HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Eastern Dublin GPA
-
.
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
MAY 10, 1993
SUBJECT:
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA),
Specific Plan (SP), Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) and. related project
implementation including a property tax
exchange agreement, amendment to the Sphere
of Influence, and annexation to the city of
Dublin. and the Dublin San Ramon Services
District. (DSRSD)
-pc. ~ Brenda A. Gillarde, Project. Coordinator
PREPARED BY:
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1. /Planning Commission Resolution, dated
May 3,1993
2. I Addendum to the Draft EIR, May 4, 1993
3. j/Excerpts from the May 3, 1993 Planning
commission Staff Report
4. Resolution Certifying the Addendum and
the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment. and Specific Plan
5. Resolution Approving Agreement with
County of Alameda and Surplus Property
Authority; with modified agreement'
attached
6. / Resolution Adopting the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan; Making Findings
Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act and Adopting a Statement of
overriding Considerations for the
East~rn Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan; and Adopting a
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and ~pecific Plan
- /'Exhibit A: Findings/Statement of
. Overriding Considerations (under
separate cover)
Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring
Program: Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan/General Plan Amendment (under
separate cover)
/7. MOdified Land Use Concept for Eastern
Dublin
)
----------------~----------------------~-----~------------------------
ITEM NO.
COPIES TO:
o
~y
. y
:.
RECOMMENDATION:
1r
~.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None
DESCRIPTION:
A. BACKGROUND
.
8. Draft Eastern Dublin GPA, SP, EIR and
related documents (previously provided
under separate cover)
1.
Open public hearing on Planning
commission recommendations regarding
modifications to Alternative 2
Hear Staff presentation
Receive public testimony on Planning
Commission recommendations
Close public hearing and deliberate
Adopt resolution certifying the adequacy
of the Addendum and the Final EIR
Adopt resolution approving property tax
exchange agreement with County of
Alameda and Surplus Property Authority
Adopt resolution adopting the Eastern
Dublin GPA and Eastern Dublin SPi making
findings pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act and adopting a
statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Eastern Dublin GPA and SPiand
adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program
for the Eastern Dublin GPA and SP
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
At the April 27, 19$3 City Council meeting, the Council directed that
the modified Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and specific Plan
be referred back to the Planning Commission for its consideration and
recommendation. Th$ Planning commission held a public hearing on May
3, 1993 and recommended City Council approval of the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendm$nt and Specific Plan - Alternative 2 with
Modifications (refet to Attachment 1 for Planning Commission
resolution).
The Planning Commis.ion agreed with all of the modifications
previously recommended by the Council except for the transit spine.
The Planning Commis$ion recommended that the spine remain two lanes
through the Town center. The Commission also made. minor additions to
two policies on schQols that were not previously considered by the
Council. These pOlicies are included in this Staff Report under the
Specific Plan secti~n.
The purpose of the ~ay 10, 1993 City Council meeting is to conduct a
public hearing on t~e Planning Commission recommendations for the
modified project and for the Council to then consider taking action.
Each of the issues requiring Council action is diSCUSsed below.
2
.
.
B. DISCUSSION
1. certifica1:ion the Addendum and the Final EIR
a. The ~ddendum
As djiscussed in .the April 27, 1993 Staff Report, Staff
prep{ired an Addendum.to.the. Draft EIR to determine
poteptial impacts of Alternative 2 with Modifications
(see Attachment 2J. Acc.ording<to Section 15164 of the
CEQA! Guidelines, an addendum can be prepared if:
1) i None of the conditions requiring a subsequent or
. supplementalEI~ have occurred:
. a) Subsequent. changes in the project do not
involve any new significant environmental
impacts not previously considered in the EIR;
. b) Substantial changes have not occurred with
respect to.the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will involye new
significant environmental impacts not
previously covered in the EIR;
2) . Only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary to make the.EIR adequate; and
3) Changes to theEIR made by the addendum do not
raise important new issues about the significant
effects on the environment.
The conclUsion of the Addendum, which includes an Initial
Study with additional explanatory text, .isthat the modified
project r:equires only minor.technical changes or additions
to the EI~ that do not raise important new issues about the
revised project'ssignificant.effectsonthe environment.
The revisled proj ectdoes. not create any environmental
impacts ~hatarenotalreadydiscussed in the .EIR. These
impacts ~re mitigated either by policies and programs in the
Specific iPlan or by additionalmitigations.identifi~d in the
EIR. Th~ conclusion of the Initial study is that a
supplement to the EIR is.not required for Alternative 2 with
modificatiions.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the
city couJicil to consider the Addendum with the Final EIR
prior to imaking a decision on the>project.
b~ The IFinal EIR
CEQA requires that a Lead Agency certify that:
3
. .
.
.
"(a) The Ifinal EIR has been completed incompliance with
CEQAi; and
(b) The final EIR was presented..to the. decision-making body
of the Lead Agency and that the decision-making body
revi~wed and considered the information contained.in
the ~inal EIR prior to approving the project."
The Final! EI:R for Eastern Dublin consists of the following:
Draf~ Environmental Impact Report (Part I), August 28,
1992'
Draft Environmental Impact Report. Appendix (part. II),
Augulst 28, 1992
Lettier from DKS Associates to Laurence Tong dated
Dec~ber 15, 1992.
Resp!onses to Comments. on the . Draft EIR, December 7,
19921 and December 21,1992
Accordin~ to part (a) above, the Lead Agency must. certify
that the Ifinal EIR has been completed in compliance with
CEQA. C~pletionin compliance with CEQA addresses the
issue of iadequacy. According to section 15151.ofthe 1992
CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must provide sufficient analysis to
inform d~cision-makers of the environmental consequences of
a projec~.
The anal~sis does not have to be exhaustive but of
sufficient scope to provide the. critical known information
about sp~cific issues.. EIR adequacy. is not based on the
severity!of the impacts<butwhether the. information has been
presented in accordance with State requirements.
Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate.
Presentation in accordance with state requirements ~efers to
the cont~nt requirementsforanEIR as identified in the
CEQA Guiqelines. According to those guidelines,. anEIR must
identify !significant environmental effectsof.a project and
appropria,te, feasible measures to mitigate the impacts. . .The
severity.'of the impact after mitigation must also evaluate
cumulati~e impacts, growth inducing impacts and alternatives
to the pltoject.
staff believes that the Eastern Dublin EIR has been prepared
in full qompliancewith the state guidelines, thereby
meeting qriteria(a) previously described. All relevant
issues h~ve been identified, mitigation measures formulated,
and the ~everity of impacts after mitigation discussed.
Three prqject alternatives and their relative environmental
impacts were discussed, as.well as other CEQA required
topics (ltefer to the EIR<Table of contents)
4
. .
.
.
staff recpmmends City Council approval of the resolution
certifying the Addendum and the Final EIR for Eastern
Dublin.
2. Approvingl the Aqreement with.the County of.Alameda
In July 1991, the City Council. agreed to consider a mixed
use plan iinstead of a business park designation on the Santa
Rita prop~rty. As part of the consideration,. the County of
Alameda agreed to renegotiate the 1986 property tax exchange
agreement!. The County and. City. Staff prepared a new draft
property jtax exchange agreement which would be beneficial to
both agenpies regarding tax Sharing, services, and
infrastructure._ That draft agreement .i. was previously
discussedl by the City council at its public hearing on
January 14, 1993.
During thja city council hearing on April 27,1993, County
staff reqUested consideration of allowing some General
Commerciail uses in an approximately 54 acre.County-owned
area designated Campus Office. . The area is .located at the
southwest I corner of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road.
~~ea~~~~tte a~~n~~I~i:ia~~sb~~~ea;:~~I~:d.(;~::~~;~h:;~e~)~t
On May 4,! 1993, the County Board of supervisors approved the
modified ~raft agreement.
If the Cit:ydoes not adopt theGPA and SP as proposed for
the santa! Rita property, or adopts plans with less than 85%
of the de~elopmentyieldidentified in the agreement, .there
will be no agreement.
After the! agreement becomes effective, a change in land use
by the Ci~y would not make the agreement ineffective if the
County applied> for the change.
If the Ci~y later reduces the development yield by more than
15% of thfit shown in Exhibit I of the agreement without the
County's consent, the city would lose all property tax for
eastern D~blin and the city wOQld have no land use control
over the.$anta Rita property.
Staff recommends City CoUncil approval of the resolution
approving I the agreement with .the county of Alameda and the
Surplus ptoperty Authority.
3.
Staff has! prepared a resolution covering several.actions,
each ofw~ich is discussed below, in the order. the Council
should consider them. Although the items can be considered
5
i.
.
separately, adoption of the .. re.solution should be a single
action b~ the council.
a. Adoqtion of the General Plan Amendment
This portion of the resolution will adopt the Eastern
DublJin General Plan Amendment (GPA), as revised by the
Cit~Council at its April .27, .1993 meeting and. as
recqmmended by the Planning commission meeting on
MaY!3, 1993, except with respect to the width of the
Transit Spine.
The IPlanning commission. concurred with the Council's
recdmmendation tp change.the GPA to reflect the.Draft
Env~ronmental Impact Report Alternative 2 with certain
mod~fications. Those modifications are:
1) 1 Modify the land use.... map .toreflect the development
concept in Alternative 2 in the Eastern Dublin
Draft EIR, dated August 28, 1992, with
modifications.
2) Designate thear~aoutside theci ty 's cu.rrent
Sphere of Influence (SOI) as< "Fu.ture stud.y Area....
Designate the underlying land use as
"Agricultural." The corresponding zoning will be
Agricultural with 1 unit per 100 acres, which is
the same as currently allowed by the. Alameda
County General Plan.
3) Add the following text to the GPa regarding the
future study area:
"The 'Future ~tudy Area' designation in the
General Plan ~san indication of the City.of
Dublin's interest in the area and the need for
additionalstudies.of environmental constraints,
future land uses, infrastructure, and other
issues. No land.. use determinations would be made
in this designation until more inforIl\ation is
available to determine the most suitable .typeof
development or preservation for the area. II
4)
Add the following text regarding the Agricultural
land use designation:
"Aqricultural(lunits per 100 qrossresiClen1;ial
acres). Accommodates agricultural activities and
other open space uses, such as range and watershed
management, consistent with the site. conditions
and plan policies. This classification includes
privatelY..held lands, as well as public ownerships
not otherwise designated in the plan for Parks and
6
.
.
5)
Open Space, or Public/semi-public uses. Assumed
household size is 3.2 persons per unit."
Add the fOI],owing text regarding residential uses
within the Livermore Airport Protection Area
(APA):
"The Plan allows some low and medium density
residential uses within the APA if, at the time of
prezoning, the residential designations are not
inconsistent with the APA. If, a.t the time of
prezoning, the residential designations are
inconsistent with.the.APA, the residential
designations will convert to "Future study Area"
with an underlying agricultural designation."
6) Add a note to theGPA land use map indicating the
possibility.for General Commercial uses in select
Campus Office areas. Add corresponding text to
the GPA indicatingthat.the shift to allow.either
Campus Office or General commercial. will create
greater flexibility to respond to changing market
conditions that may occur in the future. Also,
such a shift will not be permitted. if the
established traffic levels of service would be
exceeded.
7. Modify the GPAland use map to relocate the
General Commercial designation at the northeast
cOrner of Tassajara Road/Gleason Road to the
northeast .. corner of Tassaj ara . Road/Dublin
Boulevard. This will allow for a large retail
store in this location. The area north of Gleason
Road that was. formerly General cOQercial will be
redesignated Medium Density Residential (6-14
du/ac) .
8. AILGPA text, maps and tables will be modified to
reflect the reduced development potential of the
lands between the SOIand the eastern project
boundary, as well as other editorial changes
needed to ensure internal consistency with the
above modifications.
b. Ado~tionof theS~ecific Plan
Thi~ portion of the resolution adopts the Specific
Plain, as modified by the city council on April 27,
199!3, and as recommended by the Planning Commission on
May! 3, 1993, except with respect to the width of the
Transit spine. The Planning Commission concurs.with
alII of the proposed Council modifications except one,
and! has added two other minor modifications which are
disbussed below.
7
.
.
TheiCouncil should determine whether to incorporate
the$e recommendations into the modified specific Plan,
pri~r to taking' action on the resolution adopting the
plan.
1) The Planning commission reviewed the following
changes to the Specific Plan incorporating a four
lane Transit Spine in the Town Center. These
modifications were generally discussed at the
April 27, 1993 Council meeting but actual text
changes were not available at that time.
The following text changes will be made. Deleted
text is indicated by stri]tcout and added text by
underlining.
a. Changes to the third sentence of Section
5.2.4 Transit Spine on page 50:
It will provide one or two through lanes in
each direction.
b. Figure 5.1 on page 57 is revised to show four
lanes for the Transit Spine between Tassajara
Road and Fallon Road.
c. Changes to the first bullet under Setbacks on
page 79:
No buildinq setbacks beyond the front setback
line alonq ~ the transit spine ri~t of
\/ay 'CROW) (i.e., buildinfs shall should be
built to and parallel with the front property
setback line except to provide for outdoor
dinina areas and entry patios/~lazas. See
Figure 7.3)
d. Changes to Figure 7.3 on page 85:
The word "setback" should be substituted for
the word "property" in the text within and
below the drawing. The text would read as
follows: "Build up to the front property
setback line along the transit spine."
e. Changes to first section of Transit spine "in
the Town Center and Hacienda Gateway" on page
107:
. In the Town Center and Hacienda Gateway
8
.
.
.
within the PUblic.. Right-of-Way . (ROW. . 8 '
~ sidewalk between curbline and ROW
line.
.
Regularly 'spaced street trees in wells
with grates. No planting strips.
.
8' parallel.. parking aisle on each side
of street.
.
No aeteaOlt frem ROW fer euildiftCjo .lQ.!.
setbackfromROWfor.buildinqs. The
setback area should be used for
pedestrian circulation.. window shoPl'iI)g.
outdoor merchandisina. outdoor.cafes and
restaur~nts.and similaf pedestrian-
oriented activities. The citv lnavallQw
the 8' sidewalk to.beused.for the
above-listed activities.bv means.of a
s?ecial encroachment permit. if the
a\?plicant provides an 8' pedest:rian way
within the 10' setback.
.
12' travel lanes.
.
14-foot .landscaped median extending from
intersection to intersection (i.e..
median not to be removed for left-turn
lanes).
Each intersection to be controlled with
four-way stops.
"Bulb"sidewalks into parking lane at
intersections. and pedestrian crossings
and in selectedmi<i-block areas. . to
allow for landscapinq. and. pedestri.an
amenities.
.
.
. Nobuildin9 setbacks bevond the front
setback line. except to provide fqr
outdoor.dininq areas and entry
patios/plazas.
. street amenities program.- see Town
Center commerc:ial guidelines (see Figure
7.44)
f. Figure 7.44 on page 110 is revised to show a
four lane cross section and plan view.
The planningConunission.concurred with the above
text changes but recommended retaining the Transit
Spine as a two lane road through the Town. Center.
9
.
.
2)
b) Proqram8B.paqe 120. Work .withappropriate
school . district (s}.to ensure that the
development.of.new.facilitiesis provided
through the. dedication of school sites ,and/or
the payment.of development fees by developers
or any other means permitted bv law.
The PlanIling Commission concurred with the other
modificatt.ions to the Specific Planas.discussed at the April
27, 1993 !council meeting and as. reflected in the May 3, 1993
Planning I Commission staff Report (see Attachment 3 for
appropri~te excerpts). They are briefly summarized below:
1)
2)
3)
4)
,
Mod~fycertain grading policies to create greater
fle~ibility (see Attachment 3.)
Modify the language requiring a grId.-type street
pattern (see Attachment 3)
Add!language to create greater flexibility in the
des~gn guidelines (s.ee Attacbment3)
Modify the text regarding. residential uses within the
Liv~rmore APA(see Attachment 3; also refer to page?,
iteIl 5 of this Staff Report)
Con$ider.some General. commerqial uses .inselect Campus
Off~ce areas. (see Attachment 3; also refer to page ?,
ite~6 of this staff Report)
Add I language clarifying average intersection level of
service..(see Attachment 3)
Modify the Specific Plan map to extend.the General
Conunercial area. between Dublin Boulevard and .the
Tra~sit Spine and redesignate the area north of Gleason
Road. from General commercial to Medium Density
Res!dential (see Attachment 3; also refer. to page 7,
item 7 of this Staff Report)
5)
6)
7)
10
.
.
The counqil should review the language . described on the
previous Ipagesand in the attached excerpts, make any
further Dlodifications if desired, and determine whether the
two Pla~ing co_ission recomaendations previously discussed
should b~included.
c. Make Finqinqs
This por'tt-ion of the resolution.. conta.ins certain findings as
requirediby CEQA. CEQA stipulates thata.public agency
cannot approve a project >for which an .EIR has been prepared
which id~ntifies one or.more significant environmental
effects ~nless the public agency makes one or more written
findings I for each of those significant effects.
Each fincFng must be accompanied by a brief eXplanation of
the rati~nale for the finding. There are three possible
findings~
1) changes have been incorporated into the project which
sUb$tantially lessen or avoid the significant
environmental effect.
,
2. sucb. changes are within the responsibility and
jur~sdiction of another pUblic agency a.ndnot the
ageJ!icy making.the finding. . Such changes have been, or
can i be, adopted. by such.. other agency.
3. Spe<:ificeconomic,. social,.orotherc.onsid~rationsmake
inf$asible the mitigation.measures or.project
alt$rnatives identified in the final. EIR.
The findings for the BasternDublin project .are contained in
Exhibit It of Attachment 6. Por each significant impact
identifi_d in i;he BasternDu:blin.EIR, one or more of the
above fipdings has been. made.
The coun~il should review the findings and ask staff
question~, if any. The findings would be adopted when the
resoluti<>n for the project (Attachment 6)1s considereeland
action t"ken by the cOlUlcil.
d. overridi~g considerations
This portion of the resolution. contains a stat~mentof
overridihg considerations (SQC)as required by CEQA. CEQA
states tbat decision-makers.mustbalance the benefits of the
proposed i proj ect against its. unavoidable ..adverse
environmental effects. Unavoidable impacts are imJ?acte; for
which mitigations have been proposed, but even with
implementation of the mitigation, the impact will remain
significfint.
11
i.
.
CEQA allows a decision-making body to approve a project with
unavoidal:Ue adverse impacts ifi t can be found that the
"benefit"! of the project outweighs the unavoidable adverse
effects. ! The agency must state in writing the specific
reasons tio support its action.based. on the. final EIRand/or
other information in the record.
The stat~ment of overriding considerations (Exhibit A.of
AttachmeDrt 6) contains the necessary wording to support the
reasons 1(hy the lastern. Dublin project could b.e approved
wi th the Ipresence of unavoidable. a.dverse . effects. The
Council ~hould review this statement and. ask questions of
Staff, i~ any. The SOC would be adopted when the. council
takes actiion on the resolution adopting the project.
e. Mitiqati~n MonitoringProqram
I
state laW requires...a City to adopt a reporting or monitoring
program ~o ensure that the changes .or conditions imposed to
mitigate lor avoid significant environmental effects of a
project are enforced and implemented. The mechanism by
which th~s is achieved is called a Mitigation Monitoring
Program.
Exhibit B of Attachment 6 contains theXitigationXonitoring
Program ~or the Eastern DublinGPA and. Specific Plan. The
,council ~houldreviewthisportion of the resolution a.nd ask
question. of staff, if any. The program would be. adopted
when the!Council takes action on the resolution adopting the
project.
CONCLUSION:
The Council is req4ested to conside:rthe following items and take the
appropriate action~ as indicated below:
1. Planning comm~ssion recommendations for the GPA and Specific
Plan.
The commission recommended minor changes to a policy and program
on 'school ava~lability and also recommended that the Transit
Spine remain two lanes in the Town Center.
council Actio4 Required: Determine whether these changes should
be incorporat..d into the GPAandSpecific Plan.doouments.
2.' Addendum and ~ inalEIR.
The Addendum describes the potential environmental effects of the
modified GPA ~nd Specific Plan. The Addendum concludes that the
revised projeqt does not create any environmental impacts that
are not alreaqy discussed in the Draft EIR.
12
. .
'.
.
The Final EIR bonsists of the Draft EIR (Part I and Part II), a
letter from DKIS Associates ,and Responses to comments. Staff
finds that thel Final EIR has been prepared consistent with all
CEQA requireme!nts.
council ActioQ Required: Consider the Addendum and the pinal
EIR. Ask questions of Staff, if any. Adopt the resolution
certifyinq the Addendum and the Pinal EIR for the Eastern Dublin
GPA and speci~ic Plan.
3. Aqreement wit~ theCountv of Alameda.
The County and City Staffs have modified the draft property tax
exchange agre~ment to accommodate consideration of allowing some
General comme~cial uses on certain County owned area designated
Campus Office.1 The modified draft agreement would be beneficial
to both agenc~es.
Council Actio~ Required: Review the aqreeaent. Ask Staff
questions, if lany. Adopt the aqreeaent.
4. Adoption of t~e Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan.
I
The resolution adopting the Eastern Dublin GPA and specific Plan
contains four!parts: a) adoption of the GPA and specific Plan;
b) adoption o~ findings; c) adoption of a Statement.of Overriding
Consideration~; and d) adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring
Program. .
council Action Required: Review the resolution and eXhibits.
Ask questions!of Staff, if any. Adopt the resolution adopting
the GPA and s~ecific Plan, aakinq findinqs, adoptinq a state.ent
of overridinq!Considerations, and adoptinqa Kitiqation
Konitorinq pr~qram..
13
RESOLUTION NO. 93 - 013
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN -- ALTERNATIVE 2
WITH MODIFICATIONS
Recitals
A. The Planning Commission was directed by the City Council by
Resolution No. 45-93 to hold a public hearing to consider certain
modifications to Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area ("Alternative
2") as described in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
B. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 3, 1993,
for which public notice was duly given, to consider the following
modifications to Alternative 2, as described more fully in the staff
report for the Planning Commission hearing, dated May 3, 1993:
1. Designation of the area outside the City's current
sphere of influence as "future study area."
2. Modification of certain Specific Plan grading policies.
3. Modification of Specific Plan language regarding a
grid-type street pattern.
4. Modification of lane configuration of the Transit Spine
from two lanes to four lanes.
5. Modification of Specific Plan language regarding
flexibility in design guidelines.
6. Modification of residential land uses within the
Airport Protection Area.
7. Modification of Specific Plan to allow General
Commercial uses in certain areas designated as Campus Office.
8. Addition of language to Specific Plan regarding average
intersection level of service.
9. Modification of Specific Plan policy regarding school
availability.
10. Modification of certain General Commercial and Medium
Density Residential land use designations along the eastern side of
Tassajara Road.
C. The Planning Commission considered all written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearing on May 3, 1993, and
AnACHMENT. 1
considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Parts I and II),
dated August 28, 1992, together with Responses to Comments dated
December 7 and 21, 1992, the letter from DKS Associates to Laurence
Tong, dated December 15, 1992, and the staff's recommendation that an
Addendum to the Final EIR should be prepared for the modifications
described in paragraph B above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT The Planning Commission
recommends City Council approval of Alternative 2 as described in the
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan with the modifications set forth in
paragraph B above (except for Paragraph B.4 above) and with the
Revisions to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Revisions
to the Specific Plan, both dated December 21, 1992. The Planning
Commission recommends that the Transit Spine remain two lanes in the
Town Center area.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd day of May, 1993, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North and Rafanelli
NOES: Commissioner Zika
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AND SPECIFIC PLAN
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 91103064
MAY 4, 1993
ATTACHMENT. 2.
ADDENDUM TO EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
May 4, 1993
The City Council of the City of Dublin has
directed that changes be made to the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan as described
in this document and in the attached Initial Study
(Exhibit A attached hereto). The project is a
modification of Alternative 2 of the EIR showing land
beyond the Sphere of Influence designated as "Future
Study Area" and providing a total of approximately
14,000 dwelling units and approximately 10.876 million
square feet of commercial development on approximately
4,200 acres. The project as described in the attached
Initial Study will have no environmental impacts not
addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan.
None of the conditions (described in sections
15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines) requiring
preparation of a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an
EIR respectively have occurred. Subsequent changes in
the project do not involve any significant
environmental impacts not previously considered in the
EIR. Substantial changes have not occurred with
respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will involve new significant
environmental impacts not previously covered in the
EIR. Only minor technical changes or additions (as
described in the attached Initial Study) are necessary
to make the EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan adequate under CEQA. The
changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise
important new issues about the significant effects of
the project on the environment. These statements are
supported by the attached Initial study and the
explanations contained therein.
1
The Addendum for this project has been prepared
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, Title 14, Division
6 of the California Administrative Code (state CEQA
Guidelines) and Section 1.7 of the City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines.
2
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (See Part III for discussion of environmental
topics)
YES MAYBE NO SOURCE2
INITIAL STUDY
(ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM)
(Completed pursuant to city of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines, section 1.6)
APPLICATION NO.:
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name, Address and Phone Number of proponent: city of Dublin, 100
civic Plaza, DUblin, California 94568
2. Agency Requiring Checklist: city of Dublin
3. Name of proposal, if applicable: Modifications to Draft Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment, specific Plan and Environmental
Impact Report.
4. Description of project: The project consists of modifications to
the draft texts and maps of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment (GPA), specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) to allow the following:
See attached description of project
2Refer to appropriate note on page 11
3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (See Part III for discussion of environmental
topics)
YES MAYBE NO SOURCE2
1.
- X= 2~
_X_ _2_
_X_ - 2_
_X_ 2
_X_ 2
_X_ 2
EARTH. will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes of
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
over covering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition,
or erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
_x_
2
g.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
2. AIR. will the proposal result in:
_x=
2
a.
_x=
b.
2
x
2
_x=
2
Substantial air emissions of deterioration of
ambient air quality?
The creation of objectionable odors?
c.
Alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
d.
Construction or alteration of a facility
within one-fourth of a mile of a school which
might emit hazardous air emissions? If Yes,
school district must be consulted and must
be given written notification of the project
not less than 30 days prior to approval of
EIR or Negative Declaration (Pub. Res. Code
21151.4).
3. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
2Refer to appropriate note on page 11
4
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (See Part III for discussion of environmental
topics)
YES MAYBE NO SOURCE2
_X= 2
_X=
2
X 2
- =
X= 2
-
X 2
- -
_X=
2
_X=
2
_X=
2
_X=
_X=
_X=
_X=
_X=
a.
Changes in currents, or the course of
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns or the rate and amount of surface
water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to, temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f.
Alteration of the direction of rate of flow
of ground waters?
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water
supplies?
2
i.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
4. PLANT LIFE. will the proposal result in:
2
Change in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
a.
2
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants?
2
Introduction of new species of plants in a
barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
c.
2
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
5. ANIMAL LIFE. will the proposal result in:
2Refer to appropriate note on page 11
5
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (See Part III for discussion of environmental
topics)
YES MAYBE NO SOURCE2
_X=
_X=
_X=
x
_X=
_X=
X
X
_X=
X
_X=
2
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of animals?
Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
6. NOISE. will the proposal result in:
Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
2
7.
LIGHT AND GLARE. will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
LAND USE. will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area?
9. NATURAL RESOURCES. will the proPQsal result in:
a.
Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
2
b.
b.
Substantial depletion of any non-renewable
natural resource?
2
c.
10. RISK OF UPSET. will the proposal involve:
a.
A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
2
d.
b.
possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
2
a.
POPULATION. will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area?
2Refer to appropriate note on page 11
2
b.
2
8.
2
2
X
2
X
2
2
11.
6
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (See Part III for discussion of environmental
topics)
YES MAYBE NO SOURCE2
_X=
12. HOUSING. will the proposal affect existing
housing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
2
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
result in:
will the proposal
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
X= 2
-
X 2
=
X= 2
-
X= 2
-
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation and traffic systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people and/or
goods?
_X=
2
e.
X
2
f.
Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the following
areas?
_X= 2
a.
_X= 2
_X= 2
b.
_X= 2
d.
_X= 2
_X= 2
Fire protection?
Police protection?
c.
Schools?
Parks or other recreational facilities?
e.
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f.
other governmental services?
15. ENERGY. will the proposal result in:
_X= 2
_X= 2
2Refer to appropriate note on page 11
a.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b.
Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy or require the development
of new sources of energy?
7
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (See Part III for discussion of environmental
topics)
YES MAYBE NO SOURCE2
_X=
_X=
_X_
_X=
X
2
X
X
_X=
X
_X= 2
_X= 2
_X= _2=
_X= 2
16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas?
2
b.
communications systems?
2
d.
Sewer or septic tanks?
2
Storm water drainage?
e.
2
f.
Solid waste and disposal?
17. HUMAN HEALTH. will the proposal result in:
2
Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
a.
2
b.
Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
2
18. AESTHETICS. will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
2
19. RECREATION. will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
a.
Will the proposal result in the alteration of
or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
b.
will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric,
historic, or architecturally significant
building, structure, or object?
c.
Does the proposal have the potential to cause
a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d.
Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the potential impact
area?
2Refer to appropriate note on page 11
8
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (See Part III for discussion of
environmental topics)
YES MAYBE NO SOURCE2
(1) Determination based on location of project.
(2) Determination based on staff office review.
(3) Determination based on field review.
(4) Determination based on the city of Dublin General Plan.
(5) Determination based on the city of Dublin zoning
Ordinance.
(6) Determination based on Specific Plan.
(7) Not applicable.
(8)
2Refer to appropriate note on page 11
11
INITIAL STUDY REGARDING MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT TEXT AND MAPS OF
THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Description of project
The project consists of modifications to the draft text and maps
of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA), specific Plan (SP)
and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to allow the following:
A. Modify the land use map contained in the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1992 to reflect changes to
Alternative 2 of the Eastern Dublin Draft EIR dated August 28, 1992
including a potential reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units.
Areas beyond the Sphere of Influence (SOl) of the city of Dublin but
within the planning area of the General Plan will be designated as
"Future Study Area" with the underlying land use designation of
"Agricultural" (1 unit per 100 gross residential acres) which is
consistent with the current Alameda County General Plan. Fourt~en
acres of the Crosby property which extend beyond the SOl are deleted
from the Specific Plan. A total of approximately 14,000 dwelling
units would be permitted on approximately 2,500 residential acres.
Commercial development would consist of approximately 10.876 million
square feet on approximately 806 acres.
B. Modify maps in the Eastern Dublin specific Plan dated May 27,
1992 to reflect changes made to the General Plan Amendment Map
C. Modify certain policies in the Specific Plan Text and their
corresponding mitigation measures in the Draft EIR. Deleted text is
shown by otrikeout and added text is shown by underlininq. The
following policies are slightly modified:
1. Gradina. Grading policies are slightly modified to allow
more flexibility in site grading and the location of development. The
text changes are as follows:
Policy 6-29/Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.0. Development is not
permitted on the main ridgeline that borders the planning area to
the north and east but ~ may be permitted on the foreground
hills and ridgelands. Minor interruptions of views of the main
ridqeline by individual buildinq masses may be permissible in
limited circumstances where all other remedies have been
exhausted. if a ba~cdrop of natural ridgelineo remaino vioible
\lhen Ty'ieued from deoignatcd ocenic route::; and appropriate
meaoureo are t~cen to minimize vioual impacto.
Policy 6-33. site grading and access roads shall maintain the
natural appearance of not diofigure the upper ridgelands or
foreground hills within the viewshed of travelers along 1-580,
12
Tassajara Road, and the future extension of Fallon Road. streets
should be aligned to follow the natural contours of the
hillsides. straight, linear rows of streets across the face of
the hillsides shall be avoided.
Policy 6-35/Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.2. Extensive areas of flat
~ grading are not appropriate in hillside areas, and should be
avoided. Building pads should be graded individually or stepped,
wherever possible. structures and roadways should be designed in
response to the topographical and geotechnical conditions. ~
hilloide areao in particular, foundationo deoigned for oloping
oiteo ohould be uoed rather than recontouring the oite to
accommodate flat land conotruction techniqueo.
Policy 6-36/Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.3. Building design shall
conform to the natural land form as much as possible. Techniques
such as multi-level foundations, rooflines which complement the
surrounding slopes and topography, and variations in vertical
massing to avoid a monotonous or linear appearance ohall should
be used. In areas of steep topography, structures should be
sited near the street to minimize required grading.
Second guideline under Form, page 99. Concentrate development on
the floor and oideo of valleyo rather than on rideglineo and
nooeo of hillo.
First guideline under Building siting, page 99. Cluster
development buildingo to reduce necessary grading and preserve
open space continuity (see Figure 7.30).
2. Availability of school facilities.
Policy 8-2 on page 119 of the Specific Plan and Mitigation
Measure 3.4/15.0 are modified as follows:
Promote a consolidated development pattern that supports the
logical development of planning area schools, and ensure that
adequate classroom space is available in consultation with the
appropriate school district(s) and in coordination with occupancy
of new homes.
A change is made to Policy 8-3 of the specific Plan on page 119
and Mitigation Measure 3.4 of the EIR as follows:
Ensure that adequate school facilities are available prior to
development in Eastern Dublin to the extent permitted by law.
Program 8B on page 120 of the specific Plan and Mitigation
Measure 3.4/18.0 are modified as follows:
Work with appropriate school district(s) to ensure that the
development of new facilities is provided for through the
dedication of school sites and/or the payment of development fees
by developers or any other means permitted by law.
13
3. Modifications to the requirement for a qrid street pattern.
It was determined that greater flexibility was desired for the type of
street system that would serve the Specific Plan area. The Specific
Plan originally recommended a grid type pattern to facilitate
pedestrian accessibility while still accommodating ample auto
circulation. The revised specific Plan deletes all recommendations
for a grid type street pattern and allows various type of street
systems, including curvilinear designs, as long as pedestrian
accessibility is maintained. Detailed text changes to the Specific
Plan language are as follows:
Page 18, second column, third paragraph, third sentence. In the
commercial area, the goal is to establish the character of a
traditional town center, with a walkable ~ system of streets
well-defined by buildings and a lively, interesting shopping
street catering to pedestrians, aaa transit uses, and others.
Page 79, second column, top of page. ...on establishing the
character of a traditional town center, with a walkable ~
system of streets well-defined by buildings and a lively,
interesting shopping street catering to pedestrians, aaa transit
users, and others.
Page 79, Form, first bullet. Arrange otreeto in a grid pattern,
forming omall bloc]co no more than 500 feet in the longeot
dimenoion. In the community commercial area along Taooajara
Road, blocko may be combined to form larger oiteo for community
ohopping center development. Develop a street system in the Town
Center commercial area that provides at least one parallel street
on either side of the Transit Spine.
Page 79, Form, add a second bullet. In order to preserve the
pedestrian scale in the commercial area. cross streets to the
Transit Spine should be spaced no more than 500 feet apart.
Figure 7.1, Town Center concept Plan. A note will be placed on
the figure stating the following: Note: This fiaure
illustrates one possible interpretation of the street and
development pattern that could result from implementation of the
Specific Plan community desiqn quidelines. However. a qrid
system of streets is not the only acceptable means of providinq
an efficient and pedestrian-friendlY circulation system. The
Concept Plan in this fiqure is illustrative only and is not
intended to restrict in any way development patterns that are
consistent with the objectives of this Specific Plan.
Page 88, Form. The traditional city grid hao flexibility to
accommodate a ~lide range of typco and denoitieo of rcoidential
development, ~ithin an caoily underotood and acccooiblc frame~ork
of public otrecto.
Arrange otrccto in a grid pattern forming relatively omall,
valkable b1ocko no more than 500 feet in the longeot dimenoion.
14
Although Dome grid Dtrccto may be clooed at the cdgco of the
reDidential area to reduce neighborhood through traffic, the
pattern of development ohould continue to follo\l the overall grid
pattern.
Provide a hiqhly interconnected pattern of streets that
accommodates the movement of vehicles while enhancinq
opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
Page 89, Auto Circulation introductory sentence. The grid otrcct
oyotem can accommodate large volumeo of traffic generated by
denDe deTTTelopment, but diopcroeo it among many lml TyTolume Dtreeto
throughout the development. The street system should provide a
hiqhlY interconnected pattern that accommodates the movement of
vehicles while enhancinq opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle
circulation.
Page 89, Pedestrian/bicycle circulation, introductory sentence.
The sidewalks along the grid of neighborhood streets should
provide an active, friendly pedestrian environment connecting
residences to neighborhood parks, squares and the larger open
space system.
4. Transit Spine. The Transit spine will be shown as a four-
lane road, versus the two-lane configuration in the Draft Specific
Plan. The following text changes will be made:
Changes to the third sentence of Section 5.2.4 Transit spine on page
50 of the Specific Plan.
It will provide one or two through lanes in each direction.
Changes to the first bullet under Setbacks on page 79 of the specific
plan.
. No buildinq setbacks beyond the front setback line alonq
ff.em the transit spine right of ,;ay (nOW) (i. e., buildings
ohnl1 should be built to and parallel with the front
property setback line except to provide for outdoor dininq
areas and entry patios/plazas. See Figure 7.3).
Changes to Figure 7.3 on page 85 of the Specific Plan.
The word "setback" should be substituted for the word "property"
in the text within and below the drawing. The text would read as
follows: Build up to the front property setback line along the
transit spine.
Changes to first section of Transit spine "in the Town Center and
Hacienda Gateway" on page 107 of Specific Plan.
. In the Town Center and Hacienda Gateway
15
. within the Public Riqht-Of-Way (ROW). 8' ~ sidewalk
between curbline and ROW line.
. Regularly spaced street trees in wells with grates. No
planting strips.
. 8' parallel parking aisle on each side of street.
. No Detbac]c from RO~q for buildingo 10' setback from ROW for
buildinqs. The setback area should be used for pedestrian
circulation. window shoppinq. outdoor merchandisinq. outdoor
cafes and restaurants. and similar pedestrian-oriented
activities. The city may allow the 8' sidewalk to be used
for the above-listed activities by means of a special
encroachment permit. if the applicant provides an 8'
pedestrian way within the 10' setback.
. 12' travel lanes.
. 14-foot landscaped median extendinq from intersection to
intersection (i.e.. median not to be removed for left-turn
lanes) .
. Each intersection to be controlled with four-wav stops.
. "Bulb" sidewalks into parking lane at intersections and
pedestrian crossings and in selected mid-block areas. to
allow for landscapinq and pedestrian amenities.
. No buildinq setbacks beyond the front setback line. except
to provide for outdoor dininq areas and entry patios/plazas.
. street amenities program - see Town Center Commercial
guidelines. (See Figure 7.44)
Figure 5.1 of the Specific Plan is revised to show four lanes for
the Transit Spine between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road.
Figure 7.44 of the Specific Plan is revised to show a four lane
cross section and plan view.
5. ModifY the s?ecific Plan lanquaqe reqardinq flexibility in
the desiqn quidelines. The following paragraph will be inserted at
the end of the introductory paragraph on page 79 of the Draft Specific
Plan:
The quidelines in this chapter are advisory only. The citv
mav consider equivalent or superior methods that achieve the
obiectives of the Specific Plan. The quidelines are intended to
be used bY developers and planninq staff. in coni unction with the
city's Zoninq Ordinance. to formulate and approve plans that meet
the obiectives for quality development envisioned by this
Specific Plan.
16
6. Modification to land uses within the Livermore Airport
Protection Area (APA). The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
as originally proposed allowed some residential uses within the APA.
A modification to this language is proposed which would show these
areas as being designated "Future study Area" with an underlying
agricultural land use designation. This modification potentially
eliminates 183 Low Density units and 442 Medium Density units (a total
of 625 dwelling units) from the specific Plan. The following text
would be added to the GPA and SP:
The Plan allows some low and medium density residential uses
within the APA if, at the time of prezoning, the residential
designations are not inconsistent with the APA. If, at the time
of prezoning, the residential designations are inconsistent with
the APA, the residential designations will convert to "Future
study Area" with an underlying agricultural land use designation.
7. Modification to two of the campus office land use
desiqnations along 1-580. The Draft GPA and SP designated
approximately 83 acres of Campus Office along 1-580, south of Dublin
Boulevard, between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. They also
designated approximately 54 acres of Campus Office, at the southwest
corner of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road. with the mix of .land
uses shown in the Draft GPA and SP, the Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara
Road and the Dublin Boulevard/Fallon Road intersections potentially
reach Level of Service D during the afternoon peak hour. Retail uses
can generate up to twice as much afternoon peak hour traffic as
compared to office uses. Any additional retail uses within these
areas designated for Campus Office will need to be carefully planned
in order to maintain Level of Service D at the surrounding
intersections.
The two areas designated Campus Office mentioned above will be
modified to allow consideration of some General Commercial land uses
instead of Campus Office, with the stipulation that traffic levels of
service established in the specific Plan will be maintained.
A planned Development zoning process will be required to determine the
amount, location and development standards for General Commercial uses
that replace the Campus Office uses designated on the Specific Plan
land use map. The following changes will be made to the General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan to accommodate General Commercial uses
instead of Campus Office:
a. A note will be added to the GPA land use map and SP land use
map indicating the possibility for General Commercial uses in the
select Campus Office areas.
b. Text will be added to the Specific Plan to:
1) indicate that this shift to allow either Campus Office
or General commercial will create greater flexibility to
respond to changing market conditions that may occur in the
future; and
17
2) state that the shift from Campus Office to General
Commercial uses will not be permitted to occur if the
established traffic levels of service would be exceeded.
8. Add lanquaqe to the Specific Plan Text reqardinq averaqe
intersection level of service. Staff identified the need to clarify
the term "average intersection level of service" within Policy 5-3
(page 50) of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was designed to
accommodate average intersection levels of service standards on an
hourly basis using reasonable land use forecasts for the approximately
20 years into the future. Policy 5-3 of the Specific Plan would be
modified as follows:
Plan development in eastern Dublin to maintain Level of Service D
or better as the average intersection level of service at all
intersection within the Specific Plan area during AM, PM and
midday peak periods. The averaqe intersection level of service
is defined as the hourly averaqe.
9. Provide adeauate depth for maior retail development in the
General Commercial area alonq Tassaiara Road. In order to have
sufficient space for a major retail development along Tassajara.Road
Staff is recommending that the approximately 6 to 8 acres of General
Commercial land use designation at the northeast corner of Tassajara
Road/Gleason Road should be switched with the Medium Density
Residential land use designation adjacent to the General Commercial
land use designation at the northeast corner of Tassajara Road/Dublin
Boulevard. Both areas are under the same ownership. The net amount
of General Commercial and Medium Density Residential land use would
remain the same. There will be no net impacts to traffic because the
land uses being exchanged are the same types and acreages. This
change would be reflected on both the General Plan Amendment Map and
Specific Plan Map. The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan texts
would be modified to reflect this change.
18
ADDITIONS TO DEIR
These additions to the DEIR are provided in the Initial
study to clarify issues that have arisen during review of
the DEIR. No new important issues about significant effects
of the project are raised and therefore a Supplemental EIR
is not required. The issues and explanations of the issues
follows:
1. Growth impacts of Alternative 2 as modified. The
growth inducing impacts of Alternative 2 as modified are
similar to those of the original project except involve a
plan with a much smaller area, number of dwelling units,
population and demand for services. Growth induction
impacts of Alternative two have to be analyzed in relation
to three impacts, 1M 3.4/Q "Demand for utility Extensions";
1M 3.5/C "Extension of a Sewer Trunk Line with Capacity to
Serve New Developments"; and 1M 3.5/T "Inducement of
Substantial Growth and Concentration of Population".
1M 3.4/Q Demand for utility Extensions. The Planning
commission recommended project (original project) is
determined to be a significant growth-inducing impact and an
unavoidable adverse impact in the DEIR. This analysis also
applies to the modified Alternative 2 (project) which is
smaller in extent than the original project. Therefore
there is no new information of substantial importance and a
Supplemental EIR is not required.
1M 3.5/C Extension of a Sewer Trunk Line with Capacity to
Serve New Developments. The Planning Commission recommended
project (original project) is determined to be a potentially
significant growth-inducing impact in the DEIR. This impact
is reduced to a level of insignificance by Mitigation
Measure 3.5/6.0 which is as follows: "The proposed
wastewater system in Figure 3.5-B has been sized only to
serve the Specific Plan Area with additional capacity for
only the project". This analysis also applies to the
modified Alternative 2 (project) because it is no greater in
extent than the original project and therefore there is no
new information of substantial importance and a Supplemental
EIR is not required.
1M 3.5/T Inducement of Substantial Growth and Concentration
of Population. Inducement of substantial growth and
concentration by the original project is determined to be a
significant impact. This analysis also applies to the
modified Alternative 2 (project) because it is no greater in
extent than the original project and therefore there is no
new information of substantial importance and a Supplemental
EIR is not required.
2. 1M 3.3/B 1-580 Freeway. 1-680 - Hacienda. This
section of 1-580 in year 2010 with project was determined to
19
exceed LOS E which would be a significant impact as well as
a significant cumulative impact for the original project.
Under Alternative 2 this impact would be reduced to a level
of insignificance between Hacienda Drive and Dougherty Road
with mitigation measures MM 3.3/2.0 and MM 3.3/2.1. A
Supplemental EIR is not required.
3. 1M 3.3/E Cumulative Freeway Impacts. It is
acknowledged that with respect to Alternative 2 under
cumulative freeway impacts, 1-580 from 1-680 to Dougherty
Road and from Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive will have a
level of Service of F which is an unavoidable significant
impact. This unavoidable significant impact was noted in
the DEIR. However, it was not specifically stated that with
Alternative 2 under cumulative impacts that it would remain
at LOS F other than in table 3.3-9. A Supplemental EIR is
not required.
4. 1M 3.3/J Airway Boulevard and Dublin boulevard. Peak
hour intersection operation, year 2010 with project was
determined to be a significant impact with the original
project. Mitigation Measure MM3.3/10.0 would mitigate this
impact to a level of insignificance. This impact would be'
reduced to a level of insignificance with Alternative 2. A
Supplemental EIR is not required.
5. 1M 3.5/D Current Limited Treatment Plant Capacity; 1M
3.5/E Future Lack of Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity;
and 1M 3.5/G Lack of Wastewater Current Disposal Capacity.
These impacts were found to be significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/7.0 reduces the impact to Current
Limited Treatment Plant Capacity to a level of
insignificance with the original project. Mitigation
Measure 3.5/8.0 reduces the impacts to Future Lack of
Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity to a level of
insignificance with the original project. Mitigation
Measure 3.5/11.0 to MM 3.5/14.0 reduce the impacts to Lack
of Wastewater Current Disposal Capacity to a level of
insignificance with the original project. The addition of
Mitigation Measure 3.5/7.1 would further reduce all three of
these impacts to a level of insignificance for the original
project and the project (modified alternative 2). MM
3.5/7.1 reads as follows: "Require developers to obtain a
wastewater "will-serve" letter from DSRSD prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. A "will-serve" letter will
letter will only be issued if capacity is available, either
at the treatment plant or through the TWA project, If
capacity is not available, no "will-serve" letter will be
issued by DSRSD." A Supplemental EIR is not required.
6. Planned Water Distribution Improvements. The
discussion of the potential provision of water by DSRSD to
Dougherty Valley was clarified in Response to Comments 32-41
and 32-15. The modified language states that "The water
20
system was modeled under the assumption that a portion of
the demand in Dougherty Valley will be provided through
Eastern Dublin. According to DSRSD, the fact that the
system was modeled that way does not constitute a commitment
to serve the Dougherty Valley. It was simply prudent
planning for DSRSD to do so in the event that DSRSD is
called upon to be service provider in the Dougherty Valley
and water is acquired to provide it. DSRSD attempted to
identify the size of the lines so as to only serve
development in Eastern Dublin. If the above two items occur
after Eastern Dublin has started, parallel facilities would
have to be installed. Any such paralleling of facilities
would be subject to a new environmental review process.
Thus, the water distribution system pipes for Eastern Dublin
will be ultimately sized only for Eastern Dublin. If
Dougherty Valley was to be served, parallel lines would be
constructed." A Supplemental EIR is not required.
7. 1M 3.5/AA Non-Point Sources of Pollution. This impact
is a potentially significant impact and is also a
potentially significant cumulative impact for the original
project. Mitigation Measures 3.5/53.0, 3.5/54.0 and
3.5/55.0 mitigate these potential impacts to a level of
significance. MM 3.5/53.0 reads as follows: Require all
development to meet the requirements of the city of Dublin's
'Best Management Practices' to mitigate storm water
pollution. MM 3.5/54.0 reads as follows: "Require all
developments meet the water quality requirements pursuant to
the city of Dublin's National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit." MM 3.5/55.0 reads as
follows: "Require all developments meet the requirements of
the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program." The
proposed project is no greater in extent than the original
project and therefore a supplemental EIR is not required.
