HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 13-37 The Village @ Dublin FSEIR & CEQA rec to CC RESOLUTION NO. 13- 37
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
UNDER CEQA FOR THE VILLAGE AT DUBLIN RETAIL CENTER
PLPA-2012-00031
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Regency Centers, has submitted a Planning Application to
construct a retail commercial center of up to 167,200 square feet on a vacant 14.32 acre site at
5054 Hacienda Drive. The proposal includes the approval of General Plan Amendments,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Rezoning
properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map, and certification
of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions. These
planning and implementing actions are collectively known as "The Village at Dublin Retail
Center Project" or the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. It was determined that
a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to analyze the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated January 7, 2013, to public
agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR. The City also
conducted a public scoping meeting on January 28, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft
SEIR) dated July 2013 for the proposed Project that reflected the City's independent judgment
and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The Draft SEIR is
incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated for public review from July 30, 2013 to
September 13, 2013 (45 days); and
WHEREAS, the City received three comment letters from State, regional, and local
agencies during the public review period. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the
City prepared written responses to all the comments received during the public comment period.
The City prepared a Final SEIR (that includes the Responses to Comments), dated October
2013, for the proposed Project, which included an annotated copy of each comment letter
identifying specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and clarifications and minor
corrections to information presented in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is attached as Exhibit A to
this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference. The complete Village at Dublin SEIR
incorporates the Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR together. The responses to comments provide
the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments;
and
1
WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and
determined that the Final SEIR, including the clarifications and minor corrections to the Draft
SEIR, do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR
under the standards in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated November 12, 2013 and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project for the Planning Commission and contained
information on the Final SEIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Report, the Final SEIR,
including comments and responses, at a noticed public hearing on November 12, 2013 at which
time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR, including comments and responses, reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be
reduced to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures. Approval of the
project by the City Council will therefore require adoption of findings on impacts and mitigations
and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identified significant and unavoidable environmental impacts
of the project and approval of the project by the City Council will therefore require adoption of
Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR and all of the documents relating to the Project are available
for review in the City Planning Division at the Dublin City Hall, file PLPA-2012-00031, during
normal business hours. The location and custodian of the Final SEIR and other documents that
constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community
Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PLPA-2012-00031.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Dublin Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings and recommendations to the City Council on the Final SEIR and
the environmental review of the Project under CEQA:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
B. The Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines
and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final SEIR, including the written comments received during the Draft
SEIR review period and the oral and written comments received at the public hearing,
prior to making its recommendation on the proposed Project.
D. The Final SEIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The Final SEIR provides information to
the decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the proposed
2
Project.
E. The Final SEIR adequately describes the proposed Project, its significant environmental
impacts, mitigation measures and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed
Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Dublin Planning Commission hereby recommends
that, prior to the approval of the Project, the City Council certify the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report as complete, adequate and in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The Planning Commission further
recommends that the City Council make all required, mitigation and alternatives findings, adopt
a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, all in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November 2013 by the following
vote:
AYES: O'Keefe, Bhuthimethee, Goel, Kohli
NOES:
ABSENT: Do
ABSTAIN:
P . g Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assista t
munity Development Director
G:IPA#120121PLPA-2012-00031 Regency Center Site 16A GPA SPA PD SDRIPC 11.12.20131PC Att 5-PC Reso FSEIR.docx
3
rr
-
-
The Village @ Dublin
�. Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
-
SCH# 2013012027
-
-
—
AN Lead Agency
�. City of Dublin
—
Prepared by
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
—
October 2013
EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 5
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR ........................................................................3
Summary of Draft SEIR Comment Letters..............................................................................1 l
Annotated Comment Letters and Responses ..........................................................................12
Appendices
Attachment A:
Table 1.1 (Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Mitigations)...................22
Attachment B:
WetlandDelineation................................................................................................................35
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 1
City of Dublin October 2013
Ar!
Introduction
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) was circulated for a 45-
day public review period from July 30, 2013 through September 13, 2013, as assigned by the
State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and
consistent with CEQA regulations. Copies of the document were distributed to state,
regional, and local agencies, as well as organizations and individuals, for their review and
comment.
Draft SEIR circulation. 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 op
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 Draft SEIR review period.
This "Response to Comments" document augments the Draft SEIR and, together with the WL
Draft SEIR, comprise the Final Supplemental EIR (Final SEIR) for this project. This
document contains all public comments received during the 45-day public review process
regarding the Draft SEIR and responses to those comments. Included within the document is
an annotated copy of each comment letter, identifying specific comments, followed by a
response to that comment.
The Final SEIR also contains clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in
the Draft SEIR. In the course of preparing the responses to comments, the City generated
new information as well as clarifications and modifications to the Draft SEIR. The City has
carefully reviewed the responses in this document, especially any new information or
clarifications and modifications to the Draft SEIR, against the recirculation standards of
CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. None of the new information, clarifications, or
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.
Project summary. The proposed project would involve constructing a retail commercial
center on the site that would include up to 167,200 gross square feet of floor area and are
envisioned to include a specialty grocery store, two "soft goods" retail stores, restaurant N
space and related retail space. Future buildings would be constructed generally parallel with
Dublin Boulevard with limited surface parking north of the buildings and the majority of
parking located south of the buildings. Small freestanding buildings could also be �r
constructed just north of Martinelli Way at the perimeter of the site and along the main entry „.
drive.
The project would also include grading of the site and extension of nearby utility lines to
serve proposed uses.
ra
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 2
City of Dublin October 2013
Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR
The following clarifications and modifications to the Draft SEIR are incorporated by reference
into the Draft SEIR document. Deletions to Draft SEIR text are shown in stf-ikethr-ough text and
additions are shown in underlined text.
x I. Table 1.1 (Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Mitigations) is
changed to more accurately reflect the actual text of the Mitigation Measure to be
_A implemented and to clarify the responsibility of the Applicant/Developer to meet the
requirements of the Mitigation Measure. Table 1.1 is reprinted in its entirety and is
included as Attachment A to this Response to Comments.
2. Page 40 of the Draft SEIR, MTS Aerial and Roadway Segments of Significance is
changed to read as follows:
MTS Arterial and Freeway Segments. The Alameda County Transportation
Commission's (ACTC) 2011 Congestion Management Program (CMP)requires
analysis of Metropolitan Transportation System(MTS) roadway and transit systems if
a project generates 100 or more PM peak hour trips. The 2011 CMP also requires a
traffic impact analysis that includes use of the Alameda Countywide Transportation
Demand Model (ACTDM)for analyzing 2020 and 2035 traffic conditions. The MTS
roadway system in the vicinity of the project includes 1-580, 1-680, Dublin Boulevard,
Dougherty Road,Tassajara Road, Hopyard Road, and Santa Rita Road. The LOS
standard for CMA analysis of roadway segments is LOS E, as determined by the
Dublin City Engineer. An impact would be considered significant when the project
traffic cause an MTS network segment (roadway segment, freeway segment, or
freeway ramp) to fall from an acceptable LOS L-(LOS E, V/C ratio of 0.99 or better)
wa to LOS F,rvxava�segment, rcco�°gient, of f o. . uy:.mt We ratio of 0.99
or-
less) in the AT D.- 'eet ease to an tinaeeeptable LOS F 1>/e of 1.00 e) or, if a
segment is already operating at LOS F in the No Project case,the v/c ratio increases
by more than 0.02 (for example, from 1.03 to 1.06).
3. Page 51, fourth paragraph, is changed to read as follows:
Because widening of Dublin Boulevard might net be is not desirable or feasible due
to right-of-way constraints, impacts to pedestrian crossing distance that would
increase due to the street widening, and potential operational issues with the very
large intersection dimensions that would result, this impact would remain Significant
and Unavoidable.
4. Page 52, second paragraph from the bottom, is changed to read as follows:
The required mitigation measure for this impact is identified in the City's
Transportation Impact Fee (TIF)program as part of the widening of Dublin
Boulevard to six through lanes at this location,which would provide the third
eastbound through lane. Because this impact is caused by the short-term future land
use growth in the region as well as the proposed project, and the required
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 3
City of Dublin October 2013
improvement is included in the TIF program, the mitigation for this impact is for the
project developer to male a fair-share m .,o+ tfib ti a these
.� rur
to pay the TIF fees due on the project Thy or�n�r��r
fees i 3--prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
5. Page 61, third paragraph, is changed to read as follows:
Because widening of Dublin Boulevard for this mitigation is not desirable or might
not be feasible due to right-of-way constraints, impacts to pedestrian crossing
distance that would increase due to the street widening, and potential operational
issues with the very large intersection dimensions that would result, this impact
would remain Significant and Unavoidable.
6. Page 64, SM-TR-7, is changed to read as follows:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-7(long-term cumulative impacts at
the Dublin Blvd./Iron Horse Pkwy. intersection). At the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway, the necessary mitigation measure is to add
a second northbound left turn lane, resulting in two left turn lanes and a shared
through-right lane on the northbound approach. Both northbound left turn op
lanes on Iron Horse Parkway would need to be 400 feet long. This improvement ift
would require the removal of parking on the east side of Iron Horse Parkway,
traffic signal modifications, and changing the travel lane configuration and 1P
alignment to create one 16-foot wide southbound receiving lane on Iron Horse
Parkway,two 10-foot wide northbound left turn lanes on Iron Horse Parkway;
and one 14-foot wide northbound shared throw h-right turn lane W
7. Page 67, second full paragraph, is changed to read as follows: ft
Because widening of Dublin Boulevard for this mitigation m:,.�====grt fiet-be is not
rr
desirable or feasible due to right-of-way constraints and potential impacts to
pedestrian and bicycle circulation, this impact would remain Significant and
Unavoidable.
8. Page 71, first full paragraph, is changed to read as follows:
The required mitigation measure for this impact is identified in the City's
Transportation Impact Fee (TIF)program. Because this impact is caused by future
land use growth in the region as well as the proposed project, and is included in the
TIF program, the mitigation for this impact is for the Applicant/Developer to pay TIF
fees at the issuance of the first building permit.
9. Page 84, SM-TR-19 is changed to read as follows:
1
The Village at Dublin Finat Supplemental EIR Page 4
City of Dublin October 2013
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-19 (long-term cumulative roadway
segment impact at the Dublin Blvd.between Dougherty Rd. and Tassajara Rd.).
The potential mitigation measures for these arterial segment impacts would
require widening Dublin Boulevard in both directions. Such measure could
reduce the impact to less than significant.However,widening of Dublin
Boulevard for this mitigation might not be-is not desirable or feasible due to
" right-of-way constraints and potential operational issues with the very large
intersection dimensions that would result.
