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same permit from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the project. 112. Improvement plans shall include recycled water DSRSD Issuance of Standard improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for any building landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water permit mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD 23 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements therein. 113. Applicant shall submit plans to DSRSD for review for DSRSD Approval of Water and Sewer Capacity Charges prior to DSRSD DSRSD approval of the construction permit. Construction permit PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of November 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Wehrenberg, O'Keefe, Brown, Bhuthimethee NOES: ABSENT: Schaub ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:IPA #1201 VPLPA- 2011 -00003 Moller Ranch 8 &LIPC Mtg 11.27.1ZPC Reso Moller 11.27.12.docx 24 LEGEND f5t5.5 .u>oiwni _a sw�uxss0s_ ❑ e. N,lxwAiE0.onntnsM1xiLm aunvc[ernrtrHwruefAU�weerav riiwarE ' w��rto�r xnsuce¢��0. Trarusrteu�isA�onw n. ew.snvsvrtilspruMKa�esnsuno �NrsxrlNOlxscsanoruuti:xcoam. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT A _ MAP NO. 81 02 FOR MOLLER RANCH m, DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2012 WGN MP SHEET I TENTATNE WNOTES' — ir. rn Eo o u 3 � � �'—"� I INE ST.) HOA PARCEL OETAII S I �o w.vTlci KFE4cFIMOYBY[E STOSED STORM WATER QUALITY! HM PLAN STORMWATERQUALITYfHMPLAN o�® 9 STORK N'ATERQUALITYf HM1I9ECTIONS curruvvsuu cw.IUavvu.uscartcrio Oiffi' 0 �E %WRITS �. eunon.,smnaTSVm. rx-uursv svR n ���',. Rr RSrancaffxr PRavuxxer � � uortn � 0� ruvrnre TxxsT(saRSrrsl(PSxacr.nl � 2TSRSrxoeasrur+i.su+on�e.amowao os=uscwxur<sxvnx oustEenir�w�s� x wnacvsxnESFx` s�¢war owcau� a LLrxncrwrs¢vnivsrimann- ��� � � �• fSHEET4 &7 �e,¢ L-ATfiI 3e'Zd= AA =E' uN. er °�..� vai�rwKnsyssuc mrcixsru�owcasseriwnermxuxslm i e. 54xnnapvservlcESOSSwtt @ aasSl srunwaos $: �I Nw SMxw:Etmxsiw �i- 6 INDEXOF TENTATIVE MAP SHEETS in. srueY:NraarvssmJTS- ou emoro -mwu sruxwssN.ro v.o, uvxm,>ts. ®�® ir. rn Eo o u 3 �SECTIONS AN SITEIINAN S: TRE S' FFSIETTEAMSFF 12 1.lhij�y 13. FRELIM]NARY ©®® INE ST.) HOA PARCEL OETAII S VEMENiASEME ATARA ROAG EASEMENTS �o f d. STOSED STORM WATER QUALITY! HM PLAN STORMWATERQUALITYfHMPLAN o�® 9 STORK N'ATERQUALITYf HM1I9ECTIONS curruvvsuu cw.IUavvu.uscartcrio Oiffi' 0 �E %WRITS �. eunon.,smnaTSVm. rx-uursv svR n ���',. Rr RSrancaffxr PRavuxxer � � uortn � 0� ruvrnre TxxsT(saRSrrsl(PSxacr.nl � 2TSRSrxoeasrur+i.su+on�e.amowao os=uscwxur<sxvnx oustEenir�w�s� x wnacvsxnESFx` s�¢war owcau� a LLrxncrwrs¢vnivsrimann- ��� � ANDNOTE$ oracrs roo a,wuc. _ DETAILS t,. wstnoecnrva. wrvuxurcrvruvacaxurtuau UIILITYPIAN IS TIONSAND DETAIL9 GRADING PLAN ir. rn Eo o u 3 GRADING PION ' 2rmualsrcarssv wn ceasan u�a✓c�� �nxrarocunrvvus euooxui — � INE ST.) HOA PARCEL OETAII S N VEMENiASEME ATARA ROAG EASEMENTS �o f d. STOSED STORM WATER QUALITY! HM PLAN STORMWATERQUALITYfHMPLAN - 1'I 9 STORK N'ATERQUALITYf HM1I9ECTIONS curruvvsuu cw.IUavvu.uscartcrio Oiffi' 0 �E %WRITS �. eunon.,smnaTSVm. rx-uursv svR n ���',. Rr RSrancaffxr PRavuxxer avororrsiswn,fxwxxsa�e•uv ESSxnreo. rvtuarlsroxumuxsassia oases � � uortn � ruvrnre TxxsT(saRSrrsl(PSxacr.nl � 2TSRSrxoeasrur+i.su+on�e.amowao os=uscwxur<sxvnx oustEenir�w�s� x wnacvsxnESFx` s�¢war owcau� a LLrxncrwrs¢vnivsrimann- ��� � 1 ORDINANCE NO. XX - 12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND BRADDOCK & LOGAN SERIVICES, INC. FOR MOLLER RANCH (APNS 985 - 0001 - 001 -01 and 985 - 0001 - 001 -02) PLPA- 2011 -00003 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. RECITALS A. The proposed project known as Moller Ranch is located within the boundaries of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and is included in the approval for Planned Development under PLPA- 2011 - 00003. B. A Development Agreement for Moller Ranch between the City of Dublin and Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. ( "Developer") has been presented to the City Council, Exhibit A, attached hereto. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, the Developer's project is within the scope of the following environmental documentation: 1. Program Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51 -93 ( "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR ", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (resolution incorporated herein by reference), 2. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2005052146), was certified by the City Council on May 1, 2007 by Resolution No. 56 -07 which addressed potential environmental impacts resulting from a plan proposed for Moller Ranch and the adjacent 12.5 -acre Tipper property ( "Moller /Casamira Valley SEIR "), 3. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "Moller Ranch SEIR ") (SCH #2005052146) prepared for the Moller Ranch Project currently proposed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines and certified by the City Council prior to adopting this Ordinance, 4. Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein by reference) and mitigation monitoring program intended to reduce impacts from implementation of the plan. D. The Planning Commission has made its recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Development Agreement by Resolution 12 -46. E. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City Council on December 18, 2012 for which public notice was given as provided by law. F. The City Council has considered all prior CEQA documents and analysis, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, including the Planning Commission's reasons for its recommendation, the Agenda Statement, all comments received in writing, and all testimony received at the public hearing. Section 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS Therefore, on the basis of (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b) the City of Dublin General Plan, (c) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, (d) the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, (e) the Eastern Dublin EIR, (f) the Moller /Casamira Valley SEIR, (g) the Moller Ranch SEIR, (g) the Agenda Statement, and on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that: 1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan, as amended by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, and in the Specific Plan in that: a) The General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation for the site, subject to City Council approval of PLPA- 2011 -00003 is Single - Family Residential, Rural Residential /Agriculture, Open Space /Stream Corridor, Semi - Public, and Neighborhood Park, b) The proposed project is consistent with the designated land use, c) The proposed project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan with respect to the provision of infrastructure and public services, and d) The Development Agreement includes provisions relating to vesting of development rights and similar provisions set forth in the Specific Plan. 2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located in that the project approvals include: General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, Stage 1 Planned Development rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Map 8012. 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use policies in that the Developer's project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the General Plan and the Specific Plan which have been planned for Single - Family Residential, Rural Residential /Agriculture, Open Space /Stream Corridor, Semi - Public, Neighborhood Park, and infrastructure uses at this location. 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare in that the Developer's project will proceed in accordance with all the programs and policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 2 5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the General Plan and with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Rartinn fl APPRM/AI The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement (Exhibit A to the Ordinance) and authorizes the Mayor to execute it. Section 4. RECORDATION Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is fully executed by all parties, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 18th day of December 2012, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G: PA #120111PLPA- 2011 -00003 Moller Ranch 8 &LIPC Mtg 11.13.1ZCC Ord Moller DA 11.13.12.doc 3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY; CITY OF DUBLIN When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Fee Waived per GC 27383 mm Space above this line for Recorders use DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN mm MOLLER RE INVESTORS, LLC FOR THE MOLLER RANCH PROJECT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement" or this "Development Agreement ") is made and entered in the City of Dublin on this day of , 2012, by and between the CITY OF DUBLIN, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter "City ") and Moller RE Investors, LLC, a California limited liability company (hereafter "Developer") pursuant to the authority of §§ 65864 of seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.56. City and Developer are, from time -to -time, individually referred to in this Agreement as a "Party," and are collectively referred to as "Parties." RECITALS A. California Government Code § §65864 et seq. ( "Development Agreement Statute ") and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.56 ") authorize the City to enter into a Development Agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property. B. Developer intends to purchase, desires to develop, and holds an equitable interest in certain real property consisting of approximately 226.3 gross acres of land, located in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, which is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which real property is hereafter called the "Property." C. The City Council adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan by Resolution No. 53 -93 which Plan is applicable to the Property. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires Developer to enter into a development agreement as a condition of the development of the Property. D. Developer proposes the development of the Property as a single - family residential project of a maximum of 382 units on approximately 79.6 acres of the Property ( "the Project "). E. DEVELOPER has applied for, and CITY has approved or is processing, various land use approvals in connection with the development of the Project, including, without limitation, a General Plan Amendment (City Council Resolution No. ), an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (City Council Resolution No.); a Planned Development District Rezoning including Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans (Ord. No. ; and a vesting tentative tract map that would create the parcels on which the project would be constructed (Planning Commission Resolution No. � ). All such approvals collectively, together with any approvals or permits now or hereafter issued with respect to the Project are referred to as the "Project Approvals." Dublin /Moller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 2 of 16 for the Moller Ranch Project F. Development of the Property by Developer may be subject to certain future discretionary approvals, which, if granted, shall automatically become part of the Project Approvals as each such approval becomes effective. G. City desires the timely, efficient, orderly and proper development of the Project. H. The City Council has found that, among other things, this Development Agreement is consistent with its General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and has been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter 8.56, I. City and Developer have reached agreement and desire to express herein a Development Agreement that will facilitate development of the Project subject to conditions set forth herein. J. Development of the Property was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, certified through City Council Resolution 51 -93 on May 10, 1993, and in the Casamira Valley /Moller Ranch Project Supplemental EIR, certified through City Council Resolution 56 -07 on May 1, 2007. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) § 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163, the City certified a Supplemental EIR for the Project (City Council Resolution K. On , the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted Ordinance No r _; approving this Development Agreement fthe Approving Ordinance "). The Approving Ordinance will take effect on ( „the Approval Date "). NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, City and Developer agree as follows: AGREEMENT Description of Pro ert : The Property that is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. 2.., , Interest of Developer. The Developer has a legal or equitable interest in the Property in that it has the-right. to purchase the Property under the Purchase and Sale Agreement, 3. Relationship of City and Developer. Dublin /Mo[[er RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 3 of 15 for the Moller Ranch Project It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by the City and Developer and that the Developer is not an agent of the City. The City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers or partners. 4. Effective Date and Term. 4.1 Effective Date. This agreement shall be effective on the Approval Date ( "the Effective Date "), 4.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and extend five (5) years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise terminated or modified by circumstances set forth in this Agreement. 5. Use of the Property. 5.1 Right to Develop. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), and any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this Agreement. Such amendments, such as to Site Development Review or Tentative Map project approvals, once effective shall become part of the law Developer is vested into without an additional amendment of this Agreement. 5.2 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and location and maintenance of on -site and off -site improvements, location of public utilities (operated by the City) and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property, shall be those set forth in this Agreement, the Project Approvals and any amendments to this Agreement or the Project Approvals (subject to the provisions of Section 5.1). 5.3 Additional Conditions. Provisions for the following ( "Additional Conditions ") are set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 5.3.1 Subse cent Discretiona Approvals. Conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions. (These conditions do not affect Developer's responsibility to obtain all other land use approvals required by the ordinances of the City of Dublin or other approvals from regulatory agencies.) See Exhibit B Dublin /Moller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 4 of 15 for the Moller Ranch Project 5.3.2 Mitigation Conditions. Additional or modified conditions agreed upon by the parties in order to eliminate or mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the Project or otherwise relating to development of the Project. See Exhibit B 5.3.3 Phasing, Timing. Provisions that the Project be constructed in specified phases, that construction shall commence within a specified time, and that the Project or any phase thereof be completed within a specified time. See Exhibit B 5.3.4 Financinq Plan. Financial plans which identify necessary capital improvements such as streets and utilities and sources of funding. See Exhibit B 5.3.5 Fees, Dedications. Terms relating to payment of fees or dedication of property. See Exhibit B 5.3.6 Reimbursement. Terms relating to subsequent reimbursement over time for financing of necessary public facilities. See Exhibit B 5.3.7 Miscellaneous. Miscellaneous terms. See Exhibit B 6. Applicable Rules Regulations and Official Policies. 6.1 Rules Regarding Permitted Uses. For the term of this Agreement, the City's ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies'governing the permitted uses of the Property, governing density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings-shall ba those in force and effect on the Approval Date of the Agreement. 62 Rules Regarding Desi n and Construction. Unless otherwise expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Project shall be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable discretionary approval, Dublin /Moller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 5 of 15 for the Moller Ranch Project whether the date of that approval is prior to or after the date of this Agreement. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to public improvements to be constructed by Developer shall be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable discretionary approval, whether the date of approval is prior to or after the date of this Agreement. 6.3 Uniform Codes Applicable. The Project shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical and l=ire Codes and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, relating to Building Standards, in effect at the time the Developer submits its application for the appropriate building, grading, encroachment, or other construction permits for the Project. 7. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations. 7.1 New Rules and Regulations. During the term of this Agreement, the City may apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies of the City to the Property which were not in force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement and the Project Approvals and which are not in conflict with those applicable to the Property as set forth in this Agreement if: (a) the application of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development of the Property as contemplated by this Agreement and the Project Approvals and (b) if such ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies have general applicability. Consistent with Government Code Section 66498.2 (applicable to vesting tentative maps), in the event City subsequently changes its ordinances, policies or standards during the term of this Agreement, such changed ordinances, policies, or standards shall automatically apply to secure the vested right for Developer to proceed with the Project under such changes, provided Developer notifies City in writing that it elects to apply such changes and clearly specifies such changes to the City's ordinances, policies and standards. 7.2 Approval of Application. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the City from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent land use permit or authorization for the Project on the basis of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and policies except that such subsequent actions shall be subject to any conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements expressly set forth herein. 7.3 Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in-the event'an ordinance, resolution or other measure is enacted, whether by action of the City, by initiative, referendum; or otherwise, that imposes a building moratorium, a limit on the rate of development or a voter - approval requirement which affects the Project on all or any part of the Property, the City agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply Dublin /Moller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 6 of 15 for the Moller Ranch Project to the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless the building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or state of emergency as defined in Government Code § 8558. 8. Subsequently Enacted or Revised Fees Assessments and Taxes. 8.1 Fees, Exactions, Dedications. The City and Developer agree that this Agreement does not limit the City's discretion to impose or require payment of any fees in connection with the development of the Project for purposes of mitigating environmental and other-impacts of the Project, the dedication of any land, or the construction of any public improvement or facilities. Furthermore, Developer agrees that, notwithstanding any rights it may obtain under its vesting tentative map, the City may impose or increase any such fees on the Project, payment of which is typically required at building permit or final map approval, even if those fees or charges were increased or first enacted after Developer's application for the vesting tentative map was deemed complete. 8.2 Revised Application Fees. Any existing application, processing and inspection fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is prospective only; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development in accordance with this Agreement. 8.3 New Taxes. Any subsequently enacted city -wide taxes shall apply to the Project provided that: (1) the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective, and (2) the application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. 8.4 Assessments. Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property from assessments levied against it by the City pursuant to any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and /or services which benefit the Property. 8.5 Vote on Future Assessments and Fees. In the event that any assessment, fee or charge which is applicable to the Property is subject to Article MID of the Constitution and Developer does not return its ballot, Developer agrees, on behalf of itself and its successors, that the City may count Developer's ballot as affirmatively voting. in favor of such assessment, fee or charge. 9. Amendment or Cancellation. 9.1 Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. In the event that state-or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits Dublin /Moller RR investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 7 of 15 for the Moller Ranch Project approved by the City, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be subject to approval by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 8.56. Mutual 9.2 Amendment by Consent. This Agreement may be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the parties hereto and in accordance with the procedures of State law and Chapter 8.56. 9.3 Insubstantial Amendments. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph 9.2, any amendments to this Agreement which do not relate to (a) the term of the Agreement as provided in paragraph 4.2; (b) the permitted uses of the Property as provided in paragraph 5.2; (c) provisions for "significant" reservation or dedication of land as provided in Exhibit B; (d) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (f) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (g) monetary contributions by Developer as provided in this Agreement, shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before either the Planning Commission or the City Council before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. The City's Public Works Director shall determine whether a reservation or dedication is "significant ". 9.4 Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8.56. Any fees paid pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 and Exhibit B of this Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by the City. 10. Term of Project, Approvals. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66452.6(a), the term of any vesting tentative map described above shall automatically be'extended until -the later of the following; (1) the end of the term of this Agreement; or (2) the end of the term or life of any such vesting tentative map otherwise given pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act or local regulation not in conflict with the Subdivision Map Act. The term of any other Project Approval shall be extended only if so. provided in Exhibit B. 11. Annual Review. 11.1 Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be between July 15 and August 15, 2013 and thereafter between each July 15 and August 15 during the Term. 11.2 . Initiation of Review. The City's Community. Development Director shall initiate the annual review, as required under Section 8.56.140 of Chapter 8.56, by giving to Developer thirty (30) days' written notice that the City Dublin /Moller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 8 of 15 for the Moller Ranch Project intends to undertake such review. Developer shall provide evidence to the Community Development Director prior to the hearing on the annual review, as and when reasonably determined necessary by the Community Development Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the provisions of the Agreement. The burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon the Developer. 11.3 Staff Reports. To the extent practical, the City shall deposit in the mail and fax to Developer a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning contract performance at least five (5) business days prior to any annual review. 11.4 Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by the City in connection with the annual review shall be paid by Developer in accordance with the City's schedule of fees in effect at the time of review. 12. Default. 12.1 Other Remedies Available. Upon the.occurrence of an event of default, the parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in the City's regulations governing development agreements, expressly including the remedy of specific performance of this Agreement. 12.2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by either party, the nondefaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not cured by the defaulting party within thirty (30) days. after service of such notice of default, the nondefaulting party may then.commence any legal or equitable action to enforce its rights under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the default cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the nondefaulting party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable action so long as the defaulting party begins to.cure such default within such thirty (30) day period and-diligently pursues such cure to completion. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default. 12.3 No Dama es Against Ci . Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in no event shall damages be awarded against the City upon an event of default or upon termination of this Agreement. 13. Estoppel Certificate. Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, request written notice from the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (c) to the knowledge of the certifying party the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A party receiving a request Dublin /Moller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 9 of 15 for the Moller Ranch Project hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer period as may reasonably be agreed to by the parties. City Manager of the City shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer. Should the party receiving the request not execute and return such certificate within the applicable period, this shall not be deemed to be a default, provided that such party shall be deemed to have certified that the statements in clauses (a) through (c) of this section are true, and any party may rely on such deemed certification. 14. Mortga eg a Protection; Certain Rights of Cure. 14.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Agreement, including the lien.for any deed of trust or mortgage ( "Mortgage "). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in, good faith and for value, but all the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ( "Mortgagee ") who acquires.title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. 14.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14,1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement, before or after foreclosure or a'deed in lieu of foreclosure, to construct or complete the construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion, or to pay, perform or provide any fee, dedication, improvements or other exaction or-imposition; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses-or improvements provided for or authorized by the Project Approvals or by this Agreement. 14.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Extension of Right to Cure. If the City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then the City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by the City that Developer has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer to Pure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set forth in the City's notice. The City, through its City Manager, may extend the thirty -day cure period provided in paragraph 12.2 for not more than an additional- sixty (60) days upon request of'Developer or a Mortgagee. Dubiin /Moller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 10 of 15 for the Moller Ranch Project 15. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provisions, covenant, condition or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal. 16. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If the City or Developer initiates any action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. If'any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action. Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse the City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by the City in defense of any such action or other proceeding. 17. Transfers and Assignments. 17.1 Right to Assign. Developer may wish to sell, transfer or assign all or portions of its Property to other developers (each. such other developer is referred to as a "Transferee "). In connection with any such sale, transfer or assignment to a Transferee, Developer may sell, transfer or assign to such Transferee any or all rights, interests and obligations of Developer arising hereunder and that pertain to the portion of the Property being sold or transferred, to such Transferee, provided, however, that: no such transfer, sale or assignment of Developer's rights, interests and obligations hereunder shall occur without prior written notice to City and approval by the City Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, denied or delayed. City Manager shall provide a written explanation for any denial of a request for assignment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, provided notice is given as specified above, no City approval shall be required for any.transfer, sale, or assignment of this Agreement to: 1) any entity which is an affiliate or subsidiary of Developer; 2) any Mortgagee; or 3) any transferee of a Mortgagee. 17.2 Approval and Notice of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. The City .Manager shall.consider and decide on any transfer, sale or assignment within ten (10) days after Developer's notice, provided all necessary documents, certifications and other information are provided to the City Manager to enable the City Manager to determine whether the proposed Transferee can perform the Developer's obligations hereunder. Notice of any such approved sale, transfer or assignment (which includes a description of all rights, interests and obligations that have been-transferred and those which have been retained by Developer) shall be recorded in the official records of Alameda County, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, concurrently with such sale, transfer or assignment. 17.3 Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all of Developer's rights, interests and obligations hereunder pursuant to Paragraph 17.1 of this Agreement, Developer shall be released from Dublin /Moller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 11 of 15 for the Moller Ranch Project the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser, or assignee approved by the City Manager expressly assumes all of the rights, interests and obligations of Developer under this Agreement, Developer shall be released with respect to all such rights, interests and assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications and other necessary information prior to City Manager approval. Notwithstanding Paragraphs 1r7 1817 2 Retain Specified Rights or Obligations. g g p and 17.3 and Paragraph 18, Developer may withhold from a sale, transfer or assignment of this Agreement certain rights, interests and /or obligations which Developer shall retain, provided that Developer specifies such rights, interests and /or obligations in a written document to be appended to this Agreement and recorded with the Alameda County Recorder prior to the sale, transfer or assignment of the Property. Developer's purchaser, transferee or assignee shall then have no interest or obligations for such rights, interests and obligations and this Agreement shall remain applicable to Developer with respect to such retained rights, interests and /or obligations. 17.5 Termination of Agreement Upon Sale of Individual Lots to Public. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the burdens of this Agreement shall terminate as to any lot which has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulk ") leased (for a period of longer than one year) or sold to the purchaser or user thereof and thereupon and without the execution or recordation of any further document or instrument such lot shall be released from and no longer be subject to or burdened by the provisions of this Agreement; provided, however, that the benefits of this Agreement shall continue to run as to any such lot until a building is constructed on such lot, or until the termination of this Agreement, if earlier, at which time this Agreement shall terminate as to such lot. covenants, 18, and obligations contained the Land. All of the provisions, rights, terms, i g in this Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties, (b) runs with such properties, and (c) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to Dublin /Moller RE; Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 12 of 15 for the Moller Ranch Project and a burden upon each party and its property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties. 19. Bankruptcy. The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. 20. Indemnification. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by the Developer, or any actions or inactions of Developer's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, provided that Developer shall. have no indemnification obligation with respect to negligence or wrongful conduct of the City, its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees or with respect to the maintenance, use or condition of any improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by the City or another public entity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). If City is named as a party to any legal action, City shall cooperate with Developer, shall appear in such action and shall not unreasonably withhold approval of a settlement otherwise acceptable to Developer. 21. Insurance. 21.1 Public Liabili and Property Damage Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, Developer shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance with a per - occurrence combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) with a One Hundred Thousand Dollar ($100,000) self insurance retention per claim. The policy so maintained by Developer shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross - liability endorsement. 21.2 Workers Compensation Insurance. During the term of this Agreement Developer shall maintain Worker's 'Compensation insurance for all persons employed by Developer for work at the Project site. Developer shall require. each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's Compensation insurance for its respective employees. Developer agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from Developer's failure to maintain any such insurance. 21.3 Evidence of Insurance. Prior to. City Council approval of this Agreement, Developer shall furnish the City satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in Sections 21.1 and 21.2. The insurance shall extend to the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, . employees and representatives and to Developer performing work on the Project. Dublin /Moller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 13 of 15 for the Moller Ranch Project 22. Sewer and Water. Developer acknowledges that it must obtain water and sewer permits from the Dublin San Ramon Services District ( "DSRSD ") which is another public agency not within the control of the City. 23. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 FAX No. (925) 833 -6651 Notices required to be given to Developer shall be addressed as follows: Moller RE Investors, LLC 4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 201 Danville, CA 94506 Attention: Jeff Lawrence A party may change address by giving notice in writing to the other party and thereafter all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed, upon the expiration of 48 hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. Notices may also be given by overnight courier which shall be deemed given the following day or by facsimile transmission which shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt. 24. Agreement is Entire Understanding. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. 25. Exhibits. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement and are. attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full: Exhibit A Legal Description of Property Exhibit B Additional Conditions 26. Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in three (3) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. 27. Recordation. City.shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten days following execution by all parties. Failure of the City to comply with this Paragraph shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties under this Agreement. Dublin /Moller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 14 of 15 for the Moller Ranch Project IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF DUBLIN 0 Joni Pattillo, City Manager Attest: Caroline Soto, City Clerk Approved as to form John Bakker, City Attorney 19$ ©857.7 (NOTARIZATION ATTACHED) DEVELOPER MOLLER RE INVESTORS, LLC a California limited liability company By: Braddock and Logan Services, Inc., a California corporation Its: Manager DublinlMoller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 15 of 15 for the Moller Ranch Project CALIFORNIA ALL- PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County o If Costa On t I i � before rr� Nancy E. Embrey, Notary Public e e, Date t� Here Insert Name andTi8e of the officer personally appeared Name( 1 ,+�` NANCY E. EMBREY Commission # 1859710 z, "�� Notary Public - California Contra Costa County Niy Comm. Expires Aug 1, 2013 who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(,srwhose name(e@aesubscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that <a&sbeAhey executed the same in(MsN&Aelr authorized capac €typ€e , and that by I f r signature/ on the Instrument the persons or the entity upon behalf of which the persorlW'acted, executed the instrument, certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct, WITNESS my hand and official seal. Place Notary Seal Above 5 €gnature S€ga ra of Nolary Pa65a OPTIONAL Though the Information below Is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: ' Document Date: Nu er of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: • Individual • Corporate Officer — Title(s): • Partner - ❑ Limited ❑ General • Attorney in Fact • Trustee • Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer is Representing: Top of ftmb here Signer's Fume: • Individual • Corporate Officer — Tile(s): • Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General • Attorney in t=act • Trustee • Guardian or Conservator • Other: Signer Is Representing: RICaHTUILI BP.RINT "':. -, b 5lCvNEEi 1. 0=7 Nasnal Nola ay As soda €on • 9350 Do SDIo Ave, RO Bw 2402 •ChalsrorO,,CA 91313 -2402, WWW Na6onaNaWorg IIem 859N Reorder Ca&Tal -t=ree l- 800.6765827 Exhibit A Legal Description of Property Order Number: 0131- 617761ale Page Number: 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property In the Clty of Dublln , County of Alameda, State of Callfornia, described as follows: BEING PORTIONS OF PARCELS ONE AND TWO AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO RICHEY TRUST, ET AL, RECORDED ON NOVEMBER 09, 2001 IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 2001440482, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, LYING SOUTH OF THE ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LINE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERN LINE OF SAID SECTION 21, NORTH 89 020'13" WEST, 1866.04 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERN CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERN LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERN LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2, SOUTH 31 001'01" WEST, 953.44 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 33 °23'01" WEST, 138.12 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 2568 (TASSAIARA ROAD); THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHEASTERN LINE, ALONG SAID CENTER LINE NORTH 13 °02'00" WEST, 196.69 FEET TO A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET, A DELTA OF 26 °03'30'; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE AN ARC LENGTH OF 363.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 39 °05'30" WEST, 637.44 FEET TO A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 800,00 FEET, A DELTA OF 45 °10'30'; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE AN ARC LENGTH OF 630.76 FEET; THENCE NORTH 06 °05'00" EAST, 86.18 FEET TO THE ALAMEDA/CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID COUNTY LINE, NORTH 73 050'29" EAST, 1344.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73 051'13„ EAST, 594.30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73 051'45" EAST, 4164.60 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID COUNTY LINE, SOUTH 01 007'46" WEST, 2501.72 FEET TO THE SOUTHERN LINE OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID LIME, NORTH 89 °20'49" WEST, 2610.32 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES OF TASSAJARA ROAD OR COUNTY ROAD NO. 2568. BEING "NEW PARCEL 1" AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE AND BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, BA 12 -07, RECORDED JULY 2, 2008 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20080205093 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. APN: 985- 0001 - 001 -01 FirStAmer %can Title EXHIBIT B Additional Conditions The following Additional Conditions are hereby imposed pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 above. Subparagraph 5.3.1 — Subsequent Discretionary Approvals None. Subparagraph 5.3.2 —_M_ itigatio_n Conditions Subsection a. Infrastructure Seguenclin „g Program The Infrastructure Sequencing Program for the Project is set forth below. (i) Roads: The project - specific road, sidewalk and landscape improvements (and offers of dedication) identified in Commission Resolution No. approving vesting tentative map (the "VTM Resolution ") shall be completed by Developer to the satisfaction and requirements of the Public Works Director at the times and in the manner specified in the VTM Resolution unless otherwise provided below. (ii) Sewer: All sanitary sewer improvements to serve the project site (or any recorded phase of the Project) shall be completed in accordance with DSRSD requirements. (iii) Water: An all weather roadway and an approved hydrant and water supply system shall be available and in service at the site in accordance with the tentative map conditions of approval to the satisfaction and requirements of the City's fire department. All potable water system components to serve the project site shall be completed in accordance with the DSRSD requirements. Recycled water lines shall be installed in accordance with the tentative map conditions of approval. (iv) Storm Drainage: Dublin /Moller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 1 of 5 for the Moller Ranch Project — Exhibit s The storm drainage systems off -site, as well as on -site drainage systems for the areas to be occupied, shall be improved consistent with the tentative map conditions of approval and to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin Public Works Department applying the City's and Zone 7 (Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7) standards and policies which are in force and effect at the time of issuance of the permit for the proposed improvements. Pursuant to Alameda County's National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES) No. CAS0029831 with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, or pursuant to subsequent permits adopted by the Board, all grading, construction and development activities within the City of Dublin must comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act. Proper erosion control measures must be installed at development sites within the City during construction, and all activities shall adhere to Best Management Practices. (v) Other Utilities (e.g. gap, electricity, cable televisions. telephone): Construction shall be completed by phase prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building within that specific phase of occupancy for the Project. Subsection b. Miscellaneous (i) Completion May Be Deferred. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City's Public Works Director may, in his or her sole discretion and upon receipt of documentation in a form satisfactory to the Public Works Director that assures completion, allow Developer to defer completion of discrete portions of any public improvements for the Project if the Public Works Director determines that to do so would not jeopardize the public health, safety or welfare. Subparagraph 5.3.3 — Phasing, Timinn This Agreement contains no requirements that Developer must initiate or complete development of the Project within any period of time set by the City. It is the intention of this provision that Developer be able to develop the Property in accordance with its own time schedules and the Project Approvals, Dublin /Moller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 2 of 5 for the Moller Ranch Project—Exhibit B Subparagraph 5.3.4 -- Financina Plan Developer will install all improvements necessary for the Project at its oven cost (subject to credits for any improvements which qualify for credits as provided in Subparagraph 5.3.6 below). Other infrastructure necessary to provide sewer, potable water, and recycled water services to the Project will be made available by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. If so required by Dublin San Ramon Services District, Developer will enter into an "Area Wide Facilities Agreement" with the Dublin San Ramon Services District to pay for the cost of extending such services to the Project. Such services shall be provided as set forth in Subparagraph 5.3.2(a)(ii) and (iii) above. Subparagraph 5.3.5 — Fees. Dedications None Subparagraph 6.3.6 — Reimbursement i ml- Subparagraph 5,3.7 — Miscellaneous Subsection a. Fallon Road and Tassajara Road Interchange Advances. Certain improvements to the 1- 580/Tassajara Road Interchange ( "Tassajara Interchange Improvements ") and the 1- 580 /Fallon Road & El Charro Road Interchange ( "Fallon Interchange Improvements ") (collectively the "Interchange Improvements ") were constructed in order to facilitate development in the Eastern Dublin, which includes the Property. City has previously entered into agreements for funding the construction of the Interchange Improvements with developers of property within the City. Pursuant to the Tassajara Interchange funding agreements, developers advanced the funding necessary to the City for improvement of the Tassajara Interchange Improvements. The Lin Family has advanced monies to the City needed for the Fallon Interchange Improvements. All of the funding agreements require the City to seek .. reimbursement from non - contributing developers prior to the issuance of building permits to the non - contributing developer. The Property and the Project benefit from the construction of the Interchange Improvements. Subsection L Fallon Interchange Fee Advance. Dublin /Moller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 3 of 5 for the Moller Ranch Project — Exhibit B The Developer shall advance its fair share portion of costs advanced for construction of improvements to the Fallon Road /1 -580 Interchange. The advance will be payable at the time of filing of the first final map. The advance required is based on the total amount advanced to the City by the Lin Family that remains outstanding at the time that the advance is made, multiplied by the fair share percentage of 1.5547 %. The fair share percentage (1.5547 %) was calculated by determining the percentage that the Project's trips bears to the total trips responsible for the interchange. The amount -of the advance shall be calculated using the then - outstanding balance as of the first final map. In the event multiple maps are filed the full amount due shall be collected with the first map. As of October 2, 2012, the total amount advanced by the Lin Family that remained outstanding was $7,226,450. Since the advance does not bear interest, and since the Lin Family will not be making an additional advances, it is not anticipated that the amount outstanding would increase. Thus, were the advance made on October 2, 2012, it would have been $112,349.62. Subsection H. Tassaiara Interchange Fee Advance. The Developer shall advance its fair share portion of costs advanced by the developers for construction of improvements to the Tassajara Road /1 -580 Interchange. The advance will be payable at the time of filing of the first final map. The advance required is based on the total amount advanced to the City by the Lin Family that remains outstanding at the time that the advance is made, multiplied by the fair share percentage of 1.2907 %. The fair share percentage (1.2907 %) was calculated by determining the percentage that the project's trips bears to the total trips responsible for the interchange.. The amount shall be calculated using the then - outstanding balance as of the first final map. In the event multiple maps are filed the full amount due shall be collected with the first map: As of June 30, 2012, the total amount advanced by other developers that remained outstanding was $3,954,841 Since the advance does not bear interest, and since the developers will not be making 'ark additional advances, it is not anticipated that the amount outstanding would increase. Thus, were the advance made on June 30, 2012, it would have been $51,294.42. Subsection iii. TIF Credits for Advances. City will provide a credit to Developer in the amount of Developer's advances under subsections i and ii above to be used by Developer against payment of certain obligations of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee ( "TIF "). In accordance with the City's TIF Guidelines (Resol. 20 -07), establishment of the credit shall require the payment of an administrative fee. The use of credits Dublin /Moller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 4 of 5 for the Moller Ranch Project -- Exhibit B (including limitations on the use of credits) and manner of conversion of the credit to a right of reimbursement will be as set forth in the City's TIF Guidelines, subject to the following provisions: (a) the credit shall be granted at the time Developer makes the advance required by this condition; (b) the credit created as a result of the payment required by Subsection i may be used only to satisfy Section 1 TIF obligations; and (c) the credit created as a result of the payment required by Subsection ii may be used only to satisfy Section 2 TIF obligations. Subsection b. Fire Irnl2act Fee Advance The City is party to an agreement with DR Acquisitions, LLC, dated October 16, 2001, whereby DR Acquisitions, LLC advanced funds to the City for the construction of Fire Station 18. The agreement obligates the City to seek payments from applicants for land use entitlements to reimburse DR Acquisitions for their fair share of DR Acquistions's advance, Pursuant thereto, the Developer shall, prior to the first final map, make an payment to City calculated as follows; The total amount advanced to the Fire Facilities Fee Program by DR Acquisitions, LLC and the City General Fund that still remain outstanding at the time that the advance is made shall be multiplied by the percentage of acreage (6.87 %) that the Property (226.3 acres) bears to the total acreage of the Eastern Dublin area (3293.13 acres). The payment required hereto will be used by the City to reimburse DR Acquisitions, LLC for its advance of costs to the Fire Facilities Fee program to construct and equip the new Eastern Dublin fire station (Fire Station 18) and to reimburse the City General Fund for its loan of funds to the Fire Facilities Fee program for Fire Station 17 Construction. The total amount advanced was $8,138,163 (consisting of $5,996,345 advanced by DR Acquisition and $2,141,818 advanced by the City General Fund). The calculated amount of the advances outstanding as of June 30, 2012 is $4,221,052 (consisting of $2,862,137.80 advanced by DR Acquisitions and $1,358,914.47 advanced by the City General Fund). This outstanding amount is lower than the total advance because it excludes credits transferred by DR Acquisitions, LLC to other entities and because the City General Fund loan has been repaid as Fire Facilities Fees have been collected. However, because the City loan is interest bearing, the amount outstanding could possibly increase as well as decrease. Thus, for illustrative purposes, had the advance been. made in July 2012, it would have been $289,986.27. The amount shall be calculated using the then - outstanding balance as of the first final map. In the event multiple maps are filed the full amount due shall be collected with the first map. City will provide a credit against the Fire Facilities Fee to developer in the amount of developer's advance of monies pursuant to this condition. Developer Dublin /Moller RE Investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 5 of 5 for the Moller Ranch Project —Exhibit B shall be responsible for the payment of an Administrative Fee to establish the credit. The credit may be used by developer against payment of Fire Facilities Fee on this property or any property where Developer has an interest in the City of Dublin. The amount of the credit, once established, shall not be increased for inflation and shall not accrue interest. The credits with written. notice to City, and payment of an administrative fee, may be transferred by developer to another developer of land in Dublin. Dublin/Moller RE investors, LLC Development Agreement Page 6 of 5 for the Moller Ranch Project—Exhibit B DRAFT DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, November 27, 2012 CALL TO ORDER /ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 27, 2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:02:21 PM Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair O'Keefe; Commissioners Brown, and Bhuthimethee; Luke Sims, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Mark Lander, City Engineer: Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Schaub ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 4 -0 -1 with Cm. Schaub absent, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the October 9, 2012 meeting. On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 4 -0 -1 with Cm. Schaub absent, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the November 13, 2012 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA- 2012 -00006 Amador Crossings Commercial Pad Building Site Development Review permit for the construction of a 4,500 square foot commercial pad building along with landscaping, a new trash enclosure and associated site improvements. Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the windows on the south elevation will be glazed and was concerned with the view, which she assumed would be the back of the restaurant. Mr. Adams asked if she was referring to the north elevation. Chair Wehrenberg answered, the south elevation. Mr. Adams answered that the windows will be clear glazing and will show the restaurant dining area. 41tanning Commission Arovem6e'r 27, 20 12 (kgjukaa `JOleelillif 154 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, clarified that the south elevation faces the parking lot and function as the entrance to the building and the north elevation faces Amador Valley Blvd. Chair Wehrenberg asked why the Applicant did not submit interior floor plans for the project. She was concerned with future changes that are not covered in the Conditions of Approval. She was also concerned with the outdoor seating and what will be seen through the windows on this very visible corner. Mr. Baker answered that typically the Applicant would not submit the interior floor plans at this point because the tenants have not been identified and floor plans are not subject to Side Development Review. In this case, the tenants have been identified but the floor plans have not yet been prepared. Outdoor seating is permitted and encouraged in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, as long as it meets the requirements. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the colors that will be used for this project are exactly the same as the colors used in the Panera /Chipotle development. Mr. Adams was unsure if the colors were exactly the same, but stated they are in the same earth tone range. Cm. O'Keefe stated he liked the articulation, trellises and the brick on the building, but did not like the mustard color. He felt if the colors are compatible with the Panera Bread building that would be OK. He asked what height the trees on Amador Valley Blvd. will be when they mature. Mr. Adams answered the trees in the landscape planter will be 24 inch box trees. He added that the decomposed granite tree wells will be constructed around existing London plane street trees, within the sidewalk. Cm. O'Keefe asked if any of the street trees will be removed. Mr. Adams answered that no existing trees will be removed. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked for the width of the sidewalks on the Amador Valley Blvd. and Amador Plaza Road. Mark Lander, City Engineer, answered that the sidewalks are 8 feet wide on both streets, and the tree wells are 3.5 feet wide, which leave approximately 4 feet of walking space beside a tree. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the water meters are being placed in the middle of sidewalk and blocking the walkway. She felt they should be on the building. Mr. Baker answered that the water meters, as shown on the plans, are under the sidewalk. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is a name for this style of architecture. Mr. Baker referred her question to the Applicant. 41tanning Commission Arovem6e'r 27, 20 12 (kgjuka w .`J leer aaaif 155 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Eric Nelson, Red Mountain Retail Group, spoke in favor of the project. He stated his company completed Sprouts and Joanne's Fabrics which are in the same shopping center. He addressed the question regarding the back -of -house windows; he stated that the windows will be screened so that there will be no view of the kitchen area. He added that the tenants would not begin work on their floor plans until the project has been approved. He mentioned the question regarding the colors and stated that part of the same color palette was adopted from some of the other projects within the area. He wanted to incorporate the colors that were in the area already but not completely stand out. Mr. Nelson stated that, in reference to the letter that was received regarding a violation of CC &R's for the center, he and the individual had resolved the issue. Cm. Brown noted that there are two restaurants identified as tenants. The Habit Burger and Freebird's. Cm. Brown was not familiar with either and asked Mr. Nelson to describe them. Mr. Nelson stated that the Habit Burger is a burger joint with a full menu; Freebird's is more like a Chipotle, but with more of a Berkeley style. Cm. Brown asked where each tenant will be located in the building. Mr. Nelson responded that Habit will be on Amador Plaza Road with an outdoor patio and Freebird's will be located on the interior side of the building. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with the blank walls on the north elevation and felt that, since the building is in such a main thoroughfare, it should have more articulation on both sides and suggested a trellis element. Mr. Nelson stated that, on the plans, the building looks flat but there are a few significant jogs, and suggested extending the trellis on the north west corner all the way to the where the building juts out to the street. He stated the elevations don't show the shadowing of the change in plane. He suggested increasing the length of the trellis to bring the wall further down. Cm. Bhuthimethee was more interested in a vertical element on the wall. She stated she did not want to have blank walls on Amador Valley Blvd. She felt that, as Amador Plaza Road becomes more dense, the corner will be very prominent. Chair Wehrenberg agreed that the building could use some "punch" from the street side, but felt the trees would shield whatever was installed. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she attended an Economic Development community meeting recently and many attendees felt that there is a need for more landmarks throughout the City. She felt this architecture has been used before in other locations within Dublin and it does not distinguish Dublin. She felt that, with every new building in the Downtown, there is an opportunity to create character and identity and for a prominent corner such as this it is an opportunity to create a landmark. Chair Wehrenberg suggested a mural similar to BJ's and asked if Staff could work with the Applicant on the corner element. 41tanning Commission Arovem6e'r 27, 20 12 (kgjuka w .`J leer aaaif 156 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker answered that BJ's mural is a part of their branding. He directed the Commissioners to Sheet L -3 of the landscape plans, which shows where the building steps back from Amador Valley Blvd. and also a significant amount of landscaping. He felt that, as the landscaping grows, it will mask those blank areas. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the trees won't be very large. She stated she would like to have more articulation on the blank walls of the building. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg suggested adding a green screen along the wall to embellish the landscaping. Cm. Bhuthimethee disagreed with installing a green screen, but suggested some type of vertical trellis element instead that would match the awning element, as is seen over the windows and doors. Cm. O'Keefe agreed that the building should be more distinctive for the downtown area and felt this type of architecture is bland and seen everywhere. He was excited about the project overall and more development in the downtown. Chair Wehrenberg felt the project would add vibrancy to the downtown and become a well - traveled area. Cm. O'Keefe was unsure what the look for the building should be, but stated he was not happy with the look of this architecture. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested incorporating the metal awning to create a vertical element along the walls on Amador Valley Blvd. which would further articulate the building, more than the trellis element. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Cm. Bhuthimethee was suggesting adding an awning with no greenery. Cm. Bhuthimethee answered yes; there will be plants in front of it but felt it would give the building more depth. Chair Wehrenberg suggested that the Commission add a Condition of Approval to have Staff work with the Applicant to provide more articulation to the building. Mr. Baker agreed; with some parameters, and referred to them to Sheet L -3 of the landscape plans which shows a double row of trees in the area which will probably screen most of it. Cm. Bhuthimethee disagreed and stated those are not large trees. Cm. Brown stated he would defer to Cm. Bhuthimethee regarding landscape designs. He felt that the project is better than what is there today. 41tanning Commission Arovem6e'r 27, 20 12 (kgjukaa Aleela "aaif 157 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she thought the building is attractive, but felt it does not have a lot of "Dublin" to it. Cm. Brown agreed. He stated that these are the first restaurants that have been submitted under the new DDSP guidelines, but he felt this design did not incorporate those guidelines. He felt the building looks better than the other buildings in the plaza, but was not sure that was enough. He agreed that there needs to be something about the building that stands out and is attractive. He stated that the City Council approved a sign that will be located at the back of Joanne's to advertise Downtown Dublin therefore he felt the building should represent Downtown Dublin. He suggested having Staff work with the Applicant to make the building look like what he felt Downtown Dublin should look like. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the corner element has not been addressed as it should be, considering the citizen comments regarding the need for landmarks in the City. Chair Wehrenberg did not feel the building is a landmark, but agreed that it is located on a prominent corner and that Staff should work on the design with the Applicant. She referred to the Panera Bread center, and spoke of the Commission's struggles with creating a project with both front and back entrances and trying to make them both attractive. She thought the colors are similar but asked Staff to check the colors of the surrounding buildings and decide if they want to be compatible or unique. Cm. Brown agreed. Chair Wehrenberg asked Staff to verify the colors and felt the paint does not need to blend in but it doesn't need to be a stand -alone either. Mr. Baker confirmed that she did not want an exact color match to the other buildings in the area and wanted Staff to verify. Chair Wehrenberg agreed. She stated she can make the findings and liked the building but would like the Applicant to do more with the paint color and the back of the building. Cm. Bhuthimethee was excited that this project will increase the density in the area. She asked to add a Condition of Approval for Staff to work with the Applicant to make the corner more distinctive. Mr. Baker felt a Condition of Approval would be helpful but wanted to clarify what the Commission was asking for. He asked if they wanted to change the corner element or the north elevation. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned about Amador Valley Blvd., but felt it is more important to create a landmark for that corner, such as some distinctive detailing on the tower element. Chair Wehrenberg asked if she meant detailing on the north elevation. Cm. Bhuthimethee answered she was referring to the elevation on the northwest corner of Amador Valley Blvd. and Amador Plaza Road. She felt it should be more distinctive. 41tanning Commission Arovem6e'r 27, 20 12 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker stated the Commission could decide to add a Condition of Approval to add more detail to the tower element. Chair Wehrenberg suggested adding a Condition of Approval that states: Staff shall work with the Applicant to create more detail on the tower element and review the paint colors in the area. Mr. Baker suggested speaking with the Applicant to determine if the Commission's request is conceivable. Chair Wehrenberg thought that the tenants might want their own branding colors and the paint colors would then change. Mr. Baker responded that the building colors would not change based on tenants, but Staff can work with Applicant regarding the tower element. Cm. Brown agreed. Mr. Baker stated that the Condition will be: Staff will work with the Applicant regarding additional embellishments on the corner tower element, some additional features on the north elevation and to verify paint colors. On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4 -0 -1, with Cm. Schaub being absent, and with the above Condition of Approval, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,500 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL PAD BUILDING ALONG WITH LANDSCAPING, A NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AMADOR CROSSINGS SHOPPING CENTER AT 7153 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD 8.2 PLPA- 2011 -00003 Moller Ranch (Braddock & Logan Services, Inc.) General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement, and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for a 226.3 -acre project area located along the east side of Tassajara Road south of the City limits. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Wehrenberg asked who will maintain the vineyards. Mr. Porto answered that whoever planted the vineyard would maintain it. He stated that, at some time in the future, a developer could plant a vineyard on the property. The remnant vineyards would be maintained by the HOA which is part of the project landscaping. 41tanning Commission Arovem6e'r 27, 20 12 (kgjuka w .`J leer aaaif 159 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Wehrenberg asked aboutt the acreage of the vineyard. Mr. Porto answered this project is proposing a vineyard treatment that is highlighted in green on the map. By designating a portion of the site for Rural Residential /Agriculture (RR /A) land uses there is a possibility that it could be developed in a vineyard condition which is a permitted use under the RR /A land use designation; but it is not permitted under open space. Chair Wehrenberg asked if this area is currently designated as open space. Mr. Porto answered there is a large part of the project designated as open space with RR /A adjacent to it. The proposal is to decrease the open space amount and create a larger RR /A area so, if there is the potential for a vineyard in the future, there is more land for that purpose. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the SEIR deals with the vineyard issue. Mr. Porto answered yes. Chair Wehrenberg asked why the land use change from the original approvals. She asked if it was because of the SEIR. She felt the project was trying to fit in with the current environment, minimize the grading and build around the current surroundings. Mr. Porto referred the question to the Applicant, but felt this type and density of the development is a better fit in the environment than a higher density. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the RR /A land use designation would prohibit future homes in the area. Mr. Porto answered that the Development Plan is designed for one home in the RR /A area. He stated the tentative map has 370 lots; with the opportunity for 382 lots; 381 within Low - Density Residential and a single lot with the RR /A. There are a finite number of lots. Mr. Baker added that the RR /A designation is an existing designation within the General Plan and allows one home per 100 acres and there is quite a bit of land in east Dublin with that designation therefore, this project is not unique. He referred them to the General Plan Land Use Map to illustrate the area designated RR /A. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the project is increasing the number of units. Mr. Porto answered yes, but existing the land use designation for Medium Density Residential (MDR) is in the 298 to 600 unit range. The project was approved originally at the low end of the MDR range, but was compacted into a smaller portion on the site. He stated that, although the land area is expanded, the density has been reduced. Chair Wehrenberg asked who would develop the neighborhood park. Mr. Porto answered that the City of Dublin would develop the park. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the City of Dublin would change their standards to require LED lighting. Wt aaaa inn Commission Arovem6 a 27, 20 1 (kqpd as `JOleelillif 160 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Lander answered that the City is now requiring LED lights in all new development. Cm. Brown asked if there is an elementary school being built in this project. Mr. Porto answered no. Cm. Brown asked what the closest school to the project is. Mr. Porto answered that Green Elementary would be the closest. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if Mr. Porto was aware of what the proposed artwork will be. Mr. Porto answered no. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if Staff was concerned with how many people would actually be able to enjoy the artwork. She felt that the artwork would only be visited by people who live there. Mr. Porto answered that there is a trail along Tassajara Road and the Tassajara Creek trail that comes off the Wallis property and goes on- street south of the area. He felt it was possible that someday the trail would go all the way from Emerald Glen Park to the open space. He stated there will be a regional connectivity that will be part of the project. He stated the artwork would be something the Developer will work out with the Parks and Community Services Department Staff. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the trail extends into Contra Costa County. Mr. Porto answered yes; there is a road with an existing PG &E substation and there is the potential to continue the trail. He stated that the Developer would like to work with the East Bay Regional Parks District to dedicate the land for those uses, but that would be a private situation the developers will be working on. He stated that the City hoped the Developer would create an educational component to educate the public on the habitat and the environment along the trail. He stated that would be part of the semi - public aspect which includes the public art. He felt it could be determined that the public art should be installed in a different location in the City and in that case the Developer would pay an in -lieu fee. Cm. Brown asked if the HOA would have anything to do with the vineyard as far as granting rights to the property. Mr. Porto answered no. Cm. Brown asked how far the vineyard would be from the property line of the homes. He was concerned with the noise and dust from the tractors, etc. Mr. Porto answered that the Fire Department requires a 20 -30 foot separation between the homes and the open space for a maintenance road. This project has that separation so vineyards would at least maintain that distance. Mr. Baker added that agriculture uses are conditionally permitted in the PD and therefore it would be reviewed as part of any Conditional Use Permit. 41tanning Commission Arovemr)e'r 27, 20 12 (kqpd aw .`J leelaaaif 161 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Andy Byde, Braddock & Logan, spoke in favor of the project. He explained that the project is designed with respect for the environment and to pay tribute to the original uses in the area. He stated that they assembled a team of experts who met and came up with constraints and opportunities. They then evaluated how to integrate a project with a good design, be able to obtain permits through the federal and state agencies, comply with the clean water requirements, as well as, respect and integrate the semi - public and public art requirements of the City. He stated they brought together all the different facets to create a great project that will be successful. He introduced Linda Gates, from Gates and Associates, to share the vision for the property. Linda Gates, Gates and Associates, spoke in favor of the project. She thanked Mike Porto for his work on the project. She described the site as an old homestead area with large eucalyptus trees, a creek corridor and located within a hidden valley. She stated the team reviewed the opportunities to remove the cattle and bring back the natural habitat. She stated the team took advantage of the remote valley to create a special place and bring back memories of past uses. She spoke regarding the long throated entrance which created a lot of opportunities to do place - making within the landscaping. She stated they tried to keep the natural environment and make it appear as though there were the remnants of an old homestead that the developer built around. Mr. Byde stated the goal for the project is about creating a unique place, not just a subdivision, but someplace special and a little different. They wanted to create something that the citizens of Dublin could be proud of. He stated they agreed with Conditions of Approval. He complemented Staff for all their hard work on this project. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Applicant wanted to plant the vineyard right away. Mr. Byde explained that some remnant vines are proposed as part of the landscaping for the project. He felt that when Mr. Porto spoke regarding allowing vines to be planted within the RR /A area, he was referring to the larger policy objective by the City Council who have tried to remove any government constraints to allowing some form of future agricultural use to occur on the site. He felt that the goal was to ensure that no policies were put in place that would prevent the vineyard from being developed. He added that a commercial grapes production operation would likely never happen. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan, spoke in favor of the project. He stated their goals for Moller Ranch is for an exciting place to live and he enjoyed working on the project. He felt that the project allowed them to take a piece of property that is challenging and build a unique project. He appreciated the opportunity that Dublin has afforded and thanked Kit Faubion, City Attorney, for all her efforts. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked Ms. Gates about the "landmark neighborhood entries" and where they are located on the plans. Ms. Gates referred her to Page 38 and Page 24 of the Landscape Plans. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the blue dot on the plans. 41tanning Commission Arovem6e'r 27, 20 12 (kgjukaa `JOleelillif 162 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker referred the Commission to the Project Binder in the Land Use Design Standards, Landscape Guidelines tab. There was a brief discussion regarding the entry elements and entry gateways to the project. Cm. Brown asked if the trail would be appropriate for equestrian riding. Ms. Gates felt it would not, but the open space area would be more appropriate. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg stated she is in support of the project, and liked the trails connection and the project overall. Cm. Bhuthimethee referred the Commission to Page 25 that shows the gateway entrance which she felt is a landmark and very attractive. She stated she hasn't seen anything like this in Dublin before and felt the entire theme is attractive. She thought that the developer has succeeded in creating landmarks and respecting Dublin's history with the agrarian look. She liked the project very much. Cm. Brown stated he is in support of the project, and felt the project has a very artistic pallet of land use. He was impressed with the project and had no issues with the rezone. Cm. O'Keefe was in support of the project and liked it very much. He stated he can make all the findings. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the dry stack theme appears on any of the home elevations. Mr. Porto answered that, as part of the architectural theming, all of the homes will have some element of stone, brick or wood, similar to the Brookfield homes in Jordan Ranch. He stated that with this project there are mandatory elements and stone is a mandatory element. He felt it is hard to do the rubbly look on the houses, but those elements will be shown in the nine different elevations. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about scored driveways. Mr. Porto suggested looking at other Braddock & Logan houses to see how they embellish the driveways. Chair Wehrenberg asked the Applicant if the existing buildings will be moved or torn down. Mr. Porto answered that, as part of the cultural review of the site, it was determined the structures do not have any significant historical value. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the materials from those buildings could be reused at the project site. Chair Wehrenberg reopened the public hearing 41tanning Commission Arovem6e'r 27, 20 12 (kgjukaa `JOleelillif 163 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Byde stated that one of their goals was to save part of one of the buildings or all of it, but after further review, found it could not be saved. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the building materials could be used in the landscaping. Mr. Byde agreed to look into saving some of the materials. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4 -0 -1, with Cm. Schaub being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR MOLLER RANCH �� RESOLUTION NO. 12-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MOLLER RANCH PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 12- 45 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8102 FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS MOLLER RANCH RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 46 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 41tanning Commission Arovemr)e'r 27, 20 12 (kgjukaa `JOleelillif 164 DRAFT DRAFT OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND BRADDOCK & LOGAN SERVICES, INC. FOR THE MOLLER RANCH PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 12 -47 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MOLLER RANCH / MOLLER CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND MAKE RELATED FINDINGS NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and /or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Mr. Baker reminded the Commission that there will be a Study Session on December 11th at 6:00 pm, before the regularly scheduled meeting, to discuss the Economic Development General Plan Element. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if EPS will participate in Study Session. Mr. Baker answered yes. 10.3 Mr. Baker let the Commission know that the City Council heard the appeal for the Downtown Regional sign and overturned the Planning Commission's decision, and approved a modified sign height which is 68 feet tall. Cm. O'Keefe was concerned about blank signs on the larger sign. He asked if there is a Condition to address his concern. Mr. Baker responded that there are Conditions regarding removing sign copy if the businesses are no longer there. Cm. O'Keefe asked if there had been any conversation with the Applicant to design the sign in a way that they only build the signs when there are businesses to support them so there would not be blank signs. Mr. Baker did not recall any discussion nor were there any Conditions approved regarding blank signs. Cm. O'Keefe felt there is a way to construct the sign so sign panels were not put into place until a business had been identified and then remove panels and adjust the location of sign panels to avoid blank sign spaces. He stated it would be more expensive for the Applicant but it would mitigate that issue. Chair Wehrenberg felt that overall the sign was nice, but agreed about the blank signs. Cm. Brown agreed with Cm. O'Keefe and asked if Staff still has an opportunity to work with the Applicant. Mr. Baker answered yes and agreed to speak with the Applicant to see what the feasibility would be. He stated there is no Condition that would require them to do that, but he would discuss this with them. Cm. O'Keefe directed Staff to speak with the Applicant on behalf of the Planning Commission and ask them to not install blank signs until they are sold. Mr. Baker reiterated that he would have that conversation with the Applicant. 