8. 1M 3.7/A Direct Habitat Loss. The first sentence is
reworded as follows: "The Project will result in the loss,
degradation, or disturbance of as much as 3,700 1,900 acres
of existing vegetation." This change reflects the lesser
scope of the Modified Alternative 2 (Project). A
Supplemental EIR is not required.
9. Impact 3.7/J, Golden Eaqle: Destruction of Nestinq
site. Destruction of the golden eagle nesting site due to
the construction and operation of a proposed road connecting
Doolan Road to Tassajara Road was determined to be a
significant impact for the original project. The project
(Modified Alternative 2) will not have a road connecting
Doolan Road to Tassajara Road which would have destroyed the
nesting site and impacted its hunting range. The nest will
be protected and substantial open space will be provided for
the Golden Eagle due to the lack of the road and due to the
lack of planned development in the Future Study Area and
21
therefore the impacts to the Golden Eagle nest are avoided.
A Supplemental EIR is not required.
10. 1M 3.7/S, Special Status Invertebrates. Mitigation
Measure 3.7/28.0 has been reworded as follows: "species-
specific surveys shall be conducted in appropriate
riparian/wetland habitats 60 dayo prior to development
approval of specific proiects in the RPA". Implementation
of MM 3.7/28.0 will reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance for the original project. The Project
(modified Alternative 2) is lesser in scope than the
original project and therefore this impact will be reduced
to a level of insignificance in the Project by the revised
MM 3.7/28.0. A Supplemental EIR is not required.
11. 1M 3.8/H, Alteration of Dublin's Visual Identitv as a
Freestandinq city. This impact as described in the DEIR
will no longer occur with the adoption of a modified
Alternative 2 showing a Future Study Area lying between the
cities of Dublin and Livermore. with the lack of planned
development within the Future Study Area the visual identity
of Dublin as a freestanding city will be retained. This
impact is therefore deleted from the DEIR.
12. 1M 3.10/D, Exposure of Proposed Residential Development
to Noise from Future Military Traininq Activities at Parks
Reserve Forces Traininq Area (Camp Parks RFTA) and the
County Jail. The first sentence of the text following
IM3.1/D of the EIR is amended as follows:
Residential development on the Project site within 6000
feet of Camp Parks RFTA and the County Jail could be
exposed to noise impacts from gunshots and helicopter
overflights. 5 This language addition is clarifacatory
and does not add any new information not addressed in
the impact description itself or in Mitigation Measure
3.10/3.0. No Supplemental EIR is necessary.
22
Part II. Environmental Impacts - Explanation of Answers.
la, 1b and 1c, EARTH
No changes to the project as described in this initial study
would result in unstable earth conditions; cause disruptions,
displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil or cause
changes in topography or ground surface relief features. Changes
to the Eastern Dublin project would delete approximately 625
dwelling units would reduce such impacts. Minor modifications to
grading policies as proposed would accomplish several things:
First, they would clarify ambiguous language in Policy 6-33 and
the first guideline under Building on page 99. Second, they
would delete language in Policy 6-35 and the second guideline
under Form on page 99 which is addressed in other policies such
as 6-32, 6-33, 6-34 and 6-35 and by the proposed project design.
Finally, they would allow needed flexibility in application of
grading techniques. None of these changes would have impacts
addressed in la, lb and 1c.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to earth
because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which mitigate
impacts to earth.
2a. 2b. 2c. and 2d, AIR
No changes to the project as described in this initial study
would result in substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality; create objectionable odors; alter air
movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate,
either regionally or locally; or result in hazardous emissions
within one-fourth of a mile of a school.
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
impacts to air quality by the Eastern Dublin project.
None of the changes to grading policies would have an impact on
air quality because they address visual impacts, clarify
ambiguous language, delete language addressed elsewhere and
provide needed flexibility of application of grading techniques.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern will
not impact air quality because at least one parallel road on
23
either side of the Transit spine will be required, cross streets
to the Transit Spine should be spaced no more than 500 feet apart
and because a highly connected pattern of streets that
accommodates vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle circulation will be
provided.
The change of the Transit Spine from a two lane roadway to a four
lane roadway will not result in impacts to air quality because
existing capacity on the rest of the roadway system is available
to handle traffic proposed to be generated by the Eastern Dublin
project and because of design features mentioned in connection
with the modifications to the grid street pattern mentioned
above.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will not have an impact on air quality because the areas proposed
for residential development would remain designated as
agricultural.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to air because
of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which mitigate impacts to
air.
3a throuqh 3i, WATER
Proposed changes to the project will not have impact to water.
No changes or impacts listed in 3a through 3i of this initial
study will occur as a result of this project because changes to
grading policies.
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
impacts to water by the Eastern Dublin project.
None of the changes to grading policies would have an impact on
water because they address visual impacts, clarify ambiguous
language, delete language addressed elsewhere and provide needed
flexibility of application of grading techniques, none of which
would have impacts to water.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
24
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to water
because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which mitigate
impacts to water quality.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will not have an impact on water because the areas proposed for
residential development would remain designated as agricultural.
4a throuqh 4d, Plant Life
No changes proposed as part of this project will change the
diversity of species, or number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants; will
reduce the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of
plants; introduce new species of plants in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species or reduce in acreage'of
any agricultural crop.
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
impacts to plant life by the Eastern Dublin project.
None of the changes to grading policies would have an impact on
plant life because they address visual impacts, clarify ambiguous
language, delete language addressed elsewhere and provide needed
flexibility of application of grading techniques, none of which
would have impacts to plant life.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to plant life
because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which mitigate
impacts to plant life.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will not have an impact on plant life because the areas proposed
for residential development would remain designated as
agricultural.
25
5a throuqh 5d, Animal Life
No changes proposed as part of this project will change the
diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects); will reduce the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals; will introduce new species
of animals in a barrier to migration or movement of animals or
cause a deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat.
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
impacts to animal life by the Eastern Dublin project.
None of the changes to grading policies would have an impact on
animal life because they address visual impacts, clarify
ambiguous language, delete language addressed elsewhere and
provide needed flexibility of application of grading techniques,
none of which would have impacts to animal life.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres ~f
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to animal life
because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which mitigate
impacts to animal life.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will not have an impact on animal life because the areas proposed
for residential development would remain designated as
agricultural which is beneficial to animal life.
6a and 6b, NOISE
No changes proposed as part of this project will increase noise
levels or result in exposure of people to severe noise levels.
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
potential noise levels and reduce exposure of people to severe
noise levels.
None of the changes to grading policies would have an impact on
noise because they address visual impacts, clarify ambiguous
language, delete language addressed elsewhere and provide needed
flexibility of application of grading techniques, none of which
would have impacts to plant life.
26
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to noise
because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which mitigate
noise impacts.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area.
will not have an impact on noise because the areas proposed for
residential development would remain designated as agricultural.
7 Liqht and Glare
No changes proposed as part of this project will produce new
light or glare.
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
impacts due to light and glare from the Eastern Dublin project.
None of the changes to grading policies would produce new light
or glare because they address visual impacts, clarify ambiguous
language, delete language addressed elsewhere and provide needed
flexibility of application of grading techniques, none of which
would produce new light or glare.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not produce new light or glare
because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which protect
against production of new light or glare.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will result in the production of less new light or glare because
the areas proposed for residential development would remain
designated as agricultural which produces less light or glare
than residential uses.
27
8 Land Use
No changes proposed as part of this project will result in a
substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area.
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
impacts to present or planned land uses by the Eastern Dublin
project.
The proposed changes to grading policies would not have an impact
on present or planned land uses because they address visual
impacts, clarify ambiguous language, delete language addressed
elsewhere and provide needed flexibility of application of
grading techniques, none of which would disrupt or divide the
physical arrangement of an established community; conflict with
established recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses in an area; convert prime agricultural land to non-
agricultural land or impair the productivity of prime
agricultural land; or conflict with adopted environmental plans
and goals of the community where it is located and, as a result,
cause "substantial change in the physical conditions which exist
in the area affected by the proposed project.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to present or
planned land uses because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR
which seek to avoid on-site project land use conflicts, the
discontinuation of agricultural uses, loss of farmlands of local
importance and indirect impacts resulting from non-renewal of
Williamson Act contracts.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will not have impacts to present or proposed land uses because
the areas proposed for residential development would remain
designated as agricultural.
9 Natural Resources
No changes proposed as part of this project will result in an
increase in the rate of use of any natural resources or a
substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resources.
28
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
impacts to natural resources by the Eastern Dublin project.
The proposed changes to grading policies would not have an impact
on natural resources because they address visual impacts, clarify
ambiguous language, delete language addressed elsewhere and
provide needed flexibility of application of grading techniques.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to natural
resources because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which
mitigate impacts to natural resources.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will not have impacts to natural resources because the areas
proposed for residential development would remain designated as
agricultural.
10 Risk of Upset
No changes proposed as part of this project will involve a risk
of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions or
involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or
an emergency evacuation plan.
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
potential involvement of risks of explosion or the release of
hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset
conditions or the potential for possible interference with an
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan by the
Eastern Dublin project.
The proposed changes to grading policies would not have an impact
on the risk of upset because they address visual impacts, clarify
ambiguous language, delete language addressed elsewhere and
provide needed flexibility of application of grading techniques.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
29
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to risk of
upset because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which
mitigate impacts to air quality, seismicity and upset.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will not have impacts to risk of upset because the areas proposed
for residential development would remain designated as
agricultural.
11 Population
Changes proposed as part of this project will alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population in
the area. The reduction of approximately 625 units from the
Airport Protection Area of the Livermore Airport will reduce
impacts to the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of
human population by the Eastern Dublin project.
The proposed changes to grading policies would not have an impact
on population because they address visual impacts, clarify
ambiguous language, delete language addressed elsewhere and
provide needed flexibility of application of grading techniques.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to population
because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which mitigate
impacts to population.
The deletion of 625 dwelling units from the Airport Protection
Area will alter the location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population in the area by reducing its
distribution, density and growth rate in the APA.
12 Housinq
changes proposed as part of this project (including the reduction
of approximately 625 dwelling units) will not affect existing
housing or create a demand for additional housing.
30
The proposed changes to grading policies would not have an impact
on housing because they address visual impacts, clarify ambiguous
language, delete language addressed elsewhere and provide needed
flexibility of application of grading techniques.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to housing
because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which mitigate
impacts to housing.
The deletion of 625 dwelling units from the Airport Protection
Area will not affect existing housing or create a demand for .
additional housing.
13 Transportation/Circulation
No changes proposed as part of this project will result in the
generation of substantial additional vehicular movement; effects
on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking;
substantial impact upon existing transportation and traffic
systems; alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods; alterations to waterborne, rail
or air traffic; or increases in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians.
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
impacts to transportation/circulation by the Eastern Dublin
project.
The proposed changes to grading policies would not have an impact
on transportation/circulation because they address visual
impacts, clarify ambiguous language, delete language addressed
elsewhere and provide needed flexibility of application of
grading techniques.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
31
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to
transportation/circulation because of provisions in the Eastern
Dublin EIR which mitigate impacts to transportation/circulation.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will not have impacts to transportation/circulation because the
areas proposed for residential development would remain
designated as agricultural.
14 Public Services
No changes proposed as part of this project will have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental
services in Fire Protection; Police Protection; schools; parks or
other recreational facilities; maintenance of public facilities,
including roads; or other governmental services. The addition of
the words "to the extent permitted by law" to Policy 8-3 of the
Specific Plan and Mitigation Measure 3.4/17.0 of the EIR, which
"ensures that adequate school facilities are available prior to
development in Eastern Dublin", will not have an effect upon,. or
result in a need for new or altered school services.
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
impacts to public services by the Eastern Dublin project.
The proposed changes to grading policies would not have an impact
on public services because they address visual impacts, clarify
ambiguous language, delete language addressed elsewhere and
provide needed flexibility of application of grading techniques.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to public
services because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which
mitigate impacts to public services.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will not have impacts to public services because the areas
proposed for residential development would remain designated as
agricultural.
15 Enerqy
32
No changes proposed as part of this project will result in use of
substantial amounts of fuel or energy or result in a substantial
increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the
development of new sources of energy.
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
impacts to energy by the Eastern Dublin project.
The proposed changes to grading policies would not have an impact
on energy because they address visual impacts, clarify ambiguous
language, delete language addressed elsewhere and provide needed
flexibility of application of grading techniques.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to energy
because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which mitigate
impacts to energy.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will not have impacts to energy because the areas proposed for
residential development would remain designated as agricultural.
16 utilities
No changes proposed as part of this project will result in a need
for new systems or substantial alterations to power or natural
gas, communication systems, sewer or septic tanks, storm water
drainage or solid waste and disposal.
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
impacts to utilities by the Eastern Dublin project.
The proposed changes to grading policies would not have an impact
on utilities because they address visual impacts, clarify
ambiguous language, delete language addressed elsewhere and
provide needed flexibility of application of grading techniques.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
33
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to utilities
because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which mitigate
impacts to utilities.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will not have impacts to utilities because the areas proposed for
residential development would remain designated as agricultural.
17 Human Health
No changes proposed as part of this project will result in the
creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard
(excluding mental health) or result in exposure of people to
potential health hazards.
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
potential impacts to human health by the Eastern Dublin project.
The proposed changes to grading policies would not have an impact
on human health because they address visual impacts, clarify
ambiguous language, delete language addressed elsewhere and
provide needed flexibility of application of grading techniques.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to human health
because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which mitigate
impacts to human health.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will not have impacts to human health because the areas proposed
for residential development would remain designated as
agricultural which is typically less impactful to human health.
18 Aesthetics
No changes proposed as part of this project will result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or
result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site, open to
public view.
34
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
impacts to aesthetics by the Eastern Dublin project.
The proposed changes to grading policies would not have an impact
on aesthetics, particularly obstruction of any scenic view or
vista open to the public. Policy 6-29/Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.0
as modified makes development on the foreground hills and
ridgelands conditional rather than a right. Also, language
stating "if a backdrop of natural ridgelines remains visible when
viewed from designated scenic routes and appropriate measures are
taken to minimize visual impacts" has been replaced with language
specifically stating that "minor interruptions of views of the
main ridgeline by individual building masses may be permissible
in limited circumstances where all other remedies have been
exhausted." This language protects views of the major ridgelines
while allowing "minor interruptions" of that view for individual
buildings in limited circumstances. This flexibility allows for
isolated cases where a building obscures a view in one direction
only and does not obscure other views. This is a minor change
and will have no significant impacts. other policies are
included in the Specific Plan which protect views and address
visual impacts. other changes in grading policies clarify
ambiguous language, delete language addressed elsewhere and
provide needed flexibility of application of grading techniques.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to aesthetics
because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which mitigate
impacts to aesthetics.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will not have impacts to aesthetics because the areas proposed
for residential development would remain designated as
agricultural.
19 Recreation
No changes proposed as part of this project will result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational
opportunities.
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
impacts to recreation by the Eastern Dublin project.
35
The proposed changes to grading policies would not have an impact
on recreation because they address visual impacts, clarify
ambiguous language, delete language addressed elsewhere and
provide needed flexibility of application of grading techniques.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to recreation
because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which mitigate
impacts to recreation.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will not have impacts to recreation because the areas proposed
for residential development would remain designated as
agricultural.
20 Cultural Resources
No changes proposed as part of this project will result in the
alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archeological site; result in adverse physical or aesthetic
effects to a prehistoric, historic, or architecturally
significant building, structure, or object; have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values; or restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area.
The reduction of approximately 625 dwelling units will reduce
impacts to cultural resources by the Eastern Dublin project.
The proposed changes to grading policies would not have an impact
on cultural resources because they address visual impacts,
clarify ambiguous language, delete language addressed elsewhere
and provide needed flexibility of application of grading
techniques.
Modifications to the requirement for a grid street pattern,
modification of the campus office area south of Dublin Boulevard,
west of Tassajara Road and east of Fallon Road to allow general
commercial uses; the swapping of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
General Commercial and Medium Density Residential lands along
Tassajara Road; the change of the Transit Spine from a two lane
roadway to a four lane roadway; the clarification of the
definition of average intersection level of service; the
36
provision of flexibility in design guidelines; and the insurance
of the availability of school facilities prior to development to
the extent permitted by law and through consultation with the
appropriate school agencies will not have impacts to cultural
resources because of provisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR which
mitigate impacts to cultural resources.
The deletion of dwelling units from the Airport Protection Area
will not have impacts to cultural resources because the areas
proposed for residential development would remain designated as
agricultural.
37
EXCERPTS FROM MAY 3, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
unit per 100 gross residenti
ultural activities and ot uses,
tershed management, co stent with the site
olicies. This class' ication includes
as well as public nerships not otherwise
or Parks and 0 Space, or Public/Semi-
sehold size' 3.2 persons per unit. II
"The 'Future Study Area' designation in the General Plan is
dication of the city of Dublin's interest in the area and
n d for additional studies of environmental constraints, f
la uses, infrastructures, and other issues. No land us
dete inations would be made in this designation until m
infor tion is available to determine the most suitabl of
develo nt or preservation for the area."
"Aqricultural
Accommodates agr
such as range and
conditions and pIa
privately held lands
designated in the pIa
Public uses. Assumed
zoning of the Future Study Area is
er 100 acres. The Agricultural land
is described as follows:
The under
with 1 uni
classificati
This modification to the
consistent with the existing Ala
County Zoning for the area. It w
lin project will be
nty General Plan and existing
esult in the following:
a. No development will be ated for the 4.3 square
mile area between the urrent SOl and the
eastern GPA boundary. a includes Doolan
Canyon. Compared t t" described in the
.Draft EIR, this mo fication wo eliminate the
potential for ap oximately 4,040 nits, 770,000 square
feet of commerc' I uses, 1,340 job housing for 6,550
workers, 2 sc I sites, and 5 park 'tes.
Language changes will be made to the Specific
indicated in the paragraphs below.
3. ModifY certain qradinq Policies
of the crosby property (14 acres)
ed "Future study Area" since it lies
current SOl. Formerly, this portion w
esidential and commercial uses.
to
b.
Doolan Cany Road will not be
Tassajara oad.
c.
ill be
utside the
designated
d.
GPA text, maps and tables will be modified
reduced development potential of the lands
and the 'eastern project boundary.
The Council recommended changes to some of the grading policies
in the Specific Plan and corresponding mitigation measures in the
Draft EIR to create greater flexibility without compromising the
intent of the policies. Additions to the policies are shown in
underlininqi deleted text is shown by otrikeout:J.
- 3 -
__...t\ulltNT ~
Policy 6-29, paqe 69; Mitiqation Measure 3,8/5.0, paqe 3.8-7.
Development is not permitted on the main ridgeline that borders
the planning area to the north and east, but ~ may be
permitted on the foreground hills and ridgelands. Minor
interruptions of views of the main ridqeline by individual
buildinq masses may be permissible in limited circumstances where
all other remedies have been exhausted. if a backdrop of natural
ridgclineo remaino vioiblc vhcn viewed from dcoignated occnic
routeD and appropriate mca8urC8 arc t~ccn to minimize vioual
impact::;.
Policy 6-33, paqe 70. site grading and access roads shall
maintain the natural appearance of not diofigure the upper
ridgelands or foreground hills within the viewshed of travelers
along 1-580, Tassajara Road, and the future extension of Fallon
Road. streets should be aligned to follow the natural contours
of the hillsides. straight, linear rows of streets across the
face of hillsides shall be avoided.
Policy 6-35, paqe 70; Mitiqation Measure 3.8/4.2, paqe 3.8-6.
Extensive areas of flat ~ grading are not appropriate in
hillside areas, and should be avoided. Building pads should be
graded individually or stepped, wherever possible. structures
and roadways should be designed in response to the topographical
and geotechnical conditions. In hil18ide arcao in particular,
foundationo dcoigncd for 8loping oitc8 ohould be u8ed rather th~n
re contouring the oitc to accommodate flat land conotruction
techniqueo.
Policy 6-36, paqe 70; Mitiqation Measure 3.8/4.3, paqe 3, 8-6.
Building design shall conform to the natural land form as much as
possible. Techniques such as multi-level foundations, rooflines
which complement the surrounding slopes and topography, and
variations in vertical massing to avoid a monotonous or linear
appearance ohall should be used. In areas of steep topography,
structures should be sited near the street to minimize required
grading.
Second Guideline under Form, paqe 99. Concentrate development on
the floor and oidco of valleyo rather than on ridgelineo and
nooe::; of hi118.
First Guideline under Buildinq sitinq, page 99. Cluster
development buildingo to reduce necessary grading and preserve
open space continuity (see Figure 7.30).
4. Modify the lanquaqe requirinq a qrid-tvpe street pattern.
The Council determined that greater flexibility was desired for
the type of street system that would serve the Specific Plan
area. The original Specific Plan recommended a grid-type street
system to facilitate pedestrian accessibility while accommodating
ample auto circulation.
- 4 -
Per council direction, the Draft Specific Plan text will be
revised to delete all recommendations for a grid-type street
pattern. In its place will be language that allows various types
of street systems, including curvilinear designs, as long as
pedestrian accessibility is maintained.
Detailed text changes to the specific Plan are as follows:
Paqe 18, second column, third paraqraph, third sentence: ...in
the commercial area, the goal is to establish the character of a
traditional town center, with a walkable ~ system of streets
well-defined by building and a lively, interesting shopping
street catering to pedestrians, afld transit users, and others.
Paqe 79, second column, top of paqe: ...on establishing the
character of a traditional town center, with a walkable ~
system of streets well-defined by buildings and a lively,
interesting shopping street catering to pedestrians, afld transit
users, and others.
Paqe 79, Form, first bullet: Arrange otrccto in a grid pattern,
forming omall block::; no more than 500 feet in the longc::;t
dimen::;ion. In the Community Commercial area along Ta8::;ajara
Road, bloclc8 may be combined to form larger oitco for community
ohopping center development. Develop a street system in the Town
center commercial area that provides at least one parallel street
on either side of the Transit Spine.
Paqe 79, Form, add a second bullet: In order to preserve the
pedestrian scale in the commercial area, cross streets to the
Transit Spine should be spaced no more than 500 feet apart.
Fiqure 7.1, Town Center Concept Plan: A note will be placed on
the figure stating the following:
Note: This fiqure illustrates one possible interpretation of the
street and development pattern that could result from
implementation of the specific Plan community desiqn quidelines.
However, a qrid system of streets is not the only acceptable
means of providing an efficient and pedestrian-friendlY
circulation system. The Concept Plan in this fiqure is
illustrative onlY and is not intended to restrict, in anv way,
development patterns that are consistent with the obiectives of
this Specific Plan.
Paqe 88, Form: The traditional city grid hao flexibility to
accommodate a \;idc range of type::; and dcnoitico of rcoidential
development, within an ca8ily undcrotood and acccooiblc framcyorlc
of public otrcct::;.
Arrange otreeto in a grid p~ttcrn relatively omall, vallcable
bloc]co no more than 500 feet in the longeot dimenoion. ~lthough
oome grid otrccto may be cloocd at the edgeo of the reoidential
area to reduce neighborhood through tr~ffic, the pattern of
development 8hould continue to folloy the overall grid pattern.
- 5 -
Provide a hiqhly interconnected pattern of streets that
accommodates the movement of vehicles while enhancinq
opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
Paqe 89, Auto circulation introductory sentence: The grid otrect
Dyotem can accommodate large volumes of traffic generated by
denDe deTJelopmcnt, but dioperoeo it amount many lOt: volume
otrcet::; throughout the development. The street system should
provide a hiqhlY interconnected pattern that accommodates the
movement of vehicles while enhancinq opportunities for pedestrian
and bicycle circulation.
Paqe 89, pedestrian/bicycle circulation, introductory sentence:
The sidewalks along the grid of neighborhood streets should
provide an active, friendly pedestrian environment connecting
residences to neighborhood parks, squares and the larger open
space system.
ModifY the Transit Spine.
he Transit Spine will be shown as a four-lane road, versu
-lane configuration in the Draft Specific Plan. The
changes will be made:
third sentence of section 5.2.4 Tra
Specific Plan.
on
It will
lanes
Changes to the
Specific Plan.
page 79 of the
. No buildinq
from the transit spine
should be built to and
line exce t to rovide for
patios/plazas. See Figure
Changes to Figure 7.3
front setback line alon
(i.e., buildings shall
front property setback
areas and entr
The word "setback"
in the text wit
follows: "Bu'
transit spi
ould be substitute
and below the drawing.
.up to the front property s
the word "property"
e text would read as
ack line along the
first section of Transit Spine
Gateway" on page 107 of Specific
the Town Center and Hacienda Gateway
within the Public Riqht-Of-Way (ROW) , 8' ~ sidewalk
between curbline and ROW line.
- 6 -
· parking
Regularly spaced street trees in wells with grates.
planting strips.
· from ROW for buildings. area should
for pedestrian circulation, window opping, outdoor
merchan 'ng, outdoor cafes and restaur s, and similar
pedestrian iented activities. The C' may allow the 8'
sidewalk to used for the above-I' ed activities by means
of a special e oachment permit, the applicant provides
an 8' pedestrian within the 'setback.
.
.
.
four-wa
.
alks into parking lane
crossings
landsca in
.
setbacks be ond the front setback
for outdoor dinin areas and entr
street amenities program - see Town Center Commercial
guidelines. (See Figure 7.44)
6. Modify the Specific Plan lanquaqe reqardinq flexibilitv in the
desiqn quidelines.
The following paragraph will be inserted at the end of the
introductory paragraph on page 79 of the Draft Specific Plan:
The quidelines in this chapter are advisorv onlv. The citv may
consider equivalent or superior methods that achieve the
obiectives of the Specific Plan. The quidelines are intended to
be used by developers and planninq staff, in coni unction with the
city's Zoninq Ordinance, to formulate and approve plans that meet
the obiectives for qualitv development envisioned bv this
Specific Plan.
7. ModifY the text reqardinq residential uses within the Livermore
Airport Protection Area (APA).
The following text will be added to the GPA and SP:
"The Plan allows some low and medium density residential uses
within the APA if, at the time of prezoning, the residential
designations are not inconsistent with the APA. If, at the time
of prezoning, the residential designations are inconsistent with
- 7 -
the APA, the residential designations will convert to "Future
study Area" with an underlying agricultural designation."
A "Future study Area" with an "agricultural" designation would
eliminate potential for 625 dwelling units (183 low density,
single family units and 442 medium density, multi-family units)
and housing for 1,013 workers.
8. Allow some General Commercial in certain areas desiqnated Campus
Office.
The Draft General Plan Amendment and specific Plan designated
approximately 83 acres of Campus Office along 1-580, south of
Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara and Fallon Roads. They also
designated approximately 54 acres of Campus Office, at the
southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road. with
the mix of land uses shown in the Draft General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan, the Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road and the
Dublin Boulevard/Fallon Road intersections potentially reach
Level of Service D during the afternoon peak hour. Retail uses
can generate up to twice as much afternoon peak hour traffic as
compared to office uses. Any additional retail uses within these
areas designated for Campus Office will need to be carefully
planned in order to maintain Level of Service D at the
surrounding intersections.
The two areas designated Campus Office mentioned above will be
modified to allow consideration of some General commercial land
uses instead of Campus Office, with the stipulation that traffic
levels of service established in the Specific Plan will be
maintained.
A Planned Development zoning process will be required to
determine the amount, location and development standards for
General Commercial uses that replace the Campus Office uses
designated on the Specific Plan land use map. The following
changes will be made to the Specific Plan to accommodate General
Commercial uses instead of Campus Office:
a. A note will be added to the Specific Plan Land Use Map
indicating the possibility for General Commercial uses in
the select Campus Office areas. (A similar note will be
added to the GPA land use map.)
b. Text will be added to the Specific Plan to:
1) indicate that this shift to allow either Campus Office
or General Commercial will create greater flexibility to
respond to changing market conditions that may occur in the
future; and
2) state that the shift from Campus Office to General
Commercial uses will not be permitted to occur if the
established traffic levels of service would be exceeded.
- 8 -
9. Add lanquaae to the Specific Plan reqardinq averaqe intersection
level of service.
Staff identified the need to clarify the term "average
intersection level of service" within Policy 5-3 (page 50) of the
Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was designed to accommodate
average intersection levels of service standards on an hourly
basis using reasonable land use forecasts for approximately 20
years into the future. The underlined sentence will be added to
Policy 5-3 of the Specific Plan:
"Plan development in eastern Dublin to maintain Level of
Service D or better as the average intersection level of
service at all intersections within the Specific Plan area
during AM, PM and midday peak periods. The averaqe
intersection level of service is defined as the hourlY
averaqe."
10. Clarify the policy reqardinq school availability (Policy 8-3,
paqe 119).
The Council recommended revising the Specific Plan policy
relating to school availability, based on recent amendments to
the law:
Ensure that adequate school facilities are available prior
to development in eastern Dublin to the extent permitted bv
law.
11. Verify adequate de?th available for maior retail development in
the General Commercial area alonq Tassaiara Road.
Concern was expressed by one of the Eastern Dublin landowners
that insufficient depth might be available to develop major
retail uses in the General Commercial area along the eastern side
of Tassajara Road. The amount of land needed for roadway right-
of-ways and other setbacks could result in an insufficient amount
of land remaining to accommodate a major retail use such as a
Walmart or Price Club store.
Staff has determined that a typical prototype major retail use
would seek an approximately 15 acre site with dimensions of
approximately 625 feet depth by 1050 foot width (See Attachment
4). The property. along the eastern side of Tassajara Road,
between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard, has the size and dimensions
to potentially accommodate such a major retail use.
However, the property along the
between Dublin Boulevard and the
sufficient size and dimensions.
multiple sites in Eastern Dublin
accommodate a major retail use.
eastern side of Tassajara Road,
Transit Spine would not have
It would be desirable to have
that could potentially
In order to have several potential sites, the General Commercial
land use designation at the northeast corner of Tassajara
- 9 -
Road/Gleason Road should be switched with the Medium Density
Residential land use designation adjacent to the General
Commercial land use designation at the northeast corner of
Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard (see Attachment 3). Both areas
are under the same ownership. The net amount of General
Commercial and Medium Density Residential land use would remain
the same.
staff recommends that the General Commercial and Medium Density
Residential land use designations be switched, and that the text,
maps, and figures in the GPA and SP be adjusted to reflect this
change.
PREPARATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE EIR TO DETERMINE POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2. WITH MODIFICATIONS
aff determined that an addendum to the Eastern Dubli
Amendment and Specific Plan EIR is required by t
rnia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The a
ecause:
the conditions requiring
EIR have occurred:
ubsequent changes in the
significant environme
considered in th
oject do not involve
al impacts not
IRi
b) Substa
to the circu
undertaken whi
environmental im
EIRi
ave not occurred with respect
er which the project is
nvolve new significant
not previously covered in the
2) Only minor
to make the EIR
nges or additions are necessary
3) Changes
important n
environme
the EIR made by e addendum do not raise
issues about the sig 'ficant effects on the
ouncil's review at
the Addendum
the project.
staff will
its May 1
along w
epare the Addendum for the City
meeting. The Council will consi
the Final EIR prior to taking action
to the project described in the Draft EIR, Alterna e 2 with
ations would eliminate the potential for approximately 040 to
dwelling units, 770,000 square feet of commercial uses, 1, 40
for 6,550 to 7,560 workers, 2 school sites and 5 pa
- 10 -
RESOLUTION NO. -93
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE ADDENDUM AND THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
Recitals
1. I~ response to a proposal for residential development of
the Dublin Ranch property, the City of Dublin undertook the Eastern
Dublin study to plan for the future development of the eastern
Dublin area.
2. The City Council and Planning commission conducted three
joint public study sessions and three workshops relating to
planning issues in eastern Dublin.
a.
use concept
consistency
policies.
concept for
The April 18, 1990, study session considered a land
report containing four land use scenarios and the
of each land use concept with existing general 'plan
Alternative #4 was considered the preferred land use
environmental study by informal consensus.
b. The August 22, 1990, study session considered
Alternative #4 and a fifth concept (based on the 1986 annexation
agreement with Alameda County). The "Town Center" concept, types
of streets, location and types of parks were discussed.
c. The November 15, 1990, workshop solicited comments
from the public regarding the existing and desired life style
qualities in Dublin and what the public wanted to see in a new
community.
d. The December 6, 1990, workshop continued with a
similar discussion of desired types of commercial development and
discussed circulation systems and parks and open space.
e. The December 18, 1990, workshop presented a
preliminary conceptual land use plan. Input was received on the
transit spine, location of civic center, types of residential uses,
location of commercial uses I the concentration of high density
residential uses, and jobs/housing balance.
f. The February 14, 1991, study session considered a
land use plan that incorporated comments made at the three
workshops and included a discussion of major issues, such as the
location of a high school, connection to existing DUblin, size of
streets and types of parks.
1
ATTACHMENT 4
3. with the identification of a preferred alternative on
February 14, 1991, the City prepared a Draft General Plan Amendment
for approximately 6,920 acres and a Draft Specific Plan for
approximately 3,328 acres.
4. The City completed an Initial study on the project and
determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required.
A Notice of Preparation dated September 12, 1988, was prepared,
published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailed to
Responsible Agencies and various other interested parties. A
subsequent Notice of Preparation, dated October 16, 1991, was
distributed in the same manner.
5. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared on the
project, including the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan,
sphere of influence changes, prezoning, annexation to the city and
the Dublin San Ramon Services District, and detachment from the
Livermore Area Recreation and Park District. The Draft
Environmental Impact Report consisted of two volumes -- a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (Part I) and the Draft Environmental
Impact Report Appendix (Part II), both volumes dated August 28,
1992. A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Secretary
of Resources via the State Clearinghouse on August 28, 1992 '(SCH
No. 91103064).
6. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was initially
circulated for a 45-day public/agency review period beginning on
August 28, 1992, and ending on October 13, 1992, and was extended
for an additional 16-day period to October 29, 1992. Public notice
of the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report was
published in a newspaper of general circulation and posted on and
off the project site.
7. The City of Dublin Planning commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on
September 21, 1992, which hearing was continued to September 23,
1992, September 29, 1992 and October 1, 1992. At these hearings,
and through submitted written comments, the Planning Commission
received comments on the Draft EIR from the public, responsible
agencies, other governmental and private organizations, as well as
from city staff and its consultants and property owners and their
consultants.
8. The City prepared responses to comments on environmental
issues received during the public review period and at the public
hearings, which responses clarify and amplify the information
contained in the Draft EIR, providing good faith reasoned analysis
supported by factual information. The comments and responses to
comments were published in two parts, on December 7, 1992, and
December 21, 1992, and were distributed to or otherwise made
available to the Planning Commission, Responsible Agencies, and
2
other interested parties.
9. The Planning Commission reviewed specific text revisions
to the Draft EIR and directed that portions of the comments and
responses be incorporated into the Final EIR.
10. An Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report
dated May 4, 1993, ("Addendum") has been prepared which is attached
to the Final Environmental Impact Report.
11. A Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared by the
City, which consists of:
(a) Draft Environmental Impact Report (Part I) dated
August 28, 1992;
(b) Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendix (Part II)
dated August 28, 1992);
(c) Letter from DKS Associates to Laurence Tong dated
December 15, 1992; and
(d) Responses to Comments dated December 7, 1992, and
December 21, 1992.
12. On May 10,1993, the city council considered the Addendum
with the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Planning
commission's recommendation for certification.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a
part of this resolution.
B. The city Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum
with the Final Environmental Impact Report. The city Council
hereby finds and certifies the Addendum and the Final Environmental
Impact Report are complete, adequate, and in compliance with CEQA
and the City of Dublin's Environmental Guidelines and reflect the
independent judgment of the city council and the City as the lead
agency.
3
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of May, 1993, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
114\RESOL\29\CERTIF2.EST
4
RESOLUTION NO.
-93
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
AND SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the city is party to an agreement with the County of
Alameda entitled "An Agreement Between the County of Alameda and
the city of Dublin Regarding Camp Parks, Tassajara Park and Santa
Rita Properties" ("Annexation Agreement"), and
WHEREAS, an agreement to supersede to the Annexation Agreement
has been prepared, 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" ("Revised Agreement"), a copy of which is attached
hereto as Attachment 1; and
WHEREAS, the Revised Agreement has been executed by the County
of Alameda and the Surplus Property Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends approval of the Revised
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Council is familiar with the contents of the
Revised Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized
and directed to execute the Revised Agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS
by the following vote:
day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
J:\W[D\MNRS\114\RESOL\SURPLUS.AGA
ATTACHMENT, ;
t .
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
THIS AGREEMENT, dated for identification this ~ day of
~ 1992, is entered into between the CITY OF DUBLIN (CITY),
a municipal corporation, the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (COUNTY), a
political subdivision of the State of California and the SURPLUS
PROPERTY AUTHORITY ("AUTHORITY") of Alameda County: a public
corporation.
RECITALS
A. COUNTY and CITY are parties to an agreement entitled
"An Agreement Between the County of Alameda and the City of
Dublin Regarding Camp Parks, Tassajara Park and Santa Rita
Properties," which is dated August 5, 1986 (hereafter "Annexation
Agreement") .
B. The Annexation Agreement sets forth certain agreements
regarding the annexation of the properties described in that
agreement as the "Camp Parks property," the "Tassajara Park
property" and the "Santa Rita property" as well as agreement
between COUNTY and CITY regarding the transfer of property tax
revenues upon annexation of other lands.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
1
August 25, 1992
A\f~ME:N.1 .1.
~
t
~
N
l
--
N
GJ
~
C. The properties described herein as the CAMP PARKS
PROPERTY, TASSAJARA PARK PROPERTY, COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY,
COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY and SANTA RITA PROPERTY were not within
the city limits of CITY at the time of execution of the
Annexation Agreement but have since been annexed to CITY and are
currently within the city limits of CITY.
D. CITY is in the process of preparing a general plan
amendment and specific plan for the SANTA-RITA PROPERTY and other
properties to the east of SANTA RITA PROPERTY.
E. AUTHORITY owns approximately =613 acres of property
within the city limits of CITY, described herein as the SANTA
RITA PROPERTY, which AUTHORITY intends to develop in a
proprietary capacity. Development of the SANTA RITA PROPERTY
will benefit both AUTHORITY, COUNTY and CITY through the
provisions of housing, jobs, public recreational amenities and
tax revenues.
F. AUTHORITY owns approximately =214 acres of property
within the city limits of CITY, described as the COUNTY
GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY, which AUTHORITY and COUNTY use and intend
to use for governmental purposes. The use of the COUNTY
GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY for such purposes will benefit CITY and its
residents through the provision of governmental services.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
z
August 25, 1992
G. AUTHORITY owns approximately ~124 acres of property
within the city limits of CITY, described as the COUNTY SHERIFF
PROPERTY which is used by the Alameda County Sheriff's Department
for governmental uses.
H. CITY, COUNTY, and AUTHORITY desire to provide a
framework for the orderly development of the SANTA RITA PROPERTY
and COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY and needed infrastructure for
such development; the provision of.services to the SANTA RITA
PROPERTY, COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY and COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL
PROPERTY; the sharing of property taxes upon annexation by CITY'
of lands to the east of CITY's current eastern city limits; the
sharing of property tax revenues from properties within CITY'; and
other related matters.
DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Agreement, the following definitions
shall apply:
a. CAMP PARKS PROPERTY shall mean all property
currently designated as Assessor's Parcel Number 946-015-1-5,
regardless of whether all or part of such property is later
designated by a different Assessor's Parcel Number, and described
more particularly in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
3
August 25, 1992
b. COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY shall mean the
property owned by AUTHORITY, consisting of approximately f214
acres, east of Arnold Road, north of Gleason Drive and west of
Tassajara Creek, as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
c. COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY shall mean the
property owned by AUTHORITY, consisting of approximately f124
acres used, operated and/or controlled by the Alameda County
Sheriff's Department, which is located generally north of Broder
Ave. and east of Arnold Road extending to Barnett Road, as shown
on Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein. COUNTY
SHERIFF PROPERTY shall include any portion of the COUNTY
GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY subsequently used, operated and/or
controlled by the Alameda County Sheriff's Department.
d. EASTERN DUBLIN shall mean any and all
property lying within the City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Planning
Area located to the east of CITY's easterly city limits as shown
in Exhibit D.
e. GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY (ONE HUNDRED
ACRES) shall mean the first 100 acres of property designated as
"general commercial" property by CITY's General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to be developed on the SANTA RITA PROPERTY
and/or in EASTERN DUBLIN for uses other than office uses, which
property shall be shown on a map to be prepared, maintained and
updated by CITY until a total of 100 acres have been developed,
at which time such map shall become a part of this Agreement.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
--4
August 25, 1992
f. SANTA RITA PROPERTY shall mean the property
owned by AUTHORITY, consisting of approximately ~613 acres, east
of Arnold Road, south of that portion of Gleason Drive west of
Tassajara Creek, and west of Tassajara Road, currently designated
as Assessor's Parcel Number 946-015-2, Assessor's Parcel Number
946-15-4 and a portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 946-015-1-4,
regardless of whether all or part of such property is later
designated by a different Assessor's Parcel Number, and described
mure particularly in Exhibit E, attached hereto ana incorporated
herein.
g. TASSAJARA PARK PROPERTY shall mean all
property currently designated as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 946-
015-1-6 and 946-015-1-7, regardless of whether all or part of
such property is later designated by a different Assessor's
Parcel Number, and described more particularly in Exhibit F,
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and acts
described herein, the CITY, COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree as
follows:
1. Recitals
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and
are part of this Agreement.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
5
August 25, 1992
2. Prooertv Tax Transfer uoon Future Annexations
Upon annexation to CITY of any property within
EASTERN DUBLIN, CITY and COUNTY agree that CITY will receive
25.4% of the full one percent ad valorem property tax and/or
possessory interest tax from such property and shall retain all
other revenues derived from or attributable to EASTERN DUBLIN
normally received by a city on account of property within its
city limits. This Agreement is made pursuant to the provisions
of Revenue and Taxation Code section 99 and shall constitute the
agreement for exchange of property tax revenues required by
Revenue and Taxation Code ~ 99(b) (6). Both parties agree to
adopt resolutions accepting this exehange of tax revenues, if
required by the executive officer of the Local Agency Formation
Commission at the time of an application for annexation.
3. prooertv Tax Transfer followina Annexation of
Desianated Prooerties
a. CITY shall continue to receive 25.4% of the
full one percent ad valorem property tax and/or possessory
interest tax from the TASSAJARA PARK PROPERTY and the CAMP PARKS
PROPERTY whether such properties, or any part of either such
properties, are held by public or private entities.
b. CITY shall receive the following percentage
of the full one percent ad valorem property tax and/or possessory
interest tax from the portions of the SANTA RITA PROPERTY, the
COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY and the COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY
within the following tax rate areas (or any new tax rate areas
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
~
August 25, 1992
designated that encompass/the same property) and COUNTY shall
receive the following percentage of such ad valorem property tax
and/or possessory interest tax:
Tax Rate Area
citv
County
26-012
38.565216%
31%*
26-013
29.130376%
31%*
26-021
22.871071%
31%
*COUNTY shall receive this percentage of the tax following
detachment of the proverty from the Livermore Area Recreatioh ~nd
Park District (LARPD).
c. The provisions of subsection (b) of this
section shall apply regardless of the ownership of the property
included in tax rate areas 26-012, 26-013 and 26-021 or any
successor tax rate areas.
d. The provisions of this section are entered
into pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code sections 99.4(b).
e. Prior to the effective date of this
Agreement, CITY shall apply to LAFCO for detachment of the
property included in tax rate areas 26-012 and 26-013 from LARPD.
4. Tax Revenues from SANTA RITA PROPERTY, COUNTY
SHERIFF PROPERTY and COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY
a. Except as provided in subsection (b) below,
CITY will receive all revenues derived from or attributable to
the SANTA RITA PROPERTY, COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY and the COUNTY
GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY normally received by a city on account of
property within its city limits, including the amount of ad
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
7
August 25, 1992
valorem property tax and/or possessory interest tax specified in
subsection 3(b) above.
b. (1) The total amount of property tax
revenues CITY will receive in any fiscal year from the SANTA
RITA PROPERTY, COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY and COUNTY
GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY shall be reduced by an amount equal to
the sum of (1) thirty-five percent (35%) of the sales and
use tax revenues received by CITY during the preceding sales
tax four qua.rter period ending with the June State Boazd of
Equalization "balancell payment (hereafter "four quarter
period") from businesses located on the GENERAL COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY (ONE HUNDRED ACRES) and (2) thirty-five percent
(35%) of the sales and use tax revenues received by CITY
during the preceding four quarter period from businesses
located on the SANTA RITA PROPERTY which is not zoned
"general commercial" in CITY's zoning ordinance. This
amount shall be referred.to hereafter as the "Property Tax
Reduction."
(2) In the event that the property tax
revenues allocated to CITY from the SANTA RITA PROPERTY,
COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY and COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY in
any fiscal year are less than an amount equal to the
Property Tax Reduction, the difference between the amount of
such property tax revenues and the Property Tax Reduction
shall be carried forward to succeeding fiscal years and
shall be a reduction in property tax revenues allocated to
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
-8
August 25, 1992
CITY from the SANTA RITA PROPERTY, COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY
and COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY in future years until the
difference is reduced to zero. The following example is
provided for illustrative purposes:
City's Property Amount of ;'.mount
35% of Tax from Reduction to Carried
Sales Tax Three Prooerties Prooertv Tax Forward
Year 1 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Year 2 200,000 150,000 150,000 50,000
Year 3 250,000 800,000 400,000 0
Total $650,000 $1,050,000 $650,000 $150,000
(3) CITY shall, no later than September 30
of each year, notify COUNTY's Auditor-Controller of the
amount of the Property Tax Reduction for the preceding four
quarter period. For purposes of this Agreement, the amount
of sales and use tax received by CITY during the preceding
four quarter period shall be calculated as of the date of
the June State Board of Equalization payment to the CITY.
This amount shall not include the advance for the month
following the fourth sales tax quarter included in the June
payment. Upon reasonable notice, COUNTY shall have the
right to audit CITY's sales tax records to verify the
accuracy of the amount reported.
(4) COUNTY shall provide CITY with an annual
statement, in the form of attached hereto as Exhibit G,
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
9
August 25, 1992
showing the reduction of property taxes pursuant to this
subparagraph (b).
(5) Upon reasonable notice, CITY shall have
the right to audit COUNTY's property tax records to verify
the accuracy of the amount of the reduction to CITY's
property tax revenues pursuant to this section.
(6) In no event shall property tax revenues
allocated to CITY from any areas other than SANTA RITA
PROPERTY, COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY- and COu~TY GOV?RNMENTAL
PROPERTY be reduced by virtue of the provision of this
paragraph.
(7) In no event shall the reduction to the
CITY's property tax revenues provided for in this section be
used to reduce the CITY's "base" for calculating its
allocation of property taxes pursuant to Revenue and
Taxation Code section 97 nor shall it affect the CITY's
"property apportionment tax factor" calculated pursuant to
Revenue and Taxation Code section 97.5 or its share of the
annual tax increment or supplemental assessments.
(8) CITY and COUNTY agree that the reduction
in property tax revenues provided for in subsection (b) (i)
above shall not be deemed "proceeds of taxes" by CITY but
shall be considered "proceeds of taxes" by COUNTY for
purposes of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
(9) As used herein, "sales and use tax
revenues" shall mean the one percent (1%) sales and use tax
revenues currently received by CITY pursuant to the Bradley-
Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Revenue and
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl 10 August 25, 1992
Taxation Code section 7200 et ~) and CITY's Uniform Local
Sales and Use Tax Ordinance (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter
3.04) .
c. In the event that the state changes the
current basis for allocation of sales and use tax from an
allocation according to situs to some other allocation basis,
then CITY and COUNTY shall renegotiate the provisions of
subsection (b) of this Agreement with respect to sharing of sales
aml Llse taxes. In renegotiating the provisions of subsection
(b), the parties shall attempt to preserve the relationship
between the total amount of the sales and use tax generated from
the properties, the percentage of such tax received by the
COUNTY, and the percentage retained by CITY.
d. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection
(b) above, COUNTY agrees that should any automobile franchise,
whether currently located within CITY's existing city limits or
hereafter located within CITY's existing city limits (except for
automobile franchises located on the SANTA RITA PROPERTY) ,
relocate to the SANTA RITA PROPERTY within twelve (12) months
from the date the automobile franchise ceased operating in the
City, all sales taxes attributable to such automobile franchise
shall be allocated to CITY. In such event, the property on which
such automobile franchise is located shall be excluded from the
definition of GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY (ONE HUNDRED ACRES)
even if it would otherwise come within that definition.
As used herein, "automobile franchise" shall
mean any business engaged in the sale of new automobile and/or
trucks, whether or not operating pursuant to franchise agreement.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl 11 August 25, 1992
5.