10. Pages 92 and 93,paragraph than spans both pages, is changed to read as follows:
Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation. In the vicinity of the project site, there are Class
II bike lanes on both sides of Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive, Central Parkway,
and Arnold Road north of Dublin Boulevard, and on the west side of Arnold Road
between Dublin Boulevard and Martinelli Way. In addition to these existing bike
lanes, according to the City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan', Class II bike lanes on
both sides of Arnold are planned to extend from Dublin Boulevard all the way to the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station on the south, where the bicyclists could continue to
take the planned Class II bike lane on both sides of Iron Horse Parkway and/or
- DeMarcus Boulevard, or the Class I bike path"Iron Horse Trail." in addition, Glass 11
bike lanes, with a minimum width of 5 feet and pFefer-ably 6 feet, are planned on bo
sides of Martinelli Way between Drive and r,-en Hersemy, In
Y addition a Class I multi-use trail, with a minimum width of 10 feet, is planned on
both sides of Martinelli Way between Hacienda Drive and Iron Horse Parkway,
-� immediately south of the proposed project site. Although the preliminary project site
plan does not show the planned additional bike lane on the east side of Arnold Road
along the project frontage or the bike lane on either side of Martinelli Way between
Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road, the eet • •ill be ~ fed to pfevide for- these
AtQ Conditions of Approval have been written and will be applied to the
project to provide for those improvements.
11. Page 112, paragraph describing the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
(EACCS),will be changed to read as follows:
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS).
The pr-ejeet site is leeated-
in Alameda County and although. As a private development project,it The Village at
Dublin is Willy not subject to compliance with the EACCS guidance. However,
permitting agencies will utilize the guidance and policies contained in the EACCS to
analyze the project. 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 Project Area:
1 City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan,Fehr and Peers,June 2007.
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 5
City of Dublin October 2013
12. After the publishing the Draft SEIR, a wetland delineation (approved by the Army
Corps of Engineers) was submitted by the Applicant. Page 114, SM-13I0-1, will be
changed to read as follows: o"
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1_(wetland and other waters).If
avoidance of these jurisdictional waters on the site is not feasible, suitable
compensatory mitigation shall be provided based on the concept of no net loss of
wetland habitat values or acreages.In such an eventuality, a wetland mitigation
plan shall be developed and implemented that includes creation, restoration,
and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands prior to project ground disturbance.
Mitigation areas shall be established in perpetuity through dedication of a
conservation easement(or similar mechanism) to an approved environmental
organization and payment of an endowment for the long-term management of
the site.if wetlands aFe deter-mined to be jurisdictional a C t' 404 of the-
Clean Water- "et, The mitigation plan is subject to the review and approval of
the Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). if the
potential u.s are non jWisdietional,the mitigation plan will be 4P
subjeet to the Feview and approval of the RWQC-B-.
13. Page 115, SM-13I0-2,will be changed to read as follows: 1P
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2: Focused surveys for special- `
status plants shall be conducted on the site according to the California Fish &
Wildlife Service (2009) Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to
Special Status Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Plant surveys shall
be conducted throughout the blooming period of those species for which suitable
habitat is present. Two or three separate surveys may be required to cover the
blooming period of the plants in Table 4.4-1. If populations/stands of a special-
status species are identified during the surveys and impacts are unavoidable, 1P
compensatory mitigation shall be provided, such as the acquisition of off-site
mitigation areas presently supporting the species in question, or purchase of
credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for the affected �w
species, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation
organization for the preservation and management of existing populations. The
location of mitigation sites shall be determined in consultation with, and subject W
to approval of, US Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of
Fish & Wildlife Seniee. In the cases where the special-status plant species is
neither federal- nor state-listed, the lead agency shall approve the mitigation
approach for the given species using guidance provided in the East Alameda
County Conservation Strateey and in consultation with the City's consulting
biologist. Off-site compensatory mitigation shall be acquired at a minimum
acreage ratio of 1:1 (acquired:impacted). For esker off-site mitigation options,
measures shall be implemented (including contingency measures) providing for
the long-term protection of the species. 11
14. Page 116, SM-13I0-3, will be changed to read as follows:
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 6
City of Dublin October 2013
■r
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3: Preconstruction surveys shall be
conducted for burrowing owls prior to grading or construction activities.These
surveys should conform to the survey protocol established in the Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012b) and ConseFva Strategy (I
2010) The r t• Strategy depieto_th •tt+site being l + a as Conservation Zone 4 �
. SUPPOAS 11 per-cent of the Conservation Strategy's
study area's unpr-oteeted potential habitat for bur-FOWiftg .Burrowing owls
could nest or winter in the site's approximate 13 acres of ruderal/disturbed non-
native grassland habitat and within the suitable grassland habitat adjacent to
the site. The following measures are consistent with the provisions of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife
standards:
a) No more than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities, a
qualified biologist shall conduct a take avoidance survey for burrowing owls. If
no owls are found during this first survey, a final survey will be conducted
within 48 hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm that burrowing owls are
still absent. If ground disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more
than 14 days after the initial take avoidance survey, the site shall be resurveyed
(including the final survey within 48 hours of disturbance).All surveys shall be
conducted in accordance with California Department of Fish & Wildlife
guidelines.
b) If burrowing owls are found on the site during the surveys, mitigation
shall be implemented in accordance with applicable California Department of
Fish & Wildlife and other applicable standards,
1CF 2010. More specifically, if the surveys identify breeding or wintering
burrowing owls on or adjacent to the site,occupied burrows cannot be disturbed
and shall be provided with protective buffers.Where avoidance is not feasible
during the non-breeding season, a site-specific exclusion 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) shall be implemented to
encourage owls to move away from the work area prior to construction and to
minimize the potential to affect the reproductive success of the owls. The
exclusion plan shall be subject to California Fish & Wildlife approval and
monitoring requirements. Compensatory mitigation could also be required
either by California Fish & Wildlife as part of the approval of an exclusion plan.
Mitigation may include the permanent protection of habitat at a nearby off-site
location acceptable to the California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife.
15. Page 146, Supplemental Project Impact AQ-1, is renumbered as follows:
.,r
Supplemental Project Impact AQ42 (emission of cumulative considerable air
pollutants during project operation). The project would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is
non-attainment under applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 7
City of Dublin October 2013
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)
16. Pages 146-147, SM-AQ-2, is revised to have language consistent with the TDM
mitigation measure identified in SM-TR-1, and is changed to read as follows:
IP
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 (emission of cumulative W*
considerable air pollutants during project operation).The project applicant shall IP
_work with the City to develop key elements of a Transportation Demand
Management(TDM) plan,which shall be prepared by the Developer and
approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit The
TDM plan should include, but not be limited to,the following measures:
a. Appoint Commute Coordinator(coordinates information distribution).
b. Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees
regarding 511,Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program,
Wheels/LAVTA, shuttles to regional transit, and any existing City CarShare
programs.
c. Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to all
employees.
d. Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with "The Greed'
property to the south. Invite Wheels, 511.org, and at least two other commute
alternative service providers to attend and distribute commute alternative
information. Provide refreshments to participants IP
e. Provide bicycle parking facilities for 10% of car spaces or a number
approved by the City.
L Provide secured bicycle parking(lockers or cages) for employees
g. Join City Car Share as a "Biz Prime" member and pay for membership of a
minimum of 5% employees.
h. Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no IP
cost or subsidized rate to all employees.
i. Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent Under Section
132(F) of federal tax code, an employer can offer its employees up to $230
per month for qualified transit vanpool or parking costs Or, an employer ft
may offer$20 per month for bicycling costs Full information is available at:
http://rideshare.511.orp-/rewards/tax benefits aspx IP
j. Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of off-street
Parkin requirements.
The City shall require the following additional measures to reduce overall vehicle-
related emissions:
k. Provide shading in the parking lot,to the maximum extent possible,to
reduce evaporative ROG emissions; and OR
1. Provide appropriate electrical outlets and signage to reduce truck idling and a
use of mobile refrigeration units that are powered by diesel fuel.
The projeet applieant shall Feduee future employee trips 1-1—'15- per-ee t through a
Tr-affie Demand Management (T-DAI)program approved by the City and
ineluding,but not 4
..he following-nK-as*Fes+
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 8 ,
City of Dublin October 2013
Appoint a Commute Coordinator—,
r,
cog,
Wh 1 /i A VT A shuttles tar nal transit and !"pity CaFShare•
d. Promote and distribute information on implemented measures by quar-tffly
email blast by pr-ojeet sponsor- or-Commute CooFdinator- designee;
•
Invite Wheels, t least two other commute alt tiye sn
m��reel,, LrIIALl♦l J<l vIt,t
L Provide bieyele PaFkiHg facilities for-20 per-eent of ear- spaees or- a HumbeF
appFOVed by the rat.,.
g. Provide seeure bieyele par-king (loelier-s or-eages) for- employees;
h.jo• City CaFShare as a "Biz Prime" member- and pay far member-ship of
i. implement a BART subsidy pr-Offam that would provide BART tiekets at no
eost subsidized rate to all employees;
implement a Commuter-Tax Benefit Program a„
.,
eq
1 Provide preferential parking f r ear-pools and ya.,pools as part of off street
17. Page 148, Supplemental Project Impact AQ-2, and the paragraph immediately
following it, is renumbered as follows:
Supplemental Project Impact AQ-33 (violation of air quality standards). The
project would result in a violation of regional air quality standard and would
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 would partially,but not
fully, mitigate the above impact and Supplemental Impact AQ-23 will remain
M significant and unavoidable.
18. Page 152, Supplemental Project Impact AQ-3, is renumbered as follows:
Supplemental Project Impact AQ-34 (conflict with applicable clean air plan).
The project would conflict with the regional Clean Air Plan.
19. Page 159, Supplemental Project Impact AQ-4, is renumbered as follows:
Supplemental Impact AQ-45 (project generation of greenhouse gas emissions).
The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, both directly and
indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment and would
conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 9
City of Dublin October 2013
1
20. Page 160, SM-AQ-3, is renumbered as follows: r.a
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-35 (project generation of greenhouse
gas emissions). The final design of the project shall include all requirements of
the City Climate Action Plan,including policies A.1.4,A.1.5,A.1.8,A.1.9,A.3.4,
and A.3.6. In addition,the project proponent is encouraged to participate in
subsidy programs such as Climate Action Plan polices A.2.4 and A.3.5.
21. Page 166, first bullet point, is deleted. There was no Urban Decay Impact identified `
in the Draft SEIR.
Lant4 Use, Planning and Urban Deeay: Land use within the pr-ojeet aFea would
remain as it etiffently exists and there would be no impaets related to ufban deeay of-
existing shopping eentefs in the Ptiblin market area.
22. A Wetland Delineation for the site, as approved by the Army Corps of Engineers
(dated June 14, 2013) was submitted by the Project Applicant after the publication of
the Draft SEIR. The Wetland Delineation is included as Attachment B to this
Response to Comments.
Op
W
op
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 10
City of Dublin October 2013
1fiF
Summary of Draft SEIR Comment Letters
Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the public comment period on the
Draft SEIR from the following agencies, organizations and other interested parties.
