Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Hall of Justice SDRC~~y OF Dp~`f~ m ~ 1~~~~i2 ~~O~LIFO~~ / STAFF REPORT CITY C L E R K DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File # ^©Od^-©~] X00-20 ~ oa - ~fo DATE: December 15, 2009 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager SUBJE PA 02-030 - Alameda County East County Hall of Justice (ECHOJ) Site Development Review Amendment and CEQA Addendum ' Prepared By: Kristi Bascom, Project Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The original East County Hall of Justice (ECHOJ) Site Development Review approval was granted by the City Council in November 2004 (City Council Resolution 220-04). Since that time, Alameda County has reassessed their needs for the facility and has redesigned the project. The project as originally approved in November 2004 was 208,408 square feet and the new facility is slightly smaller at 196,219 square feet. The courthouse is still comprised of 13 courtrooms with associated office and support facilities. Overall, the project site remains the same, although the building placement is slightly different due to the change in building footprint and configuration. The larger (courtroom) portion of the building will be located on the northern portion of the site and the shorter (office) portion of the building will be located on the southern portion of the site near Gleason Road. The revised building design represents a more modern, streamlined architectural style. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council (1) Receive the Staff presentation; (2) Open the Public Hearing; (3) Take testimony from the public; (4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; (5) Adopt a Resolution certifying that the City Council reviewed and considered the CEQA Addendum for the East County Hall of Justice dated November 30, 2009; and (6) Adopt a Resolution approving PA 02-030, a Site Development Review Amendment to construct a 196,219 square foot building comprised of courtrooms, offices, and associated facilities on 21.77 acres located on the north side of Gleason Drive between Madigan Road and Arnold Drive, and approving the associated Agreement between the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda regarding the enforcement of Conditions of Approval for the East County Hall of Justice. Submitted By Reviewed By Community Development Director Assistant City Manager gage 1 of 9 ITEM NO. . ~. DESCRIPTION: In July 2003, Alameda County submitted a proposal to the City of Dublin for Site Development Review of a proposed new courthouse. The East County Hall of Justice was proposed as a 208,408 square foot building comprised of courtrooms, offices, and associated facilities. The project area is 21.77 acres and is located on the north side of Gleason Drive between Madigan Road and Arnold Drive, where the East County Government Center has been planned for some time. A Vicinity Map is shown below: Al.ANIE~ACE~U~JTY~AN(AHIIFlJAi1:= " ~ ~ . x~RO(~EfY BLVD;.:, ~r~t1r94"...u"~r~-^ ~~~ t ' .yam ~~'~ y"° _ -~ ~ 4.y ~ ~. ` 2r_.t.h~ f . o.h~ r.. ' : D 'J :~ ~ I tlt +~g•t D " _ GLE/aSON pRIVE D z 0 o o ~ -~ R,_ -,! ~ .. ,. i Y °~ ~ o, Under the 1993 Annexation Agreement, between the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda, the City has retained the right to perform design review of any projects proposed on the County Governmental property. Therefore, although this project is not subject to the normal development standards or land use controls that would be applicable to a private project, the project is subject to the City of Dublin Site Development x: _ , s I ~ ~ ~ Review regulations. ..a ., ,.. ~,~:`" cENTR,a~ c~ARKwAV On November 16, 2004, the City ,: ~ r. _ Council approved Resolution 220- " 9 04, approving a Site Development ` ~ Review application to construct a ouauN e~~r~ 208,408 square foot building comprised of courtrooms, offices, and associated facilities on 21.77 acres located on the north side of Gleason Drive between Madigan Road and Arnold Drive. The 2004 approved building elevation is shown in Attachment 1. Resolution 220-04 also approved the associated Agreement between the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda regarding the enforcement of Conditions of Approval for the East County Hall of Justice. The County did not immediately proceed with the construction of the facility, and requested from the City two 18-month extensions to the Site Development Review approval. The first extension was granted by the City Council in May 2006 and the second in November 2007. The Site Development Review approval was set to expire on May 16, 2009 if the County did not proceed with plans to construct the building. In April 2009, County Staff informed City Staff that revisions to the original building designs were underway, and therefore the proposed project is being processed as an amendment to the original Site Development Review approval, which remains in effect due to the ongoing efforts by the County to progress towards construction. City and County Staff met and reviewed conceptual building designs during the intervening months, and on November 23, 2009, Alameda County submitted the Project Plan Set that is attached to this Staff Report (Attachment 2). Page 2 of 9 ANALYSIS: In summary, the project plans have been revised from the original approval in the following manner: lit • _ • • • ' ! 1 1 • s • • R ' • Buildin Size 208,408 s uare feet 196,219 s ware feet Building components 13 courtrooms with associated 13 courtrooms with associated offices and support services offices, support services, and landscape courtyard area off cafeteria Building Materials Primarily pre-cast concrete and Primarily glass curtain wall glass system combined with architectural metal panels and features Building Height 90 feet, 3 inches 90 feet, 6 inches Courtroom wind: 5 stories (4 above- Courtroom wing: 5 stories (4 above- grade) grade) Office wing: 3 stories (2 above- Office wing: 2 stories (1 above- rade at buildin entrance rade at buildin entrance Green Building Aiming to achieve LEED Committing to LEED Silver certification certification at a minimum Site plan Approx. 22 acres with three Unchanged except for access points off Gleason Drive. configuration of building footprint Building situated at the western end of the site. Parkin 850 arkin s aces 865 arkin s aces Landscape plan Focus on pedestrian-friendly Unchanged. Original landscape environment, water-conserving plan remains. plant species, integrated water detention on site, and extensive tree lantin s. Site Plan (Sheet 3 of Attachment 2) The proposed building is over 300 feet from Gleason Drive and sited on the northwestern most portion of the site -the furthest distance possible from the residential neighborhood. There is substantial landscaping that will buffer the building from the businesses and residences on the south side of Gleason Drive, and there is a 45 foot wide bioswale and landscaped area that separates the parking lot from Gleason Drive. Site Circulation and Parking (Sheet 7 of Attachment 2,~ There are three public entrances to the facility, all off Gleason Drive. The main entrance is aligned with Hacienda Drive, so those visiting the site will drive through the Hacienda/Gleason intersection and directly into the courthouse parking lot. This will be the main point of access for most visitors. There are two other driveways, one at the eastern-most portion of the site and one at the western-most portion, both of which are right turn in, right turn out driveways. The main entrance drive leads vehicles directly onto the site and provides access into all of the three main parking areas as well as the disabled parking area at the north of the site. The parking lots contain a total of 865 parking spaces, including 21 disabled accessible parking spaces, which exceeds the requirements of the City's Off Street Parking and Loading section of Page3of9 the Zoning Ordinance. The City does not have a parking requirement for courthouse facilities, but Section 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance (Off Street Parking and Loading) states that for uses not specifically listed in the ordinance, the Director of Community Development shall determine the parking requirement based upon the requirements for comparable uses and upon the particular characteristics of the use. In this case, using a similar parking requirement for an office complex, a 196,219 square foot building would require 1 space per 350 square feet, or 561 total spaces. This project has more than 300 parking spaces in excess of that requirement, which should minimize concerns about the potential for courthouse parking in adjacent neighborhoods or at adjacent businesses. For pedestrians arriving to the site via foot, bicycle, or public transit, a series of sidewalks and walkways on site take people from the street to the building entrance. The site is designed so that all pedestrian travel routes lead safely to the entry plaza in front of the building, and the disabled parking has been located as close as possible to the main entrance. Building Architecture (Sheets 16 through 21 of Attachment 21 The revised building architecture was prepared with the goal of creating a building that not only reflects the dignity and honor appropriate to a courthouse facility, but also presents a notable, yet compatible, addition to the suburban fabric of the City of Dublin. The massing and architecture is centered on creating an elegant and transparent silhouette, integrating a sleek, modern glass wall and a visible interior on the south-facing elevation that responds to the surrounding topography. Careful attention was given to create a hierarchy of exterior scales both for the skyline seen from various vistas and the pedestrian experience when approaching the building. The northern (courtroom) building is four stories in height (above grade) and overlooks the lower two story height (above grade) of the southern (office) building. The horizontal massing of the courthouse has been intentionally designed to accommodate a perception of lower scale to lesson the visual impact to the adjacent residential neighborhood. This was aided, from a massing point of view, by stepping the two story office wing in front of the taller four story courtroom building. The architecture of the building was designed to make a civic statement about the value and importance of a judicial facility. The entrance pavilion/plaza serves as the primary pedestrian orientation element. Pedestrians will enter the plaza from the east rather than on axis with the Hacienda approach. The building lobby and screening area are situated in the single story entry element directly in front of the vertical tower entry, which are in turn connected to both the Courts wing to the north and the County Office wing to the south. The tall central tower entrance lobby creates a sense of destination with its elegant proportions and reinforces the ceremonial procession into the courthouse. The County will is designing the building with a number of "green" features and will be pursuing LEED certification for the project. The County will be designing the project looking to maximize energy savings from mechanical and electrical systems, minimize storm water runoff, and minimize water consumption. The project will utilize sustainable building materials and will size the conduit pathways inside the building to accommodate the installation of a future solar photovoltaic system for the Court building. The County has committed to a LEED Silver certification at a minimum. Page 4 of 9 Building Materials and Colors (Sheets 22 through 24 of Attachment 2~ The building will be constructed with a glass curtain wall system combined with two colors of architectural metal panels. The colors proposed for the building are subtle earth tones and will be complimentary to the residences, offices, and business park buildings in the vicinity. Building Function and Amenities (Sheets 9 through 12 of Attachment 2~ The East County Hall of Justice includes 13 courtrooms and their support agencies, including court administration and jury services, a cafeteria, family and children's services, district attorney, and public defender, among others. The building is designed to accommodate approximately 380 employees and will be open weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Several nights a week, night court may be held, which would extend the operating hours until 9:00 p.m. Other night meetings and public functions may occasionally be held at the building. Site Landscaping (Sheets 3 through 6 and Sheet 8 of Attachment 2) Since Alameda County has committed to achieving Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification at a minimum for the building and site, great attention has been given to site landscaping, on-site water retention through bioswales and using permeable surfaces for parking areas. The landscape palette chosen for the site includes a wide range of native plants, trees, and grasses, and will provide an interesting compliment to the building. In order to accommodate the water retention facilities planned for the site, there are substantial landscape buffers around the perimeter of the site and in the parking areas, which will eventually grow to screen much of the site and provide a noise and visual buffer. At the entrance to the building, there is a public plaza and sitting area that will serve building users as well as the public at large. The public plaza will be located adjacent to the drop off area for vehicles delivering people to the site. The plaza hardscape and landscape areas will provide an attractive welcome area to the main entrance of the building. Site Security In addition to the three (3) entrance drives onto the site from Gleason Drive, there is also a secured entrance off Broder Drive on the north side of the site where detainees will enter and exit the site and the building. Behind the secured area is also where the judicial parking area is located. All detainees will arrive at the site via bus at the Broder Drive entrance, enter a secured garage area (sallyport), and exit the vehicle. The detainees will be brought inside the building and the bus will exit the secured sallyport into the secured parking area, and then the bus will leave the site. Once inside the building, detainees travel through separate corridors from the public or the judiciary, and there are holding cells on site for short-term detention. Visitors, jurors, and employees coming to the courthouse will enter the building via the main entrance and pass through the security area at this location. Consistency with the General Plan, Eastern Dublin S,oecific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance The project, as proposed and as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.104 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Site Development Review). The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the policies and land use designations of the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and is consistent with the Planned Development Zoning for the site. The project, as proposed and as conditioned, will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and Page 5 of 9 general welfare. In addition, the approved site development, including site layout, structures, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements, have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. The Applicant has given careful attention to design the project to be physically compatible with the site and to ensure that impacts to views and topographic features have been addressed to the greatest degree possible. Additionally, considerations to the architectural compatibility of the building with the surrounding residential and commercial uses have been addressed and mitigated while still maintaining the operational requirements of the court facility. The character, scale and quality of the design, building materials and colors, exterior lighting, and similar elements have designed to ensure compatibility of this development with the character of adjacent buildings, neighborhoods, and uses. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION: The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session on Monday, November 16, 2009 to review the proposed changes to the project from its original approval in 2004. The revised building elevations were presented and Staff and the Applicant received comments in three main categories: 1) Building Materials (colors and glass type), 2) Mitigate Dublin's windy conditions, and 3) Ensuring site security. The comments have been addressed in the following manner: 1. Building Color. Concerns were expressed that the illustrated rendering of the building showcased a color for the insulated architectural metal panels that did not blend well with the surrounding office buildings in the vicinity. The color choices have been re-examined and new material color samples have been provided for the City Council's review and consideration. The two colors selected are both subdued and neutral, and will be complimentary to Dublin's other public buildings as well as buildings near the project site. The exact material colors are shown on the updated Material Board that will be available for review at the public hearing. 2. Window/Glazing system. Concerns were expressed that the translucent glass may not be the best choice for this application and several Councilmembers and Commissioners noted that the County should re-examine their glass selection. After careful examination and consideration, the County is proposing to keep the translucent curtain wall glass for several reasons. The "Low-E" glazing system has a high performance coating to allow natural light into the building and reflect radiant heat. The glass has a slight degree of reflectivity -but not a `mirror-type' reflectivity. The exact glass types and samples are shown on the updated Material Board that will be available for review at the public hearing. The glass types chosen, when used with the proposed sun shades, responds directly to the project goals of: a. Creating a high performance work environment that contributes to the productivity and health of its staff and users (i.e.; providing natural lighting and less use of electricity/energy to run artificial lighting); b. Reflecting the dignity and stability of the courts and the accessibility and transparency of the court system (i.e.; making the facility appear more accessible and engaging to the local community); c. Providing for a high level of sustainability (i. e.; cost saving wifh less electrical energy usage for lighting and HVAC needs); and Page 6 of 9 d. Fitting better into the local residential community by eliminating the potential `nuisance' of reflected sunlight into the homes across Gleason Drive. 3. Mitigating for Dublin's windy conditions. Due to the prevailing wind conditions in Dublin, the County has revised the plans to include a natural wind break of mixed tree. heights located on the west side of the courtyard (Sheets 3, 4, and 19 of Attachment 2). Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 13 (Exhibit A-1 to Attachment 3) notes that when the construction documents are being prepared, the County will study the wind conditions and chose an appropriate solution to divert the wind and provide a more comfortable courtyard seating area. The design of any additional wind screens will be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to installation. 4. Ensuring Site Security. The northwest secure parking area for judicial staff and sheriff's buses will have security fences and gates as shown on the Overall Landscape Plan. Additionally, the Project Plan Set has been updated to show the location of a security fence along the bottom of the berm adjacent to Broder Boulevard (Sheet 3 of Attachment 2). Condition of Approval No. 14 (Exhibit A-1 to Attachment 3) notes that when the construction documents are being prepared, the County will study the overall perimeter site security fencing approach, and will consult with Alameda County Sheriff's staff to develop a comprehensive security plan. The design of perimeter fencing will be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to installation. Staff has prepared Conditions of Approval to address several additional items that were brought up at the study session. One item that was discussed at the study session was the inclusion of conduit throughout the building and site to allow for the future installation of photovoltaic systems on the building as well as free standing structures in the parking fields. The County agreed to provide pathways for solar inside the buildings, but did not agree to install water-tight (empty) conduit to accommodate the potential of future free-standing photo-voltaic structures in the parking areas until they have spent time designing a system and are able to determine if photovoltaic panels in the parking lot are a viable option. Condition of Approval No. 8 (Exhibit A-1 to Attachment 3) addresses the requirement for the buildings to be "solar ready". ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The County of Alameda prepared a joint Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), dated April 2003, to determine the potential environmental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed project. The Final EIR/EIS concluded that the preferred alternative for the location of the East County Hall of Justice was in Dublin at the subject site. The EIR/EIS identified mitigation measures to address the environmental impacts identified and the Final EIR/EIS and accompanying mitigation measures were adopted by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on May 6, 2003. When the East County Hall of Justice facility was redesigned by the County and the Courts, an Addendum was prepared to document the differences between the project originally analyzed in the 2003 EIR/EIS and the current proposal. The Addendum states that although changes are proposed as part of the current project that require revisions to the previous EIR/EIS, the changes do not involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously-identified significant effects. Only minor changes to the previous EIR/EIS were required, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation. Page 7 of 9 Alameda County is the lead agency for this project, and the City is a responsible agency under CEQA. As a responsible agency, the City's role is limited. Rather than certify the lead agency's document as adequate, the decision-making body of a responsible agency is required only to certify that it reviewed and considered the information contained in the document (in this case an Addendum) prepared by the lead agency, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15050, Subdivision (b) and Section 15096. The project as proposed is consistent with the project as described in the CEQA Addendum (Exhibit A to Attachment 4). PUBLIC NOTICING: Due to the scope of the proposed project, a public notice was sent to all property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the subject site, and in some cases even further. All residences between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Creek and north of Summerglen Drive received notice, and all businesses between Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road north of the Summerglen alignment received notice of the public hearings. The notices sent for this project exceeds the State requirement to notify owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site. A public notice was also published in the Valley Times and also posted at several locations throughout the City. CITY OF DUBLIN/ALAMEDA COUNTY AGREEMENT: Because of the unique nature of this project, where the City of Dublin has Site Development Review authority but will not be issuing subsequent building permits, an alternative method of ensuring the Applicant's compliance with the Conditions of Approval for the project had to be developed. The City Attorney, in cooperation with the County Counsel, drafted an agreement regarding the enforcement of Conditions of Approval for the East County Hall of Justice. The Agreement is attached as Exhibit A to the Site Development Review approval resolution (Attachment 3) and the Conditions of Approval for the project are contained within the Agreement (Exhibit A-1 to Attachment 3). Subsequent to the City Council's approval of the Agreement and the Conditions of Approval contained therein, the Agreement will be acted on by the County Board of Supervisors and signed by the County. The City's Site Development Review approval will become effective only after the Agreement is executed by both parties. This application has been reviewed by the applicable City departments and agencies, and their comments have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. CONCLUSION: The Site Development Review Amendment for the East County Hall of Justice represents an appropriate use of the site and an attractively-designed facility that should be an amenity to the community. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Previously-approved building elevation (2004) 2. Project Plan Set (KMD Architects) dated November 23, 2009 3. Resolution approving PA 02-030, a Site Development Review Amendment to construct a 196,219 square foot building comprised of courtrooms, offices, and associated facilities on 21.77 acres located on the north side of Gleason Drive Page8of9 between Madigan Road and Arnold Drive, and approving the associated Agreement between the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda regarding the enforcement of Conditions of Approval for the East County Hall of Justice, with the Agreement included as Exhibit A and the Conditions of Approval included as Exhibit A-1 4. Resolution certifying that the City Council reviewed and considered the CEQA Addendum for the East County Hall of Justice dated November 30, 2009 with the Addendum attached as Exhibit A. G:IPA#12002102-030 Alameda Co Court HouseISDR Amendment 20091CCSR 72 75 09.doc Page 9 of 9 ~~~ ~z ~; 6~ i ~I~SI~ ~-r N ~, .. .c ! ~ w •1 ~ 1'lml ~V >i~.. J~~.~: YYI'~ JJ~y~~~ ~i"°i~~4:. ~` ~T .Y± ~ t~ . t ~ ti4 it "Y ./! ~~ ~~~ ~ r •{" AR .. ~~„ ~ - y~ ,~ `~~ ~ ww..~ ~~ + tea, ~ ~` " ~;~ " F :~' re. '~ ''~ v. ~ ~- ' ~ x3 , 4 . _ ,, _ , , ~~ /~ r 1 ~, 1-~ f'~w~ ~ x,.412 ,~~~"~,. ~ a~ "'E ~ `+ ~ -. --~4 ,~"" ~ /J r r ,~ <~ • .~ a~ ~ ~ f .. 4 .C+,.. ~ Z i - .. _ " `' W.M.. ,Y ~''"i +~~.~ > ~• ~~' m `" ~ .. ,. ' ~,r" i' r, i ; •~ n as ., ,~ w .~r9 ,. ~ ., . _, 3~ ~, .2.' tip' +~;' ` ,l''°"~'~~•'e"~ .. }~":' L' ~.~ {~'`'~'~d .art ~. ~ ' .~ ~ ~ ~ ' 1~~ ~ ~ ' b -= ~ ,., ~ ~ ~ .. ~ a ~ / ~ y :. k+ ~~~/ ~ L ~; '.!..~~sx ~ ..:Y "YreHro~/ "I i .ham, ;~ ` '~°.. i "i;~~." lk y+. q~~ .a ~z ~ ~ r, a' ~~?, - - ~ ~„& ~• ° ~ et, yam, t ° a.J °' a ~. x lift-r" ~~: y~ ^..,-~~''i ~. , * ,!"` •>c~'. &~~, i:w ~~~~". ~ ~. /6 ro ~ T ,. ~ +Y 1~r~ 1, k q~ ~ r,: ~~. ~ ~~\ r!~ .~ ^ 6'+, `j' `+ ~ ~ ~,~ ~-~ ~ $a~ c-a ~Y~~' f.x+ ~ ~ '~-`i,`j` 3~ 4 • f ` ^„Msg. ~ •.iti y ss " y~ s } ~~ ~~.` ~ i° ~ ,,, ~ . ~~~~Ys:a. ~~ ~" 2'p -.. ~$~ ~~ *i`. pf' 'J ~ Jrrr? to +« ..,r qLY~ ~~.f 9 ~ ~~u", ~~,'' °~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~,, 'b ~,ti..~ ~~ ~! ~. ~ 'K,. ti '.,~i~ ~ a ` .:' u ig" ~' ~ 't 3~ ~ •ry. y~'* . ~~ ~ ' ~ 4i .ti~0' S w"itf .~~ '~ ~I~ a'gyr`+.~~ ,}~p-r~ ~.:.~ ~°~°'~«-.~ ,~~ ~6•~~ ~~te ~~~ ~. ~""` fin- ~ rr".. ~ '~` =° _.. ~ c..~ .e't.~ '~[i~Wh" salt R ; c ~ .. ,. ~, t .-~ -" _~„ ~ ~.. Z n ;i ,. ° rn n m r C ~ ° z ~ ~ z ~ z ~ p m Z = D ~: ~ ~ ® ~ n n ~ r m m C ~ ~ ~ Z D l/1 ~ r O c~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C Z1 vi m ~ 7v ~ ~ erg ~ ~ O T n m ~ r ~ '~ Z ~ W r Z o ~ D ~ ~ ~ D r cn y z ~ ~ O Cn~ m 7° m z n ~~ z n~ ° ~ ~ n rn spy, + ~ r ~' ._' e 'w`~, , as ^~ ,s ~.~ ~.A ~,~ ~ Y y } ~t ~~ ~;~, ! ~ ,~ n ~ w ~w. ~- p ~ ~ ~ . err _ .. ~ ~~ Z _m Gl 2 O O O n 0 z m X -~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION COUNTY OF ALAMEDA KMD Architects Muller & Caulfield Architects DUBLIN, CA PGA Design Inc. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -PLAN SET NOVEMBER 23, 2009 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Sandis ~ O~n t. / `~ !~ • ~' ;_ z ~,~ z ~, G D ~^ ~~ T y~ ~ ^~ ~z m ~ l ~ G -- C ~,: T~ 7 .~-~ ~C z ~ r- G ~ 7. Cr1 N / ``~ ~~ (^''~' e V S Ups ~~j~ fir` J ® ~ G '~ C m » ~; T p m ~ ~ ~ ~ fl, - °1 rn T ~ ~ D ~ ~ D o D ~• o ~ ~ ~ rD ~ ~, N x• v, ~ ~' ~ ~ fD "a o0 ~, t1 "a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- Q N ~? ~ ls~ ~ ~ r~-r S ~ ~ ~ O ~ rrt-r N to ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ "' fD ~ ~, _~ ~ '^Nj N O\ n ~ ~ m ~ lQ rn-r N ~ ~ ~ r~-r ~ n ~ CQ ~ lQ ~ `~ ~ C• ~ ~ _ !z ~ O O ~ ~ o w O O "a n rr' ~ ,-<~• ~ Q. ~ ~ `^ ~ ~ rp Q ~ v 3 ~ ~ O. ~~„ O n ~ O ~ ~ ~' ~, ~ ~ n ~ Q m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ rp ~ fl, cQ fl, m r* I"' ~ rD ~ ~ O '~*. p ~• lQ ~ Q ~ ~ Q ~ to ~^ ~ to r-r Q lQ• Q- ~ '~ ~ CD ,~-r ~ ~ Q ~ N `C n r~D O m ~ O ~ ~ O rip ~ ~ N rD ~ ~ S ~ ~ °~ ~ fl, ~ rp ~ rD t1 r-r >1 z m O ~ r~-r ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ N fl, ~ ~ "a Q- ~< O ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ f<D ~ ~,, '~ ~ .~ ~, to ~^ ~ Q ~ ~ Q O O ~ ~ ,n-+ cQ ~ C p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O lQ (D ~ ~ ~ ~ N O ~ ~ in ~~; n D ~ y, rD ~p ~ < S ~ ~ ~ < C ~, `< <Q N ~ fD ~ ~ C ,rt n !z O rD ~ O ~ ~ ~ 0, ~ ~^ ~ ~ fD rD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ fD n ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f~D tin EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION COUNTY OF ALAMEDA KMD Architects Muller & Caulfield Architects DUBLIN, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -PLAN SET NOVEMBER 23, 2009 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PGA Design Inc. Sandis • slpueS d43Wt/lb 30,11NflOJ VINtf0311'd~ 301lff10~ ilOla3dflS 600Z'£Z li38W3A0N 135 Nbld -M~I/1~ti1N3WdOl3A30 311S •3u~ u6lsaa t/9d V]'Nll8ft0 s~a~ly~ay play~ne~'8 ~apnW s~~a~ly»y aW~ do3Wt/ltl j0 ~11Nl10~ N01111lilSINIW4t/ S3~IAl13S ltlt13N39 3~IlSfif 3011tlH AlNflO~ lStl3 ~ W w r . ,~ z-i`' y~ ~w z~ _ , ~/, \ry\ . 1 ,.:%•,~j. ~r t "If ~\~' ~ 1 1 ~' \'~ lam' J '.r` ~!'.! r~!`• J~/ ! 1 \ 1~,1 ~ r ! r ,.JY\ 4yr 1 !4'i ~\ J \l I. .,1 \ '\" ~'^'1"" 1"` ^`~~ ^~~." J•i r~ r ,~ ! y~7 :~r ~~! ! r lj,ty r,I~r ~r rig \J jr \r ' 8 '~i ' o :':. \! I O n . ,. ... i. ., ... ... ,.. _~ . b r- '^ G~ Z l J 2 r+ V X ~ Z w ~ w w V ¢ Z OV D ~ l7 V m w'~~ O 2 V N Vl ry 2 w = Z O ~ N p ~ ~¢= V `°00 O Z O n Q~¢ ~ w O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ VO m a a ? ¢ ¢ ? Z Z = ~ ~ 3 0 V O m F- Z 3~ Z¢ vi O ~ ¢ ~- v'i N > O w ~ m w ~ vi l7 Z ~ w 3 U ~ ~ V ~ O ~ N ~ l7 d Y H N N V V U w d Z J J d Val ~ Q v¢~i N Z a w 4 0 O Z w w ~ H ~ ~ V ~ V V V V ~ V ¢ p V ~ p ? ~ ~ 0 0 u z ~ ~~' OK ZOO V ¢Omin ~~~ Z =_ D O S p~~Zr+w ¢O J ~ O O V ~Z `~O O ? 7 ~ H ¢ Q 0 o z .., Q ~ °z ~~ > N oz ~ w ~ ~ o a o =¢~ ~- _ ~~gw ~ a w= > Q ~¢~~_° ~ mew ~ a~N o w_v'ti V O p z z ~ d ~ V ~ ¢ N ~ a z ~ m F ? Z zoYU,N~ Y YdaLL°w ~ z v OC g a a o ~ om a Z~ aoa O ¢ a J m w 0 0 m ", . _ a _ --_ '! ~ y j. Wp .• \ ~ W ~ y\ >»W : i ~. i` i i .• f r I , / '.r . ~i~ Y ~~~ .. ___. .. ~i.\ .. n . . •~^ ,. _ .._ F- ~. r T~ " : .. - .._ _. , , ~. r ,` 4 \ ~i~ _. ! ... .. ___. ~ _ _. . •, Y ` .. + ~ __ __ {C ... __.. .. ~.~_ l1J 1 r .: . 1 f ~, • + •:... __ \l 1~ 1 \F ~,- ~~ - i ,'.,r . 1 ~ ~ / /~1 J • .. 7 ,~ , i \r\" h~l< t ...~ ., A y~ ___ i / ` , .~ .` ;;k \. > OD __ _.. R .. F 4 _ a0 ,..; t: ! ,f ' 4 . .. r .' ,', ,. ., \;.' Y ' ' ~ '~~ r \~ ' •7 y .r ~__ __ .._ _.__ Jr ''~ __ •' 1 ' '' :• ~ ~. _. v .. ~ -. .. ii _ t -' ~ :Y ~ Ji ..-_ kl r _ I. " r- ~ ..... w ., ~ ~ .._ .~ _ ~ .. rr//~~ m . , ~ r• .. ~ ~,~ -- - ', . ~~, _- _.. .. C' : .~ 'r .. ~. f. r,• d r ~! - - L-_ ,~ ~ d ~ ' .s ,, . .,. _ ... . . -, ,~ I~ ~y - .e . 'I'~~ .,, ~~,. ., :. - s , ' ,~, r .! .. + ~ ~ r ~ ! ~~\ ~ t e -- •~ i ' ~~ ~I -~ ., ~ ~ • a . ,' ` ~ y-_ ~ ~- ~ ~ v ~r .rte ~ ~~-•, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r i ~• ( i ~ ~ t Zvi •. .~ -`, `,x< ~ '-` WW ~ - ' ~ \ / w Q _ ~- [\\ ~~y\\ i r~~~r w ~i` di ... ~~i~~ \ *' 1 w I r _ ~ -_ .. ' ... ... ... ' ' I ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ `~ ,r .;:.. ~ I ` ~ w ~~ •:: ~ _ ~ 1,~ I _ _.. z ~ •. .. 1 ~ -~._ _ ~_... I Q / ~ ~• ~ I r ' w " ~ ` • I "~----~---~ 10 I • - W -- ~ ~ 1° ~ 1 R ' Q ~ ', ~ / / ~ U - IO . I ,., . . ~ ~° ~ ~ o 0 f~ ~~ , ~ z ~ r .,. -------- ~ . • , ~ ~, ~ r J ,, y ' v . y ` / / . ~. W , , y~M1M1L~, yY~1~y~ •~~~{~ y ~ yy \ , O /~. .... ... ~p y y~ ~r ..~~b.. oilYn..t~flY n~..~pk ~w :'t~~W ei_~.. . . ... ., ~I 1 M i slpueg 1ip3W'dlt! ~O.l1N(lOJ dlNilO~ll`dJ ~01>if10J >iOR13d(1S 600z'£Z l138W3ApN 13S Ndld - M31A32! 1N3WdOl3A34 3115 •~ul u6lsao y9d `d7'NllBflo s;~a;ly~ay play~neJ'8 aapnW spa;ly~ly~ oN{~ do3W`dl`d ~O ~l1NflOJ NOllt/b1SINIWOt/ S3JU1a3S ldN3N3~ 3JI1Sflf ~O lltiH ~11Nf10J 1St13 t, ~ l '•' ,--+ ~ , , ~ ~ -rt- - ~ ~ • \4 LL ~-~ - - __ ~ - -- - _ _,_ quo ; ~ -__ _~_ - IFF- ~KR ~ ~f~'~ ~ ; r~ yxK3 ~~ r ,y L w F- P.yy.. Z ~ r. ,~. , ' ro ~ Vi o C7 < !{ O .,, t ~F • ~ t ----- I ~ ~ ~" - ,n ~ ~~ ~-_ _~ "4~ ~. • .~ ~, t. ~ ~ ,~ , _. -; •u _ , 1 ., -- , ~ r O -. ~. -` ` a ~- t~ ` ~.~~ • 1 \' .. __ _ 's __ 1 -..via +~~ ~_ ~~ - f ~ `.? ~ -~ __ ~ T -~ .. , / ~~ r ~ { <~ , -- .. ~-- i r .~ .r~ ~ ~w ~_ ~ 1 1~"~ ~`• t~ jti~ ~ -~ -~'L ~.~ ~~ .,.1 j~ ~, ^S G~~; ('- Al s~ . ti ~ ~_ ~ ~. ~ ~ " :r _ _ _ ~ _ ~ti 1 L• N S ~ ~ `-~ ~, __ , i~ --- • ~,_ __ __ ~~~ ___, ~~ ~ +~ _ a~ _, r t- ~y' , ,. h .. SSS ~. .. ,- __ ~ _ -, u w ~ ~ ~ ~m ~~~ ~ ~}:c U r :• r• pQ O ~ Q v ~ ~' • ~ ~ • _ IYp'!' ~ u ~h ~ Q ~ m A ~ ~ ' ~ 1 ~~ '.• ~.: _ 'T- ~ ~__ ~ Y~ L -- • ` U -~_ ° a _ z Q ,~ J~ ~` W _ ..__ 5 ~ (j __ 7 ~ W c °~ ' - 3 •n o - -- F ~ _, a O z --- Q ~ ~ <> p ~ w 1 ~ ono ~' pc, ..~_ m ~ - J ~ ` ~~-y ( ! t ~ ~~y~ J „~ W Q V ~' ~ Cn f ( 1 I ~ I Y ~C `! Y ~C I ~ ' s~~a~!4~at/ p1a~11ne~'8 ~aII~W r slpueS d43Wt1lt/ 30 ~l1Nfl0~ b'INllOjilb'~ 3012if10~ il01lf3dflS 6O0Z'£Z a38W3A0N 13S N`dld - M31A3a 1N3WdOl3A3a 311S 'aul u6rsaa t1~d d~'NI18f10 sa~a~iy~~y pW~ Vo3Wdld 30 ,11Nf10~ NOIl~la1SINIW4'd S3~U1M35 ltil13N3O 3~I1Sflf 30 llb'H A1Nfl0~ 1St/3 o~ w~ ~w o W W ~ u~.NU~~F-~ K ~a wUZZ~m ~~~ W~ ~~z ao ~~LLZ =5~~~~~~~ Z d~3a ~a~=o°~~~ W LL~ Y~ & W~ Q LL V ~ F. ~~~~ ~a~ ~_~ Z ~~ww W~~~U~j =uj V=1 Z W~z~ ~WLLO~U7~ w O ZO~y2WU ~ F. (/) g, W zN~~ ~~pp~~xUa~~~ wzF p U H O W ~~Zm ~~~ ~o~~~ a ~o~ ~o~~~~~~~ Q W7dw Z~Z`~~a~ a~szQ[ aQaQ3 f:lLL QWWxUyy~((~~2ULL1 N~? O ~ ~U ~ U Ii Q 2 2 y U ~ ~2~ w KO u: UaaK Z ~~aw w° °~~Q~mzw g ~~~~~ ~~~a~a$~=~o y LL ~w~ U NgWZ a Y ~ " ~ IoW W=~~ =Way o~~~ a ~Wj r$ ~QO~V 2 y ~ ~ ~ 0000002 ~W~~6 ~~~WZ ~m~~~ LL~awa _ ~~~ s~ ~S ~o~FO Z ~ 3QU~4 Lt 2OOZ~G s^S ~~F2V 2 W>~W>JO q~qzzy~y'' ~FLL~~+Z t~ q ~ OO~3~"i~ o FjS ~~~< ~acWW~itpw^ ~ J Z W ~ ~ ~QZUO~ wrWW7imNWZ~a vmJQW~~j~ j3 fT~7, 22F3 Wa~ V-~ I~~i ~W~ w ~~~~3p~ ~~~z~~~ EO WO:W~ O W C?~K~U ~ Y ~W vi~~i~~~ ~QO ~d ~_~~ W ZO t~,~~, ~w O ~ LL~ aw O~~uy{O ~~ Wpo 4N~O~a ~g~~~~3 0~~~ Q~~~~ttt«tF555555yyy~QFN Z ~ ~ LL N IVY ~ ~ O zJz >aG,m~3 ~ p ~liNy~O o~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a3~zg3~ uvj~Z~ o~_~~~5 tt//~~ 4411 Wr- ~'_~~ ~ ~~~00_00 y~m~ ~Wa' ~~Wno~ w0 Wt~<way ~~Q~f-O 2>zdw~~ry m-~F ~m~u~w (o~N qqx t0 jON~ mN WO z2 NpUp~~~ y~W2_ ~gZJmOy ~ } W ~'~a S~~~Wo zr;~~aZ~~ ~~~w (aQ, 3~~~f°~ ZDU~Q~ ~KZS l/jU WtA~ ~fnLLLL~J C~ Z U ZdO~~~~"~ l~~{ J O W=W}}20g~ UNDO W~~p~pU2U ~Z ~S~GO~N~ O?O aW' ~4mUNUY/~ U ~ ~V U ~ I 0 ~~~ y ~W '. w (((U~~~ O ~Viy ~ U U , OLLZ o S ~ ~ ~ ~ K ~ Q W ~ jJ 44 mZ~m 1i ~ NFLL~-! g ~LL ~ Z = ~ V J W ~WK`~VaW U Q U ~~ ~ ~ ~ Q[ ~ F- p Z ~~', CW7 ~`~mWQ ~~0~~~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~~ OY Q~Z > O ''. U 'Is UK~x~<S~y ~ ... ~~ ~ 2~ ~ W ~ a NWp ~Y ~~~~ ',m~ 'I uWZ1 C7 ~~~~ ~YJJ~`~~~,,11 WN 4WJ ~ N ~ ~ W V l `~ ~~ac3 gaT ~XO( XXa Q~ ~ ~ o U ~ ~ o ~ ~U I~~J~W W ~~O m ~lix yp z? ~~N~ ~t ( ~ ~ON~ ~ ~ j 4z N- V ~ ~ $~ Si~~S VJ ~ ~',. ~L•t l~ f. r~;:, l :alt ~i`~r~, V/ Z i 'i 7. ~ i X~ ~~ N N W W Z W U Q f ,~ o O; W >O ~ N U U O f+l U ~ O N ~ N 1A N t z a O U W fi pa, 2~ ~ ~ O~ y ~ z ~, J~ 2 SSS J 7 o ~~ y~ ~ ~~ ~~ O~ Q F LLz W LL ~,,. 1Y1S11 UU~!! ~b ~C C;~ ~:-:~ a Z Z Z ~ g ~ X ~ X ~ ^ Ja Q U s W ~y m ~j ' N N N . ~ ~ ~ S Z W W J Z g ~ g~ ~. ~ W1 c~U >~ a~ ~o o~ O~ UH y ~~ aU W ~~ ~~ 2 = ~ Z C7 X X~ S~ S~ N~ NtV m U ~~ g ~ rt (D a ~ ~ U ~ 3 a ~ ~ c°~ c41 ~~~ ~~ ~+ » a5~ a~ ~ d a ~~~? Z IUYa~Z Z ~~K U<~ XZ ~~F-y~ p~CW7 } JG x i o'I~~N N liD y W _~ C7 Z a ~ _ ~~ tq W< ~? W', W ? y ~ ~i r ~ Ua a f Z W, U' U Q w a ~W m Q~w W ~~~ 'o ~~~ ~ 0 Z • ~, Z ~~ N U V ~~ ~~ ~ 6 ? r ~~ o o ~, ~ N W W ~~ ~ ~~ = °z F~~ ~dq~ ~z ~1JaZZ Uy F 41 O~ Z JLL G W U ZN JQ ~ W ~~~ LLF ~~ i L 2 m N ~ J N Z2 yZj 6 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~N a~ 2 Oa ~1gWy Za3~ ~~ Q~-; ~~ KJ Q5 ~>~> Fes:. ~W LLO f'U fi 6. ~ Z ~ th O U~ ~' W W J J ~' W CQ G Z a a z N Z ,2,A YI Z W H t/,1 Z T~ J ox WU O ~~ ~~ rc a F z ~ N N K ~ > ~a Z a w oZ ~~ o ~ 3 w ~ > o ~ ~ ~ 3 N m ~ .~ ~ZZj +UU z a ra~~ O U 7d' ,~, vFia 00 F ~d O~ ~~am ~~ } ~ ... ~ l gW i 3 K m U C x F ~ ; = x m ~ N w o i m W ~ 3 o~ i~ W a K 6 0 LL F U Z~ Q R W 0 J ~ ~ KKK ~ ~ ~ ~ . . U N ~ ~ Z 3 0 m Z Wos ~ m J ~ 2 O ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ adz ~ g '~ c a o m ~~ ~ m a ~ o ~ ~d ~ IL _! i~j ~y :. Y ~ e ~ .. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i sipueS ba3Wdltl 30 ~11Nf1O~ tfINaO31ld~ 3O1llflO~ 2i0Ri3df1S 600Z'~Z i138W3A0N •~ul u61sa4 d9d s~~ally»y playlne~ ~ aallnW s~~a~ly~ay Qy~~{ b'43Wt/lb' 30 ~l1NflO~ NOllt/lIlSINIWad S3~I~2J3S ltfN3N3O .~ 'ti J^~ ~1 J~~ ..~ J~~ J~~ ti ~_` W J U Fa- W W U W z Q ~ ~ ~~ ~~. ~~ U (f s - ~ ~ ~ x 7 ~~ ~~ Q W J W ml~° ~~ z z W I"' l/') W Q U Z Q J i ~ q y ~? • YY/X~~ ~ T r,~~~~ ~ r ,.~. a . «. f,~`i ~ q ;r a"' 4 Y P /~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~~ ~ » ~ i , r ~ { .~. ~ d r "" -x'k'r•~~ ~* .rT a ,~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ tf ~ r • ~,~. D 5 L U //r~ LL V/ 0 0 Q N/ LL Oy" LL O ~~//~~ ~ ~V~/J~ p V/ Z gW c~ m Y U W Y Of] _~ J O I- Q~i J m 13S Nt/ld - M31A3a 1N3WdO13~34 3115 t/~ 'NIl8f1a 3~I1Sflf 3OlldH ~11Nf1O~ 1St/3 H ''2n V J f"- N~N 1..1. g 0 m c~ J a _U J 00 W W I i -- ___ __ ~- W 0 0 m r m n 0 z d rn ~ - EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE DUBLIN, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -PLAN SET GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION COUNTY OF ALAMEDA NOVEMBER 23, 2009 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA KMD Architects PGA Design Inc. Sandis C/1 m rn m cn ~_ Z m Gl m cn r D z Muller & Caulfield Architects stpueS °~ur u6lsao b9d s1~a31y»y PIa~11ne~'8 ~ailnW s;~a~!4~aV aWx ,.--- O I.1.J L.I..I Q U cn Z Q \ ~~ 1'1~Y 1Y. ~~ j/ ~ ~ .~~ +v .~ ~~` ;~ r~;;~ C ~L~~~ ~~~~ ,i .fit ~ R, ~ , ~. z U m \~ z ,, ~~ ~ ~ , ~;; ,~ ~~ ~--~-_,. N W N W Z t U w W z a ~ w F 2 N 0 ~ rvti l t/a3Wlfld ~O X1Nf10~ VINiIO~IIdJ ~O 1af10~ ilOla3dfi5 600Z'£Z if38W3AON 13S Ndld -M31/13211N3WdOl3A3Q311S tl? `NI18fta 11o3Wdlt! ~O AlN(10~ NOIldalSiNlWat( S3~I/1»3S lt/i13N3~ 3~I1Sf11' ~O 1lb~H ~t1Nf10~ lSb'3 2 a _~ a m ~~r3~ !; 5 w J Q Q z 0 U W .b _o ir`~X~~., ~~ / ~, /i ~ ~ it ?' ~ 3... ~ ~ ",,uy' ~r,! ~ -- ~~.A~~ A ~ ,r ~1 ~ ~~i ~l~ '! 3 m ~'~~ `~ '.. i~ J ,: ~' ', „", ~ 3 ~ ~ ~. m ~~y ~~ 1 1 p ~ ~ ~ l+i \~\ }•1 f f,~ ~_\ l ,,., ~~~; ~~ ti:_~~ ~-'~ -- ~. ,,. ,1 ~a ~;~~ ~ ~5 ~~ ~ '~ ~ ~'} ~;: i t. i '.., ~ _. ~ r ` .,. tl _ ~.' "~ ~~~ 1~~'~ I 1 JfAl{lP t• = W Ian K d U N O ~ Fz.a 5 z ~ z U '.~JS ~1~`~l,ff ~~ ..wti~.._ ~ ~,. f ~~~ t ~ ~~ ~y~~, ~' ~k y .4 ~~~~t ;~ i ,_ i ~. ~ - I i ~I d z K m 3 } W J J Q m z 0 U W ~b ~b 1 slpueS d43Wylt/ 30 ,l.1Nf10~ b+INi90311b'~ 301a(lOa 2i01li3d(15 6QOZ'EZ 2i39W3AON 135 N'dld - IV131/13a 1N3Wd0'13A3Q 3115 •~ul u6lsao d9d d~'NllBfto s~~a~ly»y pla~}ine~ ~g aa~inW s;~a~ly~jy 4WD d43Wdlti 30 ~U.NflO~ NOI1dd1SINIWad S3~IAt135 ltl2i3N3~ 37115f1f 30llt/H A1Nft0~ 1Stl3 r N M ~~ ~ O ~O o _ ...-.~o-a~F91 Z Q J W W J >W J u ~~ ~,~~aa..,, ~ ~ 1 i ~ - I ~ , ~ _ ~ ~~ J ~ ~ d] --- ~ __. - ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~~ )f~ ~ f ~ O' ~ I 1 ~ Q I ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ' - .--~- - ! 1 - a ~ - t ~ ' LL ~ ~ ~ !~ ' c i4k 1 U ,''~ ~ ' e ~! ' 1 ~~ ~ ~ - - ' ~ ~~ o ~ ~_ m - ~ -~-- ~ ~ y, -- - '°~ ! o - -_. _ ~ (D ~ J~ - -,..~ ' __ ~ 9] v'i i 3 ~ o~ _ ~ --._. ~ F ~, Q ~ Z ~ W Z O ~ -(/p($~ m W f ;i W ' J d ~ ~ ' l11 ~ ¢ V ~ ~U1 ~ O i ' r i W i ~ ~~-_ _ ~ ~ -_ ~' ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ - ~ ~ f i ~ ~ _ ~~ ~`~ i ~ -- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ __ ' ~ ~~~ 1 slpue5 1fQ3Wdl`d ~Ol~1Nf1O~ dlNilO~ilt/~ ~O12if1O~ 2fOia3dflS 6002 '£Z 2138W3AON 13S Ndld - AA31A3a 1N3WdO'13A3tJ 3115 Sul u61saQ y0d b'~'NIl8f1o s;~a~ly~ay pla~lne~ ~gaallnW s~~a~ly»y pW~ t/O3Wtilt/ ~Ol~1NflO~ NOIldblSiNlWat153~1/12i3S lt/l13N39 3JIlSflt ~O'11t/H,l1Nf1O71Sd3 } ,..