Services to be Provided
COUNTY SHERIFF PROP~RTY
a. Except as provided in subsection (b) below
and except for services provided by franchise (such as garbage,
electricity, gas and cable television), COUNTY shall provide all
municipal services to the COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY, including
police services.
b. CITY shall provide fire suppression services
to thB COm~TY SHERIFF PROPERTY and COUNTY shall reimburse CITY,
all as provided in paragraph A of the Letter of Agreement between
CITY and COUNTY, dated March 11, 1991, a copy of which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit H.
6. Services to be Provided -- COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL
I .
PROPERTY
a. CITY shall provide all municipal services of
the type normally provided by CITY to COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL
PROPERTY.
b. In the event that COUNTY or AUTHORITY
requests services for COUNTY GOVERNMENT PROPERTY at a level in
excess of municipal services normally provided by CITY, COUNTY
and AUTHORITY agree that CITY may impose fees, charges,
assessments or other similar mechanisms to recover the cost of
such increased services.
c. As used in this Section and in Section 7,
"municipal services of the type normally provided by CITY" shall
mean all services on the date of this Agreement provided by CITY
from funds other than revenues derived from assessments levied on
property."
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
12
August 25, 1992
7. Services to be Provided -- SANTA RITA PROPERTY
a. CITY shall provide all municipal services of
the type normally provided by CITY to the SANTA RITA PROPERTY.
b. In the event that COUNTY or AUTHORITY
requests services for SANTA RITA PROPERTY at a level in excess of
municipal services normally provided by CITY, COUNTY and
AUTHORITY agree that CITY may impose fees, charges, assessments
or other similar mechanisms to recover the cost of such increased
services.
c. COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree that the SANTA
RITA PROPERTY will be responsible for any assessments, fees,
charges or special taxes, such as those imposed pursuant to the
Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (streets and Highways Code
sections 22500 et.sea.) or the Mello-Roos Community Facilities
Act (Government Code sections 53311 et.seq.), for services
provided to all property of a like or similar land use city-
wide.
8. Land Use Approvals -- SANTA RITA PROPERTY
Notwithstanding any rights and powers which it may
possess as a California county, COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree as
follows with respect to the SANTA RITA PROPERTY:
a. Any development or use of the property shall
comply with all CITY rules, regulations, resolutions, ordinances
or other enactments relating to land use, including but not
limited to CITY's general plan, any applicable specific plan,
Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, Electrical Code,
Mechanical Code and Housing Code.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
13
August 25, 1992
b. CITY, COUNTY and/or AUTHORITY may, but need
not, enter into a development agreement of the sort authorized by
Government Code sections 65864 et.sea. prior to any development
of the property.
9. Land Use Aoorovals -- COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY
and COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY
Notwithstanding any rights and powers which it may
possess as a California county, COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree as
f0llows with respe~t to tha CO~~;Tl GOVE~~ENTAL PROPE~TY and the
COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY:
a. Except as set forth in subsection Cd) below,
any COUNTY governmental uses proposed for either property shall
be reviewed by CITY 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 CITY's zoning ordinance. COUNTY shall be the
lead agency for purposes of CEQA review. CITY and COUNTY will
share the costs associated with processing site development
review equally.
b. Any governmental uses proposed for either
property, other than COUNTY governmental uses, shall be processed
in accordance with CITY's rules, regulations, resolutions,
ordinances or other enactments relating to land use, including
but not limited to CITY's general plan, any applicable specific
plan, Municipal Code, Zoning ordinance, Building code, Electrical
Code, Mechanical Code and Housing Code. COUNTY and/or AUTHORITY
will assure that governmental uses of the property by any
governmental entity other than COUNTY are subject to CITY's land
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl 14 Auqust 25. ,qq?
use rules, regulations, resolutions, ordinance or other
enactments by inclusion of a condition to that effect in any deed
to or lease of, such property or other similar mechanism.
c. If the land use designation of any portion of
either property is proposed to be changed or subsequently changed
to allow non-governmental uses of the property, the provision of
section 8 of this Agreement shall be applicable to such property.
In such event, CITY will provide municipal services of the type
normally provided by CITY to such property, as ~rovided in
section 7, and CITY will receive tax revenues derived from or
attributable to such property, as provided in section 3(b) and
section 4.
d. No site development review shall be required
for any uses of the COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY by the Sheriff's
Department as long as the use is within the perimeter of the
existing County Jail property or other existing Sheriff
Department facilities, such as the existing training facility.
e. CITY agrees to process any review pursuant to
Government Code section 65402 and site development review
required by subsection (a) as expeditiously as possible.
10. COUNTY Ownership of anv Dortion of CAMP PARKS
PROPERTY
Notwithstanding any rights and powers which it may
possess as a California county, COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree that
in the event that COUNTY or AUTHORITY acquires any interest in
the CAMP PARKS PROPERTY:
114\Agree\Annex.Fn1
15
August 25, 1992
a. The provisions of section 8 and section 9,
depending on the use, shall govern the land uses of such
property;
b. CITY shall continue to receive 25.4% of the
full one percent ad valorem and/or possessory interest tax, as
provided in Section 3(a); and
c. CITY shall provide services to such property
pursuant to Section 6, if the use is a governmental use, or
Section 7, if the use is non-governmental.
11. Future Infrastructure for SANTA RITA PROPERTY and
COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY
a. CITY, COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree in concept
that infrastructure should be constructed as necessitated by
development and to accommodate reasonably projected development
and that costs of such infrastructure shall be borne by
properties benefiting therefrom in proportion to the benefit
received.
b. Notwithstanding any rights and powers which
it may possess as a California county, and in addition to the
provisions of Section 7(c), COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree that SANTA
RITA PROPERTY will be subject to assessments, fees, exactions
and/or special taxes for public improvements, such as but not
limited to streets, roads, freeway improvements, schools,
libraries, parks, police stations and fire stations (including
fire equipment and apparatus), which benefit SANTA RITA PROPERTY
to the extent of such benefit.
c. CITY agrees that any assessments, fees,
exactions and/or special taxes will be imposed or levied in a
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl 16 August 25, 1992
manner consistent with the manner of imposing similar
assessments, fees, exactions and/or special taxes in EASTERN
DUBLIN.
d. CITY agrees that it will provide the same
level of maintenance to the infrastructure as it provides to
other similar infrastructure elsewhere in CITY.
12. Reimbursement for Oversizinq Infrastructure
In the event that COUNTY and/or AUTHORITY are
required to inst~ll improvements containing supplemental size,
capacity, number or length for the benefit of property other than
the SANTA RITA PROPERTY, CITY agrees that it will enter into an
agreement with COUNTY and/or AUTHORITY for reimbursement for such
supplemental improvements in accordance with, and subject to,
Dublin Municipal Code section 9.16.110 and Government Code
sections 66485 et.seq.
13. Dedication of Easements and Riqht-of-Wav
AUTHORITY agrees to dedicate to CITY or other
appropriate agencies or entities such portions of SANTA RITA
PROPERTY located within the ultimate right-of-way of Gleason
Drive, Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive as are necessary for
utility easements or right-of-way for installation of utilities
such as water, sanitary sewer, communications, gas, electric,
storm sewer and cable television. Such dedication shall occur
when the SANTA RITA PROPERTY is developed or, in advance of such
development, if needed for development of properties in EASTER~
DUBLIN.
114\Agree\Annex.Fn1
17
August 25, 1992
AUTHORITY agrees to negotiate in good faith with
CITY to dedicate any other easements necessary for development of
the SANTA RITA PROPERTY and/or properties in EASTERN DUBLIN.
14. Miscellaneous Provisions
a. CITY and COUNTY agree to work together to
assure, to the extent legally possible, that appropriate
mitigation measures are required for any development in southern
Contra Costa County that adversely affects traffic circulation in
EASTER~ DUBLIN and SANTA RITA PROPERTY.
b. CITY and COUNTY agree that it is in the
interests of both parties to provide adequate sewerage capacity
for development of the SANTA RITA PROPERTY and properties in
EASTERN DUBLIN and, to that end, agree to work eooperatively
toward that goal.
c. In the event COUNTY wishes to expand its
existing water storage facility located on Tassajara Hill for
exclusive use of the Santa Rita Jail, COUNTY shall submit such
proposed plans to CITY for review pursuant to Government Code
section 65402. In the event that the purpose of expanding such
facility is for future use in addition to uses needed by the
Santa Rita Jail and other COUNTY governmental uses, COUNTY shall
process a conditional use permit through CITY.
d. CITY agrees to process an application for
planned development rezoning and a development agreement
simultaneously with the general plan amendment and specific plan
currently being processed, provided such processing is at
COUNTY's sole expense and provided, further, that it is
understood and agreed that any such rezoning would be conditional
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl 18 August 25, 1992
pending completion of the general plan amendment and specific
plan process.
e. CITY and COUNTY agree that there shall be no
adjustment to either party's appropriations limit by virtue of
this Agreement.
f. CITY agrees that it will not include the
SANTA RITA PROPERTY within a redevelopment project area without
the consent of COUNTY.
15. Aqreement to Become Effective Upon Council Action
a. This Agreement shall not become effective
unless and until the CITY, acting through its city council,
adopts a general plan and specific plan for the SANTA RITA
PROPERTY and COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY which designates land
use for such properties of not less than 85% by square footage or
by number of units of the land uses shown on Exhibit I, attached
hereto and incorporated herein. CITY shall notify COUNTY and
AUTHORITY of the effective date of the general plan amendment,
which shall be the date of this Agreement.
b. Notwithstanding subsection (a) above, this
Agreement, once effective, shall not become ineffective if, upon
application by COUNTY, AUTHORITY or their successors, CITY
changes the land uses for the properties to different intensity
of development than that shown on Exhibit I.
c. Notwithstanding subsection (a) above, once
this Agreement becomes effective, CITY later reduces the density
of land uses by more than 15% (by square footage or number of
units) below that shown on Exhibit I, the provisions of Section
114\Agree\Annex.p19
19
April 30, 1993
20(b) regarding breach shall be applicable, unless such reduction
is agreed to by COUNTY.
d. Once effective, and except as provided in
subsection (e) below, this Agreement shall supersede the
Annexation Agreement, which shall thereafter be of no force or
effect.
e. The Letter of Agreement dated March 11, 1991,
(Exhibit H) shall remain in effect with respect to the provision
of fire suppression services to COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY.
16. Additional Documents and Aqreements
The parties agree to cooperate in the execution of
any additional documents or agreements which may be required to
carry out the terms of this Agreement.
17. Successors
This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit
of all successors and assigns of the parties and any associates
in interest, and their respective directors, officers, agents,
servants, and employees, and the successors and assigns of each
of them, separately and collectively, and all its provisions
including paragraph 8, shall specifically bind and inure to the
benefit of any subsequent owners of the SANTA RITA PROPERTY.
18. Construction of Aqreement
This Agreement shall be construed and enforced
pursuant to the laws of the state of California.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
20
Auaust 25. lqq?
19. Time of the Essence
In entering into this Agreement, the parties
recognize and agree that time is of the essence.
20. Breach
a. If CITY, COUNTY or AUTHORITY breach any
provision of this Agreement, the non-breaching party may bring an
action for specific performance, declaratory relief, writ of
mandate or other appropriate action at law or equity and may
r~covcr damages, i~cluding interest at the legal rate specified
in Code of civil Procedures section 685.010 from the time of
breach, sustained as result of such breach. Damages shall be
recoverable only for tax revenues found to be due to the non-
breaching party. The prevailing party shall be entitled to
recover its attorneys' fees and costs from the breaching party.
b. In the event that CITY breaches Section 15(c)
of this Agreement, the provisions of section 2 hereof shall be of
no force or effect from the date of such breach forward but such
breach shall not affect the allocati9n of property taxes and/or
possessory interest taxes to CITY from property already annexed
to CITY. In addition, the provisions of section 8 hereof shall
be of no force or effect and COUNTY and/or SURPLUS PROPERTY
AUTHORITY shall be free to develop the SANTA RITA PROPERTY
without compliance with CITY's land use regulations.
c. If COUNTY fails to remit any tax revenues due
to CITY in a timely manner, COUNTY shall pay CITY interest at the
legal rate specified in Code of civil Procedure section 685.010
until such tax revenues are paid.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
21
August 25, 1992
21. Notices
Whenever notice is required hereunder, it shall be
given to the parties as follows:
To: City of DUBLIN:
City Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Post Office Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
To: COUNTY of Alameda:
County Administrator
County of Alameda
1221 Oak street, Room 555
Oakland, CA 94612
To: SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY:
County Administrator
County of Alameda
1221 Oak Street, Room 555
Oakland, CA 94612
22. Warrantv of Leqal Authority
Each party warrants and covenants that it has the
present legal authority to enter into this Agreement and to do
the acts required of it hereunder. If any party is found to lack
the authority to do the acts required of it hereunder or is
prevented from performing the acts by a court of competent
jurisdiction, this Agreement shall be void.
23. Entire Aareement
This document embodies the entire terms and
conditions of the Agreement described herein. This Agreement may
be executed in three (3) counterparts, each of which shall
constitute an original.
"4\n~~oo\~____ ~_,
,,~-;~'.~""'''-G.:::..,; l
24. Effective Qata
I
Th~S Agreement shall
in section 15 here~f.
become effective as provided
CITY OF DUBLIN
Dated:
Mayor
Approved as to
!
i
form::
I
I
I
city Attorney
Dated:
rlAY 0 ,~ 1993
~
92COUNTY OF ALAMEDA .
y! n#/7. / r
. --'~ Ie.. ~~:-"-
Chairman of t~ Board
Approved as to form:;
W.
County Counsel
MLjV n A :1qQ~
I
I.
I
SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY \
I
I hereby certify ut'l~er penalty of perjury that the President of the
Board of Supervisors was duly authorized to execute this document on behalf of
the County of Alameda by a t$jodty vote of the Board on M' ~ 4 ~ ;
and that a copy has been detivered to the President as provide y~ nment
Code Section 25103. \
Dated: MAY 0 4 1993\
i
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY
;9;}
o ;/ /7~
_/./P
l
WILLIAM MEHRWE IN t Clerk t Board of Supervi sors
County of Alameda, State"of California.
BC~ ;7~/~~/'.' //~,>IC./CZ~~/
I Deputy
DY;'. - I~. . -, /.-- -
I T"\A l'"'I" ,.."
~ ~ ?
~''''-...-,W:;r.-:rr-y_T"''n.~'''':~~'''=U.~
.... ..--r~:;"'q~,"-".~7'i\'~-~'~.::I!'Ji'!""-,",U;I'l'r;>'~~U!'~:;iilP'~~~"''''''--';w-'-a\ililil!iII___ -;:c:.__liJ-___.. -:-"7
Exhibit A
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Legal Description CAMP PARKS PROPERTY
Legal Description COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY
Legal Description COUNTY SHERIFF
PROPERTY
Legal Description EASTERN DUBLIN
Legal Description SANTA RITA PROPERTY
Legal Description TASSAJARA PARK
PROPERTY
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Annual Statement of Property Tax
Reductions for Year Ending June 30, 19xx
Exhibit H
Letter of agreement between CITY and
COUNTY, dated March 11, 1991
Exhibit I
Proposed Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment And Specific Plan Land Use
Summary by General Plan Use Designation
For Santa Rita Property
f
I
I
\
,
I -
I
)
.,
...- t-"<. "--' .- c.. ~ ·
.
<::;.A..IVI p
P ~t< K..::>
Estate of E. A. Dougherty. (Bk.8 Pg.751
~~t~
\:~~ r~~
..~ "~~~
'..",.".,..f "I.:z't....~,
.-So> J
'-~
~-::"'~ 54\
'O;;?;:~III
~~
~.- ~~
T-7-~ "'~
II -~
rOo....4(255.33':':') --;---
11l5.<O<> \
.'.1.9
\ ~~:~~ .~\,
..~.!A .,<:.
~~~ . ~
't:~~(' ~..
5':>."" 'Q'"
IS"X~ \
I~~ \j'
"13"'..:2 0:;-
\ '-4.~(,. 181.15':':" LC). .
I~~I .I
'501t.J.:2. .r~ "..;
"".1.0 ~;;..l,1 '''J
~.f7;:;7 '...,J t
, jJ~.I"'~~ : p
..~~ ~ ~
I~ ,1
",,'f, \~ II. ~
,i" rI' .\~ I .
13 J:~ )
f2S.e5!':';J,,1"~:~;F 500.
~(/
f Jt' ::;~;f; it
~ ~
'" ./
"
, \, '$r t: 4.0.
(.r".~S"4... z..,(~""_"~J... ... .. .. ... ... .. ... ... ... ... - ... ... ... - -_It-oO~
_ ... _ ... _ _ ... ... ... ... _ ... ... _ ... _ ... ... ... ... ./'" i ~ \) ~"NCHO
,p" .,.. I'
"f'~ ,; ...
,J"'."~ I~ 5~'002
;/ l .!I:;::.....
.. aJ,;"~;11..
4 ~ ,.
'i
~
Scale: t" = 1000'
o
o
<-'
:<ct'>
co-
r-
ct'>.
"'=
"ic:J
aJ.
. '-
"'>-
"--,
'.0
"''''
'"
"''''
Q~
_ ~<:l .>>
~ a:~::IaJ~
~~~~~~,..,..
I I I~' .a:~
.... ~ ,..,I.DN~~~
32
(57.62Ac)
8)
457.33 k
8
(491.61':";')
A
(183.56.lcJ
~.....
X; ~
<\; ,
~
~ . ~ $~"6"~"1
.~ ~ ~~ ,~".J~ ~~
l ~.\~ "-
\." ~,~
,:!::~.~' " ~f
l'/~_./ f\
!l1~.HI':!I'."
I~JI1.~Z
_.,,_ ,.TOTAL AREA
in contrQ costa
in alameda
10 freeway
3636.12
916.1
2720.0
6.55
(2713,47)
~...
15
06450.:.c.J
.,,"
/~
I'"
U.S.A.
8
/258.54Ac'( R)
../t.I4'''''' .. .
.' .::~:::;~._~...I SR!Vl......elZ-,.;'- 41e - /6
::'~~ I '" ~/ c a 0 -
~ _~~~)' v f:84,Sa~)
u..., ...
".::''';''~;''':~H
.....,.~r._._
"'~~'I'
"'1.,./:,"__'"
~
~
. ,
. ~
C)
C)
C)
1<)
"<
Cii
ll:l
0.,
0.,
""
Cll
~
~
~.
----.:::::.:...~ tIN .
-' ~
....-'Z~..-...:
'" ,
~. ~....
':..~. ~~::-.
~..l.~, ,..._..........':..
-~ - ~
.1
,~
..~~,
t!.r
o
".
~::~
",."J-J'
~"""~'",,-1.
(R.50)
~CASTKO V^lLEY
d
,.
, _ ,___ ~-~. .....r. --.'
INTE:R ; STATe
3~
:'~
'-/4J
580
o
<!
o
/\
~
,
"".:"
uSA ~\~
/1.62-'. ~
e
1\
11.
13
14
I!O
'"
11
.8
l<;l
'20
21
't..
n
't~
?s
7.Co
41
'28
s .,0- \0' Ii
:s; \1' 1.1'E.
S -:- o~'w
S'll'OO'W
:, 9" 1\' v.t
S I~' 'Ul' E.
S 'S' s~'E.
",,,,'n'e.
s l!6' ~i.
s=....,.1:.
S IS. 1<; Eo
'S.\C:~'w .
~ ~.\4'W
SII. sa'e.
s ~.01>' E.
S.oJl'13'e.
s " .:,:,:-;;
~rJ.. 30'w
~lC ::::IF.SE OISr:.:.
I $.So~3'E I ~9
Z 5:!50'J3'E 75.-=
~ ~2'5,):5'€ II 7' '~
Slo~S'W ~7'
S2Co~I'W 3C
$~o33\~ Ie.;.
35
s.:.co?;S'W
S30Z"~
S7'2004'(
10 ,'~jaOZ9'E
39
7~
14
(2099iM
COUNTY
e
951.81 Ac
"I
., i
" '
....;
., :
-I '
Y
.I
'I
~1
'"
"
1
I
,.
"
"
1921
"''' -~::.....,-
~"~'-
~.S.A.{ ~\ \7....,;
. 2 ~~!
:Ll
4./7 Ac. ~ ..". .
,r",;
.
,
"
,
.. ..
~ .1
.~~~ /~...':1 ..J
~;1- ~~t~!.t!~;:'::_
.. .PoI>I
.~
------.--
A..
~~UNT~ ~~VERN~ENT~L
pR..C>PERT~
":,:..:::"'
COUNTV SHERIFF PROPERTV
.. ..,t"",,\',\ ---- .
,~//i7l~~fl/~ J
1
H
1
.. ,: ..~ . ~~-~~em~~:
N-~I ~~~. ~. !L. ~~~~111(r~~ll~.;v. 1't'
( ". \J _, ~ ,.,,7...."
'l'~\ ~ -. '\ \,~ -L
,~". . "."'" !'). . .
. ~ " _-L--'----------~ ;; .--
----~-------~
Rev- .!.-7-92
.-"L-I.~I-r c::
z
-
I
_l
~
)
J
i
'1m
"/
.\1
r-
fIJ
<
u.J
Q
..c(j)
~c
Q)~
c2
5 ro ~
OO-j
C
<ll
E
1:)
e
<ll
E
<(
e
6:2
ro<
~ >-
al_
e ~
al ~
au:;
~ 1; .- (
~
~ ~ ~I I
:1
"tl
"tl
Z {:.
~z~
UJ-~
r- .....I-g
CJj CO ~
<: :J~
UJ03
,..
~
~
,..
o
~
<
I
, I
;~ :~
H
.,:.
r
r
: . I'
: .
I
I
,
f
.':: : .~~ ~~.--'r--.
_ . _ _ . _ _ . -.. . -. _ ,- ~ ';" II <.;..:.::: '"'
~~____~-~---"C~,--::c~~::~cc~Ft:;--1-.t,'-~cf:--:::c-<>"'-~'. ~ l.:: l' " -" l
_. --;.. .....__-..~~ ~t 4.'l. a' .__' :.' .<: ;.' ..".~ \U ~', \
,""'" ---'- -' 'g.~ a' ()~!}- . -- :..-. -.' i
: ,';':~-~~~:i"~:1 r:\ <<\-\ +:~::: :- -,.:::;,' I~
-~ />l :,,:.,.~~,,:. ;' '.,~.. ....j~,'-[J~i~~t... ~f~~~ : -'.'
..... '. ..._' "'. '.. ~ _ ., 0 '-i:\J .. ..... '
_ I' - .\ - ... .. - 'I: 9'>'-"''' 'I . ~ .
J '. C' ~ .. c~ A:l.... '.:::.'f- . -,-
.") ~ .... .......s~:.~ .".J: C:_, '_. >~'_~- =-. ~ _:... ., i,~~ :" :#,
-~:... ~.,~~:- ..... - ,- ;. .
, '_._~ .c.~' <_ ....,.. I ' ~
.\ '. .' ..:....!!l~~.. ',"~ :. ,<
:-\ .~ ~.-,;~ ..>.t!~.~ ~.'~ . - .:: 0...' .J~J. '7.~ ..' -;. =ct' - ;."'-' 1.1 ~,~.)
. . . ~ ,..-.,. - c! ~:: - " ~~.
\:-"f;z:,<t~,l~ i.. c: j '. I t ~~-
\ ..'! % ' _ _' c. ,:> - , I ti.....
\ ., B.""" ...... ._~.. ... _..-;-'>...._~-._--_... :.,.:O:":..:'.-.:J,.,.t ;.....~. :.. 1: ,,~ ;;?!3
i., _.._::::.- i}..... . ....----I... . "'--
I --,. .r;
\ ._. ~..e ~_~. . ~~ -...-., t M'.:. Ii c ';.f
\. --.~;t. ::: .....-IjS ,.,' ..' ~!;... ~\ -tv--~'
.~~_.\ ~o:. .\ .'~ .} .:':". .'~1:~~. ':<'}-: <-:. - I jll i~
_ ~ ;;.~_-;:--" ~ < T
.,.\ ".::.. ~~~ .,.. '::.>'~"..;:: li~:'<~':.~r':~~''.'~ '~- - .:~ pi
..'-\." .... ~~~3~~--.', "c-f..l '. c~ -,:.. :""..1 il~
.._ %.- .; l~,~. ..._;..~.:~~'.- ~~;..~~~:~.~: :-f<.1~ .. . ,,-~~ ... 1)\.II.V
. s-- . .'. _ ..... .:::..: ':~. c j'\<' ~20" ........ .,-..c:.-'~~': ~i; r ~ (
.. ." ;~~~,~{'.~..~~~..' 1 - . "-'
; .'. '>' ,,:,;, ~~:(. __:.,::,-::,~" ~".; .~'Ii'- ,>
", -: ~~\ I:~ <~t:~ :":,,,~'I-II ':-+ I -
'..:: _ .~..\:. : ~:!-..: .. .-'.' . .c-S '-1. .- ! j' ::: - "- \
-. . :,-. .~.~__ ..~:.. t-~~..~ Ii .;:.;.-,,:'.
., '-emu, ":._~"~\::. '.-:. ~". ' j
'. ~"- \'.-: Q\ ~ ~ . ' 'c t 11"
In ~~'. ~.~'~ ..\ ._'~.6;. .~--;::./ :l~' I ;:~2--A.'~.
~ "'t.... ~...\ _ ~:o? ..... - ,
~ ~.. _ 0 -c- f'\ 1" '. ----
. re.- :: - \. --
: ___,,,_ c.:l', . .", -7-"
-..;L ,..' AI' <<:..:-::;
\\.:/r- t~
- '.-.. ( ,?-.
, ~
"_ 1 ~ I .: .::.,.:~.~: ~':;..;-
-..;...:. I i
.:--.
II
\I
II
,,-';'-
.....
;:
~ :J>:';':-
"
:::. ..
,.--
.~
.~
'J
.
':~~~ ! m~ I
. ".. .1 \
: ~:i'l i
~'I . \~
m . , ,/:/ I
~j .
. - t
I
I
"
;~s:~<~:.
'J
r
l..
~
~'
-~ . "" .
'-. --- ~
: :~~.':l.-'
.. -, . . -
-'
\.
~
.r.
- ~= ~
...........AT .... ~ .
PRC>PERT"V"
I
~
1
.t
.i
,.
=-= . ~':'-I ~~!
"~.\. - -~~~. '-. ~~~Bf
_ ). ~ ___ _ .._ __. ~ ':::.t<9:~\. '
"-- t="" ~ 1-1 I B I.-'E
T ~SS~.J ~~~
P~RK
PR<JPER-'
~
'.S (;:;,-FS:: :,5-
~
Scale: 1'" :COO'
Estate of E. A. Dougherty, (8k.8 Pg.751
Rancho Son Ramon (J.M.Amador) (PaI.Bk."A" Pg.l71l
S:;'5')S~'E
Amended Mop of the Town of Dougherty ~~3~
~~'\.---' ~;;o
00. /. .,' . "".C>
C..,..... ,....J::7 "':'.. t
__ "'.pr. ..
-~ --< ,'~
~~.t:..r~ ~'\
~/ CO
.~
-( y;.. ~ p..
C~/~~o
.,--- I'>. \ p.-
o .~~ r'.....
.cfS.'?~' 0 ,S5CJ-Jd
s.'\'>' -z.'!>'Co 33
,;:;.0- e'O
o
o
""
.i ..........
iij-
r-
Itl .
01=
.it:J
co .
. L.
:=~
~d;j
2~
~-o
C'c>
.."
"C>
g:"
:;::g ~~~~>>
:.t a.: ,D(D
~~~'n~~,..,...
1 I I '=? I I a;a;
:: ~ ~~N~~~
~ ~ J~~~~~
,:
"
c:
'6
(252. 4/Ac.l
32
(5 T.6Z~c.J
8
457.33 Ac.
9
(4Sl5/Acl
~
(/8J.o5AcJ
. ,I
. r
fl'
~, -ii, r'~
,~ . ~ ~~
..~.. ~,,/_,," ~ ~
~ t.~"r:'~'? .. 'I/,
- ....... ...
i4J(). -
\..,
'\ ~
~ ~~1'~f,~~
~) c::. ~ i b .
~ cJ !",;
~ '" I ~~
'~f;'>
4f.".'A ... .. I
"'-~
13
OU50Acl
~ ~ ~
,,~Cl i
'" ~'> ~ .
0"'.' q; l
o~~..J I
c1 ~~ ~
~ ;:~=L
'6-~!l~ \ g
r- \ 0(
~~.~-
i":r \ ~f
J)\l
~ ~1'-
.~. ~
L.
~.
.
3636.12
916.1
2720.0
6.55
,27 I 3.471
-.... ..TOTAL AREA
in contra costa
in alameda
to free'Nay
~
. "-
. ,
. ,
, ,
:-':t
S;;O;~'E \..:
S2S"Z5:E
s;o ':~".y
S 2C '';1' H
S;-;" ~~' II
S.:.co~~'~
:)-;021' ::
S7Z~S~'::
.... ,'~7302':1::
\JJ'"~"'~-':
.>J
'~/'~
. 0-.
~)
"
'";;:~:"1: 5 4
'"
, of
~.s.. ~'
~=-.....~:.;,;
II ~.
[~~(Z5;:J.J"':~) -;--\ ~~
~1. "9
\ ~~:~~J~
:'9.S'l ,,<. ~
'2.5.00 ~ ~
~~~ ~
'Z.19'- ~'"
~."''Z. 'Q'" ~
I ~~~ \ 1'/
109.11 \ L C
43.0'-" \. '
\~-,;~ i:'-:5':':'} ~
'5~~ '...........
'=A..bO /Jrfl-.g--:.?='''~;
j .I';.~: )~.....J i~
.\~ "
"
~~~;J \~ !
" " "j J '
[255C:"':':):<,,~:~;// 500.
/,/
j''f1~
5:=':/:/..II~
. 1'\ "I'~
"
~ \, !:S':'. !.'.'.
- - - ---.I,.....:>~
.(#,'" 't) :p.,'jC)oIO
5 ,," ,: 1,
".J ,'"
~I",.:;;f ]'; 55.C02
'.7" s"""~c.'~
..( u.,f~;~~-~:.o
lj '"
fl..;
~!lg
<\j:>1~
J..:~ (\.,;
~
,
'1 I=-
~\,.
uS':"I~
/I 52.: ~
oJ-51
(3
II
'"
13
14
IS
",
11
16
19
'10
?-1
'Z.'l.
-n
7.~
'Z.s
7.(,
'l:1
7.8
S.,c"IO'~
s.,. "Z.,.e.
s -:- os'""",
S ""OO.W
:; 0/ \I.\M
'S.\'?l,-"2:)'E,.
~ i~- ~~. E-
N '-,- \~. E.
S~'~'E.
S~"'l'E.
-:=:,ISo-'<':'E..
S\<:~'W.
S"1-t4........,
$\\- sa'5.
'S.~.O~.E.
S 4/l' \3'"
-so.,. '2.'~.:e
~~.'1o."'"
14
(Z(;99t.:d
.,1"
/~
l~"_ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t..J~'_'~S':'~_ t:.J..:.""_7~:";.J - - - - - - - - - - -
u.s.A.
(0)
/ZS8.54Ac.(R)
\
~.l
~~
,
,
~~
~
S?I/I/
@\ 872. ),. 47F - 20
I
Cl
C}
Cl
IT)
::::
C(l
C(l
0)
0)
""
t:l
.''''-1(1''1, -. .
: /~,~:;:.",,~...I SERR.....S7Z-.../. 47€. '"/6
, ;:::::~ I / --r.:;../ c a "
.,~~~,; V (j84.5S.:..:.J
~~,., -
,""._"'4'~.
". "~:;~%"':.~:'
: -. ""'~~~I .
. -"~'r~_..,.
~
"-
.;:
~
~~l!N .
-" ~
";. ..
~ ...
"'-;:~. ~~.
-~ - ~
.,
.;
.s~~
....
t., .
"
\.:~
-,
.!1l1rJ.J"
~ 1'."'7 "//-I/C
(fl. 50J
-.--- .--'--
'NTcR-~'SrAri 580
~B
~:
o
~CASTRa VAllEY
"
}{
'-)-1)
COUNTY
0})
55/.8/ Ac
~
-....
C2S'OI2~-7.-
~.S.A. ,...\~
2 ~4. ,.
. -..'1'1
4./7 ,Jc. ~t.....,.,.
~J:~
..
././
r;~;;::;'>:~;:,
..n']7_
CITY OF DUBLIN
AMVUAL STATEMENT OF PROPERTY
TAX REDUCTIONS FOR
YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 19xx
I I PROPERTY TAX REVENUES II
I I
COUNTY SHERIFF A:\D I
T AX ROLL SANT A RITA PROPERTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY I
I
I
Current Secured $50,000 52S.(X){) I
Current Unsecured I 5,000 3,COO \
Supplemental Assessment I 6,000 2.(X){) I
Prior Secured 4,000 1. (X){)
Prior Unsecured 1,000 1 , (X){) \
\ I
Prior Supplemental Assmt. 1,000 1.000 I
TOTAL $67,000 533.000
.... ::: .:< .;::.:.:.: \
.. 67,000
:..H :::. ..... ..:P: . ...,:.:..:....::..
.. :..:..::
OVERALL TOTAL ~.::::':... .::.:.:::::.:..:::.. .... .:.... . ..:::.:.. $100,000 \
..:.::..:. .... ..:.:.:.:.:... ..:. .::.::.:.:::::.
.. .: .:.:.7. ;:: ~. . ..:
LESS 35% SALES TAX .. ...:..... ..;.......::P\: ..::::t::..::::.:.:: ::.:.:
REVENUE .... . :.:::: 200,000
.. :::. .:::.:::::.:.:.::<::::.:.:.:
.: .... ...::. ..::..... .. H
CARRY-FORWARD .. .. -:::::..::'..:::: .e:.::.:... .:. ..=::.::..:. S 100,000
... .:. :i.':.:.(.:.:.>.:.::..... .....
NOTE: Ta.r: Revenue reduced $100,000 and $100,000 carry-fonvard to subsequent year reduction.
A:-;."lSTATI.l~l
I=XHIBIT C
~~€>
~
CITY OF DUBLIN
,
, ~
. {
. .
. ,
, .
j ~ I
PO Box 2340 Dublin Caldornla 94568
City Otlices. 100 CiVIC Plaza. Duclin. C2:.;cr~'3 9.:563
t'\,J:}t~'~i !I) fli....
March 11, 1991
no
,J
-:: \',
Mary King, President
Board of Supervisors
Alameda County
1221 Oak street, Room 536
Oakland, CA 94612
<...,~
_ L,':- l
C
....... ::...
c' -....r
-:<1 _ -r '
'-. -. --
.,1 -n -:r ,
'" ~l"
.- f..J"': (
- .)-4
. : I ;:. "-.
.' ::. 0--
2~
'.J .'- '-
c:::
~.,
r.J
::;..
-
RE: Letter of Agreement regarding Annexation Agreement
Provision of Fire Services
.
-.;.C
'..":
Honorable President King and Members of the Board:
The City of Dublin and the County of Alameda are parties to an agreement
entitled "An Agreement Between the County of Alameda and the City of
Dublin regarding Camp Parks, Tassajara Park and Santa Rita Properties,"
which was signed by the City and County in 1986, and is commonly
referred to as the llAnnexation Agreement." paragraph 5 (c). of the
Annexation Agreement provides that the County will remit to the'City an
amount equal to the City's costs for providing services to the Santa
Rita property (described in Exhibit C to the Annexation Agreement), as
such costs are determined pursuant to the formulae set forth in Exhibit
F to the Annexation Agreement. paragraph 5(f) of the Annexation
Agreement then provides that if the cost of services will exceed 50% of
the revenue attributable to the Santa Rita property, the Ci ty and the
County shall reach agreement regarding the funding of the services which
exceed 50% of the revenues.
The purpose of this letter is to set forth our agreement, pursuant to
the provisions of paragraph 5(f) of the Annexation Agreement, regarding
the County's obligation to reimburse the City for the cost of providing
fire services to the Santa Rita property.. In particular, this letter of
agreement relates only to the method of reimbursement for the provision
of fire services to the County's Santa Rita Jail (the new Santa Rita
Jail) and other public facilities located on the Santa Rita property, as
described in the Annex.ation Agreement. This letter of agreement does
not alter the existing method of calculating the cost of reimbursement
to the City for fire services as set forth in the "Illustrative
Worksheet for Calculating Fire Service Costs ,.. which is part of Exhibi t
F to the Annexation Agreement, for non-public buildings and structures
which may be constructed on the Santa Rita property in the future.
EJ<HIBIT ~
Adllllnlstral,on (415) 833.6650 . C,ly Councd (415) 833.6605 . Finance (415) 833.6640 · BudOlng Insr;eCllon (415) 833.E62':
C.ode Enlorcp.ment (415) 8:33.6620 . Englneertng (415) 833.6630 . Planf1lna (415) 833.6610
. _. , I ~ r:\ 0.,,,,, ~:::'.I c..
By. this letter of agreement, tne I.....l.Lj cH1U I..-UU"'-l ~':1--- -- -
A.
city's costs for providing fire services (as defined in Exhibit 1)
to the Santa Rita Jail facility, commencing July 1, 1989, shall be.
not less than $55,200 per Fiscal Year, commencing with the Fiscal
Year beginning July 1, 1989, provided that should the number of
calls to the Santa Ri ta Jail exceed 22 calls in any Fiscal Year
beginning with Fiscal Year 1990-91, the City'S costs for providing
fire services for that year and subsequent years shall be $55,200,
plus the "actual costs" per call in excess of 22 calls calculated
as shown on Exhibit 2 hereto.
City's costs for providing fire services on the remainder of the
Santa Rita property, as described in Exhibit C to the Annexation
Agreement and more particularly shown on Exhibit 3 hereto, shall be
the "actual cost'l per call per Fiscal Year, and calculated as shown
in Exhibit 2. This method of calculating the City's costs for fire
services on the remainder of the Santa Rita property shall not be
applicable upon completion of construction of, and assignment of an
assessed valuation to, any non-public building on the Santa Ri ta
property. The cost of fire services for non-public building shall
be calculated as set forth in Exhibit F to the Annexation
Agreement.
The City, through the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, will
commence providing fire services to the remainder of the Santa Rita
property on January 1, 1991.
As used above, "actual cost" shall mean the average cost. per call
for each Fiscal Year of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authori ty (a
joint powers agency through which City provides fire services), its
successor in interest or the City of Dublin if it directly provides
fire services. "Actual Cost" shall be calculated in the manner set
forth in Exhibit 2, which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
City's costs for providing fire services, as set forth above in
paragraphs A & B, determine the amount County will remit to City
pursuant to paragraph 5(c) of the Annexation Agreement.
B.
;C.
i
I
I
I
D.
E. In accordance with the Annexation Agreement, City shall invoice
County quarterly for fire services. County will pay 25 percent of
the base contract cost ($55,200) for each of the first three
quarters of the Fiscal Year. City will invoice County for the
fourth quarter for the balance owed the City as calculated in
accordance with Exhibit 2. County shall pay City within 30 days of
receiving an invoice.
Approved as to Form
ELIZABETH SILVER, City Attorney
By: {(I/~-/j Ie il, [;; k
/
Attest:cJG-f% cJu ~
Approved as to Form ~
KELVIN H. BOOTY, JR., County counsel
-Fl.)/)
By: .; vti/
Attes~ . h1D-4A ~
B
com~Y OF ~ AMED/:? I~V
~Y1 fI. / 7
By: C" ,,~
Mary Kg, presideOf
FIRE SERVICES
The followIng def1nl tlun of FIre Services 1s for use 1n the proposed Al11I1\GOa.
COUll ty ^greemen t.
Fire Services _ For the purpose of this contract, Firo Services (or Fire
Suppression ServIces), shall ue def1neu as F1rc Authority response ta the
following types of Incidents:
1. AllY type of fire
2. Hazilrdous Ha.terlals incidents
3. Fire. smoke, or water flow alarms
4. Vehicle aCc1dents
5. Extrications
6. HesclIes
7 . ~\ e die a 1 aid s
o. Smoke/odor investigations
9. ^rclng electri~al w'res and equipment
10. Gas leaks
. \
\
\
11. Hazardous candi tions
Fire Prevention inspectIon activities at the Santa RHa Jail are llQ1 included
ill the above definition.
EXIlII3IT 1
5G07c
. .'
CITY OF DUBLIN
FIRE SERVICE COST HORKSHEET FOR SANTA RITA JAIL
AND SANTA RITA PUBLIC PROPERTY
A. n sea 1 Year
B. Annual F~re Authority Operat~ng Costs
C. Total Calls (Fiscal Year)
D. Cost per Call (B/C)
E. Calls to Santa Rita Jail
F. Excess Calls (E - 22. 1f less than O. enter 0)
G. Excess Call Costs (0 x F)
Hf Calls on Santa Rita Property (exclud~ng Santa Rita Jail)
If Cost of Calls on Santa RIta Property (0 x H)
J. Base Yellr Agreement
K. Cost of Providing F~re Service to County Property (G + I + J)
5687c
% S5.2QQ...
EXHIBIT 2
( '1
, .'
( ~
. .
. i
,
I
: ~ 0' "" ~:. /.loP. t:l the Properly of lhe.
'. ~'.: i 5 "
\., " EI.I~II.Or E,A.DouQhirl,Y..\J'.lfllll
~. . r:u_...-=:::J ncn:ho SOIl nomClllJ.I,I).lNlco<l ....' >>-.'( "nll
I '.11 II I , I .l
,i,:-. . . ,.~"'''''.~ .11'" T~""' ""''''I ~!!>Ir'
A' ,I" I' .1' ii~
. ( ." .
I' ! ,.. ,.11' .';"~\ \',
: '~i, ..;' 'i. 'to ^". :
I ); \Un / · \' '1>""
rj: ...,: .J~.'p 1J ., "1, 54!
...:',11' .' \19 ; J
..;1 . "" i \
. . :(;f . 1-~' ~::..:J....,
I :1;1 ,., ~ \1~ :.~~ ,::n
I;. ..' "'''' n~ :\
c.,,\ . B "F'" ..- . ". II
\\ ~~l'~\k .::::,:S',:,'Ni>"(':' .':. . :/11' ~". n rE~ :,~,\~~: \ ~~;:.
I '\~. " · ~ ,,,,'.\ .... U
\' 1:~i ';it;f:'~:~;:::.... . ~~ '/. : \.Ffns~. ,~.".."" ..~ .~.'" A~~"~;.1: ;:t.\}!,j'1\I,
, ::" I.""~';':\.':'.' :\ :!,~_~".f1' rr
\ ~l::I';i.J,.{')J;1:>;~;": .:: '. , . I'
I 1'1 .../ f~iQU\.' uti r 1(\1'1 ' -~. ,,' I
\ ~",i, :1: " :.;'.!: . _'" u.ll- III' . r' I 500.
'.... ',. \' ,J. .
f'~ ... "1" t. .:~ ...-,.. l tfl"
~ ::.:, ..:~':~ '.',~ "~". - "!.. ,/
\ ._ ._ .'" '," \. , . . . .TiTi" I
"'~_-'::':"';;:I~I...:.' " .,t APNgA601514 ,""
, · ,:~..'t\";(.".L"', ." .... . ~. ..'. " ;,;
\ · ,:':':~\.1.,~.-~.:'~;.;'::":'''' .... . . ,~
, ~ .\,; .1..'. 1,"'.I~l '. . . ................................................~ \\
i ; :~".;;:J<.,~.\:.\:.r....\.:;..: .., '. ~ . '. . I~; , .
\ '".. ..",,,..8 .." ,. , n," i'
..~'J\;,,;:_.'r...:..:..::pnJ.::,. '. t\ I .,..- \ ~~---;r
\ :> . .,~;.(Io.:l..'.~.:'t':.\.-: ,."." . .... ~\.'J .. . <3 .' .' I" , ~.:.:-
o 1.1\..::_:.::11,:,,;:;,'~{.0:'\' . .... .i~~ ..... f,.'\ ."'"'' 'j ~
, 0 .., "..",' . ,. "" ."" ,," . ., "'''. .' -:.
\ ::..,:,;:.'.J'.'.',r:". ....: .' ..... H. 'ITC" .. ~
)~ ~.?-jf:,.~~::!:.!.sr.\I.(> :' ;'. '. &\. EX IB .' ,: ·
t ~_.:~..~.,r'I'I""\ .... ". .... . ." . . ~~.
\ )'! ...' i::~"""""".' ..,. . .
. hi . .. '>-:8' " I" .' .... . ·
'. ~'\~:~~';.':~!~'.'~'I" .::.'. . t. ..:' ..... ..'. ~ :
1-..j" -'__].:11-..\. .,.... " \) .
r<~.i:'Ir..... . -:;-:.'~'.'.!;.:~! 'I',' '. .: ._.......~ III.....
I", ,,1, r--....\......\... ~'I' ..' ~
Ii 1-.:. :"...."..1..'..,..... f' '.:' srl
:.:.i{c,-:';" I ...:{~...;;..:,/.::...' .;., ' . ~r
~...~\-,. ~ tn'..'.." . . .... .
r1:~:;~ V,,,, ~.'..~:'; ',;. . . .....j:... -A'" p' N" g' '4'6" 01"''r.:'''2'"'' 'j; ~
l:\~,~~;;::j (;.....t.. 'f .. .":.', '\/::"~:"': .,' .:.. . 0" :;;.}"
"t..J".~' If. + "". ,I, ).' ' .'
\:'.';1>>.\.;.(11.".. '('. ,,' ...... ...... . I '.;" ,,~.'l'\ /'. I.: ~
=-\ ~\l\'I'''r~ 1 ' . .:' .-...".. .. 't.. \. . " .
.~ .:.:~ ).;-,:!.:,.:.,~ . r" ".' : ":- .,~ ~.)'. . I..' I'" ~.\ . (F':;.' . / / '.
~~-li.i'~:,';" '11 'r .'\, ~.'\, \\..... .(. '.' . .." "':.:~' . '::j;t?'. /..) I .
:i,\:~~.-:~"'" ~ ,,'-; '.."'f ..~~c/"/"rrg~/.".-r~ .
C;.0~;." .,,.c.....;;;: '1' 1'1 - ..-- ,.::,;;- .--'~G
<--,,,,,,, .~,n,.r" fo . ..' - . II
;~..~::..\.; ,:~_' .' "-",' 1 ,_' J" 10111 ITAtI III . :'T" .
1\..i!I,:~.~.:;:)~:.:~\. .....:i......: · . ':: ::'. .' " .~.: ~. . ~: ". ..~
\.1\'./:".""'." .:. _..: ", \.' '.:~/', <-1.1". '1-1).1. ..~..:., . ~ .
hI"':::' .1;.\ ,'.:". ~. .,' .,;:.~.",~~" '." ,., C." . 0:' .. ,.,',' ,;00 ,,,00 I '"
~\~'\~\-\'I!:;(.".I c ~.\:I.,.(.:,:~~.11i .,,:'\,. ...;\...' ." . ~ . /1 .
.\.:"\. \\. " t:t..c 1 ..' \.1.', t' . , ' ,,,"\,.' . I . ::1...../" ".// ".
li:- ' . . " ; ~ d' .,......... . \.) .. . ,.. . I' .. .,.. ..' . .. ,
l...:i....:/r~r. .",f: t a' :\.\ -
('.;:\\;. '.:{" . ,0 . ".," vm8lT C, Santi Xlta hopHtT. 1a 4aCln.4 II ~
/it.t'. ,'._:~' s .~.,. th.t 1ft! 16antlflcd \r ~:,.,61 uunlJ .1' ·
d':';' \....l1 ('I' ..,'..' . ~.,,"or Plftal Nunbara 9\6-01~2..d :
.k-'1.... ...:.....'.. -:.V .:'v 946-0l~1-4 II or Jul] 1966.
.' ,.1 . I.. .. tl
tQ..J:U:1!-:1 ~
l 1,,'111 In'"
ll1f\ll ""I
I \l';ll' ..""
1 11"1"' \...
. 11...... ....
. 1".11-
I 1&1'''-
I 11"1'"'
I l1~"t"1
.. .I'I1U
h II
III'
,..,
""
\
\
\
\
I
\
\"
\
rvt!lDIT
PROPOSED
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL pLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC pLAN
~ USE sUMMARY BY GENERAL pLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
FOR SANTA RITA PROPERTY
Land Use Desiqnation
santa Rita property
SUBTOTAL
Gross Acres units
103.0 1.217 msf
18.0 .235 msf
135.8 2.924 msf
5.0 .120 msf
53." .651 msf
0.0 0.000 msf
315.2 5.147 msf
COMMERCIAL
General
Neighborhood
campus Office
Hotel
Industrial park
Public/semi-Public
RESIDENTIAL
SUBTOTAL
36.3 1,271 5du
39.5 790 du
64.2 642 du
67.2 269 du
0.0 0 du
207.2 2,972 du
High
Med. High
Medium
LoW
Rural
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
SUBTOTAL
56.3 1 park
0.0 0 parks
0.0 0 parks
0.0 0 parks
24.6
=--
80.9 1 park.
city Park
community park
Neighborhood park.