Commenter Date
Federal Agencies
None
State Agencies
1.1 Department of Transportation Caltrans 9/12/13
Local Agencies
2.1 Dublin San Ramon Services District 9/9/13
DSRSD
2.2 Alameda County Transportation 9/18/13
Commission ACTC
Interested Persons/Organizations
None
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 11
City of Dublin October 2013
IP
rrc
op
Annotated Comment Letters and Responses
Ip
I►
F
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 12
City of Dublin October 2013
rt By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5559; Sep-12-13 4:47PM; Page 1/2
eosxnwN n� c�. �
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
111 GRAND AVENUE
P.U.BOX 23660
OAKLAND,CA 94523-0660 plexyourpower!
PHONE(5.10)2$6-6053 Be energyef/lcknll
FAX(320)Z86-S5S9
'1'rY 711
September 12,2013
ALA580866
Letter 1.1 ALA-580-18.82
' SCII#2013012027
Ms,Kristi Bascom
- City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin,CA 94568
Dear Ms.Bascom:
The Village at Dublin Retail Project—Supplemental Environmental-Impact Report
Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)in
the environmental review process for The Village at Dublin Retail project.The following
comments are based on the Suppl'einental Environmental Impact Report.
nip Generation
Table 4.2-2 on page 44,shows the project will generate 119 inbound and 113 outbound trips
during the AM peak hour,and 334 Inbound and 339 outbound trips during the PM peak hour.
However,Exhibit 4.2-3 on page 97 shows 68 total inbound and 104 total outbound trips for the
AM peak hour,and 190 total inbound and 314 total outbound trips for PM peak hour derivcd•
w from Intersection#9 and#23 which serves as project driveways,Please clarify this discrepancy. i
Operations
We are unable to review MTS Roadways and Freeways Levels of Service(LOS)for Short-Term 1.1.2
Cumulative Condition(Table 4.2-13)and long-Perm Cumulative Conditions(Table 4.2-14) �
- without the Existing Condition.Please provide it for our review.
In comparison between intersection Existing Condition LOS tkom Tab16 .2-1 on page 43 and 1.1.3
intersection LOS for Short-Term Cumulative Condition from Tablo 4.2 4
4 on page 48,please i
explain why some of the intersection delays would improve over time Without mitigation, For
example,for Intersection#4,the delay under Existing Conditions during AM is 469 seconds but
would improve in Short-Term.Cumulative Condition AM to 23.7 seconds.
Please explain the discrepancy between the LOS and volume/capacity(V/C)ratios for MTS
Roadways and Freeways Levels of Service(Table 4.2-13&Table 4.2-14)and Route of Regional
Significance Lcvcls of Servico(Table 4.2-15&Table 4.2-16). Fox oxample,far.the eastbound
segment of Dublin Boulevard AM.from Dougherty Road to hacienda Drive in•Table 4.2-13 (page
79),V/C increase is 0.005 and both No Project and Plus Project LOS's are A but in Table 4.2-15
(page 86),V/C increase is 0.016 and both No Project and PIus Project LOS are D. ;
'oltrarta Improves mo611ity across California' j
i
Received Time Sep. 12. 2013 5:25PM No- 2048
lent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNINO; MO 286 5550; Sep-12-13 4:48PM; Page 2/2
Ms.Kristi Bascom/City of Dublin
•September 12,2013
Page 2
For the northbound segment of Tassalara Road from Dublin Blvd to Interstate 580,please explain 1.1.5
why the capacity is 4,200 in Table 4.2-13 on page 80 but it's 3,150 in Table 4.2-15 on page 86.
Please insert the freeway mainline section LOS thresholds for this project.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter,please call VA kwan,A'ICP of my staff 1.1.6
. . at(510)622-1670.
Sincerely, ■r
LR1 'AL1VI;' 1CP
••bistrict•Branch•Chief _ W
LoGa1'Dever ogitnextt-Ititergoveiii riental Ri evkw'
ab
op
•, " 'c:Stala�Clearitighouse ' : .• ..• .. • . . . . . ... •. . ', • ' �'
. • .. •:.. . .. .. . • . . ... .. . ... . .' • .. • . . • '. ..'• . . .. err=
.:. .Received T 12—:2013.' c�ta►�IIns im�frGi B: 6$Jii, ffWW Ca{sforiita"
ime_•Sep. 5:25PM- No. 2048
w...w-wr- .-.�..._.vt.. rv.wt iSM:._?.��i•:V�';v.u__:t.}::,..._
y��40N SEgyfc,d\
tff
DUBLIN ,3 � 7051 Dublin Boulevard
SAN R"ON � Dublin,California 94568
P 'v Phone:925 828 0515
SERVICES ttdp�'i�ts•�ru,tntu. - FAX:925 829 1180
DISTRICT J` SjNC81g�3 ♦vww.dsrsd.coin
September 9,2013
Via Fax Letter 2.1
Kristi Bascom,Principal Planner
City of Dublin,Community Development Dept.
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin,CA 94568
Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Supplemental EIR for the
Village @ Dublin Retail Project(PLPA-2012-00031)
Dear Mr.Haag:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Availability of the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(Draft SEIR)for the Village @ Dublin Retail Project(PLPA-
2012-00031).
This proposed project is within the service area where Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
currently provides potable water service,recycled water service and wastewater collection service. These
services are generally discussed under item 17 of the EIR checklist,"Utilities and Service Systems." This
project is in the area discussed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and analyzed for environmental
impacts under the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR reiterated that DSRSD will provide the
potable water,recycled water and wastewater collection services for this project and the area surrounding
the project. The Utilities and Service Systems environmental impacts of this project were dealt with in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. This fact was noted in your Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Seeping Meeting letter dated January 7, 2013. DSRSD
issued comments for the Eastern Dublin EIR. Our comments have not changed to this time.
We noted that this specific Draft SEIR does not address any environmental impacts dealing with Utilities
and Service Systems (Number 17 on the standard list of Environmental Impacts.). Since this specific
Draft SEIR does not deal with issues relating to DSRSD's role in this project we have no comments.
Sincerely,
STANLEY KOI ZE,P.
Associate Engineer
SK/ST
cc: Dave Requa,DSRSD
Rhodora Biagtan,DSRSD
Dublin San Ramon Services District is a Public Entity
H:\ENGDEPT\CEQA\DSRSD Response to CEQA Documents\City ofDublinr2013\Comments on Draft Suppl EIR-Village at Dublin Retail 9-9-13.doc
ALAMEDA 1333 Broadway, Suites 220&300 Oakland,CA 94612 PH:(5 10)208-7400
r�County Transportation
or www.AlamedaCTC.or
Cnrni on 9
1�
J
September 18,2013 op
Kristi Bascom Letter 3.1 IF
Principal Planner
City of Dublin,Community Development Department W
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin,CA 94568
kristi.bascom @dublin.ca.gov rs
SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The
Village @ Dublin Retail Project(PLPA-2012000031)
Dear Ms. Bascom, ■v
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report for the The Village @ Dublin Retail Project(PLPA-2012000031). The proposed project IP
would involve constructing a retail commercial center on the site that would include up to
167,200 gross square feet of floor area. Other improvements would include surface parking lots,
installation of utilities and services,site landscaping,pedestrian plazas and placement of 1P
identification signs. The project site contains 14.3 acres of land located in the Eastern Dublin
Planning Area of the City of Dublin. The project site is located on the south side of Dublin
Boulevard between Hacienda Drive to the east and Arnold Drive to the west. Martinelli Way
fonns the southern boundary of the site.
The Alameda CTC respectfully submits the following comments:
PF
On page 40,the DSEIR states that"The LOS standard for CMA analysis of roadway 3.1.1
segments is LOS E." This is statement is not accurate and should be removed. The LOS
E threshold is used as to determine deficiencies during biennial Level of Service
monitoring of existing conditions that the Alameda CTC conducts as the CMA for +rr
Alameda County, but is not a threshold of significance for development impact analysis.
As stated in the NOP response letter for this project,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 and professional judgment should be applied to
determine the significance of project impacts. The text on page 40 should be changed to
state that the LOS E threshold for MTS roadway segment impacts is a threshold that has
been defined for this project,not a threshold set by the Alameda CTC.
The Village @ Dublin Retail Project is situated an opportune location for multimodal
transportation circulation. The project is immediately adjacent to two Priority Development
Areas(PDAs)that are planned for and already experiencing significant new housing
development, including some higher density housing(Dublin Transit Center/Dublin Crossings
and the Dublin Town Center). Furthermore,the project is located in close proximity to the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and the LAVTA Rapid route,and the Iron Horse Trail,and the
_., September 18,2013
Page 2
project falls entirely within an Area of Countywide Significance from the Alameda Countywide
Pedestrian Plan. In addition,the project is implementing the City of Dublin's Complete Streets
Policy and General Plan,which identify a commitment to a transportation network consisting of
"facilities that are planned,designed, operated,and maintained to provide safe mobility for all
users,including bicyclists,pedestrians,transit riders,and motorists"and that"serve[s]to enable
active travel as part of daily activities,reduce pollution,and meet the needs of all users of the
streets." With these considerations in mind,the DSEIR should consider the following:
• Several mitigation measures should consider secondary impacts to all road users: 3.1.2
o Page 62-63,the DSEIR proposes removing a crosswalk across Dublin Boulevard
if the preferred mitigation of grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian bridge cannot
be implemented at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Boulevard.
This intersection is a critical pedestrian junction as it is located along the Iron
Horse Trail and in the vicinity of the Dublin Pleasanton BART station.
Opportunities for maintaining the crosswalk should be considered if bridge
construction is not feasible.
o Page 68,the DSEIR proposes widening Dublin Blvd to add a fourth eastbound 3.1.3
through lane at the Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road intersection. Opportunities
for accommodating increased transit,bicycle and pedestrian activity should he
considered at this location.
• The DSEIR proposes a suite of TDM measures for impacts at several intersections(e.g. 3.1.4
page 67 and page 71). The DSEIR should consider whether TDM measures could be
appropriate for all locations rather than the few locations where it has been determined
there is insufficient right of way to add turn pockets.
The DSEIR should consider opportunities to implement the proposed segment of bike 3.1.5
lane from the Alameda Countywide Bike Plan on Dublin Boulevard to the cast of
Tassajara Boulevard. This segment would complete a route for residents of the Town
Center PDA who wish to access destinations to the west, such as the Village @ Dublin
retail center or the Dublin Pleasanton BART station. This improvement could serve to
mitigate some of the impacts that the DSEIR identifies along Dublin Boulevard.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIR. Please do not hesitate to contact me at
(510)208-7405 or Matthew Bomberg of my staff at(510)208-7444 if you require additional
information.