41tanning Commission Arovem6e'r 27, 2012 (kgjukaa `JOleelillif 165 DRAFT DRAFT ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 8:51:43 PM Respectfully submitted, Doreen Wehrenberg Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTESI201ZPLANNING COMMISSION41.27.12 DRAFT PC MINUTES.doc 41tanning Commission Arovemr)e'r 27, 20 12 (kqpd aw `JOleela"alif 166 RESOLUTION NO. XX -12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN **************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** CERTIFYING A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING MITIGATION FINDINGS, FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE MOLLER RANCH / MOLLER CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT PLPA 2011 -00003 WHEREAS, Braddock & Logan Services (Applicant) proposes to develop up to 382 single family detached units on approximately 79.6 acres of the 226.3 -acre Moller Ranch. The proposal includes an approximately 1.1 -acre neighborhood park, 1.2 acres of Semi - Public land use including trails and a staging area, a system of bio- retention cells for storm water pollution control, and approximately 7.6 acres of designated Open Space, generally along Moller Creek. In connection with the proposed development, an existing Tassajara Road culvert over Moller Creek would be replaced and would include realignment of the creek and erosion control and other improvements along the creek banks and in the creek channel in an approximately 2.5 acre area. The City is processing applications for General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, a PD- Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, a vesting tentative map and a development agreement, which applications and the activities described above are collectively referred to as the "Project" and are on file and available for review during normal business hours as PLPA 2011 -00003 at the Planning Division, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568; and WHEREAS, the 226.3 -acre Moller Ranch is located on the east side of Tassajara Road at the northerly City limits; the 2.5 acre culvert replacement area is located just west of the Moller Ranch in the Tassajara Road right -of -way. These areas are collectively referred to as the "Project Site "; and WHEREAS, the Project Site is in Eastern Dublin for which the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning framework for future development of the area. In connection with this approval, the City certified a program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH: 91103064, Resolution 51 -93, and Addendum dated August 22, 1994, hereafter "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "program EIR ") that is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference. The program EIR was integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives, and areawide mitigation measures for developing Eastern Dublin, including the Project Site; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation findings and a Mitigation Monitoring Program (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein by reference), which mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to apply to development in Eastern Dublin, including the Project; and 1 WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potentially significant environmental impacts that could not be avoided by mitigation and for which the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA (Resolution 53 -93); and WHEREAS, in connection with a prior project on the Moller Ranch site, the City certified the Casamira Valley /Moller Ranch Project Supplemental EIR ( "Casamira EIR ") pursuant to CEQA section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 (SCH # 2005052146) and adopted supplemental mitigation measures, a Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations for applicable significant unavoidable impacts through Resolution 56 -07, dated May 1, 2007 and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study dated August 2012 for the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 and determined that a supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR and Casamira EIR was required in order to analyze substantial changes in circumstances and new information that could result in new or potentially more severe significant impacts than identified in the prior EIRs; and WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation dated August 30, 2012 with the Initial Study to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the supplemental EIR. The City also conducted a public scoping meeting on August 8, 2012; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental EIR dated September 2012 (SCH No. 2005052146) which reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the Project. The Draft Supplemental EIR confirmed that many aspects of the Project were within the scope of the Eastern Dublin and Casamira projects and that the certified Eastern Dublin and Casamira EIRs adequately described these aspects of the Project for CEQA purposes. The Draft Supplemental EIR was circulated for the required 45 day public review period, from September 13, 2012 to October 29, 2012; and WHEREAS, the City received comment letters from State and local agencies and the applicant during the public review period. The City prepared a Final Supplemental EIR dated November, 2012, containing written responses to all comments received during the public review period, which responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and WHEREAS, after the close of the public review period, the City received a comment letter from Save Mt. Diablo requesting clarifications to the biology mitigation for conservation lands and to the area of grading. The City prepared responses to the comments, which were presented to the Planning Commission together with the other responses in the Final Supplemental EIR, and which are hereby incorporated as part of the Final Supplemental EIR; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated November 27, 2012 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs and the Project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Report, the prior EIRs and the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs at a noticed public hearing on November 27, 2012 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. Following the hearing and based on the record before it, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 12 -47 recommending F, certification of the Supplemental EIR and Resolutions 12 -43 recommending approval of the Project general plan and specific plan amendments and PD- rezoning and adopted Resolution 12 -45, conditionally approving the Project vesting tentative map, all of which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference and available for review during normal business hours at the Planning Division in City Hall at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated December 18, 2012 and incorporated herein by reference, described the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs and the Project for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report, the prior EIRs and the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs at a noticed public hearing on December 18, 2012, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs (including the Save Mt. Diablo comments and responses) reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts and constitute the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Moller Ranch /Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project; and WHEREAS, the Project would have significant supplemental effects on the environment, most of which can be substantially reduced through supplemental mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the Project must include mitigation findings as set forth in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR identified supplemental impact TRA -1 -12 as significant; however the identified mitigation measure to remove a crosswalk at a busy intersection is infeasible, as further described in the Staff Report. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable, as further described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, some of the significant effects cannot be lessened to a level of less than significant; therefore, approval of the Project must include findings regarding alternatives as set forth in attached Exhibit B, and must include a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in attached Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as required by CEQA, is contained in attached Exhibit D; and WHEREAS, the Save Mt. Diablo comment letter dated November 19, 2012 and the City's responses are attached as Exhibit E; and WHEREAS, the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs are separately bound documents, incorporated herein by reference, and are available for review during normal business hours in the City planning division, file PLPA 2011 - 00003. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Moller Ranch /Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project is the Planning Division, City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568, attn: Mike Porto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council certifies the following: A. The Supplemental EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. B. The Supplemental EIR and the Eastern Dublin EIR and Casamira EIR were presented to the City Council who reviewed the considered the information contained therein prior to approving the Project. C. The Supplemental EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental effects of the Moller Ranch /Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project. D. The Supplemental EIR consists of the Draft and Final Supplemental EIR documents and attached Exhibit E, all incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council adopts the mitigations and mitigation findings set forth in Exhibit A, the Findings regarding Alternatives set forth in Exhibit B, the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit C, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit D, which exhibits A, B, C and D are incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of December 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:IPA #1201 VPLPA- 2011 -00003 Moller Ranch 8 &LIPC Mtg 11.27.1ZCC Reso Moller SEIR Rev_11.27.12.doc 4 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City Council hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts from adoption and implementation of the Moller Ranch/Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project (Project), PLPA 2011 -0003, and means for mitigating those impacts. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized rather than set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final Supplemental EIR documents should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations. The Draft and Final Supplemental EIR documents together constitute the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) for the Project. Supplemental Impact TRA -1 -12. Project contribution to impact at Hacienda Dr. /Dublin Blvd. intersection under both near -term and long -term cumulative conditions). The Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour under both near -term and long -term traffic conditions and would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. This intersection and would experience an increase in delay during the AM and PM peak hours due to the Moller Ranch development. Supplemental Mitigation SM- TRA -1 -12. This mitigation is infeasible. (Revised, see FSEIR). Finding: SM- TRA -1 -12 identified in the Draft SEIR is infeasible, as further explained in the Rationale below. There are no feasible mitigations for this impact. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit D, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale: Supplemental mitigation SM- TRA -1 -12 calls for removal of a crosswalk at the Hacienda Drive /Dublin Boulevard intersection. Removing the crosswalk would be inconsistent with the City's adopted complete- streets policy. Also, the intersection is just over one -half mile from the Eastern Dublin BART station and adjoins the transit - oriented Dublin Transit Center, which is a Priority Development Area as designated by ABAG. The intersection is bordered by high- density residential, commercial, office and retail uses, including the Hacienda Crossings shopping g enter, that are expected to generate significant pedestrian activity at buildout. Removing the crosswalk would also pose safety concerns in light of the expected heavy pedestrian traffic that would likely attempt to cross the street even without a marked crosswalk. No other feasible mitigations are identified for the intersection impacts, therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable. . Supplemental Impact TRA -2 -12: Project contribution to impact at Fallon Rd. /Dublin Blvd. intersection under near term conditions. The Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under the Near -term traffic condition and would experience an increase in delay during the PM peak hour due to the Moller Ranch development. (Revised FSEIR). Supplemental Mitigation SM- TRA -2 -12. The project applicant shall optimize the signal timing splits at the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard. This improvement will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Near -term Plus Project condition by improving operations to a pre - project condition. Although the project would worsen the delay at the already failing intersection, the improvement does not mitigate the intersection to an acceptable LOS and therefore the project shall be responsible for the entirety of the mitigation costs. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit B, Findings Concerning Alternatives Rationale: The signal timing adjustment would improve operations at the intersection, but not to an acceptable LOS. The impact is significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to support approval of the Project, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Statement of Overriding Considerations. Supplemental Impact TRA -3 -12: Project contribution to impact at Dougherty Rd. /Dublin Blvd. intersection under long term cumulative conditions. The Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours under the Long -term traffic condition and would experience an increase in delay during the AM and PM peak hours due to the Moller Ranch development. Supplemental Mitigation. No mitigation feasible. Finding: There are no feasible mitigations for this impact. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit D, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale: As further explained in the Draft SEIR, this intersection has already been improved pursuant to past project approvals and related mitigations. Revised signal timing would not improve intersection performance; also, because of right -of -way constraints due to existing commercial structures and /or parking adjacent to the intersection, there is insufficient area for physical capacity improvements. The impact is significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to support approval of the Project, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Statement of Overriding Considerations. Supplemental Impact TRA -4 -12: Project contribution to impact at the Tassaiara Rd. /Dublin Blvd. intersection under long -term cumulative conditions. The Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection is expected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour under the Long -term traffic condition and would experience an increase in LOS and delay during the AM and PM peak hours due to the Moller Ranch development.. Supplemental Mitigation. No mitigation feasible. Finding: There are no feasible mitigations for this impact. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit D, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale: As further explained in the Draft SEIR, revised signal timing would not improve intersection performance; also, because of right -of -way constraints, there is insufficient area for physical capacity improvements. The impact is significant and unavoidable and a Statement of 2 Overriding Considerations is required to support approval of the Project, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Statement of Overriding Considerations. Supplemental Impact TRA -5 -12: Project contribution to impact at Tassaiara Rd. /I -580 WB ramps under long -term cumulative conditions. The Tassajara Road and I -580 WB Ramps intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour under the long -term traffic condition and would experience an increase in level of service to LOS E during the PM peak hour due to the Moller Ranch development. Supplemental Mitigation SM- TRA -5 -12. Prior to the recordation of the first final map for the Moller project, the applicant shall pay the cost to retime the signal at the intersection of Tassajara Road and I -580 WB Ramps. This improvement will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Long -term + Project condition. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: Implementation of this mitigation measure will improve intersection performance to acceptable levels and reduce the impact to less than significant. Supplemental Impact TRA -6 -12: Project contribution to impact at Fallon Rd. /Dublin Blvd. under long -term cumulative conditions. The Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under the Long -term traffic condition and would experience an increase in delay during the PM peak hour due to the Moller Ranch development.. Supplemental Mitigation SM- TRA -6 -12. Prior to the City's issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall optimize the signal timing splits at the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: Revising the signal timing will improve performance deficiencies resulting from the Project contribution to cumulative traffic at this intersection. Supplemental Impact TRA -7 -12: Project contribution to impact along Tassaiara Rd. between Fallon Rd. and County line under near -term conditions. The roadway segment along Tassajara Road from Fallon Road to the County limit will exceed the recommended ADT volume threshold for a two -lane roadway in the City of Dublin due to the Moller Ranch development.. Supplemental Mitigation SM- TRA -7 -12. Prior to the City's issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Moller project, the applicant shall widen Tassajara Road from the project entrance to Fallon Road to four lanes. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. 3 Rationale: Widening Tassajara Road to four lanes ensures compliance with the City's ADT volume threshold and provides sufficient width along this roadway segment to accommodate traffic increases from the Project. Supplemental Impact TRA -8 -12: Project contribution to impact to impact along Tassaiara Rd. between Dublin Blvd. and Gleason Dr. under long -term cumulative conditions. The roadway segment along Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive under the Metropolitan Transportation System is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour and under the Long -term condition and would experience a decrease in average travel speed during the PM peak hour due to the Moller Ranch development. Supplemental Mitigation SM- TRA -8 -12. Prior to the recordation of the first final subdivision map for the Moller project, the applicant shall pay the cost to coordinate signals along Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive. The coordination of signals along Tassajara would increase the average travel speed to 11 mph, the same as without the project, and therefore will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Long -term plus Project condition. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: Revising the signal timing will improve roadway capacity and thus will improve performance deficiencies resulting from the Project contribution to cumulative traffic along this roadway segment. Supplemental Impact TRA -9 -12: Project contribution to impact along Tassaiara Rd. between I -580 and Dublin Blvd. under long -term conditions. The roadway segment along Tassajara Road from I -580 to Dublin Boulevard would exceed the recommended ADT volume threshold for an eight -lane roadway in the City of Dublin under the Long -term traffic condition and is expected to experience an increase in volume due to the Moller Ranch development. Supplemental Mitigation SM- TRA -9 -12. Northbound Tassajara Road shall be widened to five lanes from I -580 to Dublin Boulevard. The additional northbound lane would be a drop lane for the inside northbound right turn lane. An additional northbound lane would increase the ADT threshold to 80,000 vehicles per day and therefore will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Long -term + Project condition. The City intends to include this roadway improvement in the next fee program update and therefore the project will solely be responsible to pay their impact fees. If the improvement is not added to the fee program by the time of final subdivision mapping, the project shall pay its fair share of the improvement as calculated by the City. The project's traffic volume contribution to the impact is 2% under Long -term conditions. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: Widening Tassajara Road to five lanes ensures compliance with the City's ADT volume threshold and provides sufficient width along this roadway segment to accommodate Project contribution to cumulative traffic. Supplemental Impact TRA- 10 -12: Lack of vehicle storage capacity at the Tassaiara Rd./ Fallon Rd. intersection. The Tassajara Road and Fallon Road intersection would provide for an inadequate eastbound left turn queue of during the PM peak hour in the Existing Plus Project and Near Term Plus Project conditions. The project would create a left -turn queue exceeding the turn pocket and then spilling out of the turn pocket into the roadway, this is a significant impact. Supplemental Mitigation SM- TRA- 10 -12. Prior to the City's issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall restripe the existing eastbound through lane into a shared through/left turn lane and implement split phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigation would ensure provision of a second lane to increase queuing capacity to accommodate left -turn traffic from the Project. Supplemental Impact TRA- 11 -12: Lack of vehicle storage capacity at the Tassaiara Rd./ Dublin Blvd. intersection. The Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection would have provide for an inadequate eastbound left turn queue under the Long -term Plus Project conditions. The project would create a demand for an additional approximately 80 feet of the total queue that would exceed the turn pocket length in the PM peak. Since the project would create at least one car length of the total queue exceeding the turn pocket and the queue spilling out of the turn pocket is greater than one car, this impact would be significant. Supplemental Mitigation. No mitigation feasible. Finding: There are no feasible mitigations for this impact. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit B, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale: As further explained in the Draft SEIR, revised signal timing would not improve intersection performance; also, because of right -of -way constraints, there is insufficient area for physical capacity improvements. The impact is significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to support approval of the Project, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Statement of Overriding Considerations. Supplemental Impact BIO -1 -12: Direct and Indirect impacts to annual grassland habitat and common wildlife. Construction of the proposed project would directly and indirectly impact approximately 165.14 acres of annual grassland habitat for regionally common wildlife species that occurs on the Moller Ranch. Supplemental Mitigation SM- BIO- la -12. The project applicant shall preserve grasslands at a ratio of 3:1 (preserved: impacted) as mitigation for the proposed development, for a total of 495.42 acres. In addition, to compensate for the loss of 4.95 ac of regulated habitats (jurisdictional wetlands and riparian woodlands) that function as dispersal and refuge habitat for tiger salamanders and red - legged frogs, another 14.85 ac of grasslands shall be preserved in the 5 conservation lands for a total of 510.27 acres. As described above, the loss of these regulated habitats could be mitigated for at off -site mitigation banks. All lands proposed as mitigation must provide suitable habitat for focal species impacted by the proposed project. The preservation of 510.27 ac of grasslands will satisfy EACCS habitat mitigation requirements for impacts to focal species discussed below. A conservation easement or similar mechanism shall be placed on the mitigation lands to preserve the lands in perpetuity as a natural open space and habitat for native plants and animals. An agreement establishing the conservation easement or similar mechanism on the mitigation lands must be completed prior to the initiation of construction activities. Supplemental Mitigation SM- BIO- lb -12. The project applicant shall establish an endowment in an amount to be determined by the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) and United States Fish & Wildlife Service ( USFWS) for the long -term management, maintenance, and monitoring of the mitigation lands placed in the conservation easement or similar mechanism. The project applicant shall provide a guarantee of the endowment to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Supplemental Mitigation SM- BIO- lc -12. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a comprehensive habitat mitigation and monitoring plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the USFWS and CDFG. The comprehensive plan shall be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. To comply with EACCS requirements and to mitigate for Supplemental Impacts described below, the mitigation and monitoring plan shall incorporate detailed information on the management, maintenance and monitoring of the following resources impacted by the proposed project including: a) Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale (if present on Project site) b) California tiger salamander dispersal and refugial habitat c) California red - legged frog dispersal habitat d) Burrowing owl habitat e) San Joaquin kit fox habitat 0 Golden eagle foraging habitat Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR Rationale: Implementation of all of the above mitigation measures will ensure long -term preservation of annual grasslands habitat and provide permanently protected habitat for regionally common wildlife species. Supplemental Impact BIO -2 -12: Impacts to iurisdictional waters and woodland and riparian habitat. The current project footprint would impact 4.45 acres of jurisdictional habitats (approximately 0.14 acres less than the 2007 SEIR project), including impacts to 3.51 acres of seep and seasonal wetland, 0.68 acres of ephemeral and intermittent drainage and 0.26 acres of perennial drainage habitats. The current project footprint would also impact 0.50 acres of riparian habitat, a habitat that was not analyzed in the 2007 SEIR. (Revised FSEIR). 6 Supplemental Mitigation SM- 13I0-2 -12. The project applicant shall provide suitable compensatory, replacement habitat for loss of jurisdictional waters and woodland habitat at a minimum ratio of 1:1 for wetlands and 3:1 for riparian habitats. Replacement mitigation land may occur in off -site mitigation banks that support appropriate habitat, as approved by the City of Dublin and appropriate biological regulatory agencies. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: This mitigation ensures that ecologically valuable wetland and riparian woodland habitat lost due to the Project development will be replaced and permanently maintained. Supplemental Impact BIO -3 -12 Water quality impacts on biological resources. The habitats that are directly associated with on -site creeks and drainage channels represent sensitive natural communities that include aquatic habitat (both seasonal and perennial) and an associated aquatic - upland transition zone. During construction phases, sediment could enter aquatic habitats through gravity or in runoff, adversely affecting water quality for fish and amphibians, including the California red - legged frog, in downstream areas. Following project construction, increased runoff from the addition of hardscape could result in increased erosion and water quality degradation within these habitats in the project area. Degradation of water quality downstream resulting from construction and residential development could impact aquatic wildlife species. Supplemental Mitigation SM- 13I0-3 -12. The project applicant shall implement the following water quality features: a) The project's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) shall include specific and detailed BMPs designed to mitigate construction- related pollutants. These controls shall include methods to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies with stormwater within the creek and drainages. Additional control measures identified in this SWPPP will mitigate the release of construction- related pollutants from the site during the various construction phases. b) BMPs intended to reduce erosion of exposed soil in the bed and banks of the creek and drainage channels in the Project site may include, but are not limited to: soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales and sediment basins. C) To the maximum extent practicable, all grading within the riparian and jurisdictional habitats shall occur during the dry season. If grading is to occur during the rainy season the primary BMPs selected will focus on erosion control. End -of -pipe sediment control measures (e.g., basins and traps) will be used only as secondary measures. d) Work within the low -flow channel of the riparian habitats shall not occur when there is flowing water within the channel. The creek or drainage channel shall be dewatered and flows rerouted during construction for access. Work shall only take place in areas within the native channel bed between April and October. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. 7 Rationale: The mitigation ensures that the required SWPPP includes measures specifically intended to prevent and control erosion and sediment release during and after construction of the Project so that these pollutants do not enter and degrade onsite creeks and drainage channels.. Supplemental Impact BIO -4 -12 Introduction of non - native weeds. Disturbance such as grading, vehicle movement, and increased foot traffic that results from project development could result in an increase of the spread of non - native, invasive weed species. High densities of weeds could rapidly invade and colonize freshly disturbed soils, increasing the area of cover that could ultimately impact the natural habitats within the project area. In addition, it is possible that seeds of invasive species could be inadvertently carried to the site by construction equipment or personnel. Invasion by non - native weed species could degrade the functions and values of preserved natural habitat, either on -site or in adjacent areas for native plants and wildlife species. Supplemental Mitigation SM- BIO- 4a -12. To reduce the potential establishment or spread of non - native, invasive weed populations as a result of Project activities, the following measures shall be implemented. These measures shall be included in grading plans and specifications. a) Concentrations of invasive species that could serve as seed sources shall be removed prior to site grubbing or grading. b) Staging areas shall be maintained free of weeds and weed seed for the duration of their use during project construction. C) All construction equipment shall be cleaned prior to deployment on the site by removing all mud, dirt, and plant parts from all equipment, particularly undercarriages and items that may have the potential to spread and deposit weed seeds by having contact with vegetation or soil. Cleaning must occur away from sensitive habitats. d) All fill material sources shall be inspected to ensure that they are "weed free" before use and transport. Fill material shall not be used if non - native, invasive species are found growing on the material as this would indicate that seed from these species is present within the material. e) If straw is used for road stabilization and erosion control, it shall be certified by a qualified biologist that it is weed -free or weed -seed free. Supplemental Mitigation SM- 13I0- 0-12. The project applicant shall develop and implement an Invasive Species Management Plan to reduce the presence and spread of non - native, invasive plant species on the site prior to grading any areas on the project site. This management plan shall outline methods to remove the existing populations of non - native, invasive weed species from the accessible portion of the site to prevent the spread of their seed during and after construction and to prevent the invasion of graded area by invasive species. This management plan shall contain details regarding the removal and treatment of these species (herbicide application, manual removal, mowing, etc), success criteria and a seeding plan to encourage native species to grow within disturbed habitat. The plan shall be submitted to the City of Dublin Community Development Department for approval, and the Department must approve the plan prior to initiation of any ground- disturbing activities. Supplemental Mitigation SM- BIO- 4c -12. Landscape guidelines shall be established and implemented by the Homeowner's Association to ensure that landscape plantings at the new residences or facilities shall not include any plants that are listed on the California Invasive Plant Council Invasive Plant Inventory's list of invasive plants and that are ranked in an inventory category as having a moderate or high ecological impact on physical processes. 8 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: Implementation of all of the above measures provides a comprehensive suite of actions to reduce the spread of non - native species, including but not limited to removing major invasive weed species on the Project site, and cleaning construction equipment. The measures also ensure that the actions are contained in a coordinated management plan that is reviewed and approved by the City prior to any grading related activities and implemented before, during and after Project construction. Supplemental Impact BIO -5 -12 Impacts to special- status plants. Approximately 305 San Joaquin spearscale plants were found in the 2003 rare plant surveys in sparsely vegetated alkali wetlands. Updated floristic surveys are required to comply with the EACCS and impacts will be assessed based on those surveys. Because spearscale plants are CLAPS List 1B species that occupy a relatively narrow habitat niche, the loss of individuals of these plants on the project site (depending on survey results) represents a large enough proportion of its regional population such that the loss is potentially significant impact. Supplemental Mitigation SM- BIO- 5a -12. Special- status plant species on the project site be avoided to the extent possible and impacts be mitigated based on an assessment of how the project will affect the focal plant population, with the assessment methodology requiring appropriate agency approval. Supplemental Mitigation SM- BIO -5b -12 . Habitat for any Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale on the project site shall be preserved at a mitigation ratio of 5:1 per the EACCS mitigation requirements. Mitigation could involve fee title purchase or conservation easement and management of the site (per supplemental mitigation measures SM- 13I0- 12 -2a, -2b and -2c, above), with the focal plant population on the mitigation site being the same or better in terms of size and vigor. Mitigation lands may include portions of areas outside of project site, within the Moller Ranch and Brown Ranch and potentially portions of the Brown Ranch, in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: Implementation of these measures together with prior adopted mitigations ensures that habitat for special status plants shall be preserved, either on- or off -site. Supplemental Impact BIO -6 -12 Impacts to California tiger salamander. The current project footprint would impact approximately 170.09 acres of dispersal and refugial California tiger salamander habitat, including annual grassland, jurisdictional wetland, and riparian woodland habitats. This would be an increase from the Casamira Valley SEIR by approximately 20.09 acres. No breeding habitat within the current project footprint was identified in current biological surveys and thus no mitigation for loss of breeding habitat is necessary. Supplemental Mitigation SM- BIO -6 -12. The project applicant shall adhere to the following requirements, which replace SM- 13I04c and -4d identified in the Casamira Valley SEIR and adopted with the 2007 project approval: 9 a) If aquatic habitat is present on a portion of the site, a qualified biologist shall stake and flag an exclusion zone prior to activities. The exclusion zone shall be fenced with orange construction zone and erosion control fencing (to be installed by construction crew). The exclusion zone shall encompass the maximum practicable distance from the work site and at least 500 feet from the aquatic feature wet or dry. b) A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys prior to activities define a time for the surveys (before ground breaking). If individual salamanders are found, work shall not begin until they are moved out of the construction zone to a USFWS /CDFG approved relocation site. C) A USFWS- approved biologist shall be present for initial ground disturbing activities. d) If the work site is within the typical dispersal distance (per USFWS /CDFG for appropriate distances for species of interest) of potential breeding habitat, barrier fencing shall be constructed around the worksite to prevent amphibians from entering the work area. Barrier fencing may be removed within 72 hours of completion of work. e) Monofilament plastic shall not be used for erosion control, within areas adjacent to undisturbed open space. Construction personnel shall inspect open trenches in the morning and evening for trapped amphibians during construction periods. f) A qualified biologist possessing a valid ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit or Service approved under an active biological opinion, shall be contracted to trap and to move amphibians to nearby suitable habitat if amphibians are found inside fenced area. g) Work shall be avoided within suitable habitat from October 15 (or the first measurable fall rain of 1" or greater, to May 1. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigations, together with previously adopted mitigations still applicable to the Project, continue to provide a comprehensive program for avoiding harm to CTS by safely relocating any individuals found and preventing their return to the construction and development area. Supplemental Impact BIO -7 -12 Impacts to red - legged frog. Project implementation could result in the direct loss of individual red - legged frogs as a result of trampling by personnel or equipment, vehicle traffic, the collapse of underground burrows (which may be used as refugia by red - legged frogs) resulting from soil compaction due to heavy equipment use and the loss of aestivation and dispersal habitat. The current project construction footprint would impact approximately 170.09 ac of red - legged frog dispersal habitat on the site. This would be an increase of approximately 126.09 acres than was analyzed in the 2007 SEIR. Supplemental Mitigation. Implement SM- BIO -12 -2 and SM- 13I0-12 -6. (Revised FSEIR). SM- BIO -5b from the 2007 adopted mitigations shall not be applicable to the Project because the Project will not result in loss of breeding habitat. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigations, together with previously adopted mitigations still applicable to the Project and habitat compensation requirements continue to provide a comprehensive program for 10 avoiding harm to red - legged frog by safely relocating any individuals found and preventing their return to the construction and development area and by providing compensating habitat for that lost to Project development. Supplemental Impact BIO -8 -12 Impacts to burrowing owl. The current Project footprint would impact approximately 170.09 acres of upland burrowing owl habitat on the project site. This would be an increase from the impact area to burrowing owls identified in the 2007 SEIR by approximately 20.09 acres Supplemental Mitigation SM- 13I0-8 -12. The applicant shall complete the following actions with respect to burrowing owl. a) If an active nest is identified within 250 foot distance of a burrowing owl nest or a distance determined by a qualified biologists in coordination with CDFG, a proposed work area work shall be conducted outside of the nesting season (15 March to 1 September) if feasible. b) If an active nest is identified near a proposed work area and work cannot be conducted outside of the nesting season, a no- activity zone will be established by a qualified biologist. The no- activity zone shall be large enough to avoid nest abandonment and will at a minimum be a 250 -feet radius from the nest. C) If burrowing owls are present at the site during the non - breeding period, a qualified biologist shall establish a no- activity zone of at least 150 feet, if feasible. d) If an effective no- activity zone cannot be established around an occupied burrow, an experienced burrowing owl biologist shall develop a site - specific plan (i.e., a plan that considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the duration and timing of the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of the owls and the dissimilarity of the proposed activity with background activities) to minimize the potential to affect the reproductive success of the owls. f) A Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared if occupied burrows cannot be avoided during the breeding season. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigation reflects the most current state regulatory requirements for identifying burrowing owl nests near ground disturbance areas of the Project site and establishing non - activity zones during breeding season. These requirements together with previously adopted mitigations, e.g., for habitat compensation, avoid direct loss of individual owls and provide permanently protected replacement habitat for that lost to Project development. Supplemental Impact BIO -9 -12 Impacts to San Joaquin kit fox and American badger. The proposed Project would result in loss of 165.14 ac of grasslands on the site that would impact habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. Project construction could also potentially result in the destruction of an active American badger den, which could result in the take of up to one badger and /or its pups. If badgers have to be evicted from their dens, there is some potential that they will be exposed to greater predation risk or greater road mortality Supplemental Mitigation SM- 13I0-9 -12. The project applicant shall: a) Undertake preconstruction surveys on the project site by a USFWS /CDFG- approved biologist prior to grading or ground disturbance. b) Avoid disturbance and destruction of potential dens to the extent practicable. 11 C) If disturbance of dens is unavoidable, a qualified biologist shall determine if the dens are occupied using methodology developed in coordination with the USFWS and /or CDFG. If the dens are determined to be unoccupied, they shall be collapsed by hand in accordance with USFWS procedures. d) Exclusion zones around occupied dens will be established by a qualified biologist following USFWS procedures following current standards (potential den — 50 ft; known den — 100 ft; natal den — determined on a case -by -case basis in consultation with the USFWS and CDFG). e) Pipes will be capped and trenches equipped with exit ramps to prevent animals from becoming trapped. f) Loss of suitable kit fox habitat on the Project site will be mitigated for at a 3:1 ratio. g) If an active badger den is discovered on the Project site and cannot be avoided using the measures described above, mitigation for loss of the burrow(s) will be provided at a 3:1 ratio, and mitigation lands will be protected in perpetuity; and Implement SM- 13I0- 12- 1(a -c), -2 and -3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigations ensure that pre - construction surveys will identify any individuals on the Project site and avoid disturbance of active dens. The measures further ensure provision of permanently protected replacement habitat for that lost to Project development. Supplemental Impact BIO -10 -12 Impacts to Golden eagle. Proposed project construction could impact existing foraging habitat for Golden eagles. Supplemental Mitigation. Implement SM- 13I0- 12- 1(a -c), -2 and -3; and SM- 13I0- 10 -12. The following steps shall be undertaken if a Golden eagle nets is discovered on the site: a) If an active nest is identified near (i.e., within 1000 ft. or as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the CDFG) a proposed work area, work shall be conducted outside of the nesting season (February 1 to September 1). b) If an active nest is identified near a proposed work area and work cannot be conducted outside of the nesting season, a no- activity zone shall be established by a qualified biologist. The no- activity zone shall be large enough to avoid nest abandonment and will at a minimum be 250 - feet radius from the nest. C) If an effective no- activity zone cannot be established in either case, an experienced golden eagle biologist shall develop a site - specific plan (i.e., a plan that considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the duration and timing of the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of the eagles, and the dissimilarity of the proposed activity with background activities) to minimize the potential to affect the reproductive success of the eagles. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigations ensure protection of any identified eagles by limiting construction work to outside the breeding season, or, by establishing a no- activity zone around active nests. 12 The measures further ensure provision of permanently protected replacement foraging habitat for that lost to Project development. Supplemental Impact BIO -11 -12 Moller Creek culvert impacts to non - native grasslands. Construction of the proposed culvert replacement would impact approximately 0.5 acre of non - native annual grassland adjacent to the culvert replacement site. Supplemental Mitigation SM- BIO -11 -12 The project applicant shall provide sufficient compensatory grassland habitat for loss of approximately 0.5 acres of impacted grassland habitat. The amount of replacement habitat is estimated to be approximately 2.5 acres, but the final amount of compensatory grassland shall be determined through discussions with appropriate biological regulatory agencies. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigation ensures that compensating non - native grasslands will be provided to replace those lost to the culvert replacement. Supplemental Impact BIO -12 -12 Moller Creek culvert impacts to mixed riparian forest. Construction of the proposed culvert replacement would impact approximately one acre of mixed riparian forest. Supplemental Mitigation SM- 13I0- 12 -12. The project applicant shall avoid construction activities that would impact mixed riparian forest. If avoidance is not possible, the applicant shall purchase of compensatory habitat or purchase appropriate mitigation bank credits. The mitigation ratio for acreage is 3:1. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigation ensures that mixed riparian forest will be avoided by the culvert replacement work, or, that suitable alternative habitat will be purchased. Supplemental Impact BIO -13 -12 Moller Creek culvert impacts to wetlands and other waters. Construction of the proposed culvert replacement would impact an estimated 0.006 acre of seasonal wetlands and approximately 0.09 acre of waters. Also, the proposed project would sill jurisdictional features and create a new creek alignment. Supplemental Mitigation SM- 13I0- 13 -12. The project applicant shall provide suitable compensatory, replacement habitat for loss of jurisdictional wetlands and waters at a minimum ratio of 3:1 for a total of 0.018 acre of seasonal wetland and 0.27 acre of waters. Replacement mitigation land may occur in off -site mitigation banks that support appropriate habitat, as approved by the City of Dublin and appropriate biological regulatory agencies. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, a Section 404 permit from the Corps, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. The applicant shall adhere to all conditions of approval listed in the permits obtained from the regulatory agencies. 13 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigation ensures that compensating alternative wetlands and waters habitat will be provided to replace that lost due to the culvert replacement. The mitigation further ensures that all applicable water quality protection and other related regulatory requirements will be implemented for the culvert replacement. Supplemental Impact BIO -14 -12 Moller Creek culvert impacts to special- status plants) Construction of the proposed culvert replacement could impact twelve special- status plant species known to occur in the project area. These include: heartscale, lesser saltscale, brittlescale, San Joaquin spearscale, round - leaved filaree, Congdon's tarplant, hispid salty bird's beak, palmate salty bird's beak, Livermore tarplant, western leatherwood, diamond - petaled California poppy, and Diablo helianthella. Supplemental Mitigation SM- BIO- 14a -12. The project applicant shall conduct a focused rare plant survey during the blooming period for these species (March). An additional survey in August is necessary to determine the presence or absence of the other species. The methodology for the rare plant survey will vary by species and site - specific conditions. Impact assessment methodologies shall be approved in advance by USFWS (federally listed species) and CDFG. The floristic survey of the site must have been completed within the preceding 3 years prior to construction (under normal rainfall conditions) and spatially explicit data on the extent of the focal plant population must be available. Supplemental Mitigation SM- 13I0- 10-12. The project applicant shall implement avoidance measures outlined below to avoid any impacts and shall mitigate any loss of habitat. To mitigate impacts on a plant population that cannot be avoided, a parcel where the specific plant species occurs shall be acquired through fee title purchase or conservation easement (or similar mechanism). The mitigation plan shall be equivalent to or better in terms of population size and vigor than the plant population affected at the project site. (Revised FSEIR). Enhancement plans for public and private lands that provide suitable habitat for focal plant species shall be developed to enhance suitable habitat and contribute to meeting the conservation objectives. Specific measures for affected plant species in management plans promote livestock grazing in grassland and scrub habitat, conduct prescribed burns, conduct mowing, and identify locations in or near the project site where shrub- or tree - dominated plant communities are encroaching on grassland communities (alkali meadow and scald, California annual grassland, and non - serpentine bunchgrass grassland). Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigation ensures that special status plants will be avoided by the culvert replacement work, or, that suitable alternative habitat will be purchased and managed through preparation and implementation of enhancement plans. Supplemental Impact BIO -15 -12 Moller Creek culvert impacts to tree nesting birds and bats. Construction of the proposed culvert replacement could impact bird species that may 14 use the project site for breeding and foraging. Golden eagles may use existing eucalyptus trees adjacent to the site for nesting. Roosting bats are also likely to occur in or adjacent to the project site Supplemental Mitigation SM -BIO 15 -12. The project applicant shall undertake the following: a) If the proposed project were to remove trees during the nesting bird season (February 1 — August 31) then pre - construction breeding bird surveys should be conducted within 10 -14 days of ground disturbance to avoid disturbance to active nests, eggs, and /or young of ground- nesting birds. b) Any trees and shrubs in or adjacent to the project area that are proposed for removal and that could be used as nesting sites by loggerhead shrike and white - tailed kite may only be removed during the non - breeding season (September through February). C) Prior to removal of any on -site trees, a qualified bat biologist shall perform a survey to identify any roosting bats present. If a maternity roost is found, tree removal shall be postponed until the young become independent and the mothers vacate the roost; and Implement SM- BIO -10 -12 for impacts to Golden eagle. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigations ensure that active nests or bat roosts will be identified and avoided during nesting season. Supplemental Impact BIO -16 -12 Moller Creek culvert impacts to red- le22ed frog. A majority of the project site provides suitable dispersal and upland habitat for red - legged frog. Construction of the proposed culvert replacement could reduce this dispersal habitat. Supplemental Mitigation. Implement SM- BIO -7 -12 (Revised FSEIR); and SM- 13I0- 16 -12. The project applicant shall mitigate the loss of suitable red - legged frog habitat by protecting and enhancing occupied habitat through the purchase of similar suitable habitat or through the purchase of mitigation bank credits. The mitigation ratio for acreage is 3:1. The purchase of mitigation land outside of California Red Legged Frog Mitigation Area CZ3 requires site - specific agency approval. Additionally, in order to meet CDFG's standard of full mitigation for state -listed species under the California Endangered Species Act, the project applicant shall demonstrate habitat enhancement, not just permanent protection, on properties used for mitigation. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigations ensure that compensating habitat for red - legged frog will be provided for that lost due to the culvert replacement. 15 EXHIBIT B FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES Introduction. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified four alternatives: No Project, Reduced Planning Area, Reduced Land Use Intensities and No Development. The City Council found the No Project, Reduced Land Use Intensities and No Development alternatives infeasible and then approved a modification of the Reduced Planning Area alternative. The Casamira Supplemental EIR identified a No Project/No Development Alternative, a No Project alternative for development under then - existing City and County specific and area plans, a third alternative for large -lot development, and a fourth alternative with up to 326 units. The City Council considered the four alternatives and found three of them infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth in Resolution 56 -07 (incorporated herein by reference). The City Council adopted a less dense version of Alternative 4 (Resolution 58 -07, Ordinance 09- 07, incorporated herein by reference). The Moller Ranch project Supplemental EIR identifies and analyzes a No Project/No Development alternative, a large lot development alternative, a reduced development alternative and a cluster development alternative, as further described below. Pursuant to CEQA sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), the City Council finds the alternatives infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth below. The Project objectives are identified at Section 3.5 of the Draft SEIR (p. 17). Alternative 1: No Project /No Development. (DSEIR pp. 156 -157.) Finding: Infeasible. Under this alternative, no development would occur on the Project site; the existing culvert would not be replaced. This alternative would avoid the Project's significant traffic impacts since it would avoid the new traffic trips generated with the proposed development. This alternative would not, however, achieve any of the project objectives, including implementation of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which anticipate development of the Moller Ranch. Needed housing would not be provided with this alternative, nor would the Project's proposed trails and staging area. The existing aging culvert would not be replaced. Alternative 2: Large Lot Development. (DSEIR pp. 157 -158.) Finding: Infeasible. This alternative would include development of Moller Ranch with up to 55 approximately 1 -acre residential lots on roughly the same development envelope as the Project. This alternative would include trails and would include the replacement culvert. This alternative would reduce traffic generation compared to the Project but would not avoid any of the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Supplemental EIR. This alternative would not meet Project objectives to implement development anticipated by the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because, although residential, it would be substantially less dense than the plans prescribe and would provide less than 15% of the housing proposed by the Project. Alternative 3: Reduced Development. (DSEIR pp. 158 -159.) 16 Finding: Infeasible. This alternative would include development of Moller Ranch with 354 single family units on approximately 5,000 square foot lots. This would be fewer units than the Project so traffic generation would be reduced, but not enough to avoid the Project's significant impacts. While there would be fewer units, the lots would be larger, increasing the development area of the Project site, requiring more grading and increasing losses of biological habitat, more stabilization along Moller Creek, a second creek crossing, and providing no neighborhood park. This alternative would increase biological, grading and other impacts, but many could be reduced to less than significant, as with the Project. This alternative would be generally consistent with the density anticipated in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, but would still be nearly 10% fewer units than the Project objective of 382 units. Alternative 4: Cluster Development. DSEIR pp. 160 -161.) Finding: Infeasible. This alternative would cluster 380 dwellings on the site in a series of 3 -unit multi - family buildings on a somewhat smaller development area than the Project. The multi- family configuration would reduce expected traffic generation but not enough to avoid any of the Project's significant unavoidable impacts. This alternative would reduce biological impacts compared to the Project, but no significant unavoidable biology impacts were identified for the Project. The alternative would be generally consistent with the density anticipated in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and would be very close to the Project objective of 382 units. This alternative would be all multi - family units and would not be consistent with the Project's proposed product of single family detached units. 17 EXHIBIT C STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53 -93, May 10, 1993.) The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The City Council similarly considered the additional significant impacts of the 2007 Moller Ranch project and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Casamira Valley Supplemental EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 56 -07, May 1, 2007.) The City Council is currently considering the Moller Ranch/Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project, PLPA 2011 -0003. The Project proposes residential development of up to 382 units on the Moller Ranch property and replacement of an existing Tassajara Road culvert over Moller Creek. These actions are collectively referred to herein as the "Project ". The City prepared a Supplemental EIR for the Project which identified supplemental impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant. The Supplemental EIR also identified supplemental Traffic impacts that could not be mitigated to less than significant. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the 1993 land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin, including the Moller Ranch, as well as the 2007 approval of residential development on Moller Ranch. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt new overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the current Project.' The City Council must also adopt overriding considerations for the supplemental impacts identified in the Supplemental EIR as significant and unavoidable. The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the prior EIRs and the Supplemental EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the original Eastern Dublin and the 2007 approvals and by the environmental protection measures adopted through the Project approvals, to be implemented with the development of the Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the prior EIRs and the Project Supplemental EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Project. Land Use Impact 3. YF. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/13; and, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. ' "...public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency 103 Cal.App. 4t" 98, (2002). 18 Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.31B, 3.31E. I -580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.31I, 3.31M. Santa Rita Road /I -580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts. Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.41S. Consumption of Non - Renewable Natural Resources and Sewer, Water; and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5 1F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution System. Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.61B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects. Air Quality Impacts 3.11 /A, B, C, and E. 3. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the 2007 Casamira Valley Supplemental EIR. The following unavoidable significant supplemental environmental impacts were identified in the prior Supplemental EIR. Supplemental Impact TRA -1 a. Project contribution to impact to Dublin /Dougherty intersection. Supplemental Impact IRA-3. Cumulative impacts to local freeways. Supplemental ImpactAQ -2. Cumulative air quality emissions. 4. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Project Supplemental EIR. The following unavoidable significant supplemental environmental impacts were identified in the Project Supplemental EIR. Supplemental Impact TRA -2 -12. Project contribution to impact at Fallon Rd. /Hacienda Blvd. intersection under near term conditions. Supplemental Impact TRA -3 -12. Project contribution to impact at Dougherty Rd. /Dublin Blvd. intersection under long term cumulative conditions. Supplemental Impact TRA -4 -12. Project contribution to impact at Tassajara Rd. /Dublin Blvd. intersection under long term cumulative conditions. 5. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastern Dublin and 2007 Moller Ranch project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the prior EIRs. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future development on the Project site as well as the supplemental unavoidable impacts identified in the Supplemental EIR, against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as further set forth below. The Project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin and the 2007 Moller Ranch approvals. The modifications to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provide housing as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin approvals, with higher densities located in the 19 flatter, less geologically sensitive areas of the Project site. Development of the site will also provide construction employment opportunities for Dublin residents. 1983905.1 1983905.2 20 Moller Ranch/Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Supplemental EIR (SEIR) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Supplemental Traffic Mitigation Measure -2 -12. Project Developer Dublin Public Prior to approval of The project applicant shall optimize the signal Works Department final subdivision timing splits at the intersection of Fallon Road and maps or as required by the Dublin Dublin Boulevard. This improvement will reduce Public Works the impact to less than significant in the Near -term Director Plus Project condition by improving operations to a pre - project condition. Although the project would worsen the delay at the already failing intersection, the improvement does not mitigate the intersection to an acceptable LOS and therefore the project shall be responsible for the entirety of the mitigation costs. Supplemental Traffic Mitigation Measure -5 -12. Project Developer Dublin Public Works Department Prior to recordation of first final Prior to the recordation of the first final map for the Moller project, the applicant shall pay the cost to subdivision map retime the signal at the intersection of Tassajara Road and I -580 WB Ramps. This improvement will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Long -term + Project condition. Supplemental Traffic Mitigation -6 -12. Prior to the Project Developer Dublin Public Prior to issuance of City's issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, Works Department a the first Certificate the applicant shall optimize the signal timing splits at of Occupancy the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Boulevard. Supplemental Traffic Miti gation -7 -12. Prior to the Project Developer Dublin Public Prior to issuance of City's issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, Works Department a the first Certificate the applicant shall optimize the signal timing splits at of Occupancy the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard. Supplemental Traffic Mitigation -8 -12. Prior to the Project Developer Dublin Public Prior to recordation recordation of the first final subdivision map for the Works Department of first final Moller project, the applicant shall pay the cost to subdivision map coordinate signals along Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive. The coordination of signals along Tassajara would increase the average travel speed to I I mph, the same as without the project, and therefore will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Long -term plus Project condition. Supplemental Traffic Mitigation -9 -12. Northbound Project Developer Dublin Public As required by the Tassajara Road shall be widened to five lanes from I- Works Department Dublin Public 580 to Dublin Boulevard. The additional northbound Works Department lane would be a drop lane for the inside northbound right turn lane. An additional northbound lane would increase the ADT threshold to 80,000 vehicles per day and therefore will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Long -term + Project condition. The City intends to include this roadway improvement in the next fee program update and therefore the project will solely be responsible to pay Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 2 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule their impact fees. If the improvement is not added to the fee program by the time of final subdivision mapping, the project shall pay its fair share of the improvement as calculated by the City. The project's traffic volume contribution to the impact is 2% under Long -term conditions. Supplemental Traffic Mitigation- 10 -12. Prior to the Project Developer Dublin Public Prior to issuance of City's issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the Works Department a the first Certificate applicant shall restripe the existing eastbound of Occupancy through lane into a shared through/ left turn lane and implement split phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation -1a -12 Project Developer Dublin Planning Division Prior to issuance of a grading permit The project applicant shall preserve grasslands at a ratio of 3:1 (preserved:impacted) as mitigation for the proposed development, for a total of 495.42 acres. In addition, to compensate for the loss of 4.95 ac of regulated habitats (jurisdictional wetlands and riparian woodlands) that function as dispersal and refuge habitat for tiger salamanders and red - legged frogs, another 14.85 ac of grasslands shall be preserved in the conservation lands for a total of 510.27 acres. As described above, the loss of these regulated habitats could be mitigated for at off -site mitigation banks. All lands proposed as mitigation must provide suitable habitat for focal species impacted by the proposed project. The preservation of 510.27 ac of Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 3 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule grasslands will satisfy EACCS habitat mitigation requirements for impacts to focal species discussed below. A conservation easement or similar mechanism shall be placed on the mitigation lands to preserve the lands in perpetuity as a natural open space and habitat for native plants and animals. An agreement establishing the conservation easement or similar mechanism on the mitigation lands must be completed prior to the initiation of construction activities. All lands proposed as mitigation must provide suitable habitat for focal species impacted by the proposed project. The preservation of 510.27 ac of grasslands will satisfy EACCS habitat mitigation requirements for impacts to focal species discussed below. A conservation easement or similar mechanism shall be placed on the mitigation lands to preserve the lands in perpetuity as a natural open space and habitat for native plants and animals. An agreement establishing the conservation easement or similar mechanism on the mitigation lands must be completed prior to the initiation of construction activities. Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation- 1b -12. Project Developer Dublin Planning Division Prior to issuance of a grading permit The project applicant shall establish an endowment in an amount to be determined by the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) and United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the long -term management, maintenance, and monitoring of the Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 4 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule mitigation lands placed in the conservation easement or similar mechanism. The project applicant shall provide a guarantee of the endowment to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation- 1c -12. Project Developer Dublin Planning Division Prior to issuance of a grading permit The project applicant shall prepare and implement a comprehensive habitat mitigation and monitoring plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the USFWS and CDFG. The comprehensive plan shall be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. To comply with EACCS requirements and to mitigate for impacts described below, the mitigation and monitoring plan shall incorporate detailed information on the management, maintenance and monitoring of the following resources impacted by the proposed project including: a) Congdon s tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale (if present on Project site) b) California tiger salamander dispersal and refugial habitat c) California red - legged frog dispersal habitat d) Burrowing owl habitat e) San Joaquin kit fox habitat f) Golden eagle foraging habitat Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation -2- Project Developer Dublin Planning Division Prior to issuance of a grading permit 12. The project applicant shall provide suitable compensatory, replacement habitat for loss of Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 5 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule jurisdictional waters and woodland habitat at a minimum ratio of 1:1 for wetlands and 3:1 for riparian habitats. Replacement mitigation land may occur in off -site mitigation banks that support appropriate habitat, as approved by the City of Dublin and appropriate biological regulatory agencies. Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation -3 -12. Project Developer Dublin Public Works Department During project construction The project applicant shall implement the following water quality features: a) The project's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) shall include specific and detailed BMPs designed to mitigate construction- related pollutants. These controls shall include methods to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies with stormwater within the creek and drainages. Additional control measures identified in this SWPPP will mitigate the release of construction- related pollutants from the site during the various construction phases. b) BMPs intended to reduce erosion of exposed soil in the bed and banks of the creek and drainage channels in the Project site may include, but are not limited to: soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales and sediment basins. c) To the maximum extent practicable, all grading within the riparian and jurisdictional habitats Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 6 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule shall occur during the dry season. If grading is to occur during the rainy season the primary BMPs selected will focus on erosion control. End -of- pipe sediment control measures (e.g., basins and traps) will be used only as secondary measures. d) Work within the low -flow channel of the riparian habitats shall not occur when there is flowing water within the channel. The creek or drainage channel shall be dewatered and flows rerouted during construction for access. Work shall only take place in areas within the native channel bed between April and October. Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation Project Developer Dublin Planning Measure BI04a -12. To reduce the potential Division establishment or spread of non - native, invasive weed a) Prior to issuance of grading permit populations as a result of Project activities, the following measures shall be implemented. These b -e) during project measures shall be included in grading plans and construction specifications. a) Concentrations of invasive species that could serve as seed sources shall be removed prior to site grubbing or grading. b) Staging areas shall be maintained free of weeds and weed seed for the duration of their use during project construction. c) All construction equipment shall be cleaned prior to deployment on the site by removing all mud, dirt, and plant parts from all equipment, particularly undercarriages and items that may Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 7 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule have the potential to spread and deposit weed seeds by having contact with vegetation or soil. Cleaning must occur away from sensitive habitats. d) All fill material sources shall be inspected to ensure that they are "weed free" before use and transport. Fill material shall not be used if non- native, invasive species are found growing on the material as this would indicate that seed from these species is present within the material. e) If straw is used for road stabilization and erosion control, it shall be certified by a qualified biologist that it is weed -free or weed -seed free. Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation Project Developer Dublin Planning Prior to issuance of Measure BIO- 4b -12. The project applicant shall Division grading permit. develop and implement an Invasive Species Management Plan to reduce the presence and spread of non - native, invasive plant species on the site prior to grading any areas on the project site. This management plan shall outline methods to remove the existing populations of non - native, invasive weed species from the accessible portion of the site to prevent the spread of their seed during and after construction and to prevent the invasion of graded area by invasive species. This management plan shall contain details regarding the removal and treatment of these species (herbicide application, manual removal, mowing, etc), success criteria and a Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 8 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule seeding plan to encourage native species to grow within disturbed habitat. The plan shall be submitted to the City of Dublin Community Development Department for approval, and the Department must approve the plan prior to initiation of any ground- disturbing activities. Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation Project Developer Dublin Planning Prior to issuance of Measure BI04c -12. Landscape guidelines shall be Division Certificate of established and implemented by the Homeowner's Occupancy for the first residential Association to ensure that landscape plantings at the dwelling. new residences or facilities shall not include any plants that are listed on the California Invasive Plant Council Invasive Plant Inventory's list of invasive plants and that are ranked in an inventory category as having a moderate or high ecological impact on physical processes. Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation Project Developer Dublin Planning Prior to issuance of Measure BI0- 5a -12. Special- status plant species on Division grading permit. the project site be avoided to the extent possible and impacts be mitigated based on an assessment of how the project will affect the focal plant population, with the assessment methodology requiring appropriate agency approval. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 9 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation Project Developer Dublin Planning Prior to issuance of Measure BIO- 5b -12. Habitat for any Congdon s Division grading permit. tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale on the project site shall be preserved at a mitigation ratio of 5:1 per the EACCS mitigation requirements. Mitigation could involve fee title purchase or conservation easement and management of the site (per supplemental mitigation measures SM- 13T0- 12 -2a, - 2b and -2c, above), with the focal plant population on the mitigation site being the same or better in terms of size and vigor. Mitigation lands may include portions of areas outside of project site, within the Moller Ranch and Brown Ranch and potentially portions of the Brown Ranch, in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation Project Developer Dublin Planning Prior to issuance of Measure BIO -6 -12. The project applicant shall adhere Division grading permit and to the following requirements: during project construction a) If aquatic habitat is present on a portion of the site, a qualified biologist shall stake and flag an exclusion zone prior to activities. The exclusion zone shall be fenced with orange construction zone and erosion control fencing (to be installed by construction crew). The exclusion zone shall encompass the maximum practicable distance from the work site and at least 500 feet from the aquatic feature wet or dry. b) A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys prior to activities define a time for the Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 10 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule surveys (before ground breaking). If individual salamanders are found, work shall not begin until they are moved out of the construction zone to a USFWS /CDFG approved relocation site. c) A USFWS - approved biologist shall be present for initial ground disturbing activities. d) If the work site is within the typical dispersal distance (per USFWS /CDFG for appropriate distances for species of interest) of potential breeding habitat, barrier fencing shall be constructed around the worksite to prevent amphibians from entering the work area. Barrier fencing may be removed within 72 hours of completion of work. e) Monofilament plastic shall not be used for erosion control, within areas adjacent to undisturbed open space. Construction personnel shall inspect open trenches in the morning and evening for trapped amphibians during construction periods. f) A qualified biologist possessing a valid ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit or Service approved under an active biological opinion, shall be contracted to trap and to move amphibians to nearby suitable habitat if amphibians are found inside fenced area. g) Work shall be avoided within suitable habitat from October 15 (or the first measurable fall rain of 1" or greater, to May 1. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 11 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 12 City of Dublin November 2012 Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation Project Developer Dublin Planning Prior to issuance of Measure BIO -8 -12. The applicant shall complete the Division a grading permit following actions with respect to burrowing owl. and during project construction a) If an active nest is identified within 250 foot distance of a burrowing owl nest or a distance determined by a qualified biologists in coordination with CDFG, a proposed work area work shall be conducted outside of the nesting season (15 March to 1 September) if feasible. b) If an active nest is identified near a proposed work area and work cannot be conducted outside of the nesting season, a no- activity zone will be established by a qualified biologist. The no- activity zone shall be large enough to avoid nest abandonment and will at a minimum be a 250 -feet radius from the nest. c) If burrowing owls are present at the site during the non - breeding period, a qualified biologist shall establish a no- activity zone of at least 150 feet, if feasible. d) If an effective no- activity zone cannot be established around an occupied burrow, an experienced burrowing owl biologist shall develop a site- specific plan (i.e., a plan that considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the duration and timing of the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of the owls and the dissimilarity of the proposed activity with background activities) to minimize the potential Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 12 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule to affect the reproductive success of the owls. f) A Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared if occupied burrows cannot be avoided during the breeding season. Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation Project Developer Dublin Planning Measure BI0-9 -12. The project applicant shall: Division a) Prior to issuance of a) Undertake preconstruction surveys on the project a gradi ng permit site by a USFWS /CDFG - approved biologist prior to grading or ground disturbance. b -f) During site b) Avoid disturbance and destruction of potential construction dens to the extent practicable. c) If disturbance of dens is unavoidable, a qualified biologist shall determine if the dens are occupied using methodology developed in coordination with the USFWS and /or CDFG. If the dens are determined to be unoccupied, they shall be collapsed by hand in accordance with USFWS procedures. d) Exclusion zones around occupied dens will be established by a qualified biologist following USFWS procedures following current standards (potential den — 50 ft; known den —100 ft; natal den — determined on a case -by -case basis in consultation with the USFWS and CDFG). e) Pipes will be capped and trenches equipped with exit ramps to prevent animals from becoming trapped. f) Loss of suitable kit fox habitat on the Project site will be mitigated for at a 3:1 ratio. If an active Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 13 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule badger den is discovered on the Project site and cannot be avoided using the measures described above, mitigation for loss of the burrow(s) will be provided at a 3:1 ratio, and mitigation lands will be protected in perpetuity Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation Project Developer Dublin Planning Prior to issuance of Measure BIO -10 -12 The following steps shall be Division grading permit and undertaken if a Golden eagle nets is discovered on during project construction the site: a) If an active nest is identified near (i.e., within 1000 ft. or as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the CDFG) a proposed work area, work shall be conducted outside of the nesting season (February 1 to September 1). b) If an active nest is identified near a proposed work area and work cannot be conducted outside of the nesting season, a no- activity zone shall be established by a qualified biologist. The no- activity zone shall be large enough to avoid nest abandonment and will at a minimum be 250 -feet radius from the nest. c) If an effective no- activity zone cannot be established in either case, an experienced golden eagle biologist shall develop a site - specific plan (i.e., a plan that considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the duration and timing of the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of the eagles, and the dissimilarity of the proposed activity with background activities) to minimize Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 14 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule the potential to affect the reproductive success of the eagles. Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation Project Developer Dublin Planning Prior to Measure BIO- 11 -12. The project applicant shall Division commencement of provide sufficient compensatory grassland habitat construction for loss of approximately 0.5 acres of impacted grassland habitat. The amount of replacement habitat is estimated to be approximately 2.5 acres, but the final amount of compensatory grassland shall be determined through discussions with appropriate biological regulatory agencies. Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation Project Developer Dublin Planning Prior to Measure BIO- 12 -12. The project applicant shall Division commencement of avoid construction activities that would impact construction mixed riparian forest. If avoidance is not possible, the applicant shall purchase of compensatory habitat or purchase appropriate mitigation bank credits. The mitigation ratio for acreage is 3:1. Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation Project Developer Dublin Planning Prior to Measure BIO- 13 -12. The project applicant shall Division commencement of provide suitable compensatory, replacement habitat construction for loss of jurisdictional wetlands and waters at a minimum ratio of 3:1 for a total of 0.018 acre of seasonal wetland and 0.27 acre of waters. Replacement mitigation land may occur in off -site mitigation banks that support appropriate habitat, as approved by the City of Dublin and appropriate Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 15 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule biological regulatory agencies. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, a Section 404 permit from the Corps, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. The applicant shall adhere to all conditions of approval listed in the permits obtained from the regulatory agencies. Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation Project Developer Dublin Planning Prior to Measure BI0- 14a -12. The project applicant shall a Division commencement of focused rare plant survey during the blooming construction. period for these species (March). An additional survey in August is necessary to determine the presence or absence of the other species. The methodology for the rare plant survey will vary by species and site- specific conditions. Impact assessment methodologies shall be approved in advance by USFWS (federally listed species) and CDFG. The floristic survey of the site must have been completed within the preceding 3 years prior to construction (under normal rainfall conditions) and spatially explicit data on the extent of the focal plant population must be available. Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation Project Developer Dublin Planning Prior to Measure BI0- 14b -12. The project applicant shall Division commencement of implement avoidance measures outlined below to construction avoid any impacts and should mitigate any loss of habitat. To mitigate impacts on a plant population that Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 16 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule cannot be avoided, a parcel where the specific plant species occurs shall be acquired through fee title purchase or conservation easement. The mitigation plan shall be equivalent to or better in terms of population size and vigor than the plant population affected at the project site. Enhancement plans for public and private lands that provide suitable habitat for focal plant species shall be developed to enhance suitable habitat and contribute to meeting the conservation objectives. Specific measures for affected plant species in management plans promote livestock grazing in grassland and scrub habitat, conduct prescribed burns, conduct mowing, and identify locations in or near the project site where shrub- or tree - dominated plant communities are encroaching on grassland communities (alkali meadow and scald, California annual grassland, and non - serpentine bunchgrass grassland). Supplemental Biological Resources Mitigation Project Developer Dublin Planning Prior to Measure BIO- 15 -12. The project applicant shall Division commencement of undertake the following: construction a) If the proposed project were to remove trees during the nesting bird season (February 1 — August 31) then pre- construction breeding bird surveys should be conducted within 10 -14 days of ground disturbance to avoid disturbance to active nests, eggs, and /or young of ground- nesting birds. b) Any trees and shrubs in or adjacent to the project Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 17 City of Dublin November 2012 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule area that are proposed for removal and that could be used as nesting sites by loggerhead shrike and white - tailed kite may only be removed during the non - breeding season (September through February). c) Prior to removal of any on -site trees, a qualified bat biologist shall perform a survey to identify any roosting bats present. If a maternity roost is found, tree removal shall be postponed until the young become independent and the mothers vacate the roost. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 18 City of Dublin November 2012 Save Mould Diablo November 19, 2012 1901 Olympic Blvd., # 320 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Michael Porto, Project Planner Tel: (925) 947 -3535 Fax: (925)947 -0642 City of Dublin www.SaveMouatDiablo.org 100 Civic Pula Dublin, CA 94568 Board of Directors Malcolm Sproul Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) for Moller President Amara Morrison Ranch /Culvert Replacement Project Secretary APN number: 985 - 0001 -001 and 985 - 0001 - 001-02 Burt Bassler Location: 6861 Tassajara Road, Dublin, California Treasurer Arthur Bonwell Subject: Clariflcatlon regarding the amount and location of preserved lands and Emeritus the extent of grading Heath Bartosh Joe Canciamilla Charla Gabert Dear Mr. Porto: John Gallagher Claudia Hein Scott Hein Save Mount Diablo (SMD) is concerned about the environmental impacts of the David Husted proposed project. We just became aware of the availability of the Draft SEIR Doug Knauer when the public hearing notice was included In the November 13 City Council Brian Kruse Marty Reed agenda. We would appreciate clarification regarding the amount and location of Directors preserved lands and the extent of grading, as described below: Staff Directors (1) The draft SEIR states that 510.27 acres shall be preserved in the conservation Ronald Brown lands for a total of 510.27 acres. The January 17, 2012 staff report states that Executive Director Executive the project would include an offer to dedicate approximately 1,765 acres for a hAdarns regional park (spanning both Alameda and Contra Costa counties). Land Programs Director Please clarify this discrepancy regarding how much land will be preserved. Julie Seelen Advancement Director Also, please provide a wrap showing the mitigation sites for the project, as Monica E. Oei we are unable to evaluate whether the mitigation is adequate, unless the Finance Director mitigation sites are identified. Founders (2) SEIR Exhibit 3.8 shows the preliminary grading plan. The proposed grading Arthur Bonwell occurs all of the way to the parcel boundary at the Contra Costa County line, Mary L. Bowerman Please clarify whether there will be any grading that extends Into adjacent parcels in Contra Costa County. ; Proud member of Land Trust Alliance California Council of Land Trusts Bay Area Open Space Council We would appreciate receiving clarification regarding these items and a link to the Final SEIR prior to the hearing on November 27 #h. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Nathalie Oram Land Conservation Associate November 26, 2012 Draft Response to Save Mt. Diablo Letter Re: Moller Project DSEIR dated November 19, 2012 1) Status of Biological Resource Supplemental Mitigation Measure and potential parkland Response: The 510.27 acres of land identified in Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- BIO -1a -12 is to compensate for disturbance of annual grassland habitat on the Moller Ranch development area. The ratio of compensation land is 3:1. No specific compensatory lands have yet been identified, but will be required to be identified and secured prior to issuance of a grading plan by the City of Dublin, or as required by appropriate biological regulatory agencies if sooner than grading permit issuance. The 1,752 acres referenced in the letter is in regard to potential parkland that was offered by the project applicant. However, such land lien outside of the City of Dublin and the City has no authority over such future parkland. The project applicant said that discussions regarding a potential park are underway with the East Bay Regional Park District staff 2) Location of proposed project grading Response: The City of Dublin staff confirms that no grading for this Moller Ranch project would occur outside of properties lying within City of Dublin jurisdiction. Moller Ranch / Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project City File #PLPA 2011 -0003 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2005052146 Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner September 2012 0 C n y 0-1 -1 c O c m M M G °n' D Co m n r Z = Z D � r m M o D m 0 ro ti r m D x z -j C Z Nm� m p - D s n � C) r z N D �za o c z 00 N r_ z Mil E■ . ri €7 © ®F3Hf1f3Fi � I ' \)) §b2 ( \k 7 {z ;\ x k) oQm /)( §M� o� 3( z \ ( ) ) / -� ■■■ ■A _ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ No I�I||� || |} ! i| ; �} ■■■ ! nD m Don I- : • /� \ § � ! 7 M11, | | |\ § . k z zw NV w J & }w s z K_ w . W av LL O b N F.. N V g W O N W Q IL a ro z U m z W* 0 R a k¢� w Ow N o O y U C a P 0:5 " 1, f� t ; ` rr i qq cl T Q � a W a r Za W F N W W W ti N N V Cs W n O s IL � Z S m m Z S U 0 J � �o W J Yu J a a N Q ¢ 0 T Q � a W a r Za W F N W W W ti N N V Cs W n O s IL � Z S m m Z S U 0 J � �o W J Yu J a a N Q ¢ 0 W J Yu J a a N Q ¢ 0 U 2 ¢ Wg oa a_ 2 z R O 2a J W 6 6 ti FF m W q 00 A€ n a zx� mad � oad AWN 0 9 LL a ° a o N J N � O � n O z to O M O Z N gz a0 as w0 z Fn LL, Lu t CS' 0 W W W fn N :3 00 az aJ N U m W mm) n 0 w a a = z m m ? J C.) w Z i 0 C a L CC 0 L 4 R 0 W M O > J ~ 0 Oio O 4_ O ~1. N o 1 00 \\; O ZQ� V P 2 Z J (A m Z O O ZQa Z I LLI NUW t (ay J LL o LLJ w p W N Was Nco O CL Za O -J m N F- U ,y W n O w R � a a Z = z ob m J U Z p ¢ °a LL Q 4 O W N o Y J Q O ¢ J a a 0 a o � N a H a J J H O O O O M O IJ N O Q O 2 r Q w 0a �z r ui Z o w w� a w 00 aW 0w CC w ap N. F ci W 0 p 0 W a CL a JU m 2 w ¢ a LL R U) U J r Q Q h Q O i a a N Z W J O n. ri W .. p a W a w 0 aW O> CE CL p N � r � U W q Q w a IL zx a m Z w ¢ i U n LU 0 U O � J N a �a zg W U Q x N> w aF oa a� N W � W 6 LL� �Uw oa LL Q h W T J � 0 UFo p4 Y§p �? ,1S S t S � �1 Si 4 Y S 4 o it s o m R a L1yS 9 / S / / / P .i a �a zg W U Q x N> w aF oa a� N W � W 6 LL� �Uw oa LL Q h W T J � 0 UFo 4.0 Environmental Analysis Topics Addressed in the DSEIR This section of the DSEIR identifies specific environmental areas which may be affected as a result of the implementation of the proposed Project. The impact areas are discussed individually in subsections 4.1 through 4.11: Each topic area is covered in the following manner: A. Environmental Settine A discussion of existing conditions, facilities, services and general environmental conditions on and around the project sites. B. Impacts and Mitigation Measures from Previous EIRs C. Supplemental Environmental Impacts An identification and evaluation of whether the potential impacts on the environment identified in the Initial Study, should the Project be constructed as proposed would result in a significant substantially increased manner beyond the analysis in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Casamira Valley SEIR based on the standards of significance set forth therein. D. Supplemental Mitigation Measures An identification of specific efforts and measures which can be incorporated into the Project to reduce identified supplemental environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 32 City of Dublin September 2012 4.1 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION Transportation and Circulation was analyzed in Chapter 3.3 of the Eastern Dublin EIR and Chapter 4.2 of the Casamira Valley SEIR. This supplement to the previous EIRs examines the proposed project to determine if any new or more severe impacts would exist regarding traffic or circulation issues as a result of project changes on or changed conditions, including but not limited to increased urban development in the Tri- Valley area and beyond. Information and analysis included in the following section is based on the "Traffic Impact Study for Moller Ranch" prepared by Kimley -Horn Associates in August 27, 2012. This report is incorporated by reference into this DSEIR and is available for review at the Dublin Public Works Department during normal business hours. Technical information, including Level of Service calculations and related information is included in Appendix 8.6 of this DSEIR. . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Existing roadways. Existing roadways serving the project site include: Camino Tassajara. Camino Tassajara is an arterial roadway running north -south within the project study area. It transitions from two lanes into three lanes on the southbound approach to Windemere Parkway. The posted speed limit on Camino Tassajara is 45 mph. Land uses adjacent to the roadway consist of rural land and ranches within the study area. South of the City of Dublin city limit, the street name changes to Tassajara Road and contains two travel lanes adjacent to the project site. Central Parkway. Central Parkway is a two -lane Class I Collector roadway with turn lanes at major intersections and landscaped medians. Class II bike lanes are present on both sides of the roadway. The posted speed limit on Central Parkway is 35 mph and the roadway runs east -west. Land uses adjacent to the roadway are predominantly residential homes along with Emerald Glen Community Park, James Dougherty Elementary School, and a business park. Cydonia Court. Cydonia Court is a two -lane residential street that ends in a cul -de- sac. This roadway allows access to residential homes. There is no posted speed limit as this roadway has not been accepted by the City. Dougherty Road. Dougherty Road is a six -lane arterial roadway with landscaped medians, turn lanes at major intersections, and restricted parking near the project study area at Dublin Boulevard. The posted speed limit is 40 mph near the project study area. Dougherty Road runs north -south and the adjacent land uses are residential homes and commercial land uses near the project study area. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 33 City of Dublin September 2012 Dublin Boulevard. Dublin Boulevard is an east -west, six -lane, arterial roadway. The posted speed limit is 45 mph for most of the corridor in the study area except 35 mph near Dougherty Road. The roadway contains bus stops, Class 11 bike lanes, and restricted parking. Adjacent land uses are divided between commercial uses and residential uses. The land use west of Hacienda Drive is predominantly commercial and undeveloped land. East of Hacienda Drive and north of Dublin Boulevard, the adjacent land use is residential, while to the south, the adjacent land use is commercial. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement ProjecVDraft Supplemental EIR Page 34 City of Dublin September 2012 El Charro Road. El Charro Road is a two -lane arterial roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph and the roadway runs north - south. Land use is mainly undeveloped land but commercial developments are under construction near the I -580 ramps. Fallon Road. Fallon Road is a four -lane arterial roadway with turn lanes at major intersections. The roadway tapers off into two lanes north of Dublin Boulevard. The roadway has Class II bike lanes and the posted speed limit is 40 to 45 mph. The surroundings are mainly residential land uses with pockets of undeveloped land. Fallon Road becomes El Charro Road south of I -580. Gleason Drive. Gleason Drive is a four -lane Class I Collector with landscaped medians, Class II bike lanes, restricted parking, and turn lanes at major intersections. Adjacent to the roadway is mostly residential. A California Highway Patrol office and an Alameda County Fire Station are located adjacent to Gleason Drive at Madigan Road. Emerald Glen Community Park is located south of Gleason Drive. The posted speed limit is 40 mph and the roadway runs east -west. Hacienda Drive. Hacienda Drive is a Class I Collector roadway running north - south. The road consists of five lanes from Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway and three lanes north of Central Parkway. The roadway contains Class II bike lanes, landscaped medians, and turn lanes at major intersections. The adjacent land use near the project study area is residential and office north of Dublin Boulevard. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Highland Road. Higliland Road is a two -lane, rural roadway with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. There are Class II bike lanes and unpaved shoulders. Highland Road is oriented east -west. Pimlico Drive. Pimlico Drive is a two -lane collector roadway with a two -way left- turn lane. The adjacent land uses are commercial and residential. The roadway runs east -west and the posted speed limit is 30 mph. Turn lanes are provided at major intersections. Santa Rita Road. Santa Rita Road is a five -lane arterial roadway with landscaped medians and turn lanes at major intersections. The posted speed limit is 45 mph and it runs north- south. Adjacent land use is primarily residential to the southeast and commercial to the northwest. Silvera Ranch Drive. Silvera Ranch drive is a residential roadway running east -west with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. There are two lanes and on- street parking. Tassajara Road. Tassajara Road is a two -lane, arterial roadway from the County line to N. Dublin Ranch Drive. From N. Dublin Ranch Drive to I -580, Tassajara Road is between four to six lanes. North of Fallon Road, the adjacent land use is mostly rural with residential just northeast of the intersection on Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. From Fallon Road to Gleason Drive, the adjacent land use becomes primarily residential. The adjacent land uses from Gleason Drive to I -580 includes Emerald Glen Community Park, commercial use and undeveloped land. The posted speed Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 35 City of Dublin September 2012 limit is 45 mph and it runs north - south. South of I -580 the roadway name changes to Santa Rita Road. Windemere Parkway. Windemere Parkway is a four -lane arterial roadway with landscaped medians and Class 11 bike lanes. The posted speed limit is 40 mph and the roadway runs east -west. Adjacent land uses are primarily undeveloped land and residential. Regional access to the project area is provided by Interstate 580 (I -580) an east -west multi-lane freeway that provides service between the bay area and the Central Valley area. Interstate 680 (I -680) provides access between the North Bay and the San Jose area passing through Dublin west of the Moller Ranch site. Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control. Existing intersection lane configurations and traffic controls are illustrated in Exhibit 4.1 -1. Traffic signals in the study area are located at all study intersections. Existing Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes. Weekday intersection turning movement volumes were collected at project study area intersections in April 2012. Volumes are shown in Exhibit 4.1 -2. Volumes were collected during the AM (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and PM (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak periods of the weekday when local schools were in session and outside of holiday periods. Traffic volume data sheets for new counts are available in the Appendix of this DSEIR. Standard practice regarding preparation of traffic impact studies is to limit analysis to weekdays, so no weekend traffic analysis was prepared. Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes. Weekday average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were collected along Tassajara Road between project study area intersections in April 2012. Volumes are shown in Figure 5 of the full traffic report (see Appendix 8.6). ADT Volumes were collected for 24 hours using mechanical tubes on a weekday when local schools were in session and outside of holiday periods. Traffic volume data sheets for new counts are available in the Appendix. Existing Levels of Service at Study Intersections. Traffic operations were evaluated at signalized intersections under existing traffic conditions. The following intersections were analyzed in this DSEIR. The location of the jurisdiction within which the intersection is noted in parenthesis. 1. Dougherty Road / Dublin Boulevard (City of Dublin) 2. Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard (City of Dublin) 3. Tassajara Road / Highland Road (Contra Costa County) 4. Tassajara Road / Windemere Parkway (Contra Costa County) 5. Tassajara Road / Fallon Road (City of Dublin) 6. Tassajara Road /Silvera Ranch Drive (City of Dublin) 7. Tassajara Road / Gleason Drive (City of Dublin) 8. Tassajara Road / Central Parkway (City of Dublin) 9. Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (City of Dublin) 10. Tassajara Road / I -580 Westbound Ramps (City of Pleasanton) Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 36 City of Dublin September 2012 11. Santa Rita Road / I -580 Eastbound Ramps- Pimlico Drive (City of Pleasanton) 12. Fallon Road /Silvera Ranch Drive (City of Dublin) 13. Fallon Road/ Cydonia Court (City of Dublin) 14. Fallon Road / Gleason Drive (City of Dublin) 15. Fallon Road / Central Parkway (City of Dublin) 16. Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard (City of Dublin) 17. Fallon Road / I -580 Westbound Ramps ( Caltrans) 18. El Charro Road / I -580 Eastbound Ramps ( Caltrans) 19. Tassajara Road / Project Access (City of Dublin) Based on the Standards of Significance standards identified later in the chapter, intersections located in the City of Dublin are to operate at LOS D. hitersectiions located in the City of Pleasanton are to operate at LOS D, as well. Contra Costa County intersections are to operate at LOS D, with the exception of the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Highland Road which is to operate at LOS C because it is a semi -rural county intersection. Caltrans intersections are to operate at LOS C. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 4.1 -1 along with the minimum jurisdictional standard for acceptable levels of service (as previously described in Operating Conditions and Criteria). Additional detail of the analysis is provided in the Appendix. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 37 City of Dublin September 2012 W ti v a Ki N V d H Y H m W ri 1 cM a R i Q U c > E L O� J � c_ m d N N � N � U !0 N T 0 O 0 U E N 0 a %, N cnC � U S Q U U Q C � N O O R f0 m d S 3 m 0 m m Lm U m U U d o c O U U d � `o U m O 02 U A C o C m N p R R 02 d p C O o O N r p O m m W (n U m N J C C O i5 Z 07 N Cl) O N O) R N d � E N a co 0 ro c a� a a Qm U O '•7 N m a m in U Cd L C U E o hm�pYl������„�������������� a 0�������� u � u ��� n � u �� • ILIA I.� a of o � • I�r u, L$A • • ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ • • • ■ • M I' I - �:.LY%Nj:� x n � t � rya -. I I 11 ��i, 1� • • • � E: y I, I I I• I• I• I• �v ��000�00oCOB080600000 Q U c > E L O� J � c_ m d N N � N � U !0 N T 0 O 0 U E N 0 a %, N cnC � U S Q U U Q C � N O O R f0 m d S 3 m 0 m m Lm U m U U d o c O U U d � `o U m O 02 U A C o C m N p R R 02 d p C O o O N r p O m m W (n U m N J C C O i5 Z 07 N Cl) O N O) R N d � E N a co 0 ro c a� a a Qm U O '•7 N m a m in U Cd L C U E o According to the analysis results, all intersections currently satisfy operational standards, except at the following location: • Santa Rita Road and I -580 Eastbound Ramps/ Pimlico Drive Existing Roadway Segment Analysis. Traffic operations were evaluated at roadway segments listed as routes of regional significance as defined by the Alameda County Transportation Commission and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, under existing traffic conditions and are shown in Table 8 of the full traffic report (see Appendix 8.6). ADT volumes for each roadway segment were compared to the ADT threshold for that particular type of roadway as defined by the City of Dublin General Plan. The maximum Average Daily Traffic threshold standards of the General Plan for two -lane roadways (15,000 vehicles per day), four -lane roadways (30,000vpd), six -lane roadways (50,000 vpd), and eight -lane roadways (70,000 vpd) are used to determine the through lane requirements. According to the analysis results, all roadway segments currently satisfy the above standard. A supplemental Land Use Analysis under the Congestion Management Program was conducted to evaluate roadway segments in the Metropolitan Transportation System under existing traffic conditions and are shown in Table 9 of the full traffic analysis. For this roadway analysis, arterial average speeds were considered to determine LOS, not volume thresholds listed in the City of Dublin General Plan. This difference in methodology may result in Levels of Service that differ between the two roadway segment analyses. Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road were the two arterials analyzed, with both classified as Arterial Class I based on the free flow speed 35 mph or more for each corridor. According to the analysis results, all roadway segments currently satisfy threshold standards. Additional detail of the analysis is provided in the Appendix. (Appendix 8.6) Existing Level of Service at Freeway Segments. A supplemental Land Use Analysis under the Congestion Management Program was conducted to evaluate freeway segments in the Metropolitan Transportation System under existing traffic conditions. Freeway volumes for the existing condition scenario were calculated by taking the incremental difference in the Alameda CTC model volumes from year 2030 and year 2005 on each freeway segment to determine an annual growth. The annual growth rate was then applied to the existing Caltrans counts taken in 2010 to grow to Existing 2012. According to the analysis results shown in Table 10 of the traffic analysis, all freeway segments satisfy operational standards, except at the following locations: 1 -580 Eastbound from I -680 to Dougherty Road (PM Peak) I -580 Westbound from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road (AM Peak) I -580 Westbound from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard (AM Peak) Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Draft Supplemental EIR Page 39 City of Dublin September 2012 Note that these freeway segments fail the operational standards without traffic from the proposed project. Additional detail of the analysis is provided in Appendix 8.6. Funding Programs. The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program establishes a funding source for infrastructure projects and improvements in Eastern Dublin, as well as other areas of the city. The City of Dublin adopted this program through Resolution 111 -04. The fees for developers of residential projects are calculated based on a per unit fee. Fees are due and payable at the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Tri- Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) fee establishes a funding source for transportation improvement projects in the Tri- Valley Development Area. The fee for residential developers shall be calculated based on the number of new residential dwelling units. The Eastern Dublin I -580 Interchange Fee established in Resolution No. 155 -98, is a funding source to reimburse the City of Pleasanton for impacts to local freeway interchanges on the I -580 freeway that also benefit properties in Eastern Dublin. A developer is required to pay the fees before the time of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Existing transit service. Transit service to the Moller Ranch project area is provided by the following: The Livermore /Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) provides bus service in Dublin and throughout the Tri - Valley. In the vicinity of the proposed project there are no transit routes. Within the study area, the following routes pass through project study intersections: The RAPID route runs along Dublin Boulevard within the study area. RAPID offers access to Stonerridge Mall, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Downtown Livermore, Dublin, and Dublin /Pleasanton BART. On weekdays, westbound operations occur from 6:10 AM to 7:40 PM on 10 to 15- minute headways. Weekday eastbound operations occur from 6:30 AM to 8:00 PM on 10 to 15- minute headways. There are bus stops located at Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. On Saturdays, Route 1 offers limited service to Dublin/ Pleasanton BART and Santa Rita Jail from 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM. The headway for this service is 20 to 40 minutes. There is a bus stop located at Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. Route 1A and Route 113 run along Dublin Boulevard, Santa Rita Road, and Tassajara Road within the study area. These routes travel in a loop and provide access to Dublin/ Pleasanton BART, Rose Pavilion, Dublin / Tassajara and Santa Rita Jail. On weekdays, Route 1A offers morning service in the clockwise direction from 6:00 AM to 11:30 AM on 30- minute headways. On weekdays, Route 1B offers afternoon service in the counterclockwise direction from 12:00 Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 40 City of Dublin September 2012 PM until 8:30 PM on 30 minute headways. Neither route operates on weekends. There are bus stops located at Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. • Route 2 runs along Tassajara Road, Central Parkway, and Dublin Boulevard within the study area. This route provides access to Dublin/ Pleasanton BART, Central/ Killian, Tassajara Road /North Dublin Ranch, Fallon Middle School, and Central/ Aspen. On weekdays, Route 2 operates from 6:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 30- minute headways. Route 2 does not operate on weekends. • Route 3 and Route 3V run along Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard within the study area. Route 3 provides access to West Dublin BART, Stoneridge Mall, Dublin/ Pleasanton BART, Wells Middle School, Dublin High School, and Shannon Park. Route 3V serves Shannon Park and travels northbound on Village Parkway. On weekdays, Route 3 operates in the counter clockwise direction from 6:20 AM to 7:20 PM on 1 -hour headways. Route 3V operates in the counter clockwise direction once at 8:20 AM at West Dublin BART. It operates again at 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM starting at Dublin/ Pleasanton BART departure. Route 3 operates in the clockwise direction from 4:30 PM to 8:30 PM on 1 -hour headways. Route 3V operates in the clockwise direction once in the morning at 7:20 AM. On Saturdays, Route 3 operates in the counterclockwise direction from 8:20 AM until 10:20 AM on 1 -hour headways. On Saturdays, Route 3 offers operations in the clockwise direction from 2:20 PM until 7:20 PM on 1 -hour headways. These routes do not operate on Sundays. There is a bus stop located at Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. • Route 10 runs along Dublin Boulevard within the study area but does not operate in the study area while RAPID is operating. Route 10 provides access to East/ Vasco LLNL, the Livermore Transit Center, Valley Care Livermore Campus, Dublin/ Pleasanton BART, and Stonerridge Mall. On weekdays, westbound service operates in the study area from 5:30 AM to 6:30 AM in 30- minute headways and from 9:00 PM to 12:20 AM in 40- minute headways. Weekday eastboumd service operates in the study area from 5:30 AM to 6:00 AM on 30- minute headways and from 8:30 PM to 12:50 AM on 30 to 40- minute headways. On Saturdays, westbound operations within the study area occur from 5:40 AM to 12:30 AM on 20 to 40- minute headways. Saturday eastbound operations within the study area occur from 6:00 AM to 12:20 AM on 20 to 40- minute intervals. On Sundays, westbound operations within the study area occur from 5:50 AM to 12:00 AM on 30 to 40- minute headways. Sunday eastbound operations occur from 7:40 AM to 12:20 AM on 40- minute headways. On Christmas and Thanksgiving Days, westbound operations within the study area occur from 6:10 AM to 11:50 PM on 40 to 100 - minute Headways. Christmas and Thanksgiving operations in the eastbound direction occur in the study area from 8:50 AM to 7:00 PM on 50 to 80- minute headways. • Route 12 runs along Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard within the study area. Route 12 provides access to Livermore Transit Center, Valley Care Livermore Campus, Airway Park and Ride, Las Positas College, and Dublin/ Pleasanton BART. On weekdays, westbound operations occur from 6:30 AM to 10:40 PM on 30 to 60 minute headways. Weekday eastbound operations occur from 6:30 AM to 10:40 PM on 30 to 60 minute headways. On Saturdays, westbound operations occur from 7:20 AM to 7:00 PM on 40 to 60 minute headways. Saturday Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 41 City of-Dublin September 2012 eastbound operations occur from 7:20 AM to 7:00 PM on 40 to 60- minute headways. There are no Sunday operations. There is a bus stop located at Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. • Route 12V runs along Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive within the study area. Route 12V provides access to Livermore Transit Center, Valley Care Livermore Campus, Airway Park and Ride, Las Positas College, and Dublin/ Pleasanton BART. On weekdays, westbound morning operations occur from 6:10 AM to 8:40 AM on 40 to 60- minute headways while westbound afternoon operations occur from 4:10 PM to 5:10 PM on 30- minute headways. Weekday eastbound morning operations occur at 7:30 AM and 8:10 AM while eastbound afternoon operations occur from 4:30 PM to 6:40 PM on 40 to 50- minute headways. There are no weekend operations. • Route 54 runs along Santa Rita Road, Tassajara Road, and Dublin Boulevard within the study area. Route 54 provides access to Fairgrounds East, Koll Center Parkway, CarrAmerica, Dublin/ Pleasanton BART. On weekdays, morning operations occur from 5:30 AM to 7:51 AM on 70- minute headways. Afternoon operations occur from 4:20 PM to 5:20 PM on 1 -hour headways. There are no weekend operations. There is a bus stop located at Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. • Route 70X runs along Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive within the study area. Route 70X provides access to Dublin/ Pleasanton BART, Walnut Creek BART, Pleasant Hill BART, and Stoneridge Mall. On weekdays, morning operations occur from 6:30 AM to 7:30 AM on 30- minute headways. Afternoon operations occur from 3:30 PM to 6:00 PM on 30- minute headways. There are no weekend operations. However, this schedule is operated on Martin Luther King Day, Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve, Presidents' Day, and the day after Thanksgiving Day. • Route 201 runs along Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive, Central Parkway, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road within the study area. Route 201 provides access to Dublin High School from Antone, Tassajara, and Central Parkway. The morning operation occurs at 7:10 AM while the afternoon operation occurs at 3:00 PM. There are no weekend operations. • Route 202 runs along Dublin Boulevard within the study area. Route 202 provides access to Dublin High School from Central Parkway, Dougherty, and Wildwood. The morning operation occurs at 7:20 AM while the afternoon operation occurs at 3:00 PM. • Route 604 runs through Pimlico Drive and Santa Rita Road within the study area. Route 604 provides access to Foothill High School from the Fairlands, Hacienda Business Park, Stoneridge, and Muirwood Park. The morning operation occurs at 7:15 AM while the afternoon operation occurs at 2:50 PM. There are no weekend operations. • Route 605 runs through Pimlico Drive and Santa Rita Road within the study area. Route 605 provides access to Amador Valley High School from Fairlands and Amaral Park. The morning operation occurs at 7:10 AM while the afternoon operation occurs at 3:10 PM. There are no Saturday or Sunday operations. • Route 610 runs through Pimlico Drive and Santa Rita Road within the study area. Route 610 provides access to Hart Middle School from Fairlands. The morning Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 42 City of Dublin September 2012 operation occurs at 8:10 AM on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. On Wednesdays, the morning operation occurs at 9:00 AM. The afternoon weekday operation occurs at 3:20 PM. There are no weekend operations. The Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) or County Connection provides fixed -route and paratransit bus service throughout the communities of Concord, Pleasant Hill, Martinez, Walnut Creek, Clayton, Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga; Danville, San Ramon, as well as unincorporated communities in Central Contra Costa County. There are no transit routes adjacent to the proposed project. Through the study area, the following routes pass through project intersections: Route 35 runs along Dublin Boulevard within the study area. Route 35 provides access to the San Ramon Transit Center and Dublin/ Pleasanton BART for the region east of 1-680. On weekdays, southbound operations occur from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM on 30 to 60- minute headways. Weekday northbound operations occur from 6:45 AM to 7:45 PM on 30 to 60- minute headways. There are no weekend operations. Route 36 runs along Dublin Boulevard within the study area. Route 36 provides access to the San Ramon Transit Center and Dublin/ Pleasanton BART for the region west of I -680. On weekdays, southbound operations occur from 6:20 AM to 7:20 PM on 60- minute headways. Weekday northbound operations occur from 7:15 AM to 8:15 PM on 60- minute headways. There are no weekend operations. Route 97X runs along Dublin Boulevard within the study area. Route 97X provides access to Dublin/ Pleasanton BART and the San Ramon Transit Center via I -680. On weekdays, southbound operations occur from 6:30 AM to 6:10 PM on 30- minute headways. Weekday northbound operations occur from 6:50 AM to 6:30 PM on 30- minute headways. There are no weekend operations. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. There are no marked pedestrian facilities adjacent to the proposed project site along Tassajara Road. However, there is a striped and paved shoulder for bicycles on either side of Tassajara Road adjacent to the project site. Within the study area, there are numerous bicycle and pedestrian facilities providing access throughout the City of Dublin. The Ironhorse Trail, a paved Class I bicycle facility, runs north -south and provides access to multiple cities in the Tri- Valley area, as well as Concord to the north. A Class I bike trail nuns parallel to Dougherty Road on the east side and connects to the Ironhorse Trail at Scarlett Drive. Tassajara Creek Trail is a Class I paved bike trail that runs north -south parallel to Tassajara Road on the west side and then travels east - west parallel to Dublin Boulevard on the north side where it connects to the Ironhorse Trail. Another Class I bike facility runs along the west side of Fallon Road from north of Tassajara Road to Gleason Drive. Class II facilities are in place on other study area roadways including Dublin Boulevard from Dougherty Road to east of Tassajara Road. There exists a Class II bike facility on Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to N. Dublin Ranch Drive. The City has proposed to extend the facility from N. Dublin Ranch Drive to Fallon Road, Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 43 City of Dublin September 2012 although this is not part of the Moller Ranch project. There exists a Class II bike facility on Gleason Drive from Arnold Road to Tassajara Road and from Brannigan Street to Fallon Road. The City has proposed to extend the facility from Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street which is not part of this project. There exists a Class II bike facility on Central Parkway from Arnold Road to Fallon Road. There exists a Class II bike facility on Fallon Road. There is currently no bike lane along Dougherty Road at the intersection Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard; however, the City of Dublin has proposed to install a Class II bike facility along Dougherty Road at this location, which is not part of the Moller project. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the following impacts with regard to traffic and transportation. Freeways. The Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified significant, significant cumulative, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to daily traffic volumes on I -580 for Year 2010 with and without build -out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment and under a Year 2010 cumulative build -out scenario (Impacts 3.3/A, B, C, D, and E). The significance criteria for freeway segments were operations that exceed level of service (LOS) E. Mitigation measures (3.3/1.0 and 3.3/4.0) were adopted which reduced impacts on I -580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on I -680 north of I -580 to a level of insignificance. Other mitigations (3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0) were adopted to reduce impacts on the remaining I -580 freeway segments and the I- 580/680 interchange. Even with mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts remained on I -580 freeway segments between I -680 and Dougherty Road and, at the build -out scenario of 2010, on other segments of I -580. Upon certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA /SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53 -93), for these significant unavoidable cumulative impacts (Impacts 3.3/B and E). All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA and EDSP continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed Project. Intersections and Roads. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated levels of service and PM peak hour traffic volumes at 18 intersections with roads and I -580 ramps. The significance criteria for intersections were operations that exceed LOS D. Mitigation measures were identified for each intersection that was projected to exceed the LOS D standard in each scenario. The following scenarios were analyzed: 1) Year 2010 without the Eastern Dublin project 2) Year 2010 with the Eastern Dublin project 3) Cumulative Buildout with the Eastern Dublin project Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 44 City of Dublin September 2012 Mitigation measures (3.3/6.0 - 8.0,10 -12) for impacts 3.3/F, G, H, J, K and L were adopted to reduce impacts to each of these intersections to a level of insignificance. These mitigations include construction of additional lanes at intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the neighboring cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to restripe, widen or modify on -ramps and off -ramps and interchange intersections, and coordination with Caltrans to modify certain interchanges. Development projects within the Eastern Dublin project area contribute a proportionate share to the multi- jurisdictional improvements through payment of traffic impact fees or construction of the required improvements for a credit against payment of such fees. Other mitigations (3.3/13.0 and 14.0) were adopted to reduce impacts on other identified intersections with Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impacts 3.3/M, N). All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/ SP and Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to implementing actions and projects within Eastern Dublin, such as the proposed Project. Individual development projects within the GPA /SP area contribute a proportionate share to fund these improvements through payment of traffic impact fees or construction of the required improvements for a credit against payment of such fees. Even with mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts remained on several identified intersections: I- 580 /I- 680 /Hacienda Drive (Impact 3.3/B); cumulative freeway impacts (Impact 3.3/E), Santa Rita Road /I -580 Eastbound ramps (Impact 3.3/I), Dublin Boulevard/ Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard / Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M). Upon certification of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/ SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration (Resolution No. 53 -93), for these significant unavoidable and cumulative impacts. Transit, Pedestrians and Bicyclists. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to transit service extensions and the provision of safe street crossings for pedestrians and bicycles (Impacts 3.3/ O and P). Mitigation measures 3.3/15.0 -15.3 and 16.0 -16.1 were adopted which reduced these impacts to a level of insignificance. These mitigations generally require coordination with transit providers to extend transit services (for which the GPA /SP projects contribute a proportionate share through payment of traffic impact fees) and coincide pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at major street crossings. All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/ SP and Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed Project. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE CASAMIRA VALLEY SUPPLEMENTAL EIR The Casamira Valley Supplemental EIR analyzed the following impacts with regard to traffic and transportation. • Supplemental Impact TRA -la found that, in the year 2025, traffic generated by buildout of the proposed project along with other buildout traffic, would cause the Dougherty Road/ Dublin Boulevard intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service during the p.m. peak hour. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Draft Supplemental EIR Page 45 City of Dublin September 2012 Although this supplemental impact was partially mitigated by adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRA -la, which required developer contribution to improve this intersection, this would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Supplemental Impact TRA -lb found that, in the year 2025, traffic generated by buildout of the proposed project along with other buildout traffic, would cause the Santa Rita Road /I -580 eastbound ramp intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service during the p.m. peak hour. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRA -lb requires the Project developer to contribute a pro -rata share of the cost to improve the Santa Rita Road /I -589 east bound ramp intersection and Pimlico Drive. This reduced Supplemental Impact TRA lb to a less -than- significant level. Supplemental Impact TRA -2 found that the proposed project would contribute additional traffic to Tassajara Road adjacent to the proposed project. This includes the segment of Tassajara Road between Northern Access for Dublin Ranch West and Fallon Road and the segment of Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Northern Access for Dublin Ranch West. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -TRA -2 requires the project developer to construct improvements along Tassajara Road adjacent to the Project site as well as other developers to make appropriate road improvements in the area. These actions would reduce this supplemental impact to a less - than- significant level. • Supplemental Impact TRA -3 noted that project traffic, along with the buildout of other projects in Eastern Dublin, would impact traffic on local freeways. Improvements identified in the DSEIR would reduce this impact but not to a less- than - significant level, so this impact remained significant and unavoidable. STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following standards are used in this DSEIR. City of Dublin Intersections. An impact would be significant if an intersection operating at an acceptable level of service without the project would exceed acceptable levels with the addition of project traffic. In addition, an impact would be significant if a new intersection is identified as exceeding acceptable levels and if such intersection was not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin FIR as a study intersection. The General Plan standard requires that the City strive for LOS D at intersections (General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy F'). An impact would also be significant if an intersection is already operating below an acceptable threshold and the project worsens the condition. General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy F, City of Dublin General Plan, Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 46 City of Dublin September 2012 City of Pleasanton Intersections. The City of Pleasanton outlines their level of service standards (LOS) in the City of Pleasanton General Plan'. The standard is to limit traffic volumes to LOS D or better. However there are a few exceptions to the LOS standard, which includes the City of Pleasanton gateway intersections. These intersections may have a LOS below LOS D if there is no reasonable mitigation possible or if the necessary mitigation conflicts with other goals and policies of the City of Pleasanton. Caltrans Intersections. Caltrans level of service standards (LOS) is contained in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies'. The standard is to maintain a LOS between the transition of LOS C and LOS D. If the existing facility is operating at less than the target LOS, the existing measures of effectiveness (MOE) should be maintained. For intersections, delay is the MOE. Contra Costa County Intersections. CCTA set maximum levels of congestion for routes of regional significance such as intersections along Camino Tassajara. According to the CCTA requirements, volume to capacity (V /C) up to 0.85 (i.e. LOS D) is an acceptable level of traffic operation at intersections on the routes of regional significance in the study area regardless of how the intersections are currently operating. Furthermore, intersections to be evaluated under CCTA requirements include signalized intersections that are expected to be affected by 50 or more project trips in a peak period. At the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Highland Road, the LOS threshold is LOS C, not LOS D. This intersection is regarded as a semi -rural intersection and therefore has a more stringent performance threshold as identified by Contra Costa County in the Addendum to the Proposed Creekside Cemetery Project. Unsignalized intersections are not specifically covered in the CCTA or General Plan requirements; however, in harmony with the intent of the General Plan, this report considered a "High D" level of service (LOS) to be an acceptable level of operation at unsignalized intersections. Metropolitan Transportation System Roadways. The Alameda County Transportation Commission uses methods outlined in the 1985 HCM to determine LOS for various roadways. Tables 5 and 6 contained in the full traffic report (Appendix 8.6) relate the operational characteristics associated with each level of service category for arterials and freeways, respectively. Arterial Class I exhibits a range of free flow speeds from 35 mph to 45 mph. Arterial Class II exhibits a range of free flow speeds from 30 mph to 35 mph. Arterial Class III exhibits a range of free flow speeds from 25 mph to 35 mph. ' Circulation Element. Pleasanton General Plan 2005 -2025. July 2009. 3 Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Caltrans. December 2002. ' An Addendum Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Creekside Cemetery Project to Address Contra Costa County Staff comments dated February 17, 2011, Vishnu Gandluru, May 2011. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 47 City of Dublin September 2012 The established standard for a segment of road set forth in the California Government Code Section 65089 (b) (1) (B) is LOS E or at the current level, whichever is further from LOS A.' Queuing. The effects of vehicle queuing were also analyzed and the 95th percentile queue is reported for all study intersections. The 95th percentile queue length represents a condition where 95 percent of the time during the peak period, traffic volumes and related queuing will be at, or less, than the queue length determined by the analysis. This is referred to as the "95th percentile queue." Average queuing is generally less. Excessive queuing is considered a potentially significant impact since queues that exceed turn pocket length can create potentially hazardous conditions by blocking or disrupting through traffic in adjacent travel lanes. However, these potentially hazardous queues are generally associated with left -turn movements. Locations where the right turn pocket storage is exceeded is not considered potentially hazardous because the right turn movement may go at the same time as the through movement and the additional vehicles that spill out over the turn pocket will not be hindering or disrupting the adjacent through traffic as would be the case in most left turn pockets. Thus, for purposes of this analysis, a significant queuing impact was considered to occur under conditions where project traffic causes the queue in a left turn pocket to extend beyond the turn pocket by 25 feet or more (i.e., the length of one vehicle) into adjacent traffic lanes that operate (i.e., move) separately from the left turn lane. Where the vehicle queue already exceeds that turn pocket length under pre - project conditions, a significant impact would occur if project traffic lengthens the queue by 25 feet or more. Routes of Regional Significance. An impact would be significant if such routes would fail to comply with the applicable standard of the City of Dublin General Plan. The General Plan requires the City to make a good faith effort to maintain LOS D on arterial segments of, and at the intersections of, routes of regional significance (for example, Tassajara Road) or implement transportation improvements or other measures to improve the level of service. If such improvements are not possible or sufficient, and the Tri- Valley Transportation Council cannot resolve the matter, the City may modify the level of service standard assuming other jurisdictions are not physically impacted (General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy E). The maximum Average Daily Traffic (ADT) threshold standards of the General Plan for two -lane roadways (15,000 vehicles per day (vpd)), four -lane roadways (30,000 vpd), six -lane roadways (50,000 vpd), and eight -lane roadways (70,000 vpd) are used to determine the through lane requirements. Freeway Segments. The standard for freeway impacts is based upon the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency' (ACCMA) monitoring standards and is established at LOS E. An impact would be significant if the project causes the freeway segment to drop below LOS E. An impact would also be significant if a freeway 'Congestion Management Program 2011, Alameda County Transportation Commission, December 2011. "Congestion Management Program 2011, Alameda County Transportation Commission, December 2011. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 48 City of Dublin September 2012 segment is already operating below an acceptable threshold and a project worsens the condition by adding additional traffic. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Introduction. This section assesses whether significant new or intensified traffic impacts may result from increasing regional traffic; or changed traffic distribution in the project area. Moller Ranch Project Trip Generation, Pass -By Trips and Trip Distribution. Trip generation for development projects is typically calculated based on rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineer's publication, Trip Generation 8th Edition' Trip Generation is a standard reference used by jurisdictions throughout the country for the estimation of trip generation potential of proposed developments. A trip is defined in Trip Generation as a single or one - directional vehicle movement with either the origin or destination at the project site. In other words, a trip can be either "to" or "from" the site. In addition, a single visit to a site is counted as two trips (i.e., one to and one from the site). For purposes of determining the worst -case impacts of traffic on the surrounding street network, the trips generated by a proposed residential development are typically estimated for the highest one hour during each of the periods between 7:00 -9:00 AM and 4:00 -6:00 PM. At other times of the day residential land uses rarely cause impacts. For this reason, this evaluation focused on the weekday AM and PM peaks. This methodology is consistent with the City of Dublin's standard for the preparation of traffic impact studies. Trip generation calculations prepared per ITE methodology are based on the number of dwelling units in the proposed project. Single - family detached housing includes all single - family detached homes on individual lots. Trip generation was calculated based on the previous discussions and is reported in Table 4.1 -2 Additional trip generation calculations are contained in Appendix 8.6. ' Trip Generation, 8`b Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 49 City of Dublin September 2012 Table 4.1 -2. Project Trip Generation TIME Trip Rate Trips PERIO LAND USE D In Out Total In Out Total Single- Family AM Peak Detached 0.19 0.56 0.75 72 214 286 Housing (381 DU) Single- Family PM Peak Detached Housin 0.64 0.37 1.01 243 142 385 ( 381 DUI Single- Family Daily Detached 9.57 3,648 Housing (381 DU) Note: The average trip generation rates were used. Source: Kimley -Horn Associates, 2012 Project Try Pass -By Trigs. The Moller Ranch project, like similar residential land uses in ITE, does not have any pass -by trips. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment. A project distribution was developed based on distributions prepared in the previous traffic report for the Casamira Valley Supplemental EIR', existing traffic count information and the general orientation of the project site to nearby commercial and office land uses. Trip distribution percentages show 76% of the trips entering and leaving the City of Dublin. The remaining 24 % is distributed within the City of Dublin at commercial and office land uses. Based on the assumed trip distribution, vehicle trips generated by the Moller Ranch development were assigned to the street network. Generally, vehicles were assigned to the roadway network based on the shortest path from origin to destination. However, in some instances, vehicles will stop at interim destinations, such as schools, day care, coffee shops and then and then continue on to the final destination. These trips account for a minimal percentage of the overall trip assignment (i.e. one to two trips for each movement). Existing Plus Project Level of Service Conditions. Existing Plus Project traffic conditions were evaluated at the study intersections and are shown in Figure 12 of the full traffic report. As shown in Table 4.1 -3, all intersections function within acceptable standards under the Existing Plus Project condition, except at the following location: "Traffic Satdy for the Proposed Casamira Valley Development, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., February 2006. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 50 City of Dublin September 2012 • Santa Rita Road and I -580 Eastbound Ramps/ Pimlico Drive (Significant unless no reasonable mitigation is available or if the necessary mitigation conflicts with other goals and policies of the City of Pleasanton) Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 51 City of Dublin September 2012 v V O v v v V 'o fu F-� OA :C W M A H b N LO N p a D E a n c � Q a U 0 J N d CF 0 m N lO m 0 Q � U mU s � N L T m � C N � .N. 0 OJ �0a E v U -i n m w N ° y a 0 in }° U d n W L 3 E c U U � C m ca C a N E 5 d N L C N C co y �o �U O�IWXV I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ e ■ ■ ■ e ■ ■ e • • O OIL.. . . • • • • • . • f� a x !u . ' u �� •' • �� u u .• e to = ■ HIM ��a � �O��o00oC06000000080 b N LO N p a D E a n c � Q a U 0 J N d CF 0 m N lO m 0 Q � U mU s � N L T m � C N � .N. 0 OJ �0a E v U -i n m w N ° y a 0 in }° U d n W L 3 E c U U � C m ca C a N E 5 d N L C N C co y �o �U The intersection of Santa Rita Road and I -580 Eastbound Ramps/ Pimlico Drive is a gateway intersection. The main movements with high delay are the westbound left turn movement and the southbound left turn movement. At this intersection, optimizing traffic signal timing will not mitigate the intersection to operate at LOS D. To increase the capacity of either of these two movements would require the widening of the westbound and /or southbound approaches which would likely include right -of- way acquisition from private properties, non - standard design features, and /or bridge widening which are not consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan. Gateway intersections may have a LOS below LOS D if there is no reasonable mitigation possible or if the necessary mitigation conflicts with other goals and policies of the City of Pleasanton. Because there does not appear to be a reasonable solution a level of service below LOS D was considered to be acceptable and a significant impact is not assumed. Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Analysis. Traffic operations were evaluated at roadway segments listed as routes of regional significance under Existing Plus Project traffic conditions and are shown in Figure 9 of the full traffic analysis. ADT volumes for the Existing Plus Project scenario were calculated by adding the daily trips generated by the proposed project to existing counts. ADT volumes for each roadway segment were compared to the ADT threshold for that particular type of roadway as defined by the City of Dublin General Plan. According to the analysis results shown in Table 13 of the full traffic analysis, all roadway segments currently satisfy operational standards. A supplemental Land Use Analysis under the Congestion Management Program was conducted to evaluate roadway segments in the Metropolitan Transportation System under Existing Plus Project traffic conditions and are shown in Table 14. For this analysis, arterial average speeds were considered to determine LOS, not volume thresholds listed in the City of Dublin General Plan. This difference in methodology may result in Levels of Service that differ between the two roadway segment analyses. Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road were the two arterials analyzed, with both classified as Arterial Class I based on the free flow speed 35 mph or more for each corridor. According to the analysis results, all roadway segments satisfy operational standards. Additional detail of the analysis is provided in Appendix 8.6. Existing Plus Project Level of Service at Freeway Segments. A supplemental Land Use Analysis under the Congestion Management Program was conducted to evaluate freeway segments in the Metropolitan Transportation System under Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. Freeway volumes for the Existing Plus Project scenario were calculated by adding the project volumes to the Existing condition volumes. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 53 City of Dublin September 2012 According to the analysis results shown in Table 15 of the full traffic report, all freeway segments satisfy operational standards, except at the following locations: • I -580 Eastbound from I -680 to Dougherty Road (PM Peak) — Significant Impact • I -580 Westbound from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road (AM Peak) — Significant Impact . • I -580 Westbound from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road (AM Peak) • I -580 Westbound from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard (AM Peak) — Significant Impact Note that these freeway segments fail the operational standards without traffic from the proposed project, except the segment of I -580 Westbound from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road. After the project traffic is added, the roadway segments degrade further and therefore are considered significant impacts. The freeway segment on I -580 Westbound from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road is not considered a significant impact because the project does not add any further traffic to the failing condition. Additional detail of the analysis is provided in the Appendix. Planned Roadway Improvements. Roadway improvements within the study area and scheduled for completion as facilitated by the City of Dublin prior to or at approximately the same time as the completion of the Moller Ranch development (e.g., late 2015) were accounted for in the Near -term scenario. The following roadway improvements are scheduled to be completed prior to the proposed project's opening: • Central Parkway, east of Fallon Road will be constructed. • At the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard, one northbound left turn lane will be restriped as an additional northbound through lane. • At the intersection of Tassajara Road and the project driveway, an east leg will be operational, providing access to Moller Ranch. Near -Term Lane Configurations and Traffic Control. Figure 10 contained in the full traffic analysis (Appendix 8.6) illustrates the roadway geometry and traffic control planned by the City of Dublin regardless of the proposed Moller Ranch development. The TIF- funded improvements are anticipated to be in place before or at approximately the same time as the proposed opening of the Moller Ranch development in late 2015. Approved /Pending Development Projects in Vicini of Site. Several development projects in the vicinity of the Moller Ranch development are in various stages of planning, approval, or development. These include projects that are reasonably foreseeable in the future and will ultimately be developed roughly the same time or following the Moller Ranch development. Since the City of Dublin recently updated its travel demand forecast model, these pending and approved projects are accounted for in the model. Therefore, under direction of the City of Dublin, the Dublin travel forecast model was used to determine near -term volumes. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 54 City of Dublin September 2012 The Dublin travel forecast model was used to plot bi- directional AM and PM traffic volumes on each segment of the roadways in the study area. Model output was used to compare year 2011 with year 2035 model forecasts to determine the yearly incremental difference in traffic volumes at study intersections. However at specific locations, particularly in the east side of Dublin where there is expected to be more growth, but which is anticipated to occur after 2020, the 2020 interim model better predicts volume growth. This model shows a more modest growth rate for segments along Fallon Road, particularly at Dublin Boulevard. Therefore the 2020 interim model was used to project trip volumes at the following intersections: • Fallon Road and Gleason Drive • Fallon Road and Central Parkway • Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard • Fallon Road and I -580 WB Ramps • El Charro Road and I -580 EB Ramps Year 2015 turning movement volumes were calculated by adding the 3 -year incremental difference in bi- directional roadway segment (i.e., link) volumes to the existing 2012 link volumes, and then performing a Furness adjustment to generate future year turning movement volumes. At some of the intersections in the Long -term cumulative forecast model (i.e. the intersection of Tassajara Road and I -580 WB Ramps), the volumes decrease from the existing 2011 year to the future 2035 year. This can be explained by the extra capacity from the Fallon Road interchange to the east. Therefore there are specific movements where the volume may decrease in the Long -term scenario. In other instances where the volumes should not decrease, the movement volumes were manually locked at the existing movement volumes to prevent movements from decreasing if it was not reflected in the model. These volumes were checked to determine if they included the two major pending and approved projects in the area: • Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan / Staples Ranch • El Charro Specific Plan The Dublin travel forecast model also included the two intersections along Camino Tassajara, even though they are not within the City of Dublin's jurisdiction. Therefore, it was determined for consistency and connectivity throughout the study area; the Dublin forecast model would solely be used for this study. The City of Dublin forecast model information is included in Appendix 8.6. Near -Term (2015) Traffic Conditions. Traffic operations were evaluated under the following development conditions: • Near -Term Traffic Conditions Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 55 City of Dublin September 2012 • Near -Term Plus Project Traffic Conditions Results of the analysis are presented in Table 4.1.3. Additional detail is provided in Appendix 8.6. Near -Term Level of Service Traffic Conditions. Existing traffic volumes, combined with vehicle trips expected to be generated by the approved and pending development projects, were evaluated at the study intersections and volumes can be seen in Figure 11 included in Appendix 8.6. As shown in Table 4.1 -4, all study intersections function within acceptable standards, except at the following locations: Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard' Santa Rita Road and I -580 Eastbound Ramps /Pimlico Drive Note that these intersections fail the operational standards without traffic from the proposed project. Near -Term Roadway Segment Analysis. Traffic operations were evaluated at roadway segments listed as routes of regional significance under Near -term traffic conditions. ADT volumes for the Near -term Plus Project scenario were calculated by adding the daily trips generated by the proposed project to Near -term volumes. n According to the analysis results shown in Table 17 of the full traffic analysis all roadway segments would satisfy operational standards. 9 This near -term impact appears to be generated as a result of the City's travel forecast model reallocating trips along Dublin Boulevard because of 1 -580 freeway congestion. This may not actually occur in the near -term as projected by the forecast model. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 56 City of Dublin September 2012 Cb GC7 G V V w O D d O v H aJ �i v N a z ti d+ v .a a h N N O O W W a� E a) 0 m U W C �j E j m a O O O � a� a C y� E W m � m L � U N � W C � � W � O E U °o U � N TU = m U) c O .N J � Ls U c° m cc: N J d W m 3 o C O E N O W ) a N m W n W N (n m o b � U c U 0 d � `o O m C) p. a W W U C W O o N E c U 7 c m CL U N O C j n N O C U U O N ` 05 O N W c Uj J C O N CC CD Q N O a Z oY � U lQa� a ion yt Y car°.,'. ■ ■ ■ - . ��= D © ©��o000000000B0BB h N N O O W W a� E a) 0 m U W C �j E j m a O O O � a� a C y� E W m � m L � U N � W C � � W � O E U °o U � N TU = m U) c O .N J � Ls U c° m cc: N J d W m 3 o C O E N O W ) a N m W n W N (n m o b � U c U 0 d � `o O m C) p. a W W U C W O o N E c U 7 c m CL U N O C j n N O C U U O N ` 05 O N W c Uj J C O N CC CD Q N O a Z oY � U A supplemental Land Use Analysis under the Congestion Management Program was conducted to evaluate roadway segments in the Metropolitan Transportation System using the Alameda CTC Countywide model under Near -term traffic conditions and is shown in Table 18 of the full traffic analysis. For this specific Metropolitan Transportation System roadway analysis, Near -term volumes were calculated using the same process as for the Near -term volumes for the intersection analysis, with the only difference being the use of the Alameda CTC Countywide model, not the Dublin travel forecast model. The Alameda CTC Countywide model was used to plot bi- directional AM and PM traffic volumes on each segment of the roadways in the study area. Model output was used to compare year 2005 with year 2015 model forecasts to determine the yearly incremental difference in traffic volumes at study intersections. Year 2015 turning movement volumes were calculated by adding the 3 -year incremental difference in bi- directional roadway segment (i.e., link) volumes to the existing 2012 link volumes, and then performing a Furness adjustment to generate future year turning movement volumes. For this analysis, arterial average speeds were considered to determine LOS, not volume thresholds listed in the City of Dublin General Plan. This difference in methodology may result in Levels of Service that differ between the two roadway segment analyses. Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road were the two arterials analyzed, with both classified as Arterial Class I based on the free flow speed 35 mph or more for each corridor. According to the analysis results shown in Table 18, all roadway segments currently satisfy operational standards. Additional detail of the analysis is provided in Appendix 8.6. Near -term Level of Service at Freeway Segments. A supplemental Land Use Analysis under the Congestion Management Program was conducted to evaluate freeway segments in the Metropolitan Transportation System under Near -term traffic conditions. Freeway volumes for the Near -term scenario were calculated by taking the incremental difference in the Alameda CTC model volumes from year 2030 and year 2005 on each freeway segment to determine an annual growth. The annual growth rate was then applied to the existing Caltrans counts taken in 2010 to grow to Near -term 2015. According to the analysis results shown in Table 19 of the full traffic analysis, all freeway segments satisfy operational standards, except at the following locations: • I -580 Eastbound from I -680 to Dougherty Road (PM Peak) • I -580 Westbound from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road (AM Peak) • I -580 Westbound from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road (AM Peak) • I -580 Westbound from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard (AM Peak) Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 58 City of Dublin September 2012 Note that these freeway segments fail the operational standards without traffic from the proposed project. Additional detail of the analysis is provided in Appendix 8.6. Near Term Plus Project LOS Traffic Conditions. Near -Term Plus Project traffic conditions were evaluated at the study intersections and volumes. As shown in Table 4.1 -5 all study intersections function within acceptable standards, except at the following locations: • Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard (significant impact) • Santa Rita Road and I -580 Eastbound Ramps/ Pimlico Drive The intersection of Santa Rita Road and I -580 Eastbound Ramps /Pimlico Drive is a gateway intersection. The main movements with high delay are the westbound left turn movement and the southbound left turn movement. At this intersection, optimizing traffic signal timing will not mitigate the intersection to operate at LOS D. To increase the capacity of either of these two movements would require the widening of the westbound and /or southbound approaches which would likely include right -of way acquisition from private properties, non - standard design features, and /or bridge widening which are not considered reasonable solutions. Gateway intersections may have a LOS below LOS D if there is no reasonable mitigation possible or if the necessary mitigation conflicts with other goals and policies of the City of Pleasanton. Because there does not appear to be a reasonable solution a level of service below LOS D was considered to be acceptable and a significant impact is not assumed. Near -Term Plus Project Roadway Segment Analysis. Traffic operations were evaluated at roadway segments listed as routes of regional significance under Near -term Plus Project traffic conditions and are shown in Figure 14 contained in Appendix 8.6. ADT volumes for the Near -term Plus Project scenario were calculated by taking the percentage of peak hour volumes to daily volumes for the existing counts and applying that same percentage to the Near -term Plus Project peak hour volumes. ADT volumes for each roadway segment were compared to the ADT threshold for that particular type of roadway as defined by the City of Dublin General Plan. According to the analysis results shown in Table 21 of the full traffic report, all roadway segments satisfy operational standards, except at the following location: Tassajara Road from Fallon Road to the County limit (significant impact) A supplemental Level of Service analysis under the Congestion Management Program was conducted to evaluate roadway segments in the Metropolitan Transportation System under Near -term Plus Project traffic conditions and are shown in Table 22 of the full traffic report. Project volumes were added on top of the Near -term volumes generated by the Alameda CTC model described in the Near -term without Project section. For this analysis, arterial average speeds were considered to determine LOS, Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Draft Supplemental EIR Page 59 City of Dublin September 2012 not volume thresholds listed in the City of Dublin General Plan. This difference in methodology may result in Levels of Service that differ between the two roadway segment analyses. Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road were the two arterials analyzed, with both classified as Arterial Class I based on the free flow speed 35 mph or more for each corridor. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 60 City of Dublin September 2012 OJ w W O d d F7 d V a G d � C ro V OA Yr 0 In rti eM v p z a, C) m N m L d N n E m a Y j ry U 0 N C H V m 10-3 m O O m U `1 to y E E n m m U o � W 3 0 U m Z m C m m W O1 c E o O m m m p CL [D N Ea W C C LL. V a O m m o O U J J E LL a `m S O N m > ° o O r T Q m � m .-o m a C O a E m Z6 -° c0 T m .t.. N m ° o ami n c d CL -° L Imn m m o ° c U O U U U 0 (p C N O L C J c< Y �o ° Z N O T o.. � U '• '• Lr1ryNd � ■ ■ x:000000000888000000 - a, C) m N m L d N n E m a ry U 0 N C H V m 10-3 m O O m U `1 to y E E n m m U o � W 3 0 U m Z m C m m W O1 c E o O m m m p CL [D N Ea W C C LL. V a O m m o O U J J E LL a `m S O N m > ° o O r T Q m � m .-o m a C O a E m Z6 -° c0 T m .t.. N m ° o ami n c d CL -° L Imn m m o ° c U O U U U 0 (p C N O L C J c< Y �o ° Z N O T o.. � U According to the analysis results shown in Table 22, all roadway segments currently satisfy operational standards. Additional detail of the analysis is provided in Appendix 8.6. Near -term Plus Project Level of Service at Freeway Segments. A supplemental Level of Service Analysis under the Congestion Management Program was conducted to evaluate freeway segments in the Metropolitan Transportation System under Near -term Plus Project traffic conditions. Freeway volumes for the Near -term Plus Project scenario were calculated by adding the project volumes to the Near -term condition volumes. According to the analysis results shown in Table 23 of the full traffic report, all freeway segments satisfy operational standards, except at the following locations: • I -580 Eastbound from I -680 to Dougherty Road (PM Peak) — Significant Impact • I -580 Westbound from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road (AM Peak) — Significant Impact • 1 -580 Westbound from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road (AM Peak) • I -580 Westbound from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard (AM Peak) — Significant Impact Note that these freeway segments fail the operational standards without traffic from the proposed project, except the segment of I -580 Westbound from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road. After the project traffic is added, the roadway segments degrade further and therefore are considered significant impacts. The freeway segment on I -580 Westbound from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road is not considered a significant impact because the project does not add any further traffic to the failing condition. Additional detail of the analysis is provided in Appendix 8.6. Long -Term (Year 2035) Cumulative Traffic Conditions. Long -Term Cumulative Lane Configurations and Traffic Control. Transportation improvements are anticipated by City staff for the study area intersections for the year 2035. According to the City of Dublin, the following roadway or intersection improvements are planned and have identified funding sources. At the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive, one northbound right turn lane will be restriped as an additional northbound through lane. At the intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, an additional southbound through lane and southbound right turn lane will be constructed. In addition, the southbound right will be a free movement. Two additional eastbound left turn lanes will be constructed and an additional northbound through lane. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 62 City of Dublin September 2012 • At the intersection of Tassajara Road and Silvera Ranch Drive, the west leg will be constructed for Wallis Ranch Drive. The northbound and southbound through movements will be widened to three lanes in each direction. • At the intersection of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive, the roadway will be widened to two lanes in each direction for the eastbound and westbound approaches. • At the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard, the northbound through movement will be widened to four lanes with an additional northbound right turn lane. The eastbound and westbound through movements will be widened to three lanes in each direction. • At the intersection of Tassajara Road and I -580 WB Ramps, the northbound through movement will be widened to three lanes. • At the intersection of Fallon Road and Silvera Ranch Drive, the northbound and southbound through movements will be widened to two lanes each direction. • At the intersection of Fallon Road and Cydonia Court, the northbound and southbound through movements will be widened to two lanes each direction. • At the intersection of Fallon Road and Central Parkway, the northbound through movement will be widened to three lanes. • At the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard, the northbound and southbound through movements will be widened to four lanes each direction. There will be an additional southbound left turn lane and an additional two northbound left turn lanes. The eastbound and westbound through movements will be widened to three lanes each direction. There will be an additional eastbound left turn lane and an additional two westbound left turn lanes. • At the intersection of Fallon Road and 1 -580 WB Ramps, the northbound and southbound through movements will be widened to three lanes. • At the intersection of El Charro Road and I -580 EB Ramps, the northbound and southbound through movernents will be widened to three lanes. An additional eastbound right turn lane will be constructed. • At the intersection of Tassajara Road and the project driveway, the northbound and southbound through movements will be widened to three lanes. All of these improvements reflect the ultimate lane configurations for the City of Dublin. Figure 15 contained in the full traffic analysis (Appendix 8.6) illustrates the intersection geometry and traffic control assumed in the long -term analysis. Year 2035 Cumulative Forecast. Dublin travel forecast was obtained for model information. The model was used to plot bi- directional AM and PM traffic volumes on each segment of the roadways in the study area. Model output was used to compare year 2011 with year 2035 model forecasts to determine the incremental difference in traffic volumes at study intersections. Year 2035 cumulative turning movement volumes were calculated by adding the incremental difference in bi- directional roadway segment (i.e., link) volumes to the existing 2012 link volumes, and then performing a Furness adjustment to generate future year turning movement volumes. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 63 City of Dublin September 2012 At some of the intersections in the Long -term forecast model (i.e. the intersection of Tassajara Road and I -580 WB Ramps), the volumes decrease from the existing 2011 year to the future 2035 year. This can be explained by the extra capacity from the Fallon Road interchange to the east. Therefore there are specific movements where the volume may decrease in the Long -term scenario. In other instances where the volumes should not decrease, the movement volumes were locked at the existing movement volumes to prevent movements from decreasing if it was not reflected in the model. The City of Dublin forecast model information is included in Appendix 8.6. Lont -Term Cumulative LOS Traffic Conditions. Traffic operations were evaluated under the following long -term development conditions: • Long -Term (2035) Without Project Traffic Conditions • Long -Term (2035) With Project Traffic Conditions Results of the analysis are presented in Table 4.1 -5. Additional detail is provided the Appendix 8.6. Long -Term Cumulative Without Project Level of Service Traffic Conditions. Long -term cumulative traffic conditions (based on the City's model traffic forecasts) were evaluated at the study intersections and volumes can be seen in Figure 16 of the full traffic report (see Appendix 8.6). As shown in Table 4.1 -5, the following intersections do not function within acceptable standards in the long -term cumulative condition: • Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard • Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard • Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard • Santa Rita Road and I -580 Eastbound Ramps/ Pimlico Drive • Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard Intersections operating below acceptable thresholds under the long -term condition will occur regardless of the approval and development of the proposed Moller Ranch development. Long -Term Cumulative Roadway Segment Analysis. Traffic operations were evaluated at roadway segments listed as routes of regional significance under Long -term cumulative traffic conditions and are shown in Figure 17 of the full traffic analysis (see Appendix 8.6). ADT volumes for the Long -term scenario were calculated by taking the percentage of peak hour volumes to daily volumes for the existing counts and applying that same percentage to the long -term peak hour volumes. ADT volumes for each roadway segment were compared to the ADT threshold for that particular type of roadway as defined by the City of Dublin General Plan. ADT volumes for each roadway segment were compared to the ADT threshold for that particular type of roadway as defined by the City of Dublin General Plan. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 64 City of Dublin September 2012 According to the analysis results shown in Table 25 of the full traffic analysis, all roadway segments currently satisfy operational standards, except at the following location: • Tassajara Road from I -580 to Dublin Boulevard A supplemental Land Use Analysis under the Congestion Management Program was conducted to evaluate roadway segments in the Metropolitan Transportation System using the Alameda CTC Countywide model under Long -term traffic conditions and is shown in Table 26 of the full traffic analysis. For this specific Metropolitan Transportation System roadway analysis, Long -term volumes were calculated using the same process as for the Long -term volumes for the intersection analysis, with the only difference being the use of the Alameda CTC Countywide model, not the Dublin travel forecast model. The Alameda CTC Countywide model was used to plot bi- directional AM and PM traffic volumes on each segment of the roadways in the study area. Model output was used to compare year 2005 with year 2035 model forecasts to determine the yearly incremental difference in traffic volumes at study intersections. Year 2035 turning movement volumes were calculated by adding the incremental difference in bi- directional roadway segment (i.e., link) volumes to the existing 2012 link volumes, and then performing a Furness adjustment to generate future year turning movement volumes. For this analysis, arterial average speeds were considered to determine LOS, not volume thresholds listed in the City of Dublin General Plan. This difference in methodology may result in Levels of Service that differ between the two roadway segment analyses. Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road were the two arterials analyzed, with both classified as Arterial Class I based on the free flow speed 35 mph or more for each corridor. According to the analysis results, the following roadway segments do not satisfy operational standards: • Tassajara Road from I -580 EB Ramps Dublin Boulevard in the SB Direction • Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive in the NB and SB Directions Note that these roadway segments fail the operational standards without traffic from the proposed project. Additional detail of the analysis is provided in Appendix 8.6. Lone -Term Cumulative Level of Service at Freeway Segments. Traffic operations were evaluated at freeway segments under Long -term cumulative traffic conditions and are shown in Figure 18 of the full traffic analysis (see Appendix 8.6). Freeway volumes for the Long -term scenario were calculated by taking existing 2010 freeway segment volumes from Caltrans data and growing the volumes to year 2035. The volume growth Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 65 City of Dublin September 2012 was calculated by taking bi- directional AM and PM traffic volumes from the Dublin travel forecast model for the base year 2011 and the future year 2035 and determining the annual growth for each segment. The annual growth for each segment was then applied to the existing 2010 freeway volumes to get to year 2035. The Level of Service methodology for the City of Dublin analysis will determine LOS from the density of each segment. This methodology is different than the Congestion Management Program analysis which determines the LOS based on volume directly. This difference in methodology may result in Levels of Service that differ between the two freeway segment analyses. According to the analysis results shown in Table 27 of the full traffic analysis, all freeway segments currently satisfy operational standards, except at the following locations: • I -580 from I -680 to Dougherty Road (AM Peak and PM Peak) • I -580 from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road (AM Peak) • I -580 from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road (AM Peak) • I -680 from Alcosta Boulevard to I -580 (AM Peak and PM Peak) A supplemental Land Use Analysis under the Congestion Management Program was conducted to evaluate freeway segments in the Metropolitan Transportation System using the Alameda CTC model under Long -term traffic conditions. Freeway volumes for the Long -term scenario were calculated by taking the incremental difference in the Alameda CTC model volumes from year 2030 and year 2005 on each freeway segment to determine an annual growth. The annual growth rate was then applied to the existing Caltrans counts taken in 2010 to grow to Long -term 2035. The freeway volumes for each segment based on vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) were used directly to determine LOS, which may result in different Levels of Service between the two freeway analyses. In addition, the City of Dublin freeway analysis used freeway volumes based on the City of Dublin model, and the Congestion Management Program analysis used freeway volumes based off the Alameda CTC model. According to the analysis results shown in Table 28 of the full traffic report, all freeway segments satisfy operational standards, except at the following locations: • I -580 from I -680 to Dougherty Road (AM & PM Peaks) • I -580 from Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive (AM & PM Peaks) • I -580 from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road (AM & PM Peaks) • I -580 from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road (AM & PM Peaks) • I -580 from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard (AM & PM Peaks) Note that these freeway segments fail the operational standards without traffic from the proposed'project. Additional detail of the analysis is provided in the Appendix. Long -Term Plus Project Level of Service Cumulative Traffic Conditions. Long -term cumulative traffic conditions (based on the City's model traffic forecasts) plus the Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 66 City of Dublin September 2012 Moller Ranch development were evaluated at the study intersections and volumes are shown in Figure 19 of the full traffic analysis (see Appendix 8.6). As shown in Table 29 of the full traffic report, all study intersections function within acceptable standards, except at the following locations: • Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard (Significant Impact) • Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard (Significant Impact) • Camino Tassajara Road and Highland Road (Not a Significant Impact) • Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard (Significant Impact) • Tassajara Road and I -580 WB Ramps (Significant Impact) • Santa Rita Road and 1 -580 Eastbound Ramps /Pimlico Drive (Acceptable) • Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard (Significant Impact) The intersection of Santa Rita Road and I -580 Eastbound Ramps /Pimlico Drive is a gateway intersection. The main movements with high delay are the westbound left turn movement and the southbound left turn movement. At this intersection, optimizing traffic signal timing will not mitigate the intersection to operate at LOS D. To increase the capacity of either of these two movements would require the widening of the westbound and/ or southbound approaches which would likely include right -of -way acquisition from private properties, non - standard design features, and/ or bridge widening which are not considered reasonable solutions. Gateway intersections may have a LOS below LOS D if there is no reasonable mitigation possible or if the necessary mitigation conflicts with other goals and policies of the City of Pleasanton. Because there does not appear to be a reasonable solution a level of service below LOS D was considered to be acceptable and a significant impact is not assumed. Long -Term + Project Roadway Segment Cumulative Analysis. Traffic operations were evaluated at roadway segments listed as routes of regional significance under Long- term Plus Project cumulative traffic conditions and are shown in Figure 20 of the full traffic analysis (see Appendix 8.6). ADT volumes for the Long -term Plus Project cumulative scenario were calculated by adding the daily trips generated by the proposed project to Long -term volumes. ADT volumes for each roadway segment were compared to the ADT threshold for that particular type of roadway as defined by the City of Dublin General Plan. According to the analysis results shown in Table 30 of the full traffic report, all roadway segments currently satisfy operational standards, except at the following locations: • Tassajara Road from I -580 to Dublin Boulevard (Significant Impact) A supplemental Land Use Analysis under the Congestion Management Program was conducted to evaluate roadway segments in the Metropolitan Transportation System under Long -term Plus Project traffic conditions and are shown in Table 31 of the full traffic report. Project volumes were added on top of the Long -term volumes generated by the Alameda CTC model described in the Long -term without Project section. For this analysis, arterial average speeds were considered to determine LOS, not volume Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 67 City of Dublin September 2012 thresholds listed in the City of Dublin General Plan. This difference in methodology may result in Levels of Service that differ between the two roadway segment analyses. Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road were the two arterials analyzed, with both classified as Arterial Class I based on the free flow speed 35 mph or more for each corridor. According to the analysis results, the following roadway segments do not satisfy operational standards: • Tassajara Road from I -580 EB Ramps Dublin Boulevard in the SB Direction • Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive in the NB and SB Directions — Significant Impact Note that these roadway segments fail the operational standards without traffic from the proposed project. After the project traffic is added, the roadway segment on Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive in the NB direction will degrade further and therefore is considered a significant impact. Additional detail of the analysis is provided in Appendix 8.6. Long -Term + Project Cumulative Level of Service at Freeway Segments. Traffic operations were evaluated at freeway segments under Long -term Plus Project cumulative traffic conditions and are shown in Figure 21 of the full traffic analysis. Freeway volumes for the Long -term Plus Project scenario were calculated by taking the Long -term volumes and adding the proposed project volumes. The Level of Service methodology for the City of Dublin analysis will determine LOS from the density of each segment. This methodology is different than the Congestion Management Program analysis which determines the LOS based on volume directly. This difference in methodology may result in Levels of Service that differ between the two freeway segment analyses. According to the analysis results shown in Table 32 of the full traffic report, all freeway segments currently satisfy operational standards, except at the following locations: • I -580 from I -680 to Dougherty Road (AM Peak and PM Peak) — Significant Impact • I -580 from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road (AM Peak) — Significant Impact • I -580 from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road (AM Peak) • I -680 from Alcosta Boulevard to I -580 (AM Peak and PM Peak) — Significant Impact A supplemental Land Use Analysis under the Congestion Management Program was conducted to evaluate freeway segments in the Metropolitan Transportation System using the Alameda CTC model under Long -term Plus Project traffic conditions. Freeway volumes for the Long -term Plus Project scenario were calculated by adding Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Draft Supplemental EIR Page 68 City of Dublin September 2012 the project volumes to the Long -term condition volumes. The freeway volumes for each segment based on vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) were used directly to determine LOS, which may result in different Levels of Service between the two freeway analyses. In addition, the City of Dublin freeway analysis used freeway volumes based on the City of Dublin model, and the Congestion Management Program analysis used freeway volumes based off the Alameda CTC model. According to the analysis results shown in Table 33 of the full traffic report, all freeway segments satisfy operational standards, except at the following locations: • I -580 from I -680 to Dougherty Road (AM & PM Peaks) - Significant Impact • I -580 from Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive (AM & PM Peaks) - Significant Impact • I -580 from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road (AM & PM Peaks) - Significant Impact • I -580 from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road (AM & PM Peaks) • I -580 from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard (AM & PM Peaks) - Significant Impact Note that these freeway segments fail the operational standards without traffic from the proposed project, except the segment of I -580 Westbound from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road. After the project traffic is added, the roadway segments degrade further and therefore are considered significant impacts. The freeway segment on I -580 from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road is not considered a significant impact because the project does not add any further traffic to the failing condition. Additional detail of the analysis is provided in Appendix 8.6. Supplemental Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The following supplemental traffic and transportation impacts have been identified with the proposed project. Consistent with other CEQA documents in the Eastern Dublin area, this SEIR identifies only new or more severe impacts than were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2007 Casamira Valley SEIR. Supplemental Intersection Impacts. The following supplemental impacts have been identified with the proposed project. Intersection impacts. The following impacts are anticipated with respect to roadway intersections near the site. Hacienda Drive /Dublin Boulevard intersection. Supplemental Impact TRA -1 -12 (Project contribution to impact at Hacienda Dr. /Dublin Blvd. intersection under both near -term and lone -term cumulative Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 69 City of Dublin September 2012 conditions). The Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour under both near -term and long- term traffic conditions and would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. This intersection and would experience an increase in delay during the AM and PM peak hours due to the Moller Ranch development (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required). This impact would be reduced to a less - than - significant level with adherence to the following measure that would make improvements at this intersection to increase vehicle capacity during peak hours. conditions). The City shall remove the eastbound crosswalk on the south leg of the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard. The removal of the eastbound pedestrian crosswalk would allow more time for the westbound left turn movement and thereby lower the overall delay of the intersection. Fallon Road /Hacienda Boulevard intersection Supplemental Impact TRA -2 -12 (Project contribution to impact at Fallon Rd./Hacienda Blvd. intersection under near term conditions). The Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under the Near -term traffic condition and would experience an increase in delay during the PM peak hour due to the Moller Ranch development. (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required). This impact would be reduced, but not to a less- than - significant level with adherence to the following measure that would require improvements to existing traffic signal operations at the identified intersection. Supplemental Mitigation SM- TRA -2 -12 (Project contribution to impact at Hacienda Dr. /Dublin Blvd. intersection under near -term conditions). The project applicant shall optimize the signal timing splits at the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard. This improvement will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Near -term Plus Project condition by improving operations to a pre - project condition. Although the project would worsen the delay at the already failing intersection, the improvement does not mitigate the intersection to an acceptable LOS and therefore the project shall be responsible for the entirety of the mitigation costs. Dougherty Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours under the Long -term traffic condition and would experience an increase in delay during the AM and PM peak hours due Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 70 City of Dublin September 2012 to the Moller Ranch development (significant supplemental impact but mitigation infeasible). Previously approved mitigation measures have been implemented at this intersection. There is no additional feasible mitigation for this intersection under long -term conditions. Optimizing the signal timing splits at the intersections would not improve the intersection to better than without the project. The intersection in the Long -term scenario is already improved with double and triple left turn movements at each approach, as well as three or more through lanes and right turn overlaps. There are no foreseeable capacity improvements to this intersection without widening the roadway. Acquisition of additional right -of -way would not be feasible to the close proximity of commercial structures and / or parking adjacent to the intersection. It should be noted that the project would only increase the average intersection delay by 1.0 second in the AM peak and 1.3 seconds in the PM peak. The project applicant is required to pay its proportionate traffic impact fees to contribute towards a possible future improvements in this location. However, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Tassajara Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection Rd. /Dublin Blvd. intersection under long -term cumulative conditions). The Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection is expected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour under the Long -term traffic condition and would experience an increase in LOS and delay during the AM and PM peak hours due to the Moller Ranch development (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required). There is no feasible mitigation for this intersection under the long -term conditions. Optimizing the signal timing splits would not improve the intersection to a satisfactory condition than without the project. The intersection in the Long -term scenario would have double and triple left turn movements at each approach, as well as three or more through lanes. There are no foreseeable capacity improvements to this intersection without widening the roadway which would not be feasible due to right -of -way constraints. The project applicant will be required pay its proportionate traffic impact fees to help contribute towards possible future improvement intersection improvements However, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Tassajara Road /I -580 Westbound Ramps Road and I -580 WB Ramps intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour under the long -term traffic condition and would experience an increase in level of service to LOS E during the PM peak hour due to the Moller Ranch development (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required). Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 71 City of Dublin September 2012 This impact would be reduced to a less - than- significant level with adherence to the following measure that would require improvements to existing traffic signal operations at the identified intersection. Rd. /I -580 WB ramps under long -term cumulative conditions). Prior to the recordatiol of the first final map for the Moller project, the applicant shall pay the cost to retime the signal at the intersection of Tassajara Road and 1 -580 WB Ramps. This improvement will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Long -term + Project condition. Fallon Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection Rd. /Dublin Blvd. under long -term cumulative conditions). The Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under the Long -term traffic condition and would experience an increase in delay during the PM peak hour due to the Moller Ranch development (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required). This impact would be reduced to a less - than - significant level with adherence to the following measure that would require improvements to existing traffic signal operations at the identified intersection. However the supplemental mitigation measure would only return the operation of the Fallon Road/ Dublin Boulevard intersection to a pre - project operational level. Overall, this intersection would still operate at an unsatisfactory level. Rd. /Dublin Blvd. under long -term cumulative conditions). Prior to the City's issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall optimize the signal timing splits at the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard. Roadway segment impacts Tassajara Road frorn Fallon Road to County Line roadway segment along Tassajara Road from Fallon Road to the County limit will exceed the recommended ADT volume threshold for a two -lane roadway in the City of Dublin due to the Moller Ranch development (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required). This impact would be reduced to a less - than - significant level with adherence to the following measure that would require widening and other improvements to Tassajara Road as described above. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 72 City of Dublin September 2012 Tassajara Rd. between Fallon Rd. and County line under near -term conditions). Prior to the City's issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the Moller project, the applicant shall widen Tassajara Road from the project entrance to Fallon Road to four lanes. Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive Supplemental Impact TRA -8 -12 (Project contribution to impact to impact along Tassajara Rd. between Dublin Blvd. and Gleason Dr. under long -term cumulative conditions). The roadway segment along Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive under the Metropolitan Transportation System is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour and under the Long -term condition and would experience a decrease in average travel speed during the PM peak hour due to the Moller Ranch development (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required). This impact would be reduced to a less - than- significant level with adherence to the following measure that would require coordination of existing traffic signals along this portion of Tassajara Road to improve the roadway capacity. Tassajara Rd. between Fallon Rd. and County line under near -term conditions). Prior to the recordation of the first final subdivision map for the Moller project, the applicant shall pay the cost to coordinate signals along Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive. The coordination of signals along Tassajara would increase the average travel speed to 11 mph, the same as without the project, and therefore will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Long -term plus Project condition. Tassajara Road from 1 -580 to Dublin Boulevard between I -580 and Dublin Blvd. under long -term conditions). The roadway segment along Tassajara Road from I -580 to Dublin Boulevard would exceed the recommended ADT volume threshold for an eight -lane roadway in the City of Dublin under the Long -term traffic condition and is expected to experience an increase in volume due to the Moller Ranch development. (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required). This impact would be reduced to a less - than - significant level with adherence to the following measure that would require widening of Tassajara Road by an additional travel lane in this location to improve the roadway capacity. Rd. between I -580 and Dublin Blvd. under long -term conditions). Northbound Tassajara Road shall be widened to five lanes from I -580 to Dublin Boulevard. The additional northbound lane would be a drop lane for the inside northbound right turn lane. An additional northbound lane would increase the ADT threshold to 80,000 Moller Ranch 8 Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 73 City of Dublin September 2012 vehicles per day and therefore will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Long -term + Project condition. The City intends to include this roadway improvement in the next fee program update and therefore the project will solely be responsible to pay their impact fees. If the improvement is not added to the fee program by the time of final subdivision mapping, the project shall pay its fair share of the improvement as calculated by the City. The project's traffic volume contribution to the impact is 2910 under Long -term conditions. Roadway queuing impacts Tassajara RoadlFallon Road intersection Rd./ Fallon Rd. intersection). The Tassajara Road and Fallon Road intersection would provide for an inadequate eastbound left turn queue of during the PM peak hour in the Existing Plus Project and Near Term Plus Project conditions. The project would create a left -turn queue exceeding the turn pocket and then spilling out of the turn pocket into the roadway, this is a significant impact (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required). This impact would be reduced to a less -than- significant level with adherence to the following measure that would require the construction of a second turn lane at the Tassajara Road /Fallon Road intersection to accommodate additional vehicles during the peak hour. Supplemental Mitigation SM- TRA -10 -12 (Lack of vehicle storage capaci!y at the Tassajara Rd.! Fallon Rd. intersection). Prior to the City's issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall restripe the existing eastbound through lane into a shared through /left turn lane and implement split phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Tassajara Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection Rd./ Dublin Blvd. intersection). The Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection would have provide for an inadequate eastbound left turn queue under the Long -term Plus Project conditions. The project would create a demand for an additional approximately 80 feet of the total queue that would exceed the turn pocket length in the PM peak. Since the project would create at least one car length of the total queue exceeding the turn pocket and the queue spilling out of the turn pocket is greater than one car, this impact would be significant (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required). There is no feasible mitigation for this intersection in the Long -term. Optimizing the signal timing splits at this intersection would not improve the intersection to better than without the project. The intersection in the Long -term scenario currently has double lefts for the eastbound left -turn movement. In addition, the intersection has double and triple left turn movements at each of the other approaches, as well as three or more Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 74 City of Dublin September 2012 through lanes. The existing eastbound left turn pocket cannot be lengthened because it has dual left turn lanes back to back with the left turn pockets for the westbound movement at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Glynnis Rose Drive. There are no foreseeable capacity improvements to this intersection without widening the roadway which would be infeasible due to lack of sufficient right -of -way. The project applicant is required to pay its proportionate traffic impact fees to help contribute towards a possible future improvement. However, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Freeway impacts. The Kimley -Horn traffic report (Appendix 8.6) identifies impacts of the Moller Ranch project to the I -580 and I -680 freeways. As noted in the Previous CEQA document section, these impacts have already been noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Casamira Valley Supplemental EIR. No new or more significant impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed. Moller Creek culvert replacement project. The proposed replacement of the existing culvert over Moller Creek would be constructed in conjunction with the planned widening of Tassajara Road near the Moller Ranch site. The culvert replacement would not generate any vehicular traffic and would have no impact on traffic circulation. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 75 City of Dublin September 2012 SRI X111 e 11 � yy¢¢ t l' �'" dLL& �slt lust di. d. jue Z m U m Z w Ay qtr a�^ tit Rr �:tirr j ttrr rr SRI X111 e 11 � yy¢¢ t l' N LILT r;,« l d 1 LI.L r Z m U m Z w N j ltitttrr ttrr rr niz� 1 I sum SRI X111 e 11 � yy¢¢ t l' N LILT r;,« l d 1 LI.L r Z m U m Z w N j ltitttrr ttrr rr SRI X111 e 11 � yy¢¢ t l' N LILT r;,« l d 1 LI.L r Z m U m Z w N j 0 W J Q ttrr y � 5 ®2 §E $ a & 4 ® lJ ® ®^ Ye�NizMy g s-0 8 w I pwsm } � J wcc M wp �U ° w U a Z V. a lL J Q Z F�- fA Z wa T N Q c m U F w N � J a ¢ z w Z m U m Z w N j 0 W J Q F el 12 0 iH. b E4 q I Ham^ fi 1 ayp 6 KSa'M1t �QIINS tr8 -. $ r Ulv#ml —> ti T r 6�Yn —s '�` ti r IovhR� r r IvMR —r _ 6eb�, 81 Ntlnl� ga rlullux 3 �6M s— lallt. r�mK P. tlrxc411 �Irlhx r�x'r'Ya � r FF� pp 4 dlLe' ' � -Rlrbn �� Iwblr a Icbu r -AS 1%IkKZ �% y�y v --p¢NK = C "J2W ti r r ST( y_ lelk� a �ido�¢ti 56— EjR �� 2 5 ie F el 12 0 iH. b E4 q I Ham^ fi 1 ayp 6 KSa'M1t �QIINS tr8 -. $ r Ulv#ml —> ti T r 6�Yn —s '�` ti r IovhR� r r IvMR —r _ 6eb�, 81 Ntlnl� ga 3 rlullux 3 �6M s— lallt. r�mK P. tlrxc411 �Irlhx r�x'r'Ya � r FF� pp 4 dlLe' ' � -Rlrbn �� Iwblr a Icbu r -AS 1%IkKZ �% y�y v --p¢NK = C "J2W ti r r ST( r u� a �~ �ido�¢ti 56— feeLm1 �� I�r-y 5 3 rlullux 3 �6M s— lallt. r�mK P. tlrxc411 �Irlhx r�x'r'Ya � r FF� pp 4 dlLe' —limr< IRlltn fmlml —v ICIIPIS �� I$[DI49} r r � Fi(L r -AS 1%IkKZ J11�', �W= IuKAR rrcr+kn Jll,g �6M s— lallt. r�mK �ts��' dlS� tlrxc411 �Irlhx r�x'r'Ya w PF. d 4 AUK (r[On FF� pp 4 dlLe' —limr< IRlltn fmlml —v ICIIPIS �� I$[DI49} r r � Fi(L r -AS 1%IkKZ CW C � J N Y F v W W a aw L (x} W Z � c� X Z W Z 7 F H U w O � w a a U w m Z w � � a LL O W cc N H J Q 0 � o ! � � 1 ■O§ � \ � Sig I EM ] : i \ / \ 2 ■ ) §2( 2 F- § wk k k . _ § )� ■ §§ §g! 0LU [0 k a LLJ LLI cr LLJ z 'wrt 0 > x LL LLI W 0 cull" `tu 410 - --- --------- clll� OtIt, tw)z" WIR 5 lull, r—Ulo Ww' 1,0Q, (Do", wlty falm, 1w, -ln' 'Ulz j 'ED-2 49 LU 7 CC 0 cc CL z m z 0 z < C3 LL 0 CC LU w 0 m 10 Tx 4H .AIWIf LL cull" `tu 410 - --- --------- clll� OtIt, tw)z" WIR 5 lull, r—Ulo Ww' 1,0Q, (Do", wlty falm, 1w, -ln' 'Ulz j 'ED-2 49 LU 7 CC 0 cc CL z m z 0 z < C3 LL 0 CC LU w 0 m 10 Tx 4H .AIWIf LL Tx 4H .AIWIf LL LL LLI W < m cc T UJ :3 -j Z LU 0 > W FL LL (.) LU U. 5 < 0 CC CC F— CL W '") m 0 m tL zx 9 a) z M.g C)m U.M o LU -3 ai O ,tIg,xv t r Ww� T r Zm� I= lt&a W'W" L9 DO 1 Ift ola 01,100, t (I$ ftl WLIy (KIWI all I rl j t r I T r t r y I'=: WA WE C� ig owl LLI W < m cc T UJ :3 -j Z LU 0 > W FL LL (.) LU U. 5 < 0 CC CC F— CL W '") m 0 m tL zx 9 a) z M.g C)m U.M o LU -3 ai O W '") m 0 m tL zx 9 a) z M.g C)m U.M o LU -3 ai O ai O m 2 §k 0 z cc 2 +§ §/q §� \ � { ,■c§ � - - -�- -- — !, i _ ��� • �w� .sue �\ � §E - m$§ � LL ; &§, \ \ � /- m 2 §k 0 z cc 2 +§ §/q §� \ � { § }� { � §E m$§ k LL ; &§, \ [0 \ OW c Y C W J CL � � U Z wW W i ;fZ 0 W w(L O CC V Z FM— Tz LL LL Q W ~ z U W O cc w ina a U w CS ¢ a o w w > J G F- O U M o �m6�11 B 8'.. t ti� � Vie'.,' 2 ��i�: '�trhn L�ll2 X14 }: ;rmwaGt J14} �mtuw J L¢':: 4-mGw: J1L�' �h„w. 1 '-mourn Y$ r� r IGEe rUiM ��. rlutb L} 1����QQr'6r a S r m¢rma Is]°a 1 mo� � tir I�1 tir Uth-T m,czG -. mskGi� Mt„ I ktOtla01 -. 6 ��� 491RG -. ® ❑ *� yg 4. u I• o= -vawww aa OW c Y C W J CL � � U Z wW W i ;fZ 0 W w(L O CC V Z FM— Tz LL LL Q W ~ z U W O cc w ina a U w CS ¢ a o w w > J G F- O U M o �m6�11 B 8'.. 4i�GGrt � Vie'.,' 2 ��i�: '�trhn L�ll2 X14 }: A J 4 }' �,sOSa J L¢':: 4 -R¢tmn J1L�' rl� 1 '-mourn Y$ r� rmime 8 rhmm L} 1����QQr'6r a S r m¢rma Is]°a �� mo� � r r I�1 a OW c Y C W J CL � � U Z wW W i ;fZ 0 W w(L O CC V Z FM— Tz LL LL Q W ~ z U W O cc w ina a U w CS ¢ a o w w > J G F- O U M o �m6�11 B 8'.. 4i�GGrt � Vie'.,' 2 ��i�: '�trhn L�ll2 X14 }: A J 4 }' �,sOSa J L¢':: 4 -R¢tmn J1L�' rl� 1 '-mourn Y$ r� rmime 8 rhmm L} 1����QQr'6r a S r m¢rma Is]°a S r r 6NNti1 ;� r r I�1 ti r r Uth-T m,czG -. mskGi� ktOtla01 -. 6 tmrlwti 491RG -. OW c Y C W J CL � � U Z wW W i ;fZ 0 W w(L O CC V Z FM— Tz LL LL Q W ~ z U W O cc w ina a U w CS ¢ a o w w > J G F- O U M o �m6�11 B 8'.. LI41NI � `T 2 ��i�: '�trhn L�ll2 X14 }: A J 4 }' �,sOSa J 4Y 4 -R¢tmn 6 rl� � '-mourn r� 8 1����QQr'6r a S r Wk01 ^a 11101:: 4XhR� _A mxu-ti OW c Y C W J CL � � U Z wW W i ;fZ 0 W w(L O CC V Z FM— Tz LL LL Q W ~ z U W O cc w ina a U w CS ¢ a o w w > J G F- O U M o ��i�: '�trhn 1����QQr'6r a S r Wk01 ^a 11101:: 4XhR� _A OW c Y C W J CL � � U Z wW W i ;fZ 0 W w(L O CC V Z FM— Tz LL LL Q W ~ z U W O cc w ina a U w CS ¢ a o w w > J G F- O U M o cc cr y J� $ ® ❑ > i wg fs A S It �. .r.b a J111 �w� 4rb6a ti t r 11a4w�' e r r Ibb1 q t r °�' (HSW —f IW14111ti I011lil(5( —, bRa3Elti IIWS!(1 —, VLlK29y ��� (mc4w� ��C 16141 �OK� SG6f g' CC _Gvw.�... ,. -.. .�:o� . ............ .a .._. -. .....m«.. r_ ..... .. av -tee 1 :19M. -, lasbi„ as' t4(„ � � 2wlkroz fske�l � � ImYlss} � z w_w a _ �— Im�ilm 5- 1n�fib9.1 41 w- J1L�, r4a1klol J1L� rlelw J1L�; rlsx119s J L� J1�� Irs�Ymi —� `� r r IosAp —s 1 � r r 4ilwl�i —r . � r r lug w—+ bn5kss -r 191k11� ��� IKrbfll} N OW 2 � Y W J a� ww Ow X a1 0 CT C V Z 0 U W O � w CL Z 2 z C, � a � W ti } J QF- O U � o J 1 L� r J 1 L r ti4f[kw r 4srF� J rlmkc r resbc J r4vkbl iti r ( ti r r 1 =j ti r � ��' t ti r r Lbw i 6r' I (wC`�1� t C_y 3 14�ar --a = 3 ( (fl}Ft'y c y J� $ ® ❑ > i wg fs A S It �. .r.b a J111 �w� 4rb6a ti t r 11a4w�' e r r Ibb1 q t r °�' (HSW —f IW14111ti I011lil(5( —, bRa3Elti IIWS!(1 —, VLlK29y ��� (mc4w� ��C 16141 �OK� SG6f g' CC _Gvw.�... ,. -.. .�:o� . ............ .a .._. -. .....m«.. r_ ..... .. av -tee 1 :19M. -, lasbi„ as' t4(„ � � 2wlkroz fske�l � � ImYlss} � z w_w a _ �— Im�ilm 5- 1n�fib9.1 41 w- J1L�, r4a1klol J1L� rlelw J1L�; rlsx119s J L� J1�� Irs�Ymi —� `� r r IosAp —s 1 � r r 4ilwl�i —r . � r r lug w—+ bn5kss -r 191k11� ��� IKrbfll} N OW 2 � Y W J a� ww Ow X a1 0 CT C V Z 0 U W O � w CL Z 2 z C, � a � W ti } J QF- O U � o _Gvw.�... ,. -.. .�:o� . ............ .a .._. -. .....m«.. r_ ..... .. av -tee 1 :19M. -, lasbi„ as' t4(„ � � 2wlkroz fske�l � � ImYlss} � z w_w a _ �— Im�ilm 5- 1n�fib9.1 41 w- J1L�, r4a1klol J1L� rlelw J1L�; rlsx119s J L� J1�� Irs�Ymi —� `� r r IosAp —s 1 � r r 4ilwl�i —r . � r r lug w—+ bn5kss -r 191k11� ��� IKrbfll} N OW 2 � Y W J a� ww Ow X a1 0 CT C V Z 0 U W O � w CL Z 2 z C, � a � W ti } J QF- O U � o z w_w a _ �— Im�ilm 5- 1n�fib9.1 41 w- J1L�, r4a1klol J1L� rlelw J1L�; rlsx119s J L� J1�� Irs�Ymi —� `� r r IosAp —s 1 � r r 4ilwl�i —r . � r r lug w—+ bn5kss -r 191k11� ��� IKrbfll} N OW 2 � Y W J a� ww Ow X a1 0 CT C V Z 0 U W O � w CL Z 2 z C, � a � W ti } J QF- O U � o N OW 2 � Y W J a� ww Ow X a1 0 CT C V Z 0 U W O � w CL Z 2 z C, � a � W ti } J QF- O U � o 4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This section provides information on the biological resources within the boundaries and in the vicinity of the Moller Ranch property (hereinafter the "project'), including the proposed culvert replacement over Tassajara Creek south and west of the Moller Ranch site. Biological resources were analyzed in Chapter 3.7 of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area and within the 2007 Casamira Valley Supplemental EIR. The purpose of this section is to supplement previous EIRs with respect to the proposed project and to update information regarding special - status plant and wildlife species, sensitive habitats, wetland impacts and any regulatory changes that may have occurred since certification of the 2007 Supplemental EIR. The following biological resources analysis is based on two recent biological resource reports. H.T. Harvey & Associates analyzed any changes to biological conditions on the Moller Ranch. WRA Associates prepared a biological resources report to assess impacts to the proposed Moller Creek culvert replacement. Both reports are attached to this DSEIR (Appendices 8.7 and 8.8). This section updates species information and regulatory circumstances and provides an analysis of impacts and mitigation measures specific to project features. MOLLER RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Site characteristics. The terrain of the Moller Ranch property ranges in elevation between approximately 450 and 1,000 feet above sea level. Moller Creek, a tributary of Tassajara Creek to the west, flows through the western portion of the study area in a generally east -west direction (see Exhibit 4.2.1). The easterly portion of the project site consists largely of moderate to steep rolling hillsides in a small but well- defined valley with drainage courses on the valley floor. Two ranch houses and a number of agricultural outbuildings are in the western portion of the Moller Ranch, situated immediately north of Moller Creek. The majority of the project site is non -native grassland that is grazed by cattle. A number of seasonal drainages flow in various directions through the study area; however, some reaches of Moller Creek are the only drainages in the study area that typically contain surface water throughout the summer and fall and support riparian woodland and herbaceous riparian wetlands. Other vegetation communities and habitats present on the site include: seasonal wetlands (including alkali -wetlands), a stock pond, unvegetated drainages, and Eucalyptus trees. These vegetation communities and habitats are described in more detail in the following sections. A portion of the project area for the PG &E Tri- Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project is located on the Moller Ranch site. This PG &E project includes the construction of an access road along the existing Moller Road, which traverses the site. An EIR was prepared for the project and the project is currently being constructed. Biological impacts Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 84 City of Dublin September 2012 associated with the access road included permanent fill of jurisdictional wetlands along Moller Road. Vegetation communities and habitats. The following discussion of vegetation communities and habitats is based on information contained in the Casamira Valley SEIR as updated by H.T. Harvey & Associates in July 2012. The July 2012 report is included in this SEIR as Appendix 8.7. The vegetation communities and habitats present on the project site are described below and are mapped in Exhibit 4.2.1. Wildlife that is typically associated with these vegetation communities and habitats are also discussed below. Terminology of the vegetation types are based on the July 2012 H.T. Harvey report. Non -native Annual Grassland. Non - native grassland is the dominant vegetation community in and adjacent to the project site. This community is dominated by non- native grasses and forbs. Grasses characteristic of this community are soft chess (Bromus liordeaceus), wild oats (Avena fatiia), slender wild oats (A. barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), hare barley (Hordewn murinum ssp. leporinam), and Italian ryegrass (Lolium maltiflorum). Creeping wild -rye (Leymas triticoides), a native perennial grass, also occurs in patches throughout the grasslands in the Project area. Non -native forbs include bellardia ( Bellardia trixago), black mustard (Brassica nigra), filaree (Erodium botrys), and red - stemmed filaree (Erodhan cicutariami). Areas of particular concern within this vegetation communityare areas dominated by invasive, non -native thistles. Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Italian thistle (Cardaas pycnocephalus), milk thistle (Silyb.nn marianum), and bull thistle (Cirshan vulgare) are present in grasslands throughout the project site and near disturbed areas such as Moller Road. Seeds of thistles are easily spread by the wind due to the parachute attached to each fruit containing the seed. Native forbs present in the grassland include harvest brodiaea ( Brodiaea elegans), California poppy (Eschscliolzia californica), owl's clover (Castilleja densiflora), purple owl's - clover (Castilleja exserta ssp. exserta), minature lupine (Lupinus bicolor), and blow -wives (Achyraecltaena mollis). Wildlife species commonly found in grassland habitats that were observed on the Moller Ranch site include western fence lizard (Sceloporas occidentalis), red - tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), northern harrier (Cicus cyaneus), turkey vulture (Catliartes arum), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), barn swallow (Hirando rustica), and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). California ground squirrel (Spermophilas beecheyi), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and California vole (Micwtus californicus) burrows were also observed in the grasslands. The grassland habitat within the project site also provides suitable habitat for large and medium -sized mammals such as striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), American badger (Taxidea taxus), coyote (Canis latrans), and black - tailed deer (Odocoileus ltemionus columbianus). Although not observed during any of the surveys of the Project area, burrowing owl, California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) occur in open non -native grassland habitat in the region and the site contains habitat for these species. Suitable breeding sites for California tiger salamanders (Ambystoma californiense) are present on and near the Moller Ranch site and grasslands around these breeding sites provide important terrestrial habitat for this species. California tiger Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 85 City of Dublin September 2012 salamanders were observed in California ground squirrel burrows during nocturnal surveys conducted on the Project area in the winter of 2002/2003. Ephemeral and Intermittent Drainages. Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration of sufficient length to support vegetation adapted to anaerobic (oxygen - depleted) soil conditions. Seasonal wetlands typically occur in natural depressions and swales that are inundated or saturated in the upper 12 inches of the soil for a portion of the year (seasonally). Several types of jurisdictional seasonal wetlands have been identified on the Moller Ranch during the wetland delineation: seep wetlands, seasonal wetlands, and ephemeral wetland swales (WRA 2003b). In this EIR, for the purpose of mapping vegetation communities these three jurisdictional seasonal wetlands types are mapped as "seasonal wetlands (jurisdictional)" (Exhibit 4.2.1). However, these three types of seasonal wetlands are analyzed separately in the impact analysis. Some seasonal wetlands in the project site were determined by the Corps to be isolated and thus non jurisdictional. WRA also identified jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to the Moller Creek channel as "herbaceous riparian wetlands" and these wetlands are discussed in this EIR below as "herbaceous riparian wetlands." Both jurisdictional and non - jurisdictional seasonal wetlands on the project site are considered a sensitive habitat under CEQA and are potentially subject to regulation by the RWQCB as waters of the State. There are verified jurisdictional seep wetlands (3.28 acres), seasonal wetlands (2.22 acres), and ephemeral wetland swales (0.75 acre) on the project site and verified non- jurisdictional seep wetlands (0.48 acre), seasonal wetlands (0.06 acre), and ephemeral wetland swales (0.07 acre) in the eastern portion of the Moller property. Seep wetlands, as described by WRA, are located throughout the Project area and generally occur at the base of hillsides in shallow depressions within non -native grassland. These seep wetlands are dominated by perennial, emergent hydrophytic plants such as yerba manza (Anemopsis calfornica), iris -leaf rush (funcus xiphioides), and Mexican rush (funcus mexicanus). Other species present in seeps include common tarweed (Hemizonia pungens), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marmun: ssp. gussoneanum), saltgrass (Disticltlis spicata), rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Italian ryegrass, and narrow -leaf milkweed (Asdepias fascicularis). Many of these seeps have alkaline soils, and in several areas of the Project area the seeps support Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale, which are special - status plants. The seasonal wetlands type identified by WRA (2003b) generally occurs at lower elevations on the project site in depressions and generally lack perennial, emergent vegetation. Dominant plant species include common tarweed, Italian ryegrass, Mediterranean barley, saltgrass and rabbitfoot grass. Some of these seasonal wetlands also have alkaline soils and support Congdon's tarplant. Ephemeral wetlands swales in the Project area are drainages that are located in valleys and are hydrologically connected to other wetlands or waters. Dominant plant species in ephemeral wetland swales are typically annual, herbaceous hydrophytes and some upland species, such as Italian ryegrass, Mediterranean barley, rabbitfoot grass, curly dock (Rumex crispus), sheep sorrel (Rtunex acetosella), and suckling clover (Trii lium dubium). An ephemeral swale in the southern portion of the Project area that drains into Moller Creek supports Congdon's tarplant. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement ProjectlDraft Supplemental EIR Page 86 City of Dublin September 2012 Wildlife species known from the region that are often associated with seasonal wetlands include the Pacific treefrog (Pseudacris regilla) and western toad (Bufo boreas). California red- legged frogs may also use these areas as hydration habitat. Some of the grassland species mentioned in the Non -native Grassland section may also rely on seasonal wetlands as a source of water and food. The seasonal wetlands also may be used as a water source, on a seasonal basis, for waterfowl and shorebirds. Seep and Seasonal Wetland. All of the herbaceous riparian wetlands (1.93 acres) occur in the Moller Creek channel and along its banks and are verified jurisdictional wetlands (Exhibit 4.2.1). Dominant hydrophytic species include narrow -leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), yerba manza, Mexican rush and saltgrass. Other species observed in this wetland type include California bulrush (Scirpus californicus), alkali bulrush (Scirpus maritiraus), Italian ryegrass, fat hen (Atriplex triangularis), saltgrass, bird's foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), and rabbitfoot grass. Presumably, at least some of these herbaceous riparian wetlands on the project site have a longer hydroperiod than other seasonal wetlands on the project site because some of these herbaceous riparian wetlands support narrow -leaf cattail and California bulrush, which do not occur in other on -site seasonal wetlands. Perennial Drainaee. There are two types of verified jurisdictional unvegetated (non - wetland) waters of the U.S. on the Moller Ranch property (0.92 acre): unvegetated drainages, including some reaches of the Moller Creek channel, and the southeast stock pond (Exhibit 4.2.1). Moller Creek is an intermittent to perennial tributary to Tassajara Creek that flows southwest through the Moller Ranch. Vegetated reaches of the creek support herbaceous riparian vegetation that were described in the preceding section, and unvegetated reaches of the creek charnel are considered jurisdictional non - wetland waters of the U.S. Moller Creek provides habitat for California red - legged frog, Pacific treefrog, Pacific pond turtle, and several fish species. During the spring and summer months the flow in the creek decreases but several plunge pools persist providing habitat well into summer for California red- legged frogs. Red - legged frogs were observed in these plunge pools during LSA's previous reconnaissance surveys of the site. California tiger salamanders also have been observed in burrows near Moller Creek and could use these pools as breeding sites. Other jurisdictional unvegetated waters of the U.S. on the project site include an intermittent tributary of Cottonwood Creek in the eastern portion of the Moller property and tributaries to Moller Creek. The width of tributaries on the site range from approximately 1 foot wide to 30 feet wide, and depth ranges from approximately 1 to 2 feet deep (to the high water line). The substrate is primarily unvegetated and consists of mud, gravel and cobble. The hydrology of the Cottonwood Creek tributary has been altered by construction of the stock pond in that area, causing the portions of the lower reach below the pond to dry up. This tributary consists of jurisdictional unvegetated waters (drainages with a defined bed and bank), seep wetlands, ephemeral wetland swales and areas exhibiting overland surface flows that are not confined to a defined bed and bank. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 87 City of Dublin September 2012 A stock pond (Southeast Stock Pond) occurs on the Moller Ranch along the tributary of Cottonwood Creek (Exhibit 4.2.1). The pond was still inundated on August 24, 2005, during the reconnaissance survey conducted by LSA biologists. It potentially remains filled throughout the entire year. At the time of the reconnaissance survey, the edges of the pond were primarily devoid of vegetation except for a few patches of spikerush (Eleocharis ttutcrostachya), rabbitfoot grass and a few small cattails (Typha sp.). An unidentifiable grass -like aquatic plant was also observed growing in most of the indundated areas of the pond. Wildlife species known from the region that are typically associated with stock ponds include the federally listed California red - legged frog and California tiger salamander. Pacific pond turtle, a California species of special concern, also is commonly found in the ponds in the region. California tiger salamander larvae were observed during surveys by WRA in the southeast stock pond and in an off -site stock pond north of the project site. The stock ponds also provide suitable breeding habitat for other amphibians such as the Pacific treefrog and western toad, both of which were observed at stock ponds during aquatic surveys conducted by WRA in 2003. Some of the grassland species mentioned in the Non -native Grassland section also rely on these stock ponds as a source of water and food. The stock ponds also may be used as a water source, foraging area, and loafing area for waterfowl and shorebirds. Riparian Woodland. There are approximately 2.90 acres of riparian woodland near the southwestern boundary of the site along Moller Creek. This woodland supports a fairly dense canopy of trees with a canopy cover of approximately 35 to 40 percent. It is dominated by valley oak (Quercus lobata) and red willow (Salix laevigata). Other associated trees species include California bay (Untbellularia californica), blue gum (Eucalyptus globuhts), northern California black walnut (Juglans californica var. hindsii), and non -native fruit trees (Prunus sp.). The understory consists of non -native grasslands along the banks of the creek and herbeaceous riparian wetlands on some of the lower banks. Poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) also occur in the understory. Riparian woodland trees provide roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat for many birds. An old stick nest was observed by LSA in one of these trees during the reconnaissance survey in August 2005. Additionally, an active barn owl (Tyto alba) nest was observed within the riparian woodland in a burrow along an incised bank of the creek channel. Species that were observed utilizing the trees during site visits include red - tailed hawk (Buteo janlaicensis), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), western scrub -jay (Aphelocotna californica), Nuttall's woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), mourning dove (Zenaida ntacroura), and house finch (Carpodacus rnexicanus). White - tailed kite, Bullock's oriole (Ictents bullockii), and western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) occur in the area and may also use the trees on the project site. Developed. Two ranch houses and other associated buildings are present in the on the Moller Ranch (1.16 acres). These buildings could provide nesting habitat for swallows and other birds. Bats could also roost in the buildings. This developed area also supports ornamental trees and shrubs. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 88 City of Dublin September 2012 Eucalyptus Trees. There are several stands of eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus spp.), that are primarily blue gum (E. globulus), in the Project area near the ranch houses and Moller Creek. There are a total of approximately 2.24 acres of eucalyptus stands on the project site. During the reconnaissance site visit in August of 2005, a red - tailed hawk was observed near a large stick nest in a tall eucalyptus northeast of the ranch buildings. Other species that were observed utilizing the eucalyptus trees during site visits include mourning dove, California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), red - winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). The HT Harvey 2012 report identified a number of special - status plants that were not analyzed in the 2007 Casamira Valley SEIR. These plants include: Slender silver moss, Lesser saltscale, Hospital Canyon larkspur, Brandegee's eriastrum, Ben Lomond buckwheat, Woolly rose - mallow, Legenere, Mt. Hamilton coreopsis, Woodland woolythreads, Lime Ridge navarretia, Shining navarretia, Prostrate vernal pool navarretia, Antioch Dunes evening - primrose, Antioch Dunes evening- primrose and Slender - leaved pondweed. Based on Table 2 contained in the 2012 Harvey report, none of these plants have been observed on the Moller site and, in some instances, the Moller Ranch property does not provide suitable habitat for some of the plants. Sensitive plant communities and habitats. The CDFG monitors the status of uncommon and declining plant communities and habitats in California. Such communities found in the general region of the project site are Valley Oak Forest and Woodland, Red Willow Riparian Forests and Valley Needlegrass Grassland. Wetlands and waters of the State are also considered sensitive habitats and impacts to these habitats generally require mitigation under CEQA. Sensitive communities/ habitats, except for most wetlands, have no formal legal protection but are considered "rare and worthy of protection" by the CNDDB and may require mitigation for impacts under CEQA. Sensitive plant communities and habitats present on the project site are herbaceous riparian wetlands, seasonal wetlands, unvegetated waters of the U.S., and riparian woodland. The riparian woodland on the project site is dominated by both valley oak and red willow, but valley oak is probably more abundant and therefore it could be classified as a valley oak woodland, which is a sensitive woodland and any impacts to it could require mitigation. Valley oak trees must also be considered under the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance and removal of these trees require a permit. Wetlands and other waters. WRA conducted a formal wetland delineation on the Moller Ranch in 2002 and 2003. This delineation was subsequently verified by the US. Army Corps of Engineers ( "Corps') (File Number 275465). The Corps verified a total of 9.10 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States in the Project area. WRA identified the following jurisdictional waters of the United States on the project site: seep wetlands (3.28 acres), seasonal wetlands (2.22 acres), ephemeral wetland swales (0.75 acre), herbaceous riparian wetlands (1.93 acres), and non - wetland waters (0.92 acre). In Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Draft Supplemental EIR Page 89 City of Dublin September 2012 addition, 0.61 acre of isolated non - jurisdictional seeps, seasonal wetlands and ephemeral swales are present. The current configuration of the Moller Ranch development proposal has a changed development footprint than was analyzed in the 2007 Casamira Valley SEIR. Based on a site analysis by HT Harvey (see Appendix 8.7), the current development configuration would impact an estimated 4.45 acres of wetlands and other waters of the United States. The 2007 SEIR identified that 4.59 acres of wetlands and other waters would be impacted. The current configuration would affect approximately 0.14 acre less than identified in the 2007 SEIR. Special- Status species. For the purposes of this SEIR, special - status species are defined as follows: • Plants and animals that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered or rare (for plants) under the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code 1992 Sections 2050 et seq.; 14 CCR Sections 670.1 et seq.) and/ or the Federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.12 for plants; 50 CFR 17.11 for animals; various notices in the Federal Register [FRj for proposed species) and the Migratory Bird Act; • Plants and animals that are Candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.12 for plants; 61 FR 7591, February 28, 1996 for animals); • Plants and animals that meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA and CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR Section 15380) but are not included on State or Federal Endangered Species lists; • Plants occurring on List 1A, List 1B, and List 2 of the CNPS (2005) Inventonj of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. The CDFG recognizes that Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 of the CNPS inventory contain plants that, in the majority of cases, would qualify for State listing, and CDFG requests their inclusion in EIRs, as necessary; • Animals that are designated as "Species of Special Concern" by CDFG; and, • Animals that are "fully protected" in California (Fish and Game Code, Sections 3511, 4700, 5050 and 5515). Special- Status Plants. WRA conducted focused, protocol -level special - status plant surveys in the project area on March 10 and 13, April 23, May 21, and August 22, 2003. WRA compiled a list of 46 special - status plants that occur in the vicinity of the Project area from an official 2003 USFWS species list for Tassajara and Livermore USGS quadrangles, and California Natural Diversity Data Base and California Native Plant Society database searches of these two quadrangles plus the surrounding 10 quadrangles. Based on reconnaissance data, WRA reported that 36 of these 46 species were potentially present in the project area based on the presence of suitable habitat and were the target of the focused surveys. After completion of the surveys, 13 species were determined to be "not present" because suitable habitat is not present in the Project area and /or the project area is above or below the typical elevation for the species. The 33 Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 90 City of Dublin September 2012 remaining species were determined to be either present, or to have a low or moderate potential to occur in the project area and on the project site. Potentially occurring special - status plants in and near the Moller Ranch site are shown on Table 4.2 -1. For the 2007 analysis analysis, the CNPS and CNDDB databases of special - status plants was reviewed by LSA to determine if any new special - status plant species or occurrences have been reported since the WRA 2003 surveys. Some special- status plants species that were not included in the WRA (2003d) table of potentially occurring species were identified in this database search, but there is no suitable habitat present in the project area for these species. Based on a review of the forty -six species in WRA report, the CNPS and CNDDB database and the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report a list of twenty -six special - status plants that have a potential to occur in the project area was compiled in Table 4.6 -1. All of these species in Table 4.6 -1 were included in the WRA (2003d) list except for Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia). The table summarizes each species' protective status, habitat requirements, blooming period, and the closest known CNDDB occurrences to the project area, and the potential to occur in the project area. The twenty -six species in Table 4.6 -1 are species that remained after eliminating species that are unlikely to be present in the project area because there is no suitable habitat present in the project area or the project area is above or below the typical elevation for the species. Some eliminated species occurred in chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest, coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, serpentine soils, volcanic soils, sandy soils, talus, rock outcrops or other habitats and microhabitats that are not present in the project area. The following special- status plants were those considered but not included in Table 4.6 -1: Sharsmith's onion (Alliurn sharsmithii); Mt. Diablo manzanita (Arctostaphylos auriculata), Contra Costa manzanita (Arctostaphylos nanzanita ssp. lnevigata), alkali milk -vetch (Astragalas tener var. tener), big -scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. marcolepis), Butte County morning glory (Calystegia atriplicifolia ssp. butensis), chaparral harebell (Campanula exigua), Mt. Diablo bird's -beak (Cordyianthus nidularis), Hoover's cryptantha (Cnjptantha hooveri), Hospital Canyon larkspur (Delphinium californicum ssp. interius), Brandegee's eriastrum (Eriastrum brandegeeae), Mt. Diablo buckwheat (Eriogontun trncatum), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea), Brewer's western flax (Hesperolinon brezoeri), Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii), legenere (Legenere limosa), Hall's bush mallow (Malacotharnnus hallii), San Antonio Hills monardella (Monardella antonina ssp. antonina), robust monardella (Monardella villosa ssp. globosa), Mt. Diablo phacelia (Phacelia phacelioides), Choris's popcorn flower (Plagiobotlrnjs chorisianus var. chorisianus), rock sanicle (Sanicula saxatilis), rayless ragwort (Senecio aphanactis), most beautiful jewel -flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus), Mt. Diablo jewel -flower (S. hispidus), and Triquetrella califoniica (a moss). Special - status plant species are present on site. Two CNPS List 1B species were found in the project area during the 2003 focused surveys: Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale. These species are discussed below. Congdon's Tarplant (Centromadia parnLp. congdonii). Approximately 1,100 plants (2.62 ac) were found in the broader study area during the 2003 rare plant surveys in seasonal wetlands and uplands adjacent to Moller Creek and in the western Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 91 City of Dublin September 2012 portion of the Project area. As an annual species, the numbers of individuals fluctuate from year to year. Therefore, it is anticipated that populations of Congdon's tarplant continue to persist in numbers that are approximately the same as what was observed in the 2007 SEIR. San Toaquin Spearscale (Atriplex foaquiuiann). Approximately 305 plants (0.36 ac) were found in the broader study area (174.08 ac) during the 2003 rare plant surveys in sparsely vegetated alkali wetlands. We anticipate that the populations of San Joaquin spearscale persist in numbers that are approximately the same as what was observed in 2003. Based on the 2012 Project footprint, it is anticipated that San Joaquin spearscale would be avoided by Project activities. Based on the HT Harvey 2012 analysis (Appendix 8.7), no new or more significant impacts to special - status plant species would occur than,was analyzed in the 2007 SEIR. Special - Status wildlife. A list of 26 special - status wildlife species was compiled based on a CNDDB record search, WRA reports (2002, 2003a, 2003c, 2003e, 20030, and LSA biologists' knowledge of the wildlife species in the region. Table 4.2 -2 summarizes each species' protective status, general habitat requirements, and potential for occurrence. Of the 26 special- status animal species listed in Table 4.2 -2, eleven species: California red - legged frog, California tiger salamander, Pacific pond turtle, white - tailed kite, northern harrier, golden eagle, burrowing owl, California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox, are of particular concern because they have been observed in the project area or are known from the immediate vicinity and potentially would be impacted by the proposed project. These eleven species are discussed briefly below. Special - status wildlife species are shown on Exhibit 4.2.3. California Tiger Salamander. The California tiger salamander is a federally listed threatened species and is also a California species of special concern. The Project area lies approximately 8,000 feet west of designated critical habitat (Central Valley Region Unit 18) for California tiger salamander. This species occurs throughout eastern Alameda County with numerous occurrences in the vicinity of the project area. California tiger salamanders breed primarily in temporary water bodies such as playa pools, but will also breed in stock ponds, ditches, and other water bodies if they lack fish. California tiger salamanders spend the majority of their lives underground in the burrows of rodents such as the California ground squirrel and Botta's pocket gopher or similar underground retreats. Both aquatic and terrestrial habitats are therefore essential to the persistence of California tiger salamander populations. WRA observed California tiger salamanders in the southeast stock pond, along Moller Creek, and in one of the stock ponds north of the site (Exhibit 4.2.2) (WRA 2003a). The southeast stock pond is a breeding site for California tiger salamanders supporting California tiger salamander larvae during the winter and spring that eventually transform into juvenile salamanders and move from the pond into the uplands surrounding the stock pond. WRA found four larvae in the southeast stock pond during a survey for larvae in April 2003 and one adult in a burrow Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 92 City of Dublin September 2012 approximately 650 feet south of the stock pond during a nocturnal survey in December 2002. Five adult tiger salamanders were observed in burrows approximately 20 to 300 feet from the top of the bank of Moller Creek during nocturnal surveys in December 2002 and January 2003. Four of these adults were found within the project area, while the other was found approximately 320 feet north of the project site (Exhibit 4.6.3). Moller Creek is an intermittent ephemeral creek that forms small pools in the channel and adjacent to the channel during the spring and summer. WRA did not conduct surveys for larvae in Moller Creek because red - legged frogs were present, but WRA considers Moller Creek to contain suitable breeding habitat for tiger salamanders (WRA 2003a). Two smaller stock ponds are located off -site, approximately 2,100 and 2,220 feet north of the site (Exhibit 4.3.3). WRA observed one tiger salamander larva in the northern -most stock pond, which is 2,200 feet north of the site, during a survey for larvae in May 2003. These ponds may be situated within dispersal distance of the project site. Additionally, Opus Environmental observed an adult tiger salamander in July 2005 north of the project area in a crack in the soil near the edge of Moller Road (Aspen 2005). The project area includes one confirmed breeding site in an off -site southeast pond, potential breeding habitat in Moller Creek including the portion on the development area, and a confirmed breeding site in one of the northern ponds just within dispersal distance of the project site. Open, non -native grassland combined with ground squirrel and gopher burrows as well as other cracks and holes in the soil provide suitable terrestrial habitat for this species on the project site. Additionally, tiger salamanders that breed in the off -site ponds and upstream portions of Moller Creek may use the project site as terrestrial habitat. California Red - legged Frog_ The California red - legged frog is a federally - listed threatened species and a California species of special concern. These frogs have been observed during surveys by WRA and LSA in the main stem of Moller Creek, a tributary to Tassajara Creek (WRA 2002, 2003c, 20030. The CNDDB also includes numerous occurrences of red- legged frogs in Tassajara Creek and its tributaries, including Moller Creek. The project site falls within the South and East San Francisco Bay recovery unit for this species and is also located within the proposed critical habitat (East San Francisco Bay Core Unit 16, within the South and East San Francisco Bay Unit 4) for California red - legged frog. California red - legged frogs inhabit ponds, marshes, and creeks with deep pools and riparian vegetation. They also occupy stock ponds in open grasslands. California red - legged frogs have been documented to disperse over two miles through upland habitat between ponds and have been known to move overland during dry weather in response to drying ponds. Besides Moller Creek, potential aquatic habitat in the project area exists in the southeast stock pond (WRA 2003f). The two off -site stock ponds approximately 2,100 and 2,220 feet north of the project area also provide suitable aquatic habitat (Exhibit 4.2.2). The biological assessment for red - legged frogs prepared by WRA mentions two additional off -site, old, silted -in, unmaintained stock ponds adjacent to Moller Creek, approximately 1,300 and 1,900 feet north of the project site that are considered too shallow to provide suitable aquatic habitat for red - legged frogs. No red - legged Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 93 City of Dublin September 2012 frog tadpoles were reported during the 2003 sampling of the ponds for California tiger salamander larvae Since red - legged frogs are known to disperse up to two miles to and from aquatic sites, much of the project site would be considered upland habitat for red - legged frogs. These frogs are likely to disperse among Moller Creek, the southeast stock pond, and the off -site stock ponds north of the project site. The parcels west of Tassajara Road likewise provide upland habitat and dispersal habitat for California red - legged frogs, while Tassajara Creeks provides breeding and foraging habitat as well as cover for this species. Pacific Pond Turtle. The Pacific pond turtle, identified as the western pond turtle in the 1993 EIR, is a California species of special concern. This species occurs in creeks, ponds, lakes, and marshes with emergent aquatic vegetation and suitable basking sites. These turtles are active from February to November and are often observed basking on sunny days. Suitable habitat for the Pacific pond turtle is present in the project site in Moller Creek and the southeast stock pond. Pond turtles may also inhabit the two off -site stock ponds north of the project site. Because they are known to move long distances between aquatic and nesting sites, pond turtles may use much of the grasslands on the Moller Ranch site as dispersal habitat. Pond turtles may also use the open grasslands adjacent to aquatic habitat as nest sites. No Pacific pond turtles were observed on the project site during any of the surveys; however, pond turtles are known to occur within one mile of the project site in Tassajara Creek. White - tailed Kite. The white - tailed kite is a fully protected species at its breeding sites. White - tailed kites nest in trees and forage over open grasslands for California voles and other small mammals. These mid -sized raptors are resident in California. Suitable nesting habitat for white - tailed kites occurs in the trees on the project site. They may also forage on the grassland habitat on the site. White - tailed kites have been known to nest within one mile of the site near Tassajara Road. Northern Harrier. The northern harrier is a California species of special concern at its nesting sites. For breeding, this species prefers grasslands or marshes where the vegetation is high enough to conceal a nest and brooding adult. They typically forage low over open country for small mammals and birds. LSA observed one female northern harrier north of the southeast stock pond during the August 2005 survey. Northern harriers may breed in the grasslands on the project site. Golden Eagle. The golden eagle is a California species of special concern and is a fully protected species. One golden eagle was observed near the north boundary of the site during the September 2002 site assessment. Although some tall eucalyptus trees occur on and adjacent to the site, the trees are likely too exposed to provide good quality nesting habitat for this species. California ground squirrel, Botta's pocket gopher, and black - tailed jackrabbit, are common in the Project area and provide potential prey for golden eagles. Golden eagles are likely to forage on the project site and the adjacent grasslands on a regular basis. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 94 City of Dublin September 2012 Burrowing Owl. The burrowing owl is a California species of special concern. No specific surveys for burrowing owls were conducted; however the majority of grasslands on the Project site provide suitable burrowing and foraging habitat for this species. The abundant ground squirrel burrows on the site provide good quality burrow / nesting habitat for this species. Grazing on -site also encourages use of the site as foraging and burrowing/ nesting habitat as grazing keeps the grass on -site at a low height which is preferred by the owls. Loggerhead Shrike. The loggerhead shrike is a California species of special concern. This species was observed in the project area during surveys by WRA and LSA and suitable nesting sites exist in woodland habitat along Moller Creek and Tassajara Creek in the project area. California Homed Lark. The California horned lark is a California species of special concern. These ground- nesting birds occupy open habitats with short grasses, plowed fields, deserts, shorelines, and barren areas. Grasslands in the Project area provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species. Horned larks are known to occur in the project area. American Badeer. The American badger is a California species of special concern. This carnivore forages and digs burrows in grassland, scrub, and woodland habitats. Badgers eat ground squirrels, pocket gophers, and other small prey such as mice, reptiles, insects, earthworms, and birds. Badgers may forage and den on the project site. Badgers have been observed within one mile of the project site along Tassajara Road. San loaquin Kit Fox. San Joaquin Kit Fox is a federally listed endangered species and a State - listed threatened species. The occurrence of the San Joaquin kit fox in the vicinity of the site has been documented. Two San Joaquin kit fox sightings were reported within five miles and 16 sighting were reported within a ten -mile radius of the project area. Based on information provided in the CNDDB and the East Bay Regional Park District recent observations of San Joaquin kit foxes in the region include the following: 1) one adult at the Vasco Caves Preserve in 2002; 2) three individuals at Bethany Reservoir in 1998 and 1999; 3) one adult in the vicinity of Pond 001 at Brushy Peak in 2002; 4) one adult in the vicinity of the historic tomb at the north end of the Brushy Peak Preserve in 2002; and 5) two individuals in Carnegie State Recreation Area in 2002. Kit foxes were also observed in Livermore, southwest of Brushy Peak in 1988. Focused San Joaquin kit fox surveys were conducted within the vicinity of the project area by the Habitat Restoration Group in Tassajara Valley in 1992 and by Western Ecological Services Company (WESCO) in Dougherty Valley, immediately west of the project area in 1991. No kit foxes were observed during either of these surveys. On February 4, 2003, WRA conducted surveys to evaluate the suitability of the project area for kit fox. WRA found several potential dens (large ground squirrel or other mammal burrows) and an abundant prey source of ground squirrels and small Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project]Draft Supplemental EIR Page 95 City of Dublin September 2012 rodents. No kit foxes or prey remains or kit fox signs at any of the potential dens were observed during the surveys. WRA concluded that the project site supports suitable foraging and denning habitat for kit fox. However, WRA concluded that development of the site would not negatively impact local kit fox populations because surveys have resulted in no confirmed sightings, there is a lack of substantial evidence to suggest that kit foxes are resident in the Livermore/ Amador Valleys and existing and ongoing development along Interstate 580 has further reduced the suitability of habitats in the vicinity of the project site for San Joaquin kit foxes. However, because the Project area supports suitable foraging and denning habitat for kit fox and could be used by kit foxes dispersing through the area, the proposed project could result in a loss of suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit foxes. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts to kit fox resulting from development. A Kit Fox Protection Plan containing comprehensive measures was adopted as a follow on to Eastern Dublin approvals by the City of Dublin and continues to apply to this project. The Plan was included in Appendix 8.7 of the 2007 SEIR. CULVERT REPLACEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This portion of the project site is located in and adjacent to Moller Creek, a tributary to Tassajara Creek (see Exhibit 4.2.4). The creek crossing site is located east of the confluence of the main stem of Tassajara Creek and Moller Creek. Areas adjacent to the project site include private open space consisting mostly of non -native grassland habitat with some riparian habitat to the north and east, private ranch land with associated structures and housing to the west, and new residential development to the south. The site is dominated by riparian woodland and non -native grassland with small areas of other aquatic habitat. Elevations of the site range from 420 to 470 feet above mean sea level, but the creek is incised 20 to 50 feet from the top of bank. Portions of the creek northeast of crossing have been altered. These areas exhibit flood control management features such as rock rip -rap, poured concrete barriers, and storm water management devices such as straw bale swaddles and similar erosion control methods. Flow is directed into an existing culvert under Tassajara Road and continues to the southwest. Portions of the site to the southwest are not altered but include debris such as abandoned vehicles and litter potentially derived from nearby construction activities Regardless of the alterations, the creek appears to function normally. Moller Creek biological communities. Table 4.3 -3 summarizes the area of each biological community type observed on the site. Non - sensitive biological communities on the site include developed land and non -native annual grassland. Three sensitive biological communities are found in the site; northern riparian woodland (mixed riparian forest), seasonal wetlands, and other waters. Descriptions for each biological community are contained in the following sections. Biological communities within the site are shown on Exhibit 4.2.4. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 96 City of Dublin September 2012 Table 4.3 -3. Biological Communities Within Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Area Community Type Area (acres) Developed land 1.21 Non - native annual grassland 4.89 Mixed riparian forest 1.88 Seasonal wetland 0.006 Other waters 0.43 (1,590 linear feet) Total Study Area Size 8.42 Source: WRA, 2012 Non - Sensitive Biological Communities Non - native Annual Grassland. Non -native annual grassland typically occurs in open areas of valleys and foothills throughout California, usually on fine textured clay or loam soils that are somewhat poorly drained. Non -native grassland is typically dominated by non -native armual grasses and forbs along with scattered native wildflowers. Non - native annual grassland is present along the upland areas throughout the site, comprising approximately 4,90 acres. Plant species observed in this area included slender wild oat (Avena barbata), soft chess (Brongus hordeaceus), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and foxtail chess (B. nladritensis ssp. madritensis). Species adapted to more alkaline conditions such as salt grass (Distichlis spicata) also exist in scattered populations throughout the site. A number of wildlife species are associated with annual grassland in eastern Alameda County and are expected to use the project site. Mammals that breed and burrow in this habitat type include California ground squirrel (Sperrnophilus beecheyi), pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), California vole (Microtus californicus), black - tailed hare (Lepus californicus) and California meadow mouse (Microtus californieus californicus). These species provide an important prey base for raptors and predatory mammals including American badger (Taxidea taxus), red fox ( Vulpes vulpes), coyote (Canus latrans), and grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Avian species that breed or forage in this type of annual grassland include western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), savannah sparrow (Passeradus sandwichensis), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), barn owl (Tyto alba), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and red- tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). Reptile species common to annual grassland habitats include western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus). In addition, amphibian species including California red - legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) can utilize annual grassland for upland and migratory habitat. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 97 City of Dublin September 2012 Developed and landscaped. Several temporary construction buildings and equipment/ material staging areas are present in areas east and southeast of the project site. A majority of the vegetation within these residential development areas has been removed through grading and home building, though evidence of hydroseeding along the peripheries of the development is abundant. These hydroseeded areas are adjacent to the project site, upland of the Moller Creek, and separated from the site by black silt fencing. Remaining vegetation in this area includes non -native and ruderal species such as black mustard (Brassica nigra) and bristly ox- tongue (Helminthotheca echioides). A number of ranch - related structures including a trailer, barn, and several homes exist northwest of the site between Tassajara Road and Tassajara Creek. Vegetation in this area is sparse, located between structures, and dominated by ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and other exotic annuals such as yellow starthistle, and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). In addition, a number of large eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus globulus) are growing around the developed portions of the site. Wildlife species associated with developed areas include city pigeons (rock pigeon, Columba Livia), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), house mice (Mus rnusculus), and other species adapted to human structures and disturbance. The eucalyptus trees provide potential nesting habitat for raptors, and day roosting sites for barn owls. Sensitive Biological Communities Mixed riparian forest. Mixed riparian forest exists along the creek on the site. This habitat type is described as northern mixed riparian woodland that is subject to policies in the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and could be impacted by the expansion of the bridge spanning Tassajara Creek. Additionally, this habitat is covered under the EACCS. Valley oak (Quercus lobata), box elder (Acer negundo), and willows (Salix spp.) dominate the overstory of this woodland and reach heights up to approximately 50 feet. The understory includes non -native grasses, and riparian species in the creek bed include willows, cattail (Typha spp.), and bulrush (Schoenopiectus acutus). The creek lies 20 -50 feet below the surrounding lands in a deeply incised channel with bluff -like banks. In some locations this channel reaches widths greater than approximately 300 feet. The riparian forest provides abundant habitat for a diverse range of wildlife species. Many resident and migrant avian species, mammals, and riparian and aquatic associated species would be expected along this corridor. Dense brush provides cover for species migrating through this area, and tree canopies provide habitat for nesting and wintering species. Common avian species include chestnut - backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), song sparrow (Melospiza rnelodia), woodpeckers (Picoides spp.), towhees (Pipilo spp.), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Neotropical migrants may also be found in this riparian forestduring spring and fall months (including warblers, vireos, and flycatchers), and winter migrants include the ruby - crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula) and Townsend's warbler (Dendroica townsendii). Several species of raptors would be likely to nest in this area due to the proximity to foraging habitat and presence of large trees. Amphibian and reptile species including pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla), western toad (Bufo borealis), California red - legged frog, common garter snake (Thamnophis Moller Ranch 8 Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 98 City of Dublin September 2012 sirtalis), and alligator lizard (Elgaria rnuiticarinata) are also likely to be found along the riparian corridor. Wetlands. The aquatic habitat within Moller Creek consists of areas of seasonal and perennial open water, as well as wetiand areas vegetated by aquatic plants and emergent vegetation along the margins of the creek. Exhibit 4.2.4 illustrates wetland and waters potentially subject to regulatory jurisdiction on the site. Seasonal wetlands identified as potentially jurisdictional wetlands were present adjacent to the waters of the U.S. Seasonal wetlands on then site were dominated by facultative to obligate wetland species including bulrush, common rush Uuncus patens), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), willow, and bristly ox- tongue. Soils in areas identified as seasonal wetlands generally consisted of loamy clay. Oxidized root channels or concretions were found in small pockets throughout the wetland test pits. Vegetation in seasonal wetlands also passed the FAC- neutral test. The border between seasonal wetland and upland communities was determined primarily by vegetation: areas dominated by upland vegetation species were not included in the areas identified as potentially jurisdictional wetlands. Soils in the areas identified as uplands lacked hydric soil indicators. While oxidized root channels were present at sample points UP3 and UP4, dominance of upland plant species precluded them from being potentially jurisdictional wetlands. All wetlands mapped and presented in this report are likely to be considered jurisdictional by the Corps as they are directly connected to a "navigable waters of the U.S." (Tassaraja Creek to Arroyo Mucho to Arroyo de la Laguna to Alameda Creek to Coyote Hills Slough and eventually to San Francisco Bay). Other zoaters of the U.S. and Waters of the State. The majority of the active waters of Moller Creek were within the ordinary high water mark, areas saturated or flooded ranged from one foot to five feet in width. Water was present both east and west of the bridge crossing at the time of the field visit. The ordinary high water mark was visible on the sides of the channel as well as indications of a rack line. These saturated and semi permanently flooded portions of the creek are potentially "waters of the U.S." and "waters of the State." Area Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction. There are no isolated wetlands or man- induced wetlands on the project site. All wetlands mapped and presented in this report are likely to be considered jurisdictional by the Corps as they were not created by human activities and are directly connected to a "navigable waters of the U.S." (Tassarjara Creek and San Francisco Bay). Special- Status Species Plants. Forty -nine (49) special- status plant species have been documented in the vicinity of the project site. The project site has the potential to support 12 species. Appendix B contained in the full WRA report (Appendix 8.8) summarizes the potential for occurrence for each special - status plant species occurring in the vicinity of the site. No Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 99 City of Dublin September 2012 special- status plant species were observed site during the assessment site visit. One of the special- status plant species has a high potential to occur on the project site and the remaining 11 special - status plant species have a moderate potential to occur. The remaining 37 species documented to occur in the vicinity of the site are unlikely or have no potential to occur. Most of these species occur in chaparral, cismontane woodland or vernal pool habitat with low plant cover or on special soil types such alkaline clay or saline sandy soils. Special- status plant species that are most likely (high or moderate potential) to occur on the project site are discussed below and illustrated on Exhibit 4.2.4. None; CNPS List: 1B.2. Moderate Potential. Heartscale is an annual herb in the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) that blooms from April to October. It is found in alkaline or saline, sandy soils in chenopod scrublands, meadows and seeps, and valley and foothill grasslands below approximately 1240 ft. CNPS (2012) notes that this species is very similar to the related species closely related to A. depressa and A. parishii). This species is documented in Alameda, Butte, Fresno, Kern, Madera, Merced, and Tulare counties. It is presumed extinct from Stanislaus County. The site includes valley and foothill grasslands and alkaline soils. None: CNPS List: 1B.2. Moderate Potential. Brittiescale is an annual herb in the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) that blooms from April to October. The species grows in relatively barren areas with alkaline clay soils within chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland, and occasionally in riparian marshes at elevations ranging from 3 to 1050 ft. Atriplex species are somewhat tolerant of disturbance. The site includes valley and foothill grassland and riparian woodland but does not include riparian marsh or alkaline clay. Listing Status: None: CNPS List: 1B.2. Moderate Potential San Joaquin spearscale is an annual herb in the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) that blooms from April to October. It is found in alkaline soils in chenopod scrublands, meadows and seeps, playas, and valley and foothill grasslands from 3 to 2740 ft elevation above sea level. The site includes valley and foothill grasslands but lacks alkaline or saline soils. However, the EACCS has modeled a portion of Tassajara Creek northeast of the site as potential habitat. Additionally, the plant species is known to occur within five miles of the project site (Cottonwood Creek). Status: None: CNP5 List: 1B.1. Moderate Potential. Lesser saltscale is an annual herb in the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) that blooms from May to October. This plant occurs in alkali sinks and grasslands in sandy, alkaline soils within chenopod scrub and valley and foothill grassland communities at elevations between 49 and 656 ft above sea level. CNPS (2012) notes that this species is very similar to the related species crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. coronata). The site includes valley and foothill grasslands and alkaline. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 100 City of Dublin September 2012 Potential. Round - leaved filaree is an annual herb in the geranium family (Geraniaceae) that blooms from March to May. This species occurs on clay soils in valley and foothill grassland or open cismontane woodland habitats at elevations from 49 to 3937 ft. It occurs in 92 USGS 7.5- minute quadrangles throughout the state in Alameda, Contra Costa, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kings, Kern, Lake, Lassen, Los Angeles, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Riverside, Santa Barbara, San Benito, Santa Clara, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, Ventura, and Yolo counties, and within habitats from Oregon to Baja California. It is considered extirpated from Butte County and from Santa Cruz Island. Many collections of the species are historic. This species is threatened by urbanization, habitat alteration, vehicles, pipeline construction, feral pigs, and non- native plants; it is also potentially threatened by grazing. The includes valley and foothill grasslands underlain by a clay soil. State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 113.2. High Potential. Congdon's tarplant is an annual herb that occurs in valley and foothill grasslands, particularly those with alkaline substrates, and in slumps or disturbed areas where water collects. It is restricted to lower elevation wetlands below approximately 760 ft. Congdon's tarplant, which is in the composite family (Asteraceae), has a variable blooming period that extends from June through November. The range of this species has been reduced to remaining alkaline grasslands in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Clara counties, and it is presumed to be extinct from its historical range in Solano and Santa Cruz counties. CNPS considers this species to be severely threatened by development (CNPS 2012). This species has been identified in areas nearby, but not on the site. 1B.1. Moderate Potential. Hispid salty bird's beak is an annual, hemiparasitic herb in the figwort family (Scrophulariaceae) that blooms from June to September. It occurs in alkaline soils in meadow and seep, playa, and valley and foothill -grassland habitats at elevations from 3 to 509 ft. Hispid salty bird's beak is documented from 14 USGS 7.5- minute quadrangles in Alameda, Fresno, Kern, Merced, Placer, and Solano counties. It is apparently extirpated from much of the lower San Joaquin Valley and is threatened by agricultural conversion, development, and grazing (CNPS 2012). The project site includes valley and foothill grasslands and alkaline soils. 1B.1. Moderate Potential. Palmate salty bird's beak is a hemiparasitic annual herb in the snapdragon family (Scrophulariaceae) that blooms from May to October. It is found in alkaline soils in chenopod scrublands and valley and foothill grassland habitats at elevations from 16 to 509 ft. Palmate salty bird's beak is documented in 14 Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 101 City of Dublin September 2012 USGS 7:5- minute quadrangles in Alameda, Colusa, Fresno, Madera, and Yolo counties. It is introduced in Glenn County, and is presumed extinct from San Joaquin County (CNPS 2012). The site includes valley and foothill grasslands and alkaline soils. Status: None; CNPS List: 1B.2. Moderate Potential Livermore tarplant is an annual herb in the composite family (Asteraceae) and can bloom from June to October (CNPS 2012). It occurs in alkaline meadows and seeps at elevations from 495 to 615 ft. Presently, it is known from fewer than five occurrences and has a very small endemic range centered in one USGS quadrangle (Altamont) in Alameda County. However, Livermore tarplant was only discovered outside of Livermore in the late 1990s and may occur in a wider range of elevations and /or alkaline habitats (such as sinks), and could reasonably be expected to occur in similar habitats in neighboring Contra Costa County. This species is possibly threatened by development and wind energy projects. The project site includes valley and foothill grasslands and alkaline soils. Status: None; C 1VYS List: 115.2. Moderate Potential. Western leatherwood is a deciduous shrub in the mezereum family (Thymelaeaceae) that blooms from January to April, and sometimes as late as May. It is endemic to California, and is the only species in its family found in the state. This shrub occurs in mesic broadleafed upland forest, closed -cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, and riparian woodland habitats from 164 to 1296 ft in elevation. The species has been documented in 19 USGS quadrangles in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Sonoma counties. Road maintenance may impact the species; however, populations are also generally declining due to low reproductive rates (CNPS 2012). The site includes valley and foothill grasslands and riparian woodland habitats underlain by a clay soil. petaled California poppy is an annual herb in the poppy family (Papaveraceae) that blooms from March to April. This species occurs in alkaline, clayey soils in valley and foothill grassland habitats from 0 to 3200 ft in elevation. This California endemic has been documented in 12 USGS quadrangles in Alameda, San Joaquin, and San Luis Obispo counties. It is believed extirpated from Contra Costa, Colusa, and Stanislaus counties. The plant was rediscovered on the Carrizo Plain in 1992, but has not been seen again since 1995. It was also found at a Lawrence Livermore Laboratory site in 1997. Agriculture and grazing threaten the species (CNPS 2012). The site includes valley and foothill grasslands underlain by a clay soil. Status: None; CNPS List: 113.2. Moderate Potential Diablo helianthella is a perennial herb in the composite family (Asteraceae) that blooms from March to June. This species occurs in broad - leafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 102 City of Dublin September 2012 coastal scrub, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats from 197 to 4265 ft elevation. It is a California endemic found in 18 USGS quadrangles in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Diego, and San Mateo counties. It is believed to be extinct in Marin and San Francisco counties. The site includes valley and foothill grasslands and riparian woodland habitat. The site assessment occurred during the blooming period of four of the 12 special- status plant species with a moderate or high potential to occur in the Study Area; however, none of the potentially blooming species was observed. Wildlife. Seventy -one special- status species of wildlife have been recorded in the vicinity of the Study Area. Appendix B contained in the full biological assessment for the culvert replacement summarizes the potential for each of these species to occur on the project site. No special- status wildlife species were observed in the Study Area during the site assessment. One special- status wildlife species has a high potential to occur in the project site. Fifteen special- status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur in the project area and are discussed below and illustrated on Exhibit 4.2.3 Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). CDFG Species of Special Concern, WBWG High Priority. Moderate Potential. Pallid bat is distributed from southern British Columbia and Montana to central Mexico, and east to Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. This species occurs in a number of habitats ranging from rocky and deserts to grasslands, and into higher elevation coniferous forests. Pallid bats often roosts in colonies of between 20 and several hundred individuals. Roosts are typically in rock crevices, tree hollows, mines, caves, and a variety of man-made structures, including vacant and occupied buildings. Tree roosting has been documented in large conifer snags (e.g. ponderosa pine), inside basal hollows of redwoods and giant sequoias, and within bole cavities in oak trees. It has also been reported roosting in stacks of burlap sacks and stone piles. Pallid bat is primarily insectivorous, feeding on large prey that is taken on the ground, or sometimes in flight. Prey items include arthropods such as scorpions, ground crickets, and cicadas. The rock rip -rap and trees provide roost sites for pallid bats within the project site and there is foraging habitat in the adjacent grasslands. High Priority. Moderate Potential. This species is highly migratory and broadly distributed, reaching from southern Canada through much of the western United States. It is typically solitary, roosting primarily in the foliage of trees or shrubs. Day roosts are commonly in edge habitats adjacent to streams or open fields, in orchards, and sometimes in urban areas possibly and association with riparian habitat (particularly willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores). Trees in the riparian woodland provide roost sites on the site which is adjacent to open grasslands. Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). CDFG Species of Special Concern. Moderate Potential. This species is most abundant in the forests and croplands of the Plains states and in forests of the Pacific Northwest, and is also found in the forests of the eastern United States and the and deserts of the Southwest. Diverse woodland habitats with a mixture of forest and small open areas that provide edges are ideal for this species. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 103 City of Dublin September 2012 This species has been found in Spanish moss, squirrel nests, woodpecker holes, and out in the open on the trunks of trees. Summer tree roosts are typically located along edge habitats close to feeding grounds. Most females rear young in deciduous trees, while males prefer to roost in conifers. Both sexes appear to prefer older trees as roosts, which they use for up to 5 weeks, and apparently provide greater safety. Trees in the riparian woodland provide roost sites project site which is adjacent to open grasslands. Long -eared myotis (Mtrotis evotis). WBWG Medium Priority. Moderate Potential. Long -eared myotis is primarily associated with conifer but is also found in semiarid shrublands, sage, chaparral, and agricultural areas. This species roosts under exfoliating tree bark, in tree hollows, caves, mines, crevices in rocky outcrops, in buildings, under bridges and occasionally on the ground. Long -eared myotis primarily consumes beetles and moths, gleaning prey from foliage, trees, rocks and from the ground. Rock rip -rap and trees provide roost sites and foraging habitat on the project site. Potential. American badger occurs throughout California in drier open stages of most scrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, where loose, gravelly soils suitable for burrowing are present, as well as suitable prey populations. Badger prey includes small mammals like ground squirrel, rats, gophers and mice, which it digs out of the ground using its claws. Potential burrow sites and ample prey species were observed during the assessment, but proximity of active construction to potential burrows on the eastern side of the creek may preclude occurrence. Potential. Northern harrier populations have decreased in recent decades-but can be locally abundant where suitable habitat exists free of disturbance. Destruction of wetland habitat, native grassland, moist meadows, and burning and discing of nesting areas during early stages of the breeding cycle are major causes of their decline. Northern harrier frequents meadows, grasslands, open rangelands, desert sinks, and fresh and saltwater emergent wetlands. Open areas of tall, dense grasses, moist or dry shrubs, and edges are used for nesting, cover, and feeding. The non- native annual grassland provides foraging habitat for the northern harrier, but there is only marginal nesting habitat on the project site. Therefore, there is a moderate potential for occurrence. Potential. White - tailed kite occurs in low elevation grassland, agricultural, wetland, oak woodland, and savannah habitats. Riparian zones adjacent to open areas are also used. Vegetative structure and prey availability seem to be more important than specific associations with plant species or vegetative communities. Lightly grazed or ungrazed fields generally support large prey populations and are often preferred to other habitats. Kite primarily feeds on small mammals, although, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects are also taken. Nest trees range from single isolated trees to trees within large contiguous forests. Preferred nest trees are extremely variable, ranging from small shrubs (less than 10 ft. tall), to large trees (greater than 150 ft. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 104 City of Dublin September 2012 tall). Foraging habitat and nest trees for white - tailed kite exist in the non -native annual grassland and riparian woodland portions of the site. Special Concern. Moderate Potential. Golden eagle is found in open and semi -open areas from sea level to 3600 m elevation, in habitats including tundra, shrub lands, grasslands, mixed woodlands, and coniferous forests. Golden eagle is usually found in mountainous areas, but it also nests in wetland, riparian and estuarine habitats. This large raptor typically nests in large isolated trees or cliffs. Golden eagle forages over large areas, feeding primarily on ground squirrels, rabbits, large birds, and carrion. The project site is located northwest of the Golden Eagle Protection Zone illustrated in Figure 6.3 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The large eucalyptus trees may offer nesting habitat; however, proximity to high levels of human disturbance may preclude nesting in this area. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). CDFG Species of Special Concern; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Moderate Potential. Burrowing owl typically favors flat, open grassland or gentle slopes and sparse shrub land ecosystems. This owl prefers annual or perennial grasslands, typically with sparse or nonexistent tree or shrub canopies; however, it also colonize debris piles and old pipes. Burrowing owl exhibits high site fidelity and usually nests in abandoned burrows of ground squirrels or pocket gophers. Burrowing owl has been recently observed within the Study Area and breeding pairs within 0.5 — 2.0 miles of the site. The non -native annual grassland within the Study Area provides potential burrow sites for burrowing owl; however, proximity to high levels of human disturbance may preclude nesting in this area. Bird of Conservation Concern. Moderate Potential. A common resident of lowlands and foothills throughout California, this species prefers open habitats with scattered trees, shrubs, posts, fences, utility lines or other perches. Nests are usually built on a stable branch in a densely - foliaged shrub or small tree. This species is found most often in open - canopied valley foothill hardwood, conifer, pinyon - juniper, or desert riparian habitats. While this species eats mostly arthropods, it also takes amphibians, small reptiles, small mammals or birds, and is also known to scavenge on carrion. The site contains non -native annual grassland, ample perches, and several trees and shrubs appropriate for nesting. High Potential. This species is associated with intact oak and riparian woodlands, rarely in conifers and is a primary cavity nester. The riparian woodland provides nesting and foraging opportunities for Nuttall's woodpecker, and there are observations of this species in and near Tassajara Creek Regional Park. Moderate Potential. Oak titmouse occurs in open woodlands of oak, pine and oak, and juniper and oak. The nest is built in woodpecker holes and natural cavities; titmice sometimes partially excavate their own cavity. The riparian woodland does Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 105 City of Dublin September 2012 provide habitat for this species, and there are observations of this species in and near Tassajara Creek Regional Park. Moderate Potential. Grasshopper sparrow generally prefers moderately open grasslands and prairies with patchy bare ground. This species selects different components of vegetation, depending on grassland ecosystem. This sparrow typically avoids grasslands with extensive shrub cover, although some level of shrub cover is important for birds in western regions. Grasshopper sparrows are ground- nesting birds. The nest cup is domed with overhanging grasses and a side entrance. Eggs are usually laid in early to mid -June and hatch 12 days later. Males and females provide care to the young and second broods are common. This species feeds primarily on insects. Moderate Potential. Western pond turtle is the only native freshwater turtle in California. This hurtle is uncommon to common in suitable aquatic habitat throughout California, west of the Sierra- Cascade crest and Transverse Ranges. Western pond turtle inhabits perennial aquatic habitats, such as lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, and canals that provide submerged cover and suitable basking structures, such as rocks and logs. Western pond turtle prefers to nest on unshaded upland slopes close to their aquatic habitat, and hatchlings require shallow water with relatively dense emergent and submergent vegetation for foraging for aquatic invertebrates). This section of Tassajara Creek does not provide suitable breeding habitat because it does not have the proper components for successful rearing. The steep banks provide poor upland habitat for adults and juveniles and the pools that are left after rain events do not have adequate vegetation for foraging or cover. However, potential breeding habitat within the EACCS Study Area is located approximately 6,980 feet northwest of the Project Area. Therefore, there is a moderate potential for a dispersing individual to migrate through the project site. California red - legged frog (Rana draytonii). Federal Threatened Species, CDFG Species of Special Concern. Moderate Potential. California red - legged frog (CRLF) is dependent on suitable aquatic, estivation, and upland habitat. During periods of wet weather, starting with the first rainfall in late fall, CRLF disperses away from its estivation site to seek suitable breeding habitat. Aquatic and breeding habitat is characterized by dense, shrubby, riparian vegetation and deep, still or slow- moving water. Breeding occurs between late November and late April. CRLF estivates (period of inactivity) during the dry months in small mammal burrows, moist leaf litter, incised stream channels, and large cracks in the bottom of dried ponds. Although there are pools in the creek, they likely do not contain water for a long enough period and they do not contain emergent vegetation for egg- deposition. Therefore, this section of creek is not aquatic breeding habitat, but is non- breeding aquatic and dispersal habitat. There is limited upland habitat adjacent to the creek because of steep banks from the incised creek. CRLF occurrences in the mainstem of Tassajara Crek indicate there is a breeding population in close proximity to the Study Area. Potential breeding habitat within the EACCS Study Area is located approximately 6,980 feet northwest of the project site; however, additional CRLF Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 106 City of Dublin September 2012 breeding ponds are located within one mile from the site but outside of the EACCS Study Area. Furthermore, there are eleven CRLF occurrences within two miles of the site. Although the area within the creek and directly adjacent to Tassajara Road do not support breeding habitat, a majority of the site provides suitable dispersal and upland habitat. Upland habitat is defined in the California Red - Legged Frog Recovenj Plan as a primary constituent element for CRLF. Upland habitat is further defined as habitat within 300 feet of aquatic breeding and aquatic non - breeding habitat. Although impacts to dispersal habitat within designated Critical Habitat require consultation with USFWS, portions of the site greater than 300 feet from aquatic habitat by definition are categorized as CRLF dispersal habitat and not upland habitat. Additionally, the site is located in potential upland/ movement habitat as illustrated on Figure D -9 of the EACCS. The project site was qualitatively assessed based on Table E -5 of the EACCS and received a scoring of 49 for CRLF (Appendix E of attached WRA report). State Threatened Species. Moderate Potential. California tiger salamander (CTS) is restricted to grasslands and low - elevation foothill regions in California (generally under 1500 feet) where it uses seasonal aquatic habitats for breeding. The salamanders breed in natural ephemeral pools, or ponds that mimic ephemeral pools (stock ponds that go dry), and occupy substantial areas surrounding the breeding pool as adults. CTS spends most of its time in the grasslands surrounding breeding pools. The species survives hot, dry summers by estivating (going through a dormant period) in refugia where the soil atmosphere remains near the water saturation point. Ref ugia may consist of burrows created by ground squirrels and other mammals and deep cracks or holes in the ground. During wet periods, the salamander may emerge from refugia and feed in the surrounding grasslands. Streams and creeks are not aquatic breeding habitat or used for dispersal by this species, but the non -native grassland portion of the site is potential upland habitat and there are approximately rune documented occurrences within two miles of the project site, four of which occur within 7, 218 feet. Although breeding habitat is not present, CTS may aestivate and disperse within the project site and has a moderate potential to occur. The following table summarizes literature citations for sub -adult CTS dispersal: Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 107 City of Dublin September 2012 Table 4.2 -4. Predicted Dispersal Distances of Sub -adult California Tiger Salamander from Natal Pools Proportion of Dispersing Sub -adult Distance Reference Population (meters /feet) 507, 380m/1,247ft Trenham and Shaffer 2005 9070 590m/1,936ft Trenham and Shaffer 2005 95% 630m/2,067ft Trenham and Shaffer 2005 99% of interpond dispersal 1,100m/3,609 ft Trenham et al. 2001; USFWS 2005 Furthest documented CTS movement 2,200m 7,218ft Orloff 2007 Source: WRA, 2012 Federal- Listed Species that are Unlikely to Occur. Species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) that are documented to occur within the vicinity of the Study Area, but are unlikely to occur in the Study Area include: San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) and Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus). These species are discussed in the attached WRA report (Appendix 8.8) Focused arborist survey. On April 26, 2012, WRA, Inc. arborist Morgan Trieger (ISA- Certified Arborist WE- 8667A) performed an inventory and visual assessment of trees within the Focused Arborist Survey Area. The inventory and assessment was located within an approximately 1.5 -acre area approximately bounded by the top of bank of Moller Creek (see Figure 1 of Appendix D, attached). A total of 65 trees were inventoried within the Focused Arborist Survey Area, four of which are classified as Heritage Trees under the city ordinance. Tree species observed included valley oak (Quercus lobata), red willow (Salix laevigata), arroyo willow (S. lasiolepis), Northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica) and almond (Prunus dulcis). A map depicting the locations of all trees is included in Appendix D of the attached WRA report. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR included a comprehensive assessment of habitat and wildlife resources in the EIR planning area. The EIR identified potential impacts related to the general effects of potential development in Eastern Dublin, including direct habitat loss, indirect habitat loss due to vegetation removal for construction and development activities, and loss or degradation of sensitive habitat (Impacts 3.7/A, B, and Q. The Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potential impacts related to wildlife species such as the San Joaquin kit fox, CRLF, CTS, and others (Impacts 3.7/13 — S). Raptor electrocutions associated with proposed high- voltage power lines were addressed in depth in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and included a number of mitigation measures (MM 3.7/26.0a -d). Mitigation measures were adopted to, among other things, prepare resource management Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 108 City of Dublin September 2012 plans, avoid development in sensitive areas, and revegetate disturbed areas (generally MM 3.7/1.0 — 28.0). All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to the proposed Project. Even with mitigation, the City concluded that the cumulative loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat was significant and unavoidable. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA /SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this significant unavoidable impact (Resolution No. 53 -93). The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed cumulative impacts on biological resources within the portions of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in the general vicinity of the Eastern Dublin area. At that time, Contra Costa County had an Urban Limit Line that functioned as a growth boundary. That Urban Limit Line placed all of the Dougherty and Tassajara valleys inside the growth boundary (i.e., allowing development of those areas), and placed lands to the east of Tassajara Valley and north of the County line outside the growth boundary. Alameda County had no comparable growth boundaries; instead, planning for the Alameda County portions of this region was performed by the cities of Dublin and Livermore. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified one significant cumulative biological impact. Impact 3.7/ C identified the continued loss and deterioration of botanically sensitive habitat, particularly riparian habitat. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE CASAMIRA VALLEY SUPPLEMENTAL EIR The Casamira Valley EIR contains a number of supplemental biological impacts and mitigations. These are: Impact BIO -1 found that construction of the proposed project would directly and indirectly impact approximately 150 acres of habitat for special - status species that occurs on the Moller Ranch Project site. This impact was reduced to a less- than - significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures SM- 13I0-1a , 1b and lc. These measures require preservation of habitat for listed species, provide an endowment for the preserved lands and to prepare a comprehensive habitat mitigation and monitoring plan for preserved lands and protected species. • Impact BIO -2 identified an impact on an estimated 0.20 acres (63 individuals) of Congdon's tarplant (a CNPS List 1B plant) that occur in the project area. Mitigation Measure SM -13I0-2 requires the project developer to develop and implement a salvage and recovery plan for Congdon's Tarplant to reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level. Impact BI0-4 stated that development on the Moller Ranch property would result in the loss of approximately 150 acres of CTS upland (terrestrial) habitat and 1.5 acres of potential breeding habitat in Moller Creek. Adherence to Mitigation Measures SM- 13I04a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e and Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Draft Supplemental EIR Page 109 City of Dublin September 2012 4g reduces this impact to a less- than - significant level by requiring the project developer to preserve an off -site mitigation area at a 3:1 ratio, establishing a conservation easement over this area, capture tiger salamanders and relocate to the conservation area, implementation of exclusion fencing for tiger salamanders from future development areas, limiting use of rodentcides for ground squirrel control and include design features into the main Project roadway to allow free movement of salamanders across the road. Impact BIO -5 identified an impact in terms of loss of adult, larvae, and juvenile CRLF through grading and construction activities, including road and bridge building across Moller Creek conversion of approximately 44 acres of CRLF upland/ dispersal habitat to urban land uses, and degradation of approximately 1.5 acres of breeding habitat within the creek. This impact was reduced to a less- than- sigiuficant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures SM- BIO -5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e and 5f. These measures require creation of compensatory off -site aquatic habitat at a 2:1 ratio, preparation of a mitigation and monitoring plan for preservation of CRLF species, establishment of an endowment for the conservation easement area and design of the main roadway to allow for free and safe movement of amphibians across the road. Impact BI0-6 noted that the proposed project would result in the loss of at least approximately 150 acres of potential burrowing owl habitat. This impact was reduced to a less - than - significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures SM- BIO -6a and 6b. These measures require the preservation of approximately 450 acres of off -site suitable grassland habitat as compensatory habitat, completion of preconstruction surveys before grading activities on the Moller site and protocols to be followed if owls are found on the site. Impact BIO -7 found that the proposed project would result in the loss of habitat nesting raptors, loggerhead shrikes, and horned larks which were not addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This impact was reduced to a less- than - significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures SM -13I0-7 that requires preconstruction surveys prior to tree pruning, tree removal or grading. In addition exclusion fencing shall be installed around identified nest sites and monitored by a qualified biologist. A monitoring report shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish & Game on a yearly basis. Impact BIO -8 noted that the proposed project would result in impacts to the wildlife movement corridors for CTS and CRLF. This impact was reduced to a less - than- significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures SM -13I0-8 that requires the main access road be designed to ensure safe crossing by amphibian species. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 110 City of Dublin September 2012 REGULATORY SETTING Biological resources are regulated by the following Federal Endangered Species Act. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects listed wildlife species from harm or "take" which is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Take can also include habitat modification or degradation that directly results in death or injury to a listed wildlife species. An activity can be defined as "take" even if it is unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less protection than listed wildlife species. Listed plant species are legally protected from take under FESA if they occur on federal lands or if the project requires a federal action, such as a Section 404 fill permit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered species under the FESA. The USFWS also maintains lists of proposed and candidate species. Species on these lists are not legally protected under the FESA, but may become listed in the near future and are often included in their review of a project. California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits the take of any plant or animal listed or proposed for listing as rare (plants only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with the CESA, CDFG has jurisdiction over state - listed species (California Fish and Game Code Sec. 2070). Additionally, the CDFG maintains lists of "species of special concern" that are defined as species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited ranges, and /or continuing threats. California Environmental Quality Act. Section 15380(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provides that a species not listed on the federal or state lists of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions in FESA and CESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals. This section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFG. Clean Water Act. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps is responsible for regulating the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the U.S. and their lateral limits are defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3 (a) and include streams that are tributary to navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands. Wetlands that are not adjacent to waters of the U.S. are termed "isolated wetlands" and, depending on the circumstances, may not be subject to Corps jurisdiction. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 111 City of Dublin September 2012 California Water Quality and Waterbody Regulatory Programs. Pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, projects that are regulated by the Corps must obtain water quality certification from the RWQCB. This certification ensures that the Project will uphold state water quality standards. The RWQCB may impose mitigation requirements even if the Corps does not. Isolated wetlands that are not jurisdictional under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act are considered waters of the State under the Porter - Cologne Act. Discharge of fill into waters of the State is subject to Waste Discharge Requirements as issued by the RWQCB. The CDFG exerts jurisdiction over the bed and banks of rivers, lakes, and streams according to provisions of Section 1601 to 1603 of the Fish and Game Code. The Fish and Game Code requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for the fill or removal of material within the bed and banks of a watercourse or waterbody and for the removal of riparian vegetation. The Federal Migratory Bird Trees Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 703) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Most native bird species in the Project area are covered by this Act. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS), a non- governmental conservation organization, has developed lists of plant species of concern in California. Vascular plants included on these lists are defined as follows: List IA Plants considered extinct. List 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. List 2 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. List 3 Plants about which more information is needed - review list. List 4 Plants of limited distribution -watch list. Although the CNPS is not a regulatory agency and plants on these lists have no formal regulatory protection, plants appearing on List 1B or List 2 are, in general, considered to meet CEQA's Section 15380 criteria and adverse effects to these species are considered significant. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy The project site is located in Alameda County and is subject to the EACCS. Conservation goals and objectives are described in Chapter 3 of the Final EACCS. There are multiple objectives listed in the Conservation Strategy; here are some objectives that apply directly to the Study Area: Goal 1: Protect and enhance natural and semi- natural landscapes that are large enough to accommodate natural processes beneficial to populations of native species. Objective 1.1: Protect a range of environmental gradients (such as slope, elevation, Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Projecl/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 112 City of Dublin September 2012 aspect) across a diversity of natural communities within the conservation zones. Objective 1.2: Protect riverine systems and hydrologic function within the study area through protection and management of terrestrial land covers, streams, ponds, and wetlands across all watersheds of the study area. Goal 4: Protect and enhance functional grassland communities (alkali meadow and scald, California annual grassland, non - serpentine native bunchgrass grassland, serpentine bunchgrass grassland, rock outcrop, valley sink scrub) that benefit focal species and promote native biodiversity. Objective 4.1: Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of native grasslands and create a refined map that better accounts for mapped stands. Objective 4.2: Avoid or minimize direct impacts on grassland communities during project construction and indirect impacts that result from post - project activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3 of the EACCS. Goal 8: Improve the overall quality of riparian communities and the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that support them to increase the amount of riparian habitat for focal species and promote native biodiversity. Objective 8.1: Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of riparian forest and scrub stands and create a refined map that reflects species composition, key riparian community attributes, and conservation opportunities at the stream reach level. Objective 8.2: Avoid or minimize direct impacts on riparian forest and scrub communities during project construction and indirect impacts that result from post - project activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3 of the EACCS. Goal 9: Improve the overall quality of wetlands (perennial freshwater marsh, seasonal wetland, alkali wetland); ponds; and their upland watersheds to maintain f inctional aquatic communities that benefit focal species and promote native biodiversity. Objective 9.1: Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of seasonal and perennial wetlands and create a refined map that reflects habitat quality and restoration opportunities. Objective 9.2: Avoid or minimize direct impacts on wetland or pond communities during project construction and indirect impacts that result from post - project activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3 of the EACCS. Moller Ranch 8 Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 113 City of Dublin September 2012 The Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance (City of Dublin Municipal Code Sec. 5.60) states that preservation of existing trees is beneficial to the health and welfare of the City. Tree removal permits are required under this section for removal of heritage trees, which are defined in the ordinance. STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project's impacts to biological resources would be considered significant if the project results in the actions or outcomes listed below. These significance criteria are based on the CEQA Guidelines' (CCR Title 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3) recommended tools for determining the potential for significant environmental effects, including the model Initial Study checklist (Appendix G of the Guidelines) and mandatory findings of significance (Guidelines sec. 15065). The proposed project would have a significant supplemental impact on biological resources if the following impacts have the potential to occur but were not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2007 SEIR, or are substantially more severe than analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2007 SEIR: • Substantially degrade the quality of the environment; • Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; • Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels; • Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; • Substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; • Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS; • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS; • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means; • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Project proposes the same type of development that was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2007 Casamira Valley EIR. This current DSEIR examines site - specific resources for impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Casamira Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 114 City of Dublin September 2012 Valley Supplement. The project now includes disturbance of slightly more area than was analyzed in 2007. A portion of the project now includes a culvert replacement culvert over Moller Creek that was not included in the 2007 SEIR. Furthermore, changes in regulatory standards since 2007 necessitate additional analysis of potential supplemental project impacts. Supplemental impacts for Pacific pond turtle, white - tailed kite, northern harrier, golden eagle, American badger and San Joaquin kit fox have not been identified, as these species were analyzed and mitigated in the 1993 EIR. No additional mitigation is proposed for these species. Supplemental impacts have been identified for CTS, CRLF, burrowing owls, loggerhead shrikes and California horned larks, as the legal status and /or mitigation requirements for these species have changed since 2007. The mitigation measures established in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2007 Supplemental EIR and this document fulfill the City's obligations under CEQA with respect to biological resources. However, the City recognizes that development activity on the project site may require one or more permits from a variety of state and federal resources agencies. Development project proponents on the project site will be responsible for obtaining all such necessary permits. Those permits may impose mitigation requirements that are different from and /or greater than the mitigation measures established in the Eastern Dublin FIR, the 2007 SEIR and this document. The following supplemental biological resources impacts and mitigation measures concern impacts that are different from those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and /or require supplemental analysis due to changes in regulatory conditions since 2007. Note: supplemental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the 2012 project will be designated with a "12" to differential from supplemental impacts and mitigation measures included in the 2007 Casamira Valley EIR. Direct and indirect impacts to annual grassland habitat and regionally common wildlife species Supplemental Impact BIO -1 -12 (direct and indirect impacts to annual grassland habitat and regionally common wildlife species). Construction of the proposed project would directly and indirectly impact approximately 165.14 acres of annual grassland habitat for regionally common wildlife species that occurs on the Moller Ranch (significant supplemental impact). The area of grading and ground disturbance for the currently proposed Moller Ranch property would be 165.14 acres, which would be approximately 19.73 acres greater than analyzed in the 2007 Casamira Valley SEIR. Implementation of all of the following supplemental measures will mitigate this supplemental impact to a less -than- significant level by ensuring long -term habitat preservation of annual grasslands. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 115 City of Dublin September 2012 annual grassland habitat and regionally common wildlife species). The project applicant shall preserve grasslands at a ratio of 3:1 (preserved:impacted) as mitigation for the proposed development, for a total of 495.42 acres.. In addition, to compensate for the loss of 4.95 ac of regulated habitats (jurisdictional wetlands and riparian woodlands) that function as dispersal and refuge habitat for tiger salamanders and red - legged frogs, another 14.85 ac of grasslands shall be preserved in the conservation lands for a total of 510.27 acres. As described above, the loss of these regulated habitats could be mitigated for at off -site mitigation banks. All lands proposed as mitigation must provide suitable habitat for focal species impacted by the proposed project. The preservation of 510.27 ac of grasslands will satisfy EACCS habitat mitigation requirements for impacts to focal species discussed below. A conservation easement or similar mechanism shall be placed on the mitigation lands to preserve the lands in perpetuity as a natural open space and habitat for native plants and animals. An agreement establishing the conservation easement or similar mechanism on the mitigation lands must be completed prior to the initiation of construction activities. annual grassland habitat and regionally common wildlife species). The project applicant shall establish an endowment in an amount to be determined by the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) and United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the long -term management, maintenance, and monitoring of the mitigation lands placed in the conservation easement or similar mechanism. The project applicant shall provide a guarantee of the endowment to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. annual grassland habitat and regionally common wildlife species). The project applicant shall prepare and implement a comprehensive habitat mitigation and monitoring plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the USFWS and CDFG. The comprehensive plan shall be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. To comply with EACCS requirements and to mitigate for impacts described below, the mitigation and monitoring plan shall incorporate detailed information on the management, maintenance and monitoring of the following resources impacted by the proposed project including: a) Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale (if present on Project site) b) California tiger salamander dispersal and refugial habitat c) California red - legged frog dispersal habitat d) Burrowing owl habitat e) San Joaquin kit fox habitat f) Golden eagle foraging habitat Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 116 City of Dublin September 2012 Impacts to jurisdictional waters and woodland habitat habitat). The current project footprint would impact 4.45 acres of jurisdictional habitats (approximately 0.14 acres less than the 2007 SEIR project), including impacts to 3.51 acres of seep and seasonal wetland, 0.68 acres of ephemeral and intermittent drainage and 0.26 acres of perennial drainage habitats. The current project footprint would also impact 0.50 acres of riparian habitat, a habitat that was not analyzed in the 2007 SEIR (significant supplemental impact). Although the extent of the impact is relatively small to these regulated habitats (4.95 ac in total), the loss of wetland and riparian habitat would result in a loss of breeding, foraging, resting, rearing, and migration opportunities for numerous common and special - status wildlife species. Further, these habitat types are regionally uncommon, in part due to habitat loss and degradation. Thus, this impact is considered significant because it would result in the permanent losses of ecologically valuable habitats, including jurisdictional wetlands and other waters, and riparian woodland habitat. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level. woodland habitat). The project applicant shall provide suitable compensatory, replacement habitat for loss of jurisdictional waters and woodland habitat at a minimum ratio of 1:1 for wetlands and 3:1 for riparian habitats. Replacement mitigation land may occur in off -site mitigation banks that support appropriate habitat, as approved by the City of Dublin and appropriate biological regulatory agencies. Water quality impacts on biological resources Supplemental Impact BIO -3 -12 (water quality impacts on biological resources). The habitats that are directly associated with on -site creeks and drainage channels represent sensitive natural communities that include aquatic habitat (both seasonal and perennial) and an associated aquatic - upland transition zone. During construction phases, sediment could enter aquatic habitats through gravity or in runoff, adversely affecting water quality for fish and amphibians, including the California red - legged frog, in downstream areas. Following project construction, increased runoff from the addition of hardscape could result in increased erosion and water quality degradation within these habitats in the project area. Degradation of water quality downstream resulting from construction and residential development could impact aquatic wildlife species (significant supplemental impact). Implementation of the following erosion and sediment control measures will mitigate water quality impacts on biological resources to a less than significant level. resources). The project applicant shall implement the following water a) The Project's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall include specific and detailed BMPs designed to mitigate construction - related Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 117 City of Dublin September 2012 pollutants. These controls shall include methods to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies with stormwater within the creek and drainages. Additional control measures identified in this SWPPP will mitigate the release of construction- related pollutants from the site during the various construction phases. b) BMPs intended to reduce erosion of exposed soil in the bed and banks of the creek and drainage channels in the Project site may include, but are not limited to: soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales and sediment basins. c) To the maximum extent practicable, all grading within the riparian and jurisdictional habitats shall occur during the dry season. If grading is to occur during the rainy season the primary BMPs selected will focus on erosion control. End -of -pipe sediment control measures (e.g., basins and traps) will be used only as secondary measures. d) Work within the low -flow channel of the riparian habitats shall not occur when there is flowing water within the channel. The creek or drainage channel shall be dewatered and flows rerouted during construction for access. Work shall only take place in areas within the native channel bed between April and October. Introduction of non - native plant species Supplemental Iml2act BIO -12 -4 (introduction of non - native weeds). Disturbance such as grading, vehicle movement, and increased foot traffic that results from project development could result in an increase of the spread of non - native, invasive weed species. High densities of weeds could rapidly invade and colonize freshly disturbed soils, increasing the area of cover that could ultimately impact the natural habitats within the project area. In addition, it is possible that seeds of invasive species could be inadvertently carved to the site by construction equipment or personnel. Invasion by non - native weed species could degrade the functions and values of preserved natural habitat, either on -site or in adjacent areas for native plants and wildlife species (Significant supplemental impact). Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the spread of non- native species to a level that is less than significant by removing major invasive weed species on the project site, cleaning construction equipment to limit spread of invasive species and other methods. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- BIO -12 -4a (introduction of non - native weeds). To reduce the potential establishment or spread of non - native, invasive weed populations as a result of Project activities, the following measures shall be implemented. These measures shall be included in grading plans and specifications. a) Concentrations of invasive species that could serve as seed sources shall be removed prior to site grubbing or grading. b) Staging areas shall be maintained free of weeds and weed seed for the duration of their use during project construction. c) All construction equipment shall be cleaned prior to deployment on the site by removing all mud, dirt, and plant parts from all equipment, particularly Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 118 City of Dublin September 2012 undercarriages and items that may have the potential to spread and deposit weed seeds by having contact with vegetation or soil. Cleaning must occur away from sensitive habitats. d) All fill material sources shall be inspected to ensure that they are "weed free" before use and transport. Fill material shall not be used if non - native, invasive species are found growing on the material as this would indicate that seed from these species is present within the material. e) If straw is used for road stabilization and erosion control, it shall be certified by a qualified biologist that it is weed -free or weed -seed free. weeds). The project applicant shall develop and implement an Invasive Species Management Plan to reduce the presence and spread of non - native, invasive plant species on the site prior to grading any areas on the project site. This management plan shall outline methods to remove the existing populations of non - native, invasive weed species from the accessible portion of the site to prevent the spread of their seed during and after construction and to prevent the invasion of graded area by invasive species. This management plan shall contain details regarding the removal and treatment of these species (herbicide application, manual removal, mowing, etc), success criteria and a seeding plan to encourage native species to grow within disturbed habitat. The plan shall be submitted to the City of Dublin Community Development Department for approval, and the Department must approve the plan prior to initiation of any ground - disturbing activities. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- BIO -4c -12 (introduction of non - native weeds). Landscape guidelines shall be established and implemented by the Homeowner's Association to ensure that landscape plantings at the new residences or facilities shall not include any plants that are listed on the California Invasive Plant Council Invasive Plant Inventory's list of invasive plants and that are ranked in an inventory category as having a moderate or high ecological impact on physical processes. Impacts to special - status plants Supplemental Impact BIO -12 -5 (impacts to special- species plants?. Approximately, 305 plants San Joaquin spearscale plants were found in the 2003 rare plant surveys in sparsely vegetated alkali wetlands, Updated floristic surveys are required to comply with the EACCS and impacts will be assessed based on those surveys. Because spearscale plants are CNPS List 1B species that occupy a relatively narrow habitat niche, the loss individuals of these plants on the project site (depending on survey results) represents a large enough proportion of its regional population such that the loss is potentially significant impact (significant supplemental impact). Supplemental mitigation measures contained in the 2007 SEIR, SM- BIO -2a, that requires a salvage and recovery plan and SM- BIO -2b, that requires preservation of Congdon's tarplant populations in mitigation lands with the establishment of an endowment, remain valid and shall be complied with as required in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The following supplemental mitigations shall also be followed to ensure impacts to special - status species will be reduced to a less- than - significant level. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 119 City of Dublin September 2012 These additional measures require project construction to avoid disturbance of special - status plants and preservation of special- status plant habitat areas. Special - status plant species on the project site be avoided to the extent possible and impacts be mitigated based on an assessment of how the project will affect the focal plant population, with the assessment methodology requiring appropriate agency approval. Habitat for any Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale on the project site shall be preserved at a mitigation ratio of 5:1 per the EACCS mitigation requirements. Mitigation could involve fee title purchase or conservation easement and management of the site (per supplemental mitigation measures SM- BIO- 12 -2a, - 2b and -2c, above), with the focal plant population on the mitigation site being the same or better in terms of size and vigor. Mitigation lands may include portions of areas outside of project site, within the Moller Ranch and Brown Ranch and potentially portions of the Brown Ranch, in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Impacts to California Tiger salamander Supplemental Impact BIO -6 -12 (impacts to California tiger salamander). The current project footprint would impact approximately 170.09 acres of dispersal and refugial California tiger salamander habitat, including annual grassland, jurisdictional wetland, and riparian woodland habitats. This would be an increase from the Casamira Valley SEIR by approximately 20.09 acres. No breeding habitat within the current project footprint was identified in current biological surveys and thus no mitigation for loss of breeding habitat is necessary (significant supplemental impact). Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM- BIO -4c (requiring a relocation plan) and SM- BIO -4d (requiring an exclusion fence) contained in the Casamira Valley SEIR are proposed be replaced by the mitigation measures below. Because measures SM- BIO -4e (requiring installation of a permanent fence surrounding development), SM- BIO -4f (requiring a rodenticide ban on the site), and SM -BIO- 4g (requiring installation of roadway undercrossings for tiger salamanders) are mitigation measures specific to the project site, these measures will be implemented for the Moller Ranch project. salamander). The project applicant shall adhere to the following requirements: a) If aquatic habitat is present on a portion of the site, a qualified biologist shall stake and flag an exclusion zone prior to activities. The exclusion zone shall be fenced with orange construction zone and erosion control fencing (to be installed by construction crew). The exclusion zone shall encompass the maximum practicable distance from the work site and at least 500 feet from the aquatic feature wet or dry. b) A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys prior to activities define a time for the surveys (before ground breaking). If individual Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 120 City of Dublin September 2012 salamanders are found, work shall not begin until they are moved out of the construction zone to a USFWS /CDFG approved relocation site. c) A USFWS- approved biologist shall be present for initial ground disturbing activities. d) If the work site is within the typical dispersal distance (per USFWS /CDFG for appropriate distances for species of interest) of potential breeding habitat, barrier fencing shall be constructed around the worksite to prevent amphibians from entering the work area. Barrier fencing may be removed within 72 hours of completion of work. e) Monofilament plastic shall not be used for erosion control, within areas adjacent to undisturbed open space. Construction personnel shall inspect open trenches in the morning and evening for trapped amphibians during construction periods. f) A qualified biologist possessing a valid ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit or Service approved under an active biological opinion, shall be contracted to trap and to move amphibians to nearby suitable habitat if amphibians are found inside fenced area. g) Work shall be avoided within suitable habitat from October 15 (or the first measurable fall rain of 1" or greater, to May 1. Impacts to red - legged frog Supplemental Impact BIO -7 -12 (impacts to red - legged frog). Project implementation could result in the direct loss of individual red - legged frogs as a result of trampling by personnel or equipment, vehicle traffic, the collapse of underground burrows (which may be used as refugia by red - legged frogs) resulting from soil compaction due to heavy equipment use and the loss of aestivation and dispersal habitat. The current project construction footprint would impact approximately 170.09 ac of red - legged frog dispersal habitat on the site. This would be an increase of approximately 126.09 acres than was analyzed in the 2007 SEIR (significant supplemental impact). In Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- BIO -4a from the 2007 SEIR, the loss of California red - legged frog upland habitat was mitigated at a 3:1 ratio replacement ratio. Because both the project site and the proposed mitigation lands fall within California red - legged frog critical habitat and within the EACCS California red - legged frog study area, the mitigation ratio for impacts to these lands shall remain at a 3:1 ratio in accordance with the EACCS. As described in 2007 SEIR Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM- 13I0-5c and SM- BIO -5d, all mitigation lands are to be protected via a conservation easement or equivalent mechanism in and managed for this species, thus satisfying EACCS requirements for management of conservation lands for focal species. In Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- 13I0-5b, the 2007 SEIR required a mitigation ratio of 2:1 for loss of California red- legged frog breeding habitat. This mitigation ratio was based on a 1.5 ac impact to breeding habitat in Moller Creek, through degradation related to surrounding development. However, due to the highly variable geomorphology and flows of the Moller Creek Drainage, the project area does not currently contain suitable red - legged frog breeding habitat, as the reach of the Moller Drainage within the project site does not form drop pools or other ponded areas deep enough or persistent enough to support breeding red - legged frogs. Also, there are no Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 121 City of Dublin September 2012 seasonal or stock ponds present on the project site that will persist at sufficient depth for sufficient time to support breeding red - legged frogs. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of California red- legged frog breeding habitat, thus SM- BIO -5b should be removed as a requirement. Because 2007 SEIR Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- BIO -5f relates to design features to facilitate amphibian movements (similar to SM- BIO -4g above), this project - specific measure shall be applied to the current Moller Ranch project. In addition to supplemental mitigation measures described above and the general mitigation measures above, the mitigation measures related to habitat conservation and focal amphibians from Table 3 -3 of the EACCS shall be applied to the Moller Ranch project. These mitigation measures are provided above for impacts to California tiger salamanders (Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM- BIO- 12 -2a, 2b, 2c and SM- 13I0-12- SM-BIO-12-6). Implementation of the measures described above will reduce impacts to California red - legged frogs to less -than- significant levels. Impacts to burrowing owl Supplemental Impact BIO -8 -12 (impacts to burrowing owl). The current Project footprint would impact approximately 170.09 acres of upland burrowing owl habitat on the project site. This would be an increase from the impact area to burrowing owls identified in the 2007 SEIR by approximately 20.09 acres (significant supplemental impact). The California Department of Fish and Game has recently released the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012), which describes requirements for "take avoidance surveys." These surveys must be initiated no less than 14 days prior to construction activities, with the final survey completed 24 hours before construction, using methodologies described in Appendix D of the staff report. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- BIO -6b contained in the 2007 SEIR shall be updated to reflect this revised survey requirement from the Department of Fish & Game. Adherence to the following supplemental measure will reduce impacts to burrowing owl to a less - than- significant level by requiring a pre - construction survey to identify nests near a ground disturbance site. If nests are found, a non - activity zone shall be established around the nest during the breeding season. Alternatively, a site - specific action plan shall be developed by a qualified biologist to avoid significant impacts. The shall complete the following actions with respect to a) If an active nest is identified within 250 foot distance of a burrowing owl nest or a distance determined by a qualified biologists in coordination with CDFG, a proposed work area work shall be conducted outside of the nesting season (15 March to 1 September) if feasible. b) If an active nest is identified near a proposed work area and work cannot be conducted outside of the nesting season, a no- activity zone will be established by a qualified biologist. The no- activity zone shall be large Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 122 City of Dublin September 2012 enough to avoid nest abandonment and will at a minimum be a 250 -feet radius from the nest. c) If burrowing owls are present at the site during the non - breeding period, a qualified biologist shall establish a no- activity zone of at least 150 feet, if feasible. d) If an effective no activity zone cannot be established around an occupied burrow, an experienced burrowing owl biologist shall develop a site - specific plan (i.e., a plan that considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the duration and timing of the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of the owls and the dissimilarity of the proposed activity with background activities) to minimize the potential to affect the reproductive success of the owls. f) A Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared if occupied burrows cannot be avoided during the breeding season. Impacts to San Joaquin kit fox and American badger WRA surveyed the Project site for San Joaquin kit fox in February 2003 and none were found on site during the survey effort and no evidence of kit fox occupancy was found during extensive surveys for kit fox on lands immediately east and west of the Project site. The most recent CNDDB record for kit foxes in the project vicinity, dating from 1989, is located 4.5 mi to the northwest of the project site, just east of the intersection of Dougherty Road and Crow Canyon Road in an area now surrounded by dense residential development. The lack of recent records in the vicinity indicates that the species is absent from the project area and thus no impacts to this species are expected to occur due to development of this project. However, the EACCS considers the project site to be within core habitat for San Joaquin kit fox (EACCS Figure D -17), and as a result have incorporated mitigation measures to reduce this impact to less than significant levels. According to the EACCS model for kit fox core habitat, all grassland cover types and all oak woodlands within 500 ft. of grasslands, were considered suitable foraging and denning habitat for this species. Therefore, the loss of 165.14 ac of grasslands on the site will be mitigated for at a 3:1 ratio. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM- BIO -12 -1, -2 and -3, described above, will fulfill the EACCS mitigation requirements for this species. hi addition, the following Supplemental Mitigation Measure, which includes avoidance and mitigation measures for San Joaquin kit fox (and American badger) will be implemented and will mitigate impacts to San Joaquin kit fox to less - than- significant levels according to the EACCS. The 2007 SEIR did not include supplemental measures specific to American badgers. Badgers have not been documented on the Project site but are known to occur in the Project vicinity, and badgers may den and forage in grassland habitat within the Project site. In addition, badgers may use the Project site during dispersal. However, due to their large home range size, only one badger or a female with pups is expected to occur within the site at a given time. Project The proposed Project would result in loss of 165.14 ac of grasslands on the Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 123 City of Dublin September 2012 site that would impact habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. Project construction could also potentially result in the destruction of an active American badger den, which could result in the take of up to one badger and/or its pups. If badgers have to be evicted from their dens, there is some potential that they will be exposed to greater predation risk or greater road mortality (significant supplemental impact). Adherence to the following measure will reduce any potential impacts to San Joaquin kit fox and American badger to a less - than - significant level by requiring pre - construction surveys to check for possible presence of these species and to avoid disturbance of active dens. If avoidance is not possible, an alternative plans shall be developed by a qualified biologist to avoid any significant impacts to these species, as approved by appropriate biological regulatory agencies. ierican badger). The project applicant shall: a) Undertake preconstruction surveys on the project site by a USFWS /CDFG- approved biologist prior to grading or ground disturbance. b) Avoid disturbance and destruction of potential dens to the extent practicable. c) If disturbance of dens is unavoidable, a qualified biologist shall determine if the dens are occupied using methodology developed in coordination with the USFWS and /or CDFG. If the dens are determined to be unoccupied, they shall be collapsed by hand in accordance with USFWS procedures. d) Exclusion zones around occupied dens will be established by a qualified biologist following USFWS procedures following current standards (potential den - 50 ft; known den -100 ft; natal den - determined on a case -by -case basis in consultation with the USFWS and CDFG). e) Pipes will be capped and trenches equipped with exit ramps to prevent animals from becoming trapped. f) Loss of suitable kit fox habitat on the Project site will be mitigated for at a 3:1 ratio. g) If an active badger den is discovered on the Project site and cannot be avoided using the measures described above, mitigation for loss of the burrow(s) will be provided at a 3:1 ratio, and mitigation lands will be protected in perpetuity. Impacts to Golden eagle The entire project site constitutes suitable foraging habitat for golden eagles and they have been observed foraging on the site. Although foraging habitat is relatively abundant in the region for golden eagles, the loss of foraging habitat in an eagle territory could potentially reduce foraging opportunities and reduce breeding success of an eagle pair. While no golden eagles are currently nesting on the site, golden eagles have nested in eucalyptus trees in the Northern Drainage Conservation Area, approximately 0.5 mi southeast of the site and there is some potential that eagles could nest in the eucalyptus trees on the site as well. The eagle nest in Northern Drainage Conservation Area is isolated from the project site by intervening topography, thus human disturbance is not expected to affect this nest. However if a golden eagle establishes a nest on the site, noise and disturbance related to project implementation Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 124 City of Dublin September 2012 may cause the eagle to abandon its nest and /or territory. Due to their relative rarity in the region, the loss of a golden eagle nest would be considered significant under CEQA. The EACCS requires mitigation for loss of golden eagle foraging habitat within 0.5 mi of a nest site in the Livermore Valley Mitigation Area at a ratio of 3:1. Currently, there is an active golden eagle nest in the Northern Drainage Conservation Area, just barely within 0.5 mi to the southeast, and 3.76 ac of potential foraging habitat on the Project site occurs within a 0.5 -mi radius of the nest. Therefore, 11.28 ac of golden eagle foraging habitat must be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio to comply with the EACCS. This mitigation area overlaps with the annual grassland preserved for other impacts. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM- 13I0-12 -1, -2 and -3, will satisfy these mitigation requirements. Supplemental Impact BIO -10 -12 (impacts to Golden eagle). Proposed project construction could impact existing foraging habitat for Golden eagles (significant supplemental impact). Adherence to the following supplemental mitigation measure will reduce impacts to Golden eagle to a less -than- significant level by restricting construction work to outside of the breeding season. Alternatively, a no- activity zone shall be established around active nests. A second alternative would include development of a site - specific action plan by a qualified biologist to reduce impacts to Golden eagles to a less -than- significant level. ntal Mitigation Measure SM- BIO -10 -12 (impacts to Golden eagle). The steps shall be undertaken if a Golden eagle nets is discovered on the site: a) If an active nest is identified near (i.e., within 1000 ft. or as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the CDFG) a proposed work area, work shall be conducted outside of the nesting season (February 1 to September 1). b) If an active nest is identified near a proposed work area and work cannot be conducted outside of the nesting season, a no- activity zone shall be established by a qualified biologist. The no- activity zone shall be large enough to avoid nest abandonment and will at a minimum be 250 -feet radius from the nest. c) If an effective no- activity zone cannot be established in either case, an experienced golden eagle biologist shall develop a site - specific plan (i.e., a plan that considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the duration and timing of the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of the eagles, and the dissimilarity of the proposed activity with background activities) to minimize the potential to affect the reproductive success of the eagles. The following supplemental impacts and mitigation measures are applicable to the Moller Creek culvert replacement portion of the project. Impacts to non- native annual culvert replacement would impact Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 125 City of Dublin September 2012 approximately 0.5 acre of non - native annual grassland adjacent to the culvert replacement site (significant supplemental impact). The following supplemental mitigation will reduce this impact to a less- than- significant level by requiring provision of compensatory non -native grasslands off of the site. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- BIO -11 -12 (Moller Creek culvert impacts to non - native grasslands). The project applicant shall provide sufficient compensatory grassland habitat for loss of approximately 0.5 acres of impacted grassland habitat. The amount of replacement habitat is estimated to be approximately 2.5 acres, but the final amount of compensatory grassland shall be determined through discussions with appropriate biological regulatory agencies. Impacts to mixed riparian forest Supplemental Impact BIO -12 -12 (Moller Creek culvert impacts to mixed riparian forest). Construction of the proposed culvert replacement would impact approximately one acre of mixed riparian forest (significant supplemental impact). The following supplemental mitigation will reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level by requiring avoidance of mixed riparian habitat areas near the project site. If avoidance is not feasible, suitable alternative habitat shall be purchased. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- BIO -12 -12 (Moller Creek culvert impacts to mixed riparian forest). The project applicant shall avoid construction activities that would impact mixed riparian forest. I£ avoidance is not possible, the applicant shall purchase of compensatory habitat or purchase appropriate mitigation bank credits. The mitigation ratio for acreage is 3:1. Impacts to wetlands and other waters Supplemental Impact BIO -13 -12 (Moller Creek culvert impacts to wetlands and other waters). Construction of the proposed culvert replacement would impact an estimated 0.006 acre of seasonal wetlands and approximately 0.09 acre of waters. Also, the proposed project would fill jurisdictional features and create a new creek alignment (significant supplemental impact). The following supplemental mitigation will reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level by requiring avoidance of mixed riparian habitat areas near the project site. wetlands and other waters). The project applicant shall provide suitable compensatory, replacement habitat for loss of jurisdictional wetlands and waters at a minimum ratio of 3:1 for a total of 0.018 acre of seasonal wetland and 0.27 acre of waters. Replacement mitigation land may occur in off -site mitigation banks that support appropriate habitat, as approved by the City of Dublin and appropriate biological regulatory agencies. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, a Section 404 permit from the Corps, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. The applicant shall adhere to all conditions of approval listed in the permits obtained from the regulatory agencies. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 126 City of Dublin September 2012 Impacts to special - status plants). Construction of the proposed culvert replacement could impact twelve special- status plant species known to occur in the project area. These include: heartscale, lesser saltscale, brittlescale, San Joaquin spearscale, round - leaved filaree, Congdon's tarplant, hispid salty bird's beak, palmate salty bird's beak, Livermore tarplant, western leatherwood, diamond - petaled California poppy, and Diablo helianthella (significant supplemental impact). The following supplemental mitigation will reduce this impact to a less- than- significant level by requiring avoidance of special - status plants to the extent feasible near the project site. If avoidance is not feasible, a suitable compensatory mitigation area shall be required. special- status plants). The project applicant shall a focused rare plant survey during the blooming period for these species (March). An additional survey in August is necessary to determine the presence or absence of the other species. The methodology for the rare plant survey will vary by species and site - specific conditions. Impact assessment methodologies shall be approved in advance by USFWS (federally listed species) and CDFG. The floristic survey of the site must have been completed within the preceding 3 years prior to construction (under normal rainfall conditions) and spatially explicit data on the extent of the focal plant population must be available. special- status plants). The project applicant shall implement avoidance measures outlined below to avoid any impacts and should mitigate any loss of habitat. To mitigate impacts on a plant population that cannot be avoided, a parcel where the specific plant species occurs shall be acquired through fee title purchase or conservation easement. The mitigation plan shall be equivalent to or better in terms of population size and vigor than the plant population affected at the project site. Enhancement plans for public and private lands that provide suitable habitat for focal plant species shall be developed to enhance suitable habitat and contribute to meeting the conservation objectives. Specific measures for affected plant species in management plans promote livestock grazing in grassland and scrub habitat, conduct prescribed burns, conduct mowing, and identify locations in or near the project site where shrub- or tree - dominated plant communities are encroaching on grassland communities (alkali meadow and scald, California annual grassland, and non - serpentine bunchgrass grassland). Impacts to nesting birds and bats Supplemental Impact BIO -15 -12 (Moller Creek culvert impacts to tree nesting � irds and bats). Construction of the proposed culvert replacement could impact bird species that may use the project site for breeding and foraging. Golden eagles may Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement ProjecUDraft Supplemental EIR Page 127 City of Dublin September 2012 use existing eucalyptus trees adjacent to the site for nesting. Roosting bats are also likely to occur in or adjacent to the project site (significant supplemental impact). The following supplemental mitigation will reduce this impact to a less- than- significant level by requiring avoidance of tree removal that contain nesting birds and bats during the nesting season to the extent feasible near the project site. If avoidance is not feasible, a additional mitigation shall be required, e nesting birds and bats). The project applicant shall undertake the following: a) If the proposed project were to remove trees during the nesting bird season (February 1— August 31) then pre- construction breeding bird surveys should be conducted within 10 -14 days of ground disturbance to avoid disturbance to active nests, eggs, and /or young of ground- nesting birds. b) Any trees and shrubs in or adjacent to the project area that are proposed for removal and that could be used as nesting sites by loggerhead shrike and white - tailed kite may only be removed during the non - breeding season (September through February). c) Prior to removal of any on -site trees, a qualified bat biologist shall perform a survey to identify any roosting bats present. If a maternity roost is found, tree removal shall be postponed until the young become independent and the mothers vacate the roost. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- BIO -12 -10 will reduce impacts to Golden eagle to a less- than - significant level. Impacts to 1:1 majority of the project site provides suitable dispersal and upland habitat for re, legged frog. Construction of the proposed culvert replacement could reduce this dispersal habitat (significant supplemental impact). Adherence to the following measure will reduce the above impact to a less -than- significant level by providing suitable alternative habitat for red - legged frog. legged frog). The project applicant shall mitigate the loss of suitable red - legged frog habitat by protecting and enhancing occupied habitat through the purchase of similar suitable habitat or through the purchase of mitigation bank credits. The mitigation ratio for acreage is 3:1. The purchase of mitigation land outside of California Red Legged Frog Mitigation Area CZ3 requires site - specific agency approval. Additionally, in order to meet CDFG's standard of full mitigation for state - listed species under the California Endangered Species Act, the project applicant shall demonstrate habitat enhancement, not just permanent protection, on properties used for mitigation. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 128 City of Dublin September 2012 Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- BIO -6 -12 will also assist in reducing impacts to red- legged frog to a less - than - significant level. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 129 City of Dublin September 2012 Ki Q v �o Cr H N 0 .Y O w 'LS R W N d V v a Cr H uI) V d a m r-i eN v p z s O N M a) N o a) co 0 a Q) a ° a N E 0) O. o. N m U N O IL` N E m m a m 7 U L C C ca c � O �U TO K G Ty 6 mE "0 3E q , p o r o 0. N k2 O R W 0,v � O t]. w Q 3 R G U GOG 3 0 a>. O In G T p wo O N_ r O.b x p O O Q G U N U N G 5 G y r,1 w C C'n r C' G w O M -C R..9 G C pp .C>. fC ;° a R 3 N Cl. w CCD w v a ° Sa". N 7 u A b E v N to NE i .O m tL6 A tR. a>, m' bc y 4 F h y a a o c° CIL O u v � L 1-0 o cn o�v in o..°L. vo�um mu Q$> vciV� °c m Q O Q'O /r ti Q Q R o IA.- .—°o E'Cif R E bo > : n -d G '. ,p 'O C u 'C! ,D A 3 N A G m 0. O +R-' 'C O y •Q p ui G; , L Q A 0 ° G E too 0 CL c R. 3 G R R O O G M G "o ° O V N O VI O m v O O C w L L v R G Y O N O > E U m U E mU E ,� U 0.0. R E U in C7 a o E U m m N � w v � m m m u = C N h L cn 000x �3 0� vm a� m m U m G �� L w V V'O _V i �cn °m e W e e e e ma O N M a) N o a) co 0 a Q) a ° a N E 0) O. o. N m U N O IL` N E m m a m 7 U L C C ca c � O �U N 0 O N M i ttl N 1 � E a N C N E a a N O U N 0 A aci E v m a c C ca L C Cma Q� N O 20 > p W w rs T rs O V O i L G rs N p.U.. G rs N Oi G R Nj O et (Yj yx„ � aG+ y m Q O i Ci V W O O.O W xp 0. W 1.- O N O p V rs U rs V rs b N 0 >41 O L C O 0. arsimi, �c ":a3" Ab3`� L. rsv> r � G 0 6 ❑y v L 0., G L �> �y C u�i a� N V F rs G is ✓�. ".E 7 is G 7 m^ O io % 3 rs.O OOH -+C. 'a_ E.5 v 3rsv' C" C > C ti C O C V O y G .G y C C ,�. .c y y C G v m W o s 3 u rs'6 O ^ vi rs'O N rs'O W > ti N C y v L u r 0 {� N T; Gl] GO U O C O U d N N W N m G v C u G C V O `'w:].rs..NAiiyrsG.7Q.�Ursy- L O 0 A u u 0 E p O O C L 0 0 0 G J 0 0 Tz rs (n V S 0 N N G G vi U W'� vm`� vC1 C v is C O= 0. ,n 4.W �v"r'AQWv.oQ_W�q.°_'v.>. 'u 'EcO�.o .5 o v 5 u o o a.EZ ya (].� E° .`yq. .N v 32 E W3 y aro yrs,q m o LO G Q o c cn V m 0i cn V u-, cn cn V .o o rs o cn V m ' > 0 T Q ~ ^ p N 0.0 p m O T'O rs v� G vi N .� GD v rs E— d 0 00 rs �' h O Q N rs cG" L u p y m gicrs oo c -3.60 U L> y E" p,Y GLDO 4I CS N rs� � p G y W� V i7. ll1 Y o n �o ,may O E W L O0..>vi ,'O 'C in O0. rs ?L y O .O N 'm 0 E O -0 '•' 'O O O O °u r O D n ° E °U .E E yr U 7C E m G V 3 3 G 7 u v y 3 p m CO ca m m N N N w a N Vl N u m m m w m m w H 0. 0 N rs h 0 C C= y y A C Cl N p �, A L c 0 G_ O d 2' V V N 0 O N M i ttl N 1 � E a N C N E a a N O U N 0 A aci E v m a c C ca L C Cma Q� N O 20 Y'=,yo w o nazi :: �°•a�i,E cR�o�°n ° G—v.w� 3R.CRiC �nmen OE P. 0 v v .G 'a > >xoc+y'Go : u y �.�o�,EAo m.5>,v 'm 30-0v fro d o v� y in L1 N' a 'O .� 3 c L 7 X v._ E v o u b Y w °° 'm C G v w ° O° aEo F G> v rsy tiJ L y G a N o °Rmv'Aaa v caaa�c R m 0 �i ac .cwy�4 aao on °c _ U ti Q p C N L O'O U y vi >.'� > N= a. °u 6 G u O .NO _FO_LU C 'N b u G 7 aW0 CG y� v. aN'u'>` o 'G rj �' -vw.�v °° E m mu-o 10 O o �aAOm7o v :° 3 C v x W 1 7 T> ^O A U t N W u �n m" O q to um 3 L y c ra �. G D L 'O U d G rs T y y > R L R ,G (La L m 3 y ..F. Yl �'L 0G„ d ' (a O U7 'Da C u o vA R0 3 �0. 7v _ p 4C W-• C C p Z X v . rr M L mm a o-' , 8 G G " w U N.- m._ R G N O V G O N v V O O N OR L ^ O) V W j N V C Dv .'�v �m fQ1h u� NLa 'O C 'G . 0. u v L N X X! vv,i o. v ON 'v YC�W Lu a HE oo N % Q TN v m > °>Av y0T O y �1 ET t. N - v. vR nO p>. p �iL Aic Ov W-0 U• " N ow R ApL j O Q O O" �GC Lu0.l v '^ mLbC tvlbLa. b _LL .. 1 V1 L vU.ti.v.uy OU .,b0 ,L 'L p mi'6w0 G° 3 0. c 3c vCb O'w n^°° rs R V vCfl nQ. a> a r G G Q^ c° N ri v V A o L L .R.. me L v U) m m m L cn N ,°-� E caQ G cfa1 Y E A a .]'o (n E .� a V V v R v L v C � � •c E n' ¢ c o F > l V Z G Q O v 'R'O > G u O A a u h WO v y o FL \O •Y� O R- m m0_CO O O� W+o m m o C 0 E C Y N 3 n 0.� o , 0 o v y R C v v o R R 'av y C r L O 0 0.0 oo- O R O O " CL 7 u O� uOw W u u m33°EU3° �> a � J P] W W F W v v e u G .. F O :_ N v C N G ,m O E T 0. .fi O U i t 0 p y .O '^ N 0. •_ o c� m C m w w uQU° xQ N N bJ � O O N aE Q) n (D U) 41 m c m E m a CL U o` U N O a` c d E U m Ira m tf U ca c a N O �U M N M 0 O O N A N a� E 0 a N n ro C E a a m O U Ul O Y1 N E N N CL d m C U L C C � � O N O � U 3 X d R.0 N ti� N,C 'O E p CC9 7 O W), 5 a N v O C Oro m .". c c E 0] N E J j N C O m C N G pp� T C O C N O eG V E G N.0 0.5 y v v N.0 LQ(Q y v TQ OJ V N O t]. X O-0Q rs G r6 U T C o. 1 -0 Z 0 vBU� N Q U.�._ v v,� .r". 0,0 Q A N E O N Q y X O N G� � Q v 'a y ° L . 0 U W N M i t h m U l C o� Lr) rs rs L C O W O ri c3 v OL ino R v N O C C C 0.E a x b i rs v m C O b avi 3 O u >mpy 3Nmai °> mOEai c7i GK.x vv N v titi rs v M w in rs E i U� Cz rs N o U) M Ov N ~ H ~ .n ai v p o O �Ep N rs C O Rr oU .cE o ra ° .rs. moo M N M 0 O O N A N a� E 0 a N n ro C E a a m O U Ul O Y1 N E N N CL d m C U L C C � � O N O � U + ) )® �\( /{-3 )a § §\ cn \ \ Qs r0 )a =," _ uR \ \(- (�,aWE;8 / yE (§)f {�; /Ete@Gr ;n a4 o s \\ /!)< ao!- 2 /ry;c��:§ wz,§7w- 7r, =}2)u2|§ < � )r )w � ), - 0M- [ ))\ ), o {c m ) \ \ 2 ] _00 / )§ \ \# \{ 2§{ 70 m /\ \§)( ;7# ( ( !m e % Vi i)) ) D 52f;« \ �2L2 ) < a. 0. LE U, ` \ }§ fe \E \))ju\ \\ /u/ 10 ; zE cn yE !\ ))\ a)d / ) \] f \ _00 / \ � } A \\/ LO ( ;7# ( ( !m e % Vi i)) ) D 52f;« \ �2L2 ) < a. 0. LE U, ` \ }§ fe \E \))ju\ \\ Table 4.6 -2. Special- Status Animal Species Potentially Occurring On or In the Vicinity of the Moller Ranch Project Area Status (Federal/ Potential for Occurrence Species State) Habitat within Project Area' Western spadefoot /CSC Found in open habitats, Not likely to occur, closest Seen hainmondii grasslands, savannah, and open records from the Corral Hollow woodlands. Area east of Dublin. No spadefoots observed during surveys of aquatic habitats on- site. California tiger salamander Amhystonrn cntiforniense California red - legged frog Rana nnrorn draytonii Pacific pond turtle Actinemys marmorata Coast horned lizard Phrinmsoma corouatum San /CSC FT /CSC — /CSC CSC Breeds in vernal pools, ponds, and stock ponds. Spends summer and early Fall in uplands surrounding breeding sites, taking refuge in small mammal burrows or other underground cover. Found in lowlands and foothills in or near permanent ponds and streams with dense, shrubby, or emergent riparian vegetation. Found in ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation. Requires basking sites and adjacent grasslands or other open habitat for eee- lavine. Found in open sunny habitats including grasslands, scrub, and open woodlands that support native ant populations Suitable breeding and terrestrial habitat for this species occurs on -site. Larvae observed by WRA in the southeast stock pond off -site and in off -site stock pond north of site. Adults observed by WRA in burrows in middle main stem of Moller Creek and near the southeast stock pond in the winter of 2002/2003. Observed north of the site by Opus Environmental in July 2005 along the northern end of Moller Road during construction monitoring for the PG &E Tri- Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project. Observed by WRA and LSA in the main stem of Moller Creek. Suitable breeding habitat occurs in Moller Creek onsite and the Suitable habitat is present in Moller Creek and the southeast stock pond on -site. Known occurrences within one mile of site in Tassajara Creek. Not expected to occur on -site due to general lack of cover and habitat disturbance from grazing. Closest known occurrences are over 11 miles from site on Mines Road and in Mt. Diablo State Park. i coachwhip - /CSC Found in open grasslands and Suitable habitat occurs onsite. flagel, alkali flats with abundant Closest known occurrences are rodent burrows for cover. more than eight miles from site. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 135 City of Dublin September 2012 Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 136 City of Dublin September 2012 Status (Federal/ Potential for Occurrence Species State) Habitat within Project Area' Alameda whipsnake FT/CT Found in chaparral and rock No suitable habitat present on- Masticophis lateralis outcrops. site. This species would not emi xanthusi occur on -site. Birds White - tailed kite — /CFP Nests in shrubs and trees in Trees on and surrounding site Elamts leucurrts open areas and forages in provide nesting habitat and adjacent grasslands and grasslands are suitable foraging agricultural land. habitat. Known nesting occurrence within one mile from site east of Tassajara Road. No kites observed during surveys, but likel to occur. Northern harrier — /CSC Nests and forages in meadows, Grasslands on site provide Circus cyaneuts grasslands, open rangeland, suitable nesting and foraging and fresh or saltwater marshes. habitat. One adult observed by LSA in the vicinity of the project site, north of the southeast stock pond. Cooper's hawk — /CSC Nests and forages in No suitable nesting habitat on- Accipiter cooperii woodlands, often with open site. May occasionally forage areas or open canopy and near on -site. water. Also known to forage in open grasslands or shrubland. Swainson =s hawk — /CF Found in open country and May occur occasionally on -site Buteo swainsoni ranch lands, with scattered trees during migration. Nests east of for nesting. Dublin in the Central Valley. Ferruginous hawk -/ CSC Forages in open country and May occur as a winter visitor. Beteo regalts (wintering ranch lands. Occurs in Not a breeding bird in this California only as a winter region. visitor. Golden eagle — /CSC Forages in rolling foothill or Site provides foraging habitat Aquila chrysaetos coast -range terrain, with open for this species. Observed grassland and scattered large along north boundary during trees. Nests in large trees, on WRA site assessment in cliffs, and occasionally on November 2002. power line poles. Merlin —/ CSC Forages in open country, sea May occur as a migrant or Falco columbaries (wintering coasts, and bay lands. Occurs winter visitor. Not a breeding in California only as a winter bird in this region. visitor and migrant. American peregrine Delisted/ Forages in open country, Foraging habitat on -site, falcon CE mountains, and sea coasts. however, no suitable nesting Falco peregrines mmtum (nesting) Nests on high cliffs, bridges, habitat. None observed on -site. and buildings. Prairie falcon — /CSC Forages in open country and May forage on -site. No suitable Falco mexicates (nesting) deserts. Nests on cliffs. nesting habitat occurs. Long - billed curlew - /CSC Forages and nests in marshes, May forage on grassland within Nunienius arnericmnts agricultural fields, and site during the winter, but does grasslands not breed in the region. Burrowing owl — /CSC Nests in burrows in grasslands Likely forages and nests in the Athene cunicularia and woodlands; often grasslands on -site. Observed associated with ground north of the site by Opus Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 136 City of Dublin September 2012 California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actin Loggerhead shrike Lareius ludovicinnus Agelaius tricolor Townsend =s western big -eared bat Corynorhinus toeonsendii toeonsendii Yuma myotis Myotis yummnensis Pallid bat Autrozons pallidus American badger Taxidea taxes San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes rnacrotis mutica Status (Federal/ — /CSC �YQ — /CSC /CSC artificial structures (culverts, concrete debris piles, etc.) Forages and nests in open grasslands and barren fields. Found in grasslands and open shrub or woodland communities. Nests in dense shrubs or trees and forages in scrub, open woodlands, grasslands, and croplands. Frequently uses fences, posts, and utility lines as hunting Nests in dense vegetation near open water, forages in grasslands and agricultural Found in wooded areas with caves or old buildings for roost sites. Potential for Occurrence during construction monitoring for the PG &E Tri -V alley 2002 Capacity Increase Project. May nest and forage in the grasslands on -site. Known to occur on -site. Suitable breeding Observed on -site by WRA during the site assessment in November 2002 and by LSA in August 2005. May nest in the trees on -site. May forage on -site. No suitable nesting habitat present. May forage within the site. Suitable roosting or hibernating habitat present in old ranch buildings on -site. Roosting habitat may also occur in old ranch buildings adjacent to the site. — /CSC Occupies a wide variety of May forage within the site. habitats at low elevations. Roosting habitat may occur in Roosts in buildings, tree, caves, tree cavities and buildings on- Occupies a wide variety of habitats at low elevations. Most commonly found in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for Grassland, scrub, and woodland with loose - textured soils. FT /CE I Found in open grasslands and arid areas with ground squirrel and /or kangaroo rat populations. Dens in rodent burrows. Status Codes: FE = Federally - listed as an endangered species. May forage on -site. Roosting habitat may occur in old rangy buildings on and adjacent to site. Suitable habitat for this species is present on -site. Badgers are likely to occur on -site occasionally. Known occurrences within one mile of site along Tassajara Road. Foraging and denning habitat occur on -site. This species has been recorded within the vicinity and may use the site during foraging and local movements. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 137 City of Dublin September 2012 FT = Federally- listed as a threatened species. CE = State - listed as an endangered species. CT = State- listed as a threatened species. CFP = State - listed as a fully protected. CSC = State Species of Special Concern. 2 Nearest records are based on CNDDB (2005) occurrences unless otherwise noted Source: LSA Associates Inc Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 138 City of Dublin September 2012 k } &)2w §.§§§ & >2° § � S & §\ § =E ])d LL Er` \\ LL 1 =0 / | ) ! k / \ 2 ui ui _ \} \ /� . a \\ ` )) /\ , J 2 \- ;a ■ IL Cf) k / ui ui \} Z§ � k) \\ ` )) /\ k / STUDY AREA BOUNDARY v» C� 5� IU �t+ \ PROJECT BOUNDARY ' \..y U n n n i= D c N � N a y Q J � D O 2 V W 0 w a U w m Z W j3 C a W N } J Q �O� U�o � a U S] r O- L tC 3L O emu` oU dt � n " d y Q d V O.N {JJ d Ea aa- U p d d d A W M o f E y c uJ aad y (O U O. 5 td '` EE Lu d O d o> LL oa -6 aU� J a` a� M f v 1'N N w N a Q U U W o a a a E E m m m E E E U U U o A a U n n n i= D c N � N a y Q J � D O 2 V W 0 w a U w m Z W j3 C a W N } J Q �O� U�o SOURCE: WRA Environmental Consultants, March 2012 CITY OF DUBLIN MOLLER RANCH PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR Exhibit 4.2.4 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES: MOLLER CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT AREA L J 4.3 AIR QUALITY INTRODUCTION Air quality impacts of the project were analyzed in Chapter 3.11 of the Eastern Dublin EIR and Chapter 4.8 of the 2007 Casamira SEIR. This chapter examines compliance with applicable significance thresholds, utilizes updated methods of analysis and is based on current traffic forecasts that reflect changes inrgw proposed project and regional travel patterns that have occurred since certification of the earlier two EIRs. This supplement also examines changes in the regulatory standards since the certification of the Casamira Valley SEIR. This section of the DSEIR is based on an air quality analysis for this project prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin. Appendix 8.9 includes the technical information to support this section. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Overview. The project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the State and Federal level. The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground -level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM,J and fine particulate matter (PM,.,). High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area's attempts to reduce ozone levels. Highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort. Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant in the Bay Area. Particulate matter is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM,o) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM,, and PM2S are the result of both region -wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter Ievels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children. The ambient air quality in a given area depends on the quantities of pollutants emitted within the area, transport of pollutants to and from surrounding areas, local and regional meteorological conditions, as well as the surrounding topography of the air basin. Air quality is described by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere. Units of concentration are generally expressed in parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (pg /m3). Dublin in located in the Tri- Valley Area, where wind speeds rank as some of the lowest in the Bay Area. Air temperatures are cooler in the winter and warmer in the summer because these valleys are further from Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 143 City of Dublin September 2012 the moderating effect of large water bodies, and because the Coast Range blocks marine air flow. During the summer, average daily maximum temperatures are in the high 80's to 90 degrees. Average minimum temperatures in winter are in the low to mid 40's.Temperatures in the Tri- Valley would be similar to Concord's. Shielded by the Coast Range to the west, rainfall amounts are relatively low. For example, Martinez in the north reports an annual average of 18.5 inches, while Walnut Creek reports 19 inches. Rainfall in the Dublin area is expected to be similar because of the similar orientation of the terrain. Pollution potential is relatively high in these valleys. In the winter, light winds at night, coupled with a surface -based inversion, and terrain blocking to the east and west does not allow much dispersion of pollutants. Tri - Valley with its very narrow width, could easily have high pollution buildups from emissions contributed by the major freeway in its center, and by emissions from fireplaces and wood stoves. In the summer months, ozone can be transported into the valleys from both the Central Valley and the central Bay Area. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards. The ambient air quality in a given area depends on the quantities of pollutants emitted within the area, transport of pollutants to and from surrounding areas, local and regional meteorological conditions, as well as the surrounding topography of the air basin. Air quality is described by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere. Units of concentration are generally expressed in parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (pg /m3). As required by the Federal Clean Air Act, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for six major air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO,), ozone (03), particulate matter, including respirable particulate matter (PM,,) and fine particulate matter (PM25), sulfur oxides, and lead. Pursuant to the California Clean Air Act, the State of California has established the California Ambient Air Quality Standards ( CAAQS). Relevant State and Federal standards are summarized in Table 4.3 -1, some of which have been updated since the 2007 Casamira Valley SEIR (for example, the federal 8 -hour ozone standard is now 0.075 ppm). CAAQS are generally the same or more stringent than NAAQS. Air Quality Monitoring Data. The significance of a pollutant concentration is determined by comparing the concentration to an appropriate ambient air quality standard. The standards represent the allowable pollutant concentrations designed to ensure that the public health and welfare are protected, while including a reasonable margin of safety to protect the more sensitive individuals in the population. The San Francisco Bay Area is considered to be one of the cleanest metropolitan areas in the country with respect to air quality. BAAQMD monitors air quality conditions at more than 30 locations throughout the Bay Area. The closest monitoring station to the project site is in Livermore at the 793 Rincon Avenue monitoring station. Summarized air pollutant data for this station is provided in Table 4.3 -2. This table shows the highest air pollutant concentrations measured at the station over the five -year period from 2007 through 2011. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 144 City of Dublin September 2012 Table 4.3 -1. Relevant California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging California National Time Standards Standards Ozone 8 -hour 0.070 ppm (137 p /m') 0.075 ppm (147µg /m') 1 -hour 0.09 ppm (180µ /m) — Carbon 1 -hour 20 ppm (23 mg /m') 35 ppm (40m /m') 8 -hour 9.0 ppm (10M /m') 9 ppm (10m /m') monoxide Nitrogen 1 -hour 0.18 ppm (339 p /m') 0.100 ppm (188 p /m3) Annual 0.030 ppm (57 µ /m') 0.053 ppm (100 µ /m') dioxide Sulfur Dioxide 1 -hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm (655 µg /m') (196 µ /m') 24 -hour 0.04 ppm (105 mg 0.14 ppm (365 µ /m') Annual — 0.03 ppm (56 mg/m') Particulate Annual 20jig/ m' — Matter (PM10) 24 -hour 50 P /m' 150 P /m' Particulate Annual 12 p /m' 15 µg /m' Matter (PM2.5) 24 -hour — 35 µ /m' Notes ppm = parts per mi ion mg m = milligrams per cu is meter jig/ =micrograms per cubic meter Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2012 Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 145 City of Dublin September 2012 Table 4.3 -2. Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations in Livermore Sensitive Receptors and Toxic Air Contaminants. There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under the age of 14, the individuals over the age 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. The closest sensitive receptors are residences located to the north, west, and south of the western portion of the project site, with additional residences farther south near the intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air pollutants listed above. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and Federal level. Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three- quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 146 City of Dublin September 2012 Average Pollutant Time 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1 -Hour 0.120 0.141 0.113 0.150 0.115 Ozone (03) 8 -Hour 0.091 0.111 0.086 ppm 0.098 0.085 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 -Hour 1.8 ppm 1.4 ppm 1.3 ppm ND ND Nitrogen Dioxide (NOz) 1 -Hour 0.052 0.058 0.052 0.058 0.057 Annual 0.013 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.011 Respirable Particulate 24 -Hour 74.8 46.8 ND ND ND Matter (PM,o) Annual 19.8 ND ND ND ND Fine Particulate Matter (PM25) 24 -Hour 54.9 52.7 45.7 3 34.7 23.6 3 Annual 9.0 10.1 3 9.2ug /m3 7.6 ND Source: CARB, 2012. Notes: ppm =parts per million and ug /m3= micrograms per cubic meter. Values reported in bold exceed ambient air quality standard. Sensitive Receptors and Toxic Air Contaminants. There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under the age of 14, the individuals over the age 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. The closest sensitive receptors are residences located to the north, west, and south of the western portion of the project site, with additional residences farther south near the intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air pollutants listed above. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and Federal level. Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three- quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 146 City of Dublin September 2012 diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARE, and are listed as carcinogens either under the state's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM). Several of these regulatory programs affect medium and heavy -duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. These regulations include the solid waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule, in -use public and utility fleets, and the heavy - duty diesel truck and bus regulations. In 2008, CARB approved a new regulation to reduce emissions of DPM and nitrogen oxides from existing on -road heavy -duty diesel fueled vehicles.10 The regulation requires affected vehicles to meet specific performance requirements between 2012 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles required to have 2010 model -year engines or equivalent by 2023. These requirements are phased in over the compliance period and depend on the model year of the vehicle. The BAAQMD is the regional agency tasked with managing air quality in the region. At the State level, CARB (a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency) oversees regional air district activities and regulates air quality at the State level. The BAAQMD published CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are used in this assessment to evaluate air quality impacts of projects." Regulatory Framework. Ambient air quality standards. The federal and California ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 4.3 -1 for important pollutants. The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both federal and state standards are intended to avoid health- related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and PM10• In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to construction, mobile source and stationary source emissions (Impacts 3.11 /A, B, C, E). Mitigation measures were adopted to control construction dust and exhaust emissions, and to minimize mobile and stationary source emissions through, among other things, cooperative transportation and air quality planning and transportation demand management. All ". Available online: hupahv�e�o . vh. ca .�_ovlmsoroelomJicscl /nnrdiescl htm. Accessed: July 31,2012. '' BAAQMD, 201 I , op. cit. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 147 City of Dublin September 2012 mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA /SP continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed project. Even with mitigation, however, significant cumulative construction, mobile source and stationary source impacts remained. (Impacts 3.11 /A, 311 /13, 311 /C, and 3.11 /E). Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA /SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these significant unavoidable impacts (Resolution No. 53 -93). IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE CASAMIRA VALLEY SUPPLEMENTAL EIR Two supplemental impacts were identified in this document: Construction activities associated with the project would have the potential to cause nuisance related to dust and PMlp. In addition to Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures addressing this topic, Mitigation Measure SM -AQ -1 requires enhanced dust reduction measures as part of project construction, including watering or covering of stockpile dirt, sweeping of access roads, parking areas and staging areas for dust and installation of erosion control measures. Cumulative regional emissions from the proposed project and other Eastern Dublin development projects would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for ozone precursors and PM10. Mitigation Measure SM -AQ -2 requires a number of measures to assist in reducing the project's contribution to cumulative air quality degradation, but this impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Resolution No. 56 -07). Applicable supplemental mitigation measures from the 2007 SEIR continue to apply to the current project. STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The BAAQMD has revised recommended thresholds of significance since publication of the prior SEIR. However, BAAQMD's adoption of its 2011 thresholds was called into question by an order issued March 5, 2012, in California Building Industry Association v. BAAQMD (Alameda Superior Court Case No. RGI0548693). The order requires BAAQMD to set aside its approval of the thresholds until it has conducted environmental review under CEQA. The claims made in the case concerned the environmental impacts of adopting the thresholds, that is, how the thresholds would indirectly affect land use development patterns. Those issues are not relevant to the scientific basis of BAAQMD's analysis of what levels of pollutants should be deemed significant. This analysis considers the science informing the thresholds as being supported by substantial evidence. Scientific information supporting the thresholds was documented in BAAQMD's proposed thresholds of significance analysis." Accordingly, the analysis herein uses the thresholds and methodologies from BAAQMD's May 2011 BAAQMD. 2009. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Update Proposed Thresholds of Significance. December. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 148 City of Dublin September 2012 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to determine the potential impacts of the project on the existing environment. The significance thresholds identified by BAAQMD and used in this analysis are summarized in Table 4.3 -3. Table 4.3 -3. Air Quality Significance Thresholds SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Cumulatively considerable air emission impacts. The Bay Area is considered a non - attainment area for ground -level ozone and fine particulate matter (PM,,) under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered non - attainment for respirable particulates or particulate matter with a diameter of less Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 149 City of Dublin September 2012 Construction Operational Thresholds Thresholds Pollutant Average Daily Annual Average Average Daily Emissions Emissions Emissions (lbs. /da) (lbs. /da) (tons/ ear) Criteria Air Pollutants ROG 54 54 10 NO, 54 54 10 PM" 82 82 15 PM25 54 54 10 CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8 -hour avg.) or 20.0 ppm (1- hour avg.) Fugitive Dust Best Management Not Applicable Practices Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources Excess Cancer Risk 10 per one million 10 per one million Hazard Index 1.0 1.0 Incremental annual 0.3 pg /m' 0.3 µg /m' average PM25 Health Risks and Hazards for Sensitive Receptors (Cumulative from all sources within 1,000 foot zone of influence) and Cumulative Thresholds for New Sources Excess Cancer Risk 100 per one million Chronic Hazard 10.0 Index Annual Average 0.8 ug /m3 PM' s Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM,o = course particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (um) or less, PM,5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5Nm or less; and GHG = greenhouse gas. Source: BAAOMD SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Cumulatively considerable air emission impacts. The Bay Area is considered a non - attainment area for ground -level ozone and fine particulate matter (PM,,) under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered non - attainment for respirable particulates or particulate matter with a diameter of less Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 149 City of Dublin September 2012 than 10 micrometers (PM,o) under the California Clean Air Act, but not the Federal act. The area has attained both State and Federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. Since publication of the 2007 SEIR, new thresholds of significance have been recommended. Accordingly, this analysis uses the latest thresholds to access impacts resulting from implementation of the project. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2011.1.1 was used to predict emissions from construction and operation of the site assuming full build out of the project. The project land use types and size, and trip generation rate were input to CalEEMod. Construction Period Emissions. CalEEMod provided average daily and annual emissions for each phase of construction. CalEEMod provides emission estimates for both on -site and off -site construction activities. On -site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while off -site activity includes worker and vendor traffic. A balance of on -site grading cut and fill is anticipated and no import or export of soils is expected, based on a discussion with the project applicant. A reasonable construction build -out scenario was developed, based on projected building construction techniques, information provided by the project applicant, and CalEEMod defaults for construction equipment by phase. It was assumed that no cranes would be utilized and that generators would operate up to two hours per workday. Attachment 1 (see SEIR Appendix 8.9) includes the CalEEMod output for construction emissions. Refined emissions modeling of PM2.5 exhaust from of on -site activities was predicted as part of the construction health risk assessment addressed later in this report. The proposed residential land uses were input into CalEEMod as two separate model runs, one with 478 new single - family dwelling units (the maximum that could be allowed under the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations) and the second with 381 new single - family DU (CalEEMod = "Single- Family Housing "). The modeling scenario assumes that the 381 dwelling project would be built out over a period of approximately 38 months beginning in 2013, and that a 478 dwelling project could be built out over a period of approximately 44 months beginning in 2013. Off- road equipment emission factors were adjusted by reducing the load factors used in the modeling by 33- percent to be consistent with latest 2010 CARB estimates. The model results for the architectural coatings ROG emissions were reduced by 40 percent to account for the latest ROG emissions allowed by BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3 — Architectural Coatings. The new BAAQMD regulations limit most paints to less than 150 grams per liter. Table 4.3 -4 shows average daily construction emissions of ROG, NO, PMro exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction of both project scenarios. As indicated in Table 4.3 -4, predicted project emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD recommended significance thresholds under either scenario. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 150 City of Dublin September 2012 Table 4.3- 4. Construction Period Emissions, Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day) Scenario ROG NOx PM,o Pm,., 381 Dwellin0' g Units 21.3 26.7 1.6 1.6 ( ro osa BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds 54 54 82 54 per day) Exceed Threshold? No No No No 478 Dive lin Units (Max. )' 22.9 27.1 1.6 1.6 BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds 54 54 82 54 per day) Exceed Threshold? No No No No Notes: ' Assumes 760 workdays or approximately 20 workdays per month. 2 Assumes 880 workdays or approximately 20 workdays per month. Source: Illin worth & Rodkin, 2012 Operational Period Emissions. Operational air emissions from the project would be generated primarily from autos driven by residents and visitors and from delivery and service trucks. Emissions could also be generated by lawn mowers, gas - powered leaf blowers, fireplaces, and other common residential sources. Evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and consumer cleaning/ maintenance products are other typical emissions from residential uses. CalEEMod was used to predict emissions from construction and operation of the site assuming full build out of the project. The project land use types and size, and trip generation rate were input to CalEEMod. Adjustments to the model are described below. Model output worksheets are included in Attachment 1 (see Appendix 8.9). Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased -in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the higher the emission rates CalEEMod uses. The earliest year the project could be constructed and begin operating would be 2017. Use of the this date is considered conservative, as emissions associated with build -out later than 2017 would be lower. CalEEMod allows the user to enter specific trip generation rates. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., provided trip generation rates for the project by land use type, which were entered into the model (see Chapter 4.1 of this SEIR). Minor adjustments were made to the area source inputs of CaIEEMod. These include adjustments that all residences would use natural gas and would potentially include only natural gas- fueled fireplaces. In addition, the emission rate for architectural coating was adjusted to account for current BAAQMD regulations (Reg. 8, Rule 3). Table 4.3 -5 reports the predicted average daily operational emissions and Table 4.3 -6 reports annual emissions. As shown in Tables 4.3 -5 and 4.3 -6, average daily and annual emissions of ROG, NOx, PM,o exhaust, or PM,, exhaust associated with operation Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 151 City of Dublin September 2012 would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Table 4.3 -5. Daily Air Pollutant Emissions from Operation of the Project (pounds /day) Scenario ROG NOx PM,o PM,, 381 Dwelling Units Option 33.5 40.8 8.9 2.6 Daih/ Emission Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No 478 Dwelling Units Option 42.0 512 11.2 3.3 Daily Emission Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Source: Kimley -Horn Associates, 2012 Table 4.3 -6. Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Operation of the Project (tons /year) Scenario ROG NOx PM,a PM,.s 381 Dwelling Units Option 6.11 7.45 1.62 0.48 Annual Emission Thresholds 10 10 15 10 Exceed Threshold? No No No No 478 Dwelling Units O tion 7.67 9.35 2.04 0.60 Daihy Emission Thresholds 10 10 15 10 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Source: Kimley -Horn Associates, 2012 Violation of air quality standards. As discussed above, the project would have emissions that would be below significance thresholds adopted by BAAQMD for evaluating impacts to ozone and particulate matter. Therefore, the project would not contribute substantially to existing or projected violations of those standards. Carbon monoxide emissions from traffic generated by the project would be the pollutant of greatest concern at the local level. Congested intersections with a large volume of traffic have the greatest potential to cause high - localized concentrations of carbon monoxide. Air pollutant monitoring data indicate that carbon monoxide levels have been at healthy levels (i.e., below State and Federal standards) in the Bay Area since the early 1990s. As a result, the region has been designated as attainment for the standard. There is an ambient air quality monitoring station in Livermore that measures carbon monoxide concentrations. The highest measured level over any 8 -hour averaging period during the last 3 years is less than 2.0 parts per million (ppm), compared to the ambient air quality standard of 9.0 ppm. The roadways affected by the proposed project have relatively low traffic volumes compared to the busier intersections in the Bay Area. BAAQMD screening guidance indicates that projects would have a less than significant impact to carbon monoxide levels if project traffic projections indicate traffic levels would not increase at any affected intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. The intersections affected by the proposed project have much lower traffic volumes (less than 10,000 vehicles per hour). Therefore, the change in traffic caused by the Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Draft Supplemental EIR Page 152 City of Dubiin September 2012 proposed project would be minimal and the project would not cause or contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 153 City of Dublin September 2012 5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project The California Environmental Quality Act requires identification and comparative analysis of feasible alternatives to the proposed Project which have the potential of achieving most of the project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts of the project. The following discussion considers alternative development scenarios. Through comparison of these alternatives to the proposed project, the advantages of each can be weighed and considered by the public and by decision- makers. CEQA Guidelines require a range of alternatives "governed by the rule of reason" and require the EIR to set forth a range of alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. 5.1 Alternatives Identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared for a General Plan Amendment encompassing approximately 6,920 acres of land and for a Specific Plan for 3,328 acres within the General Plan Amendment area. The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (GPA /SP) proposed a variety of types and densities of housing, as well as employment - generating commercial, campus office and other land uses. Other portions of the planning area were designated schools, open space and other community facilities. Protection for natural features of the planning area, including riparian corridors and principal ridgelands, was provided through restrictive land use designations and policies. The land use plan reflected the Eastern Dublin Project objectives as set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR, Section 2.5. As required by CEQA, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified project alternatives that could eliminate or reduce significant impacts of the Eastern Dublin Project. The four identified alternatives included: No Project, Reduced Planning Area, Reduced Land Use Intensities and No Development. These are described below: No Project Alternative. The No Project alternative evaluated potential development of the GPA /SP area under the then- applicable Dublin General Plan for the unincorporated portion of the planning area under the Alameda County General Plan. Reduced Planning Area Alternative. The Reduced Planning Area Alternative evaluated development of the Specific Plan as proposed, but assumed development beyond the Specific Plan only to the Dublin Sphere of Influence boundary. The effect of this alternative was to exclude Upper and Lower Doolan Canyon properties from the project. Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative. The Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative evaluated potential development of the entire GPA /SP area, but reduced some higher traffic generating commercial uses in favor of increased residential dwellings. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 154 City of Dublin September 2012 No Development. The No Development Alternative assumed no development would occur in the planning area other than agricultural, open space and similar land uses then in place. The Dublin City Council certified the Eastern Dublin EIR on May 10, 1993, under Resolution No. 51 -93. The City Council found the No Project, Reduced Land Use Intensities and No Development alternatives infeasible and then approved a modification of the Reduced Planning Area Alternative rather than the GPA/ SP project as proposed (Resolution No. 53 -93). This alternative was approved based on City Council findings that this alternative land use plan would reduce land use impacts, would not disrupt the Doolan Canyon community, would reduce growth- inducing impacts on agricultural lands and would reduce traffic, infrastructure and noise impacts of the originally proposed Eastern Dublin Project. Even under this alternative project, however, significant unavoidable impacts would remain. Therefore, upon approval of the GPA /SP, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53 -93). 5.2 Alternatives Identified in the 2007 Casamira Valley SEIR Alternatives analyzed in the 2007 Supplemental EIR included: No Project /No Development Alternative. This alternative assumed that the Moller Ranch property would remain as existing as of the preparation of the DESIR and no development would occur on the site. Dwellings and other structures would remain as they currently exist on the property. No Project /Development under the East County Area Plan. This Alternative considers development of the Moller Ranch under the East County Area Plan (ECAP), which was adopted by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to guide future development in the unincorporated portion of Alameda County. The ECAP Land Use Diagram shows that the Moller Ranch was intended to be used for "Large Parcel Agriculture," which allows minimum parcel sizes of a minimum of 100 acres with one dwelling unit per lot. Large lot development. The third Alternative would include subdivision of the Moller Ranch as a large lot subdivision that would include an estimated 50 dwellings sited on approximately one acre lots each. The Alternative assumed that approximately the same roadway system would be constructed on the Moller property as included in the proposed project. Building envelopes would generally be located adjacent to near to roadways with private open spaces located behind the dwellings extending into the lower hillside areas. Attached housing development. This Alternative would have the Moller Ranch portion developed with up to 326 attached dwellings, with dwellings ranging in size between 2,200 square feet to 2.450 square feet each. Dwellings under this alternative would be multi-story and on site parking would be provided for each of the units. Access to the Moller Ranch would be the same as proposed for the proposed project, the "development envelope" (the portion of the Project site to be graded or disturbed) would also be the same as for the proposed project and utilities and service lines would be extended to the development area in the same manner as the proposed Project. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 155 City of Dublin September 2012 The Dublin City Council certified the Casamira Valley Supplemental EIR on May 1, 2007, by Resolution No. 56 -07. The City Council found the No Project/ No Development Alternative, the No Project/ Development under the East County Area Plan (ECAP) Alternative and the Large Lot Development Alternative infeasible and then approved the Attached Housing Alternative rather than the Casamira Valley project as proposed. This alternative was approved based on City Council findings that this alternative land use plan would further the goals of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and would provide a greater diversity of housing types than originally proposed. Even under this alternative project, however, significant unavoidable impacts would remain. Therefore, upon approval of the Casamira Valley project, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 56 -07). 5.3 Alternatives Identified in the 2012 Supplemental EIR The following alternatives are identified and analyzed in this Supplemental EIR: • Alternative 1: No Project /No Development • Alternative 2: Large Lot Development • Alternative 3: Reduced Development • Alternative 4: Cluster Development 5.3.1 Alternative 1 -No Project /No Development CEQA requires an analysis of a 'No Project" alternative. Under this alternative, it is assumed that the Moller Ranch would remain as it presently exists and no development would occur. Existing dwellings and other structures would remain as they currently exist on the site. This alternative would avoid the range of environmental impacts described in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2007 DSEIR and this DSEIR, including but not limited to: Transportation and Traffic: No new roadways, trails or similar circulation improvements would be constructed, including two drive access roads from Tassajara Road and a traffic signal at one of the drive intersections proposed in the project. Tassajara Road would not be widened through the project frontage portion of the project area and a replacement culvert would not be constructed over Moller Creek adjacent to the site. Since current land uses would remain, there would be no new vehicles generated from the project site that would be added to existing roadways and freeways. There would be no significant and unavoidable impacts related to project contributions to congested freeway conditions. • Biological Resources: No impacts would result to biological resources on the project site or within and adjacent to Moller Creek since no development would occur. This includes impacts to special status plants, animals and their respective habitats. Wildlife movement would only be limited to the extent of existing Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 156 City of Dublin September 2012 fencing. Wetlands and other waters of the U.S. would remain as they currently exist. Degradation of Moller Creek that flows through the site would continue to occur within the Project area so long as cattle grazing operations are maintained on the property. • Air Qualith,/: Existing source of air emissions would remain. There would be no short -term air quality impacts associated with construction of new buildings and other public and private improvements envisioned in the Stage 1 Development Plan. There would be no Project contribution to long -term, cumulative air quality emissions, since no new vehicular traffic would be attracted to the Project area. 5.3.2 Alternative 2 -Large Lot Development This Alternative considers development of the Moller Ranch with up to 55 residential lots, each containing approximately one acre of land. The same proposed on -site roadway network connecting to Tassajara Road would be constructed, similar to the proposed project. A small local public park would be located in the approximate center of the project and a similar trail system proposed in the current project would be built. There would be approximately the same amount of grading and ground disturbance (development envelope) as the proposed project. The replacement culvert would be constructed over Moller Creek under this Alternative. • Trmtsportation and Traffic: The large lot development alternative would generate fewer total trips (3,122). AM peak trips (245) and PM peak hour trips (329) than the proposed project, as identified in Table 5.1, below. Table 5.1. AIternative 2 v. Proposed Project Trips Residential No. of Units Total Trips AM Peak Trips PM Peak Trips Type Alternative 2 Large Lot Single 55 526 41 56 Family Residential Proposed Project Single Family 381 3,648 286 385 Detached Residential Di erence -- -3,122 -245 -329 Source: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, 2012 There would likely be the same general impacts to local roadway intersections in the near term and under cumulative (long -term) time periods as identified in Section 4.1, although impacts related to left -turn lane and vehicle queuing capacity (Impact SM TRA- 10 -12) would be reduced as under the proposed project since fewer trips would be generated, but would likely require mitigation. Supplemental Mitigation Measures identified in Section 4.1 would be applied to reduce some of these impacts to a less- than- significant level. This Alternative would result in no new or more severe impacts compared to the project. The reduced Alternative would add more trips to the presently congested local freeway system during peak hours, although fewer trips than the Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 157 City of Dublin September 2012 proposed project and Alternatives 3 and 4. This impact would also be significant and unavoidable. Biological Resources: The same impacts to special- status plants and wildlife would occur under this Alternative as the proposed project, since the same amount of land would be disturbed for development purposes. These would include impacts to annual grassland habitat and common wildlife species, introduction of non - native, invasive plant and impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional waters. Supplemental Mitigation Measures set forth in Section 4.2 will reduce these impacts to a less - than- significant level for this Alternative as well as for the proposed project The same biological impacts would occur with respect to special- status species, wetlands and waters for the Moller Creek culvert replacement portion of the project as would the proposed project, since the same area would be disturbed to allow the replacement. • Air Quality: There would be less of an impact with respect to Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG), particulate matter, carbon monoxide that found with the proposed project. However, no significant air quality impacts were identified for the proposed project, no such project or cumulative impacts would occur with Alternative 2. 5.3.3 Alternative 3- Reduced Development The third Alternative would include development of 354 single family detached dwellings on individual lots, each containing approximately 5,000 square feet of land area. Individual lot sizes would be greater than the proposed project so that future residents would have more private yard area. This alternative would require more grading than the proposed project to accommodate dwellings as well as a greater amount of stabilization along Moller Creek. Two creek crossing are anticipated to accommodate on -site circulation requirements rather than one crossing as include din the proposed project. No neighborhood park would be provided. It is assumed that approximately the same roadway system would be constructed on the Moller property as under the proposed project. Alternative 3 would require the installation of the replacement Moller Creek culvert replacement. An analysis of the impacts of the Reduced Development Alternative is as follows • Transportation and Traffic: Fewer total daily trips would be generated (260) than would be expected under the proposed project. There would also be fewer AM peak hour trips (20) and PM peak hour trips (27) that are expected to occur under the proposed project. This is documented on Table 5.2. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Draft Supplemental EIR Page 158 City of Dublin September 2012 Table 5.2. Alternative 3 v. Proposed Project Trips Residential No. of Units Total Trips AM Peak Trips PM Peak Trips Type Alternative 3 Single Family 3,388 266 358 Detached 1­59-4 Residential Proposed Project Single Family 381 3,648 286 385 Detached Residential Di erence -- -260 1 -20 -27 Source: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, 2012 The same traffic and transportation impacts to local roadways, roadway segments and left -turn lane (queuing) lengths would occur under Alternative 3 and 4 as are expected with the proposed project, although transportation impacts would likely be less intensive than under Alternative 2. The same mitigation measures that are recommended for the proposed project would be applied to reduce some, but not all, traffic impacts to a less - than - significant level. There would be significant and unavoidable impacts to the Dublin Boulevard/ Dougherty Road intersection during peak hours, the Tassajara Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection during peak hours and the Dublin Boulevard /Fallon Road intersection during the PM peak hour. The proposed Alternative would add vehicle trips to locally congested freeways and this impacts would significant and unavoidable impacts would occur to nearby freeways, similar to the proposed project and Alternatives 2 and 4. Biological Resources: Development under Alternative 3 would have greater impacts to annual grasslands and common wildlife species, since a slightly larger development envelope would need to be created than included in the proposed project. There would also be greater impacts to Moller Creek on the project site and associated wetlands than is expected to occur under the proposed project and Alternatives 2 and 4, since a greater extent of the Moller Creek bank would need to be stabilized. All biological impacts could be mitigated to a less -than- significant level. The same biological impacts would occur with respect to special - status species, wetlands and waters for the Moller Creek culvert replacement portion of the project as would the proposed project, since the same area would be disturbed to allow the replacement. Air Quality: Development under Alternative 3 would result in less intensive air quality impacts than the proposed project since fewer dwellings would be built and fewer vehicle trips would be taken. Less - than - significant impacts are expected with respect to air quality, similar to the proposed project, although supplemental mitigation measures contained in the 2007 SEIR would continue to apply to this Alternative. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 159 City of Dublin September 2012 5.3.4 Alternative 4- Cluster Development The fourth alternative would include development of 380 cluster dwellings on the site, which could be in a series of 3 -unit complexes with parking. The development envelope would be somewhat smaller than that of proposed project. A public park would not be included in this Alternative. The same on -site roadway system would serve the cluster units. The Moller Creek culvert replacement would be part of this project. An analysis of the impacts of the Cluster Alternative is as follows: • Transportation and Traffic: Alternative 4 would result in fewer total daily trips (1,121) than the proposed project as well as fewer AM peak trips (124) and PM peak trips (187) than the proposed project due to the nature of the land use. See Table 5.3. Table 5.3. Alternative 4 v. Proposed Project Trips Residential No. of Units Total Trips AM Peak Trips PM Peak Trips Type Alternative 3 Cluster Attached 380 2,527 162 198 Residential Proposed Project Single Family 381 3,648 286 385 Detached Residential Di erence 1,121 -124 -187 Source: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, 2012 The number of proposed trips would likely result in the same impacts to local and regional roadways and intersections as the proposed project as well as under Alternatives 2 and 3. Supplemental mitigation measures set forth in Section 4.1 would reduce many of these impacts to a less - than - significant level. There would be significant and unavoidable impacts to the Dublin Boulevard/ Dougherty Road intersection during peak hours, the Tassajara Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection during peak hours and the Dublin Boulevard/ Fallon Road intersection during the PM peak hour. Alternative 4 would add vehicle trips to locally congested freeways and this impacts would significant and unavoidable impacts would occur to nearby freeways, similar to the proposed project and Alternatives 2 and 3. Biological Resources: Less grading would occur under this Alternative than the proposed project and the Alternatives 2 and 3, since dwellings would be clustered on the site. Therefore, although impacts would occur to annual grasslands, common wildlife, wetlands and other jurisdictional waters similar to the proposed project and Alternatives 2 and 3, the impacts would be less intensive since less of the site would be disturbed. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 160 City of Dublin September 2012 The same biological impacts would occur with respect to special- status species, wetlands and waters for the Moller Creek culvert replacement portion of the project as would the proposed project, since the same area would be disturbed to allow the replacement. • Air Quality: Alternative 4 is expected to result in somewhat fewer air emissions as the proposed project and Alternatives 2 and 4, since approximately fewer daily automobile number of trips would be generated from clustered dwellings. However, based on the air quality analysis contained in Section 4.3, the amount of development under Alternative 4 would be less- than - significant. 5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126 (d) (4) of the State of California CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the 'No Project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Alternative 1, the No Project/ No Development alternative, would result in fewer and less intensive environmental impacts than the proposed Project and all other alternatives that propose development, since the project area would remain vacant and no development would occur. Therefore, Alternative 1 would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. As between the remaining alternatives, Alternative 2 would result in less traffic, air quality and noise impacts, since less development would be permitted under these Alternatives, where future land uses on the Moller Ranch would include large lot development of 55 dwellings. However, Alternative 2 would disturb the same amount of land area and associated biological resources as the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project and in combination with the remainder of the Eastern Dublin planning area, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts and impacts to significant and unavoidable congestion on nearby regional freeways. None of these Alternatives would achieve the project Objective of developing 382 dwelling units on the Moller Ranch property, although Alternative 4 would allow development of up to 380 attached dwellings on the project site Therefore, none of the other Alternatives would be the next most Environmentally Superior Alternative. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 161 City of Dublin September 2012 6.0 Required CEQA Discussion This section of the DEIR addresses the potential cumulative impacts of implementing the proposed Project, as required by CEQA. 6.1 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are defined by CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.2) as those which taken individually may be minor but, when combined with similar impacts associated with existing development, proposed development projects and planned but not built projects, have the potential to generate more substantial impacts. CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be evaluated when they are significant and that the discussion describe the severity of the impacts and the estimated likelihood of their occurrence. CEQA also states that the discussion of cumulative impacts contained in an' EIR need not be as detailed as that provided for the project alone. A number of cumulative impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Those related to this project include: • Cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands (Impact 3.1/F) • Cumulative degradation of I -580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road (Impact 3.3/A) • Cumulative degradation of I -580 freeway operations between I -680 freeway and Dougherty Road (Impact 3.3/B) • Cumulative degradation of I -580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard Impact 3.3/C) • Cumulative degradation of I -680 freeway operations north of I -580 (Impact 3.3 / D) • Cumulative degradation of I -580 east of Airway Boulevard and between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Boulevard (Impact 3.3/D) • Cumulative degradation of Dublin Boulevard intersections with Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M) • Cumulative degradation of Tassajara Road intersections with Gleason Road, Fallon Road and Transit Spine (renamed to Central Boulevard) (Impact 3.3/N) • Increased solid waste production and impact on solid waste facilities (Impact 3.4 O and P) • Future lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/ E) • Increase in demand for water (Impact 3.5/Q) • Direct habitat loss (Impact 3.7/ A) • Loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat (Impact 3/ 7/ C) • Construction equipment/ vehicle emissions (Impact 3.11 /B) • Mobile source emissions of reactive organic gasses and oxides of nitrogen (Impact 3.11 / C) • Stationary source emissions (Impact 3.11 /E) The Casamira Valley SEIR identified one new or more severe significant supplemental impacts not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This is Supplemental Impact TRA -la, Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 162 City of Dublin September 2012 project contribution to peak hour congestion at the Dublin Boulevard /Dougherty Road intersection during the PM peak hour in the year 2025. The Moller Ranch SEIR has identified new or more severe cumulative impacts not identified in earlier CEQA documents. Many of the following cumulative impacts are deemed more severe than previously identified due to the use of a new traffic model that analyzes impacts to the year 2035, not 2025 as used in earlier EIRs. Cumulative impacts include: • Project contribution to impacts at the Hacienda Drive /Dublin Boulevard intersection during AM and PM peak hours (Supplemental Impact TRA -1 -12) • Project contribution to impacts at the Tassajara Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection during the AM and PM peak hours (Supplemental Impact TRA -4- 12) • Project contribution to impacts at the Tassajara Road /I -580 westbound ramps during the AM and PM peak hours (Supplemental Impact TRA -5 -12) • Project contribution to impact at the Fallon Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection during the PM peak hour (Supplemental Impact SM- TRA- 6 -12). • Project contribution to impacts along Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive during the PM peak hour (Supplemental Impact TRA -8 -12) • Project contributi on to impacts along Tassajara Road between I -580 and Dublin Boulevard (Supplemental Impact TRA -9 -12) • Lack of vehicle storage capacity at the Tassajara Road /Dublin Boulevard under buildout conditions (Supplemental Impact TRA- 10 -12). 6.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less - than - significant level. CEQA requires decision - makers to balance the benefits of a proposed Project against its unavoidable impacts in considering whether to approve the Project. If the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh the anticipated unavoidable impacts, the adverse environmental impacts may be considered acceptable by the Lead Agency. To approve the Project without significantly reducing or eliminating an adverse impact, the Lead Agency must make a Statement of Overriding Consideration supported by the information in the record. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Project, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. (Resolution 53 -93, May 10, 1993.) Pursuant to the recent Citizens for a Better Environment case, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would also be required to address the significant unavoidable impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR and Casamira Valley SEIR that are related to this proposed project. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 163 City of Dublin September 2012 7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted 7.1 Persons and Organizations EIR Preparers The following individuals participated in the preparation of this document. Jerry Haag, Urban Planner (project manager) James West, Kimley Horn Associates (traffic) James Reyeff, Illingworth & Rodkin Associates (air quality) Joshua Carman, Illingworth & Rodkin Associates (air quality) Dr. Pat Bousier, H.T. Harvey Associates (biological resources) Tom Fraser, WRA Associates (biological resources) Sean Avent, WRA Associates (biological resources) Jane Maxwell, Blue Ox Associates (graphics) City of Dublin Staff Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney Michael Porto, Consulting Planner Mark Lander, P.E. City Engineer Jaimee Bourgeois, P.E., Traffic Engineer Tom McCarthy Dublin Police Services Department Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department Applicant Consulting Team Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan Services Andy Byde, Braddock & Logan Services Mark McClellan, McKay & Somps Lisa Vilhauer, McKay & Somps Other Agencies and Organizations Contacted Dublin San Ramon Services District -Stan Kolozdie 7.2 References The following documents, in addition to those included in the Appendix, were used in the preparation of this DEIR and are included by reference herein. Baldwin, BG, DH Goldman, DJ Keil, R Patterson, TJ Rosatti, and DH Wilken (eds.). 2012. The Tepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 164 City of Dublin September 2012 Bobzein, S. and J. E. DiDonato. 2007. East Bay Park District. California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidlelines. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/docs/boconsortium.pdf California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. California Natural Diversity Database. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Sacramento, CA. California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2011. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. March 2012. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2010. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. List of California Vegetation Alliances. Biogeographic Data Branch. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, CA California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2007. List of California Vegetation Alliances. Biogeographic Data Branch. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2003. List of California Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600 -1607, California Fish and Game Code. Environmental Services Division, Sacramento, CA. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal -IPC). 2011. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Online at: http: / /www.cal-ipc.org/ip /inventory/ index.php; most recently accessed: June 2012 Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project(Draft Supplemental EIR Page 165 City of Dublin September 2012 California Native Plant Society. 2012. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8 -01a). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. 2010. Final Draft. Prepared by ICF International. City of Dublin (City). 1992. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Part I, December 7, 1992 and Part II December 21, 1992. . 2002. City of Dublin General Plan. Adopted February 11, 1985 (Updated to February 5, 2005). Community Development Department, Dublin, CA. Available on the Internet at: http: / /www.ci.dublin.caus /Dublin General Planpdf. City of Dublin. 2010b. Heritage Tree Ordinance Regulations. Prepared by the City of Dublin Commurdty Development Department. Available at: www.dublin.ca.gov/brochures/heritagetree eBird. 2012. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Available: http:/ /www.ebird.org. Accessed: June, 2012. ENGEO, Inc. 2003. for the DeSilva Group. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180 -0631. Federal Register. November 13, 1986. Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule. Vol. 51, No. 219; page 41217. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture, 7 CFR 12.31(a)(3)(i). Chan es in Hydric Soils of the United States; Notice of Change. Vol. 59, No. 133.; GretagMacBeth. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts, revised washable edition. Glover, S. 2009. Breeding bird atlas of Contra Costa County. Mount Diablo Audubon Society, Walnut Creek, CA. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 166 City of Dublin September 2012 H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2007. Braddock & Logan Fallon Village Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Project Number 2382 -02. Unpublished technical report prepared for Mr. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan Services, Inc., Danville, California. 26 March 2007. Haag, J. 2007. for the City of Dublin. Jennings, M.R. 1994. An Annotated Check List of Amphibians and Reptile Species of California and Adjacent Waters, third revised edition. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptiles species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. Kochert, M., K. Steenhof, C. McIntyre, E. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila cli?Tsaetos). Pp. 1-44 in A. Poole, F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Vol. 684. Philadelphia: The Birds of North America. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, version 7.0. In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX. NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Conservation Status. Available online at: http: / / www.natureserve.org /explorer/ ranking. Orloff, S. 2007. Migratory movements of California tiger salamanders in upland habitat -a five -year study. Pittsburg, California. Prepared for Bailey Estates, LCC by This Environmental, Inc. May. Remsen, J. V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. Non game Department o Wildlife Investigations Report. 78 -1, California Departf Fish and Game. Reed, Jr., P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: National Summary. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88 (24). Sawyer, J., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Berkeley, CA. Sproul, M. J. and M. A. Flett. 1993. Status of the San Toaquin Kit Fox in the Northwest Margin of its Range. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 29: 61 -69. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 167 City of Dublin September 2012 Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, third edition. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, NY. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2007. "Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus)." <http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/hoary/> Accessed: 6/20/2012. Trenham, P. C. and Shaffer, H. B. 2005. Amphibian Upland Habitat Use and Its Consequences for Population _Viability. Ecological Applications, 15(4), pp. 1158 -1168. Trenham, P.C., W. D. Koenig and H. B. Shaffer. 2001. Spatially autocorrelated demography and interpond dispersal in the salamander Ambystoma californiense. Ecology 82:3519 -3530. Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California bird §pecies of special Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05 -05. Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. December 7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2005. Official List of US Hydric Soils. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0. In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. Web Soil Survey. Online at http:/ /websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov; most recently accessed June 19, 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. Interim Guidance on Site AsGpssment and Field inrvPvR fnr Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 168 City of Dublin September 2012 Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander. October 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. San Toaquin kit fox survey protocol for the northern ranee. Prepared by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. June 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final determination of critical habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus). (65:192 FR October 3, 2000). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Draft Recovery Plan for Chaparral and Scrub Community Species East of San Francisco Bay, California. USFWS, Region 1. Portland, Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red - legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). USFWS, Region 1. Portland, Oregon. viii + 173 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Designation of critical habitat for the California Tiger Salamander, Proposed Rule. Federal Register 70, No. 162. August 23. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Species Lists, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Available online at: http: / /www.fws..aov /sacramento; most recently accessed: June 19, 2012 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red - legged Frog; Final Rule. Federal Register 75(51): 12816 - 12959. Wallace Roberts and Todd. 1994. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Prepared by for the City of Dublin, CA. Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. (WRA). 2002. Biological Assessment of the Casamira Valley Site, Alameda County, California. Prepared for the DeSilva Group, Inc., Dublin, CA. . 2003a. California Tiger Salamander Survey Report, Casamira Dublin, California. Prepared for the DeSilva Group, Inc., Dublin, CA. . 2003b. Delineation of Potential Turisdictional Wetlands Unde 404 of the Clean Water Act, Casamira Valley Project Site, Dublin, Alan County, California. Prepared for the DeSilva Group, Inc., Dublin, CA. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draff Supplemental EIR Page 169 City of Dublin September 2012 2003c. Alameda County. Prepared for the DeSilva Group, Inc., . 2003d. Special Status Plant Survey of Casamira Valley, Dol Alameda County, California. Prepared for the DeSilva Group, Inc., CA. 2003e. Dublin, CA. for the DeSilva Group, Inc., . 2003f. San loaquin Kit Fox Report of Early Evaluation, Casamira Valley, Alameda County. Prepared for the DeSilva Group, Inc., Dublin, CA. Vickery, P.D. 1996. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) In The Birds of North America, no. 239 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California's Wildlife, Volume I -III: Amphibians and Reptiles, Birds, Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 170 City of Dublin September 2012 8.0 Appendices Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Draft Supplemental EIR Page 171 City of Dublin I September 2012 Table of Contents 1.0 Project Summary .......................................... ............................... 1.1 Introduction ................................................... ............................... 1.2 Summary of Project Description ................. ............................... 1.3 Summary of Environmental Issues ............ ............................... 1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................... 1.5 Summary of Alternatives ............................. ............................... 1.6 Areas of Known Controversy ...................... ............................... 2.0 Introduction .................................................. ............................... 2.1 EIR Requirement ........................................... ............................... 2.2 Scope of Supplemental DSEIR .................... ............................... 2.3 Legal Basis of DSEIR ..................................... ............................... 2.4 Organization of DSEIR ................................. ............................... 2.5 DSEIR Review Process ................................. ............................... 3.0 Project Characteristics ................................. ............................... 3.1 Project Location ............................................. ............................... 3.2 Project Area Features .................................... ............................... 3.3 Prior Planning Approvals ............................ ............................... 3.4 Project Applications ...................................... ............................... 3.5 Project Objectives ......................................... ............................... 3.6 Future Actions of the DSEIR ....................... ............................... 4.0 Environmental Analysis ............................. ............................... 4.1 Traffic and Transportation ........................... ............................... 4.2 Biological Resources ...................................... ............................... 4.3 Air Quality ...................................................... ............................... 5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ........................................ ............................... 10 5.1 Alternatives Identified in the ED EIR ........ ............................... 5.2 Alternatives Identified in the 2007 DSEIR ................................. 5.3 Alternatives Identified in the 2012 DSEIR ................................. 5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ....... ............................... 6.0 Required CEQA Discussion ....................... ............................... 6.1 Cumulative Impacts ...................................... ............................... 6.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ......... ............................... 7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted ...... ............................... 7.1 Persons and Organizations ........................... ............................... 7.2 References ....................................................... ............................... 8.0 Appendices ..................................................... ............................... Appendix 8.1 Initial Study .................................... ............................... Appendix 8.2 Notice of Preparation .................... ............................... Appendix 8.3 Responses to NOP ......................... ............................... Appendix 8.4 City Council Resolution No. 53 -93 ............................ Appendix 8.5 City Council Resolution No. 58 -07 ............................ Appendix 8.6 Traffic Impact Analysis (plus attached CD) ............. Appendix 8.7 Moller Ranch Biological Assessment ........................ Appendix 8.8 Moller Creek Culvert Biological Assessment........... Appendix 8.9 Air Quality Data ............................ ............................... List of Tables Table 1.1 Summary of Supplemental Imapcts/ Mitigations ..................... II -1 Table 3.1 Existing v. Proposed General Plan Land Uses .............................14 20 Table 3.2 2007 Approved Land Uses v. Current Request ...........................15 21 Table 4.1 -1. Existing Intersection LOS Summary .............. ............................... 38 Table 4.1 -2. Proejct Trip Generation .................................... ............................... 50 Table 4.1 -3. Existing Plus Project LOS Summary .............. ............................... 52 Table 4.1 -4. Near -Term Intersection LOS Summary ......... ............................... 57 Table 4.1 -5. Long -Term LOS Summary .............................. ............................... 61 Table 4.2 -1. Special- Status Plant Species .............................. ............................130 27 Table 4.2 -2. Special - Status Wildlife Species ......................... ............................135 28 Table 4.3 -1. Relevant California and National Air Standards ......................145 25 Table 4.3 -2. Highest Measured Air Pollutants .................... ............................146 26 Table 4.3 -3. Air Quality Significance Thresholds ............... ............................149 27 Table 4.3-4. Constriction Period Emissions ........................ ............................151 76 Table 4.3 -5. Daily Pollutant Operational Emissions ....... ............................... 152 Table 4.3 -6. Annual Air Pollutant Emissions ...................... ............................152 78 Table 5.1. Alternative 2 v. Proposed Project Trips .......... ............................157 79 Table 5.2. Alternative 3 v. Proposed Project Trips .......... ............................159 80 Table 5.3. Alternative 5 v. Proposed Project Trips .......... ............................160 81 List of Exhibits Exhibit 3.1 Regional Location ............................................ .............................19 Exhibit 3.2 Site Context ..................................................... ............................... 20 Exhibit 3.3 Culvert Replacement Location ..................... ............................... 21 Exhibit 3.4 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations ......................... 22 Exhibit 3.5 Existing EDSP Land Use Designations ....... ............................... 23 Exhibit 3.6. Preliminary Culvert Design .......................... ............................... 24 Exhibit 3.7 Existing Stage 1 Development Plan ............. ............................... 25 Exhibit 3.8 Preliminary Grading Plan ............................. ............................... 26 Exhibit 3.9 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations ....................... 27 Exhibit 3.10 Proposed EDSP Land Use Designations ..... ............................... 28 Exhibit 3.11a Proposed Stage 1 Development Plan .......... ............................... 25 Exhibit 3.11b Proposed Stage 2 Development Plan .......... ............................... 26 Exhibit 3.12 Proposed Vesting Tentative Map ................ ............................... 27 Exhibit 4.1 -1 Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Control ............................ 76 Exhibit 4.1 -2 Existing Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ................... 77 Exhibit 4.1 -3 Existing Roadway Volumes ......................... ............................... 78 Exhibit 4.1 -4 Project Generated Traffic Volumes .............. ............................... 79 Exhibit 4.1 -5. Existing Plus Proposed Traffic Volumes .... ............................... 80 Exhibit 4.1 -6. Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Volumes .................. 81 Exhibit 4.1 -7. Near -Term Plus Project Turning Movement Volumes............ 82 Exhibit 4.1 -8. Long -Term + Project Peak Turning Movement Volumes....... 83 Exhibit 4.2 -1. Moller Ranch Habitat Map ............................ ............................139 Exhibit 4.2 -2. Moller Ranch Special- Status Plant Species .. ............................140 Exhibit 4.2 -3. Moller Ranch Special- Status Wildlife Species .........................141 Exhibit 4.2 -4. Moller Creek Vegetation Communities ....... ............................142 1.0 Project Summary 1.1 Introduction This chapter consists of a summary of the proposed project, a list of environmental issues to be resolved and a summary identification of each environmental impact and associated mitigation measure. This summary should not be relied on for a thorough description of the details of the project, its individual impacts and mitigation requirements. A discussion of the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act to the proposed project is outlined in Chapter 2 as well as the history of previous EIRs within the project area. Chapter 3 contains a detailed discussion of the proposed project. Chapter 4 includes an analysis of project impacts and mitigation measures. Chapter 5 provides a range of alternatives to the proposed project as required by CEQA and a discussion of each alternative. Chapter 6 contains all other CEQA- mandated sections. Finally, Chapter 7 includes the names of the DSEIR preparers, individuals and agencies contacted in the preparation of this document and references. Technical appendices are included as Chapter 8. 1.2 Summary of Project Description Project location. The project is located in the northern area of the Eastern Extended Planning area of the City of Dublin as identified in the Dublin General Plan. More specifically, the Moller Ranch portion of the project area is located on the east side of Tassajara Road and north of the Fallon Crossing property. The Alameda County boundary line with Contra Costa County forms the northerly boundary of the project, The Moller Creek replacement culvert is located south and west of the Moller Ranch property. Moller Ranch project. The proposed project would affect the 226.3 -acre Moller Ranch project site. At buildout, the Moller property would contain up to 382 single - family detached dwelling units on lots of various sizes within an area of approximately 79.6 acres of the site. In addition to single - family dwelling units, the project would be developed with an approximately 1.1 -acre neighborhood park, 1.2 acres of Semi - Public land use including trails and a staging area, infrastructure, and a system of bio- retention cells for storm water pollution control. Approximately, 136.8 acres of the site would be zoned as Rural Residential/ Agriculture and remain as permanently undeveloped open space. Approximately 7.6 acres of the site would be designated as Open Space. Open space areas would be owned and maintained by a combination of a proposed homeowners' association and a GHAD (geologic hazards assessment district). The applicant for Moller Ranch project is Braddock & Logan Services. Moller Creek culvert replacement. The project would also include the replacement of an existing 50 -year old Tassajara Road culvert over Moller Creek with a new culvert structure. This portion of the project is being proposed by the City of Dublin. In anticipation of local and regional population growth and residential development and increased use of Tassajara Road included in the Dublin General Plan and adjacent jurisdictions, the Tassajara Road is proposed to be eventually widened from two lanes (current configuration) to six lanes (ultimate width). Currently Tassajara Road crosses over Moller Creek over a corrugated metal pipe culvert approximately 9 feet in diameter and with a length of 140 feet. Current conditions of Moller Creek include incised creek banks, a steep longitudinal profile, and bank instability progressing through the Tassajara Road crossing. The current culvert does not allow any wildlife passage on Moller Creek across Tassajara Road as a drop of over 9 feet exists on the downstream end of the culvert. The culvert replacement would include a realignment of Moller Creek in the described location along with energy dissipating features, elimination of fish barriers and inclusion of wildlife paths through the arched culvert. The arched culvert is designed with a length of approximately 230 feet and a 26 -foot span. The design is proposed to include a series of cobble and boulder weirs within the culvert designed to accommodate fish passage and benched edges designed for wildlife access along Moller Creek and under Tassajara Road. Proposed actions would also align and grade portions of Moller Creek and its banks both upstream and downstream of the new arched culvert. Bioengineered erosion protection measures would be installed along the banks and within the creek channel. Additionally the proposed culvert would be designed to allow for accommodation of a 100 -year flood under Tassajara Road. 1.3 Summary of Environmental Issues As provided by the California Environmental Quality Act statues and implementing Guidelines, the focus of this Draft Supplemental EIR ( DSEIR) will be on changed environmental conditions contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2007 Casamira Valley SEIR. These issues include those identified in the Initial Study and responses from other public agencies received in response to the Notice of Preparation issued by the City of Dublin. These areas of environmental concern include: Transportation and Transportation Biological Resources Air Quality 1.4 Summary of Supplemental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Each potentially significant impact and associated mitigation measure (if required) identified in this DSEIR is summarized on Table 1.1. The summary chart has been organized to correspond with the more detailed supplemental impact and mitigation measure discussion found in Chapter 4. Table 1.1 is arranged in three columns. The first column identifies supplemental environmental impacts by topic area and level of impact(i.e. significant impact, less- than- significant impact or no impact) prior to implementation of any mitigation measures. The second column includes supplemental mitigation measures. The third and final column identifies the level of significance after implementation of each mitigation measure. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 1- 2 City of Dublin September 2012 For a complete description of the environmental setting, summary of impacts from previous EIRs, supplemental impacts associated with this proposed Project and supplemental mitigation measures, refer to Chapter 4 of this DSEIR. 1.5 Summary of Alternatives The DSEIR analyzes four new alternatives in addition to those previously considered in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These are: 1) a "no project /no development" alternative; 2) a "no project/ development under existing ECAP land use regulations within the unincorporated portion of Alameda County" alternative; 3) a large lot development alternative; 4) an attached housing alternative. These alternatives are detailed and analyzed in Chapter 5 of the DSEIR 1.5 Areas of Known Controversy No know areas of controversy exist with respect to this project. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement ProjecVDraft Supplemental EIR Page 1- 3 City of Dublin September 2012 O N G 10 r N y N V N .d N ro V G b � 6q O 'C� v V �a V� a� ro � O C O W G � vQ v G N 3l O o N O N v b N �y R F � w� G OD G [ m W W Q) m za N � a a v rp v P G v is C v v 7 00 ,L. O v y v i 'O COO N N q� p E p T sC aJ g 3 Oy 7 m v o C v V 3 rs o 6. T'O rUJ w Li. C4 0 U x w o x_ O C i o .0 v L+ N o o x o N O F O •p O T d bo " C vi v m o � E 7 ++ C G op O N O y w w v L c c v i F O 7 v m �C R G •O � Y � a ca y � =O 'O LU. E 6 Y cc u o c v 3Z� o o ° L bO C G '� ,°O O N ° L. C 'C o O 'u m C O 'O 0 V O •.. P p] S 0 o F. L u .v ,C L � o p •O v u m m w v a c o m p v= 7 G C v v fy C C O 'L 'Q > w U H O c.q P:x.SQ ::w 3 dv a� °rov x.S 0. ri N Cq� C O i � V dv 7 � y u z a V h RI d c O i C v E' v G. d 7 z a a� K d d C]. O V 'a F a E 6 v M 'C � rs C V a W m m C G C � °D 'm a CA N N V 4 0 w E C rs � G m � O N d u •L W V 0 10 CL O O R C L9 C u L L IA G n1 rs v `C �D 00 Q w V N 4 b CC 'C .bo'L G rs p0. G v O v N 'O v C y •rs .0 M-0 7 v o s G �° C. v Q i .0 0.' w .L o �, O LO O bo C4 N O C: V w G Q u m R W rs n. '-� o u v a O 'fl ,C 7 A 'O7 O 'v6 r1 N a G v 'aC+ N .�', R v C .y O .'CV+ O P. b v 7 L W v 'o 'cLi ru t x 3 v m 0 o G v u o rs° o v v u m v o 0 a' G v� 7 oA m b N o vC i i 0 -0 m d rs 0. G y o p v G W rs N O O u 7 E -O v "' [J y 4 O I W O rs O yrs, C O R. N u W' 'O .0 N � N Q F F E N N O y N ro d E E m n a� U ro c N E n n 7 QN U N 'o I c U ro Od m C J U Mill L C U C CU 2 U O a0+ C m o` �a � 4.1 Y za E CJ N GJ a O. R u t7 C ° E a 7 d H u a E CO N 0 4, N ro � d E E ° a m c 0 0 O U y C R m u to c c n R � R x w UI Y N � 1/J � a a T p u H O m °1 o °� N N _ C F N L CL O U R C V R C b u y vR. O OD w C ++ 2 ND 0 i ° a C7 y w E E L O O w O y O E CO 0 0� O O ."' E u O O C R y R w C Y O R R v O w y R u 0 Y° Y y L u N p r Y w '� 0.'WM N R h C L O L O C i m Cp y o o E w 7 a W c c o m °' Q cis o m °' p - � .,`. o. °u F 3 '� ° U w R v 'L o on y c w o o c a o w o w E v y 0 0> U E m .v U y C •• x -E 'L5 Y Q. w ,L .O •vp v Y h p y> u W E Q cn m a CO p C> E j C °u NN v R> E d R v M rus C 'a R o . 7- 0' 3 p G s � v o E R 0 u -0 O E O -0 E , .0 > T7 1 w 44 C LD 4: u '� p C O O O° w .L L O O C N Y O p" v 'L C: F°1u v C b In i vuw! > to w v o o o v= c " w w> O u CL w v >, W p W . i a o C 3 K' O w Y 'y, box o v m ° u v E s A ° o p w o c° m C w' °v L w �. F_ Q C.. F Q Q N p'i N PI N H b n 4W F H F CO N 0 4, N ro � d E E ° a m c 0 0 O U F O y 4R.1 CO d d E� a� O y z V d ca z o. E r1 L C b0 C d E d a a 7 h u o. E C d E .d. a O u O a U a E C C m V m V �n m A W A M N N V V 1, I, •G O w w 'O H N m .L o N C ° fl. C am. Y v o y 'A E u x uNi G ° 'b F 3> •y .v.. O v tv. R. O C N U v O O :c C A 'p A 00 N O V O G w C v O '� ° u v A 0 F- N C O p y W m C A .� 3 V G O r a� T" E V �. v 0❑ v� IV m �•• O v u O G> m� w N W v p O v v A Y m w 0.A W a v E v v> 'o s. y CL C Q v 07 p v OA O m Y v e0 C .� O C bo U m p 00 C ° m �J A .E A ,� Q y N L °�" O F A U F v �.^ 7 OY ,p F• pr G Q C 9 v to o.ay �' '� m '� G m °u m O ° n. 3 y WE m U C °u cn 0.m .$ n. 0 m° m Np., C] Y E 0 B R: E rs !a o v m C m Y C r0 C A G .O r u� F- E N°av o. o y u y 0� 0 Q C a m �p > E n. 0. on o. . F w 'D 0 E °, G C .0 w m C r Y o .. N V d O C y j y v s C .L v "' m m fA v P7 Q .F ° •[ m C p .�' C N C W 00. Q O .O 'Q O 7 O. O G m A > v O 'm O O v w v o C OD d m R in p N C d 'p Y •O m y v .v rte. v o v > O C ... v o m v c o W 0 L6 ^' o .p 3 a m m .a Ci 4 Y .° c ° v° a v° a 0 C Z 3 CL N N •r a C � F F V N N d m N d d 0) n c a J O U 9 E 0 c u] 0 O C7 R G � u E� ad o, w o � d � z a E r L 7 H v O i C a. d V cz Q E V C E a CL w 0 a u a E LO N N N EM a a E n m c a O U v m b O r+ > b m V � c 'v en c m c m m W C y � OA rd d� o v v.nv c i+i O m v y Cl..14 9 Cm 0 ° 0 O m G L y ' O E u h m � W _ y C O Q OGD O u m m G m m °U .0 'D N a0 y d w C .Q Y ��-• EA Y GO C V G 'D i �v s Oa 3 F m p, v o cn m vl L N v y m V N en .F C m bo m 'd 'O o 0 'a 13 °° ay. O v E o 2 O m (� N N 0 o\ �_ O v p CO V P y N L Y° m> w Y 41 Y o w Ya a. a m o v a E °_' ° In °U .n v W 'm 2 7 0 G O F vmi 0.2 O U r E LN N u a 7 O 5 L <UC m '6 O vcy o g F„ E b `u v bo d cn O m Y m a C Y y v m v E m 1A S 0 o v v _ m N m 'C O a a L] s ° a o s°°° u o a eo N � N r-I rl n N H ro LO N N N EM a a E n m c a O U C O � v C •� u E� W o. d a ,r d � O. E y �d O i7 b0 C W d d COD u u m C. E rr C u W a a 0 0 F u D. E T-W N N cn a a E W CL W co c a O U W O a O N G Q R v H v O OG O a N U W O N T G G a C N N C r C i �' A G •0 7 a, C D. tli a W r A y G y g O m M u .O aNm. u0 •t w s d q G y Q. —CL. C Q O G cGJ h V 0, O G 'OC p G m CL m 1° C G O N G C" N W y a 7 CF F m W .G _ b o CL N i n o E 2 .`�. ,c, m E .n p, °' E a .� w �' o °' v A° ° .E ¢ W o V w v E N° W o a aW s o W a `n s0 3 r N c .n 'E N o s F •o y p u U' G W a y c W o as o o u C m'L °.y o N c a Z E 3-G F' � O i C• 'N U �' O U YJ v W G E m N m m C N W O ,� c ,O ,., W� G a W •O E a o ep a 7 0 CO._ 1O E v W o v G Iz: m m y t C vEi m C. •cs v v W 14 (.7 �> a� 3 E a ep v �:a vs3 vs3 E us v "oE0.- mcmmwE� E Ea Q ¢ n.Ea�vv cnavw�u: «o T-W N N cn a a E W CL W co c a O U C O � V G E S� o Q w a+ a+ z a E L 7 N 0 bA V d E a a 7 a G O E d 0. a C a O F u m 6 E h N O O N rn ltl � a E N a N C a O U C m V c A v y y C y 'yl C .° �w m V 0 V A a L v w O. y m Gl n. 4 ^' N v o N L b0 > O U W C Y I. .O 0. m G 0 4 O_ C p s G CL C m ^. 4. m C m m ..r C A C 0 0 O :O i P O n. w p ey W p .O C, w u m o '° E E, E °: o m •G :n m m y 3 0 0 C O° c 'w V ; C m E_ 'b +� S C U U O. EmO ,COO F u COO m o C m °� ° r E m O w E .L E C: C. C y m .H Cn m X CD 'o d o v v v ° E E_ m G C 0� v O0 s° w E m y Q' o 0 i s E w c D.C. o aEi �- FL^ n. E > O> m Q Cs. b m 0 ,� ?� •C v :• m 0 C°p p L N ,C V o _u C O of O m CO .- O C C W N E C 'C a y A COO C` n''CO 0 0 30 N a d 0 m • • aym. ,0, ❑ 0 m vy n°°E°g`E; oUaU VrWmu °mo o CL a n. E E E uo s v a c CL vw v m V S y O 0 O O q N H 'C G m m r in o 0 0 0 n o '- °' V i 7 O m G o o.: 0 u v C L E m CL N rl N m h N O O N rn ltl � a E N a N C a O U m `o W C O y b00 C u d� aw 7 Q � r+ 4A u d z a. E d `o ar 0 d d a a a V a r.w y G d E a nJ' V 0 u R a E p� N i r N N co .0 Q- E a n a _C J 0 O U n w c co G R i v w o v v N � i v a O L L C E B E o E E A Oo v e N R o R a� _ 33bo °N d ac R° u3o 0 E °— p6�- �e3�Nc°y�� M ° m a m e m .L .v a o n m b r C E y A H C Cp E L C v F u G C E C y y d o« y R« R bo m- W '.r' CL rw O N W v M> u C 7 O V GU «p.wR O 0.- OWQ,A �VUO�E 3 NEoEvE3v°r�a >muraa� rL o m v ° •� u '� A .R 12 E w o D. .° c o u r o y u a E N v ay y hN A 0. O d N 'o S y N N u d G A r 00 t'O'J m p0b 'i L 3 3 °� _ ' O w 0 'O t o V C S O N R R u v a u 'O C .60 C R in Lam' w 'L ro L N N 7 ti Q ppO 4 R to d O A 7 C5 — p .E aRi 0 19 r R O NN E �j 3 4 ,L w o v v o 'v" ° N N ° �:8 E 3 a L s o s v R V a 'O 'C L ��o! cam_c o R OO R « Op N raj QQC U C G •O � E` C 7 � S L O" R a w .E O U O G E •° 3 -C ti p O. O 3 R y� p R. w L V v°i y � m« c C ° E '7 .E p P u° AcJ y 7 v m G G ayi G t.0o O R y O Q. O A °" r.0 O C 'O d 'O d u R y N N '1 m IM p� N i r N N co .0 Q- E a n a _C J 0 O U A fJ E e u� `o G 0 C V d ^ d u N � y u za L u G O cya C u v d 7 V d M-1 G d _ LL 4 a u O .! u n d ME -o O N c CL E N 0 N c a O O U C b N v a E G u °° 3 u v 0 m 0 _ t° c ro ro b S C1 G >` v v P N CO G v i N N G o y x 'c o °° 0 3 B L m G v ecu'6 m o o 0� a �� to v '• '� ,v° �' '7 rJ C '° v u o .� O G �' °° d ° v ..0 ro '� u su � `� ia 0 'y d N 'v V --a a v b E 3 s 3 v y c 0 m p .> v.0 V 'LS CL � CL fn 41 f�/1 p N U � W a= o N G U N� V ro 41 w ° CL v t_ G ro O N c v T v 5 V bow 7 o ro v a o b b u o 7 'c v vii y ° ° c 3v [G ME -o O N c CL E N 0 N c a O O U !Ctl 3 E 0 0 A G O w ro d E� d 7 � V zc° d E rr H y R d O ern v E d CvV d ri d a c O H a E D a b i +'�• v .v. y �' c Y. A 7 v .> O a o °° E v v n o v a ;: �• >, •y `� r `L° 7 W o a� m .. v •o h w a w� -a° � o. m O N O L v L C b G m N N a 0 v0i y O p m G 0 i O v 3 .v O of _v C 'au G O m u 'c° m c u o m °�° o v n C aG o ao a m xa E v v O n L CJ O .0 L G u 'L c y a eq v o N b u 'D p C G v 'p .Y. po a E `� w 'yO > L u G .? vY. G A Y O• L C b '°° m v q y O t0 > a N N ig v v u w Y CL 3 v ni v m v C a v O •D 'C (n U 7 > v E a v0i C c 'V 4 V }v, v c u a E H y r0 v a 3-.c v 3 > o R' O N O = N N � O) n a E m n ro L n c0 c Q) E N a n m U 4J 0 IL m E co a v Q r U zill t c m � a: o � U c u� I P G 0 u to a v E� u a; aw a -,t a+ �•' y u Z a d 4 A v O C v E a C u R a E rti a d E d a a 0 'a 0 H u L: a E E N N a E w ro c a� E m a a U) O U N O '.1 C E U ro a ro 0 N N E ro oa ro r m U t c_ c � ro � � O p� O 0.- m U G1 o_ m N u h y .. [-• O C v G O x O N v O v w OA xL i s > i~ > v C u C E C y y y O t0 W g G > •O C o� m N Q G v .,G, .G �' : m� v �, v i ^4 y E v C b v v, •O a'.. v 3 N y u °) Q 7 O u C N R G C v O aaY A 3� o cc o o i- a y �_ „.E a 7> a o ¢•� o Y c o-a E ¢• a ao o c F v 0. II v x v 4 C o v v° U o m a Q c E on a w .0 ''� v o. v> t'W G v .K rr vvr o 'N c m O C> >O L V N]„ N Y Q Y i L O u G OEvO W-0 'v CL co E° r m °' °u n1 o f OD v rJ °'. -5 E u s U v v Q ° O x C ui cn N N a E w ro c a� E m a a U) O U N O '.1 C E U ro a ro 0 N N E ro oa ro r m U t c_ c � ro � � O p� O 0.- m U _O y D�0 d d y � d za E L !r rm 0 u G d d a m a E C d E d d 0 u 0 V a E N_ N N N N �m a� E UJ a N V) T. n m C N o. n Qm V O EL N E m a r 7 U U C C cu N O o � U G V w C Oq rs w a a G N o, v o .N fl. G c v oD u m L 3 r c v i p m O w w v T •• > Ln m ti 't.,� v T W .� O o w rs > O •O rs .m, p E v o T wo y v W C U N rGS O "' y +rJ' 't 0 0. c 'a v 6. Z N E O aYm, v w y 7 G > G R m •a I L •O 9 0 L v N �. G G m N V) L .L. O„ i •p t° i >> v 0. in O m y v m m ." u L p _R E P. O O ..v. .O w W w 0 N U N bo m> to d CL G >' '• w m v vvi 0. 8 0 y .a O > v w CL 6 a o amp m vii m EL E u h .a .5 3 �9 u a a' A z C G E rs a W o R O .x i •L w i U o Yt u. V 7 >' m A> ,a 7� ti v m L p• tp vi O� `^ u w w G L Qr�' 0 U w 0. O v 12 rs m OD G 00 7 G u m m >. y R b a. G C w C '? U,2 m 0 O o `.9 wv .'v' M Z cvO m W> w m w C 0. L F R N H O N_ N N N N �m a� E UJ a N V) T. n m C N o. n Qm V O EL N E m a r 7 U U C C cu N O o � U h E r E 0 W C O CJ Rf G u E� C� d� V V y u z" a E 4 7 N 0 C d d d c 0 d E H d E d d a V 'aa O a u F a E M N 0 = N N � m CO E N CL N C_ Z J O T a C ro V W m G b v a C ,ai C m y o o a° y r s a 3 y U O 6. O o N E C .D 'O G u i00 N G C v W O C 0 7 E i V iW ° V C r U N o oo v a° cn3 > p L G v o o4 0. w O 'Q O O U °U d C E '° U �.• � � .E C O O N aNi� 2yt mC o u sv. m N v O y O G U H v v m G a `O C ° m a o m E 3 m Q O.. m L OO u °�; N `u °.; m o o ro o •-• m ro y w in 'h C y C4 m V p R A _ ro C a s c C r m G 3C4 m y m E °.coF• w � �vp m L V V> y 0._ O u 0 N 0 `-° o v o c V .v w O O m m m m w ro y� G CL c oo 0 .¢ G `L" m o V L du b r1.L U i S C E t6 N N e m M N 0 = N N � m CO E N CL N C_ Z J O T a L s E 0 c C O 4W C4 00 d r a� 7 Q 4.1 U d za E rr L 0 w C 0 Irl a C w E d GL 0 V V a E C E w a a O F u m a E O .O 3:3 u w > > u w 0 w m G w yam+ � 0. en x i v c o v m bo .� o .o .J � p y OD w G 0 L L N v m a m ti o r G v w u R c >� p. m O N 0 R N °' ° 0 w a c v ° o. y eo F v C w 0 o ° 3 '0 ° a oC p � w .a E f ,a G c H o ED " m G 7 p w p C 0. v O ow. C 0- O� w m > � G E m w > O W E G Q'RE n V) O 'O yj p O p iW m i„ N m O V ep > f+. G :A 3 CL O C O O p; C 6 mQ Rm =V .° `m m m 3 m o w Pi Q W Una b vOi a m v C ai w 'O E w O 7 � y O 3,n;. v '^ � A � p V v U W E v 0 a m N v. Y v y7j O A y V N O N w a E 0 CL w U 9 B a> E w n CL J ca m w .a .m c w E d U N 0 N Q r w C) U L C ¢ O T) O � U G O cJ W C v E a, c„ o Q y 4.1 u z4 e rl L O N d 0 to C w e 0. CL 0 u R 0. E C w E 0. 0. d F u n a E LO N O N d N a E a m r. IN m c E a) n CL U) -- N O a` c O E U m as fr r U W U C ca 0 cc U o o � U C C n m V w .Vi w c c on en m in C � y r V1 N d w a a .. O'yL A A O O CA 0 N N E wx v G 0 W v T'3 x w w b O w 3 p� y = 3booyv 3 w O w y U) c o o N w Om X u ii Cb o > w 0 coG u w vV � 'aO 7 �m m O O V w 0 'D G S m , O0.7 C C 0-0 � O m o m o m 0 a O A O w0~ "O 0 .V to x A ° vOi m w U v 0 3 m 'm E ww 3 c v rn u i p1 ° i c o E L > w m o m O 'O 7 �+ N G >` w w .0 G A v C o L w O u w yp w w '.0 V w ,, o m 3 �i ,, a y G m wo_ vsw. 0 u o E o- $ c y° C m .a m O- E E v F° N w x E o N 0 i h O' 4M'� w w W 0 x 7 V 'O u O �-+ (A.. G> CL m o >' 0 y 0 O w 'O U m w w .O E F 3 m w v W O ° G 3 E i h n -'- n. Q 0 w o °w° o w u Ep £ woo c c o c o 0 O ,� `� o O p x o O N 3 .E 0 3 A ?� G u -O O '6 y 0. 7 0. w C G m w A y W T._ 0.Y O .O `� A 0. ice.. b m ,L O x E >0.W�"H�v�ov�>, my tidmvmn 'o a y E E 3° w 0. a o E b c 2 E ow v r 0 n .E N N N O O m m LO N O N d N a E a m r. IN m c E a) n CL U) -- N O a` c O E U m as fr r U W U C ca 0 cc U o o � U AI C „I O c a � d c v E °Q Ip Y Y zV E n Q � d U y U y u O h ° O O � O C C o y U S day d a u m E Y d a d F u d E (O N O = N N (L `E a � CL fn c n O J eo V a m^ A E = 0 E ° 0 v>ai�3v� s o 0 _ 3 �v O O m G 9 w ""' T O v w O a C L — bo O C ° ..'7 C L v tC6 w y •> N 0. ... �+ m H H 3o 3o .0 d W r O °� = N•4.u..' ° a w 3G m YJ t b m m O O. O C t wu � 7� C A m C N C y� p u �".. y N O] 'O .O W c L m m N O° �^ o u N O a U 'Eu lw •O N 'm aw-_ G.0 O y O i 'O O i vi A w �ma 000. ..,G P.o.c C ag3 v W. O m .0 �On R 'D y C u C C ry O L0 i �. w L 'vq� j Q. p i C w C P 0 C c N in o o G m O.v > aC A'C i Y; u-O Jc p0 �7 O u0 o O GO C R v O N o G C '� p,'Cf res L .� CL 'C CO C .fl N a. A wrL O N E > v u m D,Ob W> C'O > W w +v+ A a y Xi ° Go E Ewa 3c�i .,t-f 'L y c s m G .., ra . w m 0_A y�i'v3v�3RV .� a'� °- Hv�A =j OQ A mC +A. 0 C 7 'O u .D E O A m m c° O W O .r' Y> .E 7 C 0 m °1 L o m a cc a 'L .0 0.m 0. C m 1 .O D.. '' 7 'p a, cc °O mx�'h cc°..°i�p�aaov00E2'¢.nuy m mQ v m�� V � ] w T•� G u E � '� 'Z •L E 7 v C �30oam O 0 up. N d C C y �`• u�i .,0. C G ° o 0 n. o m L° 2 C m L O n T U a 0 AY w b n.cs 0 U E E R o ° A 3 a N H rn 0 m (O N O = N N (L `E a � CL fn c n O J rz § )/ §2 \� ƒk / \ \ � \ / ) k ƒ \ §2Z )j) \� \� (\ \\ \: `B Bg /7E §&» /_ ,a U) » I \j \ \L e 2} ) \ {3 ${ E$Q} - =()a k)w} } }\ \6 \� \� G = § =7 \ §2Z )j) \� \� (\ \\ \: `B Bg /7E §&» /_ ,a U) » I /§ Q / cl CL CD CL \ ( cr ( 22 \\ \j \ \L e 2} ) \ {3 ${ E$Q} \ k)w} } }\ ! o =,j5 \ \�C \ � \ /§ Q / cl CL CD CL \ ( cr ( 22 \\ ®a\ e } \ \ \ \ \� ± �(k%\ \ \ {/ /§ Q / cl CL CD CL \ ( cr ( 22 \\ a A O G O c• E � u du u u z a IOi C u C O y A-� w C .di d u a 1.3 C m u a �a F `u a E p N m .0 d E a m c a 7 0 O C u G 00 C R i h v a 3 3 R c c c N O A•� v C � v c w .� w .n i y u '� o v 'O w cRi C m ts o 0 P.. m 'd v O> L i/i N� �O y G L N Q vN n S'�., d •a N N A N m y� 4� 0 'y K Gl N 4 �i O N Gl i iJ A y W 'L7 y Vf 61 0 R 7 i O' v] m �Q O .N N p p0 u Y R v A y 0 'p N y > d V O G 0 O m' 7` C v �` K 7 u d u C C R r+ .- 0 •n '0 •`.`3 d p4 C A L R V .L �"-'" A .v '00 .r'1. •.m vi 00 R O m d t0' ol O i v L �% R d R u. '� y .L N 4 d C1 R O �' N R u R W N O O N a 4 R m a G 00 O L N r R ti A ti A V 61 4 O R YOl O CL Vl 7 Tl OD u ,C V pp L n. o O 4.� o i v C w v � v v� v v o v o u o C7 C C7 w u ... 7 u � G � E o s N N d O m p N m .0 d E a m c a 7 0 O 0 a_ qCj w r E N � E � � J y y � y u E z d n c � O L � y cs u ti O C E pip d c � O CNC U F 'n d c a 0 m u O.. E K u E u a d 7 u 0 n a E .IRM C) N N � O) � a E N n d C 0 0 U C C y C m m m V V U W W W Z F F G .IJ V i fn y N h V! H I� F� o u m C 79 R L A° o N a- 0 G 0 O fy a. in RF O} vO� N u W X 'm" IJ ❑ bA d 'Y _V 'c gym, a°i CL 0 o w m s um in W ti W Np R L d o aL+ L N v� L r+ G X N O R L ti N O1 p R 0 ° 'C °u oyV, ..VV, OO Ol w0 v d .G [ c 4 m R yi 'UO '� 'd E O C p°' Pl 72 m CL p U U 0.l m w 0 n. CL M n °. c o N m y ° o m v m R oc o N° o `a° c E p u ° a m ° r�, R R o 3 m p .0 7 m > c v y o c 0 °? .d V v ai v u u 7° u L N R 4 U c E° U E E V R V N CL N N N rl r1 rl N N N � � 0 co w m .IRM C) N N � O) � a E N n d C 0 0 U w 0 O e0+ � u d w w d � z a E L� h Cdr •a° a� ow .J. V a E C u E a cn cn U_ d F U 6 E b y m R O sOVr R o 0 0. C. V C) yj via y Cl O A rt m v uL° u u m OD N Eboa . i R 6 m o 60 � A G w C 6 '� 'D m m o .N CL o °u° y z c A C O U v H O u0. s o R 0. o u o. o w? ll-a 0.'a cn Vii V Q. m G E G 0 .� O6 X. a d v u Q i av 0. NR, o m u b d C 0.7 O_H v A� jAU+ C 0 4Hi i 'Q E u G R V N D.. p w y 0 0 w� .p R •y y 7 b i 0 u d u > WO 0 0. O. Wo w Pi C G g i HE .2 G y cnn m N '1 'a 1H is u u 0 H p Y vav�v��mE� v R G ao m;c n.vH u0 7 0 p s G G vmi 4 O. b u 0.d ti i c m o O N N 0 = N 0a a E m d m c a O U 9 O O O G d � d61 w 7 Q' y u Z c d L R �d G O ro b0 V �i d O a a t V a E a� G O E d as a 7 U O To u m d E .-- N N = N N c a a m U n td C N E ° a a U) Qf0 a N O n c E m m N r N C) U co oC U C c cc U � O o � U ° v ° v 'LOD y zi C 7 i C G C O> i > G m d v O b a c O 0 n °, 3- a a ei F b ry �n m u v y C o f0 v m C ..vv, G m CO u s .�+ v� v .v. 9° .vi.. .L E E 2 w E E CO °V ti 'in ti °v °° h U .-- N N = N N c a a m U n td C N E ° a a U) Qf0 a N O n c E m m N r N C) U co oC U C c cc U � O o � U 0 C O aRi � C w +' u u z oa E L R V C u d a 7 u a E C w m a O `n a E N N N 0 N O CD a E .N. CL U) c a 7 0 A C � A A .� Cu OA � ❑ q b N ,y VJ y v w > 'C is O cc N b O m > Ui 'O 'Z:.° y Gl R N d E O y 9 w° >>.d` C O 4, 'O ED vi !?. ON v C L 0 w rG ,w, 'dy NC> 10 07 ayRw ov G O w G O N o W3 O y °Go '� A c c s v °N m o C'O L y L — >,-a o td R r C > O ° m'= C 00E -° rr A�Fp m w �O O O v CL '0 . X v O w Q 0 N v« >''" G> p w 7 C [ o p ao c o ^' oc mv'y� o« rod w fV w 0.E >,•T°+ W a C mN V N.'.' � w w �p'Ew > E9> F e-v« L L U� C A w w— N'^ y.° L.O 0- O C a'O 3 v eDb G°Dy >,G v p v .� 'm., I OA o.�v w A��ywo � N wvGO cwEy:c w mwb� °uHOV °>,Q.w.c3v�c�. o^H a� «E v�D v n U) m n CO C n R R tu Z C C N w R w L b w 'L Do. a° on m c o c G c bi vLV. o w c c w o « '`a° .R Lo u bo O « A R L O O 0A O L E p CL 0 7 L 0 o': m b 'L u E :n « F v o> r x. wyA+ E N ° a w o E O^ CO ,R u y -m A 'O^ w W X P v 'O 'w X > O w °- A L V v v v m° > y R u w— w x w m u i n w E o of T pp to G U L ,v C N N ?+ C CL N v E 'm L O v .0 p, bc p 'd >_ c m m R N N N N O p ro a� N N N 0 N O CD a E .N. CL U) c a 7 0 A kk ƒk ] k ) ] ) \ \ ) \ ƒ \ /E Q ca \ ( ( )/ k}k22 §) E[ §§®!\ �(( \� \} § E= a@52m�c! 4 >72J$:a /E Q ca \ ( ( )/ 2.0 Introduction 2.1 EIR Requirement This Environmental Impact Report supplements two Environmental Impact Reports prepared to address the impacts of developing the Moller Ranch with residential uses and replacing an existing culvert in the vicinity of the Moller Ranch property. The Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin on May 10, 1993 by Resolution No. 53- 93 and included approximately 6,920 acres of land for the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and 3,328 acres of land for the Specific Plan within the GPA area. The area considered in this document is generally bounded by the I -580 freeway to the south, the Alameda County/ Contra Costa County line to the north, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA) to the west and the ridgeline between Collier and Doolan Canyon to the east. This Environmental Impact Report is hereafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The State Clearinghouse Number (SCH) for this EIR is 91103064. hn 2007, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for the Moller Ranch and adjacent properties, entitled the "Casamira Valley/ Moller Ranch Project," State Clearinghouse (SCH) #2005052146, certified by the City Council on May 1, 2007 by Resolution No. 56 -07. This will be referred to as the "Casamira SEIR" or "Casamira Valley SEIR." The Casamira SEIR analyzed the impacts of prezoning and annexing 238.3 acres to the City of Dublin as well as potential development on three adjacent parcels of land, including the Moller Ranch property (approximately 226 acres) and the Tipper property (approximately 12.5 acres). The Casamira SEIR analyzed the following environmental topics: agricultural resources, traffic and transportation, community services and facilities, sewer, water and drainage, soils and geology, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, air quality and parks and recreation. Following certification of the Casamira SEIR, the City of Dublin approved a Planned Development prezoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan and related approvals (Ordinance No. 09 -07) for the Moller Ranch and an adjacent property. On July 2, 2007, the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approved the annexation of the Moller and Tipper properties and adjacent Tassajara Road right -of- way to the City as well as annexing these properties into the Dublin San Ramon Services District service area. Subsequent to the 2007 approvals by the City, the current applicant has filed a request with the City (PLPA 2011 - 00003) to modify the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designations for the subject property. Other requested approvals include a Vesting Tentative Map and Planned Development Rezoning including a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan and a Development Agreement. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 2 City of Dublin September 2012 Additionally, as part of a separate project, the existing 50- year -old Tassajara Road culvert over Moller Creek just south west of the Moller Ranch property and a tributary of Tassajara Creek would be replaced. The replacement would likely involve grading and other work within Moller Creek, and the project will include energy dissipation, scour control and bank stabilization and revegetation measures. This project is programmed in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program as part of the improvements to Tassajara Road. The proposed culvert replacement portion of the project will most likely include the following permits: State of California: 1602/3 Streambed Alteration Agreement; and an Incidental Take Permit per California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 783.1. In a Section 404 Permit will likely be required from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) including a Section 7 consultation (under the Endangered Species Act) from the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife; and a Section 401 Clean Water Certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Consistent with the City's practice for projects in Eastern Dublin, the City recently prepared an Initial Study to determine if the proposed Project, including the culvert replacement, would require additional environmental review beyond that analyzed in the two previous EIRs. The Initial Study is found in Appendix 8.1. The Initial Study disclosed that many anticipated impacts of the proposed actions have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Casamira Valley EIR. This is consistent with the comprehensive environmental analysis undertaken as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR with a 20 -30 year build -out horizon. Although the Initial Study concluded that the two previous EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, it also identified the potential for a number of new significant impacts or potentially intensified impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Casamira Valley EIR. The City of Dublin has determined that the potential for new and/ or substantially intensified impacts required review at an EIR level and concluded that a Supplemental EIR should be prepared. Consequently, as required by CEQA, the City prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to interested public and private parties. A copy of the NOP is included as Appendix 8.2 and responses to the NOP are included in Appendix 8.3. 2.2 Scope of Supplemental EIR Once an EIR is certified for a project, CEQA prohibits Lead Agencies from preparing a supplemental or subsequent EIR except under specific circumstances. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, additional EIR -level review may be required only when substantial changes to the project would cause new or substantially increased significant effects, or when substantial changes in circumstances would result in new or substantially increased significant effects, or when substantial new information shows the project would cause new or substantially increased significant effects, or when it is shown that previously infeasible mitigation measures would now be feasible but the project proponent declines to adopt them. As identified in the Initial Study (see Appendix 8.1), there are changed circumstances and new information since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Casamira Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 3 City of Dublin September 2012 Valley SEIR that could result in new or intensified significant impacts as related to the currently proposed project. These include: 1. The potential for new biological species to be present on the Project area based upon changed biological regulations and the addition of the proposed culvert replacement that was not analyzed in previous CEQA documents. 2. The addition of more dwellings in the proposed project than identified in prior EIRs may substantially increase local and regional traffic beyond that identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Casamira Valley EIR. 3. Changed surface water quality regulations adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board may also have potentially significant impacts on the proposed Project. The Initial Study identifies potential impacts to the categories of air quality, biological resources, and traffic and transportation for further review in a Supplemental EIR. This DSEIR describes the degree to which the project's potential impacts to these environmental categories were adequately addressed in the previously certified Eastern Dublin EIR and Casamira Valley SEIR. It further describes the type and extent of potential significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous EIRs. Where supplemental significant impacts are identified, supplemental mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts to a less - than - significant level. CEQA requires that an EIR identify a reasonable range of alternatives, which was done in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Casamira Valley SEIR for the Specific Plan area. One of these alternatives was adopted in modified form in the 1993 approvals. To address the potential for new and/ or substantially intensified significant impacts, this revised DSEIR identifies additional alternatives for the project area that could avoid or potentially lessen identified impacts. This Draft Supplemental EIR is based on the project applications and available level of detail, including technical studies to assess the specific impacts of constructing up to 382 dwellings on the Moller Ranch property, amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to redesignate a portion of the site as Single Family Residential; and replacing an existing culvert over Moller Creek. The Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2007 Casamira Valley Supplemental EIR and this Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR) together identify and assess the potentially significant impacts of the proposed actions associated with this project. Copies of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2007 Casamira Valley EIR are available for review at the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568 during normal business hours. 2.3 Legal Basis for Supplemental EIR Based on the previous EIR analysis and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, the City has determined that a Supplemental EIR should be prepared for this project rather than a Subsequent EIR. Subsequent and Supplemental EIRs are both similar in procedural and substantive respects. Both types of EIRs build on a previously certified Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 4 City of Dublin September 2012 EIR. Both types of EIRs analyze potentially significant changes to a project and /or environmental circumstances when those changes would result in a new significant impact or would substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. Both types of EIRs are circulated by themselves, without the previously certified EIR. With the above similarities, the choice between a Subsequent and Supplemental EIR is a matter of the degree of additions or modifications to the two previous EIRs needed to analyze the new or substantially increased significant impacts. Neither is a "new' EIR; both types of EIRs analyze the substantial changes from the previous analysis. Based on the Initial Study prepared for the project, the City has determined that a Supplemental EIR is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. The overall type, intensity and urban character of land uses within the project area are generally consistent with the approved land uses as shown in the Eastern Dublin General Plan. 2. Proposed additions or modifications needed to update the previous EIRs to reflect the scope of this project do not require a full re- analysis of a particular impact. 3. The proposed project includes undertaking actions identified in the previously certified EIRs as implementing actions. For the above reasons, the City has determined that the current project does not raise new policy issues as to the type, location, direction or extent of growth. Further, the range of potential impacts identified in the Initial Study is the same range as previously analyzed in previous EIR. Finally, the nature of the potential changes identified in the project Initial Study generally requires updating or refinement of the previous EIR analysis, rather than a full re- analysis. Irrespective of the label, and consistent with both Subsequent and Supplemental EIR provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, the City will not approve the project without first certifying an EIR which comprehensively addresses the potential for significant environmental impacts of the current project beyond those addressed in the previous EIR. 2.4 Organization of Draft Supplemental EIR The Draft Supplemental EIR ( "DSEIR ") supplements the Program EIR and Addenda certified by the City of Dublin for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (SCH #911003064, "Eastern Dublin EIR, or "EDEIR ") and the Casamira Valley Supplemental EIR (SCH # 2005052146), both of which are incorporated herein by reference. This document is organized as follows: • Chapter 1: Project Summary. This includes an overview of the project and a summary of supplemental impacts and mitigation measures presented in tabular form. • Chapter 2: Introduction. Chapter 2 describes the organization of the DSEIR. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 5 City of Dublin September 2012 • Chapter 3: Project Description. This chapter describes the proposed project, project location and setting. Project Objectives are also described as well as future approvals required to implement the proposed project. • Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Chapter 4 includes the impact and mitigation analysis for the project. Each environmental topic includes existing conditions (the setting); potential supplemental environmental impacts and their level of significance; and mitigation measures recommended to reduce identified significant impacts. • Chapter 5: Alternatives. This chapter addresses alternatives to the proposed project and a discussion of an environmentally superior alternative. • Chapter 6: Required CEQA Discussions: Chapter 6 includes additional discussion as required by CEQA. • Chapter 7: Report Authors and References. Chapter 7lists the authors of the EIR and organizations and persons consulted as part of the environmental analysis as well as references used in the preparation of this DSEIR. • Chapter 8: Appendices. Contained in the Appendices are the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation (NOP), responses to the NOP, Resolution No. 53 -93 approving the Eastern Dublin Project, including mitigation findings, overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring program; and copies of the supplemental air quality analysis, biological analyses and traffic analysis for the proposed Moller Ranch development and culvert replacement and a traffic analysis. 2.5 DSEIR Review Process The DSEIR will be circulated for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA. Written responses will be prepared to all relevant comments on environmental issues received during the 45 -day public review period. Public comments and responses will be compiled in a Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR), which will be available for public review at least 10 days prior to certification of the SEIR by the City of Dublin. After certification of the SEIR, the City will consider the requested project approvals and make appropriate findings based on the certified SEIR. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 6 City of Dublin September 2012 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Project Location The project site contains approximately 229.6 acres of land located on the east side of Tassajara Road south of the Alameda /Contra Costa County line in the Eastern Dublin area. Exhibit 3.1 shows the project location in relation to the overall Bay Area; Exhibit 3.2 shows its location in relation to the City of Dublin. The Moller Ranch.property contains approximately 226.3 acres of land on the east side of Tassajara Road. Also included within the project site is approximately 2.5 acres of land west of the Moller Ranch within the right -of -way of Tassajara Road that contains an existing culvert within Tassajara Road over Moller Creek. The right -of -way for Tassajara Road through the Project site, outside of the culvert replacement area, contains an estimated 0.8 acres. Exhibit 3.3 shows the proposed culvert replacement site. In 1993, the City of Dublin adopted a General Plan Amendment for approximately 7,000 acres of land generally bounded by the I -580 freeway to the south, the Alameda County/ Contra Costa County boundary line to the north, Parks RFTA to the west and the properties west of Doolan and Collier Canyon areas to the east. At the same time, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), which addressed long -term development of approximately 3,300 acres of land east of the central portion of Eastern Dublin. In 2007, the City of Dublin approved a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to modify land uses on the Moller Ranch and to include the Moller Ranch property within the EDSP planning area. Also, in 2007, the Moller Ranch property and adjacent parcels were annexed into the City of Dublin. 3.2 Project Area Features Moller Ranch area. Existing land uses adjacent to the project site include vacant land to the north and east. A Pacific Gas & Electric (PG &E) substation exists in the northeast portion of the Moller Ranch. Located to the south of the project area is a residential project, known as Fallon Crossing that is currently under construction consisting of 106 single family units owned by Standard Pacific. Other single - family residential projects exist to the south, including Bella Monte, a KB Home project consisting of 48 units. The property west of the project area is the Tipper, Vargas, and Fredrich properties. Additionally, the Dublin Ranch West property is located southwest of the Moller site and is currently vacant. The City of Dublin approved a Development Plan for 935 residential units for this property, however construction has yet to begin. The Moller Ranch is characterized by a small valley formed by Moller Creek, a tributary of Tassajara Creek that flows in the southwesterly direction with moderate to steep hillsides on each side of the creek in the western and central portions of the site. The eastern portion of the site is flatter with less steep topography, although topography becomes steeper in the southern area adjacent to the southern property line. Historical Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Draft Supplemental EIR Page 7 City of Dublin September 2012 and existing uses within the Project area include livestock grazing. Two single - family residences and several agricultural outbuildings have been constructed near the creek. These buildings are proposed for demolition. A Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement is in effect for the Moller Ranch. A Notice of Non - Renewal was filed with Alameda County in 2003 and the Agreement will expire in 2013. Access to the existing Moller Ranch is provided by a 20 -foot wide paved road from Tassajara Road. A number of unimproved trails and roads have also been constructed throughout the area to support agricultural uses. Moller Creek culvert area. The culvert replacement area is located in Moller Creek, a tributary to Tassajara Creek just east of the confluence of the two. The area is dominated by riparian woodland and non -native grassland with small areas of other aquatic habitat. Areas adjacent to the site include private open space area consisting mostly of non -native grassland habitat with some riparian habitat to the north and east, private ranch land with associated structures and housing to the west, and new residential development to the south. 3.3 Prior Planning Approvals Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment. In 1993, the City Council approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (hereafter, "Eastern Dublin project"). The approved project was a modified version of the original General Plan Amendment (hereafter, "GPA ") for a 6,920 -acre planning area generally known as Eastern Dublin. The original GPA proposed to change commercial land use designations on County property in the southwest portion of the GPA area and agriculture/ open space designations elsewhere in the planning area to a range of urban uses, as shown on Figure 2 -E of the Eastern Dublin Draft EIR. Within the nearly 7,000 acre planning area, a new Eastern Dublin Specific Plan proposed land use policy at a greater level of detail in order to "bridge" general plan policy and individual development projects. Intended for both policy and regulatory use, the Specific Plan addressed 3,328 acres, supplementing the GPA with more detailed land use designations, policies, programs and regulations. The GPA planning area was located east of the City of Dublin as it existed in 1993. The planning area is characterized by a relatively flat plain along I -580, which gives way to rolling foothills and increasingly steep slopes to the northeast. Apart from facilities on County property in the southwest portion of the planning area (former Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, U.S. Naval Hospital), the Eastern Dublin project area consisted primarily of open grasslands used for grazing and dry farming, and scattered residences. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2 -3.) The original GPA land use plan proposed to replace the undeveloped planning area with a mixed -use urban community. The project concept is set forth in the following excerpt from the Eastern Dublin EIR. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 8 City of Dublin September 2012 Residential and employment - generating uses will be balanced to enable residents to live near work. Employment- generating uses include retail, service, office, governmental, research and development ( "R and D "), and light industrial. Residential designation [sic] range from Rural Residential to High Density multi- family. Higher density housing has been located near the future BART station and along a key transit corridor. Higher densities have also been located close to commercial centers where the concentration of population will contribute to that center's social and economic vitality. The project provides a full complement of regional office and retail land uses located near freeway interchanges, local- serving commercial centers are envisioned as pedestrian- and transit - oriented mixed -use concentrations which include retail, service, office, and residential uses, and are carefully integrated with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Open space is a major component of the project's land use plan, giving form and character to the urban development pattern. The open space concept envisions a community ringed by undeveloped ridgelines. Urban and open space areas will be linked by an open space network structured along enhanced stream corridors. The circulation concept calls for an integrated, multi-modal system that reduces potential traffic impacts by providing area residents with choices for a preferred mode of transportation. (DEIR pp. 2 -4, Eastern Dublin Responses to Comments, hereafter, "FEIR" p. 66.) At buildout, the GPA planning area was projected to provide 17,970 new residences, including 2,672 acres designated for Rural Residential with a 100 acre minimum parcel size. Approximately 10.6 million square feet of new commercial space, 25 parks on 287 acres, 571 acres of designated open space, and 12 new schools were also planned, all on 6,920 acres of land. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2 -7.) Buildout was expected to occur over a 20 - 30 year period from the start of construction. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2 -6, Eastern Dublin Final EIR p. 8.) The major policies of the GPA are summarized on pages 2 -9 -10 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Exhibit 3.4 depicts the existing General Plan land use designations for the project site. In 2007, the City of Dublin amended the General Plan for the Moller Ranch property, changing the primary land use designation on the site from primarily Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) addresses 3,301 acres in the western portion of the GPA planning area. Seventy percent of the GPA residential development and 94% of the new commercial space was planned for in the Specific Plan area. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2 -8.) The land use plan calls for compact villages with residential and neighborhood serving uses. Employment - generating commercial uses are provided along arterials with transit access. (Id.) The major policies of the Specific Plan are set forth on pages 2 -10 to 2 -14 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Draft Supplemental EIR Page 9 City of Dublin September 2012 Exhibit 3.5 shows existing EDSP land use designations for the Moller Ranch property, which is primarily Medium Density Residential. Eastern Dublin EIR. The City of Dublin prepared a Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin project based on the original 6,920 acre GPA planning area and land use designations, and 3,301 acre Specific Plan area, both as described above. (SCH # 91103064.) The EIR also identifies a third component of Project Implementation. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2- 4.) This component includes "procedural steps ... to be undertaken for full implementation of the [GPA and Specific Plan) Project." This included Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) determinations on annexation to the City of Dublin and other similar actions. One of these actions includes resolution of school district boundaries between the Dublin Unified School District and the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District boundary. The City initiated the Eastern Dublin project in 1988 after several separate development projects were proposed for the area. The goal of the project was to provide comprehensive planning for development types, locations and patterns in Eastern Dublin, which would be implemented through future individual development projects. As noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR statement of project objectives, one of the objectives of the project was to preserve visually- sensitive and biologically- sensitive habitat areas, encourage development patterns that support transit on local and regional levels, and maintain balanced employment and housing opportunities to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2 -5.) The EIR analyzes the potential environmental effects of adopting and implementing the GPA and Specific Plan project. The EIR also analyzes the cumulative effects of the Eastern Dublin project, that is, the project "within the context of regional development." (DEIR p. 5.0 -1.) As required by CEQA, the Eastern Dublin EIR includes a list of ongoing and future development projects that, together with the Eastern Dublin project, might "compound subregional (i.e. Tri- Valley) environmental problems." (Id.) Reflecting a surge of development interest at the time, the cumulative projects in Dublin alone included 924 units, plus another 3,133 units on 3,140 acres in Western Dublin, and the potential intensification of uses at Parks RFTA. The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan projected 11,000 units; while the City of Livermore was considering the North Livermore General Plan Amendment with a buildout potential between 3,713 and 16,513 units. The various cumulative projects also proposed several million square feet of non - residential development. The list of cumulative projects from the Eastern Dublin EIR is shown on Figure 5 -A of that DEIR. Virtually all of the potential new development areas in the list of cumulative projects was undeveloped land, primarily in agriculture and /or open space uses, as evidenced by the aerial photographs which form the base maps for Figures 2 -B and 2 -C of the Eastern Dublin DEIR. As would be expected for a major general plan level project during a time of major development activity, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified many potential significant impacts on both a project (GPA and Specific Plan) level and a cumulative (regional) level. Mitigation measures were proposed and adopted for most of the significant impacts to reduce them to less than significant. The City of Dublin would implement some of the mitigation measures directly; examples include but are not limited to Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 10 City of Dublin September 2012 adopting a stream corridor restoration program, designating substantial areas within the project area as Open Space or Rural Residential where low density development will also provide foraging habitat, and continuing to participate in regional studies of future transportation requirements, improvements and funding. Other mitigations would be implemented through conditions or development standards for future development projects; examples include but are not limited to proportionate -share contributions to roadway improvements and transit service extensions. Many of the mitigation measures also included policies and action programs identified in the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan documents. Even with mitigation, however, some of the identified significant impacts could not be reduced to a less than significant level. Several of these impacts were cumulative level impacts, such as loss of agriculture and open space, I -580 and other regional traffic impacts, and air quality impacts. As required by CEQA, the Draft EIR identified project alternatives, including No Project and No Development alternatives, a Reduced Land Use Intensities alternative, and a Reduced Planning Area alternative, and analyzed whether the alternatives would avoid any of the otherwise unavoidable impacts. As further discussed below, the City Council adopted a modified version of the Reduced Planning Area alternative after certifying the EIR as adequate and in compliance with CEQA on May 10, 1993. (Resolution 51 -93.) The City Council also certified an Addendum dated May 4, 1993 which assessed the modifications to the Reduced Planning Area alternative and concluded that this alternative "will have no environmental impacts not addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan." (May 4, 1993 Addendum, p. 1.) The Addendum further concluded that no subsequent or supplemental EIR was required under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or 15163 for approval of the modified alternative. A second Addendum was later prepared. Dated August 22, 1994, the second Addendum updated plans for providing sewer services to Eastern Dublin. The May 10, 1993 certified EIR, the May 4, 1993 Addendum and the August 22, 1994 Addendum are collectively referred to hereafter as the Eastern Dublin EIR, or the "EDEIR" and are incorporated herein by reference. Eastern Dublin project approval. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan planning process spanned some five years beginning in 1988. The City identified a preferred alternative in 1991 and prepared a draft GPA for the 6,920 -acre planning area and a Specific Plan for 3,228 acres in 1992. A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review in August of 1992. After numerous Planning Commission and City Council hearings, the City Council declined to approve the original 6,920 -acre GPA. Instead, the City Council approved a modified version of the Eastern Dublin EIR's Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area. (Resolution 53 -93, see Appendix 8.4 of this DSEIR.) Alternative 2 reduced the GPA area by 2,744 acres, a nearly 40% reduction in project area. More specifically, Alternative 2 provided for buildout of the Specific Plan area, buildout of the GPA area only within the Dublin Sphere of Influence, but no annexation Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 11 City of Dublin September 2012 and no GPA for Doolan Canyon. (DEIR p. 4 -9.) Intended as a "midpoint" between development and environmental concerns, Doolan Canyon would not develop and its current agricultural land uses and rural character would be maintained. The importance of this area's function as a "green" community separator between Dublin, Livermore and the Tassajara Valley would increase as development occurred in eastern Dublin, and North Livermore, and lands east of San Ramon. (Id.) Following certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the modified Reduced Planning Area alternative, a lawsuit was filed challenging the validity of the EIR. The Court upheld the EIR, finding it in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City has since implemented the mitigation monitoring program adopted by the Council (Resolutions No. 53 -93 and 123 -96), as interpreted by the Court's Memorandum of Decision. Copies of the resolution and the Court's Memorandum of Decision may be obtained from the City Clerk. Ca5amira Valley 2007 project approval. Approvals granted by the City in 2007 for the Moller Ranch project included an amendment Dublin General Plan that redesignated a portion of the site to a Medium Density Residential land use classification. An amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was also approved to include the Moller Ranch property within the Specific Plan and designated this property for residential and open space uses, a Planned Development prezoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan for the 238.8 -acre area that applied to the Moller Ranch and an adjacent property. Land use approvals that applied just to the Moller Ranch included a Planned Development prezoning and a preannexation agreement. The City also authorized City staff to file an application with the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission to annex all affected properties to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District. The DSEIR prepared in conjunction with the project analyzed the proposed development of up to 209 dwellings on the Moller Ranch. Alternative 4 contained in the DSEIR analyzed the construction of up to 326 dwellings and was approved by he City by Resolution No. 58 -07 and Ordinance No. 09 -07. 3.4 Project Applications Overview. The proposed project would affect the 226.3 -acre Moller Ranch project site. At buildout, the Moller property would contain up to 382 single - family detached dwelling units on lots of various sizes within an area of approximately 79.6 acres of the site. In addition to single - family dwelling units, the project would be developed with an approximately 1.1 -acre neighborhood park, 1.2 acres of Semi - Public land use including trails and a staging area, infrastructure, and a system of bio- retention cells for storm water pollution control. Approximately, 136.8 acres of the site would be zoned as Rural Residential/ Agriculture and remain as permanently undeveloped open space. Approximately 7.6 acres of the site would be designated as Open Space. Open space areas would be owned and maintained by a combination of a proposed homeowners' Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement ProjecttDraft Supplemental EIR Page 12 City of Dublin September 2012 association and a GRAD (geologic hazards assessment district). The applicant for Moller Ranch project is Braddock & Logan Services. Moller Creek Culvert Replacement. The project would also include the replacement of an existing 50 -year old Tassajara Road culvert over Moller Creek with a new culvert structure. This portion of the project is being proposed by the City of Dublin. In anticipation of local and regional population growth and residential development and increased use of Tassajara Road included in the Dublin General Plan and adjacent jurisdictions, the Tassajara Road is proposed to be eventually widened from two lanes (current configuration) to six lanes (ultimate width). Currently Tassajara Road crosses over Moller Creek over a corrugated metal pipe culvert approximately 9 feet in diameter and with a length of 140 feet. Current conditions of Moller Creek include incised creek banks, a steep longitudinal profile, and bank instability progressing through the Tassajara Road crossing. The current culvert does not allow any wildlife passage on Moller Creek across Tassajara Road as a drop of over 9 feet exists on the downstream end of the culvert. The culvert replacement would include a realignment of Moller Creek in the described location along with energy dissipating features, elimination of fish barriers and inclusion of wildlife paths through the arched culvert. The arched culvert is designed with a length of approximately 230 feet and a 26 -foot span. The design is proposed to include a series of cobble and boulder weirs within the culvert designed to accommodate fish passage and benched edges designed for wildlife access along Moller Creek and under Tassajara Road. Proposed actions would also align and grade portions of Moller Creek and its banks both upstream and downstream of the new arched culvert. Bioengineered erosion protection measures would be installed along the banks and within the creek channel. Additionally the proposed culvert would be designed to allow for accommodation of a 100 -year flood under Tassajara Road. Exhibit 3.6 shows the preliminary design of the culvert replacement. Also existing within the road right -of -way (arid below the roadbed) over the culvert crossing of Moller Creek, is a Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) 20 -inch water line. This water line is part of the master infrastructure that provides the majority of the water to the Dougherty Valley and Windermere area within the City of San Ramon in Contra Costa County. The City of Dublin proposes to replace the existing pipe culvert under the road with an enlarged culvert across the creek and widen the roadway crossing over Moller Creek to accommodate the planned ultimate six lanes. The enlarged culvert is designed to accommodate a future six -lane road, correct the hydrologic and bank instability in this location, and allow for wildlife access and connection of the wildlife corridor along Moller Creek and under Tassajara Road. It would be necessary for Moller Creek to be realigned upstream of the culvert for a better approach through the crossing. Moller Ranch cluaracteristics. The second part of the Project includes a revision to the approved Development Plan for the Moller Ranch property. The applicant proposes to construct up to 382 single family detached dwellings on this approximately 226 -acre Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 13 City of Dublin September 2012 site. The existing Stage 1 Development Plan is shown on Exhibit 3.7. The main development area would be located in the easterly portion of the area served by the loop primary access road that would have smaller subdivision streets branching from the loop road. The Moller Ranch property is characterized as a topographic "bowl," with generally flat to moderate areas in the center portion of the property and steeply sloping areas to the north and south. Proposed development would occur in the interior bowl area. Table 3.1, below, compares the approved General Plan land uses for the Moller property with the proposed General Plan land uses. Table 3.1. Existing v. Proposed General Plan Land Uses Land Use Dwellings I Gross Acres Dwellings I Gross Acres Existing Proposed Rural 1 143.7 1 136.8 Residential/ Agricultural Low Density/ - — 0-474 79.6 Single Family Residential Medium Density 298 -684 48.9 — Residential Open 32.6 7.6 Space /Stream Corridor Neighborhood 1.1 — 1.1 Park Semi - Public - - - 1.2 Total 298 -685 226.3 0 -474 226.3 Source: Mackay & Somps, 2012 Table 2 shows the 2007 approved land uses on the Moller Ranch site compared to the currently requested land uses. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 14 City of Dublin . September 2012 Table 3.2. 2007 Approved Land Uses v. Current Request Land Use Acres Maximum Dwelling Units Acres Maximum Dwelling Units 2007Approval Current Request Low Density Residential 30.3 209 79.6 381 Rural Residential/ Agricult ure 136.8 1 Neighborhood Parks 1.5 1.1 Open Space 173.6 7.6 Roadways 20.9 Semi - Public 1.2 Total 226.3 209 226.3 382 Included in the Low Density Residential Land Use Source: Mackay & Somps, 2012 Lot sizes for the single- family residences would generally range from a minimum of 4,500 square feet (smallest) to 5,500 square feet or greater. Most dwellings would be two stories in height and the sizes of dwellings would also vary. Moller Creek, flows in a northeast to southwest direction through the project site. Appropriate Planned Development zoning regulations have been proposed as part of the Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan to preclude development within and adjacent to the stream as well as to provide non - buildable buffers adjacent to the stream corridor. Circulation and access. A divided road with two travel lanes (one in each direction) would provide access to the project site from Tassajara Road. The intersection at Tassajara Road would be fully signalized. A network of looped City maintained roads would provide access to the development area. A culvert crossing would be used for the single crossing of Moller Creek, located approximately within the center of the project site. Utility services. Domestic water service and sewer service would be provided by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The Project developer would be required to install mainline extension of sewer along the frontage, to the entrance of the project as well as the in -tract water and sewer lines and laterals. Preliminary storm drainage plans include collecting storm water runoff into a series of underground storm drain lines and transporting storm water flows into several bio- retention cells located on -site. The storm water would then be detained and cleaned within these cells and would be metered out to replicate the existing, predevelopment site condition. All storm water from the site would be transported into a new outfall for disposal into Moller Creek. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 15 City of Dublin September 2012 Grading. The applicant proposes to grade portions of the Project site to allow construction of the residential areas and roadways. Limited grading would occur in the southern portion of the site. A majority of the grading would occur in the eastern "bowl" portion of the site. Grading would also be used to repair the existing landslides located on portions of the site. Exhibit 3.8 shows the prelininary grading plan for the Moller Ranch property. The preliminary grading plan indicates that cut -and -fill would be balanced on the site. Erosion controls would be implemented during grading activities pursuant to City and Regional Board requirements, as enforced by the City of Dublin, to protect surface water quality. Inclusionary housing, The City of Dublin's inclusionary zoning ordinance requires that 12.5% of a project's dwelling units must be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. Compliance could consist of constructing the required number of inclusionary units and /or paying an in -lieu fee to the City, or some other form of compliance subject to approval by the City. Moller Ranch requested land use approvals As described above, a number of land use approvals are required to construct the project as proposed. These are described in more detail below. General Plan The City of Dublin General Plan was amended as part of the 2007 approvals for the Casamira Valley/Moller Ranch project. This amendment changed the land use designation from Single Family Density Residential (0.9 -6.0 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (6.1 units to 14.0 units per acre). The proposed project would require the land use designation be changed back to Single Family Density Residential (0.9 -6.0 dwelling units per acre). Exhibit 3.9 depicts proposed General Plan land use designations. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan The 2007 Casamira Valley/ Moller Ranch project amended the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), to include the project area within the EDSP. Prior to 2007, the area was not included within the plan area. In addition, the 2007 approvals incorporated a specific plan land use designation for the subject property as Medium Density Residential (6.1 units to 14.0 units per acre). Consistent with the General Plan amendment described above, the proposed project would require the land use designation be changed to Single Family Density Residential (0.9 -6.0 dwelling units per acre). Exhibit 3.10 shows proposed Specific Plan land use designations. Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plans and Rezoning. A Stage 1 Development Plan was approved in 2007. The current applicant is proposing a new Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning to allow the development project on the Moller Ranch property as identified above. A rezoning is being considered to ensure consistency with the requested General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments. Exhibit 3.11a Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 16 City of Dublin September 2012 shows the proposed Stage 1 Development Plan for the Moller Ranch property. Exhibit 3.11b shows the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan. Vesting Tentative Map. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map application shows that 381 lots would be considered with the Stage 2 Development Plan application for the Moller Ranch. The Tentative map is shown on Exhibit 3.12. Development Agreement Consistent with the policies contained within the EDSP, the applicant is requesting a Development Agreement (DA). The DA will articulate applicant responsibilities for development impact fees, reimbursements to other parties for oversizing of infrastructure, as well as project vesting timeframes. Development agreements, which are required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, vest development approvals for a specified period of time so that developers of large, time extensive projects have the ability to construct such projects in a time frame and under mutual obligations beneficial to the City and the project proponent. Issues typically addressed in development agreements include, but are not limited to: density and intensity of land use; timing of development; financing methods and timing of infrastructure; determination of traffic, noise, public facility and other impact fees; and obligations for construction of streets and roads. Moller Creek Culvert Replacement A Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application will be prepared for the federal and state permit applications under the following permits: • Section 1602/3 Streambed Alteration Agreement (CDFG); • Incidental Take Permit per California Code of Regulations (CDFG); • Section 404 Permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) including a Section 7 consultation (under the Endangered Species Act) from the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife; and • Section 401 Clean Water Certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 3.5 Project Objectives The objectives of the Eastern Dublin project are set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. (DEIR p. 2 -5.) All of the identified objectives are objectives of the current Project as it implements the comprehensive land use plan adopted in 1993 and as amended in 2007. Additional objectives of the project include. 1) Implement the City's objectives for Eastern Dublin as set forth in the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin EIR. 2) Initiate a zoning level framework to guide future development on the Moller Ranch property consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 3) Achieve development of 382 dwelling units on the Moller Ranch property within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 17 City of Dublin September 2012 4) Provide for the extension of a combination trail and walkway adjacent to Moller Creek on the Moller Ranch property. 5) Provide project- specific standards and mechanisms to protect streamcourses. 6) Remove and replace the aging existing culvert over Moller Creek in an environmentally sensitive manner. 3.6 Future Actions Using This Draft Supplemental EIR This Draft SEIR supplements the certified Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2007 Casamira Valley Supplemental EIR pursuant to Sections 15162 and 16163 of the CEQA Guidelines for the following anticipated future actions related to the proposed project. State or regional agencies in their review of other permits required for the project (such as CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreements, 404 Permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Endangered Species Act permits, Water Quality Certification or waiver by the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the Clean Water Act). Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Draft Supplemental EIR Page 18 City of Dublin September 2012 SOURCE., MacKay& Somps, 8-22-2012. CITY OF DUBLIN MOLLER RANCH PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR Exhibit 3.1 REGIONAL LOCATION so �Z 5 Antii)Ch . .. ... .... San Oaklan .......... Francisco Project sale San Pacific Ocean Francisco Livermore �,' Bay 84 S 0 10 Miles 85 Milifornia SOURCE., MacKay& Somps, 8-22-2012. CITY OF DUBLIN MOLLER RANCH PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR Exhibit 3.1 REGIONAL LOCATION SOURCE: MacKay&Somps. 8 -22 -2012. CITY OF DUBLIN MOLLER RANCH PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR 1: Exhibit 3.2 SITE CONTEXT i� N 1 I CULVERT `�' � SOURCE. MacKay 6 Somps, 8 -22 -2072. CITY OF DUBLIN MOLLER RANCH PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR Exhibit 3.3 CULVERT REPLACEMENT LOCATION Moller Creek Culvert Replacement City File #PLPA 2011 -0003 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2005052146 Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner November 2012 Table of Contents Introduction........................................................................ ............................... 2 Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR .............. ............................... 2 Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters ............................ ............................... 6 Annotated Comment Letters and Responses ................ ............................... 7 Responses to Comments ................................................... ............................... 8 Introduction A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) dated September 2012 was prepared for this project and distributed for public review in September and October 2012. The project area contains approximately 229.6 acres of land located on the east and west sides of Tassajara Road just south of the Alameda /Contra Costa County line in the Eastern Dublin area. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA Guidelines, after completion of the Draft SEIR, lead agencies are required to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies and organizations having jurisdiction by law over elements of the Project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the DSEIR. Lead agencies are also required to respond to substantive comments on environmental issues raised during the SEIR review period. As the lead agency for this Project, the City of Dublin held a 45 -day public review period ending on October 29, 2012. This Comments and Responses document augments the DSEIR and, together with the DSEIR, comprise the Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR) for this project. This document contains all public comments received during the public review period regarding the DSEIR and responses to those comments. Included within the document is an annotated copy of each comment Ietter, identifying specific comments, followed by a response to that comment. The FSEIR also contains clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the DSEIR. In the course of preparing the responses to comments, the City generated clarifications and modifications to the text of the DSEIR. The City has carefully reviewed the responses in this document, especially any new information or clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR text, against the recirculation standards of CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. None of the new information or clarifications/ modifications in this document constitutes significant new information as defined in the Guidelines, such as new or substantially more severe significant impacts or different feasible alternatives or mitigations, therefore the City has determined that no recirculation is required. Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR The following clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR are incorporated by reference into the DSEIR document. 1) Pages 69 -70: Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA -1 -12 (Project contribution to impact at Hacienda Dr./ Dublin Blvd. intersection under both near -term and long- term cumulative conditions) is hereby deleted from the DSEIR. Supplemental Impact TRA -1 -12 is determined to be a significant and unavoidable with no feasible mitigation. It has been determined by the Public Works Department staff that the requirements of the original supplemental mitigation measure to remove an existing eastbound crosswalk on the south leg of this intersection is infeasible since removal of the crosswalk would conflict with the City's Complete Streets policy. This intersection is near higher density housing, intensive commercial and office uses Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 2 City of Dublin November 2012 that generate significant pedestrian traffic that currently use and will use the crosswalk in question. The intersection lies near the Eastern Dublin BART station transit Oriented Development (TOD) area and Priority Development Area. This change of impact status to a significant and unavoidable impact is also made on page II -1 of the Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impact and Mitigation Measures at the beginning of the DSEIR. 1) Page 70: Supplemental Impact TRA -2 -12 and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRA -2 -12 are revised to read as follows: Supplemental Impact TRA -2 -12 (Project contribution to impact at Fallon Rd. /Haek%-& Dublin Blvd. intersection under near term conditions). The Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under the Near -term traffic condition and would experience an increase in delay during the PM peak hour due to the Moller Ranch development. (significant supplemental inipact and mitigation required). lemental Mitigation SM- TRA -2 -12 (Project contribution to impact at ,. Dublin Blvd. . Fallon Road intersection under term conditions). The project applicant shall optimize the signal timing splits at the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard. This improvement will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Near -term Plus Project condition by improving operations to a pre - project condition. Although the project would worsen the delay at the already failing intersection, the improvement does not mitigate the intersection to an acceptable LOS and therefore the project shall be responsible for the entirety of the mitigation costs. 2) Page 117: Supplen- ientaI Inipact BIO -12 -2 is hereby revised as follows: Supplemental Impact_BIO -42-2 (impacts to jurisdictional waters and woodland and riparian habitat). The current project footprint would impact 4.45 acres of jurisdictional habitats (approximately 0.14 acres less than the 2007 SEIR project), including impacts to 3.51 acres of seep and seasonal wetland, 0.68 acres of ephemeral and intermittent drainage and 0.26 acres of perennial drainage habitats. The current project footprint would also impact 0.50 acres of riparian habitat, a habitat that was not analyzed in the 2007 SEIR (significant supplemental impact). 3) Page 122: Supplemental Impact BIO 7 -12, impacts to red - legged frog. The last full line of first full paragraph is revised to correct the reference to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- BIO_12 -2a, 2b, 2c to SM- BIO -12 -2. 4) Page 123: The second paragraph is hereby revised to read as follows: "However, the EACCS considers the project site to be within core habitat for San Joaquin kit fox (EACCS Figure D -17), and as a result have incorporated mitigation measures to reduce this impact to less than significant levels. According to the Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 3 City of Dublin November 2012 EACCS model for kit fox core habitat, all grassland cover types and all oak woodlands within 500 ft. of grasslands, were considered suitable foraging and denning habitat for this species. Therefore, the loss of 165.14 ac of grasslands on the site will be mitigated for at a 3:1 ratio. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM -BIO- 12-1a, 1b and 1c -2 and -3, described above, will fulfill the EACCS mitigation requirements for this species. In addition, the following Supplemental Mitigation Measure, which includes avoidance and mitigation measures for San Joaquin kit fox (and American badger) will be implemented and will mitigate impacts to San Joaquin kit fox to less - than - significant levels according to the EACCS." 5) Page 125, the first paragraph on this page is hereby revised to read as follows: "The EACCS requires mitigation for loss of golden eagle foraging habitat within OS mi of a nest site in the Livermore Valley Mitigation Area at a ratio of 3:1. Currently, there is an active golden eagle nest in the Northern Drainage Conservation Area, just barely within 0.5 mi to the southeast, and 3.76 ac of potential foraging habitat on the Project site occurs within a 0.5 -mi radius of the nest. Therefore, 11.28 ac of golden eagle foraging habitat must be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio to comply with the EACCS. This mitigation area overlaps with the annual grassland preserved for other impacts. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM- 1310- 12 -1a, 1b and 1c, -2 and -3, will satisfy these mitigation requirements." 6) Page 127, the wording of SM BIO 14b is hereby revised to read as follows: Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- BIO- 12 -14b Moller Creek culvert impacts to special-status plants). The project applicant shall implement avoidance measures outlined below to avoid any impacts and should shalI mitigate any loss of habitat. To mitigate impacts on a plant population that cannot be avoided, a parcel where the specific plant species occurs shall be acquired through fee title purchase, or conservation easement or similar mechanism. The mitigation plan shall be equivalent to or better in terms of population size and vigor than the plant population affected at the project site. 7) Page 128, the wording of on the first full paragraph is hereby revised to read as follows: "The following supplemental mitigation will reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level by requiring avoidance of tree removal that contain nesting birds and bats during the nesting season to the extent feasible near the project site. 1-f- 8) Page 129, the wording at the top of the page is hereby revised to read as follows: "Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure W BIQ 1 G SM- Bio -12 -7 will also assist in reducing impacts to red - legged frog to a less -than- significant level." 9) Page II -2, Summary of Supplemental Impacts Table, the Net Supplemental Impact After Mitigation for Impact SM TRA -1 -12 id changed from "Less- than - Significant" Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 4 City of Dublin November 2012 to "Significant and Unavoidable" for consistency with text analysis. Jerry, the Impact number should be changed from 1 -12 to 2 -12 (see DSEIR p. 70 for reference) Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 5 City of Dublin November 2012 Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the public comment period on the DSEIR from the following agencies, organizations and other interested parties. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 6 City of Dublin November 2012 Commenter Date No. State Agencies 1.1 Department of Transportation 10 / 24 / 12 Local Agencies 2.1 Alameda County Transportation Commission 8720/12 2.2 Alameda County Transportation Commission 10/29/12 2.3 Contra Costa County Public Works De artment 10 15 12 2.4 East Bay Regional Park District 10/22/12 2.5 Alameda County Zone 7 10/26/12 Other Comments 31 TJKM Transportation Consultants 10 / 5 / 12 Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 6 City of Dublin November 2012 Annotated Comment Letters and Response (Note: Comment letters are not paginated) Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 7 City of Dublin November 2012 s,TATE of CALIFoR IrA —Rus NEs5 TRANSPOR'I'ATI NAND HOUSII xAGEN EDMUND G. HROWN.Ir., Gnvenor DIEPARTAIE' NT OF TRANSPORTATION 11J. GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAM ND, CA 94623 -0660 PHONE (510) 286 -6053 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY 711 October 24, 2012 Mr. Michael Porto City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mr. Porto: Letter 1.1 . d Flex your powerl Be energy efficient? ALA580815 ALA -580 -17.7 SCH #2005052146 Moller Ranch Development Project/Moller Creels Culvert Replacement- -Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Tharik you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the enviroxunental review .process for the Moller Ranch Development Project/Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project. The following comments are based on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. 1.1 Trip Reduction As previously stated in Caltrans' Notice of Preparation comment letter dated August 30, 2012, we encourage the City of Dublin to cci� 6ct'the'pi-oposed project with pedestrian and bicycle facilities to facilitate walking and biking to nearby jobs, neighborhood services, and major- mass transit nodes. Providing these connections will likely reduce the number of trips generated by the project hence; reducing impact to local and State roadways. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Yatman Kwan, AICP of my staff at (510) 622 -1670. Sincerely, ERIK ALM, AICP District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse °Caltrans improves mobility across California ALA EDA 1333 6roadway, Suites 220 & 300 County Transportotion C. --'� ommssion r August 20, 2012 Oakland, CA 44612 Michael A. Porto Consulting Planner Letter 2.1 City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 PR (5 T 0) 20 8-7400 www.AlamedaCTC.org SUBJECT: Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the Moller Ranch Development and Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project in the City of Dublin Dear Mr. Porto: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) being prepared by the City of Dublin for the Moller Ranch Development and Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project. The project site is located on the east side of Tassajara Road, north of the Fallon Crossing property and south of the Alameda County boundary line. The proposed project would develop up to 382 single ramily detached dwelling units and would include neighborhood park and semi - public land uses. The project also includes replacement of an existing Tassajara Road culvert over Moller Creek, west of the Moller Ranch property. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC), on behalf of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) through the powers delegated to Alameda CTC by the joint powers agreement which created Alameda CTC, respectfully submits the following comments: 2.1.1 • The City of Dublin adopted Resolution No.120 -92 on September 28, 1992 establishing guidelines for reviewing the impacts of local land use decisions consistent with the Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP). If the proposed project is expected to generate at least 100 p.m. peak hour trips over existing conditions, the CMP Land Use Analysis Program requires the City to conduct a traffic analysis of the project using the Countywide Transportation Demand Model for projection years 2020 and 2035 conditions. Please note the following paragraph as it discusses the responsibility for modeling. o The CMP was amended on March 20x', 1998 so that local jurisdictions are responsible for conducting the model runs themselves or through a consultant. The Alameda CTC has a Countywide model that is available for this purpose. The City of Dublin and the Alameda CTC signed a Countywide Model Agreement on July 17, 2008. Before the August 17, 2012 Page 2 model can be used for this project, a letter must be submitted to the Alameda CTC requesting use of the model and describing the project. A copy of a sample letter agreement is available upon request. 21.2 • The DSEIR should address all potential impacts of the project on the MTS roadway and transit systems. These include MTS roadways as shown in the attached map as well as BART and LAVTA. The MTS roads in the city of Dublin in the project study area are: 1 -580, Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard (see 2011 CMP Figure 5). Potential impacts of the project must be addressed for 2020 and 2035 conditions. o Please note that the Alameda CTC has not adopted any policy for determining a threshold of significance for Level of Service for the Land Use Analysis Program of the CMP. Professional judgment should be applied to detennine the significance of project impacts (Please see chapter 6 of 2011 CMP for more information). o For the purposes of CMP Land Use Analysis, 200011ighway Capacity Manual is used. 2.1.3 ® The adequacy of any project mitigation measures should be discussed. On February 25, 1993, the Alameda CTC Board adopted three criteria for evaluating the adequacy of DSEIR project mitigation measures: Project mitigation measures must be adequate to sustain. CMP service standards for roadways and transit; Project mitigation measures must be fully funded to be considered adequate; Project mitigation measures that rely on state or federal funds directed by or influenced by the CMA must be consistent with the project funding priorities established in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) section of the CMP or the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The DSEIR should include a discussion on the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures relative to these criteria. In particular, the DSEIR should detail when proposed roadway or transit route improvements are expected to be completed, how they will be funded, and what would be the effect on LOS if only the funded portions of these projects were assumed to be built prior to project completion. 2.1.4 * Potential impacts of the project on CMP transit levels of service must be analyzed. (See 2011 CMP, Chapter 4). Transit service standards are 15 -30 minute headways for bus service and 3.75 -15 minute headways for BART during peak hours. The DSEIR should address the issue of transit funding as a mitigation measure in the context of the Alameda CTC policies discussed above. 2.1.5 ® The DSEIR should also consider demand - related strategies that are designed to reduce the need for new roadway facilities over the long term and to make the most efficient use of existing facilities (see 2011 CMP, Chapter 5). The DSEIR should consider the use of TDM measures, in conjunction with roadway and transit improvements, as a means of attaining acceptable levels of service. Whenever possible, mechanisms that encourage ridesharing, flextime, transit, bicycling, telecommuting and other means of reducing peak hour traffic trips should be considered. The Site Design Guidelines Checklist may be useful during the review of the development proposal. A copy of the checklist is enclosed. August 17, 2012 Page 3 2.1.6 = The DSEIR should consider opportunities to promote countywide bicycle and pedestrian routes identified in the Alameda Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans, which were approved in October 2006. The approved Countywide Bike Plan is and Pedestrian Plan are available at hup: //www.actia2022.conn/app ri res /view /513 2.1.7 ® For projects adjacent to state roadway facilities, the analysis should address noise impacts of the project. If the analysis finds an impact, then mitigation measures (i.e., sotuidwalls) should be incorporated as part of the conditions of approval of the proposed project. It should not be assumed that federal or state funding is available. 2.1.8 ® Local jurisdictions are encouraged to consider a comprehensive Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Program, including environmentally clearing all access improvements necessary to support TOD development as part of the environmental documentation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Notice of Preparation. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 510.208.7405 if you require additional information. Sincerely, Beth Walukas Deputy Director of Planning Cc: File: CMP — Environmental Review Opinions — Responses - 2012 Attachment 2 Design Strategies Checklist for the Transportation Demand Management Element of the Alameda County CMP The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Element included in Alameda County Congestion Management Program requires each jurisdiction to comply with the Required Program. This requirement can be satisfied in three ways: 1) Adopting "Design Strategies for encouraging alternatives to using auto through local development review" prepared by ABAG and the Bay Area Quality Management District; 2) Adoption of new design guidelines that meet the individual needs of the local jurisdictions and the intent of the goals of the TDM Element or 3) Providing evidence that existing local policies and programs meet the intent of the goals of the TDM Element. For those jurisdictions that have chosen to satisfy this requirement by Option 2 or 3 above, the following checklist has been prepared. In order to insure consistency and equity throughout the County, this checklist identifies the components of a design strategy that should be included in a local program to meet the minimum CMP conformity requirements. The required components are highlighted in bold type and are shown at the beginning of each section. A jurisdiction must answer YES to each of the required components to be considered consistent with the CMP. Each jurisdiction will be asked to annually certify that it is complying with the TDM Element. Local jurisdictions will not be asked to submit the back -up information to the CMA justifying its response; however it should be available at the request of the public or neighboring jurisdictions. Questions regarding optional program components are also included. You are encouraged but not required to answer these questions. CHECKLIST Bicycle Facilities Goal: To develop and implement design strategies that foster the development of countywide bicycle program that incorporates a wide range of bicycle facilities to reduce vehicle trips and promote bicycle use for commuting, shopping and school activities. (Note: examples of facilities arc bike paths, lanes or racks.) Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Program" in order to be found in compliance with the Congestion Management Program. Local Responsibilities: Ia. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or adopted policies that include the following: la.l Provides a system of bicycle facilities that connect residential and/or non- residential development to other major activity centers? Yes O No O 1 a.2 Bicycle facilities that provide access to transit? Yes O No O 1 a.3 That provide for construction of bicycle facilities needed to fill gaps, (i.e., gap closure), not provided through the development review process? Yes O No O 1 a.4 That consider bicycle safety such as safe crossing of busy arterials or along bike trails? Yes O No O l a.5 That provide for bicycle storage and bicycle parking for (A) multi- family residential and/or (B) non - residential developments? Yes O No O 1 b. How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify. Zoning ordinance: Design Review: Standard Conditions of Approval: Capital Improvement Program: _ Specific Plan: Other: Pedestrian Facilities Goal: To develop and implement design strategies that reduce vehicle trips and foster walking for commuting, shopping and school activities. Local Responsibilities Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Program" in order to be found in compliance with the Congestion Management Program. 2a. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or adopted policies that incorporate the following: 2aJ Provide reasonably direct, convenient, accessible and safe pedestrian connections to major activity centers, transit stops or hubs parks /open space and other pedestrian facilities? Yes O No O 2a.2 Provide for construction of pedestrian paths needed to fill gaps, (i.e., gap closure), not provided through the development process? Yes O No O 2a.3 Include safety elements such as convenient crossing at arterials? Yes O No O 2a.4 Provide for amenities such as lighting, street trees, trash receptacles that promote walking? Yes O No O 2a.5 That encourage uses on the first floor that are pedestrian oriented, entrances that are conveniently accessible from the sidewalk or transit stops or other strategies that promote pedestrian activities in commercial areas? Yes O No O 2b. flow does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify. Zoning ordinance: Design Review: Standard Conditions of Approval: Capital Improvement Program: Specific Plan: Other: Transit Goal: To develop and implement design strategies in cooperation with the appropriate transit agencies that reduce vehicle trips and foster the use of transit for commuting, shopping and school activities. Local Responsibilities Dote: Bold type face indicates those components that most be included the "Required Program" in order to be found in compliance with (lie Congestion Management Program. 3a. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or adopted policies that include the following: 3a.1 Provide for the location of transit stops that minimize access time, facilitate intermodal transfers, and promote reasonably direct, accessible, convenient and safe connections to residential uses and major activity centers? Yes O No O 3a.2 Provide for transit stops that have shelters or benches, trash receptacles, street trees or other street furniture that promote transit use? Yes O No O 3a.3 Include a process for including transit operators in development review? Yes O No O 3a.4 Provide for directional signage for transit stations and /or stops? Yes O No O 3a.5 Include specifications for pavement width, bus pads or pavement structure, length of bus stops, and turning radii that accommodates bus transit? Yes O No O 3.b How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify. Zoning ordinance- Design Review: Standard Conditions of Approval: Capital Improvement Program: _ Specific Plan: Other: Carpools and Vanpools Goal. To develop and implement design strategies that reduce the overall number of vehicle trips and foster carpool and vanpool use. Local Responsibilities: Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Program" in order to be found in compliance with the Congestion Management Program. 4a. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or adopted policies that include the following: 4a.1 For publicly owned parking garages or lots, are there preferential parking spaces and /or charges for carpools or vanpools? Yes O No O 4a.2 That provide for convenient or preferential parking for carpools and vanpools in non- residential developments? Yes O No O 4.b How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify. Zoning ordinance: Design Review: Standard Conditions of Approval: Capital Improvement Program: Specific Plan: Other: Park and Ride Goal: To develop design strategies that reduce the overall number of vehicle trips and provide park and ride lots at strategic locations. Local Responsibilities: 5a. In order to achieve the above goal, does your jurisdiction have design strategies or adopted policies that include the following: 5a.1 Promote park and ride lots that are located near freeways or major transit hubs? Yes O No O 5a.2 A process that provides input to Caltrans to insure HOV by -pass at metered freeway ramps? Yes O No O 5b. How does your jurisdiction implement these strategies? Please identify. Zoning ordinance: Design Review: Standard Conditions of Approval: Capital Improvement Program: Specific flan: Other: Note: Bold type face indicates those components that must be included the "Required Program" in order to be found in compliance with the Congestion Management Program. ALAMEDA 1333 Broadway, Su'tes 220& 300 _,!v�rYy Ir:n'51 ?cr!nl�fjr� f't a III! Siorl October 29, 2012 Michael A. Porto Consulting Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Oakland, CA 94612 Letter 2.2 PH: 1510) 208 -7400 www.AlamedaCTC.org SUB.IICT: Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the Moller Ranch Development and Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project in the City of Dublin Dear Mr. Porto: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) released by the City of Dublin for the Moller Ranch Development and Moller Creek Culvert Replacement .Project. The project site is located on the east side of Tassajara Road, north of the Fallon Crossing property and south of the Alameda County boundary line. The proposed project would develop up to 382 single family detached dwelling units and would include neighborhood park and semi - public land uses. The project also includes replacement of an existing Tassajara Road culvert over Moller Creek, west of the Moller Ranch property. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC), on behalf of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) through the powers delegated to Alameda CTC by the joint powers agreement which created Alameda CTC, submitted comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this project (letter dated August 20, 2012 attached). While comments were addressed for the 2035 scenario, they were not addressed for the 2020 scenario. It appears that the DSEIR used 2015 as the mid -terns analysis year. This calls into question whether the most up to date version of the Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model was used for the analysis for either future scenario. As a result, we respectfully submit the following comments: 2.2,1 v The DSEIR appears to have not done a 2020 mid -year analysis of the environmental impacts on the NITS transit, roadway and bicycle and pedestrian networks. This analysis is required as part of the Congestion Management Plan's Land Use Analysis Program and should be included in the Final SEIR. 2.2.2 • Please verify that the August 2012 version of the Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model was used to conduct the analysis and determine the impacts documented in DSEIR, including Appendix 8.3. Reference is made to use of the countywide model in the document, October 29, 2012 Page 2 but it does not appear that the most recent version was used. If the most recent version of the model was not used, please contact me to discuss options for correcting this. 2.2.3 ® The environmental impacts and mitigations on the NITS transit and roadway network should be added to Table 1.0: Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Mitigations. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DSEIR. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 510.208.7405 if you require additional information. Sincerely, Beth Walukas Deputy Director of Planning Attachment 1: Response to the NOP dated August 20, 2012 Cc: File: CMP — Environmental Review Opinions — Responses - 2012 ?" Contra Costa County Julia R. Bueren, DirPCtor Deputy Directors r p Public Works R. Mitch Avalon Ma Brian M. Balbas Stephen Kowalewski D e p a r t m e n t Stephen Silveira October 15, 2012 Michael A. Porto, Consulting Planner City of Dublin Leiser 2.3 Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Moller Ranch Development & Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project (PLPA 2011- 00003) Dear Mr. Porto: We have reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental impact Report (Draft SEIR) dated September 2012 for the Moller Ranch Development and Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project (PLPA 2011- 00003). The proposed development fronts Tassajara Road at the County line. Tassajara Road north of the project site turns into Camino Tassajara Road within Contra Costa County. Camino Tassajara Road within the County limits is a 2 -lane roadway with an existing reverse curve that straddles the County line. We have been coordinating realignment of the roadway at the County Line with the City to improve the safety of the roadway and plan for future traffic volumes. After reviewing the Draft SEIR, we would like to provide the following comments on the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Kimley -Horn Associates, Inc. (dated September 10, 2012): 2.3.1 1. Under the Near -Term scenario, approved /pending development projects in the vicinity of the site were included in the model. Do these development projects include build -out of Dougherty Valley within Contra Costa County? Build -out of Dougherty Valley should be accounted for under the Near -Term and Long -Term scenarios. 2.3.2 2. Future traffic volumes were forecasted using the Dublin travel forecast model. Does this model account for future developments and traffic patterns within Contra Costa County? The proposed development is adjacent to the County Line and any model used should incorporate future plans within the County in order to accurately identify project impacts. 2.3.3 3. The following roadway segments were included in the roadway segment analysis: • Tassajara Road between Fallon Road and County Limit • Camino Tassajara between County Limit to Highland Road 'Accredited by the American Public Works Association" 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 -4825 TEL: (925) 313 -2000 • FAX: (925) 313 -2333 www.cccpublicworks.org Addressee Date Page 2 of 2 Where were volumes along Camino Tassajara taken for roadway segment analysis? The County's General Plan currently plans for 6 -lanes along Camino Tassajara from the County Line to Windemere Parkway and 4 -lanes north of Windemere Parkway. This was based on findings from previous EIR's, such as the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, Windemere, and Gale Ranch. Based on the analysis presented, Camino Tassajara between the County Limit and Highland Road does not identify any need to widen the roadway to 6 -lanes under the Long -Term scenario. The following segmentation would provide more accurate analysis: • Tassajara Road between Fallon Road and project entrance • Tassajara Road between project entrance and County Limit • Camino Tassajara between County Limit and Windemere Parkway • Camino Tassajara between Windemere Parkway and Highland Road Traffic volumes from Windemere Parkway contribute significant traffic on to Camino Tassajara. Volumes south of Windemere Parkway are significantly higher than volumes north of Windemere Parkway and are more indicative of future volumes along Tassajara Road between Fallon Road and the County Limit. Thus, the project may have traffic impacts to Camino Tassajara between the County Limit and Windemere Parkway that are not addressed in the Draft SEIR. We look forward to your response. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (925) 313 -2016 or email me at aviil(a)pw.cccounty.us. Sincerely, Angela Villar Project Engineer Transportation Engineering AV:xx G:�TransEng\Projects\Cam Tass Safety Imp - Windemere Pkwy to County Line\City Coordination\ letter - City - 2012 -10 -15 - Camino Tassajara C: Mark Lander, City of Dublin W. Lai, Engineering Services J. Fahy, Transportation Eng. C. Lau, Transportation Eng. 2950 P €RALTA OAKS COURT P.O. BOX 5381 OAKLAND CALIFORNIA 94605.OM I T.1 888 EBPARKS F.510 569 4319 TDD.510 633 0460 WWW.EBPARKS.ORG October 22, 2012 Letter 2.4 Michael A. Porto City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject; Comments on Moller Ranch Supplemental EIR Dear Mr. Porto, 2.4 Thank you for providing the East Bay Regional Paris District (District) with a copy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the proposed Moller Ranch Development in the City of Dublin. The District has no comments on the SEIR. Please provide us with any future public notices and a CD of the Final SEIR. If you have any questions, please call me at (5 10) 544 -2622. Sincerely, A�i A4,' Brad Olson Environmental Programs Manager RECEIVED 0 CT 7' ''Z DUBLIN PLANNING Healthy Part {soa� E- � eaft�y peop e BoaBoard of Directors Carol Severin John Sutter Ayn Wieshamp Whitney Dotson Doug Siden Beverly Lane Ted Radke Robert E. Doyle President. Vice•President Treasurer Secretary Ward 4 Ward 6 Ward 7 General Minager Ward 3 Ward 2 Ward 5 Ward I ALAMEDA_C_OUN_TY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY. LIVERMORE, CA 045li'f � P11ONE (925) 464' 80004Mi aA�— Decornbar 1'3, 2006 hk :Erica Fraser Community SeTvices City of Dublin Letter 2.5 100 Civic'plaba Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Dra„ ji` Supplerneninf.. fir- t�iroiirize.,ntal.Cinprrct Repa1 i fnr fi %e Crzcarlrtra U�allc�ylMolZer X; aucl r' Prgject .l?eorgani2ationlAnnexulion Specie Plan Anjartdmerrt Freroning PA 03 -060 Dear Ms. lrrascr: 2.5 Zone 7 has reviewed the roferc iced CEQA document in the context of Zonc 7's migsioxt to provide thinking water., nonpolable water for agriculture and irrigated turf, rood protection, and groundwater and stream managemc t within the Livermore- Amador Malley. Our comments are as follows: 1. On page 72, under Environmental Setting, the first sentence states that the Project area is looatcd within the ,Arroyo Las 1_aositas watershed. The Projectmay be within the Tassajara. Ct-eckwatembed as opposed to the Arroyo Las Positas watershed. Please verify. 2. On page 74, under'Regulatory Framework, it states that. tie Dublin Rmich Stozm .Drainage Master Plan was prepared for each developnmezkt project in Eastern D11blin planning area. Zone 7 requests a copy of this storm drainage master plant and any other existiTag bydrolo67 and/or hydraulic studies for this proposed project for review to dvtcinline impacts on Zone 7'3 regional Mood control system. We would like to understand how the drainage solution will be i. mplernenwd-to protect all downstream pr:operdes from new drainage impacts (Program 9U)'. Under Impacts and Mitigation Measures on'the salne page, natural cbannel improvements wherever poss11O nre proposed. Zone 7 requests that the City anchor the project proponent consult uith ;Lone 7 on any proposcd cllaiinel iinprovernents. Recent findings in the developzneat ofZonc 7'b Stream Management Master Plan (SMMP) indicate the need for consideration and analysis of the impaeis of development to the regional flood control sysi:em and the identification of appropriate mitigations. Therefore, during the interim period, bofore Rill implementatlon of the regional water storage plan contemplated by the SMMP, the City and/or the project proponent should consult -with Zone 7 prior -to undertaking the impact and mitigation analysis. Future nnprovements to the flood cnrttzol system are plarmed, thus, it is imperative that the City and /or the project proponent provide a technical analysis to identify Any impacts to the regional flond d-control systern that may ocour downstream of proposed prraj ect iii the interim period. 3, The proposed project is subject to Zone Ts Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 Drainages Pees for the creation of new impervious areas per the ACFC &WCD Ordinance 4- 2402 -24. The proj cot proponent will need to complete a Zone 7 S.DA. 7 -1 Impervious Surfaces 'Worksheet, submit air improvement plan identifying and quanbfying all new proposed impervious areas, and submit a payment for the proposed impervious surfaces. FROM :ZONE 7 FLOOD CONTROL FAX NO. :9254611765 Oct. 26 2012 12 :59PM P6 4. On page 78, cinder. Sall. Loading, 2nd paragritph, beginning wit the 3rd santence, please modify the remaining text in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs to the following: "Thn plan ilirludcs demineraltzing groundwatcr from existing Zone 7 welis (Mocho Wells 1, 2,.3 and 4). The mitigation for suit loading, i.e., the deuiineir lization facility (Mocha Groundwater Dernineralixation Plant) is fanded paardy from wiricr connection feos and partly from water rate revenues. All development within the Project area will pay for mitigation of increased salt loading impacts through the payment of their water and sewer hook up fees and water rates. This uumplies with Ea.stern'Dublin li.1R 3.923.0, which .required recycled water projects to be coordinnfed with any salt mitigation regWrenxews of Zone 7. The. salt loading impact from the Project is part of a regional salt: management issue, Which results from the salt accumulation fxom all the existing and proposes] irrigation, systems in the entire region. As noted in the T- -nvironmental Sotting section above, Zone 7 is itnplanlenting a regional derrainerali-ration program of which individual developments within the Project area would participate; through payment of fees to zany 7. There -fore, there would be no suppternenlal lmpacrs with regard to the Project's contribution to regional salt: leading." S. If wells are to be used or destroyed, a ;Zone; 7 well drilling permit and compliance with the permit conditions are required to ensure "wellhead protection." 6. All abandonod septic systems should be completely removed to eliminate them as a potential conduit. for the transport of Rurface contamination, should it occur. In addition, "Lone 7 requests that ive lie able to review all plans and speci.l'iaations or aDy additional information and/or studies pertaining to proposed development. Pleaso submit such additionRl information to me at the addrexs shown above, Wo appreciate the opportunity to comment on this documcnL if you have any guestinna or oornmcnlg, please feel :free to contact me: at your earliest convenience at 925 -454- 5636 pr via c, -inadll at Miin (t.zunewalc;r.tictm, Sincerely, Mary'Lim l r)*01tmental Services Program Manager' cc: Karla N'etnetlr, linvirommnntal & Public .A,ffairs Alanager, Zone 7 Jim 11oren, Principal Prttineor, Zone 7 Matt Kitten, Principal Engineer, Zonc 7 Joe Seto, Principal Engineer, "Lone 7 re.ff'Tang, Associate Civil Engineer, Zone 7 Rece i aed Time Oct, 26, 2012 12:38PM Mo, 8819 FROM :ZONE 7 FLOOD CONTROL FRX NO. :9254611765 Oct. 26 2012 12:58PM P3 6�moreS _AML EDA COUNTY F.LC]Up C,QNTROL_AND WATER CQL4aE t ATION D-L$T —Q, Z! N5,z 100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY. LIVERi TORE. CA 94651-9466 -PHONE {925} 454 -5000 August 29, 2012 Mr. -Michael Porto, Consulting Planner Letter 2.6 City of Dublin Community Development Department 100'CivicPlaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Notice of Preparation of.a Draft Supplemental Environmental 1.mpact Report (DSEIR) for the Moller •Rauob Development & Moller Creok Culvert Replacewet t Project Dear Mr, Porto; Zone 7 Water Agency -(Zone 7) has reviewed the referenced-CEQA document in the context of Zone 7's mission to provide drinking water, non - potable water far agriculture /irrigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater and stream.managernent within the .Livermore- Amador 'Valley. We submitted comments on the 2006 DSBIR -forth e Casamira Valley /Moller Ranch project, •which •are still applicable to the DSEIR for the Moller Ranch Development- Zone Ts comment letter is attached for your reference, We the following additional comments for your consideration: 2.6.1 1. Please ensure that the projected water demmid associated with the development is already accounted -Por in Dublin San Ramon Services District's 2010 Urban. Water Management Plan. 2.6.2 2. If wells are constructed and /or destroyed, -a Zone 7 well drilling permit and compliance with the permit conditions are required to ensure "wellhead protection." 2.6,3 3, All abandoned septic ;systems. should be completely rernoved -to eliminate there .as a potential conduit fear the transport of surface contamination, should it occur. 2.6.4 4, With regards'to salt loading issues, Zone Ts comm.enis Ih the 2006 DSEIR for the Casamira Valley/MollerRaach Project still apply. Zone 7 rNuests continued support from the City on Zane Ts regional demineralization-program that may include a new grouzidwa<tor demineralization plant, 2.6.5 5. On page 10 - Moller Ranch Requested Land Use Approvals, under Development Agreement, any Deveiopment.Agreement proposed. between theDoveloper and the City of Dublin, needs to be rc Aewed I y.Zone 7 prior ib implementation to ensure responsibilities associated with the Development Impact pees are properly addrmsed. Received Time Oct. 26, 2012 12 :38PM Flo, 0819 FROM :ZONE 7 FLOOD CONTROL FAX NO. :9254611765 Oct. 26 2012 12:56PM P4 Mr. Michael Porto City -of Dublin > A,.�ugusst 29., 2012 Page 2 of 2 2.6.6 6. `on page 57, iRe is likely that. portions of the prQjwt lie wit1l in 10( }year -shooed bazwi area d' M. .v1.ler.C,rcek, yet there is no mer. tion that any sturdy is proposed to vorify the potential impact, The document should state that the 1Tydrology and Witter Q)uabfy'Report prepurE;d by.l; C-- tEO,h.tas detertnined that the project does .not liry washin a..l00 -year f1oc<1.bazard area, 2.6.7 7, Zone, 7 .r- equests that. the Dev6loper or tho City pravidi x copy oi'`tlne l fydx�alogy axael. Wtaicr Qaauljty Report prepared by LNG;I O :fear Zoiae- 7's review- 2.6.8 9, On page 58, item c indicates that: there is no new impact to the stream- bed course, t1o1nTever, it is not clear whoffiex previous CrEQ.A docwneats ad-dressed tlaa rpaastraactioza -of a J1vger odlvexi •aletrag Moller 0, -66 and what ilxe ianpact ofrealigxaing Miller Cre k, :nialy be. FLUthen-ywre, the NOP states that the pratjeet:to remove and replace, an existxzag 50 year uld Tussajara RoW zalvc t is a separate and distinct project :from the Moller Ranch Developmeat. Therefore, the "no,ricwimpaact" to tlic stmambed course; closes not appoar to be, appropriate Las it is not supported by Any c:rivironn-iental analysis. 2.6.9 9. On page 59, item f indioa.tes that, degradafion of water gwilfty xs a potentially significant impact. The statement is -inctsnai.ntea3t. w4 i. what was identified in tho checkli:rt on pages 29. This ptaragrupb..or the checklist shoal.d clarli'jr wbether there i5 no new impactor not We appreciate, tfic; opportu.vity to corament on tixis NOF. idle icacik fo ward.th s-eviewiaag the DSEIR,and providing coaninOnts in consideration of any ixnpa::ts to Zone Tfaeilifics. 'lfyou have any.questiorns, pleasc. fs;el flee tot contact nnc at (925) 454 -5036 :ar via -ex-nail at mlim@zoue7water..com. Si:alcere;ly, - 9 dwy Lim lnt:egrated. PlAnning Enclosure Co. C;auol lvfalsoazcy., Matt Katen, Foe Seto,'Brad Letlesma, Jeff Taxag Received Time Oct,26. 2012 12:38PM No-0819 aWROM :ZONE 7 FLOOD CONTROL. FAX NO. :9254611765 Oct. 26 2012 1257PM P1 COUNTY FLOOD OL AND WAT RVA MR DTSTR 9J ZONE 7 ' t 100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY • UVERMORE, CA 94551 - PHONE (925) 454 -5000 • FAX (925) 4.54 -5727 [Sout Via Fax: (925) 933 -6628 ] October 26, 2012 Mr.- Micbael Porto, Consulting Planner Letter 2.7 City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: :Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( DSEIR) for the Moiler Ranch Development &- Moiler Creek Culvert Replacement Project Dear Mr.. l ?orto: Gone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) has reviewed the referenced C.E,Q.A. document in the context of Gone 7's mission to provide drinking, water, non;- potablo water for agriculturohnigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater and stream manageme -at within the Livermore- Amador Valley. We submitted comments on the 2006 DSEIR for the Casamira Valley /Moller Ranch Project, which are still applicable to the DSEIR for the Moller Ranch Development. We also supplied comments earlier this year on the Notice of Preparation of the DSEIR For the Moller Ranch project; these comments still apply. Both letters are attached for your reference. We recognize that this current comment period is specifically meant for the three topics in the DSEIR - Transportation, Biological Resources, and Air Quality sections. However., we are compelled to offer comments on other notable issues within our area of expertise. 2.7.1 1, On p. 1 -2, an arched culvert of 230' length and 266' span is proposed; however, Exhibit 3.6 shows the Preliminary Design of Culvert Replacement as being a.12'x 12' box culvert. 2.7.2 2. Since the Culvert Replacement project is now to the Moller Ranch project, And it does not appear to have been addressed previously in the 1993 Eastern Dublin E1R or the 2007 Received Time Oct. 26. 2012 12:38?M No. 0819 FROM :ZONE 7 FLOOD CONTROL FAX NO. :5254611765 Oct. 26 2012 12:58PM P2 Mr, Michael Porto City of Dublin October 26, 2012 Paget oft Casamira 'Valloy ST IR, it seems that one of the areas of environmental concern under Section 1.3 — Summary oi'Environmental Issues on'p. I -2, should be Hydrology and Water Quality and address how the realignmont of Moller Creek will be impacted. 2.7.3. 3. Please review all comments in our letter dated August'24, 2012 (attached). In particular, it appears that our August 29, 2012 comment still stands, as potential Hydrology and Water Quality impacts due to the Culvert Replacement, are not addressed in the Draft' Supplemental MR or in any response to our letter. 2.7.4 4. Consider incorporating opportunities to protect, preserve or improve the riparian habitat aloud Moller Creek. Environmental regulatory agencies are looking at the Alameda Creek watershed as an area with potential for the recovery of steelhead salmon.. Actions in the upper watenshed areas can have beneficial ecological ef-fectc do-umstroarn, such as cooling of surface water temperatures, improved water duality, and added food productivity. Zone 7 is following the National Marine Fisheries Service's preparation of the Recovery Plan for Central California. Coast Steolhead, and currently serves as Chair of the Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup. Should you be interested, we are available to suggest resources to help Dublin identify riparian habitat projects or goals. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this DSEIR. If you have any questions, please reel -free to contact me at (925) 454 -5005 or via email, at crank- @zone7watcr.com. Sincerely, (E�� Elks Rank. Associate Water Resources Planner Enclosure Cc: Jill Duerig, Carol Mahoney, Matt Katen, Toy: Seto, .leff Tang, Brad Lodesma Received Time Oct, 26. 2012 12.38PM No. 0819 �sianTtr� Y"�e�sYour Cs2arirnurirxp+ Transportation Consultants October 15, 2092 Mr. Andy Byde Letter 3.1: Braddock and Logan Homes 4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle j Suite 201 Danville, CA 94526 i Via e -mail only: abyde @braddockandlogan.com i Subject: Peer Review of the Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study (City of Dublin) i i Dear Mr. Byde: TJKM Transportation Consultants is pleased to provide you with our peer review of the subject traffic impact study conducted for the Moller Ranch Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SUR). The purpose of this letter report is to provide a summary of review comments concerning various conclusions of the subject traffic study final report prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates (KHA) on August 27, 2012, including traffic level of service (LOS) results and proposed I traffic - related mitigations. TJKM offers the following comments concerning individual mitigation measures (MM) proposed in the KHA traffic study. MM 2: An impact was found at the 1 -580 Eastbound freeway segment between 1 -680 and Dougherty Road during the p.m. peak hour under Existing plus Project Conditions. This conclusion 1 was based on an Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) operational threshold of LOS E. While ACCMA does not have development traffic - specific LOS thresholds, the KHA study interpreted this threshold to mean that any project traffic, even one trip, added to I a freeway segment already operating below LOS E (i.e. LOS F) would constitute a significant impact. The Moller Ranch Development is expected to add just 16 trips to this segment, for a total i of 2,325 p.m. peak hour trips under Existing plus Project Conditions. Project traffic therefore would represent only 0.7 percent of total traffic on this segment. 3875 Hoppard Road Suite 200 i Pleasanton. CA Previous TJKM traffic impact studies approved by City of Dublin staff, including the Arroyo Vista 94588.8526 ! Housing and Grafton Plaza developments, have established a less stringent development - related 925A63.061 1 1 925A633690T3x ? LOS threshold. This threshold states that if a freeway segment operates unacceptably (i.e. LOS F) 1 under a baseline condition without a proposed development, the impacts of the proposed S16 W. Shaw Avenue development are considered significant if the contribution of project traffic is a two (2) percent Suite zoo increase over total traffic without the project. Given that the project would add 16 trips to an Fresno, CA p 9 p ) p 937042515 existing baseline of 2,309 p.m. peak hour vehicles, or a 0.7 percent increase, this additional traffic 559.325.7530 559.221.4940 fax would therefore not constitute a significant impact under this two percent threshold. S,afr,aweoit ' 980 Ninth Street Similarly, under the two percent threshold, identified Existing plus Project condition impacts for I- 160 Floor 1 580 Westbound segments from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road and from Fallon Road to Airway Sacramento, CA g I y 95814.2736 Boulevard (both Existing a.m. peak hour) would also not be considered significant impacts. For the 916.449.9095 Hacienda to Tassajara segment, 12 project trips are added to a baseline of 1,995 vehicles (0.6 }331L 1%�,a percent increase), while for the Fallon to Airway segment, 2 project trips are added to a baseline i 400 N. Dutton Avenue Suite 21 of 2,137 vehicles (0.09 percent increase). Therefore, there is no significant impact for either of Santa Rosa, CA , .9643 these freeway segments during the a.m. peak hour under Existing plus Project Conditions. 95k01 707.575.5800 707.575.5886 fax MM S. An impact was found at the Tassajara Road 1 Fallon Road intersection under Near Term plus Project Conditions, with a proposed mitigation of a second eastbound left turn (from . +xN lEE =ii, Com 3..1.1 3.1.2 Mr. 4.144 byde j Poge 2 eastbound Tassajara to northbound Tassajara) to address increased eastbound left turn queues expected due to added Moller Ranch project trips. A closer look at existing intersection field conditions reveals that there would be insufficient right -of -way to accommodate widening the eastbound approach for an additional left turn lane. To accommodate additional left turn queues, TJKM recommends that the eastbound through lane be reconfigured as a shared left turn- through lane. This would require restriping the eastbound approach and modifying the existing traffic signal to allow split phase operation for the eastbound and westbound approaches, This is expected to mitigate queuing impacts on the eastbound approach from added project left turns while still allowing adequate green time for the remaining approaches. TJKM recommends that the project applicant fund this proposed intersection restriping and signal phasing modification. MM 6: An impact was found under Near Term plus Project Conditions for the Tassajara Road 3,1.3 segment from Fallon Road to the Contra Costa County Line based on an average daily traffic (ADT) threshold. In TJKM's experience in the Bay Area, General Plan ADT thresholds are typically used as a general guide in sizing future roadways, but since they are planning -based they are not typically used as operational impact thresholds. The City has accepted recent TJKM traffic studies that use a.m. and p.m. peak hour volume -to- capacity (VIC) quantitative metrics consistent with Alameda County CMA and Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) arterial LOS analysis procedures. TJKM notes that the KHA study has already conducted a peak hour LOS operational analysis for this MTS roadway segment. The study reported an acceptable LOS A for both peak hours under Near Term plus Project Conditions (Table 22), indicating that no mitigations are necessary. On this MTS peak hour analysis basis, TJKM concludes that no mitigation is needed under this scenario. MM 7: An impact was found at the 1 -580 Eastbound freeway segment between 1 -680 and 3.1.4 Dougherty Road during the p.m, peak hour under Near Term plus Project Conditions. This conclusion was based on a threshold in which any trips being added to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F would be considered a significant impact. The Moller Ranch Development is expected to add 16 trips to this segment, for a total of 2,435 p.m. peak hour trips under Near Term plus Project Conditions. Based on the previously identified TJKM threshold of a two percent traffic increase on freeway segments already operating deficiently under a baseline condition, this segment would not be considered to have a significant impact given that the project would add 16 trips to a Near Term baseline of 2,419 p.m. peal, hour vehicles (0.66 percent increase). Under the two percent threshold, similarly identified Near Term plus Project Conditions impacts for 1 -580 Westbound segments from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road and from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard (both Existing a.m. peak hour) would also not be considered significant impacts. For the Hacienda to Tassajara segment, 12 project trips are added to a baseline of 2,097 vehicles (0.57 percent increase), while for the Fallon to Airway segment, 2 project trips are added to a baseline of 2,219 vehicles (0.09 percent increase). MM 12: The proposed mitigation for the Long Term plus Project impact determined at the 3,1.5 Tassajara Road 1 1 -580 WB Ramps intersection is traffic signal retiming. In TJKM's Dublin traffic study experience, this is not a typical mitigation for an analysis year that is more than 20 years out from existing conditions. The KHA study used non - optimized signal timing under 2035 baseline conditions, which may not be a reasonable assumption. TJKM has typically assumed optimized signal splits for long term analysis years given that most cities like Dublin periodically retime their signals according to traffic levels in the interim. Therefore, it would be more reasonable to assume optimized timings at this intersection in the 2035 baseline, rather than proposing signal retiming as Mr. Andy Byde October t5, 2012 Page 3 a mitigation. TJKM recommends instead that signal retiming be considered part of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program should such mitigation become necessary in the future. MM 14: This mitigation proposes widening Tassajara Road from 1 -580 to Dublin Boulevard from 3,1.6 eight to nine lanes under Long Term plus Project Conditions to address an identified impact of exceeding Dublin General Plan thresholds for eight -lane roadways with the addition of Moller Ranch project ADT. TJKM offers the same comments as MM 6 with regard to the inappropriate use of roadway ADT thresholds in determining impacts and proposing mitigations. On a peak hour traffic operations basis, proposing a fifth northbound lane as mitigation for this Tassajara Road segment contradicts the findings of KHA's MTS roadway analysis under Long Term plus Project Conditions, which found no significant impacts on this segment in the northbound direction (acceptable LOS DIE for a.m. /p.m. peak hours) maintained as shown in Table 31 of the KHA traffic analysis). Based on this lack of identified peak hour arterial impacts, there is no operational advantage to adding a northbound lane on this Tassajara Road segment. However, should such widening become necessary in the future, TJKM recommends instead that this mitigation be considered part of the Eastern Dublin TIF program should such mitigation become necessary in the future. MM 15: This mitigation measure requires the applicant to pay for coordinating traffic signals 3.1.7 between Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive. This is based on the metric of average roadway speeds. Recent TJKM traffic studies reviewed by the City of Dublin that have included this Tassajara Road segment have used the 1985 HCM analysis method with a quantitative metric of V/C to determine impacts. It would be more reasonable to assume optimized signal timings along the Tassajara Road corridor in the 2035 baseline, rather than proposing signal coordination as a mitigation. TJKM recommends that signal coordination be considered part of the Eastern Dublin TIF program should such mitigation become necessary in the future. TJKM appreciates the opportunity to provide these traffic study peer review comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at (925) 264 -5034. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to evaluate this important project traffic study in the City of Dublin. Sincerely, Andrew R. Kluter, P.E. Project Manager f:1fURlSDlCT10N0IDublin1157 -225 Moller Ronch TIS Peer Review\LR 100912.docx Letter 1.1: California Department of Transportation • Comment 1.1: The Department encourages the City of Dublin to connect the proposed project with pedestrian and bicycle facilities to facilitate walking and biking to nearby jobs, neighborhood services and major mass transit nodes. Providing these connections will likely reduce the number of trips generated by the project, thus reducing impacts to state and local roads. Response: This comment is acknowledged. The City notes that a combination grade - separated and at -grade pedestrian and bicycle path would be provided adjacent to the main project roadway. This pathway would allow residents and visitors to access Tassajara Road to the west of the project where connections could be made with public transit and residents could reach other services in this portion of Eastern Dublin. Letter 2.1: Alameda County Transportation Commission (August 20, 2012) Comment 2.1.1: The City of Dublin adopted Resolution No. 120 -92 in 1992 establishing guidelines for reviewing impacts of local land use decisions consistent with the Alameda County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). If a proposed project is expected to generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips, the City must conduct a traffic analysis using the Countywide Transportation Model for projections years 2020 and 2035. Response: Comment noted. The commenter is directed to the Responses to Comment Letter 2.2 that summarizes the results of analyzing the project using the Countywide Transportation Model. • Comment 2.1.2: The traffic analysis should address all potential impacts of the project on the MTS roadway and transit systems. This includes all of the MTS roadway systems as well as BART and LAVTA. Potential impacts of the project must be addressed for 2020 and 2035 conditions. Response: This comment noted and the commenter is directed to the responses to Letter 2.2. • Comment 2.1.3: The adequacy of any project mitigation measures should be discussed. The commenter includes Alameda CTC criteria for evaluating the adequacy of project mitigation measures. Response: Comment noted. The City believes the project traffic analysis does discuss the adequacy of proposed supplemental transportation mitigation measures included in Chapter 4.1 of the DSEIR. • Comment 2.1.4: Potential impacts of the project on CMP transit levels of service must be analyzed. Transit service standards are 15 -30 minute headways for bus Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 8 City of Dublin November 2012 service and 3.75 minute -15 minute headways for BART during peak hours. The DSEIR should address the issue of transit funding as a mitigation measure in the context of the Alameda CTC policies. Response: Comment noted. The City believes the project traffic analysis contained in Chapter 4.1 of the DSEIR adequately discussed potential impacts to public transit systems serving the proposed project. Comment 2.15: The DSEIR should also consider demand - related strategies to reduce the need for new roadways in the long -term and make the most efficient use of existing roads. The DSEIR should consider the use of TDM measures in conjunction with roadway and transit improvements. To the extent possible, mechanisms to encourage ridesharing, flextime, transit, bicycling, telecommuting and other measures should be considered. A copy of a Site Design Checklist is included as part of this comment. Response: This comment is noted, however, as a residential project, the effectiveness of proposed ridesharing, flextime and other features are not appropriate to this project. The project would include a multi- function trails along the main project roadway that would facilitate non -auto transit to and from Tassajara Road, where future residents could link with regional bus transportation and use bicycles for local trips. • Comment 2.1.6: The DSEIR should consider opporturdties to promote countywide bicycle and pedestrian routes identified in the Alameda Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Response: This comment is noted. The project does propose a major bicycle and pedestrian trail along the main project road that would assist in implementing the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan The project does propose a major bicycle and pedestrian trail along the main project road that would assist in implementing the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan by encouraging and facilitating alternate transportation modes. • Comment 2.1.7: For projects adjacent to state roadways, the analysis should include address noise impacts of the project and incorporate mitigation as a condition of approval. Response: The proposed Moller Ranch project is not located near any state roadways and no conditions of approval are needed for this project. • Comment 2.1.8: Local agencies are encouraged to provide a comprehensive Transit Oriented Development Program, including environmental clearing of all access improvements necessary to support TOD development as part of project documentation. Response: This comment is noted but does not apply to the currently proposed Moller Ranch development project, which is not located near either BART station Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 9 City of Dublin November 2012 or other transit facilities. It is located in a semi -rural area along Tassajara Road at the northerly City limits, which is not an appropriate setting for transit oriented projects. Letter 2.2: Alameda County Transportation Commission (October 29, 2012) • Comment 2.2.1: The DSEIR appears not to have done a 2020 mid --year analysis of he environmental impacts of MTS transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian networks, This analysis is required as part of the CMP's Land Use Analysis Program and should be included in the Final Supplemental EIR. Response: Based on this comment, the Alameda CTC staff was contacted to receive the most recent model forecast data and complete the 2020 evaluation as recommended by Alameda CTC. Results of the evaluation did not result in new impacts that were not previously disclosed in the DSEIR and related traffic study. A summary of the updated MTS roadway and freeway analyses are attached as Attachment 1. Comment 2.2.2: The commenter asks the City to confirm that the August 2012 version of the Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model was used to conduct the analysis and determine impacts in the DSEIR. Although the DSEIR does reference the countywide model, this does not appear to be the most recent version. If the most recent model was not used, please contact the Alameda County CTC to discuss options for correcting this. Response: Traffic impacts in the DSEIR were identified using traffic forecast data from the Dublin Traffic Model and the Alameda CTC Model. As Alameda CTC noted in their comment, the forecast data from the Alameda CTC model was not the most recent version. Therefore, Alameda CTC staff was contacted and the most recent model forecast data was obtained so that an updated evaluation could be completed. Results of the evaluation did not reveal in new impacts that were not previously disclosed in the DSEIR and related traffic study. • Comment 2.2.3: The commenter requests that environmental impacts and mitigation measures on the MTS roadway and transit system be added to Table 1.0, Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Mitigations. Response: Based on the current analysis, no new impacts or mitigation measures resulted from the updated analysis. Letter 2.3: Contra Costa County Public Works Department • Comment 2.3.1: The commenter states that the Contra Costa County Public Works Department has been coordinating the realignment of Tassajara Road at the County line with the City of Dublin to improve the safety of the roadway and plan for future traffic volumes. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 10 City of Dublin November 2012 Response: This comment is noted and no further discussion is required. • Comment 2.3.2: The commenter notes that under the Near -Term scenario, approved and pending projects development projects were included in the model. Do these projects include build -out of Dougherty Valley within Contra Costa County? Build -out of this project should be accounted for under the Near - Term and Long -term scenarios. Response: Because the Moller Ranch project is proposed to be constructed in 2015, full buildout of Dougherty Valley is not assumed in the near -term. There is significant development by Shapell Homes within the Gale Ranch project that is unlikely to be completed by 2015. Buildout of Dougherty Valley area has been assumed in the long -term analysis for the Moller Ranch DSEIR. Comment 2.3.3: The commenter notes that future traffic volumes were forecasted using the Dublin forecast model. Does this model account for future developments and traffic patterns in Contra Costa County? The proposed development project is located adjacent to the County line and any model used should incorporate future plans within Contra Costa County to identify project impacts. The traffic analysis analyzed roadway segments along Tassajara Road, Camino Tassajara. The commenter asks where were traffic volumes along Camino Tassajara taken for the study? Based on he analysis contained in the DSEIR, there is no need to widen Camino Tassajara between the County line and Highland Road to six lanes, even though this improvement is included in the Contra Costa County General Plan. the commenter notes that additional segments should be analyzed along Tassajara Road and Camino Tassajara to provide for a more accurate analysis. Response: Traffic impacts in the DSEIR were identified using traffic forecast data from the Dublin Traffic Model and the Alameda CTC model. Both models recognize future growth from Contra Costa County and attempt to account for future gateway traffic at the county border. The DSEIR confirms the need to widen Tassajara Road within Alameda County where project traffic is primarily directed; however, the DSEIR should not be used to assume that widening of the same road in Contra Costa County is not needed. Project traffic is principally directed towards the south and the City of Dublin and the I -5$0 freeway. Thus, minimal project traffic is expected to travel to the north within Contra Costa County during the peak or off -peak periods. Volumes are sufficiently low whereby under CCTA guidelines the intersections or road segments would not warrant evaluation in a traffic study or DSEIR. Contra Costa County confirmation of the need for widening Camino Tassajara would, therefore, be based on documentation other than this DSEIR. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 11 City of Dublin November 2012 Letter 2.4: East Bay Regional Park District • Comment 2.4: The commenter states that the East Bay Regional Park District has no comment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Moller Ranch project. Response: This comment is noted and no further response is required. Letter 2.5: Alameda County Zone 7 Flood Control and Water Conservation District (December 13, 2006) Comment 2.5: The commenter provides comments on the Casamira Valley/ Moller Ranch Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Response: The SEIR referenced in this letter has been certified by the City of Dublin. The comment period on this earlier SEIR closed in 2006 and no further response is required. Letter 2.6: Alameda County Zone 7 Flood Control and Water Conservation District (August 29, 2012) • Comment 2.6.1: The commenter asks that the projected water demand associated with the proposed project has already been accounted for in the Dublin San Ramon Services District 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Response: The proposed number of dwelling units in the current proposal, 382 dwellings, is less than the maximum number of dwellings under the Casamira Valley General Plan Amendment approved by the City of Dublin in 2007 (426 dwellings). Since the Urban Water Master Plan is based on General Plan land use assumptions, the number of dwellings in the currently proposed project has been accounted for in the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. • Comment 2.6.2: The commenter states that if wells on the site are destroyed, a Zone 7 well drilling permit will be required and compliance with conditions are required to ensure wellhead protection. Response: The this comment is noted and the City of Dublin will ensure that all required Zone 7 permits will be obtained by the project applicant and that conditions of permit issuance are ful£illed.- • Comment 2.6.3: All abandoned septic systems should be completely removed to eliminate them as a potential conduit for transport of surface contamination. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental E1R Page 12 City of Dublin November 2012 Response: This comment is noted and the City of Dublin will ensure, through the development review process, that Zone 7 requirements dealing with abandoned septic systems are met. • Comment 2.6.4: The commenter requests continued support from The City of Dublin regarding Zone 7's regional demineralization program that may include a new groundwater demineralization plant. Response: This comment is noted. This is a regional concern and will continue to be considered by the City of Dublin. • Comment 2.6.5: The commenter notes that any Development Agreement proposed between the developer and the City of Dublin needs to be reviewed by Zone 7 to ensure that responsibilities associated with Development Impact fees are properly addressed. Response: This comment is noted but does not address and environmental topic, so no response is required. Comment 2.6.6: The Initial Study notes that it is likely that portions of the project site may lie within a 100 -year flood hazard area of Moller Creek, yet there is no mention that any study is proposed to verify this potential impact. The document should state that the Hydrology and Water Quality Report prepared by ENGEO has determined that the project site does not lie within a 100 -year flood hazard area Response: The ENGEO report cited by the commenter does document that proposed residential portions of the project site is outside of a 100 -year flood hazard area. Under applicable standards of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, no residential dwellings are allowed to be constructed within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Comment 2.6.7: Zone 7 requests that the project developer or City provide a copy of the Hydrology and Water Quality Study prepared by ENGEO for Zone 7 review. Response: This comment is noted and the City of Dublin staff or the project developer will forward a copy of the ENGEO report to Zone 7. Comment 2.6.8: The commenter asks if there is a new impact to a streambed course, it is unclear if the present CEQA document addressed the construction of a larger culvert along Moller Creek and what the impact would be for realigning Moller Creek. The NOP states that the removal and replacement of the existing culvert is a separate and distinct project from Moller Ranch and therefore, the "no new impact" conclusion does not appear to be appropriate for the environmental analysis. Moiler Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 13 City of Dublin November 2012 Response: This proposed culvert replacement project was not addressed in the 2007 Casamira Valley Supplemental EIR. The culvert replacement project was addressed and analyzed in the current Supplemental EIR. In terms of the conclusion reached in the Initial Study that the proposed culvert replacement would not have a new impact, the commenter is correct. See the Corrections and Modifications section of this document. • Comment 2.6.9: The commenter notes that the Initial Study found that degradation of water quality is a potentially significant impact. This statement is inconsistent with what was defined in the checklist on page 29. The paragraph or checklist should clarify whether there will be as new impact or not. Response: This issue is clarified by the project applicant's requirement to comply with Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -SD -1 contained in the 2007 Casamira Valley Supplemental EIR. As noted in the current DSEIR, the project applicant is required to comply with all previous supplemental mitigation measures contained in this earlier document. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -SD -1 requires the project applicant to prepare a water quality plan consistent with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and that this plan be approved by the City of Dublin prior to issuance of a grading permit by the City of Dublin. The current applicant has retained ENGEO to prepare a "Hydrology and Water Quality Impact Report" dated July 10, 2012, to meet this earlier supplemental mitigation measure. Based on the ENGEO report, the current Moller Ranch project would not result in any new or more severe water quality impacts than previously analyzed. As noted in the response to Comment 2.6.5, the City will transit a copy of this report to the commenter. Letter 2.7: Alameda County Zone 7 Flood Control and Water Conservation District (October 26, 2012) • Comment 2.7.1: The commenter notes that the proposed arched culvert would have a length of 230 feet and a 26 -foot wide span. However, Exhibit 3.6 shows the preliminary design of the culvert replacement as being a 12 -foot by 12 -foot culvert. Response: According to the City of Dublin staff, the current design for the Moller Creek culvert replacement would be a 12 -ft. x 12 -ft. culvert, 412 -ft. long. Comment 2.7.2: The commenter states that the culvert replacement project is new to the Moller Ranch project and does not appear to have been previously addressed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2007 Casamira /Moller Ranch Supplemental EIR. It seems that that Table I -2 should identify hydrology and water quality as impacts and address how the Moller Creek realignment would be impacted. Response: The commenter is correct in that the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR did not identify the currently proposed Moller Creek culvert replacement as a specific, Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project/Final Supplemental EIR Page 14 City of Dublin November 2012 discrete project. However, infrastructure projects, including those such as the proposed culvert replacement project, were assumed to be constructed to support the amount of urban development envisioned by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The proposed culvert replacement project was not included or analyzed in the 2007 Moller Ranch SEIR. The City believes that the DSEIR discussion based on the Hydrology and Water Quality Report prepared by ENGEO adequately analyzes any impacts to hydrology, water quality and the potential for minor streambed alteration to Moller Creek. As noted in the District's request for a copy of this report, see the Response to Comment 2.6.7. • Comment 2.7.3: The commenter notes that the comments made by the District as part of the NOP response dated August 29, 2012 still stand as regards potential hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the proposed culvert replacement. These were not addressed in the SEIR or in any previous response. Response: Comments made by Zone 7 are addressed in Letter 2.6 of this document. Comment 2.7.4: The commenter requests the opportunities to protect, preserve and protect the riparian habitat along Moller Creek be considered. Environmental agencies are looking at the Alameda Creek watershed as an area with potential for the recovery of steelhead salmon. Actions on the upper watershed can have beneficial impacts on downstream areas, including surface water temperatures, improved water quality and added food productivity. Zone 7 is following the National Marine Fisheries preparation of a Recovery Plan for the Central California Coast Steelhead. Response: This comment is noted. The current Moller Ranch/ Moller Creek Culvert Replacement SEIR is based on detailed biological analyses of both the Moller Ranch proposed development and the culvert replacement. The SEIR contains a large number of supplemental mitigation measures that are intended to protect, preserve and improve the local habitat near the area that would be affected by the proposed culvert replacement. Letter 3.1: TJ'KM Transportation Consultants Comment 3.1.1: The commenter notes that an impact was found on the I -580 Eastbound freeway segment between I -680 and Dougherty Road during the p.m. peak hour under Existing Plus Project conditions. This conclusion was based on Alameda County Congestion Management Agency ( ACCMA) operational threshold of significance of LOS E. The commenter notes that the ACCMA does not have traffic - specific standards and the standard used in the DSEIR was that even one trip added to a freeway operating at LOS E would be a significant impact. Previous traffic studies, including the Arroyo Vista project and Grafton Plaza developments used a less stringent, development related standard. This Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 15 City of Dublin November 2012 standard was that if a project contributed a 2% or less increase there would be a significant impact. Similarly, if the 27o or less threshold were to be used, the Existing Plus Project impact for I -580 Westbound segments from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road and from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard would not be considered significant impacts. Therefore, using this less stringent threshold, there would be no significant impacts related to these freeway segments. Response: The comment is noted. While ACCMA (now called Alameda County Transportation Commission) does not dictate development - related traffic standards, the application of standards is left to professional judgment. For this Supplemental EIR, it is the City's current professional judgment to assess supplemental impacts of the project on the state freeway system by assuming an impact significant if any project vehicles would be added to an existing congested freeway (LOS F) segment during a peak hour period. Therefore, no changes are required to any supplemental mitigation measures involving impacts to the state freeway system. Comment 3.1.2: An impact was identified at the Tassajara Road/ Fallon Road intersection under Near term Plus Project conditions, with proposed mitigation being construction of a second eastbound left -turn lane. A closer look at existing field conditions reveals there is insufficient right -of -way to accommodate recommended widening. Instead, the commenter suggests that the eastbound through lane be reconfigured as a shared left turn- through lane. This would require re- striping the eastbound approach and modifying the existing signal. This suggested improvement would mitigate queuing impacts on the eastbound approach from added left turns while still allowing sufficient green time for the remaining approaches. The commenter suggests that the project applicant fund this intersection re- striping and signal timing changes. Response: The City believes that sufficient right -of -way exists to allow the construction of a second east -bound left -turn lane as recommended in the DSEIR and no change is required to the supplemental mitigation measure. Comment 3.1.3: An impact was found under Near Term Plus Project Conditions for the Tassajara Road segment from Fallon Road to the Contra Costa County line. based on an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) threshold. The commenter notes that ADT thresholds are typically not used as operational impact thresholds. The City of Dublin has accepted previous studies that use an a.m. and p.m peak volume -to- capacity quantitative metrics consistent with the Alameda County Transportation Commission and MTS arterial LOS analysis procedures. Based on the analysis contained in the Supplemental EIR, this roadway segment would operate at LOS A for both peak hours under Near Term Plus Project Conditions. Therefore Mitigation Measure 6 is not required. Response: Based on the City's professional judgment for application of traffic impact methodologies, the DSEIR correctly analyzed expected future impacts for Tassajara Road from Fallon Road to the County Line and no change is required to Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA -7 -12 Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final supplemental FAIR Page 16 City of Dublin November 2012 Comment 3.1.4: An impact was found at the I -580 Eastbound Freeway segment between I -680 and Dougherty Road during the p.m. peak hour under the Near Term Plus Project Conditions. This conclusion was based on a threshold in which any new trips added to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F would be considered a significant impact. The proposed project is expected to add 16 vehicles to this segment in the peak hour to a baseline of 2,419 peak vehicles. This would be an increase of 0.66 percent. Based on the earlier comment, using a two percent increase on freeway segments already operating at a deficit, this segment would not be considered to have a significant impact. Similarly, under the commenter's suggested two percent threshold for freeway segments, the Near term Plus Project Condition identified for the I -580 Westbound segments from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road and from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard (both Existing a.m. peak hour) would also not be a significant impact. For the Hacienda to Tassajara Segment, 12 projects would be added to a baseline of 2,097 vehicles (0.57 percent increase), while the Fallon to Airway segment would experience 2 project trips to a baseline of 2,219 vehicles (0.09 percent increase) Response: The comment is noted. See response to Comment 3.1.1. No changes are required to any supplemental mitigation measures involving impacts to the state freeway system. Comment 3.15: The proposed mitigation for the Long Term Plus Project identified for the Tassajara Road /I -580 WB Ramps is traffic signal timing. In the commenter's opinion, this is not a typical mitigation for an analysis year that is more than 20 years out from existing conditions. The traffic analysis in the DSEIR used non - optimized signal timing under 2035 conditions that may not be a reasonable assumption. The commenter has typically assumed optimized signal splits for long term analyses given that most cities like Dublin typically periodically retime signals according to traffic levels in the interim. Therefore, it would be more reasonable to assume optimized timing at this intersection in the 2035 baseline, rather than proposing signal retiming as a mitigation measure. The commenter suggests that signal retiming be included in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact fee program should such mitigation become necessary in the future. Response: The City is satisfied that the Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRA-5-12 contained in the DSEIR adequately reduces the long term impact of the proposed project to the Tassajara Road/ I -580 WB Ramp by requiring signal timing changes to the traffic signal system in this location. The supplemental mitigation measure reflects the professional judgment of the City's traffic engineering staff and no changes are required for this measure. • Comment 3.1.6: Mitigation Measure 14 proposes widening Tassajara Road from I -580 to Dublin Boulevard from eight to nine lanes under Long Term Plus Project Conditions to address an identified impact of exceeding Dublin General Plan Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR rage 17 City of Dublin November 2012 thresholds for eight -lane roads with the addition of project traffic. The commenter raised the same concern as expressed in Comment 3.1.3 with regard to use of an inappropriate use of ADT roadway thresholds in determining impacts. On a peak hour traffic operations basis, proposing a fifth northbound as mitigation for this Tassajara Road segments contradicts the findings of the traffic analysis under Long Term Plus Project Conditions, which found no significant impacts on this segment in the northbound direction.. Based on this lack of identified peak hour arterial impacts, there is no operational advantage to adding a northbound lane on this Tassajara Road segment. However, the commenter recommends that if widening is required in the future, the proposed Tassajara Road widening be included in the Eastern Dublin TIF program. Response: The City of Dublin is satisfied that the supplemental impact was correctly analyzed in the DSEIR and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -TRA- 9 -12 will be needed to ensure that the project pays a fair share contribution to implementing this measure. No changes are therefore required with respect to this topic. Comment 3.1.7: Mitigation Measure MM 15 requires the applicant to pay for coordinating traffic signals along Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive. This is based on a metric of roadways speeds. Prior studies reviewed by the City have examined Tassajara Road segments using the 1985 HCM analysis method with a quantitative method of V / C to determine impacts. It would be more reasonable to assume optimized signal timing along the Tassajara Road corridor in the 2035 baseline rather than proposing signal timing coordination as a mitigation. The commenter recommends that signal coordination be considered as part of the Eastern Dublin TIF should this mitigation be needed in the future. Response: The City of Dublin is satisfied that the supplemental impact identified by the commenter (SM- TRA -8 -12) will be adequately mitigated by the implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -8 -12 that requires future retiming of traffic signals along Tassajara Road between Fallon Road Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive. The supplemental impact and associated mitigation measure is based on the professional judgment of the City's traffic division and consulting traffic engineer who prepared the traffic report used in the preparation of DSEIR. No changes to supplemental mitigation measures contained in the DSEIR are therefore required. Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 18 City of Dublin November 2012 Attachment Supplemental ACTC Model Results Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 19 City of Dublin November 2012 Moller Ranch & Culvert Replacement Project /Final Supplemental EIR Page 20 City of Dublin November 2012 Alameda CTC - Land Use Analysis Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study Roadway Analysis Note Locations operating at unacceptable levels are shown in BOLD KiMeyHorn 11!9!2012 t and As=-ales, lne. Dougherty Road Tassajara Road EB It 2670 E A 938 0.351 D 2128 0.797 WB It 2670 E F 2751 1.030 F 2984 9.118 Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Fallon Road EB It 1780 E A 412 0.231 F 2858 1.606 WB It 1780 E F 2410 1.354 A 546 0.307 NB [II 3390 E B 1553 0.458 E 3275 0.966 1.580 EB Ramps Dublin Boulevard SB 111 3390 E B 1912 0.564 B 1600 0.472 Dublin Boulevard Gleason Drive NB It 1780 E A 317 0.178 D 1581 0.888 Tassajara Road SB It 2670 E B 1538 0.576 A 678 0.254 Gleason Drive Fallon Road NB It 1780 E A 180 0.101 C 1067 0.599 SB It 1780 E B 993 0.558 A 416 0,234 Fallon Road Highland Road NB It 1780 E A 458 0.257 B 773 0.434 SR 1[ 1780 E A 310 0.174 A 445 0.250 Note Locations operating at unacceptable levels are shown in BOLD KiMeyHorn 11!9!2012 t and As=-ales, lne. Alameda OTC - Land Use Analysis Mal& Ranch Traffic Impact Sludy Roadway Analys.s �M❑ andA = 111912012 EB }1 2670 IE A 938 0.351 D 2120 0.707 B 365 0.154 K 0,01 4 2153 0,606 < 0,01 Dougherty Road Tassa}ara Road WB 11 2570 F 2751 i.OJO F 2904 1.118 F 2774 1,039 K 0.01 F 3000 1.124 < 0.01 DuWn Boulevard EB ii 1704 A 412 0.231 F 26 68 1.606 A 417 0.234 <0.05 F 2870 1,812 K 0.01 Tassa}aro Road Fallors Road WB 11 1780 F 2410 1 -764 A 546 0.307 F 2420 1.360 <0.01 A 554 0311 <0.01 1 -580 EB Ramps Dubin Boulevard NB 111 3390 B 1553 9.458 E 3275 0.955 B 1577 0.465 < 0.01 E 3357 0.990 0.024 SB III 3396 B 1912 0564 B 1600 0.672 B 1933 0.570 < 0.01 B 1614 0.476 K 0,01 Dubin Boulevard Gleason Drive NB 11 1780 E A 317 9.178 D 1581 0.068 A 361 0203 0.025 E 1730 0.972 0.064 SIB 11 2670 E B 1536 0.576 A 678 0.254 C 1655 0.624 OA48 A 809 0.303 0.049 Tassalara Road NB 11 1780 E A 180 0.101 C £067 0.599 A 224 0.120 0.025 C 1219 0,685 0.055 Gleason Drive Fallon Road SB 11 1780 E B 993 0.550 A 416 0.234 C 1127 0.633 0.075 1 A 505 0.284 1 0.050 NB it 1780 E A 450 0257 B 773 0.434 A 524 0.294 0 017 B 996 0.560 0,125 Fallon Road Highland Road SB ll 1780 E A 310 0.174 A 445 0,250 A 507 0285 1 0.111 TA t 57fi 0,326 0.074 �M❑ andA = 111912012 Alameda CTC - Land Use Analysis Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study Roadway Analysis Note: Locations operating at unacceptable levels are shown in BOLD C1=11 Kirriley-Hoin and Associates, Inc. 1119!2012 i EB II 2670 E O 2036 0.763 F 3016 1.130 Dougherty Road Tassajara Road WB II 2670 E F 3205 1.200 F 3322 1.244 Dublin Boulevard EB II 2670 E B 1450 0.543 F 3100 1.161 Tassajara Road Fallon Road WB II 2670 E F 3026 1.133 D 2327 0.872 NB 1 €1 3390 E B 1808 0.533 F 3634 1.072 1 -580 EB Ramps Dublin Boulevard SB III 3390 E C 2524 0.745 B 1610 0.534 Dublin Boulevard Gleason Drive NB II 3560 E A 465 0.131 C 2498 0.702 SB 11 3560 E C 2219 0.623 A 905 0.254 Tassajara Road Gleason Drive Fallon Road NB II 2670 E A 272 0.102 C 1586 0.594 SB 11 2670 E C 1609 0,603 8 610 0.228 NB 11 3560 E A 9 86 0.277 A 1165 0.327 Fallon Road Highland Read SB II 3580 E A 826 0.233 A 1 852 1 0.239 Note: Locations operating at unacceptable levels are shown in BOLD C1=11 Kirriley-Hoin and Associates, Inc. 1119!2012 Alameda CTC - Land Uso Analysis Mollor Ranch Txa4Tic Impact Study Road —y Analysis - o ®'- .,�:.'.g�Inph° .dP - : -, _A(�„ #� .�� A Cap�cl- ,�=�eiCi�it • Wwy-- P��* � aJYfl lls'S(�"u COMMEM � � ��- , a" .x 16 a. »1�'�:-V' �Q9S „ l” --�c �; � Raf R? meil s .[QIRS1� 6,l�- .. »�z'"G:_. ' "NOME moo® wo��E ' ©��r�[o��rr�r�r�mrrnrm�■r����rm �m��s. m�s�■a■�■mm■������� , , , o��rxmr ®m❑ "',y-Hcm 51/92012 M ma As =t&. Lx Alameda CTC - Land Use Analysis Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study Freeway Analysis Note Locations operating at unacceptable levets are shown in SOLD and impacts are highlighted. Freeway segments were analyzed using HCM methodology, which measures traffic volume to determine LOS 'Volume is measured in vehicles 1 hour l lane (vphpl) ®KMey -Horn aM Assxiales. Inc. 1119/2012 e 1 F 1 -580 - 1 -680 to Dough" Rd Eastbound E D 1765 F 2657 Westbound E D 1769 C 1484 1 -580 - Dougherty Rd to Hacienda Dr Eastbound E C 1163 D 1621 Westbound E I D 1 1642 1 C 1 1380 1 -580 - Hacienda Dr to Tassajara Rd Eastbound E C 1075 D 1569 Westbound E D 1663 C 1436 1 -580 - Tassa'ara Rd to Fallon Rd Eastbound E C 1272 D 1744 Westbound E F 2108 E 1863 1 -580 - Fallon Rd to Airway Blvd Eastbound E C 1295 D 1643 Westbound E I D 1 1521 1 C 1 1468 Note Locations operating at unacceptable levets are shown in SOLD and impacts are highlighted. Freeway segments were analyzed using HCM methodology, which measures traffic volume to determine LOS 'Volume is measured in vehicles 1 hour l lane (vphpl) ®KMey -Horn aM Assxiales. Inc. 1119/2012 Alameda CTC - Land Use Analysis Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study Freeway Analysis • s . e . • i r 0 1 1 -580 -1-680 to Dougherty Rd Eastbound E D 1765 F 2651 D 1769 4 F 2665 14 Westbound E D 1769 C 1484 D 1780 11 C 1491 7 1 -580 - Dougherty Rd to Hacienda Dr Eastbound E C 1163 D 1621 C 1165 2 D 1629 8 Westbound E D 1642 C 1380 D 1652 10 C 1387 7 1 -580 - Hacienda Dr to Tassa'ara Rd Eastbound E C 1075 D 1569 C 1078 3 D 1578 9 Westbound E D 1663 C 1436 D 1673 10 C 1442 6 1.560 - Tassa'ara Rd to Fallon Rd Eastbound E C 1272 D 1744 C 1272 0 D 1744 0 Westbound E F 2108 E 1863 F 2108 0 E 1863 0 I -580 - Fallon Rd to Airway Blvd Eastbound I E C 1295 D 1643 C 1302 7 D 1647 4 Westbound I E I D 1 1521 1 C 1 1468 1 D 1 1523 1 2 1 C 1 1475 1 7 Note; Locations operating at unacceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are highlighted. Freeway segments were analyzed using HCM methodology, which measures traffic volume to determine LOS. 'Volume is measured in vehicles 1 hour 1 lane (vphpl) ®K&ay-tlorn and Assa Wes.Int 11/9/2012 Alameda CTC - Land Use Analysis Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study Freeway Analysis Freeway segments were analyzed using HCM methodology, which measures traffic volume to determine LOS. 'Volume is measured in vehicles! hour /lane (vphpl) Kur�'eyNo{n ® and Associates. Inc. 1119!2012 Alameda CTC - Land Use Analysis Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study Freeway Analysis Freeway segments were analyzed using HCM methodology, which measures traffic volume to determine LOS. 'Volume is measured in vehicles 1 hour! lane (vphpl) ®KwNey,ftn and A=iaies, im 1 1/9/2012