Neighborhood sq.
open space
SCHOOLS
Elementary
Jr. High
High
10.5
0.0
~
1 school
o schools
o schools
SUBTOTAL
10.5
1 school
TOTAL LAND AREA:
613.8
114\agree\annex.rl
Page 29 of 28
J\rJe 15, 1992
EX-HISI-'-
PROPOSED
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY BY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
FOR SANTA RITA PROPERTY
SUBTOTAL
Santa Rita property
Gross Acres units
103.0 1.217 msf
18.0 .235 msf
135.8 2.924 msf
5.0 .120 msf
53.4 .651 msf
0.0 0.000 rnsf
315.2 5.147 msf
Land Use Desiqnation
COMMERCIAL
General
Neighborhood
Campus Office
Hotel
Industrial Park
Public/semi-Public
RESIDENTIAL
SUBTOTAL
36.3 1,271 ?du
39.5 790 dU
64.2 642 du
67.2 269 du
0.0 0 du
207.2 2,972 du
High
Med. High
Medium
Low
Rural
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
SUBTOTAL
56.3 1 park
0.0 0 parks
0.0 0 parks
0.0 0 parks
24.6
80.9 1 park
city Park
community Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Sq.
Open Space
SCHOOLS
SUBTOTAL
10.5 1 school
0.0 0 schools
0.0 0 schools
10.5 1 school
613.8 EXHIBIT I
Elementary
Jr. High
High
TOTAL LAND AREA:
114\Agree\Annex.Fn1
24
August 25, 1992
RESOLUTION NO.
-93
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN; MAKING
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC
PLAN; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
Recitals
1. In response to a proposal for residential development of
the Dublin Ranch property, the City of Dublin undertook the Eastern
Dublin study to plan for the future development of the eastern
Dublin area.
2. The City Council and Planning Commission conducted three
joint public study sessions and three workshops relating to
planning issues in eastern Dublin.
a.
use concept
consistency
policies.
concept for
The April 18, 1990, study session considered a land
report containing four land use scenarios and the
of each land use concept with existing general plan
Alternative #4 was considered the preferred land use
environmental study by informal consensus.
b. The August 22, 1990, study session considered
Alternative #4 and a fifth concept (based on the 1986 annexation
agreement with Alameda County). The "Town Center" concept, types
of streets, location and types of parks were discussed.
C. The November 15, 1990, workshop solicited comments
from the public regarding the existing and desired life style
qualities in Dublin and what the public wanted to see in a new
community.
d. The December 6, 1990, workshop continued with a
similar discussion of desired types of commercial development and
discussed circulation systems and parks and open space.
e. The December 18, 1990, workshop presented a
preliminary conceptual land use plan. Input was received on the
transit spine, location of civic center, types of residential uses,
location of commercial uses, the concentration of high density
residential uses, and jobs/housing balance.
1
ATTACHMENT "
f. The February 14, 1991, study session considered a
land use plan that incorporated comments made at the three
workshops and included a discussion of major issues, such as the
location of a high school, connection to existing Dublin, size of
streets and types of parks.
3. with the identification of a preferred alternative on
February 14, 1991, the City prepared a Draft General Plan Amendment
for approximately 6,920 acres to plan for future development of a
mixed use community of single- and multiple-family residences,
commercial uses (general commercial, neighborhood commercial,
campus office and industrial park), public and semi-public
facilities (including schools), parks and open space.
Draft General Plan Amendment
4. The Draft General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1992,
designates the proposed general distribution and general location
and extent of the uses of Eastern Dublin for residential,
commercial, industrial, public, open space and parks, and other
categories of public and private uses of land.
5. The Draft General Plan Amendment includes a statement of
standards of population density and standards of building intensity
for Eastern Dublin.
6. Pursuant to the provisions of state Planning and Zoning
Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning commission of the
City of Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed
amendments to the City's General Plan.
7. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment on October 1,
1992, which hearing was continued to October 6, 1992, October 12,
1992, and October 15, 1992.
8. Based on comments received during the public hearing,
related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the
Draft General Plan Amendment and were reviewed by the Planning
Commission on December 21, 1992.
9. The Draft General Plan Amendment was reviewed by the
Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act through the preparation and
review of an Environmental Impact Report. On December 21, 1992,
by Resolution No. 92-060, the Planning Commission recommended
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
10. On December 21, 1992, the Planning Commission, after
considering all written and oral testimony submitted at the public
hearing, adopted of Resolution No. 92-061, recommending City
2
council adoption of the Draft General Plan Amendment, as revised
December 21, 1992.
Draft Specific Plan
11. The Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, implements
an approximately 3,328-acre portion of the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment by providing a detailed framework, including
policies, standards and implementation programs, for evaluation of
development projects proposed in the portion of eastern Dublin
covered by the Draft Specific Plan.
12. Pursuant to State Law, the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific
Plan was prepared and reviewed in the same manner as a general plan
amendment.
13. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific Plan on October 6,
1992, which hearing was continued to October 12, 1992, and October
15, 1992.
14. Based on comments received during the public hearings,
related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the
Draft Specific Plan and were reviewed by the Planning Commission
on December 21, 1992.
15. The Draft Specific Plan was reviewed by the Planning
commission in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act through the preparation and review of a
Final' Environmental Impact Report. On December 21, 1992, by
Resolution No. 92-060, the Planning Commission recommended
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
16. On December 21, 1992, the Planning commission, after
considering all written and oral testimony submitted at the public
hearing, adopted Resolution No. 92-061, recommending city Council
adoption of the Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, as revised
December 21, 1992.
council Public Hearinq
17. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on
the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft Specific
Plan on January 14, 1993, which hearing was continued to January
21, 1993, February 23, 1993, March 30, 1993, and April 27, 1993.
18. On April 27, 1993, the City Council, by Resolution No.
45-93, voted to refer Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area
("Alternative 2") with modifications back to the Planning
Commission for its recommendation, pursuant to Government Code
section 65356.
3
19. The Planning commission held a public hearing on May 3,
1993, to consider Alternative 2 with modifications and has reported
back to the City council by Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-
013.
20. The city council considered all written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearing and all written testimony
submitted prior to the public hearing and the recommendation of the
Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution
Nos. 92-061, 92-062 and 93-013.
21. On May 10, 1993 the Council held duly noticed a public
hearing to hear testimony regarding the Planning Commission's
recommendation as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No.
93-013.
22. On May 10, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
-93, certifying the Addendum to the Draft EIR and the Final
Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") as adequate and complete.
The Final EIR identified significant adverse environmental impacts
which can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through changes
or alterations in the project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA,
findings adopting the changes or alterations are required and are
contained in this resolution. Some of the signif icant impacts
cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance and a statement
of overriding considerations is therefore required pursuant to CEQA
and is also contained in this resolution.
23. Upon consideration of the land use and environmental
effects of the project, as described in the Final EIR, the Council
has determined to adopt Alternative 2, as described in the Final
EIR, with certain modifications which are described in the Addendum
to the Draft EIR ("Alternative 2 with Modifications"). Alternative
2 with Modifications reduces land use impacts, does not disrupt the
existing rural residential community in Doolan Canyon, potentially
reduces growth-inducing impacts on agricultural lands, reduces
certain traffic impacts to a level of insignificance, produces less
demand for infrastructure, reduces the noise impacts for Doolan
Road to a level of insignificance and will have a positive fiscal
impact on the city.
24. Alternative 2 was considered by the Planning Commission
at its hearings, in testimony at the public hearings, in staff
reports presented to the Commission at its hearings, in the EIR
reviewed by the Planning Commission at its hearings and in its
deliberations.
25. Alternative 2 with Modifications includes several
substantial modifications to Alternative 2, as Alternative 2 is
described in the Draft EIR. Although several of these
modifications were considered by the Planning Commission at its
hearings, the Planning Commission has considered Alternative 2 with
4
Modifications and has reported back to the Council with its
recommendation regarding Alternative 2 with Modifications. The
Council has determined to follow the Planning Commission's
recommendation as set forth in its Resolution No. 93-013, except
with respect to the width of the Transit Spine.
Findinas/Overriding Considerations/
Mitiqation Monitorinq Proqram
26. Public Resources Code section 21081 requires the City to
make certain findings if the city approves a project for which an
environmental impact report has been prepared that identif ies
significant environmental effects.
27. Section 15093 of the state CEQA Guidelines requires
adoption by the City Council of a statement of overriding
considerations if the Council approves a project which will result
in unavoidable significant effects on the environment.
28. Public Resource Code section 21085 and section 15092 of
the state CEQA Guidelines require the City to make certain
determinations if it approves a project which reduces the number
of housing units considered in the environmental impact report.
29. The Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan identifies certain significant adverse
environmental effects.
30. certain of the significant adverse environmental effects
can be reduced to a level of insignificance by changes or
alterations in the project.
31. Certain of the significant adverse environmental effects
cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
32. The Council has selected Alternative 2 identified in the
Final EIR with modifications described in the Addendum to the Draft
EIR, reducing the number of housing units for such property from
the project as reviewed by the Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and specific Plan.
33. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City
to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for changes in a project
or conditions imposed to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects in order to ensure compliance during project
implementation.
34. Government Code section 65300 authorizes a city council
to adopt a general plan for land outside its boundaries which in
the Planning Commission's judgment bears relation to its planning.
5
35. The Planning commission has
outside the city's boundaries bears
planning.
considered whether land
relation to the city's
36. The city has referred Alternative 2 with Modifications
to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") pursuant
to Public utilities Code section 21676 (b). The city has not
received a determination from the ALUC. The 60-day time period for
the ALUC to make a determination has not yet run.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
A. The Dublin city council does hereby approve "Alternative
2: Reduced Planning Area" as the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment, with the'Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and with the
Modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR, dated May 4,
1993.
B. The Dublin city council finds the Eastern Dublin specific
Plan, as described in the Final EIR as "Alternative 2: Reduced
Planning Area," with Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and with
the modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR dated May
4, 1993, to be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as revised
by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment.
c. The Dublin city council does hereby approve
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, with
the Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and with the Modifications
described in the Addendum to Draft EIR, dated May 4, 1993.
D. The Dublin city council does hereby direct the Staff to
edit, format, and print the up-to-date Dublin General Plan with
all City council approved revisions and without any other
substantive changes.
E. The Dublin City council does hereby direct the Staff to
edit, format, and print the Eastern Dublin specific Plan with all
city council approved revisions and without any other substantive
changes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin city Council does
hereby make the findings set forth in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin city council finds and
declares that the rationale for each of the findings set forth in
sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of its findings (Exhibit A) is contained
in the paragraph entitled "Rationale for Finding" in Exhibit A.
The Council further finds that the mitigation measures for each
identified impact in Exhibit A make changes to, or alterations to,
6
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, or are
measures incorporated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that,
once implemented as described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
(Exhibit B hereto), will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effects of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan on the environment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin city council does
hereby adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth
in Section 6 of Exhibit A, attached hereto, which statement shall
be included in the record of the project approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby adopt the "Mitigation Monitoring Program: Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit B, as the reporting and monitoring
program required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6 for the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby direct that the Applicants for land use approvals in the
Specific Plan area shall pay their pro rata share of all costs
associated with the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring
Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby direct that all fees established pursuant to Government Code
section 65456, to recover costs of preparation of the Specific
Plan, shall include the cost of preparation, adoption and
administration of the Specific Plan plus interest on such costs
based upon the City of Dublin's average monthly weighted investment
yield calculated for each year or fraction thereof that such costs
are unpaid.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination for
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project
with the Alameda County Clerk and the state Office of Planning and
Research.
BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby direct the City Clerk to make available to the public,
within one working day of the date of adoption of this resolution,
copies of this resolution (including all Exhibits) and the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1992, with the
Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and the modifications described
in the Addendum to Draft EIR dated May 4, 1993, and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, with the Revisions to
Draft Specific Plan, dated December 21, 1992, and the modifications
described in the Addendum to Draft EIR, all as modified by this
resolution.
7
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this resolution shall become
effective thirty (30) days from the date of passage.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT if, on the effective date of this
resolution or within the remaining 60-day period for ALUC action,
the ALUC has found that Alternative 2 with Modifications is not
consistent with the ALUC's Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy
Plan, the City shall submit all regulations, permits or other
actions implementing the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan to the ALUC for review until such time that the city
Council revises the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan to be consistent with the ALUC' s Alameda County
Airport Land Use Policy Plan or adopts specific findings by a two-
thirds vote that the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are
consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of Part
1 of Division 9 of the Public utilities Code as stated in section
21670 of such Code.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of May, 1993, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
114\RESOL\29\RESOLUTION
8
section 1
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, the City
Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the
project'sl potential significant environmental impacts and means
for mitigating those impacts. Findings pursuant to section
21081, subdivision (c), as they relate to "project alternatives,"
are made in section 3.
section 3.1 -- Land Use
IMPACT 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space
Lands. Agricultural grazing land and open space in Alameda and
Contra Costa counties will be converted to urban uses by proposed
projects such as Dougherty Valley, Tassajara Valley, North
Livermore, and Eastern Dublin. Because it would result in the
urbanization of a large area of open space, the proposed Project
would contribute to this cumulative loss of agricultural land and
open space in the Tri-Valley area. This is considered a signifi-
cant unavoidable cumulative impact. Response to Comments ("RC")
# 34-9.
Finding. No mitigation measures are
impact to a level of insignificance.
of Overriding Considerations must be
of the Project.
proposed to reduce this
Therefore, a statement
adopted upon approval
Rationale for Findinq. The total amount of open space
within the RPA that will be urbanized will be cumulatively
significant, in light of numerous other open space areas
within the region that is also anticipated for urbanization.
IMPACT 3.1/G. Potential Conflicts with Land Uses to the West.
The Parks Reserve Forces Training Area ("Camp Parks") is located
due west of the Specific Plan area. Existing and future Army
training activities, such as the use of high velocity weapons and
helicopters, could result in noise and safety conflicts with
adjacent open space and single-family residential areas of the
Specific Plan. The extent of future army activity is unknown and
lThe "Project" is Alternative 2 described in the DEIR at
pages 4-9 through 4-14 with the modifications described in the
May 4, 1993 Addendum to the EIR. Alternative 2 calls for
development in the Reduced Planning Area (the portion of eastern
Dublin within its sphere-of-influence) (hereafter "RPA").
l14\eastdub\find(4)
1
AicAat J.t1 E*IT b ;;
EXHIBIT
A
the Army has not yet completed its Camp Parks Master Plan. DEIR
page 3.1-13.
Mitiaation Measure 3.1/1.0. The City of Dublin should
coordinate its planning activities with the Army to achieve
compatibility with adjacent Camp Parks land uses, to solve
potential future conflicts, and to reconcile land use incom-
patibilities. The City should consult with the Army for any
specific development proposals within the RPA. DEIR pages
3.1-13, -22.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Coordinated planning activities will
allow the City and Army to identify potential noise and
safety impacts before they occur and will allow specific
mitigation measures, including redesign, to be incorporated
into development in the Project Area.
Section 3.3 -- Traffic and circulation
When a mitigation measure referenced in this section requires
development projects within the RPA to pay for a proportionate
cost of regional transportation programs and/or traffic and
circulation I improvements, the proportion shall be as determined
by regionalttransportation studies, such as the current study by
the Tri-Valley Transportation Council.
IMPACT 3.3/A. 1-580 Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon. Year 2010 growth
without the Project would cause cumulative freeway volumes to
exceed Level of Service E on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and
Fallon Road. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-3.
Mitigation Measure 3.3/1.0. Caltrans, in cooperation with
local jurisdictions, could construct auxiliary lanes on 1-
580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to create a total
of ten lanes, which would provide Level of Service D opera-
tions, consistent with the Caltrans Route Concept Report for
1-580. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-3.
Findina. Approval of the construction of the auxiliary
lanes, and cooperation by jurisdictions other than the City
of Dublin, are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
other public agencies and not the city of Dublin. Such
actions can and should be taken by other agencies. If
taken, !such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
114\eastdub\find(4)
2
Rationale for Findinq. This mitigation measure provides
acceptable Level of Service D operations during peak hours
on the freeway.
IMPACT 3.3/B. 1-580 Freeway, 1-680 to Hacienda. Year 2010
growth with the Project would cause 1-580 between 1-680 and
Dougherty Road to exceed Level of Service E. This is also a
significant cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised),
4-11, 5.0-3.
Mitiqation Measure 3.3/2.0. Consistent with specific Plan
Policy 5-21~, all non-residential projects with 50 or more
employees in the RPA shall participate in a Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) program to reduce the use of single
occupant vehicles through strategies including but not
limited to encouraging public transit use, carpooling, and
flexible work hours. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-
3 .
Mitiqation Measure 3.3/2.1. All projects within the RPA
area shall contribute a proportionate share of the costs of
regional transportation mitigation programs, as determined
by regional transportation studies. Such regional miti~
gationprograms may include enhanced public transit service
and/or upgrading alternate road corridors to relieve demand
on 1-580 or 1-680. DEIR page 3.3-21 (as revised).
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact might not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. Approval of Alternative 2 reduces to
a level of insignificance the impact on 1-580 between
Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive. DEIR page 4-11. The TSM
program strategies will reduce single car occupancy, thereby
reducing the number of cars expected to use the subject
stretch of 1-580. Regional actions may focus not only on
reducing auto use by reducing single occupant vehicles, but
also on increasing Project area road capacities through
2 This policy appears in the Eastern Dublin specific Plan,
which plan applies only to the identified Specific Plan area.
The provisions of this policy provide useful mitigation outside
the Specific Plan area as well. Therefore, the EIR and these
findings adopt these provisions for the entire RPA. Hereinafter,
those Specific Plan goals, policies, and action programs whose
provisions are similarly adopted for the RPA throughout these
findings will be indicated by an asterisk.
114\eastdub\fiud(4)
3
construction of routes providing convenient alternatives to
1-580 and 1-680. Given the overall expected increase in
traffic, however, these measures are not sufficient to
reduce the cumulative impacts on 1-580 between 1-680 and
Dougherty Road to insignificance.
i
!'
IMPACT 3.3/C. 1-580 Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon-Airway. Year 2010
growth with the Project would cause freeway volumes to exceed
Level of Service E on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway
Boulevard. ,This is also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR
page 3.3-21 ;(as revised), 5.0-3.
Mitiqation Measure 3.3/3.0. The city shall coordinate with
Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to construct auxiliary
lanes on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard.
All projects within the RPA shall contribute a proportionate
share of the costs of these improvements. DEIR pages 3.3-
22 (as revised), 5.0-3; RC #7-6
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR.
Freeway construction actions are within the ultimate res-
ponsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, who can and should
take such actions. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The auxiliary lanes will provide
sufficient additional capacity on 1-580 to provide Level of
Service D between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard, and
Level of Service E between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road.
Both Level of Service D and E are acceptable during peak
freeway hours. DEIR pages 3.3-2, -18. Development in the
RPA will be required to contribute its fair share to the
auxiliary lane improvements so that when such improvements
are needed, they will be provided by new development
generating the need. State law authorizes the City to enter
into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the
freeway improvements (see, e.g., Streets & Highways Code
~~ 113.5, 114).
IMPACT 3.3/D. 1-680 Freeway, North of 1-580. Year 2010 growth
with the Project would cause freeway volumes to exceed Level of
Service E on 1-680 north of the 1-580 interchange. This is also
a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.3-22, 5.0-4.
Mitiqation Measure 3.3/4.0. All projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of the costs of Caltrans'
planned improvements at the 1-580/1-680 interchange, in-
cluding a new two-lane freeway-to-freeway flyover with
114\eastdub\find(4)
4
related hook ramps to the city of.Dublin. DEIR page 3.3-22
(as re~ised) (see also page 3.3-17 (as revised)).
i
Findin~. Change,s "or, alterations have been required in; or
incorporated into ,the -Projectthci.t<'avoid or substantially
lessen \ the significanteffec:ts.fidentifiedin the Final EIR.
Freeway interchangei,mprovement',~actions are within' the'
responsibilityand,jurisdiction:o~:..Caltrans,'who can and
should, take such ,actions .' ,'If 'taken ,-- . such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen'the'sj,gnificant effect
identified in therFinal-EIR.-~~ -~-
Rationale for Findinq .'~,'l'he,,~xpec:t.ed interchanges and
related improvements wil~:provide:.sufficient'additional,
capacity on I-680:toprovide:Ilevel of Service D north of the
1-580 interchange. Development in "the RPA will be required
to contribute its _fair~shareto the:interchange and related
improvements so that when-such ~mprovements are needed, they
will be provided by new development~generating the need.
;
.j
IMPACT 3.3/E.cumulative Freeway Impacts. Cumulative buildout
with the Project would cause additional freeway sections, in-
cluding I-5~0 east of Airway~Boulevard, and the segment of 1-:-580
between Dougherty and Hacienda to exceed ,level of service E.
DEIR pages 3.3";"'22 (as_revised),_ 5 ~0-4.
Mitiqation Measure 3.3/5.0. Th~Project shall contribute a
proportionate share to the construction of auxiliary lanes
(for a total of 10) on 1-580 east of Airway Boulevard, for
implementation by Caltrans. The city shall coordinate with
other local jurisdictions to require that all future de-
velopment projects participate in regional transportation
mitigation programs as determined by the current Tri-Valley
Transportation Council study. DEIR pages 3.3-22 (as re-
vised), 5.0-4.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project. Actions by other agencies
and Caltrans to implement this mitigation measure are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of those other agencies
and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by the other agencies. However, even with these
changes the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted.
Rationale for Findinq. The auxiliary lanes will,provide
sufficient additional capacity to provide acceptable level
of service on part of 1-580 widening to ten lanes is
consistent with the Route Concept Report. DEIR page 3.3-22
(as revised). Regional transportation mitigations can
114\eastdub\find(4)
5
reduce cumulative impacts through measures to decrease
single occupant vehicle-use and increase public transit use
to further decrease traffic impacts. However, even with
these improvements,' part of 1':"'"580 (between 1-680 and
Hacienda Drive) will still-be beyond acceptable LOS E. DEIR
pages 3.3-20, 3.3-21 (as revised)~ 4-11.
IMPACT 3.3/F. DoughertyRoad~and Dublin Boulevard. Year 2010
development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Dougherty Road with Dublin
Boulevard. ::DEIR'page 3.3-25.
\
Mitiqation Measure 3.3/6.0. The City of Dublin shall
monitor the intersection and implement construction of
additional lanes when required to maintain LOS D operations.
All projects within the RPA shall contribute a proportionate
share of the improvement costs. DEIR page. 3.3-25 (as
revised) .
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The additional lanes at the
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection will provide
sufficient capacity for Level of Service D operations, which
is acceptable at street intersections in Dublin (DEIR pages
3.3-2, -18 (as revised)). Development in the RPA will be
required to contribute its fair share of the intersection
improvements so that, when such improvements are needed,
they will be provided by new development generating the
need.
IMPACT 3.3/G. Hacienda Drive and I-580 Eastbound Ramps. Year
2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Hacienda Drive with the 1-580
eastbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised).
Mitiqation Measure 3.3/7.0. The City of Dublin shall
implement improvements in coordination with the City of
Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen the eastbound off-ramp to
provide a second left turn lane. All projects in the RPA
shall contribute a proportionate share of the improvement
costs. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised); RC # 7-9.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Off-ramp widening actions are within the ultimate respon-
sibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans. Such actions can and
should,be taken by Caltrans. If taken, such actions would
114\eastdub\find(4)
6
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identi-
fied in the Final EIR. '
Rationale for Finding.~,. .Th~ __addj, tional lanes at the east-
bound off-ramp will-.provide,acceptable Level of Service C
operations. Deyelopment-,:,in .the:Project area will be
required to contribute~its fair share of the intersection
improvements, so" ,that:,when'; ~uch improvements are needed,
they will be provi9.ed' by new,' development generating the
need. State law.authorizes the City to enter into a
cooperative agreement'with Caltranstomake the off-ramp
improvements (see.' e. q ;; Streets & Highways Code ~~ 113.5,
114) .
IMPACT 3.3/H. Tassajara Road and I~580 Westbound Ramps. Year
2010 development'with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Tassajara Road with the 1-580
westbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised).
Mitigation Measure 3.3/8.0. The City of Dublin shall
implement improvements in coordination with Caltrans to
widen the 1-580 westbound off-ramp and to modify the
northbound approach to provide additional turn and through
lanes.' All projects in the RPA shall contribute a pro-
portionate share of the improvement costs. DEIR page 3.3-
26 (as revised).
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Coordinating and ramp widening actions are within the ulti-
mate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can
and should take such actions. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identi-
fied in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The reconfigured lanes at the east-
bound off-ramp will provide acceptable Level of Service B
operations. Development in the Project area will be
required to contribute its fair share of the intersection
improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they
will be provided by new development generating the need.
State law authorizes the City to enter into a cooperative
agreement with Caltrans to make the off-ramp improvements
(see. e.q., Streets & Highways Code ~~ 113.5, 114).
IMPACT 3.3/I. Santa Rita Road and I-580 Eastbound Ramps. Year
2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Santa Rita Road with the 1-580
eastbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-26.
114\eastdub\find(4)
7
Mi tiqation Measure 3 ~ 3/9; O.';:,:':rh,e "C.i,ty, of Dublin shall
implement improvements' in coordination with the city of
Pleasanton and Caltrans~to widen-the 1-580 eastbound off-
ramp to provide two'left__turn.": lanes, : one through lane i and.
one right-turn lane t6,provide Level '-of Service E at this
intersection. All-cproJects,-:.in the !U>A shall contribute a
proportionate share"oftthedmprbvement costs.; ,The City' of
Dublin shall continUe',to:lwbrk,;with!Jthe City of,'Pleasanton to'
monitor level ofservice:Lat:,this intersection. and ,partici-
pate in implementing imptovements:which-may,be identified in
the future to improve:traffic operations.; DEIR page 3.3-26
(as revised); RC # 7-11~ ~c
Findinq. Changes or_,alteratio~s have been required in, or
incorporated into the'Proj ec::t ~ - "Ramp _ widening actions are
within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of
Caltrans, which can and should take such actions. However,
even with these changes and actions,. the impact will not be
avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a statement
of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval
of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. The off-ramp widening will provide
LOS E operations, which is still significant. Development
in the Project area will be required to contribute its fair
share of the intersection improvements, so that when such
improvements are needed, they will be provided by new
development generating the need.
IMPACT 3.3/K. Airway Boulevard and I-580 Westbound Ramps. Year
2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Airway Boulevard with the 1-
580 westbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised).
Mitigation Measure 3.3/11.0. The City of Dublin shall
implement improvements in coordination with the City of
Livermore and Caltrans to replace or widen the Airway
Boulevard overcrossing of 1-580 and to widen the offramp for
additional turn lanes. All projects within the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs.
DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised); RC #17-2
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Road and ramp widening actions are within the ultimate
responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can and
should take such actions. If taken such actions would avoid
or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
114\eastdub\find(4)
8
Rationale for Findinq.' !'rheAir,way Boulevard and 1-580
improvements will provide an acceptable Level of Service D.
Development in the Project area will be required to contri-
bute its fair share of: the' :improvements so that when such "
improvements are,needed,1they~will'be provided by new
development generating,: the 'peed;/,': State ,law authorizes the
city to enter into a ',cooperative . agreement with Caltrans to
make the road and ramp improvements (see. e.q., Streets &
Highways Code SS 113.5, 114).;:
IMPACT 3.3/L. El Charro Road.- Project traffic ,could introduce
stops and delays for loaded trucks from the quarries on EI Charro
Road south of 1-580. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised).
Mitigation Measure 3.3/12.0. The city of Dublin shall
implement improvements in coordination with Caltrans, the
City of Pleasanton, and Alameda County to ensure that
modifications to the 1-580 interchange at Fallon Road/EI
Charro Road include provisions for unimpeded truck movements
to and from EI Charro Road. All projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of improvement costs. DEIR
page 3.3-27 (as revised).
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Freeway interchange modification actions are within the
ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which
can and should take such actions. If taken, such actions
would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Providing unimpeded access for the
quarry trucks will prevent other traffic from backing up
behind the heavily laden trucks with their slow starts and
stops. Development in the Project area will be required to
contribute its fair share of the improvements so that when
such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new
development generating the need. State law authorizes the
city to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to
make the off-ramp improvements (see, e.q., Streets &
Highways Code ~~ 113.5, 114).
IMPACT 3.3/M. cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard. Cumulative
buildout with the Project would cause Level of Service F opera-
tions at the intersection of Hacienda Drive with Dublin Boulevard
and Level of Service E operations at the intersection of Tassa-
jara Road with Dublin Boulevard. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised),
5.0-4.
114\eastdub\find(4)
9
H
Mi tiqation Measure 3-. 3/13.0. " .The city shall continue to
participate in-regional'studies'of' future transportation
requirements, improvement alternatives, and funding pro-
grams. Buildout of proposed projects outside Eastern Dublin
would require the .City -t'o'build 'grade-separated interchanges
on Dublin Boulevard 'and/or establish alternate routes to
redistribute traffic ,flow.';Allprojects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate,shareof improvement costs. DEIR
pages 3.3-27 (as revised), 5.0-4;'
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact might not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Finding. Regional transportation programs
will attempt to reduce the amount of future traffic and
associated impacts. Even with these efforts, however, the
cumulative traffic impacts on Dublin Boulevard might not be
reduced to insignificance.
IMPACT 3.3/N. Cumulative Impacts on Tassajara Road. Cumulative
buildout with the Project would cause Level of Service F opera-
tions at the intersections of Tassajara Road with Fallon Road,
Gleason Road, and the Transit Spine. These impacts would be
caused primarily by traffic from the Tassajara connection to
Dougherty Valley, and full buildout of the Tassajara Valley.
DEIR page 3.3-28 (as revised), 5.0-4.
Mitiqation Measure 3.3/14.0. The city shall reserve suffi-
cient right-of-way to widen Tassajara Road to six lanes
between Dublin Boulevard and the Contra Costa County line
and monitor traffic conditions and implement widening pro-
jects as required to maintain LOS D operations on Tassajara
Road. All projects in the RPA shall contribute a propor-
tionate share of the improvement costs. DEIR pages 3.3-28
(as revised), 5.0-4 and -5; RC #5-2, 7-13, 8-2
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Allowing for the widening of
Tassajara Road to six lanes, if needed, will allow the City
to maintain an acceptable LOS D. Development in the Project
area will be required to contribute its fair share of the
improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they
will be provided by new development generating the need.
114\eastdub\find(4)
10
IMPACT 3.3/0. :Transit.Ser.vice'Extensions. The Project would
introduce significant :devel.opment ,,,in ,an ,:area 'not currently served
by public trans; t, ,creating" :the~,need ' for' substantial expansion of
existing transit jsyst~ms;;Q DEIR 'page,'3. 3-28.
Mitiqation Measure:3 ;'3l-15 ~,o,.;~"\.S--P~9Jfic Plan Policy 5-10*
requires the City ~df':Dublin ':.to' .coordinate with LAVTA to
provide transit::service"within '..one :quarter, mile of 95% of
the population ;'::in :::accordance with '!AVTA service standards.
(*Specific Planprovis'ions "adopted ,throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.3-28. ',' "
Mitiqa~ion Measure 3.3/15.1. Specific Plan Policy 5-11*
requires the City of Dublin to coordinate with LAVTA to
provide at least one bus every 30 minutes during peak hours,
to 90% of emploYment centers with 100 or more employees, in
accordance with LAVTA service standards. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.3-28.
Mitiqation Measure 3.3/15.2. All projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share to the capital and
operation costs of transit service extensions. DEIR page
3.3-28.
Mitiqation Measure 3.3/15.3. The city shall coordinate with
BART and LAVTA to provide feeder service to the planned BART
stations. until the BART extension is completed (projected
for 1995), the City shall coordinate with BART to ensure
that BART express bus service is available to eastern Dublin
residents. DEIR page 3.3-28.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. Some of the transit service
coordination actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of Bart and LAVTA agencies and not the City of
Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by those
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The mitigations provide for
expansion of existing transit systems to meet Project
demand, not only on the local level through LAVTA but also
on a local and regional level through BART.
IMPACT 3.3/P. street Crossings for Pedestrians and Bicycles.
Pedestrians and bicycles would cross major streets with high
projected traffic volumes, such as Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara
Road and Fallon Road, introducing potential safety hazards for
pedestrians and bicyclists. DEIR page 3.3-29.
114\eastdub\find(4)
11
Mitiqation Measurei3.3/16.0; Spe_c,ific Plan Policy 5-15* and,
Specific Plan Figure'5~3*'require-a Class I ~aved
bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara Creek and trails
along other stream -corridors.-in the Project area."
(*Specific Plan provisi6ns~adopted.throughout RPA.) , DEIR
page 3.3-29. _ _._ ~".
Mitiqation Measure 3. 3/16.1!L,;::rh,~L,City_ shall locate
pedestrian and bicycle: paths --tb:~cross major arterial streets
at signalized intersections~ DEIR page 3.3-29.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in,~or
incorporated into the Project that.avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Placing a major bicycle/pedestrian
path along Tassajara Creek and using trails along other
stream corridors allows bicycles and pedestrians to avoid
traveling on major streets with their high traffic volumes.
Where the paths must cross a major arterial street, re-
quiring the crossing at a signalized intersection minimizes
path and traffic conflicts by stopping traffic on a regular
basis to let path travelers cross the street safely.
Section 3.4 -- Community Services and Facilities
IMPACT 3.4/A and B. Demand for Increased Police Services and
Police Services Accessibility. The Project will increase demand
for police services from the Dublin Police Department's admini-
strative and sworn staff, and will require reorganization of the
police operations to provide new patrol beats in the Project
area. The hilly topography of most of the Project site may
present some accessibility and crime-prevention problems. DEIR
page 3.4-2.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/1.0.
Policy 8-4,* the City shall
facilities and revise beats
and maintain City standards
Eastern Dublin. (*Specific
throughout RPA.) DEIR page
Pursuant to Specific Plan
provide additional personnel and
as needed in order to establish
for police protection service in
Plan provisions adopted
3.4-2.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/2.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 8D,* the City shall coordinate with the city
Police Department regarding the timing of annexation and
proposed development, so that the Department can adequately
plan for the necessary expansion of services in the RPA.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.4-2
114\eastdub\find(4)
12
Mi tiqation Measure 3 ~ 4 /3; 0 ~'~. ,p:ur,suant to specif ic Plan
Action Program 8E, *, the city,. shall incorporate into the
requirements of project approvaL Police Department recommen-
dations on project,design~hat,affect traffic safety and
crime prevention~(*specifibPlan:provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) .~ DEIR page:,). 4-2.":
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/4~0;,::::',ppoILannexation Of the RPA, the
city of Dublin police'Dep'artment will be responsible for
police' services'... The city;, will prepare a budget strategy to
hire the required additionaLpersonnel and implement a beat
system. DEIR page 3.4-2..
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/5.0. As part of the development
review process for residential and non-residential projects,
the Police Department shall review development projects'
design and circulation for visibility, security, safety,
access, and emergency response times and any other police
issues. DEIR pages 3.4-2 to -3.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The five mitigations identified will
ensure that additional police will be hired and that other
administrative measures will be employed to provide adequate
protection for Project area residents. Police Department
input into design of project development will insure that
police services are efficiently provided.
IMPACT 3.4/C. Demand for Increased Fire Services. Buildout of
the Project will substantially expand the DRFA service area and
increase demand for new fire stations and firefighting personnel.
This will significantly increase response times and reduce
service standards unless new facilities and personnel are added.
DEIR page 3.4-5.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/6.0. Pursuant to specific Plan
Policy 8-5,* the city shall time the construction of new
facilities to coincide with new service demand in order to
avoid periods of reduced service efficiency. The first
station will be sited and will begin construction concurrent
with initial development in the planning area. (*specific
Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/7.0. Pursuant to specific Plan
Action Program 8F,* the city shall establish appropriate
funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of capital
improvements. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5.
114\eastdub\find(4)
13
Mitiqation Meastirer3:~418.0;:~:~l::E>.\!:I:"E;uant to Specific Plan
Action Program ':8Gi*tne"q,ity. shall',coordinate with DRFAto
identify and acquire ::,specificsitesfor new fire stations,
wi th the westernmost,~'si te .:in ;;,the.:,specif ic Plan area assured
prior to approvaT(of ':,a.ny,~development plans. (*SpecificPlan
provisions adopted ",throughout: ,RPA~)' DEIR page 3.4-5; RC #
15-26.
Mitiqation Measure ').4 /9. 0 ;'~;.Pl.1rsuant to Specific Plan
Action Program '8H/*;. the'.City shall incorporate DRFA
recommendations "on project ,design ,:relating to access, water
pressure, fire'safetyandprevention into development
approvals. Require compliance with DR FA design standards
such as non-combustible roof materials, minimum fire hydrant
flow requirements, buffer zones along open space areas, fire
alarm and sprinkler systems, road access, and parking
requirements. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -6.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/10.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 81,* the City shall ensure, as a requirement
of Project approval, that an assessment district, homeowners
association, or some other mechanism is in place that will
provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban/open'
space interface. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-6.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/11.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 8J,* the City shall ensure that fire trails
and fire breaks are integrated into the open space trail
system. And that fire district standards for access roads
in these areas are met while environmental impacts are
minimized. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-6.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/12.0. The City of Dublin, in
consultation with DRFA and a qualified wildlife biologist,
shall prepare a wildfire management plan for the RPA to
reduce open land wildfire risks consistent with habitat
protection and other open space values. The plan shall
specify ownership, maintenance, use, brush control, and
fire-resistant landscaping measures, as well as periodic
review of these measures, for RPA open lands. Any park
districts or other open space agencies with jurisdiction
over lands within the RPA shall be encouraged to participate
in the preparation of the plan. DEIR pages 3.4-6 to -7.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/13.0. The City shall consult with
DRFA to determine the number, location and timing of
additional fire stations for areas within the RPA outside
114\eastdub\find(4)
14
the specific plan when,:such 'a:reas'~'are proposed ,for
annexation to the city . DEIR "page, '3.4-7.
Findinq. Changes~ or"::alterat~ons :have been required in, or
incorporated into i' .theProject,cthat:;avoid or substantially
,lessen the significant,effe~tdi.dentified,- in the Final ,EIR.
Actions to determine the number:,and location of fire
stations are within.the:responsibility and jurisdiction of
DRFA and not the:'City :of:':Dublin;~:',~Such actions can ,and
should be taken'by'DRFA.'-~If:.taken; such actions can and
would avoid or ,substantially lessen.the significant effect
identified in thecFinal EIR.-~~ ~'
Rationale for Findinq. New fire facilities will be
constructed to meet the needs of project residents; DRFA
input into Project design features will enable additional
and efficient provision of fire services. The wildfire
management plan should further limit the Project fire
protection impacts by reducing the risk of wildfires.
IMPACT 3.4/D. Fire Response to outlying Areas. Based on DRFA's
preliminary locations for new fire stations, the northern-most
portions of the RPA would be outside the District's standard
response area. Development in these areas (especially the north
end of Tassajara Road) could experience adverse fire hazard
exposure and emergency response impacts. DEIR page 3.4-5.
Mitiqation Measures. Mitigation measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0 as
described above. DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -7.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to determine the number and location of fire
stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
DRFA and not the city of Dublin. Such actions should be
taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would avoid
or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. New fire facilities will be
constructed to meet the needs of all Project residents,
including those in the outerlying areas; DRFA input into
project design features will enable additional and efficient
provision of fire services. The wildfire management plan
should further limit the project fire protection impacts by
reducing the risk of wildfires.
IMPACT 3.4/E. Exposure to wildfire Hazards. Settlement of
population and construction of new communities in proximity to
high fire hazard open space areas with difficult access poses an
114\eastdub\find(4)
15
increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if open space
areas are not maintained for fire safety. This is also a
significant cumulative impact in that increased development in
steep grass and woodlands around the edges of the Tri-Valley's
core communities may reduce response times and strain fire-
fighting resources for regional firefighting services, many of
whom participate in mutual aid systems. DEIR pages 3.4-5, 5.0-
5.
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0.
3.4/6.0 to 13.0, as described above.
-7, 5.0-5; RC #26-26.
Mitigation measures
DEIR pages 3.4-5 to
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to determine the number and location of fire
stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
DRFA agencies and the City of Dublin. Such actions should
be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR. DEIR pages 3.4-4 to -7.
Rationale for Findinq. New fire facilities will be
constructed to meet the needs of all Project residents,
including those near open space areas; DRFA input into
project design features will enable additional and efficient
provision of fire services. The wildfire management plan
should further limit the Project wildfire exposure impacts
through fire safety planning and open space management.
IMPACT 3.4/F, G. Demand for New Classroom Space; Demand for
Junior High Schools. Buildout of the Project will increase the
demand for new classroom space and school facilities beyond
current available capacity. At the junior high school level,
classroom demand may exceed both current and planned capacity
levels. DEIR page 3.4-11 to -12.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/13.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 8-1,* the city shall reserve school sites within the
RPA designated on the Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment Land Use Maps. (*specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-12.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/14.0. The City shall ensure that the
two proposed junior high schools are designed to accommodate
the projected number of junior high school students. DEIR
page 3.4-12.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
114\eastdub\find(4)
16
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to determine junior high school siting and
design are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such
actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If
taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Providing elementary, junior high,
and high school sites will accommodate classroom demand
generated by Project residents. Mitigation Measures
3.4/17.0 through 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient funding for
such development.
IMPACT 3.4/H. overcrowding of Schools. Existing schools may be
overcrowded if insufficient new classroom space is provided for
new residential development. DEIR page 3.4-12.
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/13.0 to 14.0. Mitigation Measures
3.4/13.0 to 14.0, as described above.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/15.0. Pursuant to specific Plan
Policy 8-2,* the city shall promote a consolidated develop-
ment pattern that supports the logical development of
planning area schools, and in consultation with the appro-
priate school district(s), ensure that adequate classroom
space is available prior to the development of new homes.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.4-12.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to site and design schools are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and
not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Providing elementary, junior high,
and high school sites will accommodate classroom demand
generated by Project residents, while a consolidated
development pattern ensures that the classroom space will be
available when it is needed. Mitigation Measures 3.4/17.0
through 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient funding for such
development.
IMPACT 3.4/I. Impact on School Financing District Jurisdiction.
Development of the RPA under existing jurisdictional boundaries
would result in the area being served by two different school
114\eastdub\find(4)
17
districts and would adverselY affect financing of schools and
provision of educational services. DEIR page 3.4-12.
Mitiaation Measures 3.4/16.0. pursuant to specific Plan
Action program 8A,. the city shall work with the school
districts to resolve the jurisdictional issue to best serve
student needs and minimize the fiscal burden of the service
providers. (.specific plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-12 to -13.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantiallY
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to resolve the jurisdictional issue are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies
and not the city of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Resolving the school district
jurisdiction issue will limit conflicts and ensure that
school services are efficientlY provided.
IMPACT 3.4/J. Financial Burden on school Districts. The cost of
providing new school facilities could adverselY impact local
school districts by creating an unwieldy financial burden unless
some form of financing is identified. DEIR page 3.4-13.
Miti ation Measures 3.4 17.0 to 19.0. pursuant to specific
Plan poliCY 8-3. and Action program 8B, ensure that adequate
school facilities are available prior to development in the
RPA to the extent permitted by law, for example, by
requiring dedication of school sites and/or payment of
developer fees by neW development. pursuant to specific
plan Action program 8C,. the city shall work with school
districts to establish appropriate funding mechanisms to
fund new school development and encourage school districts
to use best efforts to obtain state funding for new con-
struction. (.specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR p. 3.4-13; RC #15-31.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantiallY
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
some actions to fund neW school development are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and
not the city of DUblin. such actions can and should be
taken bY such other agencies. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantiallY lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR.
18
114\eastdub\find(4)
Rationale for Finding. Through these mitigations, develop-
ment creating school facilities demand will have primary
responsibility for accommodating that demand, with the
school districts being provided with back-up financial
support from other sources.
IMPACT 3.4/K. Demand for Park Facilities. without the addition
of new parks and facilities, the increased demand for new park
and recreation facilities resulting from buildout of the Project
would not be met, resulting in deterioration of the City's park
provision standard and of the City's ability to maintain existing
services and facilities. This is also a significant cumulative
impact. DEIR pages 3.4-16, 5.0-5.
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/20.0 to 24.0. General Plan
Amendment Guiding Policies A, B, and G and Implementing
Policy D require the City of Dublin to provide and maintain
parks and related facilities adequate to meet Project and
citywide needs and in conformance with the City's Park and
Recreation Master Plan 1992. Implementing Policy K
specifically requires dedication and improvements for the 20
parks designated in the RPA with collection of in-lieu fees
as required by City standards. DEIR pages 3.4-16 to -17,
5.0-5.
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/25.0 to 27.0. Sufficient parkland
shall be designated and set aside in the RPA to satisfy the
City's ,Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992 and its park
provision and phasing standards. DEIR pages 3.4-17, 5.0-5.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/28. The City shall implement
Specific Plan Policies 6-1 to -6* to establish large,
continuous natural open space areas with convenient access
for users, and adequate access for maintenance and manage-
ment; to preserve views of designated open space areas; and
to establish a mechanism for open space ownership, manage-
ment, and maintenance. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-18 to -19.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. These mitigations provide added new
parks and facilities to meet increased demand from Project
residents, and require compliance with phasing plans in the
Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992, to ensure that new
parks and facilities construction will keep pace with new
residential construction.
114\eastdub\find(4)
19
IMPACT 3.4/L. Park Facilities Fiscal Impact. Acquisition and
improvement of new park and recreation facilities may place a
financial strain on existing city of Dublin revenue sources
unless adequate financing and implementation mechanisms are
designed. DEIR page 3.4-18.
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/20.0 to 31.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 4-29* and Action Program 4N,* the city shall
ensure that development provides its fair share of planned
open space; for example, through in-lieu fees under the
City's parkland dedication ordinance. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Program 4M,* the City shall develop a Parks Imple-
mentation Plan identifying phasing, facilities priorities
and location, and design and construction responsibilities.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.4-18.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. These mitigations ensure that needed
park facilities will be provided by developers at the time
of development, thereby avoiding the use of existing revenue
sources to build new parks for Project area residents.
IMPACT 3.4/M, N. Impact on Regional Trail System and Impact on
Open Space Connections. without adequate provisions for trail
easements and without adequate design and implementation, urban
development along stream corridors and ridgelands would obstruct
formation of a regional trail system and an interconnected open
space system. DEIR page 3.4-18 to -19.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/32.0. Pursuant to General Plan
Amendment Guiding Policy H,* establish a trail system with
regional and subregional connections, including a trail
along the Tassajara Creek corridor. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-19.
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/23.0 and 33.0 to 36.0. Pursuant to
General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy I, Implementation
Policy D, Specific Plan policies 6-1,* 6-3,* Action Program
40,* and consistent with the City's Parks and Recreation
Master Plan 1992, use natural stream corridors and major
ridgelines as the basis for a trail system with a conti-
nuous, integrated open space network, emphasizing convenient
user access, pedestrian and bicycle connections between
developed and open space areas, and developer dedication of
ridgetop and stream corridor public access easements.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
pages 3.4-17, -19.
114\eastdub\find(4)
20
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Establishing a Project area trail
system incorporating planned regional connections contri-
butes to development of a regional trail system and allows
the trail planning to be considered and incorporated into
individual Project area developments in the RPA. By
requiring that open space and trail planning be based on
continuous physical features such as stream corridors and
ridgelines, and that public access be provided along these
features, these mitigations avoid a disconnected open space
system.
IMPACT 3.4/0, P. Increased Solid Waste production and Impact on
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. Increased population and
commercial land use will cause a proportional increase in the
total projected amount of solid waste and household hazardous
waste generated by the city of Dublin. This increase creates the
need for additional capacity, personnel, and vehicles to dispose
of the wastes. It can create public health risks from improper
handling. The increased solid waste and household hazardous
waste generated by the Project may accelerate the closing
schedule for Altamont landfill unless additional capacity is
developed or alternate disposal sites are identified. This
impact on the Altamont landfill is also a potentially significant
cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.4-21 to -22, 5.0-6.
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/37.0 to 40.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Program 8K* and other EIR mitigations, adopt a
Solid Waste Management Plan for the RPA, including waste
reduction programs such as composting and curbside and other
collection of recyclables. Include goals, objectives, and
programs necessary to integrate with the diversion targets
of the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element and
Household Hazardous Waste Element. New development in the
RPA shall demonstrate adequate available landfill capacity
for anticipated wastes. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3-4.22 to -23, 5.0-6.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. These mitigations minimize the
amount of solid waste production and related needs and risks
through compliance with AB 939 solid waste planning.