Sincerely,
Beth Walukas
"A Deputy Director of Planning
Cc: Matthew Bomberg,Assistant Transportation Planner
File: CMP—Environmental Review Opinions—Responses-2013
Letter U: Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
• Comment 1.1.1: The commenter requests clarification regarding project trip generation,
specifically a perceived discrepancy between Table 4.2-2 and Exhibit 4.2-3, which
appears to show differing a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips to and from the project site.
Response: Table 4.2-2 contained in the DSEIR shows all net additional project-
generated trips, which are assigned among all of the project driveways,while Exhibit
4.2-3 only shows the project trips using the two signalized project driveway
intersections that are included as study intersections (#9,#23). Per the preliminary
site plan that the DSEIR is based on, there are also several right-in/right-out
driveways along Dublin Boulevard,Martinelli Way,Arnold Road and Hacienda
Drive in addition to the two full access project driveway intersections shown in
Exhibit 4.2-3. The project trips not accounted for at the driveways shown on the
Exhibit are expected to use these other driveways. The volumes at the other study
intersections as shown on the Exhibit fully account for all net additional project-
generated trips.
Comment 1.1.2: The commenter states an inability to review MTS Roadway and Freeway
Levels of Service for Short-Term Cumulative Conditions and Long-Term Cumulative IP
Conditions. The commenter requests this information.
Response: The information requested by the commenter is not required for traffic
analyses prepared pursuant to Alameda County Transportation Commission(ACTC)
requirements; therefore, existing condition information was not colledted as part of this
study for MTS roadways or freeways. The DSEIR includes appropriate tables that clearly IP
show project impacts under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. ik
• Comment 1.1.3: The commenter requests clarification regarding DSEIR information as to IP
why some intersections analyzed in the document would improve over time without
mitigation. The commenter cites study intersection#4 where delay under Existing
Conditions during the a.m. peak is 46.9 seconds but would improve to 23.7 seconds under
Short-Term Cumulative conditions
Response: The decrease in delay of intersections under future conditions would be
reduced due to existing roadway improvements that are planned by the City of Dublin
and funded by transportation impact fees. The model results reflect not only changes in
the land uses, but also changes to the street network over time. The reason some of the I
impacts are lower in future years is due to the fact that some of the improvements to the
street network are expected to come on-line between by 2020. Therefore,the analysis
shows redistribution of traffic due to these anticipated changes. Please refer to pages 53
to 54 of the DSEIR for detailed description of street network changes. ■
• Comment 1.IA: The commenter requests that the perceived discrepancy between the
LOS and Volume-to-Capacity for MTS Roadways and Freeway Levels of Service and •w
Routes of Regional of Significance be clarified.
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 18
City of Dublin October 2013
Response: For the NITS Roadways analysis,per the requirements of the Alameda
County Congestion Management Program(CMP), the Alameda Countywide
Transportation Demand Model (ACTDM)was used to obtain the baseline and with
project volumes as well as the link capacities. The V/C ratios were calculated using
the link volumes and capacities obtained from the ACTDM model, and the LOS
results were determined by the V/C ratios.
For the Route of Regional Significance analysis, the segment volumes are estimated
based on the closest intersection turning movement volumes, and the link capacities are
taken from the City of Dublin Travel Demand Model (CDTDM). For the intersection
turning movement volumes, the baseline volumes are the same volumes as used in the
Dublin Crossings Specific Plan DEIR, and,the volumes for with project scenarios are
based on the methodology of directly overlaying the project trips onto the baseline
conditions. The V/C ratio increases with the addition of project trips based on this
methodology are expected to be the same or higher than those based on the comparison
of the direct ACTDM travel demand model run results for baseline and with project
scenarios. This is because when running the regional travel demand model with the
project added, the model may reassign some of the baseline trips to other less congested
routes instead of a route where project trips increase congestion. In addition, , the LOS
results for the Route of Regional Significance analysis are based on the 2000 HCM
Arterial Level of Service methodology
• Comment 1.1.5: The commenter requests clarification regarding why the roadway
M capacity for Tassajara Road between Dublin Blvd. and 1-580 is identified as 4,200
vehicles on Table 4.2-13 and 3,150 vehicles on Table 4.2-15.
Response: As explained in Response 1.1.4, for NITS Roadway analysis,per the
requirements of the Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP), the
Alameda Countywide Transportation Demand Model (ACTDM)was used to obtain
the link capacities. For the Route of Regional Significance analysis, the City of
Dublin Travel Demand Model (CDTDM)was used to obtain the link capacities.
There are differences in land use assumptions in the two models, and the use of each
is specified by the respective responsible agencies.
• Comment 1.1.6: The commenter requests information on freeway mainline segments
LOS thresholds.
Response: The commenter is directed to page 40 of the DSEIR that provides standards for
freeway segments. This standard has been modified based on comments provided by the
Alameda County Transportation Commission(see Comment 2.2 and the Changes and
Modifications section of this DSEIR)
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 19
City of Dublin October 2013
1
Letter 2.1: Dublin San Ramon Services District(DSRSD)
• Comment 2.1: The commenter notes that the Draft SEIR does not address Utilities or
Service Systems and the District has no comment. ..
Response: No response is required to the above comment.
Letter 2.2: Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC)
1
• Comment 2.2.1: The commenter notes that the Level of Service(LOS) for CMA analysis
of roadways is LOS E. This comment is not correct, since the ACTC only uses LOS E to
determine deficiencies and is not a threshold of significance.
Response: Comment noted and the respective change has been made in the EIR. The EIR
recognizes that the Alameda CTC does not have a policy for determining a threshold of
significance for CMP requirements and expects that professional judgment will be used
to determine project impacts. Therefore, for the purpose of this traffic analysis, the
Dublin City Engineer, on the basis of engineering judgment,has determined LOS E as
the threshold of significance for the CMP land use analysis. If a segment operates at an
unacceptable LOS without the project, the impact of the project is considered significant
if the contribution of project traffic results in an increase in the volume-to-capacity ratio
of at least 0.02. This threshold is consistent with prior traffic impact analyses in the City
of Dublin.
• Comment 2.2.2: The commenter notes that the project is situated in an opportune location PP
for multi-modal transportation circulation. Several mitigation measures should consider rr
the secondary impacts to all road users. A Mitigation Measure on pages 62 and 63 of the
DSEIR proposes to remove a crosswalk across Dublin Boulevard if a proposed grade Ae
separated bicycle and pedestrian bridge cannot be built. The commenter notes this is a 1k
critical pedestrian junction in the vicinity of the Dublin Pleasanton BART station and
opportunities for maintaining the crosswalk should be considered if the bridge is not OF
feasible.
Response: The City is pursuing multiple sources of funding to conduct a feasibility PF
analysis of the Iron Horse Trail connectivity from Dougherty Road to the (East)
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. It is recognized that a grade-separated crossing in
this location could significantly enhance bike and pedestrian access to and from the
project area and beyond. To support this project, the developer of the Dublin Crossing
project is contributing $50,000 towards the feasibility analysis, and the City is
seeking additional funding from ACTC's own Sustainable Communities Technical PF
Assistance Program. It is the City's full intent to pursue a grade-separated crossing at
this location, and at this time the alternative mitigation measure of removing a portion
of the crosswalk across Dublin Boulevard will remain in the SEIR.
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 20
City of Dublin October 2013
• Comment 2.2.3: On page 68,the DSEIR proposes the widening of Dublin Boulevard to
add a fourth eastbound through lane at the Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Rd. intersection.
Opportunities for increased transit,bicycle and pedestrian activity should be considered
at this location.
Response: Design of the intersection improvements will be reviewed for consistency with
the City's Bikeways Master Plan and reviewed for consistency with the City's Complete
Streets Policy(adopted by the City Council in December 2012). The City will also
coordinate improvements with LAVTA to ensure adequate accommodation of public
transit at this location.
• Comment 2.2.4: The commenter notes that the DSEIR proposes a suite of mitigation
measures for impacts at several intersections (pages 67 and 71). The DSEIR should
consider whether TDM measures could be appropriate for all locations rather than a few
locations where it has been determined there is insufficient right-of-way to add additional
turn pockets.
Response: To encourage the use of alternatives modes of transportation, several TDM
measures have been proposed that would improve overall traffic operations along key
arterial streets that would serve the project. However, on the basis of TDM literature
available to the City, it is difficult to predict the mitigation of project impacts through
TDM measures alone. It is expected that the TDM measures may relieve some of the
congestion at nearby intersections where physical improvements are not feasible due to
right-of-way constraints,but would not be able to fully mitigate impacts identified in the
DSEIR.
• Comment 2.2.5: The DSEIR should consider opportunities to implement the proposed
segment of the bike lane from the Alameda Countywide Bike Plan on Dublin Boulevard
to the east of Tassajara Road. This segment could complete a route for residents of the
Town Center PDA who wish to access destinations to the west. This improvement could
serve to mitigate some of the impacts along Dublin Boulevard identified in the DSEIR.
Response: The City of Dublin has a Bikeways Master Plan, adopted in 2006, that
includes the development of an integrated bicycle circulation system throughout the
community. This plan is consulted whenever street improvements are proposed
and/or mitigation measures are considered for the installation of bicycle facilities.
The City's Bikeways Master Plan is consistent with the Alameda Countywide Bike
Plan, which addresses only major arterials in Dublin. The City's Bikeways Master
Plan illustrates the existing and future bicycle network on arterials, collectors, and
residential streets throughout the City.
Mitigation Measure TR-2 of this SEIR identifies improvements to the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road. At the time this roadway improvement is
constructed,bicycle facilities, as identified in the City's Bikeways Master Plan, will
be constructed.
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 21
City of Dublin October 2013
r.
..
w
rr�
ATTACHMENT A:
Table 1.1 (Summary of Supplemental Environmental Impacts and Mitigations)
w
op
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 22 f
City of Dublin October 2013
P
16
cd
ci ,n
+' O
t=+ d v o
z � a
Y
U w o
cd `n sn, .y O p ° cci w G O
° Q O O
y
t O p p 0 0 4 O Q g X p y o
In 0 3 O o 0
as G, ° i•a U y s"' Y �"' E-� Q C) 3•. O 'O
d cC N `� t3 N N y y : �� b cd
09 bi.a �I O ,.0 U .-� d cC py Fl, ° N U p Ri Cd cd
cd
s Owlr ate" y U b O �n H
sn
a3
In
bi O U p U cd y� ° O b >
CO •3 p p sU UD 3 O
ti Cc o O
o W O O p ,y p O ° M
Cc
.4 =
cn
—•� O O 4� N L: O "U cC L=� O s. cC-13 N N
O a, cd
c'a a'i °� N sn (L) 12 o
U tj
O :b In p U c>C Q �"Cd
c6 N °O N y N U p .ms. �+ p U rn
° 'J ai c�C O vUi O
. O O O a�
tj
F-' O y p �'' C v' U N N N .�.. > O .
0 72 0
o
cd
cn
�r p
0 0 cd
O "0 N Q
p = r. 'O 4 cC V] O OC)'wo O
U a�
F. . p p CL - NOW a
cd
ro-
�.