- i/ ~ M Z Q J J W W J m m 0 J .. ~ V , O O o ~ O 4 .. - ~ W z 1 I ~ ~ 1 i ~. ~ _ ' i ' , 1-' ' ! ~ Z ~ ~ , ,r ,;' t,iti~.r , ,~,,,,1r ~tt, ~ ,'~ ~,;, T~ f - ~ ~ , ~~ a ~~~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ 'tea. , o i >~ ~ ,~ ~ ____ - - m= ~ ~ I ~ l Q ~ x y_ ' _~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~ _ _ , 1 Q _ -- - ~ ~ _ __- _ -,- j ~'1-- _~ o ' ~ f ~ ~ ~ ( a ~ z -~ ,; ~ 1 s~ w ~ ~~ ~ o --- ---_ ;' V ~ $ a - - ~ , - `--1--_ _ ~ ~ , ~ f ~' 1 _ ~ , ,~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~~ , ~ -~---- -- _~_ O ~ ~` ® t , ~ ~~`- 1 ~~ + ~ ~ ~- _ _ ~ ;__ 3 ' t I ~ > Di f ~ 1 ~ ~ ^t' ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~++IIL~~Jllgq q ~ ~ , ~ ~ ® , ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ---- --__ I ~-'- ~ a ~~ ~ v~ oz ~ Y iy,i ~ V w s!pueS •~ul u6lsa0'd9d si~aily»y Pla~inp~'8 ~apnW si~a1!y~1b oWx ^-~- `d ~ `~J dCJ3Wlild ~O,l1Nf10~ b'INaO~il`da ~012iflOa ii01213d(1S 600Z'£Z N38W3AON 135 Nb'ld - M31~3H 1N3WdO13113o 311S t~3'NilBtla t/a3W~l`d j0 ~l1Nfl0' NOIl'dlflSlNiWab S3~IA213S 1Ht13N39 3~I1Sflf 30lltlH ~U.Nf10?1Sb3 N m ~o 0 ~o 0 z t- ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~` _.-- - ~ ~ M ~~ _~--- ~-l ~~ t I ~~ 1 l1 l ~-_ l l -~ ~- z Q J W W J Z V w cn ~- -~_ ~~ -_._- 1 ' 1 ' 1 ~ r 1 ' r ~ s~~a~!y~ay p1a~11np~'8 ~a11nW ~~ s!pueS va3wdly ~o A1Nno~ diNao~ne~ ~o lano~ aota3dns ~~u~ u6!sap b'9d saga}!ya~y oW~ b'Q3Wblt/ ~01~1Nn0~ NOllb'a1SINIWOt/ 53~1l1a3S lb'a3N39 1 _! __ r- N Z Q J W W J F- L.L ~_ 600Z'£Z a38W3AON 135 NFlld - M3t/13a 1N3Wd©13A3o 311S ba `Wl8f1a 3]I15G1f 30 lldH ~l1Nt'10~ 1St/3 N M O 0 z s-pueS bo3Wdld jO ,l.1Nf10~ t/INNOjII~i~ 301a(10~ ifOla3d(1S 600Z'£Z l138W3AON 13S N1lld - M31A3a 1N3WdOl3A3a 3115 •~ul u6lsaa tl9d ~"NI18f10 s;~a;ly~ay playlne3 ~ aapnW s;~a;Iy~ad aW?I Vo3Wt/lb' 30 h1N(10~ NOlld>i1SINiWdV S3~I/1>j3S ldlf3N3~ 3JIlSflf 30lldH A1.Nfl0~ 1St/3 .~ -~, N m ip o ~o 0 z I ff r! _ I l ~ ~ 1 ~,;, ~__ __ _.--__ 1 '_ -- l l j, Z /'J /Y O NO 1..~ ff f t srpueS •~ul u61saQ did sl~a~ly~ay p1a~11ne~ ~ aapnW si~a}Iy~iy QWN W ~_ Z O Q w J C7 z Q J _z 0 Q W ~_ d43Wdld ~O,l1Nn0~ b'IN210311'd~ j01lIn0~ i1012i3d(1S 6~Z '£Z Zi38W3A0N 13S NVId - M31A3211N3WdOl3/13a 3115 ~da'ranena tl03Wdld 30 I~1Nn0~ NOlldiilSINIWOtJ S3~I/12135 lb'2i3N39 3~IlSnf 30lldH,llNnO~lStl3 rn ~+ GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION COUNTY OF ALAMEDA NOVEMBER 23, 2009 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA KMD Architects PGA Design Inc. Sandis Muller & Caulfield Architects tJ') C -I m ~n m r rn ~_ O z V J EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE DUBLIN, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -PLAN SET GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION COUNTY OF ALAMEDA NOVEMBER 23, 2009 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA KMD Architects PGA Design Inc. Sandis Muller & Caulfield Architects ~~~ `s \ ' ~, ~~ {~~ ~, . ~ - ~~.. ~ ~ ~ ., ~ -- ._ s ~fi 1 ~ ~, :.~~ i ~ ~i 1 ~ I. ~~ F I ~ ~'~ I ~ I ... ~'~° ' ~y~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ 1 r y~ i° ~ ;~dt ~ t~ I,t' -~- i ~, F { .. k~~ ~.: i~; _` - .. ~+~ ;~ ~ ~- ~ ~ .+~a ,.~ i•~fi =iic ~® ~~ ~~r n ~ o ~ D ~ ~ ~ S EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION COUNTY OF ALAMEDA KMD Architects Muller & Caulfield Architects DUBLIN, CA PGA Design Inc. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -PLAN SET NOVEMBER 23, 2009 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Sandis r_ N O m~ ;rF a,~ ~Di .!r z m D cn m r D ~ ---i !~ o .~ z EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION COUNTY OF ALAMEDA KMD Architects Muller & Caulfield Architects DUBLIN, CA PGA Design Inc. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -PLAN SET NOVEMBER 23, 2009 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Sardis ~" ~* - -. w ~4 "+,~ r ~~:~°~. .< N I 1 ~~r ~". '~ ~r~ inn ,•a, a >'~^ ,5;~~~' - ~~ ~~ ~~ i~ . /~. l . o ,, EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION COUNTY OF ALAMEDA DUBLIN, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -PLAN SET NOVEMBER 23, 2009 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ~. z 0 m cn rn r rn ~_ C>J O z KMD Architects Muller & Caulfield Architects PGA Design Inc. Sandis N N C x fi O U n 00 V O~ In A W N r ~ ~ m r ~ vzi tzii D D n~ D O C C N Z= D N~ r r m v~ r m m ~ ~ m v ~ ~ DI C m~ Z~ O m m ~ ~ ~ Z C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ D ('1 D ~mi ~ Z r S Z ~ D D DmDZD(Z'1ZZ ~ m r r ~~O~NOintn OD<m~T ~v~it{n ~ z~ m~ Z m m O~v~Z O3 ~ nn D r y 0 0 ~ r ~ ~ ',V `/~ Vr ,...~1~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION COUNTY OF ALAMEDA KMD Architects Muller & Caulfield Architects DUBLIN, CA PGA Design Inc. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -PLAN SET NOVEMBER 23, 2009 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Sandis N W 0 W N 00 V 01 In A W N -~-~ ~ ~ - ~ ~N-I Z Z - n C C N Z S D N~ 0 ~~ r O T D D (1n(m1D fl~mm C rn~ Z C ~ O ~ Z C ~ ~Zj ~ 'S D~ D ri D O~~ Z r S Z~ D D D m D Z D (Zl Z Z r~ r ~ r S m m ~(lr tnmrr C m -< ~ O O N v, OD <r"m~~~i+tjii ~o Z o rn ~ z T T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 D D ~ O O r- -00 ~ r ~ ~ m r oo - -~ in D ~ r ~ ~+ m C ~ °- ; ~~ ~~ ~ h^ `..w L- ~~ it O r 'l d ~. .. €~ O N 2 m r m _~ O z ~ ` _ 1 ~~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION COUNTY OF ALAMEDA KMD Architects Muller & Caulfield Architects DUBLIN, CA PGA Design Inc. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -PLAN SET NOVEMBER 23, 2009 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Sandis N 74'd' 1' ., ` ~ i ~w L~ \/ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION COUNTY OF ALAMEDA DUBLIN, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -PLAN SET NOVEMBER 23, 2009 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA W V O~ ~n A w N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z D D n~ D O C C N Z = y N ~ D ~~ r ~ T D D C m 'v ~ -~ -i n n n D n O m m C m~ Z C Z 0 0 ~ Z C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D~DrjDO-mjmi Z r- 2 Z~ D D D m D Z D fzl Z Z ~ r r ~ rn ~ C O ^' ~ O in ~n OD<<"m~v~ivji ~ z A m~ Z rn m N ~nZ O~~ O D ~ O O r D O O ~ r ~ ~ m r W D ~ N D -~ r ~ ~+ m C ~ ~~ { 1 0 ~ O n -i rn 2 W Qo _C ~ ~ O ~ C z ~ ~~ ~~~ ~5~r RESOLUTION NO. xx-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ****************************** RESOLUTION APPROVING PA 02-030, A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT A 196,219 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING COMPRISED OF COURTROOMS, OFFICES, AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES ON 21.77 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GLEASON DRIVE BETWEEN MADIGAN ROAD AND ARNOLD DRIVE, AND APPROVING THE ASSOCIATED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE WHEREAS, Jim Kachick, on behalf of the Alameda County General Services Agency, has requested approval of a Site Development Review Amendment to construct a 196,219 square foot building comprised of courtrooms, offices, and associated facilities on 21.77 acres located on the north side of Gleason Drive between Madigan Road and Arnold Drive; and WHEREAS, the original Site Development Review application was reviewed and approved by the Dublin City Council on November 16, 2004 (Resolution 220-04); and WHEREAS, the County has submitted and received approval for two extensions to the Site Development Review approval, with the final extension to the approval expiring on May 16, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a complete application and project plans to amend Site Development Review PA 02-030, dated November 23, 2009 and prepared by KMD Architects, stamped approved, and on file in the Planning Department (hereinafter referred to as the "Project Plans"). Included in these plans is the color and material board dated November 23, 2009, and other plans, text, and diagrams relating to this Site Development Review, and WHEREAS, the County of Alameda prepared a joint Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), dated April 2003, to determine the potential environmental impacts occurring as a result of the East County Hall of Justice project. The Final EIR/EIS concluded that the preferred alternative for the location of the East County Hall of Justice was in Dublin at the subject site. The EIR/EIS identified mitigation measures to address the environmental impacts identified and the Final EIR/EIS and accompanying mitigation measures were adopted the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on May 6, 2003; and WHEREAS, when the East County Hall of Justice facility was redesigned by the County and the Courts, an Addendum was prepared to document the differences between the project originally analyzed in the 2003 EIR/EIS and the current proposal. The Addendum states that although changes are proposed as part of the current project that require revisions to the previous EIR/EIS, the changes do not involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously-identified significant effects. Only minor changes to the previous EIR/EIS were required, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA documentation; and Atta~hmPnt '~ ~ 8 r ~5~ WHEREAS, the Addendum was certified by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on December 8, 2009; and WHEREAS, Staff has concluded that the proposed Site Development Review Amendment falls within the analysis completed as part of the Addendum and that no additional impacts have been identified; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Planned Development Zoning District in which it is located, and represents an appropriate project for the site; and WHEREAS, the project application has been reviewed by the applicable City departments and agencies, and their comments have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the Site Development Review Amendment application on December 15, 2009; and WHEREAS, proper notice of the public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City Council recommending that the application be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth and used their independent judgment to make a decision. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby find that: A. The approval of this application, as conditioned, is consistent with the purposes of the Site Development Review Chapter, with the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Planned Development Zoning for the site. The project is in compliance with the purpose of the Site Development Review Chapter, the Planned Development Zoning District standards, and the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations for the property. 8. The approval of this application, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance. The project, with the implementation of the conditions of approval, meets the stated purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties and the lot in which the project is proposed. The project has been designed to respect the neighborhood and to minimize adverse impacts to surrounding properties. D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed use because the berm will be retained to screen Santa Rita Jail and the onsite grading will be balanced to provide an appropriate area for the building site. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed through appropriate grading ~I ~ is4 of the site, retention of those sensitive features, and through the mitigation measures adopted in the Final EIR/EIS and the Addendum. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in the vicinity. The building architecture has been designed to be complimentary to the other buildings in the vicinity while providing the facilities necessary for a regional courthouse. G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public. The site has been designed to incorporate native plant materials as well as to minimize stormwater runoff and to utilize sustainable practices. H. The sife has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles. The project plans include a circulation diagram that illustrates the ability to move safely throughout the site for bicyclists, pedestrians, and automobiles. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve, subject to compliance with the Conditions of Approval, PA 02-030 Site Development Review (SDR) Amendment to construct a 196,219 square foot building comprised of courtrooms, offices, and associated facilities on 21.77 acres located on the north side of Gleason Drive between Madigan Road and Arnold Drive as generally depicted by the Staff Report and the Project Plans dated November 23, 2009 and labeled Attachment 1 to this staff report, stamped approved and on file with the City of Dublin Planning Department; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the approval of this Site Development Review Amendment supersedes the previous Site Development Review approval for the East County Hall of Justice (City Council Resolution 220-04 dated November 16, 2004); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Agreement (Exhibit A to this Resolution) between the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda regarding the enforcement of Conditions of Approval for the East County Hall of Justice, with the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit A-1 to the Agreement. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of December 2009. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor 30~~ I-`,~..t ATTEST: City Clerk G:\PA#\2002102-030 Alameda Co Court House\CC Reso SDR and Agmt.doc Exhibit A ai ~i~ AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT This agreement ("the Agreement") is entered into this 15th day of December, 2009 by and between the City of Dublin, a municipal corporation ("the City"), and the County of Alameda, a political subdivision of the State of California ("the County"). The City and the County are referred to collectively as "the Parties." RECITALS 1. The Parties are parties to that certain agreement entitled "Agreement Between County of Alameda, Surplus Property Authority and City of Dublin Regarding Transfer of Property Tax Revenues Upon Annexation, Provision of Services and Other Matters," dated May 4, 1993 ("the Annexation Agreement"). 2. The Annexation Agreement provides that with respect to the County Governmental Property (as defined) any county governmental uses proposed for the property shall be subject to site development review in accordance with the City's zoning ordinance. 3. In the Annexation Agreement, the parties also agreed "in concept that infrastructure shall be constructed as necessitated by development and to accommodate reasonably projected development and that the costs of such infrastructure should be borne by the properties benefiting therefrom in proportion to the benefit received." 4. In 2004, the County proposed to construct an East County Hall of Justice Project on the County Governmental Property ("the 2004 Project"). Pursuant to the Annexation Agreement, the County applied to the City for Site Development Review approval for the 2004 Project. On November 16, 2004, the City Council approved Resolution 220-04 approving the Site Development Review for the 2004 Project and the associated agreement between the City and County regarding enforcement of conditions of approval ("2004 Agreement"). The 2004 Agreement was extended by two amendments in May 2006 and November 2007, respectively. 5. In April 2009, the County informed the City that it planned to revise the 2004 Project. Pursuant to the Annexation Agreement, the County applied to the City for Site Development Review (SDR) for a revised East County Hall of Justice Project on the County Governmental Property ("the Project"). The SDR for the Project was approved by the City Council on December 15, 2009 subject to certain conditions. The Project is the subject of this Agreement. 6. The City during the processing of the SDR determined that certain conditions of approval should be imposed upon the Project, including obligations to pay the City's development impact fees, which fund infrastructure that serves the County Governmental Property and other property in the City. The City believes that the Annexation Agreement authorizes the imposition of such conditions on the County. ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement E~P~A TO ATTAC'.HMF,NT 't 3a~I~± 7. The County believes that many of the conditions that the City desires to impose on the Project, including some of the development fees, are neither authorized by the Annexation Agreement nor otherwise by law. 8. In order to expedite the processing of the Project and to avoid further disputes, the County has agreed, for purposes of this Project only, to subject itself to certain conditions of approval (attached as Exhibit A-1 to this Agreement and incorporated herein by this reference) ("the Conditions"), which conditions include the payment of all or a portion of certain City development impact fees for infrastructure, and the City is willing to agree to impose only the Conditions, provided that a reasonable means of enforcing the Conditions against the County is available to the City. 9. The City typically enforces conditions of approval by refusing to issue further approvals, such as building permits and occupancy, until the conditions are satisfied, but the City does not have further approvals on this project. 10. To ensure that the City has adequate remedies to enforce the Conditions, the Parties desire to set forth their agreement that the Conditions may be enforced by specific performance. NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, the City and the County agree as follows: AGREEMENT Section 1. County Subject to the Conditions. Without in any way consenting to the City's interpretation of the Annexation Agreement, the County agrees to be subject to the Conditions. Section 2. Conditions May Be Enforced by Specific Performance. The Parties agree that, should the County refuse to comply with the Conditions, the City would not have adequate remedies at law and that the City's remedy for such a breach is to bring a lawsuit to enforce the Conditions and seek an order of specific performance. Section 3. Miscellaneous. a. Incorporation of Recitals and Introductory Paragraph. The Recitals contained in this Agreement, and the introductory paragraph preceding the Recitals, are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. b. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of any term or provision of this Agreement to a particular situation, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement, or the application of this Agreement to other situations, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any material provision of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to a particular situation, is held to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, either the City or the County may (in their sole and absolute discretion) terminate this Agreement by providing written notice of such termination to the other party. c. Construction. This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 2 of 4 t ~ ~:; , for both the City and the County, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement. d. California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. e. Attorneys' Fees. In any legal action or other proceeding brought by either party to enforce or interpret a provision of this Agreement, including an action brought by the City to enforce the Conditions, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and any other costs incurred in that proceeding in addition to any other relief to which it is entitled. f. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing. Such notices shall be given to the Parties at their addresses set forth below: If to the City, to: Joni Pattillo City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94569 Telephone: (925) 833-6650 Facsimile: (925) 833-6651 If to the County, to: Aki Nakao Director, General Services Agency County of Alameda 1401 Lakeside Drive, 10th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 733-9404 Facsimile: (415) 394-9000 A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party and thereafter all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed, upon the expiration of forty-eight (48) hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. Notices may also be given by overnight courier which shall be deemed given the following day or by facsimile transmission which shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt. g. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts and counterpart signature pages may be assembled to form a single original document. h. Entire Agreement; Exhibits. This Agreement consists of 4 pages and one exhibit which constitute in full, the final and exclusive understanding and agreement of the Parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements of the Parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter of this Agreement. The Parties specifically acknowledge that the "Agreement Between The City of Dublin and The County of Alameda regarding the Enforcement of Conditions of Approval for The East County Hall of Justice, dated November 16, 2004, is superseded by this Agreement. The exhibits to this Agreement consist of the following: (a) Conditions of Approval of Site Development Review for the East County Hall of Justice Project. Waivers. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 3 of 4 signed by the appropriate authorities of the City and the County. 3~ e;~ ~~~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. CITY OF DUBLIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to Form: City Attorney COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Chair of the Board of Supervisors Approved as to Form: RICHARD E. WINNIE County Counsel By: Deputy County Counsel ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 4 of 4 ~ ~ i~~ Exhibit A-1 to the Agreement between the City of Dublin and the County of Alameda regarding the enforcement of Conditions of Approval for the East County Hall of Justice FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL for PA 02-030 East County Hall of Justice (Including the Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval): Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the establishment of use and the building opening to serve the public. General Conditions 1. Approval. This Site Development Review approval for the East County Hall of Justice establishes the detailed design concepts and regulations for the project. Development pursuant to this Site Development Review shall generally conform to the project elevations/renderings dated November 23, 2009, submitted by KMD Architects, stamped approved, and on file in the Planning Department (hereinafter referred to as the "Project Plans"). Also considered part of the Project Plans is the Color and Materials Board dated November 23 2009, submitted by KMD Architects, and other plans, text, and diagrams relating to this Site Development Review, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. No other modifications shall be made to the Project Plans without subsequent review and approval. This approval shall not become effective until the City and County have entered into a written agreement regarding the enforcement of these conditions. This Site Development Review approval supersedes the previous Site Development Review approval (City Council Resolution 220-04 dated November 16, 2004). Responsible Agency: Planning When required: Ongoing 2. Term. Approval of the Site Development Review shall be valid for twenty-four (24) months from the date approved by the City Council. If construction, or demonstrated progress toward commencing such construction, has not commenced by that time, this approval shall be null and void. If an additional extension is desired, the County can make the request to be considered by the City Council. Responsible Agency: Planning When required: Ongoing 3. Revocation. The Site Development Review approval will be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this approval shall be subject to citation. Responsible Agency: Planning When required: Ongoing 4. Required Permits. The Applicant/Developer shall obtain all necessary permits required by other agencies (Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Dublin San Ramon Services District, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, State Water Quality Control Board, etc.) as needed and shall submit copies of the permits to the Director of Public Works. Responsible Agency: All agencies When required: Ongoing 5. Fees. The Applicant/Developer shall pay the following fees prior to the establishment of use and the building opening to serve the public: a. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) at the current rate, based on 5,941 daily trips with a 27% reduction given for locally-generated trips, resulting in daily trips of 4,337. The Exhibit A-1 to the ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement ~+ XIII~ 1t1~ -1 t0 3~ ~,~~ County will receive credit for any TIF improvements constructed as required by these Condition of Approval. The County may pay the fee by using Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) section I TIF credits [for payment of the Section I portion of the fee], through a reduction in the ACSPA's Section II loan to the TIF program [for payment of the Section II portion of the fee], and/or cash for either the Section Iand/or Section II portion of the fee. b. Pleasanton Interchange Fee for Eastern Dublin at the current rate, based on 5,941 daily trips. c. Tri Valley Transportation Development (TVTD/TVTC) Fee at the current rate, based on a building size of 196,219 square feet. d. City of Dublin Fire Facilities Fee at the current rate, based on a building size of 196,219 square feet. Pursuant to the resolutions imposing the foregoing fees, the fees are increased for inflation annually each year on July 1. Consistent with the City's practice with projects subject to building permits, the fees listed above may be paid no earlier that at the commencement of construction of the building. The fees must be paid. no later than the establishment of use and the building opening to serve the public. The fee paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment. Responsible Agency: All agencies When required: Prior to the establishment of use and the building opening to serve the public. 6. Compliance with EIR/EIS Mitigation Measures. The project is required to comply with all mitigations measures as detailed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice (dated April 2003) as adopted by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on May 6, 2003 and as revised by the Addendum approved by the County Board of Supervisors on December 8, 2009. As shown below, certain mitigation measures which require a fair share contribution towards traffic improvements will be met through payment of EDTIF fees. The City finds that certain mitigation measures are infeasible due to inconsistency with the City's Capital Improvement Program as specified below: MM 9.1.Sa: Fair share contribution to Scarlett Drive Improvement to be funded through payment of EDTIF extension fee. MM 9.1.5b: Fair share contribution to Tassajara/Dublin Improvement inconsistent with the City's Capital intersection Im rovement Pro ram for roadwa im rovements MM 17.3.Sa and 17.3.6a: Fair share contribution to Improvement to be funded through payment of EDTIF Dou he /Dublin fee. MM 17.3.Sa and 17.3.6a: Fair share contribution to Improvement to be funded through payment of EDTIF Hacienda/I580 WB OR fee. MM 17.3.Sa and 17.3.6a: Fair share contribution to Improvement inconsistent with the City's Capital Tassa'ara/Central Im rovement Pro ram for roadwa im rovements MM 17.3.Sa and 17.3.6a: Fair share contribution to Improvement inconsistent with the City's Capital Tassa'ara/Dublin Im rovement Pro ram for roadwa im rovements MM 17.3.Sa and 17.3.6a: Fair share contribution to Santa Improvement inconsistent with the City's Capital Rita/I580 EB/ Pimlico OR Im rovement Pro ram for roadwa im rovements MM 17.3.Sa and 17.3.6a: Fair share contribution to Improvement inconsistent with the City's Capital Ho ard/I580 EB OR Im rovement Pro ram for roadwa im rovements MM 17.3.Sb and 17.3.6b: Fair share contribution C to Improvement inconsistent with the City's Capital Tassa'ara/Gleason Im rovement Pro ram for roadwa im rovements Exhibit A-1 to the ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 2 of 14 3~~15~ MM 17.3.Sb and 17.3.6b: Fair share contribution to Improvement to be funded through payment of EDTIF Hacienda/I580 EB OR fee. MM 17.3.Sb and 17.3.6b: Fair share contribution to Improvement to be funded through payment of EDTIF Hacienda/Dublin fee. Responsible Agency: Planning When required: Through construction and ongoing 7. Compliance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan General Plan Amendment EIR. As required by the Site Development Review findings, the East County Hall of Justice project shall be in compliance with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and therefore must also be in compliance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan General Plan Amendment EIR and the associated Mitigation Monitoring Program. Responsible Agency: Planning When required: Through construction and ongoing 8. Photovoltaic conduit installed. To ensure that the buildings are "PV/Solar Ready," the Project Applicant will size the conduit pathways inside the buildings to accommodate installation for potential future PV systems. Responsible Agency: Planning/Building When required: Through construction and ongoing 9. Review of Design/Build drawings. The Project Plans have been acknowledged by the Applicant to be conceptual only, and the County is pursing adesign/build approach to the development of the project. In order for the City to ensure that the design build plans are in compliance with the City's Site Development Review approval, once they are developed, the plans shall be submitted to the City for review and comment by the Community Development Director or his/her designee. The plans shall be submitted for review prior to issuance of a building permit through Alameda County and prior to start of construction. Responsible Agency: Planning When required: Prior to issuance of a building permit through Alameda County and prior to start of construction 10. Changes to Project Plans. A minor physical change to the approved building design, site or building details (such as color or materials), or Project Plans can be considered by the Community Development Director or his/her designee as a Site Development Review Waiver. Any amendment to the approved plans which is not considered by the Community Development Director to be a minor physical change shall be reviewed per Section 8.104.090 (Amendment) of the Dublin Municipal Code, which would include full review and approval by the decision-making body of the original application, in this case the City Council. Responsible Agency: Planning When required: Prior to the establishment of use and the building opening to serve the public 11. Site Development Review Waiver for "Green Enhancements". The City supports the County's efforts to achieve a LEED Silver certification for the project. Should the Applicant desire to makes changes to the Project Plans to incorporate sustainable practices, such as the installation of solar photovoltaic facilities, wind micro-turbines, the installation of a green roof, or other "green" efforts, said changes to the Project Plans can be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or his/her designee as a Site Development Review Waiver. Responsible Agency: Planning When required: Through construction and ongoing Exhibit A-1 to the ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 3 of 14 12. Site Lighting. The Applicant shall shield the parking lot and site lighting to ensure that the light is concentrated and focused on site and does not impact neighboring businesses or residents. Responsible Agency: Planning When required: Through construction and ongoing 13. Wind screen details. A natural wind break of mixed tree heights is shown on the plans on the west side of the outdoor courtyard. During the design build phase of the Project, the Applicant could study the wind conditions and consider appropriate solutions to divert the wind and provide a more comfortable courtyard seating area off the cafeteria. The design of any wind screen structures will be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or his/her designee prior to installation. Responsible Agency: Planning When required: Through construction and ongoing 14. Perimeter fencing details. In the design build phase of the Project, the Applicant will study the overall perimeter site security fencing approach, and consulting with Alameda County Sheriff's staff to develop a comprehensive security plan. The design of perimeter fencing will be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or his/her designee prior to installation. Responsible Agency: Planning When required: Through construction and ongoing 15. Building and site signage. It is anticipated that low, monument-style signage will be installed at the three main driveway entrances off Gleason Road. Additionally, building signage will be installed at the main building entrance on the single-story, east-facing portion of the building leading to the security area (Similar to the signage shown in the graphic on Sheet 2 of the Project Plan Set). No building signage is permitted on the south-facing elevation of the courthouse building. Responsible Agency: Planning When required: Through construction and ongoing 16. Roof equipment. There shall be complete screening (with materials to match the buildings) of all roof top elements such as mechanical penthouses and equipment from pedestrian and occupants' view. Responsible Agency: Planning When required: Ongoing City of Dublin Public Works Department 17. Final design and construction shall conform to the Project Plans dated November 23, 2009, submitted by KMD Architects, stamped approved, and on file in the Planning Department (hereinafter referred to as the "Project Plans"). Responsible Agency: Planning and Public Works When required: Ongoing 18. The Applicant/Developer shall construct the following traffic improvements prior to the establishment of use and the building opening to serve the public: a. Modify Gleason Drive (project-specific improvement) The existing median island on Gleason Drive (just west of Hacienda Drive) shall be modified to provide an eastbound left-turn pocket lane into the site at the Hacienda Drive intersection. The left-turn pocket lane shall be 200' long, 12' wide, and shall have a 90' transition taper. Improvements shall include modifications as needed to the existing roadway striping and Exhibit A-1 to the ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 4 of 14 3~ °~ ~~ signing, as well as modifications to the existing median landscaping, irrigation systems, street lighting, and other facilities, as determined by the City Engineer. • Modify the northbound approach of Hacienda Drive (project-specific improvement) The northbound approach of Hacienda Drive at the Gleason Drive intersection shall be widened to provide the following lane configurations: - 275' long, 11' wide left-turn pocket lane, plus 90' transition taper - Two thru lanes, 11' wide each - 4' wide bicycle lane - 275' long, 12' wide right-turn lane, plus existing transition taper Alternatively, the northbound approach of Hacienda Drive at the Gleason Drive intersection could be widened to provide the following lane configurations if the proposed inbound project driveway, opposite Hacienda Drive, is shifted easterly by a distance of approximately 12 to 15 feet: - 12' wide trap left-turn lane - 12' wide thru lane - 12' wide shared thru/right-turn lane - 5' wide bicycle lane Improvements shall include modifications as needed to the existing roadway striping and signing. The raised median island on Hacienda Drive (just south of Gleason Drive) shall be modified to accommodate the above improvements, including modifications to the existing landscaping, irrigation systems, street lighting, and other facilities, as determined by the City Engineer. b. Modify Gleason/Hacienda traffic signal (project-specific improvement) The existing traffic signal at the Gleason Drive/Hacienda Drive intersection shall be modified, as needed, to accommodate the new fourth leg of the intersection, the new eastbound left-turn lane, and the additional lanes at the northbound Hacienda Drive approach. Responsible Agency: Public Works When required: Prior to establishment of the use and the building opening to the public 19. The Applicant/Developer shall submit final Improvement Plans, prepared by a licensed civil engineer, for all work within the public right-of--way or easements, for review and approval by the Director of Public Works. The improvement plan package shall include additional plan sets as necessary for traffic signals, landscaping, joint trench, or other improvements as needed, prepared by the appropriate licensed design professional. Responsible Agency: Public Works When required: Prior to start of construction of the improvements in the right of way and prior to the building opening to the public. 20. Pursuant to Section 7.16.620 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the Applicant/Developer shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City to guarantee completion of the required improvements. The agreement and security shall be provided prior to issuance of an encroachment permit for work in the public right-of--way, and prior to start of any work in the public right-of- way. The Agreement will require an improvement security to be posted by the Applicant/ Developer's contractor to guarantee the faithful performance of the permitted work and the payment for labor and materials. Such security shall be in the form of cash, a certified or cashier's check, a letter of credit, or surety bonds executed by the Applicant/Developer and by a corporate Exhibit A-1 to the ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 5 of 14 u~~i~, surety authorized to do business in California. The amount of the Security guaranteeing faithful performance shall be 100% of the estimated cost of the work. The amount of the Security guaranteeing the payment for labor and materials shall be 100% of the estimated cost of the work, and all work completed in the public right of way shall be subject to the payment of prevailing wages. The Applicant/Developer shall provide an estimate of these costs with the submittal of the Improvement Plans. In lieu of submitting a separate bond for the work in the public right-of--way, the contractor may name the City of Dublin as being covered under a security provided to the Applicant/ Developer, provided the scope and cost of the work in the public right-of--way are clearly defined and conform to the approved cost estimate for the work. Responsible Agency: Public Works When required: Prior to start of construction of the improvements in the right of way and prior to the building opening to the public. 21. The Applicant/Developer shall obtain an encroachment permit for all work within the public right- of-way or easements, prior to the start of construction. All work within the public right-of--way shall be subject to inspection by the Department of Public Works. Responsible Agency: Public Works When required: Prior to start of construction of the improvements in the right of way and prior to the building opening to the public. 22. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for the cost of all plan review, permit, and inspection costs incurred by the Department of Public Works for work within the public-right-of- way or easements. Responsible Agency: Public Works When required: Ongoing 23. A 6' wide concrete sidewalk shall be installed along the Gleason Drive frontage of the project. The sidewalk shall be extended easterly along the Gleason Drive frontage to connect with the existing sidewalk near Madigan Road and shall be extended westerly to the terminus of the project site. The new sidewalk shall be separated from the curb and have a 6' wide parkway strip in between. The addition of a 6' wide landscaping/parkway strip will cut into the slope of the proposed berm and will require an adjustment of the slope from 4:1 to 3:1. Alternatively, the Applicant/Developer could consider a meandering sidewalk, and use the meanders to adjust the sidewalk elevation and take up part of the grade difference along the berm. One of these alternatives shall be reflected in the final improvement plans that are subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works, prior to the start of construction. Responsible Agency: Public Works When required: Prior to start of construction of the improvements in the right of way and prior to the establishment of use and the building opening to serve the public. 