Reducing the amount of Project-generated waste will also
avoid an accelerated closing schedule for the Altamont
landfill. In addition, these mitigations require that new
114\eastdub\find(4)
21
development anticipate and provide for adequate waste
disposal before the development is approved.
IMPACT 3.4/Q. Demand for utility Extensions. Development of the
Project site will significantly increase demand for gas, electric
and telephone services. Meeting this demand will require
construction of a new Project-wide distribution system. This is
a significant growth-inducing impact. DEIR pages 3.4-24, 5.0-14
to -15.
Mitiqation Measures. None proposed. DEIR page 3.4-2.4.
Findinq. No changes or alterations are available to avoid
or substantially lessen this impact. Therefore, a statement
of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval
of the Project.
IMPACT 3.4/R. utility Extension Visual and Biological Impacts.
Expansion of electrical, gas, and telephone lines could adversely
affect visual and biological resources if not appropriately
sited. DEIR page 3.4-24.
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/41.0 to 44.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Program 8L* and other identified mitigation'
measures, development within the RPA must document the
availability of electric, gas, and telephone service and
must place utilities below grade or, preferably, underground
and routed away from sensitive habitat and open space lands.
A development project service report shall be reviewed by
the city prior to improvement plan approval. (*Specific
Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-24
to -25.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Undergrounding utilities will avoid
visual effects by placing the utility extensions where they
cannot be seen. Routing the utility extensions away from
sensitive habitat and open space areas will avoid impacts on
biological resources by avoiding the resources themselves.
IMPACT 3.4/S. consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources.
Natural gas and electrical service would increase consumption of
non-renewable natural resources. DEIR page 3.4-25.
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/45.0 to 46.0. Major developers in
the Project area shall provide demonstration projects on
cost-effective energy conservation techniques including but
not limited to solar water and space heating, landscaping
114\eastdub\find(4)
22
for water conservation, and shading. All development
projects in the RPA shall prepare an energy conservation
plan as part of their proposals. The plan shall demonstrate
how site planning, building design, and landscaping will
conserve use of energy during construction and long term
operation. DEIR page 3.4-25.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. Through the demonstration projects,
developers can educate themselves and Project residents
about available and feasible techniques to reduce
consumption of energy resources. Requiring energy
conservation plans forces both developers and the City to
actively consider various techniques to reduce energy
consumption and to build those techniques directly into the
Project. These actions cannot, however, fully mitigate the
impact.
IMPACT 3.4/T. Demand for Increased Postal Service. The Project
will increase the demand for postal service. DEIR page 3.4-26.
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/47.0 to 48.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 8-10 and Action Program 8M, the City shall,
encourage the U.S.P.S. to locate a new post office in the
Eastern Dublin town center. DEIR page 3.4-26; RC # 15-37.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to site a new post office within the town center are
within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the
USPS and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and
should be taken by the usPS. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. A post office conveniently located in
the town center area will provide postal service to meet the
Project generated demand.
IMPACT 3.4/U. Demand for Increased Library Service. without
additional library facilities and staff, the increase in
population resulting from the Project would adversely affect
existing library services and facilities DEIR page 3.4-27.
114\eastdub\find(4)
23
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/49.0 to 51.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 8-11* and Action Program 8N* and other identi-
fied mitigation measures, the city shall encourage and
assist the Alameda County Library System to provide adequate
library service in eastern Dublin, considering such factors
as location, phasing, and funding of needed library
services. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-27 to -28; RC #15-38.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to provide library facilities are within the
ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the Alameda
County Library system and not the City of Dublin. Such
actions can and should be taken by the Alameda County
Library System. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Providing library services to the RPA
will meet Project generated demand. Planning how and when
to provide those services will ensure that they are
efficient and convenient to the maximum number of users~
section 3.5 -- Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainaqe
IMPACT 3.5/A. Indirect Impacts Resulting from the Lack of a
Wastewater Service Provider. Although Specific Plan Policy 9-4
(page 127) calls for the expansion of DSRSD's service boundaries
to include the Specific Plan area, the Project does not provide
for wastewater service to areas in the RPA outside the specific
plan area. This could result in uncoordinated efforts by future
developers in this area to secure wastewater services. DEIR page
3.5-5, RC # 32-18.
Mitigation Measure 3.5/1.0a. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 9-4,* the city shall coordinate with DSRSD to expand
its service boundaries to encompass the entire RPA.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) RC #
32-18.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to expand DSRSD's service boundaries are within the
ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the DSRSD and
not the city of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by the DSRSD. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
114\eastdub\find(4)
24
Rational for Findinq. Expanding DSRSD's service
boundaries to include the entire RPA will ensure that
securing wastewater services will be coordinated
through one agency.
IMPACT 3.5/B. Lack of a Wastewater Collection system. Estimated
wastewater flow for the RPA is 4.6 MGD; however, there currently
is no wastewater collection system adequate to serve the Project
area. DEIR page 3.5-5.
Mitiqation Measures 3.5/1.0 to 5.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Programs 9P,* 91,* 90,* 9M,* and 9N,* all
development in the RPA shall be connected to public sewers
and shall obtain a "will-serve" letter prior to grading
permits; on-site package plants and septic systems shall be
discouraged. The City shall request that DSRSD update its
collection system master plan to reflect Project area
proposed land uses, with the cost of the plan to be borne by
future development in the RPA. All wastewater systems shall
be designed and built in accordance with DSRSD standards.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.5-6; RC # 32-19, 32-20.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in"or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. These mitigations will provide a
wastewater collection system adequate to meet Project
generated demand, and will ensure the system meets design
and construction standards of DSRSD.
IMPACT 3.5/C. Extension of a Sewer Trunk Line with Capacity to
Serve New Developments. Construction of a wastewater collection
system could result in development outside the RPA that would
connect to the Project's collection system. This is also a
potentially significant growth-inducing impact. DEIR pages 3.5-
6, 5.0-15.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/6.0. The proposed wastewater system
shall be sized only for the RPA area. DEIR pages 3.5-6, 4-
11, 5.0-15.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. By sizing the planned wastewater
collection system only to serve the RPA, growth inducing
impacts on lands outside that area are avoided.
114\eastdub\find(4)
25
IMPACT 3.S/D. Allocation of DSRSD Treatment and Disposal
Capacity. There is limited available capacity at the DSRSD
Treatment Plant, limiting the number of sewer permits available
for new developments. It is very unlikely that any of the
presently remaining DUE's will be available for the Eastern
Dublin Area. DEIR page 3.5-7; RC #32-21.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/7.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 9L,* development project applicants in the
RPA shall prepare a design level water capacity investi-
gation, including means to minimize anticipated wastewater
flows and reflecting development phased according to sewer
permit allocation. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-7.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/7.1. Development project applicants
in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve" letter
from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit. RC #32-22.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen ' the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The required investigation will allow
development to be phased to ensure there are adequate
wastewater facilities available to meet Project generated
demand. The requirement of a "will-serve" letter will
insure that adequate wastewater facilities will exist for
all new development. If capacity is not available, DSRSD
will not issue a will-serve letter. RC #32-22.
IMPACT 3.S/E. Future Lack of Wastewater Treatment Plant
Capacity. Development of the Project require an increase in
wastewater treatment plant capacity within DSRSD to adequately
treat the additional wastewater flows to meet discharge
standards. This is also a potentially significant cumulative
impact in that increased demand on area wastewater treatment
facilities exceeds current remaining capacity. DEIR page 3.5-7
to -8, 5.0-6.
Mitiqation Measures 3.5/7.1, 8.0, 9.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 9-6* and mitigations identified in the EIR,
ensure that wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are
available for future development in the RPA through
compliance with DSRSD's master plan to fund, design, and
construct wastewater treatment plant expansion once export
capacity is available (unless TWA approves export of raw
wastewater, in which case DSRSD's wastewater treatment plant
expansion will not be necessary). Also, development project
applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve"
letter from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit.
114\eastdub\find(4)
26
(*Specific Plan 'provlslons adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
pages 3.5-7 to~-8, 5.0-6; RC #32-23.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Compliance with DSRSD's master plan
will ensure that adequate wastewater treatment plant
capacity will be available in the future to serve Project
generated demand once export capacity of treated wastewater
is provided (see Mitigation Measure 3.5/11.0). Alternative-
ly, expanded treatment capacity will not be necessary if
export of raw wastewater is approved. The requirement of a
"will-serve" letter will insure that adequate wastewater
facilities will exist for all new development. If capacity
is not available, DSRSD will not issue a will-serve letter.
RC #32-22.
IMPACT 3.S/F. Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased
Wastewater Treatment. Development of the Project will result in
increased wastewater flows and will require increased energy use
for treatment of wastewater. DEIR page 3.5-8; RC #32-24.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/10.0. Include energy efficient
treatment systems in any wastewater treatment plant
expansion and operate the plant to take advantage of off-
peak energy. DEIR page 3.5-8; RC #32-24.
Findinq. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. However, even if such actions are taken, this
impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened.
Therefore, a Statement of overriding Considerations must be
adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. Use of energy efficient treatment
systems and plant operations will reduce the amount of
energy use but these actions cannot fully mitigate the
impact.
IMPACT 3.S/G. Lack of Wastewater Current Disposal Capacity. The
lncrease in wastewater flows from the Project and other sub-
regional development will exceed available wastewater disposal
capacity until additional export capacity is developed. This is
also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.5-8, 5.0-6.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.1, 11 to 14.0. Pursuant to
Specific Plan Policy 9-5* and Action Programs 9H,* 9J,* and
9K,* the City shall support current efforts to develop
114\eastdub\find(4)
27
additional export capacity.. The City shall require use of
recycled water for landscape irrigation in accordance with
DSRSD's Recycled Water Policy and require development within
the RPA to fund a recycled water distribution system model
to reflect proposed :land uses. Also, development project
applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve"
letter from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.5-9, 5.0-6 to -7, RC #32-22, 32-25, 32-26, 32-27.
,
,
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to develop additional export capacity are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies,
and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should
take by such agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid
or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. These mitigations will provide the
additional wastewater disposal capacity necessary to meet
Project generated demand. The requirement of a "will-serve"
letter will insure that adequate wastewater facilities will
exist for all new development. If capacity is not avail-
able, DSRSD will not issue a will-serve letter. RC #32-22.
IMPACT 3.5/H. Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased
Wastewater Disposal. Development of the Project will result in
increased wastewater flows and will require increased energy use
for disposal of wastewater; more specifically, for (1) pumping
raw wastewater to CCCSD for treatment under the TWA proposed
project; and/or (2) operation of an advanced treatment and
distribution system for recycled water. DEIR page 3-5.9.
Mitiqation Measures 3.5/15.0 to 16.0. The City shall
encourage off peak pumping to the proposed TWA export
system. The city shall plan, design, and construct the
Project recycled water treatment system for energy efficient
operation including use of energy efficient treatment
systems, optimal use of storage facilities, and pumping at
off peak hours. DEIR pages 3.5-10 to -11.
Findinq. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. However, even if such actions are taken, this
impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened.
Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted upon approval of the Project.
114\eastdub\find(4)
28
Rationale for Findinq. The proposed mitigations will reduce
the amount of energy used for wastewater disposal but these
actions cannot fully mitigate the impact.
IMPACT 3.S/I. Potential Failure of Export Disposal system. A
failure in the operation of, the proposed TWA wastewater pump
stations would adversely affect the overall operation of the
wastewater collection system for the Tri-Valley subregion, as
well as the Eastern Dublin Project. DEIR page 3.5-10.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/17.0. Engineering redundancy will be
built into the TWA pump stations, which will also have
provisions for emergency power generators. DEIR page
3.5-10.
Findinq. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the city of
Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub-
stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the
Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Engineering redundancy will minimize
the risk of pump station system failure; providing emergency
power generators will ensure that any system failure which
does occur will be short lived, thereby avoiding the effects
of such failure. RC #32-28.
IMPACT 3.S/J. Pump station Noise and Odors. The proposed TWA
wastewater pump stations could generate noise during their
operation and could potentially produce odors. DEIR page 3.5-10.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/18.0. TWA's pumps and motors will be
designed to comply with local noise standards and will be
provided with odor control equipment. DEIR page. 3.5-10.
Findinq. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin~ Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub-
stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the
Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Requiring compliance with local noise
standards will ensure that any noise produced not exceed
acceptable levels. Odor control equipment will ensure that
odor production effects are avoided. RC #32-28.
IMPACT 3.S/K. storage Basin Odors and potential Failure. The
proposed TWA Emergency Wastewater Storage Basins could poten-
tially emit odors and/or the basins could have structural failure
114\eastdub\find(4)
29
due to landslides, earthquakes, or undermining of the reservoir
from inadequate drainage. DEIR page 3.5-10.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/19.0. TWA's basins will be covered,
buried tanks with odor control equipment and will be
designed to meet current seismic codes. DEIR page 3.5-11.
Findinq. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. These mitigations ensure that any
odors related to the TWA basins are contained and controlled
within the basins so as not to be detectable beyond the
basins. Compliance with seismic codes will ensure that the
basins are properly constructed to withstand landslides and
earthquakes and are provided with adequate drainage to avoid
structural failure. RC #32-28.
IMPACT 3.S/L. Recycled Water system operation. The proposed
recycled water system must be constructed and operated properly
in order to 'prevent any potential contamination or cross-
connection with potable water supply systems. DEIR page 3.5-11.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/20.0. Construction of the recycled
water distribution system will meet all applicable standards
of the Department of Health Services (DHS) and San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). DEIR page
3.5-11.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Applicable regulations of the DHS and
RWQCB are designed to prevent cross-connection contamina-
tion; compliance with these regulations will therefore avoid
the contamination impact.
IMPACT 3.S/M. Recycled Water storage Failure. Loss of recycled
water storage through structural damage from landslide, earth-
quake, and undermining of the reservoir through inadequate
drainage. DEIR page 3.5-11.
Mitigation Measure 3~5/21.0. The city shall require
reservoir construction to meet all applicable DSRSD and
other health standards and shall require preparation of
soils and geotechnical investigations to determine potential
114\eastdub\find(4)
30
landslide and earthquake impacts. .. Reservoirs shall be
designed to meet current seismic codes and to provide
adequate site drainage~ DEIR page 3'~ 5-11.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect,identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Soils and geotechnical studies will
ensure that reservoirs will be designed and constructed to
comply with current seismic, DSRSD, and other applicable
health standards, the purpose of which is to avoid
structural failure.
IMPACT 3.5/N. Loss of Recycled Water System Pressure. Loss of
pressure in the proposed recycled water distribution systems
could result in the system being unable to meet peak irrigation
demand, which could result in loss of vegetation through lack of
irrigation water. DEIR page 3.5-12; RC #32-30.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/22.0. The recycled water pump
stations shall meet all applicable DSRSD standards. DEIR
page 3.5-12; RC #32-31.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Compliance with DSRSD standards will
minimize the risk of pressure being lost.
IMPACT 3.5/0. Secondary Impacts from Recycled Watersystem
operation. Failure to identify and implement treatment plant
improvements related to recycled water use may increase salinity
in the groundwater basin. DEIR page 3.5-12.
Mitiqation Measures 3.5/20.0. Recycled water projects shall
incorporate salt mitigation required by Zone 7. DEIR page
3.5-12.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Compliance with salt mitigation
requirements will reduce the salinity of the recycled water,
thereby avoiding the risk of increased salinity in the
groundwater basin.
IMPACT 3.5/P. Overdraft of Local Groundwater Resources. If the
Project area is not annexed to DSRSD and development projects are
114\eastdub\find(4)
31
not required to connect to DSRSD's water distribution system,
development projects may attempt to drill their own wells,
causing overdraft of existing limited groundwater supplies. DEIR
page 3.5-17.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 to 25.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 9-2* and other EIR mitigations, the City shall
coordinate with DSRSD to expand its service boundaries to
include the Project area and to develop annexation
conditions encouraging water conservation and recycling.
The City shall encourage all developments in the RPA to
connect to DSRSD's system and discourage the use of
groundwater wells. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-17; RC #14-4.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to expand DSRSD's service boundaries are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the DSRSD and not the
City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by the
DSRSD. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Annexation to DSRSD and connection
to its water distribution system will eliminate the need for
development projects to drill their own wells and will
therefore avoid the risk of groundwater overdrafting.
IMPACT 3.5/Q. Increase in Demand for Water. Estimated average
daily water demand for the RPA is 6.4 MGD, which demand could
exceed available supply. This is also a potentially significant
cumulative impact in that ongoing urban development in the Tri-
Valley is resulting in a cumulative increase in water demand at a
time when water supplies and delivery are uncertain. DEIR page
3.5-18, 5.0-7 to -8.
Mitiqation Measures 3.5/26.0 to 31.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Programs 9A* and 9B,* the City shall require
development projects in the RPA to include water conserva-
tion measures within structures as well as in public and
other improvements. Require developments to comply with
DSRSD and Zone 7 recommendations for developing and using
recycled water. Pursuant to other EIR mitigations,
implement Zone 7 and DSRSD water supply and water quality
improvements and interconnect Project area water systems
with existing surrounding water systems for increased
reliability. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) :DEIR pages 3.5-18 to -19; 5.0-9; RC #13-9, 32-43.
114\eastdub\find(4)
32
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to improve water supply and quality are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies
and not the City of Dublin. Such actions should be taken by
such other agencies. If taken, such actions can and would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Through required water conservation
and water recycling mitigations, the Project reduces the
magnitude of the impact by reducing the demand for water
using recycled water for irrigation reduces the estimated
average daily water demand in the RPA to 5.5 MGD. (RC
#32.52.) The remaining water quality and water supply
mitigations will result in an increased water availability
from Zone 7 and DSRSD to meet Project generated demand.
IMPACT 3.5/R. Additional Treatment Plant capacity. The increase
in water demand through development of the Project will require
an expansion of existing water treatment facilities in order to
deliver safe and potable water. DEIR page 3.5-19.
Mitiqation Measures 3.5/32.0 to 33.0. Implement Zone 7's
planned water treatment system improvements. DSRSD should
construct two new chlorination/fluoridation stations at the
two proposed Zone 7 turnouts to eastern Dublin, with the
construction phased west to east as anticipated in the
General Plan Amendment. DEIR page 3.5-19.
Findinq. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub-
stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the
Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Proposed water treatment system
improvements will insure that Project water supply meets all
applicable water quality requirements.
IMPACT 3.5/S. Lack of a Water Distribution System. There
currently is no water distribution system to provide water
service for the RPA. DEIR page 3.5-20.
Mitiqation Measures 3.5/34.0 to 38.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 9-1* and Action Programs 9C,* 9D,* 9E,* and 9G,*
the City shall provide an adequate water supply system with
related improvements and storage facilities for all develop-
ment, in compliance with applicable DSRSD standards. The
114\eastdub\find(4)
33
City shall request that DSRSDupdate its water system
masterplan to reflect the proposed land uses, and require a
"will-serve" letter from DSRSD prior to grading permits for
any Project area development. The City shall encourage the
proposed water system to coordinate and combine with
existing neighboring water systems. (*specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-20.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigations will provide a
water distribution system adequate to meet Project-generated
demand, and will insure the system meets design and
construction standards of DSRSD.
IMPACT 3.5/T. Inducement of substantial Growth and Concentration
of population. The proposed water distribution system will
induce growth in the Project area and has been sized to poten-
tially accommodate the Dougherty Valley Development to the north.
However, if DSRSD does not provide water to the Dougherty Valley
Development; the pipes will be sized to only accommodate the, RPA.
The impact is also a potentially significant growth-inducing
impact. DEIR page 3.5-20, 5.0-15, RC #32-41, 32-55.
Findinq. No feasible mitigation measures are identified to
reduce this impact. Therefore, a statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
IMPACT 3.5/U. Increase in Energy Usage Through operation of the
Water Distribution System. Development of the Project will
result in increased water demand and will require increased
energy use to operate a water distribution system, especially for
pumping water to the system and to storage. DEIR page 3.5-21.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/40. Plan, design, and construct the
water distribution system for energy efficient operation.
Design pump stations to take advantage of off-peak energy.
DEIR page 3.5-21.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. Use of energy efficient water
distribution systems and operations will reduce the amount
of energy used, but these actions cannot fully mitigate the
impact.
114\eastdub\find(4)
34
IMPACT 3.5/V. Potential Water storage Reservoir Failure. Loss
of storage in proposed water 'distribution reservoirs from
landslides, earthquakes, and/or undermining of the reservoir
through inadequate drainage would adversely affect the ability of
the water supply system to maintain water pressures and to meet
fire flows. DEIR page 3.5-21.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/41.0. Require water reservoir
construction to meet all applicable DSRSD standards.
Prepare soils and geotechnical investigations to determine
potential landslide and earthquake impacts. Design the
reservoirs to meet current seismic codes, and to provide
adequate site drainage. DEIR page 3.5-21.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Soils and geotechnical studies will
insure that reservoirs will be designed and constructed to
comply with current seismic, DSRSD, and site drainage
standards, thereby avoiding the risk of structural damage or
failure.
IMPACT 3.5/W. Potential Loss of System Pressure. Loss of
pressure in the proposed water distribution systems could result
in contamination of the distribution system and would not allow
adequate flows and pressures essential for fire flow. DEIR page
3.5-22.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/42.0. The proposed water pump
stations shall meet all applicable standards of DSRSD and
shall include emergency power generation back-up. DEIR page
3.5-22.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Compliance with DSRSD standards will
minimize the risk of pressure being lost. Providing
emergency power generators will insure the pumps will
continue operating, thereby avoiding the risk of contamina-
tion in the distribution system and insuring that adequate
water flows are available for fire protection.
IMPACT 3.5/X. Potential Pump station Noise. Proposed
system pump stations would generate noise during their
that could adversely affect the surrounding community.
3.5-22.
water
operation
DEIR page
114\eastdub\find(4)
35
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/43.0. Design pump stations to reduce
sound levels from operating pump motors and emergency
generators. DEIR page 3.5-22.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Reducing sound levels of the
mechanical equipment will reduce the amount of noise
perceivable by surrounding residents, thereby avoiding the
impact.
IMPACT 3.5tY. Potential Flooding. Development of the Project
and development of former agricultural, rural, and open space
lands throughout the Tri-valley will result in an increase in
runoff to creeks and will result in an increased potential for
flooding. This is also a potentially significant cumulative
impact. DEIR page 3.5-25, 5.0-9.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/44.0 to 48.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policies 9-7* and 9-8,* Action Programs 9R* and 9S,*
and other EIR mitigations, require a master drainage plan
for each development project in the RPA to provide drainage
facilities adequate to prevent increased erosion or flood-
ing, including channel improvements with natural creek
bottoms, and side slopes with natural vegetation. This
design level plan shall include studies of the development
project area hydrology, potential impacts of the development
project, and proposed design features to minimize runoff
flows and their effects on erosion and riparian vegetation.
Development projects shall also address potential downstream
flooding, and shall include retention/detention facilities
and/or energy dissipators to minimize and control runoff,
discharge, and to minimize adverse biological and visual
effects. Construct storm drainage facilities in accordance
with approved storm drainage master plan. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR 3.5-25 to -26,
5.0-9.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Through planning and implementation
of storm drainage master plans, development projects will
minimize the amount of runoff to creeks and will provide
drainage facilities to control the rate and location of
runoff that does discharge into creeks. These measures will
minimize the increase in runoff, thereby avoiding increased
flooding potential.
114\eastdub\find(4)
36
IMPACT 3.5/Z. Reduced Groundwater Recharge. Increasing the
amount of impervious surfaces in the Project area could reduce
the area's already minimal groundwater recharge capabilities.
This is also a potentially significant cumulative impact, as
impervious surfaces increase throughout the Tri-Valley. DEIR
page 3.5-26, 5.0-9 to -10.
Mitigation Measure '3.5/49.0 to 50.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 9-9* and other EIR mitigations, plan facilities
and operations that protect and enhance water quality;
support Zone 7's ongoing groundwater recharge program for
the nearby Central Basin, which contains the majority of the
Tri-Valley's groundwater resources. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 2.5-26,
5.0-9.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. These mitigation measures protect
and enhance what minimal groundwater recharge capability
exists in the Project area.
IMPACT 3.5/AA. Non-Point Sources of Pollution. Development of
the Project could result in a deterioration of the quality of
stormwater due to an increase in non-point sources of pollution
including (1) urban runoff; (2) non-stormwater discharges to
storm drains; (3) subsurface drainage; and (4) construction site
runoff (erosion and sedimentation). This is also a potentially
significant cumulative impact as other projects in the subregion
are developed. DEIR page 3.5-26.
Mitiqation Measure 3.5/52.0 to 55.0. The City shall develop
a community based education program on non-point sources of
pollution, coordinating such programs with current Alameda
County programs. The city shall require all development to
meet the requirements of the City's "Best Management
Practices", the City's NPDES permit, and the County's Urban
Runoff Clean Water Program to mitigate stormwater pollution.
DEIR 3.5-27, 5.0-10, Addendum.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Education programs will acquaint all
Project area residents with the issue of non-point
pollution, and will suggest ways residents can avoid such
pollution. Existing city, County, and State regulatory
programs will insure that potential impacts of non-point
114\eastdub\find(4)
37
sources of pollution or stormwater quality will be mitigated
to a level of insignificance.
Section 3.6 -- Soils, Geoloqy, and Seismicity
IMPACT 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground, shaking: Primary Effects.
Earthquake ground shaking resulting' from large earthquakes on
active fault zones in the region', could be strong to violent, and
could result in damage to structures and infrastructure and, in
extreme cases, loss of life. DEIR page 3.6-7.
Mitiqation Measure 3.6/1.0. Use modern seismic design for
resistance to lateral force in construction of development
projects, and build in accordance with Uniform Building Code
and applicable county and city code requirements. DEIR page
3.6-7.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. Modern seismic design and compliance
with applicable building codes will reduce the risk of
structural failure, major structural damage, and loss of
life from the effects of ground-shaking. These actions will
not, however, completely avoid the impact.
IMPACT 3.6/C. Earthquake Ground shaking: Secondary Effects. The
secondary effects of ground shaking include seismically-induced
landsliding, differential compaction and/or settlement. This is
also a significant cumulative impact in that further development
in the area could expose residents to significant safety hazards
and could strain emergency response systems. DEIR page 3.6-8,
5.0-10.
Mitiqation Measure 3.6/2.0. In relatively flat areas,
development should be set back from unstable and potentially
unstable land or these landforms should be removed,
stabilized, or reconstructed. Where improvements are
located on unstable land forms, use modern design,
appropriate foundation design, and comply with applicable
codes and ,policies. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10.
Mitiqation Measure 3.6/3.0. In hillside areas, where
development may require substantial grading, require
appropriate grading and design to completely remove unstable
and potentially unstable materials. DEIR page 3.6-8,
5.0-10.
114\eastdub\find(4)
38
Mitiqation Measures 3.6/4.0 to 5.0. Use engineering
techniques and improvements, such as retention structures,
surface and subsurface drainage improvements, properly
designed keyways, and adequate compaction to improve the
stability of fill areas and reduce seismically induced fill
settlement. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10.
Mitiqation Measure 3.6/6.0. Design roads, structural
foundations, and underground utilities to accommodate
estimated settlement without failure, especially across
transitions between fills and cuts. Remove or reconstruct
potentially unstable stock pond embankments in development
areas. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10.
Mitiqation Measure 3.6/7.0. Require all development
projects in the Project area to perform design level
geotechnical investigations prior to issuing any permits.
The investigations should include stability analysis of
natural and planned engineered slopes, and a displacement
analysis to confirm the effectiveness of mitigation measures
proposed in the investigation. DEIR page 3.6-9, 5.0-10.
Mitiqation Measure 3.6/8.0. Earthquake preparedness plans
should be developed by the city and all Project site
residents and employees should be informed of appropriate
measures to take in the event of an earthquake. DEIR page
3.6-9, 5.0-10.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Mitigations 3.6/2.0 to 6.0 provide
specific engineering techniques for reducing the effects of
ground shaking throughout development in the Project area.
Mitigation 3.6/7.0 requires development projects to apply
these and other available engineering techniques at a design
level, to identify specifically the effects that can occur
on a particular site, to propose mitigations specific to
those effects and the site, and to provide a means for
evaluating the likely success of those measures. Through
these engineering, planning, and design mitigations,
development projects will be able to anticipate and avoid or
reduce ground shaking effects before the development is
built.
IMPACT 3.6/D. Substantial Alteration to Project site Landforms.
Development of the Project area could result in permanent change
to the Project site's existing topography, particularly in
hillside areas. This is also a significant cumulative impact as
the hillsides and ridgelands of surrounding Tri-Valley cities are
114\eastdub\find(4)
39
graded and excavated for development projects. DEIR page 3.6-9,
5.0-10.
Mitiqation Measures 3.6/9.0 to 10.0. Adapt improvements to
natural landforms in order to minimize required cuts and
fills through such techniques as construction of partial
pads and use of retaining structures and steeper cut and
fill slopes where appropriate and properly designed.
Further reduce landform alteration by carefully siting
individual improvements on specific lots after identifying
geotechnically feasible building areas and alignments. site
improvements to avoid adverse geotechnical conditions and
the need for remedial grading and use techniques such as
clustering where appropriate to minimize grading and/or
avoid adverse geotechnical conditions. DEIR page 3.6-9.
5.0-10.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen ,the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. These mitigation measures provide
design,and engineering techniques which maintain natural
landforms to the greatest degree possible, and thereby
minimize alteration of those landforms. The mitigations
also require that geotechnical conditions be identified for
development projects, allowing individual projects to
identify and reduce, or in some cases completely avoid, the
condition which might otherwise require alteration.
IMPACT 3.6/F, G. Groundwater Impacts. Groundwater Impacts
Associated with Irrigation. Shallow groundwater conditions occur
in places throughout the RPA and could be caused by irrigation
associated with development of the RPA. These conditions can
adversely affect the performance of foundation and pavements,
particularly in areas with expansive soils and bedrock. In
addition, shallow groundwater can cause slope instability,
including landsliding and fill settlement, and can lead to
liquefaction of RPA soils. DEIR page 3.6-10.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/11.0 to 13.0. Prepare detailed
design level geotechnical investigations on development
projects within the RPA, to locate and characterize
groundwater conditions and formulate design criteria and
measures to mitigate adverse conditions. Control
groundwater by construction of subdrain systems, remove
stock pond embankments and drain reservoirs in development
areas. (See MM 3.6/4, 6, 15, 18, 23, and 27 for additional
techniques to control soil moisture and maintain slope
stability. DEIR page 3.6-8, -11 through -14.) DEIR page
3.6-10 through -11; RC #15-43.
114\eastdub\find(4)
40
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The geotechnical investigation will
identify areas which have groundwater, and development will
proceed in accordance with measures to protect structures
and improvements from slope and soil instability due to
shallow groundwater.
IMPACT 3.6/H. Shrinking and Swelling of Expansive Soils and
Bedrock. The project site contains expansive soils and bedrock,
which tend to shrink upon drying and swell upon wetting. This
process can cause distress to overlying structures and infra-
structure, causing damage to foundations, slabs, and pavements.
DEIR page 3.6-11.
Mitiqation Measures 3.6/14.0 to 16.0. Prepare design level
geotechnical investigations for development projects in the
Project area to characterize site-specific soils and bedrock
conditions, and to formulate appropriate design criteria and
mitigation measures for those conditions. Such responsive
measures include, but are not limited to, controlling
moisture in the soils and bedrock, and designing foundations
and pavements to be built either below the zone of seasonal
moisture change, or upon structurally supportive floors and
after removal of the expansive materials. DEIR page 3.6-11
to -12.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen:the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The design level geotechnical
evaluation will identify expansive soils and bedrock and
insure that special techniques are used in these areas to
reduce the risk of structure and infrastructure damage.
IMPACT 3.6/I. Natural Slope Stability. The Project area
contains active and dormant landslides, as well as steep slopes
and colluvium-filled swales, which are subject to potential slope
instability, and could cause damage to structures and infra-
structure located in these areas. DEIR page 3.6-12.
Mitiqation Measures 3.6/17.0 to 19.0. Development projects
within the Project area should prepare design level
geotechnical investigations to characterize site-specific
slope stability conditions and to formulate appropriate
design ,criteria and mitigation measures in response to those
conditions. Such design measures and mitigations include
siting'development away from unstable landforms and from
114\eastdub\find(4)
41
slopes greater than about 30%, and providing lower density
development in steep, unstable areas. Where unstable areas
cannot .be avoided, design measures and mitigations include
removing the unstable material, reconstructing or repairing
the unstable area, or engineering structural responses,
including subsurface drainage improvements. (See also MM
3.6/26.0, recommending maintenance and inspection plans for
drainage systems. DEIR page 3.6-14.) DEIR page 3.6-12 to
-13.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The design level geotechnical
investigation will disclose areas which may be susceptible
to slope instability. Special techniques, such as siting of
structure and improvements, removing the unstable materials,
and providing structural remediation, will improve slope
stability.
IMPACT 3.6/J. Cut and fill Slope Stability. Potentially
unstable cut and fill slopes may fail or settle, causing damage
to structures and infrastructure. DEIR page 3.6-13.
Mitiqation Measures 3.6/20.0 to 21.0. Require grading plans
for hillside areas, which plans minimize grading and
required cuts and fills by adapting roads to natural
landforms, stepping structures down steeper slopes, and
demonstrating compliance with applicable building code and
other applicable City and County requirements. DEIR page
3.6-13.
Mitiqation Measures 3.6/22.0 to 25.0. Detailed design level
geotechnical investigations such as that required by
mitigation measure 3.6/17.0 should describe and evaluate cut
and fill slopes proposed for development projects in the
RPA. Retaining structures, reinforcement and drainage
measures should be provided on cut slopes as determined by
code requirements and the specific conditions identified in
the geotechnical investigation. Unretained cut slopes
should generally not exceed 3:1. Filled slopes steeper than
5:1 should be keyed and benched into competent material and
provided with subdrainage prior to placing engineered fill.
DEIR pages 3.16-13 to -14.
Mitiqation Measure 3.6/26.0. Development projects in the
Project area should prepare plans for the periodic in-
spection and maintenance of subsurface drainage features,
and the removal and disposal of materials deposited in
surface drains and catch basins. (See also measures
114\eastdub\find(4)
42
described in MM 3.6/28.0.) The plans should include
inspection and disposal procedures, schedule and reporting
requirements, and a responsible party, and should emphasize
overall long-term Project monitoring and maintenance. DEIR
page 3.6-14.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The detailed design level geotechni-
cal investigation will identify areas where cut and fill
slopes are proposed. Specific grading plans affecting these
conditions would be required to show how each development
project will minimize cut and fill slopes, and how the
remaining slopes will be stabilized through siting or engi-
neering features. Long-term monitoring and maintenance
plans will ensure that the design facilities and engineered
features effectively protect the cut and fill slopes over
the long term.
IMPACT 3.6/K, L. Erosion and Sedimentation: Construction-Related
and Long-Term. Construction of development projects in the RPA
will modify the ground surface and its protective vegetative
cover and will alter surface runoff and infiltration patterns,
causing short-term erosion and sedimentation during construction,
and long-term erosion and sedimentation once permanent structures
and improvements are in place. The long-term impact is also a
significant cumulative impact as similar sites are developed
throughout the Tri-Valley. DEIR page. 3.6-14, 5.0-11.
Mitiqation Measure 3.6/27.0. Time grading activities to
avoid the rainy season as much as possible, and implement
interim control measures, including but not limited to,
providing water bars, mulch and net blankets on exposed
slopes, straw bale dikes, temporary culverts and swales,
sediment traps, and/or silt fences. DEIR page 3.6-14.
Mitiqation Measure 3.6/28.0. Reduce long-term erosion and
sedimentation impacts through appropriate design, construc-
tion, and continued maintenance of surface and subsurface
drainage. Appropriate measures include, but are not limited
to, constructing sediment catch basins, adequate storm sewer
systems, stabilizing creek banks, revegetating and main-
taining wooded slopes, constructing facilities to control
drainage and runoff, and emphasizing periodic homeowner/
landowner maintenance. (See also MM 3.6/26.) DEIR page
3.6-15, 5.0-11.
114\eastdub\find(4)
43
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. These mitigations include measures
to prevent concentration of runoff, control runoff velocity,
and trap silts on both a short-term and long-term basis,
thereby minimizing the identified impact.
Section 3.7 -- Bioloqical Resources
IMPACT 3.7/A. Direct Habitat Loss. Under Alternative 2, the
Project will result in the loss, degradation, or disturbance of
1900 acres of existing vegetation. No unique or rare plant
species occur in the Project area; however, urbanization will
substantially reduce the habitat and range for botanical and
wildlife species which are resident or migratory users of the
RPA. The Project contributes to the cumulative, ongoing loss of
natural habitat in the Tri-valley region, and is also a
potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.7-9, 5.0-
11, Addendum.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0 to 3.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policies 6-21* and 6-23,* and Action Program 60,* ,
direct disturbance of trees or vegetation should be
minimized and restricted to those areas actually designated
for construction of improvements. Development projects
should include vegetation enhancement/management plans for
all open space areas identifying ways to enhance the
biological potential of the area as wildlife habitat and
focusing on such measures as reintroducing native species to
increase vegetative cover and plant diversity. Development
projects shall also be required to prepare a detailed
revegetation/restoration plan, developed by a qualified
revegetation specialist, for all disturbed areas that are to
remain undeveloped. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-9, 5.0-11.
Mitiqation Measure 3.7/4.0. The City shall develop and
implement grazing management plans to protect riparian and
wetland areas, increase plant diversity, and encourage the
recovery of native plants, especially perennial grasses.
DEIR page 3.7-9, 5.0-11.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Restricting direct disturbance to
actual construction areas will reduce the amount of habitat
lost. The vegetation and grazing plans will protect and
restore disturbed areas to minimize the amount of habitat
114\eastdub\find(4)
44
loss and to enhance the value of the habitat area remaining.
IMPACT 3.7/B. Indirect Impacts of vegetation Removal.
Construction activities on the Project site may cause dust
deposition, increased soil erosion and sedimentation, increased
potential for slope failures, and alteration of surface and
subsurface drainage patterns. DEIR page 3.7-9 to -10.
Mitiqation Measure 3.7/5.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 6-22,* all disturbed areas should be revegetated as
quickly as possible with native trees, shrubs, herbs, and
grasses, to prevent erosion. The City shall determine
specific physical characteristics of proposed revegetation
areas to evaluate the long-term feasibility of the proposed
mitigation and to identify potential conflicts at the site.
Plants used for revegetation will be native to the Tri-
Valley Area. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-10; RC # 13-18.
Mitiqation Measures 3.6/18.0, 22.0, 23.0. and 3.11/1.0.
Development should avoid siting on steep slopes and should
observe special design and engineering mitigation features
where construction occurs on 3:1 or steeper slopes. The
City of Dublin shall require dust deposition mitigations
during construction, including but not limited to, watering
the construction site, daily clean-up of mud and dust,
replanting and repaving and other measures to reduce wind
erosion. DEIR pages 3.6-12 to -13, 3.7-10, 3.11-3 to -4.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Requiring construction to avoid
siting on steep slopes will protect hillside vegetation and
reduce erosion impacts. Where disturbance is necessary,
engineering and other techniques to reduce erosion and
sedimentation and promote slope stability will also ensure
that revegetation efforts to control erosion will be more
efficient and successful.
IMPACT 3.7/C. Loss or Degradation of Botanically sensitive
Habitat. Direct loss and degradation from grading, road
construction, and culvert crossings could adversely affect the
Project area's unique and sensitive Northern Riparian Forest,
Arroyo willow Riparian Woodland, and Freshwater Marsh habitats.
Indirect impacts could result from increased sedimentation or
spoil deposition affecting stream flow patterns and damaging
young seedlings and the roots of woody plants. This impact is
also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.7-
10, 5.0-11.
114\eastdub\find(4)
45
Mitiqation Measures 3.7/6.0, 7.0. and 11.0, Riparian and
Wetland Areas. Pursuant to Specific Plan Policies 6-9,*
6-10,* and Action Program 6E,* natural riparian and wetland
areas shall be preserved wherever possible. All development
projects in the RPA shall consult with the Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and the California Department of Fish and
Game (DFG) to determine these agencies' jurisdiction over
the riparian or wetland area. These areas shall be
incorporated into project open space areas. Any lost
riparian habitat shall be replaced as required by DFG. Any
lost wetlands shall be mitigated per COE's "no net loss"
policy. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.)
DEIR page 3.7-10, and -11, 5.0-12.
Mitiqation Measures 3.7/8.0 to 10.0, 12.0 to 14.0. Pursuant
to Specific Plan Policies 6-11 to 6-13,* and Action Programs
6F to 6H,* the city shall require revegetation of natural
stream corridors with native plant species and preservation
and maintenance of natural stream corridors in the Project
area, through measures including, but not limited to,
avoiding underground drainage systems in favor of natural
open-stream channels and retention basins. The City shall
establish a stream corridor system (see Specific Plan Figure
6.1) to provide multi-purpose open space corridors for'
pedestrian and wildlife circulation. The city should also
work with Zone 7 and DFG to develop a stream corridor
restoration program, with standards for grading, stabiliza-
tion, and revegetation, and long-term management of RPA
stream ,channels. Development projects in the RPA are to be
reviewed against, and any approval shall be consistent with,
the program standards. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-10 to -12, 5.0-12; RC #14-
7, 35-25.
Mitiqation Measure 3.7/15.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 6K,* the City of Dublin shall establish and
maintain a liaison with state and federal resource manage-
ment agencies throughout the planning and development
process of individual development projects, in order to
avoid violations of state and federal regulations and insure
that specific issues and concerns are recognized and
addressed. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-12, 5.0-12.
Mitiqation Measures 3.7/16.0 to 17.0. Existing sensitive
habitats shall be avoided and protected where feasible.
Construction near drainages shall take place during the dry
season. DEIR page 3.7-12, 5.0-12.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. These changes will avoid or
114\eastdub\find(4)
46
substantially lessen the Project-related significant effects
identified in the final EIR. However, these changes will
not avoid the cumulative effects of lost or degraded
biologically sensitive habitat. Therefore, a statement of
Overriding considerations must be adopted upon approval of
the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. Requiring compliance with "no net
loss" policies will ensure that the amount of habitat shall
remain constant. By incorporating wildlife corridors into
Project plans, wildlife habitats will be enhanced and will
not become isolated because wildlife will be able to migrate
through these corridors as necessary. Disturbance of
natural stream corridors can reduce the habitat value of
these areas, but will be minimized by requirements to
preserve and maintain these corridors in a natural, open
condition, and by requiring construction to take place in
the dry season. Any disturbed streams shall be rebuilt,
reconstructed and revegetated according to the stream
corridor plan, which will further enhance and protect
habitat values in the RPA. Even with these protections for
the RPA's biologically sensitive resource, the cumulative
impact:cannot be fully mitigated.
IMPACT 3.7/D. San Joaquin Kit Fox. Construction of new roads
and facilities could adversely impact kit fox by destroying
potential dens or burying foxes occupying dens at the time of
construction. Modification of natural habitat could reduce
available prey and den sites. Increased vehicle traffic, the
presence of humans and domestic dogs, and resident use of poison
for rodent control could kill or disturb foxes or reduce their
prey populations. DEIR page 3.7-12 to -13.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/18.0. The City shall require all
development in the RPA to comply with the East Dublin San
Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan outlined in Appendix E, DEIR
Part II. Extensive mitigation measures stress siting urban
development to avoid kit fox habitat where possible, and
protecting and enhancing the habitat which remains primarily
in the"Open Space and Rural Residential areas. Mitigations
include measures for pre-construction and construction
conditions, and address steps to be taken if potential or
known dens are identified. DEIR page 3.7-13, DEIR Appendix
E (as revised following RC #20-7.)
Mitigation
with other
identifies
fox in the
Measure 3.7/18.1. The City of Dublin shall work
agencies to develop a management plan that
measures to protect viable habitat for the kit
Tri-Valley area. RC #20-5.
114\eastdub\find(4)
47
Mitiqation Measure 3.7/19.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 6N,* the City shall restrict rodenticide and
herbicide use. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-13.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Appendix E provides a comprehensive
protection plan addressing several phases of kit fox
protection, from avoidance of potential dens to maintenance
of habitat. Through this plan, the Project will avoid most
direct and indirect adverse effects on any kit fox that
might be present in the Project area.
IMPACTS 3.7/F to I. Red-legged Frog, California Tiger
Salamander, Western Pond Turtle, Tri-Colored Blackbird. The
destruction and alteration of water impoundments and stream
courses in the RPA threatens to eliminate habitat for these
species. Increased sedimentation into the riparian areas could
reduce water quality and threaten breeding and larval habitat.
Disturbance of the already minimal vegetation in the stream
courses could reduce habitat opportunity for adult species. '
Increased vehicle traffic and new road construction could
increase direct mortality. Harassment and predation by feral
dogs and cats already occurs, and would increase with increased
residential development. DEIR page 3.7-13 to -14.
Mitiqation Measures 3.7/20.0 to 22.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Program 6L* and other EIR mitigations, develop-
ment projects in the RPA shall prepare open space plans to
enhance and preserve existing habitat and revegetation plans
for any disturbed open space or habitat areas and shall
preserve and protect riparian, wetland, and stream corridor
areas whenever possible. (See MMs 3.7/2.0 to 3.0.)
Maintain a minimum buffer of at least 100 feet around
breeding sites of the red-legged frog, California tiger
salamander, and Western pond turtle. Development projects
in the RPA shall conduct a pre-construction survey within
sixty days prior to habitat modification to verify the
presence of sensitive species. (*Specific Plan provisions
adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-14.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Open space protection, revegetation,
and restoration planning, as well as planning to protect and
enhance wetland and riparian areas will also protect and
114\eastdub\find(4)
48
minimize impacts to the riparian habitat necessary for the
species identified in this impact.
IMPACTS 3.7/K. Golden Eagle: The conversion of grasslands and
the consequent reduction of potential prey could reduce the
amount and quality of foraging habitat for golden eagles. Noise
and human activity associated with development could also disrupt
foraging activities. Elimination of golden eagle foraging habi-
tat is also a potentially significant cumulative impact which
contributes to the overall regional loss of foraging habitat for
this species. DEIR page 3.7-15, 5.0-12.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0. Designate substantial areas of
land in the Project area as Open Space or Rural Residential
(including future study areas), providing open space
protection and low intensity development that will also
provide a suitable foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7-15,
5.0-12.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Providing a natural open space zone
around the existing golden eagle nest avoids destruction of
the nesting site; providing an additional buffer during the
golden eagle reproductive period further protects the
integrity of the existing nesting site. The natural open
space zone, together with the over acres of open
space and low intensity development across the Project site
provides ample opportunity to maintain effective foraging
habitat for golden eagles.
IMPACT 3.7/L. Golden Eagle and Other Raptor Electrocutions.
Golden eagles and other raptors which perch or fly into high-
voltage transmission lines may be electrocuted. DEIR page
3.7-15.
Mitiqation Measures 3.7/26.0 and 3.4/42.0. Require all
utilities to be located below grade where feasible.
Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 6M,* require all
transmission lines to be undergrounded where feasible.
Where not feasible, design specifications to protect raptors
from electrocution shall be implemented. These specifica-
tions include, but are not limited to, spacing dangerous
components; insulating conductors, using non-conductive
materials, or providing perch guards on cross arms; and
avoiding grounded steel cross arm braces. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-24, 3.7-
15 to -16.
114\eastdub\find(4)
49
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Undergrounding utilities, including
all transmission lines, avoids the electrocution hazard.
Where the hazard cannot be avoided through undergrounding,
the design specifications identified in the mitigations
reduce the electrocution hazards by neutralizing and/or
covering the features that provide opportunities for
electrocution.
IMPACT 3.7/M, N. Burrowing OWl and American Badger. Annual
grasslands in the RPA provide suitable habitat for burrowing
owls. Development and related construction activity could
destroy both burrowing owl and American badger burrows. Harass-
ment by feral dogs and cats, as well as use of poisons for rodent
control, could harm these species and/or reduce their prey
populations. DEIR page 3.7-16 to -17.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 and 27.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Program 6L* and other EIR mitigations, develop-
ment projects in the RPA shall conduct a pre-construction
survey within sixty days prior to habitat modification to
verify the presence of sensitive species. The projects
shall maintain a minimum buffer of at least 300 feet around
the breeding sites of the American badger during the
breeding season (March to September) to avoid direct loss of
individuals. Also, projects shall maintain a minimum buffer
of at least 300 feet around known or identified nesting
sites of the burrowing owl, or implement other mitigation
actions pursuant to standardized protocol now under
development, including relocation of nesting sites in
coordination with the USFWS and the CDFG. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3.7-14, and
-17; RC #15-60.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The pre-construction survey and
required buffer zone around known nesting and breeding sites
preserves these species' burrows by allowing them to be
avoided during the construction and development process.