° oo ° o °y'
Q
� a
cd
Cd N > °
00 a H H
H
PF
V M
N
Li
«s �
•� � � � � illy
y %
a a �
irr
o a ,o > 4-4 y W 0 o �
0 '� 0 y
o w b o .� '� OQ 0
> cd � U
q one
cdi o (1:° ' ° > W on o
� ``" � Q 3 Cd aim w w o ° oy
40 C/] "d 0 0 y 0 'C3 N 'o U-;; O O N
Cd
v cn
G to
y
o �� a>i . oq ao > `0 y c�i o cd °
o �. o b Y :3 p Y w p
to 0 to to tj
to o0 � > o °' 'Aaq °
r.
� . ti Ld o � �.
.� cd p .M cd y
cc
� •� acdi � � -o W .�' � Ab -ye�sy °? "3 °�° �
CIS 0 Y_ � •'a ttS it � ° L. Y
Ow W
Ld
„ . o a y o > R; CYi Y ° Cc Q. v
° '� N p sue. O O
° 3 4°
cC v� � F:-o0 cd 3F• . v� . OA .� to r. 0
bb bA bb
rn
Cd o 0 0 w
n o t a d na� c .c o .cv onA �. ° o
A 21 a; W U U ° UAA k" U "5 In oUA 0 w: W p „ UA
V] 0 «3 U) = N N 4+ cd U] C s•
E- a� 0 , . i vo 0 � > �' O G o 4
, U o o � 0 0 w U LV� U 0
4E b 0 00 — > ' ,
r. O U � Y MOO �A
to o
Alm
tiM N M
,u
cc
cd RS p•„ a>
U U co
U
� C
ll h
I�1
icdr b4 N O c6 cd ,tom. •��, O
Q) .''•' O y a> �p a) vUi "C a) G .��" �+ a) > -' o a) a) Q) •p"U >
yY � C's0 o a? ° � °' � ,°, Eo � o
0303
0 o 9 °o o P., 0 0 d — O v ° p
o
a>O o "
0 y o
-8 o a 0
� N ° N y x pa ... N � N ' 0 C' o � Y Cd
0 N Y �Q 4 > O-°o 'cd ° G U
0
b q o c H � -a ri d 'w
to cd U Y �. A a> p
g 04
0 'o cd °'•' o �-d •� °�' '�-' � -d 'd � G+, °�' p '� aY�i ~ � .'� � •� 'd aY�i
U
Gn N 4. O�i d bo
N « y fl ° O� 0
i N
° .y
vpi " > ri o
0o w d In 0bow o ° d we o .„>5 o o 'o
3 o 0 q o aD o0 �
.�
Vic°
aa) �-' o (D 0 > a cd ca y ' o b y a c° � 0 �a�i ° c� �, 0 cd
U b U o cd is Y a> p+ o .d _ a> cs 3 a�
yc Li .y a) CC Y a> U 3 y QJ b y O N O CA � �"" " O Y bq o i•�
U a> api U t3 ai a> '� 3 0 a0> � � 3 0 U p ~ o a0> to "o .� a> b > O
nC
O '° y •� r tj
y O a) 'd '-' t., cy Q +-� w? i' Q C O ' Y a) N •� `� O •�
'sf~n s. si O'•" ,�o .0>� �ai d�' '••� �.-b o�r>.s:a'.q o a> b� O i =ai �••i d " ¢�"; ' P > a°o^a cd > c U cd P3 b
ED cd 'd 0 o p
Q a>
0 0 }O ° b p °a a 'i.cC r °bp bb 0 t )o > a p p �� Q O ' r
° g > a n . F y o ~ �> > o >
o > ' a> •� F .� a> o + -0 .� •..
En
° a> o N ° ° y ° �i O
ID
o Y O >d o s,
x d &n �, m cd cd U 3 s,
tc
t
Oo bo .b O •yy o Y a�~n ..O p •o cad r. -C •�• W
0 0 w � .o ° x o 0 ° ��c o 3 ' 0 ° a -d 3 cd 0
En Y 0 u q r. 0 � Y q � � �
" > ° q 0 O •o° ° .> ° N O O o vi ° �. .> d cd 0 0 0 ,n a
0 ,U+ 'b cd 113 O 'C3 a) `-•� •� Q. W 0 V>
� 0 •3 ^a .� N Y U U r� N T� a> " Y y N "� 'i N -C U C�K Qy N 2
" a
tor. o cd cd w �- F H y GQ w
0 . � cd ° b-o -v d
as ° > a o o o �P, O
Q
cd cd F H W 3 0 cC Cd Y
pp O
F F'
PF
w
pp
c`1 M
N
Cd
L: C ° a. �a
cd �
aio O am
.y y
y y
� a
PF i
Y O
C)
av
CIS> C C cd b U o -
0 m 0 Cai cc ti cc
I.0..
O
cd w o
o p �0 > Cc. 0.to r. Ld
A 3b i l
to
0 -14 0
tl - En C,3
= 0 w �ccd p a� p F c�
r� O t7 w ° pc v .� 0 0
O cd j O 3 O 1
N s.
4•a -> sO��
> -0 w O > to 4 YO r. �'� 1S -0 O y Cc
O p p 1 N p N cd cd bA N
N
o cd
YO > 'U -0 b�q > S]. 6' ca U .9 cd 0 cd
N N
�+ 0 �• to Y N q J
o � � •° •° .� a�i 3 0 �Q cad ai a°i ° � 0 40. �
� fYf
Q " ami Ems- d
Cd
O� o� Y En� -
0 �A i O O .. p
'—~•
Y
to
o � '
on
o cd
on -� o -a .' °° 1 b O ° o w
Y
�°.'y' f a,La.i iy ,y'�• •y°, 'd���cd ,•p y �O Q °cd aUi �C I a�N Y•1 • v d 3 1a•, b l '° >o ,0 0 o -0 x C� p r cd � 3 °0 0 -0 Q o o � fo �U wa .n o
U � W N U Q � ° U
�Q y v o U
o > x 0 0) g-. > o > ¢ O U `c�I°y �y;/�+�vb w�)
/Y > a 000 ';
b' Q // � o � O 0 ^� xj � L 1 �
O 0 0
O
O Y Q Y 'd c ° cd .b cd O °
O
C o ¢ r a°,P. ,
'O
0 c. U° 0 o p U
1:54 EE
- ocbd ad U . �cd � E � 4 � o A
•� p
> 0
N M
a)
C>
C� ,
bo
bo
� � U
a a a
' � o � O O c0
a C
�
� by'p 'Y � � bq a) (� �" YO 3 � �+ � N � H bA O a) •�
lu-
bo
C O O L O H
0 CA
bp
r+1 ;; 00 N �n •a; CC 'G 00, ,� Cd�' ,�, , cn 'y
cC cC m cC 'o
y by bb 0 cd o O
to o
CA ° o as
E,
° o o °
' C c)
zi In
Q Q. Q a a � o b ebb A o O �27s
`}' w O 0 12.10 cd
'A o 0 0 ° o cn .� o y o o �oq Cd
to 0 'd Q y '.: .y c� Cd
Q. a) .b •iG O ° O O bb O N .�
w O
C V1 bb > 0 u u a)
b I by.y ° /'l O N y v� O 3 .
to
as s
o
° o a> rs bq b , as
n
cu
o � „ •i� .b � y a�i � � a' y .� � ,� �' o '°o 'y ?: y sue" � � .o .Y � y .� �
vOi O by.+ 3 N H U cn p N s0, ,b H v O �
cd f..+' U O"_ a) S-'-. N s"' cC y w cG .s." N s•� cC bb c� � O a)
•0 a) a) «i O o O b bQ Y > SFr O ai
a, a� v
v)
C O ar y 's O a0i N O Y O a�i 'd 'O N o r%
-C� O O C)
bs"„ a) a)
a) .Y -.�
o . V cl
r ° w �bA Q+b O N y w y °S3 d chi c7 '
zi
oAo o a� °o° oQ o `~ a' ° o6 ;3oQa ov'
U O En F U o
Y y FUU oil F � a3 � N o'� E-�
b
- by �
'E� A
e'' It o>
z a (L) �
F F'
Fri H U
N M
C a pOq N
C� C3 cd C N
CJ v to a O
L: E= G: o
ed
dl
1�1
��+y N
N kn _O O f-1
Q + O �.." b4
03 to
cd rq
"d d
Cd ;j = 0 ° p4 0 n
c4n) o
'x t� Nto U w cd p cC
pp E1
cd N U cC cC $-4 +•+
tg to
cd '
. N U '
w° p cd r - �
?? t. p
moO 1.- .�� 0
w cd 3
> cd `�
on v
on 10
� Cc
o o b O
v 3 0 a> v ab ' cd
Ago " � q � 6 �El
° a ' 3cl oo .o �. ApYo
o �o d a_ '� F oyb � .�
C.) `NO O 0 a0i w 0° ' a`�i
8
o i 3
o E ¢ y` ". ` to ci
'40 � err
m C > H y 1n cd bA v
b N v a Q op•^ -p a •� 'O p > U> ^0 0 > H v O �y w e.H�+ y .fl a v O t y vN U .�.s..•' .w O�
Im
, N N O = c cC °O 9 C
° >
.-. X O as
b X bo N + > � y a> N v>
cis cd 0 0
cd 3 � x a� o o ao � � a' 3 �yx cox a' 3
a :.a w � ;b � �, �.-o � a� a� a, 1 c;. a � � •� -o o �, 1 =:. � " � .r, p 'O a�
6ao0 ai a
vi
rvO � U — U U O �.U E� U FUU 1�r
OF+
b0 �
cd
�o 00 ^ A
~ 1" > O
Fes- U
rn r,
t N ~C)
cl
03 C4 C. C G bA N
cd t.
cl
,aea L. bq cC Lv:
Y O A Q O
cn by
�C,3 V b -0 Y yam.
v iC
cc Y r p. 0
p y > Li O 0 cn to 3 o a. &. � a� �+ .� o
��„� 0 0 � 4. P.Y i.. Cd
F. ° 0) o >, �. o o
Y I •
f C amFbO d r.