24. A public access easement shall be dedicated for any portion of the sidewalk outside of the public right of way. Responsible Agency: Public Works When required: Prior to the establishment of use and the building opening to serve the public 25. The final design of the westbound bus stop on Gleason Drive shall be approved by the Livermore- Amador Valley Transit Authority. The location of the bus stop may be modified by LAVTA, Exhibit A-1 to the ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 6 of 14 ~~~~ subject to approval of the Director of Public Works, and shall contain a bus shelter, trash receptacle, and appropriate lighting. Responsible Agency: Public Works When required: Prior to start of construction of the improvements in the right of way and prior to the establishment of use and the building opening to serve the public 26. ADA-compliant ramps shall be provided at the three driveway entrances on Gleason Drive and all interior intersections. Responsible Agency: Public Works When required: Prior to the establishment of use and the building opening to serve the public 27. A traffic signal easement shall be dedicated to the City over the new southbound approach to the Gleason Drive/Hacienda Drive intersection, of adequate size, as determined by the City Engineer, to include all signal poles, conduit, pullboxes, detector loops, and other improvements. Responsible Agency: Public Works When required: Prior to establishment of the use and the building opening to the public Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) The following conditions shall be complied with prior to establishment of use and the building opening to serve the public to the satisfaction of Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), unless another timeframe is specified in the condition: 28. Complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities", all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. 29. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future flow demands in addition to each development project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility master planning. 30. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. 31. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems shall be designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. 32. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located in public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off- street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement. 33. Prior to issuance of a Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District or the commencement of construction, the locations and widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. Exhibit A-1 to the ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 7 of 14 ~~. 34. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication. 35. Prior to issuance of a Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District or the commencement of construction, all utility connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. 36. Prior to issuance of a Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District or the commencement of construction, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating ,approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. 37. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted unless the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all DSRSD fees have been paid. 38. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the project. 39. Improvement plans shall include recycled water improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements therein. 40. The proposed on-site fire line shall be dedicated to DSRSD by a Grant of Easement for operation & maintenance. 41. If any trash enclosures are to be connected to the sanitary sewer, they must have a grease and sand trap and the areas must be covered to prevent the entry of rainwater. 42. On-site sewer pipes shall have a 10-foot separation from the fire line. It is currently at 8 % feet separation between sewer pipes and fire water pipes. 43. Back flow prevention devices are not required on the recycled water system. Please remove the back flow preventer that is downstream from the recycled water irrigation meter. 44. The project is located within the District Recycled Water Use Zone (Ord. 280), which calls for installation of recycled water irrigation systems to allow for the future use of recycled water for approved landscape irrigation demands. Recycled water will be available; as described in the DSRSD Water Master Plan Update, September 2000. Unless specifically exempted by the District Engineer, compliance with Ordinance 280, as may be amended or superseded, is required. Applicant must submit landscape irrigation plans to DSRSD. All irrigation facilities shall be in compliance with District's "Recycled Water Use Guidelines" and Dept. of Health Services requirements for recycled water irrigation design. 45. The sewer line at the northwest corner of the building shall not cut across the fire water line. Relocate the manhole to the north and divert the sewer from the trash enclosure area away from the water line. Exhibit A-1 to the ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 8 of 14 y3~ ~5L1 46. Plans shall show profile views for the fire water line. Fire Prevention 47. Prior to the start of construction, plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. These submittals shall include the following: building construction plans; exit plan; fire flow calculation from California Fire Code Appendix III-A as well as available fire flow (this info { can be obtained from DSRSD); standpipe installation plans; fire sprinkler installation plans; fire alarm installation plans. No work shall start on project until such time as the Fire Department has approved the plans. All access roads and fire hydrants shall be in place and operational prior to the start of vertical construction. Responsible Agency: Fire When required: Prior to the start of construction Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7~ 48. Zone 7 records indicate there are no water wells or monitoring wells located within the project boundaries. If any wells are found within the project limits, they should be reported to Zone 7. All unused or abandoned wells must be properly destroyed. Any new planned well, soil boring, or well destruction must be permitted by Zone 7 before starting the work. There are no fees for Zone 7 drilling permits. Responsible Agency: Zone 7 When required: Ongoing 49. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all ACFC&WCD (Zone 7) requirements and applicable fees, unless otherwise approved by Zone 7 and/or the Director of Public Works. Responsible Agency: Zone 7 When required: Ongoing 50. Improvements creating new impervious areas within the Livermore-Amador Valley are subject to the assessment of the Development Impact Fee for Flood Protection and Storm Water Drainage. Fees are dependent on whether post-project impervious area exceeds pre-project impervious area and/or whether fees have previously been paid. Responsible Agency: Zone 7 When required: Prior to construction Dublin Police Services The following conditions shall be complied with prior to the establishment of use and the building opening to serve the public and maintained on an ongoing basis to the satisfaction of Dublin Police Services: 51. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Non Residential Security Ordinance requirements. 52. Employee exit doors shall be equipped with 180-degree viewers if there is not a burglary resistant window panel in the door from which to scan the exterior. 53. Exterior lighting is required over all doors. The applicant shall submit a final lighting plan for approval by the Dublin Police. Lighting of all exterior areas shall be designed to maximize surveillance and reduce conflicts with building design, mature landscaping, and to minimize glare. 54. Security lighting shall be provided in parking lot areas at 1.0 candle lights at ground level. Lighting fixtures shall be of a vandal resistant type. Exhibit A-1 to the ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 9 of 14 ~ ~ i~~ 55. Landscaping features and outdoor amenities shall be designed to reduce their attractiveness to skateboarders and vandals. 56. Exterior landscaping shall be kept at a minimal height and fullness giving patrol officers and the general public surveillance capabilities of the area. Shrubs and ground cover shall not directly cover windows and doorways. River rock used near parking lots or commercial buildings shall be permanently affixed. 57. All entrances to the parking areas shall be posted with appropriate signs per Sec. 22658(a) of the California Vehicle Code, to assist in removing vehicles at the property owner's/manager's request. 58. The Applicant/Developer shall keep the site clear of graffiti vandalism on a regular and continuous basis at all times. 59. The perimeter of the site shall be fenced during construction, and security lighting and patrols shall be employed as necessary. The Applicant/Developer shall provide after hours call-out information to Police Services on an "Emergency Response Form." All information shall be kept current and up to date. Landscaping 60. Ensure that the ground cover material on the northernmost 120 feet of the median between the main entrance and exit drive close to the ground and does not achieve height over 30 inches. A low-lying cover will ensure that visibility is not obstructed. Installing hardscape (i.e. river rock or other decorative paving) in this area would also be acceptable and would guarantee that landscape does not grow to a height to compromise traffic safety. Responsible Agency: Planning When required: Prior to the establishment of use and the building opening to serve the public 61. The adopted Emerald Park Streetscape Design Guidelines for the current and former Alameda County Surplus Property Authority land (of which this parcel is a part) include design items that have not yet been integrated into the Project Landscape Plans. The Streetscape plans show a separated sidewalk along Gleason Drive and the Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Tree) as the approved street tree. The Applicant/Developer will need to revise the Project Plans to show a separated sidewalk along the entirety of the Gleason Drive frontage. In the Emerald Park Streetscape Design Guidelines, a 13' wide parkway strip is shown. However, Staff is willing to accept a smaller 6' parkway strip between the street and the 6' wide sidewalk in the interests of retaining as much of the adjacent berm and bio-swale as possible. In this strip, the approved street tree Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Tree) shall be planted along with the appropriate groundcover. These modifications to the Project Plans shall be made before an encroachment permit can be issued. Responsible Agency: Planning When required: Prior to the issuance of an encroachment permit and prior to the establishment of use and the building opening to serve the public 62. The Landscape Plans must be reviewed and approved by DSRSD, as some of the plant material illustrated may not be suited for irrigation with reclaimed water. DSRSD review and approval must be completed prior to installation of the plants. Responsible Agency: DSRSD When required: Prior to installation of the plant material Exhibit A-1 to the ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 10 of 14 Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval. The City of Dublin Public Works Department is the Responsible Agency for all of the following conditions. GENERAL: 63. The Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Zoning and Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of construction. All public improvements constructed by Applicant/Developer and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as "public works" under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following). 64. The ApplicantlDeveloper shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the Applicant/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 65. Review and inspection of improvements by the Public Works Department shall be limited to improvements located within the public right-of--way or easements dedicated to the City of Dublin. The following standard conditions of approval shall apply only to those improvements located within the public right-of--way or easements. The Public Works Department shall not have jurisdiction over design and construction of improvements located within County property. The County shall be responsible for ensuring that all improvements on County property are constructed in conformance with the approved Site Development Review and in conformance with any applicable codes, ordinances, or laws. In the event of conflict between these standard conditions and the project specific conditions of approval, the project specific conditions shall apply. SUBMITTALS: 66. All submittals of plans shall comply with the requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Works Department Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements", and the "City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List". 67. The Applicant/Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non-City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans. 68. Applicant/Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, which includes street pavement sections. 69. ApplicantlDeveloper shall provide the Public Works Department a digital vectorized file of the "master" files for the project when the final site plan has been approved. Digital raster copies are not acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of the Final Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. GRADING PLANS: Exhibit A-1 to the ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 11 of 14 ~` ~ ~5~ 70. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and the approved Site Development Review. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted prior to start of construction. On-site grading and erosion control plans will not be submitted to the Public Works Department for review, except as needed to ensure conformance with improvements in the public right-of--way or easements. IMPROVEMENTS 71. The public improvements shall be constructed generally as shown on the Project Plans dated November 23, 2009. However, the approval of the Site Development Review is not an approval of the specific design of the drainage, sanitary sewer, water, traffic circulation, and street improvements. 72. All public improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin Standard Plans and .design requirements and as approved by the City Engineer. 73. The Applicant/Developer shall install all traffic signs and pavement marking as required by the City Engineer. 74. Applicant/Developer shall construct all potable and recycled water and sanitary sewer facilities required to serve the project in accordance with DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements. 75. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Alameda County Fire Department. A raised reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in the street opposite each hydrant. 76. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed and installed per approval of the City Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for streetlights is 5%. 77. Two empty 3" conduits with pull ropes, to accommodate future extension of the traffic interconnect system and for School District uses, shall be installed along any project arterial street frontage. The extent of this work to be determined by the City Engineer. 78. Street trees, of at least a 24" box size, shall be planted along the street frontages. The varieties and locations of the trees to be approved by the Community Development Director and City Engineer. 79. Applicant/Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV and communication improvements as necessary to serve the project and the future adjacent parcels as approved by the City Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. 80. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV utilities, shall be underground in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility easements and sized to meet utility company standards. 81. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless specifically approved otherwise by the City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in landscape areas and screened from public view. All utility vaults, boxes and structures shall be shown on landscape plans and approved by the City Engineer and Community Development Director prior to construction. CONSTRUCTION: 82. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented between October 15th and April 15th unless otherwise allowed in writing by the City Engineer. The Applicant/Developer will be responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures for one year following completion of construction. The County shall be responsible for maintaining adequate erosion control measures within the County property, although these measures will not be subject to inspection by the Public Works Department. Exhibit A-1 to the ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 12 of 14 ~~ 83. If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, construction within 100 feet of these materials shall be halted until a professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. 84. Construction activities, including the maintenance and warming of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer will consider requests for work outside of these hours on a case-by-case basis (but shall not be approved for work on Sundays) and advance notice must be provided to nearby residential properties in compliance with standard City policy. Approval of the request will be consistent with standard City policy and will not be unreasonably withheld. 85. Applicant/Developer shall prepare a Construction Noise Management Plan, to be approved by the City Engineer and Community Development Director, which identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding developed properties. The Plan shall include hours of construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be included in the project plans and specifications. 86. Applicant/Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic interface with public traffic on any existing public street. Construction traffic and parking may be subject to specific requirements by the City Engineer. 87. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities. 88. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for watering or other dust-palliative measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as directed by the City Engineer. WATER QUALITY.• 89. The Applicant/Developer shall provide to the City the final grading and improvement plan showing conformance to Section C.3 of the latest stormwater permit issued to the City by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The plans shall show how the various portions of the site are treated, illustrate the connection points of the bio swales to the storm drainage system, and illustrate the means of treating roof runoff. The Applicant shall provide copies of the plans showing post-construction stormwater measures and shall execute apost- construction maintenance agreement with the City to ensure long term maintenance and functionality of the system. 90. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Applicant/Developer shall provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. 91. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) for the operation and maintenance of the project shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion control measures in accordance with the regulations outlined in the most current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices Handbook. 92. The Applicant/Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. Exhibit A-1 to the ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 13 of 14 1 ~ a § ~~ 93. The Public Works Department will be responsible for reviewing the SWPPP and erosion control measures for any work located within the public right-of--way or easements. The County shall be responsible for maintaining on-site reasures in conformance with applicable State and Federal laws regarding nonpoint stormwater quality. Exhibit A-1 to the ECHOJ City of Dublin/Alameda County Agreement Page 14 of 14 ~'7' RESOLUTION NO. xx-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2009 PA 02-030 WHEREAS, Jim Kachick, on behalf of the Alameda County General Services Agency, has requested approval of a Site Development Review Amendment to construct a 196,219 square foot building comprised of courtrooms, offices, and associated facilities on 21.77 acres located on the north side of Gleason Drive between Madigan Road and Arnold Drive; and WHEREAS, the original Site Development Review application was reviewed and approved by the Dublin City Council on November 16, 2004 (Resolution 220-04); and WHEREAS, the County has submitted and received approval for two extensions to the Site Development Review approval, with the final extension to the approval expiring on May 16, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a complete application and project plans to amend Site Development Review PA 02-030, dated November 23, 2009 and prepared by KMD Architects, stamped approved, and on file in the Planning Division (hereinafter referred to as the "Project Plans"). Included in these plans is the color and material board dated November 23, 2009, and other plans, text, and diagrams relating to this Site Development Review, and WHEREAS, the County of Alameda prepared a joint Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), dated April 2003, to determine the potential environmental impacts occurring as a result of the East County Hall of Justice project. The Final EIR/EIS concluded that the preferred alternative for the location of the East County Hall of Justice was in Dublin at the subject site. The EIR/EIS identified mitigation measures to address the environmental impacts identified and the Final EIR/EIS and accompanying mitigation measures were adopted the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on May 6, 2003; and WHEREAS, when the East County Hall of Justice facility was redesigned by the County and the Courts, an Addendum, included as Exhibit A to this Resolution, was prepared to document the differences between the project originally analyzed in the 2003 EIR/EIS and the current proposal. The Addendum states that although changes are proposed as part of the current project that require revisions to the previous EIR/EIS, the changes do not involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously- identified significant effects. Only minor changes to the previous EIR/EIS were required, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA documentation; and WHEREAS, the Addendum was approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on December 8, 2009; and Attachment 4 .~o~ ~s~ WHEREAS, Alameda County is the lead agency for this project, and the City is a responsible agency under CEQA. As a responsible agency, the City's role is very limited. Rather than certify Lead Agency's document as adequate, the decision-making body of a responsible agency is required only to certify that it reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum prepared by the Lead Agency according to CEQA Guidelines, § 15050, subd. (b) and § 15096.); and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin did review and consider the information contained in the Addendum in relation to the project as proposed; and WHEREAS, Staff has concluded that the proposed Site Development Review Amendment falls within the analysis completed as part of the Addendum and that no additional impacts have been identified; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no subsequent CEQA documentation shall be prepared for this project, as no substantial changes have been proposed to the project which require revisions of the Addendum or previous EIR/EIS. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts have been discovered; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum and finds that the document reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and the City as a responsible agency in the CEQA process. The City Council does hereby find that no new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts could occur as a result of the revised project proposal than are analyzed in the 2003 EIR/EIS and therefore no further environmental review is required under CEQA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby find that: A. The proposed project is consistent with Dublin General Plan. The project is in compliance with the purpose of the Site Development Review Chapter, the Planned Development Zoning District standards, and the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations for the property. B. The development of the East County Hall of Justice project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area. The building architecture has been designed to be complimentary to the other buildings in the vicinity while providing the facilities necessary for a regional courthouse. C. The City Council, as a responsible agency, certifies that it reviewed and considered the information in the EIR/EIS and Addendum prior to making a decision on the Project. The City Council considered the environmental effects, mitigation measures and alternatives in the EIR/EIS related to the Project and within the City's power. The City Council finds the impacts of the Project are addressed in the EIR/EIS. There is no substantial evidence in the record showing the requirements for preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR are met. The City Council finds that there are no other feasible mitigation measures or alternatives than those identified in the EIR/EIS and Addendum that would substantially lessen or avoid a significant impact of the Project. The City Council finds that the significant impacts of the Project will be mitigated to less than significant by the adoption of mitigation measures as set forth in the EIR/EIS and s~ ~ 15~ Addendum except for those impacts identified in the EIR/EIR as significant and unavoidable. The City incorporates by reference the CEQA findings of the County as lead agency on the significant environmental impacts of the Project. The mitigation measures in EIR/EIS and Addendum are adopted as conditions of approval for the Project. A Mitigation and Monitoring Program has been adopted for the Project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of December 2009. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:IPA#12002102-030 Alameda Co Court HouselSDR Amendment 20091Att 3 CC Reso Addendum. doc ~~ ~5~ Addendum to Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice EIS/EIR SCH No. 2002012080 EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT'i- 53~fs4' ADDENDUM TO ~UVENILE ~USTICE FACILITY AND EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE EIS~EIR State Clearinghouse No. 2002012080 Alameda County General Services Agency c/o Alameda County Planning Dept. 224 V(.'. Winton Ave., Rm. 111 Hayward, CA 94544 Lamphier-Gregor~~ November 30, 200) ~4Q~ ~u INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER FURTHER CEQA REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN EAST COUNTY HALL OF ~USTICE FACILITY AT THE EAST COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SITE IN DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether a Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is needed to fully assess and evaluate the impacts of the East County Hall of Justice Project proposed for the East County Government Center site in Dublin, California. An earlier proposal to build an East County Hall of Justice on the East County Government Center site was evaluated previously in the Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), which was certified by the County of Alameda in April 2003 (the "Prior EIS/EIR"). As detailed below, an Addendum is the appropriate environmental document. No Supplemental or Subsequent EIR is required. This document constitutes the Addendum. 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: East County Hall of Justice Project Alameda County Board of Supervisors c/o Alameda County Planning Department 224 W, Winton Avenue, Rm. 111 Hayward, CA 94544 Sonia Urzua, AICP, Senior Planner (510) 670-5400 sonia.urzua~i%aceov.ors~ 4. Project Location: The Project location is the East County Government Center site, a rectangular 40-acre vacant property located in the northeastern part of the City of Dublin, California. The site is bordered by Gleason Drive on the south, Arnold Drive on the west, Broder Boulevard on the north and the rear property line of buildings facing onto Madigan Avenue on the east. The site location is graphically depicted in Figure 1. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: County of Alameda c/o Jim Kachik, Deputy Director Alameda County General Services Agency 1401 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1115 Oakland, CA 94612 510/208-9515 The East County Government Center site is designated "Public/Semi Public" in the East Dublin November 30, 2009 page 1 ~ , ~uh~~a EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION Specific Plan, part of the City of Dublin General Plan. 7. Zoning: The zoning designation for the site is Planned Development (PD). 8. Description of Project: The Project involves the construction of an approximately 194,000 square foot complex of buildings, exterior surface parking and site landscaping on approximately 21.77 acres of the East County Government Center site in the City of Dublin, California. The Juvenile Justice Facility, previously considered for a portion of this site in the Prior EIS/EIR, has been constructed elsewhere [the San Leandro property] and therefore the Dublin site is no longer needed for that facility. The remainder of the formerly 40-acre East County Government Center site was sold in 2008 to the Dublin San Ramon Sanitary District. The only use proposed for this site is the East County Hall of Justice. The project will include a new five-story courthouse building containing 1 arraignment court, 1 traffic court, and 11 criminal courts (a total of approximately 146,000 gross square feet); anew two-story County Agencies office building providing space for the Public Defender, District Attorney and Probation Department (approximately 43,000 gross square feet); and a central lobby/security screening/entrance area and common elevator console structure between the two main building elements (approximately 6,000 gross square feet). The height of the courthouse building would be approximately 90 feet 6 inches. Surface parking for a total of 865 cars is provided, of which 27 would be in a secured area for judges and 838 stalls provided for all others. Site plan, floor plans and building elevation drawings are depicted in Figures 3 through 6. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The East County Government Center site is located in an area that, until the recent economic downturn, has been undergoing rapid change, with large-scale business park, retail and residential development occurring during the past five years. (See Figure 2, Neighborhood Context). Single-family and multi-family residential development has occurred to the east and southeast, and industrial business park uses are located to the southwest. Commercial retail and office development is located about 1 mile south near the I-580 freeway. The U.S. Army's Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (BETA, also commonly known as Camp Parks) and a federal correctional institution are located to the immediate west and northwest. The County owns approximately 335 acres of land to the north and east on which sit the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center (County Jail) and related Sheriff's Office uses and large tracts of vacant land. Also to the north, beyond the County Jail, the U.S. Air Force operates a microwave station, the Dublin-San Ramon Services District operates water storage reservoir tanks, Parks RFTA controls approximately 500 acres of former public park land, and private land owners control open hillside and flatland grazing, agricultural and rural residential land. The project site is part of the County's Santa Rita land holdings, which were annexed to the City of Dublin in the early-1990's for the purpose of facilitating public and private development. It represents the largest remaining buildable parcel of land in the immediate area. 10. Other Public Agency Actions and Required Approvals: Page 2 November 30, 2009 ~5 ,~~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT A three-step approvals process is anticipated for the project, as follows. a) County certification of environmental compliance The first step would be approval by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors of the findings and determinations set forth in this Initial Study regarding compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b) Site Development Review by the City of Dublin Pursuant to the May 4, 1993 Annexation Agreement between the City of Dublin and the County, any County governmental uses proposed shall be reviewed by the City of Dublin Planning Commission for conformity with City's General Plan in accordance with Government Code section 65402, and shall be subject to Site Development Review in accordance with the City's zoning ordinance. In 2004, the Dublin Planning Commission granted Site Development Review (SDR) approval for an earlier version of the project. The current project would require an amendment to the 2004 Site Development Review (SDR) approval. The SDR criteria and procedures are set forth in Chapter 8.104 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Notwithstanding Dublin's SDR process, all grading, excavation, building, structural, mechanical, electrical and other permits, including compliance with the C.3 provisions of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, will remain within the jurisdiction of the County of Alameda. c) County of Alameda -Final Proiect Approval Following SDR approval by the City of Dublin, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors would review and consider approval of the final plans for the project and appropriation of funds for construction. Following these approvals, implementation of the project through its final design and construction phases would involve on-going project management and oversight by the Alameda County General Services Administration (GSA). GSA will coordinate reviews and inspections by appropriate County agencies (e.g., Public Works Department) for compliance with adopted site grading, structural, electrical, mechanical, building, drainage and clean water standards and requirements throughout the construction process. The project will also be subject to administrative approval by City of Dublin of all off-site infrastructure improvements (streets, curb, gutter, etc.) November 30, 2009 page 3 ~~ ~ ~~~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION This page intentionally left blank Page 4 November 30, 2009 -~ I, 57 ~ ~~~ ~ _ <~ - j .. ~ f ~f~' ~ I ~~~ "~z~~x T ,~~ ~.„ ~~ ~~:~: Project ~~ ~ t ~ ~ k A~ v. j ~ ~ L'.[...y..~: • ~~'I~r~ ice: .\3. ..'~1 ~ ~ .".tS y r 'aR { .~1 ~~' 'jZEj~~ ~ f ~~~'~ f ^I ~ N~, ~'S'Y ~i ~'~ "f ~ ~ Y Y ~ ~ :Y ~ i d ~ t ~~ } t II r + ~if 1. !I'~'~ k ~~~ • Tf' `~i ~~« ; ~ ,~ ~~ ~,~ ~ ~~ i„` ~ '.~ tai ' V~ ~.+~'• ~:' ' ' 4 ' f;. ~ f .~ ~ ~~. *'~~ J~ - ~ ""'tY~'inru+ x ~ ri'l 1r „~"7k w ) ~~. ~'y '.i' ~ it, ,j4: ~ 1 : M ~ t r 3 r ~ ~ ~ `~ w ~y~~ yy tp l' ~ x <~ r.. ~f ~ '~JM rrA C T •~ '`r, :.* x'11 ~ ~~ rf .". '~M -fit s^ ' 1( _ {' iii~~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ • t lT L))) + 1 a~ W^~ ~ 1 '' ' z ~ ~ wa,i~ ~ »;, .~~ ~ ...: ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ . _ ilk r - , l ~ ~~ ' ~ ~ l ~~ : ~.,\ . ~ ~ Project sn r~.n <a ~ :\ ~ ' ~l .. ~ ~ 4 .. ~(, sn roa ~ ~~~ /2Mi1Q `_~ ~ ~ T ~ '' ., ~ w,p, ~_ _ ~~ ~. r' . ~, Figure 1 Source: KMDArchitects Project Location and Vicinity 5s~ t~~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF 7USTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION This page intentionally left blank. Page 6 November 3Q, 2009 '~ ~~I s~ ~ i~ i FlgUfe 2 Source: KMDArchitects Neighborhood Context Hacienda Drive looking north toward Project Site at Gleason Drive. Project Site looking north across Broder Blvd. toward Santa Rita Jail. Dublin Blvd at Hacienda Drive looking north toward Project Site. 154 EAST COUNTY HALL OF 1USTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION This page intentionally left blank. Page 8 November 30, 2009 I ~~ ~ -54 =~} ~}'+,' Ik / r ~~ } ~ '9 { r .Y,' ` `~ d'nss 1 1`~ ~~r 1 I' .~ ~ ~ ,~ { ~i ~ lla <~~. ;~~.. } ra i ~ ~' i '~ 7. tj ` Hf ~ ~ t ~~ 4 ~~ 1Y 1 ~~ d ~t f ~~ ~ l ~ r A, c ~~ ,~ a ~ ~y~ }' ~ , {~ 1 { / ~ ~ ~ I{~ , _` ti 7 Y $' ~ -.r- y a` ' i'~.. r'~ ~'Mrrr t l "~ 5 ~°, -` ~ ~ 3 r ~ .~ t ~`r ~,; _ 4 {~ Y ~~ ~~ 4 ~ ~Y i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~' ~ `~~; r , - ~~ ~ 3. a [ .E ~ 1 _ Ki ~~ 7! l . l ~ ' '' ~ r J , ;,. (s:~,e~~1 x ~ ~ ~~ ~ If ~ ~~ € ti ~~ , ~ 4a .%;,~;I , -; e~ ~ , _ , ~ ~ ~,* ~~, ' ~~ 1 '~' a r}`' , '~; ~ ,~ `, _ I ~~~ ~ ~ ` ,a~ ~~ . T ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ,,~ ~;; ,_ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ` 1 ~ ` ~ ~`~ ',~~`t~ ~ ~-~ ~~ ~ , M ~ ~ _ , ~ I ~~ %~~~~ , a ~'2.._~ L .°»~ .. ~ ~ t""'~t. ._ (( ~ i ~ ~ s „~ : z 1 r r ~ 3 _ t ll~ r~ " 'H ~ ~-~i ' > i~s i ~= .; ,~ '~,1 ~ {~ ~~ ~~~ d .'. ~j r ~~- t, N U N L U Q Y N U C f6 a a~ m U N .a C (6 J M "6 C N ~ 7 ~.w ~ ~ ~a ~ ~5~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION This page intentionally left blank. Page 10 November 30, 2009 ~ i~ ,~ N U N L U Q Y N U 7 O C 0 (~ 7 _~ ~' w ~ L 3 ~ ~ O LL fn ~y ~ is~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF 1USTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION This page intentionally left blank Page 12 November 30, 2009 ~~' ~, J ~'~'"~s. ir»:aa. ~. ' .~.. ' ~. j,~ ~4 ~~t 1 ~ l~~, ~ '' ~I ~ `1 ~~~:~,; E;, i;x ~ ~~,, { 1, ~; ,1~~, 1, ~ i W i i ~; i ~ ~ ~ , ~., I~'~~ m ~ii~,~ '. ~ar.r ~5~,~~ N U _N L U Q Y d U 3 O 0 .~ W ~ 3 r .~ ~'Q^ V/ ~~ -.~'~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION This page intentionally left blank. Page 14 November 30, 2009 67 ~ I~'i +~ N U N L U Q 0 Y N U 3 O C O .~ N W ~p c6 d ~ ~r 7 j ~ O I.L ~ .~ ~ ~.