IMPACT 3.7/0. prairie Falcon, Northern Harrier, and Black-
Shouldered Kite. Development in the RPA could cause loss of
foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7-17.
114\eastdub\find(4)
50
Mitiqation Measure 3.7/25.0. Substantial areas of land in
the Project area are designated for Open Space and low
intensity Rural Residential land uses (including future
study areas). DEIR pages 3.7-15 and -17.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The designated open space and low
intensity rural residential uses provide adequate foraging
habitat for these species.
IMPACT 3.7/P. Sharp-Shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawk. Development
in the RPA could cause loss of foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7-
17.
Mitiqation Measures 3.7/6.0 throuqh 17.0 and 21.0.
Establish protective buffer zones for riparian and fresh-
water marsh habitats to protect and enhance sensitive
habitats. Preserve riparian, wetland, and stream corridor
areas; where avoidance of these areas is not feasible,
prepare and implement habitat restoration, enhancement and
maintenance plans. DEIR pages 3.7-10 to -12, -14, -17.'
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The mitigations provide
preservation, enhancement and maintenance features for
riparian and freshwater marsh habitats upon which these
species rely for forage. Protecting and enhancing this
habitat avoids the impact of lost habitat.
IMPACT 3.7/S. special Status Invertebrates. Impacts to special
status invertebrates cannot be estimated at this time. DEIR page
3.7-18.
Mitiqation Measure 3.7/28.0. Species-specific surveys shall
be conducted in appropriate riparian/wetland habitats prior
to approval of specific projects in the RPA. DEIR page 3.7-
18, Addendum.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Any potential impacts to special
Status Invertebrates will be addressed during CEQA review of
specific development projects in the RPA.
114\eastdub\find(4)
51
Section 3.8 -- visual Resources
IMPACT 3.8/A. Standardized "Tract" Development. Generic
"cookie-cutter" development could obscure the specific natural
features of the RPA, such as its landforms, vegetation, and
watercourses, that make it a unique place with its own identity.
DEIR page 3.8-4.
Mitiqation Measure 3.8/1.0. Pursuant to the goal statement
in Specific Plan section 6.3.4,* establish a visually
distinctive community which preserves the character of the
natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and
maintaining views from major travel corridors and public
spaces. Implement the extensive design guidelines for
development as described in Chapter 7* of the Specific Plan.
These guidelines provide a flexible design framework, but do
not compromise the community character as a whole.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.8-5.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. By protecting key natural and visual
elements, the Project maintains the natural features of the
RPA, which make it unique. The general design guidelines
for the Project, including a village center, town center,
mixed use orientation, and varying lot sizes, provide a
varied development pattern, which avoids the look of
standard cookie-cutter tract developments.
IMPACT 3.8/B. Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character.
Urban development of the RPA will substantially alter the
existing rural and open space qualities that characterize eastern
Dublin. This is also a significant cumulative impact as the
natural rural character of the Tri-Valley subregion is replaced
by urban development. DEIR page 3.8-5, 5.10-12.
Mitiqation Measure 3.8/2.0. Implement the land use plan for
the RPA, which plan emphasizes retaining the predominant
natural features, such as ridgelines and watercourses, and
preserves the sense of openness that characterizes Eastern
Dublin. DEIR page 3.8-5, 5.0-12.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
114\eastdub\find(4)
52
Rationale for Findinq. Maintaining predominant natural
features minimizes the alteration of the RPA's current rural
open space character; however, it does not fully mitigate
this impact.
IMPACT 3.8/C. Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features. The
characteristic unvegetated landscape of the RPA heightens the
visual importance of existing trees, watercourses, and other
salient natural and cultural features. The Project has the
potential to obscure or alter these existing features and thereby
reduce the visual uniqueness of the site. DEIR page 3.8-5.
Mitiqation Measure 3.8/3.0. Pursuant to specific Plan
Policy 6-28,* preserve the natural open beauty of the hills
and other important visual resources, such as creeks and
major stands of vegetation. (*Specific Plan provisions
adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-5.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. This mitigation measure calls for
preservation of the RPA's important visual resources,
thereby avoiding the impact of obscured or altered visually
important features.
IMPACT 3.8/D. Alteration of Visual Quality of Hillsides.
Grading and excavation of building sites in hillside areas will
severely compromise the visual quality of the RPA. DEIR page
3.8-6.
Mitiqation Measures 3.8/4.0 to 4.5. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policies 6-32,* and 6-34 to -38,* grading and
excavation throughout the RPA should be minimized, by using
such grading features as gradual transitions from graded
ares to natural slopes, by revegetation of graded areas, by
maintaining natural contours as much as possible and grading
only the actual development areas. Building pads in
hillside areas should be graded individually or stepped,
wherever possible. structures and roadways should be
designed in response to the topographical and geotechnical
conditions. structures should be designed to blend in with
surrounding slopes and topography and the height and grade
of cut and fill slopes should be minimized wherever
feasible. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-6.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
114\eastdub\find(4)
53
Rationale for Finding. The various grading techniques
identified, together with revegetation and sensitive
building design will avoid the impact by minimizing physical
alteration throughout the RPA.
IMPACT 3.8/E. Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges.
structures built in proximity to ridges may obscure or fragment
the profile of visually-sensitive ridgelines. DEIR page 3.8-6.
Mitiqation Measures 3.8/5.0 to 5.2. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 6-29,* development is not permitted on the main
ridgeline that borders the Specific Plan area to the north
and east, but may be permitted on the foreground hills and
ridgelands. Minor interruptions of views of the main
ridgeline by individual building masses may be permitted
only where all other remedies have been exhausted. Pursuant
to Specific Plan Policy 6-30* and General Plan Amendment
Guiding Policy E, structures shall not obstruct scenic views
and shall not appear to extend above an identified scenic
ridgetop when viewed from scenic routes. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Prohibiting development along the
main ridgeline in the RPA preserves the visual quality of
this resource. Limiting development so that structures are
not silhouetted against other scenic ridgetops, as well as
requiring that a backdrop of natural ridgeline remain
visible, minimizes the obstruction or fragmentation of
visually sensitive ridgelines.
IMPACT 3.8/F. Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands.
Commercial and residential development of the RPA's flatlands
will completely alter the existing visual character resulting
from valley grasses and agricultural fields. DEIR page 3.8-7.
Mitiqation Measures. None identified. DEIR page 3.8-7.
Findinq. No changes or alterations are available to
substantially lessen this impact. Therefore, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of
the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. Development of the Project site's
flatter areas is regarded as a "trade-off" measure designed
to preserve slopes, hillsides, and ridgelines.
114\eastdub\find(4)
54
IMPACT 3.8/G. Alteration of the Visual Character of Water-
courses. Urban development of the Project site in proximity to
watercourse~ may diminish or eliminate their visibility and
function as :distinct landscape elements. DEIR page 3.8-7.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/6.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 6-39,* protect the visual character of Tassajara
Creek and other stream corridors from unnecessary alteration
or disturbance. Adjoining development should be sited to
maintain visual access to the stream corridors. Implement
earlier identified mitigation measures 3.7/8.0, 12.0, and
13.0, to revegetate stream corridors to enhance their
natural appearance, to prepare a comprehensive stream
corridor restoration program, and to establish dedication of
land along both sides of stream corridors. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7 to -8,
3.7-10 to -11.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Preserving the RPA watercourses will
retain both their visibility and function as distinct
landscape elements. Special attention to stream corridors
through revegetation, restoration, and dedication of land
along both sides, will further enhance this distinct
landscape element.
IMPACT 3.8/I. Scenic vistas. Development on the RPA will alter
the character of existing scenic vistas and may obscure important
sightlines. DEIR page 3.8-8.
Mitiqation Measure 3.8/7.0 to 7.1. Pursuant to Specific
Plan policy 6-5* and other EIR mitigations, preserve views
of designated open space areas. The City will conduct a
visual survey of the RPA to identify and map viewsheds of
scenic vistas. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.)
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Identifying and mapping critical
viewsheds allows the city to consider specific ways of
preserving those views when reviewing development projects
within the RPA.
IMAGE 3.8/J. Scenic Routes. Urban development of the RPA will
significantly alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic
114\eastdub\find(4)
55
routes in eastern Dublin. As quiet rural roads become major
suburban thoroughfares, foreground and distant views may be
obstructed. DEIR page 3.8-8 to -9.
Mitiqation Measure 3.8/8.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 6Q,* the City should officially adopt
Tassajara Road, I-580, and Fallon Road as designated scenic
corridors, should adopt scenic corridor policies, and should
establish development review procedures and standards to
preserve scenic vistas. (*specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-9.
Mitiqation Measure 3.8/8.1. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 6R,* the city should require that projects
with potential impacts on scenic corridors submit detailed
visual analysis with development project applications. The
analysis shall include graphic simulations and/or sections
drawn from affected travel corridors and representing
typical views from scenic routes. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-9.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Establishing scenic corridor
policies will insure that the visual experience of travelers
along scenic routes be maintained as much as possible.
Requiring visual analyses will allow the City to specifi-
cally review development projects for their visual impacts
and to review how locations of structures and associated
landscaping can be used to adjust the project design to
minimize its visual impacts from scenic routes.
section 3.9 -- Cultural Resources
IMPACT 3.9/A. Disruption or Destruction of Identified
Prehistoric Resources. Due to the level of development proposed
in the RPA, ;it is assumed that all prehistoric sites identified
in the 1988 inventory will be disturbed or altered in some
manner. DEIR page 3.9-6.
Mitiqation Measures 3.9/1.0 to 4.0. Develop a testing
program to determine the presence or absence of hidden
deposits in all locations of prehistoric resources. All
locations containing these components shall be recorded with
the State of California and their borders will be staked so
that professional survey teams may develop accurate location
maps. If any of these recorded and mapped locations are
affected by future construction or increased access to the
areas, evaluative testing, consisting of collecting and
114\eastdub\find(4)
56
analyzing any surface concentration of materials, shall be
undertaken in order to prepare responsive mitigation
measures. The City shall hire a qualified archaeologist to
develop a protection program for prehistoric sites con-
taining significant surface or subsurface deposits of
cultural materials in areas where development will alter the
current condition of the resource. DEIR page 3.9-6 to -7.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Through these mitigations,
prehistoric resources can be identified and mapped, and
specific mitigation plans prepared as part of review of
development projects that will affect the resources.
IMPACT 3.9/B. Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Pre-
Historic Resources. Previously unidentified pre-historic
resources may exist in the RPA and would be subject to potential
disruption or destruction by construction and development
activities associated with the Project. DEIR page 3.9-7.
Mitiqation Measures 3.9/5.0 to 6.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 6-25* and Action Program 6P,* cease any grading
or construction activity if historic or prehistoric remains
are discovered until the significance and extent of those
remains can be ascertained by a certified archaeologist.
Development projects in the RPA shall prepare an archaeolo-
gical site sensitivity determination and detailed research
and field reconnaissance by a certified archaeologist, and
develop a mitigation plan. (*Specific Plan provisions
adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-7.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. These mitigations will insure that
any significant prehistoric resources which are discovered
during development activities are not disrupted or
destroyed.
IMPACT 3.9/C. Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic
Resources. Due to the level of development proposed in the RPA,
it is assumed that all historic sites identified in the 1988
inventory will be disturbed or altered in some manner. Even
cultural resources in the proposed Open Space and Rural Residen-
tial areas will potentially be disturbed or altered due to the
presence of new residential population in the area. DEIR page
3.9-8.
114\eastdub\find(4)
57
Mitiqation Measures 3.9/7.0 to 12.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policies 6-26* and 6-27* and other mitigations
identified in the EIR, all properties with historic
resources and all standing structural remains shall be
evaluated by an architectural historian as part of in-depth
archival research to determine the significance of the
resource prior to any alteration. All historic locations in
the 1988 inventory shall be recorded on official state of
California historical site inventory forms. These records
should be used to make sure that historical locations are
recorded onto development maps by professional surveyors.
Where the disruption of historical resources is unavoidable,
encourage the adaptive reuse or restoration of the struc-
tures whenever feasible. A qualified architectural
historian shall be hired to develop a preservation program
for historic sites found to be significant under Appendix K
of the CEQA guidelines. (*specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-8.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Archival research and recordation of
historical sites on state inventory forms will insure that
historical resources are identified throughout the Project
area. Encouraging adaptive reuse or restoration of historic
structures and development of a preservation program for
historic sites will insure that identified resources are not
disturbed or destroyed.
IMPACT 3.9/D. Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Historic
Resources. Previously unidentified historic resources may exist
in the RPA and would be subject to potential disruption or
destruction by construction and development activities associated
with the Project. DEIR page 3.9-8.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 to 7.0, 9.0, 10.0, and 12.0.
These previously identified mitigation measures will be used
to ascertain the presence of unidentified historic resources
on a development project site in the RPA. If a historic
resource is identified, archival research shall be performed
to determine the significance of the resource or structure.
The City shall hire a qualified architectural historian to
develop a preservation program for significant historic
sites. DEIR page 3.9-7 to -9.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
114\eastdub\find(4)
58
Rationale for Findinq. Mitigations will ensure that any
significant historic resources which are discovered during
development activities are not disrupted or destroyed.
Section 3.10 -- Noise
IMPACT 3.10/A. Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway
Noise. Proposed residential housing along Dublin Boulevard,
Tassajara Road, Fallon Road, and Hacienda Drive will be exposed
to future noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. DEIR page 3.10-
2.
Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0. Require acoustical studies for
all residential development projects within the future CNEL
60 contour to show how interior noise levels will be reduced
to 45 dB.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The required acoustical studies must
show how interior noise exposures are reduced to 45 dB CNEL,
the minimum acceptable noise level.
IMPACT 3.10/B. Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway
Noise. Increased traffic noise on local roads would result in
significant cumulative noise level increases along Tassajara (4
dB), Fallon (6dB), and Hacienda Roads of 6 dB. This is a
potentially significant cumulative impact in that small indivi-
dual project noise increases considered together and over the
long term, will substantially increase overall noise levels.
DEIR page 3.10-3, 5.0-13.
Mitiqation Measures 3.10/2.0. All development projects in
the RPA shall provide noise barriers or berms near existing
residences to control noise in outdoor use spaces. DEIR
page 3.10-3.
Mitiqation Measure 3.10/7.0. To mitigate cumulative noise
impacts, the city shall develop a noise mitigation fee to
pay for on- and off-site noise mitigations, including but
not limited to, noise barriers, earthen berms, or
retrofitting structures with sound-rated windows. DEIR page
5.0-13.
Findinq. changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
114\eastdub\find(4)
59
Rationale for Findinq. Providing noise barriers or berms
will reduce noise exposure for existing residences; however,
mitigation may not be feasible at all locations because of
site constraints such as driveways and proximity to road-
ways. Furthermore, while developers will provide funding for
noise mitigations to reduce overall noise levels, funds
derived from the experimental program may not adequately
mitigate the cumulative impact. Therefore, this noise
impact cannot be fully mitigated.
IMPACT 3.10/D. Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to
Noise from Future Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve
Forces Training Area (Camp Parks RFTA) and the County Jail.
Residential development on the Project site within 6000 feet of
Camp Parks RFTA and the County Jail could be exposed to noise
impacts from gunshots and helicopter overflights. DEIR page
3.10-4.
Mitiqation Measure 3.10/3.0. The City shall require an
acoustical study prior to future development in the Foothill
Residential, Tassajara Village Center, County Center, and
Hacienda Gateway subareas (as defined in Figure 4.2 of the
Specific Plan) to determine whether future noise impacts
from Camp Parks and the county jail will be within accept-
able limits. This study should identify and evaluate all
potential noise generating operations. DEIR page 3.10-4.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. The required acoustical study will
identify noise sensitive areas in the Project site and noise
generating operations at Camp Parks and the jail and will
propose mitigation to reduce noise impacts to acceptable
limits. However, mitigation may not be possible at all
critical locations, so the impact may not be fully
mitigated.
IMPACT 3.10/E. Exposure of Existing and proposed Residences to
Construction Noise. Construction would occur over years on the
Project site and will be accompanied by noise from truck activity
on local roads, heavy equipment used in grading and paving,
impact noises during structural framing, and pile driving.
Construction impacts will be most severe near existing residen-
tial uses along Tassajara Road and near existing uses in the
southern portion of the Project area. DEIR page 3.10-4.
114\eastdub\find(4)
60
Mitiqation Measures 3.10/4.0 to 5.0. Development projects
in the RPA shall submit a Construction Noise Management
Program that identifies measures proposed to minimize
construction noise impacts on existing residents. The
Program shall include a schedule for grading and other major
noise-generating activities, limiting these activities to
the shortest possible number of days. Other noise
mitigation measures include, but are not limited to,
restricting hours of construction activity, developing
construction vehicle access routes which minimize truck
traffic through residential areas, and developing a
mitigation plan for construction traffic that cannot be
avoided in residential areas. In addition, all development-
related operations should comply with local noise standards,
including limiting activity to daytime hours, muffling
stationary equipment, and locating that equipment as far
away from sensitive receptors as possible. DEIR page 3.10-
4 to -5.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Through these mitigation measures,
developers will limit the intensity and duration of noise
exposure experienced by existing residences in construction
areas. Other mitigations will limit noise exposure by
moving the noise-generating equipment as far away from
residential uses as possible.
IMPACT 3.10/F. Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse
Land Uses Permitted by Plan policies supporting Mixed-Use
Development. The presence of different land use types within the
same development creates the possibility of noise impacts between
adjoining uses, particularly when commercial and residential land
uses abut. DEIR page 3.10-5.
Mitiqation Measure 3.10/6.0. Development projects in the
RPA shall prepare noise management plans to be reviewed as
part of the development application for all mixed use
projects involving residential uses and non-residential
uses. To be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant,
the plan should aim to provide a high quality acoustic
environment for residential and non-residential users and
should propose steps to minimize or avoid potential noise
problems. The plan should address the concerns of resi-
dents, non-residential users, and maintenance personnel, and
should make maximum use of site planning to avoid noise
conflicts. DEIR page 3.10-5 to -6.
114\eastdub\find(4)
61
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. The required noise management plans
allow both the developer and the City to anticipate possible
noise conflicts in mixed-use developments and to propose
specific measures to address the specific conflicts identi-
fied. Occurring at an early stage in the process and
reviewed with the development application, projects can make
use of the greatest array of conflict reducing techniques,
including building design and site planning. Compliance
with these mitigations will lessen or avoid potential noise
conflicts from adjacent mixed uses.
IMPACT 3.11/A. Dust Deposition soiling Nuisance from
Construction Activity. Clearing, grading, excavation, and
unpaved roadway travel related to project construction will
generate particulate matter which may settle out near the
construction sites, creating a soiling nuisance. Any additional
dust pollution will worsen the air basin's non-attainment status
for particulates. Dust emissions is therefore also a potentially
significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.11-3, 5.0-13.
Mitiqation Measure 3.11/1.0. Require development projects
in the Project area to implement dust control measures,
including but not limited to, watering construction sites,
cleaning up mud and dust carried by construction vehicles,
effective covers on haul trucks, planting, repaving, and
other revegetation measures on exposed soil surfaces,
avoiding unnecessary idling of construction equipment,
limiting on-site vehicle speeds, and monitoring particulate
matter levels. These measures will reduce project dust
deposition to acceptable levels, but will not avoid
cumulative impacts of dust generation. DEIR page 3.11-3 to
-4, 5.0-13.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, cumulative dust generation impacts will not be
substantially avoided. Therefore, a statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. The mitigation measures identify
various feasible and reasonable dust control measures that
developers can take during construction activity. These
measures eliminate and/or minimize the amount and effect of
dust deposition in construction areas. Even with these
measures, however, some small amount of additional pollution
will occur. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of dust
emissions cannot be fully mitigated.
114\eastdub\find(4)
62
IMPACT 3.ll/B. Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions.
Construction equipment operation generates daily exhaust
emissions. Normally considered a temporary impact, buildout of
the Project area over the long term will be a chronic source of
equipment/vehicle emissions. This is also a potentially signifi-
cant cumulative impact due to the non-attainment status of the
air basin. DEIR page 3.11-4, 5.0-13.
Mitiqation Measures 3.11/2.0 to 4.0. Minimize construction
interference with regional non-Project traffic movement by
scheduling and routing construction traffic to non-peak
times and locations. Provide ride-sharing incentives for
construction personnel. Require routine low-emission tune-
ups for on-site equipment. Require development projects in
the Project area to prepare a Construction Impact Reduction
Plan incorporating all proposed air quality mitigation
strategies with clearly defined responsibilities for plan
implementation and supervision. DEIR page 3.11-4, 5.0-13.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project. '
Rationale for Findinq. The mitigations include construction
timing and siting measures that will reduce equipment and
vehicle emissions over the long-term buildout of the
Project. Even with these mitigations, however, neither
Project nor cumulative air quality impacts can be fully
mitigated.
IMPACT 3.ll/C. Mobile Source Emissions: ROG or NOx. Project
implementation at full buildout will generate 500,000 daily
automobile trips within the air basin. Mobile source emissions
for ROG and NOx associated with these vehicle trips are
precursors to ozone formation. The emissions associated with
this level of vehicle use will far exceed BAAQMD thresholds for
significant effect. This is also a potentially significant
cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.11-5, 5.0-14.
Mitiqation Measures 3.11/5.0 to 11.0. Exercise interagency
cooperation on a subregional and regional basis to integrate
local air quality planning efforts with transportation,
transit and other infrastructure plans. Implement techni-
ques, such as transportation demand management (TDM),
shifting travel to non-peak periods, and encouraging mixed-
use development which provides housing, jobs, goods and
services in close proximity as a means of reducing vehicle
trips and related emissions and congestion. At the
development Project level, maintain consistency between
114\eastdub\find(4)
63
specific development plans and regional transportation and
growth management plans, coordinate levels of growth with
roadway transportation facilities and improvements, and
require linkage between housing growth and job opportunities
to achieve a positive subregional jobs/housing balance.
DEIR page 3.11-5, 5.0-14.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. The various techniques described in
the mitigation measures provide opportunities to reduce
vehicle trips, and therefore reduce vehicle emissions.
However, because of the size of this Project, neither
Project nor cumulative impacts can be fully mitigated.
IMPACT 3.ll/E. stationary Source Emissions. specific Plan
buildout will create emissions from a variety of sources,
including but not limited to, fuel combustion in power plants,
evaporative emissions from paints, and subsurface decay of
organic materials associated with solid waste disposal. This is,
also a potentially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page
3.11-6, 5.0-14.
Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0 to 13.0. Minimize stationary
source emissions associated with Project development where
feasible, with the goal of achieving 10 percent above the
minimum conservation target levels established in Title 24
of the California Code of Regulations. Include solid waste
recycling in all development planning. DEIR page 3.11-6,
5.0-14.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. Focusing on reducing emissions from
various sources will allow an incremental reduction in
stationary source emissions. These reductions will not,
however, be sufficient to avoid either Project-related or
cumulative impacts.
114\eastdub\find(4)
64
section 2
ENVIRONMENTALLY INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The City Council finds that all other impacts of the proposed
Project are not environmentally significant as documented in the
FEIR and supported by evidence elsewhere in the record. No
mitigation is required for these insignificant impacts.
114\eastdub\find(4)
65
section 3
FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
The city Council is adopting Alternative 2 (with minor changes)
described in the Final EIR in place of the originally proposed
Project. The City hereby finds the remaining three alternatives
identified and described in the Final EIR were considered and are
found to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or
other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA section
21081, subdivision (c). The City also declines to adopt the
Project as originally proposed for the reasons set forth below.
THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED PROJECT.
section 21081, subdivision (c) does not require the city council
to make findings as to why the originally proposed Project was
not adopted. Such findings need only be made as to project
alternatives which would mitigate significant environmental
effects. Alternative 2 has no significant environmental effects
which could be avoided by adopting the originally proposed
project in its stead. Rather, the City Council finds that
Alternative 2 will pose no significant environmental effects that
would not be posed at least to the same extent (and often to a
greater extent) by the Project as originally proposed.
Public Resources Code section 21085 prohibits public
agencies from reducing the proposed number of housing units as a
project alternative pursuant to CEQA for a particular significant
affect on the environment if it determines that there is another
feasible specific mitigation measure or project alternative that
would provide a comparable level of mitigation. The Project as
adopted does indeed involve a reduction of the number of housing
units than were originally proposed, both because the Project as
adopted does not provide for residential development in the
Livermore Municipal Airport Protection Zone and because the
Project as adopted only involves residential development
approximately two-thirds of the area originally proposed for
development. Moreover, these reductions do result in mitigation
of some significant environmental impacts, especially impacts on
Doolan Canyon.
The prohibition of residential development within the
Livermore Municipal Airport Protection Zone is adopted in order
to comply with Public utilities Code section 21676 and the
decision of the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission
pursuant to that action to prohibit residential development in
114\eastdub\find(4)
66
the Zone. This prohibition is, thus, not adopted merely as a
mitigation measure pursuant to CEQA.
The City also finds that no feasible alternatives or
mitigation measures will provide the level of mitigation of
significant environmental effects as are provided by the adoption
of Alternative 2 rather than the project as originally proposed.
Alternative 2 will leave Doolan Canyon in its current largely
undeveloped state, thereby mitigating significant impacts
involving loss of open space, and biologically sensitive habitat
in a way that could not be accomplished by any mitigation measure
or alternative were Doolan Canyon in fact developed as originally
proposed.
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT. DEIR pages 4-1 to 4-8, 4-20
Findinq: Infeasible. This option assumes the Project as proposed
would not be built on the site; instead any development would be
pursuant to the existing general plan. Under that plan, a
limited amount of business park/industrial development could
occur on the 600 acre County property and on the 200 acre portion
of the Project area south of the proposed Dublin Boulevard
extension.
The No project Alternative is found to be infeasible because the
City's General Plan has designated the Eastern Dublin area for
planned development, subject to the preparation of a Specific
Plan. . In addition, the No Project Alternative fails to provide
needed housing. The need for housing is documented in the
Housing Element of the City's General Plan, and in other plan
documents of the city and other jurisdictions in the area.
ALTERNATIVE 3: REDUCED LAND USE INTENSITIES.
DEIR pages 4-14 to 4-19
Findinq: Infeasible. This option assumes development of both the
Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment except that 285
acres of higher traffic generating commercial uses will be
replaced with lower traffic generating residential uses. The
Reduced Land Use Intensities alternative is found to be
infeasible for the following reasons:
(1) Airport Safety. This alternative will increase the number
of housing units within the Livermore Municipal Airport
Protection Zone. (p. 4-15).
(2) Unavoidable impacts. Even with the reduced intensities of
this alternative, all the unavoidable impacts identified for
the Project would remain except traffic impacts at 1-580, 1-
680/Hacienda, at 1-580, Tassajara/Airway, at Airway
114\eastdub\find(4)
67
Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard and cumulative traffic impacts on
Dublin Boulevard (Impacts 3.3/B, C, J, and M). DEIR Page 4-
15.
(3) Fiscal impacts. This alternative may have potentially
significant fiscal impacts on the City budget's cost/revenue
balance by reducing commercial development which generally
generates less service costs and more property tax revenues
than housing. These potential impacts can be mitigated.
However, any mitigating revenues raised would have to be
shared mitigation for capital facilities, possibly reducing
the amount of revenue available for both the budget and
capital facility programs. (page 4-19, 3.12-2 to -4).
ALTERNATIVE 4: NO DEVELOPMENT. DEIR page 4-19
Findinq: Infeasible. This alternative assumes no development of
the Project site beyond existing conditions, assumes no annexa-
tion and therefore no application of even the current General
Plan. The No Development alternative is found to be infeasible
because the City's General Plan has designated the Eastern Dublin
area for planned development, subject to the preparation of a
Specific Plan. In addition, the No Development Alternative fails
to provide needed housing. The need for housing is documented in
the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, and in other plan
documents of the City and other jurisdictions in the area. (page
4-19 to -20).
114\eastdub\find(4)
68
section 4
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. General.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of
the city of Dublin makes the following statement of Overriding
Considerations.
The City Council has balanced the benefits of the eastern Dublin
Project to the City of Dublin against the adverse impacts
identified in the EIR as significant and potentially significant
which have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
The City Council, acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15093, hereby determines that the benefits of the Project
outweigh the unmitigated adverse impacts and the project should
be approved.
The city Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching
its decision to adopt the Project and to allow urbanization of
the eastern. Dublin Project area. Although the City Council
believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects
identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by mitiga-
tion measures incorporated into the General Plan Amendment,
specific Plan, and future development plans as well as future
mitigation measures implemented with future approvals, it
recognizes that the implementation of the Project carries with it
unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the
identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts have not been
mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic,
social, environmental, land use, and other considerations which
support approval of the Project. The City Council further finds
that anyone of the overriding considerations identified herein-
after in subsection 3 is sufficient basis to approve the Project
as mitigated.
2. Unavoidable siqnificant Adverse Impacts
The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts are
associated with the proposed Project as identified in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Project, which consists of a
Draft Environmental Impact Report, Parts I and II (Appendix),
dated August 28, 1992; Comments and Response to Comments, dated
114\eastdub\find(4)
69
December 7 and December 21, 1992; letter of December 15, 1992
from DKS Associates to Laurence Tong; and the Addendum to draft
EIR dated May 4, 1993. These impacts cannot be fully mitigated
by changes or alterations to the Project.
Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Aqricultural and Open
Space Lands. Even with mitigation, the Project would still
result in the loss of a large area of open space. This loss is
cumulatively significant, given the loss of numerous other areas
of open space in the area. No feasible mitigation measures are
available to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
The only Project alternatives which could reduce this impact to a
level of insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No
Development Alternative, both of which have been found to be
infeasible (see section 3 above). RC #34-9.
Traffic and Circulation Impact 3.3/B: 1-580 Freeway, 1-680-
Hacienda. Even with mitigation, the Level of Service on 1-580
between 1-680 and Dougherty Road could exceed Level of Service E,
the minimum acceptable level of service. No feasible mitigation
measures are available to reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance, since the freeway has already been widened to its
maximum practical capacity. Project alternatives which could
reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are the No '
Project Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These
alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3
above). (DEIR pages 3.3-21, 5.0-16).
Traffic and Circulation Impact 3.3/E: Cumulative Freeway Impacts.
Even with mitigation, portions of 1-580 will operate at Level of
Service F under the Cumulative Buildout with Project scenario. No
feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact
to a level of insignificance. The only Project alternative which
could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance is the No
Development Alternative. This alternative has been found to be
infeasible (see section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.3-22, 5.0-16)
Traffic and Circulation Impact 3.3/1: Santa Rita Road and 1-580
Eastbound Ramps. Year 2010 development with the Project will
cause Level of Service F operations at this intersection. No
feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact
to a level of insignificance. Project alternatives which could
reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are the No
Project Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These
alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see section 3
above). (DEIR pages 3.3-26, 5.0-16)
Traffic and Circulation Impact 3.3/M: Cumulative Impacts on
Dublin Boulevard. Cumulative Buildout with the Project will
cause Level of Service F operations at the Hacienda Drive
intersection and Level of Service E operations at the Tassajara
114\eastdub\find(4)
70
Road intersection. No feasible mitigation measures are available
to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. Project
alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance are the Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative
and the No Development Alternative. These alternatives have been
found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.3-
27,5.0-16).
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/0: Demand for
utility Extensions. The extension of gas, electric and telephone
service lines onto the Project site is necessary for development
and will require new distribution systems or substantial exten-
sions of existing systems onto undeveloped lands currently in
agricultural and open space uses. No feasible mitigation
measures are available to reduce this growth inducing impact to a
level of insignificance. Project alternatives which could reduce
this impact to a level of insignificance are the No Project
Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These
alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see section 3
above). (DEIR pages 3.4-24, 5.0-16).
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S: Consumption of
Non-Renewable Natural Resources. Natural Gas and electrical
service would increase consumption of non-renewable natural '
resources. Requiring energy conservation plans provides partial
mitigation. However, because energy use will still increase, the
impact cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. Project
alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No
Development Alternative. These alternatives have been found to
be infeasible (see section 3 above). DEIR page 3.4-25.
Sewer. Water. and Storm Drainaqe Impact 3.5/F,H,U: Increases in
Enerqv Usaqe Throuqh Increased Water Treatment and Disposal and
Thorough Operation of the Water Distribution System. Increased
Wastewater Flows to and from the Project will require increased
energy. Using energy efficient water distribution treatment, and
disposal systems provides partial mitigation. However, because
energy use will still increase, the impact cannot be reduced to a
level of insignificance. Project alternatives which could reduce
this impact to a level of insignificance are the No Project
Alternative and the No Development Alternative. These alterna-
tives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 3 above).
DEIR pages 3.5-8 to -10.
Sewer, Water and Storm Drainaqe Impact 3.5/T: Inducement of
Substantial Growth and Concentration of Population. The proposed
water distribution system will induce significant growth in the
Project area. No feasible mitigations are available to reduce
this impact to a level of insignificance. The only Project
alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of
114\eastdub\find(4)
71
insignificance are the No Project alternative and the No
Development alternative. These alternatives have been found to
be infeasible (see section 3 above). (DEIR, pages 3.5-20, 5.0-
15) .
Soils. Geoloqy. and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B: Earthauake Ground
Shakinq. Primary Effects. Development of the RPA will expose
more residents to the risk of potentially large earthquakes on
active fault zones in the region, which could result in damage to
structures and infrastructure and, in extreme cases, loss of
life. Using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral
force in construction of development projects, and building in
accordance with the Uniform Building Code and applicable local
code requirements will partially mitigate this impact. However,
the impact cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. The
only Project alternative which could reduce this impact to a
level of insignificance is the No Development alternative. This
alternative has been found to be infeasible (see section 3
above). (DEIR page 3.6-7.)
Biological Resources Impact 3.7/C: Loss or Deqradation of
BotanicallY Sensitive Habitat. Development of the RPA will
result in a significant loss and degradation of biologically
sensitive habitat. As described in section 1, mitigation '
measures will partially reduce this impact. However, because
biologically sensitive habitat will still be lost, the impact
cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. The only Project
alternative which could reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance is the No Development alternative. This
alternative has been found to be infeasible (see section 3
above) . (DEIR pages 3.7-10, 5.0-11).
visual Impacts 3.8/B: Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual
Character and 3.8/F: Alteration of visual Character of Flatlands.
Project development will permanently alter the existing rural,
agricultural character of the Project area. Although the highest
ridgelines will be preserved as open space, the visual character
of the rounded lower foothills along 1-580 will be altered by
construction of homes and roads. No feasible mitigations are
available to reduce these visual impacts to a level of insignifi-
cance. The only Project alternative which could reduce these
impacts to a level of insignificance is the No Development
alternative. This alternative has been found to be infeasible
(see section 3 above). (pages 3.8-5, -7, 5.0-17).
Noise Impact 3.10/B: Exposure of Existinq Residences to Future
Roadway Noise. Increased traffic on area roadways will
significantly increase noise levels, thus adversely affecting
existing residences and population. Mitigation can be achieved
to buffer residents from levels that exceed acceptable standards,
by providing berms or walls adjacent to outdoor use spaces of
114\eastdub\find(4)
72
existing residences. However, the magnitude of change in the
noise environment, from quiet rural roads with little traffic to
busy suburban thoroughfares, cannot be avoided. Project
alternatives which could reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance are the No Project Alternative and the No
Development Alternative. These alternatives have been found to
be infeasible (see section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.10-3 to 4,
5.0-16).
Noise Impact 3.10/D: Exposure of Proposed Residential Development
to Noise from Future Military Traininq Activities at Camp Parks
and from the County Jail. Residential development in the
Specific Plan area would be within 6000 feet of Camp Parks and
the County Jail and could be exposed to noise from gunshots and
helicopter overflight. Mitigations calling for noise studies may
not be feasible at all locations; therefore this impact might not
be reduced to a level of insignificance. Project alternatives
which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are
the No Project Alternative and the No Development Alternative.
These alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see section
3 above). (page 3.10-4, 5.0-16).
Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A,B,C,E. Project development will have
a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality as a
result of dust deposition, construction equipment emissions,
mobile source emissions of ROf and NOx, and stationary source
emissions. While some measures have been adopted to partially
mitigate these impacts, the impacts remain potentially signifi-
cant, especially given the region's existing non-compliance with
air quality standards. The only Project alternative which could
reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance is the No
Development alternative. This alternative has been found to be
infeasible (see section 3 above). (DEIR pages 3.11-3 through -
6, 5.0-13 through -16.)
3. Overridinq considerations
The City Council has considered the public record of proceedings
on the proposed Project and does determine that approval and
implementation of the Project would result in the following
substantial public benefits.
Economic Considerations. Substantial evidence is included in the
record demonstrating the economic benefits which the City would
derive from implementation of the Project. Specifically, the
Project will result in:
a. The creation of about 28,200 new jobs in the Specific Plan
area alone, and a substantial number of construction jobs.
b. Increases in sales revenues for the City.
114\eastdub\find(4)
73
c. Substantial increases in property tax revenues.
Social Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record
demonstrating the social benefits which the City would derive
from the implementation of the Project. Specifically, the
Project will result in:
a. Increases in housing opportunities in the City and in a
region where housing is costly and in short supply.
b. Increases in the amount of affordable housing in the
community.
c. An arrangement for the City to contribute its fair share of
regional housing opportunities.
d. provision of upper-end executive housing in the City.
other Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record
demonstrating other public benefits which the City would derive
from implementation of the Project. They include:
a. Comprehensive planning incorporating innovative and
extensive environmental premitigation measures not usually
found in projects of this type.
b. Designating substantial areas of land for Open Space and low
intensity Rural Residential uses. This includes a potential
regional trail system link through the open space of the
Project site. This open space will conserve the ecological
values of the site and surrounding areas and provide
recreational and open space amenity opportunities for
residents of the Project, the city, and the region. 3.4-
15, 3.7-15.
114\eastdub\find(4)
74
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN:
EASTERN DUBLIN
SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
prepared by
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD
May 7, 1993
A'TT~Me-NT b:
eJ<.H\8\' e,
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The State of California now requires public agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring program for
changes to the project or conditions of approval which have been identified and adopted as methods
to reduce environmental impacts. Thus with the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and adoption
of the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, the City of Dublin is required to establish a
mitigation monitoring program for all approved mitigation measures.
In order to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented in a timely fashion, the
Mitigation Monitoring Program provides the following information for each measure:
. Why has the mitigation measure been recommended?
. Who is responsible for implementing the mitigation?
. What is the mitigation measure being monitored and how?
. When should mitigation monitoring be undertaken? What schedule is required?
. Comoletion: when should the mitigation measure be in place and monitoring be
completed?
. Verification: what agency is required to ensure that the mitigation measure was
implemented?
2
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GP A EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
SECTION 3:1 LAND USE
1. Imoacts ReQuiring: Mitig:ation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
1M 3,I/G Potential Conflicts with Land Uses to the West
2. Mitig:ation Imolementation and Monitoring: Prog:ram
Impact 3.1/G Potential Conflicts with Land Uses to the West
Mitifwtion Measure 3,] / ],0: Coordination of P!anninf! Activities with U,S. Armv
Completion:
To resolve potential land use conflicts between activities at Camp Parks and
proposed uses in the Project area
Planning Department/U,S. Army; Directorate of Engineering and Housing.
Establish a liaison committee between the City and the Army, Establish a
schedule for periodic meetings to discuss and provide updates on planning
and development efforts within the Project site and in Camp Parks. The
City of Dublin Planning Department will send to the base commander a
copy of new applications for development adjacent to Camp Parks for
review and comment. Projects will be considered by liaison committee at
request of Camp Parks,
Periodically, pursuant to agreed-upon calendar, and as required for review
of specific project proposals.
On-going, Specific project review will be considered complete when City
has received written comments from Camp Parks.
City of Dublin Planning Director.
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
V erifica tion:
SECTION 3.2: POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT
This section provides baseline data related to population, housing and employment and does not
identify environmental impacts or related mitigation measures, No mitigation monitoring program
is required,
SECTION 3.3: TRAFFIC AND CIRCULA nON
1. Imoacts ReQuiring: Mitig:ation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
1M 3.l/G Potential Conflicts with Land Uses to the West
1M 3.3/B 1-580 Freeway; between 1-680 and Hacienda
1M 3.3/C 1-580 Freeway; between Tassajara-Fallon-Airway
1M 3.3/D 1-680 Freeway; North of the 1-580 Interchange
1M 3,3/E Cumulative Freeway Impacts (1-580 west of 1-680; 1-580 east of Airway)
1M 3,3/F Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard
1M 3.3/G Hacienda Drive and 1-580 Eastbound Ramps
1M 3.3/H Tassajara Road and 1-580 Westbound Ramps
3
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
1M 3.3/1 Santa Rita Road & 1-580 Eastbound Ramps
1M 3.3/J Airway Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard
1M 3.3/K Airway Boulevard & 1-580 Westbound Ramps
1M 3,3/L Impediments to Truck Traffic on EI Charro Road
1M 3.3/M Cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard (Dublin/Hacienda; Dublin/Tassajara)
1M 3.3/N Cumulative Impacts on Tassajara Road (Tassajara/Fallon; Tassajara/Fallon;
Tassajara/Transit Spine)
1M 3.3/0 Transit Service Extensions
1M 3.3/P Street Crossings
2. Mith!:ation ImDlementation and Monitoring: Prog:ram
Daily Traffic Volumes (Year 2010 With Project)
Impact 3.3/B 1-580 Freeway; between 1-680 and Hacienda
Miti!!Qtion Measure 3.3/2,0: Transvortation Svstems Mana!!ement (TSM)
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce project-generated vehicle trips
All non-residential projects with 50:t employees.
Require compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 13 Transportation Control
Measures Rule 1 to satisfaction of BAAQMD or City of Dublin (Public
Works Department)
Prior to occupancy
Upon issuance of Planning Department sign-off on compliance
City of Dublin Planning Director
Why:
Who:
What:
M iti !!ation Measure 3.3 /2,1: Re!!ional Trans vortation Miti!!ation Pro!!rams
Completion:
Verification:
To assist in the funding of improvements to regional transportation system
All approved projects
Proportionate monetary contribution to regional transportation mitigation
programs as approved by the City of Dublin.
As a condition of project approvaL When applying for a permit, the
applicant developer will be notified of this fee assessment.
Payments shall be made prior to issuance of building permits
City of Dublin Department of Public Works
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Impact 3.3/C 1-580 Freeway; between Tassajara-Fallon-Airway
Miti!!ation Measure 3.3/3,0: Construction of Auxiliarv Lanes
Why:
To assist in the funding of the construction of auxiliary lanes on 1-580
between Tassajara and Airway boulevards
Caltrans/City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Payment of a regionally-assessed fee for all new development within the
Project area as approved by the City of Dublin.
As a condition of project approvaL When applying for a permit, the
applicant developer will be notified of this fee assessment.
Who:
What:
When:
4
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Completion:
Verification:
Payments shall be made prior to issuance of building permits
City of Dublin Department of Public Works
Impact 3.3/D 1-680 Freeway; North of the 1-580 Interchange
Mitifwtion Measure 3.3/4,0: 1-580/1-680 Interchan!!e Imorovements
When:
To establish funding for construction of future 1-580/1-680 Interchange
improvements.
Caltrans/City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Payment of a regionally-assessed fee for all new development within the
Project area as approved by the City of Dublin.
As a condition of project approval, the applicant developer will be notified
of this fee assessment.
Payments shall be made prior to issuance of building permits
City of Dublin Department of Public Works
Why:
Who:
What:
Completion:
Verification:
Daily Traffic Volumes (Cumulative Buildout with Project)
Impact 3.3/E Cumulative Freeway Impacts
Miti!!ation Measure 3.3/5,0: Transoortation Svstems Mana!!ement (TSM)
When:
To establish funding for construction of auxiliary lanes on 1-580 east of
Airway Boulevard
All approved development projects in the Project area/City of Dublin.
I) Proportionate monetary contribution to regional transportation mitigation
programs as approved by the City of Dublin.
2) City coordination with other local jurisdictions to require that all future
development projects participate in regional transportation mitigation
programs.
I) The contribution to regional improvements will be implemented as a
condition of project approval. Applicants will be notified of this fee
assessment.
1) Payments shall be made prior to issuance of building permits,
2) Coordination will be ongoing,
1) Fee payments will be verified by the City of Dublin Planning
Department.
2) Coordination will be the responsibility of the Department of Public Works
Why:
Who:
What:
Completion:
Verification:
Peak Hour Intersection Operation (Year 2010 with Project)
Impact 3.3/F Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard
Miti!!ation Measure 3.3/6.0: Construction of Additional Lanes
Why:
To ensure the funding and construction of improvements to the Dougherty
Road/Dublin Blvd, intersection as needed
City of Dublin Department of Public Works/All approved projects.
Who:
5
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Verification:
I) Payment of fees towards the construction of additional lanes at the
intersection of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard,
2) Monitoring of the need for intersection improvements and coordination
of their construction,
I) Fees will be collected as a condition of project approval. Applicants will
be notified of fees.
2) Monitoring will be ongoing annually,
3) Construction will occur prior to intersection declining to LOS F.
I) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits,
2) Monitoring of intersection level of service will be ongoing.
3) Construction will be complete with implementation of specific
improvements or equivalent as identified in mitigation measure.
I) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees,
2) Department of Public Works will be responsible for monitoring
calculating fees and construction.
What:
When:
Completion:
Impact 3.3/G Hacienda Drive and 1-580 Eastbound Ramps
Mitif,wtion Measure 33/7.0: Widen in!! of Eastbound Off-Ramo
Verification:
To provide improvements that will prevent congestion on the eastbound off-
ramps from 1-580 at Hacienda Drive.
Caltrans/City of Pleasanton/City of Dublin Public Works/Project Applicants
I) Payment of fee towards widening,
2) Coordination of improvement with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton,
I) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approval.
2) Coordination will occur as needed prior to implementation of mitigation,
3) Construction will be underway prior to decline of level of service to
unacceptable LOS E.
4) Monitoring and coordination will begin with development review
processing,
I) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits,
2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of widening described
in mitigation measure,
I) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees.
2) Department of Public Works will be responsible for calculating fees and
coordination with other agencies,
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Impact 3.3/H Tassajara Road and 1-580 Westbound Ramps
Miti!!ation Measure 33/8,0: Widen in!! of 1-580 Westbound Ramos
Who:
What:
To fund and implement improvements necessary to ensure the efficient
operation of the intersection of Tassajara Road with the 1-580 westbound
ramps,
Caltrans/Pleasanton and Dublin Departments of Public Works/Developers
I) Payment of fee to fund design and construction of improvements,
including widening of the 1-580 westbound off -ramp and modification of
northbound approach to provide additional turn and through lanes,
2) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of construction.
Why:
6
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Verification:
I) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approvaL
2) Monitoring and coordination will be begin with development review
processing.
3) Construction will be underway prior to decline of level of service to
unacceptable level (LOS E).
I) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits.
2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of widening described
in mitigation measure.
I) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees,
2) Department of Public Works will be responsible for coordinating
construction,
When:
Completion:
Impact 3.3/1 Santa Rita Road & 1-580 Eastbound Ramps
Mitif!ation Measure 33/9,0: Imorovements to 1-580 Eastbound Ramos
Verification:
To fund and implement improvements necessary to ensure adequate service
levels on Santa Rita Road and 1-580 eastbound ramps.
Caltrans/Pleasanton and Dublin Departments of Public Works/Developers
I) Payment of fee to fund design and construction of improvements;
including widening of 1-580 eastbound off-ramps.
2) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of construction.
I) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approvaL
2) Monitoring and coordination will be begin with development review
processing.
3) Widening of eastbound ramps will occur prior to decline of level of
service to unacceptable level (LOS E).
I) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits.
2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of widening described
in mitigation measure.
1) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees.
2) City of Dublin Department of Public Works will be responsible for
coordinating improvements with the City of Pleasanton Department of
Public Works and Caltrans.
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Impact 3.3/K Airway Boulevard & 1-580 Westbound Ramps
Mitif!ation Measure 33/ ]],0: ~Videllill!! of Ainvav Boulevard Overcrossinf!
When:
To fund and implement improvements necessary to ensure adequate service
levels at the intersection of Airway Boulevard and the westbound ramps,
City of Dublin/Caltrans/City of Livermore/Developers
I) Payment of fee to fund design and construction of improvements;
including the widening or replacement of the Airway Blvd, overcrossing and
the widening of the 1-580 westbound off -ramp,
2) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of construction.
I) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approvaL
2) Monitoring and coordination will be begin with development review
process,
3) Improvements to ramps and overcrossing will occur prior to decline of
Why:
Who:
What:
7
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Verification:
level of service to unacceptable level (LOS E),
I) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits,
2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of improvements
described in mitigation measure.
l) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees.
2) City of Dublin Department of Public Works will be responsible for
coordinating improvements with the City of Livermore Department of
Public Works and Caltrans,
Completion:
Impact 3.3jL Impediments to Truck Traffic on EI Charro Road
Mitifwtion Measure 33/12.0: Provisions to Ensure Unimoeded Truck Traffic
Completion:
To fund and implement improvements necessary to ensure unimpeded
movement of trucks to and from the quarries on EI Charro Road south of
1-580.
City of DublinjCaltransjCity of PleasantonjDevelopersjCity of Livermore
I) Payment of fees to fund design and construction of necessary
improvements.
2) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of improvements with
Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton Department of Public Works,
I) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approvaL
2) Monitoring and coordination will begin with development review
processing,
3) Improvements will occur prior to decline of level of service to
unacceptable level (LOS E),
I) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits.
2) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of improvements.
1) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees,
2) City of Dublin Department of Public Works will be responsible for
coordinating improvements with the City of Pleasanton Department of
Public Works and Caltrans and City of Livermore,
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Verification:
Impact 3.3jM Cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard
Mitifwtion Measures 33/13,0: Maintain Adeauate Levels of Service at Intersections,
When:
To identify, fund and implement improvements that will maintain adequate
service levels at the intersections Dublin Blvd with Hacienda Drive and
Tassajara Road with buildout of cumulative projects,
City of Dublin
1) The City of Dublin will participate in the regularly-scheduled meetings
of the Congestion Management Agency and Tri- Valley Transportation
Council to determine long-term mitigation measures for cumulative impacts
on Dublin Boulevard,
2) Payment of fees to fund design and construction of necessary
improvements,
3) Monitoring of service levels and coordination of improvements with
Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton Department of Public Works.
I) Participation in the Tri- Valley Transportation Council is current and on-
Why:
Who:
What:
8
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
going,
2) Fees will be assessed as a condition of project approval.
3) Monitoring and coordination will be begin with development review
process and continue through to identification and construction of necessary
improvements,
4) Construction will be underway prior to decline of level of service to
unacceptable level (LOS E),
1) Participation in the Tri- Valley Transportation Council is on-going.
2) Payment of fees shall be made prior to issuance of building permits.
3) Mitigation will be complete with implementation of improvements,
1) City of Dublin Planning Department will verify payment of fees.
2) City of Dublin Department of Public Works will be responsible for
coordinating Project area improvements resulting from regional growth,
Impact 3.3/N Cumulative Impacts on Tassajara Road
Mitifwtion Measure 3.3/14.0: Wideninf! of Tassaiara Road to Six Lanes
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reserve sufficient right-of -way along Tassajara Road to accommodate
cumulative development of projects north of the Project area,
City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Department Public
Works,
Reservation of sufficient right-of-way to accommodate six travel lanes on
Tassajara Road,
Reservation of right-of-way to be adopted prior to approval of tentative
map,
Dedication of right-of -way required prior to filing of Final maps for
development projects adjacent to the Tassajara Road corridor.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact 3.3/0 Transit Service Extensions
Mitif!ation Measure 3.3 / 15,0: Provision of Transit Service to Meet LAVT A standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To extend transit service within 1/4 mile of 95% of the Project area
population,
City of Dublin Planning Department/Department of Public Works/LA VT A
1) Meetings between the City of Dublin and LA VT A to coordinate
extension of bus service to the Project area.
2) Notification to LA VT A of development approvals involving potential for
100 or more employees or residents,
1) Initial meeting to review the plan and ultimate service needs should be
held within one year of plan adoption to allow LA VT A to plan for future
expansion, Thereafter, meetings should be held periodically at the request
of either the City or LA VT A,
On-going.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
9
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GP A EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitifwtion Measure 3.3 115.1: Bus Service to Emolovment Centers with 100+ Emolovees
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide transit service at a minimum frequency of one bus every 30
minutes during peak hours, to employment centers with 100 or more
employees.
City of Dublin Planning Department/Department of Public Works/LA VT A
1) Meetings between the City of Dublin and LA VT A to coordinate
extension of bus service to employment centers.
2) Notification to LA VT A of development approvals involving potential for
100 or more employees.
1) Meetings should be held periodically at the request of either the City or
LA VT A.
On-going,
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.3115,2: Monetarv Contribution to Suooort Transit Service Extensions
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide funding in support of expansion of transit service to the Project
area,
City of Dublin Planning Department/Department of Public
Works/LA VT A/Developers
Payment of fees or construction of capital improvements to support
extension of transit service.
Fees/improvements will be identified as a condition of project approvaL
Prior to approval of Final Map.
City of Dublin Planning Department
Mitif!ation Measure 3.3115.3: Feeder Transit Service to the East DublinlPleasanton BART
station
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To coordinate provision of feeder bus service to the planned BART stations
from the Project area,
City of Dublin Planning Department/Department of Public
Works/LA VTA/BART
Meetings with BART and LA VT A to coordinate feeder transit service to
BART.
Initial meeting to review the plan and ultimate service needs should be held
within one year of plan adoption to allow BART and LA VT A to plan for
future expansion. Thereafter, meetings should be held periodically at the
request of the City, BART, or LA VT A,
On-going.
City of Dublin Planning Department
Impact 3.3/P Street Crossings
Mitif!ation Measure 3.3116,0: Provision of a Class J bicvcleloedestrian oath
Why:
Who:
To provide a paved bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara Creek.
Developers in consultation with the City of Dublin Planning Department,
10
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Verification:
Department of Public Works, and East Bay Regional Park District
Design and construction of a Class I bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara
Creek.
As a condition of approval for development projects adjacent to the
Tassajara Creek corridor.
Construction to occur prior to occupation of first phase of homes
responsible for providing the path.
City of Dublin Department of Public Works.
What:
When:
Completion:
Mitifwtion Measure 33116,1: Sifmalized BicvclelPedestrian Intersections
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for safe pedestrian/bicycle crossings of major arterial streets,
Developers/Department of Public Works
Locate pedestrian and bicycle crossings at signalized intersections.
As a condition of project approvaL
Final approval of detailed improvement plans.
Department of Public Works,
SECTION 3.4: COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Prior to approval of prezonin2.1. Impacts Reauirin2 Miti2ation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
1M 3.4/ A Demand for Increased Police Services,
1M 3.4/B Police Services Accessibility
1M 3.4/C Demand for Increased Fire Services
1M 3.4/D Fire Response to Outlying Areas
1M 3.4/E Exposure to Wildlands Hazards
1M 3.4/F Demand for New Classroom Space
1M 3.4/G Demand for Junior High School Space
1M 3.4/H Overcrowding of Schools
1M 3.4/1 Impact on School District Jurisdiction
1M 3.4/J Financial Burden on School Districts
1M 3.4/K Demand for Park Facilities
1M 3.4/L Park Facilities Fiscal Impact
1M 3.4/M Impact on Regional Trail System
1M 3.4/N Impact on Open Space Connections
1M 3.4/0 Increased Solid Waste Production
1M 3.4/P Impact on Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
1M 3.4/Q Demand for Utility Extensions
1M 3.4/R Utility Extension: Visual and Biological Impacts
1M 3.4/S Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources
1M 3.4/T Demand for Increased Postal Service
1M 3.4/U Demand for Increased Library Service
11
City of Dublin
May 1, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
2. Mitie:ation Imnlementation and Monitorine: Proe:ram
Police Services
Impact 3.4/ A Demand for Increased Police Services
Impact 3.4/B Police Services Accessibility
Why:
Mitifwtion Measure 3.4/1.0: Additional Personnel, Facilities and "Beats"
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide additional personnel, facilities, and procedures to police service
standards.
City of Dublin Police Department/Planning Department
1) Police Department will hire and train new sworn and civilian staff, revise
"beat" system to serve eastern Dublin, and estimate and schedule projected
facility needs in eastern Dublin.
2) Planning Department to notify Police Department of development
approvals to assist the Police Department in its annual budget formulation.
On-going.
Annually as part of the Police Department's planning and budgetary process,
Chief of Police.
Mitifwtion Measure 3.4/2,0: Coordination of exoansion of Police services
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide the Police Department information needed to adequately plan for
expansion of services,
Planning Department/City of Dublin Police Department
Notification to the Police Department of the timing of annexation and
approved development
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Ongoing.
Planning Department
Why:
Mitifwtion Measure 3.4/3.0: Police Deoartment Review
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for Police Department input into the design of proposed
development
City of Dublin Police Department/Planning Department
Police Department review of proposed development plans for safety issues,
and provide the Planning Department with recommendations for inclusion
in the final plans,
During development review process,
Prior to final site plan approval.
Chief of Police or representative,
Mitifwtion Measure 3.4 /4,0: Budf!etinf! for Police Services
Why:
Who:
To prepare a budget strategy to hire the required additional personnel and
implement necessary changes in the "beat" system,
City of Dublin/City of Dublin Police Department
12
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
I) Police Department will estimate projected personnel and facility needs
for eastern Dublin and develop a budget strategy to meet these needs.
2) Planning Department will notify Police Department of development
approvals in order to assist the Police Department in its annual budget
formulation.
On-going,
Annually as part of the Police Department's planning and budgetary process,
Chief of Police.
Why:
Mitiflation Measure 3.4/5,0: Police Deoartment Review
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Fire Protection
To ensure Police Department review of proposed development for safety
issues.
City of Dublin Police Department/Planning Department.
Police Department review of proposed development plans for safety issues,
During development review process,
Prior to final site plan approvaL
Chief of Police or representative,
Impact 3.4/C Demand for Increased Fire Services
Impact 3.4/D Fire Response to Outlying Areas
Impact 3.4/E Exposure to Wildlands Hazards
Mitifwtion Measure 3.4/6.0: Construction of New Fire Facilities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the construction of new facilities coincident with new
service demand in eastern Dublin,
Developers/Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
Design and Construction of New Facilities
Condition of tentative map and/or development review approval
Construction of fire station(s) will occur concurrently with new service
demand not addressed by other agreements,
DRF A/City Planning Department.
Why:
Mitifwtion Measure 3.4/7,0: Fundinf! of New Fire Facilities
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of
capital improvements.
City of Dublin City Manager's Office/DRF A,
Establish funding mechanism for capital improvements,
Condition of tentative map and/or development review approval
Construction of fire station(s) will occur concurrently with new service
demand not addressed by other agreements.
City of Dublin City Manager responsible for establishing funding
mechanisms; Planning Department responsible for verifying completion
prior to project approval.
13
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mithwtian Measure 3,4/8,0: Sites far New Fire Facilities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure acquisition of sites for construction of new fire stations.
City of Dublin Planning Department in consultation with DRFA.
Identification and acquisition of sites for new fire stations.
Condition of tentative map and/or development review approval
Construction of fire station(s) will occur concurrently with new service
demand not addressed by other agreements,
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitifwtion Measure 3.4/9,0: Fire Deoartment Review
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure DRF A input on project design relating to access, water pressure,
fire safety and prevention,
DRF A/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Review of proposed developments by DRFA for fire safety, Incorporation
of DRF A recommendations into project conditions by Planning Department,
During development review process,
Prior to development review and/or Final Map approvaL
Fire Chief or representative to provide recommendations; Planning
Department to verify incorporation of DRF A recommendations as
conditions of project approvaL
Why:
Mitiflatiall Measure 3.4/ ]0,0: Urball/Ooell Soace Illterface Mallaflemellt
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that a mechanism is in place to provide long-term maintenance
for the urban/open space interface.
Developers/DRF A/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Establishment of an assessment district or other suitable mechanism to
maintain safe fire conditions along the urban/open space interface,
Condition of tentative map approvaL
Prior to Final Map approvaL
City of Dublin Planning Department
Mitiflatian Measure 3.4/11.0: Fire Trails/Ooen Soace System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
V erifica tion:
To integrate fire trails and fire breaks into the open space trail system,
City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Recreation
Departmen t/D FRA/Developers.
Design and dedication of fire trails and fire breaks,
Condition of tentative map approvaL
Prior to Final Map approvaL
City of Dublin Planning Department
Mitiflatian Measure 3.4 / 12,0: Wildfire Manaf!ement Plan
Why:
To prepare a wildfire management plan for the Project area in order to
14
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
VeriCication:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
reduce the risk of impact related to wildland fire.
City of Dublin/DRFA,
Prepare a wildfire management plan,
During prezoning and annexation application processing,
Prior to approval of any development in lands adjacent to land designated
for permanent open space or rural residential/agriculture.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitifwtion Measure 3,4/13.0 Sites for Fire Facilities for the GPA Increment
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
VeriCication:
Schools
To determine the number, location and timing of additional fire stations for
areas within the Project area yet outside the Specific Plan area,
DRFA/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Identification of future fire station sites.
During prezoning and annexation application processing.
Prior to development approvals in the areas outside the Specific Plan area,
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact 3.4/F Demand for New Classroom Space
Impact 3.4/G Demand for Junior High School Space
Mitif!ation Measure 3,4/13.0: Dedication of New School Sites
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
VeriCication:
To reserve school sites within the Project area as designated in the Specific
Plan and GPA,
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department/DUSD/L VJUSD
Identification of new school sites.
Condition of tentative map approvaL
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitifwtion Measure 3,4/14.0: Planninf! for Additional Junior Hif!h School Caoacitv
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
VeriCication:
To ensure that adequate capacity is provided for junior high school age
students,
DUSD.
Planning for projected junior high school demand within two proposed sites
and/or provide for a third site in the Future Study Area to the east of the
Project area,
During planning and design of the first Junior High School site,
Prior to final map approval for the first junior high school.
City of Dublin/DUSD,
15
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
1M 3.4/H Overcrowding of Schools
Mitifwtion Measure 3.4/15,0: Provision of Adeauate Schools to Serve the Proiect site
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that adequate classroom space is provided prior to the
development of new homes.
DUSD/City of Dublin Planning Department.
1) Coordination between City of Dublin and DUSD to monitor available
school capacity and proposed development.
2) DUSD sign-off on available capacity to accommodate new development.
Coordination to occur during development review process, with written
sign-off from DUSD submitted prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to occupancy approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact 3.4/1 Impact on School District Jurisdiction
Why:
Mitif!ation Measure 3.4/16.0: Resolution of School District Jurisdictiolllssue
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To resolve the jurisdictional issue of which school district(s) will provide
service to the Project area.
City of Dublin/DUSD/L VJUSD,
City will assist with resolution of District boundary dispute,
Within two years of plan adoption.
Prior to occupancy of residential units within the Project area,
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact 3.4/ J Financial Burden on School Districts
Why:
Mitif!ation Measure 3.4/17,0: Full mitif!ation of Proiect imoact on school facilities
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
V erifica tion:
To ensure that adequate school facilities are available prior to development
in the Project area to the extent permitted by law,
City of Dublin/DUSD/L VJUSD.
Establish liaison between City of Dublin and school districts,
Ongoing as part of development review process.
On-going,
City of Dublin Planning Department with input from school districts.
Why:
Mitif!ation Measure 3.4/18.0: Provision of School Sites
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that the development of new facilities is provided for through the
dedication of school sites and/or payment of development fees by
developers.
Developers/City of Dublin/DUSD/L VJUSD,
Dedication of School Sites/Payment of Development Fees,
Condition of Tentative Map Approval.
Prior to occupancy approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
16
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitifwtion Measure 3.4119,0: Fundinf! of New Schools
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Parks and Recreation
Park Facilities
To establish appropriate funding mechanisms, such as Mello Roos
Community Facilities District, development impact fees, or a general
obligation bond measure, to fund new school development in eastern Dublin.
City of Dublin/DUSD/L VJUSD,
Creation of funding mechanism(s).
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Prior to occupancy of residential units within the Project area,
City of Dublin Planning Department
Impact 3.4/K Demand for Park Facilities
Mitif!ation Measure 3.4120,0: Exoansion of oark area (Guidinf! Policv. No monitorinf!
aoolicable or reQuired,)
Mitif!ation Measure 3.4121.0: Maintenance and imorovement of outdoor facilities in
con formance with Park and Recreation Master Plan (Guidinf! Policv. No monitorinf! aoolicable
or reQuired,)
Mitif!ation Measure 3.4 122.0: Provide adeQuate active oarks and facilities (Guidinf! Policv. No
monitorinf! aoolicahle or reQuired,)
Mitif!ation Measure 3.4123,0: ACQuire and imorove oarklands
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
V erifica tion:
To acquire and improve parklands in conformance with the priorities and
phasing recommended in the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan.
City of Dublin Planning Department/Dublin Recreation Department.
Coordination between the Planning Department and Recreation Department
to ensure adherence with standards of Park and Recreation Master Plan.
Ongoing as part of the development review process,
Ongoing,
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.4124,0: Land dedication and Darks imDrovementslCollection of in-lieu
oark fees
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require land dedication and improvements as designated in the GPA and
collect in-lieu fees per City standards.
City of Dublin Planning Department/Recreation Department.
Require land dedication or payment of in-lieu fees as condition of approval
for individual projects,
Condition of tentative map approvaL
Prior to Final Map approvaL
City of Dublin Planning Department.
17
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Miti!wtion Measure 3.4/25,0: Park Acrea!!e Dedication
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide an adequate ratio of developed parklands to population.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Park dedication,
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.4/26,0: Soecific Park Acrea!!e Dedication
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide an adequate ratio of developed park lands to population,
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Park dedication,
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.4/27,0: Park standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that park development is consistent with the standards and
phasing recommended in the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan.
Developers/City of Dublin Recreation Department.
Monitor individual project conformance with standards in Master Plan,
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Recreation Department.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.4 /28.0: lmolementation of Soecific Plan oolicies related to the orovision
of ooen soace,
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Park Financing
To ensure the prOVlSlon of open space, access and areas for public
recreation.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Monitor individual project conformance with open space policies,
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact 3.4/L Park Facilities Fiscal Impact
Miti!!ation Measure 3.4/29,0: Provision of Fair Share of Park Soace
Why:
To ensure that each new development reserves the open space and parkland
designated in the Plan.
18
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GP A EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department
Review each development proposal against the Specific Plan/GP A to ensure
that designated park and open space is set aside,
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department
Mitifwtion Measure 3.4 /30.0: Parks Imolementation Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To develop a Parks Implementation Plan for eastern Dublin.
Dublin Recreation Department
Preparation of a Parks Implementation Plan.
Within two years of Plan adoption or prior to any significant residential
development, whichever occurs first
Prior to final map approval on the first residential projects,
Dublin Recreation Department.
Mitilwtion Measure 3.4/31.0: Calculation and Assessment of In-Lieu Park Fees
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To calculate and assess in-lieu park fees,
City of Dublin Planning Department
Assessment of In-Lieu Park Fees.
Notification at time of permit application. Condition of tentative map
approval.
Payment at time of final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department
Impact 3.4/M Impact on Regional Trail System
Mitilwtion Measure 3.4/32,0: Trail Linka!!e and Access
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To establish a trail system with connections to planned regional and
subregional system,
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department
Dedication of trail rights-of-way.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact 3.4/N Impact on Open Space Connections
Miti!!ation Measure 3.4 /33,0: Establish a comorehensive trail network
Why:
Who:
What:
To establish a comprehensive, integrated trail network that permits safe and
convenient pedestrian and bicycle access,
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Recreation
Department.
Provide guidelines to developers on right-of -way alignment and design
19
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
When:
Completion:
VeriCication:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
standards, and ensure implementation.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department
Mitifwtion Measure 3,4 /34,0: Establish a continuous ODen SDace network
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To establish a continuous open space network that integrates large natural
open space areas, stream corridors, and developed parks and recreation
areas.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Recreation
Department
Ensure dedication/preservation of designated open space areas.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approvaL
City of Dublin Planning Department
Mitifwtion Measure 3,4/35.0: Provision of access to ODen SDace areas
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide convenient pedestrian connections between developed areas and
designated open space areas and trails.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department/City of Dublin Recreation
Department.
Ensure designation of appropriately located trails and access points as part
of development review.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department
Mitifwtion Measure 3,4 /36,0: Reauire DubUc access easements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Solid Waste
To require developers to dedicate public access easements along ridgetops
and stream corridors to accommodate the development of trails and staging
areas,
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Ensure dedication of public access easements,
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact 3.4/0 Increased Solid Waste Production
Impact 3.4/P Impact on Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
20
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Miti!wtion Measure 3.4/37,0: Preoaration of Solid Waste Mana!!ement Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To prepare/update a Solid Waste Management Plan as needed to address
eastern Dublin,
Dublin City Manager's Office,
Prepare plan.
Within two years of the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/GPA,
Prior to issuance of building permits,
Dublin City Manager's Office,
Miti!!ation Measure 3.4/38,0: Revise Waste Generation Pro;ections
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To revise waste generation projections of the City's SRRE/HHWE as needed
to reflect the population and commercial land use projections of the adopted
Project.
Dublin City Manager's Office,
Revise projections and update solid waste generation and disposal capacity
characteristics,
Within two years of the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/GPA,
Prior to issuance of building permits,
Dublin City Manager's Office,
Miti!!ation Measure 3.4/39,0: lntef!ration of Eastern Dublin Solid Waste Plan into Citv's
SRRE/HHWE
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that the Solid Waste Management Plan for Eastern Dublin
addresses and incorporates the goals, objectives, and programs of Dublin's
SRRE and HHWE,
Dublin City Manager's Office/Public Works Department.
Updating of SRRE/HHWE to reflect Project.
Within two years of the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/GP A.
Prior to issuance of building permits,
Dublin City Manager's Office,
Why:
Miti!!ation Measure 3.4.40: Assessment of Landfill Caoacitv
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
V erifica tion:
To ensure that adequate landfill capacity is available to accommodate
project waste,
City Manager's Office/City Planning Department/Alameda County Solid
Waste Management Authority.
Determine the adequacy of available disposal capacity,
As a condition of Tentative Map approval.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
21
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Electricity, Natural Gas and Telephone Service
Impact 3.4/Q Demand for Utility Extensions
Impact 3.4/R Utility Extension: Visual and Biological Impacts
Mithwtion Measure 3.4/41.0: Provision of documentation that electric. f.!as and teleohone
service can be orovided,
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require project applicants to provide documentation that electric, gas,
and telephone service can be provided to all new development.
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Submit documentation from utilities providers,
As a condition of Tentative Map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitif.!ation Measure 3.4/42.0: Underf.!roundinf.! of Utilities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all utilities to be located below grade where feasible and designed
to City standards,
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Require developers to provide for installation of utilities below grade,
Prior to issuance of building permits,
Construction of infrastructure improvements,
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Mitif.!ation Measure 3.4/43,0: Avoidance of Infrastructure 1moacts on Sensitive Habitat
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To mitigate the effects of utilities expansion, the city will work with PG&E
to plan the undergrounding of all new electric lines and to route
infrastructure away from sensitive habitat and open space lands,
Developers/City of Dublin Public Works Department/PG&E.
Coordinate routing of electric lines,
During site design phase.
Prior to final map approvaL
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Why:
Mitif.!ation Measure 3.4/44.0: Submittal of Service Reoort
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require project applicants to submit a utilities service report to the City
prior to Public Improvement Plan approval.
Project Applicants/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Submittal of utilities service report.
Prior to approval of Public Improvement Plan,
Prior to issuance of building permits,
City of Dublin Planning Department.
22
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Impact 3.4/S Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources
Mitillation Measure 3,4/45.0: Demonstration Proiects
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
VeriCication:
To require the installation of a demonstration project(s) of cost-effective
energy conservation techniques.
Developers/PG&E/City of Dublin Planning Department
Meet with major land owners and PG&E to determine how to set up an
Energy Conservation Demonstration Project within the Project area.
During development review process,
Prior to occupancy approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department
Mitillation Measure 3.4/46.0: Site P/anninf!. Sui/dinll Desilln and Landscavinf!
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
VeriCication:
Postal Service
To require developers to demonstrate the incorporation of energy
conservation measures into the design, construction, and operation of
proposed development
Developers/City of Dublin Planning Department
Preparation of an Energy Conservation Plan,
Upon filing of tentative map,
Prior to building permit approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department
Impact 304/T Demand for Increased Postal Service
Mitillation Measure 3.4/47,0: Provision of a Post Office in Eastern Dublin
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
VeriCication:
To provide for the creation of a post office with the eastern Dublin Town
Center.
Developer/City of Dublin Planning Department
The City will work with developers of Town Center and the U,S, Postal
Service to determine need and procedures for implementation,
Prior to tentative map approval for the Public/Semi-Public designated area
in the Town Center subarea,
Prior to approval of Final Map,
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitillation Measure 3.4/48,0: Coordination with V,S, Postal Service
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To provide for the creation of a post office with the eastern Dublin Town
Center.
Developer/City of Dublin Planning Department,
The City will work with developers of Town Center and the U.S. Postal
Service to determine need and procedures for implementation.
Prior to tentative map approval for the Public/Semi-Public designated area
in the Town Center subarea,
23
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Completion:
Verification:
Library Service
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Prior to approval of Final Map.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Impact 3.4/U Demand for Increased Library Service
Mitif!ation Measure 3.4/49.0: Provision of Adeauate Librarv Services
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide a library(ies) and associated services for eastern Dublin.
Alameda County Library System/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Assessment of eastern Dublin library needs and formulation of strategy to
meet these needs.
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.4/50,0: Coordination with Alameda County Librarv System
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide a library(ies) and associated services for eastern Dublin. .
Alameda County Library System/City of Dublin Planning Department.
Assessment of eastern Dublin library needs and formulation of strategy to
meet these needs,
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.4/51.0: Soecific Site Selection for New Librarv
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To have the City Library Task Force identify appropriate location and
timing for development of new library(ies),
City Library Task Force.
Assessment of site requirements and timing of projected need,
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Prior to Final Map approval.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
SECTION 3.5: SEWER. WATER AND STORM DRAINAGE
1. ImDacts ReQuirin2 Miti2ation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
1M 3.5/B Lack of a Wastewater Collection System
1M 3.5/C Extension of Sewer Trunk Line
1M 3.5/D Current Limited Treatment Plant Capacity
1M 3.5/E Future Lack of Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity
1M 3.5/F Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater Treatment
24
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
1M 3.5/G Lack of Current Wastewater Disposal Capacity
1M 3.5/H Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater Disposal
1M 3.5/1 Potential Failure of Export Disposal System
1M 3.5/J Pump Station Noise and Odors
1M 3.5/K Storage Basin Odors and Potential Failure
1M 3.5/L Recycled Water System Operation
1M 3.5/M Recycled Water Storage Failure
1M 3,5/N Loss of Recycled Water System Pressure
1M 3.5/0 Secondary Impacts from Recycled Water System Operation
1M 3,5/P Overdraft of Local Groundwater Resources
1M 3.5/Q Increase in Demand for Water
1M 3,5/R Additional Water Treatment Plant Capacity
1M 3.5/S Lack of Water Distribution System
1M 3.5/T Inducement of Substantial Growth and Concentration of Population
1M 3.5/U Increase in Energy Usage Through Operation of the Water Distribution System
1M 3.5/V Potential Water Storage Reservoir Failure
1M 3.5/W Potential Loss of System Pressure
1M 3.5/X Potential Pump Station Noise
1M 3.5/Y Potential Flooding
1M 3.5/Z Reduced Groundwater Recharge
1M 3.5/ AA Non-Point Sources of Pollution
2. Mitie:ation ImDlementation and Monitorine: Proe:ram
Impact 3.5/B Lack of a Wastewater Collection System
Mitif;!Qtion Measure 3,5/] ,Oa: Exoansion of DSRSD Service Boundaries
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the expansion of DSRSD's service boundaries to include the
Project area,
DSRSD,
DSRSD will revise its service area boundaries.
Prior to approval of any development outside the current service boundaries,
Prior to tentative map approval.
City of Dublin Department of Public Works,
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5/ ],0: Connection to Public Sewers
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that all development within the Project area be connected to
public sewers,
City of Dublin Department of Public Works/DSRSD,
Require connection to public sewers.
Condition of approval for tentative map,
Prior to final map approval.
Department of Public Works,
25
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitifwtion Measure 3,5/2.0: Wastewater Collection Svstem Master Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To have DSRSD update its wastewater collection system master plan
computer model to reflect the adopted Specific Plan/GP A,
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Public Works will request DSRSD to update Master Plan. DSRSD will be
responsible to update the Master Plan,
As soon as possible after the adoption of the Specific Plan/GP A,
Before approval of any detailed wastewater improvement plans,
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Mitifwtion Measure 3.5/3,0: On-site Wastewater Treatment
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To discourage the use of on-site package plants and septic systems within
the Project area,
Department of Public Works/DSRSD,
Communicate to project applicants the City's desire that all projects be
connected to the DSRSD sewer system.
Ongoing, as part of the development application process.
Prior to tentative map filing.
Department of Public Works,
Miti!wtion Measure 3.5/4,0: DSRSD Service
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require a "will serve" letter from DSRSD prior to permit approval for
grading.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD,
Confirm receipt of a "will-serve" letter for all proposed projects.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit
Department of Public Works,
Mitifwtion Measure 3.5/5,0: DSRSD Standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that design and construction of all wastewater systems is m
conformance with DSRSD standards,
Department of Public Works/DSRSD,
Confirm that wastewater system meet DSRSD standards,
Prior to issuance of building permits.
Approval of improvement plans,
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Impact 3.S/C Extension of Sewer Trunk Line
Mitifwtion Measure 3,5/6,0: Sizillf! of Wastewater Svstem
Why:
To ensure that the planned wastewater collection system has been sized to
accommodate only the development within the Project area,
26
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
DSRSD.
Engineer wastewater capacity for Project site capacity only,
Wastewater system design phase.
Prior to installation of Project area sewer system.
DSRSD.
Impact 3.5/D Current Limited Treatment Plant Capacity
Mitifwtion Measure 3,5/7.0: Desif!n Level Wastewater lnvestif!ation
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require project applicants to prepare detailed wastewater capacity
investigations, including means to minimize wastewater flows.
Applicants in coordination with DSRSD.
Prepare a detailed wastewater capacity investigation.
Preparation of preliminary Public Improvement Plan,
Final Public Improvement Plan Approval.
DSRSD/Department of Public Works.
Mitif!ation Measure 3,5/7,]: DSRSD Service
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require a "will serve" letter from DSRSD prior to permit approval for
grading,
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Confirm receipt of a "will-serve" letter for all proposed projects,
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
Impact 3.5/E Future Lack of Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity
Mitif!ation Measure 3,5/8.0: Ensure AdeQuate Wastewater Treatment Caoacitv
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are available to
meet the needs of future development in eastern Dublin.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD,
DSRSD will prepare a Master Plan including growth projections and facility
expansion needs and timing to meet the needs of projected development.
As soon as possible after adoption of the Specific Plan/GP A,
Prior to approval of any development.
Department of Public Works,
Mitif!ation Measure 3,5/9.0: Wastewater Treatment Plant Exoansion Schedule
Why:
Who:
What:
To ensure that proposed development is consistent with wastewater
treatment plant expansion as set forth in DSRSD's master plan,
DSRSD/Department of Public Works,
The City must confirm that proposed development is consistent with the
capacity and timing identified in DSRSD's Master Plan
27
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
During review of tentative map.
Prior to approval of Final Map.
Department of Public Works.
Impact 3.5jF Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater Treatment
Mitifwtion Measure 3.5/10.0: Use of Ener!!v-Efficient Treatment Svstem
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To include energy efficient treatment systems in any wastewater treatment
plant expansion and operate the plant to take advantage of off -peak energy.
DSRSD
Design and construct energy-efficient treatment systems.
Design phase for WWTP expansion.
On-going.
DSRSD.
Impact 3.5jG Lack of Current Wastewater Disposal Capacity
Miti!!ation Measure 3.5/]] .0: (Prof?ram 9H) Exoort Pioeline
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To support TWAin its current efforts to implement a new wastewater
export pipeline system.
Tri- Valley Wastewater Authority/Dublin City Manager's Office.
Support implementation of new export pipeline.
Ongoing.
Approval of TW A improvement plans.
Dublin City Manager's Office.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.5/12.0: (Policv 9-5) Construction of Recvcled Water Svstem
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To promote recycled water use for landscape irrigation in eastern Dublin
through upgrading of treatment and construction of a recycled water
distribution and storage system in eastern Dublin.
DSRSD.
Promote recycled water use.
During development review process.
Ongoing.
DSRSD.
Miti!!atioll Measure 3.5/13.0: (Prof?ram 9J) Recvcled Water Distribution Svstem
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
To have DSRSD update its proposed recycled water distribution system
computer model to reflect the adopted Specific Plan/GPA.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Public Works will request DSRSD to update its computer model. DSRSD
will be responsible to update the model.
As soon as possible after the adoption of the Specific Plan/GP A.
Before approval of any detailed wastewater improvement plans.
28
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GP A EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.5114.0: (Pro!!ram 9K) Wastewater Recvclinf! and Reuse
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To support the efforts of the Tri- Valley Water Recycling Task Force Study
through Zone 7, encouraging wastewater recycling and reuse for landscape
irrigation.
City of Dublin Department of Public Works/Zone 7.
Encourage wastewater recycling as detailed in the Tri- Valley Water
Recycling Task Force Study.
As soon as possible after the adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
Ongoing.
Department of Public Works.
Impact 3.5/H Increase in Energy Usage Through Increased Wastewater Disposal
Mitif?ation Measure 3.5115.0: Enerf?v for EXDort DisDOsal
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To encourage LA VWMA to continue its program of off -peak pumping of
wastewater to balance electric demands in the PG&E system.
City of Dublin/LA VWMA.
Encourage off-peak pumping.
Upon adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
On-going.
Department of Public Works.
Mitif?ation Measure 3.5116.0: Enerf?V for DisDosal throuf?h Recvcled Water Svstem
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that the recycled water treatment system is planned, designed and
constructed for energy efficiency in operation.
City of Dublin Department of Public Works/DSRSD
Design, construction, and operation of energy-efficient system.
Upon agreement to use a recycled water treatment system.
On-going.
DSRSD.
Impact 3.5/1 Potential Failure of Export Disposal System
Mitif?atioll Measure 3.5117.0: Redundancv ill Enf!illeerillf?
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To avoid potential failure in the operation of the pumps m the TW A
wastewater collection system.
TWA
Incorporate engineering redundancy into the design of the pump stations
and provide emergency power generators.
Design and construction phase of export system.
Approval of export system improvement plans.
Department of Public Works.
29
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Impact 3.5jJ Pump Station Noise and Odors
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5118.0: Desif!n of Pumo and Motors
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that pump station design minimizes potential for impacts related
to noise and odors.
TWA
Design pump and motors to meet local noise standards. Install odor control
equipment.
Design phase of export system.
Approval of export system improvement plans.
Department of Public Works.
Impact 3.5jK Storage Basin Odors and Potential Failure
Miti!!ation Measure 3.5/19.0: Desif!n/Enf!ineerinf! of Storaf!e Basins
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that wastewater storage basins are designed to control odors and
minimize the risk of failure in the event of an earthquake.
TWA
Design storage basins to meet seismic codes, and limit odors by burying
tanks and incorporating odor control equipment.
Design phase of export system.
Approval of export system improvement plans.
Department of Public Works.
Impact 3.5jL Recycled Water System Operation
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5120.0: Construction of Recvcled Water Distribution Svstem
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that construction of the recycled water distribution system be in
accordance with all applicable State and local regulations.
DSRSD
Require compliance of recycled water distribution system with applicable
regulations of the DHS and the SFBR WQCB.
Condition of approval for recycled water distribution system.
Approval of improvement plans.
DSRSD.
Impact 3.5jM Recycled Water Storage Failure
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5/21.0: Desif!n/Enf!ineerinf! of Water Storaf!e Basins
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To ensure that reservoir construction meets all applicable standards of
DSRSD and appropriate health agencies.
DSRSD/Department of Public Works.
Confirm the reservoir design and construction meets all applicable
standards.
Design phase.
30
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Approval of improvement plans.
Department of Public Works/DSRSD.
Impact 3.5jN Loss of Recycled Water System Pressure
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5122.0: Comoliance with DSRSD standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that proposed recycled water pump stations meet all applicable
standards of DSRSD and include emergency power generation.
DSRSDjDepartment of Public Works.
Confirm compliance of pump station design with DSRSD standards, and
include emergency power generators.
Design phase.
Approval of improvement plans.
Department of Public Works.
Impact 3.5jO Secondary Impacts from Recycled Water System Operation
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5/23.0: Salt Reductioll
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that recycled water projects meet any applicable salt mitigation
requirements of Zone 7.
DSRSD.
Coordinate with Zone 7 to confirm whether or not a recycled water system
in the Project area would require demineralization.
Design Phase.
Approval of improvement plans.
DSRSD.
Impact 3.5jP Overdraft of Local Groundwater Resources
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5/24.0: (Policv 9-2) Allnexation of Soecific Plan area to DSRSD
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To expand DSRSD service boundaries to encompass the entire eastern
Dublin Specific Plan/GPA area.
DSRSD.
Development of annexation application.
Condition of approval for planned development prezoning.
Prior to approval of detailed improvement plans.
DSRSD.
Mitif!atioll Measure 3.5/25.0: Conllection to DSRSD Water Svstem
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To encourage all development in the Project area to connect to the DSRSD
water system.
City of Dublin Public Works Department/DSRSD.
Inform all project applicants of preference for connection of new
development to the DSRSD system.
During preparation of tentative map.
31
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GP A EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Prior to approval of final map.
City of Dublin Department of Public Works.
Impact 3.5/Q Increase in Demand for Water
Miti!!ation Measure 3.5/26.0: (Prof!ram 9A) Water Conservatioll
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require water conservation measures to be designed into individual
projects.
Developers/City of Dublin Public Works Department/DSRSD.
Review project applications for incorporation of water conservation
measures.
Condition of approval for tentative map.
Prior to approval of final map.
Department of Public Works.
Mitirzation Measure 3.5/27.0: (Prof!ram 9B) Water Recvclillf!
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require water recycling measures be incorporated into individual
projects.
Developers/City of Dublin Public Works DepartmentjDSRSD.
Review projects for incorporation of DSRSD and Zone 7 recommendations
relating to the use of recycled water.
Condition of approval for tentative map.
Approval of detailed improvement plans.
Dublin Department of Public Works.
Mitirzation Measure 3.5/28.0: Zone 7 lmorovements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that Zone 7 has water supply needed to meet requirements of the
Project.
Public Works Department/DSRSD/Zone 7.
Confirm status of Zone 7 water supply improvements.
Condition of approval for "will serve" letter.
Prior to approval of final map.
DSRSD/Public Works Department.
Why:
Mitirzatioll Measure 3.5/29.0: New Zone 7 Turnouts
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the construction of two additional turnouts from the Zone
7 Cross Valley Pipeline to serve the Eastern Dublin area.
Zone 7 jDSRSD.
Construction of two additional turnouts.
As needed to provide adequate service to new development.
Ongoing.
DSRSD.
32
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5/30: 11lterC0l1llectiolls with Existinf! Svstems
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for increased water source reliability, the Project water system
should be interconnected with existing adjoining systems.
DSRSD/Public Works Department.
Plan water system to interconnect with existing systems.
Ongoing as system within the Project area is built out.
Ongoing.
Public Works Department.
Mitif!atioll Measure 3.5/31.0: Reimbursement for New DSRSD Groundwater Wells
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide a backup source of water supply to its Zone 7 source, DSRSD
will reimburse City of Pleasanton for construction and operation of new
groundwater wells south of the Project area.
DSRSDjCity of Pleasanton.
DSRSD will reimburse City of Pleasanton for groundwater wells.
On schedule to be determined by DSRSD and the City of Pleasanton.
Ongoing.
DSRSD.
Impact 3.5jR Additional Water Treatment Plant Capacity
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5/32.0: ZOlle 7 Phasinf! for Water Treatment Svstem lmorovements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To meet increasing demands on its water system, Zone 7 has established a
phasing for water treatment system improvements.
Zone 7.
Implementation of phased improvements.
Pursuant to established schedule.
Pursuant to established schedule.
Zone 7.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5/33.0: COllstruction of New Chlorination/Fluoridation Stations
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To meet increased demand resulting from the project, DSRSD should
construct two new chlorination/fluoridation stations at the two proposed
Zone 7 turnouts to eastern Dublin.
DSRSDjZone 7.
Construction of two new stations.
As needed to provide adequate service, with the western turnout being
developed first. The eastern turnout would not be developed until
development of the eastern portion of the Project area.
On schedule to be determined by DSRSD and Zone 7.
DSRSD.
33
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Impact 3.5/S Lack of a Water Distribution System
Mitirzation Measure 3.5/34.0: (Policv 9-1) Provision of an AdeQuate Water Suoolv Svstem
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide an adequate water supply system and related improvements and
storage facilities for all new development in the Project area.
DSRSDjDevelopers.
Require new development to build the water supply system needed per
DSRSD Master Plan and service standards.
Condition of approval for tentative map.
Prior to approval of Final Public Improvements Plan.
DSRSD/Department of Public Works.
Mitirzation Measure 3.5/35.0: (Prorzram 9C) Water Svstem Master Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that DSRSD updates its water system master plan computer model
to reflect the adopted Specific Plan/GPA land uses.
City of Dublin/DSRSD
Request that DSRSD update its water system master plan computer model.
As soon as possible after adoption of the Specific Plan/GP A.
Prior to the approval of a Public Improvement Plan for any. new
development.
Public Works Department.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.5136.0: (Prof!ram 9D) Combininrz of Water Svstems
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To consolidate the Camp Parks and Alameda County water systems and
turnouts with the DSRSD system.
City of Dublin Public Works Department/Camp Parks/ Alameda
County /DSRSD.
Encourage agencies to combine water systems with DSRSD.
Ongoing from date of Project adoption.
Ongoing.
DSRSD.
Mitif!atioll Measure 3.5137.0: DSRSD Standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that design and construction of all water system facility
improvements be in accordance with DSRSD standards.
City of Dublin Public Works Department/DSRSD/Developers
Review each development proposal to verify that all water system facility
improvements conform to DSRSD standards.
Condition of approval for Public Improvements Plan.
Prior to approval of Final Public Improvements Plan.
Public Works Department.
34
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitif?ation Measure 3.5/38.0: DSRSD Service
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require a "will serve" letter from DSRSD prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
City of Dublin/DSRSD/Developer.
Confirm receipt of a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD.
Condition of approval for tentative map.
Prior to approval of final map.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.5/T Inducement of Substantial Growth and Concentration of Population
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5139.0: Sizinf! of Water Distribution Svstem
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce the growth-inducing potential of water system expansion, the
water distribution system will be sized to accommodate only the estimated
water demands from approved land uses within the Project.
DSRSD.
Limit capacity of water distribution system to serve only the Project site.
Update of DSRSD water system master plan computer model.
Prior to the approval of a Public Improvement Plan for any. new
development in the Project area.
Department of Public Works.
Impact 3.5/U Increase in Energy Usage through Operation of the Water Distribution System
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5140.0: Enerf!v-Efficient Ooeratiol1 of Water Distribution Svstem
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that the water distribution system is planned, designed and
constructed for energy-efficient operation.
City of Dublin/DSRSD.
Design and operation of energy efficient water distribution system.
Ongoing.
On-going.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.5/V Potential Water Storage Reservoir Failure
Mitif?ation Measure 3.5/41.0: Desi!ml Enf?ineerinf! of Water Storaf!e Basins
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
V erifica tion:
To require all reservoir construction to meet all the applicable standards of
DSRSD, to meet current seismic building standards, and to provide adequate
site drainage.
DSRSD.
Design basins to reduce failure potential.
Design phase.
Approval of improvement plans.
DSRSD.
35
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GP A EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Impact 3.5jW Potential Loss of System Pressure
Miti!!ation Measure 3.5142.0: Comoliance With All DSRSD Standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the proposed new water pump stations to meet all the applicable
standards of DSRSD and include emergency power generators at each pump
station.
City of Dublin/DSRSD.
Engineering provisions for emergency conditions.
Design phase.
Approval of final improvement plans.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.54jX Potential Pump Station Noise
Mitirzation Measure 3.5/43.0: Reduction of Potential Noise
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To include design provisions to pump stations that will reduce sound levels
from operating pump motors and emergency generators.
DSRSD.
Incorporate necessary engineering provisions in design of pump statiQns to
minimize operational noise.
Design phase.
Approval of final improvement plans.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.5jY Potential Flooding
Mitirzation Measure 3.5144.0: (Policv 9-7) Provision of Drainarze Facilities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide drainage facilities that will minimize any increased potential for
erosion or flooding.
Developers/DSRSD.
Review drainage facilities design to verify that erosion/flooding potential
will be minimized.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Approval of final grading and improvement plans.
Public Works Department.
Why:
Mitirzation Measure 3.5/45.0: (Policv 9-8) Natural Channellmorovemel1ts
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require channel improvements consisting of natural creek bottoms and
side slopes with natural vegetation where possible.
Developers/Zone 7.
Review required channel improvements for their attempt to maintain
natural-appearing conditions while addressing the drainage requirements.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final grading plan approval.
Department of Public Works with input from Zone 7.
36
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5146.0: (Prof!ram 9R) Storm Drainaf!e Master Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for each development.
Developers.
Preparation of Storm Drainage Master Plan.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5/47.0: (PrOf!ram 9S) Flood Control
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require Project area development to provide facilities to alleviate
potential downstream flooding due to Project area development.
Developers.
Provision of flood control improvements.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitif?atiol1 Measure 3.5148.0: Construction of Storm Drainaf!e Facilities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the construction of the backbone drainage facilities consistent
with the Storm Drainage Master Plan.
Developers.
Construction of storm drainage facilities.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.5jZ Reduced Groundwater Recharge
MWf!ation Measure 3.5149.0: (Policv 9-9) Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To plan facilities and management practices that protect and enhance water
quality.
City of Dublin Public Works Department/Zone 7.
Oversight of facilities to protect and enhance water quality.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitif?ation Measure 3.5/50.0: Zone 7 Groundwater Recharf!e Prof!ram
Why:
Who:
What:
To protect groundwater resources, Zone 7 supports an ongoing groundwater
recharge program for the Central Basin.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Support Zone 7 groundwater recharge program, by encouraging recharge
areas within the Project area where feasible.
37
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.5/ AA Non-Point Sources of Pollution
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5152.0: Communitv Education Prof!rams
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To develop community-based programs to educate local residents and
businesses on methods to reduce non-point sources of pollution, and
coordinate such programs with current Alameda County programs.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Development/dissemination of information to reduce non-point sources of
pollution.
Condition of tentative map approval
On-going
Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5/53.0: "Best Manaf!ement Practices"
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all development to meet the requirements of the City of Du.blin's
"Best Management Practices" to mitigate storm water pollution.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Review proposed development plans to ensure that "Best Management
Practices" have been incorporated to reduce pollution.
During development review processing.
Prior to building permit approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3 .5/54.0: National Pollution Discharf!e Elimination Svstem ReQuirements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all development to meet the water quality requirements of the
City of Dublin's NPDES permit.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Review proposed development plans to ensure that NPDES requirements
have been incorporated to reduce pollution.
During development review processing.
Prior to building permit approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.5/55.0: Urban Runoff Clean Water Prof!ram ReQuirements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To require all development to meet the water quality requirements of the
Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program.
City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Review proposed development plans to ensure that the requirements of the
County's Urban Runoff Clean Water Program have been incorporated to
reduce pollution.
During development review processing.
38
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Prior to building permit approval.
Public Works Department.
SECTION 3.6: SOILS. GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
1. ImDacts Reauiring: Mitig:ation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
1M 3.6jB Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects
1M 3.6/C Earthquake Ground Shaking: Secondary Effects
1M 3.6jD Substantial Alteration to Project Site Landforms
1M 3.6/F Groundwater Impacts
1M 3.6jG Groundwater Impacts Associated with Irrigation
1M 3.6/H Shrinking and Swelling of Expansive Soils and Bedrock
1M 3.6/1 Natural Slope Stability
1M 3.6jJ Cut-and-Fill Slope Stability
1M 3.6/K Erosion and Sedimentation: Construction-Related
1M 3.6/L Erosion and Sedimentation: Long-Term
2. Mitig:ation Imolementation and Monitoring: Prog:ram
Impact 3.6jB Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects
Mitif!ation Measure 3.611.0: lmolementation of Current Seismic Desif!n Standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the use of modern seismic design in construction of development
projects, and build in accordance with Uniform Building code and
applicable county and city code requirements.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Review plans to ensure conformance to UBC and all other applicable codes.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/C Earthquake Ground Shaking: Secondary Effects
Mitif?ation Measure 3.6/2.0: Desif!n ReQuirements for Flat Areas
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide setbacks from or modification of unstable and potentially
unstable landforms, and use of appropriate design to ensure seismic safety.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify that improvements have been located away from unstable landforms;
that potentially unstable landforms have been stabilized; and that
development plans conform to UBC and all other applicable codes.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
39
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GP A EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitif!ation Measure 3.6/3.0: Desif!n ReQuirements for Hillside Areas
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require appropriate grading and design to completely remove unstable
and potentially unstable materials in hillside areas where development may
require substantial grading.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify that grading and design will remove unstable materials.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.614.0: Desif!n ReQuirements for Hillside Fills
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To use engineering techniques and improvements, such as retention
structures, drainage improvements, properly designed keyways, and
adequate compaction to improve the stability of fill areas and reduce
seismically induce fill settlement.