Y
Y ti v Cd 3 o
0 3 C a p. � C vAo °
0 ID
a� Y cc bo ° y bA a� o
a� 'El N
C3
d „ o
In t
P; o r
a �° o o �, o bu 3 w
0 In
O F._ U 0 b �
El
cd 41
O
bb
o v°i D N c3 '0 .Y
a a ° rY
3 v ,.., CL
P. Q o wpo
v) A • o b a� rn W A r/� c°» c
O
a� Obo
' p F t. °
;.a V N b Y °p�•.. _ id w G ¢, c� ���++ O .o V DA 'L3 'O In cc
> Li .''.. 'C) "' "d -�"+ VJ G O O O � "„+ bA .-+ S-i >,.�. ...' r.r ayi O Cd Cc
N O 'O O Yn-. 0 y.» O� yN., 'C OU O"0 bA C� 'CJ O ° �; N '�W .4 N 3 00 V 0u
p s. O t '� O b
ccd 2s V v � �'" ° bOAb .G 0 o 0 p N bo•�� a� o nvOJ, $ o .�
0 O p A O
cd
a� ° ° c. °? 9 . °
�° a�i b 'o 0 0 a°i o °
�IUFyUAAE� ow o .� pw � ° ° aki ° A
m
ObA
ON N N ~ ? 0
O M
en
a) N
C� cC
Cd
L:. o
y
a
> Ct w o a� ty
N bA..� �" C'"r" •3 '
0 t8
.cn O Cd a) O a) to. , � n om.
a V ° o o 4.) O 9., cn o o o Y O 0 U
C'J 44
M. aY' 0 w, o b .Cd v) y cd o
Id 1.04 Q U - O cd >, > Q o � � a�i o 0 w
vUi .� .. ��. OR ° N `4 '—' � � U cd� OU
A 0 as
w '
"0 > Z 0 ° ¢ 'a 0-. a) ,o O 0 >U w O O N
O O w to H
w O V 4 Y >
F_I
N Y ^ m O U .° o w^ ' C Q .° 0 N 0 cc 3 cd M n
a d
� ° 3 °� °
U > -0x4) yamQ 4 � y o
p o o
U U 0
cd
M Q. v a i p" ° i D by w oo '° O
o v, a) !�• O _cc 'b •� y O " c� ' . c w 'd N p V' . 'b cd cn En ,bn O ,o
4w. cd ° O rn U w > >,'Y^' b �, bb 0
Cd
Q
N b y U O
on w 1.4 O • bq O � y w 0 U 3 b O p O w Q H
'd }
Q cc 0
W 'U 7 0 m '� U — r. 0 A m r .O . 0
Cd N .0 Y >•^ w 0 m En q c. ,,, O .$ cc 0 [... "L7 U Cd 04
o
i. o w O N p b�A n U cd O N a) cd • d 04
r4 01 0
O p�cN ~ >.�''.9 Cd sa-), a� s� q'w y-1 _ •> y U f 6U"�F' Y.
Cc 0
bn Go V
«i 9 72 o ° p0 Y ca
' U q O > Z o
>
r ° 'Y " O� rn L4 CC cC Cd w m Cl rn
to
Y
H U H o bq
Cd
Ito,-
o `° a�i ow 3 x
y Cd a> y U Y 0
cd C/] y a) rn n G O (� w
to V4 '2d
w w is r. w
0 0 ° 0 3
a�i Q>comma
cd ca c o n a o 0 Q. 3 0 Yr
3 3 CQ �,• 52 a � CQ a.•� o fl bn q
ed
ao �
� Q
N M > O
40
�+ y O
to C'4
Cd
U U Q
tly Zir
� U
y Vl
w{
S"i Y Ri Cd � T'"i i•+ Gr .q � �
O
O .O a) O cd -,0 b4 bA UN Y
y W U O Y ... cd Y •q Q cd U
N 03
-ate •,d Y N N •q -� a) 'b m U r O ¢, q S3, 4�.4 cd w '
�c^s w O .b b .O !, a) U rA .ti Q N cC N id
O O t," N N � a) Gz �U+ 3 ° N Y }' � f3s. w cd O d
bo C's U .>a q ¢' o �y y g p q q > �..a , � 'fl o Iti Cd
cd N y .Y Cd� U �'.. "o q `'� • U " y • O >
` o to O to U cd O w O
O b O cd cd �" U O q d y O
d q —, "
. v
cd
.f i cd q. C �.j G� cn cn U ryi� v� N cn U N
cd
rn O b 30 ZI 'n
4-1 N q > q.y O cd U •�-1 a..— +"•� ccd'� C.> �+-•, .'�+ 'V� O U U. S•I O 'b bA t-1 c0
cd rn O cd O ,q U N w N ',�•"y�I cd U Y Y +-+ 1"' cd _N -0 w .��" Iti + 'd y a) N
O N Y cd
4� Vcn L. cd
rn� Cd .a a In acd
cd
pp Oy, W.—Cd
t;-4 q, 4•i q 4q. t '1)
00
- U N bq id 0 k U N H U
cd w
�.. .
.. �+ C •f.J' CD F"n q .v b 0 p `n O U � .� q � q � .� •y. � �� � � � � p.� � ,� �
3 w 'd b �+ q 's cd b p, O q O + '> >,�d O a y d w w
a) c d >ti U U cz bA 01-4 q N 0., N 4 U q a) Y q O n !] O a) q >» p
:44 C;j M O �' `�''•i U _�ad ^_ `cd (1) T) a N In
cz, y y U y ' p N ti Ofl M A id b ) d � cd a � w bq o
to v v w� ° A W v Cd d -0 -0 � � M � tA7s ca
p U L. cd a
aO
N to q —q v q O `d
-0 tr ' b q ;„4 q y? )
3 cc
.o.3.n cd
co r
y A y b > a
> b u � A 11) Q.) V cc a.) rq by q o o q o t c - o C > q O r > O
a cd U cd U � 0 .— Y a
o
N ,� a) O L. O In Y ,•d .r' ti 4+ az"'+ N
'�p b rn 3 .. . Y 5i r •- b„�. cd q O aU y p
-0 cl ° ° Y 4, U ) 04—p
•0
C13 pc n cd
p a) p c d > a) 1 U 4qQ. o y' o o cd �b o N .O
cd v x O .ty cd •„ 1 q r.l
0 0 q 0 w t7 •a) 3 U cd a)
U
a) yd cd cd
cd O O Y U i••I ••1 c�
cd �N�j y cd m +Y U U i••� �"� Y
VJ q V] 0 rA (n V1 w N p O Vl
4
W
:537 O 'Y >1 �i cd
q 0.) a) w
v q *C� O
U Y O w
O
Y C °
a b
q q L7,
ci
o
CAU
o �
�A
r, w
M M
N N
bo Cd
op
U
ca
S
a a
a
Cd
b
-0 3 W o U a S °
� o U 3
U o a> On v O O s» a>
Cd 0 cC o �, -� yoy : 3 0 •.� ,b Y y�y o
�..j f/l a� �j •h cc Ch i > 3'y cn a
Y a o b a 0 3 -do'o o ° o
a, a� o b � O �, a� ¢ o 4) o
O 'O �' s0, L'" bA U Qtr ti Q cOi U a: Y
Cd 4)y •'� N b -
> 'o . >
�C 4a N v ° cd O O b
V by �
.b -I • Q O ci O Vw N n + y
4 i y o o a b ° H o N ° a. 6, o a o. a�Ui o 3 $
ZS r!w O N ° o � ocd U o o 0 'd to a b " g °o N j ,Ny
Y -° '� tea - ap A- 'A In
N > bo t to 0 Cl,
O �O > .- - 0 '
b y O N W O D O O d2 C13 G
•Y +I
0 Cd to W Cd w 0 C]. O
o �; bQ yY� 'Ci o .� a °�° c a" o a> w o
en Cd bi
y iC N ,�.,, 0 � >> N Q W y
bn o o �'Y ° . t W `� Y >
O o, 73 a� L;:; u C,3 N U U `ls 9 a� ¢ a> P 0 m ^ a a� -1=3 -S q irir
� :3 3cdb U °3 CL Cd p.�b a� o m
p.�aXi d uea� •�� 0 U 'If1. a>l „
"Cd o "0 � U U T .0 i W r' P4 E :
0 c�W .
° O j ' � (m � (O
.A °� �U
§
� . .� x . , - . B
o 0 ° odU o 0
0 ° UQ � ba Q
9 v ° w cc fl v J i o to F N cc
lop
Yto
a� o Y N 0 .O
Q b°v o y° Cd
o
CL
Cc IF
L. U 0 E In Cd
to tti
O bq 'fn .r O Q O _
H U Yf'i •C3 ,'' ti 0
p. Q bq i-I U N U Cl N •� � k.
cd
� u d) Cc z ao °
Wp PF
14 W N� Q
d � N O ok
z d °' pp
„ems M M
y O
pq N
P-� N
CAC 4-cl
CC O
U O cd 0 U O
COAL bD� ODD
<yar N N
Y
C
cmd U
o
C's 'n
0) C
cd
N M
0
.w cd
cd > v A.
YA pQ U•
bo
Cd kn.
E C)
bo
in
In
kl
Q � '� ' a a as �•�EP m
46 d a.a,
a,
b) Y b p 3 O �-+ Q C C
cC c cC S-+'” .. .0 Ate
C .
3 Q .O Y
cc
cn
to
O� cC
3 0 ' o •"
cd ' o
N 3 tn >Cd
C* A a
:5 r�
�I > °
a a a
W
RS � cCA s.
y y
a a r
40. U
_ O > b pp
O
In
'O .Q C's bD
U Cd U .W
ccd cd p cd rn - w O O
W LG y
O
cd cd
y U
G ccdd ,cd C,3 y� �'+ b N U Ri
y a d q
O
U p w
O .0 'O O O U O
cC,3 cd U O ¢ El
O +C+ O CU A U U N c� O 4
t] w
' 'b cd O =Cd U a+ '0
In
U U b O cd
0 Y w � � 4 = � � �
•� U p V 0 O ,0 O y y OW C4
-p U U sr by
cd 0 Q cd N O ;.d O by Ey
� U 3 U
t-, 3 �» Q Cd
� y0 '�"-.�.� w N U
o
cd
t:
ao g � � � W0
o
°' w Q U O co
3 U U U g w 1 O
O cd�y .!:I cd L�
c1l U O -g " " U � 00 U w avi 0 z U .
-- U 9 •2 s U 2 cd v p
Q O E U X v,
U O
'd
T3 O U b4 4. bU
9 0 0 0 � w�. Q O O by W
Q
In
in w Z DI
cc 0
In 0 W Y .O O vni U 0 N � U O y U O U PF
0 U O vUi U U Cc
i G»
U ¢. cd '�' aq�s c, o U U 3 U = U cud b °�' ° ° go 0>1 3 0 ° A
t� A
o
ATTACHMENT B:
Wetland Delineation
bn
00
The Village at Dublin Final Supplemental EIR Page 35
City of Dublin October 2013
'-� DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT,U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1455 MARKET STREET,16T"FLOOR PIP
SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94103-1398
Ab
REVLY TO
JUN 14 2013
, ATiENT10N OF
Regulatory Division
SUBJECT: File Number 2013-00085S JUN. 1 8 K3
i
lSA S,rC1A)L V'C' I l
Mr. Chip Bouril P1 R'640fd0 off"i
LSA Associates,_ Inc.