~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF 7USTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION This page intentionally left blank. Page 16 November 30, 2009 ~~ ~ i54 F Figure 7 Source: KMDArchitects View from Second Floor of Gleason Dr. Residential Neighborhood ~p~ ~~~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION This page intentionally left blank Page 18 November 30, 2009 -~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ~~, (` wR EAST COUNTY HALI.OF 1USTICE PROJECT Environmental factors which may be affected by the Project are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with a filled in block (~) have been determined to be potentially affected by the Project, involving at least one impact that has been identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact", as indicated in the attached CEQA Evaluation and related discussion that follows. Unmarked factors (0) were determined to be either not significantly affected by the Project, adequately examined under the Previous CEQA Documents, or fully mitigated through implementation of conditions of approval or revised mitigation measures adopted by the County of Alameda as both lead agency and project sponsor. ^ Aesthetics ^ Agricultural Resources ^ Air Quality ^ Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources ^ Geology/Soils ^ Hazards/Hazardous Materials ^ Hydrology/Water Quality ^ Land Use/Planning ^ Mineral Resources ^ Noise ^ Population/Housing ^ Public Services ^ Recreation ^ Transportation/Traffic ^ Utilities/Service Systems Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance I find that although changes are proposed as part of the current Project that would involve revisions to the Previous CEQA Documents, and that changes have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the current Project is undertaken, and there is new information, none of these involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Only minor changes to the previous EIR are required to address these changes in the Project, its circumstance, and new information. Thus an ADDENDUM to the Previous CEQA Documents is appropriate, and this document constitutes that ADDENDUM. Signature Chris Bazar, Director November 30, 2009 Date November 30, 2009 page 19 ~ ~~~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION This page intentionally left blank. Page 20 November 3Q 2009 I~7y COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION INTRODUCTION Background ;~`, `I fi- EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT An Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice was certified in May 2003 (the "Prior EIS/EIR")I.Included as part of that analysis, the Prior EIS/EIR described and disclosed the potential environmental consequences associated with construction of an East County Hall of Justice complex of up to 195,000 gross square feet of space and including 13 courtrooms and associated support spaces and facilities, and surface parking for 850 cars, all to be located at the East County Government Center site in Dublin, California. The analysis contained in the Prior EIS/EIR identified all potentially significant environmental impacts of the East County Hall of Justice project and provided mitigation measures that reduced the majority of impacts to a less than significant level. The Prior EIS/EIR identified some impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable even after implementation of mitigation measures. These significant and unavoidable impacts were identified under the environmental topics of Transportation and Traffic, Air Quality and Noise. To acknowledge these significant and unavoidable impacts, the County of Alameda adopted Statements of Overriding Considerations after certification of the Prior EIS/EIR. Purpose of this Initial Study Determination This document evaluates the current proposal to build the East County Hall of Justice complex at the East County Government Center site, in Dublin. This proposal constitutes the "Project" analyzed in this Initial Study Determination. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine, pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21090 and 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15180, 15162 and 15163, whether a Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is needed to fully assess and evaluate the potential environmental effects of the current East County Hall of Justice Project, or whether the County can rely on the Prior EIS/EIRS for compliance with CEQA. CEQA provides that when an EIR has been certified, no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR shall be prepared unless the Lead Agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, one or more of the following: substantial changes are proposed as part of the Project that would involve major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, substantial changes have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the Project is undertaken (i.e., a significant change in the existing or future condition) that would involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, and/or I County of Alameda, Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 2002012080, May 6, 2003. November 30, 2009 page 21 ~~i EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION new information of substantial importance indicates that the Project may have a new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. If none of these factors are applicable then no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR or negative declaration would be required. If some changes or additions to the original EIR are necessary, but none of the changes would warrant preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR or negative declaration, the lead agency may prepare an Addendum to the previous CEQA Documents, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Changes in the Project This Initial Study evaluates whether changes that are now proposed as part of the East County Hall of Justice Project may result in new or significantly increased environmental effects. The environmental review now necessary for the project is only required to address substantial changes to the Prior EIS/EIR necessary to adequately address new or different information specific to the current proposal. The current project is very similar to the original Hall of Justice project as described in the -Prior EIS/EIR and as presented to the City of Dublin in 2004 during a Site Development Plan Review (SDR) process, although there are some minor differences in some of the details, as indicated in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 -COMPARISON OF PROJECT COMPONENTS: ORIGINAL CONCEPT VS. CURRENT PROJECT Project Component Original Project Current Project Concept Maximum Building Volume (gross sq. ft.) 195,000 GSF Total No. Courtrooms 13 Approximate Bldg Height* 90' 8" Parking 850 spaces total 196,219 GSF 13 5story (90' 6") Difference +1,219 GSF No Change No change 865 spaces total; 27 for +15 spaces, total; judges, 838 for all others -12 spaces for general public Site Size 21.77 acres 21.77 acres No Change Source: ICMD Architects; Alameda County GSA Measured from grade at sallyport to top of mechanical penthouse New Information This Initial Study will assess whether new information, not known at the time of preparation of the Prior EIS/EIR may indicate a new or significantly increased environmental effect. New information addressed in this Initial Study specifically includes: • New information about greenhouse gas emissions and their potential effects on global climate change, public environmental policy concern for which has emerged and become more formalized since 2003. Guidance has been issued by the state regarding the requirements for environmental review of proposed projects related to greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change. These issues were not addressed in the Prior EIS/EIR. Additionally, in March of 2007 the California Regional Water Quality Control Board -San Francisco Bay Region amended the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES) applicable to jurisdictions within the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Page 22 November 30, 2009 I~~ 7~ I ~~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF 1USTICE PROJECT (including unincorporated Alameda County and the City of Dublin).Z This amendment, which applies to many areas of the County for projects that create and/or replace 1 acre or more of impervious area, requires that stormwater discharges from applicable new development and redevelopment projects not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the pre-project (i.e., existing) condition. Any increase in runoff flow and volume is to be managed so that post-project runoff shall not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts to beneficial uses due to increased erosive force. Such management shall be through implementation of hydro- modification requirements. The issue of potential hydro-modification requirements was not addressed in the Prior EIS/EIR. This new information is included in this Initial Study Determination, along with an assessment of whether this new information indicates that the Project may have a new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect. Detailed Project Description The Project evaluated in this Initial Study consists of the construction of an approximately 194,000 square foot complex of buildings, exterior surface parking and site landscaping on approximately 21.77 acres of the 40-acre East County Government Center site in the City of Dublin, California. The two primary structures would be the Courts Building and the County Agencies Building. Connecting these two buildings would be a third structure that, at the ground floor, would consist of a central lobby and entrance space that would provide access to both buildings, and where security screening would occur. The central building element would also house a bank of three (3) elevators for vertical access to the upper floors of both buildings. Site Plans, Floor Plans and perspective elevation drawings of the proposed complex are provided in Figures 3 through 7. Courts Building The Courts Building would consist of approximately 146,000 gross square feet of space, distributed over five levels of occupancy that range from approximately 27,000 square feet to 37,000 square feet per floor. The lower level (first floor) would include a sallyport and holding cells for criminal defendants and County sheriff operations, a cafeteria, main computer room, employee break room, public restrooms and space for building services (e.g., building maintenance, loading bays for deliveries, a service elevator and elevator equipment room, etc.). The lobby level (second floor) would be the main entry to the complex from the parking areas and the circular drop-off. Usable space would include offices for court clerks, a large jury assembly area, a traffic court and an arraignment court. The next level (third floor, 27,200 square feet) would provides office space for the administrative functioning of the courts, three criminal court rooms, and space for conference rooms and judges' chambers. Floors four and five (also 27,200 square feet) would each house four criminal courts plus associated judges' chambers and conference rooms. A total of 13 court rooms would be provided, including 1 arraignment court, 1 traffic court and 11 courts for criminal cases. The actual use of each courtroom could be adjusted depending upon case loads. 2 Order #R2-2007-0025, revising the previous Order #R2-2003-0021 regarding NPDES Permit #CAS 0029831 November 30, 2009 page 23 I~ ~~ ~ i5~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION The south elevation of the building would be clad with a tinted glass curtain wall giving the building a light, transparent feeling, as depicted in the perspective and elevation images shown in Figures 4 through 7. County Agencies Building The County Agencies Building would be an approximately 43,000 square foot, two-story office building immediately to the south of the Courts Building. The building would provide office space for the Public Defender, the Probation Department and the County District Attorney. Site Plan, Parking and Landscape Plan As depicted on the Site and Landscape Plan (Figure 3), the main entry to the site would be from the existing terminus of Hacienda Drive at Gleason Drive. Other points of access would occur along Gleason Drive at the eastern and western edges of the site, and from Broder Boulevard at the northeast corner of the site. The parking lot would provide space for 838 cars plus another 27 spaces for judges in a restricted area on the west side of the building. The landscape plan proposes a dual row of trees along the Gleason Drive (south) frontage and along the main drive aisle leading to the circular drop-off area at the building's entrance. The complex would utilize the easterly 2/3`d of the 40-acre site, thereby not removing the existing drainage detention facility located at the southwest corner of the rectangular East County Government Center site. Sustainability Strategies Pursuant to Chapter 4.38, Title 4 of the County Administrative Code (the County's "Green Building Ordinance"), all new County projects initiated after July 2003 are required to meet a minimum LEED "Silver" rating under the LEED rating system (or aCounty-approved equivalent), and to achieve a minimum diversion of 50% of construction and demolition debris. As part of on-going value- engineering efforts for the project, the design team will be exploring various economically viable strategies that might be incorporated into the project to improve building efficiency and performance, potentially including rows of photovoltaic cells placed between the rows of parking in the northeasterly portion of the parking lot that would shield the parked cars from the sun and also generate electricity for on-site use. Other strategies may include: • Preferred parking for car/van pools • dedicated open space • storrnwater management plans designed in accordance with EPA best management practices • indoor air quality enhancements • energy conservation and atmosphere emission reductions • water efficiency • "green" materials and resources ,and • innovation and design Page 24 November 3Q, 2009 '! ~7 , COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the following sections provide an evaluation of whether the Project will have any new significant effects on the environment. If an environmental issue would not be affected by the project or its impact would be less than significant, it is identified in the following evaluation as "No Impact" or "Less than Significant". If an environmental issue may cause a significant effect on the environment, this evaluation also determines whether this effect was adequately examined in the Prior EIS/EIR. If the environmental issue was adequately examined in the previous document, it is identified in the following evaluation as "No New Impact from those identified in the Prior EIR". To the extent that mitigation measures were adopted pursuant to the Prior EIS/EIR and these measures are applicable to the project, then these measures are specifically identified in the following discussion. All applicable mitigation measures from the Prior EIS/EIR are listed in Appendix A. If an environmental issue may cause a significant effect on the environment that was examined in the Prior EIS/EIR but revised or clarified mitigation measures are necessary, it is identified in the following evaluation as "Less than Significant with Revised Mitigation" and these revised/clarifiedrneasures are specifically identified. • If there is a new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously significant effect identified in the Prior EIS/EIR, it is identified in the following evaluation as "Potentially Significant" and will be analyzed in a later Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. November 30, 2009 ~ page 25 ~~ ~ -5~+ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION Less Than Significant No New Impact Potentially with From those No Impact / Significant Revised Identified in the Less than Impact Mitigation Prior EIS/EIR Significant . AESTHETICS -would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but ^ ^ ^ not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ^ ^ ^ quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ^ ^ ~ ^ would substantially and adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Criteria a and b): Scenic Vistas and Scenic Resources Current views of the site from the south look at an open site that slopes gently upward to a large earthen berm along the north frontage of the site, facing the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center. Views of the Santa Rita facility and on to the surrounding open space and hillsides to the north are currently blocked by this berm when looking north from Gleason Drive. Impact: Views in the area from all viewpoints would not be significantly changed by the construction of the Project at this site. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant new impact on a scenic vista or on scenic resources. (No Impact) Criteria c): Visual Character and Quality The existing visual character of the Project area and its surroundings is comprised of a mix of government facilities and suburban mixed-uses. Existing government facilities adjacent to the Project area include the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center (County Jail) and Firearms training facility north of the site and behind the berm. To the east lies the Heavy Equipment Maintenance Building, the Sheriff's Academy, the California Highway Patrol, the SPCA, the Tri-Valley Animal Shelter and other similar government uses. The U.S. Army's Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (BETA, or Camp Parks) is situated to the north and west of the site, and the Federal Correctional Institution to the west. A City of Dublin fire station is planned along Madigan Avenue just north of the existing Highway Patrol facility. Suburban mixed-use areas occur south of the proposed development as well. Among these are an industrial business park extending southwest from the corner of Hacienda and Gleason, while asingle-family residential development extends southeast from the same intersection. There are similar residential uses farther east of this area plus various commercial developments approximately one-mile south along the 580 freeway at the Tassajara Road and Hacienda Boulevard interchanges. Page 26 November 30, 2009 COUN"rY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF .IUSTICE PROJECT Impact: Project development would result in construction of a large multi-story building. The building would be designed so as to not substantially degrade the site or its surroundings including the existing residential uses along Gleason Drive. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant new impact on visual character. (Less than Significant) In the current design of the Project, site grading would relocate some of the mass of the existing berm to create a new landscaped berm along the southern edge of the property (i.e., along the Gleason Drive frontage). The new berm would be landscaped, existing trees would be retained and new trees would be planted along its top, effectively diffusing or blocking visual impacts of the building itself. This proposed feature of the Project site and landscape design would enhance the visual quality of the Project. Views of the project from the nearby neighborhood on Gleason Drive are reflected in the images in Figure 7. Criteria d): Light and Glare Impact The proposed Project could result in increased light and glare in the area due to lighting used for security purposes, reflective materials and other sources. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. (No New Impact) The Prior EIS/EIR found that increased light and glare was a potentially significant impact that that could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure from the Prior EIS/EIR is applicable to the Project: Mitigation Measure 5.3.5 The County shall mitigate potential light and glare impacts during the design-build process, and include measures such as shielding, design revisions, or other means of reducing impacts. For example, lighting should, to the extent feasible, be oriented away from residential uses. Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3.5 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level because it requires the County to consider light and glare impacts in the design-build process and include measures such as shielding, design revisions, or other means of reducing impacts. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified light and glare impacts beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. November 30, 2009 ~~ page 27 ~~~JSS?' J 8~ ~ 15~I EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION Less Than Significant No New Impact Potentially with From those No Impact / Significant Revised Identified in the Less than Impact Mitigation Prior EIS/EIR Significant II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES -- would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and ^ ^ ^ Q Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ^ ^ ^ Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion ^ ^ ^ Q of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Criteria a, b and c): Agricultural Resources The project site is part of the County's Santa Rita land holdings which have been in the ownership of federal military agencies or the County of Alameda since prior to the 1940s and any prior agricultural uses of the site would have ceased at that time. The main use of the County's land in the general vicinity of the project site is the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, an adult detention facility which was constructed in the late 1980s to replace the old Santa Rita Jail that had occupied other lands to the south since the 1940s. There are no agricultural resources on the project site and none of the site is subject to a Williamson Act contract. Impact: The Project would not convert any types of farmland to non-agricultural use, would not conflict with agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract, and would not involve any changes in the existing environment which could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, there is no potential impact to agricultural resources from the proposed Project. (No Impact) Page 28 November 30, 2009 _-, ii ~~ ~ i5~r COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT Potentially Less Than No New Impact No Impact / Significant Significant From those Less than Impact with New Identified in the Significant Mitigation Prior EIS/EIR III. AI R QUALITY -- would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ^ air quality plan? ^ ^ Q For the remaining CEQA Guidelines air quality checklist items, the BAAQMD maintains quantitative thresholds of significance for analysis of air quality impacts within its jurisdiction, modified from the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G -Environmental Checklist Form. Under BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a project will have a significant air quality effect on the environment if it were to result in the following: b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, specifically: 1. Emit 80 pounds per day of PM10 at the project site or ~ ^ ~ ^ result in a AAQS PM10 exceedance at existing receptors during construction; or 2. Emit 80 pounds per day of ROG or NO; or ~ ~ ~ Q 3. Emit 550 pounds per day of CO (Localized carbon ^ ^ ^ monoxide concentrations should be estimated for projects in which: 1) vehicle emissions of CO would exceed 550 pounds per day, 2) project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service [LOS] D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F, or 3) project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10 percent or more); or 4. Contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State ^ ^ ^ Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm for 1 hour? c) Would the project have the potential to frequently expose ^ ^ ^ members of the public to objectionable odors? d) Would the project have the potential to expose sensitive ^ ^ ~ ^ receptors or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants (e.g., probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual [MEI] exceeds 10 in 1,000,000, ground level concentrations of non- carcinogenic toxic air contaminants would result in a Hazard Index greater than t for the MEI)? e) Would the project have the potential for accidental ^ ^ ~ ^ releases of acutely hazardous substances? f) Would the project have any cumulative air quality impact ^ ^ ^ (any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact)? The Prior EIS/EIR identified the regulatory and existing physical setting for air quality that was known at that time (March 2003). The setting information currently applicable to the East County Government Center site has been updated based on new information that was not known or available at the time of certification of the Prior EIS/EIR, as indicated in the edited text below. November 30, 2009 page 29 gd ~ 154 EAST COUNTY HALL OF 7USTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION Regulatory and Existing Setting In general, the Bay Area experiences low concentrations of most pollutants when compared to federal and state standards. The Bay Area is considered "attainment" for all of the national standards, with the exception of ozone. In 2006, the U.S EPA lowered the 24-hour standards for PM2.5 from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3. On December 22, 2008 the EPA issued attainment status designations for the 35 µg/m3 standard. While the EPA has designated the Bay Area as non-attainment for the PM2.5 standard of 35 µg/m3, President Obama has ordered a freeze on all pending federal rules. Therefore, the effective date of the non-attainment designation is unknown at this time. If or when published, the EPA designation would be effective 90 days after publication of the regulation in the Federal Register. For State air quality standards, the Bay Area is considered "non-attainment" for ozone and particulate matter.3 A number of continuous air monitoring stations are operated by government agencies in the East Bay, the Livermore station being the closest to the project site. Air quality is measured for those pollutants which have state and federal air quality standards, and the highest local air pollutant levels are reported. The Prior EIS/EIR reported the most current data available at the time, from 1999 to 2001 (Table 11.2, pp. 11-8). The Prior EIS/EIR also noted when these state and federal standards (both 1- hour and 8-hour) had been exceeded for ozone, PM2.5 and the state standard for PMIO. An updated table is included below for the most recent three years of record, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Exceedances are similar to those noted in the prior EIS/EIR. 3 BAAQMD, Ambient Air Qua]ity Standards and Bay Area Attainment, via website http:%~www.baagmd.to~'%phyair~uality%ambient air qualitv.btm ,accessed February 27, 2009. Page 30 November 30, 2009 --~ • Imo' COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION ~~ ~l EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT TABLE 2: MEASURED CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS Pollutant and Averaging California National Measured Levels (Maximum) Measurement Location Time Ambient Air Ambient Air Quality Quality 2005 2006 2007 Standard Standard Ozone (Os) 1-hour 0.09 ppm - 0.12 ppm 0.127 ppm 0.12 ppm Livermore 8-hour 0.07 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.090 ppm 0.101 ppm 0.091 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm 3.4 ppm 3.3 ppm 3.3 ppm Livermore 8-hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 1.8 ppm 1.8 ppm 1.8 ppm Particulate Matter (PM,o) 24-hour 50 ug/m' 150 Ng/m' 49 Ng/m' 69 Ng/m' 75 Ng/m' Livermore Annual 30 Ng/m' - 18.8 pg/m' 21.8 Ng/m' 19.8 pg/m' Particulate Matter (PMs.s) 24hour - 35 pg/m' 32.1 µg/m' 50.8 Ng/m' 54.9 Ng/m' Livermore Annual 12 l,g/m' 15 pg/m' 9.0 pg/m' 9.8 Ng/m' 9.0 Ng/m' Source: BAAQMD, Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries. Notes: Values reported in bold exceed ambient air quality standard; ppm =parts per million; µg/m'=micrograms per cubic meter Criteria a): Compliance with Air Quality Plan Impact Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a conflict with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Clean Air Plan. (No Impact) The Prior EIS/EIR determined (pp. 4-28 to 4-34) that the project is consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which is a part of the City of Dublin General Plan, and that the Dublin General plan is consistent with the 2000 Clean Air Plan (CAP). Because the project would be consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan, it would also be consistent with the CAP. Criteria b1): Violation of Air Quality Standards - PM,o Impact The proposed Project would result in a significant but short-term, temporary impact on air quality from construction-related particulate matter (PM) related to dust, and from construction-period machinery exhaust. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. (No New Impact) November 30, 2009 page 31 ~'eI, 84 ~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROTECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION This impact is focused on construction-period particulate matter emissions. The Prior EIS/EIR found that the project would have no significant operational impact related to emission of ozone precursors or particulate matter. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure from the Prior EIS/EIR is applicable to the Project: Mitigation Measure 11.3.5a Reduction of Dust During Construction. Construction dust, generated by soil disturbances, material hauling, and vehicle exhaust, includes PM1O. Soil can also be tracked out onto paved roads where it is entrained in the air by passing cars and trucks. Dust emission rates are related to the type and size of the disturbance, meteorological conditions, and soil conditions. Construction activities can cause localized high PM10 concentrations and worsen regional PM1O levels. Since most of the possible Project sites will disturb a large area near sensitive receptors, the construction quality impact is considered potentially significant. Due to the many variables that affect construction emissions, quantification of the PMIO impacts is very difficult. The BAAQMD's recommended approach to construction impacts is to require implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of the effects. Implementation of feasible controls, outlined below, can effectively reduce construction PM,o emissions. Construction activities are also subject to BAAQMD Regulations VIII, which requires suppressing dust emissions from all sources of dust generation using water, chemical stabilizers, and/or vegetative ground cover. For large projects, the BAAQMD has identified enhanced control measures that should be implemented beyond the requirements of Regulation VIII. Impacts can be greatly reduced by implementing these fugitive dust control measures. The significance of construction dust air quality impacts is typically determined by the control measures that will be implemented. The implementation of the following measures would reduce the PMIO impact to a less than significant level: a) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods. Active areas adjacent to residences should be kept damp at all times. b) Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. Dust-proof chutes shall be used as appropriate to load debris onto trucks during any demolition. c) Pave, apply water at least twice daily or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas. Page 32 November 30, 2009 ~ I i COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION ~,~ ) 5~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF 1USTICE PROJECT d) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto the adjacent roads. e) Hydroseed or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more). f) Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (nontoxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles. g) Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph. h) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible Designate an air quality coordinator for the Project. Prominently post a phone number for this person on the job site, and distribute same to all nearby residents and businesses. The coordinator will respond to and remedy any complaints about dust, exhaust or other air quality concerns. A log shall be kept of all complaints and how and when the problem was remedied. Mitigation Measure 11.3.5b: [which is, by reference, the same text as Mitigation Measure 11.1.1]: Diesel Emissions Control. Construction equipment- generated diesel exhaust is a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). It poses a potentially significant impact to nearby receptors. NOx from equipment exhaust can reform chemically into fine acid particulates and further contribute to local PM10 and PM2.5 levels. Several straightforward control measures are available to minimize TAC emissions while also reducing NOx and ROG. First, low-emission fuels can be used. Second, engine tuning and control equipment retrofit will help minimize emissions. a) To control TACs and PM,o, construction contractors should be required to use biodiesel fuel. For equipment with engines built in 1994 or later, use 8100 fuel that is 100% biodiesel fuel. 8100 reduces TAC emissions by approximately 80% to 90%. In pre-1994 engines, use B-20 fuel (a mixture of 20% biodiesel and 80% fossil diesel fuel). If B20 is used, the fossil diesel component should be ARB low-sulfur fuel (less than 15 PPmw). b) If a certified unit is available for an individual piece of equipment, the contractor should use an oxidation catalyst or catalytic particulate filter on all diesel-powered equipment rated above 50 horsepower. These systems require ARB low- sulfur diesel fuel. Commercial fossil diesel fuel is available with near-zero sulfur levels. Biodiesel is also ARB certified as low-sulfur (near-zero ppmw). November 30, 2009 page 33 f_-~ J ~i~~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION c) The contractor should use Purinox additive or equivalent. Depending on equipment, this reduces emissions of both NOX and PM,o by 20% to 40%. d) Where possible, electrical equipment should be used instead of diesel powered (e.g., pumps, compressors). e) The contractor should install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid need for independently powered equipment (e.g., compressors). f) Diesel equipment standing idle for more than five minutes should be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on site. g) Any potential additional measures that would reduce the level of toxic air contaminants (TACs). Resulting Levels of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures 11.3.2a would reduce the levels of dust during construction to a less than significant level. With respect to diesel exhaust emissions during construction (Impact 11.3.5) the Prior EIS/EIR found that "implementation of these [this] measure[s] [i.e., Mitigation Measure 11.3.5(b)] would substantially reduce TAC emissions from diesel exhaust during construction. However, in the absence of specific construction equipment and scheduling information, it is not possible to conduct a health risk assessment to determine for certain whether the emissions could pose a specific hazard to the human environment. Therefore, this EIS/EIR concludes that the impact could remain significant after mitigation. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified construction emission impacts beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. Criteria b2): Violation of Air Quality Standards -Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOx) Impact The proposed project would result in increased emissions of ROG and NOX, but these emissions will be below BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in significant operational impacts related to ROG and NOX. (Less than Significant) The Prior EIS/EIR estimated that the annual emissions of ROG, NOx and PMIO expected to be generated by operation of the Hall of Justice project to be 1 ton per year, 3.3 tons per year and less than o. l ton per year respectively. These emissions are well below 15 tons per year threshold. Page 34 November 30, 2009 a~~,~~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF 1USTICE PROJECT Criteria b3) and b4): Violation of Air Quality Standards - CO Impact The proposed project would result in increased emissions of CO, primarily related to project- generated traffic. However, consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed project would not result in significant impact related to CO hot spots. (Less than Significant) As determined in the Prior EIS/EIR, although several intersections would be congested due to baseline and project-generated traffic, none of the local intersections or roadways would cause any CO hotspots, i.e. exceedance of State or federal standards. Criteria c): Odors Impact Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, operation of the proposed project would not be a source of odors that would affect the public frequently in an objectionable way. (Less than Significant Impact) Criteria d) and e): Toxic Air Contaminants Impact The proposed Project would result in a significant but short-term, temporary impact on air quality from construction-related machinery exhaust. Construction equipment-generated diesel exhaust is a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) that poses a potentially significant impact to nearby receptors. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. (No New Impact) Consistent with the analysis presented in the Prior EIS/EIR, construction of the East County Hall of Justice project is estimated to take place over about an 18-month construction periods. During this period it was estimated that construction equipment (primarily large trucks hauling materials to and from the site) could emit approximately 10 pounds per day,'or 1.2 tons per year of diesel exhaust as a TAC. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure from the Prior EIS/EIR is applicable to the Project: Mitigation Measure 11.3.5b: Diesel Emissions Control (see above) Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of the diesel emission control measures included in Mitigation Measure 11.3.Sb represent best available control measures, and would reduce TAC emissions by 50% to 80%, assuming some older equipment would not use 100% bio- diesel fuel (B100 ). However, in the absence of specific construction equipment and scheduling information, it is not possible to conduct a health risk assessment to determine for certain whether the emissions could pose a specific hazard to the human environment. Therefore, consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR this impact could remain significant after mitigation. There are no November 3Q 2009 page 35 ~~~ ~~ ~ ~5~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in new significant environmental effects to construction-related emission of toxic air contaminants, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effect to toxic air contaminants. Criteria fl: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Impact Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in cumulative air quality impacts. (Less than Significant) As indicated above, the Project would not be expected to have any project-specific operational air quality impacts. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that for any project that does not individually have significant operational air quality impacts, the determination of significant cumulative impact should be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quality plan, which would be the most recently adopted Clean Air Plan. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the Project would be consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Clean Air Plan Page 36 November 30, 2009 ~~ I' COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION ~~ 15~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT Less Than Significant No New Impact Potentially with From those No Impact / Significant Revised Identified in the Less than Impact Mitigation Prior EIS/EIR Significant [PROPOSED]. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the ^ ^ ^ Q environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the ^ ^ ^ Q emissions of greenhouse gases? The Prior EIR included a comprehensive assessment of the existing setting and the regulatory setting related to air quality impact assessment based on scientific information and regulatory requirements current as of that time. Since then, there has been a significant advancement in scientific understanding of the relationship between certain air emissions and trend-line changes in climatic conditions that have national and even global ramifications. In light of more recent legislative action on this topic and directives emanating from the California Attorney General's office, this environmental document provides the following thorough assessment of this project's contribution to greenhouse gas effects. As part of the current effort to integrate the evaluation of greenhouse gas effects into the CEQA process, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This checklist section is based upon these draft guidelines. A review of the scientific and analytical literature indicates that there are currently no adopted thresholds for determining the significance of a project's potential contribution to greenhouse gas emissions in CEQA documents. In the absence of defined thresholds, significance conclusions must be based on substantial evidence, which includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f).). In addition, under the "rule of reason," an EIR is required to make a good faith effort to evaluate impacts to the extent that is reasonably feasible (CEQA Guideline § 15151). The following analysis therefore provides a quantitative discussion of the Project's potential GHG emissions using currently accepted procedures for calculating project-specific emissions and a comparison to published GHG inventories and projections in the area. The following analysis also determines whether the Project would result in an incremental increase in GHG emissions, potentially resulting in a cumulative contribution to GCC. Generally, when a lead agency is considering a cumulative impact the lead agency may determine that a project's contribution to the significant cumulative impact is rendered less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact (CEQA Guideline § 15130a3). For this analysis an assessment is made as to whether the Project would implement its fair share of reductions in the emission of operational greenhouse gasses as contained in the County's Cool Counties Initiative and Green Building Ordinance, based on a qualitative discussion of those aspects of the project that would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. November 30, 2009 page 37 ~~ ~ '~ Rioa~15~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION Environmental Setting In addition to the air pollutants discussed in the Air Quality section, other emissions may not be directly associated with adverse health effects, but are suspected of contributing to "global warming" or "climate change." Global warming has occurred in the past as a result of natural processes, but the term is often used now to refer to the warming predicted by computer models to occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide, ozone and water vapor). Naturally occurring and anthropogenic-generated (generated by mankind) atmospheric gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, can have an effect on global temperatures.4 Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHG). Solar radiation enters the earth's atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed at the surface. The earth emits this radiation back toward space as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases, which are mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation and redirecting some of this back to the earth's surface. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This is known as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect maintains a habitable climate. Natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. Emissions from human activities, such as electricity production, motor vehicle use and agriculture are elevating the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, and are reported to have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth's natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Other than water vapor, the GHGs contributing to global warming include the following gases: • Carbon dioxide, primarily a byproduct of fuel combustion. • Nitrous oxide is a byproduct of fuel combustion and also associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops. • Methane is commonly created by off gassing from agricultural practices (e.g. keeping livestock) and landfill operation. • Chlorofluorocarbons that were widely used as refrigerants, propellants and cleaning solvents, however their production has been mostly reduced by international treaty. • Hydrofluorocarbons are now used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons in refrigeration and cooling. • Perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to the greenhouse effect both directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur when the gas itself absorbs outgoing radiation. Indirect effects occur when gases cause chemical reactions that produce other GHGs or prolong the existence of other GHGs. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) concept is used to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the ° IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available at: http://www.ipco.ch/. Page 38 November 3Q 2009 ~ ~ - 5~t COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF 7USTICE PROJECT atmosphere relative to carbon dioxide (C02), which is the most abundant GHG. C02 has a GWP of 1, expressed as C02e. Other GHGs, such as methane and nitrous oxide are commonly found in the atmosphere but at much lower concentrations. However, the GWP for methane is 21, while nitrous oxide has a GWP of 310. Other trace gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydro chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which are halocarbons that contain chlorine, have much greater GWPs. Fortunately these gases are found at much lower concentrations and many are being phased out as a result of global efforts to reduce destruction of stratospheric ozone. In the United States, C02 emissions account for about 85 percent of the C02e emissions, followed by methane at about 8 percent and nitrous oxide at about 5 percent. 5 The world's leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway, is "very likely" caused by humans, and hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries," no matter how much humans control future emissions. A report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - an international group of scientists and representatives concludes that "The widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.s6 Human activities have exerted a growing influence on some of the key factors that govern climate by changing the composition of the atmosphere and by modifying vegetation. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for energy production and transportation and the removal of forests and woodlands around the world to provide space for agriculture and other human activities. Emissions of other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also increased due to human activities. Since the Industrial Revolution (i.e., about 1750), global atmospheric concentrations of C02 have risen about 36 percent, due primarily to the combustion of fossil fuels. The IPCC predicts a temperature increase of between two and 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius) by the end of the 2151 century under six different scenarios of emissions and carbon dioxide equivalent concentrations.8 Sea levels are predicted to rise by 0.18 to 0.59 meters (seven to 23 inches) during this time, with an additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches possible depending upon the rate of polar ice sheets melting from increased warming. The IPCC report states that the increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 can likely be attributed to human-generated greenhouse gases. National Emissions The U.S. EPA has developed an inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases. This inventory is periodically updated with the latest update being 5 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 2006. U.S. EPA. April 15, 2008. 6 Climate Change 2007 -The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. February 2, 2007. (http://ipcc-wgl.ucar.edu/wgl/wgl-report.html] ~ IPCC. 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wgl/ar4-wgl-spm.pdf ) s Ibid. November 30, 2009 page 39 ~~ ~~w EAST COUNTY HALL OF 7USTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION 20089. EPA reports that total U.S. emissions have risen by 14.7 percent from 1990 to 2006, while the U.S. gross domestic product has increased by 59 percent over the same period. A 1.1 percent decrease was noted from 2005 to 2006, which is reported to be attributable to: (1) climate conditions, (2) reduced use of petroleum products for transportation, and (3) increased use of natural gas over other fuel sources. The inventory notes that the transportation sector emits about 33 percent of C02 emissions, with 60 percent of those emissions coming from personal automobile use. Residential uses, primarily from energy use, accounted for 20 percent of C02 emissions. As a part of U.S. EPA's responsibility to develop and update an inventory of U.S. GHG emissions and sinks, EPA compared trends of other various U.S. data. Over the period between 1990 and 2006, GHG emissions grew at a rate of about 0.9 percent per year. Population growth was slightly higher at 1.1 percent, while energy and fossil fuel consumption were more closely related at 1.0 percent. GDP and energy generation grew at much higher rates. It is estimated that the United States contributes up to 35 percent of the world's C02 equivalent emissions. State Emissions The effects of climate change on California, in terms of how it would affect the ecosystem and economy, remain uncertain. The State has many areas of concern regarding climate change with respect to global warming. According to the 2006 Climate Action Team Report10 the following climate change effects and conditions can be expected in California over the course of the next century: • A diminishing Sierra snow pack declining by 70 percent to 90 percent, threatening the state's water supply; • Increasing temperatures from eight to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit (F) under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25 to 35 percent increase in the number of days ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas; • Coastal erosion along the length of California and seawater intrusion into the Sacramento River Delta from afour-to 33-inch rise in sea level. This would exacerbate flooding in already vulnerable regions; Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation and increased temperatures; • Increased challenges for the state's important agricultural industry from water shortages, increasing temperatures, and saltwater intrusion into the Delta; and • Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. California emissions of GHG gases or C02 equivalent emissions was estimated at 484 million metric tons of equivalent C02 emissions (MMTC02e), which is about seven percent of the emissions from 9 Inventory of U. S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 2006. U.S. EPA. April 15, 2008. 10 California Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. (http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate action team/reports/2006-04-03 FINAL_CAT REPORT.PDF) Page 40 November 3Q 2009 ~, ~;~ ~s4 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT the entire United States." Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in California, followed by industrial sources and electric power generation.j2 On aper-person basis, greenhouse gas emissions are lower in California than most other states; however, California is a populous state and the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the United States and one of the largest emitters in the world.13 CARB staff has estimated the 1990 statewide emissions level to be 427 MMTCOZe. Under a "business as usual" scenario, emissions of GHG in California are estimated to increase to approximately 600 MMTC02e by 2020. Regulatory Setting Global climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions is an emerging environmental concern being raised and discussed at the international, national, and statewide level. At each level, agencies are considering strategies to control emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. U.S. EPA The United States participates in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). While the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol, which would have required reductions in GHGs, the Congress never ratified the protocol. The federal government chose voluntary and incentive-based programs to reduce emissions and has established programs to promote climate technology and science. In 2002, the United States announced a strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the American economy by 18 percent over a 10-year period from 2002 to 2012. To date, the U.S. EPA has not regulated GHGs under the Clean Air Plan, even though a 2007 Supreme Court ruling held that the U.S. EPA can regulate GHG emissions. 14 In May 2009, President Obama announced a new national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing GHG emissions from new cars and trucks sold in the United States. The new standards would apply to new vehicles sold beginning in 2012 and ultimately require an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) in 2016. This surpasses the previous 2007 standard of 35 mpg for 2020 model vehicles established in 2007. " California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan. June. 'Z California Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwawtenegger and the Legislature. (http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate action team/reports/2006-04-03 FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF] 13 California Legislative Analyst's OfSce. 2006. Analysis of the 2006-07 Budget Bill (Governor's Climate Change Initiative). (http://www.lao.ca.govlanalysis_2006/resources/res_04 an106.htm1] 14 On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has authority, under the Clean Air Act, to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. The U.S. EPA had previously argued it lacked legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court decision noted that greenhouse gases meet the Clean Air Act's definition of an "air pollutant," and the EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. November 30, 2009 page 41 ~=~ q~ ~ ~5~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION State of California The State of California is concerned about GHG emissions and their effect on global climate change. The State recognizes that "there appears to be a close relationship between the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global temperatures" and that "the "evidence for climate change is overwhelming." State of California Executive Order 5-3-05 In June 2005, the Governor of California signed Executive Order S-3-O5, which identified Cal/EPA as the lead coordinating State agency for establishing climate change emission reduction targets in California. A "Climate Action Team", amulti-agency group of state agencies, was set up to implement Executive Order S-3-O5. Under this order, the state plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2006 the California Climate Action Team identified greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies and measures to reduce global warming.~s Assembly Bill (AB) 32 -California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 In 2006, the governor of California signed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, into legislation. The Act requires that California cap its greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. CARB has estimated the 1990 statewide emission level to be 427 MMTC02e, with a "business as usual" scenario estimated to increase to approximately 600 MMTC02e by 2020. Therefore, a reduction of almost 30 percent in emissions is required by 2020 to meet the AB32 goal. This legislation requires CARB to establish a program for statewide greenhouse gas emissions reporting and monitoring/enforcement of that program. CARB recently published a list of discrete greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures that can be implemented immediately. CARB is also required to adopt rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost- effective greenhouse gas emission reductions. CARB's Early Action Plan identified regulations and measures that could be implemented in the near future to reduce GHG emissions. Much of the measures to reduce GHG emissions from transportation will come from CARB. AB 1493, the Pavley Bill, directed CARB to adopt regulations to reduce emissions from new passenger vehicles. CARB's AB32 Early Action Plan released in 2007 included a strengthening of the Pavley regulation for 2017 and included a commitment to develop a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). In April 2009, CARB adopted the new LCFS aimed at diversifying the variety of fuels used for transportation. This regulation is designed to increase the use of alternative fuels, replacing 20 percent of the fuel used by cars in California with clean alternative fuels by 2020. These fuels include electricity, biofuels, and hydrogen. CARB is also targeting other sources of emissions. The main measures to reduce GHG emissions are contained in the AB32 Scoping Plan.- The Scoping Plan was approved in December 2008. This plan includes a range of GHG reduction actions. Central to the draft plan is a cap and trade program covering 85 percent of the state's emissions. This program will be developed in conjunction with the 's California Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Climate Action Team Executive Summary Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. (http://www.climatechange. ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT REPORT EXECSUMMARY.PDF] Page 42 November 30, 2009 q~ ~ ~~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF .IUSTICE PROJECT Western Climate Initiative, comprised of seven states and three Canadian provinces, to create a regional carbon market. The plan also proposes that utilities produce a third of their energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal, and proposes to expand and strengthen existing energy efficiency programs and building and appliance standards. The plan also includes full implementation of the Pavley standards to provide a wide range of less polluting and more efficient cars and trucks to consumers who will save on operating costs through reduced fuel use. It also calls for development and implementation of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which will require oil companies to make cleaner domestic-produced fuels. Most of the measures in this Scoping Plan will be implemented through the full rulemaking processes at ARB or other agencies. With the exception of Discrete Early Actions, which will be in place by January 1, 2010, other regulations are expected to be adopted by January 1, 2011 and take effect at the beginning of 2012. Senate Bill 97 -Modification to the Public Resources Code Pursuant to Senate Bill 97, and as noted above, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is in the process of developing CEQA guidelines addressing GHGs. In June 2008, OPR issued interim guidance for addressing climate change through CEQA. OPR recommends that each agency develop an approach to addressing GHG emissions that is based on best available information. The approach includes three basic steps: (1) identify and quantify emissions; (2) assess the significance of the emissions; and (3) if emissions are significant, identify mitigation measures or alternatives that will reduce the impact to ales-than-significant level. At this time, neither the County of Alameda nor the BAAQMD has identified significance thresholds for GHG emissions. OPR released Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions in April 2009 for public comment. At the direction of OPR, CARB is currently developing statewide interim thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. CARB is focusing on common project types that, collectively, are responsible for substantial GHG emissions -specifically industrial, residential, and commercial projects. Several workshops have been planned to discuss further development of concepts introduced in its Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal on Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2005 Standards went into effect October 1, 2005. Projects that apply for a building permit on or after this date must comply with the 2005 Standards. The 2008 Standards are currently being developed and will go into effect in 2009. Senate Bill 375 -California's Regional Transportation and Land Use Planning Efforts Recently, California enacted legislation (SB 375) to expand the efforts of AB 32 by controlling indirect GHG emissions caused by urban sprawl through changes in the way land use and transportation planning is done in California. SB 375 provides incentives for local governments and developers to implement new conscientiously planned growth patterns (i.e., Sustainable Communities Strategies). This includes incentives for creating attractive, pedestrian-friendly and sustainable communities and revitalizing existing communities. The legislation also allows developers to bypass November 30, 2009 page 43 '~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION certain environmental reviews under CEQA for projects that are consistent with the new Sustainable Community Strategies. Development of more alternative transportation options that would reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, along with traffic congestion, would be encouraged. SB 375 enhances CARB's ability to reach the AB 32 goals by directing the agency to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from the transportation sector for 2020 and 2035. GARB would work with the metropolitan planning organizations (e.g., ABAG and MTC) to align their regional transportation, housing, and land use plans to reduce vehicle miles traveled and demonstrate the region's ability to attain its greenhouse gas reduction targets. A similar process is used to reduce transportation emissions of ozone precursor pollutants in the Bay Area. California's Heavy Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Reduction Measure On December 12, 2008 (one day after adopting the AB32 Climate Action Plan), CARB adopted the Heavy Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction measure that requires long-haul truckers to install fuel-efficient tires and aerodynamic devices on their trailers. This measure will reduce GHG emissions through improved fuel economy. Bay Area Air Quality Management District In April 2009, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) issued a draft report on CEQA thresholds of significance, as part of a planned update of BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines, which were last updated in 1999. The existing BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines contain no thresholds of significance for GHGs. The April 2009 report identifies two potential approaches for determining the significance of GHG emissions, one based on AB 32 emission reduction goals, and the second based on thresholds currently being developed by CARB. The BAAQMD report identifies the following three options for proceeding under the AB 32 approach: establishment of aproject-specific numerical threshold; establishment of a performance standard equal to the emissions reduction required to meet the AB 32 target; or a combination of performance standard and numerical threshold. Under the CARB approach, a project would generally be found to have ales-than-significant effect with respect to GHGs if it were to implement a series of performance standards and, potentially, have emissions at an amount less than a quantitative threshold (yet to be established for most types of projects), or if the project were consistent with a CARB-approved Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which is a regional plan for GHG reduction to be developed by the applicable metropolitan planning organization (in the Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission) (see discussion of SB 375, above). Alameda County Cool Counties Initiative In July 2007, Alameda County joined 12 other counties across the United States, along with the Sierra Club, to launch the Cool Counties Initiative (Initiative). The Initiative mobilizes county governments to catalyze bold regional and federal action to address climate change. The Initiative commits the County to work with its communities to reduce countywide greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050. In joining the Initiative, Alameda County signed the Cool Counties Declaration, which consists of three commitments: A commitment to reduce County operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by creating an inventory of their local emissions and then planning and implementing policies and programs to achieve significant, measurable and sustainable reductions. Page 44 November 30, 2009 I ~~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION ,.' EAST COUNTY HALL OF 1USTICE PROJECT • A commitment to work closely with regional and state governments and others to reduce regional GHG emissions to 80 percent below current levels by 2050. The idea is to engage the metropolitan planning organizations to develop regional GHG emissions inventories and create regional implementation plans that establish short-, mid-, and long-term emissions reduction targets. The goal is to stop the increase in emissions by 2010, and to achieve average reductions of 10 percent every five years thereafter through to 2050. • A commitment to urge Congress and the Obama Administration to enact amulti-sector national program of market-based limits and incentives for reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below current levels by 2050, and to urge Congress and the Administration to strengthen standards by enacting legislation such as a Corporate Average Fuel Economy ("CAFE") standard that achieves at least 35 miles per gallon (mpg) within 10 years for cars and light trucks. Green Building and Construction Debris Management Pursuant to Chapter 4.38, Title 4 of the County Administrative Code, County projects must divert construction debris from landfills and incorporate Green Building Practices. The relevant sections of the Administrative Code include: 4.38.030: Construction and demolition debris management. The construction and demolition debris generated by county projects initiated on or after July 1, 2003, shall be diverted from landfill as follows: A. County projects (except traditional public works projects) with a total estimated cost of construction of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or greater and county projects consisting primarily of demolition with a total estimated cost of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) or greater shall meet the following diversion requirements: 1. At least fifty (50) percent of the total debris generated by the project shall be diverted from landfill via reuse or recycling. 4.38.040: Green Building Practices. A. All county projects initiated on or after July 1, 2003, except traditional public works projects, shall meet a minimum LEEDr"" "Silver" rating under the LEED rating system, or a county-approved equivalent. City of Dublin In July of 2007 the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 10379, authorizing the City's participation in the Climate Protection Project (Cool Counties Initiative) for Alameda County jurisdictions. Criteria a): Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Project-related construction and operational activities would emit greenhouse gasses, primarily through consumption of energy for transportation and energy usage. However, project emissions November 30, 2009 page 45 rT~ qa ~ ~~~r EAST COUNTY HALL OF 7USTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION would represent such a small fraction of the current total emission generated both Countywide and within the City of Dublin as to be considered less than significant. (Less than Significant) C02, the primary man-made greenhouse gas of concern, would be generated by the project primarily from mobile sources and energy usage. Typically, more than 80 percent of total energy consumption takes place from the long-term operation of the building whereas less than 20 percent is consumed during construction, which is temporary. Therefore, only GHG emissions during the use of the building have been calculated. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has provided guidance for calculating project emissions.16 Emissions associated with the development of the proposed Project were calculated utilizing the methodologies indicated in the CAPCOA guidance. Area source emissions in the form of natural gas combustion for heating (i.e., space and water), emissions from landscape equipment, and emission from architectural coatings were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 model (version 9.2.4) with default assumptions for government (civic center) buildings. The URBEMIS2007 model was also used to estimate mobile source emissions from build out of the project. This model is based on the CARB's EMFAC2007 on-road mobile source emission factor model. The model includes emission factors for C02. Indirect emissions associated with the generation of electricity provided to the project were calculated using California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol for Indirect Emissions from Electricity Usel~ using PG&E 2007 emission rate of 0.63567 pounds of C02 per kilowatt hour of electricity produced.18 Although there are emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, which are more potent GHGs, these emissions are very small compared to C02 for this type of project (i.e., less than three percent C02 equivalent). As a result, only C02 emissions were calculated. Table 3 shows the annual C02 emissions in metric tons per year. TABLE 3: ANNUAL OPERATIONAL COs EMISSIONS Source Type Basis for Calculation Area Source Natural gas and landscape equipment from URBEMIS2007 Mobile Sources Traffic from URBEMI52007 Electricity Usage Estimated using CCAR method, using PG&E Emission Rates Total Annual Emissions (in metric tons per year) 258 6,856 943 8,057 metric tons per year Source: Lamphier-Gregory, 2009 'e CEQA & Climate Change, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, January 2008. ~' California Climate Action Registry. California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol - Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1. January 2009. I8 PG&E specific emissions factor taken from www.climateregistry,or~,`resowres/~iocs/PUP Metrics-.iun~2009.x1s Page 46 November 30, 2009 L -~ ~=_I ~+~ 15+t COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT Alameda County has developed an inventory of major greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as part of its continuing commitment to tackling the potential problems presented by global climate change. The inventory includes emissions from each of the 14 municipalities in the County and the unincorporated regions.19 The results of the inventory indicate that Alameda County communities emit over 13.7 million metric tons of COze. This includes the emissions of the three major greenhouse gases -carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The City of Dublin has also worked with the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to conduct a greenhouse gas emissions inventory. During calendar year 2005, the ICLEI inventory determined that 231,517 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents or greenhouse gases were emitted in Dublin. This report forecasts year 2020 emissions at 488,542 metric tons with no mitigation.20 As a facility providing County-wide services, it is reasonable to compare the emissions anticipated to be generated by the project to both County-wide emissions, as well as to the emissions of the local jurisdiction (City of Dublin). Project emissions would represent a very small fraction (less than 1/10`h of 1%) of current County-wide emissions, less than 3.5% of Dublin's 2005 inventory, and approximately 1.6% of Dublin's projected 2020 total emissions. Given these very low contributions of greenhouse gas emissions of the project relative to both County- wide emissions and the emissions of the City of Dublin, project-specific greenhouse gas emissions are not considered to be significant. The estimated C02 emissions from the project are also a conservative estimate in that, absent the project, the courthouse functions of the Hall of Justice project would continue to operate elsewhere, with similar or potentially greater emissions. Because this Project represents in large part relocation of an existing use, much of the GHG emissions are not in fact new emissions, but are part of the current inventory. Criteria b): Consistency with Plans to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Project-related construction and operation will contribute incrementally to cumulative increases in GHG emissions. However, the project will be consistent with the commitment embodied in the Cool Climate Initiative and the County's Green Building Ordinance by implementing efforts to achieve significant, measurable and sustainable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. (Less than Cumulatively Significant) Although no project-specific significant impacts related to GHG emissions have been identified and no project-specific mitigation is required, the Project will generate greenhouse gas emissions that will contribute incrementally to an overall increase in cumulative emissions. The following is a discussion 19 Prepared by ICLEI -Local Governments for Sustainability and presented at the Alameda County & Cities Climate Forum, January 23, 2009 http:?iwww.acgov.org:"climate.%dc~cument~'2009-02-09 Count~~ climate. inventoiy- suinman~.t~di 20 City of Dublin, Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis, prepared by ICLEI, May 2009, accessed at h ttp: ~%www.ci.d ublin.ca.us`pdflltem73GreenhottseGas Gmisn.pd F. November 30, 2009 page 47 .' ~°p ,~ I~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STLiDY DETERMINATION of those aspects of the project, including its required mitigation measures, which will provide for significant, measurable and sustainable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. "Green Building Practices" -LEED Design and Construction Pursuant to Chapter 4.38, Title 4 of the County Administrative Code, all new County projects initiated after July 2003 are required to meet a minimum LEED "Silver" rating under the LEED rating system (or aCounty-approved equivalent).. As part of on-going value-engineering efforts for the project, the design team will be exploring various economically viable strategies that might be incorporated into the project to improve building efficiency and performance, potentially including rows of photovoltaic cells placed between the rows of parking in the northeasterly portion of the parking lot that would shield the parked cars from the sun and also generate electricity for on-site use. Other strategies may include: • Preferred parking for car/van pools • dedicated open space • stormwater management plans designed in accordance with EPA best management practices • indoor air quality enhancements • energy conservation and atmosphere emission reductions • water efficiency • "green" materials and resources ,and • innovation and design Waste Diversion Also pursuant to Chapter 4.38, Title 4 of the County Administrative Code, all new County projects initiated after July 2003 are required to achieve a minimum diversion of 50% of construction and demolition debris. The County will prepare a Waste Diversion and Reduction Plan for the project which will be required to meet this 50% diversion goal. Energy Efficiency The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations associated with the generation of GHG emissions and energy conservation. In particular, construction of the proposed Project would be required to meet California Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings, California Building Code and Title 24 energy conservation requirements and the requirements of pertinent County policies, helping to reduce future energy demand as well as reduce the project's contribution to regional GHG emissions. Relocation and Centralization of Existing Uses The Unified California Superior Court in Alameda County currently operates 13 court facilities throughout the County of Alameda. The proposed Project would accommodate all the necessary services to hear civil, family, traffic, criminal misdemeanor and criminal felony cases for the East County area, and is intended to replace existing leased space, as well as to provide long-term Page 48 _ November 30, 2009 ~D~ ~ 15~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT expansion space for existing and future demand.21 Because this Project represents in large part relocation of an existing use, much of the project's estimated GHG emissions from vehicle sources would not, in fact, be new emissions. Instead, because the project would result in a consolidation of courthouse and related uses into one central location for the East County as opposed to multiple locations elsewhere in the County, it is likely this would reduce trips and trip lengths as compared to the existing situation. Required Mitigation Measures Additional greenhouse gas emission reductions would be achieved through compliance with all the regulatory requirements and mitigation measures included in the Prior EIS/EIR. The following mitigation measures from the Prior EIS/EIR are applicable to the Project, and would serve to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Mitigation Measure 9.4.5a: TSM/TDM Program. Implementation of a Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management program to reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles would also help reduce GHG emissions. (See the Transportation section for additional details on this measure.) Mitigation Measure 9.4.5b: Enhanced Transit Program. Implementation of an enhanced transit program to improve access to the Project would also help reduce GHG emissions. (See the Transportation section for additional details on this measure.) Mitigation Measure 9.4.5c: TVTC Fees. Improvements to regional transportation funded through contribution to regional transportation mitigation programs would improve regional transit and reduce congestion on freeways, which would also help reduce GHG emissions. (See the Transportation section for additional details on this measure.) While the project would contribute incrementally to an overall increase in cumulative GHG emissions, many of these emissions are in large part a relocation of emissions from current facilities which are currently included in the County-wide emissions inventory. The new facility will be LEED certified, state-of--the-art, energy efficient, transit accessible and centrally located, all of which would result in a reduction of current emissions as well as a minimization of emissions from needed facility expansion. The project would be consistent with the commitment embodied in the Cool Counties Initiative to achieve significant, measurable and sustainable reductions in County operational greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed project is consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the Project's cumulative impact related to greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant. ~ I County of Alameda, Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice Draft EIR, January 2003, p.2-6 to 2-7. November 3Q 2009 page 49 log ~ i~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION Less Than Significant No New Impact Potentially with From those No Impact / Significant Revised Identified in the Less than __ Impact Mitigation Prior EIS/EIR Significant IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or ^ ^ ~ ^ regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California ^ ^ ^ Q Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, ^ ^ Q ^ coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ^ ^ ^ ^ established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Criteria a): Special Status Species Impact The proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts on sensitive wildlife species, including Congdon's tarplant or the foraging habitat for burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, the northern harrier and other species. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. (No New Impact) The Prior EIS/EIR found that development on the project site would result in the elimination of the occurrence of Congdon's tarplant, which would be a significant impact. Congdon's tarplant has no legal protective status under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts, but is considered rare under Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. No other special-status plant species were encountered on the site during systematic surveys conducted in 2001 and 2002, and none are believed to occur on the site. Suitable foraging habitat for burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, other raptors and loggerhead shrike would be affected by proposed development. While no nests of these species were encountered during field surveys, there is a possibility that nests could be established prior to construction. Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, no direct impacts on any state or federally listed species are anticipated as a result of the project. This includes California red-legged frog and San Joaquin kit fox, which are not believed to occur on the site or pass through the site vicinity. Page 50 ~ November 30, 2009 i _' i ~~ «~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the Prior EIS/EIRS are applicable to the current Project: Mitigation Measure 8.1.5a: Preconstruction Nesting Surveys. Preconstruction nesting surveys for loggerhead shrike and raptors shall be conducted during the months of April through July prior to any destruction of suitable nesting habitat. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to initiation of grading. If any of these species are found within the construction area after April of the construction year, grading and construction in the area shall either stop or continue only after the nests are protected by an adequate setback approved by a qualified biologist. If avoidance of nests is not feasible, impacts to foraging habitat and kite, shrike and raptor nests shall be minimized by avoiding disturbances to the birds during the nesting season unless a qualified biologist verifies that the birds have either (1) not begun egg-laying and incubation, or (2) that the juveniles from those nests are foraging independently and capable of survival at an earlier date. If avoidance is not feasible, mitigation shall be developed in consultation with the CDFG and shall meet with the approval of the County General Services Agency prior to any construction or grading. The results of the preconstruction survey and any required mitigation monitoring shall be submitted to the CDFG and County General Services Agency. Mitigation Measure 8.1.5b: Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Survey. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owl within 30 days of Project- related ground disturbing activities throughout the year to determine whether any nesting owls are present and to provide for their protection during the active breeding season or passive relocation during the non-breeding season if nests are encountered. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall comply with Burrowing Owl Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. If burrowing owls are found on site, the Mitigation Guidelines generally require the creation of other suitable habitat for burrowing owls nearby, relocating any burrowing owls that are found on site and filling all on-site burrows once they have been vacated. If avoidance is not feasible, mitigation shall be developed in consultation with the CDFG and shall meet with the approval of the County General Services Agency prior to any construction or grading. The results of the preconstruction survey and any required mitigation monitoring shall be submitted to the CDFG and County General Services Agency. Mitigation Measure 8.1.5c: Congdon's Tarolant Mitigation Program. A detailed off-site mitigation program shall be prepared to address the loss of Congdon's tarplant on the site. The program shall be prepared by a qualified botanist or plant ecologist, and shall at minimum provide for seed collection and reseeding, and creating November 30, 2009 page 51 ', EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION replacement habitat at secure locations. The program shall include identification of appropriate areas(s), including shallow depressions designed with a suitable hydrologic regime for Congdon's tarplant to be sown with seed collected from the site. Seed shall be collected from the site in early fall prior to initiation of construction activities. This seed collection and re- establishment may be combined with other mitigation plans for the vicinity, such as the mitigation being developed for impacts associated with the Dublin Transit Center. Any mitigation plan shall include monitoring for a minimum of five years to determine success of reseeding and habitat creation. In addition, preservation of another existing occurrence of Congdon's tarplant shall be required if monitoring efforts indicate that the re-establishment efforts have not been successful after five years. The preservation program shall provide for permanent protection of a minimum of 325 plants through land acquisition or use of a conservation easement over an existing population in east Alameda County (minimum 1:1 replacement). Any off-site mitigation lands shall include establishment of a management endowment as necessary to provide for long-term management of the population. The detailed mitigation program shall be developed in conjunction with the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for this EIS/EIR. The plan shall be prepared in consultation with the CDFG and meet with the approval of the County General Services Agency prior to any construction or seed collection on the site. Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures 8.1.Sa, 8.1.Sb and 8.S.lc would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in new significant environmental effects to special status species, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effects to special status species beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. Criteria b): Habitat (Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities) The proposed Project would not result in a loss of sensitive natural community types, nor would it substantially increase any impacts on sensitive natural community types. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, sensitive natural community types such as riparian scrub and native grasslands are absent from the East County Government Center site and no impacts are anticipated. (No Impact) Criteria c): Wetlands Impact The proposed Project would result in the elimination of scattered seasonal wetlands in the man- made depressions on the project site. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIR. (No New Impact) Page 52 November 30, 2009 1a~ 1~~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the Project would result in the elimination of approximately 0.098 acres (4,280 square feet) of scattered seasonal wetlands in the man-made depressions on the site. These seasonal depressions function largely as grasslands, with no unique values to wildlife although they are used by common species associated with seasonal wetlands such as invertebrates and pacific tree frog. Because these features are physically isolated and non-navigable interstate waters, they are not anticipated to be subject to regulations under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Similarly, the man-made detention basin in the western portion of the site is most likely exempt from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction as it was constructed in uplands for flood control. These assumptions must be confirmed by the Corps as part of its jurisdictional determination. If these features are determined to be jurisdictional, then their loss would be considered significant, requiring mitigation. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure from the Prior EIR/EIS is applicable to the current Project: Mitigation Measure 8.3.5: Wetland Delineation and Possible Replacement. The preliminary wetland delineation shall be submitted to the Corps for verification, if this site is selected for the project.' If the identified wetlands and detention basin to be filled are not considered jurisdictional then no additional mitigation is considered necessary. If the Corps and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board determine these features are jurisdictional and must be filled, then a mitigation program shall be prepared by a qualified wetland specialist, and shall at minimum provide for no net loss of wetlands. This mitigation program will be required to provide for the creation of replacement habitat with an increase in acreage and value at a secure location to meet the "no net loss" standard. Any mitigation program shall include monitoring and management for a minimum of five years to ensure success of wetlands creation; specify success criteria, maintenance, monitoring requirements, and contingency measures; and define site preparation and revegetation procedures, along with an implementation schedule, and funding sources to ensure long- term management. If required, the detailed mitigation program shall be prepared in consultation with the Corps and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board and meet with the approval of the County General Services Agency prior to any construction on the site. * To clarify any unintended misunderstandings, this mitigation measure was originally written before a decision was made to use the East County Government Center site for the East County Hall of Justice facility. Now that that decision is about to be made formally, this mitigation measure will be implemented and the "iP' clause in this sentence will become moot. Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 8.3.5 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in new significant environmental effects on wetlands, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effect on wetlands beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. November 3Q, 2009 page 53 '_ i~~ ~ ~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION Criteria d): Interference with the Movement of Fish or Wildlife Species Impact The proposed Project would not result in a significant new impact on the loss of wildlife habitat, interfere substantially in the movement of wildlife or result in a substantial loss of wildlife habitat, nor would it substantially increase any impacts on wildlife habitat or the movement of wildlife. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant new impact on the movement of fish or wildlife species. (Less than Significant Impact) As concluded in the Prior EIS/EIR, this site is surrounded on three sides by existing development and is not directly connected to an existing stream or other natural movement corridor. Proposed development would eliminate the remaining grassland habitat, and wildlife would either be destroyed or displaced to the surrounding lands. Most of these species are relatively common and the loss of habitat or individuals would not be considered significant. Page 54 November 30, 2009 II! ~ 07 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF .TUSTICE PROJECT Less Than Significant No New Impact Potentially with From those No Impact / Significant Revised Identified in the Less than Impact Mitigation Prior EIS/EIR Significant V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- would the proj ect: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines ^ ^ Q ^ 515064.5. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ^ ^ ~ ^ of an archaeological resource pursuant to 515064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ^ ^ ~ ^ resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ^ ^ ~ ^ outside of formal cemeteries? Criteria a - d): Historic and Archaeological Resources and Human Remains The Prior EIS/EIR found no evidence to suggest the presence of National Register or California Register listed, determined or pending archaeological sites, or significant local, state or federal historic properties or landmarks, or unique geological or paleontological resources or human remains on this site. It also stated that it would be unlikely that excavation activity associated with the proposed Project would disturb any previously undisturbed archaeological resources, paleontological resources and/or human remains on this site. Impact: If the project were to disturb any currently unknown, previously undisturbed archaeological resources, paleontological resources and/or human remains on this site it would be considered a potentially significant impact. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIR. (No New Impact) Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure from the Prior EIS/EIR is applicable to the Project: Mitigation Measure 15.1.2: Halt Construction/Assess Significance of Find. Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities (either at the Project site or at the Existing San Leandro Property), the County of Alameda shall inform all supervisory personnel and all contractors whose activities may have subsurface soil impacts of the potential for discovering archaeological resources, paleontological resources and/or human remains and of the procedures to be followed if these previously unrecorded cultural resources are discovered. These procedures shall include: November 30, 2009 page 55 _-~ ~! I~`~ r; I~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION halting all ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of the area where a potential cultural resource has been found; • notifying a qualified archaeologist of the discovery; and • following a treatment plan prescribed by the appropriate professional if the cultural resource is deemed significant, in accordance with federal or state law. The County of Alameda shall retain an on-call archaeologist to periodically review any excavation (either associated with construction at the Project site and/or demolition at the Existing San Leandro Property), assess the significance of the potential cultural resource and prescribe a treatment plan for it. The archaeologist will consult with a paleontologist as required. The archaeologist shall report any finds in accordance with current professional protocols, including closure at the end of an on-call contract. The archaeologist shall meet the Professional Qualifications Standards mandated by the Secretary of the Interior and the California Office of Historic Preservation. In the event that any human remains are uncovered at the Project site during construction or at the San Leandro site during demolition, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area until after the Alameda County Coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and (if the remains are determined to be of Native American origin) the descendants from the deceased Native American(s) have made a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 15.1.2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in new significant environmental effects to cultural, historic or archaeological resources, or to human remains, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effect to cultural, historic or archaeological resources, or to human remains beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. Page 56 November 30, 2009 1v COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION ~ ~ -~ I ~~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF 1USTICE PROJECT ~~ VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- would the project a) Expose people or structures to substantial risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map or Seismic Hazards Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publications 42? Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would be come unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 78 - t- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ^ ^ ^ Q ^ ^ Q ^ ^ ^ ^ Q ^ ^ ^ Q ^ ^ LrJ ^ ^ ^ LJ ^ ^ ^ IJ ^ ^ ^ ^ Q Criteria a (i), a (iii), and a (iv): Fault Rupture, Seismic Ground Failure, or Landslides Impact Geotechnical studies prepared for the Prior EIS/EIR concluded that development at the project site would not be exposed to risk of loss, injury or death due to the rupture of any known earthquake fault, found no evidence of landslides and found that the risk of liquefaction is considered low due to the nature of soils found at the project site. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant new impact related to fault rupture, seismic ground failure or landslides. (Less than Significant) The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no earthquake faults have been identified within the East County Government Center site. Liquefaction and densification of the soil could occur in certain zones of sand and gravel on site. However, the soils encountered in the borings on site consist predominantly of silty to sandy clay and clayey sand, and Less Than Significant No New Impact Potentially with From those No Impact / Significant Revised Identified in the Less than Impact Mitigation Prior EIS/EIR Significant November 30, 2009 page 57 !~ . EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION relatively dense sand. These soils have sufficient cohesion and/or density not to be prone to liquefaction. This represents a less than significant environmental impact. The East County Government Center site is relatively flat, and there is no risk of landslides. Criteria a (ii): Strong Seismic Shaking Impact While the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, it is located in the seismically active Bay Area region. Earthquakes occurring along identified Bay Area faults have the potential to produce strong seismic ground shaking which could result in risk of loss, injury or death. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. (No New Impact) Significant earthquakes in the Bay Area have been associated with movements along well-defined fault zones. Earthquakes occurring along the Hayward, San Andreas or any of a number of other Bay Area faults have the potential to produce strong ground shaking at the site, which could result in risk of loss, injury or death. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure from the Prior EIS/EIR is applicable to the Project: Mitigation Measure 6.2.5: Seismic Design. The Project shall be designed to address the projected seismic shaking hazards present at the site, in conformance with the Uniform Building Code and the California Building Code. Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.2.5, requiring compliance with current seismic codes and standards, would reduce potential impacts associated with strong ground shaking to levels generally considered acceptable according to engineering standards for projects of this type in the seismically active San Francisco Bay region. Therefore, implementation of this measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in new significant environmental effects related to seismic shaking, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effect related to seismic shaking beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. Criteria b): Erosion Impact The proposed Project could result in an increase in soil erosion during site preparation and site grading operations. Unless suitable site-specific erosion control features are incorporated, the ongoing operation of the proposed project could result in soil erosion. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIR. (No New Impact) Page 58 November 30, 2009 ~~ II i~~ . ~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF 7USTICE PROJECT Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure from the Prior EIS/EIR is applicable to the Project: Mitigation Measure 6.5.5: Implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program S( WPPP). The SWPPP will need to include all erosion control measures required under the most recent SWPPP requirements including stormwater quality BMPs that will reduce runoff of sediment and other pollutants during construction to less than significant levels. Some of the post-construction source control BMPs that could be included in the SWPPP would reduce the generation of pol-utants from activities such as lawn maintenance, vehicle use, material storage and waste collection/recycling. In order to be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the SWPPP will need to demonstrate that implementation will reduce potential soil erosion to a level of less than significant. Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.5.5 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in new significant environmental effects related to the potential for erosion, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effects related to erosion beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. Criteria c and d): Unstable or Expansive Soils Impact Expansive soils have been identified at the East County Government Center site, and construction in areas characterized by expansive soils could result in property damage. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. (No New Impact) The clayey soil encountered in both the fill and native soil across the entire site has a medium to high plasticity and a moderate to high expansion potential. Information from the field explorations indicates that more highly expansive soils were generally encountered in the fill and shallower native soils. The Project can be supported on spread footings or a mat foundation bearing on native soil or properly compacted fill with limited long-term differential settlement. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure from the Prior EIS/EIR is applicable to the Project: Mitigation Measure 6.7.5: Deepening Building Footings/Use of Non-expansive Fill. Preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations call for the deepening of all building footings and using a layer of non- expansive fill to support both interior and exterior slabs on grade. November 30, 2009 page 59 _I 1 ~ ~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF 7USTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.7.5 would reduce potential expansive soil impacts at the site to a less than significant level. Compliance with geotechnical engineering recommendations for the foundations of structures would also reduce potential impacts associated with soil instability to a level of less than significant. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in new significant environmental effects resulting from expansive or unstable soils, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effect related to expansive or unstable soils beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. Criteria e): Septic Systems Impact The Project would be served by a municipal sewerage system. Use of septic systems is not anticipated. (No Impact) Page 60 November 30, 2009 ~i3 ~ i~r COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF .IUSTICE PROJECT No New Impact From those Less Than Identified Potentially Significant in the No Impact Significant with New Prior /Less than Impact Mitigation EIS/EIR Significant VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ^ ^ ^ the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ^ ^ ^ Q reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous ^ ^ ^ Q materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section ^ ^ I'7f IJ ^ 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or ^ ^ ^ 1-7f IJ public use airport, and would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project located with the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the ^ ^ ^ Q project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ^ ^ ^ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are ^ ^ ^ 1-7f LJ adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Criteria a, band c): Routine Use, Emissions and Potential Accident Conditions Involving Hazardous Materials Impact The Project would not create a significant new hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would it increase the likelihood of upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant new impact related to the use of hazardous materials. (Less than Significant Impact) Development of this site as proposed would not entail the use of substantial quantities of hazardous materials, and routine operation of the facilities would not entail the use of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. The Project would not include Priority 1 High Risk facilities as identified by local fire department and/or emergency services. Additionally, construction and operation of the November 30, 2009 page 61 I-~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION proposed facilities would not require the use, transportation or storage of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Although some common household and industrial hazardous materials may occur and would require proper disposal, they would not likely occur in significant quantities. It is also unlikely that any foreseeable upset or accident associated with the construction and operation of the proposed facilities would involve the release of significant quantities of hazardous materials that would pose a threat to public health or the environment. The site is not within one-quarter mile of any existing or proposed school. Criteria c) and d): Public Health Hazards Related to Potential Handling of Hazardous Materials Impact The project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site on the Cortese list (Government Code §65962.5), but limited environmental testing conducted at the site suggests that soil containing petroleum hydrocarbons and metals may exist in localized source areas. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. (No New Impact) The Previous EIS/EIR identified that the site may contain an inactive underground storage tank (UST) buried below the site and, if present, may still contain petroleum hydrocarbon byproducts. Buried utility lines that could be coated with or constructed ofasbestos-containing materials also may exist on site. Chemicals including pesticides, herbicides and/or heavy metal-based amendments may have been used and stored in this area, and surface releases of these compounds may have occurred during the time of prior use. Vehicle repair and maintenance may also have been conducted in this area, with petroleum hydrocarbon compounds and other chemicals. The majority of the fill located at the property is believed to be soil excavated during the development of the adjacent Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center. The fill may contain remnants of past surface releases or artifacts and chemical residues from past source areas associated with former farming and agricultural activities, which were conducted at the adjacent jail site in the past. At the storm water detention basin, various heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons and other chemical substances may have accumulated in basin sediments. The extent to which soils and groundwater may have been contaminated by these previous activities at the site is unknown, but such contamination (if present) could result in potential construction worker health effects from contact with subsurface materials, a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure from the Prior EIS/EIR is applicable to the Project: Mitigation Measure 12.1.5: Preparation and Implementation of a Soil Handling/Management Plan (SHMP). Prior to site preparation, Alameda County shall notify their grading and excavation contractor(s) of the potential presence of improvements below the native ground surface, and shall prepare and implement a Soil Handling/Management Plan (SMP). The SMP should address worker notification, dust control, and include a contingency plan for unexpected conditions. Effective implementation of an SMP would reduce the potential impact associated with exposure to soil and/or groundwater contaminants to a level of less than significant. Page 62 November 30, 2009 ~I . ~ i~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of this Mitigation Measure 12.1.5 would reduce potential impacts related to the potential presence of hazardous materials on site to a less that significant level. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified hazardous materials impacts beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. Criteria a through h): Proximity to Airports or Airstrips; Relation to Emergency Response Plans, and Potential Risk from Wildland Fires Impact The proposed Project would not result in a significant new impact related to the site's proximity to an airport or private airstrip, would not require an Emergency Response Plan, and is not subject to risk of loss resulting from wildfires. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact related to these issues. (No Impact) As stated in the Prior EIS/EIR, the City of Livermore Airport is located more than six miles southeast of the site, and development of this site as proposed would not create any aviation-related safety hazard. November 30, 2009 page 63 ~~T EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION No New Impact From Less Than those Potentially Significant Identified in No Impact / Significant with Revised the Prior Less than Impact Mitigation EIS/EIR Significant VI II. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: al Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ^ ~ ^ ^ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ^ ^ ^ Q of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course a ^ ^ ^ 1 /f IJ stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or ^ ^ ^ Q amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage ^ ^ ^ F-7f LJ systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ^ ~ ^ ^ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood ^ ^ ^ 1=/f IJ Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 700-year flood hazard area structures ^ ^ ^ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a substantial risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a ^ ^ ^ Q result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ^ ^ ^ ^ Criteria a, a and fl: Violate Water Quality Standards, Provide Substantial Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff or Otherwise Degrade Water Quality Regulatory Setting The Prior EIS/EIR identified the Regulatory Setting for water quality applicable at that time (March 2003), but also noted that "the County will comply with the NPDES permit and SMP requirements Page 64 November 30, 2009 ~,- cl~l ~i~ ,~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF 7USTICE PROJECT that are in effect when its submits the Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), prior to construction." The water quality regulatory setting currently applicable to development at the East County Government Center site has been updated, with additional context information as well, as indicated in the edited text below. Federal The United States Congress adopted the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972 with the goal of restoring the biological, physical and chemical integrity of the nation's waters. Water quality objectives for all waters of the United States were established under applicable provisions of Section 303 of the CWA. Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program As mandated by the 1987 amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act, discharge of stormwater from developed areas is regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The NPDES permit program set nationwide permitting requirements for discharging pollutants into waterways. The limits vary by category of industry and are based on a level or treatment that uses the best available technology. Additionally, the 1987 amendments required that municipal stormwater discharges obtain NPDES permit coverage, which, in effect, prohibited non- stormwater discharges into municipal storm drain systems and required the implementation of controls to reduce pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. The USEPA has delegated authority for NPDES permitting to the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). State To comply with the CWA, California passed the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Division 7 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act designates the SWRCB as the administrators of the NPDES program via the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards). The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates water quality in the project area. In addition, the State Porter-Cologne Act requires the development of Basin Plans for drainage basins within California. The Basin Plans are implemented also through the NPDES program. Construction General Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) The SWRCB permits all regulated construction activities under NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity [Construction General Permit]). The Construction General Permit is an NPDES permit that implements section 402(p) (2) (B) of the CWA. Construction activities on one acre or more are regulated by the SWRCB, and are subject to the permitting requirements of the General Permit. The SWRCB established the Construction General Permit program to reduce surface water impacts from construction activities. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. At its meeting on September 2, 2009, the SWRCB adopted updated General Permit standards; no Order Number has been issued for the new permit as of the time of this November 30, 2009 page 65 1~ 1~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION writing but the new standards will be applicable to the Project as of July 1, 2010. Changes from existing regulations are available on the SWRCB website.~~ The Construction General Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. The SWPPP must be prepared before the construction begins. The SWPPP must include specifications for best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented during project construction. BMPs are measures undertaken to control degradation of surface water by preventing soil erosion or the discharge of pollutants from the construction area. The SWRCB has identified BMPs in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook to effectively reduce degradation of surface waters to an acceptable level. Additionally, the SWPPP must describe measures to prevent or control runoff after construction is complete, and identify procedures for inspecting and maintaining facilities or other project elements. Regional Regulations The regional board with responsibility for the Project Site is the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB has the authority to set water quality policies, establish objectives and standards, administer various permit programs, undertake enforcement actions, and conduct investigations and monitoring activities to carry out their water quality responsibilities. Water quality objectives for the San Francisco Bay and its tributaries are specified in the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan Basin (Basin Plan) prepared by the RWQCB in compliance with the federal CWA and the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. In addition, the responsibility for implementing the NPDES permit program has been delegated to the RWQCB. Because the proposed Project is located within the San Francisco RWQCB's jurisdiction, all discharges to surface water or groundwater are subject to the Basin Plan requirements and RWQCB oversight. Alameda County -Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program The Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) is a consortium of public agencies within Alameda County, including Alameda County (unincorporated), 14 cities in the County, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD), and the Zone 7 Water Agency, that discharge stormwater into San Francisco Bay. The San Francisco RWQCB has issued a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit to the ACCWP. Each member of the ACCWP is a Permittee under this Municipal Stormwater Permit. The Permittees, including the County of Alameda, each have jurisdiction over and/or maintenance responsibility for their respective municipal separate storm drain systems and/or watercourses in Alameda County. The member agencies have developed performance standards to clarify the requirements of the stormwater pollution prevention program, adopted stormwater management ordinances, conducted extensive education and training programs, and reduced stormwater pollutants from industrial areas and construction sites. In the project area, the ACCWP administers the stormwater program to meet CWA requirements by controlling pollution in the local storm drain systems. 22 http://wwwswrcb.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/docs/constpermits/cgp_change2_090209.pdf Page 66 November 30, 2009 ,III ~ ~M ~. 1~~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT The ACCWP has developed a Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SQMP), which is designed to help ACCWP member agencies comply with RWQCB and NPDES requirements. The plan includes a comprehensive strategy to reduce the discharge of pollutants into creeks and the San Francisco Bay to the maximum extent practicable, as well as new provisions, including controlling specific pollutants of concern and review and permitting of development and redevelopment Projects by local governments. The SQMP is only a guide; each of the member agencies of ACCWP is responsible for complying with the NPDES permit requirements for discharges from its municipally owned storm drain system Construction General Permit As noted above, the updated General Permit adopted by SWRCB on September 2, 2009 requires that prior to initiating construction for sites of one acre or larger, Project Applicants, including Alameda County, must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to be covered by the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, (Construction General Permit). The General Permit requires the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which must be prepared before construction begins. The SWPPP will include: • Specifications for best management practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during project construction to minimize the potential for accidental releases or contamination, and to minimize runoff from the construction areas, including storage and maintenance areas and building materials lay-down areas. • A description of a plan for communicating appropriate work practices to field workers. • A plan for monitoring, inspecting and reporting any release of hazardous materials. • Specifications for BMPs that will be incorporated into the project itself to minimize runoff of pollutants after the project has been completed. • A description of a plan to monitor stormwater runoff after the project has been completed. Municipal Stormwater Permit Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would also be subject to the NPDES permit requirements for Stormwater management and discharges. The 2003 NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES Permit Order R2-2003-0021 CAS0029831) for Alameda County incorporates updated state and federal requirements related to the quantity and quality of post- construction Stormwater discharges from new development and redevelopment projects. The 2003 Municipal Permit is currently being revised and updated, with a draft version of the proposed new standards having been posted on the RWQCB website in February 2009. It is likely that the proposed new Municipal Permit requirements will be formally adopted and become operative prior to the start of construction of the Project. Provision C.3 of the NPDES permit governs storm drain systems and regulates post construction Stormwater runoff. Specifically, Provision C.3 of the 2003 NPDES permit requires the County to continue to implement development and redevelopment performance standards as contained in the SQMP, and to improve them to achieve the control of Stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The County includes conditions of approval in permits for applicable projects to ensure that Stormwater pollutant discharges are reduced by incorporation of treatment measures and other appropriate source control and site design measures, and to manage increases in runoff flows to the November 30, 2009 page 67 ~, ~~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION maximum extent practicable. Such conditions require project proponents to implement site design and landscape characteristics where feasible that maximize infiltration and provide retention or detention (where appropriate), slow runoff, and minimize impervious land coverage so that post-development pollutant loads from a site are reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Under the terms of the County of Alameda's NPDES permit for stormwater discharges, new development or redevelopment projects that create or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces are required to implement appropriate stormwater treatment measures and post- construction best management practices (BMPs) that meet the maximum extent practicable (MEP) definition of treatment specified in the Clean Water Act (CWA). The County of Alameda implements its current NDPES permit for discharges under the Alameda County Countywide Clean Water Program, Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) (EOA, Inc., February 1997). The Proposed Project would involve grading and site preparation of more than 10,000 square feet and would therefore be required to comply with Provision C.3 of the NPDES permit. The County will comply with the NPDES permit and SMP requirements that are in effect when it submits the Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) prior to construction. Hydrograph Modification Management Plan Pursuant to Provision C.3.f. of Order No. 2003-0021 as modified and amended on March 14, 2007, projects where increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts to beneficial uses, NPDES permit provisions require managing such increases in peak runoff flow and increased runoff volume. Such management shall be through implementation of a Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP) such that post- project runoff does not exceed estimated pre-project rates and/or durations, and so that increased Stormwater discharge rates and/or durations will not result in increased potential for erosion or other significant adverse impacts to beneficial uses. Impact Development of the site as proposed may have both short-term, temporary adverse effects from construction activity and long-term effects on local water quality. The short-term effects from construction activity include erosion and siltation, illicit disposal of debris, and wash water from construction vehicles and equipment. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. (No New Impact) Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure from the Prior EIS/EIR, and as revised below, is applicable to the Project: Mitigation Measure 7.1.2: Obtain Coverage Under the Construction General Permit, Including Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and Comply With Alameda Countywide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit C.3 Provisions. The Project sponsor shall obtain coverage under the SWRCB Construction General Permit, including implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and shall demonstrate compliance with the countywide NPDES permit requirements by preparing a detailed Stormwater Management Plan (SMP), incorporating the most appropriate Page 68 November 30, 2009 la ~ ~ ~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STLrDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT post-construction source control measures into the Project design. h) The Alameda County GSA shall ensure that construction practices for the Project comply with practices to prevent water pollution under the provisions of the Construction General Permit. In order to obtain a permit, the Project Applicant must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The County of Alameda shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the General Permit; the Manual of Standards for Erosion & Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); the Best Management Practices as provided in the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) handbooks; policies and recommendations of the local urban runoff program; and the Staff Recommendations of the RWQCB. The SWPPP shall incorporate specific measures to reduce and treat runoff from developed areas of the site by means of vegetative buffers, grassy swales or other means, to be effective for the life of the Project, and shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control sediment and erosion, both during the building process and in the long-term. Examples of Best Management Practices include, but are not limited to the following: Only clear land which will be actively under construction in the near term (e.g., within the next 6-12 months), minimize new land disturbance during the rainy season, and avoid clearing and disturbing sensitive areas (e.g., steep slopes and natural watercourses) and other areas where site improvements will not be constructed. Provide temporary stabilization of disturbed soils whenever active construction is not occurring on a portion of the site through water spraying or application of dust suppressants, and gravel covering of high-traffic areas. Provide permanent stabilization during finish grade and landscape the Project Site. Safely convey runoff from the top of the slope and stabilize disturbed slopes as quickly as possible. Delineate the Project Site perimeter to prevent disturbing areas outside the project limits. Divert upstream run-on safely around or through the construction. Runoff from the Project Site should be free of excessive sediment and other constituents. Control tracking at points of ingress to and egress from the Project Site. November 30, 2009 page 69 ~- ~1 l ~., ~~ .e~ ~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION • Retain sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the Project Site. • Perform activities in a manner to keep potential pollutants from coming into contact with stormwater or being transported off site to eliminate or avoid exposure. Store construction, building, and waste materials in designated areas, protected from rainfall and contact with stormwater runoff. Dispose of all construction waste in designated areas, and keep stormwater from flowing onto or off these areas. Prevent spills and clean up spilled materials. j) The stormwater Management Plan shall be prepared during County's review of project engineering design and shall incorporate the required post-construction (permanent) stormwater quality controls. The SMP should include, but is not limited to demonstration of the following: • The proposed finished grade, The storm drainage system including all inlets ,pipes, catch basins, overland flows, outlets and water flow directions, • The permanent stormwater treatment system (soil and landscape-based treatment facilities, filters and separators), including all design details, • Design details of all source control measures (preventing contact between stormwater and potential sources of pollution) and site design measures (reductions in flow from impervious surfaces) to be implemented, and • Calculations demonstrating that stormwater treatment measures are hydraulically sized as specified by the County's stormwater permit. • An Operations and Management Plan to ensure continued effectiveness of structural BMPs and implementation of non-structural BMPs. The Alameda County GSA and Alameda County Health Services shall be responsible for continued long-term operations and maintenance of stormwater quality BMPs. • The post-construction stormwater quality controls shall be regularly maintained. Ease of maintenance and long- term costs should be considered in the design of the post-construction stormwater quality controls. k) Because the project site is located upstream of areas where hydro-modification impacts are of concern due to factors such as bank instability, sensitive habitat, or restoration projects, Page 70 November 30, 2009 r -~ ~ '' I~'~ I~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF 1LISTICE PROJECT the Hydro-modification Management Standards and all associated requirements apply. Stormwater discharges from the project shall not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the pre-project (existing) condition. Increase in runoff flow and volume shall be managed so that post-project runoff shall not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts to beneficial uses due to increased erosive force. Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 7.1.2 would ensure that the project would not violate water quality standards or otherwise degrade water quality. There are no changes in the project or change in circumstances that would result in new significant environmental effects on water quality, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified water quality effect beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. New information pertaining to the County's current NPDES permit requirements has been added to Mitigation Measure 7.1.2 that require the project to comply with the NPDES permit and SMP requirements that are in effect when the County submits the Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) prior to construction. Criteria b): Effects on Groundwater Impact Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on groundwater resources. (No Impact) Although development of the project site would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface, within the context of the total area of the groundwater basins affected, this interference with groundwater recharge would not be regarded as substantial. The project would not draw directly from local groundwater resources, and would not contribute substantially toward the depletion of any groundwater resources. Criteria c and d): Effects Resulting from Alterations to Existing Drainage Patterns Impact The proposed project would involve minor modifications to existing drainage patterns, but project plans would be designed to effectively link the site to the adjacent Stormwater collection systems that are already in place, so as not to contribute to either on- or off-site siltation. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in an alteration to drainage patterns that would result in flooding or increased erosion or sedimentation. (Less than Significant) November 30, 2009 page 71 ,_, lays 15~t EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION Criteria g): Exceed the Capacity of Stormwater Drainage System Infrastructure 1 mpact Development of the site may cause the existing storm drain pipes on Gleason Road to exceed their designed capacity. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. (No New Impact) A full discussion of this impact is provided under the Utilities section of this Initial Study Determination, consistent with the approach utilized in the Prior EIS/EIR. Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure from the Prior EIS/EIR is applicable to the Project: Mitigation Measure 14.5.5: Timely Completion of Bypass System. (see full text in the Utilities section of this Initial Study Determination) Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 14.5.5 would reduce potential impacts related to the capacity of storm drain infrastructure to a less that significant level. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified storm drainage capacity impact beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. Criteria g - j): Exposure to Flood Hazards, Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflows Impact The proposed project would not result in the placement of any structures within a designated 100- Year Flood Hazard Area or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact related to these issues. (Less than Significant) As stated in the Prior EIS/EIR, strong seismic activity may create waves in the existing 1.6-acre detention basin on the western side of the East County Government Center site. This may cause the detention basin to overflow onto Arnold Drive or Gleason Drive. The site's isolation from other development and proximity of the detention basin to the existing drainage channel south of the site on Arnold Drive and to the drainage channel that will be built immediately west of the site as part of Alameda County's bypass drainage system will ensure that the impacts of a potential Seiche would be less than significant. Page 72 November 30, 2009 1 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION I~~ ~- ~ I~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT No New Less Than Impact From Significant those Potentially with Identified in No Impact Significant Revised the Prior /Less than Impact Mitigation EIS/EIR Significant IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ^ ^ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, ~ ~ ~ Q or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ^ ^ ^ community conservation plan? Criteria a): Divide Established Community Impact: Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a physical division of an established community. (No Impact) The project site is a vacant parcel of land surrounded by public streets and other governmental and/or private uses including the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, an office for the California Highway Patrol, the County Animal Shelter, and a County Sheriff Training facility. The proposed Hall of Justice complex would integrate the East County Government Center with the remainder of the Eastern Dublin community as part of the governmental services sector. Development of the project site would complete the long-deferred and previously planned use of the property. No connections among private uses would be interfered with as a result of developing the site for the proposed East County Hall of Justice and therefore the project would not physically divide the surrounding community. Criteria b): Land Use Conflict Impact: The Project would not result in a land use conflict. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would be consistent with the development intensity limitations and other provisions of the City of Dublin General Plan, the East Dublin General Plan Amendment (EDGPA) and the Eastern Dublin Specij~c Plan (EDSP). (No Impact) The project site is located within an area described in the Dublin General Plan as the "County Center", and the EDSP and EDGPA designate this site for Public/Semi-Public uses. The Public/Semi-Public land use designation provides for the development of governmental or institutional type uses. The designation generally applies to parcels of land owned by a public entity or governmental agency. Sites designated as Public/Semi-Public are not restricted to public uses, and can be approved for joint development (i.e., a private development on a publicly owned parcel of land or a public/semi-public November 30, 2009 page 73 ~~~j + b~~ ~~ 15~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION facility built on a privately owned parcel). The proposed government and institutional uses are consistent with the Public/Semi-Public land use designation of the site under the EDSP. The East County Hall of Justice, with a total gross square footage of approximately 196,000 square feet, would reflect a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.20, which is lower than the maximum development intensity allowed under the EDSP. This development would be consistent with the EDSP development intensity assumptions. The Prior EIS/EIR also notes that pursuant to the 1993 Annexation Agreement between the City of Dublin and the County, any County governmental uses proposed shall be reviewed by the City of Dublin Planning Commission for conformity with City's General Plan in accordance with Government Code §65402, and shall be subject to Site Development Review in accordance with the City's zoning ordinance. In 2004, the Dublin Planning Commission granted Site Development Review (SDR) approval for an earlier version of the project. The current project would require an amendment to the 2004 Site Development Review (SDR) approval. The SDR criteria and procedures are set forth in Chapter 8.104 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Criteria c): Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan Impact: The Project would not be subject to or be in conflict with a habitat conservation plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. (No Impact) Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project site is not located in an area covered by any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, although the site is close to designated Critical Habitat/Recovery Plan for the San Joaquin kit fox, a federally listed endangered species. Development of the proposed project would not result in a significant new conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan or the Critical Habitat and Recovery Plans for these listed species, nor would it substantially increase any conflict with Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans or the Critical Habitat and Recovery Plans. Page 74 November 30, 2009 ~' COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION I~ I~`~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF 7USTICE PROJEC No New Impact From Less Than those Potentially Significant Identified in No Impact / Significant with New the Prior Less than Impact Mitigation EIS/EIR Significant X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the ^ ^ ^ Q state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, ^ ^ ^ Q specific plan, or other land use plan? Criteria a and b): Mineral Resources Impact: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. (No Impact) The Prior EIS/EIR eliminated the presence of mineral resources as a focus of study. There are no changes with the current Project that would alter this conclusion. There are no mineral resources at the Project site. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in new significant environmental effect on mineral resources, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effect on mineral resources. November 30, 2009 page 75 I' ~r i~~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION ~~ No New Impact Less Than From those Potentially Significant Identified in No Impact / Significant with Revised the Prior Less than Impact Mitigation EIS/EIR Significant XI. NOISE -Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ^ ^ ^ Q ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ^ ^ ^ vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ^ ^ ~ ^ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ^ ^ Q ^ project? c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, ^ ^ ^ Q would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? d) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working ^ ^ ^ Q in the project area to excessive noise levels? Criteria a and b): Noise Levels or Vibration in Excess of Established local Standards Impact Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact related to the exposure of people to noise or groundborne vibration levels in excess of local standards, nor would it substantially increase any such noise or groundborne vibration impacts. (Less than Significant) As described in the Prior EIS/EIR, the East County Hall of Justice is a noise sensitive land use and is subject to noise and land use compatibility guidelines. This site is subject to noise from vehicular traffic on Hacienda Drive and noise from the nearby firing range which is intermittently audible at the site. The Prior EIS/EIR indicated that exterior noise exposure at the site is Ld„/CNEL of 60 to 65 dBA under existing and future conditions. Noise levels in indoor and outdoor activity areas would be acceptable for the intended uses based on attenuation provided by structural systems of the building and the distance from the adjacent roadways. Page 76 November 30, 2009 l`,y ' COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT ' Criteria c): Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Impact Traffic noise generated by the East County Hall of Justice project would add approximately 1.8 dBA (rounded up to 2 dBA) 23 to existing ambient noise levels, which were measured at 58 dBA. The net effect would exceed the 60 dBA Ldn noise acceptability threshold for residential uses at the most impacted roadway segment, along Hacienda Drive near Gleason. The noise threshold from the Prior EIS/EIR indicated a significant impact would occur if; "noise resulting from the proposed project would increase average ambient noise levels CNEL (Ldn) by more than 3 dBA at a sensitive receiver, and the resulting noise level is above the level considered acceptable for that land use (e.g., 60 dBA Ldn for residences). Since the significance threshold is 3 dBA and the project would generate less than 2 dBA, this impact would not be significant. (Less than Significant) The Prior EIS/EIR concluded that traffic noise generated by the Project would be a significant effect. The "project" analyzed in the EIS/EIR was a combined Juvenile Justice Facility and the Hall of Justice, which would have generated approximately 3 dBA (as compared to 2 dBA for the Hall of Justice only). When this traffic noise was added to the expected increase in ambient traffic noise levels, the resulting increase in traffic noise was found to exceed 3 dB and would have equaled or exceeded the goal of 60 dB Lan/CNEL for residential land use compatibility, thus triggering the CEQA threshold of the Prior EIS/EIR. Because the current project is only one component of the prior "project", its contribution of traffic noise would be less than the full project previously studied. Cumulative Noise Impact The cumulative increase in ambient noise levels would significantly impact residents who live in the subdivision on the east side of Hacienda Drive, immediately south of the project site. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. (No New Impact) Per the Prior EIS/EIR, the increase in baseline traffic conditions (i.e., without the project) is projected to increase by about 3 dBA over the existing noise levels along Hacienda Drive. Adding the 2 dBA of traffic noise from the Hall of Justice project to this cumulative baseline would result in a cumulative traffic noise increase of about 5 dBA along Hacienda Drive. Because the cumulative increase in traffic noise on Hacienda Drive would be greater than 3 dBA and future noise levels would equal or exceed the 60 dB Ldn/CNEL goal for land use compatibility, consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the cumulative impacts of traffic noise are considered significant. Other local roadways would experience an increase of less than 3 dBA over the future baseline conditions. There are noise-sensitive receivers in the Summerhill residential subdivision southeast of the East County Government Center site across Gleason Drive, east of Hacienda Drive. These single-family residences would be affected by traffic noise increases on Hacienda Drive south of Gleason Drive. Sound walls were constructed by the housing developers at the time the housing was constructed to control future traffic noise levels. Those walls were generally intended to address long-term traffic 23 Per Table 10.4 of the 2003 EIS/EIR, in reference to "Scenario B" (Hall of Justice Only), page 10-28 November 30, 2009 page 77 ~j ', .,~° ~. .~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF 1USTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION noise projected as a result of build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; it is not reasonable or feasible to consider increasing the heights of the existing barriers to address the actual noise conditions in the area or the incremental increase in cumulative noise resulting from this and other projects. The City of Dublin found that the East Dublin Specific Plan would result in significant unavoidable traffic noise to existing residences as a result of cumulative development allowed under the Specific Plan, acknowledging that physical constraints may prevent full mitigation of the traffic noise impact. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure 10.2.5a: Traffic Noise. In the future, the City of Dublin and/or County could consider the use of "quiet pavement" options such as Open Grade Asphalt Concrete or Rubberized Asphalt to reduce traffic noise in the area when resurfacing local roadways. This pavement could reduce noise by up to 3 dBA, which would reduce the cumulative traffic noise impact to below 3 dBA and therefore be less than significant. Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 10.2.5 could reduce cumulative traffic noise over the long-term if the local pavement resurfacing and maintenance program were to utilize the "quiet pavement" options. However, cumulative impacts related to increased traffic-generated noise, over the short-term, is expected to be Signifccant and Unavoidable. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in a substantial increase in the severity of this previously identified traffic noise impact beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. Because the current project would generate less traffic than the "full" project analyzed in the Prior EIS/EIR, the severity of this impact would be reduced as compared that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR, but not to a level of less than significant. d): Construction Noise Impact: Construction-generated noise generated by the project would exceed 60 dBA Leq. Given that there are residents living in close proximity to the project site, construction noise impacts were considered to be significant and unavoidable. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. (No New Impact) Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure from the Prior EIS/EIR is applicable to the Project: Mitigation Measure 10.3.5: Controls on Construction Equipment and Activity. a) Construction Scheduling. Limit noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose, to daytime, weekday non-holiday hours (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Page 78 November 30, 2009 _'. i~~ ~~~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT b) Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. c) Idling Prohibitions. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engine. d) Equipment Location and Shielding. Locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as air compressors as far as practical from existing nearby residences and other noise-sensitive land. uses. Acoustically shield such equipment. e) Quiet Equipment Selection. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. (Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order). f) Notification. Notify neighbors located within 500 feet of the construction site of the construction schedule, in writing. g) Noise Disturbance Coordinator. Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a contact telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. (The Agency should be responsible for designating a noise disturbance coordinator and the individual project sponsor should be responsible for posting the phone number and providing construction schedule notices.). Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 10.3.5 would reduce demolition /construction equipment noise, but a Significant and Unavoidable impact would remain for an extended period of time for some residents near the activity. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in new significant construction-related noise impact, or a substantial increase in the severity of this previously identified construction-related noise impact on nearby residents. Criteria a and f): Airport Noise The Project is not located within an airport land use plan, nor is it located within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The Project site is not within a Noise or Safety Referral Zone. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not be significantly impacted by airport noise. (No Impact) November 30, 2009 page 79 ~.'' !~ ~~ ~~~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION ! No New 1 mpact Less Than From those Potentially Significant Identified in No Impact / Significant with New the Prior Less than Impact Mitigation EIS/EIR Significant XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area either directly (for example by proposing new homes and businesses) or ~ ~ ~ f=/( LI indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ^ ^ ^ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ^ ~ ^ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Criteria a, b and c): Population Growth and Displacement 1 mpact: The Project would not induce substantial population growth, displace substantial numbers of existing housing or displace substantial numbers of people. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not significantly impact population or housing. (No Impact) The proposed Project would provide new facilities for existing court rooms and related functions of the County's judicial system that are currently housed in rented buildings in the City of Pleasanton and other locations. The existing facilities would be vacated and the County's judicial operations would be relocated to the East County Government Center site upon completion of construction. The project site does not include construction or displacement of housing, displacement of people or any other indirect inducement for substantial population increase. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in new significant environmental effects on population and housing. Page 80 November 30, 2009 I 1,.~ - f 5~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT No New Impact From Less Than those Potentially Significant Identified in No Impact / Significant with Revised the Prior Less than Impact Mitigation EIS/EIR Significant XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) fire protection? ii) Police protection? ~ ~ ~ Q iii) Schools? ~ ~ ~ Q iv) Parks? ~ ~ ~ Q v) Other public facilities -Solid Waste ~ ~ Q v) Other public facilities -Library Services ~ ~ ~ Q Criteria a-i): Fire Protection: Impact: Construction of a new East County Hall of Justice would increase demand for fire protection services, emergency medical response services and hazardous materials response services to this site, but would not result in a loss of acceptable response times or other performance standards of the Alameda County Fire Department. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant new impact on fire protection services. (Less than Significant) Response time for emergency services provided by the ACFD from the new Fire Station 17 (located adjacent to the Government Center site at the corner of Madigan and Broder Boulevard) would be no more than two minutes, well within the five-minute response time established by the City of Dublin. Criteria a-ii): Police Services Impact The proposed courthouse and related facilities of the project would not result in a significant reduction in Dublin Police Department performance objectives, nor result in significant adverse physical or environmental impacts. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the November 30, 2009 page 81 i~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on police services. (Less than Signif cant) The Alameda County Sheriff s Office would be responsible for security at all courthouses at the East County Government Center site. Security would include a central entrance with weapon screening and metal detectors, surveillance and alarms. Additionally, each courtroom would be staffed with a Sheriff Department bailiff and the bailiff would be responsible for maintaining control of in-custody detainees in court and maintaining decorum in juvenile courts. As indicated in the Prior EIS/EIR, the Dublin Police Department would not be required to provide police services at the Hall of Justice, but there would nonetheless be an increased need for police services in the City related to the increase in vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic traveling along roadways leading to and from the site, and people who work or conduct business at the Hall of Justice frequenting nearby shops and restaurants. Although the Dublin Police Department would continue to operate from its offices at the City's Civic Center, it may need to increase staffing levels and equipment in order to keep pace with increased demand for police services. Criteria a-iii): Schools Impact The proposed Project would not place a significant burden on the Dublin Unified School District. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant new impact on schools. (Less than Significant) Although Hall of Justice employees with school-age children may move to Dublin, this population would not place a significant burden on the Dublin Unified School District because the district has included, in its facilities planning, planned growth in Dublin, accounting for this increase. Criteria a-iv): Parks Impact Construction and operation of the proposed project would not overburden the local parks and recreation service providers. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant new impact on parks. (Less than Significant) The Prior EIS/EIR indicated that the addition of a new East County Hall of Justice would increase demand for parks and recreation services due to the presence of employees and visitors. However, construction and operation of these facilities would not overburden the local parks and recreation service providers because City of Dublin has already accounted for this projected increase within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which calls for several new park facilities in the area. Further, by agreement with Alameda County, the City of Dublin would not assess parks and recreation development fees when it develops County-owned land for use by County governmental agencies. Page 82 November 30, 2009 1.~ ~ 5~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT ~' Criteria a-v): Other Public Facilities (Solid Waste) Impact The proposed Project would result in an increased demand for disposal of solid waste, potentially conflicting with the City's waste diversion goals. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIR. (No New Impact) The Prior EIS/EIR stated that the City of Dublin disposes of approximately 36,000 tons of solid waste per year at the Altamont Landfill (Alameda County, 2000). For the year 2008, the comparable amount was 26,743 tons (City of Dublin, 2009). Construction of a new Hall of Justice at the East County Government Center would increase the generation of solid waste needing collection and disposal within the City of Dublin by approximately 155 toms per year. This increase would be less than 1 percent of the annual solid waste disposed of by the City of Dublin. The Prior EIS/EIR found that it is not likely that this volume of solid waste would threaten landfill capacity, but could conflict with the City's waste diversion goals. In 2008, both the County of Alameda and the City of Dublin increased their goals for solid waste reduction from 50% to 75% by 2010. Mitigation Measure 13.6.5B has been modified accordingly so as to conform to this new information. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 13.6.56: Waste Reduction and Diversion. The Alameda County Probation Department and Superior Court, in cooperation with the County's General Service Agency, should prepare a plan that demonstrates good faith efforts at diverting at least 75 percent of the solid waste generated by the new facility from landfill disposal via waste reduction and recycling. Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 13.6.SB would reduce impacts to a less than significant level because it requires the County to seek to divert at least 75 percent of the solid waste generated by the new facility, including construction-related waste, from landfill disposal. This level of diversion remains an adequate standard for aless-than-significant impact. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified solid waste disposal impacts beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. Criteria a-v): Other Public Facilities (Library Services) Impact The addition of a new East County Hall of Justice would not significantly increase demand for library services. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the ' proposed Project would not result in a significant new impact on libraries. (Less than Significant) Employees of the East County Hall of Justice would not be expected to place any more significant demand on County library services than employees of other businesses in Dublin. Construction of a November 30, 2009 _ page 83 ~~~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF 1USTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION new governmental facility would not result in a failure to achieve performance objectives by the City Library. Page 84 November 30, 2009 IYI is~ ~ ~~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT E No New Impact Less Than From those Potentially Significant Identified in No Impact Significant with Revised the Prior /Less than Impact Mitieation EIS/EIR Significant XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical ~ ~ ~ Q deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational ^ ^ ^ facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Criteria a and b): Recreation The proposed Project would not result in a significant new impact on the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or recreational facilities. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant new impact on recreation facilities. (Less than Significant) As indicated in the Prior EIS/EIR, development of the Hall of Justice project would slightly increase demand for recreation and park services, but construction and operation of these facilities would not overburden the local parks and recreation service providers. November 30, 2009 ~~ ~~ page 85 ~.?n5?' I ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ A EAST COUNTY HALL, OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION No New Less Than Impact Significant From those Potentially with Identified No Impact Significant Revised in the Prior /Less than Impact Mitigation EIS/EIR Significant XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- would the project: a) An increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections). This criteria is further defined as being significant if the project ^ ^ Q ^ would cause the baseline level of service to degrade to worse than LOS D at signalized intersections; and/or would increase the volume/capacity ratio of a signalized intersection operating at LOS E under baselines conditions to increase by more than t percent. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? This criteria is further defined as being significant if the project would cause the baseline level of ^ ^ ~ ^ service to degrade to worse than LOSE (i.e. to LOS F) on routes of regional significance, and/or would increase the volume/capacity ratio by more than 7 percent for a roadway segment already operating at LOS F under baseline conditions. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in ^ ^ ^ Q substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm ^ ^ ^ Q equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^ Q fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ Q g) A conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting ^ ^ ^ alternative transportation. Criteria a): Increase in Traffic Impact: The Hall of Justice project would add a significant volume of traffic to two local intersections; Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard during the p.m. peak hour period. The project's contribution of traffic to these intersections would exceed established thresholds and would be a significant effect. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. (No New Impact) The threshold used in the Prior EIS/EIR for identifying a significant effect on local intersections is if the project would add traffic that would cause the baseline level of service to degrade to worse than LOS D at signalized intersections; and/or would increase the volume/capacity ratio of a signalized intersection operating at LOS E under baselines conditions to increase by more than 1 percent. Page 86 November 3Q 2009 --~ ~i I ~~~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT The traffic analysis contained in the Prior EIS/EIR evaluated a number of potential development scenarios for the East County Government Center site. Among those development scenarios was Scenario "B", further defined as development of an East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms located on the East County Government Center site, with a Juvenile Justice Facility located elsewhere outside of the area of influence in Dublin. Other cumulative development would occur according to the City of Dublin's Specific Plan and General Plan. The Scenario "B" analysis from the Prior EIS/EIR is representative of the current Hall of Justice project. According to that prior Scenario "B" analysis, the current Hall of Justice project would generate approximately 5,938 daily trips, 710 a.m. peak hour trips and 710 p.m. peak hour trips on a typical weekday. This additional traffic would contribute to significant impacts at the following local intersections: The intersection of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard would operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour both with and without the project, and the project would add more than 4% of the total traffic -thus increasing the volume/capacity ratio by more than 4% over baseline conditions. This contribution of traffic would be considered a significant effect of the Project. The intersection of Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard would operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour both with and without the project, and the project would add more than 1% of the total traffic -thus increasing the volume/capacity ratio by more than 1 % over baseline conditions. This contribution of traffic would be considered a significant effect of the Project. Under the Scenario "B" analysis from the Prior EIS/EIR, the other 17 of the 19 study intersections are expected to continue to operate acceptably during the peak hours. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the Prior EIS/EIR are applicable to the Project: Mitigation Measure 9.1.5a: Contribute Funds Toward the Implementation of the Scarlett Drive Extension. The intersection of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard is expected to operate unacceptably during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. In order to minimize the Project's effect on the Dougherty Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection, the County should contribute a fair share of funding toward the implementation of the Scarlett Drive extension, which is a planned improvement that would be jointly funded by the City and numerous development sponsors. Mitigation Measure 9.1.5b: Modify Configuration of Tassaiara Road / Dublin Blvd. Intersection. The Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection is expected to operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour with Baseline traffic and with Project-generated traffic. The County should contribute a fair share of funding toward the conversion of an eastbound through lane to a third right-turn lane (the same mitigation recommended under the Baseline scenario). Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EISBIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 9.1.5a and 9.1.5b would reduce cumulative traffic impacts at these intersections. The County's fair-share of funding toward the conversion of an eastbound through lane to a third right-turn lane at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road would November 30, 2009 page 87 EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION mitigate the project's impact at this intersection. When implemented, this intersection improvement would improve operations to acceptable conditions and mitigate this impact to a level of Less than Significant. The County's fair-share of funding toward the extension of Scarlett Drive to connect Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard would mitigate the project's impact at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. However, when implemented, the extension of Scarlett drive would not be able to improve operations to acceptable conditions. Additional mitigation at the intersection of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard is not feasible due to physical constraints at this location. Thus, the impact at Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard would remain Significant and Unavoidable. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in a substantial increase in the severity of this previously identified traffic impact beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. Criteria b): Meeting the Requirements for the Land Use Analysis Program Established by the County Congestion Management Program for Designated Roads or Highways Impact The Hall of Justice project would add a significant volume of traffic to Dougherty Road south of Dublin Boulevard in the northbound direction in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods, and southbound in the p.m. peak period. Dougherty Road is part of the Metropolitan Transportation System roadways for which the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) requires analysis to be conducted. The project's contribution of traffic to this roadway would exceed established thresholds and would be a significant effect. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. (No New Impact) The threshold for identifying a significant effect on CMA-designated MTS roadways is if the project would add traffic that would exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways. This criteria is further defined as being significant if the project would cause the baseline level of service to degrade to worse than LOSE (i.e. to LOS F) on routes of regional significance, and/or would increase the volume/capacity ratio by more than 1 percent for a roadway segment already operating at LOS F under baseline conditions. As discussed above, the Scenario "B" analysis from the Prior EIS/EIR is representative of the current Hall of Justice project. According to that prior Scenario "B" analysis, the current Hall of Justice project would contribute to the following level of service conditions on CMA-designated MTS roadways: Dougherty Road northbound, south of Dublin Boulevard would change from LOS E to LOS F during the a.m. peak hours when traffic generated by the Project is added. The Project's contribution of traffic to this roadway during the a.m. peak hour would be approximately 5%. This addition of traffic is a significant effect of the Project. Dougherty Road northbound, south of Dublin Boulevard would also operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour both with and without the project, and the project would add more than 1% of the total traffic -thus increasing the volume/capacity ratio by more than 1 % over baseline conditions. This contribution of traffic would be considered a significant effect of the Project. Page 88 November 30, 2009 ~~ ~ ~~~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF 7USTICE PROJECT Dougherty Road southbound, south of Dublin Boulevard would change from LOS E to LOS F during the p.m. peak hours when traffic generated by the Project is added. The .Project's contribution of traffic to this roadway during the p.m. peak hour would be approximately 4%, which would also be considered a significant effect of the Project. The Prior EIS/EIR indicated that traffic generated by the project (i.e., Scenario "B") would not change level of service from LOS E to LOS F, or increase the volume/capacity ratio by more than 1 % for a roadway segment already operating at LOS F under baseline conditions on any other MTS roadways.24 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure from the Prior EIS/EIR is applicable to the Project: Mitigation Measure 9.4.5a: TSM/TDM Program. The County of Alameda should implement a Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management program for this Project designed to reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles, particularly during peak hour periods. This program should include such strategies as on-site distribution of transit information and passes, provision of shuttle services to and from the BART station, participation in ridesharing services, preferential parking for vanpools and carpools, provision of on-site bicycle parking and employee showers, and potentially flexible or staggered work hours. Mitigation Measure 9.4.5b: Enhanced Transit Program. The County of Alameda should implement an enhanced transit program designed to improve access to the Project, with particular emphasis on expanding LAVTA route coverage and hours serving the site. Such a program should also consider the potential for participation in funding LAVTA shuttle services to and from the BART station. Mitigation Measure 9.4.5c: TVTC Fees. The County of Alameda should contribute a proportionate amount to regional transportation mitigation programs as determined by the current Tri-Valley Transportation Council fee program. Regional improvements that may be implemented through use of these fees may include enhanced rail and feeder bus transit services, construction or upgrading of 1- 580 and/or I-680 freeways, and/or construction or upgrading of alternative road corridors to relieve demand on the I-580 and 1- 680 freeways. 24 The Prior EISBIR concluded that under Scenario B there would be LOS F conditions on I-580 eastbound, east of Tassajara Road in the p.m. peak, and on I-680 northbound, north of I-580 in the p.m. peak. However, the project (Scenario "B") would neither cause the baseline level of service to degrade from LOS E to LOS F, or increase the volume/capacity ratio by more than 1 percent when these roadway segments were already operating at LOS F under baseline conditions. November 30, 2009 page 89 I,'~- ~' ~~ i~~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION Resulting level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 9.4.Sa, 9.4.Sb and 9.4.5c would reduce cumulative traffic impacts on MTS roadways, but would not be capable of reducing impacts to a less than significant level. The project's contribution to cumulative traffic impacts on Dougherty Road (an MTS roadway) would remain Significant and Unavoidable. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in a substantial increase in the severity of this previously identified traffic impact beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. Criteria b (2): Cumulative Traffic Impacts. Impact: The Prior EIS/EIR included an analysis of cumulative traffic impacts ("Year 2025 Cumulative conditions" at pp. 17.16 -17.55) and found that "development of the East County Government Center site ...under any of the six scenarios evaluated would contribute traffic to roadway segments expected to experience unacceptable levels of service (LOS F) in 2025." The cumulative scenario that most closely conforms to the current East County Hall of Justice project was Scenario A2, which is defined in the Prior EIS/EIR as "...the same as the Year 2025 cumulative conditions, with the addition of traffic from the proposed 13 courtrooms and 225,000 square feet of office use to be located at the ECGC." The following mitigation measures from the Prior EIS/EIR are applicable to the project: Mitigation Measure 17.3.5a and 17.3.6a: Contribute a Fair Share of Funds Toward the Implementation of Local Roadway and Intersection Improvements. Several roadway and intersection projects are expected to be required as a result of background cumulative development in the area. The Project would add traffic to those areas adversely affected, and so should contribute a fair share towards the necessary improvements. Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard with and without the Scarlett Drive extension between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. The extension would run northwest from the intersection of Dublin Boulevard at Scarlett Drive, allowing vehicles heading west on Dublin Boulevard to north on Dougherty Road and south on Dougherty Road to east on Dublin Boulevard to bypass the Dublin/Dougherty intersection. Therefore, traffic making southbound left turns and westbound right turns would be reduced. Even with a 75 percent reduction in traffic for these movements, Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard is expected to operate at LOS F. There are no feasible mitigation measures given the physical constraints at this intersection. Perhaps future improvements to I-580 may reduce the amount of traffic diverting from the freeway to this intersection. Hacienda Drive/1-580 Westbound Off-ramp: The northbound Hacienda Drive approach (overcrossing) would need to be widened so that the right most through lane only serves traffic Page 90 November 30, 2009 I~- I', 143 ~ I<}F COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT headed for the I-580 westbound loop on-ramp. Furthermore, an additional northbound through lanes would be needed on the overpass to supplement the existing three northbound through lanes. Tassajara Road/1-580 Westbound Off-ramp: ~ Three southbound through lanes would be needed on Tassajara Road approach. This improvement is currently under construction as part of the new Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road overpass over I-580. Tassajara Road/G/eason Drive To mitigate Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive, the southbound Tassajara Road would need one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right- turn lane. The existing curb-to-curb width on this approach is wide enough for two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Tassajara Road/Central Parkway was analyzed without the Fallon Road Extension. Without the Extension, the level of service at this intersection is expected to be LOSE (1.00) during the a. m. peak hour as shown on Table 9. Therefore, a third through lane would be needed on the southbound Tassajara Road approach to Central Parkway. Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard. The southbound Tassajara Road approach would need to be widened to include three left-turn lanes, four through lanes and two right- turn lanes. The existing curb-to-curb width on this approach is wide enough for two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. The northbound Tassajara Road approach would need to be widened to include three left-turn lanes, four through lanes and one right-turn lane. The existing curb-to-curb width on this approach is wide enough for three left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would need to be widened to include two left-turn lanes, three through lanes and three right-turn lanes. The existing curb-to-curb width on this approach is wide enough for two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach would need to be widened to include three left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and a shared through/right lane. The existing curb-to-curb width on this approach is wide enough for three left-turn lanes, one through lane, and a share through/right lane. Hopyard Road/1-580 Eastbound Off-ramp: The I-580 eastbound off-ramp approach would need to be widened to include three left-turn lanes (two exists) and two right-turn lanes (already exists). Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp/Pimlico Drive: The northbound Santa Rita Road approach would need to be widened to include three through lanes (two exists) that goes November 30, 2009 ~~ ~~ page 91 ~~'. u-~ ~ ~~~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF 7USTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION onto the overpass and two through lanes (already exists) that feed the I-580 eastbound on-ramp. Mitigation Measure 17.3.5b and 17.3.6b: Implement Local Roadway and Intersection Improvements. Several roadway and intersection projects are triggered by the development of the East County Government Center and/or Site 15A under the various scenarios. The Project should therefore fund the necessary improvements at such time as they are documented as being necessary, unless other funding or alternative improvements have been constructed that alleviate the Project's significant effects. Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive: In addition to the mitigation measure described above for Year 2025 cumulative conditions without the Project, it is expected that the second northbound left-turn lane on Tassajara Road approach would need to be open for traffic. Hacienda Drive/1-580 Eastbound Off-ramp: The Project would result in a need for the I-580 eastbound off-ramp to be widened to include two left turn lanes (already exist), one shared left/right lane, and two right-turn lanes (already exist). Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard: The northbound Hacienda Drive approach would need to include three left-turn lanes (already exist), three through lanes (two exist), and one right turn lane (two exist). The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would need to be widened to include two left-turn lanes (already exist), four through lanes (three exist), and two right-turn lanes (already exist). The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach would need to be widened to include two left-turn lanes (already exist), three through lanes (two exist), and one right-turn lane (already exists). Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway: The southbound Hacienda Drive approach would need to include one left-turn lane (already exists), two through lanes, and one shared through/right turn lane (one right-turn lane exists). Resulting level of significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures 17,2,Sa, 17.2.6a, 17.2.Sb and 17.2.6b would reduce cumulative traffic impacts at all intersections to levels of less than significant except for the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection which would remain significant and unavoidable, as indicated in Table 17.15 in the Prior EIS/EIR. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in a substantial increase in the severity of this previously identified traffic impact beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. Page 92 November 30, 2009 _~~! COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT Criteria c): Change in Air Traffic Patterns Impact Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in any change in air travel patterns. (No Impact) Criteria d): Hazardous Design Features Impact The East County Government Center site is appropriate for the Hall of Justice project. The project would be designed to conform to applicable emergency access codes, including interior existing strategies and emergency response routes, and would include secondary roadway access to the perimeter of the site and buildings. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in any hazardous design feature. (No Impact) Criteria e): Emergency Access Impact The East County Government Center is located in a developed setting with adequate emergency response routes. The site would be developed with secondary access and emergency evacuation routes. Separate access would be provided to the Project from Gleason Drive, Arnold Road, Madigan Avenue and Broder Blvd. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in any conflicts with emergency access. (No Impact) Criteria f): Parking Adequacy Impact The proposed Project would provide sufficient on-site parking to meet anticipated parking demand. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant new parking impact. (No Impact) As estimated in the Prior EIS/EIR, the East County Hall of Justice project is estimated to generate a peak parking demand of 850 spaces at noon during the week, and minimal to no demand for parking spaces on Saturday since the courts would be closed. This parking demand would be accommodated on site in a surface parking lot accessed directly from Gleason Drive and Hacienda Drive, with secondary access from Gleason Drive near Madigan Avenue and at Broder Boulevard. The surface parking lot would include 838 publicly accessible parking stalls and 27 secured parking spaces for judges, for a total of 865 spaces. An additional bus parking facility would be provided at the sally-port for detainee intake. Although the Prior EIS/EIR recommended a mitigation measure that would requires the County to re- stripe the secure parking lot at the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center to accommodate additional jail staff in order to provide additional public parking for the Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice Projects, if only one of the Project components is developed at the site, then it was November 30, 2009 page 93 EAST COUNTY HALL OF 7USTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION recognized that adequate parking could be provided in surface lots on the Project site without providing additional jail staff parking. Mitigation Measure None required. Mitigation Measure 9.2.5: Re-stripe Parking to Increase Capacity, as included in the Prior EIS/EIR is not applicable to the current Hall of Justice project. Criteria g): Increase in Demand for Transit Services, and Conflicts with Adopted Policies, Plans or Programs Supporting Alternative Transportation 1 mpact The East County Hall of Justice would generate transit demand for approximately 594 daily trips, with approximately 71 trips in each of the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on demands for transit services. (Less than Significant) As indicated in the Prior EIS/EIR, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) may consider expanding route coverage and hours to accommodate the increased ridership. The County has drafted a transit plan that analyzes available transit service, travel times, and cost, and the opportunity for improving access to the site. That plan includes cost estimates for improving transit service to the site, and could be implemented to address transit needs. BART has sufficient capacity on trains serving the Dublin/Pleasanton Station to accommodate increased ridership. Demand increases due to the development of the Hall of Justice project would not place a significant demand on the BART system. Transit service will be provided to meet the needs and/or choices of persons who use alternatives to the private automobile. The County of Alameda participates in programs to encourage ridesharing by employees. Those programs would apply to development of this project. Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, provision of motorcycle and bicycle parking, shower facilities for employees, guaranteed ride home, and similar programs are available to varying degrees, and would be incorporated into the Project. Page 94 November 30, 2009 2Y_ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF 7USTICE PROJECT - No New Impact Less Than From those Potentially Significant Identified in No Impact Significant with Revised the Prior /Less than Impact Mitigation EIS/EIR Significant XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- would the pro ject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ^ ^ ^ Q b) Require or result in construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which ^ ^ ^ Q could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which ^ ^ ~ ^ could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded ^ ^ ^ Q entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve ' ^ ^ ^ the project s projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Criteria a and e) Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Capacity Impact: The project would incrementally increase system-wide demand for wastewater treatment and disposal. However, existing and planned wastewater treatment facilities at the Wastewater Treatment Plant can accommodate the wastewater increase attributed to this project. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on wastewater treatment and disposal. (Less than Significant) Future development of this site has been anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin San Ramon Services District's (DSRSD's) long-term service plans. Existing and planned wastewater treatment facilities at the Wastewater Treatment Plant can accommodate the wastewater increase attributed to this alternative. Similarly, completion of the larger Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) wastewater disposal pipe from the DSRSD Wastewater Treatment Plant to the East Bay Dischargers Authority's (EBDA's) outfall pipe to San Francisco Bay would be adequate to accommodate increased wastewater flows from this project. DSRSD currently charges wastewater connection and other fees on all new development within the District's service area. Fees are used for construction of planned wastewater treatment and disposal system capital improvements, as well as ongoing wastewater system maintenance. The Project would pay these wastewater and other fees to the DSRSD, as required. ivy ,:~ X54 November 30, 2009 page 95 ~', J ~~ ~ ~, EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION Criteria b) Wastewater Collection System Impact: The project will install on-site wastewater collection infrastructure from the point of the nearest public infrastructure system into the new facilities. This new connection would be a required improvement for any new facility constructed, and would be part of the overall Project costs. The existing sanitary sewer system owned and operated by DSRSD has been designed and constructed with sufficient capacity to accommodate the wastewater flows from this project. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on the wastewater collection system. (Less than Significant) DSRSD currently charges wastewater connection and other fees on all new development within the District's service area. Fees are used for construction of planned wastewater treatment and collection system capital improvements as well as ongoing wastewater system maintenance. The project would be required to pay these fees as determined by DSRSD. Criteria b): Water Distribution System Impact: The project would connect to the existing Alameda County private water system loop, either at a 16-inch pipe along Arnold Road, or to a 12-inch pipe along Broder Boulevard. Water connections for fire hydrants would be to the nearest pipe on Broder, Gleason or Arnold roads. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EISBIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on the local water delivery system. (Less than Significant) The project site is located within DSRSD's East Dublin service area. DSRSD has prepared a Water Master Plan (DSRSD, 2000), which identifies the potable water delivery system improvements needed for buildout of the East Dublin area. Since this East County Government Center (also including a Juvenile Justice Facility) was assumed as part of the buildout of East Dublin, the water distribution infrastructure needed to serve this site is included in the overall East Dublin system improvements. Both Zone 7 and DSRSD currently charge treatment and connection fees respectively on new development within their service areas. Fees are used for construction of planned water system capital improvements including storage, pumping, transmission and ongoing water system maintenance and improvements. The project would be required to pay these fees as determined by Zone 7 and DSRSD. Criteria c): Storm Drainage Conveyance System Setting The project site lies within Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). The existing storm drainage system available to serve the site is maintained and operated by Zone 7. Surface runoff drains as follows: • Surface runoff from the majority of the East County Government Center site (approximately 35 acres of its western portion) collects in an existing detention basin located on site along the west property boundary at Arnold Road. The detention basin drains into triple 36-inch Page 96 November 30, 2009 ~~ Ilr~a( 15G COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF 1USTICE PROJECT diameter reinforced concrete pipes under Arnold Road, discharging into the Arnold Road channel. • Additionally, an existing 24- to 30-inch storm drain line is located within the western section of Gleason Drive, which drains into the Arnold Road channel. There is also an existing 48-inch-diameter reinforced concrete pipe that conveys a portion of the storm water from the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center along Broder Boulevard and empties into the detention basin. This system conveys an estimated peak flow rate of 75 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the existing jail facility to the existing detention basin. The remainder of the storm water from the jail facility drains southwesterly via a drainage ditch onto the Parks RFTA property. Drainage from the Arnold Road channel discharges to a flow splitter near Central Parkway, with a portion of the flow continuing south in a closed pipe to a triple 54-inch culvert under I-580 at Arnold Road. These pipes convey storm flows into Zone 7's Line G-2. The remainder continues through an open channel to a closed pipe through the BART station and under the I-580. This open channel conveys storm flows into the relatively new Line G-5, which then drains into to Line G-2 south of I- 580. Line G-2 drains into the Chabot Channel and then to Arroyo Mucho. Surface runoff from the remainder of the site (approximately 5 acres of its eastern portion) discharges into a second pipe located within the eastern section of Gleason Drive. This existing 24-inch storm drain line drains easterly to Tassajara Creek (designated Line K by Zone 7). Tassajara Creek drains to the Arroyo Mocho, which then drains to the Arroyo de la Laguna. Alameda Creek receives flows from the Arroyo de la Laguna, and flows in a westerly direction through Niles Canyon until it ultimately discharges to San Francisco Bay. Impact: The existing storm pipes south of the site on Gleason Drive are designed to serve the site in its current undeveloped condition. The project would increase the impervious coverage of the site such that the storm drainage runoff coefficient following development may be greater than the design intent of both of the existing storm drain pipes south of the site along Gleason Drive, and these pipes would not be able to convey all storm water from the developed site. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. (No New Impact) As indicated in the Prior EIS/EIR, construction of a new bypass storm drain system to reduce runoff into the on-site detention basin is planned. The bypass storm drain system includes building a new open channel on Arnold Avenue (between Broder Boulevard and Gleason Drive) and reconfiguring the splitter that drains the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center. The goal is to redirect a larger proportion of the storm water from Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center site through the proposed new channel or through the existing ditch on the Parks RFTA property instead of into the detention basin. If the bypass storm system improvement is completed prior to construction of the project, discharge into the existing storm drain pipe along the western side of Gleason Drive and into the detention basin will not exceed their designed capacity. If the bypass storm system improvement is not completed prior to construction of the Project, the design capacity of both may be exceeded. This would be a potentially significant environmental impact. November 30, 2009 page 97 II ~``' EAST COUNTY HALL OF .IUSTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION On the approximately 5 acres of the eastern portion of the site that drains easterly, new impervious surfaces could also create runoff that may exceed the design capacity of the existing pipe. The proposed bypass system would not address this potentially significant environmental impact. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the Prior EIS/EIR are applicable to the Project: Mitigation Measure 14.5.5: Timely Completion of Bypass Svstem. Adequate storm drainage capacity is contingent upon concurrent construction of the County's bypass system. If the bypass system is not completed in time to service the proposed development at the site, additional off-site storm drainage improvements will be required to provide adequate storm drainage improvements per the interim condition. These alternative improvements may include a new detention basin north of the site to detain storm water runoff. This temporary detention basin would be located at the mouth of the creek that enters the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center from the Parks RFTA property to its north. Mitigation Measure 14.5.6: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Sufficient drainage is required to ensure the protection of water quality, and the SWPPP may include provisions for swales and small detention ponds that would collect water on-site. These measures would augment the existing drainage and would ensure that sufficient drainage is provided and water quality is protected. Creating small on-site detention ponds would also ensure the "no net loss" standard for wetlands is met (as per Mitigation Measure 8.3.5 in Biological Resources). Resulting Level of Significance Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 14.5.5 requiring timely completion of the bypass system or alternative interim storm drain system improvements would prevent storm water capacity problems, and implementation of the SWPPP at the site would reduce impacts to a Less than Significant level. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified storm drainage system impacts beyond that disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR. Criteria d): Availability of Water Supplies to Serve the Project from Existing Entitlements and Resources Impact: Water supplies are currently available to serve the proposed project at this site. Consistent with the conclusions of the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on water supplies. (Less than Significant) Page 98 November 30, 2009 I ~: ~.~. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT Consistent with the assumptions for the Prior EIS/EIR, the proposed Hall of Justice would generate an increase in demand for potable water of approximately 29,000 gallons per day (gpd).25 Additionally, the exterior irrigation water demand, assuming approximately 8 acres of irrigated area, is estimated to be approximately 25,000 gpd, resulting in a total estimated water demand of approximately 54,000 gpd. The Prior EIS/EIR concluded that DSRSD's Final Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin (DSRSD, 2001) demonstrated a secured water supply sufficient to serve more than 4.9 million gpd of potable water to meet the demand for all of Eastern Dublin, assuming significant exterior water demands are met with recycled water. The potable water demand of between 109,000 to 121,000 gpd for an East County Government Center (which also included a Juvenile Justice Facility), was included in this total Eastern Dublin potable water demand estimate. Since the potable water demands of the current project are less than one-half of that assumed in the Prior EIS/EIR, and that the demand assumed in the Prior EIS/EIR could be met with secured supplies, this reduced current demand can also be met with current supplies, assuming significant exterior water demands are met with recycled water. Mitigation Measures Although water supply has been determined to be available to serve the potable water demands of the projecC, the following mitigation measure from the Prior EIS/EIR is applicable to the Project to further reduce water demand, consistent with current regulations: Mitigation Measure 14.1.5A: Water Conservation. The project should be designed to incorporate water conservation strategies such as low-flow plumbing installed throughout the facility, installation of pressure- reducing valves to maintain a maximum of 50 pounds per square inch (psi) water pressure and drinking fountains with self-closing valves. On the exterior, drought-tolerant or native plants should be used for landscaping, lawn and turf areas should be minimized and efficient irrigation systems (i.e., drip systems) installed to minimize evaporation. Additionally, all landscaping at the facility should comply with DSRSD's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance to minimize use of irrigation water. Mitigation Measure 14.1.58: Recycled Water Use. DSRSD ordinance requires that recycled water be used for all approved customer categories for all new land uses, including the East County Government Center site, within the DSRSD potable water service area. The project would be required to install dual water systems and a recycled water distribution system to serve all outdoor irrigation needs of this facility. 25 Give the current project's slightly smaller square footage, this previous estimate is likely over-conservative and the project's actual water demand would be less than previously estimated. November 30, 2009 page 99 I ', 1~ EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT COiJNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION Resulting Level of Significance Although this impact is considered less than significant due to the availability of water supplies from DSRSD to serve the project, the mitigation measures above would serve to further reduce water demand consistent with DSRSD ordinances and regulations. Increased demand for electrical, gas and telecommunication services Impact: The Prior EIS/EIR [Impact 14.6.5] found that although a new East County Government Center would increase the demand for electrical, gas and telecommunications service in the area, the supply lines and capacity for these services already exist to serve future governmental facilities in this area. And although electrical services are available to serve this site, the following mitigation measure (measure 14.6.2B, which is the same as 14.6.5] is recommended to reduce overall energy demand for this alternative: Mitigation Measure 14.6.28: Enerpv Conservation. The County of Alameda should consider the potential for fulfilling some portion of its energy needs through the use of on-site solar panels and/or steam energy. Consistent with the conclusion of the Prior EIS/EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 14.6.2B, requiring that the County consider the use of on-site solar panels and/or steam energy as means to fulfill a portion of its energy needs, would reduce potential environmental consequences associated with construction of new gas lines to a less than significant level. There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts on the demand for electrical, gas or telecommunication services beyond that disclosed in the Frior EIS/EIR. Page 100 ~~ November 30, 2009 ~'~y_l COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE } ~ 1 ~~- EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE PROJECT No New Impact From those Less Than Identified in Potentially Significant Previous No Impact / Significant with Revised CEQA Less than Impact Mitigation Documents Significant a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ^ ^ ^ Q community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when ^ ^ Q ^ viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ^ ^ ~ ^ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Explanation: 1) This Initial Study Determination does not indicate that there are any significant and unavoidable impacts related to biology, hydrology or water quality issues associated with the proposed Project that would substantially degrade the quality of the environment. Implementation of the Project including its required mitigation measures would not threaten to eliminate a plant or animal, nor reduce the number nor restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species (Less than Significant). There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in new significant environmental effects that would potentially degrade the quality of the environment, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effect that would potentially degrade the quality of the environment. 2) The Prior EIS/EIR found several cumulatively considerable impacts associated with development at the East County Hall of Justice site pertaining to the issues of traffic, air quality and noise. Although mitigation measures are required of the Projects to address these cumulative effects, impacts related to cumulative traffic on Dougherty Road, cumulative traffic at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection and traffic noise would remain significant and unavoidable. These cumulative impacts were fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR (No New Impact). There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in new significant cumulative environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified cumulative environmental effects. 3) The proposed Project would result in a significant but short-term, temporary impact on air quality from construction-related machinery exhaust. Construction equipment-generated diesel exhaust is a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) that poses a potentially significant impact to November 30, 2009 ~ page 101 ~.,~ '~' EAST COUNTY HALL OF 1USTICE PROJECT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION nearby receptors. This impact was fully discussed and disclosed in the Prior EIS/EIR (No New Impact). There are no changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information that would result in new significant environmental effects that would cause a substantial adverse effect on humans, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effect that would cause a substantial adverse effect on humans. Page 102 ~ November 30, 2009