DevelopersjPublic Works Department.
Require engineered retention structures, surface and subsurface drainage
improvements.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.6/5.0: Desif!n ReQuirements for Fill Settlement
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To use engineering techniques and improvements, such as retention
structures, drainage improvements, properly designed keyways, and
adequate compaction to improve the stability of fill areas and reduce
seismically induce fill settlement.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Require engineered retention structures, surface and subsurface drainage
improvements.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.6/6.0: Desif!n ReQuirements (roads. structural foundations and
underf?round utilities) for Fill Settlement
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
To design roads, structural foundations, and underground utilities to
accommodate estimated settlement without failure, especially across
transitions between fills and cuts, and to remove or reconstruct potentially
unstable stock pond embankments in development areas.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify the effectiveness of improvements to ensure the stability of proposed
roads, structural foundations and underground utilities.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
40
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.617.0: Desif!n-Level Geotechnicallnvestif!ations
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all development projects in the Project area to perform design
level geotechnical investigations prior to issuing any permits.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Confirm receipt of geotechnical investigations (ie. stability analysis of
significant slopes and displacement analysis of critical slopes) in conjunction
with final design of improvements.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.6/8.0: Earthauake Preoaredness Plans
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the development of earthquake preparedness plans and the
dissemination of appropriate emergency measures to all Project residents
and employees.
City of Dublin Planning Department.
Develop earthquake preparedness plan, and prepare public information
strategy.
Within two years of adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
Prior to substantial development in the Project Area.
Planning Department
Impact 3.6jD Substantial Alteration to Project Site Landforms
Mitif!ation Measure 3.619.0: Gradinf! Plans to Reduce Landform Alteration
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce alteration to existing landforms through the preparation of
grading plans that adapt improvements to natural land forms and
implementation of such techniques as partial pads and retaining structures.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Review grading plans to ensure that they do not result in unnecessary or
avoidable alterations to existing landforms.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.6110.0: Sitinf? of lmorovements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To reduce landform alteration by carefully siting individual improvements
to avoid adverse conditions and thus the need for remedial grading.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Review proponents geotechnical investigation to determine if improvements
have been sited to reduce the need for grading.
Prior to submittal of tentative map.
41
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/F Groundwater Impacts
Impact 3.6jG Groundwater Impacts Associated with Irrigation
Mitifwtion Measure 3.6111.0: Geotechnical Investif!Qtions to Locate and Characterize
Groundwater Conditions
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To prepare detailed design level geotechnical investigations on development
sites within the Project area, to locate and characterize groundwater
conditions and formulate design criteria and measures to mitigate adverse
conditions.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify the preparation of geotechnical investigations to locate and
characterize groundwater conditions.
One year prior to construction.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Mitif?ation Measure 3.6/12.0: Construction of Subdrain Svstems
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce groundwater impacts, subdrain systems including drainage pipe
and permeable materials can be constructed.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Construct sub drain systems to control groundwater impacts.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.6/13.0: Stock Ponds and Reservoirs
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce groundwater impacts, stock pond embankments should be
removed and reservoirs drained in development areas.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Remove stock pond embankments and drain reservoirs within development
areas.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6jH Shrinking and Swelling of Expansive Soils and Bedrock
Mitif!ation Measure 3.6114.0: Geotechnicallnvestif!ation
Why:
To prepare design level geotechnical investigations for development projects
in the Project area to characterize site-specific soils and bedrock conditions,
and to formulate appropriate design criteria.
42
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Developers/Public Works Department.
Confirm the preparation of geotechnical investigations to characterize site-
specific soils and rock conditions, and the development of appropriate
design solutions.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.6/15.0: Moisture Control Measures
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce the potential for impact resulting from expansive soils and rock,
by implementing measures to control moisture in the ground.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify the appropriate application of moisture conditioning; construction of
surface and subsurface drainage to control infiltration; lime treatment.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of building permits.
Public Works Department.
Mitif?ation Measure 3.6116.0: Foundation and Pavement Desif!n
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce the potential effects of expansive soil and rock through
appropriate foundation and pavement design.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify that structural foundations have been located below the zone of
seasonal moisture change; the use structurally supported floors; the use of
non-expansive fill beneath structure slabs and asphaltic concrete.
Prior to submittal of tentative map.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/1 Natural Slope Stability
Miti f!atiol1 Measure 3.6/17 .0: Geotechnical lnvestif!ations
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To characterize site-specific slope stability conditions and to formulate
appropriate design criteria, development within the Project area should
prepare design level geotechnical investigations.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Confirm the preparation of geotechnical investigations to characterize slope
stability conditions and identify appropriate design solutions.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.6/18.0: Sitinf! of lmorovements
Why:
To avoid impacts from unstable slopes by siting development away from
43
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
unstable landforms and from slopes greater than 30%, and providing lower
density development in steep, unstable areas.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Confirm that plans avoid siting improvements downslope or on unstable and
potentially unstable landforms or on 30%+ slopes.
Condition of submittal of tentative map.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works Department.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.6119.0: Desif!n Measures for lmorovements on. below. or ad iacent to
Unstable Slooes
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To implement measures such as removing, reconstructing, or repatrlng
unstable areas, or structural engineering, when unstable areas cannot be
avoided.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Review for appropriateness and safety the measures suggested to resolve
areas with steep and/or unstable slopes.
Prior to approval of tentative map.
Prior to final improvement plan/grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/ J Cut-and- Fill Slope Stability
Mitif!ation Measure 3.6/20.0: Minimizinf? Gradinf?
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require grading plans for hillside areas, which plans minimize grading
and required cuts and fills by adapting roads to natural landforms and
stepping structures down steeper slopes.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Review plans to determine if proposed development has attempted to
minimize grading.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.6/21.0: Conformance of Gradillf? Plans to UBC
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require compliance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform
Building Code and applicable County and City code requirements.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Verify that grading plans conform to chapters 70 and 22 of the Uniform
Building Code and to other applicable codes.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
44
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Miti!!ation Measure 3.6/22.0: Avoidance of Unretained Cut Slaoes Greater Than 33%
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that unretained cut slopes should not exceed 3: I unless detailed,
site-specific geotechnical investigations indicate that steeper inclinations are
appropriate and safe.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Confirm that project avoids unretained cut slopes greater than 3:1; uses
retaining structures to reduce grading on slopes greater than 3:1; and
provides benches and subsurface drainage on cut slopes where applicable.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Mitif?ation Measure 3.6/23.0: Measures for Slooes Greater Than 20%
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that slopes steeper than 5:1 should be keyed and benched into
competent material and provided with subdrainage, prior to placement of
engineered fill.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Confirm that appropriate measures have been taken in areas where slopes
are greater than 20% are to be disturbed.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.6/24.0: Measures for Slooes Greater Than 50%
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that unreinforced fill slopes should be no steeper than 2: I and
provided with benches and surface drainage, as appropriate.
Developers/Public Works Department.
confirm that appropriate measures have been incorporated where
unreinforced fill slopes greater than 2: I are involved.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Mitif?ation Measure 3.6/25.0: Comoaction of Fill
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that fill be engineered (compacted) to at least 90 percent relative
compaction.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Ensure that fill will be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
45
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitif!ation Measure 3.6/26.0: Preoaration and Submittal of Subsurface Draina!!e lnsoection
Plans
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that development projects prepare plans for the periodic
inspection and maintenance of subsurface drainage features, and the
removal and disposal of materials deposited in surface drains and catch
basins.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Confirm that plans have been prepared and submitted for the periodic
inspection and maintenance of subsurface and surface drainage facilities.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/K Erosion and Sedimentation: Construction-Related
Mitif!ation Measure 3.6/27.0: Timinf! of Gradinf! Activities
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that grading activities be timed to avoid the rainy season as much
as possible, and that interim control measures be implemented to control
runoff and reduce erosion potential.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Review interim control measures to prevent runoff, control runoff velocity
and trap silt for effectiveness.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.6/L Erosion and Sedimentation: Long- Term
Mitif?ation Measure 3.6128.0: LOI1f?-Term Control Measures
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts through appropriate
design, construction, and continued maintenance of surface and subsurface
drainage.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Review adequacy of long-term control measures based upon
recommendations of geotechnical consultants.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
46
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
SECTION 3.7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. ImDacts Reauirine: Mitie:ation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
1M 3.7/ A Direct Habitat Loss
1M 3.7/B Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal
1M 3.7/C Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat
1M 3.7/D San Joaquin Kit Fox
1M 3.7/F Red-Legged Frog
1M 3.7/G California Tiger Salamander
1M 3.7/H Western Pond Turtle
1M 3.7/1 Tri-Colored Blackbird
1M 3.7/J Golden Eagle: Destruction of Nesting Site
1M 3.7/K Golden Eagle: Elimination of Foraging Habitat
1M 3.7/L Golden Eagle and Other Raptor Electrocutions
1M 3.7/M Burrowing Owl
1M 3.7/N American Badger
1M 3.7/0 Prairie Falcon, Northern Harrier, and Black-Shouldered Kite
1M 3.7/P Sharp-Shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawk
1M 3.7/S Special Status Invertebrates
2. Mitie:ation ImDlementation and Monitorine: Proe:ram
Impact 3.7/ A Direct Habitat Loss
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7 1 1.0: (Polio 6- 21) A voidinf! Disturbance 1 Removal 0 f Vef!etation
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that direct disturbance or removal of trees or native vegetation
cover should be minimized and be restricted to those areas actually
designated for the construction of improvements.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review plans to verify that disturbance/removal of vegetation has been kept
to a minimum.
Prior to approval of tentative map.
Prior to approval of final map.
Planning Department.
Why:
Who:
What:
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7/2.0: (Policv 6-23) Vef!etation Manaf!ement Plans
When:
Completion:
V erifica tion:
To provide for the preparation of vegetation enhancement/management
plans for all open space areas (whether held publicly or privately) with the
intent to enhance the biologic potential of the area as wildlife habitat.
Developers/Planning Department.
Ensure that vegetation management plans have been prepared for designated
open space areas.
Prior to approval of tentative map.
Prior to approval of final map.
Planning Department.
Why:
Who:
What:
47
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Miti!!ation Measure 3.7 13.0: (Action Prof!ram 60) Revef!etation Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require a detailed revegetation/restoration plan to be developed for all
disturbed areas that are to remain undeveloped.
Developers/Planning Department.
Ensure that revegetation/restoration plans have been prepared for disturbed
areas.
Prior to approval of final map.
Prior to approval of grading plans.
Planning Department.
Mitif?ation Measure 3.7/4.0: Grazinf! Manaf!ement Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the City to develop and implement grazing management plans to
protect riparian and wetland areas, increase plant diversity, and encourage
the recovery of native plants.
Planning Department.
Prepare a Grazing Management Plan and develop a strategy for
implementation.
Upon annexation.
As soon as possible after annexations.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.7/B Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal
Miti!!ation Measure 3.7/5.0: (Policv 6-22) Revef!etation
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that all areas of disturbance are revegetated as quickly as possible
to prevent erosion.
Developers/Planning Department.
1) Planning Department will ensure that revegetation plans include schedule
for replanting.
2) Building Inspectors will ensure that revegetation occurs on schedule.
I) Prior to approval of revegetation plans.
2) After site grading.
1) Prior to approval of final grading plans.
2) Completion of revegetation.
Planning Department/Public Works.
Impact 3.7/C Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7/6.0: (Policv 6-9) Preservation of Hvdrolof!ic Features
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To require the preservation of natural stream corridors, ponds, springs,
seeps, and wetland areas wherever possible.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Ensure that California Department of Fish and Game and Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) have been consulted to determine jurisdiction and provide
recommendations.
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
48
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Prior to approval of final map.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7 17.0: (Policv 6-]0) Preservation of Rioarian and Wetlands Areas
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the incorporation of riparian and wetland areas into project open
space areas, and ensure that loss of riparian or wetland habitat will be
mitigated per Department of Fish and Game/Corps of Engineers.
Developers/Planning Department.
I) Planning Department will ensure that riparian and wetland areas are
incorporated into open space areas wherever feasible, and that revegetation
plans provide appropriate mitigation for loss of riparian/wetlands habitat.
2) Planning Department in conjunction with appropriate agency will ensure
that mitigation occurs as planned.
I) Prior to approval of revegetation plans.
2) After site grading.
I) Prior to approval of final grading plans.
2) Completion of revegetation.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7/8.0: (Policv 6-11 ) Vef!etation of Stream Corridors
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Coinpletion:
Verification:
To require that all stream corridors be revegetated with native plant species
to enhance their natural appearance and improve habitat values.
Developers/Planning Department.
I) Planning Department will ensure that revegetation plans provide for the
revegetation of stream corridors.
2) Planning Department in conjunction with appropriate agency will ensure
that revegetation occurs as planned.
1) Prior to approval of revegetation plans.
2) After site grading.
I) Prior to approval of final grading plans.
2) Completion of revegetation.
Planning Department.
Mitif?ation Measure 3.7 19.0: (Policv 6-12) Enf!ineerinf? for Storm Runoff
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that storm runoff is carried in natural stream channels wherever
possible, rather than replacing with underground drainage systems.
Applicants/Public Works Department.
Ensure that storm runoff plans preserve/utilize natural stream channels as
effectively as possible.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Final map approval.
Public Works Department.
49
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7 1 10.0: (Policv 6-13) Ooen Soace Corridor Svstem
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To establish a stream corridor system that provides multi-purpose open
space corridors capable of accommodating wildlife and pedestrian
circulation.
DevelopersjPlanning Department.
Planning Department, with consultation from CDFG, will ensure that plans
provide for the effective preservation/enhancement of stream corridors as
multi-purpose corridors.
Prior to approval of tentative map.
Prior to approval of final grading plans.
Planning Department.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.7 111.0: (Prof!ram 6E) Submittal of Wetlands Delineation
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all project applicants to submit a multi-parameter wetlands
delineation to the COE for verification and jurisdictional establishment, and
submit plans for proposed alteration to any watercourse to the DFG for their
review and approval.
ApplicantsjPlanning Department.
Verify submittal of multi-parameter wetlands delineation to the Corps of
Engineers, and submittal of plans streamcourse alteration plans to the
Department of Fish and Game.
Condition of approval for tentative map.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7112.0 (Prof!ram 6F) Comorehensive Stream Corridor Restoration
Prof?ram
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the development of a comprehensive stream corridor.
restoration program that identifies a detailed set of criteria for grading,
stabilization and revegetation of planning area stream channels.
Planning Department/Public Works/Zone 7/Department of Fish and Game
Develop a comprehensive stream corridor restoration program.
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7/13.0: (Prof!ram 6G) Dedication of Land and lmorovements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
To provide for the dedication of land and improvements (i.e., trails,
revegetation, etc.) along both sides of stream corridors as a condition of
project approval.
Developers/Planning Department.
Require dedication of land and improvements along both sides of stream
corridors.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to Final map approval.
50
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7 1 14.0: (Prof!ram 6H) Sedimentation Control Ordinance
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the enactment of an erosion and sedimentation control
ordinance establishing performance standards to ensure maintenance of
water quality and protection of stream channels.
Public Works Department.
Enactment and enforcement of a sedimentation control ordinance.
During processing of pre zoning and annexation applications.
Prior to tentative map approval of the Project site.
Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7 1 15.0: (PrOf!ram 6K) Liaison with Resource Manaf!ement Af!encies
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To establish a liaison between the City and resource management agencies
for the purpose of monitoring compliance with Specific Plan policies.
Planning Department.
Establish and maintain a liaison with resource management agencies. Set up
a meeting with agency representatives to review with them the adopted plan
and points at which their input will be important.
As soon as possible after adoption of the Specific Plan/GP A.
On-going.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7 1 16.0: Protection of Existinf! Sensitive Habitats
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that sensitive habitat areas will be avoided and protected
wherever feasible.
Developers/Planning Department.
Verify that land use proposals avoid and protect existing sensitive habitat
areas.
Upon submittal of tentative map.
Condition of final project approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7/17.0: Construction Near Drainaf!es Durinf! the Drv Season
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require construction near drainages to take place during the dry season.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Require that construction near drainages take place only during the dry
season.
Upon submittal of tentative map.
Condition of approval of building permit or grading permit.
Public Works Department.
51
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Impact 3.7/D San Joaquin Kit Fox
Mitif!ationMeasure 3.7/18.0: USFWS Section 7 Consultation/CDFG Section 2053 Consultation
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all development in the Project area to comply with the Eastern
Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan.
Developers/Planning Department.
Verify that development plans are consistent with the prOVIsIOns and
procedures set forth in the Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection
Plan.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7/18.1: Kit Fox Habitat Manaf!ement Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
V erifica tion:
To provide for cooperation between the City and other appropriate agencies
in the preparation of a Kit Fox Habitat Management Plan.
Planning Department.
Contact Department of Fish and Game about the City's interest in
participating in the establishment of a habitat management plan with other
jurisdictions in the region.
Upon adoption of the Specific Plan/GPA.
Ongoing.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7 /19.0: (Prof!ram 6N) Restriction on use of Rodenticides / Herbicides
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To restrict the use of rodenticides and herbicides within the Project area in
order to reduce potential impacts to wildlife.
Public Works/Alameda County Department of Agriculture.
Monitor use of rodenticides/herbicides on Project site. Require any
poisoning programs to be done in cooperation with and under supervision
of the County Department of Agriculture.
Ongoing as a condition of project approval.
On-going.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.7/F Red-Legged Frog
Impact 3.7/G California Tiger Salamander
Impact 3.7/H Western Pond Turtle
Impact 3.7/1 Tri-Colored Blackbird
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7 /20.0: (PrOf!ram 6L) Pre-Construction Survev
Why:
Who:
What:
To require developers to conduct a pre-construction survey within 60 days
prior to habitat modification to verify the presence of sensitive species.
Developers/Planning Department
Review results of pre-construction surveys.
52
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GP A EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
60 days prior to habitat modification.
Prior to grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7/21.0: Habitat Protection
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure the protection and enhancement of sensitive species habitat areas.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review plans to ensure compliance with Mitigation Measures 3.7/2.0,
3.7/3.0, and 3.7/6.0-3.7/18/0 inclusive.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7/22.0: Buffer Zones
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the maintenance of a buffer around breeding sites of the red-
legged frog, California tiger salamander, and the Western pond turtle.
Developers/Public Works.
Maintenance of minimum buffer around breeding sites identified during the
pre-construction surveys.
Condition of grading plan approval.
End of construction.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.7/ J Golden Eagle: Destruction of Nesting Site
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7/23.0: (Policv 6-20) Golden Eaf!le Protection Zone
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure that a natural open space zone (Golden Eagle Protection Zone) is
maintained around the golden eagle nest located in the northeast corner of
the planning area.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review development plans to ensure that a protection zone is maintained
around the golden eagle nest.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif?ation Measure 3.7/24.0: Golden Eaf!le Protection Zone: Additional Temooral Buffer
Why:
Who:
What:
To require that during the golden eagle reproductive period, an additional
temporal buffer will be established within 250 feet of the Golden Eagle
Protection Zone.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Monitor construction activities to ensure that the temporal buffer around
golden eagle protection zone is maintained during the period between July
and January.
53
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GP A EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
During construction near the golden eagle protection zone.
Following reproductive period or end of construction, whichever occurs
first.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.7/K Golden Eagle: Elimination of Foraging Habitat
Miti!!ation Measure 3.7 125.0: Preservation of Fora!!inf! Habitat
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide suitable forage for the golden eagles, the Project maintains
substantial rural residential/agricultural acreage.
Planning Department.
Ensure that future plans do not reduce habitat area.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.7/L Golden Eagle and Other Raptor Electrocutions
Mitif?ation Measure 3.7 126.0: (Prof!ram 6M) Underf?roundinf! 0 f Transmission Lines
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the placement of all transmission lines underground whenever
feasible, to avoid the potential for raptor electrocutions.
Public Works Department.
Undergrounding of transmission lines.
Condition of approval for Public Improvements Plan.
Final Improvements Plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.7/M Burrowing Owl
Impact 3.7/N American Badger
Why:
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7/27.0: Buffer Zones
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require a minimum buffer be maintained around nesting sites of the
burrowing owl and breeding sites of the American badger during the
breeding season to avoid direct loss of individuals.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Maintenance of a minimum buffer (at least 300 feet) around nesting sites
(either known or those identified in the pre-construction surveys)
During construction.
Following reproductive period or end of construction, whichever occurs
first.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.7/0 Prairie Falcon, Northern Harrier, and Black-Shouldered Kite
Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0 mitigates impacts to these species. Refer to monitoring of that
54
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GP A EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
mitigation measure.
Impact 3.7/P Sharp-Shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawk
Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-3.7/17.0 and 3.7/21.0 are applicable. Refer to monitoring of
those mitigation measures.
Impact 3.7/S Special Status Invertebrates
Mitif!ation Measure 3.7/28.0: Pre-construction Survevs
Why:
To require developers to conduct a pre-construction survey within 60 days
prior to habitat modification to verify the presence of sensitive species.
Developers/Planning Department
Review results of pre-construction surveys.
60 days prior to habitat modification.
Prior to grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
SECTION 3.8: VISUAL RESOURCES
1. Imvacts Reauirine: Mitie:ation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
1M 3.8/ A Standardized "Tract" Development
1M 3.8/B Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character
1M 3.8/C Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features
1M 3.8/D Alteration of Visual Quality of Hillsides
1M 3.8/E Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges
1M 3.8/F Alteration of Visual Quality of Flatlands
1M 3.8/G Alteration of Visual Quality of Watercourses
1M 3.8/H Alteration of Dublin's Visual Identity as a Freestanding City
1M 3.8/1 Scenic Vistas
1M 3.8/1 Scenic Routes
2. Mitie:ation Imvlementation and Monitorine: Proe:ram
Impact 3.8/ A Standardized "Tract" Development
Mitif!ation Measure 3.8/1.0: Visuallv Distinctive Communitv
Why:
To establish a visually distinctive community which preserves the character
of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining
views from major travel corridors and public spaces.
Planning Department/Developers.
Ensure development proposals comply with design guidelines set forth in
Who:
What:
55
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Chapter 7: Community Design of the specific Plan.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.8/B Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character
Mitif!ation Measure 3.8/2.0: lmolementation of Land Use Plall
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To ensure implementation of the Specific Plan/GPA land use plan, which
was developed to retain predominant natural features and a sense of
openness.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Ensure that development proposals emphasize retention of predominant
natural features and preservation of a sense of openness.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.8/C Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features
Mitif!ation Measure 3.8/3.0: (Policv 6-28) Preservation of natural features
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require the preservation of the natural open beauty of the hills and other
important visual resources.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Ensure that development proposals preserve the natural open beauty of the
hills and other important visual resources on the site.
Prior to approval of pre zoning.
Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.8/D Alteration of Visual Quality of Hillsides
Mitif!ation Measure 3.8/4.0: (Policv 6-32) Reduction of visual imoacts due to extensive
!!radinf!
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To reduce the visual impact of extensive grading through sensitive
engineering design that uses gradual transitions from graded areas to natural
slopes and revegetation.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review plans to ensure implementation of sensitive engineering design and
revegetation.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Prior to final grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
56
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitif!ation Measure 3.814.1: (Policv 6-34) Minimization of Contours Alteration
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To minimize alterations to existing natural contours.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review plans to see that they minimize alteration of natural contours.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Before final grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.8/4.2: (Policv 6-35) Avoidance of Flat Gradinf!
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To avoid extensive areas of flat development.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review plans for success at employing alternatives to flat grading including
individual grading, stepped grading, and design in response to topographical
and geotechnical conditions.
Prior to approval of pre zoning.
Before final grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.8/4.3: (Polin' 6-36) Buildinf! Desif!n
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To encourage building design to conform to natural land form as much as
possible.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review plans for success at using building design that conforms to the
natural landforms of the Project site.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Before building permit is approved.
Planning Department.
Miti!!atiol1 Measure 3.8/4.4: (Policv 6-37) Recontourinf! of Graded Slooes
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require graded slopes to be re-contoured to resemble existing landforms
in the immediate area.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review plans to ensure that graded slopes will be recontoured to blend into
existing landforms in the immediate area.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Final grading plan approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.8/4.5: (Polin' 6-38) Minimization of the Heif!ht of Cut and Fill Slooes
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To minimize the height of cut and fill slopes as much as possible.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Require that the height of cut and fill slopes be minimized.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
57
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Public Works Department.
Impact 3.S/E Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges
Mitif!ation Measure 3.8/5.0: (Policv 6-29) Prohibition Afwinst Develoomenl on Main Ridf!eline
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To minimize visual impacts by prohibiting development on the main
ridgeline, and ensuring that development on foreground hills meets certain
standards.
Planning Department/Applicants.
Review plans to ensure that no development is located on main ridge line of
Specific Plan area, and that development on foreground hills maintains a
backdrop of natural ridgelines.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.815.1: (Policv 6-30) General Maintenance of Scenic Views
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To control the location and design of structures so they generally maintain
scenic views or appear to extend above an identified scenic backdrop when
viewed from a designated scenic route.
Planning Department/Applicants.
Ensure that proposed development minimizes obstruction of scenic views.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.8/5.2: (General Plan Amendment Guidinf! Policv E) Structures on
Ridf!elines
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to project above major
ridgelines.
Planning Department/Applicants.
Ensure that proposed development minimizes obstruction of scenic views.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.S/G Alteration of the Visual Character of Watercourses
Mitif!ation Measure 3.3/6.0: (Policv 6-39) Protection of the Visual Character of Watercourses
Why:
Who:
What:
To protect the visual character of the stream corridors, unnecessary
alteration or disturbance should be avoided and visual access to the stream
corridors should be maintained from adjoining development.
Planning Department/Applicants
Review plans to ensure that watercourses are protected from unnecessary
58
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Impact 3.8/1 Scenic Vistas
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GP A EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
alteration or disturbance, and that visual access to the stream corridors is
maintained.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
MitiJwtion Measure 3.8/7.0: (Policv 6-5) Preserve Views of Desif!nated Ooen Soace Areas
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To preserve views of designated open space areas.
Planning Department/Applicants.
Review plans to ensure that view corridors are maintained between
developed and open space areas.
Prior to approval of prezoning.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.817.1: Visual Survev of the Proiect Site
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
1M 3.8/ J Scenic Routes
To provide for the preparation of a visual survey of the Project area to
identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas.
Planning Department.
Identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas.
During processing of prezoning
Prior to any development east of Tassajara Road.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.818.0: (Action Prof!ram 60) Desif?lwtion of Scenic Routes
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the designation of scenic corridors, and the adoption of
scenic corridor policies and review procedures for projects within a scenic
corridor viewshed.
Planning Department.
Designate Tassajara Road, 1-580 and Fallon Road as scenic corridors; draft
and adopt scenic corridor policies and review procedures and standards for
projects within the scenic corridor viewshed.
During processing of prezoning.
Prior to annexation of new areas into the City.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.818.1: (Action Prof!ram 6R) Visual Analvsis of Proiects
Why:
Who:
What:
To require projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors to submit
detailed visual analysis with development project application.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review visual analysis of projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors
59
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
to ensure project conformance with visual quality objectives.
During processing of prezoning.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
SECTION 3.9: CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. ImDacts Reauirinl! Mitil!ation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
1M 3.9/ A Disruption or Destruction of Identified Prehistoric Resources
1M 3.9/B Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Prehistoric Resources
1M 3.9/C Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic Resources
1M 3.9/D Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Historic Resources
2. Mitil!ation ImDlementation and Monitorinl! Prol!ram
Impact 3.9/ A Disruption of Identified Prehistoric Resources
Mitif?ation Measure 3.911.0: Subsur face Testinf?
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require mechanical and/or hand subsurface testing on all location of
prehistoric resources to determine the presence or absence of midden
deposits.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Require submittal of findings of subsurface testing (mechanical or hand) to
determine the presence or absence of midden deposits.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!atioll Measure 3.9/2.0: Recordinf! of Archaeolof!ical Materials
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require all locations containing either midden components or
concentrations of cultural materials located on the surface to be recorded on
State of California site survey forms.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Record midden components or concentrations of cultural materials on State
of California site survey forms.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
60
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitif!ation Measure 3.913.0: Evaluative Testbl!!
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require evaluative testing if proposed development would directly or
indirectly impact recorded and mapped locations of resources.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Review the findings of evaluative testing required for recorded and mapped
locations that may be impacted by future construction or access.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.914.0: Protection PrOf!ram for Prehistoric Sites
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require a qualified archaeologist to develop a protection program for
"significant" resources whose condition will be altered by proposed
development.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Review protection program prepared for prehistoric sites which contain
either a surface or subsurface deposit of cultural materials, and incorporate
recommended mitigation into the conditions of approval for the project.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to grading plan approval.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.9/B Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Prehistoric Resources
Mitif?ation Measure 3.9/5.0: (Policv 6-25) Discoverv of HistoriclPrehistoric Remains
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require grading and construction to cease in the event that historic or
prehistoric remains are discovered during such activities.
Developers/Planning Department.
Cease grading/construction activities when historic or prehistoric resources
are discovered. Retain a certified archaeologist to ascertain the significance
of the remains.
During grading/construction.
Before grading/construction resume.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.9/6.0: (Action Prof!ram 6P) Additional Actions Related to Prehistoric
Resources
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
To require as part of the development application process that steps be taken
to ensure that cultural resources are not impacted.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Prepare site sensitivity determination. If determined to be sensitive, require
detailed research and field reconnaissance, and development of a mitigation
plan as necessary.
Condition of tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
61
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Planning Department.
Impact 3.9/C Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic Resources
Miti!!ation Measure 3.917.0: (Policv 6-26) Archival Research
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require aU properties with historic resources which may be impacted by
development to be subjected to in-depth archival research.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Review findings of in-depth archival research on any historic resources
potentially impacted by future development.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to issuance of grading permit.
Planning Department.
Mitif?ation Measure 3.9/8.0: (Policv 6-27) Adaotive Reuse or Restoration of Historic
Resources
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To encourage the adaptive re-use or restoration of historic structures
whenever feasible.
Developers/Planning Department.
Review development proposals to determine if reasonable consideration has
been given to the potential to reuse or restore historic structures.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif?ation Measure 3.9/9.0: Evaluation of Structural Remains
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
V erifica tion:
To require an architectural historian to assess the significance of all standing
structures and other indicators of historic occupation and/or use of the area.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Review professional evaluation of structural remains to determine
significance pursuant to CEQA, and incorporate mitigation
recommendations, as needed, as conditions of project approval.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.9/10.0: Research of Standinf! Structure Locations and Other Indicators
of Historic Occuoation
Why:
Who:
What:
To require archival research and oral interviews to determine the local or
regional significance of structures or locations (identified in the 1988 report)
by their association with important persons or events.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Review professional evaluation of structural remains to determine
significance pursuant to CEQA, and incorporate mitigation
62
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
recommendations, as needed, as conditions of project approval.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.9111.0: Record of All Historic Locations in 1988 Reoort
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that all previously noted locations (in 1988 report) be recorded
on official State of California Historical Site Inventory forms.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Verify that all locations noted in 1988 report have been recorded on State
of California Historical Site Inventory forms.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.9112.0: Preservation Prof!ram for Historic Sites
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
SECTION 3.10 NOISE
To require the preparation of a preservation program for historic sites which
qualify under CEQA Guidelines as historically significant.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Review the preservation program prepared for any historic sites, and
incorporate any recommended mitigations as a condition of project
approval.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
1. ImDacts Reauirinl! Mitil!ation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
1M 3.10/A Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise
1M 3.10/BExposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise
1M 3.10/D Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future
Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks RFT A) and
the County Jail
1M 3.10/E Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise
1M 3.10/F Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by
Plan Policies Supporting Mixed- Use Development
63
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GP A EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
2. Mitieation ImDlementation and Monitorine Proeram
Impact 3.10/ A Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise
Mitif!ation Measure 3.10 /1.0: Acoustical Studv Within Future CNEL 60 Contour
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require acoustical studies for all residential development projects within
the future CNEL 60 contour to show how interior noise levels will be
reduced to 45 dB.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Verify the preparation of an acoustical study for all residential projects
located within the future CNEL 60 noise contour, and confirm the
incorporation of mitigation measures into the proposed plan.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.10/B Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise
Mitif?ation Measure 3.10/2.0: Provision of Noise Control Measures
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require that all development projects in the Project area provide noise
barriers or berms near existing residences to control noise in outdoor use
spaces.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Verify that proposed plans provide noise abatement for existing residences
or that such mitigation is not necessary.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to Final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.10/7.0: Noise Mitif!ation Fee
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To provide for the establishment of a noise mitigation fee to pay for on-
and off-site noise mitigations, including but not limited to, noise barriers,
earthen berms, or retrofitting structures with sound-rated windows.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Prepare an ordinance permitting the levying of a noise mitigation fee.
During processing of prezoning and annexation applications.
Prior to tentative map approval for projects along Tassajara Road, Hacienda
Road, or Fallon Road.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.10/D Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future Military
Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks RFT A) and the County Jail
Mitif!ation Measure 3.10/3.0: Perform Acoustical Studies
Why:
To require acoustical studies prior to future development in the Foothill
64
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Residential, Tassajara Village Center, County Center, and Hacienda
Gateway subareas to determine whether future noise impacts from Camp
Parks and the county jail will be within acceptable limits.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Verify that acoustical studies have been prepared for projects proposed in
identified subareas, and incorporate recommended mitigations as conditions
of project approval.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.10/E Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise
Mitif!ation Measure 3.10 14.0: Construction Noise Manaf!ement Prof?ram
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require development projects in the Project area to submit a
Construction Noise Management Program that identifies measures proposed
to minimize construction noise impacts on existing residents.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Review Construction Noise Management Program to ensure that adequate
measures have been taken to protect existing residents.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!atioll Measure 3.10/5.0: Comoliance with Local Noise Standards
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To minimize construction noise impacts, all operations should comply with
local noise standards and be limited to normal daytime hours, and stationary
equipment should be adequately muffled and located away from sensitive
receptors.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Ensure that noise mitigation measures have been included as conditions of
project approval.
During construction.
Following construction.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.10/F Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land uses Permitted by Plan Policies
Supporting Mixed- Use Development
Mitif!ation Measure 3.1016.0: Noise Manaf!ement Plans
Why:
Who:
What:
To require the preparation of noise management plans for all mixed-use
projects in which residential units would be combined with commercial,
office, or other urban non-residential uses.
Applicants/Planning Department.
Verify the preparation of a noise management plan for mixed-used projects,
and review plans for mitigation that should be incorporated as a condition
65
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
When:
Completion:
Verification:
of approval.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
SECTION 3.11 AIR QUALITY
1. Imoacts Reauirine: Mitie:ation
This section identifies the following impacts requiring mitigation:
1M 3.11/ A Dust Deposition Soiling Nuisance From Construction Activity
1M 3.II/B Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions
1M 3.11/C Mobile Source Emissions: ROG or NOx
1M 3.II/D Mobile Source Emissions: CO
1M 3.11 /E Stationary Source Emissions
2. Mitie:ation Imolementation and Monitorine: Proe:ram
Impact 3.11/ A Dust Deposition Soiling Nuisance From Construction Activity
Mitif!ation Measure 3.11/1.0: Construction-Related Dust Abatement Measures
Why:
To require development projects to implement dust control measures to
reduce project dust deposition to acceptable levels.
Developers/Public Works Department.
I) Require dust abatement measures to be outlined as conditions in the
grading plan.
2) Monitor implementation of measures during construction.
I) Ensure inclusion of abatement measures in grading plan.
2) Monitor implementation of measures during grading and early phases of
construction.
Following construction.
Planning Department/Public Works Department.
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Impact 3.11/B Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions
Mitif?ation Measure 3.11/2.0: Minimization of Interference of Construction Traffic with
Ref!ional Non-Pro ;ect Traffic Movement
Why:
To minimize construction interference with regional non-project traffic
movement.
Developers/Public Works Department.
Routing and scheduling of construction-related traffic to avoid interference
with non-project traffic movement.
Prior to approval of building and/or grading permits.
Following completion of construction.
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
66
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Public Works.
Why:
Mitif!ation Measure 3.1113.0: Emissions Control
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require emissions control from on-site equipment through a routine
mandatory program of low-emissions tune-ups.
Developers/Planning Department/Public Works Department.
I) Verify the incorporation of this emissions control measure in the
conditions of approval.
2) Monitor construction to verify implementation of control measure.
I) Prior to final map approval.
2) During construction.
Following completion of construction.
Planning Department/Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.11/4.0: Constructioll lmoact Reduction Plan
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require preparation of a construction impact reduction plan that
incorporates all proposed air quality mitigation strategies.
Planning Department/Public Works Department/Applicants.
Ensure that the construction impact reduction plan incorporate all pro'posed
air quality mitigation strategies, and clearly defines responsibilities for
implementation and supervision.
I) Preparation of plan prior to development review approval.
2) Monitoring of implementation during construction.
Following completion of construction.
Planning Department/Public Works Department.
Impact 3.11/C Mobile Source Emissions:ROG or NOx
Miti!!ation Measure 3.1115.0: Ref!iollallllteraf?encv Coooeration
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To encourage cooperation to integrate air quality planning efforts on a
regional basis.
Planning Department/Tri- Valley and Regional Agencies.
Coordinate interagency cooperation to integrate air quality planning with
transportation, transit and other infrastructure plans.
Establish liaisons and begin coordination concurrent with plan adoption.
On-going.
Planning Department.
Why:
Mitif!ation Measure 3.1116.0: Planllinf? Consistencv
Who:
What:
To maintain consistency among specific development plans and regional
transportation and growth management plans.
Planning Department/Tri- Valley and Regional Agencies.
Review plans to ensure consistency between specific development plans for
the Project site and regional transportation and growth management plans.
67
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Prior to approval of tentative map .
Prior to final map approval.
Planning Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.1117.0: Transoortation Demand Manaf?ement (TDM)
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To implement transportation demand management techniques to reduce
mobile source emissions.
Public Works Department.
Review plans for inclusion of TDM techniques to reduce mobile source
emissions.
Prior to tentative map approval.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.11/8.0: Ootimization of Existinf! Transoortation Svstem
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To optimize the existing transportation system to reduce congestion and
shift travel to non-peak travel periods.
Planning Department/Public Works Department.
Work with LA VT A to development public information programs to
encourage use of public transit, and encourage large employers to implement
measures to shift travel to non-peak travel periods.
Ongoing.
On-going.
Planning Department/Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.11/9.0: Coordination of Develooment with Roadwav lmorovements
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To coordinate levels of growth with roadway transportation facilities
improvements to accommodate travel demand without inducing demand by
providing excess system capacity.
Public Works Department.
Phase roadway improvements so that they accommodate growth, but avoid
"over- building" facility improvements.
Review schedule of roadway improvements concurrent with submittal of
tentative map.
Prior to final map approval.
Public Works Department.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.11/10.0: Mixed-Use Develooment
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
To encourage mixed-use development that provides housing, jobs, goods
and services in close proximity.
Planning Department.
Encourage developers to consider mixed-use development in their projects
as a means to reduce discretionary vehicle trips.
During pre-application discussions and application process.
68
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Completion:
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan &: GP A EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Tentative map approval.
Planning Department.
Why:
Mitif?ation Measure 3.11111.0: Jobs 1 Housinf? Linkaf!e
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To require linkage between growth of housing and job opportunities
consistent with a positive sub-regional contribution to jobs/housing ratio
balances.
Planning Department.
Keep Planning Commission and City Council aware of sub-regional
jobs/housing status and the implications of project approvals on that
balance.
Ongoing as part of individual development review process.
Ongoing.
Planning Department.
Impact 3.ll/E Stationary Source Emissions
Why:
Mitif!ation Measure 3.11112.0: Conservation Tarf!et Level for Stationarv Source Emissions
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To minimize stationary source emissions associated with Project
development wherever feasible.
Planning Department.
1) Establish and implement a conservation target level for stationary source
emissions at 10 percent above the Title 24 standards.
2) Review individual projects to verify attempts to meet conservation target.
I) Prior to rezoning and annexation approval.
2) Prior to final map approval.
Final project approval.
Planning Department.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.11 /13.0: Solid Waste Recvclinf!
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To incorporate solid waste re-cycling in all development planning.
Planning Department.
Develop a strategy for integrating solid waste recycling into planning for all
new development, and work with developers to implement this strategy.
Prior to rezoning and annexation approval.
Ongoing.
Planning Department.
69
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GP A EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
SECTION 3.12: FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. ImDacts Reauirine: Mitie:ation
This section identifies the following impact requiring mitigation:
1M 3.l2/B Fiscal Impacts Related to the Cost and Provision of Project-Related Infrastructure
Improvements
2. Mitigation Imolementation and Monitoring Program
Impacts 3.12/B Impacts Related to the Cost and Provision of Project-Related Infrastructure
Improvements
Mitif!ation Measure 3.1211.0: Develooment Af?reements
Who:
What:
To provide for the preparation and adoption of a development agreement
for each project that spells out the precise financial responsibilities of the
developer.
City Manager's Office/Developers.
Prepare and adopt a development agreement or the appropriate agreements
for each development project that sets forth the precise financial
responsibilities of the applicants.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Condition of final project approval.
City Manager.
Why:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Mitif!ation Measure 3.1212.0: Area of Bellefit Ordinance
Why:
To adopt an Area of Benefit Ordinance and form an Area of Benefit for
those properties benefiting from construction of public improvements
described in the Specific Plan.
City Manager's Office.
Prepare and adopt an Area of Benefit Ordinance, and define the Area(s) of
Benefit.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Prior to final approval of any development in the Project area.
City Manager.
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
Mitif!ation Measure 3.12/3.0: Soecial Assessment District or Mello-RODS CFD
Why:
To create one or more Mello-Roos CFD or Special Assessment Districts to
finance construction of the infrastructure to serve the Area of Benefit.
City Manager's Office.
Prepare and adopt one or more Mello-Roos CFD or Special Assessment
Districts to finance infrastructure for Areas of Benefit.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Prior to any final project approval.
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
70
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Verification:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
City Manager.
Mitifwtion Measure 3.1214.0: Marks-Roos Bond Poolinf!
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To have bond counsel evaluate the benefit to the City, in terms of savings
of money and avoidance of undue risk, of pooling bonds under the Marks-
Roos Bond Pooling Act.
City Manager's Office.
Evaluate options related to bond pooling for Eastern Dublin pursuant to the
provisions of the Marks- Roos Bond Pooling Act.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Prior to any final project approval.
City Manager.
Miti!!ation Measure 3.1215.0: Citv-Wide Develooer and Builder lmoact Fee Svstems
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To analyze city-wide infrastructure needs to assess the usefulness of
implementing an impact fee program, in compliance with AB 1600, that
could draw some funding from new development when final map or
building permits are issued.
City Manager's Office.
Evaluate efficacy of implementing of an impact fee system, as provided by
AB 1600. If found to be useful, draft and adopt an ordinance to implement.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Prior to any final project approval.
City Manager.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.12/6.0: Schoollmoact Fees
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To coordinate City and School District efforts to fund necessary school
facilities and collect payable fees.
City Manager/DUSD/L VJUSD.
Meet with school district(s) to coordinate efforts to fund school facilities.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Prior to any final project approval.
City Manager.
Mitif!ation Measure 3.12/7.0: Hif?hwav lnterchanf!e Fundinf?
Why:
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To coordinate City and Caltrans efforts to fund necessary freeway
improvements and collect developers' share of costs.
City Manager's Office/Public Works/Caltrans.
Meet with Caltrans to coordinate efforts to fund freeway improvements and
collect proportionate share of costs from developers.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Prior to any final project approval.
City Manager.
71
City of Dublin
May 7, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & GPA EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Why:
Mitif!ation Measure 3.12/8.0: Utilities lmoact Fees
Who:
What:
When:
Completion:
Verification:
To coordinate City and DSRSD efforts to fund utilities services and collect
developers' share of costs.
City Manager's Office/Public Works/DSRSD.
Meet with DSRSD to coordinate efforts to fund utilities services and collect
proportionate share of costs from developers.
Prior to prezoning and annexation approval.
Prior to any final project approval.
City Manager.
72
c
* ~
* * )>
~ G') ."
CD
- :l -t
CD
(') ..,
0 III
:l
< 0
CD
.., 0
..... 3
..... 3
0 CD
..,
." (')
c: III
.....
c:
.., 3
CD
III
rJl '<
.....
c: C'
0- CD
'<
't:J
)> CD
..,
.., 3
CD
III .....
-
)> .....
CD
cc 0-
.,
(') C'
c: '<
..... III
c:
., "'0
~ III "
:Il
~ :l
:l
:r CD
CD 0-
.,
CD 0
0- CD
CD <
..... CD
CD 0 --
.,
3 't:J
3
:l CD 0 tv
CD :l
0- ..... <D ~
C/)
:l N .. eg' f.U
(') 0 .-.... <0
0 :l e )>
:l :l 8- (')
lh to
~ ..,
lh <D
..... 't:J \J )> C/) en
CD .,
:l 0 -I
..... (') G)
CD C
~ lh ;:c
lh 0
..... -
:r () -<
)>
"'0 C
)> r )>
-i ;:c
. C m
I )>
l, ;:c
)>
I
r r
~ .",. \
1
". I
n I
= I
X \
,.."
:z
~ \
~ \
I
.
I
>
. Q
0 :!
;;
~ G) m
~ -c :t>
; :t> en
g. . -4
~ en m
RO. -a :IJ
~ . z
c.
me
-c
~:DtD
...
Itl r-
-
Z
0
0
,
.
~
~ ..
~ ~
I'
."
!
~
.
~
I
~
I .
I .
I .
I ~~. ~.~:~.':;' ~};::.
Ie' ',:':
r '. ,.
)>
o )> ::::!
2. ~ 0
ro ~ z
o ~
Q
~
5!! en
en ~
~
o ~i 888~8~ Oll~~ i
"- z m :::J
tl:'t\ t%\(f;;\ t1it\ -0 ~ ::0 r s: s: I ::::! 5' 0 Z G) ~ Co
\<;;I \5!lI \b' \5!lI c s: c 0 ro ro .0' )> 0. III ro ro -
U T ~ ~ 0. 0. ~ r c 3 ~ ~ )>
-0 I L m O' lJ - c' c' ~ D ~ ~ r
c .0' C ro <n C ::0 l? 3 3 ~ ~. C U III
~ ~ ~' ~ 3 ~ R ~ l? ~ ~ :; ~ ?r 0
(J)(")I;?=bOro-<~~-< ~ g~
ro3 15.0' ~ C 0 2. ~ 0 ;1<" g' 0. 3
" 0 ::r ~ Q: lJ [i;' ro ro
lJ - (fJ en 0' m ~ b' n
coO -n Z -. 3 -'
~ ~i5lll ~ ~
o ~ 2. ~. ~
~ 0
~
en G) en -l
"0 ro"O ~
ro ~::r;;l
Q. ro CD ~
~ @-
; :Q~g>
III III ~.
~ ~ 5"
en )>=
C 3;;;
0. ro::>
'< ::l 0
)> 0. (l)
"" 3
(l) ro
III ;?
(f)
C
0.
'<
)>
""
ro
III
o ~ ($) (g) @ ;.?
16 .0' ~
~ ffzoov>
(f)OCDO-QO
D "".0' 3 -<
PJ i5::r3lJ~
2 0 g c ~ 0
a.3-~.~ro
eno-< PJ
D 0 lJ g.
C 0. III ~
~ "1J ~
CD tIl
~
~ 9 cP
0. en
~ ~
o ~ e-
o 0 ill
~ 0
~ t\.)
~ Ul
~ I
Ul 0.
0. ~
~ III
III 0
o
~____,~""""""~,,,,,,,,,,,.,..-:-.._. ".'_'"'''-:~'''~'.''''_ ._..~,,~'c ~._; ,.",_."_' "~'- .'C.' .-.." ..._.___....,.........,.~.._--,.-C"-_..., _.- " .,......" ,"
.-...~ .-q........ ...-,~.-:-........ -..--.-,...;.. ~.-
~ :II)
-i en-
J: a."
,. c ~
~ n :
g en ~
." a. ~
o ""C c
)> _ C
-i Q) r
o ~
~ ~
-.
~
to
>
""'"
en
Q)