157 Park Place
Point Richmond. California 94801
ilk
Dear Mr. Bouril: W
This correspondence is in response to your submittal of February 11. 2013,on behalf of ft
Regency Centers,requesting an approved jurisdictional determination of the extent of waters of the III
United States occurring on a 15 acre,rectangular parcel surrounded by suburban development,
North of Highway 580 and Martinelli Way,between Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive, south of
Dublin Boulevard. Dublin. Alameda County,California 94568 (APN: 986-33-7,Lat: 37.7055 N, !
Lon: 121.8907 W). 11116
All proposed discharges of dredged or fill material occurring below the plane of ordinary lP
high water in non-tidal waters of the United States; or below the high tide line in tidal waters of kr
the United States: and within the lateral extent of wetlands adjacent to these waters, typically
require Department of the Army authorization and the issuance of a permit under Section 404 of 0
the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1344 et seq.). Waters of the United rr
States generally include the territorial seas; all traditional navigable waters which are currently
used,or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, !P
including waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; wetlands adjacent to traditional
navigable waters; non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively
permanent, where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least
seasonally; and wetlands directly abutting such tributaries. Where a case-specific analysis
determines the existence of a "significant nexus"effect with a traditional navigable water, waters
of the United States may also include non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent: `
wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; wetlands
adjacent to but not directly abutting a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary;and certain
ephemeral streams in the and West. IP
M&
The enclosed delineation map entitled Figure 2. in one sheet date certified May 17,2013, op
accurately depicts the extent and location of wetlands within the boundary area of the site that
are not subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'regulatory authority under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. These particular water bodies are considered to be isolated with no apparent Ili
connection to interstate or foreign commerce. This approved jurisdictional determination is
based on the current conditions of the site,as verified during a field investigation of April 18,
2013, a review of available digital photographic imagery. and a review of other data included in
1p
fik
-2-
your submittal. This approved jurisdictional determination will expire in five years from the date
of this letter, unless new information or a change in field conditions warrants a revision to the
delineation map prior to the expiration date. The basis for this approved jurisdictional
determination is explained in the enclosed Approved.hurisdictional Determination Form.
This approved jurisdictional determination is presumed to be consistent with the U.S.
Supreme Court decision of January 9. 2001, concerning the Solid Waste Agency of Northern
Cook County v. United States Corps or Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) ("SWANCC"). In the
SWANCC decision.the Court invalidated, at least,portions of the Migratory Bird Rule as a sole
nexus to the Commerce Clause, and ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had exceeded
its statutory authority in exerting jurisdiction over non-navigable isolated, intrastate waters that
did not provide some other interstate or foreign commerce use (33 C.F.R § 328(a)(3)).
The current absence of jurisdictional waters of the United States within the boundary area of
the site does not obviate any requirement to obtain other Federal, State,or local approvals
necessitated by law. Any impacts to federally-listed threatened or endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat may be subject to regulation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973. as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.). If"waters of the state" are potentially present,the
site may be subject to regulation by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Francisco Bay Region, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, as amended
(California Water Code § 1300 et seq.). You are, therefore. urged to contact these agencies
directly to determine the need for other authorizations or permits.
You are advised that the approved jurisdictional determination may be appealed through the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'Administrative Appeal Process, as described in 33 C.F.R. Part
331 (65 Fed.Reg. 16,486; Mar. 28, 2000), and outlined in the enclosed flowchart and
Notification ofAdministrative Appeal Options, Process, and Request for Appeal(NAO-RFA)
Form. If you do not intend to accept the approved jurisdictional determination, you may elect to
provide new information to this office for reconsideration of this decision. If you do not provide
new information to this office, you may elect to submit a completed NAO-RFA Form to the
Division Engineer to initiate the appeal process:the completed NAO-RFA Form must be
submitted directly to the Appeal Review Officer at the address specified on the NAO-RFA Form.
You will relinquish all rights to a review or an appeal,unless this office or the Division Engineer
receives new information or a completed NAO-RFA Form within 60 days of the date on the
NAO-RFA Form. If you intend to accept the approved jurisdictional determination,you do not
need to take any further action associated with the Administrative Appeal Process.
You may refer any questions on this matter to Justin Yee of my Regulatory staff by
telephone at(415) 503-6788 or by e-mail at Justin.J.Yce @usace.army.mil. All correspondence
should be addressed to the Regulatory Division,South Branch. referencing the file number at the
head of this letter.
PP
The San Francisco District is committed to improving service to our customers. My
Regulatory staff seeks to achieve the goals of the Regulatory Program in an efficient and
cooperative manner, while preserving and protecting our nation's aquatic resources. If you
would like to provide comments on our Regulatory Program, please complete the Customer
Service Survey Form available on our website: http://,,%,v%,w.spn.usace.army.mil/regulatory-/.
Sincerely, 1P
14 ^_ A 0
I'�` ob
Jane M. I-licks
Chief, Regulatory Division
Enclosures
WP
Copy Furnished:
op
Rob Mokry. Regency Centers, 2999 Oak Road, Suite 1000, Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Copy Furnished (vv/Encl I only):
CA RWQCB. Oakland. CA
Copy Furnished (w/o Enels):
U.S. EPA San Francisco, CA
CA SWRCB, Sacramento, CA
op
1p
op
ib
1p
W
NOTIFLCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL.OPTION_S AND PROCESS-AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Chip Bouril. LSA, for Regency Centers ' File Number: 2013-00085S Date: 5/31/13
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of ermission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT(Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERry1INATION E
SECTION I -The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at http•//wNvw usace.army.mil/cec w/pages/reg-materials.aspx
or Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
" A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit.you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP).you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety.and waive all rights
to appeal the permit. including its terms and conditions,and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein.you may request that
the permit be modified accordingly.You must complete Section H of this form and return the form to the district engineer.
Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.or you will forfeit your right
to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter.the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may:(a)
modify the permit to address all of your concerns.(b)modify the permit to address some of your objections.or(c)not modify
the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections.the
district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration.as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission(LOP)_you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety.and waive all rights
to appeal the permit. including its terms and conditions.and approved jurisdictional determinations associated��ith the permit.
m
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit(Standard or LOP)because of certain terms and conditions therein.you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section It of this
form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the
date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process
by completing Section H of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice. means that you accept the approved JD in it entirety.and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD,you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received
by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish. you may request an
approved JD(which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may
provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
1P
SECTION II-RE UEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS;TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT II6
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an IF
initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons
or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
op
16
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record.the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting,and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to rr
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However.
you may rovide additional information to clarif
y the location of information that is already in the administrative record. 1111P
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFOR VIATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal if you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
process you may contact: also contact: Thomas J.Cavanaugh
Cameron Johnson Administrative Appeal Review Officer,
South Branch Chief,Regulatory Division U.S.Army Corps of Engineers '
San Francisco District,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division
1455 Market Street, 16th floor 1455 Market Street.20528
San Francisco,CA 94103-1398 San Francisco,California 94103-1399
Phone:(415)503-6773 Email:Cameron.L.Johnsoma usace.army.mil Phone:(415)503-6574 Fax:(415)503-6646
Email:tomas.'. ayanau htn�usace.armv.mil
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel,and any government PP
consultants.to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation.and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date: Telephone number: 1111
Signature of appellant or agent. 1b
SPD version revised December17.2010 op
its
Administrative Appeal Process for
Approved Jurisdictional Determinations
District Issues approved
Jurisdictional Determination(JD)
to appllcantAandowner with NAP.
Approved JD valid Does appl'icant/landowner
for 5 years. Yes accept approved JD?
No Max.60
days
District makes new Applicant/landowner
approved JD. 4 Yes provides new information?
No
Applicant decides to appeal approved JD. IF
Applicant subm b RFA to division engineer
within 60 days of date of NAP.
Corps reviews RFA and notifies Max.30
appellant within 30 days of receipt. days
To continue with appeal
process,appellant must
revise RFA. Is RFA acceptable?
See Appendix D. No
Yes
Optional JD Appeals Meeting and/or
site investigation.
RO reviews record and the division engineer Max 90
(or designee)renders a decision on the merits days
of the appeal within 90 days of receipt of an
acceptable RFA
Division engineer or designee
remands decision to district,
with specific instructions,for 4 Does the appeal have merit?
reconsideration;appeal Yes
process completed.
No
District's decision is upheld;
appeal process completed.
Appendix C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers pp
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the.11) Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION(JD): May 17,2013 Wk
B. DISTRICT OFFICE: Son Francisco District FILE NUMBER: 2013-000855
File Name: Regency Dublin
Waterbody Name: Seasonal Wetlands
trr
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: California County/parish/borough: Alameda Co. City: Dublin
Center coordinates of site: (lat/long(in degree decimalfomwty Lat: 37.7055 N Long: 121.8907 W
Pick List (lat/long(in degree decimal format): Lat: Pick Long: Pick rL
Pick List (Wong(in degree decimal format): Lat: Pick Long: Pick
Universal Transverse Mercator: 10
Name of nearest waterbody: Tassojara Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water(TNW)into which the aquatic resource flows: N/A
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code(I-IUC): San Francisco Bay,18050004
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request
❑ Check if other sites(e.g.,offsite mitigation sites,disposal sites,etc)are associated with this action and arc recorded on a
different 1D form.
1). REVIEW PERFORATED FOR SITE EVALUATION(CHECK ALL THAT APPL)'): op
❑ Office(Desk)Determination. Date: Ilte
® Field Determination. Date(s): April 18,2013
SECTION I1: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RII.A SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There are no°ncn•igable waters ojthe U.S."within Rivers and Harbors Act(RI 1A)jurisdiction(as defined by 33 CFR part 329)in the OP
review area.[Required].
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used.or have been used in the past,or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign
commerce. Erplaln: 1P
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION fir►
There are no-waters ojthe U.S"within Clean Water Act(CWA)jurisdiction(as defined by 33 CIR part 328)in the review area. [Required] �
1. Waters of the U.S: tow
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S.in review area(check all that apply): t
❑ TNWs,including territorial seas PP
❑ Wetlands adjacent to'I'NWs
❑ Relatively permanent waters (RP►►-s)that flow•directly or indirectly into TNWs t11111b
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPR's that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Ilk
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TM`s
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated(interstate or intrastate)waters,including isolated wetlands
b. Identify(estimate)size of waters of the U.S.in the review area
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: width(ft)and/or acres.(other comments: ) 1P Wetlands: acres. (other comments: )
C. Limits(boundaries)of jurisdiction based on:Pick List lrir,
Elevation of established 0)-IWM(if known):
2.Non-regulated waters/wetlands(check if applicable):3
Irr
'Boxes checked below shall_he supported-by completing the appropriaye.sectiow-in III below.,.._. _ r.-
'for purposes of this form,an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not-a:N•«"and that typically IkitiS year-rixutd prh�ccnntuniutis flo+c•at IiasY"s� ovally"
(e.g.,typically 3 months).
'Supporting documentation is pre-mroted in Section III.F_
® Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not
jurisdictional. Explain:Three small wetlands in the southwest corner of the site are not large enough,not connected
to any drainage,or in a sufficiently sloped area to allow connectivity to the perimeter drains located more than 50 ft
away,even if the perimeter berms were removed.
SECTION ill: CWA ANALYSIS
A TN1Ys AND NETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNLN's
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TN`1Ys. If the aquatic resource is a TNNY,complete
Section Ill.a.l and Section Ii1.D.1.only:if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNNV.complete Sections IiI.A.I and 2
and Section III.D.I.;otherwise,see Section 111.13 below.
1. TNW
Identify TNT:
Summarize rationale supporting determination that waterbody is a TNW:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is"adjacent":
B CH_ARYCTERISTiCS OF TRIBUTARY(THAT IS NOT A TNNY)AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS(IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands,if any,and it helps determine
whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of"INWs where the tributaries are"relatively permanent waters"
(RPWs),i.e.tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally(e.g.,typically 3 months).A wetland
that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional.If the aquatic resource is not a TNW,but has vear-round(perennial)flow,skip to
Section IiI.D.2.If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,skip to Section IILD.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation.Corps districts and EPA
regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively
permanent tributary that is not perennial(and its adjacent wetlands if any)and a traditional navigable water.even though a significant
news finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW,or a wetland directly abutting an RM,a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody
has a significant nexus with a TNW.If the tributary has adjacent wetlands,the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary
in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands.This significant nexus evaluation that combines,for analytical purposes,the tributary
and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary,or its adjacent wetlands,or
both.If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands,complete Section iII.B.1 for the tributary,Section IILB.2 for any onsite
wetlands,and Section 111.14.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary,both onsite and onsite.The determination whether a significant
nexus exists is determined in Section iILC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
a. Relationship with TNNY:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW
❑ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW
Project waters are Pick List river miles from'rNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial(straight)miles from T%%-N.
Project waters are Pick List aerial(straight)miles from RPW_
Project waters cross or serve as a state boundary. Explain:
ldentifv flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order,if known:
'Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales.ditches,washes,and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
`Flow route can be described by identifying,a tributary a.which flows through the review area.toillow-into-tributary b,which.tben flows 4MT.% :;
W080207 MV _ 2
b. General Tributary Characteristics(check all that apply)-
Tributary is: PP
❑ Natural:(comment if needed )
trrt
❑ Artificial(man-made):Explain:
❑ Manipulated(man-altered):Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank(estimate): No
Average width: feet(measured from top of bank to top of bank)
Average depth: feet.(measured from OHWM to top of bank)
Average side slopes: Pick List
Primary tributary substrate composition(check all shat apply):
❑ silt:
❑ Sand:
❑ Clay:
❑ Cobbles: IP
❑ Gravel:
❑ Muck:
❑ Bedrock: Illp
❑ Concrete:
❑ Vegetation(Type/%cover): ok
❑ Other(Explain):
Tributary condition/stability(e.g.,highly eroding,sloughing banks. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry:Pick List. Pit
Tributary gradient(approximate average slope): % h
C. Fww LNFORNtATION
Tributary provides for:Pick List IP
17stimate average number of flow events in review area/year:Pick List kk
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume: OP
Surface flow is:Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye(or other)test performed:.
Tributary has(check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ Ol l WM6(check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear,natural line impressed on the bank ❑ the presence of litter and debris
❑ changes in the character of soil D shelving
❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation ❑ the presence of wrack line
❑ vegetation matted down,bent,or absent ❑ sediment sorting
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ❑ scour
❑ multiple observed or predicted flow events ❑ sediment deposition
❑ water staining NP
❑ abrupt change in plant community. Explain: to
❑ other(list):
❑ Discontinuous OHX1'NL7 Explain: PF
If factors other than the OH W\1 were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction(check all that apptv):
❑ I ligh Tide Line indicated by: OR ❑ Mean l Iigh Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum PIP
❑ fine shell or debris deposits(foreshore) ❑ physical markings to
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction(e.g.,where the stream temporarily flows underground,or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime(e.g.,flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert),the a_.encies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break. `
'Ibid
ud080207 7141)
3
Ohl
• t
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other(list):
AA (iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary(e.g.,water color is clear,discolored,oily film;water quality:general watershed characteristics.
etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants,if known:
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports(cheek all that appir):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics(type,average width):
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
❑ Habitat for
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas.Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatie/wildtife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNT that flow directly or indirectly into TNN
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries.Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is:Pick List Explain:
Surface flow is:Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow:Pick List Explain findings:
❑ Dye(or other)test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Erplain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximily,(Relationship)to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
' Project waters are: Pick List aerial(straight)miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List
A Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the: Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system(e.g.,water color is clear,brown,oil film on surface;water quality:general watershed
characteristics;etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants,if known►:Explain:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports(check all that appl)):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics(qpe,average width):
❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Erplain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Erplain findings:
❑. ..Fish/spawn areas.Erplain findings: ><
07 NEV 4
❑ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Erplain fradings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlil'e diversity. Etplairt findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary(if any)
(i) All wetland(s)being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
(ii) Approximately( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. 1P
tits
(iii) For each wetland associated with the reach or w•aterbodv being analyzed in this form,specify the following:
Number/Names Directly abuts(Yes/No) Size Number/Name Directly abuts(Yes/No) Size MP
lair
Pick acres Pick acres
Pick acres Pick acres RIP
Pick acres Pick acres
tlllta
Pick acres Pick acres
Pick acres Pick acres
Pick acres Pick acres IFF
rill
(iv) Summarize overall biological,chemical and physical functions being performed:
era
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
P
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions
performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical.physical,and
biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations.a significant nexus exists if the tributary.in
combination with all of its adjacent wetlands.has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical,physical Pit
and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include.but are not limited to the
volume,duration.and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW,and the functions
performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to detennine significant nexus based solely OP
on any specific threshold of distance(e.g.between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the Ilk
TNW). Similarly,the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of
significant nexus. Op
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance lib
and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: (!
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands(if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood
waters to TNWs,or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? Mk
• Does the tributary.in combination with its adjacent wetlands(if any),provide habitat and lifecycle support functions
for fish and other species,such as feeding,nesting,spawning,or rearing young for species that are present in the
TNW?
• Does the tributary,in combination with its adjacent wetlands(if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and
organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? RP
• Does the tributary,in combination with its adjacent wetlands(if any),have other relationships to the physical,
chemical,or biological integrity of the TNW? ire
Note:the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be
documented below: op
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into �
TNAVs. Evplain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below. based on the tributary itself,then go to
Section IILD
tt In the Number/Name column,add the number and/or name that you have given the wetland being referred to in the table.Example.you are referring to a
wvetland on your wetland delineation map number h•that you call wetland No.3 on a reach you refer to as Puwh Creek. For this wetland you would add to the
table:n the NumN-rAc!me column.Wnt thin like the fuilewving:Nis-ra:4`titate•Cl:.._�tr►F ;,{3_. r;,:ra,a:•..:h_ : .:, . :;0
ud080207 W41) %a*. �: ;'t>..
5
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent.yet lands,where the non-RPW flows directly or
indirectly into TNWs. Erploin findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below. based on the tributary in
combination with all of its adjacent wetlands,then go to Section IILD:
3 Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Eiplain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below,based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands,then go to Section IILD:
D DETERMINATIONS OF.IURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS.THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE(CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
❑ 1. TIMs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width(R), and/or acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
❑ 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional.Provide data and rationale indicating
that tributary is perennial:
❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow"seasonally"(e.g.,typically three months each year)are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area(check all thnt app )
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width(13).
❑ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s)of waters:
❑ 3. Non-RPWs9 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW.but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW,and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional.Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
�. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area(check all that npplr):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width(ft).
❑ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
identify type(s)of waters:
❑ 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that now directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section IH.D 2.above.Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow"seasonally.
Provide data indicating that
tributary is seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section IiI.D.2,above.Provide rationale indicating that
wetland is directly abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
❑ 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
' ❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW,but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they arc
adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands.have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional.Data
supporting this conclusion is provided at Section II I.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
❑ 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters,and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands.have a significant nexus with a'I'NW are jurisdictional.Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section I I I.C. 111116
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. OR
sk
❑ 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.10 Pill
As a general rule,the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. ku
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from"waters of the U.S.,"or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above(1-6),or ■
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce(see E below).
L. ISOLATED INNTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE]WATERS. INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS,THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WII ICI I COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COi11MF.RCE,INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS(CHECKALL THATAPPL)-):"
El which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
ttt�
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. 1P
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain: Imo,
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: OR
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area(check all that app/T)
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width(ft).
❑ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s)of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres. 1P
F. NON-.JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS(CI IF.CK ALL TlIA'P APPLY): lb
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area,these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of OP
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
® Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate(or foreign)commerce. rte
® Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in"SIl ANCC,"the review area would have been regulated based
os Iely on the"Migratory Bird Rule"(MBR). The site topography does not provide sufficient slope to drain the
small wetlands and there are no drainages which connect them to an RPW.They are in shallow depressions and 66
given maximum average rainfall for Dublin,CA[3'for Jan and Feb according to weather.com],there still would
not be sufficient to allow flow to the drainage inlets which are over 50ft away over varied topography. P
❑ Waters do not meet the"Significant Nexus"standard,where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. E.iplain:
❑ Other:(explain.if not covered above):
1P
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area,+-here the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors(i.e..presence of migratory birds,presence of endangered species,use of water for irrigated agriculture),using best
professional judgment(check all that appl),):
❑ Non-wetland waters(i.e.,rivers.streams): linear feet width(ft).
❑ Lal es/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non-wvetland waters: acres.List type of aquatic resource:
® Wetlands:0.008 acres.
10 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section II I.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
11 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category,Corp%Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA IIQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA a/rntarundum Regarding CJV4 Act Juriwdicdon Following Rapanos.
ud080207 REV
7
�1►
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD(check all that apply-checked items shall be included in case file and.where
checked and requested.appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps,plans,plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:LSA,Figure 2,2012.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. Chip Bouril,LSA,2013
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
® Data sheets prepared by the Corps:DPI,bP2,bP3 J.Yee 2013.
«* ❑ Corps navigable waters'study:
❑ U.S.Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S.Geological Survey map(s).Cite scale&quad name:CA-bublin.
❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventor'map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Acrial(Name&Date):Google Maps 2013.
® Other(Name&Date):Site Photos 2013.
❑ Previous determination(s). File no.and date of response letter:
❑ Applicableisupporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
® Other information(please specify):Rainfall Data for Dublin,CA:
www.weather.com/weather/wxclimcitology/monthly/graph/94568.
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
.x
g
ud086207 WD Cs(